Kings Indian Warfare by Ilya Smirin

KING'S INDIAN WARFARE
By
ILYASMIRIN
Quality Chess
www.qualitychess.co. uk
First edition 20 1 6 by Quality Chess UK Ltd
Copyright © 20 1 6 Ilya Smirin
KING'S INDIAN WARFARE

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,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
prior permission of the publisher.
Paperback ISBN 978- 1 -78483-025-0

Hardcover ISBN 978- 1 -78483-026-7
All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd,

Central Chambers, Suite 247, 1 1 Bothwell Street Glasgow G2 6LY, United Kingdom
Phone +44 1 4 1 204 2073
e-mail: info@qualitychess.co.uk
website: www. qualitychess.co.uk
Distributed in North America by National Book Network
Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through

Sunrise Handicrafts, ul. Poligonowa 35A, 20-8 1 7 Lublin, Poland
Typeset by Jacob Aagaard

Proofreading by Andrew Greet and John Shaw
Edited by Jacob Aagaard and Ian Kingston
Photo on page 5 kindly provided by Maya Gelfand from the Gelfand archives
Photos on page 7 and 2 1 3 kindly provided by David Llada
Photos on page 39 and 333 kindly provided by Harald Fietz
Photos on page 9, 58, 67, 1 07, 1 5 1 , 1 59, 1 69, 1 98, 233, 266,
273, 30 1 , kindly made available by Max Notkin from the 64 archives
Cover idea by Jacob Aagaard
Cover design by www.adamsondesign.com
Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutri.ikikoja LLC
Contents
Key to Symbols used 4
Foreword by Boris Gelfand 5
Preface 7
1 Always Dangerous 9
2 Kramnik 39
3 The King's Indian Bishop 67
4 Line Opening 107
5 Destruction of Pawn Structure 151
6 Knight Agility 169
7 Kamikaze Rooks 213
8 Fighting for the lntiative 233
9 Materialism 273
10 Endgames 301
11 My Two Favourite Losses 333
Name Index 344

Game Index 349
Key to symbols used
White is slightly better
Black is slightly better
± White is better
+ Black is better
+- White has a decisive advantage
-+ Black has a decisive advantage
equality
;; with compensation
+:! with counterplay
m unclear
a weak move
?? a blunder
a good move
!! an excellent move
!? a move worth considering
?! a move of doubtful value
# mate
Foreword
I first played against Ilya in 1 980, when we were both in our early twenties. He was already a
strong player of course - as well as a big King's Indian fan. Since then, he has played this opening
successfully against some of the best players in the world.
I believe there are two types of people who play the King's Indian. One type bases their play on
knowledge and analysis; the other type plays according to feeling and understanding. Ilya Smirin
undoubtedly belongs to the latter camp. I don't think he ever studied any deep theory! He has
an excellent feeling for the middlegame, particularly for dynamic possibilities. When he gets a
chance to attack the king, there are very few who can stop him.
Ilya may not know as much opening theory as some players, but he knows a lot about the history
of the King's Indian. I know that Ilya has been greatly inspired by the games of Mikhail Tal,
Robert Fischer and especially Leonid Stein,
one of his favourite players. The way Ilya
handles the King's Indian has been influenced
by all of them. Stein in particular is one of
Ilya's heroes; the Soviet GM would often aim
for the most complicated position possible, in
order to obtain attacking and other dynamic
possibilities. Ilya possesses the same type of
flair for such positions - and nowhere is his
talent more obvious than in the King's Indian.
Ilya has played the King's Indian successfully

against some of the very best players in the
world. See, for instance, Chapter 2, which
contains Ilya's games against Vladimir
Kramnik, who is known as one of the strongest
players on the White side of the KID. I find
Ilya's success against Kramnik and other elite
players extremely impressive, as each game is
a huge challenge. When you play this opening
you take a big risk from the very beginning.
White gets space in the centre and a lot of
freedom for his pieces, while as Black you must
rely on your dynamic and tactical qualities.
6 Foreword by Boris Gelfand
Ilya is deeply confident in the potential of the black pieces in the King's Indian. Chapter 8
contains the game Gelfand - Smirin from the 2005 European Club Cup in Saint Vincent, where
Ilya played brilliantly and I was really lucky to save the game. Ilya's resourcefulness and feeling for
dynamics was really impressive in this game.
Everything in chess is a reflection of one's personality. Ilya is a big fan of theatre, as well as action
movies - and I think this is reflected in his handling of the King's Indian, which always leads to
a lot of drama and action on the board! I'm sure the readers will enjoy the many ferocious attacks
and dramatic battles contained in this book. Hopefully it will inspire some readers to start playing
the King's Indian - or return to it, if they've not played it for a while.
Reading this book gives you a different type of insight into the King's Indian. It's not a theoretical
book, where you get answers to your opening questions - and probably the King's Indian is not
meant to be played in such a clinical way. Ilya's games have great instructive value, to be sure - but
this is also a book for pleasure and for inspiration. For players who enjoy wild chess, who value
imagination, creativity and epic fights on the board, this book will be a treat.
Boris Gelfand
20 1 2 World Championship Finalist
Preface
In this book I would like to present my best King's Indian Defence games and in the process share
with the reader my views on this complex and double-edged opening.
The King's Indian Defence is one of the most fascinating openings in chess. It involves everything
I love about the game: risk-taking, attacking, exchanging weaknesses or material for dynamic
chances, clever tactics, surprising turnarounds and a deep sense of possibility.
Many outstanding chess players played the King's Indian Defence throughout their whole careers.
It is enough to mention just a few names (in chronological order) : David Bronstein, Efim Geller,
Mikhail Tal, Leonid Stein, Robert Fischer, Garry Kasparov. In modern days the King's Indian
Defence is the main (and successful) opening in the games of Teimour Radjabov, and it is also
played by Hikaru Nakamura, Alexander Grischuk and various other top players.
Not a King's Indian, but at least a current photo...

8 Preface
I have been a great lover of the King's Indian Defence from the very beginning of my chess life
- that's over 30 years now. It is my favourite opening, so when I chatted to Jacob Aagaard after
our game at the 20 1 1 European Team Championship, and he asked if I had ever thought about
writing a book, I felt attracted to share my love for and experience in handling this exciting
opening.
What I want to achieve with this book is to give the reader a course in playing the King's Indian,
which in turn will also be a course in playing dynamic chess. Every chapter will be structured in
the following way:
� A few positions from the games in the chapter for the reader to solve
� General introduction to the topic; for example, tactics typical of the King's Indian
� Some of my own games that are relevant to the topic
The basic idea is to explain the topic in a simple (yet hopefully not simplistic) way and then
show how the concepts showed up in my games, which were played at a high grandmaster level.
I would implore the reader to be realistic when trying to solve the positions from the games.
My intention is to help you broaden your mind and improve your imagination.
I decided quite deliberately to have 49 main games in this book. I could easily have made it 50,
of course, but I like the number 49 for several reasons. 7x7 is one of them, but there is also the
feeling of incompletion. Or in other words: I am leaving room for more. And it is certainly my
goal to add to this collection of memorable King's Indian games in the years to come.
I hope this book will help the reader to play better chess, and inspire more players to take up this
fascinating opening.
Ilya Smirin,
Kfar Sava, August 20 1 6
Chapter 1
Always Dangerous
Since we were young, baby!

Test yourself against the book
8 ... 8
In this section you get a chance
7 7
to train your King's Indian
6 6
muscles and measure yourself
against the variations in the
5 5
book. Take as long as you like
4 4
answering these questions.
Some would want to make 3 3
intuitive decisions, others to 2 2
practise calculation. Both have
their merits. a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
How can Black fight for the It is rare you can play a trap that
initiative? (see page 20) is also the strongest move!
(see page 26)
... 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
Black to play and win White has j ust received a big A nice little tactic
(see page 1 3) surprise blow. How should he (see page 33)
react? (see page 2 1 )
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
An easy one Train your positional play. Another nice little tactic
(see page 1 5) What should White play? (see page 36/37)
(see page 25)
Chapter 1 - Always D angerous 11
I have played the King's Indian Defence Nimrod Veinberg - Ilya Smirin
throughout my entire career. It's a big enough
Jerusalem 20 1 5
opening to have enough dimensions not to get
boring. I have played it positionally and I have
l .d4 d6 2.c4 e5 3.d5 �d7 4.e4 �c5 5.�c3
played it in the style of a stuntman jumping
a5 6.�f3 �f6
out of an airplane without a parachute. And as
We have reached a position that could have
you will see in this book, even the endgames
arisen from the King's Indian, but through an
can be quite complicated and require a lot
unconventional move order. Black's position is
from the players.
a bit more flexible than usual.
The KID has been a big part of my career and
7.V!lc2 g6 8.b3 .ig7 9J�b l?
life, so when I was finally talked into writing
a book by my good friend Boris Avrukh, I
felt that the natural place to start was to write 8
about my favourite opening. In this book I 7
hope to give the reader a good understanding
of the potential offered by the King's Indian. I 6
have chosen to do this through my own games, 5
based on some overarching themes. The games
4
are, however, all extensively annotated. I do
not like the idea of pretending that a big fight 3
lasting for a number of hours can be explained 2
through a simple idea. Trust me: the players
know the ideas quite well, but there are many
of them and they are often contradictory. a b c d e f g h
The question is which idea or theme is more
important in a position and who will benefit White mixes up his ideas. He wants to play
a2-a3 and b3-b4 in order to drive away the
from this. In order to determine this, the
knight from c5 . But this allows a common
players use all the tools available to them
King's Indian trick.
during the game: their tenacity, calculation,
intuition, creativity and so on.
9. �fxe4! 10.�xe4 �xe4
..
The main reason I like this opening is that it I won the game on move 25. White cannot
take the knight on account of 1 1 .'1Wxe4 ifS .
is almost always dangerous - for both sides of
course. From the very beginning the board
This i s o f course a rather simple trick, and
is transformed into a treacherous minefield
certainly uncharacteristic of Veinberg's
in a way that you will very rarely find in the
usual level, but at the same time also a good
Queen's Gambit Declined. It is a very creative
illustration of how perpetually dangerous the
opening in which both players have chances to
King's Indian is, even for someone who is a
invent something from the beginning.
very strong player by most people's standards.
An example of an early disaster for White is
In the following game an IM is approaching
this game from the European Championship.
the first time control in an entirely lost
position against an experienced grandmaster.
12 King's Indian Warfare
Still, it would be too early to give up. The The reason is found in the following variation:
King's Indian supplies you with continual 41 ... �c7 42.�fl ! �c2?! 43.�xc2 �h l t 44.�e2
counter-chances, even when things have gone �xf3t 45.�d2 and White is completely
wrong. winning.
Yannick Pelletier - Andreas Skytte Hagen
Legnica 20 1 3
8
7
6
5
4 a b c d e f g h
3 Now, imagine that the white rook is on

d 1 instead of e 1 , and Black has 45 ... �e3#!
2 (Of course White can deviate, but not without
1 concessions, which is the point.)
a b c d e f g h
4I ..J�c7 42.a6?!
This game has gone in the way White usually After 42.�fl �c2 43 ..id2 White would
wants in the King's Indian. Black has thrown still keep most of his advantage. But it is
everything, including the kitchen sink, into also evident that Black has gained some
an attack on the kingside. He has sacrificed a counterplay. Remember that when we joined
piece and pushed his pawn to g3. Nevertheless, this game, he looked entirely down and out.
White has managed to contain the attack, keep Being j ust lost is not that bad!
the extra piece, and gain a winning position.
But even under such dire circumstances, 42 .. J�c2!
there is still hope of victory for the King's
Indian hero. The young Danish player decides
8
to make more of his rook, which is not doing
much at the moment. 7
6
40 .. J�b7!
White's task in this type of position is one of 5
containment. This is never easy, as you have to 4
both anticipate the opponent's ideas and find a
good way to meet them, while still advancing 3
your own agenda. 2
4I J�dl?! 1
b d f g h
It turned out when we analysed the game a c e
afterwards that 4 1 .�e 1 ! was more accurate.
Chapter 1 - Always Dangerous 13
43.Wfxc2? 44...Wfhl t?
Pelletier does not believe in the sacrifice. I Hagen plays the most tempting move,
do not think this was because he was unable to presumably missing the winning idea entirely:
calculate the consequences correctly. It was just 44 . . . lt:Jd4! 45.�xd4 f3!!
that on this day, at this moment, a combination
of bad form and hours of trying to keep the lid 8
on Pandora's Box had drained his powers, and 7
he missed something. This will be a common
6
theme in this book, in virtually every game. It
5
is so basic that I presume that the reader will
take note of it now and not forget it. 4
3
43.id2 �a2 44.lt:Jc4 �xa6 45 .ia5 2
a b c d e f g h
This is another theme you will find again

and again in this book, in every chapter: in
the King's Indian material is only a part of the
equation. The dynamic potential of the pieces
is at least as important.
For example, in this position Black has two
pawns for a rook, a knight and a bishop, but
these two pawns are so powerful that the fight
a b c d e f g h
is decided in Black's favour.
White would have kept the advantage,
keeping the black rook out of the game. But 45.cbe2 � d4t 46J�xd4 f3t
it is clear that Black has also improved his
chances, having eliminated the a-pawn.
8
43 ... �xf3t 44.cbfl 7
6
8 5
7 4
6 3
5 2
4 1
3 a b c d e f g h
2 47.cbd3??
1 A clear sign of bad form. After 47.<±>d2! g2
48.ie6t <±>h8 49.Wc8 it is White who wins.
a b c d e f g h
47 ... £2 48.®c4 fl=�t 49J�d3 g2 50. i> b5 My Games

gl=�
Lembit Oll - Ilya Smirin
8 Rostov-on-Don 1 993
Lembit 011 started his chess career as a prodigy.

7
6 He was a very talented player with a sharp sense
5 for the initiative and very good calculating
abilities. Lembit had an excellent memory and
4 was a strong theoretician. Unfortunately, at
3 some point he began to have mental problems,
which led to his tragic death. Lembit passed
2
away very young, being just 33 years old. He
1 held 42nd place in the FIDE rating list at
b d f g h
that time. Incidentally, he was the fi r st USSR
a c e
national master I ever played against. We
Four queens on the board: three against one. drew our first encounter back in 1982. Here
Black is winning. is our game from the Bondarevsky Memorial,
which was held in the southern Russian city of
5 1 .�c4 �112 52.�h3 �bl 53.®c6 �xh3 Rostov-on-Don.
54J�xh3 �c2 55J�g3t ®h8 56.®b5 �al
57.�a3 �d4 58.�c3 l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5.�f3
0-1 0-0 6.�e2 e5 7.0-0 �c6 8.�e3
Usually White chooses this continuation as a
In this chapter we shall see eight of my games, way to avoid the main variations after 8.d5 CiJe7.
all very different in character. The common
theme (as indeed it is throughout the book) 8
is the constant opportunity for creativity and/
or an attack on the king. I hope to inspire the 7
reader to always keep one eye on the prize 6
and not allow himself to be constrained by
materialism. Chess is like life: it is not about
5
collecting material goods and counting them 4
at the end. It is about finding fulfilment and
3
joy through being the best that you can be
and making the biggest possible mark on 2
your surroundings. Or in short, to deliver
checkmate!
a b c d e f g h
8 ... �e8
8. . . CiJg4 9 .ig5 f6 1 0 .ic l f5 11 .ig5 has been
a more popular line in the last few decades. Here
is a high-level example from 1 990: 1 1 ... if6
12.ixf6 CiJxf6 13.dxe5 dxe5 1 4.�xd8 �xd8
15 .ltJd5 lDxe4 16.ltJxc7 �b8 17.�fd 1 id? way - he grabs some space and prepares to
18.id3 �bc8 19.ltJd5 ltJc5 20.ifl ie6 2 1.b4 activate the e2-bishop on b5.
ixd5 22.cxd5 ltJxb4 23.ltJxe5 ltJe4 24.ic4
ltJc3 25 .�d2 ltJbxd5 26.g3 g7 27.g2? 10 ....ig4 I I ..ib5 V9c8
A reasonable alternative was 1 1. . . ltJd7
12.ixc6 bxc6 13.h3 ixf3 14. l!Mxf3 ltJ f8, with
a similar structure to that which will arise later
in the game. Black will transfer the knight to
e6 and d4, thus compensating for the doubled
c-pawns.
12.h3 .ih5
I did not like the position after 12 . . . �d8
13.ltJd5 ltJ xd5 14.exd5 ie6 15 .dxe6!? �xd 1
16.exf7t xf7 17.ic4t f8 18.�axd 1 , which
a b c d e f g h
happened in one game. Despite the material
27 . . . ltJe3t 0- 1 Portisch - Kasparov, Linares advantage (queen for a rook plus bishop) Black
1990. Which 8th move to choose is basically a has to be careful in my opinion - his king is
matter of one's mood during the game. vulnerable and White's pieces are active and
well coordinated.
9.dxe5
9.d5 ltJd4! is the idea. 13 ..ixc6 bxc6
8
7
6
5
4
3
a b c d e f g h 2
10.ltJxd4 exd4 11.ixd4 ltJxe4 12.ixg7 xg7 1
b d f g h
13 .ltJ xe4 �xe4 14 .l!Mc2 �e8 Yz-Yz was played a c e
in the well-known game Reshevsky - Najdorf,
Zurich 1953, in which 8. . . �e8 was seen for the 14..ig5
first time. 14.l!Me2 was played against me by Van der
Sterren in a rapid game a year earlier: 14 . . . h6
9... dxe5 10.c5 15.h2 g5 16. l!Mc4 �b8 17.b3 a5 18.ltJd2 g4
After 1O.l!Mxd8 ltJxd8 11.ltJ b5 ltJe6 12.ltJg5 19.f3!, with a definite positional advantage for
�e7 the position is rather simple and roughly White: Black's bishops are not very active and
equal, a draw being the most probable his pawn structure is not ideal either; (0- 1, 34)
outcome. 011 continues in the most principled Van der Sterren - Smirin, Tilburg 1992.
16 King's I ndian Warfare
Of course, 1 4.g4?? is impossible due to 18.b5?!

1 4 . . . lt:Jxg4. Lembit is not satisfied with 18.a3 axb4
1 9.axb4 lt:J f8=. True to his style, he is looking
14 .. J�b8 1 5J�b l for more tactical play.
A forced draw could be the result of the
"petite combinaison" after: 1 5.ixf6 ixf6 18 ... tlJxc5?!
16.g4 �d8 1 7Y!ie2 ixg4 1 8.hxg4 '1Wxg4t During the game I thought that 1 8. . . cxb5
1 9.@h2 Wff4t 20.@g2 1 9.c6 lt:Jc5 20.lt:Jd5 (White should probably
continue 20.ie3 lt:Je6 2 l .�fd 1 !? lt:Jd4 22.ixd4
exd4 23.lt:Jxb5 ie5 with a slightly worse but
surely defendable position - the bishop on
e5 is stronger than the white knight and the
c6-pawn is more a weakness than strength
here) would be dangerous for Black. Perhaps
neither of us noticed that after 20 . . . lt:Je6
2 l .lt:Je7t? �xe7 22.ixe7 '1We8 23.ia3 Wfxc6
Black would have a material advantage and the
better position.
a b c d e f g h
19.hxc6 tlJe6 20.'i;Ye3!
20 . . . �xb2! 2 1.'1Wxb2 Wfg4t
This is better than 20.ie3 �xb 1 2 l .�xb 1
'1Wa6, when the pawn on c6 is doomed.
Perhaps 1 5 .b3!? was slightly more precise,
as the rook on a 1 would then be freed from
20 ... f6 2I ..ih6
defending the b2-pawn.
Perhaps 2 1 .ih4 �xb 1 22.�xb 1 g5 23.ig3
1 5 ... Lf3 16.'i;Yxf3 tiJd7 17.b4 '1Wa6+ 24.lt:Jd5 Wfxc6 25 .�c l was more
Or 1 7.ie3 lt:J f8 and the knight goes to e6. accurate, but it's not easy to voluntarily put
one's bishop in an unfortunate position (g3)
17...a5 when one is not looking at a computer screen.
1 7 . . . lt:J f8 was also perfectly playable, but I
wanted to use the knight's current position on 2 1 ..J�xbl 22J�xbl 'i;Ya6 23.tiJd5 'i;Yxc6
d7 to exchange the potentially weak pawn on
a7. 8
8 7
7 6
6 5
5 4
4 3
3 2
2 1
1 a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
Right now Black is o n the defensive, but 30.ga4 f4 3 1 .VNg4?

he has enough resources to neutralize the The second and last mistake. Lembit did not
opponent's threats. Meanwhile, being a pawn feel the danger to his king, which has been
up gave me some optimism . . . abandoned by its defenders.
The only way to minimize the damage was
24J�cl VNb7! 3 l .Wic3 Wfxc3 (now Black can't create a mating
The best square for the queen. net by 3 1 . . . Wfb 1 t 32.@h2 tt:\d4 33.Wfxc5 tt:le2
due to 34.f3) 32.tt:lxc3 �a8 33.tt:\d5 and his
Worse was 24 . . . Wfd6 25.ixg7 @xg7 26.Wfa7, active pieces gives White reasonable hope for a
with the initiative for White. draw in the ending.
25.�xg7 ®xg7 26.VNf3 gf8 27.VNg4 f5! 3 I . .. tlJd4 32.gxa5 gf7!

Not falling into the trap: 27 . . J�e8?? 28.tt:lxc7 After this prophylactic move White is
tt:lxc7 29.Wid7t defenceless against the mating threats. No
wonder Oll overlooked this - Black's attack
28.VNg3 VNb2 appeared as if out of nowhere.
33.gxc5
8
No better is 33.Wid 1 f3 34.g3 tt:le2t 35 .@h2
7 tt:lc3 36.Wfe 1 tt:lxe4.
6
33 ...VNal t 34.<it>h2
5
4 8
3 7
2 6
1 5
a b c d e f g h 4
Defending the e-pawn and attacking the 3
rook at the same time.
2
29.gc4? 1
Suddenly White oversteps the safety line.
a b c d e f g h
The only way to equality was 29.Ek6 Wfb 1 t 34 ... h5!
30.@h2 Wfxe4 3 l .�xe6 Wfxd5 32.�xe5 Wfxa2 After 35 .Wig5 tt:le2 White cannot avoid mate
33.�e7t �f7 34.Wfxc7, when the weak king on gl . The black queen in the corner also
leaves Black with not a single winning chance. protects the pawn on e5. Lembit resigned. I was
very pleased that such a brilliant player as Rafael
29 c5!
..• Vaganian, who also played in the tournament,
The extra passed pawn advances. Now the praised my play highly at the end of the game.
scope of the white rook is very limited. 0-1
Alexey Kuzmin - Ilya Smirin Safer is 19 ... lL\c8 20.lLlec3 a5 with a complex
struggle.) 20.gxf5 gxf5 2 1.if2 @h8 22.ixh4
Nabereznye Chelny 1988
if6 23.if2!? (23.ixf6t E!:xf6) 23 ... E!:g8
24.E!:xg8t lLlxg8 25.'1Mfc3 lLlg5 26.ig2
Alexey Kuzmin is a well-known theoretician
f4 27.lLlg1 'We8 28.'Wa3 ie7 29.lLlc3?
who for many years has worked in Qatar as a
(29.ifl is much stronger) 29 ... 'Wg6 30.@fl
coach. He is also a long-time opening adviser
lLl f6 3 1.'1Mfxa6
of Alexander Morozevich. But at the time this
game was played, Morozevich was still too
8
young . . .
7
l .d4 llJf6 2.c4 g6 3.llJc3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.8 6
o-o 6.i.e3 llJ c6 7.YMd2 a6 s.llJge2 gbs 5

The most popular move in the position, 4
preparing . . . b7-b5.
3
2
I played 8. . . id7 in the game Chigladze -
Smirin, which you will also find in this book
(page 223) . a b c d e f g h
3 1. . . E!:g8! (suddenly Black gets a strong

9.llJcl attack against the opponent's king) 32.ih 1
9 .E!:c 1 is the popular move nowadays. ixh3t 33.lLlxh3 lLlxh3 34.'Wa7 id8 35.@e2
lLlh5?! (35 ... 'Wh6FF) 36.@d2 lLl g3 37.lLl e2?
8 (the only continuation was 37.ig2 lLlxe4t
7 38.lLlxe4 'Wxg2 39.@e2) 37 . . . lL\xh 1 38.E!:xh 1
6 'Wg2 39.E!:xh3t 'Wxh3 40.'Wa3 ie7 4 1.ib6
5 'Wfl 42.'Wb3 ih4 43.'1Mfd 1 'Wxf3 0-1 Baron
4
Smirin, Israeli Championship 20 16.
3
c) In this line both sides often use somewhat
2 mysterious knight manoeuvres, as in the
following game: 9 . . . e6 I O. lL\d l El:e8 11.g3 lLle7
a b c d e f g h 12.ig2 b5 13.c5 b4 14.lLlf2 a5 15 .0-0 ia6
16.E!:fd 1 lLld7 17.f4 d5 18.e5 lLlf5 19.@h 1 E!:a8
a) 9 . . . b5? 1O.cxb5 axb5 11.lLlxb5 is the main
idea behind the prophylactic 9 .E!:c 1.
b) Recently I played the following tense and

interesting encounter: 9 ... h5!? (directed against
g2-g4 and potentially against lLl g3) 10.h3
e5 11.d5 lLle7 12.g4 c6 13 .E!:g 1 b5!? 14.b3
bxc4 15 .bxc4 cxd5 16.cxd5 id7 17.lLlg3 h4
18.lL\ge2 ( 18. lL\f5!? gxf5 19.gxf5 lLlxf5 20.exf5
ixf5 with an unclear position) 18. . . lL\h7
19.lLld1 f5 ?! (A brave but risky decision.
a b c d e f g h
20. lLJg1 lLJb8 2 1 .g4 lD xe3 22.Wfxe3 f5 23.gxf5 Black gives up a whole rook in order to keep
gxf5 24.Wfh3 lD c6 25 . .if3 �e7 26.�d2 Wff8 the white king in the centre.
27.Wfh4 lLJd8 28. lLJfh3 And White won 20 ..ixb8 lDxc4 2 1 .Wfc l .if5
soon; ( 1 -0, 37) Vitiugov - Ganguly, Khanty And in this really wild and unclear position
Mansiysk (ol) 20 1 0. The bishop on a6 ended we both preferred not to take any further risks
up being entirely sidelined. (the game was played in a very important match
in the European Club Cup) and we agreed to
9.h4 a draw, V2-V2 Lautier - Smirin, Rethymnon
This continuation occurred in my short but 2003.
very interesting game with Lautier:
9 . . . h5 1 0. lLJc l e5 1 1 .d5 lLJd4 1 2.lDb3 c5 9 J"Lle8!?
•.
1 3 .dxc6 bxc6 9 . . . e5 1 0. lLJb3 (or 1 0.d5 lLJd4 1 1 .lD b3) ts

1 3 . . . lLJxb3?! considered to be the main continuation.
8
7
6
5
4
3
a b c d e f g h 2
This is worse due to the intermediate 1 4.c7! 1
Wfxc7 1 5 .axb3. a b c d e f g h
1 4 . lLJxd4 exd4 1 5 ..ixd4 �e8
A well-known pawn sacrifice. This is one of my original ideas in the KID.
1 6 ..ie2 d5 1 7.e5 c5!? By withdrawing this knight Black prepares to
Over the board improvisation. create counterplay by means of . . . f7-f5 . I just
1 8. .ixc5 lLJd7 1 9 . .id6 thought: "If White can place his knight on c l ,
why Black can't do a similar thing and place his
knight on e8?"
10.d5
In the next game Kuzmin improved with:
1 0.lDb3 f5 1 1 .exf5 .ixf5 1 2 . .ie2 lLJf6 1 3.0-0
e5 1 4.�ad 1 exd4 1 5 . lLJxd4 lLJxd4 1 6 ..ixd4
Wfd7 1 7.�fe 1 �fe8 1 8. .ia7 �bd8 1 9 ..if2 Wff7
20 ..ifl �xe 1 2 1 .�xe 1 �h8 22.b3 �e8 23.�d 1
.ie6 24.g3 �d8 25 . .ig2 h6 26 . .id4, with a
small but lasting edge; ( 1 -0, 48) Kuzmin -
a b c d e f g h Badea, Moscow 1 99 1 . I think this is the right
1 9 . . . lDxe5! way for White to continue.
10 ... tlJe5 1 1 ..ie2 f5 Still I would prefer here to take en passant:

Today I would prefer 11. . . cS 12.0-0 (or 1 6.dxc6 bxc6 17.lt:Jd4 id? 18.cS ( 18.fS cS
12.a4 fS 13.f4 lt:Jg4!? 14.ixg4 fxg4 1S .lt:Jd3 19.fxg6 hxg6 20.lt:Jf3 ifS with good piece-play
id? 16.eS ifS and the two bishops allow for Black) 18 ... dxcS 1 9.lt:Jb3 ifS 20. fixd8
Black to look to the future with optimism) �fxd8 2 1.ixcS , with a pleasant endgame, for
12 . . . bS 13.cxbS axbS 14.lt:JxbS ia6 with a instance: 2 1. . . lt:JdS 22.ixa6 lt:Jxc3 23.bxc3
good version of the Benko Gambit. A sample ixc3 24.�ac l if6 2S.�fe 1 eS 26.ic4 exf4
variation is 1S.a4 lt:J c7 16.f4 ( 16.lt:Jxc7 ixe2 27.ie7 id4t 28.lt:Jxd4 �xd4 29.if6 �e4
17. fffxe2 �xb2!) 16 . . . ixbS 17. axbS lt:J d7 30.a4 and the passed a-pawn plus the bishop
18.lt:Jb3 lt:JxbS and Black is OK, as 19.lt:J aS?! pair outweigh the missing pawn.
runs in 19 . . . tt:Jd4.
8
1 2.£4 tljf7
Also here 12 ... lt:Jg4 13.ixg4 fxg4 was 7
not bad, even though after 14.0-0 cS 6
( 14 ... bS 1S .cxbS axbS 16.lt:Jd3 b4 17.lt:Jd1 lt:Jf6
18 .lt:J 1f2±) 1S .dxc6 bxc6 16.lt:Jd3 lt:J f6 17.b3 5
the position arising is in my opinion easier to 4
handle with White - the bishop pair doesn't
3
fully compensate for the pawn weaknesses and
White's solid centre. 2
1
13.exf5 hf5 14.0-0 t2Jf6
a b c d e f g h
8 16 ... tlJ e4?

A serious mistake. I made this move as a
7
matter of "common sense" - to exchange
6 knights and activate the g7-bishop. But I
missed a much more serious factor - the
5
activation of White's e2-bishop.
4 Instead, Black could have played the
3 energetic 16 . . . bS! 17.cxbS axbS 1 8 .ixbS
lt:JxdS 19. fixdS ixc3 20.bxc3 �xbS with an
2 excellent position - White has a couple of
pawn weaknesses (a2, c3) and he can't exploit
the weak dark squares around the opponent's
a b c d e f g h
king because of the passive bishop on e3.
The knight has fulfilled its role (it made
. . . f7 -fS possible) so it may return. 17.tlJxe4 .ixe4 18 ..ig4 .ifS
If 18 . . . bS 19.lt:JaS bxc4 20.lt:Jxc4 �b4
1 5.t2Jb3 c5 1 6.h3 2 1.�acl �h8 22.b3 White would keep some
The usual prophylaxis against a possible advantage due to his active pieces (the knight
... lt:Jg4. on c4 and bishop on g4) and better pawn
structure.
19 ..ixf5 gxf5 20J3f3

8
Now White is better, mainly because of the
unfortunate position of the black knight. The 7
pawn on f5 is also a weakness in Black's camp. 6
The next few moves are pretty natural.
5
20 ... <bh8 2 1 .Wc2 b5 22 ..id2 Wd7 23 ..ic3 4
ggs 24.gel gbe8 25. <bh2
25. El:fe3 was called for; my prospects are not 3
rosy after that. 2
25 ... ltJd8
a b c d e f g h
8 30 ... ltJ d4!

An unexpected blow. This was my idea when
7
I played 26 . . . e6. It should have led to a draw
6 by force.
5
31 .Wd3?
4 Tantamount to resignation. My opponent
3 was in a kind of shock and did not find the
only defence: 3 l .cxd4 El:e2 32.Wfg5 Wfxd4
2
8
b d f g h
7
a c e
6
26.ltJd2?
5
A careless move which lets Black obtain
counterplay with the help of tactics. 4
After the simple 26.ixg7t El:xg7 27.El:fe3 3

El:eg8 28.El:l e2 I would have to "wait and see," 2
whereas White will gradually strengthen his
position. The weaknesses on e7 and f5 plus the
a b c d e f g h
pressure along the e-file would give White a
clear edge in this line. 33.El:d3! Wfxd3 34.Wff6t El:g7 3 5 .Wff8t with
perpetual check. To be honest, I also did not
26 ... e6! 27.dxe6?! see that.
As is often the case, one mistake is followed
by another. Kuzmin does not see the danger. 3 1 . .. ltJe2?!
27.El:fe3 e5!? 28.a3 would keep part of his An unnecessary pirouette. Much stronger
advantage. was the straightforward 3 1 . . . lt:Jxf3t 32.Wfxf3
Wfe7, with a trivial win after the unavoidable
27... ltJxe6 28.Wxf5 .ixc3 29.bxc3 Wg7 exchange of queens.
30.ggl
32J�fl!? Alexander Beliavsky- Ilya Smirin

32.g4 lt:Jxg 1 33.<tt> xg 1 El:e 1 t 34.tt:Jfl Wffe7
Bel grade 1 998
35.f5 would be more resilient, even though
Black should win anyway - the extra exchange
Alexander Beliavsky was one of the strongest
is worth something after all.
players in the world between 1 980 and 1 990.
He's always been a tough opponent for me. I
32 ... tlJxgl 33.@xgl V:Yf6 34.cxb5 axb5
lost our three first encounters - in 1 988, 1 989
35.@h2
35.g4 c4 36.Wif3 El:e 1 t 37.<tt> g2 was slightly
and 1 990 (all those games were played in the
USSR Championships) - and every time he
better. The most precise move here seems to
beat me in style. Therefore this game may be
be 37 . . . Wif5!, with a decisive material and
seen as some kind of revenge.
positional advantage.
l .d4 tlJ£6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.h3
35 ... c4 36.V:Yf3 V:Ye6 37.tlJfl d5
tiJbd7
37 . . . Wffe4!? would win on the spot.
The most popular choice here is the natural
move 5 . . . 0-0. In this game, however, I decided
38.V:Yh5
to develop the knight to d7 first, preparing
After the most stubborn 3 8. Wffd 1 Black
. . . c7-c5.
would still have a clear win: 38 . . . Wffb 6 39. El:f3
b4! 40.cxb4 (or 40. Wffxd5 b3 and b-pawn
queens) 40 . . . d4 and this duo of passers decides
the outcome.
a c d e f g h
6..id3
6.ig5 0-0 may lead to a transposition of
a b c d e f g h moves. Alternatively, Black may proceed with
6 . . . h6. I usually try to avoid this move, which
38 ... b4
creates some potential weaknesses on the
A similar idea in even more favourable
kingside (the pawns on h6 and g6 sometimes
circumstances.
become vulnerable) , but on the other hand
this is an easy way to get rid of the bishop on
39.cxb4 c3 40.f5 V:Ye5t 4I .@hl d4 42.V:Yf3
g5 and break the pin along the h4-d8 diagonal.
V:Ye4
Black's play looks logical in the following
0-1
encounter: 7.ie3 e5 8.d5 lt:Jc5 9.Wic2 a5
1 0.0-0-0 h5 l l .tDf3 ih6 1 2.ixh6 �xh6 . . . f7-f5, undermining the e-pawn and banking
1 3.ie2 mf8 1 4 .'!Md2 mg7 1 5 .'!Me3 '!Me7 on future counterplay along the f-file.
and in this position without dark-squared
bishops Black should be OK; Kazhgaleyev - 1 2.0-0
Shchekachev, Livry Gargan 2005. Of course, White could play 1 2.g4 ttJ f6
here, but in this case he would have to answer
6...0-0 7.i.g5 c5 8.d5 some questions, the main one being: "Where
8.lD f3 occurred in the game Avrukh - do I hide my king?"
Smirin, Israel 1 999. You will find this game
later, on page 27. 1 2 ... h6
The immediate 1 2 . . . f5 is dubious due to
8 .. JtJe5 9.tiJf3 1 3.exf5 ixf5 1 4.'!Me2 '!Md7 1 5.'!Mxe7 ixh3
Alexander allows the exchange of his d3- 1 6.'!Mxd7 ixd7 1 7.ltJe4 and the pawn on d6
bishop, counting on his strong centre and cannot be defended.
good development. He is right in my opinion.
8
9 .ie2 essentially turns out to be a loss of
time, which was exploited by Vlad Tkachiev 7
in the following game: 9 . . . b5! In the spirit 6
of the Benko Gambit. 1 0.cxb5 a6 l l .bxa6
WaS 1 2.id2 ixa6 1 3.'!Mc2 �fb8 1 4.�b l 5
ttJ fd7 1 5 .f4 ttJc4 1 6.ixc4 ixc4 1 7.b3 ixc3! 4
1 8.ixc3 '!Mxa2 1 9.�b2 '!Ma l t 20.mf2 '!Mfl t
3
2 I .me3 �a3! 22.bxc4 �xb2 23 .'!Mxb2 ltJb6!
0- 1 Pinter - Tkachiev, Porec 1 998. 2
9 ... tlJxd3t 10.YMxd3 a6 1 1 .a4

a b c d e f g h
8 13.i.e3
In the first game in which I played l l ... ttJh5
7
my opponent put his bishop on d2: 1 3.id2
6 e6 ( 1 3 .. .f5?! can hardly be recommended here
- 1 4.�ae l fxe4 1 5 .'!Mxe4 and the pawns on e7
5
and g6 are hanging) 1 4.dxe6 ixe6 1 5 .ttJd5
4 (more ambitious was 1 5 .a5!? b6 1 6.axb6
3 '!Mxb6 1 7.�fd 1 and White's position looks
good)) 1 5 . . . �e8 1 6.�ad l ixd5 1 7.exd5 '!Md7
2 1 8.b3 b5 1 9.axb5 axbS 20.cxb5 �ab8 2 1 .b4
1 �xbS Yz-Yz A. Mikhalevski - Smirin, Rishon
Le Zion 1 997.
a b c d e f g h
1 I . .. tlJh5!? 13 ... £5 14.exf5
This move is connected with a rather 1 4.ttJh4!? could have led to an interesting
original idea to carry out the advance tactical struggle: 1 4 .. .f4 1 5 .id2
1 6.ttJh4 is not dangerous due to 1 6 . . . W/e8.
1 6... ltJf4
It was not easy to play some "improving the
position" moves, which is why I decided to
force matters.
The following sample line shows that it was

probably the correct decision. 1 6 . . . @h7
1 7.�d2 E!:f7 1 8.ltJe4 Wff8 1 9. El:a3 ( 1 9.ttJ eg5t
a b c d e f g h hxg5 20.ttJxg5t @g8 2 1 .ttJxf7 W/xf7 22.Wfxe7
1 5 . . . �xc3! 1 6.�xc3 e5 1 7.dxe6 (or 1 7.ttJxg6 El:f8 23.Wixf7t E!:xf7 and this endgame is not
El:e8 and the knight on g6 will be lost for that bad for Black, I guess) 1 9 ... ttJf4 20.�xf4
insufficient compensation) 1 7 . . :�xh4 1 8. W/xd6 El:xf4 2 1 .a5 El:b8 22.E!:b3 and I do not like
El:e8 1 9.Wie5 @h7 20.g4 with unclear play. Of Black's position.
course, this is an example of a "silicon" line.
17.hf4 gxf4
14....ixf5 15.%\'e2 .id?
This prophylactic move prevents the possible
threats g2-g4 or ttJh4.
a b c d e f g h
18.%\'xe?
Beliavsky chooses the concrete approach.
In the style of (let's say) Magnus Carlsen would

a b c d e f g h be 1 8. El:a3, keeping the pressure and making
The strategic picture is more or less clear a useful waiting move. In that case Black
now: White has a better pawn structure, good may switch his attention to the queenside:
pieces and pressure on the e-pawn. My trumps 1 8. . . W/b6 1 9.a5 W/b4 with a tense struggle, bur
are the two bishops (yes, again!) and some again White's chances are somewhat better.
dynamic possibilities connected, first of all,
with the f-file. Overall I would perhaps prefer 1 8 ....ixh3 19.gxh3
White's chances here, but Black has his own Or 1 9.Wie3 Wif8.
reasons for optimism.
19 .. J�xf3 20J�a3! 22.�e4?

Big AI (as they used to call Alexander Alexander misses his chance.
Beliavsky in those days) finds a strong resource
- the rook is excellently placed on the third Very soon after the game he pointed out that
rank for both attacking and defensive purposes. he could get an overwhelming position after:
22.�xe5! dxe5 23.lt:Je4
20 ....ie5
20 . . .id4 would be a reasonable alternative
here. The following variation looks like a
very logical one: 2 1 .�e6t @h8 22.lt:Je4 �xa3
23.bxa3 '!Nf8! 24. \Wxg6 \Wf4 25.<tt> fl �f8
26. \Wg4 '!Nh2 27.�g2 \Wf4 with a draw - the
active black pieces leave the opponent no
chance to use his extra pawn.
2 I .'i;Ve6t
a b c d e f g h
8
Now 23 . . . �xa3 loses on the spot after
7 24.Wf7t <tt> h s 25.lt:Jf6.
6
And after 23 ... �f4 24.�g3 '!Ng8 25.lt:Jf6t
5 �xf6 26. \Wxf6 '!Ng7 27.\Wxg?t (the simplest)
4 27 ... <tt> xg7 28.�b3 �b8 29.�b6 the rook
endgame is obviously hopeless for Black.
3
2 8
1 7
a b c d e f g h 6
2 1 . .. ®h7? 5
A big tactical mistake. It could cost the game.
4
After the correct 2 1 . .. �£7 22.lt:Je4 (22.�xe5 3
dxe5 23.lt:Je4 We? 24. \Wxe? �xe7 and Black
is fine) 22 ... <tt> g7 23.@h 1 \Wh4 the position 2
would be dynamically balanced. For example:
b d f g h
24.tt:Jxd6 ixd6 25.\Wxd6 '!Nxc4 26.�ae3 �af8
a c e
27.�e6 '!Nd3 28.�xg6t '!Nxg6 29.�g1 '!Nxg1 t
30.<tt> xg1 �xf2, with a peaceful outcome soon. 22 JU5
••
So life goes on!

21 ... @g?? is much weaker because of the strong
22.�xe5! dxe5 23.lt:Je4 with a huge initiative. Of course, 22 . . .�xa3 23.bxa3 looks pretty
dangerous because of the strong potential
pressure against the b 7-pawn, but the computer White should have played 26. ltJg3! �e7
is not convinced: 23 . . . �f8 24.�b 1 ?! (better is 27.�xe5! �xe5 28.�xd6 with good drawing
24. ltJxc5 .ih2t! 25.<;t>g2 dxc5 26.�e7t <;t>gs chances. In fact, this was the only continuation
27.�xf8t �xf8 28.<;t>xh2 �xf2t 29.<;t>g3 �c2 here.
30.�e4 <;t>f7 3 1 . <;t>f4 �c3 32. <;t>es <;t>e? with a
probable draw) 24 . . . b5 2 5 . axb5 �f4+
23J�b3
23.<;t>h 1 was my opponent's suggestion in
Informant. He evaluates the position as better
for him. However, after 23 . . . �h4 it's Black
who enjoys the advantage - all his pieces are
well coordinated and the king on h 1 proves to
be more vulnerable than its black counterpart,
for instance: 24.�b3 �af8! 25.�xb7t? <;t>hs
26.�b3 �xf2 and White is hopelessly lost.
23 ...'l:Yc7 24.a5 gd8?! a b c d e f g h

Too passive. The correct decision would be 26 .. J�g7!!
24 . . .�ff8, preparing to get rid of the annoying The rook hides in ambush.
queen on e6 by means of 25 . . . �ae8. In this
case I would have nothing to complain about. Both of the alternatives were losing: 26 . . . �e7
In my opinion it's White who has to take care 27.�xe7t �xe7 28.�xb7 and 26 . . . �g5t
to keep the position balanced - after all, his 27.<;t>fl dxc5 28.�xe5 �xe5 29.�xg6t <;t>hs
king feels no more comfortable than Black's 30.�xh6t <;t>gs 3 1 .�g6t �g7 32.d6 �d7
king, and my pieces are active enough. 33.�xg7t �xg7 34.�xg7t <;t>xg7 35 .d7.
25J�b6? 27J�xe5 'l:Yxc5!

I fully agree with Beliavsky's suggestion White was counting on 27 ... �xe5 28.�xd6
2 5. <;t> h 1 !?, even though I think that after or 27 . . . dxe5 28.b4, but the move I made came
25 . . . �£f8! 26.�g1 �f7 Black does not stand as a real shock for my formidable opponent.
badly at all.
25 ... gd7! 8
An overture to one of the best traps I have 7
ever set in my entire career!
6
26.�xc5 5
Falling directly into the trap. My opponent
4
very quickly and confidently made this and the
next moves, perhaps feeling sure that he was 3
on his way to winning another game against 2
his client. To tell the truth, it was unreal to
play over the board. 1
a b c d e f g h
28J�e2 Boris Avrukh - Ilya Smirin

Alas, after 28.!hf5 gxf5t - check! - this was
Israel 1 999
the reason for my 26th move. 29. Wh l (29.Wfl
�xc4t 30.We l E!:g l t) 29 . . . �xf2 and White
Usually I was successful in games with Boris
gets checkmated. Beliavsky now gets into
Avrukh, my long-time teammate in the
time trouble and loses quickly, but actually his
Israeli national squad. It seems that I was an
position is already beyond salvation. "
uncomrorta
c bl,
e opponent for him. Boris is
not only a talented and strong grandmaster
28 ... 'i«xc4 29.'l«e4
but also a well-known theoretician, and he
More stubborn was 29.E!:xd6, but after
has written a few highly popular books on
29 . . . �c l t 30.Wg2 E!:g5t 3 l . Wf3 �c4! the
openings. He now lives in the USA.
white king would not escape the mating net.
l .d4 tLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.tLlc3 .a,g7 4.e4 d6 5.h3
29 ... 'i«cl t 30J�el 'i«cS
tLl bd7 6..a.d3 0-0 7..a.gs c5
a b c d e f g h
The attack is irresistible - the rook on b6 has

8.lLlf3
turned out to be completely out of play and
Borya deviates from my game with Beliavsky
cannot help his monarch.
and keeps the pawn tension in the centre.
Objectively speaking it's hardly the best choice,
3 1 .'i«e3 ge5! 32.'i«cl ggSt
but at least it leads to relatively fresh positions.
White resigned due to 33.Wfl �xd5.
0-1
8.d5 lLle5 was played in Beliavsky - Smirin
above.
8 ... cxd4
This leads to a version of the Maroczy
Bind that is good for Black - in my opinion
in this particular position the white bishops
are slightly misplaced. They would be better
positioned on e2 and e3.
9.tiJxd4 YNa5 10.�d2 I saw that 1 0 . . . �b6 1 1 .�e3 ( I I .ttJb3 ttJ e5

If 1 O.�d2 I was planning: 1 2.�e2 �e6 is not advisable for White)
1 1 . . . �xb2 1 2.ttJa4 �b4t 1 3.�d2 �a3 1 4.�c l
would lead to a draw by repetition. I was in a
fighting mood and declined that.
ll.i.e2
8
7
6
a b c d e f g h 5
l O . . . ttJxe4! 1 1 .ttJxe4 ( l l .�xe4 �xd4 1 2.�xd4 4
�xg5) 1 1 . . . �xd2t 1 2.<;t>xd2 �xd4 1 3.�xe7
�e8 1 4.�xd6 �xb2 1 5 .�ab 1 �g7 with slightly 3
better chances - the king is stuck in the centre 2
of the board and will cause White some
1
trouble even without queens. After all, there
are enough pieces on the board to attack or a b c d e f g h
disturb it.
ll. ..YNc5
1 1 . . . ttJxc4? does not work here because of
1 O.ttJf3!? ttJc5 1 1 .0-0 perhaps deserved
1 2.�xc4 �c5 1 3.�a4!.
attention. Here the following tactical variation
is possible: 1 1 . . .�e6 1 2.�b 1 ( 1 2.�c2!?)
1 1 . . .�b6 1 2.�e3 �xb2 1 3.ttJa4 �b4t 1 4.�d2
1 2 . . .�a6! 1 3.b3 ttJxd3 1 4.�xd3
�a3
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
1 4 . . . d5! 1 5 .exd5 �f5 1 6.�d2 �xb 1 1 7.�xb 1 ,
This would probably lead to a similar
with compensation for the exchange, but Black
draw, because the position resulting after
certainly remains no worse.
1 5 .ttJb5? ttJ d3t 1 6.<;t>fl ttJxf2 1 7.ttJxa3 ttJxd 1
1 8.�xd 1 ttJxe4 1 9.�e 1 �d7 20.ttJb5 �ac8
l O ... tlJe5
would be clearly in Black's favour - three
pawns for a knight plus much better piece his king being under pressure: 2 l .�g l f5
coordination compared to the opponent's 22.g5 �b4t 23.�c3 �h4t 24.�d2 f4 and
forces. I decided to chase the d4-knight from a it's very messy.
different square. 1 6.cxb5 �e4 1 7.0-0 �b7
1 2.llJb3 �c6 8
By attacking the c- and e-pawns I can try 7
to disturb my opponent a little. If he can
6
finish development and place his pieces in
5
the centre, White's space advantage will tell,
as is often the case in such structures. This 4
is why I did not like 1 2 . . :�c7 1 3.tLld5 �d8 3

1 4.�g5 �e8 1 5 .ttJd2, when White is about to 2
consolidate.
a b c d e f g h
13.lDd5
Avrukh could have played 1 3.tLld4, after But it would be a dubious decision after:
which a draw by repetition would be very 1 8.f4 tLld7 1 9.�xg7 �xg7
probable. He also shows fighting spirit and And now, let's say:
made the more aggressive move. 20.lt:Jd4
20.�f3 �xf4 2 l .tLla5 is also not bad.
13 ... llJxd5 14.cxd5? 20 . . . �xd5 2 l .�f3 �e3t 22.�h l �xf3 23.�xf3
But this is a serious mistake - Boris j ust �e4 24.�d2 �d5 25 .a4
completely overlooked my next move. White would have the initiative.
The knight should have been taken by the 14 ...�a4!

e-pawn:
1 4.exd5 �a4 1 5.�c3! 8
During the game I was planning to reply
with the sharp: 7
1 5 . . . b5?! 6
In fact Black had two better moves at his
disposal: 5
1 5 . . . �d7 1 6.0-0 (bad is 1 6.f4? ttJxc4 1 7.�xg7 4
tLle3 1 8.�d3 �xf4 1 9.�d4 tLlxg2t 20.�d l
3
�f5 2 l .�d2 �g3) 1 6 . . . �ac8 1 7.ttJd2 �xd l
1 8.�axd l g5!? with an acceptable endgame. 2
Or the sharper: 1 5 ...�f5 1 6.g4 �d7 1 7.f4 1
(here 1 7.tLld2 �xd l t 1 8.�xd l g5!, securing
the outpost on e5 for the knight looks a b c d e f g h
attractive for Black) 1 7 ... lt:Jxc4 1 8.�xg7 tLle3 Suddenly White has no convenient way to
1 9.�d3 �xf4! 20.�xf8 �xf8 Now Black protect the pawn on e4.
is playing without a whole rook, but the
opponent faces unpleasant problems with 15.0-0!
Relatively best. White gives up a pawn, but 19 ... f4?!

finishes his development and may even hope to Not the best decision. I wanted to create
obtain some compensation by making use of the threat of . . . f4-f3, but I underestimated
the unstable position of the black queen on e4. Avrukh's next move. I had two better ways to
continue:
1 5.f3 f5 with the idea 1 6.exf5? �h4t or
1 5 .�c2 f5 would be weaker, at least from a a) The sharp: 19 . . . g4!? 20.f4 I was afraid of
practical point of view. this move during the game, but in fact I have
a strong sacrifice at my disposal: 20 . . . gxh3!
1 5 ...'1Nxe4 1 6 ..tc3 2 1 .fxe5 dxe5
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d e f g h
Black has three pawns for a piece and a

a b c d e f g h strong initiative. It's not easy for White to
1 6... g5! find a way to solve his problems, for instance:
The purpose of this move is to vacate g6 for 22.lt:Je6 ixe6 23.dxe6 hxg2 24.ixg2 e4
the queen and simultaneously to prevent f2-f4, 25.ixg7 �xg7 26.�b3 f4 27.�h l e3 28J�g l
thus securing the knight in its central position. �h8 29.ih3 �e5 30.�c3 �xc3 3 1 .bxc3 f3
and the pawns have advanced too far - White
17J�el '1Ng6 1 8.tlJd4 f5 19.-tfl is helpless.
Or 1 9.lt:Jf3 lt:Jxf3t 20.ixf3 g4.
Still, after the best 22.lt:Jf3 e4 23.d6! exd6
24.lt:Jh4 �g3 25 .�b3t �h8 26.ixg7t �xg7
8 27.ic4! hxg2 28J��ad l the position is not at all
7 clear: temporarily Black has five (!) pawns for
the piece, but White's forces are active.
6
5 b) The simple 1 9 . . . id?, fi n ishing development.
This seems to be the most practical decision:
4
after the logical 20.lt:J f3 (20.�b3 g4)
3 20 ... lt:Jxf3t 2 1 .�xf3 g4 22.�d3 ixc3 23.�xc3
2 El:ac8 Black preserves his extra pawn and is also
active enough to claim an edge here.
1
a b c d e f g h
20.i.e2! 25 ...i.f5 26J�b4

A good prophylactic move, directed against If 26.�e4 �f7 27.c4 Black would exchange
both . . .f4-f3 and . . . g5-g4. bishops in much better circumstances:
27 . . . �xe4 28 .'1Wxe4 �c8 and the weakness c4
20 .id7 2 1 .�8
••• can be felt. Nevertheless, it deserved serious
The correct idea in general, intending to attention in my opinion - White would still
exchange the strong knight on e5 . have some compensation.
But probably slightly more accurate would In contrast, 26.�b3 �ac8 27.'1Wxe7 '1Wxe7
be 2 1 .'1Wb3 �ab8 22.lL:lf3 lL:lxf3t 23.�xf3, 28.�xe7 �f7 cannot be advised. The resulting
and thanks to the pressure on e7 and Black's endgame is very unpleasant for White - he has
somewhat spoiled pawn structure, White has the worse pawn structure and passive pieces
reasonable compensation for the pawn. after 29.�e2 mf8, with ideas of 30 . . . �e7 or
30 . . . �fc7.
2 1 . .. �xf3t 22.i.xf3 i.xc3 23.bxc3
Now White's pawn structure is not ideal 26 .. J�ac8 27.'flxe7
either.
23 ... 'flf6 24J�b l b6
8
7
6
5
4
3
2 a b c d e f g h
27 .. J�xc3?!
An interesting moment, which is instructive
a b c d e f g h
to some extent. After making some calculations
25.'fle2?! I played this tempting move. Alas, as is often
My opponent did not notice that after the the case, my calculations were not free from
exchange of bishops the black king would mistakes and objectively speaking this capture
become more vulnerable, otherwise he would misses the chance for a big advantage.
have played: 25 .�g4! �xg4 (25 . . . �ad8 26.�b4 Instead Black should have chosen the prosaic
�xg4 [26 ... '1Wxc3?! 27.�be4] 27.'1Wxg4 �f7 exchange of queens: 27 . . .'\Wxe? 28.�xe7 �f7
28.�be4 does not change much) 26.'1Wxg4 29.�xf7 mxf7 I do not think White can hold
�f7 27.�e4! �af8 (or 27 . . . '1Wxc3 28.�xf4!) this. After, say, 30.h4 h6 3 l .hxg5 hxg5 32.�b3
28.c4 mh8 (28 . . .f3 29.g3) 29.�be l and �d3 33.g3 mf6 the difference in activity of the
White is perfectly OK - the extra pawn is not pieces is too great. As we know, piece activity is
significant. one of the major factors in endgames.
28 ..ih5? After 3 l ..ie2 �e1 (3 l . .. �xf2? 32.@gl ) 32.�d4

My opponent also did not calculate accurately. �f7 33.�e8t @g7 34.�d 1 �xd1 35 .ixd 1 @f6
36.�d8 @eS Black would obtain a technically
Mter 28.'tWxa7 I was going to play the pretty won position.
28 .. Jhf3! 29.gxf3 Wc3 - a slightly unusual
kind of fork. However, after 30.�eb 1 .ixb 1 The most complex variations would arise after:
3 l .�xb 1 Wxf3 32.'tWxb6 'tWxd5 (32 . . . 'tWxh3 3 1 .�c7
33.Wxd6 �e8 34.�b8=) 33.�b5 'tWd 1 t 34.@h2 For the moment preventing the f8-rook
h6 35 .a4 f3 (35 . . . 'tWxa4 36.Wxd6 Wxb5 from joining the attack via c8.
37.Wg6t @h8 38.'tWxh6t with a draw) 36.'tWc6 3 l . . . �xf2 32.�xa7 �c8 33.@g1
'tWfl 37.Wd5t �f7 38 .�b8t @g7 39.'tWd4t �f6 33.�xb6 .ie4 and wins.
40.�b7t @g6 4l .'tWe4t @hS 42.Wg4t @g6 33 . . . �fc2
43. 'tWe4t the game would end with perpetual 33 . . . �d2 34.@h2! and it's hard for Black to
check. Of course this is not a forced variation, make progress.
but the outcome looks j ustified.
28 ...%Vxe7 29.gxe7
Avrukh was counting on his active rook, but
Black's trumps are more important.
29 . J�cl t 30. �h2

.
8
7
a b c d e f g h
6
34.�a3
5 This seems to be the most resilient. Other
4 options are:
34.�xb6 .ie4 still wins.
3 34..ig4 �d2! (a nice move) 35 .�xb6
2 (35 . .ixf5 �c l t 36.@h2 �dd 1 with inevitable
checkmate; 35 . .if3 �c l t 36.@h2 �f2
1
37.�xb6 �ff1 38.�b8t .ic8-+) 3 5 . . . ixg4
a b c d e f g h 36.hxg4 f3! 37.�c6 �xg2t 38.@fl �b8
30 .. J�fl ! 39.�c l �xg4 40.�cc7 �h4 4l .�g7t @h8
The key move - the rook not only attacks 42.�xg5 �h2 We see that this endgame is
the f-pawn, but also helps to set up mating full of tactics and mating motifs.
motifs along the first rank. 34. . . �c l t 3 5 .@f2 �8c2t 36 . .ie2 �d2!
37.�xb6 �cc2 38.�b8t @g7 39.�a7t @h6
3 1 .gc4 40.�e8 g4! 4l .hxg4
These mating threats may be seen in the Or 41 .a4 g3t 42. @e 1 ( 42. @f3 �d4 is another
following variation: 3 1 .�xa7 �c8 32.�xb6 mating net) 42 ... �xd5 with checkmate soon
�ee l 33.�b8t .ic8 34.g3 �xf2# after 43 .... �cl t.
41 . . . ixg4 42.�ae7 �xa2 Alexander Grischuk - Ilya Smirin

Transposing into a won pawn ending.
Beersheba 2005
3 I ..Jlxf2 32J�xa7
The main reason why I included this game is
This allows a nice finish, but the position
that the book lacked examples of "Benoni
was already beyond salvation.
like" games. Besides, victory over a player
as strong as Alexander Grischuk is not an
After the best 32.a4 f3! 33.ixf3 id3 34.�d4
�8xf3 3 5 .mgl �fl t 36.mh2 mf8 37.gxf3
everyday event.
mxe7 38.�xd3 mf6 39.�e3 �a l the endgame
I .d4 ttlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttl c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.f3
is lost.
0-0 6. ttl ge2
8
7
6
5
4
3
V// //0 ' " ",///////
/.O/
'uu U
b d f g h
b d f g
a c e
a c e
32 ... f3! 33.Lf3 .id3 34J3c3 �8xf3 35. <bgl
The logical move. The main advantage is
�c2!
that White can decide later whether to develop
This slightly unusual trick forces immediate
resignation - after 35 . . . �c2 36.�xc2 �fl t
the bishop on e3 or g5 .
37.mh2 ixc2 Black remains with an extra
6... ttlbd7
bishop.
There is a wide choice here: 6 . . . lt:J c6,
0-1
6 ... c5 and 6 ... c6; and after 6 ... e5 7.ig5!?
White profits from this move order - even
The final game of this chapter was played at
Fischer scored only 1 Yz points out of 4 from
the World Team Championship on home soil.
the resulting position. He was young though
Sadly we were not able to take any medals on
those games were played in 1 958-59. This line
that occasion.
has also occurred once in my practice: 7 . . . lt:J c6
8.d5 lt:Je7 9.�d2 h5 1 o.lt:Jcl lt:Jh7 l l .ie3 f5
1 2.lt:Jd3 c6 1 3.0-0-0 ( 1 3.dxc6!? bxc6 1 4.�d l )
1 3 . . . cxd5 1 4. cxd5 id7 1 5 .mb l lt:Jf6, with a
complicated struggle; (Yz-Yz, 5 1 ) I. Sokolov -
Smirin, Groningen 1 993.
7 ..ig5 c5 8.d5
8
Now the game develops in the spirit of the
Benoni structure. 7
6
8 ... h6 9 ..ie3
5
8 4
7 3
6 2
5 1
4 a b c d e f g h
3 13 ... fxe4!?
Probably the best way to handle the tension
2 in the centre.
1
If instead 1 3 . . . lt:J f6, White would get a
a b c d e f g h
positional advantage after the simple: 1 4.exf5
9 h5
..• ixf5 1 5 .h3! ( 1 5.f4? ttJeg4)
Directed against ttJ g3. An original idea, bur
I think that the more usual 9 . . . ttJ e5 1 0.ttJg3 e6
(or 1 o . . . h5 first) would be the sounder choice.
10.liJc1
I would prefer 1 O.lt:Jf4!? ttJ e5 1 1 .ie2 and it
is not so clear what Black is going to do next
( l l . . g5?! 1 2.ttJd3 ttJxc4 1 3.ixg5).
.
10 ...tiJh7
The standard manoeuvre in such positions;
a b c d e f g h
Black prepares . . . f7-f5.
1 5 . . . a6 ( 1 5 . . . e6?! is not good due to 1 6.f4 lt:J f7
1 I ..ie2 tlJe5 1 2.0-0 1 7.dxe6 ixe6 1 8.id3) 1 6.a4 'lff! a 5 1 7.E!a3 -
If 1 2.f4 lt:Jg4 1 3.ixg4 ixg4 Black would be Black has insufficient dynamic possibilities to
OK - the bishop pair is an important factor compensate for his structural weaknesses.
here.
14.tlJxe4 .ifS 15.tiJfl
12 ... £5 13.'1Nd2 1 5 .ttJg3 was a worthy alternative. After
If White tries for activity in the centre - 1 5 . . . e6!? ( 1 5 . . . id7 1 6.ih6!? and Black's king
1 3 .f4!? ttJ f7 1 4.e5 - Black would obtain good will have to be taken care of after the exchange
counter-chances after 1 4 . . . dxe5 1 5 .ixc5 'lfff c7 of bishops) and, let's say, 1 6.E!e l h4 1 7.ttJxf5
1 6.ia3 a6!?, with an interesting struggle ahead. exf5 1 8.f4 lt:Jg4 1 9.ixg4 fxg4, a double-edged
situation would arise.
I S YNb6!?
••. 20.ttJxd2 ifS may have led to a slightly more
pleasant ending for White. Grischuk is playing
for complications instead.
8
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
2
a b c d e f g h
1
1 6.a4?!
a b c d e f g h
A sloppy move.
I? ...YNds?!
Correct was 1 6.ttJb3 a5 1 7.El:ae l a4 ( 1 7 . . . Wb4 A retreat at the wrong moment. Black should
1 8.ttJcl) 1 8.ttJcl El:f7 and the "full-contact" have stuck to his principles and played the
struggle is yet to start. intended: 1 7 . . . Wb4 1 8.ttJa2! (I didn't notice
this in my previous calculations) 1 8 . . . ttJxc4
1 6 J�ac8?
.• 1 9.Wcl ixb2 20.Wxc4
I failed to exploit White's inaccuracy.
8
Concrete play was demanded: 1 6 . . . Wa6! 7
1 7.El:a2 ttJxc4 1 8.We l b5 with the idea:
6
5
8
4
7
3
6
2
5
4
a b c d e f g h
3
2
20 . . . Wxa5! (Nor did I see this. I certainly did
not want to play a nearly hopeless position
after 20 . . .Wxc4 2 1 .ixc4 ixa l 22.El:xal .) 2 1 .g4
a b c d e f g h
hxg4 22.fxg4 ixa l 23.El:xa l (23.gxf5 ? id4)
1 9.axb5?! Wxa2 20.ttJxa2 ttJxe3 would lead to 23 . . . id7 24.We4 <j{f7 with a wild position.
an excellent position for Black. Black has a material edge, but his king is
unsafe and the white pieces may become very
17.a5 active. Still I believe that Black should be more
1 7.El:a2 ib l 1 8.El:a3 Wb4 1 9.ttJb3 Wxd2 or less OK.
1 8.�a2 e6 1 9.�c3
White has managed to consolidate and has a
clear positional edge.
Of course, Alexander did not fall into the
trap: 1 9.g4? hxg4 20.fxg4 id3! 2 1 .l2Jxd3
l2Jxc4 would lose on the spot.
19 ... exd5
I did not like the prospects after 1 9 . . ltJ f6
.
20.ig5!?.
8
a b c d e f g h
7
24 ..if4?
6
Around here my opponent started to run
5 short of time. Perhaps he had not noticed
some of Black's tactical possibilities.
4
3 More prudent was 24.El:fe 1 bxa6 25.l2Jc3
2 (25 .El:xa6? l2Jxf3t! 26.ixf3 El:xb5) 25 . . . l2Jf7
26.ixa6 Wic7, with a tense struggle.
1
a b c d e f g h However, the strongest continuation here
would probably be the computer's suggestion
20.cxd5?
24.l2Jd1 !?, protecting the bishop on e3. But
The question mark may seem too severe
such a move is not easy to play over the board.
an evaluation, but after this wrong capture I
could breathe normally again.
Much stronger was 20.l2Jxd5 l2J f6 2 1 .ig5 ,
24 ... bxa6 25.gxa6
It's hard to say whether 25.l2Jc3 El:b4 26.ixa6
exerting strong pressure on Black's position.
would be a better choice - Black would still
20 ... �£6 2 1 .h3 have a promising position in that case.
With the idea of proceeding with f3-f4 or
g2-g4, but later Sasha changed his mind. 8
The immediate 2 1 .a6 El:b8 22.El:a3!? was
7
more to the point.
6
2 1 ..J�e8 22.a6 gbs 23.�b5
5
It is not clear whether White needs to play
23.f4 l2J f7. In my opinion, before seeking 4
concrete play it was better to make a useful 3
move such as 23 .El:fe 1 .
2
23 ...We7!?
Aiming at the white bishops on the e-file.
a b c d e f g h
25 ... tiJx£3t!
8
With this simple tactic Black takes over the
initiative. 7
6
26..ix£3
Of course not 26.gxf3? VMxe2. 5
4
26.. J�xb5 27..ixd6
Or 27.!!xd6 ltJd7! 28.ltJd1 ltJe5, with an 3
obvious advantage for Black. 2
a b c d e f g h
8 29.YMf4?
Probably the decisive error.
7
6 The only correct path is 29.VMa5 !!b 1 30.VMxc5
5 ltJd7 3 1 .VMc4 VMb2!? (or 3 1 . .. !!ee 1 32.ltJ d 1 and
apparently White can hold) 32.!!c8 !!xfl t
4 33.mxfl VMa l t 34.id l !!xc8 35 .VMxc8t mh?
3 36.g4! hxg4 37.hxg4 ixg4 38.mg2, and due
to the insecure position of Black's king, White
2 has excellent drawing chances. To choose the
best path in such a sharp position with very
b d f g h
limited time left, one must mainly rely on
a c e
intuition. In this game it let Grischuk down.
28.�c6?
This is a desperate move. I remember being 29 ... �bl
very surprised by it during the game.
8
After the simple 28.!!a2 there is nothing
terrible for White yet - his position is rather 7
solid. The strongest continuation for Black in 6
that case seems to be 28 ... VMb6 29.if4 !!b4
30.ie3 ltJd7!? with pressure on the b2-pawn 5
and some initiative (3 1 .g4? ltJe5 is bad) . 4
28 ... �xb2 3
It's not Black's extra pawn that matters most 2
now, but the activity of his pieces.
1
a b c d e f g h
30J�xc5?!
This third mistake in a row leads to

8
immediate disaster.
7
But even after the relatively best 30.�c4 �b2! 6
3 l .�xb 1 �xb 1 t 32. mh2 ltJd7 33.ig3 ltJe5
34.�xc5 ltJxf3t 35.gxf3 �fl White would be 5
helpless. 4
Or 30.�xb l �xb l t 3 l .mh2 �e l ! 32.ixc5 3

ltJd7? 33.id4 �b4-+ . 2
30 J��xfl t 3 1 . <it>xfl VNa6t 32. <it>gl

1
b d f g h
••
a c e
32 j.h6!
•••
White resigned because of 33.�g3 h4

and 33.�xh6 :gel t 34.@h2 �xd6t 35 .g3
�xc5 . To give up one piece to capture two is
reminiscent of a combination in checkers.
0-1
Chapter 2
Kramnik
Kramnik at the Dresden Olympiad 2008

8
7
6
5
4
Some would want to make 3
practise calculation. Both have 6.
Kramnik missed his chance. Think prophylactically.

Can you see it? (see page 5 1 ) How should Black progress?
(see page 63)
... 8 ... 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
A hard one. How can Black Rook endings are difficult. White has sacrificed a piece in
energize his pieces? (see page 44) What should I have played? this line, but how can he prove
(see page 56/57) compensation? (see page 65)
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
'---=""'--"";;.....J
6.
Can you find Kramnik's nice White is much better. The moment of triumph.
combination? How should he consolidate? How should Black continue?
(see page 45/46) (see page 60) (see page 66)
Chapter 2 - Kramnik 41
I n the period 1 992-2002 I played a "mini

match" of four games against one of the
strongest anti-King's Indian players of all time.
I am happy, both on my own behalf and on
behalf of the King's Indian, that I was able to
score 2 Yz-1 Yz against this outstanding player,
who has a tremendous lifetime score against
the King's Indian.
Kramnik was a talented j unior in the late

1 980s, but not visibly more so than many
other talented players from his generation, like
Konstantin Sakaev and Mikhail Ulibin. But in a b c d e f g h
the early 1 990s his strength increased rapidly. 7... tlJ bd7
It was seen as risky when Kasparov wanted I used to play this as well, although in most
Kramnik's participation as first reserve in the cases in the last 20 years I have placed the
Russian team for the Manila Olympiad. But knight on a6, with or without . . . a7-a5.
with a score of 8 Yz/9 he easily took the gold
medal on his board and helped secure gold for 8 ..ig5 h6 9 .th4 g5 IO ..ig3 tlJh5 l l .h4 g4
.
Russia. 12.tlJh2 tlJxg3 13.fxg3 h5 14.0-0 f5

A typical dynamic reaction.
Only a year later he entered the world's top
ten. The year after that he dealt a major blow 15.exf5 tlJc5 1 6.b4
to the reputation of the King's Indian with this
complicated game.
Vladimir Kramnik - Garry Kasparov
Linares 1 994
I .tlJf3 tlJf6 2.c4

This was Vladimir Kramnik's move order
in the 1 990s, eventually leading Chess Stars
to publish a series of books with a Kramnik
repertoire, starting with this move order.
2 ...g6 3.tlJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.d4 0-0 6..ie2

e5 7.d5 a b c d e f g h
This move defines the Petrosian System, 16 ... e4!?
named after the ninth World Champion. This Typical of the King's Indian: opening up the
was quite popular in the 1 980s, but less so diagonal for the King's Indian bishop at the
these days. Kramnik also played it against me cost of a pawn.
in 1 995, as we shall see below.
The position after 1 6 ... l2Ja6 1 7.�b 1 ixfS

8
1 8.id3± is simply pleasant for White - for
example in Handke - Socko, Groningen 1 998. 7
6
17J�cl ltJd3 1 8 ..txd3 exd3
5
8 4
7 3
6 2
5 1
4 a b c d e f g h
3 22J:l:xf5! �xf5 23.tbxc7 �c8 24.ltJe6 �f6

25.tbfl
2 Kramnik pointed out in his 1 994 analysis
that 25.�fl is met strongly by 25 . . . �f8!!
b d f g h
26.l2Jxf8 Wd4t 27.Wxd4 ixd4t 28.<tt> h 1 �xf8,
a c e
where White has no winning chances despite
19.£6! his two extra pawns.
Kramnik has a good sense of the nature of
these positions as well, even though he is more But maybe 25.�e 1 !? was a worthwhile try.
comfortable playing White in them. After
1 9.Wxd3 Wf6+ Black is very harmoniously 25 ... �e5 26.�dl �f5 27.�xf5 �xf5 28.c5
placed and the bishops will become dominant .tf8 29.tbe3 �f6 30.tbc4?!
very quickly. White's extra pawn is irrelevant. This seems a bit too creative. Maybe 30.�c 1
with even chances was better.
19 .. J:!:xf6 20.�xd3
This has been tested in some games since 30 ... dxc5 31 .b5
1 994 and the general conclusion is that White
is a bit better, but Black's position is by no
means untenable.
20 ...�£8 2 I .ltJ b5!?

A very ambitious idea.
2 I . ...tf5
a b c d e f g h
3 I . ...th6?!
This was heavily criticized 20 years ago, but Vladimir Kramnik - Garry Kasparov
it is not that bad. Still, Kasparov seems to have
Novgorod 1 997
missed White's main threat.
I .tlJf3 tlJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tlJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.d4
Critical was 3 1 . .J3:e8 32.�e l �f5! 33.�fl �xd5
0-0 6 ..ie2 e5 7.0-0 tlJc6 8.d5 tlJe7 9.b4
34.l2Jc7 �ed8 35.l2Jxd5 �xd5, when White has
tlJhS IO.�el!
decent drawing chances, but Black should be
happy with the way things are going.
8
32J�el!;f; �e8 33.�e5 �e7 34.�xh5 �ef7 7
3S.@h2! .icl 36.�e5 �fl 37.�e4 �dl
38.�xg4t 6
5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
This idea was introduced by Ivan Sokolov

and quickly became one of the big main lines
of the King's Indian.
a b c d e f g h lO ... tlJf4 I I ..ifl aS 1 2.bxa5 �xa5 13.tlJd2

c5 14.a4 �a6 1 5.�a3 g5!?
38 ... @h7??
A simple blunder that loses the game
immediately and shows the pressure Kasparov 8
has been under for most of the game. 7
38 . . . @h8! 39.�e4 �xd5 40.l2Je5 looks 6
dangerous, but after 40 . . . �f2!, with 5
counterplay against g2, Black would have his
chances as well. 4
3
39.tlJe5 �e7 40.tlJf8t
2
1-0
1
A messy game that should by no means make us
a b c d e f g h
lose heart, but this is exactly what Kasparov did
after losing his second full-length tournament A novelty at the time. Black offers a pawn in
game in the King's Indian to Kramnik a few return for White making some concessions on
years later. his kingside.
1 6.g3 �xe4 28.�d3 �xd3 29Jhd3 �b8! and Black

Kramnik accepts the challenge. has enough counterplay for the pawn.
24 . . . �h5
I6 ... �h3t 17.hlt3 .ixh3 18.YMh5 YMd7 24 . . . �f7!oo was stronger.
19.YMxg5 25.ttJd2 ttJ d4 26.ttJxd4 exd4 27.�e7?
27.ttJ e4± was probably a bit better for White.
Instead he is blown off the board.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
27 . . . b5!!
19 ... h6?
An amazing idea, activating the rook on a6.
Later it turned out that this was the
28.cxb5 �a7!! 29.�el
moment where Black lost the opening battle.
29.�xa7 �e2 and White is mated.
Subsequent games mainly took the following
direction:
1 9 .. .f5!? 20.exf5
The critical line is probably 20.f3 f4oo, as in
Balcazar Novoa - Craciunescu, email 2006.
20 . . . ttJ xf5 2 l .ttJf3 �e8 22.�d2 h6 23.ttJb5
�g6 24.�c2
24.ltJc7 is met with the active:
a b c d e f g h
29 . . . �xf2!
The attack does not slow down.
30.<j;>xf2 ifS 3 l .�e4 �xh2t 32.<j;>e l �h l t
33.ttJfl
33. <j;>e2 �e7! and White's position is
collapsing.
33 . . .ixe4 34.�h2 �xh2 35.ttJxh2
a b c d e f g h White has managed to avoid mate, but the
24 ... e4! 25.ltJxa6 bxa6 26J�xe4 ltJxg3 27.hxg3 ending is not much fun either.
8
2 5 .f3 ih5� would give Black great counterplay.
The knight comes to e5 and the white pieces
7
will find it hard to become active.
6
5 25 ... �g6 26.ggl ha t

4 26 . . . <;t>h8 was tried in Baeckstroem -
3 Petraitis, corr. 2002.
2
a b c d e f g h
35 . . . �b7 36.if4 c4 37.ixd6 c3 38.ltJg4 h5

39.4Jf2 ixd5 40.ltJd3 ic4 0- 1 Goncalves -
Sender, corr. 200 1 .
20.�e3 f5 2 1 .�e2 f4 22.� b5 <if?h7

22 . . . ttJg6 was met strongly by 23.<;t>h 1 !
<;t>h? 24.�g 1 ± in Szeberenyi - Zimmerman,
a b c d e f g h
Budapest 1 999.
White is much better after 27.ltJc7! �b6
23.gxf4! 28.h3!±.
The opening of the kingside turns out to be
to White's advantage. 27.�xf3 �e5 28.�h5 �f7 29.�h3 �xc4?!
Black wins back his pawn, bur White
23 ... exf4 24.<if?hl .ig4 is allowed to activate all of his inactive
pieces and start a great attack. The position
was dismal anyway, but this cut the game
8 short.
7
30.gf3! .ie5
6
5
8
4
7
3
6
2
5
1
4
a b c d e f g h
3
25.�f3!!
2
The star move of the game. Kramnik enters
into a pin voluntarily, knowing it to be 1
temporary. a b c d e f g h
3 1 .�c7!! gxa4 My Games

3 1 .. Y!Jxc7 32.�xh6t leads to mate.
Vladimir Kramnik - Ilya Smirin
32.Lf4!
Moscow 1 992
1-0
Kasparov resigned on account of: 32 ... .ixf4
This game was played in the Alekhine Open.
33.tDe6 :gg8 34.:gxg8 �xg8
In 1 992 Vladimir Kramnik was not yet such
a formidable player, but he was already one of
8
the strongest in the world. Playing him with
7 Black was a serious test.
6
5
l.d4 �f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 g6 4.�c3 .ig7 5.e4
0-0 6.�f3 d6 7.h3
4
3
8
2
7
a b c d e f g h 6
3 5.�f5t �h8 36.�f6t �h7 37.tt:Jf8t 5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
7... e6
Actually this is a mix of the King's Indian
and Benoni openings. Still I think it's logical to
consider this opening as a King's Indian - the
pawn structure is similar and the bishop is on
g7 after all!
On a few occasions I have played a slightly

different version here: 7 . . . tt:Ja6 8.id3 tD c7
9.0-0 e5. It's not a big difference - Black is
still worse. The position is somewhat cramped
and White's forthcoming offensive on the
queenside may be very unpleasant. Yes, Black
has possibilities for active play on the opposite
wing, but they are not easy to carry out. His
practical chances should not be underestimated
though, and Black's position is solid.
s ..id3 tlJa6 9 .ie3 was played against me by the very

I used to play this system sometimes. talented and almost forgotten player Leonid
The main (and better) continuation here Zaid: 9 . . . ltJ c7 1 0.e5 (this leads to a sharp
is 8 . . . exd5 9.cxd5 (or 9.exd5 �e8t 1 0.ie3) battle) 1 0 . . . dxe5 1 1 .ixc5 :ge8 1 2.d6 ltJa6
9 . . . b5 1 0.ixb5 (or l O.ltJxb5) 1 0 . . . ltJxe4 with 1 3.ia3 ltJd7 1 4.0-0 f5 1 5.ie2 b6!? 1 6.ltJd5!
a lot of theory to follow. I was never fond of
entering this theoretical discussion and usually 8
preferred the move in the game, even though it 7
is objectively rather dubious, as I said.
6 l r.JI\ �A'%
3
r�" " """
'"/
a b c d e f g h
1 6 . . . ttJ dc5 1 7.ltJe7t �xe7 1 8.dxe7 �xe7 1 9.b4

ltJd7 20.c5 e4 2 1 .ltJd4 ltJe5 22.�c l ltJc7
23.ltJb5 ltJd5 with good compensation for the
exchange; (0- 1 , 39) Zaid - Smirin, Israel 1 99 1 .
9 ... h6 10 .ie3 tlJ c7 l l .Y:Yd2

.
A standard manoeuvre: White gains a tempo

by attacking the pawn on h6.
l l . .. <it>h7 12.0-0
a b c d e f g h
1 5 .ic2! ltJf4 1 6.ia4 cxb4 1 7.ixd7 �xd7

1 8.axb4 f5 1 9.exf5 �xf5 20.ltJe4, with an
overwhelming positional advantage; ( 1-0, 42)
Beliavsky - Ilya Smirin, Moscow 1 988.
1 4.a3 aS etc. Today I would probably choose Prophylactic defence of the pawn on h3.
this livelier structure, despite the knight on c7 Meanwhile, Vladimir is planning to regroup
being placed slightly passively - it would look this knight to e2. Also, the pawn on f2 may
better on d7. But how to carry out . . . b7-b5 move now - either one or two squares - if an
then? appropriate moment arises. But this is quite a
distant prospect.
13.�h2 llJh5 14.g3
Keeping the knight out of f4. 1 6 ....id7 17.aS b6
With the slim hope that White will not take
14 ... a6 on b6 and this pawn will go further. Alas . . .
This is not the time to start play on the
kingside: 1 4 . . . f5 ? 1 5 .exf5 gxfS 1 8.axb6 gxb6 19. llJ ge2
8
8
7
7
6
5
6
4 5
3 4
2
3
2
a b c d e f g h
1
1 6.g4! e4 1 7.ltJxe4. Black has no choice but
to try to do something on the queenside - the a b c d e f g h
area of White's supremacy. 19 ... £5
It's not clear which side will benefit more
from this advance, but Black has to do
something.
8 The alternative 1 9 . . . 'W'c8 20.g4 tt:Jf6 2 1 .cj;>g2
hS 22.:gh 1 ! seems to be too passive.
7
6 20.exf5 gxf5 2 1 .gab1
5 White protects the b-pawn and implies that
b2-b4 will become possible.
4
3 Black would welcome 2 l .g4 e4 22.gxh5 exd3
23.'W'xd3 :gxb2, with real counterplay.
2
2I. .. llJf6
b d f g h
2 1 . . . f5-f4 is impossible due to the pin, and
a c e
this advance cannot be prepared by means of
16.llJg1!? 2 1 . .. cj{ h8? because of 22.ixh6.
I did not want to play 2 1 . .. e4 22 . .ic2 either - This was the better option - Black's king
it is not clear how to develop an initiative, and becomes more open, but his pieces get some
meanwhile some weaknesses (such as the f4- oxygen and the pawn on f4 offers hope of
square becoming available to the white knight) doing something on the kingside. After let's
have been created. say 28.ltJec3 (28.b4 .if5 is unclear) 28 . . . .if5
29.E!g5 ltJh7 White probably has a positional
22.f3 edge, but Black is not without counter-chances
Just in case, Vladimir deprives Black of a and the situation remains tense.
possible . . . e5-e4.
25.b3 %YeS
22 ... h5!? All of Black's pieces are now well-placed,
Black made this move to fi n ally escape the with one notable exception - the knight on c7.
unpleasant pin along the b 1 -h7 diagonal. As Siegbert Tarrasch used to say: "If one piece
is bad the whole position is bad." This applies
23.�c2 @gs 24.� dl to this game to a certain extent.
26J�gl!?
Another prophylactic move "just in case".
� !�'
�.!1•r
- :-�- -��
�.Lr•• � •
6
5
4 �-�"��
Y,� �� "��i'i!�� JY£0
� �-,.�,�i
"
x
Now White is ready to start the queenside

attack after an eventual b2-b4. I decided to
stop it physically for a while.
��-lLS� �--
a b c d e f g h
26... a5
24 .. J�b4?! Intending to play . . . a5-a4 to undermine the
24 . . . h4!? 25.gxh4 f4 26.if2 'Wc8 27.E!g1 .ixh3
white pawn chain on the queenside.
8
Intuitively I did not want to play 26 . . . e4 here.
7 The following sample variation shows that
6 White remains on top: 27.ltJf4 exf3 28.'\Wf2!
5 a5 29.�xf3 a4 30 ..id2 axb3 3 l ..ixb3 E!b7
4
32 ..ic2 E!xb 1 33 ..ixb 1 ltJe4 34 . .ixe4! fxe4
35 .�e2 and despite the simplification, Black
3
is worse - the pawns on h5 and e4 are about
2 to fall.
a b c d e f g h
27 ..ih6! We may conclude that Black has been

White wants to exchange the g7 -bishop, the outplayed - he has weaknesses on both wings
main potential defender of Black's king. without real counterplay.
27.'Dcl deserved some attention as well - 30 ... e4

White is going to play 'D d3 or 'Da2 in order to This kind of desperate move (the black king
win the aS-pawn after the rook retreats from now becomes really weak) could have led to
b4. The following line looks logical and almost a loss by force. Still it was not a bad decision
forced: 27 . . . a4 28.'Da2 gb8 29.bxa4 gxb l - after all, I managed to draw the game! I
30.ixb l ixa4 3 1 .ixf5 'D fxd5 32.ie4 'D f6 was eager to obtain counter-chances at any
and in the event of 33.�xd6 'Dxe4 34.fxe4 price.
'D e6 35.'Dac3 White remains the stronger side;
but, as is often the case in the King's Indian, If Black had proceeded instead with
Black has some compensation and reasonable 30 . . . a4, trying to open the queenside, then
practical chances for the pawn. after 3 1 .'Dd3 gbb8 32.bxa4 e4 (the only real
try) 33.fxe4 fxe4 34.'D df4 gb4 3S .ggb l ! (the
27 ...'1Mg6 28.bg7 '1Mxg7 29.ltH2 key move) 35 . . .gxc4 36.gb7
Mter the exchange of dark-squared bishops
the unfortunate placement of the knight on c7
is felt even more. Black has to hurry to really
include it in the battle. The question is: "Can
he?"
29 .. J!a8
From a practical point of view the following
pawn sacrifice deserved some consideration:
29 . . . �h8!? 30.'Dd3 gb7 3 1 .�xa5 gg8, trying
to fi s h in troubled waters. But objectively the
compensation is clearly insufficient. Moreover, a b c d e f g h
I did not yet feel that Black's position was so
. . . the rook would penetrate with devastating
dangerous strategically.
effect, for instance: 36 . . . 'Dg4t (36 . . . 'D fe8
30J!al! 37.ga2 ic8 38.gb6 would prolong the game,
but Black's pieces work as single units - there
is no coordination between them whatsoever.
His position will soon fall apart) 37.hxg4
�xa l 38.gxc7 �b2 39.'Dxh5 gxc2 40.�g5t,
with a complete rout.
31 .fxe4 l!Jxe4 32.lbxe4 fxe4 33.l!Jf4 '1Md4!?

