Learn Tatics step by step 1 Learn Tatics step by step 2

G.Kasparov están mejor. [ Pero no 17.Cg5 Cf6

V.Korchnoi
[Nigel Davies]
E04: Apertura Catalana - abierta
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 dxc4
5.Cf3 Ad7 6.Dc2 c5 7.0-0 Ac6 8.Dxc4
[ 8.dxc5 Cbd7 9.Dxc4 Axc5 10.Cc3 0-0
( 10...Tc8 11.Db3 ½-½ (11) Ajay,K (2315)-
Sahil,T (2245) Arandjelovac 2021) 11.Ag5
Ae7 12.Tfd1 Tc8 13.Dd4 Da5 14.Ad2
Ac5 15.Dh4 Db6 16.e3 Dxb2 17.Tab1
Dc2 18.Ce1 Dg6 19.Axc6 bxc6 20.Ce2
Ab6 21.Cf4 De4 22.Tb4 Df5 Olafsson,H
(2510)-Georgiev,K (2595) Saint John 1988
0-1 (45) ] 8...Cbd7 9.Ag5 La posición
está igualada. 9...Tc8N [ 9...cxd4
10.Cxd4 Axg2 11.Rxg2 Ae7 12.Cc3 0-0
13.Tfd1 Dc8 14.Dxc8 Tfxc8 15.Tac1 h6
16.Axf6 Cxf6 17.Tc2 a6 18.Tdc1 Tc4
19.e3 Tac8 20.Cce2 Txc2 21.Txc2 Txc2
22.Cxc2 ½-½ (22) Lerner,K (2525)-
Dorfman,J (2540) Tallinn 1983] 10.Axf6
Cxf6 11.dxc5 Axf3 12.Axf3 Axc5
13.Db5+ Dd7! 14.Cc3 Dxb5 15.Cxb5
Re7! 16.b4 Axb4 17.Cxa7 Tc7 87%/20
[ 17...Ta8= 51%/22 permanece igual.
18.Cb5 Thb8 ] 18.Tfc1 Despite the
innocuous appearance of this position,
Black is now losing his b7-pawn. The rest,
as they say, is history.
Las blancas están en el lío. 18...Td7
100%/25 [ 18...Txc1+± 85%/21
sigue luchando. 19.Txc1 Ta8 20.Tc7+
Rf8 21.Txb7 Ac5 ] 19.Tab1 Ad2 20.Tc2
Thd8 21.Axb7 [ 21.Txb7 Txb7 22.Axb7
Td7± ] 21...Rf8 22.Cc6 Tc7 23.Tbb2
Td6 24.a4 [ 24.Txd2 Txb7 25.Txb7
( 25.Txd6 Txb2 26.Td8+ Ce8± )
25...Txd2± ] 24...Ae1 25.Tb1 Cd5
26.Aa8 [ Menos fuerte es 26.Txe1 Txb7
27.Ce5 Ta6± ]
(Diagrama)
Tb8+ sería matador ahora. 26...Tc8
27.Ab7 [ 27.Txe1 Txa8 28.Ta1 Ce7± ]
27...Tc7 28.Tc4 [ No 28.Txe1 Txb7
29.a5 Cb4 30.Cxb4 Txb4± ] 28...Ce7
29.Ce5 [ Más débil es 29.Txe1 Txb7
30.Cb4 Ta7± ] 29...Aa5 30.Tb5 Cg6?
100%/23 [ 30...g6 100%/23
era n ec esario. 31.Rg2 Rg7 ] 31.Cc6
Td1+ 32.Rg2 Ae1 33.a5 Ce7
con la intención de ...Cxc6. 34.a6
A m e n a z a n g a n a r c o n a 7 . 34...Cxc6
35.Txc6 Las blancas están ganado
c l a r a m e n t e . 35...Txc6 36.Axc6+-
Final RTA-RTA 36...Ta1 37.Tb8+ Re7
38.Tb7+ Rd6 39.Ab5 Ac3 40.Txf7 Af6
41.Td7+ Rc5 42.Ad3 h6 43.Tb7 Ta3
44.a7 Rd5 45.f3 Rd6 Ahora ...Ad4 y Las
negras aguantan. 46.Tb6+ Enfilada.
Weight ed E rror V alue : Bla ncas=0.10/
Negras=0.32
1-0
N.Davies
M.Brown
[Nigel Davies]
E09: Apertura Catalana- cerrada
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Cf6 4.g3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.Dc2 Cbd7 7.0-0 c6
8.Cbd2 b6 9.e4 dxe4 As I mentioned
above, Black should probably not do this.
But at club level I wager that this will be
played almost exclusively.
10.Cxe4 Cxe4 11.Dxe4 Ab7 12.Td1
Dc7 13.Af4 Ad6 14.Axd6 Dxd6 15.c5
Dc7 16.Tac1 Tfd8 17.a3 Las blancas
18.Dh4 h6; No juegue 17.cxb6?! axb6
18.Ce5 Cxe5 19.Dxe5 Td6=; 17.b4 a5
18.a3 axb4 19.axb4 Ta4 20.Tb1 g6
21.h4 Aa6 22.Dc2 Ab5 23.Cg5 bxc5
24.bxc5 Cf6 25.Cf3 Da5 26.Td2 Tc4
27.Dd1 Ce4 28.Ta1 Aa4 29.Tb2 Dc3
30.Db1 Ab5 31.Tba2 Cf6 Garcia,J
( 2 1 2 4 ) - D a m a s c e n o , E ( 1 9 1 4 ) Rio de
Janeiro 2022 ½-½ (52) ] 17...h6N
[ 17...Tab8 18.b4 Cf6 19.De2
20.De5 Dxe5 21.Cxe5 axb4 22.axb4
bxc5 23.dxc5 Cd5 24.b5 f6 25.bxc6
fxe5 26.Axd5 Txd5 27.Txd5
28.Tb1 Rf8 29.cxb7 Re7 30.Tb6 Rd7
31.Ta6 Rc7 32.c6 Arbakov,V (2415)-
Dragomarezkij,E (2385) Moscow 1990 1-0
(33); 17...a5 18.h4 a4 19.Cg5 Cf6
20.De5 Dxe5 21.dxe5 Cd7 22.cxb6
Cxb6 23.Ce4 Txd1+ 24.Txd1 Aa6
25.Cd6 Cd5 26.Tc1 Ab5 27.Cxb5 cxb5
28.Tc5 Tb8 29.Axd5 exd5 30.Txd5 Rf8
31.Rg2 Re7 32.f4 Grabarczyk,M (2505)-
P o l is h c h u k , O ( 2 2 0 0 ) Wroclaw 2003 1-0
(72) ] 18.De3 Te8 98%/19 [ 18...Aa6
70%/21 ] 19.b4 87%/18
98%/19 ] 19...a5 100%/19 [ 19...Cf6±
87%/18 ]
20.Cd2 94%/21 The knight is headed for
d6.
[ 20.b5!+- 100%/19 ] 20...axb4 21.axb4
bxc5 22.bxc5 Cf6 23.Cc4 Aa6 24.De5
Te7 100%/17 [ 24...Ta7± 80%/20
era necesario.] 25.Ta1+- Cd5 26.Ta3
Ab7 27.Txa8+ Axa8 28.Ta1 Dd8
29.Dd6 Td7 30.De5 Tb7? 100%/20
[ 30...Cc7 100%/21 31.Cb6 Txd4 ]
31.Axd5 Las blancas están ganado
claramente. 31...exd5 32.Cb6 Tb8
(Diagrama)
33.Dxb8!! Eliminación del defensor.
Weight ed Error V alue : Bla ncas=0.11/
a5 Negras=0.43
1-0
exd5
Standard Catalan
move order
[Nigel Davies]
1.-- [ This occurs after 1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6
3.g3 ( or 3.Cf3 d5 4.g3 ) 3...d5 4.Ag2; or
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Cf6 4.g3
. White needs to study every line in the
book, as in addition to Ae7 , ( Black can
play 4...dxc4 . ); Note that 1.d4 d5 2.c4
e6 3.g3?! is not a good idea because of
[ 19.Ce5 dxc4! 4.Cf3 c5 5.Ag2 Cc6 when Black
would equalize quite comfortably. White
shou ld p la y 3 Nf3 (intending 3...Nf6 4
g3) after which 3...dxc4 would lead to a
form of Queen's Gambit Accepted. ]
Flank Catalan
move order
[Nigel Davies]
1.-- [ In this scenario White only adopts a
Catalan once Black has shown that he
intends to develop with ...Nf6, ...e7-e6
and ...d7-d5, and in this way he can avoid
the 4...dxc4 lines. For example 1.Cf3 d5
2.g3 Cf6 3.Ag2 e6 4.0-0 Ae7 5.c4 0-0
6.d4 brings about a Catalan, but with
Black's only options being to take on c4
(6...dxc4) or play a Closed Catalan with
Cbd7 .; Should White play c2-c4 before
Black has played ...Bf8-e7, he still has to
reckon with the possibility of 4...dxc4. For
example, 1.c4 Cf6 2.Cf3 e6 3.g3 d5
Learn Tatics step by step 3 Learn Tatics step by step
4.d4 can be met by dxc4 , when White
c an co n t i n ue wi t h 5.Dc2 , getting the
pawn back, but Black is close to equality.;
The 4...dxc4 option is not available in the
move order 1.Cf3 d5 2.g3 Cf6 3.Ag2 e6
4.0-0 , but here White needs to reckon
with possibilities such as 3...c6 instead
of 3...e6. ]
Queen's Pawn Catalan
move order
[Nigel Davies]
The move order 1.d4 Cf6 2.Cf3 e6 3.g3
is one that has been used extensively by
World Championship candidates
Jonathan Speelman and Oleg
Roman ishin. 3...-- [ After 3...d5 4.Ag2
, followed by 5 0-0 and 6 c4, White will get
a main line Catalan, while avoiding sharp
4...dxc4 lines.
Admittedly, White also has to reckon with
c5 5.0-0 Cc6 6.c4 (Chapter 10),; 3...b6
4.Ag2 Ab7 5.c4 (a Queen's Indian,
though one in which Black doesn't have
the popular ...Ba6 option),; and 3...b5!?
, but once again he manages to sidestep
the sharp 4...dxc4 lines. ]
V.Kramnik
V.Anand
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 Ae7
5.Cf3 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Dc2 a6 8.Dxc4
b5 9.Dc2 Ab7 10.Ad2 Ta7
[ This strange-looking idea essentially
plays a waiting game with a move that can
be useful in many lines. Black's problem
is that the natural 10...Cbd7 is met by
11.Aa5 quite strongly, for example Ta7
( 11...Tc8 12.Cbd2 Cb8?! 13.a3! Cc6
14.Ac3 b4?! 15.axb4 Cxb4 16.Db3 Ad5
17.Da4 was good for White in I.Almasi-A.
Lauber, Gyula 1997) 12.Cbd2 Da8 13.b4
Cb8 ( trying to embarrass the bishop on
a 5 b y c o mi n g t o c 6 ; W h i t e c a n me e t
13...e5 with 14.Ah3 exd4 15.Cxd4
intending Nd4-f5) 14.a3 Cc6 15.Cb3
( 15.Axc7?! Tc8 16.Ab6 Cxb4 is messy )
15...Cxa5 ( 15...e5 should probably be
a nswe r e d b y 16.Ch4 , trying to come to
f5 ) 16.Cxa5 Ae4 17.Ce1! Axc2 18.Axa8
Taxa8 19.Cxc2 Ad6! 20.f4 gave White
the better endgame in M.Chetverik-B.
Fu rm a n, K a rvina 1 9 98 .] So the idea
behind 10...Ra7 is to be able to meet Bd2-
a5 with ...Nb8-c6.
11.Tc1 This looks logical, applying
pressu re down the c-file while getting
ready to tuck the queen out of the way on
d1. [ Yet in a subsequent game (V.
Kramnik-J.Werle, clock simul, Enschede
2008) Kramnik varied with the
expe rimental 11.a3!? , after which Ae4
12.Dc1 Cc6 13.e3 Da8 14.Dd1 Cd5
15.De2 e5 16.Te1 ( 16.Tc1 Ad6 17.Ae1
exd4 18.Cbd2 Ag6 19.Ch4 dxe3
20.Cxg6 hxg6 21.Cf1 Cce7 22.Cxe3 c6
23.Cxd5 Cxd5 24.Tc2 gave White just
about enough for the pawn in A.Shirov-
D.Jakovenko, European Club Cup, Kemer
2007 ) 16...exd4 17.exd4 f5 18.Cc3
Cxc3 19.Axc3 Af6 20.d5 Axc3 21.bxc3
Cd8 22.Tad1 Axd5 23.Cg5! gave White
a strong attack, the point being that Axg2?
i s a n s we r e d b y 24.Dh5 h6 25.Te7
with a winning attack.
At the time of writing there are very few
games with 11 a3, but on the evidence
t h u s f a r i t s e e m s q u i t e p r o m i s i n g .]
11...Ae4 12.Db3 Cc6 13.e3 Da8
14.Dd1 [ 14.Cc3 is an interesting
possibility pointed out by Fritz 11, but then
Cxd4 ( 14...Ca5 15.Dd1 Ac6 16.b3
looks bett er for W hite because of th e
poor position of the knight on a5) 15.exd4
Axf3 16.Axf3 Dxf3 17.Cxb5 leads to
not hing mo re t han a dr awn e ndgame:
Dxb3 18.axb3 Tb7 19.Txc7 Txb5
20.Txe7 Txb3 21.Ac3 Cd5 22.Td7 Cxc3
23.bxc3 Txc3 24.Txa6 g5 etc. ] 14...Cb8
[ In subsequent games Anand preferred
14...b4 , preventing White from bringing
his knight to c3. White seems to have a
tiny pull, but it is difficult to make much of
4
it, for example 15.Df1 ( 15.Ae1 Ad5
16.Cbd2 Cb8 17.Ch4 Axg2 18.Cxg2 c5
19.dxc5 Tc8 20.Df3 Txc5 21.Dxa8 Txa8
22.Cb3 Txc1 23.Txc1 Cbd7 was equal in
M . S u b a - R . V a g a n i a n , B a z n a 2 0 0 7;
while R.Ponomariov-V.Anand, Leon rapid
2007, was agreed drawn after 15.a3 Tb8
16.Ae1 a5 17.Cbd2 Ad5 18.Af1 bxa3
19.bxa3 a4 20.Cc4 Ca5 21.Axa5 Axf3
22.De1 Cd7 23.Tab1 Txb1 24.Txb1
Axa3 25.Ta1 Af8 26.Txa4 Cb6 ½-½ )
15...Td8 ( 15...Cb8 16.Ce1 c5 17.dxc5
Cc6 18.Cf3 Td8 19.a3 bxa3 20.Txa3
Db7 21.Ac3 Cd5 22.Cbd2 Axf3 23.Cxf3
Axc5 24.Taa1 gave White a nagging two-
bishop edge in A.Grischuk-D.Jakovenko,
FIDE Grand Prix, Sochi 2008; while
15...Ad5 16.Ae1 Tc8 17.Cbd2 Ca5
18.Ce5 c5 19.dxc5 Axc5 20.Cd3 Af8
21.Axd5 Cxd5 22.e4 gave White a slight
space advantage in V.Kramnik-P.Leko,
Moscow 200 7) 16.Ae1 a5 17.a3 Ad6
18.Cfd2 Axg2 19.Dxg2 Ta6 20.Cc4 Cd5
21.Cbd2 bxa3 22.bxa3 Ae7 23.Tab1 a4
24.Df1 Cb8 25.Ce4 Cd7 26.Cc3 c5
27.dxc5 Cxc3 28.Axc3 Cxc5 29.Ab4 Af8
30.Td1 and White still had a tiny edge in L.
Aronian-V.Anand, Mainz (rapid) 2007,
t ho ug h h e s ubse q u en tl y ma na g e d t o
lose. ] 15.Aa5 Tc8 Black later tried other
moves here: [ a) 15...Ad6 16.a3 Cbd7
17.Cbd2 Ad5 18.Df1 c5 19.dxc5 Axc5
20.Tc2 Db7 21.Tac1 Ab6 22.Axb6 Dxb6
23.Cd4 Ce5 24.Axd5 Cxd5 25.C4f3
saw White maintain some pressure in L.
Aronian-S.Karjakin, Wijk aan Zee 2007.
Black successfully achieved the thematic
...c7-c5 break, only to find himself facing
strong pressure on the c-file.; b) 15...Cc6
16.Ae1 Cb8 was seen in B.Avrukh-C.
S an di p a n, T ur in O l ymp ia d 20 0 6, b u t
driving White's bishop back to e1 enables
him to develop his queen's knight on d2.
The game continued 17.b4 Cbd7 18.a4
Cd5 19.Cbd2 Ag6 20.Cb3 Ae4
( 20...Axb4 21.Axb4 Cxb4 22.Ce5 Dc8
23.Cxg6 hxg6 24.axb5 would be very
good for White) 21.axb5 Axb4 ( or if
21...axb5 22.Ce5! Axg2 23.Txa7 Dxa7
24.Cxd7 Td8 25.Ta1 Db7 26.Cdc5 Axc5
27.Cxc5 Dc6 28.e4 , winning material)
22.Axb4 Cxb4 23.Cbd2 with a clear
advantage.] 16.a3 A familiar concept in a
new setting; White prepares the possibility
of b 2- b 4 wi t h ou t ac t ua l ly co mmi tt i n g
himself to it, thus inviting Black to injure
himself in his attempts t o avoid a bind.
[ Of the alternatives 16.Ab6 looks a bit
early as the bishop still has its uses on a5.
R.Ponomariov-V.Anand, Wijk aan Zee
2007, went on Tb7 17.Ac5 Axc5 18.dxc5
( 18.Txc5 Cbd7 19.Tc1 c5 would free
Black's game) 18...Ta7 19.Cbd2 Ad5
20.Dc2 a5 21.a3 a4 22.Dd3 ½-½.;
Another possibility is 16.Cbd2 , but then B.
Gelfand-S.Karjakin, Wijk aan Zee 2006,
saw Black equalize after Ad5 17.Cb3
Cbd7 18.Tc2 Ae4 19.Tc3 Cd5 20.Tcc1
C5f6 21.Tc3 Cd5 22.Tcc1 C5f6 ½-½. ]
16...Ad6 [ Unfortunately for Black his
thematic 16...c5 is answered by 17.Cbd2
Ad5 18.Ab6 , winning the pawn on c5.]
17.Cbd2 Ad5 18.Df1 Cbd7 19.b4
With Black finally ready to play ...c7-c5,
White fixes control of this square with a
second pawn advance. The drawback to
t his move is t ha t t he b is ho p o n a5 is
temporarily stranded, but it does do an
effective job from where it is.
19...e5 If Black doesn't get some
counterplay White will simply increase the
pressure by doubling rooks on the c-file.
20.dxe5 Axe5!? [ After 20...Cxe5
Whi t e maintains an edg e wit h 21.Cxe5
Axe5 22.Ta2 intending Rac2.] 21.Cxe5
Cxe5 [ After 21...Axg2 22.Dxg2 Dxg2+
( 22...Cxe5 23.Dxa8 Taxa8 24.Txc7
w i n s a p a w n) 23.Rxg2 Cxe5
Wh it e mai nt a in s a n e d ge wi t h 24.Ab6!
Tb7 25.Ad4 . ] 22.f3! An ugly move
containing a deep idea. By avoiding the
exchange of bishops White leaves his
opponent with too few squares for his
minor pieces.
22...Cc4 23.Cxc4 Axc4 24.Df2 Te8
25.e4 c6 26.Td1 Td7 27.Txd7 Cxd7
28.Td1 Db7 29.Td6 f6 30.f4 Emerging
from his self-inflicted cramp. White's two
Learn Tatics step by step 5 Learn Tatics step by step
bishops and greater control of terrain now 15.b4 ( another possibility is 15.e4!? Ae7
give him a clear advantage. 16.e5 Cd7 17.b4 a5 18.Cb3!? axb4
30...Te6 31.Td2 Te7 32.Dd4 Cf8 19.Cg5 Axg5 20.Axb7 Tb8 21.Ca5
33.Dd8 Td7 34.Txd7 Dxd7 35.Dxd7 , threatening Na5-c6, as in A.Budnikov-
Cxd7 36.e5?! [ Unnecessarily Z.Almasi, Budapest 1991) 15...a5!? 16.e4
c o m p l i c a t e d . 36.Ah3! Cf8 37.Ac8 ( 16.bxa5 c5! would be quite good for
would have been s impler.] 36...fxe5 Black ) 16...Ae7 17.Tab1 axb4 18.axb4
37.Axc6 Cf6 38.Ab7 exf4 39.gxf4 Cd5 Ta8 19.Tfe1 ( 19.Tfc1 is also worth
40.Rf2 Cxf4 41.Re3 g5 c o n s i d e r i n g) 19...Ta4 20.Dc3 Da8
[ A n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y w a s 41...Ce2 21.Ce5 Td8 led to complex play in A.
, though then White maintains his Be lia vsk y- A . Ka rp o v, B r u ss el s 1 9 8 8 .]
advantage with 42.Ac7 ( 42.Axa6 Rf7 14.Cbd2 Tc8 15.b4 Hereabouts there is
43.Ab6 Re6 is less clear, for example an intense struggle for t he c5-square,
44.a4 Cc3 45.a5 Cd5+ 46.Rd4 Cxb4 White's last move preventing ...c7-c5 and
etc ) 42...Rf7 43.Ae5 g6 44.Re4 Black's next attempting to force it through.
, f in all y in t end ing to take on a 6 a ft er 15...a5 16.Ce5 [ This excellent move
having boxed in Black's knight.] 42.Axa6 secures a small advantage. But it seems
Rf7 43.a4 Re7 44.Axb5 Axb5 45.axb5 that W hite is also slight ly better after
Rd7 46.Re4 Ce2 47.Ab6 g4 48.Af2 16.Db2 , for example axb4 17.axb4 Dd6
Cc3+ 49.Rf5 Cxb5 50.Rxg4 Re6 18.Tfb1 Ta8 ( 18...Cd5? 19.Ce4! Dxb4?
51.Rg5 Rf7 52.Rf5 Re7 53.Ac5+ is refuted by 20.Dc1! Dc4 21.Dxc4 bxc4
1-0 22.Txb7 ) 19.Ta5 Cd5 ( 19...Txa5
20.bxa5 b4 21.Ce5 also looks better for
White ) 20.Ce4 Dxb4 21.Txb5 Dxb2
V.Kramnik 22.T5xb2 Cb6 23.Ce5 as in L.Bruzon
M.Carlsen Bati st a-U. Ca po V i da l, Moreli a 2 00 7 .]
[Nigel Davies] 16...Cd5? [ Carlsen probably came up
with this dubious move over the board,
1.Cf3 [ Many Catalan players start out with overlooking White's powerful reply. Black
this move in order to avoid c ertain s ho u l d p re f e r 16...Axg2 17.Rxg2 c6
defensive systems. For example, Black ( 17...axb4 18.Cc6 Dd7 19.axb4
can meet the 'main' Catalan move order of was unpleasant for Black in J.Speelman-J.
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 with c5 , when Cox, British Ch., Southport 1983) 18.Cd3
4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Cc3 g6 axb4 19.axb4 Cd5 20.Db3 Ta8 21.Tfc1
leads into a Modern Benoni.] 1...Cf6 2.c4 , when White's greater control of terrain
e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 Ae7 5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 gave him the edge in M.Marin-D.Marciano,
dxc4 7.Dc2 a6 8.Dxc4 b5 9.Dc2 Ab7 Bucharest 1993.] 17.Cb3! With the b4-
10.Ad2 Cc6 11.e3 Cb4 12.Axb4 Axb4 pawn attacked three times it's easy to
13.a3 Ae7 [ Black can also play 13...Ad6 miss this idea. Black's reply is forced.
, for e xample 14.Cbd2 Tc8 ( 14...De7 17...axb4 18.Ca5 Aa8 19.Cac6 Axc6
15.e4 e5 16.Ch4 g6 17.f4 exd4 18.e5 20.Cxc6 Dd7 21.Axd5! exd5 22.axb4
d3 19.Dxd3 Ac5+ 20.Rh1 Tfd8 21.Dc2 White has retrieved the sacrificed pawn
Cd5 22.Tae1! gave White a nice space while maintaining a huge positional plus.
advantage in E.Pigusov-E .Rozentalis, Bla ck's position is a lmo st co mplete ly
Sevastopol 1986; and 14...Db8 15.Tac1 paralysed and he can't defend the pawn
Tc8 16.Cg5! h6 17.Cge4 Cxe4 18.Cxe4 on b5.
a5 19.f4!? Ta6 20.f5 set in motion 22...Tfe8 [ White can meet 22...Ta8 with
dangerous threats on the kingside in G. 23.Ta5!? , for example Txa5 24.bxa5 Ta8
Orlov-R.Vaganian, New York Open 1990) 25.a6! Txa6? 26.Cb8 etc. ] 23.Ta5 Af8
6
24.Ce5 [ It doesn't look like Black has
enough after 24.Txb5 Te6 25.Tc1 Th6
26.h4 , but Kramnik prefers not to have his
knight pinned.] 24...De6 [ Sacrificing the
exchange with 24...Txe5 25.dxe5 Axb4
doesn't help because White can win the
c7-pawn with 26.Ta7 followed by Rc1.]
25.Txb5 Tb8?! [ Going meekly to his
doom. The surprising 25...Axb4!? 26.Txb4
c5 would have been a better try, though
it's unlikely to have changed the course of
the game after 27.dxc5 Dxe5 28.Td1
etc. ] 26.Txb8 Txb8 27.Dxc7 Ad6 [ After
27...Txb4 28.Ta1 , White's rook would be
ready to pe netrate.] 28.Da5 Axb4
[ And here 28...Axe5 29.dxe5 Dxe5
would have obliged White to find 30.Td1
De4 31.Txd5 , after which he escapes the
checks via Db1+ 32.Rg2 De4+ 33.Rf1
Db1+ 34.Re2 Db2+ ( or 34...Dc2+
35.Rf3 ) 35.Rf3 Df6+ 36.Rg2 etc. ] 29.Tb1
Dd6 30.Da4 Further resistance is futile as,
with rooks coming off, Black will lose his
d5-pawn.
