EN NEW

LA E
RG DI
ED TIO
CI N
-1
20
 GRUENFELD DEFENSE

By

Latest open1ng trends from grandmasters po1nt of v1ew

his article deals with the currently very Viktor Erdos

popular Anti-Gruenfeld system starting with
3. f3. In the last few years, this system has
• Country: Hungary
undergone extensive analysis and practical
testing, as evidenced by its appearance in the • Born: 1 987
20 1 2 World Championship match between
Anand and Gelfand. • Rating: 2661

Research and practice have served to re-evaluate • Peak rating: 2661

the known possibilities, as well as unearth
Title: Grandmaster since 2007
several new ideas. Some of the older options,
•

like 9... e5, have now been discarded; this has

forced Black players to seek viable alterna­
tives.
The weird-looking move 9... �d6!? is very
much in vogue nowadays. This move has the
very clear idea of attacking the d4-pawn with
...!!d8, forcing it to advance (opening the
long diagonal a l -h8), then the c6-knight will
move to either aS or e5, threatening to invade
the c4-square. After inviting d4-d5, Black can
even seek to undermine White's center with
...c6 and/or ... c6 in the future.
In return White players have focused their at­
tention on foiling Black's plan with the help
of a forcing approach, involving the sacrifice 9.. '&d6!?
.

ofthe d4-pawn, securing a dangerous kingside
initiative in return. It is on this path that cur­
rent theory is advancing, and it is this particu­
lar line that I wish to examine here.
I. d4 lbf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 dS
The main choice of Gruenfeld players. 3 ...
i.g7 4. e4 0-0 leads to the Saemisch King's
Indian; 3 ... e6 is a very interesting recent try.
4. cdS lbdS 5. e4 lbb6 6. lbc3 Ag7 7. Ae3
0-0 8. '&d2 lbc6 9. 0-0-0
The most dynamic and aggressive option; this
is the modem way to treat the position. 9... e5
has seen a lot of suffering in recent games,
though it cannot be considered as conclu­
sively refuted; 9 ... f5 is Avrukh 's recommen­
dation, but after 10. e5! White's position is
more comfortable, as has been proven in sev­
eral games.
IO. lbbS!?
I 0. Wb I is the main alternative - 1 1 5/ 1 5 1 .

137
 Cl LABS D 70
10 ... �d7
A weird square for the queen, but the knight
is also misplaced on b5. B lack can sti l l play
. . . �d8 and . . . a6 next, which means that White
has no time to waste.
1 1 . ii,h6
This is a pawn sac rifice, but a sound one,
s i nc e B l ac k i s a bit underdeveloped. A fter
exchanging B l a c k ' s strongest p i e c e , the
g7-bi shop, Whit e ' s attack with h4-h5 w i l l be a2 1) 1 7 . . . �g7 1 8 . �g7 [ 1 8 . �g5 ] ct/g7 1 9.
very dangerous. h6 ct/g8 20. tt:Jd4 cd4 2 I . �d4;!;; ;
1 1 ... iLh6 a22) 1 7 . . . ii,g4? 1 8 . tt:Je5 ! ii,d l 1 9. hg6 �g7
B lack has to accept the challenge. 1 1 . . . a6? ! 20. gf7 �f7 2 1 . tt:Jf7 �f7 22. �b6 iLg4 23.
I 2 . ii,g7 ct/g7 1 3 . ct:Jc3 e 5 1 4 . d5 ct:Je7 [ 1 4 . . . ct/b l +-;
tt:Jd4 1 5 . f4 f6 1 6 . ct:J f3 ct:J f3 1 7 . gf3 ;!;; ] 1 5 . a23) I 7 ... tt:Je6 ! ?
h4i .
a23 1) 1 8 . f5 ! ? gf5 I 9 . l@f6 ef6 20. ef5 tt:Jc7
1 2. �h6 a 6 1 3 . Qlc3 ct:Jd4 1 4. f4 [20 . . . tt:Jd4 2 1 . tt:Jd4 cd4 22 . .§d4 ii,f5 23.
1 4. h4 f6 [ 1 4 . . . e 5 ! ? 1 5 . h 5 �e7] 1 5 . f4 e5 - l"l:b4 tt:Jd7 24. l"l:b7] 2 1 . l"l:d6 tt:Jd7 22. g4so;
1 4. f4 22. tt:Je4x;
a232) 1 8 . g3 �g7 1 9 . hg6 �h6 20. �h6 hg6
2 1 . �d2 ! .§d8 22. �dh2 tt:Jf8so;
a233) 1 8 . hg6 �f4 1 9. �f4 tL:lf4 20. gt7 [20.
gh7 ct/g7] ct/g7so;
b) 1 5 . ct:Jf3 This is an important nuance. Now
1 5 . . . f6 is a must 1 6. h4

1 4 ... f6 !
A fter a relevant game of mine against Ham­
mer, I spent a lot of time at home looking for

b l) 1 6 . . . �g4? is an ambitious move, but it

the best defense. This one seems to be the so­
lution! 1 4 . . . c5
a) A fter I 5 . h4 B lack has an additional option
in 1 5 . . . �c6 ! ? [ 1 5 . . . f6] 1 6. tt:Jf3 �f6
al) 1 7 . e5 �g7 1 8 . �g7 ct/g7 1 9. tt:Jd4 cd4 20.
�d4 iLe6 2 1 . iLe2 �ac8 22. ct/b l tt:Jc4 23.
ct:Jd5 iLd5 24. �d5 ct:Je3 25 . .§d7x Mame­
dyarov 2657 - T. L. Petrosian 2539, Antalya
2004;
a2) I 7. h 5 ! ? deserves attention:
fai l s to a fantasti c blow: I 7 . h5 [ 1 7. ct:Jd4 cd4
I 8 . .§d4 iLe6 is not that dangerous, as I 9.
.§b4?? �ac 8 ! 20. �b6 �fd8-+ puts an end
to White ' s aspirations. Instead, White could
think about I 9. iLe2 or I 9. f5 ] g5 1 8 . fg5 ct:Jf3
This was the idea behind my play, and the
concl uding point of my preparation, during
which I had fai led to spot the fol lowing se­
quence.

1 38

b ! I) During the game I thought that White
had to go for 1 9 . gf3 W'g5 20. W'g5 fg5 2 1 .
h6oc with good play for the pawn .
b / 2) 1 9 . gf6 ! This was played immediately
and came as a huge surprise. My initial reac­
tion was that I have missed something; after
calming down from the shock, I realized that
my position is h ighly dangerous, but I as­
sumed I would manage to hold somehow. In
fact, Black is j ust lost. 1 9 . . . W'g5 [ 1 9 . . . .§.f6?
20 . .§.d8 �f7 2 I . .§.f8 �e6 22. gf3 .§.h6 23 .
fg4; I 9 . . . ct:Jd4? 20. fe7 An unpleasant and
shocking double attack ! 20 . . . .§.e8 2 1 . W'b6
Wg5 22. �b l itg4 23 . itc4 �h8 24 . .§.d4 ! ?
cd4 25. ct:Jd5+-] 2 0 . W'g5 ct:Jg5 2 1 . fe7 .§.e8
22 . .§.d6 ! The point of the sacrifice ! [22 . .§.d8
.!e6] ct:Jd7 [22 . . . ite6 23 . .§.b6±; 22 . . . .§.e7
23 . .§.b6 ct:Je4 24. itc4 �h8 25 . .§.e I +-] 2 3 .
ct.Jd5
b/21) 23 . . . b5 is interesting but Black is still
unable to survive : 24. Ci'Jc7 .§.e7 25. ct:Ja8 ct:Je4
26 . .§.c6 itb7 27 . .§.c7 ita8 28 . .§.c8 6 28 . . .
�g7 2 9 . .§.aS Ci'Jg3 30 . .§.h3 ! ct:Jfl 3 I . h6 ! +­
and Black loses a piece;
b /22) 23 . . . ct:Je4 24 . .§.e6 ct:Jg5 25 . .§.e3 My
opponent admitted after the game that this
stage was the end o f his p reparation, with
D 70 Cl LABS
Wh ite e njoying a big advantage. 25 . . . b5
26. h 6 ! This acc urate move squashe s the
defender's last hopes. [26. ct:Jc7 itb7; 26 .
.§.g3 h6] itb7 27 . .§.h5 ! Ci'Jf7 [27 . . . itd5? 28 .
.§.g5 �f7 29. g4 ! ! C 6 30 . .§.g7 �f6 3 1.
ith3 ! ] 28. Ci'Jc7
bl 221) 28 ... c4 29. ite2 [29. a4 ! ?] .§.ac8 3 0 .
Ci'J e 8 .§. e 8 3 1 . .§.f5+- J . Hammer 2 6 3 0 - V.
Erdos 2624, Patras 20 I 2 ;
b l 222) 28 . . . Ci'Jde5 2 9 . .§.ee5 Ci'Jc5 30 . .§.e5
�f7 3 I . ct:Ja8 ita8 32. itd3 .§.e7 33 . .§.e7
�e7 34. ith7 itg2; 33 . .§.c5±;
b I 2 3) 23 ... ct:Jf7 is the most stubborn, but af­
ter the fantastic:
24 . .§.f6 ! ! there i s no real de fen se: 24 ... b5
[24 . . . Ci'Jfe5 25 . .§.e6] 2 5 . .§.h3 ct:Jfe5 26 . .§.g3
�h8 27 . .§.e6 .§.a7 2 8 . ite2 ! Ci'J f7 29. h6
ct:Jde5 30 . .§.g7 ! ite6 [30 . . . ct:Jh6 3 1 . ct:Jf6 �g7
3 2 . ct:Je8 �f7 33 . .§.e5 .§.e7 34. ct:Jd6+-] 3 I .
ct:Jf6 ct:Jg5 32. ct:Je8 ct:Je4 3 3 . Ci'Jc7 itd7 34.
Ci'Jb5 ; 24. e 5 ! ? ;
3 3 . itf3 ! +- This insane li ne destroys a l l il­
lusions of savi ng the position;
b2) I 6 . . . e5 i s now far from optimal; in
comparison with the main line, the inclu­
sion of the moves h2-h4 and . . . c5 cl early fa-
1 39
 Cl lABS 0 70