This and the next move is the only option
to complicate White's task. Passive defence did
not offer any hope.
34.'1Me2 a4 35.'1Mxh5
a b c d e f g h
35.lt:Jxh5 would lead to a winning position 40 'lMf8 41 .'lMxd7

.•.
too, but the move made by Kramnik is more Now 4 1 .Wg5t would lead to a draw -
natural and no less strong. threefold repetition.
35 ...axb3 36J�xa8t llJxa8 37.'lMg5t 'lMg7 41. bxc2

•.
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
38.'lMd8t 42.'lMg4t
Vladimir did not find the forced win: Finally missing the win. It was not trivial
38.lt:Jg6! bxc2 (other moves don't save Black though: White must first play 42.Ek l ! El:xc4
either) 39.Wd8t i>h7 (39 . . . i>f7 40.lt:J h8t) and only after that 43.We6t Wf7 44.Wxd6.
40.lt:Jf8t i>h6 Black cannot hold this - j ust look at the knight
on a8!
8
7 42 'lMg7 43.'lMc8t 'lM£8 44.'lMe6t 'lMf7

•..
6
45.'lMxe4
Now 45 .Wxd6 El:b l ! would lead to a draw
5
the c-pawn is too strong.
4
3
8
2
7
a b c d e f g h
6
4 1 .Wh4# Truthfully, I also failed to see it - it 5
was not so easy to spot in mild time trouble. 4
38 ...'lMf8 39.'lMg5t 'lMg7 40.'iMd8t? 3

Kramnik could still have won as shown 2
below, but instead he preferred to repeat the
1
position.
a b c d e f g h
45 ... �b6! Vladimir Kramnik - Ilya Smirin

This knight was bad on c7 and miserable on
Moscow 1 995
a8, but now it proudly joins the battle.
This game was played in a short (two games)
46JWxc2 �xc4 47.�c3 �e5
match with a rapid time control. The match
Suddenly all of Black's pieces become very
was a part of the excellently organized
active.
Professional Chess Association (PCA) cycle
of tournaments which took place in cities like
48J�al �b7 49.�a3
New York, Moscow, Paris and London. The
venues for these events were also very good,
such as the Javits Convention Center in New
York. The PCA was founded in 1 993 and
ceased to exist in 1 996. Pity! Those events had
a 1 6-player knockout format, among them
1 0 invited personally and six qualifying from
Swiss-system tournaments. The invitees, such
as Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik and Ivanchuk,
were the strongest players in the world. The
qualification tournaments were also high
level events. I managed to qualify four times
in a row, which I consider one of the main
b d f g h
a c e
achievements in my career. On the fifth
occasion I was invited directly to the final (in
Vladimir offered a draw, which I accepted. New York in 1 995) . The World Champion,
Black is not worse, but he has no real grounds Carry Kasparov, was the main force in creating
to play for a win - his king is too exposed. The the PCA, and (alas) he was also responsible
following logical variation 49 . . . gb2t 50.�h 1 for its death. Once again, it's a pity that it all
c4!? 5 1 .Wxd6 gb 1 t 52.gxb 1 Wxb 1 t 53. �g2 ended after three years, but at least those years
We4t 54.�h2 (the only move) 54 ... tDf3t were very productive and left their mark on
55.�h 1 leads to a draw by force. modern chess history.
1!2-lf2
1 .�8 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.lLlc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.d4
0-0 6.i.e2 e5 7 .d5
Again the Petrosian System.
7...a5 8.h3
A relatively rare continuation in this
particular position. Often the game transposes
to the 6.lD f3 0-0 7.h3 e5 8.d5 line.
8.ig5 would lead to the "pure" Petrosian

System.
8 ... �a6 9.i.g5

Black transfers this knight to c5 and

implements the . . . f7-f5 push after that. The
main negatives are a certain loss of time and
the non-ideal placement of the knight on a6.
Vassily lvanchuk chose a different route for
the knight in his encounter with Kramnik from
the same tournament: 1 o . . . lt:Jh5 1 1 .CtJd2 lt:J f4
1 2.ifl ctJc5 1 3.CtJb3 b6 1 4.g3 lt:Jh5 1 5 .ctJxc5
bxc5 1 6.'1Wd2 @h? 1 7.ie2 CtJ f6 1 8.0-0-0 '1We7
1 9.g4 CtJd7 20.h4 lt:J b6 2 1 .h5 g5 ; (Yz-Yz, 35)
Kramnik - lvanchuk, Moscow 1 995.
l l .Y*fd2 @h? 1 2.g4 �deS 13.0-0-0 f5

9... h6 A risky continuation. Now the black king
Later in this position I preferred to avoid becomes more open, but there was nothing
or to postpone this move, which somewhat better.
weakens Black's kingside formation. A relatively
recent example is 9 . . . lt:Jc5 1 0.ctJd2 id? 1 1 .h4 14.exf5 gxf5
h6 1 2.ie3 h5 1 3.f3 c6 ( 1 3 . . . a4!?) 1 4.CtJb3
cxd5 1 5 .ctJxc5 d4 1 6.lt:Jxd7 '1Wxd7 1 7.ctJa4 8
( 1 7.ixd4!? exd4 1 8.'1Wxd4±) 1 7 . . . dxe3 1 8 .ctJ b6
7
'1Wc7 1 9.ctJxa8 El:xa8 20.'1Wd3 ih6 2 1 .g3 lt:Jd7
22.Ei:d 1 Ei:a6 with good compensation for 6
exchange; (Yz-Yz, 4 1 ) Cramling - Smirin, 5
Stockholm 20 1 2.
4
IO ..ie3 3
2
a b c d e f g h
I SJ!dgl !
A strong move. The target - the black king.
1 5 ...Y*fe7
It's better for Black to refrain from moving
the central pawns: 1 5 . . . e4 1 6.ctJe1 '1Wf6 1 7.g5
hxg5 1 8.ixg5 '1Wd4 1 9.'1Wf4 and the king
is under attack, or 1 5 .. .f4? 1 6.ixc5 ctJxc5
1 7.'1Wc2t @g8 1 8.lt:Je4 and Black is strategically
lost - his bishop on g7 is firmly blocked and
White controls the vital light squares on the
b 1 -h7 diagonal.
1 6.gxf5 d3 and threatening to play 2 l .ih5 (or ig4 in

Not the best choice, helping Black to activate some cases) deserved serious attention.
the c8-bishop. After 1 6.g5! f4 1 7.ixc5 'Dxc5
1 8 .id3t if5 ( 1 8 . . . e4 1 9.'Dxe4 'Dxe4 20.'\Wc2 20 ...e4 2 1 .�el .ieS!
if5 2 1 .'Dh4 �ae8 22.�e l ±) 1 9.ixf5t �xf5 Of course 2 l . . . 'Da6? is out of the question.
20.gxh6 if6 The knight on b4 is a kamikaze at the moment.
22J�e3
22.axb4? axb4 in turn is also out of the
question.
8
7
6
5
a b c d e f g h
4
2 1 .�g4!? <;t>h8 22.�c2 e4 23.<;t>b l White's
chances should be preferred - the opponent's 3
king feels unsafe. 2
16 ....bfs 17J�g3 �b4 1 8 ..ixc5

Of course not 1 8.�hgl ? 'Dxa2t. a b c d e f g h
22 ...YMh4?
1 8 ... dxc5 19J�hgl �H7 The wrong step.
More precise was 1 9 . . . .if6 20.a3 e4, but this
was hard to determine during a rapid game. I should have played 22 ... if4, resulting in a
sharp and completely unclear position with
8 both kings in potential danger. In the event of
the brave and greedy 23.axb4?! axb4 24.'D b 1
7
�a2 25.ig4 .ig6 26.'Dg2 ie5 27.�b3 b5!?00
6 White's extra piece doesn't immediately make
5 its presence felt.
4 23.�bl?
3 Too soft.
After the energetic 23 ..ig4! ixg4 (23 . . .if4
2 24.axb4 [now it's time!] 24 . . . axb4 25 .ixf5t
�xf5 26.'Dxe4) 24.�xg4 �xf2 25.'Dxe4 �xd2t
b d f g h
26.<;t>xd2 ixb2 27.axb4 axb4 28.'Df3 �a2
a c e
29.@d3 White would have a clear advantage
20.a3 in the endgame - the compensation for the
20.'Del !?, providing extra cover for c2 and piece is clearly insufficient.
23 ... tLla6 3 1 .tLlg4

It's time to retreat!
8
24 ..ig4 .ig6
7
8 6
7 5
6 4
5 3
4 2
3 1
2 a b c d e f g h
3 1 . .. tiJd7
Mter the centralizing 3 l . . . tDc6! I would have
a b c d e f g h
been on the verge of winning - the knight will
25.gg2 go to d4 (could it have dreamed about that just
Vladimir decides to part with the exchange. seven or eight moves ago?) .
Indeed, he will have clear compensation,
mostly because of the poor coordination of 32.tiJc3 YNg5 33.'iNel tlJ f6 34.%Vgl tLlxg4
Black's pieces. In particular, the knight on a6 is 35.gxg4 YNf6 36.%Vg2?
currently searching for something at the edge Correct was the simple 36.ttJxe4 ixe4
of the board, far from its colleagues. But if it 37J:he4 gg7 38.Wb l �h8 39.Wc l and White
manages to become useful without making is OK - the bishop on e6 plus a pawn are not
substantial concessions, the extra exchange will inferior to the black rook.
start to become significant.
8
In my (and the computer's) opinion 25.lDdl
was a better way to give up the exchange after 7
25 . . . if4 or 25 . . . ih2!? 26J�g2 if4. 6
25 ....if4 26.tlJc2 gam 27.tiJdl .ixe3 5

28.tLlcxe3 b6 4
Not forgetting about the pawn on aS.
3
29.<tt> a2 tiJb8 2
The knight is coming closer!
30 ..ie6 ge7 a b c d e f g h
Black has managed to stabilize the position 36 ... gxe6?
and with the extra exchange may look to the This was unnecessary.
future with hope.
36 . . . �g7 37.lLlxe4 Wf3-+ would have led to

a winning position - there is no compensation
any more.
8
37.dxe6 Wxe6 38.'it>al 7
The smoke has cleared. Black has an extra 6
pawn and an obvious advantage.
5
38 ... e3?! 4
The most rational approach was 38 . . . �f3
3
39.�g3 �d3, with j ust a few technical
difficulties remaining, but adrenaline drove 2
me forward!
1
39.fxe3 .id3 40.Wd5!? a b c d e f g h
40.�g7t mhs 4 L�xc7 We5 42.�b7 �fl t 50.gxd6?
43.ma2 ixc4t 44.b3 Wxc3 45 .�b8t mh7 It seems that in time trouble Vladimir lost
46.We4t mg7 47.Wg4t mh7 48.We4t with a his usually cool state of mind.
"simple" perpetual.
The other capture 50.�xh6 �d 1 (50 ... dxe5
40 ... Wxd5 4l.cxd5 go 42.e4 gxh3 43.e5 5 l .�xb6 e4 52.mb3 should be drawish as well)
ge3 5 l .exd6 md7 etc. would lead to a simple draw
Vladimir had little time left; I was better in in the "three versus two" rook ending.
this aspect.
50 ... h5 5 l .gxb6 gxe5
8 The rook ending is on the board! All the black
pawns are separated, but the extra h-pawn is a
7 dangerous passer.
6
52. 'it>b3 i> f7 53. 'it>a4
5
4
3
2
a b c d e f g h
44.d6!
Correct. This endgame activity should have
led to a draw.
44 ... cxd6 45.ltJd5 gel t 46.'it>a2 .ig6

46 . . . �xe5?? 47.lLlf6t mh8 48.�g8# a b c d e f g h
53 ... ®g7?
8
With just three pawns left, one should take
more care not to give up any of them easily. 7
6
Correct was 53 ... c4 54.Ek6 �g5 ! (I did not
see this move) and Black is close to winning 5
with the white king stuck on a4 - 5 5 .�c7t 4
(certainly not 5 5 .�xc4? �g4) 55 . . . \t>e6 56.Ek8
�d7 57.�h8 �c5 and so on. 3
2
54.®xa5 h4
1
a b c d e f g h
8
62 ... ®g2?
7
I needed to cool down here (as I remember,
6 I still had more than one minute) , take a deep
5 breath and play 62 . . . �g l 63.�xh2t �xh2
64.�b5 �cl 65 .a5 \t>g3 66.a6 c4, when White
4 should resign.
3
63J3xh2t ®xh2 64. ®h5
2 Now the rook is placed slightly differently
1 (not stopping the a-pawn from behind) and it
b d f g h
means that the win has j ust slipped away.
a c e
55J�b7t?! 64... ®g3 65.a5 c4t 66.®xc4 gxa5 67.b4

From now on the lack of time started to tell gh5 68.h5 ®f4 69.h6 ®e5 70.h7 ghs
more and more. 71. ®c5 ®e6 72. ®c6
Very soon only two kings will remain on the
55 .�d6 h3 56.�d2 �h5 57.�h2 �f6 58.a4= board, so we agreed a draw. An interesting game
with lots of ups and downs. Unfortunately, the
55 ... ®g6 56J�b6t last mistake was mine.
Time trouble. . . Why push the black king 1!2-If2
toward supporting his passed pawn? 56.�d7
would draw easily.
56 ... ®g5 57J�b8 ®g4 58.a4 h3 59J�g8t?

This should have been the losing mistake.
59.�d8 h2 60.�d l �f3 6 l .�b5 was still

enough for a draw.
59 .. J3g5 60J3d8 h2 6I J3dl ®h3 62J�hl

Vladimir Kramnik - Ilya Smirin 1 6.a4!

An impressive piece sacrifice; White has
Belgrade 1 999
three pawns for it, one of which - on c7 - is
I would not have included this game if it incredibly annoying for Black.
had not been one of my four games against 1 6 . . . ia6 1 7.ltJb3 ixb5 1 8.cxb5 iWxc7
Kramnik. But it is, so here it is. Besides, his 1 9.ltJxa5 iWxa5 20.g3 ltJxe2t 2 1 .iWxe2
play in the opening phase of the game may White won very convincingly in Pelletier
serve as an example of neutralizing Black's - Nakamura, Skopje 20 1 5. Yannick Pelletier
counterplay in the Bayonet. revealed after the game that he had been
waiting for several years to implement this
I .llJf3 llJf6 2.c4 g6 3.lDc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.d4 idea.
0-0 6..ie2 e5 7.0-0 lDc6 8.d5 lDe7 9.b4 aS
IO ..ia3 b6 l l .bxa5 lDh5 1 2 ... £5 13 ..ih4!
This looks stronger than 1 3.ltJd2, as was
played by Bareev against me in the game on
8
page 205.
7
6 13 ...bxa5 14 ..ia3
5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
12J3el
A serious blow to this line was delivered by
the following recent game:
1 2.ltJd2 tt:Jf4 1 3.axb6!
a b c d e f g h
The novelty that possibly kills this particular
variation. 14... llJf6
13 .. J�xa3 1 4.ltJb5 :gaS 1 5 .bxc7 iWd7 After this game I switched to 1 4 ... tt:J f4, but
also without much success - see the annotations
to the game Bareev - Smirin page 205.
15 ..id3!
A strong positional move. Now the pawn
e4 is firmly protected in a convenient way and
Black has problems finding counterplay.
I was hoping for 1 5 .ltJd2 ih6!, with a position

to my taste.
a b c d e f g h
1 5 ... fxe4 16.ll:)xe4 .ig4 24.�fl !

I could not find anything better; nor do I see This strong prophylactic move takes away
anything now. even a hint of counterplay and Black is doomed
to passive defence.
24 ...'1Me7 25.h3 .ixf3 26 ..ixf3 .i£8

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
This move defines White's strategic advantage
- he has more space, he has more active pieces 27.g3
and he has a plan, connected with the usual Not the most accurate move.
c4-c5. Black, alas, has none of that. He may
just hope that his position will be solid enough After the precise 27.ie4! (this move is useful
to survive - surely not the dream of those who, in any case, and White can carry out the plan
like me, are loyal servants of the King's Indian. with g3, h4 and so on later) 27 . . . �e8 28.El:fb l
�a4 29.El:c6 Black i s left with all his problems
18 ... ll:)f5 19.'1Md3 �f7 20.�ab l .ih6 2 1 .c5 while White controls the important b- and
According to plan. c-files.
A slight hint of counterplay against the f2-

pawn.
8
22.cxd6 cxd6 23.�b6 �d8?! 7
Too passive. Also, the a-pawn is now left on 6
its own.
5
Correct was 23 . . . ixf3 24.�xf3 �d8 25.El:eb l 4
'Lld4 26.�d3 ifS and Black may count on a
successful defence - at least he has a central
3
knight on d4 and the d-pawn is protected for 2
now.
a b c d e f g h
29 .. Jk8?! 31 .. J:k5
Much stronger was 29 .. J�b8 30.Ek 1 �d7 3 1 . .. ig7 32.ic3 El:c5 33.El:b 1 �f8 34.El:b2±.
(attacking the pawn on h3!) 3 J.lit>g2 �a4 and
suddenly Black seems to be more or less OK. 32 ..ixd4 exd4 33.%Vxd4 �b5
For example: 32.h4 (32.Ek4 �b5)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d e f g h 1
32 . . . lLl b3! 33.ixg6 hxg6 34.�xg6t ig7 a b c d e f g h
35 .El:b6 El:bf8 36.El:xb3 El:f6! 37.�c2 El:xf2t 34.�c6?
38.�xf2 El:xf2t 39.<it>xf2 �d4t 40.<it>g2 �xd5t But this is the wrong move.
and in the resulting position the queen is not White should have exchanged his passive
inferior to the pair of rooks. rook on fl : 34.El:b 1 ! ig7 35 .�d2 and White
should win - the a-pawn will fall or Black's
8 king will be under attack.
7
34 ... �b4 35.�c4
6 35 .�d3 El:b2 would lead to a similar position
5 to that which arose in the game.
4 35 ....ig7 36.%Vd3 �b2 37.�c2 Wb6 38.�c8t

3 .ifS 39.�c2 .ig7
2
8
1
7
a b c d e f g h
6
30.Wg2
My hopes were connected with 30.El:c 1 5
�xc 1 t 3 1 .ixc 1 El:xc 1 t 32.<it>g2 El:c2. Vladimir 4
avoids that, of course.
3
30 ...%Vd8 3I..ib2 2
White has regained control - there is not
1
much that Black can do.
a b c d e f g h
Black's heavy pieces are quite active - White

has serious problems converting his extra
pawn.
8
40 ..if3?! 7
I believe that the immediate 40.h4 would 6
offer better winning chances. 40 . . . .id4? would
be bad due to 4 l ..ixg6!. 5
4
40 ....id4 41 .h4 g7 42J�d2
42.h5!? deserved attention, with the idea
3
42 . . . gxh5?! 43.�h l .ixf2? 44.�xh5 h6 45 .Wfd2. 2
42 .. J�xd2 43.Y;Vxd2 Y;Vb4 44.Y;Ve2 Y;Vb2

Black is chasing the white queen and a b c d e f g h
Kramnik has nothing better than to exchange 5 l .�e2
it. Vladimir spent some time considering
the attempt 5 l ..ig4!? �xf2t 52.@g3 �xa2
53 . .ie6t @f8 54.�f7t @e8 5 5 .�xh7. In
the end he decided against it. After 55 . . . �al
8 (55 . . . a4? 56.h5 gxh5 57.g6 .id4 58.g7 .ie5t
59.@f3 .ixg7 60.�xg7 a3 6 l .�a7) 56 ..if7t
7
@f8 57 . .ixg6 a4 58.h5 �gl t 59.@f4 a3
6 60.�h8t @g7 6 l .�a8 �fl t 62.@e4 �e l t the
game would be drawn anyway.
5
4 51 ... �xe2 52 ..ixe2 <t!/g7
3 The draw is evident. The final moves were
made by White out of inertia.
2
1 53 ..ih5 h6 54..ie8 hxg5 55.hxg5 .ih4
56.f3 .id2 57.<t!/g4 .iel 58.£4 .id2 59.f3
a b c d e f g h
.icl 60.e4 .id2 61 .f3 .icl 62.<t!/g4 .id2
It seems that in this ending with bishops of 63.£5 gxf5t 64.xf5 .ih4 65.ci>e6 .ic5
opposite colours Black may hold - White can 66.e7 .ib4 67.ci>d8 .ic5 68.ci>c7 .ih4
hardly avoid the exchange of rooks due to the 69.h6 <tt> rs ?o ..ihs g? ?Lhs <tt> rs
pressure on f2. 72 ..idl g7 73 ..ic2 ci>f8 74. a4 g7
75.a3 .ic5
46 ....id4 47.�e4 .ic5 48.g4 �b7 49.g5 •!2- l/2
49.�e2 .id4 50 . .ie4 �b2 does not change
anything.
Vladimir Kramnik - Ilya Smirin The so-called Bayonet Attack - the most
straightforward way of developing a queenside
Russia - ROW (rapid) 2002
initiative.
This game is memorable for me for two 9... �h5
reasons: it is my only win over a reigning World Another popular line is 9 . . . a5, trying to play
Champion (albeit in a rapid game) and the on "White's" part of the board.
event in which it was played was a very special
one. The match Russia - Rest of the World was IOJ�el
the third such competition in the history of This is Vladimir Kramnik's pet line. His
chess. In the first two, in 1 970 and 1 984, the results in it are very impressive - for example,
Soviet Union team (which no longer existed in I will mention below his win against Carry
2002 and was replaced by Russia) had beaten Kasparov in his prime years.
the World team by 1 and 2 point margins
respectively. But this time the ROW team won IO ... a5
with a 52-48 score (the rapid time control The second most popular move in this
format allowed so many games to be played) . position. The first is 1 o . . . f5, after which play
Each team consisted of 1 0 players plus a few usually goes 1 1 .tLlg5 lLlf6 1 2.i.f3 (or 1 2.f3) .
reserves. It was an honour for me to be a part of
the World team. The Russian team line-up was l l .bxa5 f5
exceptionally strong: 3Ks (Karpov, Kasparov, This is a rather risky move. I played it mainly
Kramnik) plus such players as Morozevich, for practical reasons, hoping that my opponent
Grischuk and Svidler. Our team was also not would not be too familiar with this line.
so bad - Anand, lvanchuk, Gelfand, Shirov etc.
I think it was the strongest team versus team The main continuation is 1 1 .. Jha5 1 2.lLld2
chess competition at least since 1 970 - the year lLl f4 1 3.i.fl c5 1 4.a4 (including Kramnik's
of the original "Match of the Century". The win over Kasparov after a transposition of
Kremlin Palace of Congresses in Moscow was moves - see page 4 1 ) .
the venue for the match.
l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.�f3

0-0 6 ..ie2 e5 7.0-0 �c6 8.d5 �e7 9.h4
a b c d e f g h
think the resulting semi-closed posmon

slightly favours White, mainly because the
knight on f4 is somewhat misplaced. Often
it goes back to h5 and f6, losing time in the
process.
a b c d e f g h
1 2.tlJd2 emotionally attached. As compensation he

1 2.c5!? gains the central pawn on e4.
1 2 ... ttJf6 13.c5 17.'l;Yxd2 fxe4 1 8.�b5

In 200 1 Radjabov played 1 3.f3 !haS
1 4.ttJb3 !!a8 1 5 .c5 against me. You will find
8
this game on page 242.
7
13 .. J�xa5 14.cxd6 cxd6 15.a4!? 6
1 5 .ltJ c4 !!a6
5
8 4
7 3
6 2
5 1
4 a b c d e f g h
3 1 8 ...�£5
This move was asking to be played - Black
2 develops the bishop while protecting his extra
1 pawn - but now I consider it to be inaccurate.
a b c d e f g h
Better was the prophylactic 1 8 . . . !!a8 and in the
This move serves two purposes: White gains event of 1 9.ltJxe4 ltJxe4 20.!!xe4 id7 2 l .i.fl
space on the left wing (the b5-square is now ixa4 22.i.xd6 'Mfxd6 23.!!axa4 !!xa4 24.!!xa4
under firm control) and at the same time \t>g7 the draw should not be far away.
prepares to develop the bishop on a3. From
there it will exert strong pressure on the most 19.h3 �aS 20.g4
valuable pawn in Black's camp - the d-pawn. White gets the pawn back, but his king's
shelter becomes slightly weaker.
1 5 ...�h6
By activating this bishop, Black sets a small Instead 20.!!ac 1 deserved serious attention.
trap. White j ust improves his position, gradually
applying pressure on the opponent's position.
16.�a3 Indeed, it's not so easy to offer a good plan for
The trap was 1 6.ttJc4 i.xc l 1 7.ltJxa5 ? i.b2. Black, whereas White has plenty of ways to
Of course, I did not expect Vladimir to fall proceed: i.b4, 'Mfa2-a3 etc.
into it.
20 ... �c8 2 I .tlJxe4 tlJxe4 22.�xe4 �d7!
16 ...�xd2 23.�fl
Almost forced, but not at all a bad move. Interesting complications could arise
It's true that Black parts with the dark after: 23.i.xd6!? ixb5 24.ixe5 i.e8 25.ib2
squared bishop, to which I sometimes feel (25 .'1Mfh6 !!f7) 25 . . . ttJxd5
compensation. Only the two bishops give him

some hope.
25J!a3 gcs 26.gc3 %Yb6 27 ..ig2 gxc3

28 ..ixc3 .ih3 29.gel .ic4 30 ..ia5 %Yb7
3 1 .gdl gf4 32 ..ic3 .ih3
8
7
a b c d e f g h
6
26J�e6!! tt:Jf4!? (26 .. Jha4? 27Jha4 ixa4
28.'1!Md4; 26 . . . ic6 27.'1!Md4 tt:Jf6=) 27.'1!Mc3
5
tt:Jxh3t 28.@h2 El:xf2t 29.<tt> xh3 El:xb2 30.'1!Mxb2 4
Wfd3t 3 I .@h2, with an approximately equal
3
position.
2
23 ....ixa4
a b c d e f g h
8
33 ..ixe5?
7 Until this moment Kramnik has defended
6 very well but, being short of time, he commits
a fatal blunder.
5
4 After the correct 33.El:b l ic4 (the point is
that after 33 . . .ixd5 34.ifl ! the b-pawn falls)
3
34.El:d 1 it would not be easy at all for Black to
2 increase his advantage. The best way seems to
1 be: 34 . . . h5!?
a b c d e f g h 8
24 ..ib4? 7
Vladimir goes for too much. Perhaps he just 6
missed Black's answer.
5
4
After the obvious 24.ixd6 Wfxd6 25.El:axa4
El:xa4 26.El:xa4 lt:Jc6 27.ig2 tt:Jd4 both sides 3
have trumps and the position is roughly 2

balanced.
a b c d e f g h
24 ... b5!
I definitely prefer Black's chances - the extra 35.gxh5 (in case of 35 .ixe5!? dxe5 36.d6 'I!Md7
pawn is secured and White has no obvious 37.dxe7 [also interesting is 37.'1!Me l !? hxg4
38.�xe5 �f7 39.dxe7 �xd l t 40.�h2 �xe7 35J�cl

4 1 .�xe7 �d4 42.hxg4 �xf2] 37 . . . �d4 38.�e l Honestly, I was amazed by this move during
�xd l 39.e8=�t �xe8 40.�xd l hxg4 4 l .�xg4 the game. It took me some time to realize that
and in both variations White's chances for a after 35.dxe7 Black could play 35 . . . �d4 with
draw and Black's for a win are about equal) an immediate win. Would I have found this
move over the board? I hope so . . .
8
7 35 ....ic4 36.VMb4
36.dxe7 �xd2 37.e8=�t �f8
6
5
36 ... lb c8 37.VMc5 lbxd6 38.VMxe5 �£8
4 39.�dl
3
2 8
7
a b c d e f g h
6
35 . . . lt:J f5! (I like this idea) 36.hxg6 lt:Jh4 Now
White in turn has an extra pawn, but he will 5
experience great difficulties trying to defend 4
against his opponent's very active pieces.
3
33 ... dxe5 34.d6 VMd7! 2
1
a b c d e f g h
39 ... lbf7
Not an outstanding game, but it's a great
feeling to beat the champion of the world!
0-1
a b c d e f g h
Chapter 3
The King's Indian Bishop
Black against a young Alexander Khalifman

In this section you get a chance T 8
7
6
5
4
The knight is under attack. I believed this was winning for

Where to go? (see page 80) Black. What did I miss?
(see page 90)
8 T 8 T 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
Can you find Ding Liren's A small positional exercise. How Playing the KID is about getting
brilliant combination? to reorganize the pieces? the most out of the pieces. How?
(see page 7 1 ) (see page 83) (see page 97)
8 T 8 T 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
Here is a nice novelty. Don't tell It is hard to improve the This is the stage for building up.
anyone! (see page 73) pieces. Maybe it is time to do What is next?
something? (see page 84) (see page 1 03)
Chapter 3 - The King's I ndian Bishop 69
In this chapter we shall look at the potential hold: 29.:gfc l :gfbg 30.:gc2 :gb4 and only now
power of the King's Indian bishop on g7 (with 3 1 .h4! gxh4 32.�h2, when after 32 . . . :gab8
some occasional assistance from its comrade 33.b3 axb3 34.axb3 :gxb3 3 5.:gxb3 :gxb3
in-arms, the bishop on c8). 36.�h3 White has enough counterplay.
In the standard King's Indian formation the 29 ... gxh4 30.<tt h2 �Ub8 31 .h3 axb3 32.axb3
bishop looks buried on g7, but this is just a gal 33.gfdl <tt f7 34.gd2 ga3 35.<tt h 3?!
superficial appearance. Black will frequently White continues to be under strong pressure.
give up a pawn or even a piece to bring the The best defence here seems to be 35 .:gd3
bishop into the game. The most thematic �g6 36.�h3 :ga2 37.:gd2, although Black
idea is ... e5-e4, opening up the long diagonal. continues to be a bit better after 37 . . . :gxd2
This idea can seem very basic, but it is still 38.ltJxd2 �f5!.
important at the highest level.
35...gaxb3 36.gxb3 gxb3 37. <ttxh4 <tt g6
Wang Yue - Teimour Radjabov 38.gc2 gb l 39.tLlg3 h5
Wij k aan Zee 2009
White is under pressure and on the last move
before the time control he errs.
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
b d f g h
b d f g h
a c e
a c e
25 .. .'\Wxb l 26J�axbl e4!
A typical sacrifice in the King's Indian. The 40.f4? �f6t 4I.<tt h3 gb3! 42.<tt h2 h4
bishop is so strong on the long diagonal that its 43.tLle2 <tt £5
release is easily worth the investment of a pawn. The black king invades the white position
and wins the game.
27.tLlxe4 �d4t 28.<tt h l a4
Wang Yue no doubt felt under great pressure 44.ga2 gb4 45.ga8 gxc4 46.ge8 gb4
at this point. The combination of the strong 47.ge6 gb3 48.g4t hxg3t 49.tLlxg3t <tt g4
bishop and the open b-file is very unpleasant. 50.tLle2 gb2 5 I .<tt g2 �e5 52.<tt f.2 h£4
Still, his next move is dubious. 53.ge7 <tt £5 54.gf7t <tt e5 55. <tt f3 �d2
56.gxc7 <ttxd5 57.tLlg3 gh3t 58.<tt g2 .1f4
29.h4?! 59.tLle2 �e5 6o.<tt n <tt e4 6I .gh7 ga t
Black has plenty of compensation for his 62.<tt e i d5 63.<tt d2 d4 64.gh4t <tt d5
pawn, but the computer is able to find a way to 0-1
I do not want to give the wrong impression.

8
You should not give up the pawn without
pondering the downsides. It does lose a pawn 7
after all. So, without being downbeat about 6
it, I want to show a classic game that on the
surface looks very impressive, but is a bit less 5
so when we get into the details. 4
Florin Gheorghiu - Garry Kasparov 3
Thessaloniki Olympiad 1 988

2
� i!,aa•l!
a b c d e f g h
:� �. �-!Z- �� Black has long-term compensation for

the pawn. White might be able to fight for
��zzr•l��
6
5 an advantage if he played ltJe2-d4-e6 at this
�.�.� �.�.
point. But with timid play, he allowed the
4 World Champion to show the full potential of
l'�&i � �
� his position.
t� s:- "R� '�

3 � � � &. � 0 �'�'
�,�,
2 � -z•• z� �-� 2 1 .�bl YNf6 22.i.e2?! tlJg3 23.i.xg3
I
This leaves Black in control of the dark
squares for the rest of the game and could easily
a b c d e f g h be criticized, but luckily things are never that
The opening is over and the middlegame has simplistic in chess; White also neutralizes the
just begun. Kasparov shows that he wants a knight and reduces Black's attacking options.
fighting game by sacrificing a pawn in order to And he does have an extra pawn to play with . . .
bring his bishop to life.
2 3. . .fxg3 24.i.f3 gac8 25.tlJe2 'lNg6 26J�cl
1 5 ... e4!? gxcl t 27.'lNxcl gc8 28.'lNe3 'lNf6 29.'lNd2
If you read the newspaper columns from gc5
30 years ago, this decision was universally
commended. It looks so thematic and the game 8
was so impressive. But a deeper look suggests
7
that the decision was rather risky as well.
6
1 5 . . . f4! 1 6.ltJxh5 fxe3 1 7.lLlxf6t ixf6 1 8 .�xe3 5
ih4t 1 9.g3 ig5 was another way to bring the
bishop to life and was also strong. 4
3
1 6.tiJxh5 tiJxh5 17.fxe4 f4 18.i.f2 i.g4
19.h3 i.d7 20.0-0-0 i.e5 2
a b c d e f g h
Chapter 3 - The King's Indian Bishop 71
Black has great compensation for the pawn. Teimour Radjabov - Ding Liren
The right choice here is 30.Ek l with chances
Wijk aan Zee 20 1 5
to defend, as the absence of knights would
make it harder for Black to find a way through.
Instead Gheorghiu plays too timidly again, 8
trying to reroute the knight to d3. 1his is swiftly 7
punished by a powerful bishop invasion.
6
30.tiJ cl? �f4! 31 .%Vb4 �b5 32.tiJb3 5
Black wins slowly after 32.a4 i.xc l ! 33.axb5
�xb5 and White has to choose between giving 4
up the queen and playing 34.e5 �xb4 3 5 .exf6 3
i.xb2, both leading to hopeless endgames.
2
32 ... �d3t 33.<bal gc2 34.gbl �e5 1
a b c d e f g h
8 33 ... c3!!
7 Oing Liren gives up a pawn in order to win
a tempo and open the c-line. All other moves
6
would allow White to get coordinated or
5 advance with his own threats.
4
34.�c4
3 The idea behind Oing Liren's combination
2 is revealed in the following line: 34.lt:Jxc3 �c6!
3 5.lt:Jd5
1
a b c d e f g h
A great picture: the bishops are all-powerful.
35.tlJcl �xb2t 36.%Vxb2 YMxb2t

0-1
In the King's Indian we frequently get into

situations where both players are carrying
out their plans, and arriving first is the way
to reap the rewards. If you hesitate, as poor a b c d e f g h
Gheorghiu did above, you will end up second
35 . . JWxd5!! 36.�xd5 �xb2t with mate in a few
best. In the following game we see a reversal
moves.
of the fortunes of Radjabov versus a Chinese
opponent. Once again the power of the
34... cxd2 35.tiJf6t
g7 -bishop is the dominant feature of the
35 .Wfxd2 �xb2t and Black wins.
position.
35 ... \t>ffi 36.tlJh7t ®es 37.L£7t ®xf7 Jan Gustafsson -Vladimir Kramnik
38.�xf5t ®gs 39.®c2
Dortmund 20 1 2
This loses quickly, but Black is also winning
8
in the following long line: 39.'\We6t <j;>xh7
40.'l.Wxe4t <j;>hs 4 1 .'\Wh4t <j;>gs 42.'\Wc4t <j;>fg
43.'\Wf4t <j;>e7 44.'\We4t ieS 45 .'\Wh4t <j;>d7 7
46.'\Wh?t <j;>e6 47.'\Wg6t if6 48.'\We4t <j;>d7
49.'\Wh?t <j;>es 50.'\Wg8t <j;>e7 5 1 .'\Wh?t <j;>fg 6
and White is running out of checks. 5
4
3
39 .. J�xb2t 40.\t>dl
8 2
7
6 b d f g h
5
a c e
18 ... �xe3! 1 9.tlJxe3 tlJb4 20.�c4?

4 Gustafsson has been under a lot of pressure
3 since the very beginning of the game and here

he fails to find the accurate defence.
2 After 20.<j;>f2! ttJxa2 (20 . . . id4? 2 1 .El:c4)
2 1 .El:c7! ttJc3 22.d6 lDxe2 23.<j;>xe2 ie6
a b c d e f g h 24.E!:xb7 a2 25 .d7 El:d8 26.El:a7 ixb3 27.El:a3
ie6 28.El:dl <j;>fg 29.El:a7 the game would end
40 .. J�b l t! 4 1 .®xd2 �xa2t 42.®e3 �el t
in a draw.
43.®£4 �xflt
0-1
20 ... tlJxa2 2 1 .�a4 �xa4 22.bxa4 .1d4
23.\t>fl tlJb4!
One of the ways to make more of the King's
8
Indian bishop is to neutralize the opponent's
dark-squared bishop. Kasparov managed to
do so above by taunting his opponent with a 7
cheeky knight. But Gheorghiu had no need to
take it, and maybe should have considered not 6
doing so. A more forceful way to ensure dark 5
squared domination is to give up the exchange.
4
3
This is obviously a double-edged decision; a
rook is more powerful than a bishop in general.
But there are situations where the bishop,
because of how the rest of the pieces are placed
2
or interact, is very powerful and offers at least
b d f g h
sufficient compensation. The following game
a c e
is such a case.
24J�cl a2 25J�xc8t i> g7 26J�cl tlJxd5

27J�dl tlJxe3 28J�xd4 al=VN 29. i>xe3 VNgl t
0-1
To me the most important thing about this

game is that Kramnik played the KID and
won. It shows that he probably does not think
that the King's Indian is a bad opening.
Before we move on to the more complex case

of my own games, I want to show a modern a b c d e f g h
masterpiece, in which the King's Indian bishop I find it surprising that people who would
is freed from its cage by violent means and happily sacrifice a rook did not find this move.
comes out to dominate the board. Maybe the main problem is realizing that the
knight is heading for g3 not f4? 2 1 .Wc2 Wh3t
Loek van Wely - Daniel Stellwagen 22.@gl ctJg3 gives Black a devastating attack.
Amsterdam 2009 The engine's main line goes like this: 23 . .ib2
�f4 24.�fe l .if6 25 . .id l Wh l t 26.@f2 ctJxe4t
l .d4 tlJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tlJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 s.tlJf3 27.�xe4 lt:J f5 28.�xf4 exf4, when Black is
0-0 6.i.e2 e5 7.0-0 tlJc6 8.d5 tlJe7 9.b4 completely winning after both 29.Wxf5 Wh4t!
tlJhS 10.g3 f5 I I .tlJgS tlJf6 1 2.f3 f4 13.h5!? and 29.@e2 .ixb2.
fxg3 14.hxg3 h6 1 5.tlJe6 he6 16.dxe6 VNcS
17.tlJd5 VNxe6 1 8.tlJxc7 VNh3 19... tlJxe4! 20.fxe4
20.�h2 Wd7 2 l .fxe4!N (2 l .ctJxa8 ctJxg300
��z- -z.z J��-

was played in Van Wely - Degraeve, Mondariz
S
%-- -%� ____ ,;___ __ ,;_,,�..
2000. The common wisdom was that Black
7 �i� • •
__
was doing very well.) 2 1 . .. Wxc7 22 . .ie3 would

/,
6
give a strategically interesting position. The
� !� z. �z engine thinks that White has the advantage,
�-!- � " - �.
5 while I would guess there are chances for both
sides.
3 . � - � di
4
20 .. J�xf'2 2 I . i> xf'2 �Ust 22. i> e3 VNxg3t
23. i> d2 �H2 24.tlJ e8
2 ��=�:-:��
� �� M m
a b c d e f g h
24.We l has also been played a few times.
The engine suggests 24 . . . h5!?N as the way
forward. For example: 25.@dl h4 26.c5 d5
27.ctJxd5 ctJxd5 28.exd5 h3 29.c6 Wh4 30.c7
19JUl! Wa4t 3 l .@d2 Wa5t 32.@d l with a draw.
1 9. ctJ xa8 Wxg3 t has resulted in five draws
Luckily chess is so rich and humans so creative
in my database. This is not really an opening
that no one has followed this computer line to
book, but I still find it worth mentioning
the end yet.
20.@h l lt:Jh5!!N.
26.c5?
This loses to a brilliant line-opening tactic
that brings out the King's Indian bishop.
26.@e l ?! is also unsatisfactory. After 26 . . . �g3!

27.@d2 .ig5t 28.@c2 .ixc l 29.�xc l �e3 we
have a complex endgame where Black's extra
pawn gives him all the chances.
The drawing line is rather difficult: 26.�e l !

�h2! 27.@di ! (27.c5 ? fails to 27. . .ttJc8!!+ with
the idea 28.ttJxc8 .ih4! 29.@d l �xe4 and
a b c d e f g h White's position collapses) 27 . . . �g2 28.@c2!
So far the players have repeated the moves
from Van Wely - Radjabov, Dresden (ol)
2008. In that game Black played 24 . . . h5 and
was worse. Stellwagen had a big improvement
ready.
24 .. .'�f3!!
The improvement. Objectively the position
is equal; in the real world, where engines
cannot assist you, White's task is very difficult.
a b c d e f g h
25.�xd6 .if6!
28 . . . ttJc8! (Black can also force a draw
This is the critical moment of the game.
immediately with 28 . . . �f3 29.@di �g2)
Stellwagen has played his improvement and
Van Wely now had time to think about what 29.ttJxc8! �xe4t 30.@b3 �xe2 3 l .�c3
to do. But defending is harder than attacking, From here on, White has some equally good
and he did not manage to find the very difficult alternatives, but also a lot of inferior ones.
sequence of moves needed to achieve a draw. 3 l . . . �f2 32.ttJd6 �e2 33 . .ie3! e4 34 ..id4
.ixd4 35.�xd4 �f3t 36.@b4
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
36 . . . :gd3! 37.�e5 �d2t 38.i>c5 �e3t

39.i>b4 �d2t with a draw.
8
7
6
5
4
a b c d e f g h
3
With mate in two moves, usually starting
2 with . . . :gfl t.
1
29.<tfid2 .ixal 30.e6?
a b c d e f g h 30.ttJc4!+ would have kept the battle going.
26 ... ttld5!! 27.exd5 e4!
The bishop has finally come to life, with 30 .. JWO!
devastating effect.
8
28.<tfiel
The only move if you are a human. 7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
The dust clears and Black wins.
3I.ttlxe4 �xe4 32.e7 �f4t 33.<tff e l .ie3t

a b c d e f g h 34..id2 �g3 35 ..ixe3 g a t 36.<tfid2 gxe3
28 .. JWg2? 37.d6 �e3t 38.<tfiel gel 39.�xel �xelt
Stellwagen in turn misses a great sequence: 40.<tfif2 �eSt 4I .<tfif3 <tff f7 42..ifl �f5t
28 . . . .ic3t 29 . .id2 �g3!! 30 . .ixc3 e3! 43.<tbg3 �e6! 44. <tfif2 h5 45.a4 <tfif6 46 ..ig2
�e8 47.<tff g3 g5
0-1
My Games following interesting encounter: 8 . . . cS 9.'1Mfd2

tt:J b4 1 0.ig2 hS 1 l .ixf6 exf6 1 2.0-0-0 hxg4
In the first game I managed to make the most 1 3.hxg4 ixg4 1 4.a3 ttJc6 1 S.'Wf4 'WeB 1 6.ttJdS
of my bishop by opening the centre in classical
style.
Giorgi Kacheishvili - Ilya Smirin
Minneapolis 2005
This game was played in the last round of the

Minneapolis Open tournament. Both players
needed a win to guarantee a decent place.
I .d4 llJf6 2.c4 g6 3.llJc3 .1g7 4.e4 d6 s.llJf3 a b c d e f g h

0-0 6.h3 llJ a6
Lately I have usually played 6 . . . eS 7.dS aS 1 6 . . . 'We6 1 7.tLlc7 'Wxc4t 1 8.@b 1 fS 1 9.ifl
here. Which line to choose is, as so often, 'Wa4 20.ibS 'WaS 2 l .ttJdS 'WxbS 22.'1Mfxd6
a matter of taste. It seems that my taste has f6 23.'We6t �f7 24.lt:Jh4 'We2 2S .�de 1 fxe4
changed a little. 26.'Wd6 �d8 27.'1Mfh2 '1Mfd3t 28.@a1 �xdS
29.tLlxg6 �hS 0-1 Macieja - Smirin, Maalot
7..1g5 YMes Tarshiha 2008.
But the most logical continuation here seems

8 to be the natural developing move 8.id3. At
7 least in the following game I faced problems:
8 ... eS 9.0-0 ttJhS 1 0.ic2 fS 1 l .exfS ixfS
6
5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
8 ..1e2!?
a b c d e f g h
An apparently modest but quite logical
move. Why not? Mter all, the pieces have not 1 2.�c l (after the correct 1 2.ixfS gxfS 1 3.ttJdS
come into direct confrontation yet. Black would remain worse - the knight on a6
is not a piece to be proud of, as the following
The alternative 8.g4, playing "wide" and sample variation shows: 1 3 . . . @h8 1 4.�e 1 e4
trying to grab the maximum amount of 1 S .ttJ h4 'Wf7 1 6.ttJe3 f4 1 7.ttJefS±) 1 2 . . . '1Mff7
space, is much more popular. I managed to 1 3.ie4? ixe4 1 4.ttJxe4 exd4 1 S .ttJxd4 �ae8;
beat the Polish Grandmaster Macieja in the (0- 1 , 36) Wendt - Smirin, Ohrid 2009.
8... e5 9.d5 ttlh5 10.g3 13 ... ttlb4

It's essential to take the f4-square away from Another logical (and perhaps better) option
the knight on h5. would be 1 3 . . . c6! ?, preparing to open the c-file
in the event of long castling. Mter that the
10... £5 game might continue 1 4.g4!? ( 1 4.ctJxf5 ixf5
Perhaps 1 O .. .f6 1 1 .id2 f5 , chasing the bishop 1 5 .'!Mxf5 ctJ xd5 is unclear) 1 4 . . . cxd5 1 5 .cxd5
from g5 to d2, deserved some attention here. It f4 with an interesting position, full of potential
has been played in several games - here is one dynamics.
of them: 1 2.ctJh4 tLlf6 1 3.exf5 gxf5 1 4.'!Mc2 e4
( 1 4 . . . ttJb4 1 5 .'!Mb3 a5 1 6.a3 ctJ a6 1 7.'!Mc2 ctJc5 14.%Vb3 a5
1 8 .ie3 would transpose to the game) 1 5 .ie3 This is a useful manoeuvre to improve Black's
ctJd7 1 6.ctJg2! ctJe5 1 7.ctJf4 ctJc5 1 8.0-0-0; position on the queenside.
(Yz-Yz, 35) Mchedlishvili - Avrukh, Beersheba
2005. The position is complicated, but White's 1 5.a3 ttl a6 16.%Vc2
piece setup looks somewhat "prettier".
8
l l .exf5 gxf5
7
8 6
7 5
6 4
5 3
4 2
2 a b c d e f g h
16 ... ttl c5
The most natural move.
a b c d e f g h
After 1 6 . . . a4 1 7.0-0-0 ( 1 7.'!Mxa4?! '!Mxa4
Black's position looks quite attractive due to 1 8.ctJxa4 ctJe4) 1 7 . . . ctJc5 1 8.ie3 ctJ b3t
the active pawn duo on e5 and f5 . However, 1 9.i>b 1 id? 20.ctJb5 '!Mc8 (20 ... Ek8!?)
these pawns are also a cause for concern: 2 1 .E!:hgl i>h8 22.f3 White's chances should be
the one on f5 may easily become a target. preferred - it's very hard for Black to organize
Moreover, the advance of either pawn may decent counterplay, and his position lacks
create vulnerable squares for the white knights: flexibility; ( 1 -0, 35) Mchedlishvili - Hillarp
d4 and f4 in the case of ... e5-e4 and e4 in the Persson, Gothenburg 2005.
case of .. .f5-f4. In other words, there is no
reason for Black to be too optimistic here. 17 ..ie3!
Of course not 1 7.ctJxf5 ? ixf5 1 8.'!Mxf5
12.ttlh4 ttlf6 13.%Vc2 ctJ fe4-+.
Eyeing the pawn on f5 .
17... b6
Black wants to recapture with the b-pawn in to be honest, after 20.El:hgl c±>h8 2 l .f3!?, with
the case of a possible i.xc5. the same g4 idea, I would still prefer White
here.
17 ... a4 1 8.i.xc5! dxc5 1 9.'Dxf5 i.xf5 20.Wfxf5
ttJxd5 2 1 .Wie4 tDxc3 22.bxc3 would lead to a 20.l!J b5
very unpleasant position for Black, especially Giorgi correctly played this natural and
since it was a must-win situation for both strong move. The knight occupies an active
players. position, at the same time "just in case"
closing the b-file. It looks highly improbable
The careless 1 7 . . . i.d7 would allow my that Black will develop a deadly attack along
opponent to reveal the following strong idea: this file, but actually it happened later in the
1 8.g4! fXg4 1 9 .hxg4 lDxg4 20.i.xc5 dxc5 game! Of course, 20.ttJb5 is not to be blamed
2 l .i.xg4 i.xg4 22.f3 i.d7 23.0-0-0, when for that . . .
White has good compensation for the pawn,
and will develop an initiative along the g- and
8
h-files, even though after 23 .. J!a6 the position
is not yet so clear. 7
6
1 7 ... e4 or 1 7 . . . tDce4 were also possible, but I
did not particularly like either move. 5
4
1 8.0-0-0 a4 19.®b l
3
2
8
1
7
a b c d e f g h
6
20 .. J3b7?!
5
This looks a bit ugly and indeed it is! I did
4 not want to allow:
3 20 . . . Wid8
a b c d e f g h
19 .. J3b8?!
This artificial move appears to be a serious
inaccuracy.
The correct decision would be 1 9 . . . tD b3,

avoiding a possible capture on c5 and
a b c d e f g h
neutralizing to some extent White's idea to
play g4, since Black can then answer . . .f4. But 2 1 .lDa7!?
After 2 l .g4 lLlxd5 the knight on h4 is 23 ... e4!?

hanging. It's easy to understand why the natural but
2 1 .tLlg2!?, preparing g4, deserves serious passive move 23 . . . tLld7 didn't appeal to me.
attention here; White's prospects look good. After 24.id3! (24.tLl f5 lLl b6 25.lLlxg7 c;t>xg7
But I should probably not be too worried 26.id3 �f7 does not look bad for Black)
about the text move. After: 24 . . . �h5 25.lLlf5 lLl b6 26.lLle7t c;t>hs
2 1 . . .id7 22.tLlc6
As often in the KID, Black's resources should
not be underestimated: 22.ixc5? bxc5
23.lLlxf5 lLle4! 24.tLlc6 ixf5 25 .id3 lLlc3t
26.�xc3 e4 and Black completely takes over
the initiative.
22 . . . ixc6 23.dxc6 lLlfe4 24.if3 �f6
Black's position would be acceptable - the
white knight is rather misplaced on h4 under
these circumstances.
a b c d e f g h
21 .g4!
This is the key move of White's strategy. 27.ie4! (in the event of 27J3:hgl e4! 28.ixe4
lLlxc4! 29.�xc4 �e8 things are not so clear
21. .. £4 - this line has some similarities with what
It would be unwise to open files leading actually happened in the game) 27 . . . �xg5
to Black's king: 2 1 . .. fxg4? 22.hxg4 lLlxg4 28.lLlxc8 �xc8 29.�dgl
23.ixg4 ixg4 24J3:dgl �d7 25.f3 and Black
loses material.
22 ..ixc5 bxc5
7
6
4
a b c d e f g h
White would get a firm grip on the resulting

3 position. I was going to obtain counterplay at
2 any price (in this case - a piece) .
24J�del?
a b c d e f g h Just one mistake - and the game is effectively
gone! Giorgi should not have trusted me -
23.g5!
principled and correct was: 24.gxf6 ixf6
It seems that White rules, but I did not want
25 .�dgl t c;t>h8 26.�g4! This move was
to accept that.
probably missed by both of us, but honestly I 30 . . . �b3! 3 l .<±:>a2 ixc3 32.bxc3 �xb 1 33.�xb l
was not in the mood to search for it too much. �xb l 34.<±:>xb l Wfxh4 35 .Wfxe4 Wfxf2 And the
26 . . . Wfe7 (or 26 . . . Wie5 27.f3!±) 27.!hf4 ixh4 black king will easily escape the checks.
28.!hf8t Wfxf8 29.ig4! Black would remain
with too many weaknesses to count seriously 27...VMxg5 28 ..ig4! !Ubs 29 ..ixd7?!
on a positive outcome. This allows an elegant fi n ish.
More stubborn was: 29.�b l ixg4 30.hxg4

ixc3 3 l .Wixc3 �b3 (weaker is 3 l . . . Wixd5t
32.<±:>al �b3 33.ctJf5! �xc3 34.ctJe7t <±:>g7
35.ctJxd5) 32.Wic4
24... tlJxd5!!
This sacrifice completely turns the tables. a b c d e f g h
The bishop on g7 becomes a monster, and
an assault begins along the b-file (see the 32 ... Wie5 33.Wic2 Wfxd5 34.<±:>al Wfe5 35.<±:>a2
comment after move 20) . Wfe6! 36.<±:>al c4 with an irresistible attack:
37.ctJf5 c3 38.ctJd4 cxb2t 39.Wixb2 �xb2
25.cxd5 .id? 26.tlJc3 VMeS 40.ctJxe6 �xb l t 4 l .�xb l �xb l t 42.<±:>xb l e3
Now the pawn on b2 looks really frightened. 43.fxe3 f3 Still, I would have needed to find
all this over the board. Now Black's task is
27.a2 simpler.
27.<±:>al loses after a pretty forced line:
27 . . JHb8 28.�b l Wlxg5 29.ig4 ixg4 30.hxg4 8
29. .J�xb2t! 30.Wxb2 gxb2t 3I .@xb2 Denis Khismatullin - Ilya Smirin

YMxd5!
Poikovsky 20 1 5
Despite having almost the whole set of pieces
for the queen, White is absolutely helpless
I .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5 ..ie2
against Black's threats. White's numerous but
0-0 6 ..ig5 � a6 7.YMd2 e5 8.d5 c6
uncoordinated forces are unable to help His
Majesty.
8
32.@cl 7
Or 32.�xa4 �d2t.
6
32 ....ixc3 33.ghgl t @f8 34.ge2 YMb3 5
4
8
3
7
2
6
b d f g h
5
a c e
4 9.f3
3 Sometimes White tries to do without this
move and plays 9.�d3, protecting the e-pawn
2
in advance and vacating e2 to develop the
1 g 1 -knight. In a rapid game with Avrukh in
b d f g h
1 996 I quickly obtained a good position by
a c e
simple and energetic moves: 9 . . . tt.J c5 1 0.�c2
A picturesque position. The queen is ready to cxd5 1 1 .cxd5 a5 1 2.tt.Jge2 �d7 1 3.0-0 b5
pick up her last prey - the pawn on a3 - with 1 4.f3 b4 1 5 . tt.J d 1 �b6 1 6.�e3 �fc8 1 7.lt.Jf2
checkmate to follow soon. White resigned. �b5 1 8.�fd l �a6 1 9.lt.Jcl lt.Ja4
0-1
In the next game we shall see a thematic,

though not very common, bishop manoeuvre,
followed up with a great dynamic takeover of
the dark squares.
a b c d e f g h
Black soon had a winning position - which

nonetheless I lost; ( 1 -0, 42) Avrukh - Smirin,
Tel Aviv 1 996.
9 ... cxd5 the disadvantages of this idea: 1 1 . . . h6 1 2 . .ie3

I played 9 .. .'�a5 against Leitao -you will find ( 1 2 . .ixh6? 'Dxe4 1 3.'Dxe4 �h4t is a well-
this game elsewhere in the book (page 1 28) , known motif) 1 2 . . . h5 1 3.h3 What about the
where I also look a bit on 9 . . . cxd5 . This time I knight on gl ? 1 3 ... 'Dc5 1 4.0-0-0
went for the more common continuation.
1 O.cxd5 .id?
8
7
6
5
4
a b c d e f g h
3 1 4 . . . �b8!? 1 5 .@b l El:c8 1 6.El:h2 b5 1 7.El:c l a5
2 1 8 . .id3 El:a7 1 9.'Dge2 El:ac7 20.'Dd l a4 2 l .'Df2
b4 22 . .ixc5 dxc5 23 . .ic4 .ib5 24.'Dd3 .ixc4
1
25.El:xc4 �b5 26.b3
a b c d e f g h
8
I I ..idl !?
The standard manoeuvre in this type of 7
position. The idea is to set up the pieces in 6

a natural and harmonious way - the knight 5
on gl will be developed to e2 and the bishop
4
usually goes to c2 shortly after that. This is
3
more often carried out before the exchange
of c-pawns. This small difference allows Black 2
to gain some activity on the queenside and to

dispute White's usual supremacy there. a b c d e f g h
26 . . . ttJe8! 27.El:h 1 'Dd6 28.El:hcl hxg4 29.hxg4

l l ..id3?!, with the same idea, is worse because
axb3 30.axb3 'Dxc4 3 1 .El:xc4 �a6
of l l . .. 'Dc5 1 2 . .ic2 a5 1 3.'Dge2 ( 1 3.a4 �b6)
1 3 ... b5 and Black is fine, as he was in the game
8
Avrukh - Smirin mentioned above (actually
after 1 4.0-0 the position from that game 7
would arise) . 6
5
White may choose another plan starting 4
with the popular l l .g4 - to grab space on
3
the kingside. The king usually hides on
2
the queenside after castling long. In my
opinion the following game demonstrates
a b c d e f g h
32.lDec l �f6 33.�e3 �h4 34.g5 �h3 35.lDf2 13.axb4 llJxb4 14.llJge2
�fl 36.lDg4 �a8 37.�f2 �h l 38.@c2 �al The main battlefield is the queenside. Black's
39.@d2 �b l 40.ltJe3 if8 position is a bit cramped, so it's important
for him to place his pieces well to match the
8 opponent's activity. After some thought, I
7 found a good way to set up my forces.
6
5 8
4 7
3 6
5
2
4
a b c d e f g h
4 1 .�g3 �a7 42.�xe5 �xf3 43.d6 �f2t 3

44.@d3 �b2 45.lDc2 �d7 0- 1 Alterman - Xu, 2
Cap d'Agde 1 994.
1 1 ... b5 a b c d e f g h
Certainly not l l ... lDc5? 1 2.b4. 14...'/Nbs
Everyone onto the queenside!
12.a3 b4
During the game I thought this move was 1 5.0-0 gcs 16 ..ie3
almost mandatory.
Now I believe that the following is a worthy 8

alternative: 1 2 . . . lDc7 1 3.lDge2 (if 1 3.b4 a5 7
1 4.�b l axb4 1 5 .axb4 �c8 1 6.lDge2
6
8 5
7
4
3
6
5
2
4
3 1
2 a b c d e f g h
16 ....ie8!
a b c d e f g h A very important move. The bishop frees d7
1 6 ... ltJa8! This knight is going to c4. 1 7.0-0 for the knight, and at the same time the pawn
lDb6 Black is OK.) 1 3 . . . a5 As played in the on f7 will be defended. Why might it need
game Ubilava - Grigoriants, Linares 2003. protection? Because White will start kingside
activity by means of f3-f4 and a white rook will Something like 2 1 .El:fc l lDxa4 22.bxa4 ib6
operate on the f-file. could have been played. The position would
be roughly balanced after that - Black's pieces
17.�a4 are well placed and the opponent's space
White is doing some regrouping as well. advantage is not significant.
8
17... �d7 1 8.�ec3
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
2
a b c d e f g h
2 1 ..J�xc3!
a b c d e f g h
A simple but nice tactical blow. Suddenly the
18 ....if6! 19 ..ie2 .ids potential energy of Black's pieces is released.
Almost all the black pieces are on the 8th It's interesting that if the white king were on
rank, but they function and interact well h 1 he would have nothing to worry about, and
enough - an interesting positional observation. might claim a positional advantage. But in that
Seemingly Denis was too optimistic here, but case he would lack the time for the b2-b3 and
it was easy to overestimate the meaning of ttJ b2 setup. The tragedy of a single tempo?
White's space advantage during the game.
22.%Vxc3 �6xd5 23.exd5 �xd5 24.%Vd2
20.b3 � b6 �xe3
It looks as if Black is just going to exchange a
8
pair of pieces - a usual thing to do in a somewhat
cramped position. Khismatullin naturally wants
to avoid this, but falls into the trap. 7
6
2 1 .�b2?
This manoeuvre was prepared by the previous 5
move. It's interesting that Houdini initially 4
approves this very logical continuation - the
3
knight is on its way to c4 to exert pressure on
the queenside. 2
2 1 .f4!? lD xa4 22.bxa4 ib6 23.!hcl exf4
24Jhf4 ixe3t 25 .'.Wxe3 'Wic7 should be OK
for Black. a b c d e f g h
25JUel ?! 25 ...VHxb3 26.i.d3 i.b6

A generous move - who cares about the little
pawn on b3? Still, it was worth selling for a
8
higher price.
25 .8:fcl "1Wxb3?! 26.lLJc4 (not 26.8:c3? "1Wb4) 7
26 . . . lLJxc4 27.ixc4 "1Wb6t 28.@hl and White's 6
activity does not give the opponent real hopes
of converting the material advantage. 5
Better is 25 ... ib6 26.@h l id4, striving for 4
activity and centralization.
3
2
a b c d e f g h
Black's advantage is now overwhelming.
27.�hl �k8 28.�dl!?

The most resilient. The strong knight on e3
should be exchanged or at least disturbed.
a b c d e f g h
28 ... �xdl
After 27.8:ab l Black may take the pawn
28 ... 8:c2!? 29.ixc2 lDxc2 30.lLJc3 lLJxe l
under better circumstances. (27.8:a3 lD f5 28.b4
deserved attention as well, but I decided in
"1Wd8 would leave Black with both material and
favour of the simple exchange of knights.
positional superiority) 27 . . . "1Wxb3 (also strong
enough is 27 ... "1Wd8 28.lLJc4 lLJ f5 29.id3 d5
29J�axdl i.d4
30.ixf5 dxc4 3 1 .ie4 c3) 28.lLJd l (or 28.lLJc4
lLJxc4 29.ixc4 "1We3 30."1Wxe3 ixe3) 28 . . . "1Wa3
29.lLJxe3 "1Wxe3 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
And the bishop plus three pawns are too 30.'\We2?!

many for the rook, even though White retains 30.8:b 1 was demanded and would indeed
fighting chances. have been the relatively best decision.
30 ....ia4 35J3xb3 aS 36.£4 e4 37J�bbl

30 . . . a5 3 l .�b l We6 was not bad either. 37.�d l Wf2 38.Wxf2 ixf2 39.g3 would
be more resilient. We both were in mild time
3 1 J�bl YMc3 32.YMfl trouble.
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1
32 ...'iMd2! 33.�c4 37 ... e3?!
If 33.�bc l �xc l 34.�xc l a5 35 .�c8t <;t>g? Another inaccuracy in a technically won
36.ic4 Black would win rather simply after position.
36 ... Wc3 37.ie6 ic5 38.Ek7 ie8 and so on.
Stronger was 37 . . . d5 38.�bd l Wb4 39.f5 ic3
33 .. J3c5 40.�e3 a4 4 1 .Wa6 Wc4 still with a fairly easy
33 . . .ic2, with the idea: 34.�bc l ib2 win.
38J�edl YMc3 39J�d3 YMc4 40.gbdl?

40.Wd l �d5 4 l .�c l Wb4 42.�c2 would
make Black work hard to achieve victory - the
rook on d5 is quite awkwardly placed.
8
7
6
a b c d e f g h 5
Would have won quickly. 4
34.�b3 hb3?! 3
Now the simplest way would be: 34 . . . ib5 2
35 .�ed l WaS 36.We l Wxe l t 37.�xe l a5
1
38.ia2 a4 39.�ec l id3 40.�xc5 dxc5 etc.
4 l .�b8t <;t>g7 42.�a8 c4 43.�xa4 c3 a b c d e f g h
40 .. J�c8! Christopher Lutz - Ilya Smirin

Fortunately I found this strong move - the
Gronin gen 1 993
last one before the time control. Now the win
is easy.
l .d4 ttlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttlc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.ttlf3
0-0 6..ie2 e5 7.0-0 ttlc6 8.d5 ttl e7 9.b4 a5
41.f5
IO.bxa5 gxa5
Or 4 1 .�xd4 e2 42.�xc4 exfl =�t 43.�xfl
As in the game Postny - Smirin elsewhere
�xc4.
in this book (page 1 46) , I preferred this
immediate capture instead the popular 1 0 . . . c5.
4I. ...ic5 42.VNf3 ges 43.f6
Losing at once, but 43.�c6 �e4 44.�xe4
�xe4 45.�e 1 a4 would also be hopeless.
a b c d e f g h
l l .ttlel
a b c d e f g h In my opinion the moves 1 1 .lLld2 or 1 1 .a4, as
was played by Postny in the above-mentioned
43 . .VNxd3
game, look more logical than moving the
.
White resigned in view of 44.�xd3 e2.

knight from f3 to d3 via e 1 . After 1 1 .a4 I had
0-1
played another interesting encounter in this
line: 1 1 . . . c5 1 2.�b 1 mh8 1 3 . .id2 �a6 1 4.�c l
Just as Kasparov's bishops dominated
lLl fg8 1 5 .g3 h6 (I did not like 1 5 . . .f5?! because
Gheorghiu, I was able to dominate a top
of 1 6.lLlg5) 1 6.lLlh4 g5!?
German grandmaster with my own two
bishops in the following game.
a b c d e f g h
1 7.ctJg2 ( 1 7.ctJf5!? ctJxf5 1 8.exf5 ixf5 1 9.�xb7 idea c4-c5, his queenside is solid enough and
.ic8 20.�b8 f5 with double-edged play) 1 7 . . . f5 has no visible weaknesses, and the pawn on d6
1 8 .f4 gxf4 1 9 .gxf4 fxe4 20.ctJxe4 Ct:J f5 2 l ..ic3 will be comfortably protected by a rook on a6.
Ct:J d4 22 ..ixd4 exd4 23.�c2 ctJe7 24.ctJg3 ctJ f5
25.ctJxf5 .ixf5 26 . .id3 �d7 27.�fe l ih3 14.exf5
28.<;t>h l �g4 29.�e6 Lutz prefers this exchange over the possible
1 4.f3. Indeed Black seems to be fine after
8 the probable 1 4 ... �a6 1 5 .�c2 Ct:Jf6 1 6.�ab l
7 f4 ( 1 6 . . . h5!? first deserves attention) and it's
advisable for White to play 1 7.g4 - otherwise
6
he may easily find himself under attack
5
without real counterplay on the queenside.
4 It's important that in the event of 1 4.f4 �a6!?
3 Black is well prepared for the clash in the
2 centre.
14 ... gxf5
a b c d e f g h
1 4 . . . Ct:Jxf5 1 5 .ctJe4 �a6 was quite possible - I
29 . . . �xa4 30.�g6 ixg2t 3 l .�xg2 �xg2t believe Black is OK. But unlike in the much
32.<;t>xg2 �xf4 33.�xb7 �a2t 34.<;t>gl �al t later encounter with Postny I decided to take
3 S .<;t>g2 Yz-Yz Bykhovsky - Smirin, Haifa on f5 with the pawn.
2008. In my opinion this game was played
quite well by both players. 1 5.f4 ltJg6
I did not want to release the tension:
1 I . .. ltJd7 12.ltJd3 f5 13 ..id2 1 5 . . . e4 1 6.ctJcl (of course not 1 6.ctJ f2?? e3 or
Mter 1 3.f3 Black may continue 1 3 . . . c5!? 1 6.ctJel ??) Even though objectively it was not
anyway. a bad decision at all; but I was eager to play a
more lively position.
13 ... c5!?
16.%Vc2 �a6 17.�hl exf4 18.ltJxf4 ltJxf4
8 19.hf4 ltJe5
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
I like such pawn structures - Black stops the
a b c d e f g h
The strong knight on e5 offers Black some The only move, combining activity with
dynamic possibilities - the weak pawn on f5 is salvation of the queen.
not actually that weak.
24.�fl
20J�abl Certainly not 24.gxf4? ifS.
The prophylactic 20.g3 would be a subtle
choice. Black might sacrifice a pawn in this 24...'1Md7?!
case as well: 20 ... tLlg6 2 l .id2 f4!? 22.gxf4 The queen goes a little bit too far - it would
(bad is 22.ixf4? :ga3! - a rather unexpected be better to stop on f5:
rook incursion - 23.id2 ih3 and Black's 24 . . .'W'f5
initiative is too strong) 22 ... 'W'h4 23.id3 ih3 Now White has to act precisely to avoid
24.ixg6 hxg6 25 .'W'xg6 ixfl 26.:gxf1 and trouble:
neither side has much to complain about - the 25.tLle4!
position is in dynamic balance. 25 .id3 'W'h5 cannot be recommended.
25 . . . :ga3
20.a4!? deserved attention as well - as we saw The queen may return: 25 . . . 'W'h3 26.ixf4
from the previous line it's useful to restrict the (26.tLlf2 'W'd7 leads to a draw of course)
potential activity of the rook on a6. 26 . . .if5 27.id3 lLle5 28.tLlf2 (28.ixe5?
ixe4t)
20 ... �g6 2 I ..id2 '1Mh4
The queen gets closer to the white king, 8
causing him at least psychological discomfort. 7
By the way . . . ie5 is a serious threat.
6
5
22.g3 '1Mh3 23.�dl !?
4
8
3
7
2
6
a b c d e f g h
5 28 ... lLlxd3! 29.lLlxh3 ie4t 30.�g2 Forced.

4 (bad is 30.<±>gl id4t 3 1 .tLl f2 lLlxf2)
30 . . . ixg2t 3 l .<±>xg2 :gxa2t 32.<±>h l lLle5
3 And the game should end peacefully.
2 26.:gb3
26.ixf4? :gc3!
26 . . . :gxa2!? 27.tLlf6t ixf6 28.'W'xa2 'W'e4t
a b c d e f g h 29.if3 'W'xc4 30.:gc l 'W'd4 3 l .ixf4 lLlxf4
White also has some threats - for instance, 32.gxf4 �xf4 33.:gf1 'W'h4
this knight is going to f2, trapping the intruder And despite Black's slight material advantage
queen. (two pawns for the exchange) the white
heavy pieces are active and the position is
23... f4 balanced.
29.ixf4 !ha2 30.ifl ig4 Black would obtain

8
a nearly-decisive advantage. Alas, my mind
7 was occupied with the other idea.
6
26..ixf4
5 The right decision.
4 26.gxf4? ifS 27.id3 !:!xa2! Again the blow
comes from the queenside. 28."1Wxa2 ixe4t
3 29.ixe4 1Wxe4t 30.mgl id4t 3 1 .Ei:f2 lt:Jh4
2 White loses on the spot.
1
26 ... tt)xf4 27.gxf4
a b c d e f g h Instead 27.Ei:xf4 allows a familiar tactic, but
25.tt)e4? it's level if White is careful: 27 .. .!hf4 28.gxf4
This centralization is a serious error. !:!xa2!
8
Mter 2S .ig4 "1Wa4 (the best reply) 26."1Wxa4
!:!xa4 27.ixc8 !:!xc8 28.lt:Je4 fxg3 29.lt:Jxd6 7
g2t (29 ... Ei:f8 30.hxg3 !:!xfl t 3 1 .Ei:xfl !:!xa2) 6

30.mxg2 !:!ca8 3 I .ie3 ieS ! Black's activity 5
leaves the opponent with no real winning
4
chances.
3
25 ...�e7? 2
Returning the favour. If I had looked in

the opposite direction I might have found: a b c d e f g h
2S ..."\Wa4! This unexpected move does not
The line I had spotted was: 29.1Wxa2? "1Wxe4t
seem to be logically connected with the
30.mgl id4t 3 I .mfl "�Wh l # Did we not just
previous play, but it is fully j ustified tactically.
see that?
When after: 26."1Wxa4 !:!xa4 27.lt:Jxd6 (27.gxf4
But the engine points out a miraculous escape
ifS 28.id3 !:!xa2+)
route: 29.lt:Jf6t!! ixf6 30.Ei:gl t mf8 3 1 ."1Wxa2
"1We4t 32J�g2 Now 32 . . .ih3? 33."1Wa8t is
8
winning for White, so Black should settle for
7
32 ... id4 when White can hold after 33.1Wb3.
6
5 27....if5
4 The pawn was sacrificed to obtain
3
this position. Black obviously has some
compensation (two bishops, pressure on a2
2
along the a-file) , and objectively it's probably
about level, but it's anything but clear.
a b c d e f g h
� f."<±/. Re1 ative1y b est. 28 . . . "'l..J

� h 3! 28.c=.x
27 . . . ;;, f':\ X f."<±/. 28 ..id3 gras 29.tt)g3! .ih3!
Now both recaptures lead to equality:

8
7 35.<±>xg2 Vfffxf4 36.�a8t <±>h7=
6
35 .�xg2 mf8 36.�xb6 Vfffc l t 37.�gl Vfffxc4=
5
4 Instead after the forcing line: 30.ixh7t <±>h8
3 1 .ttJ f5
3
2
a b c d e f g h
White has to make a tough choice to
withstand the opponent's threats.
30JUel
The position is still balanced after this move,
but perhaps now White has the tougher task a b c d e f g h
holding that balance.
3 l . . . Vfif7! 32.�gl �xa2 33.�xg7 Vfffxg7
34.ttJxg7 �xc2 35 .ixc2 <±>xg7 36.�xb7t mf6
After the following alternative it's still
37.�b l �a3 38.<±>gl �f3 the game should also
objectively equal, but Black has to find the
end in a draw.
more difficult moves:
30.�f2
30 .. JWh4
The most principled and direct reply is:
Now White has to be exceptionally careful,
30 . . . �xa2
as otherwise Black's initiative will explode into
30 ... h5!? is wild but also seems roughly
life.
equal.
3 l .'�xa2 �xa2 32.�xa2 Vfie3 33.ie4 b6!
Ensuring the b-pawn does not drop with
check, but not an easy move for a human
to fi n d.
34.ig2 ixg2t
a b c d e f g h
31 J�e2?
a b c d e f g h
After this mistake, White 1s definitely in 3l ...�g4! 32J�xb7?

trouble. In time pressure the German grandmaster
completely loses control.
After the cold-blooded 3 l .a4!? �xa4 32.�e8t
�xe8 33.Wfxa4 �f8 34.�xb7 ic8 (34 .. Jhf4? After 32.lt:Jf5 if3t 33 .�g2 Wfg4 34.ie4
35 .Wfa7; 34 ... Wfxf4? 35.�xg7t) 3 5 .�b l Wfxf4 Wfxg2t 35.Wfxg2 ixg2t 36.ixg2 he would
36.�fl Wfe3 37.�xf8t �xf8 38.Wfd l ie5 retain some practical chances. Now the game
39. �g2 the position would still be about is over.
equal.
32 ....if3t 33.�gl �d4t
3 l .ie2 was also a good option. For example: The decisive invasion by the bishop.
3 l . .. Wfxf4 (3 l . .. �xa2 32.Wfe4 and White is
OK) 32.�xb7 �xa2 33.�xg7t �xg7 34.Wfxa2 34. �fl �xf4 35J3fl �xa2
Wfxg3! 35.Wfb2t Wfe5 36.Wfxe5t dxe5 37.ifl
with a drawn rook ending on the way.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d e f g h
Black's triumphant position.
a b c d e f g h
36.�b8t �xb8
White resigned due to 37.Wfxa2 Wfc l# (for
instance) .
0-1
The following game again shows the pair of 8

bishops dominating. The centre is blown open,
7
and when White misplays the complications,
6
we get to see the full potential of the bishops
in action. 5
4
Boris Alterman - Ilya Smirin
3
Israel 1 99 1 2
Boris Alterman was one o f the best Israeli

a b c d e f g h
players in the 1 990s. We played a lot of games
with each other, among them a few KID 1 9.b4! cxb4 20.Wi'xb4 Wi'b8 2 1 .0-0 if8
encounters. This game was the beginning of 22.Wi'b2±; ( 1 -0, 43) Dreev - Smirin,
our KID dialogue. Dos Hermanas 200 1 . In my opinion this
plan, releasing the tension in the centre, is
l.d4 tlJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tlJc3 .tg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 unpleasant for Black - he will find it hard to
The Samisch System was Aherman's usual create counterplay. White meanwhile enjoys
choice against the KID. better piece-placement.
5...0-0 6 ..te3 ttJ bd7 9 ... �a5 IO.ci>b l b5

I played this move quite often until Alexey Opposite-side casding should suit Black
Dreev beat me in 2002. well - he has already started his play against
the white king. That promises a sharp game.
7.�d2 c5 8.tlJge2 a6
l l .g4!?
8 A logical idea - White fights for control over
the central d5-square (after a potential g4-g5) .
7 A t the same time h e i s going to launch a pawn
6 attack against the black king.
5 A queen sacrifice occurred in the following

4 famous game of the young Mikhail Tal:
1 1 .lt:Jd5
3
2
a b c d e f g h
9.0-0-0
Dreev used a different plan in the above
mentioned game: 9.dxc5 dxc5 1 0J�d 1 WaS?!
(more precise here is 10 ... Wi'c7) 1 1 .tt:J c 1 Wi'c7
12.lt:Jd3 b6 1 3.if4 e5 1 4.ig5 �e8 1 5 .ie2
tt:Jf8 1 6.lt:Jd5 lt:Jxd5 1 7.cxd5 lt:Jd7 1 8.�c l Wi'd6 a b c d e f g h
1 1 . . . ttJxd5! 1 2.�xa5 ttJxe3 1 3.Ek 1 ttJ xc4 1 3.ttJd5 ttJ fxd5 1 4.exd5 ttJ a4 the white
Tal mentioned in his book that before the king would be facing unpleasant pressure)
game he made a bet with his opponent - the 1 2 . . . ttJfxd5! 1 3.�xa5 ttJxe3 would lead to
Bulgarian player Bobotsov - who was sure interesting complications with an unusual
that the resulting position after the sacrifice material balance, similar to the game
is clearly in White's favour and even laughed Boborsov - Tal.
about it. Tal was of the opposite opinion and
8
proved to be right.
1 4.!hc4 bxc4 1 5 . ttJ c l E!:b8 1 6.�xc4 ttJb6
1 7.�b3 �xd4 1 8.�d2 �g7 1 9.ttJe2 c4 20.�c2 7
6
5
8
6 4
5 3
4 2
3
b d f g
2
a c e h
a b c d e f g h 12.tlJg3
After 1 2.g5 ttJe8 ( 1 2 . . . ttJh5? 1 3.ttJg3±;
20 . . . c3! In the case of the temporary piece sacrifice
His attack became irresistible and the game 1 2 . . . b4 1 3.gxf6 ttJxf6 1 4.dxc5 dxc5 1 5 .e5!
ended very soon: bxc3 1 6.�xc3 �xc3 1 7.ttJxc3 ttJ d7 1 8.f4 �b7
2 1 .�d3 cxb2 22.ttJd4 �d7 23.Ei:d 1 E!:fc8 1 9.Ei:gl White would obtain a clear advantage
24.�b3 ttJa4 25 .�xa4 �xa4 26.ttJ b3 E!:c3 in the resulting endgame - the opponent's
27.�xa6 �xb3 28.axb3 E!:bc8 29.�a3 Ei:cl t pieces are rather passive and the weakness
30.Ei:xc l E!:xc l t on c5 is obvious.) 1 3.ttJg3 cxd4 ( 1 3 ... bxc4!?)
0- 1 Boborsov - Tal, Varna 1 958. 1 4.�xd4 �xd4 1 5.�xd4 b4 1 6.ttJce2 �xg5 it's
not clear ifWhire has enough for the pawn.
Needless to say, such a brilliant game by one
of my all-rime chess heroes inspired me a lot. 1 2 ...cxd4 13.hd4 b4
Actually this old game was probably the main 1 3 . . . ttJe5!? 1 4.�xe5 dxe5 1 5 .cxb5 axb5
reason I started to play the 6 . . . ttJ bd7 line. 1 6.�xb5 �a6 1 7.�xa6 E!:xa6 deserved serious
attention - on b 1 the king is under pressure
l l ... e6!? along the a- and b-files, the bishop on g7 will
Taking the d5-square under control. soon join the play via f8, and the knight on f6
is ready to relocate via e8-d6 at the appropriate
I did not like the look of 1 1 ... b4 1 2.ttJd5 ttJxd5 moment. All this, in my opinion, is fully worth
1 3.exd5 or l l . . . bxc4?! 1 2.h4 with a rapidly just one pawn.
developing initiative for White.
14.g5!?
Bur 1 1 . .. ttJb6 1 2.ttJd5 (after 1 2.ttJg3 b4 In his turn attacking the knight.
1 4.l[ke2 CDe5 1 5 .g5! ( 1 5.CDg1 does not look 15 .gxf6 t!Jxf6

good) 1 5 ... CD fd7 ( 1 5 . . . CDxf3? loses material For the moment Black is a piece down, but
after 1 6.iWe3 CDxg5 1 7.h4 e5 1 8.ib6 CDg4 my adversary cannot save both of his attacked
19.iWg 1 iWa4 20.b3 CD f3 2 l .bxa4 CDxg 1 minor pieces.
22.CDxg l ) 1 6.CDg1 CD c 5 1 7.f4 CDc6 1 8.ixg7
mxg7 1 9.CDf3 �d8 1 6.tlJce2
This is of course much stronger than:
1 6.ie3? bxc3 1 7."1Wxc3 iWxc3 1 8.bxc3 �d8+
16 ... exd4 17.tlJxd4 YMb6
8
7
6
5
a b c d e f g h
4
This would lead to a tense position where
Black should be okay. For instance, 20.h4 (or 3
20.b3 e5 2 l .f5 iWa3 and then 22.iWb2 aS or 2
22.h4? CDxb3) 20 . . . b3 2 1 .a3 iWxd2 with an
acceptable ending.
a b c d e f g h
8 The position has stabilized for a while. White
has some superiority in the centre, but my
7
bishop on g7 is left without its counterpart. The
6 bishop's activity may become a major factor,
5 so Black should open the position somehow
on the queenside and/or in the centre. White,
4 in contrast, would prefer to keep those sectors
3 of the board as closed as possible and try to
attack the black king. Whoever executes his
2 plan better should be on top.
18.�e2?
a b c d e f g h
This obvious developing move proves to be a
14... e5! loss of valuable time.
Adding to the number of hanging pieces.
Bad would be 14 . . . bxc3? 1 5 .ixc3 CDxe4 Alterman should have immediately started his
16.CDxe4 ixc3 1 7."1Wxc3 iWxc3 1 8.CDxc3 ib7 kingside play with:
19 .ie2 CD e5 20 .�xd6 CD xf3 2 l .ixf3 ixf3 1 8.h4 �d8!?
22.�fl , and in this endgame White's advantage Now the attempt to stop this pawn
is nearly decisive. mechanically by means of 1 8 . . . h5?! is very
dangerous due to: 1 9J!gl �d8 20.tDgf5!±

8
gxf5 ? 2 1 .�xg7t �xg7 22.Wg5t �h7
23.Wxf6 7
1 9.h5 d5! 6
And compared with what could have
happened in the game, White has clearly the 5
better version here: 4
20.hxg6 hxg6 2 1 .e5
3
8 2
7
b d f g
6
a c e h
5
4
19 . a5?
..
Now it's my turn to play slow chess.

