English Attack - de Firmian & Fedorowicz

The English Attack
Nick de Firmian,
John Fedorowicz
BATSFORD
First published in 2004
© Nick de Firmian and John Fedorowicz 2004
ISBN 0 7134 8860 3
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

A catalogue record for this book is
available from the British Library.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced, by any means, without prior permission
of the publisher.
Printed in Great Britain by

Creative Print and Design (Wales}, Ebbw Vale
for the publishers,
B.T. Batsford Ltd,
The Chrysalis Building
Bramley Road,
London, WI 0 6SP
An imprint of ChrysalifBooks Group

Distributed in the United States and Canada by Sterling Publishing Co.,
387 Park Avenue South, New York, NY I 00 16, USA
A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Contents
Page
Introduction 5
Definitions of Symbols 6
The English Connection 7
The NajdorfVariation 15
Lines where Black plays ... e5 15
Chasing the bishop with ...lDg4 76
Lines where Black plays ... e6 98
The Taimanov Variation 200
The Scheveningen Variation 250
Index ofVariations 253

Introduction
For more than half a century, the Najdorf has been one of the most
popular defenses in the open Sicilian. What attracts players of all strengths
is its uncompromising approach with an unbalanced pawn structure and
wide open play. It has been a favorite weapon of great World Champions
like Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov as well as super GMs Vishy Anand,
Veselin Topalov and Peter Leko among others.
This fine opening has produced more than its share of chess masterpieces
from both the White and Black point of view. 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 a6. From this position we've seen White try many moves
6 ..tg5, ..i.c4, ..i.d3 and f4 being the sharpest attempts. 6 ..i.e2 (Karpov's
favorite) and g3 being solid choices, while 6 h3 and 6 .l:tg 1 are too slow to
give White chances for an edge. In recent times the move 6 ..i.e3 (or f3 ) has
become White's move of choice, with the idea of getting into something
similar to a Keres Attack. Combining kingside space-gaining play with
queenside castling, the English Attack has breathed new life and ideas into
an already complicated opening.
I recall the first time I saw an English Attack was at the 1 984 Chess
Olympiad in Thessaloniki, Greece. I was the USA men's team captain and
saw the Romanian IM Barbulescu playing it against GM Walter Browne. To
tell you the truth I thought it was weird to play the Yugoslav Attack against
the Najdorf! Who knows if it was Romanian team preparation or not, but I
know one thing .. .it took about 1 5 years before it seriously caught on.
Now there is an incredible amount of material to break down. What I've
tried to do here is provide an objective view of all the lines where Black
plays 6 ... e6 and to suggest improvements for both sides. Meanwhile Nick,
the guy writing the other half of this book and a leading authority and life
long practitioner of the Najdorf, analyses lines with 6 . . . e5 and chasing the
bishop by . . . lLlg4. Every variation presented here has been looked at and
evaluated even if for obvious reasons we couldn 't comment on every game.
The English Attack is being used as a weapon against the Taimanov
Variation as well, also offering lively play and leading to new and relatively
untouched territory. I believe these sections represent the first time this line
has been extensively analyzed in book form. I hope you enjoy our work and
find it useful.
GM John Fedorowicz
June 2004
Definitions of Symbols
+ check
++ double check
! slight advantage for White
+ slight advantage for Black
± clear advantage for White
+ clear advantage for Black
+- decisive advantage for White
-+ decisive advantage for Black
equal game
good move
!! excellent move
!? move deserving attention
?! dubious move
? weak move
?? blunder
<Xl with compensation
� with counterplay
t with initiative
<Xl unclear
The English Connection
While working on this book I couldn't help but notice how often this line
had been played in the mid 80s into the 90s, especially by English
grandmasters Dr John Nunn, Nigel Short and to some extent Murray
Chandler. Of late Michael Adams has continued the tradition, as we'll see
shortly and with spectacular results. I'd like to pay tribute to these strong
GMs for their contributions to this complicated and rich variation and to
chess in general. Now we have reached 2004 and it has become the most
frequently played and analyzed variation around, featuring in literally
thousands of chess battles. Over the years the English Attack has been
refined, tinkered with, had its ups and downs, but has persevered.
One thing we can always count on from the system is exciting chess so
here by way of introduction are some illustrative examples of those earlier
games by English players and the progress the line has made since then.
Chandler - Howell
Lloyds Bank Open, London, 1 985
I e4 c5 2 lLJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLJxd4lLJf6 5 lLJc3 a6 6 .i.e3 e6 7 'ii'd2 b5 8

f3 .i.b7 9 g4lLJc6?!
9 . . lLJfd7
. ! ? is an alternative.
8 The English Attack
10 tt:lxc6
1 0 0-0-0 l:tc8 1 1 g5 ( 1 1 tt:lxc6 ! ?) 1 l . . .tt:ld7 1 2 h4 tt:lce5 (White has let the
tt:lc6 hang around too long, now Black gets play.) 13 �d3 tt:lb6 14 h5 tt:lbc4
1 5 �xc4 tt:lxc4 1 6 lid3 b4 1 7 tt:la4 e 5 ! ? ( 1 7 ... lia5 !+) 1 8 tt:lf5 g6 1 9 tt:lc5
gxf5 20 ..Wxc4 'ike7 (20 .. Jhc5+) 2 1 exf5 dxc5 22 f6 'ike6? 23 'ikxe6+ fxe6
24 g6 �d5 25 �g5 'iti>d7 26 g7 .l:tg8 27 �h6± L 'Ami-Pelletier, Koelln
2004. White is going to have a protected passed pawn on the seventh and
Black will have to deal with it for a very long time to come.
10 ...�xc6
This is a bad mix of ideas for Black. The �c6 is blocking the c-file,
making tt:ld7 to e5 less effective.
11 g5
1 1 0-0-0 .l:tc8 1 2 �d3 (I believe White can wait on this. 1 2 'iti>b 1 is a
natural alternative.) 1 2 ... �e7 ( 1 2 ...tt:ld7 !? looks like better timing than the
game. Black can take d3, forcing White to capture with a piece.) 1 3 tt:le2
li'ld7 14 'iti>b 1 tt:le5 1 5 tt:ld4 �b7 1 6 'ike2 0-0= Sulskis-Graf, Moscow 200 1 .
ll . tt:ld7 12 0-0-0 fL.e7 13 h4 0-0 14 h5li'le5 15 f4!
. .
15...b4
A _good try under the circumstances, but White's reply is very strong.
1 5 ... li'lc4 1 6 �xc4 bxc4 (Most of the time having a pawn on c4 limits
Black's counterplay.) 1 7 'iti>b 1 .l:tb8 1 8 'iti>a l ± White can defend b2 with .l:tb 1
then attack on the kingside with no worries.
16 tt:ld5! exd5 17 exd5 �b7 18 fxe5 dxe5 19 g6±
Now Black has two problems. Firstly the passed d5 pawn and secondly
his king.
19...'ikd6 20 �h3 f5 21 gxh7+ 'iti>h8 22 .l:thg1 f4 23 �f2 'ikh6 24 d6! �f6
25 d7 e4 26 �c5 .l:tfd8 27 .l:tg6 'ikxh5
The English Attack 9
28 l:lxf6!
Very nice, White eliminates an important defender.
28...gxf6 2911i'xf4 11i'g5
This loses, but it was hopeless anyway.
30 11i'xg5 fxg5 31 .irs 1-0
Short - Ribli
World Cup, Barcelona 1 989
1 e4 c5 2 l2Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 5 l2Jc3 a6 6 .ie3 e6
7 f3
711i'd2 b 5 8 f3 .ib7 9 g4 l2Jc6 1 0 l2Jxc6 .ixc6 1 1 g 5 l2Jd7 1 2 0-0-0 fkc7
1 3 h4 l:lc8 14 a3 ! ? (Black's pieces are out of position for the b4 hit so
White takes care of c2.) 14 ... .ib7 1 5 .id4 l2Je5 1 6 11i'e3 l2Jc4 1 7 .ixc4
11i'xc4 1 8 l:r.d2 e5 1 9 .ia7 h6 20 l:lg 1 hxg5 2 1 hxg5 g6 22 �b 1 l:lh3 23 'Wb6
'*kc7 24 'i'f2 .ie7 25 .ie3 'i'c4 2611i'g2 l:.h5 27 l:lh 1 l:lxh 1 + 28 fkxh 1 a5 29
11i'h8+ 'iti>d7 30 'i'xe5 'i'fl + 3 1 ltJd 1 'i'xf3 32 'ir'xb5+ .ic6 33 fkxa5 .ixe4
34 fka4+± Short-Ribli, Candidates, Montpellier 1 985. In this position it's
all about king safety.
7... b5 8 g4 h6 9 h4 b4 10 l2Jce2 e5 11 lLlb3 d5!?

Black gets to play the typical Sicilian freeing move d5, but at a price.
White gets a lead in development.
12 l2Jg3 d4!?
With the development situation in White's favor Black attempts to lock
the position. Not 1 2 ... dxe4?! 1 3 'ii'xd8+ �xd8 14 0-0-0+l2Jbd7 1 5 g5;!;.
13 ..tf2 ..ie6 14 ..id3
14...h5?!
White was going to play g5 anyway. Black wants to shut down the
kings ide.
14 . .l2Jbd7
.
A) 1 5 'ii'e 2 ! ? a5 1 6 l:tg l a4 ( 1 6 ... g6 ! ? keeping thel2Jg3 out of f5 . 1 7l2Jd2
'ii'c7 1 8 g5 hxg5 1 9 hxg5 l2Jh5 20 l2Jxh5 l:r.xh5. Black's play has been
directed at White 's f4 break. 2 1 f4. White tries it anyway, but it lacks the
punch of other examples. 2 1 . . . exf4 22l2Jf3 il..g 7 23 l2Jxd4l2Jc5 24 ..ic4 l:tc8
25 ·o-0-0 f3 ! Creating a diversion gives Black a winning game. 26 'ii'fl
l2Jxe4 27 il..xe6 fxe6-+ Brunner-Vera, Luzem 1 993.) 1 7lLJd2lLJc5 1 8 ..ib5+
l2Jfd7 19 f4 . (The f4 break becomes an important idea when Black p_lays
d4.) 19 ... exf4 20 lLlf5 b3 2 1 ..ixd4 bxc2 22 l2Jc4 'ii'b 8 23 l:tc1 f3 24 'it'xf3
..ixc4 (24 ... ..txf5 25 exf5+- Black can't take the ..ib5 because the l:ta8
hangs .) 25 ..ixc4 'ii'b4+ 26 'ii'c 3 l2Jxe4 27l2Jxg7+ 'it>d8 28 'ii'xb4 il..xb4+ 29
'it>e2+- Nunn-Neurohr, Bundesliga 199 1 ;
B) 1 5 l:tg l ..ie7 1 6 g 5 hxg5 1 7 hxg5 tt::lh7 1 8 f4 exf4 1 9 tt::lh 5 il..xb3 20
axb3 tt::le5 21 tt::lxg7+ �f8 22 tt::lf5 l2Jxg5+ Fedorowicz-Browne, Chicago
1 989. It is White's king that is in the most danger.
14 . . . g6 1 5 'ii'e2 h5 1 6 gxh5 tt::l xh5 1 7 tt::lx h5 l:txh5 1 8 f4 ! ..ixb3 1 9 axb3
exf4 20 ..ic4 ..ie7 2 1 0-0-0 ..if6 22 e5 il..xe5 23 ..ixd4 'ii'c7 24 il..d 5+- Van
der Vorm-Lazarev, Biel l 992.
15 g5 tt::lfd7 16 f4!
White wants to open the position to exploit his superior development.
16.....ig4 17 ..ie2 exf4 18 tt::lxh5 ..ixe2 19 'ii'xe2 d3!?
The English A ttack I I
Black is playing very actively.

20 exd3 f3 21 'iWxf3 lt:le5 22 'ii'e2 lt:lxd3+ 23 'it>fl lt:lxf2 24 'it>xf2 lt:le6 25
'it>g2 'ii'b8 26 �bel lt:le5 27lt:lf4 �d6 28lt:ld4 0-0 29 lL!d5 .l:le8 30lt:lf5
Black's pieces are bottled up and he has no useful moves.

30...lt:lg6?
It's easy to criticize this move, but significant improvements are hard to
find.
31 .!:len lt:lf4+ 32lt:lxf4 �xf4 33 'ii'f3 .ie5 34lt:lxg7
Black gave up here after seeing the variation 34 . . .'it>xg7 35 'ilfxf7+ 'it>h8
36 'ii'h 5+ 'it>g8 37 .l:lt7 .ig7 38 g6 and mate will be delivered shortly.
1-0
Nunn - Polugaevsky
Hastings 1 992
1 e4 e5 2 lt:lf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 lt:lxd4lt:lf6 5lt:le3 a6 6 �e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8

g4 h6 9 'ii'd2lt:lbd7 10 0-0-0 �b7 11 h4 b4 12lt:lee2 d5 13lt:lg3
13...'ii'a5
1 3 ... e5 14 ltJb3 d4 1 5 ..tf2 "ilic7 1 6 ..th3 g5 ! ? (Preventing White from

playing f4, but leaving a gaping hole on f5 .) 1 7 ..tfl .l:tg8 1 8 �b 1 a5 19
..td3 a4 20 ltJc 1 a3 21 b3 "ilic3 22 "ilixc3 bxc3 23 ltJf5;!; Nunn-Stohl,
Dortmund 1 99 1 and the white knight keeps Black occupied.
13 . . . ..id6 14 .l:tg l "i/ic7 1 5 g5 hxg5 16 hxg5 ..ixg_3 1 7 gxf6 ltJxf6 1 811'xb4
..td6 ( 1 8 ....l:tb8 ! ?) 1 9 1i'a4+ 'it>f8 20 ..id3 ltJd7 2 l li:)b3..tc6 22 "i/ia5 ltJe5 23
..tc5 �g8 24 ..ixd6 "ilixd6 25 ltJd4;!;, Nunn-Rogers, Hastings 1993, and
Black's king is the most vulnerable of the two.
13 ...dxe4 14 g5 hxg5 1 5 hxg5 .l:txh l 16 ltJxh l ltJd5 17 g6 "i/ia5 ! ?
( 1 7 . . . ..te7 1 8 ltJg3 ltJc5 1 9 ..th3 f5 2 0 ltJgxf5 ! . This shot i s something both
sides should be aware of. 20 . . . exf5 2 1 ltJxf5 ltJxe3 22 "ilixe3 �c7 23 ltJxg7+
�f8 24 ltJe6+ ltJxe6 25 1i'h6+ 'it>e8 26 ..ixe6+- Nunn-Leroy, London 1 994;
1 7 . . ."ilif6 ! . The queen patrols the kingside and is an important defender.
Black has overprotected the f7-e6 complex and White stands worse. 1 8
gxf7+ "ilixf7 1 9 ltJf2 e5 20 ltJf5 g6 2 1 fxe4 gxf5+ 22 ..tg5 ltJ5f6 23 b3 f4 24
..ih3 ..tc5 25 �b l ltJf8 26 ltJg4 ..ie7 27 ..ixf6 ..txf6 28 "ilixb4 ..tg7 29
"i/ia4+ Nunn-Polgar, Amsterdam 1 995 and White must have felt very
fortunate to have perpetual check with "ilib4+ and "ilia4+ etc.) 1 8 gxf7+
'it>xf7 19 fxe4 1r'xa2 20 ltJb3 ltJ7f6 2 1 exd5 ..txd5 22 ..td3 .l:tc8-+ Nunn
lvanchuk, Monaco 1 994.
14 'it>b1 dxe4 15ltJxe4
At that time this was new.

15...ltJxe4?
Already Black is in trouble, according to Dr Nunn. One can't blame
Black for this move. It's tempting to ruin White's pawn structure.
1 5 ...0-0-0! ? is a better chance to keep things under control.
16 fxe4 lt:\f6?!
Black needed this horse to defend the king. 16 ... 0-0-0 ! ? 1 7 ltJb3 "i/ic7 1 8
"ilit2 ltJe5 1 9 .l:txd8+ "ilixd8 20 ..te2 ..te7 2 1 .l:td l ;!;
17 ..tg2 0-0-0
Comparing this with 1 5 . . . 0-0-0 we'll see a huge difference. 1 7 . . . ltJxe4 is
met strongly with 1 8 ..txe4 ..txe4 1 9 ltJxe6+-
18 'ii'e2 'ii'c7 19l:thfl!? .td6 20 g5! hxg5 21 hxg5 tllxe4 22 g6
This fine move collapses Black's f7-e6 pawn complex, giving White a
won position.
22...l:t.h2
The fork 22 ... lllg3 fails simply to 23 .txb7+ �xb7 (23 . . .'Wii'xb7 24 'ii'c4+)
24 'ii'g2+.
23 l:txti l:t.xg2 24 l:txc7+ .txc7 25 'Wii'c4 l:txg6 26 l:tfl e5 27 llle6 l:t.xe6 28
'ii'xe6+ �b8 29 ike7 aS 30 l:tf8 1-0
Forcing the rook trade ends any hope Black had.
Adams - Sheldon
British Championship, Hove 1 997
As this game shows Black must pay attention to the e6 square. White's
pawn sacrifice guarantees open lines against the black king.
1 e4 c5 2 tllf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tllxd4 lllc6 5 lllc3 'Wii'c7 6 .te3 a6 7 ikd2
lllf6 8 f3 .te7 9 g4 d6 10 0-0-0 0-0 11 g5 tlld7 12 h4 b5?!
This move is the cause of Black's horrible difficulties. 1 2 ...lll xd4 ! ?
followed by llle 5 and b 5 i s Black's best continuation.
13 g6!?
An important thing to note for both sides is that in such positions the e6
point can be undermined. So this pawn sac deserves serious consideration.
13".tZ:l f6
13 ... hxg6 14 h5 is simple and strong. Black is going to be fiercely
attacked on either an open h-file or g-file. Neither promises much hope for
survival.
14 gxh7+ �xh7
After l4 . 'iti>h8 White will start pounding on g7.
. .
15 tt::lxc6 1Wxc6 16 ..i.d3 'ifi>h8 17 .l:f.dg1 b4 18 ..th6 .l:f.g8 19 e5!
19...g6 20 exf6 bxc3 21 'iWgS

White's h5 will open up lines for the heavy pieces against the hapless
black king.
1-0
The Najdorf Variation
6 i.e3 e5 7 lt:Jb3 i.e6 8 f3 lt:Jbd7
1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tiJxd4 tiJf6 5 tiJc3 a6 6 i.e3 e5
This is the traditional Najdorf reaction to 6 i.e3. It was the standard reply
until the late 1 980s when the English Attack started to gain popularity.
Black stakes out territory in the center at the cost of allowing a weakening
of the d5 square. The black queens ide pawns control light squares while the
center pawns control dark squares. Black's pieces will be placed to
complement the pawn structure, which includes a distinct regard for the
weakened d5 square. Black 's plan is both logical and sophisticated, so was
regarded for many decades (before the English Attack) as a way to gain
equality for Black without undue problems. We must include a historical
note here on White's attacking plan. Though it became popular in the late
80s and early 90s, it was in the usual repertoire of former candidate Robert
Byrne as far back as the 1960s. Some of those games are still relevant to
theory today.
7 tiJb3
This is the move of the English Attack. 7 tiJf3 was often played in the
1980s and is still seen today. It leads to a slower positional game rather than
an attacking one. We will not explore it here as it is outside the scope of this
book and anyway, for the record, it is not reckoned to be as troublesome as
the English Attack.
7 i.e6
...
Developing while covering the d5 square is the most flexible and logical
move and nearly always played. 7 ... il..e 7 is seen occasionally but it has
nearly always been followed up by ...i.e6. Other 7th moves are inferior as
they fail to address the strategic demands of the position.
1 6 The English Attack
8 f3
This supports e4 and prepares the push g4-g5 which is the key plan of the
English Attack.
White can also employ another order of moves: 8 'ii'd2li:lbd7 (or 8 ... .i.e7)
9 f3 since 8 . . . lt:lg4?! 9 .i.g5 makes little sense for Black.
Instead of 8 f3 White could reasonably transpose into other systems
against the Najdorf, e.g. 8 .i.e2 .i.e7 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 f4, but that again is
outside the scope of this book.
After 8 f3 we have the basic position for beginning our discussion of the
English Attack against the Najdorf.
8 lt:lbd7
...
This is flexible and popular as it allows for immediate queenside

development.
Black also has a couple of other serious moves here.
A) 8 . ... .i.e7 aims to complete kingside development by castling. It can
often transpose to variations that arise from 8 ... lt:lbd7, though the plans are
often completely separate.
B) 8 . . . h5 is the other significant line which prevents White from
following through with the plan of simple kings ide expansion. Before going
on to the main moves we will consider the rarely played alternatives for
Black.
C) 8 ... d5 looks logical, but grandmasters don 't play it. After 9 exd5 lt:lxd5
1 0 li:l xd5 White gets a better endgame upon Black recaptures. 1 O .. �xd5 .
( 1 O . .'ii'xd5 1 1 'ii'xd5 .i.xd5 1 2 0-0-0 �c6 1 3 lt:la5 �e7 14 lt:lxc6 lt:lxc6 1 5

.
�c4± Vescovi-Cappellano, USA 2000) 1 1 c4 ( 1 1 'ii'd2 lt:lc6 1 2 0-0-0 .i.e6

13 'iWf2! is also sensible.) 1 l . . .�b4+ (ll.. .i.c6 12 'ii'x d8+ 'itxd8 1 3 0-0-0+
;tis probably Black's best idea.) 12 'itf2 �c6 13 'ii'xd8+ 'it>xd8 14 c5 .ta4
(Traut-Labahn, Germany 1995) now 15 .i.c4 leaves White with a distinct
edge.
D) 8 ... lt:lc6 is a logical development yet leaves Black with the problem of
the d5 square. White's usual reply has been 9 li:ld5 (9 'ii'd2 d5 ! 1 0 exd5
lt:lxd5 1 1 lt:lxd5 'ii'xd5 12 'ii'xd5 .txd5 1 3 0-0-0 0-0-0 14 .i.b6 lid6!
The English A ttack 1 7
Z.Almasi-Sax, 1 997. Instead 9 'ir'e2 ! ? i.e7 1 0 0-0-0 is an alternative that

should retain a slight advantage for White.) 9 ... i.xd5 1 0 exd5li:Je7 1 1 c4 g6
1 2 i.d3 i.g7 1 3 0-0 0-0 14 li:Jd2 which has been played in several games.
White has the bishop-pair and a queenside majority. Black has a King's
Indian Defense setup on the kingside and can look to advance his pawns
over there. The evaluation should be slightly better for White but the
position is unbalanced. Two examples:
(a) 14 . . li:Jh5
. 1 5 l:te1 b5 16. b3 l:.b8 1 7 a4 bxc4 1 8 i.xc4 li:Jf4 19 li:Je4
li:Jf5 is nearly equal, Shirov-Shabalov, 1 994.
(b) 14 ... 'ii'd7 1 5li:Je4li:Jxe4 1 6. fxe4 f5 1 7 i.b6li:Jc8 1 8 i.£2 and the two
bishops are working for White, Stefansson-Olafsson, Iceland 2002.
Najdorf Variation : 6 i.. e3 e5 7 ti:Jb3 i..e 6
8 f3 ti:Jbd7 9 g4
1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tiJxd4 tiJf6 5 tiJc3 a6 6 i.e3 e5 7 tiJb3 i.e6

8 f3 tiJbd7
We first investigate 8 . . . tiJbd7, which is probably the most popular move.
White will continue with the English Attack plan, but the move order he
chooses is very significant. Here there are two sensible moves, 9 'ir'd2 and 9
g4.
9 g4
White immediately presses on with the kingside advance. This move

order prevents Black from smoothly carrying out the maneuver 9 . . . b5,
10.:.tiJb6 and I I . . .tiJfd7 since a timely g4-g5 crosses the plan. Black must
now decide how to deal with the looming advance g4-g5. The two real
options are:
I) don't worry about it (as the knight will go to h5 when attacked);

2) hold up the advance with 9 . . . h6.
There are three reasonable moves that ignore the threat of I 0 g5

-9. . . tiJb6. 9 ...b5 and 9 . . . i.. e7 (this last usually just transposes into 8 . . . ..1ie7).
The three strategies are fairly distinct, as is that of 9 . . . . h6.
Najdorf Variation : 6 jLeJ e5 7 tiJb3 jLe6
8 f3 tiJbd7 9 g4 tiJb6 10 g5 tiJh5!
1 e4 c5 2 lt:\f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 lt:\f6 5 lt:\c3 a6 6 �e3 e5 7 lt:\b3 �e6

8 f3 liJbd7 9 g4 lt:\b6
This line is very trendy among leading players. Years ago this knight
move was played simply to vacate the d7 square for the king's knight when
it was attacked by 1 0 g5. However that strategy didn't equalize as White
could gain an aggressive position with a straightforward build-up. The
current strategy behind 9 ... tllb 6 is more sophisticated. The first idea is that
Black has enough pieces covering d5 to effectively threaten the pawn
advance d6-d5. This threat compels most White players to continue with an
immediate 1 0 g5 which somewhat reduces White's attacking options. The
second idea behind 9 ... lt:\b6 is that Black is often happy that the b pawn is
on its safer starting square instead of the more aggressive but vulnerable b5.
However this is counter-intuitive since Black's usual counterplay is on the
queenside. The problem is that a white pawn often arrives on d5 after White
plays lt:\d5 and it is captured. Then the other white knight can post itself on
the c6 square if b7-b5 has been played. In these 9 ... tllb6 lines it is more
common for Black to seek play on the kingside. This occurs after White has
pushed g5, when at some point Black can play the advance ... f5 to battle for
kingside squares.
10 g5
In the Melody Amber Tournament 2003, Topalov (playing against
Ivanchuk) chose to delay kicking the knight and continue developing with
1 0 'ii'd 2. Now if Black plays passively with I O ... �e7 1 1 0-0-0 l:tc8 White
has the option of advancing h4-h5 so that the black knight cannot go to h5
when attacked. But instead came the aggressive I 0 . . . d5 !
. . . when the threat of d5-d4 leads to full equality. Now:

A) I I g5 d4 1 2 gxf6 (12 tiJxd4? exd4 1 3 �xd4 tiJh5 I4 'ii'f2 ltJc4 15
0-0-0 1i'xg5+ I 6 'it>bi ..ie7-+ Bologan-Sutovsky, Pamplona 2003) I 2 ... dxe3
1 3 'ihe3 gxf6.
B) On I I ..ixb6 'ii'xb6 12 tiJxd5 (12 exd5 0-0-0 I3 .ic4 ..ib4) I 2. . . ..ixd5
1 3 exd5 l::.d 8 I 4 ..ic4 1i'c7 15 ltJa5 1i'b6 I6 tiJb3 'ii'c 7.
But Topalov chose the sharp sacrifice
C) 1 1 0-0-0! ? d4 1 2 liJxd4 exd4 13 ..ixd4 when White has practical
chances but objectively Black should be better. The game however was
played blindfolded and Topalov's courage was rewarded after 13 . . . ..ie7?!
(13 ... tiJfd7) 14 1i'e3 tiJbd7 15 h3 1Wa5 I6 f4 �xa2 17 g5 tiJh5 1 8 h4 .l:tg8 1 9
..ih3 since Black lost the extra piece by 1 9 . . .tiJc5? (instead of playing
19 ... ..ie6 20 f5 ..ic4 2 I f6 tiJhxf6 22 gxf6 liJxf6) 20 ltJxa2 'ii'xa2 2 I ..ixc5,
leaving White with an edge.
lO tiJhS!
...
The old and compliant IO ... tiJfd7 allows White to control the opening.
Black has a bad score with this move as he cannot easily gain counterplay.
Hracek-Trichkov, Czech Republic 2003, continued 1 1 'ii'd 2, when:
A) Best may be to mix i t up with 1 l . . .h6 ! ? 1 2 0-0-0 ( 1 2 gxh6 'ii'h4+ ! )

1 2 . . . hxg5 13 ..ixg5 'ii'c 7, Ennolaev-Onischuk, Kiev 2003. White could
avoid this by the move order 11 h4 followed by 12 'Wd2 and 13 0-0-0.
B) On the other hand 1 l .....ie7 1 2 0-0-0 0-0 13 h4 :c8 14 'it>b 1 l2Jc4 1 5
..ixc4 ..ixc4 16 l2Jd5 (16 h5 ! ? may be even better) 1 6 . . . i.xd5 1 7 lixd5
leaves White with the edge and more control of the board.
C) Finally, 11. . .:c8 12 h4 i.e? 1 3 0-0-0 'ii'c7 14 'it>b l l2Jc5 15 l2Jxc5
dxc5 1 6 'ii'f2 ( 1 6 l2Jd5? l2Jxd5 17.exd5 ..ixd5 1 8 lixd5 :d8-+) 1 6 ...lic6 1 7
.i.h3 0-0 1 8 l2Jd5 ! ? l2Jxd5 ! ? (Sacrificing the exchange to gain play.) 1 9 exd5
i.xd5 20 i.xc8;!; Stiri-Grapsa, Aspropyrgos 2003.
11 'ii'd2 .i.e7
12 0-0-0
12 'ii'f2 ! ? was Peter Leko's idea against Kasparov at Linares 2004. White
immediately attacks the b6 knight to play for control of the d5 square. After
1 2 . . .l2Jc4 13 ..ixc4 ..ixc4 14 h4 0-0 1 5 l2Ja4 f5 ! 16 l2Jb6 i.xb3 1 7 axb3 fxe4
1 8 l2Jxa8 lixa8 1 9 'ii'd2 Kasparov played 19 ... b5 with roughly equal
chances. Alternatively 1 9 ...l::tx f3 20 "it'd5+ 'ifi>h8 21 lixe4 'ii'f8 22 �d2 l2Jg3
24 'ii'd5.(Leko) produces a sharp, dynamically balanced position.
12 :cs
...
Black could vary the move order somewhat (e.g. 12 ... 0-0), although the
text is the most flexible. Note that the black queen is presently actively
placed on d8 so there is no rush to move it to c7. 12 ... 0-0 was in fact seen in
Fakhiridou-Grapsa, Asproyyrgos 2003, 1 3 'it>b1 lic7 14 ..id3 :ac8 15 .l:.hg 1
l2Jc4 1 6 ..ixc4 i.xc4 17 0a4! ? (To chase the rook off c 8 and play l2Jd5 at
the proper moment.) 17 . . .i.xb3 (This loses control of d5 without a fight.)
18 axb3 d5 19 l2Jb6 d4 20 l2Jxc8 dxe3 2 1 l2Jxe7+ 'ii'xe7 22 'ii'xe3+- .
13 :gt
White has proceeded with the systematic English Attack plan but now
must cover the g pawn with the rook as 1 3 h4 allows.... l2Jg3. Anand tried a
different plan against Gelfand, Melody Amber 2003 : 13 �b 1 0-0 14 l2Ja5 ! ?
when 14 . . .lic7 (instead o f Gelfand's 14 . . . l2Jf4?! 1 5 l2Jxb7 ! ) 1 5 '1W f2 l2Jd7
looks equal. e.g. ( 1 5 . . .l2Ja4?! 16 l2Jd5 !;!;) 1 6 l2Jd5 .i.xd5 17 :xd5 l2Jc5 18
l2Jb3 l2Je6 1 9 i.b6 'ii'd7 20 h4 l2Jhf4 2 1 :d2 ..id8 'h-'12.
Illustrative Game with 10 t2Jh5! ...
Leko-Anand
Dortmund 2003
I e4 cS 2ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4ltJxd4ltJf6 5ltJc3 a6 6 .i.e3 eS 7ltJb3 .i.e6

8 f3ltJbd7 9 g4ltJb6 10 gSltJhS 11 'ii'd2 .i.e7 12 0-0-0 lieS 13 llgl
The meeting of these two elite players provides a good example of the
possibilities in this line.
13...0-0 14 <li>bl
White can force the exchange of minor pieces immediately with 14 'ii'f2
ltJc4 1 5 .i.xc4 .l:lxc4 (also 1 5 ... .i.xc4 1 6 ll!d5 .i.xd5 1 7 .l:lxd5 f5 1 8 gx f6
ltJxf6 1 9 .l:ldd 1 llf7 20 'ii'e2 'ii'c7 2 1 .l:ld3 'ii'c4 22 'ii'd l 1/2-1/2
Hracek-Ftacnik, Germany 2002) 1 6 ltJd5 .i.xd5 1 7 .l:lxd5 as was played in
Shirov-Sutovsky (rapid game) Reykjavik 2003. Here White has the d5
square but it is of little help, being occupied by a rook instead of a knight.
The game continued 17 . . . f5 1 8 gxf6 llxf6 19 ife2 .l:lc8 20 <li>b I 'ii'd 7 2 1
.l:ldd 1 'ii'h 3. However a new counter to 14 'ii'f2 is 14 . . . .l:lxc3 1 5 .i.xb6 ( 1 5
bxc3 ltJa4) 1 5 ... .i.xg5+ 1 6 �b 1 .i.h4 1 7 .l:lg3 .i.xg3 1 8 hxg3 ltc7+
Svidler-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2004.
14...g6
This pawn move is constructive in that it secures some light squares on
the kingside. It indicates that Black is not just playing defensively but
aiming to win the battle of squares on that flank. 14 . . . g6 could eventually
tum out to be a small weakness, exposing the king's position sl ightly, but
that would be a long way down the line.
IS'ir'f2
White could play more simply 1 5 ltJd5 ltJxd5 1 6 exd5 .i.f5 17 �d3 il.xd3
1 8 'ir'xd3 and reach the game continuation a few moves earlier.
IS ltJc4 16 .i.xc4 .i.xc4 17ltJa4
.•.
The English A ttack 23
This is White 's idea, hopping the knight over to b6 where it controls
queenside squares as well as keeping d5 covered. The immediate 17 lL!d5
ii.xd5 is similar to the other examples and too routine to cause Anand
problems.
1 7 . i.e6 18 lL!b6 �c7
. .
This is probably a bit more preci �e than 18 . . .�c6 19 lL!d5 ..ixd5 20 exd5
and 2 1 lL!d2 when White is quicker to reorganize.
19 'iVd2
This discourages Black's plan of ... f6. though it looks like White has not
gained (or lost) anything from his maneuvers. 1 9 h4 'ife8 20 lL!d5 ..ixd5 21
�xd5 f6 22 lL!d2 fxg5 23 hxg5 lL!f4 24 ..ixf4 �xf4 was Leko-Akopian,
Wijk aan Zee 2004 but readers may wish to try instead 19 lL!c 1 ! ? to start the
knight on a journey to a more aggressive square.
19...�c6
Now that the queen occupies the d2 square, this is better than 20 . . . f6.
20 lL!dS i.xdS 21 exdS
The alternative is the natural-looking 21 'ifxd5 but Black has equal
chances after 2 l . . .'ii'c 8 22 �d2 'iVh3 23 lL!a5 �c7 24 i.b6 .l:td7.
2I....I:tc8 22 'ii'd3
By a circuitous route we have arrived at the position that usually occurs
by 15 lL!d5 lL!xd5 1 6 exd5 ..if5 1 7 i.d3 i.xd3 18 'ifxd3 .
22.. .'ii'd7 23 c4 f6
Black's last two moves are thematic in this line. The black queen is
preparing to infiltrate the kingside along the c8-h3 diagonal, while the
opening of the f-file pressures White's f3 pawn.
24 gxf6 �xf6 25 lL!d2
White has followed the plan of clearing the e4 square for the knight and
creating the pawn duo d5-c4 which creates possibilities of queenside and
central play. Though this gives chances for an advantage, the weakness of
the f3 and h2 pawns along with Black's well placed pieces allows
counterplay.
24 The English A ttack
2s .:.n
...
Safer is 25 ...1i'f5 26 lt:le4 l:.f7 when there is the solid 27 l:.gfl or 27 c5!?
dxc5 28 d6 c4 29 'ii'c 2, resulting in an unclear position.
26 l:.cl ?!
Here White has the opportunity for an aggressive breakthrough, as played
in the game Bacrot-Lautier, Aix les Bains 2003 : 26 c5 ! l:.d8? (Black must
try 26 ... dxc5 27 lt:lc4 'ii'f5 28 'ii'x f5 l:.xf5 29 d6 ..td8 30 d7 l:.c7 3 1 h4,
planning 32 ..tg5, when White is for choice with the annoying d pawn.) 27
cxd6 ..txd6 28 ..tg5 l:.df8 29 �h6 lt:lf4 30 'ii'b 3 l:.d8 3 1 ..txf4 l:.xf4 32
lt:le4± and White went on to win with the powerful knight and d pawn.
26...1i'f5!
Simplification to an endgame would take the sting out of a possible c4-c5
advance. Black has no worries now and White must watch his weak f pawn.
27 .l:tc3
27 'ii'xf5 l:.xf5 28 a4 is more defensive-and more comfortable for Black.
27 ... b5! 28 b3
28 cxb5? l:.xc3 29 _.xf5 l:.xf5 30 bxc3 axb5 leaves the d pawn ready for
harvest with ... lt:lf6 and ... lt:lxd5.
28...1i'h3
Switching to an attack on the h2 pawn. The exchange of queens would

allow an easier defense.
29 .l:tgcl bxc4
29 . . . b4?! 30 .l:t3c2 'ii'xh2 3 1 c5 ! generates a lot of play.
30 .l:txc4 .l:ta8
A good move to slow White's queenside initiative. Note how, despite the
placement of the kings, White is pressing on the queenside and Black on the
kingside.
31 .l:ta4 .if'S! 32 a3
White cannot play 32 .l:txa6? e4 ! 33 ll:lxe4 .l:txa6 34 'ii'xa6 'ili'xf3 35 'ii'd 3?!
ll:lf4-+.
32...ll:lf6 33 ..igS?
This loses a pawn. White must defend, but there would be no major
disadvantage after 33 .l:tc6 when if 33 ... e4 34 fxe4 ll:lg4 35 .:1c3 holds.
33...'ii'xh2 34 .l:th4
34 .l:txa6 .l:txa6 35 'ii'xa6 'ii'g2 36 ..ie3 (or 36 ..ixf6 'ii'xd2) 36 . . . ll:lxd5 is
serious trouble for White.
34...'6'g2 35 ..ixf6 .l:txf6 36 .l:tg4 'ii'h3 37 .l:tcg1
Black is a pawn ahead with a safe king but there should still be a lot of
fight left in White's position.
37....l:ta7 38 l:.1g3 'ikh6! 39ll:le4 .:1f4
40 .l:txf4?
The last move of the time control settles the fight. With 40 .l:tg I the battle
would still not be over.
40...'ii'hl+! 41 ..ti>a2 exf4
The long dark diagonal is open, clearing the way for the final king hunt.
42 .l:tg4 ..ig7 43 b4 aS! 44 ..ti>b3
There is no way out.
44...axb4 45 �xb4 'ii'el+ 46 'iti>b3 'ii'cl 0-1
8 f3 tlJbd7 9 g4 tlJb6 10 gS tlJhS 11 'ifd2 il..e 7
12 0-0-0 .:cs 13 .:g1 0-0 14 <it>b1 g6 15 tt:Jd5
1 e4 c5 2ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4ltJxd4 lLlf6 5ltJc3 a6 6 i.e3 e5 7 lLlb3 i.e6

8 f3 liJbd7 9 g4ltJb6 10 g5ltJh5 11 'ii'd2 i.e7 12 0-0-0 .:cs 13 .:g1 0-0 14
�b1
Here we will consider many of the different plans that have been tried for
both sides.
14...g6
There are two other reasonable attempts.
1 ) 1 4:.....c7 1 5 'ii'f2 ltJc4 (Also 1 5 . . . i.d8 keeping the b6-knight in
position for a trade on d5, 16 h4 g6 1 7 'ii'd2 fi.e7 1 8 'ii'h2 ltJc4 1 9 i.xc4
i.xc4 20 ltJa4 b5 2 1 lLlb6 l:tb8 22 ltJd5 i.xd5 23 .:xd5 f6! (When the
queenside play is stymied Black can tum to this break.) 24 'ii'e2 fxg5 25
hxg5 :n 26 ltJd2 ltJf4 27 i.xf4 .:xf4 28 .:g3= Leko-Topalov, Linares
2004, and it's difficult to see progress for either side.) 16 i.xc4 'ii'xc4 was
first played in T.Paehtz-Epishin, Bad Woerishofen 2000, which continued ...
A) 1 7 lLld2 'ii'c 7 18 'ii'h4 g6 1 9 lLlfl 'ii'd 8 20 ltJd5 (20 ltJg3?! .:xc3 ! 2 1
bxc3 ltJxg3 22 hxg3 'ii'a5 is good for Black.) 20... i.xd5 2 1 .:xd5 h6 22 .:d2
Ac4 23 "6'g4 and now instead of 23 .. .'�'h7?! 24 gxh6 Black can play
23 ... hxg5 24 i.xg5 i.xg5 25 'ii'xg5 'ii'xg5 26 .:xg5 Ac6 27 ltJe3 lLlf4 with
just a minute disadvantage in the endgame. Note that 28 lLlf5?! 'it>h7 29
ltJxd6? AdS 30 ltJc4 l:txc4 ! 3 1 l:txd8 lLle6 wins for Black.
B) 1 7 f4 exf4 1 8 i.xf4 ltJxf4 19 'ii'xf4 a5!?, Bologan-de Firmian, Selfoss
2003, now 20 ltJxa5 "6'b4 21 ltJb3 (not 2 1 ltJd5? i.xd5 22 Axd5 llc5 !
winning a piece) 2 I . . ..:xc3 22 bxc3 "6'xc3 is unclear, though not worse for
·
White.
2) I4 . ..lt)c4 I 5 ..ixc4 ..ixc4 I 6lt::ld 5 ..ixd5 I 7 'ii'xd5 'ifc7 I 8l:!.g2 'iti>h8 I 9

lt::lc I f5 20 a3 fxe4 2 I fxe4 1:!.0 2 2 l:f.e I g6 2 3 lt::la 2 'ifd7 24 'ii'd2 l:f.cf8 25
lt::lc 3;!; Benjamin-Popovych, Philadelphia I 988.
15lt::ld5
No advantage comes from 15 h4 'ifc7 16 'ii' f2 lt::lc4 I 7 ..ixc4 ..ixc4 I 8
..ib6 'ifb8 I 9 'ifd2 'iti>g7 2 0 lt::lc I f6 2 1 ..ie3 fxg5 1/z-1/z, Magem
Badals-Zagorskis, Elista I 998; or I 5 iff2 lt::lc4 I 6 ..ixc4 ..ixc4 I 7 f4 ( I 7
ifd2 ! ? ifc7 I 8 llg2 'iti>h8 19 lt::la4 ..ie6 20 lt::lb6 l:f.cd8;!; Wedberg
Gudmundsson, Reykjavik I 990; 17 lt::la4 is seen in the Leko-Anand game.)
17 ...exf4 18 i.xf4lt::l xf4 19 ifxf4 f6 !? 20 gxf6 i.xf6 21 .l:.xd6 'ii'e7 22 'iWd2
:tcd8 23 l:!.xd8 l:!.xd8 24 'ii'e l l:f.e8 25 'ii'd2 l:f.d8 26 ife1 l:f.e8 27 'iWd2 l:f.d8
1/z-1/z Smirin-Savchenko, Istanbul 2003.
15...lt::lxd5 16 exdS i.fS 17 i.d3 i.xd3 18 'ii'xd3 'iWd7 19lt::ld2
Note that here 1 9 c4 transposes into the previous illustrative game,
Leko-Anand.
Another try is 1 9 h4, met by the standard break 19 . . . f6!? 20 lt::ld2 fxg5 21
hxg5 b5 22 l:f.c1 'ifb7 23 c4 bxc4 24 l:!.xc4 l:!.xc4 25 'ifxc4 l:f.c8 26 'ii'd3 l:!.b8
27 b3 a5 28 a4 i.d8 29 l:f.c1 i.b6 30 l:f.c6 i.xe3 31 'ii'xe3 lt::lg7= Mortensen
De Finnian, Copenhagen 2004.
19...'iWh3
19 . . . f6 is again the thematic alternative which would once more transpose
into Leko-Anand after 20 gxf6 (20 h4 fxg5) 20....l:.xf6 2 1 c4.
20 c4 bS
This looks logical but does not gain equality. If instead 20 . . . f6 2 1 c5!?
fxg5 22 cxd6 i.xd6 23 i.xg5 is sharp and probably better for White.
21 cxbS axbS 22 'iWxbS -..rs+ 23lt::le4!
23 'iti>a I l:!.b8 24 'ii'e2 'ifc2 25 l:!.b 1 l:f.fc8 leaves Black with active play for
the pawn.
23...'ifxf3 24 'ifd3
White has traded the weak f3 pawn for one on the queenside and while
his wonderful white knight remains on e4 he will be better. Black could
chase it away with 24 ... f5 but he doesn't like the pawn structure that results
after 25 gxf6lLlxf6 26lLlg5.
24...�h8?! 25l:lgfl '1Wg4 26l:lc1l:lxcl+ 27 ..ixc1 �g8 28 a4
A good plan. White has the advantage on the queenside and can push this
pawn up the board. His king is safe enough with one pawn to protect it as
the black pieces are on the other side of the board. What is Black to do
now?
28 h6
.•.
Black has found a plan other than 28 ... f5 29 gxf6 lLlxf6. Clearing away
White's g pawn allows the central pawn duo to advance. However a rapid
advance could undermine the safety of the black king.
29 gxh6 f5 30 lLlc3l:lb8 31 '1Wc2 lLlf6 32l:ld1 .U.c8?!
32 ... ..t(8 33 lLlb5 'ii'e4 34 '1Wxe4 lLlxe4 leaves White only slightly better in
the endgame.
33 'ii'd3 .U.xc3?
This doesn't quite work. Again, 33 . . ...tf8 keeps Black in the game.
34 bxc3 '1Wxa4 35 .U.d2! 'ii'e4
The problem is that 35 ... 'Wb3+ 36 .U.b2 '1Wxd5 37 'ii'xd5+ lLlxd5 38 c4
lLlc3+ 39 �c2lLle4 40 l:lb8+ ..if8 4 1 h7+ wins.
36 c4 f4?! 37 Wc2 'iti>h7 38 '1Wxe4 lLlxe4 39l:le2 1'3?! 40 .U.e3! lLlg5 41
'iti>d1 e4 42 �e1 1-0
White plays 43 h4 to win the e pawn. Smirin-Lutz, Olympiad, Elista
1 998.
8 f3 tiJbd7 9 g4 h6 10 'ifd2 i.e7
1 e4 cS 2 lt'lt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt'lxd4 lt'lf6 5 lt'lc3 a6 6 .ie3 eS 7 lt'lb3 .ie6

8 f3 �bd7 9 g4 h6
Black holds up the kingside advance, ensuring that the knight can stay on
f6 for a while to come and allow Black time to smoothly develop the
queenside. The negative point of 9 . . . h6 is clear-White now has a clear
target on the kingside. If White could complete his development and
achieve the pawn advances h4 and g5, the black kingside might open like a
breaking dam. As usual, the success of this plan comes down to timing. The
questions are whether Black's queenside and perhaps central counterplay
will affect White 's piece coordination, and whether Black can find further
ways of blocking the kings ide advance.
10 'ii'd2
The usual move. After 10 'ii'd2 Black has a strategic choice: to finish
kingside development with I O ....ie7, or to push on with queenside play
immediately by 10 ... b5 (considered in the next section).
In the blitzlblindfold Melody Amber Tournament, Shirov tried the
immediate kingside advance against Lautier. 10 h4! ? b5 I I l:g i b4 12li'ld5
.ixd5 13 exd5 lt'lb6 I4 'ii'd3 liJfxd5 I 5 0-0-0 .ie7 16 g5. Here White has
interesting compensation for the pawn sacrificed. Objectively he is not
better, but the game is messy and difficult to play so this deserves further
tests. 16 ... hxg5 1 7 hxg5 g6?! (Here Black could try 17 ...lt'lxe3 18 'ii'xe3
l:.h5 I 9 f4 exf4 20 'ii'd4 .ixg5 2 1 'tlt'xg7 .if6 22 'ii'g2 when Black should
have an objective advantage. In a blitz game one may still prefer to be
playing White.) 1 8 f4 'tlt'c7 (18 . . . exf4 19 .id4 l:.h5 20 l:.e I 'it!E 2 I .ie2 is
messy and unclear.) 1 9 .ixb6lt'lxb6 20 f5 gxf5 2 1 'ii'xf5 'ii'd7 22 'ii'f2 ir'c7
23 g6;!; Shirov-Lautier, Monte Carlo Blindfold/Blitz 1 997.
10 ..�e7
.
Rarely played is 10 ... 'ii'c7 1 1 0-0-0 b5 12 �b 1 ( 1 2 h4 l:tc8 13 l:th2 ! looks

good.) 1 2 ...liJb6 1 3 'ii'f2 l:tb8 1 4 �d3 liJc4 1 5 h4 �e7?! ( 1 5 ... ltJxe3 1 6
'ifxe3 b4 1 7 liJe2 d5) 1 6 �c 1 b4 1 7 liJe2 a5 1 8 g5 liJh5 1 9 f4 a4 20 f5 ! �d7
21 'iVf3 g6 22 liJd2± Fressinet-Bologan, Cap d'Agde 2002.
1 1 0-0-0 b5 12 h4
Direct play seems to be the most challenging: 12 �b 1 liJb6 1 3 'ii'f2 l:tb8
14 ltJc5 b4 ! 1 5 liJ3a4 ( 1 5 ltJxa6 bxc3 1 6 ltJxb8 'iVxb8 1 7 i..xb6 i..d 8! 1 8
i.b5+ liJd7 1 9 i..xd8 'i'xb5) 1 5 ... ltJxa4 16 ltJxa4 'iVc7 17 b3 d5 18 exd5
liJxd5+ Topalov-Lautier, Belgrade 1 995.
1 2 ...liJb6
13 iifl
Black is able to gain equal chances after 1 3 i..xb6 iixb6 14 liJd5 �xd5
1 5 exd5 a5 16 iid3 l:tb8. Wedberg-Kucznski, Novi Sad 1 990 continued
thematically- 1 7 liJd2 iic5 18 ltJe4 ltJxe4 1 9 iixe4 a4 20 'iti>b 1 b4 21 i..d3
a3 22 f4 exf4 23 l:tde 1 l:tb7 24 g5 �d8 25 iixf4 hxg5 26 hxg5 l:txh 1 27
l:txh 1 'ii'xd5 28 �e4 iid4 29 l:th8+ �c7 30 l:tc8+ 'iti>b6 3 1 l:c6+ <3;a7 32
l:ta6+ �b8 33 l:ta8+ 'iti>c7 34 l:tc8+ <3;b6 35 l:tc6+ The finish is an amusing
dance of the black king and white rook.
13 ...l:tb8
Defending b6 the other way is less aggressive: 13 ...liJfd7 14 �b 1 l:tc8 1 5
liJd5 �xd5 1 6 exd5 ltJc4 1 7 i. e 1 'ii'h6 1 8 iie 1 a5 1 9 i..xc4 bxc4 20 ltJxa5
c3 2 1 liJc6 cxb2 22 �e3 'ii'a6 23 'ii'b4 llxc6?! (23 ... l:tc7;!;) 24 dxc6 'ii'xc6 25
'ii'b3 0-0 26 g5± Kasparov-Huzman, Tel Aviv 1998.
14 ltJc5
14 'iti>b 1 iic7 1 5 l:tg 1 ltJa4! 16 liJe2?! l:tc8 17 ltJec 1 .!Dd7 1 8 g5 .!Ddb6+
Socko-Ftacnik, Koszalin 1 998.
14 ... b4?!
This lets White in on the queenside. Normal play would be 14 . . .�c8
when either 1 5 i..e 2 or 1 5 .!Dd3 ltJc4 16 .!Llb4 ltJxe3 17 'iVxe3 leaves White
slightly better.
1 5 ltJb1 i.c4 16 ltJxa6! i.xa6 17 .ixa6 0-0?

1 7 . . .ttJ fd7±.
18 g5 ltJh5
19 gxh6
Now the game is a rout. It is such positions that one dreams about when
playing the English Attack.
19 ... g6 20 ltJd2 d5 21 exd5 ltJxd5 22 ltJb3 'ii'd 6 23 i.c4 ltJhf6 24 h7+
�xh7 25 h5 g5 26 l:txd5! ltJxd5 27 l:td 1 ttJxe3 28 l:txd6 ttJxc4 29 l:td7 i.f6
30 'ii'a7 1-0
Shirov-Sadler, Monte Carlo 1 998.
8 f3 etJbd7 9 g4 h6 10 'ifd2 b5
1 e4 cS 2 lt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:lxd4 lt:lf6 5 lt:lc3 a6 6 .te3 eS 7 lt:lb3 .te6

8 f3 li:lbd7 9 g4 h6 10 'il'd2 bS
Black immediately expands on the queenside, for the moment leaving the
bishop on f8.
11 0-0-0
An offbeat line is 1 1 a4 b4 1 2 lt:ld5 .txd5 1 3 exd5 lt:lb6 14 .txb6 ifxb6
1 5 0-0-0 .te7 1 6 h4 lt:ld7 17 'it>b 1 which may also bring White a slight
edge, Stocek-Neverov, Prerov 200 1 .
n . :lt:lb6 1 2 'iWfl
.
Black now has three choices about what to do with the attacked knight.
1 2 ... lt:lfd7
This is our main move.
Instead
1) 12 ... ttJc4 13 ..ixc4 bxc4 14 tLlc5 'ikc7 15 tLl5a4! l:tb8 16 h4 'ikc6 17 g5
tLld7 18 a3 hxg5 (18 ... h5 19 f4 exf4 20 ..ixf4 ..ie7 21 •g3;!; Movsesian
Womacka, Germany 1998.) 19 hxg5 l:txh l 20 l:txh l d5 21 exd5 ..ixd5 22
l:th3 !;!; ..ie7?! 23 f4 exf4 24 lth8+ tLlfll 25 •xf4± Shirov-Womacka,
Germany 1998.
2) 12 ... :b8 13 ttJc5 ..ic8 14 ttJd3 ttJc4 15 ..ia7?! (15 ttJb4 ttJxe3 16
•xe3;!; looks better.) 15 ... ltb7 16 tLlb4 'ika5 17 ..ixc4 bxc4 18 a3 ..ie6 19
..ie3 d5 20 tLlc6 'ikc7 21 exd5 tLlxd5 22 tLlxd5 'ikxc6 23 tLlc3 �e7+
Klovans-Womacka, Schoeneck 1996.
13 �b1 :cs
Messy was 13 ... g6 ! ? 14 h4 h5 15 tiJd5 ..ixd5 16 exd5 'ikc7 17 f4 tLlc4 18
gxh5 :xh5 19 ..ie2 :f5 20 h5 gxh5 21 .te l tLlf6 22 ..id3 e4 23 'ike2 'ike7
24 ..ixc4 bxc4 25 •xc4;!; Kasparov-lvanchuk, Frankfurt 1998.
14 tiJd5 ..ixd5 15 exd5 tLlc4 16 .tel
1 6...�6
16. . .g6 has merit as it seeks to keep the kingside closed. After 17 h4 ..ig7
18 ..id3 tiJdb6 (18 . . . h5 19 •e1 llldb6 20 tLla5;!; was Hracek-Babula,
Lahucovice 2003.) 19 •e1 (19 f4 !? seems more forcing.) 19 ... 0-0 20 h5 g5
chances were roughly equal in Fressinet-Van Wely, Enghien les Bains
2001.
1 7 -e1;!;
Morozevich-Rashkovsky, St. Petersburg 1998 continued ...
1 7 ... ..ie7 18 ..id3 a5 19 •e2 a4 20 tLld2 tLle3 2 1 ..ixb5 tLlxd 1 22 :xd 1
'ikc7 23 ..ixa4 0-0 24 tLle4
and the two pawns were worth more than the exchange.
8 f3 i.. e 7 9 'iVd2 0-0 10 0-0-0 'iVc7
1 e4 cS 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 liJf6 5 ltJc3 a6 6 ..i.e3 eS 7 liJb3 .i.e6

8 f3 ..i.e7
This simple and logical developing move was the standard in the 1 980s
and 90s (though often ...liJbd7 would be played first). Black is ready to
castle kingside and start queenside operations-classical Najdorf strategy.
The 21st century has brought Black various strategies aginst the English
Attack yet this classical approach must still be considered to be the main
line.
·9 �d2
Jumping in to d5 immediately is less dangerous and removes the attacking
flavor of the game. 9 liJd5 .i.xd5 (9 . . . ltJxd5 1 0 exd5 .i.fS 11 'ii'd 2 ltJd7 1 2
ltJa5 'ii'c 7 1 3 c4 0-0 1 4 .i.e2 e4 1 5 fxe4 .i.xe4 1 6 0-0 .tf6 1 7 l:.ac l l:tfe8 1 8
b4 ..i.g6 Kalod-Kuczynski, Czech Republic 1 998) 1 0 exdS 0-0 11 .te2
liJbd7 1 2 c4 ltJe8 13 0-0 a5 14 liJd2 .tgS Arizmendi Martinez
Shchekachev, Montpellier 2002; White should take care not to advance at
once on the kingside. 9 g4?! dS!+ similar to Khalifman-Lautier below.
9 0-0
...
Black has three dubious alternatives to castling and the major alternative
9 . . . ltJbd7 which will be dealt with separately. In general the reader should
be aware that the lines with 9 . . . 0-0 and 9 ...liJbd7 may transpose. Yet many
lines are also very distinct.
1 ) 9 ... ltJc6?! 10 liJd5 .i.xd5 11 exd5 is at least sl ightly better for White.
2) 9 ... a5?! 10 .tbS+ .td7 1 1 a4± Feygin-Gutman, Recklinghausen 1 999.
3) 9 . . . d5 ! ? 10 exdS ltJxdS 11 ltJxdS 'ii'xdS 12 'ii'xdS .i.xdS 13 0-0-0 .i.e6
14lba5 b5 15 ..id3 f5 16 l:.he I ;l; Shirov-Ljubojevic, Linares 1 995.
10 0-0-0
Here White should hold the center. The natural-looking 10 g4? runs into
10... d5! when Black is already better. 1 1 g5 (11 exd5 ltJxd5 1 2 ltJxd5 .th4+
+) 1 l .. .d4 12 gxf6 .txf6 13 .tf2 .tg5 14 'iid3 dxc3 15 'iix d8?! �xd8 16
bxc3 .txb3 17 axb3 .i.d2+ .18 We2 .i.xc3+ Khalifman-Lautier, Moscow
2001.
1 0 'iic7
...
Developing the queen so that the king's rook can come to c8. This is the
main line (disregarding . . .ltJbd7 which transposes to the next section). Two
alternatives have been investigated, the first reasonable and the second now
dubious.
1) 10 ... b5 1 1 g4 ( 1 1 ltJd5 .i.xd5 12 exd5 ltJbd7 13 ltJa5 'iic7 14 ltJc6
.td8 ! 15 �b 1 ltJb6) 1 l . ..b4 presents White with an important choice on
where to place the knight. Both choices bring chances for the advantage.
A) 12 ltJd5 .txd5 13 exd5 a5

Al) 14 ltJc5 ltJfd7! (14 ...ltJbd7 15 ltJa4 ltJe8 16 h4 �b8 17 g5;!;
Kobalija-Bruzon Bautista, Varadero 2000) 15 ltJe4 'ific7 16 .i.b5 ltJb6 1 7 g5
�c8 18 Wb1 ltJc4 Van den Doei-Piceu, Belgium 2003.
A2) 14 �b 1
A2a) 14 ... a4 1 5 lLlc 1 'ii'a5 16 g5 lLlfd7 1 7 h4 lLla6 1 8 h5 lLlac5 1 9 l::th4
( 1 9 i.h3 lLlb6 20 b3?! axb3 2 1 cxb3 lLlba4 ! 22 bxa4 lLlxa4 23 'ita 1 lLlc3
with an attack worth at least the piece, Kaminski-Gutman, Bad Endbach
1 995) 1 9 ...l::tfb8 20 i.h3 �5 2 1 i.f5 b3 22 a3 e4 23 c4! 'ii'a 6?! (23 . . . 'i1Vxc4
24 i.xd7 lLlxd7 25 l::txe4 'ii'c2+ 26 'ii'xc2 bxc2+ 27 'it>xc2±) 24 i.xd7 lLlxd7
25 lhe4+- Movsesian-Kempinski, Polanica Zdroj 1 996.
A2b) 14 . . . 'ii'c7 1 5 g5 tLlfd7 ( 1 5 . . . lLlh5 16 i.h3 f5 17 gxf6 l::txf6 1 8 i.g4;!;
Gallagher-Outman, Bad Woerishofen 1 994) 16 h4 lLlb6 1 7 h5 ( 1 7 lLlc5?!
a4+ Vorobiov-Vaulin, St Petersburg 2000) 17 ... a4 18 lLlc 1 lLlc4 19 i.xc4
'ii'xc4 20 l::thg 1 b3 2 1 cxb3 axb3 22 lLlxb3 lLld7 23 lLlc 1;!; Yagupov-Vaulin,
Tula 2000.
B) After 1 2 lLla4 Black has also problems. 1 2 . . .lLlc6 ( 1 2 ... a5 1 3 lLlb6 a4
14 lLl c5 ! b3 1 5 axb3 'iVxb6 1 6 lLlxe6 axb3 17 'ii'c3 'ii'b 7 1 8 lLlxf8 bxc2 1 9
'iftxc2 lLlc6 20 i.c4± Svidler-Hansen, Groningen 1 995; 1 2. . .d 5 1 3 i.c5 d4
14 'iVxb4 lLlc6 1 5 i.xe7 'i1Ve8 16 'ii'a3 lLlxe7 1 7 lLlbc5 lLlg6 1 8 c3±
Kasparov-Ricardi, Buenos Aires 1 997) 1 3 g5 lLlh5 14 l2Jb6 l::tb8 15 l2Jd5
i.xd5 16 exd5 lLla5 1 7 lLlxa5 'ii'xa5 1 8 �b 1 i.d8 1 9 'ii'd3 i.b6 20 i.e 1 l::ta8
2 1 'i1Ve4 i.c5 22 i.h3 'ii'c7 23 i.g4 tLlf4 24 h4;!; Gofshtein-Gruenfeld,
Rishon Le Zion 1 994.
2) On 1 0 ... a5
A) 1 1 �b l a4 ( l l . . .lLlbd7 1 2 i.b5 lLlb6 13 'i1Vf2 lLlc4 14 i.xc4 i.xc4 1 5

i.b6 'iVc8 1 6 lLlxa5 i.e6 1 7 lLlb3 'ii'c6 1 8 a3;!; Movsesian-Vokac, Czech
Republic 1 999) 1 2 lLlc 1 a3 1 3 b3 :as 1 4 i.c4 ! ? i.xc4 1 5 bxc4 'i1Vc8 1 6
lLlb3 l:[a6 1 7 'i1Ve2 ltc6 1 8 lLlb5 ltxc4 1 9 lLlxd6 i.xd6 2 0 l:[xd6 lLla6 2 1
l:[hd 1 lLlb4 22 lidS !;!; Bologan-Loginov, Moscow 1 994.
B) 1 1 a4 lLlc6 1 2 _g4 lLlb4 1 3 'iti>b 1 'ii'c 8 1 4 i.b5 d5 1 5 g5 d4 1 6 gxf6 dxe3
1 7 'i1Vxe3 i.xf6 1 8 l2Jc5 lld8 19 l::txd8+ i.xd8 20 lLlxe6 iVxe6 2 1 iVe2 I/2-Ih
Ye Jiangchuan-Loginov, Moscow 1994.
C) 1 1 i.b5! is the clearest way to advantage. 1 1 . . .lLlc6 ( 1 1 ...lLla6 12 'i1Ve2
lLlc7 1 3 lLlc5! lLlxb5 14 'i1Vxb5 'ii'c8 1 5 lLlxe6 fxe6 16 .l:r.d3 .l:.a6 17 .l:.hd 1
lLle8 1 8 'ifb3 cjjfJ 1 9 g3 'ii'c6 20 a4± Wedberg-Vokac, Leon 200 1 ) 1 2 �b 1
'i1Vb8 ( 1 2 ... lLle8 1 3 'ii'e2 'ii'c 8 14 lLla4 i.d8 1 5 a3 i.c7 1 6 lLlb6 i.xb6 1 7
The English Attack 3 7
�xb6 a4 1 8 tt::Jc 1 f5 19 h3 llf6 2 0 tL!a2 fxe4 21 fxe4 tt::Je7 22 tL!c3±

Lastin-Loginov, Samara 2000) 13 tL!d5 �xd5 14 exd5 tL!b4 15 c4 b6 16 g4
l:ta7 17 a3 tL!a6 18 tL!xa5 bxa5 19 �xa7 11Vxa7 20 11Vxa5± Sax-Stangl,
Balatonbereny 1 996.
1 1 g4 l:tc8 12 g5
1 2 �b 1 allows 12 . . . d5 13 exd5 tL!xd5 14 tL!xd5 �xd5 when White cannot
capture on d5 because of 1 5 . . . l:td8. Still White has tried to prove an edge
here, without much success. 15 ..ig2 ( 1 5 'iff2 11Vc6 16 �d3 a5 1 7 ..if5 a4 !
1 8 tt::Jc5 l:td8 1 9 ..ie4 tL!a6 20 l:txd5 l:txd5 2 1 ..ixd5 11Vxd5 22 tL!xa4 tL!c7 23
tL!c3 "ir'e6 with fine compensation for the pawn, Stefansson-Vallejo Pons,
Selfoss 2003) 1 5 . . . ..ie6 1 6 h3 a5 17 a3 l:ta6 1 8 .tfl l:td6 19 .i.d3 tL!d7 20
�e2 l::.d5 Parligras-Sedlak, Subotica 2003.
12 tt::J h5
...
13 �bl
13 l:tg1 tL!d7 14 tL!d5 ..ixd5 1 5 exd5 a5 was played in Atalik-Nakamura,
San Francisco 2002 but perhaps White's most promising continuation is 13
tL!d5 .txd5 14 exd5 tL!d7 15 ..ih3
A) 1 5 . . . a5 16 �b 1 a4 ( 1 6 ..."ir'd8 17 .tg4 tL!f4 1 8 .txf4 exf4 19 h4 a4 20
tL!d4 l:tc5 Fontaine-Lautier, Val d'Isere 2002) 1 7 tL!c 1 a3 18 b3 tL!f4 1 9
..ixf4 exf4 20 ..ixd7 �xd7 2 1 h4 .tf8 22 tLle2 �f5 23 l:the1 l:tc7 24 "ir'c 1
l:tcc8 25 "ir'd2 l:tc7 1h-1h, Adams-Vallejo Pons, Bled 2002.
B) 15 . . . g6 16 �g4 (16 �b1 �f8 17 ..ig4 [Adams' new 17 "it'c l ! looks
promisng. See illustrative game Adams-Zhang Zhong] 17 ... tt::J f4 18 �xf4
exf4 19 �xd7 "ir'xd7 20 �xf4 �g7 21 .l:.he l a5 22 a4 b5 23 l:te4 ..ie5 24
l:txe5 dxe5 25 11Vxe5 bxa4 26 tL!d2 �f5 27 "ir'xf5 gxf5 28 c4;!;;
Hautot-Ftacnik, Rethymnon 2003) 1 6 ... a5
Bl) 17 ..ixh5?! was harshly dealt with. I feel compelled to show a nice
game which illustrates the potential of Black's attack: 17 ... a4! 18 tt::Ja1 a3
Bla) 19 .tg4 axb2+ 20 �xb2 tL!b6 21 ..ixb6 'ii'xb6+ 22 tLlb3 ..ixg5 23
�d3 (23 "ir'xg5 l:txa2+ 24 �xa2 l:txc2+ 25 �a3 "ir'a6+) 23 ... "ir'b4+.
Bib) 19 b3 gxh5 20 �b1 b5 21 "ir'd3 tL!c5+ 22 �f5? tL!a4 ! 23 bxa4 "ir'c3
24 ..ic 1 bxa4 25 "ir'd3 l:tab8+ 26 tt::Jb3 axb3 27 cxb3 l:txb3+ 28 axb3 a2+ 29
..txa2 .l:.a8+ 30 .ta3 �4 3 I ..tb I 'ii'x a3 32 .l:.hg I 'ifa I + 0- I Borisek

Sutovsky, Terme Zrece 2003.
82) I7 �b I a4 I8 ltJc I a3 I9 b3 ltJf4 20 �xf4 exf4 2I h4 .l:.e8 22 .txd7
\Wxd7 23 liJd3 .t:ffi 24 h5 'ii'f5 25 hxg6 hxg6 26 'ii'x f4 'ii'xf4 27 ltJxf4 .l:.e5
28 liJh3 .l:.e2 29 liJf4 .U.e5 Winants-Sutovsky, Halkidiki 2002.
13 ltJd7
...
14 .U.gl
Again, White has alternatives to try to beat down Black's position.
I ) I4 ltJd5 .txd5 I5 exd5 liJb6
A) 16 ltJa5 liJf4 I 7 .txf4 exf4 I 8 .th3 l:le8 I9 'ii'xf4 is a risky pawn to

take- I 9 ... .t:ffi 20 .l:.d2 (20 .tf5 g6 21 i.e4 .tg7 22 c4? ltJa4-+
Miroshnichenko-Voitsekhovsky, Barlinek 2002) 20... l:te5 21 .l:.hd1 .l:.ae8 22
\Wh4 g6 23 �fl .l:.f5 24 .l:.d3 �g7 25 liJb3 ltJc4 26 c3 b5 27 .l:.e I l:lb8 28
.l:.e4 a5 Tiviakov-Morozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2001.
B) 16 .l:.g1 ltJc4 ( I 6 ... a5 I 7 a3 a4 I 8 ltJc5 liJf4 1 9 �xf4 'ii'xc5 20 .te3
ltJc4 2I �xc4 'ii'xc4 22 .l:.g4 'ii'a6 23 .l:.e4 l:lc4 24 l:lxc4 \Wxc4 25 'ii'd3 VHt'l
Gallagher-Forster, Switzerland 200 1 ) 17 .txc4 'ii'xc4 1 8 l:lg4 \Wc7 19 'ii'd3
(19lLia5 .td8 20 ltJc4 1i'd7 Gonzalez-Panelo, Sants 2003) 1 9 ... g6 20 liJd2
b5 2 1 l:.dg I .:.:m 22 ltJe4 f5 23 gxf6 .i.xf6 24 f4 ltJxf4 25 .txf4 exf4 26
.l:.xf4 �e5 27 l:tx:ffi+ 1h-1h Gelfand-Ftacnik, Leon 200 1 .
2 ) 1 4 'ii'f2
A) 14 ... b5 1 5 h4 b4 16lLid5 ..txd5 1 7 l:txd5 a5 ( 1 7 . . .l:tcb8 1 8lLia5lLib6

