First published in 2018 by Gloucester Publishers Limited, London.

Copyright © 2018 Jacek Ilczuk and Krzysztof Panczyk

The right of Jacek Ilczuk and Krzysztof Panczyk to be identified as the authors of this work
has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

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.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN: 978 1 78194 478 3

Distributed in North America by National Book Network,

15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. Ph: 717.794.3800.

Distributed in Europe by Central Books Ltd.,

Central Books Ltd, 50 Freshwater Road, Chadwell Heath, London, RM8 1RX.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess.

email: info@everymanchess.com; website: www.everymanchess.com

Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under
licence from Random House Inc.

Everyman Chess Series

Commissioning editor and advisor: Byron Jacobs

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Cover design by Horatio Monteverde.
Printed by TJ International Limited, Padstow, Cornwall.
Contents

About the Authors 5

Introduction 6

Introduction to the Main Line: 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 Qa5 13
1 The Main Line: 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12 Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rh3 Qa5 15
2 The Main Line: 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 – Deviations 30
3 The Main Line: 10 Bb5+ Bd7 46
4 The Main Line: 10 Bxf6 69
5 The Main Line: 10 Nb5 85
6 7 Bxc4 – Deviations 100
7 7 e5 cxd4 8 Qa4+ Nc6 9 0-0-0 123
8 6 ... c5 – Deviations 139
9 Black plays 6 ... h6 158
10 6 e4 – Deviations 177
11 White avoids 6 e4 186

Index of Complete Games 201

About the Authors

The authors have regularly been publishing together for 16 years. So far they have written
four books and over 50 surveys (theoretical articles on chess openings) in the Dutch quarterly
New in Chess Yearbook. They are leading chess theoreticians, well known for the depth and
thoroughness of their analysis.

Jacek Ilczuk is a strong correspondence chess player with Senior International Master title
which is an ICCF title between IM and GM in correspondence chess.

Krzysztof Panczyk is an international master. He was placed third in the 1991 Polish
Championship and has been awarded a medal for outstanding services to chess by the Polish
Chess Federation

Also by the Authors:

Offbeat King’s Indian

Ruy Lopez Exchange
The Classical King’s Indian Uncovered

5
Introduction
Vienna was a place of rich chess life as
early as the second half of the nineteenth
century. It held its first international chess
tournament in 1873 and by the end of the
century eight international tournaments had
taken place there. The participants included
such prominent chess players as Steinitz,
Blackburne, Paulsen, Zukertort, Schlechter,
Janowski, Tarrasch and Pillsbury, and later
on Duras, Maróczy, Réti, Sämisch,
Rubinstein and Tartakower all played in the
now Austrian capital. As such, it is scarcely a
surprise that some chess openings are named
after this very city. One of them is the Vienna
variation in the Queen’s Gambit which arises
after:
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4
This is the key position of the Vienna.
The opening floats somewhere around the
realms of the Queen’s Gambit, the
Nimzo-Indian and the Ragozin. Sometimes
the play may even transpose to sidelines of
the Botvinnik complex in the Semi-Slav. In
practice, apart from general knowledge, both
sides need to be familiar with a number of
theoretical opening variations, as well as
ideally possessing decent tactical and
calculation skills.
Not only does Black’s idea look very
aggressive, but also it is extremely ambitious.
6
He develops his dark-squared bishop to pin
the knight on c3 and then (after ... c7-c5)
plans to increase the pressure by ... Qa5. By
capturing the c4-pawn, Black avoids the
exchange on d5 which would lead to a
Karlsbad structure or an isolated pawn on d5
if Black would like to push ... c7-c5.
Consequently, the c- and d-files are left open.
White, on the other hand, gives as good
as he gets and usually actively takes the
centre by advancing e2-e4. Black is often
forced to leave his king in the centre, as
queenside castling is usually impossible due
to problems with development of the
light-squared bishop, and kingside castling is
dangerous as White usually exchanges his
bishop on f6, weakening the pawn structure
on the kingside.
After the most popular 6 e4 Black should
play the active 6 ... c5. Here a very
complicated position with mutual chances
appears. Now White has at his disposal very
sharp variations in the classical system with
7 e5. This forced line was common in the
early days of the popularity of the Vienna,
but nowadays it is again becoming
fashionable, as it allows White to
considerably sharpen the play and depart
from the deeply worked out variations in the
main line which remains 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8
Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9 bxc3.
 Now the play has more a strategic if also
sharp character. Theory, however, suggests
that after a complicated middlegame a more
peaceful ending may arise – if both sides
know their stuff.
In the Vienna variation both players
ideally should demonstrate a whole range of
skills: tactical, especially the ability to obtain
an initiative as a compensation for the pawn,
and strategic, as well as excellent knowledge
of both concrete variations and endings. Not
everyone is up for that and the opening
certainly allows both sides to play for a win.
The earliest game in the Vienna ended in
a draw, and in a sideline of the opening.
Game 1
E.Bogoljubow-H.Wolf
Karlsbad 1923
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 c4 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 b5 7 e5 h6 8 Bh4 g5 9 Nxg5
Qd5?
Black has to play 9 ... hxg5 as we will see
in Chapter Ten.
10 Nxf7! Qe4+ 11 Be2 Kxf7
After 11 ... Qxh4 12 Nxh8 Nd5 13 0-0
Bxc3 White can evacuate his knight, keeping
both a material and a positional advantage.
12 Bxf6 Rg8 13 Qd2 Bxc3 14 bxc3 Nd7
15 0-0-0
After 15 Qxh6! Black has no better than
15 ... Nxf6 16 Qxf6+ Ke8 17 Qf3 Bb7 18
Qxe4 Bxe4 19 f3 Bd5 20 Kf2 a5 21 Rab1
with a lost endgame.
7
15 ... Qg6
15 ... Qf5 looks slightly better, but White
still has a winning ending after 16 Qxh6
Nxf6 17 exf6 Qg5+ 18 Qxg5 Rxg5 19 Bf3
Rb8 20 h4.
16 Qf4
The simplest solution was 16 Bf3 Rb8 17
Bh4.
16 ... Nxf6
After 16 ... Bb7 White wins in all
variations with 17 d5!: 17 ... Nxf6 18 Bh5
Qxh5 19 dxe6+ Ke8 20 exf6 Qg5 21 f7+ Ke7
22 fxg8N+, 17 ... Bxd5 18 Rxd5 exd5 19 e6+
Kxe6 20 Bg4+ Kf7 21 Bh4+ Kg7 22 Bxd7 or
17 ... exd5 18 e6+.
17 exf6
17 Bf3 was again better: 17 ... c6 (or 17 ...
Rb8 18 exf6 Qg5 19 Bh5+!) 18 Bxc6 Rb8 19
exf6 Qg5 and compared with the game,
White is a pawn up.
17 ... Qg5 18 Qxg5 hxg5 19 Bg4?!
By now only with 19 h4 White could
fight for the advantage. After many
adventures the game was later drawn:
19 ... Bb7 20 Rde1 Bd5 21 Rhf1 Kxf6
22 f4 gxf4 23 Rxf4+ Ke7 24 Bxe6 Bxe6 25
d5 Rg6 26 Rfe4 Kd6 27 dxe6 Ke7 28 Rh4
Rag8 29 g3 R8g7 30 Kd2 Rxe6 31 Rh6
Rxe1 32 Kxe1 Rf7 33 g4 Rf3 34 Rh7+ Kf6
35 Kd2 Kg5 36 Rg7+ Kf4 37 h4 Rf2+ 38
Kd1 Rxa2 39 g5 Rh2 40 Rh7 Kf5

41 Rh6?
41 h5 Kxg5 42 Rxc7 Rxh5 43 Rxa7 Kf5
44 Re7 Kf4 45 Kc2 Re5 is only a little better
for Black, whereas after the text he might
have won with 41 ... Ke4! 42 g6 Kd3 43 Ke1
b4.
41 ... c5? 42 Ke1? b4 43 Rc6 bxc3?
After the obvious 43 ... b3 Black could
have won easily.
44 Rxc5+?
44 Kd1 c2+ 45 Kc1 Ke4 46 Rd6 Rxh4 47
Kxc2 draws.
44 ... Ke4 45 g6 c2 46 Rxc4+ Kd3 47
Rc7 Rxh4??
The final mistake. Instead, 47 ... Re2+ 48
Kf1 Re7 49 Rc8 Re8 50 Rc7 a5 wins.
48 Rd7+ Kc3 49 Rc7+ Kb2 50 Rb7+
Kc1 51 g7 Re4+ 52 Kf2 Re8 53 Rxa7 ½-½
In a game in a 1925 simultaneous display
given by Alekhine in Amsterdam, his
opponent deployed the Vienna variation and
defeated the grandmaster.
Game 2
A.Alekhine-H.Woher
Amsterdam (simul) 1925
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5
Bg5 h6 6 Bxf6 Qxf6 7 e4 Bb4 8 Bxc4 c5 9
0-0 Bxc3 10 bxc3
Here 10 e5 Qe7 11 bxc3 Nc6 12 Qe2
cxd4 13 cxd4 leads to a similar type of
position; for example, 13 ... Bd7 14 Rac1
8
Rc8 (A.Astashin-A.Ostrovsky, Leningrad
1967) 15 Bd3 with a small edge for White.
10 ... 0-0
The immediate 10 ... cxd4 is discussed in
Chapter Nine.
11 e5 Qe7 12 Qe2 cxd4 13 cxd4
13 Nxd4!? Rd8 14 h3 (or 14 Bd3 Nd7 15
f4) 14 ... Nd7 15 Rad1 Nc5 16 Nb5 offered
White more chances of obtaining an
initiative.
13 ... Bd7 14 d5 exd5 15 Bxd5 Bc6 16
Rad1 Bxd5 17 Rxd5 Nc6 18 Rfd1 Rad8 19
h3 Rxd5 20 Rxd5 Rd8 21 Qe4 Qe6 22
Rxd8+ Nxd8 23 a4 Qc6
24 Qb4?
The fourth world champion might have
maintained the balance with 24 Qd4 Qc1+ 25
Kh2 Nc6 26 Qd7.
24 ... Ne6 25 Kh2 b6 26 Kg3 Nc5?
26 ... a5! 27 Qh4 b5 wins.
27 a5 Ne4+?!
And here the amateur would have been
doing pretty well after 27 ... Ne6 28 axb6
axb6.
28 Kh2 Nxf2 29 a6 Qe4 30 Qe7??
30 Qc3! would only have been a little
better for Black.
30 ... Qf4+ 31 Kg1 Nxh3+ 32 gxh3
Qg3+ 33 Kh1 Qxf3+ 34 Kh2 Qf2+ 35 Kh1
Qf1+ 36 Kh2 Qxa6 37 Qe8+ Kh7 38 Qxf7
Qe2+ 39 Kh1 Qxe5 40 Qxa7 Qe4+ 41 Kh2
b5 42 Qa3 b4 43 Qb3 Qe5+ 44 Kg2 Qc3 45
Qb1+ g6 46 Qe4 h5 47 Qe7+ Kh6 48 h4 b3
49 Qg5+ Kh7 50 Qe7+ Qg7 51 Qb4 b2 52
Qb8 Qc3 53 Qb7+ Kh6 54 Qb8 Qc6+ 55
Kg3 Qc3+ 56 Kg2 Qd2+ 57 Kf3 Qc3+ 58
Kg2 Qg7 59 Qb6 Kh7 60 Qb5 Qd4 61
Qb7+ Kh6 62 Qb8 Qe4+ 63 Kf2 Qxh4+ 64
Kf3 Qh1+ 65 Kg3 Qg1+ 66 Kf3 Qf1+ 67
Kg3 b1Q 68 Qh8+ Kg5 69 Qd8+ Qf6 70
Qd2+ Kf5 0-1
The greatest contribution to the
development of the variation was made
during the late 1920s and then 1930s by such
players as Albert Becker, Hans Kmoch,
Heinrich Wolf and Hans Müller. Due to the
popularity the variation enjoyed during the
1933 Chess Olympiad in Folkestone, it was
first named the Folkestonian Variation.
However, the Viennese master Ernst
Grünfeld is acknowledged to have been the
real author of our favourite system. He
named it ‘the Grünfeld Variation in the
Queen’s Gambit’ and won two important
games with it.
Game 3
F.Apsenieks-E.Grünfeld
Folkestone Olympiad 1933
1 c4 e6 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 d4 d5 4 Bg5 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4+ 6 Nc3 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 exf6 gxf6 9
Qa4+?
9 Bh4 is definitely better, but here too
Black has excellent play. These variations
are discussed in Chapter Eight.
9 ... Nc6 10 0-0-0 Bxc3 11 Bh4 b5!
9
Black already has a winning position and
such a scenario is by no means unknown
either these days at club level.
12 Qxb5 Rb8 13 Qxc6+ Bd7 14 Qxc4
Bxb2+ 15 Kc2 Qa5 16 Nxd4 Rb4 17 Bxf6
Rxc4+ 18 Bxc4 Qc3+ 19 Kb1 Ba3 20 Nc2
Qxf6 21 Nxa3 Ke7 22 Bb3 Qxf2 23 Nc4
Bc6 24 Rd2 Qf5+ 25 Ka1 Qf6+ 26 Nb2
Rg8 27 Rc1 Rxg2 28 Rxg2 Bxg2 29 a4 Qf4
30 Rc2 Be4 31 Rc4 Qxh2 0-1
Game 4
C.Rosenberger-E.Grünfeld
Vienna 1934
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Bb4+ 5
Nc3 dxc4 6 Qa4+ Nc6
Now the play transposes to a sideline of
the Ragozin system.
7 e3 Qd5 8 Bxf6 gxf6 9 Qxb4?
9 Qc2 and 9 Nd2 are definitely better. In
both cases White has enough compensation
for the pawn, as we will see in Chapter
Eleven.
9 ... Nxb4 10 Nxd5 exd5 11 Kd2 Be6 12
Kc3 Nc6 13 Be2 b5
14 b4?
After this move Black wins immediately.
However, in any case White did not have
enough compensation for the pawn one way
or another.
14 ... a5 15 a3 Ke7 16 Nh4 Ra6 17 bxa5
Rxa5 18 Rhb1 Rha8 19 Kb2 b4 20 a4 Rxa4
21 Rxa4 Rxa4 22 Ra1 c3+ 0-1
 These games were so interesting that
other masters felt encouraged to start playing
the variation. For example, during the 1935
Chess Olympiad in Warsaw one of the main
lines in the Vienna (with 7 e5) was played in
the game M.Napolitano-A.Muffang:
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 c4 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5
e4 Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 exf6?! gxf6 9
Bh4 Nc6 10 a3 (even after the preferable 10
Nxd4 Nxd4 11 Bxc4 White does not have
full compensation for the pawn, as discussed
in Chapter Eight) 10 ... Ba5
Now after 11 Nxd4 Qxd4 12 Qxd4 Nxd4
13 Bxf6 Nc2+ 14 Kd2 Nxa1 15 Bxh8 the
knight has the b3-square: 15 ... Nb3+ 16 Kc2
Bxc3 17 Kxc3 b5 with an edge for Black.
Instead, the game saw 11 Bxc4 dxc3 12
Qxd8+? (better was 12 b4 Qxd1+ 13 Rxd1
Bd8 14 Rc1 Bd7, but White does not have
enough compensation for the pawn) 12 ...
Bxd8 and Black was already doing
extremely well.
The first world champion who used the
Vienna variation as Black was Emanuel
Lasker.
Game 5
V.Chekhover-Em.Lasker
Moscow 1935
1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 d4 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxf6
Taking on f6 now, or in the move order 7
Bxc4 cxd4 8 Bxf6 Qxf6, does not give White
10
chances of obtaining an advantage. All these
sidelines are discussed in Chapter Six.
7 ... Qxf6 8 Bxc4 cxd4 9 Qxd4 Nc6 10
Qxf6 gxf6 11 Rc1 Bd7 12 0-0 Rc8 13 a3
Bd6
Black already has good play.
14 Ne2 Ne5 15 Nxe5 Bxe5 16 Bb5 Rxc1
17 Bxd7+ Kxd7 18 Rxc1 Rc8 19 Rxc8
Kxc8 20 b3 Kc7 21 Kf1 b5 22 Ke1 Bb2 23
a4 bxa4 24 bxa4 Kc6 25 Kd2 Kc5 26 Nc3
Kb4 27 Nb5 a5 28 Nd6
The only way to prolong resistance was
28 Kd3 Be5 29 h4 f5 30 exf5 exf5 31 h5 f4
32 f3 Kxa4 33 Kc4.
28 ... Kxa4 29 Kc2 Be5?! 30 Nxf7 Bxh2
31 Nd8 e5 32 Nc6? Bg1 33 f3 Bc5 34 Nb8
Kb5 35 g4 Be7 36 g5 fxg5 37 Nd7 Bd6 38
Nf6 Kc4 0-1
One more historical game is worth
mentioning, the occasion when the world
champion Alekhine played a consultation
game as White against the Vienna.
Game 6
A.Alekhine & H.Frank-E.Bogoljubow &
Pfaffenroth
Exhibition game, Warsaw 1941
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Bg5 Bb4+ 5
Nc3 dxc4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Qa5
9 Bxf6 Bxc3+! 10 bxc3
This is the key position for the whole
system as discussed in Chapter Four.
10 ... Qxc3+ 11 Kf1 Qxc4+?!
 Black is too greedy. The best move is
11 ... gxf6.
12 Kg1 Bd7 13 Rc1
13 ... Qa6??
This move loses immediately. The only
chance for Black was 13 ... Qb4!, as we will
see later on.
14 Nxe6 fxe6 15 Rc8+ Kf7 16 Rxh8
gxf6 17 Qh5+ Ke7 18 Qc5+ Kf7 19 Rf8+
Kg7 20 Qe7+ 1-0
In all these games White chose the
classical 7 e5 or different sidelines, whereas
the continuation 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+
9 bxc3, which was recognized as the main
line before the 1980s, was represented only
by a few games. The first one was:
Game 7
M.Bartosek-L.Pachman
Prague 1943
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Bg5 Bb4+ 5
Nc3 dxc4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4
Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Bxf6
gxf6 12 Qb3 0-0 13 0-0 Bxb5 14 Nxb5
Na6?!
14 ... Nc6 looks best and will be
discussed in Chapter Three.
15 Nd6
According to Ribli, 15 c4 with the idea of
Qg3 gives White an initiative.
15 ... Nc5 16 Qc4?
White would have been doing well after
switching his queen with 16 Qd1!.
11
16 ... Rad8
17 Rfd1
After 17 Rad1 Rd7 18 Qd4 Rfd8 19 e5
Qc7 20 Qg4+ Kf8 21 Qh4 fxe5 22 Qh6+ Ke7
23 Qg5+ the game ends in perpetual check.
17 ... Qb6??
This is a very serious blunder. Black
should have played 17 ... Rd7, with a small
advantage for Black, as pointed out by Ribli.
18 e5 fxe5?! 19 Ne4??
After 19 Rab1 Rxd6 (if 19 ... Qc7 20
Rxb7!) 20 Qg4+ Kh8 21 Rxb6 Rxb6 (Ribli)
22 Qh5 f5 (or 22 ... f6 23 f4) 23 Qh6 Kg8 24
Qe3 Rc6 25 Qxe5 White wins.
19 ... Nxe4
Now the position is equal. The players
later swapped inaccuracies, with Pachman
eventually coming out on top.
20 Qxe4 Rxd1+ 21 Rxd1 Rd8 22
Rxd8+ Qxd8 23 h3 Qd5 24 Qe3?! a5 25 a3
Qd6 26 Qc1?! b5 27 h4?! a4 28 h5 Qe7?
Black should have played 28 ... h6 with
good winning chances.
29 Qe3? f6 30 Qg3+ Kh8 31 h6! Qf8 32
Qh4 Kg8 33 Qh5 f5 34 g3 e4 35 Kg2 Qd8
36 g4 Kf8 37 gxf5 Qd5 38 Kg3? exf5 39
Qg5 Qe5+ 40 Kg2 Kf7 41 Qh5+? Kf6 42
Qh4+ Kg6 43 Qh3 f4 44 Kf1 Qf5 45 Qh4
e3 46 Qe7 Kxh6 47 Qc7 Qd3+ 48 Kg2
Qe4+ 49 Kh2 exf2 50 Qd6+ Kh5 51 Qc5+
Kg4 52 Qxf2 Qe3 53 Qf1 Qg3+ 0-1
After the World War II the Vienna
practically sank into oblivion and only since
1987 has been back in grace amongst the
world’s top players. These days the variation
enjoys great popularity and is quite regularly
used by such top players as Kramnik,
Gelfand, Grischuk, Aronian and Anand. As
for our fellow Polish players, the Vienna is
sometimes seen in the games of Wojtaszek,
Piorun, Gajewski, Dragun and Macieja.
12
We hope that you will enjoy joining us
on a fascinating journey through the rich and
sometimes fairly theoretical lines of the
Vienna variation.
Jacek Ilczuk & Krzysztof Panczyk,
June 2018
Introduction to the Main Line: 7 Bxc4 cxd4
8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 Qa5
Our first five chapters cover the main line
of the variation, which arises after the moves
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 Bb4 5 Bg5
dxc4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5.
White finds himself with three pieces
under attack (the c3- and e4-pawns, as well
as the g5-bishop) and he must react. He has
at his disposal three options: 10 Bxf6, 10
Nb5 and 10 Bb5+. In the first three chapters
we will deal with the move 10 Bb5+, after
which the current key position for this
system arises.
This continuation solves with tempo the
problem with the g5-bishop, but,
unfortunately, not the problem with the
c3-pawn. Here Black must choose between
10 ... Nbd7 and 10 ... Bd7. The former move,
which is recognized as the main line of the
variation, will be discussed in Chapters One
13
and Two, and the latter will be seen in
Chapter Three.
10 ... Nbd7 keeps the position more
complicated. Black’s disadvantage, on the
other hand, is the fact, that the c8-bishop is
blocked in. As there are more pieces on the
board than in the 10 ... Bd7 lines, White has
more possibilities to develop his initiative.
However, White still has a problem with the
c3- and e4-pawns, which practically forces
him to exchange his g5-bishop, 11 Bxf6,
which weakens Black’s pawn structure on
the kingside.
In Chapter One we will discuss the
classical idea connected with the queen’s
sortie to a5; i.e. the position arising after 11 ...
Qxc3+ 12 Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rh3 Qa5.
Now the main move is 15 Be2. Nevertheless,
an interesting idea is the underestimated 15
Ba4, although we managed to find some
satisfactory ideas for Black: 15 ... b5! 16 Bb3
Qb6!, as we will see.
The main line after 15 ... Nc5 16 Nb3
Nxb3 leads to a position in which the rarely
seen move 17 axb3!? deserves attention.
Although we have found an equalizing
continuation, this line is definitely worth
analysing and needs to be tested in
tournament practice. However, the main line
is 17 Qxb3 b6.
It seems that after this move White can
count on a small advantage. Therefore
another idea, namely 17 ... Rb8! looks better
and gives Black good chances to equalize.
In Chapter Two we will focus on the
alternatives to 14 ... Qa5; i.e. after 10 ...
Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12 Kf1 (12 Ke2 does
not give White good chances) 12 ... gxf6 13
h4 (the most logical continuation) 13 ... a6
14 Rh3 and now a more modern move: 14 ...
Qb4.
The queen heads for the more central
d6-square rather than the flank, although this
manoeuvre is connected with a loss of a
tempo. After 15 Be2 Ne5 Black should, even
if a little paradoxically, keep his king in the
centre where it is relatively safest. Now the
most popular continuation is 16 Rb1,
although both this move and others do not
give White great chances of obtaining an
advantage. The main line here is 16 ... Qd6
17 Qd2 Bd7, with which Black rightly
14
decides to return the pawn and after 18 Rxb7
Bb5 gradually equalizes.
In Chapter Three we will discuss the
positions which arise after 10 ... Bd7. This
move practically forces a bishop exchange
that solves the problem of the development
of Black’s light-squared bishop. Moreover,
this exchange simplifies the position,
reducing White’s possibilities to obtain an
initiative, but also meaning that Black will
usually have no time to capture the c3-pawn
after 11 Bxf6 gxf6.
Now the main line is 12 Qb3. After both
12 ... Bxb5 13 Nxb5 0-0 14 0-0 and 12 ... 0-0
13 0-0 White can count on a small advantage.
Also in the main line 12 ... a6 13 Be2 Nc6 14
0-0 Qc7 White has slightly the better
chances after 15 Qa3, as well as after any of
the less popular moves like 15 Bh5, 15 Rab1,
15 Rad1 or 15 Rfd1. Instead, the most
promising move for Black is 12 ... Ke7!?,
with good chances to equalize.
However, we would recommend 12
Bxd7+ Nxd7 13 0-0 which leads to slightly
better play for him even after Black’s best
defence, 13 ... a6 14 Rb1 Qc7.
To sum up, in the main line of the Vienna
variation, Black should definitely play 10 ...
Nbd7. Then the play has a fairly forcing
character (any sidelines are weaker for both
sides): 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12 Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6
14 Rh3 and now Black should play the
modern move 14 ... Qb4!, with good chances
to equalize.
Chapter One
The Main Line: 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6
Qxc3+ 12 Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rh3 Qa5
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4
Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+
This is the most popular continuation in
the Vienna variation.
10 ... Nbd7
And this is the most common response.
We will examine deviations from the
following sequence in the next chapter.
11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12 Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14
Rh3 Qa5
In this opening chapter we will focus on
the positions arising after this withdrawal of
the black queen.
15 Be2
Alternatively:
a) An ill-considered idea is 15 Rb1 axb5
16 Nxb5 Ra6 17 Ra3, as in
P.Murdzia-A.Lauber, German League 2011,
when 17 ... Qd8!? 18 Rd3 f5 19 Rc1 0-0 20
Nd6 Rxd6 results in a clear advantage for
Black.
b) Immediate exchanges simplify the
position and lead to equality: 15 Bxd7+ Bxd7
16 Rd3 Rd8 17 Kg1 Ba4 (Zhu
Chen-A.Skripchenko, Chinese League 2005)
15
18 Qe2 Rxd4 19 Rxd4 Qc3 20 Rad1 Bxd1 21
Qxd1 0-0.
c) Maintaining the pin on the a4-e8
diagonal with 15 Ba4!? deserves serious
attention.
So far no Black player has been able to
solve their problems after this move:
c1) In A.Shulman-M.Mulyar, San
Francisco 2001, Black continued 15 ... Ke7
16 Rc1 Nc5 (16 ... Rd8 17 Qb3 Qb6 18 Qa3+
Qd6 19 Qxd6+ Kxd6 20 Rd3 Ke7 21 Rc7
leads to a deadly pin), and now instead of 17
Nb3 which could have been met by 17 ...
Nxb3 18 Qxb3 b5 19 Qa3+ b4 20 Qb3 Rd8,
and Black completes his development
holding on to the extra pawn, White should
have played the unexpected 17 Bc6!!, when
Black faces unsolvable problems; for
example, 17 ... Rd8 (17 ... Bd7 18 Rhc3 bxc6
19 Rxc5 Qb4 20 Nxc6+ Bxc6 21 Rxc6 Rhd8
22 Rc7+ Kf8 23 Qf3 and 17 ... Qb6 18 Rhc3
bxc6 19 Rxc5 Bb7 20 Nxc6+ Bxc6 21 Rxc6
are no better) 18 Rhc3 Nd7 19 Qb3 Rb8 20
a4 Qe5 21 Rd3 with a winning position for
White.
c2) 15 ... Qe5 16 Rd3 b5 (not worth
recommending either is 16 ... Qh2 17 Nf3
Qh1+ 18 Ng1 Rg8 19 g3 b5 20 Bb3 with very
strong initiative for White as 20 ... Qxe4 will
be met by 21 Bd5 exd5 22 Re3) 17 Nf3 and
White has more than enough compensation
for the pawn, as shown by 17 ... Qxe4 (or
17 ... Qf4 18 Bc2) 18 Rd4 Qg6 (likewise, if
18 ... Qb7 then 19 Bb3 0-0 20 Qc1 Kh8 21
Qh6 Rg8 22 Rc1 with a strong initiative for
White) 19 Rc1 0-0 20 Bb3 Ra7 21 Rc6.
c3) Definitely the best idea for Black is
15 ... b5! 16 Bb3.
A serious error would be now 16 ... Bb7?
17 Qh5! and White wins in all variations,
such as 17 ... Ke7 18 Nf5+ and 17 ... 0-0-0 18
Qxf7. Another move, 16 ... Ne5, does not
give Black equality either; for example, 17
Qh5 Qb6 18 Rd1 Bd7 19 Rg3 and White has
more than compensation for the pawn. Black
also does not equalize after 16 ... h5,
blocking the h5-square against White’s
queen either. Although this move shows one
downside to the move Ba4 – White loses full
control over the d1-h5 diagonal – even in this
case, he can count on slightly the better
chances after 17 Rc1 Ne5 18 Rhc3 Bd7 19
Kg1 Qb6 20 Nf3 Ng4 21 Qe1 Ke7 22 e5.
Therefore Black should play 16 ... Qb6!;
for example, 17 Rc1 Ne5 18 f4 Nc4 19 Rhc3
(or 19 f5 Rg8 20 Bxc4 bxc4 21 Rxc4 a5 with
sufficient counterplay for equality; likewise,
the position after 19 Bxc4 bxc4 20 Rxc4 Bd7
21 Rhc3 Rd8 22 Qf3 0-0 is level) 19 ... Qd6
20 Bxc4 (now 20 f5 does not give any
advantage either: 20 ... Qf4+ 21 Kg1 0-0 22
Bxc4 bxc4 23 Rxc4 Qxe4 24 Qd2 and White
16
has compensation for the sacrificed pawn,
but not more) 20 ... bxc4 21 f5 Qf4+ 22 Qf3
Qxf3+ 23 gxf3 exf5 24 Rxc4 Be6 with a bit
of an odd ending with mutual chances.
The variations arising after 15 ... b5! 16
Ba3 Qb6! are so complicated that is difficult
to evaluate them definitively and further
tournament practice at a high level is
definitely required.
Returning to 15 Be2:
This is one of the key positions for the
whole Vienna. Here Black has at his disposal
as many as five different options.
15 ... Nc5
A logical move. The knight attacks the
e4-pawn, controls the b3-square and covers
the a3-f8 diagonal. This move is the main
line of this variation and has the best results
for Black.
Other moves do not give Black good
chances to equalize:
a) 15 ... Ke7 is a rare guest in the
tournament practice. Moreover, it has very
bad statistics, unsurprisingly since Black has
problems with his development and the
coordination of his pieces in most variations.
Now 16 Rc1 gives White only a small
advantage, whereas the moves 16 Nb3 and
16 Qc1 are much more dangerous – these are
discussed further in Game 8.
b) The knight jump 15 ... Ne5 also does
look not as good as the main line. White has
here a few promising options. In Game 9 we
discuss the consequences of the move 16
Qb3. White has also tried to develop his
initiative by means of 16 Rc1 (R.Cerqueira
Filho-J.L.Rodriguez, correspondence 2001)
16 ... Bd7 17 Nb3 Qb6 18 Nc5 and 16 Qc1
Bd7 (V.Wong-F.Sanfrutos Lopez,
correspondence 2003) 17 Rb3 – in both cases
successfully.
c) 15 ... 0-0 is a seldom seen move. In the
Vienna variation Black’s king is not always
safe after castling due to his sub-optimal
pawn structure on the kingside. Here even
after 16 Nb3 (or 16 Qc2 Qe5 17 Rd1 Kh8 18
Kg1 Qf4 19 Rc3 Qxh4 20 Nf3 Qh5 21 Rc7
with a clear advantage for White,
T.Oikamo-A.Haugen, correspondence 2006;
likewise, after 16 Rc1 White also can count
on a minimum small advantage – see Game
10) 16 ... Qe5 17 Rc1 Kh8!? (weaker is 17 ...
b6 18 Qd2, as in L.Oll-P.Wolff, New York
1994, and then 18 ... Rd8 19 Rc4 Kh8 20 Rd4,
or 17 ... f5 18 exf5 exf5 19 Rg3+ Kh8 20 Re3,
as in A.Korelov-E.Sprenger, correspondence
1997, with the upper hand for White in both
cases) 18 h5 (or 18 Qd2 Rg8 19 Rc4) 18 ...
Rg8 (if 18 ... Qxe4 19 Rd3) 19 Rh4 f5 20
exf5 exf5 21 Qd2 White has the better
chances.
d) With 15 ... Qe5 the queen attacks the
e4-pawn and, in some variations, is ready to
trouble the white king from the h2-square.
However, this kind of pawn gobbling may
sometimes result in the greedy side suffering.
The main continuation here is 16 Rc1, which
will be discussed in Game 11. Other moves
usually transpose, as with 16 Re3 Qh2 17
Rh3 Qe5 18 Rc1 or 16 Rd3 Qxe4 17 Rc1!?.
16 Nb3
17
A logical reply. White exchanges the
well-placed and active knight on c5. He also
has:
a) White can give up another pawn which
leads to a position in which Black has no
piece developed except for his queen.
However, this idea does not give White any
special benefits apart from standard
compensation for the sacrificed material; for
example, 16 e5 fxe5 17 Nb3 Nxb3 18 axb3
Qd8 (I.Zakharevich-S.Yuferov, Tula 1999)
19 Qe1!? Rg8 20 Kg1 (the aggressive 20 Bh5
Bd7 21 Rf3 Rg7 22 Qxe5 Kf8 23 Bxf7 Bb5+
24 Kg1 Rxf7 25 Qh8+ Ke7 26 Rxf7+ Kxf7
27 Qxh7+ leads only to a draw) 20 ... Bd7 21
Bf3 Bc6 22 Qxe5 Bxf3 23 Rxf3 Qxh4 24
Rd3.
b) The alternative is doubling White’s
heavy pieces on the c-file, 16 Qc2 Bd7 17
Rc1. Now the defensive 17 ... b6 gives White
compensation for the pawn after 18 Qb2
(C.Gabriel-Y.Pelletier, Zürich 1999) 18 ...
Na4!? (or 18 ... Nxe4 19 Re3 Qe5 20 Kg1, as
given by Ribli) 19 Qa3 Qe5 20 Nf3 Qb2 21
Qxb2 Nxb2 22 e5. However, after the more
peaceful 18 Re3 Rg8 19 Kg1 Rc8 20 Qb2
White’s position looks better. Therefore
Black should play more energetically: 17 ...
e5!? 18 Nb5 (18 Nf5 Bxf5 19 exf5 b6 20 Qb2
Rd8 is not dangerous for Black) 18 ... Bxb5
19 Qxc5 Bxe2+ 20 Kxe2 Qxa2+ 21 Kf1 Rd8
22 Qb6 Rg8 23 Qxf6 Qe6 24 Qxe6+ fxe6
with an equal ending.
16 ... Nxb3 17 Qxb3
The main line. White develops another
piece.
Another interesting, albeit not too
popular move is 17 axb3!?. In the game
K.Bobykin-A.Santos Etxepare,
correspondence 2009, Black had problems in
the ending after 17 ... Qe5 18 Rd3 0-0 19 Qc1
(White could also try 19 Rc1, when 19 ... f5
or 19 ... b5 results in an unclear position)
19 ... Kh8 20 Rb1 Rg8 21 Qh6 f5 22 Rbd1
Qg7 23 Qxg7+ Kxg7 24 Rg3+ Kh8 25
Rxg8+ Kxg8 26 Rd8+ due to the pin on the
eighth rank. In our opinion Black made a
mistake on the 20th move. The point is that
Black allowed an exchange rooks on g8
which caused serious problems due to
White’s resulting domination of the eighth
rank. If he had played 20 ... f5 (instead of
20 ... Rg8), which in some lines additionally
would have prepared the e6-square for his
bishop, he could have equalized; for instance,
21 exf5 exf5 22 Bf3 Rb8 23 Qd2 Be6 or 21
Qg5 Qg7 22 Qe7 f6 23 Qxg7+ Kxg7 24 exf5
exf5 25 Re1 Be6 26 Rg3+ Kh6.
White has also tried to take the knight
with the king’s rook in order to immediately
activate it. However, as we became
convinced, the rook is needed on the other
flank, on f3 or g3. Therefore after 17 Rxb3
Ke7 Black is well on the way to equality:
a) 18 Rd3 would be an acknowledgement
of a mistake and the loss of a tempo. After
18 ... Rd8 19 Rxd8 Qxd8 the reduction of
material led to a quick draw in
A.Shchekachev-Z.Gyimesi, Austrian League
2004: 20 Qc2 Qd6 21 Rd1 Qc6 22 Qd3 Bd7
23 Qa3+ Ke8 24 e5 fxe5 25 Qg3 Rc8 26
Qg8+ Ke7 27 Qg5+ Ke8 28 Qg8+ Ke7 29
Qg5+ Ke8 ½-½.
b) 18 Qc2 does not allow White to obtain
an advantage either: 18 ... Rd8 19 Rc1 (19
Rd1 was agreed drawn in
L.Krizsany-M.Galyas, Hungarian League
2003; 19 ... Rxd1+ 20 Bxd1 Rb8 21 Qb2 Qe5
is indeed equal) 19 ... Qe5 20 Qc7+ (20 g3!?)
18
20 ... Qxc7 21 Rxc7+ Rd7 22 Rxd7+ Kxd7
with equality, Pe.Horvath-M.Galyas,
Harkany 2001.
c) A set-up with the queen on c1 is more
consistent with Rxb3 (besides controlling the
c-file, the queen can create threats on the
c1-h6 diagonal) and doubling the rooks on
the b-file: 18 Qc1 Rd8 19 Rab1. However,
even here Black can maintain equality with
19 ... Qe5 20 Rc3 Rb8 21 Qa3+ Qd6.
Interesting consequences of the ‘simplifying’
move 19 ... Qd2 can, instead, be found in
Game 12.
17 ... b6
A logical move. Black prepares to
develop his light-squared bishop on b7 and
does not cross the fifth rank. Apart from this
move Black can choose between:
a) Not 17 ... 0-0? 18 Qe3 with a winning
attack.
b) Or 17 ... Qe5? 18 Rd1 b5 19 Qd3 0-0
20 Qe3 with the same outcome.
c) 17 ... e5 18 Rf3
(V.Kramnik-G.Kaidanov, Groningen 1993)
18 ... Be6 19 Qxb7 0-0 20 Qe7 Qd8 21 Qxf6
Qxf6 22 Rxf6 Rfd8 23 Rf3 Rd2 24 a3 with an
advantage for White (Kramnik).
d) We will discuss the continuation 17 ...
Qc7 in Game 13. The idea of this move is the
development of the light-squared bishop,
which sometimes is even combined with
long castling.
e) It seems that Black has the greatest
chances of equalizing chances after 17 ...
Rb8!.
 For example, 18 Rd1 (alternatively, 18
Qg3 Qe5 19 Qxe5 fxe5 20 Rb3 b5 21 a4 Bd7
22 Rab1 Ke7 23 axb5 axb5 24 Bxb5 was
agreed drawn in M.Sadowski-S.Karkuth,
correspondence 2008, while 18 Rb1 Bd7 19
Qb2 Ke7 20 Rf3 Qe5 21 Qb4+ Qd6 22
Qxd6+ Kxd6 is an equal ending,
P.Morley-A.Pantazi, correspondence 2011)
18 ... Bd7 19 Qg3 (T.Gyger-D.Weber
Widmer, correspondence 2009) 19 ... Rd8 20
Qf4 Qe5 with a good position for Black.
Returning to the more popular but likely
not fully best 17 ... b6:
18 Rd1
White switches away from attacking the
b6-pawn, as its capture often leads to
simplification, and instead tries to control the
main files with his rooks. Otherwise:
a) After 18 Rb1, 18 ... b5? would be
illogical and weak due to 19 Qb2 Qd8 20
Rd1 with a decisive invasion of White’s
heavy pieces on the open c- and d-files.
However, Black can ignore the threat and
give the pawn back while developing his
light-squared bishop. We discuss the move
18 ... Bb7 in Game 14. Nevertheless, 18 ...
Bd7 is also quite playable; for example, 19
Qb2 Ke7 (S.Atalik-M.Richter, Berlin 2000;
Black can also consider 19 ... Bb5 20 Rb3
Bxe2+ 21 Qxe2 b5 22 Qf3 Qxa2 23 e5 Rc8
24 exf6 Qc2) 20 Rb3 Rhb8 21 a4 Qe5 22
Qa3+ Qd6 23 Qxd6+ Kxd6 24 Rxb6+ with a
small advantage for White.
b) White can try to take control over the
c-file by 18 Rc1 Bb7 and now:
19
b1) Inaccurate is 19 Rc7?! Bxe4 20 Re3
Bd5 with the better chances for Black,
Wl.Schmidt-I.Khenkin, Polish League 1998.
b2) The attempt to make it impossible for
Black to castle leads to equality: 19 Rg3 Rd8
(19 ... Bxe4 20 Qb2 Qe5 21 Qxb6 transposes
to variation ‘b3’) 20 Qb2 Qd2.
b3) 19 Qb2 is a subtle attack on the
f6-pawn coupled with simultaneous pressure
on b6, but after 19 ... Qe5 20 Qxb6 Bxe4 21
Rg3 f5 22 Rd1 Black has equal chances,
P.H.Nielsen-I.Khenkin, German League
1999.
b4) The move 19 Re3 looks best: 19 ...
0-0 (after 19 ... Rd8 20 Qb2 Qd2, compared
with the position after 19 Rg3, the e4-pawn is
protected, so White can play 21 Qb1 with
slightly the better chances; 19 ... Rc8 20
Rxc8+ Bxc8 21 Qc4 Bb7 22 Qc7 Qe5 23
Qxb7 Qa1+ 24 Bd1 Qxd1+ 25 Re1 Qd3+ 26
Kg1 also leads to a small advantage for
White) 20 Rc7 Rab8 21 Qb2 Qe5 22 Qxe5
fxe5 23 Bh5 Kg7 24 Rg3+ and White regains
the pawn with the better chances.
18 ... Bb7
This logical move develops the
light-squared bishop and simultaneously
attacks the e4-pawn.
Black has also tried to develop his bishop
to d7, but after 18 ... Bd7 19 Qb2 (even better
is the preparatory move 19 Kg1 followed by
Qb2) 19 ... Qe5 20 Qxb6 Bb5 21 Kg1 0-0 22
Qe3 Bxe2 (or 22 ... Kh8!? 23 Bxb5 axb5 24
Rg3 Rg8 25 Rxg8+ Kxg8 26 Qh6 Qxe4 27
Qxf6 with a small edge for White) 23 Qxe2
Kh8 (Bu Xiangzhi-L.Aronian, World Junior
Championships, Goa 2002) 24 Ra3 White
has the better chances.
 Now White has a number of
continuations to choose from.
19 Qb2
Alternatively:
a) The immediate attack on the b6-pawn
with 19 Rd6 leads to equality; for example,
19 ... Ke7 20 Rxb6 (or 20 Rhd3 Rhd8 21
Qxb6 Qxb6 22 Rxb6 Bxe4) 20 ... Bxe4 21
Rb7+ Kf8 22 Rb8+ Rxb8 (22 ... Ke7 23
Rb7+ was agreed drawn in
G.Ziese-N.Kalinichenko, correspondence
1988) 23 Qxb8+ Kg7 24 Qg3+ Bg6 25 h5
Rc8 26 Kg1 Qe1+ 27 Bf1 Rc1 28 h6+ Kf8 29
Qd6+ Ke8 30 Qxa6 e5 31 Qb5+ Ke7 32 Ra3
Qd1 33 Rc3 Rb1 34 Rb3 Rc1 35 Rc3 ½-½
E.Rostovtcev-V.Baklanov, correspondence
2001.
b) A more interesting, albeit slightly
inhuman idea (in essence we cannot be
surprised in view of the identities of the
players) is 19 Qd3!? with the idea to meet
19 ... 0-0 with 20 Qe3 Rfd8 (Gambit Tiger
10-Nimzo 8, Cadaques 2001) 21 Qh6 Rxd1+
22 Bxd1 Bxe4 23 Rg3+ Bg6. This from a
different move order leads to a position
identical with 19 Rf3!? 0-0 20 Qe3 Rfd8 21
Qh6!? Rxd1+ 22 Bxd1 Bxe4 23 Rg3+ Bg6 –
see below.
c) Finally, the most precise and best
continuation for White is 19 Rf3, and now:
20
c1) 19 ... Bxe4? loses due to 20 Re3 with
the deadly threat of Rxe6 after the
withdrawal of the bishop.
c2) 19 ... Qc5 20 Rxf6 Bxe4
(H.Cumper-G.Marcotulli, correspondence
2000) 21 Rf4 Bd5 22 Qg3 with the better
chances for White.
c3) 19 ... 0-0 20 Qe3 (or 20 Rg3+ Kh8 21
Qe3 Rg8 22 Qh6 Rxg3 23 Qxf6+ Rg7 24
Rd8+ ½-½ V.Solozhenkin-I.Khenkin,
Reggio Emilia 1999/2000) 20 ... Rfd8. Now
21 Rxd8+ leads to a draw, as with 21 ... Rxd8
22 Qh6 Bxe4 23 Qxf6 Rd7 24 Rg3+ (if 24
Re3 Qxa2 25 Kg1 Qb1+ 26 Kh2 Qb4) 24 ...
Kf8 25 Qh6+ Ke7 26 Rg8 Qxa2, but more
interesting is 21 Qh6!? Rxd1+ 22 Bxd1 Bxe4
23 Rg3+ Bg6 24 h5 Rd8 25 Bb3 Qe5 with the
better chances for White.
d) 19 ... Rg8!? 20 Qd3 (if 20 Rxf6 Qe5)
20 ... Qa4 21 Re3 f5 22 Bf3 f4 23 Ree1 Qb5
24 Qxb5+ axb5 25 Rd6, when White has
compensation for the pawn.
19 ... Qe5
White has the advantage after 19 ... Bxe4
20 Re3 Bd5 21 Qxf6 Rg8 22 Bf3 Rg6
(G.Caglia-D.Leite, correspondence 2006) 23
Qf4 Bxf3 24 Qxf3 Rc8 25 h5.
20 Qxb6 Bxe4 21 Rg3
Worse is 21 Re3 0-0 22 Bf3 Rab8 23
Qxa6 f5 24 Qa4 Ra8 25 Qb4 Rfb8 with equal
chances.
21 ... f5

A complicated position with slightly the
better chances for White has arisen. Black is
a pawn up, but his king position is not quite
safe. Moreover, a potential weakness is the
a6-pawn. A further continuation will be seen
in Game 15.
Illustrative Games
Game 8
C.Horvath-R.Ekström
Montecatini Terme 1997
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 Qa5 14 Rh3 a6 15 Be2 Ke7
16 Qc1
Alternatively:
a) 16 Rc1 Rd8 17 Qc2 (or 17 Rhc3 Ne5,
as in N.Zhukova-N.Kosintseva,
Krasnoturinsk 2005, and then 18 f4 Ng6 19
g3 with slightly the better chances for White)
17 ... Ne5 18 Qb2 Rd6 19 Rb3 (alternatively,
19 Rd1 Bd7 20 Ra3 Qb6 21 Rb3 Bb5 22
Nxb5 Rxd1+ 23 Bxd1 axb5 24 Rxb5 Qa6 25
21
Be2 or 19 Nb3 Qb4 20 Rhc3, as in
F.Levin-C.Gabriel, Bad Wörishofen 1996,
and then 20 ... Bd7 21 f4 Ng6 22 Rc4 Qb6 23
g3 Rd8 24 Qc3 with an edge for White in
both variations) 19 ... Kf8! 20 h5
(P.Cramling-A.Galliamova, Women’s
Interzonal, Jakarta 1993) 20 ... b5 21 f4 Nc4
22 Bxc4 bxc4 23 Rxc4 e5 24 Ra3 Qb6 25
Qxb6 Rxb6 26 fxe5 fxe5 27 Nf3 Rb5 with an
equal ending.
b) 16 Nb3!? Qb6 (or 16 ... Qe5 17 Qd2!
intending Rd1 and Qb4 with a very strong
initiative for White, as pointed out by
Akopian) 17 Qc1 Rd8 (likewise, if 17 ... Ne5
18 Rc3 with a clear advantage for White) 18
Rd3 Nf8 (after 18 ... Ne5 19 Qa3+ Ke8 20
Rg3 Qd6 21 Nc5! White wins) 19 Qa3+ Ke8
20 Rxd8+ Qxd8 21 Na5 Qe7 22 Qc3
(V.Akopian-Se.Ivanov, St. Petersburg 1993)
22 ... e5 23 Rb1 with a strong initiative for
White – Akopian.
16 ... Rd8 17 Rc3
The alternative is 17 Nb3 Qb4 18 Rd3
(good too is 18 Rb1) 18 ... Ne5
(B.Nickoloff-R.Livshits, Canadian
Championship, Hamilton 1994) 19 Rxd8
Kxd8 20 Qe3 with the initiative.
17 ... Qe5
Both 17 ... Ke8 18 Kg1 and 17 ... Ne5 18
Qe3 also lead to an advantage for White.
18 Nf3 Qxe4 19 Qa3+ Ke8 20 Rd1
20 Rc4 Qg6 21 Rc7 b6 (if 21 ... Rb8 22
Nd4) was another way to develop White’s
initiative. After 22 Qb4 he has the advantage.
20 ... b5?
 A losing blunder. Black should have
played 20 ... b6 21 Rc4 Qg6 22 Ne1, when
the threat of Rg4 gives White the advantage.
21 Rd4
The point is that Black’s b5-pawn can be
taken.
21 ... Qb7?
Now Black’s queen will stand very
inconveniently. However, 21 ... Qb1+ 22
Rc1 Qg6 23 Bxb5 Rb8 24 Bc6 wouldn’t have
prolonged resistance for long.
22 Nd2
White threatens Ne4 and Rg3. Not only
does Black’s queen stand under a possible
fork on d6, but it does not cover the a3-f8
diagonal.
22 ... Ne5
22 ... a5 23 Ne4 b4 24 Nd6+ Ke7 25
Nxb7 bxa3 26 Nxd8 does not help either.
23 Rxd8+ Kxd8 24 Qf8+ Kd7 25 Bf3
Qa7 26 Bxa8
26 Ne4! Ng4 27 Rd3+ was even better.
26 ... Qxa8 27 Ne4 1-0
It’s all over in view of 27 ... Qxe4 28
Qxc8+ Ke7 29 Rc7+ Kd6 30 Qd8+.
Game 9
P.Giulian-Z.Gyimesi
Correspondence 1997
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rh3 Qa5 15 Be2 Ne5
16 Qb3
22
16 ... b5
The alternative is 16 ... Ke7 17 Rd1 Rd8
18 a4 with the terrible threat of 19 Qa3+.
Now in A.Maksimenko-P.Wells, German
League 2001, Black continued 18 ... Bd7?,
after which White could have obtained a
decisive attack or material advantage by
playing 19 f4; for example, 19 ... Qxa4 (both
19 ... Ng6 20 f5 exf5 21 h5 Qxa4 22 Nxf5+
Kf8 23 hxg6 Qxb3 24 gxh7 and 19 ... Nc6 20
Qxb7 are no improvement) 20 fxe5 Qxb3 21
exf6+ Kxf6 22 Rxb3. However, even the
preferable 18 ... Ke8 19 Rg3 Ng6 20 h5 Nf8
leads to an advantage for White.
17 Rc3
Interesting is 17 Rd1 Bd7 and now White
should try to obtain an advantage by
threatening to redeploy the queen to h6: 18
Qe3!?. In practice he has preferred 18 f4.
This should result in a draw: 18 ... Nc4
(18 ... Ng6? 19 f5 led to a strong initiative for
White in L.Branca-F.Sanfrutos Lopez,
correspondence 2003) 19 Bxc4 bxc4 20 Qb7
(or 20 Qxc4 e5 21 Nb3 Qb5 with equality)
20 ... Rd8 21 Nc6 Bxc6 22 Qxc6+ Ke7 23
Qb7+ Ke8 24 Qc6+ Ke7 25 Qb7+ Ke8 26
Rxd8+ (likewise, 26 Qc6+ Ke7 27 Qb7+ was
agreed drawn in G.C.Jones-R.Palliser,
Hereford 2006) 26 ... Qxd8 27 Qc6+ Ke7 28
Qc5+ ½-½ A.Greenfeld-Z.Gyimesi, Tel
Aviv 2001.
Here after 17 Rd1 Bd7, as well as 18
Qe3!?, there is also 18 Qb2 with slightly the
better chances for White,
D.Berczes-M.Galyas, Budapest 2003,
whereas 17 Qg3 can be met by 17 ... Bb7
with good counterplay for Black.
17 ... Bd7
And not 17 ... Bb7? 18 Nxe6 with a
decisive advantage for White (Giulian),
which means the alternative is 17 ... b4 18
Rc2 Bd7 19 Rb2 Rb8 20 Qe3 0-0 21 Qh6
Qc5 with the initiative for White.
18 Rac1
18 Rc2 preparing Qe3 is interesting too.
18 ... 0-0 19 Nf3
Once again the plan to redeploy the
queen to the c1-h6 diagonal deserved
attention, beginning with 19 Qb2.
19 ... Qb6??
This move loses. Black had a choice
among 19 ... Ng6 20 e5 f5 21 h5 Nf4 22 Nd4
Nxe2 23 Nxe2 Rfc8 24 Rxc8+ Rxc8 with an
equal position, 19 ... Rac8 20 Rxc8 Rxc8 21
Rxc8+ Bxc8 22 Nxe5 fxe5 23 Qg3+ Kf8 24
Qxe5 Qxa2 25 Qc5+ Kg7 26 Qc3+ e5 27
Qxe5+ Kg8 28 g4!? with even chances
(Morgado), or even 19 ... Qa4 20 Qxa4
(interesting is 20 Qb2!? Qxe4 21 Re3 with
very good compensation for the sacrificed
material) 20 ... bxa4 21 Nxe5 fxe5 22 Rc7
Bb5 23 R1c5 Rfb8 with an equal ending.
20 Nxe5 fxe5 21 Qb4 Rac8
Or if 21 ... Qd8 22 Rd1.
22 Rg3+ Kh8 23 Rd1 Qd8 24 Rgd3
Qxh4 25 Rh3 Qd8 26 Qd2 1-0
Game 10
H.Stefansson-M.Petursson
Reykjavik Open 1996
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 d5 4 d4 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rh3 Qa5 15 Be2 0-0
16 Rc1
23
16 ... Ne5
Alternatively, 16 ... Qe5 (V.Nevole-
Je.Andersen, correspondence 1994) 17 Qd2!?
Kh8 18 Rg3 Qd6 (weaker is 18 ... Qxe4 19
Qh6 Rg8 20 Bd3 Rg6 21 Qxg6 Qxg6 22
Bxg6 hxg6 23 Rc7 and White wins) 19 Qh6
Rg8 20 Rxg8+ Kxg8 21 Rc3 with a strong
initiative for White, or 16 ... Kh8 17 Nb3 Qe5
(as in C.Teichmann-T.Llorach Gracia,
correspondence 2011; very dangerous would
be 17 ... Qxa2 18 Qd6 Qa4 19 Re3 and
White’s initiative is decisive) 18 Qd2 Rg8 19
Rc4 with the better chances for White.
17 Qb3
After 17 Nb3 Qd8 (weaker is 17 ... Qb4
18 Nc5, when White will attack,
V.Sharavdorj-C.Van Buskirk, Burbank 2004)
18 Qc2 White has the upper hand.
17 ... Qd2
The alternative is 17 ... Bd7!? 18 Qg3+
Kh8 19 Qf4 Qd8 20 Rb3 with slightly the
better chances for White.
18 Rd1
Alternatively, 18 Qg3+!? Kh8 19 Nb3
Qh6 20 Rc7 Rd8 21 h5 with compensation
for the pawn.
18 ... Qf4 19 Nf3
 19 ... b5
19 ... Qxe4? would be a serious blunder:
20 Nxe5! Qxe5 21 Rg3+ Kh8 22 Qb4 Re8 23
Qe7! Qxg3 24 Qxe8+ Qg8 25 Qe7 with a
winning position for White (Tisdall),
whereas 19 ... Ng4!? 20 Qb6 h5 21 Rg3 e5 22
Ng1 Kh8 23 Nh3 Qh6 leads to a complicated
position with slightly the better chances for
White.
20 Nxe5
20 h5 Ng4 21 Rh4 (or 21 g3 Qc7 22 Rh4
e5 23 Ne1 Nh6) 21 ... e5 22 g3 Qh6 23 Ne1
Qg5 24 Rd6 Kh8 25 Qc3 f5 is very unclear.
20 ... Qxe5?
A losing blunder. The only defence was
20 ... fxe5! 21 Rg3+ Kh8; for example, 22
Rg4 Qf6 23 Qa3 Rg8 24 Rxg8+ Kxg8 25
Bxb5 Bb7 26 Qg3+ Kh8 27 Bd3 Rg8 28 Qf3
Qxf3 29 gxf3 Kg7 30 Rb1 with only a
slightly better ending for White.
21 Qe3 Bb7
22 Qh6?!
This move allows Black to defend from
White’s attack at the cost of a piece. More
precise was 22 Rg3+ Kh8 23 Qh6 Rg8 24 f4
Qb2 25 Rb3 Rg6 26 Qxg6 Qxe2+ 27 Kxe2
hxg6 28 Rd7 with a winning position for
White.
22 ... Bxe4
But not 22 ... Kh8? 23 f4 Qb2 24 e5!
Bxg2+ 25 Kf2 with a mating attack
(Stefansson).
23 Rg3+ Bg6 24 h5 Rad8?
24 ... Rfd8? loses after 25 Re1! Qc5 26
hxg6 fxg6 27 Bd3, according to Stefansson,
24
who also points out that 24 ... f5 25 hxg6
hxg6 26 Rd7 Qg7 could have prolonged the
resistance.
25 hxg6 Rxd1+ 26 Bxd1 fxg6 27 Rd3
Qc7 28 Bb3 Re8 29 Qd2 Qh2 30 Rh3 Qc7
31 Rc3 Qb7
Likewise, 31 ... Qh2 32 Qd7 Qh1+ 33
Ke2 Qh5+ 34 g4 wins.
32 Qd6 1-0
Game 11
R.Jankowicz-J.Trusewicz
Correspondence 2006
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 d5 4 d4 Bb4 5 Bg5
dxc4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rh3 Qa5 15 Be2 Qe5
16 Rc1
16 ... Qxe4
Other moves are weaker: 16 ... Qf4
(A.Dutra Neto-W.Wojcik, correspondence
2008) 17 Rhc3!? 0-0 18 Qc2 Qh2 19 Nf3
Qh1+ 20 Ng1, intending Rg3 or Rh3, or 16 ...
Rg8 (P.Giulian-S.Terada, correspondence
2000) 17 Rhc3 Ke7 18 Qa4 Qh2 19 Bf3 Rd8
20 g3 Ne5 21 Ke2, in both cases with a
winning position for White.
17 Re3
An alternative is 17 Rd3 0-0 18 Qd2 Kh8
19 Nf3 with a small advantage for White,
H.Kubikova-P.Schuster, correspondence
2010.
17 ... Qxh4
 White obtained a decisive attack after
17 ... Qf4? and won quickly in
J.Vaassen-P.Saint Amour, correspondence
2003: 18 Nxe6 fxe6 19 Rxe6+ Kd8 20 g3
Qb4 21 Rc4 Qf8 22 Qd2 1-0.
18 Kg1
18 ... Ne5
It is difficult to find anything better.
Although White is two pawns down, all his
pieces are actively attacking the black king.
After 18 ... 0-0? 19 Rc4 it is unclear what
Black should do with his queen; for example,
19 ... Ne5 (J.Fang-J.Sarkar, Ledyard 2003)
20 Nf3 Nxc4 21 Nxh4 Nxe3 22 fxe3 Kg7 23
Qd6. Likewise, 18 ... Qf4 does not help, in
view of 19 Rc4 Qg5 20 Nxe6 fxe6 21 Rxe6+
Kf7 22 Re3.
19 Nf5??
A fatal error. White could have won
easily after 19 Nf3! Nxf3+ (or 19 ... Qf4 20
Nxe5 fxe5 21 Qd6 Bd7 22 Rc7 Rd8 23 Rd3
Qa4 24 Bd1 Qb5 25 a4) 20 Rxf3 Bd7 21 Rc7
Qa4 22 Qd6 Rd8 23 Rd3 Qb5 24 a4.
19 ... exf5 20 Qd6
Now Black has decent drawing chances.
20 ... Bd7 21 Rxe5+?!
The last chance to fight for a win was 21
Rc7 Rd8 22 Rxe5+ fxe5 23 Qxe5+ Kf8 24
Qxh8+ Ke7 25 Qe5+ Kf8 26 Rxb7 and Black
still has some problems.
21 ... fxe5 22 Qxe5+ Qe7 23 Qxh8+ Qf8
24 Qc3 Bc6 25 Bf3 Bxf3 26 Qxf3 Qd6 27
Qxf5 Rd8 28 Qxh7 Qd2 29 Rc4 Qe1+ 30
Kh2 Qe5+ 31 g3 Rd4 32 Rc8+ Ke7 33 Qh6
Kd7 34 Qh3+ Kd6 35 Rc1 Rd3 36 Qh4
25
½-½
Game 12
R.Pogorelov-A.Kolev
Villarrobledo (rapid) 2000
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 d5 4 d4 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rh3 Qa5 15 Be2 Nc5
16 Nb3 Nxb3 17 Rxb3 Ke7 18 Qc1 Rd8 19
Rab1 Qd2?
20 Qc7+?
White missed his chance. He could have
taken the pawn: 20 Rxb7+ Ke8 (but not 20 ...
Bxb7?? 21 Rxb7+ Rd7 22 Qxd2 Rxb7 with a
big material advantage for White, whereas
20 ... Kf8 21 Qxd2 Rxd2 22 Rb8 Rxb8 23
Rxb8 Rd8 24 Ra8 Ke7 25 Bxa6 Bxa6+ 26
Rxa6 leads to a rook ending with an extra
pawn for White) 21 R7b6 with an advantage
for White.
20 ... Rd7 21 Qg3 b5
But not 21 ... Qxa2? 22 Qg7 Qa5 23
Qxh7 with the deadly threat of Bh5.
22 Qg7 Rc7
Black could have equalized after 22 ...
Qd4!? 23 Bh5 (or 23 Re3 Qe5 24 Qxh7 Bb7
25 Kg1 Rd4) 23 ... Bb7 24 e5 (if 24 Bxf7
Kd6 25 Qg3+ Ke7) 24 ... fxe5 25 Qxf7+ Kd6
26 Qf6 Kc7.
23 Rd3 Rc1+ 24 Rxc1 Qxc1+ 25 Rd1
Qc5

26 Qxh7
White could have tried 26 g4 with the
idea of g4-g5 with a small advantage.
26 ... Bb7 27 f3 Qe5?!
More active was 27 ... Qe3 with equality.
28 Qh6 Rc8 29 Qd2 Kf8 30 Qd7 Qc7
31 Qxc7 Rxc7 32 Rd2 b4 33 Kf2 a5 34 Ke3
e5 35 Bb5 Bc8 36 Ba4 Ba6 37 Bb3 Rc3+ 38
Kf2 Bc4 39 Bxc4 Rxc4 40 Kg3 a4 41 Rd8+
Kg7 42 Ra8 a3 43 Rb8 f5 44 exf5 Kf6 45
Rb7 Rc2 46 Rxb4 Kxf5 47 Kh3 Rxa2 48
g4+ Kg6 49 Ra4 Ra1 50 Kg3 Kf6 51 Kg2
Ke6 52 Kg3 f6 53 Kg2 Kf7 54 Ra7+ Kg6
55 Ra6 Kf7 56 Ra7+ Kg6 ½-½
Game 13
H.Grünberg-Cs.Horvath
Budapest 1991
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rh3 Qa5 15 Be2 Nc5
16 Nb3 Nxb3 17 Qxb3 Qc7
18 Rb1
26
Alternatively, 18 Rd1 Bd7 19 Qb2 0-0-0
(better was 19 ... e5 20 Rc3 Bc6 21 Bc4,
although White’s position is preferable as
21 ... Bxe4 meets with 22 Bd5 Qd7 23 Bc6)
20 Rc1 Bc6 21 Bxa6 (or 21 Rb3 Rd6 22 Qxf6
Rg8 23 g3 Rgd8, as in
H.Houdek-V.Kratochvil, correspondence
2004, and then 24 Qc3 Kb8 25 e5 Rd2 26
Qxc6 Rd1+ 27 Bxd1 Rxd1+ 28 Kg2 Rxc1 29
Qxa6, when White is a whole pawn up) 21 ...
Rd6 (weaker is 21 ... bxa6 22 Rxc6 Qxc6 23
Rc3 with a won ending for White) 22 Be2
Rhd8 (V.Akopian-Cs.Horvath, Niksic 1991)
23 Rhc3 with an advantage for White.
18 ... Bd7
Likewise, if 18 ... Rg8 19 Qb2 Qe5 20
Qxe5 fxe5 21 Rc3 Rg7 22 a4 b5 23 axb5
axb5 24 Bxb5+ Ke7 with a small edge in the
ending for White.
19 Qxb7 Qxb7 20 Rxb7 Bc6
21 Rc7
Black is yet to equalize, as shown to by
21 Rb4 Ke7 22 Ra3 Rab8 23 Rxb8 Rxb8 24
f3 Rb1+ 25 Kf2 Rb2 26 Ke3 with slightly the
better ending for White.
21 ... Bxe4 22 Bxa6
22 Rg3!? was a way to continue.
22 ... 0-0 23 Rg3+ ½-½
Game 14
B.Bachmann-Sharf
Correspondence 2010
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 c4 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rh3 Qa5 15 Be2 Nc5
16 Nb3 Nxb3 17 Qxb3 b6 18 Rb1 Bb7
19 Re3
19 Qxb6 gives fewer chances of
obtaining the advantage; for example, 19 ...
Qxb6 20 Rxb6 Bxe4 21 Bxa6 (or 21 Rxa6
Rxa6 22 Bxa6 Rg8 23 Rg3 Rxg3 24 fxg3
Kd7, as given by Ftacnik) 21 ... f5 22 Rc3
Ke7 23 f3 Bd5 24 Rc7+ Kf6 25 a4 Rhb8 26
Rxb8 Rxb8 27 Bb5 e5 28 Kf2 h5 29 g3 Ke6
30 f4 (likewise, 30 Ra7!? e4 31 fxe4 fxe4 32
Be2 Ke5 33 Bxh5 Rb2+ 34 Ke1 f5 was
agreed drawn in C.Hemmer-C.Bartsch,
correspondence 2008) 30 ... exf4 31 gxf4
Rg8 (with counterplay, according to Ribli)
32 Be2 Rg2+ 33 Ke3 Rh2 34 Bxh5 Kd6 35
Rc8 Rh3+ 36 Ke2 Rh2+ 37 Ke3 Rh3+ 38
Kf2 Rxh4 39 Bf3 Rxf4 40 Rd8+ Kc6 41
Rxd5 Rxf3+ 42 Kxf3 Kxd5 43 Kf4 Kc5 44
Kxf5 Kb4 45 Kf6 Kxa4 46 Kxf7 ½-½ L.Van
Wely-S.Movsesian, Polanica Zdroj 2000.
19 ... Rc8
The alternatives also lead to a small edge
for White: 19 ... b5 20 a4 or 19 ... Ke7 20
Qxb6 Qxb6 21 Rxb6 Ra7 22 f3 Rc8 23 Ra3
Rc1+ 24 Kf2, N.Maiorov-D.Sypnicki,
European Junior Championships, Chalkidiki
2001.
20 Kg1 b5
After 20 ... Rc6?! 21 Rd1 Qe5 22 Qa3
Rc8 23 Bxa6 Bxa6 24 Qxa6 White regains
the pawn and has the upper hand,
M.Vujadinovic-Ni.Santos, correspondence
2004.
27
21 a4 Rg8
The alternatives are again not any better:
21 ... 0-0 22 Qb2 e5 23 Qa3 Rb8 24 Rg3+
with a clear advantage for White or 21 ... Bc6
22 Rc3 0-0 23 Qb2 Bxe4 (if 23 ... e5 24 Qc1)
24 Rg3+ Bg6 25 h5 and White should win.
22 Bf1
White can count on a small advantage
after 22 axb5 Ke7 (or 22 ... axb5 23 Bxb5+
Ke7 24 Rd1) 23 bxa6 Bxa6 24 Bxa6 Qxa6 25
Qd1.
22 ... Bc6?!
Interesting was 22 ... Rg4 23 axb5 Rxh4
24 Qb2 with only slightly the better chances
for White, whereas 23 ... Bxe4 24 Rb2 Bxg2
(or 24 ... f5 25 f3 Bxf3 26 Rxf3 Qb6+ 27 Qe3)
25 Bxg2 Rc1+ 26 Kh2 Qc7+ 27 Rg3 Rxh4+
28 Bh3 would clearly be incorrect.
23 Qb2 Ke7 24 Qa3+ Ke8 25 Rc3 Qxa4
26 Qxa4 bxa4 27 Bxa6 Rxg2+ 28 Kf1 Rh2
29 Ke2 Bb7
After 29 ... Ra8 30 Rxc6 a3 31 Bd3 Rxh4
Black would not have had any more chances
to hold than in the game.
30 Rxc8+ Bxc8 31 Bxc8 Rxh4 32 Bb7
Ke7 33 Ra1 h5 34 Ke3 f5 35 exf5 Rb4 36
Bf3 Rb3+ 37 Kf4 a3 38 fxe6 fxe6 39 Bxh5
e5+ 40 Kf5 Rb4 41 f3 Ra4 42 Ra2 Kd6 43
Kg5 Ra5 44 Kg4 Ra7 45 Bg6 Ra4+ 46 Kg3
Kc5 47 Kf2 Kd4 48 Ke2 Kc3 49 Ke3 Ra7
50 Bf5 Ra6 51 Bc8 Ra8 52 Be6 Ra6 53 Bg8
Kb4 54 Ke4 Rg6 55 Bd5 Rg5 56 Ra1 Rh5
57 Be6 Rg5 58 Rb1+ Ka5 59 Rb8 1-0
Game 15
J.Flyckt Olsen-N.Kalinichenko
Correspondence 1999
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 d5 4 d4 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rh3 Qa5 15 Be2 Nc5
16 Nb3 Nxb3 17 Qxb3 b6 18 Rd1 Bb7 19
Qb2 Qe5 20 Qxb6 Bxe4 21 Rg3 f5
22 Kg1
White has also tried:
a) 22 a4 (A.Razumichin-T.Reichert,
correspondence 2001) 22 ... a5!? 23 Qe3 (23
Rc1 Rb8 24 Qa7 Rb7 25 Bb5+ Ke7 26 Qxa5
Rd8 27 Kg1 Qd4 is unclear) 23 ... Rd8 with
equality.
b) Regaining the pawn allows Black to
complete his development: 22 Bxa6 Ke7 23
Qb4+ Kf6 24 Qd2 and here 24 ... f4!?
(perhaps the best for Black; the alternatives
are 24 ... Rhg8 25 Rxg8 Rxg8 26 g3 f4! 27
gxf4 Bg2+ 28 Kg1 Bc6+ 29 Kf1 Bg2+ with a
draw, as pointed out by Dautov, and 24 ... h6
25 f4, as in R.Dautov-P.Schlosser, Lippstadt
2000, when 25 ... Qc7! 26 Qb2+ Ke7 27 Rg6!
Rhd8! 28 Qf6+ Kf8 29 Qh8+ Ke7 results in
perpetual check) 25 Rg4 (after 25 Rg5 Bf5
26 Re1 Rhd8! 27 Qxd8+ Rxd8 28 Rxe5
Kxe5 Black has slightly the better chances in
the ending, according to Dautov) 25 ... Rxa6
26 Rxf4+ Bf5 (and here the ever thorough
German grandmaster points out that 26 ...
Kg7 27 Rxe4 Qxe4 28 Qg5+ Qg6 29 Qe5+
Qf6 30 Qg3+ Kh6 31 Qe3+ Kg7 32 Qg3+
28
results in a draw) 27 g4 Rg8 (Black can draw
too with 27 ... Rxa2 28 Rxf5+ Qxf5 29 Qxa2
Qxg4 30 Rd3 Rc8 31 Qb2+ e5 32 Rd6+ Kg7
33 Qxe5+ Kf8) 28 gxf5 Qb5+ 29 Qd3 Qxd3+
30 Rxd3 e5 31 Rb4 (weaker is 31 Rff3 Rg4
with a small edge for Black – Dautov) 31 ...
Kxf5 32 a4 lands up in a level position.
22 ... h6
A serious blunder is 22 ... Ke7? 23 Qb4+
Kf6 24 Rd7 Rae8 (D.Wendt-D.Sebastian,
German League 2005) 25 f4 Qa1+ 26 Kh2
with the idea of Rc3 and Qd4 with a mating
attack.
23 Qb4
Alternatives are 23 Bxa6 Ke7 24 Qb4+
Kf6 25 Rd7 Rhe8 26 Bb7 Rad8 27 Qd2 Rxd7
28 Qxd7 Rb8 29 Bxe4 ½-½
D.Wendt-M.Galyas, Budapest 2003, or 23
Bf1!? Rb8 24 Qxa6 Ke7 25 Qa3+ Kf6 26
Rd7 Rhe8 27 Qe3 Rh8 28 Kh2 with the better
chances for White, Z.Zawadka-P.Walczak,
correspondence 2006.
23 ... f4 24 Rg4 Rb8 25 Qa4+
Notably 25 Qa3 a5 (25 ... Rd8!?) 26 Bf3
Rb4 27 Qc1 was preferred in
V.Topalov-L.Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2001,
when 27 ... Rb1 28 Qc8+ Ke7 29 Qd7+ Kf6
30 Rxb1 Bxb1 would have resulted in an
unclear position.
25 ... Ke7 26 Bf3
26 ... Bf5
After 26 ... Bxf3 27 Rd7+ Kf6 28 Rxf4+
Kg6 29 Rxf3 Rb1+ 30 Rd1 Rxd1+ 31 Qxd1
White looks a little better.
 27 Rd7+ Kf6 28 Rxf4 Rb1+ 29 Kh2
Rb2 30 g3??
A hard to fathom blunder in
correspondence chess. White must have
confused the move order or written down by
mistake the text move instead of 30 g4, after
which he would have had a small advantage.
Instead, after the most optimal 30 Bh5 Rf8
31 g3 a5 32 Qa3 Kg7 33 Bg4 White would
have had a clear advantage.
30 ... Rxf2+ 31 Bg2 Rxf4 32 gxf4 Qb2
33 Qd4+ Qxd4 34 Rxd4 Rc8 35 Ra4 Bd3
36 Bb7 Rc2+ 37 Kg3 Rc3 38 Kf2 Kf5 39
Bxa6 Bxa6 40 Rxa6 Kxf4 41 Ra4+ Kf5 42
Ra7 f6 0-1
29
Conclusion
The not-so-popular moves 15 Ba4 and 17
axb3 deserve attention in the main line,
although in both cases we have found some
ideas for Black to equalize. However, neither
move has yet been sufficiently tried in
tournament practice and both await new
games, especially by grandmasters. The best
idea for Black in the main line with 17 Qxb3
is 17 ... Rb8!. If he decides instead on the
more popular 17 ... b6, White has three
options leading to obtaining a small
advantage: 18 Rd1, 18 Rb1, and 18 Rc1 Bb7
19 Re3.
Chapter Two
The Main Line: 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 - Deviations
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4
Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6
The starting position for the variations
discussed in this chapter.
11 ... Qxc3+
The key continuation. Black takes the
pawn with check and deprives White’s king
of castling rights. On the other hand, White
gets some tactical possibilities due to the
open c-file, Black’s exposed queen, and the
pin on the a4-e8 diagonal.
Black can decline the sacrificed pawn
and recapture the bishop with 11 ... gxf6, but
this move cannot be recommended. White
keeps all the advantages of his position with
a castled king and equal material.
Now the typical move 12 Qb3 gives
Black a playable position after 12 ... 0-0 13
Bxd7 Bxd7 14 0-0 b6. Not too good either is
12 h4 a6 13 Be2 (13 Bxd7+!? looks more
consistent) 13 ... Nc5 14 Rh3 Nxe4 15 Re3 f5
16 Bf3 Bd7 with equality, L.Aronian-L.Van
Wely, Nice (blindfold rapid) 2008.
So White should simply castle with 12
0-0, or else throw in 12 Qf3 a6 13 Bxd7+
Bxd7 14 0-0, transposing to 12 0-0 a6 13
30
Bxd7+ etc. Either way Black has no chances
to equalize. Detailed analysis is in Game 16.
12 Kf1
At first sight it might seem that White
should play 12 Ke2, when the king does not
block the way of the h1-rook. Nevertheless,
this idea has not turned out well in practice:
Black cannot fully equalize after 12 ...
Qb2+ 13 Kf1 (a very original king’s
expedition took place in I.Ilyin-V.Sukhorskij,
correspondence 2011: 13 Kf3 Qc3+ 14 Kg4
gxf6 15 Rc1 Qb4, but Black’s position is
okay; the exchange of queens is not
dangerous for Black: 13 Qd2 Qxd2+ 14
Kxd2 gxf6 15 Ke3 Rg8 16 g3 Rg5 17 f4 Rc5
18 Rhc1 Ke7 19 a4 a6 20 Be2 b6 21 a5 ½-½
K.Metelmann-V.Markic, correspondence
2010) 13 ... gxf6 14 Rb1 (or 14 h4 e5 15 Nb3
a6 16 Be2 Nf8, V.Tukmakov-J.De la Villa
Garcia, Leon 1992, and now 17 Na5!? b5 18
a4 Bd7 19 Nb7 Ng6 20 g3 with
compensation) 14 ... Qa3 15 h4 a6 16 Rh3
Qd6 17 Bxd7+ Bxd7 18 Rd3 Rd8 19 Kg1
Bb5 20 Rd2 with the slightly better chances
for White, L.Ljubojevic-J.De la Villa Garcia,
Leon 1994.
Therefore, rather than force the
opponent’s king to move again, Black should
recapture the piece without delay: 12 ... gxf6
13 Rc1 Qb4 (Black has to watch out for the
tactical motif 14 Rxc8+ Rxc8 15 Bxd7+ etc)
14 Rc4 Qe7 (obviously not 14 ... Qd6? 15
Nb3 Qe7, because of 16 Qd3 a6 17 Rhc1 0-0
18 Bxd7 Bxd7 19 Rc7 or 18 ... Qxd7 19
Qg3+ Kh8 20 Qh4 and White wins in both
variations) 15 Qc1 (15 Rc7!? is interesting;
e.g. 15 ... 0-0 16 Qc2 a6 17 Ba4 b5 18 Bb3
Qd6 19 Qc6 and White’s pressure fully
compensates for the pawn) 15 ... 0-0, when it
is not Black who has to be worried about
equality: 16 Rc7 (Timman’s suggestion of 16
Rc3, planning to redeploy the rook on the
kingside, is not good; e.g. 16 ... Ne5 17 Rh3
Rd8 18 Qh6 Qc5 19 Rd1 Ng6 and White’s
attack fails, while after 17 Rd1 Rd8 18 Kf1
Bd7 White does not have full compensation
for the pawn) 16 Rc7 a6 (Salov’s idea 16 ...
Qd6 17 Rd1 Ne5 cannot be recommended
due to 18 Nf5 Qb4 19 Nd6 Rd8 20 Qd2 and
White has the upper hand) 17 Ba4,
L.Ljubojevic-J.Timman, World Cup,
Reykjavik 1991, and now 17 ... Rd8!? with
slightly the better chances for Black.
12 ... gxf6
13 h4
The main continuation. White wants to
get the h1-rook involved in the play.
a) White can also insert 13 Rc1 before he
performs this manoeuvre: after 13 ... Qb4 14
h4 (or 14 Rc4 Qe7 15 Qc1 0-0 with
compensation for the pawn,
A.Vuilleumier-M.Bluebaum, Bad Ragaz
2016; other possibilities are 14 Qa4 Qxa4 15
31
Bxa4, 14 a3 Qe7 15 Qb3, and 14 Rc7) 14 ...
0-0 (14 ... a6 usually leads to the main
variation with a different move order; 14 ...
e5? is bad due to 15 Rc4 Qd6 16 Rh3 with a
deadly pin on the a4-e8 diagonal,
J.Smejkal-A.Fauland, Novi Sad Olympiad
1990) 15 Rh3 Ne5 (V.Duplenko-Al.Horvath,
correspondence 2009) 16 Rb3 Qd6 17 Rc2
a6 18 Be2 b5 19 Rd2 and again White has
compensation for the pawn.
Apart from the idea of developing the
h1-rook White has tried two aggressive,
albeit not recommended, knight sacrifices:
b) 13 Nxe6? (this move looks excellent,
as 13 ... fxe6? 14 Rc1 Qe5 15 Rxc8+ wins for
White; however, chess is not draughts and
captures are not forced ... ) 13 ... Qe5 and
now White usually continues 14 Nd4, which
should be met by 14 ... 0-0 with a big
advantage for Black (see Game 17); whereas
14 ... a6 is less precise and only gives better
chances after 15 Ba4 0-0 16 Nf3 Qe7 (or 16 ...
Qxe4!? 17 Bc2 Qc4+ 18 Bd3 Qf4 19 Qc2) 17
Qe2 (V.Malakhatko-T.Galinsky, Kiev 2000)
17 ... Rd8 18 Qe3 Nc5 19 Bc2 Be6.
Other moves do not equalize either: 14
Ng7+ (14 Bxd7+ Bxd7 15 Ng7+) 14 ... Kf8
15 Bxd7 (not 15 Nf5? Qxb5+ 16 Kg1 Qe5
with a clear advantage for Black,
E.Lobron-Zsu.Polgar, Dortmund 1990) 15 ...
Bxd7 16 Nf5 Bxf5 17 exf5 Qxf5 and White
does not have full compensation for the
pawn.
c) 13 Nf5 is better than 13 Nxe6 but not
worth recommending either.
 Now Black has a few options. Only one
of them is not good: 13 ... Qe5? (Game 18 is
very instructive); the other moves lead to
equality:
c1) The simplest is 13 ... exf5!? 14 Rc1
Qe5 (or 14 ... Qb2 15 Rxc8+ Rxc8 16 Qxd7+
Kf8 17 Qd6+ Kg7 18 Qg3+ with a draw by
perpetual check) 15 Rxc8+ Rxc8 16 Qxd7+
Kf8 17 Qxc8+ Kg7 18 Qxf5 Qa1+ 19 Ke2
Qxh1 20 e5 (or 20 Qg4+ ½-½
J.Enricci-N.Patrici, correspondence 2013)
20 ... Qxg2 21 Qxf6+ (an attempt to play for
a win with 21 exf6+ Kh6 22 h4,
D.Muse-M.Muse, Croatian League 2014,
fails to 22 ... Rd8) 21 ... Kg8 (Sr.Cvetkovic)
22 Qd8+ Kg7 23 Qf6+ Kg8 24 Qd8+ Kg7 25
Qf6+ Kg8 ½-½ S.Grigoriants-I.Lysyj,
European Championship, Legnica 2013.
Also good are:
c2) 13 ... Kf8!? 14 Rc1 (B.Züger-F.Hölzl,
Graz 1993) 14 ... Qe5! 15 Nd6 (or 15 Bxd7
Bxd7 16 Qxd7 exf5 17 Qxf5 Qxf5 18 exf5
Kg7 with an equal ending) 15 ... Nb6 (or 15 ...
Nc5 16 Qd2 Nxe4 17 Qh6+ Ke7 18 Nxe4
Qxe4 19 Rc7+ Kd8 20 Rc1 Ke7 21 Rc7+
with a draw) 16 Qd2 (16 Rc7 Bd7 17 Bxd7
Rd8 gives Black a good position) 16 ... Ke7
17 Rd1 Qc5 18 h4 (after 18 e5 Nd5 19 a4
Bd7 20 Rc1 Qb4 Black stands well) 18 ... e5
19 Rh3 Bxh3 20 gxh3 Rad8 21 Nf5+ Ke6 22
Ng7+ with perpetual check.
c3) 13 ... Qc5 14 Nd6+ Ke7 15 Nxc8+
Qxc8 16 Rc1 Nc5 17 Qh5 (too slow is 17 h4?
Qc7 18 Rh3 b6 and Black had a sound extra
pawn in M.Lomineishvili-Z.Gyimesi,
German League 2001) 17 ... b6 (or 17 ... e5
18 f4 Qc7 19 fxe5 Qb6 20 Bc4 Rhf8 with
equality, O.Danielian-V.Kosyrev, Moscow
1998) 18 e5 fxe5 19 Qg5+ Kf8 20 Qh6+ ½-½
N.Romizin-O.Brandt, correspondence 2005.
13 ... a6
32
A logical move. Black forces White to
determine the position of the b5-bishop. He
can keep the pin on the a4-e8 diagonal or
withdraw it on e2.
Black can also withdraw the queen of his
own free will with 13 ... Qa5. This will be
met by the standard idea of developing the
h1-rook via h3, either immediately: 14 Rh3
(when Black can play 14 ... Ke7 or 14 ... e5)
or after 14 Rc1 Ke7 15 Rh3. White has
slightly better play in these variations
(detailed analysis in Game 19). It is worth
remarking that a subsequent ... a7-a6, for
example after 14 Rh3, may lead to positions
discussed in Chapter One with a different
move order.
14 Rh3
This looks the most logical and flexible
move. One way or another, the h1-rook must
be developed on h3.
White can attack the black queen from
the other side as well: 14 Rc1 Qb4
(exceptionally, Black cannot go to a5 here:
14 ... Qa5?? 15 Rxc8+ Rxc8 16 Bxd7+ Ke7
17 Bxc8 Rxc8 18 Qb1 and White wins,
Y.Shulman-A.Goldin, Sioux Falls 2000) 15
Ba4 (15 Be2 0-0 16 Rh3 and 15 ... Ne5 16
Rh3 transpose to the main line below), and
now Black should react somehow to the pin
on the a4-e8 diagonal. Putting off solving
this problem, say with 15 ... Qd6 16 Rh3 b5,
gives White better chances (see Game 20).
Therefore Black should decide upon the
immediate 15 ... b5, when 16 Nc6 (16 Bb3
Bb7 17 Rc7 Ne5 18 Nxe6 fxe6 19 Rxb7
Qxe4 20 Qh5+ Kd8 21 Qd1+ Ke8 22 Qh5+ is
a draw) 16 ... Qf8 17 Bc2 Bb7 18 Na5 Rb8 19
Qd2 Ba8 20 Rh3 gives White good
compensation for the pawn.
The alternative is 14 Ba4 Ke7 (14 ... 0-0
cannot be recommended due to 15 Rh3 Qc4+
16 Kg1 Ne5 17 Rc1 Qb4 18 Rg3+ Kh8 19
Nf3 with the initiative; but 14 ... b5!? again
deserves attention, e.g. 15 Rc1 Qa3 16 Bb3
Bb7 17 Rc7 Qd6 18 Rxb7 Nc5 19 Nxe6
Qxd1+ 20 Bxd1 Nxb7 21 Nxc7, or 15 Bb3
Ne5 16 Rh3 Qb4 17 Rc1 Bd7 18 Nf3 Qxe4
19 Nxe5 Qxe5 20 Rd3
D.Khismattulin-M.Erdogdu, European
Championship, Gjakova 2016, and now 20 ...
Rd8, with equality in both cases) 15 Rh3
Qc4+ 16 Kg1 Nc5 17 Bb3 Qb4 (17 ... Nxb3
18 axb3 Qc5 19 Rc1 Qb6 20 e5 fxe5 21 Nf3
Rd8 22 Qc2 allows White a strong initiative)
18 Rc1 Bd7 19 Re3 Rac8
(E.Magerramov-A.Galliamova, Rostov on
Don 1993) 20 Rb1 and White has the upper
hand.
14 ... Qb4
The main move here is 14 ... Qa5, which
was discussed in Chapter One. The position
of the queen on b4 has some advantages over
a5, in that it controls the a3-f8 diagonal and,
moreover, can go on d6. On the other hand, it
involves the loss of another tempo.
15 Be2
Instead:
a) 15 Ba4 cannot be recommended: 15 ...
b5 (but not 15 ... Ke7?! 16 Rb1 Qc4+ 17 Kg1
33
Rd8 18 Rc1 Qb4 19 Rd3, or 17 ... Nc5 18
Bb3 Nxb3, Pr.Nikolic-A.Greenfeld,
European Rapid Championship, Neum 2000,
19 Rhxb3 and White dominates in both
variations) 16 Bb3 Bb7 17 Rc1
(D.Kosic-B.Macieja, Istanbul Olympiad
2012) and Black could have obtained a small
advantage after 17 ... Qd6! 18 Rhc3 Rd8 19
Nc6 Qxd1+ 20 Bxd1, according to Macieja.
b) 15 Rb3 Qd6 16 Bxd7+ Bxd7 (worse is
16 ... Qxd7 17 Rd3 Qe7 18 Qg4 Bd7 19 Rc1
Rc8 20 Rxc8+ Bxc8 21 Qg7 Rf8 and Black`s
pieces are tied to the defence of his weak
pawns) 17 Rxb7 Rd8
(R.Pogorelov-L.Campos Gambuti, Zaragoza
1998; or 17 ... 0-0 H.Behling-V.Moskvichev,
correspondence 2015) 18 Kg1 with equal
chances.
c) 15 Rb1 Qd6 16 Bxd7+ Bxd7 (but not
16 ... Qxd7? 17 Rd3 Qc7 18 Rc1 with a
strategically winning position for White,
N.Maleki-F.Madiai, Erice 2015) 17 Rd3 Rd8
18 Kg1 Bb5 19 Rd2 leads to an equal game
after both 19 ... e5 (M.Buker-C.Kayis,
correspondence 2012) and 19 ... Qf4.
15 ... Ne5
Definitely the best. For the time being
Black leaves his king in the centre. Other
moves allow White a good game:
a) 15 ... Nc5 has the flaw of blocking the
a3-f8 diagonal for Black’s queen: 16 Rb1
Qa4 (worse is 16 ... Qa5 17 Nb3 Nxb3 18
Rhxb3 Rb8 19 Qc1 with a clear advantage
for White) 17 Nb3 b6 (J.Kloster-K.Miettinen,
correspondence 2015) 18 Rc3 Bd7 19 Nxc5
Qxd1+ 20 Rxd1 bxc5 21 Rxc5 with an
advantage in the ending for White.
b) The immediate withdrawal with 15 ...
Qd6 does not give Black good chances of
equality:
 b1) 16 Rd3 Qf4 (or 16 ... Qh2 17 Nf3
Qh1+ 18 Ng1 Qxh4 19 Rc1 with a strong
initiative) 17 Nf3 (or 17 Qc2 Qxe4 18 Rc1
Qxh4 19 Nf3 Qh1+ 20 Ng1 Qh2 21 Qxc8+
Rxc8 22 Rxc8+ Ke7 23 Rxh8 and White has
the advantage in the ending) 17 ... Qxe4 18
Qd2 0-0 19 Rd4 Qg6 20 h5 Qxh5 21 Rh4
Qg6 22 Rh6 Qg4 23 Bd3 with a winning
attack for White, W.Tseng-G.Flitsch,
correspondence 2009.
b2) 16 Qa4 is perhaps even better. Now
16 ... b5?! runs into 17 Nxb5 Qc6 18 Rc3
axb5 19 Qb4 Qb6 20 Rac1 Ba6 21 Rc6 Qb8
(I.Khairullin-D.Frolyanov, Kaliningrad
2015), when White could have won the game
after 22 Bh5. Other moves do not give Black
chances to equalize either; e.g. 16 ... 0-0 17
Rd1 Qe7 18 Rc3
(P.Cramling-M.Chiburdanidze, Women’s
Candidates, Tilburg 1994) 18 ... Ne5 19 Qc2
with better chances for White.
b3) White has also tried 16 Rc1 Nc5 17
Rhc3 b6 18 Nb3 Qh2 19 Rh3 Qe5 20 Nxc5
bxc5 21 Rhc3 Qh2 22 Rh3 Qe5 23 Kg1 Bb7
24 Qa4+ Ke7 25 Qa3 Rhc8 26 Rhc3 Qd6 27
Bf3 Rab8 28 Rc4!, as in
V.Akopian-L.Janjgava, Moscow Olympiad
1994, when Akopian says that White has a
clear advantage, though we think it is
probably only a small edge.
c) 15 ... 0-0 is obviously possible, but the
black king does not often feel safer on the
kingside than in the centre:
34
Now after both 16 Qd3 Kh8 17 Rd1 Qe7
18 Qe3 (A.Lauber-Z.Gyimesi, Fürth 2000),
and 16 Rb3 Qd6 17 Qd2 Kh8
(A.Huzman-P.Wells, European
Championship, Plovdiv 2008) 18 Qh6 Rg8
19 Nf3 b6 20 Rd1 Qf8 21 Qe3, White has
reasonable compensation for the pawn.
However, 16 Rc1!? looks more
promising: 16 ... Kh8 17 Rhc3 Rd8
(L.Tortato-H.Abdala, correspondence 2004;
or if 17 ... Ne5 18 Qd2 Bd7,
I.Miciak-J.Potrata, correspondence 2014,
then 19 Qh6 with a small advantage) 18 Qd2
and White has the better chances; e.g. 18 ...
Qd6 (if 18 ... Nf8 19 Qf4 Qe7 20 Rc7 Ng6 21
Qf3 Bd7 22 h5 Ne5 23 Qf4 or 18 ... Qf8 19
Nb3 Ne5 20 Qf4 Qg7 21 Rg3 Ng6 22 Qc7
Qf8 23 h5 Ne5) 19 Rd1 Qh2 (or 19 ... Qe5 20
Qh6) 20 Rh3 Qe5 21 Rg3 Rg8 22 Rxg8+
Kxg8 23 Qh6.
Strengthening the pressure on the b-file
with 16 Rb1 is good too: 16 ... Qd6 (after
16 ... Qe7 17 Nb3, G.Brückel-L.Tinture,
correspondence 2003, 17 ... Kh8 18 Rc3 Ne5
19 h5, or 17 Qc2 Nc5 18 Rc3 e5 19 Rxc5
exd4 20 Rh5, White has the slightly better
chances) 17 Rg3+ (or 17 Qd2 at once, with
compensation for the pawn; e.g. 17 ... Kh8 18
Qh6 Rg8 19 Rd1 Qf8 20 Qxf8 Nxf8 21 Rc3
Ng6 22 g3 or 20 Qe3 Qe7 21 h5 Ne5 22 Qf4,
Se.Ivanov-V.Kosyrev, Russian
Championship, Samara 2000, 22 ... Ng4 23
Rhd3 e5 24 Nf5 Qc7 25 Qg3 Bxf5 26 exf5)
17 ... Kh8 18 Qd2 and White’s position is
better. Black has a weakened pawn structure
on the kingside and some problems
completing his queenside development.
Even if he manages to exchange the irritating
g3-rook, White is quickly able to redeploy
the other rook from the queenside. You can
make yourself acquainted with the further
course of the play in Game 21.
Returning to 15 ... Ne5:
16 Rb1
This is the most popular continuation at
present. White activates his rooks and at the
same time attacks the b7-pawn, making it
difficult for Black to develop his queenside.
Other moves fail to offer White any
advantage, though Black has to play very
accurately:
a) 16 Rc1 should be met by 16 ... Qd6.
Other moves, such as 16 ... 0-0 and 16 ... Bd7,
allow White a small edge, whereas the return
of the queen to the centre, followed by ... Bd7,
enables Black to equalize – see Game 22.
b) 16 a3 led to a quick draw after 16 ...
Qd6 17 Ra2 Bd7 18 Rd2 Qc7 19 Rc2 Qd6 20
Rd2 Qc7 21 Rc2 ½-½
R.Vaganian-P.Harikrishna, Biel 2017.
c) 16 a4 0-0 17 Rb3 Qd6 18 h5 Rd8 19
Qc2 (V.Puzanov-D.Evans, correspondence
2013) 19 ... Bd7 20 Qd2 Bc6 with mutual
chances.
d) 16 Rb3 Qd6 17 a4 Bd7 (17 ... 0-0,
threatening 18 ... Rd8, looks better; e.g. 18
Nf3 Qxd1+ 19 Rxd1 Nc6 20 Nd4 Na5 with
equal chances) 18 Rxb7 0-0
(M.G.Sanchez-M.Jasinski, correspondence
35
2014) 19 Rb2 Rfd8 20 Rd2 with a small
advantage for White.
e) 16 Kg1 Qd6 17 Qd2 Bd7 18 Qb2
(worse is 18 Rb1?! Rd8 19 Qe3, as in
A.Beliavsky-N.Vitiugov, European Team
Championship, Heraklio 2017, due to 19 ...
Rg8 and Black has a small advantage) 18 ...
Rd8 19 Rd1 Ba4 was B.Lalic-S.Gindi,
London (rapid) 2016, and now 20 Rd2 keeps
the position equal.
f) 16 f4 Ng6 (worse is 16 ... Nc4?!, as in
H.Hernandez Carmenates-C.Hevia Alejano,
Cuba Championship, Santa Clara 2013, due
to 17 Rd3 and Black has some problems; e.g.
17 ... Bd7 18 Nc2 Qa4 19 Rxd7 Qxd7 20
Qxd7+ Kxd7 21 Bxc4 or 17 ... e5 18 Rb1
Qc5 19 Nc2 Qa5 20 Rb4 b5 21 Rd5 Qc7 22
Bxc4 bxc4 23 Ne3) 17 Rb3 Qd6 18 g3 e5 19
Nf5 Qxd1+ 20 Rxd1 exf4 21 Nd6+ Kf8 22
Nxc8 Rxc8 23 h5 fxg3 24 hxg6 hxg6 25
Rxg3 Rh4 26 Re3 Rc2 with equality.
g) 16 h5 Qd6! (not 16 ... Bd7?! 17 Rb3
Qd6 18 Rxb7 Rd8 19 Nb3 Qc6?! 20 Rb4 and
White is clearly better,
B.Gelfand-A.Naiditsch, Dresden Olympiad
2008, and even after 19 ... Bc6 20 Qxd6
Rxd6 21 Rb8+ Rd8 22 Rb4 White has the
upper hand, according to Gelfand) 17 Qd2!?
(17 Kg1 Bd7 18 Rc3 Rd8 19 Rb1 leads to an
unclear game, Y.Shulman-A.Naiditsch,
Montreal 2009; as does 17 Rc3 Bd7 18 Rb1
b5 19 a4 b4 20 Rcc1 Rd8 21 Nb3 Qxd1+ 22
Rxd1, P.Vishnu-S.Bogdanovich, Moscow
2015, and now 22 ... Bxa4 23 Rxd8+ Kxd8
24 Nc5 Bb5) 17 ... Nc6 (17 ... Bd7!? is a
valid alternative) 18 Rd3 Qh2 19 f4 Rg8 20
Bf3 Bd7 21 Ne2 (21 Nb3!? Ne5 22 fxe5 Bb5
23 a4 is equal, while 23 Rd1 Rd8 24 Nc5
Qxe5 offers mutual chances) 21 ... Qh1+ 22
Ng1 Nd4! 23 Rxd4 Bb5+ 24 Kf2 Qh4+ 25
Ke3 e5 26 fxe5 Qg5+ 27 Kf2 Qg3+ with a
draw, V.Anand-V.Kramnik, FIDE
Candidates, Khanty-Mansiysk 2014.
16 ... Qd6