3
2 Correct was the energetic 1 9 ... d5! at once.

White has a wide choice after that:
a b c d e f g h
20.cxd5? tt:Jxd5 2 1 .exd5 �xd5-+
2 1 . . . dxc4
If 2 1 ... tDe8 22.c5! Wxc5 23.f4 and Black's 20.tt:Jb3 aS! 2 1 .e5 (2 1 .cxd5 a4 22.tt:Jc1 a3
position is not rosy at all. 23.b3 tt:Jxd5 24.exd5 Wf6-+) 2 1 . . . tt:Jd7
22 . .ixc4 22.Wxd5 .ib7 23.Wd6 .ixe5 24.Wxb6 tt:Jxb6+
Now bad is: 22 . . . tDd5 23.Wg5 �e8 24.�he l ±
Therefore the only way to continue involves 20.e5 dxc4 2 1 ..ixc4 tDd5 (threatening
a piece sacrifice: . . . tDc3t) 22.'1lMe l .ib7+
22 . . . �a7! 23.exf6 .ixf6
The next sequence of moves looks to be 20.tt:Jc2 �b8 2 1 .b3 (2 1 .cxd5 b3 22.axb3 tt:Jxd5
pretty forced: 23.exd5 Wxb3 24.tt:Jd4 Wxd5-+) 2 1 . . ..ib7
24.tt:Jge2 .ifSt 25.�al �ad? 26.Wh6 .ig7 22.cxd5
27.Wh2 �f8!
The computer's move.
28 . .id3 .ixd4 29.tt:Jxd4
29 ..ixf5 .ie5!
29 ... '1lMxd4 30 . .ixf5 Wxd l t 3 1 .�xd l �xd l t
32 . .ib l �fl
And it all ends in a draw after:
33.Wh8t �e7 34.Wh4t �e8 35 .We4t �f8
36.Wxb4t �g8 37.'1lMe4 �dd l 38.b4 f5=
Quite a line!
a b c d e f g h
1 8 .. J�d8 19.h4
22 ....ixd5!+ White cannot play 23.exd5 as the
f6-knight would soon land on c3.
20.c5 looks like the best choice. 2 l .h6!? deserved serious attention. The main
purpose of this move is not obvious - after
8 2 1 . .. .ih8 White would have the option to put
7 his knight on g7(!) to block the dangerous
bishop with its body. 22.exd5 ib7 (the
6
piece sacrifice does not work here: 22 ... ttJxd5
5
23.cxd5 �xd5 24.'\We3
4
a b c d e f g h
20 . . . '\Wc?! Aiming at the g3-knight (wrong

would be 20 ... '\Wxc5? 2 l .e5 ttJ d7 22.f4) .
2 1 .�hgl �e8 (2 l . .. dxe4 22.ttJb5 iWd7 23.iWg5
Wff e7 24.ttJd6 with an unclear position)
22.ttJgf5 ixf5 23.ttJxf5 l.Wxc5 24.'\Wg5 \We?
a b c d e f g h
Black remains better, although the situation is
still tense. 24 . . . ie6 [24 . . . ib7 25.ttJ df5 iWf6 26.ttJ g7! - see
previous comment] 25.ttJ df5 ixf5t 26.ttJxf5
In all these variations the bishop on g7 plays a l.Wxe3 27.ttJxe3 �e5 28.�d3 �ae8 29.�hd l
major role. cj;>fg 30.�d8! �xe3 3 l .ib5 and White wins -
all thanks to 2 l .h6) 23.ttJb5 ic6 1he position
20.h5 is hard to evaluate even with the computer's
help. My feeling is that Black has enough play
8
for the pawn.
7 2 1 . ..hxg6
6
5 8
4 7
6
3
2 5
b d f h 3
a c e g
20 ... d5! 2
Better late than never. This is basically the 1
only way to obtain serious counterplay.
a b c d e f g h
21.hxg6 22.cxd5?!
As a result of this move I was forced to 24.'1Ne3

sacrifice the knight for two central pawns, Or 24.�h4 Wffc7! as the knight on g3 is
but actually I was happy about this. Alterman hanging. 25 .Wie3 id7! is logical, leading to a
could have avoided that by sacrificing a very interesting and unusual position (worse
piece himself: 22.c5! Wff c7 (perhaps better is 25 ... ib7 26.�gl Wid7 27.lLJb3 �c8 28.�c l ;
is 22 . . . Wffxc5 , but after 23.e5 tt:Je8 24.f4 my of course 2 5. . .Wffxg3 26.Wffe 8t if8 27.�h8t
pieces are very passive, for instance: 24 . . . Wib6 is impossible) . 26.Wff e4 Wff c 5 27.tt:Jb3 �xd l t
25.if3 lLJc7 26.Wih2 @f8 27.Wff h7 and I would 28.ixd l Wla7
dislike this situation very much) 23.tt:Jgf5! gxf5
8
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
Black would get only one pawn for the
24.e5! Very nice. 24 ... Wffxe5 25.tt:Jc6 piece, but the bishop pair is incredibly strong
Wfc7 26.tt:Jxd8 Wffxd8 27.�dg l With an and White's forces are not coordinated well - I
overwhelming attack. would like my position here from a practical
point of view.
22.e5 ?! is less strong: 22 ... dxc4 23.ixc4 �a7!?
(23 ... tt:Jd5 24.Wig5!) 24.exf6 ixf6 25.tt:Jge2 24 ....ie6!
if5t 26.@a l �ad7 27.Wff h6 ig7 28.Wih2 a4!? The only move, but a very strong one. Black
This would lead to an unclear position with appears to be fine in all variations.
great compensation for the piece.
Bad were the following: 24 . . . �xd4?? 25.Wffe 8t
22 ... llJxd5 23.exd5 gxd5 if8 26.�h8t or 24 . . .ib7? 25.tt:Jdf5!+- or
24 . . . id7? 25 .Wie4 Wid6 26.ic4+-.
8
25.llJc2
7 A reasonable decision.
6
25.tt:Jdf5 ixf5t 26.tt:Jxf5 Wffxe3 27.tt:Jxe3 �e5
5 28.�d7 �xe3 29.ic4 �f8 would have led to
4 an endgame with an extra pawn and winning
chances for Black (but not 29 . . . �xf3?? 30.id5) .
3
2 Good enough was 25.Wff e4 ixd4 26.ic4

1
�ad8 27.ixd5 ixd5 28.Wie2 (28.Wff h 4? ixf3
29.Wih7t @f8 30.�hfl ig7!+) 28 . . . a4 with
a b c d e f g h
a complicated but objectively about equal Weaker is 27 ... �d6 28.lLle4 ixa2t?! 29.al
position after the precise 29.�d2. �dd8 30.f5.
28.xb2 "1Wc3t 29.c l ig4 30.lLle4 '!Mal t
25 ...Y;Yc7 3 l .d2 "1Wb2 32.�cl �cd8 33.�b l �xd3t
34."1Wxd3 �xd3t 3 5 .xd3 ie2t 36.xe2
"1Wxc2t 37.e3 "1Wxa2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
As in some previous variations, we see that As is often the case, the forcing line leads
Black has excellent compensation for the piece to a balanced endgame. But it was surely
here - the two bishops are very strong, White's impossible to find all this during the game.
forces are not placed well, and the king may Boris decided j ust to eliminate a pair of
easily find itself under a strong attack. rooks - an understandable choice under the
circumstances.
26J�xd5
It was a hard task for my opponent to make 26 ...i.xd5
a choice here. He could have played:
26.f4!? �c8 27.id3
27.�cl ? �c5 28.id3 iWb6!-+ and White has
no defence against 29 . . . �xc2.
a b c d e f g h
27J�gl?
a b c d e f g h
But he errs here and immediately gets a lost
27 . . . ixb2!? position - the price of a move in situations like
Giving up another piece. this is very high.
1 00 King's Indian Warfare
Not much better was: 27.lt:Je4? ixa2t

(27 . . . �e5 28.�d4 �xd4 29.lt:Jxd4 ixd4
30.El:d l El:d8 3 1 .El:xd4 ixa2t 32.c;t>xa2 El:xd4
33.c;t>b3 would leave White with good drawing
chances) 28.c;t>xa2 �xc2 29.�d2 b3t 30.c;t>a3
3 a b c d e f g h
2 r�/-�.re�.ttirl:<i1lfr1
27...ha2t 28.<j;lxa2 �xc2-+ 29.�b3
Or 29.�c l �a4t 30.c;t> b l b3.
a b c d e f g h
29 ...�c5
30 . . . El:b8! 3 1 .�xc2 bxc2 32.b3 ih6 33.c;t>b2
By attacking the rook I win a very important
c l =�t 34.El:xc l ixcl t 3 5.c;t>xc l El:xb3 36.c;t>c2
tempo to play ... a5-a4, after which White is
El:b8 And I would rate Black's winning chances
doomed despite having an extra knight.
here very highly.
30J�dl
27.El:d l was the only correct continuation.
No better would be:
27 ... El:c8 (27 ... ixa2t? 28.c;t>xa2 �xc2 29.�b3
30.�d l b3t 3 1 .c;t>b1 a4
does not work) Alterman would have had to
find the paradoxical:
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h 32.�c l
Or 32.lt:Je4 �e5 33.lt:Jc3 a3 34.�xb3 axb2
28.lt:Ja l ! (28.El:d2 a4 29.b3 axb3 30.axb3
35 .�xb2 (35.El:d l �e3!) 35 . . . �f5t 36.c;t>c l
�a5 and Black's assault looks very dangerous)
�c5 .
This seems to lead to a dynamic balance after
32 ... �xc l t 33.c;t>xc l
28 . . . ie6 29.lt:Je4 a4 30.lt:Jd6 El:d8 3 1 .lt:Je4. No
33.El:xc l a3! Even the exchange o f queens
wonder he did not find all this, and missed a
does not stop the attack. 34.bxa3 El:xa3
decisive blow.
35.El:c8t c;t>h7 36.c;t>cl El:al t 37.c;t>d2 ih6t
38 .�c3 (38.�d3 b2) 3 8 . . . Ek l t In the last game of this chapter we shall see
33 . . .Ek8t 34.�d2 ixb2 an early exchange of the King's Indian bishop.
Even though Black gives up a pawn on the way,
30 ... a4 31 .�d3 h3t 32.®bl �e5! it is still a worthwhile investment, as White
suffers from a weakness on the dark squares for
the rest of the game.
8
7 Igor Naumkin - Ilya Smirin

6 Ischia 1995
5
This game was played on the beautiful Italian
4 island of Ischia, near Naples. The tournament's
3 atmosphere (the sea, Italian cuisine, etc.)
and environment were very inspiring, and
2
probably played a great part in my creative
mood during the tournament. In this game
with Grandmaster Igor Naumkin I managed
a b c d e f g h
to find over the board one of my best opening
Regaining the piece while continuing the ideas i n the KID.
assault. Here White could easily resign, but the
next few moves were made. l.d4 lljf6 2.c4 g6 3.llJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 s.llJ£3
0-0 6.i.e2 llJa6 7.0-0 e5
33.gd2 �xg3 34.�d5 �c8 35.i.c4
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
8.d5
35... �xc4 White transposes into the Petrosian System.
Simple, but nice.
8 .ie3 and 8 .El:e l , trying to keep the pawn
36.�xc4 �el t 37.�cl �xclt 38.®xcl i.h6 centre intact for a while, are the most popular
39.®dl i.xd2 40.®xd2 g5 continuations here.
0-1
1 02 King's I ndian Warfare
Now the main drawback of releasing the exchange on g4 is not advisable for White -
tension in the centre with 8 .d5 is evident - the he would swap his bishop on e3 for the black
black knight occupies an excellent outpost on knight, and this of course would be in Black's
c5. Black should not overestimate this factor favour.
though. I have played a few interesting games
in this variation, and in this book you will find 30 years ago I played the more natural
my encounters with Zilberman in this line. continuation 1 2 . . .lt:Jg4 against Ivanchuk. It
was an interesting struggle: 1 3 .ixg4 ixg4
1 o .ig5 h6 ll .ie3 b6
. . 1 4.a3 id7 1 5 .b4 lt:Ja6 1 6Jh b l f5 1 7.f3 f4
Adding support to the knight on c5. 1 8 .if2 g5
12.tlJd2
3 a b c d e f g h
2 1 9 .bxa5 bxa5 20.c5 g4 2 l .c6 ic8 22.fxg4

ixg4 23.lt:Jf3 if6 24.�e2 mh8 25.mh l �g8
1
26.�b5 lt:Jc5 27.ixc5 dxc5 28.lt:Ja4 �e7
a b c d e f g h 29.lt:Jxc5 �g6 30.�d l �ag8 3 1 .d6 �g7
12 .ig4!?
...
An interesting, well-known idea. Usually the

exchange of the light-squared bishops favours
White in structures like this. There are two
main reasons:
(a) Black remains with the rather passive

bishop on g7.
(b) After . . . f7-f5 White will react with f3, and

after a probable . . . f5-f4 the bishop will go to a b c d e f g h
f2 and it will be very hard for Black to create
32.d7? (32.dxc7 �xc7 33.lt:Jd7±) 32 . . . ixf3
an attack on the kingside without the light
33.�xf3 �xg2 34.�bb l �g5 3 5 .�h3
squared bishop, which usually supports the
ie7 36.�bcl �g4 37.lt:Jb7 �g6 38 .�f3
. . . g6-g5-g4 push and is also ready to sacrifice
�h5 39.�c3 �g6 40.�cc l �h5 4 1 .�d3
itself around the h3 area.
Y2-Y2 Ivanchuk - Smirin, Pinsk 1 986.
But in this particular position the immediate

Chapter 3 - The King's Indian Bishop 1 03
13.f3 14 ... llJh5

I have also faced 1 3 . h3 id? here. This move is the main reason behind
1 2 . . . .ig4: after 1 3.f3 the d 1 -h5 diagonal is not
1 3 .'tMl'd 1 ! ? was played against me by the very controlled by the bishop on e2 anymore and
talented Grandmaster Igor lvanov: 1 3 . . . the knight goes to h S , preparing . . . f7-fS and
h 5 ( 1 3 . . . .id7! ?) 1 4. h3 ( 1 4.ig5 !?) 1 4 . . . id7 having the square f4 in mind.
1 5 .'tMl'c2 lt:Jh7 1 6. ctJ b3 ctJ a6 1 7.'\Wd2 V!ff e7
1 8 .�ae 1 .if6 1 9 . ctJ c l ig5 20 .ctJd3 .ixe3 1 5JUel
21 .'tMl'xe3 Vacating f1 for the bishop in case the knight
j umps to f4.
3
a b c d e f g h
2
2 1 . ..'tMl'g5 22 .Vfixg5 ctJxg5 23 . .id 1 f5 24.f3 ctJ c5
1
25.ctJxc5 bxc5 ; 0- 1 (45) I. lvanov - Smirin,
P hiladelphia 1 990. a b c d e f g h
1 5 ...�f6!
13 ...�d7 14.b3 I am proud of fi n ding this move, and the
In my opinion, stronger was: 1 4.�fe 1 !? ctJ h 5 idea connected with it, over the board.
1 5 .ifl fS 1 6.b3 lt:Jf6 1 7.a3
1 5 .. .f5 was the usual continuation here.
16.�xh6
Accepting the pawn sacrifice fully passes the
ini dative to Black.
Bad was 1 6. a3 igS 1 7.if2? ixd2 1 8.V!ff xd2

ctJ xb3 .
I think 1 6.�ab 1 .igS 1 7 . .if2 fS 1 8.a3 was the

a b c d e f g h best continuation, with a complex struggle.
This looks like a better version of White's

16...�g5! 17.�xg5
plan; (0- 1 , 47) Savchenko - Smirin,
Immediately losing was: 1 7 . .ixf8 ? .ie3t
St Petersburg 20 1 2.
1 s . m h 1 os .mn Vff h4 1 9.ct:Jd 1 ct:Jg3t)
1 04 K i ng's I ndian Warfare
In the case of 1 8 .ifl �g7!, threatening . . . !!h8,

the picture would be different but still very
unpleasant for White.
18 ...£5 19.exf5
This exchange opens the g-file dangerously,
but 1 9.l!Mc 1 ttJ f4 20.g3 ttJ h3t 2l.<�g2 f4+ was
even worse - the attack would roll freely and
White would soon be doomed.
a b c d e f g h 19 ...gxf5 20.a3
1 8 . . . ttJg3t 1 9 . hxg3 Wxf8 20.ttJfl Wh6t
2 1 . ltJh2 �g7 with inevitable mate - this is the 8
tactical j ustifi cation of my 1 4th move.
7
17.. JWxg5 6
a b c d e f g h
20 ... a4!
An important finesse; Black also improves
his position on the queenside.
The preliminary 20 . . . ttJ f4 2 l .tDg3 and only
a b c d e f g h now 2 l . .. a4 was also quite strong.
The compensation for the pawn is more than
evident now - all Black's forces are active, and 21 .b4
after . . . f7-f5 White's right flank will be under 2 l .bxa4 would not look pretty, but at least it
attack. Black may make use of the missing would not allow the immediate transfer of the
h6-pawn - if the rook comes to h8 the pawn knight to d4 via b3 .
on h2 will be under fire. In contrast, White's
pieces are quite passive. He will find it 2 1 . .. tlJb3
particularly hard to give his rooks decent jobs. Now Black's advantage is almost decisive.
l S.tlJfl 22J�a2 gf7 23.g3 @hs! 24 ..idl ggs

Naumkin decides to cover the h2-pawn in Now all my pieces have joined the assault;
advance, but now the g-pawn becomes an White cannot withstand this.
object of attack.
25.VNhl
Chapter 3 - The K i ng's I ndian B ishop 1 05
29.tLle2 'l;Yxc4 30.gxf4?

8
The simple 30.�xb3 would reduce my
7 advantage considerably.
6
30 .. J!xg2t 31 .®xg2
5
4 8
3 7
2 6
1 5
a b c d e f g h 4
25 ...'l;Yh4?! 3
Starting here, I several times missed an
opportunity to finish the game quickly. I 2
should have kept my excellent knight from
being exchanged for the passive bishop on d 1 .
a b c d e f g h
25 . . . lDd4 26J!f2 (26.�d3 �h4 27.�g2
lD f4-+) 26 . . . �h4 27.�g2 �fg7 and White's 3 l . .. exf4?
position is falling apart: he cannot prevent Now it is my turn again to make a serious
28 . . . lDf4, with decisive threats. mistake. 3 l . . . lDxf4t 32.lD xf4 exf4 33 .�xb3
(33.�e4 �xd5-+) 33 . . . .ih3t would win by
26.ixb3 axb3 27 J!g2! force.
I did not notice this defence, counting on
27.�xb3? f4 28.ltJe4 fxg3 29. hxg3 lDxg3-+ . 32J!e4
Or 32.�xb3 �g7t 33.\t>h l �xb3! 34.�xb3
27...'l;Yd4t 28J!e3 .ib5 3 5 .�b2 �e7 and one of the white knights
is gone.
32 ...'i;Yxd5
Despite the mutual mistakes, White's
position remains lost.
33.fl Y;Ygs
More resolute was 33 . . . c5! 34 .tDc3 (34.\t>el
c4) 34 ...�g5 3 5 .�xb3 �g7 36.\t>el ttJ f6
37.�e2 �h4t 38.\t>d2 .ih3 .
34.®el tLl f6?!

Another inaccuracy. 34 . . . d5 3 5 .�xb3 �f5
a b c d e f g h 36.�d4 �e5! would break all resistance on the
28 ... f4?! spot.
Stronger was 28 . . . lD f4 29.�d2 �xc4.
38 .. J�e7! 39.'1Nxb3t g7

8
The position has simplified and my opponent
7 even has an extra pawn at the moment. But
despite numerous lapses, Black's advantage is
6
still large . . .
5
4 4oJ�c4 YNgi t 4t .d2 YNxh2 42.'1Nd3
3
8
2
7
1
6
a b c d e f g h
5
35.'1Nb2?
I missed this move, but much stronger was 4
35 .�xb3! when Black must settle for a clear 3
advantage after: 35 . . . d5 36.!hf4 �e7 37.�xf6
�xf6 38 .�xd5+ 2
1
But not 3 5 .�xf4? �e7-+.
a b c d e f g h
35 ... g8? 42 ... c5! 43Jk l f7 44.bxc5 bxc5

And here the immediate 35 . . .ib5 ! was a Although there is not much material left on
winner. the board, Black's advantage is still decisive:
the white king is stuck in the centre, all my
36J�xf4 .ibS 37.tlJfg3 1xe2 38.tlJxe2 pieces are more active than White's, and finally
38 .�f5 fails to 38 ... �e3 39.t2Jxe2 �e7! the mighty pawn duo on d6 and c5 is much
40.�xf6 �g l t 4 I .md2 �xe2t and the queen more powerful than the isolated pawns on a3
is lost. and f3. No wonder the end is near.
45.a4
8
Or 45.�el d5 46.md l �f2 leaves White
7 helpless against the advancing pawns. For
example, 47.l!gl �xe2 48 .�g6t me6-+ and
6
White has already run out of good checks.
5
4 4S .. J�e5! 46.'1Nb5 YN£2 47J�c3 d5

The pawns have started to roll and Naumkin
3
decides to call it a day due to 47 . . . d5 48.�xc5
2 �xe2t 49.�xe2 �xc5 . I made quite a few
errors in the second part of the game, but
1
despite that, this remains one of my most
a b c d e f g h beloved KID encounters.
0-1
Chapter 4
Line Opening
In the King's Indian it is important to look

beyond apparent obstacles to success...
� 8
7
6
5
4
This is a bit easier. A piece down, How can Black continue the
the attack is still very strong. attack? (see page 1 38)
(see page 1 22)
8 � 8 � 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
Deep analysis. Black has a nice How can Black fight for the How can Black fight for the
difficult combination. initiative? (see page 1 26) initiative? (see page 1 42)
(see page 1 1 6)
� 8 � 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
One of the most imaginative Let your intuition guide you! How can Black fight for the
combinations in KID history (see page 1 37) initiative? (see page 1 48)
(see page 1 1 7)
Chapter 4 - Line Opening 1 09
One of the most important themes in the

8
King's Indian is line opening. From the
beginning of the game Black allows White to 7
take more space. The trade-off is that White is 6
advancing on the queenside and Black on the
kingside, where the king is. But this does not 5
fully compensate for the lack of space. Black 4
needs to open lines for his pieces, often with a
3
sense of urgency, in order to get the most out
of the position's potential. 2
This is probably the biggest topic in the
King's Indian and a natural follow-up to our
discussion of the Ki ng's Indian bishops, where a b c d e f g h
the main characteristic was the great potential This looks a bit slow. As I understand the
this bishop holds. In this chapter we shall King's Indian , Black should already be O K
investigate the potential of all of the pieces. now.
As this topic is rather important to the 16 ...i.ffi

understanding of the King's Indian, the This is the modern system, invented
introduction is longer than in all the other by Gligoric earlier in the same year in a
chapters and somewhat generic. To some this tournament at Mar del Plata. This name has
will probably mean seeing examples or ideas now been extended to cover all of the lines
they already know intimately, while for others after 8 . . . tt:Je7, as in the recent two-volume
this will be essential background knowledge work on this position by Vassilios Kotronias.
to understand the more complex games that
follow. 17.cxd6 cxd6 1 8.�d2 g4 1 9.�fcl
We start with the most generic of all K ing's

8
Indian games, played in a famous Candidates
Tournament on which two great books have 7
been written, by Bronstein and Najdorf. I have
6
read the book by Bronstein maybe 20-25 times
and it has helped me a lot. 5
4
Mark Taimanov- Miguel Najdorf
3
Zurich 1953
2
l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.tlJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 s.ttJf3 1
0-0 6.i.e2 e5 7.0-0 tlJc6 8.d5 tlJe7 9.tlJe l
a b c d e f g h
�d7 IO.i.e3 f5 l l .f3 f4 12.i.f2 g5 13.tiJd3
This idea, forcing through c4-c5, is no An important moment in the history of the
longer popular. King's Indian Defence. Najdorf comes up with
a wonderful pawn sacrifice that since then has
become as much a staple as bread and butter.
19 ... g3! 20.hxg3 fxg3 2 I ..ixg3 tlJh5 22 ..ih2 ixb5 3 1 .�a3 �g7 32.g4 ixd2 33 .�xd2 �xd2
.ie7 34.�xd2 lDxf3 35 .�f2 ttJxh2 36.�xf8t �xf8
37.�xh2 ttJf6 and Black is close to winning.
8
28 ... b5 29.a4 a6 30.axb5 axb5 3 l .gc7 gg7
7 32.tlJ b3?!
6 The fi n al mistake, though it should be said
that White is under a lot of pressure anyway.
5 3 2 .ie2 ttJ gf4 3 3. g4 ttJ xd3 34 .ixd3 ttJ f6 also
4 gives Black a winning attack.
3
32 ... tlJh4 33.gc2 .ih3
2 33 . . . �xf3 was a bit more obvious, but we are
in the territory of "anything wins" .
1
a b c d e f g h 34.�e2
Black's counterplay on the dark squares is
hopefully obvious to all. A few moves ago it 8
was hard to see how the black pieces were going
7
to get into the game. But through line opening
and a small material investment, we now have 6
four active pieces with great potential.
5
The rest of the game is well played by Najdorf 4

Today we might see a more dynamic approach, 3
but we should not fault the players for playing
as if they did not know Tal's games, as Tal was 2
still playing j unior tournaments in Riga at this 1
point!
a b c d e f g h
23.tlJ bl 34 ... tlJxg2! 35 ..ixg2 .ixg2t 36.�xg2 �h4
It was stronger t o play 23 . tD d 1 i g 5 24.tDe3, 37.�xg7t �xg7 38.gg2t �h8 39.tlJel tlJf4
although Black has a good game after 24 ... �f8 . 40.gg3 .ifl 41 .gg4 �h3 42. tlJ d2 h5 43.gg5
0-1
23....id7 24.�el .ig5 25.tlJd2 .ie3t 26.�hl
�g5 27 ..ifl gaf8 Grandmasters today have intimate knowledge
Black has the advantage. All his pieces are of how important it is to fight for the initiative
playing their part. when facing the King's Indian, but we still see
wipe-outs like this. Some of them are below.
28.gdl
28 .�a 1 b5 29.a4 was analysed by Kasparov in The following example from the Soviet
Part IV of his Great Predecessors series. He gave Women's Championship shows another typical
a good line in reply, but he did not consider line opening: the check on g3 with a knight to
the most direct approach: 29 . . . ttJ h4! 30.axb5 open up the h-file to the king.
Chapter 4 - Line Opening 111
Tatiana Shumiakina - Narine Karakashian This is of course the point. The queen is
heading for h4 with great urgency.
Volzhsky 1989
2 I .lbxe3 fxg3
8 With the bishop gone, we need someone else
to assist with the attack on the dark squares.
7
6 22.i>gl
5 22.ttJg4 �h4t 23.�gl ttJ e3 and mate.
4 22 ... �xe3 23.i.xe3 Wfh4 24J�el Wfh2t

3 25.i>fl
2
8
1
7
a b c d e f g h
6
Black has achieved a lot, getting her bishop
to e3, outside the pawn chain. But if White 5
has time to play lt:J c4, it will all be for nothing. 4
The bishop is exchanged and White is ready
to attack on the queenside. Black has to react 3
energetically. 2
1
18 ... lbh5! 19.lbc4
This allows Black to unfold her attack. a b c d e f g h
1 9 .�e l is met with 1 9 . . . ttJ f5!!, when White
25 ...i.h3!
has to play 20J�f2, which is obviously not
The final piece comes into the attack, making
good, in order to avoid 20.exf5 ttJ g3t 2 l .hxg3
up for the fact that I have chosen not to include
�g5 with mate.
any . . . .ixh3 examples in this chapter, fi n ding it
j ust a bit too generic.
19 ... lbg3t 20.hxg3 lbf5!!
26.gxh3 g2t
8 I have to say that I enjoy 26 . . .�h l t 27 . .ig l
�xh3# more. It is purer somehow. But mate is
7
mate and it wins the game.
6 0-1
5
As I said, there is no pushing the pawn to g3
4 with . . ..ixh3 to follow in this chapter, but I
3 have something almost as good for you.
In the next example, we have a non-generic
2
break, but otherwise a very typical reaction.
I want the reader to understand that it is
a b c d e f g h
important both to know the typical ideas and 20 . . . e4! 2 1 .lt:Jxe4 ifS , when all his pieces
to get a sense of the dynamic attitude necessary are playing. For example: 22 .0-0 lt:J a4
to play the King's Indian well. 23 .Ei:b3 ixe4 24.fxe4 1Mfe5 2 5 .ixe3 Ei:xfl t
26.ixfl lt:J c3 with a big advantage.
Igor Bjelobrk - Alexander Grischuk
20 ... i.f5 21 .tlJe4 YNa4!
Troms0 (1.1) 20 13
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
22.YMd3
White has played a little slowly and is in
22.1Mfxa4 lt:Jxa4 and the knight is heading for
need of "just one more move" to have a good
c3 in many lines. Besides the loss of at least a
position. If Black were to act timidly here,
pawn, the white position is full of holes. For
White would have time to make this extra
example: 23.f3 ixe4 24.fxe4 lt:Jc3 2 5 .Ei:c1 lt:Jxe4
move, but against an experienced King's Indian
maestro like Grischuk, there is no such luck.
22 ...YNa2 23.i.xb6
19 ... e3!! 20.i.xe3 2 3 .ic 1 ixe4 24 .1Mfxe4 lt:Ja4 is also decisive.
20.f3 would have allowed Black to play the For example: 2 5 .id2 lt:J c3! 26.ixc3 Ei:f4
thematic: 27.1Mfd3 e4 and White's position collapses.
8
23 .. J�a3 24.i.e3 gxd3 25.i.xd3 i.xe4
26.he4 i.h6 27.0-0 i.xe3 28.fxe3 gxfl t
7
0-1
6
5 We shall continue the journey from the

4 classic ideas into the theme of dynamic line
3
opening. The following example is particularly
brilliant in the sidelines, where we can see the
2
importance of making space for the pieces.
a b c d e f g h
Giovanni Vescovi - Teimour Radjabov Making space for the second rook and
threatening . . . e4-e3 at the same time. 27 .ifl
Bursa 2010
E!:ag 8 28.E!: e 1 :8:8g6 29.E!:d2 tD d3 and White
needs to do something desperate, and give up
8 something he does not want to give, in order
to avoid being mated.
7
6 24 .. J�g8 25 ..ifl ttl d3

5 The black pieces are flowing in effortlessly.
4 26.ttlb5
3 26.\We3 also does not offer a serious defence.
The simplest line is probably 26 . . .\Wxe3t
2
27.El:xe3 id4 and the attack continues
unhampered, despite the exchange of queens.
For example: 28.lD d 1 lDxb2 29.lDxb2 ixe3t
a b c d e f g h
30.h2 id4 3 1 .E!:b 1 E!:g6 and White cannot
Black has given up a piece and caused real avoid further material losses.
damage, but needs to find a way to bring the
remaining pieces into the attack. 26....ih6!
26 . . . lD e5 ! ? is another typically atypical
23.. f7!
.
King's Indian tactic that also gives Black a
Creating a path for both of the rooks to winning attack.
enter the attack.
27.�e3
24JUel
The important line to foresee is 24.\We3
8
id 4!!. A key tempo-winning move. This time
aro und, the King's Indian bishop is rather 7
useless, but it can be given away to win time
6
and clear the g-file for the rooks. 25 .\Wxd4 E!:g8
26J�f2 E!:g3! 5
a b c d e f g h
27 ... ttlxf4!
A decisive tactic.
a b c d e f g h 28J�xh3 ttlxh3t 29.h2 .ixd2 30.xh3

�g5 31.�dl gagS 32.�xd2 ghst
33.liJh4 gg4 34.�h2 ggxh4t 35.�gl ghl t 28.Wc5 if8! and White suffers devastating
White resigned. After 36.@f2 �5h2t 37.ig2 material losses.
f4 the game is over.
0-1
In some of the examples above White has been

a bit overmatched. In the next examples, two
of the best players of our time are blown away
by - you guessed it - dynamic line opening.
Levon Aronian- Magnus Carlsen
Nice (blindfold) 2010
8
a b c d e f g h
7
22 ... e4!!
6
The great point of the sacrifice. White has to
5 take the pawn, which gives Black time to bring
4 in the King's Indian bishop.
3 23.liJxe4 �d4t 24.gf2

2 24 .CLJf2 Wf6 is entirely decisive. The white
pieces are all tied up.
a b c d e f g h 24 ... gxf2
Black could have accelerated his attack a bit
Magnus Carlsen is best known for his
with 24 . . . ixf2t! 2 5 .CLJ xf2 Wf6 26.Wfl �ae8
endgame skills, but make no mistake about it,
27.�e l CLJe3 28.ixe3 �xe3, where White is
Carlsen can play all types of positions. Here
defenceless.
he shows his skills as an attacking player in a
blindfold rapid game, a few months after he
took the Number 1 spot in the rating list.
18 ... fxe4 19.fxe4 cxd5 20.exd5 llJexd5!

For a King's Indian player it is easy to give
away a piece to open up lines for the rest of
the pieces.
21 .cxd5 liJxd5 22.�gl

22.@h3 CLJ f4t 23.ixf4 �xf4 gives Black a
winning attack. A line that a human might a b c d e f g h
calculate would go something like this: 24.Wd3
For example: 29.CLJ d l �g3t! 30.hxg3 Wd4t
Wg5 25.�c7 Wh6t 26.@g3 e4 27.Wxd6 �f6
3 1 . CLJ f2 We3 ! and White can do nothing.
25.tiJxf2?!
8
Aronian could have made things more
difficult with 25 .ig5 ! , when Black plays: 7
25 . . . if6 26.ixf6t (26.ctJ xf6?! loses to the 6
beautiful 26 . . . ctJ e3!) 26 . . .!hf6 27.�d4
5
a b c d e f g h
Black has managed to regroup in the
traditional manner without White managing
a b c d e f g h to create serious threats on the queenside. This
allows Black to crash through.
27 . . . ctJ f4!! 28 .ifl ixe4 29.g5 ctJ e6+ and Black
will fight for a win with an extra pawn.
24...h4!
Preparing . . . h4-h3 at the right moment.
25 ... %Vh4 26.%Vel �Us 27 ..if3 �xf3 28.%Ve4
�xflt
25.fxg4
0-1
So decides to take up the challenge.
Nakamura has won with Black in the King's

The engine suggests 25 .ib4 is a better move,
Indian against many of the top players. You
bur there is something artificial about it. Black
can look up his wins against Anand, Gelfand
does not have to play 25 . . . h3 immediately, and
and Kramnik, should you feel so inclined. For
he might increase the pressure further before
our topic, his most recent example against his
executing the attack. In short, I do not believe
new compatriot and Top- 1 0 colleague will do
that White is OK here.
just fine.
Wesley So - Hikaru Nakamura
Sinquefield 2015
l.d4 ttlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttlc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.ttlf3

0-0 6..ie2 e5 7.0-0 ttlc6 8.d5 ttle7 9.ttlel
ttld7 10.f3 f5 l l ..ie3 f4 12 ..if2 g5 13.ttld3
ttlg6 14.c5 ttlf6 15.�cl �f7 16.�hl h5
17.cxd6 cxd6 18.tiJb5 a6 19.ttl a3 b5 20.�c6
g4 21 .%Vc2 %¥£8 22.�cl .id? 23.�c7 .ih6
24..iel
a b c d e f g h
Now Black sacrifices material in order to 3 1 .ixd2 ttJ f4 32.iel ctJ f2t!! 33.Wfxf2 Wfe4t
open up the position for all his pieces, after and everything falls.
which White is defenceless.
The best chance, 27.ctJb4 �xf3+ still gives
25 ... f3! 26.gxf3 �xe4!! Black an overwhelming advantage, as White
cannot play 28 .Wfxe4?! on account of 28 . . . �fl t
29.�g2 h3t! 30.�xh3 ttJ f4t and it is all over.
27.. J3xf3! 28.gxd7 �Ul t 29. ®g2 ie3! 30.ig3

30.ixfl h3t is the same as before, although
after 3 1 . �xh3 Wff3t 32.ig3 it is the knight
that delivers checkmate: 32 . . . ctJ g5#
30 ... hxg3 31 .�xfl ltJh4t
a b c d e f g h
Dynamic line opening in action. All the
black pieces are coming to life.
27J�dl
It is easy to criticize this move, but hard to
come up with an alternative.
27.fxe4 �fl t 28.�g2 fails to 28 . . . ie3!!,

when the attack is decisive. The main point is a b c d e f g h
29.ixfl h3t! 30.�xh3 Wff3t 3 1 .ig3 ixg4#. The knights are terrific attackers. White
could resign, but he found it more
A more complicated variation is 27.�xd7 �xf3 sportsmanlike to play out the attack.
28.ixf3 Wfxf3t 29 .Wfg2 Wfxd3 30.�dl .
32.®h3 %Vh6 33.g5 ltJxg5t 34.®g4 �hf3
35.ltJf2 %Vh4t 36.®f5 �f8t 37.®g6 �f6t
38.®xf6 ltJe4t 39.®g6 %Vg5#
0-1
This chapter is about line opening, but I also

feel it is necessary to talk for a moment about
dynamic line blocking, with one last example
before we go from the glorious theory to the
reality of messy practical play. This game is like
something from out of this world, involving
a b c d e f g h
both dynamic line opening and dynamic line
White seems all right until you find 30 . . . id2!! blocking.
Per Auchenberg- Brian Elgaard White continues with his plan.
Copenhagen 1992
35.cxd7 i.£8!!
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
White has made great progress on the
Closing the 8th rank for j ust a moment and
queenside, but Black is not without his
opening the g-file for the queen.
chances. The key task is to find a way to get
the queen into the attack. It all comes together
36J3xc8
like a beautiful symphony, with three bizarre
It is a pity that White did not take with the
moves.
pawn, but at least he allowed his opponent to
execute the checkmate.
34 ...YMg8!!
Yes, the queen is hanging, but it IS also
36... tiJhit
immune on account of . . J�fl#.
Knight checks m the corner are always
special.
37.®e2 YMxg2t 38.®d3 YMc2#

0-1
My Games next day in the Russian language newspaper

"Soviet Sport". I was lucky, as during the lunch
Alexander Huzman - Ilya Smirin break, only a few hours before the game, Boris
Gelfand enlightened me about the brilliant
Sverdlovsk 1987
idea played by Korchnoi.
l .�f3 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.d4

1 3 . tD d3 ttJ f6 1 4.c5 tLlg6 1 5 .Ek 1 :gf7 was
0-0 6 ..ie2 e5 7.0-0 � c6
played in Taimanov - Najdorf, Zurich 1 953,
The most popular continuation among such
as mentioned in the introduction.
moves as 7 . . . ttJ a6, 7 . . . ttJ bd7, 7 . . . exd4, 7 . . . "!9e8
and 7 . . . c6.
13 ... b6!
Forewarned is forearmed, even though I did
8.d5 �e7 9.�el �d7 IO .ie3
not expect that my future Israeli teammate
•
One of the most aggressive setups for White

Alexander Huzman would follow Korchnoi's
against the KID, and a pet variation of Viktor
footsteps. Here is his game:
Korchnoi.
1 3 . . . a6 1 4.tLla7!!
1 o . ttJ d3 f5 1 1 .f3 f4 is another popular line; a
slightly more "quiet" one.
1 o ... f5 I I .f3 £4 12 ..ifl g5
4 a b c d e f g h
3 A really beautiful move!

1 4 . . . :gxa7 1 5 .ixa7 b6 1 6.b4 ib7 1 7.c5 dxc5
2
1 8 .:gcl tLlc8 1 9 .bxc5 ia8 20.c6 ttJ f6 2l.ixb6
1 The bishop falls in the end, but the price is
very high.
a b c d e f g h
2 1 . . . tLlxb6 22.ixa6 g4 23.tDd3 g3 24.h3 tDe8
1 3.�b5!? 25.tLlc5
An interesting story is connected with this White won in Korchnoi - Hulak, Zagreb
move. It was first played by Korchnoi against 1 987.
Hulak j ust two days before my game with I did not want to repeat Hulak's fate, and
Huzman. There were neither databases nor found the best move 1 3 . . . b6 over the board.
internet in those ancient days, so information
usually reached players much more slowly than 14.b4 a6
nowadays. However, the Korchnoi - Hulak
game was an exception - it was published the
Black starts his usual routine in this variation

8
- activity (attack) against the opponent's king.
7 However, in this case I would prefer 1 5 . . . �f6,
6 with the further transfer of this rook to g6 or
h6, or 1 5 . . . tt:J f6 1 6.c5 b5, which I like most. In
5 contrast, after 1 5 ... a5 ?! (activity on the wrong
4 flank) 1 6.c5! axb4 1 7.cxd6 cxd6 1 8 .tt:Jc4 lt:Jc5
1 9 .lt:Jd3 White's chances should definitely be
3
preferred - he is far ahead in developing an
2 initiative.
16.c5 b5
a b c d e f g h Now it's evident that the knight on a3 is
15.�a3 preventing White from playing a2-a4, so he
In my opinion, retreating this knight to c3 must move it first - and time is very valuable
is more logical, even though Black is usually in such positions.
doing OK after that. Below is another of
Korchnoi's games - this time he was on the 17.lLlac2 �f6 1 8.a4 bxa4 19J��xa4 �g6
receiving end of Black's attack: 20.b5 g4 2 1 .�b4
1 5 .lt:Jc3 h5 1 6. �h 1 tt:J f6 1 7.c5 g4 1 8 .cxb6 cxb6
1 9.Ek 1 g3 20.ig 1 gxh2 2l .if2 h4 22.lt:Ja4 8
�b8 23.b5 axb5 24.ixb5 lt:Jh5 25.�xh2 lt:Jg3
7
26.�g1 lt:Jg6 27.lt:Jd3 �h7 28.lt:Jb4 h3
6
8
5
7
4
6
5
3
4 2
3 1
2
a b c d e f g h
1
2 1 . .. g3!
a b c d e f g h
After the famous game Taimanov - Najdorf
29.�xc8!? (see above) this pawn sacrifice became typical
29.gxh3 ixh3! 30.�xh3 �g5! ! gives Black a in such positions.
winning attack.
29 . . . �xc8 30.gxh3 �h8 3 1 .ixb6 �e7 22.hxg3 fxg3 23.�xg3 h4
32.lt:Jd3 ?! �b8! Black's activity is based mainly on the weak
Black has a big attack and won in Korchnoi dark squares around the white monarch. Black's
-Ye Jiangchuan, Novi Sad 1 990. knights strive to reach f4 and g3 ; the bishop
will support them from h6 and the g-file is free
15 ...h5?! for Black's heavy artillery. The question is: will
Black have enough time to do all these things, After which the following complications are
or will the opponent smash Black's queenside possible:
and/ or centre first? 27 . . .rnhs 2s .b6
28Jh 2 �g8 29.cxd6 cxd6 30.b6 lD 6h5
24.lbc6 V:Yd7 25 ..ih2 .ih6
8
8 7
7 6
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
2 a b c d e f g h
1 3 1 .�b2 (the following excmng vananons

show the strength and danger ofBlack's direct
a b c d e f g h
assault against the white king: 3 I .lDa5 tD h3t
Now 26 . . .ie3t 27.rnhl lDh5 is threatened. 32.rnhl lD g3t 33 .ixg3 hxg3 34.b7 ie3
And now 35.bxa8=W Wh7-+ or 3 5 . bxc8=W
26.£4?! �axc8 36.Wb7 �c7 37.Wxc7 tD f2t 38.�fxf2
It's easy to understand the motivations gxf2 39.�xf2 Wxc7.) 3 I . . . lD h3t 32 .rnhl
behind this drastic decision: the black knight lD g3t 33 .ixg3 hxg3 34.b7 (34 .gxh3 Wxh3t
is deprived of the h5-square and White's pieces 3s .rngi if4 36 .�g2 �g7-+)
on the kingside have more space. On the other
hand, White has returned the sacrificed pawn 8
(though he will immediately take the pawn
7
on a6) , one black knight is already en route to
6
the excellent outpost at f4, and the e4-pawn
and g4-square have become much weaker. 5
I think the more principled (and stronger) 4

continuation was: 3
2
26.Wb3 tD f4 27.ic4
8 a b c d e f g h
7
34 . . ..ie3!! 35.bxc8=W �axc8 36.Wxe3 tD f4
6 37.Wa7 WeB and despite two extra pieces
5 White is helpless to prevent mate after
4 . . . Wh5 .
28 ... �g8 29.bxc7
3
29.b7 seems to be losing after 29 . . . .ixb7
2
30.Wxb7
a b c d e f g h
8
34.gxh3
The only move in this wild and picturesque
7
position. If 34.�c3 ? �g7 3 5 .d7 ixd7
6
36.ixa6 .id2! White gets mated in 6
5 according to the silicon brains.
4 34 . . .ie3 3 5 . t2J f7t <;t>g7
3 And after the forced:
36.t2J g5 ! ixg5 37.�b2t if6 3 8.e5 �xh3t
2
39 .<;t>gi �h2t 40.�xh2 gxh2t 4 I .<;t>xh2
ixe5t 42.f4 �h8t 43 .<;t>g3 ixd6
a b c d e f g h
30 . . . t2J xg2! 3 I .t2Jxg2 h3 32.�a2 ie3t 8
33 .<;t>hi hxg2t 34.�xg2 �xg2 3 5 .<;t>xg2 �g8t 7

36 . .ig3 �h7 37.�hl �xg3t 38 .<;t>xg3 �xhl 6
39 .�c8t <;t>g7 40.�xc7t <;t>g6 4 1 .�xd6
5
�gl t 42.<;t>h3
4
8 3
7 2
5 a b c d e f g h
4 There arises a complex endgame, the most

3 probable result of which is a draw, despite
White's extra pawn (the pawn on c7 will fall) .
2
I apologize for showing such long and possibly
not error-free variations. Usually I try to avoid
a b c d e f g h that, but on this occasion these variations
42 . . . if4 43 .t2J xe5t <;t>h5-+ Quite a journey are very important for understanding the
for the black king! whole picture. Also I hope you will find them
29 . . . ttJ 6h5 30.cxd6 t2J h3t 3 I .<;t>hi t2J g3t interesting and even paradoxical.
32.ixg3 hxg3 33.t2Jxe5
26 lttxf4
33.t2Je7 t2J f4!-+
...
33 . . . �h7
8
8 7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3 3
2 2
1
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
27.bxa6? After the immediate 29 . . . ttJ d7! (my opponent

In such a sharp and unbalanced position this saw this move during the game) 30.cxd6 ttJc5!
natural move, which would probably be made 3 1 .tLle7t mh7 32.Wa3 tLlxa4 Black would
by the vast maj ority of players, proves to be a have a decisive advantage.
mistake.
30J�xa6 ha6 3 1 .Y!lxa6 Y!lg3
Correct was 27.ttJd3!, with an unclear battle.
8
27... Y!lg7 28 ..ixf4
The knight on f4 is very annoying, so 7
Huzman decided to exchange it. But now the 6
bishop, which replaces the knight, becomes
really menacing. It's hard to suggest something 5
better, for instance: 4
3
2s.mh 1 tt:J g4 29.igl (29 .�a3 tt:J h3!-+) 29 . . .
h 3 , and from hl the king stares i n fear a t his 2
numerous enemies.
1
28 ....lxf4 a b c d e f g h
32.Ylld3?
8 A serious mistake. After 32.if3 ie3t
(32 . . . h3? 33.ttJe7t mh7 34.lt:Jf5 Wh2t 35 .mf2
7
�g8 36.Wc4+-; 32 . . . ttJxe4 33 .ixe4 Wh2t
6 34.mf2 Wg3t 3 5 .mgi=) 33.mhl h3
5
8
4
7
3 6
2 5
3
a b c d e f g h
2
29.Ylld3
Again, it's not easy to offer a better move.
a b c d e f g h
After 29.cxd6 Wg3!? 30.�xf4 Wxf4 White is in 34.We2! (the queen is back in time) 34 . . . if4
trouble. 35 .gxh3 Wxh3t 36.mgi tt:J g4 (36 . . . mh7
37.�f2) 37.tLlc2 ih2t 3 8.mhl the game
29 .. J�xa6?! would have ended in a draw.
A tempting but, alas, wrong sacrifice.
32 ... .le3t 33.g;,hl h3! 34J�gl?
Th e last error in time trouble.
34.E!f3 �xel t 3 5 .ifl still would have allowed Yuri Dokhoian - Ilya Smirin
White to hold on, even though Black is much
Sverdlovsk 1987
better.
This game, as was my encounter with

8 Huzman, was played in a competition that
was very memorable for me. The first league of
7
the USSR Championship in Sverdlovsk (now
6 Ekaterinburg) was my first really big success.
5 Despite being a newcomer to tournaments
of this calibre, I took clear first place ahead
4 of such players as Tseshkovsky, Khalifman,
3 Gelfand, T ukmakov and Malaniuk. Before the
tournament I had not touched chess or even
2
thought about it for around two months. The
reason - I was in military service from 1 986-88.
By winning this first league I qualified for
a b c d e f g h
the 1 988 USSR Championship. It was a
34 ... f7! super-tournament with the participation of
Now the rook will join the attack from h8 Kasparov, Karpov, Yusupov, Salov, Ivanchuk,
to threaten checkmate. White cannot prevent Beliavsky, Vaganian and others, but that's
this, so he resigned. already a different story.
0-1
I .d4 tlJf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 g6 4.tlJc3 i.g7 5.e4
d6 6.f4
a b c d e f g h
The aggressive Four Pawns Attack (with
a slightly different move order) - a sign that
White is going for the maximum in the
opening. He would love to smash his opponent
with his powerful centre.
6.. 0-0 ?.tl)f3 e6

. 8 ... fxe6
As a teenager, a couple of times I played Now Black's pawn formation in the centre
a pawn sacrifice in the spirit of the Benko becomes stronger.
Gambit - 7 . . . b5 8.cxb5 a6 9.a4 W/a5 - but I like the other possible capture 8 . . .ixe6
without much success. less, but perhaps it's just a matter of taste.
8.dxe6 9.i.d3
More common is:
8 .ie2 exd5 9.cxd5
8
9.exd5!?
9 ... ig4 7
9 .. J%e8 1 0 .e5 leads to very deeply analysed 6
complications. To play such lines requires
one to have a lot of theoretical knowledge 5
and a good memory. 4
1 0.0-0
3
The following is an inspmng (for Black)
game by the great Mikhail Tal : 2
1 0 . . .ixf3
1
Modern theory recommends 1 0 . . . ttJ bd7.
1 1 .ixf3 ttJ bd7 1 2 .\t>h 1 a6 1 3 .ie3 �e8 1 4.g4 a b c d e f g h
h6 1 5 .g5 hxg5 1 6 .e5 9 .. e5!?
.
Over-the-board improvisation.
The main continuation here is:

9 . . . ltJc6 1 0.0-0 ltJd4
I'd like to mention a game by another World
Champion:
1 1 .ltJg5
More promising looks 1 1 .ltJxd4 cxd4
1 2 .ltJb5 and Black has to solve certain
problems.
ll. . . e5 1 2.f5 h6 1 3 .ltJh3 gxf5 1 4.exf5
a b c d e f g h
1 6 . . . gxf4! 1 7.exf6 �xe3 1 8 .fxg7 lLl eS 1 9 .ig2

WigS 20.ltJe4 W/h4 2 1 .Wfd2 \t>xg7 22.Wff2
W/xf2 23.�xf2 f3 24.ltJxd6 �d8 25.lLlxb7
fxg2t 26.\t>xg2 �xd5 27.b3 ltJ d3 28 .�c2 �e l
0- 1 Doroshkievich - Tal, Yerevan 1 97 5 .
However, the move made b y Yuri Dokhoian

(a former long-time second of Garry Kasparov,
and captain of both the men's and women's
Russian national team) has its venom.
a b c d e f g h
14 . . . b5! 1 5 .ie3 bxc4 1 6.ixc4t @h8 1 7.ixd4

8
cxd4 1 8 .lt:Jd5 ia6! 1 9 .lt:Jxf6 ixc4 20 .lt:Jh5
ixfl 2 1 .Wg4 Wd7 22.E!xfl d3 23.Wf3 d2 7
24.g4 E!ac8 25 .Wd3 Wa4 26. lt:J f2 Wd4 6
Black won in Christiansen - Kasparov,
Moscow 1 982. 5
4
10.fxe5
3
Interesting complications could have
resulted after 1 0.f5!? gxf5 l l .exf5 d5!? 1 2.cxd5 2
( 1 2.lt:Jxd5 is possible as well) 12 . . . e4 . I will
1
leave it to the reader to bring in a verdict.
a b c d e f g h
10 ... dxe5 1 1 .0-0 14 ... g5!
On the greedy: l l .lt:Jxe5 Fighting for the initiative.
I S.iel
After 1 5 .ig3 lt:J h5+ Black's activity is
annoying, and it is not easy to find a plan for
White.
15 ... ig4 16.ic3 llJ d4 17.ixd4
a b c d e f g h
Black can (and should) continue l l . . . lt:J g4!

12.lt:Jf3 E!xf3! 1 3 .gxf3 ( 1 3 .Wxf3? lt:J e5)
1 3 ... 'Wh4t 1 4.@d2 lt:J f2 1 5 .'Wel lt:J c6! (the
point) , with a devastating attack.
1 1 . .. liJc6
So the position is almost symmetrical, the
only difference being that the bishop on g7
is potentially slightly more active than its a b c d e f g h
counterpart on d3. Since it is White's turn to
move, chances should be roughly equal. This bishop has made a long trip just to be
exchanged for the knight on d4 - a definite
12.ig5 h6 13.ih4 VNd6 14.llJd5?! achievement for Black.
In my opinion 1 4.ic2 lt:J d4 1 5 .lt:Jxd4 cxd4
16.lt:Jd5 lt:Jxd5 1 7.cxd5=, with a dull position, 17... llJxd5! 1 8.exd5
was more to the point. But in that case I doubt 1 8.ixe5 ixe5 1 9.exd5 ixh2t under
this game would have been in this book. standably did not appeal to my opponent.
1 8 ... exd4 19 ..ie4

8
It seems that White has a solid and perfectly
safe position. 7
6
1 9.h3, to check the intentions of the bishop
on g4, was the better move. Now if 1 9 . . .ixh3 5
( 1 9 . . .ih5 20.ic2 �f4 2 1 .�d3 �e3t 22.�xe3 4
dxe3 23.g4 if7 24J�ae l �ae8 2 5. �e2 and
3
White is not worse in this ending; 1 9 . . . id7!?)
20.gxh3 �g3t 2 1 .�h l �xh3t 22.lt:Jh2 ie5 2
23.�c2 ixh2 24.if5 �xf5 2 5 .�xf5 �xf5
1
26.�xf5 if4 Black would remain slightly
better, with two pawns for the exchange, a b c d e f g h
but after, let's say, 27.�e l a draw is the most 2 1 . ...ic8!
probable outcome. A very strong and unexpected manoeuvre,
with the idea . . . ia6. Also . . . g5-g4 may be an
8 important threat in some lines.
7
22JUcl
6 Slightly preferable was 22.�c2 ia6 23 .�fe l ,
but with energetic play - 2 3 . . . c4 24.ih7t
5
�h8 25 .�e6 �c5 ! 26.id3 (26.�xa6 d3t
4 27.�f2 �xf2t 28.�xf2 �xh7)
3
a b c d e f g h
19 ... b5!
With the clear goal of opening up the
position; my bishop pair would appreciate that
very much!
b d f g h
20.%Vd3? a c e
This natural move is a mistake, but it was 26 . . . �b5! 27.�xa6 cxd3 28 .�c6 �xb2
not easy to foresee Black's reaction. 29 .�c l �c3 30.�c6 d2! 3 1 .�xc3 dxc l =�t
32.�cxc l d3 33.�ab l g4 - Black obtains a
20.cxb5 c4+ was barely playable, but after the nearly-decisive advantage in the endgame.
modest 20.b3 bxc4 2 1 .bxc4 �ab8 Black would
have only a little pressure. 22 ... d3!
20 ... bxc4 2 1 .%Vxc4

27.tDe4?!
8
More stubborn was 27.Wc3t Wf6 28.Wxf6t
7 El:xf6 29.ib5, but after 29 ... El:b8 30.El:xc5 a6
6 3 l .El:c7t @f8 32.ifl El:b2 Black is winning
anyway.
5
4 27 ...VMe5 28.h4 i.xe4 29.VMxe4 VMxe4

30.i.xe4 :g£4
3
The rest is simple and does not require
2 further comment.
1
3 I .i.d3 :gd4 32.i.b5 :gcs 33.i.c6 c4 34.hxg5
a b c d e f g h hxg5 35.®£2 ®f6 36.:gel :gf4t
I am sorry for using so many diagrams, but
this four-move span (starting from my 1 9th 8
move) is one of my favourites in my whole
career. It's hard to believe, but this powerful 7
push basically decides the game in Black's 6
favour. The dynamics of Black's position are so
5
strong that the opponent is helpless.
4
23.i.xd3
3
What else? 23.Wxc5 Wxc5t 24J:hc5 g4
25.ctJd2 id4t and 23 .El:ab l ia6 24.Wxc5 2
Wxc5t 25 . El:xc5 El:xf3 26.ixf3 id4t and Black
wins in both cases.
a b c d e f g h
23 ...i.xb2
37.®g3 c3 38.:ge6t ®f7 39.:ge2 :gc4 40.:gc2
And a simple fork is the result. A decisive
:gbs 4I .i.d7 :gb2 42.:gcl c2 43.i.f5 ®f6
loss of the exchange is unavoidable.
44.i.h7 :gxa2 45.d6 :gb2 46.:gf1 t ®g7
24-!�ab l i.xcl 25-!�xcl .ifS-+ 26.tiJd2 ®g7?! 47.d7 :gd4 4S.i.f5 :gbl
26 . . . ixd3 27.Wxd3 El:ae8 would win faster. What I like most about this game is the
speed with which White's seemingly solid
position fell apart after a few forceful strokes.
8
0-1
7
a b c d e f g h
Rafael Leitao - Ilya Smirin 1 1 . . . dxe4 1 2.tLlxe4 ig4 1 3 .�ad l �e7 1 4.tLlf2
ixf3 1 5 .ixf3 f5 1 6.d5 cxd5 1 7.cxd5 �d6
New York 2000
1 S .g3 tLlb5 1 9.ig2 �acS 20.�h 1 �c4 2 1 .tLld3
�fcS 22.�c l h5 23 .�e2 �c7 24.�xc4 �xc4
This game was played in the penultimate round
25 .�c l �xc l t 26.tLlxc 1 �xc l t 27.ifl ttJd6
of the New York Open. Just as it sounds, this
was a traditional big open tournament held
every year in New York. I managed to take
clear first place by beating Becerra, Leitao and
the young rising star 1 6-year-old Alexander
Grischuk in the last three rounds. Alas, up to
now this was the last New York Open held
in the centre of Manhattan - after 2000 it
ceased to exist. That's a pity, because I liked
the tournament's atmosphere, which made the
event very special among those I played in the
USA. As a small consolation, I remain the last a b c d e f g h
winner of this famous event.
2S.b3 �b l 29.�d3 �b2 30 .ig2 �xa2 3 1 .h4
l .d4 llJ£6 2.c4 g6 3.llJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5 ..ie2 a5 32 .�e3 b5 33 .�b6 ifS 34.if3 �a3
3 5 .�g2 b4 36.id 1 �a2t 37.�fl tLl e4 3S .�e l
0-0 6 ..ig5 llJ a6
ic5 39 .�bSt �h7 40.�eS �g7 4 1 .�e5t
The main idea of this move is that after
6 . . . ttJ bd7 7.�d2 e5 S.d5 Black cannot play �gs 42.�bst ifs 43.if3 ttJd6 44 .�b6
�a3 45 .id 1 tLle4 46.if3 �a1 t 47.�e2 tLld6
S . . . c6? due to 9.dxc6 bxc6 1 0.�xd6.
4S.�d3 �cl 49 .�xa5 �c3t 50.�e2 �xb3
5 1 .�a4 �b2t 52.�d3 b3 53.id 1 tLl e4
0- 1 Yakovich - Smirin, Munich 1 993.
7 ...e5 8.d5 c6
a b c d e f g h
7.%Yd2
The more straightforward and aggressive 7.f4
was played in an old game by Yuri Yakovich.
7 . . . c6 S . tLl f3 tLlc7 9 .�d2 d5 a b c d e f g h
9 . . . b5!?
1 0 .ixf6 exf6 1 1 .0-0 Now this advance is possible. Black starts
Better is 1 1 .exd5 cxd5 1 2.c5. some activity on the queenside. There is always
a question in posltlons of this type in the knight on g1 to f2 via h3. After this is done,
KID : which side will benefit more from that? White may even think about aggression with
Quite often queenside play may boomerang h2-h4-h5 (the immediate h4 with the knight
for Black, and White turns out to be superior still on g 1 may face the counterpunch
on this part of the board after all. Usually it . . . h7 -h5 ) . 1 o . . h5!? This move disturbs the
.
depends on nuances and the placement of opponent's plan, but Black's king may feel a
pieces. Here, for instance, in Black's favour is little uneasy. 1 1 .h3 cxd5 1 2.lt:Jxd5 ( 1 2.cxd5
the fact that after a likely pawn exchange on id7 would lead to a complicated middlegame)
d5 (White will recapture cxd5) the knight on 1 2 . . . �xd2t 1 3 .�xd2 lt:Jxd5 1 4.cxd5 f6 1 5 .ie3
gl will not easily be able to reach its desired f5 1 6.g5 id7 1 7.id3
destination on c4 - the f3-square, needed for
the manoeuvre lt:J f3-d2-c4, will be occupied
on the very next move.
9.f3
Of course 9. lt:Jf3 lt:J c5 would be great for
Black.
9.. VMa5
.
I have played this move a few times.
a b c d e f g h
A more popular line here is:
9 . . . cxd5 1 0.cxd5 id7 1 7 . . . h4! ? 1 8.�cl lt:J c5 1 9.ixc5 dxc5 20.�xc5
Defi n ing the pawn structure in the centre. �fc8 2 1 .�xc8t �xc8 22.exf5 gxf5 23.lt:Je2 if8,
For instance: and Black has sufficient (at least) compensation
1 1 .ib5!? for the pawn in the endgame; Yusupov -
A logical idea - to swap the light-squared Smirin, Yerevan 1 996.
bishops and vacate the e2-square for the
knight on g1 - but it costs White some IO ...ttk5 I I ..ic2
tempos.
ll . .. ixb5 1 2.lt:Jxb5 �b6 1 3.lt:Jc3 lt:J c5 1 4.�bl 8
lt:Jh5 1 5 .ie3 lt:Jf4 1 6.g3 lt:J fd3t 1 7.�fl
With complicated play in Yusupov - 7
Gelfand, Dortmund 1 997. 6
5
IO ..id3!?
White prepares the natural lt:J ge2 and short 4
castling. If Black does not create counterplay
3
quickly, he will j ust stand worse, with a lack of
space, as is often the case in the KID. 2
1
A couple of times I have faced 1 O.g4 here -
this move aims to grab some space on the a b c d e f g h
kingside and to prepare the development of the l l . .. b5!?
An interesting over-the-board improvisation. 1 3.exd5?!

I wanted to use White's temporary lack of The wrong capture. Rafael had to choose
development and to undermine the central another way, occupying the central square d5
pawn chain. Strictly speaking, I did not have with the knight rather than the pawn:
much choice - after 1 1 . . . cxd5 1 2 .cxd5 i.d7
1 3.a3 all the black pieces would have to retreat 1 3 .i.xf6! i.xf6 1 4.ct:Jxd5 Wxd2t 1 5 .c;!?xd2
very soon, and I certainly wanted to avoid that. ig5 t 1 6.c;!?d 1
1 2.cxb5
1 2 .dxc6 bxc4 1 3 .�xd6? does not work:
3
a b c d e f g h
2
And after 1 6 . . . i.b7 1 7.ctJe2 ( 1 7.ctJc3!? :gfd8
1 8 . ctJ h3 i.e3 1 9.c;!?e2 i.d4 20.ctJ f2 does not
a b c d e f g h look not bad either) 17 . . .i.xd5 1 8 .exd5 :gfc8
1 9.ctJc3 ie3 , transferring the bishop to d4,
1 3 . . . :gd8 1 4.�e7 i.f8 1 5 .�xf6 :gd6 and the
Black would have compensation for the pawn,
queen is trapped on account of 1 6.�xe5 ctJ d3t
but White would probably keep some edge -
1 7.i.xd3 �xe5.
the extra pawn is an extra pawn after all.
8 13....ib7 14J�dl a6!

With the intention of opening some files
7
on the queenside in the spirit of the Benko
6 Gambit.
5
15.a3 t!Jcd7 16.bxa6 .ixa6
4
3 8
2 7
1 6
a b c d e f g h 5
1 2...cxd5 4
This pawn sacrifice was the idea behind my
3
1 1 th move.
After the naive 1 2 . . . cxb5 ? 1 3 .a3 Black would 2
remain much worse. 1
a b c d e f g h
Now Black will combine pressure against the He should has preferred the passive 22.@h 1
pawn on d5 with play on the queenside. A very El:ab8 23.ic l , with a position that is still
important factor is that White's king is still in defensible. 22.Ei:fc l would lead to very sad
the centre. consequences: 22 . . . E!:ab8 23.El:c2 lD xa3! 24.El:a1
(24.bxa3? El:xb 1 t 2 5 . tt:J xb 1 �e 1 #) 24 ... �c5t
17.llJge2 llJ b6 25 .ie3 �xe3t 26.�xe3 tt:Jxc2 27.�c l tt:Jxa 1 +
The c4-square is an excellent destination for and the queen is clearly no match for the black
this knight. rooks.
18 ..id3 .ixd3 19.V:Vxd3 �Uc8 20.0-0?! 22 ... V:Vb6t 23.®hl

The Brazilian Grandmaster is in a hurry The last mistake. The only move was 23.El:f2,
to castle, but it was better to offer a queen even though Black is clearly dominant after,
exchange before it's too late - 20 .�b5 ! with let's say, 23 . . . f5 24.tt:Jac3 e4 2 5 .fxe4 tt:J de5
roughly equal chances. If 20 . . . �xb5 2 1 .tt:J xb5 26.�g3 tt:J g4.
tt:J fxd5 22.b3!? El:c2 23.@f2 White's pieces are
active enough. 23 ... llJxb2 24.V:Ve4
24.�d2 tt:J c4
20 ... llJc4 2 1 .gbl
Bad would be 2 1 .ic 1? tt:Jxb2 22.ixb2 �b6t 24... gxa3
23.@h 1 �xb2, with a clear edge.
8
2 I . .. llJ d7
7
8 6
7 5
6 4
5 3
4 2
3 1
2 a b c d e f g h
1 White's pawns are falling one by one. The

end is near.
a b c d e f g h
The knight moves closer to the battlefield 25.llJac3
and now Black is ready for . . . f7 -f5, which will Or 2 5 .tt:Jb4 El:c4-+ .
considerably strengthen his position.
25 ... V:Va6!
22.llJa2? 25 . . . El:axc3 26.tt:Jxc3 El:xc3 would win even
An oversight. Leitao wanted to transfer this faster, but I did not want my knight on b2
knight to c6 via b4, but he j ust has no time to to be pinned, and chose a more "human"
do it. continuation.
26J�xb2 gaxc3-+ Viktor Gavrikov- Ilya Smirin

Now the white knight is the one that is
Klaipeda 1988
pinned.
This game remains very special in my

memory. I was playing against the well-known
theoretician Grandmaster Viktor Gavrikov
8 and he was clearly better prepared. Still, I was
not too impressed, managing to create huge
7
complications and get a winning position.
6 The way the game ended is unique for me as
5 well - more about this at the end. To this day
I consider this game (as well as Radjabov -
4
Smirin from this book) as one of my best ever.
3
I.ltJO ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.d4
2
0-0 6..ie2 e5 7.0-0 ltJc6 8.d5 ltJe7 9.ltJd2
1 This continuation was the most popular
from the 1 980s until the mid- 1 990s, when
a b c d e f g h
Vladimir Kramnik started to play 9.b4 lLlh5
The triumph of Black's strategy. It was very 1 0.El:el with huge success. 9.lt:Jel is also played
pleasant to have such an ideal position. often nowadays. But I would not be surprised if
the good old 9.lt:Jd2 were to regain popularity
30 ..ih4 e4 3 1 .fxe4 gal in the near (or more distant) future.
White resigned - heavy material losses are
unavoidable. 9 ... a5 10.a3 ltJd7 l l .gbl f5 12.b4 �h8
0-1 13.V;Yc2
a b c d e f g h
13 ... b6
Following in the footsteps of Carry
Kasparov - he played this move against the
same opponent j ust a few months before this active enough. This option seems to me to
encounter. be more promising for White, for instance:
1 5 . . . axb4 (or 1 5 . . . ctJ e7 1 6. ctJ f3 e4 1 7.ctJg5 tt:J f6
1 3 . . . ctJg8!? became a popular continuation 1 8 ..ie3 h6 1 9.ctJe6 .ixe6 20.dxe6) 1 6.axb4
after Kasparov played it several times, albeit exf4 (perhaps 1 6 . . . ctJ e7 is slightly more flexible
after 1 4.f3. In this case White may continue here) 1 7. ctJ f3 ctJ df6
1 4. f3 tt:J gf6. For example, it was played in the
following well-known game at the highest 8
level: 1 5 ..id3!? 7
6
8
5
7
4
6
3
5
2
4
3
a b c d e f g h
2
1 8 . .id3 and, as practice shows, White chances
are preferable.
a b c d e f g h
This very interesting idea is to force . . . f5-f4 14.f3!?

and release the pawn tension in the centre. Gavrikov improves his play compared to the
It became very popular. 1 5 .. .f4 1 6.ctJb5 b6 game with the World Champion, in which
1 7.c5!? dxc5 1 8 .bxa5 El:xa5 1 9.ctJc4 El:a8 20.a4 he proceeded: 1 4. ctJ b3 axb4 1 5 .axb4 fxe4
ctJe8 2 1 .a5 .ia6 22 . .id2 .ixb5 23 .El:xb5 tt:J d6 1 6.tt:Jxe4 tt:J f6
24.El:b2 Wfe7 25.ctJxd6 Wfxd6; (Y2-Y2, 4 1 )
lvanchuk - Kasparov, Linares 1 992. 8
7
A different plan is 13 . . . ctJ g8 1 4.exf5 gxf5 1 5 . f4
6
a b c d e f g h
Gavrikov - Kasparov, Moscow 1 988, with

a draw after 40 moves. Now if the pawns are
exchanged on e4 White will take with the
b d f g h
a c e
f3-pawn, eliminating the opponent's idea of
Trying to apply pressure to Black's kingside activating the knight on e7 via f5 .
at a moment when Black's pieces are not yet
I like the way White handled the opening in with approximate equality) 2 1 . . . ltJdf6
the following game: 1 4.<tt> h l ! ? A useful waiting 22.'1Wd2 '.Wh4 23 .'1We3 White's chances are
move; White allows the opponent to show to be preferred: the pawn on c7 is very weak
his hand. 1 4 . . . ltJ g8 1 5 .exf5 gxf5 1 6.f4! ltJ df6 and some activity on the queenside does not
( 1 6 . . . ltJ e7 looks a more logical move, but I compensate for that.
think White is better in any case) 1 7. fxe5 dxe5
1 8 . ltJ f3 axb4 1 9.axb4 ltJ g4?! 15.ltJb3 axb4 16.axb4 g5 17.c5 t!Jf6 18.t!Jb5
8
8
7
7
6
5 6
4 5
3 4
2
3
2
a b c d e f g h
20.ltJg5! h6 2 l ..ixg4 hxg5 22 ..ixf5 e4 23.g4!

with a decisive advantage; ( 1 -0, 32) Lputian a b c d e f g h
Frolov, Helsinki 1 992.
Gavrikov had spent barely a few minutes
14... f4 until this moment, demonstrating his home
A typical move, preparing the kingside preparation, whereas for me all this was new.
attack. The alternative was 1 4 . . . .ih6?!, But, being young, I was very optimistic!
activating and exchanging the King's Indian
bishop. But it takes a lot of tempos. Then 18 ... g4
1 5 . ltJb3 .ixc l 1 6.!!fxc l fxe4 1 7. fxe4 axb4 I decided to keep the b-pawns, even though
1 8 . axb4 ltJ g8 1 9 .c5 bxc5 20.bxc5 '.Wg5 looks the pawn on b6 may potentially become a
logical for both sides. weakness.
8
But now I think that probably it would not be
a bad decision to remove them - after:
7
1 8 . . . bxc5 1 9.bxc5 g4
6
5 8
4 7
3 6
2 5
a b c d e f g h 3
2 l .c6! (2 1 . ltJb 5 ? '.We3t 22.<tt> h l !!f2 23.!!e l 2

!!b8!; 2 l .cxd6 cxd6 22.'1Wd2 '.Wd8 23 .'1We3 .ia6
a b c d e f g h
Chapter 4 - Line Opening 13S
20.cxd6 forces. Bur in this case we would not have seen

20 . .id2 with the idea of putting a bishop the most fascinating part of the game - so I am
on aS does not really work due to: 20 . . . gxf3 glad that I chose the more strategically double
2 l .gxf3 .ih3 22. 8:fd 1 tt:J xe4! 23.'1Wxe4 (or edged continuation.
23.fxe4 tt:JxdS! with a very strong attack)
19.cxd6 cxd6 20.�c7
8
7 8
6
7
5
6
4
3
5
2 4
3
a b c d e f g h
2
23 . . . �f6! 24.�h 1 ifS 2S.\Wc4 .ixb 1
1
26.�xb 1 �h6 27 . .id3 '1Wd7 28 .\We4 �f8!
29.ltJc3 ltJ fS and Black's attack outweighs a b c d e f g h
the minimal material deficit.
realized that strategically my posmon
20 . . . cxd6 was very dangerous, especially in a possible
The absence of b-pawns would be slightly
endgame.
in my favour - after all, as I said, the weak
pawn on b6 no longer exists.
20 ... gxf3 2 1 .gxf3
Mter a possible:
A variation in which keeping the b-pawns
2 1 .'1Wc7 gxf3 22.'1Wxd8 f2t!?
on the board turns out to be in my favour
could have happened if: 2 1 .'1Wxd8
8
7 8
6 7
5 6
4 5
3 4
2 3
2
a b c d e f g h
23.�xf2 �xd8 24.tt:Jd2 tt:J g6 2S . .ia3 .if8 a b c d e f g h

Black is OK in this queenless middlegame
2 l . . . fxe2!
- the vulnerability of the pawn on e4
I do not like the consequences of 2 l . . . �xd8
compensates for the weak d6-pawn, and
22.gxf3 ih3 23.�d 1 �g8 24 . .ifl .if8t
Black's pieces are no less active than White's
2S.�h 1 .ixfl 26.�xfl .
Back in 1 98 8 I was going to answer 28 .ib2 tLld2 29.�d l tLlc4 30.Wlc7 �f7 3 1 .tLld7
2 1 . .. f2t?! 22.!hf2 �xd8 and thought that I tLle3
would have real counterplay against the pawn Black is at least not worse. Still, I think that
on e4. But the artificial intellect insists that considering the problems that White faced
after 23.tLld2 tLl g4 24.ixg4 ixg4 2 5 . tLl c4 in the middlegame, it was probably the right
tLlc8 26.g3! White has a tangible advantage decision to exchange the queens immediately.
in the endgame. It is sometimes difficult to
argue with such a competent opinion.
8
22.Wixe7
Or 22.Wixb6 exfl =Wit 23 .�xfl lLlxe4 7
24.tLlxd6 �a6 25.tLlxc8 �xb6 26.tLlxb6 tLl c3 6
27.d6 tLl f5 28.�al lLl xd6, with a complex
but approximately equal endgame. 5
22 . . . exfl =Wit 23 .�xfl ia6! 4
3
8
7 2
6 1
5
a b c d e f g h
4
2 1 . ..�e8!
3
As I mentioned before, I was not eager to
2 exchange queens, even though the computer
does not think that Black has real problems
a b c d e f g h
after:
2 l . . .Wixc7 22.tLlxc7 �a2 23.tLld2
Here it is! Because of the b-pawns, the rook
If23.�b2 �a4 24.id2 Black has: 24 . . . tLl fxd5!
on b 1 is unable to protect the pinned knight
An excellent sacrifice to activate the King's
on b 5 .
Indian bishop. 25.tLlxd5 lLlxd5 26.ib5
24.Wixd6 ixb5 t 2 5 .�gl lLl xe4
(bad is 26.exd5 e4 27.�bb l e3 28.ic l ifS
The position it really messy, but it seems that
29.�b2 �g8 30.�h l �c8 3 1 .id l �a7, and
after the probable continuation:
despite having an extra piece, White is on
26.Wlxb6 ic4 27.tLl c5 ixd5
the ropes) 26 . . . �a3 27.exd5 e4 28.ic l e3,
with great compensation.
8
23 . . .ih3 24.�d l tLle8 25.tLlb5 �g8 26.�h l
7 if6 27.�gl �xgl t 28.�xg l
6 I still suspect that Black's position is not so
5 rosy, and that the weaknesses on b6 and d6,
together with a lack of space on the queenside,
4
might soon tell. Fortunately, I had a strong
3
alternative at my disposal, and I went for it.
2 Objectively speaking this is the strongest move
in the position - I failed to find even equality
a b c d e f g h for White after that.
22.ci>hl
Suddenly my opponent needed to solve a
concrete problem connected with his king
facing some serious threats. It's not easy, from
a psychological point of view, to switch from
dreams of a pleasant endgame to the necessity
of calculating numerous quite complex
variations, or to call on one's intuition for
help. It is a really hard task, and Gavrikov did
not manage to cope with it during the game.
But even now, not being limited by time and
having a very powerful assistant (you know
what I mean) , I find it hard to show the right a b c d e f g h
path for White. For example, both the possible 23J�b2?
captures of the "doomed" pawn on d6 are Analysing the game without a computer
inadvisable for White: back in 1 98 8 , I thought this move was mistake
and that White should have played:
22.'Mfxd6? .ih3 23.�f2 Wg6t 24.<tt> h l tLlxe4! 23.�f2
and White may as well resign. But now the silicon creature considers both
moves to be equal to each other. Moreover,
22.tLlxd6 'Mfg6t 23. <tt> h l tLlexd5! 24.exd5 to my sincere amazement, it cannot find
A nice variation may arise after 24.'Mfc4 a completely satisfactory defence for my
tLl h5! 25.tLlxc8 (25 .'Mfxd5 tLl g3t 26.hxg3 opponent in the complications starting after
'Mfh5t 27.<tt> g l fxg3 28.�f2 gxf2t 29.<tt> xf2 2 l . .. 'Mfe8! . If that's true, we may consider
.ig4-+) 25 . . . �axc8! 26.'Mfxd5 tLl g3t 27.hxg3 White's 2 1 st move to be a serious and almost
'Mfxg3 and you may check for yourself that decisive mistake: Gavrikov should have
the attack decides the outcome. exchanged queens instead.
24 . . . 'Mfxb l 25 .�gl id7 26.tLld2 'Mfa2
Black has an extra exchange without allowing
any compensation.
After the move in the game it seems for a

moment that the white king has found safety
in the corner, but it's j ust an illusion.
22 ... llJh5!
Black's pieces start to get closer to the white
monarch. This knight is clearly in sacrificial
mode now - the j ump to g3 is constantly a b c d e f g h
hanging in the air (and indeed will happen OK, if White were to proceed on move 23
soon) . with the other rook, the knight sacrifice
seems to lead to a decisive advantage for
Black:
23 . . . tLl g3t!
But not 23 . . . if6 ? 24.lt:Jxd6 '!9g6 25 .El:g2 And the defence is broken. This beautiful
'!9h6 26.'!9d8! ie6 27.'!9xa8 El:xa8 28.dxe6+ variation shows that Black's pieces (the rook
(a variation from 1 988) . in this case) may also penetrate from the
24.hxg3 fxg3 25 .El:g2 '!9h5t 26.�gl '!9h4! queenside.
8 23 ....th3
7
6 8
5
7
4
6
3
5
2
4
a b c d e f g h 3
The key move, protecting both the pawn 2
on g3 and the knight on e7. White's main
1
problem, in this and similar positions, is
that he is unable to regroup his pieces fast a b c d e f g h
enough to defend his king.
24J�el
27.lt:Jd2
Now I would like to present some lengthy
Or 27.id 1 ih3 28 .El:bb2 El:ac8 29 .'!9xd6
computer analysis. Sorry about that, but I
lt:Jg6! 30.lt:Jc7 El:f6 3 I .lt:Je6 El:xe6 32.dxe6
hope you will enjoy the variations. White had
ixg2 33.El:xg2 El:d8 34.e7 '!9xe7! 3 5 .'!9xe7
two other major options at his disposal:
El:xd 1 # nice!
-
27 . . . ih3 28.lt:Jfl ixg2

a) 24.El:g l lt:Jg3t 25.hxg3 '!9h5 26.El:g2
The simplest.
Or 26.'!9xe7 if6-+ .
29 .�xg2 El:a2! 30.El:b2 El:xb2 3 I .ixb2 lt:J g6
26 . . . ixg2t 27.�xg2 fxg3 28.�xg3 if6
32.ic l
29 .�f2 El:ac8
The strongest.
8
I was very happy when I discovered
7 a checkmate of rare beauty in 1 98 8 :
6 29 . . . '!9h 1 30.lt:Jxd6 El:ac8 3 1 . lLl xc8 El:xc8
5 (objectively stronger is 3 1 . .. '!9h4t 32 .�fl
El:g8 33 .id l '!9h l t 34 .�e2 El:g2t 3 5 .�d3
4
'!9xd 1 t 36.lt:J d2 El:f2 37.'!9d8t lLl g8
3
38 .'!9xb6 El:xf3 t 39 .�c4 '!9e2t 40.�c5
2 El:c3t 4 1 .�d6 El:xc8 and White is helpless)
32 .'!9xb6 (alas, this line is not forced and
a b c d e f g h after 3 2.'!9xc8t lt:J xc8 33 .El:c2 lt:J d6 34.El:c6
White is still in the game) 32 . . .ih4t
32 . . . ih6! 33.ixh6 '!9xh6 34.lt:Jxg3 lt:J f4t
33.�e3
3 5 .�f2 '!9h2t 36.�e3 '!9xg3
8
28.f5
If 28.if3 exf4 29.�d2 ixfl 30.@xfl
7
1Wh3t 3 l .�g2 (3 I .ig2 '1Wg4 32.'1Wxe7 f3-+)
6
3 1 . .. lt:J g6 White has no defence. After the
5 most stubborn 32.lt:Jf5 �xf5 33.exf5 �e8!
4 34.lt:Jd2 1Wxf5 3 5 .ie4 �xe4 36.lt:Jxe4 '1Wxe4
3 37.'1Wc8t lt:J f8 38 .'1Wc2 1Wxd5 39.ib2 @g8
40.ixg7 <±>xg7 he is able to escape the
2
mating attack, but the resulting position
would be easily winning by technical means
a b c d e f g h for Black.
33 . . . Ek3t 34.id3 '1We l t 3 5 . �e2 if2# 28 . . . ixf5 29.ib5
Bad is 29.if3 ih3 30.ig2 ixg2 3 l .�xf8t
8 �xf8 32.�xg2 '1Wg4 33 .1Wc2 1Wf3 34.1We2
7
'1Wxb3.
And 29.id3 ih3 30.lt:Jf7t @g8 3 l .d6 ixfl
6
would lead to the same position.
5
29 ...ih3 30.lt:Jf7t @g8 3 I .d6 ixfl 32.ixfl
4 lt:Jd5! 33.1Wc4 �xf7 34.1Wxd5 �af8 3 5 .ic4
3 @h8 36.1Wxf7 �xf7 37.ixf7 '1Wxe4 38.d7 if6
2
39.�d2 @g? 40.id5 1We l t 4 I .@g2 h5
8
a b c d e f g h
7
30.'1Wxd6 ih4t 3 I .@gl �xc l t 32.lt:Jxc 1 '1Wg5 t
6
With the total collapse of White's position.
5
4
b) 24.lt:Jxd6 lt:Jg3t
Again this knight sacrifices itself in kamikaze 3
fashion. 2
25.hxg3 1Wh5 26.@gl fxg3 27.f4
The only move.
a b c d e f g h
27 . . . 1Wh4
After a huge mess, an unbalanced position
8 has arisen. Black is still on top, but, thanks
7
to the pawn on d7, White is certainly not
doomed, and may count on a positive
6
outcome. It might well be that this position is
5 the best White may hope for as a result of the
4 complications.
3
2
24...%Yg6 25.�fl
After 25 .id l 1Wf6! White has no defence:
26.lt:Jxd6 1Wh4 27.�gl lt:Jg3 t 28.hxg3 fxg3
a b c d e f g h
29.!hg3 l.Wxg3 30 .l.Wxe7 l.We l t 3 1 .�h2 l.Wxd l 3 t .Wg2