19 l:td1 g6 20 ..te2 ..tf8 2 1 f4 lLixf4 22 ..txf4 exf4 23 'ii'x f4 l:te8 24 h5;1;
Smimov-Zakhartsov, Krasnoyarsk 2003) 18 ..th3 a4 1 9lLic 1 has been good
for White in practice.
AI) 19 . .lLif4
. 20 ..txf4 exf4 21 l2Jd3 lLib6 22 ..txc8 l2Jxd5 23 exd5 l:txc8
24lLixb4± Shomoev-Beshukov, Krasnodar 2002.
A2) 19 ...g6 20 l:thd 1 ..tf8 21 ..tg4 l:tcb8 22 ..txd7 'ii'xd7 23 l:txe5 b3 24
cxb3 axb3 25 a3 'ii'c 7 26 l:ted5 should not work against good defense-
26 . . . ..tg7 27 l2Jd3 l:ta4 28 lLib4 l:tbxb4 29 axb4 l:ta2 Komeev-Kempinski,
lstanbul 2003, now 30 l:txd6! l:txb2+ 31 'ii'xb2 ..txb2 32 ..tc5 ! wins.
A3) 19 ... l:tcb8 20 ..tg4 lLif4 2 1 ..txf4 exf4 22 ..txd7 'ii'xd7 23 'ii'd2 l:tb5
24 l2Je2 l:tc8 25 lLixf4 b3 26 cxb3 axb3 27 a3 l:tc2 28 'ii'd 3± Anand-Van
Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2001.
B) More confusing at least is 14 . . .'ii'd 8 15 h4 l:txc3 ! ? 1 6 bxc3 'ii'c7 1 7 c4
(17 ..th3 ..txh3 18 .l:txh3 a5 Movsesian-Sakaev, Herc�g Novi 2001)
17... llc8 1 8 l:th2 g6 19 'ii'd2 ..txc4 20 ..txc4 'ii'xc4 2 1 'ii'd5 Wc7 22 c4lLib6
23 ..txb6 'ii'xb6+ Movsesian-Hracek, Rethymnon 2003.
C) 14 h4?! a5 15 lLic 1 l2Jg3 16 l:tg l lLixfl 17 l:tdxfl lLib6 1 8 ..txb6
'ii'xb6+ Svetushkin-Neverov, Kiev 200 1 .
14...b5
This is the most direct but Black has choices here.
1 4 ... g6 15 lDd5 .ixd5 16 exd5
A) 16 ... ..ifE 1 7 ..ih3 (or 17 l:.g4 .l:te8 18 .l:tc4 'ifb8 19 lDa5t Lutz-Ftacnik,
Cologne 2003) 17 . . . l:.e8 1 8 .ig4 lDf4 1 9 .ixf4 exf4 20 .ixd7 'it'xd7 21
'it'xf4 l:te5?! 22 lDc5 'it'c7 23 lDe4± Sandipan-Sareen, Calicut 2003.
B) 16 ... lDf4 ! 17 h4 (White should try 1 7 .ixf4 exf4 1 8 ..ih3) 17 . . . ..ifE 1 8
lDa5 .ig7 1 9 c4 lDc5 Dominguez-Sutovsky, Bled 2002.
14 . . .lDb6 15 �f2 lDc4 (15 . . . ..id8 16 h4 g6 17 l:td2 'it'c6 1 8 f4 exf4 1 9
.ixf4 lDxf4 2 0 'it'xf4 'it'e8 2 1 lDd4 l:txc3 ! 2 2 bxc3 lDa4 2 3 l:tg3 ..ia5 24
lDxe6 'it'xe6 25 l:.d4 lDxc3+ 26 l:bc3 .ixc3 27 .ic4 'it'e7 28 'it'xd6
Topalov-Kasparov, Leon 1 998) 16 ..ixc4 'ii'xc4 1 7 lDa5 'it'c7 1 8 lDd5 ..ixd5
1 9 .l:txd5 b5 20 'ii'd2 g6 2 1 l:tc 1 .id8 22 lDb3 .ie7 23 c4 bxc4 24 lDa5 'it'd7
25 lDxc4 'it'h3 Apicella-Kempinski, Rethymnon 2003.
14 ... a5 15 a3 lDb6 16 f4 lDxf4 17 .ixf4 exf4 1 8 'it'xf4 lDc4 1 9 l:tg3 g6 20
lDd4 .ifE 21 lDdb5 'iib6 22 ..ixc4 llxc4 23 lDxd6 l:.d4 24 l:.xd4 •xd4 25
lDdb5 'ifb6 26 lDc7 l:.d8 27 lD3d5± Svidler-Kempinski, Moscow 2003 .
1 5 lDd5 .ixd5 1 6 exd5 lDb6 1 7 lDa5 lDxd5 18 'it'xd5 'it'xa5
This pawn sacrifice is a motif for White. He controls the d5 square and
has the bishop pair. This is usually enough for at least equal chances.
19 ..ih3
19 .ic4 l:.fE 20 .ib3 �h8 2 1 l:tg4 'ii'c 7 22 c3 llac8 23 ..ic2 'it'c6 24 'it'd3
g6 25 'it'e2 f5 26 gxf6 lDxf6 27 l:th4 lDd5?! (27 ...lDh5 28 l:.xh5 gxh5 29 f4
'it'c4 30 'it'xh5 'it'f7 leaves White on the short side) 28 l:.h3 'it'd7 29 'ii'g2
lDf6 30 l:.g1 l:.g8 31 ..ixg6 ..ifE 32 llh4 1 -0 Nunn-Popovic, Internet 2003.
19 ...l:.f8 20 ..ig4 lDf4 21 ..ixf4 exf4 22 l:tge1 l:ta7 23 h4 'ii'b6 24 'it'f5
l:tc7?!
24 . . .'ii'f2! .
25 'ifxf4 'iff2 26 ..if5 g6 2 7 ..id3t
Gashimov-Popov, Batumi 2002.
8 .i.e3 .i.e7 9 'tWd2 0-0 10 0-0-0 tiJbd7
l e4 cS 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 a6 6 f3 eS 7 lLlb3 i.e6 8

i.e3 i.e7 9 'ifd2
We investigate here the variations with . . . i.e7 and . . lLlbd7
. together but
for clarity we will take as our main order...
9 0-0
...
The immediate 9 . . lLlbd7

. will usually transpose if Black castles on the
next move or two, but can have some independent significance too:
A) Less compelling is 1 0 0-0-0 b5
Al) 1 1 'ii'f2 lWb8 ! ? 1 2 g4 b4 13 lLld5 (no better is 1 3 lLle2, see the
illustrative game Movsesian-Lutz, Budapest 2003) 1 3 . . . i.xd5 14 exd5 a5 1 5
g5 lLlh5 1 6 i.h3 a4 1 7 lLld2 b3 1 8 axb3 axb3 1 9lLlxb3 l4a4 20 i.g4lLlf4 2 1
h4 'iib7 with good play for the pawn, Votava-Lutz, Germany 1 997.
A2) I I g4
A2a) l l . . .b4 1 2 lLld5 ( 1 2 lLle2 !? d5 1 3 g5 d4 14 i.xd4 lLlxe4 1 5 fxe4
exd4 1 6 h4 seems slightly better for White) 1 2 ... i.xd5 1 3 exd5 lLlb6 14
'ii'xb4 lLlfxd5 15 i.xb6 lLlxb6 1 6 f4 'ii'c7 Volke-Heinemann, Germany
1 999.
A2b) l l . ..lLlb6 1 2 g5 lLlfd7 13 lLld5 lLlxd5?! ( 1 3 ... i.xd5 ! 14 exd5 l4c8 is
equal) 14 exd5 i.f5 1 5 lLla5 'ii'c7 1 6 lLlc6 lLlb8 1 7 lLlxen Ioseliani-Zhu
Chen, Elista 1 998.
B) After 1 0 g4 Black does best to play 1 0 ... 0-0 and transpose into our
main line. I O .. J:tc8 is also reasonable, though committing since the other
rook may wish to land on this square. The following alternatives do not
equal ize. IO ... b5?!
(Having already played . . . Jl.. e7 it makes less sense now to try 1 0 . . .ltJb6
e.g. 1 1 0-0-0 'i!lc7 1 2 h4 l:tc8 1 3 'it>b1 tt:\c4 14 Jl..xc4 'i!lxc4 1 5 h5 h6 1 6 g5
hxg5 1 7 i.xg5;l; Stocek-Dydyshko, Ostrava 1 998) 1 1 a4! b4 1 2 tt:\d5 Jl..xd5
1 3 exd5 tt:\b6 14 a5 ! tt:\bxd5 1 5 g5 tt:\xe3 16 gxf6 Jl..xf6 17 'ii'x e3± is a
discovery of John Nunn's which relegates IO ... b5?! to a sideline.
10 0-0-0 tiJbd7
1 1 g4
After 1 1 g4 there is a branching of variations. The main moves are
11 ... 'i!lc7 and 1 1 ... b5 which require involved investigation. The g pawn
advance is routine. 1 1 'it>b 1 will often just transpose to later variations, but
there can be slight differences, e.g. 11 <t>b l Ilc8 1 2 g4 b5 (12 . . . tt:\b6 1 3 h4
'ikc7 14 h5 tt:\fd7 1 5 g5 f5 16 gxf6 tt:\xf6;j; Sadvakasov-Alekseev,
Skanderborg 2003) 13 g5 tt:\h5 14 tt:\d5 ..ixd5 1 5 exd5 tt:\b6 16 tt:\a5 'ikc7
17 l:.g1 g6 1 8 h4 lt:Jxd5 19 'ikxd5 'ikxa5 20 c4 tt:\f4 2 1 i.xf4 exf4 22 cxb5
axb5 23 'ikxb5 'ika7 24 i.c4 'ikf2 25 ..ib3 'ikxf3 26 'ika4 'ii'f2 Bologan
Vallejo Pons, Selfoss 2003.
l l ...'ikc7
1 1 ... b5
A) 1 2 �b l
Al) l 2 . . . tl'lb6 1 3 g5
Ala) l 3 ... ll'lfd7 14 h4 'ir'c7 1 5 h5 b4 l 6 ll'ld5 .ixd5 1 7 exd5 a5 1 8 'ir'd3
a4 l 9 ll'ld2 a3 20 'iff5 axb2 ! ? (20 ... l:tfc8!) 2 1 .id3 g6 22 hxg6 l:txa2 ! 23 c4
ll'lxd5 24 .id4 'ifa7? (24 . . . exd4 25 'ifxd5) 25 g7 ! l:ta l + 26 'itc2 l -0
Grischuk-Vaulin, St Petersburg 1 999.
Alb) 13 . . .ll'lh5 14 ll'ld5 ( 1 4 h4 l:tc8 15 l:tg l 'ifc7 1 6 'iff2 ll'lc4
Tolnai-Moiseev, Kecskemet 1 99 1 ) 14 ... .ixd5 1 5 exd5 'ikc7 1 6 l:tg l ( 1 6
lba5 ll'lxd5 1 7 ,.xd5 'ir'xa5 1 8 .ih3 'ii'b4 1 9 .if5 ll'lf4 2 0 'ike4 'ir'xe4
Lutz-Kuczynski, Germany 1 995) 16 ... g6 1 7 h4 l:tab8 1 8 .ixb6 'ir'xb6 1 9
.id3 1h- 1h Khalifman-Kuczynski, Germany 1 994.
A2) 1 2 ... b4 l 3 ll'ld5 ( 1 3 ll'le2 ! ?) l 3 . . . .ixd5 14 exd5 ll'lb6 15 .ixb6 'ir'xb6
allows Black reasonable counterplay- 1 6 h4 ( 1 6 'ir'e2 l:tfc 8 ! ? 1 7 f4 a5 1 8
fxe5 dxe5 1 9 'ii'x e5 a4 2 0 ll'ld4 b3 i s dangerous for White, lenni-Gallagher,
Lenk 2003) 16 . . . a5 1 7 ll'lc I l:tfc8 1 8 .id3 a4 1 9 g5 ll'lh5 20 .if5 l:tc5+
Sadvakasov-Bologan, Skanderborg 2003.
B) 12 g5 b4 ( l 2 ... ll'lh5 13 ll'ld5 .txd5 14 exd5 transposes into the
previous 8 ... .ie7 section) l 3 ll'le2 ! ll'le8 ( 1 3 ...ll'lh5 14 ll'lg3 ll'lf4 1 5 h4 a5 1 6
�b l a4 1 7 ll'ld4;!; Topalov-de Firmian, Polanica Zdroj 1 995) 1 4 f4 a5
( 14 ... exf4 15 .ixf4 ll'lc5 16 .ig2 ll'lxb3+ 1 7 cxb3 a5 1 8 �b I a4 19 bxa4
l:txa4 20 b3 l:ta6 2 1 ll'ld4! Zaitsev-Loginov, St Petersburg 2003) 1 5 �b l a4
1 6 ll'lbc I b3 1 7 f5 bxa2+ 1 8 �a I .ic4 1 9 ll'lc3 l:tc8 20 h4± Bruzon-Vera,
Havana 2003.
We briefly consider other l i th moves for Black.
l l ... l:tc8 is reasonable and may transpose to lines of l l ... b5 or l l ... 'ikc7.
The disadvantage is that Black may wish to place the king's rook on c8 and
leave the queen's rook on a8. An independent example is 12 g5 (this should
probably wait until Black plays . . . b5 so the c6 square is weakened)
1 2 ...tLlh5 1 3 tLld5 .ixd5 1 4 exd5 f5 1 5 h4 'ikc7 Giorgadze-Ubilava,
Tashkent 1 984.
l l . . .a5 12 a4 ll'lb6 1 3 �b I ll'lc4 14 .ixc4 .ixc4 1 5 g5 ll'le8 1 6 h4 'ikd7 1 7
f4± Tolnai-Loginov, Budapest 1 99 1 .
1 l .. .liJb6 1 2 liJaS 'il/c7 1 3 �xb6 'ii'xb6 14 liJc4 'il/cS 1 S liJe3 l:r.fc8 1 6 h4

bS 1 7 gS liJd7 1 8 liJcdS �d8 1 9 �h3;!; AI Sayed-Korotylev, Biel 2003.
12 'it>bl
The main line, though the alternatives are worth consideration.
1 2 gS liJhS 1 3 liJdS .i.xdS 14 exdS ( 1 4 'illxdS ltac8 1 S 'ii'd2 fS 1 6 exfS
l:txfS Zezulkin-Hracek, Czech Republic 200 1 ) 14 . . . aS 1 S 'it>b 1 l:tfc8 1 6 �h3
_.d8 1 7 .i.g4 liJf4 1 8 �xf4 exf4 1 9 h4 a4 20 liJd4 l:tcS 2 1 �xd7 'ii'xd7 22
_.xf4 a3 23 b3 l:txdS 24 c4 l:teS 2S l:the 1 �f8 Fontaine-Lautier, Val d 'Isere
2002.
12 h4 bS 13 liJdS ( 1 3 hS b4 14 liJdS �xdS 1 S exdS liJb6 1 6 �xb6 'il/xb6
W.Watson-Kuczinski, Bundesliga 1 99S; 13 gS liJhS 14 'fi'f2 b4 1 S liJdS
�xdS 1 6 l:txdS aS 1 7 �b 1 a4 1 8 lDc1 l:tfb8 Alekseev-Kempinski, Istanbul
2003) 1 3 . . . �xdS 14 exdS l:tfc8 1 S 'it>b 1 liJb6 1 6 .i.xb6 'il/xb6 1 7 'ii'e 1 aS 1 8
gS liJhS 1 9 a3 liJf4 Adams-Kobalija, Moscow 200 1 . Though Adams won
the game the chances here are about even.
l � l:tfc8
...
Black fully develops before advancing on the queenside. The immediate

advance is equally critical. 1 2 . . .bS 1 3 gS liJhS.
A) The less played alternative is to transfer the knight to g3: I 4 ltJe2 l:tfc8
( l 4 . . .a5 I 5 ltJg3 a4 I6 ltJc I ltJf4 I7 h4 b4;!; Degraeve-Kuczynski, Ohrid
200 1 ) 1 5 ltJg3 ltJf4 1 6 h4 ltJb6 ( l 6 . . . g6 may be better) 1 7 i.xf4 exf4 1 8
ltJh5 ltJc4 1 9 ..txc4 bxc4 20 'ii'c3 ! .i.f8 2 1 ltJd4 l:tab8 22 ltJxf4 l:te8±
Blehm-Kuczynski, Plock 2000;
B) 14 ltJd5 ..txd5 15 exd5 ltJb6 I6 ltJa5 ( 1 6 l:tg I g6 17 h4 l:tab8 1 8 i.xb6
'ii'xb6 I9 i.d3 1/z - 1/z Khalifman-Kuczynski, Germany 1994) 1 6. . . ltJxd5 1 7
'ii'xd5 'ii'xa5 i s a now thematic pawn sacrifice where White obtains the d5
square and the bishop pair in compensation. There are many tests of this:
B1) Less threatening is 1 8 ..th3 'ii'a4 ( 1 8 . . .'ii'b4 19 ..tf5 ltJf4 20 'ii'e4
'ii'xe4 2 1 i.xe4 l:tab8 Lutz-Kuczynski, Germany 1 995) 1 9 ..tg4 ltJf4 20
'ii'b 7 ..txg5 2 1 l:txd6 l:tab8 22 "fia7 l:ta8 23 'Wb7 l:tab8 24 'Wa7 1/z- 1/z
Acs-Roeder, St Vincent 2002.
B2) 1 8 c4 l:tab8 ( 1 8 ... 'ii'b4 19 l:tg 1 l:tab8 20 cxb5 axb5 2 1 a3 'ii'a4 22 l:tg4
ltJf4 23 i.xf4 exf4 24 l:td4 'ii'a5 25 l:te4 'ii'd8 26 ..txb5 �h8 27 l:texf4±
Bologan-Fressinet, Pamplona 2002)
B2a) 19 i.d3 'ii'b4 (or 19 ...'ii'a4 20 cxb5 axb5 21 l:tc 1 ltJf4 22 ..txf4 'ii'xf4
23 h4 i.d8 24 'ii'xd6 1/z- 1/z Ponomariov-Sutovsky, Ohrid 200 1 ) 20 l:td2 bxc4
2 1 i.xc4 a5 22 �a1 l:tbc8 23 i.a6?! ltJf4! 24 'We4 (24 i.xf4 l:tc5)
24 ... l:tc7+ Fressinet-Kuczynski, Germany 2002.
B2b) I9 cxb5 1 9 . . . axb5 20 l:tg1 g6 2 I l:tg4 ltJg7 22 ..td2 'ii'b6 23 l:tb4
lLle6 24 l:lxb5 'ili'£2 is a messy position with chances for both sides,
Spasov-Cvitan, Leon 200 1 .
1 3 'ii'f2
Shifting the queen to a square nearer the kingside while controlling the
g I -a7 diagonal . More straightforward are the pawn advances:
I 3 h4 ltJb6 14 h5 a5 I 5 a4 ( 1 5 g5 ltJfd7 1 6 ltJc 1 ;!;) 1 5 ...ltJc4 I 6 i.xc4
'ii'xc4 Vescovi-Sakaev, Istanbul 2000.
13 ... b5 14 g5 ltJh5 15 h4
1 5 ltJd5?! i.xd5 1 6 l:txd5 l:tcb8 leaves Black prepared to roll on the
queenside. 1 7 ltJc 1 ltJb6 1 8 l:td 1 ltJc4 1 9 h4 a5 20 l:th2?! a4 2 1 ltJd3?! b4 22
i.e 1 b3 23 cxb3 axb3 24 a3 d5! 25 exd5 i.xa3 ! 0- 1 Z.Aimasi-Gelfand,

Monaco 2002.
1 5...l:tcb8
1 5 ...lL'lg3? ! 1 6 'ii'xg3 b4 17 l:td3 bxc3 ( 1 7 . . . a5 1 8 lL'ld5 'ii'xc2+ 19 �a1 a4
20 l:th2+- Kovchan-Voitsekhovsky, St Petersburg 2002) 1 8 l:txc3 'ii'd8 1 9
l:txc8 'ii'xc8 2 0 .ih3± Moreno Camero-Shchekachev, France 2002.
1 5 ...b4 16 lL'ld5 .ixd5 17 l:txd5 a5 18 .ih3 a4 19 lL'lc1 g6 20 l:thd 1 .tf8
21 .i.g4 l:tcb8 22 .ixd7 'ifxd7 23 l:txe5 b3 24 cxb3 axb3 25 a3 'ifc7 26
l:ted5 is sharp but offers insufficient compensation for the pawn, Komeev
Kempinski, Istanbul 2003.
16 .i.h3 b4 17 lL'ld5 .i.xd5 18 exd5 a5 19 .i.g4 a4 20 lL'ld2 lL'lf4 21 .i.xf4
exf4 22 .ixd7 'ii'xd7!
This is one of White's significant strategic ideas. The position with the
white knight coming to e4 against the dark squared bishop is usually good
for White, as in this case.
23 :ii'd4 'ii'b5 24 lL'le4 b3 25 cxb3 axb3 26 a3 l:ta4 27 'ifd3 l:tc4 28 lL'lc3
'ii'c5 29 l:the1 .i.f8 30 l:te4±
Karjakin-Pavlov, Simferopol 2003.
Illustrative Game : 8 'iVd2 ltJbd7 9 f3 j_e7
Byrne - Balashov
Alekhine Memorial, Moscow 1971
This is one of the early games with the English Attack. American GM
Robert Byrne was a pioneer of the opening and one sees that this game of
more than 30 years old is instructive even today. White's conduct of the
game is still theoretical but Black's play, though apparently reasonable and
logical, is lacking in the coherent defense that makes up the modem plans
for Black.
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 a6 6 ..ie3 e5 7 lLlb3 ..ie6
8 'il'd2 lLlbd7
8 .ltJg4?! 9 ..ig5 is clearly in White's favor.
..
9 f3 ..ie7 10 0-0-0
Today 1 0 g4 is considered more precise so I O . . b5 can be met by I I a4.
.
10...l:tc8
This move is certainly playable though nowadays we consider there is no
rush to place this rook on the open file.
1 1 g4 lLlb6 12 g5
White's move is thematic but I would prefer 12 h4 as there is no need to
advance immediately.
1 2 ...ltJfd7?!
After this White begins to take control of the board. We cannot be too
hard on Balashov though. It was 30 years of theory later that top players
decided that the best move was 1 2 .. ltJh5 ! .
.
13 l:g1 'fic7 14 'iti> b 1 lLlc4 1 5 ..ixc4 'fixc4 1 6 h4

Structurally we have a classic English Attack where White has the

advanced pawns on the kingside and use of the weakened d5 square. Black
has queenside counterplay and the two bishops, though the white knights
are just as valuable.
16 ... b5 17 'ii'g 2! b4
Advancing on the queenside without castling. He doesn't want to castle
into the kingside pawn storm but the black king is also a target in the center.
18 lLld5 .td8 19 f4
The f pawn has done its job on f3 to lead the kingside advance. Now it
joins in the second phase of the plan, to break down Black's center and
kings ide.
1 9 ... f5!?
Black is under pressure and reacts aggressively. The disadvantage is that
the game opens up and White is better developed with a safer king. 19 . . a5 .
or 19 ... exf4 would represent a slower defence.

20 gxf6 gxf6 21 fxe5 dxe5?
This natural recapture is wrong. 2 l . .J:tg8 ! 22 'ii'f3 'ii'xc2+ 23 �a l lhg l
24 lhgl lLlxe5 25 'ii'h5+ lLlg6 permits Black to trade off the undeveloped
rook and leave the position rather messy, albeit still in White 's favor.
22 .th6! rs
Risky play to counterattack on c3, but the black king is stuck in the center
and good advice is hard to find. Now 22 ... .l:.g8 fails to 23 'ii'x g8+! .txg8 24
l:lxg8+ �fl 25 .l:.g7+ �e8 26 lLle3 'ii'xe4 27 l:tdxd7+-.
23 exf5 .txfS
24 lLld4! 'ii'xd4
24 ... exd4 25 .l:.de l+ .te7 26 lbe7+ �d8 27 'ii'g8+ lLlf8 28 'ii'x h8.
25 lbd4 lbc2
Black has a nasty discovered check coming. How should White continue?
26 lLlc7+! .txc7 27 'ii'a8+ 1;e7 28 .l:.g7+ �f6 29 'ii'x h8! 1-0
The discovered check is not mate and White's queen is safe on h8.
Illustrative Game: 8 f3 l2Jbd7 9 i¥d2 b5
Movsesian Lutz
-
Budapest 2003
1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 a6 6 j_eJ e5 7 ltJb3 j_e6

8 f3 ltJbd7 9 'ii'd 2 b5 10 0-0-0 j_e7 1 1 ii'f2
Movsesian attempts to play the opening in a more positional way,
eschewing the quick advance of the g pawn. This game is a good example
of how Black's attack can also be dangerous. White must be prepared when
the black pawns march on the queenside.
1 1 . .. 'ii'b 8!?
A curious move which seems good. It is a speciality of Lutz's.
1 2 g4 b4
13 ltJe2?!
This would be positionally good if White gets time to play ltJg3 and g5.
However it turns out to be too slow and White should play 13 llld5 as we
have shown already in the variations.
13 ... a5! 14 �b 1
A concession in order to provide a good retreat square for the knight. One
can say things have already gone a bit wrong for White as he has transferred
to defense. On the more aggressive 14 g5, 14 ... a4 ! leaves Black ahead. 1 5
gxf6 ( 1 5 ltJd2 ltJh5) 1 5 ... axb3 1 6 fxg7 .l:tg8 1 7 axb3 'ifc7+.
14 ... a4 15 ltJbc1 b3 !
Clearly Black wants to pursue the initiative.
1 6 cxb3
16 axb3 axb3 1 7 lt:)xb3 .ixb3 18 cxb3 'ii'xb3 1 9 lt:)c3 d5 and ... .ib4 is a
strong threat.
1 6 ... axb3 1 7 a3
White has locked the pawns on the queenside. In the endgame the black
pawn on b3 can be a serious weakness. In the middle game the question is
whether Black can make use of this pawn to attack the white king.
1 7...d5 !?
A reasonable alternative is l 7 . . ."6b7 I 8 lt:)g3 ( I 8 lt:)c3 d5+; 1 8 g5 lt:)xe4 ! )
1 8 . . .0-0 1 9 g5 lt:)e8.
18 g5
White must go ahead since 1 8 exd5 lt:)xd5+ is no good.
18 ... .ixa3?!
1 8 . . .'ifc7 ! J 9 lt:)xb3 ( 1 9 gxf6?? 'ifc2+ 20 'itta l .C.xa3+) 19 ... lt:)h5 provides
excellent compensation for a pawn and is much safer.
19 gxf6 .ixb2! ?
Having gone this far Black must carry on and sacrifice a second piece.
20 �xb2
Also good seems 20 fxg7 .l:.g8 2 1 �xb2 1Wb4 22 .ia7.
20 .. .'ii'b4 21 .ia7 0-0!?
Objectively this may be wrong, but it is hard to criticize.
2 l . ..d4 22 fxg7 l:tg8 23 lt:)xd4 exd4 24 'ifxd4 'ii'a5 25 lt:)xb3 'ii'xa7 26
'ii'xa7 l:.xa7 27 lt:)d4 lhg7 leaves White a pawn ahead but with all the
pawns being on the kingside there are drawing chances.
22 .ih3?
The incredible complications finally upset Movsesian 's equanimity. 22
exd5 l:.fc8 23 dxe6 (also 23 liJxb3 .if5 24 l:.c l ) 23 ...l:.c2+ 24 �b l 'il'a3
. . .appears to contain deadly threats, yet White wins-25 exf7+ (not 25

..id4?? l:.a2-+) 25 ... �fl! 26 fxg7+ ¢>xf7 27 l:txd7+ �g8 28 ..id4 b2
(28 . . J:ta2 29 l:.d8+! ltxd8 3 0 'ii'e3+-) 29 �xc2 :I.c8+ 30 .ic5 l:.xc5+ 3 1
'il'xc5 'il'xc5+ 3 2 �xb2 with far too much for the queen.
22 .....ixh3 23 ltJxb3 d4!
Now Black is only one piece down with a strong attack. White should
play 24 ltJexd4 exd4 when he is clearly worse but has chances to save the
game.
24 'il'g3? g6 25 ltJexd4 l:txa7! 26 liJc2 'Wc4
Material is back to even and Black has a raging attack. White has no
chance of stopping the slaughter.
27 'il'f2 l:.b7 28 liJcal ltJc5 29 'il'e3 .ie6 30 l:.cl liJd3+ 0-1
Illustrative Game : 8 f3 ii.e7 9 'i¥d2 0-0
Adams - Zhang Zhong

Wijk aan Zee 2004
1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 a6 6 i.e3 e5 7 lLlb3 i.e6

8 f3 i.e7 9 'ii'd 2 0-0 10 0-0-0 'ii'c 7 1 1 g4 l:tc8 1 2 g5 ltJh5 13 ltJd5 i.xd5 14
exd5 ltJd7 15 i.h3 g6
Black's alternative is 1 5 . . . a5 (see variations), which may be best in view
of this game.
1 6 �b1 i.f8
17 'ii'c l !
It is strange that this can b e a strong move-the queen retreats to the first
rank to hide from the battle in the center of the board. The point is that
White is now able to make the knight maneuver ltJd2-e4 while the queen
defends c2.
1 7 ...lLlf4?!
This allows White to head for a position where he trades off his two
bishops for Black's two knights, leaving the white knight to sit untouched
when it comes to the e4 square. It is strange, but this may be the only
mistake Black makes in the game. Black could try 1 7 ...b5 1 8 ltJd2 ( 1 8
i.xd7 'i'xd7 1 9 ltJa5 'i'f5 20 l:thfl lLlf4) 1 8 ... a5 1 9 lLle4 a4 !? 20 a3 b4 2 1
axb4 l:Icb8 with messy play. In general White has the easier task as Black
must do something to counter White's focused positional plan.
18 i.xf4 exf4 19 lLld2
Not getting distracted with the pawn offer. 19 i.xd7 'i'xd7 20 'ii'xf4 .i.g7
allows Black activity for the pawn. Adams might have considered this if the
game continuation had not been favorable to him.
19 ....i.g7 20 tt::le4 .i.eS 2 1 .l:[d2 �d8 22 .i.xd7 �xd7 23 h4
Adams has achieved his strategic goal and stands clearly better. The
knight on e4 is a powerhouse-it holds kingside squares to promote the
attack, blocks the e file and pressures d6 and c5. It can always hop into f6
when Black will be forced to trade it for the bishop.
23 ... .1:[c7 24 hS nac8 25 .l:[h4 ! �fS 26 .l:[dh2
Adams has placed the rooks efficiently to attack on the h file and defend
c2. Zhang Zhong has played we11 and actively since his dubious 1 7th move,
but he has no serious attacking plan and must guard against the h file threats
(note 27 hxg6 fxg6 does not break through).
26....1:[e7
Defense before pressing on with the attack.
27 a3 bS
This turns out to be weakening, but it is hard to suggest anything good.
28 'ii'd 2 .l:[c4 29 ifaS! �c8
30 tt::l f6+!
This is precisely calculated to increase his advantage. Otherwise Adams
would not give up the tremendous knight.
30 .....txf6 3 1 gxf6 l:tec7

The rook must stay on the 7th rank to guard the h pawn.
32 hxg6 fxg6 33 'iVe1
The queen comes to e6 with decisive effect. Black cannot trade it off and
allow two connected pawns on the 6th rank.
33 . .'iVf8
.
33 ... l:tf7 34 l:txh7! l:txh7 35 l:txh7 �xh7 36 'iVe7+ �h6 37 f7+-.

34 'iVe6+ �h8 35 l:th6 b4
Nothing else helps.
36 axb4 l:txb4 37 l:txg6 l:tb8 38 f7
Other moves are also winning. This prosaic move gains connected passed
c and d pawns, so the rook endings are an easy win.
38 ...l:txf7 39 'iVxd6 l:te7 40 l:tf6 l:te l+ 41 �a2 'ir'e8
4 l . ..'iVxd6 42 l:txd6 is hopeless.
42 l:txf4 1-0
8 f3 h5 9 tiJdS
1 e4 cS 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 a6 6 i.e3 eS 7 tt:lb3 i.e6

8 f3 hS
Black prevents the advance g4, choosing to immediately contest squares

on the kingside. The move does weaken Black's kingside, though not as
much as it looks at first sight. Black has had fair results with this move so
we include it as one of the main defenses.
9 tt:ldS
9 'ii'd2 is White 's most popular continuation, which will be considered in
the next game.
9 i.e2 is usually just a transposition to the variation 9 'ii'd2 tt:lbd7 1 0
i.e2.
Other moves are seldom seen:
9 tt:la4 is rare but it has the strong positional idea to play 10 c4 with a
Maroczy Bind in the centre of the board. This is the most interesting of
White's minor alternatives. Black has the energetic (and risky) try 9 ... tt:lbd7
1 0 c4 b5!? ( 1 0 ... l:.c8 1 1 l:.c1 h4 1 2 i.e2 i.e7 1 3 0-0 tt:lh5 is a less tactical
alternative.) 1 1 cxb5 d5 1 2 tt:lac5? ( 1 2 bxa6 dxe4 13 tt:lc3 i.b4 14 i.d2 exf3
1 5 'ii'xf3 is a more testing variation, when the positon is messy though
Black must prove his case. If instead 1 2 tt:lbc5 axb5 1 3 tt:lxe6 fxe6 14 i.xb5
'ii'a 5+ 1 5 tt:lc3 d4 1 6 i.xd4 exd4 17 'ii'xd4.) 1 2 ... 'ii'b6 1 3 l:.c1 l:.c8 White
will lose two pieces for a rook. 14 a3 tt:lxc5 1 5 tt:lxc5 l:.xc5 ! 16 bxa6 i.d6
1 7 i.xc5 ( 1 7 b4 l:.xc I 1 8 i.xb6 l:.xd 1 + 1 9 �xd H) 1 7 ... i.xc5 1 8 'ii'c2 tt:ld7
1 9 b4 i.e3 and Black's command of the dark squares keeps the white king
in a deadly prison. 20 l:.d 1 tt:lf6 2 1 exd5 tt:lxd5 22 i.c4 i.d4 23 i.xd5
i.xd5 24 'ii'c 8+ �e7 25 'ii'x h8 i.f2+ 26 �d2 'ii'e 3+ 27 �c2 'ii'b 3+ 0- 1
Morovic Fernandez-Hulak, Pula 2000.
9 f4 lDg4 I 0 .id2 exf4 I I .ixf4 g5 I 2 .ic I .ig7 I 3 h3 tDe5 I4 .ie3 g4

1/2- lh Svidler-Sakaev, St Petersburg I 995.
9 .id3 lDbd7 IO �e2 �c7 I I a4 .ie7 I 2 a5 d5 I3 exd5 tDxd5 I4 tDxd5
.ixd5 Azarov-Tisdal, Panormo 200 I .
9 .ixd5!
...
White seems to gain an edge after 9 ... tDxd5 I O exd5 .if5 I I i.d3 .ixd3
I 2 �xd3 lDd7 I 3 0-0-0 .ie7 I4 'it>b l;!;. Shirov-Anand, Leon 200 I continued
I4 ...l:.c8 I 5 f4 �c7 I6 lDd2 0-0 I 7 f5 tDf6 I8 .ig5 ! ? tDxd5 I 9 .ixe7 tDxe7
20 f6 lDg6 2 1 fxg7 �xg7 22 tDe4 "iVc4 (22 ... d5 !?) 23 tDxd6 �xd3 24 l:.xd3
l:.c7 25 l:.fl 'it>g8 26 il:lf5 l:.e8 27 l:.d6;l; and White eventually won the
endgame.
10 exd5 lDbd7 1 1 c4
White has the bishop pair and an advanced pawn on d5. His strategic plan
is to advance the queenside pawn majority after due preparation. The pawn
break c4-c5 is usually desirable but Black has a surprisingly resilient
position. The black minor pieces coordinate well within the pawn structure
and the extra kings ide pawn can lead to attacking chances on that side of the
board. Black has better control of the dark squares so if White 's c4-c5 break
can be prevented he will have good chances.
l l �c7
...
Or l l .. .g6 immediatel y . Less active is l l .. ...ie7 1 2 ..ie2 g6?! 1 3 0-0 �f8

1 4 'ii'd2 ri;g7 1 5 tL\a5 Wc8 1 6 b4 ..id8 1 7 lDb3 ..ib6 1 8 .l:ac l i..x e3+ 1 9
'ii'xe3 b6 20 f4±, Vescovi-Leitao, Sao Paolo, 2000.
12 i..d3 g6 13 0-0 ..tg7 14 lDd2 0-0 15 tL\e4 b6
This is a good move which prepares a possible ... tL\c5 since the b pawn
can now recapture. It also makes it more difficult for White to carry out his
strategic break c4-c5.
16 tDc3 tL\h7 17 .l:cl f5 18 b4 lDhf6 1 9 h3 'it>h7 20 'ii'd 2
It is good that White prevents 20 ...i..h 6 which could leave him with only
the bad bishop.
20 ...'Wd8?!
This position is difficult to play. White's plan of c4-c5 has been held up,
yet there is some possibility of White switching at an opportune moment to
the kingside with g2-g4. Neither side wants to advance pawns that create a
weakness, so for the time being the play is about shifting pieces around.
Black's move causes no harm but I would prefer 20 . . . .l:ae8 as 2 1 g4? e4
leaves White more exposed. A general plan for Black would be to effect the
trade of dark-squared bishops.
21 i..g5 'ii'e8 22 .l:cel 'it>h8 23 a3 lDh7 24 ..ie3 'ii'e7 25 tL\a4 .l:fb8 26
tDc3
It is still difficult to carry out a breakthrough. White could try 26 g4 b5 27
lDb2 e4 28 fxe4 fxg4 29 hxg4 hxg4 but Black seems to be fine.
26...i.. f6 27 g3 .l:e8 28 �g2 'ii'd8 29 .l:cl tL\g5?!
Provocative play in the approaching time pressure. More circumspect is
29 ... i..g 5 30 f4 i..h6 and if 3 1 g4?! exf4 32 ..txf4 i.. xf4 33 .l:xf4 lDe5 with
good play.
30 f4 tL\n 31 i.. e 2?!
31 g4! would put Black under pressure. Black's kingside will be more
difficult to defend than White's, e.g. 3 l ...e4 32 i..e2 .l:g8 33 .l:g l .l:c8 34
'it>h2±.
3 l...'ii'e7 32 :tfe l �g7 33 h4 exf4 34 ..ixf4 ..ie5 35 ..ixe5+ ll:\fxe5 36

'ii'd4 :rs
Nearing the time control. Black has ideas of ... f4.
37 :n �h7 38 ll:\a4?! a5!
39 ll:\xb6?
A time-trouble mistake. It was necessary to play 39 ll:\c3 or 39 :ta I , still
retaining approximately even chances. Now suddenly the black pieces come
to life, making use of all of the slight negatives in White's position-the
somewhat vulnerable white king with only two pawns to protect it, the
slightly bad white bishop, the momentarily inactive rooks and offside
queen.
39 ... ll:\xb6 40 'ii'xb6 ll:\d7! 41 'ii'f2 axb4 42 :tfe1
Time trouble is over but White has no way to put right his position. On 42
axb4 :ta2 43 :tfe 1 'ii'e 5! 44 �g 1 f4 45 ..ifl fxg3 ! 46 'ii'xa2 (46 'ii'e3 :txfl +
47 �xfl 'ii'f5+ 48 �g l 'ii'f2+) 46 ... 'ii'd4+ 47 �h 1 'ii'xh4+ 48 �g 1 :tf2
wms.
42 ...l:ba3 43 ..ixh5 ll:\e5
Pawns are even but the black pieces have taken up ideal positions.
44 ..id1
44 ..ie2 f4 45 gxf4 'ii'd7 46 :th l 'ii'f5 is also a winning attack.
44 ...'ii'd 7 45 ..ic2 f4 0-1
Rytshagov-Areshchenko, Istanbul 2003.
8 f3 h5 9 1id2 ttJbd7 10 0-0-0 .l:.c8
l e4 c5 2 tt::lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt::lxd4 tt::l f6 5 tt::lc3 a6 6 i.e3 e5 7 tt::lb3 i.e6

8 f3 h5 9 1t'd2
The most frequent choice for players of the white pieces. White places the
queen on its normal English Attack square while retaining his strategical
options. White can still castle either kingside or queenside, play for a
kingside pawn storm, a queenside pawn advance or central play. However
after the usual...
9...tt::lb d7
. . . White must choose a plan. Four moves are employed here, 1 0 0-0-0, 10
tt::ld 5, 1 0 i..e 2 and 1 0 a4. The first is the attacking plan leading to castling
on opposite wings. 1 0 tt::ld 5 can lead to king or queenside castling. The last
two moves, 1 0 i.e2 and 1 0 a4, aim for a more positional treatment in which
White castles kingside, and so will be considered together in the next
il lustrative game.
1 0 0-0-0
I 0 tLld5 is similar to 9 tLld5, and indeed there is no particular advantage
for White delaying this move. The white queen may well be best placed on
d2, but still takes away an option or two. l O ... ..txd5 (Here I O ... tLlxd5 I I
exd5 ..if5 makes a lot of sense and is probably good enough for equality.
Now if White plays 1 2 ..td3 .i.xd3 1 3 'ii'xd3 the white queen will have
moved twice, so I 3 . . . ..te7 14 0-0-0 ..tg5 levels the chances.) I I exd5 "Wc7
( l l ...g6 I 2 .i.e2 h4 ! ? 1 3 tLla5 'ii'c7 1 4 c4 l2Jh5 1 5 0-0-0 lDf4 1 6 ..tfl h3 1 7
gxh3 Bologan-Ashley, New York 2000, now l 7 ... l2Jxh3 is about equal.) 12
tDa5 ( 1 2 c4 a5 13 ..td3 g6 14 0-0 ..tg7 Kovchan-Areshchenko, Kramatorsk
2002.) I 2 . . . b6
A) 1 3 lt:Jc6 tLlxd5 ! 1 4 'ii'xd5 lDf6 1 5 'ii'b3 ( 1 5 "Wc4 b5 1 6 "Wc3? l2Jd5+)
l 5 .. .'�xc6 I 6 'it'xb6 'it'xb6.
B) l 3 lDb3 g6 14 ..te2 'iib 7 1 5 .l:td l ..tg7 I 6 0-0 0-0 1 7 f4 exf4 1 8 .ixf4
.l:.fe8 ! I 9 c4 tDe4 with good play, Alekseev-Areshchenko, St. Petersburg
2002.
1 0 l:tc8
...
This has been the favored reply of grandmasters, but IO . . . b5 could be

better. It seems strange to advance the h pawn on one wing and then make a
pawn advance on the opposite wing, yet the two combine well.
1 1 �bl
I I 'ii'f2 ..ie7 ( l l .. .l:tc8 1 2 'it>b l .!hc3 ! ? 1 3 bxc3 'it'c7 1 4 ..id3 ..ie7 1 5 h3
0-0 1 6 g4 l2Jc5 1 7 l:tdg l lt:Ja4 offers approximate compensation for the
exchange, Kozako-Neverov, Ordzhonidze, 200 1 .)
A) 1 2 tLld5 ..txd5 1 3 exd5 tLlb6 1 4 .i.xb6 ( 1 4 "Wc3 0-0 1 5 'it'c6? tLlbxd5 !
1 6 .l:.xd5 .l:.c8-+) l 4 ..."Wxb6 1 5 tLla5 ( 1 5 "WaS .i.d8) l 5 . . . .l:tc8 1 6 tLlc6 tLlxd5
1 7 l2Jxe7 tLlxe7 I 8 "Wxd6 'ili'xd6 1 9 .!:txd6 lt:Jc6 20 a4 r:i;e7.
B) 12 g3 tLlb6 1 3 .i.xb6 "Wxb6 14 l2Jd5 .i.xd5 1 5 exd5 a5 16 'ii'd3 l::tb 8
Xie Jun-Zhang Zhong, Shanghai, 2000. Probably White's best plan is to
play with I I .i.d3 and h3 as in Lutz-Ftacnik below.
1 I.. ..te7
.
White now has a large choice of moves, but the choice of plans is either
to advance the kingside pawns or play 1 2 lL'ld5.
12 ..id3
The main alternative strategically is 1 2 lLld5. This move has more venom
that one would guess at first sight. It looks as if Black should gain easy
equality but it is not so simple.
A) 12 . . ...ixd5 1 3 exd5 lLlb6 14 ..ixb6 ( 14 'iVaS ! ? lLlc4 1 5 ..ixc4 .l:lxc4 1 6

'i*'d2 •d7 1 7 'i*'d3 l:tc8 1 8 g 3 0-0 1 9 h3 'iVa4 20 lL'ld2 � 5 2 1 c4 �4 22 a3
'ir'a4 23 c5 ! .I:Hd8 24 lLlc4 �5 25 l:.he 1 ;!; Hracek-Ftacnik, Czech Republic
2000) 14 . . .'ii'xb6 1 5 ..id3 g6 ( 1 5 ... 0-0 1 6 l:the 1 .idS 1 7 f4 exf4 1 8 'i*'xf4 g6
1 9 h3 lLld7 20 g4 h4 2 1 ..if5 ! l:tc7 22 ..ixd7 l:.xd7 23 g5 Yagupov
Rashkovsky, Ubeda 2000.) 1 6 l:the 1 lLld7 1 7 g3 <1i>d8 1 8 lte4 lLlc5 1 9 l:tb4
'i*'c7 20 lLlxc5 dxc5 2 1 d6! ..ixd6 22 l:.b3 �e7 Timman-de Firmian, Malmo
1 999. Now 23 ..ixa6 bxa6 24 l:tb7 l:thd8 25 l:txc7+ should be a winning
endgame for White.
B) 1 2 ...lLlxd5 13 exd5 ..if5 14 ..id3 ..ixd3 1 5 'i*'xd3 ..ig5 16 ..if2 Keeping
the dark-squared bishops helps White's position. Allowing the trade gains
no advantage: ( 1 6 l:the 1 0-0 1 7 g3 ..ixe3 1 8 'i*'xe3 "ikc7 1 9 c3 lLlb6 20 •gs
lLlc4 ! with good counterplay, Kovacevic-Gelfand, Belgrade 1 997.) 1 6... 0-0
( 1 6 ... b5 1 7 h4 ..ih6 1 8 l:lhe 1 0-0 1 9 g4 ..if4 20 lLld2;!; Socko-Rogic, Passau
1 999.) 1 7 h4 ..ih6 1 8 g4 ..if4 1 9 gxh5 ( 1 9 l:[hg1 may gain an edge.)
19 . . . lLlf6 20 'Wf5 'Wd7 2 1 lLld4 l:[cd8 22 c4 l:tfe8 Ye Jiangchuan
Sadvakasov, Istanbul 2000.
12 h3 b5 (Slow is 12 ...•c7 13 ..id3 b5 14 g4 lLlb6 1 5 ..ixb6 •xb6 16 g5

lLld7 1 7 lLld5 ..ixd5 1 8 exd5 g6 19 l:the 1 'i*'c7 20 h4 lLlb6 2 1 f4! exf4 22
'i*'xf4 0-0 23 lLld4 l:tfe8 24 lLlf5 ..if8 25 lLlh6+ ..ixh6 26 gxh6 �h7 27 'i*'f6
'it>xh6 28 l:te6! 1 -0 Morozevich-Sadvakasov, Astana 200 1 .) 1 3 .l:lg 1 ( 1 3
..id3 lLlb6) 1 3 . . . h4 1 4 f4 'i*'c7 with at least equality, Amonatov-Najer,
Moscow 2003.
12 f4 b5 13 i.d3 'i*'c7 14 h3 lLlb6 and Black proceeds directly with

queenside counterplay. Instead 14 ... h4 15 l:the1 would transpose into
Lutz-Ftacnik. I S ..ixb6 ( I S fS ..id7 1 6 .txb6 'ii'xb6 1 7 g4 b4 1 8 lt:JdS lt:JxdS

1 9 exdS aS+ Ramesh-Rowson, Torquay 2002.) I S ...'ii'xb6 1 6 lLldS .txdS 1 7
exdS e4 Bologan-Zhang-Zhong, Shanghai 200 1 .
1 2 g3 'fi'c7 1 3 h4 b S 1 4 .tgS lt:Jb6 I S .txf6 gxf6 1 6 lt:JdS lt:JxdS 1 7 exdS

.t fS 1 8 ..id3 .td7 1 9 f4 fS 20 l:lhe l e4 Ramesh-Xu Jun Qingdao 2002.
12 ...b5 13 h3 h4
This logical-looking move may be wrong. White now gains a tempo that
gives him the advantage in the center. Instead 1 3 . . .lt:Jb6 would start play on
the queenside ( . . .toc4 is in the air).
14 f4 'ii'c7 1 5 l:lhe1
I S fxeS?! lt:JxeS 1 6 lt:Jd4 lt:Jc4 was Firman-Areshchenko, Sudak 2002.
1 5 ...lt:Jb6
After this Black cannot reach equality.
Other moves are:
I S . . .b4 1 6 lt:JdS ltJxdS 1 7 exdS .txdS 1 8 fxeS ltJxeS 1 9 ..ixa6 ..ib7 20
..ibS+;!; Zontakh-Areshchenko, Alushta 2002.
A good try is I S . . ...ic4 when White must come up with a plan to make
progress. 1 6 'fi'f2 ( 1 6 fS dS 1 7 exdS ltJxdS 1 8 ltJxdS ..ixdS seems to hold up
for Black. 1 9 ..ixbS axbS 20 'fi'xdS 'fi'xc2+ 2 1 �a l 'fi'c6) 1 6 ... b4 1 7 ltJdS
lt:JxdS 1 8 exdS .txd3 19 ltxd3 0-0 is about equal. Mastrovasilis-Efimenko,
Istanbul 2003, continued 20 ltc I ?! aS 2 1 c4 a4 22 ltJd2 fS !+.
1 6 ..ixb6 'ii'xb6 17 lt:Jd5 ! 'lidS
It is sad to retreat the queen. Perhaps Black should deal with the central
problem immediately, although 1 7 ...ltJxdS 1 8 exdS ..ixdS 1 9 fxeS dxeS 20
ltxeS ..ie6 2 I lt:Jd4 ! ..if6 22 lte4 leaves Black with an unsafe king after both
22 . . . 0-0 or 22 . . . ..ixd4 23 ltxd4.
18 c3 0-0 1 9 ..ic2
Now Black must do something inventive as White has a central grip that
is hard to shake off. Ftacnik plays a normal move and falls into a deadly
passive position.
1 9 ....U.e8?
19 ... ltJh5 20 ltJxe7+ ..Wxe7 2 1 f5 �xb3 22 �xb3 would keep Black in the
game.
20 liJxf6+ �xf6 2 1 fS �xb3
2 l . ..�c4 22 ..Wxd6 ..Wxd6 23 .U.xd6 leaves Black a pawn down, though it
may offer better practical chances.
22 �xb3 ..WaS 23 .U.g1 .U.ed8 24 g4 hxg3 25 .U.xg3
With the tremendous light-squared bishop and the g file the attack plays
itself.
25 'it>f8 26 h4 �6
•.•
26 ... �xh4 27 .U.h3 �f6 28 ..Wd5+-.

27 hS ..Wc6 28 �dS ..Wd7 29 .U.dg1 .U.cS 30 h6 gxh6 3 1 ..Wxh6+ 'it>e7
White is winning, but how to end it? Lutz finds a stunning combination.
32 ..Wxf6+! 'it>xf6 33 .U.g6+! fxg6 34 .U.xg6+ 'it>e7 35 f6+ 1-0
Lutz-Ftacnik, Germany 200 1 .
8 f3 h5 9 'iVd2 liJbd7 10 .i.e2 �c8
1 e4 c5 2 t2Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 5 l2Jc3 a6 6 .i.e3 e5 7 l2Jb3 .i.e6

8 f3 h5 9 �d2 t2Jbd7
White can play for kingside castling with the idea of trying to expose
8 ... h5 as a kingside weakness. Many times the position is like a 6 .i.e2 e5
Najdorf so play is similar to that-positional without too many sharp
attacking lines. However there are specific differences with the addition of
White's pawn on f3 and Black's on h5 so one should not exactly copy a 6
i.. e2 strategy.
1 0 i..e2
An equally good move order would be I 0 a4. However there is no rush to
prevent Black from playing ...b5?! as the pawn would just be hit by White's
a2-a4. White players have sometimes quickly advanced the pawn to a5 to
prevent the maneuver . . . l2Jb6 and . . . l2Jc4. True, Black could play an
immediate 1 0 ...l2Jb6 but White should not be too worried about that plan.
A) 10 ...l2Jb6 1 1 'ikf2?! (White should play 1 1 a5 l2Jc4 1 2 i..xc4 i..xc4 1 3
l2Ja4 with a slight edge-see below after 1 0 ...l:tc8 .) 1 1 . . .ltJc4 1 2 i..xc4
i..xc4 1 3 ltJd2 i..e6 14 0-0 i.e? 1 5 l::tfd 1 �c7 1 6 ltJfl h4 1 7 h3 �c6 etc was
Movsesian-Gelfand, Malmo 1 999.
B) 10 ... l:.c8 1 1 i..e2 l2Jb6 12 a5 l2Jc4 13 i..xc4 i..xc4 ( 1 3 ... l:txc4 14 l2Ja4
d5?! 1 5 l2Jb6 l:tc6 1 6 exd5 l2Jxd5 1 7 0-0-0 l:td6 1 8 l2Jc4±) 1 4 l2Ja4 ! ? (With
this maneuver White immediately looks to gain firm control of the d5
square.) 14 ...l2Jd7 1 5 ltJc l i.e? 16 b3 i..b 5 17 c4 i..xa4 1 8 l:txa4 l2Jc5 1 9
l:.a2 l2Je6 2 0 0-0 i.g5 2 1 i..xg5 l2Jxg5 2 2 l2Je2 h4 2 3 l2Jc3;l; Ni
Hua-Nikolaidis, Istanbul 2000. The white knight on d5 will be powerful.
C) 10 ... i.e7, developing, seems to be the best idea. The knight tour to c4
via b6 loses time. Then 1 1 a5, when:
C 1) An inferior plan is 1 1 ...l:lc8 12 i.e2 g6 13 0-0 h4 14 ltJc 1 ! ( 14 ltJd5
i.xd5 1 5 exd5 'it>f8 16 c4 ltJh5 17 .l:tfd 1 'it>g7) 14 . . .ifc7 15 .:td 1 'it>f8 16 i.fl
1;g7 17 i.f2 l:th5 18 'ii'e 1 l:te8 19 l:ld2 l:th7 20 'ii'd 1 l:lh5 2 1 l:ta4 l:tc8 22
ltJ 1 a2 ltJc5 23 l:ta3 ltJcd7 24 ltJb4 and White has a distinct advantage,
having acheived his goal of controlling d5, Grischuk-Popov, Elista 2000.
With the center under control Grischuk shifted his forces to the kingside
and won with a decisive breakthrough.
C2) 1 1 . . .0-0 12 i.e2 l:tc8 1 3 0-0 ltJc5 This move frees Black's game.
Usually the knight exchange on c5 results in a poor pawn structure for
Black. This position is slightly different from a usual 6 i.e3 e5 Najdorf and
Black gains enough play on the a7-g1 diagonal to hold the balance. Note
however that Black may do even better with 1 3 ...ifc7 and 1 4 ... l:tfd8 as in
our main line. 1 4 ltJxc5 dxc5 1 5 'ii'xd8 ( 1 5 'ii'e 1 c4 1 6 'it>h 1 ltJd7 1 7 ltJa4
i.d6 I/2-Ih Bologan-Sakaev, St Petersburg 1 995) 1 5 . . J:Uxd8 1 6 ltJa4 c4 1 7
�f2 ( 1 7 ltJb6 i.c5 ! ) 1 7 . . . 'it>f8 1 8 c3 l:tc6 1 9 ltJb6 i.c5 20 l:tfd1 l:txd 1 2 1
l:txd 1 'it>e7 2 2 h4 g6 2 3 l:ta 1 ltJd7 24 ltJxd7 'it>xd7 with only a minimal edge
to White, Kobalija-Jobava, Dubai 2000.
IO l:tc8 1 1 0-0 i.e7
...
1 2 .l:r.fdl
12 a4 is the more usual move order, when Black can transpose into our
main continuation with 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 l:tfd 1 ikc7 14 a5 1Hd8. Black has also
played 12 ... ltJb6 (suspect is 1 2 . . . ifc7?! 1 3 ltJd5 ltJxd5-not 13 . . . i.xd5 14
exd5 "ii'xc2?? 15 l:tc 1-14 exd5 i.f5 15 c4;!; ltJc5?! 1 6 ltJxc5 dxc5 1 7 f4 e4
1 8 a5 l:th6 1 9 l:tfc 1 ! i.d6 20 b4 ! ± Bologan-Martin del Campo, Elista 1 998.)
Then:
A) 1 3 a5 ltJc4 14 i.xc4 i.xc4 1 5 l:tfd 1 l:tc6 1 6 ltJc 1 d5 1 7 exd5
A I ) 1 7 . . .ltJxd5 ! ? 1 8 ltJxd5 i.xd5 1 9 i.b6 ( 1 9 'ii'x d5? .:td6) 1 9 ...'ifb8 20
ltJd3 i.e6.
A2) 1 7 ...l:td6 1 8 ltJd3 ltJxd5 19 ltJe4 .l:r.e6 20 ltJdc5 l:lc6 2 1 i.f2 f5
Schmaltz-Nakamura, Bermuda 2003.
B) 1 3 .:.fd 1 d5?! 14 a5 d4 1 5 axb6 .ixb3 1 6 cxb3 dxe3 1 7 'ii'xd8+ .txd8

1 8 :as tt:ld7 19 :ad5 tt:lxb6 20 :xe5+ ! J.Polgar-Sadavaskov, Wijk aan
Zee 1 999.
12 ...0-0 13 a4 'fic7 14 aS l:r.fd8
We could have arrived at this posttlon by different move orders,

depending on how quickly White wanted to push the a pawn. Both sides
have developed logically and the question is whether White can find a plan
with which he can make progress while preventing Black from carrying out
a freeing break.
15 tt:lc1 ?!
This looks logical. White plans to maneuver the passive knight to a more
active square. Yet Black has a freeing reply. Something like 1 5 .ig5 tt:lc5
1 6 tt:lxc5 dxc5 attempts to retain an edge, though it doesn't look too
exciting.
1 S ... d5!
16 exdS
The alternative capture was played in Hracek-Ftacnik, Bundesliga 1 999-
16 tt:lxd5 i..xd5 1 7 exd5 'fixc2 1 8 d6 .tf8. Here Black is somewhat better
since White's d pawn needs protection. The continuation was 1 9 tt:la2?!
'ii'xd2 20 .:.xd2 .:.c6 21 :ad ! tt:lb8 22 .ia7 .:.cxd6! 23 .:.xd6 .ixd6+.
1 6 ... it)f8 17 �d3

White cannot hold the d pawn.
17 ...it)xd5 18 it)xd5 �xd5 19 'iff2 it)e6
A constant factor is that White's �b6 is countered by ...'ii'xb6 and . . . �c5.
Overall the position is a little better for Black. Nothing serious is happening,
yet Black is better coordinated and White's a pawn could become a liability.
20 it)e2 it)c5 2 1 �f5 �e6 22 l:txd8+ l:txd8 23 �xe6 it)xe6 24 it)g3
24 �b6? 'ifxc2 25 �xd8? �c5 .
24...g6 25 it)e4 l:td5 26 �b6 'ifd7
27 c4?
Weakening the queenside, though the defense had already become
unpleasant. White has passively swapped off pieces to reach a simpler but
inferior position. Still, 27 Uel would have kept the defense together.
27..Jldl+ 28 l:txdl 'ifxdl + 29 'ifn 'ifc2
Now a pawn goes.
30 g3 'ifxb2 31 'ifd3 it)d4 32 f4 it)e2+ 33 �n it)cl 34 'Wd2 'ifxd2 35
it)xd2 exf4 36 gxf4 ..ib4
The endgame is lost. Zhang Zhong wraps it up with fine technique.
37 it)e4 it)b3 38 c5 it)d2+! 39 it)xd2 �xd2 40 �c7 �b4 41 �b6 �f8 42
We2 �e7 43 �d3 �d7 44 �d4 �c6 45 f5 gxf5 46 'iPe5 i.xc5 0-1
Shomoev-Zhang Zhong, Ulan Bator 2002.
8 f3 li:Jbd7 9 �d2 b5 10 a4 b4 11 li:Jd5 �xd5
12 exd5 li:Jb6 13 �xb6 �xb6 14 aS �b7
15 �c4 g6
1 e4 cS 2 l2'lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 l2'lf6 5 lLlc3 a6 6 .ie3 eS 7 l2'lb3 .ie6

8 f3 l2'lbd7 9 'ii'd 2
White's overall plan in the English Attack is 'ii'd 2, g4, 0-0-0 in some
order. 9 'iid2 could reach the same positions as 9 g4 if Black plays 9 . i..e 7,
. .
but usually the variations are different. With 9 'iid2 there are more options
for White if Black plays ... l2'lb6 without . . .b5. An important line that Black
can make use of is the immediate 9 . b5 which brings the focus of attention
. .
to the queenside and avoids the main lines of the English Attack Najdorf.
Yet these may be quite as promising for White as the main lines, so it is
well worth investigating this move order.
9 b5
...
Black does not have to make this advance immediately. With 9. . ..ie7 1 0
.
g4 w e would transpose into the other lines. Yet 9 . .b 5 i s classic aggressive

.
Najdorf play. The b pawn is ready to attack the knight on c3 at the right
moment and if White castles queenside the pawns can press the
counterattack.
10 a4
We take this as the main line since it is the most difficult for Black to
handle. The alternatives are nearly as popular for White, but they pose
fewer problems.
A) 10 g4 lDb6 1 1 g5 l2Jfd7 Here the black knights have regrouped in a
cohesive way and removed from the white pawn onslaught while still
covering the d5 square and helping with the queenside attack. Black has
fully equal chances: 12 l2Jd5 ( 1 2 f4?! g6 ! 13 0-0-0 l2Jc4+ Leko-Shirov
1 999) 1 2 . . . -l:tcB ! 13 lDxb6 lDxb6 14 ..Wa5 l2Jc4 1 5 ..ixc4 bxc4 1 6 ..Wxd8+
�xd8 Adams-Kasparov, Grand Prix 2000.
B) 10 0-0-0 lk8 (1 O . .l2Jb6 1 1 ..Wf2 l2Jc4 1 2 ..ixc4 bxc4 13 l2Jc5! has been
.
tried, but 1 1 . ..lDfd7 may improve.) 1 1 �b 1 lDb6 1 2 ..Wf2 lDfd7 1 3 l2Jd5

..ixd5 14 exd5 lDc4 1 5 ..ic l g6 1 6 h4 h5 1 7 g4 ..ih6 Movsesian-Hracek,
Czech Republic 2003.
1 O. .b4 1 1 l2Jd5 ..ixd5 12 exd5 lDb6
.
Black attacks the d pawn, when the only way for White to defend it is to
give back the bishop pair. A bad mistake would be 12 . . . a5? 13 ..ib5 when
White dominates the light squares.
13 ..ixb6 "il'xb6 14 a5
This fixes both the black a and b pawns as targets. These weaknesses will
give White a substantial edge if Black's dark square play can be kept to a
manageable level.
14..."il'b7 15 ..ic4
White defends the d pawn while at the same time continuing with his
development. His general strategy is to round up the b pawn. This can be
done by attacking it with l:tb4 followed by the knight maneuver lDc 1 and
lDc2 (or d3). This is time-consuming so Black will have a chance to stir up
significant trouble on the dark squares. One should remember the general
rule that the presence of bishops of opposite colour allows greater attacking
chances. Thus here Black will often lose a pawn in pursuit of an attack. The
positions arising can be very difficult to judge since compensation for the
pawn lies in long-term factors. The sharp and unbalanced nature of the
position contrasts with a negative practical feature from Black's side that it
runs the risk of White settling for a draw by repetition: 1 6 l:!b4 l:!b8 1 7 'ir'd3
l:!a8 1 8 'ir'd2 l:!b8. Some fighters have successfuly sacrificed the a pawn to
continue battle, but objectively that is dubious.
Black has two good tries after 15 i.c4- 1 5 . . . . g6 and 15 ... i.e7 (next
chapter).
Before going on we must briefly mention 1 5 0-0-0 ! ? g6 16 g4 i..g7 1 7 h4

h5 1 8 g5 tlld7 1 9 'it>b I 0-0, Bauer-Savchenko, Bundesliga 2003.
1 5 ...g6
Black plans ... h5 and . . . i..h6 to bring the bishop at once to an effective
square. This is the more recent choice of Anand, Kasparov and Gelfand-a
firm recommendation.
16 l:!a4 l:!b8 17 tbc 1
1 7 'itd3 l:!a8 was agreed drawn in Shirov-Kasparov, Frankfurt 2000 but
subsequent� y played on, 1 8 'itd2 l:!b8 1 9 tbc l h5 20 tiJd3 i.h6 2 1 'ite2 0-0
_
22 tbxb4 'Wd7 23 tbc6 l:!xb2 24 0-0 h4 (Black's counterplay takes on a
Kings Indian feel.) 25 i.b3 h3 26 g3 e4 !? 27 fxe4 'itg4 28 'itd3 'ir'g5 29 e5
dxe5 30 l:!h4 e4 3 1 'ir'd4 tbg4 32 l:!xh6 tbxh6 33 'ir'xb2 'We3+ in
Shirov-Kasparov, Linares 2004. Being down on material Kasparov took the
perpetual. When these bitter rivals play the games are always hard fought.
17 .. h5
.
18 tb a2
Black seems to have less trouble with 1 8 tiJd3 i..h6 19 'itxb4 'ir'c7 20
'ita3 (20 'ir'c3? tbxd5 ! 2 1 i.xd5 'itxc3+ 22 bxc3 l:!b 1 + 23 'it>e2 l:!xh l +
lvanchuk-Gelfand, Monaco Blitz/Blindfold 2002) 2 0. . . 0-0 2 1 tiJ f2 i.c1
A) 22 lDd3 i.h6 is probably better than 22 ... i.e3 23 �d 1 :fc8 24 :e l

i.h6 25 c3 with at least some advantage, J.Polgar-Shirov, Linares 200 1 .
B) 22 i.b3 i.e3 2 3 0-0 e4 24 �h 1 exf3 25 gxf3 E.Berg-Odeev, Bled
2002, when Black should play 25 ... i.xf2 26 :xf2 :fe8 with good attacking
chances for the pawn.
18 i.h6 19 'ilfe2
...
Quick disaster came after 19 'ii'd 3?! 0-0 20 'it>d 1 'ika7 2 1 h3 'ii'f2 22 :xb4
e4 23 fxe4 lDxe4 24 :e1 lDc5 25 'ii'c 3 'ii'xg2 26 'ii'd4 :be8 0- 1
Iordachescu-Navrotescu, Bucharest 200 1 .
1 9 0-0 2 0 lDxb4 e4
...
White is a pawn ahead and can take the a6 pawn when given time. Black
is opening lines for attack while White has not yet castled and has a distant
rook on a4. It is a difficult question to answer whether Black has enough
play for the material. The position defies an easy solution.
21 0-0
Interesting is also to keep the kingside blocked at the cost of a pawn : 21
f4 i.xf4 22 0-0 i.g5 23 i.xa6 'ii'd7 24 b3 lDg4 25 lDc6 :be8 Black is
doomed on the queenside, but he may get there first on the kingside.
'Unclear' or roughly equal chances is my evaluation. After 26 :b4 lDe3 27
:b7 'iig4 28 'ilfxg4 hxg4 29 i.c4?! (29 :f2 lDd 1 30 :e2 lDc3 3 1 :e 1 i.d2
32 :a 1 e3 33 b4 e2 34 lDe7+ rj;;g7 35 i.xe2 lDxe2+ 36 'it>f2 lDc3 37 rj;;g 3)
29 ... f5 30 a6! lDxc4 3 1 bxc4 f4 32 a7 f3 33 ::tb8 (33 gxf3 gxf3 34 h4 i.xh4
35 lDb8 e3 36 a8='iV f2+ 37 rj;;g2 e2 3 8 ::tbb1 e 1 ='ilf-+) 33 ... i.e3+ 34 'it>h 1
i.xa7 3 5 ::txe8 ::txe8 36 lDxa7 e3 37 gxf3 gxf3 38 �g 1 f2+ 39 :xf2 exf2+
40 �xf2 ::te4 41 lDb5 ::txc4 42 lDxd6 ::txc2+ 43 'it>g3 ri;g7 and Black won,
Miroshnichenko-Kovchan, St. Petersburg 2002.
21 exf3 22 gxf3
...
Trying to keep out the black knight by controlling the e4 and g4 squares.
After 22 'ilfxf3 lDg4 23 lDc6 'ii'x b2?! (23 . . . ::tbe8 ! 24 h3 lDe3 25 ::tb4 'ii'a8 !
looks like it gives Black enough play due to the chances of invading on the
e-file.) 24 lDxb8 'ikxb8 25 i.d3 'ii'e8 26 ::te4 'ii'd8 27 'ii'g 3?! (27 i.xa6
'ii'xa5 28 .td3±) 27 . . .'ii'x a5 28 'ii'xd6 .te3+ 29 �hl liJf2+ 30 l:.xf2 .txf2 3 1

'ii'xa6 'ii'xd5 32 'ii'f6 .i.c5 1/z-1/z Shirov-Gelfand, Monte Carlo 200 1 .
2 2 ...l:.fe8 23 'ii'g2 'ifd7?
23 . . .'ii'c8 24 liJd3 (24 .txa6?? 'ii'c 5+; 24 liJc6 l:.xb2 25 .tb3 'ii'f5 offers
excellent play for Black) 24 . . . 'ii'f5 when White 's best looks to be 25 liJb4
'ilr'c8 repeating the position.
24 b3 l:.e5 25 �h1 l:.be8 26 l:.aa1 h4
This is slow, but there appears to be no quick road into White 's kingside.
Thus White should be able to bring his forces back to defend, keeping the
queenside advantage.
27 l:.ad 1 l:tg5 28 'iff2 'ifh3 29 l:.fe1 l:tge5 30 l:be5 l:.xe5 3 1 liJc6 l:.e3?!
It is hard to offer any good advice, but this active move allows Anand to
force a winning simplified ending.
32 .tn ! l:.xf3
On 32 ...'iff5 or 32 . . . 'ilr'c8 33 'ilfxe3 ! .txe3 34 liJe7+.
33 .i.xh3 l:.xf2 34 .:tn ! l:.xn + 35 .i.xfl liJxd5 36 .i.xa6 .td2 37 .tb7
Pawns are even again, but White 's a pawn will cost a piece.
37 ... liJb4 38 liJd4 .i.e3 39 c3 h3
Desperation.
40 a6 liJd3 41 a7 liJf2+ 42 'ittg 1 1 -0
Anand-Gelfand, Blindfold/Blitz, Monte Carlo 200 1 .
8 f3 ctJbd7 9 �d2 bS 10 a4 b4 11 ctJdS .1Lxd5
12 exdS ctJb6 13 .1Lxb6 �xb6 14 aS �b7
15 .1Lc4 .1Le7
1 e4 cS 2 tLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 tLlf6 5 tLlc3 a6 6 �e3 eS 7 tLlb3 .ie6

8 f3 tLlbd7 9 ii'd2 bS 10 a4 b4 1 1 tLldS .ixdS 1 2 exdS tLlb6 13 .ixb6
ii'xb6 14 aS 'iib 7 15 .ic4 .ie7
The traditional move is also the quickest development of the bishop. The
advantage over 1 5 ... g6 is that the bishop can be useful on the queenside
after a later ... .idS. Black is also ready to castle at once. The downside is
that Black does not develop a kingside attack as quickly as with 1 5 ... g6.
1 6 .U.a4 l:tb8 17 tLlcl
17 ii'd3 will cause most players to make a draw after 17 . . . .U.a8 1 8 ii'd2
.U.b8 19 ii'd3 etc. Courageous fighters have tried to fight on and not without
success-though I believe this is theoretically dubious.
A) 1 7 ... 0-0 1 8 0-0 ( 1 8 .ixa6! ii'xd5 1 9 ii'xd5 tLlxd5 20 'it>f2±) 1 8 ... e4 1 9
fxe4 tLlg4 20 .ixa6 ii'a7+ 2 1 'it>h 1 .if6 2 2 ii'e2 .ixb2 23 .id3 1h-1h
Gipslis-Tseshkovsky, Riga 1 98 1 .
B) l 7 ...e4 1 8 fxe4 tLlg4 1 9 ii'e2 (Again 1 9 .ixa6! ii'd7 20 l:ta2 or
19 ... ii'a7 20 ii'e2 both look good for White, albeit complicated.) 1 9 ... ii'd7
20 l:ta2 .if6 2 1 0-0 .ie5 22 h3 ii'a7+ 23 'it>h1 tLle3 24 l:tf3 tLlxc4 25 ii'xc4
0-0 26 ii'd3 l:tfc8 with at least equal chances, Thorhallsson-Sadler, Gausdal
1994.
17 0-0
...
More straightforward, though perhaps not as good, is to attack the a pawn

immediately with 1 7 ... ii.d8. White has tried four responses.
A) 18 'it'd 1 0-0 19 lLla2 'li'd7 20 b3 .l:tb5 ! and agreed drawn in
T.Giorgadze-Gruenfeld, Dortmund 1 984.
B) 18 lLla2 lLld7 19 �d 1 'li'c8 20 b3 lLlc5 21 .l:txb4 .l:ta8 ! with at least
equality, Tseshkovsky-T.Giorgadze, Yerevan 1 982.
C) 18 lLld3 ii.xa5! ( 1 8 ... lLlxd5 19 lLlxe5! dxe5 20 'li'xd5 'li'xd5 21 ii.xd5
0-0 22 'it.oe2 is a better endgame for White despite the bishops of opposite
color, Tiviakov-de Firmian, Polanica Zdroj , 1 995.) 1 9 .l:txa5 'li'c7 20 .l:txa6
'li'xc4 2 1 .l:txd6 0-0 22 0-0 lLlxd5 23 .l:te I f6 24 .l:te4 'li'b5 with near equality,
Shirov-Gelfand, Vienna 1 998.
D) 1 8 b3 is probably best and indeed Black has not had much success
here:
1 8 ... lLld7 ( 1 8 ... 0-0 l 9 lLla2 lLld7 20 'it.od l ! so that 21 .l:txb4 ii.xa5 22 .l:txb7
ii.xd2 is not with check. After 20... '1i'c8 2 1 lLlxb4 lLlc5 22 .l:ta2 ii.g5 23
lLlc6!± Rytshagov-de Firmian, Stockholm 1 998; l 8 ... '1i'a7 1 9 lLld3 'li'd4 20
lLlxb4 'li'xd2+ 2 1 'it.oxd2 .l:txb4 22 .l:txb4 ii.xa5 23 'it.oc3 'it.od7 24 .l:ta l ii.xb4+
25 �xb4 .l:ta8 26 �a5± Hracek-Lutz, Bad Homburg 1 997.) 1 9 lLld3 lLlc5 20
l2'lxc5 dxc5 2 1 �d3 0-0 22 ii.xa6 'ii'd7 23 d6 ii.f6 24 0-0 e4 25 fxe4 ii.d4+
26 �h I 'ii'xd6 27 ..ic4 .!:.aS 2S a6 'iVb6 29 e5 �hS 30 ..ixf7 1-0 Z.Almasi-

011, Pula 1 997.
18 tt'la2 tt'ld7
l S ... ..idS 19 b3 tt'ld7 20 Wd l ! transposes into l 7 ... ..idS; I S ... e4 ! ? 1 9
tt'lxb4 ..idS 20 c3 (20 tt'lc6 exf3 is sharp but needs investigation.) 20... .!:.eS
2 1 �d I 'iid7 22 tt'lc6 exf3 23 gxf3 'ii'f5 24 �c I tt'ld7 25 'ii'c2 'iixf3 26
.!:.fl ;!; Morozevich-Rashkovsky, Omsk I 99S.
1 9 l:bb4
I 9 b3 leads to equality after some complications: 19 . . . e4 20 0-0 ..idS 2 I
Wh l tt'lc5 2 2 .l:.xb4 ..ixa5 2 3 .l:.xb7 ..ixd2 2 4 .l:.xbS 1h- 1h Skripchenko
Naiditsch, Dortmund 200 I .
1 9...'iic7 20 .l:.xb8 .l:.xb8 2 1 b3 'ilt'c5!
22 ..ixa6
22 'iic3 .!:.cS 23 We2 e4 24 fxe4 tt'le5 25 ..ixa6 'ilt'xc3 26 tt'lxc3 .l:.xc3 27
Wd2 .l:.c7 Anka-Nguyen, Budapest I 999.
22 ...'iia3 23 tt'lc1 1h-1h
Magem Badals-Zhang Zhong, Beijing I 99S.
The game might have gone on a little longer with 23 ... -tdS 24 0-0 ..ixa5
25 'iie2 'iic 5+ 26 �h I 'iixd5 being the likely continuation.
Chasing the Bishop-Introduction
6 �e3 ctJg4 7 �g5 h6 8 i.. h4 g5 9 i.. g3 i.. g7
1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 ltJf6 5 lt:\c3 a6 6 �e3 lt:\g4
The knight attacks the dark-squared bishop, preventing White from

achieving the classic English Attack setup. This breaks the principle of
moving a piece twice in the early opening, but the tempo is regained as
Whi.te should not allow the bishop to be captured. Another more pertinent
drawback is that the knight on g4 doesn't control the center squares as it
does on f6 . The move was popularized by Kasparov and is roughly as sound
as the main line, though it usually gives Black fewer attacking chances than
6 . . . e5 .
7 �g5
This is the usual move. The only other move that is played here is the
retreat 7 �c I . The idea behind this retreat is that the knight is not so well
placed on g4 and can be driven back with gain of tempo after 8 �e2, 8 f3 or
8 h3. For example 7 ... g6?! 8 f3 ltJf6 9 �e3 leads to a Dragon where Black
has played the less constructive . . . a6. Of course Black can (and usually
does) repeat the position with 7 . lt:\f6. White can then choose another line,
. .
such as 8 f3 or go back 8 �e3 and see if his opponent is ready to make a

draw by repeating . . . lt:\g4. The main question after 7 �c l is whether Black
can gain something with the logical developing move 7 . . lt:\c6. White
.
should attack the knight on g4 as Black threatens 8 . . iVIJ6.