1-0
V.Kramnik
P.Leko
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 Ae7
5.Cf3 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Dc2 a6 8.Dxc4
b5 9.Dc2 Ab7 10.Ad2 Ae4 11.Dc1 Dc8
A logical move: Black prepares ...c7-c5
while delaying the development of his
queen's knight. This means that 12 Ba5
can be answered by 12...Nc6.
There are a number of alternatives, none
of which promise full equality for Black:
[ a) 11...Cbd7 is natural, but the early
commitment of the knight to this square
once again allows White to play 12.Aa5
, for example: A) 12...Tc8 13.Cbd2 Aa8
14.a3! Cb8! ( 14...De8 15.b4 Ad6
16.Te1! Ce4 17.Ta2! f5 18.Tc2 Cb6
19.Da1! Ad5 20.Tec1 was better for
White in A.Beliavsky-G.Kovacs, Hungarian
Team Ch. 2003) 15.Td1 De8 16.Cb3
Ad5 17.Cc5 Axc5 18.Dxc5 Cbd7 19.Dc3
c5 20.De1 and White had a slight
initiative in V.Ivanchuk-B.Gelfand, Monte
Carlo (blindfold rapid) 2004.; B) 12...Ta7!?
is interesting, but this still looks better
for White after 13.Cbd2 Ad5 14.Te1 Ce4
( 14...Da8? i s b a d b e ca us e o f 15.e4!
when Cxe4 16.Cxe4 Axe4 17.Txe4
Dxe4 18.Ce5 Dxd4 19.Cc6 Dc5 20.b4
wins material) 15.Cxe4 Axe4 16.Df4!?
Cf6 17.Ce5 Axg2 18.Rxg2 Ad6 and now
19.Df3 Axe5 20.dxe5 Cd7 21.Ted1
with ongoing pressure.; C) 12...--; b)
11...Cc6 seems to be well met by 12.Ae3
Cb4 13.Cc3 Ab7 14.Td1 , for example
Dc8 15.a3 Cbd5 16.Cxd5 Cxd5 17.Ag5
f6 18.Ad2 a5 19.Dc2 Cb6 20.Tac1 Cc4
21.a4 Cxd2 22.Cxd2 Axg2 23.Rxg2
bxa4 24.Dxa4 gave White an edge in A.
Grischuk-K.Solomon, FIDE World Ch.,
Tripoli 2004.; c) 11...c6 is a speciality of
the L ithuanian G M Rozen talis, but h e
recently ran into trouble in this line after
12.Td1!? Axf3 13.Axf3 Dxd4 14.a4 bxa4
15.Ca3 Cbd7 16.Cc4 Ce5 17.Cxe5
Dxe5 18.Af4 Dc5 19.Dxc5 Axc5
20.Axc6 Tad8 21.Txd8 Txd8 22.Txa4
Cd5 23.Axd5 Txd5 24.Txa6 and White
was a good pawn up and went on to win in
T.Nyback-E.Rozentalis, German League
2007.; d) 11...b4!? has been played by
Karpov and makes a lot of sense. Black
takes c3 away from White's knight and
prevents Bd2-a5. On the other hand it
does lose time. Z.Rahm an-S. Irwanto,
Kuala Lu mpur 2007, cont inue d 12.Ag5
Cbd7 13.Cbd2 Ad5 14.Te1 c5 15.e4
Ab7 16.e5 Ce8 and now 17.Axe7 Dxe7
18.dxc5 seems to keep an edge.; e)
11...Ab7 12.Af4 ( 12.Td1!? Dc8 13.a4
c5 14.axb5 axb5 15.Txa8 Axa8 16.dxc5
Axc5 17.Cc3 Ac6 18.Ae3 Axe3 19.Dxe3
b4 20.Ca2 Db7 21.Cc1 was a tiny bit
better for W hite in E.Bareev-A.Shirov,
Monte Carlo rapid 2004) 12...Cd5 13.Cc3
Cxf4 14.Dxf4 c5 15.dxc5 Axc5 16.Cg5
Db6 17.Axb7 Dxb7 18.Tfd1 with slightly
the more comfortable game for White, E.
Ubilava-A.Karpov, Canada de Calatrava
Learn Tatics step by step
( r a p i d ) 2 0 0 7 .] 12.Ag5 White's most
imp or t a nt m o ve ; i t se e m s t h a t Bl a ck
doesn't have too much trouble after the
alternatives: [ a) 12.b4 Cd5 13.Cc3 Cxc3
14.Dxc3 Db7 15.Tfc1 was A.Fauland-H.
Benda, Austrian Team Ch. 2003, and now
Cc6 would have given Black excellent
counterplay.; b) 12.Ae3 Cbd7 13.Cbd2
Ad5 14.Cb3 Db7 15.Td1 a5 16.Cc5
Cxc5 17.dxc5 Tfd8 gave Black an
e xce l l e n t g a me i n B .T ho r f in n s s o n- J .
Thomassen, Copenhagen 2007.; c) 12.Cc3
Ab7 13.Dc2 Cbd7 14.Tac1 c5
left Black with no further problems in D.
Cori Tello-U.Andersson, Benidorm 2008.;
d) 12.a4 is interesting and deserves more
tests, for example Cbd7 13.Cc3 Ac6
14.Ag5 Db7 15.e4 b4 16.d5 initiated
wild complications but was agreed drawn
at t his po int in J. G o nza l e s- E. G ha e m
M a g h a mi , C a l vi a 2 0 0 6 .] 12...Cbd7
With White's bishop having gone to g5
there's no further reason to delay this
move, though Black has tried a couple of
alternatives: [ a) 12...h6 13.Axf6 Axf6
14.Cbd2 Ab7 15.Cb3 Cd7 16.Dc2 a5
17.Tfc1 a4 18.Cc5 Cxc5 19.Dxc5
gave White a typical Catalan plus in R.
Markus-S.Cvetkovic, Serbian Team Ch.
2004. Black is under st rong pressu re
down the c-file.; b) 12...c5 is a very
reasonable attempt to equalize
immediately, but it seems that White can
ma in ta i n a s l i gh t e dg e. Fo r e x a mp l e
13.dxc5 Dxc5 14.Cbd2 ( 14.Df4 Cbd7
15.Cbd2 Ab7 16.Tac1 Db6 17.Dc7 Tfc8
gave Black e qualit y in W .Arenc ibia-L .
Bruzon , San ta Clara 2007) 14...Ab7
15.Dxc5 ( 15.Cb3!? Db6 16.Td1 Ad5
17.Ae3 Dd8 18.Cfd4 Cbd7 19.Cc6 De8
20.Cxe7+ Dxe7 gave White a slight but
enduring edg e in L.Aroni an-K.Asrian ,
Stepanakert 2005) 15...Axc5 16.Axf6
( 16.Tfc1 Ad6 17.Axf6 gxf6 18.Ce1
Axg2 19.Rxg2 Ab4 20.Ce4 Axe1
21.Txe1 was also slightly better for White
in B.Avrukh-F.Jenni, Biel 2006) 16...gxf6
17.Tfc1 Ab6 18.Ce1 Axg2 19.Rxg2 Cd7
20.Cd3 Tfc8 21.a4 ( 21.Ce4 Rf8 22.g4
7 Learn Tatics step by step
Re7 23.Rf3 Ad4 24.Txc8 Txc8 25.a4
Tc2 26.axb5 axb5 27.Ta5 Ce5+
28.Cxe5 Axe5 29.b4 Axh2 30.Txb5
was slightly better for White in B.Gelfand-
A.Grischuk, Bastia rapid 2003) 21...Txc1
22.Txc1 bxa4 23.Ta1 Cc5 24.Cxc5
Axc5 25.Txa4 a5 26.Cc4 gave White a
nagging edge in A.Beliavsky-A.Grischuk,
F I DE W o r l d Ch , T r i p o l i 2 00 4 . T h e r e
wasn't enough to win but evidently Black
is s u f f e ri n g in t h i s l i ne .] 13.Df4!?
An interest ing ne w move by Kramnik,
which spic es up a rather well-trodden
v a r i a t i o n . [ The usual and rather obvious
move is 13.Cbd2 , f o r e xa m p l e Ab7
14.Cb3 ( 14.Ce5 Axg2 15.Rxg2 c5
16.Cxd7 Dxd7 17.dxc5 Dd5+ 18.Cf3
Dxc5 19.Dxc5 Axc5 20.Axf6 gxf6
21.Tfd1 Tfc8 was more or less equal in E.
Bareev-A.Onischuk, Russian Team Ch.
2007 ) 14...c5 ( Black has tried
alternat ive s here, for example 14...Te8
15.Td1 Ad5 16.Axf6 Axf6 17.Dc2 a5
18.e4 Axb3 19.Dxb3 c6 was a bit better
for White in A.Lastin-A.Korotylev, Moscow
2004; and 14...a5 15.Axf6 Axf6 16.Cc5
Cxc5 17.Dxc5 Td8 18.Tac1 Axf3
19.Axf3 Axd4 20.Dxb5 Db8 21.Dc4 Ta7
22.b3 Db4 23.Tfd1 Dxc4 24.bxc4
became very drawish in Y.Pelletier-A.
On ischuk, Biel 2007) 15.Axf6 Axf6
( 15...gxf6 i s r is k y, a n d 16.Df4 Db8
17.Dh4 cxd4 18.Tad1 Ta7 19.Txd4
gave White quite a dangerous-looking
initi ative in A.Gris chuk-V.B ologan,
Poikovsky 2005) 16.Cxc5 Cxc5 17.dxc5
Ae7 18.b4 Af6 19.Tb1 Ae4 20.Tb3 a5
21.a3 Ad5 22.Cd2 Axb3 23.Axa8 Dxa8
24.Cxb3 axb4 25.axb4 Da4 recovered
the pawn with equality in B.Gelfand-A.
Onischuk, World Team Ch., Beersheba
2005. ] 13...Ab7 [ Leko thought long and
hard about this, finally refraining from the
natural 13...c5 which was played in a later
game: T.Nyback-M.Agopov, Jyvaskyla
2008, continued 14.Tc1 c4 15.b3 cxb3!
16.axb3 ( and not 16.Txc8? b2! ) 16...Db8
17.Dxb8 Tfxb8 18.Cbd2 Ab7 19.Ce5
Cxe5 20.Axb7 Txb7 21.dxe5 Cd5
8
22.Axe7 Cxe7 23.Ce4 with ongoing
pressure for White.; Another possibility is
13...Db7 , but then 14.Cc3 Ac6 15.e4 b4
16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 Cxd5 18.Cxd5
Axg5 19.Dxb4 Axd5 20.Dxb7 Axb7
21.Cxg5 Axg2 22.Rxg2 would give White
an endgame with the better pawn
structure. This kind of position would be
especially dangerous against an endgame
wizard like Kramnik.] 14.Tc1 Inhibiting the
advance of the c7-pawn.
14...Ad6 15.Dh4 h6 [ In the game S.
Brunello-G.Kovacs, European Club Cup,
Kallithea 2008, Black tried to improve with
15...Ce4 , b u t a f t e r 16.Cbd2 Cxd2
17.Axd2 Cf6 he would have found himself
in a highly unpleasant position had White
chosen 18.Ag5 ( r at h er t h a n 18.Af4 )
18...Dd8 19.Axf6 Dxf6 20.Cg5 h6
21.Axb7 hxg5 22.De4 Ta7 23.Ac6 etc. ]
16.Axf6 Cxf6 17.Cbd2 White has now
managed to prevent ...c7-c5 and will have
pre ssu re d own t h e c-fi le . Th e on ly
negat i ve as pect of his p ositio n i s th e
slightly awkward position of his queen.
17...Te8 18.e4 [ 18.Tc2 is worth
considering, trying to build pressure on the
c-file at once.] 18...Cd7 [ The immediate
18...e5 leaves White with an edge after
19.dxe5 Axe5 20.Cxe5 Txe5 21.Df4 . ]
19.Cb3 a5 [ Preventing 20 Na5, which
would have been the answer to 19...e5 . ]
20.Cc5 [ There were other moves worth
c o n s i d e r i n g , f o r e x a m p l e 20.Tc2
m a k e s s e n s e , b u t B l a c k mi g h t h a v e
answered with e5 .; Another possibility is
20.a4 a f t e r w h i c h bxa4 ( if 20...b4
21.Cfd2 ) 21.Txa4 Ab4 is met by 22.Df4
w i t h o n g o i n g p r e s s u r e .] 20...Ae7
[ Normally Black would like to capture on
c5 in s uch p ositions, but Whit e would
then have the unpleasant threat of c5-c6.
For exa mpl e 20...Axc5?! 21.dxc5 Ac6
is answered by 22.Cd4 .; A better way is
20...Cxc5 21.dxc5 Ae7 , for example
22.Dh5 ( 22.Df4 e5 23.Cxe5 Af6
would give Black excellent counterplay)
22...Axe4 23.Ce5! g6 24.Dxh6 Axg2
25.Rxg2 Af6 26.Df4 Axe5 27.Dxe5 Td8
when Black is only slightly worse.] 21.Df4
e5 [ This wins material, but White gets
exce llent c omp e ns a tio n. A s af er li n e
would have been 21...Cxc5 22.dxc5 e5!
, t ra n spos i n g in t o t h e no t e wi th 20 . . .
N x c 5 w h i l e a l s o a v o i d i n g 2 2 Q h 5 .]
22.Cxe5 Cxe5 23.dxe5 [ 23.Dxe5? Ag5
24.Df5 is bad because of Dxf5 25.exf5
Axc1 26.Axb7 Axb2 etc. ] 23...Ag5
24.Df3 Axc1 25.Txc1 Txe5 26.Dc3
Black has won the exchange but finds
hims elf un der te rrible pressure. All
White's pieces are ideally placed, while
B l ac k wi l l h a ve d i f f i cu l t y g e t t in g h i s
queenside pieces into play.
26...f6?! [ In retrospect it might have been
better to return the exchange with 26...Te7
27.Cxb7 Dxb7 28.e5 Da7 29.Axa8 Dxa8
. White would be better here too, but the
reduction of material makes it difficult for
W h i t e t o w i n .] 27.Db3+ Rh8?!
[ This turns out to be the wrong square for
the ki ng. Black shoul d have played
27...Rh7 when 28.Df7 ( 28.Dxb5
looks better with strong pressure for the
sacrificed exchange) 28...Ac6 29.Cd3
Ae8 30.Df8 is no longer check. This
makes a critical difference compared to
the game. ] 28.Df7! Threatening both
Nxb7 or Nd3 followed by Rxc7.
28...Ac6 29.Cd3 Te6 [ In this position
29...Ae8? 30.Df8+ would win on the
spot. ] 30.Cf4! [ Playing for the attack
r a th e r t ha n s i m p ly wi n n i n g b a c k t h e
exchange with 30.Ah3 . Black is in terrible
troub le now.] 30...Td6 31.Cg6+ Rh7
32.e5! This move wins material for White.
32...fxe5 33.Axc6 Tf6 34.Dd5 Df5
35.Axa8 Dxf2+ 36.Rh1 Dxb2 37.Dc5
Rxg6 38.Ae4+ Rh5 39.Tb1
1-0
K.Landa
H.Melkumyan
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 Ae7
5.0-0 0-0 6.d4 dxc4 7.Dc2 a6 8.Dxc4
Learn Tatics step by step
b5 9.Dc2 Ab7 10.Ad2 Ad6 A high-class
waiting move that has become popular of
late. Black prepares the possibilities of ...
e6-e5 (after further preparation) or ...Qd8-
e7 and defends the p awn on c7.
Meanwhile White must find another useful
move, 11 Ba5 being simply met by 11...
Nc6.
11.Te1 White finds a classy waiting move
in t urn , keep ing th e op tio n o f B d2-a 5
while preparing a possible e2-e4. Other
moves don't seem to promise much: [ a)
11.Ag5 Cbd7 12.Cbd2 ( 12.Td1 Db8
13.Axf6 Cxf6 14.Cbd2 Tc8 15.Cg5
Axg2 16.Rxg2 Db7+ 17.Rg1 c5
didn't leave White with much in J.
Speelman-W .Browne, W ijk aan Zee
1983 ) 12...Tc8 13.Cb3 c5 14.Axf6 Cxf6
15.Cxc5 Ae4 16.Dc3 e5 17.e3 Axc5
18.dxc5 Dd5 19.Tad1 Da8 20.Ch4 Axg2
21.Cxg2 Ce4 22.Dxe5 Txc5 23.Dd4 Tc4
24.Dd3 Cg5 gave Black compensation for
h is s a cr i f i ce d pa w n i n V . K ra m n ik -M .
Carlsen, Moscow 2007.; b) 11.Td1 Cbd7
12.Aa5 Db8 13.b4 e5 14.Cbd2 exd4
15.Cxd4 Axg2 16.Rxg2 c5 17.bxc5
Axc5 18.C2b3 Aa3 was fine for Black in
B. Gelf and-V. Anand , FIDE W or ld Ch . ,
Mexico City 2007.; c) 11.Ae3 Cbd7
12.Cbd2 De7 13.Cb3 Ae4 14.Dc1 e5
15.dxe5 Cxe5 16.Cxe5 Axg2 17.Cc6
Axc6 18.Dxc6 Cg4 19.Ad4 Dxe2
20.Tfe1 Dd3 21.h3 Ch6 22.Ae5 Axe5
23.Txe5 Cf5 24.Tae1 g6 25.Td5 Dc4
26.Tc5 Dd3 was soon drawn by repetition
in M.Carlsen-A.Onischuk, Foros 2008.]
11...Cbd7 [ This suffers from the old
problem of allowing White to get Bd2-a5 in.
Fo r t h is r ea s on B l a ck ' s be s t m ay b e
11...Ae4 12.Dc1 Ab7 ( here too
12...Cbd7 is met by 13.Aa5! , for example
De7 14.Cbd2 Axf3 15.Cxf3 Tac8 16.e4
e5 17.Ch4 g6 18.f4 exf4 19.e5
won a piece for inadequate compensation
in A.Volokitin-A.Onischuk, Foros 2008)
13.Ag5 Cbd7 14.e4 Ae7 15.Cbd2 c5
16.e5 ( 16.Axf6 Axf6 17.dxc5 Tc8 18.b4
Axa1 19.Dxa1 gave White some
compensation for the sacrificed exchange
9 Learn Tatics step by step
in P.Harikrishna-A.Pashikian, European
Club Cup, Ka llit h ea 20 08 , thoug h i t 's
probably o nl y ba rely ad equat e at th is
stage ) 16...Cd5 17.Ce4 cxd4 18.Dd2
( 18.Axe7 Dxe7 19.Dd2 Ce3 20.fxe3
Axe4 21.exd4 Ad5 was also fine for
Black in A.Delchev-E.Ubilava, Benasque
2008 ) 18...Axg5 19.Cexg5 h6 20.Ce4
Ce3 21.fxe3 ( and not 21.Dxd4? Cc2 )
21...Axe4 22.exd4 Ad5 23.Ch4 Cb6
24.Ae4 Tc8 25.Cg2 Axe4 was fine for
Black in B.Gelfand-V.Anand, Wijk aan Zee
2008. The onus seems to be on White to
find something here.] 12.Aa5 De8?!
[ Well, that's one way to unpin the c-pawn,
though it does look rather artificial. Black
might have rejected 12...De7 because in
some lines he saw a white knight coming
t o f5 . B ut th is co uld be a cas e of t h e
cure being worse than the disease.] 13.e4
e5 14.Cbd2 c5 15.dxe5 Cxe5 16.Cxe5
Axe5 17.Cf3 Tc8 18.Tad1 b4
This stops the a5-bishop from returning to
c3, but loses yet more time and
additionally creates further weaknesses.
19.Ah3 Tc6 20.a3 Ac7 21.e5!
This le ads to the break- up o f B la ck 's
kingside and subsequently a strong attack.
Black has some tricks but they don't really
work.
21...Axa5 22.exf6 b3 23.Dxb3 Axe1?!
[ 23...Tb6 was probably a better try, but
then 24.Txe8 Txb3 25.Txf8+ Rxf8
26.Ce5 gxf6 27.Cc4 Ac7 28.Af5
is just one good line.] 24.fxg7 Rxg7
25.Txe1 Da8 26.Ch4 [ Threatening to
c om e t o f 5 . An o t he r g o od mo ve w a s
26.Te7! when Ac8 27.Ag2 Te6 28.Dc3+
Rg8 29.Ch4 is very unpleasant.] 26...Tf6
27.Cf5+ Rh8?? [ 27...Rg8 had to be tried,
though this is still very good for White after
28.De3 Dd8 29.Dg5+ Tg6 30.Ce7+ Rg7
31.De5+ f6 32.De3 etc. ] 28.Dc3 Dd8
29.Te7 Dd1+ 30.Af1
1-0
10
V.Kramnik
P.Svidler
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Dc2 a6 8.Dxc4
b5 9.Dc2 Ab7 10.Af4 Cd5 The most
obvious attempt to exploit the position of
the bishop on f4, but it turns out that the
do u bl i ng of W hi t e's f -p a wns m ay n o t
particularly hinder his cause.
11.Cc3 Cxf4 12.gxf4 Cd7 13.Tfd1
Axf3?! This exchange is probably a bad
ide a. B l ack h op es t h a t t h e o pp o si t e-
coloured bishops will help him to defend,
but the weakness of the c6-square makes
his life a misery. There are several better
moves, for example: [ a) 13...Dc8 14.Ce4
( this sharp move is probably best; 14.a4
bxa4 15.Cxa4 Tb8 16.Tac1 Ad6 17.e3
Cf6 18.Cc5 Axc5 19.Dxc5 Ad5 20.Dxc7
was agreed drawn in G.Sosonko-I.Rausis,
Aaland-Stockholm 1997; and 14.Tac1 c5
15.dxc5 Cxc5 16.Db1 Td8 17.b4 Ca4
18.Txd8+ Dxd8 19.Cxa4 bxa4 20.Ce5
Axg2 21.Rxg2 was okay for Black at this
stage in B.Kurajica-M.Gavric, Banja Luka
1985 ) 14...c5 ( 14...f5 gains time but is a
bit weakening, for example 15.Ced2 Ad6
16.Ce5 Axg2 17.Rxg2 Db7+ 18.Cdf3
Cf6 19.e3 g5 20.fxg5 Axe5 21.dxe5
Ce4 was P.H.Nielsen-S.B.Hansen,
C o p e n h a g e n 1 9 9 5 , a n d n o w 22.h4
wo ul d have ma de l i fe un p le a s an t f or
Black ) 15.dxc5 Cxc5 16.Cxc5 Dxc5
17.Dxc5 Axc5 18.Tac1 Tfc8 19.Ce5
Axg2 20.Rxg2 f6 21.Cf3 Af8 22.e3 g6
23.b3 Ab4 24.h3 Rf8 25.Cd4 Rf7 26.a4
gave White a tiny edge in Z.Ribli-A.Karpov,
Amsterdam 1980.; b) 13...Cf6 14.Ce5
Axg2 15.Rxg2 Ad6 16.e3 Dc8 17.Ce4
Cd5 18.Tac1 f6 19.Cc6 left Black under
pressure in H.Bohm-A.Luczak, Polanica
Z d r o j 1 9 8 0 .] 14.Axf3 Tb8 15.e3
[ A n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y i s 15.Ce4
, for example Ad6 16.e3 Dh4 17.Rh1
Cf6 18.Cxf6+ Dxf6 19.Tg1 De7 20.Ac6
left Black unable t o free himself in V .
Smyslov-L.Barczay, European Team Ch.,
Kapf enberg 1970.] 15...Cf6 [ And not
15...c5? 16.dxc5 Axc5 , which just loses
material after 17.Ac6 . ] 16.Tac1 Dd6
17.Ce2 Tfc8 18.e4!? Exploiting the
vulnerable position of the black queen.
Black should now have moved the lady to
b6, as by l eavin g h er on the d-file h e
allows a breakthrough.
18...Dd7? 19.d5! exd5
[ A n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y w a s 19...Af8
, b u t t h e n 20.dxe6 Dxe6 21.e5 Ce8
22.Cd4 Dh6 23.Cc6 Dxf4 24.De4!
would win the exchange for inadequate
compensation.] 20.e5 Ce8 [ 20...Cg4
21.Txd5 De6 22.Cd4 would win a piece.]
21.Txd5 Dh3 22.Ag2 Dh4 [ Or if
22...Dg4 there follows 23.h3 Dh4 24.Cd4!
t h r e a t e n i n g N f 5 o r N c 6 .] 23.Cd4!
This powerful manoeuvre is a key idea in
many variations.
23...Dxf4 24.Cc6 Ah4 25.Tcd1!
[ And not 25.Td4?? b e c a u s e o f Axf2+
26.Dxf2 Dxc1+ etc.; 25.Cxb8!! Axf2+
26.Rh1 Txb8 27.Tf1 ] 25...Tb6 [ After
25...Ta8 there could follow 26.T5d4 Dh6
27.De4 Ag5 28.h4 Ac1 29.Dc2
when Black's bishop runs out of squares.]
26.T5d4 Txc6 [ Giving up the exchange
in the hope of freeing himself from
White's pythonesque bind. Both 26...Dg5
27.De4; and 26...Dh6 27.Df5 would be
forlorn prospects. Ta8 28.Tf4 f6 29.De6+
Rh8 30.De7 Cd6 31.Cd8 g6 32.exd6
Dg7 ( 32...Dxf4 33.Df8# ) 33.Axa8 ]
27.Axc6 Dxe5 28.Ad7 Td8 29.Txh4
1-0
B.Damljanovic
T.Sanikidze
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 Cf6 2.d4 d5 3.c4 e6 4.g3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Dc2 a6 8.Dxc4
b5 9.Dc2 Ab7 10.Af4 Cc6 11.Td1
[ Defending the d4-pawn while shadowing
Black's queen on the d-file, though this is
not the only move. White can also ignore
t h e a t t a c k o n d 4 w i t h 11.Cbd2
Learn Tatics step by step 11
, f o r e x a m p l e Cxd4 12.Cxd4 Axg2
13.Cxe6 fxe6 14.Rxg2 was played in R.