32. 4J f7t �xf7 33.l.Wxf7 �f8 34.l.We7 �xf3 and 3 1 .�f2 does not help due to 3 1 . . . �g8t
his position j ust falls apart. 32.�g2 �xg2t 33.l.Wxg2 �g8-+ .
If 3 1 .l.Wd3 �g8t 32.�f2 4J xd5! 33.exd5 e4
25 ... �g3t! 26.hxg3 Wxg3 34.l.Wxe4 �ce8 White should resign despite his
two extra pieces.
8
3 1 ..J�g8 32.�xd6 gcf8 33.ge2 Wd7 34.�c4
7 gxg2t 35.gxg2 �g6
6
5 8
4 7
3 6
2 5
a b c d e f g h 3
As we have already seen in a few variations, 2

the knight on h5 has completed his mission
on g3 and the queen and some other black
a b c d e f g h
pieces have made a rendezvous with the white
king. The few next moves are basically forced The rest, as they say, is a matter of technique:
for White. Black has a material advantage and the white
king is still unsafe.
27.Wc3 gac8 28.Wd2 .ixfl 29J�xfl Wh3t
30.i>gl .1£6 36 ..1b2 �h4 37.gh2 Wc7 38.�bd2 b5
39.�a5 Wc2 40 ..ial ggst 4I.i>hl gg2!
8 42.gxg2 �xg2 43.i>xg2 Wxd2t 44.gf2 Wel
45.gfl Wg3t 46.<it>ht h5
7
6 8
5 7
4 6
3 5
2 4
3
a b c d e f g h 2
White must give up his queen to avoid 1
immediate disaster.
a b c d e f g h
Here, as was the custom i n the good old days, Igor Novikov- Ilya Smirin
the game was adjourned. The position is easily
Las Vegas 1999
winning for Black - the forcing line 47.ttJc6
mh7 48 .ic3 ih4 49 .ttJxe5 if6 50.d6 ixe5
Las Vegas . . . one of the most surreal cities in the
5 I .ixe5 '1Wh4t 52.mg2 '1Wg5t 53.mf2 '1Wxe5
world. For me, playing chess in this gambling
54.E!.d l '1Wc3 demonstrates that convincingly.
empire always added some more adrenaline
But the game was destined not to be resumed
than usual. The following is my favourite game
- for some reason Gavrikov withdrew from the
from all the five tournaments (including the
tournament a few days later. He did not resign,
1 999 World Cup) that I played in Vegas.
so the position was evaluated by tournament
officials and declared a win for me. However,
l .d4 ttJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.8
I did not receive a point in the tournament's
0-0
crosstable - all Gavrikov's results were
cancelled. But despite that, the game brought
me enormous creative pleasure.
0-1
a b c d e f g h
6 ..ig5
This is a more ambitious move compared to
the most popular 6.ie3. In my opinion it has
one drawback - the d4-pawn (or square) may
become more vulnerable.
6 ... a6 7.Y!Yd2 tlJc6 s.tlJge2 gbs

Preparing . . . b7-b 5 , j ust as in the line where
the bishop is developed on e3 instead of g5 .
9.d5
Sometimes White chooses the prophylactic:
9 .E!.c l
Here I have played:
9 . . . h5!?
This may look a bit strange, but in fact it's
quite a logical move: Black grabs space on
the kingside and prepares to play . . . ltJ h7 in - and he will consolidate his edge. So I have to
some cases. hurry to create counterplay. The only way to
9 . . . b 5 ? does not work due to the rook on c l : do that is to try to undermine White's central
1 0.cxb5 axb5 l l .ltJxb5 pawns on c4 and d5.
l O. ltJ d l
A fashionable move i n similar positions
8
nowadays, but it does not impress me much.
In a few games White has chosen 1 0.b3 ! ? 7
which i s a kind o f waiting move. 6
1 0 . . . e5 l l .d5 tLl e7 1 2.c5
Black has better development and can 5
easily meet the opponent's activity on the 4
queenside.
3
1 2 . . . dxc5 1 3 .!hc5 �d6 1 4.Ek2 c6 1 5 .dxc6
�xd2 t 1 6J�xd2 ttJ xc6 1 7. ttJ ec3 ie6 2
Yz-Yz Kaidanov - Smirin, Mallorca 2004.
1
Actually I could continue playing in the final
position. a b c d e f g h
l l . .. b5 1 2.cxb5 cxd5!
9 ... ttle5 10.tilg3 A positional pawn sacrifice; a similar motif
Mter 1 0 .ltJd4 c5 1 1 .tLl c2 b5?! ( l l . . . ltJh5!? may be seen in the game Leitao - Smirin above.
with the idea . . . f7 -f5 is an interesting
alternative) 1 2.cxb5 axb5 1 3 .ixb5 In the case of the modest 1 2 . . . cxb5 1 3 .0-0 it
would be hard for Black to find a reasonable
plan.
1 3.exd5
Mter 1 3.ixf6 ixf6 1 4.ltJxd5 ig7 the two
strong bishops and advantage in development
provide Black with clear compensation for the
missing pawn.
13 ... axb5 14.llJxb5 .ih7

a b c d e f g h
The aim - the pawn on d5.
I was convincingly beaten by Dreev after:

15.Lf6
1 3 .. Jhb5?! 1 4.ltJxb5 ltJ c4 1 5 .�e2 �a5t
Mter the knight retreat 1 5 .tLlc3 I was going
1 6.@f2 ltJxb2 ( 1 6 . . .�xb5 1 7. b3± - I did not
to continue 1 5 . . . ia8! ? with the idea 1 6.0-0 ?
notice that in time) 1 7.a4; ( 1 -0, 39) Dreev
�b6t.
Smirin, Biel 1 993.
1 o.. c6 l l ..ie2
.
White has a clear space advantage and no

visible weaknesses. One more move - castling
17 ...YMb6
8
Keeping the enemy's king in the centre.
7
1 8.tlJe4
6
It is very important that long castling is j ust
5 losing: 1 8 .0-0-0? .ia6 1 9.ltJc3 .ih6! - the
"passive" bishop delivers a lethal blow.
4
3
8
2
7
6
a b c d e f g h
5
1 5 ... exf6!
4
Perhaps Novikov expected 1 5 . . . .ixf6
1 6.ttJe4 .ig7 1 7.0-0 with an extra pawn and 3
a stable position - White's knights coordinate 2
efficiently.
1
16.£4 a b c d e f g h
1 6.0-0 f5 would lead to a kind of dream
position for Black - the bishop on g7 is terrific
1 8 ....ia6! 19. ttJ bxd6?
In such a sharp position this natural move
and the b- and e-files are open for the black
proves to be a decisive mistake, which I failed
rooks, and most importantly the knight on
to exploit.
g3 is very passive since the e4-square is under
Black's control.
If 1 9 .ttJexd6 .ixb5 20.ttJxb5 �fe8 2 1 .tDc3 .if8!
only a computer would have chances to defend
The greedy 1 6.ttJe4!? was j ust about possible.
White's position.
For example: 1 6 .. . f5 1 7.ttJexd6 .ia6 1 8 .a4
'tl9h4t 1 9 .g3 'tl9e7 20.0-0 �fd8 2 1 .f4 �xd6 1 9.a4!, protecting the knight, was the only
22.fXe5 'tl9xe5 Black has fine compensation for correct move. Mter 19 . . ..ixb5 20.axb5 �a8
the missing pawn. And of course 23 .ttJxd6?? 2 1 .�xa8 �xa8 22.ttJf2 �a l t 23.ltJ d 1 seemingly
would lose t o 23 . . . �xb2. White can hold, even though his position does
not look aesthetically pleasing.
16 ... tlJd7 17.£5!?
Very logical. By blocking the pawn on f6, 19 ... tlJe5?
White turns the g7 -bishop into a passive piece, For many years I thought this move deserved
while the knight on g3 is looking hopefully at a "!", but now I have discovered that 1 9 . . . gxf5!
e4. Again, if White can castle he will be more 20.ttJxf5 �fe8 2 1 .ttJ eg3 ttJc5 (with the threat
than OK. . . . ttJ d3t) was just a killer. All Black's pieces are
attacking the "centralized" king and the pretty
IfWhite were to capture another pawn instead knight on f5 and two extra pawns do not help.
by 1 7.ttJxd6?! f5 1 8 .ttJxb7 �xb7 1 9.�b 1 'tl9b6 The following nice variation: 22.'!9d4 'tl9a5t
he would be in serious trouble. 23 .'!9c3 ltJd3t 24.cj;lfl
2 1 . .. �xc4 22.bxc4 ge8 23.c5!?

The best option - Novikov gives up the piece
but keeps two central passed pawns and finally
castles. Otherwise he would be doomed to a
silent death, for example:
23 .�d3 gxf5
Or: 23.ttJc3 ifS! 24 .cj:;>dl ih6!! (a really

beautiful move; the prosaic 24 . . . ib4 is not as
a b c d e f g h powerful, but should also be enough for a win)
25 .�xh6 g5! This is the idea - the white queen
24 . . J�b4! 25 .ixd3 (2 5 . ttJ h 5 ttJ f4-+) 25 . . .!�f4t
is cut off and the king is absolutely helpless.
26.cj:;lgl �b6t 27. ttJd4 f5 ! demonstrates this.
26.E!:b l (or 26.�h3 El:e3) 26 . . . �d4t 27.cj:;>c2
El:xe2t 2S.ttJxe2 �xc4t 29.ttJc3 �d3t
20.b3
Now this pawn is protected and it in turn 23 .. J�Ma7 24.0-0 gxe4 25 ..ixa6 YMxa6
will protect the knight if it goes to c4. 26.gfel
If 26.d6 El:e2 27.�d5 E!:bb2-+ .
20.a4 ixe2 2 l .�xe2 E!:fdS 22.ttJb5 El:xd5
23 .El:d l E!:bdS did not look promising for my
opponent. 8
7
20 .. JUd8
6
5
8
4
7
3
6
2
5
4
a b c d e f g h
3
The position remains tense and is far from the
2
technical stage of converting an extra piece. I
had to find precise and energetic continuations
a b c d e f g h to prove Black's (decisive) advantage.
2 1 .�c4? 26 ... gxf5!

After the strongest move 2 I .ixa6 �xa6 I like this capture. The tripled pawns look
22.�e2! (22.El:d l ifS! 23.ttJxf6t cj:;>hS-+) ugly, but Black gets control over e4.
22 . . . El:xd6 23.ttJxd6 �xd6 24.0-0 �xd5 I
would keep an edge, but two connected passers 27.gacl
on the queenside offer White some chances. After 27.c6 ifS or 27.d6 �c6 the pawns
would be blocked.
29 .. J�be2!
8
The point. The white king has to leave his
7 shelter.
6
30J�xe2
5 Or 30.:8:fl �e3t 3 1 .<tt> h l �xc l is the end.
4
30 ...\Wxcl t 3 I .<bfl \Wf4t 32.<bel gd4-+
3
The rest was easy and very pleasant for me
2 - I always like to attack my opponent's king
when I'm a piece up.
a b c d e f g h 33.\Wast
27 ...\Wa3! Or 33.�f3 �c l t 34.<tt> f2 �xc5 3 5 .:8:eSt
The winning move; Black creates a direct ifs 36.�g3t El:g4t.
attack against the king. Because of that, White
has no time to advance the c- or d-pawns far 33 ....if8 34.\Wa3
enough.
8
28.d6
7
If 2S.c6 El:b2 29 .�d l Black would win
after: 29 . . . �xa2 30.�f3 El:g4 3 1 .g3 El:e4! 32.c7 6
El:xe l t 33.:8:xe l �a7t 34.<tt> h l �xc7 3 5 .:8:eSt
5
ifS 36.:8:xfSt <tt> g7! A nice variation!
4
2s .. J�b2 29.\Wds 3
Just as fatal for White is 29.�d l �xa2
30.�f3 El:g4! 3 1 .g3 ifS 32.d7 El:d4 33 .c6 2
:8:dd2. 1
a b c d e f g h
8
34 ...\Wxh2!
7 Just grabbing some more material, preventing
6 the possible exchange of queens after �g3t,
and threatening checkmate simultaneously.
5
4 35.\We3 ge4 36.\Wfl g£4 37.\We3 .ih6

38.\West
3
Or 3S.d7 �h l t 39.<tt> d2 El:d4t.
2
38 ... <bg7 39.<bdl \Wgl t
0-1
a b c d e f g h
Evgeny Postny - Ilya Smirin activity there. On the other side, Black too will
have difficulties trying to start his kingside
Maalot-Tarshiha 2008
play - White, as often in the KID, enjoys a
space advantage and may place his pieces
I .d4 tiJf6 2.tiJf3 g6 3.c4 .ig7 4.tlJc3 0-0
comfortably to meet such attempts.
5.e4 d6 6 . .ie2 e5 7.0-0 tlJc6 8.d5 tlJe7 9.b4
aS 10.bxa5 12J3a3
I have faced this move quite a few times in I faced a slightly different setup by White
my career. Still I think that after it Black's life is in the following encounter with Victor
easier, and the "more theoretical" 1 O.ia3 poses Mikhalevski: 1 2.id2 �a6 1 3 .�b 1 lDd7 1 4 .Wc 1
more problems. But maybe it's j ust a matter �h8 1 5 .ig5 if6 1 6.ih6 ig7 1 7.ig5 if6
of taste. 1 8 .id2 ig7 1 9 .�a 1 lD f6 20.�a3 tDe8 2 1 .lDb5
tD f6 22.tD c3 lDe8 23.lDb5 tD f6 24.Wb 1 ttJ fg8!?
1 o .. J�xa5 l l .a4
Preparing the next move. 25.id 1 ih6 26.ic3
1 1 .lDd2 c5 1 2.a4 �a6 1 3 .�a3 happened in
ig7 27.id2 ih6 28.ic3 ig7 29.tDd2 lD h6
a rapid game with Bareev. We can compare
30.Wa 1 g5! Vacating g6 for the knight on e7.
this position with one from the game Aronian
3 1 .ic2 lD g6 32 .ib2 ttJ f4 33.�e 1 f5 And after
- Radjabov, Sofia 2008: 9 . . . ttJ h 5 1 0.�e 1 a5
several repetitions of moves, I managed to start
1 1 .bxa5 �xa5 1 2 .lDd2 ttJ f4 1 3 .ifl c5 1 4. a4
some offensive actions against the opponent's
�a6 1 5 .�a3 lD h 5 It's obvious that I have gained
king; (Y2-Y2, 65) Mikhalevski - Smirin,
few tempos - my knight on f6 did not travel to
Philadelphia 2008.
h5, f4 and back to f6. No wonder Black got an
excellent position after the opening: 1 3 . . . ttJ d7 12 ... tlJe8
1 4.ttJ b5 f5 1 5 .exf5 gxf5 1 6.ib2 lD g6 1 7.g3 Another of my games continued: 1 2 . . . �a6
ttJ f6 1 8 .f4?! exf4 1 9 .gxf4 ih6! 20.�g3 lD g4; 1 3. tD e 1 lD d7 1 4 .lD d3 tt:J b6!? (the immediate
(Y2-Y2, 45) Bareev - Smirin, Moscow 2002. 1 4 . . .f5 was also not bad at all, but I wanted
to play something "more original") 1 5 .�b3 f5
l l . .. c5
1 6.exf5 ctJxf5 1 7.lDb5 tDd7 1 8 .f4 e4 1 9 .ctJf2
�e8 20.Wfc2 ttJ f6 2 1 .ib2 id7 22.ixf6 ixf6
23.lDxe4 ttJd4 24.tt:Jxd4 ixd4t 25 .�h 1 ixa4
26.�xa4 �xa4 27.Wxa4 �xe4 28 .id3 �e3
29.Wfc2 Wh4 30.Wb 1 Y2-Y2 Lputian - Smirin,
Kemer 2007.
a b c d e f g h
Now we have a typical pawn structure
for this and similar lines - the queenside is
stabilized and it's not easy for White to develop
a b c d e f g h
13.tiJel?! favour: the square d4 for the black knight

I do not like this move. In my opinion the weighs more heavily here than the square e4
knight should stay on f3 longer to meet . . . f7-fS for the white pieces.
with lDgS, making use of the weak square on e6.
I think that White has stronger options here, 16 ..id3
such as 1 3 .!d2 �a6 1 4.'\Wc l ! ? (aimed against Another second-best move; my opponent
a possible . . . h6 to prevent the knight's leap to does not feel the danger yet.
gS, as in my game with Mikhalevski above) ;
or the prophylactic 1 3.g3!?, intending to play Probably he should have continued 1 6 .!g5 h6
lD h4 and wait for Black to play . . .fS, after (in my opinion 1 6 . . . "1Wc7!? is more accurate)
which White's reaction would be exfS . . . gxfS 1 7.!xf6 !xf6 1 8.lDd3 !g7 1 9.!g4 and due to
f4!, stopping the opponent's activity thanks to the strong knight on e4 the chances are about
the excellent knight on h4. Actually there are equal.
a few similar examples of this manoeuvre in
the book. 16 ... tlJxe4 17 ..ixe4 .id7
13 ... f5 14.exf5
8
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
1
2
a b c d e f g h
Now White's problems are obvious. His
a b c d e f g h
pieces lack coordination and the knight on e 1
14... tiJxf5! is evidently misplaced.
I think Postny expected 14 . . . gxf5 1 5 .f4 lD g6
1 6.lDd3 e4 1 7. lDf2 (or 1 7.lD e l ) with mutual 18 ..id2 ga7 19.tiJf3
chances, and underestimated the capture with Back to the action.
the knight.
19 ...'1Na8?!
15.tlJe4 t2Jf6 Tempting, but not the best decision.
I would suggest that Black already has a
pleasant position: all his pieces are active The position demanded the far more energetic
enough, which cannot be said about the 1 9 . . . b5! 20.cxb5 !xb S 2 1 .�e l and only now
misplaced knight on e 1 . Moreover, the a4- 2 1 . . . "1Wa8. After that the best continuation for
pawn, as we will see very soon, may become White seems to be 22.lD g5 !xa4 23."1Wg4 !d7
vulnerable. There is yet another factor in my 24.�xa7 "1Wxa7 25 ."1Wh3 h6 26.lDe6, hoping
to obtain compensation for the pawn. Still 24..ixd4 exd4 25.tiJg5

after 26 . . ..ixe6 27.dxe6 liJ e7 28 ..ixh6 (bad As I mentioned above, this is the only real
is 28 .'\Wd3 c4 29 . .ie3 WaS) 28 . . . d5 29 . .ixg7 attempt to get some counterplay.
xg7 30.if3 c4 White would have to work
hard to hold the resulting position - Black 25 ...hd5
clearly dominates, but the limited material The right choice: this pawn had to be
leaves decent drawing chances. removed.
20.a5? The other capture was less strong: 25 . . . �xa5

This unlucky pawn had to be sacrificed: 26.�xa5 '\Wxa5 27.liJe6, with the sample
20.ttJg5 �xa4 (20 . . . liJ d4? 2 1 .ttJxh7 xh7 variation 27 . . . �b8 28 .h4! ie5 29.h5 d3
22.'\WhSt) 2 1 .�xa4 ixa4 22.'\Wb l ttJ d4 23.ttJe6 30.�fl ! and unclear complications.
liJxe6 24.dxe6 ic6 25 .ixc6 bxc6 26.e7
�e8 27.ig5 and here the drawish variation 26.Y;Vg4 .ies 27J3f3 gxa
27 . . . h6 28.'\Wxg6 hxg5 29 .'\We6t h7 30.'\WfSt 27 . . . �e8 was probably a cleaner way to
h8 3 1 .'\Wh3t g8 32 .'\We6t looks a logical convert the advantage, for instance: 28.h4 h5
conclusion. 29.'\Wh3 ixe4 30.ttJxe4 c4 and the end is near
- the duo of pawns on d4 and c4 are too close
to the prize rank.
8
7 28 ..ixf3 d3
6
5 8
4 7
3 6
2 5
1 4
a b c d e f g h 3
20 ... b5! 2
Now Black has managed to take over on the 1
queenside - a rare feat for this opening line.
a b c d e f g h
2 1 .cxb5 .ixb5 22J3el .ic4 29 ..ixd5t
Suddenly the pawn on d5 has become very Houdini "thinks" the move 29.�d l is the
weak and White has no time for the manoeuvre most stubborn defence. This is indeed so, but
ttJ f3-g5-e6. Without this, he can hardly hope after some time the same Houdini shows a
for counterplay. forced win for Black:
23 ..ic3 tiJd4 29 . . . c4
This knight j umps to d4 at the best possible Less precise is 29 . . ..ixf3 30.gxf3 (30.liJ xf3
moment - now the d5-pawn is doomed. '\Wd5) 30 . . . '\WdS 3 I .f4 if6 32.'\Wcst g7
33 .'\Wh3 (33.t2J e6t �h6 34.'\Wf8t ig7 32.ttlg5t

35.l2Jxg7 El:xg7 36.'\Wf6 c4-+) 33 . . . ixg5 Or if: 32.t2Jd8t @f6 33.t2Jc6 d2 34.B:d l
34.B:xd3 '\Wc4 3 5 . fxg5 '\Wc l t 36.'\Wfl '\Wxg5t ixh2t 35 .�xh2 (35.�h l B:f7 36.'\Wh8t �g5
37.El:g3 '\Wf6 38.a6 with chances for survival. 37.@xh2 B:xf2 3 8 .'\Wd8t @h5 39.El:g l d 1 =1W)
30.ixd5t '\Wxd5 3 1 .'\Wc8t @g7 32.t2Je6t @f7 35 . . . '\Wh5t 36.@g3 '\Wxd l 37.'\Wh8t El:g7
33.t2Jd8t 38 .'\Wd8t @e6 39.'\We8 t @d5 The black king
33.l2Jg5t �e7 is similar to what happened travels quite a long way to victory.
later in the game.
33 . . . @f6 34.l2Jc6 B:f7 35 .a6 32 <it>g7 33.ttl e6t <it>f7
•••
Time-trouble repetition.
8
7 34.ttlg5t <it>e7 35.ttlxh7 d2
5 8
4 7
3
6
2
5
4
a b c d e f g h
35 . . . '\Wc5! 3
The only winning move. 2
36.a7
Or 36.'\Wh8t @g5 37.'\Wd8t @h5 and White
has no more good checks. a b c d e f g h
36 . . . @g7 37.El:fl d2 38.a8=1W '\Wxf2t 39.El:xf2
The black king is in safety, and the game is
d 1 =1Wt
essentially over.
With mate.
36J�dl c4
29 %\'xdS 30.%\'cSt <it>g7 3 1 .ttle6t <it>f7
•.•
36 . . . ixh2t would win too, but the move I

made is simpler.
8
37.%\'fBt <it>d7 38.ttlf6t hf6 39.%\'x£6 gxa5
7
This pawn did not escape its fate.
6
5 40.%\'xg6 ga3 4 1 .h4 c3 42.h5 %Yb3
a b c d e f g h
43 ...fie6 44.fig7t <if?c6 45JUJ. c2

8
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
1
2
a b c d e f g h
1
43.fig4t?!
a b c d e f g h
Shortening the suffering.
46.fib2 d l =fi 47.fixa3 fixfl t
43 .'Wg7t �c6 44.'Wg4 would prolong the In view of 48.�xfl 'Wc4t White resigned.
game, but after: 44 . . . 'Wa4 45 .'Wc8t �d5 0-1
46.'Wf5 t �d4 47.'Wg4t �c5 (Just not:
47 ... �d3 48.'Wf3t �c2? 49 .'Wf5t �xd l ??
50.'Wb l t �e2 5 l .'Wfl # Quite a picture!)
48.'Wc8 t 'Wc6 49.'Wf5 t 'Wd5 50.'Wc8t �d4
5 1 .h6 'Wh5 52.g4 'Wxh6 The inevitable would
happen anyway.
Chapter 5
Destruction of Pawn
Structure
Ifyou cannot find a way, go deeper!

8 ... 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
Some would want to make 3 3
Time to do something! A difficult one. How can Black

(see page 1 57) improve his position?
(see page 1 66)
... 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Can you calculate this till the What brilliant refutation of White has a direct win. Can you
end? (see page 1 5 3/4) my idea had I missed? find it? (see page 1 67)
(see page 1 62)
8 ... 8 ... 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
How can Black strengthen Time for the big combination! Sometimes one nice move is all
the attacking resources? (see page 1 63) you need. . . (see page 1 67)
(see page 1 56)
Chapter 5 - Destructio n of Pawn Structure 1 53
In this chapter I will show three of my own The main defence of the white king is on the
games with different variations on the theme light squares, so elimination of the defence of
of the destruction of pawn structures. In the these squares is essential.
first of my games I break through on the g-file,
though in a slightly different way than in our 30 ... tlJxg2!
first example below. In the second I remove Fedorov has played the King's Indian for
the structure on the dark squares, and in the decades; this move will have come very easily
third we have a very complex example, which to him. The immediate 30 . . . f3 ? 3 1 .�xh4
I would suggest that you take more than just a would be very poor, of course. And defending
few ideas from. the knight would be a waste of time.
3 I.J.xg2 f3
In general, the destruction of a pawn structure
The attack on the light-squared defenders
takes place on one colour of squares. By
continues.
removing the defence there, we create a way to
access the opponent's position. The following 32.a5
two examples are pretty simple, which should 32.�fl �h3t would contribute to the
be a good way to come to grips with the basic complete destruction of the defence on the
idea before we look at it in a dynamic scenario. light squares.
Aleksej Aleksandrov - Alexei Fedorov 32 ...�h5!

The final finesse; Black does not want a
Minsk 2016
pawn on g2.
8 33. i>fl gxg2

0-1
7
6 The next example is also very basic. Black

comes crashing through on the dark squares.
5
4 Eesha Karavade - Pierre Ballet

3 Nancy 2016
1 8
a b c d e f g h 7
The first example is elementary for a seasoned 6

King's Indian player. Black has positioned 5
himself for a classical breakthrough on the
4
g-file, set up already by . . . g5-g4, . . . hxg4 and so
on. We have reached an obvious crunch point: 3
the black pieces are as active as they are likely
2
to get, so anything other than direct action
would be a waste of time. 1
a b c d e f g h
32 .. J��xb2t! 33J!xb2 �xb2t 34.'tt>xb2 Y«d2t My Games

35.'tt> b l
Or 3 5 .ci>a3 'Wb4#. Alexei Barsov Ilya Smirin
-
Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 2010

35 ... a3!
With a simple threat of mate in one.
The 20 1 0 Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk was
different for me from other such events. It was
35 . . . '\Wb4t 36.ci>c2 would be the wrong
my ninth Olympiad playing for the Israeli
direction, although Black can still repeat with
team and for the first time we won a medal -
36 . . . '\Wd2t 37.ci>b l and continue as in the
bronze. In 2008 in Dresden our team had even
game.
greater success - the silver medal - but for the
first time since 1 992 I had not participated in
36.Y«e2 Y«b4t 37.'tt> a l
the Olympiad. (Perhaps that was the reason for
Or 37.ci>c2 'Wb2t 38.ci>dl 'Wc l #.
such a great team result? Well, never mind.)
37 ...Y«c3t
l .d4 ttlf6 2.ttlf3 g6 3.c4 .ig7 4.g3 0-0 5 ..ig2
37 . . . id2!? also wins immediately.
d6 6.0-0 ttlc6 7.ttlc3 .ifS 8.b3
The curious-looking move 8 .ie3!?, which
38.'tt> b l has been played by Jon Hammer, among
others, definitely deserves attention.
a b c d e f g h
38 ....id2! a b c d e f g h
Cutting off the queen and deciding the
8 ... e5
game.
More than twenty years ago I used to play
0-1
the logical-looking 8 . . . ltJ e4, but the following
tough defeat changed my mind about that
move: 9.ltJd5!? id? 1 0.ib2 fS 1 l .e3 It's not
easy for Black to find a plan connected with
counterplay here. 1 l . .. a6 1 2.Ek1 bS 1 3.ltJd2
ltJgS 1 4.'\We2 b4 1 5 .c5 ci>h8 1 6.cxd6 cxd6
1 7.h4 ltJ f7
Chapter 5 - Destruction of Pawn Structure 155
8
9 ... tLle7 IO.tLlel tLle8 l l .e4 .id?
7
6 8
5 7
4 6
3
5
2
4
a b c d e f g h
3
1 S .ltJf4 lDa5 1 9.ixaS �xaS 20.Ek7 �dS 2 1 .�fc l 2

e5 22.dxe5 lDxe5 23.h5 g5 24.h6 ifS 25.4Jd3 1
gS 1-0 Cvitan - Smirin, Tilburg 1 993.
a b c d e f g h
9.d5 Black's pieces have withdrawn from the f-file
The most principled choice, but perhaps not to play . . f7 -f5 as soon as possible. It looks as
.
the best one. though Black has j ust lost a tempo compared
to the line with the immediate 7 . . . e5 S.d5
9 .ib2 leads to a dull and equal posmon ltJe7, but in fact the "extra'' move b2-b3 turns
after 9 . . . 4J xd4 1 0.4Jxd4 exd4 1 1 .�xd4 ltJ e4 out to be in Black's favour.
1 2.�e3 lDxc3 1 3 .ixc3 �e8 1 4.�d2 ixc3
1 5 .�xc3 ie4. 12.tLld3 f5 13 ..id2
A similar scenario as in this game
9.dxe5 dxe5 1 0.ig5 ! ? is not as innocent as it happened in my blitz encounter with
looks. For instance: lO . . . �cS 1 I .lDd5 lDxd5 Shakhriyar Mamedyarov from the World
1 2.cxd5 ltJd4 1 3 .lDxd4 exd4 1 4.�c l �d7 Blitz Championship: 1 3 .c5 f4 1 4.a4 g5 1 5 .g4
1 5 .�c4 �fe8 Trying to close the kingside. 1 5 . . . h5 1 6.h3
hxg4 1 7.hxg4 ltJg6 1 8.f3 ltJ h4 1 9 .<j{f2 �f6
20.�h l �h6 2 l .ia3 ifS 22.b4
a b c d e f g h
1 6.�xd4 ( 1 6.if4!?) 1 6 . . . �xe2 1 7.�xe2 ixd4

1 S .�c l �eS With equality, but I lost in the a b c d e f g h
end; ( 1-0, 35) Durarbayli - Smirin, Plovdiv 22 . . . c6! Now the position opens up even more
20 1 2. and the king on f2 feels unhappy about that.
23.i.fl ctJ f6 24.i.e2 cxd5 25.exd5 to see that, without making obvious mistakes,
White is clearly worse after just 1 4 moves! I
would again like to stress the critical role of
the "small" detail of the pawn being on b3 - it
completely changes the assessment.
a b c d e f g h
25 . . . e4! 26.ctJxe4 ctJxe4t 27.fxe4 i.g7 With

a crushing attack; (0- 1 , 38) Mamedyarov -
Smirin, Khanry-Mansiysk (blitz) 20 1 3 .
8
a b c d e f g h
7
15.c5 llJg6 16J�el �f7
6 The standard regrouping - the rook vacates
5 f8 for the bishop.
4 17.a4 i.f8 1 8.llJa2?

3 This manoeuvre looks artificial, and indeed
this is a weak move.
2
1 Barsov should have continued 1 8 .b4, creating

some activity on the left Bank, planning to
a b c d e f g h
put his queen on b3 and trying to deflect the
13 ... £4! opponent from a direct kingside assault. In this
Starting a direct attack against White's king. case the game could have continued 1 8 . . . ctJ f6
1 9 .Wfb3 h5 20.c6!? (20.ctJb5 also deserves
14J�cl attention) 20 . . . bxc6 2 1 .dxc6 i.xc6 22.ctJb5
The simple variation 1 4.gxf4 exf4 1 5 .ctJxf4? i.xb5 23.axb5 :gbs 24.:ga l :gb7 2 5 .ctJb2,
i.xc3 1 6.i.xc3 :gxf4 shows the drawback of the and at least White has active pieces and some
white pawn being on b3 instead b2: it does not compensation for the missing pawn.
protect the knight on c3 .
1 8 ... llJf6 19.c6
14 ...g5 This pawn push was the aim of the previous
Black's play is very simple: soon almost all of move. It proves to be harmless for Black
his pieces will be involved in the attack. White though.
will find it hard to defend or to create his usual
counterplay on the queenside. It's surprising 19 ... bxc6 20.dxc6 i.g4 2 l .VMc2 h5!
Chapter 5 - Destruction of Pawn Structure 1 57
24 ... llJxd5 25.exd5 hxg3 26.hxg3 f3

8
This pawn is a bone in White's throat.
7
6 27J�e4
27.ifl ih3 28.�e4 ttJ f4! 29.ixf4 gxf4
5 would change nothing.
4
27... llJf4!
3
2
8
7
a b c d e f g h
6
Black's centre is stable, so he can concentrate
5
on the attack. Now it's hard to give White any
good advice. 4
3
22.�c4 �c8 23.liJdb4 h4 24.llJd5?!
This loses virtually by force. 2
The only chance to prolong resistance consisted

a b c d e f g h
of: 24.ttJ c3 hxg3 25.hxg3 ttJ h5 26.ttJ bd5
Occupying the strong outpost on d5 with the A simple but pretty move, sealing the
knight. Even in this case, after: 26 .. .f3 27.ifl opponent's fate.
lLlxg3 28.ttJf6t <j;;> g7 29.fxg3
28.gxf4 gxf4
28 . . . fxg2 was even simpler, for instance
29 .fxg5 �f5 30 .ie3 �h7.
29.i.xf4 exf4 30J�xf4
6
a b c d e f g h 5
29 . . . ie7! This computer suggestion decides 4
the outcome, but it would be not so easy
3
to find this move over the board. 30.ttJxg4
(or 30."1Wa6 �xf6 3 l .ie3 �h8 and White is 2
doomed) 30 . . . �xg4 3 l .<j;;> f2 �h8 Black has an
1
irresistible attack.
a b c d e f g h
30 .. J�g7
8
30 .. Jhf4 3 1 .Wxf4 fxg2 32.Ek4 .id l would
be enough for the win, but I wanted to win 7
more quickly and decided to proceed with my
6
attack.
5
3 I..ihl 4
Slightly more stubborn was 3 l . .ifl :
3
a b c d e f g h
33J��xf3
33 .�h4 .ie7 34.�h5 WeB! would bring no
relie(
33 ....ixf3 34..ixf3 'iMf5 35 ..ig2

a b c d e f g h If 3 5 .We4 Wg5 36 . .ig2 �e8 37.Wf3 Wd2
38 ..ih3 Wxa2 the unfortunate knight would
And I would have to choose between:
be lost, leaving his army lacking a whole rook.
3 I . .. .ih3t 32.�h l .ixfl 33 .Wxfl �h7t

35 ...YMxf2
34.�gl .ih6 3 5 .�xf3 �g7t 36.�h2 Wg4
37.Wh3 .if4t 38 .�h l Wxh3t 39.�xh3 .ixc l
40.ctJxc l �e8 4 1 .ctJd3 �e4 8
7
And the more resolute computer method
3 1 . .. �g5 32.�h2 .ih6 33.�el �g7 34.�xg4 6
Wxg4 3 5 .Wxg4 �xg4, both leading to a win. 5
This is not surprising - the white knight on a2
4
is situated too far from the battle.
3
3 I. ...ih3t 32.<it>h2 .ig2
2
a b c d e f g h
But now the situation is bad enough to cause
immediate capitulation.
0-1
Mikhail Nedobora - Ilya Smirin

Israel 2008
This game was played in one of the numerous

(about 25!) Israeli Team Championships
I participated in. It's included in the book
because of a nice trap that I set, and its excellent
refutation, which my opponent failed to fi n d.
The opening phase is of some importance as
well in my opinion.
a b c d e f g h
I.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 s.�e2 And I managed to win this slightly more
0-0 6.�g5 �a6 pleasant endgame (two bishops) ; (0- 1 , 6 1 )
Milov - Smirin, Haifa 1 995 .
8 8.ie3 e5 9.0-0, as was played for instance in

7 Gelfand - Naiditsch, Wijk aan Zee 20 1 4, is
possible, but in my opinion the "extra" move
6
. . . h6 should be in Black's favour here. In my
5
game with Maxim Rodshtein, which you will
find in this book on page 278, I reached this
4
position with White to move!
3
2 8 ... g5 9.�g3 �hS
a b c d e f g h
8
7
�� )��-�J!-
� i �� i -
7.�f3
:t)u-----%·----%------��
�- %� �-�
White's move may be seen as some kind 6
of hybrid of the Averbakh System with the 5
�u !D !a u
Classical System (5 .ie2 and 6.lLlf3). It looks "
4
natural, and is hardly worse than more popular
continuations such as 7.iWd2 or 7.h4. 3 �
�
�r.% � ��
;�_j
r.;...
� !:.ll.J �
2 � rJ RiJtJ!i"JJ
�f "� l�r %•�
7... h6 8.�h4
This is definitely more logical than: 8 .if4 ,
e5! 9.dxe5 lLl h5 1 O.ie3 (after the more a b c d e f g h
ambitious 1 O.g3 lLlxf4 1 1 .gxf4 lLlc5 I think
Black has enough compensation for the pawn) The principled approach - Black is going
1 o . . . dxe5 1 1 .0-0 c6 1 2 .iWxd8 �xd8 1 3 .�fd 1 to exchange the dark-squared bishop despite
�e8 1 4.g3 lLl f6 1 5 .lLl d2 lLl g4 1 6.ixg4 ixg4 weakening his own kingside pawn structure.
1 7 .f3 ie6 This would work perfectly were it not for
another drawback - the knight on a6 is rather
poorly placed in these circumstances (even on
Chapter 5 - Destructio n of Pawn Structure 161
b8 i t would b e better, I suppose) . Still I feel 1 7.lt:Jxf7! �xf7 1 8 .ih5 t �g8 1 9.ixe8 Wfxe8
that Black should be 0 K - the bishop on g7 20.Wfxg5 And Black was on the verge of defeat.
usually feels happy in such positions. In the end I was lucky to escape; (Yz-Yz, 40)
Aleksandrov - Smirin, New York 1 998.
10.0-0
Back in 1 998 I played an interesting game 10 ...e6 l l .Y:Yd2 f5
with Alexey Aleksandrov: 1 0.Wfd2 e6 (with the Going for the bishop on g3.
idea . . . f7 -f5 , threatening j ust to win the bishop
on g3 after .. .f5-f4) 1 1 .e5 A very aggressive Today I would probably choose another plan
move (probably 1 1 .0-0, transposing to the - 1 1 . . . c5!? 1 2.d5 lt:Jxg3 1 3.hxg3 exd5 1 4.cxd5
game Nedobora - Smirin was objectively ( 1 4.ctJxd5!? El:e8 1 5 .id3 ie6 1 6.ctJe3 '2J b4
better) . 1 7.a3 lt:J c6!? seems to lead to a complex and
double-edged position) 1 4 . . . lt:J c7 Transposing
into a Benoni-type position. It should be
perfectly playable for Black. One small detail
may work in his favour - on d2 the queen
occupies a square which often belongs to the
f3-knight.
12.exf5 exf5 13.tlJel

Black has to decide what to do with the
knight on h5 .
a b c d e f g h
8
1 1 . . . lt:Jxg3 ?! (As I found out after the game, I
had to play: 1 1 . . .f5! 1 2.exf6 Wfxf6 1 3 .0-0-0 7
ltJ f4 This is the idea - the knight on h5 has
6
found another, better, job. 1 4.h4 g4 1 5 . ctJ e 1
e 5 And Black i s doing great - I would be 5
happy to play this position.) 1 2.hxg3 dxe5 4
1 3.ctJxe5 c5 14.lt:Jg4! cxd4 1 5 .lt:Jb5 !!e8
1 6.ctJxh6t �f8 3
2
8
1
7
a b c d e f g h
6
5 1 3 . g4
..
I thought this move was the most principled

4
one - the hunt for the g3-bishop continues.
3
2 The timid 1 3 . . . Wfe8 does not solve all the

problems: 1 4.ixh5 Wfxh5 1 5 .f4 id7 1 6.lt:Jc2
a b c d e f g h !!ae8 1 7.El:ae l with somewhat better prospects
for White - the black bishops are not very
active, White has a good central formation, It's interesting that even now after 1 6 . . . '\WgS !?
and we have already spoken about the knight 1 7.'1Wxg5 hxg5 1 8 .tDe7t �h7 1 9.tD dxf5 ixf5
on a6. 20.tDxf5 El:xf5 2 l ..id3 �g6 22 . .ixd6 tD f4
23.ixf4 gxf4 24.El:fd 1 b6 Black would have
But the simple 1 3 . . . ttJ xg3 1 4. hxg3 ttJ b4!? was reasonable chances to hold this ending. But of
the optimal solution - the black knight has course, I did not even look in that direction.
joined the battle! After let's say 1 5 .a3 tD c6
1 6.tDc2 f4! ? 1 7.gxf4 El:xf4 1 8 .ttJ d5 El:f8 1 9 .El:fe 1 17.tl:Jb5?
tD e7!? 2 0 ..if3 tD xd5 2 l ..ixd5t �h8 Black's Mikhail trusts me. If, after 1 7.tDxf4 '1Wg5 , he
position seems to be fully acceptable. had found the only (but winning) move:
14.tl:Jd5 c5?!
Played in the same spirit; I found a possibility
to set a nice trap and went for it, not sensing
the danger.
Correct was 1 4 . . . El:e8 1 5 .tD c2 '1Wg5 1 6.El:ad 1
'lWxd2 1 7. El:xd2 .ie6 1 8 . tD f4 tD xf4 1 9 .ixf4
El:ad8 and White's advantage is minimal if any.
1 5.tl:Jc2 cxd4 16.tl:Jxd4

a b c d e f g h
8
1 8 .h4!! gxh3 1 9.ixh5 El:xf4 20 .'\Wxf4 '1Wxh5
7 2 l .gxh3 he would have delivered a serious
blow to my ego. Alas, it remained big after the
6
game. More seriously, 1 8 .h4!! would have been
5 a brilliant refutation, but luck smiled on me
4 this time.
3 Of course, if 1 7.ixf4? then 17 . . . tDxf4 1 8 .tDxf4

2 '\Wf6! is a nice double threat; Black would win
fair and square.
a b c d e f g h 17 ... fxg3 1 8.hxg3

Certainly the resulting posmon should
Black's position is seriously compromised
be evaluated as winning for Black - White's
- there are too many weaknesses. Still, I was
compensation for the piece is clearly
very inspired by the idea and made my next
insufficient. But the win is not automatic here
(beautiful, I thought) move without hesitation.
- White's forces are quite active and Black still
has numerous weaknesses.
16 ... f4?
1 6 . . . tD c5 1 7.tDb5 tD e4 1 8 .'1We3± would
lead to a difficult situation for Black - he has
18 ... �h8?!
A prophylactic move of the "just in case"
insufficient dynamic options to compensate
kind.
for his structural disaster.
Chapter 5 - D estruction of Pawn Structure 1 63
More accurate, logical and strong would be 2 1 . .. �xb4!

1 8 . . . ltJ f6. Giving back the extra piece to destroy the
shelter ofWhite's king.
19.�adl .ie6 20.�e3
Mter 20.a3 (simply preparing 2 1 .b4) the 22.�xb4 �xg3 23.�fel �xfl!
following variation is possible: 20 . . . .ixd5 This second blow leads to an irresistible
(20 . . . ttJ f6? 2 I . ltJ f4 and suddenly White is mating attack.
better; 20 .. .'1Wd7 2 1 .b4 �ad8 looks like a 24..ixg4
good alternative) 2 l .Wi'xd5 ltJ f6 22.Wi'xb7 ltJ c5 Or 24.�xf2 ltJe4t.
23 .Wi'c6 �c8 ! ? 24.WI'xd6 Wl'e8 25 .Wi'd2 ltJ fe4
26.Wi'e3 a6 27 . .ixg4! ltJxf2! 28 .WI'xe8 �cxe8
8
29.�xf2 �xf2 30.�xf2 axb5 3 1 .cxb5 .ixb2
32 . .if3 �b8 33 . .ic6 .ixa3 I believe Black 7
should win this, even though it will not be at 6
all easy.
5
20 ...�b6 2 1 .b4? 4
Missing some simple but pretty tactics.
3
Mter the correct 2 1 .Wi'xd6 Wi'xd6 22.�xd6
�ae8 23.ltJxg4 (23 ..ixg4 .ixg4 24.ltJxg4 �e4) 2
23 . . . .ixb2 the extra bishop should tell in the
end, but again Black would have to overcome
some obstacles. a b c d e f g h
24 ... �fl t! 25.<it>h2 .ie5 26 ..ixe6 �e2t
8 The elegant 26 . . . �h l t 27.�xh l ltJ fl t
28.�h3 Wl'xe3t 29.�g4 Wi'f4t 30.�h5 Wi'g5#
7
would checkmate a bit faster.
6
27.g3 �xe3
5
White resigned. Maybe the game is not of
4 the very highest level, but it was an interesting
3 struggle nonetheless.
0-1
2
a b c d e f g h
Kiril Georgiev Ilya Smirin

- In my opinion this move plays into Black's
hands - White's kingside becomes more
Elenire 1 994
vulnerable.
Grandmasters of today would probably
The strong tournament in the Bulgarian Black
continue here 1 0.b3!? 0-0 l l .h3 with the
Sea resort Elenite (near Burgas) went well
idea g4, or l O.tt::l d l ! ? with the intention
for me - I tied for first place with Topalov,
of transferring this knight to e3 or f2 and
Khalifman and Epishin. This game contributed
meeting . . . b5 with c4-c5. But in 1 994 such
a lot to this success.
subtle prophylactic manoeuvres were mostly
undiscovered.
l .d4 tlJ£6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 .!.g7 4.e4 d6 s.a
tlJc6
10 ... 0-0
This time I wanted to experiment a bit and
It's time to castle.
to try to postpone castling.
II.tiJdS
6. tlJ ge2 a6 7 ..!.gS
l l .g3 b5 would be good for Black. For
Kiril Georgiev chooses the most active move.
instance, 1 2.cxb5 axb5 1 3 .d5 ? tt::l e5 1 4 .tt:Jd4
b4, and 1 5 .tt::l cb5 ? ixb5 1 6.ixb5 !!xb5
The more popular and cautious 7.ie3 (the
1 7.tt::l xb5 tt::l x f3t is impossible of course.
d4-pawn!) would be another option.
7.. J�b8 SJ�cl .!.d7 9.�d2 l l . .. bS
9 ... h5!? 12.c5

White's setup is aimed against 9 . . . b5?. It The correct decision.
would not be good here because of 1 O.cxb5
axb5 l l .d5 tt::l e5 1 2. tt:J d4 b4 1 3 .tt::l cb5 . That's The pawn exchange 1 2.cxb5?! axb5 would
why I decided to open a second front on the weaken White's control over the centre.
kingside, even though this move looks rather
abstract. 1 2 .. J�e8
White's play is not without some tactical
IO.h4?! venom.
1 2 . . . ltJ h7? would lead to immediate disaster: Now . . .f6-f5, undermining White's central
1 3 .cxd6 cxd6 1 4J!xc6 ltJxg5 1 5 .Wxg5t .ixc6 pawn chain, may be very unpleasant for him.
1 6.ltJxe7t @h7 1 7.ltJxc6
16.Ae3
13.g3 The undermining . . . f5 can be seen in the
With the modest objective of completing variation 1 6 . .if4?! f5! 1 7 . .ixd6? fxe4 1 8 . fxe4
development. If White manages to do so, :gxe4 1 9 . .ixb8 'Wxb8, and Black has an
and keeps his strong central grip, he will have overwhelming position.
an edge. That's why Black has to organize
counterplay rather quickly.
a b c d e f g h
16 . . f5
.
a b c d e f g h I need not have rushed with this obvious

13 ... a5!? move.
Also possible was something like: 1 3 . . . ttJ h7
As my opponent pointed out after the game,
14 ..if4 ( 1 4 . .ie3?! dxc5 1 5 .Ei:xc5 e6 1 6.ttJ df4
1 6 . . . a4! ? , with the idea . . . ttJ a5 would have
e5! 1 7.dxe5 ltJxe5) 1 4 . . . Ek8 (the immediate
posed serious problems for him. For example:
14 . . . e6?! 1 5 .ttJxc7 'Wxc7 1 6 ..ixd6 leads to
White's advantage) 1 5 . .ig2 e6
1 7 . .ig2 ttJ a5+ 1 8 ..if4 'Wb6 1 9 ..ixd6 ( 1 9 . 0-0
f5) 1 9 . . . ttJ c4
But Black made a more concrete and ambitious
move - to grab some space on the queenside. 1 7.b3 axb3 1 8.axb3 ttJa5 1 9.:gb 1 ( 1 9.'Wd3 b4!
Also, the potential knight j ump to b4 (after an 20 ..ig2 .ib5) 1 9 . . . d5! 20 . .ig2 .ic6!+
exchange on d5) may cause worries for White. In both cases White's position is on the verge
of collapse.
14.cxd6
Kiril decided to release the pawn tension. 1 7. @f2! This computer suggestion seems to be
best, as is often the case.
14 ... cxd6 1 5.llJxf6t Still, after 1 7 . . . ttJ e7!, supporting the pawn
1 5 . .ig2? was bad due to the simple 1 5 . . . ttJxd5 pushes .. .f5 or . . . d5, I would love my prospects.
1 6.exd5 ttJ b4. 1 7 .. .f5 1 8 .exf5 would be welcomed by
White; 1 7 . . . ttJa5 is not effective either because
15 ... exf6 of 1 8 .ttJc3 .
17.1g2?! 2 l .�f4 the pawn on f7 is under attack - a

This very natural developing move proves to direct consequence of 1 7 . . . fxe4? .
be inaccurate in this tense situation.
Still I could have found some prudent
Better would be the more principled though continuation like 1 8 . . . b4!? 1 9.0-0 lD a7,
risky 1 7.exf5 , which would promise an intending to bring this knight to b5 with a
interesting fight ahead. somewhat worse but reasonable position. But
I was already driven by adrenaline, and wanted
to play as actively and riskily as possible.
8
7 19.exf5
6 I began to feel that something had gone
wrong, but fortunately I did not have much
5 choice but to try to keep things messy.
4
19 .. J!c8!?
3
Relatively the best decision.
2
1 9 . . . �e7 20.cj{f2 �bc8 2 l .fxg6 �f6t 22.lDf4
1
would be hopeless.
a b c d e f g h
17 ... fxe4? 1 9 . . . �b6 20.0-0 �xe3 2 l .�xe3 lDxd4
But this premature exchange is clearly 22.id5t cj(hs 23.cj( h 1 �e8 24.�g5 also leads
wrong. to disaster.
1 7 . . . a4! would probably be even stronger than 8

on the previous move. After that I do not see
7
an entirely satisfactory continuation for White.
For instance: 1 8 .exf5 lDa5 1 9.fxg6 fxg6 6
20.ig5 �b6 2 1 .0-0 lD c4
5
Or 1 8 .0-0 lD a5 1 9 .Ek2 lD c4 20.�c l lDxe3
2 l .�xe3 �b6. 4
And finally 1 8 .b3 axb3 1 9.axb3 �a8!? 20.0-0 3
�a3 . And in all three variations it's hard to
envy White's position. 2
1
1 8.fxe4
a b c d e f g h
White is going to castle, after which he
would be happy, with a good pawn centre and 20.0-0!
well-placed pieces. Completing development.
1 8 ... f5?! After the less strong 20.fxg6 �f6 Black would
1 8 . . . a4 1 9 .0-0 lDa5 would have not nearly manage to keep the white king in the centre,
the same effect as before - after 20.ih6 lD c4 with practical chances.
20 ...YNe7 2 I.�d5t ct!/hs 22J�f3? 23J�xc8 hc8 24.llJf4?

Oops! This is wrong. Now my bluff pays off. This obvious move, which was made in the
approach to time trouble, immediately brings
Georgiev fails to find the precise and powerful: White very dose to defeat.
22.ih6! Wffxe2
24.f6! ixf6 25.lt:Jf4 was required, with the
8 small but vital difference that after 25 . . . if5
7 (better is 25 . . .Wff g7 with approximate balance)
26.a3 CLJxd5 27.CLJxd5 the bishop on f6 will
6
be hit by the white knight, and the position
5
arising will be in White's favour.
4
3 24...�xf5 25.�e6
2 Obviously Georgiev has been counting on
this move. Objectively speaking his position
was already worse than "so-so". For instance,
a b c d e f g h
25 .ib3 would j ust lose after 25 . . . Wff e4.
23.f6 is tempting, as 23 . . . if8? 24.ig7t! leads
to checkmate, and 23 . . . ixf6 24J�xf6 Wffxd2 25 ...YNb7!
25 .ixd2 CLJ xd4 26Jhc8 ixc8 27.ixa5 ifS Exposing the rook's awkward position.
leaves Black with only slim chances to hold.
But 23 .ixg7t! @xg7 24.f6t @h7 25 .ig8t!! 26.YNg2
is even more convincing. Black can only resign.
The key point is 27.f8 =Wit!.
8
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
1
2
a b c d e f g h
1
26 ...�g4!
a b c d e f g h
In my opinion, this is the best move from a
22 ... llJ b4! practical point of view, especially considering
This unexpected knight j ump changes the that my opponent was experiencing a serious
picture. Now White has to find a way to hold lack of time. It required some calculation.
his own in tactical complications.
Probably Kiril was counting on 22 . . . gxf5 ? 26 ... ixe6? 27.CLJxe6 �xe6 28.�f8t ixf8
23 . lt:Jf4, with a big advantage. 29 .Wixb7 �xe3 30 .Wif7 would lead nowhere.
26 . . . .ie4 27.d5! would bring unnecessary 28.llJxd3 .ixB

complications. After let's say 27 . . . gxe6!? 28 . . ..ixe6!-+ says the computer.
28.dxe6 .ixf3 29.e7! Vfixe7 (29 . . ..ic6??
30.e8=Vfit) 30.Vfixf3, White would keep good
drawing chances.
8
27.f2?
The final mistake, but the choice was very 7
tough. 6
27.lt:Jxg6t mh7 28 ..ixg4 hxg4 would lose on 5

the spot. 4
3
27.d5 gxe6! 28.lt:Jxe6 Vfixd5-+ is the same
outcome. 2
Only 27.ixg4 hxg4 28.gfl Vfixg2t 29.lt:Jxg2

lt:J c2 30 ..if2 lt:J xd4 3 1 .lt:Je3 would have a b c d e f g h
prolonged resistance. But I believe that even The complications are over and a prosaic
in this case Black should gradually win after ending with an extra exchange has arisen. Its
3 1 . . . ge4. evaluation is clear - Black should win easily.
8 32.e4 gs 33.b3

33 .md5 would be slightly more stubborn,
7
but after 33 . . . mf7 34.mc6 b4 3 5 .mb5 gfst
6 36.mc6 .ih6! 37.mxd6 g5 White is doomed
anyway. Now it's even simpler.
5
4 33 ....ih6 34.a4 bxa4 35.bxa4 f7 36.d5

3 .ix£4 37..ixf4 ci>e8 38.ci>d4 d7 39.ci>c4
�f5 40.ci>d4 �£8 41 .ci>d3 �b8
2 0-1
1
a b c d e f g h
27 ... llJ d3t

The simplest.
As usual, the artificial intellect insists on

stronger options, like 27 ... gxe6! 28.lt:Jxe6
lt:J d3t 29.me2 Vfic6 30.lt:Jxg7 Vfic2t 3 l ..id2
mxg7, with total domination. But after all,
you can't win the same game more than once!
Chapter 6
Knight Agility
Also with White I have always been able to

make good use ofthe kn ights...
... 8
7
6
5
4
Positional play. What is Can you navigate the

Black's best move? complications better than I
(see page 200) did? (see page 208)
... 8 ... 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
Train you KID muscle White is quite weak on the Another day at the office . . .
(see page 1 76) dark squares (see page 203) What should Black play?
(see page 2 1 O)
8 ... 8 ... 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
As a start, don't lose the queen Simple tactics (see page 205) What is White's only move?
(see page 1 8 1 ) (see page 2 1 2)
Chapter 6 - Knight Agility 171
When I was talking about the games for this Alexander Khalifman - Garry Kasparov
book with my publishers, they pointed out that
Paris (rapid) 1 99 1
some of the games were centred on the knights.
I have to admit I had never thought about this
I n this rapid game from his King's Indian
and do not have a great secret to share about
prime, Kasparov manages to make 1 3 knight
the knight's role in the King's Indian - only
moves before crashing through on the kingside.
that it is quite natural that the knights would
As the former World Champion's favourite
be prominent pieces in some games, as the
number was 1 3 , this must have pleased him
King's Indian often leads to closed positions.
immensely.
Yes, we want the bishop to break out, often
with dynamic line opening, but sometimes
I.d4 tl)f6 2.c4 g6 3.tl)c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 s.tl)f3
this is not possible and the knights will have to
0-0 6 ..ie2 e5 7.0-0 tt)c6 8.d5 tl)e? 9.tl)d2
field the majority of the activity.
a5 IO.a3 tl) d? l l .�bl f5 12.b4 i>h8 13.8
As you will see from my own games in this
chapter, the main playing field for the knights
is the dark squares. A knight comes to d6, 8
blocking a pawn, and is very powerful. It
7
makes it to the more active square e5, where
it has a big range. Or it goes to f4 and aims at 6
targets behind enemy lines. Or it can go to d4 5
and dominate the opponent.
4
On the way it will go mainly via h5 and
f5 , but these squares have a tendency to be 3
transition squares. The same is the case for
2
Kasparov's knights in the lightly-annotated
example below. This is quite natural when you 1
stop to ponder for a moment. Black's pawn
a b c d e f g h
structure in the King's Indian is on the dark
squares and White dominates the light squares I3 ... tl)gs
with his pawns. A knight needs support to The move Kasparov introduced against
do its best (and worst!) and who is better at Karpov (see page 1 8 3).
supporting a knight than a pawn?
14.�c2 axb4 1 5.axb4 tl) df6 16.c5 tl)h5
Do pay attention to the dynamic potential 17.tl)c4 tl)f4 1 8.cxd6 cxd6 19.tl)b5 �a6
of the knights in the King's Indian. Without 20.�b3?!
the knights there would be far fewer tactics in This move is thematic in some lines, but here
chess; and without tactics the King's Indian it does not really work.
would not be the King's Indian . . .
20 .ie3 was preferable, but after 20 . . . lt:J f6
But I digress. Let's have a quick look a t some Black clearly has a good game.
textbook knight-handling from a great King's
Indian player. 20 ... fxe4 21 .fxe4
25 ... tiJh6!
8
The knight aims for the e5-square.
7
6 25 .. .f3 26.gxf3 '.Wg5 t 27.<it>h l '.Wc l was also

strong, but by no means a very human solution.
5
4 26.h3 tiJf7 27.tiJe2

27.'.Wxf4 would lose very quickly to some
3
rather natural moves: 27 . . . id4t 28.<it>h l ttJe5
2 29 .'\Wc l '.Wf6, and the attack is decisive. We
can add 30 .ie2 ixh3 to the line if you like. I
1
am certain that it would be within Kasparov's
a b c d e f g h powers to see such a tactic, even in a rapid
2 1 . ...id7! 22. ttJ c3 game.
22.ttJcxd6 �xd6 23.ttJxd6 '.Wb6t 24.ie3
'.Wxd6 also looks very pleasant for Black. 27 ... tlJg5!
22 .. J�al 8
The position is already a bit uncomfortable
7
for White. He decides to get rid of the strong
black knight, but this dramatically weakens his 6
dark squares.
5
23 ..ixf4?! 4
23.if3 was better, but Black has a promising
3
position nonetheless.
2
23 ... gxfl t 24.-ixfl exf4 25.%Vf2 1
a b c d e f g h
8
We should always stay flexible. When the
7 opponent prepares for one idea, it is good to
6 have another he had not anticipated ready.
5
28.tiJxf4?
4 This loses immediately, but the position after
28.ttJd2 '.We7 would also not hold for long.
3
2 28 ...%Vf6 29.g3 tlJxe4 30.%Ve3 tlJxg3 3 1 .%Vxg3

1 %Vxf4 32.%Vxf4 gxf4
0-1
a b c d e f g h
Chapter 6 - Knight Agility 1 73
My Games Besides this move, Black can choose from

three main different plans: 6 . . . tLl bd7 and
When you play through my games you will . . . e7-e5, 6 . . . c5, and 6 . . . c6. I have played all of
probably realize that the knights do an awful them in my practice, but in the last few years
lot of work, only to be eliminated once it is I have switched almost exclusively to 6 . . . tLlc6.
time to reap the rewards. This is perfectly
natural. Chess is not only a game of piece 7.0-0
coordination and harmony, it is also about
destruction and ruthlessness. So do not get
too attached to your knights, j ust because you
realize they have great potential.
Mesgen Amanov - Ilya Smirin
Kin g of Prussia 2010
l.d4
The World Open (sounds good, doesn't it?)
in Philadelphia is a tournament I played in
more times than any other event in my career.
In 20 1 0 the World Open took place in a town
a b c d e f g h
near Philadelphia with the romantic name of
'King of Prussia'. 7 ...i.f5
Here too Black had a wide choice: 7 . . . a6,
l. .. tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 7 . . . e5 or 7 . . . ig4. I like the move in the game
The system with a fianchetto of the light - Black continues with development and
squared bishop has a very solid reputation. Its stays flexible with his pawn structure. Besides,
main aim is to restrict the opponent's potential . . . ttJ e4 becomes a possibility. Of course, how
activity and obtain a small but lasting edge. to continue here is a matter of taste.
3...i.g7 8.d5
Perhaps the simplest way to fight for equality 8.b3 happened in my game with Barsov,
is 3 . . . c6 with . . . d7 -d5 to follow, transposing which is also included in this book.
into the Griinfeld. The then World Champion
Carry Kasparov played it a few times against 8 ... tlJa5 9.tiJd2
Anatoly Karpov in their matches in 1 986 and 9.tLld4 is another option here. Mter 9 . . . id7
1 987. All the games ended peacefully. I have (9 . . . tLl xc4? 1 0.tLlxf5 gxf5 1 l .�d3) 1 0.b3 c5
also played this line quite a lot, mostly when I l l .dxc6 bxc6 ( l l . .. tLlxc6 was played a few
did not mind a draw. But in this game I was in times by Boris Gulko, among others) 1 2.ib2
a more aggressive mood. :gb8 1 3 .:gb 1 �c8 1 4.:ge1 :gd8 1 5 .�d2 tLlb7
1 6.e4 e5 1 7.tLlde2 ih3 1 8.f3 ixg2 1 9.�xg2
4.i.g2 0-0 s.tlJc3 d6 tLlc5 20.ia3 tLl e6 2 l .:gbd 1 if8 22.�e3
After 5 . . . c6 White plays 6.e4. h5 23.:gd3 :gb7 24.:ged 1 :gbd7 I had good
position and later managed to win, Greenfeld
- Smirin, Haifa 1 993.
9 . c5
..
I came to dislike 9 . . . c6 after the following

game:
a b c d e f g h
34 . . . El:g4 3 5 .ifl El:xg3t 36.�h 1 El:g4 37.ttJd6

El:b6 38.ttJc4 El:f6 39.ttJd2 El:d4 40.ttJb3 El:a4
4 l .�g2 El:g4t 42.� h 1 El:f3 43.ttJd2 El:xa3
a b c d e f g h
44.ig2 El:a2 45 .El:e7t �h6 46.El:d7 El:b4 47.ttJfl
1 0.b4 ttJxd5 l l .cxd5 ixc3 1 2.e4 ixa l 1 3 .exf5 El:bb2 48.ttJe3 El:e2 49.El:d3 �g5 50.�h2 El:ad2
ig7 1 4 J�e l ?! ( 1 4.bxa5 cxd5 1 5 .ttJ b3 ±) 5 1 .El:xd2 El:xd2 52.�g3 h5
1 4 . . . cxd5 1 5 .bxa5 gxf5 1 6.ixd5 W/xa5 1 7.ttJc4
Wlc7 1 8 .if4 El:ad8 1 9.Wlb3 b6 20.if3 El:c8
2 l .id5 El:cd8 22.h4 e6 (22 . . .W/c5 !) 23 .ixe6
fxe6 24.ttJxd6 �h8 2 5 .El:xe6 Wfc3 26.W/d5 El:d7
27.W/b5 El:dd8 28 .El:e7 W/c5 ? 29 .Wfxc5 bxc5
30.ttJf7t El:xf7 3 1 .El:xf7 c4 32.El:xf5 c3 33 .El:c5
id4 34.El:c4; ( 1 -0, 50) Ivanchuk - Smirin,
Odessa 2007.
Objectively speaking this line is not clearly

bad. I decided to give it another try in my
game with Michalik, where I played the better a b c d e f g h
1 o . . . ttJxc4. This game is mostly interesting 53 .�f3 �h4 54.ifl El:d6 5 5 .ttJg2t �g5
for the endgame, so I give the game in full: 56.�g3 El:b6 57.ie2 El:b4 58.if3 El:b3
1 l . ltJxc4 ttJxd5 1 2 .ttJxd5 ixa 1 1 3 .ih6 ig7 59.�f2 h4 60.ie4 El:b2t 6 l .�e3 h3 62.ttJe1
1 4.ixg7 �xg7 1 5 .ttJ f4?! (better is 1 5 .ttJde3) h2 63 .ttJf3t �h5 64.ttJe5 g5 65.ttJd3 El:b 1
1 5 . . . e5 1 6.e4 ixe4 1 7.ixe4 exf4 1 8 .W/xd6 66.ttJf2 El:e l t 67.�d2 El:xe4 68.ttJxe4 �h4 0- 1
fxg3 1 9.hxg3 b5 20.W/xd8 El:axd8 2 l . ttJ a5 El:d4 Michalik - Smirin, Jerusalem 20 1 5 .
22.if3 El:xb4 23.ttJxc6 El:b2 24.ttJxa7 El:d8
2 5 . a3 El:d3 26.ic6 El:c3 27.El:a 1 El:cc2 28.El:fl f5 I O.e4 �d7
29.ig2 El:c3 30.El:a 1 El:cc2 3 1 .El:fl El:c4 32.El:e 1 It seems that Black has simply lost time
f4 33.ttJxb5 fxg3 34.fxg3 by moving this bishop twice in the opening.
However, it is unclear if e2-e4 is so useful for
White. There are three reasons for answering
in the negative: the scope of the bishop on g2
is restricted, the d4-square can no longer be
controlled by the e-pawn, and the e4-square is
unavailable to the knights for the foreseeable 13.b4 tiJb7 14.�b2 tlJg4
future. Of course, the strong pawn centre built A pretty standard manoeuvre in this
by White may become a cause for concern for variation; Black prepares for the . . . f7 -f5 push.
Black.
1 5.h3 tiJh6
l l .�c2 Both black knights occupy far-from-central
positions, but the closed character of the game
allows them to do so without substantial
8
damage.
7
6 16.tlJe2 f5 17.£4
5
8
4
7
3
6
2
5
4
a b c d e f g h
3
l l . .. e5
In this game I decided to close the centre 2
and prepare to play on the kingside. 1
a b c d e f g h
A year earlier I tried the more popular 1 1 . . . a6
in a rapid game against Boris Avrukh - 1 2.b3 It's becoming interesting - the pawn tensions
b5 1 3.ib2 !!b8 1 4.!!ae 1 e5 1 5 . 'Li d 1 'Li g4 1 6.h3 are growing, and even more so after Black's
'Lih6 1 7.ic3 f5 1 8 .f4 b4 1 9.ib2 exf4; (V2-V2, 33) next move.
Avrukh - Smirin, Netanya 2009 . Black had the
worse position in the course of this game, so I 17... b5!
chose a different line against Amanov. Now the battle is raging in the centre and on
both flanks.
12.a3
In 20 1 2 Mesgen Amanov played the 18.fxe5 dxe5 19.bxc5?!
definitely stronger 1 2 .b3 in one of his games This wins a pawn, but leads to a serious
and won pretty quickly. The main problem activation of Black's forces. More prudent was
for Black in this system (as in the analogous a waiting move like 1 9 .l.Wb3!?, not releasing
Yugoslav Variation) is the rather unfortunate the tension prematurely. In my opinion the
position of the aS -knight on the edge of the question "to keep or to release the pawn
board. It is hard for him to join the kingside tension?" and the timing of it is one of the
battle from there. subtlest problems in chess.
12 ... b6 19 ... tlJxc5 20.cxb5 �c8

Vacating b7 for the knight.
1 76 Ki ng's I ndian Warfare
26.tt:Je4? �c2 27.�f2 'lMb6 28.@h2 ltJ e3 would

lead to a bad position for White - Black is too
active and material losses are unavoidable.
a b c d e f g h
2 1 .ltl c3 'ffg5 26 ... e4!

2 1 . . . ltJ f7!? deserved serious attention. The By sacrificing the second pawn Black opens
knight will go to d6 and later Black can decide the a l -h8 diagonal for the g7-bishop, and the
where to put the queen - on g5 or perhaps pin on the knight at c3 becomes very sensitive
somewhere else. for White.
22JU3 fxe4 27.'ffxe4 ges

Another plan was 22 . . . f4 23.�afl with a Stronger was the computer's suggestion:
complicated game. 27 . . . ltJd6 28.�xf8t 'lMxf8 29.'lMb4 �c4! 30.'lMb3
23.ltl dxe4 ltlxe4 24.'ffxe4 ltlf5 25.'ffe l

'ftd8!?
Suddenly the queen retreats. She switches
her action from the kingside to the opposite
side of the board.
25 . . . e4? does not work because of 26.ltJxe4,

but now this move is threatened, which my
opponent did not notice. In addition, the
queen may now become active via b6 or a5. a b c d e f g h
30 . . . ixh3! 3 l .�fl id4t 32.@h2 if5 ! with a

26.a4?!
devastating attack, but I failed to spot it.
Better was the subtle prophylactic move
26.�b 1 !, protecting the bishop on b2 if 26 . . .
e 4 27.ltJxe4.
28.'ffd3 ltld6 29.gdl
The attempt to free himself from the pin
by means of 29.ltJ d l ? does not work due to
29 . . . El:e l t 30.El:fl "1Wb6t 3 1 .�h2 ifS , with a Thanks to the active rooks, Black has good
total collapse. winning chances in this endgame, but the
outcome is far from obvious. After all, White
29 ... tlJc4 30 ..ial tlJe5 3 1 .�d2? is OK in terms of material.
Leading to an immediate loss.
35 ...Lal 36.gxal gf8
Much more stubborn was 3 1 ."\Wfl ltJxf3t Or 36 . . . ixh3t 37.�xh3 El:xf3 38.ltJd4 El:d3
32."1Wxf3 "1Wb6t 33.<;t>h2 "1We3 (33 . . . El:e3 34.a5!) 39.ltJc6 El:c7 40.El:e l and this position is hard
34.ltJe4 "1Wxf3 3 5 .ixf3 El:c2t 36.�g l ixh3 to win - the knight on c6 is very strong.
37.d6 and White is not yet doomed.
37.tlJgi gcs
An interesting psychological moment - I
hoped that Amanov would not repeat moves
but would try to find something better. My
8
hope proved to be j ustified.
7
6 38.ga2?!
Mter the correct 38 .ltJ e2 Black would
5 probably have nothing better than 38 . . . ixh3t,
4 transposing into the previous line.
3
8
2
7
6
a b c d e f g h
5
32 ...�b6t?
I briefly lost my concentration. 32 . . . "1Wf6! 4
33.ig2 El:xc3 would win easily. 3
33.�g2 �e3 34.�xe3 gxe3 35.tlJe2 2
1
8 a b c d e f g h
7 38 ... gcc3! 39. �fl �f8
6 Now Black's plan is to exchange one pair
of rooks and collect the defenceless a- and
5 b-pawns after that. It's difficult for White to
4 prevent this with his passive pieces.
3
40.h4?!
2 A better try was 40.El:d2 El:ed3 4 1 .El:b2 El:b3
42.El:e2.
a b c d e f g h
40 ... <tt> e7 4l .g4?! Boris Chatalbashev - Ilya Smirin

Still 4 l .El:b2 El:b3 42.El:c2 was more stubborn.
Athens 2007
Mter the king reaches d6 the win becomes
rather simple.
I had won two tournaments in Athens, the
Acropolis Open, in 2007 and 2008. Alas, after
41 ... <tt> d6 42 ..ie2 �a3 43.�b2 �eb3 44.�xb3
that the tournament was held in Khalkidhiki
�xb3
in 2009 and my result was poor. Probably the
ancient spirit of Athens (and also an excellent
8 swimming pool on the roof of the hotel, which
7 I used every day before rounds) influenced me
in a very positive way. This game was played
6 during my first successful Athens event.
5
l .d4 tt)f6 2.c4 g6 3.tlJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 s ..id3
4
White chooses the system with the
3 development of the light-squared bishop to
the more active square d3 compared to e2. The
2
only drawback of this setup is that the pawn
on d4 becomes more vulnerable without the
queen's protection.
a b c d e f g h
Black has fulfilled his plan while White's 5 ... 0-0 6.tlJge2
pieces remain inactive. The rest is a simple
matter of technique.
8
45.h5 �b4 46.hxg6 hxg6 47.<tt> g3 �xa4 7
48.<tt> h4 �b4 49.<tt> g5 .ixb5 50 ..ixb5 �xb5
6
The a-pawn is out of reach of the white
knight, so White resigned. 5
0-1 4
a b c d e f g h
6... tlJc6
I like this move - Black immediately takes
aim at d4. Actually there are a few different
paths to choose from. It's possible to transpose
into the Benoni with:
6 . . . c5 7.d5 e6
An example between high-level opponents The other way is the immediate: 7 . . . e5 8.d5
is: ttJd4 9.ttJxd4 exd4 1 0.ttJb5 ( l O.ttJe2!?)
8.h3 1 0 . . . El:e8 1 1 .El:e 1 ttJg4 (also quite possible is
Instead one of my games went: 1 l . .. a6 1 2.ttJxd4 ttJ xdS 1 3 .cxd5 .ixd4 1 4.'\Wc2
8.0-0 exd5 9.cxd5 .id? 1 5 . .ie3 .ig7 1 6.El:ad 1 c5 1 7 .dxc6 Yz-Yz
Seirawan - Benjamin, Los Angeles 1 99 1 )
1 2.h3 a6 1 3.hxg4 axb5 1 4.cxb5 '\Wh4 1 5 .g3
'I.Wxg4 1 6.'\Wxg4 .ixg4 with good chances to
equalize.
a b c d e f g h
9 . . . ttJ a6 (9 . . . ttJ g4!? is an interesting

alternative, immediately looking for
concrete counterplay) 1 O.f3 El:b8 1 1 .a3 .id?
1 2.El:b 1 '.WaS 1 3 .�h 1 b5 1 4 . .id2 c4 1 5 . .ic2
'.We? 1 6 . .if4 El:fe8 1 7.ttJd4 ttJ c5 1 8 .ttJc6 El:b6
1 9 .a4 .ixc6 20.dxc6 b4 2 1 .tLlb5 'I.Wxc6 22.b3 a b c d e f g h
ttJ hS 23 . .ie3 c3 24.ttJxa7 '.We? 25.ttJb5
s .ie3
'I.Wd8 26.'\WdS Yz-Yz Khalifman - Smirin,
.
Or: 8 . .ic2 e5 9.d5 ttJ d4 1 0 . .ie3 ( l O.ttJxd4!?