.
Critical is 8 ..te2 (8 h3 liJf6 9 ..te3 e6 is an equal position-Black's ... a6

is more natural than White's h3.) 8 ... 1Wb6 9 ..txg4 'ii'xd4 which should lead
to an endgame where White might have a small pull.
A) 10 0-0 'ii'xd 1 (1 O . ..txg4 1 1 'ii'xg4;!;) 1 1 i.xd 1 e6 12 ltJa4 ..te7 1 3
. .
liJb6 l:tb8 14 c3 ltJe5 1 5 i.e3 liJd7 1 6 ltJxc8 l:.xc8 1 7 i.e2 ltJe5 1 8 l:.ad 1
ltJc4 is only a tad better for White;
B) 10 i.e3 'ii'x dl + ( 1 0 ... 1Wb4 1 1 0-0 i.xg4 12 'ii'xg4 'ii'xb2 1 3 liJd5 is
very risky for Black) 1 1 i.xd 1 b5!? ( 1 l ...e6 12 ltJa4! .i.e7 13 liJb6 l:tb8 14
c3;!;) 12 a4 b4 13 liJd5 l:tb8 1 4 i.e2 ( 1 4 a5 e6 15 liJb6 i.b7 leaves Black at
least equal chances as the dark-squared bishop intends to go to f6 where it
will exert pressure on the White queenside.) 14 ... e6 1 5 liJb6 ..tb7 1 6 0-0-0t.
In conclusion, it seems that 7 . . . ltJc6 8 i.e2 1Wb6 allows White to gain a
small endgame advantage. One should note that Black could play 8 i.e2
liJf6 transposing to the Scheveningen Variation which one player or the
other may not be familiar with.
7 h6
...
Chasing the bishop is played 99 percent of the time. There has been some
experimentation with 7 . . . ltJc6 which sets up the threat 9 ...1Wb6 when the
white bishop does not defend £2. 7 . . .ltJc6 8 h3 (8 ltJxc6 bxc6 9 ..te2 h6 1 0
..llf4 g5 1 1 ..tg3 ltJe5 1 2 ..txe5 dxe5 1 3 'ii'xd8+ 'it>xd8 14 0-0-0+ <l;c7 1 5
l0a4;!; leads to a pleasant endgame for White, Bellaiche-K.Georgiev,

_
Bischwiller 2003 .) 8 ... 'ifa5 (8 ... 'ifb6 9 hxg4 'ifxd4 10 i.d3 e6 I I i.e3;!;
Ponomariov-Baklan, Governor's Cup 200 1 .) 9 l0f3 l0f6 l O i.d2 'ifd8 I I
'ife2 e6 1 2 0-0-0 iJ..e 7 1 3 e5 dxe5 14 l0xe5 'illc7 1 5 iJ.. f4 l0xe5 1 6 i.xe5
'ifa5 17 f4 0-0 18 'ife l l:td8 1 9 l:txd8+ 'ifxd8 20 i.d3;!; J.Polgar-Milov,
FIDE World Championship 200 1 . White gains a more active position
without too much trouble after 8 . . . l0c6.
8 i. h4
8 i.f4 has been tried now and then in order to confuse Black. In practice
it has transposed to the main line after 8 ... g5 9 iJ..g 3. Recommended instead
is to take up the gauntlet with 8 ... e5! 9 l0f5 exf4 I 0 'il/xg4 g6 when,
objectively speaking, White's attacking chances are insufficient for the
piece.
8 g5 9 i.g3 i.g7
...
This is the starting position for the main line of the 6 ... l0g4 variation.
Black's dark-squared bishop comes to the important long diagonal to

generate play on the central and queenside dark squares. The position has
Dragon characteristics, including a weak d5 square for Black. The main
difference lies in the advanced black g and h pawns. These can be used
aggressively by advancing on White's kingside, but in general they have
just been weakened. White can usually pry open the kingside with h4, so
this makes kingside castling dangerous for Black. As queenside castling is
likely to be even more dangerous, the black king often remains in the center
for a long time. One could sum up the coming battle as a question of
whether Black's activity compensates for the pawn weakenesses. White has
tried four moves here- 1 0 'ifd2, 1 0 i.c4, l O iJ..e2 and 1 0 h3. The main lines
involve attacking the knight with 1 0 i.e2 or 1 0 h3, after which Black's
choices are not so clear.
6 .i.e3 lt:Jg4 7 .i.g5 h6 8 .i.h4 g5 9 .i.g3 ii.g7
10 'i¥d2 li:Jc6 11 ltJb3 lt:Jge5
1 e4 c5 2 tL!f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tL!xd4 tL!f6 5 tL!c3 a6 6 �e3 tL!g4 7 �g5

h6 8 �h4 g5 9 .tg3 �g7
1 0 li'd2
After this White is ready for queenside castling which will bring pressure
to bear on the d file. Now an attack with h4 will quickly pry open lines on
the kingside. A negative aspect of White's plan is that Black gets good play
on the central dark squares as well as gaining space on the queenside since
the bishop on g3 does not guard the d4 square. There seems to be enough
counterplay here for Black to at least hold the balance.
10 ...tL!c6 1 1 tLlb3
I I tL!xc6 bxc6 solidifies Black's center and gives him the b file.
1 1 ...tL!ge5
The timing of Black's regrouping is important. The plan is to gain play
from this knight jumping to c4 at the right moment.
1 2 f3
I 2 h4?! g4 I 3 .te2 b5 threatens 14 ... tL!c4, causing problems on the
queens ide.
12...b5 13 .tf2 :b8!
A precise move that adds power to the plan of ...tt:lc4 and guards the b6
square in case a white knight hops to d5. In practice Black has gained at
least equal chances.
14 tt:ld4?!
The threat was l4 ... tt:lc4 1 5 .ixc4 bxc4 and the b2 pawn goes. Better
choices are
1 ) 14 tt:ld5 f5 1 5 exf5 .ixf5 1 6 tt:ld4 0-0 1 7 h4 ( 1 7 tt:lxf5 l:hf5 1 8 0-0-0
tt:lc4 19 .ixc4 bxc4+) 1 7 . . . e6 1 8 tt:lc3 tt:lxd4 1 9 .ixd4 gxh4 with a slight
edge for Black, Aronian-Jobava, World Junior Championship 2000.
2) 14 0-0-0 tt:lc4 1 5 .ixc4 bxc4 1 6 tt:ld4 'ii'b6 1 7 tt:la4 'ii'c7 with roughly
equal chances.
14 ... b4 15 ti:ld 1
It is already evident that White is not controlling the game since on the
natural 1 5 tt:ld5 e6+ leads to serious difficulties.
1 5 tt:lxd4 16 .ixd4 d5!
..•
17 exd5
Black is also for choice after 1 7 .ixe5 .ixe5 1 8 'ii'xd5 'ii'c 7 1 9 'ii'c4
.ixh2. This is probably the best idea as the game continuation allows Black
powerful centralization.
17 .. .'i'xd5 18 c3?!
After this it becomes very hard to blunt Black's initiative. 18 �a7 'ii'xd2+
1 9 �xd2 l:[b7 would offer better chances of holding out.
18 ... 0-0 19 i.e2 .l:td8 20 'ii'e3 �b7!
Strong and precise play-Kasparov develops with great effect. Now 2 1
0-0 tt:lg4! hurts. There is no good way to break Black's grip on the position.
21 tt:lf2 bxc3 22 i.xc3 'ii'e6
Threatening 23 ... tt:lxf3+.
23 �fl �dS 24 b3 .l:tbc8 25 .l:tdl
25 .. Jbc3! 26 'ii'xc3 tt:lg4 27 '6'a5 tt:le3+ 28 �g 1 .l:tc8

White's rook is stuck on h 1 , totally out of the game. lvanchuk now gives
back the exchange and heads for the ending. Variations such as 29 l:.b 1
i.d4 30 'ii'd2 iH6 3 1 l:.c 1 l:.d8 leave little hope of escaping the pressure.
29 'it'xa6 tt:lxd1 30 'ii'xe6 �xe6 31 i.xd 1 .l:tcl 0- 1
lvanchuk-Kasparov, Linares 1 999. White could play on, although with
Kasparov's technique 32 h4 �d4 33 �fl .l:ta1 would win.
6 .ll e3 llJg4 7 .i.g5 h6 8 .i.h4 g5 9 .i.g3 .i.g7
10 i.c4 llJc6 11 llJxc6 bxc6
1 e4 cS 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 S tt:\c3 a6 6 .i.e3 tt:\g4 7 .i.gS

h6 8 .ih4 gS 9 .i.g3 .ig7 10 .ic4
This develops the light-squared bishop to an active diagonal where it hits

the f7 square. It has the same drawback that 1 0 �d2-Biack attacks the
central dark squares with 1 0 ... tt:lc6 and gains control and counterplay.
10 ...tt:lc6 1 1 tt:\xc6
This allows Black to recapture on c6 where the pawn controls d5, thereby
ensuring comprehensive defense of the center squares. The alternative 1 1
tt:\ge2 is simply too slow since a later . . . tt:\e5 would gain even further time
for Black.
l l .. . bxc6 12 h4 �aS 13 �f3 l:f.f8
Defending f7 in this way is more solid than 13 ... i.e6 14 .ixe6 fxe6 1 5
hxg5 hxg5 1 6 1:txh8+ .ixh8 1 7 'it>fl tt:le5 1 8 �e2 'it'd? 1 9 tt:ld 1 when White
has chances of an edge due to the better pawn structure, Ponomariov
Topalov, FIDE World Championship 1 999.
14 .ib3 tt:leS IS 'We3 .ie6 1 6 hxgS hxgS 17 0-0-0
Now 1 7 .ixe6 fxe6 would be an improved version of Ponomariov-
Topalov.
1 7...tt:\g4 18 �d2 .ixc3 19 �xc3 �xc3 20 bxc3 aS
This ending offers equal chances.
21 .ia4 l:ta6 22 'itb2 f6 23 'ita3 'itd7 24 l:tb l 'itc7 2S .i.b3 �d7 26 .i.a4
rl;c7 27 i.b3 rl;d7 'IHiz
Ni Hua-Xu Jun, Zonal 200 1 .
6 i.. e3 t2Jg4 7 i.. g5 h6 8 i.. h4 g5 9 i.. g3 i.. g7
10 i.. e2 h5 11 i.. xg4 i.. xg4
I e4 cS 2 lL:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL:lxd4 lLlf6 5 lL:lc3 a6 6 .i.e3 lL:lg4 7 .i.gS

h6 8 .i.h4 gS 9 .i.g3 .i.g7 10 .i.e2
The most logical-looking move, developing a piece while attacking the

knight. This used to be indisputably the main line. Recent years though
have seen the Black side develop defenses that are hard to breach, so White
players have focused as much on 10 h3.
lO hS
...
Clearly the most popular move. This advance defends the knight while
trying to make the kingside pawns into an aggressive force. The only other
move that has been tried is 1 0 ...lL:le5. This is not too bad, but is somewhat
compliant and probably allows White some edge. White does best to jump
in with the knights: I I lL:ld5 ( 1 I h4 lL:lbc6 I 2 lLlb3 .i.e6 I 3 hxg5 hxg5 14
�xh8+ .i.xh8 I5 ._d2 .i.xb3 16 axb3 lL:ld4! 1/z- ih Bruzon-Abreu, Guillermo
Garcia Premier II 1 999) I l .. .lZ::lbc6 ( 1 l . ..e6 1 2 lL:le3 'iib6 1 3 lLlb3 lL:lbd7 14
'ir'd2;!;; I I . . .lL:lec6 I 2 lL:lf5 .i.xf5 I3 exf5 .i.xb2 14 �b 1 .i.d4 is risky but
possible. If White wants to avoid this he could start with 1 1 lLlf5 .i.xf5 1 2
exf5 lL:lbc6 1 3 llld 5.) I 2 lLlf5 .i.xf5 1 3 exf5 lL:ld7 ( 1 3 . . . .!:c8 14 c 3 e6 I 5 fxe6
fxe6 I 6 .i.h5+ �d7 I 7 lLle3 'iib6 1 8 0-0±) 14 c3 lbf6 1 5 .i.f3 .!:b8 1 6 0-0
lbe5 1 7 .i.xe5 dxe5 I 8 ._a4+± Nevednichy-Ardeleanu, Romanian
Championship I 999.
1 1 i.xg4
The main line is to remove the knight from the board and deal with
Black's pawn advance. After the alternative 1 1 i.xg4 there are two ways to
recapture and both are playable. First we shall look at the bishop's
recapture, the original plan for Black. The recapture with the pawn is
covered in the next game. I I ll:lf5 i.xf5 I 2 exf5 is tricky and Black has
often gone wrong.
A) 1 2 .. .'ii'a 5?! 1 3 0-0 i.xc3 1 4 bxc3 ll:lf6 1 5 i.f3 ! 'ifi>ffi ( 1 5 . . . h4? I 6

i.xd6! ) 1 6 .l:.b i ll:lbd7 I 7 .l:.xb7 l:t.c8 1 8 i.xh5±;
B) 12 ... h4?! 1 3 .ixg4 hxg3 14 fxg3 .ixc3+ I5 bxc3 ll:lc6 16 0-0 'iib6+ I 7
�h i ll:le5 1 8 i. f3 l:t.c8 1 9 f6± Medvegy-Balinov, Schwarzach Open 200 1 .
C) 1 2 ... i.xc3+?! I 3 bxc3 ll:lf6 I 4 h4 g4 1 5 0-0 ll:lbd7 I 6 .!:te l ll:lc5 1 7
'ii'd4;!; Medvegy-Szeberenyi, Budapest 200 I .
D) 1 2 ... ll:lh6!? is untested but may well be the best move. The idea is that
I 3 i.xh5 ll:lxf5 I4 'ii'f3 e6 I 5 'iixb7 ll:ld7 allows Black a strong initiative for
the pawn sacrificed. The open lines and control of the center should give
White quite a headache.
But straightforward and reliable is . . .
E ) 1 2 . . .ll:lf6 1 3 h4 g4 ! 14 0-0 and the game Medvegy-Kempinski, YM
200 1 was agreed drawn.
l l ...i.xg4 1 2 f3
This is automatic. White gains a move by attacking the black bishop

while allowing his own an escape square on f2. Black has the bishop pair
but must be careful to guard the advanced pawns.
12 . i.d7
..
Also possible is 1 2 . . . i.e6 1 3 'ii'd2 'ii'a5 14 tL'lb3 ( 1 4 tL'lxe6 fxe6 1 5 0-0

may gain an edge.) 1 4 . . .'ifb4 15 a3 'ii'c4 16 'ii'xg5 i.xc3+ 17 bxc3 'ii'x c3+
IJ2-1/z Abreu-Szekely, Capablanca Memorial Premier I 1 999.
13 'ii'd 2
13 i.f2 tL'lc6 14 0-0 l:.b8 15 'ii'd2 i.e5 ! 16 .l:tad 1 llg8 1 7 i.e3 e6 1/z - 1/z Xie
Jun-J.Polgar, Najdorf Memorial 200 1 .
13 lL'lc6 1 4 i.f2 'tWaS
...
Black must play with care: 14 ...h4?! 1 5 tL'ld5 .l:tb8 1 6 0-0-0 e6? 1 7 lL'lf5 !
exf5 1 8 i.b6 'ii'c8 1 9 tL'lc7+ �f8 20 'ii'xd6+ wins, Movsesian-Akeson,
Malmo 1 999.
15 0-0-0
Castling kingside is also possible. Black's kingside pawns then become
partly weak and partly an attacking force, so chances would be even.
15 .l:tc8 16 �b1 i.e6
...
This covers the d5 square so White cannot get a better ending with ltJd5.
Black is not afraid of 1 7 ltJxe6 ..ixc3.
17 ltJxc6
This allows Black to gain solid control over the central squares so that
White finds it hard to make any headway. More usual would be 1 7 a3 when
interesting complications could begin with 1 7 ... ltJe5 ! ? 1 8 'ii'x g5 ..if6 1 9
'ii'g3 ltJc4.
17 ... bxc6 18 ..id4 f6! 1 9 b3 g4 20 l:.he1 c5 2 1 .if2 ..ih6 22 ..ie3 ..ig7 23
�f2
The players see no route to an advantage, so decide it is well to repeat
moves. White could play the endgame with 23 ltJd5, but he is not better.
23 ... ..ih6 24 ..ie3 1/z-1/z
Adams-Topalov, Linares 1 999.
6 ..te3 ltJg4 7 ..tg5 h6 8 ..th4 g5 9 ..tg3 ..tg7
10 ..te2 h5 11 ..txg4 hxg4
I e4 cS 2 tLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 lLlf6 5 tLlc3 a6 6 �e3 tLlg4 7 .tgS

h6 8 �h4 gS 9 .tg3 �g7 10 .te2 h5 I I .txg4 hxg4
The recapture with the pawn is a plan devised by Kasparov. The doubled
pawns hold kingside squares, preventing any easy pawn advances by White
on that side of the board. The white bishop on g3 is not threatened but it has
trouble moving to a place where it can influences play on the queenside.
The main continuation involves a temporary pawn sacrifice by Black but
the positional factors are so strong that this is not risky.
1 2 0-0 tLlc6
There is a risky sideline with 12 . . . e6 when Shirov, playing White against
Kasparov at Wijk aan Zee 1 999, immediately played for unclear
complications with 1 3 'iWd2 (Instead 1 3 tLlb3 .txc3 14 bxc3 e5 1 5 'iWd5 !
llh6 1 6 l:.fd l looks very good.) 1 3 . . . tLld7 ! ? 1 4 .txd6 tLle5 1 5 tLlcb5 ! ? axb5
1 6 tLlxb5 f6 1 7 l:.fd I rl;fl 1 8 'iWe2 �d7 1 9 �xe5 fxe5 20 tLld6+ rl;g6 with
an obscure position.
13 tLlfS
With this White will win the g4 pawn. There is no other active move in
the position.
13 ...�xc3
Taking the knight that could jump into d5 is the right decision. Black
intends to establish a pawn chain on the black squares, so trading this
bishop to weaken the white pawns fits into the plan.
1 4 bxc3 'ii'aS 1 5 'ihg4

1 5 l:iJg7+? is certainly a waste of time.
1 5 ...f6
This positon is Black's strategic destination upon choosing the line

1 l . . .hxg4. White is temporarily a pawn ahead but this is offset by his
splintered queenside pawns. Black's central pawns cover the dark squares
while the bishop helps control the light squares. The black king will usually
remain in the center where it is fairly safe. White has the possibility of
sacrificing his bishop on d6, although that usually doesn't work. After much
testing in grandmaster play the evaluation of the position is equal.
16 l:tabl
The active-looking alternative gives Black no problems. 16 f4 ..ixf5 1 7
exf5 ( 1 7 'ii'xf5 1Wxf5 1 8 exf5 g4! with the idea of.. . .l:th5 i s equal.) 1 7 . . .gxf4
with 1 8 1Wxf4 1Wxc3 1 9 l:tae 1 0-0-0 20 l:te4 l:td?+ Klovans-de Firm ian,
Wichern Open 1 999; or 16 'ii'f3 l:iJe5 17 ..ixe5 'ikxe5 1 8 h3 d5 Adams
Anand, Dortmund 1 999. White could try 1 7 'ii'e3 and retain more play in
the position.
16 ...'ihc3 17 l:tfd 1 l:iJe5
Wary of sacrifices, Black plays safely. He could try 1 7 . . .1Wxc2! ? when 1 8
..ixd6? ( 1 8 h4 'ikxa2 19 hxg5 l:iJd4 ! ) 1 8 . . . l:th4! 1 9 'ikf3 ..ixf5 20 'ii'xf5 'ikxe4
2 1 1Wxe4 .U.xe4 leaves him a pawn up in the endgame.
18 ..ixe5 1Wxe5 19 g3 b5 20 c4
Trying to open lines to break into Black's position. White must act
quickly to exploit his extra development before Black consolidates with his
better pawn structure.
20 ... bxc4 21 'ii'f3 c3 22 l:tbcl
On 22 l:tdc l d5 is slightly better for Black.
22 .....ib7 23 1Wxc3 ..ixe4
Not 23 . . .'ikxe4?? 24 l:iJxd6+ exd6 25 l:te l .
24 tt:lxd6+!
Shirov finds a clear route to a drawn endgame.
24 ... exd6 25 l::te l "ifxc3 26 l:hc3 d5 27 f3 'it>n 28 fxe4 l:the8 29 l::tc7+
<Ji>g6 30 l::tfl dxe4 3 1 l:r.c6 l:tf8 32 l:te6 l:tae8 33 l:tfxf6+!
Finally pawns are even again.
33 l:txf6 34 l:txe8 'it>f5 35 'it>f2 l:th6 36 l:tf8+ 'it>e5 37 l:te8+ 'iti>f5 38 l:r.f8+
.••
'iti>e5 39 l:e8+ 1/z-1/z

Shirov-Kasparov, SuperGM, Internet 1 999. In conclusion we can say that
I I hxg4 is a solid line that has held up well for Black.
...
6 .i.e3 lt:Jg4 7 .i.gS h6 8 .i.h4 gS 9 .i.g3 .i.g7
10 h3 tt:Jes
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 a6 6 �e3 lLlg4 7 .ltg5

h6 8 .lth4 g5 9 .ltg3 .ltg7 10 h3
Among grandmasters this has become the most popular move of recent
years. 1 0 h3 pushes the knight back so the long dark-squared diagonal is
blocked for the moment. The white pawn on h3 is useful to combat an
attack by the black kingside pawns and to fix them in their advanced and
slightly weakened position. The question for Black now is on which square
to put the knight. At first sight 1 O ... lLle5 looks more active. The prosaic
I O .. lLlf6 returns to the knight's 'natural' square and covers the weak light
.
.d5 and h5 squares.

10 lLle5
...
I O lLlf6 will be considered in the next game. After I O . lLle5 White has
... . .
two plans. We will consider the main variation to be . . .

I I ltJf5
This is a sharp move which gains the bishop-pair. The alternative is more
straightforward and not as unbalanced: 1 1 f3 lLlbc6 12 i.f2 and Black can
l:hoose between two reasonable moves. Black's simpler alternative may be
just as good:
A) 1 2 ... i.e6 13 1i'd2 ( 1 3 lLlxe6 fxe6 leaves Black too solid in the center.)
1 3 . . .1i'a5 ( 1 3 ... .U.c8 14 0-0-0 '6'a5 1 5 lLlb3 'ilc7 16 a3 i.xb3 1 7 cxb3 lLla5
l !l 1i'c2 lLlg6 1 9 �b 1 ! ! Topalov-Gelfand, 1 5th ECC Final 1999) 14 lLlb3
( 14 i.e2 lLlg6 1 5 g3 l:tc8 16 a3 lLlxd4 1 7 i.xd4 i.xd4 18 'ilxd4 1i'e5
Adams-Fressinet, Grand Prix Rapidplay 2000) 14 ... i.xb3 1 5 cxb3 lLlb4 1 6
a J lLlg6 1 7 l:td 1 lLlc6 1 8 ltJd5 '6'xd2+ 1 9 l:txd2 0-0 20 b4 b 5 2 1 lLlc7 l:tab8
22 lLlxa6 l:tb7 23 l:td5 lLla7 24 i.xa7 Axa7 25 i.xb5 i.xb2 26 0-0 i.xa3
1/l- 1/z Leko-Kasparov, SuperGM 2000.
B) 1 2 . . .lLlxd4 13 i.xd4 i.e6 14 'it'd2 'it'a5 15 a3 .U.c8 ( 1 5 ... 0-0 1 6 h4 lLlg6
1 7 hxg5 hxg5 1 8 b4 'ikc7 1 9 lLle2 f6 20 i.b2 i.f7 2 1 ltJd4!
Akopian-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2004.) 1 6 0-0-0 0-0 1 7 h4 lLlg6 1 8 hxg5
hxg5 1 9 l:th5 i.xd4 20 'ikxd4 '6'c5 2 1 'ikd2 f6 22 g3 1;g7 23 i.h3 i.xh3 24
J:txh3 Ah8 1/z-1/z Hracek-Dydyshko, Czech Republic 2002/3 .
l l i.xf5 12 exf5
...
This leaves Black extremely solid on the central dark squares, but
somewhat lacking on the central light squares. Black often feels compelled
to play . . . e6 after which the question arises-is the black center vulnerable
o r is it strong? One thing Black gets is direct and full development.
12 lLlbc6
...
The natural and most common move. Alternatives are riskier: 1 2 . . .lLlbd7
1 3 i.e2 .U.c8 1 4 0-0 0-0 1 5 h4 lLlf6 1 6 hxg5 hxg5 1 7 1i'd2!
Goloshchapov-Jobava, Open 2002; 1 2 ... 1i'a5 1 3 'it'd5 tLlbc6 14 1i'xa5 lLlxa5
1 5 lLld5 l:tc8 16 0-0-0 e6 1 7 f6! i.f8 1 8 i.xe5 dxe5 1 9 lLlc3 lLlc4 20 i.xc4
lhc4 2 1 f3 leaves White with a distinct endgame advantage, Fontaine
Fressinet, French Championship 2000.
13 lLld5
The problem with simple development is that 1 3 i.e2 4:\d4 ! allows Black
to take the initiative.
13 ...e6
1 3 ... 0-0 has not been seen, though it looks reasonable. 14 c3 e6 1 5 4:\e3
d5 16 fxe6 fxe6 is one possibility.
14 fxe6 fxe6 1 5 4:le3 0-0
Active play is also interesting here: 1 5 . . . 'ili'a5+ 1 6 c3 d5 1 7 i.e2 d4 1 8
i.h5+ �e7 gives chances for both sides. The endgame with 1 6 'ili'd2 may be
White's best choice.
16 i.e2 dS
16 . . .'ti'e7 17 0-0 .l:tad8 (Dolmatov-Sakaev, Moscow 2002/3) and now 1 8
c3, instead of 1 8 c4 as played, should keep a slight edge for White.
17 0-0
1 7 ...'ifb6
Attacking the queenside Eawns distracts White from building up pressure
on the center. Instead 1 7 . . . 4:\g6 1 8 c4 4:ld4 1 9 cxd5 exd5 20 i.g4 4:lf4 2 1
i.xf4 .l:txf4 22 'ti'd3 'ii'd6 23 .l:tad l;\; was Shirov-Gelfand, Monaco Rapidplay
2000.
18 4:\g4!?
It is typical of Shirov's style to play for the active possibilities in the
position. 1 8 .l:tb 1 l:r.ad8 1 9 .l:te1 4:ld4 20 c3 would be more in the style of
Karpov and seems slightly better for White.
18 ... l:r.f5
Black should probably take the b2 pawn at once. 1 8 ... 'ili'xb2 1 9 .l:tb 1 'ili'xa2
20 .l:txb7 .l:tf7 avoids the problem of the passed white a-pawn that occurs in
the game continuation.
19 c3 'ili'xb2 20 .l:tb1 'ili'xc3 21 .l:txb7
White's activity fully compensates for the pawn. Black has trouble
consolidating as the kingside and center pawns are somewhat loose.
2 1 ... l:r.f7 22 'ti'b1 .l:txb7?!
22 ...ltJd4? 23 �xe5! ltJxe2+ 24 �h l �xe5 25 ltJxh6+ wins. More solid is

22 . . .llaf8 23 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 24 ..txa6 llxb7 25 �xb7 ltJc4 when White is not
as active as in the game, though he is still for choice after 26 'ir'g6 'ir'f6 27
'ir'xf6 �xf6 28 l::td l �f7 29 a4 �d8.
23 'ir'xb7l::t e8 24 'Wxa6 ltJxg4 25 �xg4 ltJd4 26 l::tb 1
White has acheived his strategic goals with the opening. The black center
is not a strength as it is under pressure. Also the black king is less safe than
its counterpart. Still Black could contain this disadvantage with 26 . . . ltJf5 ,
which stops the bishop pair becoming too powerful.
26...'iic 2? 27 llb7 'iig6 28 a4
White's plan is to simply queen this pawn. Black must try something
active or go down without a fight.
28 ... h5 29 ..td1 h4 30 �d6 e5 31 lia7!
The black position is now too loose to hold the game.
3 1 ...ltJf5 32 �c5 e4 33l::tb6l::te6 34 �b3!
This final tactic ends resistance. The white bishops simply dominate.
34 ... l:txb6 35 �xd5+ 'iti>h7
35 ...l:te6 36 'Wd7.
36 'iixb6 "ifh5 37 'iib 1 'ith6 38 �xe4 1-0
Shirov-J.Polgar, EuroTel Trophy 1 999.
6 i.. e3 ltJg4 7 i.. g S h6 8 i.. h4 g5 9 i.. g3 i.. g7
1 0 h3 etJf6
1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 lLlf6 5 l2Jc3 a6 6 �e3 l2Jg4 7 �gS

h6 8 �h4 gS 9 �g3 �g7 1 0 h3lLlf6
l O ... lLlf6 is positionally more focused than I O... l2Jge5 in that Black covers
the weak light squares on d5, g4 and h5. The game has similarities to a
Dragon although the difference of the advanced black kings ide pawns alters
the strategy. There are several choices for White here with no particular one
clearly the main line, although we present the most trendy line for the game
continuation.
1 1 ..0
In most Sicilians it is odd to move the queen to this square in front, rather
than behind, the kings ide pawns. The specifics of the position lend sense to
this unusual foray which logically prepares for queenside castling. The
alternatives for White deserve close investigation.
a) 1 1 'il'e2 l2Jc6 1 2 lLlxc6 bxc6 1 3 e5 dxe5 14 �xe5 0-0 1 5 h4 g4 (Black's
kingside pawns are now well advanced but strangely his king is quite safe
as the kingside squares are covered by his pieces.) 1 6 g3 (Here Black's
pawn structure is split, so he will be clearly worse if the game becomes
static.) 1 6 ...'fib6 ( 1 6... a5 1 7 �g2 �a6 1 8 'ii'e3 1i'd7 to detain the king in the
center looks better. This line depends on 1 9 1i'd4 1i'xd4 20 �xd4 e5 ! 2 1
�c5 l:.fd8 which is equal-although Black must play actively. Note that 22
�e7 l:.d4 23 �xc6 l:.b8 leaves Black happy.) 17 0-0-0 �e6 1 8 �g2 l:.fd8
(The position is roughly equal. Black has good enough control of the central
squares so that his split pawns are not a focus of attack.) 1 9 l:.he 1 h5 20 b3
l:.ac8 2 1 l2Ja4 l:.xd 1 + (2 1 ...'fib5 22 'ii'xb5 cxb5 23 lLlb6 l:.xd 1 + 24 l:.xd 1 !)
22 l:.xd l 'fib5 23 �fl ? (23 1i'xb5 ! cxb5 24 �b7±) 23 . . . �c4! 24 1i'xc4
1i'xe5+ Ponomariov-J.Polgar, Superstars, Hotel Bali 2002.
b) I I i.e2 'ifh6 1 2 liJb3 i.e6 1 3 0-0 ltJbd7 1 4 �h I l:.c8 1 5 'ii'd2 0-0 1 6

i. f3 ltJe5 1 7 i.xe5 dxe5 1 8 l:tfd l l:.c4 1 9 'ii'e2 l:lfc8 Wang Zili-Bologan,
6th Tan Chin Nam Cup 2000.
White also has a very sharp continuation that involves a pawn sacrifice.
c) I I ..ic4 'ii'b6 12 0-0 0-0 ( 1 2 .. .'ii'xb 2 is also possible.) 1 3 ltJde2 'ii'xb2
14 ..ib3 'ii'a3 1 5 f4 and White has attacking chances against the black king
because of his lead in development and the weakening of the advanced
black g-pawn. In practical play the chances are about even, though
theoretically White does not have full compensation for the pawn.
Kasparov-J. Polgar, Wijk aan Zee 2000, continued 1 5 . . .ltJc6 1 6 �h I i.e6 1 7
'ii'd3 .l:tac8 1 8 fxg5 hxg5 1 9 ltJd5 l:tfe8 20 .l:tad 1 ltJb4 2 1 'ii'f3 ltJbxd5 22
exd5 ..id7 23 c3 when 23 . . .g4 would keep Black's advantage in this tricky
position.
Back to our game variation, Black's best reply to 1 1 'ii'O is ...

11 'ii'b6
...
Since 1 1 . . .ltJc6 1 2 ltJxc6 bxc6 1 3 e5 dxe5 1 4 i.xe5 0-0 1 5 i.d3 'ii'a 5 1 6

'ii'e2 i.e6 1 7 0-0 !;t leaves White with simply the better pawn structure,
Ehlvest-de Firmian, Reykjavik 2000.
12 0-0-0 ltJc6
As usual, it is best for Black to hit the centralized knight on d4 and force
it into a decision.
13 ltJxc6
There is no good alternative. The aggressive-looking 1 3 ltJf5 i.xf5 1 4
'ii'xf5? ltJd4 just gets him into trouble.
13 'ii'xc6 14 i.e2
...
Black need have no fear of the sharp 1 4 e5 'ii'x f3 1 5 gxf3 dxe5 1 6 i.xe5
..id7! when 1 7 . . . ..ic6 is threatened. Shirov-Kasparov, Bosna SuperGM
2000, then continued 1 7 lL"Id5 lL"Ixd5 1 8 i.xg7 .l:th7 1 9 i.e5 f6 20 l:txd5 i.c6
2 1 .l:td3 fxe5 etc.
14...'ii'c 5!
Black has also tried to fight for the dark squares by 14 . . . ltJd7 1 5 ltJd5
ltJe5 but this allows White an advantage after precise and prosaic play: 1 6
'6'e3 (Not the over ambitious play that several 2700 players have tried- 1 6
'6'a3 .:tb8 1 7 l:td4 b 5 1 8 l:thd 1 '6'b7 1 9 f4 gxf4 2 0 i.xf4 i.e6 2 1 'ii'g3 ltJg6
Ivanchuk-Shirov, Melody Amber 2003 .) 1 6 ... i.e6 1 7 h4 l:tc8 1 8 c3 '6'c5 1 9
'6'xc5 l:txc5 20 f3 i.xd5 2 1 exd5 ltJg6 22 hxg5 hxg5 23 l:txh8+ i.xh8 24
i.f2 when the two bishops and weak g5 pawn condemn Black to a long
hard defense, Van den Doei-Vanderstricht, Vlissingen 2003.
IS .l:f.hel
15 e5 dxe5 1 6 '6'e3 '6'xe3+ 1 7 fxe3 e4 Gallagher-Xu Jun, Bled Olympiad
2002.
IS ...i.e6 16 eS dxeS 1 7 i.dJ
The big question is whether White can play more aggressively by 1 7
'6'xb7 0-0 1 8 i.f3 when Black must find attackin g chances for the p awn he
_
is about to lose. 1 8 ... e4 ( 1 8 . . . .:tab8 1 9 l:txe5!) 1 9 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 20 'ifxe4 (20
i.xe4 l:ta7 2 1 'ii'c6 '6'a5 22 i.d5 l:tc8) 20. . . .:tac8 2 1 '6'a4 leaves Black with
pressure, though White could still be a bit better.
1 7 ...e4! ? 18 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 19 'ii'xe4
19 . 0-0-0!
. .
This rare queenside castling solves all Black's problems. With pieces so
l:cntralized there is no attack against the black king.
20 a3
20 ..txa6? 'ifb6.
20. .:.ds 21 'iib4 l:rhd8 22 ..xc5+ l:rxc5 23 ..te2 ..trs 24 c3
..
We are now headed for a drawn endgame.

24.. J:td7 25 ..tg4 ..txg4 1/z-1/z
Lutz-J.Polgar, Budapest 2003.
6 f3 if b6
l e4 c5 2 tt:lfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 a6 6 f3
This move order is another way for White to head for the English Attack
setup. Most players as Black will continue 6 ... e6 7 ..ie3 or 6 ... e5 7 tt:lb3
..ie6 8 ..ie3 when play transposes into one of the main lines of the English
Attack covered in the previous chapters. The point of White's move order is
to avoid the lines of 6 ..ie3 tt:lg4, chasing the bishop. However 6 f3 gives
Black a different option to avoid the main lines and this is the subject of the
present chapter.
6 .. :ir'b6
The queen sortie takes advantage of the fact that the bishop cannot
develop to e3 right now because b2 would be hanging. White must continue
somewhat differently to develop his pieces but will regain the tempo when
the bishop finally comes to e3.
7 tt:lb3
We take this as our main line. There may be equally good alternatives
since this whole line is only a few years old.
I) Not too difficult for Black is 7 a4 e6 (also 7 ... tt::lc6 8 tt::lb 3 e6 9 a5 'ii'c7
I 0 �e3 d5 1 1 exd5 tt::lb4 1 2 �b6 'ii'e5+ 1 3 'it>f2 tt::lfxd5 14 �d4 'ii'h5 1 5 h4
tt'lxc3 16 bxc3 tt::lc6 1 7 g4 'ii'd5 1 8 �b6 1h-1h lvanchuk-Sakaev, Halkidiki
2002) 8 a5 'ii'c7 9 �e2 d5 10 exd5 exd5 1 1 'ii'd3 tt::lc6 1 2 ..ig5 'ii'e5 1 3
..ixf6 gxf6 1 4 tt::lxc6 bxc6 1 5 0-0 ..ih6 1 6 l:f.ae 1 0-0 1 7 ..id1 ..if5 ! 1 8 'ii'e2
l::tfe 8 + Solozhenkin-Popov, St Petersburg 2000.
2) Rare is 7 a3 ! ?
A) 7 . . e5 ! 8 tt::lf5 (8 tt::lb3 �e6) 8 . . . �xf5 9 exf5 tt::lc6 i s unclear though
.
probably fine for Black.

B) 7 ... e6 8 ..ie3 tt::lc6 (8 . . . 'ii'xb2?? 9 tt::la4+-) 9 'ii'd2 'ii'c7 (9 ... 'ii'xb2 1 0
l:f.a2 'ii'b6 1 1 tt::lxe6 'ii'a5 1 2 tt::l f4;l;) 1 0 g4;l; Zunker-Litvinov, Germany 2003 .
3) 7 g4 may transpose into the main line. After this there are three
choices.
A) 7 . . . h6 8 a3 ! ? e5 9 tt::l f5 ..ixf5 10 gxf5 tt::lc6 1 1 ..ic4 tt::ld4 12 tt::ld5 tt::lxd5
13 �xd5 �e7 14 'ii'd3 ( 1 4 h4 ! ? looks slightly better for White.) 14 ... �g5
15 b4 l:f.c8 1 6 c3 tt::lb5 1 7 ..ib2 ..ih4+ Svidler-Ruck, Bled 2002.
B) 7 ... tt::lc 6 8 tt::lb3 e6 9 'ii'e2 (9 g5 tt::ld7 1 0 h4 "ilc7 1 1 ..ie3 b5 1 2 h5 �b7
13 .!:th3 tt::lb6 Acs-J.Pol g ar, Budapest 2003) 9 ... "ilc7 (9 . . .�e7 1 0 �g2 'ii'c7
I I f4 b5 12 a3 .!:tb8 1 3 ..ie3 b4 1 4 axb4 .!:txb4 1 5 g5 tt::ld7 1 6 0-0 h6 1 7 gxh6
l:txh6 Ponomariov-Georgiev, Moscow 200 1 ) 1 0 �e3 b5 1 1 0-0-0
transposes into our main line (7 tt::lb 3) on move 1 1.
C) 7 ... e6 8 g5 tt::l fd7 9 a3 tt::lc6 1 0 ..ie3 'ikc7 1 1 "ild2 b5 1 2 tt::ldxb5!? axb5
13 tt::lxb5 'iib 8 14 0-0-0 �a6 1 5 tt::lxd6+ �xd6 16 'ikxd6 'ikxd6 1 7 .l:Ixd6
�xfl 1 8 l:txfl .l:Ic8 1 9 b3;l; Berthelot-Geller, Sautron 2003.
7 e6
...
8 'ii'e2
8 ..ig5 tt::lbd7 9 'ii'd 2 'ii'c7 10 0-0-0 b5 1 1 h4 ..ib7 1 2 ..id3 ..ie7 was
Kovchan-Aiexikov, Simferopol 2003.
8 g4
1 00 The English A ttack
A) 8 ... lt:Jc6 9 �e2 (9 g5 transposes into Acs-Polgar Budapest 2003,

considered under 7 g4.) 9 . . .d5!? (9 ... �e7 1 0 �g2 'fic7 1 1 f4 transposes into
Ponomariov-Georgiev, Moscow 200 1 , considered under 7 g4) 1 0 �e3 d4
1 1 �f2 �cS 1 2 a3 'fic7 1 3 0-0-0 �xa3 14 bxa3 dxc3 I S �cS eS
Grischuk-Shirov, Linares 200 1 .
B) 8 . . .�c7 9 �e3 bS 1 0 �d2 lt:Jbd7 1 1 gS lt:JeS 1 2 0-0-0 lt:Jfd7 1 3 f4 lt:Jc4
1 4 �xc4 'fixc4 1 S 'ir'f2 aS 1 6 l:f.d4 'fic6 1 7 a4 b4 1 8 lt:JbS �e7 1 9 l:f.hd 1 0-0
20 'it>b 1 ± Grischuk-J.Polgar, Cannes 200 1 .
C) 8 . . . lt:Jfd7
Cl) 9 �e2 �e7 1 0 h4 ( 1 0 gS 'ir'c7 1 1 �e3 bS 1 2 �f2 �b7 1 3 0-0-0 b4
Yemelin-Popov, Krasnodar 2002) 1 0 . . . �c7 1 1 �gS f6 1 2 �e3 bS 1 3 'fif2
lt:JcS 14 0-0-0 lt:Jbd7 seems OK for Black as it is difficult for White to attack
e6. Motylev-J.Polgar, Ohrid 200 1 .
C2) 9 f4 9. . .�e7 1 0 gS h6 1 1 �hS lt:Jf8 1 2 h4 lt:Jg6 1 3 �f3 hxgS 1 4 hxgS
l:f.xh 1 I S 'fixh 1 lt:Jc6 1 6 �d2 .id7 1 7 0-0-0 �c7 1 8 .ie3 l:f.c8 1 9 'iti>b 1 !
S.Hansen-Sutovsky, Istanbul 2000.
8 lt:Jc6
...
The most natural but there are many possibilities.

1 ) 8 ... lt:Jbd7 9 g4 h6 10 h4 lt:JeS 1 1 f4!? lt:Jexg4 1 2 eS dxeS 1 3 fxeS "ikc7
1 4 �f4 is a promising pawn sacrifice. 14 ... �b4 1 S l:f.h3 hS 16 0-0-0 lt:Jd7 1 7
�b l 0-0 1 8 lt:Je4 lt:JdxeS 1 9 a3 �e7 20 l:f.c3 "ikb6 2 1 �xeS lt:JxeS 22 'fixhS
f6 23 .ih3 .id7 24 l:f.g3 l:f.f7? (24 . . . fS 2S l:f.dg 1 ?! l:f.f7 26 "ikh6 lt:Jg4 ! ) 2S
'fih6! fS 26 �xfS 1 -0 Fedorov-Kempinski, Saint Vincent 2000.
2) 8 . . ."ikc7 is the most played alternative
A) 9 �e3 bS 1 0 'ir'f2 ( 1 0 0-0-0 lt:Jbd7 1 1 'iti>b 1 b4 1 2 lt:JdS? exdS 1 3 exdS

�e7 14 g4 0-0 1 S gS lt:JhS 1 6 f4 g6 1 7 lt:Jd4 l:f.e8+ Zhang Pengxiang
Shipov, Internet Chess Club 2002) 1 0. . . lt:Jbd7 1 1 0-0-0 ( 1 1 �d3 b4 1 2 lt:Je2
dS 1 3 0-0-0 dxe4 1 4 �xe4 lt:Jxe4 1 S fxe4 �e7+ Firman-P.Nielsen, Cappelle
Ia Grande 200 1 ) 1 l .. .b4 1 2 lt:Je2 �b7 1 3 g4 l:.c8 1 4 lt:Jed4 e5 1 S lt:JfS g6 1 6
lt:Jg3 dS?! 1 7 gS d4 1 8 �xd4 exd4 1 9 gxf6 �h6+ 20 'iti>b 1 �e3 2 1 "ikg2
lt:Jxf6 22 �d3!.
B) 9 g4 b5 10 .i.e3 (10 g5 tLlfd7 I I .i.e3 b4 1 2 tLld l tLlc6 1 3 tLlf2 a5 14

.i.g2 .i.a6 15 tLld3 a4 1 6 tLld2 tLlce5+ De Ia Riva Aguado-Shirov, Andorra
200 1 ) I O... b4 I I tLla4 tiJbd7
Bl) 1 2 'iff2 'ifc6 ( 1 2 . . .l:.b8 1 3 g5 tLlh5) 1 3 tLlb6 tLlxb6 14 .i.xb6 lLld7 Cao
Sang-Ruck, Balatonlelle 2002.
B2) 1 2 g5? tLlxe4 ! 1 3 fxe4 'ii'c6 14 0-0-0 'ii'xa4 1 5 �b 1 .i.b7+
Koziak-Dydyshko Lubniewice 2002.
B3) 1 2 'itc4 'ii'xc4 1 3 .i.xc4 d5 14 exd5 tLle5 1 5 �e2 lLlxd5 1 6 .i.d4 .i.d6
Grischuk-Kasparov Linares 200 I .
3) 8 . . . h5 9 .i.g5 .i.e? 1 0 0-0-0 tLlbd7 I I f4t Lobzhanidze-Donchenko,
Griesheim 2002.
4) 8 ... d5?! 9 exd5 .i.b4 1 0 dxe6 .i.xe6 I I "ii'f2 'itc7 1 2 .i.d2 0-0 1 3 0-0-0
tLlc6 1 4 tLlc5 .i.f5 1 5 a3± l:.fd8?! 1 6 axb4 tLlxb4 1 7 ltJ3e4 tLlxc2 1 8 .i.c3+
Vorobiov-Kupreichik, Kramatorsk 200 1 .
9 .i.e3 1kc7 10 g4
1 0 0-0-0 b5 I I 'ii'f2 l:tb8 1 2 �b l �e7 1 3 g4 0-0 14 g5 tLld7 1 5 h4 tLlce5
16 h5 b4 1 7 tLle2 tLlc4 IJH.-'2 Korneev-Ljubojevic, Villarrobledo 1 998.
10 ...b5 11 0-0-0
I I 'ii'g2 tLle5 1 2 0-0-0 h6 1 3 h4 .i.b7 14 g5 hxg5 1 5 hxg5 l:txh l 1 6 'ii'x h 1
b4 ! 1 7 liJe2 tLlfd7 1 8 tLled4 tLlc5 19 'it>b I 0-0-0 20 .i.e2 d5 2 1 exd5 l:txd5 22
'ir'fl tLled7 23 f4 'it>b8 24 .i.f3 Ih-1h Magem Badals-J.Polgar, Las Vegas
1 999. 24 ... l:.d6 is about even.
l l ....i.b7
The favorite move of Judit Polgar is l l . . .tLld7 which she has played many
times, p articularly against Anand. 1 2 'ii'f2 ( 1 2 �b l tLlb6 1 3 'ir'f2 l:.b8 1 4 f4
b4 1 5 tLle2 e5 1 6 f5 a5 1 7 tLlg3 a4 1 8 tLld2 a3 1 9 .i.xb6 .l:r.xb6 20 tLlc4 l:tb8
2 1 b3s Anand-J.Polgar, Rapid match, Mainz 2003) 1 2 . . . b4 1 3 tLle2 ( 1 3 tLla4
l:tb8 1 4 l:t_g 1 .i.e? 1 5 'it>b 1 tiJd8 16 tLld2 1i'c6 1 7 b3 0-0 1 8 g5 tLlb7 1 9 f4
tLlbc5 20 liJxc5 tLlxc5 2 1 f5 l:te8 22 g6± Leko-J.Polgar, Cap D'Agde 2003)
A) 1 3 ... a5 14 liJbd4 !i...e7 1 5 l2Jxc6 'ii'xc6 1 6 liJd4 'ii'b7 1 7 liJb5 ( 1 7

!i...b 5!?;l;) 1 7 ...'ii'b 8 1 8 'ii'd 2 0-0 1 9 liJxd6 liJe5 20 f4 Anand-J.Polgar, Rapid
match, Mainz 2003. Now 20 ... l2Jxg4 is unclear.
B) 1 3 ... J.b7 14 liJed4 liJxd4 1 5 liJxd4 d5 1 6 exd5 !i...xd5 1 7 �b 1 ..tc5 1 8
h4 0-0 1 9 ..te2 l1fc8 20 l:td2? !i...xd4 2 1 !i...xd4 ..txa2+! 22 ¢>c 1 (22 �xa2
'ii'a 5+ 23 �b 1 b3) 22 ... !i...b 3-+ Anand-J.Polgar, Cap D' Agde 2003. Also
Black has tried 1 I .. ...te7 1 2 �b 1 liJd7 1 3 fif2 J.b7 14 g5 l1c8 1 5 .l:.g 1 0-0
16 h4 b4 1 7 l2Ja4 l2Jce5 1 8 liJb6 l2Jxb6 1 9 ..txb6 'fibS 20 ..th3 l2Jc4 2 1 !i...a7
'ii'c7 22 h5 a5 23 g6 !i...f6 24 !i...d4± Leko-Topalov, Batumi 1 999.
1 2 h4
White can choose to directly advance-1 2 g5 liJd7 1 3 fif2 ( 1 3 h4 l2Ja5 !
1 4 !i...d4 b4+ 1 5 liJd5?! l2Jxb3+ 16 axb3 exd5 1 7 exd5+ ¢>d8 is a dubious
sacrifice played in Ni Hua-Xu Jun, Shanghai 200 1 . After 1 8 ..th3 !i...xd5 1 9
.l:.he 1 ir'c6 is very good .) 1 3 ... l2Jce5
A) 14 �b 1 .l:.c8 1 5 liJd4?! (It looks better to get on with the kingside
advance.) 1 5 ... l2Jc5 ( 1 5 . . . b4 1 6 liJ a4 'ii'a 5 1 7 b3 d5) 1 6 a3 ..ta8 1 7 .l:tg 1 'ii'b 8
Libiszewski-Bruned, Cap d'Agde 2003.
B) 14 a3 .l:tc8 15 �b 1 ..Wd8 ! ? 16 .l:tg 1 l2Jc4 1 7 J.xc4 .l:.xc4 1 8 .l:td4 .l:txc3 ?!
19 bxc3 l2Je5 20 'ii'e2 'ii'c 7 2 1 .ltc I l2Jc4 22 .l:td3 e5 23 f4 !i...e 7?!
(23 . . . exf4;l;) 24 f5± Acs-Dydyshko, Lubniewice 2003.
1 2 ...Ac8
13 'it>b1
1 3 g5 l2Jd7 1 4 'ii'f2 l2Jce5 1 5 a3 'ii'd 8 1 6 .ltd4 (for 1 6 h5 .l:txc3 see the next
illustrative game) 1 6 ... l2Jc6 1 7 !i...e3 l2Jce5 1 8 !i...d4 l2Jc6 1 9 !i...e3 l2Jce5 20
J.d4 1h-1h Grischuk-Kasparov, Cannes 200 1 .
1 3...l2Jd7 1 4 Ag1 ?!
1 4 'ii'f2 immediately is better.
1 4 ... l2Jce5 1 5 'ii'fl b4 16 liJa4 liJxf3!
16 ... !i...e7 ! threatening both 17 ... ..txh4 and ... l2Jxf3 looks even better.
1 7 'ii'x f3 'ii'c6
1 7 . . . 'ihc2+ 1 8 'ita l ..ixe4 1 9 'ii'e2 leaves White slightly better with a

piece for three pawns.
18 ltJac5! ltJxcS?!
It looks better to keey a knight on the board-1 8 ... dxc5 1 9 ltJa5 'ii'c7
( l 9 ... 'ii'xe4 20 'ii'f2 ) 20 tiJxb7 ,.xb7+.
19 ..ixcS dxcS 20 ltJaS! -.c7
20 . . .'ii'xe4 2 1 'ii'g3 'ii'f3 22 'ii'e l ..ie7 23 l:[g3 'ii'e4 24 :e3 'ii'h l 25 l:[h3
'ii'e4 26 l:[e3.
2 1 ltJxb7 'ii'xb7 22 ..ic4
Now White is for choice as the bishop in c4 sits beautifully blocking the
black pawns and bearing down on e6. As the kingside pawns advance White
gains the attack.
22 .....ie7 23 'ii'e2 'ii'c6 24 gS
Of course 24 ..ixa6 l:tb8 is fine for White, but why bother with the a pawn
when you can attack.
24 ..0-0 25 hS l:[cd8 26 g6 l:[xdl+ 27 l:[xd 1 fxg6 28 hxg6
.
28 ...l:[f4??
This is a howler. Black must play 28 ... hxg6 29 'ii'g4 l:[f6 30 e5 l:tf5 3 1
'ii'xg6 l:he5 32 l:[gl ..ig5 ! which is about equal since 33 a3?! bxa3 34
l:[xg5? a2+! actually mates ! .
2 9 'ii'h 2 1-0
It's mate or the rook, Grischuk-Shirov, New Delhi/Teheran 2000.
Illustrative Game: 6 f3 'ifb6
Grischuk - Ghaem Maghami

FIDE-World Championship, Moscow 2001
1 e4 c5 2 l2Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 a6 6 f3 1t'b6 7 g4 lLlc6 8

lLlb3 e6 9 'We2 'ffc7 10 �e3 b5 1 1 0-0-0 �b7 1 2 h4 l:tc8 13 g5 lLld7 1 4
1i'f2 lLlce5 1 5 a 3 'fid8
Black retreats the queen so that he can play the exchange sacrifice
... l:.xc3. Grischuk prevented this against Kasparov by 1 6 i.d4 lLlc6 1 7 �e3
lLlce5, repeating the position. Here he attempts to gain the full point.
16 h5
1 6 �b I is another way to proceed.
16 ... l:.xc3 1 7 bxc3 d5
Black now wins a pawn for the exchange. With the doubled white c
pawns there is near material equality.
18 exd5 �xa3+ 19 �b1 �xd5 20 l:.xd5!?
This certainly makes the game more fun for White. Now he has at least as
many attacking chances as Black. The alternatives were slow defense with
20 �g2 or 20 l:lh3 when Black has an active game.
20 ... exd5 2 1 'iWg2
Preparing to push f4 The position is hard to evaluate-it all depends

whether Black can find a secure place for his king.
2 I . ..i.d6?!
2 l .. .tDc4 22 .td4 0-0 23 f4 is critical: 23 ...tiJb8 24 .td3 tDc6 25 .txh7+!
�xh7 26 g6+ �g8 27 h6 tDxd4 28 hxg7! tDf5 ! (28 ... 'it>xg7? 29 gxf7+ �xf7
30 l:th7+ �e6 3 1 tDxd4+ �d6 32 'iig7+-) 29 gxf8='if+ .txf8 30 'iih3 tDh6
3 1 gxf7+ ..t>xf7 32 'iih 5+ is slightly better for White.
Perhaps 2 I . ..tlJc6, preventing the bishop from coming to d4, is good, e.g.
22 h6 g6 23 f4 tDb6 24 .txb6 'ifxb6 25 'iVxd5 0-0 26 .tg2 l:tc8+.
22 h6 g6?!
22 . . .gxh6! 23 l:lxh6 tlJg6.
23 f4 tDc4
24 'iix d5! tDxe3 25 'iix d6 Wb6 26 'ii'd3

Now Black is under pressure and must defend with the utmost accuracy.
26 ... ttJc4?
26 ... tDxfl ? 27 l:txfl 'ifc7 28 l:td 1 is also very bad. Black must try 26 ... f5 !
27 gxf6 (27 .th3?! ..t>d8 28 l:te1 l:te8) 27 ...tDxf6.
27 .th3
Now there is no way out. The black king does not reach saftey and is
caught in the center.
27 'iWd6
.•.
27 ... f5 28 .l::.e l + 'iti>d8 29 .l::.d l 'iWc7 30 lDc5+-.

28 .l::.e l+ 'iti>d8 29 .l::.d l
Winning a knight.
29 'iti>c7 30 'iWf3 1-0
...
Najdorf Variation 6 .te3 e6 7 f3 .te7
1 e4 c5 2 lt:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 5 lt:Jc3 a6 6 .ie3 e6 7 f3 .ie7
This, combined with b5, is a bad mixture of ideas. Black's best chance is
to transpose into the lt:Jc6 l ine quickly.
8 'ir'd2 b5 9 0-0-0 .ib7 10 g4 lt:Jfd7 1 1 g5
ll lt:Jc6?!
...
One of Black's problems is how to get the piece play going. Black should
give l l ...lt:Jb6 !? a try. While .ie7 is slow so is White's g5. With these
moves offsetting each other l l ...lt:Jb6 gives Black the proper play.
1 2 h4
1 2lt:Jxc6 !? .ixc6 1 3 h4 'ir'a5 1 4 'i3tb l b4 1 5 lt:Je2 d5 1 6lt:Jd4 .ib7 and I
like White.
12 .. Jlc8 13 'ii'g 2?
1 3lt:Jxc6!?
/08 The English A ttack
13 ...ltJce5!
Now White's knights start stumbling over one another due to the l:f.xc3
sac.
14 ltJce2 ltJc4 15 �g1 'ikc7 16 ltJg3 ltJdb6+
White's forces don't paint a picture of coordination.
1 7 ltJh5 0-0 18 .i.d3?
1 8 .i.xc4, removing one intruder, is best.
18 ...ltJxb2!
Shattering White 's queenside puts a rapid end to the proceedings.
1 9 �xb2 'ikc3+ 20 �c1 d5-+ 2 1 l:f.fl 'ii'xd3 22 g6 hxg6 23 ltJf4 .i.a3+ 24
'it>b1 'ikc3 25 ltJd3 dxe4 26 fxe4 l:f.c4! 27 h5 l:tb4+ 28 ltJb3 .i.xe4
White missed several opportunities to play ltJc6, ltJe2, ltJd4 with a slight
pull.
0-1
White 's inaccurate play combined with missed chances led to an
instructive disaster. V. Georgiev-K. Georgiev, Bulgarian Championship,
Tsarevo 200 1 .
Najdorf Variation 6 i.. e3 e6 7 f3 i.. e 7
8 "iVd2 ttJc6 ! ?
1 e4 c5 2 tt'lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 tt'lf6 5 tt'lc3 a6 6 �e3 e6 7 f3 �e7

There are numerous transpositional possibilities with �e7, tt'lc6, 0-0 etc.
7 ... d5 8 e5 tt'lfd7 9 f4 turns things into a French Defense. 7 ... tt'lc6 should
transpose. Black must play �e7 and 0-0 in this variation.
8 'Wd2 tt'lc6!?
With this move Black attempts active piece play. Black should be on the
lookout for ... d5 breaks that would free his game. One of the difficulties
Black faces in this line is how the attack is handled. White's kingside pawn
storm is all ready to go, but Black's isn't so easy. Black must be prepared to
handle g6 pawn sacrifices in certain situations and can try a variety of ideas
which I'll do my best to sort out. 8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0-0 tt'lc6 is another move order.
8 . . . b5?! doesn't fit in well with this move order as after 9 0-0-0 �b7 1 0 g4
White can pawn storm the kingside and undermine e6.
White can't expect any kind of advantage from the passive approach
9 a4?!. Moves like this don't fit into the aggressive nature of the English
Attack, e.g. 9 . . .0-0 10 ..ie2 d5 I I exd5 tt'lxd5 1 2 tt'lxd5 'i'xd5 1 3 tt'lxc6
'ifxc6 14 0-0 e5 1 5 ..id3 �e6 Zavalishin-Ivanov, Salekhard 2003.
9 g4! ? is possible, but should transpose into 9 0-0-0. I see no reason why
this should be superior to the normal move.
1 1 0 The English A ttack
A) 9 . . . tiJxd4 1 0 ..ixd4 e5 (I believe this is premature here. Giving White

control of d5 makes things easy.) 1 1 �e3 �e6 1 2 0-0-0 'if'a5 1 3 'it>b l 0-0
1 4 'ii'f2 !
When 'ii'a5 i s played prematurely o r without purpose 'if f2 can be strong.

The threat of .ib6 forces either a queen retreat or tiJd7 allowing tiJd5. In
either case White gets a clear edge. 14 ...'il'c7 ( 1 4 ... tiJd7 prevents .ib6 but
allows tiJd5 1 5 tiJd5 .ixd5 1 6 exd5 with a solid edge.) 1 5 g5 tiJd7 1 6 h4 b5
1 7 h5 J:tfc8 1 8 .ih3 .if8 1 9 g6 b4 20 tiJd5 .ixd5 2 1 exd5+- Kurmann
Moser, Davos 2002. Where did Black's counterplay go?
B) Most of the resulting isolated d5 pawn positions favor White, e.g.
9 . . . d5?! 10 g5 tiJh5 1 1 exd5 tiJxd4 ( l l .. .exd5 12 0-0-0;t) 12 'il'xd4 .ixg5 1 3
0-0-0 'il'f6 1 4 .ixg5 'ii'x g5+ 1 5 'it>b 1 0-0 1 6 d6 .id7 1 7 t2Je4 'ii'f4 1 8 llg 1 ;t
Dukaczewski-Draghici, Linares 200 1 . The pawn on d6 is annoying and
Black's tiJh5, while defending, is out of it.
C) 9 . . . 0-0!? is Black's best alternative. After 1 0 h4 tiJd7 1 1 g5 Black
generates good play with the idea l l .. .tiJde5 1 2 'ii'g 2 ( 1 2 'if'f2 .id7 1 3 .ie2
b5 14 f4?! b4 1 5 tiJb l tiJxd4 16 .ixd4 tiJc6 1 7 ..ib6 'ii'b 8+ Toth-Seres,
Budapest 2002. White's position is disjointed.) 1 2 ... tiJxd4 1 3 .ixd4 b5 14
f4? ! (With White's king still in the middle this loosening move is a tad too
The English A ttack 1 1 1
optimistic. 1 4 0-0-0 lLlc6 1 5 .i.e3 'Wa5 1 6 �b I b4 I 7 lLle2 d5 is interesting.)

