No.

21, May 27, 2009

OPENINGS
what’s hot and what’s not?
XIIIIIIIIY
Man of the moment: 9r+l+-trk+0
9+-+-wqpvlp0
9p+-zp-+-+0
Alexei Shirov 9+p+-zpp+-0
9-+P+P+-+0
9sN-+L+-+-0
By IM Merijn van Delft & IM Robert Ris 9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Shirov won the MTel Masters and was helped by his Frequency
extremely sharp opening choices and his unique talent
for handling the subsequent complications. Ganguly
won the Asian Continental Open while Gelfand was
victorious at the ACP World Rapid Cup in Odessa.

what’s hot?
Shirov has a special love for the openings he plays. In Sofia he
comfortably drew both Carlsen and Topalov with his favourite Botvinnik
variation. Against Dominguez it took some more effort to stay in the game Score
with another favourite, the Archangelsk variation. With White the 1.e4
machine slowly but surely warmed up and reached full power in the last
round against Carlsen, which is our Game of the Week. In the diagram
position Shirov went for 15.£h5.

Topalov also displayed his usual dynamic chess with his positional
exchange sacrifice against Dominguez’ 6.h3 Najdorf. Wang Yue-Topalov
settled the 4.¥f4 Grünfeld discussion in Black’s favour with the strong
novelty 16...£d7! eventually leading to a perpetual. Carlsen, obviously the
man of the future, already seems an almost unstoppable force with White.

Gashimov-Gelfand may have gone unnoticed because of the result,

but White did in fact introduce a new sharp way of battling the Petroff.
Gashimov-Efimenko was a topical Zaitsev variation. Svidler consistently
avoided main lines and won twice with the Alekhine. Gelfand-Najer
confirmed that the Gustafsson/Baramidze idea from CVO 19 is fine
for Black. Conquest-Hillarp Persson (in Porto Mannu) was a fantastic
Dragon fight. Source: Megabase + TWIC, 2500+ only