17 Qd2
A logical move. White has also tried:
a) 17 Rb2 b5 (after 17 ... 0-0 18 Rd2 Qe7
19 h5 Bd7 White has more than enough
compensation for the pawn,
C.Parligras-S.Swapnil, Golden Sands 2013)
18 Rd2 Qb6 19 Rg3 Bb7 20 f4 Ng6 21 f5 e5
22 fxg6 hxg6 23 Nf3 Bxe4 and position is
unclear.
b) 17 a4 Rb8 18 Rhb3 b6 (as with 17 Rc3
in line ‘c’, perhaps it is better to keep the king
in the centre for the time being; if 18 ... 0-0,
as in V.Kopeikin-J.Betker, correspondence
2011, then 19 h5!? Kh8 20 Qd2 Nd7 21 Rg3
Rg8 22 Rxg8+ Kxg8 23 Rb3 gives White a
useful initiative) 19 Qd2 Bd7 20 a5 Nc6
(20 ... b5 21 Rd1) 21 Rxb6 Rxb6 22 Rxb6
0-0 23 Nb3 Qxd2 24 Nxd2 Nxa5 25 Rxa6
and White’s position is still a little better, but
Black should draw this ending.
c) 17 Rc3 looks interesting, though here
too Black can count on good play: 17 ... b5
(the king may be unsafe on the kingside: 17 ...
0-0?! 18 h5 Rd8 19 Qb3 Bd7 20 Rd1 Qf8 21
Rc7 Qh6 22 Rxb7 Qf4 23 g3 Qxe4 24 f3 Qd5
25 Qxd5 exd5 A.Giri-P.Harikrishna,
Shenzhen 2017, and now 26 Kf2 gives White
the better chances) 18 Nb3 (the game
B.Lalith-F.Bindrich, World Junior
Championships, Chotowa 2010, ended in a
draw after 18 h5 Bd7 19 Nb3 Qxd1+ 20
Rxd1 Ke7 21 f4 Nc4 22 Nc5 Bc6 23 Bxc4
bxc4 24 a4 Rhc8 25 Rd4 ½-½) 18 ... Qxd1+
19 Rxd1 0-0 20 Rc7 (or 20 h5 f5 21 f4 Nc4
22 exf5 ½-½ P.Dolinski-I.Chukanov,
36
correspondence 2011) 20 ... f5 21 Nc5 (or 21
exf5 exf5 22 Nc5 Be6 23 f4 Ng4 24 Nxe6
fxe6 25 Bxg4 ½-½ J.Verleur-M.Jasinski,
correspondence 2013) 21 ... f4 22 Rd6 Re8
and White has sufficient compensation for
the pawn but no more than that, L.De
Magalhaes-Z.Stoyanov, correspondence
2010.
17 ... Bd7
Black returns the pawn to complete his
development. This leads to an ending where
White a slightly superior structure, but this
advantage is impossible to realize when
Black plays correctly.
The attempt to keep the extra pawn may
cause Black more problems; for example,
17 ... Ng6 18 Rd3 Qf4 19 h5 Qxd2 20 Rxd2
Nf4 21 Bf3 e5 22 Nf5 0-0 23 h6 b5 24 Rc1
(S.Galanov-I.Goncharov, correspondence
2011); or 17 ... Rg8 18 Rd1 Bd7 19 Qb2 Qc7
20 Rc3 Nc6 21 Kg1 (M.Woznica-J.Pajak,
correspondence 2016); or 17 ... b5 18 Rd1
Bb7 (M.Bida-M.Bluebaum, World Junior
Championships, Durban 2014) 19 Qh6!?
Qe7 20 Rc3, with advantage to White in all
variations.
18 Rxb7 Bb5
19 Rb3
19 Rc3 leads to a drawish ending: 19 ...
Rd8 (or already ½-½ in H.Ingersol-
E.Malchev, correspondence 2016) 20 Nf3
Qxd2 21 Bxb5+ axb5 22 Nxd2 0-0 23 Nf3
Nxf3 24 Rxf3 Rb8 25 Rg3+ Kh8 26 Rxb8
Rxb8 27 Rb3 Ra8 28 Rxb5 Rxa2 and the
players soon agreed a draw, W.So-L.Aronian,
Wijk aan Zee 2017.
19 ... Bxe2+
The simplest way to equalize, though
Black can also sacrifice a pawn again: 19 ...
Rc8 20 Bxb5+ axb5 21 Qb4 Qxb4 22 Rxb4
0-0 23 R7xb5 Rfd8 24 Ke2 Kg7 25 Ra4 Ra8
26 Rbb4 Rdb8 with sufficient compensation,
A.Giri-L.Aronian, Stavanger 2015.
20 Kxe2 Rc8 21 Nf3 Qxd2+ 22 Nxd2
0-0 23 f4 Nc6 24 Rg3+ ½-½
A.Yurov-M.Jasinski, correspondence
2014.
Illustrative Games
Game 16
Li Wenliang-M.Richter
Budapest 1999
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 gxf6
12 0-0
12 h4 may transpose to 11 ... Qxc3 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 h4. Instead, an original course
was seen in L.Aronian-L.Van Wely, Nice
(blindfold rapid) 2008: 12 ... a6 13 Be2 (here
13 Bxd7+!? Bxd7 14 0-0 looks more
consistent with a slight advantage for White)
13 ... Nc5 14 Rh3 (14 0-0!?) 14 ... Nxe4 15
Re3 f5 16 Bf3 Bd7 and now 17 Bxe4 fxe4 18
Qg4 0-0-0 19 Qxe4 Qc7 20 g3 Rde8 21 0-0-0
Kb8 offers equal chances.
12 ... a6
37
12 ... Ke7?! 13 Re1 Rd8, as in
S.Savchenko-E.Rajskij, Yerevan 1988, is
weaker. White could have obtained a
winning position after 14 Re3 with the idea
of Rd3. Although 13 ... a6 14 Bf1 and 13 ...
Ne5 14 Re3 look a little better, White still
has a clear advantage in both cases.
13 Be2
13 Bxd7+ is also good: 13 ... Bxd7 14
Qf3 Ke7 (as in V.Malisauskas-
A.Brazdzionis, Lithuanian Championship,
Vilnius 2016; instead, if 14 ... Qe5 15 Rab1
0-0-0 16 Rb3 Be8 17 Rfb1 with the initiative
for White) 15 Rab1 (or 15 Rfd1 with a clear
advantage for White) 15 ... b6 16 Rb4 Rac8
17 Qe3 with the better chances for White.
Keeping the pin on the a4-e8 diagonal
looks very strong too; i.e. 13 Ba4 Ke7
(perhaps looking for counterplay on the
kingside would be better, although White’s
advantage is indisputable in any case after,
say, 13 ... Rg8 14 g3 h5 15 Rb1 b5 16 Bb3)
14 Re1 (14 Qb3 Qc5 15 Bxd7 was agreed
drawn in I.Almasi-Z.Gyimesi, Hungarian
League 1998, but after 15 ... Bxd7 16 Rad1
White has the upper hand) 14 ... Rd8 15 Bb3
and White obtained an attack in
A.Szeberenyi-Z.Sarosi, Hungarian League
1999.
13 ... Nc5
Other moves are no better: 13 ... Ke7 14
f4 Qxc3 (even worse is 14 ... Rd8 15 Qe1
Nc5 16 e5 with a decisive advantage for
White, A.Veingold-Y.Rantanen, Finnish
League 1997) 15 Rf3 Qa5 16 Nb3 and Black
has no way to escape from the strong
pressure, or 13 ... b6 14 Bh5 0-0 15 Re1 Kh8
16 Re3 with a clear advantage for White,
C.Jaulneau-B.Osolin, correspondence 2002.
14 Nb3
14 Re1 is weaker; for example, 14 ... Bd7
15 Bh5 (another attempt to obtain the
initiative is 15 Bf1 followed by Qg4) 15 ...
Qc7 16 Rb1 Rg8 (K.Krumwiede-H.Jonkman,
German Cup 1999) 17 Qf3 with only a small
advantage for White.
14 ... Nxb3 15 Qxb3
15 axb3 deserves attention too; for
example, 15 ... Qxc3 16 Rc1 Qe5 17 Qd2
Bd7 18 f4 Qb8 19 f5 Qe5 20 Qh6 Ke7 21
fxe6 Bxe6 22 Rc7+ Kd8 23 Rfc1 Qg5 with
the better ending for White.
15 ... 0-0 16 Rad1 b6 17 Rd6 Bb7 18
Qxb6
18 ... Qxa2
18 ... Qxb6 was better, although White
still had a clear advantage in the ending after
19 Rxb6 Bxe4 20 f3.
19 Bd3 Rab8 20 Qd4?!
20 Qe3 Qa5 21 c4 would have won.
20 ... Qa5?
The last chance to mount some resistance
was 20 ... Qd2!, as 21 Qxf6 runs into the
tactical motif 21 ... Bxe4.
21 Qxf6 Rbd8??
After 21 ... Rfd8 22 Rd4 Rxd4 23 cxd4
Black loses as well.
22 Rd4
38
Instead, with 22 e5! and the threat of 23
Qg5 Kh8 24 Qh6, White would have won
immediately.
22 ... e5?!
22 ... Rxd4 23 cxd4 was better, but
Black’s position is lost in any case.
23 Qg5+ Kh8 24 Rxd8 Rxd8 25 Bc4
Rd7 26 Bd5 Qxc3 27 Bxb7 Rxb7 28 Rc1
1-0
Game 17
R.Ponomariov-V.Ivanchuk
FIDE World Cup, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 Nxe6? Qe5 14 Nd4 0-0
15 Qd3
Other moves also lead to a clear
advantage for Black in all variations:
a) 15 Qg4+ Kh8 16 Rd1 Nc5 17 Qh4 (or
17 Nf5 Bxf5 18 Qxf5 Nxe4 19 Qxe5 fxe5 20
Re1 f5, D.Garcia Roman-S.Zilka, Olomouc
2012) 17 ... Ne6! (H.Schmidt-R.Slobodjan,
German Championship, Saarbrücken 2002)
18 Be2!? Rd8! 19 Nxe6 Rxd1+ 20 Bxd1
Bxe6 – Ribli.
b) 15 Rc1 (I.Umanskaya-L.Tazhieva,
Azov 1991) 15 ... Nb6 16 Qd3 a6.
c) 15 a4 (R.Szuhanek-S.Rezan, Rijeka
2001) 15 ... Nc5!? 16 Nf3 Qe7 17 Qe2 Rd8.
d) 15 Be2 Nc5 16 Nf3 Qxe4 (16 ... Qe7!?)
17 Qd6 (G.Prakash-A.Lahiri,
Commonwealth Championship, Sangli 2000)
17 ... b6 18 Qxf6 Qg6.
e) Finally, Black emerges somewhat
better too after 15 Rb1 Nc5 16 Nf3 Qxe4 17
Rc1 (D.Gormally-P.Wells, British Rapid
Championship, Halifax 2003) 17 ... Qb4.
15 ... Nc5
15 ... Kh8 is also very good. Black wins
the e4-pawn as after 16 Re1? Nc5 17 Qe3
Ne6 White must lose a piece,
F.Urkedal-D.Navara, Tromsø Olympiad
2014.
16 Qg3+ Kh8
After 16 ... Qxg3 17 hxg3 Rd8 18 Nb3
Nxe4 Black could have obtained an extra
pawn.
17 Qxe5 fxe5 18 Nf3
18 ... a6?!
This move looks a little premature; it
only makes White’s bishop’s position better.
Instead, 18 ... f6 19 Nd2 Be6 20 Ke2 a6
keeps the advantage.
19 Bc4 Nxe4 20 Nxe5 f6 21 Nf3 Bf5 22
h3
Superior was 22 Nd4 Bg6 23 Bd5 Nd2+
24 Kg1 Rad8 25 Ne6 Rxd5 26 Nxf8 Bf7 27
f3 Kg8 28 Nxh7 Kxh7 29 Kf2 with only
slightly the better chances for Black in the
ending.
22 ... b5 23 Bb3 Nc3
Here 23 ... Rad8 24 Kg1 Rfe8 could still
have retained an edge.
24 Nd4 Bd3+
Better was 24 ... Bg6.
25 Kg1 a5 26 Kh2 a4 27 Bd1 Bc4
39
A long, interesting line is 27 ... b4 28 Bf3
Rac8 29 Nc6 b3 30 axb3 axb3 31 Ra3! Be4
32 Rxb3! Bxf3 33 Ne7! Bd5! 34 Rxc3 Rxc3
35 Nxd5 with a level position (Krasenkow).
28 a3 Rad8 29 Nc6 Rd2 30 Bf3 Rxf2 31
Rhc1 Na2 32 Re1 Rc8
33 Re7
33 Ne7 Rd8 34 Nf5 deserved attention
with slightly the better chances for Black,
according to Krasenkow, although we think
that after 34 ... Rfd2 35 Re7 Bd3 36 Ng3 Bg6
37 Ne4 the position is unclear.
33 ... Nc3 34 Nb4 f5 35 Rae1?!
Instead, 35 Kg3 Rb2 led to an equal
game.
35 ... Rg8 36 R7e5?!
Better was 36 Rg1 or 36 Rd7 with an
advantage for Black.
36 ... Be2 37 Rxf5?
The last and decisive blunder. White is
lost after 37 Bc6 Ne4 38 Rg1 Bf1 39 Re8
Rxe8 40 Bxe8 f4 41 Bc6 Nd2 (Krasenkow),
so the last chance to prolong resistance was
with 37 R1xe2 Nxe2 38 Nd3 Rxf3 39 gxf3
Nd4 40 Ne1.
37 ... Bxf3 38 Rxf3 Rgxg2+ 39 Kh1
Rh2+ 40 Kg1 Ne2+ 0-1
Game 18
R.Palliser-P.Wells
British Championship, Torquay 2009
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 Nf5 Qe5? 14 Nd6+ Kf8
15 g3!
The strongest move. 15 Rc1 would be
met by 15 ... Nb6 (or 15 ... Nc5 16 Qd2 Nxe4
17 Qh6+ Ke7 18 Nxe4 Qxe4 19 Rc7+ Kd8
20 Rc1 Ke7 with a draw) 16 Qd2 (and not 16
Rc7 Bd7 17 Bxd7 Rd8 with a good position
for Black) 16 ... Ke7 17 Rd1 Qc5 18 h4 (after
18 e5 Nd5 19 a4 Bd7 20 Rc1 Qb4 Black
stands well) 18 ... e5 19 Rh3 Bxh3 20 gxh3
Rad8 21 Nf5+ Ke6 22 Ng7+ and the game
ends in a draw by perpetual check.
15 ... Nc5?!
Not optimal, although already Black has
no fully satisfactory move:
a) 15 ... Ke7? looks like an act of utter
desperation: 16 Nxc8+ Rhxc8 17 Qxd7+ Kf8
18 Rd1 Qxe4 19 Rg1 Rd8 20 Qxd8+ Rxd8
21 Rxd8+ Ke7 22 Rd7+ Kf8 23 Be2 with a
winning position for White,
B.Züger-J.L.Costa, Bern 1991.
b) Black could have tried to resist after
15 ... a6!? 16 f4 Qc3 (16 ... Qc5 17 Rc1 Qa3
transposes, or if 16 ... Qb2 17 Ba4 with an
advantage for White) 17 Rc1 Qa3 18 Be2
Ke7 19 Nc4 Qb4 20 a3 Qc5 21 Kg2 b5 22
Na5 Qxa3 23 Qd2 with a strong initiative for
White.
16 f4 Qc3
16 ... Qb2 is even worse; for example, 17
Rb1 Qxa2 18 Bc4 Qa5 19 Qh5 Qc7 20 Qh6+
Ke7 21 e5 and White wins.
17 e5
40
Or 17 Rc1 Qe3 (no better are 17 ... Qb4
18 Qh5, 17 ... Qb2 18 Rxc5 and 17 ... Qa3 18
Kg2) 18 e5 fxe5 19 Kg2 and White wins in
all variations.
17 ... fxe5?
This move loses immediately. However,
other continuations could not save the game
either; for example, 17 ... Bd7!? 18 Bxd7
fxe5 19 Rc1 Qe3 20 Nc4 Qd3+ 21 Qxd3
Nxd3 22 Rc3 e4 23 Nd2 or 17 ... h5 18 Rc1
Qa3 19 Be2 Bd7 20 Nc4 Qa6 21 exf6 Bb5 22
Qd4 Rc8 23 Kf2.
18 Qh5 Qxa1+ 19 Kg2 Qb2+ 20 Kh3
Ke7 21 Rd1 Bd7
Or if 21 ... Rf8 22 Qh4+ f6 23 Qxh7+
with mate to follow.
22 Qg5+ f6 23 Qg7+ Kd8 24 Qxh8+
Kc7 25 Qxa8 exf4 26 Bxd7 1-0
Game 19
A.Dreev-S.Kishnev
European Cup, Kallithea 2002
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 Qa5
 14 Rh3
White sometimes delays developing the
rook to h3 which often leads to a different
move order; i.e. 14 Rc1 Ke7 15 Rh3 Rd8.
Here:
a) 16 Qc2 Qb6 (as in C.Koch-J.Toscano,
correspondence 2001; instead, 16 ... a6 17
Be2 Ne5 18 Qb2 Rd6 was seen in
S.Lputian-C.Gabriel, Baden-Baden 1996,
when 19 Rd1!? with the threat of Ra3
followed by f2-f4 leads to an advantage for
White) 17 Qb2 Ne5 18 Rd1 Bd7 19 Qa3+
Ke8 20 Be2 with slightly the better chances
for White.
b) 16 Rhc3 allows Black to exploit the
pin on the d-file: 16 ... a6 (or 16 ... Ne5 17 f4
Ng6 18 a4 Qb6, as in C.Gabriel-R.Rabiega,
German League 1995, and after 19 Qf3 Bd7
20 Rc7 Kf8 21 Bxd7 Qxd4 22 Rd1 Qb6 23
Rcc1 Qb2 24 Rb1 Qc2 the game should end
in a draw) 17 Ba4 (as in J.Speelman-P.Wells,
Copenhagen 1996; 17 Be2 Ne5 was
preferred in N.Zhukova-N.Kosintseva,
Krasnoturinsk 2005, when 18 Qd2 Ke8 19 f4
Ng6 20 f5 exf5 21 exf5 Ne7 22 Re1 results in
an unclear position) 17 ... Nb6!?. With this
resource Black can equalize; for example, 18
Rc7+ (if 18 Bb3 Bd7 19 Rc7 Qe5 20 Rxb7
Kf8 21 Kg1 Bc8 22 Rxb6 Rxd4) 18 ... Kf8 19
Qf3 (or 19 Bb3 Qe5 20 Qd2 Rxd4 21 Qh6+
Ke8 22 Rxf7 Kxf7 23 Qxh7+) 19 ... Qe5 20
Qa3+ Qd6 21 Qf3 Qe5 22 Qa3+.
14 ... e5?
A forcing but misguided move, which
makes White exchange his bishop or
sacrifice it.
Instead, 14 ... a6 was discussed back in
Chapter One. Black has also tried 14 ... Ke7
15 Rb1 Rd8 16 Qc1 Qb6!? (or 16 ... a6 17
Ra3 Qb6 18 Nc6+ bxc6 19 Bxc6 Qa7 20 Rc3
and White has the upper hand,
P.Lukacs-M.Dzevlan, Budapest 1991, while
a blunder is 16 ... Ne5? 17 Qc5+! Rd6 18
Rd1! Qb6 19 Nc6+! bxc6 20 Qxd6+ Ke8 21
41
Rg3 Qxb5+ 22 Kg1 1-0 A.Adorjan-
A.Chernin, Debrecen 1990) 17 Nf5+ exf5 18
Bxd7 Qd6 19 Bxf5 b6 20 Kg1 with the
advantage, P.Bazant-J.Sykora,
correspondence 2000.
15 Nf5!
This sacrifice wins. Much weaker is 15
Bxd7+? Bxd7 16 Nf5 Rd8 (H.Jones-G.Van
Erps, correspondence 2002) 17 Qh5 Bxf5 18
Qxf5 Ke7 19 Rf3 Qa6+ with good play for
Black.
15 ... Qxb5+ 16 Rd3 Qb6
Others also lose, as shown by Ribli: 16 ...
Kf8 17 Nd6 Qa6 18 Qb3 or 16 ... Qa6 17
Kg1.
17 Rb1 Qa6
Even after the preferable 17 ... Qc7 Black
is not able to free himself from the pins one
way or another, as shown by 18 Rc1 Qb6 19
Rc4 Nc5 20 Rd6.
18 Kg1 Qxa2?
This move accelerates Black’s defeat.
However, he was pinned like a cured
shoulder of pork and after, instead, 18 ... Qc6
19 Rc1 Qb6 20 Qh5 Rf8 21 Rdc3 Kd8 22
Qd1 Rg8 23 Qc2 White wins.
19 Rc1 b5
Neither 19 ... Kf8 20 Rdc3 nor 19 ... Kd8
20 Rxc8+ Kxc8 21 Rxd7 would have saved
the game either.
20 Rc7 Qa4 21 Qc1 Qa6 22 Rd6 Qxd6
23 Nxd6+ Ke7 24 Rxc8 1-0
Game 20
A.Greenfeld-J.Piket
 European Cup, Bugojno 1999
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rc1 Qb4 15 Ba4 Qd6
16 Rh3 b5
17 Rc6
White has the better ending after 17 Rhc3!
Bb7 18 Nxb5! Qxd1+ 19 Rxd1 axb5 20 Bxb5
Bxe4 21 Rxd7 0-0.
17 ... Qe5
No better is 17 ... Qf4 18 Bc2 0-0 19 Ne2
Qh6 20 f4 Kh8 21 Qd6 and White has the
upper hand.
18 Rhc3 Bb7
Weaker is 18 ... 0-0 19 Bc2 Qf4 20 Rc7
Ne5 21 g3 Qh6 22 Nc6 Nxc6 23 R3xc6 with
a clear advantage for White.
19 Rc7
19 ... Bxe4??
A terrible blunder.
Not much better would be 19 ... Qxe4 20
f3 Qxh4 21 Rxb7 Ne5 (after 21 ... Rd8 22
Rxd7! White wins; likewise, if 21 ... bxa4 22
Kg1 with a huge attack for White, 21 ... Rg8
42
22 Nxe6 Qh1+ 23 Kf2 Rxg2+ 24 Ke3 and
Black’s counterplay fails, or 21 ... Qh1+ 22
Kf2 Qh4+ 23 Kg1 Ne5 24 Nc6 0-0 25 Bb3
Nxc6 26 Rxc6 Rad8 27 Qe2 with some
advantage to White) 22 Nxe6! fxe6 23 Qd6
and White wins, as analyzed by Ribli.
According to the Hungarian Grandmaster
and theoretician, the best continuation is 19 ...
bxa4 20 Rxb7 Nc5 21 Rxc5 Qxc5 22 Qxa4+
Kf8.
After 23 Qd7 (if 23 Nxe6+ fxe6 24 Qd7
Qc1+ 25 Ke2 Qc2+ with perpetual check)
23 ... Qc1+ 24 Ke2 Qc4+ Ribli estimated the
position as equal. However, it is not clear if
this assessment is correct. Following 25 Kd2
e5 26 Nf5 Qxa2+ 27 Ke1 Qa1+ (Black has to
drag white king to the third rank; otherwise
in many variations White will have the move
Qd3 with the threat of Qa3+ and then Qe3 or
Qg3) 28 Ke2 Qa2+ 29 Kf3 Qe6 30 Qc7, in
spite of the fact that Black has a solid
material advantage, he is completely
paralyzed; for example, 30 ... h6 (30 ... h5
might be better, making more room around
black king, although here too White can play
for a win, as with 31 Kg3 Rc8 32 Qa5 Kg8 33
Kh2 Rh7 34 Rb6) 31 g3 Rc8 32 Rb8 Rxb8 33
Qxb8+ Qe8 34 Qd6+ Kg8 35 Qxf6 with a
clear advantage for White.
20 Nf5!! 1-0
And Black resigned. Indeed, White wins
in all variations: 20 ... Rd8 (or 20 ... Nb6 21
Qd7+!! Nxd7 22 Rc8+ Rxc8 23 Rxc8 mate)
21 Rxd7 Bd5 (if 21 ... Rxd7 22 Rc8+ Rd8 23
Rxd8 mate) 22 Re7+ Kf8 23 Qh5 Bxg2+
(23 ... exf5 fails to 24 Rxe5 fxe5 25 Qg5) 24
Kxg2 Rg8+ (no better is 24 ... Qd5+ 25 f3
Rg8+ 26 Kh1 exf5 27 Rcc7 Rg6 28 Bb3) 25
Kf1 Rg7 26 Rd7! Qb8 (or 26 ... Rxd7 27
Rc8+) 27 Rxd8+ Qxd8 28 Nxg7, as correctly
pointed out by Ribli.
Game 21
T.Pranitchi-J.Solar
Correspondence 2011
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 d5 4 d4 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4
Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6
Qxc3+ 12 Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rh3 Qb4
15 Be2 0-0 16 Rb1 Qd6 17 Rg3+ Kh8 18
Qd2
18 ... Rg8
Other moves are weaker:
a) 18 ... Rd8 19 Rbb3 with the idea of
19 ... Rg8 20 Rxg8+ Kxg8 21 Rg3+ Kh8 22
Bh5 with a winning position for White
(Shestoperov).
b) 18 ... b5? is even worse as after 19 e5!
White easily wins in all variations: 19 ...
Qxe5 (alternatively, 19 ... fxe5 20 Qg5, 19 ...
Nxe5 20 Qf4! Qd8 21 Nc6! Nxc6 22 Rd1
Qe7 23 Qg4 or 19 ... Qe7 20 Nc6 Qe8 21
exf6 Rg8 22 Rxg8+ Qxg8 23 Ne7, all as
given by Shestoperov) 20 Bf3 Rb8 21 Nc6
Qc7 22 Nxb8 (22 Rb4!?) 22 ... Qxb8 23 Qh6
Rg8 24 Be4!, A.Shestoperov-P.Acs,
Pardubice 2001.
43
19 Rxg8+
Here White has the very strong
alternative in 19 Rbb3 Rxg3 20 Rxg3 b5 (a
terrible blunder would be 20 ... e5?? 21 Qh6
Qf8 22 Nf5 with mate to follow; Black has
also serious problems after 20 ... Qf8, as in
E.Postny-A.Huzman, Israeli Championship,
Ramat Aviv/Modiin 2000, and then 21 Bh5;
or if 20 ... b6, J.Werle-P.Wells, London 2008,
then 21 Bf3 Ra7 22 e5! fxe5 23 Qg5 Qf8 24
Nc6 f6 25 Qg4 f5 26 Qg5 h6 27 Qg6 Rc7 28
Qxe6 Kh7 with a clear advantage for White).
Now:
a) 21 Rd3 transposes to our main game,
albeit with both sides saving a tempo.
b) 21 Bf3!? Ra7 22 e5! fxe5 23 Qg5 Qf8
24 Nc6 f6 25 Qg4 f5 26 Qg5 h6 27 Qg6 Rc7
28 Qxe6 Kh7 with a clear advantage for
White.
c) Less energetic is 21 Bh5 Bb7! (after
21 ... Qf8 22 Nc6 Black is completely
paralyzed) 22 Bxf7 Rf8 23 Bxe6 Nc5 24 Bf5
Nxe4 25 Bxe4 Bxe4 26 Kg1 (or 26 Qh6 Rg8
27 Rxg8+ Kxg8 with a level position,
M.Novkovic-H.Genser, Austrian League
2006) 26 ... Rg8 27 Rxg8+ Kxg8 28 Qe3 Bg6
29 f4 Qd5 30 a3 Qe4 31 Qc3 Bf5 ½-½
M.Gerhold-H.Genser, Austrian League
2007.
19 ... Kxg8 20 Rb3

20 ... Kh8
Weaker is 20 ... b6, as White can
developed an initiative after both 21 Rd3 and
21 Rg3+.
21 Rg3
Likewise, if 21 Rd3 Qh2 22 Rh3 Qd6 23
Rg3 with the better chances for White,
C.Vila Hernandez-J.Deforel,
correspondence 2016.
21 ... b5
An error is 21 ... Ne5? 22 Qh6 Ng6 23 e5
and White wins, N.Patrici-P.Chacon,
correspondence 2002.
22 Rd3
Instead, 22 Bh5!? transposes back to
variation ‘c’ to White’s 19th move, above,
while in the game Jon.Ramirez-L.Yurick,
correspondence 2014, White played 22 Bf3
and after 22 ... Ra7 23 e5! fxe5 24 Qg5 Qf8
25 Nc6 f6 26 Qg4 f5 27 Qg5 h6 28 Qg6 Rc7
29 Qxe6 Kh7 30 Kg1 Nf6 31 Qxe5 Rf7 32
Qd4 he achieved an advantage. However, he
did not manage to make anything of it and
the game ended in a draw on the 48th move.
22 ... Qh2 23 Bf3 Qxh4 24 e5 Nxe5 25
Bxa8 Nxd3 26 Qxd3 Qh1+ 27 Ke2 e5 28
44
Nf3 Kg7 29 g3 Bg4 30 Bd5 Qc1 31 Qe4 h5
32 Bb3 Qc3 33 Qb7 Kh6 34 Bxf7 h4! 35
Qe4 f5 36 Qe3+ Qxe3+ 37 Kxe3 Bxf3 38
Kxf3 h3 39 g4 f4 40 Bd5 Kg5 41 Ke2 Kxg4
42 Kf1 a5 43 Kg1 b4 44 Bc6 f3 45 Kh2 Kf4
46 Kxh3 e4 47 Bb5 e3 48 fxe3+ Kxe3 49
Kg3 f2 50 Kg2 ½-½
Game 22
A.Grischuk-V.Kramnik
Russian Championship, Moscow 2011
1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 d4 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Nbd7 11 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12
Kf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Rh3 Qb4 15 Be2 Ne5
16 Rc1
16 ... Qd6
Alternatively:
a) 16 ... 0-0 17 Rb3 (A.Gavrilov-
V.Kosyrev, Vladimir 2004; not quite so good
is 17 a3 Qd6 18 h5, as in M.Samraoui-
S.Prüfer, correspondence 2003, and then
18 ... Rd8 19 Qb3 Bd7 20 Rg3+ Kf8 21 Rd1
with only a slightly better position for White)
17 ... Qd6 18 h5 Rd8 19 Rg3+ Kf8 20 Qb3
Bd7 21 Rd1 Qc5 22 Kg1 with the better
chances for White.
b) 16 ... Bd7 17 Rb3 Qd6 18 Rxb7 0-0 19
f4 Ng6 20 g3 Rfc8 21 Rxc8+ Rxc8 22 Nb3
Qxd1+ 23 Bxd1 with a small advantage for
White, S.Mamedyarov-A.Kolev, European
Team Championship, Leon 2001.
17 Rc2
Here White has also played:
 a) He does not have full compensation
for the pawn after 17 Rhc3 Bd7 18 g3 Rd8 19
f4 Nc6 20 Nb3 Qe7 21 Nc5 (or 21 Qe1 0-0,
M.Freitag-F.Hölzl, Austrian Championship,
Gmunden 2005) 21 ... e5 22 Qb3 Bh3+ 23
Ke1 Bc8 24 f5 Nd4.
b) 17 h5 Bd7 18 Nb3 Qxd1+ 19 Rxd1
Rc8 20 f4 Nc4 21 Kg1 Ke7 cannot be
recommended either, J.Hoeven-J.Thorn
Leeson, correspondence 2006.
c) After 17 Nb3 Qxd1+ 18 Rxd1 Bd7 19
Nc5 Bc6 20 Rb3 Rg8 Black stands slightly
better too.
d) 17 Qd2!? Bd7 (E.Degtiarev-
A.Naumann, Gibraltar 2010) 18 Qb2, with at
least full compensation for the pawn,
deserves serious attention.
e) 17 Rb3 b5 and then:
e1) No good is 18 a4 bxa4 19 Rbc3?! (19
Rb2 with some chances to maintain equality
was better) 19 ... Bd7 20 h5 (J.Piket-L.Van
Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2002) 20 ... Rd8 21 f4
Ng6 22 hxg6 hxg6 and as 23 Qd2? Loses to
23 ... Bb5, Black captures the f4-pawn stands
better.
e2) 18 Qd2 Bb7 19 Rd1 Rg8 (taking the
pawn with 19 ... Bxe4?! is dangerous and
leads to an advantage for White after 20 Qf4
Bd5 21 Qxf6, as in
V.Borovikov-Y.Drozdovskij, Turkish
League 2010, and if 21 ... Rg8 22 Nf5 Bxg2+
45
23 Ke1) 20 Qh6 and only now is the capture
20 ... Bxe4 correct. The game
F.Bleker-G.Flitsch, correspondence 2007,
ended in a draw after a forcing sequence: 21
Nxb5 Bxg2+ 22 Ke1 Nf3+ 23 Bxf3 Qe5+ 24
Re3 Bxf3 25 Rxe5 Rg1+ 26 Kd2 Rxd1+ 27
Ke3 axb5 28 Rxb5 Bd5 29 Qxf6 Ra3+ 30
Ke2 Bf3+ 31 Qxf3 Rxf3 32 Kxf3 Rd3+ ½-½.
17 ... Bd7
After 17 ... b5 18 Rd2 Qb6 19 f4 (19
Rc3!?) 19 ... Ng6 20 f5 Nf4 (K.Neven-
M.Schulze, correspondence 2004) 21 Rc3
White has better chances.
18 Rd2 Qc7 19 Rc2
The alternative is 19 Rg3 Rc8 20 Qb3
Ng6 (or 20 ... Nc4, as in A.Kögeler-
B.Mulligan, correspondence 2013, and if 21
Rc2 b5 with good play for Black) 21 Kg1
Nxh4 22 Rc2 (F.Kroes-E.Janosi,
correspondence 2011) 22 ... Qd6 23 Qxb7
Ke7 24 Rd2 Rb8 25 Qxa6 Qxa6 26 Bxa6
Rhg8 with mutual chances.
19 ... Qd6 20 Rd2 Qc7 21 Rc2 ½-½
Instead, 21 Rg3 Rc8 22 Qb3 Ng6 23 Kg1
would have left White with compensation for
the sacrificed pawn.
Conclusion
After 11 ... Qxc3 White should play 12 Kf1,
because after 12 Ke2 he cannot gain equality.
After the former, Black will recapture the
piece with 12 ... gxf6. Now the only
reasonable move is 13 h4 followed by Rh3,
developing the h1-rook. The strongest
continuation for Black here is 13 ... a6, when
White should be consistent with 14 Rh3.
This can be met by 14 ... Qa5 (following the
tracks of the old variation) or 14 ... Qb4 with
good chances of obtaining equality.
Chapter Three
The Main Line: 10 Bb5+ Bd7
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4
Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Bd7
This is the other key position in the 10
Bb5+ variation. It has its good and bad sides.
The main advantage of 10 ... Bd7 is the fact
that White is encouraged to exchange the
light-squared bishops, whereas the serious
disadvantage is that Black cannot take the
c3-pawn in most lines. Moreover, White
reduces the tension on the chessboard.
11 Bxf6
11 Qd3?! is not good due to 11 ... Nxe4!
12 Bxd7+ (Black wins after 12 Qxe4? Qxc3
13 Ke2 Bxb5+ 14 Nxb5 Qb2+ 15 Kf3 Qxb5)
12 ... Nxd7 13 Qxe4 Qxg5 14 Qxb7, when a
draw was agreed in G.Vekelis-K.Rodriguez,
correspondence 2015, but 14 ... Rb8 15 Qc6
Qe5 16 Kf1 Qc5 17 Qxc5 Nxc5 leads to a
favourable ending for Black.
11 ... gxf6
Taking the c3-pawn is a terrible blunder
here: 11 ... Qxc3+?? 12 Kf1 gxf6 13 Rc1
Qxd4 (desperation, but after 13 ... Qa5 14
Rc8+ Ke7 15 Rxh8 Bxb5+ 16 Nxb5 Qxb5+
17 Kg1 Qa5 18 h4 Black’s position is
completely lost) 14 Qxd4 Bxb5+ 15 Kg1 and
White wins, V.Malakhov-A.Kosteniuk,
Moscow (blitz) 2005.
46
12 Qb3
White refrains from exchanging on d7 (at
least for the moment) and creates a
simultaneous threat of Nxe6. The only
alternative is the immediate bishop swap
followed by castling: 12 Bxd7+ Nxd7 13 0-0
(leaving the c3-pawn unprotected)
Now Black has several options:
a) 13 ... Nc5?!, A.Granero Roca-M.Palac,
Lorca 2001, is inaccurate as after 14 Qf3
White has the upper hand.
b) 13 ... Qc7 14 Qd2 (S.Krivoshey-
A.Donchenko, Frankfurt 2004) 14 ... 0-0-0
15 Rab1 also looks a little better for White.
c) 13 ... Rd8 does not equalize either: 14
Qd3 (White cannot expect more than a small
advantage after 14 Rb1 Qxc3 15 Nb5 Qc6 16
Nd6+ Kf8, R.Alvarez-R.Vera Gonzalez
Quevedo, Merida 2007) 14 ... 0-0 (worse is
14 ... Rc8?! 15 Rab1 Qxc3 16 Qxc3 Rxc3 17
Rxb7 with a clear advantage for White) 15
Rae1 Qc7 16 Qf3 and White has the initiative
on the kingside.
d) Black can also grab the pawn with 13 ...
Qxc3 and then:

d1) 14 Qa4 (pinning the d7-knight) 14 ...
0-0! (a cunning trick; otherwise Black would
have serious problems completing his
development; e.g. 14 ... Qd3 15 Rad1! Qa6
16 Qb4 and Black’s position looks to be lost
due to the threat 17 Nb5; no good either is
14 ... Ke7 15 Rac1 Nc5 16 Rxc3 Nxa4 17
Rc4 Nb6 18 Rc7+ Nd7 19 Rxb7 Rac8 20
Rd1 with a clear advantage for White in the
ending) 15 Nxe6 (15 Qxd7 Rad8 16 Qxb7
Qxd4 leads to an equal position,
R.Leitao-A.Morozevich, World Team
Championship, Bursa 2010) 15 ... Nb6 16
Qd4 Rfc8 (activating the rook; worse is 16 ...
Qxd4? 17 Nxd4 Rfd8 18 Nf5 with a much
better ending for White, D.Antic-A.Zontakh,
Jagodina 1998) 17 Qxc3 (17 Rac1 led to a
draw after 17 ... Qxc1 18 Qxf6 fxe6 19
Qxe6+ Kg7 20 Qe7+ Kg8 21 Qe6+ Kf8 22
Qf6+ Kg8 23 Qe6+ in A.Ipatov-R.Wojtaszek,
Doha 2015) 17 ... Rxc3 with slightly the
better ending for White due to the split black
pawns on the kingside. The further course of
play can be found in Game 23.
d2) 14 Nb5 Qc6 15 a4 (or 15 Nd6+ Ke7
16 Nxf7! Rhc8 17 Nh6 and most variations
lead to a draw; e.g. 17 ... Qxe4 18 Re1 Qg6
19 Qb3 Nc5 20 Qh3 Ne4 21 Rad1 b6 22
Rxe4 Qxe4 23 Qg3 Qg6 24 Qd6+ Ke8 25
Qxe6+ Kf8 26 Nf5 Re8 27 Qd6+ Kf7 28
Qd7+ Kf8 29 Qd6+ etc) 15 ... Nc5 16 Qd4 e5
17 Qe3 0-0 18 Nc3 gives White
compensation for the pawn.
d3) 14 Rc1!? Qa5 15 Qb3 (or 15 Nb3!?,
and if 15 ... Qxa2 16 Qf3 0-0 17 Nc5 Nxc5 18
47
Rxc5, White has more than enough
compensation for the pawns,
R.Luhn-F.Malewicz, correspondence 2009)
15 ... Rd8 16 Nxe6 (16 Qxb7 Qb6 17 Qxb6
axb6 18 f3 0-0 is equal) 16 ... fxe6 17 Qxe6+
Kf8 18 Qd6+ Ke8 19 Qe6+ Kf8 20 Rfd1 Qe5
21 Rxd7 Qxe6 22 Rxd8+ Kg7 23 Rc7+ Kg6
24 Rxh8 Qxa2 25 g3 Qb1+ 26 Kg2 Qxe4+ 27
Kg1 Qe1+ 28 Kg2 Qe4+ 29 Kg1 Qe1+ 30
Kg2 ½-½ Ba.Jobava-R.Wojtaszek, Spanish
League 2017.
e) 13 ... a6 is therefore the best idea,
accepting the challenge: 14 Rb1 Qc7 (other
moves are worse: 14 ... Nc5 exposes the
weakness on f6 and 15 Qf3 is clearly better
for White, T.Radjabov-C.Toth, Biel 2000; or
14 ... 0-0-0 15 Rb4 Qc7 16 Qe2 Nc5 17 Rfb1
and White has the initiative,
H.Sonntag-D.Miedema, Eupen 2008; or 14 ...
b6 15 Qg4 Qg5 16 Qh3 Rg8 17 g3 Rg7 18
Rbd1 with an advantage for White,
A.Serov-R.Kolanek, correspondence 2009;
while 14 ... Qxa2?? is a serious blunder in
view of 15 Rxb7 Nc5 16 Rc7 Nxe4 17 c4 0-0
18 Nxe6 and White is winning,
B.Koen-Z.Barbalic, correspondence 2015)
White has a large selection of
continuations here:
e1) 15 Qe2 0-0 16 Rfd1 Kh8 17 Rd3 Rg8
18 Nf3 Nc5 19 Rd4 e5 20 Rdb4 Rad8 leads
to a level position, Z.Gyimesi-F.Hölzl,
Balatonlelle 2002.
e2) 15 f4 does not give an advantage
either; e.g. 15 ... 0-0-0 (if 15 ... h5 16 Qf3
Rc8, as in B.Chatalbashev-J.Gustafsson,
Calvia Olympiad 2004, then 17 Rb4 gives
White slightly better chances) 16 Qe2 Nc5
17 Rb4 Kb8 18 Rfb1 Rd6 19 Rc4 Rc8 is
roughly equal, Z.Gyimesi-P.Acs, Hungarian
Championship, Lillafured 1999.
e3) 15 Rb4 Rc8, as in
N.Potpara-L.Andonovski, Tivat 2011 looks
interesting, though it is not popular; e.g. 16
Qf3 (16 Re1!?) 16 ... b5 (or 16 ... Qxc3 17
Qxc3 Rxc3 18 Rxb7) 17 Rc1 with slightly
the better chances for White.
e4) 15 Qg4, taking control of the g-file, is
usually met by 15 ... h5 (15 ... Nc5, as in
R.Edouard-M.Olszewski, European Rapid
Championship, Warsaw 2010, is less
accurate due to 16 Rfe1!?, overprotecting the
e-pawn and freeing the queen, which lets
White fight for an advantage; however, 15 ...
0-0-0!? is interesting, e.g. 16 Qf3 Rhg8 with
mutual chances, K.Solomon-W.Wittmann,
Budapest 2008) 16 Qh3 (the unplayed 16
Qe2!? deserves attention; whereas 16 Qf3,
U.Erbe-H.Lichtenberg, correspondence
2003, with the threat of e4-e5 attacking the
b7-pawn, can be met by 16 ... h4, when 17 e5
0-0-0 18 exf6 Rh6 19 Rfd1 Rg8 gives Black
excellent counterplay, so White has to play
17 h3 0-0-0 18 Rb2 Ne5 with mutual chances)
16 ... Ke7 17 f4 h4. Now in
V.Kramnik-V.Anand, Dortmund 2003,
White tried the above-mentioned idea of 18
Qf3, but Black was well prepared for the
breakthrough in the centre and after 18 ...
Rac8 19 e5 Qxc3 20 exf6+ Kxf6 21 Qxc3
Rxc3 the players agreed a draw. White could
try to look for an advantage in less forcing
lines like 18 Rfd1 or 19 Rfd1.
e5) 15 Qf3 Rc8 (or 15 ... 0-0-0 16 Rb4
Nc5 17 Rfb1 with slightly the better chances
for White, Le Quang Liem-A.Naiditsch,
Dortmund 2010) 16 Rfd1 (or 16 Rfe1 Rg8 17
Qh5 Kf8 18 Red1 b5 19 Rd2 Ne5 20 Rbd1
Rg7 21 Qh4 with better chances for White,
V.Tasic-L.Tsenkov, correspondence 2008),
48
when the safest option for Black is 16 ... Ke7
(instead, 16 ... b5 is examined in Game 24;
other continuations lead to a small advantage
for White, e.g. if 16 ... b6,
D.Kosic-W.Wittmann, Budapest 2008, then
17 h3 followed by Rb2-d2; or 16 ... 0-0 17
Ne2 Rfd8 18 Ng3 Kf8,
M.Kazhgaleyev-K.Kulaots,
Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 2010, and now
19 h4 b5 20 Rbc1) 17 e5 and a draw was
agreed in S.Sabaev-A.Lanc, correspondence
2010, since 17 ... Nxe5 18 Qxb7 Rhd8 19
Qxa6 Qxc3 gives Black sufficient
counterplay.
White’s main chances of obtaining an
advantage lie with either 15 Qd2 and 15 Qh5.
e6) 15 Qh5 is very logical. White
develops his queen actively and threats Nxe6.
This is discussed in Game 25.
e7) 15 Qd2!? protects the c3-pawn and
threatens in some lines to go to h6.
There is no sign of equality here; for
example, 15 ... 0-0 (other moves do not help
either; e.g. or 15 ... Rc8 16 Rfd1 b5 17 Qh6
Ke7 18 f4 with a small advantage for White,
A.Korotylev-P.Smirnov, European Cup,
Fügen 2006; or 15 ... Ke7 16 f4 Rac8 17 Rf3
Nc5 18 e5 also with better chances for White,
P.Vavrak-Ad.Horvath, Hungarian League
2007; or if 15 ... h5!?, B.Gelfand-V.Topalov,
Monte Carlo blindfold rapid 2005, then 16
Qe3 followed by Rb4 and doubling rooks on
the b-file again looks slightly better for
White) 16 Rfd1 Rad8 (if 16 ... Ne5,
Z.Azmaiparashvili-P.Harikrishna, Dos
Hermanas 2005, then 17 f4 gives White the
initiative) 17 Qh6 Kh8 18 Rd3 Rg8 was
V.Akopian-Z.Izoria, Moscow 2005, and now
instead of 19 Ne2, White might have played
19 Nf3!. The point is that 19 ... Rg6? fails to
20 Qd2 and 21 Rbd1, tripling on the d-file
and winning the d7-knight (with the white
knight on e2 Black has the resource 20 ...
Rgg8 21 Rbd1 Ne5!). Therefore Black’s
rook has to leave the d-file, and the best
move is 19 ... Rde8 (enabling the defensive ...
Qe7; after 19 ... Rc8? 20 Rxd7! Qxd7 21
Qxf6+ Rg7 22 Ne5 Qc7 23 Rd1 Kg8 24 Rd7
Qb6 25 h4 White has a strong attack) 20
Rbd1 Rg6 21 Qe3 Nc5 22 Rd4 with
advantage for White who controls the d-file,
whereas Black has no counterplay.
Let’s return to the main line with 12 Qb3.
12 ... a6
The most frequent move. Black wants to
clarify the situation with the pin on the a4-e8
diagonal, while avoiding activating the
d4-knight by exchanging on b5.
Note that the attempt to win material with
12 ... e5? 13 Nf5 Bxb5? fails to 14 Nd6+ Ke7
15 Rd1 Rf8 16 Nxb5 and Black is much
worse, P.Cramling-J.De la Villa Garcia,
Seville 1994. Nor is 12 ... Qb6 sufficient to
equalize; e.g. 13 Rb1 Bxb5 14 Nxb5 Nd7 15
Qd1 Ke7 16 0-0 leads to a small advantage
for White, M.Blake-S.Hannesson,
correspondence 2012.
Nevertheless, 12 ... Bxb5 is also possible,
while 12 ... Ke7 and 12 ... 0-0 must be
analysed too. Let’s start with the immediate
49
bishop exchange, 12 ... Bxb5 13 Nxb5 0-0 14
0-0. Now Black has to decide where to
develop his knight:
a) Any delay does not lead to equality;
e.g. 14 ... Rd8 15 Rad1 (or 15 Nd6 Qb6 16
Qxb6 axb6 17 Rfd1 Ra3 18 c4, M.Alvebring-
F.Vidalina, correspondence 2007) 15 ... Na6
(or 15 ... Nc6 16 Nd6 Qb6 17 Qa3 Qa5 18
Qxa5 Nxa5 19 Rd4 Rd7 20 Rfd1; or if 15 ...
Nd7 then 16 c4, rather than ½-½
A.Graf-V.Nasybullin, Novosibirsk 1989) 16
c4 Rxd1 17 Qxd1, A.Dosi- M.Chovanec,
correspondence 2007, with a small
advantage in all lines.
b) Placing the knight on the flank with
14 ... Na6?! (as in M.Bartosek-L.Pachman,
Prague 1943; see Game 7 in the Introduction)
is not a good idea, and can be met by 15 c4!
(Ribli), when we think that White has the
upper hand.
c) 14 ... Nd7?! is not a good place for the
knight either, as it allows White to stabilize
his own knight on d6 with a clear advantage
in all variations; for example, 15 c4 a6 16
Nd6 (or 16 Qg3+ Kh8 17 Nd6 b6 18 Rfd1
M.Ghorbani-M.Darban, Iranian
Championship, Tehran 2006) 16 ... Qe5 (if
Black plays passively with 16 ... Rab8 17
Rad1 Kh8, as in D.Garcia Ilundain-
R.Cifuentes Parada, Andorra 1991, then 18
Kh1 followed by f2-f4 gives White a
strategically winning position; similarly after
16 ... b6 17 Rad1, M.M.Ivanov-R.Zelcic,
Salzburg 2003) 17 Rad1 (Jo.Ivanov-
C.Schlingensiepen, Regensburg 1997) and
even 17 ... b5 fails to solve Black’s problems
after 18 cxb5 axb5 19 Rd3.
d) 14 ... Nc6 seems like the most
promising development, when White can
arrange the rooks in various different ways:

d1) The seemingly active 15 Nd6 is not
such a good idea here, since White is unable
to maintain the knight on this square: 15 ...
Qe5 (obviously, Black has to get rid of the
intruder) 16 Rad1 (or 16 Qa3 Rad8 17 Nxb7
Rd2 18 Rad1 Rxd1 19 Rxd1 Qxe4 20 Nc5
½-½ M.G.Sanchez-O.Lizarzaburu,
correspondence 2011; whereas taking the
b7-pawn allows Black has good counterplay,
e.g. 16 Nxb7 Qc7 17 Nc5 Ne5 18 Na4 Ng4
19 g3 Qc6 20 Qc2 Ne5 21 Nb2 f5) 16 ...
Rad8 17 Qa3 (instead, 17 Qc4 Qf4 18 Nxb7
Ne5 19 Qe2 Rc8 20 Qd2 was a draw in
B.Scheuermann-A.De Groot,
correspondence 2003; while 17 Nxb7, as in
A.Dutra-V.Nasybullin, correspondence 2007,
is still not dangerous: 17 ... Rxd1 18 Qxd1
Qxe4 19 Re1 Qf4 with a level position) 17 ...
Rd7 (or 17 ... b6 18 Rd3 Qf4 with equal
chances, Z.Azmaiparashvili-E.Agrest,
European Championship, Istanbul 2003) 18
Nc4 (or 18 f4 Qa5 19 Qxa5 Nxa5 with
equality, E.Danielian-L.Mkrtchian, FIDE
Grand Prix, Jermuk 2010) 18 ... Qc7 19 Rxd7
Qxd7 20 Nd6 ½-½ B.Toth-V.Nasybullin,
correspondence 2006.
d2) 15 Rad1 Rfd8?! (not this rook! 15 ...
Rad8 16 Nd6 Qe5 transposes to ‘d1’ above)
16 Nd6 Rab8 (the point is that 16 ... Qe5??
would now be met by 17 Qxb7 and wins) 17
Rd3 Kf8 18 Rfd1 Qc5 (D.Li-A.Brkic, Zadar
2016) and now 19 h3 gives White the better
chances.
d3) It is difficult to achieve an advantage
after 15 Rae1 Rfd8 16 Re3 Rd2 17 Nd4 Nxd4
50
(or 17 ... Qb6 18 Nxc6 Qxb3 19 axb3 bxc6,
J.Matisson-F.Zanetti, correspondence 2005)
18 cxd4 Rxd4 19 Qxb7 Re8! 20 Qb2 Red8 21
h3 Qe5 22 Qa3 R4d7 23 f4 Qd6 24 Rg3+ Kf8
25 Qf3 Qd3 26 Qf2 Qd4 27 Re3 Qd2 28 Re2
Qd4 29 Re3 ½-½ V.Malakhatko-A.Schenk,
Deizisau 2004.
d4) The same applies in the case of 15
Rfd1 Rad8 16 c4 (16 Nd6 Qe5 is similar to
line ‘d1’ again) 16 ... Rxd1+ 17 Rxd1 Rd8 18
Rxd8+ Qxd8 19 h3 Qd2 with equality,
A.Greet-R.Akesson, Gausdal 2005.
d5) 15 c4 looks a little strange but enjoys
considerable popularity. It is discussed in
Game 26.
d6) The modest 15 Nd4 also deserves
attention; for example, 15 ... Rfd8 (or 15 ...
Qc7 16 Rab1, T.Csonkics-F.Peredy,
Hungarian League 1995) 16 Qxb7 Nxd4 17
cxd4 Rab8 18 Qe7 Rxd4 19 Qxf6 Rxe4,
F.Magallanes-A.Reinoso, correspondence
2008, with a slightly better position for
White in both lines.
The idea of leaving the king in the centre
with 12 ... Ke7!? is quite reasonable, as it is
sometimes safer there than castling kingside
onto the open g-file.
For example: 13 0-0 Rc8 14 c4 (instead,
14 Bxd7 Nxd7 15 Rad1 Nc5 16 Qb2 Rd8 is
level, R.Ruck-I.Balinov, Leipzig 2002; and
14 Rad1 Qxc3 15 Qa4 Bxb5 16 Nxb5 Qc4 17
Qa3+ Qc5 18 Qb2 Nc6 19 Nd6 Rc7 20 Nb5
Rcc8 21 Nd6 Rc7 22 Nb5 was a draw in
A.Yermolinsky-G.Sagalchik, Las Vegas
1996; 14 Rfd1!? is worth considering) 14 ...
a6 (after 14 ... Qb6 15 Rfd1 a6 16 Qa4 White
has the upper hand) 15 Bxd7 Nxd7 16 Rad1
reaches a complicated position, discussed in
Game 27. If nothing else, Black has to play
more accurately because his king is not yet
fully safe in the centre.
Finally, we’ll examine the immediate
12 ... 0-0 13 0-0 without the exchange of
bishops (obviously 13 ... Bxb5 14 Nxb5 just
transposes to 12 ... Bxb5 lines above).
Black has two main options here:
a) 13 ... Qb6 and now:
a1) 14 Rab1 Bxb5 15 Nxb5 (15 Qxb5
Qxb5 16 Nxb5 Nc6 17 Rfd1 Rfd8 gives
White nothing either) 15 ... a6 16 Nd4 Qxb3
17 Rxb3 b5 leads to an equal ending,
A.Delchev-A.Beliavsky, FIDE World
Championship, Moscow 2001.
a2) 14 Rfd1 at once improves slightly;
e.g. 14 ... Nc6 15 Bxc6 Bxc6 16 Qc2 Rac8 17
Qe2 Qc5 (D.Bocharov-K.Landa, Russian
Championship, Krasnoyarsk 2003) 18 Rd3
with somewhat better chances for White
(Ribli).
a3) 14 Be2 Rc8 15 Qd1 Qc5 16 Rb1 b6
17 Kh1 Nc6 18 Nb3 Qe7 19 f4 Kh8 20 Bf3
Be8 21 Qe1 gives White a tiny edge,
P.Cramling-E.Zaiatz, FIDE Women’s World
Ch., New Delhi 2000.
a4) 14 Rfb1!? therefore deserves serious
attention. Compared with the previous lines
the a1-rook can take part in actions on the
a-file; for example, 14 ... Bxb5 (or 14 ... Nc6
15 Bxc6 Qxb3 16 axb3 Bxc6 17 Nxc6 bxc6
18 b4) 15 Nxb5 a6 (15 ... Nd7 16 c4 Ne5 17
51
Qg3+ Kh8 18 Qh4; or 15 ... Nc6 16 Qa3
Rfd8 17 Nd6) 16 Nd4 Qxb3 17 Rxb3 b5 18
a4 bxa4 19 Rxa4 with a small advantage for
White in all variations.
a5) 14 a4 also looks promising: 14 ... Rd8
15 Qa3 (or else 15 Qd1!? Bxb5 16 axb5 Nd7
17 Re1 Ne5 18 Qh5 with the initiative) 15 ...
Bxb5 16 axb5 Nd7 17 Rfe1 with a small
advantage for White, B.Gelfand-V.Ivanchuk,
Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 1999.
b) 13 ... Nc6 14 Bxc6 (here 14 a4 Rfd8 15
Rad1 is interesting, with a possible
manoeuvre Rd3-g3 and White has an
advantage, according to M.Gurevich;
perhaps Black should play 14 ... Rac8!? first)
14 ... Bxc6 (14 ... bxc6 is no improvement;
e.g. 15 Qd1 Rfd8, V.Gunina-N.Dzagnidze,
Huaian rapid 2016, and now 16 Re1 with the
better chances for White) 15 Nxc6 (other
moves deserve attention too; e.g. 15 Rfe1!?
with a small edge for White, or 15 Rae1 Kh8,
J.Hawkins-R.Weaving, Hinckley 2012, and
now 16 Re3!? with the initiative) 15 ... bxc6
16 Rae1 (both 16 Rfd1 Rfd8 17 g3 Qb5,
A.Moiseenko-R.Ponomariov, Ukrainian
League 2009, 18 Qc2 and 16 Qc2 Rab8 17
Rfd1 lead to a small advantage for White as
well) 16 ... Rfd8 17 e5! (a typical
breakthrough weakening Black’s kingside
dark squares)
b1) 17 ... fxe5, as in I.Khenkin-G.Rechlis,
Tel Aviv 1992, is not a good idea: 18 c4!
Kh8 19 Qf3 f5 20 Qxc6 Qb6 21 Qf3 e4 22
Qa3 Rd3 23 Qe7 Qd6 24 Qf6+ Kg8 25 c5
Qd5 26 Rb1, and the uncertain position of
Black’s king causes him certain difficulties.
b2) 17 ... Rab8 18 Qc4 fxe5 does not
equalize either. White has the better chances
after 19 Re3, defending the c3-pawn and
moving the rook into the kingside; whereas
19 Qh4 (I.Novikov-G.Georgadze, Lvov
Zonal 1990) 19 ... Qxc3! 20 Qg5+ Kf8 21
Qh6+ Ke7 22 Qg5+ leads to a draw.
b3) 17 ... f5!? is more interesting; e.g. 18
Qc4 Rd2 19 Qf4 Rad8 20 Qg5+ Kf8 21 Qh5
Qxc3 and Black has chances to equalize.
b4) However, 17 ... Rd3 looks the
simplest: 18 exf6 Qxc3 19 Qb7 Rad8 20
Rxe6 Rd1 21 Qe7 Rxf1+ 22 Kxf1 Rd1+ 23
Re1 Rxe1+ 24 Qxe1 Qxf6 with a level queen
ending.
Returning to 12 ... a6 at last:
13 Be2
In view of the uncertain position of
Black’s king, retreating the bishop is the
most logical move, as each exchange
increases Black’s chances.
The alternative is 13 Bxd7+ Nxd7 14
Nxe6 (the only way to justify the
simplification; 14 0-0 cannot give White
anything after 14 ... 0-0-0 or 14 ... Nc5) and
now:
a) 14 ... Qe5 is not worth recommending,
since 15 Ng7+ Kf8 16 Nf5 Qxe4+ 17 Ne3
52
(Ribli) 17 ... Kg7 18 0-0 offers White a
secure, albeit small advantage.
b) The acceptance of the sacrifice with
14 ... fxe6 15 Qxe6+ Kd8 16 Rd1 leads to
very complicated positions where White has
definite chances; for example, 16 ... Qxc3+
(some commentators prefer 16 ... Qb5, as in
M.Litinskaya-N.Alexandria, Women’s
Candidates, Chaltubo 1988, but then 17 c4!
Qa4 18 Qxf6+ Kc7 19 Qd6+ Kc8 20 0-0
gives White the better chances) 17 Ke2 Qb2+
18 Kf3 Qc3+ 19 Ke2 Qb2+ 20 Kf3 Qc3+ 21
Kg4 f5+! 22 Kh5 Qg7 23 Rxd7+ Qxd7 24
Qf6+ Kc7 25 Rc1+ Kb8 26 Qxh8+ Ka7 27
Qe5 Rg8 28 Rc7 (here 28 Qxf5 leads to a
draw with 28 ... Qe8+ 29 Kh4 Qe7+ 30 Kh5
Qe8+ etc) 28 ... Qd1+ (a very important
check; after the immediate 28 ... Qd8,
A.Chernin-G.Zaichik, Lvov 1987, White
could have played 29 h4 fxe4 30 g4 with a
clear advantage) 29 f3 Qd8 30 Qe7 (now 30
h4 fxe4 31 g4?? loses to 31 ... Re8 followed
by ... e4-e3, while 31 fxe4 Qd1+ 32 Kh6 Qg4
33 Qc5+ Kb8 34 h5 Qe6+ 35 Kxh7 Rxg2 36
Rg7 Qxe4+ 37 Rg6 Rc2 38 Qd6+ Ka7 is
level) 30 ... Qxe7 31 Rxe7 fxe4 32 g4 exf3 33
Rf7 Rd8 34 h4 Rd2 with a very sharp rook
ending where Black has reasonable prospects
of a draw.
c) The best option is 14 ... Rc8! 15 0-0
Rxc3 16 Ng7+ Kf8 17 Qd1 Kxg7 18 Qg4+
Qg5 19 Qxd7 Qb5 (here 19 ... b5! is a good
solution, when Black has no problems,
GANDALF-JONNY, Paderborn 2007) 20
Qxb5 axb5 21 Rab1 (21 f3 looks a little
better, controlling the second rank, after
which White can count on a small advantage
in the ending, P.Cramling-L.Brunner, Biel
1994) 21 ... Ra8 22 Rxb5 Rxa2 23 Rxb7 Rc4
½-½ V.Tukmakov-L.Dzhandzhava,
Simferopol 1988.
Returning to 13 Be2:

13 ... Nc6
Black has also tried:
a) 13 ... e5 14 Nf5 Bxf5 15 exf5 Nd7 16
0-0 Nc5 (after 16 ... b6 17 Qc4 Nc5 18 Rab1
Black’s pieces stood very awkwardly in
Z.Karacsony-I.Zaniratti, correspondence
2003) 17 Qc4 Rc8 18 Bh5 0-0 19 Qh4 with
better chances for White, D.Ortmann-
Ma.Singh, internet (rapid) 2007.
b) 13 ... Ba4 does not equalize either; for
example, 14 Qa3 Nd7 15 0-0 Rg8
(B.Nottebaum-M.Wochnik, correspondence
1991) 16 Nb3!? Qg5 17 g3 Bc6 (or 17 ...
Bxb3 18 axb3 Qc5 19 b4 with a clear
advantage) 18 Rad1 and White has the
initiative.
14 0-0 Qc7
Not 14 ... Rb8?! 15 Rad1 Rg8? (15 ... 0-0
was better, although White still has a clear
advantage) 16 Nf5! with a winning attack for
White, Z.Azmaiparashvili-O.Dimakiling,
Singapore 2007, since 16 ... exf5 runs into 17
Rxd7.
But 14 ... 0-0 is playable: 15 Qxb7 (15
Rad1!?) 15 ... Qxc3 16 Nf3 Ra7
(J.Parker-C.Crouch, Dublin Zonal 1993) 17
Qb1 Rb8 18 Qd1 Rb2 19 Rc1 Qa5 20 Bc4
with only a small advantage for White.
53
15 Qa3
White immediately takes control of the
a3-f8 diagonal, making both castling and ...
Ke7 impossible. Again several alternatives
comes into consideration, including 15 Bh5
and different arrangements of the rooks:
a) 15 Bh5 is rarely played but deserves
attention. After 15 ... 0-0 White can choose
between 16 Rfe1 Rac8 17 Re3 with the
initiative, D.Collas-S.Midoux, French
League 2004, and 16 Rae1 Nxd4 17 cxd4
Bb5 18 Be2 with a slight advantage,
M.Hebden-J.Blauert, Copenhagen 1992.
b) 15 Rab1, attacking the b7-pawn, is the
first rook move to be analysed: 15 ... Na5
(there is nothing better: after 15 ... b5 16 a4
bxa4 17 Qa3 Black had serious problems
completing his development in
Pe.Horvath-S.Vajda, Budapest 2001; 15 ...
Rb8 16 Qa3 also looks poor, since 16 ... Qa5
17 Qxa5 Nxa5 18 Bxa6 wins a pawn; 15 ...
0-0-0 16 Qa3 Qa5 17 Qb2 is not promising
either; while ignoring the threat also leads to
an advantage for White, e.g. 15 ... Rg8 16
Qxb7 Qxb7 17 Rxb7 Nxd4 18 cxd4 Bc6 19
Rc7 Bxe4 20 f3 Bd5 21 a4) 16 Qa3 (as in the
main line, White seizes the a3-f8 diagonal
and prevents Black from castling; other
queen moves also seem to give White a small
advantage: 16 Qb4 Rc8 17 Rfc1, or 16 Qc2
Rc8 17 Rfc1, L.Ljubojevic-J.Piket, Monte
Carlo rapid 1999, or 16 Qb2 Rc8 17 c4 Qe5
18 Qd2 Rg8, A.Chernin-L.Degerman,
Stockholm 1995, 19 g3 with slightly the
better chances for White in all cases) 16 ...
Rc8 (castling long can be met by doubling
rooks; e.g. 16 ... Rg8 17 g3 0-0-0,
P.Walczak-V.Cotos, correspondence 2007,
and now 18 Rb4 followed by Rfb1 with the
initiative) 17 c4 or 17 Rfd1 is examined in
Game 28.
c) 15 Rad1 centralizes the rook and
White is ready either to double on the d-file
or redeploy it on the kingside after Black
castles with 15 ... 0-0. Then 16 Rd3 Ne5 17 16 Rad1
Rg3+ (or 17 Re3 Ng6 18 a4 Rab8 19 Ra1, White posts his queen’s rook on d1 and
G.Vekelis-A.Fichaud, correspondence 2010) plans to utilize the other rook on the kingside
17 ... Ng6 (M.Cebalo-Z.Ribli, Slovenian in combination with the manoeuvre
League 2003) and now 18 Rb1 b5 19 Qb4 Qa3-c1-h6.
should give White a small edge. More often White plays 16 Rfd1. We will
Alternatively, 16 Qb2 looks very logical, examine this in Game 29. The little-played
when the queen can play on both the a1-h8 16 Rfc1 h5 (16 ... Na5!? comes into
and c1-h6 diagonals; for example, 16 ... Rfd8 consideration) 17 Rab1 h4 18 Qb2 Qf4 19
(or 16 ... Rad8 17 Rd3 or 16 ... Ne5 17 f4 Ng6 Re1 b5 led to an unclear position in
18 g3 Rfd8 19 c4 with slightly better chances R.Hübner-J.Piket, Dortmund 2000.
for White) 17 Rd3 Ne7 (or 17 ... e5 18 Nc2) 16 ... Na5
18 Qc1 Ng6 19 Rg3 Kh8 20 Qh6 Rg8 21 f4 Centralizing the knight with 16 ... Ne5
Qd6 22 e5! with the initiative for White, leads to an advantage in the ending for White
V.Eingorn-B.Gelfand, Debrecen 1989. after 17 Rb1 Qxc3 18 Qxc3 Rxc3 19 Rxb7
d) Deploying the other rook with 15 Rfd1 (E.Najer-I.Zakharevich, St. Petersburg 2001)
is also good. After 15 ... 0-0 White again has 19 ... Bc8 20 Rb3.
two ideas: 16 Rab1 (or 16 Qb2 Ne5 17 Rab1 Black can also try to use the open g-file
b5 18 Qd2 Ng6, K.Sakaev-A.Beliavsky, after 16 ... Rg8 and then:
Yugoslav Team Championship 1997, and
now 19 c4 with the better chances for White)
16 ... Na5 (or 16 ... b5 17 a4 Nxd4 18 cxd4
bxa4 19 Qf3, G.Avellan-A.Bürger,
correspondence 2008) 17 Qa3 Rac8? (Black
should prefer 17 ... Bc6 18 Qc5 Rac8 19 Rb6
Qe5 20 Qxe5 fxe5 21 Nxc6 Rxc6 22 Rxc6
Nxc6 23 Rd7, but White still has a
favourable endgame) 18 Qc1! Nc6 (even
worse is 18 ... Qc5, a) 17 f4 does not give an advantage; for
A.Maksimenko-L.Brunner, Bern 1994, since example, 17 ... Nxd4 18 cxd4 Qc3 19 Rf3 (19
19 Rd3! gives White a winning attack) 19 Qxc3 Rxc3 20 Rc1 Ra3 21 Bc4 Ke7 22 Bb3
Qh6 Ne5 20 Qxf6 and White is a clear pawn a5 leads to equality) 19 ... Qxa3 20 Rxa3 Rc2
up. 21 Bf3 Ke7 22 Rb1 Bb5 23 e5 Rd8 24 Be4
15 ... Rc8 Re2 25 Bf3 Rc2 26 Be4 Re2 27 Bf3 ½-½

54
L.Van Wely-J.Piket, Monte Carlo (rapid)
1999.
b) No good either is 17 Rd3 Nxd4 (this
move, exploiting the loss of tempo, looks
slightly better than 17 ... Ne5, J.Campos
Moreno-Y.Yakovich, Terrassa 1999, when
18 Re3 Nc4 19 Bxc4 Qxc4 20 Rd1 Qa4 21
Qc1 Qxa2 22 Red3 offers White slightly the
better chances) 18 cxd4 Bb5 19 Rd2 Bxe2 20
Rxe2 Qc3 21 Qxc3 Rxc3 22 Rb2 b5 with a
level ending.
c) However, both 17 Nb3!? and 17 Rfe1
deserve attention; for example, 17 Rfe1 h5
18 Qb3 h4 19 Bf1 Na5
(F.Högerl-I.Papenfuss, correspondence 2011)
20 Qb1, or 17 ... Ne5 (½-½
V.Filippov-Y.Yakovich, Nizhnij Novgorod
1998) 18 c4 Qc5 and now both 19 Qb3 and
19 Qh3 give White the better chances.
17 Qc1
A good alternative is 17 Rd3 Qc5 (if 17 ...
Nc4 then 18 Qc1 Ke7 19 Qh6 with the
initiative) 18 Qc1 Rg8 (or 18 ... Ke7,
E.Lobron-L.Brunner, Garmisch 1994, 19
Qd2!? intending Qh6 and White has the
upper hand) 19 Qh6 Ke7?! (but 19 ... Qg5 20
Qh3 e5 21 Nf5 Bxf5 22 exf5 is still clearly
better for White, according to Beliavsky) 20
Rfd1 gives White a winning attack,
A.Beliavsky-P.Lukacs, Austrian League
1997.
17 ... Ke7
Not 17 ... Qxc3? due to 18 Qh6, followed
by Qxf6 with a clear advantage, since 18 ...
55
Ke7?? loses to 19 e5! fxe5 20 Nf5+! exf5 21
Qd6+ Ke8 22 Qxd7+ Kf8 23 Bh5.
Hitting the knight with 17 ... e5
(A.Friedman-B.Nickoloff, Toronto 1998)
cannot be recommended either because of 18
Nc2! Ba4 (weak is 18 ... Qxc3 19 Qh6 Qxc2
20 Qxf6 Rg8 21 Bh5 Rxg2+ 22 Kxg2 Qxe4+
23 f3 Qf5 24 Bxf7+ Kf8 25 Qd6+ Kxf7 26
Qxd7+ Qxd7 27 Rxd7+ and White is
winning) 19 Bg4 Bxc2 20 Qxc2 Qxc3 21
Qe2 with a very strong initiative for White.
However, 17 ... h5!? may be playable,
when 18 Rd3 offers White only a small
advantage.
18 Qh6
This position was reached in
J.Piket-V.Topalov, FIDE World
Championship, Groningen 1997. White has
carried out the manoeuvre Qa3-c1-h6 and
now threatens to play f2-f4 followed by
e4-e5, for example after 18 ... Qc5 or 18 ...
Rcg8. Another threat is Bh5 attacking the
f7-pawn. The further course of play is shown
in Game 30.
Illustrative Games
Game 23
G.Gajewski-R.Wojtaszek
Polish Championship, Warsaw 2012
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12
Bxd7+ Nxd7 13 0-0 Qxc3 14 Qa4 0-0! 15
Nxe6 Nb6 16 Qd4 Rfc8 17 Qxc3 Rxc3
 18 Nd4
This move leads to a drawish ending. 18
Nf4 with the idea to fix the weak f6-pawn is
better; for example, 18 ... Rc5 19 g4 (or 19
Rfc1!? Rac8 20 Rxc5 Rxc5 21 g4 with a
small advantage for White) 19 ... Kf8 (19 ...
Na4!?) 20 Nh5 with slightly the better ending
for White, R.Ponomariov-A.Morozevich,
Saratov 2011.
18 ... Rc4 19 Rfd1
Or if 19 Rad1 Na4 20 Nf5 Rxe4 21 Rd7
Nc5 22 Rc7 with a level ending,
H.Mekhitarian-V.Lysyj, Moscow 2011.
19 ... Na4 20 Nf5 Rxe4 21 Rac1 Re5 22
g4 Rc5 23 Rxc5 Nxc5 24 Rd6 Ne6 25 Rd7
Rb8 26 Nh6+ Kg7 27 Nxf7 Nc5 28 Rc7 Ne6
29 Rd7 Nc5 30 Rc7 Ne6 ½-½
Game 24
L.D.Nisipeanu-Z.Gyimesi
Hungarian League 2011
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12
Bxd7+ Nxd7 13 0-0 a6 14 Rb1 Qc7 15 Qf3
Rc8 16 Rfd1 b5
17 Ne2
Interesting is 17 Rd2!? 0-0 (weaker is
17 ... Qxc3 18 Qd1 Qc7 19 Rc2 Qb7 20
Rxc8+ Qxc8 21 Rc1 Qb7 22 Qg4 with a
strong initiative for White) 18 Rbd1 Nc5 19
Qg4+ Kh8 20 Qh4 Qe5 21 Nf3 Qxe4 22
56
Qxf6+ Kg8 23 Rd4, when White has the
initiative on the kingside.
17 ... Ke7 18 c4
White sacrifices a pawn. The resulting
play on the a3-f8 diagonal and down the
open b- and c-files compensates for it.
Nothing would be given by the safer 18 Rbc1
Ne5 19 Qg3 Rhd8 20 f4 Qb6+ 21 Kh1 Nc6.
18 ... bxc4
A good alternative is 18 ... Qxc4!? 19
Qa3+ (weaker is 19 Rbc1 Ne5 20 Qa3+ b4
21 Qa4 Qxe4 with advantage for Black, or 19
Ng3 Qc3 20 Qf4 Qe5 21 Qe3 Rhd8 22 Qa7
Rc6 with the better chances for Black) 19 ...
Nc5 20 Ng3 Qa4 21 Qc3 Nxe4 22 Qf3 f5 23
Nxf5+ exf5 24 Qxf5 with a draw by
perpetual check, as with 24 ... Rhd8 25 Qe5+
Kf8 26 Qh8+ Ke7 27 Qe5+.
19 Qa3+ Qc5 20 Qxa6 Rhd8 21 Rb7
Ke8
22 Nc3?!
After the preferable 22 Qa4 Qc6 23 Qxc6
Rxc6 24 Nc3 Ra6 25 a4 the ending is level.
22 ... Ne5 23 Qa4+ Kf8 24 Rb5 Qc6
24 ... Qe7!? also deserved attention.
25 Rxd8+ Rxd8 26 h3
More active is 26 f4, although Black’s
chances are still to be preferred; for example,
26 ... Ng6 27 f5 (or 27 Qa7 Rd1+ 28 Kf2 Rd7
29 Qc5+ Qxc5+ 30 Rxc5 Rd2+) 27 ... Ne5 28
fxe6 fxe6 29 Qb4+ Qd6.
26 ... Kg7 27 Qc2 Rd3