Bates-S.Gordon, British League 2008,
with about even chances after c5 15.Cf3
Db6 16.e4 Tad8 17.b3 . ] 11...Cb4
12.Dc1 Tc8 [ Logically supporting ...c7-c5.
A n o t h e r wa y t o t r y a n d d o t h i s i s b y
12...Dc8 , but t hen 13.Ag5 is awkward.
After c5 14.Axf6 Black would have to
weaken his kingside with gxf6 ( because
14...Axf6 15.a3 Cd5 16.dxc5 leaves him
a pawn down.)] 13.Cc3 Cbd5 14.Cxd5
White has tr ied other moves here: [ a)
14.Ce5?! Cxc3 15.bxc3 Axg2 16.Rxg2
c5 17.dxc5 Dc7 was already quite nice
for Black in H.Lieb-A.Simon, Berlin 1987.;
b) 14.Ae3 c6 15.Ce5 Db6 16.Cxd5
cxd5 17.Dd2 b4 18.Ag5 Tc7 19.Tac1
Tfc8 20.Txc7 Txc7 21.Tc1 a5
was equal in U.Andersson-A.Beliavsky,
Reggio Emilia 1989/90.; c) 14.Ae5 c5
( 14...Cxc3 15.Dxc3 b4 16.Db3
was unpleasant for Black in A.Delchev-S.
Reza n , Zada r 200 2) 15.dxc5 Axc5
16.Axf6 Dxf6 17.Ce4 De7 18.Cxc5 Txc5
19.Dd2 Cf6 20.Dd6 ( 20.Tac1 h6
21.Txc5 Dxc5 22.Tc1 Db6 23.Ce5 Axg2
24.Rxg2 was rather equal in U.Andersson-
A.Beliavsk y, European Team Ch.,
Debrecen 1992) 20...Dxd6 21.Txd6 Tfc8
22.Ce1 Axg2 23.Rxg2 a5 24.Ta6 a4
25.b3 axb3 26.axb3 g5 27.Cd3 Tc2
28.Ta8 Txa8 29.Txa8+ Rg7 30.Rf1
and Black's weak p awn on b5 l ef t him
slight l y worse in Jo .Ho rvat h-P. W ell s,
Odorheiu Secuiesc 1993.] 14...Cxd5
[ Despite its natural appearance this may
not be the best. Black is better advised to
play 14...Axd5 , for example 15.Ae3 Cg4
( a n o th e r wa y t o pl a y i t i s w i t h 15...c6
, for example 16.Ce1 Cg4 17.Af3! Cxe3
18.Dxe3 Af6 19.Da3 Axf3 20.Cxf3 Db6
as in S.Atalik-R.Vaganian, Manila
Olympiad 1992) 16.Ce1 Axg2 ( 16...c5
17.dxc5 Cxe3 18.Dxe3 Axc5 19.Df4 g5
20.Dg4 Df6 21.Cd3 Axg2 22.Rxg2 Tfd8
23.Tac1 Ab6 24.Txc8 was slightly better
for White in U.Andersson-M.Tal, Brussels
1988 ) 17.Cxg2 Dd5 18.h3 Cxe3
19.Dxe3 c5 20.Cf4 Df5 21.dxc5 Axc5
22.Dd3?! ( 22.Df3 is better, with equality)
22...Df6! 23.Dd2 Tfd8 24.Da5 e5
and Black had a strong initiative in M.
Carlsen-V.Anand, Mainz (rapid) 2008.]
15.Ag5 f6 [ Creating a weakness on e6,
not that this is anywhere close to fatal.
Neve rt hel e ss, Bla ck do es bet ter wit h
15...c5 16.dxc5 De8 ( or 16...h6 17.Axe7
Dxe7 18.Dd2 Txc5 19.Tac1 Tfc8
wi t h e q ua l it y a s i n L . G a leg o - P . Di a s ,
Portuguese Ch., Almada 2008; but not
16...Txc5?? b e c a u s e o f 17.Dxc5! )
17.Axe7 Dxe7 18.Dd2 ( or 18.Dg5 Dxc5
19.Tac1 Db6 20.Dd2 Tfd8 21.Dd4 Txc1
22.Txc1 Tc8 as in A.Kochyev-R.
Tischbierek, Leningrad 1984) 18...Txc5
19.Tac1 Tfc8 20.Ce5 h6 21.Cd3 Tc4
and W hite had very litt le t o show in I.
Stohl-Kir. Georg iev, European Cu p,
Chalkidiki 2002.] 16.Ae3 De8 17.Ce1 c5
18.dxc5 Cxe3 19.Axb7 Cxd1 20.Axc8
Dxc8 21.Dxd1 Dxc5 22.Tc1 Db6
23.Cd3 White has a slight edge here
because of the weakness of the e6-pawn
and effective cooperation between his
queen and knight. This isn't easy to play
for Black but he manages to hold a draw.
23...Td8 24.Db3 Rf7 25.Tc3 Ad6
26.Dc2 Td7 27.Tc6 Db7 28.b3 g6
29.a4 Trying to create a second target on
the queenside.
29...bxa4 30.bxa4 Re7 31.Dc4 Tc7
32.Txc7+ Axc7 33.Dh4 h5 34.Dc4 Ad6
35.h4 Rd7 36.g4 [ It looks like this might
have been an attempt to exploit Black's
time trouble, but the defender proves to
be more than up to the task. Objectively
speaking White is slightly better in the
queen endgames following, say, 36.Cf4
Axf4 37.Dxf4 Re7 38.a5 , but these are
nonetheless rather drawish.] 36...Dc6!
37.Dd4 e5 38.Da7+ Re6 [ 38...Dc7
39.Dxa6 hxg4 would not be worse for
Black, but it is double edged.] 39.gxh5
gxh5 40.Dh7 Dxa4 41.Dxh5?!
[ 41.Dg8+ Rf5 42.Dh7+ Re6 would have
been a repetition, so presumably White
was still pushing his luck at this stage.]
Learn Tatics step by step
41...a5 42.f4 exf4 43.Dg4+ Rf7
44.Dh5+ Re6 [ Black could well have
c o n t i n u e d h e r e , s a y w i t h 44...Rg7
. Presumably the clock was still a factor. ]
½-½
V.Kramnik
A.Shirov
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 d5 2.d4 Cf6 3.c4 e6 4.g3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.Dc2 [ We'll be seeing more
of this 6 Qc2 move order later; in this
game there is a transposition into the 10
Bf4 line. Here 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Dc2 a6
8.Dxc4 b5 9.Dc2 Ab7 10.Af4 Ad6
would be a standard route to the position
at move 10.] 6...dxc4 7.Dxc4 a6 8.Af4
Ad6 9.0-0 b5 10.Dc2 Ab7 As previously
noted White can now transpose into the
10 Bd2 Bd6 11 Bg5 line with 11 Bg5, but
Kramnik gives the game a different twist.
11.Cbd2 This seems like the most testing
line for Black, aiming to bring the knight to
b3 from where it inhibits ...c7-c5.
Black seems to be doing fine after the
alternatives, for example: [ a) 11.Axd6?!
cxd6 immediately solves Black's problem
of the weakness on c5.; b) 11.Ce5
i s w e l l m e t b y Axg2 12.Rxg2 c5
, the point being that 13.dxc5 is answered
by Axe5 14.Axe5 Dd5+ etc.; c) 11.Ag5
Cbd7 12.Cbd2 Tc8 ( 12...h6 13.Axf6
Cxf6 14.e4 Ae7 is unclear) 13.Axf6 Cxf6
14.Cb3 Ae4 15.Dc3 De7 16.Tac1 Cd7!
17.De3 f5!? ( 17...Ad5! 18.Cc5 Axc5
19.dxc5 c6 would have equalized, but
B o l o g a n w a n t s m o r e) 18.Ce5
( the critical line was 18.Cc5 when Ad5
19.Cxa6 f4 20.Dc3 b4 21.Dd3 c5
wo u l d g i ve B l a c k p l a y f o r h i s p a w n)
18...Axg2 19.Rxg2 Axe5 20.dxe5 c5
gave Black active counterplay in C.Bauer-
V. Bologan, Be lfort 2002.] 11...Cbd7
[ Black can also try doubling the white
p aw ns , t h ou g h he r e t o o W h i t e is f or
prefer ence : 11...Axf4 12.gxf4 A) after
12...Dd6 White can consider 13.Tac1!?
12
, for example Dxf4 ( 13...Cc6 would make
it difficult for Black to ever move his c-
pawn ) 14.Dxc7 Dxc7 15.Txc7
gives Black serio us pro blems; B)
12...Cbd7 13.e3 Tc8 14.b4 Cb6 15.a3
g6 16.Tfc1 Ad5 17.Ce5 Axg2 18.Rxg2
Cfd5 19.De4 gave White the better game
in Y.Seirawan-A.Karpov, London 1984.]
12.Cb3 [ White has an interesting
alternative in 12.a4!? , for example A)
12...Axf4 13.gxf4 Db8 14.Ce5
( a n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y w a s 14.e3
, just securely defendin g the f4-pawn)
14...Axg2 15.Rxg2 c5 16.dxc5 Cxe5
17.fxe5 Dxe5 18.Cf3 Df4 was agreed
drawn at this point in E.Bukic-M.Diesen,
S t i p 1 9 7 7 , t h o u g h W h i t e mi g h t ha ve
continued thanks to his strong passed c-
pawn; B) 12...Db8 13.Ce5! Axg2
14.Rxg2 c5 15.Cdf3! Axe5 ( 15...cxd4?
is bad because of 16.Cc6! Dc7 17.Ce7+
Rh8 18.Dxc7; while 15...c4? is answered
by 16.axb5 axb5? 17.Txa8 Dxa8
18.Cxd7 ) 16.Axe5 Cxe5 17.dxe5 Cd7
18.axb5 axb5 19.Txa8 Dxa8 20.Td1
Cxe5 21.Dxc5 Cxf3 22.exf3 Db7
23.Td6! and White soon won the b5-pawn
and then the game in I.Csom-J.Plachetka,
Berlin 1979.; Another natural-looking move
is 12.Tac1 , but it doesn't look as testing.
According to Parma Black can equalize
with Tc8! 13.Ce5 Axg2 14.Rxg2 Cd5
15.Ce4 Cxe5 16.Axe5 f6! . ] 12...Ae4
[ 12...De7 leaves Black under serious
pressure after 13.Tac1 , when V.Smyslov-
M.Filip, Munich Olympiad 1958, continued
Ae4 14.Axd6 cxd6 15.Dc7 Ce8 16.Da5
with simila r problems f or Black to our
main game.] 13.Dd2 De7 14.Tfc1 Tfc8
15.Axd6 [ A simple move which leads to a
na g gi n g e d ge i n a h ig h ly un p leas a nt
position for Black. In R.Buhmann-P.Braun,
D e i z i s a u 2 0 0 3 , W h i t e p l a y e d 15.Ce5
, but this led to a drawish endgame after
Axg2 16.Cxd7 Cxd7 17.Rxg2 Axf4
18.Dxf4 c5 19.Cxc5 Cxc5 20.dxc5 Txc5
21.Txc5 Dxc5 22.Tc1 Dd5+ 23.Df3
Dxf3+ 24.Rxf3 Rf8 . ] 15...cxd6 16.Da5!
A very unpleasant move, simply tickling
Learn Tatics step by step 13
the a-pawn. Shirov sees nothing better
than to abandon the c-file.
16...Tcb8 17.Cbd2 Ad5 18.Tc2 Dd8
19.Dxd8+ Txd8 20.Tac1 Cb6 [ And not
20...Axa2? because of 21.b3 . ] 21.Ce1
Tac8 22.Cd3 Txc2 23.Txc2 Tc8
24.Txc8+ Cxc8 25.Cb4! Just when it
lo o k e d as i f B l ac k was e s c a pi ng h is
troubles by exchanges, there comes this
un ple as ant m ove. B la ck's qu ee n si d e
pawns prove to be very weak.
25...Axg2 26.Rxg2 a5 27.Cc6 a4 28.e4
Ce8 29.Rf3 Rf8 30.Re3 Cc7 31.Rd3
Re8 32.Rc3 Ca6 33.Cb4 Cc7 34.Cf1
Rd7 35.Ce3 Ce7 36.g4 The squeeze is
on, with Kramnik gaining space on the
kingside in order to engineer a
breakthrough there.
36...g5 37.Cd3 f6 38.f4 gxf4 39.Cxf4
e5 40.dxe5 fxe5 [ This presents White
with the possibility of creating an outside
p a s s e d p a w n , b u t 40...dxe5 41.Ch5
followed by Kb4 is also strong for White.]
41.Cfd5 Ccxd5+ 42.exd5 Rc7 43.g5
Rb6 44.b4 axb3 [ After 44...Cg6
there would have followed 45.Rd3! Cf4+
46.Re4 , pene trating with the king.]
45.axb3 Ra5 46.h4 Cg6 47.h5 Cf4
48.g6 hxg6 49.h6 g5 50.h7 Cg6
51.Rd3 Phenomenal endgame play by the
master torturer.
1-0
G.Kaidanov
A.Onischuk
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Cf3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Dc2 a6 8.Dxc4
b5 9.Dc2 Ab7 10.Ag5 At one time this
was one of the most popular moves; now
it is considered innocuous and rarely gets
played. Even so Black must know what
he's doing.
10...Cbd7 [ In one of my own games, N.
Davies-T.Luther, European Ch., Liverpool
2 0 0 8 , m y o p p o n e n t p l a y e d 10...Ae4
11.Dc1 Cbd7 , with the continuation
proving quite exciting: 12.Cbd2 Ad5
13.Axf6 Axf6 ( after 13...Cxf6 14.Dc2
Tc8 15.e4 Ab7 16.e5 Cd5 17.Cb3
White has slightly the better game) 14.Dc2
( 14.b4 a5 15.a3 e5 gives Black
counterplay and was agreed drawn at this
point in I.Stohl-D.King, German League
1999 ) 14...Tc8 15.Ce4 Axe4 16.Dxe4
c5 17.Tad1 Da5 18.d5 exd5 19.Txd5
Cb6 20.Td6 Cc4 ( 20...Axb2 21.Cg5 g6
22.Dh4 would be very dangerous for
Black ) 21.Txf6 gxf6 22.Dg4+ Rh8
23.Dh4 Rg7 24.Dg4+ Rh8 25.Dh4 Rg7
½-½. Of course from a theoretical point
of view a draw with Black is a decent
result, so this rep resents quite a good
a l t e r n a t i ve .] 11.Axf6 Cxf6 [ After
11...Axf6 White has 12.Cg5 Axg5
13.Axb7 Tb8 14.Ac6 , when the blockade
of the black c-pawn gave him an edge in
V.Topalov-P.Leko, Nice (blindfold rapid)
2008. ] 12.Cbd2 Tc8 13.Cb3 Ae4
[ B lac k ca n e q ua liz e he r e wit h 13...c5
, f or example 14.dxc5 Ce4 ( 14...Ae4
15.Dc3 Ad5 16.Tac1 Axb3 17.Dxb3
Axc5 18.Tc2 Db6 was also fine for Black
in L.Aronian-V.Kramnik, Nice blindfold
rapid 2008) 15.Tfd1 Dc7 16.c6 Dxc6
17.Dxc6 Axc6 18.Ce5 Ad5 19.Cd7 Tfe8
20.Cb6 Tc2 21.Cxd5 exd5 22.Txd5 Af6
with equality in V.Topalov-V.Anand, Nice
(blindfold rapid) 2008.] 14.Dc3 Dd5
15.Tfc1 Tfd8 16.Da5 Putting pressure on
the a-pawn in the style of Kramnik-Shirov.
But here B lack c an defend it far more
economically.
16...Db7 17.Cc5 Axc5 18.Txc5 Cd7
19.Tcc1 [ An earlier Onischuk game had
gone 19.Tc3 Cb6 20.b3 Cd5 21.Tc5 b4
22.a3 Cc3 23.Rf1 Cb1 24.Dxb4
½-½ P.Schlosser-A.Onischuk, German
League 1998. Presumably Kaidanov had
prep ared th e te xt , but he doesn't g et
much with it. And in the later stages it is
Onischuk who is playing for the full point.]
19...e5 20.Td1 exd4 21.Txd4 Cf8
22.Tad1 Txd4 23.Txd4 Ce6 24.Td7
Td8 25.Dd2 Txd7 26.Dxd7 c5 27.Dxb7
Axb7 28.Ce5 Axg2 29.Rxg2 Rf8 30.f4
Learn Tatics step by step 14
Re7 31.e4 f6 32.Cf3 g5 33.fxg5 Cxg5
34.Cd2 [ White must be careful here, as
34.Cxg5? fxg5 would lead to a king and
p awn e n dg a me in wh ic h B la c k co u l d
create an outside passed pawn on the
q u e e n s i d e .] 34...Rd6 35.Rf2 Ce6
36.Re3 Cd4 37.Rd3 Cc6 38.Re3 Cd4
39.Rd3 Re5 40.b3 Cc6 41.a4 Rd6
42.axb5 axb5 43.h3 Cd4 44.Re3 h5?!
[ A f t e r t h i s W h i t e e q u a l i z e s . 44...Re5
still leaves him with some work to do to
make a draw.] 45.Rf4 Re6 46.h4 Ce2+
47.Rf3 Cd4+ 48.Rf4
½-½
O.Romanishin
G.Papp
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.Cf3 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 Ae7
5.c4 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Dc2 a6 8.a4
Ad7 [ This is thought to be the best move,
though Black does have major alternatives
in 8...Cc6; and 8...c5 . ] 9.Dxc4 Ac6
10.Ag5 [ 10.Af4 and; 10.Cc3 are featured
in the next game.] 10...Ad5 Probably the
best, but not the only move. [ a) 10...Cbd7
11.Cc3 Cd5 12.Axe7 Dxe7 13.Cxd5
Axd5 is an interesting pawn sacrifice, but
it seems inadequat e for e quality after
14.Dxc7 Tac8 15.Df4 Db4 16.e4 Ac4
17.Tfc1 Dxb2 18.Tab1! ( 18.Dd2 Dxd2
19.Cxd2 Ad3 saw Black equalize in N.
D a v i e s - O . K o r n e e v , H a m b u r g 1 9 9 3)
18...Da3 19.Txb7 Dxa4 20.h4 Ab5
21.Txc8 Txc8 22.Ce5 Cxe5 23.Dxe5
, which left Black in a difficult position in
Av.Grigorian-G.Kjartansson, World Junior
Ch., Yerevan 2006. The exposure of his
king and White's potentially str ong d-
pawn outweighs the passed a-pawn.; b)
10...a5 11.Cc3 Ca6 leaves Black with a
solid but cramped position after 12.Axf6
Axf6 13.e4 , for example Cb4 14.Tfd1 b6
( 14...g6 15.Tac1 Ag7 16.d5 exd5
17.exd5 Ad7 18.Cd4 Dc8 19.b3 c6
20.d6 was better for White in B.Gelfand-P.
Svidler, FIDE World Ch., Moscow 2001)
15.Td2 ( other moves have been tried
here, for instance 15.Tac1 Ab7 16.De2
g6 17.De3 Ag7 18.Cb5 c6 19.Ca3 Db8
20.Cc4 Aa6 21.b3 was interesting in O.
R o m a n i s h i n - C . W i l h e l m i , B l e d 1 9 9 9)
15...Ab7 16.De2 g6 ( 16...Aa6 17.De3
c6 18.h4 Dc7 19.Tc1 Tad8 20.e5! Ae7
21.Cg5 was promising for White in A.
Karpov-G.Milos, Bali 2000) 17.De3 De7
18.h4 Tad8 19.Tad1 c5 20.e5 Ag7
21.dxc5 Axf3 22.Txd8 Txd8 23.Txd8+
Dxd8 24.Axf3 bxc5 25.Dxc5 Cd3
26.Dd6 Af6! saw Black hold equality in O.
Romanishin-Kir.Georgiev, European Ch.,
Oh rid 2001.] 11.Dd3 [ 11.Dc2 inhibits
B l a c k ' s . . . c 7 - c 5 b u t t h e n Ae4
leaves White with only passive queen
moves: 12.Dc1 ( 12.Dd1 doesn't offer
much either, for example c5 13.dxc5
Axc5 14.Dxd8 Txd8 15.Cbd2 Ac6
16.Cb3 Cbd7! was fine for Black at this
stage in V.Kramnik-B.Gelfand, Astana
2001 ) 12...h6 13.Axf6 ( 13.Af4 Cc6
14.Td1 Cd5 15.Cc3 Cxc3 16.bxc3 Ca5
ga ve Bl ac k go od c ou nt erpl ay in E.
Gleizerov-G.Tunik, St Petersburg 2003)
13...Axf6 14.Cc3 Axf3 15.Axf3 c6 16.e3
a5 17.Ce4 Ca6 gave Black a very solid
position in Z.Ilincic-B.Abramovi c,
S e r b i a n T e a m C h . 2 0 0 3 .] 11...c5
Eliminating White's central pawn majority
makes him reliant on piece play alone to
demonstrate an initiative. [ After 11...Ae4
White has an interesting possibility in
12.De3!? ( rather than 12.Dd1 as in the
p re vi o us n ot e) , f or e xamp l e 12...Ac6
13.Cc3 Cbd7 14.Dd3 Ab4 ( 14...Tb8
15.Dc2 b5 16.axb5 axb5 17.Ce5 Axg2
18.Rxg2 Cxe5 19.dxe5 Cd5 20.Axe7
Dxe7 21.Ce4 gave White an edge in V.
Akopian-E.Ghaem Maghami, World Team
Ch., Yerevan 2001; 14...h6 15.Axf6 Cxf6
16.e4 b6 17.Tfd1 Ab7 18.De2 Te8
19.Ce1 c6 20.Tac1 Tc8 21.h4
gave White the better game because of
his space in O.Romanishin-A.Moiseenko,
Ukrainian Team Ch. 2004) 15.Tfe1 h6
( 15...Axf3 16.Dxf3 c6 17.Ted1 Da5
18.h4! h6 19.Ad2 e5 20.Ae1 Tfe8
Learn Tatics step by step 15
21.e3 Tad8 22.Df5 exd4 23.Dxa5 Axa5
24.Txd4 was marginally more promising
for White because of his bishop pair in A.
Beliavsky-Z.Almasi, Ubeda 1997) 16.Af4
Tc8 17.Dc2 b6 18.e4 Ab7 19.Tad1 Te8
20.Ce5 Cxe5 21.Axe5 Cd7 22.Af4 De7
23.Te2 c5 24.d5!? ( after 24.Ted2 cxd4
25.Txd4 Cf6 26.Ad6 Axd6 27.Txd6 b5
e qu a li ze d f o r B la c k i n A . Yu s u p o v- L .
Portisch, Linares 1989) 24...e5 25.Ae3
Dd6 26.Ah3 Tc7 was A.Khalifman-J.
Lautier, Biel Interzonal 19 93, and now
b e s i d e s t h e 27.Cb1 that was played,
( White might well have considered 27.f4!?
. )] 12.Cc3 Ac6 [ Giving up the light-
squared bishop with 12...cxd4 seems less
good. For example, A.Karpov-A.Beliavsky,
Linares 1994, continued 13.Cxd5 Dxd5
( 13...Cxd5 14.Axe7 Dxe7 15.Cxd4 Cc6
was R.Hübner-A.Karpov, Tilburg 1979;
evidently Karpov felt he preferred White in
this line, and indeed White has an edge
after either 16 Rac1 or 16 Bxd5; Hübner's
choice of 16.Cxc6 looks less good
because it gave Black the possibility of
counterplay along the b-file) 14.h4! Cbd7
( 14...Cc6 is strongly met by 15.Axf6 Axf6
16.Cg5 Df5 17.Ae4 Da5 18.Axc6 Axg5
19.Axb7 Ta7 20.Ae4 , winning a pawn)
15.Cxd4 Dd6 16.Tfd1 Cc5 17.Dc4 Tfd8
18.b4! Cxa4 ( or 18...Cce4 19.Axf6 Cxf6
20.Axb7 Tab8 21.Dxa6 Dxb4 22.Cb5 )
19.Db3! Db6 ( if 19...Dxb4 20.Dxb4
Axb4 21.Txa4 Ac3 22.Tc4 Ab2 23.Td2
l e a v e s W h i t e a p i e c e u p) 20.e3
1-0, as the knight on a4 is lost.] 13.Tfd1
cxd4 14.Cxd4 Axg2 15.Rxg2 Cbd7
[ This natural move may not be the best.
Another and perhaps superior possibility
is 15...Da5 , f o r e x a m p l e 16.Axf6
( 16.Ce4 Cbd7 17.Db3 Cc5 18.Cxc5
Dxc5 19.h4 Tfd8 20.Tac1 Dd5+
21.Dxd5 Txd5 22.e4 Tdd8 23.Rf3 Tac8
24.Txc8 ½-½ was O.Romanishin-S.Melia,
Athens 2008) 16...Axf6 17.Ce4 Axd4
18.Dxd4 Cc6 19.Dc5 Tac8 20.Dxa5
Cxa5 21.Cd6 ( 21.Tac1 also gave White
very little in L.Aronian-R.Kasimdzhanov,
Turin Olympiad 2006) 21...Tc2 22.b4
was V.Tukmakov-A.Beliavsky, Portoroz
1996, and now according to Tukmakov
Black can equalize with Cc6! ( 22...Cc4?
23.Cxb7 Txe2 24.Cc5! was good for
White in the game) 23.b5 Ca5 24.Cxb7!?
Cxb7 25.bxa6 Ca5! 26.Tab1 Tc6 27.a7
Ta6 28.Tb8 Cc6! 29.Td6 Txa7
with a drawn endgame.; Instead, 15...h6
loses time, for example 16.Axf6 Axf6
17.Ce4 Axd4 18.Dxd4 Dxd4 19.Txd4
Cc6 20.Td7 Tab8 21.Cc5 left Black
un d er pres sur e i n Z. Ko z ul-P . Nik ol i c,
Sarajevo 1998.] 16.Df3 [ This is probably
the best here, simply hitting the b7-pawn.