Jliktor £nM�. D�i:nau 100

vors White. 1 7. fe5 fc5 [ 1 7 ... W/g7 1 8 . W/g7

�g7 I 9. cf6 1H6 20. tLid4 cd4 2 1 . !!d4;;!;]
I 8. h5 W/g7 I 9. hg6! (I 9. W/g7 �g7 20.
CL\e5 Ae6] hg6 [ 1 9 ... �h6 20. !!h6 �g7 2 1 .
!!h7 Wg6 22. !!c7!; 1 9 . . . �g6 20. Wh2] 20.
CL\e5 ! 1 ;
h3) 1 6... W/e8 This move, chosen by Aronian,
is probably the best;
h31) 1 7. h5 Ag4 18. CL\d4 cd4 19. hg6 [ 1 9.
!!d4 - 17. CL\d4] Wg6 20. !!d4 !!ac8 2 I . f5
Wh6 22. !!h6 !!fd8 23. !!d8 !!d8 24. !!h4 h5
25. Ae2 Ae2 26. CL\e2 !!c8 27. Wbl Q)c4=
G. Jones - Aronian, London 2012; 1 5 ... e5!
This move was the fruit of my post-game re·
h32) 17. CL\d4 cd4 1 8. !!d4 Ag4 search. By the time I actually got to try it in a
h32 I) 19. h5 gh5 20. Ae2 Ae2 2 1 . CL\e2 §c8 game, it had already been discovered and
tested by others.
22. �b I �g6 23. W/h5 W/h5 24. !!h5 QJc4
[24... §c4 25. §h3] 25. b3 CL\a3 26. �b2 §c2 16. fe5
27. �a3 §e2-x:; Jones was somewhat surprised by my move
h322) 19. f5 !!c8 [ 1 9... gf5 20. ef5 .tr5 2 1 . and decided to opt for simplification, hop­
g400] 20. Ad3l. ing to outplay me i n the ensuing queenless
middlegame: 16. h4 �g7 1 7. '&/g7 �g7 18.
15. CL\f3 CL\d4 ed4 19. §d4

140
 D 70 Cl LABS
20. Wb I [20. W'd2 .§dS] .il,e6 and Black is at
least OK.
1 8 . .. c5 1 9. ct:Jg5
1 9 . ct:Jd5 t;J d 5 D. 20 . .il,c4 .§f3 ! 2 1 . gf3 [2 1 .
.il,d5? .il,c6] .il,e6 22. ed5 .il,d5 i ; 20. ct:Jg5
W'e7 leads to the main line; 1 9. e5 W'e7 20.
ct:Jd4 cd4 2 I . .§d4 W'e5 22. §e4 W'c5 sc .
1 9 . . . W'e 7

Here I sank into thought, as the planned

a) I 9 . . . .il,g4 sudden ly appears somewhat
unconvincing: 20 . .il,e2 .il,e2 2 1 . ct:Je2 .§adS
[2 1 . . . §aeS 22. ct:Jc3 ct:JcS ! ? i s interesting] 22.
�hd l §d4 23. §d4 Wf7 can be held, but I
prefer White;
b) after the natural I 9 ... .il,e6 20 . .il,e2 the po­
sition is eas ier for White to play;
c) I 9 . . . .il,d7 ! ? This move may seem strange,
but I liked the idea of putting the bishop on c6,
from where it plays a major part in Black's
counterplay.
cl) 20. a4 .§adS 2 1 . a5 ct:JcS gives nothing;
c2) 20 . .il,d3 .§adS [20 . . . c5 ! ?] 2 I . .il,c2 c5 22.
�d6 .il,c6 23 . .§hdl §d6 24 . .§d6 ct:Jc4 25.
�d3 .§eS=; 20 .. ct:Jd5 2 1 .il,c4
. .

c3) 20 . .il,e2 This position now requ ires a certai n accuracy

c3 !) 20 . . . c 5 ? ! 2 1 . .§d6 .il,c6 looks n i c e but is by Black.
strongly met by 22. ct:Jd5 ! ct:JcS [22 ... .il,d5 23 . 21 ... Wh8!
ed5±] 23. §c6 ! bc6 24. C!Jc7 ct:Jd6 25 . ct:JaS
�aS 26 . .tf3±;
The simpl est. I was quite proud of di scover­
ing the idea introduced by this little move,
c32) 20 . . . .il,c6 White can try: and was quite eager to try it out; this explains
c32 !) 2 1 . .tf3 f5 22. e5 .il,f3 23. gf3sc; why I repeated the entire line against a strong
G M like J ones. 2 I . . . W'g7
c322) 2 1 . g4 §adS [2 1 . . . h6] 22. §hd l .§d4
23 . .§d4 g5 [23 . . . h6] 24. hg5 fg5 2 5 . f5
�f6=;
c323) 2 1 . .§hd I f5 22. g3 [22. e f5 §f5=] fe4 .
By this stage I h a d managed to equalize, s o
m y draw offer w a s accepted in G . Jones
2644 - V. Erdos 2 S I 5, ltal ia (tch) 20 I 3. 2 3 .
tZ'le4 .§aeS 24. ct:Jc3 [24 . .tf3 .§e7= ] .§e3 2 5 .
� I d3 .§feS=.
1 6.. . fe5 1 7. t;Je5 W'd6 1 8. t;Jf3
Here White can force a draw if he wants to: 22. W'h4! This move keeps some chances for
1 8 . ct:Jg6 ! ? hg6 1 9. e5 W'e5 20. W'g6 WhS 2 1 . advantage. [22 . .il,d5 WhS - 2 I . . . WhS] WhS
'@h6 <;t>gS=; I S . t;Jc4 W'c5 1 9. ct:Jb6 cb6D 23 . .§hfl !

I41
 Cl LABS D 70
a) 23 . . . .\ig4? i s a mistake that gets i mmedi­
ately punished: 24 . .\id5 .\id ! 2 5 . ct:Jf7 �gS
26. �d 1 .§.ae S [26 . . . h5 27 . .§.f6+-] 27. ct:Jg5
�hS 2S . .§.f7 ! .§.f7 29. ct:Jf7 �gS 3 0 . ct:Jd6+-;
b) 23 . . . .\ie6!
b l) 24. ed5 JigS ;
b2) 24. .\id5 JigS ! The only move [24 . . . .\id5
25. ed5 .§.fl 26 . .§.fl ct:Jf5 27. 'itllf4 'itlld4 2S. g4
'itllf4 29 . .§.f4 h6 30. ct:Je4 ct:Je3 3 1 . d6 .§.dS 32 .
.§.f7+- saw some convincing play by White in
Sanikidze 2553 - P. Negi 263S, Baden-Baden
(open) 20 1 3 ] 25. JigS [25 . �b l .§.aeS�] �g8
26. e5 h6 2S ... JibS!
b2 1) 27. ct:Je4 'it!le5 2S. ct:Jf6 �g7 29. 'itll h 6 This idea is really entertaining and strong at
[29 . .§de I ? ct:Je2 3 0 . �b 1 .§.f6] �h6 3 0 . ct:Jg4 the same time.
�g7 3 1 . ct:Je5=;
26 .§.dl
.

b22) 27 . .§.f8 .§.f8 2S. ct:Jf3 ct:Jf3 29. gf3 'itll e 5

3 0 . 'itll h 6 'it!lf4=; 26 . .§.f8 .§.f8 27. e5 .§.f2'Xl; 26 . .\iaS ? ! .\if!
b3) 24. ct:Je6 is a l ittle better for White, for ex­ 27. e5 h6.
ample ct:Je6 25 . .\id5 [25. ed5 ct:Jd4 26. d6] 26 ... .§.ae8'X.l
ct:Jd4 26. �b I .
B lack has nice play for the sacrificed pawn.
22 . .lidS
No serious problems are posed by the alterna­
tive recapture, as was proven in practice: 22.
ed5 'itll g 7 23. 'itll g 7 �g7 24. d6 .\if5 25. b4
b6 26 . .§he ! .§. fe S 2 7 . .§.e7 .§.e7 2S. de7 .§.eS
2 9 . b c 5 bc5 30 . .§.e l ct:Jc2 3 1 . .§.e2 ct:J d4 3 2 .
.§.e3 ct:Jc2= Svidler 2769 - F. Caruana 2774,
Thessaloniki 20 1 3 .
22 ... 'itll g7 23. 'itll g7
23 . 'itll h 4 .§.f4 ! is a nice resource.
23 ... �g7 24 .§.dfl
.