The traditional Ruy Lopez lines did not fare well in Sofia: Black lost in both the Open (Shirov-Ivanchuk) en the Closed (Topalov-Ivanchuk).
While Black drew both games with the very concrete, sharp and highly dynamic Botvinnik
Semi-Slav, he lost the one game with the 4...dxc4 Slav last week (Topalov-Wang Yue) and
the one game with the Chebanenko too (Carlsen-Wang Yue). Sharp is hot, solid is not.
what’s Not?
1 of 4
ChessVibes OPENINGS what’s hot and what’s not? No. 21, May 27, 2009
Putting the Sveshnikov on fire
The Sveshnikov has more or less regained its theoretical status, but not its former popularity.
Like Aronian in the last round of Nalchik, Shirov went all out for blood in Sofia and dived into
one of the very sharpest lines in which White grabs up to five (!) pawns.
game of the week
Shirov, A (2745) - Carlsen, M (2770)
5th M-Tel Masters, Sodia, May 23, 2009
B33, Sveshnikov, 9.¥xf6, 15.£h5
1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6
5.¤c3 e5 6.¤db5 d6 7.¥g5 a6 8.¤a3 b5
9.¥xf6
The positional approach 9.¤d5 has been more
popular in recent times.
9...gxf6 10.¤d5 ¥g7
Carlsen opts for the Novosibirsk variation. Black
is aiming to first eliminate White’s strong knight,
before undermining the centre. 10...f5 is the
other main move, leading to the Cheliabinsk
variation.
11.¥d3 ¤e7 12.¤xe7 £xe7 13.c4
A quieter way to play is 13.c3 intending to
transfer the knight to c2 and preparing to open
the queenside with a timed a4.
13...f5 14.0–0 0–0 15.£h5
15.£f3 is more popular and has replaced the
text move for quite a while now. Radjabov’s
innovation 15...d5!? keeps the line alive,
e.g. 16.cxd5 fxe4 17.¥xe4 ¦b8 18.¦fd1 f5?!
(18...£d7, as Radjabov had before, is better)
19.d6 £f6 20.¥c6 ¥e6 21.¥d5 ¦bd8 22.£b3
¥f7 23.¤c2 ¦xd6 24.¥xf7+ ¦xf7 25.¦xd6 £xd6
26.¤e3² Anand-Radjabov, Linares 2009.
15...¦b8 16.exf5 e4 17.¦ae1 ¥b7 18.£g4 ¦fe8
19.cxb5 d5 20.bxa6 ¥c6
XIIIIIIIIY
9-tr-+r+k+0
9+-+-wqpvlp0
9P+l+-+-+0
9+-+p+P+-0
9-+-+p+Q+0
9sN-+L+-+-0
9PzP-+-zPPzP0
9+-+-tRRmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
A typical Sveshnikov position. In return for the
sacrificed pawns, Black has a strong centre,
the bishop pair and White's knight is not ideally
placed on the rim. In this well-known position
Shirov plays a less explored line, which seems
 24...d3? 25.¤e3 with a nice blockade.
to pose Black at least some practical problems.
21.b3!?
The alternatives are:
a) 21.f3 h5 (21...¦xb2!? might be better:
22.fxe4 ¢h8 23.e5 (23.f6? ¥xf6 24.£f5 ¥d4+
25.¢h1 dxe4 26.¤c2 exd3! 27.¦xe7 ¦g8)
23...¦g8 24.¤c2 ¥xe5 25.£h3 f6 with unclear
complications) 22.£g3 £e5 23.£xe5 ¥xe5
24.fxe4 dxe4 was seen in Kotronias-Avrukh,
Kavala 2003, and after 25.¥c4 ¦xb2 26.¦e2
¦b4 27.¥b3 ¦b6 28.¤c4 ¦xa6 29.¤xe5 ¦xe5
White has still the better prospects, although
Black can surely hope for a draw.
b) 21.a7 ¦xb2 (21...£xa7? 22.f6) 22.¦c1 ¥d7?
(Correct is 22...h5! 23.£g3 h4 24.£g4 exd3
25.¦xc6 £e2 26.£a4 ¦a8 27.f6 (27.¦cc1 d2
28.¦cd1 h3!) 27...¥f8 28.£xh4 d2 29.£g5+ ¢h8
30.£xd5 ¥xa3 31.¦c4 £xf1+ 32.¢xf1 ¦b1+
33.¢e2 d1£+ 34.£xd1 ¦xd1 35.¢xd1 ¦xa7=)
23.¥b5 h5 (23...¥xb5 24.f6! £xf6 25.¤xb5
¦xb5 26.¦c8) 24.£d1! £xa3 25.¥xd7 ¦d8
26.¥a4 d4 27.¦c7+- Smirnov-T.Kosintseva,
Moscow 2006.
c) 21.¥e2!? ¦xb2 22.¦c1 h5 23.£xh5 ¥a4 24.f6
¥xf6 25.£xd5 ¦xe2 26.£c4 £xa3 (26...¥b2
would have been better) 27.£xe2± Najer-
Yakovich, Novokuznetsk 2008.
21...¢h8N
In his The Sveshnikov Reloaded GM Rogozenko
evaluated this as “Black has compensation”.
In a previous game 21...¥d7 was played, and
although Black quickly got the upperhand, it
seems to us that White’s play can be improved:
22.a7 ¦b7 23.¤c4! ¦d8 (23...dxc4?! 24.¦xe4
£d8 25.¦xe8+ £xe8 26.£g3) 24.¤e3 exd3
25.¤xd5 £d6 26.£g5?! (26.£h4 ¥xf5 27.¤e7+
¦xe7 28.£xe7 £d5) 26...f6 27.£g4 ¥c6µ Fier-
Cordova, Buenos Aires 2007.
22.¤c2 ¥e5
It would have too materialistic to go for 22...¥c3
23.¥e2 ¥xe1 24.¦xe1 leaving Black with a
completely ruined position.
Shirov - carlsen
23.¥e2 d4 24.¥c4 ¦g8
25.£h3
XIIIIIIIIY
9-tr-+-+rmk0
9+-+-wqp+p0
9P+l+-+-+0
9+-+-vlP+-0
9-+Lzpp+-+0
9+P+-+-+Q0
9P+N+-zPPzP0
9+-+-tRRmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
25...¦g7?!
Doubling rooks makes quite a natural impresson.
However, Carlsen had a stronger alternative with
25...e3! 26.g3 (26.f3 ¥b5) 26...£d6 and now:
a) 27.¥xf7 ¦g7 28.¥c4 (28.¥g6 £d5) 28...exf2+
29.¢xf2 (29.¦xf2 ¥xg3) 29...d3 30.¤e3 (30.¦xe5
dxc2) 30...¥d4 31.¥xd3 ¥a7 and despite being
five pawns up, White finds himself in immense
trouble.
b) 27.¤xe3 dxe3 28.¦xe3 ¥d4 29.¦d1 £c5
30.£h6 ¥xe3 31.fxe3 ¦g7 32.¦d4 ¦bg8 with
counterplay.
c) 27.£h4 ¥a8 28.¦d1 (28.¥d3 ¥f6 29.£h6 ¦g4)
28...e2 29.¥xe2 ¥f6 30.¦xd4 £c6 31.¥f3 £xf3
32.£xf6+ ¦g7 33.¦d8+ with perpetual check.
26.g3 ¦bg8 27.£h6 £c7?
The decisive mistake. Necessary was 27...¥a8
28.¦d1 (28.f4? ¥f6µ) 28...e3 29.¤xe3 (29.¦d3?
¥xg3! 30.hxg3 £e4–+) 29...dxe3 30.f6 (after
30.£xe3?! Black can force a draw with
30...¥xg3! 31.hxg3 £h4 32.¥d5 ¦xg3+ 33.fxg3
¦xg3+ 34.£xg3 £xg3+=) 30...¥xf6 31.£xe3
£c7 32.¥d5 which still favours White, although
Black still has good drawing chances.
28.¤b4! ¥a8 29.¤d5 £d8
29...¥xd5 30.¥xd5 e3 31.£c6 (but not 31.fxe3?
which is only a draw after 31...¥xg3 32.hxg3
£xg3+ 33.¢h1 ¦g4 34.£f6+ ¦4g7 35.£h6 ¦g4)
31...£b8 32.£b7 also wins for White.
30.¦xe4 1-0 Black’s centre falls apart, while
White still is four pawns up.
2 of 4
ChessVibes OPENINGS what’s hot and what’s not? No. 21, May 27, 2009