Of the other moves to have been tried for
White, 16.e4 Da5 17.Ad2 Ce5 18.De2
Dc5 19.Af4 Tfd8 20.Cf3 Cc6 left Black
very comfortably placed in V.Bogdanovski-
C.Bauer, European Team Ch., Batumi
1999; while 16.f4?! is a bit loose, and after
Tc8 17.e4 h6 18.Ah4 Db6 Black was
already doing well in Z.Kozul-A.Beliavsky,
P o rt o r oz 1 99 9 .] 16...Db8 [ 16...Db6
can be a n swere d b y 17.a5! because
Dxb2 18.Tdb1 wins the queen.] 17.Af4!
[ Improving on G.Kaidanov-A.Onischuk,
US C h. , S ti ll w at e r 2 0 0 7, wh ic h we n t
17.Cb3 Ce5 18.Df4 h6 19.Axf6 Axf6
20.Ce4 Ae7 21.a5 Tc8 22.Tac1 Txc1
23.Txc1 Cc6 24.Td1 Dxf4 25.gxf4 Td8
with equality.] 17...Da7 18.e4 g6?!
[ This isn't good, but White has the
initiat ive in any c ase. For exa mp le
18...Ab4 is good for White after the simple
19.Cde2 , ( and he might also consider
19.e5!? . )] 19.e5 Ch5 20.Cf5! Cxf4+
21.gxf4 gxf5?! [ 21...exf5 would have
b e e n be t t e r , t h o u g h W h i t e i s s t i l l i n
command after 22.Txd7 . ] 22.Txd7 Dc5
23.Txb7 Ah4 24.Ce2 [ 24.Tf1
intending 25 Kh3 looks even stronger, as
then White might get to mobilize down the
g-file. ] 24...Tab8? [ The losing move.
24...Ta7 would have been much more
tenacious, though White is still a good
pawn up. ] 25.Tc1 Da5 26.Rh3 Txb7
27.Dxb7 Rh8 [ The horrible truth dawns
on Black: he is unable to save his bishop,
as 27...Axf2 28.Dg2+ picks it up,; or if
Learn Tatics step by step
27...Dd8 28.Dg2+ Rh8 29.Tg1 Tg8
30.Dxg8+ Dxg8 31.Txg8+ Rxg8 32.Rxh4
etc; while 27...Ad8 28.Dg2+ Rh8 29.Tg1
forces mate.] 28.Rxh4 Dd8+ 29.Rh3
Tg8 30.Cg3 Dd2 31.Tc8 Dxf2 32.Dxf7!
[ If 32.Dxf7 Txc8 33.Df6+ Rg8 34.Dxe6+
wins back the rook with interest. ]
1-0
E.Inarkiev
D.Jakovenko
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 d5 2.Cf3 Cf6 3.c4 e6 4.g3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Dc2 a6 8.a4
Ad7 9.Dxc4 Ac6 10.Af4 [ Compared
with 10.Ag5 , putting the bishop on f4 is
mo r e l i k e ly t o k ee p p ie c e s o n , b ut i t
doesn't threaten the idea of Bxf6 followed
by a later e2-e4.; One other possibility is
t he n a tu ra l 10.Cc3 , though this has the
drawback of allowing b5!? , for example
11.Dd3 ( 11.axb5?? axb5 threatens both
the queen and the rook on a1) 11...b4
12.Cb1 Ae4 13.Dd1 c5 14.Cbd2 Ad5
15.dxc5 ( 15.Ce5 Axg2 16.Rxg2 Dxd4
17.Cdc4 De4+ 18.f3 Db7 19.Ag5
gave White compensation for the pawn
because of his hold on the light squares,
but this was barely enough in G.Gajewski-
M.Mchedlish vili, Polanica Zdroj 2008)
15...Cbd7 16.Cb3 ( 16.c6 Axc6 17.Cc4
Ad5 18.Ce3 Ae4 19.Cd4 Tc8 20.Axe4
Cxe4 21.f3 Cef6 was fine for Black in E.
Mochalov-E.Ubilava, Krasnodar 1980)
16...Tc8 17.Ae3 Cxc5 18.Axc5 Axc5
19.Ce5 Dd6 20.Cxc5 Dxe5 21.Cd3
½-½ A.Beliavsky-J.Polgar, Madrid 1997.]
10...a5 11.Cc3 Ca6 12.Tae1
Black's powerful grip on b4 virtually rules
out any gains by White on the queenside,
so he'll need to operate in the centre and
on the kingside. This last move intends to
gain space with e2-e4, and by playing the
queen's rook to this square (rather than
1 2 Rf e 1 ) a p o ss i b l e . . . N a 6 - b 4 w o n ' t
threaten ...Nb4-c2.
12...Ad5 [ 12...Ad6 13.Ag5 h6 14.Axf6
16
Dxf6 15.e4 e5 was T.Vasilevich-Hou
Yi f a n, B ei j i ng ( r a p id) 2 0 0 8, a nd n o w
16.Cd5 ( rather than 16.Cb5 ) 16...De6
17.dxe5 Axe5 18.Cxe5 Dxe5 19.f4
would have been interesting, keeping a
slight pull.] 13.Cxd5!? A new idea from
Inarkiev which involves the sacrifice of the
exchange. Certainly it enlivens a position
which had previously seemed rather dull,
but would he have played this way in a
game with a longer time limit? Instead: [ a)
13.Dd3 Cb4 14.Db1 c5 15.dxc5 Axc5
16.Cxd5 Cbxd5 17.Ce5 Cxf4 18.gxf4
Db6 was very comfortable for Black in V.
Tkachiev-B.Gelfand, Cap d'Agde (rapid)
2002.; b) 13.Db5 is probably best met by
Ac6 ( 13...Ab4 14.Ag5 Ac6 15.Dc4 h6
16.Axf6 Dxf6 17.e4 Tfd8 18.Rh1 Ae8
19.Td1 Tac8 20.h3 De7 21.Tfe1 Cb8
22.Ce5 Cc6 23.Cxc6 Axc6 24.Rh2 Dd7
25.b3 b6 26.Te3 Axc3 27.Dxc3 Ab7
28.h4 c5 29.d5 exd5 30.exd5
was good for White, E.Bareev-N.Short,
Geneva rapid 1996) 14.Db3 ( 14.Dxa5!?
is interesting, despite the fact that White's
queen is precariously placed, but Black
seems to be able to at least equalize with
Cc5 15.Dxc7 Cxa4 , for example
16.Dxd8 Tfxd8 17.Ta1 Cxc3 18.bxc3
Cd5 19.Ad2 Ab5 etc ) 14...Cb4 15.Tc1
½-½ represented a moral victory for Black
in V.Tkachiev-A.Delchev, European Ch.,
Istanbul 2003.] 13...exd5 14.Db5 Tb8
15.Dxa5 Ab4 This 'wins' the exchange,
but White has long-term compensation
because of his two bishops and space.
16.Db5 c6 17.Dd3 Axe1 18.Cxe1 Ta8
19.Db3 b5 20.axb5 Db6 21.Cd3 Dxb5
22.Dxb5 cxb5 23.Ae5 Tfd8 24.Tc1 Ce4
25.Ah3 Cg5 26.Ag4 Ce6 27.Tc6 Cb8
28.Tb6 Cd7 29.Tb7?! [ Inarkiev is
c h a n c i n g h i s a r m a b i t h e r e . 29.Txb5
Cxe5 30.dxe5 Tab8 31.Ta5 Ta8
could have produced a draw by
repeti tion.] 29...Cxe5 30.Cxe5 Cxd4
31.Cxf7 Tf8 32.Cd6 Tab8 33.Te7 Tb6
34.Ce8 Tf7 35.Te5 Tf8 36.Cc7 Td6?!
[ Instead 36...Tg6 first was probably
better. ] 37.Cxd5 Cc6 38.Te3 h5
Learn Tatics step by step 17
39.Ae6+ Rh7 40.Cf4 Cd4 41.Aa2 b4
42.h4 Cf5 43.Te5 g6 44.Ad5 Cxh4
45.Ae4 Cf5 46.Cxh5 Td2 47.Cf4 Txb2
48.g4 Ch4 [ It might have been better just
t o sa c r if ic e the g 6 -p awn wi t h 48...Cd4
, for example 49.Cxg6 Tf7 50.Cf4+ Rg7
. ] 49.e3 b3?! [ Instead of this Black
should have played 49...Rh6 , after which
50.g5+ Rh7 gives him a retreat square for
his k n ig ht on f5 .] 50.g5? [ 50.Rh2!
threatening 51 Kg3, seems to leave Black
with no good way to save the knight on
h4. ] 50...Txf4 Probably not necessary,
but Black has seem a way to ea se the
pressure and make a draw.
51.exf4 Td2 52.Te7+ Rh8 53.Tb7 b2
54.Rh2 Txf2+ 55.Rg3 Te2 56.Tb8+
Rg7 57.Tb7+ Rh8 58.Ad3 Te3+
59.Rxh4 Txd3 60.Txb2 Td4 61.Rg4
Rg7 62.Tb7+ Rg8 63.Rf3 Ta4 64.Td7
Tb4 65.Re3 Ta4 66.Td4 Ta1 67.Td7
Ta4 This endgame is a book draw.
68.Tc7 Tb4 69.Ta7 Tc4 70.Td7 Ta4
71.Td4 Ta1 72.Td8+ Rf7 73.Td7+ Re6
74.Tg7 Rf5 75.Tf7+ Rg4 76.Tf6 Ta4
77.Tf7 Tb4 78.Tf8 Ta4 79.Tf6 Tb4
80.Txg6 Txf4 81.Tg8 Ta4 82.g6 Rg5
83.g7 Rg6 84.Tb8 Rxg7 85.Tb7+
½-½
J.Banas
A.Kujala
[Nigel Davies]
1.c4 e6 2.Cf3 d5 3.g3 Cf6 4.Ag2 Ae7
5.0-0 0-0 6.d4 dxc4 7.Dc2 a6 8.a4
Cc6 [ This is one of two less fashionable
ways of playing it for Black, the other one
being 8...c5 (see the next game). Black
gets active piece play but suffers from a
lack of space.] 9.Dxc4 Dd5 [ Black has
an a l te r na t ive i n 9...Cb4 , though this
s e e m s b e t t e r f o r W h i t e a f t e r 10.Cc3
( 10.a5? b5! 11.axb6 cxb6 12.Ad2 a5
13.Axb4 Axb4 14.Ce5 Aa6 was good for
Black in R.Cifuentes Parada-A.Rivera,
Cienfuegos 1996) 10...b5 11.Db3 bxa4
12.Cxa4 Ab7 13.Cc5! ( 13.Ag5 Tb8
14.Axf6 Axf6 15.Tfd1 Ae4 was fine for
Black in R.Hübner-M.Chandler, German
L e a g u e 1 9 9 4) 13...Axf3 ( 13...Axc5
14.dxc5 Tb8 15.Dxb4 Axf3 16.Dc4
Axg2 17.Rxg2 is also better for White
because of the weakness of Black's a-
pawn ) 14.Axf3 Tb8 15.Dc4 and White
has an edge because of his bishop pair
and t h e wea k nesse s in B lac k 's p aw n
s tr u c t ur e .] 10.Cbd2! Black is invited to
exchange queens but in doing so he will
bring White's knight to a better square.
10...Td8 11.e3 Dxc4 [ The attempt to
keep queens on the board with 11...Dh5
is risky, for example 12.e4! Ad7 13.b3
b5 14.Dc3 Ae8 15.axb5 axb5 16.Txa8
Txa8 17.Ab2 left the queen doing nothing
on t he kingside in V .Kr amnik -J.Piket,
D o r t m u n d 1 9 9 5 .] 12.Cxc4 Ad7
[ In Z.Doda-E.Geller, European Team Ch.,
Bat h 1973, Black playe d the super ior
12...a5 , but was still slightly worse after
13.b3 Cb4 14.Td1 c6 15.Ab2 Ad7
16.Cb6 Ta6 17.Cxd7 Cxd7 . Admittedly
this isn't easy for White to win, but Black
wou ld be under long -term pressu re
beca use of the danger of the position
o p e n i n g u p f o r t h e w h i t e b i s h o p s .]
13.Cfe5! [ In O.Panno-J.Gomez Baillo,
S a n t i a g o 1 9 8 7 , W h i t e p l a y e d 13.Ad2
and after Cb4 14.Cfe5 Cfd5 could have
k e p t a c l e a r e d g e w i t h 15.Cxd7
followed by a4-a5. But the text is simple
and very strong.] 13...Cxe5 14.Cxe5
Ac8?! [ 14...Tab8 is better, as after
15.Cxd7?! ( but 15.Ad2 Ae8 16.b4
leaves W h ite wit h a cl e ar ad vant ag e)
15...Txd7 16.Ad2 Black can free himself
with c5 . ] 15.Ad2 a5? [ The a5-pawn is
j u s t a t a r g e t n o w . H e r e 15...Cd7
was better, though White has all the play
after 16.Cc4 c5?! 17.Aa5 Tf8 18.Tfc1
wit h a huge le ad in de velopment a n d
likely penetration of a rook to the
seventh. ] 16.Tfc1 c6 17.Cc4! Ab4
18.Axb4 axb4 19.Cb6 Ta6 20.Cxc8
Txc8 21.Tc4 Tb6 [ The b-pawn is
doomed, for example 21...b3 22.Tc3 b5
23.a5 Cd5 24.Txb3 Tca8 25.Axd5 exd5
Learn Tatics step by step 18
26.Tc3 etc. ] 22.a5 Tb5 [ Or 22...Ta8
23.Ta4 etc. ] 23.Ta4 Ta8 24.Tcxb4 Txb4
25.Txb4 Txa5 26.Axc6! The sting in the
tail, winning not one pawn but two.
1-0
J.Granda Zuniga
J.Rowson
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Cf6 4.Ag2 Ae7
5.0-0 0-0 6.d4 dxc4 7.Dc2 a6 8.a4 c5
A simple and direct attempt to equalize in
the centre. By exchanging the pawns on
d4 and c5, Black hopes to free himself
from the sort of problems he often gets
along the c-file.
9.dxc5 Cc6 10.Ae3!? A very interesting
new move from Granda. At first sight it
looks as if it makes it easier for Black to
gain a c ti ve pi ec e pl ay, but cl os er
examination shows that this is not the
case. [ Other moves offer White little, for
example 10.Af4 Axc5 11.Cbd2 c3
12.Dxc3 De7 13.Cc4 Cd5 14.Db3 Cxf4
15.gxf4 Ad7 16.Tfd1 Tfd8 17.e3 Tab8
was fine for Black in O.Cvitan-D.Ippolito,
Groningen 1997; as was 10.Dxc4 e5
11.Ae3 Ae6 12.Dc1 Tc8 13.Td1 Da5
14.Cg5 Ag4 15.Cc3 Axc5 16.Axc5 Dxc5
in P.Nikolic-S.Gligoric, Yugoslav Team Ch.
1988. ] 10...Cd5 11.Ad2 Ca5 12.Ca3
Cb3 [ After 12...Axc5 13.Cxc4 Cxc4
14.Dxc4 b6 White gains time with 15.e4
, which proves to be one of the
advantages of luring Black's knight to d5.]
13.Tad1 Ad7 [ After 13...Axc5 there is
14.Ag5 f6 15.Cxc4 fxg5 16.Dxb3 ,; while
13...Cxd2 is also better for White after
14.Cxd2 Axc5 15.Caxc4 . This second
option may be Black's best chance, but in
that ca se 10 Be3 lo oks like it o ffers a
n i c e e d g e .] 14.e4 Axa4 [ 14...Cxc5
15.exd5 exd5 16.Tde1 Axa4 17.Db1
leaves B lack wit h three pawns for the
piece, but White would be better because
of the activity of his forces.] 15.exd5 exd5
16.Cg5!? [ White decides that it's better to
keep the initiative in this sharp position.
16.Tde1 Cxc5 17.Db1 Af6 gives Black a
lot of play.] 16...g6 [ After 16...Axg5?
17.Axg5 Dxg5 18.Txd5 Black would have
trouble rescuing his bishop and knight.]
17.Ab4 Cxc5 18.De2 Axd1 [ 18...Axg5
19.Txd5 Cd7 20.Axf8 Rxf8 21.Dxc4
leaves White the exchange up.] 19.Txd1
Dc7 [ 19...Axg5 also leaves Black
struggling to save the game after 20.Txd5
De8 21.Dxe8 Tfxe8 22.Axc5 Af6
23.Cxc4 etc. ] 20.Txd5 Tad8 21.Dxc4
Txd5 22.Dxd5 [ The endgame arising
after 22.Axd5 Axg5 23.Dxc5 Dxc5
24.Axc5 Tc8 25.Ab6 would be difficult for
Black. ] 22...b5 23.Cc2 Ca4 24.Axe7
Dxe7 25.h4 Cxb2 [ In such a complex
position it's very hard t o f ind the best
moves. Another possibility was 25...Td8
26.Df3 h6 27.Ce4 Cxb2 , but then
28.Dc3 Cc4 29.Cf6+ Rf8 30.Cg4
keeps the pressure up.] 26.Ce3 Td8
27.Db3 Cd3 28.Ad5 Ce5 29.Dc3 [ After
29.f4 Black hangs on with h6 . ] 29...h6
30.Ce4 h5 31.Rg2 b4 32.Da1 a5
33.Dxa5 Cg4? [ This one is definitely
wrong, t hough y ou ca n understand
Black's eagerness to get rid of one of the
knights. 33...Rg7 was better, when there's
still everything to play for.] 34.Cxg4 hxg4
35.Cg5 Rg7 36.Axf7 The fall of the f7-
pawn is the beginning of the end.
36...Td1 37.Da8 De1 38.Dg8+ Rf6
39.Dxg6+ Re7 40.De6+ Dxe6 41.Axe6
Td6 42.Axg4 b3 43.Af5 Td5 44.Ae4
b2 45.Cf3 Td1 46.g4 Rd6 47.h5 Re6
48.Rg3 b1D 49.Axb1 Txb1 50.Cg5+
Rf6 51.Rf4 Tb4+ 52.Ce4+ Rg7 53.g5
Ta4 54.f3 Tb4 55.Rg3 Tb5 56.f4 Ta5
57.Rg4 Td5 58.f5 Td1 59.f6+ Rf7
60.g6+ Re6 61.Rg5 Tg1+ 62.Rh6 Tg4
63.Rg7 A great fighting game of
theoretical interest.
1-0
Learn Tatics step by step 19
D.Andreikin
P.Karthikeyan
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 Ae7
5.0-0 0-0 6.d4 dxc4 7.Ce5 Cc6!
[ This excellent move turned 7 Ne5 into a
relative backwater. Black allows his pawn
structure to be wrecked, but gains a lot of
time for development. Prior to the
discovery of this move it was thought that
Black should play 7...c5 , but that gives
White a nice endgame after 8.dxc5 Axc5
9.Dxd8 Txd8 10.Cc3 , for example Ae7
11.Af4 Cd5 12.Tfd1 g5 13.Ad2 Cb6
14.a4 C8d7 15.Cxd7 Cxd7 16.Ae3 Cf8
17.a5 a6 18.Ce4 Txd1+ 19.Txd1 h6
20.Cd6 Axd6 21.Txd6 saw Black in
serious trouble in R.Buhmann-I.Vasilevich,
Zvenigorod 2008.] 8.Cxc6 [ For 8.Axc6
see the next game.] 8...bxc6 9.Ca3 Axa3
10.bxa3 Cd5 11.Da4 Cb6 12.Da5
[ The best attempt. After 12.Dxc6 Tb8
13.Af4 Ab7 14.Dxc7 Axg2 15.Rxg2
Dxd4 16.Dxa7 ( 16.Dxb8 Txb8 17.Axb8
Cd5 18.e3 De4+ 19.Rg1 a6 left Black's
queen and knight very active in O.Ruest-
C . T h i b a u d , F r e n c h T e a m C h . 2 0 0 4)
16...e5 17.Ae3 De4+ 18.Rg1 Cd5
19.Tfd1 Tfc8 20.Tac1 h5 21.Ag5 f6
22.Da5 Ce7 23.Ae3 Cf5 24.Dd5+ Dxd5
25.Txd5 Cxe3 26.fxe3 Tb2 led to a draw
in J.Sunye Neto-R. Vaganian, Yerevan
1980. ] 12...Ab7?! [ The main line is
12...Tb8 , which also looks okay for Black,
f or e xa mple 13.Td1 Cd5 14.a4 Dd6
15.e4 Db4 16.Ad2 c3 17.Dxb4 Txb4
18.Ae1 Cb6 19.Axc3 Txa4 20.a3 Td8
21.Ab4 Aa6 and Black had equalized in A.
Iljushin-P.Kiriakov, Maikop 1998.] 13.Td1
Dc8 14.e4 f5 15.f3! Correctly depriving
Black of t he d5-sq uare. N ow W hite is
clearly better.
15...Aa6 16.a4 Ab7 17.Af4 Tf7 18.Tab1
h6 19.Ae5 Rh7 20.Te1 g6?!
[ Cr eating further weaknesse s 20...Df8
is preferable, though this position is still
very nice for White.] 21.Te3 Dd7 22.f4
Dc8 23.g4!? fxe4? [ Letting White's
p i e c e s i n t o t h e a t t a c k . 23...fxg4
was a better move, though it still looks
very unpleasant for Black. A sample line is
24.h3 gxh3 25.Txh3 Cd7 26.Rf2 Cxe5?
27.Txh6+! Rxh6 28.Dxe5 with a winning
attack. ] 24.Th3 Df8? [ But if 24...c5
25.De1 Df8 26.Axe4 Axe4 27.Dxe4
t h r e a t en in g 2 8 g 5 h5 2 9 Rxh 5 + et c .]
25.Axe4 Txf4 Desperation. 26.Axf4 Dxf4
27.Dh5!
1-0
G.Meier
S.Zhigalko
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Cf3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Ce5 Cc6
8.Axc6 White's Catalan bishop is not to be
given up lightly. In the present situation
White gains time and eliminates Black's
dark-squared bishop.
8...bxc6 9.Cxc6 De8 10.Cxe7+ Dxe7
11.Da4 [ 11.Ca3 e5 12.dxe5 Dxe5
13.Cxc4 Dh5 gives Black dangerous
attacking chances on the kingside,; while
11.b3 is well met by cxb3 12.Aa3 Dd7 . ]
11...c5 This looks like the soundest move,
trying to eliminate his weak c7-pawn. But
perhaps Black s hould consider the
alternatives: [ a) Geller preferred 11...e5!?
and ma yb e h e was right , for e xample
12.dxe5 ( 12.Dxc4 exd4 gave Black a
tremendous game in E.Garcia Gonzales-E.
Geller, Bogota 1978) 12...Dxe5 13.Dxc4
Ae6 14.Dd3 ( 14.Dc2 Af5 15.Dc4 Ae6
16.Dc2 resulted in a draw in N.Kirov-E.
Geller, Sochi 1976; while 14.Da6 Ah3
15.Te1 Dd5 16.f3 Cg4 17.Cc3 Dc5+
18.e3 Ce5 19.De2 Tad8 was good for
Black in N.Spiridonov-E.Geller, Novi Sad
1978 ) 14...Tad8 15.De3 Dh5 ( 15...Da5
16.Cc3 Ah3 17.Te1 Tfe8 18.Df3 Ag4
19.Dc6 Te6 20.Db5 Dxb5 21.Cxb5
Txe2 equalized in P.Maletin-P.Kiriakov,
T o m s k 2 0 0 4) 16.f3 Ac4! ( instead
16...Ah3 17.Te1 Tfe8 18.Df2 Cd5
19.Ad2 De5 20.Cc3 Cb4 21.Ted1 Af5
Learn Tatics step by step 20
22.Af4 Da5 23.a3 Cc6 24.Tac1
saw White consolidate his extra pawn in
J.Eh lvest -D. Shara vdorj, Agoura Hil ls
2004; and 16...Tfe8 17.Dg5 Ac4 18.Dxh5
Cxh5 19.Cc3 Axe2 20.Tf2 Aa6 21.Ag5
f6 22.Ad2 f5 23.Tc1 h6 24.Ca4 Ab5
25.Cc5 Td6 26.Aa5 left White with a
nagging endgame plus in Kir.Georgiev-A.
Karpov, Dubai rapid 2002) 17.Cc3 Tfe8
18.Dg5 Dh3 19.Ae3 ( 19.Tf2 Axe2! )
19...Cd5 20.Ad4 f6 21.Dc1 Cxc3
22.Dxc3 Axe2 23.Tf2 a6 24.b3
and Black had equalized in V.Filippov-A.
Grischuk, FIDE World Ch., Tripoli 2004.; b)
11...Dd6!? probably deserves more tests,
for example 12.Td1 Da6 13.Dxa6 Axa6
14.Cc3 Tab8 15.e4 was okay for Black in
B.Gelfand-A.Shneider, Uzhgorod 1987.; c)
11...a5 12.Td1 Td8 13.Ag5 c5 14.dxc5
Txd1+ 15.Dxd1 Ab7! 16.Cc3 Td8
17.Dc2 Dxc5 18.Axf6 gxf6 19.Td1
Txd1+ 20.Dxd1 gave White an edge
because his queen and knight worked
well together in Kir.Georgiev-P.H.Nielsen,
F r e n c h T e a m C h . 2 0 0 4 .] 12.Da3
[ This is more testing than 12.Dxc4 cxd4
13.Dxd4 Td8 ( 13...e5 14.Dh4 Tb8
15.b3 De6 , sidestepping Ba3 or Bg5,
was also okay for Black in K.Kaiszauri-H.
Schussler, Malmö 1979) 14.Dh4 Tb8
15.b3 Aa6 16.Cc3 Dc5 17.Ce4 Cxe4
18.Dxe4 Tb4 19.De3 Dc2! 20.Aa3 Te4
21.Tfc1 Dxe2 ½-½ as in M.Krasenkow-Z.
Ribli, German League 1998.] 12...Ab7
[ Black can also unpin the c5-pawn with
12...Db7 , f o r e x a m p l e 13.Dxc5 e5
14.Td1 Ah3 15.d5 Tac8 16.Da5 Ce4
17.f3 Tc5 18.De1 Cd6 ( 18...Txd5?!