28 a4?
Better was 28 Rb2 Qa8 29 Qc1 Qd8 30
Re2 Qd4 with only a large advantage for
Black.
28 ... Qd6 29 Rb2
After 29 Rb1 Rd2 30 Nb5 Qd8 White
could have resisted for longer.
29 ... Qd4
Now Black has a winning position.
White’s next is a blunder, but 30 Nb5 Qxe4
also loses.
30 Ne2? Rd1+ 31 Kh2 Nf3+! 32 Kg3
The point was 32 gxf3 Qxf2 mate.
32 ... Qe5+ 33 Nf4 Rd3 34 gxf3 Qg5+
35 Kh2 Qxf4+ 36 Kg1 Qxf3 37 Rb1 c3 0-1
Game 25
I.Khenkin-I.Khairullin
Belgian League 2013
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12
Bxd7+ Nxd7 13 0-0 a6 14 Rb1 Qc7 15 Qh5
15 ... Nc5
57
The most flexible move. Black protects
the e6-pawn and retains the possibility to
castle on either side or to place the king on e7.
Other moves are weaker:
a) Locating the queen in the centre with
15 ... Qe5 does not help Black: 16 Qh4! (this
move causes Black the biggest problems; not
as strong is 16 Qh6 Nc5 17 Rb4 Rc8 18 Nf3
Qxc3 19 Rd4 Ke7 20 e5 Nd7 21 Qh4 Rhg8
22 Kh1 b5 23 h3 Rc4 24 Rxd7+ Kxd7 25
Qxf6 Qd3 26 Qxf7+ Kc6 27 Qxe6+ Kb7 and
the game ended in a draw,
V.Kramnik-A.Naiditsch, Dortmund 2009)
16 ... Nc5 (to a clear advantage for White
lead both 16 ... 0-0-0 17 Rb4 Qg5 18 Qh3,
Al.Ramirez-Ad.Horvath, Cappelle la Grande
2012, and 16 ... Rc8, as in
A.Flumbort-Ad.Horvath, Hungarian League
2005, and then 17 Rxb7 Nc5 18 Rb4) 17 f4!
Qxe4 18 Rfe1 Qg6 (worse is 18 ... Qd5 19
Qxf6 Rg8 20 Rb2 Ne4 21 Qh4 Nxc3 22 f5
Rd8 23 Rd2 Rxg2+ 24 Rxg2 and White is
winning, Z.Kozul-A.Diermair, Graz 2009)
19 f5 Qg5 20 Qxg5 fxg5 21 fxe6 fxe6 22
Nxe6 Nxe6 23 Rxe6+, as in J.Gonzalez
Garcia-J.Oms Pallisse, Barcelona 2011, and
after 23 ... Kd7 24 Reb6 (or 24 Re5 Kc6 25
Rxg5 Rad8 26 Rg7 b5) 24 ... Rab8 25 Rxb7+
Rxb7 26 Rxb7+ Kc6 27 Rf7 h6 Black has
chances to draw the rook ending a pawn
down.
b) Black’s king cannot feel safe in the
centre after 15 ... Ke7.
Now:
 b1) 16 f4!? (the sharpest continuation)
16 ... Qxc3 (in H.Hofstetter-R.Markus,
correspondence 2014, Black tried 16 ... Rag8,
but after 17 Rbd1 Qc5 18 e5 White had the
better chances and he could also have
developed his initiative with 17 e5 f5 18
Rfd1 or 17 Kh1 Rg7 18 f5) 17 Rfd1 (or 17
Rbd1 Nc5 18 Rf3 Qb4 19 e5 with the
initiative for White) 17 ... Rhd8 (after 17 ...
Rab8? 18 e5 White wins,
J.Gustafsson-A.Naiditsch, Dortmund 2008)
18 Kh1 Rac8 19 e5 b5 20 Nxe6 Kxe6 21 exf6
Qxf6 22 Qe2+ Ne5 23 Rf1 and White has the
upper hand, G.Blask-A.Grube,
correspondence 2009.
b2) The preparatory move 16 Rfd1 is also
very good; for example, 16 ... Rac8 (no better
is 16 ... b5 17 Rb2 Rac8 18 Rbd2 with the
initiative for White, B.Avrukh-A.Grischuk,
Biel 2007, or 16 ... Rad8, as in
Wl.Schmidt-V.Tukmakov, Koszalin 1999,
and then 17 f4 h6 18 Qh4 Ke8 19 Kh1 with
an advantage for White) 17 f4! Rhd8
(D.Antic-S.Marjanovic, Serbian League
2009; other moves do not help either: 17 ...
b5 18 Qh4 Ke8 19 Rbc1 Qc5 20 Kh1 with the
initiative for White, 17 ... Nc5 18 e5 fxe5 19
fxe5 Rhg8 20 Nf3 Rg7 21 Rd6 with a clear
advantage for White, or 17 ... Qxc3 18 e5
Qe3+ 19 Kh1 Rhd8 20 Nxe6 Kxe6 21 Qh6
Rc3 22 exf6 with a winning attack for White)
18 f5!, which is the strongest way to attack.
The point is that 18 ... e5 runs into 19 Ne6!
and Black cannot play 19 ... fxe6? because of
20 Qxh7+ Kf8 21 fxe6 Nc5 22 Rxd8+ with
mate or the loss of the black queen, but other
moves lead to a loss of the exchange with an
easy win for White.
Returning to 15 ... Nc5:
58
16 Rb4
By no means obligatory:
a) White cannot expect too much after 16
f4 0-0-0 (or 16 ... Rg8 17 f5 0-0-0 18 fxe6, as
in S.Schmakel-H.Hernandez Carmenates,
Chicago 2016, and then 18 ... fxe6 19 Rxf6
Nxe4) 17 Qf3 Rd7 18 Qe3 Kb8 19 Rb4 Rc8
20 Rc4 Qd6 with equal chances,
N.Vitiugov-Wang Yue, Sochi 2009.
b) Likewise, 16 Rbe1
(E.Bareev-I.Khairullin, Moscow 2009) 16 ...
Qe5!? is fine for Black.
c) In Y.Sitorus-D.Freire, correspondence
2016, White tried 16 Qh6!? and won quickly:
16 ... Nxe4? (the only way to fight for
equality was 16 ... 0-0-0) 17 Rbe1 Nc5 18
Qxf6 Rg8 19 Re5 1-0.
d) White has also played 16 Rfe1!? 0-0-0
(if 16 ... Qe5, as in
D.Jakovenko-D.Frolyanov, Olginka rapid
2011, then 17 Qe2 h5 18 Qe3 with a small
advantage for White) 17 Qf3 (alternatively,
17 Re3 was tried in V.Anand-A.Naiditsch,
Mainz rapid 2009, when 17 ... Qe5 18 Qe2 h5
leads to mutual chances; or 17 Qh6 Nd3 18
Red1 Qf4 19 Qxf4 Nxf4 with equality) 17 ...
Qe5 (after 17 ... Nd7 18 Re2 Qe5 19 Rb4
Nc5 20 Qe3 White has the better play,
W.Tseng-H.Mergard, correspondence 2010)
18 Qe3 Rd7 (A.Serazeev-T.Tiits,
correspondence 2011) 19 Rb4 with the idea
of a4-a5 with the better chances for White.
e) Another good continuation is 16 Qh4
0-0-0 17 Rfe1 (M.Illingworth-E.Schon,
Sydney 2015) 17 ... Nd3 18 Re2 Rhg8 19 g3
with slightly the better chances for White.
16 ... Qe5
17 Qh4
Instead, 17 Qh6 Rc8 (or 17 ... Qg5 18
Qh3 Rg8 19 g3, I.Khenkin-Cs.Horvath,
Dieren 2016, with chances of taking over the
initiative for White) 18 Nf3 Qxc3 19 Rd4
Ke7 20 e5 Nd7 21 Qh4 Rhg8 22 Kh1 (or 22
Rfd1 Rgd8 23 Rxd7+ with a draw) 22 ... b5
23 h3 Rc4 24 Rxd7+ Kxd7 25 Qxf6+ with
compensation for the exchange,
P.Mirkowski-K.Rodriguez, correspondence
2015.
However, the rook ending after 17 Qxe5
fxe5 18 Nb3 Nxb3 19 axb3 0-0-0 20 f4 exf4
does not offer White too much; for instance,
21 e5 (or 21 Rc4+ Kb8, as in
B.Gulko-V.Salov, Linares 1990, when 22 e5
Rd3 23 Rfxf4 Rf8 24 Rfd4 Re3 is a drawn
ending) 21 ... Rd3 22 Rc4+ (or 22 Rfxf4
Rxc3 23 Rxf7 Rd8 24 h4 Rc7 25 Rf6 Re7 26
Rb6 Rd5 27 Rbxe6 Rxe5 with a draw) 22 ...
Kd7 23 Rfxf4 Rf8 (R.Dautov-A.Naumann,
German League 2009) 24 Rcd4+ Rxd4 25
Rxd4+ Ke7 with an equal ending.
Other moves also allow Black to equalize,
as shown by 17 Qf3 Rd8 18 Nb3 (as in
E.Romanov-G.Sargissian, Moscow 2009; 18
g3!? might be considered though) 18 ... Rd3
19 Qe2 Rxc3 20 Nxc5 Rxc5 21 Rxb7 0-0 22
Rb3 Rfc8 with equality, or 17 Qh3 Rd8 18
Qe3 Qxe4 19 Qxe4 Nxe4 20 Nxe6 fxe6 ½-½
S.Arun Prasad-S.Swapnil, Chennai 2010.
17 ... Rd8
59
In G.Meier-P.Acs, Paks 2009, Black
played 17 ... Qg5 18 Qh3 Rg8 19 g3 h5 20
Rc4 Rc8? (even after 20 ... b6 21 f4 White
achieves the better game) 21 Nxe6! fxe6 22
Rxc5 Rxc5 23 Qxe6+ Kf8 24 Rd1 Kg7 25 h4
Qg6 26 Qe7+ Kh6 27 Qxc5 and White won.
And 17 ... Qxe4 cannot be recommended
either: after 18 Qxf6 Rg8 19 g3 Nd7 20 Qh6
Rg6 21 Qd2 Qd5 22 c4 White obtained the
advantage in C.Da Silva Reis-J.Deforel,
correspondence 2011.
18 f4
Now 18 Rfb1!? deserves attention. 18
Nf3, on the other hand, leads to equality: 18 ...
Qxc3 19 e5 (in this forcing line most paths
lead to a safe drawing haven) 19 ... Rg8! 20
Qxh7 Kf8 (20 ... Ke7 21 Rf4 f5 looks slightly
worse, as now 22 Rd4! leads to a position
with slightly the better chances for White
after 22 ... Rxg2+ 23 Kxg2 Rxd4 24 Nxd4
Qxd4, V.Khenkin-J.Vakhidov, Hastings
2015/16, and then 25 Qh3 Qd5+ 26 Qf3
Qxa2 27 Rc1 b6 28 h4) 21 Rf4 (or 21 Rbb1
Qd3 22 Qxd3 Rxd3 23 exf6 Rxf3 24 Rfc1
Rg5 25 h4 Rg4 26 Rxc5 Rxf6) 21 ... f5 22
Qh6+ Ke8 23 Qh7 Kf8 24 Ng5 Rxg5 25 Qh4
Ne4 26 Rxe4 fxe4 27 Qxg5 Rd5 (27 ... Qd2
is also a good move) 28 Qh6+ (if 28 Rc1
Rd2!) 28 ... Kg8 29 Qg5+ Kf8 30 Qh6+ Kg8
31 Qg5+ ½-½ T.Radjabov-P.Leko, FIDE
Grand Prix, Astrakhan 2010.
18 ... Qxe4 19 Re1

19 ... Qd3
A little worse is 19 ... Qd5 20 Qxf6 Rg8
21 g3 Rg6 22 Qh8+ Ke7 23 Qe5 Qxe5 24
Rxe5 (P.Leko-A.Naiditsch, Dortmund 2010)
24 ... Rd5 25 Rxd5 exd5 26 Nf5+ Ke8 27
Rd4 Ne4 28 c4 Nc3 29 Rd3 Nxa2 30 Rxd5
with a small advantage for White, but quite
playable looks to be 19 ... Qg6!?; for
example, 20 f5 Qg5 21 Qxg5 fxg5 22 fxe6
fxe6 23 Nxe6 Nxe6 24 Rxe6+ Kf7 25 Reb6
Rd1+ 26 Kf2 Rd2+ 27 Kg3 Rc8 28 Rxb7+
Kg6 29 R4b6+ Kf5 30 Rf7+ Ke5 31 Re7+
Kf5 32 Rf7+ ½-½ A.Beliavsky-A.Naiditsch,
Croatian League 2010.
20 Qxf6
Or if 20 Nxe6 Nxe6 (but not 20 ... fxe6??
21 Qh5+ and White wins) 21 Qxf6 Rg8 22
Rxe6+ fxe6 23 Qxe6+ Kf8 24 Qf6+ Ke8 25
Qe6+ with a draw.
20 ... Rg8 21 Nf5
Likewise, 21 Nxe6 fxe6 22 Rxe6+ Nxe6
23 Qxe6 Kf8 24 Qf6+ resulted in perpetual
check in M.Molner-Gu.Vazquez, Internet
(rapid) 2017.
21 ... Rd7 22 Rd4 Qxc3 23 Red1 exf5
24 Qe5+ Kf8 25 Qb8+ Kg7 26 Qe5+ Kf8 27
Qb8+ Kg7 28 Qe5+ ½-½
Game 26
D.Navara-K.Lahno
Wijk aan Zee 2006
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 d5 4 d4 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
60
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12
Qb3 Bxb5 13 Nxb5 0-0 14 0-0 Nc6 15 c4
15 ... Rad8
The queen sortie 15 ... Qd2 only leads to
the loss of a few tempi: 16 Rad1 Qf4 17 Nd6
Rad8 18 c5 b6 19 Qa3 bxc5 (as in
F.Vidalina-E.Kopasov, correspondence
2006; worse is 19 ... Qe5 20 Qa4 Na5 21 Rd3
Qxc5, as in A.Beliavsky-I.Almasi,
Hungarian League 2002, when White could
have obtained a decisive advantage after 22
Qd1! with the threat of Rg3 followed by Qg4)
20 g3!? Qg5 21 f4 Qh5 22 g4! Qh4 (but not
22 ... Qxg4+? 23 Kh1 Kh8 24 Qxc5 Qe2 25
Qc3 e5 26 Rde1 Qa6 27 Rg1 and White wins)
23 Rd3 Nd4 24 Qxc5 e5 25 Kh1 Qh6 26 g5
fxg5 27 fxe5 Ne6 28 Qxa7 with an advantage
for White.
15 ... Rfd8 has also been played: 16 c5
(16 Rab1, as in J.Gomez Esteban-J.Magem
Badals, Spanish League 1997, could have
been met by 16 ... Ne5 with equality) and
now:
a) 16 ... Rd7 17 Rac1 b6 18 cxb6 (or 18
a4 Rad8 19 Qb2 Kg7 20 cxb6 ½-½
V.Babula-A.Schenk, Austrian League 2004)
18 ... Qxb6 19 Qg3+ Kh8 20 Nc3 with
slightly the better chances for White,
S.Nichols-X.Pichelin, correspondence 2010.
b) The rook sortie 16 ... Rd2, as in
M.Gurevich-J.Vidarsson, Akureyri 1988, is
not justified due to 17 Qg3+ Kh8 (or 17 ...
Kf8 18 Qf4 Kg7 19 Nd6) 18 Nd6 Ne5 19 Qf4
Kg7 20 Nxb7 with a clear advantage for
White.
c) White also has the better chances after
the immediate 16 ... b6 17 Nd6 Rab8 18 e5
Nxe5 19 Qg3+ Kf8 20 Ne4 Qa4 21 Nxf6
Ng6 22 cxb6.
d) The only continuation which gives
Black sufficient counterplay is 16 ... Rab8!
17 Rac1 b6; for example, 18 e5 bxc5 19
Qg3+ Kf8 20 exf6 Qxb5 21 Qg7+ Ke8 22
Qg8+ Kd7 23 Qxf7+ Kd6 24 Rfd1+ Nd4 25
Rxd4+ cxd4 26 Qc7+ Kd5 (½-½
T.Baranowski-W.Krzyzanowski,
correspondence 2012) 27 f4 Ke4 28 Re1+
Kd3 29 Rd1+ Ke3 30 Qc1+ Ke4 31 Re1+
Kd3 32 Rd1+ with perpetual check.
16 c5
16 Nd6 does not give great chances of
obtaining an advantage: 16 ... Qe5
(Z.Azmaiparashvili-K.Kulaots, Liepaja
rapid 2006; possible too is 16 ... Nd4 17 Qe3
Nc2 18 Qg3+ Qg5 19 Rad1 Qxg3 20 hxg3 b6
21 Rd2 Rd7 with a level ending) 17 Nxb7
Rd4 18 Rae1 Rb8 19 Re3 with an unclear
position.
Instead, after 16 Qg3+ Kh8 White often
forces a draw.
61
For example, 17 Qh4 (or 17 Qf4 Kg7 18
Qg4+ Kh8 19 Qh4 Kg7 20 Qg4+ Kh8 21
Qh4 ½-½ R.Wojtaszek-I.Khenkin, Havana
2008) 17 ... Kg7 18 f4 (an attempt to play for
a win is 18 Rae1 Rd3 19 Re3 Rxe3 20 fxe3
Qd8 21 c5 Ne5 22 Qg3+ Kh8, which leads to
a position with mutual chances,
A.Riazantsev-J.Gustafsson, Internet blitz
2004; no better is 18 Rad1, as in
M.Cebalo-L.Aronian, Bastia rapid 2003, and
then 18 ... Rxd1 19 Qg3+ Kh8 20 Rxd1 Ne5
with equal chances or 18 Nd6 Qg5 19 Qxg5+
fxg5 20 Nxb7, as in G.Kaganskiy-T.Thiel,
Moscow 2006, when 20 ... Rd4 leads to a
good ending for Black) 18 ... Qd2 19 e5 (not
too promising is 19 Rf3 Rg8 with decent
counterplay for Black, B.Lalith-P.Vishnu,
Indian Championship, Chennai 2008) 19 ...
fxe5 20 Qg5+ Kh8 21 Qf6+ Kg8 22 Qg5+
(22 Rf3 does not give anything as after 22 ...
exf4 23 Raf1 e5 White has nothing better
than perpetual check anyway) 22 ... Kh8 23
Qf6+ Kg8 24 Rae1 a6 25 Qg5+ Kh8 26 Qf6+
Kg8 27 Re4 Qc2 28 Qg5+ Kh8 29 Qf6+ Kg8
30 Nc3 Rd2 31 Qg5+ Kh8 32 Qf6+ Kg8 33
Qg5+ Kh8 34 Qf6+ ½-½
S.Mamedyarov-P.H.Nielsen, Wijk aan Zee
2005.
Returning to 16 c5:
16 ... Nd4
Once again the rook sally to d2 fails as
Black is exposed to a double attack on the
rook and the f6-pawn which restricts his
queen’s efficiency: 16 ... Rd2? 17 Qg3+ Kh8
18 Qf4 Kg7 (S.Krivoshey-E.Agrest, German
League 2003) 19 Nd6! (Dautov) with an
advantage for White.
However, Black can play 16 ... Rd7 17
Rac1 b6 18 cxb6 Qxb6 19 Qg3+ Kh8 20 Nc3
Ne5 21 Qf4 Kg7 22 Na4 Qd8 23 Nc5 Rd2
with an even position, N.Esen-G.Dobrei,
correspondence 2009.
17 Nxd4
As usual, White can draw by repetition if
he wishes; i.e. 17 Qg3+ Kh8 18 Qh4 (18
Nxd4 Rxd4 transposes to the main line) 18 ...
Qxb5 19 Qxf6+ Kg8 20 Qg5+ Kh8 21 Qf6+
½-½ P.Bobras-B.Heberla, Polish
Championship, Lublin 2008.
17 ... Rxd4 18 Qg3+ Kh8
19 Qh4
Alternatively, 19 Qf4 Kg7 (19 ... Qxc5 is
possible too after 19 Qh4, but weaker in both
cases due to 20 Qxf6 Kg8 21 Rac1 Rc4 22
Rxc4 Qxc4 23 Qg5+ Kh8 24 Qe7 Kg7 25
Re1 with a clear advantage for White,
K.Weber-P.Burri, correspondence 2012) 20
Qg3+ Kh8 21 Qf4 Kg7 22 Rab1 Qxc5 23
Rxb7 Qg5 24 Qc7 Qe5 25 Qe7 Rxe4 26 Rxa7
Re1 27 g3 and another draw was agreed in
L.Schandorff-A.Naumann, German League
2003.
19 ... Kg7 20 Rab1
White has nothing more than a draw after
20 Rac1 Rc8! 21 Qg4+ Kh8 22 Qh5, as in
M.Krasenkow-H.Olafsson, Reykjavik 2004,
and then 22 ... Kg8!.
20 ... Qxc5 21 Rxb7
After 21 Rb3 Rfd8 22 Rg3+ Kf8 23 Qxf6
the weakness of the first rank once again
62
compels White to force a draw: 23 ... Rd1 24
Qh6+ Ke7 25 Qh4+ Kf8 26 Qh6+ Ke7 27
Qh4+ Kf8 28 Qh6+ Ke7 29 Qh4+ ½-½ Zhao
Xue-N.Kosintseva, Ergun 2006.
21 ... Qg5 22 Qh3
The ending after 22 Qxg5+ fxg5 23 Rxa7
Rxe4 is level (Ribli).
22 ... Rxe4
Now the position is becoming sharper
and sharper.
23 Rxa7 h5 24 Qf3 Qe5 25 h3 Rc8 26
g3?
26 Qd3 with an unclear game was
correct.
26 ... Rc3 27 Qg2 Re2 28 h4 f5 29 Ra4
Re1?!
29 ... Rb2 would have kept the
advantage.
30 Rxe1 Qxe1+ 31 Qf1 Qd2 32 Rc4
Ra3 33 Qa1+ f6 34 Qd4 Qxd4
After 34 ... Qe1+ 35 Kg2 Rxa2 36 Rc8
Qe4+ 37 Qxe4 fxe4 Black would have had
more chances of winning the rook ending.
35 Rxd4 Rxa2 36 Kg2 Ra7 37 Rc4 Kf7
38 Rc8 e5 39 Rc4 Rb7 40 Ra4 Rc7 41 Kf3
Rc2 42 Ra7+ Kg6 43 Ra4 e4+ 44 Kg2 e3 45
Kf3 exf2 46 Kg2 Kf7
 47 Ra6
47 Ra7+ Ke6 48 Rh7 draws at once.
47 ... f4 48 gxf4 f1Q+ 49 Kxf1 Rh2 50
Ra5 Rxh4 51 Kg2 Kg6 52 Kg3 Rg4+ 53
Kf3 Rg1 54 Kf2 Rb1 55 Kg3 Rb3+ 56 Kh4
Rb1 57 Kg3 Rf1 58 Rb5 Rg1+ 59 Kf2 Rg4
60 Kf3 Kh6 61 Rb6 Kg6 62 Rb5 Rg1 63
Kf2 Ra1 64 Kg3 Ra3+ 65 Kh4 Rf3 66
Rxh5 Rxf4+ 67 Kg3 Ra4 68 Rb5 f5 69 Rb8
½-½
Qxh7+ Kd8 24 Rxb7 Qa1+ 25 Rb1 Qa3 26
Qg8+ Qf8 27 Qxe6 with a strong attack for
White.
17 Qe3
17 Qh3!? looks worth exploring too.
17 ... Nd7 18 Qg3

Game 27
K.Sakaev-Se.Ivanov
Moscow 2003

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4 18 ... Qc7

Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12
Qb3 Ke7 13 0-0 Rc8 14 c4 a6 15 Bxd7
Nxd7 16 Rad1
16 ... Nc5
Better is 16 ... Rc7! 17 Qxb7 Rxb7 18
Nc6+ Ke8 19 Nxa5 Rb2 with compensation
for the pawn. After other moves White
stands better; for example:
a) 16 ... b6 17 Qg3 with the threat of
Nxe6.
b) 16 ... Ne5 17 f4 Nxc4 18 e5 Qb6 19
Qg3 f5 20 Kh1 Kf8 21 Nf3 Ne3 22 Ng5
Nxd1 23 Nxh7+ Ke8 24 Nf6+ Kd8 25 Rxd1+
Kc7 26 Qa3 Rd8 27 Qe7+ Kc8 28 Rc1+ Kb8
29 Nd7+ with the better chances for White.
c) 16 ... Nb6 17 Qh3! Rd8 (17 ... Rxc4
runs into 18 Nxe6!) 18 Nxe6 Rxd1 19 Rxd1
Qa4 20 Rb1 Qxa2 21 Qd3 fxe6 22 e5 Nd7 23
Perhaps Black should have decided on
18 ... Rd8!?, though in this case White
maintains a small advantage.
19 f4
After 19 Qh4!? White has slightly the
better play.
19 ... Qxc4?
A losing blunder. 19 ... Qb6 was
necessary and after, for example, 20 Kh1
Rxc4 21 Nb3 Nc5 22 Nxc5 Qxc5 23 e5
White’s initiative is worth more than the
sacrificed pawn.
20 e5 f5
After 20 ... Qxa2 21 f5 White wins
(Sakaev).
21 Nf3 Nf8
Black could have resisted longer with
21 ... Rd8.
22 Qg7 Qc5+ 23 Kh1

63
 23 ... h6
23 ... Ke8 gives nothing both now and on
the next move due to 24 Ng5 Rc7 25 Qh8, as
pointed out by Sakaev.
24 Qxh6 Rd8
Or if 24 ... Ke8 25 Ng5 – Sakaev.
25 Ng5 Ke8 26 Qg7 Qe7 27 h3 b5 28
Rd6! Rxd6 29 exd6 Qxd6 30 Qxf7+ Kd8
31 Qb7 Qd5 32 Nxe6+! Qxe6 33 Qxa8+
Ke7 34 Qa7+ Nd7 35 Rd1 1-0
Game 28
V.Kramnik-L.Van Wely
Monte Carlo (rapid) 2000
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12
Qb3 a6 13 Be2 Nc6 14 0-0 Qc7 15 Rab1
Na5 16 Qa3 Rc8
17 c4
The alternative is 17 Rfd1 and now:
a) Too slow is 17 ... h5 18 c4 h4 19 h3
Qc5 20 Qd3 and White had the upper hand in
F.Dutu-Joh.Mayer, correspondence 2002.
b) 17 ... Qc5 is a very careful and likely
too careful response: 18 Qc1 (obviously,
exchanges are not convenient for White: 18
Qxc5?! Rxc5 19 c4 Rc7 20 Nb3 Nxc4 21
Bxc4 Rxc4 22 Na5 Rc7 23 Rxb7 Rxb7 24
Nxb7 Ke7 25 Nc5 Bb5 26 a4 Rc8 ½-½
R.Kasimdzhanov-H.Jonkman, Wijk aan Zee
1999) 18 ... Qg5 (and not 18 ... Ke7?, as in
G.Burgess-A.Law, British League 1999,
where White missed a very strong move in
64
19 Nf3! followed by e4-e5 with a powerful
initiative; no good recipe can be found
against this plan) 19 Qb2 Rg8 20 Bf1 (20
g3!?) 20 ... Qc5 (weaker is 20 ... h5 21 Rd3
Qe5 22 Re1 with an advantage for White,
G.Bagaturov-A.Egiazarian, Ashkhabad 1990)
21 Qd2 (better is 21 Rd3, defending the
c3-pawn and preparing the activation of the
rook along the third rank) 21 ... Ba4 22 Nb3
(22 Rdc1!?) 22 ... Nxb3 23 axb3 with only a
small advantage for White and
B.Nickoloff-Go.Taylor, Canadian
Championship, Ottawa 1995, was actually
agreed drawn here.
c) Taking the sacrificed pawn with 17 ...
Qxc3 must be critical.
Indeed, it deserves serious attention; for
example, 18 Qd6 (or 18 Nb3!? Nxb3 19
Rxb3 Qc7 20 Qb2 Qe5 21 Rxb7 Bc6 22 Rb6
Qxb2 23 Rxb2 Bxe4 24 Bxa6 with slightly
the better ending for White) 18 ... Qc7 19
Nf5! (19 Qa3 Qc3 leads to a repetition) 19 ...
exf5 20 Qxf6 Rg8! (as in
Y.Shulman-Y.Yakovich, New York Open
1998; instead, a serious error would be 20 ...
0-0? 21 Rd3 f4 22 Rd5 h6 23 Qxh6 f5 24 Rb6
and White wins, G.Kasparov-J.Hjartarson,
Tilburg 1989) 21 exf5! Qc6 (weaker is 21 ...
Qc3 22 Rd4 with the better chances for
White) 22 Qe5+ Kf8 23 Bf3 Qc7 with
compensation for the sacrificed material,
according to Khalifman and Nesis. Moreover,
the game should end in a draw by perpetual
check after 24 Qe3 Bxf5 25 Rbc1 Nc4 26
Qh6+ Rg7 (or 26 ... Ke8 27 Re1+ Be6 28
Qxh7 Kf8 29 Qh6+ Rg7 30 Qh8+) 27 Rxc4
Qxc4 28 Qd6+ Ke8 29 Qe5+ Kf8 30 Qd6+.
Returning to the gambit 17 c4:
17 ... Nxc4
To take, or not to take, that is the
question.
After 17 ... Qc5 18 Qc3 Black can try to
exploit the weakness of some of the dark
squares in White’s camp by 18 ... e5.
However, after 19 Nb3 Nxb3 20 axb3 a5 (a
strategically correct decision, fixing White’s
pawns on light squares; otherwise White
would play b3-b4) 21 Rfd1 Be6 22 h3 0-0
(Black has nothing better, as shown by 22 ...
Ke7 23 b4! or 22 ... Rg8 23 Bg4! Bxg4 24
hxg4 Rxg4 25 Rd5 with a clear advantage for
White in both cases, as analyzed by
Khalifman and Nesis) 23 Qg3+ (White might
try 23 b4!? with the initiative) 23 ... Kh8 24
Qh4 Qe7 25 Bg4 White has the advantage,
A.Khalifman-J.Polgar, FIDE World
Championship, Las Vegas 1999. The defect
in Black’s kingside pawns is more important
than the weakness of White’s dark squares.
Instead, Black might try 18 ... Ke7!?.
65
In the game L.Van Wely-A.Rustemov,
Polanica Zdroj 1999, White played
inaccurately and 19 Kh1 was met by 19 ... e5
with good counterplay for Black. However,
White has a number of more promising
options:
a) 19 Rfd1 (with the threat of 20 Nf5!
exf5 21 Rd5) and now Khalifman and Nesis
give 19 ... Bc6!? 20 e5! fxe5 (20 ... Qxe5?
loses to 21 Qa3+ Ke8 22 f4 Qc7 23 Nxe6 and
Black cannot recapture with 23 ... fxe6 due to
24 Bh5+) 21 Nxc6+ bxc6? 22 Qg3 with a lost
position for Black owing to the dangerous
position of his king, the bad position of the
knight and that all White’s pieces are active;
nevertheless, after instead 21 ... Rxc6 Black
is okay.
b) The idea to play 19 Rbd1 with the
same threat of 20 Nf5+ makes some sense as
19 ... Bc6 loses its strength due to 20 Rfe1.
Nevertheless, after 19 ... Nxc4 White has
only compensation for the sacrificed pawn,
as after 20 Nb3 Qc7 21 Rc1 b5 22 Rfd1 Rhd8
23 Qb4+ Ke8.
c) An interesting idea is to position the
king’s rook on e1 with 19 Rfe1 Rhd8 20 Bf1;
for example, 20 ... Be8 21 Nf3 Bc6 22 Re3
followed by Nf3-e1-d3.
18 Bxc4 Qxc4 19 Rfd1
19 ... Qc3
19 ... Qc5 does not give Black equality:
20 Qf3 b5 (or 20 ... Ke7 21 Rxb7 Rhd8 with a
small edge for White – Ribli) 21 Qxf6 Rg8
22 Nf3 Qe7 23 Qd4 (both 23 Qf4 and 23 Qh6
look even better) 23 ... f6 (but not 23 ...
Rc4??, as in N.Ribshtein-A.Volzhin,
Budapest 2000, due to 24 Qxc4 bxc4 25
Rb8+ and White wins, as shown by Ribli) 24
e5 and White has the upper hand.
20 Qd6
Besides this move White has a large
range of continuations: 20 Qxc3 (otherwise,
20 Nb3 Rg8 21 g3 Qe5 22 Qb4 with the
better game for White, or 20 Rb3 Qc7 21
Rbd3 with the better chances for White) 20 ...
Rxc3 21 Rxb7 Bc8 22 Ra7 (22 Rb2!?) 22 ...
0-0 23 Ne2 (23 Nb3 Kg7 24 f3 e5 25 Kf2 f5
26 exf5 Bxf5 27 Rxa6 Be6 gives Black
compensation for the pawn,
S.Fateev-T.Klapiszewski, correspondence
2002) 23 ... Rc2 with an equal ending; for
example, 24 Nf4 Kg7 (or 24 ... Rxa2 25 Nh5
Ra5 26 g4 f5) 25 h3 (if 25 h4 Rxa2 26 Rd6
Ra1+! 27 Kh2 Ra2) 25 ... Rxa2 26 Rd6 Kh6
27 Rc6 Kg5 28 g3 e5 29 Nd5 Be6 30 Raxa6
½-½ V.Eingorn-L.Yudasin, USSR
Championship, Moscow 1988.
20 ... Qc7 21 Qb4 Rg8 22 Qd2
22 Qxb7 does not give White much
chances of obtaining any advantage, as
shown by 22 ... Ba4 (Ribli’s 22 ... Qxb7 23
Rxb7 is a small advantage for White) 23
Qxc7 Rxc7 24 Rd2 Ke7 25 f3 Rd8 26 Rb4
Bb5.
22 ... Rg5
This closes the c1-h6 diagonal, making
impossible any Qh6 sortie, and prepares the
move ... Rc5.
23 h3?!
Better was 23 Rbc1 Rc5 24 Rxc5 Qxc5
25 Nf5 with equal chances.
23 ... Ba4
Black is gradually taking over the
initiative.
24 Rdc1 Rc5 25 Ne2
25 Rxc5 Qxc5 26 Rxb7 gave more
chances for a draw.
25 ... Rxc1+ 26 Rxc1 Bc6
66
27 Ng3?
An incorrect decision. Although White
protects the e4-pawn and has real chances to
regain the pawn after Qh6, he definitely loses
the initiative. The right path was to centralize
the knight by 27 Nd4!? Qd6 28 Qe3 Bd7 29
Rxc8+ Bxc8, trying to organize resistance a
pawn down.
27 ... Rd8 28 Qh6 Qe5 29 Qxh7 Rd2 30
Qh8+ Ke7
How the position has changed. All of
Black’s pieces are now very active, whereas
White’s are scattered.
31 Qh6 Qb2 32 Rf1 Bb5 33 e5
A desperate attempt to counterattack.
33 ... Bxf1 34 Qxf6+ Ke8 35 Nxf1 Rd1
36 Qh8+ Kd7 37 Qf6?
The last chance was 37 Qh5!? Qc1!? 38
Qxf7+ Kc6! (but not 38 ... Kc8 39 Kh2! Rxf1
40 Qf8+ Kd7 41 Qd6+ Ke8 42 Qxe6+ Kf8 43
Qf6+ Kg8 44 Qd8+ with perpetual check –
Ribli) 39 Qf3+ Kc5 40 Qe2 Re1 41 Qd3 Qc4
and Black wins.
37 ... Qb5 38 Qxf7+ Kd8 39 Qf8+ Kc7
40 Kh2 Qxf1 41 Qe7+ Rd7 42 Qc5+ Kb8
43 Qf8+ Ka7 44 Qc5+ b6 45 Qc6 Rf7 46 f3
Rg7 0-1
Game 29
D.Svetushkin-S.Marjanovic
Greek League 2004
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12
Qb3 a6 13 Be2 Nc6 14 0-0 Qc7 15 Qa3 Rc8
16 Rfd1
16 ... h5
Other moves do not give Black equality:
a) 16 ... Nxd4 17 cxd4 Qc3 18 Qd6 Ba4
19 Re1 Rd8 20 Qb6 Qxd4 21 Qxb7 0-0 22
Bf1 Rb8 23 Qxa6 with the better chances for
White.
b) 16 ... Rg8 17 Rab1 (or 17 g3!? with a
small advantage for White) 17 ... Rg5 18 Qb2
Nxd4 19 cxd4 Qc2 20 Bd3 Qxb2 21 Rxb2
Bc6 (Mi.Berg-D.Morawietz, Porz 1990) 22
d5 exd5 23 f4 Rg7 24 exd5 Bxd5 25 Bb5+
Bc6 26 Bxc6+ Rxc6 27 Rxb7 with slightly
the better ending for White.
c) 16 ... Na5?! 17 c4 (interesting is 17
Qc1 h5 18 Qe3 with good chances for White)
17 ... Qc5 18 Qg3! (I.Khenkin-V.Akopian,
Minsk 1990) and now Black should have
played 18 ... Ke7 19 Nf3 Ba4 20 Re1 Nc6 21
Rab1 b6 22 Rb2 Rhd8 or 18 ... Qg5 19 Qc3
Rg8 20 g3 Qe5 21 Rab1 h5, with the better
chances for White in both cases.
d) 16 ... Ne5 17 c4 (or 17 Rab1, as in
J.Heindrich-P.Acs, Budapest 1999, and after
17 ... Qxc3 18 Qxc3 Rxc3 19 Rxb7 0-0 20 f3
Ba4 21 Rd2 White has the better ending) 17 ...
Qc5 18 Qb3 (superior moves were
recommended by Tregubov, namely 18 Qg3
Ba4 19 Nb3 or 18 Qh3 with slightly the
better chances for White) 18 ... Ke7 19 Rab1
Nc6 20 Nf3 Rc7 21 Qb2
(P.Tregubov-P.Hracek, Selfoss 2002) 21 ...
Rd8 and Black has chances to equalize.
17 Rd2 Ne5
67
17 ... Nxd4!? 18 cxd4 Qc3 19 Qxc3 Rxc3
leads to slightly the better ending for White
due to his superior pawn structure on the
kingside, as after 20 Rb2 Bc6 21 d5 exd5 22
exd5 Bxd5 23 Rd1 Bc6 24 Bxa6 0-0 25 Be2.
18 Rad1 Qxc3??
A terrible blunder, but even after 18 ...
Qc5 19 Qb3 White has the upper hand.
19 Qd6??
White could have easily won after 19
Nb3! and Black has no defence against the
threats of 20 Rc1 and 20 Rxd7 Nxd7 21 Rc1.
19 ... Rg8??
After 19 ... Qc7 20 Qb4 h4 the fight
would have started once again from the
beginning.
20 Rc2 Qa5 21 Rxc8+ Bxc8 22 Nb3 1-0
Game 30
J.Piket-V.Topalov
FIDE World Championship, Groningen
1997
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 c4 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12
Qb3 a6 13 Be2 Nc6 14 0-0 Qc7 15 Qa3 Rc8
16 Rad1 Na5 17 Qc1 Ke7 18 Qh6
18 ... Bc6
Obviously 18 ... Qxc3?? would be a
serious blunder due to 19 e5! fxe5 20 Nf5+
exf5 21 Qd6+ Ke8 22 Qxd7+ Kf8 23 Bh5
Qc7 24 Qxf5 and White wins.
No good either is 18 ... e5 19 Nc2 Be6 20
Ne3 Rcd8 (worse is 20 ... Qxc3 21 Bg4 Rcg8
22 Rc1 Qd4 23 Bxe6 fxe6 24 Rc7+ and
White wins) 21 c4 with the idea of Nd5 with
a strategically won position for White.
19 Nxe6!
White hits the most important square in
Black’s position.
19 ... Qe5
Best, as 19 ... fxe6? 20 Qg7+ Ke8 21
Bh5+ leads to mate, and after 19 ... Kxe6 20
e5 Qxe5 21 Bg4+ Ke7 22 Rfe1 Be4 (Ribli)
23 Rd7+ Ke8 24 f4 Qc5+ 25 Rd4 White wins
easily.
20 Nd4
20 Ng7 was even better.
20 ... Rcg8
Or if 20 ... Bxe4 21 Bf3 with a winning
position for White.
21 f4
All the remaining variations below are
based on those of Ribli’s. Our assessments
are identical with the Hungarian Vienna
expert’s – White wins in all lines.
21 ... Qc5
21 ... Qxe4 22 Bf3 Rxg2+ 23 Kh1 is but a
dead end.
22 Kh1 Rg6 23 Qh3 Bxe4
68
Or if 23 ... Bd7 24 Qxd7+ Kxd7 25 Nb3+
Kc6 26 Nxc5 Kxc5 27 Rd5+ Kb6 28 Rb1+.
24 Bf3 Bxf3 25 Rxf3 Qc7?
Losing quickly, but not that much better
were 25 ... Nc4 26 Re3+! Nxe3 27 Qxe3+
Kf8 28 Ne6+ or 25 ... Re8 26 f5 Rg7 27 Qh6.
26 Nf5+ Kf8 27 Rfd3 Nc6 28 Rd7 1-0
Conclusion
After 10 ... Bd7 White should take on f6
immediately, as after 11 Bxf6 gxf6 the main
line 12 Qb3 can cause Black serious
problems. The continuations 12 ... Bxb5,
12 ... 0-0, and 12 ... a6 do not give Black
equality. However, 12 ... Ke7!? may give
Black good chances to equalize, so this
continuation deserves further attention.
White too has an interesting alternative: he
can try 12 Bxd7 Nxd7 13 0-0. Even after the
best defence 13 ... a6, he can count on an
advantage after 14 Rb1 Qc7 15 Qd2!? or 15
Qh5. Therefore at the time of writing, rather
than 10 ... Bd7, it is better for Black to
choose 10 ... Nbd7, as discussed in the
previous two chapters.
Chapter Four
The Main Line: 10 Bxf6
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4
Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 Qa5
In this chapter we diverge from the main
line (10 Bb5+) and look at variations after
White takes the f6-knight at once:
10 Bxf6
Undoubtedly, this idea solves the
problem of the g5-bishop being attacked and,
at the same time, weakens Black’s pawn
structure on the kingside. In response Black
must take the c3-pawn, as 10 ... gxf6 would
give White all advantages he can dream of
without any material investments: active
pieces, lead in development, safe king,
whereas Black’s king will be secure
nowhere.
10 ... Qxc3+ 11 Kf1
After 11 Qd2 Qxd2+ 12 Kxd2 gxf6, an
ending appears which should end in a draw.
Therefore, if White has greater ambitions, he
must accept the loss of castling rights as well.
11 ... gxf6
Capturing the other bishop with 11 ...
Qxc4+?! is definitely wrong and usually
ends badly for Black, as we saw in Game 6 in
the Introduction.
12 Rc1
69
White has sufficient compensation for
the sacrificed pawn, albeit no more than that.
12 ... Qa5
12 ... Qb4 is less accurate.
13 h4
The most sensible continuation for White,
who wants to activate the h1-rook. The
alternative is 13 Bb5+ Ke7 14 e5 fxe5 15
Qh5, which leads to a draw.
13 ... Ke7!
It might seem that the move order makes
little difference, but the immediate 13 ... Nc6
14 Nxc6 bxc6 can be met by 15 Qd6 and
Black has problems. In fact any attempts to
develop the queenside just yet lead to better
play for White. Therefore Black should
protect the d6-square with the king.
14 Rh3
The consistent continuation.
14 ... Nc6
Black finally starts to do something with
his queenside. Throwing in 14 ... Rd8? leads
to disaster after the fantastic sacrifice 15
Nf5+!!.
15 Nxc6+
This time 15 Nf5+? unfortunately gives
White nothing, because the c6-knight can get
involved in the defence; i.e. 15 ... exf5 16
Qh5 Ne5 etc.
 15 ... bxc6 16 Rd3
White can choose from a number of
continuations here, though none of them
gives him any serious chances of obtaining
an advantage.
16 ... Rb8
The immediate 16 ... Rd8 is equally
good.
17 Kg1 Rd8 18 Rxd8 Qxd8 19 Qh5
Qd4 20 Bb3
We have reached a complicated ending
with mutual chances.
Theory
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bxf6
In the past this move used to be regarded
as the main line of the variation. White
solves his problems in the possibly simplest
way, at the cost of allowing the c3-pawn to
fall with check and losing castling rights.
Obviously, White must have something up
his sleeve.
10 ... Qxc3+
Black sometimes ignores the c3-pawn
and just plays 10 ... gxf6 at once. However,
this continuation is rather inconsequent and
it cannot be recommended because it allows
White all his advantages while maintaining
equal material: 11 0-0 (11 Bb5+ Bd7
transposes to the previous chapter; 11 Qf3
looks interesting too with a difficult position
for Black after 11 ... Ke7 12 0-0,
70
L.Livaic-J.Plenca, Osijek 2012, and also
11 ... Nd7 12 0-0, or 11 ... 0-0 12 Rd1)
Black has tried a large selection of
continuations here, none of which leads to a
good game for him:
a) 11 ... Qxc3? 12 Rc1 Qa5 13 Bb5+!
Ke7 14 e5 is winning for White; e.g. 14 ...
fxe5 15 Qh5 Nd7 16 Qg5+ Kf8 17 Rxc8+
Rxc8 18 Bxd7.
b) 11 ... Bd7 12 Rb1 Qc5 13 Qe2 b6 14
Rfd1 Nc6 15 Nb3 Qe7 16 f4 and White has a
strategically winning position,
F.Süess-P.Haller, correspondence 2008.
c) 11 ... Nc6 (A.Moiseenko-A.Naiditsch,
French League 2011) 12 Nxc6!? bxc6 13
Qd6 Bd7 14 Rfd1 Rd8 15 Rab1 and White is
winning.
d) 11 ... a6 12 Rb1 0-0 13 f4 Kh8 14 Rf3
Rg8 (Dao Thien Hai-E.Ghaem Maghami,
Beijing rapid 2008) and now 15 Qe2 leads to
an advantage for White.
e) 11 ... Nd7 12 Kh1 Nb6
(A.Kotov-M.Yudovich, USSR
Championship, Leningrad 1939) 13 Bb5+!
Bd7 14 Qh5 Bxb5 15 Nxb5 0-0 16 f4 Kh8 17
Rf3 Rg8 18 e5 Qxb5 19 Rh3 Rg7 20 exf6
Qxh5 21 fxg7+ Kxg7 22 Rxh5 and White
wins.
f) 11 ... 0-0 12 Re1 Kh8 (Bu
Xiangzhi-A.Ghaem Maghami, Beijing rapid
2008) and now 13 Nb5 Nc6 14 Qf3 Qd8 15
Rad1 Qe7 16 Re3 Rg8 17 Nd6 Ne5 18 Qh5
gives White a clear advantage.
11 Kf1
 Obviously not 11 Ke2?? Qxc4+ 12 Kf3
Qc3+ 13 Kg4 (or 13 Ke2 b6) 13 ... e5+ and
Black wins, C.Daly-A.Stummer, Budapest
1994.
The only alternative is to block with the
queen: 11 Qd2 Qxd2+ (taking the rooks with
11 ... Qxa1+?? 12 Ke2 Qxh1 gives White a
mating attack after 13 Nxe6, H.Müller-NN,
correspondence 1934; while 11 ... Qxc4?? 12
Rc1 leads to big material losses) 12 Kxd2
gxf6
For the sacrificed pawn White has
obtained a clear advantage in development;
in most lines his initiative should lead to
regaining the material and an even ending:
13 Bb5+ (not 13 Nb5?! Kd8 14 Ke3 a6 15
Rhd1+ Ke7 16 Nd4 Bd7 17 Be2 Rc8 18
Rab1 Rc7 19 Rb6 Nc6 and White no longer
has full compensation, J.C.Garcia-I.Morovic
Fernandez, Mesa 1992; but both 13 Rhc1
Ke7 14 a4 Rd8 15 Ke3 Bd7 16 Rab1 b6,
M.Neubauer-Z.Gyimesi, Beijing blitz 2008,
and now 17 Bb5; or 13 Rab1 Nd7 14 Ke3
Rg8 15 g3, K.Movsziszian-A.Aleksandrov,
Yerevan 1988, and now 15 ... Ke7 16 Rhc1
Nb6 keep the game in the balance) 13 ... Bd7
(Black has a few good continuations to
choose from: 13 ... Ke7 14 Rhc1 e5 15 Ne2
a6 16 Ba4 Rd8+ 17 Ke3 b5 18 Bb3 Ra7 with
a good ending for Black; or 13 ... Kd8 14
Rhc1 a6 15 Bd3 Bd7 16 Nb3 Nc6 17 Nc5
Kc7 18 Rab1 Bc8 and White has no more
than compensation for the pawn; but 13 ...
Kf8?!, K.Lahno-A.Kosteniuk, Moscow blitz
2010, is inaccurate, since Black has
71
problems developing the queenside – see
Game 31) 14 Rab1 0-0 15 Ke3 Bxb5 16
Nxb5 Na6 (after 16 ... Nc6 17 Nd6 b6 18
Rhc1 Nb8 19 Rc7 Na6 20 Re7 White has a
very strong initiative for the pawn) 17 Rhc1
b6 18 Nc7 Nxc7 19 Rxc7 Rfc8 20 Rbc1 Rxc7
21 Rxc7 and White should draw the rook
endgame.
11 ... gxf6
Taking the other bishop with check(!)
leaves Black with difficult problems to solve:
11 ... Qxc4+?! 12 Kg1
a) Obviously not 12 ... gxf6?? 13 Rc1
followed by Rxc8 and wins.
b) 12 ... 0-0? is also a mistake due to 13
Qg4! g6 14 e5! Nc6? (or 14 ... Re8 15 Qf4
Qb4 16 h4 Qf8 17 h5 1-0
A.Sodomski-B.Thew, correspondence 2012)
15 Nxc6! (or just 15 Nf5 – Alekhine) 15 ...
Qxc6 16 Qf4 Qc3 17 Rf1 and Black has no
defence against 18 Qh6 with mate on g7
unless he gives up his queen for the e5-pawn.
c) 12 ... Nd7?! 13 Bxg7 (or 13 Rc1 first)
13 ... Rg8 14 Rc1 Qa6 (14 ... Qxa2?! 15 Nb5
is already winning for White,
Fernandez-A.Macias, correspondence 1993)
15 Bh6! Nf6 (15 ... e5? only weakens the
squares around Black’s king and after 16 Nf5
Qg6, as in C.Maderna-M.Euwe, Mar del
Plata 1947, the simple 17 g3 Nb6 18 Nd6+
Ke7 19 Rc7+ Bd7 20 Be3 gives White a
decisive attack; 15 ... Ne5? is equally bad due
to 16 Qh5 Qa5 17 Bf4 Nc4 18 Qxh7 and wins,
C.Maderna-L.Szabo, Mar del Plata 1948;
perhaps Black should play 15 ... Nf8,
although White has the upper hand after both
16 Qh5 and 16 Bxf8 Kxf8 17 Qh5) 16 e5
Nd5 (or if 16 ... Rg6, Z.Caputto-S.Letic,
correspondence 1962, then 17 Qd2 Nd5 18
h4 Qa4 19 Rh3 Bd7 20 Bg5 with a
strategically won position for White) 17 h4
Bd7 18 Qc2 Rg6 19 h5 Rg4 (or 19 ... Rxh6
20 Qd2) 20 Qxh7 and White won quickly,
G.Stahlberg-J.Sefc, Trencianske Teplice
1949.
d) 12 ... Bd7!? was condemned by
Alekhine but may be the best move in this
position: 13 Rc1 Qb4 (only here – the queen
must cover the e7-square to defuse the Nxe6
sacrifice; i.e. not 13 ... Qa6? 14 Nxe6! fxe6
15 Rc8+! Kf7 16 Rxh8 gxf6 17 Qh5+ and
mates, A.Alekhine & 13 h4
H.Frank-E.Bogoljubow & Pfaffenroth,
Exhibition game, Warsaw 1941, which was
Game 6 in the Introduction) 14 Nxe6 (or 14
Bxg7 Rg8 15 Bf6 Rg6 16 a3 Qd6 17 e5 Qd5
18 f3 Nc6) 14 ... fxe6 15 Bxg7 (not now 15
Rc8+?? Bxc8 16 Qd8+ Kf7 and Black wins)
15 ... Rf8 16 Bxf8 Qxf8 17 Rc7 b6 18 h4 Kd8
19 Rc4 Na6 20 Rh3 Nc5 21 Qh5 with slightly
the better chances for White in a very
complex position.
12 Rc1
12 Bb5+ Ke7 13 Rc1 Qa5 transposes to
the 13 Bb5+ line below, though Black might
also consider 13 ... Qb4!? here.
12 ... Qa5
12 ... Qb4?! cannot be recommended due
to 13 Bxe6 (13 Nb5 is also good; e.g. 13 ...
Na6 14 a3 Qc5 15 Nd6+ Ke7 16 Nxf7 Rf8 17
72
Bxa6 Qb6 18 Bc4 Rxf7 19 h4 with a clear
advantage for White) 13 ... Nc6 (after 13 ...
Bxe6 14 Nxe6 Na6 15 Ng7+ Kf8 16 Nf5
White wins, R.Akesson-A.Travkina,
Pardubice rapid 2014) 14 Nxc6 bxc6 15
Bxc8 (or 15 Qb3 Qxb3 16 Bxb3 Bd7 17 Ke2
and White has a big advantage in the ending)
15 ... Rxc8 16 h4 Rd8 (weaker is 16 ... 0-0 17
Qg4+ Kh8 18 Rh3 c5 19 Rhc3 with a clear
advantage for White, Z.Ribli-A.Beliavsky,
World Cup, Barcelona 1989; while 16 ...
Qxe4? loses to 17 Qd6 – Ribli) 17 Qc2 0-0
18 Rh3 Rfe8 19 Rg3+ Kf8 20 Re3 Re6 21 a3
Qd4 22 Qc5+ with better chances for White
due to split Black’s pawn structure.
A standard continuation after Kf1. White
wants to develop his king’s rook via h3.
White can also play 13 Nb5, 13 g3 or 13
Bb5+.
Let us start with the knight jump 13
Nb5?! (threatening 14 Qd6) 13 ... a6! (now
Black loses his right to castle, but he often
places the king on e7 anyway in this
variation) 14 Nd6+ Ke7 and White does not
have sufficient compensation for the pawn;
for example, 15 Be2 (if 15 h4
E.Bacrot-V.Ivanchuk, Bejing blitz 2014,
then 15 ... Qe5!? 16 Nxc8+ Rxc8 17 Rh3 b5
18 Be2 Nd7 19 Re3 Rxc1 20 Qxc1 Nc5 with
a winning position for Black; or 15 Bb3 Bd7
16 g3, J.Deidun-D.Kent, correspondence
1997, and now 16 ... Rd8 17 Nc4 Bb5 18 Qe2
Bxc4 19 Rxc4 Nc6 leaves Black with the
upper hand) 15 ... Nc6 16 Nc4 Qc5,
S.Gligoric-V.Tukmakov, New York Open
1988, and even after 17 Ne3 Qb4 Black has
the better chances.
The quiet 13 g3 is a much better idea.
White wants to develop his h1-rook in
another way, by clearing the g2-square for
his king.

a) 13 ... Ke7 14 Kg2 will be discussed in
Game 32. Instead, 14 Nb5 Rd8 15 Qh5 Nd7
16 Bxe6!? leads to a draw after 16 ... Ne5! 17
Rc7+ Bd7 18 Rxd7+ Rxd7 19 Bxd7 ½-½
U.Baumgartner-A.Loginov, correspondence
2011.
b) 13 ... 0-0 14 Kg2 Rd8 (or 14 ... Bd7 15
Qf3 Qe5 16 Rhd1 Nc6 17 Nf5 exf5 18 Rxd7
Qxe4 with an equal ending,
D.Zeghachov-P.Postupa, correspondence
2015) 15 Bd5 (15 Re1 Nc6 16 Nxc6 bxc6 17
Qe2 Rb8 leads to equality) 15 ... Qb6! (the
only move; the queen needs to defend the
e6-square, e.g. 15 ... Nd7?! 16 Bxe6 Ne5 17
Bxc8 Raxc8 18 Rxc8 Rxc8,
V.Kramnik-A.Morozevich, World Blitz
Championship, Moscow 2009, 19 Qb3 and
Black has problems due to his weakened
kingside pawn structure) 16 Qg4+ Kh8 17
Nf3 Bd7 (or 17 ... Rg8 18 Qh3 Bd7 19 Bb3
Bc6 20 Rhd1 Na6 21 Qh4 Rg6) 18 Bb3 Bc6
19 Rhd1 Nd7 20 Qf4 Kg7 with an even
position.
c) 13 ... Bd7 14 Kg2 Nc6 (14 ... 0-0 is line
‘a’) 15 Nb5 (Ma.Carlsen-A.Morozevich,
Biel 2011, saw 15 Bb5!? Rd8 16 Bxc6 Bxc6
17 Nxc6 bxc6 18 Qf3 Qe5 19 Rxc6 0-0 and
although White’s position is minimally
better, it is difficult to make any progress)
15 ... Ne5 16 Qd6 (16 Nd6+ Ke7 17 Nxb7
Qb6 18 Qb3 Qxb3 19 Bxb3 Rac8 gives
White nothing) 16 ... Bxb5 17 Bxb5+ Qxb5
18 Rc7 Ng6 19 Rd1 h5 20 a4 Qxa4 21 Rd7
looks dangerous; fortunately, Black has a
drawing trick: 21 ... Nf4+! 22 Kg1 (or 22
73
Qxf4 Qxd7) 22 ... Nh3+ 23 Kg2 Nf4+ 24
gxf4 Qxe4+ 25 Kf1 Qh1+ 26 Ke2 Qe4+ etc,
A.Shimanov-I.Khairullin, European
Championship, Legnica 2013.
The most interesting of the alternatives is
13 Bb5+ Ke7 (obviously, 13 ... Nd7? 14
Rxc8+ Rxc8 15 Bxd7+ Ke7 16 Bxc8 Rxc8,
A.Dushinok-M.Lupik, St. Petersburg 2006,
is not good since simply 17 Ke2 Qxa2+ 18
Qd2 Qxd2+ 19 Kxd2 Rc4 20 Kd3 leaves
White with a winning ending; and 13 ... Bd7??
14 Rc8+ is even worse)
The position resembles the main line.
White attacked the black queen with his
a1-rook instead of playing h2-h4 and Rh3.
However, this idea doesn’t cause any
troubles for Black.
The most active (and common)
continuation here is 14 e5 fxe5 15 Qh5,
which leads a forced draw. A thorough
analysis of this position is presented in Game
33.
Other moves:
a) 14 g3!? Rd8 15 Kg2 Na6 16 a4 Kf8
(16 ... e5? 17 Rxc8 is good for White) 17 Qf3
Rxd4 18 Qxf6 Qd8 19 Qh8+ Ke7 20 Qxh7
and a draw was agreed in
A.Rimsans-T.Gnilka, correspondence 2016,
in view of 20 ... e5 21 Qh4+ Kf8 22 Qh8+
etc.
b) 14 Qb3 Rd8 15 a4 (L.Van
Wely-V.Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zee blitz 1999)
15 ... Na6 16 Rc4 Qb6 17 Qa3+ Qd6 18
Qxd6+ Rxd6 19 Ke2 leaves White with
sufficient compensation for the pawn but no
more than that.
c) 14 Qc2 Na6!? (Ribli’s suggested
improvement on 14 ... Qb6,
R.Vaganian-V.Akopian, FIDE World
Championship, Groningen 1997, when 15
Qa4! Bd7 16 g3 Rd8 17 Kg2 Bxb5 18 Nxb5
Na6 19 e5 fxe5 20 Qh4+ Kf8 21 a4 Nc5 or 19
Rc2 Rd3 20 e5 Qd8 21 Re1 Kf8 22 Qe4 f5 23
Qxb7 Qd5+ 24 Qxd5 Rxd5 reaches a level
position) 15 Qd3?! (but other moves do not
equalize either; e.g. 15 Qc4 Bd7 16 Bxd7
Kxd7 with better chances for Black, whose
exposed king position cannot be exploited;
or 15 Qe2 Qb6 and after the d4-knight
withdraws, Black can play 16 ... e5 with a
slight advantage; or 15 a4 Rd8 16 Nb3 Qb6
17 g3 Bd7 and White does not have full
compensation for the pawn; while 15 h4?!
Rd8 16 Bxa6 can be met by 16 ... Rxd4! 17
Be2 Bd7 and Black is a pawn up with a better
position) 15 ... Rd8 16 Bxa6 e5 17 Nb3 (17
Qb5? loses to 17 ... Qa3!) 17 ... Rxd3 18
Nxa5 bxa6 19 Nc6+ Kf8 20 Ke2 Ra3 21 Rc2
Be6 and Black has a clear advantage in the
ending.
13 ... Ke7
Black does not have to play this
immediately, but it’s probably best to do so:
a) 13 ... Nc6 14 Nxc6 bxc6 15 Qd6 (this
dangerous-looking move deprives Black of
the right to castle and attacks the c6-pawn,
but Black has enough means to defend;
instead, 15 Rh3 should be met by 15 ... Ke7,
rather than 15 ... Ba6?! 16 Qd6 Bxc4+ 17
74
Rxc4 Rc8 18 Ra3 Qc7 19 Qc5 Qb6 20 Rxa7
Qxc5 21 Rxc5 and White has the better
endgame, Y.Dokhoian-B.Gelfand, Vilnius
1988) 15 ... Bb7 (the ending after 15 ... Bd7
16 Rd1 Rd8 17 Rh3 Qe5 18 Qxe5 fxe5 19
Ra3 Ra8 20 Rad3 Rd8 21 Rb3 Rg8 22 Be2 is
good for White) 16 Rh3 Rd8 17 Qa3
(O.Bewersdorff-S.Galdunts, German League
1999, ended swiftly with 17 Qf4 Ke7 18 Rf3
Qe5 19 Qxe5 ½-½) 17 ... Qxa3 18 Rxa3
(White regains the pawn and has a more
pleasant endgame in all lines, but it is very
difficult to win) 18 ... a6 19 Rb1 Rd7 20
Bxa6 Bxa6+ 21 Rxa6 0-0 22 Ke2 c5 23 Rb2
c4 24 Rc6 Rd4 and White tried to win for
another 40 moves without success,
L.Neagu-T.Aninis, correspondence 2010.
b) 13 ... Bd7 (preparing ... Nc6, but it
doesn’t work because the d4-knight can
jump to b5 threatening both ... Nd6 and ...
Qd6) 14 Rh3 Nc6 (or if 14 ... Na6,
M.Drasko-S.Conquest, Moscow 1988, then
15 Rb3 gives White a big advantage,
according to Drasko; e.g. 15 ... Rd8 16 Rxb7
Nc5 17 Nb3 Nxb3 18 Qxb3 0-0 19 Qg3+
Kh8 20 Be2 Bc8 21 Rbc7) 15 Nb5 Ne5 (the
immediate 15 ... Rg8? loses to 16 Ra3 Qd8
17 Qh5 Qe7 18 Rb3 0-0-0 19 Nxa7+ Nxa7
20 Ba6+ Bc6 21 Rxb7) 16 Nd6+ and White
is clearly better; for example, 16 ... Kf8 (or
16 ... Ke7 17 Nxb7 Qb6,
A.Dreev-Cs.Horvath, European Junior
Championships, Arnhem 1988, and now 18
Rb1 Qc6 19 Be2) 17 Nxb7 Qb6 (or 17 ... Qc7
18 Bxe6 Qxb7 19 Qd6+ Ke8 20 Bxd7+ Qxd7
21 Qxf6 Qb5+ 22 Kg1 Rf8 23 Qf5 Qb8 24
Rc5) 18 Rb3 Ba4 19 Rxb6 Bxd1 20 Ra6 Rc8
21 Nd6 Rc7 22 f3.
c) 13 ... Nd7 (aiming to bring the knight
to e5) 14 Qg4!? can also be reached via 13
Qg4 Nd7 14 h4, when 14 ... Qe5 (here 14 ...
Ne5 15 Qg7 Rf8 16 Be2 Ke7 17 g4 Qd2 18
Rd1 Qf4 19 g5 Bd7 20 Qh6 gave White good
play for the pawn in A.Jankovic-K.Kulaots,
Rome 2011; note that 20 ... fxg5? loses to 21
Nf5! exf5 22 Qd6+ Ke8 23 Rd5 f6 24 Bh5+
Rf7 25 Qxf6 etc) 15 Rd1 Nc5 16 Qg7 Rf8 17
Nf3 Qc7 18 Qxf6 Bd7 19 Re1 Bc6 20 Ng5
Nd7 21 Qg7 Qe5 22 Qxh7 0-0-0 23 Nxf7 Qf6
24 Bxe6 Rde8 25 Bc4 Ne5 26 Qf5+ Qxf5 27
Nd6+ Kd7 28 Nxf5 Nxc4 29 f3 led to a draw
in M.Schaub-P.LeBled, correspondence
2017.
However, the best continuation via this
move order is 14 Be2! Ne5 (or 14 ... 0-0 15
Rh3 Rd8 16 Nb3 Qe5 17 Kg1 b6 18 Rg3+
Kh8 19 Bb5) 15 Nb5 0-0 16 Rh3 Rd8 17
Rg3+ Kh8 18 Qb3 with an advantage for
White in both cases.
14 Rh3
The logical move, developing the last
inactive piece. White has also tried:
a) 14 Nb3 Qe5, when 15 Rh3 (15 Qd2,
I.Naumkin-M.Brancaleoni, Montecatini
Terme 2001, 15 ... Rd8 is better for Black)
15 ... Nc6 (or 15 ... Rd8 16 Rd3) 16 Qe1 b6
17 Rhc3 Bb7 18 Qe3 keeps some
compensation for the pawn.
b) 14 Nb5 Rd8 15 Qh5 Nd7 16 Bxe6 Ne5
(obviously not 16 ... fxe6?? 17 Qxh7+ Kf8 18
Qh6+ with a mating attack) 17 Rc7+ Bd7 18
Bxd7 Rxd7 19 Rxd7+ Kxd7 and at the cost
of the extra pawn Black took control over the
game in V.Georgiev-P.Wells, Regensburg
1997.
c) 14 Qg4 Rd8 (14 ... Nc6!? might
improve) 15 e5 Qxe5 16 Nxe6! Bxe6? (and
here Black should prefer 16 ... Rd6! 17 Rh3
fxe6, although White looks to have sufficient
75
compensation for the piece; e.g. 18 Re3 Qb2
19 Qg7+ Kd8 20 Rec3 e5 21 Be6 Nc6 22
Qxf6+ Kc7 23 Qg7+ Bd7 24 Qxe5 Qd2 25
Bxd7 Kxd7 26 Qg7+ Kc8 27 Qh8+ Rd8 28
Qxh7) 17 Bxe6 Rd4 (after 17 ... fxe6 18
Qg7+ Ke8 19 Qg8+ Ke7 20 Qxh7+ Ke8 21
Rh3 Nd7 22 Rg3 Nf8 23 Rg8 Rd7 24 Rxf8+
Kxf8 25 Qxd7, White regains the sacrificed
material with a clear advantage) 18 Qf3 Nc6
19 Re1 and White stands clearly better,
F.Vallejo Pons-N.Sedlak, European Junior
Championships, Aviles 2000.
14 ... Nc6
Here 14 ... Rd8, pinning the d4-knight,
looks very pleasant for Black but ... 15
Nf5+!!
15 ... exf5 (Black must accept the
sacrifice, otherwise White would have an
attack for free) 16 Qh5 Rf8 17 exf5 Nc6
(after 17 ... Bxf5? White regains the piece
while holding on to the attack: 18 Re3+ Kd8
19 Bd3 Nc6 20 Bxf5 Kc7 21 Re7+ Kb8 22
Qh6 Rd8 23 Qf4+ Ne5 24 Be4 1-0
R.Janssen-A.Lauber, German League 2011)
18 Re3+ (it seems that black king will be
able to shelter on the queenside but White
wins in all variations) 18 ... Kd6 (a better try
is 18 ... Kd8!? 19 Qh6 Qc5 20 Rd3+ Kc7, as
in R.Singer-F.Mesaros, Austrian
Championship, Graz 2017, but after 21 Ba6!
Qe7 22 Qd2 Qe5 23 Rd5 Qh2 24 f4, or 22 ...
Rd8 23 Rxc6+ Kxc6 24 Qc2+ Qc5 25 Rc3, or
22 ... Kb8 23 Rxc6 bxc6 24 Rb3+ Kc7 25
Qa5+ Kd7 26 Bxc8+ Rfxc8 27 Rb7+ etc,
Black remains in serious difficulties) 19 Qg4
Bd7 20 Qf4+ Ne5 21 Qd4+ Kc7 22 Bd5+
Nc6 (or 22 ... Bc6 23 Rxe5 Qb5+ 24 Re2) 23
Qf4+ Kc8 (or 23 ... Kd8 24 Bxc6 bxc6 25
Qd6 Rg8 26 Qxf6+ Kc7 27 Rd3 Rad8 28
Rxd7+ Kxd7 29 Qxf7+ Kc8 30 Qe6+ etc) 24
Qd6 Qb5+ 25 Kg1 Rd8 26 Rb3 Qa4 27 Rd3
h5 28 Bxc6 bxc6 29 Ra3 Qb5 (or 29 ... Qe4
30 f3 Qe8 31 Rb3 Qe5 32 Rxc6+ Bxc6 33
Qxc6+ etc) 30 Rb3 Be8 (or 30 ... Qa4 31
Rcb1) 31 Qe7 Qa6 32 Rcb1 Bd7 33 Qd6 and
White wins.
Preparing the knight sacrifice with 15
Re3! is also very strong; for example, 15 ...
Nd7 16 Nf5+! exf5 17 exf5+ Ne5 18 Qh5
Kd6 19 Bb3 Qa3 20 Rd1+ Kc7 21 Rc3+ Nc6
22 Qxf7+ Rd7 23 Rxd7+ Bxd7 24 Qxd7+
Kxd7 25 Be6+ Kd6 26 Rxa3 and White has a
winning ending for White,
D.Fischer-K.Kmiecik, correspondence 2011.
15 Nxc6+
Now 15 Nf5+? exf5 16 Qh5 would be
met by the simple 16 ... Ne5 17 exf5 Nxc4 18
Rxc4 Be6 19 Re3 Rac8 20 Rce4 Rc1+ 21
Re1 Rxe1+ 22 Rxe1 Kd8 and Black wins.
15 ... bxc6
16 Rd3
The most popular move in this position.
White activates his king’s rook, after which
all his pieces stand well, whereas nearly all
Black’s pieces are on their initial squares.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to find any real
threats and Black is still a pawn up.
White has also tried:
a) 16 Qb3 (ignoring the d-file allows
Black to activate the h8-rook) 16 ... Rd8 17
76
Kg1 Rd4 18 Qe3 (18 Rd3 Rxe4 19 Rdd1 Qe5
leads to a draw; e.g. 20 Qa3+ Ke8 21 Rc3
Rxh4 22 Rg3 c5 23 Rg8+ Ke7 24 Bb5 Rh1+
25 Kxh1 ½-½ A.Dehaybe-E.Janosi,
correspondence 2011) 18 ... Qe5 19 Bd3 Qd6
20 Rf3 e5 (or 20 ... Bd7 21 Qh6 Qe5 22 Rg3
½-½ F.Hernandez Irache-F.Pino Munoz,
correspondence 2011) 21 Bc4 Bg4 22 Rg3
Bh5 23 Rb1 Rd8 24 Rb7+ Rd7 25 Qb3 Qc5
26 Rxd7+ Rxd7 27 Rg8 Rd1+ 28 Kh2 Qxf2
29 Qb7+ Rd7 30 Qxc6 ½-½
M.Mujunen-H.Buczinski, correspondence
2013.
b) 16 Qe2 Rd8 17 Rhc3 Rb8 (White has
allowed Black to control both open files with
good counterplay) 18 Qe3 (if 18 Kg1?!,
G.Prakash-L.Ravi, Indian Championship,
Mumbai 2003, then 18 ... Rb1! 19 Qf3
Rxc1+ 20 Rxc1 Rd4 gives Black the better
chances) 18 ... Rb2 19 Ra3 Qd2 20 Rxa7+
Ke8 21 a4 Qxe3 22 fxe3 Rdd2 23 a5 with a
draw.
c) 16 Rhc3 Rd8 (16 ... Rb8!?) 17 Qf3
Rd4 18 Kg1 (Or 18 Be2 Bd7 19 Qe3 Qe5 20
f3 Rg8 with equal chances) 18 ... Bd7 (18 ...
Qe5!?) 19 Rd3 Rxd3 20 Qxd3 Rd8 ½-½
O.Lalliga-F.Vaillant, correspondence 2015.
d) 16 Kg1 Rd8 17 Bd3 (the pseudo-active
17 Qg4?!, M.Kekelidze-Z.Gyimesi, German
League 1998, is a shot into empty space as
after 17 ... Qe5 White’s queen will have to
withdraw sooner or later; e.g. 18 Ra3 Rd4 19
Bd3 Bd7 20 Qf3 a5 with slightly the better
chances for Black) 17 ... Bd7 (both 17 ... Bb7
18 Re3 Rab8 19 e5 fxe5 20 Qh5 Qa3 21
Qg5+ Kf8 22 Qh6+ and 17 ... Ba6 18 Rxc6
Rd4 19 Qe2 Bxd3 20 Rxd3 Rxd3 21 Qxd3
Qe1+ 22 Kh2 Qxf2 23 Qd6+ Ke8 24 Rc7
Qxh4+ 25 Kg1 Qe1+ lead to a draw by
perpetual check) 18 Rc2 Qe5 19 Qc1 c5 20
Rxc5 Rdc8 21 Rc2 Rxc2 22 Bxc2 Rc8 with
an equal position.
16 ... Rb8
 The alternative is to neutralize White’s
pressure on the d-file at once with 16 ... Rd8
17 Rxd8 Qxd8, and then:
a) 18 Qh5 is well met by 18 ... Qd4!,
when Black’s queen occupies a very active
central square, attacking White’s e4-pawn
and bishop and protecting the e5-square.
This position will be thoroughly discussed in
Game 34.
b) 18 Qb3 leads to a level position; e.g.
18 ... Qc7 (other moves: 18 ... Qd4 19 Qa3+
Ke8 20 Be2 Bd7 21 Bf3 c5 22 e5 Rc8 23
exf6 Qxf6 24 Qxa7 Qxh4 25 Rxc5 Qh1+ 26
Ke2 Rd8 27 Qa5 ½-½ R.Castro
Salguero-C.Paredes, correspondence 2012;
or 18 ... Qa5 19 Kg1 Bd7 20 Qe3 Qb6 21 Qc3
Qc5 22 Rd1 Rd8 23 Qd3 with equal chances,
J.Trs-J.Cornelisse, correspondence 2013; or
18 ... Qb6 19 Qa3+ c5 20 Be2 Qb4 21 Qe3
Qd4 22 Qxd4 cxd4 23 Rc7+ Bd7 24 Bb5 Rd8
25 Rxa7 Kd6 26 Bxd7 Rxd7 27 Rxd7 Kxd7
with a drawn king and pawn ending,
I.Cintins-P.Burri, correspondence 2012) 19
Qa3+ (or 19 Kg1 Bd7 20 Be2 Rb8 21 Qa3+
Ke8 22 g3 Rb7 23 Ba6 Rb6 24 Bf1 Qb7 25
Qe3 Rb2 26 Qh6 Rxa2 27 Bc4 Rb2 28 Qxf6
and the game should end in a draw,
R.Sciarretta-O.Petters Merino,
correspondence 2012) 19 ... Qd6 20 Qe3 Bd7
21 Bb3 a5 22 Rd1 (22 Kg1!?) 22 ... Qe5 23
Ba4 Rd8 24 f4 Qc7 25 Qc5+ Ke8 26 e5 fxe5
27 f5 (or 27 fxe5 Rb8 28 a3 Qb6 29 Qc2 with
compensation for the pawn) 27 ... exf5 28
Rd6 Qb8 29 Bxc6 (or 29 Qxe5+ Be6 30
Rxe6+ fxe6 31 Qxe6+ Kf8 32 Qf6+ Kg8 33
77
Bb3+ Rd5 34 Bxd5+ cxd5 35 Qg5+ Kh8 36
Qxf5 Qd6 with a drawn queen ending) 29 ...
Bxc6 30 Qxe5+ Kf8 31 Qh8+ Ke7 32 Qe5+
½-½ A.Kilichenko-V.Reutov,
correspondence 2013.
c) 18 Qf3 may just transpose to line ‘b’ if
the white queen checks on a3, but there are
some independent lines; for example, 18 ...
Qc7 (18 ... Qa5 followed by ... Ba6 is another
option; e.g. 19 Rb1 Ba6 20 Qe2 Bxc4 21
Qxc4 Rd8) 19 Kg1 Bd7 20 Bb3 Rb8 21 Qh5
Qe5 22 Qxh7 Rb4 23 Re1 c5 24 h5 c4 with
equality, E.Pakhomov-A.Stukopin,
Dagomys 2009.
d) 18 Qa4 (this can again transpose to
line ‘b’ should Qa3+ quickly follow) 18 ...
Qd6 (18 ... Qc7 19 Kg1 Bd7 20 h5 a5 21
Qa3+ Qd6 22 Qe3 c5 23 Be2 Rc8 24 Rd1
was drawn in W.Schima-M.Massimini
Gerbino, correspondence 2003; or if 18 ...
Qb6 19 Bd3 Bd7, Y.Carriere-N.Kagiyama,
correspondence 2001, then 20 Qa3+ Ke8 21
Kg1 Qd4 22 Rc4 keeps sufficient
compensation for the pawn) 19 Rd1 (or 19
Kg1 a5 20 Bf1 Bd7 21 g3 e5 22 Rd1 Qb4 23
Qc2 Rb8 with equal chances,
A.Izhmin-A.Huzman, USSR 1988) 19 ...
Qc5 20 Qb3 (if 20 e5, as in
J.Footner-D.Mohrlok, correspondence 1987,
then 20 ... Rb8! 21 exf6+ Kxf6 22 Bd3 Rb4
23 Qa3 a5 gives Black an excellent position)
20 ... Bd7 21 Kg1 Rd8 22 Qd3 a5 ½-½
I.Stoyanov-P.Roidov, correspondence 2011.
17 Kg1 Rd8
18 Rxd8
 The typical pawn sacrifice 18 e5,
undermining Black’s kingside dark squares,
is also possible, but White can only count on
a draw: 18 ... fxe5 (or 18 ... f5 19 Rxd8 Qxd8
20 Qh5 ½-½ A.Rässler-H.Buczinski,
correspondence 2012) 19 Qh5 Rxd3 20 Bxd3
Rb2 (after 20 ... Qd2 21 Rd1 Qf4 22 g3 Qf6
23 Qe2 Rb4 24 Qc2, White switches the play
advantageously) 21 Qg5+ Kf8 22 Rd1 Rb7
23 Bxh7 ½-½ A.Sodomski-N.Muzyka,
correspondence 2012.
18 ... Qxd8 19 Qh5 Qd4 20 Bb3
A complex position has arisen in which
White has sufficient compensation for the
pawn, but no more than
R.Akesson-K.Landa, Bad Wiessee 2005 (see
Game 35).
Illustrative Games
Game 31
K.Lahno-A.Kosteniuk
Women’s World Blitz Ch., Moscow 2010
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 11 Qd2 Qxd2+
12 Kxd2 gxf6 13 Bb5+ Kf8?!
14 Rac1
14 Rhc1!? was also worth consideration.
14 ... Kg7 15 Rc7
Black has to solve the problem of the
development of her queenside.
15 ... Rd8
The most forcing route was 15 ... Na6 16
Bxa6 bxa6 followed by 17 ... e5 with good
chances to equalize.
16 Ke3 a6?!
Not best, but both 16 ... e5 17 Nf5+ Bxf5
18 exf5 and 16 ... Na6 17 Bxa6 bxa6 18 f4
lead a small advantage for White.
17 Bc4 Kf8?!
Better was 17 ... Re8 18 f4 with less of an
advantage for White.
18 Rc1 Nd7
that,
After 18 ... Re8 19 f4 Black has serious
problems with completing her development;
for example, 19 ... Nd7 20 Bb3 Nb6 21 f5
Re7 22 Rxe7 Kxe7 23 Rc7+ Nd7 24 fxe6
with a clear advantage for White.
19 a4?!
The most principled option was 19 Bxe6!
fxe6 20 Nxe6+ Ke7 21 Nxd8 Kxd8 followed
by the advance of White’s pawns on the
kingside with a clear advantage in the
ending.
19 ... Ne5 20 Be2 Rb8 21 a5 Bd7 22
Rb1 Nc6 23 Nxc6 Bxc6 24 Bh5 Bb5?
This move loses immediately. Instead,
24 ... Be8 25 Rbxb7 Rxb7 26 Rxb7 Rc8 27
Ra7 Rc5 28 Be2 Rxa5 29 Rxa6 would have
led to a drawn ending.
25 Rxf7+ Kg8 26 Rxf6 Rd3+ 27 Kf4
Rd2 28 Ke5?
White could have won easily after 28
Kg3.
28 ... Rc8 29 Bf7+?
We shouldn’t forget that this was the
Women’s World Blitz Championship. With
78
more time, Lahno would surely have realized 16 Nf5+!?
that 29 Rd1 Rc5+ 30 Kf4 Rxf2+ 31 Bf3 An unexpected blow leading to reckless
could still have led to a clear advantage for complications, which should nevertheless
White. result in an equal position. White cannot
29 ... Kg7 30 Bxe6?? count on an advantage either after 16 Nxc6+
White should have sacrificed an bxc6 17 Qb3 Rd4.
exchange: 30 Rxb5 axb5 31 Rf3 and the 16 ... exf5 17 exf5+ Ne5 18 Qh5
ending should result in a draw.
30 ... Re8??
Returning the favour. Black could have
won after 30 ... Rc5+ 31 Bd5 Rcxd5+ 32
exd5 Re2+ 33 Kd6 Kxf6.
31 f4
31 Rb3!? was even better.
31 ... Bc6 32 f5 Re2?! 33 Rb4 Ra2 34
Rf7+ Kh6 35 Kf6 Ra3 36 e5 Ra4 37 Rxa4
Bxa4 38 g4 Bc6 39 g5+ Kh5 40 Rxh7+ Kg4 18 ... Rf8?
41 g6 1-0 The only move is easy to find for the
computer. Black should have played 18 ...
Game 32 Kd6!! 19 Qh6 (an error is 19 Rcd1+? after
A.Rustemov-M.Neubauer which the king hides on b8 with a won
German League 2012 position for Black, as shown by 19 ... Kc7 20
f4 Nxc4 21 Qxf7+ Kb8 22 Qxc4 Bxf5,
1 c4 Nf6 2 d4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4 whereas 19 Red1+ Ke7 20 Re1 Kd6 21
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9 Red1+ leads to a draw) 19 ... Kc7 20 Bxf7+
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 11 Kf1 gxf6 12 (or 20 Qxf6 Nc6 21 Qxf7+ Rd7 22 Qh5 Rd4
Rc1 Qa5 13 g3 Ke7 14 Kg2 Rd8 15 Re1 23 Qxh7+ Bd7 24 f6 Qf5) 20 ... Kb8 21 Qxf6
White can also play 15 Nf5+ exf5 (but Nxf7 (21 ... Nc6!? is possible too) 22 Qxf7
not 15 ... Ke8? 16 Qg4 with a decisive a6, with roughly equal chances in very
advantage for White) 16 Qh5 Rf8?! (the unclear positions in all cases.
simplest way to lead the game towards a 19 f4
draw is 16 ... Be6 17 Bxe6 fxe6 18 Qxh7+ Now White should win.
Ke8 19 Qg6+ Ke7 20 Qg7+ Ke8 and after 21 19 ... b5
Qxf6 Nc6 22 Qxe6+ Ne7 23 Rhe1 f4 the
position is still level) 17 Bxf7 Nc6 (A.Perez
Lopez-M.Aymard, correspondence 2015) 18
Bd5 and in this complicated position White
has at least equal chances.
15 ... Nc6
Or 15 ... Kf8 16 Bb3 Na6 17 Re3 Nb4 18
Rc4 Qb6 19 Qf3 Rxd4 20 Qxf6 Rxc4 21 Rf3
Rc7 22 Qd8+ Kg7 23 Qg5+ Kf8 24 Qd8+
½-½ M.Ortiz-V.Lizorkina, correspondence 20 fxe5??
2012.