I4 ...lLlc6 15 .i.e3 .i.b7 I6 0-0-0 'Wa5 1 7 'Wf2 .i.d8 I 8 �b i b4 19 lLle2 l:tc8
20 lLlc I 'Wc7 2 I h5 lLla5 22 .i.d3 lLlc4 23 l:th2 a5 24 f5 exf5 25 .i.xc4 ._.xc4
26 exf5 .i.e4!+
Goh Weiming-Nguyen Van Huy, Ho Chi Minh City 2003. Combining

defense with offense puts Black on top.
9 .i.e2!? looks like a bad mix of ideas. The English Attack attempts a
kingside pawn storm. White managed it anyway.
A) 9 ... 0-0 I O 0-0-0 lLlxd4 I 1 .i.xd4 b5 is a better way to take advantage

of White's loss of time. With ideas like 'ii'a5 or b4 Black can do without
fkc7 1 2 'it>b 1 'ii'a 5? ( 1 2 . . . b4 ! ? 1 3 lLla4 l:tb8 is interesting.) 1 3 liJd5+-.
B) 9 . . .'Wc7 1 0 0-0-0 0-0 1 1 g4 b5 I2 l:tdg1 .i.b7 ( 1 2 . . .lLle5 ! ? looks like
sufficient counterplay. lLlfd7 to b6 is one idea.) I 3 h4 b4 I4 liJd i fka5
( l4 ...lLlxd4 1 5 �xd4 e5 I 6 .i.e3 d5 I 7 g5±; I 4 ...lLle5 ! ?) 1 5 'it>b i d5?!
(Black panics, but it was bad anyway.) I 6 g5 lLle8 I7 lLlb3 'Wd8 I8 exd5
exd5 I 9 h5± Stefanidou-Mijovic, Halkidiki 2000.
N ajdorf Variation 6 .i.e3 e6 7 f3 .i.e7
8 it' d2 tt:Jc6 ! ? 9 0-0-0 it' c7
1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 a6 6 .te3 e6 7 f3 ii.e7 8

'ii'd2 tt:lc6!? 9 0-0-0 'ii'c7
9 . . . .td7 10 g4
A) l O .. J:tc8 l l tt:lce2 ( 1 1 tt:lxc6! .txc6 1 2 tt:le2;!;) 1 1 . . .'ii'c7 1 2 �b 1 tt:le5

(Black gets counterplay with this move.) 1 3 tt:lg3 h6 1 4 h4 b5 1 5 .td3 tt:lc4
Al) 1 6 .txc4 'ii'xc4 (After 1 6 ... bxc4 1 7 tt:lde2± sooner or later Black's
king will come under attack.) 17 g5±.
A2) 16 'ii'e2 d5 1 7 .tc 1 'ii'xg3 1 8 .txc4 dxe4 1 9 .tb3 exf3 20 tt:lxf3 .tc6
2 1 tt:le5 .txh I 22 tt:lxfl .to 23 'ii'xe6 0-0?? (Absolute insanity!
23 . . . .txg4 ! -+) 24 tt:le5+ �h8 25 tt:lg6+ 'iti>h7 26 'ii'f5 +- Hodzic-Cicic, Neum
2002.
B) I O ... h6?! i s a horrible move that gift wraps a huge advantage for
White. I I h4 'WaS I 2 'Llb3 ( I 2 'iti>b l !?} I 2 ... 'ii'd 8?! Black should at least
p lay I 2 .. .'�c7 I 3 ..ig2 ( I 3 'ii'g2 !?) 1 3 . . . bS 14 'Lle2 lLleS I S lLlaS 'Llc4 16
lL!xc4 bxc4 I 7 gS hxgS 1 8 hxgS 'LlhS I 9'Llf4 g6 20 lLlxhS gxhS 2 I 'ifc3 eS
22 'ir'xc4± Cartelle Cudillero-Rodriguez Bujones, Ferrol 2002.
C) IO . .'Llxd4
. I I ..ixd4 eS I 2 ..ie3 ..ie6 1 3 gS 'Lld7 I 4 h4 .l:r.c8 IS 'it>b i
'ifaS I 6 'LldS 'ir'xd2 I 7 .l:r.xd2 lLlcS I 8 b4 'Lla4 I 9 c4 ..ixdS 20 exdS 0-0 2 I
l::tc2l:Hd8 22 ..ih3± Erdogdu-Hatipoglu, Izmir 2003.
10 g4
A) I O... bS
Al) I 1 h4'LleS I 2 gS
Ala) I 2 ...'LlhS 1 3 l::tg i 'Llc4 I4 ..ixc4 bxc4 IS f4 l::tb 8 I 6 'ife2 g6 I 7 fS
0-0 I 8 'ifg4 ( I 8 'it>b I ! ? White should defend b2 first then tum his attention
to the kingside.) I 8 ...'ifb6+ Kupczyk-Balkiewicz, Zakopane 200 1 .
Alb) 1 2. . 'Llfd7
. 1 3 hS (The weakness of Black's e6 square shows that
White already has dangerous threats.) 1 3 ...'Llc4 ( 1 3 ...'Llb6!?, protecting e6,
looks logical.) I 4 ..ixc4 'ifxc4 I S b31r'c7 I 6 g6 !
Black's fl, e6, d5 square complex gets undermined immediately 1 6 ...b4

1 7 gxfl+ cJitxfl 1 8 ltJa4 ltJc5 19 'ir'xb4 ltJxa4 20 'ir'xa4 'ir'c3 21 �he 1 �d8
22lllc6 .i.b7 23 ltJxd8+ l:txd8 24 '1Wd4+- Dib-Lukianenko, Kharkov 2003.
A2) I 1 cJitb I lLlxd4 I2 .i.xd4 e5 I3 .i.e3 b4 14 ltJe2 a5 1 5 ltJg3 g6 I6 g5
ltJd7 1 7 h4 l:tb8 1 8 h5 lL!c5 1 9 hxg6 fxg6 20 .i.c4 a4 2 1 f4 .i.g4 22 fxe5 (22
:dfl !?) 22 ...dxe5 (22 ... .i.xd l !? 23 lhd i dxe5 Black is alright here.) 23
:dfl .i.e6 24 1i'e2 'it'd? 25 .i.xc5 .i.xc5 26 .i.xe6 'ir'xe6 27 l:lf6 1i'd7 28
l:td l .i.d4 29 1i'c4 l:lfll 30 l:ldfl �xf6 3 I 'ir'g8+!+- Berg-Kruger, Yerevan
2000.
A3) I I g5 ltJd7
A3a) 1 2 ltJf5 ! ? (We see similar ideas in the Velimirovic Attack in the
Sozin Sicilian. With correct play Black should have no problem defending.)
1 2 ... exf5 (There's no point in declining this offer.) I3 lLld5 1i'd8 I4 exf5
:b8+ (The ltJd5, combined with the f5 and g5 _ pawns, carries more bark
than bite.) 1 5 f6 gxf6 1 6 gxf6 .i.xf6 1 7 lLlxf6+ 'tfxf6 1 8 �e I 0-0 1 9 �g 1 +
cJith8 20 .i.h6 .i.b7 (Black shows no defensive urgency . 20 . . . ltJce5 ! ,
threatening to cover up with ltJg6, forces White's hand. 2 I .i.g7+ 1i'xg7 22
l:txg7 cJitxg7;!;) 2 I .i.g7+ 1i'xg7 22 l:lxg7 cJitxg7 23 .i.d3 f6 24 �gi ++
Sanikidze-Yusubaliev, Denizli 2003.
A3b) I 2 f4?!," loosening the e4 point, hands Black easy counterplay.
I2 ...ltJa5 ( I 2... .i.b7 I3 .i.g2 �c8 I4 �he i ltJc5 I5 a3? b4 16 axb4 ltJxb4+
Zengin-Cappon, Leopoldsburg 2000) 1 3 h4 b4 14 ltJa4 .i.b7 1 5 1i'd3 ltJc5
1 6 lLlxc5 dxc5 I 7 ltJf3 l:td8 1 8 'ir'e2 .i.xe4+ Coratella-Drei, Arco 2000.
A3c) I 2t"Llxc6 'ir'xc6 13 ltJe2 ltJe5 I 4lt:ld4;!;.
A3d) 1 2 h4 .i.b7 1 3 ltJxc6! ? ( 1 3 .i.h3 ltJde5 14 'ir'f2 ltJc4 I 5 �hg i ltJxe3
1 6 1i'xe3 1Wb6 1 7 1i'd2 ltJxd4 1 8 'ir'xd4 1i'xd4 1 9 l:lxd4 d5 ! + Koc-Gurshwin
Twi gg, Denizli 2003; 1 3 h5 gives Black decent counterchances after
1 3 ...llld e5 I4 'ir'g2 b4 I 5 ltJa4 'ii'a5 I6 b3 ltJxd4 1 7 ..ixd4 ..ixg5+ 1 8 �b 1
ltJc6 1 9 .i.xg7 �g8 20 .i.b2 0-0-0 2 1 1i'f2 .i.f4 Staszko-Michenka, Ostrava
2002.) 1 3 ...'tfxc6 1 4 ltJe2 !? ltJe5 1 5 ltJd4 1i'c7 1 6 h5 ( 1 6 'iftb 1 0-0-0 1 7 1i'f2
d5) I 6. . . 0-0-0
(This position i s a good example o f how Black should react when piece
play and pawn pushes fail. Playing for d5 is a reasonable try for activity.)
1 7 "ii'h2 ( 1 7 'iti>b 1 ! ?) 1 7 . ..lt'lc4?! (Letting White cash in the .if! for the
knight _g ives White the advantage. 1 7 ... d5!? looks pretty good for Black.) 1 8
..ixc4 'it'xc4 1 9 'iti>b 1 d5 20 l:td3 b4 2 1 e5 �b8 22 f4 a5 23 f5 ..ic8 24 l:tfl
.l::.df8 25 f6+- Laznicka-Urbasek, Olomouc 2003.
B) 10 ... tiJd7 1 1 h4 b6? (Obviously 1 l . . .b5 should be played.) 1 2 g5 tDc5
13 h5 ( 1 3 tDxc6! "iWxc6 14 tDe2±) 1 3 ... ..td7 1 4 l:tg 1 tDxd4 1 5 ..txd4 l:tg8;!;
Slavicek-Ling, Ostrava 2002.
C) 10 ...tDxd4 1 1 'ifxd4 0-0 1 2 g5 tiJd7 1 3 h4 tDe5 1 4 f4 tDc6 1 5 'ifd2 b5
1 6 h5 l:td8?! (If Black can't get in d5 then he shouldn't play this.) 1 7 g6
..if6 1 8 ..id3 l:tb8 1 9 e5 dxe5 20 tDe4 ..ie7 2 1 gxf7+ 'iti>h8? After this
Black's king gets brutalized in the comer. (2 l . . .'it>xf7 ! ? looks OK) 22 'it'g2
..ib7 23 'ii'g 6! (Very nice!) 23 . . . tDb4 24 l:tdg 1 ..if8 25 tDf6 tDxd3+ 26 �b 1
hxg6 27 hxg6+ ..ixh 1 28 .l::.xh l mate.
Smeets-Werle, Groningen 2002. I can hear International Master Mark

Ginsburg say "Black's king is in a chimney."
D) 1 0 ... tDa5 1 1 g5 tiJd7 12 tiJb3 tDc4 1 3 ..ixc4 'ii'xc4 14 ..id4 0-0 1 5 f4 !?
(Depending on how much power the f5 push packs White should think
twice before loosening e4.) 1 5 . . .b5 1 6 f5 b4 1 7 f6 ( 1 7 tDe2 e5 1 8 ..ie3 ..ib7
1 1 6 The English A ttack
1 9 f6 gxf6 20 gxf6 i.xf6) 1 7 ... bxc3 1 8 i.xc3 .idS 1 9 fxg7 .l:le8 20 g6 fxg6
2 1 l:.hfl e5 22 'ii'xd6 i.g5+ 23 'it>b 1 'ii'e6+ Gaponenko-Galliamova, Halle
2000.
E) 10 . . . h6?! is a waste of time since White 's g5 push can't be stalled. 1 1
h4 i.d7?! 1 2 'it>b 1 ltJe5 1 3 'ii'g2 0-0-0 (Black's treatment is just too
passive.) 1 4 g5 hxg5 1 5 hxg5 l:txh 1 1 6 'ii'xh 1 ltJe8 1 7 f4 ltJc4 1 8 i.xc4
'ii'xc4 1 9 'ii'h 5 ltJc7 20 'ii'x f7+- Mazi-Nierlich, Bled 200 1 . Black never took
a chance on active play.
F) 10 ... 0-0 1 1 h4 (White can delay this move while p ursuing a kingside
initiative. 1 1 'iti>b 1 b5 1 2 h4 [ 1 2 i.d3 ltJde5 1 3 'ii'g2 .i.b7 1 4 h4 l:r.fc8 1 5
g6!? ..tf6 1 6 gxh7 + 'ifi>h8 17 ltJce2 ltJxd3 1 8 cxd3 ltJxd4 1 9 ltJxd4 d5 20
lLib3 a5 2 1 i.g5 ! i.xg5 22 'ii'xg5 f6 23 'ii'g6 i.c6 24 l:.c 1 ± Grosar-Barlov,
Yugoslav Championship 1 99 1 ; 1 2 ltJxc6 'fixc6 1 3 tt:\e2;;!;] 1 2 . . . ltJde5 1 3 f4
ltJxd4 14 i.xd4 ltJf3 1 5 'ii'e3 ltJxd4 1 6 'ii'xd4 b4!? 1 7 ltJe2 i.b7 1 8 ltJg3
l:.fd8+ Black is in good shape for either a d5 or e5 break.
Grosar-Kupreichik, Val Maubuee 1 990.) 1 l .. .ltJd7 (If Black isn't getting in
the d5 p ush then 1 1 . . .l:.d8?! amounts to a loss of time. 12 g5 ltJh5?! 1 3 i.h3
b5 14 lLixc6 'ii'xc6 1 5 i.g4 g6 1 6 i.xh5 gxh5 1 7 ltJe2 e5 1 8 ltJc3 .i.e6 1 9
tiJd5± Maupin-Horak, Pilsen-Lobzy 2003.) 1 2 g5
Fl) 1 2 ... b5
Fla) 1 3 ltJxc6! ( 1 3 i.d3 gives Black chances for a timely liJxd3.)
13 ... 'ii'xc6 1 4 ltJe2;;!; (Sorry folks .. .! hate repeating myself but this gives
White an edge.) 1 3 . . . tiJde5 14 ltJxc6 'ii'xc6 1 5 'ii'g2 ..ib7 1 6 'iti>b 1 l:r.ac8 1 7
.l:ld2 liJxd3 1 8 cxd3 b4 1 9 liJe2 d5 20 ltJd4 'ilic7 2 1 'ii'h3 e5 2 2 tiJf5 b3 23
i.b6 'ii'xb6 24 tiJxe7+ 'iti>h8 25 ltJxc8 'ii'a 5-+ Yap-Mikhailuk, Las Vegas
2003.
Fib) Also 13 g6 !? which illustrates an important idea. In positions where
the e6 point can be undermined this pawn sac deserves serious considera
tion. See the game Adams-Sheldon, British Championship, Hove 1 997, in ·
the introductory chapter The English Connection.

F2) 1 2 ...tiJde5 1 3 f4 ( 1 3 'ii'g2 ltJa5 1 4 'iti>b 1 ltJec4 1 5 .te l b5 1 6 ltJce2
l:.b8 1 7 b3 [This? 1 7 h5 !?] 17 ...'ilih6 1 8 liJf4 i.d7 1 9 ltJh5 'iti>h8 20 f4 ltJc6
2 1 tt:lxc6 �xc6 22 �xc4 bxc4+ Beshukov-Petrushin, Azov 1 993.)

1 3 ...tt:lxd4
F2a) 1 4 �xd4 tt:lf3 1 5 'iie3 tt:lxd4 1 6 'iixd4 b5 1 7 �d3 b4 1 8 tt:le2 'ii'a5
1 9 �b l �b7 ( 1 9 ... 'ifc5 !?, forcing queens off, looks like a wise choice.) 20
l:thg l d5?! (20 . . .'iic 5!? is still not bad.) 2 1 'ii'e5 (Now it's too late to force
queens off.) 2 l . . .�c5 22 h5! (Black is in serious trouble.) 22 ... �xg l 23 h6
gxh6 24 gxh6 f6 25 'ii'xe6+ �h8 26 l:txg l +- Avan-Donati, Hoevelte 2003.
F2b) 14 'iixd4
F2b l) 14 . . . tt:lg4 (My preference would be not to play this move. While
the knight clogs the kingside it is out of play.) 1 5 �g l b5 1 6 �e2 l:tb8 1 7
i.xg4 b4 1 8 e5 ( 1 8 tt:le2 !? e5 1 9 fxe5 dxe5 20 �h2t) 1 8 ... dxe5 1 9 'ifxe5
'ifxe5 20 fxe5 bxc3 2 1 b3 l:tb4 22 �f3 l:txh4+ G.Garcia - Liu Wenzhe,
Olympiad, Malta 1 980.
F2b2) 14 . . .ttlc6 1 5 'ifb6 ! ? ( 1 5 'iid 2 b5 1 6 h5 b4 1 7 tt:la4 l:tb8 1 8 g6 tt:la5
19 b3 �d7 20 tt:lb2 'iic3 2 1 gxh7+ 'ifi>xh7 22 �d4 'iixd2+ 23 l:txd2 ..ib5=
Spangenberg - Cifuentes Parada, Buenos Aires 1 988.) 15 . . .'ifb8 16 �d2
�d8 1 7 'iff2 b5 1 8 h5 b4 19 tt:la4 'ii'c 7 20 ..ie3 l:tb8 2 1 'iid2 �e7 22 �b I
tt:la7 23 h6+- Winslow-Vulicevic, New York 1 993 .
Najdorf Variation 6 .ite3 e6 7 f3 .ite7
8 �d2 ctJc6 ! ? 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 g4 ctJd7
I e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 a6 6 .ie3 e6 7 f3 .ie7 8

lWd2 tt:lc6!? 9 0-0-0 0-0
10 g4
1 0 �b 1 tt:lxd4 1 1 'iVxd4 'Wic7 1 2 g4 b5 1 3 .ic 1 (A little too defensive for
this position.) l 3 ... .ib7 14 g5 tt:ld7 1 5 'Wif2 b4 ( 1 5 .. Jbc8 1 6 ..id3 tt:lc5 is
also _good counterplay.) 1 6 tt:le2 �fc8 1 7 tt:ld4 d5 !? 1 8 ..ih3 ..ic5
( 1 8 ... lZk5 ! ? 1 9 exd5 ..ixd5+ i s a slightly stronger alternative.) 1 9 1li'e2
.ixd4 20 �xd4 dxe4 2 1 �xb4 (2 1 fxe4 tt:le5) 2 l . . .exf3 22 lWf2 ..id5+
Aleksieva-Peptan, Varna 2002.
IO tt:ld7
...
Anticipating White 's g5 and transferring the knight to a more active post.
l l h4
1 1 �b 1 tt:lde5 1 2 'iVg2 is I think the best placement for White's queen.
12 ... b5 1 3 g5 i..d7 14 f4 tt:lxd4 I 5 i..xd4 tt:lc6 I6 ..if6 .ixf6 I7 gxf6 'Wixf6
I 8 �xd6 �ad8 1 9 tt:ld5 lWh4 20 tt:lc3 ..Wxf4-+ was Bergstrom-Lundin,
Sweden 2002; and I I f4 tt:lxd4 I 2 i..xd4 b5 1 3 �gi ..ib7 I 4 ..id3 tt:lc5 I 5
a3 tt:lxd3+ 1 6 'ifxd3 �b8 1 7 g5 a5 I 8 h4 b4 1 9 tt:lb 1 f5 20 gxf6 i..x f6 2 I
'ifh3 'ife7 22 i.. xf6 �xf6+ Makoli-Cvitan, Zurich 2002.
ll. ..tt:lde5
A) 1 2 'ir'g2!? The advantage of this move over 'ir'f2 is that from g2

White's queen will add support to a g6 push. 1 2 . . .tLlxd4 1 3 i.xd4 tLlc6
( 1 3 . . .'ir'c7 1 4 g5 b5 1 5 f4 tLlc6 1 6 i.f6 �b7 1 7 i.d3 �h8 1 8 i.xe7 tLlxe7 1 9
h5 f5 ! Opening the f-file _puts Black in a good defensive position. 20 gxf6
llxf6 2 1 .l:.hg 1 tLlg8 22 lt:Je2 .l:.af8 23 �g5 tLlh6 Ramaswamy-Wang Pin,
Hyderabad 2002) 14 i.e3 b5
Al) 1 5 �bl i.d7 ( 1 5 ... b4 1 6 tLla4 l::tb 8 1 7 �f2 d5 1 8 exd5 exd5 1 9 i.f4±
Gonzalez-Leyva, Las Tunas 200 1 ) 16 g5 �a5 17 h5 b4 1 8 tLle2 f5 !? (Black
has accomplished nothing on the queenside so he turns his attention to
defense.) 1 9 gxf6 ..ixf6 20 f4 i.xb2 2 1 �xb2 �a3+ 22 �b 1 �xe3 23 l::td3
'ir'a7 24 llg3 ..ie8 25 llg 1 llf7 26 h6 g6 27 l::tx g6+! hxg6 28 'ir'xg6+ �f8 29
h7± Berkes-Stevie, Rabac 2003.
A2) 1 5 g5 'ir'a5 16 �b 1 b4 17 tLle2 e5 (At this point Black's best chance
for counterplay.) 1 8 tLlc 1 i.e6 1 9 h5 �c7 20 g6 i.f6 2 1 gxh7+ �h8 22 l:lg 1
�e7 23 ..id3 a5 24 ..ib5 tLla7 25 ..ia4 �xh7 26 f4 exf4 27 ..ixf4 :adS 28
tLle2± Tiviakov-Johansen, Catalan Bay 2003. White has a massive initiative
while Black can only defend.
B) 12 �f2
Bl) 1 2 ... ..id7
Bl a) 13 g5 b5 14 �d3 l:t.c8 1 5 'it>b l lt::lxd3 (Black must time this capture

correctly. More often than not this move bolsters White's center.) 1 6 cxd3
lt::lxd4 1 7 �xd4 b4 1 8 �b6 ._e8 1 9 lt::le2 e5 20 f4 �e6 2 1 b3 f5 22 gxf6
�xf6 23 f5 �f7 24 l:td2 'ifb5+ Bosnjak-Covic, Jahorina 2003.
Blb) 1 3 �b l b5!? (This looks best and is perhaps the only move.
1 3 . . .'ii'c7?! can be delayed or omitted entirely. 14 l:tg l lt::lxd4 1 5 �xd4 b5
16 f4lt::lc4 1 7 .i.xc4 ._xc4 1 8 g5 l:tfc8 19 ..d2 b4 20lt::le2 e5 21 b3 'ifc6 22
�b2 l:ta7 23 lt::lg3 exf4 24 ._d4 !+- Socko-Solodovnichenko, Barlinek 2002)
1 4 g5 ( 1 4 h5 'ii'c7 15 g5 lt::lxd4 1 6 �xd4 b4 I 7 lt::le2 l:tfc8 I 8 l:tc I l:tab8 19
g6 fxg6 20 hxg6 h6 21 lt::lg3 b3!
22 'ii'e3 bxc2+ 23 'it>ai l:tb4 24 �c3 �6 25 ._d2lt::lxf3 26 'ii'x c2 .i.f6 27 '

._d i l:txc3 ! -+ Shahade-Wang Pin, Shanghai 2002) 14 . . .'ii'c7
Blbl) I 5 �c i lt::lxd4 I 6 l:txd4 l:tfc8 1 7 f4lt::lc6 1 8 l:td i b4 I 9lt::le2lt::la 7
( I 9 ... d5 !? Black can't afford to be slow in this situation and after 20 exd5
exd5 2 1 f5 b3 he has good play.) 20 lt::ld4 e5 21 lt::lf5 �f8 22 fxe5 �e6 23
lt::ld4 �g4 24 �h3 .i.xd I 25 i.xc8 l:txc8 26 l:txd I dxe5 2 7 lt::lf5;!;
Sengupta-Ramesh, Mumbai 2003 .
Blb2) I 5 ._g3 lt::lxd4 1 6 �xd4 b4 1 7 f4 bxc3 I 8 fxe5 cxb2 1 9 exd6
�xd6 20 'ii'c3 i.c6 2 I .i.xg7 �xe4 22 'ii'xc7 il.xc7 23 .i.xf8 .i.xh I 24
..id6? (24 ..ia3 !) 24 . . . l:.d8 ! 25 ..id3 .!:.xd6+ Arizmendi Martinez-Stevic,

Istanbul 2003. Black can make White suffer in this bishop of opposite color
situation.
Blc) I3 lLlxc6 ..ixc6 I4 ..ib6 'ifb8 I 5 .!:.gi ( 1 5 g5 looks more to the
point.) I 5 . . . lLld7 I 6 ..ie3 b5 I7 g5 .l:.c8 I 8 �b i a5 I 9 lLle2 lLle5 20 lLJd4
..ie8 2 I h5 and White is clearly on top here. 2 l .. .b4 22 g6 hx g6 23 hxg6 a4
24 gxf7+ ..ixf7 25 'ii'g3 g6 26 f4 b3 27 cxb3 axb3 28 a3 tt:Jc4 29 ..ixc4
.!:.xc4 30 f5± Kovacevic-Stevie, Jahorina 2003.
B2) I2 . . .b5
B2a) I3 lLlxc6 lLlxc6 I 4 g5 ..ib7 ( l 4 ...l:.b8 I 5 .!:.g i 'ii'a5 I 6 �b i b4 I 7

lLle2 e5 I 8 b3 'ii'c7 I 9 f4 f5 20 gxf6 ..ixf6 2 I f5 lLle7 22 lLlg3 'it>h8 2 3 lLlh5
..ib7 24 ..ig2 lLlg8 25 ..if3 .l:.t7 26 'ii'd2 .l:.c8 27 .l:.g2;!; Bezemer
Brandenburg, Dieren 2003; I 4 . . . ..id7 !? I 5 h5 lLle5 I 6 .l:.g i b4 1 7 ltJe2 lLlc4
With egual chances in a very sharp game.) I 5 .l:.g i .l:.c8 I 6 ..ib6 'iVe8 I 7 f4
b4 I 8 tt:Je2 lLla5 I 9 lLlg3 b3 20 axb3 ltJxb3+ 2 I �b I lLlc5 22 ..ixc5 .!:.xc5
23 f5 'ii'a4 24 f6 .l:.a5 25 �c I 'ifb4 26 �b I 'ii'a4 Bezemer-Struik, Dieren
2003. Black took a draw by repetition (26 ...'ii'a4 27 �c i 'ifb4).
B2b) I 3 g5 b4 ( l 3 ...lLlxd4 I 4 ..ixd4 lLlc6 15 ..ib6 'ii'e 8 I6 �b i f5 !? I 7
gxf6 .!:.xf6 is about equal chances.) I 4 lLlxc6 lLlxc6 I 5 lLla4 'ika5 I 6 b3 f5?!
(Getting the queen into big trouble.) I7 ..ib6 'ilke5 I 8 f4 'ilka I+ I9 �d2
'ii'xa2 20 exf5 .l:.xf5 2 I .i.d3 .l:.a5 22 .!:.a I .l:.xa4 23 .l:.xa2 .l:.xa2 24 'ii'f3 ..id7
25 'ike4 g6 26 h5+- Antognini-Hoffmann, Biel 2003 .
Naj dorf Variation 6 i.. e3 e6 7 f3 i.. e 7
8 'i¥d2 ttJc6 ! ? 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 g4 ttJxd4 1 1 'ifxd4
1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 a6 6 ..ie3 e6 7 f3 ..ie7 8

'tWd2 lLlc6 ! ? 9 0-0-0 0-0 1 0 g4 lLlxd4 1 1 1Wxd4
The queen is exposed but it's not easy to take advantage of it.
A) l l . . . b5
A1) 1 2 h4
Ala) 1 2 . . .e5 1 3 'ii'd2 b4 ( 1 3 ... ..ie6 14 h5 b4 1 5 lLld5 ..ixd5 1 6 exd5 lLld7

1 7 g5 f5 1 8 gxf6 i.xf6 1 9 ..id3 'ii'a5 20 'it>b 1 lLlc5 2 1 ..ixc5 'ii'xc5 22 'ii'e2
h6 23 'ii'e4± Krstic-Zelcic, Zadar 2003) 1 4 lLla4 ..ie6 1 5 lLlb6 lib8 1 6 g5
lLlh5;l;; Smith-YermoIinsky, Chicago 2002.
Alb) 1 2 ... 'iia5 1 3 g5 b4 1 4 lLle2 lLld7 1 5 'it>b l ..ib7 1 6 h5!? ..ixg5 1 7

..ixg5 'iixg5 1 8 h6 ! 1 8 ... e5 1 9 _.xb4 lLlc5 20 lhd6 'iie3 2 1 'ii'c3 'iixc3 22
lLlxc3 l:tfd8 23 l:tb6± Vasiesiu-Navrotescu, Sovata 200 1 .
Ale) 1 2 . . Jlb8 1 3 'it>b l b4 1 4 lLle2 lLld7 ( 1 4 . . . a5 1 5 h5 lLld7 1 6 'ir'd2 .ia6
1 7 lLld4 'ii'c8 1 8 ..ixa6 _.xa6 1 9 g5 Another example of the weakened g6
point. 1 9 ...b3 20 cxb3 a4 2 1 b4 lLle5 22 a3 d5 23 exd5 lLlc4 24 '6'c3 .l:lbc8
25 h6 e5 26 lLlc6+- Parligras-Vouldis, Athens 2003) 1 5 h5 lLle5 1 6 h6 .if6
1 7 hxg7 .l:le8 ( 1 7 . . . ..txg7 1 8 ..ih6!±) 1 8 g5 ..txg7 1 9 f4 lLlg4 20 'ir'd3 ..tb7
2 1 lLlg 3 f6 22 i.e2 lLlxe3 23 'ifxe3 fxg5 24 lLlh5 gxf4 25 'ifxf4 ..ie5 26
'ii'h6 i.xe4 27 ..td3 .ixd3 28 cxd3+- Karjakin-Papa, Lausanne 2003.
A2) 1 2 g5 lLld7
A2a) 1 3 h4 .l:lb8
A2al) 14 f4 b4 1 5 lLle2 'ii'c7 1 6 '1t>b l lLlc5 1 7 lLlg3 .id7 1 8 h5 .l:lfc8 1 9
.ic4 lLlxe4 2 0 lLlxe4 _.xc4 2 1 _.xc4 .l:xc4 2 2 lLlxd6 .l:lc7+ Rezan-Cebalo,
Kastel Stari 1 997.
A2a2) 14 'iid2 .ib7 (Again Black should play 14 ...lLle5, before lLle2
happens. If 1 4 . . . b4 1 5 lLle2 lLle5 1 6 lLld4 '6'c7 1 7 '1t>b 1 d5 1 8 exd5 exd5 1 9
b3 .id6 20 h5 .l:le8 2 1 .ie2 .id7 22 .l:ldg l .l:le7 23 g6 .l:lbe8 24 gxh7+ �xh7
25 i.g5+- Farkas-Szilagyi, Budapest 2003) 1 5 h5 ltJe5 16 f4 ( 1 6 'ir'g2 !? b4
17 lLle2 lLlc4+) 1 6 . . .b4 !? 1 7 lLld5 exd5 1 8 fxe5 '6'a5 1 9 'it>b l d4 20 ..tf2
..txe4 21 .l:lg 1 dxe5 22 l:te 1 ..tf5+ Rodriguez-Ricardi, Villa Gesell 1 996.
A2a3) 1 4 'iii'b l '6'c7 1 5 h5 b4 16 lLle2 lLlc5 1 7 lLlc l e5 1 8 'ir'd2 .ie6 1 9
..ih3 lLla4 2 0 lLlb3 _.d7 2 1 '6'g2 f5 2 2 gxf6 ..ixf6 2 3 ..txe6+ '6'xe6 2 4 '6'e2
l:lb5 25 llhg l ;!; Mahia-Vasquez, Asuncion 2003.
A2b) 1 3 l:lg l '6'a5 14 'iii'b l b4 ( 1 4 ... .ib7 1 5 h4 lLle5 16 l:tg3 .l:lfc8 1 7 a3
lLlc4 1 8 ..ixc4 l:lxc4 1 9 '6'b6 '6'xb6 20 .ixb6= Gaponenko-Mkrtchian,
Istanbul 2003) 1 5 lLle2 e5 1 6 'iid 2 lLlc5 1 7 lLlc l .ie6 1 8 .ig2 .l:lfd8 1 9 f4
exf4 20 ..ixf4= Socko-Stevic, Plovdiv 2003.
B) l l ...lLld7
Bl) 1 2 .ic4?! is absolutely out of place in this variation. l 2 ... bS 1 3 i.b3

.ib7 ( l 3 . . . tt:\cS !?+ playing for an eventual aS with an instant initiative.) 14
h4 l:.c8 IS gS tt:leS 1 6 f4 tt:\c4 17 .l:.he l "fic7 1 8 'iti>b l l:tfd8+ Winge
lsaksson, Stockholm 2002.
B2) 12 h4 tt:\eS (One of the problems with having the queen on d4.
l 2 ...bS 13 hS h6 14 'iti>b I .ib7 I S .ie2 .l:.c8 1 6 gS .ixgS 17 l:.hg I "fif6 1 8
'li'xf6 tt:lxf6 1 9 .ixgS hxgS 20 l:.xd6 l:[cS 2 1 .l:.b6 .ic8 22 a4 ! bxa4 23 tt:\xa4
:as 24 tt:\c3 tt:\xhS 2S b4 .:es 26 �b2± lvanchuk-Gelfand, Monte Carlo
2003) 1 3 .ie2 (Sometimes the e2 point is needed for the tt:\c3.) l 3 ... bS
B2a) 1 4 'iti>b l tt:\c6 I S 'li'd2 "fiaS (Threatening b4 trapping the knight.) 1 6

.id3 b4 1 7 tt:\e2 eS 1 8 .ic4 Ji.e6 1 9 .idS l:.ab8 20 tt:\g3 l:.fd8 2 1 gS l:.bS 22
g6 .ixdS 23 exdS b3 24 cxb3 tt:lb4 2S a3 tt:\xdS 26 b4 'it'a4 27 gxf7+ �xf7
28 'li'd3 aS (28 ... tt:\xe3, getting out of the way of the 'li'c4 pin, is better. 29
'li'xe3 aS ! with a strong attack.) 29 'it'c4 l:.c8 30 'ii'xc8 tt:\xe3 3 1 l:.d3 l:.cS 32
bxcS 'ii'c2+ 33 �a l 'li'xd3 34 cxd6± Ibarra Jerez-Zhigalko, Halkidiki 2003.
B2b) 14 gS tt:\c6 I S 'ii'd2 'ii'aS ! is what Black strives for in this line and
what White should avoid. 1 6 a3 ( 1 6 �b l ?? b4 ! traps the knight.) l 6 . . .b4 1 7
tt:lb l l:.b8 1 8 b3 .ib7 1 9 a4 (Black should've played bxa3 when he had the
chance. White is happy to have the queenside locked up but Black has ideas
of sacrifices on b3 and play on the c file.) l 9 ...'ii'eS !? 20 f4 'ii'a l 2 1 .id4
'li'a2 22 l:th3 l:tfc8+ Kosteniuk-Cvitan, Biel 2003.
Najdorf Variation 6 ii.e3 e6 7 f3 i.. e 7
8 i¥d2 l2Jc6 ! ? 9 0-0-0 0-0 1 0 g4 l2Jxd4
1 1 ii. xd4 b5
I e4 c5 2 lt'lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt'lxd4 lt'lf6 5 lt'lc3 a6 6 i.e3 e6 7 f3 i.e7 8

'tid2 lt'lc6!? 9 0-0-0 0-0 1 0 g4 lt'lxd4 1 1 i.xd4
I prefer this to I I �xd4.
ll b5
...
After ll . . . e5? ! at the very least White will be positionally better due to his
control over d5. 1 2 i.e3 i.e6
A) 1 3 �b l b5 1 4 h4 b4 1 5 lt'ld5 i.xd5 1 6 exd5 a5 1 7 i.h3± preventing
rooks going to c8 and eying e6, Degraeve-Nuhren, Cappelle Ia Grande
200 1 .
B) 1 3 g 5 lt'lh5 1 4 h4 ( 1 4 �b l White can play with Black's lt'lh5 out of
play.) 1 4 ... .:.c8 1 5 Wb l lt'lg3 (Getting rid of the lllh 5 is a wise decision.) 1 6
l:lg I lt'lxfl 1 7 l:lgxfl i.c4 1 8 l:lf2 f5 1 9 lt'ld5 l:lc6 20 b3 i.xd5 2 1 �xd5+
�h8 22 f4 fxe4 23 'tixe4 exf4 24 .:.xf4 .:.xf4 25 i.xf4;!; Black has a passive
game. Bischoff-Reeh, Hamburg 1 984.
I I . . .lt'ld7 1 2 h4 b5 13 h5 lt'le5 14 �f2 "fic7 1 5 f4 (White does best to
avoid this loosening move.) 1 5 . . . lt'ld7 1 6 h6 g6 1 7 i.g7 l:le8 1 8 i.g2 i.b7
19 llhfl b4 20 f5 i.g5+ 2 1 �b 1 lt'le5 (This simple protection of f7 puts
Black clearly on top.) 22 lt'le2 lt'lxg4 23 'i'g3 exf5 24 exf5 i.xg2 25 "fixg4
i.xfl 26 l:lxfl "fie7-+ Chandler-Govedarica, Belgrade 1 982.
12 <Ji>bl
1 2 lt'le2
1 2 . . . �b7 1 3 lLlg3 l:tc8 1 4 'it>b l 'ikc7 1 5 �d3 lLld7 1 6 l:[hfl lLle5 1 7 f4

lLlc4 1 8 �xc4 'ikxc4+ lvanchuk-Volokitin, Istanbul 2003. Black has good
prospects. The pressure on e4 will make it difficult for White to attack.
1 2 h4
A) 1 2 ...'ika5 1 3 'it>b 1 b4 1 4 lLle2 e5 1 5 �e3 .i.e6 1 6 lLlc 1 d5 ( 16 . . . l:tac8 1 7

.i.d3 lLld7 1 8 lLlb3 'ii'a4 1 9 h 5 lLlc5 20 'ii'g2 'ii'c6 Czakon-Watorek,
Zakopane 200 1 ; 1 6 ... .ttfc8 1 7 h5 l:tab8 1 8 g5 lLle8 1 9 .i.d3 l:tc6 20 l:tdg 1
'ikc7 2 1 g6 lLlf6 22 f4 �c4 23 f5 'it>f8 24 h6+- Mouradian-Benkhaled, Cairo
2003) 1 7 g5 d4 1 8 �xd4 l:tfd8 1 9 gxf6 ltxd4 20 .i.d3 .i.xf6 2 1 lLlb3 'ika4
22 f4 exf4 23 'ikxf4 a5 24 'ikg3 �xb3 25 axb3 'ii'e8+ Nowak
Dworakowska, Sroda Wlkp 2003. Black is playing a4 soon with initiative.
B) 1 2 . . .lLld7
Bl) 1 3 .i.e3 ..ib7 1 4 l:th3 !? (I'm not sure what this is about. Anticipating
lLle5 would be my guess.) 1 4 ... l:tc8 1 5 'it>b l 'ikc7 1 6 .i.g5 ! (This strong idea
causes Black serious difficulties.) 1 6 ... lLlf6 (White has succeeded in
distracting Black from his plans. The alternative 1 6 ... ..txg5 !? _g ives Black a
very passive game after 1 7 hxg5 b4 1 8 lLle2 l:tfd8 1 9 lLld4 lll f8) 1 7 �d3
.ttfe8 1 8 lLle2 lLld7 1 9 .i.xe7 l:txe7 20 g5 d5 2 1 exd5 �xd5 22 lLlf4±
Sladek-Hrbolka, Pilsen-Lobzy 2003.
82) 1 3 'itb l .tb7 1 4 g5 l:tc8 15 g6?! (Black's counterplay wasn't moving

at a dangerous clip, so White could prepare g6 by 1 5 'iig2 !? 'iic 7 1 6 a3
lL.le5 1 7 h5 lbc6 and the race is on.) 1 5 ... fxg6 (The safest capture by far.
Opening the f file helps the defense. For example 1 5 ... hxg6 is close to
losing after 1 6 h5 g5 1 7 h6+- as White has succeeded in opening lines on
Black's king.) 1 6 h5 gxh5 1 7 l:txh5 e5 1 8 .ie3 l:txf3 1 9 .th3 lDf6 20 .ie6+
<jo>h8 2 1 l:th2 lDxe4 22 lDxe4 .txe4 23 .txc8 'ii'x c8+ Schmaltz
Mastrovasilis, Athens 2003 .
83) 1 3 g5 l:tb8 Is this needed? 1 4 'itb 1 b4 1 5 lDe2 e5 1 6 i..a 7 l:tb7 1 7
..lte3 'ii'a5 1 8 lbc l lbc5 1 9 lbb3 lDxb3 2 0 cxb3 i..e6 2 1 i..c4 l:tc8 2 2 l:tc 1
l:tbc7 23 'ii'd3 l:tc6 24 h5 i..xc4 25 bxc4± Kir.Georgiev-Ermenkov,
Bulgarian Championship, Sofia 1 989.
C) 12 ... b4
1 3 tDe2 e5 ( 1 3 ... a5 1 4 'itb 1 lbd7 1 5 lbg3 lDe5 1 6 'iie3 lDc6 1 7 .ib6 'iid7
1 8 f4 'iib 7 1 9 g5 l:tb8 20 .td4 e5 2 1 fxe5 dxe5 22 .tc5 .te6 23 .txe7 lDxe7
24 i.. h3 .txh3 25 l:txh3 a4+ Oral-Berezjuk, Czech Republic 2002.) 1 4 .ie3
i..e6 1 5 'itb 1 'ii'a 5 1 6 tDc1 (Black has no time for d5.) 1 6 ... l:tfc8?!
Accomplishing nothing and letting White roll on the other wing.
( 1 6 . . .l:tfd8 !?, playing for d5, looks best.) 1 7 h5 l:tab8 1 8 g5 lbe8 1 9 .id3
l:tc6 20 l:tdg 1 'iic7 2 1 g6 lDf6 22 f4 i..c4 23 f5± Mouradian-Benkhaled,
Cairo 2003 . White has all the play, while Black faces a grim defense.
D) 12 ... .tb7 1 3 g5 lbd7 1 4 .td3 ( 1 4 'itb l 'iic 7 1 5 h5 [I wonder about 1 5

a3 here. White is very fast with the h5, g6 push. Black's e6 point i s very
vulnerable.] 1 5 . . . b4 1 6 tDe2 d5 [This gives Black good counterplay, White
must spend time defending along the a8-h 1 diagonal.] 1 7 g6 e5 1 8 h6 fxg6
1 9 hxg7 l:txf3 20 .ig2 dxe4 2 1 'iih6 lDf6 22 .ie3 l:td8+
Pereny i-Kir.Georgiev, Saint John Open 1 988.) 1 4 . . . l:tc8 1 5 l:thg 1 b4 1 6
lDe2 ltJe5 1 7 l:tg3 lbc4 1 8 .ixc4 l:txc4 1 9 h5 e5 20 .ie3 'iic 7 2 1 'itb 1 l:tc8
22 l:tc 1 .tf8 and Black has an impressive lineup on the c file, but is it doing
anything? Panagiotopolous-Simeonidis, Athens 2003. Black should
organize d5 quickly, while White's taking b4 allows d5.
12 a3?! lUd7 13 h4lUeS 14 iVf2lUe6 1S .ie3 l:tb8 16 gS 'ir'aS 17 .id2 b4

18 lUa2 dS 19 exdS exdS 20 .id3 .ie6 21 lUxb4 lUxb4 22 .ixb4 .ixb4 23
axb4 .:txb4+ Stojanovski-Vouldis, Bled 2002.
12 .id3 b4 13lUe2 (13 lUa4 l:tb8 14 eSlUdS 1S .ie4 .ib7 16 exd6 i.xd6
17 lUeS .ie6 18 lUe4 .if4 19 'ir'f2 'ir'aS 20 gS eS 21 .ieS l:fd8 22 l:thg1
�h8 23lUd6± Choeenka-Tokmaehev, Birstonas 2002)
A) 13 ...aS 14 lUg3 'ir'e7 1S l:g1 l:td8 16 .id3 eS 17 .ie3 .ie6 18 lUfS

.if8 19 .igS! lUd7 20 .ixd8 l:txd8 21 lUe3 lUb6 22 lUdS+- Monroy
Ba1adjaev, Nakhehivan 2003.
B) 13 ...eS 14 .ie3 dS 1S exdS 'ir'xdS 16 .ixh7+ �xh7 17 iVxdSlUxdS 18
l:txdS .ib7 19 l:txeS .ixf3 20 l:tg1 .if6 21 l:hS+ <li>g8 22 lUd4;!; Balogh
Antal, Budapest 2000
1 2 lUd7
...
A) 13 f4 .ib7 14 .ig2 lUeS 1S a3 .ie6 16 l:thg1 'ir'b8 17 eS .ixg2 18

iVxg2 l:d8 19 exd6 .ixd6 20 .ixeS .ixeS 21 l:txd8+ ifxd8 22 l:.d1 iVe8 23
lUe4 .ie7 24 fS l:d8= Kovalenko-Zhomik, Kharkov 2003.
B) 13 h4lUeS (13...lUeS 14 iVf2 'ir'e7 IS gS .ib7 16 l:tgi lUd7 17 hS b4
18 g6 eS+ Hamm-Martinovie, Bad Wiessee 2000; 13...b4 14 lUa4 .ib7 1S
b3 .ie6 16 lUb2 aS 17 gS dS 18 eS a4 19 lUd3 iVaS 20 l:th2 lUb6 21 lUe I
The English Attack I 29
i.b5+ Lugo-Nisipeanu, Decameron 2003) 14 g5 b4 15 tLle2 a5 16 tLlg3

'iib6 17 i.f6 .l:te8 18 i.xe7 l:.xe7 ;!; Paehtz-Sebag, Heraklio 2002.
C) 13 'iif2 'iic7 14 h4 i.b7
C 1) 15 g5 b4 16 tLla4 tLlc5 (16 ...d5 17 tLlb6 tLlxb6 18 i.xb6 'iib8 19 l:.g1

dxe4 20 h5 i.d6 21 fxe4 .i.xe4 22 i.d3 i.d5 23 h6 g6 24 l:.de1 .i.e7 25
i.c5 i.xc5 26 'ii'f6 i.d4 27 'ii'xd4 f6 28 gxf6;!; Vallejo Pons-Lalic, Plovdiv
2003) 17 tLlxc5 ( 17 i.xc5 dxc5 18 i.c4 l:tad8 19 b3 l:.d6 20 tLlb2 l:.fd8 21
l:txd6 ifxd6 22 tLld3 'ii'd4 23 ifxd4 l:txd4= Quezada-Gelfand, Merida 2003)
17... dxc5 18 i.e3 c4 19 i.xc4 'ii'xc4 20 .!Id7 i.xe4 21 fxe4 .l:tfe8 22 .l:tf l e5
23 h5 l:.ad8 24 .l:r.a7 .l:r.a8= Schlosser-Paramonov, Rethymnon 2003.
C2) 15 a3 i.c6 16 g5 l:tfb8 17 h5 b4 18 axb4 'ii'b7 19 b3 'ii'xb4 20 g6
i.f6 21 gxf7+ �xf7 22 .l:tg1 tLlc5+ Amonatov-Yuferov, Moscow 2003.
D) 13 l:tg1 i.b7 14 i.d3 tLle5 15 l:tg3 tLlxd3+ 16 'ii'xd3 b4 17 tLle2 e5
(This move bums a lot of bridges and allows White to play positionally.
17...a5!? looks a little slow I'll admit, but with White's king still on b1
Black's attack could gain momentum after 18 h4 a4 19 h5 i.xg5+ 20 f4
i.f6.) 18 i.e3 'ii'a5 (18...'ii'c7!?, playing for d5 and looking at c file play, is
reasonable.) 19 �b1 d5 20 exd5l:tfd8 21 c4 bxc3 22 tLlxc3 (Perhaps Black
underestimated this idea. Now White is in control. 22 ...i.b4 23 l:th3
23 ....i.xc3?? (An absurd blunder, just handing White the full point.
According to Fritz 23 ...g6!? saves the day and isn't it obvious no matter
what happens? 24 ltJe4 .i.e7 25 ltJc3 .i.b4 26 lL!e4 .i.e7 27 d6 .i.xe4 28
'it'xe4 l:tab8 29 .i.e1 .i.xg5 30 .i.xg5l:txb2+ 31 'it>xb2 l:tb8+ 32 'it>c 1 l:tc8+
33'it'c2 l:txc2+ 34 �xc2 'ii'xa2+ 35 'it>c l 'ii'a3+;!; This unbelievable line is
also courtesy of Fritz!) 24 '6'xh7+ 'it>f8 25 d6 l:txd6 26 l:txd6 'ii'h5 27 l:tb6
'ii'fl+ 28 .i.e! .i.c8 29 'ii'e4 .i.d4 30 l:th8+ 1-0 Apicella-A.Sokolov, French
Championship, Aix les Bains 2003.
12 .i.b7 13 h4 (13 a3 ltJd7 14 l:tg l ltJe5 15 '6'e3 ltJc6 16 .i.b6 'ii'c8 17

...
g5 b4 18 axb4 lDxb4 19 .i.h3 .i.c6 20 .i.a5 'ii'hTt Brodsky-Navrotescu,

Bucharest 2001. Black gets easy play on the b-file.) 13...ltJd7 14 g5 l:tc8
(14... b4 15lDe2'it'a5 16 lDcl tt:le5 17lL!b3 'ii'c7 18 'ii'xb4lL!xf3 19 .i.b6
'ii'b8 20 ltJa5 ltJe5;!; Gonzalez-Dineley, Bled 2002)
A) 15 .i.h3 ltJe5 16 'ii'g2 'ii'a5 17 g6 hxg6 18 h5 g5 19 h6 g6 20 .ixe5

dxe5 21 l:td7 l:tc7
22 l:txe7 l:txe7 23 'ii'xg5 f6 24 '6'xg6+ �h8 25.i.xe6 'ii'c7 26 lDd5 .ixd5

27 exd5l:th7 28 l:tgl+- Haslinger-Gormally, Blackpool 2003.
B) 15 .i.g2 ltJc5 16 .i.e3 b4 17 lDe2 a5 18 h5 .i.a6 19 g6 .i.f6 20 ltJd4
'ii'e7 21 .i.h3 l:tc7 22 'ii'h2;!; Ermolaev-Vovk, Alushta 2002.
The English A ttack I 3 I
C) 15l:tgl b4 (15...lDe5 16 .ixe5? dxe5 17 iih2 'iic7+ Simunovic-Covic,

Neum 2002.) 16 lDe2lDe5 17 l:g3 lDc4 18 'ii'cl e5 19 .if2 a5 20 .ig2 .ia6
21 l:tel a4 22 .ih3 l:tc6 (Black's piece coordination gives a nice pull.) 23
'ii'd l d5 24 exd5 l:d6+ Black is very active. Topalov-Kasparov, Euwe
Memorial, Amsterdam 1995.
D) 15 a3?! lDe5 16 l:th3 (16 'il'e3 lDc4 17 .ixc4 l:txc4 18 .:.hgl b4 19
axb4 l:txb4 20 .:.g2 .ia8 21 b3?! (21 .ic5! poses Black some real problems.
21...l:tb7 [2l ...dxc5!? 22 l:txd8 l:txd8 23 h5±] 22 l::.gd2 l:td7 23 .ia3±
according to Kasparov.) 2 l...a5 22 h5 'ii'c7 23 .if6 l:tfb8 24 .ixe7 iixe7 25
l:td4 e5 26 l:txb4 axb4 27 lDa2'ikc7= Topalov-Kasparov, Novgorod 1995.)
16...lDc4 ( l 6...lDc6! 17 .ie3 b4 18 axb4 lDxb4 and Black has a lot of
counterplay.) 17 ..ixc4 l:txc4 18 f4 'ii'd7 19 l:td3 a5 20 e5 b4 (20...d5!+ is
logical and pretty dam good! Black's queenside demonstration is underway,
White's answer is lagging.) 21 exd6 'Wxd6 22 .if6 bxc3 23 l:txd6 cxd2 24
..ixe7 l:te8 25 l:tl xd2 h5 26 l:td7 .idS 27 ..id6 a4 28 ..ie5+- Gonzalez
Abreu, Havana 2002.
E) 15'il'f2 e5 16 ..ie3 l:txc3 17 bxc31ka5 18'ikd2 l:tc8 19 ..ih3 .l:lc7 20
..ixd7 l::.xd7 21 c4 'ii'a4 22 cxb5 d5 23 'ii'd3 axb5 24'il'b3 'il'a8 25 h5 b4 26
g6 l:tc7 27 .l:ld3± Socko-Lauridsen, Linares 2003.
F) 15 tr'g2 b4 16 lDe2 tr'c7 17 lDcl lDe5 18 f4 (As in many cases this
move hurts more than it helps. White isn't set up for f5 while f4 and e4 be
come vulnerable. Instead 18 ..id3 keeps things under control as Black was
threatening itJfJ.) 18...ltJ.g6 19 ..ie3 d5! 20 'Wf2 dxe4 21 h5lDxf4 22 ..ixf4
e3 23'il'h2 e2 24 ..ixe2 'ifxc2+ + McShane-Rowson, London 1997.
1 2 .l:lb8 13 h4 b4 14 lDe2 e5 15 ..ia7 .l:lb7 16 .ie3 ..ie6 17 g5lDh5 18

...
..ih3 'ii'c8 19 ltJg l a5 20 'ii'g2 a4 21 ..ixe6 fxe6+ Balabaev-Navara,

Pardubice 2002.
1 2 'il'c7 13 g5lDd7 14 h4 b4 (l 4... ..ib7 15 g6 fxg6 16 h5lDe5 17 ..ixe5

...
dxe5 18 tr'd7!+- Cioara-Efimov, Porto San Giorgio 2002)

A) 15 tlJe2 tlJe5 16 tiJg1 (16 f4 tlJc4 17 'ifd3 a5 18 tlJc1 .ta6 19 ._g3

l:r.fc8 20 l:th2 Laznicka-Simacek, Olomouc 2003) 16... .tb7 17 h5 11ac8 18
l:th2 d5 19 .txe5 ._xe5 20 f4 'ifc7 21 e5 d4 22 J.d3 a5 23 tlJe2 .i.c5 24 g6±
Kupczyk-Dworakowska, Sroda Wlkp 2003.
B) 15 tlJa4 .tb7 (15...l:tb8 16 b3 .tb7 17 h5 d5 18 g6 .i.f6 19 .th3 dxe4
20 gxf7+ �xf7 21 fxe4 l:r.fd8 22 h6 .l:r.bc8 23 'ii'e2 tlJe5 24 l:r.hfl l:r.xd4 25
l:r.xd4 tlJc6 26 ..h5+ g6 27 'ii'g5+- Laznicka-Dydyshko, Cartak 2003)
Bl) 16 b3
Bla) 16....tc6 17 tiJb2 a5 (17... d5 18 exd5= Del Rio Angelis-Contin,

Bratto 2003) 18 h5 tlJe5 19 .te2 a4 20 tlJc4 .i.b5 21 tiJb6 :tabS 22 h6 .txe2
23 ..xe2 g6 24 f4 tlJc6 25 ttJxa4 ttJxd4 26 l:txd4 e5 27 l:tc4 ._a5=
Leko-Kasparov, Linares 2003.
Blb) 16 ... d5 17 g6 fxg6 18 .th3 e5 19 .txd7 (19 .te3 d4 20 h5 ._c6 21
hxg6 l:txf3 22 .txd7 'ii'xd7 23 l:r.xh7 'ii'e6 24 l:r.g1 .txe4 25 'ifh2 .txg6 26
l:th8+ �f7 27 l:r.xa8 dxe3 28 ._h8+- Bacrot-Papa, Lausanne 2003)
19 ... -.xd7 20 .tc5 d4 21 tiJb6 'ii'c7 22 .txe7 'ii'xb6 23 .txfl! l:r.xfl!±
Bologan-Volokitin, Istanbul 2003.
B2) 16 'iixb4
Why not? A pawn is a pawn. In return Black gets aggravating play on the
open b file and White must defend. 16....l:tfc8 (16... .i.c6!? looks like the best
of a number of tries. Ideas like .l:tfb8 and lLle5 force White on a full retreat.
17 lLlc3 .l:tfb8 18 'ii'c4 lLle5 19 'il'e2'it'a5 20 f4 lLlg6 21 'ii'f3 e5 22 .tf2 'ii'b4
23 b3 lLlxf4 24 .tel 'ii'c5 Anand-Akopian Wijk aan Zee 2004) 17 1i'd2 d5
18 exd5 ..txd5 19 .i.e2 .i.b4 20 c3 .i.f8 21 c4 .i.c6 22 lLlc3 l:tab8 23 g6 fxg6
24 h5 e5 25 .i.e3 gxh5 26 l2Jd5 'ii'b7 27 .l:txh5 .ta4 28 .l:tg1 .ta3 29 .td4±
Prokopchuk-Dvorak, Millfield School 2003.
Naj dorf Variation 6 ..te3 e6 7 f3 ..te7
8 'iVd2 tt:Jc6 ! ? 9 0-0-0 0-0 1 0 g4 tt:Jxd4
1 1 ..txd4 bS 1 2 gS ti:Jd7 1 3 h4
1 e4 c5 2 ll:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll:lxd4 ll:lf6 5 ll:lc3 a6 6 ..ie3 e6 7 f3 ..ie7 8
fr'd2 ll:lc6!? 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 g4 ll:lxd4 1 1 ..ixd4 b5 12 g5 ll:ld7 13 h4
Now: 13 ... f:Va5 14 �b1 b4 15 ll:le2 ll:le5 (15... e5 16 ..ie3 ll:lc5 17 c4 ..ie6
18 ll:lc 1 f:Va4 19 b3 'ii'c6 20 ..ih3 a5 2 1 ..ixc5 'ii'xc5 22 ll:ld3 'ii'c8 23 i.xe6
fxe6 24 .l:thf l a4 25 ll:lb2 axb3 26 axb3 .l:tf4+ Jenni-Babu1a, Plovdiv 2003)
16 'ii'e3 (16 f4 ll:lf3 17 "ii'd3 ll:lxd4 18 ll:lxd4 ..id7 19 ..ih3 'ii'c7 20 f5 e5 21
f6 ..ixh3 22 fxe7 'ii'xe7 23 ll:lc6 'i'Vb7 24 'ii'xd6 ..ig2 25 .l:the1 .l:tfe8 26 .l:td2
.l:tac8 27 'ii'xb4 'ii'xc6 28 .l:txg2± Hoeksema-Levin, Dieren 2003) 16...ll:lc4
17 'ii'd3 e5 18 'ii'xc4 ..ie6 19 ..ib6 'ii'xb6 20 'ii'd3 'ii'a5 21 ll:lc 1 .l:tfc8 22
'ii'd2 .l:tc6+ Ciomei-Podgurkii, Techirghiol 2003.
13 ...b4
A) I 4 lLle2 aS
AI) IS lLlg3 lLleS I6 'ii'f2 'ii'c7 I7 f4 lLlg4 I 8'it'f3 eS I9 lLlfS exd4 20
'ii'xg4 b3! 2 I axb3 a4 22 �d3 dS 23 g6 �xfS 24 exfS axb3 Ponomariov
Akopian, Bled 2002 (24... �f6+; 24...hxg6 2S fxg6 axb3+).
A2) I5f4 �b7 I6 lLlg3'it'c7 I7 �b i
A2a) I 7.. J::tfc8 I8 hS a4 and Black is threatening b3 with a strong attack.

19 �d3 eS 20 �e3 exf4 2 I �xf4 lLleS 22 �xeS dxeS 23 g6 �a6 24 gxf7+
W£8 2S lLlfS (25 �xa6!? l:.xa6 26 h6 g6+) 2S...b3!+ (White must be alert
for 'i!Vc2+ shots.) 26 'ii'g2 �f6 27 lLle3 bxa2+ 28 'itxa2 a3 29 lLldS �c4+ 30
�xc4 'ii'xc4+ -+ Zhornik-Paviov, Simferopol 2003.
A2b) I 7...eS I 8 �e3 exf4 I 9 �xf4 lLleS 20 �d3 l:.fc8 2I lLlfS �£8 22 hS
a4 Zhigalko-Dydyshko, Minsk 2003.
B) I4 lLla4
81) I 4...'ii'aS (l 4...l:.b8 IS �b i 'it'aS I 6 b3 lLlcS I7 lLlb2 eS I 8 �e3 �e6
I 9 h5 l:.fd8 [Hoping for dS] 20 �c4! [Putting an end to Black's hope for
activity.] 20... �xc4 2 I lLlxc4 'ii'c7 22 g6 fxg6 23 hxg6+- Teran
Alvarez-Portalo, Seville 2003) IS b3 lLlcS I6 �xeS dxcS I7 'iff4 l:.a7 I 8
�b I l:.d7 I 9 l:.xd7 �xd7 20 lLlb2 �bS 2 I �c4 �xc4 22 lLlxc4;!;
Kulaots-Seeman, Tallinn 2003.
82) I 4...�b7 I S lLlb6!? l:.b8 ( I S...lLlxb6 I 6 'ii'xb4 dS I7'it'xb6 'ii'xb6 I8
�xb6± Capturing e4 gets hit with l:.d7.) I6 lLlxd7 'ii'xd7 I7 �bi 'it'c7 I8
�d3 �c8?! I 9 h5 eS 20 �e3 �e6 2 I l:.dgi aS 22 g6 White's initiative is
too far advanced. 22...�f6 23 gxh7+ �h8 24 �gS+- Fischer-Spassky, St
Stefan/Belgrade I992.
13 ...l:.b8
Unless Black intends to play lLlb6 this wastes time.
A) I4 l:.g I 'ii' c7 IS hS b4 I 6 lLla4 lLleS I7 'ii' f2 b3! I 8 axb3 l:.xb3 I9 lLlc3
l:.b8 20 f4 'ii'aS 2 I fxeS dxe5 22 lLld5? (22 �e3) 22...exdS 23 .ixeS �cS+
Sigalas-Mastrovasilis, Aspropyrgos 2003.
I 36 The English A ttack
B) 14 i.. a7 .:.b7 1 5 i..e 3 'iia5 1 6 �bl b4 1 7 ltJe2 ltJe5 1 8 ltJd4 i..d7 19 h5

l:lc8 20 g6 i.. f6 21 gxh7+ �xh7 22 f4 ltJg4 23 ltJb3 ikc7 24 i..g 1 i.. b5 25
h6± Fercec-Mandekic, Kastav 2002.
13 i.. b7
...
A) 1 4 i.. h3 ltJe5 1 5 ikg2 lbc4 1 6 f4 b4 1 7 ltJb 1 e5 1 8 'iie2 ikc7 1 9 b3

lba3 20 lbxa3 bxa3 (20 ... exd4! ? 2 1 lbc4 d5+) 2 1 i..a l i Vuilleumier-Daly,
Port Erin 2002.
B) 1 4 ikg2 b4 1 5 lbe2 l:.c8 (Black has possibilities for the d5 break as
well.) 16 �b 1 a5 1 7 l:.g 1 a4 18 ltJ c 1 e5 1 9 .i.e3 ikc7 20 h5 a3 21 i.. d3 axb2
22 lbb3 lbc5 23 g6 hxg6 24 hxg6 fxg6?? (24...ltJxd3! 25 cxd3 fxg6+) 25
lbxc5 followed by i..c4+-, Espineira Gonzalez-Femandez Vazquez, Ferro!
2002.
C) 1 4 a3 (When Black sees a3 the b4 push will give serious counterplay.)
1 4....l:tc8 ( 1 4...ltJe5 followed by ltJc6 and b4 is rapid play.) 1 5 .:.g 1 ltJe5 1 6
'ii e3 ltJc4 1 7 i..xc4 .:.xc4 1 8 .l:tg2 b4 19 axb4 .l:txb4 20 i..c5 .:.c4 2 1 i..a3
. 'ii c7 22 .l:td3 l:.c8 23 l:.gd2 l:.c6;!; Yagupov-Jojua, Batumi 2002.
D) 1 4 g6!?
Sacrificing a pawn for a chance at the initiative. 1 4...b4 15 gxh7+ �h8

(Moving the knight to a safe square seems sensible.) 16 ltJd5? (White didn't
The English Attack 1 3 7
have to go nuts. 16 lt::le 2!? 'ii'a5 1 7 �b1 lt::le5 18 l:tg1± leaves Black in
serious difficulties.) 1 6... exd5 17 ..ixg7+ �xg7 18 l:tg 1 + �xh7 19 ..ih3 f5
20 'fi'f4 l:tf6 21 l:tg5 (21 ..ixf5+ �h8 22 l:tg5 'ii'e8 23 l:tdg1 'ir'f7 24 'ir'g4
l:txf5 25 l:txf5 lt::lf 6 26 'ii'f4 l:tg8 27 l:txg8+ 'ir'xg8-+ Muhren-Chistiakova,
Halkidiki 2000) 2I...'ii'f8 22 l:th5+ �g8 23 ..ixf5 �f7 24 1Wg4 lt::le5 25
l:th7+ �e8 26 'ii'h5+ �d8 27 l:th8 �c7 28 l:txf8 l:taxf8+ Vazquez-Abreu,
Holguin City 2002.
E) 1 4 ..ie2? !
More often than not the bishop is terribly misplaced here. 14...b4 15 lt::lb1
(Certainly lt::le2 would be better, but it's not possible.). The lt::lb 1 leaves the
white king feeling a little queasy on the open c line. (15 lt::la4!? 'ii'a5 1 6 b3
i.c6 17 �b1 ..ixa4 1 8 bxa4 'ii'xa4 19 ..ic4 'ii'c6 20 ..ib3 a5-+) 15...a5 (With
White's king uncomfortably placed Black has the better chances.) 16 l:r.dg1
l:tc8 17 h5 e5 18 ..ie3 f5!
(When the weakness on d5 can't be exploited this _push becomes a

valuable defensive idea.) 19 gxf6 lt::lxf6 20 ..id3 �h8 2 1 'ifg2 l:tf7 22 lt::ld2
..if8 23 �bl a4 24 'ii'e2 1Wc7 25 l:tfl a3 26 f4 d5 27 ..igl exf4 28 e5 lt::le4
29 ..id4 ..ic5 30 ..ixc5 'ifxe5-+ Dutta-Kosmo, Goa 2002.
13 'fi'c7
...
14 a3
Avoiding this move at all costs would keep White's king in better shape.
14 'it>b l (For 14 h4! see the following illustrative game.) 14 ... b4

A) 15 ltJe2 a5 1 6 ltJc 1 ltJe5 1 7 'ii'g2! ..ib7 18 h5 a4 19 l:th3± Tiviakov
Grigoriants, Krasnoyarsk 2003. White's g6 break looks to cany a heavier
punch then Black' s b3.
B) 15 lt:la4 ..ib7 16 'fi'xb4 ..ic6 1 7 ltJc3 l:tfb8 1 8 'fi'c4 lt:le5 1 9 'fi'e2
Two strong players Gelfand and Akopian reached this position. Both got
good play, but which move gets the nod? I prefer 1 9...'fi'a5 because it keeps
the tension. 1 9 ...-tbS ( 1 9 ... 'ifa5 20 f4 ltJg6 21 'fi'f3 e5 22 i.. f2 'fi'b4 23 b3
ltJxf4 Anand-Akopian, Wijk aan Zee 2004. Black went on to lose this
game, but here he is fine.) 20 ltJxb5 axb5 21 c3 ltJc4 22 b3 'fi'a5 23 l:th2 e5
24 ..ie3 ltJa3+ 25 'it>b2 ltJc4+ 26 'it>bl ltJa3+ 27 �b2 b4 28 l:td5 bxc3+ 29
'it>c l 'fi'b4 30 'fi'd3 l:ta5 3 1 l:txa5 'fi'xa5 32 'ii'a6 'fi'b4 33 'ii'a7 d5 34 exd5
..id6 35 h5 tiJb5 36 'fi'd7 ..ic5 37 ..ixc5 'fi'f4+ 38 'it>d1 'ifxh2 39 ..ie3 ltJd4
40'it'c7 'ii'c2+ 0-1 Iordachescu-Gelfand, Bermuda 2004.
14 ltJe5 15 ..ie2 ltJc6 1 6 ..ie3 b4!

...
When this break happens Black gets more than enough play. White must
be constantly concerned about king safety.
17 axb4 lLlxb4 18 h5 l:.b8 19 'itbl e5 20 lLld5 lLlxd5 21 exd5 i.f5 22
.id3 .ixd3 23 'fixd3 l:.b4 24 l:.hgl l:.lb8 25 .icl �7 26 'iVa3
White's queen is awkwardly placed but it's needed for defense.
26 ... l:.b5 27 'ii'a2
27 ... f5
27 ...id8!? would allow the last piece to attempt to join the attack without
.
weakening the kingside.