Now B lack has more than one good option.

24 . .§.hfl .\ig4 In conc lusion, the forcing line employed by
24 ... .\id7 White is a decent try for the advantage, but
against precise play by Black it should not
24 . . . ct:Je2 ! ? 2 5 . �d2 ct:Jf4 26 . .\ib7 .\ib7 27.
succeed in achieving its goal . Thus, the move
.§.f4 .§.f4 2 S . ct:Je6 �f6 29. ct:Jf4 .\i e4= is an
9 . . . 'itlld6 ! ? remains Blac k ' s most interesting
approximately equal endgame.
response to White's 3. f3 Anti-Gruenfeld sys­
2 S .\ib7
. tem. V. Erdos

1 42
 GRUENFELD DEFENSE

By
Latest opening trends from grandmasters' point of view

he Gruenfeld Defense is one of the most Danilo Milanovic

popular and powerful weapons for Black in
response to the move I. d4 in contemporary
practice. Its immense popularity has logically • Country: Serbia
led to a rigorous examination of the main
branches of this opening, especially by its • Born: 1974
supporters, enabling Black players to elimi­
• Rating: 2502
nate the theoretical dangers in all of the sys­
tems usually chosen by White. • Peak rating: 2564
This is the reason why several White players
• Title: Grandmaster since 2008
have followed a more practical approach and
directed their efforts to rare, unusual lines,
that have yet to be analyzed exhaustively. short, this line directly challenges Black's
One such line is the topic of this article, the main strategic concept in the Gruenfeld De­
rare but by no means harmless move 5. h4!? fense. In reply, Black has two options, either
to maintain a stable but static center, with the
help of the move ... c6 (this is the safer op­
tion), or to react dynamically in the center
with moves like ...dc4 and/or ... c5; this latter
approach is much more ambitious, but also
more risky. Apart from its appeal as a rich
and unexplored field for investigation, this
variation is interesting also because in sev­
eral of its branches one can make use of ideas
from other openings.
I . d4 ltJf6 2. c4 g6 3. fL)c3 dS 4. lL\f3 Ag7 5.
h4!? c6
L..Q 6. dc5
The creative Russian grandmaster Alexander
Morozevich can be credited with introducing
this line into top-level chess, with the inaugu­
ral game being a blitz encounter between him
and Anish Giri in 2012.
The main idea of the move 5. h4 is less tac­
tical than positional. White tries, with the
threat of an attack by opening the h-file, or
the advance of the h-pawn as far as h6, to
reduce Black's pressure on his center; i n

143
 Cl lABS D 90
a) 6 . . . \@la5 ? ! 7. cd5 c{Je4 [7 . . . c{Jd5 8 . 1@1d5 8 . h 5 ! N [8. e5 is an untested alternative.]
a J) 8 ... b4?! 9. h6 �f8 I 0. ciJa4 ciJe4 1 1 . �c4
�c3 9. �d2 �d2 I 0. 1@1d2 1@1d2 1 1 . <;!?d2±]
8. �d2 c{Jd2 [8 . . . c{Jc3±] 9. 1@1d2 1@1c5 1 0.
h5±; c{Jd6

b) 6 ... c{Ja6 N 7 . cd5 [7. h5 0-0 8 . hg6 fg6 9.

�h6 �h6 I 0. �h6 dc4 1 1 . B.h4 c{Jc5 1 2 .
�c4;:!; Morozevich 2758 - Mamedyarov 2766,
Zug 20 1 3 ] 0-0 8. e4 [8. �e3 \@la5 9. 1@1d2
ciJc5 I 0. b4 1@1b4 1 1 . �b I 1@1c4 1 2 . c{Jc5 c{Jfc4
1 3 . c{Jc4 �c3 1 4. �c l �d2 1 5 . c{Jd2 b6 1 6.
c{Je4 c{Je4 1 7 . �f4 c{Jf6 1 8 . �g5 c{Jd5 1 9 . e4
c{Jf6 20. �c7sc] ciJc5
b l) 9. e5 c{Jg4 1 0. � f4 1@1b6 1 1 . 1@1d2 �f5 1 2 .
c{Jd4 �d7 1 3 . c{Jf3 �f5=;
1 2 . c{Jc5 ! [ 1 2 . b3 c{Jc4 1 3 . bc4 e5 1 4 . c{Jc5
b2) 9. �d3 �g4 I 0 . 0-0 e6 1 1 . �c4 ed5 1 2 .
ed5 a6 1 3 . a3 c{J fe4 1 4. ciJe4 c{Je4 1 5 . �b l � d6 1 5 . �b2 0-0 1 6 . 0-0 \@lg5 1 7 . f4
�c8 1 6 . �a2 �eSse; 1@1h6x M . Al-Sayed 2498 - Le Quang Liem
27 1 2, Khanty-Mansiysk ( rapid) 20 1 3 ] c{Jc4
b3) 9. \@lc2 �d7 1 0. �d3 b5 1 1 . a3 �c8 1 2 . 1 3 . 1@1d4

�e5 1 6. �fe I c{Jd3 1 7 . 1@1d3 � f5 1 8 . 1@1b 5;:!;

0-0 a5 1 3 . e5 ciJg4 1 4. �g5 c{Je5 1 5 . c{Je5

Black should look for opportunities to c reate

counterplay down the b- and c-files, while
White ' s extra pawn becomes more impor­
tant w ith each ex change. Overal l, White is
b etter;
5 . . . dc4 6. e4

a / /) 1 3 . . . c{Ja6 1 4 . ciJe4 �b7 1 5 . 1@1h8 1@1d5

1 6 . ciJeg5 +-;

a / 2) 1 3 . . . c5 1 4. \@lc4 �c5 1 5 . \@lc5 f6 1 6. d6

c{Jd7 [ 1 6 ... 1@1d7 1 7 . �g5 ! c{Ja6 1 8 . \@lc4 l@d6
1 9 . :§.d I \@le6 20. \@le6 �e6 2 1 . �f6 0-0 22.
�g7 B.fc8 23. ciJe5+-; 1 6 . . . �e6 1 7. c{Jc5 !
1@1b6 1 8 . ciJd3 ciJa6 1 9 . 1@1b6 ab6 20. �d2±]
a) 6 . . . c5 This move leads to very compli­ 1 7 . \@lc6 B.b 8 1 8 . �e3 �b7 1 9 . \@lc4±;
cated and dynamic play. 7 . d5 b5
a / 3) 1 3 . . . 1@1b6 1 4 . 1@1h8 1@1c5 1 5 . \@lh7 1@1d5
1 6. 1@1g8 c{Jd7 1 7. h7 1@1e4 1 8 . �e3 c{Je3 1 9.
1@1f7 <;!?f7 20. c{Jg5 't!?e8 2 1 . c{Je4 c{Jg2 22.
<;!?fl �g7 2 3 . h81@1 �h8 24 . .§.h8 't!?f7 25.
<;!?g2 �b7 26. B.h7 ! 't!?e6 27. f3±;

a2) 8 ... 0-0 9. hg6 fg6 10. e5 c{Jg4 1 1 . d6 e6

1 2 . B.h7 ! ?