Sverdlovsk 1 987.
exd4 1 1 .tLlb5 ttJe5 1 2.ttJxd4 ttJ xc4 1 3.El:b 1
8 ... exd5 9.exd5 ttJfd7 1 O.f4 f5 1 1 .0-0 El:e8
happened in a few games, with good results
12 ..id2 ttJ a6 1 3 .El:e 1 ttJ f6 1 4.tLlg3 El:xe 1 t
for White; among others, Chatalbashev
1 5 ..ixe 1 .id?
played it in 2009) 1 O . . . ttJxc2 I believe that
With approximate equality - Black has
after exchanging this important bishop for the
no bad pieces or real weaknesses; (0- 1 , 56)
knight, Black has no problems at all. 1 1 .'\Wxc2
Malakhov - Grischuk, Moscow 20 1 0.
aS 1 2.a3 b6 1 3.b4 f5 1 4.exf5 gxf5 1 5 .f3 .ia6
1 6.b5 .ic8 1 7.f4 ttJcS 1 8.El:ad 1 .id? 1 9.tLlg3
6 . . . e5 7.d5 ttJhS!? is a different plan. As in
'\Wh4!? 20.ttJce2 El:ae8 2 l . fxe5 .ixe5 22 . .if4
the Samisch System, Black prepares a quick
.ig7 23.ttJd4 Yz-Yz Moiseenko - Smirin,
. . . f7-f5 . I played this once - 8 . 0-0 tLl d7 9 ..ic2
Maalot-Tarshiha 2008.
f5 1 0.exf5 gxf5 1 1 .tLl g3 tLlxg3 1 2.fxg3 e4
1 3 .g4 ttJeS 1 4.gxf5 .ixf5 1 5 .ttJxe4 tLlxc4, with
8 ...e5 9.d5 llJ d4 IO.Y;\'d2
an unclear position; (0- 1 , 39) Lev - Smirin,
Now 1 0.ttJxd4 is impossible and the knight
Haifa 1 993.
will remain on d4 for some time.
7.0-0 llJ d7 1 0.El:c l and 1 0.ttJb5!? are other popular

In this game I wanted to postpone . . . e7 -e5
options in this position.
for one move.
1 o ... c5 1 1 .dxc6 Or if 1 6.lt:Jd5, then at once 1 6 .. .f4 and again I

Practically forced from a positional point of would prefer Black - he has gained some space
view, as otherwise the knight on d4 would be on the kingside and the b6-bishop is cut off
too strong. from the rest of its forces and may become a
target.
1 1 . .. bxc6 1 2.b4 c5
16 ...�b7
8
a b c d e f g h
13.b5?!
This decision to release the pawn tension Black's posltlon makes a nice harmonious
is too optimistic in my opinion. Yes, in an impression: his pieces interact very well.
endgame such a pawn structure would favour Both fianchettoed bishops control important
White (he will potentially be able to create diagonals, and we have already spoken about
a dangerous passer on the queenside) but in the knight on d4. White should be careful
the middlegame it's a strategically risky move. now.
Now the d4-knight occupies an excellent, well
reinforced outpost. It will help a lot in Black's 17.fxe5?
upcoming activity against the white king. The wrong choice, helping Black to activate
the dark-squared bishop.
1 3 .El:ab 1 , with a complex position, should be
preferred. The dangerous knight on d4 should have
been immediately exchanged: 1 7.lt:Jxd4 cxd4
1 3 ... £5 1 8 .lt:Jd5 ixd5 (or 1 8 . . . lt:Jc5 1 9 . fxe5 ixd5
Of course. 20.cxd5 ixe5 2 l .ig5) 1 9.cxd5 fxe4 20.ixe4
lt:J c5 (20 . . . exf4 2 l .�xf4 with an approximately
14.�g5 �f6 1 5.�h6 �H7 16.£4 equal position) 2 l .fxe5 lt:Jxe4 (2 l . .. dxe5
True to his aggressive style, the Bulgarian 22.�c2 El:c8? 23 .ixg6) 22.�xd4 ixe5
grandmaster Boris Chatalbashev tries to 23 .�xe4 El:f6! A nice trick. 24.E!:xf6 (24.E!:ae l ?
play as actively as possible. If he were to g5-+) 2 4. . . �xf6 25 .E!:fl ixh2t 26.c±>xh2 �xfl
continue 1 6.exf5 gxf5 1 7. lt:J d5 instead, then 27.if4! The draw is inevitable.
after 1 7 . . . lt:J b6!?+ the strong pawn centre
would promise Black excellent prospects. 17...Le5
Black has a clear advantage now - his pieces 22 ....ixd5 23.cxd5 h4 24..ixe5 tlJxeS 25 ..ie2
are quickly becoming very active.
8
18.exf5 gxf5
Premature would be 1 8 . . . 1Wh4 1 9.if4 7
ttJxe2t 20.ixe2 id4t 2 1 .�h l �xf5 22 .ig3 6
'Mfg5 23.'Mfxg5 �xg5 24.�ac l lt:Je5 25.lt:Jd5,
with approximate equality. 5
4
19.tlJg3
3
Or 1 9 .�ae l 'Mfh4 20.if4 �h8 2 I .lt:Jd5
�g8, and all Black's forces will participate in 2
the upcoming attack on White's king. I doubt
1
White will withstand that.
a b c d e f g h
19 ...�h4 20 ..ig5 25 ...�g7!
This wins the exchange with the help of a
8 little geometric trick.
7
26.tlJh5 tlJef3t!
6 Just another example that in a position with
a big advantage, tactics usually work in your
5
favour.
4
3 27..ixf3 tlJxf3t 28J�xf3 �xal t
2
8
7
a b c d e f g h
6
20 ...�g4!
The queen enters the midst of events and 5
feels perfectly safe - the opponent is unable 4
to harm it. Meanwhile, Black's assault is now
3
speeding up considerably.
2
2I ..if4 hS!
1
After the inclusion of this pawn in the attack,
my advantage became decisive - White cannot a b c d e f g h
survive the storm. Not quite the famous 'Mfb2-h8t from
the game Petrosian - Spassky, World
22.tlJd5 Championship ( 1 O) 1 966, but it was a very
The other options are no better, for instance pleasant "long" move!
22.h3 'M!g6 etc.
29.f2 �d4t Rustam Kasimdzhanov - Ilya Smirin

The computer prefers 29 . . . �e8 30.lLlf4 �e4
Elista Olympiad 1998
3 1 .lLle6 f4, but my decision to swap queens is
easy to understand.
The Olympiad in Elista was memorable for
me. It was our first success after quite a few
30.�xd4 cxd4
tries - the first time that the Israeli team tied
for third place - and it happened before Boris
8 Gelfand joined our team in 1 999. Two other
7
Boris's - Avrukh and Alterman - plus myself
and Lev Psakhis made a big contribution to
6 this result. This game has also remained special
5 for me. I found an original manoeuvre and
the very strong player Rustam Kasimdzhanov
4 collapsed shortly after that.
3
l .d4 tL)f6 2.c4 g6 3.tL)c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 s.tL)f3
2
0-0 6..ie2 e5 7.0-0 tL)c6 8.d5 tL)e? 9.tL)d2
1 a5
9 . . . c5 became very popular after the
a b c d e f g h
following famous game: 1 0.�b 1 lLl e8 1 l .b4
This endgame with an extra exchange is b6 1 2.a4 f5 1 3 .a5 lLlf6 1 4.'!Ma4 id? 1 5 .'1Ma3
technically won, of course. ih6 1 6.id3 '1Mc7 1 7.bxc5 bxc5 1 8 .exf5 gxf5
1 9.ic2 a6 20.lLlde4 ixc l 2 1 .lLlxf6t �xf6
3 1 .gd3 gcs 32.gxd4 gc2t 33.f3 gfc7! 22.�fxc l �af8 23 .�b6 ic8 24.lLle2 f4 25 .ie4
The last precise move in the game; now lLl f5 26.Ek6 '!Mg7 27.�b 1
White cannot avoid the exchange of rooks. The
rest does not require any further comment. 8
7
34.a4 f7 35.tL)f4 g7c3t
6
36.tL)d3 gc4 37.gxc4 gxc4 38.a5 gd4 5
39.tL)f4 gb4 40.b6 axb6 41 .axb6 ci>f6 42.g3 4

gb3t 43. g2 hxg3 44.hxg3 gxb6 3
0-1 2
a b c d e f g h
27 . . . lLlh4 28.'1Md3 ifS 29.@h 1 f3 30.lLlg3

fxg2t 3 l .@g 1 ixe4 32.'1Mxe4 lLlf3t 33.@xg2
lLld2 0-1 Larsen - Fischer, Denver (4) 1 97 1 .
I have played 9 . . . c5 a few times, but mostly I
have followed another great champion - Carry
Kasparov. He usually played 9 . . . a5 and made
huge contributions to this line.
Chap ter 6 - Knight Agility 1 83
IO.a3 .id? can neutralize the knight. 36.lt:Je2! <tt> g7

1 0 . . . lt:Jd7 was played by Kasparov several 37.�h 1 lt:Jd4 38.lt:Jbxd4 exd4 39.�d 1 �eS t
times. Perhaps the most memorable game was 40.<tt> f3 �f6t 4 1 .<tt> g3 �eS t 42.<tt> f3 �f6t
a clash with his formidable "eternal" opponent Yz-Yz Karpov - Kasparov, Skelleftea 1 989.
- the great Anatoly Karpov. In this game Garry I have also played this line a few times (once
was close to winning, but Anatoly managed to against Kasparov himself in 1 988, and it was
hold: 1 1 .El:b 1 fS 1 2.b4 <tt> h 8 1 3 . f3 quite a game - you will find it elsewhere in the
book) and another time against Gavrikov in
the same year. For a while I considered it one
of my best creative achievements, and you will
also find that game in this book. However, in
the game against Kasimdzhanov I had chosen
other continuation, introduced to practice by
the outstanding KID expert Efim Geller in
1 974.
l l .b3
a b c d e f g h
8
1 3 . . . lt:J g8 ! This move became very popular; by
playing it Black solves his usual problem in 7
this line: how to coordinate his forces and to
6
make the e7-knight an active piece. 1 4. lt:J b3
axb4 1 S .axb4 tt:Jdf6 1 6 . .id2 lt:J hS 1 7.g3 lt:Jhf6 5
1 8 .El:f2 lt:Jh6 1 9 .El:a 1 El:xa 1 20.�xa 1 tt:J f7 4
2 1 .�c l f4 22.g4 h S 23.h3 lt:J h7 2 4. .ie 1 .if6
2S.<tt> g2 <tt> g7 26.El:fl lt:J hgS 27.El:h 1 lt:Jxh3 3
28.El:xh3 lt:JgS 29.El:h2 hxg4 30.fxg4 El:h8 2
31 ..ih4 f3t 32 . .ixf3 lt:Jxf3 33 . .ixf6t �xf6
1
34.El:xh8 <tt> xh8 3 S .<tt> g3
a b c d e f g h
8
The most natural continuation, preventing
7 the blockading . . . aS-a4.
6
5 l l . .. llJcS
This was an original idea of Geller - Black
4
transfers this knight to b6, to be able to jump
3
to a4 if White starts activity on the queenside
2 by means of b3-b4.
a b c d e f g h 1 1 ... cS or 1 1 ... c6 are other popular lines here

it shows that Black has a lot of versatility in
35 . . . gS?! (3S . . . <tt> g7! gives Black a big advantage)
this system.
Now that . . . �h4 t is no longer possible, White
12J�b l tlJb6 13.Y:Yc2 ( 1 8 .f3 lt:Jh5) 1 8 . . . c6 1 9.lt:Jf3 ig7 ( 1 9 . . . ixcl

Mter the immediate 1 3 .b4 axb4 1 4.axb4 20.�fxc l cxd5 2 l .cxd5 �fc8 22.lt:Jd2 Wfd8!?
lt:J a4 1 5 .Wfc2 lt:Jxc3 1 6.Wfxc3 ih6 (Langeweg was also perfectly playable with approximate
- Geller, Amsterdam 1 974) Black has no equality - Black easily can match the
problems at all - he has good piece play and opponent's activity on the queenside) 20.ig5
no real weaknesses. cxd5 2 1 .cxd5 h6 22.id2 (22 .ih4 g5 23 .ig3
lt:J h5f!) 22 . . . id7 23.�bc l Wfd8 24.Wfb 1
1 3 ...Y:Ye7 lt:Jh5 2 5.g3 ig4 26.mg2 Wfd7 27.lt:Jg 1 ixe2
I played this move for the first time against 28.lt:Jxe2 f5 Black was OK in the other game;
M. Gurevich (Elenite 1 994) . (Yz-Yz, 50) M. Gurevich - Smirin, Elenite
1 994.
14.b4
Or 1 4.ib2 ih6 1 5 .�be 1 ig4 1 6.ixg4 16 ... tlJg4!
lt:Jxg4 1 7.a4 lt:J d7 1 8 . lt:J f3 lt:J c5 1 9.ia3 b6
20.ixc5 bxc5 2 l .g3 lt:J f6 22.lt:Jh4 Wfd7 23.mg2
8
ig5 with approximate equality; (Yz-Yz, 54)
M . Gurevich - Smirin, Haifa 1 99 5 - this was 7
our second battle in this particular variation. 6
14 ... axb4 1 5.axb4 tlJa4 5
4
8 3
7 2
6 1
5 a b c d e f g h
4 This move is the main reason why
3 included this game in the book. It looks rather
paradoxical at first sight - the knight j umps
2 into the air, and White may attack him with
the f- or h-pawns. But it transpires that both
these moves have drawbacks. Meanwhile I
a b c d e f g h
want to proceed with . . . f7-f5 , when the knight
16.tlJdl on d 1 is temporarily unable to move to e3.
After some thought Rustam came up with I love this idea, even though objectively it
a fresh idea, keeping the knight from being deserves a ! ? rather than ! .
exchanged.
17.£3
Useless is 1 6.lt:Jb5 c6! (this is the idea behind If 1 7.h3 I would continue 17 . . . lt:Jh6 and after
1 3 . . . Wfe7 - now the d6-pawn is protected) 1 8.lt:Jb3 f5 1 9 .f3 lt:Jf7 Black would feel great
1 7. lt:Jc7? �a7. his initiative on the kingside is obvious, and the
h3-pawn may be an additional weakness in the
Mter: 1 6.lt:Jxa4 ixa4 1 7.Wfc3 ih6 1 8 .Wfd3! near future, after let's say . . . Wfh4 and . . . lt:Jg5 .
17... tiJf6! the attack on the kingside, whereas Black's

1 7 . . . tb h6 would be less to the point - the queenside lies in ruins.
pawn is still on h2 and after 1 8 . lLl b3 f5 1 9 .c5± 20.c5 bxc5 2 1 .bxc5
I would probably prefer White. Instead the
knight returns to f6, but the position has 8
been changed - because the f3-pawn limits 7
the bishop on e2, Black can play . . . tbh5
6
next. I used a similar idea in my game with
5
Zilberman, which you will find in this book,
but in that game this idea was well known, 4
while in the present game it was over-the 3

board improvisation, which I value much 2
more highly.
a b c d e f g h
2 1 . . . �fb8! ?
2 1 . .. f5 22.c6 .ie8 23.�a l ±
8
2 1 . . . .if6!? 22.c6 .ih3 23.�e l .ig5
7 22.c6 .ih3
The consequence of 1 9 .g3 .
6
23.�el .if6! 24.tbe3 .ig5 2 5 .�al lb b6
5 And despite the strong white pawn on c6,
4 which divides the board into two parts, all
Black's forces are rather well coordinated and
3 he has a fully acceptable position.
2
19 ... tlJf4!
a b c d e f g h
8
19.tlJa5?!
7
The future FIDE World Champion
underestimates Black's idea. He would have 6
been better off playing the prophylactic: 5
1 9.g3 4
When I would have to choose between the 3
defensive:
2
1 9 . . . b6
I think this is the best move in the position. 1
Or the more energetic: 19 .. .f5 20.lLla5 f4
a b c d e f g h
2 1 .g4 lLl f6 22.lbxb7 h5 23.gxh5 (23.g5
'Llh7 24.h4 'Llxg5 25.hxg5 �xg5t 26.�h l Both knights have reached active positions,
�h4t=; 23.h3 'Ll h7) 23 . . . 'Llxh5 But after and it seems that the knight on f4 does a more
24.�f2! I cannot find a way to continue effective job than its white counterpart on a5.
20.�xb7??
A blunder which immediately decides the
outcome.
It was much better to eliminate the annoying

knight: 20.ixf4 exf4 2 l .ltJxb7 Now Black
totally dominates on the dark squares and
can choose between 2 l . .. EHb8 22.ltJa5 �e5!
23J�b3 �d4t 24.mh l �b6 2 5 . ltJ c6 (what
else?) 25 . . .ixc6 26.dxc6 ltJ c5 (26 . . . �xc6+)
27.El:b l ltJ e6 28.b5 El:a3 29 .�d2 El:ba8 with
better chances, or 2 l . .. �h4 22.�d2 El:ae8
23.�e l �h6, with rich play and a better a b c d e f g h
position for j ust one small pawn. 20 ... �xe2t 21 .YNxe2 �Hb8 22.c5
Alas, 22 .ltJa5 is impossible due to 22 . . . El:xa5,
But the best decision in this situation was the but the game is lost in any case.
modest 20.El:f2, acknowledging that White's
1 9th move was a mistake, but hoping for a 22 ... dxc5 23.bxc5 �xc5 24.�xc5 �xbl
stubborn defence in a worse position. This 25.�xd7
would be an easy decision for a computer My opponent resigned, not waiting for
program, but not for humans who usually do 25 . . . El:xc 1 .
not like to confess their mistakes. 0-1
Tigran Kotanjian - Ilya Smirin l l .d5?!

I was glad to see this premature release of the
European Championship, Yerevan 2014
tension. After the tougher l l .ie3 Wle7 1 2.g3
lt:Jh5 (or 1 2 . . . lt:J e6 1 3.d5) 1 3 .d5 c5 1 4.a3 ,
greatly enjoyed the atmosphere of the
a standard closed structure would arise in a
European Championship in Yerevan. I also
form highly favourable to White. In our post
came away satisfied with my own performance,
mortem analysis, Kotanjian described that
especially its creative aspect. A notable case was
situation as a "catastrophe" for Black. That is
the following game from the second round,
putting it strongly, but in broad terms it isn't
against the Armenian Grandmaster Tigran
far from the truth.
Kotanjian.
l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3.liJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.ltJf3 l l . .. cxd5 12.cxd5

In the case of 1 2.lt:Jxd5 lt:Jxd5 1 3 .cxd5 lt:J f6
0-0 6..ie2 ltJ bd7 7.0-0 e5
1 4.h3 id7, I would have nothing to complain
There were two mundane reasons why
about.
I opted for developing the knight on d7,
which today is quite a rare variation: (a) I was
counting on the surprise effect, and (b) In my
12 ... ltJf6
Black's .. .f5 i s postponed for now, b u t his
view, the variation itself is not bad.
pieces are coming into play - for instance, his
8.�c2 lDh5 bishop is already poised to j ump out to g4 with
I intended this sideways jump to confuse an awkward pin.
my opponent somewhat, but he didn't bat an
eyelid and made his next two moves quickly. 13.liJd2
This knight is headed for c4, with subsequent
9J�dl liJf4 lO ..ifl activity on the queenside and against the pawn
on d6 - but that is still some way off. For the
moment the bishop on cl is shut in, and in
8 its turn it blocks the rook on a l . Taking an
7 unbiased look at the position as a whole, you
notice that all White's pieces, except for the
6
knight on c3 , are placed on the first two ranks.
5 Of course that doesn't mean anything yet,
4 but all the same . . . In this sense Black is more
active. However, his knight on f4 won't achieve
3 anything all on its own; it needs support.
2
13 ... ltJg4!
One knight is good, two are better. Moreover,
a b c d e f g h everything is now ready for . . .f5 .
1 0 ... c6?!
14.h3
This move deserves a question mark, but I
What's this - an oversight, underestimation
wasn't keen on the theoretical 1 0 . . . c5 , which
of the reply, provocation, or the result of
is stronger, but less aesthetic according to my
exact calculation? This last supposition was
taste.
practically out of the question; as to the other An attractive move. Th e queen has penetrated
three, during the game I reckoned it was a case to the very base of the white kingside. Its
of underestimation. main role at the moment is to stop the enemy
king from taking refuge in the calm haven
A more cautious line was: 1 4 .lt:Jc4 f5 1 5 .f3 of h2.
(or 1 5 . h3 ttJ h6) 1 5 . . . lt:J f6 (again 1 5 . . . ttJ h6
isn't bad) 1 6.exf5 (on 1 6.g3 fxe4 1 7.gxf4
8
exf3 1 8 .Wf2 e4 1 9. h3 ifS , we reach a
complicated position with Black holding the 7
initiative) 1 6 . . .ixf5 1 7.Wb3 At this point, 6
a piece sacrifice looks interesting: 17 . . . g5 ! ?
1 8.g3 g4! 1 9 .gxf4 gxf3 20.ttJe3 id? 2 1 .f5 5
ih6 And what is clear is that nothing is 4
clear; but over the board I would take Black's
3
side.
2
7 a b c d e f g h
6 17.tiJe2
This again is strictly White's only move. One
5
of the short variations I had calculated before
4 resolving on my 1 4th was 1 7.ttJf3 ttJ h5t
3 1 8 .�h4 if6t 1 9.ig5 ixg5t 20.ttJxg5 We3
2 1 .El:d3 Wf4 t 22.g4 h6, with an inevitable
2 quick mate.
1
17 ... tlJh5t I S.f3 YNh2
a b c d e f g h
So for the moment the white king is stuck
14 . . tiJxf2!
. in the danger zone. It isn't under direct attack
The exclamation mark is an award for right now - but in just one move's time, after
boldness. I took about 1 5 minutes to perform the typical King's Indian break with . . . f5 (rarely
some preliminary calculations and reject so effective as here!) virtually all Black's forces
the good positional alternative 1 4 . . . lt:J h6 will be joining in the attack.
1 5 .lt:Jc4 f5 . The temptation to play inventively
outweighed all else, and the knight sacrificed 19.f2
itself to draw the white king out of its shelter. The king could have moved away into
the centre under fire from the black pieces:
I S.x£2 YNb6t I6.g3 1 9.�e3 f5 (or 1 9 . . . ih6t 20.�d3 f5 2 1 .�c4!
The only move. Not 1 6.�e l We3t 1 7.ttJe2 - wow!) 20.ttJf3 Wh l 2 1 .ttJc3 fxe4 22.ttJxe4
ttJd3t (a pleasing case of a boxed-in king) or ixh3 23.Wff2 And in the computer's opinion,
1 6.�f3 f5 with a crushing attack. White has everything in order - but not many
of us mere mortals would have gone in for
I6 YNgi !
••. something like this.
19 ... £5 20.tiJf3 fxe4 21 .YMxe4 .ixh3 23 ... tlJxg3 24.hg3 .if5

Reinforcements have reached the queen in
time, but there are quite a few defenders round
8
the white king too.
7
8 6
7 5
6 4
5 3
4 2
3 1
2 a b c d e f g h
25.YMa4?
This is already a losing error. I think the
a b c d e f g h
reason for it was that Kotanj ian overrated his
22 ..if4! position. He didn't want to go in for 2 5 .�h4
I had missed this strong move in my �xh4 26.ixh4 (26.ltJxh4? ic2t 27.@ e l
calculations, hoping for 22.@e l ? �h i with an ixd l 28.�xd l �ac8) 2 6 . . .e 4 27.ltJd4 ig4t
overwhelming position. I now had to extricate 28.@el ixd l 29.�xd l ie5 , with approximate
myself somehow as I went along. equality in a complex ending - White's pieces
are active, but Black has a material edge.
22 ...YMht Instead of this, White makes a move based on
Fortunately the queen is not lost, and Black a decisive oversight.
retains quite good chances in the tactical fight.
25 ...e4 26.hd6
23.tiJg3?! My opponent evidently hadn't seen that
A first step in the wrong direction. after 26.ie2 e3t! 27.@xe3 �xg2, Black would
Tigran and I had both seen the variation: win at once.
23.gxh3 ltJxf4 24.ltJxf4 (24.@g3 �ae8!)
24 . . . �xf4 25.�xf4! exf4 26.ig2 id4t! 26 ... exf3 27 .gxf3
27.ltJxd4 �h2 At this point my opponent The only move. White loses immediately
broke off his calculations. I saw j ust a little in the event of 27.ixf8 �xf8 28.gxf3 �h2t
further: 28.�d3! f3 (the only way to save the 29 .ig2 ih3 30.�g l ie5 .
queen; otherwise 29J�h 1) 29 Jhf3 �e5 30J�d l
�c8 3 I .@gl In the resulting situation, queen 27... .ic2
and pawn are fighting against rook, bishop An obvious-looking strike, but here I missed
and knight. White has a small material plus, 27 . . .id7! 28 .�xd7 �xf3t 29.@e2 �h5!
and his chances overall must be preferred; but 30.�e6t @h8 3 I .@d2 �f6, winning in all
in my view Black shouldn't lose with precise variations - as indicated by the computer.
play - White's king is exposed and demands
protection from his pieces. 28 ..ie2
1 90 Ki ng's Indian Warfare
32.d6!
8
A correct pawn sacrifice. Now it is the black
7 king's turn to feel uncomfortable.
6
32 ... hd6 33.�h3t £8
5 If 33 . . . <j{h8 then 34.�xd6!, and Black has
4 to give perpetual checks with 34 . . . �h l t
(not 34 . . . �xd6 35 .�c3t <j{g8 36 . .ic4t <j{fs
3
37.�h8t) 3 5 .<j{f2 �h2t 36.<j{e J �g3t
2 37.<j{fl �h3t .
34.�e6
a b c d e f g h The bishop on d6 is under attack and White
28 ...hdl? also threatens �f6t, mating; in addition, the
And this i s j ust wrong. Th e correct line prospect of his bishop coming out to c4 gives
was the prosaic 28 . . . �xd l 29 .-ixd l .ixa4 cause for concern. Black solves these problems
30 ..ixa4 .ixb2 3 l .�b l .id4t 32.<j{g2 �f6 - with the aid of checks.
and although the strong passed pawn on d5
and White's active bishop pair give Black some 34 ...�hl t 35.f2 �h4t 36.g2
difficulty in winning, his material advantage Not 36.<j{fl ? which loses to 36 . . . .ic5
is great; playing the position is already, in 37.<j{g2 �e8 .
essence, a mere matter of technique. However,
I was bent on continuing the attack. These 36 ...�g5t
things happen . . .
8
29J�xdl �h3 3 0..txf8 �h2t 3 I .fl .tx£8
7
There is material equality on the board,
but Black has an obvious initiative - and the 6
opposite-coloured bishops, as usual, help in
5
the attack. Not everything is so simple, though.
4
8 3
7 2
5 a b c d e f g h
4 37.�g4
Better was 37.<j{fl .ic5 38 . .ic4 �gl t
3
39.<j{e2 �f2t 4o.<j{d3 �xf3t (after 40 . . . �d8t
2 4 I ..id5 �d4t 42.<j{c2 �g7 43.�e l , White is
not at all worse) 4 J .<j{c2 �f5 t 42.�xf5 t gxf5
1
43.�d7, and the game heads rapidly towards
a b c d e f g h a draw.
37 ...Yfe5!
8
It's useful to provoke White's next move.
7
38.£4 Yff6 39.Yfg5? 6
He shouldn't have given up a second pawn
like this. Mter 39.f5!? gxf5 40.�fl f4 4 l .�dl 5
White would have had excellent drawing 4
chances.
3
39 ...Yfxb2 2
It's always pleasant to pick up a pawn along
1
the way.
a b c d e f g h
40.<ibfl 4 I . .. <ibg7! 42.Yfd5
Not 40 .�h6t? <±>g8-+. After 42.�xd6 �c l t 43.<±>f2 �xc4 44.�d7t
<±>g8-+ 45 .�f6? �e2t, Black gets in first with
8 the mate.
7
42 .. J�e3!
6 This dots all the "i"s and crosses all the "t"s.
5
43.Yfd4t
4 This hastens the finale, but the game was no
3 longer to be saved. Mter 43.�xd6 �f3t, the
white king would be mated. There would be
2 the same result after 43.�f7t <±>h6 44.�xd6
�b 1 t 45.<±>g2 �e4t 46.<±>h2 �c2t 47.<±>g 1
�g3t 48.<±>fl �c l t .
a b c d e f g h
40 .. J�e8! 43...Yfxd4 44J�xd4 gat
After this rook's entry into the game, my White resigned, as after 45.<±>e2 �xf4 there
optimism increased significantly. is only Black left on the board.
0-1
4I .i.c4
White would lose with 4 1 .�h6t <±>g8
42 . .ic4t <±>h8 43.�xd6 �cl t (or 43 . . . �b4!)
44.<±>g2 �xc4. As it is, his threats are dangerous
but the situation is clarified by my next two
accurate moves.
Boris Alterman - Ilya Smirin 1 3.�e2 1his is a good version ofthe "hedgehog"
for White - the weakness on d6 is significant.
Israeli League 2004
1 3 . . . �e8 1 4 .CLJ c2 �f8 1 5 .�f4 ctJe5 1 6 .�g5
ctJ ed7 1 7. 'it> h 1 �c7 1 8 .�f4 �e7 1 9 .�h4 �d8
I .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.8
20.�f4 �e7 2 1 .�d2 CLJh5 22 .�e3 �f8 23.f4
0-0 6..ie3 a6 7.V!!d2 b6
CLJ g7 24.�fd 1 f6 25 .�h4; ( 1 -0, 39) Razuvaev
- Zagrebelny, Moscow 1 983.
9 ..id3
Of course, in the event of the active 9 .e5
CLJ e8 1 0.f4 I would play 10 ... c5, undermining
the strong white pawn centre with good
counterplay.
9 ... c5 IO.d5
Now after 1 O.Ct:J ge2 Black can develop the
b8-knight to the much more active square c6 -
1 o . . . Ct:Jc6 with the idea 1 1 .0-0?! Ct:Jg4!.
a b c d e f g h
8
This time I wanted to deviate from my usual
Samisch treatment and to play something new 7
and unexpected.
6
s.gdi 5
Alterman quickly and confidently made this
4
move, which is considered to be the best.
3
8 . CLJ ge2 c5 9.d5 e6 would lead to Benoni 2
positions. In the following game Black
1
managed to solve his problems successfully:
1 0.a4 exd5 1 l .cxd5 Ct:J bd7 1 2.CLJg3 CLJ e5 a b c d e f g h
1 3.�e2 h5 1 4.0-0 h4 1 5 .CLJ h 1 Ct:J h7 1 6. CLJ f2
10 b5!
f5 1 7.exf5 gxf5 1 8 . CLJ h3 CLJ g6 1 9.'it>h 1 �a7
...
Making use of the absence of the white

20.�ae 1 �e7 2 1 . f4 �f6 22.�c4 �fe8 23.�f2
rook from its initial position, Black carries out
�xe 1 24.�xe 1 �xe 1 t 25 .�xe 1 �e7 26.�d 1
this important move, striving for queenside
�xc3 Yz-Yz Dydyshko - Vokac, Ostrava 200 5 .
activity.
8 ....id7!?
l l .b3
I like this original move more than the natural
Of course not 1 l .cxb5?! axb5 1 2.�xb5 �xb5
8 . . . Ct:J bd7. Here is a game in which Grandmaster
1 3 .CLJxb5 �xa2.
Yuri Razuvaev played convincingly in
the opening and middlegame: 9 .�d3 c5
1 1 .�h6 was played against me by the
1 0 . CLJ ge2 cxd4 1 1 .CLJ xd4 �b7 1 2.0-0 e6
Romanian Grandmaster Mircea Parligras,
but it did not bring him an opening success: After, let's say, 1 5 .lD g3 exd5 1 6.cxd5 a4
l l . .. ixh6! 1 2.'1Wxh6 bxc4 1 3 .ixc4 ib5 1 7.ttJ 1 e2 ic8! ? 1 8.0-0 ttJ bd7 Black would
1 4.ib3 '1Wb6 1 5 . lDh3 ttJ bd7 Black was fi n e: have a good position - the knight on g3 is
he has easy and pleasant play against the b2- slightly misplaced in my opinion .
pawn along the b-file, while the white king
is stuck in centre for the moment. 1 6. ttJ f2 15 ...fxe6 16.i.b1
lDe5 1 7.�d2 a5 1 8 .ttJxb5 '1Wxb5 1 9 .id l ttJ c4
20.ie2 '1Wb4 2 I .ixc4 '1Wxc4 22.a3 �ab8+;
8
(V2-V2, 44) Parligras - Smirin, Skopje 20 1 4.
7
1 1 . .. b4 6
Grabbing some space on the queenside and
driving away the knight on c3 . 5
4
12.lbce2 aS
3
2
8
7
a b c d e f g h
6
16 .. J�� a6!
5
Here we see another benefit of 1 2 . . . a5 (besides
4 activity on the queenside) - now it's possible to
3 defend the d6-pawn in this unusual way.
2 1 7.£4 e5
The main purpose of this move is to fix the
white pawn on e4, thus making the bishop on
a b c d e f g h
b 1 rather passive. Also Black fights to dominate
Now my opponent faces a problem - how to on the dark squares.
complete the development of his pieces?
1 8.lb£3 �e7 1 9.0-0 exf4 20.l!Jxf4 i.g4
13 ..ih6
1 3 .lDg3?, to vacate e2 for the other knight,
8
was impossible due to the cheap trick
13 . . . lDxd5 1 4.cxd5 ic3 . That's why Boris 7
Alterman decides to exchange the dark-squared 6
bishops, but it leads to some weakening of the
dark squares, as is often the case in the Samisch 5
System. 4
3
13 ... e6 1 4.i.xg7 Wxg7 1 5.dxe6
I think this decision to change the pawn 2
structure is correct.
1
a b c d e f g h
I decided to let my opponent activate his 24.tlJe3?!

e2-knight, but in exchange Black is now free to White could have played the nice: 24.�f5!
develop his knight from b8 to d7 and e5. .ixf5 25.exf5 �e8 (the only move)
2 1 .tiJg5 tiJbd7 22J�del

Or 22.h3 .ixd 1 23.ltJge6t <±>h8 24.tt:Jxf8
'1Wxf8 25 .'1Wxd 1 '1We7 and Black is definitely
better because of the poor bishop on b 1 .
22 ... tlJe5 23.tiJ d5
7
a b c d e f g h
6
26.ltJe6t (very interesting and perhaps stronger
5 would be 26. tt:J f4!? <±>g8 27.�fl gxf5 28 . .ixf5
4 with annoying pressure against the black
king - the white knights are very dangerous
3 and even more importantly the light-squared
2 bishop is now active) 26 . . . �xe6 27.fxe6 ltJxd5
28.cxd5 '1We7 29.�fl �a8 And chances are
1
about even - the e5-knight is still stronger
a b c d e f g h than the white bishop, but the protected pawn
on e6 is definitely a force Black has to reckon
23 ...�d8
with.
With hindsight, more accurate would have
been: 23 . . . tt:Jxd5 24Jhf8 (24.exd5 �aa8 and
Black is OK at least) 24 . . . tt:J f6!? (24 . . . '1Wxf8
24 ... i.c8 25.tiJf3 i.e6?!
Having consolidated the position, I commit
25.exd5 �a8 is good as well) 25 .�b8 h6 26.h3
another inaccuracy.
'1Wa7 (26 . . ..ih5 27.�fl !) 27.�b5 .id?
After the correct 25 . . . tt:J fd7! 26.ltJxe5 ltJxe5

27.�xf8 '1Wxf8 28.�fl '1Wd8 29.ltJd5 .ie6
30.ltJf6 h6 (prophylactic against 3 1 .'1Wg5)
Black would have nothing to worry about -
his king is well covered, the knight on e5 is
pleasant to see, the b 1 -bishop has no bright
future. I would definitely prefer to play as
Black in this situation.
26.tlJxe5 dxe5
a b c d e f g h
28.ltJf3 .ixb5 29.cxb5 �b6 30.ltJxe5 dxe5

3 1 ..id3 with roughly equal chances.
Chapter 6 - Knigh t Agility 1 95
looks for two reasons: Black has an active plan

with . . . a5-a4 at the appropriate moment and
(again) the black bishop is j ust better than its
white counterpart. In my opinion White has
enough resources to draw, but it seems that
Boris Alterman underestimated the potential
danger.
29 ..ic2 ga7 30.gfl �d6

The knight continues its route towards d4.
3 1 .�b6 �c8 32.�d5

a b c d e f g h Probably 32.ctJa4 �c7 33.ctJb2 should
27JWxd8? have been preferred. Then after 33 . . . ttJ b6
My opponent had to continue more (or 33 . . . �cd7 34 .ttJa4 �c7 3 5 . ctJ b2) 34.ctJ d3
aggressively with 27.ctJd5!, when this knight is ctJxc4!? 35.bxc4 i.xc4 36. ctJ c 1 i.b5 I would
annoying. If Black were to exchange it right have enough compensation for the piece, but
away with 27 . . .i.xd5?! 28.exd5 he would end hardly more, for instance: 37.ctJ b3 a4 38.ctJd2
up in the worse position - the e5-pawn is c4 39.h3 �b8 40.�b l b3 4 1 .axb3 axb3
weak, the white bishop has improved its status 42.ctJxb3 cxb3 43.�xb3
a lot, and d5 is a protected passer.
32 ... �e7 33.h3
27.. J�xd8 28.� d5 Perhaps White should have preferred to
Without queens, this j ump has much less defend passively: 33.ctJxe7 �xe7 34.�d l �xd l t
effect - White does not have enough pieces 35 .i.xd l �d7 36.i.c2 a4 37.<±>fl axb3 3 8.axb3
to support the knight's activity and I can j ust �a7 39 .�d2 �al t 40.�d l �a2 4 1 .�d2 mf6
ignore it. 42. <±>e 1 And in my opinion he should hold
this fortress.
33 ... �c6 34 ..idl �d4
a b c d e f g h
28 ... �e8
Starting the plan of bringing this knight to
a b c d e f g h
d4. This endgame is worse for White than it
The knight has arrived. White still holds the last line of defence.
My next move aims to clear the space for the
35.�e3 gf7 black pieces to be able to penetrate through
I decided to exchange a pair of rooks to the kingside.
prevent any possible counterplay.
49 ... h4!
36.gen gxfl 37 .gxn .id?
The next step is breaking through on the
8
queenside after the inevitable . . . a5-a4.
7
38.�d5 gas 39.i>fl ga7 6
The final preparation.
5
Of course, not the immediate 39 . . . a4? 40.tt:J b6. 4
3
40.®el a4
2
7 a b c d e f g h
6 so.®hu
This seems to be a decisive mistake -
5
Alterman hopes to save the game by defending
4 passively.
3
He should have taken a more active approach
2 instead:
1 50.ctJb6! El:c3
What else?
a b c d e f g h
50 . . . h3 5 l .ctJd7
4 1 .bxa4 Or 50 . . . El:a7 5 1 .\t>h3 <±>h5 52.\t>h2 <±>g4
My opponent chooses to spoil his pawn 53.ctJd5.
structure (now the pawns on a2 and c4 become 5 l .ctJd7 El:xc4 52.ctJxe5 E!:cl 5 3 .tt:Jf7t \t>h5
weak) but not to allow me to exchange pawns 54.ctJe5 c4 5 5 .E!:d2 b3 56.axb3 cxb3 57.El:xd4
on b3 and penetrate to al with my rook. It's b2 58 .E!:b4
hard to say which is the lesser evil. Another way is 58 .E!:d5!? b 1 =Wf 59.ctJd3t
<±>g4 60.ctJxc l Wfxc l 6 1 .El:d3= with a
4 1 . ...ixa4 42.La4 gxa4 43.�b6 ga7 44.h4 well-known theoretical fortress.
h5 45.�d5 g5! 58 . . . b l =Wf 5 9.El:xb l E!:xb l 60. ctJ f3 E!:b4 6 1 .g3=
Now it's time to activate the king.
50 ... h3 5 1 .®h2 hxg2 52.®xg2 �e6
46.hxg5 ®g6 47.®fl ®xg5 48.®gl ga3 White is doomed - he has to defend too
49.i>h2 many pawns and squares.
53JU5t ®h4 54J!f2 59 ... tLld3?

If54Jhe5 'Dd4! White would be completely The natural 59 . . . <kt>f3! would have won
lost despite the small amount of material immediately.
remaining.
60.®g2?
54 ... tLlg5 55J!e2 Again Boris missed the chance to complicate
my task: 60 .'Dc7 with the idea 60 . . . <kt>f3 ?
6 1 .'D b5 . Instead correct i s 6 0 . . . 'D f4 6 1 .'D b5
8
�h3!? 62.<kt>f2 'D e6 63 .'Dd6 'D g5 and Black
7 should still win this.
6
60 ... tLlcl
5 The rest is simple; Black's pieces came
4 through.
3
6I.tlJf6t ®f4 62.tLld7 tLld3 63.tLlf6 ®e3
2 64.gc2 tLlel t
8
a b c d e f g h
7
55 ... tLl h3! 56J!d2 ®g5 57.gc2 ®g4 58.gd2
Slightly more stubborn was 58.'Df6t, even 6
though it would not change much.
5
58 ... tLlf4t 59.®fl 4
3
8 2
7
6 a b c d e f g h
5 0-1
4
a b c d e f g h
Chapter 6 - Knigh t Agility 1 99
Yaacov Zilberman Ilya Smirin

- axb4 1 9.axb4 �g7 20 .'t!Md3 c5! 2 1 .dxc6
bxc6 22.El:fd 1 c5 23.ltJb3 cxb4 24.ltJb5 ltJ e8
Tel Aviv 1 999
2 5 .ltJxd6 ia4 26.c5 lDxc5 27.ltJxc5 ixd 1
28.El:xd 1 El:d8 29.ltJf5 t gxf5 30 .'t!Mxd8 't!Mxc5t
I played quite a few KID encounters with the
3 1 . �fl ttJ f6 32. '!Md2 f4
Israeli Grandmaster Yaacov Zilberman. In
almost all of them the same position arose after
8
1 1 moves. This game is the most interesting in
7
my opinion, but I will briefly mention some
other games between Yaacov and myself. 6
5
l .d4 �f6 2.�f3 g6 3.c4 .ig7 4.�c3 0-0 5.e4 4
d6 6..ie2 �a6 7.0-0 e5 8.d5 �c5 9.'\Wc2
3
Or 9 . ltJ d2 ih6.
2
9 ... a5
a b c d e f g h
8 33.g3 El:g8 34.El:c 1 't!Mb6 3 5 .El:b 1 El:b8 36.gxf4

7 �h7 37.ic4 't!Mc7 38 .id3 ltJ d7 39.El:cl 't!Md6
40.El:d 1 El:g8 4 I .'t!Mf2 b3 42.ie2 't!Mc6 43 .'t!Ma7
6 b2 44.'t!Ma2 't!Mg6 4 5 .�e 1 El:b8 46.�d2 exf4
5 47.�c2 ltJe5 48.�b 1 't!Mc6 49.'t!Ma3 't!Mc7
50.'t!Md6 't!Ma7 5 1 .ia6 El:e8 52.'t!Mf6 El:e6 53 .'t!Mf5t
4
�g7 54.'t!Mg5 t ltJg6 0- 1 Zilberman - Smirin,
3 Israel 20 1 1 .
2
1 1 . . . ttJ g4 would lead to a different type of
1 position. Once it was played by the great
Robert James Fischer: 1 2.ixc5 dxc5 1 3 .h3
a b c d e f g h
ltJ f6 1 4.ltJxe5
IO ..ig5
1 O.ltJd2 ih6! would lead to excellent play 8
for Black, as has been known since the game 7
Petrosian - Geller, Moscow 1 949.
6
5
10 ...h6 l l ..ie3 b6
This secures the knight's outpost on c5. 4
3
1 1 . . . 't!Me7!? is another option here. Although 2
much less popular, this move is probably j ust
as good as 1 1 . . . b6. I played it once against -
b d f g h
well, you guessed right: 1 2.ltJd2 id7 1 3 .b3 h5 a c e
14.f3 �h7!? A different plan - Black goes for 1 4 . . . ttJxd5 1 5 .cxd5 ixe5 1 6.f4 id4t 1 7.� h 1
the exchange of dark-squared bishops. 1 5 .a3 't!Mh4; (0- 1 , 6 5 ) Gligoric - Fischer, Siegen (ol)
ih6 1 6.ixh6 �xh6 1 7 .b4 ltJ a6 1 8 .El:ab 1 1 970.
I think it's purely a matter of taste which line

to choose.
1 2.tiJd2
5 a b c d e f g h
4 1 6.exf5 (the sample variation 1 6.f3 lD g5 1 7.b4

f4 1 8.if2 [better is 1 8 .ixc5 bxc5 1 9.bxc5 , but
3
Black is fine, of course] 1 8 . . . lDxh3t 1 9.gxh3
2 ixh3 20.�h2 ixfl 2 1 .8:xfl axb4 22.axb4
1 lD d7 shows clearly the drawback of the pawn
being on h3) 1 6 . . . gxf5 1 7.f4 exf4 1 8 .ixf4
a b c d e f g h Wh4 1 9.8:ae 1 lD g5 20.�h2 E:ae8 2 1 .Wc1
1 2 ...1g4
Another encounter with Zilberman saw the
"simpler" (and weaker, I should add) 1 2 . . . id7
1 3 .b3 lD h7 1 4.a3 f5 1 5 .f3 f4 1 6.if2 g5 1 7. b4
and I was much worse, as White is ahead with
his attack; Yz-Yz Zilberman - Smirin, Israel
2007.
1 3.h3
For 1 3 . f3 see the game Naumkin - Smirin
on page 1 0 1 .
a b c d e f g h
1 3...1d7!? 2 1 . . . ie5! 22.ixe5 E:xe5 23.b4 axb4 24.axb4

We will see later in the game that on h3 the f4! 2 5 . lD f3 lDxf3t 26.8:xf3 lD b3 27.Wd l
pawn in general stands worse than on its initial lDd4! 28.8:d3 tDxe2 29.8:xe2 ig4 30.Wc2
position, and this factor will help Black to ixe2 3 1 . tDxe2 Ei:e3 0- 1 Zilberman - Smirin,
develop an initiative on the kingside. Panormo 200 1 .
14.b3 tLlh7 15J�ael 1 5 ...�h4!?

In our next "thematic opening duel" Yaacov Trying to make use of the advanced position
preferred a more traditional approach, but of the h-pawn.
without success: 1 5 .a3 f5
1 5 .. .f5 1 6.exf5 gxf5 (on the other capture
- 1 6 . . .ixf5 1 7.lDde4 - White controls the
e4-square and remains OK) 1 7 .f4 would lead
to a rather standard double-edged position.
16.�8
My opponent did not like 1 6.a3?! f5 1 7.exf5
(or 1 7.b4 lLl a6 1 8 . lLl f3 Wffe7) 1 7 . . . i.xf5 , when
Black's pieces are very active.
16.g3 Wffxh3 is impossible, of course.
16...YMe7
a b c d e f g h
24 .. .f3!; (Yz-Yz, 48) Vaganian - Smirin,

Rostov-on-Don 1 993. Black has obtained a
good and active position.
I7...VNh4 18.�f3 YMe7 19.�d2

White agrees to a draw.
19 �g5!?
..•
a b c d e f g h
Similar manoeuvres . . . i.c8-g4-d7 and
. .. Wffd 8-h4-e7 (an interesting coincidence)
have improved Black's position a bit, and it
looks quite attractive to me - the black pieces
are well placed and the traditional . . f7-f5 is in
.
the air.
17.�d2
Rafael Vaganian preferred 1 7.Wffcl!?,
b d f g h
attacking the pawn on h6, in a game
against me. I replied: 1 7 .. . f5 ! 1 8 .exf5 (bad is a c e
1 8 .i.xh6? fxe4 1 9 .i.xg7 �xg7 20.lLld2 lLl g5) But not me! Black's pieces have started to
1 8 ... gxf5 1 9 .lLlb5 �ac8 20. lLl h2 (or 20.i.xh6?! concentrate around the opponent's king;
f4 2l.i.xg7 Wffxg7 with an evident initiative for .. . f7 -f5 is coming and White is on a defensive
the pawn) 20 . . . f4 2l.i.xc5 bxc5 22.i.g4 i.xg4 footing.
23.hxg4 Wffh4 24.lLlc3 (24.f3 lLl g5 25 . lLl c3 e4!
26.lLlxe4 i.d4t 27.�hl lLl xe4 28.�xe4 i.f2 20.f3
29.�xf2 Wffx f2 30.Wib l �ce8 3l.�xe8 �xe8 A kind of prophylactic move.
32.Wffg6t �f8 33.Wif6t may have led to a draw
by perpetual) After the careless 20.a3? lLl xh3t 2 1 .gxh3 i.xh3
Black would get a huge advantage.
20 5
••• stronger than my opponent's queen - the black
Now the sacrifice on h3 does not work pieces work excellently together, and White's
because of 22.�f2. king is under strong pressure.
21 .exf5 gxf5 24... Axb5

The capture with the pawn is much more It was a pity to part with one of the
interesting and aggressive than 2 1 . .. i.xf5?! better bishops, but I had great hopes for
22.ltJ de4 with an equal and dull position the remaining one - the dark squares are
- some exchanges on e4 would soon starting to feel vulnerable in White's camp.
follow. By the way, the weak square on g3 was
created because Black provoked the move
22.f4 h2-h3 earlier. In some variations (as we will see
The standard method to stop the black pawn later in the game, for example) this weakness
on f5 physically. might tell.
22.�h l !? was, perhaps, more cautious. In 25.cxb5 Ae5

this case a logical continuation would be
8
22 . . . e4 (I do not like 22 .. .f4?! 23 .ixc5 bxc5
7
24.ttJde4) 23.f4 ltJh7 with a complex position,
but optically my sympathies lie with Black
here. 6
4
22 ... exf4 23 ..ix£4 gae8!
8 3
7 2
6 1
5 b d f g h
4
a c e
26.�c4?
3 Apparently after this move White's game
2
is already beyond salvation - Black's pieces
become too dominant.
b d f g h
26.ih5 i.d4t 27.�h2 "!Wxe l 28.�xe l �xel
a c e
would again be in Black's favour.
Probably Zilberman underestimated this
strong move. Now the "semi-pin" on the e-file The only correct decision would be 26.i.d3!,
is rather unpleasant for him. creating some counterplay by eyeing the pawn
on f5 .
24)t)b5
If 24.ih5 "!Wxe l 25 .�xe l �xe l t 26.�h2
ttJ ce4 my two rooks would be considerably
8
e2-bishop, and this is the major factor which
determines Black's overwhelming advantage.
7
6
29.%Vcl
5
8
4
7
3
6
2
4
a b c d e f g h
After this I failed to find an advantage for

3
Black in the following variations:
26 . . . ltJ ge4?! 27.ixh6 is unsound. 2
b d f g h
26 . . . id4t 27. �h21t's interesting that now the
pawn's position on h3 hugely favours White a c e
- in chess, as in life, the same things under 29 ... ttlg3!

different circumstances may have completely See the note after Black's 24th move.
different meanings. 27 . . . '\Wxe l 28 .:gxe l :gxe l
29.1xf5 ig l t 30.�g3 :ge2 3 1 .'\Wd l if2t 30JUl?!
32.�g4 :ge7 The computer insists strongly on Zilberman misses his last chance. He had to
equality - I will not argue with that. find a much more stubborn idea:
26 . . . ltJxh3t 27.gxh3 'W'g7t 28.�hl ixf4 30.:gf3! 1xf4 3 l .'W'xf4 lDxe2

29.:gxe8 :gxe8 30.:gxf4 'W'g3 3 l .:gf3 :ge l t After 3 1 . .. ltJh5 32.'\Wh4 '\WeSt 33.�gl f4
32.ifl :gxfl t ! 33.:gxfl 'W'xh3t 34.�gl 'W'g3t 34.:gb l lD g3 3 5 .'\Wg4t �h8 36.id3 :ge7
leads to a draw by perpetual. Black remains clearly better, but White can
still resist.
26 . . .'W'g7 27.ixe5 :gxe5 28.:gxe5 'W'xe5 32.:gxe2 :gxe2 33 .:gg3
29.ixf5 'W'xd5 30.ig4 with an approximately And I would have to find the precise path:
level position.
26 ...%Vg7!
The ideal place for the queen - it creates the
threat of . . . ltJ h3t and controls a few important
dark squares - e5, g5 and g3 . At the same time
the e8-rook becomes very active along the
e-file.
27.®h2 ttlge4 28.ttlxe4 ttlxe4!

This is much stronger than 28 . . . fxe4. Now
b d f g h
the knight on e4 is clearly superior to the a c e
33 . . . V9xg3t!
On the tempting 33 ... :gf7 34.a3! Black
may easily fall into the trap: 34 . . . V9xg3t
3 5 .V9xg3t :gg7 36.V9f3 :ggxg2t 37.V9xg2t
:gxg2t 38.�xg2 �f7 39.�f3 �f6 40.�f4
�g6 4 1 .h4 �h5 It seems the pawn ending
is won, but . . . 42.�xf5 �xh4 43.�e6 h5
44.�d7 �g3 45.�xc7 h4 46.�xb6 h3
47.�a7 h2 48 . b6 h l =V9 49. b7 leads to a
draw - Black cannot prevent the b-pawn
from queening.
b d f g h
34.V9xg3t �h7 3 5 .V9c3
Here 3 5 .a3 :gg8 36.V9f3 :ggxg2t 37.V9xg2 a c e
:gxg2t 38 .�xg2 �g6 39.�g3 �g5 40.h4t This manoeuvre gives the black queen access
�h5 does not save White - Black has an to e5, with lethal consequences.
extra tempo compared with the previous
line. 32.YMh4 YMe5t 33.gl
3 5 .V9f3 :gxa2 is hopeless, of course. All White has left is choosing a way to lose.
35 . . . :gg8 36.V9xc7t :gg7 37.V9xb6 :ggxg2t
38.�h l :gc2 39.V9xd6 :gge2 After 33.g3 f4! 34.gxf4 ltJxf4 3 5 .:gg l t �h7 he
would have to resign.
3
a b c d e f g h
2
40.V9d7t �g6 4 l .V9d6t
4 1 .V9c6t �h5 42.V9xc2 :gxc2 43.b6 �h4
44.b7 �xh3 4 5 .�gl :gg2t 46.�fl :gg8 etc.
b d f g h
4 l . . . �h5
And it's winning in the end. But this would a c e
certainly not be easy to find during the game!
34... �f7!
'='
The last detail; now the bishop is in a deadly

30 ...hf4 3 1 .YMxf4 ttlh5!
pin and will be lost.
3s.ga gg7 36.YMd2

36.:gf2 V9c3 (not the only winning
continuation) 37.:gc l
Evgeny Bareev - Ilya Smirin

Moscow (rapid) 2002
This game was played in the Moscow Grand

Prix event in rapid chess with a time control,
if I am not mistaken, of 25 minutes plus 1 0
additional seconds for each move. Th e game
is not free from mistakes, to put it mildly. The
main reason I included it here is the bizarre
a b c d e f g h
and highly unusual final position. Besides, this
encounter stays in my memory as a win over
37 . . . �xe2! 38.�xc3 would lead to checkmate: one of the best players in the world at the time
38 . . . �e1 t 39 .�h2 �h 1 #
- Evgeny Bareev.
36 ... lbxe2t l .d4 lbf6 2.c4 g6 3.lbc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5 ..ie2

0-0 6.lbf3 e5 7.0-0 lb c6 8.d5 lbe7 9.b4 a5
Not 9 . . . tt:J h5 this time. I played the second
most-popular move, immediately challenging
White on the queenside.
IO ..ia3
5
b d f g h
4
a c e
3
White resigned because of 37.�f2 Wh2.
2
0-1
The final game of this chapter is as complicated
b d f g h
and chaotic as a novel by Tolstoy. First my
knights terrorize my opponent. Then, in deep a c e
complications, the white king goes running
10 ... b6
and the white knights keep him safe, until he
I have quite often played this move, in
goes astray.
connection with the next one, but in my
opinion this line has mostly experimental
value.
The main line is 1 O . . . axb4 1 I .ixb4 tt:Jd7 1 2.a4.

White, as usual, prepares to push c4-c5, while
Black usually connects his kingside play with

. . . f7 -f5 . I do not particularly like the scenario
here, although I played this once against San
Segundo in 1 997 (in Gran Canaria, drawn
after 30 moves) .
1 1 .bxa5 � h5!?
Again, more common is 1 1 . . J �xa5 1 2.ib4
�a8 1 3 .a4, but as I already said, that's not to
my liking.
a b c d e f g h
12J�e1 1 9.h4! @g? 20.exf5 lt:Jxf5 2 l .g3 �f6? 22.ctJe4

Not good is 1 2.axb6 �xa3. This is the tactical ctJe3 23.ctJxf6 ctJxd l 24.�xd 1 �xf6 25 .ctJg5
idea behind 1 0 . . . b6. 1 2.lt:Jb5 �xa5 1 3 .ib4 ixg5 26.hxg5 �f5 27.cxd6 cxd6 28.ixd6 �xg5
�a6 1 4.lt:Jd2 occurred twice in my games with 29.�c2 �c8 30.�xc8 ixc8 3 1 .�c l ig4 32.�c7t
Van Wely (in 1 998 and 20 1 1 ) . @g8 33.ie7 �h5 34.d6 @f7 35.f3 ie6 36.g4
1-0 Eljanov - Smirin, Porto Carras 20 1 1 .
1 2 ... £5
I think this game clearly shows the troubles
Black may experience in this line - White was
very quick to achieve a lot on the queenside
and in the centre, while Black had no time to
organize any serious counterplay.
13 ... �£6 14.J.b4

After 1 4.lt:J b3?! I won the following
interesting game against the very strong and
creative player Anton Korobov:
a b c d e f g h
1 3.�d2
I have faced a lot of trouble after 1 3 .ib4
bxa5 1 4.ia3 . I drew my game against Kramnik
in 1 999 (you will find this game on page 59)
and beat Delchev, but lost convincingly to
Huzman and Eljanov. Here is the last of these
games: 1 4 . . . lt:J f4 1 5 .c5 lt:J xe2t 1 6.�xe2 ia6
a b c d e f g h
1 7.�b2 ih6 1 8 .�ab 1 �f7
1 4 . . . fxe4 1 5 .ib4 bxa5 1 6.ixa5 ctJ f5 1 7.lt:Jb5
e3 1 8 .fxe3 ih6! 1 9 .id2 ixe3t 20.ixe3 lt:Jxe3
2 l .�d2 ctJ f5 22.a4 id? 23 .id3 �b8 24.@h l
lt:J g4 25 .�fl
IS.dxc6 liJxc6 16 ..ia3
2
a b c d e f g h
25 . . . Wd8
25 . . . � fe3! 26.�f3 e4 27.ixe4 �xc4+
b d f g h
26.i.xf5 gxf5 27.h3 � f6 28 .Wg5 t �h8
a c e
29.Wh4 f4 30.� d2 ifS 3 1 .a5 Wd7 32.�c3
Wg7 33.a6 �g8 34.�g1 ig6 3 5 .�h2 �h5 16 ... bxa5?
36.� de4 ixe4 37.�xe4 Wg6 This was a rapid game and I made this move
without much thought. It is a rather serious
mistake.
Correct was 1 6 . . . � d4!? or the quieter

1 6 . . . �xa5 1 7.exf5 gxf5 1 8.�b5 � b7 1 9. ctJ b3
i.e6 and Black is not doing badly at all.
l?.liJbS
Also strong is 1 7.if3 ! ? �a6 1 8 .c5! and lack
of development is the main cause of Black's
troubles.
a b c d e f g h
38.We 1 17 ... liJ b4 1 8.liJb3 ga6

38.a7! Not 1 8 . . . �xe4? 1 9.i.xb4 axb4 20.Wd5t.
38 . . . �gb8 39 .We2 �b3 40.a7 �b7 4 1 .�gb 1
8
�xb 1 42.�xb 1 �xa7 43 .Wg4 �g7! 44.�b8
7
Wxg4 45.hxg4 lt:J f6; (0- 1 , 5 5) Korobov -
Smirin , Nakhchivan 20 1 1 .
5
14... c5
After 1 4 . . . bxa5 1 5 .ia3 i.h6 1 6.c5 ixd2
17.Wxd2 �xe4 1 8 .�xe4 fxe4 1 9 .i.d 1 !? White 4
3
would have a pleasant position.
2
I wanted to give a decent job to the
e7-knight. This piece (or more precisely a lack
1
of prospects for this piece) often causes trouble
b d f g h
for Black in the Bayonet Attack.
a c e
19.exf5? now White should be losing quickly.

Bareev returns the favour.
21. .. �xg4 22.i.xg4
He shouldn't help Black finish his development,
but instead he should open the position as
much as possible with the energetic 1 9 .c5 ! .
After 1 9 . . . dxc5 ( 1 9 . . . l2Jxe4 20.l2Jxd6 �xd6
2 1 .cxd6±; 1 9 . . . d5 20.exd5 l2J fxd5 2 1 .l2Jd6
with a decisive advantage) 20.Wxd8! �xd8
2 1 .�ad l �f8 22.l2Jxc5 White's pieces are very
active, and I would face major difficulties in
this endgame.
1 9 ...Lf5 20.c5
Now this is not as strong, as Black is already
b d f g h
much better prepared for the tactical dash.
a c e
20 ... �c2 22 ...�g5?

This is the difference. Probably Evgeny Obvious, but wrong - in such posmons
missed something in his calculations, because precise calculation is much more important
the move I made is very obvious. than common sense.
22 . . . l2Jxe l was winning.

For instance: 23 .Wd5t �h8 24.ixf5 WgSt
2 5 . � h l �xf5
a b c d e f g h
21 .g4?
a b c d e f g h
H ow to describe this move: desperation?
If yes, it's way too early. Such a weakening 26.�xe l �xf2
of the king in an open position is rarely any Or: 23 .ixf5 Wg5t 24.�fl Wxf5 25 .Wxe l
good. After the "normal" 2 1 . l2J xd6 �xd6 Wh3t 26.�e2 e4 27.�d l Wf3t 28 .�d2 Wd3t
22.cxd6 l2J xa3 2 3 . � c l White would retain
very decent fighting possibilities due to the 23.h3 �xel
strong pawn on d6 and the unfortunate This was asking to be played, but better was
position of the knight on a3, whereas the other capture: 23 . . . l2Jxa3! 24.Wd5t �h8
25.lDxa3 h5 26.'1Md2 '!Mxd2 27.lDxd2 hxg4 30 . . . '1Mh3t 3 l .@gl Wg4t (3 1 . . J�f5 32.!!e3 and
28 . hxg4 .ixg4 29.lDac4 dxc5 30.ltJxe5 .ifS White seemingly holds after 32 . . . Wh4 33.!!g3
and the extra pawn and two powerful bishops We4 34.@fl Wc2 35 . .ic5) 32.@fl Wh3t=
allow us to assess this endgame as technically
winning. 3 I .Lfs gxf8
8
24.�d5t �h8 25J�xel hg4 26.hxg4
7
%Yxg4t 27.�g2
8 6
7 5
6 4
5 3
4 2
3 1
2 a b c d e f g h
32.lbd2!
b d f g h
Someone has to help the king, and the
a c e
knight rushes to do it. Just in time!
White has managed to bring his strongest
piece to the defence, and beat off the first wave 32... e4
of the attack. Now Black switches his attention A good alternative was:
to the queenside, where White's pieces (the 32 . . . Wh4!?
knight on b5 and bishop on a3) hang in the This is quite strong, but White has a narrow
air slightly. path to hold:
33 .'1Mb6 e4!
27...�a4 28.�b7 d5! 33 . . . d4 34.@e2 .ih6 3 5 .@d l ! = The only
Cutting off the queen from his king. move (bad is 3 5 .!!fl d3t 36.@xd3 !!d8t ).
29.c6
The a3-bishop comes into play. At the same
time the pawn moves toward future glory.
Of course the rook was untouchable:

29.'1Mxa6? ? Wg4t 30.@fl Wf3 with mate.
29 ... �g4t 30.�fl gaas

We both had little time left. I decided to give
it a try and not to force a perpetual, correctly
a b c d e f g h
sensing that Black might be able to do so later
if necessary.
34.c7 d4 3 5 .<tt> e2 Wfxf2t 36.<tt> d l e3 37.lDc4 33 YNh4

•••
Wfxa2 38.ltJ ba3 Wfal t 39 .Wfb l Wfxb l t 33 . . . Wfg3 was winning too.
40.ltJxb l �c8-+
34 . . . Wfh5t 3 5 .<tt> fl d4 36.ltJxd4 Wfh3t 37.<tt> g l 34.<ibe2 YNh5t 35.8
i.e5
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
4
3
3
2
2
b d f g h
a b c d e f g h
It looks as though the game is over, but there a c e

is a defence:
35 exf3t?
•••
38.ltJ 4f3! exf3 39.lDxf3=

My turn to err.
Needless to say, all that was impossible to
After 35 . . .!hf3! 36.lDxf3 Wfxf3t 37.<tt> d2 the
find over the board, as both Evgeny and I were
white monarch would remain lonely and soon
down to the last drops of our remaining time
fall: 37 . . . Wfd3t 38.<tt> c l i.h6t 39.<tt> b 2 Wfxb5t
and played according to our intuition.
40.<tt> c2 Wfc4t 4 1 .<tt> b2 Wfd4t 42.<tt> c2 Wfd2t
33.YHd7? 43.<tt> b 3 Wfb4t 44.<tt> c2 Wfc4t 45.<tt> b l Wfd3t
Bareev did not guess correctly. 46. <tt> b2
The calm 33 .Wfb6!, protecting the pawn on f2,

was necessary and would lead to a draw in all
variations.
4
a b c d e f g h
3
46 . . .i.f8! This quiet move is the shortest way
2
to victory. 47.Wfe8 Wfd2t 48.<tt> b3 (48.<tt> b l
Wfxe l t and so on) 4 8 . . . a4t 49.<tt> xa4 Wfb4#
a b c d e f g h
The simplest would be: 33 . . . Wfh3t 34. <tt> e2 36.d3 g5?

Wfg4t 3 5 .<tt> fl Wfh3t The second mistake in a row.
8
Black should have pushed the passer: 36 .. .f2
7
37.!!e8 Wf3t
b d f g h
��-2��
a c e
a b c d e f g h
41. ..g2
38.�c2 (38.ttJxf3 fl =Wt 39 .�c2 Wxf3
Any player who played the strongest
40.!!xf8t ixf8 4 1 .t2Jc3 Wf2t 42.�d3 Wf3t=)
4 1 . . . h6!! should be rewarded for extraordinary
38 . . . f1 =W 39.t2Jxfl Wxfl 40.!!xf8t Wxf8
skills or banned for cheating. The possible
4 1 . W xd5 W f2 t with perpetual check.
continuation after that could be: 42.ttJf7t
(42.c8=W !!xc8 43.t2Jxc8? ? g2-+) 42 . . . �h7
37.�xd5
43.t2Jfg5t hxg5 44.!!h 1 t ih6 4 5 .Wb7 g2
I remember that after the d5-pawn
46.c8=Wt !!f7 and the computer evaluates this
disappeared, I started to feel uneasy, but I had
position as exactly equal. Sure!
no time to berate myself and made my next
move very quickly.
42.gxf2 gl =�
The first promotion.
37... £2
43.gxf8t .txm 44.c8=�
a b c d e f g h
38.gfl a b c d e f g h
38.!!h 1 was winning, according to Houdini .
The second promotion. We were already
playing on just the 1 0 second increments.
38 ...�g6t 39.tlJe4 g4 40.tlJbd6 g3 4l .c7
212 Ki ng's I ndian Warfare
In such a position we could only make Here I became desperate for about 1 5 seconds
decisions purely by instinct. until I found the right move with 5 - l 0 seconds
left.
Objectively better was: 44.�e5t �g7
45 .�xg7t @xg7 46.c8=� �fl t (46 . . . �b 1 t 46 ...Wgt t!
47.�c2 �xc2t 48.@xc2 a4 49.@d3 @g6
8
50.�d4 h5 5 1 .�e5 ie7) 47.�c2 �e2t
7
48. �b 1 with winning chances.
44 Wdl t 45.®c4 Wa4t 6
5
...
8
4
7
3
6
2
5
4
b d f g h
3
0-1
a c e
1
One of the most unusual pictures I have ever
experienced in my games.
a b c d e f g h
46.®c5??
I should be thankful to Evgeny for this move,
as it leads to a mate of exceptional beauty.
46.�c3 �g7t 47.@d2 �b4t 48.�c2 �bb2t

49.�d3 �b l t 50.�c2 �fl t 5 1 .�e2 �b l t
52.�c2 would have led to a draw.
Chapter?
Kamikaze Rooks
With Alexander Moiseenko, the 2013 European

Champion; a great player and a great human being
... 8
7
6
5
4
3
2 2
Some would want to make
intuitive decisions, others to
Positional play. How should The next one is even worse!

Black react? (see page 2 1 9) (see page 22 1 )
... 8 ... 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
Spot the weakness How do you generate Where should Black place the
(see page 2 1 5) compensation for the piece? rook? (see page 23 1 )
(see page 220)
... 8 ... 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
The bishop looks trapped I missed a beautiful win The grand finale!
(see page 2 1 6) (see page 22 1 ) (see page 232)
Chapter 7 - Kamikaze Rooks 215
I n a few o f my games I have managed to use 1 7 . . . ttJh5! Black is already completely winning.
my rooks almost as if they were minor pieces, 1 8 JHb 1 ( 1 8.h3 ltJc6! 1 9.dxc6 ixh3! also leads
using them with the same sort of energy straight to mate) 1 8 . . . ltJg3t 1 9.hxg3 ttJ f5
and short manoeuvres as a knight or bishop 20.exf5 �g5 2 l .ltJfl �h6t 22.ltJh2 fxg3 0- 1
would use in an attack. I am not sure where I A. Fedorov - Ozolin, Kazan 20 1 3.
picked up this idea (I dread to call it a skill, as
I have not been able to show it often enough 1 3 ... 5 14 ..id3 t!Jf6 15.c5 fxe4 16.t!Jxe4
for that) of using the rook like this; a logical t!Jxe4 17.Le4 �5
place would be from the games of Mikhail Tal,
8
who was absolutely sensational with all of the
7
pieces, including the rooks. More about Tal in
the notes to my game against Haba below.
6
5
I have gone over a number of recent games to
4
find one by another player that showed the
same handling of the rooks, and I came up
3
with the following game, where Black's entire
2
strategy is centred around a rampant rook.
Andrey Zontakh Jaroslav Ulko

-
b d f g h
Voronezh 20 1 5
a c e
l.d4 t!Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.t!Jc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 s.ttJf3 18.cxd6

0-0 6..ie2 e5 7.0-0 t!Jc6 8.d5 t!Je7 9.b4 a5 This reduces White's options, but not Black's,
10 ..ia3 axb4 1 1 .�xb4 t!Jd7 12.a4�h6 13.a5 as . . . dxc5 was not really threatened.
I do not want to go into the theory here, 1 8 .�e l is more critical. Compared with our
but I would like to quickly give a game where game, after 1 8 . . . ixe4 1 9 .�xe4 �d7 White has
a strong grandmaster lost to a well-known 20.�b3!± as played in two other games. But
trick that has already been described in this Black can play differently too, of course.
book: 1 3 .ttJd2 f5 1 4.a5 ttJ f6 1 5 . f3? Inviting
the bishop in is not a good idea. 1 5 . . . ie3t 18 ... cxd6 19J�e1 �xe4 20J�xe4 'iMd7
1 6.�h l f4+ 1 7.�c2? 21 .'iMd3 gf6
Black plays this game quite aggressively. It is
8 not without risks, but sometimes you need to
take risks in order to win games.
7
But what we really need to see here is that
6
Black has placed the rook on f6 and not f7, as
5 I am sure some would do intuitively. This is a
4 fine j udgement. Not only is the d6-pawn in
3 more danger than the b 7 -pawn, Black also has
the option of swinging the rook to h6 later on,
2
and it is not improbable that he was dreaming
of doing this here.
a b c d e f g h
8
way to deal with the questions he has been
7
posed.
6 26.�dl ?
5
26.Wfl was necessary. After 26 . . . Wh5 Black
4
continues to enjoy a good game, but White's
position is not objectively worse. The most
3
prudent way to continue is probably 27.We2
2
Wh3 28.Wfl , with a draw by repetition
coming up.
1
8
b d f g h
7
a c e
6
22.tDd2 �affi 23.tDc4 .i£4!?
Black is preparing to swing the rook to
5
the h-file. 23 . . . Wb5 would have more or less
4
equalized, but again Black is going all-in.
24..ic3 g5! 25.g3 3
2
Black's attacking potential can be seen in
1
lines such as this: 2 5 . a6!? bxa6 26J�xa6 ltJ f5
27 . .ib4 El:h6! 28 .h3 g4!
a b c d e f g h
8
7 26... �h6!
Black must have been ecstatic to be able to
6
carry out his plan. This gives him an excellent
5
chance to show off his agility with the rook.
4
3 But it would be a shame not to mention that

2 Black had an additional win with: 26 . . . .ie3!?
27.Wxe3 El:xf2 28.Wxf2 El:xf2 29.�xf2 Wxh2t
a b c d e f g h
The game has sharpened up and White needs

to be very careful not to be worse immediately.
For example: 29.hxg4? .ih2t! 30.�hl ltJg3t!
3 l .fxg3 .ixg3t 32.�gl .if2t 33.�fl .ic5t
and Black wins.
25 ... �h3
Black has played very creatively and is
rewarded for his ingenuity and risk-taking
a b c d e f g h
when his opponent fails to find a reasonable
Chapter 7 - Kam ikaze Rooks 217
30.�f3 �h5t 31.g4 �h3t 32.�e2 �xc3, and 33 dxe5 34.d6 tlJc6 35.VNh3t hs 36.d7
.••
although there is some work to do, it should gh3

not be too difficult.
7
27.gxf4 VNxh2t 2s.<it>fl
8 6
7 5
6 4
5 3
4 2
2 a b c d e f g h
1 The rook returns to h3 with devastating
b d f g h
effect.
a c e
28 gh3!
.•• 37.gdd3 ghxf3 38.E!xf3 tlJ d4t 39.fl tljxf3
The rook continues to play a brilliant 4o.VNd5 tiJh2#
supporting role, creating a path for the queen. 0-1
29.ge3 The rook's amazing journey on a very small

Both 29.�c2 �xc3 and 29.ttJe3 gxf4 win space is shown here:
immediately.
7
29 VNxf4 30.Ael gh2 3 1 .gf3!?
•••
Hoping to escape to an endgame an exchange

down. Although this too was winning for 6
5
Black, the game is more convincing.
31. ghl t 32.e2 VNg4! 4
3
••
This pin is decisive.
33.tlJxe5 2
1
Desperation, but 33.ttJd2 also does not
b d f g h
come close to holding. For example: 33 . . . ttJ f5
34.�e4 ttJd4t 3 5 .�d3 �xe4t 36.�xe4 ttJxf3 a c e
37.ttJ xf3 �f4t 38 .�e3 �h3 and Black wins.

My Games 6 ... h6
The popular move in those days. Later I
The following three games are hard to describe, switched mainly to the more sophisticated
with no simple theme to be squeezed from 6 . . . 4J a6, examples of which you will find in
them with the exception of the kamikaze rook: this book.
a rook that runs rampant and is willing to die
for the cause if necessary. The immediate 6 . . . e5? 7.dxe5 dxe5 8 .'1Wxd8
�xd8 9.4Jd5 leads to material losses - this a
Vyacheslav Dydyshko - Ilya Smirin well-known idea behind the Averbakh System.
Byelorussia 1 986
7.�e3 e5
This was one of my memorable games as a Now this is allowed.
teenager. It was played in the Championship
of Belarus and my opponent was Vyacheslav 8.d5 c6
Dydyshko, one of the strongest Byelorussian The more flexible (and probably better) move
masters. Vyacheslav holds the record for the 8 . . . 4J a6 was played in the game Aleksandrov
most tides as Champion of Belarus. He has - Smirin, Minsk 1987, which continued
been a grandmaster for many years now, but 9.Wfd2 h5 1 0.0-0-0?! (better was 10.f3 - the
in the 1 980s the average master in the USSR light-squared bishop is very important for
was no weaker than the average modern GM White in this structure) 1 0 . . . 4Jg4 11 ..ixg4
(of course, this is just my personal opinion) . .ixg4 12.4Jge2 id7 1 3.c47b1 f5; (0-1, 54) .
In this tournament I earned the tide of USSR
National Master - an important step in my 9.'l;Yd2
career. Here we see the main drawback of 6 . . . h6 -
Black has to protect this pawn.
l .d4 tLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.tLlc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5.�e2
0-0 6.�g5 9 ... h5 IO.f3 a6
The Averbakh System, named after Yuri Preparing . . . b7-b5 with activity on the
Averbakh, at the time of writing the oldest queenside.
living grandmaster.
Chapter 7 - Kam ikaze Rooks 219
1 1 .0-0-0 Now the king on b 1 starts to feel some

Playing slightly into Black's hands. discomfort.
More to my taste is 1 l .id3!? with the possible 14.cxb5 axb5 1 5.tlJxb5 Y*fb6 16.�c2
continuation: 1 l . .. b5 12.tLl ge2 The standard A prophylactic measure against 16 . . . id7
method of developing the gl -knight in the 17.tLlc3 �xa3 , but isn't it too early for the king
Averbakh System. 12 . . . b4 (12 . . . cxd5?! 13.cxd5 to be involved in the battle?
tLlh7 14.0-0 tLld7 15 .b4 f5 16.exf5 gxf5
17.a4±; [V2-V2, 32] A. Petrosian - Smirin, 16.�c1 seems to be a more natural choice. In
Polanica Zdroj 1989) 13 .tLld1 a5 14.a3 this case I would proceed: 16 . . . ttJ a6 (16 . . .id7?
does not work: 17.tLlxd6! Wxd6 18 .ixc5 Wc7
19 .ixf8 +-) 17.�c3!? An interesting resource.
17 . . . tLlc7 18 .�b3 id7! Black has good
compensation for the pawn, at least from a
practical point of view.
6
b d f g h 5
4
a c e
would probably prefer White's chances
3
here - Black's pawns are slightly over-extended
2
on both wings.
1
ll. ..Y*fa5 12.�bl c5
b d f g h
Instead 12 . . . cxd5? 13 .ttJxd5 Wxd2 14.tLl e7t
±>h7 15jhd2 ie6 16jhd6 does not look a c e
good for Black.
16 .. J!a4!?
Not a necessary move, and the objective
13.a3 b5! evaluation is closer to "?".
8 16 . . . id7 17.tLlc3 tL!a6, with very decent play
7
for the sacrificed pawn, was called for, but I
6
j ust really liked the idea in the game, and could
not resist temptation!
5
4
17.b3 tlJxe4!
3
Here it is! The objective evaluation for this
move is also given above.
2
1 8.fxe4 gxe4
a b c d e f g h
8
Adding fuel to the fire; the rook on d4 makes
7
a nice aesthetic impression. My opponent has
to accept the second sacrifice.
6
5
2I ..ixd4 cxd4 22. tlJ a4 YMa7
4
Now Black is playing a whole rook down
with no immediate threats. Still he has huge
3
compensation. The central pawns will move
2
shortly, opening up the g7 -bishop at the same
time. And this bishop . . . Well, at the moment
1
it's much stronger than either ofWhite's rooks.
a b c d e f g h 23 ..ic4 d3! 24. 'tt>a2 e4

So, only one pawn for a knight, I am As was j ust said.
underdeveloped and I am attacking -
paraphrasing Napoleon Bonaparte. The main 25.tlJh3?!
purpose of the sacrifi c e was to open lines Not the best choice.
for both black bishops. In particular, the
g7 -bishop may turn into a monster. More prudent was: 2S .iWaS iWf2t (less
convincing is 2S . . . iWd4?! 26.lLle2 iWf2 27.'\Wel
19.'tt>b2 '1Wxg2 28.�d2 dxe2 29.�xe2 iWgS 30.�xe4
One possible line here is 1 9 .id3 ifS 20.a4 when White might be better but it's still messy)
lLl a6 2l.ixe4 ixe4t 22.�b2 id3 23.lLle2 26.iWd2 (26.�d2 ? ? iWel-+) 26 . . . '1Wa7
ixbS 24.axbS e4t 2 S . lLl c3 �b8!, with strong
8
threats by the rook. Houdini recommends
1 9 .ic4 and promises a big advantage to 7
White. The computer is probably right, but 6

Houdini did not exist in 1 986 . . . 5
4
19. . .tlJ a6 20.tlJc3 �d4!
3
8
2
6
a b c d e f g h
5
27.'\WaS, with a draw.
4
Or 2S .�el ifS 26.lLle2!? though Black still has
3
lots of play after 26 . . . lLl cS ! .
2
25 ... tlJc5?
A pity. In this case, it was better to attack the
unfortunate knight on a4 rather than exchange
a b c d e f g h it.
After the natural and logical 25 . . . id7 White 29 ...�xd5?

would be on the verge of collapse. For instance: Alas, here I missed a really pretty win:
26.ixa6 (26JWa5 ixa4 27.�xa4 �d4 28.�d2 29 . . .ixd3 30.�xd3 ic3! 3 1 .� b l (3 1 .�c l ?
�c3-+) 26 . . . �xa6 27.�he l ixa4 28.�xe4 �xa3t! - the point) 3 1 . . .�b8 32 .�c2 �xa3
33.�xc3 �xb3t 34.�xb3 �xb3t 3 5 .�cl
�c4t 36.� b l �e4t 37.�c l �xg2, with a
completely won endgame. To some degree
such mistakes from both sides can be explained
by the unusual character of the game.
30.tlJb4?
Another oversight. White needed to find
30.tLlb2 when the fight continues. After what
he played, the game could immediately be
over.
a b c d e f g h
8
28 . . . ixb3t 29.�xb3 �bSt 30.�b4 �xdSt
7
3 1 .�c4 �xg2 32.�d2 �xh3 And Black wins.
6
26.lt�xc5 �xc5 27.�xd3!?
5
Not a bad practical decision. The pawn
chain e4-d3 was too strong.
4
3
27 ... exd3 28.tlJf4 �f5
Trickier was: 28 . . . ic3 29 .ltJxd3 (29.�xd3?
ig4-+ 30.ltJe2? �xa3t 3 1 .�xa3 �a8t - a 2
1
cheap but nice trap) 29 . . . �a5 30.�e3 id?
b d f g h
3 1 .tLlb2 (the best defence against . . . �xa3t)
3 1 . .. �e8 32.�f2 ib5 , and the only move here a c e
seems to be 33.�hfl , with a dynamic balance.
30 ...�e5?
29.tlJxd3? Well, I missed it too. The hard-to-spot killer
Better was 29.�c l �b5 30.�c400• was 30 . . . ib 1 t!! when taking with the rook
drops the queen, while 3 1 .�xb l �xb3t is also
8
a quick mate. It's all obvious to an engine, but
7
even years after the game, I had no idea there
was a forced mate here.
6
5
3 1 .�hel
3 1 .ltJc6 could have posed more problems for
4
me, but Vyacheslav decided to centralize his
3
rook and decentralize my queen. The price for
that - the pawn on h2.
2
1
3 1 . ..�xh2
a b c d e f g h
Now material is about even and so are the 37....td4

chances. I do not remember exactly, but it
seems to me that somewhere around here 8
7
Dydyshko started to get into time trouble.
32.ltJd5 i.e6 33.'i'f2 �b8 34.�d3 h4?? 6
5
A huge mistake which could have cost the
4
game. Black is going for too much, playing on
both flanks and moving a pawn away from his
3
own king.
34 . . . �b5 seems to be the most precise 2

continuation here. Mter that, all three
b d f g h
outcomes are possible.
8
a c e
38.'i'gl?
7 Just an awful move; White loses composure
6
in time trouble.
5 Mter 38.ttJe7 ie6 39.Wi"c2! ixe3 40.�xe3
4
Wi"f4 4 1 .�xe6 fxe6 42.Wi"xg6t @h8 43.b4 my
3
opponent could probably hold, despite his
oversight.
1
38 ... 'i'xgl 39.�xgl i.xe3 40.ltJxe3 i.e6
The resulting endgame is easily winning
a b c d e f g h for Black. I was not at my most precise in the
endgame, but the advantage was too big for it
35.ltJ f4?? to matter.
The simple 3 5 .�xe6 fxe6 36.ttJe7t @h?
37.�h3 would put an immediate end to the 4I.ltJc4 hc4 42.bxc4 g5 43.�dl �e8 44.a4
game. One (albeit big) mistake could trample �e2t 45.�b3 �xg2 46.a5 �e2 47.�xd6 h3
over all my creative play. C'est la vie! 48.a6 h2 49.�dl g4
I enjoyed this game very much at the time.
35 ....tf5
I still love it, and even feel somewhat proud of
Black is on track again.
its risky and intuitional sacrificial spirit, and
36.�de3 �h7 37.ltJd5?! for the imagination I showed.
A blunder, though not a terrible one. 0-1
Ivery Chighladze - Ilya Smirin 9.llJcl

The standard manoeuvre in such positions.
Baku 2009
Usually White transfers this knight to
b3, develops the bishop to e2, and castles
I .d4 llJf6 2.c4 g6 3.llJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.f3
(sometimes queenside) . If he manages to do so
8
without concessions, White usually gets better
chances in the middlegame.
7
6
9.Ek 1 b5 1 0.b3 (if 1 0.cxb 5 axb5 1 1 .ctJxb5
5
:gxa2 the position would open in Black's
favour, who has better development and a
4
great game) 1 0 . . . bxc4 1 1 .bxc4 :gb8 1 2 . ctJ d 1 a5
3
happened in the rapid game Postny - Smirin,
Israel 20 1 0, which I managed to win.
1
9 ... llJ h5!?
a b c d e f g h
The Samisch System, named after German
Maestro Fritz Samisch, who first employed it
at a high level. White strengthens the pawn
on e4, building a strong pawn centre. About
the only serious drawback of this setup was
pointed out by a famous admirer of the KI D,
GM Eduard Gufeld: "Do you like the Samisch
System? Ask the knight on g 1 ." Indeed, this
knight is now deprived of its most natural
b d f g h
square f3 and has to be developed somewhere
else: to e2 (in which case the bishop on fl will a c e
be temporarily shut in) or h3.
I like this move in similar positions. It opens
up the g7 -bishop, increasing the pressure
5 0-0 6 ..ie3 llJc6
against the pawn on d4. At the same time,
...
One of many options for Black. I used to play

Black is ready to play . . . f5 in some lines.
virtually every move - 6 . . . c5, 6 . . . e5 , 6 . . . tt:J bd7,
6 . . . a6 and 6 . . . c6 - but I have to confess that
IO.llJb3
6 . . . tt:Jc6 is my favourite continuation.
An important point is that after 1 O.g4 e5
1 1 .d5? ( l l .dxe5 ctJxe5 1 2 . .ie2 ctJ f6oo) 1 1 . . . ctJ d4
7.llJge2 a6 8.'iMd2 .id?
Black would obtain a dream position.
Compared with the usual 8 . . J�b8, this move
makes it less favourable for White to play the
IO ... a5
nowadays fashionable 9.Ek1 - see the game
A change of plan. Now Black is going to
Postny - Smirin below.
attack the knight on b3 after . . . a5-a4. The
pawn push . . . b7-b5 (the main aim of 7 . . . a6) is
8
not relevant any more. Note that the rook on
7
a8 is better placed in its initial position rather
than on b8.
6
5
l l .g4
4
After 1 l .� d 1 a4 1 2 . ttJ c l e5 1 3.d5 lt:J d4
1 4.4J 1 e2 ttJxe2 1 5 .ixe2 4J f4 1 6. 0-0; (0- 1 ,
3
42) L . Kaufman - Smirin, Rockville 20 1 3 ,
2
Black should have continued simply 1 6 . . . f5 ,
with a n ongoing initiative on the kingside.
8
b d f g h
7
a c e
6
14...VMh4t!?
This was the idea. After the prosaic 1 4 . . . tt:Jd4
5
1 5 .ttJxd4 exd4 1 6.ig5 �e8 1 7.id3 Black
4
would simply remain worse - there is not
enough play for the missing pawn.
3
2
15.1£2 VMxh5 16.dxc6 VMx£3 17.cxd7
8
a b c d e f g h 7
l l . ..a4 12.�xa4 6
5
After 1 2. 4J c l the brief tactics after 1 2 . . . e5!
4
would lead to a dream position for Black.
3
12 .. J�xa4
2
Also interesting and perhaps stronger was
1 2 . . . e5! with complications all over the board,
for example: 1 3 .gxh5 (or 1 3 .ttJc3 - the best
b d f g h
move - 1 3 . . . exd4 1 4. 4Jxd4 �h4t 1 5 .if2
4J xd4 1 6.�xd4 ixd4 1 7.ixh4 4J f4 with full a c e
compensation for the pawn in the endgame) 17 ...VMxht