19.Txd5 Dxd5 20.fxe4 Dd4+ 21.e3 Dd3
was B .Gelfa nd-V.Anand, Monte Carlo
rapid 2001, and now 22.Cd2 would have
made it difficult for Black to gain
compensation for the piece) 19.Cc3 f5
20.Ae3 Tc7 21.Dd2 Te8 22.Rh1
( 22.Tac1!? ) 22...Dc8 23.Tac1 Dd7
24.b4 cxb3 25.axb3 Tec8 was C.Bauer-
C.Lutz, European Team Ch., Plovdiv 2003.
Black had compensation for the pawn,
though how much isn't that clear.] 13.Cc3
[ A sensible new move which seems to
make it hard for Black to equalize. After
13.Ag5 Tfc8 14.Cc3 Black can protect
his queen with Rf8 , when 15.Tfd1 cxd4
16.Dxe7+ Rxe7 17.Txd4 e5 was more or
less equal in J.Gustafsson-D.Baramidze,
German Ch., Osterburg 2006.] 13...Tfd8
[ It makes more sense to play the
immediate 13...Tfc8 , b u t t h e n 14.Td1
makes it difficult for Black. A sample line is
Rf8 15.Ae3 Cg4 16.Af4 e5 17.Axe5
Cxe5 18.dxe5 Dxe5 19.Td2 with a clear
advantage for White.] 14.Dxc5 Dxc5
15.dxc5 Tdc8 16.Ae3 Cg4 17.Tad1
Offering the pawn back to get his rook to
the seventh.
17...Tab8 18.Af4 e5 19.Ac1 Txc5 20.f3
Cf6 21.e4 Rf8?! [ 21...Tc7 is better,
though stil l prefe rable f or Wh it e after
22.Ae3 Ac6 23.Tf2 . ] 22.b4! Gaining a
further trump in a queenside pawn
majority. Black cannot take en passant
because of 23 Ba3.
22...Tc6 23.b5 Te6 24.a4 a6 25.Aa3+
Re8 26.a5 Cd7 27.b6 Tc8 28.Cd5
Axd5 29.exd5 Tg6 30.f4 c3 31.fxe5 c2
32.Tc1 Cxe5 33.Tfe1 f6 34.Txc2!
Usin g t he st re ng t h of t h e b7 -pa wn t o
initiate a winning combination.
34...Txc2 35.b7 Rd7 36.Txe5! Rc7
37.Te7+ [ After 37.Te7+ Rb8 there is
38.Ad6+ etc. ]
1-0
M.Krasenkow
V.Arbakov
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 d5 2.d4 Cf6 3.c4 e6 4.g3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Ca3!? [ 7.Dc2
b5 8.Ce5 c6 9.a4 Cd5 10.Cc3 f6
11.Cf3 Dd7 12.e4 Cb4 13.De2 Cd3
14.e5 Ab7 15.exf6 Axf6 16.Ce4 Ca6
17.Ce5 Axe5 18.dxe5 Cac5 ½-½ (58)
C a r l s e n , M ( 2 85 5 ) - N e p om n i a c h t ch i, I
(2782) Dubai 2021] 7...Axa3 [ Black is
really obliged to enter this critical line as
quiet play allows White good chances.
Learn Tatics step by step 21 Learn Tatics step by step 22

For example, 7...c5 8.dxc5 Axc5 9.Cxc4 Ted8 ) 24.Aa6 Tc6 25.Ae5 Cd7 26.Af4 64...Ad5 65.Th6 Txh2 And now ...Ra2 32.Cxc8 Txc8 33.e3 Cd5 34.Axd4
Cc6 10.a3! a5 11.Ag5!? h6 12.Dxd8 e5 27.Ae3 Td6 28.Tb1 Cf8 29.f4 Ac2 w o u l d w i n . 66.Rb4 Rf5 ( 66...Aa8 Txc7+- ) 32...Cb5 33.Cxc8 Txc8 34.a4
Txd8 13.Axf6 gxf6 14.Tfd1 Ad7 ( 29...Cd7 ) 30.fxe5 Tg6 31.Tb2 Axe4 White must now prevent ...Rh1. 67.Txe6 Cxc7 35.Axd4 Ce6 36.Ae3 Weighted
15.Cfd2! was good for White in Z.Kozul-B. 32.Tf1 Td7 33.e6 Cxe6 ( 33...Txe6!? Tc2 ) 67.Rc5? ( 67.Tf6+ Re4 68.Th6 ) E rr o r V al u e : W h it e=0 . 0 8 (f l a wl es s ) /
Ivanovic, Yugoslav Ch. 1989; while 7...c3 34.Ac8 h6= ) 34.axb6 axb6 67...Tc2+-+ 68.Rd6 h2 Weighted Error Black=0.25 (precise) 1-0 (36) Carlsen,M
8.bxc3 c5 9.Ce5 Cbd7 ( 9...Cd5 10.Db3 Black mounts an attack . 35.Txb6 h5 V a l u e: W h i t e =0 . 1 9 (ve r y p r e c i s e ) / ( 28 5 6) - Gi r i, A (2 7 72 ) Wijk aan Zee 2022
cxd4 11.cxd4 Cc6 12.Cxc6 bxc6 13.e4 36.Ac4 This b i shop pair i s nice . h4 Black=0.18 (very precise) 0-1 (68) Carlsen, [TA] ] 9.a4 a6 10.Aa3 [ In the notes to his
Cb6 14.Td1 is also good for White) 37.Axe6 fxe6 38.Tb8+ Rh7 39.Tf4 Td1+ M (2865)-Nepomniachtchi,I (2773) Online game against Kuzmin the future World
10.Cac4 Cxe5 11.Cxe5 Dc7 12.Db3 40.Rf2 Tf6 41.Axc5 ( 41.Txf6= 2 0 2 2 p l a y c h e s s . c o m [ T A ]; B) Champion preferred 10.Cg5!? c6 ( or
Td8 13.Af4 Ch5 14.Ae3 Cf6 15.Tfd1 k e e p s t h e b a l a n c e . gxf6 42.Axc5 ) TA: 'Predecessor:' 12...a6 13.Dxc4 Cb6! 10...Cd5 11.Dc2! ) 11.e4 h6 12.e5!
Cd5 16.Ad2 left White with much the 41...Txf4+! 42.gxf4= Endgame KRB- 14.Dc3 Cxa4 15.Db3 Black must now , suggesting that White will have plenty of
be t t er ga me in S .G ra b uz ov- P . V a vr a , KRB Ad5 ( Black should play 42...Th1! prevent Rxc6! Dd5 ( 15...Cb6 ) 16.Txc6 compensation here. Taking this a little
Pardubice 1993.] 8.bxa3 b5 TA: '!?' 43.Re3 Ag2 ) 43.Tb2 Td3 44.Re1 Rg6 Dxc6 17.Ce5! Db5 18.Dc2 aiming for f u r t h e r , p l a y m i g h t c o n t i n u e Cd5
[ 8...Ad7 9.a4!? Leaves trodden paths. 45.a4 Tc3 46.Ad6 Tc1+ 47.Rd2 Ta1 Rb1. Cd5 TA: '1-0 (36) Carlsen,M (2865)- ( 12...hxg5 13.Axg5 Cbd7 14.Axc6 Ta7
E05: Open Catalan: 5 Nf3 Be7. TA: 'E05: 48.Ae5 Txa4 49.Tb1 Ta2+ 50.Tb2 Ta7 G i r i , A ( 2 7 7 2 ) Wijk aan Zee 2022' 15.Df3 looks very dangerous for Black)
Open Catalan: 5 Nf3 Be7.' Ac6 10.Aa3 51.Tb1 Rf5 52.Ta1 Td7 53.Tg1 ( 18...Cb6!= keeps the balance.) 19.Tb1± 13.Ce4 Cd7 14.Dh5 Ta7 15.Axh6 gxh6
Te8 11.Dc2 Inhibits g5. Intending Ke3 and mate. Ag2+ Da5 16.Dxh6 Te8 17.Cd6 with strong
54.Re3 h3 55.Ad4 Tb7 56.Tc1 pres sure f or the sa crif ice d p iec e. I 'm
( 56.Te1 ) surprised this doesn't seem to have had
practical tests.] 10...Te8 11.Ce5 Cd5
12.e4 Cf6 [ In A.Poluljahov-S.Nikolaev,
U S S R 1 9 8 8 , B l a c k p l a y e d 12...Cb6
, after which there followed A) 13.Dh5!?
is also interesting after f6 14.Cg4 ( or
14.a5 ); B) 13.a5 C6d7 B1) if 14.Dh5
T h e p o s i t i o n i s e q u a l . Cbd7N ...Nac3 is the strong threat. B1) 20.Cc4? Cxe5! 15.dxe5 Dd3 and Black can turn
( Predecessor: 11...Ad5 12.Tfe1 Cbd7 Dc3 21.Dxa4 b5-+; B2) 20.Ae4!± g6 the tables by sacrificing his queen after
13.e4 Ac6 14.Cd2 a5 15.Cxc4 Cb6 A1) 56...g6! 57.Tc8 ( 57.Tc5+ Ad5 ) 21.Axd5 ( 21.Cc4? Dc3 ) 21...exd5 either 16.Ae7 ( or 16.Ac5 Cd7 17.Tad1
16.Cxb6 cxb6 17.Ab2 Dd7 1-0 (48) 57...Tb3+ 58.Ac3 Ta3 59.Tf8+ Rg4; A2) 22.Ab4; B3) 20.Axd5 exd5 ( 20...Dxd5 Cxc5! ) 16...Txe7 17.Tad1 c5! 18.Txd3
Cordova,E (2571)-Slade,T (2124) Saint 56...Ad5 57.Tg1 Tb3+ 58.Rd2 g6 21.Dxa4 f6 ) B3a) 21.Ab4?! Db6 22.Ac5 cxd3; B2) 14.f4 Ab7 15.Dh5 g6
Louis 2019 ) 12.Tac1 TA: ' 59.Tg5+? ( 59.Ac3 ) 59...Re4? ( 22.Dxa4 a5 ) 22...Da5=; B3b) and now W hit e should have played
( 59...Rxf4-+ and Black stays clearly on 21.Txb7 Strongly threatening Bb4. Black 16.Dh3! ( r a t h e r t h a n 16.Dh6
top. 60.Tg1 g5 61.Tf1+ Re4 ) 60.Ae5 is in trouble. White is more active. 21...c5 , after which Cxe5 17.dxe5 Dd4+ 18.Rh1
( 60.Ag1 ) To avoid Bb4. Loses the game. Axe4 19.Tad1 Axg2+ 20.Rxg2 De4+
( 21...Cc3± 22.Ab4 Dxa2 23.Dxc3 Db1+ 21.Rh3 Cc6 would have won for Black)
24.Rg2 De4+ 25.Cf3 Tac8 ) 22.Df5+- , when 16...Cxe5 17.dxe5 Dd4+ 18.Rh1
Tf8 23.Cxf7 Dd8 24.dxc5 Df6 25.Dxf6 Axe4 19.Tad1 De3! ( 19...Axg2+
The board is on fire. gxf6 26.Ch6+ Rh8 20.Dxg2 Da7 21.Td2 c6 22.Tfd1
27.c6 Tfc8 28.c7 Cc3 29.Ab2 d4 leaves Black hamstrung) 20.Tfe1 Dxa3
' A) 12...Ad5N 13.Tfe1 Tc8 ( 13...a5= 21.Axe4 Ta7 22.Dh4 would give White
remains equal.) 14.e4± White has strong attacking chances for the sacrificed pawns,
compensation. Ac6 15.Cd2 c3 16.Cb1 though whether this is enough remains a
Cb6 17.a5! Ca4 18.Cxc3 Dxd4 19.Cxa4 60...Tf3 ( 60...Ta3!-+ has better winning m o o t p o i n t .] 13.Cxf7!? [ Besides this
( 19.e5!± Strongly threatening Bxc6. Axg2 chances. Hoping for ...Ra2+. 61.Ab2 Tf3 ) spectacular piece sacrifice White can play
20.Dxa4 Dxa4 21.Cxa4 ) 19...Dxa4 61.Re1 Ac4 62.Txg6 ( 62.Tg1 q u i e t l y w i t h 13.Tb1 . E.Gleizerov-S.
20.Dxa4 Axa4 21.Ab2 b6 22.Af1 was necessary.) 62...Tf1+-+ 63.Rd2 Tf2+ Zhukhovitsky, USSR 1986, continued Ab7
( 22.Axf6= gxf6 23.e5 ) 22...c5 64.Rc3 A2a) I n f e r i o r i s 64...Txh2 14.Te1 Cc6 15.Cxc4 Dxd4 16.Dc2
( 22...bxa5 23.Tc5= ) 23.f3 Ted8 65.Rxc4 Th1 66.Txe6= ( 66.Th6 h2= ); 30.Cf7+! ( Less strong is 30.e3 Cd5 ) ( 16.Dxd4!? Cxd4 17.Ab2 intending 18
( 23...bxa5?! 24.Te3=; 23...b5 24.Te2 A2b) 64...Aa2-+ 65.Ab8 Txh2; A2c) 30...Rg7 31.Cd6 Rg6 32.Rf1 ( Don't take Na5 is also worth considering) 16...Dxc4
Learn Tatics step by step 23
( 16...Da7 17.Cd2 offers White ongoing
compensation) 17.Dxc4 bxc4 18.Txb7
and now Cd4 ( in the g ame 18...Ce5?!
19.Tc1 Tec8 20.f4 Cc6 21.Tbb1 a5
22.Txc4 was better for White) 19.e5 Cd5
would have been best with chances for
b o t h s i d e s .] 13...Rxf7 14.e5 Cd5
15.Dh5+ Rg8 16.Ae4 g6 17.Axg6 hxg6
[ Forced. In the game G.Kuzmin-V.Anand,
Frunze 1987, Black declined the second
sacrifice with 17...Te7?! 18.Axe7 Dxe7
, b u t t h e n 19.Axh7+ would have been
good for White after Dxh7 20.De8+ Rg7
21.Dxc8 Dg8 22.Db7 Cd7 23.axb5 etc. ]
18.Dxg6+ Rh8 19.Tfe1 [ Threatening 20
R e 4 . W h i t e c a n a l s o p l a y 19.Tae1
, though this doesn't seem to alter the
outcome after Cc3 20.Te3 Ab7 21.Txc3
Cc6 , the best being to deliver perpetual
check via 22.Dh6+ etc. ] 19...Cc3 20.Te3
Threatening to bring the rook to f3 and
then f7.
20...Ab7 21.Txc3 Cd7?? [ This looks
natural but it should lose. The right way to
d ef e nd i s vi a 21...Cc6 , when it seems
that W hite' s best is again to give
perpetual check, starting with 22.Dh6+ . ]
22.Dh6+ Rg8 23.Dg6+ Rh8 24.Dh6+
Rg8 25.g4! Making room for the rook to
come to h3.
25...Te7 26.Th3 Cf8 27.Dh8+ Rf7
28.Th6 Re8 29.Txe6! Txe6 30.Dxf8+
Rd7 31.Df7+ Te7 [ 31...Rc8 32.Dxe6+
would leave White with four(!) connected
passed pawns on the kingside.] 32.e6+
Rc6 33.Df6 Dd5 34.Axe7 Rb6 35.f3!
Tg8?! [ 35...Dxf3 was relatively best,
though the endgame is lost after 36.Ac5+
Ra5 37.Dxf3 Axf3 38.g5 etc. ] 36.Ac5+
Ra5 37.Df4 [ The right idea, but the
execution is inaccurate. The correct way
to do this is via 37.Rf2! Txg4 38.e7 Tg8
39.Df4 , when c3 40.De3! Dc4 41.e8D
wins Black's rook.] 37...c3? [ Black can
s t i l l m a k e a f i g h t o f i t w i t h 37...Dxf3
38.Dxf3 Axf3 39.h3 Rxa4 as he has his
own passed pawns on the queenside.]
38.axb5 axb5? [ 38...Dxf3 is again the
best try. ] 39.a4 Tc8 40.axb5+ Rxb5
41.Tb1+ Rc4 42.De3 The threat of Rb4
mate is a killer.
1-0
V.Mikhalevski
A.Huzman
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 Ae7
5.Cf3 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Ca3 Axa3
8.bxa3 Ad7 Black chooses a less
ambitious but less weakening approach,
aiming for solid development rather than
trying to keep his ill-gotten gains. There
are a couple of other moves which have
similar intent: [ a) 8...Cbd7 was tried in N.
Hryhorenko-I.Vasilevich, Beijing (blitz)
2008, and now 9.a4 Cb6 10.Aa3 Te8
11.Tc1 , intending a4-a5 and/or Nf3-e5,
would have recovered the pawn with a
good game.; b) 8...Cc6 9.Ab2 Tb8
( 9...Cd5 10.Dc2 Cb6 was M.Krasenkow-
O.Nikolenko, USSR 1987, and now 11.e4!
Ad7 12.Cd2 would have been the
simplest, again recovering the pawn with
a good game) 10.Dc2 b5 11.Tad1 Ce7
( 11...Ab7?! 12.Cg5! h6 13.d5 Cb4
14.axb4 hxg5 15.dxe6 De7 16.exf7+
Txf7 17.Axb7 Txb7 18.Dg6! gave White
a strong initiative in I.Glek-J.Klovans,
Tashkent 1987) 12.e4 Ab7 13.Tfe1
Axe4?! ( 13...Cg6 is better, with complex
play ) 14.Txe4 Cxe4 15.Dxe4 Cd5 16.h4
h6 17.Ce5 and White's minor pieces were
stronger than Black's rook and pawns in
J.Be nja min - W.Br owne, US C h. , Lo n g
Beac h 198 9.] 9.Dc2 [ In V.Ivanchuk-A.
On is c h uk, Fo ros 20 07 , Wh it e play e d
9.Ce5 , the game resulting in a draw after
Ac6 10.Cxc6 Cxc6 11.Tb1 ( 11.Ab2 Cd5
12.Tb1 Cb6 13.e3 Dd6 gave Black a
solid game in A.Khalifman-L.Port isch,
Reykjavik 1991) 11...Tb8 12.Ab2 Dd7
13.e4 Tfd8 14.d5 exd5 15.Axf6 gxf6
16.exd5 Ce5 17.Dd4 Dd6 18.f4
½ -½ . W h it e 's t wo b i sh o p s a n d p a w n
cent re give him c ompensatio n for th e
sacrificed pawn, but it's not easy to get
Learn Tatics step by step 24
more than that when Black's position has
no weaknesses.] 9...Ac6 [ Sticking to the
plan of solid development. The weakening
9...b5 would give White a promising
position after 10.a4 a6 11.Aa3 ( 11.Ag5
is also worth cons idering) 11...Te8
12.Ce5 Cd5 13.e4 . ] 10.Dxc4 Cbd7
11.Af4 [ Another possibility is 11.Ag5
, though after h6 12.Axf6 Cxf6 13.Tfc1
Dd6 14.Ce5 Axg2 15.Rxg2 Cd5 16.Db3
Tab8 Black was solidly entrenched in K.
Aseev-E.Rozentalis, USSR Ch., Leningrad
1990. ] 11...h6 This seems a bit odd when
White's bishop is already on f4. Other
moves have been t ried here wit h solid
results: [ a) 11...Tc8 12.Tac1 Ad5
13.Dc2 c5 14.dxc5 Txc5 15.Db2 De7
16.Ae3 Ta5 17.Ad2 Dxa3 18.Dxa3 Txa3
19.Ab4 Txa2 20.Axf8 Rxf8 ended in a
draw in R.Przedmojski-J.Zeberski, Poraj
2003.; b) 11...Cb6 12.Dc2 Tc8 13.Tfc1
De7 14.Db2 Ae4 15.Ad2 Tfd8 16.Ab4
De8 17.Ce5 Axg2 18.Rxg2 Ca4 19.Db3
Txd4 20.Cc6 bxc6 21.Dxa4 c5
22.Dxe8+ Cxe8 23.Txc5 soon petered
out in J.Szmetan-R.Servat, Buenos Aires
1991. ] 12.Tfc1 Cb6 13.Db3 Cfd5
[ Clearly Black has other moves here,
such as 13...Tc8 .] 14.Ad2 Cf6
15.Txc6!? A highly imaginative and
courageous exchange sac from
Mikha levski, which creat es long-ter m
difficulties for Black. The main problem is
his lack of play, wherea s the white
bishops range across the board.
15...bxc6 16.Tc1 Tb8 17.Txc6 Cbd5
[ I suspect that Black underestimated the
danger. He should probably have opted
for 17...Dd5 , when 18.Txc7 Dxb3
19.axb3 Cbd5 20.Txa7 Txb3 should be
enough to draw the endgame.] 18.Dc2
Tb6 19.Tc4 Db8 20.Ac1 Ce7 21.Ce5
Td8 22.Af3 Ce8 23.e3 Cd6 24.Tc3
[ Black's last move shows quite a change
of heart, as after 24.Txc7 Tc8 25.Tc5
the attempt to exchange pieces would be
much more c o stly t han e arlier . I n th e
even t Mikha l e vski elec t s t o k eep t h e
pressure up.] 24...f6 25.Cd3 Cf7 26.a4
[ 26.Txc7 would still give Black a measure
of freedom after Tc8 . ] 26...Cd5 27.Tc5
Td7 28.Aa3 Cd8 29.Rg2 Cb7 30.Tc6?!
[ Judging from the play around this point,
Black was running short of time and White
was attempting to exploit this. Here 30.e4
would have been quite strong, as Cxc5
31.Cxc5 leaves both the knight on d5 and
the rook on d7 hanging.] 30...Ca5 31.Tc5
Cb7 32.a5 Cxc5 33.Cxc5 Tc6 34.Dg6
[ 34.e4 may be a stronger move, but
against a man in time trouble a big queen
m o v e h a s s h o c k v a l u e .] 34...Tf7
[ 34...Tdd6 was more tenacious, but the
attack keeps coming after 35.Ae4 Ce7
36.Dh7+ Rf7 37.Af3 Td5 38.e4 Tg5
39.h4 etc. ] 35.Ae4 f5 36.Axd5 Tf6
37.Dxf6 [ Presumably Black lost on time,
though the position after 37.Dxf6 gxf6
38.Axc6 is winning for White with three
pieces for the queen and his opponent's
many weaknesses. ]
1-0
R.Wojtaszek
E.Peterson
[Nigel Davies]
1.c4 e6 2.Cf3 d5 3.d4 Cf6 4.g3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Cc3
This nonchalant move just develops the
knight to a strong square, while making
no immediate attempt to recover the c4-
pawn.
7...Cc6 The main line, preventing White
from recovering the pawn with Ne5, but
blocking the c7-pawn. Alternatives are as
follows: [ a) 7...Ad7? is quite wrong here
because of 8.Ce5 Ac6 9.e4! a6 10.Cxc4
Ab5 11.b3 Cc6 12.Ae3 with a clear
advantage for White in R.Wojtaszek-G.
Masternak, Warsaw (rapid) 2007.; b) 7...a6
8.Ce5 c5 9.dxc5 Axc5 10.Cxc4 Cc6
11.Af4 De7 12.Ad6 Axd6 13.Dxd6 Dxd6
14.Cxd6 left Black suffering in the
endgame in G .Gajewski-V .Durarbeyli,
European Ch., Dresden 2007.; c) 7...c5
8.dxc5 Cc6 seems just about okay with
Learn Tatics step by step 25
accurate defence, for example 9.Da4 Da5
10.Dxc4 Dxc5 11.Dxc5 Axc5 12.Af4
Ad7 ( 12...Cd5 13.Cxd5 exd5 14.Tac1
Ab6 15.Tfd1 Td8 16.Ce5 Cxe5 17.Axe5
Ae6 18.Ac7! Axc7 19.Txc7 b6 20.f4!
wa s v e r y u n p l e a s a n t f o r B l a c k i n A .
Wojt kiewicz- S. Brynell, A albo rg 198 9)
13.Ce5 ( there's a case for simply
13.Tac1 ) 13...Cxe5 14.Axe5 Cg4! 15.Af4
e5 16.Tad1 Tad8 17.Ag5 f6 18.Ac1 b6
and Black had equalized in V.Tukmakov-
Y.Dokhoian, Lvov 1990.; d) 7...Cbd7
transposes to 6...Nbd7 7 Nc3 dxc4 and
is covered in Games 30 and 31.] 8.e3
[ White can also play 8.e4 as in the next
game. ] 8...Ca5 Black has several other
options here : [ a) 8...Cd7 9.De2 Cb6
(or 8. . .Nd5 9 Qe2 Nb6) 10.Td1 Ad7
11.e4 Te8 was A.Wojtkiewicz-L.Janjgava,
H a s t i n g s 1 9 8 9 / 9 0 , a n d n o w 12.Af4
would have been pleasant for White.; b)
8...Tb8 9.Da4 Ad7 ( 9...Cb4 10.Dxa7
Ad7 11.Ce5 is good for White, for
examp le a ft e r Cfd5 he can sacrifice his
queen with 12.Cxd5 exd5 13.Dxb8 Dxb8
14.Cxd7 Da7 15.Cxf8 Rxf8 16.Ad2
with th e bett er gam e) 10.Dxc4 b5
( 10...Ca5 11.De2 b5 12.Ce5 Ae8
13.Td1 c5 14.dxc5! Dc7 15.Cd3 Axc5
was M.Prusikin-P.Horvath, Budapest 2003,
and now 16.Cxc5! Dxc5 17.e4 Cc4
18.Af4! e5 19.Ag5 would have been very
good for W hite acc ording to Pr usiki n)
11.Dd3! b4 ( 11...Cb4 12.De2 c5
13.dxc5 Axc5 14.e4! ) 12.Ce4 Cxe4
13.Dxe4 Ca5 was V.Tukmakov-A.
Be liavsky, Mosc ow 199 0, an d now
Beliavsky's suggestion of 14.Td1!? Ab5
15.Dc2! Dc8 16.e4! would have been
good for White.; c) 8...Ad6 9.Da4 ( 9.Cd2
e5 10.Cxc4 exd4 11.exd4 Ag4 12.Db3
Cxd4 13.Dxb7 Af3 was J.Lautier-A.