a 2 /) 1 2 . . . <;!? h 7 ? 1 3 . c{J g 5 <;!? g 8 1 4. \@lg4 Bf5

1 5 . 1@1h4 ! ? [ 1 5 . �e3? c{Jc6 1 6. 1@1h4 c{Je5

1 44
17. 0-0-0 il.d7 1 8 . tt}ce4 �aS? 1 9. �h7
W fR 20. 4Jc5+- Vitiugov 2 7 1 9 - Ragger
2680, Troms0 (m/2) 20 1 3] lbc6 16. tt}cc4±;
a22) 1 2 ... tt}c6 1 3 . !!g7 r:ti;g7 14. i_g5 �d7
15. 4Je4±;
hJ 6... Ag4 7. Ac4 0-0 8. e5 N [8. �c3]
lt:!fd7 9. h5
b/) 9... gh5? (Morozevich 2748 - A. Giri
2720, Beijing (blitz) 20 12) I 0. '&lc2! e6 [ I 0 ...
h6 1 1 . ilh6 e6 12. �d2+-] 1 1 . 4Jg5 Af5 12 .
.act3 Ag6 1 3 . 4Jh7 Ad3 14. '&ld3 4Je5 15.
't'#g3+-;
b2) 9... c5 10. hg6 hg6 1 1 . e6 �e6 12. Ae6
fc6 1 3 . 4Jg5 cd4 14. 4Je6 '&b6 1 5. 4Jf8 �f8
1 6. tt}e4±;
c) 6... 0-0 N
cl) 7. Ac4 c5 8. d5 b5 9. Ab5 [9. 4Jb5?! l2\c4
10. 0-0 a6 1 1 . 4Jc3 4Jc3 12. bc3 4Jd7=:]
CL\e4!? I 0. 4Je4 '&'aS 1 1 . 4Jc3 ilc3 12. bc3
'&lb5
e l l) 1 3 . h5 �c4 [ 1 3 ... Ag4 14. Ah6 E!d8 1 5.
E!h4!? �d7 1 6 . hg6 hg6 1 7. c4;!;;] 1 4 . hg6 fg6
1 5. '&ld2 ila6 [ 1 5 ... ilb7?! 16. !!h7! ila6 1 7.
!!hi±] 16. �e3 '&ld5 1 7. �e7 !!f7 1 8. W'e8
!!f8 1 9. �e7=;
c/2} 1 3 . �b3 Aa6 14. '&lb5 �b5 1 5. i.f4
<i:)d7 16. 0-0-0 <iJb6 1 7. h5x;
c2) 7. h5 c5 8. hg6 hg6 9. d5 b5 I 0. i.h6
.§L.h6 1 1 . lah6 b4 1 2 . 4Ja4 c3 [ 12 ... �g7?!
1 3 . !!h4± c3 14. bc3 bc3 (Mamcdyarov 2775
- Kamsky 2741, Troms0 (m/2) 20 1 3 ) 1 5.
lbc3+-; 1 2.. . 4Jc4 13. \Y;Yc I lt_)f6 1 4 . E!h4
4Jg4 1 5 . �c4 �d6 16. tt}c5±] 1 3. bc3 i.g4
145
 Cl lABS D 90
1 4 . .§.h4 L{Jbd7 I S . '&Ve l '&VaS 1 6. L{Jb2 '&lla3
1 7 . L{JgS ! '&lic3 I S . '&ll c 3 bc3 1 9. tt:Ja4±;
S . . . 0-0 6 . cdS L{JdS 7 . hS cS S. hg6 hg6 9.
ii.h6 L{Jc3 I 0 . bc3 ii.h6 I I . .§.h6 cd4 I 2 .
'&li d2 ! ? �g7 1 3 . .§.h4 .§. h S 1 4 . .§. h S 'l'W h S I S .
cd4 1i.g4 1 6. tZ:leS ii.e6 1 7 . .§c l '&lidS I S . e4
tt:Jd7 1 9 . L{Jd3 i{Jf6 20. dS ii. d7 2 1 . f3co
Melkumyan 263 S - Voiteanu 224S, Albena
20 1 3 ;
S . . . h6 6 . .1Lf4 dc4 7 . e4 cS S . dS bS 9. eS L'LlhS
I 0 . ii.h2 ii.g4 I I . ii.e2 tt:Jd7 1 2 . L'Lld2 ii.e2
1 3 . '&ll e 2 b4 1 4 . tt:Ja4 c3 I S . L'Llc4 0-0
1 6. bc3 !?± This move gives White a large ad­
vantage [ 1 6. 0-0?! cb2 1 7. i{Jab2 fS I S . .§ad !
�h7 I 9. a3 '&lieS 20. L{JaS i{Jb6 Matlakov 2676
- Mamedyarov 277S, Troms0 ( m/3 -rap i d)
20 1 3] i{Jb6 1 7. i{Jab6 ab6 I S . g4 bS 1 9. tt:Je3
t2Jf6 20. ef6 ii.f6 2 1 . 0-0± Black does not
have enough material for the missing piece.
White can proceed with attempts to weaken
the cover of the black k ing, followed by a
combined attack on both flanks .
6 .1Lg5
. I I . '&V d2 i{Jg4 [ 1 1 . . . aS 1 2 . .§ad I i{Jg4 1 3 . dS
1 46
6. cdS cdS 7 . ii.f4 L'Llc6 S . e3 0-0
a) 9 . .1Le2 .1Lg4 1 0. 0-0 e6 N [ 1 0 . . .
'&VaS] 1 1 .
.§c l .§.cS 1 2 . 'l'Wb3 'l'We7 1 3 . L{Jd2 .1Le2 1 4.
i{Je2 .§.fdS I S . .§.c3 .§.d7 1 6. L{Jf3 i{Je4 1 7 .
.§.c2 .§.cdS= Melkumyan 2649 - V. Erdos
263 7, Berlin 20 1 3 ;
h) 9. '&ll b 3 N i{JaS I 0. '&llb4 i{Jc6 1 1 . 'l'Wa3
ii.fS 1 2 . .1Lc2 a6 ! ? [ 1 2 . . . aS 1 3 . 0-0 L'Llb4 14 .
.§.ac l ;;!;; M . AI-Sayed 2S02 - P. Darini 2S 30,
Doha 20 1 3 . White is better in view of the seri­
ous weaknesses in Black's kingside (squares
like bS, a4 and cS), as wel l as his possibil ities
ofp laying on the c-file] 1 3 . 0-0 bS 1 4. b4 c6
I S . .§.ac I '&llb 6=;
c) 9. i{JeS '&lib6 [o 9 . . . tt:JeS I 0 . ii.eS tt:Je4
1 1 . ii.g7 i{Jc3 1 2 . bc3 �g7 1 3 . ii.d3 ii.fS ! '?
1 4 . ii.fS gfS I S . '&ll h S '&ll d 7co] I 0. '&llb 3 '&ll b3
1 1 . ab3 L{Jb4 1 2 . �d2 hS 1 3 . i{Jd3 tt:Jc6 1 4.
f3 ii.fS I S . tZ:leS .§.fcS 1 6. ii.bS i{JdS ? ! 1 7.
ii.d3 ;;!;; ( Morozevich 274S - A. Giri 2720,
Beij ing ( rapid) 20 1 2 ) White has a slight ad­
vantage, since he can combine play on the
a-fi l e with use of the outpost on cS and the
possibility of a central break with e3 -e4; 1 6 . . .
41b4co
6 ... 0-0
The best of Black ' s safe and relatively quiet
options. 6 . . . tt:Je4 is possible, but Black tri es
to compl icate the game with the ambitious
move 6 . . . dc4. White must react in a very
concrete and active way, as otherwise he may
easi ly end up in an inferior position.
6 . . . dc4
a) 7. a4 is a solid alternative, continuing in
positional style: 0-0 S . e4 ii.e6 9 . .1Le2 tt:Ja6
[9 . . . L{Jbd7 1 0 . 0-0 aS I I . ii.f4 ! ? h6 1 2 . '&lid2
�h7 1 3 . .§ad I L{Jb6 1 4. 'l'Wc2x:] I 0. 0-0 ctlb4
 D 90 Cl LABS
cdS 1 4 . edS i.. fS I S . i.. c 4co] 1 2. aS tLld3 b J / 3) 1 3 . . . �e8
[ 1 2 . . . fS 1 3 . .§.fe l h6 1 4 . i.. f4 fe4 I S . ltJc4
QJd3 1 6. i.. d 3 cd3 1 7 . ttJcS i..d S 1 8 . ltJd3:;!;;]
1 3 . i.. d 3 cd3 1 4 . �d3 �d6 I S . �d2 i.. c 4
[ I S . . . bS 1 6 . .§.fe l i.. c 4 1 7 . eS �c7 1 8 .
tLle4co] 1 6 . .§.fc l f6 1 7. i.. f4 e S 1 8 . deS �d2

.§.f7 23 . i..c S .:{Jf6 24. i.. e 3 x Black has the

19 . .:i:ld2 feS 20. i.,gS i.. a6 2 1 . f3 h6 22. i.. e 7

two bishops in exchange for his somewhat in­

ferior kingside structure; the position is un­
clear;
h) 7. e4 bS 8. eS .:{JdS 9. h S
14. a4 !
h i) 9 . . . h6? !
b l l 3 !) 1 4 . . . �d7 I S . abS .:{Jc3 1 6. bc3
b l / 3 / /) 1 6 ... �b6 1 7 . �h S i..e S [ 1 7 ... �bS
1 8 . �h8 �b2 1 9 . e6+-] 1 8 . deS cbS 1 9.
g3+-;
b / 13 /2) !6 ... �c7 1 7 . �a4+-;
b / 1 32) !4 . . . b4 I S . .:i:lce4 .:{Ja6 1 6. i.. c 4+-;
b / 1 33) 14 . . . .:i:lc3 I S . bc3 %\!aS 1 6. �hS �d7
1 7 . .:i:le4 �c7 1 8 . %\lh7 ! [ 1 8 . �h8? i.. fSco]
.:{Jd7 1 9. �e7 �b8 20. i..c 4+-;
1 0. hg6 ! b l 2) 1 0 . . . fg6 1 1 . i..d 2
h i /) ! 0 . . . hgS? 1 1 . .§.h8 i.. h 8 1 2. gf7 �f7 1 3 . bl2/) 1 1 .. . i..fS 12 . .:i:lh4 �d7 1 3 . i.. c 2 hS
lU gS [ 1 3 ... 0-0? 1 4. g4+-] ! 4 . .:1JfS �fS ! S. i.. f3 ±;
h i l l) ! 3 . . . �g6 1 4 . � f3 ! b / 22) 1 1 . . . gS 1 2. b3 .:i:lb6 [ 1 2 ... cb3 1 3 . �b3
i.. fS 1 4 . a4 ba4 I S . ct:Ja4±] 1 3 . bc4 bc4 1 4 . a4
aS I S . �b l ±;
b / 23) ! 1 . . . .:{Jc3 1 2 . i.. c 3 0-0 1 3 . b3 cb3 1 4.
�b3 �dS I S. �dS cdS 1 6 . i.. b S i.. d 7 1 7 .
i.. d 3 gS 1 8 . Q:Jd2:;!;; ;
b2) 9 . . . i.. fS 1 0 . h6 i.,f8 I I . a4