this week’s harvest

Petroff, 3.d4 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.d4 ¤xe4 4.dxe5 d5 5.¤bd2 ¤xd2 6.¥xd2 ¤d7 7.£e2 ¤c5 8.0–0–0
XIIIIIIIIY Gashimov-Gelfand was a battle between two real Petroff experts and touched upon some highly interesting
9r+lwqkvl-tr0 theoretical questions. First of all there is the mystery move 4...¥c5!? that was not played. The truth about this
9zppzp-+pzpp0 move is still hidden in a wood of variations. 5.£d5 ¥xf2 6.¢e2 is not a refutation because of 6...f5! 7.exf6 ¤xf6
9-+-+-+-+0 8.£e5 ¢f8! and White can't take the ¥ because of a nasty ¤ fork. After 4...d5 5.¤bd2 ¤xd2 there were two crazy
games in Odessa with 6.£xd2 after which we still like the look of 6...h6. After Gashimov's 6.¥xd2 technically
9+-snpzP-+-0
speaking 6...¤d7 was the novelty but the real news is 7.£e2! followed by 8.0–0–0!. White found a new way of
9-+-+-+-+0 castling queenside against the Petroff! The further course of the game was a bit of an anti-climax, as White
9+-+-+N+-0 should have built up his attack more prophylactically. An early ¢b1 seems to do the trick while after 11.¥g2? the
9PzPPvLQzPPzP0 important black-squared bishop was gone. 11.¥e1!? would have been a cool alternative.
9+-mKR+L+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4 ¤f6 5.0–0 ¥e7 6.¦e1 b5 7.¥b3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3 ¥b7 Ruy Lopez, Zaitsev
10.d4 ¦e8 11.¤bd2 ¥f8 12.a4 h6 13.¥c2 exd4 14.cxd4 ¤b415.¥b1 c5 16.d5 ¤d7 17.¦a3 c4 XIIIIIIIIY
18.axb5 axb5 19.¤d4 ¦xa3 20.bxa3 ¤d3 21.¥xd3 cxd3 22.¦e3 ¤c5 23.¥b2 £a5 24.h4 9-+-+rvlk+0
In Gashimov-Efimenko White smoothly won in a highly theoretical line. It seems that Gashimov has put quite a bit 9+l+-+pzp-0
of work into making his 1.e4 a lethal weapon! Black has several important alternatives along the way. Morozevich 9-+-zp-+-zp0
introduced 12...¤a5 13.¥c2 b4!? which was recently seen more often again. Karpov mostly preferred 17...f5 in
9wqpsnP+-+-0
his legendary encounters with Kasparov. 19...£b6 is another major alternative for Black, which has been faced
by Kotronias no less than four times. A previous game Volokitin-Kasimdzhanov soon ended in a perpetual after
9-+-sNP+-zP0
24.¤f5, but with 24.h4! Gashimov launched a very clever space-grabbing novelty which simultaneously sets a
9zP-+ptR-+-0
trap. Whereas 24...b4 may be better, Black indeed grabbed the pair of the bishops with ¤a4-c3, which turned out 9-vL-sN-zPP+0
to lose the initiative. 28.a4! was a pretty echo on the other side of the board and after that the tactics all worked 9+-+Q+-mK-0
miraculously in White's favour. An interesting case of a ¤ pair outclassing a ¥ pair. xiiiiiiiiy