79
 The most precise continuation was 20
Be2! Bb7+ 21 Kh3 Rac8 22 fxe5 Rxc1 (if
22 ... fxe5 23 Red1) 23 exf6+ Kd7 24 Rxc1.
20 ... Bb7+
But not 20 ... bxc4? 21 exf6+ Kd6 22
Rcd1+ Kc7 23 Re7+ Kb6 24 Rd6+ Kc5 25
Re5+ Kxd6 26 Rxa5 and Black loses his
queen.
21 Kh3 bxc4 22 Rcd1 Bd5
22 ... fxe5?? leads to mate after 23 f6+!
Kxf6 24 Qh6+ Ke7 25 Qd6+ Ke8 26 Qd7
mate.
23 Qh4 Rad8 24 exf6+ Kd6 25 Qxc4
25 ... Rfe8?
This move loses immediately, but also
after 25 ... Rc8 26 Qf4+ Kc6 27 Re7 Qxa2 28
Qf1 White wins.
26 Qf4+?
After 26 Rxd5+! Qxd5 27 Qa6+ Kc7 28
Qxa7+ Kd6 29 Qa6+ White wins Black’s
queen for his rook in all variations; for
example, 29 ... Kd7 (or 29 ... Kc7 30 Rc1+
Kb8 31 Rb1+ Kc7 32 Rb5) 30 Qa4+ Kd6 (or
30 ... Kc7 31 Rc1+ Kd6 32 Rd1) 31 Rd1.
26 ... Kd7?
After 26 ... Kc6 the position would have
been unclear.
27 Qc4?
White once again could have taken the
bishop: 27 Rxd5+ Qxd5 28 Qa4+ Kc8 29
Rxe8 Qxf5+ 30 Kg2 and he can avoid
perpetual check, as shown by 30 ... Qd5+ 31
Kf2 Qc5+ 32 Kf1 Qf5+ 33 Ke2 Qd3+ 34 Kf2
Qf5+ 35 Ke3 Qg5+ 36 Ke2 Qh5+ 37 Ke1
80
Rxe8+ 38 Qxe8+ Kc7 with a queen ending a
pawn up for White.
27 ... Kd6 28 Qf4+ Kd7?
28 ... Kc6 was necessary.
29 Qc4
Missing 29 Rxd5+! once again.
29 ... Kd6 30 Qf4+ ½-½
Game 33
R.Kempinski-T.Markowski
Polish Championship, Warsaw 2012
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 d5 4 Nf3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 11 Kf1 gxf6 12
Rc1 Qa5 13 Bb5+ Ke7 14 e5 fxe5 15 Qh5
15 ... Nd7
Instead, not 15 ... exd4? 16 Qg5+ f6 17
Qc5+ Kf7 18 Be8+ and White wins,
A.Rychagov-V.Kosyrev, Moscow 2000, but
15 ... f6!? is possible; for example, 16 Bc4
Nc6! (16 ... Qb6 17 Qg4 was preferred in
A.Zude-N.Kosintseva, Moscow 2005, when
even 17 ... exd4 18 Qg7+ Kd6 19 Qxh8 Qb2
20 Qf8+ Kc7 21 Qh6 leads to an advantage
for White) 17 Nf5+ (17 Qg4 leads to a draw;
for instance, 17 ... Nxd4 18 Qg7+ Kd6 19
Qxh8 Qd2 20 Qf8+ Kd7 21 Bb5+ Nxb5 22
Qf7+ Kd6 23 Qf8+ Kd7 24 Qf7+ Kd6 25
Qf8+ Kd7 26 Qf7+) 17 ... Kd8 18 Qf7 Qd2
19 Re1 Bd7 20 Be2 Qd5 21 Rd1 Nd4 22
Nxd4 exd4 23 Qxf6+ Kc7 with equal
chances after both 24 Rxd4 Raf8 25 Qh4
Qxa2 26 Qe7 Rd8 and 24 f3 Raf8 25 Qxd4
Qxd4 26 Rxd4 Bc6 27 Kf2 e5.
 16 Qg5+ Kf8
16 ... Kd6?! is not as good: 17 Be2 a6 18
Nf3 (V.Kosyrev-C.Marcelin, Biel 2004) 18 ...
Qd8 19 Rd1+ Kc7 20 Qc1+ Kb8 21 Nxe5
Qc7 22 Nxf7 Qxc1 23 Rxc1 Rf8 24 Nd6 b5
25 Bf3 Ra7 26 Ke2 with the better chances
for White in the ending.
17 Qh6+
Instead, 17 Rxc8+ Rxc8 18 Bxd7 Qd8
(but not 18 ... Qa6+? 19 Kg1 exd4 20 Bxc8
Qc6 21 Qd8+ Kg7 22 Qxd4+ Kg8 23 h4
Qc1+ 24 Kh2 Qxc8, as in M.Yilmaz-N.Getz,
European Championship, Gjakova 2016,
when 25 Qf4 Qd8 26 Rc1 h5 27 Rc7 Rh7 28
Rxb7 Qd5 29 Qb8+ Kg7 30 Rb5 results in a
winning position for White) 19 Nxe6 leads to
the same position as in the game.
17 ... Ke7
Alternatively, 17 ... Ke8 18 Qg7 Rf8 19
Qxe5 Qd2 20 Nb3 Qb4 (similar is 20 ... Qd5
21 Qxd5 exd5 22 f4 Ke7 23 Kf2, C.De
Saegher-H.Jonkman, Dutch League 1995) 21
Qh5 a6 22 Bd3 with compensation for the
pawn, G.Kaidanov-V.Ivanchuk, Lvov 1987.
18 Qg5+ Kf8
19 Rxc8+
The play fizzles out after this, while 19
Qh6+ Ke7 was immediately agreed drawn in
Bu Xiangzhi-Wang Hao, Chinese
Championship, Xinghua Jiangsu 2009.
19 ... Rxc8 20 Bxd7 Qd8 21 Nxe6+ fxe6
22 Qh6+ Kf7 23 Qxe6+ Kf8 24 Qh6+ Kf7
25 Qe6+ Kf8 26 Qh6+ Kf7 27 Qe6+ Kf8 28
Qh6+ ½-½
81
Game 34
M.Notkin-Y.Yakovich
Russian Championship, Elista 1997
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 11 Kf1 gxf6 12
Rc1 Qa5 13 h4 Nc6 14 Nxc6 bxc6 15 Rh3
Ke7 16 Rd3 Rd8 17 Rxd8 Qxd8 18 Qh5
Qd4!
19 Kg1
Other moves are:
a) 19 Be2 Rb8 20 Qa5 (20 Qxh7? is a
blunder as 20 ... Rb2 21 Rd1 Ba6! 22 Kg1
Qb6 23 e5 Bxe2 24 exf6+ Kxf6 25 Rd4 Ke7
26 Rf4 Kd6 leads to a position in which
White does not have sufficient compensation
for the piece, whereas after 20 Rd1!? Qe5 21
Qf3 c5 22 Qa3 Kf8 23 f3 Kg7 24 Rc1 White
has compensation for the pawn) 20 ... Rb2!
(the passive 20 ... Rb7, protecting the
c7-square, allows White to develop an
initiative sufficient to draw: 21 Kg1 Bd7, as
in A.Dreev-L.Janjgava, Vilnius 1988, and
then 22 Rd1!? Qxe4 23 Qc5+ Ke8 24 Bf3
Qf5 25 Qd6 with compensation for the pawn).
Now both 21 Qa3+ Ke8 22 Rd1 Rd2 23
Rxd2 Qxd2, A.Shariyazdanov-M.Sorokin,
Commonwealth Championship, Sangli 2000,
and 21 Rd1 Qb6, A.Obodchuk-M.Sorokin,
Nizhnij Tagil 2007, lead to a small advantage
for Black.
b) 19 Qxh7 Rb8 (or 19 ... Bd7 20 Be2 c5
21 g3 and White has good compensation for
the pawn) 20 Bb3 Ba6+ (after 20 ... a5 21
Kg1 the best move is 21 ... Rb4!, attacking
two white pawns on the fourth rank; then the
position transposes to Akesson-Landa,
which is our next illustrative game) 21 Kg1
Bd3 22 Qg7 Bxe4 23 Qg3 Rh8 (23 ... Rc8!?
24 Rc4 Qd3 looks good for Black) 24 Rc4
Qa1+ 25 Kh2 f5 26 Ra4 Ra8 27 Qc7+ Kf6 28
Qg3 Ke7 29 Qc7+ Kf6 30 Qg3 ½-½
A.Karpov-R.Hübner, World Cup, Skelleftea
1989.
Returning to 19 Kg1:
19 ... Bd7
Otherwise:
a) 19 ... Rb8 transposes to 16 ... Rb8, as
dealt with in some detail in the theoretical
section at the beginning of the chapter.
b) 19 ... Qxe4 is also playable. The game
should end in a draw after 20 Qc5+ Ke8 21 f3
(or 21 Bd3 Qd5 22 Qc2 Bd7 23 Be4 Qb5 24
Rb1 Qh5 25 Bxc6 Rd8 26 Rd1 Qa5 27 Rxd7
Rxd7 28 Qxh7 Qe1+ 29 Kh2 Qxf2 30 Bxd7+
Kxd7 31 Qxf7+ Kd6) 21 ... Qf4 22 Qxc6+
Kf8 23 Ba6 Qd4+ 24 Kh2 Qxh4+ 25 Kg1
Qd4+.
c) However, worse is 19 ... c5 20 Bb5 (20
Bf1!?) 20 ... a6 21 Bf1 Bb7 (or 21 ... Qe5 22
Qxe5 fxe5 23 Rxc5 Kd6 24 Ra5) 22 Rxc5
Rc8 23 Rxc8 Bxc8 24 Qxh7 with slightly the
better chances for White,
I.Naumkin-V.Kishnev, Münster 1990.
20 Bb3?!
White should have played 20 Qxh7 with
equal chances, as in S.Spasov-M.Murlasits,
correspondence 2007.
20 ... Qxe4
82
21 Rd1
After 21 Qc5+ Ke8 White does not have
full compensation for the pawn, as shown by
22 Rd1 (or 22 Qh5 c5) 22 ... Rd8 23 h5 Qf5
24 Qxa7 Qxh5 25 Ba4 Qg4.
21 ... Qf5
21 ... Rd8 would have been pretty strong;
for example, 22 Qc5+ (or 22 Qa5 Qxh4 23
Qxa7 Qb4 24 Rd4 Qe1+ 25 Kh2 Ke8) 22 ...
Ke8 23 h5 Qe5 24 Qxa7 Qxh5 25 Ba4 Qg4
with the better chances for Black.
22 Qh6 Rb8?!
Black still could have played 22 ... Rd8
with the better chances, as shown by 23 Qd2
Qe5 or 23 Qe3 Qa5 24 Rc1 Qb6.
23 Qd2 Rb7
24 Qd6+?!
The fantastic variation 24 Bc4 Qe5 25
Ba6 Rc7 26 Bc8!! Qd5 27 Qc2 Qb5 28 Qd2
would have led to a draw.
24 ... Ke8 25 Re1?!
25 Bc4 Qe5 26 Qd3 with only a small
edge for Black was correct.
25 ... Qa5
And here there was 25 ... Qg4 26 Re3
Qb4 with a clear advantage for Black.
26 Re4 Qc7 27 Qd2 c5 28 Qh6 Rb4 29
Re3 Qf4 30 Qxh7 Qxh4 31 Qg8+ Ke7 32
Qa8 Qd4 33 Qxa7 Qa1+ 34 Kh2 Rh4+

35 Kg3??
A serious blunder. Nevertheless, even
after the preferable 35 Rh3 Qe5+ 36 g3 Re4
37 Kg2 Re1 White’s position is lost.
35 ... Qd4 36 f3 Rg4+?!
The computer declares a mate in 25
moves after the initially simple 36 ... Rh5! 37
Re4 Rg5+ 38 Rg4 Qd6+ 39 f4 Qd3+.
37 fxg4 Qxe3+ 38 Kh2 Qf4+ 39 Kg1
Qd4+ 40 Kh1 Kf8 41 Qb6 0-1
Game 35
R.Akesson-K.Landa
Bad Wiessee 2005
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Bxf6 Qxc3+ 11 Kf1 gxf6 12
Rc1 Qa5 13 h4 Ke7 14 Rh3 Nc6 15 Nxc6+
bxc6 16 Rd3 Rb8 17 Kg1 Rd8 18 Rxd8
Qxd8 19 Qh5 Qd4 20 Bb3
20 ... Rb4
Other moves have been played as well:
83
a) 20 ... Bb7?! 21 Rd1 Qe5 22 Qxh7 Ba6
(or 22 ... c5 23 Ba4) 23 Qh6 Be2 24 Re1 Bb5
25 Qe3 c5 26 Rc1 with an advantage for
White, V.Bukal-Z.Plenkovic, Split 2003.
b) 20 ... Qxe4 21 Qc5+ Ke8 22 Qxa7 and
now 22 ... Rb4 (or 22 ... Rb7 23 Qa8 Rc7 24
Ba4 with compensation for the pawn in
R.Shabtai-G.Flear, Tel Aviv 1989) 23 Qa8
Kd8 24 Qa5+ Ke8 25 Qa8 Kd8 26 Qa5+ was
drawn in E.Gleizerov-M.Sorokin, Voronezh
1988. However, instead the more ambitious
24 g3 Kc7 25 Qa7+ Bb7 26 Qa5+ Kb8 27
Bc2 Qd4 28 Rd1 Rb5 (or 28 ... Qb6 29 Qxb6
Rxb6 30 Bxh7 Kc7 31 Bg8) 29 Qa3 Qe5 30
Rd8+ Kc7 31 Qe7+ Kb6 32 Rd7 Ka7 would
have led to a position with slightly the better
chances for White.
c) 20 ... Bd7 21 Rd1 (or 21 Qxh7, as in
N.Dzagnidze-N.Batsiashvili, FIDE
Women’s Grand Prix, Batumi 2016, when
21 ... c5 is possible; for instance, 22 h5 Qe5
23 h6 Bb5 24 Qg7 c4 25 h7 cxb3 26 axb3
Qh5 27 Qg8 Rd8 28 Rc7+ Bd7 29 Rxa7
Qd1+ 30 Kh2 Qh5+ with perpetual check)
21 ... Qe5 22 Qxh7 c5 (or 22 ... Be8 23 h5
Rb5 24 h6 Qf4 25 e5 Rxe5 26 Qd3, as in
A.Dreev-D.Komarov, Borzhomi 1988, when
26 ... Rh5! 27 Bxe6! Kf8! 28 Bh3 Qxh6 29
Qa3+ c5 30 Qxa7 Kg7 leads to a level
position) 23 Qh6 (the sacrifice 23 Rxd7+
Kxd7 24 Qxf7+ Kd6, as in E.Vegh-W.Schön,
Budapest 1989, is not justified in view of 25
g3 Qxe4) 23 ... Bc6 24 Qe3 Bxe4 (as in
S.Bouaziz-R.Tischbierek, Berlin 1991;
instead, 24 ... Rh8 25 Rc1 Rxh4 26 Qxc5+
Qxc5 27 Rxc5 also leads to an equal ending)
25 f4 and now both 25 ... Qf5 26 Qd2 Bd5 27
Qa5 and 25 ... Qh5 26 Rd2 Rb4 27 Rd5 Bxd5
28 Qxc5+ Kd7 29 Qxb4 Qxh4 lead to a level
ending.
Returning to 20 ... Rb4:

21 Qxh7
The alternative is 21 Rxc6, after which
the play tends to lead to a draw in all
variations; for example, 21 ... Bd7 22 Rc7 (or
22 Rc1 Qe5 23 Qxe5 fxe5 24 f3 a5,
L.Ostrowski-Se.Ivanov, Polish League 1990)
22 ... Qxe4 (22 ... Qa1+ 23 Kh2 Qe5+ 24
Qxe5 fxe5 25 Rxa7 Rxe4 26 Kg3 f5 27 f3
was agreed drawn in E.Relange-A.Delorme,
French League 2010, and practice has also
seen 22 ... Qd6 23 Rxa7 Rxe4 24 Qa5 Re5 25
Qc3 Qb6, A.Dreev-L.Yudasin, Simferopol
1988) 23 g3 (23 Rxa7 Qe1+ 24 Kh2 Qe5+ 25
Qxe5 fxe5 26 Kh3 is also about even) 23 ...
Ke8 24 Rxd7 Kxd7 25 Qxf7+ Kc6 26 Qe8+
Kb6 27 Qd8+ Kb5 28 Qxf6 and this
unbalanced endgame should be about equal.
21 ... a5
Other moves:
a) 21 ... Qxe4 22 Qxe4 Rxe4 23 Rxc6
Bd7 24 Rc4 f5 25 Rxe4 fxe4 26 g4 with
slightly the better bishop ending for White
due to the distant h-pawn,
I.Khenkin-Y.Yakovich, Podolsk 1989.
b) 21 ... Bd7 22 Qh5 Qxe4 23 Qc5+ Ke8
24 Qxa7 (J.Norri-N.Hjelm, Helsinki 2002)
and now Black could have equalized after
24 ... c5 25 Qxc5 Qxh4.
c) 21 ... Qe5 22 Bc2
(C.Pappier-M.Chovanec, correspondence
2007) 22 ... Qb2 23 Qh6 Rc4 24 Qd2 Rd4 25
Qe3 Rc4 26 Qd2 Rd4 with a draw.
84
22 Qg8 Bd7 23 Rd1
23 ... Qxe4
23 ... Qe5 also leads to a draw, as shown
by 24 Rxd7+ Kxd7 25 Qxf7+ Kd8 26 Qf8+
Kc7 27 Qe7+.
24 Qa8
24 h5 leads to yet another draw after 24 ...
Qg4 25 Rxd7+ (or 25 Qh7 Rd4 26 Rxd4
Qxd4 27 h6 Qa1+ 28 Kh2 Qe5+) 25 ... Kxd7
26 Qxf7+ Kd6 27 Qf8+ Kc7 28 h6 Qf5 29
Qe7+.
24 ... Rd4 25 Rxd4 Qxd4 26 Qxa5
Qxh4 27 Qa3+ Ke8 28 Qa8+ Ke7 29 Qa3+
Ke8 30 Qa8+ Ke7 ½-½
Conclusion
In the variation with 10 Bxf6 White
immediately weakens Black’s pawn
structure on the kingside, but this comes at
quite a significant cost: he has to exchange
his dark-squared bishop, loses the c3-pawn,
and his king is deprived of the right to castle.
On the other hand, Black’s king should now
stay in the centre on e7 and he has also
problems completing his development.
These all factors give White sufficient
compensation for the sacrificed pawn due to
the activity of his pieces, including the king’s
rook, which may become involved via the
h3-square.
Chapter Five
The Main Line: 10 Nb5

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5 The bishop’s destination is the c7-square

Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 in order to attack the queen. The alternative
Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 11 Qd4 is usually met by 11 ... 0-0 12 Qxe4
a6 13 Be7 axb5 14 Bb4 Qc7, reaching a
complex position with mutual chances.
11 ... 0-0 12 0-0

In this chapter we will discuss all

remaining deviations in the main line after
Black exchanges on c3.
9 ... Qa5 Black can finally take care of his
Other continuations, such as 9 ... h6 and queenside development.
9 ... Nbd7, do not give Black big chances of 12 ... Bd7
obtaining equality. The latter is the perhaps Bringing the b8-knight out is equally
most significant option, as it can also arise good: either 12 ... Nd7, when both 13 Qd4
via 8 ... Nbd7 9 0-0 Bxc3 10 bxc3. Black and 13 Re1 lead to positions with mutual
refrains from an immediate attack on the chances; or similarly 12 ... Nc6, and even
c3-pawn and secures his kingside castling. after the best move 13 Bc7 Black doesn’t
The drawback is that White can complete stand worse; e.g. 13 ... b6 14 Qf3 f5 15 Rfe1
development without any problems, while a6.
maintaining material equality and his strong 13 a4 Bc6
dark-squared bishop. Although the c3-pawn 13 ... a6 also deserves attention.
remains a weakness, it is compensated by 14 Bc7 b6
White’s active pieces, whereas Black has
some difficulties developing his queenside.
All these factors allow White to count on
good play.
However, the main subject we are going
to focus on is Karpov’s favourite move:
10 Nb5 Nxe4
Black is practically obliged to accept the
sacrifice.
11 Bf4

85
 A complicated position with mutual
chances has arisen.
Theory
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5
The main line and the best move, as we
have seen in the first four chapters. However,
Black does have a couple of noteworthy
alternatives here. (We can quickly dismiss
9 ... a6?!, as in R.Wade-N.Karaklajic,
Bognor Regis 1965, since 10 e5 Qa5 11 exf6
Qxg5 12 fxg7 Qxg7 13 0-0 already gives
White the upper hand.)
Firstly, 9 ... h6, which asks the question
of the g5-bishop at the cost of neglecting
Black’s development.
White has to decide whether to exchange
the bishop or withdraw it:
a) 10 Bxf6 Qxf6 11 0-0 0-0 12 f4 Bd7
(12 ... Nd7 transposes to 9 ... Nbd7 lines
below) 13 e5 Qe7 was V.Pirc-N.Karaklajic,
Belgrade 1952, when 14 Rf3 (14 Rb1!?
might offer White the slightly better chances)
14 ... Nc6 15 Nb3 Rad8 16 Rg3 f6 gave
Black a good position. Going back a move,
13 Rb1 deserves serious attention,
complicating Black’s development with his
queen temporarily remote from the
queenside; for example, 13 ... Rc8 14 Qd3 b6
(or 14 ... Na6 15 e5 Qd8 16 f5 Nc5 17 Qe2
exf5 18 Nxf5 with the initiative) 15 e5 Qe7
16 f5 exf5? 17 Bd5 Nc6 18 e6 fxe6 19 Nxf5
Qc5+ 20 Kh1 Rf8 21 Nxh6+! hxg6 (or 21 ...
86
Kh8 22 Qh3) 22 Qg6+ Kh8 23 Qxh6+ Kg8
24 Qg6+ Kh8 25 Be4 Qe7 26 Rf3 and wins.
White can also retain his bishop, either
keeping the pin on the h4-d8 diagonal or
trying to operate on the h2-b8 diagonal:
b) 10 Bh4!? g5 11 e5 gxh4 (or 11 ... Nd5
12 Bg3 Nxc3 13 Qd3 Nc6 14 Nxc6 Qxd3 15
Bxd3 bxc6 16 h4 and White has more than
compensation for the pawn) 12 exf6 Qxf6 13
0-0 Nd7 14 Re1 Ne5 15 Nb5 Nxc4 (15 ... 0-0
16 Qd4 Nd7 17 Rad1 Qxd4 18 Rxd4 Nc5 19
Re5 b6 20 Rh5 leads to a small advantage for
White) 16 Nc7+ Kf8 17 Nxa8 Rg8 18 Qd4
Qxd4 19 cxd4 Bd7 20 Rac1 h3 21 Rxc4
(after 21 g3 Nd2 22 Rc3 Bc6 23 Ree3 Kg7 24
Nc7 Rd8 the position is level) 21 ... Rxg2+
22 Kh1 Bc6 reaches a very unclear position
with unbalanced material.
c) 10 Bf4!? 0-0 (not 10 ... Nxe4? 11 Qf3
Ng5 12 Qg3 Nd7 13 Bd6 Ne4 14 Nxe6 Qf6
15 Nxg7+ Kd8 16 Bc7+ Ke7 17 Qe3 Qxc3+
18 Qxc3 Nxc3 19 Rc1 and White has a
decisive advantage) 11 0-0 (or 11 Qf3 Qa5
12 e5 Nh5 13 0-0 Nxf4 14 Qxf4 Nd7 15 Rae1
with slightly the better chances) 11 ... Nxe4
12 Qf3 Nf6 13 Rfd1 and White has achieved
more than enough compensation for the
sacrificed pawn.
The second move, 9 ... Nbd7, provokes
much more theoretical discussion. After 10
0-0 White has an advantage in development,
including a strong dark-squared bishop
which is currently pinning the f6-knight but
can also work on a3-f8 diagonal in the future,
where the d6-square may turn out weak.
 Black has a choice:
a) The straightforward 10 ... 0-0 leads to
better play for White after 11 Bxe6 (the
peaceful 11 Qe2 is good too) 11 ... fxe6 12
Nxe6 Qe7 13 Nxf8 (A.Greenfeld-U.Zak,
Israeli League 2000) 13 ... Nxf8 14 Qd4 with
better chances for White.
b) 10 ... h6 also gives White better
chances:
b1) 11 Bxf6 Qxf6 12 f4 0-0 has arisen a
couple of times via 9 ... h6, and here both 13
e5 Qe7 14 Qf3 (Jac.Fernandez-F.Zagorski,
correspondence 1994) 14 ... Nc5 15 Nb5 Bd7
16 Nd6 f5 17 Rad1 and 14 Rf3
(J.Lavigne-F.Zagorski, correspondence 1994)
14 ... Nc5 15 Rg3 Kh8 16 Nb5 Bd7 17 Nd6
are better for White. Another interesting
option is 14 Qg4!? Rd8 15 Rf3 Nc5 16 Re1,
followed by 17 Rg3 with a strong initiative
on the kingside.
Retaining the dark-squared bishop
deserves serious attention too. Apart from
keeping the pin with the obvious 11 Bh4,
White can also consider:
b2) 11 Be3 Nxe4 (otherwise 11 ... 0-0 12
f3 Ne5 13 Be2 Bd7 14 Qb3 Qc7 15 c4 Rac8
16 Rab1 gives White the better chances) 12
Bxe6 (not 12 Qg4 Ndf6 13 Qxg7?? Rh7 and
Black wins; but 12 Nxe6 fxe6 13 Qg4 is
possible, e.g. 13 ... Ndf6 14 Qxg7 Rg8 15
Qxh6 with compensation for the piece) 12 ...
0-0 (Black cannot accept the sacrifice: 12 ...
fxe6? 13 Nxe6 Qa5 14 Qg4 Kf7 15 Qxg7+
Kxe6 16 Qxh8 and White is winning) 13 Bb3
Ndc5 with a small advantage for White.
b3) 11 Bc1!? (it looks strange to retreat
the bishop to its initial position, but it will
work well on the a3-f8 diagonal) 11 ... 0-0
(or 11 ... Ne5 12 Be2 0-0 13 Ba3 Re8 14 Qc2
a6 15 f4; but not 11 ... Nxe4? is weak due to
12 Nxe6! fxe6 13 Qh5+ Kf8 14 Bxe6 Nd6 15
Ba3 Nc5 16 Bb3 Nxb3 17 Qd5 and White
wins) 12 Ba3 Re8 13 Qe2 Ne5 14 Bb3 Qa5
15 Bd6 with a slight advantage for White.
87
c) The standard queen sortie 10 ... Qa5 is
the most common move, hitting the
g5-bishop and c3-pawn.
As usual, White has the choice between
exchanging on f6 (note that 11 Nb5!? 0-0 12
Bxf6 Nxf6 also transposes to 11 Bxf6 lines)
or withdrawing his dark-squared bishop to
various squares:
c1) 11 Bxf6 (White exchanges his strong
bishop but saves a tempo) 11 ... Nxf6 and
here White has three good continuations: 12
Bb5+ will be discussed in Game 37, while
both 12 Re1 0-0 13 e5 Nd5
(D.Muse-J.Federau, German League 1992)
14 Nb3 Qd8 15 Qf3, and 12 Nb5 0-0 13 e5
Nd5 14 Qd4 Bd7 (S.Lindemann-R.Rabiega,
Deizisau 1999) 15 Rfb1 Bc6 16 Bxd5 Bxd5
17 Nd6 lead to a small advantage for White.
Instead, 12 Qc2 looks too passive: 12 ...
0-0 13 Rfe1 e5 14 Nb3 Qc7 with excellent
play for Black, P.Humbert-F.Blondel,
correspondence 2010; and 12 e5 seems too
optimistic: 12 ... Qxe5 13 Bb5+
(O.Reeh-J.Fries Nielsen, Gausdal 1989) 13 ...
Kf8!? 14 Re1 Qc7 15 Nf3 b6 with better
chances for Black.
c2) 11 Bd2 0-0 12 Qe2 e5!? (more
reasonable than 12 ... Ne5?! 13 Bb3,
P.Drenchev-V.Inkiov, Niort 2004, and even
after 13 ... Ng6 14 Rad1 e5 15 Nf5 White’s
chances are slightly better) 13 Nb3 Qc7,
when White’s bishop pair is balanced by
Black’s superior pawn structure; e.g. 14 Bd3
Nc5 15 Nxc5 Qxc5 16 Be3 Qc7 with
equality.
 c3) 11 Be3 0-0 (other continuations are
obviously weaker; e.g. 11 ... Nxe4 12 Re1 a6
13 f3 Ne5 14 Bf1 Nf6 15 Nb3 Qc7 16 Bc5
Ng6 17 Qd4 Ne7 18 Qb4 Nfd5 19 Qa3 with a
strong initiative for White; or 11 ... Nb6 12
Bb5+ Bd7, T.Welin-P.Staniszewski, Slupsk
1987, 13 a4 Bxb5 14 axb5 Qxc3 15 Nxe6
fxe6 16 Bxb6 Qe5 17 Bd4 Qxb5 18 Bxf6
gxf6 19 Qg4 Qd7 20 Rfd1 with a decisive
attack) and now, rather than 12 Qc2 Ng4
(D.Barlov-S.Dejkalo, Dubai Olympiad
1986), White should play 12 f3!? (Barlov)
12 ... Qxc3 (otherwise White has better
chances due to the bishop pair) 13 Qe2 Ne5
14 Rfc1 Qb4 15 Rab1 with more than enough
compensation for the pawn.
c4) 11 Bh4 should be met by 11 ... 0-0,
which will be discussed in Game 36. Again,
other continuations are weaker:
c21) 11 ... Nxe4?? (A.Dunne-G.Brown,
correspondence 1994) is a serious error in
view of 12 Qg4 Nef6 13 Bxf6 gxf6 14 Qg7
Rf8 15 Rfe1 and White is winning.
c22) 11 ... g5? 12 Bg3 Nxe4 13 Re1 also
gives White a strong attack; for example,
13 ... Ndf6 (or 13 ... Nxg3 14 hxg3 Qc5 15
Qh5) 14 Bb5+ Ke7 (or 14 ... Bd7 15 Bxd7+
Kxd7 16 Qd3 Nxg3 17 hxg3) 15 Qd3 a6 16
Rxe4 Nxe4 17 Qxe4 axb5 18 Nf5+ Ke8 19
Qe5 and so on.
c23) 11 ... Qc5? is met by 12 Bxe6! 0-0
(if 12 ... fxe6 13 Nxe6 Qc6 14 Nxg7+ Kf8 15
Nf5, White has a decisive attack) 13 Bf5 g6
14 Bxd7 Nxd7 and White is just a pawn up.
88
c24) 11 ... a6 is not much better; e.g. 12
Re1 0-0 13 Bb3 (I.Zakharevich-M.Sher,
Russian Championship, Elista 1995) 13 ...
Re8 14 Nf3 with a clear advantage for White.
10 Nb5
Karpov’s favourite move.
10 ... Nxe4
The most principled response: Black
attacks the g5-bishop and c3-pawn, covers
the d5-square and threatens 11 ... a6. Other
moves are inferior:
a) 10 ... 0-0? is a blunder: 11 Bxf6 gxf6
12 Qg4+ Kh8 13 Rd1 a6 14 Qh4 Nd7 15 Rd3
Rg8 16 Nd6 Rg7 17 f4! (17 0-0 Qg5 18 Qh3
b5 19 Nxf7+ Rxf7 20 Bxe6 is winning as
well, D.Kosic-B.Tadic, Bosnian League
2014) 17 ... Qb6 18 Bb3 Kg8 19 Rd4 with a
strategically winning position for White.
b) 10 ... Bd7? is not a good idea either: 11
Nd6+ Ke7 (after 11 ... Kf8 12 Bxf6 gxf6 13
0-0 Rg8 14 Rb1 b6 15 Bb5 White has a
decisive advantage) 12 Qd2 Bc6 and now the
best continuation is the foxy move 13 Rb1;
for example, 13 ... Rd8 (after 13 ... Nbd7 14
0-0 Rhb8 15 Rfd1 Kf8 16 Bb5 White has a
clear positional advantage) 14 Bxf6+ (or 14
Nxb7!?) 14 ... gxf6 15 Nxb7 Bxb7 16 Rxb7+
Rd7 17 Rxd7+ Nxd7 18 0-0 and White is a
clear pawn up.
Other moves do not offer White so much:
13 0-0-0!? Nbd7 14 Rhe1 deserves attention,
but 13 0-0 Rd8 14 Rfd1 Nbd7
(K.Miton-V.Petkov, Skanderborg 2010) 15
Bb3 h6 offers White only a small advantage;
while if 13 f4 Nbd7 14 Rd1 (not 14 e5?
Nxe5!) 14 ... Rhd8 15 Qd4 h6 16 Bh4
(A.Karpov-J.Timman, 6th matchgame, FIDE
World Championship, Arnhem 1993), Black
might try 16 ... g5!?; for example, 17 Bg3
Qb6 18 fxg5 hxg5 19 Qd2 Nc5 20 e5 Nfe4 21
Qd4 Rf8 22 Bf2 Nxf2 23 Qxf2 Ne4 24 Nxe4
Bxe4 25 Qf6+ Ke8 26 Rd6 Bc6 27 Rf1 Qc5
28 Bb3 Qxc3+ 29 Kd1 Bd7 30 Rf3 Qc5 with
mutual chances.
c) The immediate 10 ... a6?! is also
inaccurate: 11 Nd6+ Ke7 12 Bf4!? Nc6 (not
12 ... Qxc3+?? 13 Bd2 Qa3 14 e5 and White
gains a decisive attack; e.g. 14 ... Ne8 15
Nxc8+ Kf8 16 Nb6 Ra7 17 Qb1 Nc6 18 0-0,
threatening 19 Nc8) 13 Qb3 and now:
c1) 13 ... b5 meets with a powerful retort:
14 Rd1 Rd8 15 Be2 Qa4 (or 15 ... Ne8 16 e5
Nxd6 17 exd6+ Kf8 18 Bf3 with a big
advantage for White, R.Ruck-Ad.Horvath,
Austrian League 2004) 16 Qxa4 (here 16
Nxc8+ Rdxc8 17 Bd6+ Ke8 18 Qxa4 bxa4
19 f3 also looks good for White, even if 19 ...
Nd7 20 Kf2 Nce5 21 Rd4 was agreed drawn
in E.Bacrot-C.Bauer, French Championship,
Marseilles 2001) 16 ... bxa4 17 Nc4 Rxd1+
18 Bxd1 e5 (after other moves White’s
bishop pair dominates on the board) 19 Nxe5
Nxe5 20 Bxe5 Nxe4 21 Bxa4 Bf5 22 0-0 Nc5
23 Bd1 f6 24 Bd4 with a clear advantage for
White in the ending.
c2) Black’s strongest continuation is 13 ...
Nh5 14 Nxc8+ Rhxc8 15 Be3 b5 16 Be2 Nf6
17 0-0 Rab8 18 f3 Nd7 (C.Enescu-M.Dabija,
correspondence 2011), although White’s
bishop pair is a more important factor than
89
the weakness of the c-pawn; for example, 19
Rad1 Nce5 (or 19 ... Rc7 20 f4 Kf8 21 c4
bxc4 22 Qxc4) 20 Bd4 Kf8 (or 20 ... Nc5 21
Qc2 f6 22 f4 Ned7 23 e5 f5 24 Bf3) 21 f4
Nc4 22 Bxg7+ Kxg7 23 Rxd7 Nb6 24 Rd3
Na4 25 Rg3+ Kh8 26 Qa3 Rxc3 27 Qe7 with
better chances for White in all variations.
11 Bf4
This allows White to retain the strong
dark-squared bishop.
Instead, 11 Qd4 looks very dangerous,
attacking the e4-knight and g7-pawn, while
if the black knight moves away, White has a
check on d6 at his disposal. Nevertheless,
Black has sufficient resources to survive:
11 ... 0-0 (obviously not 11 ... Nxg5?? 12
Qxg7 Rf8 13 Qxg5 and White wins; 11 ... a6
12 Qxg7 Rf8, D.Arnett-R.Livshits, Bermuda
1996, looks more reasonable, but after 13
Bh6 White’s pressure is worth more than the
sacrificed piece, e.g. 13 ... Nd7 14 Bd3 Nef6
15 Bg5 Ke7 16 0-0 axb5 17 Rad1 h6 18 Bh4
Ra6 19 Qxh6 Rd6 20 Be2 Qc7 21 Qg5) 12
Qxe4 a6 13 Be7 (or 13 Bd3 f5,
D.Hilgert-P.Delooz, correspondence 2003,
and now Drasko suggests 14 Qe2 axb5 15
0-0 Nc6 16 Bd2, when White has
compensation for the pawn) 13 ... axb5 14
Bb4 Qc7 reaches a strange and complicated
position with mutual chances. We will
examine this more thoroughly in Game 38.
11 ... 0-0 12 0-0 Bd7
A logical move, developing a piece and
attacking the b5-knight. Black can also bring
his queen’s knight out.
 After 12 ... Nd7, White has to play
carefully:
a) 13 Bc7? is a mistake: 13 ... b6 14 Re1
(or 14 Qd4 Ndc5 15 f3 Ba6 16 fxe4 Bxb5 17
Qxc5 bxc5 18 Bxa5 Bxc4 19 Rfd1 f6 20 Bc7
e5 and White is a pawn down with a weak
structure that is not redeemed by the
opposite-coloured bishops) 14 ... Ndf6 and
White has no compensation for the material;
e.g. 15 Qd4 Ba6 16 a4 Bxb5 17 Bxb5
(N.Pert-P.Wells, British Rapid
Championship, Halifax 2003) 17 ... Rac8 18
Be5 Rfd8 19 Qb4 Nxc3.
b) 13 Nc7? is also incorrect: 13 ... e5 14
Nxa8 exf4 15 Bd5, as in
A.Karpov-J.Timman, 14th matchgame,
FIDE World Championship, Jakarta 1993,
might be met by 15 ... Nxc3! 16 Qd2 Nf6 17
Bf3 Bg4 18 Bxg4 Nxg4 19 Rfc1 Rc8,
followed by ... Nf6-d5 and wins. Other White
15th moves hardly improve this line for
White; e.g. 15 f3 Qc5+ 16 Qd4 Nd2! and
Black has a clear advantage, according to
Timman; or 15 Qf3 Qe5 16 Rae1 Ndf6 17
Nc7 Bg4 18 Qd3 Qxc7 19 Rxe4 Bf5 20 Re7
Qxe7 21 Qxf5 Qe4 and Black has the upper
hand.
c) 13 Qd4 leads to equal position in all
lines; for example, 13 ... e5 (or 13 ... a6 14
Nd6 Nxd6 15 Bxd6 Rd8 16 Qh4 b5 17 Qg3
Re8 18 Bd3 Bb7) 14 Bxe5 (or 14 Qxe4 exf4
15 Qxf4 Nb6 16 Nc7 Rb8 17 Rfd1 Qf5) 14 ...
Nxe5 15 Qxe5 a6 16 Bd5 axb5 17 Bxe4 Qb6
18 Rfd1 Qe6.
90
d) 13 Re1 Ndf6 will be discussed in
Game 39. Obviously not 13 ... Nxc3? 14 Qd2
with a fatal pin; e.g. 14 ... Nb6 15 Bd3 Nbd5
16 Be5 and Black loses a piece. But 13 ...
Ndc5 is playable, as long as Black finds 14
Nc7 Rb8 15 f3 g5! 16 fxe4 gxf4 17 Qg4+
Kh8 18 Qxf4 f6 with an equal game after
either 19 Qd6 (or 19 Re3 Bd7 20 Qd6 Qb6 21
Qxb6 axb6 22 Rb1 Rfc8) 19 ... Bd7 20 Bxe6
Bxe6 21 Nxe6 Nxe6 22 Qxe6 Qxc3.
The natural 12 ... Nc6 is also possible:
a) 13 Qf3 (this queen foray does not offer
White any advantage) 13 ... e5 (or 13 ... a6 14
Bc7 Qa4 15 Bb3 Qxb5 16 Qxe4 Qf5 17 Bc2
and White has just about enough
compensation for the pawn) 14 Qxe4 exf4 15
Rfe1 (or 15 Qxf4 Be6 16 Bxe6 Qxb5 17 c4
Qe5 18 Qxe5 Nxe5 19 Bd5 with a level game,
M.Krasenkow-A.Maksimenko, Polish
League 2012) 15 ... Be6 16 Bxe6 Qxb5 17
Bd5 (A.Shchekachev-A.Schenk, French
League 2003) 17 ... Qc5 18 c4 Qd6 19 Rab1
Rab8 is again roughly equal.
b) 13 Qc2 (this unplayed move is worth
comparing with 13 Qf3, as it acts in the same
way, attacking the e4-knight and protecting
the c3-pawn, while also controlling the
a4-square and depriving Black of a fork on
d2 in some lines) 13 ... Nf6 (one difference is
seen after 13 ... a6? 14 Bc7 and White wins
since Black does not have 14 ... Qa4; but
simply 13 ... e5 14 Qxe4 transposes to line
‘a’) 14 Bd6 Re8 15 Rab1 Qd8 16 Bg3 e5 17
Rfd1 Qe7 18 Nd6 Rf8 19 Bh4 and White has
very strong pressure for the sacrificed pawn.
 c) 13 Bc7 b6 14 Qf3 (after 14 a4 the
players agreed a draw in
I.Khenkin-A.Schenk, French League 2003)
14 ... f5 15 Rfe1 (if 15 Rfb1,
K.Miton-M.Neubauer, European Team
Championship, Porto Carras 2011, then 15 ...
Rf7 16 Bg3 Bd7 is unclear)
c1) 15 ... Rf7?! (A.Riazantsev-B.Macieja,
European Championship, Plovdiv 2012) is
not too precise. The best move here is 16
Bg3!, the point being that Black cannot now
play 16 ... Ba6? because of 17 Bxe6 Qxb5 18
Bxf7+ Kxf7 19 Rxe4 and wins. No better is
16 ... a6? 17 Nd6 Qxc3 18 Qxc3 Nxc3 19
Rac1 b5 20 Nxc8 bxc4 21 Nb6 Nxa2 22
Rxc4 with a winning position for White, or
16 ... Nd8?! 17 Nd6 Rf8 18 Nxf5 Qxf5 19
Qxe4 Qxe4 20 Rxe4 and White is clearly
better. Therefore Black has to try 16 ... Bd7
17 Nd6 Qxc3 18 Qxc3 Nxc3 19 Nxf7 Kxf7
20 Rac1 Nd5 21 Bb3, though here too
White’s advantage is indisputable.
c2) 15 ... Bd7 16 Qd3 Nc5 17 Qe2 also
gives White good compensation for the
pawn.
c3) The simplest and most logical
continuation for Black is 15 ... a6, after
which a draw was agreed a draw in
V.Epishin-A.Maksimenko, Graz 1998. Play
might continue 16 Nd4 (or 16 Nd6 Ne5 17
Qe3 Nxd6 18 Bxe6+ Bxe6 19 Bxd6 f4 20
Qxe5 Qxe5 21 Bxe5 Rae8) 16 ... Nxd4 17
cxd4 Bd7 18 Qb3 Qd2 19 Bg3 b5 20 Bxe6+
Bxe6 21 Qxe6+ Kh8 with an equal position
in both variations.
91
13 a4
The knight needs to be defended.
a) 13 Nc7? is an error in view of 13 ... e5
14 Nxa8 (or 14 Bxe5 Qxe5 15 Nxa8 Bc6 16
Re1 Nd7) 14 ... exf4 15 Qd5 Nc5! 16 Qd6
Be6 17 Bxe6 Nxe6 18 Rab1 Na6 19 Rxb7
Rxa8 with a clear advantage for Black,
B.Lalith-M.Venkatesh, New Delhi 2007.
b) 13 Bc7?! is no good either; e.g. 13 ...
b6 14 a4 a6 (V.Epishin-M.Richter, Nova
Gorica 2000) 15 Bd3 Nc5 16 Nd6 Nxd3 17
Qxd3 Ra7 18 Bxb8 (or 18 Nc4 Qd5) 18 ...
Rxb8 19 Qg3 Rf8 and Black has the better
chances.
13 ... Bc6
Black prepares to develop his b8-knight.
Instead:
a) 13 ... Nxc3? is bad because of 14 Nxc3
Qxc3 15 Rc1 Qa5 16 Bxb8 Bxa4 17 Bc7
Qxc7 18 Qxa4 and Black’s three pawns are
not worth the bishop.
b) 13 ... Bxb5?! 14 axb5 gives White a
very strong initiative for the pawn; e.g. 14 ...
Qd8 (or 14 ... Qb6 15 Be3 Qc7 16 Qd4, and
not 14 ... Qxc3?! 15 Qe2 Nf6 16 Be5 Qb4 17
Rfd1) 15 Qf3 Nc5 16 Rfd1.
c) 13 ... a6 looks quite playable though;
e.g. 14 Nc7 Ra7 15 Qd4 e5 16 Qxe4 exf4 17
Nd5 Nc6 18 Rfd1 Be6 19 Bd3 g6 and Black
should equalize.

White has tried several continuations
here:
a) 14 Bc7 b6 leads to a complicated
dynamic position with mutual chances. This
will be discussed in Game 40.
b) 14 f3 (Pr.Nikolic-B.Gelfand, Monte
Carlo blindfold rapid 1999) is now
inaccurate due to 14 ... Nxc3!? 15 Qd2 (or 15
Qd4 Bxb5 16 axb5 Qb4 17 Be5 Rc8 18 Qxc3
Qxc3 19 Bxc3 Rxc4 20 Rfd1) 15 ... Bxb5 16
axb5 Qb4 17 Bd3 Nd7 18 Rfc1 Rfc8 with
slightly the better chances for Black in both
lines.
c) 14 Re1 Na6 15 Be5 Nac5 16 Qg4 (the
exchanges after 16 f3 Rfd8 17 Qe2 a6 18 Bc7
b6 19 Nd4 Nxc3 20 Qe5 Bd7 21 Bxd8 Rxd8
22 Nb3 Nxb3 23 Bxb3 Qxe5 24 Rxe5 Rc8
lead to an equal ending) 16 ... g6 17 Qf4 a6
18 Qh6 f6 19 Bc7 b6 20 Nd4 Bd7 21 Nxe6
Bxe6 22 Bxe6+ Nxe6 23 Rxe4 Qxc3 and the
players agreed a draw in T.Radjabov-L.Van
Wely, European Team Championship,
Gothenburg 2005.
d) 14 Qg4 does not offer White chances
of obtaining an advantage either:
92
c1) 14 ... Nf6 15 Qe2 (A.Karpov-
J.Lautier, Biel 1997) and now Black should
play 15 ... Ne8 16 Rfd1 Nd7 with equality, or
else 15 ... Nbd7!? 16 Bc7 Nb6 17 Bd6 Nxc4
18 Bxf8 Bd5 19 Bb4 Qb6 20 Rfd1 Rc8 with
good compensation for the exchange.
c2) 14 ... h5!? is very good too and much
simpler; for example, 15 Qxh5 Nd7 (15 ... a6
16 Bc7 b6 17 Be5 Nd7 18 Bxg7 Kxg7 19
Qg4+ leads to perpetual check) 16 Rfe1 Ndf6
17 Qe5 Bxb5 (17 ... Nd7 18 Qc7 Qxc7 19
Nxc7 Rac8 20 Nxe6 fxe6 21 Bxe6+ Rf7 22
Be3 Nxc3 23 Bxa7 is unclear) 18 axb5 Qxc3
19 Be2 Qxe5 20 Bxe5 Rfc8 21 Bf3 Nc5 with
equal chances.
Illustrative Games
Game 36
J.Zidu-R.Cortes Olivares
Correspondence 2005
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Bg5 Bb4+ 5
Nc3 dxc4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4
Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 Nbd7 10 0-0 Qa5 11 Bh4 0-0
12 Re1
White has also tried 12 Qe2 Ne5 (after
12 ... Qxc3 13 Rfd1 Qa5, as in W.Freytag-
B.Blankenberg, correspondence 2002, and
then 14 Bg3 e5 15 Nb5 Nb6 16 Bb3 Be6 17
Nd6 White has more than compensation for
the pawn; nevertheless, taking into
consideration the fact that White has the
initiative and equal material in other
variations, the capture on c3 should be
seriously considered) 13 Bb3 (or 13 Bxf6!?
gxf6 14 Rfd1 with a small advantage for
White) 13 ... Ng6 (13 ... Bd7 was preferred in
Z.Ribli-F.Hölzl, Austrian League 1999, and
after 14 Bxf6 gxf6 15 f4 Ng6 16 Rac1 there
are the better chances for White; instead,
13 ... Qxc3 is again interesting, but not
sufficient to equalize, as after 14 Rad1 Qc5
15 f4 Nc6 16 Bf2 White has more than
enough compensation for the pawn) 14 Bxf6
gxf6 15 Qe3 Bd7 16 Rad1 with a small
advantage for White, C.Oger-S.Ciesielski,
correspondence 2008.
12 ... Ne5
Other moves are:
a) 12 ... Qc5 13 Bxe6! (this typical motif
gives White the upper hand in all variations)
13 ... fxe6 14 Nxe6 Qc6 (or 14 ... Qh5 15
Bxf6 Qxd1 16 Raxd1 gxf6 17 Nxf8 Kxf8 18
Re3 b6 19 Rh3, A.Yermolinsky-A.Baburin,
Sverdlovsk 1987) 15 Qb3 Kh8 16 Nxf8 Nxf8
17 Bxf6! Qxf6 (insufficient too is 17 ... gxf6
18 Qd5 Bd7 19 Rad1 Rc8 20 Re3 Qxd5 21
exd5, R.Tassone-S.Peled, correspondence
2013) 18 Rad1 favoured White in
V.Tukmakov-A.Huzman, Sverdlovsk 1987.
b) 12 ... b6? is also incorrect due to 13
Bb5 a6 (as in A.Huzman-V.Kupreichik,
Lvov 1988; 13 ... e5 does not help either in
view of 14 Bc6 exd4 15 Bxa8 dxc3 16 Re3
Qe5 17 Rc1) 14 e5! and White wins in all
variations; for example, 14 ... Nxe5
(alternatively, if 14 ... Nd5 15 Bc6 Ra7 16 c4
Nc3 17 Qc2 Nb8 18 a3 or 14 ... axb5 15 exf6
Nxf6 16 Bxf6 gxf6 17 Re3 Kh8 18 Qh5) 15
Rxe5 axb5 16 Bxf6 gxf6 17 Re3.
c) By contrast with the position after 12
Qe2 Qxc3 (see above), now 12 ... Qxc3?
leads to a violent attack for White: 13 e5!
Qxc4 (no better are 13 ... Nxe5 14 Rc1 Qxc4
15 Rxc4 Nxc4 16 Qd3 Nb6 17 Bxf6 gxf6 18
Re3 or 13 ... Nd5 14 Bxd5 exd5 15 Re3 Qc7
16 Rc1 Nc5 17 Qh5 Kh8 18 Rg3) 14 exf6
Qd5 (other moves lose; for example, 14 ...
93
gxf6 15 Qg4+ Kh8 16 Qf4 f5 17 Rad1 Rg8
18 Nxe6, 14 ... Nxf6 15 Bxf6 gxf6 16 Qg4+
Kh8 17 Qf4 f5 18 Qh6 Bd7 19 Qf6+ Kg8 20
Re3, or 14 ... h6 15 fxg7 Kxg7 16 Rc1 Qd5
17 Rc3 Ne5 18 Nf5+) 15 fxg7 Re8 16 Qg4
Ne5 17 Qh5 Qxd4 18 Bf6 Qg4 19 Qxe5 with
some advantage for White.
Returning to 12 ... Ne5:
13 Bxf6
Decent alternatives are:
a) 13 Bf1 Bd7 (or 13 ... Ng6 14 Bxf6
gxf6, as in A.Beliavsky-Ki.Georgiev, Turin
Olympiad 2006, and then 15 Re3) 14 Nb3
(14 Bxf6!? gxf6 15 Re3 can be considered
too) 14 ... Qd8 15 Bg3 Ng6 16 Bd6 and again
White has the upper hand,
K.Sakaev-A.Kharlov, Yugoslav Team
Championship 1996.
b) 13 Bb3 Qxc3 (no better are 13 ... Ng6
14 Bxf6 gxf6, as in J.Campos Moreno-
C.Alonso Seisdedos, Catalonia 1998, and
then 15 Re3, or 13 ... Bd7 14 f4 Ng6 15 Bxf6
gxf6 16 f5 exf5 17 exf5 Ne5 18 Qd2,
R.Kruse-H.Vennemann, correspondence
2001) 14 Bxf6!? gxf6 15 Re3 Qc5 16 Rc1
(N.Hnatovsky-To.Johansen, correspondence
2008) 16 ... Qd6 17 Rg3+ Kh8 18 Qh5 with
an advantage for White.
13 ... gxf6 14 Re3
More energetic than 14 Qb3 Bd7 15 Bf1
Rac8 16 Re3 Rc7 with a small edge for
White, Z.Budra-I.Topot, correspondence
2002.
 14 ... Nxc4?
Now Black’s king will come under an
attack, but even after 14 ... Ng6 15 Rg3 Qe5
(K.Schwenger-R.Plümmer, correspondence
2004) 16 Bd3 with the idea of Qd2-h6 White
still would have had the initiative.
15 Rg3+ Kh8 16 Qg4 Qg5 17 Qh3
17 ... e5
White wins too after 17 ... Qf4 18 Rg4 e5
19 Nf5 Bxf5 20 exf5 Qxg4 21 Qxg4.
18 Nf5 Bxf5
Or 18 ... Qg6 19 Rxg6 fxg6 20 Qh6 Rf7
21 Ne7! with a clean kill.
19 exf5 Qf4 20 Rg4 Qxf5 21 Rg8+
Kxg8
Black fared no better in the later E.Miras
Garcia-K.Göbel, correspondence 2007: 21 ...
Rxg8 22 Qxf5 with a decisive advantage for
White.
22 Qxf5 Rac8 23 Qxf6 Rfd8 24 Qg5+
1-0
Game 37
A.Dreev-I.Kharlov
Internet (blitz) 2004
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Nbd7 9
0-0 Bxc3 10 bxc3 Qa5 11 Bxf6 Nxf6 12
Bb5+
94
12 ... Bd7
But not 12 ... Nd7? 13 Qg4 0-0 (or 13 ...
Kf8 14 Qg3 I.Zalys-E.Werner,
correspondence 1953) 14 Nxe6! fxe6 15
Qxe6+ Rf7 16 Bc4 Qh5 17 Rad1 Nf8 18 Qe7
b5 19 Bb3, P.Trifunovic-N.Karaklajic,
Yugoslav Championship, Sarajevo 1951,
with a winning position for White in both
cases.
13 Rb1
No other moves give White chances of
achieving an advantage:
a) 13 e5 Bxb5 14 Nxb5 Qxb5 15 exf6
gxf6 16 Qf3!? f5 17 Rfd1 0-0 18 Rab1 Qc6
19 Qg3+ Kh8 20 Rb4 (after 20 Qe5+ f6 21
Qd6 White has full compensation for the
pawn) 20 ... Rad8 (Black could have tried to
fight for an advantage after 20 ... f6) 21 Rxd8
was agreed drawn in P.Stempin-J.Adamski,
Polish Championship, Wroclaw 1987, in
view of 21 ... Rxd8 22 Qe5+ Kg8 23 Rg4+
fxg4 24 Qg5+ with perpetual check.
b) After 13 Bxd7+ chances are equal in
all lines: 13 ... Nxd7 14 Qb1 (or 14 Rb1 Nb6,
as in V.Utemov-M.Sher, Moscow 1990, and
then 15 Qb3 0-0 16 Nb5 Rfd8) 14 ... Nc5 15
Nb3 Nxb3 16 Qxb3 0-0-0 (16 ... b6!?) 17
Rfd1 Rxd1+ 18 Rxd1 Rd8 ½-½
L.B.Hansen-M.Sher, Budapest 1989.
c) 13 Qb3 Bxb5 14 Qxb5+ Qxb5 15
Nxb5 Ke7 16 e5 Nd7 17 f4 Rhc8 18 Rf3
(Chen De-Qi Jingxuan, Chinese
Championship 1987) 18 ... g5! with excellent
counterplay for Black.
13 ... Bxb5
 The alternative is 13 ... Rd8 14 e5 Nd5
(or 14 ... Bxb5 15 Rxb5 Qxc3 16 exf6 gxf6
17 Rxb7 Qxd4 18 Qxd4 Rxd4 19 Rxa7 Rd7
and the ending should be drawn) 15 c4 Ne7
16 Qg4 (both Yusupov’s 16 Qe1!? Qxe1 17
Rfxe1 and Chekhov’s 16 Qe2 lead to a level
position, the latter after 16 ... a6 17 Bxd7+
Rxd7 18 Rbd1 Qc7) 16 ... Bxb5 (as in
S.Lputian-A.Yusupov, USSR Championship,
Minsk 1987; 16 ... Ng6!? is also possible) 17
Nxb5 0-0 18 Qe4 Nc6 19 Rfe1 (19 f4!?) 19 ...
Qxa2 20 Nd6 (Chekhov) with an unclear
position.
14 Rxb5
Also possible is 14 Nxb5 0-0 15 e5 Rfd8
16 Qe2 Nd7 with equal chances.
14 ... Qxc3
14 ... Qxa2?! is not as good: 15 e5 Nd7
16 Rxb7 Nb6 (L.Ftacnik-A.Mikhalchishin,
German League 1994; other moves even lose,
as shown by the 16 ... Nxe5 17 Nc6! Qa6 18
Re7+ Kf8 19 Nxe5 given by Ftacnik, and
then 19 ... Qb5 20 Rxf7+ Kg8 21 Re1 Qe8 22
Qg4 or 19 ... Kxe7 20 Qd7+ Kf6 21 Qxf7+
Kxe5 22 Re1+ Kd5 23 Qc7; likewise, if 16 ...
Nc5 17 Re7+! Kf8 18 Nc6 Qd5 19 Qh5 g6 20
Qh6+ Kg8 21 Rc7) 17 Qb1 and in all
variations White wins the a7-pawn. That said,
his advantage will be difficult to realize after,
say, 17 ... Qc4 18 Qb5+ Qxb5 19 Nxb5 0-0
20 Nxa7 Nc4 21 Nc6 g5.
Instead, 14 ... Qc7 deserves serious
attention; for example, 15 Qf3 (15 e5!? is
perhaps the only chance to maintain equality,
and if 15 ... Nd7 16 Rb1 a6 17 f4 0-0 18 Rf3)
95
15 ... 0-0 16 e5 (or 16 Rg5 h6 17 Rg3 Qe5 18
Qe3 Kh8, F.Lamprecht-R.Rabiega, German
League 1998) 16 ... Nd5 17 Nf5 f6 18 Ne3
Nxe3 19 Qxe3 f5 with slightly the better
chances for Black due to his superior pawn
structure on the queenside.
15 e5
15 Rxb7 0-0 16 e5 Nd5 17 g3 leads to a
level game.
15 ... Nd5
16 Rxd5!?
16 Qg4 is weaker, as shown by 16 ... Qc4
(but not 16 ... 0-0?? 17 Nxe6! fxe6 18 Qxe6+
and White wins) 17 Rxb7 (Black has the
upper hand in the ending after 17 Qxg7 0-0-0
18 Qxf7 Nc7 19 Nxe6 Qxe6 20 Qxe6+ Nxe6)
17 ... 0-0 18 h3 Rab8 19 Rfb1 Rxb7 20 Rxb7
Qxa2 with an advantage for Black, whereas
16 Rb3 Qc5 17 Rxb7 0-0 18 Qd2 Rac8 leads
to equality.
16 ... exd5 17 Qa4+?
This obvious move is an error. Correct
was 17 Nb5! Qc6 (the alternative is 17 ...
Qa5 18 Nd6+ Kf8 and now the subtle 19 Qc2,
controlling the c-file, gives White slightly
the better chances; for example, 19 ... Qd8 20
Rb1 Rb8 21 Rb3 Qd7 22 Rc3 Kg8 23 Rc7
Qe6 24 Nxf7 Rf8 25 Nxh8 Qxe5 26 g3) 18
Nd6+ Kf8 19 Qf3 Qd7 (after 19 ... f6 20 Qa3
fxe5 21 Rc1 Qd7 22 Qf3+ Ke7 23 Qxd5
Qxd6 24 Qxb7+ Ke6 25 Rc6 Rac8 26 Rxd6+
Kxd6 27 g3 only White can fight for an
advantage) 20 Rb1 b6 21 Rb4 Kg8 22 Rf4
Rf8 23 Rxf7 Rxf7 24 Qxd5 h6 25 e6 Qc7 (or
25 ... Rf5 26 Qxf5 Qxd6 27 Qf7+ Kh7 28
Qf5+ Kg8 29 Qf7+ with perpetual check) 26
exf7+ Kh7 27 h4 and now Black can choose
between perpetual check after 27 ... Qc1+
and a positional draw with 27 ... Rf8 28 g3
Qe7 29 h5.
17 ... Kf8 18 e6 Re8??
It was a blitz game. After the simple 18 ...
fxe6 19 Nxe6+ Ke7! 20 Nf4 Rhd8 followed
by hiding the king on g8 Black would have
won.
19 Qd7 fxe6 20 Nxe6+ Rxe6 21 Qxe6
Qc6 22 Qf5+ Ke7?
Under no circumstances should Black
expose his king to an attack in the centre. The
unaesthetic defence 22 ... Kg8 23 Rd1
followed by 23 ... h5 24 g3 Rh6 25 Rxd5
gave good chances to resist.
23 Re1+ Kd8 24 Qg5+
Why not create some luft? 24 g3 h6 25
Qf4 Qc7 26 Qd4 Kc8 27 Qxa7 Rd8 28 Qa8+
Kd7 29 Qa3 results in a clear advantage for
White.
24 ... Qf6 25 Qg3 Kd7 26 Rc1 Re8??
After 26 ... Rd8 27 Qh3+ Ke7 28 Qxh7
Rc8 29 Re1+ Kd6 30 g3 White’s position
would only have been slightly better.
27 Qc7+ Ke6 28 Re1+ Kf5 29 g4+ 1-0
Game 38
V.Malakhatko-I.Khenkin
Lublin 2009
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Nb5 Nxe4 11 Qd4 0-0 12
Qxe4 a6 13 Be7 axb5 14 Bb4 Qc7
96
15 Bxf8
The alternative is 15 Bxb5 Bd7 (or 15 ...
Rd8 16 0-0 Bd7 17 Rfd1 Bc6 18 Qe5 Qc8
with an equal position, A.Graf-A.Kolev,
Spanish League 2003) 16 Bd3 (the game
J.Schmidt-N.Kosintseva, European
Women’s Championship, Dresden 2004,
ended in a draw after 16 Bxd7 Nxd7 17 Bxf8
Qxc3+ 18 Ke2 Qb2+ 19 Kf3 Qc3+ 20 Ke2
Qb2+ 21 Kf3 Qc3+ 22 Ke2) 16 ... g6 (or 16 ...
f5 17 Qe3 Re8 18 0-0 Na6 with equality,
K.Schmitzer-A.De Groot, correspondence
2009) 17 0-0, but Black has good play here;
for example, 17 ... Re8 (instead, 17 ... Rc8, as
in R.Kühne-F.Forstik, correspondence 2002,
can be met by 18 Qe3 Nc6 19 Rfd1 Nxb4 20
cxb4 Ra3 21 Rac1 Rxd3 22 Qxd3 Qxc1 23
Qxd7; but there is also 17 ... Rd8 18 Qe3 Bc6,
V.Kupreichik-S.Arslanov, Serpukhov 2009,
and if 19 Be2 Na6 20 a3 Bd5 21 Rfd1 Bc4)
18 Qe3 Nc6, as in A.Karpov-J.Timman, 8th
matchgame, FIDE World Championship,
Amsterdam 1993.
15 ... Kxf8 16 Bb3
The most precise move. White’s bishop
must be protected and take control of the
a4-square.
Obviously not 16 Bxb5? Qxc3+ 17 Ke2
Qb2+, when Black wins,
M.Nikolov-D.Frolyanov, Belgrade 2009,
and 16 Bd3 does not give equality either:
16 ... Qxc3+ 17 Ke2 Qb2+ 18 Bc2 (18 Kf3 is
even worse due to 18 ... Ra4 19 Qe3 Nc6 20
g3 Nd4+ 21 Kg2 Bd7 with an advantage for
Black) 18 ... f5 19 Qd3 Nc6 20 Qd6+ Ke8 21
Rhc1 Rxa2 22 Rxa2 Qxa2 23 Qc7 Bd7 24
Kf1 Qc4+ 25 Kg1 Nd4 26 Bd1 Qxc7 27
Rxc7 Bc6 28 Rxg7 b4 29 Rxh7 b3 30 Bxb3
Nxb3 31 h4 Nd4 32 h5 Kf8 and Black is
better in the ending.
16 ... Qxc3+ 17 Ke2 Qb2+