h i l l /) ! 4 . . . � g S I S . i.. e 2 ! �g6 1 6. 0-0-0

QJf6 [ 1 6 . . . .:i:lc3 1 7 . bc3 �dS 1 8 . �f8+-] 1 7 .
ef6 i.. f6 1 8 . �hS �g7 1 9 . .§.h I �f8 20.
§'h8! i.. h 8 2 1 . .§.h8 �f7 22 . .§.d8+-;
h l l /2) !4 . . . .:i:lc3 I S . bc3 �dS [ I S . . . e6 1 6.
Wff7 �gS 1 7 . i.. d 3 ! cd3 1 8 . �d2 ! +-] 1 6.
'@lg3 �g7 1 7 . .:i:le6 �f7 1 8 . ct:Jc7 �e4 1 9 .
.ie2+-; b2 1) 1 1 . . . b4 1 2 . .:{JdS cdS 1 3 . b 3 c3 1 4 . i..b S
hl /2) ! 3 . . . �g7 1 4. �hS �g8 ! S . .:i:ldS cdS
Q:Jd7 I S . aS a6 1 6. i.. a4 �c7 1 7 . �e2C;
1 6. i..e 2 i.. fS 1 7 . �d2 �f8 1 8 . .§h i +-; b22) 1 1 . . . .:i:lb4 1 2 . abS ! ct:Jc2 1 3 . �d2

1 47
 Cl lABS D 90
b22 1) 1 3 . . . ct:Ja l 1 4 . '&lla l f6 1 5 . ef6 ef6 1 6 . 7 .1/.f6 .1/. f6 8. h S .1/. fS
.

'&lie I �d7 I 7 . g4 .1/.g4 I 8 . ct:Je5 �c7

.1/.g6 fg6 [ I 2 . . . hg6?± W eetik 2446 - I van
8 . . . g5 9. h6 .1/.f5 I 0. e3 e6 I I . .1/.d3 .1/.g6 I 2 .

Popov 2632, Taganrog 20 1 3 ] 1 3 . 'l'We2 ct:Jd7

1 4 . 0-0 '&ll e 7 1 5 . ct:Jh2 ct:Jb6 1 6. cd5 ed5 1 7 .
ct:Jg4x
9. e3 e6 1 0. hg6

1 9 . �c l ! .1/.d6 [ 1 9 . . . fg5 20. bc6 .1/.e6 2 1 .

.1/.g2 .1/.d6 22. ct:Jb5 �b6 2 3 . c7 .1/.c7 24. ct:Jc7
�c7 25. d5+-] 20. ct:Jg4 fg5 2 I . .1/.g2 a6 22.
bc6 ct:Jc6 23. '&lie4 '&ll d7 24. ct:Jd5 �b7 25.
ct:Je5+- ;
b222) 1 3 . . . ct:Jd4 1 4. ct:Jd4 '&ll d4 1 5 . �c l '&ll c 5
I 6. '&ll c 2 '&ll c 2 I 7 . .1/.c2 a5 I 8 . .8,h4±;
b23) I I . . . ct:Jc3 1 2. bc3 ct:Jd7 1 3 . .1/.c2 [ 1 3 . d5
Lt'lc5 14. dc6 '&lid ! 1 5. �d l ct:Ja4 1 6 . .8,a4 ba4 1 0 .. .1/.g6 ! ? 1 1 . .1/.d3 ct:Jd7 1 2. '&ll e 2
.

1 7 . .1/.c4 0-0-0 1 8 . ct:Jd4;;!;:; 1 3 . ab5 cb5 1 4 . .1/.e2

ct:Jb6 1 5 . .:§.a5 a6 1 6. 0-0 tLld5 1 7 . '&lla l ±] a6 1 2 . cd5 ! ? cd5 [ 1 2 . . . ed5 1 3 . .:§.c l ±] 1 3 . �fl

'&llb 2 e6 I 8. ct:Jd2;;!;: Despite Black's extra pawn,

1 4. 0-0 ct:Jb6 1 5 . .:§.e l ct:Jd5 1 6. '&Ve l '&lieS 1 7 .
the weak position of his king and his difficul­
ties in developing imply that White has the
better chances in this position.
.§.c8 1 4. g3 '&llb 6 1 5 . '&ll d2 .§.c6 1 6. �g2 .§.fc8
I 7 . .:§.ab I se
1 2 ... eS 1 3 . .1/.g6 hg6 1 4. deS ct:JeS 1 S. cd5
cdS 1 6. .:§.d1 '&VaS=

A. Grischuk 2764 - M. Carlsen 2 8 72, Lon­

don 20 1 3 . Da. Milanovic

148
 S PEC IAL

Latest opening trends lrum the grandmasters' point of v1ew

-

By GM lvan lvanisevic and GM Milos Perunovic

lvan lvanisevic Milos Perunovic

• Country: Serbia • Country: Serbia

• Born: 1977 • Born: 1984

• Rating: 2619 • Rating: 2613

• Peak rating: 2664 • Peak rating: 2630

• Title: Grandmaster since 2000 • Title: Grandmaster since 2004

GRAND PRIX OPENING REPORT

Zug 2013 I Thessaloniki 2013 I Beiiing 2013

A 33 a) I 0... ed5 1 1 . cd5 lL!d5 ( 1 1 ... Aa6 12. dc6

dc6 1 3 . Ac6 �c8 14. i.f3±: 1 1 ... �b7 12. d6
ENGLISH OPENING �c8 1 3 . de7 V//ic7 14. �cl lbc4 1 5. Af4±)
SYMMETRICAL VARIATION 1 2 . i.d5 i.a6 - 33/(67); h) 1 0 ... Aa6 1 1 .
lL!c7 �e7
In the game against Topalov, Morozcvich tried
to surprise him with an early pawn sacrifice.
But the Bulgarian grandmaster was ready for
it, obtained a very good position and forced
White to fight for a draw.
I . c4 cS 2. tt:Jf3 tt:Jf6 3. lt:Jc3 tt:Jc6 4. d4 cd4 5.
Q)d4 e6 6. g3 �b6
Yet another discussion in the English Open­
ing. White introduced a completely new plan
for this type of position, but failed to spot his
chance on the 1 9th move. 6 ... �c5 7. lt:Jb3 12. ltJd2 This is a new idea, instead of the
�e7 8. .tg2 b6 9. 0-0 0-0 (9 ... Ab7; 9... common 12. Af4. 1 2 ... d5 1 3 . �a4 �b7 14.
�a6) 10. tt:Jd5!? b3 �fd8 1 5. i.a3 �d7 16. cd5lL!d5 17. !!fcl

149
 By I. IVANISEVIC & MIL. PERUNOVIC
e5 I 8. e3 h6 I 9. tZ:le4 (And now White missed
the chance to obtai n a safe advantage by I 9.
t2Jc4 �e6

1 7 . . . 0�0 ! 1 8 . de6 �e7 1 9 . Ae2 de6 20 . .§d l

White has sti ll not equalized.
1 S... tZ:ldS [ 1 5 ... t2Jg4 1 6. Ad3 f5 l
20. tZ:ld6 �d6 2 1 . Ad6 �d6 22. �d l t2Jce7
1 6. Ad3 f6 1 7. Ag6 hg6 1 8. �d3 �f7+
23. Ad5 tZ:ld5 24. e4±) t2Jcb4 20. Ab4 �a4
Moroze vich 2758 � V. Topalov 277 1 , Zug
2 1 . ba4 tZ:lb4 22. tZ:lf6 gf6 2 3 . Ab7 .§ab 8 24.
20 I 3 I I 7/ 1 2 . I. lvanisevic
ba5= Morozevich 2758 P. Lek6 2744, Zug
-
.§c7 t2Jd5 25. Ad5 .§d5 26. �a7 �a5 27. �a5

A 40
�

20 1 3 .
7. tZ:lb3 tZ:leS 8. e4 Ab4
QUEEN'S PAWN GAME
1 . e4 cS 2. t2Jf3 g6 3. c4 Ag7 4. d4 �aS 5.
t2Jc3 d6

9. cS!? N �c6
9 . . . Ac5 1 0. tZ:lc5 �c5 I I . Ae2 White has
definite compensation for the pawn, in the
shape of his bishop-pair, better development
tZ:lf6 1 o. Ad3 o�o 1 1 . o�o tZ:ld7 1 2. tZ:ld4 cd4
6. h3 ! ? t2Jc6 7. dS t2Jd4 8. Ad2 �b6 9. �b1
and open c-fi l e .
1 0. f3 ! I O . Ag2l 1 3. t2Ja4 �c7 1 4. f4
10 ... b6 [ 10 ... t2Je4 I I . fe4 �e4 1 2 . �e2 Ac3 In this interesting concept, White surrounds
( 1 2 . . . tZ:ld3 1 3 . �d2 �h i 1 4 . �d3 i ) 1 3 . bc3 the passed pawn on d4 and hides it from