28 gxf6 .ixf6 29 b3 l:.xd5 30 h6 g6 3 1 'ii'a4 l:.xdl 32 l:.xdl
The looseness of Black's king gives White some practical chances.
32 ... d5 33 .ib2 d4 34 f4 �5 35 'ii'xb5 l:.xb5 36 fxe5 .ixe5 37 .ixd4
l:.d5 38 c3 .ixd4 39 cxd4 l:.h5 40 d5 'itf7 41 d6 'ite8 42 l:.el+ 'itd8 43 l:.e7
l:.xh6 44 l:.g7 g5 45 l:.xg5 l:.g6 46 l:.a5 l:.xd6 47 'itc2 'ite8 48 b4 l:.b6 49
�d3 'itf7 50 'ite3 'itg6 51 'itf3 h5 52 'itg3 1h-1h Kramnik-Leko, Dortmund
2003 .
Sandor - Kaiser
Austrian Team Championship 1998
1 e4 c5 2 ll:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll:lxd4 ll:lf6 5 ll:lc3 e6 6 �e3 �e7 7 f3 ll:lc6

8 �d2 a6 9 g4
9 ll:ld7
...
9...h6 10 0-0-0 ll:lxd4 11 �xd4 e5 (After playing h6 Black is committed

to this idea. He isn't going to be able to get d5 in while White's g5 is so
fast.) 12 �e3 (12 �f2!? is also possible. One point is if Black's llxc3 be
comes dangerous then �e1 provides protection.) 12 ... �e6 13 h4 l:tc8 14
�h3 '6'a5 15 g5 hxg5 16 �xe6 fxe6 17 hxg5 ll:lh5 18 f4 exf4 19 �xf4 g6
20 �bl e5 (The second time!) 21 �e3 l:txc3!? (White's ll:ld5 was going to
be a real pain.) 22 bxc3 l:tffl 23 �al ll:lg3 24 l:th4 l:tfl 25 lhfl ttJxfl 26
..Wd3 ll:lxe3 27 ..Wxe3 �xg5 28 l:th8+ rj;;f7 29 'ii'h3+- Teran Alvarez-Suba,
Seville 2004. Black's king is a goner.
10 0-0-0 0-0 1 1 h4 'fkc7 12 g5 ll:lxd4 13 i.xd4 b5
14 h5!
14 l:tgl ?! (If White wants to play h5 then it should just be played.) 14...b4
15 ll:lb1?! (Putting the knight on e2 is nearly always better as the king
belongs on bl. The situation is getting crowded near White's king.) 1S...aS
16 hS ltJcS 1 7 g6 fxg6 1 8 hxg6 h6 (This gives Black plenty of time for
queenside action.) 1 9 �c4 l:lx£3 20 'ii'e2 l:.f4 21 liJd2 dS 22 �xeS �xeS 23
exdS �xg 1 24 l:txg1 'ii'e7+ Zakurdjaeva-Sebag, Dresden 2004 and White
doesn't have enough for the exchange.
14 �b 1 b4 1 S ltJe2 llb8 16 hS ltJeS 17 ltJg1 (I've seen this move work
occasionally, but can 'undeveloping' be good? I never thought so. 17 ... ltJc6
18 �e3 eS 19 g6 �e6 20 �h3 .i.xh3 21 ltJxh3 liJd4 22 �xd4 exd4 23 ltJgS
�xgS 24 'ii'xgS .l:tbS 2S gxh7+ +- Dochev-Ennenkov, Plovdiv 2004.
14 ... b4 15 liJe2 ltJe5
16 liJg1 ! ?
1 6 f4 ltJ £3 ( 1 6...ltJc4!? 1 7 'ii'd3 e S gives Black proper counterplay.) 1 7
'ii'e3 ltJxd4 18 ltJxd4 eS!? (Other moves look too slow.) 1 9 liJfS �xfS 20
exfS exf4 2 1 'ii'xf4 .l:.fc8 22 .id3 dS 23 'ii'g4±
16...b3?!
This is clearly overdoing it. White's demonstration isn't so threatening
that Black has to panic.
16 ...�b7!? looks playable, then 1 7 'ii'xb4 .ixgS+ 18 �b 1 .l:tfc8 17 'ii'd3;
16...aS!? 17 h6 g6 18 f4 ltJc4 19 �xc4 'ii'xc4 20 b3 'ii'c6 is pretty good
for Black as well.
1 7 axb3 a5 18 f4 a4 1 9 bxa4 l:ha4 20 b3! llxd4 2 1 'ii'xd4 liJc6 22 'ii'c3
�b7 23 h6+- e5 24 hxg7 �xg7 25 'ii'h3 l:.h8 26 'ii'h6+ ..tg8 27 g6!
The undeveloping worked out in this game, but with Black's cooperation.
1-0
N aj dorf Variation 6 �e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 h6
9 �d2 ti:Jbd7 1 0 0-0-0 �b7 1 1 �d3
1 e4 c5 2 lL:JfJ d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL:lxd4 lL:lf6 5 lLlc3 a6 6 .ie3 e6 7 f3 b5 8

g4
8 h6
.•.
8...lLlfd7 9'it'd2 lL:lb6 10 0-0-0 .ib7

A) 11 .ig5! ? .ie7? 12 .ixe7 'ii'xe7 (12...�xe7 13 'ii'g5+ +-) 13 lLlb3 lLlc6
14 'ii'xd6 Wxd6 15 .l::txd6± Nedev-Perez, Base1 2004.
B) 11 lLlb3 lLlc6 (l l ...lLl8d7 12 lLla5 .:.b8 13 lLlxb7 .:.xb7 14 .if4;!;;) 12

'ii'f2! lL:Jd7 13 g5 lLlce5 14 .:_g1 .:.c8 15 f4 lLlc4 16 .txc4 .:.xc4 17 .id4 'ii'c7
18 Age 1 b4 19 lLld5 .ixd5 20 exd5 e5 21 'i6'e2 f6 22 gxf6 gxf6 23 lLla5! +
Komeev-Castellanos, Seville 2004.
9 'i!Vd2
9 ltJbd7
...
9...'Wa5 (Experimentation in this opening is playing with fire. 10 l:tg i (I

don 't see the point of this move but it turned out well. 10 ltJb3 �c7 I I
0-0-0 ltJc6 (More often than not the ltJc6 becomes a misplaced piece.) 1 2 g5
ltJd7 (Black's knights would cause more trouble from b6 and e5.) I 3 �f2
ltJce5 I 4 h4 l:tc8 I 5 a3 i.a8 I 6 �bi i.e7 I7 l:tgi �7 I8 i.d4 ltJc4 I 9
i.xg7 Rodriguez Guerrero-Suba, Seville 2004.) IO... h6? (This horrible
waste of time makes White's g5 push all the more stronger. I O... ltJfd7 I I
ltJb3 "ikc7 12 0-0-0 and Black's misplaced knights give White the better
game after I 2... ltJb6 I3 ltJa5.) I I h4! (Simple, obvious and strong...the best
kind of chess move. The threat g5-g6 must be dealt with.) I I...liJfd7 I2
ltJb3 �c7 13 0-0-0 ltJe5 14 �f2 liJbd7 15 f4 ltJc4 16 i.xc4 "fkxc4 17 ltJa5
'ii'c7 18 lLixb7 �xb7 19 f5
19...l:tc8 (19... b4 20 fxe6 bxc3 [20 ... fxe6 is Black's best chance. After 2 I
ltJe2 �xe4 22 ltJd4 White's development compensates for the pawn minus.]
2 I 'Wxt7+ �d8 22 �xd7+ �xd7 23 exd7 cxb2+ 24 �xb2±.) 20 g5 hxg5 2 I
fxe6 fxe6 22 i.xg5 ltJe5 23 lLie2 'ii't7 24 ltJf4 i.e7 25 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 26 ltJg6
ltJxg6 27 l:txg6± llxh4 28 'Wg3 (Keeping queens on will make Black's life
difficult.) 28...'Wt7 29 �b1 �f4 30 llxe6+ �t7 31 �g6+ �g8 32 l:te7 'Wf6
33 l:.xg7+ �xg7 34 �e6+ 'it>h7 35 �xc8 �e5 36 a3 �xe4 37 l:txd6 lth1+
38 'ifi>a2 'Wc4+ 39 �xc4 bxc4 40 ltxa6 l:r.h2 41 l:r.c6 l:r.xc2 42 �b1 1-0
Komeev-Barria, Seville Open 2004.
1 0 0-0-0 i.b7 1 1 i.d3 ltJe5
I I ...ltJc5 12 'it>b1 d5?! (This leads to difficulties. The locked position

favors White.) 13 e5 liJfd7 14 f4 b4 15 ltJce2 �6 I6 l:r.hfl 0-0-0 17 ltJc1
�b8 18 ltJcb3 �a8 19 .l:.c 1 i.e7 20 c3;!; White controls the play due to
Black's lack of active chances.
1l...b4 leads to interesting play ...

A) 12 lLlce2 d5!? 1 3 exd5 lLlxd5 (This looks stronger than the alternative
13 ....txd5?! 14 lLlf4 when White quickly piles up on e6. 14...lLlc5 15 'itb1
lLlxd3 16 'ii'xd3 .i.e7 17 h4 'ii'a5 18 lLlxd5 lLlxd5 19 .te l 'iVb6 20 lLlxe6!
lLlc3+ 2 1 bxc3 bxc3+ 22 �a 1 fxe6 23'it'g6+ �fE 24 l:.d7 l:.d8 25 l:.xe7
rt.xe7 26 'ii'xg7+ �d6 27 .i.a3+ +- Lastin-Yuferov, St Petersburg_ 2000) 14
lLlf4 ( 1 4 l:.he 1 lLlc5 15 lLlb3 lLlxb3+ 16 cxb3 lLlxe3 17 'ii'xe3 ifg5 18 f4
'it'c5+ 19 'ii'xc5 .i.xc5+ Spoljar-Stevic, Bizovac 2002; 14 �b1 e5?! [With
the king in the middle and lagging development this is a dangerous grab.]
15 lLlf5.i.xf3 16 llhfl .id5 [ 16... �xg4!?] 17 lLleg3 'ii'a5 18 b3 'ifc7 19 g5
hxg5 20 .i.xg5 'ii'c6 2 1 lLle3 .i.c5 22 lLlxd5 lLlxd5 23 .i.c4 .id4 24 .ixd5
'ii'xd5 25 �xb4+- Yudasin-Figiel, Dreszer Memorial, Gdynia 1987; 14
lLlxe6!? fxe6 15 .ig6+ �e7 16 lLJd4t)
Al) 14... lLlc5 15 �b 1 lLlxd3 16'it'xd3 .ie7 17 h4'it'a5 18 lLlxd5 lLlxd5 19

.te l 1i'b6 20 lLlxe6! lLlc3+ 21 bxc3 bxc3+ 22 'iii>a l fxe6 23 'ii'g6+ �fE 24
lld7 l:.d8 25 llxe7 9itxe7 26 'ikxg7+ �d6 27 .ia3+ +- Lastin-Yuferov, St
Petersburg 2000) 14 tLlf4 ( 1 4 llhe l lLlc5 15 lLlb3 lLlxb3+ 16 cxb3 lLlxe3 17
'ikxe3 'ii'g5 18 f4 'it'c5+ 19 'ii'xc5 .ixc5+ Spoljar-Stevic, Bizovac 2002)
14...'ii'a5 15 .i.c4 lLle5 16 .i.xd5 .i.xd5 17 lLlxd5 'ii'xd5 (Black castles into
safety with a solid game.) 18 b3 .i.e7 19 'ife2 lLld7 20 �b l 'iVb7 2 1 l:.he 1
lLlf6 22 .ic l 0-0 23 .ib2 llfd8 24 f4 lLld5= Morozevich-Ehlvest,
Hyderabad 2002.
A2) 1 4... .td6 (Black's pieces are coming out in good shape and Black's
king is well protected.) 1 5 tt'lh5 .te5 16 :r.hel 'il'a5 ! 17 �bl? ( 1 7 .tc4!?
Extremely forced 17 ..Jlc8 18 .tb3 g6 1 9 tt'lf4 tt'lc3!+) 17...tt'lc3+ 18 bxc3
bxc3 19 'We i .txd4 20 .txd4 .td5 2 1 a3 :r.b8+ 22 '1t>al l:tb2+ Nunn
Ftacnik, Naestved 1985.
B) 12 tt'la4 d5 13 exd5 tt'lxd5
14 tt'lxe6 ! This position reminds me of the tt'lxe6 sacrifice in the famous

Caro-Kann game, Deep Blue-Kasparov, New York 1996. After 14... fxe6 15
.tg6+ �e7 1 6 l:he I White hits at the e6 point and with the .tfll and .l:lh8
not playing it 's like White is up material. 16...tt'le5 1 7 .tc5+ �f6 18 :r.xe5
'1to>xg6 19 lhe6+ rj(f7 20 :r.e5 .txc5 2 1 tt'lxc5 .tc6 22 :r.f5+ �g8 23 'Wd3
'il'e7 24 .l:lxd5 .txd5 25 'Wxd5+ ± Schneider-Berczes, Budapest 2003.
Here, the regrouping idea 1 1 ... tt'lb6 !? is too slow.
A) 12 h4 tt'lfd7 1 3 '1to>b I .l:lc8 14 g5 tt'le5 15 f4 tt'lec4 16 'il'f2 tt'lxe3 17

'il'xe3 l:txc3 18 bxc3 tt'la4 19 .te2'il'c7 ( 1 9...'il'a5 !? 20 .l:lh3;!;) 20 .l:h3 hxg5
21 fxg5 g6 22 tt'lxb5 ! +- Jakubowski-Praszak, Zakopane 2000.
B) 12 :he I tt'lfd7 and the tt'lb6 is less vulnerable here.
l l .. J:tc8! ? followed by lLJb6 looks like a solid alternative.
12 l::th el
12 �b l
A) 12 ...g5?! (Cementing the lLJe5 is a fine idea, except here it gets under
mined quickly. Black's king lacks safety as well.) 13 h4 gxh4 14 g5 hxg5
15 ..ixg5 ..ie7 16 ..ixh4 lLJxd3 17 �xd3 b4 18 lLJxe6! fxe6 19 e5 bxc3 20
exf6 �6 21 �xc3 l:tc8 22 �d3 �5 23 �g6+ �d7 24 fxe7+- Chandler
Ribli, Bundesliga 1986.
B) 1 2...lLJfd7 13 'ii' £2 l::tc8 14 lLJce2 d5 1 5 lLJg3 ( 1 5 exd5 ..txd5 16 lLJf4
lLJxd3 17 lLJxd3 ..te7+) 15...lLJc4 16 l::th el �c7 17 f4 lLJc5 1 8 .te l lLJa4 19
f5 lLJcxb2 20 .ixb2 lLJxb2 21 fxe6 lLJxd l 22 l:txd l ..ic5+ Laznicka-Brkic,
Pula 2003.
12 h4 b4 13 lLJce2 d5 14 exd5 lLJxd5 15 �b l g6!? (I don't understand
this, while it might not be bad why waste time? Black has very nice alterna
tives. 15...l:tc8; 15...lLJxd3 16 'ii'xd3 e5 17 lLJf5 g6+) 16 h5 g5 17 l::thg1 ..tg7
18 f4. lLJxd3 19 'ii'xd3 0-0 20 .tel l::tc8 (20 ...lLJxf4!? 21 lLJxf4 gxf4 22
g5!?t; 20...gxf4!?) 21 fxg5 hxg5 22 l:tgfl ;l; Chandler-King, Bundesliga
1986.
1 2 l:tc8
...
12 ...ttJfd7 (12 ... i.e7!? blocking the l:.el looks like a sane alternative.) 13
f4 b4 14 ltJd5! ltJxd3+ 15 'ii'xd3 exd5 16 exd5 i.e7 17 ltJc6 i.xc6 18 dxc6
ltJf6 19 i.b6! (Driving the only defender away from e7.) 19 ...ii'xb6 20
.l:txe7+ �f8 21 'ir'xd6 <oti>g8 22 g5+- Nunn-Marin, Szirak Interzonal 1987.
12...b4 13 ltJa4!?
A) 13...d5 (With White having the heavy pieces eyeing Black's king this
is risky.) 14 exd5 ltJxd5 15 f4
Al) 15...ltJxg4 (15...ltJxd3+ !?) 16 ltJxe6! fxe6 17 i.g6+ �d7 18 i.d4
..td6 19 'ii'e2 ltJgf6 20 ltJc5+ i.xc5 21 'ii'xe6+ <3;c7 22 i.xc5 'ii'd7 23 'ii'e5+
�c6 24 .txb4± Fedorov-Novikov, Nikolaev Zona1 1995.
A2) 15...'ii'a5 16 b3 ltJxd3+ 17 ii'xd3 0-0-0 18 f5 ..te7 (18...e5! ? is OK
for Black.) 19 i.f2 i.g5+ 20 <3;b l <3;b8 21 fxe6 fxe6 22 h4 i.f6 23 'ii'g3+ ±
Nijboer-Kumosov, Groningen 2003.
B) 13...'ii'a5 14 b3 ltJfd7 15 i.e2 ltJc5 16 ltJxc5 dxc5 17 ltJxe6! fxe6 18
..tf4 i.c6 19 .txe5+- Nijboer-Janssen, Dieren 2003.
13 �bl ltJfd7
If Black captures on d3 White takes with the pawn, bolstering his center
and reducing Black's counterplay.
13...i.e7 14 h4 b4 15 ltJa4 ii'a5 16 b3 ltJfd7 17 g5 (Now White is threat
ening f4 followed by undermining e6.) 17...g6 18 f4 ltJxd3 19 cxd3 hxg5 20
hxg5 d5 21 f5 e5 22 exd5 'ii'xd5 23 f6 i.d6 24 ltJc2 a5 25 ..ta7 �f8 26 ltJe3
'ir'e6 27 ltJc4;!; Black's forces lack coordination and king safety is an issue
as well. Short-Kasparov, OHRA, Brussels 1986.
14 f4!? ltJc4 15 ii'e2 ltJxe3
One of Black's problems is that he can't play the normal idea 15... 'ii'c7
because of 16 ltJdxb5! axb5 17 ltJxb5±.
16 ii'xe3
l6 g5
...
If Black can gain control of the e5 point he will get a good game.
16...rl.xc3 !? 17 bxc3 'fkc7 is a good attempt to get White's attention.

16...b4!? 17 tLld5 g5 18 lLlf5 .l:tg8 19 'fka7 tLlc5 20 .txa6 .txa6+
Morozevich-Topalov, Frankfurt 1999.
16...'iib6 17 lLld5 (This nice double piece sacrifice must've been a
product of some great home cooking!)
A) 17...exd5 18 exd5+ '1ti>d8 19 .txb5 axb5 20 'fke8+ ri;;c7 21 'ili'xf7

(Black has trouble moving his pieces.) 2l ...g5 22 tLle6+ '1t>b8 23 'ili'xd7±
Timman-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2000.
B) 17...'ili'c5 1 8 b4 'ili'a7 1 9 h4 e5 20 fxe5 dxe5 2 1 lLlf5 'ii'xe3 22 lLlfxe3
g6 23 �b2 .te7 24 .l:th1 lLlf6 25 tLlxf6+ .txf6 26 c4 bxc4 27 tLlxc4 rl.d8 28
.tc2 '1ti>e7= Fedorov-Van Wely, Polanica Zdroj 2000.
1 7 e5!
White's energetic reaction puts Black's king in jeopardy. This is a
thematic idea when Black tries to secure e5.
1 7 ...gxf4 1 8 'fkxf4 dxe5 19 tLlxe6! 'fke7 20 'ili'd2 fxe6 2 1 .tg6+ '1ti>d8 22
:n .l:r.xc3 23 'ili'xc3 'ili'c5 24 rl.ti .tc8 25 'ili'd2 'fka7 26 g5 b4 27 gxh6 .txh6
28 'ili'xb4 .tgS 29 'ikg4 1-0 Morozevich-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2000.
Najdorf Variation 6 i.e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 h6
9 �d2 t2Jbd7 10 0-0-0 i.b7 1 1 h4
1 e4 c5 2 tt:'lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:'lxd4 tt:'lf6 5 tt:'lc3 a6 6 .ie3 e6 7 f3 b5 8

g4 h6!? 9 'it'd2 tt:'lbd7 10 0-0-0 �b7 1 1 h4
This variation leads to some of the liveliest and complicated play from
any Sicilian or any other opening for that matter. When an early ... h6 is
played Black must exercise great care. White's g5 is stalled for now, but if
g5 is played it carries a powerful punch. Sometimes the weakness of the g6
square allows White a sacrificial attack starting on e6. White can undermine
e6 with the g5-g6 push as well. Black must be alert to these ideas and
proceed accordingly. There are numerous examples of Black's position
crashing after tt:'lxe6! .
1 1 ...b4!?
Black must react with a sense o f urgency. Piece play looks slow.
l l ...l:f.c8
A) 1 2 .l:f.g 1 ! ? lLle5 ( 1 2 . . . g6 ! ? as Black can 't let White push through to e6.
Then 1 3 g5 hxg5 14 hxg5;!;) 1 3 g5 hxg5 1 4 hxg5 lLlfd7 1 5 g6±.
B) 1 2 .td3 . I think if possible White should wait on deploying this
bishop. Why give Black lLlxd3 options? 12 ... lLle5 13 g5 lLlfd7 14 'itb 1 lLlc5
1 5 .l:f.hg I h5 16 f4 lLlg4 1 7 g6 b4 1 8 gxf7+ '3;xf7 1 9 lllce2 lLlxe4 20 �xb4
�c7 2 1 lLlxe6?! <3;xe6 22 .tb6 d5 23 �3 lLlc5 24 .tf5+ 'itxf5 25 .l:f.xd5+
'3;g6 26 .l:f.g5+ <3;h6 27 ..txc5 �d7 28 ..td4 ..te4+ Gara-Alfred, Budapest
2003 . White still has some tricks, but with accurate play Black should win.
l l . . .d5
12 .th3 ..tb4?! 1 3 g5 lLlh5 14 g6 ! (Collapsing the g6 point makes Black's

life difficult.) 14 ... lLlc5 1 5 a3 .txc3 16 �xc3 .l:f.c8 17 gxf7+ '3;xf7 1 8 lLlxe6
lLlxe6 1 9 �e5 .l:f.e8 20 �xh5+ +- Podkriznik-Nierlich, Bled 200 1 .
l l ...�c7
Playing .l:f.c8 is better, leaving chances for exchange sacrifices in some

cases. In this sharp variation Black must not automatically play this move. I
realize that most of the time it's a natural Sicilian move, but here it could
lose important time. 1 2 .te2 ! ? (This feels a little slow. 1 2 .l:f.g l !? is more to
the p oint with the same g5-g6 idea but leaving e2 as a possible square for
the lllc 3.) 12 . . . lLle5 13 g5 b4 14 lLla4 lLlfd7 15 f4 (White could have bagged
a free pawn by 1 5 �xb4 !? d5 1 6 �c3±) 1 5 . . . lLlc4 1 6 ..txc4 �xc4 1 7 b3
'i¥c7 18 g6 �xe4 19 gxf7+ cj;xf7 20 .l:the I .l:tc8 21 �g I d5 22 lhe4 dxe4 23

f5 exf5 24 liJxf5 liJf6 25 ..lth2 'i¥c6 26 liJd4 'ftb7 27 'i¥g2 .l:td8+ Ducros
Salva-Tattersall, Mall orca 2000.
1 2 liJa4
12 liJce2 d5 ( 1 2 .. .'iVa5 1 3 cj;b I d5 14 �h3 dxe4 1 5 g5 exf3 1 6 liJg3 liJd5
1 7 liJxe6! is a typical example of the dangers Black must avoid. Then
1 7 ... fxe6 1 8 �xe6 liJe5 1 9 .l:the l ..lte7 20 ..ltd4 liJc4 2 1 'i¥d3 'ikc7 22 liJf5
1 -0 Georgiev-R.Jones, Bled 2002)
A) 1 3 exd5 liJxd5 1 4 liJf4 liJxe3 1 5 'ikxe3 'ftb6! 1 6 ..ltc4 0-0-0 1 7 liJfe2

( 1 7 liJd3 i...e7 1 8 .l:tde I i... f6 1 9 liJb3 'iVc7! 20 liJd2 liJb6 2 1 ..ltb3 aS+
Bruehl-Bratovic, Bled 2002) 1 7 ... e5 ! (Winning a piece in a surprising way.)
1 8 liJf5 g6 1 9 'ikxb6 liJxb6-+ Sichinava-Paichadze, Batumi 2003.
B) 13 ..lth3 dxe4 14 g5 hxg5 1 5 hxg5 exf3 1 6 liJg3
Bl) 1 6 ... liJe4 1 7 'ike 1 f2 1 8 i...x f2 'ikxg5+ 1 9 cj;b 1 'i'f4 20 liJxe6 fxe6 2 1
�xe6 liJdc5 22 .l:txh8 liJxe6 23 'ikxb4 (23 .l:txf8+! cj;xf8 24 'ikxb4+ cj; g 8 25
'ir'xb7 liJc3+ 26 cj;a 1 liJxd 1 27 'ifxa8+ cj;f7 28 'ftb7+) 23 ... liJxf2 24 'it'xb7
liJxd 1 25 'ikxa8+ cj;f7 26 .l:th 1 liJe3-+ Sanchez-Ar1andi, Saint Vincent 2003.
B2) 1 6 . . ..l:txh3 1 7 .l:txh3 liJe4 1 8 liJxe4 i...xe4 19 liJxf3 .l:tc8 20 liJe 1 'ii'c7
2 1 .l:th8± Laznicka-Rubal, Lahucovice 2003. With Black's king stuck on e8
unraveling will be next to impossible.
1 2 ... g6
1 2 . . . d5 1 3 .th3 dxe4 ( 1 3 . . . g5 !? 1 4 hxg5 hxg5 1 5 e5 ! lLlxe5 1 6 ..ixg5 l:.g8
1 7 lL!b6 lL!c4 1 8 lL!xc4 dxc4 19 .txf6 iVxf6
· 20 lLlxe6! .th6 2 1 g5 fxe6 22 'i!Vd7+ 'Oti>f8 23 gxh6 .td5 24 'i!Vd6+ 'i!Ve7 25

'i!Vf4+ 'i!Vf7 26 'i!Ve5 1 -0 Kasparov-Wojtkiewicz, Kopavogur 2000) 14 g5
hxg5 1 5 hxg5 exf3 16 g6 ! ? (Ignoring the piece for an even bigger prize�)
1 6 . . . l:.xh3 Taking some of the pressure off the e6 point but Black's king is
still under seige. 1 7 l:.xh3 -.a5 1 8 b3 lLle5 1 9 gxf7+ 'Ot>xf7 20 'i!Ve 1 l:.c8 2 1
'Ot>b 1 l:.e8 2 2 .td2 'i!Vd5 2 3 .tf4 'i!Ve4 24 iVxe4 lLlxe4 2 5 .txe5 lLlf2 26
l:.xf3+ �xf3 27 l:.fl 1-0 Kriventsov-Najer, Philadelphia 2002.
1 2 . . .e5 1 3 lLlb3 l:.b8 1 4 ti'Jal ! ? (Definitely odd-looking but it saves the
lLla4.) 1 4 .. .'�a5 1 5 b3 .tc6 1 6 .tc4 l:.c8 1 7 iVe2 .tb5 1 8 .td3 d5 1 9 exd5
..ixa4 20 bxa4 lLlxd5 2 1 ..ib5 axb5 22 l:.xd5 'i!Vxa4 23 iVxb5 iVxb5 24
l:.xb5± Jaracz-Tomba, Lido Estensi 2002.
13 .th3 iVa5 14 b3 e5 15 lLle2 .tc6 16 g5 .txa4 1 7 bxa4 lLlh5 1 8
.txd7+ 'iti>xd7 19 'Ot>b1 hxg5 2 0 hxg5 .te7 2 1 ti'Jcl 'i!Vxa4 22 lLld3 iVb5 23
iVh2 'iti>c7 24 lLlc1 a5 25 l:.d5 iVc6 26 iVd2 a4 27 l:.d 1 l:.hb8+
Burgerhoff-Leuw, Vlissingen 2003.
N aj dorf Variation 6 i.e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 h6
9 'iVd2 t'Llbd7 10 0-0-0 i.b7 1 1 h4 b4 ! ?
1 2 t'Lla4 'iVa5 1 3 b3
I e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 d6 6 ..te3 a6 7 f3 b5 8

g4 h6 9 'iVd2 lLlbd7 10 0-0-0 ..tb7 1 1 h4 b4 ! ? 1 2 lLla4 'iVa5 13 b3
A) 13 g6 1 4 a3 ( I 4 'it>b I d5 I 5 ..th3 dxe4 I 6 g5 lLld5 I 7 lLlxe6 fxe6 I 8

•..
i.xe6 lLle5 I 9 ..txd5 ..txd5 20 'Wxd5 'Wxd5 2 I .l:f.xd5 lLlxf3 22 .l:f.hd I lLlxh4
23 .l:f.e5+ 'it>fl 24 .l:f.d7+ �g8 25 lLlb6 .l:f.b8 26 lLld5+- Jens-Bindrich,
Deizisau 2003) I4 ... e5 (I4 . . .'Wc7 I 5 ..th3 bxa3 I6 g5 hxg5 I 7 hxg5 lLlh5 I 8
..ltg4 lLlc5 I 9 lLl xc5 dxc5 20 lLle2 ..tg7 2 1 �b I a2+ 22 'it>xa2 a5 23 lLlc3 a4
24 lLlxa4 ..tc6 25 �a3 ..txa4 26 bxa4 lha4+ -+ Baramidze-Jens, Deizisau
2003) I5 axb4 'Wc7 I6 lLle2 d5 I 7 ..th3 .l:f.c8 I 8 g5 ..txb4 I 9 c3 lLlh5 20
..ltxd7+ �xd7 2I �b2 ..td6 22 lLlb6+ �e7 23 lLlxc8+ .l:f.xc8 24 exd5 a5 25
U.a I hxg5 26 hxg5+- Jens-Janssen, Deizisau 2003.
B) 13 ....1:f.c8
Bl) 14 'ittb 1 tt)c5 1 5 tt)xc5 ( 1 5 tt)b2?? leads to immediate disaster after

1 5 ... t'l)fxe4 ! -+ Mull-Maxion, Dortmund 1 987.) 1 5 ... dxc5 1 6 tt)e2 ..ic6
( 1 6 .. J:td8 1 7 _.xd8+ 1i'xd8 1 8 l:txd8+ 'ittxd8= Kim-Belov, Pardubice 2002)
1 7 tt)g3 tt)d7 1 8 f4 ..ie7 1 9 ..id3 tt)b6 20 _.f2 tt)a8 2 1 g5 tt)c7 22 tt)h5 tt)b5
23 ..ixb5 axb5 24 tt)xg7+ �f8 25 tt)xe6+ fxe6 26 f5 �e8 27 fxe6 1 -0
Shirov-Svidler, Moscow 2002. Black spent a lot of valuable time hopping
his knight around.
B2) 14 l:tg 1 tt)c5 1 5 g5 tt)xa4 1 6 bxa4 hxg 5 1 7 hxg5 tt)d7 1 8 g6 'ii'xa4 1 9

gxf7+ �xf7 20 �b 1 ..ie7 2 1 'ii'g2 ..if6 22 'Wg6+ �f8 23 l:tg2 tt)e5 24 '6'g3
�e7-+ Yagupov-Miroshnichenko, St Petersburg 2002.
C) 13 ..ie7
...
1 4 ..id3 (This slow move hands over the initiative.) 1 4... tt)c5 1 5 g5 t'l)fd7
. 1 6 g6 tt)e5 1 7 gxf7+ 'ittx f7 (Black's king is safer than his counterpart.) 1 8
..ie2 tt)xa4 1 9 bxa4 l:tac8 20 l:thg 1 ..if6 2 1 f4 tt)c4 22 ..ixc4 l:txc4+
Komeev-Galkin, Russia Cup, Novgorod 1 997.
1 4 'itt b 1 tt)c5 ( 1 4 ... l:tb8?! I don't see the point of this move. 15 ..ih3 g5 ! ?
This stops g5-g6 and makes the i.h3 look silly. 1 6 i.g2 l:tg8 1 7 hxg5 hxg5
1 8 ..if2 tt)e5 1 9 ..ig3 t'l)fd7 Perez-Leyva, Las Tunas 200 1 .) 1 5 tt)xc5 dxc5
16 tt)e2 l:td8 1 7 'iVc l tt)d7 1 8 tt)g3 ttJe5 1 9 ..ie2 l:txd 1 20 'ii'xd 1 'ii'c7 2 1
..if4 ..id6 22 tt)h5 g6 23 t'l)f6+ 'itte7 24 g5 h5 (Van Wely considers this
position to offer equal chances.) 25 ..ie3 tt)c6 26 f4 l:td8 27 _.fl tt)d4
(Black's king isn 't in danger and he has enough play to distract White from
any king side attacking intentions.) 28 ..id3 'itt f8 29 l:tg 1 �g7 30 ..ixd4 cxd4
3 1 e5 ..ie7 32 'ii'e2 a5 33 f5 exf5 34 ..ixf5 d3 ! (Opening an important
square and diagonal. 35 i.xd3 i.c5 36 e6 ..ixg 1 37 e7 i.c6 3 8 'ii'e5 'ii'xe5
39 exd8='ii' 'ii'e 1 + 40 'it>b2 'iic 3+ 4 1 'it>b 1 'ii'e 1 + 42 �b2 'ii'c 3+ 43 �b 1
'iVe l + and Black was happy to end this hard fought battle with perpetual
check. 1/z- 1/z Kasparov-Van Wely, KasparovChess Grand Prix 2000.
The English A ttack /55
D) 13 d5...
Dl) 14 ..ih3
D l a) 14 . . . dxe4 1 5 g5 hxg5 1 6 hxg5 tt::ld5 1 7 g6. (This is exactly the type
of thing Black must fear and avoid. Also 1 7 tt::lx e6! fxe6 1 8 fxe4 0-0-0
[ 1 8 .. J:td8 !? is safer. . . Black's king doesn't run headlong into the �h3 .] 1 9
exd5 �xd5 20 �b6!+- Blehm-Jonsson, Cappelle 1 995.) 1 7 . . . 0-0-0 1 8 gxf7
�xh3 1 9 �xh3 tt::lc 5 20 fxe4 tt::lxa4 2 1 exd5 tt::l c3 22 a4! Forced, but good
enough. 22 . . . �xd5 23 tt::lc6 �xc6 24 'ii'x d8+ 'ii'xd8 25 �xd8+ �xd8 26
�h8 <i;e7 27 �c5+ �xf7 28 �xf8+ ± Ustianovich-Oleksienko, Lviv 2003)
Dlb) 1 4 . . . e5 1 5 g5 hxg5 ( 1 5 ... exd4 1 6 �xd4 tt::l h5 1 7 'ii'h2 tt::lc 5 1 8 'ii'e 5+
+- Kurmann- Roschina, Davos 2002) 1 6 hxg5 exd4 1 7 �xd4 l:lxh3 1 8
�xh3 tt::lg 8 1 9 g6 ( 1 9 �h8 !) 1 9 . . . f6 20 exd5 tt::le7 2 1 d6 tt::lxg6+ Burgerhoff

Beeke, Vlissingen 2003.
Dlc) 14 . . . g5 !? (Slowing down g5 is a wise choice.) 1 5 hxg5 hxg5 1 6 e5
tt::lxe5 1 7 �xg5 �e7 1 8 .i.xf6 �xf6 1 9 g5 ..ig7 20 f4 tt::lc6 2 1 tt::lf3 tt::le7 22
tt::le 5 ..ixe5 23 fxe5 �c6 24 'iff2 �c8 25 �c5 �xc5 26 tt::lx c5=
Komeev-Van Wely, Villarrobledo 1 998.
02) 1 4 e5 ! ? tt::lxe5 (14 ... tt::lg 8?! is very ugly. It reminds one of a French
Defense gone seriously wrong. 1 5 f4 tt::lc 5 1 6 tt::lx c5 �xc5 1 7 �b I tt::le7 1 8
f5 'iib6 1 9 �h3 ..ic8 20 �f2;!; Jazbinsek-Tratar, Slovenian U20 Champion-
ship 1 994.) 1 5 tt::lxe6 d4 ( 1 5 . . . fxe6? 1 6 �b6+-) 1 6 �xd4 ( 1 6 tt::lx d4! tt::lfxg4
1 7 fxg4 .i.xh 1 1 8 1i'h2±) 1 6 . . .tt::lx f3 ( 1 6 ... fxe6! looks simple and winning.)
17 "6'e3 fxe6 1 8 Wxe6+ �e7 1 9 �xf6 gxf6 20 �d7+- Lung-Dumitrescu,
Romanian Team Championship 1 993.
Najdorf Variation 6 .ite3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 h6
9 'ti'd2 ttJbd7 1 0 0-0-0 .itb7 1 1 h4 b4 ! ?
1 2 ttJa4 'iV aS 1 3 b3 ttJc5 14 a3 :cs
1 e4 cS 2 lt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:lxd4 lLlf6 5 lt:lc3 a6 6 .i.e3 e6 7 f3 bS 8

g4 h6!? 9 'ifd2 lt:lbd7 10 0-0-0 .i.b7 1 1 h4 b4!? 1 2 lt:la4 'ifaS 13 b3 lLlcS
14 a3
14 .i.h3?! lt:lxa4 (Black's attack is very fast here.) 1 5 bxa4 lt:ld7 1 6 g5
Wxa4 1 7 g6 lt:lc5 1 8 gxf7+ .:J;xf7 1 9 'it>b 1 'ifa3 20 lt:lc6 lt:la4-+ Blodstein
Har Zvi, Tel Aviv Cup, Rapidplay, 1 996.
1 4 .. J:tc8
A) 1 5 axb4 lt:lxb3+ 1 6 lt:lxb3 'i!Vxa4 1 7 'it>b2 d5 1 8 c3 dxe4 ( 1 8 ...'i!Vc6 1 9

l::ta 1 looks very uncomfortable for Black. White has a much safer king, a
lead in develop ment and stronger play. 1 9 . . . l::ta8 20 e5 lt:ld7 2 1 .i.d4 'ir'c7 22
f4 i.e? 23 'ife3 .i.d8 24 f5+- Komeev - Sig Varas, Pamplona 2002;
1 8 ....i.d6 1 9 l::ta 1 'ii'd 7 20 ..ixa6 ..ixa6 2 1 l::txa6 .i.e5 22 l:tc 1 'ifb7 23 .l:b6
._,c7 24 l::tb5 0-0 25 g5 'ii'c4 26 l::tb7 hxg5 27 hxg5 l::tb 8 28 lt:la5 Wa6 29
gxf6+- Bologan-Lesiege, Bled 2002) 1 9 l:ta 1 ( 1 9 lt:la5 .i.d5 20 l::ta 1 Wd7 2 1
i.xa6. This is a disaster for Black. His queenside collapsed and the guy is
still on e8. 2 l . . .exf3 22 .i.xc8 'ii'x c8 23 g5 lt:le4 24 'ii'c2 .i.d6 25 ..id4 e5 26
..ie3 hxg5 27 hxg5 l:txh l 28 l::tx h1 'ii'g4 29 c4 ..ie6 30 l:th8+ i.ffi 3 1 'ii'd3
i.d7 32 lt:lb7 f2 33 lt:lc5+- Acs-Van Wely, Hoogeveen 2002) 1 9 . . .'i!Vd7 20
'ii'xd7+ 'it>xd7! ? (By leaving his lt:lf6 Black threatens exf3 or lt:ld5 with
good play. 20 . . .lt:lxd7 2 1 lt:la5 .i.d5 22 .i.xa6 l::tb8 23 fxe4 .i.xe4 24 l::the l
.idS 25 ..if4 l:tb6 26 ..ic4 ..if3 27 ..ic7 lhb4+ 28 cxb4 .i.xb4 29 l::te 3+
Haslinger-Gormally, Torquay 2002) 2 1 l::td 1 + 'it>c7 22 i.f4+ 'it>b6 23 i.e3+
Zontakh-Miroshnichenko, Tallinn 2003 with a draw by perpetual.
B) 15 'ii'xb4 'fic7
Bl) 1 6 lLlxc5 dxc5 1 7 'ii'a4+ ltJd7 1 8 lLle2 c4 1 9 �f4 1i'c6 20 'it>b2 'ii'xa4
2 1 bxa4 �e7= Timoshenko-Maksimenko, Halkidiki 2002 (2 l . . .g6 22 �e3
�g7+ 23 �d4 e5 24 �e3 ltJc5 25 lLlc3 ltJe6 26 ltJd5 ltJd4 27 f4 �xd5 28
exd5± Fernandez-Winer, Washington DC 2000) 22 �e3 (22 lLlc3 �f6 23
�e2 ltJb6 24 e5 �e7 25 a5 ltJd5 26 �d2 f6 27 ltJxd5 �xd5 28 �c3 fxe5
29 �xe5 0-0 30 11h3 l:tc5 3 1 f4"" Anand-Kasparov, Moscow 2002).
B2) 16 �b l
B2a) 1 6 ... lLlfd7 1 7 lLlb2 d5 1 8 'ii'd2 dxe4 1 9 f4 ltJf6 20 �c4 ltJxg4 2 1 f5
e5 22 ltJe2 ltJxe3 23 1i'xe3 ltJd7 24 b4 lLlf6 25 'ii'b3 h5 26 l:th3 �d6 27 .l:1c3
'ii'e7 28 �xf7+ fixf7 29 'ii'x f7+ 'it>xf7 30 11xc8 �xc8 3 1 l:txd6 �xf5 32
ltJc4 l:lc8 33 lLlxe5+ ;!; Miskovic-Aksentijevic, Budva 2003.
B2b) 1 6 ...ltJcd7 1 7 1i'd2
B2bl) This looks like the correct time for 1 7 ...d5 !?, for example 1 8 �h3
dxe4 19 g5 hxg5 20 hxg5 ltJd5 2 1 fxe4 lLlxe3 22 1i'xe3 ltJe5 23 l:lhfl �xa3
24 g6 ltJxg6 25 �xe6 fxe6 26 lLlxe6 and Fritz thinks Black is winning.
26 ... 1i'e7 (26 ... 'ii'e5 27 'ii'b 6 �xe4 28 .l:1d8+ 'it>e7 29 'ii'a7+ l:.c7 30 lLlxc7
'it>xd8-+ is very exciting and messy! Probably too messy for human
consumption.) 27 'ii'b6 lLlf8 28 l:td8+ l:.xd8 29 lLlc7+ 1i'xc7 30 1i'xc7 l:td7
3 1 'ii'b 8+ �e7 32 'ii'e5+ ltJe6 33 l:.g l 'it>f7 34 lLlb6 l:.hd8 35 �a2 �f8 36
tt:\xd7 .:.xd7 3 7 �f5+ <l;e7 38 .:.n ..ic8 39 lif7+ 'i;d6 40 e5+ l -0 Anand
Khalifman, Shenyang 2000. I think Anand got away with a lot in this game.
If one of us mere mortals tried this we would lose miserably.
B2b2) 1 7 . . . e5 1 8 tt:lf5 g6 1 9 tt:\g3 d5 20 exd5 ..ixd5?! (This looks terrible.
White's forcing continuation looks convincing. 20 . . . tt:\xd5!? makes more
sense.) 2 I g5 hxg5 22 hxg5 .:.xh i 23 tt:\xh i ..ixf3 24 gxf6 ..ixhi 25 ltxd7+
ltxd7 26 .:.xd7 �xd7 27 tt:lb6+ <l;c7 28 tt:\xc8 �xc8 29 �xa6+ 'i;d7 30
..ic4 ..ixa3 3 I ..ixf7 ..ie4 32 �h6+- Fercec-Teofilovic, Velika Gorica 2002.
B2c) I6 ... e5 I 7 tt:lf5 tt:\cxe4 ( 1 7 ... g6 1 8 g5 gxf5 I 9 gxf6 tt:\xe4 20 ..id3

tt:\g3 2 1 ..ib6 'itc6 22 .:.hg i ltxf3 23 lta5 f4 24 �xa6 �xa6 25 ltxa6 ltc6
26 c4 tt:\e2 27 .:.ge l f3 28 'iia5 .:.g8+ Martic-Cvetkovic, Belgrade 2003) 1 8
�c4 g6 I 9 fxe4 tt:\xe4 20 �xc7 .:.xc7 2 I �b6 .:.c8 22 tt:\e3 tt:\f2 23 ..ig2
..ixg 2 24 tt:\xg2 tt:\xh I 25 .:.xh I �e7 26 tt:\e3 0-0 27 tt:ld5 �d8 28 ..ie3 'i;g7
29 lllb2 .:.e8 30 tt:\c4± Garakov-Ayupov, Essentuki 2003.
N ajdorf Variation 6 .i.e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 h6
9 'i¥d2 ltJbd7 10 0-0-0 i.. b 7 1 1 h4 b4 ! ?
1 2 ltJa4 'i¥a5 1 3 b3 ltJc5 1 4 a3 ltJxa4
1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 lLlf6 5 tLlc3 d6 6 ..ie3 a6 7 f3 b5 8

g4 h6 9 iVd2 tLlbd7 1 0 0-0-0 ..ib7 1 1 h4 b4 ! ? 1 2 tLla4 iVa5 13 b3 tLlc5 14
a3 tLlxa4 15 axb4 �c7 16 bxa4
A) 1 6 ... ttJd7 ! ?
A 1 ) 1 7 ..ih3 d 5 ( 1 7 . . .tLlb6 1 8 g5 e 5 1 9 ltJf5 tLlc4 2 0 'ifd3 g6 2 1 lLlxh6 d5
22 ltJg4 ..ixb4 23 lLlf6+ 'iit>tE 24 exd5 nxh4 25 ..ig4! nxh 1 26 nxh 1 'iit>e7
27 'ifb3 a5 28 nh7 ltJd6 29 ..ie6+- Butkiewicz-Stypka, Lubniewice 2002
White's attack is out of control.) 1 8 g5 'ifc4
Ala) 1 9 g6 ..ixb4 20 gxf7+ 'iit> e7 2 1 ..ig5+ (2 1 ir'd3 �a2 22 'ifb3 ir'a 1 +

23 'ifb 1 iVa3+ 24 'ifb2 ifxe3+ 2 5 'iit>b 1 iVc3-+ Melnikov-Solovjov, St
Petersburg 2003) 2 l .. . hxgS 22 'ir'xgS+ tt::\f6 23 'ir'eS ..ia3+ 24 'it>b I 'ir'b4+ 25

lt:Jb3 l:thS 26 'ir'c7+ 'it>f8 27 ..ixe6 'ir'e7 28 'ir'b6 'ir'd6 29 'ir'xb7 l:tb8 30
i.xdS l:txb7 3I ..txb7 'ir'c7 32 'it>a2 i.e7-+ Chkhaidze-Kanep, Baku 2002.
Alb) 1 9 'ir'd3 'ir'xb4 20 'ir'b3 hxg5 2 I hxgS lt:JeS 22 'ir'xb4 i.xb4 23 ..ig2
l:txh l 24 l:txh i tt::\c4-+ Kosteniuk-Ehlvest, Connecticut 2003.
A2) I7 lt:Jb3 dS ( I 7 ... ..te7 I 8 ..td4 0-0 1 9 gS hS 20 i.d3 l:tfc8 2 1 f4 g6 22
l:thg i [This looks slow, but Black's counterplay isn't dangerous. 22 fS ! ?]
22 ... ..ic6 23 bS axbS 24 axbS ..ib7 25 'ir'f2 and now 2S ... d5+ Murawski
Stypka, Polish Team Championship, Lubniewice I 994.) I 8 'it>b2 dxe4 I 9 c4
..te7 20 cS exf3 2 I 'ir'h2 ..if6+ 22 ..id4 ..ieS 23 i.xeS 'ir'xeS+ 24 'ir'xeS
tt::\xeS+ Zavoronkov-Kanep, Kilingi-Nomme 2002.
A3) 1 7 aS dS 1 8 ..if4 ( 1 8 lt:Jb3 l:tc8 I9 ..id3 lt:JeS 20 ..icS tt::\xf3 2 1 'ir'e3
tt::\eS 22 exdS ..ixdS 23 ..ixa6 ..ixcS 24 tt::\xcS l:tb8 25 l:the l tt::\xg4 26 'ir'd4
tt::\f6 27 l:tg i l:tg8 28 ..id3 'ir'd6 29 a6+- Manescu-Goh, Kuala Lumpur 2002.
White's king is safer than his counterpart and the p assed pawns are tough to
deal with.) 1 8 ... eS I 9 ..tg3 dxe4 20 lt:JfS exf3 2 1 .i.c4 l:td8 22 l:the I ..ie7 23
'ir'c3 'it>f8 24 tt::\xe7 r3;xe7 25 ..txeS tt::\xeS 26 'ii'x eS+ 'ir'xeS 27 l:txeS+ 'it>f6
28 l:tfS+ 'it>g6 29 ..id3 hS 30 lidS+± Kulaots-Hracek, Istanbul 2003.
B) 16 ... d5 I7 eS ( 1 7 bS!? shouldn 't be dangerous to Black. I7 ...dxe4 I 8
bxa6 ..ixa6 I 9 ..ixa6 l:txa6 20 tt::\bS 'ir'c8 2 I ..if4 tt::\d S [2 1 . ..l:tc6! ?+] 2 2 fxe4
tt::\x f4 23 'it'xf4 [Now White has the advantage. ] 23 . . . l:tc6 24 l:thfl f6 25 eS
nxc2+ 26 'it>b l 'ii'c4 27 'it'xc4 l:txc4 28 exf6± lvanchuk-Van Wely, Monte
Carlo 2004. ) I7 ... tt::\d 7 I 8 f4 lt:Jb6 (Interesting is 1 8 ... aS I 9 lt:JbS 'ii'c 8 20
bxaS d4 2 I tt::\xd4 ..ixh i -+ and White doesn't have anything. Paragua
Leroy, Linares Open I 99S.)
Bl) I 9 fS
Bla) I 9 ... tt::\xa4 20 fxe6 tt::\c3 (20 . . . 0-0-0 2 I exfl tt::\c3 22 e6 ..txb4 23
'ii'd3 tt::\a2+ 24 'it>b2 ..ic3+ 25 'it>b I lt:Jb4 26 ..if4 ! +- Topalov-Gelfand,
Monaco 2000. White chases Black's queen away from king defense with
'ir'fS to follow.) 2 I exfl+ 'iti>xfl 22 ..id3 ..ixb4 23 l:.dfl + 'it>g8 24 'ir'f2 i.a3+
25 'iti>d2 tt::\e4+ 26 ..ixe4 dxe4 27 gS (27 'it'fS ..ib4+ 28 'iti>d I 'it'c4 29 tt::\e6
'it'dS+ 30 'iti>e2 'ii'c4+ Deep Junior-Shredder, Graz 2003 with a draw by
repetition; 24 ... l:te8 25 e6 l:tf8 26 'ii'fl + l:txfl 27 exfl+ 'ii'x fl 28 l:txfl 'it>xfl
29 l:Hl+ �g8+ (29 ...�e7 30 lDf5+ �d7 3 1 lDxg7± according to Grischuk)

Grischuk-Popov, St Petersburg 1 999.
Blal) 27 . . . .!:tc8 28 'ii'f5 'ii'c 3+ 29 �d l .i.d5 30 e6 'ii'a l + 3 1 �e2 .i.c4+ 32

�f2 'ii'xfl + 33 .!:txfl I:tf8 34 g6 l:txf5+ 35 tDxf5 .i.xfl 36 �xfl �f8 37
i.d4 l:tg8 3 8 c4 �e8 (38 . . . a5 is Black's best chance to distract White from
his simple plan. 39 c5 �e8 40 c6 �d8 4 1 ..tb6+ �c8+) 39 �e2 l:tf8 40
lDxg7+ �e7 4 1 �e3 l:td8 42 �xe4 a5 (42 ... .!:txd4+ 43 �xd4 .i.b2+ 44 'iti>d5
.i.xg7 45 c5+-) 43 c5 a4 44 �e5+- Ni Hua-Nakamura, Seattle 200 1 .
Bl a2) 2 7... .i.d5 28 'ii'f5 .l:tc8 29 'ii'g6 'ii'x e5 3 0 'ii'xa6 .i.b4+ 3 1 c 3 .!:ta8 32
�5 l:.a2+ 33 'itc l .i.a3+ 34 �d l l:ta l + 3 5 �d2 lta2+ 36 �d l l:.a l +
Lupulescu-Zhigalko, Peniscola 2002. Taking the perpetual check is a smart
move.
Blb) l 9 ... lDc4 20 'ii'e l tDxe3 2 1 'ii'xe3 ..txb4 22 fxe6 0-0 23 g5 'ii'a5 24
gxh6 'ii'xa4 25 �b l fxe6 26 hxg7 .l:[f7 27 l:tg l 'ii'd7 28 .i.h3+- Crosa-Frare,
Santos 2003. Black's defenses aren't to stop White from blasting through.
82) 1 9 a5 lDc4 20 'ii'c3 'ii'e7 2 1 .i.xc4 dxc4 22 .i.d2 .i.xh l 23 .!:[xh l 'it'b7
24 :d l .i.e7 25 'ii'f3 0-0-0 26 'ii'c6+ 'ii'xc6 27 tDxc6 :d7 28 tDxe7+ l:xe7
29 .!:te l h5 30 g5 �b7 3 1 .i.e3 ltd7 32 .i.c5 �c6+ Topalov-Kasparov,
Linares 1 999.
83) 19 :h3
B3a) 1 9 . . .tt:lxa4 20 �f2
20 .. J1c8 !? (The passive undeveloping move 20... �c8? gets Black

mangled: 2 1 f5 l:tb8 22 l:tb3 tt:lb6 23 fxe6 fxe6 24 'ii'd3 <J/;fl 25 g5 hxg5 26
..ih3 tt:lc4 27 'ii'£3 + <J/;e8 28 tt:lxe6 .ixe6 29 .ixe6 l:txb4 30 'ii'xd5+
Chkhaidze-Esen, Baku 2002. White's play was logical and strong.) 2 1 .te l
h5 (2 l . . .tt:lb6 22 f5 tt:lc4 23 ..ixc4 'ii'xc4 24 fxe6 fxe6 25 tt:lxe6 'ii'xg4 26
tt:lf4 l:tc4 27 tt:lxd5 'ii'x h3 28 e6 'ii'a 3+ 29 �b l ..ixd5 30 'ii'xd5 Kim-Esen,
Peniscola 2002 and now 30 . . .l:txb4+ 3 1 .ixb4 'ii'xb4+ 32 �c 1 'ii'a 3+ 33
<J/;b 1 'ii'b4+ draws; 2 l .. ..ie7 22 f5 exf5 23 tt:lxf5 0-0 24 tt:lxe7+ 'ii'xe7 25
'ir'd4 f6 26 l:te3 fxe5 27 l:txe5 Potkin-Galkin, Krasnodar 2002; 2 l ...g6 22 f5
�g7 23 f6 .tf8 24 l1e3 tt:lb6 25 �b 1 tt:lc4 26 .txc4 'ii'xc4 27 CiPb2 h5 28 g5
aS 29 c3 a4 30 l1a l ..ic6 3 1 'ii'd3 .id7 32 'ii'xc4 l:txc4 33 l:td3±
Cheparinov-Urushadze, Batumi 2002. I'm wondering how Black's .if8 and
l:th8 will ever play the game.) 22 f5 hxg4 23 l:ta3 tt:lb6 24 fxe6 tt:lc4
(24 . . .l:th6 25 exfl+ �xfl 26 .ig3 �g 8 27 e6 'ii'd 8 28 l:te3 l:tf6 29 .ie5 tt:lc4
30 �xc4 l:txc4 3 1 'ii'e2 l:th6 32 e7 Wixe7 33 tt:lf5 'ii'e6 34 tt:lxh6+ 'ii'x h6 3 5
l:td4 �xb4 3 6 l:txc4 dxc4 37 'ii'xc4++- Shomoev-Soltanici, Ulaanbaatar
· 2002) 25 ..ixc4 dxc4 26 exfl+ <J/;xfl 27 'ii' g5 �g8 28 ltJf5 l:te8 29 l:te3 .t£3
30 l:td6 l:th7 3 1 .ic3 'i!Vb8 32 l:tg6 Wid8 33 'ii'xd8 l:txd8 34 e6+
Libiszewski-Arlandi, Pula 2003.
B3b) 19 ... l:tc8 20 ..if2 h5= Miroshnichenko-Pavlov, Alushta 2002.
B3c) 19 ... h5 20 gxh5 tt:lxa4 2 1 .if2 l:tc8 (2 l . ..l:txh5 22 f5 l:tc8 23 fxe6
tt:lc3 24 exfl+ q;xfl 25 e6+ q;g8 26 l:txc3 'ii'xc3 27 'ii'x c3 l:txc3 28 �b2
l:tc8 29 c3 Zontakh-Najer, St Petersburg 2002) 22 .ie 1 l:txh5 23 ..ie2 l:th8
24 h5 l:th6 25 l:tb3 tt:lb6 26 ..ig3 tt:lc4 27 'ii'c3 .ic6 28 f5 ..ia4 29 ..if4 'ii'd7
30 �xh6 gxh6 3 1 fxe6 fxe6 32 �g4 'ii'g 7 33 ..ixe6 'ii'g 5+ 34 q;b l tt:la3+ 3 5
l:txa3 1:1xc3 36 l:txc3± Yagupov-Biriukov, S t Petersburg 2003.
B3d) 1 9 ...tt:lc4 20 'ii'c3 l:tc8 2 1 ..id2 ..ie7 22 .te l l:tb8 23 f5 ! (White
can't afford to waste time.) 23 . . . ..ic8 24 .ixc4 dxc4 25 'ii'£3 ..id7 26 fxe6
fxe6 27 g5 hxg5?! (27 . . . h5 !? 28 c3 .ixa4 29 tt:lxe6 'ii'x e5 30 'ii'd5 'ii'xd5 3 1
l:txd5 with a slight pull according to Kasparov.) 28 hxg5 l:txh3 29 'ii'x h3±
Kasparov-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 200 1 .
6 ..te3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 'ti'd2 ti:Jbd7 9 g4 ti:Jb6 10 g5
I e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 a6 6 .ie3 e6 7 f3 b5 8

'ikd2
I believe that 8 g4! ? is the most accurate move order. 8 ... ltJfd7 (8 ... ltJbd7?
is met by 9 g5 completely upsettin g Black's chances for harmonious
development.) 9 'ii'd2 ltJb6 1 0 0-0-0 liJ8d7 I I ltJdxb5 is another way of
reaching this position.
8 ltJbd7 9 g4 ltJb6
...
Since this variation has similarities to the Keres Attack, Black hopes that
White's f3 becomes a wasted move.
10 g5
1 0 a4 !? is out of place in the English Attack. I O ... bxa4 I l ltJxa4 ltJfd7 1 2
t"Llxb6 ltJxb6 1 3 'ii'a 5 ltJd7 1 4 'ii'x d8+ �xd8;!; Rubino-Gregory, St Chely
d 'Aubrac 200 1 .
10 'ii'f2 lLlfd7 1 1 f4 .ib7 1 2 f5 .ie7?! ( 1 2 ... e5 !? looks forced and it's not
bad at all .) 1 3 fxe6 0-0 ( 1 3 ... .ih4 14 exf7+ +-) 14 0-0-0 ( 1 4 lLlf5 ! ±) 14 ... b4
1 5 exd7 bxc3 16 b3 .ixe4 1 7 .ig2 ..i.h4 1 8 'iVe2 i.xg2 1 9 ..:ixg2
Kapnisis-Simutowe, Athens 200 1 .
1 0 .id3 ..i.b7 I I 0-0-0 lLlfd7
A) 1 2 'ii'f2 .l:tc8 (Once again allowing .l:txc3 is asking for trouble.) 1 3

lLlce2 ..:ic7 14 ..tb l lLla4! (This i s the best plan here. Black's knights
menace the b2 and d3 points.) 15 l:the 1 ? ! (This move doesn't feel right on
general principle. Rooks belong on open files, it's also the beginning of an
ill fated idea. I prefer getting on with the kingside action with 1 5 h4! ? [ 1 5
lLlg3 !?] 1 5 ...lLldc5 1 6 b3 lLlxd3 1 7 cxd3 lLlc5 1 8 .l:tc 1 b4 1 9 l:thd l ..:id8 20
lLlc2 a5 Black readies the a4 push and has ..i.a6 ideas as well. 2 1 d4 lLld7 22
lLlf4 .ie7 23 g5 0-0 24 d5 e5 25 lLle2 lLlc5 26 lLlg3 g6 27 lLle1 Timofeev
Khismatullin, Vladimir 2002.) 1 5 ... ..i.e7 1 6 .te l 0-0 1 7 f4? (White's f5
push doesn 't do much neither does e5. This weakens the e4 point, gift
wra pping easy countei]J lay for Black.) 1 7 ... lLlac5 1 8 lLlg3 .l:tfe8 1 9 g5 .if8
20 lllh5 ¢>h8 2 1 e5 lllxd3 ! (Black removes the .id3 before possible h7
sacrifices occur.) 22 l:r.xd3 dxe5 23 fxe5 l:ted8 24 .l:te2 (24 'itxf7 lLlc5 25
'ii'xc7 l:r.xc7 26 l:r.d2 .l:tcd7 27 lLlb3 offers better chances of survival than in
the game.) 24 ... lLlc5 25 l:.h3 i.e4! (Attacking and taking the starch out of
anything bad happening on h7.) 26 l:r.h4 lLld3 27 ifg 1 .i.g6 28 llh3 lLlxc l
29 'itxc l 'itc4 (All of Black's pieces are better than White's.) 0- 1
Ashley-Ehlvest, World Open, Philadelphia 200 1 .
B) 1 2 'itb l .l:tc8 1 3 g5
Bl) 1 3 . . . lLle5
B l a) 14 'ii'e2 .l:txc3 1 5 bxc3 'fic7 16 f4 lLlec4?! (This is where Black lost
the thread. Black needs both knights for maximum counterplay. White
trades the useless ..i.d3 for a potential attacker. The simple retreat
1 6 . . . lLled7 !? will give Black his money's worth.) 1 7 ..i.xc4 lLlxc4 (This
knight gets in the way.) 1 8 .ic 1 .i.e? 19 .l:thfl lLlb6 20 f5 lLla4 2 1 ..i.b2 e5
22 lllb3 i.xg5 23 .l:tg 1 .if6 24 .l:tg3 o-o 25 .l:tdg l 'it>h8 26 .l:th3 h6 27 'fie3+
Thorhallsson-Shipov, Internet ICC 2000. A rare example of the l:.xc3
sacrifice failing.
Blb) 1 4 'ii'e 1 iJ..e7 1 5 h4 b4 1 6 lDce2 d5 1 7 h5 lDbc4 1 8 iJ..c 1 1i'h6 1 9

.:hc4 dxc4 20 'ii'g3 'ii'c 5 2 1 _g6 b3 22 h6 lDxg6 23 hxg7 l%g8 24 l:hh7
hxc2+ 25 ltJxc2 iLf6 26 iJ.. e3 Wb5 27 iJ..d4± Mamedov-Efimenko, Oropesa
del Mar 200 1 . Black is plagued by a bad king and no active prospects.
82) 1 3 ... b4 1 4 ltJce2 d5 1 5 g6 ! hxg6 1 6 exd5 ltJxd5 1 7 ltJxe6 fxe6 1 8
.ixg6+ <l;e7 1 9 iJ..g 5+ ltJ7f6 20 liJd4 'irb6 2 1 .l:the 1 l:tc6 22 ltJxc6+ iJ..xc6
23 i.f5 lDc3+ 24 'it>a l iJ..d5 25 iJ..xe6 1 -0 Gunnarsson-Vazquez, Havana
2002. 25 ... iJ..xe6 26 it'd? is a mate not often seen, but very pretty!
I O liJfd7
...
I I 0-0-0
1 1 f4?! hands Black easy play. f4 more often than not loosens White's
position. 1 l . . .iJ..b7 1 2 a3
A) 1 2 ... l:tc8 13 0-0-0 lDc5 14 i.d3 'ii'c 7 1 5 'it>b l lDc4? ! (Black lets White
exchange on c4, blocking Black's counterplay.) 16 .txc4 bxc4 Black's
heavy pieces are bottled up on the c-file. 17 'ii'g2 l:tb8 18 f5 'ir'a5 1 9 'it>a 1
(Avoiding Black's 'ii'x c3 trick.) 1 9 . . . e5 20 liJde2 lDxe4 2 1 lDxe4 d5 22 iJ..d2
'ii'a4 23 ltJ4c3+- Gutzeit-Caspi, Tel Aviv 2002.
B) 1 2 ... lDc5 13 .tg2 lDc4 1 4 'ii'e2 e5 1 5 lDb3 lDe6 1 6 f5 lDxe3 1 7 'ii'xe3
lDf4 1 8 'ii'g3 l%c8 1 9 iJ.. f3 h6 20 gxh6 .l:txh6+ Hatanbaatar-Short, Olympiad,
Moscow 1 994.
1 1 h4 amounts to a huge waste of time.