Karpov, Dos Hermanas 1995, and now
14.Axf3 Tb8 15.Dxa7 Cxf3+ 16.Rg2
Dd7 17.Cxd6 Ch4+ 18.gxh4 Dg4+
leads to a draw by perpetual check) 9...e5
10.d5 Cb4 11.Cxe5 a6! ( 11...Cbxd5
12.Cxc4 Cxc3 13.bxc3 gave White the
better game due to his powerful Catalan
bish op in R .W ojta szek -T. Kos int seva,
Laus a nne 2006) 12.f4!? ( rather than
12.Cf3? Af5 as in J.Lautier-V.Korchnoi,
Mosc o w O lympia d 199 4) 12...Cbxd5
13.Cxd5 Axe5 14.fxe5 Cxd5 15.Dxc4
Ae6 16.Dc5 keeps a slight initiative for
White. ] 9.De2 c5 10.Td1
[ Another approach is 10.dxc5 Dc7 11.e4
Axc5 12.Ag5 , as in L.Alburt-Comp
Mephisto Portorose, Harvard (rapid) 1989,
with White having compensation for the
pawn after Cg4 13.e5 f6 14.exf6 gxf6
15.Ad2 Ad7 16.h3 Ce5 17.Cxe5 Dxe5
18.Dxe5 fxe5 19.Ce4 Ab6 20.Tad1
. It's not clear th at a hu ma noid would
have been quite as materialistic as
Mephisto. ] 10...Dc7 11.e4 cxd4
12.Cxd4 e5 Otherwise White plays e4-e5,
though this is arguably the lesser evil.
13.Cf5 Axf5 14.exf5 Tad8 15.Ae3 b6
16.g4!? Creating problems for Black, not
only because his kingside might be set
alight, but also because White's minor
pieces can come into e4 and/or d5. Black
hurries to simplify the position but this
doesn't save him.
16...Txd1+ 17.Txd1 Td8 18.g5 Txd1+
19.Dxd1 Ce8 20.Dd5 [ 20.Ad5
is also very strong.] 20...g6 21.f6 Af8?
[ Losing the extra pawn after which his
position crumbles. 21...Ad6 was relatively
best, though still unpleasant.] 22.Cb5
Dc8 23.Cxa7 Df5 24.h4 Cc7 25.Dd8
Ce6 26.De8 Db1+ 27.Rh2 Dxb2
28.Cc8 The crushing threat of 29 Ne7+
decides matters.
28...e4 29.Ce7+ Rh8 30.Dxf7 De5+
31.Rg1 Da1+ 32.Af1 Axe7 33.fxe7
1-0
D.Antic
H.Van Riemsdijk
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 d5 4.g3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Cc3 Cc6
8.e4!? Very simple and direct: White takes
the centre without worrying about the c4-
Learn Tatics step by step
pawn.
8...Tb8 9.Af4 [ In L.Kavalek-E.Geller, Wijk
a a n Z e e 1 9 7 7 , W h i t e p l a y e d 9.Te1
, afte r which b5 10.e5 Cd5 11.Ce4
Ccb4 12.Cfg5 h6 13.Ch3 Cd3
left him struggling to find compensation.;
I f W hi t e wis h es t o pla y e 4 -e5 t h en i t
makes more sense to do it immediately
with 9.e5 Cd5 10.Ce4 , though
personally I doubt he has enough
anyway. ] 9...b5 10.De2!? White makes
room for his rook on d1, after which his
compensation would become apparent,
though Black can now take on d4. Other
moves have also been tried: [ a) 10.d5
seems well met by exd5 11.exd5 Cb4
with a good game for Black.; b) 10.a3!? a6
( 10...Ca5 11.Dc2 Cb3 12.Tad1
would make it difficult for Black to free
his game ) 11.Te1 Te8 12.Dd2 Ab7
13.Tad1 Af8 14.Dc2 and White's
impressive build-up gave him
compensation in R.Appel-G.Beckhuis,
G e r m a n L e a g u e 2 0 0 6 .] 10...b4
[ 10...Cxd4 11.Cxd4 Dxd4 is also critical,
f o r e x a m p l e 12.a4!? ( 12.Axc7 Tb7
13.e5 Txc7 14.Cxb5 Dc5 15.exf6 Dxb5
16.fxe7 Txe7 would leave White
struggling) 12...b4 ( 12...Dd3 13.Dxd3
cxd3 14.axb5 Cg4 15.h3 e5 16.Ac1 Cf6
17.Td1 is another weird line unearthed by
Fritz ) 13.Tfd1 Dc5 14.Cb5 Ab7 15.Td4!
c3 16.bxc3 b3 17.Tc4 turns out to be
good for White, thanks to extensive use
o f F r i t z 1 1 .] 11.Ca4 Aa6 [ Here
11...Cxd4? is quite bad, as 12.Cxd4 Dxd4
( while if 12...Ad7 13.Dxc4 Axa4 14.b3
a n d 1 5 B x c 7 w i l l w i n t h e e x c h a n g e)
13.Tad1 wins the queen.] 12.Tfd1 Ab5
13.Dc2 Cxe4 14.Ce5? [ White loses his
way in the complications, but this doesn't
mean his opening is bad. The right way to
play it is with 14.Dxe4 , when Axa4 15.b3
cxb3 16.axb3 Axb3 17.Dxc6 Axd1
18.Txd1 is far from clear. Black has a
powerful passed b-pawn but its further
progress is likely to be impeded by
W h i t e ' s v e r y a c t i v e m i n o r p i e c e s .]
14...Cxe5 [ 14...f5!? also looks
26
problematic for White.] 15.dxe5 De8
16.Axe4 Axa4 17.b3 Ac6 18.Axh7+
[ 18.Dxc4!? was probably better, though
Whit e is st ru ggl in g to d raw a fte r Axe4
19.Dxe4 . ] 18...Rh8 19.Ae4 Axe4
20.Dxe4 c3 21.Td4 c5 22.Tc4 Td8
23.h4 Td5 24.Rg2 Dd7 25.Ae3 Dc7
26.f4 Dd7 27.Rh3 Td8 28.a3 a5
29.axb4 cxb4 30.h5?! [ White sets too
much store on his kingside chances. The
grim 30.Ta2 wa s h i s b e s t h o p e .]
30...Tc8?! [ 30...Td1 was stronger, and if
31.Ta2 Te1 . ] 31.Ab6?! Ad8 32.Axd8
Dxd8 33.Txc8 Dxc8 34.f5 Dd8 35.fxe6
fxe6 36.Tf1 De8 37.g4 Td8 38.h6 Dd7
39.Rh4? [ This was probably time trouble.
39.hxg7+ Rxg7 40.Df4 would have kept
some prac tical c ha nces .] 39...gxh6
40.Tf6 Dd2
0-1
N.Davies
A.Bykhovsky
[Nigel Davies]
1.c4 e6 2.Cf3 d5 3.d4 Cf6 4.g3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.Dc2 dxc4 [ Rather than try
to exploit W hite's last move with 6...c5
(see the next two games), Black tries to
keep to normal paths with his
programmed capture of the c4-pawn. But
White has a couple of independent tries
now. ] 7.Cbd2 [ As we saw in the Chapter
2 ga me be twe en K ra mn ik a nd S hiro v
(Game 7), White can transpose into the 10
Bf 4 line wi t h 7.Dxc4 a6 8.Af4 Ad6
( 8...Cd5 9.0-0 Cxf4 10.gxf4 Ad6 11.e3
Ad7 12.Dc2 Ac6 13.Cbd2 was better for
Whi t e in H. Danie lsen-S .Krist jansson,
Icelandic Ch., Reykjavik 2008) 9.0-0 b5
10.Dc2 Ab7 11.Cbd2 . However, I think
that 7 Nbd2 is more promising than this.]
7...Ad7 [ A couple of years earlier
B y k h o v s k y h a d t r i e d 7...a6
without notable success: A.Wojtkiewicz-A.
Bykhovsky, Agios Nikolaos 1997,
proceeded 8.Cxc4 Cc6 9.e3 Cb4
10.De2 b5 11.Cfe5 Cfd5 12.Ca5 c5
Learn Tatics step by step 27
13.Cac6 Cxc6 14.Cxc6 Dc7 15.Cxe7+
Dxe7 16.dxc5 Dxc5 17.Ad2 Dc2
18.Ab4! Dxe2+ 19.Rxe2 Te8 20.Aa5
with a clear advantage to White because
of his bishops.] 8.0-0!? This nonchalant
delay in recapturing on c4 was designed
to confuse my ageing Russian opponent
with some nasty complications. Against
someone younger and less well schooled,
a more standard move might be more
suitable: [ a) 8.Ce5 Cc6 9.Dxc4 Cxe5
10.dxe5 Cd5 11.0-0 Ac6 12.Dg4 Dd7
13.Cf3 f5 14.exf6 Cxf6 15.Dd4 Dxd4
16.Cxd4 Axg2 17.Rxg2 was a bit better
for W hite in E.M iroshnichenko-A.
Rychagov, Russian Team Ch. 2005.; b)
8.Dxc4 Ac6 9.0-0 a6 10.Dc2 a5 11.e4
Ca6 12.a3 Ab5 13.Td1 Ae2 14.Te1
Axf3 15.Cxf3 c5 16.Td1 cxd4 17.Cxd4
gave White a nice game in N.Sulava-V.
Kostic, Bad Wörishofen 2000.] 8...Ac6
9.e4!? b5 Black feels obliged to hold on
to the ext ra pawn, les t Whi t e get
compensation without a sacrifice.
10.Te1 Ab7 [ It might have been better to
play 10...Ca6 , developing a piece while
threatening ...Na6-b4. An intriguing way
to meet this would be 11.a3 Ab7 12.b4!?
, giving Black a supported passed c-pawn
but leaving the knight on a6 very bad. A
sample line is Cb8 13.Ab2 Cc6 14.Tad1
( 14.Ac3 i s a l s o i n t e r es t i n g , a s a5
c a n b e a n s w e re d b y 15.bxa5 Cxa5
16.Tab1 c6 17.a4 ) 14...a5 15.d5 exd5
16.exd5 Cxd5 17.Cxc4! bxc4 18.Dxc4
Ccxb4 19.Ce5 c6 20.axb4 Axb4 21.Te4
with a dangerous initiative for the
sacrificed pawns.] 11.b3 Cc6 [ 11...cxb3
12.Cxb3 gives White excellent
compe nsat io n for his pawn, t ha nks t o
his strong centre, control of the c5-square,
and the idea of Nb3-a5.] 12.bxc4 Cxd4
13.Cxd4 Dxd4 14.Tb1 [ 14.e5?!
woul d l ead t o s imp l if ica t ion af t er Cg4
15.Cb3 Dxc4 16.Dxc4 bxc4 17.Axb7
Tab8 18.Af3 cxb3 etc. ] 14...c6
[ At first F ritz like s 14...b4 , but then
changes its mind after 15.e5 Cg4 16.Cb3
Db6 17.c5 Da6 18.c6 Ac8 19.Af3 etc. ]
15.e5 Cg4 16.Cf3 Dd7 [ 16...Db6
17.Cg5 Axg5 18.Axg5 would leave Black
with the problem of what to do about the
knight on g4.] 17.De4 h5 [ There's no
good solu t ion a bo ut wher e t o p ut h is
knight. For example 17...Ch6 18.Axh6
gxh6 leaves Black's kingside wrecked,;
while 17...f5 18.exf6 Cxf6 19.De2
threatens both Bh3 and Ne5.] 18.h3 Ch6
19.Axh6 gxh6 20.Tbd1?! [ I'm not sure
this was the best because of Black's later
21...Bb4 possibility. Either 20.Df4; or
20.Ted1 might have been stronger.]
20...Dc7 21.Cd4 bxc4? [ This runs into a
bone-crushing reply. Black should have
played 21...Ab4! , for example 22.Te3
Tad8 23.cxb5 c5 24.Dxb7 Dxb7
25.Axb7 Txd4 would see him escape into
a drawish endgame.] 22.Cxe6! Dc8
[ After 22...fxe6 White gets a winning
attack via 23.Dg6+ Rh8 24.Dxh6+ Rg8
25.Dg6+ Rh8 26.Dxh5+ Rg8 27.Dg6+
Rh8 28.Te4 Ad8 29.Txd8! etc. ] 23.Cxf8
Dxf8 24.Dxc4
1-0
N.Davies
S.Collins
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Cf6 4.g3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.Dc2 c5 7.0-0 [ 7.dxc5
wi l l b e e xa m i n e d i n t h e n e x t g a m e .]
7...cxd4 8.Cxd4 Cc6 This leads to a kind
of reversed Grünfeld Defence, with both
sides having chanc es in a compl ex
middlegame position. [ Black has a major
alternative in 8...e5 , for example 9.Cf5
d4 ( 9...Axf5 10.Dxf5 Cc6 11.cxd5 Cxd5
12.Cc3! Cxc3 13.bxc3 gave White the
b et t e r g a me in V . S mys l o v- M. P er e t z ,
Lugano Olympiad 1968) 10.Cxe7+ Dxe7
11.b4!? ( 11.Ag5 h6 12.Axf6 Dxf6
13.Cd2 Cc6 14.a3 a5 15.b3 Af5
was fine for Black in M.Tratar-R.Zelcic,
Zadar 2005; as was 11.b3 Cc6 12.Aa3
Cb4 13.Axb4 Dxb4 14.Cd2 De7
in E.Miroshnichenko-V.Anand, German
Learn Tatics step by step 28
League 2004) 11...Ae6 12.Cd2 Ca6?!
( 12...Cc6 looks more natural, but White
seems to have an edge after 13.b5! Ca5
14.Da4 Dc7 15.Aa3 Tfd8 16.c5
becau se of t he embarrassment to the
knight on a5) 13.a3 Tac8 14.Dd3 Dd7
15.Ab2 Ah3 16.e3 Axg2 17.Rxg2
and White was better because of Black's
poorly-placed knight on a6 in H.Koneru-
Hou Yifan, Merida 2008.] 9.Cxc6 bxc6
10.b3 White delays the development of his
queen's knight, because he wants to see
if Black will play ...a7-a5. If he does the
knight should go to c3 to stop ...a5-a4,
wh e re a s . . . B c 8 - a 6 s h o u l d be m et b y
putting the knight on d2.
10...a5 11.Cc3 Aa6 12.Td1 Dc7 13.Ca4
Tac8 [ Perhaps Black should just play
13...dxc4 , f o r exa mple 14.bxc4 Tab8
15.Ad2 e5 ( 15...c5 16.Tab1 looks good
for White due to the weakness of b5 and
a5 ) 16.Tab1 Txb1 17.Txb1 Cd7 18.De4
Cf6 19.Dc2 Cd7 20.Ac3 Axc4 21.Axa5
Dxa5 22.Dxc4 and White was slightly
better in B.Gulko-J.Hjartarson, Linares
1989. ] 14.Ae3 Cd7 [ This seems like a
good move, after which it's difficult for
White to prove very much. In B.Kurajica-P.
Van der Sterren, Thessaloniki Olympiad
1984, Black played the committal 14...c5
, but would have found himself suffering
after 15.cxd5 Cxd5 ( 15...exd5 16.Tac1
is very pleasant for White) 16.Axd5 exd5
17.Tac1 Tfe8 a n d n o w j u s t 18.Td2
( ra t h e r t h a n 18 Q d2 ) , t h re at e n i ng t o
capture on c5.] 15.Tac1 Db8 16.Ad2
Cb6! 17.Cb2 a4 18.Tb1 Shadowing
Black's queen and trying to keep some
tension in the position.
18...a3?! [ Ambitious but very committal:
the pawn on a3 can easily become weak.
The simple move was 18...axb3 , when
19.axb3 leaves White slightly more
comfortably placed but without any real
advantage to speak of.] 19.Cd3 Cd7
20.Tdc1?! [ T h e i m m e d i a t e 20.Dc3
would have been better, intending to meet
e5 with 21.Da5 . This idea only occurred
to me on the next move.] 20...e5 21.Dc3
e4 22.Cf4 Cf6 [ 22...g5 can be strongly
met by 23.Ah3! Tfd8 24.Ch5! etc. ]
23.Da5 Da8 24.Ah3 Tb8 [ It turns out
that 24...Tcd8 would have been
preferable, in order to prevent White's
bishop from coming to d7 in some lines.]
25.cxd5 cxd5 [ 25...Cxd5 is strongly met
by 26.Ad7 . ] 26.Ac3 Tfd8 27.Ae5 Tb5
[ As usual 27...g5 is too weakening and
White can answer it strongly with 28.Cg2
g4 ( or 28...Ab4 29.Da4 ) 29.Axf6 etc. ]
28.Dc7 Ad6? [ A miscalculation under
pressure. 28...Te8 was better, though still
very pleasant for White after 29.Dc3 . ]
29.Axd6 Ce8 30.De7 Cxd6 31.Tc7 Tb7
32.Tbc1 Txc7 33.Txc7 Ab5 [ After
33...Db8 White can get fancy with 34.Ce6!
. ] 34.Ae6! Ae8 35.Axd5 Db8 36.Ce6!
1-0
Le Quang Liem
Z.Azmaiparashvili
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 d5 2.Cf3 Cf6 3.c4 e6 4.g3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.Dc2 c5 7.dxc5
[ A very interesting alternative to the
popular 7.0-0 . ] 7...Da5+ 8.Cc3
[ In a game between two of the big boys,
L. Ar o nian - M. Carl sen, Nice (b li ndf o ld
r a p i d ) 2 0 0 8 , W h i t e p l a y e d 8.Cbd2
, after which Cc6 9.a3 dxc4 10.Dxc4
Dxc5 11.0-0 Dh5 12.h3!? Ad7 13.g4
Dd5 14.g5 Dxc4 ( this h2-h3 and g3-g4
c on c e pt wa s ce r t a in l y ve ry c rea t i v e ,
though I doubt that it would have led to
that much after, say, 14...Ce8 15.Dxd5
exd5 ; Black's isolated pawn on d5 is
comp ensa t ed for b y th e wea kn ess of
White's kingside pawns) 15.Cxc4 Cd5
16.e4 ga ve him a slight advantage .]
8...dxc4 9.0-0 [ In E.Miroshnichenko-E.
G a s a n ov, Mi n s k 2 0 06 , W h it e p l ay e d
9.Cd2 , when Dxc5 10.Ca4 Da5 11.Dxc4
Cc6 12.0-0 Ce5 13.Db3 Ad7
was really fine for Black whose pieces
are getting out very quickly. Not every
position with open d- and c-files is good
Learn Tatics step by step 29
for White in the Catalan; a lead in
development is also required.] 9...Ca6
Black has tried a couple of alternatives
here, both of which might be superior: [ a)
9...Dxc5 10.Ag5 ( 10.Ae3 Dh5 11.h3
Cc6 12.Tfd1 Ad7 13.Ce4 Tfd8 14.Dxc4
Cxe4 15.Dxe4 Ae8 16.Dc2 h6 17.a3
Da5 fizzled out to a draw in J.Ehlvest-A.
V yz m a n a vi n , L v o v 1 9 8 5) 10...Ad7
( 10...Cc6 11.Axf6 Axf6 12.Ce4 De7
13.Cxf6+ Dxf6 14.Tfd1 e5 15.Dxc4
would leave White with a typical Catalan
p lu s d u e t o hi s st r o ng b is h op o n g 2 ;
Black 'could' recapture with the pawn on
move 11, but this would involve
considerable danger to his king) 11.Axf6
Axf6 12.Ce4 De7 13.Dxc4 Ac6
14.Cxf6+ Dxf6 15.Cd4 Axg2 16.Rxg2
Cd7 17.Tfd1 Cb6 18.Db3 was only
slightly better for White in V.Tukmakov-Z.
Ribli, Slovenian Team Ch. 2001.; b)
9...Cc6 10.Ag5 Dxc5 11.Axf6 Axf6
12.Ce4 De7 13.Tfd1 b5 ( 13...Tb8
14.Cxf6+ Dxf6 15.Cd2 e5 16.Ce4 De7
17.Dxc4 Ae6 18.Dc5 was good for White
in E.Miroshnichen ko-A.Shneider, Bad
Zwesten 2005) 14.a4 Aa6 15.Cxf6+ Dxf6
16.Td6 Tac8 17.Cd2 Cd4 18.Dd1 Tcd8
19.Ce4 De5 20.f4 Dxd6 21.Cxd6 Txd6
22.e3 Cf5 23.De1 was agreed drawn at
this point in V.Ivanchuk-V.Anand, Linares
2002. Presumably Ivanchuk considered it
t oo r is k y t o c on t i n u e b e c au s e of t h e
weakne s s of his ki n gsid e .] 10.Ag5
[ An interesting and dynamic new move
from th e V ie tname se grandmas ter. I n
earlier games White had played 10.Ce4
, which also seems to give good chances
of an edge, for example Cxc5 ( 10...Cxe4
11.Dxe4 Cxc5 12.Dxc4 Ad7 13.b4 Da4
14.Ab2 a5 15.Axg7! Rxg7 16.Dg4+ Rh8
17.Dd4+ Rg8 18.bxc5 Dxd4 19.Cxd4
Axc5 20.Cb3 Ab4 21.Tfc1! was better for
White in M.Krasenkow-P.San Segundo
Carrillo, European Ch., Istanbul 2003)
11.Cxf6+ Axf6 12.Cg5! ( 12.Ag5 Cd7!
13.Axf6 Cxf6 14.Cd2 c3 15.Cc4 Db4
16.b3 Cd5 17.Tfc1 Ad7 18.Ce5 Dd6
19.Cxd7 Dxd7 20.Axd5 Dxd5 21.Dxc3
soon fizzled out to a draw in A.Moiseenko-
J.Werle, E uropean Ch. , Plovdiv 2008)
12...Axg5 13.Axg5 Ca4 14.Ad2 Db5
15.Tfc1! Dxb2? ( if 15...c3 16.bxc3
Dxe2? 17.Af1 Dg4 18.h3 wins the knight
on a4 ) 16.Dxb2 Cxb2 17.a4! Ad7 18.a5
Tad8 19.Ab4! Tfe8 20.Axb7 Ab5 21.a6
Ca4 22.Tab1! saw Black struggling for a
draw in V. Kramnik-N.Short, Novgorod
1996. ] 10...Dxc5 [ 10...Axc5 11.Axf6
gxf6 12.Cd2 would recover the c4-pawn
and leave Black's kingside very weak.]
11.Tac1 Ad7 [ Another possibility is
11...Cb4 , when 12.Db1 Td8 13.Ce4
Cxe4 14.Dxe4 Axg5 15.Txc4 is a sample
line sh owing an on goin g initi at ive f or
White. ] 12.Axf6 Axf6 [ Black is evidently
reluct ant to weak en hi s king side wit h
12...gxf6!? , but in lines such as 13.Ce4
Dc7 14.Dd2!? f5 15.Dh6 fxe4 16.Cg5
Axg5 17.Dxg5+ Rh8 18.Df6+ Rg8
19.Dg5+ there is nothing more than a
draw for White. So perhaps this was a
better way, as now White gets a highly
typical Catalan initiative.] 13.Ce4 De7
14.Cxf6+ Dxf6 15.Dxc4 Tfd8 16.Db3
Ac6 17.Ce1! A noteworthy manoeuvre:
White exchanges the defender of b7 and
prepares to bring his knight to the
excellent d3-square.
17...Axg2 18.Rxg2 b6 19.Cd3 Dd4
20.Dc4 Dxc4 21.Txc4 Td6 22.Tfc1
This position is even more unpleasant for
Black than it might seem. The big problem
is that the knight on a6 cannot get back
into the game.
22...Tad8 23.b4 Td5 24.Tc8 Tf8
25.T1c3 Td4 26.T8c4 Td5? [ 26...Txc4
27.Txc4 f6 would have been best, trying
t o d ef end a l ong t h e s e c on d r a n k. O f
cour se W hite can f urth er imp ro ve h is
position by bringing his king forward.]
27.Ta3 b5 28.Tc6 Cb8 29.Tc7 a6
30.Tac3 g6 31.Ta7 Td4 32.Tcc7 Tc4
33.Cc5 e5 [ The pawn on b4 is immune,
as after 33...Txb4 there follows 34.Cxe6
Te8 35.Cg5 etc. ] 34.a3 Tc3 35.e3 h5
36.h4 Tc4? [ Losing without much further
ado. 36...Txa3 is still answered by 37.Ce6
Learn Tatics step by step 30
, but here Black can make more of a fight to protect.
of it with Cc6 38.Cxf8 Cxa7 39.Cd7 a5 15...Te8 16.Ad6 Ab7 [ In his notes
40.Txa7 axb4 41.Tb7 . Admittedly this Gleizerov suggested the ingenious
f i na l p os i t io n is r e s i g n a b l e a n ywa y.] 16...Aa6!? 17.Txa6 Dc8 , though it
37.Tab7 e4 38.Tb6 a5 39.Tcb7 axb4 seems White is better after 18.Ta5 Dxc4
40.axb4 The sorry knight on b8 cannot be 19.Dd2 , intending Bd6-c5 and Rf1-a1.]
saved. 17.Ac5 Db8 18.Axd4 Axd4 19.Dxd4
1-0 Cxb4 20.Cd6!? [ Once again White is
fishing in troubled waters, and on this
occasion it pays off big time. After
E.Gleizerov 20.Axb7 Dxb7 21.Cd6 Black has the
I.Tsesarsky excellent resource of Ted8! 22.Dxg7+
[Nigel Davies] Rxg7 23.Cxb7 Td2 with enough
counterplay for a draw.] 20...Axg2??
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 Ae7 Did Black miss the fact that after White's
5.Cf3 0-0 6.Dc2 Ca6!? [ 6...Cc6 7.0-0 next move he's threatened with mate on
Cb4 8.Dd1 would come to the same g7? Or did he assume that White had to
thing. ] 7.0-0 Cb4 8.Dd1 dxc4 recapture the bishop on g2, allowing ...