Indian Defense, in the 5 . Ad3 & 6. t2Jge2 sys­

�h i 1 4. �e5 o�o 1 5 . �f2 i l view. A simi lar position occurs in the King's
1 1 . Af4 tZ:lg6 1 2. A d 6 bcS 1 3 . a3 Ac3 1 4.
tem.
bc3 aS! 1 S. eS [ I 5 . t2Jc5 t2Jd5 1 6. ed5 �d6
1 7 . �d4) 14 ... aS [ 1 4 . . . e6)

! 50
 1 5... ef5!
1 5 ... .ib4 16. lbh6! ( I 6. .ib4) gh6 1 7. c3
i.a3 1 8. i.cl! !lfe8 19. g4-

J,·cm h·cmi\t<\'lc·

15. .iel b6 16. i.g3 e6 17. f5t

White had a strong initiative in the game
Kamsky 2741 - Morozevich 2758, Zug 2013.
I. Jvanisevic Sergey Karjakin 2786 - Mamedyarov 2766,
Zug 20 1 3 - 1 1 7/42.
16. !le7 �d8 17. !le2 tt:)e4 18. g3 lbdf6 19.
B 19 lbh4 �d7 N 1 1 9... !le81
20. �f3 �d4 2 1 . lbf5 �e5 22 . .ict !lfe8 23.
CARO-KANN DEFENSE !!deI !le6 24. g4 !!ae80e
CLASSICAL MAIN LINE
Mamedyarov employed the same line of the
Caro-Kann in two games. Despite his crush­
ing defeat in the game with Karjakin, where
he fel l victim to a devastating attack, he stuck
to his guns against Topalov, showing that
there is hope for Black.
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. lbc3 de4 4. lbe4 i.f5 5.
lLJg3 i.g6 6. h4 h6 7. lbf3 lbd7 8. h5 .ih7 9.
i.d3 .id3 10. �d3 e6 1 1 . .id2 tt:lgf6 12. 0-0-0
i.e7 13. �bl �b6
113... 0-0 - 1 1 2/891
V. Topalov 2771 - Mamedyarov 2766, Zug
14. !!het 0-0 15. tt:lf5 201 3 - 1 1 7/(42). /. Jvanisevic

151
 By I. IVANISEVIC & MIL. PERUNOVIC
8 80
SICILIAN DEFENSE
NAJDORF ENGLISH ATTACK
1 . e4 c5 2. CL:lf3 d6
I n the game Topalov - Jvanchuk, White pre­
ferred to fight in the Rossol imo Variation,
and was quickly vi ndicated as he eas ily b eat
the clearly indisposed lvanchuk: 2 . . . CL:lc6 3 .
�b5 d 6 4. 0-0 � d 7 5 . c3 LtJf6 6 . .8,c I a 6 7.
�fl �g4 8 . h3 �h5 9 . d4 �f3 I 0. gf3 cd4
I I . cd4
a) I 1 . . . e5 1 2 . d5 CL:le 7 ( I 2 . . . CL:lb8 I 3 . 'li¥b3 ) 1 3 .
f41 with i nitiative for White; b) I ! . . . d5 I 2 .
CL:lc3 e 6 I 3 . �g5 � e 7 1 4. �f6 �f6 I 5 . cd5
CL:ld4 I 6 . .8,e4 'li¥b6 I 7. de6 'ii¥ c 5 ( I 7 . . . LtJe6 1 8 .
CL:ld5 'li¥d8 I 9. CL:lf6 'li¥f6 20. 'ii¥ a4 �f8 2 I .
'li¥b4 'ii¥ c 7 22. 'li¥b3 - ) I 8 . e7 h 5 I 9 . �c I .§.h6
20. �h 1 .§.g6 2 I . CL:lc2 1 : 0 V. Topaiov 2 793
- lvanchuk 2755, Thessalon iki 20 I 3 .
3 . d 4 cd4 4 . CL:ld4 lLJf6 5 . CL:lc3 a6 6. �e3 e6 7.
f3
The English Attack was seen in two games and
led to very sharp play, but neither Morozevich
I 52
(against Nakamura) o r Kasimdzhanov (against
Grischuk) managed to make any headway : 7.
�e2 CL:lbd7 8. g4 h6 9. f4 g5
a) I 0. fg5 hg5 I I . �g5 b5 1 2 . �f3 CL:le5 a/)
I 3 . 'li¥e2 N �e7 I 4 . 0-0-0 �b7 ( 1 4 ... CL:lfg4 ! ?
I 5 . � c 7 'li¥ e 7 x ) 1 5 . �f4 CL:lfd7 I 6 . �b i
.8,c8co Ponk ratov 2605 - lnarkiev 26 80,
Khanty-Mansiysk (bl itz) 20 I 3 ; a2) I 3 . CL:lc6
CL:lc6 I 4 . c5 �b6 I 5 . �f6 .8,h3 I 6 . ed6 ( 1 6 .
�g5 �b7 I 7 . cd6 CL:le5 1 8 . �b7 'li¥b7 I 9.
0-0 ::o ) l@e3 1 7 . �e2 lLJe5co Bologan 2 6 5 7
- I . Chcpari nov 2670, Kemcr 2007 ;
b) I 0. f5 CL:lc5 I I . h3 b5 1 2 . a3 'li¥e7 N ( 1 2 ...
�g7 ) I 3 . fc6 fe6 I 4 . CL:lf3 �b7 I 5 . CL:lc5
de5x R. Ponomariov 2 7 5 5 - V. Topalov
2793, Thcssaloniki 20 I 3 .
7 ... b5 8. 'li¥d2 CL:lbd7 9 . g4 h 6 1 0. 0-0-0
1 0. a3 �b7 I I . 0-0-0 .§.c8 I 2 . h4 d5 1 3 . .§.g l
dc4 I 4 . g5 hg5 I 5 . hg5 LtJd5
I 6. ct:Jd5 N ( 1 6. ct:Je4 g6 x;) �d5 I 7. g6 f5 I 8.
fe4 fc4 I 9. �b I CL:le5co Morozevich 2760 -
H i . Nakamura 2755, Thessaloniki 20 I 3 .
b4 1 1 . CL:lce2 'li¥c7 1 2 . h4 d 5 1 3. �f4 e5 1 4.
ed4 18 . .8,h8 I I 8 . .8,h41
�h2 de4 1 5. g5 hg5 1 6. hg5 .8,h2 1 7. .8,h2
18 ••. CL:ld5 1 9. I/Wd4 �b7
 By I. IVANISEVIC & Mll. PERUNOVIC
Morozevich stuck to his original style and
beat Svidler after 3. L't:lc3 L't:lf6 4. �b5 L't:ld4 5 .
�a4 �c5 6 . L't:le5 0-0 7 . L'Lld3 �b6 8 . c5
L't:lc8 [8 . . . c 6] 9. L't:ld5 c6 [9 . . . d6 I 0. L't:le3] I 0.
L'Lle3 d5 I I . 0-0 f6 1 2 . c3 L't:lf5

1 3 . b4! W!ic7 1 4 . b5 fe5 1 5 . �a3 �f6 1 6. L't:lb4

with advantage Morozev ich 2760 - Svidler
2769, Thcssal oniki 20 1 3 . ( M il. Perunovic)
3 ... ed4 4. L'Lld4 L't:Jf6 5. L't:lc6 bc6 6. e5 W!ie7 7.
W!ie2 CLJd5 8. c4 L't:lb6 9. ct:Jc3 W!ie6 1 0. W!ie4
�b4 1 1 . �d2 �a6 1 2. b3 �c3 13. �c3 d5
1 4. W!ih4 dc4 1 5. .:§.cl 1 1 5 . �e2 ct'J d5 ( 1 5 . . .
0-0) 1 6. �c4 g 5 1 7 . W!id4 �c4 1 8 . W!ic4
0-0-0 I. Jvanisevicl
15 W!ig6 1 6. �b4 1 1 6. g3 0-0 1 7 . �e2
..•

.:§.adS 1 8 . 0-0 c5 1 9. �fe I �b7 20. �g4

W!ic6? ! 2 1 . f3 �c8 22. c6 ! ± F . Caruana 2774
- E. Bacrot 2725, Thcssal oniki 20 1 3 ; 20 . . .
�d5 M i l . PerunoviCI
16 .•• f6

Kasimdzhanov 2699 - A. Grischuk 2779,

Thessaloniki 20 1 3 . Mil. Perunovic

c 45
SCOTCH GAME
MIESES VARIATION
Karjakin and Kasimdzhanov played a very
interesting game in Zug, featuring a sl ightly
less contemporary variation of the Scotch.
In the game Caruana - Bacrot from Thessa­ We have an unusual position, where both
loniki, White i ntroduced the important theo­ sides have problems developing.
retical novelty 1 6. g3, thus reinforcing White' s
1 7. W!ih3 1 1 7. il.e2 W!ig2 1 8 . �h5 ( 1 8. W!ih5 g6
play from t h e previous Grand Pri x event. 1 9. W!if3 W!if3 20. �f3 L't:Jd5 2 1 . �a5 fc5 22.
I. e4 e5 2. ct:Jf3 ct:Jc6 3. d4 bc4 0-0+)