A) 1 l . . .b4 !? 1 2 liJd 1 d5 1 3 lDf2 iJ..b7 14 0-0-0 'ii'c 7 1 5 iLf4 iJ..d6 1 6
i.xd6 'ii'xd6 1 7 exd5 iJ..xd5 1 8 ltJe4 'ii'e7= Anka-Barczay, Paris Open 1 994.
B) 1 l .. ..tb7 1 2 0-0-0 b4 1 3 lDce2 ltJc4 14 'ii'd3 liJde5 1 5 'iib3 lDxe3 1 6
'ii'xe3 'ii'a5 1 7 'iti>b 1 ltJc4 1 8 'ii'b3 d5= Erhan-Baciu Ionescu, Romanian
Team Championship 1 994.
1 1 iJ..d3 iJ.. b7 1 2 0-0-0 .l:tc8 1 3 'it>b 1 ltJe5 14 f4 lDec4 1 5 iJ..xc4 ltJxc4+

Fogarasi-Belotti, Mitropa Cup 1 995.
I I �f2 �b7 I 2 �h3 (This move isn't very subtle at all. Piece sacrifices
on e6 are a long way from being dangerous.) I 2 ...�c4 ( I 2 ....l:.c8 ! ?
threatening the stock sacrifice .l:.xc3 can't be bad either.) I 3 0-0-0 b4 I4
�a4 it'a5 I 5 b3 �xe3 I6 �xe3 �e7 I7 �xe6 fxe6 IS �xe6 it'e5 I9 �c7+
�d8 20 f4 ..txg5!-+ Chojnacki-Czakon, Polanica Zdroj 200 1 .
I I a4 b4 ( I l . . .�xa4 ! ? I 2 �xa4 bxa4 I 3 .l:.xa4 �c5 gives Black more

prospects. 1 3 . . . �b7 ! ?) I 2 �d i a5 I 3 �b5 �c7 I4 0-0 �b7 I 5 c3 d5 I 6
.l:.c l .l:.c8 I 7 �d3 �d8 I S � f2 bxc3 1 9 .l:.xc3 .l:.xc3 20 �xc3 (Black's king
is stuck in the middle.) 20 ... e5 (20 . . . �b4 2 I �xe6+-) 2 I ti:Jf5 d4 22 ti:Jxd4
exd4 23 �xd4 �c8 24 .l:.d i ± Natali-Voekler, Baden Baden I 99 1 .
1 l . �b7
..
I I . .."itc7 I 2 h4 ti:Je5 13 �d3 b4 I4 �ce2 d5+ I 5 g6? hxg6+ Kunte

Georgiev, Istanbul 2000.
A) 1 2 �d3 ti:Je5 ( 1 2 . . ..l:.c8 ! ?) I 3 'itr>b i �bc4 I4 "ite2 �xe3 I 5 "itxe3 b4

I 6 �ce2 "itb6 I 7 f4 �d7 I S "ii'h3 g6 I9 .l:.hfl ..tg7 20 �xe6? (With the
queen being the lone attacker, this has no chance of working.) 20 . . . fxe6 2 I
'ifxe6+ 'itr>d8 22 �f7 ..tf8 23 e5 !? (White tries to open lines, but Black has a
lot of defenders nearby.) 23 ... ..te7 24 exd6 �xd6 25 �d4 'it>c8 26 �c4 �c5
27 it'g7 .l:.f8 28 it'xh7 �g2 29 .l:.fe i �xf4 30 .l:.e7 �xg5 3 I .l:.e5 �f6 32
�xg6 .l:.a7 33 .l:.e8+ .l:.xe8 34 �xeS+ it'd8 35 �xd8+ �xd8 (It might take
some time, but Black is winning easily.) 36 �c6?? ..txc6 0- I Matthews
Arencibia, Olympiad, Istanbul 2000.
B) If White managed to get in g6 then 12 h4 would be interesting, but

there was no time. I 2 ... l:tc8 I 3 h5 (This is the last we've heard of White's
attack.) I 3 ...�e5 I 4 f4 b4 I 5 fxe5 bxc3 I 6 bxc3 dxe5 I 7 �xe6 ..ta3+ I S
'itr>b I "i'xd2 I 9 �xg7+ 'ifr>f8 20 .l:.xd2 ti:Ja4 2 I ..th3 .l:.b8 22 �a7 �xg7-+
Gabrielsen-Eisness, Bergen 2000 with a winning attack despite no queens.
C) 12 a3? ! .l:.c8 I3 h4 �e5 I4 �e i ti:Jec4 I 5 �g i "i'c7 16 .l:.d3 �e7 I 7

..th3 0-0 I S .l:.h2 'ifr>h8 1 9 .l:.f2 d5 ! 20 exd5 �xd5 2 I �xd5 �xd5 2 2 �h2
'1Wb7 23 f4 �e4 24 .l:.d i b4 25 a4 b3 !-+ Sander-Sakaev, Copenhagen 2003.
D) 1 2 �bl l:.c8 13 'ii'f2 l:.xc3 ! 1 4 bxc3 ltJa4 15 ltJe2 'ii'c7 16 ..ic l ..ie7
1 7 'ii'd4 0-0 1 8 ..ia3 ltJdc5 1 9 c4 bxc4 20 ltJc3 ltJxc3+ 2 1 'ii'x c3 d5 22 ..ib2
f6 23 exd5 i.xd5-+ Quarracino-Panno, Villa Martelli 200 1 .
E) 1 2 'ii'g2 ! ? (With g6 sac ideas.) 1 2 ...ltJe5 ! ? ( 1 2 ....l:.c8 ! ?, setting up the
exchange sac, 1 3 g6! hxg6?? ( 1 3 ... .l:.xc3 1 4 gxf7+ 'it>xf7 1 5 bxc3) 14 lll xe6
fxe6 1 5 'ii'xg6+ 'it>e7 1 6 i.g5+ lLlf6 1 7 e5+-) 1 3 �b l l:.c8 1 4 ltJce2 �c7 1 5
ltJg3 d 5 1 6 i.e 1 ltJec4 1 7 i.d3 i.c5 1 8 lLlb3 ..ie3+ Leko-Hoffmann,
Lippstadt 1 993.
The Knight Sacrifice: 6 i.e3 e6 7 f3 bS
8 'ti'd2 ttJbd7 9 g4 ttJb6 10 0-0-0 ttJfd7
1 1 ttJdxbS !?
1 e4 cS 2 ti:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ti:Jxd4 ti:Jf6 5 ti:Jc3 a6 6 �e3 e6

Black adopts a solid Scheveningen-type setup attempting to get into a
Keres Attack where White's f3 is a wasted tempo.
7 f3 bS 8 'it'd2 ti:Jbd7 9 g4 ti:Jb6 10 0-0-0 ti:Jfd7
1 0 . . . i..b7
.A) 1 1 �b 1
Al) 1 1 . . ..l:tc8 1 2 �f2 d5? ( 1 2 . . . .l:txc3 ! 1 3 bxc3 ti:Ja4+) 1 3 ti:Jxe6 fxe6 1 4

i..xb6+- Navarro-Castillo Delgado, Merida 2003.
A2) 1 l . . .ti:Jfd7 12 i..g5 !? 'ifc8?! (I hate this move on general principles (!S
a 'non-Sicil ian move' On 1 2 . . .'ifc7 !? Black must've been afraid of
something takes b5.) 1 3 'ii'f2 b4 14 ltJce2 d5 1 5 ltJg3 'iic 7 16 i..d3 ti:Je5 1 7
l4he 1 ltJxd3 1 8 l4xd3 i..c 5 1 9 ltJh5 0-0 20 i..f6 ! ! 20. . .gxf6 2 1 Wd2 1 -0
Mulyar-Ashley, Framingham USA 200 1 .
B) 1 1 ltJb3 .l:.c8 1 2 ltJa5 (When Black's bishop has a8 for a retreat square
then White's ltJa5 idea is doomed to failure.) 1 2 . . . i..a 8 1 3 g5 liJfd7 1 4 a4?
(I find this very hard to believe! Whatever happened to king safety?) 14 . . . b4
( 1 4 . . . ti:Je5 ! 1 5 axb5 ti:Jxf3 1 6 'ii'f2 tt:Ja4+ gives Black a very strong attack.)
1 5 ti:Ja2 ltJxa4 1 6 i..xa6 'ifxa5 ( 1 6 .. J�b8 !?) 1 7 i..x c8 liJdb6 1 8 i..xe6 fxe6
1 9 'ifxb4 'it'xb4 20 ti:Jxb4 ti:Jc4 2 1 i..d4 e5 22 b3 exd4 23 bxa4;t Perez
Novikov, Valle d'Aosta 2002.
l l lt:ldxbS!?
White attempts to take advantage of Black's lack of development with
this piece sacrifice. For 1 1 iff2 see under 9 ifd2 chapter.
1 1 �g5 !? is not a bad idea at all. This probing move discourages Black
from �e7 and slows down development. After 1 l .. .ifc7! Black shouldn 't
fear the b5 piece sacrifice 12 lt:ldxb5 ( 1 2 'it>b 1 �b7 13 lt:ldxb5 axb5 14
lt:lxb5 'Wc5 [ 1 4 ... �8 Black shouldn't give White any alternatives.) 1 5 b4
White uses the queen's exposed position, but Black is in position to block
the passers. [ 1 5 �e3 ! ?] 1 5 .. .'ii'c6 16 t:bxd6+ �xd6 1 7 'ii'xd6 'ii'xd6 1 8 l:lxd6
lt:la4 1 9 'it>c 1 �c8 20 �b5 lt:lc3 2 1 �xd7+ �xd7 22 'iti>b2 l:lc8 23 �d2
lt:la4+ 24 'it>b3 �b5 25 l:ld4 lt:lb6 Svidler-Georgiev, Istanbul 2000. Black's
pieces are stronger than White's pawns.) 1 2 . . .axb5 1 3 lt:lxb5 �8. Compare
this to the lt:lxb5 sacs in the other part of this chapter and we'll see a big
difference: 1 4 lt:lxd6+ �xd6 1 5 ifxd6 'Wxd6 16 l:.xd6
A) 1 6 ... �a6 1 7 �xa6 l:lxa6 1 8 a3 h5

Al) 19 h4 hxg4 20 fxg4 f6 21 �e3 'it>e7 22 l:.hd 1 l:lb8?! (Black's pieces
are tied down and passive. 22 . . . l:lxh4 ! ?.) 23 l:lc6± Smimov-Shipov, Elista
200 1 ;
A2) 1 9 gxh5 l:f.a5 20 h4 lLlc4 2 1 l:f.c6 l:f.c5 22 l:f.xc5 lLlxc5 23 b3 lLlxa3 24

h6 gxh6 25 �e3 lLlb7 26 'it>b2 lLlb5 27 e5 l:tg8+ Ponomariov-Svidler,
Moscow 200 1 ;
B) 16 ... l:f.xa2 1 7 'it>b 1 l:f.a5 ( 1 7 . . . l:f.a8 1 8 �b5 l:f.b8 1 9 l:f.hd 1 f6 20 �e3
'it>e7 2 1 l:f.c6 lLld5 !? Black attempts to unravel by tactical means. 22 exd5
l:f.xb5 23 dxe6 lLle5 24 �c5+ l:f.xc5 25 l:f.xc5 g5 26 c4 'it>xe6 27 l:f.c7 �a6 28
b3 l:f.b8= A.Horvath-Franco Alonso, Athens 200 1 . Black's king is secure
and the two minor pieces will provide good play.) 1 8 �d2 l:f.a7 1 9 �b5
'it>d8 20 l:f.d 1 'it>c7 2 1 ..tf4 e5 22 �e3 l:f.b7 Kunte-Sasikiran, Nagpur 2002.
l l axb5 12 lLlxb5
...
This should be considered the starting point for this chapter. For a while it
looked like this was going to be a main line but it's rarely seen. At the
moment White has two pawns for the piece but Black's development is
lagging and White threatens to capture d6 as well. White has had very good
results in practice but matters are far from clear.
12 ..ta6
..•
· 1 2 . . . lLle5 !?
This move is crucial to the entire variation. 1 3 'ii'c3 (In most situations
'ii'c3 is a real killer but here it's not sure) 1 3 . . .lLla4 1 4 lLlc7+? (One thing is
certain . . . this is not the solution. 14 'ii'c7 !? is a much better try but things are
far from clear.) 1 4 ... .i.d7 1 5 ltlxd6+ .ixd6 1 6 _.xd6 ltlxf3 1 7 .ie2 ltlh4
Analysis engines prefer Black but it could be the material situation not the
position. 1 4 ... �e7 1 5 _.xe5 'ihc7 White's attack has ended and now the
position is completely lost.) 1 6 _.d4 e5 1 7 'ifb4 .id7 1 8 .ib5 .ixb5 1 9
'Wxb5 �8 20 l:[d5 'ii'xb5 2 1 l:[xb5 �e6 22 l:[d l .ie7 23 l:[d3 l:[hb8-+
Yakovich-Komiagina, Serpukhov 2003.
1 2 . . . d5? (This move illustrates some problems with Black's game.)
1 3 'ii'c3 ! (The start of a long and beautiful sequence from White where
Black's pieces are helpless against his onslaught.) 1 3 ... :xa2 14 �b l ltla4
1 5 lbc7+ rj;e7 1 6 'Wb4+ �f6 1 7 e5+ �g6 1 8 .id3+ f5 1 9 gxf5+ cj;f7
( 1 9 ... exf5 20 .ixf5+ ri;fl 2 1 .i.e6+ mates) 20 fxe6+ �g8 2 1 'ii'f4 l:[xb2+ 22
�c l ltlxe5 23 -.xe5 .id6 24 'ii'x g7+ ! ! 24 ... �xg7 25 l:[hg l + �f6 26 .ig5+
�e5 27 l:[de l + ..t>d4 28 .ie3+ �e5 29 f4+ ..t>f6 30 .id4+ �e7 3 1 l:[g7+
Vasquez-Jaime Montalvan, Malaga 2003 . A well played attack by White.
1 2 . . . .tb7 l 3 ltlxd6+ .ixd6 14 'ii'xd6 (A frequent theme in this line is
White's three connected passed pawns vs Black's uncoordinated pieces.)
14 ... ltlc8 1 5 'ifb4 .ic6 1 6 �b 1 -.r6 1 7 .ie2 l:[b8 1 8 'ii'd4 0-0 19 'ii'xf6
ltlxf6 20 b3 ltle7 2 1 l:[d6 l:[fc8 22 �b2 :as 23 c4 ltle8 24 l:[d2±
Potkin-Deepan, Goa 2002.
1 2 ...nxa2 1 3 �b 1
A) 1 3 ... I:.a8 1 4 'ii'c3 ! (Black has no defense. I'm surprised by Grischuk's

choice of 14 lDxd6+ but the result can't be questioned: 14 ... i..xd6 1 5 'i'xd6
lDa4 1 6 i..b5 'iie7 1 7 'ii'd4 e5 1 8 'iid 5 lDc3+ 1 9 bxc3 l:tb8 20 l:[d3 0-0 2 1 c4
lDb6 22 'i!Vc5 'ii'f6 23 g5 1 -0 Grischuk-Dvoirys, Moscow 2002.) 14 ... lDa4
1 5 lDc7+ ri;e7 16 'ii'c6 I:.a5 1 7 'ii'xd6+ �f6 1 8 e5+ ±.
B) 1 3 . . .l:txb2+! ?
One would assume preparation but do we believe it? 1 4 �xb2 (Black has
prevented 'i!Vc3 at any rate.) 1 4 ... d5 1 5 i..f4 i..c5 1 6 lDd6+ 'itf8 1 7 lDxc8
'fi'xc8 1 8 l:ta l e5 1 9 i..e3 d4 20 i..f2 'ii'c6 2 1 '�te l (2 1 'it'a5 !?, preparing
queen swap offers and defending the queenside, makes sense. At the very
least White is OK.) 2 l ...h5 22 g5 i.. e7 23 h4 lDc5 24 �d l lDca4 Fantin
Fedorchuk, Sautron 2002. White's position is very disjointed and Black's
very solid. The evaluation would have to be the dreaded dynamically equal.
12 ...l:tb8?! 13 lDxd6+ i..xd6 1 4 'it'xd6 'it'e7 15 i..b5 "ir'xd6 16 I:.xd6 <t;e7

1 7 I:.hd l h5 1 8 g5 ! (White shuts down Black's only active chance and
keeps control in the center.) 1 8 . . . lDd5 1 9 l:txd7+ i..xd7 20 i..c 5+ 'ite8 2 1
i..xd7+ 'itxd7 22 exd5 exd5 23 i..d4 l:thg8 24 a4± Naiditsch-De Gleria,
Essen 2002. White's passed pawns are moving and Black has zero
counterplay.
1 2 ... i..e7 13 lDxd6+ i..xd6 14 'ii'xd6 l:txa2 1 5 �b l l:ta8 1 6 i..b5 This is

the type of thing Black must avoid. Just look at White's development and
piece coordination compared to Black's. It's almost zugzwang with a lot of
pieces on the board !
13 lDxd6+ i.xd6 14 'iix d6 lDc4 I S i..xc4 i..xc4

16 a3! ?
Not a s forcing as 1 6 'ii'd4 but very reasonable. 1 6 'ii'd4 ! i s absolutely the
most aggressive choice but one with some pitfalls. 1 6 . . .lha2 (From what I
can tell the first game played with this sacrifice went 1 6 ... ..te2 1 7 'ii'xg7
'ii'f6 1 8 fl'xf6 lbxf6 1 9 l:lde 1 ..ixf3 20 l:lhfl ..ixg4 2 1 ..id4! [This fine move
ends any hopes for counterplay.] 2 1 . . .l'ha2 22 'iti>b 1 l:la8 23 ..ixf6+
Shirov-K Georgiev Dubai 2002) 1 7 �b 1
A) 1 7 . . . 1:1a8 1 8 'ii'x g7 l:lf8 1 9 ..ic5 fl'c7 ( 1 9 . . .'ii'a5 ! ? looks very obvious

and strong, e.g. 20 ..ia3 ..ie2 2 1 l:lxd7 �xd7 22 'ii'd4+ �c8 23 'ii'd6 l:ld8 24
'iVc6+ �b8 25 ..id6+ l:lxd6 26 'ii'xd6+ �b7 27 'ii'd7+ 'ii'c 7 28 'ii'xc7+
'it>xc7-+) 20 ..id6 'ii'b6 (20. . . 'ii'a 5 ! is the same as above.) 2 1 'ii'c3 l:c8 22
'ii'd2 l:g8 23 ..ia3 lbe5 24 'ii'f4 lDg6 25 'ii'f6 'ii'b5 26 'ii'd4 ..ie2 27 l:d2
..ixf3 28 l:r.g 1 'ii'c4 29 'ii'd 7 1 -0 Z.Aimasi-Berkes, Heviz 2003.
B) 1 7 . . .'ii'c 8 is yet another unclear mess.
1 6 l:ld4 ..ie2 1 7 a4 e5 1 8 :b4 'ii'e7 1 9 'ii'xe7+ 'it>xe7 20 f4 exf4 2 1 i.xf4

..ixg4 22 :g J h5 23 b3+ was a 30 minute game, Nakamura-Wojtkiewicz,
New York 2003 . Black should be slightly better but White has good
practical chances.
16 .te2!?
...
I was very interested in this position as in a later round I was considering

playing it against Atalik. Unfortunately he played 1 d4 and my preparation
has gone unused. The move we see here ( 16 ... i.e2) is a bit too greedy and
gives White unnecessary chances.
1 6 ... e5 17 .l:ld2 .te6 1 8 .l:lhd 1 g5 1 9 'ii'c6 l:tc8 20 �5 (Setting up .l:lxd7
followed by 'ii'e5 shots.) 20 .. J:tg8 2 1 .l:ld3 l:tg6 22 a4 'iic7 23 l:tc3 i.c4
(23 ... �8!? is forced and not bad at all.) 24 .l:lxc4 'ii'xc4 25 'ii'xd7+ �f8 26
c3 .l:lgc6 (26 ... h6 27 �5 ifxb5 28 axb5 .l:lf6 29 i.a7+-) 27 i.xg5 ifxa4 28
i.h6+ was Atalik-Wojtkiewicz, San Francisco 2002.
16 . . ..l:lc8!? This makes more sense. Black can get play on the c file and
gets ready for ife7.
16 . . .'iic8 ! ? 1 7 .l:ld2 l::ta6 1 8 �4 e5 1 9 l::thd 1 .te6 20 g5 .l:lc6 2 1 'it>b 1 .l:lc4
22 ifd6 l:.c6 23 ifb4 l::tc4 24 ifd6 •h- •h Karjakin-Anand, Benidorm 2003.
17 l:.d2 i.xf3 18 l::tn i.xe4
19 'iid4
19 .l:lfd 1 i.d5 20 .l:lxd5 20 ... exd5 2 1 l:.e 1 ! +- Goloshchapov-Aroshidze,
Batumi 2002.
1 9 ..ig5 f6 20 'ihe6+ 'il/e7 2 1 'il/xe7+ ri;xe7 22 :e2 liJc5 23 ..id2 :he8

24 :re 1 �d6 25 b4 l::txa3 26 bxc5+ �d5 27 .tb4 :a 1 + 28 ri;b2 •h- •h
Lutz-Gelfand, Budapest 2003.
19 ...liJf6 20 :xf6 'illxf6 21 'il/xe4 0-0 22 .td4 'il/g5 23 i.e3 'illh4 24 ..if2
'illh3 25 ..id4 h6 26 'il/g2 'illh4 27 'il/g3 'il/g5 28 h4 'illd 5 29 'il/e5 'il/xe5 30
i.xe5±
Farakov-Panarin, Russian Junior Championship 2003.
6 .ie3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 b4 ! ?
I e4 c5 2 lt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:lxd4 lt:lf6 5 lt:lc3 a6 6 ..ie3 e6 7 f3 b5 8

g4 b4 !?
This line is one of Black's most aggressive tries. I believe it was first
analyzed and played by Cuban grandmasters. As we will see, many of these
games were played by them. Black meets White's flank action with his
own. One drawback of this is Black's under-developed position and
because of this the second player should make king safety a priority. Even
with the numerous examples more tests are needed.
9 lt:la4
The most aggressive of the 9th move alternatives appears to be this and 9
lt:lb L. In my opinion White should always opt for the sharpest plan. Slow
play gives Black a comfortable game.
9 lt:lce2
A) 9 ... h6
AI) 1 0 lt:lg3 e5
Ala) l l liJdf5 i.e6 1 2 _g 5 hxg5 1 3 i.xg5 lDc6 1 4 f4 'ifb6 1 5 ..e2 lDd4

1 6 'ii'd3 lDxf5 1 7 lDxf5 l2Jg4 1 8 ..e2 i.xf5 1 9 exf5 ..e3 ! 20 ..xe3 (20
h3 ! ?) 20... l2Jxe3 2 1 i.d3 f6 22 �f2 fxg5 23 'it>xe3 gxf4H Gonzalez-Vera,
Las Tunas 200 l .
Alb) l l lDb3 i.e6 1 2 i.d3 ( 1 2 'ii'd2 lDc6 l 3 0-0-0 d5 1 4 exd5 i.xd5 1 5
�g2 'ilc7 1 6 liJh5 i.e6 1 7 lDxf6+ gxf6 1 8 �b l lDa5 1 9 ..f2 lDc4 20 i.c5
�c8 2 1 i.xffl �xffl 22 lDc l a5 23 liJd3 'ifb6+ Gonzalez-Dominguez, Las
Tunas 200 1 . Black is active and White's i.g2 is no bargain.) l 2 . . . liJbd7 1 3
'ir'e2 a 5 1 4 h4 ( 1 4 i.c4 ! ? 'ilc7 1 5 liJd2 d 5 1 6 exd5! Komeev-Vera, Coria
del Rio 200 1 . As we've seen many times in this variation, White 's lead in
development counts.) l 4 . . ...c7 l 5 lDd2 a4 l 6 lDc4 lDc5 1 7 i.d2 �b8 1 8 b3
d5 1 9 exd5 lDxd5 Lutz-Anand, Baden Oos 2003. Despite the double-edged
nature of the position, equal chances is the correct evaluation. Black's
position is very active but White remains solid.
A2) 10 ..d2 ! ? allows White to castle into safety quickly if need be. Then
l O . . . e5.
A2a) l l lDf5 d5 1 2 0-0-0 ( 1 2 �d l ! ? White's king is better off on the

kings ide.)
A2al) l 2 .....a5 l 3 �b l i.e6 l 4 lDc l d4 ( l 4 ... dxe4 ! 1 5 liJd6+ i.xd6 1 6

..xd6 liJbd7+) 1 5 i. f2 g6 1 6 l2Jg3 liJbd7 1 7 h4
A2al a) 1 7 . ..loc5 1 8 lDb3 ! �6 1 9 lLlxc5 .i.xc5 20 �h3 a5 (20 . . . 0-0-0!?

The safest place for the king without question is on the queenside. Black is
OK here.) 21 g5 .i.xh3 22 lhh3 hxg5 23 'ihg5 'ii'e6 24 f4 .i.e7 25 f5
tDxe4? (Black misjudges the position and his game falls apart. 25 ...'iVd7! ?+)
26 tDxe4 gxf5 27 'iVg7 0-0-0 28 lDg5 'iVd5 29 'ii'xf7+- Abreu-Contreras,
Cali 200 1 .
A2al b) 1 7 . . J:tc8 1 8 .i.d3 tDc5 1 9 g5 tDxd3 20 'ii'xd3 hxg5 2 1 hxg5 .l:txh 1
22 .l:txh 1 tDd7+ White has trouble finding active play. Nunn-Situru,
Olympiad, Moscow 1 994.
A2a2) 1 2 ... .i.e6 1 3 �b 1 lDbd7
A2a2 1 ) 1 4 exd5 ..txd5 ( 1 4 ... tDxd5 1 5 tDc 1 'ii'c7 16 .i.d3 .l:tb8 1 7 �a 1
tDc3 1 8 bxc3 bxc3 1 9 'ii'e 1 g6 20 lDd4 exd4 2 1 ..txd4 .i.a3 22 lDb3 ..tb2+
23 �b1 .l:tg8 24 f4 'iVxf4 25 .i.c4± Uribe-Arencibia, Cali 200 1 ) 1 5 .i.g2
.l:tc8 1 6 tDc 1 'ii'c7 1 7 l:the 1 .i.e6 1 8 h3 h5 1 9 lDg3 g6 20 gxh5 tDxh5 2 1
tDxh5 .l:txh5 22 f4± Komeev-Vera, Seville 200 1 . Black's king has no safe
home anywhere.
A2a22) 14 tDc 1 'ii'c 7 1 5 .i.d3 d4 1 6 ..tf2 g6 1 7 lDg3 tDc5 1 8 h4 tDa4 1 9
lDb3 lDd7 20 tDe2 .l:tb8 2 1 g5 a5 22 �a 1 hxg5 23 hxg5 .l:txh 1 24 .l:txh 1
tDxb2?! 25 �xb2 a4 26 lDbxd4 ! exd4 27 tDxd4 b3 28 axb3;!; Moreno
Camero-Vera, Seville 200 1 .
A2b) 1 1 lDb3 a5 ( 1 l . ..d5 1 2 0-0-0 .i.e6 1 3 ..tc5 lDbd7 1 4 ..txf8 l:txf8 1 5
'iVxb4 dxe4 1 6 tDa5 � 6 1 7 'itxb6 lLlxb6 1 8 .l:td6 lLlc8 1 9 .l:td2 exf3 20 lLlc3
lLlxg4 2 1 .i.h3 f5 22 l:tfl lLle7 23 l:txf3 e4 24 l:tfl e3 25 .l:td6 .i.g8 26 .l:te 1
.l:U6 27 l:.xf6 lLlxf6 28 lhe3= Beck-Matic, Budva 2003) 1 2 .l:td 1 a4 1 3
lDbc 1 lLlc6 1 4 lDg3 'iVa5 1 5 lLlf5 .i.xf5 1 6 gxf5 d5!? (Black strikes in the
center before White plays .i.c4.) 1 7 exd5 0-0-0 1 8 �c4 �c5 1 9 .i.xc5
'ii'xc5 20 lL:ld3 'ii'xc4 2 1 dxc6 e4 22 'iVxb4 'iVxc6 23 'iVc5 ! (Just in time! If
White couldn't force a queen trade his king would have a terrible time.)
23 . . .'iVxc5 24 tDxc5 .:.xd 1 + 25 �xd 1 .l:td8+ 26 �e2 exf3+ 27 �xf3;!;
Zhigalko-Svidler, Rethymnon 2003.
A3) 10 c4 !? attempting to lock up the queenside where Black is playing.
'
A3a) After 1 0 ...bxc3?! 1 1 tDxc3 Black is slightly behind in development

but with a real problem what to do.
Th e English A ttack 1 79
A3al) 1 l . ..�b7 1 2 1i'b3 ! (Causing a serious dicombobulation of Black 's

forces.) 12 ... �c8 (This undevelo ping move is necessary and unfortunate.
12 ... 'ii'c 7 1 3 l:tc 1 ±; 1 2 ...'il'd7 1 3 lLia4±. These two evaluations are on the
kind side.) 1 3 0-0-0 lLibd7 1 4 h4 lLic5 1 5 'ifc2 lLifd7 1 6 ..t>b 1 'ilb6 1 7 lLib3
'iib4 1 8 ltJxc5 lLixc5 1 9 a3 'il'a5 20 �c4 .!:[b8 2 1 ..t>a2± White's king is snug
while Black's lacks a safe home, Karjakin-Sakaev, Internet 2003.
A3a2) 1 l . . .e5 1 2 lLib3 �e6 1 3 'il'd2 lLibd7 14 h4 lLib6 1 5 0-0-0 (White's
king heads to safety while Black's king prepares to suffer.) 1 5 . . . ltJ fd7 1 6
..t>b 1 a 5 1 7 ltJd5 a4 1 8 lLixb6 axb3 1 9 lLixa8 bxa2+ 20 �a 1 ± (White needs
to keep an eye on the lLlc5 going to b3+.) 20 ...'ii'xa8 2 1 l:lc l 1l..e7 22 1l..c4
0-0 23 g5 �xc4 24 :xc4 h5 25 :c7 1 -0 Lutz-Berkes, Budapest 2003.
A3b) 10 ... ltJbd7 1 1 h4 'il'c7 12 �h3 e5 13 lLif5 g6 1 4 lLifg3 lLic5 1 5 'il'd2
�e6 1 6 b3 a5 1 7 �g2 l:tb8 1 8 0-0 ltJfd7 1 9 g5 hxg5 20 hxg5 ..ie7+
Naiditsch-Kulaots, Istanbul 2003. White's only break is f4 when, after
exchanges, Black has a strong outpost on e5.
A4) 1 0 ..ig2 e5 1 1 lLif5 g6 ( 1 l . . ...ie6 1 2 ..if2 d5 1 3 exd5 'il'xd5 1 4 0-0
lLibd7 1 5 c3 'ii'xd 1 1 6 l:[fxd 1 �xf5 1 7 gxf5 .!:[c8 1 8 :ac 1 bxc3 1 9 lLixc3
..ic5 20 �xc5 :xc5 2 1 ltJd5 ! Axe 1 22 .!:[xc 1 Q-0 23 lLixf6+ lLixf6 24 �fl
aS 25 llc5± winning a pawn and forcing Black into a passive situation,
Motylev-Shipov, Elista 200 1 .) 1 2 lLifg3 �e6
A4a) 1 3 0-0 tiJbd7 ( 1 3 . . . dS ! ? looks thematic at this point.) 1 4 h3 hS?!

(Again 1 4 ... dS !? looks fine.) 1 S c3 (Now it's too late for dS and Black has
problems.) 1 S . . ..l:tb8 1 6 cxb4 h4 1 7 tiJh 1 dS 1 8 a3 d4 1 9 ..id2 aS 20 tiJf2
axb4 2 1 f4 ..ic4 22 b3 ..ibS 23 axb4 ..id6 24 .l:te 1 'ifb6 2S liJc 1 �f8 26
tiJcd3± Abreu-Herrera, Holguin City 2002.
A4b) 1 3 h3 hS 1 4 gS ( 1 4 0-0, ke e.ping the tension, is better. See the above
game.) 14 . . . h4 1 S _gxf6 hxg3 1 6 lfd2 lUc6 1 7 f4 .l:tc8 1 8 lUxg3 exf4 1 9
..ixf4 'tixf6 20 eS tUxeS 2 1 tiJe4 'ii'h4+ 22 ..ig3 'ii'e7 (Due to his safer king
Black has slightly the better of matters in an extremely sharp position.) 23
.l:td 1 .l:txh3 24 .l:txh3 ..ixh3 2S liJxd6+ 'ir'xd6 26 'ir'xd6 ..ixd6 27 i..xh3
tiJf3+-+ Arizmendi Martinez-Cvitan, Biel 200 1 .
A4c) 1 3 h4 tiJbd7 1 4 'i!Vd2 .l:tc8 1 S b3 dS 1 6 0-0-0 d4 1 7 i..f2 lUeS 1 8
'it>b 1 tiJfd7 1 9 f4 ! (This move causes serious problems for Black as White
blasts open the position with the guy still on e8.) 1 9 . . . ..ixg4 20 fxeS ..ig7 2 1
..ixd4 ..txeS 22 hS gS 23 tiJfS ..ixfS 24 exfS aS 2S ..ixeS tUxeS 26 'ii'e3
'i!Ve7 27 f6 'i!Vxf6 28 ..ih3 0-0 (28 . . ..l:tc7 29 .l:tdS+-) 29 ..ixc8± Abreu-Borges
Mateos, Havana 2002.
B) 9 . . . eS
Bl) 1 0 tiJfS dS? (Walking into a strong and obvious continuation.) 1 1 gS
dxe4 1 2 'i!Vxd8+ 'it>xd8 1 3 gxf6 ..ixfS 1 4 fxg7 ..ixg7 1 S liJg3 i.e6 1 6 0-0-0+
'it>c7 1 7 tUxe4 h6 1 8 .l:tg 1 ..if8 1 9 f4+- Black's king is under siege, Justin
Dezelak, Slovenian Team Championship l 99S.
B2) 10 tiJb3
B2a) 10 ... ..ie6 1 1 gS tiJfd7 1 2 'i!Vd2 aS 1 3 f4 ! (If White succeeds in

hunting down the i.e6 White would control the light squares.) 1 3 . . . a4 1 4 fS
i.c4 1 S lUbe I 'i!VaS 16 tiJg3 dS 1 7 exdS ..ixdS 1 8 i..g2 ..ixg2 1 9 'i!Vxg2 a3
20 tiJb3 axb2 2 1 .l:tb 1 'i!Va6 22 .l:txb2 ..ie7 23 ltJe4 0-0 24 f6 ..id8 2S fxg7
'it>xg7± Gelfand-J.Polgar, Pacs 2003.
B2b) 10 . . . h6 1 1 c4 !? (Locking the queenside.) 1 l ...i.. e6 ( l l .. .bxc3?! 1 2
tUxc3! White has a lead in development with the position wide open.) 1 2
tiJg3 tiJbd7 1 3 i.e2 ( 1 3 tiJfS ! ? 'i!Vc7 1 4 'i!Vd2! intending to pile up on d6.)
1 3 . . . g6 14 h4 tiJb6 1S .l:tc 1 hS 16 gS tiJfd7 1 7 f4 ( 1 7 tiJaS ! ?± 'i!Vc7 18 ..id2)
17 . . . exf4 1 8 �xf4 �g7 19 tlJd4 �e5 20 tDxe6 fxe6 21 i.xe5 tDxe5 22 0-0;!;
Safranska-Iosif, Romania 1 994.
B2c) 1 0 ... a5 1 1 g5 tDfd7 1 2 tlJg3 (White has the possibility of 1 2 1lfd5 !
.l:ta6 1 3 tlJg3±; also 1 2 a3 ! ?) 1 2 ...tlJb6 1 3 �b5+ (White should keep this
move in reserve; 13 1i'd2 !?) 13 ... �d7 14 1lfe2 ( 1 4 1i'd3 !? saves time over
the game continuation.) 1 4 ... a4 1 5 tlJd2 tDc6 1 6 h4 .l:tc8 1 7 1i'd3 ttJd4 1 8
i.xd7+ tDxd7 1 9 i.xd4 exd4 20 tDe2 (20 tDf5 ! ? tDe5 2 1 1lfa6±) 20 . . . h6 2 1
gxh6 .l:txh6 with a dynamic position where both sides have chances.
Brunner-Blechzin, Dortmund 1 993 .
B2d) 1 O . . . �b7 1 1 tlJg3 h5?! (Inconsistent with Black's b4 plan.) 1 2 gxh5
( 1 2 g5 !? ttJfd7 1 3 tDf5 'ikc7 [ 1 3 . . . tDb6?! 1 4 ttJa5 !±] 14 'ii'd2;!;) 1 2 . . . tDxh5
1 3 tDxh5 .l:txh5 14 'ikd2 d5 1 5 0-0-0 d4 16 �f2 �e7 1 7 �b l tlJd7 1 8 �d3
g5 ( 1 8 ... a5! ?) 1 9 h4 'ikb6 20 'ii'e2 .l:th6 2 1 hxg5 �xg5 22 l:.xh6 �xh6 23
liJd2;!; Komeev-Pavlov, Novgorod Open 1 995.
9 tDb l ! ?
This move combined with c4 deserves serious attention. 9 . . . e5 1 0 tDf5

�e6 1 1 c4 (If Black doesn't capture en passant then White gets a Maroczy
Bind type grip.) l l . . .bxc3 1 2 liJxc3 g6 1 3 .l:tc l ! ? (Certainly an interesting
piece sac. Whether it should work or not is a good question. I see nothing
wrong with 1 3 tlJg3 as a safe try.) 1 3 ... gxf5 14 exf5 d5 (If Black has to give
back the piece like this then he should've declined White's offer. 14 . . . i.c8
1 5 g5 tlJbd7 16 gxf6 tDxf6 isn't bad; 14 ... �d7 ! ? 1 5 g5 �c6 16 gxf6 d5
looks like the best way to return the piece.) 1 5 fxe6 fxe6 1 6 g5 liJh5 1 7
�h3 ! 1 7 ... tlJg7 (Black's position i s an absolute shambles.) 1 8 tDxd5 1lfxd5
1 9 l:.c8+ �f7 20 0-0 l:.g8 2 1 f4 1lfxd l 22 l:.xd l �e7 23 l:.xg8 �xg8 24
�g2 exf4 25 �xf4+- Brendel-Landgren, Stockholm 2002.
9 �d7! ?
...
Putting the pressure on White before things get too comfortable.

IO c4
l O b3 ! ? .ixa4 1 1 bxa4 'ilc7 1 2 'ild2 ( 1 2 .ig2 tt::lc6 1 3 0-0 1L.e7 1 4 g5
tt::ld7 1 5 f4 tt::lb6 1 6 tt::lxc6 tt::lc4 1 7 ,.d4 tt::lxe3 1 8 'ikxg7 l:tf8 1 9 tt::lxe7 tt::lx fl
20 l:txfl ,.xe7+ Zhang Pengxiang-Svidler, Shanghai 200 1 ) 12 ... h6 l 3 .ie2
tt::lbd7 14 0-0-0? ! A very strange decision and one that's not good for
White's health. ( 1 4 0-0 is not much better: 1 4 ... d5 1 5 exd5 tt::lxd5 1 6 f4
.ic5+) 14 . . . d5 1 5 h4 dxe4 1 6 g5 tt::ld 5 1 7 fxe4 'ii'c3 1 8 tt::lb3 'ii'xd2+ 1 9
1L.xd2 lL!c3 20 .ixc3 bxc3 2 1 g6 fxg6 22 .l:.h3 .ib4 2 3 �b 1 lL!e5 24 a3 .ie7
25 l:txc3 0-0 26 l:tc7 .ixh4-+ Garcia-Bruzon, Cali 2000. It's just a matter of
time before Black's kingside pawns get rolling.
IO ...'ii'aS I I b3 .ixa4 I 2 bxa4 h6 13 .ig2 lL!bd7 I4 0-0 l:tc8 IS f4 .ie7
I6 gS hxgS I7 fxgS lL!hS IS g6 lL!hf6 I9 gxf7+ �xf7 20 'ikg4 lL!f8 2 I 1i'g3
'fles 22 i ' f'xeS 1/z- 1/z
Bacrot-Lutz, Biel 2003.
6 J.e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 tlJfd7 9 1\Yd2 ..tb7
1 0 0-0-0 tt:Jb6 1 1 tt:Jb3
1 e4 cS 2 tt'lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 tt'lf6 5 tt'lc3 a6 6 .ie3 e6 7 f3 bS 8
g4 !?
The most accurate move order. The text prevents Black from playing
tt'lbd7 to b6 with a more harmonious development.
8 tt'lfd7
...
Sooner or later Black must play this.

9 'Wd2 .ib7
9 . .tt'lb6 10 a4 ! ? (This non-threatening move shouldn't rock Black's boat
.
but it is an alternative tried by some super GMs.) I O ...bxa4 I I tt'lxa4 tt'lxa4

1 2 :xa4 .ie7
A) 1 3 g5 ! ? A slight improvement over Anand-Kasparov below. 1 3 0-0 ...
1 4 h4 .id7 ( 1 4 . . ..ib7 !?, continuing in similar fashion to Kasparov, was

advised.) 1 5 :a t tt'lc6 1 6 :xa6 'ilc7 ( 1 6. . . nxa6 1 7 .ixa6 'ii'a 8 is a better
attempt to scrape up compensation. Then 1 8 tt:lxc6 i.xc6 1 9 i.e2 d5 20

exd5 i.xd5 2 1 'it>f2 l:tb8 22 'it'c 1 'ifb7 with some play according to
Topalov. Anand was sceptical and I don 't blame him. The two passers will
get going sooner or later.) 1 7 �f2 tt:lxd4 1 8 i.xd4 e5 1 9 i.e3 l:txa6 20
i.xa6 f5 2 1 gxf6 i.xf6 22 'ii'd 5+ 'iti>h8 23 i.c4 i.e8 24 i.e2± Topalov
Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2004.
B) 1 3 i.e2 0-0 14 0-0 i.b7 1 5 l:tfa 1 tt:ld7 1 6 tt:lb3 l:tb8 1 7 i.a7 l:tc8 1 8
tt:la5 i.a8 1 9 i.xa6 tt:le5 20 i.e2 f5 !?= Anand-Kasparov, Kopavogur 2000.
Typical Kasparov, always playing for the initiative.
10 0-0-0
10 h4 tt:lb6 1 1 tt:lb3 b4 1 2 tt:ld 1 tt:lc6 13 'it'f2 tt:ld7 14 g5 i.e7 1 5 f4 (If
possible White should avoid playing f4. In many cases it weakens e4,
providing Black with good counterplay.) 1 5 . . . h6 ! ? (Playing for the strong
outpost on e5.) 16 l:tg 1 hxg5 17 hxg5 lbc5 1 8 i.xc5 dxc5 19 i.d3 e5 20
tt:le3 exf4 2 1 'ii'x f4 'ii'd6 22 'it'fl l:th5+ Solak-Bruzon, Yerevan 2000. Black
has the better pawn structure and a nice outpost on e5.
10 ...tt:lb6
A solid move but one that shows White is thinking safety first. With
correct play Black should equalize without much trouble. '
1 1 tt:lb3 ! ?
This is the only time li:lb3 makes sense. White has li:la5 diNruptinw
Black's forces.
A) I 1 . . . b4
AI) I 2 li:le2 a5 I 3 li:lg3 li:l8d7 I4 'it>b 1 ..ta6 I 5 f4 ..txfl 1 6 .r:thxfl li:lc4 1 7
'itd4 li:lxe3 I 8 'iixe3 'ikc7 I 9 .r:td2 li:lb6 20 .r:tdf2 li:lc4 2 I 'iid3 i.e7 22
li:ld2= Yakovich-Kineva, Serpukhov 2003.
A2) I2 li:lb I li:lc6 I3 'ikf2 li:la4 14 liJ I d2 li:le5 I 5 li:lc4 li:lxc4 I6 i.xc4
.r:tc8 I 7 ..td3 i.e7 I 8 'iti>b i 'iic7 19 'ikd2 i.f6 20 ..td4 i.xd4 2 1 li:lxd4 'ikb6
22 li:lb3 0-0= Shahade-Nakamura, New York 200 1 .
A3) I 2 i.xb6 bxc3 ( 1 2 . . .'iixb6 I 3 li:la4 wins the b4 pawn.) I 3 'ike3 cxb2+
14 �b 1 'iic 8 I 5 h4 ..te7 1 6 g5 li:ld7 I 7 ..ta5 'ikc6 1 8 .r:td3 li:lc5 1 9 li:lxc5
dxc5= Socko-Van den Doel, European U 1 8 Championship, Zagan 1 995.
B) I l . . .li:l8d7 1 2 li:la5
BI) I 2 . . .'iic7
Bla) I 3 li:le2 l:.c8 I4 li:ld4 d5 !? (After I4 ...i.a8 I guess White intended
1 5 i.xb5 axb5 1 6 li:lxb5 'ikb8 1 7 li:lxd6+ i.xd6 1 8 'ikxd6 'ikxd6 1 9 .r:txd6;!;)
1 5 ..tf4 e5 1 6 i.g3 ..ta8 1 7 i.d3 li:lc4! 1 8 i.xc4 bxc4 (This leaves the li:la5
looking very lonely.) 1 9 exd5 c3 20 'iie2 ..txd5 2 1 li:lab3 cxb2+ 22 'iti'b 1 f6
23 g5 i.e7 24 .r:the 1 0-0 25 li:lf5 li:lb6+ Kritz-Graf, Saarbruecken 2002.
B ib) 13 ..tf4 li:lc8 I4 li:lxb7 ( 14 li:le2 .r:tb8 1 5 li:lxb7 .r:txb7 16 h4 i.e7 1 7
..tg5 li:ldb6 1 8 li:ld4 0-0 1 9 �b 1 .r:te8 2 0 i.d3 ..t f8 2 1 'ike2 li:la4 22 i.e 1
li:lcb6 23 'iti>a 1 g6 24 h5 li:lc3 25 bxc3 li:la4 26 'ike 1 ..tg7 27 hxg6 fxg6 28
..tfl li:lxc3 29 i.b2;!; Fedorov-Ermenkov, Ohrid 200 1 ) 1 4 ... 'ikxb7 15 h4
i.e7 1 6 g5 li:le5 1 7 'iig2 li:lb6 1 8 h5 .r:tc8 1 9 g6 'iic6 ( I 9 . . Jhc3 ! ?) 20 h6
li:lxg6 2 1 hxg7 .r:tg8 22 i.e3 ..tf6 23 i.d4 i.xd4 24 .r:txd4 e5 25 .r:td2 .r:txg7+
Z.Aimasi-Ljubojevic, Monte Carlo 2003.
Bic) 1 3 'iti>b 1 ..te7 14 h4 0-0 1 5 ..tg5 ! (White should be alert for this idea.
Black must now weaken e6 or play li:lf6, both being concessions.) 1 5 ... f6
(Pretty much forced, but now the e6 pawn becomes a target. 1 5 . . . li:lf6 1 6
..txf6 ..txf6 1 7 'ii'xd6 .r:tac8 1 8 'ii'x c7 .r:txc7 1 9 li:lxb7 .r:txb7 2 0 li:le2±; while
16 h5 ! ? is a good alternative for those who hate queen swaps. 1 6 . . . .r:tfd8 1 7
i.e3 li:lfd7 1 8 g5 and White's initiative has reached dangerous proportions.)
/86 The English A ttack
1 6 .te3 tLle5 1 7 'ii' f2 tLlbc4 1 8 tLlxb7 'ii'xb7 19 i.d4 l:tac8 20 tLle2 tLlc6 2 1
.te3 tLlxe3 22 'ii'xe3 'ii'a7 23 'ii'b3 ! (In kee p ing with White's plan and very
strong as well.) 23 ...d5 (23 ... tLld8 24 tLld4 it'd7 25 .th3 and the sensitive e6
square under seige.) 24 exd5 tLla5 25 'ii'd 3 tLlc4 26 tLlf4 tLle3 27 tLlxe6!
(Sacrificing the exchange gives White a grip that Black can't break.)
27 ... tLlxd 1 28 'ii'xd 1 l:tfe8 29 i.d3+- (Black has no way to distract White
from the kingside attack.) 29 ...'ii'f2 30 f4 .td6 3 1 g5 l:txe6 (Desperation but
it's hopeless.) 32 dxe6 'ii'xf4 33 .l:.fl 'ii'e 5 34 l:te 1 'ii'c 5 35 gxf6 gxf6 36
'ii'g4+ �h8 37 l:tg 1 'ii'c7 38 e7 1 -0 Anand-Ponomariov, Mainz 2002.
B2) 1 2 . . .l:tb8 ! ?
This i s one o f the biggest tests to the tLlb3 to a 5 idea. Black essentially
forces White to play tLlxb7. If Black has time, the .ta8 retreat will leave the
tLla5 looking silly. 1 3 .tf4 ( 1 3 a4?! b4 14 tLla2 tLlxa4 1 5 'ii'xb4 tLlxb2 leads
to a very unclear and confusing position where Black emerged on top after
1 6 tLlxb7 tLlxd1 1 7 .ta7 tZ:lt2 1 8 .txf2 'ii'c7 1 9 i.xa6 'ii'c6 20 'ii'a5 .l':.a8 2 1
tLlb4 'ii'xb7+ 22 l:td1 .te7 23 l:td3 d5 24 l:tb3 .txb4 25 .txb7 l:txa5 26
l:txb4 0-0-+ Leitao-Ljubojevic, Bled 2002.) 1 3 ... tLlc8 14 tLlxb7 l:txb7 1 5
..tb 1 .te7 1 6 h4 0-0 1 7 tLle2 tLlcb6 1 8 tLld4 l:tc7= Blehm-Kalod, Paget
Parish 200 1 .
C) 1 1 ...tLlc6! ? (A sound developing move but one that doesn 't mesh with
Black's ideas.)
1 2 'ii'f2 ! (Black's main difficulty gets exposed immediately: 12 .if4 b4

1 3 lLle2 e5 14 .ig5 lLlc4 1 5 .ixd8 lLlxd2 1 6 .ic7 llJxf3 1 7 .ixd6 0-0-0+ 1 8
.ixf8 Axd 1 + 1 9 �xd 1 Axf8+ Zontakh-Ehlvest, Tallinn 2003 .) 1 2. . .lLld7
( 1 2 . . . lLlc8 1 3 h4 'ii'c7 1 4 �b 1 h5 1 5 gxh5 .:.xh5 1 6 f4 lLla5 1 7 .ie2 Ah8 1 8
.if3± Sharapov-Karandoa, Kharkov 2002. Black's position is a scattered
uncoordinated mess.)
Cl) 1 3 �b 1 .ie7 14 h4 Q-0 1 5 h5 lLlce5 1 6 g5 b4 1 7 lLle2 d5 1 8 g6 dxe4

1 9 .ih3 exf3 20 gxf7+ .:.xf7 2 1 lLlf4 .ih4 22 'ii'h 2 'ii'f6 23 .ixe6 .ig5 24
'ii'g3 lLlf8 25 .ixf7+ lLlxf7 26 lLlc5± Fritz Paderborn - Gandalf 6.0,
Paderborn 2003 . Crazy computers have no fear!
C2) 1 3 h4
C2a) 1 3 . . . .ie7 1 4 g5 llJa5 1 5 lLlxa5 'ii'xa5 1 6 �b l b4 1 7 lLle2 d5 1 8 h5

dxe4 1 9 fxe4 .ixe4 20 .ig2 .ix g2 2 1 'ii'xg2 Ad8 22 llJd4 Ac8 23 Ahfl lLle5
24 g6 hxg6 25 hxg6 llJxg6 26 ltJxe6 'ii'e5-+ Zhang Pengxiang-lbrahimov,
Linares 2002.
C2b) 1 3 ... 'ii'c 7 14 'itb l llJce5 1 5 g5 Ab8 1 6 a3 .ia8 1 7 h5 llJc5 1 8 .id4
b4 1 9 axb4 Axb4 20 .ixc5 dxc5 2 1 .ixa6 .ic6 22 f4 lLld7 23 'ii'e2 'ii'x f4 24
llJd5 ! 24 . . . 'ii'xe4 (24 ... exd5 25 exd5+ Ae4 26 Ahfl !±) 25 lLlxb4 'ii'xb4 26
.ic4 .ie7 27 .ixe6 fxe6 28 'ii'xe6+- Bromberger-Papa, Zug 2003.
C2c) I 3 ... lt:lce5 I4 g5 flc7 I 5 h5 .l:tg8 I 6 �b i g6 I 7 hxg6 hx g 6 I 8 .l:th4

lt:lc4 I 9 ..txc4 bxc4 20 lt:ld4 .l:tb8 2 I lt:lde2 ..te7 22 f4 ..txe4 23 ttJxe4 �7
24 lt:lxd6+ ..txd6 25 b3 cxb3 26 axb3 fle4 27 lt:lc l ..ta3 28 �a2 i.b4 29
�b I fif5 30 lt:ld3! rt;e7?? 3 I lt:lxb4 l:txb4 32 l:txd7+ +- Sharapov-Tukhaev,
Alushta 2002.
C3) I 3 g5 lt:lce5 I4 .l:tg i
C3a) I4 . . .1t'c7 I 5 f4 lt:lc4 I 6 i.xc4 bxc4 I 7 lt:ld4 lt:lc5 I 8 f5 .l:tb8 I 9 .l:tg4
..tc8 20 lt:lde2 lt:ld7 2 I ..ta 7 (2 I �b I followed by i.e I looks sensible.)
2 l . . .l:tb7 22 i.d4 lt:le5 23 .l:tgg i (23 .:.g3 !? as the rook could be helpful if
queenside defense is needed.) 23 . . . fla5 24 a3 g6 25 h4 .:.g8 26 h5 ..te7 27
hxg6 hxg6 28 f6 ..td8 29 .!:th i i.b6 30 ,.h2! Komeev-Kozul, Nova Gorica
2002.
C3b) I4 ... .l:tc8 I 5 h4 b4 I 6 lt:la4 flc7 I 7 lt:lb6 .l:tb8 I 8 lt:lxd7 lt:lxd7!
Mainka-Schlosser, German Championship, Binz I 995.
D) I l . . .tiJc4 I 2 i.xc4 bxc4 I 3 lt:lc5 i.c6 I4 e5 d5 I 5 f4 'it'a5 I6 'iff2 d4
I 7 i.xd4 i.xh I I 8 lt:lxe6 fxe6 I9 i.b6 i.c5 20 i.xc5 lt:ld7 2 I ..ta3 i.d5 22
'it'h4+- Otero-Herrera, Havana 200 1 .
6 .i.e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 t2Jfd7 9 'ifd2 .i.b7 1 0
0-0-0 t2Jb6 1 1 'i¥f2 ! ?
1 e4 cS 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 a6 6 �e3 e6 7 f3 bS 8

g4 tt:lfd7 9 'ii'd2 �b7 10 0-0-0 tt:lb6 1 1 'ii'f2 ! ? tt:l8d7
12 .td3
1 2 tt:lb3 ?! l:tc8 (Opening a retreat for the bishop rendering tt:la5 useless.)
A) 1 3 tt:la5 �a8 14 tt:le2 tt:la4 1 5 tt:lb3 'ii'c 7 16 tt:lf4 tt:le5 1 7 'Oti>b l tt:lxf3 ! -+
winning a pawn and ruining White's pawn structure. Gullaksen-Coleman,
Troll Masters, Gausdal 1 995.
B) 13 'i&?b 1 .te7 14 h4 0-0 15 g5 l:txc3 16 bxc3 tt:la4 17 �d2 'ii'c7 1 8 �e3
l:tc8 1 9 .te 1 tt:le5 20 �a 1 d5 2 1 f4 tt:lg6 22 f5 exf5 23 exd5 tt:lf4+ 24 c4
bxc4 25 .txc4 'ii'xc4 26 'ii'xe7 'ii'xc2 27 l:b 1 tt:lc3 28 .txc3 'ii'x c3+ 29 l:tb2
tt:ld3-+ Kriventsov-Woj tkiewicz, Chicago 2002.
1 2 h4 l:tc8 1 3 �b l ? (White should never allow Black's next.) l 3 . . .l:txc3 !

(After this fine exchange sacrifice Black gets a long-lasting initiative.
1 3 . . .b4?! The dubious mark isn't because this is a bad move, it's for not
playing the exchange sac. 1 4 tt:lce2 tt:lc4 1 5 .tg5 �6 1 6 l:th2 d5 1 7 exd5
.txd5 1 8 tt:lf4 .ta8 1 9 .txc4 l:txc4 20 'ii'e 1 h6 2 1 tt:lfxe6 fxe6 22 tt:lxe6
l:te4 ! This defensive shot puts an abrupt halt to White's plans. 23 fxe4
'ii'xe6+ Vega Gutierrez-Komiagina, Peniscola 2002) 14 bxc3 tt:la4
( 1 4 ... 'ii'c7 1 5 'ii'e l tt:la4 1 6 .td2 tt:le5 1 7 .td3 .te7 1 8 g5 0-0 1 9 l:th3
tt:lxd3?! Trading in a potential attacker for a bishop that wasn't bothering
anyone. 20 cxd3 l:tc8 2 1 l:tc 1 d5 22 l:tc2 e5 23 tt:le2 b4 24 'ifc 1 bxc3 25
.txc3 Anhchimeg-Gretarsdottir, Bled 2002) 1 5 .td2 'ii'c7 1 6 'ii'e3 d5 1 7
tt:lb3 .ta3 1 8 g5 .tb2 1 9 .te l dxe4 20 fxe4 tt:le5!J. Vinogradov-Karanda,
Kharkov 2003.
1 2 g5 l:.c8 1 3 h4 l:.xc3 1 4 bxc3 lDa4 ( l 4 . . . 'Wc7 1 5 ..td3 lDa4 1 6 lDe2 d5

17 �d2 b4 1 8 cxb4 ..txb4+ 1 9 c3 tDxc3 20 lDxc3 ..txc3+ 2 1 �e2 dxe4 22
fxe4 0-0-+ Dolzhikova-Aslanian, Nikolaev 2003) 1 5 �d2 'ii'a5 16 �e I
ltle5 Lupulescu-Vasiesiu, Bucharest 2002.
12 'it>b I l:.c8
A) 1 3 ..td3?! (This allows Black to take over the initiative at a discount

price.) l 3 . . .l:.xc3 ! (This exchange sac is stronger than l 3 ... 'ii'c 7!? 1 4
..txb5?! [ 1 4 g5 !?] l 4. . . axb5 1 5 ltldxb5 'Wd8 l 6 l:.xd6 lDc4 l 7 l:.d3 lDxe3 1 8
'Wxe3 'Wb6 1 9 'Wf4 ..tc6 20 ltld6+ ..txd6 2 1 l:.xd6 0-0+ Lukasiewicz
Pilarska, Polish Team Championship, Lubniewice, 1 993.) 14 bxc3
AI) l4 ... d5 1 5 lDxb5? (White is better off going into defensive mode.)
l 5 ... ltla4 16 ..id4 axb5 1 7 ..txb5 'Wa5 1 8 c4 �a6 1 9 l:.d3 ..txb5 20 cxb5 e5
2 1 �b2 ltlxb2 22 �xb2 ltlc5-+ Metaxas-Wojtkiewicz, Komotini Open
1 992.
A2) 14 ... 'i/ic7 1 5 lDe2 ..ie7 16 g5 0-0 17 h4 lDa4 1 8 .te l ltle5 19 h5 d5 !
All of Black's pieces are ready to join the attack. 20 'ilih2 ..td6 2 1 'ilih3
ltlxd3 22 cxd3 b4 Black opens the b-file for the l:.fl.l. 23 cxb4 l:.c8 24 �a 1
dxe4 25 fxe4 ..txe4! 26 g6 (26 dxe4 ..te5+ is very strong.) 26 ... ..txh l 27
'Wxh I ..txb4 28 gxf7+ �fl.l 29 'i/ig2 l:.b8-+ Movsesian-Kasparov, Sarajevo
2000.
B) 1 3 l:.g l ?! l:.xc3 14 bxc3 lDa4!? (Menacing c3 and keeping White oc
cupied.) 15 ..td2 'Wb6 16 'We3 g6 1 7 �a 1 ..ig7 18 l:.b 1 0-0 19 ..te2 l:.c8 20
l:.gd l "fkc7 2 1 l:.b4 ltldb6 22 .te l d5 23 e5 ..txe5 24 ..tg3 ..txg3 25 hxg3
e5-+ Shaplyko-Mirumian, European U l 8 Championship, Zagan 1 995.
C) 13 ltlce2 d5 14 exd5 ltlxd5 1 5 ltlf4 lDxe3 16 'Wxe3 ..ic5 1 7 lDh5 0-0
1 8 'ilid2 ltle5 1 9 ..ig2 ltlc4 20 'Wc3 ..txd4 2 1 'Wxd4 'Wxd4 22 l:.xd4 lDe3-+
Baramidze-Smetankin, Kiel 2002.
D) 13 g5?!
13 . . Jhc3 ! (This is very nice for Black. White's king is a major concern.)
14 bxc3 ike? 1 5 il.d3 ikxc3 16 tLle2 ike? 1 7 il.d4 e5 1 8 il.a 1 (At the cost of
the c3 pawn White gets the bishop as a hopeful defender.) 1 8 ... tLlc5 1 9 h4
i.e? 20 tLlg3 g6 (Black can afford to take his time since White's king will
always be in danger.) 21 f4 tLlca4 22 ikd2 (White is clearly on the
defensive.) 22 ...ikc5 23 h5 b4 24 tLle2 .l:lg8 25 hxg6 hxg6 26 .:.h7 exf4 27
'iix f4 nf8 28 tLld4 il.xg5 29 1i'g3 tLlc3+ 30 il.xc3 bxc3 31 tLlb3 ila3 ! (The
mate threat forces White to give up material.) 32 il.b5+ axb5 33 ikxc3 lt:lc4
34 e5 dxe5 35 .l:lh3 cJ;e7 36 .l:lhd3 i.c6 37 l:le l il.f4 38 l:ld4 g5 39 l:lxf4
gxf4 40 .:.xe5+ tLlxe5 4 1 ikxe5+ 'iti>d8 42 tLlc5 �c8 43 ikd6 'iib4+ 44 �c 1
ike ! + 45 'iti>b2 'ifb4+ 46 �c l 'tie l + 47 'itb2 'iie 8 48 tLla6 �b7 49 tLlc5+
'itc8 50 tLla6 'it>b7 5 1 tLlc5+ 'itc8 52 tLlb7 'iti>xb7-+ 1h-1h Movsesian-Van
Wely, Marathon, Dordrecht 2000. The final result is very surprising, but it
was a blitz game. Very interesting nevertheless.
1 2 ... .:.cs
13 tLlce2
Preventing Black's exchange sac but it's hard for White to get an
initiative. 1 3 f4? (A ridiculous move, now Black gets pressure on e4 and the
c file.) 1 3 ... b4 14 tLlce2 tLlc5 1 5 tLlg3 tLlxd3+ 1 6 .l:lxd3 tLld7 ! 1 7 tLlf3 ika5
1 8 '1t>b l lLif6 1 9 ..ib6 lLixg4 20 'Wd4 'Wb5 2 1 l:.hd l 'Wc4+ Bergstrom-Palac,

Halkidiki 2002. Down a pawn, White is forced to swap queens.
I 3 lLib3 ..ie7 14 f4 l:.xc3 1 5 bxc3 lLia4 1 6 ..id4 0-0 1 7 c4 bxc4 1 8 ..ixc4
..ixe4 19 l:.hfl d5 20 ..id3 Pavlovic-Luzhinsky, Kishnev 200 1 . White is set
up for queenside defense so I'd evaluate this position as roughly equal.
13 g5 l:.xc3 ! 14 bxc3 'Wc7 1 5 l:.hfl d5 16 lLie2 lLia4 17 exd5 ..ixd5 1 8 f4
..ia3+ 1 9 �d2 0-0 20 ..id4 l:.d8 2 1 Ag 1 e5 22 fxe5 lLixe5 23 ..ixe5 'Wxe5 24
'ii'f5 'ii'x f5 25 ..ixf5 lLib2 26 Adfl ..ig2+ 27 lLJd4 ..ixfl 28 Axfl lle8 29
lLif3 g6-+ Gonzalez Diaz-Vera, Vila Real 200 1 .
1 3 ..ie7
...
1 3 ... lLJc5 1 4 ..ti>b 1 .

A) 14 . . . lLiba4
AI) 1 5 h4 'ikc7 1 6 ..ic l ( 1 6 b3 lLib6 1 7 h5 h6 1 8 g5 hxg5 1 9 ..ixg5 e5 20

lLif5 lLixd3 2 1 cxd3 l:.xh5+ Nedev-Vera, Yerevan 200 1 ; 1 6 l:.d2 d5 1 7 e5
1t'xe5 1 8 ..if4 'Wf6 19 ..ig5 'ii'e5 20 ..if4 'iif6 2 1 ..ig5 'iie 5 Blehm
G. Shahade, Bermuda 2002) 1 6 ... i.e7 1 7 b3 lLixd3 1 8 cxd3 lLic5 1 9 lLig3 b4
20 lLic2 a5 2 1 d4 lLJd7 22 ..ib2 0-0 23 l:tc l 'Wb6 24 lLie3 i.a6+ Mrdja
Vismara, Montecatini Terme 200 1 .
A2) 1 5 b3 lLixd3 1 6 cxd3 lLic5 1 7 lLig3 b4 1 8 lLic2 aS 1 9 d4 lLid7 20 d5
e5 2 1 .!:te l ..ia6+ Movsesian-Nielsen, Tegel 200 1 .
A3) 1 5 ..ic 1 'iic7 1 6 lLig3 d5 Timoshenko-Tissir, Cappelle Ia Grande
2002 ( 1 6 ... g6 1 7 f4 e5 1 8 fxe5 dxe5 1 9 lLib3 ..ig7 20 h4 0-0 2 1 h5 l:r.fd8 22
lLixc5 lLixc5 23 'ii'h 2 ..ih8 24 hxg6 fxg6 Z.Almasi-Van Wely, Monaco
2002) 1 7 l:the l dxe4 1 8 lLixe4 lLixd3 1 9 l:r.xd3 ..ib4! (A nice tempo-gaining
device.) 20 l:.ed l 0-0 2 1 a3 ..ic5 22 lLixc5 'ii'x c5 23 ..ie3 'ii'c 7 24 ..i c l l:.fd8
25 g5 'ii'c4 26 'ifd2 ..id5+ Z.Almasi-Gelfand, Monte Carlo 2003.
B) 14 ... ..ie7 !?
C) 1 4...'ii'c7 15 g5 lLiba4 16 l:.c 1 ( 1 6 l:.d2 ..ie7 17 h4 d5?! 18 e5 ! lLie4 19
fxe4 dxe4 20 lLixb5 axb5 21 ..ixb5+ ..ic6 22 ..ixc6+ 'iixc6 23 lLJd4+
Komeev-Teran Alvarez, Seville 2002. Dealing with the passed pawns isn't
going to be a picnic! ; 1 6 'ikg3 e5 1 7 ..ixb5+ axb5 1 8 lLixb5 'iib 6 1 9 lLiec3
Th e English A ttack 1 93
lLlxc3+ 20 lLlxc3 'iVa6-+ Pavlov-Shtyrenkov, Alushta 200 1 ) 1 6... e5 1 7 lLlb3

i...e7= Fercec-Berkes, Obetwart 2003.
1 3 . . . d5
14 e5 ( 14 'it>b 1 lLlc4 1 5 exd5 i...xd5 1 6 lLlf4 lL!db6 1 7 i...xc4 lLlxc4 1 8

.!:the 1 ! and with the heavy pieces and all their firepower pointing towards
Black's king and queen Black must be careful. 1 8 ... lLlxe3 1 9 'iVxe3 i...c 5 20
'iVe5 0-0 2 1 lLldxe6 ! fxe6 22 lLlxe6+- Miroshnichenko-Fedorchuk, Warsaw
2002.)
A) 14 ... lLlxe5?! 1 5 lLlxe6! fxe6 16 i...xb6 'iVd7 1 7 i...d4 lLlxd3+ 18 l:hd3
i...d6 1 9 'iVe3 0-0 20 .!:te l b4 2 1 l:td2 a5 22 i... e5 l:txf3 (22 ...i... c 5!?) 23 'ii'x f3
i...xe5 24 lL!d4 i... xd4 25 .!:.xd4± Rizouk-Barria, Malaga 2002. Black's
problem is that the i...b7 is a piece of junk.
B) 14 ... lL!c4!? is definitely a better chance.
B l ) 1 5 f4 i...c 5 1 6 'it>b l 'ii'b 6 1 7 .!:.he l ( 1 7 l:thfl b4 1 8 g5 g6 1 9 h4 a5 20

h5 a4 2 1 l:h l l:g8 22 hxg6 hxg6 23 l:th6 .!:.a8 24 .!:.dh l b3 25 cxb3 axb3 26
axb3 'iVa6+ Nedev-Ilincic, Leon 200 1 ) 17 ... b4 1 8 b3 lLla3+ 19 'it>a l a5 20
.!:.d2 a4 2 1 'ii'g3 i... a6 22 i...xa6 'iVxa6 23 f5 i... xd4+ 24 lLlxd4 lL!c5 25 i...g l
tt:le4 26 'ii'd3 1i'xd3 27 l:txd3 tt:lxc2+ 28 tt:lxc2 l:txc2-+ Felgaer-Ilincic,

Budapest 200 1 .
82) I S �xc4 dxc4 1 6 �b l �cS ( 1 6 ... 'ii'c7 !? looks alri g ht for Black.) 1 7
h4 1i'b6 1 8 'ii'g3 b4 1 9 h S b3 20 cxb3 cxb3 2 1 axb3 .i.dS 22 lld3 l:tb8
(22 . . . i..x f3 ! ? 23 'iVxf3 tt:lxeS 24 'ii'e4 tt:lxd3 2S 'iVxd3 l:td8 is very
interesting . . . White ' s pieces are tied in knots.) 23 l:c l aS 24 tt:lf4 'ii'a6 2S
l:tdc3 i..b4 26 l:[c7 tt:lb6 27 gS g6 28 'iVh3+- Alvarez Pedraza-Ruiz, Santa
Clara 2003. Black is getting collapsed on g6 and e6 simultaneously, making
defense impossible.
1 3 ... 'iVc7 14 �b l ( 1 4 f4 tt:lcS I S tt:lg3 tt:lba4 16 tt:lb3 dS 17 tt:lxcS i..x cS
18 �xeS tt:lxcS 19 eS 0-0 20 tt:lhS d4+ Dolzhikova-Breslavska, Nikolaev
2003)
A) 14 . . . dS A good reaction, Black must organize his play before White

gets going.
Al) I S exdS tt:lxdS 16 �c l is fine for Black.
A2) IS gS tt:la4 16 exdS .ixdS 1 7 tt:lf4 �c4 1 8 l:the 1 �b4 19 �d2 �cS
20 b3 'iVb6 2 1 c3 Q-0 22 �c2 eS 23 'iVh4 g6 24 tt:lfS exf4 2S bxa4 l:tfe8+
Dochev-Mirumian, Czech Open, Pardubice 1 998.
A3) 1S eS 'iVxeS 16 �f4 'iVf6 17 gS 'iVd8 1 8 g6 eS 19 gxf7+ �xf7 20
l:thg l exd4 2 1 tt:lxd4 l:tc6 22 tt:lxc6 �xc6 23 �e3 �e7 24 �d4 �f6 2S l:tg4
�xd4 26 'it'xd4 tt:lf6+ Fercec-Palac, Nova Gorica 2002.
A4) I S tt:\g3 tt:\c4 1 6 �xc4 ( 1 6 exdS i..xdS 1 7 �c l tt:lcS 1 8 l:he l tt:la4 1 9
tt:le4 tt:laxb2 20 �xb2 tt:lxb2 2 1 tt:lxbS axbS 22 �xbS+ �c6 23 �xc6+
'iVxc6 24 �xb2 l:tb8+-+ Van Wissen-Cheparinov, Andorra Ia Vella 2002)
16 ...bxc4 1 7 f4 �e7 1 8 tt:lhS o-o 1 9 eS g6 20 tt:\g3 tt:lcS 2 1 h4 tt:\a4 22 c3
l:tb8 23 �a l i.. a8 24 �c l 'iia S 2S 'iic 2 llb6 26 hS gS 27 fxgS lttb8 28 g6
tt:lxc3 ! Gonzalez Garcia-Dominguez, Merida 2002.
B) 14 ...tt:\a4 I S tt:lb3 tt:leS 1 6 tt:led4 �e7 1 7 �c 1 tt:lc4 1 8 'it'g3 g6 1 9 gS
dS ! (Black's pieces are very active.) 20 'it'xc7 :xc7 2 1 eS tt:lxeS 22 �f4
tt:lxd3 23 cxd3 l:tc8+ Soltanici-Parligras, Bucharest 2003.
1 3 ... tt:\c4
The English A ttack / 95
14 'it>b 1 ( 1 4 ..txc4 l:txc4 1 5 'it>b 1 At this point things are level. 1 5 . . .�c7
1 6 lL!g3 ..te7 1 7 h4 0-0 1 8 ..tg5 lL!e5 1 9 ..txe7 'ir'xe7 20 g5?! This careless
move allows Black kingside play. 20 ... f6! Opportunity knocks so Black
takes advantage of it. 2 1 f4 lL!c6 22 lL!de2 'ir'c7 23 l:the 1 e5 24 'ir'e3 l:txc2
25 lLlf5 lL!a5 26 lL!xd6 lL!c4 27 lL!xc4 l:txc4 28 fxe5 'ir'xe5 29 lL!c3 fxg5 30
hxg5 l:te8 3 1 l:td7 b4 32 :xb7 bxc3 33 bxc3 l:txc3-+ Degraeve-Sokolov,
Metz 200 1 .) 14 ... lL!xe3 1 5 'ir'xe3 lL!e5 16 f4 ! ? (Very aggressive but not very
dangerous.) 1 6 ... lL!xg4 1 7 'ir'f3 lL!f6 I 8 lL!g3 ,.c7 I 9 l:thfl d5? (This is
where Black gets into trouble. I9 ... ..te7 !?) 20 e5 lL!d7 2 1 f5 ! lL!xe5 22 'ir'h5
..i.c5 23 lLlxe6 iVd6 24 lL!xc5 'ir'xc5 (24 .. .l:.Xc5 25 lL!e4 ! dxe4 26 ..i.xb5+ +-)
25 l:tde 1 iVd6 26 f6 gxf6 27 lL!f5 iVb6 28 lL!h6 l:.c7 29 l:txe5+ 1 -0
Kapnisis-Tsive1ekidis, Ano Liosia 2000.
14 h4
I4 'it>b i 0-0 I 5 h4 lL!a4 I 6 g5 lL!dc5 ! (This is Kasparov's recipe for
counterplay in this variation. The lL!c5 keeps an eye on e6 as well.) I 7 -.g3
( l 7 lL!g3 'flc7 I 8 lLlb3 d5 I 9 e5 ! ? Allowing Black dxe4 or capturing on d5
are good for Black. I 9 ...-.xe5 20 ..td4 iVc7 2 I f4 lL!e4 22 ..txe4 dxe4 23
:the I ..td6 24 lL!h5 e5 25 c3 f6 26 gxf6 exd4 27 lL!xd4 g6 28 f5 gxh5 29
lL!e6 lL!xc3+ 30 bxc3 'ir'xc3 3 I l:txd6 iVb4+ 32 'it>a I 'ir'c3+ 33 �b I iVb4+
34 'it>a1 �c3+ 35 'it>b 1 •h- •h J.Polgar-Kasparov, Linares 200 1 .) 1 7 .. .'�Wc7 1 8
l:tc l d5 1 9 e5 'ii'a5 20 h5 lL!xb2 2 1 'it>xb2 lL!e4 22 fxe4 dxe4 23 �b l exd3
24 cxd3 'ii'a 3 25 l:thd l .i.d5 26 l:td2+- Fritz Padebom-Brutus, Paderbom

2003. Computers are unbelievable defenders.
14 ...lLlc4?!
This naive move puts Black on the critical list. Black's knights are
important for counterplay. 1 4 ... 0-0 1 5 g5 d5 1 6 g6!? If White is in a hurry
then this is a good try. Black can be punished for ignoring the weakness of
the e6 point. 1 6 ... hxg6 I 7 h5 g5 I 8 ..t>b I lLlc4 I 9 .i.xc4 l:txc4 20 l:tdg I dxe4
2 1 f4 e5 22 lLlf5 exf4 23 lLlxf4 lLle5 24 l:td i 'ii'e 8 25 h6 g6 26 h7+ �h8 27
lLlxe7 'ii'xe7 28 lLld5 i.xd5 29 .l:txd5 l:td8 30 i.c5 ! 30 .. Jlxc5 3 1 1Wxc5+
Melnikov-Ayupov, St Petersburg 200 1 .
1 5 i.xc4 .l:.xc4 1 6 �b1 b4
A useless move but Black is in trouble. 1 6 . . .d5 !? 1 7 exd5 i.xd5 1 8 lLlf4
with dangerous threats just like the game.
17 gS dS 18 exdS i.xdS 19 lLlf4 'ii'aS 20 lLlb3 "ikc7 21 lLlxdS exdS 22
.l:.xdS 0-0 23 lLlaS l:tcS 24 .l:txd7 1-0
Kurmann-Javet, Biel 2003.
Najdorf Variation 6 .i.e3 e6 7 f3 h5 ! ?
1 e4 cS 2 tllf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tllxd4 lll f6 5 lllc3 a6 6 .ie3 e6 7 f3 hS!?
Practice in this line in limited, so anything goes. I guess we might call it

'The Anti English Attack' . Black stops White from playing an immediate
g4. I favor White switching plans and castling kingside.
8 "6'd2
It's very difficult to say what the best course of action is. White's flexibil
ity offers so many ideas.
8 a4 lllc6 9 .ie2 d5 1 0 exd5 tllxd5 1 1 tllxd5 'ir'xd5 12 lllxc6 bxc6
( 1 2... "6'xc6 !? Why not keep the pawn structure intact?) 1 3 f4 l:tb8 14 .if3
'ir'c4 1 5 'ii'd4 'ii'xd4 1 6 .ixd4 .ib7 1 7 0-0-0 c5 1 8 ..ie5 ..ixf3 1 9 .ixb8
..ixd 1 20 l:txd 1 h4! Hracek-Georgiev, Herceg Novi 200 1 .
8 .ic4 ! ? lllc6 9 'ii'e2 .ie7 1 0 0-0-0 'ii'c7 1 1 ..ib3
(What we have here is the ultra sharp Velimirovic Attack with h5

included for no reason. Having said that, g4 in this variation is quite
important.) I I . ...i.d7?! (A little too hasty, Black may need d7 for the ltJf6.)
12 g4 ! ? (White's g5 is a very bothersome threat.) 1 2 . . .ltJxd4 1 3 l:Ixd4 hxg4
14 fxg4 (If, for example, Black could play ltJd7 the position would be OK.
Here Black's knight can't find its way to the outpost e5.) 14 . . .l:Ih3 1 5 g5
ltJg4 1 6 'ifxg4 l:Ixe3 1 7 g6 l:Ixc3 1 8 gxt7+ 'iti>f8 1 9 l:Ig 1 .i.f6 20 bxc3 'ii'xc3
2 1 l:Ixd6+- Jimenez-Julia, Buenos Aires 2000.
8 ltJbd7
...
9 i.c4
9 0-0-0 'ii'c7 (9 ... b5 10 'iti>b l ..ib7 1 1 .i.d3 .i.e7 12 l:Ihe l l:Ic8 1 3 ..ig l
ltJe5 1 4 f4 ltJc4 1 5 .i.xc4 l:Ixc4 1 6 e5 dxe5 1 7 fxe5 ltJd5 1 8 ltJe4 0-0 Even
with the pawn on h5 Black's king has nothing to worry about. 1 9 'iie2 'iia5
20 ltJd6 ..ixd6 2 1 exd6 'ii'b4 22 ltJb3 'i!Vxd6 23 'fixh5 l:[fc8 24 c3 b4+
Arakhamia-Rowson, Catalan Bay 2004) 1 0 ..id3 ltJc5 1 1 �b l .i.d7 1 2
l:lhe l .i.e7 1 3 h 3 b 5 1 4 .i.xb5?! (White should follow through with 1 4 g4!?)
14 ... axb5 15 ltJdxb5 .i.xb5 1 6 ltJxb5 'ifb7 17 ltJxd6+ .i.xd6 1 8 'ii'xd6 ltJa4
t9 .i.d4 l:Ia6 20 'iia3 ltJd7 2 1 'ii'h3 'ii'c6 22 'ii'b4 f6+ Shomoev-Sidorov,
Togliatti 200 1 . �t7 and l:Ib8 are on the way among others.
9 a4 i..e7 10 ltJb3?! (There is no chance for an advantage after this.)