18 Kf3
Alternatively, 18 Ke3 Qc3+ 19 Qd3
Qe5+ 20 Qe4 Qc3+ 21 Ke2 Qb2+ 22 Ke3
½-½ L.Schandorff-K.Rasmussen, Danish
Championship, Horsens 2003.
18 ... Qc3+
Avoiding the draw is not justified here:
18 ... Nc6 19 Rhd1 Qf6+ 20 Ke2 and
although the position is still near equality,
only Black risks standing worse.
19 Ke2
The only way to avoid an immediate
draw is 19 Qe3 Qf6+ 20 Ke2 Qb2+ 21 Kd3
Nc6 22 Qc5+ Ke8 23 Ke3 (as in Yu
Yangyi-B.Macieja, Chicago 2016; the
superior 23 Rad1 Ne5+ 24 Ke3 Nc4+ leads
to equality) 23 ... b4 with a good game for
Black.
19 ... Qb2+ 20 Kf3 Qc3+ 21 Qe3 Qf6+
22 Qf4 Qc3+ 23 Qe3 Qf6+ 24 Qf4 Qc3+ 25
Ke2 Qb2+ 26 Kf3 Qc3+ 27 Ke2 Qb2+ 28
Kd3
The only way to continue the fight,
although it soon peters out after all.
28 ... Nc6 29 Rad1 Qa3 30 Ke2 Qe7 31
Qd6 e5 32 Ke3 Nd4 33 Qxe7+ Kxe7 34 f4
Nxb3 35 axb3 exf4+ 36 Kxf4 Be6 37 Rhe1
½-½
Game 39
F.Patocka-G.Flitsch
Correspondence 2005
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
97
bxc3 Qa5 10 Nb5 Nxe4 11 Bf4 0-0 12 0-0
Nd7 13 Re1 Ndf6
14 Bd3
The best move. White immediately
forces the e4-knight to leave its active
position.
White cannot expect anything after 14 a4,
as in A.Karpov-J.Piket, Monte Carlo (2nd
matchgame) 1999, and now the best move is
14 ... Bd7! 15 Bd3 (15 f3? is not dangerous
due to 15 ... Nxc3 16 Qd2 Bxb5 17 axb5 Qb4
and Black wins) 15 ... Bc6 16 Qb1 (16 Bc7?!
b6 17 Be5 a6 18 Bxe4 Nxe4 19 Qg4 g6 20
Nd4 Bb7 leads to an advantage for Black)
16 ... Nc5 (or 16 ... Nxc3 17 Nxc3 Qxc3 18
Be5 Qc5 19 Bxf6 gxf6 20 Bxh7+ Kg7 21
Be4 Rfd8) 17 Bc2 Rfc8 with the better
chances for Black.
14 ... Nc5 15 Nc7 Nd5!?
Black sacrifices an exchange. As a
compensation he hopes to exploit the
weaknesses in White’s pawn structure on the
queenside.
Instead, after the most natural 15 ... Rb8
White develops strong pressure with 16 Be5
Ncd7 17 Bd6 a6 18 a4. Now Black has a
serious problem of how to develop his pieces
and not lose an exchange:
a) 18 ... Nc5? 19 Re5 Nfd7 20 Rg5 h6 21
Rg3 Nxd3 (21 ... Nf6 22 Qf3) 22 Qxd3 Qf5
23 Qd2 with a decisive attack for White.
b) 18 ... Qxc3 19 Rc1 Qa5 20 Qb3 with a
strategically winning position.
 c) 18 ... Rd8 19 Rb1 h6 20 Qe2 b6 21 Be7
Bb7 22 Bxd8 Rxd8 23 Bxa6 with an
advantage for White.
16 Nxd5 exd5 17 Bd6
17 ... Rd8
Black could have kept the exchange after
17 ... Nxd3 18 Qxd3 Rd8 19 Qg3 Qa6 20 Be7
Re8 21 Bf6, in view of 21 ... Bg4!, although
after 22 Bxg7 Qg6 (or 22 ... Kxg7 23 Qxg4+
Qg6 24 Qd4+ Qf6 25 Qxd5, when Black
does not have full compensation for the pawn)
23 Be5 (in A.Pankratov-M.Tochacek,
correspondence 2004, a draw was agreed
after 23 Bd4 Be2, although the position still
looks nicer for White, as shown by 24 Qc7
Bf3 25 Rxe8+ Rxe8 26 Qg3 Qxg3 27 hxg3
Be2 28 Bxa7) 23 ... b6 24 Re3 f6 25 Bxf6
Rxe3 26 fxe3 Rf8 27 Rf1 he is playing to
draw.
18 Be7 Be6 19 Bxd8 Rxd8 20 Qf3
White had more chances to realize his
extra exchange after 20 Re3 Rc8 21 Bc2.
20 ... Nxd3 21 Qxd3 Rc8 22 Re3 Rc4 23
Rb1 b6 24 Qd2 Ra4 25 Rbe1
25 ... g6
98
But not 25 ... Rxa2?? 26 Rxe6 fxe6 27
Qe3 and White wins.
26 R1e2 d4 27 cxd4 Rxa2 28 Qxa5
Rxa5 29 f3 Rd5 30 Rd2 a5 31 Re5 b5 32
Rxd5 Bxd5 33 Re2 Kf8 34 Re5 Bc4 35 d5
f6 36 Re6 b4 37 Rc6
37 Re1 would not have changed the
result; for example, 37 ... b3 38 d6 Bb5 39
Kf2 a4 40 Ke3 Ke8 41 Kd4+ Kd7 42 Kc3
Kxd6.
37 ... Ba2! 38 Rc2 b3 39 Re2 Bb1 40
Re1 Bd3 41 d6 Bb5 42 Kf2 a4 43 Ke3 Ke8
44 Kd2+ Kd7 45 Kc3 Kxd6 46 Kb4 Bc6 47
Ka3 h5 48 h4 f5 ½-½
Game 40
A.Karpov-L.Aronian
Hoogeveen 2003
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 Nb5 Nxe4 11 Bf4 0-0 12 0-0
Bd7 13 a4 Bc6 14 Bc7 b6
15 Bd6
In A.Greenfeld-N.Grandelius, Douglas
2015, White played 15 Re1 a6 16 Nd6 (or 16
Nd4!? Qc5 17 Nxc6 Qxc6 18 Be5 Nf6 with a
small advantage for Black) and now after
16 ... Nxc3! 17 Qd4 Nd5 18 Bxd5 Qxd5 19
Qxd5 Bxd5 20 Bxb6 Nd7 Black is a pawn
up.
White has no chances of obtaining an
advantage either after 15 Qd4 Nd7 16 f3
Nec5 17 Bd6 Rfd8 18 Nc7 Rab8. Now in
Z.Gyimesi-J.Gustafsson, Austrian League
2004, 19 Nb5 (19 Be7 Rdc8 20 Nb5 Nf8 is
unclear, M.Moser-E.Schludecker,
correspondence 2012) 19 ... Ra8 20 Nc7 (20
Be7 Re8 21 Bh4 Rf8 22 Be7 is equal) 20 ...
Rab8 21 Nb5 the game was drawn by
threefold repetition. However, Black could
have obtained an advantage by 21 ... Nf8 (or
19 ... Nf8) 22 Qe3 Rb7 23 Be2 Rbd7 24 Bxc5
bxc5 25 Qxc5 Rc8.
15 ... Nxd6 16 Qxd6 a6 17 Nc7
17 ... Qg5
Otherwise, if 17 ... Ra7 18 Nxe6 fxe6 19
Bxe6+ Raf7 20 Rab1 Qg5 21 Bxf7+ Kxf7 22
Qg3 Qc5 23 Qc7+ Nd7 24 Rbd1 Kg6 25
Rxd7 Bxd7 26 Qxd7 Qxc3 with slightly the
better chances for White due to the unsafe
position of Black’s king.
18 Qg3 Qxg3 19 fxg3 Ra7 20 Nxe6!
This typical blow appears once again.
20 ... Rc8
Taking the knight would be a serious
error: 20 ... fxe6? 21 Bxe6+ Raf7 22 Rad1
Nd7? (even after the best defence 22 ... Bd7
23 Ba2 g6 24 Rxf7 Rxf7 25 Rd6 b5 26 a5
Kf8 27 Bxf7 Kxf7 28 Rb6 White should win
99
the ending) and now in
F.Döttling-D.Sebastian, German League
2006, White could have won in a forcing
manner: 23 Rd6! Bxa4 24 Rf4! Bb5 25 c4
Ba4 26 c5 Bb5 27 Rxf7 Rxf7 28 cxb6 Kf8 29
Bxf7.
21 Ng5 Be8 22 Rae1 h6 23 Rxe8+ Rxe8
24 Rxf7
The position after 24 Bxf7+ Rxf7 25
Nxf7 Re6 is level, as pointed out by Ribli.
24 ... Rxf7 25 Bxf7+ Kf8 26 Bxe8 Kxe8
27 Ne6
27 Ne4!? might have been a better try.
27 ... Kf7 28 Nc7 a5 29 Kf2 Nd7 30 Ke3
Nc5 31 Kd4 Nxa4 32 Nd5 b5 33 Nc7 b4 34
cxb4 axb4 35 Kc4 Nc3 36 Kxb4 Ne4 37
Nb5 Nd2 38 Nd4 Nf1 39 Nf3 Kf6 40 Kc4
Kf5 41 Kd3 Kg4 ½-½
If 42 Ke2 then 42 ... Nxh2 43 Nxh2+
Kxg3.
Conclusion
Black should not opt for side variations like
9 ... Nbd7 or 9 ... h6. He can only achieve
equal chances by entering the main line with
9 ... Qa5. Similarly, White’s attempt to avoid
the most popular lines with 10 Nb5 does not
create many problems for Black after 10 ...
Nxe4. Then 11 Bf4 0-0 12 0-0 can be met by
either 12 ... Nd7 or 12 ... Nc6, and even the
more popular 12 ... Bd7 is sufficient for full
equality.
Chapter Six
7 Bxc4 - Deviations
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4
In this chapter we will deal with the
remaining deviations in the main line.
7 ... cxd4
The exchange in the centre is the best
option, whereas keeping the tension with 7 ...
Qa5 (or similarly 7 ... Bxc3+ 8 bxc3 Qa5) or
7 ... Nc6 does not give Black much hope of
good play.
8 Nxd4
White does not have a big choice either
and should retake with the knight. The plan
of 8 Qa4+ followed by castling long is too
ambitious for White. Exchanging at once
with 8 Bxf6 is not very good either, although
White can at least count on equality here, as
is also the case after the inserted check 8
Bb5+ Bd7 9 Nxd4.
In this key position 8 ... Bxc3+ is
undoubtedly the strongest move for Black.
However, in this chapter we are going to
discuss other possibilities. Black actually has
a wide selection of sidelines – 8 ... h6, 8 ... e5,
8 ... Qc7, 8 ... 0-0, 8 ... Nbd7, and 8 ... Bd7 –
but none of them gives him real chances to
equalize. Even against the last of those,
which is relatively best, White has a better
position.
100
Therefore we will focus on:
8 ... Qa5 9 Bd2
The best continuation here is 9 Bb5!+
Bd7 10 Bxf6 Bxb5 11 Ndxb5 gxf6 12 0-0
Nc6 13 a3 Bxc3 14 Nxc3, which leads to a
slightly favourable ending for White. This is
the only variation after 8 ... Qa5 where White
achieves anything concrete. Nevertheless,
the severely reduced material means that a
draw is the most likely result.
Instead, 9 Nb5 is not a good idea for
White, while 9 Bxf6 usually just transposes
to the main line after 9 ... Bxc3+.
9 ... Qc5
Simple castling with 9 ... 0-0 will be met
by 10 Qe2, when Black has to conduct a long
defence of a slightly inferior position.
10 Bb5+ Bd7
If Black blocks the check with the knight
White can count on a small advantage after
either 10 ... Nc6 11 Nb3 or 10 ... Nd7 11 Nb3
Qb6 12 0-0 and 12 Qe2.
11 Nb3 Qe7
Other queen moves (to e7, e5 or b6)
allow White a small edge.
12 Bd3
The most ambitious move. Alternatives,
such as 12 Qe2 and 12 0-0, give White even
fewer chances of obtaining an advantage.
 12 ... Nc6 13 a3
Each of 13 f4, 13 0-0 and 13 Qe2 leads to
complicated positions with mutual chances.
13 ... Bd6 14 0-0 0-0
This is definitely the best move here.
Taking the h2-pawn is weak: 14 ... Bxh2+ 15
Kxh2 Qd6+ 16 f4 Qxd3 17 Nc5 and White
has the upper hand; while after 14 ... Rd8 15
f4 White also has excellent play.
15 f4
The most active continuation. After other
moves Black has no problems reaching
equality.
15 ... e5 16 f5
Nothing is achieved by 16 Nd5 Nxd5 17
exd5 Nd4, when Black does not stand worse.
16 ... Nd4 17 Bg5 Bc6
A complex position with mutual chances
has arisen.
Theory
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4
7 ... cxd4
The only significant alternative is 7 ... h6
8 Bxf6 Qxf6, which transposes to 6 ... h6
101
lines examined in Chapter Nine. Other
moves are inferior:
a) 7 ... Nc6?! is not of standard value, due
to 8 d5 exd5 (or 8 ... Na5 9 Bb5+ Bd7 10
Bxd7+ Qxd7 11 Ne5 Qd6 12 Qa4+ Kf8 13
Bf4 with a clear advantage) 9 exd5 Na5 (if
9 ... Qe7+, E.Do Nascimento-S.De Abreu,
correspondence 1993, then 10 Kf1 Nd4 11
Nxd4 cxd4 12 Qxd4 Qc5 13 Re1+ Kf8 14
Qxc5+ Bxc5 with an extra pawn and superior
position for White) 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Qe2+
Kf8 (J.Baron Rodriguez-R.Jario Garcia,
Zaragoza 2001) 12 0-0-0 and White has a
definite advantage.
b) 7 ... Qa5 does not give Black equality
either: 8 0-0! (H.Glatzel-T.Knechtel,
correspondence 1990) 8 ... cxd4!? 9 Bxf6
gxf6 10 Qxd4 Bxc3 11 bxc3 Nd7 12 Be2 and
White has the better chances.
c) 7 ... Bxc3+ 8 bxc3 Qa5 does not look
good because after the most principled and
aggressive move 9 0-0!, Black falls under a
very violent attack; e.g. 9 ... Nxe4 10 Re1
Nxg5 (or 10 ... Nd6 11 Bb3 Nf5 12 Qd3 g6
13 d5 0-0 14 dxe6 fxe6 15 Bxe6+ Bxe6 16
Rxe6) 11 Nxg5 0-0 12 d5 Qxc3 13 dxe6 fxe6
14 Qb1 g6 15 Bxe6+ Bxe6 16 Qxb7 and
White wins in both variations.
8 Nxd4
White too should stick to the main line.
a) 8 Qa4+, followed by castling long, is
not a good idea as the white king’s position is
unsafe; for example, 8 ... Nc6 9 0-0-0?! (but
after 9 Bb5 Bd7 10 0-0-0 Bxc3 11 bxc3 a6 12
Bxc6 Bxc6, Black still has the better chances)
9 ... Bxc3 10 bxc3 h6 11 Nxd4 (11 Bxf6
Qxf6 12 e5 Qe7 13 Nxd4 Bd7 14 Bb5 0-0 15
f4 Qc5 is even worse) 11 ... hxg5 12 Nxe6
(J.Hribersek-V.Jemec, correspondence 2008)
12 ... Qa5! 13 Qxa5 Nxa5 14 Rd8+ Ke7 15
Rxh8 fxe6 and Black has a clear advantage in
the ending.
b) 8 Bxf6 is premature and hence fails to
achieve an advantage: 8 ... Qxf6 9 Qxd4
(now 9 Nxd4? is just a mistake, in view of 9 ...
Nc6 10 Bb5 0-0 11 Nde2 Rd8 and Black has
the upper hand, J.Bolbochan-L.Piazzini,
Argentine Championship, Buenos Aires
1933, e.g. 12 Qb3 Bc5 13 0-0 Bd7 14 Rad1
a6; whereas 9 e5?!, as in
I.Khmelniker-E.Postny, Israeli
Championship, Ramat Aviv 2004, could be
met by 9 ... dxc3! 10 Qa4+ Bd7 11 Qxb4
cxb2 12 Qxb2 Qf4 13 Be2 Bc6 or 10 exf6
c2+ 11 Qd2 Bxd2+ 12 Kxd2 gxf6 13 Ke3
Nc6 and White does not have sufficient
compensation for the pawn)
b1) 9 ... Nc6 10 Qxf6 gxf6 11 Rc1 (or 11
0-0-0 a6 12 Nd4, I.Fuss-A.Becker, Vienna
1934, and now 12 ... Nxd4 13 Rxd4 Bc5 14
Rd2 b5 gives Black a small advantage in the
ending) 11 ... Ke7 (Black also has a good
game after 11 ... Bd7 12 0-0 Rc8 13 a3 Bd6,
as in V.Chekhover-Em.Lasker, Moscow
1935; see Game 5 in the Introduction) 12
Ke2 (keeping the king in the centre seems
more logical than castling; we will
familiarize ourselves with 12 0-0?! in Game
41) 12 ... Bd7 13 a3 Bd6 with an equal
ending, V.Khromov-A.Donchenko, Moscow
1996.
b2) 9 ... Qxd4 perhaps offers Black more
prospects: 10 Nxd4 a6 (aiming to keep the
bishop pair, as after 10 ... Bxc3+ 11 bxc3, the
permanent weakness on c3 is balanced by
White’s lead in development: e.g. 11 ... Bd7
12 Rb1 b6 13 e5 Ke7 14 f4 Rc8 15 Bd3 Ba4
16 Kd2 Nc6 17 Rhe1 or 13 Nb5,
J.Ojeda-L.Palau, Argentina 1938, 13 ... Ke7
102
14 Nc7 Rc8 15 Nxa8 Rxc4 16 Kd2 Bc6 17
Nxb6 axb6 18 Rxb6 Nd7 19 Rb4 and Black
has only a minimally better ending) 11 Rc1
(if 11 0-0 Bd7 12 Rfd1,
S.Khademalsharieh-I.Sipos, Kecskemet
2012, then 12 ... Nc6; or 11 0-0-0 Bd7 12 a3,
B.Khakimov-E.Trotsenko, Simferopol 1989,
then 12 ... Be7) 11 ... Bd7 12 Ke2 Nc6 13
Nf3 Ke7 14 e5 Ba5, H.Nakamura-L.Aronian,
Internet blitz 2003, with an excellent position
for Black in all cases.
c) 8 Bb5+ Bd7 9 Nxd4 is also inaccurate.
Here Black can throw in a quick ... h7-h6,
forcing White to take a decision about the
g5-bishop before doing anything else. For
example, 9 ... Bxc3+ (the immediate 9 ... h6
also deserves attention; e.g. 10 Bxf6 Qxf6 11
0-0 0-0 12 Qb3 Bc5 13 Nf3 Nc6 14 Rfd1
Rfd8 with good play for Black) 10 bxc3
(A.Maksimenko-L.Brunner, Bern 1994) 10 ...
h6 (this looks best, whereas 10 ... Qa5
transposes to the main lines of Chapter Three)
11 Bh4 (or 11 Bxf6 Qxf6 12 Qa4 Nc6 13 0-0
0-0 14 Bxc6 Bxc6 15 Nxc6 bxc6 and the
position is level) 11 ... a6 (11 ... g5?! 12 Bg3
Nxe4 13 Be5 is definitely too risky, since
Black cannot castle due to 13 ... 0-0? 14 Qh5
Qc8 15 0-0 Kh7 16 Bd3 f5 17 Bxe4 fxe4 18
Qg4 and White wins) 12 Bd3 e5 with equal
chances.
8 ... Qa5
Other seldom played moves are: 8 ... h6,
8 ... e5, 8 ... Qc7, 8 ... 0-0, 8 ... Nbd7, and 8 ...
Bd7. We will discuss them in that order.
 a) 8 ... h6? is a blunder due to 9 Qa4+,
although it is not quite as simple a win as it
might seem: 9 ... Nc6 10 Nxc6 Bxc3+ 11
bxc3 bxc6 12 Bxf6 Qxf6 (or 12 ... gxf6 13
Rd1 Qc7 14 0-0 0-0 15 Rd3 with a big
advantage) 13 Qxc6+ Bd7 14 Qxa8+ Ke7 15
Qxa7 Qxc3+ 16 Ke2 Qxc4+ 17 Kf3 Qc3+ 18
Qe3 Qf6+ 19 Kg3 Rc8 20 Rac1 Qg6+ 21
Kh4! e5 22 h3 Rxc1 23 Rxc1 Qxg2 24 Re1
Bxh3 25 Qa3+ Ke8 26 Qg3 and White wins.
b) 8 ... e5?! is not advisable either: 9
Qa4+ (9 Ndb5 is also very good: e.g. 9 ... a6
10 Qxd8+ Kxd8 11 0-0-0+ Nbd7 12 Bxf6+
gxf6 13 Nd6 Bxd6 14 Rxd6 Ke7 15 Rhd1
and White is much better in the ending) 9 ...
Nc6 (or 9 ... Bd7 10 Qxb4,
W.Wiese-F.Sanmartin, correspondence 1967)
10 Nxc6 Bxc3+ 11 bxc3 bxc6 and now
White can take a pawn 12 Qxc6+ Bd7 13
Qd6 or play 12 Rd1 Qc7 13 Bxf6 gxf6 14
Rd3 with a clear advantage in both cases.
c) 8 ... Qc7?! does not give Black chances
to equalize after 9 Qb3 Bxc3+ (or 9 ... Qc5
10 Bxf6 gxf6 11 0-0 Qxd4 12 Qxb4 Nc6,
G.Cherek-Kusche, correspondence 1983,
and now 13 Qa4 Qb6 14 Nd5 exd5 15 exd5
Qb4 16 Bb5 Qxa4 17 Bxa4 Bd7 18 dxc6
Bxc6 19 Bxc6+ bxc6 20 Rfe1+ with a clear
advantage for White) 10 Qxc3 Qe5 (the
forcing 10 ... Nxe4? 11 Nb5 Qc5 12 Qxg7
Rf8 13 Bh6 is no good for Black, and after
13 ... Qxf2+? 14 Kd1 Nd7 15 Re1 Nef6 16
Bxe6 Qxb2 17 Rc1, he had to resign in
Y.Averbakh-Y.Estrin, Moscow 1964) 11
Nb5 Qxg5 12 Nc7+ Kd8 13 Nxa8 and Black
does not have sufficient compensation.
d) Straightforward castling gives White
better chances too: 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 h6 (after 9 ...
Bxc3 10 bxc3 e5 11 Nb5 Nbd7 12 Qe2 h6,
E.Salmi-I.Kathi, correspondence 1998, 13
Bh4 White has the bishop pair and superior
development) 10 Bf4 (or 10 Bh4 Bxc3 11
bxc3 g5 12 Bg3 Nxe4, A.Sanchez
Rodenas-M.Van Tricht, correspondence
103
2002, 13 Qd3 Nxg3 14 Qxg3 and White’s
initiative is worth more than the sacrificed
pawn) 10 ... Bxc3 11 bxc3 Nxe4 and White
has a small advantage in all variations; for
example, 12 Qf3 (or 12 Qd3,
W.Kurth-N.Ninov, correspondence 2002,
12 ... Nd6 13 Nxe6 Bxe6 14 Bxe6 fxe6 15
Bxd6) 12 ... Ng5 13 Qg3 (or 13 Qe2,
G.Bertino-N.Ninov, correspondence 2002,
13 ... e5 14 Bxe5 Nd7 15 Bg3) 13 ... Ne4 14
Qe3 Nf6 (J.Van Unen-K.Kmiecik,
correspondence 2002) 15 Rad1 Nbd7 16 Nb5
e5 17 Bg3.
e) 8 ... Nbd7 requires a little more effort
from White:
e1) 9 Bxe6 is not very convincing; e.g.
9 ... fxe6 (or 9 ... Bxc3+ 10 bxc3 fxe6 11
Nxe6 Qa5 12 Nxg7+ Kf7 13 Nf5 Qxc3+ 14
Kf1 b6) 10 Nxe6 Qa5 11 Nxg7+ Kf7 12 Nf5
Rd8 13 0-0 Bxc3 14 bxc3 Nc5 and Black has
good chances in a very entangled position.
e2) 9 Nb5 can met bet by 9 ... a6!? (or 9 ...
0-0 10 a3 Bc5! 11 b4 Be7 with equality,
H.Kleinsorgen-W.Munkwitz,
correspondence 2002; e.g. 12 Be2 h6 13 Be3
a6 14 Nd4 a5) 10 Bxf6 (10 Nd6+ is worse:
10 ... Ke7 11 Bf4 Qb6 12 e5 Nxe5 13 Bxe5
Bxd6 and White has no compensation for the
pawn) 10 ... gxf6 11 Nd4 Bxc3+ 12 bxc3 Qc7
13 Be2 Qxc3+ 14 Kf1 reaches a position
resembling the main lines of the first two
chapters, except that Black effectively has an
extra tempo since White’s h-pawn is still on
h2.
 e3) 9 0-0 0-0 (or if 9 ... Qa5 10 Bh4 0-0
11 Qe2 Ne5 12 Bb3 b6,
S.Iskusnyh-A.Belozerov, Russian Team
Championship 2000, then 13 Bxf6 gxf6 14
Rfd1 and White has better chances; the
position after 9 ... Bxc3 10 bxc3 was
examined in the previous chapter) 10 Qe2
Bxc3 (after 10 ... Qa5,
C.Bergonzoni-H.Pleschke, correspondence
2003, we think White should play 11 Bh4,
transposing to 10 Bh4 0-0 11 Qe2 above) 11
bxc3 Qa5 12 f4 Qxc3 (F.Lippert-J.Orlowski,
Unterfranken 1988) 13 Rad1 (only with this
rook; the other one will be used for an attack
on the king!) 13 ... e5 (13 ... h6?! runs into 14
Bxh6! gxh6 15 e5 with a strong attack) 14
Nf5 exf4 15 Rxf4 Ne5 16 Bxf6 (the tempting
16 Nxg7 leads only to perpetual check: 16 ...
Nfg4 17 Nf5 Bxf5 18 exf5 Qe3+ 19 Qxe3
Nxe3 20 Rdd4 N3xc4 21 Bh6 Rfd8 22 Rg4+
Nxg4 23 Rxg4+ Kh8 24 Bg7+ Kg8 25 Bh6+
etc) 16 ... gxf6 17 Bd5 and White has more
than enough for the pawn.
f) The most interesting alternative is 8 ...
Bd7 9 0-0 (the direct 9 e5 does not give
White much; e.g. 9 ... Qa5 10 0-0 Qxe5 11
Nf3 Qc7 12 Bxf6 gxf6 13 Qd4 Be7 14 Nb5
Bxb5 15 Bxb5+ Nc6 16 Rac1 with equal play)
9 ... Nc6 10 Rc1 (White has a few other
moves at his disposal: 10 Nde2 Be7 11 Bf4,
A.Mastrovasilis-S.Halkias, Greek
Championship, Athens 2004, 11 ... 0-0 leads
to equality; but 10 Nxc6 Bxc6,
K.Maslak-K.Sakaev, Russian Championship,
Moscow 2008, 11 Qe2 Bxc3 12 bxc3 Qa5 13
Bxf6 gxf6 14 Rad1 0-0 15 Qe3; and 10 Re1
h6, C.Crouch-P.Marusenko, Newport 2001,
11 Bf4 0-0 12 e5 Nd5 13 Bxd5 exd5 14 a3;
and 10 a3 Be7 11 Nf3 0-0 12 e5 all give
White slightly the better chances)
104
f1) 10 ... 0-0 11 Nb3 (11 Nf3!?) 11 ... Ne5
12 Be2 Bc6 13 f3 Qb8 14 a3 and White looks
a little better, although a draw was agreed
here in V.Kramnik-V.Anand, Linares 1997.
f2) 10 ... a6 11 a3 Bxc3 (if 11 ... Be7 12
Nf3 Ng4, Z.Azmaiparashvili-A.Morozevich,
Madrid 1996, then 13 Bf4!? Bf6 14 Bd6
Nge5 15 Be2 leads to a favourable position
for White; while 11 ... Bd6?! cannot be
recommended due to 12 Nf5 Bxh2+ 13 Kxh2
exf5 14 Kg1 with a strong initiative for
White, e.g. 14 ... h6 15 Bxf6 Qxf6 16 exf5
Bxf5 17 Re1+ Kf8 18 Qb3) 12 Rxc3 h6 13
Bf4 (13 Be3 is also good; e.g. 13 ... Ne5 14
Bd3 Rc8 15 Rxc8 Qxc8 16 Bf4 with an
advantage) 13 ... Rc8 (13 ... Nxe4? fails to 14
Re3 Nf6 15 Nf5 0-0 16 Nxh6+ gxh6 17 Bxh6
Ne7 18 Rg3+ Ng6 19 Bg5 and White will
regain the piece and remain a pawn up) 14
Re1 0-0 15 Bd6 Re8 16 e5 Nd5 17 Rg3 Nde7
18 Qg4 with a dangerous kingside initiative
for White.
f3) 10 ... h6 looks the most logical
continuation, forcing White to declare the
position of his dark-squared bishop. This will
be discussed in Game 42.
Returning to 8 ... Qa5:
 9 Bd2
White has also tried:
a) 9 Ndb5?!, as in G.Glavinac-
S.Atanasov, Macedonian Championship,
Struga 2005, allows 9 ... Nxe4 10 Qd4 a6 11
Nc7+ (or 11 Qxe4 axb5 12 Bb3 Bxc3+ 13
bxc3 Qxc3+ 14 Ke2 Qb2+ 15 Kf3 h6 with
advantage, while 11 Qxg7? Rf8 12 0-0 Nxg5
13 Qxg5 axb5 14 Nxb5 Bd7 15 Rac1 Be7
wins for Black wins) 11 ... Qxc7 12 Qxe4
Bxc3+ 13 bxc3 h6 14 Bf4 Qc6 15 Qd3 Nd7
and White does not have full compensation
for the pawn.
b) 9 Bxf6 is a valid move order, which
transposes to the main line of Chapter Four
after 9 ... Bxc3+! 10 Kf1 (or 10 bxc3 Qxc3+)
10 ... gxf6 11 bxc3 Qxc3 etc. Avoiding this is
bad for Black; for example, 10 ... Bxd4?! 11
Bxd4 0-0 12 Bc3 (12 Qe1!?) 12 ... Qc5 (or
12 ... Qc7 13 Qe2 e5 14 Rd1) 13 Qd4 Qxd4
14 Nxd4 Nc6 15 Bc3 and White has the
better chances, K.Melia-T.Sambrook,
correspondence 2001.
The immediate 9 ... gxf6?! is inaccurate
for the usual reason that it allows White to
castle unscathed: 10 0-0 a6 (not now 10 ...
Bxc3 11 bxc3 Qxc3? due to 12 Bxe6 Bxe6 13
Rc1 Qa5 14 Nxe6 Nc6 15 Rc5 and Black
loses an exchange since 15 ... Qb6 runs into
16 Rb5, while after other 11th moves White
obtains main line positions with a castled
king and equal material; 10 ... Bd7 can be
met by the flexible 11 Rc1 Nc6 12 Nb3, as in
V.Kahn-P.F.Schmidt, Buenos Aires
Olympiad 1939, with advantage to White,
e.g. 12 ... Qc7 13 Qf3 Be7 14 Bb5 Rd8 15
Rfd1) 11 Nce2 (here 11 Rc1 0-0 12 Qf3 Qe5
13 Rfd1 looks even stronger) 11 ... Nd7 12 a3
Be7 13 Rc1 Ne5 14 Ba2 and White stands
better, Dao Thien Hai-J.Sadorra, Beijing
(blitz) 2008.
c) 9 Bb5+ gives White some interesting
possibilities:
105
c1) 9 ... Nbd7 10 Bxf6 (10 Bd2, as in
P.Kotsur-A.Ismagambetov, Tiumen 2010,
does not offer White anything; e.g. 10 ... 0-0
11 a3 Bxc3 12 Bxc3 Qb6 13 Qe2 Nc5 14 e5
Nd5) 10 ... gxf6 and now 11 0-0 Bxc3 12
bxc3 a6 13 Bxd7+ Bxd7 14 Qf3 Ke7 15 Rfd1
Rac8 (P.Rehtman-M.Murlasits,
correspondence 2009) 16 Rab1 Qxc3 17
Qxc3 Rxc3 18 Rxb7 leads to a slight
advantage in the ending for White. 11 Rc1
deserves attention too; for example, 11 ...
Qxa2?? 12 0-0 Qa5 13 Qh5 0-0 14 Nb3 Qd8
15 Rfd1 and wins, or if 11 ... a6 (T.Welin-
Y.Rantanen, Finland 1988) then 12 Bxd7+!?
Bxd7 13 0-0 Qb6 14 Qd3 with a small
advantage for White.
c2) 9 ... Bd7 looks stronger, and then 10
Bxf6 (not 10 Bd2? Bxb5 11 Ndxb5 Nxe4 12
Nxe4 Qxb5 13 Nc3 Qe5+ and Black is a pure
pawn up, F.Salzgeber-Ad.Horvath,
Pfaeffikon 2003) 10 ... Bxb5 will be
discussed in Game 43. The alternative 10 ...
gxf6?! is weaker; e.g. 11 0-0 Bxb5 12 Ncxb5
Nc6 13 a3 Nxd4 (P.Eljanov-G.Sargissian,
Spanish League 2005) 14 Nxd4 Bd6 15 Qe2
Rd8 16 Nf3 0-0 17 g3 with slightly the better
chances for White.
 9 ... Qc5
Instead, 9 ... Qb6 looks worse; for
example, 10 Be3 (T.Schipmann-F.Trani,
correspondence 2001) 10 ... Bxc3+ 11 bxc3
0-0 12 0-0 Qc7 13 Qe2 and White has the
better chances.
However, Black can also castle
immediately with 9 ... 0-0 and then:
a) 10 0-0?! is inaccurate due to 10 ... Qc5
and White has to play very precisely to
equalize; e.g. 11 Ncb5 Bxd2 12 Qxd2 a6 13
Rfc1 axb5 14 Bxe6 Nxe4 15 Rxc5 Nxd2 16
Bxc8 Ra4 17 Rd5 Rxc8 18 Nf5 Rxa2 19 Rd1
Nc6 20 R5xd2.
b) 10 Nb3 Qc7 11 Qe2 Nc6 12 0-0
(N.Papenin-K.Moskovets, Kiev 2001) does
not give White much either after, say 12 ...
Ne5.
But two other moves deserve serious
attention:
c) 10 Qe2 e5 (other moves are inferior:
10 ... Nc6?! 11 Nxc6 bxc6 12 a3 and White
has the upper hand; or 10 ... Rd8 11 Nb3 Qc7
12 0-0 Nc6, V.Akopian-J.Piket, Dortmund
2000, 13 Nb5 Qe5 14 Bxb4 Nxb4 15 Nc3 a6
16 a3 Nc6 17 f4 Qc7 18 e5 with a clear
advantage for White; or 10 ... Nbd7 11 a3
Ne5 12 Ba2 Qd8 13 f4 Ng6 14 axb4 Qxd4 15
e5 Nd5, A.Shabalov-J.Sadorra, Richardson
2011, 16 Bxd5 exd5 17 Be3 Qxb4 18 Ra4
and White has the initiative) 11 Nc2 (after 11
Nb3 Qb6 12 0-0 White can count only on a
minimal advantage; e.g. 12 ... Bxc3 13 Bxc3
Bg4 14 Qd3 Nc6 15 Qg3, T.Learte
Pastor-J.Grifoll Miro, correspondence 2005)
106
11 ... Nc6 reaches an interesting position
which will be discussed in Game 44.
d) 10 Nc2 seems as if it should offer
White an advantage as he will have the
bishop pair, but it is not so simple:
d1) 10 ... Nc6 11 Nxb4 (if 11 Qe2 Rd8,
G.Prakash-A.Barsov, Dhaka 2001, then 12
a3 Bxc3 13 Bxc3 Qg5 14 0-0 e5 15 Rfd1 Bh3
16 g3 with better chances for White) 11 ...
Qxb4 12 b3 Rd8 (or 12 ... Qe7 13 0-0 Rd8 14
Qe1, Le Quang Liem-Lu Shanglei, Danzhou
2017, 14 ... a6!? 15 a4 Ne5 16 Be2 b6 with
equality) 13 0-0 (but not 13 Nd5? exd5! 14
Bxb4 dxc4 15 Qe2 Nxb4, when Black has an
excellent game) 13 ... Nd7 14 Be2 Nc5 15
Bc4 Nd7 with equality.
d2) 10 ... Bxc3 (the most forcing move)
11 Bxc3 Qg5 (now both the g2- and
e4-pawns are attacked) 12 Qe2?! (White has
two alternatives here: 12 0-0 Nxe4 13 Bb4
Rd8 14 Qe2 Nd6 15 f4 Qe7 16 Bd3 with
compensation for the pawn; or 12 Qf3 Nbd7
13 0-0 Ne5 14 Qe2 Nxc4 15 Qxc4 Bd7 16
Rfd1 Rac8 17 Qb4 with equal chances) 12 ...
Qxg2 13 0-0-0 (after 13 f3 Qxh1+ 14 Kd2
Qxa1 15 Nxa1 Rd8+ 16 Ke3 Ne8 17 Nb3
Nc6, Black has slightly better chances) 13 ...
Qxe4 14 Rhg1 (both 14 Qd2 Qh4 and 14 Ne3
e5, L.Murzin-A.Donchenko, Voronezh 2000,
leave Black with a clear advantage; e.g. 15
Nd5 Qxe2 16 Nxf6+ gxf6 17 Bxe2 Nc6 18
Bb5 Be6 19 Bxc6 bxc6 20 f4 h6 21 fxe5 f5
leads to an ending with opposite-coloured
bishops where Black is a pawn up) 14 ... g6!
(an excellent move: Black parries all threats
based on the motifs 15 Bxf6 or 15 Rxg7+;
instead, the ‘natural’ 14 ... Qxe2? would be
met by 15 Rxg7+ Kh8 16 Bxe2 e5 17 Rgg1
Nc6 18 Bf3 with a big advantage for White,
while after 14 ... e5 15 Bxe5 g6 16 Qxe4
Nxe4 17 Rd4 Nxf2 18 Rh4 {threatening a
deadly Rxg6+} 18 ... Ng4 19 Rgxg4 Bxg4 20
Rxg4 Re8 21 Bc3 Nc6 22 Rf4 Re7 23 Nb4
Nxb4 24 Bxb4, the bishops offer White at
least a small advantage) 15 Ne3 (after 15
Rge1 Qxe2 16 Rxe2 Nbd7 17 Ne3 a6 18 Rc2
Ra7 19 Bf1 b6, White does not have
sufficient compensation for two pawns) 15 ...
e5 16 f4? (only after 16 Nd5 Qxe2 17 Nxf6+
Kg7 18 Bxe2 Kxf6 19 f4 could White count
on some compensation for the pawn) 16 ...
Be6 (now White is losing) 17 Bd3 (or 17
Bxe6 fxe6 18 fxe5 Nd5 19 Rxd5 exd5 20 e6
Rf3 21 Re1 Nc6 22 e7 Re8 23 Qd2 0-1
B.Chatalbashev-A.Delchev, Reggio Emilia
2004/05) 17 ... Qxf4 18 Rgf1 (or 18 Rdf1
Qh4 19 Be1 Rc8+ 20 Kb1 Qa4 21 b3 Qc6!
with a decisive advantage for Black) was
G.Kasparov-A.Morozevich, Sarajevo 2000,
and now 18 ... Qg5! 19 h4 Qxh4 20 Rh1 Qa4
21 Bb5 Qe4! would have won for Black,
according to Morozevich.
10 Bb5+
10 ... Bd7
The most natural defence. Black can also
cover his king with the b8-knight:
After 10 ... Nc6 White has the better
chances; e.g. 11 Nb3 (or 11 Nxc6 bxc6 12
Bd3 0-0 13 0-0 Rd8 14 Na4 Qd4 15 Bxb4
Qxb4 16 Qc2) 11 ... Qb6 12 0-0 0-0 13 Bxc6
107
Qxc6 14 Re1, as in G.Pasqua-A.Reede,
correspondence 2011.
However, d7 is a better square for the
knight; i.e. 10 ... Nbd7 11 Nb3 Qb6 (other
queen withdrawals are inferior: 11 ... Qe7 12
e5 Bxc3 13 bxc3 Ne4 14 Qg4 Nxd2 15 Qxg7
Qf8 16 Bxd7+ Bxd7 17 Qxf8+ Rxf8 18 Kxd2,
when Black has little compensation for the
pawn; or 11 ... Qe5 12 f4 Qc7 13 e5 Bxc3 14
Bxc3 Nd5 15 Bd2 0-0 16 Rc1 Qd8 17 Qe2
and White has the upper hand,
E.L’Ami-O.Van Veen, Dieren 2009)
a) 12 0-0 Bxc3 (12 ... a6?! 13 Bxd7+
Nxd7 14 Qg4 cannot be recommended for
Black, S.Ernst-H.Jonkman, Groningen 2002,
or 13 ... Bxd7 14 e5 Bxc3 15 bxc3 and White
has a clear advantage, according to Ribli;
12 ... 0-0 13 Be3 Qd8 14 f3 also gives Black
problems) 13 Bxd7+ Bxd7 14 Bxc3 Nxe4
(the position after 14 ... Bc6 15 Bd4 Qd8,
J.Solar-H.Hunger, correspondence 2006, and
simply 16 f3 looks unpleasant for Black in
spite of the opposite-coloured bishops) 15
Bxg7 (15 Bd4 Qb5 16 Qg4 deserves serious
attention; e.g. 16 ... Bc6 17 f3 Qg5 18 Qxg5
Nxg5 19 Rae1 h5 20 h4 Nh7 21 Bxg7 Rg8 22
Bc3 0-0-0 23 Nd4 and White has a definite
edge in the ending, H.Galavics-M.Murlasits,
correspondence 2012) 15 ... Rg8 16 Bd4 Qb5
17 Re1! Rxg2+ (otherwise White obtains an
advantage; e.g. 17 ... Bc6 18 f3 Ng5 19 Kh1
Qf5 20 Re3 Rd8 21 Qe2 or 17 ... Qg5 18 Qf3
f5 19 Nc5 Nxc5 20 Bxc5) 18 Kxg2 Qg5+ 19
Kf3 Bc6 20 Rxe4 f5!? (not 20 ... Qf5+? 21
Kg3 Qxe4 22 f3 Qg6+ 23 Kf2 Qh5,
P.Tregubov-A.Delorme, European
Championship, Aix-les-Bains 2011, 24 Qh1
Qh4+ 25 Ke3 Qg5+ 26 Ke2 and Black has no
compensation for the missing knight) 21 Ke2
fxe4. Black still only has one pawn for the
piece but, unexpectedly, in most variations
White is unable to maintain his material
advantage. Nevertheless, he should at least
attain a favourable ending; e.g. 22 Ke1 e5 23
Qc1 Qxc1+ 24 Rxc1 exd4 25 Nxd4 Bd5 26
b3 Rd8 27 Ke2 Kd7 28 Rg1 Kd6 29 Ke3.
b) 12 Qe2 a6 13 Bd3 (13 Bxd7+ Bxd7 14
e5 Nd5 15 0-0 Nxc3 16 bxc3 Bf8 17 c4 Qc7
is unclear, A.Samraoui-Jo.Rodriguez,
correspondence 2003) 13 ... Ne5 14 0-0
(White can also safeguard the bishop with 14
Bc2 Bd7 15 f4 Ng6 16 e5 Nd5 17 Nxd5 exd5
18 g3 Bb5 19 Qf2, keeping a small edge,
T.Lorenc-M.Rachunek, correspondence
2003) 14 ... 0-0 15 Rac1 Bd7 16 Be3 Qd6 17
Rfd1 Neg4 18 g3 and White has a slight plus
in all variations; for example, 18 ... Nxe3 (or
18 ... Rac8 19 Bg5 – Ribli) 19 Qxe3 Ng4 (or
19 ... Qe5 20 Be2 Bxc3 21 Rxc3,
A.Chirea-J.Jina, correspondence 2005) 20
Qg5 e5 (or 20 ... Ne5 21 Be2 f6! 22 Rxd6
fxg5 23 Rb6 Bxc3 24 Rxc3 Bc6 25 Nc5 g4
26 Nxb7 Bxe4 27 Rxe6 – Ftacnik) 21 Nd5 h6
22 Qh4 Rac8? 23 Be2 Rxc1 24 Nxc1 and
White won material in
B.Gelfand-A.Khalifman, Rest of the
World-Russia rapid match, Moscow 2002.
11 Nb3
Unexpectedly, 11 Bxd7+?! Nbxd7 leads
to a better position for Black; e.g. 12 Nde2
108
(or 12 Nf3? Bxc3 13 Bxc3 Nxe4,
A.Afsar-R.Navarro, correspondence 2001)
12 ... 0-0 13 0-0 Rfd8 14 Rc1 Qh5 15 Qc2
Ne5.
11 ... Qe7
The retreat to c7 with 11 ... Qc7 will be
discussed in Game 45. We also have two
other queen moves to examine:
a) 11 ... Qb6 12 Bd3 gives White a small
advantage in all variations; for example, 12 ...
Nc6 (or 12 ... 0-0 13 0-0 Qd6 14 Qe2 e5 15
Rfd1, J.Parzefall-R.Gutfleisch,
correspondence 1996; or 12 ... Bc6 13 Qe2
Nbd7 14 e5 Nd5 15 0-0 Nxc3 16 bxc3 Bc5
17 Bf4, P.Janocko-P.Fric, correspondence
2005) 13 0-0 Ne5 14 Be2 0-0 15 a3 (or 15
Be3 Qd8 16 f4 Bxc3 17 bxc3 Ng6 18 e5 Nd5
19 Bd2 V.Chuchelov-M.Feygin, German
League 2001) 15 ... Bxc3 16 Bxc3 Ba4 17
Bxe5 Rfd8 18 Qc1 Qxb3,
V.Leupold-P.Walczak, correspondence
2006.
b) 11 ... Qe5 (in the centre the queen is
exposed to an attack by f2-f4, though White
must always reckon with ... Bxc3 and then
choose between b2xc3, spoiling the pawn
structure, and Bxc3, sacrificing the f4-pawn)
12 f4 (or 12 Bd3 Na6 13 f4 Qd6,
E.Bacrot-A.Delchev, French League 2005,
14 Qe2 Bxc3 15 bxc3 Nc5 16 Nxc5 Qxc5 17
e5 Nd5 18 Qf2 Qxf2+ 19 Kxf2 with a slight
edge for White) 12 ... Qc7 13 Bd3 Bxc3 14
bxc3 (14 Bxc3 deserves serious attention; e.g.
14 ... Qxf4 15 Qf3 Qh4+ 16 g3 Qg5 17 Na5
Bc6 18 h4 and White has decent
compensation for the pawn) 14 ... Na6
(instead, 14 ... Bc6 15 Qe2,
M.Notkin-G.Vescovi, Internet blitz 2004,
15 ... Na6 16 e5 Nd7 17 Be3 is good for
White; or if 14 ... e5,
L.K.Andersen-T.Reichert, correspondence
2007, then 15 fxe5 Ng4 16 Be2 Nxe5 17 0-0
Nbc6 18 Nd4 gives White chances of a small
advantage) 15 e5 Nd5 16 Bxa6 bxa6 17 Rc1
Ba4 18 c4 Ne7 19 0-0 and White was slightly
better in M.Bychkov-M.Toropov,
correspondence 2007.
12 Bd3
The most frequent bishop retreat. Other
moves are less ambitious and allow Black to
exchange the light-squared bishops:
a) 12 Qe2 Bxb5! 13 Qxb5+ Nc6 14 Nd4
(or 14 0-0 a6 15 Qe2 0-0) 14 ... Rc8 15 Nxc6
Rxc6 16 0-0 a6 with equal play,
Z.Azmaiparashvili-A.Morozevich, FIDE
World Cup, Shenyang 2000.
b) 12 0-0 0-0 (still giving White the
option to withdraw the bishop; instead, 12 ...
Bxb5 13 Nxb5 Bxd2 14 Qxd2 0-0 15 Qd6
Nc6 16 Qxe7 Nxe7 17 f3 Rfd8 18 Rad1 Nc6
19 Nc5 b6, M.Millstone-C.Moreno Carretero,
correspondence 2009, and now 20 Nb7 Rxd1
21 Rxd1 g5 22 Kf2 Ne5 23 Ke2 might give
White a slight edge in the endgame; or if 12 ...
Bxc3 13 Bxd7+ Nbxd7 14 Bxc3 0-0 15 Qe2
e5 16 Rfd1 Rfc8, A.Peter-Cs.Horvath,
Hungarian League 2001, then 17 Rac1 and
White has the better chances) 13 Qe2 (13
Bd3 Nc6 transposes to the next note) 13 ...
Bxb5 14 Qxb5 was J.Le Roux-S.Feller,
Nimes 2009, and now 14 ... a6 15 Qe2 (15
Qb6 Bd6 16 f4 Nbd7 17 Qxb7 Bc5+ 18 Kh1
Rfb8 19 Qc7 Rc8 20 Qb7 Rcb8 leads to a
draw by repetition) 15 ... Nc6 16 a3 Bd6 17
Be3 Rfd8 is one way to reach an equal
position.
12 ... Nc6
109
Black has completed his minor piece
development and now wants to play ... e6-e5
in order to activate his light-squared bishop.
13 a3
The alternatives are:
a) 13 f4 e5 14 0-0 (14 f5, as in
H.Melkumyan-A.Colovic, Balaguer 2010, is
weaker because of 14 ... a5 and Black seizes
the initiative) 14 ... Be6 15 fxe5 Nxe5 16
Bb5+ (P.Harikrishna-Wang Yue, Asian
Team Championship, Guangzhou 2010) 16 ...
Kf8 17 Bg5 (or 17 Nd5 Bxd5 18 exd5 a6 19
Be2 Nxd5) 17 ... h5 (or 17 ... Neg4 18 Nd4
Qc5) 18 Rc1 Neg4 with an unclear position
in all variations.
b) 13 Qe2 e5 14 0-0 Be6 15 Bg5 Bxc3 16
bxc3 h6 (16 ... 0-0 17 Rab1 b6 is level) 17
Bxf6 (after 17 Be3 b6 18 f3 0-0 White’s
bishop pair is balanced by Black’s superior
pawn structure) 17 ... Qxf6 18 Bb5 0-0 19
Bxc6 bxc6 20 Nc5 leads to a drawish
position, whereas 17 ... gxf6?, as in
T.Radjabov-L.Aronian, Mainz (rapid) 2005,
is a dubious idea. This position is discussed
in Game 46.
c) 13 0-0 0-0 (after 13 ... Ne5 14 Be2 Ng6
15 a3 Bd6 16 g3 0-0 17 f4 Bc6 18 e5 Bc5+ 19
Nxc5 Qxc5+ 20 Rf2 Nd5,
Jam.Jensen-M.C.Sanchez, correspondence
2005, 21 Nxd5 Qxd5 22 Bf3 White is slightly
better) 14 a3 (14 Qe2, as in
Y.Malinin-N.Mishuchkov, Nev Ladoga
2012, is less convincing, e.g. 14 ... e5 15 Nd5
Qd6 16 Nxf6+ Qxf6 17 Rfd1 Rac8 18 Bc4
Rfd8 with an equal position; or if 14 f4 Bxc3
15 Bxc3 e5 16 Qf3 Rad8 17 Rae1 Be6 18
fxe5 Nd7 19 Qg3, P.Genov-T.Gelashvili,
Greek League 2001, then 19 ... Ndxe5 and
Black is fine) 14 ... Bxc3 (here 13 ... Bd6 is
better, returning to the main line) 15 Bxc3 e5
16 Na5 Nxa5 17 Bxa5 Rfc8 18 Qf3 Qe6 19
Rac1 h6 20 Qe2 a6 21 Bc3 Rc7 and White’s
position is preferable, even if a draw was
agreed here in G.Bartsch-K.Rodriguez,
correspondence 2003.
13 ... Bd6
Instead, 13 ... Bxc3 14 Bxc3 e5 (or 14 ...
0-0 15 0-0) 15 Na5 Nxa5 16 Bxa5 0-0 17 0-0
transposes to the previous note.
14 0-0
The most flexible move. Black has an
excellent position after both 14 Be3 0-0 15
0-0 Rfd8 16 h3 Ne5, B.Macieja-R.Wojtaszek,
Greek League 2009, and 14 f4 e5 15 f5 Nd4
16 Bg5 Bc6, Z.Kozul-M.Palac, Croatian
League 2010; e.g. 17 0-0 h6 18 Bh4 0-0 19
Bc4 Rfc8.
14 ... 0-0
Other moves are worse:
a) 14 ... Bxh2+?! 15 Kxh2 Qd6+ 16 f4
Qxd3 17 Nc5 and White regains the pawn
with advantage; e.g. 17 ... Qc4 18 Nxb7 0-0
19 e5 Nd5 20 Nd6 Qd4 21 Nxd5.
b) 14 ... Rd8?! 15 f4 Bc8 (the point is that
15 ... e5 runs into 16 Nd5 Qf8 17 Na5 and
White is already winning; while after 15 ...
Bc7 or 15 ... Bc5+ 16 Kh1 Bb6, White can
develop a strong initiative with 17 e5) 16 e5
Bc5+ (this discovered check was Black’s
hope, but ... ) 17 Kh1 Rxd3 (or 17 ... Nd5 18
110
Nxd5 Rxd5 19 Be4 Rd8 20 Qg4 with a
decisive advantage for White) 18 exf6 gxf6
(V.Topalov-Ju.Polgar, Wijk aan Zee 1998)
and in her notes Polgar gives 19 Nxc5 Qxc5
20 Ne4 as very good for White; for example,
20 ... Qd4 (20 ... Qc4 21 Qe2 Qc2 22 Rac1
Rxd2 23 Nxd2 or 20 ... Qf5 21 Qe2 Rd4 22
Rae1 Ne7 23 Bc3 Qxe4 24 Qxe4 Rxe4 25
Rxe4) 21 Qe1 f5 (or 21 ... Qxb2 22 Bc3) 22
Bc3 Qxe4 23 Qxe4 fxe4 24 Bxh8. In fact we
think White is probably winning in all
variations.
15 f4
The most energetic and most frequently
played move. Other continuations here do
not offer White much:
a) 15 Qe2 (R.Rapport-M.Arnold,
Helsingor 2011) 15 ... Rac8 16 Rad1 Rfd8 17
f4 e5 18 Nd5 Nxd5 19 exd5 Nd4 20 Nxd4
exd4 with equality.
b) 15 Bg5 h6 16 Bh4 Bf4 (an original
blocking move) 17 Ne2 (17 Qe2!?) 17 ... Bc7
(White has chased this bishop away at the
cost of withdrawing his knight; moreover,
the bishop can be reactivated on the a7-g1
diagonal) 18 f4 Bb6+ (or 18 ... e5,
G.Singer-G.Sulis, correspondence 2006, and
if 19 Nc3 then 19 ... Qd6 20 Nb5 Bb6+ 21
Kh1 Qe7 22 Nc3 Qd6 should equalize) 19
Kh1 g5 20 fxg5 Ng4 21 Ned4 Nce5 22 Qd2
Ng6 with excellent counterplay for Black.
c) 15 Kh1 Ne5 (15 ... Be5!? 16 f4 Bxc3
17 Bxc3 e5 18 f5 Rfd8 19 Qe2 b6 20 Nd2
Bc8 21 Nf3 Bb7 led to a draw in
V.Kramnik-V.Anand, Bilbao 2010) 16 Be2
Ng6 17 f4 e5 18 f5 Nf4 19 Bf3 Bc6 20 Qc2
(Le Quang Liem later suggested 20 Na5
Rfd8 21 Nxc6 bxc6 22 Qc2 as a clear
improvement) 20 ... Rfc8! (creating great
complications; instead, 20 ... h6 21 Na5 Rac8
22 Nxc6 Rxc6 23 Bxf4 exf4 24 e5 Bxe5 25
Bxc6 bxc6 26 Rae1 offers White a slight
advantage, according to Le Quang Liem) 21
g3 Ne2 22 Nxe2 Bxe4 23 Bxe4 Rxc2 24
Bxc2 Qc7 25 Nc3 Qc6+ 26 Kg1 reaches an
unbalanced position where Black has queen
and pawn for White’s rook, bishop and
knight. Further analysis can be found in
Game 47.
15 ... e5
16 f5
Although White achieves nothing after
16 Nd5, it is perhaps the best move; for
example, 16 ... Nxd5 (or 16 ... Qd8 17 fxe5,
J.Campbell-M.Divanbaigyzand,
correspondence 2005, and now 17 ... Nxe5
18 Bg5 18 ... Neg4 19 h3 h6 20 Bxf6 Nxf6 21
Nxf6+ gxf6 22 Bc4 Be5, when the bishop
pair compensates for Black’s weak pawns on
the kingside) 17 exd5 Nd4 18 Re1 (or 18
fxe5 Bxe5 19 Nxd4 Bxd4+ 20 Kh1 a5 21
Qb3 Be5 with equality, A.Fier-K.Kulaots,
Rome 2011) 18 ... Ba4 19 Bxh7+ Kxh7 20
Qb1+ Kg8 21 Nxd4 Qc7 22 fxe5 Bxe5 23
Nf3 Rfe8 24 Nxe5 Rxe5 25 Rxe5 Qxe5 and a
draw was agreed in R.Meissner-E.Stilman,
correspondence 2011.
16 ... Nd4 17 Bg5
Or 17 Nxd4 exd4 18 Nd5 ½-½ D.De
Silva-H.Ingersol, correspondence 2006.
17 ... Bc6
111
Once again we have a dynamic position
with mutual chances. This one will be
discussed in Game 48.
Illustrative Games
Game 41
S.Prayitno-M.Paragua
Tarakan 2008
1 d4 e6 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 c4 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Bxf6 Qxf6 9
Qxd4 Nc6 10 Qxf6 gxf6 11 Rc1 Ke7 12 0-0
12 ... Rd8
12 ... Ne5!? offers more chances of
obtaining an initiative; e.g. 13 Be2 (or 13
Nxe5 fxe5) 13 ... Nxf3+ 14 Bxf3 Bd7 15 a3
Bd6 16 Rfd1 Bf4.
13 a3 Bd6 14 g3
14 Be2!? looks better.
14 ... Bd7 15 Nb5 Be5 16 Rc2 a6 17 Nc3
Nd4
This looks premature. Black would have
better chances after 17 ... Be8 18 Rfc1 Nd4
19 Nxd4 Bxd4 20 Kf1 Rac8, or else 17 ...
Rac8 18 Be2 (or 18 Bb3 Na5 19 Nxe5 fxe5
20 Ba2 Ba4 21 Re2 Bb3) 18 ... Nd4 19 Nxd4
Bxd4 20 Rfc1 Bc6.
18 Nxd4 Bxd4 19 Ne2?!
White puts his knight on an inactive
square. 19 Rd1 Bb6 20 Rcd2 gives more
chances to equalize.
19 ... Ba7 20 Kg2?!
This is not the best move either. White
should play 20 Rcf1, when 20 ... Rac8 (or
20 ... Bc6 21 Nc3 again) 21 Kf1 Bc6 can be
met by 22 Bxa6.
20 ... Ba4?!
As just intimated 20 ... Rac8 21 Rfc1 Bc6
22 f3 Be3 was the most precise way to
develop the initiative.
21 b3 Bc6 22 f3 Rd6 23 b4??
A fatal blunder. Obviously Black’s
position would be better after any move, but
now White loses very quickly.
23 ... Ba4! 24 Rb2 Rc8
The black rooks unavoidably invade
White’s camp.
25 Ba2
Or 25 Bb3 Bxb3 26 Rxb3 Rc2.
25 ... Rd3 26 Rc1 Rxc1 27 Nxc1 Rxa3
28 Bb3? Be3 29 Bxa4 Bxc1 30 Rc2 Rxa4
31 Rxc1 Rxb4 32 Rc7+ 0-1
Game 42
V.Kramnik-V.Anand
Dos Hermanas 1997
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 d5 4 d4 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bd7 9
0-0 Nc6 10 Rc1 h6
112
11 Bf4
Alternatively:
a) 11 Bxf6 (getting rid of the bishop pair
cannot help White’s chances of obtaining an
initiative) 11 ... Qxf6 12 Nxc6 (or Ndb5 Rd8
13 Nd6+ Bxd6 14 Qxd6 Bc8 15 Qg3 Qg5)
12 ... Bxc6 13 Bb5 Bxb5 14 Nxb5 0-0 with
equality, A.Veingold-K.Kulaots, Upplands
Vasby 2000.
b) 11 Bh4 g5 leads almost forcingly to an
equal endgame: 12 Bg3 Bxc3 13 bxc3 Nxe4
14 Qh5 Qe7 15 Rce1 Nxg3 16 fxg3 0-0-0 17
Qxf7 Qxf7 18 Rxf7 Nxd4 19 cxd4 Be8 20
Bxe6+ Kb8 21 Re7 Rxd4.
c) 11 Be3 0-0 (11 ... Bxc3?! 12 Rxc3
Nxe4 13 Qg4 Nf6 14 Qg3 Nxd4 15 Bxd4
Bc6 16 Rd1 is not good for Black) 12 Nxc6
Bxc6 13 Qxd8 Rfxd8 14 f3 a6 15 Rfd1 Nd7
16 a3 gives White some chances of obtaining
a slight edge.
11 ... 0-0
Other possibilities are:
a) 11 ... Bxc3?! 12 Rxc3 Nxe4?! is not a
good idea, as after 13 Re3 Nxd4 14 Qxd4
Nf6 15 Bd6 Black is completely paralysed.
b) 11 ... g5 12 Nxc6 Bxc6 13 Be5 Qxd1
14 Rfxd1 Ke7 15 Nd5+ Bxd5 (15 ... exd5? 16
exd5) 16 exd5 Rhd8 17 dxe6 and White has a
small advantage in the ending.
c) 11 ... Nxd4 12 Qxd4 Bc6 13 Bd5 leads
to complications that are advantageous for
White; for example, 13 ... exd5 (or 13 ... Qb6
14 Bxc6+ bxc6 15 Qe5) 14 Qxb4 dxe4 15
Rfd1 Qb6 16 Qd6 Rd8 17 Qe5+ Kf8 18
Rxd8+ Qxd8 19 Rd1 Qc8 20 Qa5.
12 e5 Qb8
After 12 ... Ne8 13 a3 Bxc3 14 Rxc3
Black’s position is very cramped.
 13 Bg3
Here 13 a3!? deserved attention, the idea
being to draw the b4-bishop away from the
d6-square; for example, 13 ... Ba5 (or 13 ...
Bxc3 14 Rxc3 Rd8 15 Rd3 Nh7 16 Qg4 with
a strategically winning position for White)
14 Bg3! Nh7 (White wins easily after 14 ...
Nxe5? 15 Qe2 Nfg4 16 h3 or 14 ... Ne8? 15
b4 Bc7 16 Nxc6 Bxc6 17 b5) 15 Ndb5 a6 16
Nd6 Qa7 17 b4 Bb6 18 Qh5 and White wins.
Black therefore has to play 13 ... Bc5 14
Nb3 Bb6, intending 15 exf6 Qxf4 16 Qxd7
Qxc4 (Kramnik), although 15 Nb5 a6 16
Nd6 still looks very good for White.
13 ... Nxe5
Black sacrifices an exchange, rather than
land up in a very passive position after
retreating the f6-knight, similar to those in
the previous note.
14 Re1 Bd6 15 Ndb5 Nxc4
After 15 ... Bxb5 16 Nxb5 Nxc4 (16 ...
Rd8 fails to 17 Qxd6! Rxd6 18 Bxe5 and
White gets a rook and two bishops for the
queen) 17 Nxd6 Nxd6 18 Bxd6 White is
clearly better, according to Ribli.
16 Nxd6 Nxd6
Not 16 ... Nxb2? 17 Qc2 Nh5 18 Nxf7
Nxg3 19 Nxh6+ and White wins.
17 Bxd6 Qd8 18 Bxf8 Kxf8
113
19 b4
Kramnik later suggested 19 Qd6+ Qe7
20 Qxe7+ Kxe7 21 f3 as better for White.
19 ... a6 20 a4 Be8 21 Qxd8 Rxd8 22
Red1 Rb8
And here he preferred 22 ... Rc8!,
intending 23 ... Rc4.
23 f3 Bc6 24 b5 axb5 25 axb5 Be8 26
Ra1 g5
Activating the rook immediately via 26 ...
Rc8 again gives Black more chances to
resist.
27 Ra7 Kg7 28 Rda1?!
Defending the knight with 28 Rd3,
followed by further centralization of the king,
might have been more precise, as now Black
is able to activate his rook.
28 ... Rc8 29 R1a3 Rc7 30 b6
This move allows the black bishop some
freedom. Kramnik later considered that 30
Ra8 and 31 Rb8 was correct.
30 ... Re7 31 R3a5 Bc6 32 Rc5 Re8
33 Ne2?!
Instead, 33 Rxc6 bxc6 creates a
dangerous passed b6-pawn. Then 34 b7?! is
premature, since 34 ... Rb8 is equal,
according to Kramnik; but either 34 Kf2 or
34 Na4 gives White good chances of
obtaining an advantage. Perhaps 33 Kf2,
keeping the threat of Rxc6, was even more
accurate; e.g. 33 ... Rb8 34 Rxc6 bxc6 35
Na4 c5 36 Ke2 and so on.
33 ... Bd5?!
Both players were running short of time
by this stage. Here Black should play 33 ...
Rd8, intending ... Rd2 or ... Rd1+ and ... Rb1,
placing the rook more actively behind the
white b-pawn.
34 Rc7 Rd8 35 Kf2 Rd6 36 Nc3 Rxb6
If 36 ... Bc6!? (Kramnik) then 37 Ke2
Kg6 38 Rcxb7 Bxb7 39 Rxb7 and White still
has the better chances.
37 Nxd5 Rb2+ 38 Kg1 Rb1+ 39 Kf2
Rb2+ 40 Kg1?!
Now the game ends in a threefold
repetition. White’s last chance was 40 Kg3
Nxd5 41 Raxb7 Rxb7 42 Rxb7 and he can
play on for a long time with rook vs. knight
and pawn; but in this line the more active
41 ... Ra2 42 Ra7 Rb2 43 Rxf7+ Kg6 44
Rfb7 Rc2 45 h4 Nf4 should draw.
40 ... Rb1+ 41 Kf2 ½-½
Game 43
V.Kramnik-V.Anand
World Championship (8th matchgame),
Bonn 2008
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Qa5 9
Bb5+ Bd7 10 Bxf6 Bxb5 11 Ndxb5
The alternative is 11 Nb3 Qb6 12 Bxg7
Rg8 13 Bd4 and now:
114
a) 13 ... Qa6 14 Qh5 (White cannot
achieve anything playing 14 a3 Bxc3+ 15
Bxc3 Nd7, D.Weber Widmer-J.Hauser,
correspondence 2009, and now 16 Qd4 e5 17
Qe3 Rxg2 18 0-0-0 Qb6) 14 ... Nc6 15 Nc5
(this time 15 a3 Nxd4 16 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 17
bxc3 Bd3 18 Rd1 Qc4 leads to a draw after
19 Qf3 Qxc3+ 20 Rd2 Qa1+ 21 Rd1 Qc3+;
whereas 15 0-0-0?! Bc4 16 Bc5 Bxc3 17
bxc3 Qxa2 18 Qxh7 Ne7 19 Bxe7 Kxe7 20
Nd4 Rac8 favours Black) 15 ... Qb6 16 Nxe6
(16 Be3 is no better: 16 ... Qa5 17 Rd1 Qxa2
18 Nxe6 Qxe6 19 Qxb5 Rxg2 with a good
game for Black) 16 ... Nxd4 17 Nxd4 Bd3 18
Qxh7 Kf8 19 Nde2 Bxe2 20 Kxe2 Bxc3 21
bxc3 Qb2+ 22 Ke3 Qxc3+ 23 Ke2 Qc4+ 24
Ke3 and the players agreed a draw in
J.Nierobisz-V.P.Ivanov, correspondence
2008.
b) 13 ... Bxc3+ 14 Bxc3 Nc6 (not 14 ...
Rxg2? 15 Qf3 Rg8 16 0-0-0 and Black has
serious problems) 15 g3
(E.Tomashevsky-N.Vitiugov, Russian
Championship, Moscow 2010; or if 15 Qf3
0-0-0 16 g3 then 16 ... f5) 15 ... Rd8 gives
Black good compensation for the pawn; for
example, 16 Qh5 (or 16 Qf3 e5 17 Qf5 Rg6
18 Rd1 Rxd1+ 19 Kxd1 Bc4) 16 ... e5 17
Rd1 (not 17 Bxe5?? Nb4) 17 ... Rg6 18
Rxd8+ Qxd8 19 Nd2 Qd3 20 Qf3 Qd6.
11 ... gxf6 12 0-0 Nc6 13 a3 Bxc3 14
Nxc3
An ending has arisen where White has
theoretically better chances, since Black has
a slightly inferior pawn structure and
White’s king is a bit safer. However, given
the reduced material, White can hardly make
any progress.
14 ... Rg8
Alternatively:
a) 14 ... 0-0 15 Qe2 Rad8 16 Rad1 Rxd1
17 Rxd1 Rd8 and the game should end in a
draw.
b) 14 ... Rd8 15 Qf3 was ½-½ already in
A.Jankovic-E.Romanov, Harkany 2009; 15
Qb3 looks slightly better here.
c) 14 ... Qb6 15 Kh1 (either 15 b4 Rd8 16
Qh5 or 15 Qe2 might offer White more
chances) 15 ... Rd8 (the immediate 15 ...
Qxb2 16 Qf3 gives White a decent initiative)
16 Qh5 (16 Qe2!?) 16 ... Qxb2 17 Qf3 with
compensation for the pawn but no more than
that, I.Stathopoulos-J.Santos Latasa,
European Junior Championships, Prague
2012.
15 f4
Although this move looks very active it
opens the a7-g1 diagonal and delays
mobilizing the heavy pieces, making easier
for Black to organize counterplay. Instead:
a) 15 Qf3 Qg5 (15 ... Ke7!? 16 Rfd1
Rad8 is possible) 16 Rad1 Ne5 17 Qh3 Qf4
(if 17 ... Qg4 18 Qxg4 Rxg4, Peng
Zhaoqin-I.Turova, St. Petersburg 2009, then
19 f4) 18 Ne2 Qxe4 19 Ng3 Qg4 20 Qxh7
Ke7 21 Qc2 Qc4 22 Qd2 Rad8 23 Qa5 a6 24
Qb6 and White keeps an edge.
b) 15 g3 h5 16 Qf3 Qe5 17 Rad1 h4 18
Kh1 (if 18 Rd3 hxg3 19 fxg3,
M.Varonen-J.Engelberg, correspondence
2012, then 19 ... Ke7 should equalize; while
P.Opitz-P.Oppermann, correspondence 2011,
ended in a draw after 18 Kg2 Rd8 19 Rxd8+
Kxd8 20 Rd1+ Ke7 21 Qe2 hxg3 22 hxg3
Rd8 23 f4) 18 ... a6 19 Rd3 Rd8 20 Rxd8+
Kxd8 21 gxh4 Rh8 and Black has good
compensation for the pawn,
S.Spasov-J.Matusek, correspondence 2012.
15 ... Rd8 16 Qe1
115
Perhaps 16 Qe2!?, controlling the
d3-square, would be a little more precise.
16 ... Qb6+ 17 Rf2
17 ... Rd3
Black has several other possibilities, such
as 17 ... Kf8!?, intending the further ...
Kg7-h8 to safeguard the king. Moving it to
the queenside is worse: after 17 ... Kd7 18
Rc1 Kc8 19 Na4 Qd4 20 Nc5 Kb8 21 b4
White has the initiative, according to
Krasenkow, who also suggests 17 ... h5!?,
which has not been tested as yet. Finally,
17 ... Nd4 18 Qe3 Ke7 19 Rd1 Nb3 20 Qxb6
axb6 21 Rxd8 Rxd8 22 Kf1 Nd2+ 23 Ke1
Nc4 24 g3 Rd3 25 Rc2 Kd6 26 Ke2 Re3+ 27
Kf2 Rd3 28 Ke2 Re3+ 29 Kf2 Rd3 was a
draw in Y.Pelletier-G.Meier, French League
2011.
18 Qe2 Qd4 19 Re1
Here Krasenkow recommends 19 Nb5!
Qe3 20 Qxe3 Rxe3 21 Rd1 Rb3 22 Nc3 and
White keeps the initiative without queens.
19 ... a6
Black has a problem how to bring his
g8-rook into play. 19 ... Ke7 can always be
met by 20 Nd5+! exd5 21 exd5+ Kd7 22
dxc6+ Kxc6 23 g3 Kb6 24 Qe4 with a
favourable ending for White, while after 19 ...
Kf8 20 g3 Rg6 21 Rd1 Rxd1+ 22 Qxd1
Qxd1+ 23 Nxd1 all Black’s active pieces
would be exchanged.
 20 Kh1?!
A rather passive move which allows
Black to consolidate his position. White had
two stronger continuations: 20 Nd5 exd5 21
exd5+ Kd7 22 dxc6+ Kxc6 23 g3 with a
small advantage for White (Krasenkow) and
20 Na4 intending Nc5; e.g. 20 ... Rb3 (20 ...
Rh3 21 Kh1 Rd3 22 Qc2 Re3 23 Rff1 is
better for White) 21 Nc3 Ke7 (or 21 ... Qb6
22 Rd1 Ke7) 22 Rd1 Qb6 23 e5 and White
has the initiative.
20 ... Kf8 21 Ref1 Rg6 22 g3
After 22 f5 exf5 23 exf5 Rg4 the position
is equal (Krasenkow).
22 ... Kg7
More energetic was 22 ... f5!? 23 e5 Ne7
24 Na4 Nd5 25 Nc5 Nxf4 26 gxf4 (or 26
Rxf4 Qd5+ 27 Ne4 Rd4) 26 ... Re3 27 Qc2
Qd5+ 28 Rg2 Rxg2 29 Qxg2 Qxc5 30 Qxb7
Rd3 with equal chances.
23 Rd1 Rxd1+ 24 Nxd1 Kh8 25 Nc3
After 25 Qc2 Rg8 26 Rd2 Qb6 27 Qc3
Kg7 28 Ne3 Rd8 29 Nc4 Qc7 (Korotylev),
White’s edge is minimal.
25 ... Rg8 26 Kg2 Rd8 27 Qh5 Kg7 28
Qg4+ Kh8 29 Qh5 Kg7 30 Qg4+ Kh8 31
Qh4 Kg7
116
32 e5
The alternative was 32 f5 Qe5 33 Qg4+
Kf8 34 Qh5 Kg7 35 Rf4 Rd2+ 36 Kh3 Rxb2
(36 ... Kf8 37 Qh6+ Ke8 is unclear; e.g. 38
fxe6 Qxe6+ 39 Rf5 Rc2 40 Nd5 Nd4 41
Nxf6+ Ke7 42 Ng8+ Ke8 43 Qxe6+ fxe6 44
Rf4 Rxb2) 37 Nd1 Rb3 38 Ne3 Qxf4! 39
gxf4 Rxe3+ 40 Kg2 Rxe4 with equality
(Krasenkow), and 40 ... e5 looks even
simpler here.
32 ... f5
Safer than 32 ... fxe5 33 Qg5+ Kh8 34 f5
with the initiative (S.Shipov); for example,
34 ... exf5 35 Qxf5 Qd7 (or 35 ... Rd7 36 Ne4
Qd5 37 Kh3 Qe6 38 Qxe6 fxe6 39 Ng5) 36
Qxf7 Qxf7 37 Rxf7 Rd2+ 38 Rf2 and White
has a few chances in the ending.
33 Qf6+ Kg8 34 Qg5+ Kh8 35 Qf6+
Kg8 36 Re2 Qc4 37 Qg5+ Kh8 38 Qf6+
Kg8 39 Qg5+ Kh8 ½-½
Game 44
S.Kloster-M.Vecek
Correspondence 2010
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 Bb4 5 Bg5
dxc4 6 e4 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Qa5 9
Bd2 0-0 10 Qe2 e5 11 Nc2 Nc6
 Rd8 16 Nd5 Nxd5 17 Rab1 Qc2) 15 ... Nxd5
16 Bxd5 Bd7 17 Rab1 Bb5.
13 ... Qd6
Not 13 ... Qxb2?! 14 Nxf6+ gxf6 15 0-0
Qa3 16 Rfc1 Kh8 17 Be3 Qe7 18 Bd5 Rg8
19 Bc5 and Black has a very difficult
position.
14 Bc3

12 Nxb4
Other moves give White fewer chances
of obtaining an advantage:
a) 12 0-0-0 Nd4 (or 12 ... Bg4 13 f3 Nd4
14 Nxd4 exd4 15 Nb5 Rac8 16 Kb1 Bxd2 17
fxg4, F.Tessieri-R.Trevis, correspondence
2003, and now 17 ... Bf4 offers chances for
both sides) 13 Nxd4 exd4 14 Nd5 Nxd5 15
Bxd5 Be6 16 Bxb4 Qxb4 17 Qd2 Qc5+ 18 14 ... Nxd5
Kb1 Bxd5 19 exd5 Qxd5 20 Qxd4 and a
draw was agreed in W.Browne-S.Atalik, San After 14 ... Be6 15 Nxf6+ gxf6 16 Bxe6
Francisco 2002. Qxe6 (or 16 ... fxe6 17 0-0 Nd4 18 Qe3 Rad8
b) 12 a3 Nd4 13 Qd3 (after 13 Nxd4 exd4 19 Rad1) 17 0-0 Nd4 18 Qh5 Kh8 19 f4,
14 Nb1 Bxd2+ 15 Nxd2 Ng4 16 0-0 Ne5 White has the better chances,
Black has an excellent position) 13 ... Nxc2+ Joh.Mayer-J.Hinz, correspondence 2008.
(13 ... Bxc3?! 14 Bxc3 Nxc2+ 15 Qxc2 Qc7 15 Bxd5 Nb4 16 Bc4 Nc6
16 Qe2 is better for White due to his bishop 16 ... Be6 17 Rd1 Qc5 18 Bxe6 fxe6 19
pair, Y.Shulman-M.Khachiyan, Lindsborg a3 Nc6 20 0-0 Rad8 21 Rxd8 Rxd8 22 Qg4
2002) 14 Qxc2 Qc7 15 Bb3 does not give Black an equal game either.
(Z.Azmaiparashvili-A.Delchev, Nova
Gorica 2005) and now 15 ... Ba5 16 0-0 Rd8 17 Rd1 Qe7 18 0-0 Be6 19 Bd5
should allow Black to equalize; for example, White has a small but long-term
17 Rac1 (or 17 Bg5 Bxc3 18 Rac1 Qd6 19 advantage due to his bishop pair.
Bxf6 Qxf6 20 Qxc3 Be6) 17 ... Qc6 18 Bg5 19 ... Rfd8
h6 19 Bd5 Qd6.
12 ... Qxb4
After 12 ... Nd4 13 Qd3 Qxb4 14 Nd5
Qxb2 15 Nxf6+ gxf6 16 0-0 White is clearly
better, according to Ribli; e.g. 16 ... Bg4 17
Bh6 Ne2+ 18 Kh1 Rfd8 19 Rab1 Qc3 20
Qxc3 Nxc3 21 Rxb7 Bh5 22 f3.
13 Nd5
13 0-0 Nd4 14 Qd3 Qxb2 now leads to
equal play; for example, 15 Nd5 (or 15 Rfd1 20 Bxc6

117
 White decides to change the character of
the game and gives up one of his bishops.
Obviously, the opposite-coloured bishops
are a drawish factor in the ending but they
may help to organize an attack on the king in
the middlegame. The alternative was 20 Rd2,
followed by Rfd1, still with better chances
for White.
20 ... bxc6 21 Bxe5 Bxa2 22 Bc3 Be6
White now has an effective pawn
majority on the kingside, whereas creating a
passed pawn on the other side is rather not
realistic for Black.
23 Qe3 h6 24 Ra1 Rd7 25 Rfe1 Rad8
26 f4 Bc4 27 Qg3 f6 28 f5 Qc5+ 29 Kh1
Qe7 30 h3 Bf7 31 Qf2 Re8 32 e5 fxe5 33
Bxe5 Qd8 34 f6 g5
35 Rxa7
This leads to a drawn endgame. 35 h4!?
seems a better try for White.
35 ... Rxa7 36 Qxa7 Qd2 37 Re4 Qd3
38 Qe3 Qxe3 39 Rxe3 Bd5 40 Kg1 Kf7 41
Kf2 c5 42 g3 Bb3 43 h4 Kg6 44 Bd6 ½-½
Game 45
Ding Liren-W.So
FIDE World Cup, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 d4 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Qa5 9
Bd2 Qc5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Nb3 Qc7
118
12 0-0
White can avoid exchanges with 12 Bd3
0-0 13 0-0 Rd8 14 Rc1 Nc6 15 a3 (after 15
Qe2 Rac8 16 Bg5 Be7 17 f4 Qb6+ 18 Kh1
Nb4 19 Bb1 Be8, Black equalized in
V.Borovikov-A.Colovic, Rethymno 2012)
15 ... Be7 16 Qe2 Be8 (M.Orsolic-E.Stilman,
correspondence 2010) and now 17 Rfd1
might have kept a small advantage.
12 ... Bxc3 13 Bxd7+ Qxd7 14 Bxc3
Nc6
The ending after 14 ... Nxe4 15 Bxg7
Rg8 16 Bh6 Qxd1 17 Rfxd1 Nc6 18 Rac1
Ne7 (G.Avellan-E.Etchaleco,
correspondence 2008) 19 f3 Nf6 20 Nc5
Nfd5 21 Kf2 Nf5 22 Bd2 is a little better for
White.
15 Qe2 Qe7 16 f3 0-0 17 Qb5 Rfd8 18
Rfd1 Rac8 19 Rac1 Rxd1+ 20 Rxd1 Qc7
21 Be1
Instead, 21 Nc5!? comes into
consideration.
21 ... a6 22 Qc5 Rd8 23 Rc1 Rc8 24 Bg3
Qd8 25 Qd6 Qxd6 26 Bxd6 b6 27 a4
And here 27 Nd4!?.
27 ... Ne8 28 Ba3 Rc7 29 Nd2
 White could still obtain a slight edge
after 29 f4 f6 30 e5.
29 ... f6 30 Kf2 e5 31 b3 Kf7 32 Nc4 b5
33 axb5 ½-½

Game 46
T.Radjabov-L.Aronian
Mainz (rapid) 2005

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Qa5 9
Bd2 Qc5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Nb3 Qe7 12 Bd3
Nc6 13 Qe2 e5 14 0-0 Be6 15 Bg5 Bxc3 16
bxc3 h6 17 Bxf6 gxf6?
Presumably hoping the open kingside
would give him some attacking chances in a
rapid game. Objectively, Black should
recapture with the queen.
18 Rfd1?!
This move is inaccurate. The immediate
18 Qe3 gives White a clear advantage.
18 ... 0-0-0 19 Qe3 b6 20 Bb5 Kc7
The king is vulnerable on the c-file. 20 ...
Kb7 resists more stubbornly.
21 Rdc1 h5 22 Rab1 f5 23 Nd4 exd4?
Now Black’s position is completely lost,
but he can hardly defend it anyway; for
example, 23 ... Na5 24 exf5 Bd7 25 f4 Rhe8
26 fxe5 Qxe5 27 Qf2 or 23 ... Bd7 24 Nxf5
Bxf5 25 exf5 Qc5 26 Qxc5 bxc5 27 Rd1 with
a big advantage for White.
24 cxd4 Bd7 25 d5 Qxe4 26 Qa3 Rhg8
27 g3 Qxd5 28 Qxa7+ Kd6 29 Bxc6 Bxc6
30 Rd1 Ke6 31 Rxd5 Bxd5 32 Qxb6+
White has picked up queen and pawn for
rook and bishop and has a dangerous passed
a-pawn as well.
32 ... Ke7 33 Qc5+ Kf6 34 a4 Rge8 35
h4 Be4 36 Qc3+
36 Rb6+! was stronger; e.g. 36 ... Kg7 37
Qc1 f6 38 f3 Ba8 39 Qc3 Rf8 40 Qc7+ Kg6
41 Qf4, threatening Qg5+ and wins.
36 ... Kg6 37 Ra1 Rd3 38 Qc1 f6 39 a5
Bf3 40 Qc4??
After this Black gets strong counterplay
against the king and White’s advantage
disappears. The last chance was to push the
a-pawn: 40 a6 Red8 (or 40 ... Rd1+ 41 Qxd1
Bxd1 42 Rxd1 Ra8 43 Ra1 with a winning
rook endgame) 41 a7 Rd1+ 42 Qxd1 Bxd1+
43 a8Q Rxa8 44 Rxa8 and Black is unlikely
to hold.
40 ... Red8 41 Kh2 Rd2
42 Ra2??
White had to acquiesce to a draw; for
example, after 42 Re1 Rxf2+ 43 Kg1 Rg2+
44 Kf1 Rh2 45 a6 Bg2+ 46 Kg1 Rh1+ 47
Kxg2 Rxe1, or 42 Rf1 Be2 43 Qc1 Bxf1 44
Qxf1 Ra8 45 Qe1 Ra2, or 42 Qc5 Rd1 43

119
Rxd1 Rxd1 44 g4 hxg4 45 Kg3 Rd3 46 Kh2
Rd1 etc.
42 ... Rd1 43 g4 hxg4 44 Kg3?
This loses immediately but White’s
position was impossible to save anyway; e.g.
44 Ra3 Ba8 45 Kg3 f4+ 46 Kxg4 f5+ 47
Kxf4 R8d4+ 48 Qxd4 Rxd4+.
44 ... f4+! 45 Kxf4 R8d4+ 46 Qxd4
Rxd4+ 47 Kg3?
47 Ke3 Re4+ 48 Kd3 Kh5 49 a6 Kxh4 50
a7 Re8 would prolong the game.
47 ... f5 48 Ra1 f4+ 49 Kh2 Rd2 0-1
Game 47
Le Quang Liem-Y.Shulman
Lubbock 2011
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Qa5 9
Bd2 Qc5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Nb3 Qe7 12 Bd3
Nc6 13 0-0 0-0 14 a3 Bd6 15 Kh1 Ne5 16
Be2 Ng6 17 f4 e5 18 f5 Nf4 19 Bf3 Bc6 20
Qc2 Rfc8! 21 g3 Ne2 22 Nxe2 Bxe4 23
Bxe4 Rxc2 24 Bxc2 Qc7 25 Nc3 Qc6+ 26
Kg1
26 ... Bc5+?
This allows White to exchange his worst
placed piece. Black should have played 26 ...
Bc7 (or first 26 ... a5 27 a4) 27 h3 (if 27 Be3
then 27 ... Bb6 28 Bxb6 Qxb6+ 29 Kh1 Qc6+
30 Kg1 Ng4 31 Rfe1 Qb6+ 32 Kh1 Ne3 33
Be4 Rd8 is good for Black) 27 ... e4 28 Be3
(after 28 Kh2 h5 29 Bg5 Be5, “Black is at
least not worse” – Le Quang Liem) 28 ...
Bxg3 29 Nc5 leads to an unclear position.
120
27 Nxc5 Qxc5+ 28 Kg2 Qb6 29 Rab1
In view of White’s next, this move is a
loss of a tempo. After 29 Bc1 h6 (or 29 ...
Rd8 30 Bd1 e4 31 Re1 Re8 32 a4) 30 h3 e4
31 a4 Re8 32 Bd1, White has some pluses
compared with the positions in the game.
29 ... Rd8 30 Bc1 h6?!
Instead, 30 ... Qc6+! gives Black better
chances of obtaining counterplay; for
example, 31 Kh3 b5 32 Bd1! (Le Quang
Liem) 32 ... h6 33 Be2 Ne4 34 Bxb5 Qb7 35
Be3 Nxc3 36 bxc3 a6 37 Bd3 Qc6. Other
moves lead to a clear advantage for White;
e.g. 30 ... Ng4?! 31 h3 Ne3+ 32 Bxe3 Qxe3
33 Rbd1 or 30 ... Nd5?! 31 Nxd5 Rxd5 32
Be4 Rd7 33 Re1 (Le Quang Liem).
31 Re1 Qc6+ 32 Kg1 Ng4
Other continuations are good for White
too; e.g. 32 ... Qc4 33 Be3 Ng4 34 Rbd1
Rxd1 35 Bxd1 Nxe3 36 Rxe3 Qd4 37 Kf2 or
32 ... Nd5 33 Bd2 Nf4 34 Bxf4 exf4 35 Re2
fxg3 36 hxg3 Qf3 37 Kh2.
33 Re2
33 ... Qf3?
A fatal mistake, presumably having
overlooked White’s reply. However, Black’s
position was difficult, anyway; e.g. 33 ... Rc8
34 h3 Qf3 35 Rg2 Ne3 36 Bxe3 Qxe3+ 37
Kh2.
34 Bg5!
Not 34 Be4?? Rd1+ 35 Nxd1 Qxe2 and
Black wins, but now Be4 trapping the queen
is a definite threat.
34 ... Rd4
 Other moves also lose; for example, 34 ... White plans Nd5. This can also be
hxg5 35 Be4, or 34 ... Nxh2 35 Bh4, or 34 ... prepared by 18 Nd2 with the idea that, after
Nf6 35 Bxf6 gxf6 36 Be4 Qg4 37 Kg2. the exchange on d5, the d2-knight will be
35 Rf1 Qc6 36 Bc1 Qc5 37 Kg2 b5 38 able to jump to either c4 or e4.
Be4 a5 39 Bf3 Qc4 40 Ne4?!
More accurate was 40 Rfe1 Nf6 41 Rxe5
b4 42 axb4 axb4 43 Ne4 with a decisive
advantage for White (Le Quang Liem).
40 ... Nxh2 41 b3
Not 41 Kxh2? Rxe4.

a) 18 ... h6?! 19 Nd5 Bxd5 20 Bxf6 Qxf6

21 exd5 followed by Ne4 favours White.
b) 18 ... Rfd8?! 19 Kh1 Bc7 (or 19 ... h6
20 Bh4 Qf8 21 Bxf6 gxf6 22 Bc4 Qg7 23
Bd5, Fr.Costa-R.Petruzzelli, correspondence
2005) 20 Nd5 (less energetic is 20 Bc4,
41 ... Qd3 E.Bacrot-L.Fressinet, French Championship,
41 ... Qxe2+ 42 Bxe2 Nxf1 43 Kxf1 Rxe4 Meribel 1998, in view of 20 ... h6 21 Nd5
44 Bxb5 “should be a technical win for Bxd5 22 Bxf6 Qxf6 23 Bxd5 Bd6 with equal
White” (Le Quang Liem). play) 20 ... Bxd5 21 exd5 Rxd5 22 Ne4 gives
42 Nc5 Qc3 43 Kxh2 Qxc5 44 Be3 a4 White a dangerous initiative; for example,
45 Rc1 Qd6 46 Bxd4 Qxd4 47 bxa4 bxa4 22 ... Kh8 23 Rc1 Rd7 (or 23 ... Bd8 24 Bxf6
48 Kg2 gxf6 25 Qh5 Qf8, F.Dicker-F.Patocka,
48 Rc8+!? Kh7 49 Bh5 wins more correspondence 2006, and now 26 Rc3) 24
quickly. Bxf6 gxf6 25 Qh5 Rg8 26 g4 Nb3 (if 26 ...
48 ... Qd7 49 Rb1 Kh7 50 Rxe5 Qd3 51 Qd8?! then 27 g5 fxg5 28 f6 Ne6 29 Bb1 Rg6
Rb8 Qxa3 52 Ree8 30 Nxg5 Nxg5 31 Bxg6 fxg6 32 Qxg5 wins)
And here 52 Be4! first. 27 Rc3 Qd8 28 Qh3 Nd4 29 Qh4 Rg7 30
52 ... g5 53 Rg8 Qd3? 54 f6 Qc2+ 55 Nxf6 Ba5 31 g5 with a decisive advantage
Kh3 Qf5+ 56 Kh2 1-0 for White.
c) 18 ... Qd8! is correct, intending ... Be7
Game 48 to break the pin; for example, 19 Rc1 (White
Wang Yue-B.Gelfand gets nothing from 19 Nd5 Bxd5 20 Bxf6 Bb3
Medias 2010 21 Bxd8 Bxd1 22 Rfxd1 Rfxd8 23 Rac1
Rac8; or if 19 Nc4, D.Bake-A.Jankowiak,
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4 correspondence 2007, then 19 ... Rc8 20 Rc1
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Qa5 9 h6 21 Bxf6 Qxf6 22 Nxd6 Qxd6 23 f6 g6
Bd2 Qc5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Nb3 Qe7 12 Bd3 with a good position for Black) 19 ... Be7 20
Nc6 13 a3 Bd6 14 0-0 0-0 15 f4 e5 16 f5 Nc4 Nd7 (or 20 ... h6!?) 21 Bxe7 Qxe7 22
Nd4 17 Bg5 Bc6 18 Bc4 Ne2 (22 b4 Nf6 23 Na5 Rfd8 24 Nxc6 bxc6
25 Na4 a5 is better for Black,

121
M.Dziedzina-E.Onder, correspondence 2002)
22 ... Rfe8 (or 22 ... Nxe2+ 23 Qxe2 Nf6 24
Rc3 Qc5+ and Black has excellent play) 23
Re1 Rad8 24 Nxd4 exd4 25 b4 Bb5 26 Nd2
Bxd3 27 Nxd3 Ne5 with equal chances,
H.Lehnhoff-H.Ingersol, correspondence
2010.
18 ... Qd8
Other moves are possible here, such as
18 ... h6!?, or 18 ... Rac8 19 Na5 Qd8 20
Nxc6 Rxc6 21 Bd5 Rc7 22 Kh1 h6 23 Bh4
Be7 ½-½ S.Bancevich-L.Tsenkov,
correspondence 2008; while after 18 ... Nxb3
19 Qxb3 (P.Cramling-Zhu Chen, FIDE
Women’s World Cup, Shenyang 2000) 19 ...
Bc5+ 20 Kh1 Rac8 21 Nd5 Bxd5 22 Bxd5 h6
23 Bxf6 Qxf6 Black should gradually
equalize.
19 Nd5 Bxd5 20 Bxd5 Be7
Breaking the annoying pin on the knight.
20 ... Rc8!? comes into consideration too.
122
21 Bxf6 Bxf6 22 Kh1
Or 22 Rc1 Rc8 23 Rxc8 Qxc8 24 Qd3 b6
25 Rc1 Qd7 26 Nxd4 exd4 27 Rc6 Be5 with
a level position, D.Ebeling-A.Sousa,
European Team Championship, Heraklio
2017; but 22 Rf2!? might be tried.
22 ... Rc8 23 Rc1 Qb6 24 Rc3?!
After 24 Qd3 Bg5 25 Rxc8 Rxc8 26 Rd1
or 24 Rxc8 Rxc8 25 g3, the game would have
been close to equality.
24 ... Rxc3 25 bxc3 Nxb3?!
Squandering a chance to gain an edge
with 25 ... Nb5; for example, 26 c4 Nxa3 27
Nd2 Qb4 28 Rf3 b5 29 Rb3 Qa4 30 cxb5
Nxb5.
26 Bxb3 Qe3 27 Qf3 Qxf3 28 Rxf3 Rc8
Here 28 ... Rd8!? 29 Bd5 Rb6 might be a
better way to activate the rook.
29 a4 Rc5 30 g3 Kf8 31 Rd3 ½-½
Conclusion
Black should play 7 ... cxd4, but after 8
Nxd4 he is not restricted to the main line
connected with taking on c3. The move 8 ...
Qa5 also looks interesting. Then the only line
in which White can count on any advantage
is 9 Bb5+, which leads to a minimally better
ending for him.
Chapter Seven
7 e5 cxd4 8 Qa4+ Nc6 9 0-0-0

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5

Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5

In this chapter and the next we will deal

with all variations after 6 ... c5 other than 7
Bxc4. Obviously, the most consistent of
these is 7 e5, which begins a slightly crazy
line, requiring considerable tactical skills and
theoretical knowledge from both sides.
In this position White has sufficient
compensation for the sacrificed pawn, if no
more than that.

Theory
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 Qa4+ Nc6 9
0-0-0

In this chapter we will discuss

exclusively:

7 ... cxd4 8 Qa4+ Nc6 9 0-0-0 Bd7

Play is largely forced in the 7 e5 variation.
Other moves, such as 9 ... Bxc3 and 9 ... h6,
fail to obtain equality.

10 Ne4 Be7 11 exf6 gxf6 12 Bh4 Rc8
Here Black does have a couple of
alternatives at his disposal: 12 ... Qc7!?,
threatening ... Qf4+; and 12 ... a6,
preparing ... e6-e5 with equal chances.
13 Kb1 Na5
Once again the idea of ... a7-a6 followed
by ... e6-e5 is interesting.
14 Qc2 e5 15 Nxd4 exd4 16 Rxd4 Qb6
17 Rd6 Rc6 18 Rxc6 Qxc6
An extremely sharp and complicated
position has arisen. Both sides need to show
good knowledge of the opening theory, since
the majority of variations are thoroughly
worked out and have a forcing character. In
many cases these lead to reduced material
and consequently to a draw.
9 ... Bd7
Black has to solve the problem of the
pinned f6-knight. The text is the strongest
continuation, where Black is willing to give
up the knight in return for three strong

123
central pawns. He has also tried queen moves,
as well as ... h7-h6 with or without a
preliminary exchange on c3.
a) 9 ... Qb6?? is a serious blunder: 10
exf6 dxc3 11 fxg7 cxb2+ 12 Kb1 Rg8 13
Rd8+ Qxd8 14 Bxd8 Kxd8 15 Ne5 and
White is winning, F.Perez Conde-J.Borrellas
Comellas, correspondence 2007.
b) 9 ... Qa5? is not a good idea either: 10
exf6 Bxc3 11 fxg7 Rg8 12 Qxc4 (Khoa
Bao-Quang Quyen Vu, Vietnamese
Championship, Hanoi 2014) with advantage
for White in all variations; for example, 12 ...
e5 13 bxc3 Be6 14 Qb5 Qxc3+ 15 Kb1 Rxg7
16 Rd3 Bf5 (or 16 ... a6 17 Rxc3 axb5 18 Rc5
Bxa2+ 19 Kb2 e4 20 Nxd4 Nxd4 21 Bf6 Ne6
22 Bxb5+ Kf8 23 Bxg7+ Kxg7 24 Re5) 17
Bd2 a6 18 Qxb7 Ra7 19 Qb3 Bxd3+ 20 Bxd3
Qxb3+ 21 axb3 Rxg2 22 Be4 Ne7 23 Nxd4
Rg4 24 Nf5 Rd7 25 Bf3 Rg8 26 Nxe7 Kxe7
27 Be3.
Now let us examine counterattacks on
the g5-bishop:
c) 9 ... Bxc3 10 bxc3 h6 11 exf6 hxg5 12
fxg7 Rg8
c1) 13 h4 gxh4! (Black cannot play 13 ...
g4? 14 Nxd4 Qa5 15 Nxc6 Qxc3+ 16 Kb1
bxc6 17 Qxc6+ Ke7 18 Qc5+! Ke8,
J.Hjartarson-J.Vidarsson, Akureyri 1988,
due to 19 Qb5+! Ke7 20 Bxc4 Qxg7 21 Rhe1
and wins; other moves do not give equality
either: for instance, if 13 ... Bd7 14 hxg5 Qe7,
as in D.Rajkovic-M.Campos Lopez, Leon
1988, then 15 cxd4 0-0-0 16 Qxc4 f6 17 gxf6
Qxf6 18 Kb2 Rxg7 19 Qc3 Kb8 20 Qe3 and
124
Black does not have enough for the pawn) 14
Nxd4 Qg5+ 15 Kb2 (or 15 Rd2 Bd7 16 Nb5
0-0-0 17 Nd6+ Kb8 18 Nxf7 Qxg7 19 Nxd8
Qxc3+ 20 Qc2 Qa1+ with a draw) 15 ... Bd7
16 Nb5 0-0-0 17 Qxc4 (or 17 Nd6+ Kb8 18
Qxc4 Rxg7) 17 ... Kb8 18 Rxh4 Rxg7 19 g3
Bc8 and the position is level.
c2) 13 Nxd4 is more promising: 13 ...
Qa5 14 Qxc4 Bd7 15 Nb5 Rxg7 (the forcing
line 15 ... 0-0-0 16 Nd6+ Kb8 17 Nxf7 Rc8
18 Rxd7 Ne5 19 Nxe5 Rxc4 20 Nxc4 Qxc3+
21 Kb1 Qb4+ 22 Nb2 Qe1+ 23 Rd1 Qxf2 24
g4 Rxg7 favours White) 16 Nd6+ Ke7 and
now 17 Nxb7 Qa3+ 18 Kc2 Ne5 19 Qc5+
Qxc5 20 Nxc5 Bc6 gave Black good
compensation for the pawn in
Pr.Nikolic-L.Ljubojevic, Tilburg 1987, but
White can try either 17 Rd2 or 17 Qb3, when
his chances look better.
d) 9 ... h6 is perhaps the most
natural-looking move.
In our opinion, the most promising
continuation here is 10 exf6! (10 Nxd4 will
be discussed in Game 49, while 10 Bh4 g5 11
exf6 gxh4 12 Nxd4 Bxc3 13 bxc3 Qxf6 14
Nxc6 Qxc3+ 15 Kb1 bxc6 16 Qxc6+ Ke7 17
Qxa8 Qb4+ 18 Kc2 Qa4+ leads to a draw)
10 ... hxg5 11 fxg7 Rg8 12 Nxd4 (12 h4 Bd7,
A.Shneider-I.Vainerman, USSR 1987, and
now 13 Ne4 is unclear; e.g. 13 ... Be7 14
hxg5 Qc7 15 Kb1 0-0-0 16 Bxc4 Rxg7) 12 ...
Bd7 (here 12 ... Bxc3 13 bxc3 transposes to
line ‘c2’ above; and 12 ... Qb6 13 Nxc6 bxc6
14 Ne4 Rxg7 15 h4 f5 16 Nf6+ Kf7 17 Nh5
is good for White) 13 Ne4 Qe7
(M.Vidmar-E.Bogoljubow, Nottingham
1936) and now 14 Nb5 0-0-0 15 a3 a6 16
axb4 axb5 17 Qxb5 Nxb4 18 Qa5 Nd5 19
Bxc4 offers White the better chances.
Returning to the main line with 9 ... Bd7:
10 Ne4
This is forced.
a) 10 exf6? is premature because of 10 ...
gxf6 11 Nxd4 fxg5 12 Nxc6 Bxc3 13 bxc3
(V.Makogonov-S.Abramian, Leningrad
1938) 13 ... Qc7 14 Qxc4 Bxc6 and Black is
just a pawn up.
b) 10 Nxd4? is also a mistake: 10 ... Bxc3
11 Nxc6 Bxe5 12 Qb5 Bc7 13 Bxf6 (no
better is 13 Nxd8 Bxb5 14 Nxb7 Ke7 15 Be3
Nd5 16 Bc5+ Kd7 17 b3 Rab8 18 bxc4 Ba4
or 13 Qxb7 Qc8 14 Qxc8+ Rxc8 15 Nd4 Ne4
16 Be3 Ba4) 13 ... bxc6 14 Bxd8 and White
resigned in J.Mihaljevic-B.Nickoloff,
Toronto 1993, in view of 14 ... Bf4+ 15 Kc2
cxb5.
10 ... Be7
Attempts to maintain the material
balance do not lead to equality, so Black
sacrifices the knight, counting on three
central pawns to provide compensation.
a) 10 ... Nxe4 is definitely unjustified due
to 11 Bxd8 Rxd8 12 Nxd4 Bd2+ (or if 12 ...
Nxf2, P.Archambault-S.Günzel,
correspondence 1995, then 13 Bxc4 Bc5 14
Nxc6 Nxd1 15 Rxd1 Bxc6 16 Rxd8+ Kxd8
17 Qa5+ Bb6 18 Qd2+ Kc8 19 Qf4 with a
clear advantage) 13 Rxd2 Nxd2 14 Nxc6
Bxc6 15 Qa3 Nxf1 16 Rxf1 and White went
125
on to win in V.Ivanchuk-L.D.Nisipeanu,
Foros 2007.
b) Inserting 10 ... b5 is also inferior: 11
Qxb5 Be7 (not yet 11 ... Rb8? 12 Qxc4 Nxe5
13 Nxe5 Rxc8, N.Doric-K.Saric, Kostrena
2004, since 14 Rxd4 gives too much for the
queen; while after 12 ... Be7 13 exf6 gxf6
White can play 14 Bd2 e5 15 Kb1 Qb6 16 b3
and should defend himself against Black’s
attack) 12 exf6 gxf6 13 Bh6!? (this move has
never been played but, in our opinion, it
deserves serious attention; instead, 13 Bd2?
would be met by 13 ... c3!, while 13 Bh4 Rb8
14 Qxc4 e5 15 Kb1 0-0 is extremely
complicated) 13 ... Rc8 (if 13 ... Rb8 14 Qxc4
e5 15 Kb1 Qb6 16 b3, or 13 ... Ne5 14 Qa6
Bc8 15 Qa4+ Bd7 16 Qc2 d3 17 Qc3 Ng4 18
Bd2 Qb6 19 Be1) 14 Kb1 Ne5 (14 ... Nb4 15
Nxf6+ Bxf6 16 Qxb4 d3 17 Bf4) 15 Qa6 and
White has an advantage in all variations.
11 exf6 gxf6 12 Bh4
This is the key position of the 7 e5
variation. In most lines White gives the piece
back sooner or later in order to smash
Black’s strong centre.
Other moves are weak. For example, 12
Bxf6 Bxf6 13 Nd6+ Kf8 and Black has a
decisive advantage already, H.Lieb-F.Peredy,
Budapest 1994; or 12 Nxf6+ Bxf6 13 Bxf6
Qxf6 14 Qxc4 e5 with the same assessment,
R.Heinlein-C.Schlingensiepen, Regensburg
1997; or 12 Bh6 f5 (M.Przezdziecka-
I.Berzina, Turin Olympiad 2006) 13 Qxc4
fxe4 14 Nxd4 Qa5 15 Kb1 Qh5 with a big
advantage for Black.
 12 ... Rc8
Black has a large selection of alternatives
here, of which 12 ... a6 and 12 ... Qc7 are the
strongest:
a) 12 ... Nb4? is definitely the wrong idea:
13 Qxb4 Bxb4 14 Nxf6+ Kf8 15 Rxd4 Be7
(or 15 ... Qa5?! 16 Nxd7+ Ke8 17 Nf6+ Kf8
18 Bxc4 Rc8 19 Kb1 and White wins,
R.Fine-E.Grünfeld, Amsterdam 1936) 16
Nxd7+ Ke8 17 Nf6+ Bxf6 18 Rxd8+ Bxd8
(V.Livanec-M.Höflein, correspondence
1940) 19 Bg3 Rc8 20 Be2 and White should
win this ending.
b) 12 ... Na5? also cannot be
recommended: 13 Qc2 e5 14 Nxd4 exd4 15
Rxd4 Qb6 (if 15 ... Rc8? 16 Qc3 Rc6 17 Be2
Qb6 18 Rd5 Re6, G.Milos-R.Cifuentes
Parada, Santiago 1989, then simply 19 f3
leads to a winning position for White; while
after 15 ... Nc6, P.Van der Sterren-
G.Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1988, White has
the typical tactical motif 16 Rd6! Qc7 17
Nxf6+ Bxf6 18 Rxf6 with a clear advantage;
note that the rook cannot be taken due to 16 ...
Bxd6? 17 Nxf6+ Kf8 18 Qd2 and White wins)
16 Rd6 Qb4 (again not 16 ... Bxd6?? 17
Nxf6+ etc) 17 a3 Qa4 18 Nxf6+ Bxf6 19
Bxf6 Qxc2+ 20 Kxc2 Rg8 21 g3 with a big
advantage for White, G.Kacheishvili-
A.Shchekachev, Trignac 2001.
c) 12 ... Ne5? is no good either: 13 Qc2
Nxf3 (after 13 ... Ng6? 14 Rxd4 Black loses
in all variations; e.g. 14 ... Nxh4 15 Nxh4 f5
16 Nxf5! exf5 17 Bxc4 fxe4 18 Rhd1 Rc8 19
Rxd7 Qxd7 20 Rxd7 Kxd7 21 Kb1,
J.Chvojka-P.Mazal, correspondence 2004)
14 gxf3 e5 (or if 14 ... d3, E.Bruce-R.Boni,
correspondence 2008, then 15 Qc3 e5 16 f4)
15 f4 b5 (J.Whitehead-M.Dvoretzky, Saint
John 1988) 16 Rg1, intending Qd2, f4xe5
and (after Black recaptures) Bxe7, Qh6) 16
Rg1 and White should win.
d) 12 ... e5 13 Bxc4 a6 also fails to
achieve good play for Black:
126
d1) 14 Qc2 Rc8 (not 14 ... Nxa5? 15
Nxd4! Nxc4 16 Nf5 Bxf5 17 Rxd8+ Rxd8 18
Bxf6 Rg8 19 Bxe7 Kxe7 20 Qe2 and White
is winning) 15 Kb1 Na5 16 Nxe5 fxe5 (not
16 ... Be6? 17 Nxf7 Bxf7 18 Qa4+ b5 19
Bxf7+ Kxf7 20 Qxd4 and White is a sound
pawn up) 17 Nd6+ Bxd6 18 Bxd8 Nxc4 19
Bf6 Na3+ 20 bxa3 Rxc2 21 Kxc2 Rg8 22
Rde1 Bf5+ 23 Kd1 e4 24 g3 Bc5 25 Rxe4+
Bxe4 26 Re1 with an equal ending.
d2) 14 Qb3 Rc8 (now if 14 ... Na5, as in
V.Anand-A.Kosteniuk, World Blitz
Championship, Moscow 2009, Krasenkow
gives 15 Nxf6+! Bxf6 16 Bxf7+ Kf8 17
Qa3+! and White has the upper hand, e.g.
17 ... Be7 18 Bxe7+ Qxe7 19 Qxa5 Rc8+ 20
Kb1 Rc5 21 Qa3 Kxf7 22 Rhe1 Rhc8 23
Nxd4; while 15 ... Kf8 16 Nxd7+ Qxd7 17
Bxe7+ Qxe7, T.Sanikidze-K.Landa, French
League 2013, can be answered by 18 Qa4
Qc5 19 Nxe5 Qxe5 20 Bd3 Nc6 21 Qb3 Kg7
22 Kb1 again with advantage for White) 15
Kb1 Na5 16 Nxf6 Bxf6 17 Bxf7+ Kf8 18
Qa3+ Be7 19 Bxe7+ Qxe7 and Black has to
fight for a draw in the ending after 20 Qxa5
(or 20 Nxe5 Bf5 21 Ka1 Qxa3 22 bxa3 Nc6
23 Nxc6 bxc6 24 Bc4) 20 ... Bf5+ 21 Ka1
Rc5 22 Qa3 Kxf7 23 Rhe1 Qc7 24 b4 Rc3 25
Nxe5 Kg7 26 Qb2 Rc8 27 Nf3 Rc2 28
Qxd4+ Kg8 29 Qe5 Qxe5+ 30 Rxe5 Bg4 31
Rd2 Bxf3 32 Rxc2 Rxc2 33 gxf3.
d3) 14 Bd3 Be6 (other moves are worse;
e.g. 14 ... Na5 15 Nxf6 Bxf6 16 Bxf6 Bxa4
17 Bxd8 Rxd8 18 Rde1 f6 19 Nxe5 Kf8 20
Nf3 with a favourable ending for White; or if
14 ... b5 15 Qc2 Nb4 16 Qd2 Be6,
G.Margvelashvili-Y.Vovk, Lvov 2008, then
17 Qxb4 Qc8+ 18 Nc5 Bxc5 19 Qd2 Bxa2 20
Bc2 Be7 21 Rhe1 Be6 22 Nxe5 fxe5 23 Bxe7
Kxe7 24 Rxe5 and White has a clear
advantage) 15 Nc5! Bd5 (or 15 ... Bxc5 16
Nxe5 Rc8 17 Be4) 16 Kb1 Rg8 17 Bf5 Rxg2
18 Nxd4 exd4 19 Rhe1 with the better
chances for White.
The remaining two options deserve
serious attention:
e) 12 ... a6 13 Qxc4 e5 is a very
interesting idea, which can be compared with
12 ... e5 above. The position after 14 Nxe5
(otherwise Black gets a violent attack; e.g. 14
Kb1 Be6 15 Qe2 Nb4 16 b3 Rc8 17 Ne1 Qa5,
R.Rabadan Velasco-A.Kolev, La Roda 2008)
14 ... Nxe5 15 Qxd4 is discussed in Game 50.
f) Finally, 12 ... Qc7!? threatens 13 ...
Qf4+ 14 Ned2 Nb4 15 Qa5 c3 and wins.
f1) 13 Bg3?! is not the way to parry the
threat, as after 13 ... e5 14 Bh4 (or 14 Qxc4
Be6! 15 Qa4 0-0 16 Kb1 a6 17 Rc1 b5 18
Qd1 Qa5 19 a3 Rac8 with a very strong
attack) 14 ... Na5 15 Qc2 Qb6 Black has
excellent chances, L.Livaic-M.Paszewski,
Skopje 2017.
f2) 13 Qxc4 Qf4+ 14 Ned2 Rc8 15 Kb1
e5 16 Bg3 Qf5+ 17 Bd3 Nb4 leads to a draw:
18 Qxc8+ Bxc8 19 Bxf5 Bxf5+ 20 Ka1 Nc2+
21 Kb1 Nb4+ 22 Ka1 Nc2+ ½-½
V.Kunin-P.Karthikeyan, Basel 2017.
f3) 13 Kb1 is the usual reply, when 13 ...
Qf4 (the alternative is 13 ... b5 14 Qxb5 c3
15 Qc4 Rb8 with an extremely complicated
127
position, but White’s chances look a little
better after both 16 Nxc3 dxc3 17 Qxc3 e5 18
Bd3 Qc8 19 Rhe1 Bf5 20 Rc1 and 16 b3 Rb4
17 Qe2 Qd8 18 Ne1 e5 19 Nd3 Rb6 20 f4) 14
Re1 (not 14 Qc2?! Nb4 15 Bg3,
A.Moen-F.Elsness, Norwegian
Championship, Tromsø 2016, as 15 ... Qxg3!
16 hxg3 Nxc2 17 Kxc2 f5 leads to an
excellent ending for Black) 14 ... Ne5 (14 ...
Nb4, A.Riazantsev-A.Naiditsch, Poikovsky
2010, is met by 15 Qd1 Bc6 16 Qxd4 Qf5 17
Qxc4 Bd5 18 Qb5+ Kf8 19 Nfd2 Bxa2+ 20
Ka1 and Black does not have sufficient
compensation, according to Krasenkow) 15
Qd1 (another possibility is 15 Qa5!?, when
play might continue 15 ... Bc6 16 Bg3 Bxe4+
17 Ka1 Qf5 18 Nxd4 Qg6 19 Bxe5 fxe5 20
Qb5+ Kf8 21 Qxe5 Bf6 22 Qxe4 Qxe4 23
Rxe4 Rd8 24 Nxe6+ fxe6 25 Bxc4 Rd2 26
Rxe6 Kg7 27 Re2 Rhd8 28 Rb1 Rxe2 29
Bxe2 Rd2 30 Bf3 b5 31 a3 Rxf2 and Black
should achieve a draw) 15 ... Nxf3 16 Bg3
Qf5 17 gxf3 (17 Qxf3 Qxf3 18 gxf3 d3 19
Bh4 f5 is a complicated position with mutual
chances, A.Reyes-H.Walsh, correspondence
1999) 17 ... d3 (intending ... Qa5 followed
by ... Ba4) 18 Qd2 (S.Granara Barreto-
W.Krol, correspondence 2009) 18 ... Bc6
leads to unclear play.
Returning to the main move 12 ... Rc8:
13 Kb1
13 Bxf6?! is unjustified: 13 ... Bxf6 14
Nd6+ Kf8 15 Nxc8 Qxc8 16 Qxc4 e5 17 Bd3
(if 17 Kb1, as in D.Gormally-P.Wells,
Hereford 2006, then 17 ... Be6 18 Qc5+ Be7
19 Qc1 Kg7 20 Bd3 Qd7 21 b3 f6 and Black
has more than enough for the exchange) 17 ...
Be6 18 Qc2 Kg7 (even 18 ... Bxa2 19 b3 Kg7
is possible) 19 a3 Qd7 20 Kb1 Qd5 with a
decisive attack, W.Breite-W.Scharf,
correspondence 2008.
13 ... Na5
Other moves:
a) 13 ... b5? 14 Qxb5 c3 doesn’t work at
all here, as after 15 Nxd4 White wins in all
variations; for example, 15 ... Nxd4 (no
better is 15 ... Qc7 16 Qc4 Nxd4 17 Qxc7
c2+ 18 Qxc2 Nxc2 19 Bxf6 1-0
Spindler-Pollak, Hungary 1955; or 15 ... a6
16 Qb3! Na5 17 Qc2 cxb2 18 Qxb2 Bc6? 19
Bb5 1-0 R.Lemaire-H.Olsen,
correspondence 1956) 16 Rxd4 Bxb5 (or
16 ... c2+ 17 Kc1) 17 Bxb5+ Kf8 18 Rxd8+
Rxd8 19 Nxc3 and White won, M.Nikolov-
M.Bosman, Albena 2016.
b) 13 ... e5 14 Bxc4 also gives White the
better chances:
a) 14 ... Kf8 15 Rc1 Rg8 16 g3 (16 Ng3!?)
16 ... a6 17 Qd1 b5 18 Bd3 with a clear
advantage for White, N.Bensiek-E.Onder,
correspondence 2008.
b) 14 ... 0-0 15 Rc1 Nb4
(S.Atalik-I.Zakharevich, Vladimir 2002) 16
Qd1 b5 (or 16 ... Bf5 17 Qe2 d3 18 Qe3 b5 19
Bb3) 17 Bd3 Be6 18 b3 f5 19 Rxc8 Bxc8 20
Bxe7 Qxe7 21 Ng3 e4 22 Re1 and White’s
seems slightly better, although Black is not
without counterchances.
c) 14 ... a6 15 Bd3 0-0 (as in
S.Kalinitschew-H.Sobura, Berlin 1989;
128
Rajkovic’s suggestion 15 ... Na5 can be met
by 16 Qa3! Bxa3 17 Nxf6+ Kf8 18 Nxh7+
Kg7 19 Bxd8 Rcxd8 20 bxa3 f6 21 Rc1 with
advantage to White) and now 16 Qc2! Be6
(16 ... Nb4 17 Qd2 Nxd3 18 Qxd3 f5 19
Bxe7 Qxe7 20 Ng3 is worse for Black) 17
Qd2 f5 18 Bxe7 Qxe7 19 Qg5+ Qxg5 20
Nexg5 e4 21 Nxe6 fxe6 22 Bc4 Nd8 23 Nd2
e3 24 Bb3 exd2 25 Rxd2 and White has the
upper hand.
As on the previous move, the idea of ...
a7-a6 followed by ... e6-e5 is interesting.
Although 13 ... a6!? is played much more
seldom than 13 ... Rc8, it is difficult to find a
way to achieve anything for White after 14
Qxc4 e5 and then:
a) 15 Qb3? Be6 16 Qxb7 0-0 17 Bd3 Rc7
18 Nxf6+ Kh8 19 Qb6 Nb4 and Black is
winning.
b) 15 Bxf6?! (S.Mamedyarov-K.Lahno,
Internet blitz match 2006) 15 ... Bf5 16 Nfg5
Bxe4+ 17 Nxe4 Bxf6 18 Qb3 Rc7 19 Qf3
Bg7 20 Rc1 0-0 and White does not have
enough compensation for the pawn.
c) 15 a3?! Be6 16 Qa4
(S.Mamedyarov-K.Lahno, Internet blitz
match 2006) 16 ... Qd5 17 Nxf6+ Bxf6 18
Bc4 Bf5+ 19 Ka1 Qd6 with the better
chances for Black.
d) 15 Qd5!? Nb4 16 Qb3 Qa5 also gives
Black a good game; e.g. 17 Nxd4 Ba4 18
Qa3 exd4 19 b3 Qf5 20 Bd3 Nxd3 21 Qxa4+
Kf8 22 Qxd4 Nc5 with equal chances.
e) 15 Nxe5 (as in a lot of lines Black has
strong compensation for the piece, so White
returns it, relying on his superior structure,
control over the d-file, and the weakened
position of the black king; on the other hand,
White’s kingside is not yet fully developed)
15 ... Nxe5 16 Qxd4 0-0 (another, possibly
better option is 16 ... Bf5, offering to repeat
with 17 Qa4+ Bd7 18 Qd4 Bf5, while after
18 Qb3 Black has enough activity to equalize;
e.g. 18 ... Qc7 19 Bd3 Be6 20 Qa4+ Kf8 21
Rc1 Qb6 or 21 Bxf6 Bxf6 22 Nxf6 Nxd3 23
Rxd3 Bf5 24 Qb4+ Kg7 25 Nh5+ Kg6 with a
draw, I.Pheby-P.Morley, correspondence
2015) 17 Be2 (no better is 17 Bd3,
M.Chiburdanidze-A.Kosteniuk,
Krasnoturinsk 2005, when 17 ... Be6 18 Qe3
Qa5 or 18 Qxd8 Rfxd8 19 Bc2 Rxd1+ 20
Rxd1 Bxa2+ 21 Kxa2 Rxc2 22 Nxf6+ Kh8
equalizes; but 17 Qe3!? deserves attention,
e.g. 17 ... Rc6 18 Be2 Re8 19 Rhe1 Qb6 20
Qxb6 Rxb6 21 Bh5 Bf5 22 g4 and Black
must still fight for equality) 17 ... Bf5 18 Qe3
Qa5 19 Ka1 (if 19 g4,
Mio.Perunovic-Mil.Perunovic, Serbian
League 2008, then 19 ... Bg6) 19 ... Kg7 20
f4 Nc6 21 Be1 Qa4 22 Nc3 Nb4 23 Qg3+
Kh8 24 Nxa4 Nc2+ 25 Kb1 Na3+ with
perpetual check.
14 Qc2 e5
15 Nxd4
This typical return of material is now
very logical. Black has moved his knight to
the side of the board, so action in the centre is
fully justified. In any case, other moves are
weaker as Black is well prepared to advance
his pawn mass. For example:
129
a) 15 Nxe5? fxe5 16 Nd6+ Kf8 17 Bxe7+
Kxe7 18 Nxc8+ Qxc8 19 Qd2 Bf5+ 20 Ka1
Qc5 21 g4 (D.Palo-M.Palac, European
Championship, Istanbul 2003) 21 ... Bg6 22
f4 Be4 23 Rg1 Rc8 24 fxe5 Rc6 and Black is
winning.
b) 15 Re1?! Kf8!? (or 15 ... 0-0,
Lyon-F.Peredy, Budapest 1991, intending 16
g4 Kh8 17 Rg1 Be6 with strong counterplay)
16 h3 Rg8 17 g4 Bc6, threatening ... c4-c3,
and Black has a very strong initiative.
15 ... exd4 16 Rxd4 Qb6
Black can also play 16 ... Nc6, which is
analysed in Game 51.
17 Rd6
The most frequent move in this position,
although White has tried various different
continuations and ideas:
a) 17 Qc3? is an undoubted mistake in
view of Bf5 18 g4 Bg6 19 Bd3
(Wl.Schmidt-M.Jovicic, Belgrade 1988)
19 ... 0-0 20 Bc2 Bb4 21 Nxf6+ Kh8 22 Qe3
c3 with a strong attack; for example, 23 Nd5
(the only move; 23 b3? Nxb3 24 axb3 Bc5
and 23 Bxg6? Bc5 both win quickly) 23 ...
Bxc2+ 24 Kxc2 cxb2+ 25 Kb1 Qg6+ 26 Re4
Nc4 27 Qd4+ f6 28 Bxf6+ Kg8 29 f3 Ba3
and White’s position is very difficult.
b) The forcing 17 Nxf6+ Bxf6 18 Qe4+
Kf8 19 Bxf6 Qxf6 20 Rxd7 does not give
White an advantage; for example, 20 ... Re8
21 Qd4 Re1+ (21 ... Qxd4!? 22 Rxd4 b5 is
level) 22 Kc2 Qxd4 (or 22 ... Kg7 23 Qxf6+
Kxf6 24 g3 Nc6, S.K.Williams-P.Wells,
British Championship, Scarborough 2004,
when 25 Kd2 Rhe8 26 Rxb7 Nd4 27 Rd7
Nf3+ 28 Kc2 R8e6 29 Bg2 R1e2+ 30 Kc3
Rxf2 31 Bxf3 Rxf3+ 32 Kxc4 Re4+ 33 Kd5
Ra4 34 a3 Rf2 should be a draw) 23 Rxd4
Ke7?! (this is the only move to have been
played here, but alternatives are better in our
opinion: 23 ... b5 24 Rd5 a6 25 Rd6 b4 26
Rd5 b3+ 27 axb3 cxb3+ 28 Kd2 Ra1 with
equal chances, or 23 ... Kg7 24 g3 Nc6 25
Rg4+ Kh6 26 Rxc4 Rd8 and Black has full
compensation for the pawn) 24 g3! Rd8 25
Bg2 Re2+ 26 Kd1 Rxd4+ 27 Kxe2 Kd6
(G.Kasparov-Z.Ribli, World Cup, Barcelona
1989) and now 28 Rc1, planning Rc3-e3/f3,
would have given White a small advantage in
the endgame.
c) 17 Rd2 also leads to equality: 17 ... c3!?
(this allows Black to begin action against
White’s king, while drawing the e4-knight
back delays White’s play in the centre;
instead, 17 ... Bf5 18 Nd6+ Qxd6 19 Qxf5
Rc5 20 Rxd6 Rxf5 21 Rd1 offers White
slightly better chances, A.Riazantsev-Zhu
Chen, Biel 2009) 18 Nxc3 Nc4 19 Bxc4
Rxc4 20 Qd3 Be6 21 Ne4 Qa5 22 Nd6+
(otherwise Black gets an excellent position
e.g. 22 Re1 0-0 23 a3 Rfc8) 22 ... Bxd6 23
Qxd6 Rxh4 24 Qb8+ Ke7 25 Qd6+ Ke8 26
Qb8+ with perpetual check.
d) 17 Rxd7 (White gives up the exchange,
hoping to exploit the exposed black king, the
weak f6-pawn, the activity of his pieces, and
some geometrical motifs on the h3-c8
diagonal; nevertheless, White has problems
proving that the sacrifice is fully correct)
17 ... Kxd7
130
18 Be2 (18 Qd2+ is no good as the black
king can take refuge on the queenside; e.g.
18 ... Kc6 19 Be2 Rhd8 20 Qh6 Kb5 21
Qh5+ Ka6 22 Qxf7 Re8 23 Bf3 Bb4 and
White has no compensation for the sacrificed
material) 18 ... Ke8 will be discussed in
Game 52. Other moves are worse for Black:
18 ... f5?? (E.Franco Raymundo-F.Prada
Rubin, Spanish Championship, Las Palmas
1964) is a fatal mistake because 19 Rd1+!
Ke8 20 Nd6+! Bxd6 21 Qxf5 gives White a
decisive attack. 18 ... Rc6 does not help
either: 19 Bg4+ Ke8 20 Rd1 Kf8 21 Bd7 Rc7
22 Qc3 and White has a very strong initiative,
R.Ziatdinov-L.Oll, Tashkent 1986. Finally,
18 ... Qe6 can be met by 19 Rd1+! Kc7 20 b4!
Nc6 21 Bxc4 Nxb4 22 Qe2 Qc6 and now the
forcing variation 23 Bg3+ Kb6 24 Nd6 Rhe8
25 Qe3+ Qc5 26 Bf4 Qxe3 27 Bxe3+ Kc7 28
Nb5+ Kb8 29 Bf4+ Ka8 30 Nc7+ Rxc7 31
Bxc7 Rf8 32 Rd7 Nc6 33 f4 leaves White
with a clear advantage in the ending, in spite
of the fact that he is a pawn down.
e) 17 Rd5 should be met by 17 ... Be6
(other moves are worse: 17 ... f5? 18 Qc3
Rg8 19 Bxe7 gives White a decisive attack,
e.g. 19 ... fxe4 20 Ba3 Nc6 21 Rg5 and wins;
after 17 ... c3 18 Nxc3 Be6 19 Rb5 Qd4 20
Rxa5 Qxh4 21 Rxa7 Qb4 22 Qa4+ Qxa4 23
Rxa4 0-0 24 Be2, Black has no
compensation for the pawn; or if 17 ... Bc6
18 Nd6+ Bxd6 19 Rxd6 Qb4 20 Rd4 Qe1+
21 Qd1 Qxd1+ 22 Rxd1 Ke7 23 f3, White
has the better chances in the ending)
 Now 18 Nxf6+ Bxf6 19 Bxf6 Bxd5 20
Bxh8 Qe6 gives Black an excellent position.
Instead, 18 Qa4+ Nc6 19 Rb5 will be
discussed in Game 53, though 18 Rh5 Bg4
19 Qa4+! (19 Rd5 Be6 20 Rh5 Bg4 21 Rd5
led to threefold repetition in R.Kempinski-
B.Macieja, Polish Championship, Warsaw
2012) 19 ... Nc6 20 Rb5 Qa6 (not 20 ... Qd4?!
21 f3 Be6 22 Bf2 Qd7 23 Bxc4 Bxc4 24
Qxc4 0-0 25 Bh4 and White is clearly better,
A.Riazantsev- D.Jakovenko, Moscow 2006)
21 Qxa6 bxa6 22 Rxb7 Bf5 may be a more
accurate move order for White.
17 ... Rc6
Obviously not 17 ... Bxd6?? 18 Nxf6+
and Black loses the queen.
18 Rxc6
The only other move to have been tried is
18 Bxf6 (alternatives do not offer White
anything; e.g. 18 Rd5 Be6 19 Rh5 Bg4 20
Rd5 Be6 21 Rh5 Bg4 leads to a draw by
repetition, while 18 Rd1 Bf5 19 f3 0-0 20
Bf2 Bc5 21 Be1 Bb4 gives Black a good
position) 18 ... Rxd6 (not 18 ... Bxd6? 19
Bxh8 Be7, D.Kuhne-M.Lindinger, German
League 1998, due to 20 Be2 Qb5 21 Rd1 Bf5
22 g4 Bxe4 23 Qxe4 and White is clearly
better; while 18 ... Rg8?!, Chebotarev-
Freidlin, USSR 1948, is inaccurate due to 19
Rxd7, exploiting the uncomfortable
positions of Black’s pieces, e.g. 19 ... Kxd7
20 Qd2+ Rd6 21 Nxd6 Qxd6 22 Bc3 Qxd2
23 Bxd2 Nc6 24 g3 and White has the
advantage in the ending; however, Black can
also count on good play after 18 ... Bf5 19
131
Be2 Rxd6 20 Nxd6+ Qxd6 21 Qxf5 Bxf6 22
Qxa5 0-0 23 Bxc4 Rc8 with a level position)
19 Bxh8 Bf5 20 Bxc4 (20 Be2? is a mistake:
20 ... Re6 21 Bf3 f6! 22 Bg7 Bg6 23 Re1 c3
and Black is winning, H.Karg- I.Chukanov,
correspondence 2010) 20 ... Rd2! 21 Qxd2
Nxc4 22 Qc3 Bxe4+ 23 Ka1 Bd5, when
Black may even have the better chances.
18 ... Qxc6 19 f3
The alternative is 19 Be2 0-0 (if 19 ... f5
20 Bxe7 Qxe4 21 Bf6! Rg8, White has a
favourable ending after both 22 Re1 Kf8 23
Qxe4 fxe4, C.Holt-A.Stukopin, Dallas 2014,
24 g3; and 22 Bf3 Qxc2+ 23 Kxc2 Rg6 24
Re1+ Kf8 25 Be7+, R.Buhmann-Z.Ribli,
Austrian League 2007, 25 ... Kg7 26 Bc5 b6
27 Re7 Bc6 28 Bd4+ Kf8 29 Rxa7) 20 g4 (20
f3 doesn’t really change anything; e.g. 20 ...
Re8 21 Be1 f5 22 Ng3 Bd8 23 Bxa5 Bxa5 24
Bxc4 Rc8 with an equal position, or 20 ... b5
21 g4 Qe6 22 Qc3 b4 23 Nxf6+ Bxf6 24
Qxf6 Qxe2 25 Qg5+ with perpetual check)
20 ... Qe6 21 Re1 Ba4 22 Qxa4 Qxe4+ 23
Qc2 Qxc2+ (23 ... Qe5 looks also good) 24
Kxc2 Bb4 (or 24 ... Kg7) 25 Rd1 and White
has compensation for the pawn but no more
than that, G.Kacheishvili-Z.Gyimesi, World
Junior Championships, Zagan 1997.
19 ... b6
Or 19 ... Rg8 20 Be1 f5 21 Ng3 Qb5 22
Bxa5 Qxa5 23 Bxc4 Rg6 with an equal
position, C.Vasile-V.Pavlov,
correspondence 2011.
20 Be2 Rg8
 We are following H.Adelseck-E.Calhau,
correspondence 2008, in which the
weaknesses in Black’s pawn structure,
together with his centrally placed king, give
White sufficient compensation for the
sacrificed pawn. The further course of the
duel is examined in Game 54.
Illustrative Games
Game 49
F.Behrhorst-F.Bulthaupt
German League 1988
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 c4 e6 4 Bg5 Bb4+ 5
Nc3 dxc4 6 e4 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 Qa4+ Nc6 9
0-0-0 h6 10 Nxd4
10 ... Bxc3
The actual move order was 10 ... Bd7 11
Nxc6 Bxc3 12 bxc3?, but White can play
more strongly: 12 Qa3! bxc6 13 Bxf6 Bxb2+
14 Qxb2 gxf6 15 Bxc4 (or 15 exf6 Rb8 16
Qc3 Rg8!? 17 Bxc4 Rg6 18 Qd3 Rxf6 19
Rd2) 15 ... Qb6 (or 15 ... fxe5 16 Rhe1 –
Chernin) 16 exf6 Qxb2+ 17 Kxb2 Rg8 18
Kc3 Rg6 19 Rd2 Rxf6 20 Rb1 and White has
reasonable compensation for the pawn,
Z.Azmaiparashvili-A.Chernin, Dortmund
1990.
Another option is 11 exf6!? Bxc3 12
Nxe6 Bxb2+ 13 Kxb2 Qb6+ 14 Ka1 hxg5 15
Nxg7+ Kd8 16 Qxc4 Ne5 17 Qd4 Qxd4+ 18
Rxd4 Kc7 19 Rd5 Ng4 20 f3 Nxf6 21 Rxg5
Rag8 22 Bd3 with a favourable ending for
White.
132
11 bxc3 Bd7
Not 11 ... hxg5?! 12 Nxe6 Qxd1+ 13
Qxd1 Bxe6 14 exf6 gxf6 15 Qf3 and White is
clearly better, S.Conquest-P.Van der Sterren,
Dordrecht 1988.
12 Nxc6?
The right path here was 12 exf6 gxf6 (or
12 ... Nxd4 13 Qb4 gxf6 14 Bf4 Nc6 15
Qxb7 Rc8 16 Be2 Ne5 17 Qxa7 Ra8 18 Qb7
Rb8 etc) 13 Nxc6 (or 13 Bf4 Nxd4 14 Qb4
Nc6 15 Qxb7 Rc8 16 Be2 Ne5 17 Qxa7 Ra8
18 Qb7 Rb8 again) 13 ... hxg5 14 Bxc4 bxc6
15 h4 gxh4 16 Bxe6 fxe6 17 Rxh4 Rxh4 18
Qxh4 e5 19 Qh8+ Ke7 20 Qh7+ Ke6 21
Qh3+ with a draw in all variations.
12 ... hxg5
12 ... bxc6? 13 exf6 hxg5 14 fxg7 Rg8 15
Bxc4 gave White a clear advantage in
R.Mundstock-L.Noronha, correspondence
1997.
13 Qxc4
Other moves are no better; for example,
13 exf6 (V.Epishin-L.Yudasin, Leningrad
1988) 13 ... Qxf6 14 Rxd7 (or 14 Qxc4 Bxc6)
14 ... Qxc3+ 15 Qc2 (or 15 Kb1 bxc6 16 Rb7
Qe1+ 17 Kc2 Qxf2+ 18 Kc3 Qe1+ 19 Kc2
0-0) 15 ... Qa1+ 16 Qb1 Qxb1+ 17 Kxb1
Kxd7 18 Ne5+ Ke7 19 Nxc4 Rab8 and Black
has all the chances in the endgame.
13 ... Qc7?
After 13 ... bxc6 14 exf6 gxf6 or 14 ...
Qxf6, Black is just a pawn up with an
excellent position.
14 exf6 Bxc6 15 fxg7 Rg8 16 h4 Qf4+
Now the position is level.
 17 Qxf4 gxf4 18 h5 Rxg7 19 Rh4 Rh7
20 Bd3 Rh6 ½-½
Game 50
A.Kupsys-A.Lanc
Correspondence 2009
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 Qa4+ Nc6 9 0-0-0
Bd7 10 Ne4 Be7 11 exf6 gxf6 12 Bh4 a6 13
Qxc4 e5 14 Nxe5 Nxe5 15 Qxd4
15 ... 0-0
Instead:
a) 15 ... Rc8+ 16 Kb1 transposes to the
12 ... Rc8 13 Kb1 a6 line, discussed in the
theoretical part of the chapter.
b) 15 ... Qc7+ 16 Kb1 (16 Qc3 Rc8 17
Qxc7 Rxc7+ 18 Kb1 Bf5 19 f3 Rg8 20 Bg3
Rc6, V.Malakhatko-A.Naiditsch, German
League 2008, and now 21 Rd5 Be6 22 Rd2
Kf8 23 Be2 Kg7 leads to equality) 16 ...
0-0-0 (or 16 ... Bf5, Zhou Jianchao-Wang
Hao, Chinese Championship, Xinghua 2010,
17 Qe3 Qc5 18 Qxc5 Bxc5 19 f3 Be7 20 Bd3
and White has a slight edge in the endgame;
whereas 16 ... Rc8??, A.Riazantsev-
M.Perunovic, European Championship,
Plovdiv 2008, runs into 17 Bxa6! intending
17 ... bxa6 18 Bxf6 and wins) 17 Rc1 Bc6 18
Qe3 f5 19 Bxe7 Qxe7 (I.Lysyj-R.Wojtaszek,
Stockholm 2010) 20 Ng3 leads to a small
advantage for White.
16 Be2 Qc8+ 17 Kb1 Bf5 18 f3
After 18 Ka1 Qe6 19 g4 (19 Ng3 Bc2 20
Rc1 Rfd8 21 Qe3 Bg6 is equal,
133
G.Gerhards-V.Cotos, correspondence 2008)
19 ... Bg6 20 Qe3 Nc6 21 Ng3 Nb4 22 Qxe6
Nc2+ 23 Kb1 fxe6 24 Bd3 Nb4, the
opponents agreed a draw in A.Kazoks-
B.Baroin, correspondence 2011.
18 ... Qe6 19 Ka1
Other moves also lead to level positions;
for example, 19 Qe3 Rac8 20 Rc1 b5 21
Rhd1 Rfd8 22 Rxd8+ Rxd8, F.Mesquita-
A.Loginov, correspondence 2011; or 19
Rhe1 Rfd8 (G.Margvelashvili- M.Arnold,
Freemont 2012) 20 Qe3 Rxd1+ 21 Rxd1
Rc8.
19 ... Rac8 20 Rc1 b5 21 Qe3 Rfd8
22 Rxc8?!
More precise was 22 a3 Bg6 with
equality.
22 ... Rxc8 23 Re1 Bxe4
23 ... Kg7!? was interesting, intending ...
Bg6 and Black has a small advantage.
24 fxe4 Ng6
24 ... Qc6!? was worth considering.
25 Bg3 Bd6 26 Kb1 Bxg3 27 hxg3 Ne5
Now the game heads for a draw.
28 Qf4 Rc6 29 Rh1 Nc4 30 Bxc4 Rxc4
31 Rh4 b4 32 Qg4+ Qxg4 33 Rxg4+ Kf8 34
Rh4 Ke7 35 Rxh7 Rxe4 36 Rh8 f5 37 Ra8
Re6 38 Kc2 Rg6 39 Ra7+ ½-½
Game 51
B.Machul-P.Walczak
Correspondence 2006
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 Qa4+ Nc6 9 0-0-0
Bd7 10 Ne4 Be7 11 exf6 gxf6 12 Bh4 Rc8
13 Kb1 Na5 14 Qc2 e5 15 Nxd4 exd4 16
Rxd4 Nc6
17 Rd1
Other moves are inferior:
a) 17 Nd6+? Kf8 18 Rd1 Bxd6 19 Rxd6
Nb4 20 Qd2 Bf5+ 21 Ka1 Nc2+ and Black
wins.
b) 17 Rxc4?! Be6 and White loses the
exchange (albeit with some compensation)
as 18 Rc3? allows 18 ... Bxa2+.
c) 17 Rxd7 Qxd7 18 Bxc4 (after 18
Nxf6+? Bxf6 19 Bxf6 0-0 and White has no
compensation for the exchange, C.Richter-
A.Naumann, German League 2010) 18 ... 0-0
19 Bxf6 Rfd8 and White still has to
demonstrate his compensation.
d) 17 Rd6 Nb4 18 Qc3 (18 Qe2?! Bxd6
19 Bxf6 Be7, A.Naumann-A.Lauber,
Deizisau 2008, is good for Black; e.g. 20
Nd6+ Kf8 21 Qh5 Bf5+ 22 Qxf5 Bxf6 23
Qxc8 Qxc8 24 Nxc8 Kg7 25 a3 Rxc8 26
axb4, as in given in Chess Informant) 18 ...
Qa5 19 Rxd7! (other moves are weaker; for
example, 19 a3 Bf5 20 Rd4 Qe5 21 axb4
Bxe4+ 22 Kc1 0-0 23 Bg3 Qg5+ 24 Qe3
Qxe3+ 25 fxe3 f5 and Black wins; or 19
Bxc4 Bf5 20 Rd4 b5 21 a3 Rxc4 22 axb4
Rxd4 23 Qxd4 Qxb4 24 Qxb4 Bxb4 25 f3
Rg8 with an advantage for Black; while 19
Nxf6+ Bxf6 20 Qxf6 0-0 21 Rxd7 c3 22 Bc4
Rxc4 23 Qg5+ Qxg5 24 Bxg5 c2+ 25 Ka1
Rcc8 26 Rc1 f6 27 Be3 Rfd8 28 Rxd8+ Rxd8
29 a3 Rd6 30 b3 Ra6 31 Bd2 Rxa3+ 32 Kb2
Ra2+ 33 Kc3 a5 leaves Black with the better
134
chances in the ending) 19 ... Qxa2+ 20 Kc1
Kxd7 21 Nxf6+ (not 21 Qd4+?, as in
S.Mamedyarov-K.Lahno, Internet blitz
match 2006, due to 21 ... Kc6! 22 Bxc4 Qa1+
23 Kd2 Qxh1 24 Ng3 Rhd8 and Black is
winning) 21 ... Kc6 22 Bxc4 leads to an equal
position in all variations; for example, 22 ...
Qa1+ (or 22 ... Qxc4 23 Qxc4+ Kb6 24 Qxc8
Rxc8+ 25 Kb1 Kb5 26 Ne4 Rc7) 23 Kd2
Qxh1 (or 23 ... Rhd8+ 24 Bd3+ Kb6 25 Rxa1
Rxc3 26 bxc3 Nxd3 27 Kc2) 24 Bf1+ Bc5 25
Qf3+ Kc7 26 Bg3+ Bd6 27 Bxd6+ Kxd6 28
Qf4+ Ke6 29 Bc4+ Rxc4 30 Qxc4+ Kxf6 (or
30 ... Kf5 31 Qxf7 Qxg2 32 Nh5+ Kg4 33
Nf6+ Kf4 34 Nh5+ etc) 31 Qf4+ Kg6 32
Qg4+ Kh6 33 Qf4+ with a draw by perpetual
check.
17 ... Nb4!?
After 17 ... Qa5 18 Bxc4 Ne5 19 Rd5
Qb6 20 Re1 Kf8 21 Bxf6 Bxf6 22 Nxf6 Qxf6
23 Rexe5, White wins a pawn.
18 Qe2
Now the game heads for another draw as
pieces quickly get swapped off. Instead, 18
Qc3!? looks a little more promising; e.g. 18 ...
Qa5 19 a3 Bf5 (or if 19 ... Qf5,
S.Mamedyarov-K.Lahno, Internet blitz
match 2006, then 20 Re1 Nd5 21 Qd4) 20 f3
Bxe4+ 21 fxe4 Qh5 22 Qe1 c3 23 bxc3 Nc6
24 Rd5 Qg6 with a sharp position in which
White has slightly better chances.
18 ... 0-0 19 Bxf6 Bf5 20 Rxd8 Rfxd8 21
Ka1 Nc2+ 22 Qxc2 Bxe4 23 Bxe7 Bxc2 24
Bxd8 Rxd8 25 Bxc4 Rd2 26 g3 a6 27 Re1
½-½