1 53
 By I. IVANISEVIC & MIL. PERUNOVIC
28 ... J!Lc8! 29 . .§.c7 �h8 30 . .§.e 1 J!Le6
.1.
The position is drawish Sergey Karjakin 2786
- Kasimdzhanov 2 709, Zug 20 1 3 . ( I . lva­
niscvic ) /. lvanisevic, Mil. Perunovic

c 63
RUY LOPE%
SCHLIEMANN (JAEN ISCH)
a) I R . . . g6 1 9 . W'f6 a l) 1 9 . . . W'e4 20. � d l
.§.d8 2 1 . l!L d6 W'd4 2 2 . �e I .§.d6 2 3 . W'h8 1 . e4 e5 2. QJf3 QJc6 3. l!Lb5 f5
�d7 24. W'h7 �cS 25. ed6 W'e4=; 2 I . . .
W' h I ; a2) 1 9 . . . W' h I 2 0 . �d2 .§.dS 2 1 . �c2
W'e4 22. �b2 c3 2 3 . l!Lc3 gh5 24. W'e6 �f8
25. W'f6 �eS=; b) I S ... �dR 1 9 . �d2 g5 20.
W'd4 �cS 2 1 . W'g4 W'g4 22. l!Lg4 �b7 23.
ef6 .§.adS 24. �c2 .§.d4i ; 1 7 . bc4 0-0-0 1 8 . g3
.§.hc8 1 9 . l!Lh3 �b8 20. 0-0 .§.e5 2 1 . l!Lg2 c5
22. l!Lc3 .§.c2+; � I . lvanisevicl
17 ... W'e4! ) 1 7 ... J!LcS I S . W'f3 QJd5 19 . .§.c4
W'b l 20. W'd l W'd l 2 1 . � d l l!La6 22 . .§.e4

l!Ld2 .§.heS 26 . .§.e I ;t M . Carlsen 2S02 -

( 2 2 . .§.g4 J!L fl 23 . .§.fl f5 24 . .§.d4 0-0-0 2 5 .

Sergey Karj akin 2 760, Moscow (blitz) 20 I 0)

J!Lfl 23. e f6 � f7 2 4 . .§.fl .§adS 25. �c l 4. d3 fe4 5. de4 QJf6 6. 0-0 l!Lc5 7. l!Lc6 bc6
.§.heS 26 . .§.eS .§.eS 2 7 . l!L d2 � f6± M i l . 8. CiJe5 0-0 9. QJc3 d6 [9 . . . W'eS I 0. QJd3
Perunovi c l l!Lb6 ( I 0 . . . l!Ld4 1 1 . e 5 ) 1 1 . .§.e I )
1 8. l!L e 2 [ I S . W'e3 W' e 5 1 9 . W' e 5 fe5 20. bc4
.§.dS 6 2 1 . l!Lc5, 6 2 1 . l!Le2 l!Lc4 22. l!Lc4
.§.d4 I. lvanisevi c l
1 8 ... � f7 1 9 . W' e 3 W'e3 2 0 . fe3 .§. h e8 2 1 .
ef6 .§.e3 22. fg7 �g7 23. � f2 .§.e2 24. �e2
cb3 25. � f2 ba2 2 6 . .§.c6 QJd5 27. l!Lc3
QJc3 28 . .§.c3

I 0. Qja4! This is an important idea, securing

some advantage for White.
10 ... W'e8 ) 1 0 . . . J!Lf2 1 1 . .§.f2 de5 1 2 . W'd8
.§.dR 1 3 . l!Lg5 with advantage for White . )
1 1 . QJ d 3 QJe4 [ I 1 ... l!Lg4 is a better move,
leading to a position with opposite-color bish-

1 54

ops where Black has good drawing chances.
1 2 . �e l il.d4 ( 1 2 . . . il.b6 - 1 1 7/94) 1 3 . c3
i.b6 1 4. h 3 il.hS I S . eS
a) I S . . . tt:JdS 1 6 . ed6 c d6 1 7 . �e8 �ae8 ( 1 7 . . .
l':'l.fe8 1 8 . tt:Jf4) 1 8. tt:Jb6 ab6 1 9. f3 il_g6 20.
tZ'lb4 tt:Jb4 2 1 . cb4:;\;; b) I S ... deS 1 6 . tt:Jb6 ab6
1 7. tt:JeS tt:Jd7 1 8. tt:Jd7 ( 1 8 . tt:Jc6 il.e2 1 9.
i.gS tt:Jf6 20. tt:Jd4 il.fl 2 1 . �fl �f7cc) �d7
1 9. f3 �fe8 20. �f2 �d3 2 1 . .§.e l .§.e l 22.
�e l .§.e8 23. �d2:;\;]
12. tt:JacS tt:JcS 1 3. tt:JcS deS 1 4. il.e3 �g6 1 S.
'/Wd3 [ I S . �d2 ]
15 ... il.fS 1 6. �c4 il.e6 1 7. �e2 c4 1 8. f3:;\;
F. Caruana 2772 - T. Radj abov 2793, Zug
20 1 3 - 1 1 7/94. /. lvanisevic
D 20
QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED
In a main l i ne of the Quee n ' s Gambit Ac­
cepted, Radj abov implemented a completely
new idea against Ponomariov, sacrificing a
By I. IVANISEVIC & Mll. PERUNOVIC
c e ntral pawn in order to start an attac k on
the black k ing, and obtained some advan-
tage.
1 . d4 dS 2. c4 dc4 3. e4 tt:Jf6 4. eS tt:JdS S .
.il,c4 tt:Jb6 6. il.d3 tt:Jc6 7. tt:Je2 .il,g4 8. .il,e3
�d7 9. tt:Jbc3 0-0-0
1 0. a4!? N [ U ntil now 1 0. il.e4 was consid­
ered best.]
1 0... tt:JeS 1 1 . .il,e4 fS 1 2. aS tt:Jbc4 13. il.b7
�b7 1 4. �b3 �a8
14 . . . �c8 ! ? I S. deS tt:Je3 1 6. fe3 il.e2 1 7 .
tt:Je2 [ 1 7 . �e2 �d2 1 8 . �f3 gS] �dS 1 8 .
�c3 [ 1 8 . �dS .§.dS+] �g2 1 9. �g I 'ii¥ e4 20.
�c I .§.d7 2 1 . e6!? [2 1 . �f2 e6 22. 'li¥c6 �c6
23 . �c6 g6] �e6 22. tt:Jd4 'ii¥e S :x:;
1 S. deS tt:Je3 1 6. fe3 il.e2 1 7. tt:Je2 'li¥dS 1 8.
'li¥dS �dS 1 9. �f2
1 9 ... g6 20 . .§.hd 1 .§.d 1 2 1 . �d 1 i.g7 22.
.§.dS:;\; T. Radj abov 2793 - R. Ponomariov
2773, Zug 2 0 1 3 . I. lvanisevic
! SS
 ByI. IVANISEVIC & Mll. PERUNOVIC

D 35
QUEEN'S GAMBIT
SEMI-TARRASCH
Svidler won a theoretical duel against Bacrot
in the recently popular Semi-Tarrasch.
l. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. tt)c3 tt)f6 4. cd5 tt)d5 5.
e4 tt)c3 6. bc3 c5

7. �b I ! ? !The most common move is 7. tt)f3,

while 7. a3 is also an option.!
7... cd4 8. cd4 tt)c6
8... Ae7 9. tt)f3 0-0 10. Ac4 b6 1 1 . 0-0
ii.b7 12. W'e2 tt)d7 1 3 . �dl �c8 14. Ad3;!;
Lysyj 2656 - M. Panarin 2565, Russia 20 1 3 .
I 0. Ac6 bc6 1 1 . tt)f3 c5 12. 0-0 Ae7!? 1 1 2 ...
cd4 - 46/(523)1
13. Ae3 cd4 14. t0d4 Ad7 15. �g4 0-0 16.
!ifd 1 �e8
1 6... �aS 1 7. �b7 �fd8 1 8. h3 �a2 ( 1 8 ...

�f6?! 19. t0b3 �a2 20. Ag5±) 19. tt)f3!