IO ... b6 1 1 i..e2 ..ib7 1 2 0-0 0-0 13 l:tfd l 'iib8 14 i..f l l:Id8 15 11i'f2 d5 1 6
exd5 ..ixd5 1 7 g3 ltJe5 1 8 ltJxd5 ltJxd5 1 9 c4 ltJxe3 20 'ii'xe3 'i'c7+ Garcia
Mendoza-Lalic, Villa de Albox 2002.
9 i..e2 b6 10 0-0 .i.b7 1 1 a4 ..ie7 1 2 l:lad l 'i'c7 13 'i'e l g6 14 'ii'g3 h4 1 5

'i'f2 d5 1 6 exd5 ltJxd5 1 7 ltJxd5 ..ixd5 1 8 f4 ltJf6= Lahno-Rowson,
Hastings 2004.
9 ltJe5 10 ..ib3 b5 1 1 0-0-0 ..ib7 1 2 i.g5!?
...
One of the negative points of h5 is the weakness ofg5.

1 2 .'ifa5 13 'it>b1 ltJc4?!
..
13 ...l:Ic8 !? is a better idea, but White has an edge.

1 4 .txc4 bxc4 1 5 :bel l:.b8
Black's army is in no condition to mount a b-file assault.

1 6 li::Jf5!
This forcing move blows open the board.
16 ... exf5 17 e5
White's three heavy pieces are bearing down on Black's king.
17 .....tc8 18 exf6+ .te6 19 fxg7 ..txg7 20 'ii'x d6
White's straightforward approach ends Black's resistance.
20 ... l:.xb2+ 2 1 �xb2 'ii'xc3+ 22 �c1 'ii'b2+ 23 'it>d2+-
23 ...'ii'd4+
Trading queens gets out of mate, but leads to a resignable position.
24 'ii'xd4 ..txd4 25 �e2! .tb6 26 .:.bt .tc7 27 .:.b7 i.xh2 28 f4 0-0 29
.:.h1 ..tg3 30 .:.xh5 �g7 31 .th6+ �g6 32 .:.g5+ 1-0
Khalifman-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2002.
Taimanov Variation 6 .i.e3 ! ? a6 7 i.Vd2 t2Jf6
8 0-0-0 .i.b4 9 f3 ttJa5 !?
1 e4 c5 2 ti::lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt::l x d4 tt::lc6 5 tt::l c3 'ikc7 6 .i.e3 ! ?
The English Attack has led t o such interesting chess that someone decided
to try it against the Taimanov variation. Black should aim for fluid piece
play and be careful when playing d5. From Black's point of view the dark
squares are especially important. Capturing on c3 after .i.b4 should be
played only if Black can defend the a3-f8 diagonal.
6... a6 7 'ikd2 ti::lf6
I prefer to delay b7-b5. In some cases White can get the better game by
exchanging on c6.
_
8 0-0-0
8 i.e2 i.b4 9 f3 (White' s .te2 amounts to a waste of time.) 9 . . tt::le5 1 0 a3
.
.i.e7 1 1 .tf4 d6 1 2 g4 b5 1 3 0-0-0 (With the pawn on a3, Black's attack is

very fast.) 1 3 . . .l:tb8 1 4 i.g5 tlJc4 1 5 'iVd3? tlJxg4 ! -+ Algaba-Prasad,

Sautron 2003.
8 a3?! (Weakening the queenside and losing a tempo for no good reason.)
8 ... b5 9 f3 (9 tDxc6 'iVxc6 10 f3 b4 1 1 axb4 i.xb4 12 i.d4 holds White's
game together.) 9 . . . tlJe5 10 i.f4 i.b7 1 1 g4 l:tc8 1 2 0-0-0 b4 13 axb4 ..ixb4
1 4 g5 tDh5 1 5 tDxe6 'ii'a5 ! (The 'ii'a 1 threat gives Black a crucial tempo.) 1 6
'iti>b 1 tDxf4 1 7 tlJxg7+ 'iti>fll 1 8 tiJfS l:txc3+ Andersson-Hermansson,
Stockholm 2003.
8 i.b4
...
8 . . . b5 9 tDxc6 dxc6 (9 ... 'iVxc6 1 0 f3 ..ib7 1 1 tDe2;!;) 1 0 f3 (After this

White gets nothing: 10 i.f4 ! 'iVb6 1 1 i.d6 i.xd6 12 'ii'xd6 l:ta7 13 'ii'g3;!;)
10 ... i.e7 1 1 g4 e5 (This is the pawn structure that suits Black best. It's very
hard for White to break through and Black gets good play on the d file.) 1 2
h4 (White's pawn storm isn't very dangerous with the way Black's pawn
structure is arranged.) 1 2 . . . i.e6 1 3 ..ih3 l:td8 1 4 'ii'h 2 l:txd 1 + 1 5 l:txd 1 0-0
1 6 g5 tiJhS 1 7 ..ixe6 fxe6 1 8 'ii'h3 'ii'c8 1 9 tDe2 g6 Motylev-Fominyh,
Ubeda 200 1 . Not much is happening here.
8 . . . i.e7 9 f3 0-0 1 0 g4 b5?! ( 1 0 ... d6!?) 1 1 g5 tlJh5 1 2 tDce2 g? 1 3 'itb 1
( 1 3 tlJg3 ! ?) 1 3 ... tDxd4 1 4 'ii' xd4 d5 1 5 e5 ..id7 1 6 f4 l:tfc8 1 7 'ft'd2 b4 1 8
tiJd4 (White's tlJd4 is a very strong defensive piece which allows White a
free hand on the kingside.) 1 8 ... i.c5 1 9 i.h3 aS 20 ..ig4 tlJg7 2 1 h4 a4 22
l:tc I l:ta6 23 h5 ..tf8 24 hxg6 fxg6 25 'ii'h2± Pupo-Zapata, Medellin 2003.
9 f3 tbaS!?
9 . . . 0-0
A) 1 0 g4 b5 1 1 g5 tbh5 1 2 a3 i.e7 1 3 tbce2 tba5 1 4 tbg3 ! (After this
everything falls into place for White in unbelievable fashion.) 14 . . . e5 1 5
tbxh5 exd4 1 6 �b 1 dxe3 1 7 ._d4 f6 1 8 gxf6 i.xf6 1 9 tbxf6+ .l:txf6 20
._d5+ +- Arizmendi Martinez-Arbakov, Linares 2003.
B) 10 'iti>b l il..e7 1 1 g4 tbe5 1 2 l:tg l ( 1 2 g5 ! ?) 12 . . .b5 1 3 g5 tbh5 14 f4
tbc4 1 5 i.xc4 bxc4 1 6 f5 White's kings ide action is already underway,
while Black has accomp lished nothing.) 1 6... g6 17 tbde2 l:tb8 1 8 �a 1 i.c5
1 9 i.xc5 ._xc5 20 'ifd6 ._xd6 2 1 l:txd6 gxf5 22 exf5± Erdogdu
Miladinovic, Istanbul 2002.
C) 10 a3 White should be careful when playing this move. It
compromises the queenside and helps Black with the b4 break. 1 0. . . i.e7 1 1
g4 b5 1 2 g5 tbe8 1 3 tbxc6 dxc6 14 h4 b4 1 5 tbb 1 l:tb8 16 il..c4 tbd6 1 7
i.b3 c5 \ 8 axb4 .l:txb4 1 9 tba3 ._a5= Pilgaard-lvanovic, Subotica 2003 .
Black's tba5 is an interesting attempt at immediate equality.
A) White's 10 tbde2 is met strongly by 1 0 ... tbc4 1 1 a3 and White has no

chance for advantage after this.
B) 10 lbb3 !? (White's best attempt to fight for an advantage.) 1 O . . .d5 1 1

e5 tbd7 1 2 tbxa5 i.xa5 1 3 i.d4 i.b6 Black goes for safety first, but
grabbing e5 is possible. ( 1 3 ... tbxe5 !? 14 ._e2 f6 1 5 f4 i.xc3 1 6 i.xc3
tt'lc4+) 14 i.xb6 tbxb6 1 5 ._g5 0-0 1 6 l:td4 tbd7 1 7 f4 f6 1 8 exf6 tbxf6 1 9
il..d3 ( 1 9 i.e2 ! ?) 1 9 . . .'6b6 20 tbe2 i.d7 2 1 l:td l l:tac8 22 'ii'g3 l:tc5 23
'ii'e3= Nijboer-Lobron, Wijk aan Zee 2004.
C) 10 i.f4 ' ! ?' d6 1 1 lbb3 e5 1 2 il..g5 il..e6 1 3 'iti>b 1 l:tc8 14 ._e3 b5 1 5

i.h4 i.xc3 1 6 ._xc3 1Wxc3 1 7 bxc3 tbb7 1 8 �b2 tbd7 1 9 il..f2 'iti>e7 20 :a 1
tbdc5 2 1 tbxc5 tbxc5 22 i.xc5 l:txc5 23 a4 bxa4 24 l:txa4 a5 25 i.d3 l:tb8+
+ Grischuk-Anand, Bastia 2003.
D) I O a3 .txc3 I I 'ifxc3 ( I I bxc3?! I find hard to believe. l l ...d5 1 2 e5

lL!d7 1 3 f4 0-0-king safety must count for something in chess.) I l .. .'ifxc3
I 2 bxc3 d5 I3 e5 lL!d7 I4 f4 b5 I 5 lL!b3 lL!c4 I 6 .txc4 bxc4 I 7 lL!c5 .l:lb8
I S �d2 .l:lb5 1 9 lL!xd7 .txd7 20 a4 .l:lb8 2 I .l:lb I 0-0 22 a5 .l:lb5 and Black
looked solid the entire game in Topalov-Anand, Bastia 2003.
Taimanov Variation 6 .i.e3 ! ? a6 7 �d2 lLJf6
8 0-0-0 .i.b4 9 f3 d5? !
1 e4 cS 2 liJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 liJc6 5 ltJc3 'ir'c7 6 �e3!? a6 7 'ir'd2

liJf6 8 0-0-0 �b4 9 f3
9 d5?!
...
This break doesn't work out very well. Black gets a passive game in any
case.
10 a3
A) lO . �a5 I I liJb3 dxe4 (Giving away the dark-squared bishop is

. .
askin g for trouble: 1 l . ..�xc3 1 2 'ir'xc3 0-0 1 3 �g5±) 1 2 lbxa5 'ir'xa5

( 1 2 . . . ltJxa5 1 3 �f4 'iVd7 1 4 �d6 ! No castling for Black spells danger.
14 ... exf3 1 5 gxf3 b6 16 'iVg5 l:tg8 1 7 l:tg 1 'ir'c6 1 8 �b4 e5 1 9 l:td6 'ir'xf3 20
l:txf6+- Sengupta-Nikolopoulos, Denizli 2003.) 1 3 fxe4 0-0 14 �g5 (It's
clear now that Black's kingside will get shattered in any event.) 14 ... l:td8 1 5
�d3 b5 1 6 e5 ! (This nice shot wins on the spot.) 1 6 ... b4 ( 1 6. . . ltJxe5 1 7
i.xh7+ �xh7 1 8 'Wi'xd8 it'xd8 19 l:.xd8+-) 1 7 i.xf6 gxf6 1 8 'iWh6 f5 1 9

tL!e4 fxe4 20 i.xe4 l -0 Rizouk-Garrido Dominguez, Seville 2003 . A well
played attack!
B) l O ...i.e7 l l exd5 exd5 ( l l . . .tiJxd5 1 2 tL!xd5 exd5 [In some Sicilians
the isolated queen pawn P.rovides Black with sufficient counterplay. Here
_
it's not the case.] l 3 i.f4 'ifb6 1 4 i.e3 'Wi'c7 1 5 h4 0-0 1 6 h5 l:.e8 1 7 tL!xc6
bxc6 1 8 h6 g6 1 9 'Wi'c3 i.f8 20 i.c5 'Wi'f4+ [Black's position has gotten very
passive.] 2 1 �b l 'Wi'e5 22 i.d4 'Wi'd6 23 i.g7 i.e7 24 i.e5 'Wi'c5 25 it'd2 i.f8
26 it'f4 it'e7 27 i.c3;!; Bosch-Van der Werf, Dieren 2002. Black's king is
very vulnerable on the dark squares while White's monarch watches from
safety.) 1 2 g4 i.e6 1 3 g5 tiJd7 14 tL!xe6 fxe6 1 5 i.h3 1 5 ... tiJd8 1 6 f4 l:.c8
1 7 l:.he l l:.f8 1 8 l:.e2 g6 1 9 tL!xd5 l -0 Ramaswamy-Vasquez Ramirez, Bled
2002. Black's passive position offered little hope for defense.
C) l O ... i.d6 l l tiJb3 ( l l exd5 !? tL!xd5 12 tL!xd5 exd5 1 3 'it>b l ;!;)
l l .. .tiJe7?! This loses material in an unusual way. 1 2 g4 ( 1 2 f4 !±) l 2 ... h6
1 3 �b l ( 1 3 f4 ! ? is still pretty good.) l3 . . . i.e5 1 4 tLle2 i.d7 1 5 i.g2 ..Wc8
1 6 f4 i.c7 1 7 exd5 tiJfxd5 1 8 i.d4 i.b5 1 9 i.xg7 l:.g8 20 i.e5 i.xe5 2 1
fxe5 l:.xg4 22 i.xd5 tL!xd5 23 l:.hg l i.xe2 24 it'xe2 l:.xg l 25 l:.xgl tL!e7 26
h4 'Wi'c7 27 h5 0-0-0 28 tiJd2 tiJf5 29 tiJf3= Arakhamia-Skripchenko,
Warsaw 200 l .
D) l O ... i.xc3 ?! Black should be careful when giving up the dark squared
bishop. This leads to grim play and little hope for defense. I'd wager that
even a famous pawn snatcher like Korchnoi couldn't defend this mess. l l
it'xc3 dxe4 1 2 fxe4 ( 1 2 tL!xc6 'Wi'xc6 1 3 ..Wxc6+ bxc6 1 4 i.d4 exf3 1 5 gxf3
tiJh5 1 6 l:.g l f6 1 7 i.c4 e5 1 8 i.c5 a5 19 l:.d6 i.a6 etc. Strenzwilk
Kleiman, Connecticut 200 1 .) l 2 ... tLlxe4 1 3 'iWd3 !
Dl) l 3 ... tiJc5 1 4 it'c4 tiJd7 1 5 tL!xc6 it'xc6 1 6 'iWg4 ! (Of course White
keeps the queens on.) l6 ... g6 (Now Black has fatal dark square weaknesses:
1 6 ...0-0 1 7 i.h6+-) 1 7 i.e2 0-0 1 8 i.h6 .l:te8 1 9 l:.hfl f5 20 'Wi'd4 e5 2 1
i.c4+ (Black's undeveloped squad offers little hope for defense.) 2 l .. .'ith8
22 it'h4 tiJf6 23 i.g5 tLlg8 24 i.fl l:.f8 25 i.d5 'iic7 26 'iib4 l:te8 27 'iib3
h6 28 i.xg8 hxg5 29 i.fl+- Kramnik-Ljubojevic, Monte Carlo 2003 .
D2) l 3 . . . f5 14 'Wi'c4
D2a) 1 4 . . . e5 (This doesn't offer Black much hope either.) 1 5 ltJxc6 'ii'xc6
16 l:td5 'ii'e6 1 7 l:ta5 ! (The easiest way for White to convert her huge
advantage into a win.) 1 7 . . . ltJd6 ( 1 7 . . . 'ii'xc4 1 8 ..txc4 and even after a queen
trade White's attack rages out of control.) 1 8 'ii'c3 0 -0 1 9 l:txe5 ).Polgar
Horvath, Halkidiki 2002.
D2b) 14 ...�e7 1 5 ..td3 ltJf6 16 l:the l g6 1 7 ..tg5 e5 1 8 ltJxc6+ bxc6 1 9
'ii'c 5+ +- Arizmendi Martinez - Valensi, Istanbul 2003.
Taimanov Variation 6 i.. e 3 ! ? a6 7 'i¥d2 l2Jf6
8 0-0-0 i.. b4 9 f3 l2Je7 1 0 l2Jde2 d5
1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 liJc6 5 liJc3 'iic7 6 .ie3 ! ? a6 7 'iid2

liJf6 8 0-0-0 .ib4 9 f3 liJe7 10 liJde2 d5
A) 1 1 a3
A1) 1 l .. ..ic5 (After this Black g ets into trouble.) 1 2 exd5 liJfxd5 1 3
liJxd5 exd5 ( 1 3 . . .liJxd5 1 4 .ixc5 'tt' xc5 1 5 liJc3 wins a pawn.) 14 .ixc5
'ihc5 1 5 liJf4 ( 1 5 liJd4 ! ?) 1 5 ... .if5 1 6 g4 .id7 1 7 liJxd5 liJxd5 1 8 'iixd5
'ifxd5 1 9 llxd5 0-0-0 20 .id3 .ic6 2 1 .l:txd8+ .:r.xd8 22 .l:tfl ± Fressinet
Tregubov, Halkidiki 2002. White is up a clear pawn.
A2) 1 l .. ..ia5
A2a) 1 2 b4 .ib6 1 3 .ixb6 'iVxb6

A2a1 ) 1 4 e5 liJd7 1 5 f4 f6 1 6 exf6 liJxf6 1 7 liJd4 0-0 1 8 liJb3 liJf5 1 9
i.d3 liJd6 20 .l:the 1 ;!; Vokarev-Kotsur, Dubai 2002.
A2a2) 14 exd5 exd5 (Black should avoid getting stuck with an isolated d
pawn: 1 4 ... ltJexd5 1 5 liJxd5 ltJxd5 I 6 liJc3 [or 1 6 c4;!;] 1 6 ... ltJxc3 1 7 'ihc3
0-0 1 8 �d3;!;) 1 5 'Wd4 'Wc7 1 6 'ir'f4 'ir'c6 1 7 �b2 .te6 1 8 liJd4 'ii'd7 1 9 h4
l:c8 20 l:te l 0-0 2 1 �d3 l:tc7 22 h5;!; Magem Badals - Reefat, Dhaka 2003 .
White has a bind on the dark squares.
A2b) 1 2 �g5 dxe4 1 3 �xf6 gxf6 1 4 'ii'h6 f5 1 5 'Wf6 ltJg6 16 fxe4 f4
( 1 6 .. .".e5 1 7 'it'xe5 ltJxe5 1 8 exf5 ltJg4 19 l:te l �b6 20 liJd i liJf2 2 I liJxf2
�xf2 22 .l:td l exf5 23 g3 [In return for the worse pawn structure Black has
the bishop pair and some active chances.] 23 ... �d7 24 �h3 0-0-0 25 l:thfl
�e3+ 26 �b l �e6 27 ltd3 l:txd3 28 cxd3 l:td8 29 l:tf3 �b6 30 ltJc3 �g l
3 1 ltJe2 �b6 32 �xf5 �xf5 33 l:txf5 l:txd3 34 'it>c2;!; Shirov-Lutz,
Dortmund 2002. Black 's kingside pawns will come under pressure.) 1 7 g3
�d7 ( 1 7 ... fxg3 1 8 hxg3 �d7 1 9 l:.h5 �xc3 20 ltJxc3 'ir'xg3 21 'it>b I 'ir'f4 22
'ii'd4 �c6 23 �c4 'ii'c7 24 'ii'g7 ! l:td8 25 i.xe6;!; Tischbierek-Jansa,
Cologne 2003) 1 8 gxf4 �xc3 1 9 bxc3 'ii'd8 20 'ir'xd8+ l:txd8 2 1 l:tg l 'it>e?;!;
Komeev- Graf, Lanzarote 2003.
B) I I e5 !? ltJd7 (My preference is safety first: I I . . .'ir'xe5 !? It takes a
brave soul to snatch this pawn. 1 2 �f4 'ii'h 5 1 3 g4) 1 2 f4 ltJcS 1 3 �xeS
�xc5 and Black is fine here. 14 'it>b l �d7 I 5 ltJd4 �b4?? (Black falls for a
typical Sicilian trick and is suddenly much worse.) I 6 liJcb5 ! 'ii'a5 1 7 liJd6+
�ffl 1 8 c3 �xd6 1 9 exd6 ltJc6 20 fS;!; Walsh-Caceres, Buenos Aires 2003.
C) I I �g5 dxe4 1 2 �xf6 gxf6 Black's dark-squared bishop keeps the
king safe so this shouldn 't be too dangerous.
Cl) 1 3 'ii'h6 liJf5 ( 1 3 ... f5 14 fxe4 'ii'e5 1 5 'ii'h4 i.d6 1 6 g3 ltJg6 17 'ir'g5
f4 ! With the bishop pair and control of e5 Black would welcome a q ueen
trade. 1 8 'ii'g4 h5 1 9 'ir'f3 fxg3 20 hxg3 .td7 2 1 �g2 ltd8 22 l:thfl il' g 5+
23 �b l ltJeS 24 'ii'f2 �e7+ Sriram-Fiumbort, Nagykanizsa 2003) 14 li'h5
�xc3 I 5 ltJxc3 'ii'f4+ 1 6 'ittb l exf3 1 7 gxf3 'ir'h4 1 8 'iVxh4 ltJxh4+ Valerga
Caceres, Buenos Aires 2003.
C2) 1 3 fxe4 ltJg6 14 �b I .te7 1 5 ltJg3 .td7 1 6 ltJh5 0-0-0 17 'ii'f2 �c6
1 8 �e2 ife5 1 9 %:.hfl �xe4 20 ltJxe4 'ii'xe4 2 1 �d3 'iib4 22 ltJxf6 ltJeS
Ramaswamy-Borulya, Bled 2002, is about equal.
CJ) 13 a3 exf3 14 axb4 fxe2 15 ..txe2= Cyborowski-Jaracz, . Lubniewice

2002.
C4) 1 3 'ii'd4 exf3 1 4 'ii'xb4 ( 1 4 'fj'xf6 ltJg6 1 5 'ii'x f3 ..txc3 1 6 ltJxc3 'ii'f4+
1 7 'fj'xf4 ltJxf4 1 8 g3 ltJg6 1 9 ..tg2± Spraggett-Rodriguez Guerrero, Madrid
2002. (White has better development, pawn structure and active pieces.)
14 ... fxe2 1 5 ..txe2 f5
At this point White has three choices, but none should cause Black any
harm.
C4a) 16 ..th5 ..td7 1 7 l:r.he 1 l:r.g8 1 8 g4 .l:tc8 1 9 gxf5 liJxf5 20 .!:td2 a5 2 1
_
'fj'e4 �f8 22 'ii'd3 ..tc6 23 ..tf3 ..txf3 24 'fj'xf3 'it'c6 25 'fj'h5 h6+ Jaracz
Biimke, Lubniewice 2002.
C4b) 16 ltJa4 b5 1 7 ltJc5 0-0 1 8 ltJd7 ..txd7 19 'fj'xe7 l:ac8 20 ...g5+
�h8 2 1 'ii'f6+ 'it>g8 22 'ii'g 5+ �h8 23 ...f6+ �g8 24 'fj'g5+ Arizmendi
Martinez-De Ia Riva Aguado, Burgos 2003. White doesn't have enough
time to bring up more firepower to join the attack.
C4c) 16 ..tf3 ..td7 1 7 l:the 1 ..tc6 1 8 ..txc6+ bxc6 1 9 g4 Gashimov
Tregubov, Istanbul 2003 . White has compensation, but I don't think it's
enough to win.
Taimanov Variation 6 i.e3 ! ? a6 7 'ti'd2 lLJf6
8 0-0-0 i.b4 9 f3 lt:Je5 ! ? 1 0 lt:Jb3 bS 1 1 �b1
1 e4 c 5 2 ll:lf3 e6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 lZ:lxd4 lZ:lc6 5 ll:lc3 'ikc7 6 .i.e3 ! ? a6 7 'ikd2

lLlf6 8 0-0-0 .i.b4 9 f3 ll:le5! ?
10 ll:lb3
IO .i.f4 ! ? d6 I I ll:lb3 <l;e7 I 2 .i.g5 (Threatening lLld5.) I 2 ... .txc3 I 3
'ii'xc3 ( I 3 bxc3 ! ? h6 I 4 .i.h4 g5 I 5 .i. g 3 is worth considering for White.)
I 3 ...'ii'xc3 I4 bxc3 h6 I5 .i.f4 lld8 I 6 .i.e2 ll:lc6 I 7 .i.e3 b5 I 8 c4 bxc4 I 9
.i.xc4 .i.d7+ Yap Choow Tun-Zaw Oo, Ho Chi Minh City 2003. Black can
look forward to good play with lLle5, .:tdc8 type of stuff.
I O 'i;b i d5 ( I O . . . .txc3 I I bxc3 d5 I 2 ll:lb3 0-0 1 3 .i.f4 dxe4 I4 'ii'd4
lLlfd7 I 5 'ikxe4 'ikxc3 I 6 .i.d3 ll:lg6 I 7 'ike3 'it'f6 I 8 .td6+ Krstic-Geller,
Zadar 2003) I I exd5 .i.xc3 I 2 'ikxc3 'it'xc3 I 3 bxc3 ll:lxd5 I4 .i.d2 b5 I 5
ll:lb3 .i.d7 I 6 ll:la5 .:tc8 I 7 �b2 ll:lb6 I 8 f4 ll:la4+ 1 9 �c I ll:lg4 2 0 l:t.e I
ll:lxc3-+ Katkov-Maletin, Tomsk 2003.
IO g4 d5?
Black's horrible timing leads to a lost position. I O. . . h6 I I h4 d5 !? i s one

decent alternative. I I g5 tLlxf3 (This was Black's intention all along, but it
fails.) I 2 lLlxf3 lLlxe4 l 3 'ifd4! ..txc3 (The best chance is I 3 ...lLlxc3 !? I 4
bxc3 ..txc3 I 5 'ii'c 5 'ii'x c5 I 6 ..txc5± and Black has some chances to
survive.) I 4 bxc3 'ii'xc3 I 5 ..td3 '1Wa3+ I 6 'ii'h2 '1Wxb2+ I 7 'it>xb2+
Cadman-Drake, Oak Brook 2003.
IO bS
...
IO . . . d5 I I .id4 0-0
A) I 2 a3 !? ..td6 l 3 exd5 ( 1 3 'lWe i dxe4 I4 lLlxe4 tLlxe4 I 5 'ii'xe4 f5 I 6

..W e I b 5 I 7 ..tc3 tLlc4 I 8 � b I tLlb6 I 9 ..td3 tLld5 2 0 ..ta5;!; Erdogdu
Andonov, Istanbul 2002) I 3 ... exd5 (The lLlf6 could get disturbed by the g5
push so it's best to get rid of it: l 3 ... tLlxd5 !? I4 tLlxd5 exd5 I 5 �b i;!;) I 4
Wf2 b5 I 5 ..txb5?! (This is overdoing it. White has a positional edge so
regular chess moves are required. I 5 g4 !?, attempting to dislodge the lLlf6,
looks correct.) 1 5 . . . ..te6 1 6 ..td3 lLlfd7 1 7 ..tf5 tLlc4 I 8 .l:f.he i .l:Ue8 I 9 'it>b i
llac8 20 lle2 ..txf5 2 1 gxf5 llxe2 22 'ii'xe2 'ii'c6 23 'ii'g2 ..tf8 24 1lg1 f6 25
f4 tLld6 26 'ii'xd5+ 'ii'xd5 27 tLlxd5 <3iifl 28 tLle3 lle8 29 c3;!;
Kasimdzhanov-AI Modiahki, Hyderabad 2002) 15 ... axb5 16 lLlxb5 'ii'b 8 1 7
l2Jxd6 'ii'xd6 1 8 .i.c5 'ii'd 8 1 9 .i.xf8 'ii'x f8 20 'ir'c5 'ii'd 8! (Black correctly
keeps the queens on, giving chances for piece play.) 2 1 .l::.h e 1 l2Jg6 22 l2Jd4
.i.d7 23 lle3 l2Jf4 24 g3 l2Je6 25 l2Jxe6 .i.xe6 26 1i'd4 l2Je8 27 a4 l2Jd6 28
l:[a3 l2Jc4 29 .l:.a2 l2Ja5+ Vallejo Pons-Kasimdzhanov, Pamplona 2002.
B) 1 2 'itb 1 dxe4 1 3 'ii'f4 .i.d6 14 l2Jxe4 l2Jxe4 15 'ii'xe4 l2Jc6 16 .i.c3 .i.d7
17 g4 ( 1 7 'ii'd3 .i.e5 ! keeps things under control.) 17 ... .l::.fe8 1 8 .i.d3 g6 1 9
.!:.he 1 e 5 2 0 h 4 l2Je7 2 1 .i.c4 .i.c6 2 2 'ii'd3 llad8 2 3 'ii'e3 l2Jc8 24 h 5 l2Jb6 25
lDa5 lDa4 26 .i.d2;!; Movsesian-J.Polgar, Budapest 2003.
10 ... d6 1 1 .i.d4 l2Jc6 12 .i.xf6 gxf6 13 a3 .i.xc3 14 'ii'xc3 rii;e7 15 g4 .i.d7

1 6 h4 l:.ac8 1 7 l:.h2± Baches Garcia-Borges Mateos, Havana 2003 . So long
as White keeps queens on the board Black will have problems.
10 . . . 0-0 1 1 a3 .i.e7 1 2 f4 l2Jc4 1 3 .i.xc4 'ii'xc4 14 e5 ltJe4 1 5 ltJxe4 'ii'xe4

1 6 i.c5 .i.xc5 1 7 ltJxc5 'ii'c4 1 8 'i!r'd4 'ii'b5 1 9 ltJa4± Motylev-Tissir, Anibal
Open 200 1 .
1 1 c;t>bl
l l .i.e7
...
1 1 . . .0-0? 1 2 lbxb5 .i.xd2 1 3 ltJxc7 .i.xe3 1 4 lL!xa8 lL!e8 1 5 l2Jd4 .i.b7 1 6

l2Jb6 l2Jc7 1 7 ltJc4+- Motylev-Gershon, Bermuda 2003.
1 I .. .ltJc4 12 .i.xc4 bxc4 As a rule when Black captures on c4 it clogs the
attack. The b2 pawn is easily defended. 1 3 lbc 1 ( 1 3 l2Jd4 l:tb8 1 4 'iti>a 1 t
Sax-Goloshchapov, Rethymnon 2003) 1 3 . . .l:tb8 ( 1 3 . . .'ii'b 7 1 4 ltJ 1 e2 llb8 1 5
b 3 0-0 1 6 .i.f4 .l:.a8 1 7 .i.d6 .i.xd6 1 8 'i!r'xd6 cxb3 1 9 axb3 a 5 20 l:d4 l:a6
2 1 1i'a3 d5 22 exd5 exd5 23 ltJf4± Topalov-Lutz, Dortmund 2002; 1 3 . . .0-0
14 .i.f4 .i.xc3 1 5 .i.xc7 .i.xd2 1 6 .l:.xd2 c3 1 7 bxc3 d5 1 8 e5 l2Jd7 1 9 c4
dxc4 20 ltJe2 lla7 2 1 .i.d6 l:d8 22 .l:.hd 1 l2Jb6 23 .i.c5 ltxd2 24 .l:.xd2 l:td7
25 .:xd7 ltJxd7 26 .i.d4 Grischuk-Svidler, Cap D'Agde 2003) 1 4 ltJ 1 e2 0-0
1 5 c;t>a 1 d5 16 .i.f4 e5 1 7 .i.g5 d4 1 8 .i.xf6 gxf6 1 9 ltJd5 .i.xd2 20 l2Jxc7
.i.a5 2 1 ltJd5 .i.d8 22 c3 d3 23 ltJg3 .i.e6= Goloshchapov-Tregubov,
Istanbul 2003.
12 'ii'f2
1 2 .id4 d6 1 3 f4 tt:lc4 1 4 .ixc4 bxc4 1 5 e5 ( 1 5 tt:lc 1 !?) 1 5 ... cxb3 1 6 exf6
bxc2+ 1 7 'ii'xc2 .ixf6 1 8 .ixf6 gxf6 1 9 'ii'a4+ .id7 20 'i*'d4 .ic6 2 1 '6'xf6
l:.g8 22 f5 '6'e7 23 'iih 6 0-0-0? ! (23 . . . .:.xg2! ?+) 24 .:.he 1 e5 25 tt:le4 (25
g3 ! ?;!;) 25 . . ..:.xg2 26 tt:lxd6+ <j;c7 27 tt:lc4 '6'b4 28 .:.c 1 .:.b8 29 _.e3??
(White overlooked an obvious shot. 29 b3 ! .:.xa2 30 l:.e3 wins for White!)
29. . .'6'xb2+!-+ Piscopo-Bellaiche St Vincent 2002.
1 2 d6
...
12 ... 0-0 13 g4 d6 1 4 g5 tt:lfd7 1 5 h4 .ib7 ( 1 5 . . . l:.b8 with tt:lb6 to follow

looks like a better try.) 1 6 a3 tt:lc4 17 .ixc4 '6'xc4 1 8 h5 a5 1 9 l:.hg 1 b4 20
axb4 axb4 2 1 .:.d4 '6'c7 22 l:txb4 d5 23 .:.d4 tt:lc5=i= Parligras-Markus,
Subotica 2003. The open a-file could be dangerous to White 's health.
1 2 . . . .ib7 1 3 .ib6 '6'b8 1 4 .id4 tt:lc6 1 5 .ie3 d6 1 6 g4 tt:ld7 1 7 g5 _.c7 1 8
h4 tt:lce5 1 9 .:_g 1 b4 20 tt:la4 tt:lxf3 2 1 '6'xf3 .ic6 22 .id4 e5 23 .ic4 .:.f8 24
tt:lb6 tt:lxb6 25 .ixb6 '6'xb6 26 .:.gfl ;!; Moreno Camero-AI Modiahki, Port
Erin 2003.
1 2 . . .l:.b8 1 3 g4
A) 1 3 . . . d6 14 .:.g 1 tt:lc4 1 5 .ixc4 bxc4 1 6 tt:ld4 tt:ld7 1 7 <j;a 1 ( 1 7 g5 tt:lc5

1 8 <j;a 1 .id7 1 9 tt:lde2 'ii'b6 20 .:.b 1 'ii'a5 2 1 .ixc5 'ii'xc5 22 _.xeS dxc5 23
.:.bd 1 .ic6= Jurkovic-Ljubicic, Zadar 2003) 1 7 ... tt:lc5 1 8 _.e2 'ii'b7 1 9 l:tb 1
0-0 20 'ii'xc4 .id7 2 1 'ii'e2 l:tfc8 22 'ii'd2 .ie8 23 g5 tt)d7 24 f4 tt)b6 25

'ii'd3 tt)c4 26 i.e 1 .id8 27 b3 .ia5 28 tt::lde2 .ixc3+ 29 tt)xc3± Ramesh
Satyapragyan, Calicut 2003.
B) 13 . . . h6?! This move makes White's life much easier. Black's king is
on the safest square, but coordination is a serious issue. 14 h4 d6 15 l:tg 1
g5 !? (Black slows White's pawn storm but is clearly on the defensive.) 1 6
l:th 1 l:tg8 17 hxg5 hxg5 1 8 .ia7 l:tb7 1 9 .id4 .id7 20 'ii'g3 b4 2 1 tt)e2 tt)c4
22 tt)ec 1 .ib5 23 .ixc4 .ixc4 24 tt::ld2 e5 (This leaves long term
weaknesses on f5 and d5.) 25 tt)xc4 'ii'xc4 26 b3 'ii'c6 27 .ib2± Bauer
Skripchenko, Aix les Bains 2003. White has all the chances.
13 g4
1 3 h4 h5 14 'iWg3 b4 1 5 tt)e2 tt::lc4 1 6 .t f2 0-0 1 7 tt::led4 i.d7 1 8 tt::ld2
tt)xd2+ 1 9 l:txd2 e5 20 tt::l f5 .ixf5 2 1 exf5 a5 22 .ie3 �h8 23 .ie2 a4 24
l:td3 l:tac8 25 l:tc l d5+ Macieja-Jaracz, Warsaw 2003.
l3 ...tt::lfd7
1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 g5 tt::lfd7 1 5 h4 .ib7 (If Black isn't playing for d5 then the
bishop is better off on c8.) 1 6 a3 tt)c4 1 7 i.xc4 bxc4 ( 1 7 ...'iixc4 1 8 h5 a5
1 9 l:f.hg 1 b4 20 axb4 axb4 2 1 l:td4 'iWc7 22 l:txb4 d5 23 l:td4 tt)c5 24 exd5
tt)xb3 25 cxb3 i.xd5 26 tt)xd5 exd5 27 l:ta4 Parligras-Markus, Subotica
2003. White should be able to hold this position even though Black is a tad
better.) 1 8 tt::ld4 l:tab8 1 9 �a 1 .ia8 20 .nb 1 (This is very similar to our main
game.) 20 ... l:tfc8 2 1 g6! (Undermining the e6 point and opening up the
kingside. Black has a lot of heavy artillery pointed at nothing.) 2 l . ...if6 22
gxf7+ 'ifi>xf7 23 .ig5;t; Lalic-Markus, Jahorina 2003.
13 ... h6 14 h4 tt)fd7 15 'ii'g2 .ib7 16 g5 h5 1 7 .id4 l:tc8 1 8 a3 tt)c5 1 9
'iWg3 tt)a4 20 l:th2 0-0 2 1 tt)xa4 bxa4 22 tt::lc 1 tt::lg6 23 tt)d3 'ii'b 8 24 'it>a 1 e5
25 .te3 d5 26 .ih3 l:tc4 27 exd5 .id6!+ Kovchan-Bellaiche, Cappelle Ia
Grande 2003.
l4 l:tgl
1 4 g5 immediately looks normal. l:tg 1 looks like a waste of a tempo and
in these sharp positions it could prove costly.
l4 ..tb7
..
I4 ...b4 I 5 lLie2 ltJc4 I 6 i.c i a5 I 7 ltJed4 i.a6 I8 g5 g6 I 9 f4 e5 20 lLif5

gxf5 2 I exf5 a4 22 ltJd2 ltJxd2+ 23 .l:xd2 i.xfl 24 'ii'xfl b3-+ Shamugia
Tunik, Voronezh 2003.
15 g5
15 ...l::tc8
I5 ...b4 I 6 ltJe2 (I think I 6 ltJa4 ! ? is stronger than ltJe2. If the ltJa4 g ets
into trouble White will have time for ltJd4 and b3.) I 6 . . . 0-0 I 7 ltJed4 lll c 5
1 8 h4 d5 I9 exd5 i.xd5 20 h5 .l:ac8 2I i.h3 ltJxb3 22 axb3 ltJxf3 23 .l:.g3
tDxd4 24 .l:.xd4 f5 25 gxf6 l::txf6 26 i.f4 'ir'c5 27 'ii'd2 .l:cfll 28 h6 g6 29 c4
bxc3 30 .l:xc3 'ir'b5+ Lutz-Movsesian, Koelln 2003.
16 a3 ltJc4 17 i.xc4 bxc4 18 ltJd4 llb8 19 h4
White should make king safety a priority. I 9 �a I ! ? i.a8 20 .l:tb I 'ifa5 2 I
ltJa2 and Black's attack has hit a brick wall allowing White a free hand on
the kingside.
19 ... d5!
Black realizes the urgency and launches the attack.
20 exd5 i.xd5 2 1 lLixd5 exd5 22 .!:gel 0-0 23 i.f4
23 ... l:xb2+! 24 �xb2 i.xa3+ 25 �xa3 'ir'a5+ 26 �b2 c3+ 27 �bl

'ir'b6+ 28 lLib3 'ir'xf2-+ Kasimdzhanov-Ye Jiangchuan, Bled 2002.
Taimanov Variation 6 .i.e3 ! ? a6 7 'iVd2 4Jf6
8 0-0-0 .i.b4 9 f3 4Je5 ! ? 1 0 4Jb3 b5 1 1 ..td4
1 e4 c5 2 t:Llf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 t:Llxd4 t:Llc6 5 t:Llc3 'iVc7 6 .ie3 ! ? a6 7 'iVd2
t:Llf6 8 0-0-0 .ib4 9 f3 t:Lle5! ? 10 t:Llb3 b5 1 1 .id4
1 1 .ie7
...
l l . . .h6 1 2 'it>b I t:Llc4 1 3 .txc4 bxc4 1 4 t:Llc I �b8 1 5 g4 e5 I 6 .tf2 'iVa5

I 7 tiJ I e2 d6 I 8 'it>a I .ie6 I 9 h4 t:Lld7 20 'iVc l �b7 2 I llld5 .ic5 22 .txc5
t:Llxc5 23 'iVd2 'iVb5 24 �b I t:Lla4 25 t:Llec3 'iVa5 26 �hd I;!; Kovchan-Djukic,
Balatonlelle 2000;
1 l . . . .ib7
A) 1 2 'iVg5 t:Llg6
I 3 'iVg3?! e5 ! and Black gets the safer king and a nice initiative. I 4 .ie3
�c8 I 5 'iVf2 .ixc3 1 6 bxc3 0-0 I 7 .ic5 d5 1 8 exd5 t:Llxd5 1 9 c4 t:Llc3 20
cxb5 t:Llxd I 2 I �xd I �fd8+ 22 �c I 'iVd7 23 bxa6 .id5 24 a7 'iVa4+
Aagaard-AI Modiahki, Port Erin 2003 ;
1 3 e5 liJd5 1 4 lDxd5 .ixd5 1 5 �b 1 0-0 1 6 .id3 .ie7 1 7 'ii'e3 d6 1 8 f4

dxe5 1 9 fxe5 l:tfc8 20 lDc 1 .ic5 2 1 I:.he 1 .ixd4 22 'ii'xd4 .ixg2 23 'ili'g4
.idS 24 'ii'h5 liJf8 25 lDe2 .ic4 26 .ie4 .ixe2 27 ltxe2 l:.ab8+
Martinez-Trajkovic, Sautron 2002.
1 3 .ic5 .ixc5 14 'ili'xc5 'ii'x c5 1 5 lDxc5 .ic6 1 6 a4 bxa4 1 7 lD5xa4 rl;e7

1 8 b3 l:.hb8 19 rl;b2 a5 20 l:.d2 h5 2 1 .id3 lDe5 22 h4 l:.a7 23 l:.e 1 l:.b4 24
lt:la2 l:.b8 25 lt:l2c3 d6 26 .ifl l:.d7+ Nyysti-Ivanisevic, Istanbul 2003.
White 's kingside pawn structure is overextended. ·
1 3 .ixf6 gxf6 14 'ii'x f6 l:.c8 1 5 'ii'd4 .txc3 1 6 bxc3 0-0 1 7 �b2 l:tfd8 1 8
.id3 d5 1 9 exd5 .txd5 20 'ili'f6 lt:le5 2 1 lt:lc5 lt:lg6 22 .ixg6 hxg6 23 l:.d4
'ii'x c5 24 lth4 'ili'xc3+ 25 'ili'xc3 l:.xc3 26 �xc3± Bezemer-Handke,
Amsterdam 200 1 .
B) 1 2 <;t>b l .te7
1 3 lt:la5 d6 14 lt:lxb7 'ii'xb7 1 5 f4 lt:lc6 1 6 .ixf6 .ixf6 1 7 g4 0-0 1 8 g5

.ixc3 1 9 'ii'xc3 l:tfd8 20 h4;!; Kovchan-Tregubov, Smolensk 2000.
1 3 'ii'g5 lt:lg6 1 4 'ii'g3 ( 1 4 e5 lt:ld5 1 5 lDxdS .ixd5 1 6 'ili'e3 l:.c8 1 7 .td3
0-0 1 8 h4 f6 1 9 exf6 .ixf6 20 h5 lt:le5 2 1 h6 g6 22 .ie4 lt:lc4 23 'ii'd3 .ixe4
24 'ili'xe4 .ixd4 25 'ii'xd4 l:.f7+ Komeev-Oms Pallise, Albacete 2000.)
14 ... e5 1 5 .te3 0-0 1 6 'ii'f2 l:tac8 1 7 h4 b4 1 8 lDa4 .ixe4 ! 1 9 lt:lac5 .idS 20
lDxa6 'ii'c6 2 1 lt:lbc5 .ixc5 22 .ixc5 d6+ Mazi-Ribli, St Veit 2003.
1 3 'ii'f2 l:tc8 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 g4 b4 1 5 g5 bxc3 Handke- Teske, Wattenscheid
2003) 14 a3 ( 14 l:.g 1 lt:lc6 1 5 .ib6 'ii'xh2 1 6 .ie2 'fibS 1 7 g4 d6 1 8 g5 lt:ld7
1 9 .ie3 lDceS 20 .id4 b4 2 1 lt:la4 'ikc7 22 .id3 lt:lc5 23 lDaxc5 dxc5 24
.ixe5 'ikxe5 25 lt:la5 .ia8 26 f4 'ikc7 27 lt:lc4;!; Sedlak- Matulovic, Subotica
2003. White has clamped down on any activity Black might have and left
him with king problems.) 14 . . . 0-0 1 5 g4 d6 1 6 g5 lDfd7 1 7 l:tg l lt:lc6 1 8
.ie3 b4 1 9 axb4 lDxb4 20 f4 (20 l:.d4 d 5 2 1 exd5 lt:lxd5 22 lt:lxd5 .ixd5 23
c4 .ic6 24 l:th4 l:tb8 25 'ii'c2 g6 26 lt:ld4 .ia3 27 .te l .ic5 28 lt:lxc6 'ikxc6
29 l:tg3 I:.fd8+ Marj anovic-Perunovic, Budva 2003) 20 ...l:tfe8 2 1 f5 exf5 22
exf5 lt:le5 23 f6 .if8 24 .ih3 l:ta8 25 .ib6 'ii'b 8 26 fxg7 .ixg7;!;
Cheparinov-Matulovic, Pancevo 2003.
l l .. .tiJc4
1 2 'ii'g 5! .te7?! 1 3 e5 h6 14 'ii'x g7 .l:.g8 1 5 exf6 .l:.xg7 16 fxg7 'ii'f4+ 1 7

� b 1 'ii'g 5 1 8 tLle4 'ii'g6 1 9 tiJf6+ .txf6 20 .txf6 .tb7 2 1 .txc4 bxc4 22
tLla5+- Korneev-Parfjonov, Malaga 2003.
1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 'ii'g5 .td6 13 'it>b 1 h6 14 'ii'd2 tLle8 1 5 'iff2 tLlg6 1 6 i.b6 'ii'b 8
17 g3 ( 1 7 .tc5 ! ?, playing for a positional edge, looks interesting.) 17 ... i.c7
1 8 .tc5 d6 19 .te3 i.b7 20 i.d3 tiJf6 2 1 .!:.he 1 tLle5 22 .td4 ttJxd3 23 cxd3
e5 24 .te3 d5 25 i.c5 .l:.e8 26 exd5 tLlxd5 27 tLlxd5 .txd5+ Lakos-Galojan,
Bled 2002. Black has the better prospects and a variety of ideas.
1 2 'ii'f2
1 2 -.g5
A) 1 2 . . . tiJg6
AI) 1 3 'ii'e3 .td6?! 14 'ii'f2 i.xh2 ! ? (This is a very greedy thing to do.
Black's king isn 't safe anywhere on the board after this. 14 . . . .!:.b8 15 'it>b 1
0-0 1 6 .tc5 !
With this fine move White grabs a persistent positional edge. I 6 . . . ..txc5
I7 'ifxc5 'ifxc5 I 8 lbxc5 l:tb6 I 9 a4 .l:.c6 20 lbd3 bxa4 2 I lbxa4 d5 22 exd5
lbxd5 23 lbdc5± Leko-Vallejo Pons, Linares 2003. Black's queenside is
very loose and White's pieces can filter in and pound the a6 p awn.) I 5 lbe2
( I 5 g4 i.f4+ I6 'it>b I h6 I 7 lbe2 .ie5 I 8 ..txe5 1Wxe5 I 9 �g2 .l:.b8 20 f4
'iic 7 2 I i.f3 d6 22 f5 lbe5 23 g5 lbg8 24 lbbd4 'iic 5 25 'ifg3 exf5 26 gxh6
g6 27 exf5 lbe7 28 fxg6 fxg6 29 lbc3 ..tf5 30 lbe4 i.xe4 3 I .ixe4 'ii'c 8 32
'ili'g5 l:.b6 33 'ili'f6 l:.h7 34 lbe6+- Fressinet-Heissler, Rethymnon 2003.
Black was never able to coordinate his forces.) I 5 . . . ..te5 I6 ..tb6 'ili'b8 17 g4
h6 I 8 .ie3 d5 I 9 lbbd4 ..td7 20 g5 hxg5 2 I l:txh8+ lbxh8 22 ..txg5
Cheparinov-Iotov, Sofia 2003.
A2) I3 'ili'g3
I 3 ...'ili'xg3 ( 1 3 ... d6 I4 h4 0-0 I 5 h5 lbe5 I6 'iPb i b4 1 7 lba4 l:.b8 I 8 'ili'f2

..td7 I9 .ixe5 dxe5 20 lbac5 'ili'b6 2 I lbd3 'ili'xf2 22 lbxf2;!;
Yagupov-Gershon, Istanbul 2003; I 3 ... e5 I4 ..te3 d6 I 5 'ili'f2 l:.b8 I 6 �b i
0-0 I 7 g4 b4 I 8 lbe2 a5 I 9 g5 a4 20 lbbc I lbh5 2 I lbg3 lbgf4 22 lbxh5
lbxh5 23 'ifh4 g6 24 .th3 a3+ Smimov-Geller, Togliatti 2003. Black's
initiative has reached dangerous proportions while White 's demonstration
never got going.) I 4 hxg3 d6 I 5 lba5 ..id7 I 6 .ixf6?! (Giving up all the
dark squares is asking for trouble.) I 6 ... ..txf6 I 7 lbb7 ( 1 7 �b i ! ?) I 7 ... ..tc6
I 8 lbxd6+ <j;;e7 I 9 f4 l:tad8 20 e5 lbxe5 !-+ (White must have missed this.)
2 1 fxe5 �xe5 22 lDdxb5 lhd 1 + 23 'iti>xd 1 axb5 24 �xb5 �xg2 Yagupov

Neverov, Istanbul 2003. With the bishop pair Black will win the crazed
pawn race.
B) 1 2 ... d6 13 'ifxg7 !?
If Black gets good play after this pawn sac then White's 'ifg5 idea must
be reconsidered. For the pawn Black gets good development and very
active pieces. The white queen for now is out of action. 1 3 ... .l:.g8 14 'ifh6 b4
1 5 lDe2 ( 1 5 lDa4 ! ? l:tb8 1 6 �xe5 dxe5 1 7 'it>b 1 .l:.g6 1 8 'ife3 �d7 1 9 l:txd7
l2Jxd7 20 l2Jd2 l:td8 2 1 'ife 1 lDb8 22 b3 'ifd7 23 i.d3 l:txg2-+
Kasimdzhanov-Ye Jiangchuan, Jodhpur 2003) 1 5 ... i.d7 16 Wb 1 a5 1 7 li:Jg3
a4 1 8 l2Jd2 l:tc8 1 9 l:tc 1 b3 ! (Sacrificing another pawn for an open a-file
gives Black an enduring initiative.) 20 axb3 axb3 2 1 lDxb3 l2Jc6 22 �xf6
l:tg6 23 'ifxh7 �xf6 24 lDh5 'ifa7 25 c3 .l:.a8 26 lDxf6+ .!:.xf6 27 lDd2 lDe5
28 lDc4 ifa2+ 29 ..t>c2 �e7 30 l2Jxe5 .ia4+ 3 1 'it>d3 ifxb2 32 l2Jc6+ .ixc6
33 l:tc2 ifb 1 34 e5 dxe5 35 'it>e3 e4 0- 1 Rowson-Kunte, Edinburgh 2003.
1 2 d6
...
1 2 . . .0-0 1 3 g4
A) 1 3 ...d6 1 4 g5 ( 1 4 h4 lDfd7 1 5 g5 b4 1 6 lDe2 .ib7 1 7 �b 1 a5 1 8 lDg3

a4 1 9 lDc I .!:.fc8 20 �d3 d5 2 1 f4 lDxd3 22 cxd3 dxe4 23 dxe4 l2Jc5+
Acher-Lazarev, Nice 2003) 14 . . . lDfd7 1 5 .l:.g 1 b4 1 6 lDa4 'ifc6 1 7 lDb6
tbxb6 18 tba5 ( 1 8 �xb6 tbxf3 : I assume this is why White threw in tba5.)
18 .. .'�a4 1 9 �xb6 tbd7 (19 . . .'�xa2! If this pawn can be captured Black
should think long and hard about it. 20 f4 tbd7 2 1 tbc6 :e8+) 20 �c7 �d8
21 �xd8 :xd8 22 tbc4 '6'xa2 23 l:txd6 :e8 24 '6'd4 l:tb8 25 b3 a5 26 '6'b2
'ii'xb2+ 27 tbxb2 tbe5 28 �e2 �b7 29 :gd 1 'if;f8 30 tbc4 tbxc4 3 1 �xc4;!;
Chumfwa-Hatanbaatar, Bled 2002. Controlling the open file gives White
some chances.
B) 1 3 ...b4 14 tba4 d5?! 1 5 g5 tiJfd7 1 6 f4 tbc4 1 7 exd5 �b7 1 8 f5 �xd5
1 9 f6 �d6 20 fxg7 l:tfc8 2 1 �d3 tbce5 22 l:thfl tbxd3+ 23 l:txd3 tbe5 24
�xe5 �xe5 25 tbb6! �e4 26 tbxa8 :xa8 27 l:td2 :c8 28 tbc5+
Aagaard-Hoffmann, Budapest 2003.
13 'it;b1
1 3 a3 l:tb8 14 g4 h6 1 5 h4 b4 16 axb4 :xb4 17 �e2 tbc6 18 g5 tbxd4 1 9
l:txd4 l:txd4 20 gxf6 l:tb4 2 1 fxe7;!; Pikula-Markus, Budva 2003 .
1 3 a4? (An unbelievable move... White weakens his own king position.)
1 3 . . .b4 14 �b6 '6'b8 1 5 tba2 tbed7 1 6 �a5 d5 1 7 'ii'd2 dxe4 1 8 �xb4
�xb4 19 '6'xb4 exf3 20 gxf3 �b7 2 1 tbd4 tbd5 22 'ii'a3 '6'f4+ 23 �b 1 tbe3
24 l:td3 tbc4 25 '6'b4 �d5 26 tbc3 :b8+ Bryzgalin-Poluljahov, Krasnodar
2002.
13 0-0 14 g4
...
1 4...lLlfd7
1 4 . . .b4 1 5 lLla4 ..ib7 16 .:tg l lLlfd7 1 7 lLlb6 .:tabS 1 S g5 l:tfdS 1 9 lLlxd7
lLlxd7 20 h4 d5 !? (Black isn't set up for anything other than this.) 2 1 ..id3
e5 22 il..a7 .:taS 23 exd5 .:txa7 24 'ii'xa7 tt:lc5 25 d6! 25 ... ..ixd6 26 ..ie4
lLlxe4 27 fxe4 .:taS 2S 'ife3 a5 29 'ifd3 .:tdS 30 l:.gfl a4 3 1 lLld2 ..tffl 32
'ii'c4 'ii'd7 33 l:tf2 l:.cS 34 'ifd3 'ii'e6 35 'ifb5± Leko-Lutz, Essen 2002. (It's
a matter of time before White gets organized and the exchange plus
decides.) 14 . . ...ib7 1 5 ..ib6 'ifbS 1 6 lLla5 .:tcS 1 7 ..id4 b4 l S lLla4 lLlxe4 !
(Both sides should be alert for this type of shot.) 1 9 fxe4 ..ixe4 20 ..ixe5
.i.xc2+ 2 1 'ii'x c2 .:txc2 22 ..ixd6 ..ixd6 23 �xc2 'irc7+ 24 'it>b3 'irxa5 25
.:txd6 .:tdS 26 .:txdS+ 'ii'xdS 27 ..ic4 a5+ Karjakin-Pelletier, Pamplona
2003.
15 .:tg1
1 5 f4 b4 1 6 lLla4 lLlxg4 1 7 'irg2 lLlgf6 1 S ..id3 e5 1 9 l:.dg 1 lLleS Vallejo
Pons-Comas Fabrego, Ayamonte 2002. Black's king is safe and the lLla4
isn't long for the game.
1 5 a3 .:tbS 1 6 l:tg 1 lLlc4 1 7 g5 a5 1 S 'irh4 b4 1 9 axb4 axb4+ Zufic-Geller,
Zadar 2003.
15 . .i.b7
. .
15 ...l:.bS 1 6 f4 lLlc4 1 7 g5 b4 1S lLla4 e5 ! ? 1 9 ..ta 7 .:taS 20 .i.xc4 'ifxc4

2 1 lLld2 'irc6 22 b3 f5 23 gxf6 lLlxf6 24 ..ie3 .:tf7 25 fxe5 lLlxe4 26 'irg2
lLlxd2+ 27 ifxd2 dxe5 2S tt:lb6 l:tbS 29 lLlc4 ..if6+ Hracek-Goloshchapov,
Budva 2003. The bishop pair gives Black a slight pull.
16 g5
16 a3 .:tabS ( 16 . . .lLlc6 1 7 ..ie3 b4 is the fastest way to take advantage of
White playing a3.) 1 7 g5 lLlc4 1 S ..ixc4 bxc4 1 9 lLld2 d5 20 exd5 ..ixd5 2 1
'it>a2 'ifb7 22 .:tb 1 e5 23 ..ia7 .l:taS 24 ..ie3 ..ie6 25 lLlde4t Ibarra Jerez
Rodriguez Guerrero, Andorra Ia Vella 2003.
16 ....:tfc8 17 a3 lLlc4 18 ..ixc4 bxc4
I've found that in most Sicilians this recapture clogs Black's attack. Black
should strive to open both the b and c files. Anything Black can muster on
the b-file is met by simple defense.
19 lLlc1 1Iab8 20 lLl1e2 �c6 2 1 'ita1 'ii'a S 22 lLla2
After Kasparov is done covering up his king position he switches to the
attack. Black's problem, the b2 pawn, is one tough nut to crack.
22 ...eS 23 �c3 'ii'c7 24 lLlg3 g6
24 ... �xg5? 25 lLlf5 �f6 26 lLlxg7+-
2S lLlfl ttJcS 26 lLle3 aS 27 'ii'd 2 l:tbS 28 h4 ttJe6 29 l:tbl l:tcS 30 ttJcl
1Id8 3 1 lLlg4 dS!?
Black decides it's best to go down fighting.
32 �xeS dxe4 33 'ii'c3
33 ...l:txeS
At the cost of material Black slows down White's initiative.
34 _.xeS _.xeS 3S lLlxeS± �a4 36 c3 exf3 37 l:tfl �c2 38 lLlxc4 �xb1
39 <t>xb1 a4 40 lLleS h6 4 1 l:txf3 hxgS 42 1Ixfi �d6 43 l:[f6 i.xeS 44 l:txe6
�f4 4S lLle2 l:tdl+ 46 �a2 cj{fi 47 l:ta6 1Ie1 48 lLlxf4 gxf4 49 1Ixa4+-
White's three passers decide.