[ In R.Vera-J.Vilela, Cuba Ch. 1985, N b 4 - c 2 ? E i t h e r w a y , t h i s m o v e is a
Black varied with 8...c5 , but didn't entirely blunder. [ The right way to play it was via
solve his opening problems there either. 20...Td8! , when 21.Dxb4 ( 21.Axb7
The game continued 9.a3 Ca6 10.cxd5 i s a n s w e r e d b y Dxb7! ) 21...Axg2
Cxd5 11.Cc3 Cac7 12.Cxd5 Cxd5 22.Dxb8 Taxb8 23.Cxf7 ( 23.Rxg2 Txd6
13.dxc5 Axc5 14.e4 ( 14.Ce5!? 24.Txa7 Td2 is a dead draw) 23...Axf1!
looks like another promising approach) 24.Cxd8 Axe2 25.Cxe6 Txb2 26.Txa7
14...Cb6 15.Dc2 Ae7 16.a4 Ad7 17.Ce5 Af3! and now 27.Txg7+ Rh8 28.Txh7+
Ae8 18.Td1 Tc8! 19.Db3 with ongoing Rg8! ( 28...Rxh7? 29.Cg5+ would be
pressure for White.] 9.Ca3 c5 10.Cxc4 good for White) 29.Tg7+ is an unusual
V.Gavrikov-J.Speelman, 3rd matchgame, draw by perpetual check.] 21.Cxe8 Dxe8
London 1985, was agreed drawn at this 22.Tfc1! [ The terrible truth becomes
point, though this was more because of clear: after 22.Tfc1 Cc6 23.Da4 Ad5
the match situation than the position. White wins a whole piece with 24.e4 . ]
10...b5 [ This sharp move doesn't work out 1-0
t oo we l l ; b u t e ve n a ft e r t h e s e n si b l e
10...Cc6 White has a clear advantage with
11.dxc5 Axc5 12.Db3 . ] 11.Cfe5! Cfd5 O.Kalinin
[ 11...Tb8? 12.a3! would attack the crucial J.Zeberski
defender of the c6-square.] 12.a3 bxc4 [Nigel Davies]
13.axb4 cxd4 [ After 13...cxb4 14.Cxc4
a5 15.e4 Cf6 16.Te1 White would have 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Cf6 4.g3 Ae7
a clear adva ntage because his central 5.Ag2 0-0 6.Cc3 This is quite an
p awn s ar e ve r y st ro ng .] 14.Cxc4?! interesting option for White which can
[ Not bad, but there was a strong case for t ran s po se i nt o lin es cove red in oth er
getting rid of Black's dark-squared bishop chapters. White nonchalantly develops a
with 14.Cc6 , for example Dc7 15.Cxe7+ piece while inviting his opponent to take
Dxe7 16.Dxd4 Ab7 17.Dxc4 gives White on c4.
ongoing pressure t hanks to his bishop 6...dxc4 [ After 6...Cbd7 White has
pair. ] 14...Af6! 15.Af4! Intending Bf4-d6- a n o t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g o p t i o n i n 7.Dd3!?
c5, when the d4-pawn would be very hard , f o r e x a m p l e c5 ( 7...c6 8.0-0
Learn Tatics step by step 31
is covered in Chapter 7) 8.cxd5 Cxd5
9.0-0 Cb4 10.Db1 Cf6 11.dxc5 Axc5
12.Ag5 Cbd5 13.Cxd5 exd5 14.Dc2
gave White a nagging edge in A.Karpov-
A.Sokolov, Brussels 1988.] 7.Ce5 [ 7.0-0
would transpose into the 7 Nc3 line in
t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r .] 7...Cc6
[ This is the same concept as in the 6 0-0
dxc4 7 Ne5 line, again covered in the last
c h a p t e r , bu t t h e f a c t t h a t W hi t e h a s
played Nc3 instead of 0-0 means there are
some differences. 7...c5 is examined in
the next game.] 8.Axc6 bxc6 9.Cxc6
De8 10.Cxe7+ Dxe7 11.Da4 c5
12.Dxc4 cxd4 13.Dxd4 Td8! This hasn't
been played very much but it looks like a
good m ove. [ 13...e5 has been the more
popular choice, for example 14.Dh4 Tb8
15.0-0 Tb4 16.e4 h6 ( 16...Ab7 17.f3
Dc5+ 18.Rg2 Cd5?! 19.Cxd5 Axd5
was strongly met by 20.g4! Ac6 21.Te1
Dd4 22.Df2 in S.Shipov-A.Goldin,
Russian Ch., St Petersburg 1998) 17.f3
( another possibility is 17.b3!? , when Td4
18.Ae3 Td3 19.Tac1 Tfd8 gives Black
ongoing compensation be cause of his
active pieces and the awkward position
of White's queen; instead 17.Te1 Td8
18.f3? Td3 19.Rg2 Db7! 20.Te2 Ag4!
21.fxg4 Cxe4 22.Txe4 Txe4 23.Rh3
Te1 led to a spectacular win for Black in
T.Markowski-A.Onischuk, Polanica Zdroj
1999 ) 17...Td8 18.g4 Aa6 19.Te1 Td3
20.Df2 Dd7 21.Ae3 Db7 22.Te2 Txe3!
23.Txe3 Txb2 24.De1 h5 25.g5 Ch7
26.h4 Cf8 27.Tb1 Cg6 and Black had a
strong initiative for the sacrificed
exchange in B.Gelfand-R.Ponomariov,
Moscow (blitz) 2007.] 14.Dh4 Tb8 15.0-0
Tb4 16.e4 h6 17.f3 Td3
[ In A.Matnadze-N.Bojkovic, Antalya (blitz)
2002, Black tried 17...Aa6 , after which
18.Tf2 Tdb8?! ( 18...Td3 looks better)
19.g4 Dc5 20.Rg2 Ch7 21.Td2 Cg5
22.Df2 saw White gradually unravel.]
18.g4 Aa6 19.Tf2 Dc5 20.Rg2 Ch7
[ This move has various ideas, such as
bringi ng the knig ht to g6 vi a f8 or
preparing ...f7-f5. 20...Dd4 was another
way to try and keep White tied up.] 21.Dg3
[ A w a s t e o f t i m e . I n s t e a d , 21.Tc2!
makes sense, preparing Qh4-f2, though
Black probably gets enough counterplay
via f5 22.gxf5 exf5 23.Df2 Dd6 24.Dg3
Dc6 etc. ] 21...Cf8 22.a3?! [ This seems
nothing more than a gratuitous weakening
of the light squares. Even now 22.Tc2!
looks like a good move. Presumably White
t o o k f r i g h t a t t h e p r o s p e c t o f Txe4
, but after 23.Cxe4 Dxc2+ 24.Df2 Dc6
25.Ae3 he gets his pieces comfortably
mob ilized wit h approximate e qualit y.]
22...Tb3 23.Tc2?? The right idea but in
the wrong tactical setting. What follows is
a good illustration of the dangers of this
position, whatever its objective merits.
23...Tbxc3! 24.bxc3 Txc3 25.Tf2
[ 25.Txc3 Dxc3 wins material because
26.Tb1 Dc2+ forks the king and rook.]
25...Txc1 26.Txc1 Dxc1 27.Dd6 Ac4
As Black's pieces get coordinated it's only
a question of time before White's game
collapses.
28.h4 Cg6 29.h5 Cf4+ 30.Rh2 Ce2
31.Rh3 De1 32.Dh2 Cf4+!
0-1
L.Psakhis
H.Stefansson
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 Ae7
5.Cf3 0-0 6.Cc3 dxc4 7.Ce5 c5 8.dxc5
Dc7 [ Black has slightly the worst of it after
8...Dxd1+ 9.Cxd1 Axc5 ( 9...Cbd7?!
10.Cxc4 Cxc5 11.Cc3 Ad7 12.Ca5 Cd5
13.Cxd5 exd5 14.Axd5 Tac8 15.0-0 b6
16.Cc4 Ae6 17.Ce3 Tfd8 18.Td1
left White with an edge in V.Korchnoi-T.
V. Pe t rosia n, 3rd mat c h ga me , Cioc c o
1977 ) 10.Cxc4 ( 10.Ad2 Cc6 11.Axc6
bxc6 12.Tc1 Aa6 13.Cxc4 Tfd8
was more or less equal in V.Korchnoi-N.
Short, Hastings 1988/89) 10...Cc6 11.0-0
( 11.Ae3 Ab4+! 12.Ad2 Axd2+ 13.Cxd2
Ad7 14.Cc4 Tfd8 15.Cc3 Rf8 16.Cd6
Tab8 17.0-0-0 Ce8 petered out to a draw
Learn Tatics step by step
in V.Korchnoi-T. V. Petrosian, 9th
mat ch game, Cioc c o 197 7) 11...Ad7
12.Ae3 Ae7 13.Cc3 , for example Tac8?!
( 13...Tfd8 14.Tac1 is only slightly better
for White ) 14.Tad1 Tfd8 15.Af4 Ae8
16.Cd6 Axd6 17.Axd6 and White's pair of
bishops gave him a clear advantage in R.
Scherbakov-R.Gavriliuk, USSR 1988.]
9.Cxc4 [ Not 9.c6?! Cxc6 10.Cxc6 bxc6
11.Da4 b e c a u s e o f Cd5! and Black
obtained strong play in E.Kristiansen-B.
Parma, Havana Olympiad 1966.] 9...Axc5
[ This entails the risky win of a pawn. A
more solid option is 9...Dxc5 , though
Black needs to defend accurately here.
For example 10.Db3 Cc6 11.Ae3 Cd4
( 11...Dh5?! 12.h3 Ca5 13.Cxa5 Dxa5
14.0-0 Ac5 15.Axc5 Dxc5 was played in
A.Beliavsky-L.Portisch, Reggio Emilia
1991, and now 16.Tfd1 would have been
t h e s i m p l e s t w a y t o k e e p a n e d g e)
12.Axd4 Dxd4 13.0-0 Tb8 ( 13...Dc5
14.Tad1 Tb8 15.Db5! Dxb5 16.Cxb5
Ad7 17.Cbd6 b6 18.Td2 Tfd8 19.Tfd1
left Black under pressure in A.Beliavsky-
R.Hübner, Munich 1991) 14.Tfd1 Dc5
15.Tac1 Ad7 16.Ce4 Db5 17.Dd3 Tfd8
18.Ced6 Da6 19.Ce3 b5 20.Da3 Db6
21.Cc8 Axa3 22.Cxb6 Axb2 23.Cxd7
Txd7 24.Txd7 Axc1 25.Txa7 Axe3
26.fxe3 b4 and Black's precise defence
had maintained equality in B.Gelfand-J.
Speelman, Linares 1991.] 10.0-0 Axf2+
[ This looks incredibly risky to me, but part
of Bl a ck's pr o blem is t h at he d oesn' t
really have great alternatives. For example
10...Cc6 is well met by 11.Af4 e5 12.Ag5
, controlling d5,; while 10...Td8 11.Af4!
De7 12.Dc2 leaves White with a clear
lead in development.] 11.Txf2 Dxc4
12.Txf6! gxf6 13.Ah6 Cd7!
[ A new move from Stefansson, and by far
the best chance for Black. In B.Ivkov-K.
Robatsch, Vinkovci 1968, Black played
13...Cc6 but succumbed rapidly following
14.e3! Td8 15.Dh5 e5 16.Ce4 De6
17.Dh4 1-0; and in F.Gheorghiu-G.
Varabiescu, Romania 1969, Black lasted
only slightly longer with 13...Dc5+ 14.e3
32
f5 15.Tc1! De7 16.Dd4 f6 17.Axf8 Dxf8
18.Cb5! Cd7 19.Cc7 Tb8 20.Cxe6 De7
21.Tc7 Rh8 22.Cc5 1-0. ] 14.Ce4 [ After
14.Axf8 Rxf8 ( if 14...Cxf8 15.Dd8 )
15.Dd6+ Re8!? 16.Td1 Dc5+ 17.Dxc5
Cxc5 18.Cb5 Re7 19.Tc1 Cd7
Black hangs on by the skin of his teeth.]
14...Db4! [ On 14...Td8 White wins with
15.e3 f5 ( or 15...Rh8 16.Cd6 etc )
16.Dh5 f6 17.Cd6 Dg4 18.Df7+ Rh8
19.De7 etc. ] 15.Tc1 f5 [ As Lev Psakhis
p o i n t e d o u t i n h i s n o t e s , 15...Td8?
is r e f u t e d b y 16.Cxf6+ Rh8 17.Dd3!
Db6+ 18.Ae3 Cxf6 19.Dc3! Dd6
20.Dxf6+ Rg8 21.Tf1! Td7 22.Tf4 Rf8
23.Tg4 etc.; But t he greed y 15...Dxb2
is qu ite a tough nut t o cr ac k, and I
(together with Fritz) can't find anything
better than the complex 16.Tc2 Db6+
17.e3 f5 18.Cd6 Dd8 19.Td2 Ce5
20.Cc4 Cd7 21.Axf8 Dxf8 22.Ce5 Cxe5
23.Td8 , winning Black's queen with all the
winning chances in the endgame.] 16.Cd6
[ Psakhis expressed regret over this move,
p r ef e r r i n g i ns t e a d 16.Axf8 . But this
seems far from clear either, for example
Cxf8 ( if 16...Rxf8 17.Dd6+ Dxd6
18.Cxd6 Cb6 19.Tc7 gives White a good
endgame,; while 16...Dxf8 17.Cd6 Dd8
18.Dd4 leaves Black tied up and
threatened with Qh8+ followed by a knight
f o r k o n f 7) 17.Cf6+ Rg7 ( 17...Rh8
18.Dd8 Db6+ 19.Dxb6 axb6 20.Tc7
is another bad endgame for Black) 18.Dd8
Db6+ 19.Dxb6 axb6 20.Ce8+ Rg6
and Black is still fighting.] 16...Ce5! [ After
16...Td8 there follows 17.Cxc8 Tdxc8 ( if
17...Dxb2 18.Tc2 Df6 19.Dc1
covers the knight on c8 and threatens 20
Bg5 ) 18.Txc8+ Txc8 19.Dxd7 Db6+
20.Rf1 Td8 21.Da4 when White has all
t he c hances.] 17.Axf8 Db6+ 18.e3!
[ 18.Rh1 Cg4 19.Cxc8 Cf2+ 20.Rg1
Ch3+ 21.Rh1 Cf2+ is an immediate
perpetual check.] 18...Dxe3+ 19.Rh1
Cg4 20.Tc2 Rxf8 [ 20...Cf2+?!
is good for White aft er 21.Txf2 Dxf2
22.Ah6 Ad7 23.Dc1 f6 24.Ae3 De2
25.Axb7 etc. ] 21.Cxc8 Cf2+ 22.Txf2
Learn Tatics step by step 33
Dxf2 23.Axb7 [ 23.Dc1!? seems to be
adeq u at ely met b y Dd4 .] 23...Tb8
24.Dd8+ Rg7 25.Dg5+ Rh8! [ And not
25...Rf8? b e c a u s e o f 26.Dh6+ Re8
( 26...Rg8 27.Ce7+ Rh8 28.Df6# )
27.Ac6+ Rd8 28.Df8+ Rc7 29.Dd6+
Rxc8 30.Dd7# . ] 26.Dd8+ Rg7 27.Dg5+
Rh8 An amazing fighting game, brilliantly
conducted by both players.
½-½
V.Bogdanovski
S.Lputian
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 Cf6 4.g3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 Cbd7 7.Dc2
[ T h e m a i n a l t e r n a t i v e h e r e i s 7.Cc3
, a gambit line which is covered in the
next chapter.] 7...c6 8.b3 [ Although this
has been White's most popular move for
many years, I do n't see it as being
particularly testing for Black, especially in
view of Lputian's masterful handling of the
Black side. My re comme nded l ine for
White is 8.Cbd2 followed by a quick e2-
e4,; while 8.Af4 transposes into Chapter 8,
albeit one move earlier, having omitted
the moves . . .Bb4+ and Bd2.] 8...b6
Preparing to develop his queen's bishop
o n b 7 o r a 6 . [ Note that the transposition
into a Stonewall formatio n with 8...Ce4
is not as effective in this position as after,
say, 8 Rd1. A.Delchev-G.Giorgadze, Pula
1997, continued 9.Cbd2 f5 10.Ce1 Cxd2
11.Axd2 Cf6 12.Cd3 Ad7 13.a3! Ae8
14.Ab4 with the better game for White
b ec a u s e of h i s l i g h t s qu a re c o nt r o l.;
On the other hand Black has an
i n t e r e s t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e i n 8...b5!?
, which probably deserves more outings
than it has had so far. A good model of
how to treat this move came in P.Haba-E.
Prandstetter, Czech League 1990, which
proceeded 9.c5 Ce4 10.Ab2 f5 11.Ce1
Ag5 12.Cd3 a5 13.a3 De8 14.e3 Dh5
15.Cd2 Cdf6 16.Cf3 with the better game
for Wh it e. But I wo uldn't consider this
the final word in such a strategically rich
var i a t i on .] 9.Td1 [ White can also play
9.Ab2 , for example Z.Kozul-S.Lputian,
World Team Ch., Lucerne 1997, went Aa6
10.Td1 ( 10.Cbd2 Tc8 11.Tac1 c5
12.Db1 dxc4 13.Cxc4 Ab7 14.dxc5
Axc5 was equal in T.Markowski-S.Lputian,
European Ch., Warsaw 2005) 10...Tc8
11.Cc3 A) White gets the initiative after
11...dxc4 12.Ce5 Cxe5 ( though
12...cxb3 13.axb3 Cb8 is a possibility)
13.dxe5 Cd7 14.Ce4 Dc7 15.Cd6 Tcd8
16.f4 Cc5 17.Cxc4 Cb7 18.Ae4
a s in D. P a u l s e n - B .S c h mi d t, G e r m a n
L e a g u e 1 9 8 2; B) 11...Dc7!? 12.e4
( 12.Cd2 c a n b e a n s w e r e d b y c5 )
12...dxc4 ( 12...dxe4 13.Cxe4 Cxe4
14.Dxe4 is just good for White thanks to
his central space) 13.De2 b5 14.bxc4
b4! ( 14...bxc4 15.Cd2 Cb6 16.a4
will lead to the recovery of the pawn on
c4 with the better game for White) 15.Cb1
Cb6 ( 15...c5 16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 Cb6
18.Ce5 isn't clear either) 16.Cbd2 Ca4
17.Tab1 ( 17.Cb3? is answered by
Axc4! ) 17...c5! 18.Tdc1 ( not 18.d5?
because of Cxb2 19.Txb2 exd5 20.exd5
Cxd5 etc ) 18...Tfd8 19.dxc5 Cxb2
20.Txb2 Dxc5 and Black was better
because of his superior pawn structure
and pair of bishops.; Another possibility is
9.Cc3 Aa6 10.Cd2 ( 10.Af4!? Tc8
11.Tfd1 De8 12.e4 dxc4 13.Cd2 e5
14.dxe5 Cg4 15.Cxc4 Axc4 16.bxc4
Ac5 17.Td2 Cgxe5 ½-½ was far from
clear in A.Beliavsky-Z.Almasi, Groningen
1994; while 10.Td1 Tc8 11.e4 dxc4
12.Ce5 Cxe5 13.dxe5 Cd7 14.Ae3 Dc7
15.f4 Cc5 saw Black doing well in T.
Grabuzova-S.Lputian, Internet blitz 2004)
10...b5 11.Te1 bxc4 12.bxc4 dxc4
13.Da4 Dc8 14.Dxc6 ( 14.Cxc4
is better, though Black can counterattack
with c5!? 15.Axa8 cxd4 which might
have been something White was
concerned about) 14...Cb6 15.Tb1 Dd8
16.e3 Cfd5 17.Cxd5? ( 17.Axd5
was mandatory, though this gives Black a
strong initiative after exd5 18.Cxd5 Dxd5
Learn Tatics step by step 34
19.Txb6 Dxc6 20.Txc6 Ab5 21.Tc7 Ab4
etc ) 17...exd5 18.Ah3 f5 left White
struggling to save his queen in R.
Sukharisingh -R.Vaganian, German
Le a gu e 199 6 .] 9...Aa6 [ This is better
than the passive 9...Ab7 , for example
10.Cc3 b5!? 11.c5 b4 12.Ca4 a5
13.Cb2 Aa6 14.Cd3 Axd3 15.exd3 Ce8
16.a3 was good for White in Y.Razuvaev-
S.Lputian, USSR Ch., Vilnius 1980. At that
dim and dist ant time Lputian was stil l
lea r ni n g h i s c r a ft .] 10.Cbd2 Tc8
[ Black can also try the immediate
10...c5!? , for examp le 11.e4 ( 11.Ab2
Tc8 looks okay for Black) 11...dxc4
( 11...Tc8 transposes to the next note)
12.Cxc4 ( 12.bxc4 cxd4 13.e5 Cg4
14.De4 h5 15.h3 Cc5 left White
struggling in R.Hübner-V.Anand,
Dortmund 2000) 12...cxd4 13.Cxd4 Tc8
14.De2 Dc7 15.Af4 Axc4 16.bxc4 e5
17.Cf5 Cc5 18.Ad2 Ce6 19.Ac3 Ac5
gave Black a solid game in V.Filippov-A.
Galkin, Russian Ch., St Petersburg 1998.]
11.e4 Ab7 Lputian likes to maintain the
tension in this line, arguing that it can be
difficult for White to improve his position.
[ B l a c k h a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e i n 11...c5
, but this leaves him struggling against
Wh ite ' s in i ti a ti ve i n a p o sit io n wit h a
symmetrical pawn structure. For example
12.exd5 exd5 13.Cf1 ( 13.Ab2 Ab7
14.Df5 dxc4 15.Cxc4 b5 16.Ce3 Ae4
17.Df4 c4 18.d5 c3 19.Axc3 Txc3
20.d6 Tc5 21.dxe7 Dxe7 was equal in I.
P o l o v o d i n - S . L p u t i a n , I r k u t s k 1 9 8 3)
13...cxd4 ( 13...dxc4!? 14.d5 Ce8
15.bxc4 Cd6 16.Ce3 Te8 17.Af1 b5
gave Black counterplay in A.Delchev-L.B.
Hansen, Istanbul Olympiad 2000) 14.Cxd4
b5 15.Ce3 bxc4 ( 15...Cb6 16.Dd2 bxc4
17.Da5 Ab7 18.Dxa7 Aa8 19.Cef5 Ac5
was I.Stohl-A.Koste n, German League
2001, when White could have won on the
spot with 20.Ce6! ) 16.Cxd5 Cxd5
17.Axd5 cxb3 18.Dxb3 required great
accuracy from Black in I.Stohl-V.Dydyshko,
Polish Team Ch. 2000.] 12.Ab2 Dc7!?
13.Tac1 [ In N.Davies-S.Lputian, Isle of
M a n 2 0 0 3 , I t r i e d 13.e5 against the
maestro, but after Ce8 14.Cf1 ( 14.cxd5
cxd5 15.Dd3 Db8 16.Tac1 Cc7 17.h4
Aa6 18.Db1 Cb5 was fine for Black in D.
Fridman-S.Lputian, Internet blitz 2004)
14...Db8 15.cxd5 cxd5 16.Dd2 a5
17.Ce1 Cc7 his pieces were getting into
play on the queenside without obvious
progress for White on the other side of
t he bo a rd . I t was t h is ga m e, an d t h e
post mortem that followed, that taught
me about Black's chances in this variation
and Lputian's mastery of it.] 13...Db8
14.e5 Ce8 15.Cf1 [ After 15.h4
B l a c k c a n p r e v e n t N f 3 - g 5 w i t h h6
before launching the traditional
counterattack following 16.Cf1 c5 . ]
15...Cc7 16.Ce3 [ In this position 16.h4
can be answered by Tfd8 17.Cg5 Cf8 . ]
16...Tfd8 17.cxd5 cxd5 18.Db1 Aa6
19.h4 Db7 20.a3 Ab5 21.Cg5 Cf8
Very economical defence, after which it's
difficult to see further progress for White
on the kingside. Having played similar
positions in the K ing's Indian At tack I
d on ' t l i ke t he f ac t t h a t W h it e 's d a r k -
squared bishop is on b2, far away from
the action.
22.Ch3 a5! 23.a4 Ae8 [ 23...Aa6
would also be pla yable here. From e8
t h e b i s h o p c a n o f t e n e me r g e on t h e
kingside after an advance of Black's f-
pawn. ] 24.Da1 Ca6 25.Af1 Cb4 26.Cf4
Cd7 27.Cd3 Cc6 [ Here, too, Lputian is
keeping as much tension in the position
as possible, because he wants to win.
27...Cxd3 28.Axd3 Cb8 29.Aa3 Axa3
30.Dxa3 Ca6 would be rather too equal
for his liking.] 28.Cc2 Cdb8 29.Aa3 Ca6
30.Axe7 Dxe7 31.Cde1 Cab8 32.Ca3
f6!? A pawn lever that is highly
reminiscent of the French Defence. Not
only does Black attack the white centre,
h e ma k es roo m f o r hi s l i g ht - sq ua r e d
bishop to come out on the kingside.
33.exf6 Dxf6 34.Cb5 Ca6 35.Cd3 Cab4
36.Cf4 [ White cannot simplify with
36.Cxb4 Cxb4 37.Txc8 Txc8 38.Cd6
because of the powerful reply Tc2! .]
Learn Tatics step by step 35
36...Ag6 37.Ah3 Af5 38.Axf5 Dxf5
39.Db2 e5 40.dxe5 Cxe5 41.De2?!
[ A slip under pressure. White should
blockade the d-pawn with 41.Cd4 when
Dg4 42.De2 Dxe2 43.Cfxe2 Ced3
44.Tc3 seems to hold.] 41...Txc1 42.Txc1
d4! 43.Td1 d3 44.De3 Dg4 45.Cc3
Cf3+ 46.Rg2?! [ I get the impression that
the clock might have been playing its part
here. 46.Rf1 was a better try.] 46...Cxh4+
47.Rf1? [ And 47.Rh2 was better here,
though Black would still be well on top. A
sample line is Cf3+ 48.Rg2 Cg5 49.f3
Df5 with ongoing pressure.] 47...Cf3?!
[ Not the best. Black should play 47...Tf8
, when 48.De6+ Dxe6 49.Cxe6 Tc8
50.Cb5 Cf3 leaves him with an extra
pawn. ] 48.Rg2? [ 48.Dxb6 was correct,
regaining the pawn while retaining the
po ssi b i li t y o f t r ad i n g q ue en s wi th 4 9
Qe6+. ] 48...Cg5 49.Cxd3 Tf8?
[ Missing an immediate win with 49...Cc2!