Semi-Slav, Botvinnik 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.¥g5 dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.¥h4 g5 9.¤xg5 hxg5
XIIIIIIIIY 10.¥xg5 ¤bd7 11.exf6 ¥b7 12.g3 c5 13.d5 £b6 14.¥g2 0–0–0 15.0–0 b4 16.¤a4 £b5 17.a3 exd5
9-mk-tr-vl-tr0 18.axb4 cxb4 19.¦e1 d4 20.£xd4 ¥xg2 21.¢xg2 £xg5 22.£xc4+ ¢b8 23.¦ac1
9zp-+n+p+-0 While in the Semi-Slav most people keep on looking for new ways in the (Anti-)Moscow, Shirov keeps faith in his
9-+-+-zP-+0 old love! In the 7th round he went in again for the ultra sharp Botvinnik variation, after he drew comfortably with
Carlsen earlier in the tournament. Being aware of the afore-mentioned game it makes a weird impression that
9+-+-+-wq-0
Topalov chose 19.¦e1, a move that leads almost by force to a draw when using computer assistence (24...£d2!)
9NzpQ+-+-+0 which was clearly part of Shirov’s own analysis. The more common 23. ¦ed1 (instead of Topalov’s 23.¦ac1) has
9+-+-+-zP-0 been seen in two old Piket games, who played the faulty 23...¦c8?. According to our analysis 23...£f5 is the
9-zP-+-zPKzP0 correct way and leads to a draw as well. This means that 19.¦e1 could be thrown away and that White’s hopes
9+-tR-tR-+-0 still lies in the more ambitious 19.¥e3. Drawing the world’s current number one and three players with such
xiiiiiiiiy remarkable ease confirms that the Botvinnik is still full of unrevealed resources!

1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 b5 6.¤f3 ¥b7 7.e4 Catalan/Benoni
The Catalan-Benoni hybrid is a special deviation from the traditional Benoni, giving Black the opportunity to XIIIIIIIIY
gain some space on queenside with ...b5. Apart from the classical approach of developing the pieces to their 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0
usual squares, White has the sharp 6.e4!? at his disposal. This move, invented by Sosonko in the late seventies 9zpl+p+pzpp0
and later adopted by e.g. Kramnik and Moiseenko himself, leads to more concrete play in the centre. In Odessa 9-+-+-sn-+0
Grischuk came up with a new, but similar idea, by including the moves 6.¤f3 ¥b7, before playing 7.e4!?. With
9+pzpP+-+-0
this inclusion, White would like to prove that the bishop on b7 is misplaced. Furthermore it’s interesting to point
out that after 3.g3, White delays the standard ¥g2 in order to make use of Black’s premature queenside play.
9-+-+P+-+0
Moiseenko’s risky play was punished in great style by Grischuk, who thankfully made use of Black’s weaknesses
9+-+-+NzP-0
all over the board. There are several points where Black could improve on the game, but none of them seem to 9PzP-+-zP-zP0
satisfy completely. 9tRNvLQmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
3 of 4
 ChessVibes OPENINGS what’s hot and what’s not? No. 21, May 27, 2009
Photo: John Saunders