49....l:.fl 50 c4 �e6 5 1 c5 'itd5 52 .l:.a6 �e5 53 .l:.xg6 f3 54 .l:t.g8 l:tcl 55
l:tf8 �e4 56 b4 �e3 57 'itb2 l:tc4 58 �b3 .l:t.cl 59 h5 f2 60 h6 f1=1f 6 1
l:txfl l:txfl 6 2 �c4 �e4 6 3 c 6 l:. h l 64 �c5 l:.h5+ 6 5 'itb6 .l:.xh6 66 �b7
1-0
Kasparov-Ye Jiangchuan, Bled 2002. Excellent technique from possibly
the greatest player of all time.
Taimanov Variation 6 J.. e 3 ! ? a6 7 'iVd2 ctJf6
8 0-0-0 ctJg4 ! ?
1 e4 c5 2 c!t:\f3 c!t:\c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 c!t:\xd4 'ikc7 5 c!t:\c3 e6 6 ..te3 a6 7 'ikd2

Q\f6 8 0-0-0 c!t:\g4 ! ?
A s in many Sicilian lines, if chasing down White's ..te3 i s possible then it

should be investigated.
9 ..tf4
If White allows c!t:\xe3 Black will assume full control of the dark squares.
9 e5
...
9 .. c!t:\ge5 ! ?
.
A) 1 0 ..tg3 c!t:\xd4 1 1 'ifxd4 f6

Al) 1 2 f4 ..tc5 1 3 'ikd2 c!t:\t7
Al a) 1 4 f5 !? (This looks very dangerous but Black does have defensive

resources.) 14 ...ft'c6 (Surrendering the d5 square by 14 ...e5 looks like
suicide. 1 5 lZJd5±) 1 5 e5 !? (Very aggressive, but probably not sound.)
1 5 ... fxe5 1 6 fxe6 dxe6 ( 1 6 ... ft'xe6 !? 1 7 lZJd5 'ii'c6 1 8 ..te2 ..td4 is very
unclear but White 's development should count for something.) 1 7 ..td3
..td4 1 8 l:lhe l ..txc3 ( 1 8 ... 0-0!?) 1 9 bxc3 ..td7 20 l:le4 l:lc8 2 l l:lg4 0-0 22
..th4 �h8 23 ft'e2 e4? (This tricky counter shot backfires in spectacular
fashion. The uncomfortable-looking, but forced 23 ... l:lg8 !? keeps Black
alive.) 24 l:lxg7! exd3 25 ..tf6 'ii'xc3 26 l:lg8+ Ramesh-Kunte, Torquay
2002.
Alb) 14 e5 is more positional than f5 but Black's position is tough to
crack.
14 ... f5 1 5 ..tf2 ..txf2 1 6 ft'xf2 b5 1 7 l:lg l 'ii'a 7! ? (A wise decision . . .

forcing the swap o f queens breaks White 's attacking chances.) 1 8 ft'xa7
l:lxa7 1 9 g4 fxg4 20 l:lxg4 0-0 2 1 ..td3 lZJh6 22 l:lg5 l:lxf4.
A2) 12 ..te2 1 2 ... �c5 1 3 ft'd2 0-0 1 4 f4 lDfl 1 5 ..tf3 ( 1 5 ..th5 b5 1 6
l:lhe I ..tb4 1 7 l:le3 �a5 1 8 'ii'd3 b4 1 9 lZJa4 'ii'c6 20 b3;!; Gaponenko
Javakhishvili, Rethymnon 2003. Black is somewhat solid but his piece
coordination leaves plenty to be desired.) 1 5 ... l:lb8 1 6 l:lhe l b5 1 7 e5 f5 1 8
�f2 ..txf2 1 9 ft'xf2 �b7 20 l:ld3 b4 2 l lLJe2 �e4 22 l:ld2 ft'a5 !+ Smimov
Banikas. Panormo 2002.
B) 1 0 ltJxc6 bxc6
The c6-d7-e6-f7 complex is very hard to break. It will mean that d5 is

always protected. Here White's slight lead in development shouldn't count
for much. 1 1 .tg3 .te7 ( 1 l .. .d6 1 2 .te2 .te7 1 3 h4 .l:.b8 1 4 h5 f6 1 5 f4 ltJt7
1 6 .th2 d5 1 7 f5 e5 1 8 exd5 .i.xf5 1 9 dxc6 'ii'xc6 20 liJd5 'ii'b 7 2 1 b3 0-0+
Skaperdas-Banikas, Aspropyrgos 2003) 1 2 f4 ltJg4 1 3 e5 f5 ! ? (An
important defensive idea. Otherwise White plays ltJe4 and Black is bottled
up.) 1 4 .te2 liJh6 1 5 .i.f2 'ii'a5 1 6 ltJe4 'ii'xa2 1 7 liJd6+ .txd6 1 8 'ii'xd6
1 8 . . .'ii'a 1 + 1 9 ..ti>d2 'ii'a 5+ 20 'iti>c 1 ltJt7 2 1 'ii'a3 'it'xa3 22 bxa3 a5 23 .l:.d2
0-0 24 .tc5 l:le8 25 .i.b6 liJd8 26 .th5 g6 27 .i.f3! Stiri-Botsari, Athens
2002. White has h4-h5 ideas while Black's forces are scattered.
10 tiJdS
1 0 ltJxc6 dxc6 1 1 .tg3 .te6 1 2 h3 liJf6 1 3 'ii'g5 liJd7 14 .te2 h6 1 5 'it'd2
0-0-0 1 6 'iti>b l .i.b4 1 7 tiJd5 .i.xd2 1 8 ltJxc7 <3;xc7 1 9 .l:.xd2! Erdogdu
Ataman, Antalya 2002. The bishop pair gives White a slight pull.
10 h3!? tiJf6 l l ltJxc6 bxc6 12 .th2 d6 l 3 f4 (White's play looks
sufficiently aggressive.) l 3 ... .i.e6 1 4 f5 (The position after 14 g4 looks very
pleasant for White.) l 4 ... .tc8 1 5 g4 h6 1 6 .i.e2 .i.e7 1 7 .tg 1 .tb7 1 8 .i.f3
d5 19 'it'h2 .i.d6 20 l:te 1 'it>f8 2 1 h4 d4+ Boros-Wang, Las Vegas 2003 .
10 ...'it'd8 1 1 h3
1 1 ...lLlxf2?!
1 1 . . .lLlf6 ! ? 12 lLlxc6 bxc6 (Black has some crucial squares covered as
opposed to 1 1 . . .lLlxf2.) 13 lLlxf6+ 'ii'x f6 14 ..tg5 (After 14 ..te3 !? ..te7 1 5
f4;!; White's development should give a slight pull .) 1 4 . . .'ii'g6 1 5 f4 ( 1 5
f3 ! ?) 1 5 . . . f6 1 6 .i.h4 'ii'xe4 (A very safe pawn grab due to the placement of
the ..th4.) 1 7 :e 1 'ii'a4 1 8 ..tg3 ( 1 8 ..t>b 1 :b8-+) 1 8 . . .'ii'xa2 1 9 'il'c3 a5 20
b3 .i.b4 2 1 :xe5+ fxe5 22 'ifxe5+ ..te7 23 ..th4 'ii'a 3+ 24 ..t>b 1 'ii'd6-+
Meera-Kavitha, Calicut 2003.
12 'ii'x f2 exf4 13 'ii'xf4
White's lLld5 puts Black under heavy pressure.
l3 d6 14 .i.c4 lLlxd4 1 5 :xd4 ..te6
...
1 6 e5!
With such a huge lead in development, opening the position makes sense.
16 ...:cs 17 :hd 1 :c6 1 8 lLle3 ..te7 19 ..txe6 fxe6 20 exd6 ..tf6 2 1 d7+
rj;e7 22 :e4 q;n 23 l2Jg4 :c5 24 lLlxf6 gxf6 25 :xe6 1-0
Arizmendi Martinez-Collutiis, Saint Vincent 2003 .
Taimanov Variation 6 i.. e3 ! ? a6 7 'i¥d2 ttJf6
8 f3 ! ?
1 e4 c5 2 lt:\f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 lt:\c6 5 lt:\c3 'ikc7 6 �e3 a6 7 'ikd2

tt:lf6 8 f3!?
White bolsters the e4 point, taking the sting out of �b4. In this variation
Black has many possibilities, most of them reasonable.
A) 8 tt:lxd4 9 �xd4 e5
...
Al) 10 i.e3 i.b4 1 1 0-0-0 b5 12 a3 (On 1 2 ..tb 1 !? Black might have to

play �c3 anyway. It may be that it's not important, but you never know.)
1 2 ... i.xc3 1 3 'ii'x c3 'ii'xc3 14 bxc3 �b7 1 5 c4! (Now Black can't free the
position with d5.) 1 5 ... �c6 16 i.c5 lt:\g8 1 7 cxb5 axb5 1 8 .l:.d3 f6 1 9 .l:.b3
.l:.a5 20 c4+- Rosito-Needleman, Mendoza 2003.
A2) 10 �f2 i.b4 1 1 0-0-0 d6 12 a3 i.xc3 1 3 'ikxc3 'ikxc3 14 bxc3 cj;e7
1 5 c4 tt:ld7 1 6 i.e2 b6 1 7 .l:.d3 lt:\c5 1 8 �xc5 dxc5+ Pikula-Kamber,
Switzerland 2000. Black has a miniscule edge, but it's very drawish.
B) 8 ..ie7
...
Bl) 9 0-0-0 0-0 I O g4 d6 I I gS l2Jd7 I 2 h4 bS I 3 g6 ( 1 3 l2Jxc6 'ir'xc6 I 4

l2Je2:t) I 3 . . . l2JdeS I4 gxh7+ �h8 I S .l:tgi b4 I 6 'ir'g2 l2Jg6 I 7 l2Jce2+
Rosito-Panno, Mendoza 2003.
B2) 9 g4 h6 IO 0-0-0 bS 1 I h4 ..ib7 12 'ir'g2 ( I 2 g S hxgS 1 3 ..ix g S b4 14
l2Ja4 'ir'aS Setting White up for a nice trick. 1S b3 l2Jxe4 1 6 'ir'g2 lLJxgS 1 7
hxgS 'ir'xgS+-+ Cork-Thurlow, Coulsdon 1 999) 1 2 ... l2Jxd4 1 3 ..ixd4 ..icS
I4 �b 1 ..ixd4 I S .l:txd4 'lieS 1 6 'ir'd2 dS 1 7 exdS lLJxdS 1 8 l2Je4 'ir'e7 1 9 c4
bxc4 20 ..ixc4 0-0 2 1 gS 2 l . . .fS 22 l2Jf2 l2Jb6 23 ..ib3 �h7 24 .l:te i eS 2S
'liaS l2Jd7 26 'ir'c7+- Arakhamia-Jackson, Port Erin 200 1 .
C) 8 d6
...
Cl) 9 0-0-0 ..ie7 1 0 g4 0-0 1 1 gS l2Jd7 I 2 h4 l2Jxd4 1 3 ..ixd4 b5 14 �b l

b4 ! ? (The most direct try. On I 4 ... ..ib7 the bishop can get in the way of
Black's play, unless he wants d5. It does a nice job of protecting e6. I S g6! ?
lLJeS I 6 gxh7+ �h8 1 7 �g2 fS I 8 a3 ..if6 1 9 h S .l:tad8 20 h 6 gS 2 I .l:tgi
Kapnisis-Petrov, Halkidiki 2002. Analysis engines like White, but I'm not
so sure. Black's kin g is safe enough and White 's plan isn't clear.) I S l2Je2
lLJeS 1 6 f4 l2Jc4 I 7 'Wd3 aS 1 8 lLJc i ..ia6 1 9 'ir'f3 e5 20 ..ig I exf4 2 I 'ir'xf4
Dominguez-Mortensen, Copenhagen 2002, with a double edged game with
chances for both sides.
C2) 9 g4 lL!d7 10 0-0-0 lL!de5 1 1 'ife2 lL!a5 12 f4 lL!ec4 13 .if2 .id7 14

.te l ? ! l:f.c8 1 5 tLlb l ?! (White's play leaves one with a weird feeling.)
1 5 ... e5 1 6 lL!b3 .ixg4 1 7 'it'xg4 tLle3 1 8 'ii'x c8+ 'it'xc8 1 9 :d2 lL!xb3+ 20
axb3 exf4-+ Solovjev-Vorobiov, Togliatti 200 1 .
D) 8 d5?! 9 exd5 lL!xd5 1 0 lL!xd5 exd5 1 1 0-0-0 .ie7 1 2 'it>b 1

...
We can compare this particular isolated pawn position to the ...'ifb6

Richter-Rauser. White's control of the d4 point and Black's lack of activity
makes this something to avoid. 1 2 ... 0-0 1 3 h4 .if6 1 4 g4 :e8 1 5 .if2 .id7
1 6 c3 .ie5 1 7 .ie3 lL!xd4 1 8 .ixd4 .if4 1 9 'ifc2 .ib5 20 .ixb5 axb5 2 1
:he l Ae6 22 Axe6 fxe6 23 1We2 'ii'c6 24 .ie5 :f8 25 .ixf4 Axf4 26 Ae 1
'it>f7 27 h5 Af6 28 'it'e3t Najer-Tunik, Samara 2000. Black is clearly on the
long term defensive.
E) 8 lL!a5!?
...
9 lL!b3 b5 1 0 'ifd4 .ib7 11 .ie2 Ac8 1 2 0-0 .ie7

1 2 ... lL!xb3 ! ? 1 3 axb3 ( 1 3 cxb3 .id6 14 h3 .ih2+ 1 5 'it>h 1 .ie5+) 1 3 ... e5+
13 Aac1 lL!c4 14 .ixc4 bxc4
14 . . .'ii'xc4 1 5 'ii'xc4 Axc4 1 6 lL!a5 Ac7 1 7 .ib6±
15 liJd2 i.d6 1 6 �h1 i.xh2 17 ltJxc4 i.g3 18 ltJe2 ltJh5 19 l:tfd 1 d5 20

liJb6 l:td8 21 exd5 exd5 22 'ii'g4 'ii'e5 23 i.c5 d4 24 ltJxg3 ltJxg3+
25 'ii'xg3 'ii'x c5
25 .. .'ii'xg3 26 l:te l + wins.
26 'ii'xg7 �e7 27 l:te l+ 'it>d6 28 'ii'f6+ �c7 29 lte7+ �b8 30 liJd7+ 1-0
Mladenov-Braun, World Youth Championships, Halkidiki 2003 .
Taimanov Variation 6 i.. e3 ! ? a6 7 'ifd2 ctJf6
8 f3 ! ? i.. b 4
1 e4 c5 2 lt::l f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt::lx d4 lt::l c6 5 lt::lc 3 �c7 6 i.e3 a6 7 �d2

lt::lf6 8 f3!? i.b4 9 a3
9 i._g5 b5 I 0 a3 i.e7 I I lt::lb3 0-0 I 2 i.d3 d6 I 3 0-0 b4 I4 axb4 'ifb6+ I 5
i.e3 'ifxb4 I 6 .l:ta4 'ifb8 I 7 .l:tfa i lt::lb4 I 8 i.fl d5+ Stevenson-Rochev,
Bunratty 200 I .
9 g4 h6 I 0 0-0-0 ( I 0 a3 i.a5 I I lt::lb3 lt::le5 I 2 i.e2 i.xc3 1 3 bxc3 d5 I 4
exd5 lt::lxd5 I 5 i.d4 0-0 1 6 f4 lt::lxf4-+ Nikolic-Susnik, Ljubljana 200 I )
I O . . . lt::le 7 I I lt::lde2 d5 I 2 a3 i.d6 I 3 h4 b5 1 4 i.g2 i.b7 I 5 g5 hxg5 I 6
hxg5 .l:txhi I 7 .l:txh i ;!; Arakhamia-Janjgava, Istanbul 2003.
9 i.e7
...
Provoking a3 helps Black's cause should White castle queenside.

A) 9 .. .'.a5 IO lt::lb 3 i.xc3 1 1 bxc3 ir'c7 1 2 i.c5 d5 13 0-0-0 lt::la5 1 4 'ir'd4
lt::lxb3+ 1 5 cxb3 e5 1 6 'ifb4 d4 1 7 cxd4 lt::ld7 1 8 �b2 lt::lxc5 1 9 'ii'xc5 ir'xc5
20 dxc5+- Hajnai-Pg, Budapest 2003.
B) 9 ... i.a5 IO b4 ( I O lt::lb 3 i.b6 I I i.f4 ir'd8 I2 0-0-0 0-0 13 i.d6 lt::le 7
14 g4 lt::le8 I 5 i.g3 i.c7 I6 e5 f6 I7 lt::lc5 l:tf7 I 8 lt::lxe6+- Simutowe
Bianco Fernandez, Merida 2003) I O ... i.b6 I I lt::lcb5 axb5 I 2 lt::lxb5 ir'd8 I 3
ir'd6 :a6 I 4 i.xb6 ir'xb6 I 5 lt::lc7+ �d8 1 6 lt::lxa6 bxa6+ Navarro-Torres,
Merida 2002.
10 g4
10 i.d3 b5 I I 0-0 i.b7 1 2 �h 1 lt::le5 I3 i.gi lt::lc4 14 i.xc4 ir'xc4 1 5
lt::lb3 'ii'c7 I 6 i.d4 e5 1 7 i.e3 d5 I 8 exd5 .l:td8 I 9 ir'f2 lt::lxd5 20 lt::lx d5
.l:txd5 2 1 i.b6 'ii'c 8 22 .l:tad 1 0-0 23 .l:txd5 i.xd5 24 .l:td i ir'e6+ Ramos
Gauche, Sao Paulo 2000.
1 0 0-0-0 b5 1 1 g4
1 l . . . h6 ( l l . . .d6 1 2 h4 .ib7 1 3 h5 l:.c8 1 4 g_5 ltJd7 1 5 h6 g6 1 6 f4 ltJc5 1 7

.ig2 ltJa5 1 8 f5 ttJc4 1 9 'iff2 exf5 20 l:.hg 1 lllxe4 2 1 .ixe4 .ixe4 22 ttJxe4
fxe4 23 .!:.gfl O-m: Dvomitzky-Csonka, Szombathely 2003) 1 2 .ie2 ( 1 2 h4
b4 1 3 axb4 .ixb4 1 4 tLlxc6 dxc6 1 5 .ic4 tLld7 1 6 f4 'ifa5 1 7 'itb 1 l:.b8 1 8
.ib3 c5 1 9 'ii'd3 .ixc3 20 bxc3 0-0+ Todorovic-Djukic, Budva 2003; 1 2
ttJxc6 dxc6 1 3 h4 a5 14 g5 ltJh5 1 5 gxh6 g6 1 6 ttJe2 b4 1 7 a4 l:.b8 1 8 ltJf4
tLlxf4 1 9 .ixf4 e5 20 .ig5 .ie6 2 1 b3 f6 22 .ie3± Wohl-Jaracz, Lido
Estensi 2002) 1 2 . . . b4 1 3 axb4 .ixb4 1 4 ttJxc6 'ifxc6 ( 14 . . . dxc6 1 5 'iti>b 1 0-0
1 6 h4 'ifa5 17 'ifd3 e5 1 8 tt:la2 l:.b8 1 9 g5 .ie6 20 b3 lt:l h5 2 1 .l:r.hg 1 .ie7 22
gxh6 g6 23 'ifc3 'ifxc3 24 ttJxc3± Laznicka-Novak, Pilsen-Lobzy 2003) 1 5
.id4 .ie7 1 6 h4 .ib7 1 7 g5 ltJh5 1 8 .l:r.dg 1 0-0-0 1 9 f4 hxg5 20 hxg5 ltJg3
2 1 .l:r.xh8 ttJxe2+ 22 'ifxe2 .!:.xh8 23 .ixg7 l:.h7 24 .id4± Walsh-Rochev,
Bunratty 200 1 .
10 h6
...
It's always my preference not to touch the kingside. Maybe 1 0 ...d6

instead, e.g. 1 1 0-0-0 ttJa5 1 2 g5 tt:ld7 1 3 f4 ttJc4 14 .ixc4 'ifxc4 1 5 h4 b5
1 6 h5 b4 1 7 axb4 .ib7 1 8 g6 hxg6 1 9 hxg6 .!:.xh 1 20 .!:.xh 1 fxg6 2 1 b3
'ifxb4 22 ttJxe6 .if6 23 .id4 .ixd4 24 l:.h8+ ttJffi 25 ttJxd4;!; Armanda
Ljubicic, Zadar 2002.
11 0-0-0!?
I I i.g2 looks weird. I I . . . b5 12 a4 ?! b4 1 3 lt:lce2 lt:la5 1 4 b3 d5 15 e5
lt:ld7 1 6 f4 g5 I 7 fxg5 hxg5 1 8 i.xg5 i.xg5 I 9 'ii'xg5 'ii'xe5 20 'ii'xe5 lt:lxe5
2 I h3 i.b?+ Ong-Chan Peng Kong, Singapore 200 1 .
I I i.e2 b 5 I 2 h4 ( I 2 0-0 i.b7 I 3 lt:lxc6 i.xc6 I 4 l:tad i d6 I 5 i.d3 g 5 I 6
lt:le2 h 5 I 7 gxh5 lt:lxh5 I 8 'ii'c3 i.f6 I 9 lt:ld4 l:tc8 2 0 'itxc6+ 'itxc6 2 I tt:Jxc6
l:txc6 22 c3 i.e5 23 l:tf2 i.f4 24 i.xf4 lt:lxf4 25 i.fl 'it>e7+ Campora
Vallejo Pons, Dos Hermanas 2003) I 2 ... lt:le5 I3 'it>f2?! White's safest home
must be on the queenside. I 3 . . .l:tb8 I 4 b3? b4! uh oh! I 5 lt:la4 lt:lexg4+! I 6
'it>g2 tt:Jxe3+ I 7 'ii'xe3 bxa3-+ Rodrigues-Filgueira, Sao Paulo 200 I .
l l lt:les
...
I 2 'it>b I b5 I 3 f4 lt:lc4 I 4 i.xc4 1i'xc4 I 5 e5 lt:lxg4 I 6 l:thg I lt:lxe3 I 7

1i'xe3 g6 I 8 lt:le4 i.b7 I 9 lt:ld6+ i.xd6 20 exd6± Tyomkin-Lemer, Ashdod
2003. Black has to be concerned about the dark squares.
I 2 h4 b5 I 3 i.e2 lt:lc4 I 4 i.xc4 bxc4 1 5 g5 ( I 5 'it>b I , followed by 'it>a I ,
looks very good. Once b2 is defended White can tum his attention to the
kingside.) I 5 ... lt:lh5 I 6 lt:lce2 g6 I 7 1i'c3 ( 1 7 lt:lc3 !?) 1 7 ...e5 1 8 lt:lb3 d6 I 9
lt:la5 i.e6 20 f4 l:tc8 2 I fxe5 dxe5 22 lt:lf4 lt:lxf4 23 i.xf4 f6 24 gxf6 i.xf6
25 l:thfl i.g4 26 l:td5 0-0 27 i.xh6?? (27 i.e3 ! ? is OK for White.)
27 . . . i.g5+!-+ Lopez-Simutowe, Merida 2003.
Taimanov Variation 6 i.. e3 ! ? a6 7 ifd2 tiJf6
8 f3 ! ? t2Je5 ! ?
1 e4 c5 2 ti:lf3 tt:lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ti:lxd4 'ii'c 7 5 tt:lc3 e6 6 i.e3 a6 7 'ir'd2

ti:lf6 8 f3 tt:le5 ! ?
After 9 g4 h6 Black slows White 's kingside demonstration just enough.

A) I 0 0-0-0 i.b4 I I i.f4 ( I I 'ir'e I i.xc3 I 2 'ii'x c3 'ir'xc3 I 3 bxc3 d5 I 4
g5 hxg5 1 5 i.xg5 dxe4 I 6 i.xf6 gxf6 1 7 fxe4 .l:r.h4 I 8 .tg2 b5+
Alberola-Pogorelov, Lorca 200 I ) I l .. .d6 12 h4 ti:lfd7 I 3 'it>b l i.xc3 1 4
'ii'x c3 'ii'xc3 1 5 bxc3 'i;e7 1 6 i.e2 tt:lb6 I 7 .tg3 i.d7 I 8 f4 tt:lec4 1 9 h5
i.b5 20 'it>a I tt:la4 21 i.h4+ '1ti>d7+ Gasanov-Shtyrenkov, Alushta 200 I .
B) 1 0 h4 b5 I I 0-0-0 b4 1 2 ti:la4 d5
B 1) 13 i.e2 i.b 7 I4 g5 hxg5 I 5 hxg5 l':.Xh I I6 l:txh I ti:lfd7 1 7 f4 (Good

timing from Black, collapsing White's center before g5 happens.) I 3 i.e2
i.b7 ( 1 3 ... dxe4 !? looks to be best, but one can't blame Black for looking
out for his king.) I4 g5 hxg5 I S hxg5 l:txh l 1 6 l:txh i ti:lfd7.
Bla) 1 7 b3?! (What's up with this? White must've been afraid of

something, but I can't see what. 1 7 exd5 �xd5 1 8 b3 keeps the situation
around equal.) 1 7 ...dxe4 1 8 f4 lL:lf3 1 9 lL:lxf3 exf3+ (The pawn on f3 looks
like a major distraction.) 20 �c4 0-0-0
Black's king is safe and the f3 pawn is gonna drive White nuts ! 2 1 Ad 1
(Something like 2 1 g6?! is met with 2 1 .. .lLle5 !? among others.) 2 l . . .�e7 22
'ii'f2 'ii'c6 (Over-protecting the 'big' pawn. White can't surround the f3
e awn so it's suffering till the bitter end.) 23 l:.d4 lLlf8 24 l:.xd8+ �xd8 25
lL:lc5 lL:ld7 26 lL:lxb7 �xb7 27 'ii'd2 �e7 28 c3 a5 29 �d4 lL:lb6 30 ..ixb6
'iti>xb6 3 1 'ii'd4+ ..ic5 32 'ii'xg7 'ii'e4 33 cxb4 ..ie3+ 0- 1 White's hopes for an
attack never materialized and Black's pawn f3 proved too strong. Shytaj
Lazarev, Porto San Giorgio Open 2002.
Bib) 1 7 f4 lL:lc4 1 8 �xc4 dxc4 19 g6 �xe4 20 l:.g 1 c3 21 'ii'e2 cxb2+ 22
�xb2 f5 23 lL:lxe6 'ii'c6 24 lLld4 'ii'xa4-+ Kovchan-Poluljahov, Bydgoszcz
1 999.
82) 1 3 �f4 �d6 14 �h2 ..id7 1 5 b3 �xa4 16 bxa4 lL:lg6 1 7 �b5+ axb5
1 8 lL:lxb5 �xh2 1 9 lL:lxc7+ �xcH Vinogradov-Poluljahov, Bydgoszcz
1 999.
9 lL:lb3
A) 9 ... i.b4 1 0 i.d4 b5 1 1 a3 i.d6 1 2 i.xb5 l2Jg6 ( 1 2 ... axb5 1 3 l2Jxb5

'ifb8 1 4 l2Jxd6+ �xd6 1 5 'iVc3+-) 1 3 i.fl i.xh2 14 0-0-0 i.f4 1 5 i.e3 i.e5
16 g4 h6 1 7 �b 1 i.b7 1 8 i.c5 i.f4 1 9 �d4 i.e5 20 'ifb4 l:f.c8 2 1 i.d4
i.xd4 22 l:f.xd4 l2Je5 23 l2Ja5 l:f.b8 24 �d6 1i'xd6= Piku1a-Perunovic,
Valjevo 2000.
B) 9 ...b5
81) 1 0 'ii'f2 l:tb8 ( 1 0 ... i.e7 1 1 0-0-0 d6 12 �b 1 0-0 1 3 g4 l2Jfd7 1 4 l:f.g 1

b4 1 5 l2Ja4 i.b7= Sax-Lazarev, Porto San Giorgio 2002) 1 1 0-0-0 d6 1 2
i.a7 l:f.b7 1 3 i.d4 i.d7 1 4 'itb 1 a5 1 5 i.xe5 dxe5 1 6 l:f.xd7 l2Jxd7 1 7 i.xb5
i.b4 1 8 l:f.d 1 = Motylev-Marjanovic, Bucharest 2000.
82) 1 0 i.e2 i.b7 1 1 0-0-0 l:f.c8 1 2 g4 b4 1 3 l2Ja4 i.xe4 1 4 l2Jac5 l2Jxf3 1 5
i.xf3 i.xf3 1 6 l2Jxa6 'ii'c6-+ Schlander-Fiear, Battle Abbey 200 1 .
83) 1 0 'Wd4 l2Jc6 1 1 'ii'd2 l2Je5 1 2 �f2 l2Jc4 1 3 i.xc4 'ii'xc4 1 4 0-0-0
�c7 1 5 i.b6 'ifb8 1 6 l:the 1 i.b7 1 7 l2Ja5 i.b4 1 8 �d4 i.xa5 1 9 i.xa5 0-0
20 e5 l2Jd5 2 1 lDe4± Gofshtein-Lazarev, Lisbon 200 1 .
9 a3
A) 9 ... b5 I O l2Ja2 ( I O i.e2 i.b7 I I g4 h6 1 2 l:tg 1 l2Jg6 1 3 i.d3 l:f.d8 I4 f4

e5 I 5 fxe5 l2Jxe5 1 6 0-0-0 b4 1 7 axb4 i.xb4 1 8 lldfl i.xe4 I 9 l:hf6 i.xd3
20 .l:H4 i.xc3 21 bxc3 i.g6-+ Magony-Lakos, Szombathely 2003) I O ... i.b7

1 1 g4 h6 1 2 0-0-0 .l::tc 8 1 3 �b 1 i..e7 14 .l::tc l d5 1 5 exd5 lDxd5 1 6 i.. f2
i..g5-+ Oliver Font-Teran Alvarez, Mallorca 2000.
B) 9... i..e7 10 i..e2 d6 1 1 0-0 i..d 7 1 2 �h i 0-0 1 3 f4 lDc4 1 4 i.xc4 '6'xc4
1 5 '6'd3 .l::ta c8 1 6 '6'xc4 .l::txc4 1 7 .l::tae 1 .l::tfc8+ Scharrer-Farago, Bolzano
2000.
9 i..d3 b5 1 0 g4 h6 1 1 h4 i.b7 1 2 it'g2 b4 13 lDd l d5 14 lDf2 dxe4 1 5

fxe4 lDfd7 1 6 lDb3 lDc5 1 7 0-0 lDxb3 1 8 cxb3 i..d6+ Saptarshi
Satyapragyan, Calcutta 200 1 .
9 f4 i.b4 1 0 fxe5 lDxe4 1 1 lDxe4 i..xd2+ 1 2 lDxd2 '6'xe5 1 3 lDc4 it'c7 14

i.. f2 f5 1 5 0-0-0 d5 16 lDxf5 dxc4 17 lDd6+ �ffl 1 8 i..xc4 h5-+ Van der
Wiel-Stellwagen, Leeuwarden 2003.
9 i.. f4
A) 9 ... i..b4 1 0 a3 i.xc3 1 1 '6'xc3 '6'xc3+ 1 2 bxc3 d6 1 3 0-0-0 ( 1 3 .l::tb l

lDfd7 1 4 i..e3 lDc5 1 5 i.. e2 lDed7 1 6 c4 �d8 1 7 lDb3 lDa4 1 8 i.. f4 �c7 1 9
�f2 b 6 20 .l::thd 1 e 5 Solovjov-Geller, S t Petersburg 2002) 1 3 . . . �e7 1 4 c4
ltJfd7 1 5 lDb3 b6 1 6 i.. e2 lDc5 1 7 .l::td 2 lDa4 1 8 i..e3 i..b 7 1 9 f4 lDd7 20
i.. f3 e5 2 1 .l::tfl + Solovjov-Yagupov, St Petersburg 200 1 .
B) 9... d6 1 0 0-0-0 i.d7 ( 1 0... i.e7 1 1 g4 h6 1 2 h4 i..d7 1 3 .l::tg 1 b5 1 4 g5
hxg5 1 5 hxg5 lDh5 1 6 .l::th 1 0-0-0 1 7 lDf5 i..ffl 1 8 lDg3 g6 1 9 lDxh5;!;
Pilgaard-Matulovic, Subotica 2003) 1 1 g4 h6 12 h4 0-0-0 1 3 .l::tg 1 lDc4 1 4
i..xc4 'iWxc4 1 5 lDb3 d5 1 6 i..g3 i..c6 1 7 'iWe3 i.b4 1 8 .l::td4 i.c5 1 9 iff4 e5
20 'iWf5+ +- Sudakova-Melamed, St Petersburg 200 1 .
Taimanov Variation 6 iLe3 ! ? a6 7 'iid 2 ti.Jf6
8 f3 ! ? ti.Je5 ! ? 9 0-0-0 b5
1 e4 c5 2 ltJ O ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 fkc7 5 ltJc3 e6 6 ..ie3 a6 7 fid2

lLlf6 8 0 ltJe5!? 9 0-0-0 b5
10 �b1
1 0 ..id3 b4 1 1 ltJce2 ltJxd3+ 1 2 fkxd3 d5= Leyva-Garcia Martinez,
Havana 200 1 .
10 ..ib7
...
A) 1 0 . . . ..ie7 1 1 g4 h6 1 2 h4 b4 1 3 ltJa4 d5 1 4 .i.f4 ..ib7 1 5 :g 1 dxe4 1 6

g 5 ltJd5 1 7 g6 0-0-0 1 8 ..ixe5 fixeS 1 9 gxf7 e3 2 0 '6'e2 lLlf4 2 1 '6'h2
. :xd4-+ Plenkovic-Horvath, Split 2003
B) 1 0 . . . nb8 1 1 g4 h6 1 2 ..id3 b4 1 3 ltJce2 d5 14 ltJg3 ..ib7 1 5 fke2 dxe4
1 6 lLlxe4 lLlxe4 1 7 .i.xe4 �xe4 1 8 fxe4 ltJc4 1 9 ..ic 1 ..id6 Lobron
Stefansson, Stockholm 2002).
1 1 g4
1 1 lLlb3 ( 1 1 . . .b4 1 2 lLla4 d5 1 3 exd5 lLlxd5 1 4 ..td4 lLld7 1 5 c4 bxc3 1 6
lLlxc3 lLl7f6 1 7 ..td3 ..te7 1 8 l:.c 1 'ii'f4 1 9 lLlxd5 lLlxd5 20 'ii'e2;!;
Todorovic-Braun, Budapest 2003) 12 'ii'f2 lLlfg4 13 fxg4 lLlxg4 14 'ii'f3
lLlxe3 1 5 'ii'xe3 b4 1 6 l:ld3 bxc3 1 7 l:.xc3 'ii'd 8 1 8 lhc8 'ii'x c8 1 9 'ii'd4 f6+
Todorovic-Fogarasi, Budapest 200 1 .
l l .. h6
.
1 l . . .b4 1 2 lLla4 d5 1 3 g5 lLlfd7 1 4 b3 dxe4 1 5 f4 lLlg4 1 6 ..tc4 lLlxe3 1 7

'ii'xe3 lLlc5 1 8 lLlb2 ..td6 1 9 l:.hfl 0-0+ Vulin-Zmijanac, Belgrade 2003.
12 h4
1 2 i.d3 b4 1 3 lLla4 d5 is a good plan for Black, but it must be pro perly
timed. Here it is, as White 's g5 is a move too late. 14 ..tf4!? dxe4 1 5 .i.xe4
..txe4 1 6 fxe4 lLlfd7 1 7 l:lhfl ..te7 1 8 g5 hxg5 1 9 ..txg5 lLlc4 20 'ii'f2 ..tf6
2 1 h4 'ii'a5 22 ..txf6 gxf6 23 b3 lLla3+ + Kapnisis-Gustafsson, Ano Liosia
200 1 .
1 2 ... b4
1 2 ... l:tc8 1 3 l:th3 ..te7 1 4 'ii'e2 lLlc4 1 5 .te l lLla3+ 1 6 bxa3 'ii'xc3 1 7 g5
lLlh5 1 8 f4 lLlg3 1 9 'iVg4 lLlxe4 20 l:.xc3 lLlxc3+ 2 1 �a 1 h5 22 1Wg3 lLlxd 1 -+
Salmensuu-Middelburg, Groningen 2003.
13 lLla4 d5 14 ..tf4!?
The only move that poses Black tough questions. Alternatives allow
Black a free and easy game.
14... ..td6
14 ... dxe4?! is asking for trouble. 1 5 lLlb5 ! 'ii'c6 ( 1 5 ...'ii'a5 1 6 ..txe5 axb5
1 7 ..txf6 ..tc6-+ A computer wouldn't be nervous here. Can humans play
like this? The king causes some worry. If this is for real this method of play
is what Black should aim for.) 16 �xe5 axb5 1 7 ..txf6 gxf6 1 8 lLlb6 e3 1 9
'ii'd3 l:tb8 20 lLld7 l:.c8 2 1 lLlxf6+ �e7 22 lLle4 'ii'c7 2 3 ..te2 ..tg7 24 1Wb3
'ii'a5 25 liJd6 l:.c7 26 lLlf5+ exf5 27 'ifxe3+ ..te4 28 fxe4 l:thc8 29 exf5+ +
Gonzalez-Garcia Martinez, Santa Clara 2002.
15 ..txe5! ..txe5 16 'ii'xb4 ..td6?!
1 6 ... .ixd4 ! ? 1 7 1i'xd4 (Possible is 1 7 l:txd4 keeping Black's king in the

center for the time being. Then 1 7 . . . e5 1 8 :d 1 :c& 1 9 .id3 dxe4 20 fxe4
lt:lxg4 2 1 :d2;!;) 1 7 . . .dxe4 is fine for Black.
1 7 -b6!
This strong move leaves Black in serious trouble.

1 7 ... dxe4 18 lt:lxe6 fxe6 1 9 1i'xd6± 1i'xd6 20 l:bd6 exf3 2 1 :xe6+ +
�f8 22 .id3 .ic8 23 .l:.b6 .ixg4 24 ltJcS aS 25 �cl :c8 26 :bs cj;fi 27
:xaS llhd8 28 b4 �g8 29 a3 :e8 30 :n :cd8 31 :a6 :es 3 2 lt:lb7?
Shabalov was in time pressure, but just about anything wins . . . except
this ! !
3 2...llxd3 ! !
All of a sudden Black's remaining pieces jump to life.
33 cxd3 .l:.e2 34 ltJcS f2 35 :xf2 .l:.xf2+ 1/l- 1/l
Shabalov-Fedorowicz, New York Marshall CC Championship 2003.
It goes without saying, Black got very lucky.
Taimanov Variation 6 .i.e3 ! ? a6 7 ifd2 lt:Jf6
8 f3 ! ? b5 9 0-0-0
1 e4 c5 2 lt'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt'lxd4 lt'lc6 5 lt'lc3 'ilic7 6 ..ie3 a6 7 'ilid2

lt'lf6 8 f3!? b5
In my opinion this is inferior to other tries.
9 0-0-0
A) 9 ..ie7 10 g4
...
Al) I O . . . d6
A l a) I I �b l lt'le5 1 2 g5 ltJfd7 1 3 f4 lt'lc4 14 ..ixc4 'it'xc4 1 5 b3 'i/ic7 1 6

f5 b4 ( 1 6 ... lt'lc5 ! ?) 1 7 fxe6 'ilixc3 1 8 'i/ixc3 bxc3 1 9 exd7+ ..ixd7 20 lt'lf5
(This knight is going to drive Black crazy.) 20 . . . ..ic6 2 1 l:the I ! l:td8 22 ..id4
l:tg8 23 ..ixc3+- Firman-Reeder, Philadelphia 2003 .
Alb) 1 1 g5 ltJd7 1 2 .id3 ( 1 2 ltJxc6 'ii'xc6 1 3 ltJe2 !? A pattern that arises

quite often in this variation. 1 3 . . . ltJe5 14 ltJd4;!; and this centralized knight
serves several useful functions. [ 1 ] From d4 it protects c2 and makes it
difficult for Black to drum up active play. [2] Black's queenside pawn
demonstration is done. Black has to arrange d5 for counterplay. [3] The
ltJd4 taps e6 and adds punch to White's pawn storm.) 1 2 . . . ltJde5 1 3 f4
ltJxd4 14 .ixd4 ltJf3 1 5 'ii'f2 ltJxd4 1 6 'ii'xd4 0-0 1 7 h4 'ii'a7 ( 1 7 ... 'ii'c5 ! ?)
1 8 ltJe2 .id7 1 9 'ii'xa7 .l:txa7 20 .l:tdfl f6 2 1 .l:thg 1 .l:tc7 22 f5 .l:tc5 23 ltJd4
exf5 24 ltJxf5;!; Bakhmatov-Taimanov, Saint Vincent 2003 .
A2) 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 g5 ltJh5 (I hate it when a knight ends up on h5. It slows
down White 's pawn storm but is totally out of play. 1 1 .. .ltJe8? ! is not a
wonderful square either.) 1 2 'it>b 1 ltJe5 1 3 f4?! (White shouldn 't be in such
a hurry.) 13 ... ltJg4 14 e5 .ib7 1 5 .l:tg1 ltJxe3 16 'ii'xe3 b4 1 7 ltJe4 .ixe4 1 8
'ii'xe4 g6+ Erdogdu-Miladinovic, Skopje 2002.
B) 9 ... .ib4
Bl) 1 0 ltJxc6 dxc6

Bla) 1 1 .if4 'ii'b6 1 2 .id6 .ixd6 1 3 'ii'xd6 .l:ta7 14 'ii'g3 0-0 1 5 .id3 ( 1 5
e5 !? 'ii'e3+ 16 'it>b 1 ltJh5 1 7 'ii'e 1 'ir'xe1 1 8 .l:txe 1!) 1 5 . . . b4 1 6 ltJe2 a5 1 7 e5
ltJd5 1 8 f4?! (Too time consuming. White's sense of danger failed. 1 8 'ii'h4 !
was the best and last try for advantage and more importantly . . . staying alive!
1 8 ... h6 19 'ii'e4 'ii'e 3+ 20 .l:td2 'ii'xe4 21 .ixe4;!;) 18 ... a4 19 .ie4 .ia6 20
.ixd5 .ixe2 21 .l:td2 cxd5 22 .l:txe2 a3+ Martinez-Diaz Cordoba, Cali 2003.
Blb) 1 1 'itb 1 .ie7 ( 1 l . . ..ia5 12 .ic5 h6 13 a3 .id7 14 'ii'e3 'ii'b 7 15 .ie2
.ic7 1 6 .l:td3 a5 1 7 g3 .l:tb8 1 8 .l:thd 1 e5 1 9 g4 .ie6 20 'ii'd 2 'ii'c8 2 1 .id6
.ixd6 22 .l:txd6;!; Gerag ousian-Djukic, Budva 2003) 12 g4 e5 1 3 'ii'f2 .ie6
14 .ig2 .l:tb8 1 5 ltJe2 li)d7 1 6 g5 'ii'a5 1 7 ltJc 1 c5 1 8 f4 exf4 1 9 .ixf4 .l:tc8
20 'ii'g3 c4 2 1 .ih3 ltJc5 22 .ixe6 ltJxe6 23 .id6 .ixd6 24 .l:txd6 0-0+
Kapnisis-Miladinovic, Ano Liosia 200 1 . The important thing here is
Black's better pawn structure.
B2) 1 0 'iti>b l
I O ... ..ib7 I I lt:\xc6 'ii'xc6 (Any other capture walks into lt:\xb5.) 1 2 ..id4
i.e7 1 3 i.d3 d6 1 4 e5 ( 1 4 g4!?) l 4 ... dxe5 1 5 i.xe5 0-0 1 6 'ii'g5 'ii'c 5 1 7
lt:\e4 ..ixe4 1 8 ..ixe4 h6 1 9 'ii'g3 l:f.ad8 20 f4 l:f.xd I + 2 1 l:txd I l:td8 22
l:.xd8+ i.xd8 23 a3 ..t>f8 24 i.b7 'ii'b6 25 'ii'd3 ..t>e7 26 i.f3;!; Todorovic
Spassov, Budapest 200 1 .
B3) I 0 g4 lt:\e5 I I g5 lt:\h5 1 2 ..tb I i.a5 1 3 lt:\b3 i.b6 1 4 i.xb6 'ii'xb6 1 5

f4 lbc4 1 6 ..ixc4 bxc4 1 7 lbd4 l:f.b8 1 8 b3± Efimov-Miladinovic, Lido
Estensi 2003. Black's uncoordinated forces give White much the better of
it.
C) 9 b4 10 lt:\a4
...
Cl) I O . . . lt:\e5 I I ..t>b l d5 12 ..if4 ..id6 { l 2 ... dxe4 l 3 ..ixe5 'ii'xe5 14 lt:\c6
'ii'd5 1 5 lt:\b6±) l 3 exd5 lt:\xd5 l 4 lt:\f5 l 4 ... ..id7 1 5 lt:\xd6+ 'ii'xd6 l 6 lt:\b6
'ii'xb6 1 7 i.xe5 f6 1 8 ..id4 'ii'c 7 1 9 ..id3 l:.b8 20 ..t>a I ± Salmensuu
Skripchenko, Koszalin 1 999.
C2) IO . . . ..ib7 I I g4 ..ie7 1 2 g5 lt:\h5 13 lt:\b3 lt:\e5 l 4 lt:\ac5 ..ic6 1 5 ..ie2
aS 16 ..t>b I d6 1 7 lt:\a6 'ii'd 8 1 8 f4 lt:\d7 1 9 ..ixh5 l:.xa6 20 lt:\d4 0-0 2 1 ..ie2
l::tb6 22 .!Dxc6 l::tx c6 23 h4 .!Dc5 24 'ii'd4;!; Pikula-Zegarac, Jahorina 200 1 .

White controls the play.
D) 9 . .i..b7
.
1 0 g4
I 0 'ittb 1
A) I O . b4 1 1 .!Da4 d5 1 2 .!Dxc6 .txc6 1 3 .!Db6 l::td8 1 4 exd5 (14 .txa6 d4
. .
1 5 .txd4 e5 1 6 .!Dd5 .!Dxd5 1 7 exd5 l::txd5 1 8 'ii'e2 .te7 1 9 .tf2 l::ta5 20

.tc4 0-0 2 1 l:the 1 'ifb7 22 i..g3 i.. f6 23 l::td6± Todorovic-Djukic, Herceg
No vi 200 1 ) 14 ... .!Dxd5 1 5 .!Dxd5 i.. x d5 1 6 .td3 i..e7 1 7 i..g5 'iVa5 1 8 b3
.txb3 ! -+ Chojnacki-Gajewski, Lubniewice 2002.
B) 10 . . . l::tc 8 1 1 g4 d6 1 2 h4 .te7 1 3 h5 b4 14 .!Dce2 .!De5 1 5 .!Dg3 d5 1 6
g 5 .!Dfd7 1 7 f4 .!Dc4 1 8 i..xc4 'i'xc4 1 9 g6 .!Dc5 20 h6 gxh6 2 1 gxf7 + 'ittxf7=
Kantinti-Nirosh, Istanbul 2000.
10 ... h6 1 1 h4
1 1 .td3 .!De5 12 'ii'f2 b4 1 3 .!Dce2 d5 14 exd5 i..xd5 1 5 'ittb 1 .!Dxd3 16
l::txd3 .!Dxg4 1 7 'i'g2 .!Dxe3+ Adontaki-Helm, Halkidiki 2002.
A) 1 l .. .l::tc 8 1 2 'ittb 1 i..b4 1 3 .td3 ( 1 3 a3 i..e7. Black doesn't mind

provoking a3 in this line. At some point Black can play b4 and open lines.
After 14 l::tg 1 White's g5 is coming fast and Black's king lacks a safe
haven.) 13 ... ltJxd4 14 ..ixd4 e5 15 ..ie3 ..ixc3 16 1i'xc3 ..Wxc3 17 bxc3

l:.xc3 1 8 ..tb2 l:.c8 1 9 g5 lDh5 20 l:thg l ..te7 21 ..ifl l:.c6 22 ..ih3 d6+
Barakat-Omearat, Beirut 2000.
B) l l . ....ib4 1 2 .i.e2 l1c8 13 a3 ..ie7 14 g5 lDh5 1 5 ..tb l b4 16 axb4
..ixb4 1 7 gxh6 lDa5 1 8 hxg7 l1g8 1 9 ltJd5 ! ..ixd5 20 1i'xb4+- Fercec
Armanda, Opatija 2002.
C) l l . . .lDxd4 12 ..ixd4 ..ic5 ( 1 2 . . . e5 1 3 .i.e3 ..ib4 14 ..ih3 d5 l 5 _g 5 lDh5
1 6 exd5 l:.d8 1 7 g6 l:.xd5 1 8 ..Wxd5 ..ixd5 1 9 lDxd5 1i'd6 20 lDxb4 'ifxb4 2 1
l:.d5 0-0 22 gxf7+ ..txf7 23 l1xe5 lDg3 24 ..id2 'iVd4+ Leyva-Gongora, Las
Tunas 200 I) 1 3 e5 .i.xd4 14 ..Wxd4 l"Llg8 1 5 ..txb5 axb5 1 6 lDxb5 1i'c6 1 7
ltJd6+ ..te7 1 8 'ifb4 ..ta6 1 9 l:.he 1 ..tiE 20 lDf5+ ..te8 2 1 lDxg7+ ..td8 22
'iVffl+ ..tc7 23 lDe8+ ..tb7 24 'iVb4+ ..ta7 25 l:td6+- Swathi-Mishra, Nagpur
2002.
Taimanov Variation 6 i.e3 ! ? a6 7 'iVd2 ttJf6
8 f3 ! ? bS 9 g4
1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 tLlc6 5 tLlc3 'ikc7 6 .ie3 a6 7 'ikd2

tiJf6 8 f3!? b5
In my opinion this is inferior to other tries.
A) 9 g4
AI) 9 . . . d6 1 0 0-0-0 .ib7 1 1 'it>b 1 .ie7 ( l l . . .tLle5 1 2 .l:tg 1 l:tc8 1 3 h4 tLlc4

14 .ixc4 'ii'xc4 1 5 tiJb3 'ii'c 7 1 6 .if4 b4 1 7 tLle2 e5 1 8 .ie3 a5 1 9 tLlg3 a4
20 tLlc 1 a3 2 1 b3 d5 22 g5 tiJd7 23 exd5 .ixd5 24 f4 .ie6 25 tiJd3 exf4 26
tLlxf4! Sanchez-Perez, Nice 2003) 1 2 h4 ( 1 2 g5 tiJd7 1 3 h4 tLlb6 1 4 tLldxb5
axb5 1 5 tLlxb5 'ii'd8 1 6 tLlxd6+ .ixd6 1 7 'ii'xd6 'ii'xd6 1 8 l:txd6 tLlc8 1 9
l:td2! Arakhamia-Stepovaia Dianchenko, Warsaw 200 1 ) 1 2 . . .tiJd7 1 3 .l:th3
b4 14 tLlce2 tiJde5 1 5 tLlc 1 tLlxd4 1 6 .ixd4 .:tc8 1 7 g5 0-0 1 8 b3 d5 1 9 exd5
.ixd5+ Saravanan-Thipsay, Mumbai 2000.
A2) 9 . . . h6 1 0 0-0-0 b4 1 1 tLlce2 tLle5 1 2 tLlg3 d5 1 3 .if4 .id6 14 'it>b l
tLlc4 1 5 'ii'xb4 i.xf4 1 6 exd5 tLle3 1 7 dxe6 fxe6-+ Gajsin-Kotov, Tomsk
2003.
A3) 9 . . .b4 I 0 tLla4 d5 1 1 tLlxc6 'ii'xc6 12 tiJb6 .l:tb8 1 3 g5 .l:txb6 14 .ixb6
'ii'xb6 1 5 gxf6± Stiri-Pozharsky, Ikaros 2002.
A4) 9. . . .ib7 10 g5 tiJh5 I I 0-0-0 tLlxd4 1 2 .ixd4 .ie7 13 .ie5 'ii'xe5 1 4
'ii'xd7+ 'it> ffl 1 5 'ii'xb7 .ixg5+ 1 6 'it>b 1 'ifb8 1 7 'ii'c6 'ikc8 1 8 'ikxc8+ l:.xc8
19 l:td6! Saptarshi-Reefat, Calcutta 2000.
B) 9 .ie2?! A passive mix of ideas that promises no chance for
advantage. 9 . . ..ib7 1 0 .l:td 1 .ie7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 'it>h 1 .l:tac8 1 3 .l:tc 1 'ifb8 1 4
l:tfdl tLleS+ Perae-Seeman, Jyvaskyla 2000.
C) 9 a3?! .ib7 10 .ie2 .l:tc8 1 1 0-0 tLla5 1 2 .l:tad l= Stefanidi-Stiri, Ano
Liosia 2000.
D) 9 ll:lxc6 dxc6
Dl) 1 0 g4 i.e? l l 0-0-0 0-0 ( l l . . .e5 1 2 h4 i.e6 1 3 'ii' f2 i..b4 1 4 i.. c5

i.xc5 1 5 'Wxc5 li::ld7 1 6 'ii'a3 ll:lb6 1 7 'ii'c5 li::ld7 I S 'ii'a3 ll:lb6 Leyva-Garcia
Martinez, Las Tunas 200 l ) 1 2 g5 AdS 1 3 'ii'f2 l:lxd l + 1 4 ll:lxd I ll:leS 1 5 h4
e5 1 6 h5 i.e6 1 7 �b l l:!dS Sudakova-Djuric, Belgrade 200 l .
D2) I O 0-0-0 e5 I I 'ii'f2 i.e6 I 2 i.b6 'iib7 1 3 i.c5 i..x c5 I4 'ir'xc5 li::ld7
I 5 'ii'd6 l:lcS I 6 i.e2 'fie? I7 a4 'iixd6 I S l:lxd6 �e7= Czakon-Gajewski,
Laczna 2002.
D3) 10 a4 b4 I I ll:la2 c5 ( l l .. .a5 I 2 li::lc l i.d6 I3 'ii'f2 i.xh2 I4 ll:le2
i.a6 I 5 g4 i.xe2 Nyysti-Parkkinen, Jyvaskyla 200 I ) 1 2 b3 i..b7 I 3 i..d3
i.d6 I4 l:ld i 0-0 1 5 g3 �ladS I 6 0-0 'iic6 Zawadzka-Paridar, Halkidiki
2003.
Scheveningen Variation 4 ctJxd4 ctJc6
5 ctJc3 d6 6 .i.e3 ctJf6 7 f3 .i.e7
1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 tt:lc6 5 tt:lc3 d6 6 .te3 tt:lf6 7 f3 .te7
Black must consider the freeing move 7 ...d5 !? if the opportunity arises.
A) 8 exd5 tt:lxd5 9 tt:lxd5 'ii'xd5 1 0 tt:lb5 ( 1 0 tt:lxc6 bxc6 1 1 �xd5 exd5

1 2 c4 .te6 1 3 .l:tc 1 .tb4+ 14 'iti>f2 0-0 1 5 cxd5 cxd5 1 6 .td4 a5 1 7 a4 .td7
1 8 .tb5;l; Rogovoi-Polovodin, St Petersburg 1 999) 1 O �e5 1 1 'ii'd 2 i.c5
. . .
12 'itf2 0-0 13 i.d3 tt:lb4 14 .l:the 1 tt:lxd3+ 1 5 'ii'xd3 .txe3+ 16 .l:txe3 'ii'xb2
1 7 l:ld 1 'ifxa2-+ Fressinet-Relange, Besancon 1 999.
B) 8 .tb5 .td7 9 exd5 tt:lxd5 1 0 tt:lxd5 exd5 1 1 0-0 .te7 1 2 tt:le2 .te6 1 3
tt:lf4 .tg5 1 4 � h 1 .txf4 1 5 .txf4;l; N i Hua-Wang Zili, Suzhou 200 1 .
8 'ifd2 0-0
9 g4
Anything that takes the starch out of the d5 breaks should be played. 9
0-0-0 d5 ! ? (If Black can play d5 then he certainly should. It's concrete
counterplay whereas chasing an attack could lead to difficulties.) 1 0 'it'e 1
(I 'd opt for 1 0 exd5 ... White plays it like a Dragon, but White must force the
action. l O ...ltJxd5 1 1 ltJxd5 'it'xd5 1 2 ltJxc6 'it'xc6 1 3 'it>b 1 and White might
have a tiny edge, but nothing more.) 1 0 ... e5 1 1 ltJxc6 bxc6 1 2 exd5 cxd5 1 3
.i.g5 ..ie6 1 4 'it'xe5 'it'a5 1 5 ltJxd5 ltJxd5 1 6 .i.xe7 .l:f.fc8 1 7 ..id3 'it'xa2 1 8
.i.a3 ( 1 8 ..id6!?) 1 8 ... a5+ Pinol Fulgoni-Antal, Sants 2003.
9 ltJxd4 10 ..ixd4 a6 1 1 0-0-0 bS
...
And by transposition we have reached the position on page 125.

Index of Variations
Najdorf Variation: I e4 cS 2 tt:'lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:'lxd4 tt:'lf6 5 tt:'lc3 a6 1 5
6 .ie3 eS 7 tt:'lb3 .ie6 8 f3 tt:'lbd7 ( 8 ... .ie7 I 8 . . . h5 I 8 . . . d 5 I 8 . . .tt:'lc6 1 6) 9 g4

tt:'lb6 18 10 gS tt:'lhS 1 9 1 1 �d2 .ie7 1 2 0-0-0 .!:tc8 13 .!:tgl 0-0 14 'it>bl g6
( 1 4 ...�c 7 26 I 1 4 . . . tt:'lc4 2 7) 1 5 �f2 22 I 1 5 tt:'ldS 25
6 .ie3 eS 7 tt:'lb3 .ie6 8 f3 tt:'lbd7 9 g4 h6 10 �d2 .ie7 29 ( I O . . . b5 32)
6 .ie3 eS 7 tt:'lb3 .ie6 8 f3 .ie7 9 �d2 0-0 10 0-0-0 'iic 7 35 ( 1 0. . . b5 35 I

I O . . . a5 36) I I g4 .!:tc8 12 gS tt:'lhS 13 'it>bl 3 7 ( 1 3 .!:tg l 3 7) 13 ... tt:'ld7 14 l:.gl
38 ( 1 4 tt:'ld5 38 I 14 'iif2 39)
6 .ie3 eS 7 tt:'lb3 .ie6 8 f3 .ie7 (8 ... tt:'lbd7 9 'iid2 b5 49) 9 'iid2 0-0 1 0
0-0-0 tt:'lbd7 41 ( I O .. J:tc8 4 7 ; I O . . .'iic 7 52) 1 1 g4 'iic 7 42 (l l . . .b5 4 2 I
l l . . . l:.c8 43 I l l . . . a5 43 I l l ... tt:'lb6 44) 1 2 'it>bl 44
6 .ie3 eS 7 tt:'lb3 .ie6 8 f3 hS 9 tt:'ldS 55 (9 'iid2 I 9 .i e2 I 9 tt:'la4 I 9 f4 I 9

.i d3 55-56)
6 .ie3 eS 7 tt:'lb3 .ie6 8 f3 hS 9 'iid 2 tt:'lbd7 10 a4 68 ( 1 0 0-0-0 .!:tc8 59 I 1 0

.ie2 .!:tc8 64) I O ...b4 1 1 tt:'ldS .ixdS 1 2 exdS tt:'lb6 1 3 .ixb6 'iixb6 1 4 aS
'iib7 1 5 .ic4 g6 70 I 1 5 ....ie7 73
6 .ie3 tt:'lg4 7 .igS 76 (7 .ic l 76) 7 ... h6 8 .ih4 gS 9 .ig3 .ig7 78 10 .ie2
( 1 0 'iid2 ttJc6 I I tt:'lb3 tt:'lge5 79 I I 0 .ic4 tt:'lc6 1 1 tt:'lxc6 bxc6 82) 1 O . . hS .
1 1 .ixg4 hxg4 87 ( I I . ...ixg4 83)
6 .ie3 tt:'lg4 7 .igS h6 8 .ih4 gS 9 .ig3 .ig7 10 h3 tt:'leS 90 I 10 ...tt:'lf6 94
6 f3 ir'b6 98 7 tt:'lb3 (7 a4 I 7 a3 99) 7 ... e6 8 tr'e2 99 (8 .ig5 99 I 8 g4

99-1 00)
6 .ie3 e6 7 f3 .ie7 8 'iid 2 bS 107

6 i..e3 e6 7 f3 i.. e7 8 'itd2 tt:lc6 1 1 0 9 0-0-0 1 12 (9 a4 I 9 g4 I 9 i..e2

1 1 0-1 1 1) 9...li'c7 1 1 2 (9 . . oi..d7 1 12) 10 g4 1 1 3 10 b5 1 1 3 I 10 tt:ld7 1 15 I
..• .•.
10 ...tt:lxd4 1 1 5 I 1 0 tt:la5 1 1 5 I 1 0 ... h6 1 1 6 I 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 6

.•.
6 i..e3 e6 7 f3 i..e7 8 'ir'd2 tt:lc6 9 0-0-0 0-0 1 1 9 1 0 g4 tt:lxd4 ( 1 0o o ott:ld7 1 1

h4 tt:lde5 1 18) 1 1 i..xd4 ( 1 1 li'xd4 b5 122 I 1 1 . .. lL:\d7 1 23) l l ...b5 125
( 1 l . ..e5 125) 12 �b1 ( 1 2 tt:le2 125- 126 I 1 2 h4 1 26) 12 ...tt:ld7 1 28
( 1 2ooo.tb7 130 1 1 2 0 0 0 l:tb8 1 3 1 I 1 2 0 0 0 'itc7 1 3 1 ) 13 h4 ( 1 3 f4 1 28 I 1 3 li'f2
129 1 1 3 .l:lg 1 1 29)
6 i.. e3 e6 7 f3 i..e7 8 'itd2 tt:lc6 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 g4 tt:lxd4 1 1 .txd4 b5 1 2 g5

tt:ld7 13 h4 134 13 ... b4 134 I 1 3 ooolta5 134 I 1 3 oool::tb8 135 I 1 3 oooo.tb7 136 I
1 3 o o o'itc7 138
6 i..e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 1 42 8 ... h6 (8ooott:lfd7 1 42) 9 'itd2 tt:lbd7 (9o o olta5

143) 10 0-0-0 i..b7 1 1 .td3 143 1 I . .. tt:le5 ( 1 1 .. .tt:lc5 1 43 I 1 l . . .b4 1 44 I 1 1 ...
tt:lb6 1 45 I 1 1 . ..l::tc7 1 46) 1 2 l::th e1 ( 1 2 �b 1 146) 12 ...l::tc8 ( 1 2oo ott:lfd7 1 4 7 I
1 2o o ob4 1 47) 13 �b1 tt:lfd7 ( 1 3oooi.. e7 147) 14 f4
6 i..e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 h6 9 'itd2 tt:lbd7 10 0-0-0 i..b7 1 1 h4 149 1 1 ...b4

( l l . ..l::tc 8 149 I 1 l ...d5 1 50 I l l ...'itc7 150) 1 2 tt:la4 ( 1 2 tt:lce2 1 51)
12 ...'ita5 (1 2ooog6 152 I 12o o od5 1 52) 13 b3 1 53 I 13 ...tt:lc5 ( 1 3 o oog6 1 53 I
1 3 o o ol::tc 8 1 53 I 1 3 o o o.te7 154 I 1 3 0o od5 1 55) 14 a3 tt:lxa4 ( 14 o o ol::tc 8 156 1 5
axb4 156 I 1 5 'itxb4 157) 1 5 axb4 'itc7 16 bxa4 159 1 6 tt:ld7 159 I 1 6 d5
.•• •..
1 60
6 i..e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 'itd2 tt:lbd7 9 g4 tt:lb6 1 63 10 g5 ( 1 0 a4 1 63 I 1 0 li'f2

J 64 I 1 0 .td3 1 64) 1 0 tt:lfd7 1 1 0-0-0 1 65 ( 1 1 f4 1 65 I 1 1 h4 1 65 I 1 1 .td3
•.•
1 65 I 1 1 li'f2 1 66 I 1 1 a4 1 66)
6 .te3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 'ir'd2 tt:lbd7 9 g4 tt:lb6 1 0 0-0-0 tt:lfd7 ( 1 0o o o.tb7 1 68) 1 1

tt:ldxb5 1 68 (1 1 .tg5 1 69) 1 1 ... axb5 1 2 tt:lxb5 i.. a6 ( 1 2ooott:le5 1 70 I 1 2 0 0 0
d 5 1 71 I 1 2 0 0 0 i..b7 1 71 I 1 2 0 0 0 l::t xa2 1 71 I 1 2 000 l::tb 8 1 72 I 1 2 000 i.. e7 1 72)
13 tt:lxd6+ i..xd6 14 'itxd6 tt:lc4 15 i.. xc4 .txc4 16 a3 1 73 ( 16 'ir'd4 17 3)
6 i..e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 b4 9 tt:la4 1 76 (9 tt:lce2 1 76 I 9 tt:lb 1 181)
6 i..e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 tt:lfd7 9 'itd2 (9oo ott:lb6 183) 1 0 0-0-0 tt:lb6 1 1 tt:lb3

/84 1 l . .. b4 185 I 1 1 ...tt:\8d7 185 I 1 1 tt:lc6 186
•..
6 i..e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 tt:lfd7 9 'ir'd2 (9oo ott:lb6 183) 1 0 0-0-0 tt:lb6 1 1 li'f2

tt:l8d7 12 i..d3 ( 1 2 tt:lb3 189 I 1 2 h4 189 I 1 2 g5 1 90 I 1 2 �b 1 1 90) 1 2 ...l::tc8
13 ltJce2 ( 1 3 f4 1 91 I 1 3 ltJb3 1 92 I 1 3 g5 1 92) 13 ...i.e7 ( 1 3 ... ltJc5 1 92 I 1 3

... d5 193 I 1 3 . . . 'ii'c7 1 94 I 1 3 . . . ltJc4 1 94) 1 4 h 4 ( 1 4 'iti>b 1 1 95)
6 i.e3 e6 7 f3 h5 197
Taimanov Variation: 1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJc6 5 ltJc3 'ii'c7

200
6 i.e3 a6 7 'ii'd2 ltJf6 8 0-0-0 i.b4 9 f3 ltJaS 200
6 i.e3 a6 7 'ii'd 2 ltJf6 8 0-0-0 i.b4 9 f3 d5 10 a3 204 10 ...i.a5 I 10 ... i.e7

205 I 10 ...i.d6 205 I I O ...i.xc3 205
6 i.e3 a6 7 'iWd2 ltJf6 8 0-0-0 i.b4 9 f3 ltJe7 10 ltJde2 d5 208 1 1 a3 207 I

1 1 e5 208 I 1 1 i.gS 208
6 i.e3 a6 7 'ii'd2 ltJf6 8 0-0-0 i.b4 9 f3 ltJeS 10 ltJb3 ( 1 0 i.f4 I 1 0 �b 1 I

1 0 g4 2 1 0) 10 ... b5 ( 1 0 . . .d5 2 1 1 I 1 0 . . . d6 212 I 1 0 . . . 0-0 212) 1 1 �b1 i.e7
( 1 1 . ..0-0 I 1 1 . . .ltJc4 212) 1 2 'ii'f2 213 ( 1 2 i.d4 2 13)
6 i.e3 a6 7 'ii'd 2 ltJf6 8 0-0-0 i.b4 9 f3 ltJeS 10 ltJb3 b5 1 1 i.d4 21 7

1 1 ...i.e7 { l l .. .h6 2 1 6 I 1 l .. .i.b7 2 1 6 I 1 1 . ..ltJc4 218 I 1 1 .. .0-0 218 12 'ii'f2
{ 1 2 'iWg5 218) 1 2 ...d6 ( 1 2 . . . 0-0 220) 1 3 �b1 221
6 i.e3 a6 7 '6'd2 ltJf6 8 0-0-0 ltJg4 9 i.f4 e5 (9 . . .ltJge5 225) 10 ltJdS 227
6 i.e3 a6 7 'iWd2 ltJf6 8 f3 ltJxd4 224 I 8.....te7 230 I 8 ...d6 230 I 8 .. d5 231 .
I 8...ltJa5 2 31
6 i.e3 a6 7 '6'd2 ltJf6 8 f3 i.b4 9 a3 (9 i.g5 233 I 9 g4 233) 9 ...i.e7

(9 ...'6'a5 233 I 9 ... ..ta5 233) 10 g4 ( 1 0 i.d3 233 I 10 0-0-0 234)
6 ..te3 a6 7 'ii'd2 ltJf6 8 f3 ltJeS 9 g4 236 I 9 ltJb3 23 7 I 9 a3 238 I 9 i.d3

239 I 9 f4 239 I 9 i.f4 239
6 i.e3 a6 7 '6'd2 ltJf6 8 f3 ltJe5 9 0-0-0 b5 10 �b1 240
6 i.e3 a6 7 '6'd2 ltJf6 8 f3 b5 9 0-0-0 i.e7 243 I 9...i.b4 244 I 9 ...b4 245 I
9.....tb7 246
6 .ie3 a6 7 'ii'd 2 lt:lf6 8 f3 b5 9 g4 248 I 9 .ie2 248 I 9 a3 248 I 9 lt:lxc6

248
Scheveningen Variation: 1 e4 c5 2 li:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:lxd4 lt:lc6 5 lt:lc3

d6 6 .ie3 lt:lf6 7 f3 .ie7 (7 d5 250) 8 �d2 0-0 9 g4 (9 0-0-0 251)
. . .
9 lt:lxd4 10 .ixd4 a6 1 1 0-0-0 b5 125

...
Two American grandmasters provide a practical yet thorough
suNey of one of the hottest openings around today. In response to
Black's Sicilian Defence, whether it be the Najdorf, Scheveningen or
Taimanov variations, White plays the bishop to e3 and pawn to f3 ,
which not only supports the centre e-pawn but more importantly
prepares to launch a kingside pawn storm against Black's castled
king, starting with g4-g5. However, Garry Kasparov, a champion of
the Sicilian Defence, has shown that Black can postpone castling in
favour of queenside expansion and regrouping the knight pair at b6
and d7, ready for a swift counter-punch when White castles long .
Plus detailed coverage of lines where Black plays a very early ... Ng4,
hitting the bishop on e3 and leading to a different pattern of play.
Not surprisingly, tactics and sharp play abound in this most modern
of chess openings, where precise knowledge of variations is vital.
Nick de Firmian is a former US Champion and author of the

'chess player's bible', Batsford's Modern Chess Openings.
John Fedorowicz is a US Olympic team player and author of a
highly acclaimed monograph on the Benko Gambit.
Other chess books available from B T Batsford:
Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking

Neil McDonald
0 7134 8894 8
Budapest Fajarowicz
Lev Gutman
0 7134 8708 9
Bobby Fischer Rediscovered

Andrew Soltis
0 7134 8846 8
UPC For more information on

ISBN 0-7134-8860-3
Batsford chess books, write to:
Sales & Marketing

B T Batsford
The Chrysalis Building
Bramley Road
London W1 0 6SP
8 0 9
UK £15.99 US $22.95 Can $34.95 www.chrysalisbooks.co.uk

English Attack - de Firmian & Fedorowicz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

English Attack - de Firmian & Fedorowicz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The English Attack

ISBN 0 7134 8860 3

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

Printed in Great Britain by

An imprint of ChrysalifBooks Group

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

The English Connection 7

Lines where Black plays ... e5 15

Chasing the bishop with ...lDg4 76

Lines where Black plays ... e6 98

The Taimanov Variation 200

The Scheveningen Variation 250

Index ofVariations 253

I e4 c5 2 lLJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLJxd4lLJf6 5 lLJc3 a6 6 .i.e3 e6 7 'ii'd2 b5 8

1 e4 c5 2 l2Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 5 l2Jc3 a6 6 .ie3 e6

7... b5 8 g4 h6 9 h4 b4 10 l2Jce2 e5 11 lLlb3 d5!?

Black is playing very actively.

Black's pieces are bottled up and he has no useful moves.

1 e4 e5 2 lt:lf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 lt:lxd4lt:lf6 5lt:le3 a6 6 �e3 e6 7 f3 b5 8

1 3 ... e5 14 ltJb3 d4 1 5 ..tf2 "ilic7 1 6 ..th3 g5 ! ? (Preventing White from

At that time this was new.

18 'ii'e2 'ii'c7 19l:thfl!? .td6 20 g5! hxg5 21 hxg5 tllxe4 22 g6

15 tt::lxc6 1Wxc6 16 ..i.d3 'ifi>h8 17 .l:f.dg1 b4 18 ..th6 .l:f.g8 19 e5!

19...g6 20 exf6 bxc3 21 'iWgS

1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tiJxd4 tiJf6 5 tiJc3 a6 6 i.e3 e5

This is flexible and popular as it allows for immediate queenside

( 1 O . .'ii'xd5 1 1 'ii'xd5 .i.xd5 1 2 0-0-0 �c6 1 3 lt:la5 �e7 14 lt:lxc6 lt:lxc6 1 5

�c4± Vescovi-Cappellano, USA 2000) 1 1 c4 ( 1 1 'ii'd2 lt:lc6 1 2 0-0-0 .i.e6

Z.Almasi-Sax, 1 997. Instead 9 'ir'e2 ! ? i.e7 1 0 0-0-0 is an alternative that

1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tiJxd4 tiJf6 5 tiJc3 a6 6 i.e3 e5 7 tiJb3 i.e6

White immediately presses on with the kingside advance. This move

I) don't worry about it (as the knight will go to h5 when attacked);

There are three reasonable moves that ignore the threat of I 0 g5

1 e4 c5 2 lt:\f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 lt:\f6 5 lt:\c3 a6 6 �e3 e5 7 lt:\b3 �e6

. . . when the threat of d5-d4 leads to full equality. Now:

A) Best may be to mix i t up with 1 l . . .h6 ! ? 1 2 0-0-0 ( 1 2 gxh6 'ii'h4+ ! )

I e4 cS 2ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4ltJxd4ltJf6 5ltJc3 a6 6 .i.e3 eS 7ltJb3 .i.e6

Switching to an attack on the h2 pawn. The exchange of queens would

1 e4 c5 2ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4ltJxd4 lLlf6 5ltJc3 a6 6 i.e3 e5 7 lLlb3 i.e6

2) I4 . ..lt)c4 I 5 ..ixc4 ..ixc4 I 6lt::ld 5 ..ixd5 I 7 'ii'xd5 'ifc7 I 8l:!.g2 'iti>h8 I 9

1 e4 cS 2 lt'lt3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt'lxd4 lt'lf6 5 lt'lc3 a6 6 .ie3 eS 7 lt'lb3 .ie6

Rarely played is 10 ... 'ii'c7 1 1 0-0-0 b5 12 �b 1 ( 1 2 h4 l:tc8 13 l:th2 ! looks

1 5 ltJb1 i.c4 16 ltJxa6! i.xa6 17 .ixa6 0-0?

1 e4 cS 2 lt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:lxd4 lt:lf6 5 lt:lc3 a6 6 .te3 eS 7 lt:lb3 .te6

1 e4 cS 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 liJf6 5 ltJc3 a6 6 ..i.e3 eS 7 liJb3 .i.e6

A) 12 ltJd5 .txd5 13 exd5 a5

A) 1 1 �b l a4 ( l l . . .lLlbd7 1 2 i.b5 lLlb6 13 'i1Vf2 lLlc4 14 i.xc4 i.xc4 1 5

�xb6 a4 1 8 tt::Jc 1 f5 19 h3 llf6 2 0 tL!a2 fxe4 21 fxe4 tt::Je7 22 tL!c3±

..txa2 .l:.a8+ 30 .ta3 �4 3 I ..tb I 'ii'x a3 32 .l:.hg I 'ifa I + 0- I Borisek­

A) 16 ltJa5 liJf4 I 7 .txf4 exf4 I 8 .th3 l:le8 I9 'ii'xf4 is a risky pawn to

A) 14 ... b5 1 5 h4 b4 16lLid5 ..txd5 1 7 l:txd5 a5 ( 1 7 . . .l:tcb8 1 8lLia5lLib6

l e4 cS 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 a6 6 f3 eS 7 lLlb3 i.e6 8

The immediate 9 . . lLlbd7

1 l .. .liJb6 1 2 liJaS 'il/c7 1 3 �xb6 'ii'xb6 14 liJc4 'il/cS 1 S liJe3 l:r.fc8 1 6 h4

Black fully develops before advancing on the queenside. The immediate

i.e 1 b3 23 cxb3 axb3 24 a3 d5! 25 exd5 i.xa3 ! 0- 1 Z.Aimasi-Gelfand,

13 l:g1 'fic7 14 'iti> b 1 lLlc4 1 5 ..ixc4 'fixc4 1 6 h4

Structurally we have a classic English Attack where White has the

or 19 ... exf4 would represent a slower defence.

1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 a6 6 j_eJ e5 7 ltJb3 j_e6

. . .appears to contain deadly threats, yet White wins-25 exf7+ (not 25

Adams - Zhang Zhong

..txa2 .l:.a8+ 30 .ta3 �4 3 I ..tb I 'ii'x a3 32 .l:.hg I 'ifa I + 0- I Borisek