Game 52
G.Kamsky-L.Van Wely
European Cup, Kemer 2007
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 Qa4+ Nc6 9 0-0-0
Bd7 10 Ne4 Be7 11 exf6 gxf6 12 Bh4 Rc8
13 Kb1 Na5 14 Qc2 e5 15 Nxd4 exd4 16
Rxd4 Qb6 17 Rxd7 Kxd7 18 Be2 Ke8
19 Qc3
White cannot expect to equalize after 19
Bg4 Rd8 20 Re1 Kf8, or 20 Qc3
(J.Szabolcsi-M.Galyas, Hungarian League
2002) 20 ... Rd4! 21 Qe3 Nc6 22 Bxf6 Bxf6
23 Nxf6+ Kd8 24 Qg5 Ne7 and Black has the
upper hand.
19 ... Rc6 20 Rd1 Rg8 21 Bf3
Van Wely notes as 21 Rd5 and 21 g4 as
possibilities, but these do not equalize either;
for example, 21 Rd5 Rxg2 22 Qxa5 Qxa5 23
Rxa5 Re6 24 Bf3 Rg1+ 25 Kc2 f5, or 21 g4
Re6 22 f3 Rxg4 23 Bf2 (or 23 fxg4 Rxe4 24
Bf1 Rxg4) 23 ... Qc6 24 Qxa5 Rgxe4 25
Qxa7 Bd6 and Black is better in all
variations.
21 ... Re6 22 Rd5
135
22 ... f5?
The only way to obtain an advantage was
22 ... Rg6!? (Van Wely) 23 Qxa5 Qxa5 24
Rxa5 f5 25 Bxe7 (or 25 Ng5 Bxg5 26 Bxg5
Rxg5 27 Rxa7 b6) 25 ... fxe4 26 Bh5 Kxe7
27 Bxg6 Rxg6 28 g3 and White still has to
fight for a draw.
Other moves are weaker: 22 ... Rxe4 23
Bxe4 Rg4 24 Bf3 (or 24 Qxa5 Rxe4 25 Qxb6
axb6 26 Rh5 ½-½ A.Goldin-B.Gelfand,
Vilnius 1988) 24 ... Rxh4 25 Qxa5 Rxh2 26
Qxb6 axb6 and the endgame is drawn despite
Black’s two extra pawns; while 22 ... Nc6 23
Bxf6 Nb4 (or 23 ... Kf8 24 Bxe7+ Nxe7 25
Rd4 f5 26 Ng3) 24 Rf5 Qa6 25 a3 Nd3 26
Bxe7 Kxe7 27 Nc5 Nxc5 28 Rxc5 leads to
unclear play.
23 Bxe7 fxe4 24 Bc5?
He should have played 24 Bd8! Qc6 25
Qxa5 exf3 (or 25 ... Kf8 26 Be2 Rxg2 27 Bg5)
26 Bf6 Qxd5 27 Qxd5 Rxf6 28 g3 (Van Wely)
28 ... Rc6 29 Qxf3 and White had the upper
hand.
24 ... Qc6
But not 24 ... Qc7?? 25 Bg4 Nc6 (or 25 ...
b6 26 Bxe6 fxe6 27 Qf6 exd5 28 Qe6+ Kd8
29 Qxg8+ Kd7 30 Qxd5+ Kc8 31 Be3) 26
Bxe6 fxe6 27 Rd6 and White wins,
J.Szabolcsi-A.Shchekachev, Paris 2001.
25 Qd4 Qxd5?
Now 25 ... Qc7 was the right move; e.g.
26 Bg4 Nc6 27 Qd1 Rgg6 with mutual
chances.
26 Qxd5 exf3
27 Qxf3?!
 White could have obtained an edge with
the more flexible 27 g3, which retains the
possibility of taking the c4-pawn first; e.g.
27 ... Nc6 28 Qxc4, or if 27 ... Rg4 then 28
Qh5 Rgg6 29 Qxf3 Nc6 30 Qc3.
27 ... Nc6 28 g3 Rgg6
Here 28 ... a6 was better, according to
Van Wely; whereas the text allows White to
return to the previous note with 29 Qc3.
Instead, the game was drawn after some
further inaccuracies by both sides.
29 a3 Re5 30 Be3 a5 31 a4 Rd6 32 Kc1
Nb4 33 Qxb7 Red5 34 Qc8+ Ke7 35 Qg4
h5 36 Qf3 Ke8 37 h3 f6 38 g4 hxg4 39
Qxg4 f5 40 Qf3 Kd7 41 h4 Rd1+ 42 Qxd1
Na2+ 43 Kc2 Nb4+ ½-½
Game 53
I.Khmelniker-I.Khenkin
European Cup, Fügen 2006
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 Qa4+ Nc6 9 0-0-0
Bd7 10 Ne4 Be7 11 exf6 gxf6 12 Bh4 Rc8
13 Kb1 Na5 14 Qc2 e5 15 Nxd4 exd4 16
Rxd4 Qb6 17 Rd5 Be6 18 Qa4+ Nc6
19 Rb5
After 19 Bxc4 Qb4 (19 ... Bxd5 20 Bxd5
Kf8 21 Nxf6 Qb4 22 Qxb4 Bxb4 23 g4 gives
White strong compensation for the exchange)
20 Qxb4 Nxb4 21 Bb5+ Kf8 22 Rd2 Rg8!
(22 ... Bxa2+ 23 Ka1 Be6 24 Nxf6 Kg7 25
Nh5+ Kf8 26 Nf6 Kg7 27 Nh5+ was a draw
in A.Khalifman-Z.Ribli, Groningen 1993) 23
a3 Rxg2 24 Nxf6 Nd5 25 Nxd5 Bf5+ 26 Bd3
136
Bxd3+ 27 Rxd3 Bxh4, Black has a small
advantage.
19 ... Qa6?!
The sharp 19 ... Qd4 looks better here;
e.g. 20 f3 f5 21 Bxe7 fxe4 22 Bc5 Qd7 23
fxe4 Ne5 24 Be3 a6 with an excellent game
for Black.
20 Qxa6 bxa6 21 Rb7 Bf5 22 f3 Rg8
23 Bg3
Other moves lead to equality as well; for
example, 23 g3 Kf8 (or 23 ... Rg6 24 Kc1
Be6 25 Bg2 c3) 24 Kc1 Kg7 25 Be2 Rge8; or
23 h3 h5 24 g4 (or 24 Bf2 Bh7, S.Shaw-
M.Romm, correspondence 2009) 24 ... hxg4
25 hxg4 Rxg4 26 Be1 Rg6, V.Kozlov-
M.Schröder, correspondence 2007.
23 ... Rg5 24 a4
Or 24 b3 Bg6 (or 24 ... Bxe4+ 25 fxe4
Rb5 26 Rxb5 axb5 27 bxc4 b4) 25 bxc4 Na5
26 Rxa7 Nxc4 27 Bxc4 Rxc4 28 Ra8+ Kd7
29 Rd1+ Kc6 30 Rc8+ Kb5 (S.Mamedyarov-
L.Van Wely, Nice blindfold rapid 2008) 31
Rxc4 Kxc4 with equality in both variations.
24 ... Nd4 25 Rb8 Bxe4+?!
25 ... Rxb8!? was more accurate, as well
as on the next move.
26 fxe4 Rgc5 27 Rxc8+ Rxc8 28 Bf2
Nb3 29 Bxa7 Bd6 30 Be2 Be5 31 Rd1?!
The immediate 31 Ka2!? might be better.
31 ... Ra8 32 Be3 Rb8 33 Ka2 Nc5 34
Rb1 Nxa4 35 Bxc4

35 ... Nxb2!?
35 ... Bxb2 36 Bd2 Be5 37 Rxb8+ Bxb8
is equal.
36 Be2
36 Bf1!? would avoid the following
sequence.
36 ... Rb4 37 Bc1 Ra4+ 38 Kb3 Rxe4 39
Bf3?!
39 Bxa6 keeps the game level.
39 ... Re1 40 Bc6+?!
40 Kc2 Nc4 41 Rb7 is a more active
defence, when Black is only slightly better.
40 ... Kd8 41 h3 Nd3 42 Kc2 Nxc1 43
Rxc1 Re3
Black now has a definite advantage with
two extra pawns, but they don’t prove
enough to win against the opposite-coloured
bishops.
44 Rd1+ Kc7 45 Bd5 Rc3+ 46 Kb1 Rg3
47 Bf3 Rg5 48 Ka2 Bd6 49 Rd5 Re5 50
Kb3 Kd7 51 Kc4 Ke6 52 Bg4+ Ke7 53 Bf3
Ke6 54 Bg4+ Ke7 55 Bf3 a5 56 Kb5 Bb4 57
Kc4 Kf8 58 Rb5 Kg7 59 Bd5 Re3 60 Rb7
Rc3+ 61 Kd4 Rc1 62 Bxf7 Bc5+ 63 Kd3 f5
64 Bc4+ Kf8 ½-½
Game 54
H.Adelseck-E.Calhau
Correspondence 2008
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 Qa4+ Nc6 9 0-0-0
Bd7 10 Ne4 Be7 11 exf6 gxf6 12 Bh4 Rc8
13 Kb1 Na5 14 Qc2 e5 15 Nxd4 exd4 16
137
Rxd4 Qb6 17 Rd6 Rc6 18 Rxc6 Qxc6 19 f3
b6 20 Be2 Rg8
21 Nc3
Or 21 g3 f5 22 Bxe7 Kxe7 23 Nc3 Rd8
24 Qd2 Bc8, when 25 Qf4 Qd6 26 Qh4+ Qf6
27 Qf4 Qd6 is one way to draw.
21 ... f5
After 21 ... Rxg2 22 Qxh7 Kd8 23 Rd1
Kc8 24 Bg3 White has compensation for the
pawn.
22 Bxe7 Kxe7 23 Qd2 Rxg2?!
Now White gets a strong initiative for
two sacrificed pawns. The peaceful 23 ...
Qd6 ensured Black equality.
24 Rd1 Kd8
25 Qf4
25 Qd4 deserved attention; for example,
25 ... Kc8? 26 b4! cxb3 27 Ba6+ Kb8 28
axb3 gives White a strong attack, or 25 ...
Qe6 26 Qf4 Nc6 27 Bxc4 Qe5 28 Qh6 with
the initiative; but 25 ... f6! leads to equality
after 26 Qh4 (or 26 Bf1 Rg7 27 Qf4 Kc8 28
b4 cxb3 29 Ba6+ Kd8 30 Qb8+ Ke7 31 axb3)
26 ... Kc8 27 Qxh7 Qe6 28 h4 Bc6 29 Bf1
Rh2 30 Qh8+ Kb7 31 Qg7+ Kc8 32 Qh8+
and so on.
 25 ... Kc8 26 Bf1 Rg1?!
26 ... Rg6 is better: after 27 b4 (27 Qd4
Qe6 28 Nd5 Ba4 29 b3 Bc6 30 Nf4 Qe8 31
Nxg6 Bxf3 is equal) 27 ... cxb3 28 Ba6+ Nb7
29 Rc1 Kd8 30 Qb8+ Qc8 31 Qxb7 Qxb7 32
Bxb7 bxa2+, followed by ... Rg2, Black
should draw this ending.
27 Qd4 Rh1
The rook has to stay on the rank. If now
27 ... Rg6? then 28 b4! cxb3 (or 28 ... Nb7 29
Bxc4) 29 Ba6+ Kb8 30 Bb5 wins for White;
or similarly 27 ... Rg8? 28 b4!.
28 Qh8+ Kb7 29 Qg8 f4
30 Ka1
He could also play 30 Qg2 at once, since
the endgame after 30 ... Qg6+ 31 Qxg6 fxg6
32 Rxd7+ Kb8 33 Rd1 is good for White.
30 ... Be6 31 Qg2 Rxf1 32 Rxf1 Qd6 33
Qc2 h6 34 Rd1 Qe5 35 Qd2 Nc6 36 Nd5
Qh5 37 Nxf4 Qxf3 38 Rc1 Ne5 39 Nxe6
fxe6 40 Qxh6 Nd3 41 Rb1 Qe4?!
Black should play 41 ... Qd5, but then 42
Qg7+ Ka6 43 Qc3 and 44 b3 undermines the
knight with a definite edge for White.
138
42 Qg7+ Ka6 43 Qd7
Threatening to smoke the king out with
44 a4, 45 Qb5+ and 46 Rg1.
43 ... Nc5 44 Qc8+ Kb5 45 Qd8 Ka6 46
h4 Qe3 47 Qc8+ Kb5 48 Qh8 e5 49 Qg7
Now Black has to cope with the passed
h-pawn as well.
49 ... Qh3 50 Qg5 e4 51 h5 e3
If instead 51 ... Ka6 then 52 Qd5 c3 (or
52 ... Kb5 53 Rc1) 63 Qc4+ (63 b4 Qd3
prolongs the game) 63 ... Kb7 64 Qf7+ Ka6
65 b4 and White wins.
52 Qe5 Ka6 53 b4 cxb3 54 axb3 Qh4 55
Qc3 Kb7 56 b4 Ne4 57 Qg7+ Kc6 58 Qd4
Qf6 59 Rc1+ Kb5 60 Qxf6 Nxf6 61 h6
Kxb4 62 Kb2 1-0
Conclusion
The 7 e5 variation leads to rather crazy
positions full of tactical motifs. Both players
should follow the main line with 7 ... cxd4 8
Qa4+ Nc6 9 0-0-0 Bd7 10 Ne4 Be7 11 exf6
gxf6 12 Bh4, when 12 ... Rc8 13 Kb1 Na5
leads to complex play with mutual chances.
However, Black does have options at this
point: both 12 ... a6 and 13 ... a6, followed
by ... e6-e5, offer good counterchances, and
12 ... Qc7 deserves attention as well.
Chapter Eight
6 ... c5 - Deviations
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5
Here will examine all remaining
deviations after 6 ... c5. Alternatives to 7
Bxc4 and 7 e5 do not yield White any special
benefits, simply he will not do badly if he is
able to equalize. Even the relatively best 7
dxc5 cannot be recommended as a means to
achieve something concrete in the opening.
After 7 e5, the immediate 7 ... h6
prevents Black from the loss of a piece, but
after 8 exf6 hxg5 9 fxg7 Rg8, both 10 a3 and
the simple and logical 10 Qc2 (with the idea
of castling long) give White a slightly better
game.
Black should therefore prefer the main
move 7 ... cxd4. Now taking on f6 leads to a
position in which White has to fight for
equality, so the only serious alternative to 8
Qa4+ Nc6 9 0-0-0 (examined in Chapter
Seven) is 8 Nxd4, after which the play is
forced.
139
8 ... Qa5 9 exf6 Bxc3+ 10 bxc3 Qxg5 11
fxg7 Qxg7 12 Qd2
Here 12 Qf3 is interesting, though White
does not have big chances of obtaining an
edge.
12 ... 0-0
Another idea is 12 ... Bd7!? followed by
0-0-0.
13 Bxc4 Rd8 14 Qe3 Bd7 15 0-0 Nc6 16
Nf3
The alternative is 16 Rad1 Nxd4 with
equal chances.
16 ... Ne7 17 Ne5 Ng6 18 f4 Rac8
Departures from this line do not allow
White possibilities of obtaining an advantage;
and Black should not avoid it either in order
not to receive an inferior position.
Theory
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 c5

7 e5
If White avoids playing 7 Bxc4 or 7 e5,
he can count on equality at best:
a) 7 Qc2? cxd4 8 e5 (playing the main
line a tempo down with 8 Qa4+? Nc6, as in
R.Do O-P.Aguilar, correspondence 1993, is
disastrous for White; e.g. 9 0-0-0 Bxc3 10
bxc3 Bd7), and now Black can choose
between the simple 8 ... dxc3 9 bxc3 Be7 10
exf6 Bxf6 11 Bxf6 Qxf6, when he is a safe
pawn up, and more complicated 8 ... Qa5!? 9
exf6 dxc3 10 0-0-0 cxb2+ 11 Kb1 g6 which
looks even better.
b) 7 Rc1?! cxd4 (7 ... Nc6!?) 8 Nxd4
(D.Nikic-D.Becelic, Obrenovac 2005) 8 ...
0-0 9 Bxc4 h6 10 Bxf6 Qxf6 11 0-0 Rd8 12
Qb3 Bc5 leaves Black with slightly the better
chances.
c) 7 a3?! Bxc3+ 8 bxc3 Qa5 9 Bxf6
Qxc3+ 10 Nd2 gxf6 11 dxc5 (R.Walther-
H.Alefs, Schloss Schney 2007) and now 11 ...
Rg8 12 g3 Nc6 13 Bxc4 Bd7 is good for
Black.
d) 7 d5?! exd5 8 exd5 0-0 9 Bxc4 Re8+
10 Be2 (or 10 Kf1 Bxc3 11 bxc3 Qd6,
M.Rolvag-A.Subramanian, Helsingor 2017)
10 ... Bxc3+ 11 bxc3 Qxd5 12 Bxf6 Qxd1+
13 Rxd1 gxf6 and Black has the upper hand,
J.Dorado Martin-O.Jurado Perez,
correspondence 2005.
e) 7 Bxf6 indicates a loss of a tempo
since White usually waits to be prompted
by ... h7-h6 before taking on f6. Then 7 ...
Qxf6 (7 ... gxf6?! unnecessarily weakens
Black’s pawn structure; after 8 Bxc4 cxd4 9
140
Nxd4 Nc6 10 Nxc6 Qxd1+ 11 Rxd1 bxc6 12
Ke2 the players agreed a draw in Z.Varga-
Ad.Horvath, Heviz 2012, though White’s
position looks a little nicer) 8 Bxc4 (if 8 e5!?
Qf4 9 Bxc4, R.Slijepcevic- B.Muhren,
European Women’s Cup, Saint Vincent 2005,
then 9 ... cxd4 10 Qxd4 Qxd4 11 Nxd4 Bd7
followed by ... Nc6 leads to an equal ending)
8 ... Nc6 (Black more often plays 8 ... cxd4
here, transposing to the 8 Bxf6 Qxf6 line in
Chapter Six) 9 0-0 cxd4 (E.Rolle-Al.Ivanov,
Prague 2010) 10 Nd5! exd5 11 exd5 0-0 12
dxc6 Bc5 13 Rc1 bxc6 14 Bxf7+ Qxf7 15
Rxc5 Bg4 16 Qxd4 Bxf3 17 gxf3 Qxa2
reaches another drawish ending.
f) 7 dxc5 is the most noteworthy sideline.
f1) 7 ... Qa5 8 Bxf6 gxf6 9 Qd4 Rg8!?
(not 9 ... e5? 10 Nxe5! and White is a pawn
up and a good position, G.Samu-O.Magyar,
Hungarian League 2011; or if 9 ... Nd7, as in
W.Winter-R.Fine, Hastings 1935, then 10
c6!? bxc6 11 Bxc4 with better chances for
White) 10 Bxc4 (10 Qxc4 Qxc5 11 g3 Qxc4
12 Bxc4 Bxc3+ 13 bxc3 Nd7 gives White
nothing) 10 ... Qxc5 11 0-0 Qxd4 12 Nxd4
Bxc3 13 bxc3 Nd7 14 f3 Ke7 with an equal
game.
f2) 7 ... Qxd1+ 8 Rxd1 Nc6 (instead, 8 ...
Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 is line ‘f3’ below, while 8 ...
Nbd7 will be discussed in Game 55; other
moves allow White a small advantage; for
example, 8 ... Nfd7 9 Bxc4 Nc6 10 0-0 Bxc3
11 bxc3 Nxc5 12 Nd4 Nxd4 13 Rxd4 Bd7,
N.Zhukova-L.Stetsko, European Women’s
Championship, Chakvi 2015, 14 f3; or if 8 ...
0-0 9 Nd2 Nbd7, D.Svetushkin-A.Naiditsch,
Serbian League 2008, then 10 c6 bxc6 11 f3
Rd8 12 Nxc4 Ba6 13 Be3; or 8 ... Bxc5 9 e5
Nfd7, A.Kiseleva-M.Milovanova,
Petersburg 2016, 10 Nb5 Na6 11 Bxc4 f6 12
Bd2 Nb6 13 Be2 Bd7 14 0-0 Kf7 15 a3 and
White is slightly better) 9 Nd2 (if 9 Bd2, as
in P.Tregubov-S.Feller, Nancy 2009, then
9 ... Bxc3 10 Bxc3 Nxe4 11 Bxg7 Rg8 12
Bd4 Nxd4 13 Rxd4 Nxc5 14 Rxc4 b6 and
White has nothing; but 9 Nd4 comes into
consideration, e.g. 9 ... Ne5 10 Ndb5 0-0 11
Bf4 Nfd7 12 Nd6 Bxc5 13 Nxc4 Nxc4 14
Bxc4 with a small advantage for White) 9 ...
0-0 10 Bxc4 (or 10 f3 Bxc5,
I.Karkangue-V.Inkiov, Thessaloniki
Olympiad 1988 11 Bxc4 a6 12 Nb3 Ba7 13
a4 and White is slightly better due to his
extra space) 10 ... Bxc5 11 0-0 a6 (or 11 ...
Bd4 12 Rfe1) 12 Nb3 Bb4 (or 12 ... Ba7 13
a4) 13 f3 b5 14 Be2 Na5 15 Nxa5 and the
players agreed a draw in V.Malaniuk-
D.Frolyanov, Brescia 2009, though White
may still have a tiny edge in the ending.
f3) 7 ... Bxc3+ 8 bxc3 Qxd1+ 9 Rxd1
Nbd7 is the simplest solution, reaching a
level position already. For example, 10 Rd4
(all of 10 Bxf6 gxf6 11 c6 Nc5; and 10 Nd2
Nxc5 11 Bxc4, K.Troff-S.Homa,
Philadelphia 2017, 11 ... h6; and 10 c6 bxc6
11 Nd2 Ba6 12 Bxf6 Nxf6 13 f3,
P.H.Nielsen-E.L’Ami, German League 2009,
13 ... Ke7 14 Bxc4 Bb5 are equal too) 10 ...
Nxc5 11 e5 (after 11 Bxc4, both 11 ... h6
M.Sesko-J.Potrata, correspondence 2014,
and 11 ... Bd7 give Black good play) 11 ...
Nfd7 (or 11 ... Nd5 12 Bxc4 b6 13 Bxd5
exd5 14 Rxd5 Bb7 15 Rd1 Ne4) 12 Bxc4
(S.Tavinski-G.Ozbek, correspondence 2006;
the databases give no more moves) 12 ... b6
13 0-0 Bb7 and chances are still equal.
7 ... cxd4
The natural move 7 ... h6 is not as good
but still deserves serious attention.
141
a) 8 Bh4 is not a good idea. After 8 ... g5
9 exf6 gxh4 10 Bxc4 (T.Stremavitius-
S.Sulskis, Lithuanian Championship,
Kaunas 2015) 10 ... cxd4 11 Nxd4 Qxf6 12
0-0 0-0, Black has an excellent position.
b) The exchange on f6 has not found (and
quite rightly) many supporters either: 8 Bxf6
gxf6 9 Bxc4 (9 dxc5 is the only move to keep
chances of equality; e.g. 9 ... Qxd1+ 10 Rxd1
fxe5 11 Nxe5 Nd7 12 Nxc4 Nxc5 13 Rc1
Bd7) 9 ... cxd4 10 Nxd4 (if 10 Qxd4 Qxd4 11
Nxd4 fxe5 12 Ndb5, M.Balg-R.Ekström,
Basel 1999, then 12 ... Ba5 and White has no
compensation for the pawn) 10 ... Bxc3+ 11
bxc3 fxe5 12 Nb5 (J.Zuniga-J.Remis
Fernandez, correspondence 1993) 12 ...
Qxd1+ 13 Rxd1 Na6 with better chances for
Black.
c) 8 Bd2 is slightly more promising; for
example, 8 ... Bxc3 (if 8 ... Nd5 9 Bxc4 Nb6
10 Bxb5 Bd7 11 Bxd7+ N6xd7 12 Ne4 Bxd2
13 Qxd2 0-0 14 dxc5 Qc7 15 Qc3 Qc6,
L.Polugaevsky-M.Petursson, New York
Open 1989, then 16 Qd4 and Black does not
have compensation for the pawn; while 8 ...
cxd4 9 exf6 dxc3 10 bxc3 Bf8 11 fxg7 Bxg7
12 Bxc4, A.Khalifman-Ki.Georgiev,
Moscow 1990, offers White a small
advantage, according to Petursson) 9 bxc3
Ne4 10 Bxc4 Nc6 (Black can also play 10 ...
0-0 11 0-0 Nxd2 12 Qxd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 Bd7
14 Rab1 Bc6 15 d5 exd5 16 Rfd1 Qe7 17
Bxd5 Bxd5 18 Qxd5 Nc6 19 Qd7 Rfe8 20 e6
20 ... Qxe6 21 Qxe6 Rxe6 22 Rxb7 Rae8 and
position is level, S.Atalik-A.Schenk, Baden-
Baden 2003) 11 Bd3 Nxd2 12 Qxd2 0-0 13
0-0 cxd4 14 cxd4 b6 (or 14 ... Ne7 15 Qf4
Bd7 16 Qe4 g6 17 Qf4, A.Dreev-
P.H.Nielsen, Internet blitz 2004, and now
17 ... Kg7) 15 Qf4 (if 15 Be4 Bb7 16 Rfd1
Qd7, as in J.Adler-Z.Bratanov, German
League 2007, then 17 d5 Na5 18 Qd4 exd5
19 Bxd5 Qxd5 20 Qxd5 Bxd5 21 Rxd5 Rfd8
reaches an equal ending) 15 ... Bb7 16 Qe4
g6 17 Qf4 (after 17 Rad1, K.Sasikiran-
N.Ninov, Cappelle la Grande 2006, 17 ...
Kg7 18 Rfe1 Rb8 or 18 ... Rc8 gives Black
an excellent position) 17 ... Nb4 18 Qxh6
Bxf3 19 Bxg6 fxg6 20 Qxg6+ Kh8 21 Qh6+
and ½-½ in A.Khalifman-J.Magem Badals,
Dos Hermanas 1993, since 21 ... Kg8 22 gxf3?
Kf7 would allow the black king to escape.
d) Nevertheless, the most principled and
complicated continuation is 8 exf6 hxg5 9
fxg7 Rg8, which gives rich possibilities for
both sides:
d1) 10 a3 will be discussed in Game 56.
d2) 10 h4? g4 11 h5 Rxg7 12 h6, as in
J.Ridameya Tatche-P.San Segundo Carrillo,
Zaragoza 1993, is a poor idea in view of 12 ...
Rg8 13 Ne5 Qxd4 14 Nxc4 Bxc3+ 15 bxc3
Qxc3+ 16 Nd2 g3 with an advantage for
Black.
d3) 10 Bxc4?! is also inaccurate: 10 ... g4
11 Nd2 cxd4 12 Nce4 Rxg7 13 h3
(E.Moradiabadi-A.Barsov, Doha 2006) 13 ...
f5 14 a3 Bf8 15 Ng3 Nc6 16 Qe2 Qe7 17
0-0-0 gxh3 and White does not have full
compensation for the pawn.
142
d4) 10 dxc5!? (the simplest way to parry
the threat of 10 ... g4 followed by 11 ... cxd4)
10 ... Qxd1+ (now 10 ... Qf6?!, as in
I.Naumkin-N.Ninov, Campobasso 2008, is
inaccurate due to 11 Rc1 Qxg7 12 Bxc4 g4
13 Nd2 Qe5+ 14 Be2 Ke7 15 Nc4 and White
has the upper hand; Black also has problems
after 10 ... Nc6 11 Bxc4 Qxd1+ 12 Rxd1
Rxg7 13 h4!, I.Farago-J.K.Andersen,
German League 1994, e.g. 13 ... g4 14 Nd2
Ne5 15 Bb5+ Bd7 16 Bxd7+ Nxd7 17 Nb5
with the initiative; but 10 ... Rxg7 deserves
attention, e.g.11 Qxd8+ Kxd8 12 h4 g4 13
Ne5, P.Bahlke-A.Donchenko, Frankfurt
2013, and now 13 ... Nd7 14 Nxc4 Bxc3+ 15
bxc3 Nxc5 with equal chances) 11 Rxd1
Rxg7 12 Rd4 (12 Bxc4 Nd7 leads to equality
as well; e.g. 13 Bb5 a6 14 Bxd7+ Bxd7 15 h4
Rc8, S.Safin-I.Filippov, Uzbeki
Championship, Tashkent 2007, 16 hxg5
Rxc5 17 Rd4 Bxc3+ 18 bxc3 Rxc3; or 13 h4
g4 14 Nd4, M.Aguettaz-H.Vatter, German
League 2014, 14 ... Bxc3+ 15 bxc3 Nxc5 and
Black has a good ending) 12 ... Bxc5 13
Rxc4?! (if 13 Rg4!?, M.Chiburdanidze-
A.Schenk, Lippstadt 2003, then 13 ... a6 14
Bxc4 b5 15 Bb3 Bb7 16 h4 Nd7 17 Rxg5
Rxg5 18 hxg5 Ke7 and Black has sufficient
play for the pawn) 13 ... Nd7 14 Rg4 (after 14
h4 g4 15 Nd4 a6 16 Ne4 Be7 Black’s
position is preferable) 14 ... Be7 15 h4 (or 15
Be2 f5 16 Rg3 Bf6 17 h4 g4 and again Black
stands better) 15 ... f5 16 Rg3 g4 17 Nd4 (17
Ng5 might improve here; e.g. 17 ... Bc5 18
Na4 Bb4+ 19 Kd1 Nf6 20 Rb3 Rd7+ 21 Bd3
Be7 22 Ke2 Rd6 23 Rd1 and White is only
slightly worse) 17 ... Nb6 18 Rd3 a6 19 g3 e5
20 Nc2 Be6 21 Rd1 Rc8 22 Bd3 (or 22 Bg2
e4 23 0-0 Kf7) and now, rather than 22 ... e4
23 Be2 Bd7 24 Ne3 Bb4 25 0-0 which was
unclear in S.K.Williams-A.Shchekachev,
Salzburg 2004, Black should play 22 ... Kf7
23 Ne3 Kf6 24 0-0 Bc5 with the better
chances.
d5) 10 Qc2 is a logical move; White
threatens 11 Qh7 and prepares long castling.
In response Black has tried:
d51) 10 ... cxd4? 11 Qh7 Ke7 12 0-0-0
Bxc3 13 bxc3, L.Van Wely-A.Naiditsch,
German League 2004, gives White the upper
hand; e.g. 13 ... Nc6 14 Nxd4 Nxd4 15 Rxd4
Bd7 16 Bxc4 Qa5 17 Kb2.
d52) 10 ... g4 11 Qh7 Ke7 12 Qh4+ f6 13
Qxg4 Qa5 14 Nd2 Bxc3 15 bxc3 Qxc3 16
Rd1 cxd4 17 Bxc4 Nc6 18 0-0 Ne5 19 Qh4
and White has the initiative,
J.Czakon-N.Ninov, Marseilles 2006.
d53) 10 ... Rxg7 11 0-0-0 g4 (11 ... Bd7,
E.Spanjaard-S.Landau, Dutch League 1938,
is no better for Black after 12 d5 Qf6 13
Bxc4 Bxc3 14 Qxc3 Qxc3+ 15 bxc3 g4 16
Ne5) 12 dxc5 (I.Bukavshin-A.Stukopin,
Kirishi 2009) 12 ... Bd7 13 Nd2 Na6 14 Nxc4
and White has the upper hand.
d54) 10 ... Nd7 11 dxc5 Qf6 12 Bxc4
Bxc3 13 bxc3 Nxc5 14 0-0 g4 (or 14 ... Rxg7,
R.Hübner-T.Hinks Edwards, French League
2005, 15 Qe2 Bd7 16 Ne5 and White has an
advantage) 15 Nd2 with better chances for
143
White, I.Sokolov-L.Aronian, Spanish
League 2005.
d55) 10 ... Qf6 11 0-0-0 Bxc3 (11 ... g4
12 Nd2 Bxc3 13 bxc3 cxd4 14 cxd4 Rxg7 15
Nxc4 does not equalize either) 12 Qxc3 (12
bxc3 also leads to an advantage for White)
12 ... Nc6 (12 ... cxd4 is no better; e.g. 13
Nxd4 Nc6 14 Bxc4 Bd7, T.Taylor-C.Van
Buskirk, Los Angeles 2004, 15 Kb1 Qxg7 16
Rhe1 0-0-0 17 Bb5 with the initiative) 13
dxc5 Qxc3+ 14 bxc3 Rxg7 and now White
should play 15 h4!? g4 16 Nd2 Ne5 17 Bxc4
Bd7 (or 17 ... Ke7 18 Rhe1 f6 19 Bf1) 18
Rhe1 f6 (A.Illner-M.Bosman, German
League 2008) 19 Ne4! and White has the
better chances.
8 Nxd4
This is the main alternative to the
standard 8 Qa4+ Nc6 9 0-0-0 examined in
the previous chapter. However, we should
also consider what happens if White just
grabs the knight on f6; i.e. 8 exf6 gxf6 and
now:
a) 9 Qa4+? Nc6 10 0-0-0 Bxc3 (or 10 ...
Bd7 11 Nxd4 fxg5 12 Nxc6 Bxc3 13 Qa3?
Qf6! and Black won in R.Londyn-O.Kobo,
Teplice 2016, but even after 13 bxc3 Qc7 14
Qxc4 Bxc6 Black is a pawn up) 11 bxc3 (11
Bh4? is met by 11 ... b5! and wins,
F.Apsenieks-E.Grünfeld, Folkestone
Olympiad 1933; see Game 3 in the
Introduction) 11 ... fxg5 12 Nxd4
(L.Savitsky-I.Rabinovich, USSR
Championship, Leningrad 1933; 12 Qxc4
may improve slightly, though 12 ... Qa5 13
Nxd4 0-0 14 Kb2 e5 15 Nb3 Qb6 16 Qc5
Be6 still sees Black with a clear advantage)
12 ... Bd7 13 Nxc6 Qc7 14 Qxc4 Qxc6 and
Black is a sound pawn up.
b) 9 Bd2?! looks very passive; for
example, 9 ... dxc3 10 bxc3 Bc5 (10 ... Be7,
as in C.Barus-Lin Ta, Asian Team
Championship, Singapore 1987, and 10 ...
Bd6 are good as well) 11 Bxc4
(A.Tolush-A.Geller, Latvian Championship,
Riga 1962) 11 ... Bd7 12 Qe2 Nc6 and White
has no compensation for the pawn.
c) 9 Bxf6 Qxf6 10 Qxd4 Qxd4 11 Nxd4
also leaves White struggling to equalize; for
example, 11 ... Bd7 (or 11 ... Rg8 12 g3 Rg5
13 0-0-0 Bxc3 14 bxc3, M.Kostka-
J.Zajaczkowski, correspondence 1988, and
then 14 ... Rc5 15 Bg2 Nd7 with a small
advantage for Black) 12 Bxc4 Ke7 (or 12 ...
Nc6 13 Ndb5 Ne5 14 Be2 Bxb5 15 Bxb5+
Ke7 16 f4 Ng4 and Black is slightly better,
S.Okrugin-V.Vdovin, Pushchino 2013) 13
0-0 (or 13 Nc2 Bxc3+ 14 bxc3 Rc8 15 Ne3
b5 16 Bd3 Rxc3 17 Bxh7 Nc6 18 0-0 Rd8 19
Rfe1 Be8) 13 ... Nc6 14 0-0 Rc8 and Black
has a favourable endgame with the two
bishops, G.Kradolfer-C.Crouch, Lenk 1991.
d) 9 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 10 bxc3 fxg5 11 Bxc4
Nc6 (or 11 ... Qc7 12 Qe2, L.Aubert-
J.Tersarkissoff, French League 1994, 12 ...
Nd7 and the position is equal; e.g. 13 0-0
Qe5 14 Qh5 Nf6 15 Qh6 Ng4 16 Qh5 Nf6)
12 0-0 (after 12 Nxc6 Qxd1+ 13 Rxd1 bxc6
White does not have full compensation for
the pawn, A.Khramkov-R.Kolanek,
correspondence 2010) 12 ... Nxd4 13 cxd4
0-0 (J.Moes-I.Mende, correspondence 2011)
14 Rc1 (after 14 f4 Bd7 15 fxg5 Qxg5 16 Rf3
Kh8 and White still has to prove full
compensation) 14 ... Bd7 15 d5 Rc8 16 h4
exd5 17 Bxd5 and White should equalize.
e) 9 Bh4 is answered by 9 ... Nc6 (not 9 ...
dxc3?? 10 Qxd8+ Kxd8 11 Bxf6+ Ke8 12
0-0-0 cxb2+ 13 Kxb2 c3+ 14 Kb3 Nc6 15
144
Bxh8 and White wins, N.Leite Filho-
J.Pinheiro, Tiradentes 2014)
10 Nxd4 (inserting 10 a3 Ba5 only
improves Black chances, who can now has
11 Nxd4 Nxd4 12 Bxc4 Nf5, A.Vul-Y.Estrin,
Moscow 1983, e.g. 13 Qa4+ Ke7 14 Rd1
Qc7 15 Bg3 Nxg3+ 16 hxg3 a6 with
advantage; and 11 Bxc4 dxc3,
M.Napolitano-A.Muffang, Warsaw
Olympiad 1935, 12 b4 Qxd1+ 13 Rxd1 Bd8
14 Rc1 Bd7 does not offer White any
compensation for the pawn, as we already
saw in the Introduction) 10 ... Nxd4 11 Bxc4
Be7 (if 11 ... Ke7, G.Ilivitzki-A.Sokolsky,
Sverdlovsk 1942, White should play 12 Qd2
based on the motif 12 ... Nf5 13 Bxf6+ Kxf6
14 Ne4+ Kg7 15 Qxb4 Qd4 16 Ng3 with
equal chances) 12 0-0 (after 12 Bd3, as in
I.Zakharevich-V.Ruban, Kursk 1987, and
12 ... Bd7 13 0-0 Qb6 White does not have
full compensation for the pawn; while 12
Bb5+ Nxb5 13 Qxd8+, T.Kirbach-E.Fochtler,
Nuremberg 1989, 13 ... Kxd8 14 Nxb5 Bd7
15 Rd1 Rc8 leaves Black a clear pawn up)
12 ... Nf5 13 Qh5 (after 13 Bb5+ Bd7 both 14
Qg4, D.Sellos-V.Inkiov, Cannes 1993, 14 ...
Bxb5 15 Nxb5 Qb6 and 14 Bxd7+ Qxd7 15
Qh5 Qd4 are good for Black) 13 ... Qd4 (13 ...
Qd2 14 Bb5+ Kf8 also looks promising for
Black; but not 13 ... Bd7? 14 Rfd1 and White
has decisive threats, P.Cramling-M.Campos
Lopez, Barcelona 1988) 14 Bb5+ Kf8 15
Bg3 allows Black excellent play; for
example, 15 ... a6 (or just 15 ... Nxg3 16
hxg3 Qc5, or similarly 15 ... Kg7 16 Rad1,
S.Temirbaev-V.Kupreichik, Kuibyshev
1986, 16 ... Nxg3 17 Qf3 Qh4 18 hxg3 Qg5)
16 Rfd1 (or 16 Ba4, P.Cramling-
M.Litinskaya, Biel 1988, 16 ... Nxg3 17 hxg3
Qc5 again) 16 ... Qc5 17 Be2 Nxg3 18 Qh6+
Kg8 18 hxg3 Qg5.
Returning to 8 Nxd4:
8 ... Qa5
A typical unpinning motif, exploiting the
X-ray against the bishop on the fifth rank.
Simultaneously, the queen strengthens the
attack on the c3-square. 8 ... Bxc3+ 9 bxc3
Qd5 (or 9 ... Qa5) 10 exf6 Qxg5 also
transposes to the main line, since other 10th
moves do not give White anything; for
example, 10 Nf3 Nfd7 11 Qe2 Nc6 12 Rd1
Qa5 13 Qxc4 0-0 or 10 f4 Ne4 11 Nb5 0-0 12
Qxd5 exd5 13 Nc7 Na6 14 Nxa8 Bf5 15 Rb1
Rxa8 16 Rxb7 Nac5 and Black has the better
chances.
Hitting the bishop with 8 ... h6? is now
weak; for example, 9 exf6 hxg5 (or 9 ...
Bxc3+ 10 bxc3 hxg5 11 fxg7 Rg8 12 Bxc4
Nc6 13 Nxc6 Qxd1+ 14 Rxd1 bxc6 15 h4) 10
Qa4+ Nc6 11 Nxc6 Bxc3+ 12 bxc3 bxc6 13
Rd1 Qc7 14 fxg7 Rg8 15 h4 and White has
the advantage in both variations.
9 exf6 Bxc3+
Obviously not 9 ... Qxg5?? 10 Qa4+ Nc6
11 Nxc6 Bxc3+ 12 bxc3 Bd7 13 Qb4 Qxf6
14 Nd4 and Black resigned in
J.Piket-T.Karolyi, Lvov 1988.
10 bxc3 Qxg5
145
10 ... Qxc3+??, as in P.Hughes-L.Gazen,
correspondence 2002, is a blunder in view of
11 Ke2 Qb2+ 12 Kf3 and White is a piece up.
11 fxg7 Qxg7
The simplest move; Black takes the
g7-pawn immediately, retaining the right to
castle kingside. The alternative is 11 ... Rg8
and then:
a) 12 Qc2 Rxg7 13 Bxc4 will be
discussed in Game 57.
b) White cannot expect much after 12 g3
Qd5! 13 Rg1 Rxg7 (W.Browne-So.Polgar,
New York Open 1988) 14 Bg2 Qa5 15 Kf1
Na6 16 Qe2, though he probably has
sufficient compensation to draw; for
example, 16 ... Kf8 17 f4 Qxc3 18 Rd1 f6 19
Qh5 Qa3 20 Nf5 Rd7 21 Qh6+ Ke8 22 Qh5+
Kd8 (or 22 ... Kf8 23 Qh6+) 23 Nd4 Qe3 24
Qa5+ Ke8 25 Qh5+ Kf8 26 Qh6+ Kg8 27
Qxf6 Nb4 28 Qg5+ and so on.
c) Similarly, after 12 Rb1 Rxg7 13 Nb5
Qe5+ 14 Qe2 Qxe2+ 15 Bxe2 Na6 16 Nd6+
Kf8 17 0-0 Nc5 18 Bf3 f6, the position is
equal, A.Miles-V.Inkiov, Zagreb Interzonal
1987.
d) 12 h4, J.Piket-S.Agdestein, Wijk aan
Zee 1988, can be met by either 12 ... Qd5 13
Qa4+ Bd7 14 Qxc4 Qxc4 15 Bxc4 Rxg7 16
g3 Nc6 17 0-0-0 Rd8 with equality, or 12 ...
Qc5 13 Rb1 Rxg7 14 Rb5 Qa3 15 Rh3 Nc6
16 Nxc6 bxc6 17 Rg5 Rxg5 18 hxg5 e5 19
Rxh7 Qxc3+ 20 Qd2 Qa1+ 21 Qd1 Qc3+
with another draw.
e) However, 12 Qf3!? deserves attention,
and if 12 ... Rxg7 (G.Ograbek-
P.Poniewierski, correspondence 1990),
White can fight for the initiative with 13
Rd1!?; for example, 13 ... a6 14 h4 Qe5+ 15
Be2 Nd7 16 0-0 Kf8 17 Bxc4.
12 Qd2
This is the most frequently played move.
Alternatives are less popular:
a) 12 Bxc4? simply allows 12 ... Qxg2
with advantage for Black,
T.Katsantoulas-C.Von Rosenberg,
correspondence 2011.
b) 12 Qa4+ Bd7 13 Qxc4 Nc6 14 0-0-0
(A.Naumenko-S.Kraus, correspondence
2010) and now 14 ... 0-0 15 Kb2 Ne5 also
gives Black the better chances.
c) 12 Qf3 is more interesting and also
looks more active than 12 Qd2, since it
protects the g2-square and attacks the b7 and
c6-squares. Nonetheless, Black still has
sufficient counterplay:
c1) 12 ... Rg8 13 g3 Qg4 14 Qe3 Qg5 15
f4 Qd5 (I.Sokolov-V.Popov, European
Championship, Warsaw 2005) 16 Nf3 Bd7
17 Rd1 Qc6 18 Rd4 regains the pawn with
advantage, since 18 ... b5? 19 Bg2 is not a
sensible idea for Black.
c2) 12 ... Qe5+ 13 Be2 0-0 (or 13 ... a6 14
0-0 Qc5 15 Rad1, N.Padevsky-A.Kiprov,
Bulgarian Championship, Sofia 1949) 13 ...
0-0 14 0-0 Nd7 15 Bxc4 Qf6 16 Qe2 is also
good for White.
c3) 12 ... 0-0 13 Bxc4 e5 (13 ... Nd7 is
better, transposing to line ‘c4’ below) 14
Nb5 (N.Kalantarian-Cs.Horvath, European
Cup, Ljubljana 1995) can be answered by
146
14 ... Nc6, but 15 Nd6 e4 16 Qg3 Ne5 17 Be2
f5 18 f4 exf3 19 Bxf3 Be6 20 Bxb7 Qxg3+
21 hxg3 still leads to a minimal advantage
for White in the endgame.
c4) 12 ... Nd7 13 Bxc4 0-0 is the best
response: 14 Be2 (other moves do not
achieve anything either: 14 Bb3 Qe5+ 15
Kd2 Qg5+ 16 Qe3 Qxe3+ 17 Kxe3 Nc5 18
Bc2 Bd7 19 f4 ½-½ M.Muse-J.Adamski,
Belgrade 1987; or 14 Qg3 Nc5 15 0-0 Qxg3
16 hxg3 Ne4 17 Rfe1 Nxc3 18 Rac1 Na4 19
Bb3 Nb6 leads to an equal ending,
P.Wichard-J.Blauert, Wiesbaden 1996; or 14
Qe3 Qe5 15 Qe2 b6 16 0-0-0 Qxe2 17 Bxe2
Nc5 with equal chances, J.Szabolcsi-M.Bus,
Bytom 1988) 14 ... Nc5 (Black can also play
14 ... e5 15 Nf5, R.Edouard-E.L’Ami,
German League 2014, and then 15 ... e4 16
Qg3 Qxg3 17 hxg3 Nc5 18 Nd6 Be6 reaches
another equal ending; or 14 ... Ne5 15 Qe3
Ng6 16 g3 and White has only a minimal
advantage at best, L.Polugaevsky-V.Inkiov,
Zagreb Interzonal 1987) 15 0-0 (or if 15 Qe3,
E.Vorobiov-D.Garcia Roman, Pardubice
2014, then 15 ... e5 16 Nb5 b6 17 0-0 Bb7 18
g3 Qg6 19 Rad1 Qe4 with equality) 15 ... b6
(or 15 ... e5 16 Nb3 Ne6 17 Rfe1 Kh8 18 Qg3
f6 19 Qxg7+ Kxg7, as in Pr.Nikolic-L.Van
Wely, Leiden 2015) 16 Rfe1 Bb7 17 Qh3
Rad8 18 Bf1 (18 Bf3 Bxf3 19 Qxf3 Rd5 20
Re3 Kh8 gives White nothing either) 18 ...
Kh8 (N.Gaprindashvili-M.Litinskaya,
Women’s Candidates, Tskhaltubo 1988) and
now White should think about equalizing,
such as after 19 Qe3.
 12 ... 0-0
Other moves:
a) 12 ... Nd7 13 Bxc4 Ne5 14 Bb5+ Bd7
15 Bxd7+ Nxd7 16 0-0 with a slight
advantage for White, A.Khalifman-G.Szabo,
European Championship, Budva 2009.
b) 12 ... Qe5+ 13 Be2 Rg8 14 f4 Qc5 15
Bf3 Nc6 16 Nxc6 bxc6 17 Qf2 Qxf2+ 18
Kxf2 and White has the better chances in the
ending.
c) 12 ... a6 13 Bxc4! (White has to play
energetically) 13 ... Bd7 14 0-0 (14 0-0-0!?
0-0 15 Rhe1 Kh8 16 Re3 Nc6 17 Rg3 Qf6 18
Nf3 Rad8 19 Ng5 is also promising) 14 ...
Nc6 15 Rab1 Nxd4 16 cxd4 Rd8 17 d5 gives
White a useful initiative,
V.Ikonnikov-D.Sengupta, Dieren 2014.
d) 12 ... Bd7!? is more interesting: 13
Bxc4 (13 f4, as in
B.Kohlweyer-A.Donchenko, Metz 2014, is
not dangerous because of 13 ... Nc6 14 Bxc4
Nxd4 15 Qxd4 Qxd4 16 cxd4 Rc8 17 Bb3
Ke7 18 0-0 Kd6 with an excellent ending for
Black) 13 ... Nc6 (planning to castle long; the
greedy 13 ... Qxg2? merely allows White a
huge attack; e.g. 14 0-0-0 a6 15 Rhg1 Qh3 16
Be2 Rf8 17 Bf3 Qh4 18 Nf5 Qf6 19 Ng7+
Kd8 20 Qd6 and wins) 14 Nb5
(V.Akobian-H.Melkumyan, Moscow 2009)
14 ... Ne5! 15 Nd6+ Ke7 16 0-0-0 Nxc4 17
Nxc4 Rhd8 18 Qd6+ Ke8 19 Qg3 Qxg3 20
hxg3 Ba4 and Black liquidates to an equal
ending.
e) 12 ... Nc6 13 Nxc6 bxc6 also comes
into consideration:
147
e1) 14 0-0-0 (a very sharp move) 14 ...
0-0 15 Bxc4 e5 16 h4 h6?! (an unnecessary
precaution; Ribli gives 16 ... Bf5 17 Qg5
Qxg5+ 18 hxg5 as good for White, but we
think that Black should equalize; e.g. 18 ...
Rab8 19 Bb3 Rb5 20 Rd6 Rc5) 17 Rhe1 Bg4
18 f3 Bf5 was V.Popov-V.Filippov,
European Championship, Saint Vincent
2005, where White could have fought for the
initiative with the energetic 19 g4!; for
example, 19 ... Be6 (or 19 ... Bh7 20 g5 –
Ribli) 20 Bb3 (after 20 Bxe6 fxe6 21 Qd6 e4
22 Qxe6+ Kh8 23 Rd6 exf3 24 Qxh6+
Qxh6+ 25 Rxh6+ Kg7 26 Rxc6 Rae8 Black
has good chances to draw) 20 ... Rab8 21 g5
h5 (or 21 ... Bxb3 22 gxh6 Qh7 23 axb3
Rxb3 24 Qg5+ Qg6 25 Rd3 Kh7 26 Rxe5
Rb1+ 27 Kc2 Rf1 28 h5 Qxg5 29 Rxg5) 22
Bxe6 fxe6 23 Qd3 Rb5 24 Qd6 Qf7 25 Qxc6
Rb6 26 Qe4 Qxf3 27 Kc2 and White has
some winning chances with or without the
queens.
e2) 14 Bxc4 is a good and less risky
option: 14 ... Qe5+ (an important move,
creating some disharmony in White’s set-up)
15 Kf1 (after 15 Be2 Ba6 Black obviously
has no problems) 15 ... Qc5 (but not 15 ... 0-0?
16 h4, G.Kasparov-H.Olafsson, Reykjavik
blitz 2004, and White has a strong initiative,
e.g. 16 ... Bb7 17 Rh3 Kh8 18 Re1; while
after 15 ... Bb7, L.Portisch-R.Hübner, World
Cup, Skelleftea 1989, the simple 16 Re1!?
Qf6 17 h4 gives White a small advantage) 16
Qf4 (here 16 Qe2 Bb7 17 Rd1 Rd8 18 Rxd8+
Kxd8 19 g3 Kc7 20 Kg2 Qf5 21 Rd1 leads to
a slight edge for White) 16 ... Rg8 17 Rb1
(preventing ... Bb7; 17 Rd1!? Qg5 18 Qf3
Bb7 19 g3 is an interesting alternative) 17 ...
Rg5 18 g4 Qe5 (not 18 ... a5? 19 h4 Rg7 20
g5 and White is clearly better,
Y.Yakovich-N.Vekshenkov, Russian
Championship, Krasnoyarsk 2003; whereas
18 ... f6?! 19 Bb3 Ba6+ 20 Kg2 Qf5 21 Qxf5
exf5 22 Rhe1+ Kf8 23 Re6 is good for White
too) 19 Qf3 (after 19 Qxe5 Rxe5 20 Bd3 h6
21 Kg2 Rc5 22 Rhc1 e5 Black manages to
equalize) 19 ... Qc5 20 Be2 Qd5 21 h3 and
White keeps a small advantage.
13 Bxc4
The idea of 13 h4 and Rh3 is less justified
here: 13 ... e5 14 Nb5 Nc6 15 Bxc4 Bg4
looks better for Black, even if the players
agreed a draw in V.Babula-Z.Ribli, German
League 2004.
13 ... Rd8
The most common move, forcing White
to declare his queen’s position, though Black
has various alternatives;
a) 13 ... e5!? 14 Nb5 (Black should
equalize after other moves; for example, 14
Nf3 Bg4 15 Qe3 Nd7 16 0-0 Rac8; or if 14
Ne2, V.Hamitevici-Se.Pavlov, Kiev 2010,
then 14 ... Qg4!? 15 f4 Qh4+ 16 g3 Qe7 17
Qe3 Bg4) 14 ... Nd7 (or 14 ... Nc6 15 Qe3
Rd8 16 0-0) 15 0-0-0 Nb6 16 Bb3 Be6 17
Rhe1 and White has slightly the better
chances.
b) 13 ... Nd7 14 0-0 Nb6 (other moves do
not equalize either; for example, 14 ... Nf6 15
Rae1 Bd7 16 Re3 Kh8,
N.Zhukova-A.Ismagambetov, Moscow 2005,
17 Bd3 Rg8 18 Rg3 Qf8 19 Qf4 and White
has the upper hand; or 14 ... Ne5 15 Bb3 Ng6
16 f4 Bd7, A.Volzhin-M.Richter, Senden
1999, 17 f5 exf5 18 Nxf5 Bxf5 19 Rxf5 with
advantage for White) 15 Bb3 e5
(H.Koneru-S.Khademalsharieh, FIDE
Women’s Grand Prix, Tehran 2016; after
15 ... Rd8? 16 f4 Nd5,
148
A.Demuth-A.Kosteniuk, Paris blitz 2010, 17
Rae1 Black is completely deprived of
counterplay, while White can easily develop
an attack on the king) 16 Nf3 Bh3 17 Qg5 e4
18 Qxg7+ Kxg7 19 Nd4, followed by Rae1,
gives White an edge in the ending.
c) 13 ... Bd7 14 0-0 Nc6 (14 ... Rc8 15
Bb3 Rc5 16 f4 Nc6 17 Rad1,
A.Dreev-A.Morozevich, Moscow 1996, or
17 Rf3 is good for White) 15 Nf3 (15 f4?! is
weaker: 15 ... Nxd4 16 cxd4 Rac8 17 Bb3
Rfd8 18 Rf3 Kh8 19 Rg3 Qf6 20 Re1 Bc6 21
Re5 Rg8 22 Qe3 Rxg3 23 hxg3 Rg8 24 Rh5
and the game was soon drawn in
V.Tkachiev-V.Tukmakov, Solin 1999) 15 ...
Rad8 16 Qe3 Ne7 17 Ne5 is virtually the
same as the main line, except that Black has
rooks on d8 and f8 (rather than d8 and a8),
which rules out lines with ... Rac8. White
therefore seems to have a small advantage in
all variations. For example 17 ... Ng6 (if 17 ...
Bc8, as in V.Barnaure-Al.Ivanov, Bucharest
2007, then 18 Rfd1; or 17 ... Bc6,
A.Rychagov-A.Kharlov, Kazan 2013, 18 g3
a6 19 Rad1; or if 17 ... Nf5 18 Qe2 Bc6 19 g3
Bd5 20 Bb3 Nh4 21 f4) 18 f4 Nxe5 19 fxe5
Bc6 20 g3 Rd7 21 Rf4 Kh8 22 Raf1 and now
both 22 ... Rg8 and 22 ... Rfd8 actually
transpose to 18 ... Nxe5 19 fxe5 Bc6
positions in the main line, where White has a
certain initiative.
d) 13 ... a6 14 0-0 b5 will be discussed in
Game 58; whereas 14 ... Rd8?! 15 Qf4,
V.Topalov-A.Naiditsch, Dortmund 2005,
only activates White’s queen. The other
possibility is 14 h4 (aiming to develop the
h1-rook via h3) 14 ... e5 15 Nf3 Nc6 16 0-0
(instead of 16 Ng5?!, I.Khenkin-A.Lauber,
Neustadt 2008, after which 16 ... h6 17
Bxf7+ Rxf7 18 Nxf7 Kxf7 is better for Black)
16 ... Bg4 17 Qe3 Rad8 18 Rad1 Rxd1 19
Rxd1 Qf6 20 Be2 Rd8 and Black should
equalize.

14 Qe3
The most natural continuation, played in
nearly all games. Other moves:
a) 14 Qb2 (S.Halkias-Z.Gyimesi,
European Team Championship, Heraklio
2007) 14 ... b6 15 0-0 Bb7 16 f4 Nc6 17 Rf3
Kh8 18 Rg3 Qf6 19 Ba6 Nxd4 20 Bxb7 Rab8
21 Be4 Nf5 with equality.
b) 14 Qf4 Bd7 (the most radical measure
is 14 ... Nc6 15 Nxc6 Qxc3+ 16 Ke2 Qb2+
17 Kf3 Qc3+ and draws) 15 0-0 (after 15
0-0-0 Nc6 16 Rd3 Ne5 17 Rg3 Ng6 Black is
at least equal) 15 ... Nc6 16 Nf3 (16 Ne2?! is
worse due to 16 ... Ne5 17 Ng3,
M.Dziuba-L.Bruzon Batista, Calvia 2006,
and now 17 ... Rac8 18 Bb3 Ng6 19 Qe3 b6
20 Rac1 Qe5 with the better chances for
Black) 16 ... Ne7 17 Rad1 Rac8 and the
position is level.
14 ... Bd7
Preparing ... Nc6. 14 ... Nd7 looks
weaker; e.g. 15 0-0 Ne5 16 Be2 b6 17 f4 Bb7
18 Rf2 Nc6 (U.Von Herman-F.Levin,
German League 2009) 19 Rf3 Qf6 20 Rg3+
Kh8 21 Nf3 Rg8 22 Ng5 Rg7 23 Bh5 and
White has the advantage.
15 0-0
After 15 h4 Nc6 16 Rh3 (16 0-0-0 Qe5 17
Qh6 Qg7 18 Qe3 Qe5 leads to a draw) 16 ...
Qe5 17 0-0-0 Qxe3+ 18 Rxe3 Kf8 the ending
is equal, E.Porper-V.Kosyrev, Biel 2004.
15 ... Nc6
Material is reduced; the white bishop is
temporarily more active than its black
counterpart; White has a weak c3-pawn, but
149
the missing black g7-pawn seems a more
important factor because White can try to
organize an action against the black king.
Nevertheless, Black should equalize with
correct play.
16 Nf3
Instead, 16 Rad1 Ne5?! 17 Be2 (17
Bb3!?) 17 ... Rac8 18 f4 Ng6 (not 18 ... Bc6?
19 Qh3 Nd7 20 f5 and White had a strong
attack in H.Olafsson-L.Van Wely, World
Blitz Championship, Berlin 2015) 18 ... Ng6
19 Rf3 Kh8 20 f5 exf5 21 Nxf5 Bxf5 22
Rxd8+ Rxd8 23 Rxf5 gives White the better
chances. However, the simple 16 ... Nxd4 17
Rxd4 Bc6 18 f3 Rxd4 19 cxd4 Rd8
eliminates all problems for Black.
16 ... Ne7
Black can also play:
a) 16 ... Be8 17 Rad1 Ne7 18 Ne5 Ng6 19
f4 Nxe5 20 fxe5 Bc6 21 g3 Rxd1+ 22 Rxd1
Qg4 23 Rd4 Qf3 24 Qxf3 Bxf3 25 Kf2 Bc6
and Black is close to equality,
K.Sakaev-S.Arkhipov, Dubai 2000.
b) 16 ... Rac8 17 Rfd1 Ne7 18 Ne5
(S.Safin-S.Swapnil, New Delhi 2008) 18 ...
Be8 19 Bb3 (or 19 f4 Ng6 20 Be2 Qh6 21 g3
Nxe5) 19 ... Ng6 20 Nxg6 Qxg6 with equal
chances.
17 Ne5 Ng6
The alternative 17 ... Bc6 looks a little
worse: 18 g3 (instead, 18 Nxc6 Nxc6 19 Bd3
Ne7 20 Be4 Nd5 21 Bxd5 Rxd5 22 Rad1 Qe5
23 Qf3 Rad8 24 Rxd5 Rxd5 25 c4 Rd2 26 a4
Ra2 27 Qxb7 Rxa4 28 Qb3 Ra1 29 g3 Rxf1+
was a draw in L.Van Wely-V.Topalov,
Monte Carlo rapid 2005) 18 ... Nd5 (or 18 ...
Bd5 19 Bb3 b6 20 Rad1 Rac8 21 Rfe1 Ng6
22 Ng4 Bb7 23 Rd4) 19 Bxd5 Rxd5 20 Rfe1
Rad8 21 Qf4, K.Sakaev-L.Schandorff,
Copenhagen 2005, and White has a small
advantage.
18 f4
After this White can count on an
initiative on the kingside. A possible knight
exchange will be met by f4xe5, opening the
f-file and creating a weak square on f6.
Exchanging knights with 18 Nxd7 Rxd7 is
weaker; e.g. 19 Bb3 Rc7 20 Rac1 Qe5 and
Black has an excellent game, N.Vitiugov-
A.Khalifman, Tomsk 2006.
18 ... Rac8
This position will be analysed in Game
59.
Black can also play 18 ... Nxe5 19 fxe5
Bc6 20 g3 (20 Rf2 cannot be recommended
as the f2-rook is then practically
immobilized; after 20 ... Rd7 21 Raf1, P.San
Segundo Carrillo-Ad.Horvath, Turin
Olympiad 2006, 21 ... Rad8 22 Be2 Qg6
Black has no problems) 20 ... Rd7 (planning
to double rooks on the d-file, while
protecting the f7-square at the same time)
150
Now:
a) 21 Rf6 gives White nothing after 21 ...
Rad8 22 Be2 (or 22 Raf1 Rd1) 22 ... Rd2 23
Rf4 Kh8 24 Rd4 R2xd4 25 cxd4 f5 26 exf6
Qxf6 27 Rd1 Bd5 and Black drew without
any difficulty, A.Onischuk-D.Jakovenko,
Foros 2007.
b) 21 Be2, as in R.Kempinski-P.Wells,
European Championship, Dresden 2007, is a
little more interesting. Then 21 ... Rd5!? 22
Rf6 Qf8 may be the most reasonable
continuation; Black aims to force the queens
off, making his king safe, albeit at the cost of
a pawn. Nevertheless, a superior pawn
structure, the strong c6-bishop and active
rook give him good drawing chances; for
example, 23 Raf1 Qc5 24 Qxc5 Rxc5 25 Bh5
Rxe5 26 Bxf7+ Kg7 27 Rxe6 Rxe6 28 Bxe6
Re8 29 Bc4 Re4 and Black should hold this
ending.
c) 21 Rf4 looks like the strongest move,
when 21 ... Kh8 22 Raf1 Rg8 (or if 22 ...
Rad8, Y.Shulman-L.Van Wely, Ledyards
2006, then 23 Rd4 Rxd4 24 cxd4 Qg6 25
Bd3 Qh5 26 Rf4) 23 Rd4 Rxd4 24 cxd4 Qg6
25 Bd3 Qh5 (A.Dreev-Xu Jun, Russia-China
summit match, Shanghai 2001) 26 Be2 Qg6
27 Bf3 still offers White a slight initiative.
Illustrative Games
Game 55
M.Vachier Lagrave-L.Aronian
Wijk aan Zee 2011
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 dxc5 Qxd1+ 8 Rxd1 Nbd7
 9 Rd4
White has several other moves to choose
from:
a) 9 Nd2?! (P.Morant-P.Peuraniemi,
Finnish League 2014) is inaccurate due to 9 ...
Bxc3 10 bxc3 Nxc5 11 Bxc4 h6 12 Bxf6
gxf6 13 f3 Bd7 with an excellent ending for
Black.
b) 9 Bxf6 Nxf6 10 Rd4 Bxc5 11 Rxc4
Bb6 (I.Rajlich-Z.Gyimesi, Stockholm 2000)
leads to an unclear position; e.g. 12 Bd3 Ke7
13 e5 Nd5 14 Nxd5+ exd5 15 Rf4 h6.
c) 9 c6 bxc6 10 Nd2 Ba6 11 Bxf6 Nxf6
12 f3 Rd8 13 Nxc4 Bxc3+ 14 bxc3 Rxd1+ 15
Kxd1 Bxc4 16 Bxc4 Ke7 reaches a level
endgame, C.Müller-M.Kvetny, Oberhof
2013.
d) 9 Bd2 Bxc3 (or 9 ... Nxc5 10 e5 Bxc3,
N.Meskovs-L.Stetsko, Vilnius 2015, 11
Bxc3 Nfe4 12 Bd4 b5 13 Nd2 Nxd2 14 Kxd2
Na4 15 b3 and White has compensation for
the pawn) 10 Bxc3 Nxe4!? (after 10 ... Nxc5
11 Bxc4 Ncxe4 12 Bb4 Bd7 13 Ne5 White
has at least sufficient compensation; e.g. 13 ...
a5 14 Ba3, A.Rychagov-Se.Pavlov,
Voronezh 2016, 14 ... Nd5, when White can
either regain the pawn with 15 Bxd5 exd5 16
Rxd5 Nf6 17 Rd3, or keep developing the
initiative after 15 Rd4! Nef6 16 Kd2
followed by Rc1, Bd3/e2 and Nc4) 11 Bxg7
Rg8 12 Bd4 Nexc5 13 Bxc4 Rxg2 14 Ke2
(after 14 b4 Ne4 the players agreed a draw in
S.Brynell-N.Grandelius, Swedish
Championship, Kungsor 2009) 14 ... a6 (14 ...
b6!?) 15 b4 Ne4 16 Rhg1 Rxg1 17 Rxg1 and
White had good compensation for the pawn,
I.Pleci-B.Kostic, Warsaw Olympiad 1935.
9 ... h6 10 Bd2 Bxc5
10 ... Nxc5 11 Bxc4 Bxc3 (after 11 ... 0-0
12 e5 Bxc3 13 Bxc3, A.Riazantsev-K.Landa,
French League 2009, White has an initiative
without any material investments; e.g. 13 ...
Nfe4 14 Bb4 b6 15 Nd2 ) 12 Bxc3 Nfxe4 13
Bb4 a6 14 Be2 b6 15 Ne5 Nf6 16 Nc4 leads
151
to an ending with better chances for White,
despite his missing pawn.
11 Rxc4 e5?!
11 ... 0-0 was more cautious; for example,
12 Be2 (or 12 e5 Nd5 13 Be2 a6) 12 ... a6 13
e5 Nd5 14 Nxd5 exd5 15 Rc2 Re8 16 0-0 f6
17 Rfc1 Bb6 and Black should equalize.
12 Nxe5 Bxf2+ 13 Kxf2 Nxe5 14 Rc5
Here 14 Rd4 gives White more chances
of obtaining a small advantage; e.g. 14 ...
Nc6 15 Bb5 Bd7 16 Bxc6 Bxc6 17 Nd5 Bxd5
18 exd5 Kd7 19 Kf3 Rhc8 20 Bc3.
14 ... 0-0 15 h3 Rd8 16 Bf4 Ng6 17 Be3
Bd7 18 Be2 Bc6 19 Rc4 a6
19 ... Re8!? is also level.
20 Rd1 Rxd1 21 Bxd1 Re8 ½-½
Game 56
V.Kunin-A.Arustamian
Moscow 2011
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 e5 h6 8 exf6 hxg5 9 fxg7
Rg8 10 a3
10 ... Bxc3+
Retreating the bishop gives White more
chances: 10 ... Ba5 11 dxc5 (or 11 Qa4+ Nc6
12 dxc5 Bxc3+ 13 bxc3 Qd5 14 Qxc4 Qxc4
15 Bxc4 Rxg7 16 Nd4 with a small
advantage for White) 11 ... Bxc3+ (if 11 ...
Qxd1+ 12 Rxd1 Rxg7 13 Rc1 Nd7 14 Bxc4
Bxc3+ 15 Rxc3 Nxc5,
D.Kumaran-D.Pavasovic, World Junior
Championships, Bratislava 1993, then 16
Bd3 leads to a better ending for White) 12
bxc3 Qxd1+ 13 Rxd1 Rxg7 14 h4 g4 (after
14 ... gxh4 15 Rxh4 Ke7 16 g3 Black cannot
develop his queenside pieces without losing
a pawn) 15 Ng5 (15 Nd4!?) 15 ... Nd7 16
Rd4 Ne5 (L.Van Wely-E.Agrest, European
Team Championship, Leon 2001) and now
17 Bxc4 Bd7 18 Kd2 looks to give White a
slight edge.
11 bxc3 Rxg7
Black is not obliged to take the pawn
straight away. Other moves are:
a) 11 ... Qa5 12 dxc5 (here 12 Rc1!? cxd4
13 Nxd4 Qc5 14 h4 may be slightly better for
White) 12 ... Nc6?! 13 Nd2 Qxc5 14 Bxc4
Rxg7 (or 14 ... Qe5+ 15 Be2 Bd7 16 0-0 Na5
17 Nf3 Qxg7 18 Qd6) 15 0-0 Bd7 16 Ne4
Qe7 17 Re1 was good for White in F.Vallejo
Pons-V.Topalov, Monte Carlo (blindfold
rapid) 2005. Instead, Black should opt for
either 12 ... Qxc3+ 13 Nd2 Qxg7 14 Bxc4
Qe5+ 15 Be2 Ke7 16 0-0 Rd8 with mutual
chances, or 12 ... Nd7!? 13 Qd4 Qxc5 14
Bxc4 Qxd4 15 cxd4 g4 16 Ne5 Rxg7 17 Be2
Nxe5 18 dxe5 Bd7 with a level ending.
b) 11 ... Nc6 12 Bxc4 cxd4 13 Nxd4
(alternatively, 13 Qd3 Rxg7 14 0-0 Bd7 15
Nxd4 Ne5 16 Qh3 is slightly better for White,
A.Onischuk-P.H.Nielsen, Wijk aan Zee 2005;
or if 14 ... dxc3 15 Qxc3 Kf8 16 Rfd1 Qe7 17
Rab1 f6 18 Nd4 Nxd4 19 Qxd4, White has
full compensation for the pawn) 13 ... Nxd4
14 cxd4 Qa5+ 15 Kf1 (both 15 Ke2 Bd7 16
Rb1 Rxg7 17 Qd3 Kf8, and 15 Qd2 Qxd2+
16 Kxd2, T.Polak-A.Kharlov, European
Championship, Dresden 2007, 16 ... Rxg7!
give Black equal play) 15 ... Bd7 16 h4 gxh4
(after 16 ... Rxg7 17 h5 Rh7 18 h6 Rc8 19
Bd3 Bb5 20 Rb1 Bxd3+ 21 Qxd3 Qa6 22
Qxa6 bxa6 White perhaps has a slight edge
in the rook endgame) 17 Rxh4 Qg5 18 g3
(rather than 18 Qg4 Qxg4 19 Rxg4 Rc8
which leads to equality, K.Sakaev-L.Aronian,
152
German League 2003) 18 ... Bc6 19 Rc1
0-0-0 20 Rh5 Qxg7 21 Bb5 and White has
the initiative.
c) 11 ... cxd4 12 Nxd4 (12 h4!? is also
possible) 12 ... Nc6 (12 ... Qd5 13 h4 gxh4 14
Rxh4 was good for White in
V.Gunina-B.Yildiz, World Junior
Championships, Heraklio 2004; or if 13 ...
Bd7 then 14 hxg5 Qxg5 15 Rb1 Nc6 16 Rh5
Qxg7 17 Rxb7 Rd8 18 g3 still gives White
the edge) 13 Nxc6 Qxd1+ 14 Rxd1 bxc6 15
h4 (S.Krivoshey-A.Delchev, Santa Cruz de
la Palma 2005) 15 ... Rxg7 16 Bxc4 gxh4 17
Rxh4 Ke7 18 g3 Rg5 and Black has chances
to equalize.
12 Bxc4
12 ... Nd7?!
Black should prefer 12 ... Nc6 13 dxc5
Qxd1+ 14 Rxd1 (M.Porat-U.Zak, Israeli
League 2012) 14 ... g4 15 Nd4 Bd7 16 Be2
Ke7 with good chances to hold the ending.
13 0-0
Too routine. 13 h4!? Qa5 14 Qd3 offers
more prospects of developing an initiative.
13 ... g4 14 Nd2 cxd4 15 cxd4
After 15 Ne4 Nb6 (or 15 ... dxc3 16 Rc1
Nb6 17 Bb5+ Bd7 18 Bxd7+ Nxd7 19 Rxc3)
16 Bb5+ Kf8 17 cxd4 White might still have
claimed a small advantage.
15 ... Nb6 16 Bb5+ Bd7 17 Qb3 Kf8 18
Bxd7 Qxd7 19 Qb4+ Qe7