1 3 . . . exd4 1 4.4Jxd4? ( 1 4.ig5 �e8 and White I declined the obvious 1 7 . . . �xe4t 1 8 .�e2
has to give up the knight on a4) 1 4 . . . �h4t �xh 1 because after 1 9.ih4 �aa8 20.�g2!
1 5 .if2 ttJxd4 and Black is close to the win. �xg2 2 1 .ixg2 White would have a serious
advantage - the d7 -passer, together with the
1 3.gxh5 e5 14.d5 two bishops, is too much for Black to match.
After the move I made an irrational (from
both positional and material points of view)
situation has arisen.
18.llJc5?! 25.�d2 (25 .@xa2? 'l!Mc2-+) 25 . . . 'l!Mh l 26.@xa2

It was hard for my opponent to make the �a8t 27.mb3 'l!Mxfl with a material edge (four
right choice. White has a slight material pawns for the knight) and the initiative.
advantage - two pieces versus rook and pawn,
but even more important is that the d7-pawn 19.YHe2 b5 20.b3
can be awfully dangerous. On the other hand, The best move in the position.
White has not finished his piece development
yet and his pieces don't coordinate in the best 20.. Jk3
way. Black should be careful with his queen Not falling into the trap: 20 . . . �xc5? 2 I .ixc5
it is quite active in the corner, but it may still dxc5 22.0-0-0 �d8 23 .ih3 and the black
be in trouble in some variations. queen is gone. At the same time the black rook
starts a remarkable slalom.
The best move in the position seems to be
8
1 8.'l!Md5! centralizing the queen and protecting
7
the pawn on c4 . Probably the best Black could
do in this case would be: 1 8 .. J�d8 1 9 .'l!Mxb7 c5
6
( 1 9 . . . ih6!?) 20.ig3 (or 20.'l!Md5 ih6 2 l .ig3
5
'l!Mg 1 22.ltJ d2 'l!Me3t 23 .ie2 �xd7 24.ttJf3 with
a messy position) 20 . . . �xc4 2 l .@f2 'l!Mxe4
22.'l!Mxe4 �xe4 23.�d 1 White is better in this 4
3
complex endgame, even though there is a
2
lot of struggle ahead after 23 . . . if8 (but not
23 . . . �xd7? ? 24.ttJxc5) .
18 .. J�xc4 1
It was hard to resist the temptation to take a a b c d e f g h
pawn, but much stronger was: 1 8 . . . �aa8!
2I ..ih4?
Oops, wrong idea! White had to make a
move with the knight:
2 1 .ltJd3 f5 22.ih4 �c2!? (or 22 . . . fxe4 23.ttJf2

'l!Mxh2 24.d8='l!M �xd8 25 .ixd8 with a very
messy position and a possible perpetual after:
25 . . . ih6 26.'l!Mg4 id2t! 27.@xd2 'l!Mxf2t
28.@xc3 b4t 29.@xb4 'l!Mc5t 30.ma4 'l!Ma7t
3 l .mb5 'l!Mb6t 32.ma4 'l!Ma7t) 23 .'l!Mxc2
'l!Mxe4t 24.m d l 'l!Mxh4 2 5 .�b l (25 .'l!Mxc7? e4)
a b c d e f g h 25 . . . 'l!Md4, and nothing is clear yet.
19.ih4 dxc5 20.d8='l!M �fxd8 2 l .ixd8 'l!Mxe4t
22.ie2 'l!Mh 1 t 23.ifl ih6 24.'l!Mxh6 �xd8 and 2 1 .ltJb7 if6 22.@d l �f3 23 .@c2 leads to
Black is obviously better. quite a wild positon, which I suspect is easier
to handle with Black over the board.
1 9 .0-0-0 'l!Mxh2 20.ltJd3 ih6 2 l .ie3 ixe3
22.'l!Mxe3 �xa2 23.@b 1 �fa8 24.d8='l!Mt �xd8
8
The rook slalom has been completed! It is
7
hard to find another 25-move game in which
a rook has travelled a similar route (a8-a4-
6
c4-c3-h3-h2) and, together with a queen on
5
h 1 (!) , created a mating attack against the white
4
king. The two extra pieces don't help in this
situation.
2
24.�xb5
This loses immediately, but even after the
most resilient 24.WI'g4 dxc5 2 5 .0-0-0 �xa2
b d f g h
26.ie2 Wfh2 27.�d2 h5 28.Wfd7 Wff4! 29.ixc7
a c e ih6 White is absolutely helpless.
21 ..J�h3!
The slalom continues! 24...�f3 25 ..ie2 �c3t
22.d8=�?
Chigladze loses control over the game. After
the only continuation 22.ig3 �xg3 23.hxg3
dxc5 24.�d l �d8 2 5 .Wfg2 Wfxg2 26.ixg2 b4 it
would not be an easy task for Black to convert
the two extra pawns into a win. Indeed, in
the resulting endgame the opposite-coloured
bishops plus the strong passer on d7 give
White reasonable drawing chances.
22 .. J�xd8 23 ..ixd8 gxh2!
4 So although the rook did its job, it survived till
3
the end. It has no such luck in the next game,
2
where a runaway rook creates weaknesses in
the white camp, sharpening the game, before
it ends with a surprising little tactic.
a b c d e f g h
Petr Haba - Ilya Smirin Again, that's my personal taste - the position
is perfectly playable after 1 O . . .ig4 1 1 .h3 ixf3
Polanica Zdroj 1989
1 2 .'1Wxf3 lt:J bd7 1 3 .'1Wd 1 etc.
8
This game was played in a tournament in
Polanica Zdroj, Poland in memory of the
outstanding player Akiba Rubinstein. In 7
6
this tournament I made my second and final
5
norm to obtain the tide of International
Grandmaster. My first norm came in the Rilton
4
Cup tournament in Sweden ( 1 988/89) . The
3
Rilton Cup was my fi r st tournament outside of
the USSR (at the age of nearly 2 1 ) and my first
2
possibility to make the norm . Polanica Zdroj
1
was my second chance.
b d f g h
l.d4 llJf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 g6 4.lDc3 �g7 5.e4 a c e
0-0 6.lDf3 e6
9.lDd2
8
The most popular and ambitious move -
7
White wants to take on d5 with the c-pawn
after an eventual . . . e6xd5. It has an obvious
6
drawback though - the bishop on c 1 is
5
temporarily shut in by the knight.
4
9.h3 exd5 1 0 .exd5 ifS 1 1 .id3 lt:J e4 1 2.lt:Jxe4
3
ixe4 has been played a few dozen times and
leads to approximate equality; after exchanges
2 it's easier for Black to play - the opponent's
space advantage is less significant.
a b c d e f g h 9.dxe6 is another plan: after 9 . . .ixe6 1 0.if4

lt:J c6 1 l .ixd6 lt:Jd4 ( 1 1 . . . '\WaS !? is the riskier
7.�e2
option) 1 2.e5 lt:Jd7 1 3 .lt:Jxd4 cxd4 1 4 .'1Wxd4
I consider 7 .id3 to be a more unpleasant
lDxe5 1 5 .ixe5 '1Wxd4 1 6.ixd4 ixd4 1 7.El:ac l
continuation for Black, but this is a subjective
El:ad8 Black has good compensation for the
opinion, of course.
pawn in the endgame. The vast majority of
such games have ended peacefully.
7 ... d6 8.0-0 �e8
In the late 1 980s I loved to play like this: to
9 ... llJa6 IO.f4
postpone the exchange on d5 for a few moves.
Here we see another reason for Black to
delay the capture . . . exd5: now 1 O.f3 with
I wanted to avoid the position after
the idea of playing lDc4 makes no sense -
8 . . . exd5 9.exd5!? (9.cxd5 El:e8) 9 . . . El:e8 1 O.id3 ,
the c4-square is still occupied by the white
considering it to be slightly passive for Black.
pawn.
A well-known game between Smyslov and Polugaevsky: "I got excited, overestimated
Polugaevsky continued: 1 O.�e 1 t:tJc7 1 1 .a4 b6 my position. I should have continued 3.t:tJf3''
(after l .d4 t:tJf6 2.c4 c5) .
Also possible is: 1 O.dxe6 �xe6!?
a b c d e f g h
1 2.�b 1 �b8 1 3 .b3 a6 1 4 .ib2 exd5 All the

preparatory moves have been made, and the
b d f g h
time has come for this exchange. 1 5 .cxd5 b5 a c e
1 6.axb5 axb5 1 7.ifl This was tested in one of my games: 1 l .f3

t:tJb4 1 2.t:tJb3 id7 1 3 .ie3 a6 1 4.a4 ic6
8 The defects of Black's pawn structure are
7 compensated for by the good position of
his pieces. 1 5 .Wd2 t:tJd7 1 6.�fe l f5 1 7.ig5
6
Wf8 1 8 .t:tJd5 ixd5 1 9 .exd5 �ee8 20.ifl h6
5
2 1 .ih4
4
3 8
2 7
a b c d e f g h 5
1 7 . . . t:tJg4! 1 8 .t:tJf3 f5 1 9 .h3 t:tJe5 20.t:tJxe5 ixe5 4
2 1 .exf5 ixf5 22.id3 Wf6 and Black won; 3

(0-1 , 38) Smyslov - Polugaevsky, Riga 1 975. 2
This game was played in the USSR Team

b d f g h
Championship in the famous match between a c e
the Russian Federation and Moscow, which 2 l . . . g5 22.if2 ie5 23.a5 Wf6 with better
ended with the score 8V2-V2 in favour of the chances for Black; (0- 1 , 5 1 ) Bandza - Smirin,
former - an incredible result considering that Dortmund 1 990.
the two teams were roughly equal in strength.
After this match ex-World Champion Vassily IO ... �c7 l l .a4 exd5
Smyslov made his famous statement: "The Two years before the game against Haba, I
most important thing now is to save the played the following interesting encounter:
people." And in reference to his game with l l . . . �b8 1 2.�e l exd5 1 3.cxd5 a6 1 4 .a5
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 4 . . . h5?! 1 8 . . . lt.'lfxd5!
An insolent kind of move, with the idea of A nice blow. Black wins a pawn because the
the knight jumping to g4. white queen is overloaded.
The simple 14 . . .id7 1 5 .if3 ibS! ? with 1 9.lt.'lxd5
good play was better - the d2-knight is still Or 1 9.exd5 �xe 1 t 20.rffxe 1 ixc3 2 l .�xb4
deprived of the possibility of moving to c4. ixb4 also leaves Black a pawn up.
1 5 .h3 b5 1 6.axb6 �xb6 1 7.if3 ? 1 9 . . .lt.'lxd5 20.�xb4 lt.'lxb4 2 1 .lt.'lc4 ie6
Correct was: 1 7.lt.'lc4 � b 8 ( 1 7 . . . �b4? 1 8 .e5 22.lt.'le3
dxe5 1 9 .d6 lt.'lb5 [ 1 9 ... exf4 20.dxc7 rffxc7 Of course 22.lt.'lxd6?? fails to 22 . . . id4t.
2 l .Wffd6±] 20.fxe5, with a big advantage) 22 ... rffh4 23 .�e2 id?!? 24.lDc4 .ib5 2 5 . b3
1 8.e5 dxe5 1 9 .d6 lt.'lb5 20. fxe5 lt.'lxc3 lt.'lc6 26.�a2 lt.'ld4 27.mh2
2 1 .bxc3 lt.'ld7 22.if4 lt.'lxe5
8
8 7
7 6
6 5
5 4
4 3
3 2
2
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
27 . . . lt.'lxf3t 28.rffx f3 rffe 1 29.�c2 ixc4
23.rffd 2! White's activity and strong 30.�xc4 id4
pawn on d6 provide at least enough 0- 1 Basin - Smirin, Minsk 1 987.
compensation for the minimal material
deficit. 12.cxd5 gbs 1 3.�hl
1 7 . . . �b4! The position is very double-edged, but I like
Suddenly White runs out of active ideas. Black's chances here - I believe that the white
1 8 .�a4? pieces don't provide sufficient support for his
advanced pawn centre.
If 1 3 .if3, protecting the e4-pawn and 1 3 . . . h5 ?

thus preparing the key move lt:J c4, I would
probably reply with: 1 3 . . . b6 ( 1 3 . . . a6?! 1 4 . lt:J c4
b5 1 5 .axb5 axb5 1 6.lt:Jxd6 �xd6 1 7.e5 �d8
1 8 .d6, with a strong initiative for White)
1 4. lt:Jc4 ia6 1 5 .�b3 ixc4 1 6.�xc4 a6 This
is a kind of dream position for Black in this
structure - all his pieces are active and if
White tries a typical breakthrough with:
1 7.e5
a b c d e f g h
1 4 .f5 ! Immediately using the weakening of

the kingside created by Black's previous move.
1 4 . . . a6 1 5 .a5 gxf5?! 1 6.ixh5 lt:Jb5 1 7.exf5
E!:e5 1 8 .if3 E!:xf5 1 9.lt:Jc4 And it's hard to look
at Black's position without crying; ( 1 -0, 29)
M. Gurevich - Smirin, Moscow 1 988.
14.a5 .id? 15 ..if3 lL'lb5

a b c d e f g h
8
Black would answer with the intermediate
7
17 . . . b5! 1 8 .axb5 axb5 1 9.�e2 b4, with an
obvious advantage.
6
8 5
7 4
6 3
5 2
4
3 b d f g h
2
a c e
1
Agai n, as we saw in some lines above, all
Black's pieces are actively involved in the
b d f g h
battle, whereas White has not completed his
a c e
development yet. His next move is a natural
1 3 ...a6 attempt to change the unfavourable course of
The game with Basin left pleasant memories, the game. But Black is ready for that.
so in a different game I tried the idea with
. . . h7 -h5 once more. But this time my opponent 16.e5 dx:e5 17.fxe5 �xe5 18.lL'lc4 �f5 19.lL'le3
was from a much higher weight category: Trying to hunt down the rook on f5 .
19 .lt:Je2, with the same idea, was no better due 2 I ..J�e4!?

to: Also 2 l . . . �b4 22 ..id2 �xb2 23.lt:Jc4 �xd2
24.'\Wxd2 ih3
a b c d e f g h
b d f g h
19 . . . lt:J h5 (I was surprised to find that this a c e
position had occurred in a recent game between with a big advantage, was a good version
two top-ten players: 19 . . . �xf3 Actually the of the exchange sacrifice as well. But instead
opening was played slightly differently, and I used my chance to follow in the footsteps
this was the 21st move. 20.gxf3 ih3 2 l .�e l of my favourite player, Mikhail Tal, at such
�xd5 22.lt:J f4 �xd l 23 .�xd l id7 24.ie3 an advanced stage of the game. I was not 100
ic6, with better prospects for Black in the per cent sure about it, but it seemed to me
endgame, though Nakamura - Vachier that I had seen exactly the same position in a
Lagrave, London 2015, was later drawn.) game ofTal's while reading a book I love very
20.ie3 lt:Jd4! 2 l .lt:Jxd4 cxd4 Black is better, much Vogon Ataki by Tal and Damsky. After
-
in particular because 22 . .ixd4? loses material returning home, I discovered I was right!
after: 22 . . . �h4 23.ixg7 lt:Jg3t 24.rngl lt:Jxfl
22.be4 lbxe4
19 .. J�f4 20.lbe2 gh4!
8
Provoking the next move, which
7
compromises the white king's pawn shelter.
21 .g3 6
5
8
4
7
3
6
2
5
1
4
b d f g h
3
a c e
2
23.lbc4
1
Here my opponent deviated from 23.lt:Jf4,
which happened in the above mentioned game:
a b c d e f g h
23 . . . ttJd4 24.�g2 We7 (24 . . .ib5 ! 25 J�e 1 24 ll)f6?

•••
Wd7 26.:Ba3 :Be8 was even stronger) 25 .:Be 1 A sloppy move. 24 . . . ttJ ed6 25.lDxd6 Wxe3
h5 26.:Ba3 :Be8 27.tDe2? (correct was 27.tDc4) 26.ttJxb5 ixb5 would win easily.
25.<it>gl YlYe4 26JU4 YlYxd5 27J�xf6 YlYxc4

28J��a4?
Haba did not see the tactical refutation.
The correct 28.:Bf4 We6 29 .ixc5 :Be8 30.E!f2

ic6 3 1 .Wd3! ixb2 32.E!afl would keep
White's hopes alive despite being much worse
- j ust look at the bishop on c6 and the h 1 -a8
diagonal.
8
a b c d e f g h
7
27 . . . ih3t! 28 .�xh3 lDg5t 0- 1 ; Ufimtsev -
Tal, USSR 1 967.
6
5
23 YlYe7 24 .ie3?
••• •
4
White's position is bad, no doubt about it:
his king is weak and Black's pieces control
3
almost the entire board. Still after the best
2
try 24. ttJ f4 ttJ d4 25 .ie3 he could resist for a
while.
8
b d f g h
7
a c e
6
28 ll)c3!
•••
Too many white pieces are hanging - a

5 decisive loss of material is unavoidable.
3
29.YlYxd7ll)xa4 30JU4 YlYxe2 3I .YlY:xf7t <it>h8
32J�e4
2
Many roads lead to Rome - for instance
32 . . . :Bf8 33 .:Be8 Wxe3t. White resigned
without waiting for Black's 32nd move.
b d f g h
0-1
a c e
Chapter 8
Fighting for the Initiative
Never end the fight!

8 � 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
How should Black organize his Traditional King's Indian magic!

pieces? (see page 239) (see page 26 1 )
8 � 8 � 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
What is the most energetic How does a King's Indian Should the queen go to f6 or f7?
continuation? Warrior play such a position? (see page 264)
(see page 236) (see page 246)
8 � 8 � 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
A bit later: what is the most A difficult tactical moment. How should White have
energetic continuation? How does the attack win? continued the attack?
(see page 236) (see page 248) (see page 27 1 )
Chapter 8 - Fighting for the Initiative 235
One of the most important aspects of the example: 1 4 . . . g5 1 5 .tt:J g4 f5 1 6.exf5 i.xf5
King's Indian is the fight for the initiative. 1 7.h6 i.f6 1 8.i.e3 i.e7 1 9.�fl '!9e8 20.�g l
White has more space from the start, and if '!9g6, and Black was fine in Wimmer - Cill6niz
nothing happens to combat this, then Black Razzeto, email 20 1 4 .
can easily find himself with his back against
the wall. But as we have already seen, the 14...f5! IS.hS
King's Indian has great dynamic potential. This feels risky, but is quite interesting.
Black seeks counterplay with all the themes
we have already examined and more, and is After the less aggressive 1 5 .gxf5 gxf5 1 6.i.g5
always looking for a way to grab the initiative. Black is fi n e, but not more.
In the King's Indian this really is a key factor.
The games in this chapter show a brutal fight IS ... fxe4! 16.hxg6 YMf6 17.�f7t?!
for the initiative at all costs. Often pieces are After this Black is able to set White a good
sacrificed simply to gain time. At other times deal of problems.
it is just an attitude all the way through the
game, as in the following recent game. 1 7.tLlf5 '!9xg6 1 8 .tt:J h4 '!9f7 1 9.i.e3 with an
unclear game was more prudent.
Abhijeet Gupta - Kaido Kulaots
17 ... g8 1 8.�h6t J.xh6!
Cappelle-la-Grande 20 15
No draw today.
l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 s.�f3

19.gxh7t hs 20.J.xh6 J.xg4!
0-0 6.h3 eS 7.dS �hS 8.g3 aS 9.�h2 �a6
8
IO.J.e2 �f6 l l .�g4 �d7 12.�h6t hs
13.h4 �deS
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
2
b d f g h
1
a c e
b d f g h
Threatening a big check on d3.
a c e
21 .<tifd2 YMxfl 22.'iMgl?
14.g4
This is the only serious mistake in the game.
I am not sure this is the best move here.
22.i.e3 ! was necessary. White will just about be

1 4.h5 feels a bit more critical, but Black's
able to hold, based on the following variation:
position has plenty of resources too. For
22 . . .i.xe2 23 .'!9xe2 \Wxe2t 24.�xe2 �f7
25.gag l gxh7 26.gxh7t �xh7 27.gh l t �g7 27.. JH3 28J!g3?

28.gg l t � f7 29.gfl t �e8 30.gh l ! and Black The final error.
cannot make meaningful progress.
28.�a4 was necessary, leading to a long
8 �� 30.hxg8=i t �xg8 3 l .ggl t �f8 32.ih6t

vananon: 28 . . . ixc4 29 .gg8t gxg8
7
""' Y,
�eB 33.ttJd2 gh3 34.gg8t �f7 35 .gg7t �f6

6 36.ttJe4t �f5 37.ttJg3t gxg3 38.gxg3 ixa2+
5
Black is playing for a win with the three pawns
4
for the exchange, but White has some drawing
chances too.
3
8
2
7
6
b d f g h
5
a c e
4
22 ... e3t!
It feels as though Gupta had overlooked this
combination. 3
1
23.i.xe3
After 23.<tt> c l �xg l t 24.gxg l ixe2 2 5 .ixf8
b d f g h
(25 .ttJxe2? gf2-+) 2 5 . . . ttJ d3t 26.�b l ih5+
a c e
White is also in an unpleasant position.
28 ... b5!
23 .. .lDe4t! 24.®c2 Breaking down the remains of the white
Or 24.ttJxe4? �xe2t 25.�c3 ttJ b4 leads position.
directly to mate.
Mter 28 . . . gaf8 29 .a3 ttJ a6 30.ghgl , or any
24 ... tlJ b4t 25.®b3 YNxgl 26J!axgl .ixe2 other move that failed to fight for the initiative,
27.tLlxe4 White would not be worse.
White is drifting into a lost position, but his
task was already difficult. 29.®c3
Black wins in all lines. Also after 29.cxb5
27.ttJxe2? gf3 loses on the spot, and after ttJxd5 30.ge l gxg3 3 l .ttJxg3 ixb5 and
27.gg8t gxg8 28 .hxg8 =�t �xg8 29.ttJxe2 29.gxf3 bxc4t.
gf8+ Black will definitely be playing for a win
in the endgame with an extra pawn. Still, this 29 ... bxc4 30.®d2 gxg3 3 1 .tLlxg3 .i8
might have been the best chance. Black has a winning endgame, but it took
him an additional 52 moves to convert it .
... 0-1
My Games 1 1 . .. h6 12 ..ih4 g5 1 3 ..ig3 t[}f6

After: 1 3 . . . h5 1 4.exf5 ixf5 (14 ... 11J f6 1 5 .h4)
Viktor Korchnoi Ilya Smirin
- 1 5 .11Jde4 l!Mg6 1 6.�e 1 !
Dresden 1998
This game remains very special for me - my

first encounter with the great Viktor Korchnoi,
one of my chess heroes.
I.d4 t[}f6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5 ..ie2

0-0 6.tiJf3 e5 7.0-0
a b c d e f g h
Black would face an unpleasant problem -

his kingside activity has come to a stop and he
is j ust left with weaknesses.
14.0 f4 15 ..if2
a b c d e f g h
7... tlJa6
I did not want to play 7 .. /ij c6 against
"Viktor the Terrible". He had won quite a few
very convincing games in the line 8.d5 l1J e7
9 . 11J e 1 CiJd7 1 0.ie3 and I was impressed by his
handling of the positions that arise.
8 ..ie3 tlJg4 9 ..ig5 'lNe8 10.d5 a b c d e f g h

The main line here goes 1 O.dxe5 dxe5 1 1 .h3,
So the picture became clear - attacks on
but at the end of the 20th century Korchnoi
opposite wings. My formidable opponent was
followed modern theory less strictly, and often
a great master in such positions as White, and
liked to improvise over the board.
I often like to play them with the black pieces.
10 ... £5 1 I .tiJd2
1 5 ...VNg6
Another path is: 1 l .CiJ e 1 11J f6 1 2 .f3 h6
I had preferred this move as a way to prepare
1 3 .id2 g5 1 4.11Jd3 l!Mg6 1 5 . 11J f2 f4 1 6. b4 h5
the . . . g5-g4 push rather than 1 5 . . . h5, which
In G. Nikolic - Antic, Tivat 1 99 5 , Black won
would also lead to interesting play. For instance:
by a direct mating attack.
1 6.b4!? g4
1 6 . . . lLl xb4 1 7.cS , with an overwhelming 16.�hl !

position for only a pawn. The first in a chain of deep prophylactic
1 7.:gb l moves.
The more active option is: 1 7 .cS fi g6
16 ...g4
Again, 1 6 . . . hS 1 7.:gb l g4 1 8 .�h4 was not
to my taste. I wanted to leave the hS-square
vacant for a knight or queen, j ust in case.
17.fxg4 tlJxg4 18.-tgl gf7 19.tlJf3

Another option was the pawn sacrifice
1 9 .b4!? lLlxb4 20.cS, but it seems that after
20 . . . �f8 Black does not stand badly at all.
19 ... .tf6 20.gel ! gg7 2 1 .-tfl

a b c d e f g h
8
1 8 .c6! ( 1 8.�h4 lLlxb4 1 9 .cxd6 cxd6 20.lLlc4
7
lLl e8 and Black looks OK) This may lead
after: 1 8 . . . g3 1 9.�e l figS 20.h3 fih4 to a
6
typical sharp KID position, in which Black's
5
attack against the white king looks much
slower than White's activity on the opposite
4
side of the board. However, after the possible
3
continuation: 2 1 .cxb7 �xb7 (2 1 . .. �xh3?
22.gxh3 fixh3 23.:gf2 gxf2t 24.�xf2+-)
2
22.:gb l lLl b 8 23.lLlc4 �c8 24.:gb2 lLl h7
1
Black transfers the knight to gS and, after
a piece sacrifice on h3 at the appropriate
moment, would have very dangerous threats. a b c d e f g h
1 7 . . . fff g6 1 8 .�h4
Korchnoi made the last few moves (and
good ones, I should say) very quickly, and
8
here he looked at me with a laugh, as if saying:
7
"Well, young man [this is how he referred to
6 me immediately after the game] , who are you
5 going to attack? And how?"
4
3
2 1 . .. tlJc5 22.b4
Or 22.h3 lLle3 23 .�xe3 fxe3 24.:gxe3 aS !,
2
and in a practical game I would say that the
strong knight on cS, the initiative against
a b c d e f g h White's king on the g-file, and the bishop pair
1 8 . . . gxf3 1 9.�xf3 lLl g4 20.fie2 �f6 2 1 .�xf6 outweigh the missing pawn.
:gxf6 22.cS lLl e3 23.:gfc l
With a complex position. 22 ... tlJd7 23.c5
Perhaps more precise was: 23.h3 lt:J e3 24.h3

24 ..ixe3 fxe3 During the game I was very surprised by the
fact that Viktor spent more than an hour on
this move! I was expecting it, and believed this
move to be the most natural - and almost only
- one.
Such variations as 24.!!b l tt:Jdf6 25 .gb3 lt:J h5

26.lt:Jb5 lt:J g3t 27.hxg3 fxg3 28 . .ie3 .ig5
29.@gl l!Nh5-+ cannot inspire White.
24... l!Je3?!
I made this move instantly, within a few
a b c d e f g h seconds (after such lengthy thought by
25.!he3 .ie7 (with the idea . . . lt:J d7-f6-h5) Korchnoi) . I thought it was forced because of:
26.c5! lt:J f6!? (26 ... dxc5 27.lt:Jb5 l!Nb6 28.bxc5 24 . . . tt:J gf6 2 5 . lt:J h4
and White has an edge) 27.l!Nc2 lt:Jh5 and Mter 25 .Ekl lt:J h5 26 ..if2 tt:Jdf6 27.!k2
nothing is clear. lt:J g3t 28 . .ixg3 l!Nxg3 Black's chances should
be preferred - the dark squares around
8
White's king are weak, and White's dark
7
squared bishop is gone.
25 . . . l!Ng3 26. lt:J f5 ? !
6
And I hadn't noticed, that:
5
26 . . . l!Nxc3
is possible, and after:
4 27.gb l
a b c d e f g h
23 ....id8!
Probably the hardest move for me to find in
the game. It has two main goals: vacating the
f6-square for the knight on d7, and protecting
the weakest link in the black camp - the pawn a b c d e f g h
on c7. From f6 the knight will continue to h5 27 . . . tt:Jxc5! 28.bxc5 .ixf5 29.exf5 b6
and sacrifice itself on g3, followed by a mating Black has an extra pawn and the advantage.
attack with . . .l!Nh5t (see annotations to Black's
24th move) . A nice draw could be a result of: 24 . . . tt:Jdf6
2 5 . hxg4 (25 .lt:Jh4 lt:J h 5 ! 26.l!Nxg4 lt:J g3t
23 . . . .ie7 24.lt:Jb5 is what I was avoiding. 27.@h2 l!Nf7 28.l!Nf3 .ixh4+) 25 ... tt:J xg4 26.c6
(26.lt:Jh2? .ih4-+) 26 . . . l!Nh5t 27.lt:Jh2
26... ttJf6 27.cxb7

Again, 27 .!!xe3 was better.
27 ....ixb7 28.�xe3 tlJ hS 29.tlJe2

At this point Viktor Lvovich was already
in serious time trouble, and in such a sharp
position that is a very serious factor.
29 ... c6!?
Also possible was 29 . . . ia6 30.g4 ixe2
a b c d e f g h 3 1 .ixe2 ltJ f4 with good play (the knight on
f4 is terrific) , but in White's time trouble I
27 . . . '!Mfxh2t! 28.ixh2 ltJ f2t 29 .�gl ltJ h3t
wanted to open up both black bishops. The
30.� hl ltJ f2t So now I understand why
nice square b6 is available for the bishop now.
Viktor thought for so long!
From a practical point of view, I believe the
move I made was the best one.
25.�xe3
Korchnoi looked at me somewhat angrily 30.g4!
(he had thought for so long and I had replied
8
immediately and quite weakly) and took my
7
knight.
6
25 ... fxe3
5
8
4
7
3
6
2
5
1
4
b d f g h
3
a c e
2
Absolutely the correct decision . White
1
eliminates the pressure on the g-pawn,
simultaneously attacking the knight. This is
b d f g h
more important than the weakening of the
a c e
white king's pawn cover.
26.c6?!
He played this quickly as I remember. 30 ... cxd5
This sacrifice was asked for, but a subtler
After the simple 26.!!xe3 ltJ f6 27.'1Mfb3 ltJh5 version of it would be:
28.ltJe2 I doubt Black would have sufficient 30 . . . ib6! 3 1 .gxh5
play for the pawn, although the position 3 1 .dxc6 ixc6 32 .'1Mfc2 ixe3 33 .'!Mfxc6 !!f8
remains tense. 34.ltJh4 '!Mfg5 3 5 .ltJf5 !!xf5 36.exf5 ltJ f6 with
a great position.
Chapter 8 - Fighting for the Initiative 24 1
3 1 . . . \Wxh5 32.dxc6 �xc6 33.\Wb3t c;t;>hs Probably the best continuation would be
Black is more than OK. For example: 32 . . . d4 33.�g3 �xe4t 34.�g2 �xg3 3 5 .lt:Jxg3
34.Ek l �b5 3 5 . lt:J fg l �xe3 36.\Wxe3 �ag8 �xg2t 36.c;t;>xg2 \Wxd l 37.�xd l �c8 with
White, with his passive pieces, is in trouble. good chances to draw, although White is the
stronger side here.
3I .gxh5 VMxhs
32 ....ih4!
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
b d f g h
b d f g h
a c e
a c e
32.tlJfgl?
The only serious mistake by Korchnoi in 33.tlJf3?
the game, but already the decisive one! The After 33.exd5 �f8 34.\Wb3 e4 Black's assault
outstanding defender quickly spotted the right is irresistible. White does not have the resource
idea - to prepare �e3-g3 - but in intense zeitnot lt:J h2-g4 and this detail proves to be decisive -
he could not find the correct way. Indeed, to 3 5 .�dl \Wg6.
find under any circumstances the only right
move, 32.lt:Jh2!, was almost impossible. It Even after the most stubborn computer
seems that White would hold the advantage in defence: 33 .\Wb3 c;t;>hs 34.exd5 �ag8 All
this case! Black's pieces are in the attack! 3 5 .�d l �f2
36.�f3 �xg l 37.lt:Jg3 �xg3 3 8.�xg3 �xg3
There are variations like: 39.\Wxg3 \Wxd l 40.c;t;>xg l \Wxd5 4 l .a4 \Wd4t
42.\Wf2 \Wxf2t 43.c;t;>xf2 c;t;>g7 44.<j{e3 d5 Black
32 . . . \Wh4 33.iWb3! c;t;>hs (33 . . . �b6 34.�g3 wins in the endgame. Still, all this would have
\Wxe4t? 3 5 .�g2 \Wxe2 36.�xd5t +-) 34.�g2 had to be found over the board, whereas now
�xg2 3 5 .c;t;>xg2 d4 36.�fl ! �b6 37.�g3 \Wxe4t Black's task is easy.
38.lt:J f3 \Wxe2t 39.�f2 �xf3t 40.�gxf3 \We4
4 I .c;t;>h2 d5 42.\Wa4!+- 33 .if2
•••
Now it became evident that Black is winning.

Or: 32 . . . �h4 33.exd5 �f8 34.\Wb3 \Wg6 (34 . . .
e4 3 5 . lt:J g4!+- This i s a huge difference - see 34.VMb3 hS!?
the variations after the 33rd move below) Not the only way, but in my opinion the
35.�f3 most logical one. White's pieces are tied up
They both do not look good for Black. and completely helpless.
35.exd5 he3 36.YMxe3 hd5 37.tlJ egl gags Teimour Radjabov - Ilya Smirin
8
Dos Hermanas 200 1
7
This was my first encounter with Teimour
6
Radjabov. He was 1 4 years old back then
5
and was not a really big threat yet. Later, as
we all know, Teimour entered the chess elite.
4
Radjabov himself has played the KID as Black
3
all his life, and he is a renowned expert in this
opening.
2
l .d4 tljf6 2.c4 g6 3.tlJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 s.tlJf3
0-0 6.i.e2 e5 7.0-0 tlJc6 8.d5 tlJe7 9.b4
b d f g h
a c e
tlJ hS IO.gel aS l l .bxa5 f5 12.tlJd2 tlJf6
All Black's forces are participating in the

assault - it's impossible to stop it.
38.®h2 e4 39.gdl exf3 40.gxd5 'iMxdS

4L'iMxh6t gh7 42.YMf6t ggg7 43.tlJxf3
43.�f8t �g8 and there is no perpetual.
43 ...'iMxa2t 44.®hl 'iMf7 45.'iMc3 'iMfS

46.®h2 'iMf4t 47.®hl YMg4 48.'iMc6 gxh3t
49.hh3 'iMxh3t so.tlJ h2 YMe6 5 I .tlJf3 'lMg4
White resigned. A good battle!
0-1
So far as in the game Kramnik - Smirin,

which you will find on page 63.
13.f3!?
Vladimir Kramnik chose 1 3 .c5 in this
position. Radjabov's move is not so active, but
is more fundamental. White strengthens the
pawn on e4 first and only after that is he going
to attack on the queenside.
1 3 ... gxa5 14.tlJb3

The knight is not ideally placed on b3 in
such positions, but it helps White to play
c4-c5 quickly and at some point after that it
can be transferred back to d2 and c4 .
14 .. J�� a8 15.c5 f4 The other way to develop the queenside

Here it goes! Many players (including attack was: 1 8 .cxd6 cxd6 1 9.ctJb5 ctJ e8 20.ctJd2
myself) love to have attacks going on on Now after 20 . . . h5 White again gets the
opposite wings of the board. upper hand after 2 l . ctJ c4 �a6 22.a5 .
16.a4 g5 17 ..ia3 I believe Black should instead continue:

The picture is clear - Black's chances lie 20 . . . Ct:J h4! 2 1 .ctJc4 �f6 22.�c l g4 23.fxg4 �g6
only in the kingside attack, but those chances with a strong counterattack - the knight on
should not be underestimated. White may h4 makes the difference. There may follow:
gain the whole queenside and win a lot of 24.�h l Ct:J f6 25.ctJ bxd6 ctJxg4 26.�fl
material, but he will lose if gets mated. This is
a primitive explanation, but, as we will see, it
describes well some of the possible variations,
often leading to really wild situations.
17 ... tlJg6
I believe this move serves the attack better
than 1 7 . . . h5 (too many pawn moves?) which
was played in the game Gelfand - Nisipeanu,
Bazna 2009. In my opinion, if White were to
proceed in this position: 1 8 .cxd6 cxd6 1 9 .ctJb5
a b c d e f g h
ctJe8 20.ctJd2! ctJ g6 2 1 .ctJc4 �f6 22.�h l ! ?
26 . . . Ct:Jxh2! 27.ctJxc8 �xc8 28.�f2 �h6 With
serious direct threats against the white king.
18 ... tlJh4 19.cxd6 cxd6
4
a b c d e f g h
3
He would obtain a considerable advantage
2
- Black's main forces are tied to the defence
of the pawn on d6 and can hardly join the
kingside attack. For instance: 22 . . . Ct:J h4
b d f g h
23.�gl �g6 24.g3! fxg3 25 .�xg3, and White is
basically better on both wings; his knights are a c e
excellently placed and he has plenty of useful 20 ..ib4!?

moves, such as '!Wb3 and �ag l . Radjabov decides to bring the knight from
b3 to c4, and protects the a-pawn so that he
1 8.a5 can do that.
In the annotations to his victory over 2I .tiJd2

Nisipeanu, Boris Gelfand offered here: All according to plan.
20.tLla4!?
The knight invasion on b6 is very unpleasant, IfTeimour had changed his mind and played:
so Black has to show his hand: 2 1 .tLla4
20 . . . g4 2 1 . tLl b6 Then after:
2 l . . . g4 22.tLlb6
Black has the same resource:
a b c d e f g h
2 l . . . tLlxe4!
b d f g h
Mter the simple 2 l . . . gxf3 22.ixf3 tLlxf3t a c e
23.gxf3 (23.�xf3 ig4 24.�c3 �a600) 22 . . . tLlxe4! 23.fxe4

23 . . . �a6 24.�h l I would probably prefer Basically the only move.
White, mainly because of the poor position Bad is: 23.tLlxa8 tLlxg2! 24.fxe4 (24.�xg2
of the rook on a6. �h4 2 5 .fxg4 �f2t 26.�h l tLlg3t 27.hxg3
22.fxe4 fxg3 with mate) 24 . . . �h4! 25.tLld2 (25 .�fl
22.tLlxa8 tLlxg2! 23.fxe4 �h4 - see the g3) 25 . . . tLl e3 26.�c l g3 27.tLlf3 gxh2t
similar annotations to 2 1 .tLla4. 28.�hl �g3 29.tLlh4 ih3 30.if3 �xh4
22 . . . f3 23 . . . f3!
Again, see the similar detailed annotations 23 . . . tLlxg2? does not work: 24.�xg2 f3t
after White's next move. (24 . . . �h4 25 .tLld2 f3t 26.ixf3 gxf3t)
25.�h l �h4 26.ixf3 �xf3 27.�e2+-
20 ... h5 24.g3
24.tLlxa8 tLlxg2 25.�fl tLl f4 and Black is
8
better even without the rook and knight:
7
26.ixf3 gxf3 27.�xf3 �g5t 28.�g3 ig4
24 . . . fxe2 2 5 .�xe2 tLl f3t 26.�h l �b8
6 The resulting position is better for White
5
(the knight on b6 is very strong and Black
4
has problems with the defence of the
d-pawn and the development of the light
3
squared bishop) , but Black has counterplay
2
on the kingside, which gives decent
chances.
1
A possible continuation is:
a b c d e f g h
Chapter 8 - Fighting for the I nitiative 245
And of course not 23.tt:Jb6?? 8:xb6.
23 ... tlJ h7!

Preparing the next sacrifice by vacating the
road to h4 for the black queen. The knight on
h7 will later join the attack via g5 .
24.fxg4
A good illustration of the strength of the
attack would be:
a b c d e f g h 24.tt:Jb6 8:xb6!
27.tt:Jd2 tt:Jd4 24 . . . gxf3? 25 .ixf3!
27 . . . h4 28.8:g2! hxg3 29.8:xg3± 25.axb6 tt:Jxg2! 26.�xg2 Wh4
28 .8:g2 8:f6 29.tt:Jdc4 if8 30.8:b l id7 3 1 .ic3
ie8! 32.ixd4 exd4 33.Wxd4 ig7 34.Wd2 8
ig6 7
And the pair of strong bishops provides 6
compensation for the pawn.
5
4
21. .. g4 22.tlJc4
Or 22.�h l !? immediately was an option. 3
22 ga6
2
...
8
a b c d e f g h
7
The assault outweighs the sacrificed rook.
The only defence here seems to be:
6
27.8:a2
5
Not 27.ixd6? Wh3t 28.�gl g3 with a
quick mate.
4
27.8:h l tt:Jg5+
3
27 . . . g3 28.8:h l ih3t 29.�gl Wd8!
An excellent move, suddenly targeting the
2 pawn on b6.
1
30.ia5 g2
b d f g h
30 . . . Wc8 3 Lib4 Wd8=
a c e 3 1 .ib5 Wg5
In a practical game, Black has the upper
23.\t>hl!
hand.
A good defensive move. The king hides in
the corner, and the rook will protect g2 from
The best move seems to be the retreat: 24.tt:Jd2! ?
gl if needed.
2
a b c d e f g h
b d f g h
The knight returns to help His Majesty.
a c e
24 . . . �a8 2 5 . fxg4 hxg4 26 . .ixg4 �g5 27 . .if3 24 ... llJxg2!

�f6 28.tDa4 and Black's threats are probably It seemed to me that this sacrifice came as
not strong enough. an unpleasant surprise to Radjabov, who was
very optimistic until this point. Now Black's
24 . . . �g5 25 .�g l g3 (25 . . . �f6 26 . .ixa6 bxa6 forces get close access to the white monarch.
27.�c l ) 26.�e l and White is j ust winning A knight is not a high price for that.
the opponent's attack has come to a full stop.
25.�xg2
The rook on a6 is under fire and Black should The silicon creature prefers 25.�gl !? - a
invest some serious material: 24 . . . ttJxg2! move that would hardly come to mind over
Anyway! More prudent moves would not do. the board. It is probably right: after 25 . . . f3
2 5 .<tt> xg2 �h4 26 ..ixa6 g3 27.hxg3 The best 26 . .ixf3 ttJ f4 27.gxh5 White would have an
choice. 27 . . . �h3t 28.<tt> g l fxg3 29.�e2 lDg5! edge in a very complex position.
25 ... hxg4 26.�hl

Teimour had a tough choice between this
move and:
26 ..ixg4 �g5 27.h3
a b c d e f g h
And suddenly a drawing mechanism is

created, for instance: 30.�g2 �h4 3 1 .�h l
tD h3t 32.<tt> g2 ttJ f4t 33.<tt> g l tD h3t 34.<tt> fl
g2t 35.�xg2 ttJ f4 36.�f2 �h l t 37.�g l �h4
38.�f2= a b c d e f g h
27 . . . f3t!?
Weaker is 27 . . . t2J f6 28J!hl b5!? (another 27.!!a2 g3 28 . .if3 ltJg5 was hardly better.
sudden computer move) and the computer,
as so often, gives equality at the end of a 27... �g5!
complicated line. Of course not 27 ... g3 ? 28.t2J f3 .
28.<±>f2 .ixg4 29.hxg4 .ih6!
The King's Indian bishop has joined the 28J�gl
attack. The rook could be taken, but not safely:
30.!!h l 28 . .ixa6 g3 29.!!e2
The only move.
30 . . . ttJ f6 3 1 . <±>fl 8
During the post mortem, Alexey Dreev 7
proposed 3 1 .�g l here, but after 3 1 . .. !!c8
6
(3 I . .. t2Jxg4t ? ? 32.�xg4 �xg4 33 .!!ag l was
5
the idea) 32.!!xh6 �xh6 33.�g3 !!xc4 34.g5
�g6 35 . gxf6 �xg3t 36.<±>xg3 !!xb4 Black is 4
winning. 3
3 1 . . . t2Jxg4 2
Even Houdini finds it difficult to repel the
attack - White is in great danger. So I think
a b c d e f g h
Teimour made the best move in the position.
26 ...'1Mh4
After 29 . . .f3 White replies 30.�gl ! g2t
3 1 .!!xg2 fxg2t 32.�xg2 !!f2 33.�g3 �xg3
34.hxg3 bxa6 3 5 .!!a2 then, almost by force,
8
there arises a dynamically balanced endgame.
7 But instead after 29 . . . .ig4! 30.�g l !!f6 more

6
forces join the assault. Despite Black's huge
5
material losses - rook and knight - White
4
would be on the verge of collapse; a beautiful
variation.
3
8
2
7
6
b d f g h
5
a c e
4
Black's pieces are starting to rendezvous with
3
the white king, and the pawns on g4 and f4 are
leaning dangerously toward it.
1
27.�d2
This knight quits its aggressive plans
b d f g h
(attacking the d-pawn) and steps back into
a c e
defence.
28 .. � h3
. attack, but I was hoping that Black's threats
I could not foresee that after: would be very strong. Intuition did not let
28 . . . g3 29.:gg2 me down:
29. 4J fl :gf6+ 3 1 .�e l
29 . . . ih3 30.�g l :gf6 3 1 .ixa6 ixg2t 3 l .:ga2 :gh6 32.�e 1 g3 33.lDf3 �h5 34.We2
32.�xg2 bxa6 ig4 35 .Wd3 lDg5 36.lDxg5 Wxg5 37.:gg2
The attack would be very strong and Wh5 38.Wc2 ih3 39.4J d l :gg6 This line
more than enough to compensate for the looks pretty forcing and Black is winning at
opponent's extra knight. The best option for the end.
him here seems to be: 3 l . . . g3 32.lDf3 Wh5 33 .We2 ig4
33.lDe2
33.:gfl ? :gh6 34.4Jf3 lDxf3 3 5 .:gxf3 �g4-+
33 . . . :gh6 34.ltJxg3 fxg3 3 5 . 4J fl
Obviously Black is on top. But the move I
made is probably not worse.
29J�fl !U6!
6
a b c d e f g h
5
34 .Wg2 :gh6+ 35 .:ga2 lDg5 36.ltJxg5 Wxg5-+
4
White is defenceless - the extra rook is small
consolation and Black's excellently coordinated
3
army prevails.
2 30...�h5?
1
A pity. This mistake spoils the impression of
b d f g h
the game a little.
a c e
Black should have acted resolutely: 30 . . . g3
The rook calmly joins the attack. Black's
3 1 .lDf3 Wg4 (32 . . . g2# is the threat!) 32.�g2
pieces continue to concentrate themselves,
:gh6-+, with the very nice point: 33.hxg3
without hurrying, around the white king. I
was really excited by the possibility of making
"quiet" attacking moves while being a piece
(and potentially a whole rook down) .
30.�el
Of course, could not calculate all the
variations after:
30.ixa6 bxa6
Grabbing as much material as possible in the
hope of giving some of it back to repel the
a b c d e f g h
33 . . . ttJ f2!! 34.Wxf2 Wh3t 3 5 .@gl Wh l # It 37 . . .'\Wxh2t! Pretty - instead of taking the
would be great to fi n ish the game in such a rook, Black sacrifices the queen. 3 8 .�xh2
wonderful way, but alas I failed to spot this �xh2t 39.@gl tD h3t 40.@f1 g2t-+
idea. 33 . . ..id7 34.�c6! ?
31.gcl
White has gained some time to organize the
defence.
3 1 . .. gh6
5
a b c d e f g h
4
34 . . . tD g l !
The only move.
3
3 5 .�f2 ttJ h3
2
White can take a draw by means of:
36.�fl
1
Or he may look for something else.
b d f g h
In this variation we see that after my
a c e mistake on move 30, the attack lost a great
deal of speed and sharpness. I hope that these
32.t!Jdl?!
somewhat numerous variations have not bored
This time it was absolutely "legal" to take
the reader: most of them are really nice and
the rook, which remains under fire for several
they are needed to understand what is going
moves:
on on the board.
32 . .ixa6 bxa6 33.tDe2!
33.tDdl .id7 34.ttJc4 g3-+
33.tDb5 .id7 34.ttJxd6 g3 3 5. ttJ f5 .ixf5
32 .. J�a8
The rook is alive!
36.exf5 tDg5 37.�f2
33.t!Jfl £3!
Not falling into the small trap set by my
young opponent: 33 . . . tDg5? 34.�xc8t! �xc8
3 5 . tD xg4
34.t!Jxh3 %Vxh3 35.gfl g3!
a b c d e f g h
tLlg5. In this case, after the logical 38 .. J�f6

(not 38 . . . ig4? 39.tLlg5 �f8 4o:�xf8t ixf8
4 1 .lt:Jxh3 ixe2 42.tLlg5) 39.�gl there arises a
position of dynamic balance - the black king
might become vulnerable.
3S ..J�xd6 39.�g5 '1Hd7 40 ..ig4 �e7!

This was missed by Radjabov. The rest is
easy - Black's material advantage decides the
matter.
b d f g h
41 .hcS �xg5 42J�gl �f6 43.�£5 gxa5
a c e 44.�c2 gas 45.�c7 b5 46.'1Hb7 gadS
These two attacking pawns cost White a 47.�xb5 gb6 4S.�c5 gdbS 49.gg6 �xg6
whole rook. Not a necessary sacrifice. 49 . . . �b l t 50.g2
�h4 5 l .�xg7t xg7 5 2.�c7t f8 53.�d6t
36.�xf3 gxfl 37.'1Hxfl �e7 54.�h6t �g7t would win easily, but I
The smoke has cleared. Black is left with a wanted to finish the game in an attacking
minimal material advantage (the exchange spirit.
for a pawn) , but the white pieces are active
enough, and objectively the position is about 50.hg6 gxg6 51.�c2 .ih6 52.h4 grs
equal. We were both in slight time trouble, 53.�c4 g£4
8
and I think I overestimated Black's chances
during the game.
6
37 .. J�g6
a b c d e f g h
Two rooks and a bishop create a mating net
around the king.
a b c d e f g h 54.d6t ®hs 55.�eSt ggs 56.�h3 gxe4

3S ..ixd6? 0-1
A big oversight. If Teimour had realized he I have to admit that I love this game very
was OK, he would probably have found the much, and think of it as one of the best in my
strong continuation 3 8 .id2!, with the idea career.
Jaan Ehlvest Ilya Smirin

- Shirov and Korchnoi. The main difference
between the two knight moves is that from e8
Khanty-Mansiysk 2009
it will defend the d6-pawn and the important
square c7, after White plays c4-c5 and c5xd6,
The game was played in the first round of the
whereas on d7 the knight makes it harder for
World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk. This northern
White to play c4-c5 and it sometimes controls
Russian city has become one of the world's
e5 in the event that White decides to play the
biggest stages for high-calibre chess events
double-edged f2-f4.
in recent years. In 200 1 Jaan Ehlvest (one of
the strongest player in the world in the late
1 980s) beat me in the equivalent tournament
in Moscow. That third-round defeat was very
painful for me - the level of games was pretty
good, I was leading in the course of the match,
but I lost in an Armageddon blitz game. Now,
after eight years, I was eager to have my revenge.
I .ltJf3 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltJc3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5.d4

This was the second of two games in the
classical time control mini-match. In a
knockout tournament, the loser goes home.
b d f g h
I had won the first encounter with White, so
a c e
Jaan had to win to stay in the match. Perhaps
the KID is not the most common opening IO.t2Jd3
choice in a situation like that, but I decided Ehlvest goes for a more positional approach.
to stay with my favourite opening (anyway, I Victor Korchnoi usually played the sharper
am not very good at making a draw "to order" line starting with 1 o.�e3 .
with Black) .
For example, the following interesting game
5 ... 0-0 6.ie2 e5 7.0-0 of his was mentioned earlier: 1 o.�e3 f5 1 1 . f3
The Classical System. This time I chose the f4 1 2.�f2 h5 1 3 .c5 g5 1 4.a4 4J g6 1 5 .a5 �h6
most principled continuation. 1 6.b4 �h7 1 7.cxd6 cxd6 1 8 .4Jb5 g4 1 9 .fxg4
hxg4 20.�xg4 �xg4 2 1 .Wfxg4 4J f6 22.Wff3
7 ... ltJc6 8.d5 ltJe7 9.ltJel Wfd7 23.ltJxa7 ttJ g4 24.b5 tDxf2 25 .Wxf2 f3
I did not expect this move from Ehlvest. 26.4Jxf3 Wfg4 27.b6 Wfxe4
Usually he had played 9.4Jd2 or 9.b4. But
his choice is easy to understand - after 9 . 4J e 1
there usually arises a sharp, double-edged
situation which perfectly suited my opponent,
considering his must-win situation.
9 ... ltJe8
9 . . . 4Jd7 is a more common option here.
The move in the game became popular after
Carry Kasparov played it twice in 1 992 against
a b c d e f g h
28.Ei:fe l (28.@h 1 ! would have given White In my optnton, control over the central
a big advantage) 28 .. .'�xd5 29.Wic2 Ei:ae8 square e4 gives White hope for a definite
30.Ei:ad 1 Wffxa5 3 1 .'Wic7t Ei:e7 32.Wixd6 e4 positional advantage, but Black does not have
33 . '2Jh4 Ei:g7 34.'2Jxg6 Ei:xg6 3 5 .Wffe7t i.g7 much to complain about. Indeed, the bishop
36.Wih4t @g8 37.Wffxe4 Ei:xb6 3 8 .Wid5t on g7 is slightly passive, but all the other pieces
Wffxd5 39.Ei:xd5 Ei:b2 40.Ei:fl i.h6 4 l .Ei:xf8t are doing well. In particular, the knight on e7
@xf8 42.Ei:f5t @e? 43.'2Jb5 i.e3t 44.@fl has access to f5 and, potentially, to d4 . Black's
Yz-Yz Korchnoi - Kasparov, Debrecen 1 992. pawn structure is solid enough - in other
words, White's advantage is minimal, if any.
10 ... £5 1 1 .�d2
After l l .f4 (quite a logical move: as we 1 3.�xf6t � 14.�g4
have already noted, the knight on e8 does not To my great surprise, I discovered another
control e5) I was going to continue l l . . . exf4 game by Ehlvest in which he had played this
1 2.'2Jxf4 c6! ? with a complex struggle in which position as Black 29 years prior to our game!
Black, in my opinion, has decent counterplay 1 4.i.c3 't:J f5 1 5 .i.f3 i.g7 1 6.Ei:e 1 @h8 1 7.Ei:c l
- he undermines White's not yet very strong Ei:f7 1 8 .ig4 tt:Jh4 1 9 .ixc8 Ei:xc8 20.Ei:e4 g5
centre from both flanks. 2 l .c5 b6 22.cxd6 cxd6 23 .i.d2 h6 24.Ei:ec4
Ei:xc4 25 .Ei:xc4 b5; (Yz-Yz, 34) Dydyshko -
I think that 1 1 . f3 is a slightly more precise move Ehlvest, Tallinn 1 980. I doubt though that
order compared to the game continuation. Jaan remembered that during our encounter.
Now 1 1 . . . fxe4 1 2.fxe4 makes no sense, so
Black should proceed l l .. . f4 1 2 .c5 g5 with the 14 ... �£5
usual attacks on opposite sides of the board. Of course the exchange o f light-squared
bishops would be in White's favour - at least
1 1 . .. fxe4
now, when the black pieces are not yet active.
I decided to make the game simpler from the
strategic point of view. After all, my main goal
1 5J�e1 �d7
was not to lose.
1 1 . . . '2J f6 1 2.f3 f4 is the main continuation

here, with the usual attacks on opposite wings.
4
b d f g h
3
a c e
2
16.�c3
Here or on the next move 1 6.c5 deserved
1 attention - White is trying to develop activity
a b c d e f g h
on the queenside, but there is the small 23 ...�g6 24J!el �af8 25.�d3 �g7
drawback that the d5-pawn may become weak Tension is growing. All of Black's pieces are
in some variations. concentrated on the kingside. They are just
waiting for orders.
16 ... a5 17J!cl b6
It's not easy for White to obtain active play, 26.a3 g4!
so both sides begin manoeuvring, trying to
8
steadily improve their position.
1 8J!c2 �f7 19.b3 �f8 20.�e4 7

Ehlvest could have changed the strategic 6
5
picture by means of 20.f4!?, but after 20 . . .
4
exf4 2 l .ctJxf4 ixc3 22.!hc3 Wig? 23 .�d3 �af8
24.ctJ e6 ixe6 25.dxe6 �e7 Black should be
3
more or less OK - White's main hope - the
2
pawn on e6 - is firmly blockaded.
7 b d f g h
6
a c e
Here we go! The real action starts now.
5
This push required calculation and, more
4
importantly, some guts.
3 27.fxg4 .ih4!
2
This is the point.
28.�e4
b d f g h
Or 28.gxh5 Wlxh5 29.�e4 ltJd4 would lead
a c e
to the position in the game by transposition.
20 ...�g7!?
Black prepares to start some play on the After 28.g3 hxg4 29 .ig2 (29 .ctJxg4? ctJ xg3
kingside. The queen vacates f8 for the a8-rook 30.Wixg6 �xg6 3 l .hxg3 ixg4) 29 . . . ie7
and at the same time from g7 it will support 30.ctJe4 Wih5 a complex, slightly boring, and
the future advance of the g- and h-pawns. approximately equal position would arise.
21.f3 h5 22 ..ih3 g5! Of course, bad was 28.gxf5 ixf5 and the board
Following the plan. geometry works in Black's favour - 29.ctJe4
ixh3 with a huge advantage.
23.�fl
A good prophylactic move. White stalls 28 ... �d4!?
. . . g5-g4, and from f2 the knight is ready to Black had a good tactical alternative which I
jump to e4 at the appropriate moment. did not see: 28 . . .ixf2t 29.!hf2 ctJ g3 ! 30.�xf8t
�xf8 3 1 .hxg3 hxg4 32.ixg4 ixg4, and White
can forget about trying to win this game. But 34J�ee2 gf3!?
objectively my move was no less strong. There was no special need for this spectacular
move.
29.gxh5 YMxh5
After the simple: 34 . . . ttJxe6 3 5 .�xf2 (bad
8
is 3 5 . dxe6? �xg2! 36.e7 [36.@xg2 �g5t
7
37.@h2 �g l #] 36 . . . �f6 and Black is winning)
3 5 . . . ttJ f4 36.�f3 �h7 37.�e3 �g6, despite
6 being a pawn down, Black would have a very
5
safe (in terms of not losing the game) and
4
active position - White's king is in constant
danger and all his pieces (especially the bishop
3
on c3) are rather passive.
2
But again, the move made in the game is
not objectively weaker - it just leads to a more
complex and unpredictable struggle.
a b c d e f g h 35.'iMxf3!
Black is very active for j ust one small pawn, This queen sacrifice is the only option.
and now starts a forcing line.
35.gxf3? ttJxh3 36.�g4 �h4 would have led to
30 ..ixd7 tiJf3t 3 1 .hl .ixfl 32 ..ie6t hs immediate disaster.
33.h3
A little joke - 33.�h3 ?? �xh3 34.gxh3 �gl# 35 ... ttJxf3 36.gxfl tlJ h4
On h4 the knight fulfils two functions: it
33... tlJg5! protects the vital f5-square from the white
bishop, and applies pressure to g2 .
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
b d f g h
b d f g h
a c e
a c e
This strong move clarifies the situation -
Black is fine. Black has a minimal material advantage,
neither king is very comfortable, and both
sides' pieces are fairly active. The verdict: there
is a dynamic balance on the board. But good 40 ...'l«e4?

moves are required . . . I saw that this move would lead to the
desired draw by force, and went for it, reaching
37J�ce2 my goal of advancing into the second round of
The brave 37.g4 �g5 38 .id2 �g6 39.Ei:f8t the World Cup.
@h7 40.Ei:f5 @h8 4 1 .Ei:f8t @h7 would lead
to a draw, which would not have suited Jaan However, 40 . . . �b l 4 1 .Ei:e2 (4 1 .8:fl �e4)
anyway. 4 1 . . . Ei:xg2 would have led to a simple forced
win. It happens . . .
37 ...V«g6 38 ..iel Wh7 39JU8 'l«d3
41 ..id2 �xg2 42 ..if5t �xf5 43.�xg2 � h4
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
b d f g h
b d f g h
a c e
a c e
40J�ef'2?
The losing error. 44.�f7t whs
And due to the coming perpetual, we agreed
Correct was 40.ixh4! �xe2 4 1 .if5 t Ei:g6 to a draw. Despite the missed win, this game
•!2-•12
42.8:f7t @h6 43.g4! and the threat of 44.g5t brought me great creative pleasure.
@h5 45 .Ei:h7t would force Black to give
perpetual check: 43 . . . �f3t 44 .@h2 �e2t
45 .@h l �f3t=
Josh Manion - Ilya Smirin It looks like White has changed his mind
and decided to keep this bishop from a
Las Vegas 1 997
possible exchange for the knight on f4. In
my opinion 1 2.f3 or 1 2 .cS deserved serious
This game is another Las Vegas "masterpiece".
attention.
But speaking seriously, it seems that the centre
of the world gambling empire used to inspire
12 ... g5
me occasionally to creative and somewhat
1 2 . . . @h8!?, with the rather well-known idea
risky play.
of transferring the knight from e7 to f6 via g8 ,
has been played a few times here.
I .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 .ig7 4.e4 0-0 5.�8
d6 6..ie2 e5 7.0-0 �c6 8.d5 �e7 9.b4 � h5
13.exf5 �xf5 14.g3
10.�d2
Now there is a choice.
This move became well known after the
famous game Petrosian - Gligoric, Rovinj /
14 ... �h3t
Zagreb 1 970. In my opinion, the modern
Instead 14 . . . tt:Jd4 was played in the above
fashion for 1 O.El:e 1 or 1 O.g3 looks more logical.
mentioned encounter: 1 S .gxf4 ltJxf3t
1 0 ... � £4 1 1 .a4
The drawback of 1 0.ltJd2 may be seen after
the immediate 1 1 .if3?! ltJ d3 1 2 .ia3 aS! and
Black is fine.
1 1 ... £5
This is clearly better than the possible
continuation 1 1 . .. ltJxe2t 1 2.'\Wxe2 f5 1 3 . f3
f4 1 4.cS - White's queenside attack develops
more quickly compared with the opponent's
play on the other wing. a b c d e f g h
8
In one of my games 1 6.ltJxf3 g4 l ?.@h l
was played. I managed to draw it despite being
7
somewhat worse almost all the way (perhaps
6
this is a reason why I deviated against Manion?)
- 17 . . . gxf3 1 8.�xf3 ifS 1 9 .El:g 1 ig6 20.id2
5 �d7 2 1 .ltJe4 El:ae8 22 .ltJgS exf4 23 .ic3
4
ixc3 24.�xc3 El:eS 2S.ltJe6 El:ffS 26.El:g4 �f7
3
27.El:ag 1 f3 28.aS c6 29.�d4 cxdS 30.ltJgS
�f6 3 1 .h4 �e7; (Yz-Yz, 46) Kourkounakis -
2
Smirin, Gausdal 1 990.
1 1 6.�xf3 g4 1 7.�h 1 exf4 1 8 .ib2 ifS 1 9 .El:fe l
b d f g h
f3 20.ltJde4 �h4 2 1 .h3 ieS 22.El:e3 gxh3
a c e
23.�xf3
12 ..i8
I do not agree with that evaluation.) White's

achievements are excellent piece coordination,
control over the important square e4, and the
currently rather poor bishop on g7.
17.tlJb3 YHe7
The queen changes its location for a more
natural one.
17 . . . \Wf7 was a good alternative in that sense.

a b c d e f g h
23 . . . .ig4 24.\Wh l h2t 25 .�g2 \Wh5 26.l2J d2 1 8.'iHd3 h5

.id4 27.\We l Ei:ae8 28.l2Jce4 .ixb2 29.Ei:g3 1 8 . . . l2J g5 1 9 ..ixg5 \Wxg5 20.c5 was played
.ie5 30.Ei:aa3 �h8 3 1 .�h l Ei:g8 32.\Wfl in one of my games. I would probably prefer
.ixg3 33.Ei:xg3 El:xe4 0- 1 Petrosian - Gligoric, White here - his play looks very easy, whereas
Rovinj /Zagreb 1 970. it's not so clear which plan Black is going to
follow.
1 5.g2 'iHd7!? 16 ..ie4
The idea that 1 5 . . . \Wd7 is connected with 19.c5
may be seen in the variation 1 6.l2Jde4 l2J d4
1 7 . .ih5 ? g4, intending . . . \Wf5 , and the bishop
on h5 does not feel good.
2 a b c d e f g h
19 ... tlJf4t!?
b d f g h
Not a necessary move, of course, bur I was
a c e in "sacrifice mode". The decision was purely
16 ... g4 intuitive, in the style of the young Mikhail Tal.
I did not trust the resulting position after the Just one thing was clear to me: my opponent
forcing line 1 6 . . . l2Jxf2 1 7. �xf2 l2Jxg3t 1 8 .�gl would have to solve some complicated
ltJxfl 1 9. l2Jxfl . Now it seems to me that Black problems and I hoped he would not quire be
is not worse - after all he has some material able to cope with that. Moreover, the position
advantage and the king on gl is slightly open. after the sacrifice looked very likable to me . . .
(The artificial brain is overoptimistic here,
claiming a big edge for Black in that line - 20.gxf4 exf4
The compensation for the knight is obvious As I remember, I did not even consider
- the white king is under attack and the the strongest and rather simple: 2 l . . . gxf3t
opponent's well-coordinated forces give him 22..ixf3 lDh4t 23.c;!;>h l .ifS!
a serious headache. Black's main threat is
probably . . . f4-f3, after which the white king 8
may easily fall into a mating net. Manion 7
decided to put an automatic stop to the
6
f-pawn.
5
21.f3? 4
Oops! A serious mistake which I failed to 3

exploit. It was not an easy task to find the best 2
solution over the board.
a b c d e f g h
Obviously 2 l ..ixf4? lDh4t does not work.
After which White would be on the verge
The best decision seems to be 2 I .lDd2!, of losing, for instance: 24 . .ie4 .ixc3 25 . .ixf5
bringing the knight to help His Majesty. �xf5 26.�g l t c;!;>h? and 24.Wfd2 Wfe3! 25 . .ib2
�ae8 26.Wfxe3 �xe3 27.lDd2 .ixc3 28 . .ixc3
8 �xc3 29 . .ixh5 f3 and so on.
7
22.ga2!
6
The rook plays a big part, protecting the
5
whole second rank, especially the pawn on h2.
4
3 22...YMg7
2
If 22 . . . ltJ h4t 23.@h l g3 White would
have at his disposal a strong tactical decision:
24.ixf4! ixf4 25.hxg3 ixg3 26.�g l lDf5
b d f g h
a c e
27.�h2 h4 28.lDe2 giving a piece back, but
After 2 1 . . .'\Wh4 (this continuation is asking taking over the initiative and in turn creating
to be played) 22.�g l a5 ! ? 23.bxa5 dxc5 there strong threats against the king on g8 .
would arise a position that is very hard to
evaluate, even with computer help. Still, my 23.tlJdl
soul belongs to Black here. By the way, this Not a bad move, but I think 23 .ixf5
line shows that the sacrifice on the 1 9th move ixf5 24.ltJe4 should have been preferred.
was objectively OK. After 24 . . . �ae8 (24 . . . gxf3t? 25.c;!;>h l Wfh7
26.lDbd2+-) 25 .c;!;>h l @h8 26.�gl g3 27.�e2
21. ..�e5? h4 the position would remain very complex.
As I said earlier, I liked the structure of
the black piece and pawn formation, and 23 ... g3 24.ggl gxh2t 25.�xh2 tlJg3
subconsciously I did not want to change it.
8
the c8-bishop interposes and the attack comes
7
to a full stop.
5
8
4
7
3
6
2
5
1
4
b d f g h
3
a c e
2
This knight has survived a possible exchange
1
and is awarded the right to occupy a strong
outpost very close to the enemy king.
a b c d e f g h
26J3gg2
White must be very careful all the time. If 30.tlJe6?
he were to play the innocent-looking 26.ib2?! Now this does not have a lethal effect, but
then after 26 ... ixb2 27 Jhb2 �g5 he would instead becomes the main reason for White's
have to find 28.�gg2! (28 . ctJ f2? �h4t 29.�g2 imminent defeat.
�f7 leads to disaster) 28 . . . �h4t 29.@gl �h l t
30.@f2 ih3 3 l .�xg3t fxg3t 32.@xg3 to stay Instead, my opponent would be better off
in the game. playing the curious variation 30. ctJ f5 ! ctJ xf5
3 l .�xg8t @xg8 32.ixf5 �g5 t 33.ctJg4 hxg4
26 ...�g5 27JtH2 <!>hS! (33 . . . ixf5 ? ? 34.�xf5) 34.ixg4 ixg4 3 5 . �g2
The king moves off the g-file, freeing the �h6 36.�xg4t �h8, which would lead to
queen and knight. At the same time, g8 is now approximate equality.
vacated for the black rook.
30 ....ixe6 3 1 .dxe6 gg7
28.tlJd4
Also now if 28 .ib2 �g8 29 .ixe5t dxe5 8
7
30.@gl �h4 (not 30 . . . ctJ e2t? 3 l .@f1 �xg2t
6
32.@xe2 ih3 33.ctJd2) 3 l .�c3 �g5, with the
idea . . .ih3, Black would be happy.
4
Or 28.cxd6 cxd6 29.�c2 �f7! would lead to a
position with some kind of dynamic balance
3
(but not 29 . . . �g8 ? 30.�c7+-) .
28 ...�h4t 2
It would be a huge mistake to play 28 . . . �g8 ? 1
b d f g h
29.ctJe6 �h4t 30.ctJh3 immediately -
a c e
32 ..tb2? 33.he5 dxe5 34.tlJg4

The final and decisive error, but objectively Or 34.e7 lt:J e2t 35.fl �xg2 36.!he2 �g l#.
speaking it was nearly impossible to find the
only defence in time trouble. 34.�xg3 �xg3t 3 5 .fl �g l t 36.<±>e2 '.Wxf2t
37.<±>xf2 �8g2# Pretty, isn't it?
For example, 32.cxd6 would lose immediately
after: 32 . . . �ag8! 33.lt:Jg4 '.Wh l t 34.f2 hxg4 Houdini's first suggestion is 34.'1Wd7 �xd7
3 5 .d7 .id4t 36.'1Wxd4 '.Wfl # 3 5 .exd7. This basically says everything about
the position after Black's 33rd move.
Only 3 2 ..if5 ! dxc5 3 3 . .ig4! would allow
White to continue fighting, even though in 34 ... �hlt 35.\t>fl hxg4 36.fxg4 �xg4
a worse position after 33 . . . �d8 34.�h2 '.We7 37..if3
3 5 .'1Wb3 <±>g8.
7
32 .. J!ag8
8 6
7 5
6 4
5 3
4 2
2 a b c d e f g h
1 37... e4 38.�d4t �4g7 39 ..txe4

b d f g h
While making this move, Josh Manion
a c e
overstepped the time limit, so the checkmate
Now all the black pieces are taking part in 39 . . . '\Wfl # was not executed on the board.
the attack. Their combined effort is irresistible. 0-1
Boris Gelfand - Ilya Smirin 8 . . . a5

Better is 8 . . . ttJ g4 9 .ig5 f6 1 0 .id2 f5 .
Saint Vincent 2005
9.tlJd2 tlJe8 1 0.0-0
1 O.g4 tlJc5 l l .h4! leads to a very promising
The chessplayer I have played most often in
position for White.
my life is Boris Gelfand. Our first game dates
IO .. .f5 l l .exf5 gxf5 1 2.f4 ih6!? 1 3 .t2Jdb l
back to 1 979! We have also been teammates
exf4 1 4.ixf4 ixf4 1 5 .�xf4 t2J e5 1 6.�d4
plenty of times - first for Belarus and after that
c5 1 7.dxc6 bxc6 1 8 .t2Ja3 t2J g7 1 9.�f2 t2Je6
for the Israeli national squad. Once we even
20.�d2 �a7 2 I .tlJc2 �g7 22.�d l �h4
teamed up in the Russia - Rest of The World
23.�dfl �f6 24.�h l ttJg5 25 .�d4?
match. This game from the European Club
Championship in Saint Vincent was around
our 30th meeting.
I .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5.�£3

0-0 6 ..ie2 e5 7..ie3
Also possible is: 7.0-0 t2J bd7 8 .'\W c2 c6
9.�d l �e7 I O .d5 c5 l l .g3! ? �h8 1 2.ig5!
a6 1 3 .t2Jh4 �e8 1 4.�e l tlJ g8 1 5 .id2 �e7
1 6.t2Jg2 f5 1 7.exf5 gxf5 1 8 .f4 e4 1 9 .g4!?; ( 1 -0,
5 1 ) Korchnoi - Romanishin, Brussels 1 986.
a b c d e f g h
7 ... �bd7
25 . . . �xh2t!! 26.�xh2 �h6t 27.�g3
27.�g l t2J h3t 28.�h2 t2Jxf2t 29.�gl
t2J h3t 30.�h2 t2J f4t 3 l .�gl �xg2#
27 . . . t2J e6t 28.�g4 t2Jxg4 29.ixg4 �xg4t
30.�f3 �xc4 3 l .�e3 f4t 32.�d2 �g6 33.�el
�c5 34.t2Je4 �e5 3 5 .�cl ia6 36.t2Jxd6
�xe l t 37.t2Jxe l t2Jd4 0- 1 Kantsler - Smirin,
Jerusalem 2005 .
8 '1Ne7
•••
A relatively flexible continuation - the

central pawn structure is not yet fixed.
a b c d e f g h A couple of times I have played 8 . . . c6 9.d5

c5 , but I did not particularly like the course of
8.0-0
those games.
This position may arise after a transposition
ofWhite's 7th and 8th moves
Once I tried the rather experimental but
recently popular continuation:
8.d5
8 . . . �e8! ? 9.d5
This is also a logical continuation here. It
According to the usual standards of the KID,
happened in the following game, in which
the rook is placed poorly on e8 (it does not
there occurred an elegant queen sacrifice:
support . . . f7-f5) , but sometimes there are 9 ...c6 IOJ�adl h6

more flexible rules nowadays . . . The immediate 10 . . . tLlg4 1 l .ig5 f6 1 2.ic l
9 . . . tLl h5 1 0.g3 ifS!? did not appeal to me; hence this prophylactic
It went well: and somewhat weakening move.
1 1 .tLl e 1 tLlg7 1 2 .tLld3 f5 1 3 . f3 ie7 1 4 .\Wd2
lLl f6 1 5 .c5 fxe4 1 6.fxe4 tLlg4 1 7.ixg4 ixg4 In this game Boris managed to cast serious
1 8.�ac l ih3 1 9.�fe 1 �f8 20. tLl f2 id? doubt on the strategic correctness of this plan,
2 1 . tLl d3 tLle8 22.ih6 �f7 23 .�fl tLl f6 24.cxd6 so I propose playing a different, more open,
cxd6 2 5 . tLl f2 �c8 26. tLl e2 �xc l 27.tLlxc l \Wb6 type of position instead: 10 . . . exd4!? 1 1 .tLlxd4
28 .ie3 \Wa6 29.�e 1 id8 �e8 1 2.f3 tLle5 1 3 .�fe 1 a6 1 4.ifl ( 1 4.\Wd2!?)
With excellent play; (0- 1 , 5 1 ) Colovic - 1 4 . . . c5 1 5 .tLlb3 ie6 1 6.tLld2 \Wc7 1 7.i>h 1
Smirin, Skopje 20 1 4 . �ab8 1 8 .b3 id? 1 9 .h3 tLlc6; (0- 1 , 60) King
- Kveinys, Germany 1 993.
9.'1Hc2
If 9.d5 I was going to proceed with 9 . . . tLle8, l l .d5 c5 12.g3!
preparing ... f7-f5 , as happened a few times in
8
the games of GM Kochyev.
9.dxe5 dxe5 1 0.tLld5 \Wd8 was played three 7

times against me. 6
a b c d e f g h
A deep positional approach. White is going
a b c d e f g h
to put his knight on the ideal square h4, after
which it will be hard for Black to obtain his
managed to win all three games. Here
customary kingside initiative by means of
is one of them: 1 1 .\Wc2 tLl g4 1 2.ig5 f6
. . . f7-f5 . Meanwhile White will have a free hand
1 3.id2 c6 1 4.tLle3 lLlxe3 1 5 .ixe3 f5 1 6.exf5
to develop his usual activity on the opposite
gxf5 1 7.�ad 1 \We7 1 8 .ig5 \We8 1 9.c5 e4
wing. I think this idea, in a similar position,
20.tLld2 tLl e5 2 1 .f3 \Wh5 22.if4 ie6 23 .�de 1
was introduced to practice by Viktor Korchnoi
\Wg6 24.fxe4 fxe4 25 .\Wxe4 ixa2 26.\Wb4
in his game against Oleg Romanishin (given in
id5 27. tLl f3 \Wg4 28.id2 lLl xf3t 29.ixf3
the note to White's seventh move) . At least this
id4 t 0- 1 Bercys - Smirin, Philadelphia
is one of the first such examples.
20 1 1 .
12 .. .lbh7!?
The move made by Gelfand seems to be the
I quickly realized the danger of being
most principled one.
positionally outplayed and found this
manoeuvre. It has its drawback, but apparently In Chess Informant Gelfand proposed:
Black had nothing better. 1 5 . f3 ttJh5 1 6.ttJg2!?
If 1 6.EJ:fe l ttJ h3t ( 1 6 ... ttJ f4 1 7.ifl ) 1 7.<±>h l
13.�h4?! if6! 1 8 .ttJg2 ig5 Black is OK.
Boris follows his plan. During the game I 1 6 . . . ih3
saw 1 3 .'tWd2!, attacking the pawn on h6. 1 6 . . . f5 ?! is premature due to 1 7.exf5 ixf5
( 1 7 . . . gxf5 ? 1 8. f4±) 1 8.ttJe4 and White has
I was going to sacrifice a pawn with 13 . . . f5 ?!, the better and risk-free position.
but after: 1 4.exf5 gxf5 1 5 .ixh6 ttJdf6 (or 1 7.E1be l
1 5 .. .f4 is met by 1 6.ixg7 'tWxg7 1 7.<±>h l 'tWh6 After the sample move:
1 8J�J:g l <±>h8 1 9 .g4) 1 6. ttJ h4 Black's position 1 7 . . . ttJ f6!?
would be nearly hopeless - his king is weaker This knight is heading for a better place.
than White's, and the missing pawn does not 1 8 .ttJd 1 ttJ fh7 1 9 . ttJ f2 id7
add optimism. A complex struggle would be ahead.
But instead the best move 13 . . . h5 would mean 15 ...cxb4 16.gxb4 �g4 17.i.xg4
a kind of strategical failure after 1 4 . ttJ h4 if6 An undesirable exchange for White, but
1 5 .ttJg2, and it would be very hard to obtain forced.
counterplay, although the situation is not
tragic yet. He could not keep the bishop pair: 1 7.id2
ttJ h3t 1 8.<±>g2 ttJ f4t
13 ... �g5
Now this knight is the basis of my kingside 17 ...i.xg4
activity. At an appropriate moment it may
8
jump to h3, causing a headache for the white
7
monarch.
14J�b l �f6 6
5
8
4
7
3
6
2
5
4
b d f g h
3
a c e
2
The plans of both sides are clear now: White
will continue to try to smash Black on the
queenside, whereas the absence of White's
b d f g h
light-squared bishop causes him worries; he
a c e
would be glad to take back the move g2-g3 ,
15.b4?! as it considerably weakens his king's residence.
Playing too straightforwardly.
264 King's I n dian Warfare
18.£3 �h3 19JHbl b6 20.a4?