opening expert
Who: Surya Shekhar Ganguly
Born: February 24, 1983
Nationality: Indian
Rating: 2625
Expertise: Broad repertoire, willing to play topical main lines.
Why: India’s current number four has become a major force in the Indian
national team. He settled his name mainly as the former second of Shirov
and recently joined Anand’s team for his match against Kramnik. After
winning the Asian Championship, it becomes clear that this hard work
is now paying off for him. The 26-year-old Indian has been around the
2600 mark for a while, but it seems he is ready for a new jump towards
the 2650. His style of play is best characterized by his deep preparation
of sharp openings, while he also enjoys converting a pleasant advantage
in a deep ending. In his last tournament he faced the Caro-Kann no less
than four times. After scoring 2.5 out of 3 in the main line, he decided to
switch to the Advance Variation and convincly won.
Key game: Ganguly-Mahjoob, Asian Continental Open, May 17, 2009

XIIIIIIIIY White correctly sacrifices the pawn, considering

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 9-+ktrn+-+0 that Black has no safe residence for his king.
¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7 9.¥d3 ¥xd3 43...¤xd6 44.cxd6 ¦xd6 45.¦c4 £d7
10.£xd3 £c7 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0–0–0 e6 13.¤e4 9zpp+r+pzp-0 45...¦xd1+? 46.£xd1+ £d7 47.¦d4.
0–0–0 14.g3 ¤xe4 15.£xe4 ¤f6 16.£e2 ¥d6 9-+qvLp+-zp0 46.¦dc1 ¦d2 47.£e1 £d3+ 48.¢a1 ¢e7
17.c4 c5 18.¥c3 ¦he8 9+-zP-+-+P0 49.¦c7+ ¢f8 50.g5!
18...cxd4 19.¤xd4 a6 is the main line. Opening a second front.
19.¤e5 cxd4 20.¥xd4 ¥xe5 21.¥xe5 £a5 9-+R+-+P+0 50...£d4 51.¦xb7 fxg5 52.fxg5 hxg5 53.h6!
22.a3 ¤d7 23.¥d6 ¤f6 24.c5 9zP-wQ-+-+-0 gxh6 54.£h1 £h4
White has a lasting and annoying advantage, 9-zP-+-zP-+0 The final phase of the game shows some strange
thanks to his powerful bishop. moves, probably something went wrong...
24...£a4 25.¦h4 £c6 26.¢b1 ¤d5 27.¦g4 ¦g8 9+KtR-+-+-0 55.£f3+?
28.¦c1 ¤f6 29.¦d4 ¦d7 30.£d2 ¦gd8 31.£a5 xiiiiiiiiy 55.¦f1+ ¢g8 56.£c6 ¦dd8 57.£c7.
£a6 32.£c3 ¤e8 33.g4 £c6 36...f6?! 55...£f4 56.£h5 ¦e7
The bishop is untouchable in view of 33...¤xd6? It’s hard to condemn this weakening move, 56...£f6.
34.cxd6+ ¢b8 35.£c7+! since Black is in some kind of zugzwang. 57.£xh6+
34.£a5 £a6 35.£c3 £c6 36.¦c4 37.f4 ¤c7 38.£a5 £a6 39.£e1 57.¦c8+.
Now White will focuse on the new weakness of 57...¢g8 58.£g6+ ¢f8 59.¦h1
(diagram) the e6 pawn. 59.¦c8+.
39...£c6 40.¦e4 ¦e8 41.£e2 ¢d8 42.¦e1 ¤b5 59...¦xb7 60.¦h8+ 1–0
43.¦d1

www.chessvibes.com/openings

ChessVibes Openings is a weekly PDF magazine that covers the latest news on chess openings. Which openings are hot in top level chess?
Which are not? Editors IM Merijn van Delft & IM Robert Ris keep you updated once a week! Singles issues cost € 1. You can subscribe too:
€ 25 a year (that’s less than € 0.50 per issue!). More info can be found at www.chessvibes.com/openings.

© 2009 ChessVibes. Copyright exists in all original material published by ChessVibes. Any copying or distribution (reproduction, via print, electronic format, or in any form whatsoever), as
well as posting on the web, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission.

4 of 4