20 Ne4?!
20 Rab1 is better and keeps the game
level.
20 ... Qxb4 21 axb4 f5?!
This merely creates weaknesses, whereas
after 21 ... Nd5 Black has an excellent
position.
22 Nc5 Re7 23 f3 gxf3 24 Rxf3 Nd5 25
b5 b6 26 Nd3 Rc8 27 Ne5 Rg7 28 Nc6 a5
29 bxa6 Rxc6 30 a7 Nc7 31 d5 Rc2?!
This leads to a single rook endgame
where White has an extra pawn. Instead, 31 ...
exd5!? 32 a8Q+ Nxa8 33 Rxa8+ Ke7 34
Ra7+ Kf6 35 Rxg7 Kxg7 36 Rxf5 Rc5 is
equal.
32 a8Q+ Nxa8 33 Rxa8+ Ke7 34 Ra7+
Kf6 35 Rxg7 Kxg7 36 dxe6 Rc1+ 37 Kf2
Rc2+ 38 Kg1 Rc1+ 39 Kf2 Rc2+ 40 Kg3
Kf6 41 e7 Re2 42 Rb3 Rxe7 43 Rxb6+ Ke5
White is a pawn up and therefore has the
better chances, but he can’t win unless his
opponent makes a mistake, and Arustamian
didn’t make any.
44 h4 Ra7 45 h5 Ra3+ 46 Kh4 Ra4+ 47
Kh3 Ra3+ 48 Kh2 Kf4 49 Rg6 Ra8 50 h6
Ra7 51 Kh3 Ra1 52 Kh2 Ra7 53 Kh3 Ra1
54 g3+ Kf3 55 Kh4 f4 56 g4 Rh1+ 57 Kg5
Kg3 58 Ra6 f3 59 Ra3 Rxh6 60 Kxh6 Kxg4
61 Kg6 f2 62 Ra1 Kg3 63 Kg5 Kg2 64 Ra2
Kg1 65 Rxf2 ½-½
Game 57
N.Zhukova-A.Stefanova
Calvia Olympiad 2004
153
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Qa5 10 exf6 Qxg5 11 fxg7 Rg8 12
Qc2 Rxg7 13 Bxc4
13 ... Bd7
The safest option was 13 ... Qc5 14 Bb5+
Bd7 15 Bxd7+ Nxd7 16 0-0 0-0-0; whereas
after 13 ... Qxg2 14 0-0-0 Qg5+ 15 Kb2 Qc5
16 Qd3 Bd7 17 Rhe1 White’s initiative is
worth more than a pawn.
14 g3 Nc6 15 0-0 Nxd4 16 cxd4 Bc6
16 ... Rc8!? comes into consideration.
17 Rae1 Kf8
If 17 ... Rd8 White can develop his
initiative by 18 d5 (or 18 Re5 Qf4 19 Bb5
Qxd4 20 Bxc6+ bxc6 21 Qxc6+) 18 ... Bxd5
19 Bxd5 Qxd5 20 Rd1 Qa5 21 Rxd8+ Kxd8
22 Qb2 Rg5 23 Qxb7.
18 f4?!
18 Qc3 first was better; e.g. 18 ... Rc8 19
f4 Qd8 20 f5 and White has a useful
initiative.
18 ... Qh4?!
18 ... Qa5 19 Re5 Qb4 was more
appropriate.
19 Qf2?!
 The most convincing continuation was
the energetic 19 d5 exd5 20 Bxd5 Qf6 (or
20 ... Bxd5 21 Qc5+ and 22 Qxd5) 21 Qc5+
Kg8 22 Rf2 and White has the upper hand.
19 ... Rd8 20 Re5 Kg8 21 Bb3 Kh8 22
Rd1
Alternatively, 22 Rfe1 intends d4-d5
again with the better position for White.
22 ... Qg4
22 ... Rgg8!? restricts White to a small 33 e7
advantage. After this the game ends quickly in a
23 f5 Bd5 24 Rd2 f6 25 Rxe6 Bxe6 draw. 33 Qe2 makes it more difficult for
Here 25 ... Bxb3!? 26 axb3 Rgd7 was Black, who then has to find some accurate
better, though White still has a clear moves: 33 ... Qc5+ 34 Kh1 Qc6+ 35 Rd5 (or
advantage. 35 Kh2 Rf6 36 Qe3 Rgg6 37 Kg1 Rh6 38
26 fxe6 Rd5 Rxe6 39 Qd4+ Rhf6 40 d7 Re1+ 41 Kg2
Re2+ 42 Kh3 Qe6+ 43 g4 Rh2+ 44 Kxh2
Qe2+ etc) 35 ... Qc1+ 36 Bd1 Qc6 37 Qd3
Rxg3 38 Qd4+ Rg7 39 e7 Rf4 40 Qxf4
Qxd5+ 41 Bf3 Qe6 42 Kh2 b5 43 Qf8+ Rg8
44 Qxg8+ Kxg8 45 Bd5 Qxd5 46 e8Q+ Kg7
47 d7 Qd6+ and the white king cannot escape
the checks.
33 ... Qc5+ 34 Kh2 Qh5+ 35 Kg1
Or 35 Qh3 Qe2+ 36 Qg2 Qh5+ etc.
The connected passed pawns give White 35 ... Qc5+ 36 Kh2 Qh5+ 37 Kg1 ½-½
a winning position with best play, but neither
side is managing to find the best moves. Game 58
26 ... f5 27 d5 f4 28 Rd3?! Z.Ribli-P.Acs
The immediate 28 d6 wins for White. Hungarian League 2002
28 ... Rc8 29 d6??
But this is now a serious mistake. Either 1 Nf3 d5 2 d4 Nf6 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
29 Qf3 Qh4 30 Qe4 or 29 Qe1 fxg3 30 hxg3 Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Qa5 9 exf6
was winning. Bxc3+ 10 bxc3 Qxg5 11 fxg7 Qxg7 12 Qd2
29 ... fxg3 30 hxg3 Qh3?? 0-0 13 Bxc4 a6 14 0-0 b5
Another blunder. The correct path was
30 ... Rc1+ 31 Kg2 Qh5 32 Qf8+ Rg8 33
Qf6+ Rg7 34 Qf8+ with perpetual check.
31 Qb2 Rf8 32 Qg2?
White could still have won after 32 Qa1!,
protecting the first rank and keeping the pin
on the a1-h8 diagonal. However, this kind of
move is very difficult to find at the board.
32 ... Qf5

154
 15 Bb3
Other moves:
a) 15 Bd3 Bb7 16 f3 Nd7 is equal,
V.Akobian-J.Tayar, Las Vegas 2009.
b) 15 Be2 Bb7 16 Bf3 (White needs to
retain the light-squared bishops with 16 g3!?
if he is achieve anything; e.g. 16 ... Rd8 17
Qe3 Nc6 18 Nxc6 Bxc6 19 Rab1 h6 20 Rb4
and the activity of the rook on the fourth rank
gives White the better chances) 16 ... Bxf3 17
Nxf3 Nc6 ½-½ A.Delchev-A.Kolev,
Bulgarian League 2007.
15 ... b4
After 15 ... Bb7 16 f4 Rd8 17 Rad1 Nc6
18 Qf2 Nxd4 19 cxd4 Rd6 20 f5 exf5 21 d5,
White has a small but long-term advantage.
16 Rac1
Both 16 Rad1 Bb7 17 f3 bxc3 18 Qxc3
Nc6 19 Qc5 Nxd4 20 Rxd4 and 16 g3 Bb7 17
Qe3 bxc3 18 Rfd1 Qf6 19 Rac1 Nc6 20 Nxc6
Bxc6 21 Rd4 lead to a slight advantage for
White.
16 ... Rd8
17 Qe3
17 Qf4 also deserves attention; for
example, 17 ... Bb7 18 Nf3 bxc3 19 Rxc3
Nc6 20 Ng5 (or 20 Rc4 Rd3 21 Qc7 Nd8 22
Ne1) 20 ... Nd4 (or 20 ... Ne5 21 Rg3 Rd3 22
Rd1 Rxg3 23 hxg3 h6 24 Ne4 Bxe4 25 Qxe4)
21 Bd1 e5 22 Qxf7+ Qxf7 23 Nxf7 Bxg2 24
Nxd8 Bxf1 25 Kxf1 and White has the better
chances in all variations.
17 ... Bb7 18 f3 bxc3 19 Rfd1 Nc6 20
Nxc6 Rxd1+ 21 Bxd1
21 Rxd1 Bxc6 22 Rd3 is another option.
155
21 ... Bxc6 22 Rxc3 Bd5 23 Bb3
Or 23 a3!? with a small advantage for
White.
23 ... Bxb3 24 axb3 Rd8 25 Rc4 Kh8 26
Qc1 Qe5 27 Re4 Qf6 28 h3 Rg8 29 Kh1 h6
30 Ra4 e5 31 Ra5 Re8 32 Qc3 Re6 33 Ra4
33 ... e4
Black opts to go for a rook ending a pawn
down, since it is extremely difficult for
White to win. Alternatively, 33 ... Rd6 keeps
equal material, but with the initiative for
White.
34 Qxf6+ Rxf6 35 fxe4
35 Rxe4!? might be better.
35 ... Rb6 36 b4 Kg7 37 Kg1 Re6 38 e5
Kg6 39 g4 h5 40 Kf2 hxg4 41 hxg4 Kg5 42
Kf3 Rb6 43 Ke3 Rb5 44 Kd4 Kxg4 45 Kc3
Kf5 46 Rxa6 Kxe5
Now the position is obviously drawn.
47 Kc4 Rb8 48 b5 f5 49 Kc5 f4 50 b6 f3
51 Ra7 Kf4 52 Rf7+ Ke3 53 b7 f2 54 Kb6
Ke2 55 Ka7 Rxb7+ 56 Kxb7 f1Q 57 Rxf1
Kxf1 ½-½
Game 59
V.Malakhatko-C.Bauer
Calvi 2011
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Qa5 9 exf6
Bxc3+ 10 bxc3 Qxg5 11 fxg7 Qxg7 12 Qd2
0-0 13 Bxc4 Rd8 14 Qe3 Bd7 15 0-0 Nc6 17
Ne5 Ng6 18 f4 Rac8
 19 Be2
Other moves:
a) 19 Bb3 (E.Iturrizaga Bonelli-M.Palac,
Dresden Olympiad 2008) 19 ... Nxe5 20 fxe5
Bb5 21 Rfd1 h6 22 Rd4 Qg5 with a good
position for Black.
b) 19 Bd3 Rxc3!? (this leads almost to a
forced draw; Black can also play 19 ... Nxe5
20 fxe5 Bc6 21 g3, R.Ruck-P.Acs, Austrian
League 2013, and now 21 ... Rd5!? 22 Rae1
Rcd8 23 Be4 Rd2 24 Bxc6 bxc6 25 Qxa7
R8d3 with a drawish position; e.g. 26 Re3
Rd7 27 Qa8+ Rd8 28 Qb7 R8d7 29 Qc8+
Rd8) 20 Qd4 Nxe5 (20 ... Nh4 21 Be4 Rc7
22 Qd6, as in B.Gelfand-A.Giri, Monte
Carlo blindfold rapid 2011, is not so simple;
nevertheless, after 22 ... Rdc8! 23 Nxd7 f5 24
Qxe6+ Kh8 25 Ne5 fxe4 26 g3 Nf3+ 27 Nxf3
exf3 28 Rad1 Qe7 29 Qxe7 Rxe7 30 Rxf3
Re2 31 Rf2 Rxf2 32 Kxf2 Rc2+, Black
should draw the ending) 21 Qxc3 Bc6 (but
not 21 ... Nf3+?? 22 Rxf3 Qxc3 23 Bxh7+
Kxh7 24 Rxc3 and White wins) 22 Bxh7+
Kxh7 23 Qh3+ Kg8 24 fxe5 Rd3 25 g3 Rd2
26 Rf2 Rxf2 27 Kxf2 Qg6 28 Rc1 Qe4 29
Re1 Qf3+ 30 Kg1 Qh1+ with a draw.
19 ... Nh4!?
After 19 ... Nxe5 20 fxe5 Bc6 21 Bf3 Bd5
22 Rab1 b6 23 Rb4 Bxf3 (or 23 ... Rc4 24
Rd1 Rxb4 25 cxb4 Qg6 26 Be4) 24 Rxf3
Rd1+ 25 Kf2 White stands better,
A.Dreev-A.Kharlov, Novosibirsk 1995.
However, 19 ... Bc6 is a good alternative:
156
20 g3 (other moves are less ambitious: 20
Bf3 Bd5 21 Bxd5 Rxd5 22 Qxa7 Nxf4 23
Rxf4 Qxe5 24 Raf1 Rd7 25 Qf2 f5 26 Rd4
Rxd4 ½-½ R.Kempinski-Ki.Georgiev,
Moscow 2006; or 20 Nxc6 Rxc6,
V.Shinkevich-P.Smirnov, St. Petersburg
2011, when 21 Rf3 Rdc8 22 Qxa7 Rxc3 is
equal) 20 ... Rd5 (Black can also play 20 ...
Ba4 21 Rab1 b6 22 Rb4 Bc2 23 Rd4 Nxe5 24
fxe5 Bf5 25 h4 Rxd4 26 cxd4 Rc2 with a
level position, V.Moskvichev-J.Folk Gilsanz,
correspondence 2014, or if 25 Ba6 then 25 ...
Rxd4 26 cxd4 Rc7 since 27 d5 can be met by
27 ... Bh3; whereas 20 ... Bd5 is no longer as
good due to 21 Rad1 Bxa2 22 Qxa7 Rxd1 23
Rxd1 Bd5 24 Qe3 Nxe5 25 fxe5 Qg6 26 Rd4
with better chances for White,
R.Davidavicius-V.Kraujunas,
correspondence 2013) 21 c4 (or if 21 Nxc6
Rxc6 22 Qxa7, A.Onischuk-A.Morozevich,
World Team Championship, Bursa 2010,
then 22 ... Qxc3 with equal chances) 21 ...
Ra5 22 Nxc6 Rxc6 23 Qd2 (other moves also
lead to equal play; e.g. 23 Rab1 b6 24 Qd2
Qf6 25 Rfd1 e5 26 Rb5 Rc5 27 fxe5 Rxe5,
M.Rodshtein-B.Macieja, Maalot-Tarshina
2008; or 23 a3 Rc8 24 Rad1 Qf8 25 Rf3 Qc5
½-½ T.Polak-D.Rogozenco, Czech League
2012) 23 ... b6 (or 23 ... Rac5,
R.Kasimdzhanov-I.Khenkin, German
League 2008, and 24 Rad1 Rc8 25 Rf3 Qf8
26 Re3 b6) 24 Rad1 Rc8,
V.Rovchakov-F.Lovakovic, correspondence
2009, with equality in all variations.

20 Qh3
White forces a threefold repetition. He
could continue to fight with 20 Bg4!?; for
example, 20 ... Be8 (if 20 ... b6 21 Qf2 Qf6
22 Qg3 or 20 ... Ng6 21 Bh5) 21 g3 Ng6 22
Bf3 b6 23 Rad1, but Black should equalize
after 23 ... Nxe5 24 fxe5 h6 25 Rd4 Rxd4 26
cxd4 Qg5 27 Qd3 Kg7.
157
20 ... Ng6 21 Qe3 Nh4 22 Qh3 Ng6 23
Qe3 Nh4 ½-½
Conclusion
All moves besides 7 Bxc4 and 7 e5 give
White nothing. After 7 e5 both sides have to
demonstrate their theoretical knowledge.
Black cannot count on equality with 7 ... h6
and so should stick to the main line with 7 ...
cxd4, where White does not have big
chances of obtaining an advantage. In the 8
Nxd4 variation, Black does have a few
options; for instance, apart from the usual
12 ... 0-0, Black can also choose 12 ... Bd7!?
with the idea ... 0-0-0.
Chapter Nine
Black Plays 6 ... h6
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 h6
In this chapter we will discuss the move
6 ... h6. Instead of immediately attacking the
white centre with 6 ... c5, Black aims to
clarify the situation on the kingside first,
practically forcing the exchange on f6.
7 Bxf6 Qxf6 8 Bxc4 c5
Obviously, Black cannot hold back on
this move for too long.
9 e5
The most active continuation, forcing the
black queen to withdraw. White can also
castle with 9 0-0, which usually transposes
after 9 ... 0-0 10 e5 Qd8. Other moves, such
as 9 ... Bxc3 and 9 ... cxd4, will often
transposes as well. Variations where the
queen does not withdraw to d8 do have
individual significance; for instance, 9 ...
cxd4 10 e5 Qe7, but here White can obtain
better play with both 11 Qxd4 and 11 Ne4.
9 ... Qd8
158
The best square for the queen. 9 ... Qf4
leaves her exposed and White has no
problem obtaining an advantage.
10 0-0
10 d5 also deserves attention, after which
10 ... exd5 gives rise to an interesting
position where White can recapture with
either bishop or queen: 11 Qxd5 Qxd5 12
Bxd5 simplifies the game and leads
gradually to equality. 11 Bxd5 leads to more
complicated positions where Black has a
more difficult task. The best line for him is
probably 11 ... 0-0 12 Rc1 Nc6 13 0-0 Nd4
14 Be4 Re8, but even here White can count
on better play.
10 ... cxd4 11 Nxd4
Other moves do not give White big
chances of obtaining an advantage. The
relatively strongest alternative is 11 Ne4, but
Black can still count on equality after 11 ...
0-0.
11 ... 0-0 12 Rc1

Now 12 ... a6 is weak because of 13 Qg4!,
so Black should play 12 ... Bd7! with
equality.
Theory
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e4 h6 7 Bxf6
Not 7 Bh4? g5 and White has no
compensation for the sacrificed material; if 8
Nxg5 hxg5 9 Bxg5 Be7 10 Bxc4,
D.Vass-F.Suket, Hungarian League, then
10 ... a6.
7 ... Qxf6
7 ... gxf6?! is clearly worse; for example,
8 Bxc4 c6 9 0-0 Nd7 10 a3 Bd6 11 Re1 with
a huge advantage for White, D.Puth-R.Pooth,
Kleve 2001.
8 Bxc4
The most natural move. White has also
tried:
a) 8 Qa4+ (forcing Black to block the
c7-pawn) 8 ... Nc6 9 Bxc4 (the seemingly
logical 9 Ne5 is weak due to 9 ... Bd7 10
Nxc6 Bxc3+ 11 bxc3, K.Arkell-M.Sher, Isle
of Man 1994, and now 11 ... Qh4 12 e5 Qe4+
13 Kd1 Bxc6 with a clear advantage for
159
Black) 9 ... Bd7 (Black can also play 9 ... 0-0
10 0-0 Bd7 11 Rad1 Bxc3+ 12 bxc3 and now
12 ... Nxd4 13 Qxd7 Nxf3+ 14 gxf3 Rad8 15
Qa4 Qxf3 16 Qc2 Qg4+ with a draw, Xu
Yinglun-E.Ghaem Maghami, Qatar 2014,
while 15 Qb5 Qxf3 16 Be2 Qxe4 17 Rfe1 c6
18 Qc4 Qe5 is unclear) 10 Bb5 a6 (the
simplest way to equalize is 10 ... Bxc3+ 11
bxc3 Qg6 12 0-0 Qxe4 13 Rfe1 Qf4 14 d5
Qxa4 15 Bxa4 Nb8) 11 0-0 Bxc3 12 bxc3
(Iv.Hernandez-J.Lacasa Diaz, Sitges 2006)
12 ... 0-0 13 Bxc6 Bxc6 14 Qc2 Qf4 15 Rfe1
f5 with an unclear position.
b) 8 e5 Qd8 (other queen moves allow
White the better chances; for example, 8 ...
Qg6 9 Bxc4 0-0 10 0-0 Nc6 11 Rc1 Rd8 12
Bd3 f5 13 exf6 Qxf6 14 Ne4,
R.Pizzoni-S.Padsha, correspondence 2004;
or 8 ... Qe7 9 Bxc4 0-0,
K.Jernberg-R.Storslett, Tromsø 1998, and
now 10 0-0 Bd7 11 Qd3) 9 Qa4+ (instead, 9
Bxc4 c5 transposes to the main line; whereas
9 ... 0-0 10 a3 Bxc3+ 11 bxc3 b6 12 0-0 Bb7
13 Qd3 Nc6 14 Bb3 Na5 15 Bc2 g6 16 Qe3
results in a small advantage for White,
D.Eilering-J.Gomgar, correspondence 2011)
9 ... Nc6 10 Bxc4 Bd7 11 Qc2 Ne7 (11 ...
Na5 12 Bd3 c5, as in V.Ivanchuk-V.Kramnik,
Moscow 2009, is less accurate since the
knight is out of play on a5 and will probably
have to return to c6 at some stage with loss of
time) 12 0-0 Bc6 13 Ne4 Nd5 14 a3 Be7 with
mutual chances, E.Alekseev-A.Grischuk,
European Cup, Plovdiv 2010.
8 ... c5
 If Black refrains from or overly delays
this move, he will have problems obtaining
sufficient counterplay. For example:
a) 8 ... 0-0 9 a3 (9 0-0 will be discussed in
Game 60) 9 ... Bxc3+ 10 bxc3 b6 11 Qe2
Bb7, L.Plachetka-J.Trmal, Czech
Championship, Jablonec 1962, when 12 0-0
c5 13 Qe3 Nc6 14 Be2 cxd4 15 cxd4 Rfd8 16
Rfd1 leads to a small advantage for White.
b) 8 ... Nc6 9 0-0 a6 (9 ... 0-0 transposes
to 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 Nc6 in the notes to Game 60
again) 10 d5 Bxc3 11 dxc6 b5 12 bxc3 bxc4,
S.Khamitskiy-M.Kowalczyk, Polanica Zdroj
2011, and now 13 e5 Qe7 14 Qa4 0-0 15 Qa5
gives White a clear edge.
c) 8 ... Nd7 9 0-0 Nb6 10 Bd3 0-0 11 a3
Bxc3 12 bxc3 is also good for White,
A.Kemlitz-J.Schweitzer, Wewelsburg 1994.
d) 8 ... c6 9 0-0 (or 9 Qb3 Be7 10 Bd3
Qg6 11 0-0 Nd7 12 Rad1,
W.Schröder-H.Joch, Berlin 2005) 9 ... Nd7
(or 9 ... Bxc3 10 bxc3 0-0 11 e5 Qe7 12 Nd2
c5 13 Ne4, S.Burgnies-J.Lesot, Bethune
2004) 10 a3 (W.Freytag-S.Seckler,
correspondence 2003) 10 ... Bxc3 11 bxc3 e5
12 Re1 0-0 13 a4 b6 14 Qe2 and White has
the advantage in all lines.
e) 8 ... Qg6 is most simply met by 9 Qe2,
as in C.Hernaez Fernandez-A.Baron
Gonzalez, correspondence 1999; for
example, 9 ... 0-0 (not 9 ... Qxg2? 10 Rg1
Qh3 11 Rxg7) 10 0-0 Qh5 11 Qe3 and White
stands better.
f) 8 ... Qf4 9 Bd3 (more accurate is 9 Qd3,
which protects the f3-knight and makes
g2-g3 possible in some lines, while after 9 ...
0-0 10 0-0 Bxc3 11 bxc3 b6 12 Rae1 Bb7 13
Re3 White has the better chances) 9 ... 0-0 10
e5 h5 (White threatened to catch the queen
by 11 g3 Qg4 12 h3, so Black frees the
h6-square; worse is 10 ... f6 11 0-0 Nc6 12
Ne2 Qg4 13 h3 Qh5 14 Qc2,
K.Schulz-M.Ganzer, correspondence 2007)
11 g3 Qh6 12 0-0 is good for White.
160
g) 8 ... a6 9 0-0 b5 10 Bb3
(M.Vontina-G.Jokmin, correspondence 2010;
10 e5!? followed by 11 Bd3 looks promising
too) 10 ... Bb7 11 a4 advantage for White.
Returning to 8 ... c5:
9 e5
White can also castle first with 9 0-0.
Here Black faces a dilemma over whether to
take the c3-knight or not. If he castles
himself, he has to consider the possibility of
White following up 10 e5 with 11 Ne4. On
the other hand, castling may be more flexible
for Black, who can also consider exchanging
on d4.
a) Let us have a look at 9 ... Bxc3 first.
Then play can continue 10 bxc3 cxd4 (10 ...
0-0 is considered via 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 Bxc3 10
bxc3 c5 in Game 60) 11 cxd4 (if White
inserts 11 e5 here, or soon, 11 ... Qe7 will
generally transpose to 9 e5 Qe7 10 0-0 Bxc3
lines below) 11 ... 0-0 12 Qe2 b6 (12 ... Nc6
13 Rfd1 does not change the character of the
position) 13 Ne5 (an interesting idea, aiming
to start a kingside attack by advancing the
f-pawn to open the f-file; the universal 13 e5
was still possible) 13 ... Bb7 14 Rad1 (if
instead 14 f4 Nc6 15 Rad1,
E.L’Ami-N.Ninov, Bethune 2006, then 15 ...
Nxe5 16 dxe5 Qe7 17 Rd6 Qc7 18 Rfd1
Rac8 offers mutual chances) 14 ... Qf4 (now
14 ... Nc6? loses to 15 Nd7; while 14 ... Rd8
15 f4 Nc6 16 Nxc6 Bxc6 17 f5 leaves the
f7-square vulnerable) 15 Rfe1 Nc6 (L’Ami)
16 g3 Qg5 17 Nf3 Qf6 18 Kg2 Rad8 19 d5
exd5 20 Bxd5 with better chances for White.
 b) After 9 ... 0-0, White should proceed
with 10 e5 (other moves do not offer many
chances of obtaining an advantage; for
example, 10 d5 Bxc3 11 bxc3 Qxc3 12 Rc1
Qf6 13 d6 Bd7 14 e5 Qd8 15 Be2 b6 16 Rc4
Bc6 17 Rg4 is unclear; after 10 a3 Bxc3 11
bxc3 Nc6, S.Bogdanovich-Se.Pavlov,
Odessa 2010, Black has practically an extra
tempo on 9 ... Bxc3 lines since a2-a3 is not a
move of full standard value; and placing the
white knight on d6 is not a problem for Black
either, i.e. 10 Nb5 a6! 11 Nd6 cxd4!? 12 e5
Qe7 13 Qxd4 Nc6 14 Nxc8 Raxc8 15 Qe4
Rfd8 with equality, A.Kupchik-F.Reinfeld,
US Championship, New York 1938) 10 ...
Qd8 (not 10 ... Qe7? 11 d5 Bxc3 12 d6 Qe8
13 bxc3 b5 14 Bd3 Bb7 15 Rb1 with a clear
advantage for White, C.Seel-A.Choukri,
World Blitz Championship, Berlin 2015; or
10 ... Qf4? 11 Ne2 Qe4 12 a3 Ba5 13 Bd3
Qd5 14 Nf4 Qd7 15 dxc5 and White is
winning, R.Derichs-V.Pribe, German
League 2006)
Now 11 Ne4 cxd4 transposes to 11 Ne4
0-0 in the main line, while 11 Qe2 cxd4 will
be discussed in Game 61. Alternatively:
b1) 11 d5 gives White nothing after 11 ...
Bxc3 12 bxc3 exd5 13 Bxd5 Nc6 14 Re1 Qc7
15 Qa4 (A.Korobov-L.Van Foreest, Wijk
aan Zee 2018) 15 ... Bd7 16 Qc4 Ne7 17 Be4
Be6 with equality.
b2) 11 a3 Bxc3 (if 11 ... cxd4 12 axb4
dxc3, as in E.Bogoljubow-S.Tartakower,
Mährisch Ostrau 1923, then 13 Qxd8 Rxd8
14 bxc3 Bd7 15 Rfd1 Rc8 16 Nd2 Nc6 17 f4
161
and White has a small advantage in the
ending) 12 bxc3 cxd4 (more accurate than
12 ... Bd7?! 13 d5 exd5, L.Bregadze-
D.Boros, Princeton 2012, when 14 Bxd5 Nc6
15 Re1 leads to a small advantage for White)
13 cxd4 Bd7 with equality,
A.Greenfeld-R.Reinaldo Castineira,
Presolana 2011.
b3) The simple move 11 dxc5 deserves
serious attention; for example, 11 ... Bxc3 12
bxc3 Qa5 (or if 12 ... Nd7 13 Qd4 Qc7 14
Rfd1 Nxc5, H.Özmen-F.Carapinha,
correspondence 2014, then 15 Qd6) 13 Re1
(or 13 Qd4, A.Chernenky-V.Krett,
correspondence 2010) 13 ... Rd8 14 Qb1 Nd7
15 Qb4 Qc7 16 Rad1 a5 (S.Galanov-
N.Ninov, correspondence 2013) 17 Qa3 and
White has the better chances in all variations.
c) Black also can take on d4 immediately
with 9 ... cxd4.
Here White has a few paths:
c1) 10 e5 should be answered by 10 ...
Qd8 (transposing to the main line), rather
than 10 ... Qe7 (for which see 9 e5 Qe7 10
0-0 cxd4 below).
c2) 10 Qxd4?! Qxd4 11 Nxd4 a6 12 Rac1
Bd7 13 Rfd1 Nc6, as in R.Simon-U.Von
Herman, Berlin 2014, leads to a good ending
for Black.
c3) 10 Qa4+ Nc6 11 Nd5 (an original
idea; instead, 11 Bb5 0-0 12 Bxc6 dxc3 13
Qxb4 cxb2 14 Rab1 bxc5, as in
V.GoglidzeV.Alatortsev, Leningrad 1936, or
12 Ne2 a5 13 Bxc6 bxc6 14 e5 Qd8 15
Nxed4 Bb7 cannot be recommended for
White; while 11 e5 Qe7 12 Nxd4 Bd7 13
Nxc6 Bxc3 14 bxc3 Bxc6 15 Bb5 Bxb5 16
Qxb5+ Qd7 leads to equality) 11 ... exd5 12
exd5 Be7 13 dxc6 bxc6 14 Nxd4 Bd7 15
Rad1 0-0 16 Qc2 c5 17 Nb5 Bxb5 18 Bxb5
Rab8 19 Qa4 Qb6 20 Bd3 and the players
agreed a draw in E.Uran-K.Putak, Croatian
League 2016.
c4) 10 Nb5 also deserves attention. Then
V.Papin-Ki.Georgiev, European
Championship, Aix-les-Bains 2011,
continued 10 ... Qe7 11 Qxd4 0-0 12 Nxa7
Bc5 13 Nxc8 Rxc8 14 Qd3 Nc6 15 Qe2 Nd4
16 Nxd4 Bxd4 17 Bb3 Qf6 18 Rad1 Bxb2 19
f4 Ba3 20 f5 with the initiative for White
based on threats against the weak f7-pawn,
although Black keeps good drawing chances
due to the opposite-coloured bishops.
Instead, 10 ... Qd8 11 Qa4 (another
option is 11 a3 Be7 12 Nbxd4 0-0 13 e5 and
White has a slight edge, according to
Chernin) 11 ... Nc6 12 Nbxd4 Qa5 13 Bb5
(or 13 Qxa5 Nxa5 14 Bb5+ Bd7 15 a3 Bc5
16 b4 Bxd4 17 Nxd4 Nc6 18 Bxc6) 13 ...
Qxa4 14 Bxa4 Bd7 15 Nxc6 Bxc6 16 Bxc6+
bxc6 17 Rac1 led to a favourable ending for
White in Gu.Johansson-F.Ytterberg,
Gothenburg 2018.
9 ... Qd8
This full retreat is Black’s best. Instead:
a) 9 ... Qf4?! (the queen has nothing to
attack on the kingside) 10 0-0 Bxc3 11 bxc3
cxd4 12 cxd4 0-0 (or if 12 ... Bd7 13 Rc1 0-0,
L.Gofshtein-A.Simutowe, Hoogeveen 2007,
then 14 d5 exd5 15 Qxd5 Bc6 16 Qd4 Qxd4
17 Nxd4) 13 g3 (or 13 Qe2 b6 14 g3 Qg4 15
d5 Bb7 16 Rad1 exd5 17 Bxd5 Bxd5 18
Rxd5 Nc6 19 Kg2) 13 ... Qg4 14 Kg2 Qh5 15
h3 Nc6 16 Rc1 with a clear advantage for
White.
b) 9 ... Qe7 is also less popular. White
naturally continues 10 0-0 and then:
162
b1) 10 ... Bxc3 11 bxc3 0-0 (if 11 ... Nc6
12 Qe2 cxd4 13 cxd4 Bd7 14 Rac1 Rc8,
A.Astashin-A.Ostrovsky, Leningrad 1967,
then 15 Bd3 with a small edge for White;
while 11 ... cxd4 12 cxd4 Nc6, S.Feller-
N.Ninov, Agneaux 2005, 13 Qb1, intending
Rc1, Qe4 and Bd3, also leads to slightly
better play for White) 12 Nd2 (or 12 Qe2,
when 12 ... cxd4 transposes to Game 2 in the
Introduction; or if 12 ... Bd7, P.Drenchev-
Ki.Georgiev, Albena 2014, then 13 d5 exd5
14 Bxd5 Nc6 15 Qe4 Rad8 16 c4 with a
small edge for White) 12 ... cxd4 (12 ... Nc6
13 Ne4 cxd4 14 cxd4 transposes; or if 12 ...
b6 13 Ne4 Ba6 14 Bxa6 Nxa6,
H.Kmoch-K.Gilg, Kecskemet 1927, then 15
Qe2 and White has the advantage; 13 d5!? is
possible too) 13 cxd4 Nc6 14 Ne4 (White
now realizes a plan of placing his knight on
d6) 14 ... Qd8 15 Nd6 Qb6 (P.Vertiz
Gutiérrez-I.Fonseca, correspondence 2016, )
and after 16 Rb1 Qxd4 17 Qxd4 Nxd4 18
Rfd1 Nf5 19 Nxb7 Bxb7 20 Rxb7 White
could have counted on some advantage in the
ending, although Black has good drawing
chances.
b2) 10 ... cxd4 11 Ne4 (after 11 Qxd4
Bd7, I.Khmelniker-A.Zubov, Israeli League
2013, and now 12 Ne4 0-0 13 a3 Ba5 14
Nf6+ Kh8 15 Nxd7 Nxd7 16 Bd3 or 16 Qe4
Nc5 17 Qc2 Bb6 18 b4 Nd7 19 Qe4 White
has the initiative and better chances; whereas
11 Bb5+ Bd7 12 Qxd4, as in
V.Sviridova-G.Monnisha, World Junior
Championships, Khanty-Mansiysk 2015,
12 ... Bxc3 13 Bxd7+ Nxd7 14 Qxc3 Nb6 15
Rac1 Nd5 leads to equality) 11 ... 0-0
(instead, 11 ... Nc6 will be discussed in
Game 62) 12 Qxd4 (after 12 Qe2 Bd7?! 13
Rad1 Rd8 14 a3 Ba5 15 Nd6 Be8 16 Rxd4
Bc6 17 Rf4, White gained an edge in
A.Zubarev-P.Ponkratov, Pavlodar 2012;
Black should have played 12 ... Nc6, when
White only has typical compensation for the
pawn) 12 ... Rd8 13 Qe3 and now after 13 ...
Qc7 (as in Z.Kozul-S.Feller, European
Championship, Aix-les-Bains 2011; or 13 ...
Nd7!? 14 Rac1 b6 15 Be2; but not 13 ... Bd7
14 Rad1 Bc6? 15 Nf6+! Kh8? 16 Rxd8+
Qxd8 17 Ng5! and White wins,
G.Flear-M.Condie, Bath Zonal 1987) 14
Rad1 Nc6 15 Qf4, White has the better
chances.
10 0-0
White has also tried 10 a3, but Black
often takes on c3 without being forced, so it
should be easier for him to equalize here; for
example, 10 ... Bxc3+ 11 bxc3 cxd4 12 cxd4
Qa5+ (or 12 ... 0-0 13 0-0 Nc6 14 Bd3,
A.Kurowski-I.Chukanov, correspondence
2009, and now 14 ... b6 15 Qe2 Bb7 16 Qe4
g6 17 Qe3 Kg7 18 Rac1 Rc8 with equal
chances) 13 Qd2 Nc6 14 Rb1 (14 d5!?) 14 ...
Ke7 (after 14 ... Qxa3!? 15 0-0 0-0 16 Bd3
Qe7 17 Bc2 a5 and White would still have to
prove his compensation for the pawn) 15
Rb5 Qxd2+ 16 Kxd2 b6 17 Rc1 ½-½
M.Bosiocic-N.Grandelius, Sarajevo 2010.
However, the central strike 10 d5 gives
White some chances of obtaining a small
163
advantage after 10 ... exd5 11 Bxd5 (this
leads to more complicated positions than 11
Qxd5!? Qxd5 12 Bxd5, which will be
examined in Game 63) 11 ... 0-0 and then:
a) 12 0-0 is a little inaccurate 12 ... Bxc3
13 bxc3 Nc6 (we do not recommend 13 ...
Na6, which can be met by 14 Qb3 Qe7 15
Rfe1 Nc7 16 Be4, as in F.Schröder-N.Ninov,
correspondence 2009, or 14 Be4 Qxd1 15
Rfxd1 Rb8 16 Rd6 with slightly the better
chances for White; but 13 ... Qc7 is more
solid, e.g. 14 Qb3 Nc6 15 Rfe1 Bg4 16 Rad1
Rae8 17 h3 Bxf3 18 Bxf3 Rxe5 19 Rxe5
Nxe5 20 Qxb7 Nxf3+ 21 Qxf3 Rd8,
L.Lenic-M.Ragger, Austrian League 2012,
or 17 e6 fxe6 18 Bxe6+ Bxe6 19 Rxe6 Qf7
20 Rxe8 Rxe8 with equality in both cases) 14
Bxc6 (the best move; in E.Postny-Y.Pelletier,
French League 2014, White played 14 Re1
Qc7 15 Qb3 Bg4 16 e6 Bxe6 17 Bxe6 fxe6
18 Re8 Qf7 19 Rae1 Rad8 and the game
ended soon in a draw) 14 ... bxc6 15 Qa4
leaves White with a superior pawn structure,
but Black can count on good counterplay
after, for instance, 15 ... Qb6 16 Rfd1 (or 16
Nd2 Rd8 17 Qf4 Be6 18 Ne4 Rd3 19 Rfe1
Rad8) 16 ... Rb8 17 Nd2 Be6 18 Ne4 c4
and ... Bd5 (D.Nestorovic-I.Hera, Hungarian
League 2012) or 15 ... Qb3 16 Qxc6 (or 16
Rfd1 Qxc3 17 Rdc1 Qd3 18 Rxc5 Rd8 19
Rac1 Rb8) 16 ... Bg4 17 Rfe1 Qxc3 18 Rac1
Qb2 (A.Beliavsky-L.D.Nisipeanu, Bled
2016). In fact Black won both these games.
b) 12 Rc1 deserves attention, keeping the
queenside pawns intact: 12 ... Nc6 13 0-0
Nd4 (after 13 ... Bg4 14 Bxc6 Bxc3 15 Rxc3
bxc6 16 Rxc5 Qxd1 17 Rxd1 f6 18 Rd6 Bxf3
19 gxf3 fxe5 20 Kg2 White has a clearly
favourable ending) 14 Be4 (14 Nxd4 is fine
for Black after 14 ... Bxc3 15 Nf3 Bxb2 16
Bxf7+ Kxf7 17 Qb3+ Be6 18 Qxb2 b6 19
Rcd1 Qe8 20 Rd6 Qa4 21 a3 Rad8) 14 ... Re8
(14 ... Bg4 may be more accurate, and if 15
Nd5 then 15 ... Re8 as below; whereas 15 ...
Bf5 16 Nxd4 Bxe4 17 Nxb4 Qxd4 18 Qxd4
cxd4 19 f3 leaves White with a small edge;
e.g. 19 ... a5 20 Nc2 Bxc2 21 Rxc2 f6 22 exf6
Rxf6 23 Kf2 Rd6 24 Rd1 d3 25 Rc7 b6 26
Rd2 Kh7 27 h4) 15 a3 (15 Nd5, as in
L.Aronian-V.Kramnik, Moscow 2009, can
be met by 15 ... Bg4 16 Nxb4 Bxf3 17 Bxf3
Nxf3+ 18 Qxf3 cxb4 19 Qxb7 Rxe5 20 Qxb4
Re2 21 Qc3 Qf6 22 Qxf6 gxf6 23 Rc6 Rxb2
24 Ra6 Rd8 25 Rxa7 Rdd2 26 a3 Ra2 with a
drawish rook ending) 15 ... Bxc3 16 Rxc3
and White has the better chances; for
example, 16 ... Nxf3+ (if 16 ... Qe7 or 16 ...
Qa5 then 17 Nxd4 cxd4 18 Qxd4 Qxe5 19
Qxe5 Rxe5 20 f3) 17 Bxf3 Qb6 (not 17 ...
Qxd1?! 18 Rxd1 Rxe5 19 Rd8+ Kh7 20 h3
with a big advantage for White) 18 Rb3 Qc7
19 Qd6 Qxd6 20 exd6 Rb8 21 Rc3 b6 22 Bc6
Rd8 23 Rd1 Bd7 24 Bf3.
10 ... cxd4
This is almost always played here.
Alternatively, 10 ... 0-0 transposes to the 9
0-0 0-0 10 e5 Qd8 line above.
11 Nxd4
White has various other options here.
First of all, 11 Nb5?! is weak: 11 ... Nc6 12
164
Nbxd4 Nxd4 13 Nxd4 0-0 14 Rc1 (perhaps
14 Qg4 Qc7 15 Nf3 Be7, R.Köhler-G.Meier,
German League 2013, and now 16 Qe4 Rd8
17 Bd3 g6 18 Qe3 gives White more chances
to equalize) 14 ... Qb6 15 Qg4 Rd8 and Black
already stands better, K.Lahno-Y.Pelletier,
Cap d’Agde (rapid) 2010.
White cannot hope for an advantage after
11 Bb5+ either, since the check merely leads
to a reduction in material: 11 ... Bd7 12 Qxd4
Bxc3 (or 12 ... Bxb5 13 Nxb5 Nc6 14 Qe3
Qe7 15 a3 Bc5 16 Qc3 0-0, V.Aliekhin-
V.Gusakov, correspondence 2010) 13
Bxd7+ Nxd7 14 Qxc3 Nb6 15 Rfd1
(alternatively, 15 Qb4 Qe7 16 Qb5+ Qd7 17
Nd4 Rd8 18 f4 0-0 19 Rad1 Qd5,
D.Gjorgjieski-M.Mitkov, Skopje 2011; or 15
Qc5 Qe7 16 Qb5+ Qd7 17 Nd4 0-0-0,
I.Farago-G.Meier, German League 2015)
15 ... Nd5 16 Qa3 Qe7 17 Qa4+ Qd7
(L.Pantsulaia-S.Movsesian, European
Championship, Rijeka 2010) with an equal
game in all variations.
However, White can cause far more
problems for Black with 11 Ne4, so that will
be analysed more carefully. Black generally
replies with 11 ... 0-0 (instead, 11 ... Nc6 12
Qe2 0-0 or 12 a3 Be7 13 Qe2 0-0 transposes
to line ‘e3’ below) and then:
a) After 12 Nxd4? Qc7 13 Nf6+ (or 13
Qe2 Qxe5 14 Rad1 Nc6) 13 ... Kh8 (13 ...
gxf6! 14 Qg4+ Kh8 is even better too, but
requires accurate defence) 14 Qb3 Bc5 15
Nb5 Qxe5, White has no compensation for
the pawn, V.Baikov-S.Grigoriants, Moscow
2010.
b) 12 Qd3?! cannot be recommended
either, since the principled 12 ... Nc6 gives
Black an advantage; e.g. 13 Rac1 (or 13 Bb5
Bd7, T.Polak-S.Movsesian, Hustopece rapid
2010) 13 ... Be7 14 Bb5 Bd7 15 Rfd1 Nb4.
c) 12 Qxd4 Qxd4 13 Nxd4 Nd7 14 f4
Nc5 is just equal.
d) Inserting 12 a3 Be7 does not improve
this for White; i.e. 13 Qxd4 (instead, 13 Qe2
will transpose to 12 Qe2 lines with a later
a2-a3 and ... Be7) 13 ... Qxd4 14 Nxd4 Nd7
15 f4 Nc5 16 Nc3 Rd8 17 Rad1 Bd7 18 Rd2
Rac8 19 Ba2 Na4 with equal chances,
D.Sharavdorj-S.Jahedi, Berkeley 2008.
e) 12 Qe2 is the main continuation.
Now Black has several possibilities:
e1) 12 ... a6 13 Rfd1 (13 Rad1 Nc6 14
Ng3, followed by Qe4, looks better; in
comparison with similar variations below
Black’s ... a7-a6 may be a waste of a tempo)
13 ... Nc6 14 Rac1 Qa5 15 a3 Be7 with equal
chances, P.Smirnov-A.Popov, Samara 2014.
e2) 12 ... Nd7 13 Rad1 (this time 13
Rfd1!? may be more precise; for example,
13 ... Qc7 14 a3 Be7 transposes to
S.Mamedyarov-V.Kramnik, World Blitz
Championship, Moscow 2010, which
continued 15 Ng3 Rd8 16 Rac1 Qb6 17 Rxd4
Nf8 18 Rg4 Bd7 19 Nh5 Ng6 20 h4 and
White had the initiative on the kingside) 13 ...
Qb6 14 a3 (14 g4?!, E.Bacrot-Y.Pelletier,
Nancy rapid 2013, is unjustified in view of
14 ... Qc7, attacking the e5-pawn – once the
165
e4-knight withdraws, White is unable to play
g4-g5 practically forever, leaving the g2-g4
push as an unnecessary weakening of the
a8-h1 diagonal) 14 ... Be7 15 Ng3 Rd8 16
Rxd4 Nf8 is identical to Mamedyarov-
Kramnik except for one subtle detail:
White’s rook stands on f1 instead of c1. This
is in Black’s favours, as after 17 Rg4 Bd7 18
Nh5 Ng6 19 h4 he can play 19 ... Rac8 and if
20 Nxg7 Kxg7 21 h5 then 21 ... Rxc4 22
Qxc4 Bb5 23 Qb3 Bxf1 24 Qxb6 axb6 25
Kxf1 Rxd1+ 26 Ke2 Rb1 with equality.
e3) 12 ... Nc6 13 a3 (obviously, White
can play 13 Rad1 or 13 Rfd1 as well) 13 ...
Be7 (or 13 ... Ba5 14 Rac1 Bc7 15 Nc5 Qe7
16 Bd3 Rd8, A.Prystenski-P.Turowski,
correspondence 2014, 17 Qe4 with mutual
chances)
14 Rfd1 (or 14 Ng3 with typical
compensation for White, P.Tregubov-
A.Schenk, German League 2010) 14 ... Bd7
(or 14 ... Qc7 15 Ng3 Rd8 16 Rac1, as in
Al.David-V.Petkov, Gif sur Yvette 2010) 15
b4 (after 15 Bd3 a5 16 Ng3 g6 17 Qe4 a4 18
h4 Be8 19 Re1 Ra5 20 Rac1 f5 21 exf6 Rxf6
22 Qe2, White again has reasonable
compensation, N.Morozov-A.Lukasova,
correspondence 2017) 15 ... Qb8 (15 ... a6
gives Black equal chances) 16 Ng3 b5 17
Bxb5 (or 17 Bd3 a5 with counterplay) 17 ...
Nxe5 (17 ... a5!? also gives Black sufficient
counterplay) 18 Bxd7 Nxd7 19 Nxd4 Ne5
(A.Grischuk-L.Aronian, Linares 2010) and
now White should play 20 Qe4 Rd8 21 h3
with the initiative, according to Krasenkow.
 e4) 12 ... Bd7, followed by ... Nc6, will
probably transpose to line ‘e3’ if White
throws in a2-a3 at some stage. Otherwise: 13
Rad1 (the simple 13 Nxd4 Nc6 14 Nf3 Qb6
gives Black no problems at all; while after 13
Rfd1 Be7 14 Ng3 Nc6 15 Qe4 Rc8 16 Bd3
g6 17 a3 Be8 18 h4, S.Savchenko-
Ad.Horvath, German League 2014; or 13 ...
Nc6 14 Ng3 Bc5, Ding Liren-L.Aronian,
FIDE World Cup, Tbilisi 2017, 15 Rac1 Rc8
16 Qe4 Ne7 17 Bd3 Nf5 18 Nh5 White has
sufficient compensation for the pawn, if no
more than that) 13 ... Nc6 14 Ng3 Qc7 15
Bd3 (or 15 Qe4 Be7 16 Bd3 g6 17 a3 Rfd8
18 h4 with the usual compensation,
H.Melkumyan-B.Lalic, Benasque 2010) 15 ...
Ne7 16 Qe4 (or if 16 Rc1 Bc6 17 Nxd4,
V.Kramnik-V.Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zee 2010,
then 17 ... Rfd8!? 18 Rc4 Qb6 19 Qg4 Bd2!
20 Rd1 Qxb2 21 Nxe6 fxe6 22 Qxe6+ Kh8
23 Rc2 Qb4 24 Rcxd2 Ba4 25 a3! Qxa3 26
Bc2 Rxd2 27 Rxd2 Bxc2 28 Rxc2 Qa1+ 29
Nf1 Nc6 with equal play, according to
Sakaev) 16 ... Ng6 17 Qxd4 Bc5 18 Rc1 (18
Qc3 Nf4 is equal) 18 ... Rac8 19 Rxc5 Qxc5
20 Qxd7 Rfd8 21 Qb5 Qxb5 22 Bxb5 Rd5 23
Ba4 Nxe5 24 Nxe5 Rxe5 and the players
agreed a draw in L.Gonda-I.Hera, Budapest
2013.
e5) 12 ... Be7 seems slightly odd, given
that White often spends a tempo on a2-a3 to
drive the bishop away. Nevertheless, after 13
Rad1 (13 Rfd1 looks less accurate, as after
13 ... Qb6 a later ... Qxb2 may hit the rook in
the corner; for example, 14 Nxd4 Rd8 15
Qg4 Nd7 16 Nxe6 fxe6 17 Bxe6+ Kh8 18
Bxd7 Rxd7 19 Rxd7 Qxb2! with equality;
instead, E.Bacrot-Y.Pelletier, Cap d’Agde
rapid 2013, saw 14 Rxd4 Nc6 15 Rdd1 Rd8
16 Rxd8 Qxd8 17 Rd1 Qc7 18 Nd6 and now
Black could have equalized after 18 ... Nxe5
19 Qxe5 Bxd6 20 Qxd6 Qxc4; or if 14 Ng3
Rd8 15 Nh5, R.Edouard-Y.Pelletier, Swiss
League 2014, then 15 ... Bd7 16 Rxd4 Be8 17
166
Rg4 g6, or 15 Qe4 Nd7 16 b3 Nf8 17 Ne2
Bc5 18 Nexd4 and the position is equal) 13 ...
Nc6 (now if 13 ... Qb6?! 14 Nxd4 Rd8 then
15 Qg4 Nd7 16 Nxe6! wins for White, as
does 15 ... Rxd4 16 Rxd4 Nc6 17 Nf6+ Kf8
18 Qxg7+! and Black resigned in
F.Bindrich-L.D.Nisipeanu, Austrian League
2016; while after 13 ... Qc7, L.Aronian-
F.Caruana, Berlin Candidates 2018, 14 Nd6
Bxd6 15 exd6 Qxd6 16 Rxd4 Qc7 17 Rfd1
White has strong compensation) 14 Ng3 Qc7
15 Qe4 Rd8 16 Rfe1 Bd7 17 Bd3 g6, White
has no more than sufficient compensation for
the pawn; e.g. 18 Nh5 Kf8 19 Qf4 Bg5 20
Nxg5 hxg5 21 Qf6 gxh5 22 Qh8+ Ke7 23
Qf6+ with perpetual check.
e6) 12 ... Qb6 has been the most popular
move, though it may not be the best.
Here White has tried:
e61) 13 Rfd1 Rd8 14 Ng3 Bd7 15 Rxd4
Bc6 (or 15 ... Nc6 16 Rg4 Bf8 17 Ne4 Be8 18
Nf6+ Kh8 19 Nxe8 Rxe8 and Black has a
perfectly good position) 16 Rg4 (16 Rxd8+
Qxd8 17 Rd1 Qc7 18 Nd4 Bc5 leads to
equality) 16 ... Bf8 17 Nh5
(D.Khismatullin-M.Matlakov,
Khanty-Mansiysk 2011) and now 17 ... Kh8
followed by ... Na6 and ... Rac8 reaches an
unclear position.
e62) 13 Rad1 Rd8 14 Bd3 (after 14 Ng3
Be7 15 h4 White has the usual compensation,
C.Lupulescu-F.Vallejo Pons, European
Championship, Legnica 2013; but 14 ... Nc6!?
may be here a better option for Black) 14 ...
Nd7 (after 14 ... Nc6 15 Ng3 Qc7 16 Qe4 g6
17 h4 White has a strong initiative; whereas
14 ... Be7, as in V.Kunin-N.Ninov, Eschborn
2013, looks okay for Black, e.g. 15 Ned2
Nc6 16 Qe4 g6 17 Nc4 Qc7 18 Qf4 Nb4 19
Bxg6 fxg6 20 Qxh6 Qxc4 21 Qxg6+ with
perpetual check) 15 Ng3 Nc5 16 Bb1 d3 17
Qe3 Ba5 18 Nh5 Na4 19 Qf4 Nxb2 20 Qg4
g6 21 Qf4 gxh5 22 Qxh6 Qb4 23 Rde1 Qf8
24 Qxh5 Bxe1 25 Qg5+ Kh7 26 Qh4+ Kg7
27 Qf6+ Kg8 28 Qg5+ led to a draw in
S.Mareco-A.Gholami, Dubai 2016.
e63) 13 Bd3 Rd8 (Black can also try 13 ...
Be7 or 13 ... Nc6) 14 Ng3 (here 14 g4 looks
good; e.g. 14 ... Nd7 15 g5 h5 16 Nf6+! with
a strong attack) 14 ... Nd7 (14 ... Bd7, as in
S.Mamedyarov-F.Vallejo Pons, World Blitz
Championship, Dubai 2014, is worse due to
15 Nh5 Bc6 16 Nh4 and White has a violent
attack; e.g. 16 ... g5 17 Nf6+ Kf8 18 Qh5
gxh4 19 Qxh6+ Ke7 20 Qxh4 or 16 ... Kf8 17
f4 g6 18 f5 gxf5 20 Rxf5) 15 Qe4 (or 15 Rfd1
Be7 16 Qe4 Nf8) 15 ... Nf8 16 Nh5 Be7 17
Qg4 g6 with equal chances,
A.Demianjuk-Se.Pavlov, Moscow 2015.
e64) 13 g4!, followed by g4-g5, looks
critical. This unexpected and very dangerous
pawn push generates a strong attack on
Black’s king and there is no simple way to
neutralize White’s threats. For example, 13 ...
Bd7 (instead, 13 ... Nd7 14 g5 h5 15 Rfd1
Be7 16 Rac1 Qa5 17 Ng3 g6 18 Rxd4 Nc5 19
Rcd1; or 13 ... Be7 14 g5 hxg5 15 Nfxg5
Bxg5 16 Nxg5 g6 17 Qe4 Kg7 18 Qh4 Rh8
19 Qf4 Qc7 20 Bb5; or 13 ... Nc6 14 g5 Qa5,
G.Jimênez Molina-A.Roy Laguens,
correspondence 2014, 15 gxh6 with a strong
initiative for White) 14 g5 Bc6 15 gxh6 Be7
16 b4 a6 17 hxg7 Kxg7 18 a4 (18 Rad1 Nd7
19 Nxd4 Nxe5 20 Bxe6 fxe6 21 Qh5 Qxd4
22 Rxd4 Nf3+ 23 Kh1 Rf5 24 Qg4+ Bg5 25
Rc1 is less clear) 18 ... Rc8 19 Nfg5 Bxe4 20
Nxe4 Rh8 21 Kh1 Kf8 22 f4 Nd7 23 b5 and
White has play on both sides of the board,
L.Ellis-D.Broadway, correspondence 2015.
167
Returning to 11 Nxd4 at last:
11 ... 0-0
Other moves allow White good chances:
a) 11 ... Bxc3 12 bxc3 a6 (or 12 ... 0-0 13
Re1 Qa5 14 Re3) 13 Qg4 0-0 14 Rae1 with
an automatic kingside attack for White,
S.Krivoshey-I.Bordin, Frankfurt 2004.
b) 11 ... Bc5 12 Bb5+ Nd7 (or 12 ... Bd7
13 Ne4 Bxb5 14 Nxb5 Qxd1 15 Nc7+ Kd8
16 Nxe6+ Ke7 17 Raxd1 fxe6 18 Nxc5;
while after 12 ... Ke7?, G.Arsovic-N.Ninov,
Belgrade 2009, White could have won
immediately with 13 Qg4! Qxd4 14 Qxg7 or
13 ... Bxd4 14 Rad1) 13 Nf3 a6 14 Bd3 Be7
15 Qa4 and White has the upper hand.
12 Rc1
White cannot expect anything special
after 12 Qg4; for example, 12 ... Qc7
(alternatively, 12 ... Bxc3 13 bxc3 Qc7 14
Qe2 Nd7 15 f4 Nb6 16 Bd3 Qxc3 17 Nb5
Qc5+ 18 Kh1 Nd5 19 Nd6 Bd7 20 Nxb7 Qd4
21 Rad1 Qb6 22 Rb1 Qd4 is a draw) 13 Ndb5
(13 Qe2 Bxc3 14 bxc3 transposes to the 12 ...
Bxc3 variation) 13 ... Qxe5 14 Bxe6!? (or 14
Rfe1 Qc5 15 a3 Bxc3 16 Nxc3 Nd7 17 b4
Qe7 18 Qf4 Nf6 with an edge; whereas if 14
Rae1 Qc5 15 Re3, P.Tregubov-A.Wirig,
French League 2010, then 15 ... Nc6 16 Rg3
Qg5 and Black is clearly better) 14 ... Bxc3
15 Bxc8 Qxb5 16 bxc3 h5 17 Qh3 Qc6 18
Bf5 g6 19 Qg3 Na6 with a small advantage
for Black.
 12 ... Bd7!
Instead:
a) 12 ... a6 is definitely worse due to 13
Qg4! Qg5 (H.Koneru-P.Cramling, Beijing
blitz 2012; 13 ... Qc7 14 Nf3 Rd8 15 Bxe6
Bxe6 16 Qxb4 Nc6 17 Qf4 Qb6 gives Black
more chances to resist) and now 14 Qe4! Qe7
(or 14 ... Bxc3 15 h4 Qe7 16 Rxc3 Nd7 17
Rfc1 Rd8 18 Bb3) 15 Bd3 g6 16 h4 h5 17
Qf4 is winning for White.
b) 12 ... Bc5 13 Nf3 (13 Nb3 also gives
White chances of obtaining an advantage; e.g.
13 ... Be7 14 Qg4 Nc6 15 Rfe1 or 13 ... Qxd1
14 Rfxd1 Bb6 15 Na4 Nc6 16 Bb5 Nxe5 17
Nxb6 axb6 18 a3 Ng4 19 Rd6) 13 ... Bd7 (or
13 ... Qxd1 14 Rfd1 Bd7, R.Macayo-H.Van
den Bos, correspondence 2014, and now 15
Ne4 leads to a better game for White) 14 Qe2
Bc6 15 Ne4 Bb6 16 Rfd1 Qe7 (R.Vaida-
Y.Anokhin, correspondence 2012) 17 Bb5
a6 18 Bxc6 Nxc6 19 Nd6 with a slight
advantage for White.
The position after 12 ... Bd7! will be
thoroughly examined in Game 64.
Illustrative Games
Game 60
V.Babula-M.Thesing
German League 2012
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 h6 7 Bxf6 Qxf6 8 Bxc4 0-0 9 0-0
168
9 ... Rd8
Black has a whole range of alternatives
here:
a) 9 ... Ba5 10 e5 Qe7 11 Qc2 Rd8 12
Qe4 Nd7 13 Rfc1 was good for White in
J.Cavalcanti-A.De Almeida, correspondence
2000.
b) 9 ... c6 10 e5 (also promising is 10 Qc2
Nd7 11 e5 Qe7 12 Bd3, E.Rossell-J.Conde
Poderoso, correspondence 2000) 10 ... Qd8
(M.Babaev-M.Freialdenhoven, Niederrhein
2005) 11 Qd3 Be7 12 Qe4 and White has the
upper hand.
c) 9 ... a6 10 e5 (alternatively, 10 Qb3
Ba5 11 a4 Bb6 12 e5 Qe7 P.Polyik-A.Bohus,
Budapest 2014 13 a5 Ba7 14 d5; and 10 Qe2
b5 11 e5 Qf4 12 Bd3 Bxc3 13 bxc3,
G.Henriksen-E.Kristiansen, Norwegian
Championship, Kristiansund 1992, or 12 ...
Bb7 13 Ne4 are all god for White as well)
10 ... Qd8 (if 10 ... Qe7, Z.Zambo-
Z.Karolyfalvi, Salgotarjan 2002, then 11 Bb3
Nc6 12 Qd3 followed by Bc2) 11 Bd3 Nc6
12 a3 Ba5 13 Rc1 with an advantage for
White, B.Fichtner- Z.Kazmierczak,
correspondence 2006.
d) 9 ... Nd7 10 e5 (or 10 Rc1 Qe7 11 Qe2
Rd8 12 e5 Nf8 13 Bd3 Bd7 14 Be4 and
White has the better chances, M.Bottema-
M.Thesing, Vlissingen 2012) 10 ... Qe7 (not
10 ... Qg6? due to 11 Bd3 f5 12 Nb5 Ba5 13
Qa4 Bb6, N.Woischke-L.Batres Bianchi,
correspondence 2000, and then 14 Rac1 with
a winning position for White) 11 Ne4 Rd8 12
Rc1 Nf8 13 Bd3 and White has a definite
edge, P.Keres-V.Kalde, Estonian
Championship, Tallinn 1942.
e) 9 ... Nc6 10 e5 Qd8 (or if 10 ... Qe7 11
Qe2 Rd8, D.Bunzmann-A.Simutowe, World
Junior Championships, Oropesa del Mar
1998, then 12 Qe4 g6 13 Qf4 Kg7 14 h4 with
a strong initiative on the kingside) 11 Rc1 11
Bd3 is good too, as in F.Jijon-Da.Lopes,
correspondence 2012) 11 ... Bxc3 (after 11 ...
a6 12 Bd3 Rb8 13 Bb1 Ne7 14 Qc2 g6 15
Ne4 White has the upper hand, G.Nüsch-
B.Büktas, correspondence 2008) 12 Rxc3
Ne7 13 Qd3 Bd7 14 Bb3 Bc6 15 Bc2 Ng6 16
Rd1 with the better chances for White,
S.Bancevich-P.Skripko, correspondence
2008.
f) 9 ... Bxc3 10 bxc3 prevents e4-e5 and
Ne4 ideas, but still doesn’t equalize. For
example, 10 ... c5 (other moves are not
sufficient either; for instance, 10 ... Rd8 11
Qe2 Bd7 12 Rab1 b6 13 Bd3 Bc6 14 e5 Qe7,
C.Seel-R.Appel, German League 2008, 15
Rfd1 Nd7 16 Nd2; or 10 ... Nc6 11 e5 Qe7,
N.Sauer-A.Liluashvili, Peine2006, 12 Bd3
b6 13 Qe2 Bb7 14 Qe4 g6 15 Qf4; or if 10 ...
b6 11 Qe2 Bb7 12 Ne5 Qe7 13 f4, R.Paredes
Sanchez-C.Santos Gutierrez, Spanish
League 2009, then 13 ... Nc6 14 Nxc6 Bxc6
15 Rae1 and White has the better chances) 11
Qe2!? (alternatively, 11 e5 transposes to
A.Alekhine-H.Woher, Amsterdam simul
1925; see Game 2 in the Introduction) 11 ...
Nc6 (F.Matta-S.Longson, British League
2017) 12 e5 Qe7 13 Qe4 cxd4 14 Bd3 g6 15
cxd4 Bd7 16 Qf4 and White has the initiative
on the kingside.
Returning to 9 ... Rd8:
10 Qe2
A natural move. Other continuations also
allow White the better prospects:
a) 10 Qb3 a5 (or 10 ... Ba5 11 Rad1 a6 12
e5, D.Griffith-P.Cody, correspondence 1995,
or if 11 ... Nd7 then 12 Qa3) 11 a3 Be7 (the
ending after 11 ... Bxc3 12 Qxc3 c5 13 d5
169
Qxc3 14 bxc3 exd5 15 Bxd5 is clearly better
for White) 12 Nb5 Na6 13 Qe3 c6 14 Nc3
with advantage for White, L.Nemeth-J.Pehl,
correspondence 2007.
b) 10 e5 Qe7 (10 ... Qg6?! misplaces the
queen, and 11 Bd3 f5, D.Mädel-H.Brunner,
correspondence 2006, 12 exf6 Qxf6 13 Qb3
Nc6 14 Rad1 Bd6 15 Rfe1 leads to an
advantage for White) 11 Qe2 (or 11 Qd3!?)
11 ... Bd7 (N.Theodorou-M.Stojanovic, Gazi
2015) 12 Rfd1 and White has the initiative.
10 ... Nd7
Black has also tried:
a) 10 ... c6 11 e5 Qe7 12 Bd3 (W.Hopf-
T.Schott, correspondence 2000) 12 ... Nd7
13 a3 Ba5 14 Rac1 and White has the
advantage.
b) 10 ... a6 11 a3 (not 11 e5!? and White
has the upper hand) 11 ... Bxc3 12 bxc3 b5
(even 12 ... Qe7 intending ... Bd7-c6 leaves
White with slightly the better position) 13
Bd3 Bb7 14 a4 with an advantage for White,
O.Killer-T.Urlau, correspondence 2005.
c) 10 ... Nc6 11 e5 Qf4 12 Rad1 (12 Rfd1
is good too) 12 ... Ne7 (or 12 ... Na5 13 Bd3,
A.Chernin-V.Frias Pablaza, Saint John 1988)
13 Bd3 (or 13 Ne1!? Bxc3 14 g3 Qg5 15
bxc3 Nd5 16 f4 with the initiative) 13 ...
Nf5?! (13 ... Bd7!? would minimize White’s
edge) 14 Qc2 Nh4 15 Nxh4 Qxh4 16 g3 Qe7
17 Qe2 with advantage for White,
S.Stoye-Kl.Müller, correspondence 2002.
d) 10 ... b6 11 e5 Qe7 (if 11 ... Qf4?! 12
d5 Bxc3 13 Rfd1, F.Lorin-F.Alozy,
correspondence 2012, then 13 ... Na6 14
bxc3 Nc5 15 Rd4 Qf5 16 Rad1 and White
has the upper hand) 12 Ne4 Qe8 13 Rac1
Bb7 14 Bb5 c6 15 Bd3 with advantage for
White.
11 e5
Alternatively, 11 Rfd1 c6 (or if 11 ... Qf4,
A.Hurdle-A.Ling, correspondence 2006,
then 12 Rac1 c6 13 g3 Qc7 14 e5) 12 a3 Bf8
13 e5 Qe7 14 h4 (M.Podgaets-A.Rivera,
Havana 1999) 14 ... Nb6 15 Bb3 Nd5 16
Rac1 and White has the better chances.
11 ... Qe7
12 Qe4
Other moves are: 12 Rfd1 Nf8
(Na.Gonzalez-P.Carbone, Montevideo 2008)
13 Bd3 and White has the better chances; or
12 Ne4 Nf8 (12 ... Nb6!?) 13 a3 Ba5 14 Rfd1
with the initiative, M.M.Ivanov-L.Mazi,
Latschach 2006.
12 ... Nf8 13 Ne2 Rb8 14 Rfd1
White should fight for the initiative with
14 a3!?.
14 ... b5 15 Bd3 Bb7
Instead, 15 ... c5 16 a3 Bb7 17 Qe3 c4 18
axb4 cxd3 19 Rxd3 a6 20 Nf4 Qxb4 leads to
a position with mutual chances.
16 Qg4 Ba5
Black might tried 16 ... c5!? at this point.
17 Rac1 a6 18 Be4 c5 19 Ng3 cxd4 20
Nh5 Ng6 21 Bxg6 fxg6 22 Qxg6?!
22 Nf4 g5 23 Nxe6 Bxf3 24 gxf3 Rd5 25
Rxd4 Rxe5 26 Re4 would have guaranteed
White at least equal chances.
22 ... Bxf3?!
This allows White to force perpetual
check. After 22 ... Qf7 23 Qxf7+ Kxf7 24
Nxd4 Bb6 25 Nb3 Rbc8, Black has more
than enough compensation for the pawn due
to his strong bishop pair on the open
diagonals.
23 Nf6+ Kf8 24 Nh7+ Kg8 25 Nf6+ Kf8
26 Nh7+ ½-½
170
Game 61
L.Fressinet-S.Movsesian
German League 2010
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 c4 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 h6 7 Bxf6 Qxf6 8 Bxc4 c5 9 0-0
0-0 10 e5 Qd8 11 Qe2 cxd4 12 Rfd1
Pinning the d-pawn is White’s usual
choice. Otherwise 12 Ne4 transposes to 9 e5
Qd8 10 0-0 cxd4 11 Ne4 0-0 12 Qe2 in the
theory section. Alternatively, White can use
the a1-rook with 12 Rad1 and then:
a) 12 ... Bd7 13 Rxd4 (taking on d4 does
not achieve anything for White; similarly, 13
Nxd4 Bxc3 14 bxc3 Qc7; while 13 Ne4
transposes to the 11 Ne4 line again) 13 ...
Nc6 14 Rd2 (or 14 Rd3 Na5 15 Rfd1 Qc7)
14 ... Bxc3 15 bxc3 Qc7 with equal chances
in all variations.
b) 12 ... Nc6 looks even simpler; for
example, 13 Qe4 (if 13 Nb5 Bc5 14 Qe4 Bd7
15 Bd3 g6, or 13 Nxd4 Nxd4 14 Qe4 Nf3+
15 Qxf3 Qc7 16 Qe4 Bxc3 17 bxc3 Bd7 18
Rd6 Bc6 19 Qd3 Rac8) 13 ... Bd7 14 Ne2
Bc5 15 Nexd4 Nxd4 16 Nxd4 Qb6 17 Bd3 g6
and Black is at last equal, D.Nestorovic-
Se.Pavlov, Paracin 2010.
c) 12 ... Bxc3 also deserves attention; for
example, 13 bxc3 Qc7 (13 ... Bd7?!, as in
T.Radjabov-I.Salgado Lopez, European
Team Championship, Heraklio 2017, is
worse because of 14 Rxd4!, intending 14 ...
Qc7 15 Rg4! Bc6 16 Nd4 Nd7 17 f4 and the
active rook is more important than the weak
c-pawn; while after 13 ... Nc6 14 Nxd4 Qa5
15 Nxc6 bxc6 16 Bd3 Qxc3 17 h4 Rb8 18
Qe4, T.Kirkov-A.Davidov, correspondence
2017, 18 ... g6 19 h5 Rb4 20 Qe3 White has a
decent initiative for the pawn) 14 Rxd4
(taking with the c3-pawn or knight may be
better here, although the position is still close
to equality) 14 ... Nc6 15 Rg4 Ne7 16 Nd4
Bd7 17 Rg3 Nf5 with level play.
12 ... Nc6 13 Qe4
18 Be4
White could try 18 Rac1!? with perhaps a
small advantage.
18 ... Nd5
18 ... Bc6 19 Qf6+ Kh7 20 Bxc6 Nxc6 is
also level.
19 Bxd5 exd5 20 Rdc1 Be6 21 Rab1
½-½

13 ... Bxc3 Game 62

Or 13 ... Bd7 14 Bd3 g6 15 Ne2 Bc5 16
Rac1 (or 16 h4!? immediately; e.g. 16 ... Nb4
17 Nexd4 Qb6 18 h5 Nxd3 19 Rxd3 with the
initiative) 16 ... Bb6 (White also keeps the
initiative after 16 ... b6 17 a3 a5 18 Qg4 Kh8
19 h4, T.Janev-N.Ninov, Bulgarian
Championship, Bankia 2013; and 16 ... Qb6
17 Qf4 Kg7 18 a3 a5 19 h4 f5 20 exf6+ Rxf6
21 Qg3) and now in D.Dumitrache-G.Meier,
French League 2010, White might have
played the energetic 17 Nf4 Be8 18 Nh5
Nxe5 (or 18 ... Nb4 19 Qf4 gxh5 20 Qxh6 f5
21 Ng5 Qe7 22 Bc4) 19 Nxe5 f5 20 Qxb7
gxh5 21 Nc6 Bxc6 22 Rxc6 Rb8 23 Qa6 with
an advantage in both variations.
14 bxc3 Bd7
14 ... Qa5 15 cxd4 Nb4 16 a3 Nd5 17
Bd3 g6 18 Qg4 h5 19 Qg3 is good for White.
15 cxd4 Ne7 16 Bd3
White could take on b7, but after 16
Qxb7 Ba4 17 Rd2 Bc6 18 Qb3 Qa5 the extra
pawn would be difficult to realize.
16 ... g6 17 Qf4 Kg7
Z.Kozul-Ki.Georgiev
Skopje 2013
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 h6 7 Bxf6 Qxf6 8 Bxc4 c5 9 0-0
cxd4 10 e5 Qe7 11 Ne4 Nc6
12 Qe2?!
Here 12 a3 is more accurate, intending
Nd6+ to deprive Black of castling rights:
12 ... Ba5 (not 12 ... Bc5? 13 b4 Bb6,
P.Zangiev-B.Bondarev, Krasnodar 1998,
since 14 b5 Na5 15 Nd6+ Kf8 16 Ba2 Bc5 17
Qd2 b6 18 Nxd4 gives White a big advantage)
13 Nd6+ Kf8 14 Qe2 Bc7 15 Nb5 Bb6 16
Rfd1 and White has slightly the better
chances. All the same, Black is not very

171
much worse and he can secure his king
position with ... g7-g6 and ... Kg7.
12 ... 0-0
12 ... Qc7 is also possible; e.g. 13 Rfd1
0-0 14 a3 Be7 15 Ng3 Rd8 16 Rac1 with
compensation for the pawn,
Al.David-V.Petkov, Gif sur Yvette 2010.
13 a3
White can regain the pawn after 13 Bb5,
but then 13 ... Rd8 14 Rfd1 Qc7 15 Bxc6
bxc6 16 Rxd4 Rxd4 17 Nxd4 Bb7 18 Nf3
Rd8 leaves Black in an excellent position.
13 ... Ba5 14 Rad1 áBd7
The immediate 14 ... Bc7!?, attacking the
e5-pawn, gives Black a small advantage.
15 b4
Instead, 15 Nd6 Bc7 16 Nxd4 Nxe5 17
Qxe5 Bxd6 18 Nf5 exf5 19 Qxe7 Bxe7 20
Rxd7 Bc5 is a level ending.
15 ... Bc7 16 Nc5
16 ... Rfc8?!
The calm 16 ... Bc8 17 Bb5 Bb6 is equal,
B.Kohlweyer-Ki.Georgiev, Benasque 2010.
17 Qe4?!
The forcing variation 17 Nxb7 Nxe5 18
Nxe5 Bxe5 19 Qxe5 Rxc4 20 Nd6 f6 21 Qe4
Bc6 22 Qe2 Rc3 23 Rxd4 gives White
slightly the better chances; for example, 23 ...
Ba4 (or 23 ... Rxa3 24 b5 Be8 25 Qb2 Ra5 26
Qc3 Rxb5 27 Nxb5 Bxb5 28 Rb1) 24 Ra1
Rc2 (or 24 ... e5 25 Rc4) 25 Qe4 Rb8 26 h3
Rc6 27 Rad1.
17 ... Be8 18 Bd3 g6 19 Qf4?!
172
Now 19 Nxb7 Nxe5 20 Nxe5 Bxe5 21
Qxe5 Qxb7 22 Be4 Bc6 23 Bxc6 Rxc6 24
Rxd4 Rac8 led to an equal endgame.
19 ... Kg7?
Neither side is playing with great
precision. Here 19 ... a5 20 Ne4 (or 20 Qxh6
Bxe5 21 Nxe5 Nxe5 22 Be4 axb4 23 axb4
Ra7) 20 ... f5 21 exf6 Bxf4 22 fxe7 axb4 23
axb4 Kf7 is good for Black.
20 Rc1
The simple 20 Nxb7 a5 21 b5 Nxe5 22
Nxe5 Rab8 23 Qxd4 Bxe5 24 Qxe5+ f6 25
Qe3 Rxb7 26 a4 offers White the better
chances again.
20 ... Rab8
The b7-pawn should have been protected
by the computer move 20 ... Bb8. The point
is that after 21 Ne4 Rd8 neither the
dark-squared bishop nor the d8-rook is in
danger from White’s rook on c1, while Black
threatens 22 ... Nxe5. Then 22 Qg3 Rd5 23
Nf6 Rxe5 24 Nxe8+ Qxe8 25 Nxe5 Bxe5 26
f4 Bf6 leads to a position with mutual
chances.
21 Ne4
21 ... a6
Now 21 ... Rd8? would be met by 22 b5
Nxe5 23 Nxe5 Rd5 24 Rxc7 Qxc7 25 Qf6+
Kh7 26 f4 and White wins, as is also the case
after 21 ... Nxe5 22 Nxe5 g5 23 Qg3 f5 24
Nc5 b6 25 Na6 f4 26 Qf3 Bxe5 27 Qe4 Kf6
28 Rfe1 Bd6 29 Qxd4+ e5 30 Qe4.
22 Nf6
 More accurate was 22 h4 with the
initiative for White; e.g. 22 ... Rd8 23 Rfe1
Bd7 24 Rc4.
22 ... Bd7 23 Ng4
And here 23 Qe4!? looks stronger.
23 ... Rh8 24 h4?
This is incorrect now. Instead, 24 Nxd4!?
h5 25 Ne3 Bxe5 26 Nxc6 Bxf4 27 Nxe7
Rhe8 28 Nxg6 fxg6 29 g3 Be5 30 Be4
retained at least equal chances.
24 ... h5 25 Ngh2 Rbc8 26 Rfe1 f5?!
Pushing the pawn too far. 26 ... f6! was
better for Black; for example, 27 Qe4 (or 27
exf6+ Qxf6 28 Qxf6+ Kxf6 29 Ng5 a5) 27 ...
Qf7 28 exf6+ Qxf6 29 Ng5 Bxh2+ 30 Kxh2
Rhe8 31 Rc5 e5.
27 Nf1 Rhd8 28 Ng3?!
Beginning a rather tortuous knight
manoeuvre. 28 N1d2 and Nb3 looks better
with compensation for the pawn.
28 ... Bb8
28 ... Be8 would secure Black’s position
with a slight advantage.
29 Ne2 Kh8?!
29 ... Be8 was still more accurate.
30 Qg3 Qg7 31 Nf4 Rg8?!
Instead, 31 ... Kg8 32 Nxg6 (32 Qxg6?!
is met by 32 ... Nxe5!) 32 ... Be8 33 Nf4
Qxg3 34 hxg3 Bf7 keeps the game level.
32 Bc4 Rce8?!
After 32 ... Nxe5 33 Nxe5 Bxe5 34 Rxe5
b5 35 Rxe6 White has a small advantage.
33 Ba2 Bc8 34 Rcd1
173
Now White has a clear advantage and
went on to win, albeit only after numerous
further mistakes from both sides.
34 ... Re7 35 Rc1 Bd7 36 Qg5 Ree8 37
Nd3 Kh7 38 Qf4 Kh8 39 Nc5 Bc8 40 Ng5
Bxe5 41 Rxe5 Nxe5 42 Qxe5 Qxe5 43 Nf7+
Kh7 44 Nxe5 g5 45 Ncd3 gxh4 46 Nf4 Re7
47 Kf1 Kh6 48 Bb3 Kg5 49 Nfd3 Kf6 50
Rc4 b5 51 Rxd4 Bb7 52 f3 Bd5 53 Bxd5
exd5 54 Rxd5 Rc8 55 Nd7+ Kg5 56 N7c5
Rc6 57 Ne4+ Kh6 58 Rxf5 Rc2 59 Nf4 Rd7
60 Kg1 Rd1+ 61 Kh2 Ra1 62 Rf6+ Kh7 63
Ng5+ Kg7 64 Nxh5+ Kg8 65 Rf7 1-0
Game 63
T.Polak-S.Movsesian
Hustopece (rapid) 2011
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 Bxc4 h6 8 Bxf6 Qxf6 9 e5
Qd8 10 d5 exd5 11 Qxd5
Gajewski’s suggestion.
11 ... Qxd5
11 ... Qe7 12 Bb5+ Nd7 13 0-0-0 Bxc3
14 bxc3 0-0 15 Qd6 Qxd6 16 exd6 Rd8 17
Rhe1 leads to a favourable ending for White.
12 Bxd5
The question is whether Black should
insert the exchange on c3 or not, which he
can do on the 10th, 11th or 12th moves. If he
does not take on c3 by then, White may
support the knight with Rc1.
12 ... Nc6
Combined with ... Nc6 Black made the
right decision not exchanging his b4-bishop
here. After 12 ... Bxc3+ 13 bxc3 Nc6 White
has 14 Rb1, threatening 15 Rb5, when Black
has some problems.
Black can also develop his knight
elsewhere; for example, 12 ... Nd7!? 13 Rc1
Nb6 14 Be4 Na4 15 Ke2 Nxc3 16 bxc3 Ba5
with a complicated ending; while after 12 ...
Na6 13 Rc1 (13 0-0-0 and 13 Nd2 followed
by Nc4 look even better) 13 ... Nc7 14 Be4
Rb8 15 0-0 Bxc3 16 Rxc3 a draw was agreed
in H.Teske-F.Levin, Paderborn 2013, even
though White has a long-term advantage in
the ending.
13 0-0-0
White could play 13 Rc1 now, but
Black’s should be able to hold the balance;
for example, 13 ... Ke7 14 Ke2 (after 14
Bxc6 bxc6 15 0-0 Rd8 16 Ne4 Ba6 Black’s
bishop pair compensate for White’s superior
structure) 14 ... Rd8 15 Rhd1 Be6 16 Bxe6
(16 Bxc6 is much the same as 14 Bxc6 etc)
16 ... Rxd1 17 Nxd1 Kxe6 18 Ne3 (18 a3 Ba5
19 Rxc5 Bc7 20 Ne3 Rd8 21 g4 g6 22 b4
Bb8 and Black regains the pawn on e5) 18 ...
Rd8! 19 a3 Nd4+ 20 Nxd4 cxd4 21 axb4
dxe3 with equality.
13 ... Bxc3 14 bxc3 Be6 15 Rd2
After 15 Bxc6+ bxc6 16 Rd6 Bd5 17 Nd2
c4 18 Re1 Ke7 19 Ne4 Rad8 Black should
equalize.
15 ... 0-0-0
15 ... Ke7!? was also possible.
16 Rhd1?!
More precise was 16 Bxc6 bxc6 17 Rhd1
with equality. After the text Black might play
174
16 ... Bxd5 17 Rxd5 b6 Black with slightly
the better ending
16 ... Kc7?! 17 Kc2 Rhe8 18 Bxe6 fxe6
Both 18 ... Rxd2+ 19 Nxd2 Rxe6 20 f4 f6
21 exf6 Rxf6 22 g3 Re6 23 Kd3 and 18 ...
Rxe6 19 Rxd8 Nxd8 20 Rd5 b6 21 Nd2 Nc6
22 f4 lead to equal play.
19 c4?!
White could have kept equality with 19
Rxd8 Nxd8 20 Kd3 or 20 Re1 g5 21 Re4.
19 ... Rxd2+ 20 Rxd2 Rf8 21 Kd3 g5 22
h3 Rf4 23 a3 a6 24 Rc2 Na5 25 Rc3 Kc6 26
Rc2?
26 a4 was necessary, restricting Black to
a small advantage.
26 ... b5 27 cxb5+ axb5
Now Black has firmly seized the
initiative.
28 Rc3 Kd5
28 ... Nc4 was more precise; e.g. 29 Rb3
h5 30 Ke2 g4 31 Ng5 Rf5 with a winning
position for Black.
29 Kc2 c4
Reducing to a knight endgame with 29 ...
Rc4!? might make things simpler. Instead,
Black opted for a rook ending and won,
though not without a few
time-pressure-induced blunders from each
side.
30 Re3 Nb3 31 Kc3 Nc5 32 Kb4 Kc6 33
Re2 Nd3+ 34 Kc3 Kc5 35 Rd2 Re4 36 g3
Nxe5 37 Nxe5 Rxe5 38 Rd8 Rf5 39 Rc8+
Kd5 40 Rd8+ Kc6 41 Rc8+ Kd7 42 Rb8
Kc7 43 Re8 Rf3+ 44 Kb4 Rb3+ 45 Kc5 c3
46 Rxe6 c2 47 Rc6+ Kd7 48 Kb6 Rb2 49 f4
gxf4 50 gxf4 Ra2 51 f5 b4 52 f6 b3 53 Rc7+
Ke6 54 f7 b2 55 f8Q b1Q+ 56 Qb4 Rb2 57
Rc6+ Kf7 58 Rc7+ Ke6 59 Rc6+ Kd7 60
Rc7+ Kd8 0-1
Game 64
A.Dutra Neto-F.Hoffmann
Correspondence 2011
 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 h6 7 Bxf6 Qxf6 8 Bxc4 c5 9 0-0
0-0 10 Rc1 cxd4 11 e5 Qd8 12 Nxd4 Bd7!
13 a3
Instead:
a) 13 Ne4 Nc6 14 Nf3 Qb6!, followed by
15 ... Rfd8, leads to an excellent position for
Black.
b) 13 Qb3 Qb6 14 Rfd1 Bc5 15 Qxb6
Bxb6 is level, D.Khegay-I.Lysyj,
Chelyabinsk (rapid) 2017.
c) 13 Qg4 should be answered by 13 ...
Qa5 (13 ... Qg5, A.Esipenko-I.Lysyj,
Kolomna 2016, is weaker and looks to give
White a slight edge with or without queens;
e.g. 14 Qxg5 hxg5 15 h3 Be7 16 Rfd1 or 14
Qe2 Bc6 15 g3 Rd8 16 h4 Qe7 17 Rfd1) 14
Rfe1 Nc6 15 Nb3 (15 a3 Be7 16 Nf3 Rfd8 17
Qe4 Be8 also leads to equality, as in
V.Stepanov-A.Roy Laguens,
correspondence 2014) 15 ... Qb6 (or 15 ...
Qc7 16 Bd3 Be7 17 Qe4 g6 18 Qe3 h5) 16
Bd3 Ne7 and Black should equalize; for
example, 17 Nd2 (or 17 Re3 Bxc3 18 bxc3
Nf5) 17 ... Bxc3 18 Rxc3 (or 18 bxc3 Qc7 19
Nf3 Bc6 20 Nd4 Rfd8) 18 ... Qxb2 19 Rc2
Qa3 20 Qe4 g6 (or 20 ... Ng6 21 Nc4 Qa4) 21
Nc4 Qa4 22 Qxb7 Rab8 23 Qe4 Nf5
13 ... Bxc3
13 ... Be7 would cost time, when 14 Qg4
Nc6 15 Nf3 Qc7 16 Qe4 is better for White.
14 Rxc3 Nc6
175
15 Re1
After 15 Nf3 Qb6 16 Qe2 Ne7 17 Rb3
Qc7 18 Bd3 Bc6 19 Rc1 Rfd8 20 Be4 Rac8
Black has no problems, Fr.Costa-L.Conato,
correspondence 2008.
15 ... Nxd4 16 Qxd4 Bc6
Or 17 Rd1 Qxd4 18 Rxd4 Rfd8 19 Rcd3
Rxd4 20 Rxd4 Kf8 21 f3 Ke7 with a drawn
ending, S.Brömme-R.Zajontz,
correspondence 2014.
17 Qf4 Qg5 18 Qxg5 hxg5
This ending is dead level, and has duly
given rise to six draws out of six; for example,
19 Rg3 Rfd8 20 Rxg5 Rd2 21 b4 a5 22 f3
Rb2 23 Rg4 axb4 24 axb4 Ra4 25 Bd3 ½-½
A.Artiles Vallecillo-I.Mende,
correspondence 2012.
In our main game the players continued
for another thirty meaningless moves before
agreeing to split the point:
19 b4 Rfd8 20 Rec1 a6 21 h3 Rd2 22
R1c2 Rxc2 23 Rxc2 Be4 24 Re2 Bc6 25
Rd2 Rc8 26 Bd3 Kf8 27 Rc2 Rd8 28 Rc3
Rd5 29 Bxa6 Rxe5 30 Kf1 Ke8 31 Bc4 Re4
32 Bd3 Re5 33 f3 f5 34 Be2 Kd7 35 Bc4 b5
36 Be2 Kd6 37 Ke1 Rd5 38 Bd3 Bd7 39
Ke2 Re5+ 40 Kd2 Bc6 41 Rc1 Kd7 42 Rc5
Kd6 43 Rc3 Rd5 44 Ke3 Re5+ 45 Kf2 Rd5
46 Kf1 Bd7 47 g3 ½-½
Conclusion
The move 6 ... h6 practically forces the
exchange 7 Bxf6 Qxf6. This clarifies the
situation on the kingside and secures Black
from having his pawn structure spoiled later
on, at the cost of conceding a few tempi and a
space advantage. Consequently, the positions
are easier for White to play.
176
In the main line Black can count on
equality after 8 Bxc4 c5 9 e5 Qd8 10 0-0
cxd4 11 Nxd4 0-0 12 Rc1 Bd7!, so White
should try less smoothed ways of playing,
such as 11 Ne4, 10 d5, and 9 0-0. In
particular, 10 d5 exd5 11 Bxd5 deserves
attention, where White achieves a small
advantage. Therefore we think Black does
better to stick with 6 ... c5, counterattacking
in the centre by 6 ... c5 immediately, and not
worry about a possible weakening of the
kingside.
Chapter Ten
6 e4 - Deviations

In our final two chapters we will discuss

unusual sidelines for both White and Black.
In this one we will look at those positions
arising after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3
dxc4 5 Bg5 Bb4 6 e4

In this position resembling the Botvinnik

variation in the Semi-Slav White’s chances
are slightly better.