Boris did not see my next move.
He proposed here the prophylactic manoeuvre:

20.'Dd l ! id? (now 20 .. . f5 ? does not work
- 2 l .ixg5 �xg5 22. 'D f2+-) 2 l .'D f2 'D h3t
22.'Dxh3 ixh3 23 .a4 with a double-edged
position after 23 . . . �fc8! ? - the pawn on c4
may be vulnerable in some cases.
a b c d e f g h
22 ... Y;Yf6?
I became too excited during the game and
lost my cool. Somehow I just forgot about the
existence of the square f7.
22 . . . �f7!
This was evidently a much stronger move -
the queen gains access to h5 and in many
b d f g h
variations it would be lethal for the white
a c e
king. It seems that White cannot repel the
20 . £5!!
..
attack:
An excellent resource; Black sacrifices the 23.'D xf8
exchange and takes over the initiative. This Or 23.exf5 �fe8 and the pawn on f5 is falling,
move was also basically forced - after 20 . . . �ac8 just like all the rest of White's position (but
2 l .a5 bxa5 22.�b7 Black's position would j ust of course not 23 . . . ixf5 ? 24.�xf5 �xf5
be bad strategically. 25.'De7t) .
23 . . . �xf8
21 .lLlxg6
Played after quite lengthy thought.
Probably he had nothing better: 2 l .a5 bxa5

22.�b7 �f6; or 2 l .exf5 gxf5 22 .a5 f4 (not
22 . . . e4 ? 23.f4 'D f3t 24.'Dxf3 exf3 25 .if2)
23.gxf4 exf4 24.if2 �f7! and White will
hardly survive.
a b c d e f g h
24.exf5
24.a5 is too slow now due to 24 . . .f4
25 .if2 fxg3 26.ixg3 ltJ e l ! 27.Wff2 Wh5. 24 . . . fxe4 25 .a5 Wfg6! 26.axb6 ltJd4
24.Wlf2 Wh5 or 24J�4b2 f4 are not cures White would be in trouble - his king is in
either. real danger. For instance:
24 . . . ixf5 25 .Wfe2 27.We l
25 .Wg2 Wh5 with an irresistible attack; 27.bxa7? loses due to the simple but nice
again the queen goes to h5! 27 .. Jhf2 28.ixf2 Wf5 29.a8=Wft \t>h7 and
25 ... ltJ d4 the bunch of white pieces would not help to
avoid checkmate.
27 . . . axb6 28 .�4b2 Wg4 29.�f2
29.ltJb5 �fl t 30.Wxfl ixfl 3 1 .�xfl ltJ f5
32.�e l h5 33.�be2 \t>h7!+
29 . . . �f3 30.�bb2 ltJ f5 ! ?
a b c d e f g h 4
26.ixd4 exd4 27.ltJ b5 d3-+ 3
(Gelfand) 2
28.Wfg2 d2!
White is helpless.
a b c d e f g h
believe that Black's initiative clearly

outweighs the small material disadvantage.
8 24 ...�xf5?!
7 This obvious but insufficiently energetic
6
move loses the rest of Black's edge. I fully agree
5
with Gelfand that Black had to proceed with:
4
24 . . . ltJd4! 25 .ixd4 (25 .Wff2?! ixf5 does not
3
look promising for White) 25 . . . exd4 26.ltJe4
Wxf5 27.Wd3
a b c d e f g h
24.exf5
My opponent proposed here: 4
24.Wf2 3
As the more precise continuation. However, 2
after:
a b c d e f g h
27 . . .ifl ! 28.�xfl �xfl t 29 .�xfl �xfl t 28 a6 29.tiJa3 tiJd4 30.YMg4 tiJf5

•••
30.cj{g2 �el And this endgame is rather O r 3 0 . . . cj;> h 8 3 l .�d l tLl f5 32.tLlc2 i s about
unpleasant for White - at least he would have level.
to work to save half a point.
3 1 .tiJc2 YMe5!?
25.YMg2 Lb1 26J�xbl It's Black's turn to take care about
Black has regained the exchange but lost maintaining equality and this centralizing
the initiative. Still I was hoping for the best move is up to the task.
and somewhere around here I declined a peace
offer. 32 .if4
•
An interesting and forced draw could be

26 e4 27.tiJb5!
••• the result of 32.�xb6 �c3 33.�xe4 tLlxe3
Boris correctly strives for some activity. 34.tt:Jxe3 �e l t 3 5 .cj{g2 �e2t 36.cj;>h3 �h5 t
37.�h4 �f3 ! 38 .�b3 (38.tLlg2 �f5) 3 8 . . . �f5!
If 27.Ci:J e2 �f7!? he would still be on the 39.tLl xf5 �xf5t 40.�g4 �fl t 4 1 .cj;>h4 �f6t,
defensive. with perpetual check.
8
32 YMc3 33.YMe2 ges
•••
7
Probably the best solution is to keep
the tension. Mter 33 . . . �f3t 34.�xf3 exf3
6 3 5 . tLl e3!? Black could still experience some
5
difficulties in the endgame.
4 Now 34.�xb6?! �d3 would lead to unnecessary
3
risk for White.
2 34.tLle3 tLlxe3 3 5 .ixe3 �d3 36.�xd3 exd3

37.if4 with an equal endgame looks rather
b d f g h
logical.
a c e
27 YMe7
•••
Here I offered a draw, which Boris accepted
27 . . . �f7 would pose more practical after some thought. Right after the game I was
problems. Still, after 28.if4 �g6!? 29.tLlxd6! really disappointed at missing such a golden
(29.�e2 is bad due to 29 . . .ie5 30.ixe5 tLlxe5) opportunity on the 22nd move. Besides, a
29 . . . �xf4 30.gxf4 �xd6 3 l .�g4 cj;>h7 32.a5! win would have equalized my lifetime score
the position would be about balanced: rook of decisive games with Borya, which remains
plus pawn is no worse than bishop and knight at 8:7 in his favour now. Still I think it was a
due to the insecure position of the black king. tense battle in which both of us had our ups
•!2-•12
Even so, Black has some chances, I guess. and downs.
28.YMh3!
As we used to say in the pre-computer era
"this move leads to a position of dynamic
balance" .
Ioannis Nikolaidis - Ilya Smirin and precisely not only to get counterplay
but j ust to try to equalize. Despite White's
Panormo 200 1
setup not being overambitious, he enjoys free
development and his pawn centre has no weak
l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.� c3 �g7 4.�0 0-0
spots - the pawn on d4 is well defended. OK
If Black is going to play the KID it may be
all these are common words. Now we will look
more flexible to start with 4 . . . d6. In this case
at some concrete examples.
after 5 .ig5 and the subsequent exchange of
this bishop for the knight with . . . 'Ll h5 he may
6... h6
choose a plan with queenside castling. This
Of course, Black may choose different
happened, for instance, in the following game:
setups here, but the main question is whether
5 . . . h6 6.ih4 g5 7.ig3 'Llh5 8 . e3 e6 9.�c2
to prepare . . . e5 or to play . . . c5 now or
�e7 1 0 .ie2 'Ll c6 1 l .ctJ d2 'Llxg3 1 2. hxg3 id7
slightly later. I prefer the second option. The
1 3 .0-0-0 0-0-0 1 4 .�b 1 �b8 And the black
immediate 6 . . . c5 is possible and may often
king is relatively safe; (Y2-Y2, 34) Moiseenko -
lead to a transposition of moves. It happened
Cheparinov, Kemer 2007.
in the following game:
7.ie2 h6 8.ih4 g5 9.ig3 'Llh5 1 0.dxc5!?
s.�gs d6
White changes the pawn structure, trying to
Another direction here is 5 . . . c5 6.d5 (after
exploit the weakening of Black's king.
6.e3 cxd4 7.exd4 d5! Black is OK, as practice
1 0 . . . 'Llxg3 1 l .hxg3 dxc5 1 2 .�c2 e6
has shown) 6 . . . b5!? in the style of the Benko
Of course not 1 2 . . . ctJ c6? 1 3 .'Llxg5 hxg5?
Gambit.
1 4 .�h7# - as I said earlier, White's setup
has its venom.
6.e3
1 3 .�d 1
1 3 .g4!? 'Llc6 1 4.a3 seems to me to be a
more aggressive and better continuation.
14 . . . a6 1 5 .'Lld2 (I think that Alexey
Kuzmin's proposal 1 5 .id3!?, with the idea
of queenside castling and trying to create
threats against the black king, deserves
serious attention) 1 5 . . . �b8 1 6.g3 b5
1 7.'Llce4 b4 1 8 .a4 b3! 1 9 .'Llxb3 'Ll b4 20.�b 1
ib7 2 1 .0-0 ixe4 22.�xe4 �c7; (Y2-Y2,
3 1 ) M . Gurevich - Fedorov, Stockholm
1 997.
13 . . . �e7 1 4.0-0 'Llc6 1 5 .�d2 g4 1 6.'Llh4 h5
b d f g h
1 7.�fd 1 ctJ e5 1 8 .id3 id7 1 9.ie4 ie8
a c e
Black has completed his development and
White plays the opening in quite a timid stands well with the two bishops. Control of
way. He has developed the bishop on g5 and the d-fi l e does not promise White anything
after that put his pawn on e3, not on e4 as is concrete, and his knight is badly placed on
usual in the KID . But this scheme is clearly not h4.
without venom, and Black should play actively 20.�b3 �b8 2 1 .�d6 if6
8
13 ..ie2 e6 14.dxe6 .ixe6
7
a b c d e f g h
22.lDd5?
This tactical attempt proves to be in Black's
b d f g h
favour.
a c e
22 . . . exd5 23.tDf5 Wxd6 24.tD xd6 dxe4
25.tDxe4 ig7 26.�d6 ic6 27. tD f6t ixf6 1 5.�de4?!
28.�xf6 �g7 29.�f5 f6 30.�xh5 �h8 3 1 .�xh8 White could have strengthened his grip over
�xh8 the centre by means of 1 5 .�d 1 ! ?, wi rh better
(0-1 , 45) Beim - Smirin, Tel Aviv 1 996. prospects - it's hard to see compensation
for the weaknesses on d6 and d5 and the
7..ih4 c5 8.d5 g5 9 . .ig3 � h5 IO.�d2 somewhat exposed king on g8. An important
1 0.id3 i s considered t o b e the most point is that the freeing attempt 1 5 . . . d5? does
aggressive continuation nowadays - the not work due to 1 6.tDb3.
bishop eyes the black king. In my opinion,
the following encounter may serve as a good 15 ...�xe4 16.�xe4
1 O . . .f5!?
example of Black's action in this case: Now Black has time to try to open the
position for his bishops.
To fight for the initiative, Black agrees to
an additional weakening of his already 16 ... b5
compromised king. A tempting but objectively doubtful pawn
1 1 .tDd2 tDxg3 1 2.hxg3 ttJd7 1 3 . tD f3 tD f6 sacrifice.
The knight arrives to help its monarch. Sometimes one should play simple chess -
1 4.Wc2 lD g4 1 5 .tDh2 tDe5 1 6.ie2 after 1 6 . . . Wa5 t 1 7.Wd2 (stronger is 1 7.�fl
( 1 -0, 45) Agrest - Nithander, Copenhagen �fd8 1 8. f4 gxf4 1 9.gxf4 d5 20.cxd5 ixd5,
2007. Now after 1 6 .. .f4 Black would be with an unclear position in which both sides
fine - he has active pieces and his king feels have their trumps) 1 7 . . . Wxd2t 1 8 .�xd2 d5!
reasonably comfortable. 1 9 .tD xc5 dxc4 20.tDxe6 fxe6 2 1 .�afl �ad8t
22.�c2 �d6 23.f4 c3! With the idea 24.bxc3
10 ... �xg3 l l .hxg3 �d7 12.¥Nc2 �f6 �c8 25.c4 �a6, and Black would enjoy a risk
I think it was better to act as in the previous free advantage in the endgame.
game - 1 2 .. .f5!? 1 3 .id3 (or 1 3 .ie2 tD f6)
1 3 . . . tDe5 1 4.ie2 f4 1 5 .exf4 gxf4 1 6.gxf4 �xf4 17.cxb5 ¥Na5t
1 7.g3 �f8 1 8. f4 ttJg4, and again my sympathies 1 7 . . . �c8, preparing . . . d5, looked like a
lie with Black in this complicated position. reasonable alternative.
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
1
2
b d f g h
1
a c e
b d f g h
21 .fxg5!?
a c e
A correct sacrifice, although I did not think
19.a3? so during the game. . .
This continuation is too slow and soft.
Th e quiet alternative 2 1 .lt:Jc3 axb5 22.lt:Jxb5
Mter the energetic 1 9 .f4! White would have an was possible, but after 22 . . . !:!ab8 23.a4 �b4
edge, though in a rather complicated position. 24. f2 d5! Black would obtain a promising
Mter both 19 . . . f5 or 19 ... �b4 he would react position. Nikolaidis decided to take an active
with 20.lt:Jc3 , with an extra pawn and play approach instead.
against the black king.
2 1 . fxe4 22.VNxe4
••
19 a6 20.£4
••. White has enough pawns for a bishop, but
20.bxa6 understandably did not appeal to the pawn structure fails to impress. Much
Ioannis - after 20 . . . !hb8 2 1 . lt:J c3 d5 22.f4 more important, however, is that the black
d4 his position would be under enormous king is facing a surprisingly strong attack -
pressure for j ust two pawns. mainly because the queen is stuck on aS .
It was possible to sacrifi c e a rook: 20J:hh6!? 22 �f7

•.•
.ixh6 2 1 .lt:J f6t f8 (dangerous is 2 1 . . . g7
8
22.lt:Jh5 t f8 ? [22 . . . g8=] 23 .�h7) 22.�h7
7
e7 23 .�xh6 !:!h8 24. lt:J h7 !:!ag8 2 5 .�f6t
d7 26 ..id3 axb5 27.gl with an unclear
6
position - j ust an illustration of a possible
5
tactical outbreak.
20 £5 4
3
•..
a b c d e f g h
23.J.d3
Houdini's suggestion 23.!hh6! indeed seems
to be more worrying for Black. It has j ust one
drawback: it would be almost unreal to make
this move over the board.
Now 23 . . . .ixh6 24.gxh6 @f8 2 5 .�f4 �d2

26.�f6 looks very dangerous for Black.
So the best option seems to be: 23 . . . �a7!

24.�h4 ixb2 25 .�b l .ie5 26.b6 �e7
a b c d e f g h
25J�xh6?
I recall that I was counting on this move.
Meanwhile the following quiet move would be

very strong:
25.@gl !
The rook will tease Black from fl , while the
white king is in safety. Suddenly Black has
a b c d e f g h no satisfactory defence. For instance:
25 . . . �d2
Intuitively I would take Black in this wild
Or: 25 . . . hxg5 26.�fl �a7 27.�g6+-
position, even though the silicon brain believes
26.�fl �xe3t 27.@h2 �xg5 28 . .ig6 �a7
otherwise.
29.�f5 ± �g4
Only 29 . . . �xf5 30 ..ixf5 axb5 leaves chances
23 .. J�e8?
for a draw.
In such a sharp and unbalanced position any
30.�hfl �ee7 3 l .b6 �ab7 32.� l f4 �d l
mistake may cost dearly. Without any reason,
33 ..ixf7 �xf7 34.�g6 �b3 3 5 .�xf7t �xf7
Black has forced the white queen to go to h7 -
36.�xf7t �xf7 37.�xf7t @xf7 38.b7
but it was heading there anyway.
The pawn sneaks to the prized 8th rank.
The correct move seems to be 23 . . . c4! ?, striving

25 ...�d8!
for activity and threatening the bishop on d3 .
Finally, the queen joins the defence. The
After 24 ..ic2 d5 (24 . . . hxg5 25. @g l ! and the
white king is stuck on fl and this is enough to
a l -rook will join the attack from fl ) 25 .�h7t
completely turn the tables.
@f8 26.gxh6 .ixb2 27.�b l .ie5 28 .�f5 �c3
29. h7 ih8 another crazy position would arise,
26J�h4
and again I would prefer Black. But of course
Other moves are hardly better.
this is just a sample line.
The computer's suggestion 26.�g6!? .ixg6

24.�h7t @f8
27.�xg6 fails to save White after 27 . . . �a7
28.@gl �f7 29 . .ic4 d5 30.�d l �e5
3 1 . bxa6 El:xg5 . Pawns are pawns, but an extra

rook is an extra rook.
26 ...Wxg5 27JU4 axb5
Now everything is clear - White is heading

downhill to lose the game.
28. �gl ga7 29.gaf1 gxe3 30 ..ig6 gee?

3 1 ..ih5 gac7 32.g4f3 Wh6 33.Wf5 �g8
34.g4 .ixh5 35.gxh5 ge5 36.Wg4 gg5
0-1
Chapter 9
Materialism
I was very happy when I saw these old photos in a Russian article.
64, the magazine, were happy to allow us to use them for this book.
I would like to thank Maxim Notkin for his help with this.
� 8
7
6
5
4
3
2 2
I missed something simple here What is Black's strongest

(see page 28 1 ) move? (see page 29 1 )
� 8 � 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
Basic tactics. Black wins. Basic King's Indian strategy. What is White's tactical
(see page 275) What is the natural move? resource? (see page 293/94)
(see page 283)
8 � 8 � 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
How can Black refute Simple chess. What is natural Black's best move? (which
the white attack? here? (see page 284) worked wonders!)
(see page 277) (see page 299)
Chapter 9 - Materialism 275
This is a bit of an odds and ends chapter, with 3o.Y;Yd4 .id? 3L.ids Y;Ygs 32.Lf7t gxf7
four games that I really wanted to include in 33.Y;Yc4 .ifS 34.d7 �c7 35J��xf5 gxf5 36.e6
this book, but which did not really fit into �xe6 37.Y;Yxe6 .if6 38 ..ie3 f4 39 ..ixf4 Y;YcSt
other chapters. In the first two games the 40.<it>g2 Y;Ye? 4I .Y;Yg4t �g7
bishops are a factor, but I did not really want 0-1
to put them in the chapter about bishops. The
last two games are a mess. One thing that all I want to win games. Whether this is achieved
four games have in common is that I managed by winning material or sacrificing is less
to win material in them. Hence the theme of relevant.
materialism.
The following game is a wonderful example
However, this topic is not j ust a poor man's of Black accepting material and defending by
excuse to include four nice games, but also astonishing tactics.
a chance to make an important point: the
dynamic approach to the King's Indian is about Loek van Wely - Teimour Radjabov
upsetting the balance of the game, which can Biel 2007
be done by taking material as well as giving it.
This game is a fine victory for Radjabov, but
Just before finishing this book, I played a I should point out that Van Wely is a great
tournament in Sweden where I was able to fighter and he tried very hard to beat his
come up with a little combination: opponent with ambitious and risky play.
Johan-Sebastian Christiansen - Ilya Smirin l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5.�f3
Stockholm 20 1 6 0-0 6 ..ie2 e5 7.0-0 �c6 8.d5 �e7 9.b4 �h5
IOJ��el f5 l l .�g5 �f6 12.f3 i>h8 13.�e6
8
.ixe6 14.dxe6 � h5 15.c5 �f4 16 ..ic4 fxe4
7
17J�xe4 �f5
3 5
2 4
1 3
b d f g h 2
1
a c e
26 .. J�xe3! 27.fxe3 .ixc4 28.exd4 .ixa2

29.dxe5 .ie6 a b c d e f g h
Black has won a piece. My opponent tried
to create a bit of counterplay, but it was not The position is roughly balanced after the
enough to compensate for the lack of material. opening, but Van Wely plays it as if he is
better. Only because Radjabov reacted with
8
great moves was he able show that this is not
7
the case.
1 8.g3!? � h3t 19.cj{g2 �g5 20.:Sg4!? 6
5
Provoking his opponent into winning
4
material.
3
20.e7 �xe7 2 1 . 4Jd5 �d8 22.�xg5 �xg5
2
23.4Jxc7 was the safe continuation, but Black
is also fine after: 23 . . . 4J e3t 24.gxe3 �xe3
1
2 5 . 4J xa8 e4 26.f4 gxa8 27.cxd6 gd8 , and
b d f g h
White's advantage is almost non-existent.
a c e
Both players had no doubt predicted this

position at move 20. I guess that Van Wely
had already then seen the very creative idea he
played in the game:
25.:Sf4!?
Fighting for control of the dark squares -
White tries to sacrifice another exchange.
25 ....ixf4
Radjabov accepts the challenge. 25 . . . gf5!?
was more defensive, but also playable.
26.gxf4?
But this is wrong. 26.�xf4 was the right
move, when the position is still in dynamic
balance. 26 . . . dxc5 (or 26 . . . gxf4 27.�a l t c;t>g8
28.gxf4 �f8 and White will give a perpetual
2 1 . cj{xf3! with the knight on f6 and h5, as in so many
2 l .�xf3 ? lt.J h4t 22.gxh4 gxf3 23.c;t>xf3 lines) 27.�a l t c;t>g8 28.bxc5
e4t! 24.4Jxe4 �xa l would only give White
two pieces for the queen. The e6-pawn is not
strong enough to make up for this difference.
2 1 . .. e4t 22.�xe4 hal 23.�g5 �e7t

24. cj{g2 �e5
a b c d e f g h
White is threatening ih6, so Black has no 28.'i'd4t

choice but to play 28 .. J�xf4 29.gxf4 'l!Mf8 and I do not know if Van Wely considered
the game ends in a perpetual after 30 . ltJ f6t 27 . . . h6, but if he had then he could have seen
�h8 3 1 .ltJh5t and so on. that 28.ixh6 ltJxf5 29.'l!Mal t c;t>g8 30.ig5 was
the critical line:
26... d5! 27.f5?!
Van Wely continues down the most
ambitious path, but it does not hold up, so
White should have played 27.'l!Ma l t �g8
28.ih6, although after: 28 . . . ltJ f5 29.ixf8
'l!Mxf8 30. ltJ f6t �h8 3 1 .ixd5 'l!Mg7
a b c d e f g h
Now 30 . . . ltJ e7 is the most obvious move.

The variation continues with: 3 1 .ib3 c6
(3 1 . . . dxe4 32.ih6 ltJ f5 33 .e7t) 32.ltJf6t :Bxf6
33 .'l!Mxf6 'l!Mf8 34.'l!Mxe7 'l!Mxe7 3 5 .ixe7 :Be8
36.id6 :Bxe6 37.�f2 and Black will have a
a b c d e f g h difficult defence in the endgame.
32.'l!Me5 c6 33 .ie4 ltJe7 The position is very But Radjabov had seen further and found
close to lost for White. 30 . . . ltJ e3t!!, which turns the position on its
head.
8
Mter 3 l .ixe3 dxc4 32 .ih6 'l!Me7, White
7 And after 3 1 . �g 1 "!M e8 the attack crashes to

does not have significant compensation.
6
earth quite quickly as well. For example: 32.e7
5
:Bf5 33.ixe3 dxc4 34. ttJ f6t :Bxf6 3 5 .'l!Mxf6 'l!Mf7
36.'l!Me5 :Be8 37.ig5 'l!Mf5 and Black wins.
3
28 ... h7 29.fxg6t xg6 30.Le7 'i'xe7
3 1 .'i'xd5
2
Or 3 1 .id3 is met by 3 1 . . . 'l!Mxe6!.
a b c d e f g h
27 ... h6!!
27 .. Jhf5 28 .'l!Md4t c;t>g8 29 .ih6 looks very
dangerous for Black, but surprisingly he is OK
after 29 ... 'l!Mf8 30.ixf8 :Baxf8, when he has two
rooks for the queen. The position is in balance.
a b c d e f g h
This looks very dangerous for Black until you My Games

start considering how White should continue
and see that there is nothing. 32.lDg3t @f7 Maxim Rodshtein Ilya Smirin
-
33.if5 WeB 34.'.Wxd5t @g7 3 5 .Wd4t �f6

Ashdod 2006
36.ltJe4 '.Wf7 and the attack is coming to an
end.
l .d4 tljf6 2.c4 g6 3.tlJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 s.tlJf3
0-0 6.i.e2 e5 7.0-0 ttJ a6 s.i.e3
3 1 .. J�ad8
8
The attack is over.
6
8
5
7
4
6
3
5
2
4
1
3
b d f g h
2
a c e
1
8 ... h6
b d f g h
An experimental move. The idea of this
a c e modest prophylactic move is to prepare . . . ltJg4
without White being able to reply with ig5 .
34.�g3t ®h7 35.�xg7t ®xg7 36.®g3 gd4
I played this move a few times with good
0-1
results, but now I think that this loss of time is
not fully j ustified.
The first main game of this chapter is from the
last round of an open tournament in the Israeli
9.tlJel!?
coastal city of Ashdod. My opponent was a
This original move was invented by Russian
future grandmaster and fellow member of the
grandmaster Denis Yevseev.
national team, Maxim Rodshtein. We both
needed a win to tie for first place.
9.dxe5 lDg4 is more natural and was played by
Boris Gelfand against me in the Blitz World
Championship. Here is this interesting game:
1 0.i.d2 dxe5 l l .'.Wc l @h?
Yz-Yz Gelfand - Smirin, Rishon Le Zion

2006.
Playing the "symmetrical prophylactic" move

9.h3 is not a very good idea - after 9 . . . exd4
1 o.lt:Jxd4 ( 1 o.ixd4!?) 1 o . . . El:e8 1 l .f3 (better
is 1 1 .if3 , but it does not bring an opening
advantage either after 1 I . .. lt:Jc5 1 2.�c2
lt:J h7!, with the idea 1 3 . . . lt:Jg5) 1 1 . . . lt:Jh5 the
drawbacks of 9 .h3 become obvious.
a b c d e f g h
1 2.E!:d 1 9 .. .lDg4!
In my opinion, better here is 1 2 . h3 lt:J f6 The correct reply, based on simple tactics.
1 3 .lt:Jxe5 and with a slight transposition After 9 . . . exd4?! 1 0.ixd4 c6 1 1 .lLl c2 (this
of moves a position has arisen from the and the next moves are possible as a result
game Wantola - Smirin, Ohrid 2009 , in of 9.lt:J e l ) 1 1 . .. El:e8 1 2. f3 lLl c7 1 3 .�d2 d5
which I had the worse position, despite 1 4.cxd5 cxd5 1 5 .e5 White has obtained an
winning in the end. Surprisingly, even in indisputable edge, mostly because of the bad
home analysis I did not find equality after position of the knight on c7; ( 1 -0, 34) Yevseev
1 3 .lLlxe5 . - Loginov, Kazan 2005 .
1 2 . . . �e8 1 3 . h3 lt:J f6 1 4.ie3 lt:Jh5 1 5 .c5 f5
1 6.ixa6 bxa6 1 7.lt:Jd5 �f7 1 8 .c6 ie6 1 9 .lLlc3 IO.Lg4 Lg4 1 1 .f3
g5 20 .lt:J d2 lLl f4 2 1 .ixf4 gxf4 Of course Black would welcome 1 1 .�xg4?!
exd4 .
3
a b c d e f g h 2
22.h2 if6 23.exf5 ixf5 24.lt:J de4 �g6
b d f g h
25 .El:d7t h8 26.f3 El:g8 27.�fl ixd7 28.cxd7
E!:ad8 29.El:d 1 ih4 30.lt:Ja4 ie7 3 1 .El:d2 �c6 a c e
32.�d 1 E!:g6 33.E!:d5 id6 34.lt:Jac5 E!:dg8 l l . ...ic8!

3 5 .g4 fxg3t 36.g2 E!:d8 37.b4 aS 38.b5 �b6 This is stronger than the natural 1 1 . . . id7
39.a4 ixc5 40.E!:xc5 El:g7 4 I .E!:d5 �e6 42.lt:Jc5 1 2.�d2 h7 1 3 .El:d 1 ; ( 1 -0, 25) Golod
�f5 43 .�d3 �xh3t 44.xh3 g2 45 .�e3 - Areshchenko, Port Erin 2007, and the
g 1 =� 46.�xg 1 E!:xg 1 47.lt:Je6 E!:dg8 48 .E!:d2 unfortunate position of the bishop on d7 is
E!:h 1 t 49.El:h2 E!:d1 already making itself felt.
12.�d2 h7 13J!d1 �e8 Starting a rather standard kingside attack,

In my opinion Black's position is perfectly which gains in strength here because White's
respectable and the bishop pair fully light-squared bishop has already gone.
compensates for the opponent's supremacy in
the centre. As Tarrasch used to say: "The future 17.�e2
belongs to he who has the bishops." In this Slightly more precise was 1 7.b5 ttJb8
particular game he proved to be right! 1 8 .tLld5 '!Mf7 with complicated play, but over
the board I would definitely choose Black.
14.llJc2
White could close the centre: 1 4.d5 fS 17...�g6 18.b5 llJb8
1 5 .tLl d3 f4 1 6 . .if2 gS 1 7.'!Me2, but it would
8
lead to a dangerous kingside attack after
7
1 7 . . . '!Mg6 1 8 .c5 g4 1 9.C4ih l .if6 20.b4 �g8 .
14 .. £5 6
5
.
8
4
7
3
6
2
5
4
b d f g h
3
a c e
2
An interesting picture. In the middlegame
1
all of Black's queenside pieces are on their
initial positions, yet there is hardly any way for
b d f g h
White to exploit this fact. White's pieces and
a c e
pawns look active, but somehow they lack the
15.b4?! energy to deliver a substantial blow. Black, in
My young opponent (Maxim was 1 7 when contrast, is not very active yet, but he will soon
this game was played) does not sense the start a quick action against the white king.
potential danger. The absence of White's light-squared bishop
is also telling - the pawn on c4 may easily
He should have opted to be more active on become a weakness. To put it simply, Black's
the kingside: 1 5 .exf5 gxfS 1 6.f4 e4 1 7.b4 undeveloped army is better coordinated than
(or 1 7.d5 lLlcS 1 8 ..id4 �g8 1 9 . .ixg7 �xg7) his counterpart's fully developed one.
1 7 . . . c6 and Black, with two bishops and
potential pressure along the g-file, is OK. But 19.dxe5
White has his own trumps (good minor pieces, Or 1 9.tLld5 �f7 20.dxe5 dxeS 2 I ..ic5 .ie6
some space advantage) , so in my opinion the (2 1 . . . tLld7!? is not bad either, after which the
chances are approximately even. following interesting continuation is possible:
22.tLlxc7 [better is 22 . .ib4] 22 . . . tLlxc5 23.tLlxa8
1 5 ... £4 16 ..ifl g5 g4 24.@hl b6 25.�d8 .ib7 26J�b8 g3
Chapter 9 - Materialism 28 1
8
27.h3 �d6! 28 .El:e8 � d3 and Black dominates
7
the board) 22.�cb4 g4, with promising
prospects.
6
5
19 ... dxe5 20 ..lc5 ges 2I .tiJd5 Y;Vf7
8 4
7 3
6 2
5 1
4 a b c d e f g h
3 Now it's my turn to attack some targets in
2
White's camp, and the pawn on c4 is already
1
doomed!
b d f g h
24.bxc6?
a c e
An oversight.
Max has made all the active moves and Black Houdini recommends parting with the
is still undeveloped, but what should White pawn immediately with 24.�f2 ixc4 25.El:fe l
do now? Rodshtein could not find the right o r 24 .�a3 'Ll d7 25 .id6 'Ll b6 26.bxc6 bxc6
answer, but it was not an easy task. 27.�f2 ixc4. This says a lot about the
problems White is facing.
22.a4?
Out of inertia, White makes another active 24... bxc6?
move. Alas, it proved to be his last active one Of course not the immediate 24 . . . ixc4?
in the game. 25.cxb7.
But neither of us noticed 24 . . . b6! 25.c7
Perhaps he should have played the defensive ixc4, with a quick win.
22.ctJa3 instead, protecting in advance the
weakest link in White's camp - the c-pawn. But 25.tiJa3 tiJd7 26 ..ld6 tiJb6
even then Black would be fine after 22 . . .ie6
8
23.El:d2 � d7 (or 23 . . . c6 24. � b4 � d7 25 .id6
7
� b6) 24.ib4 �b6.
22...c6 23.tiJc3 �e6 6
a b c d e f g h
27.c5? In the next game I managed to win the

In trying to save a pawn, my opponent loses exchange. The way I exploited it was to
even more material. continue to play energetically and use the extra
firepower to my advantage.
His prospects were already not bright, but
after the correct 27.�fe l 4Jxc4 28.4Jxc4 .ixc4 David Anton Guijarro - Ilya Smirin
29.'1Wf2 I would still have a lot of work to do to
Yerevan 20 1 4
convert the extra pawn.
This game was played i n the 9th round o f the

27 ... tLlc4
European Championship in Yerevan. We both
Now the loss of the exchange is inevitable.
were in the leading group and so the result of
the game was very important from a sporting
28.tLlc2 tLlxd6 29.cxd6 .tc4 30.%Yfl hfl
point of view.
3 1 .%Yxfl E:ab8 32.tLlel E:ed8 33.%Ya6
8
I .d4 tLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.tLlc3 .tg7 4.e4 d6 5.tLlge2
0-0 6.tLlg3
7
8
6
7
5
4 6
5
3
4
2
3
1
2
a b c d e f g h
b d f g h
33 %Yb3 34.%Yd3 .t£8
•.•
The d6-pawn will disappear very soon, so a c e

further resistance is pointless. White resigned.
Usually White chooses this variation to avoid
His active position fell apart with surprising
well-trodden paths. The evident drawback is
speed!
that the knight moves twice in a row as early
0-1
as the sixth move. But the KI D setup allows
White to do that without visible damage. Still,
I do not quite understand the idea behind
this knight manoeuvre, even though I have to
admit that statistically White does reasonably
well here.
6 tLlbd7
.• .
Black is flexible in his choice of continuation.

One of my games went a la the Benko Gambit:

6 . . . a6 7 .ie2 c5 8 .d5 b5 9.cxb5 axb5 1 0.ixb5
ia6
a b c d e f g h
This active and logical move makes Black

worry about his kingside, which was
weakened by the advance of the h-pawn.
a b c d e f g h
In the game Bologan quickly gained an
1 1 .0-0 ixb5 1 2 .ttJxb5 ttJe8 1 3 .�c2 ttJa6 overwhelming advantage:
1 4.ttJe2 tDec7 1 5 .ttJ bc3 �d7 1 6.b3 ttJ b4 8 . . . e5
1 7 .�b 1 f5 1 8 .a3 tDba6 1 9Jh2 �ab8 20.�b2 The other plan is 8 ... c5 9.d5 b5!? trying to
ttJb5 2 1 .�d3 ttJ ac7 22.�b 1 ttJxc3 23.tDxc3 obtain counterplay by acting in the spirit of
fxe4 24.ttJxe4 �f5 25.ttJc3 ixc3 26.�xc3 the Benko Gambit (well, we have already
ttJxd5 27.�c4 e6 28 .id2 tD c7 29 . b4 �a4 seen something like that) . But it does not
30.�d3 �d5 3 1 .�c3 ttJb5 32.�f6 �xd2 seem to equalize after: 1 O.cxb5 a6 1 1 .a4
33.�xe6t <±>g7 34.�e7t <±>g8 3 5 .�e6t <±>g7 �a5 ( l l . . . axb5 1 2.ixb5 ttJ b6!?) 1 2.id2
Y2-Y2 Serper - Smirin, Philadelphia 1 996. h4 1 3. ttJ fl axb5 1 4 .ttJ xb5 �b6 1 5 .�c2
ia6 1 6.ttJe3 ixb5 1 7.ixb5 �xb5 There
7 .ie2 h5
.
is hardly anything better. 1 8. axb5 �xa 1 t
A somewhat risky but logical move, stressing 1 9 . ttJ d 1 The compensation for the queen is
the disadvantage of the knight's position on clearly insufficient.
g3. 9.fxe5 dxe5 1 0.d5 h4 1 1 . ttJ fl ttJ h7 1 2.g4
s.!L}fl
I am not sure this is a 1 00 per cent healthy
idea - this knight makes too many moves in
the opening.
8 .ie3 e5 9.d5 a5 1 0. a3 ttJ c5 1 1 .h4 tDg4

1 2.ixg4 ixg4 1 3 .f3 id?, with excellent play
for Black, was the game Nabaty - Smirin,
Skopje 20 1 3.
The best continuation was played by Viorel a b c d e f g h
Bologan at the end of 20 1 5 : 8 . f4! 1 2 . . . c6?

There was no good alternative to: 1 2 . . . if6!
1 3 .ie3 ig5 1 4.�d2 (or 1 4.if2 ie7!? with
the idea . . . ic5) 1 4 . . . ixe3 1 5 .lDxe3 lDg5, 9.ig5

with an interesting position. White has an This was the move to play. After that Black
obvious space advantage, but Black controls may continue:
some important dark squares and, thanks to 9 . . . d5!?
that, he may count on counterplay. 9 ... ltJh7 1 0.ie3 e5 1 1 .d5 c5 would be a
1 3.h3 �e8 1 4 .ie3 g5 1 5 .lD d2 lD df8 1 6. lD f3 more standard approach.
if6 1 7.'!Mb3 lDg6 1 8 . 0-0-0 '!Ma5 1 9.c5 ltJ f4 1 O.cxd5 cxd5
20.ic4 '!Mc7 2 1 .d6 '!Md7 22.ixf4
1 -0 Bologan - Al Sayed, Qatar Masters
20 1 5 .
a b c d e f g h
1 1 .e5
1 1 .exd5 would of course be mer by 1 1 . . . ltJ b6.
1 1 . .. ltJ e4 1 2.lDxe4 dxe4 1 3 .lDd2 f6 1 4.exf6
exf6 1 5 .if4 f5 1 6.ltJc4 ltJb6 1 7.lDe5 �h7
All these moves are logical. Black has good
prospects - his pawn chain looks attractive and
his pieces are well placed.
8 . . . a6 9. lDd2 c6 1 0 .0-0 b5 1 1 .a3 had already

9 ... e5 10.d5 a5
My opponent probably underestimated this
happened in one of David's games: 1 1 . . . ib 7?!
move - now it became clear that White has
As is well known, this bishop usually belongs
j ust lost one or two tempos compared with the
on the c8-h3 diagonal in the KID . 1 2.�e 1 e5
usual lines (when the knight goes to d2 by the
1 3 .d5 cxd5 14.cxd5 �c8 1 5 . h3 ih6 1 6.ifl
route g 1 -f3-d2) .
�g7 1 7.lDb3 etc.; ( 1 -0, 66) Anton Guijarro
Naroditsky, Al Ain 20 1 3 .
1 1 .0-0 lDc5 12.b3
If 1 2 .'!Mc2 ih6 there would arise a
8 . . . e5?! 9.d5 lD c5 1 0.ig5 '!Me8 1 1 .lD d2 would
comfortable position for Black from the game
play into White's hands: he reaches a very
Petrosian - Geller, Moscow 1 949, with two
convenient piece setup after all.
"extra" moves, . . . c6 and . . . h5, which makes it
even more pleasant for Black.
9.liJd2?
But this is already too much. The knight
moves as if it is constantly searching for a
12 ....ih6 13 ..if.3 liJd3
Black rarely obtains such a great position out
better fate - in chess this rarely pays off.
of the opening in the KID.
8
14.%Yc2
7
1 4 . .ia3 would look clumsy, but perhaps
the idea of keeping the dark-squared bishop
6
deserved some attention. At least I thought
5
during the game that Anton Guijarro would
4
play it.
3
14 ... �xcl
2
It felt great to eliminate this bishop - a very
important piece in the KID.
b d f g h
15J�axcl cxd5 16.exd5
My opponent did not want to suffer a c e
after: 1 6.cxd5 .id7 1 7.a4 �c8 1 8 .�b l b5! White is left with j ust a pawn for the
Understandably he decided to sacrifice the exchange, but Black will still have to work
exchange instead. to convert his minimal material advantage.
White's problem is the passive bishop on e4. If
16 ...�f5 17.%Yb2 we were to imagine this bishop as being on e3,
8
for example, Black would have no advantage at
all, to say the least.
6
20 ...%Ye7
After "winning" the opening part of the
5
game, I relaxed a little - this habit has cost me
4
dearly during my career.
3 20 . . . �e8 2 l ..if3 �e5 22.h3 'We7+ would be
2
more accurate - Black will probably exchange
1
a pair of rooks, thereby increasing his
domination on the dark squares.
a b c d e f g h
21 .�f3 YNe5 22.%Yd2 �fe8 23.�b5
17 ... e4
8
During the game I hesitated over whether
7
to win the exchange or to proceed with
1 7 . . . ttJd7!?, which was also strong. But in the
6
end, greed took over.
4
18.�dxe4
Or 1 8 . .ie2 e3 1 9 . fxe3 .ixe3t 20.h l tDd7
3
2 l .�ce l tDc5 was hardly better - Black's
2
pressure is very strong.
18 ...he4 19.he4 .ixcl 20J�xcl
a b c d e f g h
White is trying to create counterplay by This move cramps White's kingside.

means of c4-c5 . The d6-pawn demands some
attention now. 30.tlJd4
30.�d4 E!:ce8 3 l .c5 would be no better -
23 .. J:�e7 24.h3 after 3 l . .. dxc5 32.bxc5 El:e l 33 .�d2 E!:xc l
24.c5 dxc5 25 .d6 El:d7 26.E!:e l �f5 would 34 .�xc l El:e5 35 .�c4 E!:f5! 36.c6 bxc6 37.dxc6
lead nowhere. ttJ b6 3 8.�c2 �al White's counterplay attempt
would fail.
24... tlJ d7 25.tDc7
A curious, yet at the same time logical, 30 ...�e4 3I.tlJb5 b6
El:e l t 27.cj;>h2 E!:a6 28.tLlc7 E!:b6 29.ttJa8

variation could arise after: 25 .�c3 �xc3 26.El:xc3 To avoid having to worry about a possible
c4-c5 .
32.tDc3
The following variation reflects the essence
of the position well:
32.�c2 E!:ce8
Black gives up the pawn on a4, but activates
his pieces and creates concrete threats.
33 .�xa4 E!:e l 34.�c2
8
a b c d e f g h 7
29 . . . E!:b4! 30.a3 E!:a l ! 3 1 .axb4 axb4 32.El:e3 6
E!:xa8 It's very unlikely that White can hold this 5

ending - the difference in the activity of the 4
pieces is too great. 3
2
25 .. J;cs 26.tlJb5 a4 27.b4 V9f6!?
The queen vacates e5 for the rook.
a b c d e f g h
28.�e2 �e5 29.�fl h4!
32 . . . �f4! 3 5 .E!:d l ttJ f6 36.a4
36.ttJd4 El:8e4 37. ttJ f3 E!:xc4 3 8.ttJxe l E!:xc2
39.tLlxc2 ttJ e4 40.f3 tLlg3 would lead to a
lost position. With such a weak king, White
has no chance of building a fortress, for
instance: 4 1 .a4 �e5 42.a5 bxa5 43.bxa5
� c3 44 .id3 � xa5 etc.
36 . . . ttJh5! 37.�d3 �g5 !
a b c d e f g h
8 8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
a b c d e f g h
b d f g h
The decisive regrouping.
38.lDxd6 lD f4 39.'\Wf3 �xd l 40.lDxe8 �e l a c e
White may as well resign. 36.'=Yc3 V:Yxflt 37.i>hl ges

Or 37 . . . �b8 3 8.c5 lD d3 39.lDc4 (39.�b l
32 .. J�d4 33.'=Yb2 tlJe5! lD e l ) 39 . . . lD xc l 40.ltJxd2 lDxa2 would win
faster according to the silicon brain.
8
7
38.c5 gxa2
6
The simplest.
5
39.gel ga3
4
Instead 39 . . . <j;>h7 40.cxd6 lD f3 would bring
down the curtain at once, but there was time
3
pressure . . .
2 40.'=Yxa3
40.'I!Mc l was slightly more resilient, but after
b d f g h
40 . . . <j;>g7 4 1 .�e2 �c3! 42.'1!Me l 'I!Md4 White is
A similar scheme: Black sacrifices a pawn or

a c e
still doomed.
two but penetrates into the opponent's camp 40 ... V:Yxel 4I .i>gl '=Yd2!
and attacks the king.
8
7
34.tlJxa4 '=Yf4
6
Now we can see that the pawn on h4 plays
an important part in the attack, preventing
5
35 .g3.
35.tlJxb6 4
3
There is nothing better left.
35 .. J�d2 2
The beginning of the end.
a b c d e f g h
This precise move puts the opponent in a The following game is really chaotic. I
kind of zugzwang. managed to fend off the attack and stack up
extra material. But like many good thrillers,
42.'lMa4 there is a great twist at the end.
What else?
Evgeny Postny - Ilya Smirin
42 ...'lMe3t 43.hl llJ f3! 44.'lMxe8t
Acre 20 13
Or 44.gxf3 Wxf3t 4 5 .mgl Wg3t 46.mh l
El:el 47.Wb5 Wxh3t 48.mgl Wg3t 49.mh l
l .d4 d6 2.llJf3 llJf6 3.c4 g6 4.llJc3 .ig7 5.e4
h3, with inevitable checkmate.
0-0 6..le2 e5 7..le3
8
44...YMxe8 45.gxf3 'lMel
8 7
7 6
6 5
5 4
4 3
3 2
2 1
1 a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h A very popular continuation. White delays

castling and tries to arrange his pieces first.
White resigned. To the credit of David
Anton Guijarro, after this tough loss he won
7... llJg4
his final two games and took second place in
Starting immediate action against the bishop
the tournament.
on e3.
0-1
The main point of 7.ie3 can be seen in the
variation 7 . . . ttJc6?! 8.d5 ctJ e7 9.ctJd2 and
White has obtained an ideal setup - after an
eventual c4-c5 the d2-knight will reach the
very desirable c4-square at once.
I played 7 . . . ttJbd7 against Gelfand in a game

you will find elsewhere in the book (page 26 1 ) .
7 . . . c6, 7 . . . We7 o r 7 . . . h6 (with the idea 8.dxe5

ctJ g4) are other continuations here. The last two
moves have a dubious reputation nowadays.
8 ..ig5 f6 9 ..ih4 g5 In my opinion it's the right decision to open

The other popular and logical continuation up the centre and to start piece play.
is 9 . . . 4J c6 1 0.d5 4J e7 1 1 .4J d2 4J h6, managing
1 1 . . . 4J c6 1 2.d5 4J d4?!
without the double-edged . . . g6-g5 . I usually
This was played by Kasparov once:
prefer the move I made in the game.
.
1 3 .4Jxd4 exd4 1 4.�xd4 f5 1 5 .�d2 f4 1 6.ih2
4Jf7 1 7.h4 h6 1 8.hxg5 hxg5 1 9.g3 ?
IO .ig3 !iJh6
However, after the correct 1 9 .f3 4Je5
8
20.0-0-0 White would be better, as future
.� • .a. ��--
- %
practice has shown.
7 ., -.,--- - -----Y-B t'""
- - - %�
- %�F� ��?i -- -" r--
6 -
5
� r�. % r�
• --- %•.�•.
� � �r --
4
� �8"R
� !% "•
3 � � Btb�
d!i\i:J'· · �me?{� -�%-�
� �
21
� 8,1��
'§ � · �
Black's setup (c7-d6-e5-f6-g7-h6) looks 1 9 . . .f3! 20.ixf3 4J e5 2 l .ie2 g4

slightly curious, and reminds one of checkers. Very nice: now both white bishops, especially
But it has a clear idea: to restrict the activity of the dark-squared one, are inactive, to put it
the bishop on g3 and to strengthen the pawn mildly. That more than compensates for two
on e5. Black's pawn formation on the kingside sacrificed pawns.
is not fixed and may become quite mobile, as 22.ig l c5
actually happens in the game. Black went on to win in great style . . .
2 2 . . . c 5 23.dxc6 bxc6 24.0-0-0 ie6 25 .�xd6
l l .h3 �g5 t 26.�b l �g6 27.�a l �ab8 28.�h5
White wants to keep his knight on f3 - �xh5 29.�xe6t �h8 30.�e7 4J f3 3 l .ixf3
hence this prophylactic move against . . . g5-g4. �xf3 32.4Ja4 �e8 33 .�xa7 �e5 34.�b6
�xe4 3 5 .�b4 �c2 36.�b l �d3 37.�c5 �e2
On a few occasions I have faced the two other 3 8 .�h 5 t �g8 39.�xg4
main continuations - l l .d5 and l l .dxe5 -
which both lead to different types of positions.
Here is one example: l l . .. dxe5 1 2 .�xd8 �xd8

1 3 .4Jd5 4J a6 1 4 . 4J e7t �f7 1 5 .4Jxc8 �axeS
1 6.�c l 4J c5 1 7.4Jd2 aS 1 8 .f3 ifs 1 9.if2 �d7
20.h4 g4 and Black was fine; (Y2-Y2, 58) Roiz
- Smirin, Tel Aviv 2002.
l l . .. exd4
a b c d e f g h
39 . . .'�Mxb 1 t ltJd4 22.ig5 �e8 23Jhe 1 �g6 24.<;t>h 1 E:ae8

0- 1 Speelman - Kasparov, Madrid (rapid) 0- 1 Gershon - Smirin, Israeli Team
1 98 8 . Championship 2007.
12.lLlxd4 tLlc6 13 ... tlJxd4 14.'l;Vxd4 f5

This leads to a very dynamic position in
8
which concrete variations will prevail over
7
positional considerations.
6 IS.'i;VdSt h8 16.hxg5 'i;Vxg5
5
8
4
7
3
6
2
5
4
b d f g h
3
a c e
2
13.h4
The most principled approach - White
wants to make use of the opponent's weakened
b d f g h
king shelter.
a c e
Once I won a near miniature after: 17J�h5?!

1 3.0-0 ltJxd4 1 4 .'t!Mxd4 f5 1 5 .�d5t <;t>h8 Not the best decision - the rook is kind of
1 6.f4 id7!? 1 7.�d2 fxe4 hanging in the air now.
I would suggest 1 7 .c5 id7 1 8 .cxd6 ic6

1 9.�a5 cxd6, with a tense and interesting
struggle. Optically I like Black's chances here
because White's king is still stuck in the centre.
17 ...'l;Vg6 1 8.'i;Vd2
Now queenside castling is possible, but
White has no time for it: 1 8 .0-0-0 fxe4
1 9.ltJxe4 (somewhat better is 1 9.E:dh 1 e3!
20.ltJd 1 , but that too does not solve all White's
a b c d e f g h
problems) 1 9 . . . ie6 20.�d3 ifS+
1 8 .ltJxe4?
Correct was 1 8 .fxg5 ltJ f5 1 9.if4, with a 1 8 ... fxe4 19.tLld5
sharp and unclear situation. Now there Evgeny tries to complicate matters, but
comes severe punishment. objectively his situation is already suspect:
1 8 . . . ttJ f5 1 9 .ih2 gxf4 20 .ixf4 ic6 2 1 .if3 he is a pawn down and the black pieces
Chapter 9 - Materialism 29 1
may parry the threats against the king while Nevertheless, it seems to leave White facing
simultaneously counterattacking. But those defeat - Black prevails in all variations. Such
are j ust words, which need to be backed up by as:
strong play. 24.1Wc2 :gf7!
1 9.0-0-0? was just losing due to 1 9 . . . e3!
20.'1Wxe3 :ge8 2 1 .'1Wd3 :gxe2 22.'1Wxe2 ig4 (the
rook on h5!).
19 ... lLJf5 20.0-0-0 c6

The exchange 20 . . . ttJxg3 2 l . fxg3 seems to be
premature - the f5-knight looks strong at the
moment.
2 I .lLJf4
Houdini briefly suggests 2 1 .ttJc7. Come on!
a b c d e f g h
2 1 . ..%¥£6 2 5 .:gxg7t
A battery against the king on c 1 has been Or 2 5 . ttJ h5 '1Wxb2t 26.'1Wxb2 ixb2t
built. White's chances lie only in the attempt 27.<kt>xb2 i>xh7-+ .
to create something serious against my own Or 25 .:g7h5 ttJd4 26.'1Wh7t i>f8 27.fxe3
king. tLlxe2t 28.tLlxe2 '1Wxb2t 29.i>d 1 '1Wa 1 t
30. i>d2 '1Wxa2t.
22J�dhl 25 ... '1Wxg7 26.ttJh5 ttJd4 27.tLlxg7 tLlxc2
28.tLle8 exf2 29.ttJxd6 ttJd4
6
5
b d f g h 30.id3 f1 ='�Wt 3 l .:gxfl :gxfl t 32.ixfl ttJ f5

a b c d e f g h
a c e
etc.
22 ... h6?!
Too cautious a move for such a sharp
23.�h4?
situation. However, it would probably be
Now Evgeny in his turn did not guess
made by the vast majority of players. It would
correctly. He should have moved the bishop
require deep penetration into the position, and
more modestly: 23.ih2! When Black has a
a lot of guts, to play the computer's suggestion:
choice:
22 . . . e3! 23 .:gxh7t <kt>g8
After the prophylactic and wrong 23 . . . @g8? Of course, I have shown these variations for
24.g4 ltJd4 2 5 .El:g l ! White's attack suddenly the sake of seeking the truth. It would be
becomes too strong: 25 . . . ltJ e6 (or 25 . . . El:f7 totally unrealistic to see them during the game.
26.g5 hxg5 27.El:hxg5) 26.ltJxe6 ixe6 27.g5
hxg5 28.El:hxg5 El:f7 29.ih5 El:d7 30.El:g6+- 23 ...Wff7 24.�g5 �g8
8
23 . . . e3! ? 24.fxe3 ltJxe3 deserves attention, but
7
after:
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
White cannot break the shield around the
2 5 .ig l ! ltJg4 26.g3 @g8 27.El:5h4 �g5
black king with pieces only, and on the very
28.id4! White would hold initiative.
next move the g-pawn joins the attack - but it
23 . . . ltJ d4 24.id l @g8 25.g4 ltJ f3 is already too late.
25 . . . �f7 26.@b l �xc4 27.El:g l , with a mess.
26.ixf3 exf3 27 .El:g 1 25.g4 hxg5 26J!xg5 e3?
Too optimistic.
Correct was the calm 26 . . . ltJd4 27.ltJh5 ltJ e6

28.El:f5 �e7 29.lbxg7 lbxg7 30.El:xf8t �xf8
3 1 .�h6 ie6 32.g5 (32.�h7t @f7 33 .El:h6
�e7 34.�g6t @f8) 32 ... �f4t winning.
5
a b c d e f g h
4
White seems to have full compensation for
the pawns. Still, I believe Black may hold his
3
own here:
2
27 . . . �d4 28 .g5 �xc4t 29.@b l if5t 30.@a l
ie5 3 1 .gxh6t @h7 32.ltJh3! ixh2 33.lDg5t
@h8 34.El:xh2 �d5 1
b d f g h
And so on.
a c e
8
27.'iNc3?
7
White returns the favour.
6
Correct was the simple 27 .fxe3 when there is
5
a split:
27 .. Y!le7 28.!hg7t fixg7 (28 . 4Jxg7? 4
3
. .
29.4Jg6) 29.gxf5 I would prefer to be White
2
here.
1
27 . . . 4J g3 28 .�d3 4Jxh l 29.fih2 �d8 30.'Wih4!
b d f g h
Neither of us saw this. 30 . . 4J f2 3 l .�xg7t
.
fixg7 32.fixd8t fif8 33 .fig5t With a a c e
perpetual. 37.¥Nh2 :ghs 38.tl)xc6 .if5t 39.\t>h3 bxc6

4o.YNxn ghst
27...¥Ne7! Perhaps 40 . . . c5 was the simplest solution.
From now until the 4 1 st move, I suddenly
started to play flawlessly. 41 .\t>a4 \t>g6?
In an attempt to coordinate Black's forces,
28J;hh5 exfl 29.gxf5 :gx5 I underestimated the potential of the two
8
remaining white pieces. Also I have to give
credit to Postny for not losing his fighting
7
spirit, but setting and exploiting the trap
6
instead.
5 4 1 . . �d8 42.fih2 �f8 43 .fih8t <;t>f7 was one

.
4
of the winning options. Black's pieces will soon
develop a deadly attack against the opponent's
3 king.
2
8
1
7
b d f g h
6
a c e
5
30.:ghst \t>xhs 3I .tl)g6t \t>h7 32.'iNh3t
4
�h6 33.tl)xe7 :gxg5 34.%Vd3t \t>g7 35.\t>c2
�e6 36.%Vxd6 \t>£6!
3
The end of a forced line. Now White has to
2
give up the knight to neutralize the f-pawn,
and Black gets an awful lot for the queen.
a b c d e f g h
42 ..ih5t!! In the final game of this chapter, I again manage

An excellent trick I have to admit. to get the advantage of the two bishops, and
get a lot out of the light-squared bishop.
42.. J�xh5 White tries to gain counterplay through pure
42 . .. �xh5 43 .Wh2t �g6 44 .Wxb8 or aggression. In the chaos that ensued, I gained
42 . . . �h7 43 .Wxa7t ig7 44.Wxb8 !hh5 a material advantage and eventually managed
would be no better. to win the game after a few twists and
turns.
43.1Mg3t h? 44.1Mxb8
If Black were able to keep both remaining Ronen Lev Ilya Smirin
-
pawns he would still have winning chances,

Ramat Can 1 992
but that's impossible.
I .d4 tljf6 2.c4 g6 3.tlJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 s.tlJf3

44....ig7 45.1Mxa7 �h2 46.1Mc5 .ig6
0-0 6..ie2 e5 7.d5 tlJ a6
47.1Mxc6 �xb2
One possible way to react to the Petrosian
8
System.
7
More popular moves here are 7 . . . a5 or 7 . . . ltJ bd7
6
in connection with 8 .ig5 h6 9.ih4 g5 l O.ig3
5
ltJ h 5 . Now a possible continuation is: l l .h4
ltJxg3 1 2. fxg3 gxh4? (much better is 12 . . . g4)
4
1 3 .ltJxh4 Wg5 1 4.ig4! ltJ f6 1 5 .ixc8 Wxg3t
3
1 6.�fl �fxc8 1 7.ltJf5 Wf4t 1 8 .Wf3 Wxf3t
1 9.gxf3 With an overwhelming advantage; the
2
knight on f5 j ust paralyses Black.
8 ..ig5
b d f g h
The more principled continuation seems to
a c e
be 8.ltJd2!?, stressing the drawbacks of Black's
48.1Mhl t .ih6 49.c5 �xa2t 50.b5 �b2t 7th move ( . . . a7-a5 is impossible now, and
5 I .a5 �bl 52.1Mh3 �al t intending to answer 8 . . . ltJc5? with 9.b4) .
A draw was agreed. I remember my
disappointment after the game, but c'est la
vie. Evgeny, for his part, fully deserved to get
lf2-lf2
something out of it.
a b c d e f g h
(a) After the logical 8 . . . ih6 White has a strong

8
and ambitious measure at his disposal: 9 . h4!
7
'Llc5 1 O.h5 ixd2t 1 1 .Wxd2 'Ll fxe4 1 2.'Llxe4
ltJxe4 And now after both 1 3 .We3 or 1 3 .Wh6
we would probably not find many volunteers 6
5
to play as Black here. Indeed, to be under
4
attack with weak dark squares around the king,
and without counterplay, is too high a price for
3
a mere pawn.
(b) 8 . . . 'Lle8 9J�b 1 2
1
Also now 9 . h4!? is an attractive option: 9 . . .f5
b d f g h
1 O.h5 with a confrontation on the kingside.
After 1 0 . . . 'Ll f6 1 1 .hxg6 hxg6 1 2.exf5 gxf5 a c e
1 3 . 'Ll f3 I would probably prefer White's Black reacts by analogy with the variation
chances in this complex position. The rook 7 . . . 'Ll bd7 8.ig5 .
on h 1 has become very active without
making a single move. l l .tiJd2
9 .. .f5 1 O.b4 If 1 1 .h4 Black may reply 1 1 . . . 'Llxg3 1 2. fxg3
1 o . . 'Ll f6 1 1 .0-0 c5 1 2.a3

This happened in one of my games: gxh4!? 1 3 .'Llxh4 Wg5 . Now we can see the
.
difference between the knight positioning on
1 2 .dxc6!?, to make the game more open by a6 instead of d7: 1 4.ig4? is impossible and
means of 1 2 . . . bxc6 1 3 .b5, deserves attention. Black stands well according to practice.
1 2 . . . b6
l l . .. tlJf4 12.0-0 f5 13.exf5 tlJxe2t
It's important to exchange the strong bishop
and leave White with the passive one.
14.Wfxe2 .ixf5 1 5.tlJde4
a b c d e f g h
Black is OK: his position is solid on the

queenside and active on the opposite wing.
1 3 .id3 f4 1 4 .ie2 g5 1 5 .g4!? h5 1 6.h3 E!f7
1 7.f3 'Ll b8 1 8 .bxc5 bxc5 1 9 .Wa4 id7 20.Wc2
ic8 2 1 .Wa4 id7 22 .Wc2 ic8
Yz-Yz Illescas Cordoba - Smirin, Oviedo
(rapid) 1 993.
White's knight has occupied the excellent

8 ... h6 9 ..ih4 g5 10 ..ig3 tlJh5
outpost on e4. So does he have a positional
advantage? I do not think so. White's bishop

is badly placed on g3, and to free it White will
have to play f2-f3 and/or h2-h3. We will soon
find out where this may lead.
1 5 Wfe8 16JUel
...
In the following game of mine we can see the

ideas for both sides:
1 6.f3 Wg6 1 7.h3 h5 1 8 . ltJ f2?! lD c5 1 9.gad l
1 9 .b4? ltJ d3
1 9 . . . a5 a b c d e f g h
Now it's obvious that Black has an awesome 0- 1 lvanov - Smirin, Los Angeles 2000.
position: all his pieces are well placed and White resigned due to 33 .ixd6 e3 34.ltJ f3
. . . g5-g4 is in the air. ic3t 35.Wdl e2t .
20.ih2 g4!
As usual, White lacks one tempo - if he In my opinion better is:
could play g2-g4 now and reoccupy e4 with 1 8 .a3
the f2-knight he would be fine. " If" is the Preparing b2-b4. In this case Black may
key word here. continue:
2 l .fxg4 hxg4 22.hxg4 id? 23.ltJce4 lDxe4 1 8 . . . ltJ b8! ?
24.Wxe4 Wxe4 25 .ltJ xe4 ixg4 26.gxf8 t gxf8 Premature is: 18 . . . g4?! 1 9. fxg4 hxg4 20.h4
27.gfl ?
After 27.ge l White could count on drawing
this worse endgame.
Now, without rooks, nothing can prevent
the black bishops from showing their full
strength.
a b c d e f g h
This is a very desirable setup for White: his

knight is still on e4, and thanks to the pawn
on h4 it may go to g5 in some cases. Black
has nothing better than to exchange it, but
it damages his pawn structure: 20 . . . ltJ c5
a b c d e f g h
2 1 .ltJxc5 dxc5 22.gad l a6 (22 . . . e4? 23.ltJ b5)
27 . . . gxfl t 28.Wxfl ifS 23.gfe l And White will restore the knight's
That's it: the knight has to retreat. presence on e4. The attempt 23 . . . e4?! is not
29.ltJd2 id3t 30.Wel e4 3 l .c5 ixb2 32.cxd6 good due to 24.We3! id4 2 5 . gxd4 cxd4
cxd6 26.Wxd4, with overwhelming compensation
for the exchange.
1 9 .c5 ttJd7 Perhaps Lev should have preferred more static

This knight is heading toward f6. play, for instance: 1 9.a3 ie7 20.b4 h5 2 1 .<it>h l
20.cxd6 cxd6 2 l .�b5!? (2 l .b5 ttJ b8 22.c5 h4 23.ih2 g4 24. hxg4
2 l .if2 ttJ f6 22Jhc l (or 22.ttJ xf6t �xf6 ixg4 looks good for Black) 2 l . . . �af8 (or
23.ttJe4 �f7 and Black has nothing to worry 2l . . . h4 22.ih2 g4 23.hxg4 ixg4 24.�e3!?)
about) 22 . . . ttJxe4 23.fxe4 (23.ttJxe4?! g4 22.�e3!?
is dangerous for White) 23 . . . id7 and I
would even prefer Black here - he has more
dynamic possibilities.
2 l . . . g4 22.fxg4 hxg4 23.h4 ttJ f6
With a double-edged position.
16 VHg6 17.YHd2
•••
Stopping . . . h6-h5 for a while.
17 JU7
••
With the idea of bringing the bishop to e7

a b c d e f g h
via f8, and carrying out the desirable advance
of the h-pawn. And despite the menacing look of Black's
army on the kingside, White has his trumps.
1 8.h3 .lf8 His position on the kingside is solid enough,
and the black knight is still inactive.
8
Meanwhile White is going to start activity
7
on the queenside, connected first of all with
the usual c4-c5 . In other words, this is a
6
complex position of approximate dynamic
5
balance.
4 19 ... dxc5
3
I wanted to keep the knight - it seemed to
2
me that its potential j ump to b4 or c5 (after
. . . c5-c4) might be annoying for White.
b d f g h
19 . . . ttJxc5 20.ttJxc5 dxc5 2 l .ixe5 c4 was a
a c e good alternative. White's pieces are centralized,
but the black forces are quite active and his
19.c5
king feels relatively safe despite the bishop on
This may not be bad, but it is a strategically
e5 owning the key diagonal.
risky decision - now the position becomes
much more open and the pair of black bishops
will appreciate that.
20.he5 ges 21 .lLlg3 .ld3
Black could continue 2 l . . . ttJb4 22.ttJ xf5
1 9.f3 ie7 20.if2 h5 2 l .g4?! This is dubious
�xf5 23 .ig3 �d8 with a balanced position.
here due to the vulnerability of the pawn on f3
But I saw no reason to part with my beloved
(the drawback of 1 7.�d2) . 2 l . . . hxg4 22.hxg4
pair of bishops.
ixe4 23.fxe4 (a must) 23 . . . �af8 etc.
23.f4?
Tantamount to hara-kiri; this move ruins
White's position.
The only way to proceed was 23.�e3! �xe5

(here 23 . . . c4? is bad: 24.�ae 1 lDc5 25 .ixc7!)
24.Wfxd3 Wfxd3 25.�xd3 c4 26.�d4, with
more or less equal chances in the endgame.
23 ... c4 24.�ce4 �f7

Probably Ronen underestimated this move.
b d f g h
Now White's minor pieces are hanging in the
a c e air, despite seemingly being the active ones.
22.a3!
A timely prophylactic move. 25.�hl
25.fxg5 would not save White either:
The possible complications after 22.�ad 1 ?! 25 . . . Wfb6t! 26.�h2 (26.4Jf2 �xe5 27.�xe5
lDb4 23 . .ixc7! ? �xe 1 t 24.�xe 1 �xc7 25 .a3 �xf2 28.Wfxf2 ic5 29.�e8t �h7) 26 . . . �xe5
�d7 26.axb4 cxb4 27. lD a2 (what else?) 27 . . . a5 27.4J f6t �xf6 28.gxf6 (28 .�xe5 �f2)
28.�e6 Wff7 would be clearly in Black's favour 28 . . . Wfxf6, with a decisive gain of material.
- the knight on a2 is misplaced to say the least
(note 29.Wixd3? is bad after 29 . . .Wfxe6) . 25 ... gxf4
White has to give up some material.
22 .. J3fe7
After 22 . . . c4 23.id4! �xe 1 t 24.�xe 1 lDc5
25 .�e8 White's active pieces cause Black
trouble, for instance: 25 . . . 4J b3 26.Wie3 lDxd4
27.Wfxd4 b6 28 .�e6 Wig? 29.Wig4, with the
initiative.
a b c d e f g h
28 ... fxg3?!
Sloppiness. Instead 28 . . . Wfxg3 29 .ie5 .id6
b d f g h
would win effortlessly.
a c e
Lev failed to spot my mistake. 32.'l;Ycl??

This incredibly passive move does not
He should have played: 29 . .ie7! promise any chances for survival and even
loses on the spot.
Meanwhile the natural 32.We3 Wb l t 33.Wg l

Wxg l t 34.<it>xg l .id3 3 5 . El:xc7 b6 36.El:xa7
would lead to a probably drawn endgame - a
rook plus a pawn may match the opponent's
bishop and knight.
32 tlJd3 33.'l;Yal tlJ £2t 34.®gl

•••
a b c d e f g h
29 . . . .ixe7 (after 29 . . . .ig7 then 30.'1W f4 is
Wf6 3 1 .We l Wfl t 32.Wxfl .ixfl And in

strong - White has counterplay) 30J�xe7
this ending White has some drawing chances

thanks to the active rook.
29 tlJc5?
..•
A second consecutive error, and a much

more serious one.
After the correct 29 . . . .id6 30 . .ie5 , and only a b c d e f g h

now 30 . . . tt:Jc5 3 1 ..ixd6 cxd6, Black would
0-1
34 tlJxh3t 35.gxh3 'l;Yb6t
•••
obtain an easily winning position.
30 ..ie7 .ixe7 3 1 .�xe7 .ie2!

The only move, by the way.
a b c d e f g h
Chapter 1 0
Endgames
I had many games against the great Vassily Ivanchuk,

although in this book they only made it into the notes
8 ... 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
Accuracy is important in the What had White missed?

endgame (see page 307) (see page 325)
... 8 ... 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
Endgame magic! Black to play I missed not one but two wins
(see page 303) (see page 3 1 9/20) here! (see page 326/27)
... 8 ... 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
Black has a nice tactic How can Black prevent the But later I was lucky thatBrunello
(see page 305) counterplay (see page 32 1 ) missed the best move on move 40
(see page 328)
Chapter 1 0 - Endgames 303
The King's Indian is a combative opening in

which the middlegame can go on and on and
on. Frequently, when an ending is reached, it is
so non-standard that it still has many dynamic
traits similar to the middlegame, as you will
see from the four games I have chosen from
my own collection.
But first, here is a great modern example of a
dynamic KID endgame.
Fabiano Caruana - Hikaru Nakamura a b c d e f g h
Wijk aan Zee 20 13 Winning directly, as 57.� h 1 �d4 wins a

piece and 57.g3 loses to 57 . . . �f8 5 8 .ih l
8
�f2t 59.�c3 �e2 60.ltJxc5 bxc5 6 1 .�d2
7
�xd2 62.�xd2 �f6 63 .�e3 �g5, followed by
. . . ic2 and it's all over.
5
57.®d3
57.�c3 would also have lost, but slowly. For
4
example after: 57 . . . ixe4 (57 . . . hxg2 5 8 .ixg2
3
ib4t 5 9.�d3 �f2 60.ih l �b2 also wins)
5 8 .ixe4 h2 59.g3 �f2 60.g5 �e2 6 1 .ih l
2 �e3t 62.�c2 id6 and White is too passive to
1
hold in the long term.
a b c d e f g h 57 ... h2 58J�hl .igl
8
This is the type of endgame any King's
7
Indian player would be aiming for. White is
passive, desperately holding on, while Black
6
enjoys lots of dangerous ideas with his strong
5
bishop pair. In the game Nakamura found a
wonderful dynamic solution.
3
54... g4!!
Undermining the white defence on the light
2
squares.
55.hxg4 h3! 56J�dl 1

56.gxh3 �f8 57.�d3 �f4! and White loses a b c d e f g h
a piece.
59.®e2 .ixe4 60.�xe4 ®f6 6I ..if3 gds
56.. J�f8?! 0-1
The best move was: 56 . . . h2!
My Games 8.d5 h6 9 ..ie3 �c5 lO.'iMc2 c6

The variation 1 0 . . . tiJg4 1 1 .ixg4 ixg4 1 2. f3
Yuri Yakovich - Ilya Smirin id7 1 3 .h5 g5 1 4.g4 shows one of the main
ideas of 7.h4 - to nip in the bud Black's play
Saint-Vincent 2000
on the kingside, and leave him with a half
dead bishop on g7.
This game was played in the last round of the
very first European Individual Championship
l l .h5
in the Italian resort of Saint-Vincent. Today
such championships have become part of the
annual chess calendar. My opponent in this
game was an experienced Russian grandmaster.
Nowadays Yuri is well known as a chess coach
as well.
l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5 ..ie2

0-0 6 ..ig5 � a6
a b c d e f g h
l l . .. cxd5
1 1 . . . g5 was the choice of Garry Kasparov,
and he managed to draw with creative play:
1 2.f3 a5 1 3 .g4 id7 1 4 .f:iJh3 a4 1 5 .�d2 cxd5
1 6.cxd5 �a5 1 7. f:iJ b 1
a b c d e f g h
A relatively modern way to fight against the

Averbakh System. It was first employed by lgor
Glek in 1 98 8 .
7.h4
This aggressive move became popular in the
1 990s. Its main proponent was Evgeny Bareev.
a b c d e f g h
7 ... e5 1 7 . . . f:iJ fxe4!? 1 8 .fxe4 CiJxe4 1 9 .�xa5 El:xa5
7 . . . c5 8.d5 f:iJ c7 is another way to continue,
20.tiJc3 tiJg3 2 1 .El:g1 CiJxe2 22.<j;Jxe2 e4
but I preferred a more typically King's Indian
23.El:ac l f5 24.gxf5 El:xf5 25.tiJf2 ie8 26.El: h 1
move.
ib5t 27.tiJxb5 El:xb5 28 .El:c8t <j;J h 7 29.El:d1
El:xb2t 30.El:d2 a3; (V2-V2, 48) Bareev -
Kasparov, Linares 1 992. Despite that game, his 1 5 J�ac8!

..
move is not to my taste - I usually do not like I prepared this move at home.
to allow White to seal the queenside in such
a way. 1 5 . . . lD h5 ?! is too early:
12.cxd5 VMaS 13.i.d2 i.d7 I4.hxg6 fxg6

15.8
After this move the central pawn on e4 is
secured, but in the future the weakening of the
black squares might tell. Besides, the knight on
f6 now gets access to hS, from where it aims to
go to g3 or f4. I would prefer:
1 5 J�b 1 Wb6 1 6.ie3 ( 1 6.b4? allows a big

punch:
a b c d e f g h
8 1 6.b4! Wxb4 1 7.4Jb5 Wa4 1 8 .Wxa4 lDxa4

7
1 9 .4Jxd6 was played in Yakovich - S. Bekker
Jensen, Gothenburg 2000, which Yuri Yakovich
6
won convincingly. Indeed, exchanging the
5
b2-pawn for the pawn on d6 is clearly in
4 White's favour.
3
2
16J�bl
Mter 1 6.b4? Wxb4 I was intending to
sacrifice my queen:
b d f g h
a c e
1 7.4Jb5
1 6 . . . 4J cxe4 1 7.lDxe4 E!:ac8! 1 8 .4Jc3 4Jg4-+ The
pawn on f2 is defenceless and with it the white
king.) 1 6 . . . a5 1 7. 4J h3 With complicated play
in Hauchard - Hebden, Cappelle la Grande
1 998.
5 b d f g h
4
a c e
1 7 . . . Wxb5 ! 1 8 .ixb5 ixbS
3
It's clear from the very first glance that
2
Black has overwhelming compensation
and is about to win. Still, I would like to
demonstrate one pretty line:
a b c d e f g h
1 9.�b l ltJ d3t 20.c;t>e2 ia6 2 1 .c;t>e3 More than enough for one small pawn!
2 l .ixh6 ixh6 22.!hh6 c;t>g? 23 .!�h4 El:c 1-+
19 ... tiJh5�!
Better options were 19 ... El:h8 20.El:xh8 �xh8
2 l .i.fl b5! or the immediate 19 . . . b5!? - "wide"
play was required to disturb the opponent
from both wings.
2o.YNd2 ghs 21.�£1

To develop the knight from gl .
21. ..\'Nb6
2 l . . . ltJg3 ? does not work: 22.El:xh8 �xh8
a b c d e f g h
23.�g5
2 1 . . .ltJ g4t! 22.fxg4 ltJ f2 23 .ie l
23 . ltJ f3 ltJ xg4# 22.tlJge2 tlJf4
23 . . . ltJxg4t 24.c;t>d2 h5!
8
Despite having a queen for only a bishop,
7
White is absolutely helpless.
6
16 ...\'Nds I7.�xh6
5
Otherwise White would suffer with even
material ( . . . ltJh5 is coming) . Now he has an
extra pawn as consolation. 4
2
17 ...�xh6 1 8.gxh6 �g7 19.ghl
8 1
7 b d f g h
6
a c e
23.gxhs tlJcd3t 24. �dl gxhs 25.tlJxf4

5 tlJxf4 26.�c2
4
Worse is 26.g3 �g l 27.gxf4 ih3!+.
3 26 ... gh2 27.gcl �h3

2
The pawn on g2 is under heavy fire, but
White can withstand that.
b d f g h
28.tlJa4�
a c e
This gives Black new hope, whereas 28.ltJe2
So, Black's compensation consists of: a lead ltJxg2 29 .�g5 ltJ e3t 30.c;t>b l ltJxfl (30 . . . ixfl ?
in development; White's king is stuck in the loses nicely to 3 l .�e7t c;t>h6 32.El:c8! with
centre of board; the dark squares around it unavoidable checkmate) 3 l .�e7t c;t>h6
are weak; and Black will soon seize the h-file. 32.�h4t led to perpetual check by force.
8
28 Y!Yd4! 29.Y!Yxd4 exd4
•••
a b c d e f g h
b d f g h
In my opinion this endgame is quite
a c e
interesting and instructive. Dear reader,
Black's advantage is obvious in this endgame I would like to spend some of your time
- White's minor pieces are passive and the analysing it.
extra pawn on g2 will fall next move.
34.. J�� h l?
30.Wb3 Now the bishop is pinned, but again White
It's true that after 30.e5 !? the g-pawn would can overcome that.
be held, and after 30 . . . id7 (or 30 . . . dxe5
3 1 .<±>b3 ixg2 32.ixg2 E1:xg2 33.d6 <±>f6 A more direct approach would do the job:
34.tt::l c5) 3 l .<±>b3 ixa4t 32.<±>xa4 dxe5 33.d6 34 ... E1:f2! 3 5 .\t>d4 E1:xf3 36.e5 dxe5t 37.\t>e4
<±>f6 34.d7 <±>e7 3 5 .E1:c5 White would have 37.\t>xe5 d2 38.E1:dl E1:xfl 39.E1:xfl ltJd3t
good drawing chances, but such moves can 40.<±>e6 ltJ e l and the d-pawn queens.
only be made by computers. 37 . . . E1:g3 3 8.\t>xe5 g5 39.d6
30 ...hg2
8
Less good was the immediate 30 . . . b5 ?
3 l .ixb5 ixg2 32.id7! \t>f6 (3 2 . . . ixf3? 7
33.E1:fl ) 33.ig4 <±>e5 34.E1:c8 and White is OK. 6
5
3 1 .bg2 b5
4
I liked this zwischenzug during the game, but
the simple 3 l . .. E1:xg2 32.E1:c7t mf6 33 .E1:xb7 3
E1:f2 was probably stronger. I doubt White 2

can hold: 34.E1:xa7 (34.\t>c4 d3 3 5.\t>b3 E1:xf3
36.ltJc3 g5 37.E1:d7 g4-+) 34 . . . E1:xf3t 35 .\t>c4
a b c d e f g h
d3 36. <±>c3 E1:fl ! and Black should be winning.
39 . . . <±>f7! 40.E1:d l
32.� b6 axb6 33 ..ifl d3 40.E1:c7t <±>g6! 4 l .d7 E1:e3t 42.\t>d4 d2-+
Or 33 . . . E1:f2!? 34.ixb5 E1:xf3t 35 .\t>c4 d3+. 40 . . . \t>e8 4 l .b4 <±>d7
The resulting position is easily winning for
Black.
,
308 King s Indian Warfare
35J�dl ?! active and the usefulness of the bishop on fl is

Mter 3 5 .�b l lt:Je2t (35 . . . <;t>f6? 36 ..ixd3) not great, to put it mildly.
36.<;t>d2 <j{f6 37.�d l lt:J f4 38.<;t>e3 <;t>e5
39 . .ie2! �h2 40 ..ixd3 �xb2 4 l .�d2 White 40.�e3 ltJe2 41 J�dl!
,
could perhaps hold despite the opponent s
8
total domination of the dark squares.
35 ... �£6 36.�d4 7

Probably the sudden counterattack 36.<;t>b4 6
5
lt:J h3 37.<;t>xb5 lt:J f2 38.�xd3 �xfl (38 . . . tt:Jxd3
4
39 ..ixd3 �h3 40.e5t! dxe5 4 l . .ie4 and it looks
like a draw) 39.�d2 could have saved Yuri.
2
36 ... b4 37J�b l ltJe2t! 38.�e3
7 b d f g h
6
a c e
41. .. ltJf4?
5
An unfortunate waste of time, whereas:
4
4 1 . .. lt:J g3 42.<;t>f2 lt:Jxfl 43.�xfl �xfl t
44.<;t>xfl <;t>e5 45.<;t>el
3 led by force to a queen ending:
2
45 . . . <;t>f4 46.<;t>d2 <j{xf3 47.e5 dxe5 48 .d6 e4
49.d7 e3t 50.<;t>xd3 e2
b d f g h
8
a c e
7
38 ... g5?
6
Centralization with 38 . . . <;t>e5 was called for,
5
and after 39.a3 b3 40.�d l tt:J f4 4 l .�c l �h2
42 . .ixd3 �xb2 43 .-ifl g5 the dominance 4
,
of Black s forces would decide the outcome. 3
We were both in time trouble and this partly 2
explains our numerous mistakes in this
endgame. But speaking honestly, there were a
a b c d e f g h
few too many mistakes.
5 l .d8=Wi' e l =Wi' 52.Wi'f6t
39.�fl ltJf4 52.Wi'xg5 ? Wi'e2t 53 .@d4 Wi'e4# A nice picture!
39 . . . <;t>e5 40.<;t>e3 b5 leads to a kind of 52 . . . <;t>g4 53.Wi'xb6 Wi'b l t 54.<;t>c4 Wi'xa2t
mutual zugzwang, and after 4 l . b3 (the only Black has excellent winning chances.
move) 4 1 . .. lt:J c3 42.�e l lt:Jxa2 43.<;t>xd3 g4!
44.fxg4 �g l I would have retained a dose-to 42J�bl d2
winning advantage - all the black pieces are 42 . . . <;t>e5 allows 43 . .ixd3 .
But still possible was 42 . . . ttJe2 43.�d l tDg3. The last chance.
43.xd2 gh2t 44.e3 eS 49 ..ie2??

Luckily for me, Yuri was the last one to
8
commit an error in this game.
7 49.ic8! �xf3t was required and the variation

6 50.�xf3 gxf3 5 1 .ih3 f2 52.a3 bxa3 53.bxa3
5
tDg6 54.ig2 ttJ f4 5 5 .ifl ttJh5 5 6.ig2 ttJf6
4
57.@xf2 ttJ xe4t 5 8 .@e3 ttJ f6 59.@d3 ttJ xd5
60.if3 ttJc7 6 1 . @c4 leads to a peaceful
3
outcome. That's not the case now.
2 49 ... tlJg2t 50. d2

1
50.@f2 ttJ f4 5 1 .fxg4 �h2t 52 .@g3 �g2t
b d f g h
53.@f3 !!xe2 was no better.
a c e
Despite being a pawn down, Black is still the
8
superior side in the endgame that has arisen,
but now his advantage is hardly enough to win.
6
45 ..ia6 tlJg2t 46.d3
Not 46.@f2? @f4 47.@g l @g3-+ .
46... tlJ h4 5
46 . . . @f4 47.�gl ttJ e3 (47 . . . @xf3 48.�fl t 4
3
@g3 49.�f6 with strong counterplay) leads
2
after 48.�xg5 ! @xg5 49.@xe3 �xb2 50.ic4
�c2 5 1 .f4 t @f6 52.ib3 to a fortress position
1
- draw.
b d f g h
A triumph of the knight over the bishop -
a c e
8 no one can protect the dark squares in White's

7
position.
6 52 ..ia6 f4 53.e5

5 This is no worse than other moves - the
4
g-pawn will promote soon.
3 53 ... xe5
2
Yakovich lost on time, but his position was
1
hopeless anyway.
0-1
a b c d e f g h
Mihail Marin Ilya Smirin- With the better position for White - the
activity of the black pieces is restricted,
Ramat Aviv 2000
Krasenkow - Smirin, Polanica Zdroj 1 99 5 .
l .c4 g6 2.tiJf3 .ig7 3.d4 tiJf6 4.g3 0-0 s ..ig2

8.. J�b8 9.e4 b5
d6 6.0-0 tlJ c6 7.tiJc3 a6
According to plan.
The most popular move - Black prepares to
play on the queenside by means of . . . b7-b 5 .
IO.e5
8
Later I mainly switched here to 7 . . . .if5 .
8 7
7 6
6 5
5 4
4 3
3 2
2
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h IO ... tiJd7
This move leads to a complicated position.
8.h3
I have never liked the simpler 1 O . . . dxe5
A prophylactic move against . . . .ig4.
1 1 .dxe5 'Mfxd 1 1 2J!xd 1 ttJd7 1 3 .e6 fxe6
14.cxb5 axb5 1 5 . .if4 etc. - even though Black
The immediate 8 .e4 .ig4 9 . .ie3 is also possible.
has decent results in practice.
I was unable to equalize in the following rather
ancient game: 9 . . . ttJd7 l O.ttJe2 e5 1 1 .d5 ttJ e7
l l .e6
1 2. ttJ e 1 ttJ b6 1 3 .Ek1 c5 1 4. ttJ d3 f5 1 5 .h3
White can fight for an advantage by means
.ixe2 1 6.'Mfxe2 fxe4 17 . .ixe4 ttJ d7 1 8 .g4!
of the more or less forcing line: 1 1 .cxb5 axb5
1 2.ttJg5 dxe5 1 3 ..ixc6 exd4 1 4.lt:Jxb5 E!:b6
8
1 5 .ttJxd4
7
6 8
5 7
4 6
3 5
2 4
a b c d e f g h 2
a b c d e f g h
Chapter 1 0 - Endgames 31 1
1 5 . . . 4J b8 1 6.lt:lde6 fxe6 1 7.'1Mfxd8 �xd8 1 8 ..ig2 following encounter:

and here the draw was concluded in the game 1 5 . . .id7 1 6.lt:lf4 Wc8 1 7.lt:lde6 �f7 1 8 .lt:lxg7
Nogueiras Santiago - Smirin, Istanbul (ol) cj;>xg7 1 9.b3 c5 20 . .ib2 cj;>g8 2 1 .�c l .ifS
2000. Mter the game I had a feeling that in the 22.'1Mfd2 b4 23.g4 c4 24.gxf5 c3 25 . .ixc3 bxc3
final position White could continue to play - 26.�xc3 Wxf5 27.lt:le6 lt:lb7 28.f4 lt:ld7 29.�c7
I did not particularly like Black's pawn lt:l f6 30.lt:ld4
structure and the potential of the passer on a2. 1 -0 Goldin - Kosanovic, Belgrade 1 988.
l l . .. fxe6 12.d5 13.cxb5 exd5

The position ansmg is very complex and
8
unbalanced. Black's queenside is seriously
7
damaged, but he bases his hopes on the pawn
majority in the centre and the potential activity
6 of the pieces. However, these considerations
5
are rather abstract and concrete variations will
4
determine who will prevail.
2
8
1
7
b d f g h
6
a c e
5
12 ... lb a5!?
4
Worse is:
1 2 . . . exd5 1 3 .cxd5
1 3 .'1Mfxd5t cj;>h8 1 4.Wxc6? is impossible - 3
2
after 1 4 . . . ib7 the queen is lost.
1
1 3 . . . lt:la5 1 4.lt:ld4 lt:l e5 1 5 .lt:lce2! ?
a b c d e f g h
15.bxa6
Instead more promising was:
1 5 .lt:lxd5
Eliminating the important pawn on d5
offers more chances to get an opening edge:
1 5 . . . lt:lxd5
Bad is: 1 5 . . . e5? 1 6.bxa6! Nice tactics.
1 6 . . . c6 What else? (bad is 1 6 . . . exd4 1 7.a7 -
a b c d e f g h
all Black's army cannot stop the single brave
Black has an extra pawn, but what about pawn on a7) 1 7.lt:lxf6t ixf6 1 8.a7 �a8
the numerous holes in his position? He 1 9 .lt:lxc6 And so on . . . 1-0 Pigusov - Smirin,
could not cope with the problems in the Las Vegas 1 998.
1 6.ixd5t mhs A radical attempt to destroy Black's centre

and to open a diagonal for the g2-bishop.
Still the price (a piece) is high. White would
be better advised to try to undermine the
opponent's central formation from the
queenside:
1 7.b4 e5 1 8 .t2J b3 lDxb3 ( 1 8 . . . ttJc4 1 9.lDxd5!)