9. Ab5 a6 Ac6 20. �c7 !idl 2 1 . �h2'5C; 1 6 ... V$c7
9. . . Ad7 10 . t0f3 Ab4 1 1 . Ad2 ii.d2 12. 17. e5;!;
�d2 0-0

13 . Ad3 N ( 1 3. 0-0) �b8 14. 0-0 tt)e7

Kuljasevic 2578 - F. Berkes 2688, Lcgnica Svidler 2779 - E. Bacrot 2725, Thcssaloniki
2013.1 2013. Mil. Perunovic

1 56
 D 38
QUEEN'S GAMBIT
RAGOZI N SYSTEM
An i nteresting battle was seen i n the game
Radjabov - LCk6. White succeeded in obtain­
ing a slight edge, but the experienced H ungar­
ian grandmaster managed to hold the position.
I. d4 lt:lf6 2. c4 e6 3. lt:lf3 dS 4. lt:lc3 �b4 S.
'@b3 cS 6. deS lt:lc6 7. �gS

1 7... .§c7 lo 1 7 . . . .:§.hd8]

18 . .§fd 1 I I 8 . .§b5 'l&c3 I 9. �c6 �c6

This variation is only recently the focus of at­

tention. 7. e3 - 5 6/45 5 . 20 . .§e5 1 l

7 .. '!&aS 8 . �f6 dc4 9 . 'l&c4 gf6 1 0. :.8.c1 %IVeS

.
1 8... lt:ld4 1 9. cd4 'l&gS 20. d S 'l&h4 2 1 . d6
1 1 . 'l&h4 cj;;e 7 1 2. g3 cj;;e8 22. dc7 l@c4 23 . .§be l '!&cl 24. :.8.c1
�c8 2S. :.8.d 1 cj;;e 7± T. Radjabov 2793 - P.
LCk6 2744, Zug 20 I 3. I. Ivanisevic

This push i ntroduces the n ew plan of devel­
oping the bishop to g2. 1 2. e 3 .
1 2 ... �c3 1 3. bc3 b 6 1 4. �g2 � b 7 1 1 4 . . .
�a6 1 5 . 0 - 0 �e2 1 6. Qld4 l
1 5. 0-0 hS 1 6. lt:ld4 .§ac8 1 7. :.8.b 1
D 90
GRUENFELD DEFE NSE
1 . d4
There are hardly any players as creative as
Morozevich at the top level. Aga i nst Mame­
dyarov, he led the game along original paths
already from the early ope n i ng.
1 ... lt:lf6 2. c4 g6 3. ct.Jc3 dS 4. C2Jf3 �g7 S. h4
Morozevich ' s "Anti-Gruenfeld" !
S ... cS
In this unexplored system Black can also de­
fen d his central outpost with the solid move
5 . . . c6.

157
 By I. IVANISEVIC & MIL. PERUNOVIC
6. dc5 1 5. e3 I I S . e4 ! ]
1 5 ... tt:lcd7 1 6. l"l:cd4 �fl 1 7. �fl �fc8 1 8.
tt:le2 tt:lf8 1 9. tt:lf4 �c2 20. a4 .§ac8= Moro­
zevich 27S8 - Mamedyarov 2766, Zug 20 1 3 .
I. lvanisevic

E 34
NIMZO-IN DIAN DEFENSE
CLASSICAL
In the game Morozevich - Kaijakin, the early

6 ... tt:la6 N 7. h5 [ 7 . cdS

complications in the Nimzo-Indian Defense
quickly led to a position with mutual chances.

x•.t.•••
• • •
'· "
1 . d4 ct:Jf6 2. c4 e6 3. tt:lc3 �b4 4. �c2 d5 5.

• •
� .... %
cd5 �d5 6. ct:Jf3 �f5 7. �b3 Most principle

�,
• • ,�,..... •
• � ts · •
w
response against S . . . �dS l ine .

B• " "··- n
. . . �.�
� �
• �j
� .lb.
�
ts D • ts n ts •
[•••y, �'iY�
a %?'� �Jt.
+ •g
a) 7 . . . tt:lcS 8 . �d4 b6 ( 8 . . . �b6 9. �e3 ) 9. e4
0-0 I 0. eS tt:lg4 1 1 . hS±; b) 7 . . . 0-0 8 . e4
tt:lcS 9. eS tt:lg4 I 0. �d4 �c7x]
7... 0-0 8. hg6 [8. h6 �h8 9. cdS tt:lcS I 0.
tLlgS bS 1 1 . a3 �b6xl
8 ... fg6 9. �h6 )9. �e3 ! ? ) 7 ... tt:lc6 8. �d2 0-0 9 . .§cl �d6 N [ 9 . . . aS [
9 ... � h 6 1 0. l"l:h6 dc4 I 1 0 . . . �aS ! ? )
1 0. h3 [ 1 0. g4 �g4 1 1 . �g l
1 1 . l"l:h4 tt:lc5 1 2. l"l:c4 b 6 1 3 . b 4 �d l 1 4.
l"l: d l �a6

1 1 . . . tt:ld4-+; I 0. ct:JbS ct:Je4 1 1 . ct:Jd6 cd6 1 2.

e 3 ; 1 0. . . e S ! ? )
1 0 ... e 5 1 1 . g4 �d7

I S8
 By I. IVANISEVIC & Mll. PERUNOVIC
9. f3 c6 I 0. 'i!?h I Ci:lh5 I I . g4 Ci:lf6 I 2. ilf4 h5
I 3 . Ci:lf5 !

1 2. g5 1 1 2. d5 Ci:ld4 1 3 . Ci:ld4 ed4 1 4 . Ci:lb5

C2Jc4 1 5 . Ci:ld6 Ci:ld2 a) 1 6. '&lid3 Ci:lf3 ( 1 6 . . .
CLJfl 1 7. Ci:lf5 ) 1 7 . '&ll f3 '&lid61; b) 1 6 . '&ll c 2

1 7. ilg2 il d 7 1 8 . 'l'Wd2 c5 x ; c) 1 6 . '&lib4 Cbfl

�d6 ( 1 6 . . . Ci:l f3 1 7 . cf3 '&ll d 6 1 8 . 2l d3 '&ll f4sc )

1 7 . Cbf5 '&lidS 1 8 . '&lid4 ilf5 1 9. gf5 '&lig5 20.

f4 l@f5 2 1 . .§fl c6 22. d6x]
12... Ci:ld4 I 3. Ci:ld4 ed4 I 4. gf6 dc3 I S. ilc3
ge8 1 1 5 . . . g6]
16. '&lidS '&ll f5 I 7. �f5 ilf5 I S . fg7 c6 I 9.
ggi ile5 20. e3 .§adS 2 1 . h4 .§.d6 22. ile5
geS 23. h5 h6 24. ile2 ile6=

I 4 ... d 5 This is a new move. 1 4 . . . Ci:lbd7; 1 4 . . .

'i!?h8 - 1 1 7/ 1 9 8 .
I S. c d 5 c d 5 I 6. e 5 1 1 6 . .§g l dc4

Morozevich 2 7 5 8 - S ergey Karj akin 2 786,

Zug 20 1 3 /. lvaniseviC

E 94
KING'S IN DIAN DEFENSE
CLASSICAL
l . d4 ct:lf6 2. c4 g6 3. Ci:lc3 ilg7 4. e4 d6 5. a) 1 7 . .§g7 <;!tg7 1 8 . �g I 'i!?h8 19 . .§d I Ci:lbd7
Q'lf3 0-0 6. ile2 e5 7. 0-0 ed4 8. Ci:ld4 .§e8 20. fe4 .§g8 2 1 . �c3 '&ll f8 ;

1 59
 By I. IVANISEVIC & MIL. PERUNOVIC
h) ! 7 . �h6 ct:Jg4 2 2 . .§.e I i l
h l) I S . fg4 �h6 1 9. g5 ( 1 9. �b3 ) �d l ( 1 9 . . . 1 6 ... �f5 1 7. ef6 �f6 1 8. ct:Jd5 �b2 ! 1 9. ttJe7
�f8 2 0 . t2Jd5 ) 20 . .§ad ! �g7 2 1 . f6 �f8 .§.e7 20. �d8 �h7 l o 20 . . . �f8 2 1 . .§.g I ( 2 1 .
( 2 1 . . . �f5 22. fg7 ct:Jc6 2 3 . t2Jd5 .§.e 5 ) 2 2 . g6 �c4 ct:Jd7 22. �aS
fg6 23 . .§.g6 �h 7 24 . .§.g5 c:o ;
h2) I S . �dS .§.dS 1 9. �g7 e f3 20. �f6 ( 2 0 .
�f3 �g7 2 1 . h 3 .§. h S ) � h 7 2 1 . ct:J e 4 ( 2 1 .
.§.g4 hg4+ ) fe2 22. ct:Jg5 �gS 2 3 . �dS �d7;
c) 1 7. ct:Je4 is terribly complex, but the im­
pression remains that White has the advan­
tage:

M'!
.1. �1.· • ··
.1. ·
"- � ·-
···
" u h •
� · •··
- ' "''
• • g), •
• • . cj . i
·
-
� - � � - 22 . . . .§.e4! 23 . .§.ab l �d4) �g4 22. fg4 (22.

• .lb. •
�c4 ct:Jd7 2 3 . �aS �d4; 22 . .§.g4 hg4 23.
.
• • . cj .
.§.g l ttJd7 24 . .§.g4 �h8 25 . .§.h4 �gS 26

cj· O ·� · ��
.§.g4) ct:Jd7 23 . gh5 �hS 24. �aS .§.e21

rf • • • � ru��
, .a
2 1 . �e7 �g6 22 . .§.adl White holds the ad­
vantage after 22. �e8±
�
· "

22 ... ct:Jc6 23. �e3 �a2 24. �d3 .§.d8 25.

c l) ! 7 . . . ct:Je4 I S . fe4 �d l ( I S . . . �h7 1 9. �g6 fg6 26 . .§.d8 ct:Jd8�
�d3 �h4 20. �g5 �h3 2 1 . .§.g3+-) 1 9 .
.§ad ! �hS 20. f6 �f6 2 1 . .§.d5+-; c2) 1 7 . . .
�d I I S . ct:Jf6 �hS 1 9 . .§ad I �f6 20 . .§.d6
ct:Jd7 2 1 . �b5 .§.gS

Kasimdzhanov 2709 - V. Topalov 277 1 , Zug

20 1 3 - 1 1 7/ 1 99. I. Ivanisevic

1 60