Theory
... in which Black plays any other move 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
than 6 ... c5 or 6 ... h6. In most cases these Bg5 Bb4 6 e4
moves are inaccurate or even downright bad;
for example, 6 ... Qd7?, 6 ... 0-0? or 6 ...
Be7?!. The most significant move is:

6 ... b5
These days the simple and very logical 7
a4 is becoming popular. However, after 7 ...
c5 8 axb5 cxd4 9 Nxd4 h6 Black should
equalize. A more aggressive and critical idea
is:
7 e5
And the main line of this chapter will
deal with this very move:
7 ... h6 8 Bh4
The alternative line 8 exf6 hxg5 9 fxg7
Rg8 10 a4! leads to an advantage for White,
as we will see.
8 ... g5 9 Nxg5 hxg5 10 Bxg5 Nbd7 11
Qf3 Rb8 12 exf6 Bb7
6 ... b5
This move looks interesting. Black has a
few lesser options which we should consider:
a) 6 ... 0-0? (if Black castles without
resolving the pin and while e4-e5 is still
available, his king will often find itself in
serious danger) 7 e5! h6 8 Bh4 g5
(L.Bianchi-N.Checa, correspondence 2010)
9 Nxg5 Qd5 10 exf6 hxg5 11 Qg4 Qf5 12
Qxf5 exf5 13 Bxg5 Re8+ 14 Kd2 Be6 and
White has the upper hand.
b) 6 ... Qd7? is a strange idea: 7 Bxf6 (7
Ne5 is also good) 7 ... gxf6 8 Bxc4 e5 (or 8 ...

177
Nc6 9 0-0, K.Hara-T.Kumagai,
correspondence 1999, and if 9 ... Qe7 10 d5
with a big advantage for White) 9 0-0 Bxc3
(but not 9 ... exd4, as in C.Hoffmann-
L.Sadewasser, Dittrichshuette 2008, because
of 10 Nd5 Be7 11 e5 and wins) 10 bxc3 Nc6
11 Rb1 with a huge advantage for White.
c) 6 ... Be7?! is too passive: 7 Bxc4 0-0
(7 ... a6 8 0-0 b5 is even worse, B.Rrugeja-
L.Rota, Bergamo 1998) 8 0-0 Nc6 9 Qd2 a6
(R.Trevis-W.Jordaan, correspondence 2002)
10 Rfd1 with a clear advantage for White, as
Black is deprived of any counterplay.
d) 6 ... Nc6 deprives Black of
counterplay connected with the push ... c7-c5,
at least temporarily: 7 e5 (7 Bxc4!? and 7 a3!?
are promising too) 7 ... h6 (D.Reynaud-
P.Bernardi, Brasilia 2006) 8 Bd2 Nd7 9 Bxc4
Nb6 10 Bb5 with the better chances for
White.
e) 6 ... Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 h6 8 Bxf6 Qxf6 9
Qa4+!? (or 9 Bxc4, when the double attack
9 ... Qg6 is easily parried by 10 Qe2, and if
10 ... Nd7 11 0-0 Nb6 12 Bb5+ c6 13 Bd3,
A.Veingold-A.Serrano Martinez, Erandio
2004; likewise, 9 ... Nd7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Qe2
b6 12 e5 Qe7 13 Qe4 Rb8 14 Bd3 leads to a
clear advantage for White, V.Malakhatko-
A.Jemai, Monastir 2012) 9 ... c6 10 Qxc4
(M.Kashutin-V.Mutav, Cheliabinsk 2010;
White makes it difficult for Black to push ...
c7-c5) 10 ... b6 11 Qb4 Bb7 12 Bd3 Qe7 13
Qxe7+ Kxe7 14 Ke2 Nd7 15 Ke3 and White
is the more active in the ending.
Let us return to the position after 6 ... b5:
178
7 e5
The most aggressive and most frequently
played move but probably not the best one.
White has tried to play in other ways here:
a) 7 Bxf6? Qxf6 is a bad idea for sure,
since it merely activates Black’s pieces; e.g.
8 a4 (or 8 Qc2 Bb7 9 e5 Qg6, L.Palau-
C.Maderna, Buenos Aires 1935) 8 ... c6 9 e5
Qe7 10 Be2 Bb7 11 0-0 a6 and White does
not have full compensation for the pawn.
b) 7 Be2 also fails to offer any advantage;
e.g. 7 ... Nbd7 8 e5 h6 (W.Doubleday-
Y.Duhayon, Gibraltar 2010) 9 exf6 hxg5 10
fxg7 Rg8 11 0-0 a6 12 a4 Rb8 13 axb5 axb5
14 d5 e5 15 Re1 Rxg7 16 Bf1 and White
regains the pawn with an equal position (not
16 ... f6? 17 Nd4 and White wins material).
c) Similarly, after 7 Qc2 h6 8 Bxf6 Qxf6
9 Be2 (T.Rej-G.Xie, Canberra 2006) and
then 9 ... a6 10 0-0 0-0 11 a4 Nc6 12 d5 Ne7
13 axb5 exd5 14 Nxd5 Nxd5 15 exd5 Re8,
chances are more or less equal.
d) 7 a3 Bxc3+ 8 bxc3 h6 9 Bxf6 Qxf6 10
a4 c6 allows Black to hang on to the pawn,
although after 11 Be2 0-0 12 e5 Qe7
(I.Sokolov-T.Vasilevich, Reykjavik 2006)
and 13 Nd2 White has sufficient
compensation.
However, 7 a4 is very logical and
deserves serious attention.
In this critical position Black has several
moves at his disposal:
a) 7 ... Bb7 will be discussed in Game 65.
b) 7 ... h6?! is not good: 8 Bxf6 Qxf6 9
axb5 Qg6 10 Be2 Qxe4 (G.Piesina-
S.Kishnev, Barnaul 1984) 11 Ra4 and White
has a clear advantage.
c) 7 ... c6 8 axb5 (a necessary exchange;
after the immediate 8 e5 h6 9 Bh4? g5 10
Nxg5, Black has 10 ... Bxc3+ 11 bxc3 Qa5
12 exf6 Qxc3+ 13 Ke2 hxg5 14 Bxg5 Nd7
and stands better) 8 ... cxb5 9 e5 h6 10 Bh4
g5 11 Nxg5 Nd5 12 Qh5 Qc7 13 Nge4 Bb7
14 Be2 Nxc3 15 Nxc3 Nc6 (15 ... Bxg2 16
Rg1 Bd5 17 Kf1 gives White a very strong
initiative) 16 Qg4 Ne7 17 Bxe7 Qxe7 18 0-0
Bxc3 19 bxc3 Qg5 20 Qh3 with better
chances for White.
d) 7 ... c5! 8 axb5 (or if 8 e5 cxd4!? 9
Nxd4 Qd5, J.Kepinski-P.Maylott,
correspondence 2013, then 10 exf6 Qxg5 11
Be2 a6 12 fxg7 Qxg7 13 0-0 Bc5 14 Bf3 Ra7
15 Nc6 Nxc6 16 Bxc6+ Bd7 17 axb5 axb5 18
Bxd7+ Rxd7 19 Qh5 Bd4 20 Qxb5 Qe5 21
Qb4 Qd6 22 Qxc4 and White is now a pawn
up, though realizing it will be difficult) 8 ...
cxd4 9 Nxd4 h6!? (this move appeared in the
games of top players not long ago;
alternatives do not give Black equality, e.g.
9 ... Qb6? 10 Bxf6 gxf6 11 Bxc4 0-0,
P.Stempin-K.Panczyk, Poznan 1985, 12 0-0
is already winning for White; or 9 ... Bb7 10
f3 0-0 11 Bxc4 Qc7 12 Qb3 Bd6 13 b6 Qxb6
14 Qxb6 axb6 15 Rxa8 Bxa8 16 Ke2,
P.Staniszewski-K.Panczyk, Polish
Championship, Bytom 1986, 16 ... Be5 17
Be3 Rc8 18 Bb5 and White has the better
ending)
d1) 10 Bxf6 Qxf6 11 Bxc4 (not 11 b6?!,
as in A.Grischuk-Ma.Carlsen, Internet blitz
179
2017, since 11 ... Bc5 12 Nf3 Bxb6 13 Bxc4
0-0 14 Qe2 Rd8 is good for Black) 11 ... 0-0
12 0-0 Bb7 (if 12 ... Rd8? 13 Qb3 Bc5,
W.So-L.Aronian, Leuven blitz 2017, then 14
Nc6! Rd2 15 e5 Qf4 16 Ne2 Qe4 17 Qc3
Nxc6 18 bxc6 Qc2 19 Qxc2 Rxc2 20 b3 a5
21 Rac1 Rxc1 22 Rxc1 and Black’s bishop
pair does not make up for the missing pawn)
13 Qa4 (N.Sulava-N.Petrov, Bratto 2017)
and now after 13 ... a5!? 14 Rfd1 Nd7 15 Qc2
Nb6 16 Be2 Rfc8 Black has compensation
for the pawn but no more than that.
d2) 10 Be3 Nxe4 11 Qc2 Nd6 (after 11 ...
Bb7 12 Be2 Nd6 13 Qa4 Bxc3+ 14 bxc3 0-0
15 0-0 e5 16 Nc2 Nd7 17 Rfd1 White has the
better chances) 12 Be2 Bb7 13 0-0 0-0 14
Rfd1 Qe7 15 Bf3 Bxf3 16 Nxf3 a5 (worse is
16 ... Nd7?! 17 Nd4 Ne5 18 Na2 Nf5 19
Nxf5 exf5 20 Nxb4 Qxb4 21 Qc3 Qe7 22
Re1 Ng4 23 Bxh6 Qf6 24 Bf4 Qxc3 25 bxc3
Nf6 26 Be5, I.Rotaru-M.Tirelli,
correspondence 2017, or 24 ... Qb6 25 Qc2
Qxb5 26 h3 Nf6 27 Re5 with advantage for
White) 17 Bf4 Ra7 18 Qe2 Rc8 19 h3 Rd7 20
Rd4 e5! 21 Qxe5 Qxe5 22 Nxe5 Rb7 23
Rad1 Nxb5 24 Rxc4 Rxc4 25 Nxc4 Nc6 and
Black equalized in Houdini 5-Stockfish 8,
Top Chess Engine Championship 2016.
7 ... h6
8 Bh4
Retreating the bishop on the c1-h6
diagonal does not do White any good: 8 Bd2
Bxc3 9 bxc3 Nd5 10 a4 (or 10 Qb1,
O.Almeida Quintana-M.Gongora Reyes,
Cuban Championship, Las Tunas 2001, 10 ...
Ba6 11 Qe4 Nc6 12 Be2 0-0 13 0-0 b4) 10 ...
c6 11 Be2 (or 11 h4 a5 12 Rh3 Ba6 13 Rg3
Kf8, J.Vilela de Acuna-K.Osmanovic, Decin
1979) 11 ... Nd7 12 0-0 N7b6 13 Qc2
(V.Pajkovic-D.Kosic, Montenegrin
Championship, Cetinje 2010) 13 ... 0-0 14
axb5 cxb5 15 Qe4 a5 16 Qg4 f5 17 exf6 Nxf6
18 Qg6 Qe8 and Black has at least a small
advantage in all variations.
Much more consistent is to take the
knight with 8 exf6 hxg5 9 fxg7 Rg8 and then:
a) 10 Qc2?! Rxg7 11 0-0-0 g4 12 Nxb5??
(but after 12 Ne5 a6 and 12 Nd2 Qg5+ 13
Kb1 Bxc3 14 Qxc3 Nd7, White does not
have enough for the pawn either) 12 ... gxf3
13 Qa4 Bd7 and Black won in
G.Tomov-K.Rusev, Bulgarian League, since
14 Qxb4 Qg5+ and 15 ... Qxb5 keeps the
piece.
b) 10 h4 g4 11 Ne5 (11 Ng5!? as in
V.Sotirov-S.Spassov, correspondence 1991,
is less natural but possibly simpler; e.g. 11 ...
Rxg7 12 Qxg4 Nd7 13 Qf3 Rb8 14 0-0-0 Qf6
15 Qe3 Bxc3 16 bxc3 Qe7 17 d5 exd5 18
Qxe7+ Kxe7 19 Rxd5 Bb7 20 Rxb5 Bxg2
with mutual chances) 11 ... Rxg7 12 h5 (this
creates some threats connected with the
march of the h-pawn but allows Black to
support his g-pawn and gain an excellent
square on g5; instead 12 Nxg4! Nc6 13 h5
Bb7 14 h6 Rh7 15 d5 gives White sufficient
counterplay for equality) 12 ... f5 13 Qd2!?
Bb7 14 Qh6 Qe7 15 a4 a6 and Black is
certainly not worse, A.Gavrilov-Y.Yakovich,
Kazan 2005.
180
c) 10 a4! is the most logical and testing
move. For example, 10 ... c6 (if 10 ... Bb7 11
axb5 Nd7 12 Bxc4 g4 13 Nd2 Rxg7 14 Qb3
Bd6 15 Nde4 Nf6, I.Wantola-L.Riemersma,
Dutch League 2018, then 16 Bd3 and White
is slightly better) 11 g3 (alternatively, 11 h4
g4 12 Ne5 Rxg7 13 h5 f5 14 Be2 Qg5 15 Kf1
Rh7 16 Kg1 with a crazy position in which
White’s chances look preferable) 11 ... Bb7
(other continuations do not give Black
equality either; e.g. 11 ... g4 12 Ne5 Qd5 13
Rg1 Qe4+ 14 Be2 Rxg7 15 Kf1 Bxc3 16
bxc3 f5 17 f3, G.Arsovic-N.Maevsky,
European Championship, Budva 2009, or
11 ... c5 12 Bg2 Bb7 13 0-0 g4 14 Nh4 Bxg2
15 Nxg2 Rxg7 16 dxc5 Bxc5 17 axb5 and
White has the upper hand in both variations)
12 Bg2 Nd7 13 0-0 Qb6 (or 13 ... Rxg7 14
axb5 cxb5 15 Nxb5 a5 16 Qe2 g4 17 Nh4
Bxg2 18 Nxg2 Rg5) 14 Nxg5 Rxg7
(A.Hagen-T.Nyback, Copenhagen 2007) 15
a5 Bxa5 16 Qh5 0-0-0 17 Nxf7 Nf6 18 Nd6+
Rxd6 19 Qh8+ Rg8 20 Qxf6 Rgd8 21 Ne4
Rxd4 22 Ng5 and White has the advantage. It
seems to us that 8 exf6 hxg5 9 fxg7 Rg8 10
a4! should be the main line for White in this
variation.
8 ... g5
9 Nxg5
Other moves are much worse: 9 exf6
gxh4 (E.Ubilava-J.Meister, Barnaul 1984)
10 Be2!? Bb7 11 0-0 h3 12 g3 a6 13 Ne5
Nd7 14 a4 Qxf6 and Black has the better
chances; while after 9 Bg3? (M.Gielow-
N.Altenburg, correspondence 2002) 9 ... Ne4
10 Qc2 Bb7 11 0-0-0 Bxc3 12 bxc3 c5 Black
is already winning.
9 ... hxg5
The only move, otherwise Black stands
much worse. For example, 9 ... Ne4? 10
Ngxe4 Qxh4 (J.Subrt-O.Rop, Prague 1966)
11 Nf6+ Kd8 12 g3 Qg5 13 Bg2 c6 14 0-0; or
9 ... Nd5? 10 Qh5 Qd7 11 Nge4 Nc6 12 Rd1
Bb7 13 Be2 Nce7 14 0-0 Bxc3 15 bxc3 0-0-0
16 Nc5 Qe8 17 Bf3 (M.Blagojevic-
M.Kastelic, Pula 2014); or 9 ... Qd5? 10
Nxf7! Qe4+ 11 Be2 Kxf7 12 Bxf6 Rg8 13
Qd2 Bxc3 14 bxc3 (E.Bogoljubow-H.Wolf,
Karlsbad 1923; see Game 1 in the
Introduction) and White is winning in all
variations.
10 Bxg5 Nbd7
After 10 ... Qd5 11 Bxf6 Rg8 (R.Lauer-
J.Srinivasan, correspondence 2000) 12 Be2
White is clearly better.
11 Qf3
This is the most active move and gives
White the best chances of obtaining an
advantage. Other moves are inferior:
a) 11 a3 (C.Calvo Carmona-R.Espi
Gimeno, correspondence 2008) 11 ... Rg8!?
12 h4 Bxc3+ 13 bxc3 Rxg5 14 hxg5 Nd5 15
g6 fxg6 16 Rh8+ Nf8 17 Qb1 Qd7 is unclear.
b) 11 a4 Rg8 12 Bxf6 (or 12 h4 Rxg5 13
hxg5 Nd5 14 Qd2 c6 15 Be2 Bb7) 12 ... Nxf6
13 exf6 (Z.Dub-D.Vigorito, Budapest 2000)
13 ... Qxf6 14 axb5 Bb7 15 Ra4 Qe7 with an
excellent game for Black.
c) 11 exf6 Bb7 12 Qc2
(M.Becker-S.Kitte, Düsseldorf 1997) and
181
now 12 ... Nxf6 13 0-0-0 Bxc3 14 Qxc3 Ne4
15 Bxd8 Nxc3 16 bxc3 Rxd8 and Black has
the better ending.
d) 11 Be2 Bb7 12 Bf3 Nxe5! 13 Bxb7 (or
13 dxe5 Qxd1+ 14 Bxd1 Nd7 15 0-0 a6 16 a4
Be7) 13 ... Nd3+ 14 Kf1 Rb8 15 Qf3 Be7 16
Bc6+ (or if 16 Nxb5, E.Miciak-H.Rissanen,
correspondence 2004, then 16 ... a6 17 Nc3
Qxd4 18 Be3 Qe5) 16 ... Kf8 17 Bxb5 Qxd4
18 Be3 Qe5 19 Bxc4 Nxb2 20 Bf4 Nxc4 21
Bxe5 Nd2+, followed by ... Nxf3, with better
chances for Black in all cases.
11 ... Rb8 12 exf6
Now 12 Bxf6?! is inaccurate: 12 ... Nxf6
13 Qxf6 Qxf6 14 exf6 Rh4 (or 14 ... Bb7, as
in A.Hansen-T.Van Scheltinga, Aalborg
1947; e.g. 15 h4 Bc6 16 f3 Rh6) 15 0-0-0 Rf4
16 f3 Rxf6 17 Kc2 Rh6 with a good ending
for Black.
Black also has good play after 12 h4 Bb7;
for example, 13 Bxf6 (or 13 Qd1 Be7 14 exf6
Bxf6 15 f4 a6 with advantage for Black; not
13 Qh3? c5 and Black wins,
O.Mardinoglu-B.Guner, Turkish
Championship, Kusadasi 2004) 13 ... Bxf3
14 Bxd8 c5 15 a3 Bxc3+ 16 bxc3 Rxd8 17
gxf3 cxd4 18 cxd4 Nb6 and again Black has
the better ending.
12 ... Bb7
After this move a complicated position
arises which somewhat resembles the
Botvinnik variation of the Semi-Slav
Defence, but White has the better prospects
here. This will be discussed in Game 66.
Black has also tried:
 a) 12 ... c5? is a bad idea: 13 dxc5 Nxc5
(13 ... Bxc5 14 0-0-0 Bb7 15 Qf4 Qa5 16 Be2
does not help since 16 ... b4? is met by 17
Bxc4 with a violent attack; e.g. 17 ... bxc3 18
Bxe6 cxb2+ 19 Kb1 Ne5 20 Qxe5 Qc7 21
Bxf7+ Kf8 22 Qf5) 14 Rd1 Qc7
(H.Bryar-D.Hulf, correspondence 2014) 15
Qe3 and White wins; e.g. 15 ... Qb6 (or 15 ...
Rb7 16 a3 Bxc3+ 17 bxc3 Qb6 18 Be2) 16
Bf4 Rb7 17 Be2.
b) The inclusion of 12 ... Rg8 13 h4 is
convenient for White: 13 ... Bb7 14 Qg3
Nxf6 (or if 14 ... Bd5, D.Angelov-S.Spassov,
correspondence 1991, then 15 h5 Nxf6 16
Qe5 Be7 17 h6 c6 18 f3) 15 Qe5 Nd7 16
Bxd8 Nxe5 17 Bxc7 Nd3+ 18 Bxd3 Rc8 19
Bh7 Rg7 20 Bf4 Rxh7 21 f3 Bc6 22 Kf2 and
White has the advantage.
c) 12 ... Rb6 (an original idea, defending
the b5-pawn and standing the rook in front of
the c8-bishop which is going to go to b7) 13
0-0-0 Bb7 (O.Kriese-F.Huybrecht,
correspondence 1998) 14 Qe3 reaches an
extremely entangled position where White’s
chances look slightly better; for example,
14 ... Bxc3 15 Qxc3 b4 16 Qc2 c3 17 bxc3
bxc3 18 h4 Nxf6 19 d5 Qd6 20 Qxc3 exd5 21
Rh3.
d) 12 ... Nb6 deserves attention. After the
straightforward 13 0-0-0 Bb7 14 Qe3 Nd5 15
Nxd5 Bxd5! 16 Kb1 Rb6 17 h4 Ra6 18 Rh3,
as in M.Berko-S.Spasov, correspondence
2014, Black could have obtained counterplay
with 18 ... Kd7 19 a3 Bd6 20 Rc1 Qg8.
Therefore we suggest 13 a3 which forces
Black’s bishop to declare its position; e.g.
13 ... Ba5 14 0-0-0 Bb7 and because Black’s
bishop has left the a3-f8 diagonal White can
play 15 Qg3 with the better chances.
Illustrative Games
Game 65
R.Kempinski-M.Cornette
182
European Championship, Dresden 2007
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 b5 7 a4 Bb7
8 axb5
The alternative is 8 e5 h6 and now:
a) 9 Bd2 Nd5 (9 ... Bxc3 is even worse:
10 Bxc3 Nd5 11 axb5, S.Collas-C.Flear,
French League 2008, 11 ... Nb6 12 Nd2 Bd5
with an advantage for White after both 13
Qg4 Qg5 14 h3 and 13 Be2 0-0 14 0-0) 10
Nxb5 (10 axb5 Nb6 11 Be2 a6 12 bxa6 Nxa6
13 0-0 0-0 doesn’t equalize either,
V.Gunina-P.Guichard, European Women’s
Team Championship, Porto Carras 2011)
10 ... a6 11 Na3 c3 12 bxc3 Bxc3 13 Bxc3
Nxc3 14 Qb3 Bxf3 15 Qxc3 with the better
chances for White.
b) 9 Bh4 g5 10 Nxg5 hxg5 11 Bxg5 Nbd7
12 axb5 Nxe5 13 dxe5 Qxd1+ 14 Rxd1 Ne4
15 Bf6 (if 15 Bd2 Rh4 16 f3 Ng3 17 Rg1
Rxh2) 15 ... Nxf6 16 exf6 Rh4 17 f3 Bd6 18
Kf2 0-0-0 19 g4 Rxh2+ with an equal
position in both lines.
c) 9 exf6 hxg5 10 fxg7 Rg8 11 axb5 Nd7
12 Nd2 (or 12 h4 gxh4 13 Rxh4 Qf6 14 Qe2
Rxg7 15 Qxc4 Bxf3 16 Rh8+ Bf8 17 gxf3)
12 ... Nb6 13 Nxc4 Rxg7 14 Qb3 Nxc4 15
Qxb4 with the better chances for White.
8 ... Bxe4 9 Bxc4 h6
The alternative is 9 ... Nbd7 10 0-0 Bb7
and now the game V.Iotov-M.Cornette,
Mulhouse 2008, ended in a draw after 11
Bd3. Nevertheless, 11 Qe2 gives White an
advantage.
 10 Bd2 21 ... Qd7?!
Perhaps more promising is 10 Bh4!? Bb7 Another inaccuracy. 21 ... Rd7 22 Qxe7
11 0-0 Nbd7 12 Qe2 0-0 Rxe7 23 Ra3, with the better chances for
(I.Naumkin-M.Cornette, Montecatini Terme White, was the best continuation.
2006) 13 Rfd1 Nb6 14 Bb3 Be7 15 Ne5 with 22 Rfd1 e5 23 Nc4 Qc6 24 Bf1 e4 25
an advantage for White. Qb3 Qc7 26 Qb6 Qd7 27 Ne5
10 ... Bb7 11 Qa4 27 Qa5 with the threat of 28 Nb6 was
even better.
27 ... Qe7
The only way to prolong the resistance
was 27 ... Qe6!? 28 Qxe6 fxe6 29 f3.
28 Rxd4 Re8?!
A doubtful move, though Black does
seem to be lost in any case, as shown by 28 ...
Bd5 29 Nc6 Qd6 30 Ra6 and 28 ... Nd5 29
Nc6 Nxb6 30 Nxe7+ Kf8 31 Rb4.
11 ... Qe7 29 Nc4 Nd5 30 Qd6 Qg5 31 Qc5
11 ... Bxc3 12 bxc3 0-0 13 Be2 leads to a 31 h4! would have been pretty effective.
position with the better chances for White. 31 ... Rac8 32 Qb5 Bc6 33 Qa5 e3 34
12 b6+ Nbd7 13 bxa7 0-0 14 Be2 c5 15 fxe3 Rxe3
Qb5 Nb8 16 Qa4?!
Both 16 Ra4 Bxf3 17 Bxf3 Rxa7 18 dxc5
Bxc5 19 0-0 Nbd7 and 16 Ne5 cxd4 17 Ne4
Bxd2+ 18 Nxd2 Rd8 19 0-0 Rd5 20 Qb6
Rxe5 21 Bf3 Nd5 22 axb8Q+ Rxb8 23 Qxd4
led to equal play.
16 ... Nc6 17 Nb5 Bxd2+ 18 Nxd2
Nxd4?!
After 18 ... Rfd8! 19 0-0 Nxd4 20 Nxd4
Rxd4 Black would have had an excellent 35 Qd2
position. Missing 35 Rxd5! Bxd5 36 h4.
19 Nxd4 cxd4 20 0-0 Rfd8?! 35 ... Re7 36 Qxg5 hxg5 37 Rxd5! Bxd5
20 ... Bd5 21 Rfc1 was a little more 38 Nb6 Rce8
accurate. 38 ... Ra8 39 Nxa8 Bxa8 40 g3 prepares
21 Qa3 Bg2.
39 Na8
There must be an error in the gamescore
and thus further analysis is pointless. White
wins after 39 Nxd5 and surely the game must
have ended in this way.
39 ... Bxa8 40 g3 1-0

Game 66
P.Dias-S.Sulskis

183
 Dresden Olympiad 2008
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 e4
Bb4 6 Bg5 b5 7 e5 h6 8 Bh4 g5 9 Nxg5
hxg5 10 Bxg5 Nbd7 11 Qf3 Rb8 12 exf6
Bb7
13 Qg3
Instead, 13 Qf4 Nb6 14 h4 Nd5 15 Qd2
transposes to 13 Qe3, which after 13 Qe3
Nb6 (13 ... Bc6 looks like the loss of a tempo:
14 a3 Ba5 15 h4 Nb6, as in
C.Giacchetti-F.Venturelli, correspondence
2011, and then 16 0-0-0 Nd5 17 Nxd5 Bxd5
18 f4 with an advantage for White; Black
does not equalize either after 13 ... c5 14
0-0-0 Qa5 15 d5 e5, as in
F.Baumbach-S.Spasov, correspondence
1998, and then 16 f4 Bxc3 17 Qxc3 Qxc3+
18 bxc3 e4 19 g4 Nb6 20 Bg2 Bxd5 21 h4
with an advantage in the ending for White)
14 h4 (14 0-0-0 was discussed in the
theoretical section above) 14 ... Nd5 15 Qd2
c5 (15 ... Bc6 is worse due to 16 a3 Ba5 17
Rh3 and White has the upper hand,
A.Peluso-M.Nizynski, correspondence 1999)
16 dxc5 (but not 16 Be2? cxd4 and White
had to resign in A.Alcaide
Luque-S.Gonzalez de la Torre, Zornotza
2012) 16 ... Qc7 17 Rh3 Rd8 18 0-0-0 Qxc5
results in an unclear position.
13 ... c5?!
An inaccurate move. However, other
options do not yield Black equality either:
a) 13 ... Bd5 (H.Höbel-L.Gongora Reyes,
correspondence 2002) 14 h4 with the better
184
chances for White, as shown by 14 ... Rb6 (or
14 ... Bd6 15 Qe3 c6 16 h5 Nxf6 17 h6) 15
Be2 Nxf6 16 a4.
b) 13 ... Nb6 (T.Nisula-J.Heino,
correspondence 1993) 14 Be2 Bd6 15 f4 b4
16 Nb5 Qd7 17 Nxd6+ Qxd6 18 Qf2 with the
better chances for White.
c) 13 ... a6 14 0-0-0?! (White can fight
for an advantage only after 14 Rd1 or 14 a4)
14 ... Bd6 15 Qe3 Nxf6 16 h4 b4 (the simple
16 ... Be7! would have led to a position with
mutual chances) 17 d5 bxc3 18 Qxc3 e5 19
Re1 Bxd5 20 Rxe5+ Bxe5 21 Qxe5+ Qe7 22
Bxf6 with the better ending for White,
P.Kraft-A.Matarykin, correspondence 2006.
d) 13 ... Bd6 14 Qe3 a6 15 d5 (as in
E.Krause-N.Altenburg, correspondence
2003; perhaps 15 a4!? is even better, and if
15 ... Nxf6 16 axb5 axb5 17 Nxb5 Bb4+ 18
Nc3 Rg8 19 Qe5 Be7 20 h4 with the better
chances for White) 15 ... Nxf6 16 dxe6 fxe6
17 Qxe6+ Qe7 18 Qxe7+ with a better
ending for White after both 18 ... Kxe7 19 h4
Kf7 20 0-0-0 Rbg8 21 Rh3 and 18 ... Bxe7 19
0-0-0 Kf7 20 Bf4 Rbc8 21 a4 Bc6 22 h4.
14 dxc5
14 0-0-0 is an equivalent continuation
giving White the advantage.
14 ... Nxc5 15 Rd1 Bd5 16 Be2?
The simple 16 Bd2 Bxc3 17 Bxc3 would
have guaranteed White an advantage.
However, a series of blunders now leads to a
lost position for him.
16 ... Ne4 17 Qe3?
Correct was 17 Qe5 Nxc3 18 bxc3 Bd6
19 Qe3 Qb6 with unclear play.
17 ... Qb6 18 Rc1??
The third blunder in a row. Now White
must lose. 18 Qxb6 Rxb6 with a large
advantage for Black was necessary.
18 ... Bc5 19 Qf4 Bxf2+ 20 Kd1 Nxg5
21 Qxg5 Qd4+ 22 Qd2 Bxg2 23 Kc2 Be4+
0-1
 Conclusion
In this chapter we have dealt with lines
where Black does not play 6 ... c5. However,
he can sometimes play the move later, which
may transpose to positions discussed in
185
previous chapters. The most original idea
seen was 6 ... b5. Unfortunately, by avoiding
the main lines, Black cannot count on
equality in any of the side variations.
Chapter Eleven
White Avoids 6 e4
In this final chapter we will discuss
those positions arising after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3
Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5 Bg5 Bb4, where
White does not play 6 e4.
6 e3
After 6 a3 Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 Nbd7! Black
equalizes, while after 6 Qa4+ Nc6 the play
transposes to one of the lines of the Ragozin
variation (1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3
Bb4 5 Qa4+ Nc6 6 Bg5 dxc4), and in this
version White cannot count on anything
special.
6 ... b5 7 a4 c6 8 g3
If 8 axb5 cxb5 9 Nd2 White has
compensation for the pawn, but no more than
that.
8 ... Bb7 9 Bg2 Nbd7 10 0-0 a6
Black enjoys good play.
Theory
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4
186
6 e3
Apart from this, the moves 6 a3 and 6
Qa4 deserve more attention. Before we deal
with them in detail, it is worth mentioning
other possibilities:
a) 6 Bxf6?! is premature, as shown by 6 ...
Qxf6 7 Qc2 (Gu.Schmidt-W.Buntrock,
Pinneberg 2000) 7 ... a6 (7 ... c5 is also very
good) 8 a4 (after 8 e3 b5 9 a4 Bb7 10 Be2
Qg6 White does not have compensation for
the pawn) 8 ... Nc6 9 e3 Na5 10 Ne5 c5 11
Be2 cxd4 12 exd4 0-0 with excellent play for
Black.
b) Similarly, after 6 g3?! Nc6!? 7 Bg2
0-0 8 0-0 Rb8 9 e3 (or 9 Rc1 b5,
A.Chernin-P.Lukacs, Austrian League) 9 ...
h6 10 Bxf6 Qxf6 11 Qc2 Bd7 12 a4 Qe7 13
Qe2 Na5 14 Ne5 c5, Black has excellent
play.
c) 6 a4 offers White no chances of
obtaining an advantage: 6 ... h6 (or 6 ... c5 7
e3 cxd4 8 exd4 Qa5 with good play for Black,
P.Velten-V.Inkiov, Mont de Marsan 2006) 7
Bxf6 Qxf6 8 e3 0-0 9 Bxc4 c5 with a level
position, A.Kozakow-T.Rosiak, Lazy 2010.
d) 6 Qc2 reaches a Classical 4 Qc2
Nimzo-Indian position. The usual
continuation is 6 ... b5, as first seen in
J.R.Capablanca-A.Nimzowitsch, Bad
Kissingen 1928, but 6 ... Nbd7!? also
deserves attention; for example, 7 e4 c5 (7 ...
b5 8 e5 h6 9 exf6 hxg5 10 fxg7 Rg8 11 h4
gxh4 is unclear) 8 dxc5 Qa5 9 Bxc4 Bxc3+
10 bxc3 Nxc5 11 Bxf6 gxf6 with mutual
chances.
e) 6 a3 Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 and now:
e1) An attempt to keep the extra pawn
does not solve Black’s problems: 7 ... b5 8 a4
c6 9 g3!? Bb7 10 Bg2 Nbd7 11 Qb1 a6 12
Nd2 Qc8 with compensation for White,
A.Goryachina-B.Bok, World Junior
Championships, Khanty-Mansiysk 2015.
e2) 7 ... c5 looks better: 8 e3 Qa5 (after
8 ... cxd4, as in M.Roiz-B.Macieja, Santa
Clara 2014, the unexpected 9 Bxf6!? is very
interesting; the point is that 9 ... Qxf6
deprives Black of the check on a5 and 10
cxd4 Bd7 11 Ne5 Bc6 12 Nxc6 Nxc6 13
Bxc4 0-0 14 0-0 Rac8 15 Bd3 Rc7 16 Qa4
leaves White with the better chances) 9 Bxf6
gxf6 (9 ... Qxc3+ 10 Nd2 gxf6 11 Rc1!?
seems promising after 11 ... Qa5 12 Bxc4
cxd4 13 exd4 Nc6 14 0-0, I.Lysyj-Lu
Shanglei, Moscow 2012, or 11 ... Qxa3!? 12
Bxc4 f5 13 d5 exd5 14 Bxd5 Qa6 15 Nc4 and
White has a small advantage in both
variations) 10 Nd2 (or 10 Bxc4 cxd4 11
Qxd4 e5 12 Qd2, Fang Yuxiang-Wang Yue,
Chinese League 2017, and then 12 ... Be6
with a level position) 10 ... Qxc3!? (if 10 ...
cxd4 11 cxd4, as in B.Lalith-S.Swapnil,
Hyderabad 2013, and then 11 ... Rg8 12 g3
c3 13 Nc4 Qc7 14 Qd3 with a small
advantage for White) 11 Bxc4 cxd4 12 Rc1
187
Qxa3 13 0-0 Nc6 14 Bb5 Bd7 15 Ne4 Qe7 16
exd4 f5 17 Nc5 with compensation for two
pawns.
e3) 7 ... Nbd7! has been the main move.
After 8 e4 (the other, rather unexplored path
is 8 e3 b5 9 a4 c6 10 Be2 h6 11 Bh4 Bb7 12
Qc2 0-0 13 0-0 with good compensation for
White, H.Quednau-H.Taner, correspondence
2011; in view of the further run of play after
8 e4, White should decide on this very line)
8 ... h6 9 Bh4. Now 9 ... c5!? looks
interesting, but Black can count on at least
equality; for example, 10 e5 g5 11 Bg3 (11
Bxc4 gxh4 12 exf6 Qxf6 13 0-0 h3 14 g3
Nb6 15 Bd3 Bd7 is unclear) 11 ... Nd5 12
Bxc4 Nxc3 13 Qd3 Qa5 14 Nd2 (14 0-0 b5
15 Bxe6 fxe6 16 dxc5 Nxc5 17 Qg6+ Kf8 18
Qf6+ Kg8 leads to perpetual check) 14 ... b5
15 Rc1 Ba6 with mutual chances. In the
positions arising after 9 ... g5 10 Bg3, on the
other hand, White may have problems
proving that his pawn sacrifice was correct.
This will be discussed in Game 67.
f) After 6 Qa4+ Nc6 play transposes to
one of the variations of the Ragozin system;
i.e. 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 Bb4 5
Qa4+ Nc6 6 Bg5 dxc4.
Here White has a wide range of moves:
f1) 7 Ne5?? Qxd4 sees Black winning
already, Chaney-B.Marcoux,
correspondence 1976.
f2) After 7 0-0-0?! Bxc3 8 bxc3 Qd5 9
Bxf6 gxf6 White does not have
compensation for the sacrificed material; for
example, 10 Qc2 (10 e4 Qxe4 11 Nd2 Qf5,
J.Podgorny-K.Junge, Prague 1942) 10 ... f5
11 Nd2 b5 12 e4 Qd6, E.Kohalmi-
A.Mihalecz, Hungarian League 2003.
f3) 7 Rd1 Rb8 (7 ... Bd7 8 Qc2 b5 may be
better still) 8 a3 (after 8 e4 b5 9 Qc2 h6
White hasn’t compensation for the pawn,
E.Lobron-B.Brink, Amsterdam 2017) 8 ... b5
9 Qc2 Ba5 10 e3 h6 11 Bh4 with the better
chances for Black.
f4) The immediate exchange on f6 is
premature as ever: 7 Bxf6 gxf6 (Black is
trying to keep his extra pawn; the alternative
is 7 ... Qxf6 8 a3 Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 0-0 10 e3 e5
with equal chances, V.Golod-M.Richter,
European Championship, Dresden 2007) 8
e4 (or 8 e3 Bd7 9 Qc2 Na5 10 Nd2 b5 11 Be2
f5 and White does not have full
compensation for the pawn) 8 ... Bd7 9 Qc2
b5 (9 ... Rg8!?) 10 Be2 Ne7 11 0-0 0-0 12
Rad1 Ng6 13 Qc1 Qe7 14 Qh6?! (14 h4 Bxc3
15 Qxc3 e5 was more precise) 14 ... Rfd8 15
h4 and now in T.Koch-P.Drenchev, German
League 2011, 15 ... Bxc3 16 bxc3 e5 was
correct with excellent play for Black.
f5) 7 e3 and now:
f51) 7 ... Bd7 8 Qc2 b5 9 a3 (forcing the
exchange on c3; White has also tried 9 Be2,
after which Black can keep his important
dark-squared bishop: 9 ... Rb8 10 0-0 Be7,
J.Piket-D.Bronstein, Rotterdam 1990, when
11 Bxf6 Bxf6 gives White some
compensation for the pawn) 9 ... Bxc3+
(after 9 ... h6?! 10 Bxf6 Bxc3+ 11 Qxc3 gxf6
12 b3 White regains the pawn with a better
position, K.Tarlev-Wang Hao, Romanian
188
League 2016; and with 9 ... Ba5 Black’s
bishop would leave the best diagonal for it,
the a3-f8 one) 10 bxc3 0-0 11 a4 a6 12 Be2
h6 13 Bh4 Qe7 14 0-0 with good
compensation for the pawn for White due to
his bishop pair.
f52) 7 ... Qd5 8 Bxf6 gxf6 9 Nd2 (9 Qc2
was preferred in K.Meszaros-Z.Remete,
Hungarian League 2005, when 9 ... Bd7 10
Be2 e5 11 0-0-0 Bxc3 12 Qxc3 exd4 13
Nxd4 0-0-0 14 Bf3 Qc5 15 Nxc6 Bxc6 16
Qxf6 leads to equality; not 9 Qxb4? Nxb4 10
Nxd5 exd5 and Black is clearly better,
C.Rosenberger-E.Grünfeld, Vienna 1934,
which was Game 4 in the Introduction) 9 ...
Bxc3 10 bxc3 b5 11 Qc2 (White has also
played 11 Qa3, as in T.Koch-D.Miedema,
German League 2011, but after 11 ... e5!? 12
e4 Qd6 13 Qxd6 cxd6 14 dxe5 fxe5 15 a4 b4
16 Nxc4 bxc3 17 Rc1 Ke7 18 Rxc3 Black
could have obtained an excellent ending)
11 ... Bb7 12 Rb1 Rb8 13 e4 Qd7 14 Be2 Ne7
15 0-0 0-0 (I.Rabinovich-V.Ragozin,
Moscow 1935) 16 a4 with full compensation
for the pawn for White.
f6) 7 a3 Bxc3+ 8 bxc3 Qd5 9 Bxf6
(White cannot afford to lose a tempo; after 9
Bf4 Bd7 10 Qc2 Qe4, he had no
compensation for the pawn in L.Ftacnik-
K.Lerner, Stary Smokovec 1977) 9 ... gxf6.
White has sacrificed a pawn and now 10
Nd2 (after other moves White has difficulties
proving that the pawn sacrifice was correct;
for example, 10 Qc2 f5 11 g3 b6 12 Bg2 Bb7
13 0-0 0-0-0 14 Nh4 Qd7 15 e4 fxe4 16 Bxe4
Na5 17 Bxb7+ Kxb7, V.Kramnik-
V.Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zee blitz 1999; 10 e3
b5 11 Qc2 a6 12 e4, P.Schwartzman-
C.Roodzant, Women’s World Championship,
Buenos Aires 1939, and then 12 ... Qd7 13
Be2 Bb7 14 0-0 Na5; or if 10 g3 Black has
10 ... e5! 11 Bg2 Bd7 12 dxe5 fxe5 13 Qc2
0-0-0 14 0-0 f5 or 12 Nh4 Qa5 with
advantage, M.Jurcik-L.Winants, European
Cup, Rogaska Slatina 2001) 10 ... b5 11 Qc2
(in M.Gurevich-Z.Ribli, Reggio Emilia 1991,
White played 11 Qd1, intending e2-e4
followed by Qg4, which Black should meet
with 11 ... f5 12 e3 Rb8 13 Be2 Na5 14 0-0
c5 15 Bf3 Qd6, with an excellent position)
11 ... e5 12 e4 (W.Lombardy-J.Barle,
Maribor 1978) 12 ... Qd8 is a little inaccurate,
as 13 d5 Na5 14 a4 a6 15 Be2 Bd7 16 0-0 0-0
17 Ra3 offers White slightly the better
chances. However, Black has two more
promising ideas: 11 ... a6 12 e4 Qd7
(V.Topalov-L.Aronian, St. Louis 2015) 13
a4 Bb7 14 Rb1 Na5 15 Be2 0-0 16 0-0 with
compensation for the pawn for White, and
11 ... Na5 12 e4 (N.Chadaev-R.Hess,
Moscow 2011) 12 ... Qd7 13 Be2 a6 14 0-0
Bb7 15 a4 0-0 with mutual chances.
f7) 7 e4 Bd7 (7 ... a6 is weaker: 8 Bxc4
h6 9 Bxf6 Qxf6 10 0-0 0-0, Li
Ruofan-I.Krush, Women’s World Cup,
Khanty-Mansiysk 2012, when 11 Rad1 leads
to a small advantage for White), and now the
positions arising after 8 Qc2 will be
discussed in Game 68.
189
Otherwise, White must choose between
long castling and the withdrawal of the queen
to d1. Neither options is too popular though:
f71) 8 0-0-0 Bxc3 9 bxc3
(W.Heys-A.Leoni, correspondence 1999)
and now Black should play 9 ... h6 10 Bxf6
Qxf6 11 Qxc4 Qf4+ 12 Kb2 Qxe4 13 Bd3
Qd5 with the better chances.
f72) After 8 Qd1 Black can continue 8 ...
h6!? 9 Bxf6 Qxf6 10 Bxc4 (A.Bozic-
S.Vukovic, Yugoslav Championship,
Ljubljana 1947) 10 ... g5!?. This unexpected
multipurpose move gives Black the initiative.
He threatens ... g5-g4, winning the d4-pawn,
e4-e5 may be met by ... Qg7, while ... 0-0-0
will increase the pressure on the d4-pawn.
The game might continue 11 a3 Ba5 12 h3
0-0-0 13 Qd2 Be8 14 e5 Qg7 15 0-0-0 Ne7
16 Qe2 Bc6 with excellent play for Black.
Let us return to the position after 6 e3:
The main move is obviously 6 e4.
Although 6 e3 is the second most frequently
chosen move, it occurs in only 4% of games.
If Black decides to defend the c4-pawn by ...
b7-b5, the position can transpose to one of
the sidelines of the Botvinnik variation in the
Semi-Slav Defence; i.e. that arising after 1
d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 c6 5 Bg5 dxc4
6 e3 b5 7 a4 Bb4.
6 ... b5
The most principled move. Black tries to
keep his extra pawn. He has a wide range of
other continuations here:
a) 6 ... Nc6 7 Bxc4 h6 (or 7 ... Bd7 8 0-0
0-0, Joh.Müller-J.Westbrook,
correspondence 2004, and then 9 Ne5) 8 Bh4
0-0 9 0-0 Bxc3 (or 9 ... Bd6 10 Qe2) 10 bxc3
(S.Theis-R.Menne, Brilon 1993) with a clear
advantage for White in each case.
b) 6 ... Nbd7 7 Bxc4 c5 (after 7 ... c6 8
0-0 Qa5 9 Qc2 Black has no counterplay,
B.Skripkiunas-F.Askinazi, Vilnius 2012) 8
0-0 0-0 (J.Atehortua-G.Zuluaga Alzate,
Santa Rosa 2011) 9 Ne4 cxd4 10 Qxd4 Be7
11 Rfd1 and Black remains badly
underdeveloped.
c) 6 ... 0-0 7 Bxc4 a6 (7 ... c6 8 0-0 h6 9
Bh4 Nbd7 10 Qc2 is similar to 7 ... c6 in line
‘b’, since the inserted moves ... h7-h6 and
Bh4 are not very important) 8 0-0 Be7 9 Rc1
and White has the upper hand, E.Enhjargal-
M.Buckley, Calvia Olympiad 2004.
d) 6 ... h6 7 Bxf6 Qxf6 8 Bxc4 Bd7 9 0-0
Bxc3 10 bxc3 with a clear advantage for
White, D.Rous-P.Lasik, Mlada Boleslav
2007.
e) 6 ... Qd5 7 Bxf6 Bxc3+ 8 bxc3 gxf6
(N.Lupinacci-F.Arocha, correspondence
2008) 9 Nd2 and White regains the pawn
with a clear advantage.
f) 6 ... a6 7 Bxc4 b5 8 Bd3 Bb7
(N.Bakuta-Z.Rudakova, Poltava 2011) 9 a4
with a clear advantage for White.
g) After 6 ... c5 positions with an isolani
on d4 arise which are similar (or sometimes
identical) to positions in the Queen’s Gambit,
Caro-Kann and Nimzo-Indian.
After 7 Bxc4 (if 7 Bxf6 Qxf6 8 Bxc4 Nc6
9 0-0 cxd4, Nguyen Ngoc Phuong-Ton Nu
Hong, Vietnamese League 2003, then 10
190
exd4 with mutual chances) 7 ... cxd4 (now
7 ... Qa5, as in J.Förster-G.Sisow, Berlin
1999, cannot be recommended due to 8 Bxf6
and White has a strong initiative; for
example, 8 ... Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 gxf6 10 0-0 Nd7
11 Nd2 0-0 12 Nb3 Qc7 13 Qg4+ Kh8 14
Qh4; likewise, the 7 ... h6 of
A.M.Brown-C.Dorrington, Guernsey 2003,
does not solve Black’s problems, as after 8
Bxf6!? White has an advantage; e.g. 8 ...
Qxf6 9 0-0 cxd4 11 Qxd4 Qxd4 12 Nbxd4
Nc7 13 Rfd1) 8 exd4 (obviously after the
exchange of queens Black should not have
any problems; e.g. 8 Qxd4 Qxd4 9 exd4 Ne4
10 Bd2 Nxd2 11 Nxd2, T.Stremavicius-
A.Donchenko, World Junior Championships,
Porto Carras 2010, and then 11 ... Nc6) 8 ...
Nbd7 (otherwise: 8 ... Nc6 9 0-0 leads to a
typical position for the Nimzo or Panov, but
with an extra tempo for White; 8 ... Qa5 is
not good here due to 9 0-0 Bxc3 10 bxc3
Nbd7, as in N.Shushpanova-I.Ovod, St.
Petersburg 2002, and then 11 Qd3 0-0 12
Rfe1, when White has the upper hand; or 8 ...
Qc7 9 Qb3 Nc6 10 0-0 Bxc3 11 bxc3 0-0 12
Bd3 Nd5 13 Rac1 h6 14 Bh4 with the
advantage for White, M.Luckis-Ed.Lasker,
Mar del Plata 1949) 9 0-0 0-0 10 Qe2 (10
Rc1!? and 10 Qb3!? also deserve attention)
and this position will be discussed further in
Game 69.
Returning to 6 ... b5:
7 a4
 The immediate undermining of Black’s
pawns is the most logical and principled
continuation. Other moves are:
a) 7 Ne5?! Bb7 8 a4 (F.Scafarelli-
M.Oren, Helsinki Olympiad 1952) and
White has problems with obtaining full
compensation for the pawn, as shown by 8 ...
a6!? 9 axb5 (or 9 Be2 Nbd7 10 Nxd7 Qxd7
11 Bxf6 gxf6 with the better chances for
Black) 9 ... axb5 10 Rxa8 Bxa8 11 Bxc4 h6!
12 Bxb5+ c6 13 Bxf6 Bxc3+ 14 bxc3 gxf6
15 Nxf7 Kxf7 16 Bc4 c5 17 0-0 h5 and White
does not have full compensation for the
piece.
b) 7 Nd2 c6 (7 ... Bxc3?! 8 bxc3 Bb7 is a
difficult-to-understand decision, as Black
was not forced to exchange his bishop
immediately, A.Wallart-M.Jeanne, French
League 2007, and then 9 a4 a6 10 Bxf6 gxf6
11 Qb1, when White recaptures the pawn
with the better chances; however, 7 ... a6
gives Black a good game) 8 a3 Be7 (after
other moves White has compensation for the
pawn; for example, 8 ... Ba5 9 Nde4 Nbd7 10
Qf3 0-0 11 a4 a6 12 Be2 or 8 ... Bxc3 9 bxc3
Nbd7 10 a4 0-0 11 Be2 Bb7 12 0-0 a6 13 Bf3)
9 Bxf6 gxf6 10 a4 b4 11 Ne2 c3 12 bxc3 Na6
with an unclear position.
c) 7 Be2 Nbd7 (Black has also played
other moves: 7 ... Bb7 8 0-0 a6 9 Ne5 Bxc3
10 bxc3, as in V.Kemenov-I.Baranov,
Korolev 2000, when 10 ... Nbd7 11 Nxd7
Qxd7 12 Bxf6 gxf6 13 Bf3 c5 14 Bxb7 Qxb7
15 dxc5 results in mutual chances; or 7 ... 0-0
8 0-0, as in J.Kwiek-M.Lachcik, Warsaw
2013, and after 8 ... a6 9 a4 Bb7 10 axb5
Bxc3 11 bxa6 Bxb2 12 Rb1 Bxa6 13 Rxb2 c5
14 Qc1 c3 15 Qxc3 Bxe2 16 Bxf6 cxd4 17
Nxd4 Qxf6 18 Rxe2 e5 Black should
equalize) 8 0-0 c6 (the alternative is 8 ... a6 9
Ne4, when White equalizes after 9 ... Bb7 10
Nxf6+ Nxf6 11 Bxc4 – the point – 11 ... bxc4
12 Qa4+ Qd7 13 Qxb4 Bxf3 14 gxf3 Qb5 15
Qxb5+ axb5 with an equal ending) 9 Qc2 (9
191
Ne4!?) 9 ... Bb7 10 Ne5 (10 Ne4 was
stronger once again, and if 10 ... Qc7 11
Nxf6+ Nxf6 12 Bxf6 gxf6 13 b3 with
compensation for the pawn) 10 ... Qb6 (10 ...
0-0!?) 11 Nxd7 Nxd7. In this position White
has still to prove that the pawn sacrifice was
correct. We will discuss it further in Game
70.
d) 7 a3 Bxc3+ (after 7 ... Ba5, as in
F.Sahin-H.Enzin, Izmir 2003, and then 8 a4
c6 9 Be2 Nbd7 10 0-0 Qb6 11 Bxf6 Nxf6 12
Ne5 White has compensation for the pawn) 8
bxc3 h6 (8 ... a6 is interesting; for example, 9
a4 Bb7 10 Qb1 Nbd7 with a good game for
Black) 9 Bxf6 Qxf6 10 a4 c6 11 Ne5 a6 12
g4 (this move may give White active play on
the kingside, but, on the other hand, it blocks
the d1-h5 diagonal, making impossible the
strong, in some lines, move Qh5; an
alternative is 12 g3, as in N.Olesen-J.Hvid,
Aarhus 1992, and if 12 ... Bb7 then 13 Bg2
Qe7 14 0-0 0-0 15 Qh5 with compensation
for the pawn, as shown by 15 ... Qc7 16 Qf3
Ra7 17 Qh5 Nd7 18 Nxd7 Qxd7 19 Qc5)
12 ... Bb7 (12 ... Nd7 is also a good option;
for example, 13 Bg2 Bb7 14 axb5 axb5 15
Rxa8+ Bxa8 16 Qa1 Qd8 17 Nxc6 Qc8 18
Na7 with an equal position) 13 Bg2 Qe7 14
0-0 0-0 15 f4.
We’ve followed the top-level game
Ma.Carlsen-V.Anand, Moscow 2009. Black
cannot delay the development of his
queenside (after 15 ... Qc7? 16 g5 hxg5 17
fxg5 Nd7 18 Nxd7 Qxd7 19 Qh5 White has a
winning attack, according to Anand), and so
play proceeded 15 ... Nd7! 16 Nxc6 Qd6 17
Ne7+ Qxe7 18 Bxb7 Ra7 19 Bg2 Nb6 (19 ...
b4!? was suggested by Anand) 20 axb5 axb5
21 Rxa7 Qxa7 22 Qa1 Qe7 23 e4 (although
White has an impressive pawn formation on
the fourth rank, he has no real threats) 23 ...
Ra8 (23 ... Rb8!? may be better) 24 Qb2 Ra5
25 e5 and now 25 ... Qa3 (25 ... Na4!?) 26
Qd2 b4 27 cxb4 c3 28 Qd3 Qxb4 would have
led to a level position, according to Anand.
Returning to 7 a4:
7 ... c6
8 g3
White has a wide range of continuations
once again, although none of them give him
any chances of obtaining the advantage; he
can only count on compensation for a pawn:
a) 8 Bxf6 looks premature: 8 ... Qxf6 (8 ...
gxf6?! 9 axb5 cxb5 10 Nd2 Bxc3 11 bxc3
Bb7 transposes to variation ‘e4’, below) 9
Be2 Bb7 10 0-0 a6 11 Ne5 Qe7 12 Qc2 0-0
13 b3 f6 and White does not have full
compensation for the pawn.
b) 8 Ne5 Bb7 (or 8 ... h6 9 Bh4 Bb7 10
Be2 Nbd7 11 Qc2, as in G.Saxton-S.Hogg,
Grangemouth 2006, when after 11 ... Qb6 12
Nxd7 Nxd7 13 0-0 0-0 White has still to
prove that he has full compensation for the
pawn) 9 Be2 Nbd7 10 Qc2 (or 10 f4 Qc7 11
0-0, R.Drozd-Z.Cylwik, Polish
Championship, Poznan 1962, and then 11 ...
a6 12 Bf3 Nd5 with the better chances for
Black) 10 ... 0-0 11 0-0 a6 12 Nxd7 Qxd7 13
Bxf6 gxf6 and White does not have full
compensation for the pawn.
192
c) 8 Be2 Nbd7!? (or 8 ... Bb7 9 0-0 a6, as
in H.Steiner-M.Euwe, New York 1948,
when 10 Ne4 Be7 11 Nxf6+ Bxf6 12 Bxf6
Qxf6 13 b3 cxb3 14 Ne5 b2 15 Ra2 Qe7 16
Rxb2 0-0 17 Qb3 Nd7 18 Nxd7 Qxd7 19 Rc1
gives White full compensation for the pawn)
9 0-0 Qb6!? 10 Qc2 0-0 and White does not
have full compensation for the pawn,
G.A.Thomas-E.Eliskases, Noordwijk 1938.
d) 8 Nd2 Bb7 (8 ... a6!? leads to
complicated positions with mutual chances;
for example, 9 axb5 cxb5 10 Nxb5! axb5 11
Rxa8 Bb7, as in A.Korobov-L.Aronian,
World Blitz Championship, Dubai 2014, and
then 12 Bxf6 gxf6 13 Ra1 e5 14 Qh5 Nc6 15
Be2 Na5 16 Bd1) 9 Be2 (or 9 Qf3 a6 10 Be2
Nbd7 11 Nde4 Be7, B.Salvermoser-J.Blauert,
German League 2003, or 11 Qg3 0-0 12 0-0
Kh8 with slightly the better chances for
Black) 9 ... a6 10 Bf3 (I.Bondarevsky-
G.Miasoedov, Leningrad 1949) 10 ... Nbd7
11 0-0 h6 12 Bf4 (or 12 Bh4 Qb6) 12 ... Nd5
with the better chances for Black.
e) 8 axb5 cxb5 9 Nd2 (after 9 e4 h6 10
Bxf6 Qxf6 11 Be2 Bb7 12 Qc2, 0-0 13 0-0 a6
and White does not have compensation for
the pawn, L.Dutra-T.Medeiros, Sao Paulo
2016; similar is 9 Qc2 Nbd7 10 Be2 Bb7 11
0-0, D.Pokojska-H.Bogenryter, Krakow
1999, 11 ... Qb6; while after 9 Be2 Bb7 10
0-0 a6 11 Ne5, B.Nagy-R.Calvo Minguez,
World Junior Championships, The Hague
1961, and now 11 ... Nbd7 12 Nxd7 Qxd7 13
Bxf6 gxf6 Black again has the better chances)
9 ... Bxc3 10 bxc3 Bb7 11 Qb1 Qb6 (Black
can also play 11 ... Bc6 12 e4 0-0 13 h4 Qc7
with mutual chances; or 11 ... Qd5 12 Bxf6
gxf6 13 e4 Qd7 14 Be2 a6 15 0-0, when
White has compensation for the pawn,
L.Piasetski-B.Nickoloff, Canadian
Championship, Hamilton 1994) 12 Bxf6
gxf6 13 Ra2!? (after 13 f3 Nd7 14 Be2 0-0 15
0-0, as in M.Van der Werf-A.Ushenina, Wijk
aan Zee 2008, and then 15 ... f5 16 Qe1 Qd6
White does not equalize) 13 ... Nd7 (perhaps,
13 ... Bc6 is more accurate; for instance, 14
e4 0-0 15 Be2 Rd8 16 0-0 Nd7 with an
unclear position) 14 Rb2 a6 15 Bxc4 Bxg2
16 Rg1 Bc6 17 Bf1 Qc7 18 c4 bxc4
(V.Dobrov-Y.Yakovich, St. Petersburg 2004)
19 Nxc4 with compensation for the pawn.
8 ... Bb7 9 Bg2 Nbd7 10 0-0 a6
The position that has arisen is typical for
this variation. White is a pawn down, but has
slightly the easier play. The reader can see
how things might pan out in Game 71.
Illustrative Games
Game 67
P.Eljanov-J.Gustafsson
European Team Championship,
Gothenburg 2005
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Bg5 Bb4+ 5
Nc3 dxc4 6 a3 Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 Nbd7 8 e4 h6
9 Bh4 g5 10 Bg3 b5
A good alternative is 10 ... Nxe4 11 Bxc4.
Now Black can play the simple 11 ... b6 12
Qd3 Bb7 (A.Moreno-G.Voveris,
correspondence 2008) 13 0-0 Nd6 14 Bb3
Qe7 and White does not have full
compensation for the pawn. An interesting
option too is 11 ... Nb6 12 Qd3 Nxc4 13
Qxc4 Nd6 14 Qd3 Qe7 15 0-0 b6 and White
still has to prove that his compensation for
the pawn. On the other hand, 11 ... Nxg3 is
slightly inaccurate: 12 fxg3 c5 (12 ... b6!?)
13 0-0 (V.Borovikov-O.Gritsak,
193
Ordzhonikidze 2000) 13 ... 0-0 14 Qd3 Kg7
15 Rae1 and White is the more active.
11 Qb1 a6
11 ... Rb8 looks rather worse as it
makes ... c5 impossible and Ne5 would
create the threat of Nc6.
12 Be2?
Too slow. White should have played
more energetically. Nevertheless, even after
12 a4 Bb7 13 Nd2 c5 Black has counterplay,
as shown by Ribli.
12 ... c5 13 0-0
No better is 13 Ne5 cxd4 14 Nc6 Qb6 15
Nxd4 e5 16 Nf5 Nc5 or 13 Nd2 cxd4 14 cxd4
c3 15 Nb3 Bb7 16 f3 Rc8, with a clear
advantage for Black in both cases.
13 ... cxd4?
This move spoils all of Black’s previous
good work. The best move was the natural
13 ... Bb7; for example, 14 Bxc4 (or 14 d5
exd5 15 exd5 Bxd5 16 Ne5 Qe7) 14 ... Bxe4
15 Bd3 Bxf3 16 gxf3 Nd5 with a clear
advantage for Black.
14 Nxd4 Bb7?!
14 ... Qb6 still guaranteed Black at least
equal play, as shown by 15 a4 Bb7 16 Qb4
(or 16 axb5 Nxe4 17 bxa6 Qxb1 18 Raxb1
Bxa6 19 Bf3 Nxg3 20 fxg3 Rb8) 16 ... Nxe4
17 axb5 a5 18 Qxc4 Nd2 19 Qd3 Nxf1 20
Bxf1 0-0 21 h4 e5.
15 f3
The point: White can defend the e4-pawn.
That’s why Black’s 13th move was wrong.
15 ... Nh5 16 a4
 The alternative was 16 Bf2 Nf4 17 Bxc4
Qc7 18 Bb3 Qxc3 19 a4 with a very strong
initiative for the pawn for White.
16 ... Nxg3 17 hxg3 Qc7
After 17 ... Qb6 18 axb5 axb5 19 Rxa8+
Bxa8 20 Qxb5 Qxb5 21 Nxb5 Ke7 22 Kf2
White has the better ending and 17 ... 0-0 18
axb5 Qc7 19 Rd1 axb5 20 Qxb5 Ne5 21
Rdb1 leads to a small advantage for him.
18 axb5 28 ... Rc6?! 29 Ra7 Rb6?!
29 ... Ra6!? was a better try.
30 Nd4 Kd6 31 Kf2 Bc8 32 Rxb6+
Rxb6 33 Nb5+ Ke7 34 Ke3?!
34 e5 (Ribli) with the deadly threat of 35
Nd6 would have lead to a decisive advantage
for White, as after 34 ... Kd8 35 Ra8 Rc6 36
f4.
34 ... Ra6 35 Rxa6 Bxa6 36 Nc7?!
36 g4!? was one better move.
18 ... a5? 36 ... Bxe2 37 Kxe2 Kd6 38 Na6 f5 39
Transposing to our previous variation exf5 exf5 40 Nb4 Nf6 41 Nc2 Nh5 42 Kf2 f4
with 18 ... 0-0 was better. 43 g4 Nf6 44 Ke2 h5 45 gxh5 Nxh5 46 Kd3
19 b6 Ng3 47 Nd4 Kd5 48 c4+ Kd6 49 Nc2 Kc5
Perhaps not forcing the play with 19 Qa2 50 Nd4 Kd6 51 Kc3 Nf1 52 Nb5+ Ke5
was even stronger; for instance, 19 ... Nb6 20
Qd2 Qc5 21 Qe3 and White has the upper
hand.
19 ... Qc5
Neither 19 ... Qxb6 20 Qxb6 Nxb6 21
Rfb1 Ra6 22 Ra2 e5 23 Nb5 Kd7 24 Rd2+
Kc6 25 Rd6+ Kc5 nor 19 ... Nxb6 20 Qb5+
Nd7 21 Rfb1 Bc8 (if 21 ... Ra7 22 Rd1 g4 23
Ra4) 22 Qxc4 Qxc4 23 Bxc4 give Black
good play. 53 c5?!
20 Qb5 Qxb5 21 Nxb5 Ke7 22 Nc7?! 53 Kd3!? seems more sensible to us.
And here both 22 Na7 and 22 Rfb1 Rhc8 53 ... Kd5 54 Kb4 Ne3 55 Nc7+ Kc6 56
23 Nc7 would have led to an advantage for Ne6 Nxg2 57 Nxg5 Ne3 58 Ne6 Nc2+ 59
White. Kc4 Ne3+ 60 Kd4 Nf5+ 61 Kc4 Ne3+ 62
22 ... Rab8 23 Rxa5 Nxb6?! Kd3 Nf5??
23 ... Bc6 24 Na6 Rxb6 25 Nb4 was more White has played the ending inaccurately
accurate. and now Black could have drawn after 62 ...
24 Rb1 Nd7 25 Rb4 Rhc8 26 Rxc4 Nb6 Nf1! 63 Ke2 (or 63 Nxf4 Nh2) 63 ... Nh2
27 Rb4 Nd7 28 Nb5 (Ribli).

194
 63 Nd4+ 1-0
Game 68
A.Shchekachev-S.Feller
Paris (blitz) 2010
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 d5 4 d4 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 Qa4+ Nc6 7 e4 Bd7 8 Qc2
8 ... h6
When White’s queen is on c2, Black
cannot play 8 ... b5?? 9 e5 h6 10 exf6 hxg5
11 fxg7 Rg8 12 Qh7 Ne7 (or 12 ... Ke7 13
0-0-0) 13 Ne5 c5 14 Be2 with a winning
position for White, V.Akobian-E.Ghaem
Maghami, Beijing (rapid) 2008.
9 Bd2
White can develop his dark-squared
bishop elsewhere, but he cannot then even
count on equality:
a) 9 Bh4? g5 10 Bg3 (10 e5 Nd5 11 Bg3
g4 is even worse, Z.Vospernik-N.Karaklajic,
Yugoslavia 1955) 10 ... g4 and Black wins,
V.Berger-R.Fine, Margate 1937.
b) 9 Bxf6 Qxf6 10 a3 (no better is 10 Rd1
b5 11 Be2 a6 12 0-0, as in R.Grau-A.Da
Silva Rocha, Buenos Aires 1935, and then
12 ... 0-0; or 10 e5 Qf4 11 Rd1 b5,
N.Rashkovsky- A.Machulsky, Alma-Ata
1989) 10 ... Ba5 11 e5 Qf4 12 Rd1
(E.Mollov-N.Sulava, French League 2000)
12 ... b5 13 Be2 Ne7 with a clear advantage
for Black.
c) 9 Bf4 b5 10 Be2 (as in M.Bosboom-
T.Willemze, Haarlem 2012; 10 Rd1 Ba5 is
weaker for White, A.Demuth-V.Inkiov,
195
French League 2008) 10 ... 0-0 11 0-0 a6 12
Rfd1 Be7 13 b3 with some compensation for
the pawn.
d) 9 Be3 b5 10 Be2 (as in F.Enigk-
W.Wernert, German League 1997; or 10 h3
Ne7, P.Romanovsky-A.Sokolsky, Leningrad
1938) 10 ... a6 11 0-0 0-0 12 Ne5 Qe7 13
Rfd1 Ba5 with a small edge for Black.
Returning to 9 Bd2:
9 ... b5
Black has a wide range of continuations.
However, most of them do not enjoy much
popularity; for example, 9 ... a6? 10 Bxc4
Na5 (Jav.Garcia-V.Mejia Rodriguez,
Peruvian Championship, Lima 2000) 11 Be2
with a clear advantage for White; or 9 ... Qe7
10 e5 Nd5 11 Bxc4 Nb6 12 Bd3 0-0-0
(O.Almeida Quintana-M.Gongora Reyes,
Cuab Championship, Holguin 2002) 13 0-0
and White has the better chances. Likewise,
if 9 ... e5 10 dxe5 Ng4 with a small advantage
for White, as after 11 Bxc4 Ngxe5 12 Nxe5
Nxe5 13 Be2, I.Johannsson-F.Van Hoorne,
World Junior Championships, Antwerp 1955;
or 9 ... Bxc3 10 bxc3 b5 11 Be2 0-0
(P.Jaracz-N.Vitiugov, European Rapid
Championship, Wroclaw 2014) 12 0-0 a6 13
Bf4 with compensation for the pawn.
Nevertheless, 9 ... Na5!? deserves a bit
more attention. Now White can choose from:
a) 10 Ne5?! is not a good idea: 10 ... 0-0
(10 ... c5!?) 11 Rd1 (after 11 Nxc4?,
J.Tanti-S.Potemri, correspondence 2011,
11 ... Nxc4 12 Bxc4 Bc6 White loses a pawn)
11 ... Be8 with the better chances for Black.
 b) 10 e5 is interesting, but after 10 ... Ng8
11 d5 Ne7 (or 11 ... exd5 12 Nxd5 Bxd2+ 13
Qxd2 Bc6 14 0-0-0 b6) 12 dxe6 Bxe6 13 Rd1
Qc8 Black has a good position.
c) After 10 0-0-0 Qe7 11 Ne5
(V.Pirc-J.Foltys, Mährisch-Ostrau 1933)
Black should play 11 ... 0-0!? followed by ...
c7-c5; for example, 12 Bxc4 (or 12 Nxc4 c5
13 d5 exd5 14 exd5 Nxc4 15 Bxc4 Qd6) 12 ...
c5 13 d5 exd5 14 Nxd7 Nxc4 15 Nxf6+ Qxf6
16 Nxd5 Bxd2+ with excellent play for
Black.
d) 10 Be2 c5 (after 10 ... Bc6,
R.Szuhanek-A.Axelrod, Jerusalem 2005, 11
0-0 0-0 12 Rac1 Re8 13 Rfd1 White has
compensation for the pawn; or Black can
play 10 ... 0-0 11 0-0 Bc6 12 Rac1 with equal
chances) 11 e5 (11 dxc5 Bc6 12 0-0 was seen
in S.Löffler-H.Hölzl, Austrian League 2001,
when 12 ... 0-0 13 Rad1 Qe7 leads to
excellent play for Black) 11 ... cxd4 12 exf6
dxc3 13 Bxc3 Bxc3+ 14 Qxc3 gxf6 15 0-0
Nc6 (the attempt to keep two extra pawns is
dangerous for Black, as shown by 15 ... b6 16
Rfd1 Qe7 17 Rac1 e5 18 b4 cxb3 19 Bb5 b2
20 Qxb2 Bxb5 21 Qxb5+ Kf8 22 Rd7 with a
strong initiative for White) 16 Bxc4 Qe7 17
Rac1, when White has compensation for the
pawn.
10 Nxb5
The best move. 10 Be2 a6 11 0-0 0-0 12
Rad1 (M.Krasenkow-P.Wells, European
Championship, Ohrid 2001) 12 ... Ba5 is not
convincing for White.
10 ... Bxd2+ 11 Nxd2
White has problems after 11 Qxd2 too:
11 ... Nxe4 12 Qc2 (or 12 Qf4 Nd6 13 Nxd6+
cxd6 with the better game for Black in
M.Vidmar-E.Bogoljubow, Bad Nauheim
1936, and if 14 Bxc4 Qa5+) 12 ... Nd6 13
Na3 (13 Bxc4 does not solve White’s
problems either, in view of 13 ... Rb8 14
Nxd6+ cxd6 15 0-0 0-0 16 b3 Nb4 17 Qd2
Bc6 with an excellent position for Black)
196
13 ... Nb4 (better than 13 ... Qf6?!, when a
draw was agreed in Z.Djukic-K.Osmanovic,
Yugoslav League 1983) 14 Qd2 Rb8 15
Nxc4 Bc6 16 a3 Bxf3 17 axb4 Bd5 with
advantage for Black.
11 ... a6
A complex position has arisen. White
will have to lose the d4-pawn; Black, on the
other hand, will have to weaken his pawn
structure on the queenside. At first sight that
should compensate White for the sacrificed
pawn. However, matters are not so simple ...
12 Nc3
The alternative is 12 Na3 Nxd4 13 Qxc4
Bb5 14 Qc5 (White’s position looks even
worse after other moves, such as 14 Qc3 0-0,
Z.Necesany-J.Simunek, correspondence
2004, 15 Nac4 c5 16 Bd3 Qc7 with a
positional advantage for Black; or if 14 Nxb5
axb5 15 Qc5 Qd6 16 Qxd6 cxd6 17 Bd3, as
in V.Malaniuk-A.Beliavsky, USSR
Championship, Odessa 1989, then 17 ... Ke7
with an obviously better ending for Black)
14 ... Qd6 15 Rc1 (as in M.Ruf-R.Mainka,
West German Championship, Bad Neuenahr
1989; 15 Qxd6 cxd6 16 f3 Ke7 17 Ndc4
Rac8 18 Kf2 Rc5 19 Rd1 e5 gives Black an
excellent position) 15 ... Bxf1 16 Rxf1 0-0 17
Rc4 with a small advantage for Black; for
example, 17 ... e5 18 Nc2 (or 18 Qxd6 cxd6
19 Nc2 d5 20 exd5 Nxc2+ 21 Rxc2 Nxd5)
18 ... Ne6 19 Qxd6 cxd6 20 Nb4 Rfb8 with
some initiative.
12 ... Nxd4 13 Qd1 c5 14 Nxc4
 Also after 14 Bxc4 Bc6 15 0-0 0-0 16 f3
Qb6 Black has a very active position,
J.Iruzubieta Villaluenga-Cs.Horvath, Lisbon
2001.
14 ... 0-0 15 Bd3 Bb5 16 0-0
16 ... Nd7?!
16 ... Qb8 followed by 17 ... Rd8 would
have allowed Black to develop an initiative.
17 Qh5 Rb8 18 b3 Bxc4 19 Bxc4 Qf6?!
19 ... Qa5 was more accurate.
20 f4 a5 21 e5 Qf5?!
After 21 ... Qe7 the position would have
been level.
22 Qxf5 Nxf5
Alternatively, if 22 ... exf5 23 Kf2 Nb6
24 Bd3 with a small advantage for White.
23 Rfe1?!
White could have obtained a small
advantage after 23 Bd3 Nd4 (or 23 ... Rfd8
24 Bxf5 exf5 25 g3) 24 Rad1 Rfd8 25 Na4.
23 ... Nb6 24 Bf1 Rfd8 25 g3 Rd2?
After 25 ... g5 Black could count on some
counterplay.
26 Ne4 Rc2 27 Rec1 Rxc1 28 Rxc1 c4?
Misguided, but even 28 ... a4!? favours
White somewhat.
197
29 bxc4 Nd4 30 c5?
30 Rb1 would have led to an immediate
win.
30 ... Nd5 31 c6?! Rc8 32 Rc4 Nxc6 33
Nd6 Rc7 34 Nb5 Rc8 35 Bg2 Nce7
35 ... Rb8 was a better defence, and if 36
Bxd5 exd5 37 Rc5 with only some advantage
for White.
36 Rxc8+ Nxc8 37 Bxd5 exd5 38 Kf2
Ne7 39 Ke3 Nc6 40 a3 Kf8 41 Nc7 d4+ 42
Ke4 Ke7 43 Nb5 a4 44 Nxd4 Na5 45 Kd3
f6 46 Kc3 Nb7 47 Kb4 Nd8 48 Kxa4 fxe5
49 fxe5 Nf7 50 e6 Ne5 51 Kb5 Kd6 52 a4
Ng4 53 a5 1-0
Game 69
Zhao Jun-Xiu Deshun
Beijing Zonal 2009
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Bg5 Bb4+ 5
Nc3 dxc4 6 e3 c5 7 Bxc4 cxd4 8 exd4 Nbd7
9 0-0 0-0 10 Qe2
10 ... Nb6
The alternative is 10 ... Bxc3 11 bxc3
Qc7 12 Bh4!? (12 Rac1 b6 13 Bd3 Bb7 14
Rfe1 leads to a small edge for White,
T.Hutters-J.Adamski, Tastrup 1990) 12 ... b6
13 Bg3 Qc6 14 Bb5 Qe4 15 Qd2 Bb7 16
Rfe1 Qg4 17 Re3 with slightly the better
chances for White. Note that 14 ... Qxc3 is
worse due to 15 Rfc1 Qa5 16 Bd6, when
Black is forced to give up an exchange with
16 ... Bb7 as otherwise he loses; for example,
16 ... Re8? 17 a4 a6 18 Bc6 Ra7 19 Ne5 Bb7
20 Bxb7 Rxb7 21 Nc6 Qd5 22 Qxa6 or 16 ...
Rd8? 17 Nd2 a6 18 Bc6 Ra7 19 Nc4 Qg5 20
Be7 Re8 21 Bxf6 Qxf6 22 Nd6 Rd8 23 Bf3.
11 Bd3 Be7 12 Rfe1 Nbd5 13 Rad1
White had two other ways to fight for the
initiative: 13 Ne5 Bd7 14 Bxf6 Nxf6 15 d5
Bc8 16 dxe6 Bxe6 17 Rad1 Qb6 18 Bc4 or
13 Nxd5 Qxd5 (if 13 ... Nxd5 14 Bxe7 Nxe7
15 Rac1 Nd5 16 Ne5) 14 Bc4 Qd6 15 Rad1.
13 ... h6 14 Nxd5
14 Bxf6!? deserved serious attention too. 25 ... Ne7??
14 ... Nxd5 15 Bd2 This move loses the game. Once again,
25 ... Qg5 was the best solution: 26 Qxg5
hxg5 27 g4 Nf6 28 gxf5 Bf3 29 Rde1 Rxd4
30 fxe6 Kh6 31 R5e3 Bxh5 32 Rh3 Rxe6 33
Rxe6 Rd1+ 34 Kg2 Rxb1 35 Ne5 Rxb2 and
although White has better chances, Black can
still resist.
26 Nxe7 Rxe7 27 Rde1
The simplest way was 27 Bxf5+ Kg8 28
Qe3 and White is a clear pawn up with the
15 ... Bb4?! better position.
15 ... Qb6 16 b3 Bd7 17 Ne5 with a slight 27 ... Rxd4 28 Bxf5+ Kh8 29 Qg6?!
advantage for White was still a better After 29 Bxe6 Rd6 30 Bb3 Rxe5 31 Rxe5
defence. Bc6 32 Bc2 Rd8 33 Qe3 White has an extra
16 Bxb4 Nxb4 17 Bb1 Nd5 18 Ne5 pawn and dominates the board.
After 18 Qd3!? f5 19 a3 b6 20 Ba2 White 29 ... Qxg6 30 hxg6 Kg8 31 Rxe6 Rxe6
has the better chances. 32 Bxe6+ Kf8 33 Bf7 Re4 34 Rc1 Re7 35 f3
18 ... b6 19 Qd3 f5 20 h4 Rd7 36 Re1 Re7 37 Rc1 Rd7 38 Kf2
20 Qg3 Bb7 21 Bc2 Rc8 22 Bb3 with a An interesting idea was 38 Bb3; for
small advantage for White was simple and example, 38 ... Ba6 (the point is that 38 ...
good. Ke7? meets with 39 Ba4) 39 f4 Ke7 40 f5
20 ... Bb7 with a clear advantage for White.
20 ... Qxh4 was interesting; for example, 38 ... Ke7 39 Re1+ Kf6 40 Re6+ Kg5 41
21 Ng6 Qg4 22 Nxf8 Nf4 23 Qf3 (23 Qg3 Kg3
Qxd1!) 23 ... Qxf3 24 gxf3 Kxf8 with good
chances for Black to equalize.
21 Ng6 Re8 22 Qg3 Qf6
22 ... Rc8 seems to be more natural.
23 a3 Kh7 24 h5 Rad8?!
Both 24 ... Rac8 and 24 ... Qg5 25 Qxg5
hxg5 would have led to a small advantage for
White.
25 Re5
41 ... Rd2?!

198
 Black should have stuck to a passive
defence: 41 ... Kf5 42 Re1 Kf6.
42 Re5+ Kf6 43 Re6+ Kg5 44 Re7 Ba6?
Here the bishop will be in danger after
White takes the a7-pawn. The last chance to
prolong resistance was 44 ... Bc8 45 Be8 h5
46 Rxg7 h4+ 47 Kh2 h3 48 f4+ Kxf4 49 Bc6
Kg5.
45 Be8 h5?
This is a blunder, but White wins also
after 45 ... Re2 46 Rxa7 Bd3 47 f4+ Kh5 48
Rd7 Re3+ 49 Kf2 Rxe8 50 Rxd3.
46 f4+
The simplest was 46 Rxg7! h4+ 47 Kh2
Bf1 48 f4+ Kg4 49 Bd7+ Kxf4 50 Rf7+.
46 ... Kh6 47 Re5?
The position was still won after 47 Rxa7
Bc4 48 Rf7 h4+ 49 Kg4 Be6+ 50 Kf3.
47 ... Be2??
After 47 ... Bc8 White would have had to
start his hard work all over again.
48 Bf7 Bd3 49 Rd5 1-0
Game 70
P.Lasinskas-A.Kolev
La Laguna Open 2009
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Bg5 Bb4+ 5
Nc3 dxc4 6 e3 b5 Nbd7 8 0-0 c6 9 Qc2 Bb7
10 Ne5 Qb6 11 Nxd7 Nxd7
12 Ne4
More chances of obtaining counterplay
are generated by inserting 12 a3, although
after 12 ... Bd6 White still has to prove he has
199
compensation for the pawn, as with 13 a4 (if
13 Ne4 c5) 13 ... h6 14 Bh4.
12 ... f5 13 a3 Be7 14 Bxe7 Kxe7 15 Ng5
c5 16 Rad1 Nf6 17 dxc5 Qxc5 18 b3 a5?
After 18 ... h6 19 Nf3 Qxa3 20 Nd4 Qc5
21 bxc4 b4 Black has a sound extra pawn.
19 bxc4 b4
Now and on the 21st move Black should
have chased away the white knight from its
active position on g5, keeping the better
chances after 19 ... h6 20 Nf3 Bxf3 21 Bxf3
Rab8.
20 axb4 axb4 21 Qb2 Bc6?!
Again, better was 21 ... h6 22 Nf3 Bxf3
23 Bxf3 Ra3.
22 Bf3 Bxf3! 23 gxf3??
A difficult-to-understand and
anti-positional move. Instead, 23 Nxf3 Rhe8
24 h3 Kf8 25 Ne5 Kg8 26 Nd7 Nxd7 27
Rxd7 Re7 28 Rxe7 Qxe7 led to equality.
23 ... h6 24 Nh3 g5 25 Rd7+?
This is a blunder, but 25 Rd4 Kf7 also
leads to a lost position for White.
25 ... Kxd7 26 Qxf6 Qd6 27 c5 Qd5
Black is winning and sure enough
converted:
28 e4 fxe4 29 fxe4 Qxe4 30 Rd1+ Kc6
31 Rd6+ Kb5 32 Rb6+ Kc4 33 Rxe6 Qg4+
34 Kh1 Qd1+ 35 Kg2 Qd5+ 36 f3 Rhe8 37
Rxe8 Rxe8 38 Nf2 h5 39 h3 Kb5 40 Qb2
Re3 41 Ne4 g4 42 hxg4 hxg4 0-1
Game 71
L.M.Christiansen-Z.Ribli
German League 1990
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 dxc4 5
Bg5 Bb4 6 e3 b5 7 a4 c6 8 g3 Bb7 9 Bg2
Nbd7 10 0-0 a6

11 Qc2
After 11 Ne4 (N.Boutsioukis-V.Inkiov,
Thessaloniki 2005) 11 ... h6 12 Nxf6+ Nxf6
13 Bxf6 gxf6, Black’s chances are a little
better.
11 ... 0-0
11 ... h6!? makes sense too.
12 Ne5 Qb6 13 Ne4?!
After 13 Bxf6 Nxf6 14 b3 c5 15 Bxb7
Qxb7 16 axb5 cxd4 17 bxa6 Qc7 18 Na2 Bc5
19 Nxc4 dxe3 20 Nxe3 Qb6 Black has the
better chances.
13 ... Nxe5 14 dxe5
Black has an advantage after 14 Bxf6
Nd7.
14 ... Nd7?!
After 14 ... Nxe4 15 Qxe4 Qc7 16 Bh4 h6
17 f4 Be7 18 Bxe7 Qxe7 Black is a pawn up.
200
15 Bf4 Be7
15 ... Nc5!? might have been a better try.
16 Rfd1 Rfd8 17 Bg5 Bxg5 18 Nxg5
Nf8 19 Be4 g6 20 Bg2 Qc5 21 axb5 axb5 22
Rxa8 Rxa8 23 Ne4 Qxe5 ½-½
Here the opponents agreed to a draw.
However, after 24 Nd6 (or 24 f4 Qg7 25 Nc5
f5) 24 ... Ra7 25 Rd2 Ba8 26 Qc1 Qf6 27 h4
e5 White would have had to prove that his
pressure was worth two pawns.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have discussed variations
where White refrains from playing e2-e4. Of
these side variations even the most popular 6
e3 does not cause Black any problems. 6
Qa4+, leading to a line of the Ragozin
Defence, deserves slightly more attention,
although here too Black does not have
difficulties. The most principled move is
undoubtedly the gambit 6 e3, transposing to
the Botvinnik variation. Although Black has
to display theoretical knowledge, it is White
who must prove that his pawn sacrifice is
fully justified.
Index of Complete Games
Adelseck.H-Calhau.E, Correspondence 2008
Akesson.R-Landa.K, Bad Wiessee 2005
Alekhine.A & Frank.H-Bogoljubow.E & Pfaffenroth, Exhibition game, Warsaw 1941
Alekhine.A-Woher.H, Amsterdam (simul) 1925
Apsenieks.F-Grünfeld.E, Folkestone Olympiad 1933
Babula.V-Thesing.M, German League 2012
Bachmann.B-Sharf, Correspondence 2010
Bartosek.M-Pachman.L, Prague 1943
Behrhorst.F-Bulthaupt.F, German League 1988
Bogoljubow.E-Wolf.H, Karlsbad 1923
Chekhover.V-Lasker.Em, Moscow 1935
Christiansen.L-Ribli.Z, German League 1990
Dias.P-Sulskis.S, Dresden Olympiad 2008
Ding Liren-So.W, FIDE World Cup, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011
Dreev.A-Kharlov.I, Internet (blitz) 2004
Dreev.A-Kishnev.S, European Cup, Kallithea 2002
Dutra Neto.A-Hoffmann.F, Correspondence 2011
Eljanov.P-Gustafsson.J, European Team Championship, Gothenburg 2005
Flyckt Olsen.J-Kalinichenko.N, Correspondence 1999
Fressinet.L-Movsesian.S, German League 2010
Gajewski.G-Wojtaszek.R, Polish Championship, Warsaw 2012
Giulian.P-Gyimesi.Z, Correspondence 1997
Greenfeld.A-Piket.J, European Cup, Bugojno 1999
Grischuk.A-Kramnik.V, Russian Championship, Moscow 2011
Grünberg.H-Horvath.Cs, Budapest 1991
Horvath.C-Ekström.R, Montecatini Terme 1997
Jankowicz.R-Trusewicz.J, Correspondence 2006
Kamsky.G-Van Wely.L, European Cup, Kemer 2007
Karpov.A-Aronian.L, Hoogeveen 2003
Kempinski.R-Cornette.M, European Championship, Dresden 2007
Kempinski.R-Markowski.T, Polish Championship, Warsaw 2012
Khenkin.I-Khairullin.I, Belgian League 2013
Khmelniker.I-Khenkin.I, European Cup, Fügen 2006
Kloster.S-Vecek.M, Correspondence 2010
Kozul.Z-Georgiev.Ki, Skopje 2013
Kramnik.V-Anand.V, Dos Hermanas 1997
Kramnik.V-Anand.V, World Championship (8th matchgame), Bonn 2008
Kramnik.V-Van Wely.L, Monte Carlo (rapid) 2000
Kunin.V-Arustamian.A, Moscow 2011
Kupsys.A-Lanc.A, Correspondence 2009
Lahno.K-Kosteniuk.A, Women's World Blitz Ch., Moscow 2010

201
Lasinskas.P-Kolev.A, La Laguna Open 2009
Le Quang Liem-Shulman.Y, Lubbock 2011
Li Wenliang-Richter.M, Budapest 1999
Machul.B-Walczak.P, Correspondence 2006
Malakhatko.V-Bauer.C, Calvi 2011
Malakhatko.V-Khenkin.I, Lublin 2009
Navara.D-Lahno.K, Wijk aan Zee 2006
Nisipeanu.L-Gyimesi.Z, Hungarian League 2011
Notkin.M-Yakovich.Y, Russian Championship, Elista 1997
Palliser.R-Wells.P, British Championship, Torquay 2009
Patocka.F-Flitsch.G, Correspondence 2005
Piket.J-Topalov.V, FIDE World Championship, Groningen 1997
Pogorelov.R-Kolev.A, Villarrobledo (rapid) 2000
Polak.T-Movsesian.S, Hustopece (rapid) 2011
Ponomariov.R-Ivanchuk.V, FIDE World Cup, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011
Pranitchi.T-Solar.J, Correspondence 2011
Prayitno.S-Paragua.M, Tarakan 2008
Radjabov.T-Aronian.L, Mainz (rapid) 2005
Ribli.Z-Acs.P, Hungarian League 2002
Rosenberger.C-Grünfeld.E, Vienna 1934
Rustemov.A-Neubauer.M, German League 2012
Sakaev.K-Ivanov.Se, Moscow 2003
Shchekachev.A-Feller.S, Paris (blitz) 2010
Stefansson.H-Petursson.M, Reykjavik Open 1996
Svetushkin.D-Marjanovic.S, Greek League 2004
Vachier-Lagrave.M-Aronian.L, Wijk aan Zee 2011
Wang Yue-Gelfand.B, Medias 2010
Zhao Jun-Xiu Deshun, Beijing Zonal 2009
Zhukova.N-Stefanova.A, Calvia Olympiad 2004
Zidu.J-Cortes Olivares.R, Correspondence 2005

202