1 9 .axb3 with a rather unusual double-edged
position. The game may continue 1 9 . . . '\We?
20.b5 d4 2 l .ixc6 gxa7 22.lDd5 '\Wf7 23 .gxa7
'I.Wxa7 24.b6 'I.Wb8 and Black still has a strong
a b c d e f g h
centre, but the pawn on b6 may cause him
1 7.b4! a headache - the position is unclear in other
In my opinion this is better than 1 7. bxa6 words.
ixh3 1 8 .ge 1 ( 1 8.a7 gas) 1 8 . . . c6! 1 9 .lDxc6
tDxc6 20.ixc6 'I.Wb6 2 1 .if3 , with an unclear 17 ... �xc6 18.�xd5
position. Of course not 1 8 .ixd5t? lDxd5 1 9.'\WxdSt
17 . . . c5 1 8 .bxc6 gxb4 1 9 .ie3 ttJ c4 mh8 20.'1.Wxc6 ixh3 - the g2-bishop is White's
Or 1 9 . . . ixh3 20 .'\Wd2 ga4 2 l .gfc l with a main hope.
kind of domination.
20.gc 1 lD xe3 2 l .fxe3 18 ....id7 19 ..ie3
White seems to be better - the c6-pawn is
8
very strong.
1 5 ... c6 7
6
Now Black can be proud of his pawn centre!
16.a7 �aS 5
4
8 3
7 2
6 1
5 b d f g h
4
a c e
3
19 ... �xa7!
The right decision.
1
Worse would be 19 . . . lDxd5 20.'\WxdSt mhs
2 1 .gac l gxa7 (2 1 ... lDxa7? 22.'1.Wxa8 'I.Wxa8
b d f g h
23.ixa8 gxa8 24.gc7) 22.ixa7 lDxa7 23 .'1.Wb7
a c e
and White should be OK - the a-pawn may
17.�xc6?! become very strong.
2o ..ih6 Y;fbs - the black pieces dominate the board. His

Of course not 20 . . . �e8 ? 2 J .Cfj c7+-. bishops are very strong and the knight is on its
way to d4. The white pawn duo at a2 and b2
2 1 ..ic7 is more of a weakness than an asset under the
Black would certainly welcome 2 I .Cfjxe7t circumstances.
<;t>hs 22.ixa8 �xa8 - White's king is under
strong attack and his pieces are poorly 26 . . . ixb2? would be premature: after 27.�ab l
coordinated. if6 28 .ie5 White activates his forces and is
out of danger.
2 1 . ..Y;fes 22.gel
White's active pieces create unpleasant 27J�edl
threats, but Black manages to give back the More resilient would be:
material and liquidate into a favourable 27.ic5
endgame. Even though after:
27 . . . e5!?
Not 22.Cfj b6? ic6. The other option is 27 ... Cfje5 28.�e3 Cfj c4
(in the event of 28 . . . ic6?! 29 .�d l �xa2
22 .. .ltJxd5 23.Y;fxd5t e6! 30.f4 Cfj f3t 3 l .�xf3 ! ixf3 32.�d8t <j;>f7
Black must avoid both 23 . . . �f7? 24.�xe7 33 .�d7t White forces the draw) 29.�e2
and 23 . . . �h8? 24.�xa8 �xa8 25 .ixa8 �xa8 Cfjxb2 30.�b l Cfj a4 3 I .ib4 id4, retaining
26.�xe7. winning chances.
28.h4
24.Y;fxa8 Or 28 .�g2 Cfjd4 29.ixd4 exd4 30.�ed l
24.�xd6 loses to 24 . . . Cfj b5 . if5 3 l .�d2 �c8 .
28 . . . Cfj d4 29.ixd4 exd4
24...Y;Yxa8 25.�xa8 gxa8 26.hd6
2
a b c d e f g h
1
Black would be much better - the passed
b d f g h
pawn on d4, supported by two mighty bishops,
a c e is very strong.
26 .. .ltJc6!
Nominally White even has some material
27 ... �d4
This centralized knight looks in all directions.
advantage, but his position is much worse
Again the impatient 27 . . ..ixb2? 28.�ab l 30....ih5 3 1 .�g2

.id4 (28 . . .�xa2? 29.�d2) 29.�b7 would j ust Or 3 1 .�e l lLl d4! .
help White to activate his rook and to obtain
counterplay. 3 1 . ..bb2 32J�abl .ic6t 33.�fl ltlc3
34J�xb2 lbxdl 35J�b6
28.a4
8
This is better than 28 . .ic5 lLl e2t 29.�fl .ib5
7
30.a4 .ic4, and loss of material is unavoidable.
8 6
7 5
6 4
5 3
4 2
2 a b c d e f g h
1 35 ....if3?
b d f g h
An inaccurate move in slight time pressure.
a c e
28 ....ic6! 35 . . . .id5 36.a6 lLl c3 would finish the game at

Played according to the same motto: "activity once.
is more important than pawns". That's why I
did not consider the capture on a4. 36.a6 ltlc3 37.a7!
I overlooked this. White keeps the a-pawn
Indeed, 28 . . ..ixa4? 29.�a2 would be clearly in and even advances it to a7.
White's favour and a draw would be the most
probable outcome. 37 ....id5
Earlier I did not notice that 37 . . . �xa7?
29.a5?! 3 8 .�b8t �f7 (or 38 . . . �g7 39 . .ie5t) 39.�f8t
Losing an exchange by force. would cost Black a bishop.
The most stubborn defence was 29.f4. But 38J�b8t �f7 39 ..ic5
even in this case after the precise 29 . . . .if3! It may seem questionable whether Black can
30.�fl lLl b3 3 1 .�xf3 lLl xa l 32.b3 .id4t win - the protected pawn on a7 and bishops of
33.�fl �d8 Black should overcome the opposite colour cast such doubts. However, the
technical difficulties in converting his material aB-square is under firm control and the extra
advantage. knight weighs heavily. Black should gradually
win after consolidating his forces.
29 ... ltle2t 30.�fl
30.�h2 is not a remedy: 30 . . ..ixb2 3 l .�ab l 39 ... lbe4 40 ..ie3 lbf6 41 .£4 ltld7 42J�b2
lLl c3 32.�d2 lLl xb l 33.�xb2 �d8! and so on. �e7 43. �e2 gcs 44.g4 �d6 45.g5 e5!
8
53.E:e8t �f5 54JU8t �f7
7
It would be a pity to get checkmated after
the "logical" 54 . . . @e4?? 5 5 .!!f4#.
6
5
55.�e2 �e4 56.E:e8t �e5
4
Now everything is OK.
3
57.i.c5 E:a2t 58.�el
2
Or 5 8 .@d l @d3 and now it's the white king
in a mating net.
b d f g h
58 ... � 6
a c e
The beginning of the end. 8
6
46.fxe5t �xe5
Black's king gains his freedom.
5
4
47J�b4 E:c2t 48.�d3 E:a2
The rook has managed to get behind the
a-pawn - it guarantees the win. 3
1
49.E:b8 �d6 50.E:d8 E:a3t 5 1 .�d2 �e6
52.E:h8 �e5
b d f g h
8
a c e
7
White resigned due to: 59 .ie3 lt:J f3t
60.@d l lDxg5 6 I .ixg5 (6 I .!!f8t lt:J f7)
6 6 I . . .if3t 62.@c 1 @xg5
5
0-1
a b c d e f g h
Christian Gabriel - Ilya Smirin

Pula 2000
This game was played in a Zonal tournament

in Pula, Croatia. Both of us badly needed to
win to keep our chances alive of qualifying for
the Knockout World Championship.
l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.�f3

0-0 6..ie2 e5 7.d5 a5 8.h3 � a6 9 ..ig5 �e8 a b c d e f g h
9 . . . h6 1 0.i.e3 was played in my game with
Kramnik in 1 99 5 , which you will find on page An important move - the KID bishop
52. becomes active. 1 4.E:b 1 lD c5 1 5 .b4 axb4
1 6.axb4 lDca4 1 7.lDb5 �d7 1 8 .�b3 @h8
8
1 9 . lD f3 f5 20.0-0 fxe4 2 1 .lLJh2 i.f4! 22.i.g4
7
�g7 23 .i.xc8 E:fxc8 24.E:fe 1 g5 25 .i.g3 �g6
With an extra pawn and an excellent position;
6
Ostenstad - Nakamura, Rhodes 20 1 3 .
5 1 o... ®hs
4
With the idea that I managed to realize in
3
the game - Black is going to play . . . lD g8 and
carry out . . . f7-f5 and/or exchange the dark
2 squared bishops via h6.
1
Nowadays I would probably prefer a slightly
b d f g h
different plan, starting with 10 . . . lLJd7. For
a c e instance: 1 1 .El:gl lDdc5 1 2.h4 c6 1 3 .h5 cxd5
1 4.h6 i.h8 1 5 .cxd5 i.d7 and Black does not have
10.g4 much to complain about - the bishop on h8 is
Not so much an attacking move, but rather
not shut in forever (hopefully) , and meanwh ile
a try to squeeze Black on the kingside. Also,
White has problems with the placement of the
White is ready now to meet a future . . . f7 -f5
king; Piket - J. Polgar, Aruba 1 995.
with the exchange gxf5 , opening the g-file and
8
trying to scare the black king.
Often White prefers l O.lLJd2 here. The 7
6
following game by Nakamura may serve as
5
an example of Black's actions in that case:
l O . . . lDd7 l l .a3 f6 1 2.i.h4 lLJ b6 1 3 .b3 i.h6!
a b c d e f g h
l l .tlJdl 33.�xf4! exf4 34.ig7!

Twelve years after this game, Anton Korobov A beautiful combination - Black is helpless.
demonstrated a deep and strong strategic idea 34 . . . ttJ a7 3 5 .�c3 �f8 36.ixf8t �xf8 37.�a5
in his game with me. This game deserves to be ixb2t 38.�c2 �a8 39 .�xa4 ie5 40.�b 1
shown till the end: 1-0 Korobov - Smirin, Eilat 20 1 2.
1 1 .ie3! ttJg8 1 2 .g5 f5 1 3 . h4! 1 1 . .. tlJ g8 1 2 ..ie3 f5

This is the idea - now Black's kingside is
8
severely cramped.
7
1 3 . . . ttJe7 1 4.h5 �g8 1 5 .h6 ih8
This bishop is in complete misery.
1 6.ttJh4 b6 1 7.f3 ttJc5 1 8 .�d2 id7 1 9 .0-0-0 6
5
a4
8 4
3
7
2
6
b d f g h
4
3 a c e
2 1 3.gxf5
In the event of 1 3 . f3, trying to keep White's
a b c d e f g h
central pawn chain intact, I would proceed
with 1 3 . . . ih6 1 4.ixh6 ( 1 4.g5 ? f4) 1 4 . . . ttJxh6
20.ttJg2 �f7 2 l .ttJ e 1 �a5 22.ttJd3 �fa8
with good and easy play - some dark squares
23.�c2 �e8 24.ttJxc5 bxc5 25.ttJb5 �d8
in White's camp may easily become weak.
26.id2 �5a6 27.ic3 f4
Trying to close the position as much as
13 ... gxf5 14.exf5 .ih6!?
possible.
An interesting alternative would be 14 . . . ttJ e7,
28 .ifl ttJ c8 29 .ih3 ixb5 30.cxb5 �b6
intending to recapture on f5 with the knight.
3 1 .ie6t �f8 32.�h4 �e7
After the possible continuation 1 5 .ih5 �d8
1 6.ttJde4 (or 1 6.f6 ixf6 1 7.ttJde4 ttJ f5 1 8 .ig4
8
ih4) 1 6 . . . ttJxf5 1 7 .ig5 �d7 1 8.�d2 b6!?
7 1 9 .0-0-0 ttJc5 20.ttJxc5 bxc5 a double-edged
6 situation would arise. Indeed, both kings may
5 easily find themselves under attack.
4
1 5 ..ig4 Yffe7 16.Vffe2
3
IfWhite had tried to keep the extra pawn on
2 f5 by means of 1 6.�f3 , I was going to proceed
with: 1 6 . . . �h4!? (not 1 6 . . . tt:J b4?! 1 7.0-0-0
a b c d e f g h ttJ d3t 1 8.�b l ) 1 7.0-0-0 ttJ e7 - Black will
take on f5 and remain OK.
318 King's I n dian Warfare
16 ...Lfs with all his minor pieces. The bishop on g6 is

really strong - it controls the very important
8
b 1 -h7 diagonal and, j ust in case, covers the
7
black king.
6 20 ..if3 ltJd7!? 21 .h4 ltJac5 22.h5 .ifS
5
23J3dgi ggs
4
These manoeuvres are easy to understand.
The next king move looks slightly unnatural,
3
but it just shows that White has problems
2
finding a decent positional plan. Indeed,
Black's moves look more natural.
b d f g h
24.@d2 gaf8 25.gg2 gxg2 26.�xg2 ggs
a c e 27.�fl �fB!?
8
17.0-0-0
After 1 7 .ixf5 ixe3 (in the event of 1 7 . . J�xf5
7
1 8 .0-0-0 ixe3 1 9.fxe3 lt:Jc5 20 . lt:J de4 White
6
would have some advantage due to the strong
knight on e4 and the slightly vulnerable
5
position of Black's king) 1 8 .fxe3 '\Wh4t 1 9.'\Wf2
4
l.Wxf2t 20.<j{xf2 �xf5 t 2 1 .<j;>e2 �af8 22.�afl
�xfl 23.�xfl �xfl 24.<j{xf1 lt:J f6 the numerous
exchanges would lead to a dull draw. But as I 3
2
explained earlier, this outcome would hardly
1
suit either player.
b d f g h
17 ....ig6 1 8.ltJde4 .ixe3t 19.fxe3 ltJf6
a c e
8 Indirectly applying pressure to the knight on
7
e4.
6 28.ltJxc5 ltJxc5 29 ..ie2

5
After relinquishing control over e4, Gabriel
4
hopes to defend himself in the forthcoming
inferior endgame.
2
29 ....id7 3o.�xm gxrs 3 1 .gh2 @g?
Black's advantage is probably not too big,
1 but it is obvious. All his pieces are slightly
b d f g h
more active than their counterparts, and the
a c e pawn on h5 has become weak in the ending -
Black has a harmonious position - he may the black king may easily threaten it.
effectively challenge White's control over e4
32.b3 37 ... tlJc5

Or 32.h6t mg6 does not help. Sacrificing a pawn for domination.
32 ... h6 33 ..idl 38.tlJxc7 tlJe4t 39.e2 tLlg3t 40.d2 �gl !

White prepares to drive away the knight
8
from c5 by means of a3 and b4, but in doing
7
so he allows the black rook to penetrate.
33 .. J�fl 34.�c2 6
5
34.ie2 :ggl 3 5 .:gf2 mg7 36.:gh2, trying to
4
preserve status quo, was another way to defend.
3
34 ...�g4 35.tLl b5
2
Probably the immediate 35 .a3 was more
accurate.
b d f g h
35 ... tlJa6 36.a3 .ifS!
a c e
8 The strongest continuation.
6
41 .�c2!
From a practical point of view this is an
5
absolutely correct exchange sacrifice.
4 Houdini recommends 4 1 .ie2 :gal 42.ctJb5

3 lt:Je4t 43 .mc2 (43 .md3? :ga2 with checkmate)
2
43 . . . :ga2t 44. mc 1 , but I do not believe such a
1
passive defence could save the game.
b d f g h
4I. .. tiJfl t 42.c3 tlJxh2 43.hf5
a c e
8
The key move. White faces a tough choice:
7
to swap the bishops and lose the h-pawn or to
allow considerable activity for the opponent's
forces. 6
4
37.�dl
Gabriel picks the second option.
2
Mter the sample variation 37.:gg2 ixc2
38.mxc2 :gf7 39.ctJc3 mxh5 40.lt:Je4 b6!
1
4 1 .md3 ctJc5t 42.ctJxc5 bxc5 he would hardly
b d f g h
have real chances of survival - the extra pawn
on h7 is very strong. a c e
The position is sharp - White has strong Or 53 .ttJd5 �g5 .

counterplay connected with c4-c5 to create 53 . . . �g5 54.ttJg7 ttJ e3 5 5 .�b6 ttJ f5 56.ttJe6t
a passed d-pawn. Concrete and precise play �g4
is required from both sides, especially from And so on.
Black.
7
43 .. .ttJg4?
A big mistake - I picked the wrong square
for the knight. 6
4
Correct was:
43 . . . ttJ fl !
3
Attacking the e-pawn from a safe square.
2
44.c5
If 44.ttJ b 5 ttJxe3 45.ttJxd6 (45 .id3 does
not save White after 45 .. J�g2 and now
b d f g h
46.ie4 �g3 or 46.ttJxd6? ttJ d l #) 45 . . . ttJxf5
46.ttJxf5 t �xh5 47.ttJd6 Black proves to be a c e
j ust faster: 47 . . . �g4 48.ttJxb7 e4! 49.ttJc5 e3

44 .<ibd3?
50.ttJd3 �d l etc. White misses the chance to turn the tables.
44.�d3? �g3 would lose at once.
44 . . . dxc5 45 .d6 ttJxe3 46.d7 After the simple 44.ixg4 �xg4 4 5 .ttJe8 �g8
Perhaps 46.ie4 �g7 47.�d3 ttJg4 (the best try) 46.ttJxd6 �xh5 47.ttJxb7 �g6
48.�c4 ttJ f6 49.ixb7 is the most resilient 48.c5 h5 49 .c6 he would be on top in the
continuation, but I suppose that after pawn race: 49 . . . h4 50.c7 h3 5 1 .d6 h2 52.d7
49 . . . e4 Black is still close to a win. h l =W 53.d8=W Wc6t 54.�d2 '!Mg2t 5 5 .�d3
46 ... �d l 47.id3 e4 with serious winning chances. But luckily the
German grandmaster did not spot this.
44 ... <it>xhs 45.hh7?

The second error in a row; the h-pawn was
not too dangerous yet.
Instead of being greedy, White should have

proceeded 45.ttJb5 �g5 46.ttJxd6, attacking
the key pawn on d6. In that case all three
results would still be possible.
a b c d e f g h
45 .. J�g3
48 .d8=W �xd3t 49 .'!Mxd3 exd3 50.�xd3 ttJg4
Now the e3-pawn is doomed.
5 1 .�c4 �xh5 52.�xc5 �h4
This knight ending should be winning - the
h-pawn will decide the matter. For instance:
53.ltJe8
8
lD c6 and the pawn on d7 is fi r mly stopped)
7
53 . . . �b3 54.if5 lD b8 5 5 .d7 lD c6t 56.c;t>c4
�a3! 57.lDe4 ltJdB 58 .lD c5 �e3 5 9.c;t>ds c;t>gs ,
6 and again the d-pawn cannot save White.
4
52.llJb6 llJ f7
After 52 . . . a4 53.d7 lDxd7t 54.ltJxd7 �b3
3
5 5 .id5 �b2 56.c;t>c4 White would be just
2
in time: 56 . . . b5t 57.c;t>c3 a3 5 8 .ib3 b4t
59.c;t>c4, with a draw.
8
b d f g h
7
a c e
6
46.c5!
The only way to complicate Black's task.
5
4
46 .. J:�xe3t 47.®c4 dxc5 48.d6 e4
3
This move was begging to be played. At the
same time this is the only way to keep the
2
advantage.
49.llJds llJest so.xc5 gxb3 s t .Le4 1
b d f g h
8
a c e
7
53.Lb7?
The losing mistake. Now White's forces lose
6 coordination for a moment and this is enough
5
for Black to prevail. It's curious that three times
4
in this ending, starting from the 4 5 th move,
the capture of a pawn proved to be wrong!
2
White should have used his main trump
instead: 53 .d7! �c3t There is nothing better.
54.c;t>d4 �g3 5 5 .ixb7 lD d8 56.id5 And Black
b d f g h
cannot win - his king is too far away.
a c e
5 1 ... gxa3? 53 ... gc3t!

This hasty capture could have thrown away The key check.
the victory.
54.d4
Correct was to consolidate the position first 54.c;t>ds �b3 would not change anything.
by inserting a check: 5 1 . . . lD d7t 52.c;t>d4 �xa3
53.lDc3 (53.if5 �a4t 54.c;t>c3 lDe5 5 5 .d7 54... gb3 55.�d5
Or S S .c;t>cs lDxd6 56.id5 �b4.
8
55 .. J�b4t 56.®c5 �xd6
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
1
2
b d f g h
1
a c e
b d f g h
69 ... ge5
a c e
Here Black had a prettier win: 69 . . . �h5!?
In this study-like posmon Black wins, 70.ic2 �h6t 7 l .�a7 �h4! 72.�a6 (72.ib3
despite having only one pawn left and his king ltJ d2! 73 .lDxa5 lDxb3 74.ltJxb3 �a4t 75.�b6
temporarily not involved in the battle. �b4t 76.�c5 �xb3 - a real study-like motif)
72 . . . lD e3 73 .ib l a4 and so on.
57.�d7 �f5 58.�e5
Black needs: 70 ..id3?!
Gabriel too had little time left.
1 . To preserve his a-pawn.
2. To consolidate his forces. Otherwise he would probably have played the
3. To move his only pawn forward. more resilient:
70.ic2! �e6t 7 l .�a7
He is able to do all this, but precise play is still
required. 8
7
58 ... � e3! 59 ..if7t ®h6
6
59 . . . �g5 was stronger, but I instinctively
5
wanted to hide from possible knight checks.
4
60 ..ie8 ge4 61 .�f7t ®g7 62.�d6 ge5t 3

63.®b6 ge6 64.®c5 ge5t 2
A repetition of moves in time trouble to gain
additional time on the clock.
a b c d e f g h
65.®b6 gd5! 66.� b7 � c4t 67.®a6 g5 7 l . . . �e3!

68 ..ic6 ®f8 69 ..ie4 Apparently this is the only way to victory.
After 7 l . . . �h6? 72.ib3 ltJd2 73.lDxa5
the game would be drawn. Interestingly, if
White had a knight instead of a bishop (i.e.
two knights versus rook and knight) in the
final position, then according to "ancient" Sabino Brunello - Ilya Smirin

computer programs he would lose in a few
Helsingor 20 1 5
hundred moves! I remember seeing the
computer's analysis of such an ending back
l .d4 tiJ f6 2.c4 g6 3.tLlc3 .i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.8
in 1 99 5 . This conclusion is hardly relevant
0-0 6..i.e3 c6 7. ttJ ge2
to a practical game though.
7.id3 a6 8.tt:Jge2 b5 was played in a well
72.<±>a6
known game between the K's in their last match
Or 72.lLJc5 <±>e7.
for the crown: 9.0-0 tt:Jbd7 1 0 .Ek1 e5 1 1 .a3
72 ... <±>e7 73 . lLJ c5 <±>d6
exd4 1 2.tt:Jxd4 ib7 1 3 .cxb5 cxb5 1 4 .�e1 tt:Je5
White is left with no hope.
1 5 .ifl �e8 1 6.if2 d5 1 7.exd5 tt:Jxd5 1 8 .tt:Jxd5
8
'.Wxd5 1 9.a4 ih6 20.�a 1 tt:Jc4 2 1 .axb5 axb5
22.�xa8 �xa8 23 .'.Wb3 ic6 24.id3 tt:Jd6
7 25 .'.Wxd5 ixd5 26.tt:Jxb5 tt:Jxb5 27.ixb5 ig7
6
28 .b4 ic3 29.�d 1 ib3 30.�b 1 ia2 Yz-Yz
5
Karpov - Kasparov, Lyon/New York 1 990.
4
7 ... a6
3 8
2 7
1 6
a b c d e f g h 5
70 ... tLlb2 4
3
This decides the game at once - the a-pawn
2
will cost White at least a piece, so he resigned.
An interesting endgame!
1
0-1
a b c d e f g h
I decided to play this line to surprise my
opponent - I had never used it before. Also
I wanted to test some advice, given to me by
Vlad Tkachiev some 1 Yz years before the game,
which was connected with the encounter
Dreev - Wang Hao (you will find this game on
the next page) .
8.c5
This continuation is by far the most popular
nowadays. The idea is obvious - to use the
weakness of the b6-square and to underline
the main drawback of my 7th move.
8 ... b5 9.cxd6 1 3 .ic l ttJb6 1 4.lDxb6 �xb6 1 5 .ie3 d5

In my opinion 9.cxb6 ttJ bd7 deserves 1 6.�d3 dxe4 1 7.fxe4 a5 1 8 .El:d 1 ia6 1 9.�c2
attention. And now, let's say 1 0.�d2 lDxb6 ixe2 20.lDxe2 lDd7 2 1 .0-0 lD f6 22.lDg3 lDg4
1 1 .lDg3 a5 1 2 .Ek 1 ia6 1 3 .ixa6 El:xa6 1 4. ltJ d 1 23.if2 El:ad8 24.e5 c5 25.dxc5 �c7 and Black
�d7 1 5 .0-0 and White has no weaknesses and was fine despite losing in the end, Carlsen -
perhaps may claim some advantage. Grischuk, Dubai (rapid) 20 1 4. The move I
made in the game is associated with the same
9 ... exd6 idea.
8
l l .�a4
7
A rather optimistic choice.
1 1 .lDce2
6 This was probably safer, but even in this case
5
Wang Hao gained better prospects against
4
Dreev:
1 1 . . . El:e8 1 2.lDg3?!
3
It would be fascinating to test the creative
2
continuation 1 2.�d2 �e7 1 3.�xb4 lDxe4!
1 4.fxe4 �xe4 1 5.id2 ixd4, with an
1
interesting mess.
a b c d e f g h
10.�£4
The fashionable move. However, I would
probably prefer the less creative "dull"
continuation 1 O.�d2 El:e8 1 1 .lDg3, holding
the pieces together for a while.
10 ... b4
The immediate 1 0 . . . El:e8 was played by
Alexander Grischuk against the World a b c d e f g h
Champion in the World Rapid Chess
1 2 . . . ltJd5!
Championship - 1 1 .ie2 b4 1 2. lD a4 lD d5!
This is the tactical j ustification of Black's
opening concept.
1 3 .ic l
This is Dreev - Wang Hao, Troms0 20 1 3
( 1 -0, 53) and now after the simple:
13 . . . lDxf4 1 4.ixf4 c5
White would fall behind in development
and face serious problems.
1 1 ..J�e8 12 ..id3?!
Sabino does not sense the danger.
a b c d e f g h
1 2 .ie2, transposing to the game Carlsen - ttJxd 1 25 .ixf7t �xf7 26.�xd 1 a5 27.f4
Grischuk, should have been preferred. ih8! 28 .�xd6 a4 29.e5 b3 30.e6t �g8 3 1 .e7
b2 32.�d8t �g7 33.�dl (or 33.h4 b 1 =�t
8
34.�h2 �e4!) 33 ... �f7 he would be helpless.
7 16 .. J��b8
6 The simplest. Now the pawn on d4 is
5
impossible to defend, and after that the
4
difference in piece activity will be j ust too big.
3
17J�adl tlJxd4 18 ..ixd4 .ixd4 19.exd5
2
8
1
7
b d f g h
6
a c e
5
12 ... tlJd5!
4
Following the instant classics.
1 3.tiJxd5 cxd5 14.0-0 .ib7 3
2
Black's position is a pleasure to see - two
1
bishops fire at White's centre, and the knight
will j oin them in no time. Meanwhile the
b d f g h
knight on a4 is a silent witness to his army's
a c e
opening fiasco.
19 ...fih4
1 5.fib3 tlJ c6 16. ci> hl Eyeing the white king. The threat of . . . ie5 is
Understandably Brunello did n ot want to very unpleasant now.
enter the forced path by means of: 1 6.�xd5
ttJ a5 1 7.�g5 �xg5 1 8 .ixg5 ixd4t 1 9.�h 1 20.g3
Of course, White's position is no cause for
optimism, but it was better to do without this
move, which weakens the pawn shelter near
the king.
More chances for resistance would be offered

by the brave:
20.�c4 �ec8 2 l .�xb4
After that the best continuation for me
seems to be:
2 l . . .ic6
a b c d e f g h
2 1 . .. ixd5 is met by 22.�e l .
Indeed, after 1 9 . . . ic6 20 .ic2 ttJ c4 2 1 .�fd 1 22 .�a3 ixd5 23 .�xd6 �d8 24.�c7 �bc8
ie5 22.�ac l ixa4 23 .ixa4 ttJxb2 24.ixe8 25 .�g3 �xg3 26.hxg3 ixa2 27.�a 1 ib3
28 ..ie2 22JUel
28 .ixa6? �c6! 29.lt:Jc3 g5 would suddenly 22.ib5 was slightly better, but it would not
lead to checkmate. change much.
28 . . . a5
22 .. J�xel 23J�xel Y;Ygs 24.Y;Yc4 .ia7!?
24 . . . V9xd5 25 .V9xd5 ixd5 would lead to
a technically won endgame, but objectively
I made a stronger move - the white king is
under a strong attack and the knight on a4
cannot help.
25 ..ie4
Starting from this moment, I missed a few
possibilities, each of which would have led to
a quick win.
a b c d e f g h
The resulting endgame is certainly bad for 25 .. J�e8

White, but he still would retain chances to 25 . . . �c8 26.V9b5 V9d2t 27.V9e2 (27.�e2
hold. With queens on the board, his situation V9d l ) 27 . . . V9xe2t 28.�xe2 �c l 29.�c2 �g l t
is even worse - various assaults against the 30.�h3 ia6!-+ and the white king is in a
white king are hanging in the air. mating net.
20 ...Y;Yf6 2 1 . �g2 aS
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
Mter I made this move, Sabino became 26.. J�b8?
visibly sad - he has not even a shadow of 26 . . . .ic6! 27.V9xc6 V9d2t 28.�h3 �e5, with
counterplay and must await his fate. I was sure an irresistible mating attack, would have won
that the game would not last long and partially nicely.
lost my concentration. As is often the case, this
could have cost me dearly. Not so fast, but also a pretty win, would result
from:
26 . . . �e7 27. f4 3 1 .£4 YMe2 32.Wxe2

27.�e2 Wl'c l 28.tDb6 Wl'd 1 29.id3 �c7 and The position remains lost for White, but at
White is j ust helpless. least he has managed to exchange queens.
27 . . . WI'h5 28 .if3
28.f5 �xe4 29Jhe4 Wl'xf5 30.�e8t <;!;>g? 32 ... gxe2 33 ..id3 gxal 34..ic4 i.c8?
3 1 .WI'xb7 Wl'f2t 32.<;!;>h3 Wl'fl t 33 .<;!;>h4 Wl'f5! 34 . . . h6 3 5 .�e l g5 36.fxg5 hxg5 37.�e7 ig l
and the extra rook cannot save the white king. would still have finished the game quickly.
35.gel f7
3 5 ... id7, with the idea 36.�e7?! igl , would
have been much stronger. Before the time
control at move 40, I started to make mistake
after mistake.
36.ge2
8
a b c d e f g h
7
6
28 . . . ixd5!!
5
Black wins.
27.b3 YMe5 28J�dl f5 29 ..ibl ge8 30.h3 4
3
The last line of defence.
8 2
7 1
6 a b c d e f g h
5
36 ... gal ?
4
36 . . . �xe2 37.ixe2 id? should still be
3
enough for a win, but as I said, I was completely
disoriented.
1
37 ..ib5 .ib7?
37 . . . �cl , preventing 3 8.�c2, was the only
b d f g h
correct move.
a c e
30 .. J�e7 38J�c2
30 .. .f4! 3 1 .g4 ic8 32. <;!;>g2 ixg4 33.fxg4 Now suddenly White has good counterplay
f3t 34.<;!;>h 1 Wl'e2 3 5 .WI'xe2 fxe2 36.�e1 for the pawn.
if2 would again have finished the game
quickly. 38 ... gel 39.�c7t ge7
8
If 43 . . . f6 44.h4 h6 45.f3 g5 46.hxg5 t
7
(46.h5!?) 46 . . . hxg5 47.g2 ib7 48.ic4 <±>g6
49.h2 h5 50.ie2t Black would be unable
6 to storm the fortress. That's why I believed my
5
43th move was the best practical chance.
4 The critical line, however, comes after an
3
exchange of bishops:
2
43 . . . id7 44.ixd7 xd7 45.f3 <±>e7!
And not: 45 . . . h6? 46.h4 <±>e7 47.\t>g2 f6
1
48. f3 g5
a b c d e f g h
40J�xe7t?
The 40th move . . . Meanwhile 40.id7! ic8
4 1 .:8:xa7 ixd7 42.:8:xa5 ixa4 43.:8:xa4 :8:e4
would have led to a draw.
40 ... xe7 4I ..i.c4

But even now it's very questionable whether
Black can win, even with an extra pawn, the
bishop pair and the knight being cut off: a b c d e f g h
White has a kind of fortress.
49.h5 The draw is evident; the strangled
41 ...i.d4 42. g2 .icS 43 ..ih5! knight guards the c5-square - the only place
for the black king to break through. For this
8
reason we need to keep the h6-square clear
7
for the king.
46.h4 f6 47. <±>g2 <±>g7 48. f3
6
48.h2 h6 49.g2 h5 50.h3 h6-+
5
48 . . . \t>h6 49.g4
a b c d e f g h 3
2
43 ... g5!?
During the game, and also for a while
afterwards, I believed that White would be able a b c d e f g h
to set up a fortress if I did not do something
4 9 . . .'�:Yg7!
�
drastic.
At first I analysed a more natural, but weaker, 50.g5 h5!

line: 49 . . . fxg4t 50.<it>xg4 <it>g7 5 I .<it>f3
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
5 1 . <it>g2 <it>f7 52. <it>f3 <it>e7 53. <it>g3 <it>d7 54. <it>f3
5 1 . . . <it>f6? (Even here Black can win with <it>c7 5 5 .<it>g3 <it>b7 56.<it>f3 <it>a6 57.<it>g3 <it>b5
5 1 . . . h5! 52.<it>e4 if2 53.l2Jb2 ixh4 54.l2Jc4 White is quickly running into zugzwang.
ie l 5 5 .l2Jxa5 h4 56.l2Jc4 h3 57.<it>f3 h2 58.<it>f3 ig 1 59.<it>g2 ie3 60.<it>f3 id2 6 I .<it>g3
5 8.<it>g2 ig3 59.l2Jxd6 ixf4 60.l2Je4 <it>f7, ie 1 t 62.<it>h3 if2
as shown by Jacob Aagaard.) 5 2.<it>e4 if2
53.l2Jb2 ixh4 54.l2Jc4 a4 5 5 .bxa4 h 5
(5 5 . . . <it>e7 56.l2Ja5 <it>d7 57.f5 gxf5t 58.<it>xf5
id8 59.l2Jb3 h5 60.l2Jd2 <it>c7 6 I .l2Jb3 <it>b6
62.<it>f4
a b c d e f g h
Black wins, as he is not afraid of losing the

bishop.
63.l2J b2 <it>c5! 64.lt:Jd3t <it>d4 65.lt:Jxf2 <it>c3
And so on.
a b c d e f g h
I see no way for Black to win the game. For

44 . fxg5
example: 62 . . . <it>c7 63 .<it>f5 <it>d7 64.lt:Jd2 I gave back my extra pawn, but the fortress
h4 6 5 .<it>g4 ie7 66.lt:J b3 <it>e8 67.<it>h3 <it>f7 is no longer on the cards without the f4-pawn.
68.a5 id8 69.a6 ib6 70.<it>xh4 <it>f6 7 I .lt:Ja5 Still, all this is hardly sufficient to win the game.
<it>f5 72.<it>g3 <it>e4 73 .lt:Jc6 b3 74.a7 ixa7
75.lt:Jxa7 b2 76.lt:Jb5 <it>xd5 77.<it>f3 with an If 44.h4 gxf4 45 .gxf4 <it> f6 the h-pawns are on
obvious draw.) 56.a5 <it>e7 57.a6 if2 5 8 . lt:J e3 the board, which is in Black's favour: 46. <it>g3
b3 59.a7 b2 60.a8='W b 1 ='Wt 6 I .<it>f3 ixe3 <it>g6 47.<it>f3 ib7 48 .ic4 ic3 49 .l2Jb6 ie 1 ,
62. <it>xe3 Black has winning chances here, with good winning chances.
but nothing is guaranteed.
8
44... ci> f7 45. ci> £3
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
1
2
b d f g h
1
a c e
b d f g h
Black may again seriously count on
a c e
converting his extra pawn. Nevertheless, the
45 ... h6 reduced number of pawns gives White hope.
An impatient move.
5 1 ...-igl !
More chances would be promised by the An exact move.
simple 45 . . . mg6 46.h4 h6 47.gxh6 (bad is
47.ie8t mg7 48.g6 ia6) 47 . . . mxh6 48.mf4 After 5 I . . . ia7 52.lDb2 if5 t 53 .mf3 ixd3
mg6 49.ie8t mf6 50.ib5, and Black may try 54.lDxd3 mfs 5 5 .lD b2 mes 56.lDc4t mxd5
to win this, even though a draw is the most 57.lDxa5 the outcome probably would be a
probable outcome. draw - after 57 . . . md4 58.lDc6t the bishop on
a7 will be taken by the white knight.
46.gxh6 ci> g6 47.h3
After the natural 47.mf4 mxh6 48 .id3 mg6
49.g4 ie5t so.mf3 the position is j ust equal.
7
47... ci>xh6 48.g4?
In my opinion this mistake was caused by
nerves. 6
4
4s.mf4 mg6 49.iest m f6 so .ibs ib7
5 I .ic4 ia8 52.g4 would still lead to a fairly
3
easy draw.
4s ... ci> g5 49 ..id3 fxg4t 50.hxg4 Lg4t 2
1
5 1 . ci> e4
a b c d e f g h
White is in zugzwang, and my king will
finally penetrate.
55.t!Jb2 ®e5 56.®e2 65.®e2 ®e4 66.®d2 J.e3t 67.®c2 J.f4

56.lt:Jc4t �xd5 57.lt:Jxa5 �d4 58.�g2 ie3 68.t!J c5t ®e3 69.t!Jb7 J.c7 70.t!Jc5 d4
59.�f3 ih6 60.lt:Jc4 if8 6 1 .�e2 �c3 62.lDa5 7I.t!Jd3
d5 63.�d l ih6 would not save White either.
7
56 ... ®xd5 57.®d3
Or 57.lt:Jc4 a4.
6
5
57 ... ®c6 58.t!Jc4 .ih6 59.t!Jb2 d5
8 4
7 3
6 2
5 1
4 a b c d e f g h
3 71. .. a4! 72.t!Jxb4 a3 73.®dl d3 74.t!Ja2
2
.ia5 75.b4 .ids 76.b5 ®d4 77.®d2 .ia5t
78.®dl ®c4
Not a great game, of course, but the opening
b d f g h
and endgame are quite interesting.
a c e
0-1
White loses because his knight will soon run
out of good squares.
60.t!Ja4 .ia7 6I.t!Jb2 ®d6 62.t!Ja4 ®e6!

63.t!Jb2 ®e5 64.t!J a4 .id4
This knight is strangled again - the bishop
dominates him. The rest is easy.
Chapter 1 1
My Two Favourite Losses
Mikhail Tal playing in Berlin 1986

In this section you get a chance 8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
6. 6.
What is the most accurate How should White organize the

technical move? (see page 337) queenside? (see page 34 1 )
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
What simple move had I White wins the exchange with 20 years passed before the
overlooked, giving Tal an ie6 but how can he improve
, defence was discovered. Can
advantage? (see page 336) the position first? (see page 337) you find it? (see page 342/43)
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
How can White take the Which great positional move I did not find the defence, giving
initiative? (see page 336) did Kasparov make? Kasparov an option to do what?
(see page 339/40) (see page 343)
Chapter 1 1 - My Two Favourite Losses 335
In this book I have given a collection of my

best games in the King's Indian. This can give
a somewhat lopsided impression, which is by
no means my intention. When you live by the
sword, you will at times die by the sword. I
have played the King's Indian for decades and
have of course suffered my share of undeserved
and unlucky defeats. Of these, two are more
memorable than any others.
Mikhail Tal - Ilya Smirin a b c d e f g h
Podolsk 1990 One example is the following game, which

I played in a match against four computer
This was my only game with my chess hero programs (which I won 5-3). Perhaps this was
Mikhail Tal. One of the first chess books I read one of the last occasions on which a human
was " Vogon Ataki" by Tal and Damsky. I read prevailed over the silicon monster in chess.
this book tens of times and I think it influenced 14.a4 id7 1 5 .ttJd2 bxa4 1 6.ixa4 cxd5 1 7.exd5
my chess style. By 1 990 Tal was already very ixa4 1 8 .!ha4 ttJd7 1 9 .ie3 ifS 20.ttJc4 ib4t
ill: he looked much older than his age. Still he 2 l .@e2 !!ec8 22.b3 !!ab8 23.ttJxa5 ixa5
remained Tal - a true genius. In the USSR Team 24.!!xa5 !!xb3 25 .!!d l @f8 26.d6 !!b7 27.!!c l
Championship in which we played this game !!xc l 28 .!!a8t !!b8 29.!!xb8t ttJxb8 30.ixc l
he performed very well, and won three games @e8 3 l .@d3 @d7 32 .ia3 f5 33.g3 g5 34.h3
with no losses, on Board 1 . Alas, it was one h5 35.@c4 @c6 36.@d3 ttJd7 37.f3 ttJ f6 38.g4
of his last triumphs, and about two years later fxg4 39.fxg4 hxg4 40.hxg4 Y2-Y2 Hiarcs 8
Mikhail passed away. The name of the Magician - Smirin, Internet 2002.
from Riga will remain in chess forever. As for
me, this game occupies a very special place in lO.liJxe5 ge8 1 1 .0-0-0 liJa6
my memory. Not l l . . . !!xe5 ? 1 2 .!!d8t !!e8 1 3 .ixf6 !!xd8
Most of the main games in this book are games 1 4.ixd8.
I have won, but there are a few exceptions. The
two in this chapter are the kindof games you
want to lose; if you absolutely have to!
l .liJf3 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3.liJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.d4

0-0 6.ie2 e5 7.dxe5
The first surprise. Very often this move is
made by players who have nothing against a
draw. But Tal? Soon I realized that the matter
is not so simple.
7 ... dxe5 s.Y;Yxd8 gxd8 9.ig5 c6

b d f g h
A few times I have played: 9 . . J!e8 l O.ttJd5
a c e
ttJxd5 l l .cxd5 c6 1 2.ic4 b5 1 3 .ib3 a5
12.gd6!?
I knew the continuation 1 2.f4 h6 1 3 ..ih4

g5 and so on, with good play for the pawn,
which Black usually wins back. The move
me completely by surprise. Mter the game I

made by the ex-World Champion caught
found out that it had been played for the first

time in 1 98 8 . Mikhail Nekhem' evich noticed
the move during a tournament in Tel Aviv in
which he was participating, shortly before our
encounter.
I could not cope with the unexpected move b d f g h

12 .. J!xe5?
I missed this second rook trip to d6. Now

a c e
and answered with one of the worst possible
options.
Black's position quickly becomes critical.
The game that inspired Tal to play this variation

15 ... �xe4
continued: Playing a pawn down would bring no greater
1 2 . . ..ie6 1 3 . f3 joy.
1 3 .f4 h6 1 4 . .ixf6 .ixf6 1 5 .�hd 1 .ixe5
1 6. fxe5 �ac8 happened in a game by two 16J!d8t <it>g7 17.�xe4 gxe4
legendary players: 1 7.�d2 �e7 1 8 .�e3
�ce8 1 9 .�d8 �f8 20.h4 ltJ c5 2 l .�xe8t
�xe8 22.b4 ltJ d7 23.�f4 �e7 24.ltJd5t
Vz-Vz Korchnoi - Kasparov, Tilburg 1 99 1 .

cxd5 25.cxd5 �c8 26.dxe6 fxe6 27.�d2 �f8t
1 3 . . . ttJc5 1 4 ..ie3 ltJa6 1 5 . f4 .if8 1 6.�dd 1 .ib4
(Vz-Vz, 39) Bruk - Lev, Tel Aviv 1 990, and

17 ..if3 ltJ c5 1 8 . .ixc5 .ixc5 1 9 .�he 1
White had a healthy extra pawn which he was

unable to convert later.
Still 1 2 . . . .ie6 was the right choice, as was

shown by Kasparov in the game above.
a b c d e f g h
But 1 2 . . . ttJ h 5 ! ? deserves attention as well.
18 ..if3!
An important finesse. The ex-World
c8-bishop firmly tied to the last rank. I was

Champion sacrifices a pawn to keep the
naive to count on 1 8 . .id3 �e7 1 9.�d 1 b6,

when Black is more or less OK.
18 ... gxc4t 19.<it>d2 c5?

A second and decisive mistake. I wanted to Slightly better was 20 . . . �d4 t 2 1 .�xd4 cxd4,
create the possibility of exchanging a pair of but even in this case after 22.�c7 ie6 23 .ixb7
rooks via d4, but this does not work. �d8 24.b3 Black will hardly be able to keep
both weaknesses on d4 and a7 alive.
More stubborn was:
1 9 . . . b6 20.b3 21. ci>xcl
20.!k 1 �xc l 2 1 .mxc 1 ib7 22.�d7 �b8 It is already more or less clear that the pinned
23.�c7± was the line Tal proposed in Chess bishop will cost Black at least an exchange.
Informant.
20.�e 1 also promises White better prospects. 21. .. h5 22.h4 gbs 23.ges f6 24 ..id5 g5
20 . . . �f4!? 25.g3 gxh4 26.gxh4 ci> g6 27. ci> d2 b5
Worse is 20 ... �c5 2 1 .�e 1 ib7 22.�xa8 27 . . . ie6 would lose at once after 28.ie4t!.
ixa8 23 .�e8 ib7 24.b4 �c4 25.b5 cxb5
26.ixb7 �a4 27.�e7 �xa2t 28.me3 and 28. ci> e3 b4
here the bishop is much stronger than three
8
pawns - I think White should win.
7
2 1 .ixc6 �xf2t 22.me3 �e2t 23.mf4
Not 23.mxe2? ig4t.
23 . . . �b8 6
5
Black retains reasonable practical chances to
4
hold this.
3
20J!cl !
2
8
1
7
b d f g h
6
a c e
5
29.a3! bxa3 30.bxa3 a5 3 1 . ci> f4 a4 32.£3!
4
Zugzwang.
3 8
2 7
1 6
a b c d e f g h 5
I underestimated the strength of this move. 4
3
White simply exchanges the opponent's only
2
piece that is able to do something. After that
Black is left with an army of invalids.
b d f g h
20 .. J!xcl
a c e
338 King's I nd ian Warfare
32 ... ®g7 33 ..ie6 .ixe6 34J�xb8 .ib3 Garry Kasparov - Ilya Smirin
35J�b5
Moscow 1988
8 This game remains one of my most memorable

7 encounters, even though I happened to be
6
on the receiving end. The game was deeply
5
annotated by Garry Kasparov twice: together
with A. Nikitin in Chess Informant back in
4
on Carry Kasparov Part 11: 1985-1993. I have
1 988, and in his recent book Carry Kasparov
3 used some of his annotations here.
2
l .tiJf3 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJ c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.d4
0-0 6 ..ie2 e5 7.0-0 tlJc6 8.d5 tlJe7 9.tiJd2
b d f g h
a c e
a5 10.a3 tiJd7 l l .E:bl f5 12.b4
8
resigned due to the loss of either the
7
c-pawn or the h-pawn. A clean win by Mikhail
(or Misha, as he was called by his numerous
6
friends) Tal.
5
1-0
a b c d e f g h
12 ... b6
As I remember, my preparation for this game
lasted about 1 0 minutes. When I returned
after the game I discovered the position after
Black's 1 2th move was still on the board in
my hotel room. Great preparation for my first
encounter with the champion of the world!
Actually the last move has been considered
second-best for about 25 years. The reason is
clear: Black prevents c4-c5 for a while, but
after White does carry out this advance, it will
gain in strength because of the pawn being on
b6.
8
The main continuation here became:
7
1 2 . . . @h8 1 3 .f3
Or instead 1 3.'1Nc2 l2Jg8 ( 1 3 . . . t2J f6! ? 1 4 . f3
6
axb4 1 5 .axb4 c6 is an interesting alternative)
5
1 3 . . . b6, which I played later in 1 988 against
4
Gavrikov, see page 1 32.
13 . . . t2Jg8
3
This was played several times by Kasparov
2
himself. The most famous of these games
you may find in the annotations to the game
Kasimdzhanov - Smirin in this book, as well
b d f g h
as those to Khalifman - Kasparov, Paris 1 99 1
(see page 1 7 1 ) . a c e
In the post mortem Carry Kimovich told me

13.f3 that he had thought that Black could not hold
both of the weak pawns on b6 and d6, and
that the game was basically over, but . . .
1 8. . .i.d7 19.�c4 �c8

Eureka! Everything is defended and the
battle continues.
20.i.a3 �e8
6
b d f g h
5
a c e
4
13 ... £4
Black unambiguously reveals his plan -
3
attack on the kingside by means of . . . g5 etc.
The exchange of the dark-squared bishops 2

deserved some attention: 1 3 . . ..ih6 1 4 . t2J b3 1
b d f g h
.ixc l Still, after 1 5 .Wxc l axb4 1 6.axb4 f4
1 7.c5 bxc5 1 8 . bxc5 t2J f6 1 9 .!h1 gb8 20.'1Na3 a c e
White is ahead in creating concrete threats. Black's pieces are quite passive at the
moment, but they successfully withstand
I4.ltJa4 axb4 1 5.axb4 g5 16.c5 �f6 17.cxd6 the opponent's pressure on the kingside.
cxd6 18.b5 Meanwhile he is ready to play . . . h7-h5,
... gf6-g6 and ... g5-g4, which looks threatening.
The World Champion decides to nip that in
the bud.
2 1 .g4! 23 ... gxf3 24.ha tl)f6

Trying to seal (or almost seal) the kingside. Kasparov recommends 24 ... �c7 as a more
Now I faced a complicated choice: to take en precise continuation.
passant or to leave it as it is.
25 ..ig5
2 1 . .. fxg3?! An unpleasant pin - White has more space,
I agree with Kasparov - this is a dubious and that allows him to set up his pieces very
decision, even though he (and Nikitin) marked actively.
it as "the only move" in Informant back in
1 98 8 . 25 .. J�a7 26J:U2 �b7!?
Overprotecting the pawn on b6, with the
Correct is hi s latter recommendation: 2 1 . . . h5 idea of freeing the queen from this function
22.h3 �f7 (22 ... �f6!?) 23.<j;>g2 .if8, with an and playing . . . �e8.
unclear position - Black will play . . . �h7 and
speculate, with the intention of opening the 27.�b3
h-file at the appropriate moment.
7
22.hxg3 g4!
8 6
7 5
6 4
5 3
4 2
2 a b c d e f g h
27 ... �a7
b d f g h
I do not remember why I did not fulfil
a c e
my intention to play 27 . . . �e8 : it was quite
The only chance to create some counterplay possible, attacking the pawn on b5 and
- otherwise White would proceed tt:J e3 , g4, trying to activate the queen via g6. After the
tt:J f5 and so on. probable 28 ..ixf6 �xf6 29 . .ih5 �e7 30.�xf6
.ixf6 3 1 ..ig4 .ig5 Black would still be worse,
23 ..icl ! but his defence is hard to crack - White has
Controlling g5. problems activating the knight on a4. But the
23.fxg4 �xfl t 24 .mxfl (if 24 ..ixfl then

move made in the game is hardly worse - at
least from a practical standpoint.
24 . . . tt:J f6, attacking the pawns on e4 and g4)
24 . . . �g5 25 . .ic l �g6 26 ..if3 tt:J f6! would be 28.�bl
welcomed by Black. Kasparov writes that he was in doubt as to
whether he would win after 28.tt:Jaxb6!? tt:J xb6
Chapter 1 1 - My Two Favourite Losses 34 1
8
29.lt:Jxb6 ltWxb6 30.ie3 ltWa5 3 l .ixa7 ltWxa7
7
32.b6, and he decided to repeat moves to save
some time on the clock.
6
5
28 .. J�b7 29J�b3 �a7 30.�b4!
8 4
7 3
6 2
4 b d f g h
A very strong move, indirectly applying even
a c e
2
more pressure against the knight on f6.
1 3 t . ..Lbs
b d f g h
As I remember I still had some optimism
a c e
at this point, hoping to somehow repel the
This rook cements the queenside, protecting champion's assault.
virtually everything.
32.�xb5 �xa4 33 ..ig2
A move made JUSt in case". True, Black

30... ®h8?! 33.id l ! El:al 34.lt:Je3 would be stronger -
Black has no satisfactory defence after that,
has a limited number of ideas, but 30 .. J�b7 despite the pin on the first rank. But honestly
(why not continue to move the rook back and speaking, to play this during a game is not very
forth?) with the same intention to play . . . ltWe8 realistic, even for the World Champion.
would be stronger - I am still not sure if White
has more than a "pleasant position" after that. 33 ... h6 34..ih4 �e8!
8
I did not play the immediate 30 . . .ltWe8? due to
7
3 l .lt:J axb6 lt:Jxb6 32.lt:Jxb6 ixb5 33.ixf6 El:xf6
34.ih5, and Black loses the piece.
6
5
3 1 .�fl !
a b c d e f g h
8
The only move which retains hope - passive
7
defence would be doomed.
6
35.hf6 gxf6
5
Not 3 5 . . . \Wxb S ? 36.ixg7t xg7 37.�xf8 .
4
36.gxf6 'lMxb5
8 3
7 2
5 a b c d e f g h
4 38 ..ih3!!
3
Just an amazing idea! Kasparov was visibly
2
nervous and he made this move very fast.
I think it's irrelevant that Gary Kimovich
himself awarded the move a "?"in his
b d f g h
book.
a c e
Yes, the computer's vanauon 3 8.if3 �b4
At this moment we both were in time
39.id l , "with an irresistible attack on the
trouble. Unfortunately, I do not remember
light squares" (Kasparov) is objectively much
exactly when Kasparov took his time and
stronger - White is winning. Kasparov adds
thought deeply about the position - now or
quite a few variations which you may find in
before his 35 th move? Anyway, after that he
his book. But first of all, it would be absolutely
played very quickly and without hesitation.
unreal to play this during a game, especially
37.ge6! in time trouble. And even more importantly
Again I do not remember exactly, but in my opinion: why replace the real beauty of
perhaps I did not see this. chess with a computer's mathematics? Even for
the sake of the truth . . .
37.�f8t? ixf8 38.\Wxf8t h7 39.\Wf7t would
lead only to a draw (39 .ih3? is bad due to 38 ... gxc4?
39 . . . \WcSt 40. g2 �a2t 4 L h l �al t) . I was kind of disoriented, and in time trouble
I made the most natural move - not seeing the
37 ... ®g8! beautiful refutation.
The only move - the king covers f7. The
tension has reached its peak now. No one But I am not sure if I would have found the
among the numerous spectators (several strong defence even with a couple of hours left on the
grandmasters among them) saw how White clock (perhaps I would have done it just by a
could continue the attack. Neither did I . process of elimination) . Indeed, it's absolutely
extraordinary to see the only saving move
Of course, 37 . . . �xc4 38 .\Wf7 would lose o n the IS:
spot.
3S . . . h5!! 39.lt:Je3 8
39 .�h6? does not work - 39 . . ..ixh6 40 . .ie6t
7
hS 4 1 .�f6t .ig7 42.�dSt h7 43 ..if5t
6
@ h6 - the pawn on h5 covers the black king
from a lethal check from h4. 5
39 . . . �xfl t 40 ..ixfl 4
40. xfl @f7 4 1 . ttJ f5 .ifS and everything is 3
protected.
2
40 . . . �xe4 4 1 .lt:J f5 .ifS 42.ib5
Or 42.�eS lt:Je7! (another finesse) 43.lt:Jxe7t
@f7 44.�xfSt xfS 4 5 . lt:J f5 h4 with equal a b c d e f g h
chances. Just beautiful, isn't it?

42 . . . �e l t 43. g2 �c l 44.�eS f7
Black successfully defends (Kasparov) . 40.�e6t ®hs 41.�f6t
I resigned due to the forced checkmate:
Needless to say, 3S . . . h5!! was discovered in the 4 l . .. h7 (4 1 . .. .ig7 42 .�h4t)
computer era - the modern Houdini "sees"
this move in a fraction of a second. 8
39J�xh6!! 7
8
6
7 4
6
3
5
2
3
a b c d e f g h
42.�f7t .ig7 43 ..if5 t hs 44.�h5t gS

2
45 . .ie6t fS 46.�f7#
1
1-0
b d f g h A real masterpiece by the then World
A bolt from the blue. I was astonished, but

a c e
Champion. Alexander Nikitin, who coached
Kasparov for many years, wrote in his book
even if I hadn't been, it's too late for Black to
that he considers this game one of the best in
do anything.
Kasparov's outstanding career. (By the way, I
had a conversation with Nikitin a few days after
A picturesque checkmate with a pinned

39 ...1xh6 this game, and he told me not to quit playing
the KI D, because I play it well. I have followed
white queen would be the result of: 39 . . . �c5t
his advice until now!) I have to confess that I
40.h l �cl 4 l ..ie6#
never gained such a creative impression from a
lost game as I did from this one.
Game Index
Chapter 1
Nimrod Veinberg - Ilya Smirin, Jerusalem 20 1 5 11
Lembit 011 - Ilya Smirin, Rostov-on-Don 1 993

Yannick Pelletier - Andreas Skytte Hagen, Legnica 20 1 3 12
14
Portisch - Kasparov, Linares 1 990 15
Reshevsky - Najdorf, Zurich 1 9 53 15
Van der Sterren - Smirin, Tilburg 1 992 15
Alexey Kuzmin - Ilya Smirin, Nabereznye Chelny 1 988 18
Baron - Smirin, Israeli Championship 20 1 6 18
Vitiugov - Ganguly, Khanty-Mansiysk (ol) 20 1 0 19
Lautier - Smirin, Rethymnon 2003 19
Kuzmin - Badea, Moscow 1 99 1 19
Alexander Beliavsky - Ilya Smirin, Belgrade 1 998 22
Kazhgaleyev - Shchekachev, Livry Gargan 200 5 23
Pinter - Tkachiev, Porec 1 998 23
A. Mikhalevski - Smirin, Rishon Le Zion 1 997 23
Boris Avrukh - Ilya Smirin, Israel 1 999 27
Alexander Grischuk - Ilya Smirin, Beersheba 2005 33
Sokolov - Smirin, Groningen 1 993 33
Chapter 2
Vladimir Kramnik - Garry Kasparov, Linares 1 994 41
Vladimir Kramnik - Garry Kasparov, Novgorod 1 997 43
Goncalves - Sender, corr. 200 1 44
Szeberenyi - Zimmerman, Budapest 1 999 45
Baeckstroem - Petraitis, corr. 2002 45
Vladimir Kramnik - Ilya Smirin, Moscow 1 992 46
Beliavsky - Ilya Smirin, Moscow 1 98 8 47
Zaid - Smirin, Israel 1 99 1 47
Vladimir Kramnik - Ilya Smirin, Moscow 1 99 5 52
Cramling - Smirin, Stockholm 20 1 2 53
Kramnik - Ivanchuk, Moscow 1 995 53
Vladimir Kramnik - Ilya Smirin, Belgrade 1 999 59
Pelletier - Nakamura, Skopje 20 1 5 59
Vladimir Kramnik - Ilya Smirin Russia - ROW (rapid) 2002 63
Chapter 3
Wang Yue - Teimour Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2009 69
Florin Gheorghiu - Garry Kasparov, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1 988 70
Teimour Radjabov - Ding Liren, Wijk aan Zee 20 1 5 71
Jan Gustafsson - Vladimir Kramnik, Dortmund 20 1 2 72
Loek van Wely - Daniel Stellwagen, Amsterdam 2009 73
Van Wely - Degraeve, Mondariz 2000 73
Game Index 345
Van Wely - Radjabov, Dresden (ol) 2008 73

Giorgi Kacheishvili - Ilya Smirin, Minneapolis 2005 76
Macieja - Smirin, Maalot-Tarshiha 2008 76
Wendt - Smirin, Ohrid 2009 76
Mchedlishvili - Avrukh, Beersheba 2005 77
Mchedlishvili - Hillarp Persson, Gothenburg 200 5 77
Denis Khismatullin - Ilya Smirin, Poikovsky 20 1 5 81
Avrukh - Smirin, Tel Aviv 1 996 81
Alterman - Xu, Cap d'Agde 1 994 83
Ubilava - Grigoriants, Linares 2003 83
Christopher Lutz - Ilya Smirin, Groningen 1 993 87
Bykhovsky - Smirin, Haifa 2008 88
Boris Alterman - Ilya Smirin, Israel 1 99 1 93
Dreev - Smirin, Dos Hermanas 200 1 93
Bobotsov - Tal, Varna 1 9 58 94
Igor Naumkin - Ilya Smirin, Ischia 1 99 5 101
Ivanchuk - Smirin, Pinsk 1 986 1 02
I. Ivanov - Smirin, Philadelphia 1 990 1 03
Savchenko - Smirin, St Petersburg 20 1 2 1 03
Chapter 4
Mark Taimanov - Miguel Najdorf, Zurich 1 9 53 1 09
Tatiana Shumiakina - Narine Karakashian, Volzhsky 1 989 111
Igor Bjelobrk - Alexander Grischuk, Troms0 ( 1 . 1 ) 20 1 3 1 12
Giovanni Vescovi - Teimour Radjabov, Bursa 20 1 0 1 13
Levon Aronian - Magnus Carlsen, Nice (blindfold) 2 0 1 0 1 14
Wesley So - Hikaru Nakamura, Sinquefield 20 1 5 115
Per Auchenberg - Brian Elgaard, Copenhagen 1 992 1 17
Alexander Huzman - Ilya Smirin, Sverdlovsk 1 987 118
Korchnoi - Hulak, Zagreb 1 987 1 18
Korchnoi - Ye Jiangchuan, Novi Sad 1 19
Yuri Dokhoian - Ilya Smirin, Sverdlovsk 1 987 1 23
Doroshkievich - Tal, Yerevan 1 975 1 24
Christiansen - Kasparov, Moscow 1 982 125
Rafael Leitao - Ilya Smirin, New York 2000 1 28
Yakovich - Smirin, Munich 1 993 1 28
Yusupov - Gelfand, Dortmund 1 997 1 29
Yusupov - Smirin, Yerevan 1 996 1 29
Viktor Gavrikov - Ilya Smirin, Klaipeda 1 988 1 32
Ivanchuk - Kasparov, Linares 1 992 1 33
Gavrikov - Kasparov, Moscow 1 98 8 1 33
Lputian - Frolov, Helsinki 1 992 1 34
Igor Novikov - Ilya Smirin, Las Vegas 1 999 141
Kaidanov - Smirin, Mallorca 2004 1 42
Dreev - Smirin, Biel 1 993 1 42

Evgeny Postny - Ilya Smirin, Maalot-Tarshiha 2008 1 46
Aronian - Radjabov, Sofia 2008 1 46
Bareev - Smirin, Moscow 2002 1 46
Mikhalevski - Smirin, Philadelphia 2008 1 46
Lputian - Smirin, Kemer 2007 1 46
Chapter 5
Aleksej Aleksandrov - Alexei Fedorov, Minsk 20 1 6 1 53
Eesha Karavade - Pierre Bailet, Nancy 20 1 6 1 53
Alexei Barsov - Ilya Smirin, Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 20 1 0 1 54
Cvitan - Smirin, Tilburg 1 993 155
Durarbayli - Smirin, Plovdiv 20 1 2 1 55
Mamedyarov - Smirin, Khanty-Mansiysk (blitz) 20 1 3 1 56
Mikhail Nedobora - Ilya Smirin, Israel 2008 1 60
Milov - Smirin, Haifa 1 99 5 1 60
Aleksandrov - Smirin, New York 1 998 161
Kiril Georgiev - Ilya Smirin, Elenite 1 994 1 64
Chapter 6
Alexander Khalifman - Garry Kasparov, Paris (rapid) 1 99 1 171
Mesgen Amanov - Ilya Smirin, King of Prussia 20 1 0 1 73
Greenfeld - Smirin, Haifa 1 993 1 73
lvanchuk - Smirin, Odessa 2007 1 74
Michalik - Smirin, Jerusalem 20 1 5 1 74
Avrukh - Smirin, Netanya 2009 1 75
Boris Chatalbashev - Ilya Smirin, Athens 2007 1 78
Khalifman - Smirin, Sverdlovsk 1 987 1 79
Malakhov - Grischuk, Moscow 20 1 0 1 79
Lev - Smirin, Haifa 1 993 1 79
Moiseenko - Smirin, Maalot-Tarshiha 2008 1 79
Rustam Kasimdzhanov - Ilya Smirin, Elista Olympiad 1 998 1 82
Larsen - Fischer, Denver (4) 1 97 1 1 82
Karpov - Kasparov, Skelleftea 1 989 1 83
M. Gurevich - Smirin, Haifa 1 99 5 1 84
M . Gurevich - Smirin, Elenite 1 994 1 84
Tigran Kotanjian - Ilya Smirin, European Championship, Yerevan 20 1 4 1 87
Boris Alterman - Ilya Smirin, Israeli League 2004 1 92
Dydyshko - Vokac, Ostrava 200 5 1 92
Razuvaev - Zagrebelny, Moscow 1 983 1 92
Parligras - Smirin, Skopje 20 1 4 1 93
Yaacov Zilberman - Ilya Smirin, Tel Aviv 1 999 1 99
Petrosian - Geller, Moscow 1 949 1 99
Zilberman - Smirin, Israel 20 1 1 1 99
Gligoric - Fischer, Siegen (ol) 1 970 1 99
Game I ndex 347
Zilberman - Smirin, Israel 2007 200

Zilberman - Smirin, Panormo 200 1 200
Vaganian - Smirin, Rostov-on-Don 1 993 20 1
Evgeny Bareev - Ilya Smirin, Moscow (rapid) 2002 205
Eljanov - Smirin, Porto Carras 20 1 1 206
Korobov - Smirin, Nakhchivan 20 1 1 207
Chapter ?
Andrey Zontakh - Jaroslav Ulko, Voronezh 20 1 5 215
A. Fedorov - Ozolin, Kazan 20 1 3 215
Vyacheslav Dydyshko - Ilya Smirin, Byelorussia 1 986 218
Aleksandrov - Smirin, Minsk 1 987 218
A. Petrosian - Smirin, Polanica Zdroj 1 989 219
lvery Chighladze - Ilya Smirin, Baku 2009 223
Postny - Smirin, Israel 20 1 0 223
L . Kaufman - Smirin, Rockville 20 1 3 224
Petr Haba - Ilya Smirin, Polanica Zdroj 1 989 227
Smyslov - Polugaevsky, Riga 1 975 228
Bandza - Smirin, Dortmund 1 990 228
Basin - Smirin, Minsk 1 987 229
M . Gurevich - Smirin, Moscow 1 988 230
Nakamura - Vachier-Lagrave, London 20 1 5 23 1
Ufimtsev - Tal, USSR 1 967 232
Chapter 8
Abhijeet Gupta - Kaido Kulaots, Cappelle-la-Grande 20 1 5 235
Wimmer - Cill6niz Razzeto, email 20 1 4 235
Viktor Korchnoi - Ilya Smirin, Dresden 1 998 237
Teimour Radjabov - Ilya Smirin, Dos Hermanas 200 1 242
Jaan Ehlvest - Ilya Smirin, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009 25 1
Korchnoi - Kasparov, Debrecen 1 992 252
Dydyshko - Ehlvest, Tallinn 1 980 25 2
Josh Manion - Ilya Smirin, Las Vegas 1 997 256
Kourkounakis - Smirin, Gausdal 1 990 256
Petrosian - Gligoric, Rovinj/Zagreb 1 970 25 7
Boris Gelfand - Ilya Smirin, Saint Vincent 2005 26 1
Kantsler - Smirin, Jerusalem 2005 26 1
Colovic - Smirin, Skopje 20 1 4 262
Bercys - Smirin, Philadelphia 20 1 1 262
King - Kveinys, Germany 1 993 262
loannis Nikolaidis - Ilya Smirin, Panormo 200 1 268
Moiseenko - Cheparinov, Kemer 2007 268
Beim - Smirin, Tel Aviv 1 996 269
Agrest - Nithander, Copenhagen 2007 269
Chapter 9
Johan-Sebastian Christiansen - Ilya Smirin, Stockholm 20 1 6 275
Loek van Wely - Teimour Radjabov, Biel 2007 275
Maxim Rodshtein - Ilya Smirin, Ashdod 2006 278
Gelfand - Smirin, Rishon Le Zion 2006 279
Yevseev - Loginov, Kazan 200 5 279
David Anton Guijarro - Ilya Smirin, Yerevan 20 1 4

Golod - Areshchenko, Port Erin 2007 279
282
Serper - Smirin, Philadelphia 1 996 283
Nabaty - Smirin, Skopje 20 1 3 283
Bologan - Al Sayed, Qatar Masters 20 1 5 284
Anton Guijarro - Naroditsky, Al Ain 20 1 3 284
Petrosian - Geller, Moscow 1 949 284
Evgeny Postny - Ilya Smirin, Acre 20 1 3 288
Roiz - Smirin , Tel Aviv 2002 289
Speelman - Kasparov, Madrid (rapid) 1 98 8 290
Gershon - Smirin, Israeli Team Championship 2007 290
Ronen Lev - Ilya Smirin, Ramat Gan 1 992 294
Illescas Cordoba - Smirin, Oviedo (rapid) 1 993 295
Ivanov - Smirin, Los Angeles 2000 296
Chapter 10
Fabiano Caruana - Hikaru Nakamura, Wij k aan Zee 20 1 3 303
Yuri Yakovich - Ilya Smirin, Saint-Vincent 2000 304
Bareev - Kasparov, Linares 1 992 304
Hauchard - Hebden, Cappelle la Grande 1 998 305
Yakovich - S. Bekker Jensen, Gothenburg 2000 305
Mihail Marin - Ilya Smirin, Ramat Aviv 2000 3 10
Krasenkow - Smirin, Polanica Zdroj 1 99 5 310
Goldin - Kosanovic, Belgrade 1 98 8 31 1
Pigusov - Smirin, Las Vegas 1 998 31 1
Christian Gabriel - Ilya Smirin, Pula 2000 316
Ostenstad - Nakamura, Rhodes 20 1 3 316
Piket - J . Polgar, Aruba 1 99 5 316
Korobov - Smirin, Eilat 20 1 2 317
Sabino Brunello - Ilya Smirin, Helsingor 20 1 5 323
Karpov - Kasparov, Lyon/New York 1 990 323
Carlsen - Grischuk, Dubai (rapid) 20 1 4 324
Dreev - Wang Hao, Troms0 20 1 3 324
Chapter 1 1
Mikhail Tal - Ilya Smirin, Podolsk 1 990 335
Hiarcs 8 - Smirin, Internet 2002 335
Korchnoi - Kasparov, Tilburg 1 99 1 336
Garry Kasparov - Ilya Smirin, Moscow 1 988 338
Name Index
A c
Aagaard 8, 329 Carlsen 24, 1 1 4, 324, 325

Agrest 269 Caruana 303
Aleksandrov 1 5 3, 1 6 1 , 2 1 8 Chatalbashev 1 78, 1 79, 1 80
AI Sayed 284 Cheparinov 268
Alterman 83, 93, 9 5 , 98, 1 00, Chighladze 223
1 82, 1 92, 1 93, 1 9 5 , 1 96 Chigladze 1 8 , 226
Amanov 1 73, 1 75 , 1 77 Christiansen 1 25 , 275
An and 52, 63, 1 1 5 Cill6niz Razzeto 235
A. Petrosian 219 Colovic 262
Areshchenko 279 Craciunescu 44
Aronian 1 1 4, 1 1 5 , 1 46 Cramling 53
Auchenberg 1 17 Cvitan 1 55
Averbakh 218
Avrukh 1 1 , 23, 27, 29, 30, 32, D
77, 8 1 , 82, 1 7 5 , 1 82 Dam sky 23 1 , 335
Degraeve 73
B
Delchev 206
Badea 19 Oing Liren 71
Baeckstroem 45 Dokhoian 1 23, 1 24
Bailer 1 53 Doroshkievich 1 24
Balcazar Novoa 44 Dreev 93, 1 42, 247, 323 , 324
Bareev 59, 1 46, 20 5 , 208, 2 1 0, 304 Durarbayli 155
Baron 18 Dydyshko 1 92, 2 1 8, 222, 252
Barsov 1 54, 1 56, 1 73
Basin 229, 230 E
Beim 269 Ehlvest 25 1 , 252, 253
Bekker Jensen 305 Elgaard 1 17
Beliavsky 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 47, 1 23 Eljanov 206
Benjamin 1 79
Bercys 262 F
Bjelobrk 1 12
Fedorov 1 53, 2 1 5 , 268
Bobotsov 94
Fischer 5, 7, 33, 1 82, 1 99
Bologan 283, 284
Frolov 1 34
Bronstein 7, 1 09
Bruk 336
Brunello 323, 325
Bykhovsky 88
G K
Gabriel 3 1 6, 3 1 8 , 3 1 9 , 322 Kacheishvili 76
Ganguly 19 Kaidanov 1 42
Gavrikov 1 32, 1 33 , 1 34, Kantsler 26 1
1 37, 1 4 1 , 1 83 , 339 Karakashian 111
Gelfand 3 , 6, 63, 1 1 5 , 1 1 8 , 1 23 , Karavade 1 53
1 29, 1 60, 1 82, 243, 244, 26 1 , Karpov 63, 1 23, 1 7 1 , 1 73 , 1 83 , 323
262, 263, 265 , 278, 279, 288 Kasimdzhanov 1 82, 1 83 , 339
Geller 7, 1 83 , 1 84, 1 99, 284 Kasparov 7, 1 5 , 4 1 , 43, 46, 52, 63,
Georgiev 1 64, 1 67 70, 72, 87, 1 1 0, 1 23 , 1 24, 1 25 , 1 32,
Gershon 290 1 33, 1 7 1 , 1 72, 1 73 , 1 82, 1 83 , 25 1 ,
Gheorghiu 70, 7 1 , 72, 87 252, 289, 290, 304 , 305, 323, 334,
Gligoric 1 09, 1 99, 256, 257 336, 338, 339, 340, 342, 343, 344
Goldin 31 1 Kaufman 224
Golod 279 Kazhgaleyev 23
Goncalves 45 Khalifman 67, 1 23 , 1 64, 1 7 1 , 1 79,
Greenfeld 1 73 339
Grigoriants 83 Khismatullin 8 1 , 84
Grischuk 7, 33, 3 5 , 37, 63, King 262
1 1 2, 1 28 , 1 79, 324, 325 Korchnoi 1 1 8, 1 1 9, 237, 238, 239,
Gufeld 223 240, 24 1 , 25 1 , 252, 26 1 , 262, 336
Guijarro 282, 284, 285, 288 Korobov 206, 207, 3 1 7
Gupta 235, 236 Kosanovic 31 1
Gurevich 1 84, 230, 268 Kotanj ian 1 87, 1 89
Gustafsson 72 Kourkounakis 256
Kramnik 3, 5 , 39, 40, 4 1 , 42, 43, 44,
H 4 5 , 46, 5 1 , 52, 53, 59, 62, 63, 6 5 ,
Haba 2 1 5 , 227, 228, 232 72, 73, 1 1 5 , 1 32, 206, 242, 3 1 6
Hagen 1 2, 1 3 Kulaots 235
Hammer 1 54 Kuzmin 1 8 , 1 9 , 2 1 , 268
Hauchard 305
L
Hebden 305
Hillarp Persson 77 Larsen 1 82
Hulak 1 18 Lautier 19
Huzman 1 1 8 , 1 22, 1 23 , 206 Leitao 82, 1 28, 1 3 1 , 1 42
Lev 1 79, 294
I Loginov 279
Illescas Cordoba 295 Lputian 1 34, 1 46
lvanchuk 52, 53, 63, 1 02, 1 23 , 1 33 , Lutz 87, 88
1 74, 30 1
lvanov 1 03 , 296
Name Index 35 1
M R
Macieja 76 Radjabov 7, 64, 69, 7 1 , 74,
Malakhov 1 79 1 1 3 , 1 32, 1 46, 242, 243,
Malaniuk 1 23 246, 250, 275 , 276, 277
Manion 256, 258, 260 Razuvaev 1 92
Marin 310 Reshevsky 15
Mchedlishvili 77 Rodshtein 1 60, 278, 28 1
Michalik 1 74 Roiz 289
Mikhalevski 23, 1 46, 1 47 Romanishin 26 1 , 262
Milov 1 60 Rubinstein 227
s
Moiseenko 1 79, 2 1 3 , 268
Morozevich 1 8 , 63
N
Sakaev 41
Salov 1 23
Najdorf 1 5 , 1 09, 1 1 0, 1 1 8 , 1 1 9 Samisch 223
Nakamura 7, 59, 1 1 5 , 23 1 , 303, 3 1 6 San Segundo 206
Naroditsky 284 Savchenko 1 03
Naumkin 1 0 1 , 1 04, 1 06, 200 Seirawan 1 79
Nedobora 1 60, 1 6 1 Sender 45
Nikitin 338, 340, 344 Serper 283
Nikolaidis 268, 270 Shchekachev 23
Nisipeanu 243, 244 Shirov 63, 25 1
Nithander 269 Shumiakina Ill
Nogueiras Santiago 31 1 Smyslov 228
Notkin 273 So 1 15
Novikov 1 4 1 , 1 43 , 1 44 Sokolov 33, 43
0
Spassky 181
011
Speelman 290
14, 1 5, 17 Stein 5, 7
Ostenstad 316 Stellwagen 73, 74, 75
Ozolin 215 Svidler 63
p
Szeberenyi 45
T
Parligras 1 92, 1 93
Pelletier 1 2, 1 3 , 59 Taimanov 1 09, 1 1 8, 1 1 9
Petraitis 45 Tal 5, 7, 93, 94, 1 1 0, 1 24, 2 1 5, 23 1 , 232,
Petrosian 1 8 1 , 1 99, 256, 257, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338
257, 284, 294 Tarrasch 49, 280
Pigusov 31 1 Tkachiev 23, 323
Piket 316 Tolstoy 205
Pi mer 23 Topalov 1 64
Polgar 316 Tseshkovsky 1 23
Polugaevsky 228 Tukmakov 1 23
Portisch 15
Postny 87, 88, 1 46, 1 47, 223, 288, 293
u X
Ubilava 83 Xu 83
y
Ufimtsev 232
Ulibin 41
Ulko 215 Yakovich 1 28 , 304, 305, 309
Ye Jiangchuan 1 19
V
Yevseev 278 , 279
Vaganian 1 7, 1 23 , 20 1 Yusupov 1 23, 1 29
z
Van der Sterren 15
Van Wely 73, 74, 206, 275 , 276, 277
Veinberg 11 Zagrebelny 192
Vescovi 1 13 Zaid 47
Vitiugov 19 Zilberman 1 02 , 1 8 5 , 199,
Vokac 1 92 200, 202, 203
w
Zimmerman 45
Zontakh 215
Wang Hao 323, 324
Wang Yue 69
Wantola 279
Wendt 76
Wimmer 235

Kings Indian Warfare by Ilya Smirin

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Kings Indian Warfare by Ilya Smirin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KING'S INDIAN WARFARE

Copyright © 20 1 6 Ilya Smirin

KING'S INDIAN WARFARE

Paperback ISBN 978- 1 -78483-025-0

All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd,

Distributed in North America by National Book Network

Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through

Typeset by Jacob Aagaard

Name Index 344

Ilya has played the King's Indian successfully

Not a King's Indian, but at least a current photo...

Since we were young, baby!

Yannick Pelletier - Andreas Skytte Hagen

3 Now, imagine that the white rook is on

This is another theme you will find again

47 ... £2 48.®c4 fl=�t 49J�d3 g2 50. i> b5 My Games

Lembit 011 started his chess career as a prodigy.

Of course, 1 4.g4?? is impossible due to 18.b5?!

Right now Black is o n the defensive, but 30.ga4 f4 3 1 .VNg4?

25.�xg7 ®xg7 26.VNf3 gf8 27.VNg4 f5! 3 I . .. tlJd4 32.gxa5 gf7!

l .d4 llJf6 2.c4 g6 3.llJc3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.8 6

o-o 6.i.e3 llJ c6 7.YMd2 a6 s.llJge2 gbs 5

3 1. . . E!:g8! (suddenly Black gets a strong

b) Recently I played the following tense and

1 3 .dxc6 bxc6 9 . . . e5 1 0. lLJb3 (or 1 0.d5 lLJd4 1 1 .lD b3) ts

10 ... tlJe5 1 1 ..ie2 f5 Still I would prefer here to take en passant:

8 16 ... tlJ e4?

19 ..ixf5 gxf5 20J3f3

8 30 ... ltJ d4!

After the simple 26.ixg7t El:xg7 27.El:fe3 3

32J�fl!? Alexander Beliavsky- Ilya Smirin

9 ... tlJxd3t 10.YMxd3 a6 1 1 .a4

1 6.ttJh4 is not dangerous due to 1 6 . . . W/e8.

The following sample line shows that it was

In the style of (let's say) Magnus Carlsen would

19 .. J�xf3 20J�a3! 22.�e4?

So life goes on!

23 ...'l:Yc7 24.a5 gd8?! a b c d e f g h

25J�b6? 27J�xe5 'l:Yxc5!

28J�e2 Boris Avrukh - Ilya Smirin

The attack is irresistible - the rook on b6 has

9.tiJxd4 YNa5 10.�d2 I saw that 1 0 . . . �b6 1 1 .�e3 ( I I .ttJb3 ttJ e5

is why I did not like 1 2 . . :�c7 1 3.tLld5 �d8 3

The knight should have been taken by the 14 ...�a4!

Relatively best. White gives up a pawn, but 19 ... f4?!

Black has three pawns for a piece and a

20.i.e2! 25 ...i.f5 26J�b4

23 ... 'flf6 24J�b l b6

28 ..ih5? After 3 l ..ie2 �e1 (3 l . .. �xf2? 32.@gl ) 32.�d4

29 . J�cl t 30. �h2

41 . . . ixg4 42.�ae7 �xa2 Alexander Grischuk - Ilya Smirin

This third mistake in a row leads to

Or 30.�xb l �xb l t 3 l .mh2 �e l ! 32.ixc5 3

30 J��xfl t 3 1 . <it>xfl VNa6t 32. <it>gl

White resigned because of 33.�g3 h4

Kramnik at the Dresden Olympiad 2008

Kramnik missed his chance. Think prophylactically.

I n the period 1 992-2002 I played a "mini­

Kramnik was a talented j unior in the late

Russia. 12.tlJh2 tlJxg3 13.fxg3 h5 14.0-0 f5

Vladimir Kramnik - Garry Kasparov

I .tlJf3 tlJf6 2.c4

2 ...g6 3.tlJc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.d4 0-0 6..ie2

The position after 1 6 ... l2Ja6 1 7.�b 1 ixfS

I n the period 1 992-2002 I played a "mini