50.Df4 Dh3+ 51.Rg1 Cd4 etc. Now
White is right back in the game.] 50.Cf4
h6 51.Td2 Dc8 52.Ccd5 Cxd5 53.Txd5
Dc6 54.Dd3 Db7 55.Rg1 [ 55.f3
is also fine for White.] 55...Dc6 56.Dg6
Db7 57.Txg5? [ Presumably White
missed something when he played this
move. Simply 57.Dd3 is equal. ] 57...hxg5
58.Ce6 Tc8 59.Rh2 [ 59.Cxg5 Tc1+
lead s to mat e n ext mo ve .] 59...Df7
The queens must come off, after which
the endgame is hopeless for White.
0-1
M.Umansky
N.Davies
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 Ae7
5.Cf3 0-0 6.0-0 Cbd7 7.Dc2 c6 8.Td1
b6 [ The usual formula, though the early
placement of White's rook on d1 presents
Black with another very interesting option,
which is to play the position as a
St on e wal l Du t ch fo rmat i on via 8...Ce4
. F o r e xa mp l e , 9.Ce1 ( 9.Cbd2 f5!
10.a4?! De8 11.a5 a6 12.b3 Dh5
13.Cf1 Rh8 14.Aa3! Axa3 15.Txa3 Cdf6
16.Ce5 Ad7 17.f3 Cd6 18.Dd2 Tad8
19.Taa1 Ac8 20.c5?! Cf7 21.De3 g5!
gave Black at t ack ing c han ce s on t h e
kingside in R.Naranja-B.Ivkov, Palma
Interzonal 1970) 9...f5 10.Cd3 Af6 11.e3
Rh8 12.f3 Cg5 13.Cd2 Te8 14.Tb1 b6
15.b4 Ab7 16.c5 Cf7 17.f4 g5
with chances for both sides in M.Sorokin-
V.Kosyrev, St Petersburg 2001.] 9.Cc3
[ T h e e xo t i c 9.a4 seems to leave Black
with a number of good options, such as
Aa6 ( 9...Ab7 10.a5 c5 11.a6 Ac6
12.Ce5 Cxe5 13.dxe5 Ce8 14.cxd5
exd5 15.Cc3 Cc7 regrouped nicely for
Black in K.Nika-A.Botsari, Athens 1988;
and 9...a5 looks solid enough too) 10.b3
Tc8 11.a5 b5 12.c5 b4!? 13.Ad2
( 13.Af4 is well met by Ce4 14.Ce1 e5! )
13...Axe2 14.Te1 Aa6 15.Axb4 Ce4
16.Ce5 Cxe5 17.dxe5 Tb8 was very
good for Black in M.Hackel-R.Vaganian,
German League 1999.] 9...Aa6 10.Ce5
I think this is by far the most dangerous
option. After other moves Black seems to
h o l d h i s o w n f a i r l y co m f o r t a b l y , f o r
example: [ a) 10.b3 Tc8 11.e4 ( 11.Ab2
Dc7 12.Tac1 Tfd8 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.Db1
Db8 was fine for Black in C.Collins-T.
Ward, Detroit 1990) 11...dxc4 12.De2 b5
13.bxc4 b4 14.Ca4 c5 15.e5 Cd5 16.a3
C7b6 gave White problems in A.
Shchekachev-T.Wirschell, Antwerp 1996.;
b) 10.Cd2 Tc8 ( 10...b5 11.b3 Cb6
is also possible, for example 12.c5 b4
13.cxb6 bxc3 14.Cb1 axb6 leaves Black
with fewer pawn islands) 11.e4 c5
12.exd5 cxd4 13.dxe6 dxc3 14.exd7
Dxd7 15.Ce4 cxb2 16.Axb2 Txc4
17.Cxf6+ Axf6 18.Txd7 Txc2 led to a
drawn endgame in C.Bernard-M.Godena,
Cannes 1996.; c) 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Af4
( 11.Ce5 Tc8 12.Af4 b5 13.a3 Db6
gave B lac k a comf ort a bl e ga me in A.
Iljushin-A.Graf, Novgorod 1999) 11...b5
12.a3 Db6 13.b4?! Tfc8 14.Dd3 Tc4
was better for Black in P.Govciyan-A.
Muller, Cannes 1999. White should not
Learn Tatics step by step 36
have given the c4-square away as he did
with his 13th move.] 10...Tc8 [ In earlier
games Black took on e5 and found himself
un d er s er iou s p re s sur e , f or e xa mp le
10...Cxe5 11.dxe5 Cd7 ( 11...Cg4
is wel l met b y 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Da4
, for example Ac4 14.b3 b5 15.Da6!
Ab4 16.Ad2 Axc3 17.Axc3 Axe2 18.Aa5
Dg5 19.Td2 , trapping Black's light-
squared bishop) 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Af4 b5
( 13...g5 wins the e5-pawn but would
weaken Black's kingside horribly) 14.e4
d4?! ( this is not good, but after 14...b4
White has many attractive possibilities,
one of them being a piece sacrifice via
15.Cxd5!? exd5 16.exd5 ) 15.Txd4 Dc7
16.Tad1 Cb6 17.a3 left Black in an
unen vi abl e p o siti on in V . Tka chiev-R .
Vaganian, Neum (blitz) 2000.] 11.Da4
Cb8 Despite the retrograde appearance of
this move I did not see a particularly good
alterna tive. I was a lso fo rt ified by the
Reshko-Korelov encounte r in th e next
note, but Umansky had an improvement
ready.
12.b3! [ An excellent move which is far
from easy to meet. In A.Reshko-A.Korelov,
L e n i n g r a d 1 9 6 3 , W h i t e p l a ye d 12.e4
, but then dxc4 ( 12...b5 is not bad here
either ) 13.Ae3 Dc7 14.Cf3 b5
left White struggling to get enough play
for his pawn.] 12...Ce8 [ After 12...Cfd7
White get s the bet ter of i t with simply
13.Aa3 Cxe5 14.dxe5 ,; while after 12...b5
he can try 13.Cxb5 cxb5 14.cxb5 Ab7
15.Dxa7 Tc7 16.Af4 Ad6 17.a4
with so me po werful passed pawns o n
the queenside for the sacrificed piece.]
13.Aa3 [ Black can meet 13.e4 with Cd6
, the point being that 14.exd5 is answered
by b5 15.Cxc6 Txc6 16.Cxb5 Axb5
17.cxb5 Tc2 with counterplay.] 13...b5
[ W h i t e i s a l s o b e t t e r a f t e r 13...Axa3
14.Dxa3 Dd6 15.Da4 ,; while 13...Cd6
14.Ab4 f6 ( or if 14...b5 15.cxb5 cxb5
16.Da3 ) 15.Cd3 dxc4 is refuted by
16.Cc5! . ] 14.Axe7 Dxe7 15.Cxb5!?
[ Umansky is a highly creative player,
here coming up with a really brilliant idea
that cost me months to defend against!
Both 15.cxb5 cxb5 16.Cxb5 Db7
17.Ca3 Axe2; and 15.Da5 bxc4 16.bxc4
f6 are okay for Black.] 15...f6 [ After
15...cxb5 16.cxb5 Ab7 17.Dxa7
White's passed pawns would be difficult
to han dle be caus e of t he pas sivit y of
Black's pieces.] 16.Cxc6! The point of his
previous move; White now obtains three
pawns for the s acrificed pie ce, in a
position in which it is far from easy for
Black to defend.
16...Txc6 17.cxd5 Tb6 [ In this position I
didn't like the look of 17...Axb5 18.Dxb5
Cc7 19.Db7 exd5 20.Tdc1 . ] 18.Cc3 e5!
A good move of my own. Black needs to
keep the d5-pawn where i t is and
blockade d6 with a knight.
19.Tac1 Cd6 20.e4 Ac8 There's no
longer any future for the bishop on a6, so
I made room for a rook or knight to use
this square.
21.h3 Ruling out ...Bc8-g4 while preparing
Kg1-h2.
21...Tb7 22.Da3 Tc7 23.f4 exd4
[ I also considered the immediate 23...g5
, but after 24.dxe5 fxe5 25.f5 Black is
stymied on the kingside.] 24.Txd4 g5
25.Rh2 gxf4 26.gxf4 Rh8 27.Ce2
W i t h h is k i n g f ee l i n g s o me t h i n g o f a
breeze, White brings the knight over in
reinforcement and exchanges a pair of
rooks.
27...Txc1 28.Dxc1 Tg8 29.Cg3 Cd7
30.Td1 [ Not 30.Dc7? due to Cb5 . ]
30...Dg7 31.De3 [ 31.Dc3
can be answered by Dh6 , h it t in g f4 .]
31...Cb6 [ In retrospect I'm not sure this
was the best as the knight do esn't do
m u c h o n t h e q u e e n s i d e . 31...Cf8
was an interesting alternative, one of the
points being the variation 32.Tg1 Cg6
33.Ch5 Dh6 34.Cxf6 Tf8 35.e5 Cxe5
36.Dxe5 Txf6 etc. ] 32.Df2 Ad7 33.Te1
Dh6 34.Te3 [ One of the problems White
f ace s he re i s th a t i f he a dva n ces h is
pawns he makes Black's pieces more
active. For example, in this position 34.e5
Cf5 35.Cxf5 Axf5 36.e6 can be met by
Learn Tatics step by step 37
Cxd5 . ] 34...Dh4 35.a4 [ Here, too, 35.e5
can be met by Cf5 , for example 36.e6
Cxe3 37.Dxe3 Ac8 38.Cf5 Dh5 39.Ce7
Txg2+ 40.Rxg2 Cxd5 etc. ] 35...Cf7
36.Ch1 [ And not 36.e5? because of Ch6!
, suddenly threatening ...Ng4+.] 36...Dh6
[ Black doesn't want to exchange queens
with 36...Dxf2 as his counterplay lies in
the weakness of White's king.] 37.a5 Cc8
38.e5 [ 38.Cg3 Dh4 39.Ch1 Dh6
would repeat,; while after something like
38.Tg3 Te8 39.Tc3 Cfd6 40.Te3 Ce7
Black's knights would start to get frisky.]
38...fxe5 39.fxe5 Cxe5! Getting rid of
Whit e's mon ster pa wns and fo rcing a
draw.
40.Txe5 Dd6 [ 40...Dd6 41.Df4 Tf8
42.Dg3 Tg8 is a repetition. ]
½-½
T.Nyback
S.Lputian
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Cf6 4.g3 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 c6 7.Dc2 Cbd7
8.Cbd2 As I mentioned earlier, I think this
simple plan is a good way for White to
proceed. He simply wants to play e2-e4
and will decide the fate of his queen's
bishop later.
8...b6 9.e4 Ab7 10.Te1 [ Once again a
simple and direct way to play it. Instead,
10.b3 leads to the kind of positions
exa min ed i n Ga me 25 (Bogdan ovsk i-
Lputian), for example Tc8 11.Ab2 Dc7
12.Tfe1 dxe4 13.Cxe4 c5 14.Cxf6+ Axf6
15.Tad1 cxd4 16.Cxd4 a6 was equal in
B.Thorfinnsson-H.Danielsen, Differdange
2008. ] 10...Tc8 11.e5 Ce8 12.cxd5
cxd5 13.Da4 Cc7 Other moves have
been tried here, for example: [ a) 13...a5
14.Af1 ( 14.Cb1!? , intending to put the
knight on c3, looks interesting) 14...Cb8
15.Ad3 Aa6 16.Ab1 Cc6 17.Cf1 Ab4
18.Ad2 f5 was none too promising in V.
Filippov-L. Portisc h, European Cup,
Chalkidiki 2002.; b) 13...a6 14.Cf1 b5
15.Dd1 Cb6 16.h4 a5 17.Dd3 Aa6
18.Cg5 g6 left Black with serious
weaknesses on the kingside in C.Horvath-
I.Vukovic, Zalakaros 2006.] 14.Cf1 b5
15.Dd1 a5 [ In the game Izoria,Z - Agrest,
E, Las Vegas 2003, Black played 15...b4
, b u t a f t e r 16.h4 Cb8 17.Ag5 Cc6
18.Ce3 White was building up nicely on
the kingside without Black having much
counterplay on the other flank.] 16.h4 a4
17.C1h2 Ta8 The first sign that things
aren't going too well for Black. He wants
to play ...b5-b4 but must first defend the
a4-pawn.
18.Af1 b4 19.Ad3 f5 20.exf6 Cxf6
[ 20...gxf6? 21.Af4 would make it difficult
for Black to defend his e6-pawn.] 21.Af4
Ce4 22.Cg5 Axg5 23.hxg5 Cxg5
[ If anything this helps White further
develop his initiative. 23...a3 would have
made it more difficult.] 24.Dh5 Ce4 25.f3
Cf6 26.Dh4!? [ Playing for mate. White
w o u l d a l s o b e b e t t e r a f t e r 26.De5
, f o r e x a m p l e Aa6 27.Axa6 Cxa6
28.Dxe6+ Rh8 29.Tac1 keeps up the
pressure. ] 26...Aa6 27.Ac2!?
[ Still trying for mate. 27.Axh7+ Cxh7
28.Dxd8 Tfxd8 29.Axc7 would recover
the pawn but produce a drawish
endgame. ] 27...b3 [ I suspect that after
27...Cb5 White would have played the
calm 28.Tad1 , protecting the pawn on d4,
while keeping his light-squared bishop on
the b1-h7 diagonal.] 28.axb3 axb3
29.Ab1 h6 [ It's hard to believe that
29...h5 would have been better, but at
least it prevents White's next powerful
move. ] 30.Cg4 Cce8 [ After 30...Cxg4
31.Dxg4 Tf7 32.Tc1 Cb5 33.Ae5
I don't see any good moves for Black.]
31.Axh6! Cxg4 [ Or 31...gxh6 32.Cxh6+
Rg7 33.Txe6 , when Black is defenceless
against the many threats.] 32.Dxg4 Df6
[ 32...Dd7 33.Af4 Cf6 34.Dxe6+ Dxe6
35.Txe6 would leave White a pawn up in
the endgame.] 33.Ag5 Dxf3 34.Dxe6+
Df7 35.Af4 Dxe6 36.Txe6 Ac8 37.Txa8
Axe6 38.Tb8 Winning a vital pawn.
38...Cf6 39.Txb3 Ce4 40.Tb6 Af5
Learn Tatics step by step
41.Aa2 Cf6 42.b4 Rf7 43.b5 Th8?
[ L o s i n g i m m e d i a t e l y . 43...Ae4
w o u l d h a v e b e e n m o r e t e n a c i o u s .]
44.Txf6+! gxf6 45.b6
1-0
T.Tolnai
I.Almasi
[Nigel Davies]
1.g3 Cf6 2.Ag2 d5 3.Cf3 e6 4.0-0 Ae7
5.c4 0-0 6.d4 Cbd7 7.Dc2 c6 8.Cbd2
b6 9.e4 Aa6 [ An alternative to 9...Ab7
, examined in the previous game.] 10.e5!?
[ The traditional way of playing such
positions was to try and lock the bishop on
a 6 o u t o f t h e g a m e w i t h 10.b3
, which lead s back into B ogdan ovski-
Lputia n (Game 25) after Tc8 11.Td1
. Tolnai's treatment is more promising I
think. ] 10...Ce8 11.Te1 Tc8 12.Da4
[ It's still not too late to revert to b2-b3
p l a n s w i t h 12.b3 , when A.Shirov-S.
Azarov, European Club Cup, Kemer 2007,
proceeded c5 13.Ab2 Cc7 14.Tad1 b5
15.dxc5 Axc5 16.cxd5 Cxd5 17.Db1
Ab4 18.Te4!? Ae7 19.Tg4!? Dc7
20.Ce4 Dc2 21.Da1 h5 22.Cd4 Dc7
23.Tg5 Axg5 24.Cxg5 Tfe8 25.Axd5
exd5 26.e6 fxe6 27.Cgxe6 Db6 28.Cf4
Cf6? 29.Cf5 with a massive attack.
Frankly I think that the position after 17
Qb1 was as dull as dishwater for White
and t hat the way things subsequen tl y
erupted was more a function of Mr
Shirov's remarkable abilities than
anything else.] 12...Cb8 13.cxd5 cxd5
14.Cf1 This is a 'new move' from Tolnai,
but I suspect he was making it up as he
went along and just made a logical move.
[ In an earlier game, S.Chloupek-M.
Zlatohlavek, Czech Team Ch. 1991, White
played 14.Af1 , after which Axf1 15.Cxf1
Dd7 16.Dxd7 Cxd7 17.Ad2 Cc7
18.Tac1 Ca6 led to a much easier
endga me for Black, the exchange of a
couple of minor pieces easing his cramp.;
Besides Tolnai's move I think that White
38
has a no th e r in te re s ti ng po ss ibil it y in
14.Cb1 , intending to bring the knight to c3.
After Dd7 15.Dxd7 ( 15.Dd1 Cc6
16.Cc3 is also possible) 15...Cxd7 16.Cc3
, White again enjoys more space in the
endgame. ] 14...Dd7 15.Dxd7 Cxd7
Despite the simplification brought about
by t h e e xc ha nge o f q ue ens, W hi te is
slightly better here. The key factor once
more is his extra space and the possibility
of advancing his kingside pawns.
16.Ad2 Cc7 17.Ce3 [ White could also
play 17.Tac1 , the point being that Cb5
is simply met by 18.a4 Cc7 19.Ce3 . ]
17...Ad3 18.Tec1 a5 [ White can answer
18...Ae4 with 19.Tc3 , for example Cb5
20.Txc8 Txc8 21.a4 Cc7 22.Tc1
with ongoing pressure, but this would
have been a better way for Black to play
it. ] 19.Ce1 Ae2 20.f4 a4?!
[ Giving White the b4-square, though
Black's position is far from easy in any
c as e . Fo r e xa mp l e , 20...Cb5 21.Rf2
Cxd4 22.Ac3 Cb5 23.Rxe2 d4
leaves White with a clear advantage after
24.Ad2 dxe3 25.Axe3 . ] 21.Rf2 Aa6
22.C1c2 Cb8 23.Ab4 Axb4 24.Cxb4
White is clearly better thanks to his strong
knight on b4 and extra space.
24...Ab5 25.Cd1 Cca6 26.Cxa6 Axa6
27.Cc3 Tc4 28.Re3 Tfc8 29.a3 T4c7
30.Af3 g6 31.Ad1 Cc6 [ Attempting to
p r o t e c t t h e a 4 - p a w n w i t h 31...b5
would lead to a total paralysis after 32.Ae2
Tc6 33.Tab1 Rf8 34.Ca2 Re7 35.Tc3
etc. ] 32.Cxa4 Cxd4 33.Txc7 Cf5+
34.Rd2 Txc7 35.Cxb6 Emerging a pawn
up, and the win in sight.
35...Tb7 36.Ca4 d4 37.b4 Ce3 38.Cc5
Cc4+ 39.Re1 Ta7 40.Cxa6 Txa6
41.Ae2 Txa3 42.Txa3 Cxa3 43.Ad3
1-0
Learn Tatics step by step 39
B.Damljanovic
G.Quillan
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 Ae7
5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 Cbd7 7.Dc2 c5!?
An attempt to equalize in the centre which
surfaces now and then, but Damljanovic's
play in this game makes it look rather
unpalatable.
8.Td1 [ In one of my own games I
r e s p o n d e d w i t h 8.dxc5 , N.Davies-I.
Shrentzel, Tel Aviv 1993, continuing Cxc5
9.Cc3 dxc4 10.Ce5 Cd5 ( 10...Ad7
11.Cxc4 Tc8 12.Td1 Ca4 was okay for
Black in J.Flesch-A.Lein, Ordzhonikidze
1964, and this may be a better way for him
t o pla y i t) 11.Td1 Cb4 12.Db1 Dc7
13.Af4 g5 14.Cg6 gxf4 15.Cb5 Db6
16.Cxe7+ Rg7 17.Cxc8 ( 17.Cd6 Ccd3
18.exd3 Dxd6 19.Cxc8 Taxc8 20.dxc4
keeps an edge too) 17...Taxc8 18.Cd6
Tcd8 19.Cxc4 Dc7 20.Dc1 Txd1+
21.Dxd1 f6 22.Dc1 b5 23.Ca3
with the better game for White.] 8...cxd4
9.Cxd4 e5 10.Cf5 d4 11.e3 dxe3
12.Cxe7+ [ White can also play 12.Axe3
immediately, when Te8 13.Cxe7+ Dxe7
14.Cc3 was very pleasant for White in J.
Sylvan-R.Cannon, Copenhagen 2007, due
t o h i s bi sho p s, s p ace an d que ensid e
pawn majority.] 12...Dxe7 13.Axe3 Cg4
14.Ac1 Cc5 15.h3 Cf6 16.Ae3 Ae6
17.b3 Tac8 18.Cc3 b6 19.Td2
White has a nice plus here, again because
of his bishop pair and queenside pawn
majority.
19...a5 20.Tad1 Tfd8 21.g4 Ce8
22.Ce4 Txd2 23.Txd2 f6 24.f4 exf4
25.Axf4 Af7 26.Cc3 Emphasizing the
weakness of the d5-square now that his
dark-squared bishop has been activated.
26...Ag6 27.Dd1 Ce4? Trying to escape
the torture but stepping into a series of
pins.
28.De1 Dc5+ 29.Ae3 Dc6 30.Af2 C8d6
31.Txd6! Dxd6 32.Cxe4 De6 33.Cc3
Dd6 34.De3 Te8 35.Ad5+ Rh8 36.Dxb6
Df4 37.Dd4 Dg5 38.Ac6
1-0
I.Ivanisevic
B.Lepelletier
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cc3 d5 4.Cf3 Ae7
5.g3 0-0 6.Ag2 dxc4 [ 6...Cbd7 7.0-0
c6 8.Dd3 will be examined in Games 32
and 33. ] 7.0-0 Cbd7 Reaching a position
that we'll be dealing with via the move
order 3 g3 d5 4 Bg2 Be7 5 Nf3 0-0 6 0-0
Nbd7 7 Nc3 dxc4.
8.e4 c5 [ Trying to free his game rather
t ha n h ol d o n t o t h e ext ra pa wn . 8...c6
is examined in the next game.] 9.d5
Some other moves: [ a) 9.De2?! cxd4
10.Cxd4 Ce5 11.Td1 Cd3 12.Ae3 e5
13.Cf3 Da5 was good for Black in B.
Khotenashvili-T.Gasparian, Tbilisi 2007.; b)
9.e5 Cd5 10.Ce4 ( it's difficult to believe
that 10.Cxd5 exd5 would offer White
e no u gh p l a y) 10...b5 11.dxc5 Cxc5
12.Cxc5 Axc5 13.Cg5 Ae7 14.Dg4 Tb8
15.Td1 Dc7 left White struggling to
generate enough for his pawn in M.Bach-
F.Hegeler, Hamburg 1997.; c) 9.Af4!?
is interesting, for example cxd4 ( 9...Cb6
10.a4 cxd4 11.Cxd4 a6 12.a5 Cbd7
13.e5 Cd5 14.Axd5 exd5 15.Cf5 Cc5
16.Cxe7+ Dxe7 17.Cxd5 was better for
White in M.Sorokin-E.Pigusov, Voronezh
1988 ) 10.Dxd4 Cb6 ( instead 10...Cc5
11.Dxc4 Dd3 12.Db4 a5 13.Db6 Ccxe4
14.Ce5 Dd6 was V.Ragozin-G.Levenfish,
Leningrad 1936, when 15.Dxd6 Cxd6
16.Tfd1 would have kept a strong initiative
f o r t h e p a wn , e v e n i n t h e e n d g a m e;
w h i l e a f t e r 10...e5 11.Cxe5 Cxe5
12.Dxe5 Ae6 13.Cd5 Cd7 14.Cxe7+
Dxe7 , as in Nguyen Anh Dung-I.Csom
Budapest 1999, 15.Dd6 would also have
bee n good f or W hit e) 11.De3 Dd3
was V.Ragozin-A.Budo, Leningrad 1936,
and now 12.Tfd1 Dxe3 13.Axe3
followed by Nd2 and Bf1 (as necessary)
wou ld r e co ve r t h e p a wn o n c 4 wit h a
Learn Tatics step by step 40
s li g h tl y be t t e r e nd g a me .] 9...exd5
[ Black must be careful to avoid 9...Cb6?
, which loses a piece to 10.d6 Axd6 ( or
10...Dxd6 11.Dxd6 Axd6 12.e5 ) 11.e5
etc. Quite a few players have fallen for
that one! ] 10.exd5 [ White has a
d ang e rou s a lt e rn a t i ve he r e i n 10.e5!?
, for example Cg4 ( 10...Ce8 11.Dxd5
Cb6 12.De4 Dd3 is well met by 13.Ae3
, as Dxe4 14.Cxe4 Cd7 15.Tac1 b5
16.Tfd1 gives White a strong initiative)
11.Dxd5 Cb6 12.De4 ( 12.Dxd8!? Txd8
13.h3 Ch6 14.g4 was also promising for
White in M.Czerniak-A.Lev, Israeli Ch.
1976, the game proceeding f6 15.a4 Cf7
16.e6 Axe6 17.Te1 Ce5 18.Cxe5 fxe5
19.Txe5 Rf7 20.a5 Cc8? 21.a6!
with White winning quickly) 12...Dd3
( 12...f5 should be answered by 13.Df4
, for example h6 14.h3 Ag5 15.Cxg5
hxg5 16.Dxg5 Cxe5 17.a4! is a typical
and strong idea) 13.h3 Dxe4 ( 13...Ch6
14.Td1 Dxe4 15.Cxe4 Ae6 was R.Martin
Canfran-A.Picanol Alamany, Barcelona
2001, when 16.Ag5 Tfe8 17.Axe7 Txe7
18.Cxc5 Ad5 19.Tac1 would have
recovered the pawn with the better game)
14.Cxe4 Ch6 ( 14...Af5 15.Cd6 Ch6
16.Cxb7 Ad3 was played in G.De Fotis-W.
Browne, US Open, Aspen 1968, and now
17.Te1 would have set Black more
problems ) 15.Ae3 ( 15.g4!? is interesting,
to shut the knight on h6 out of the game)
15...Cf5 16.Axc5 Ca4 17.Axe7 Cxe7
18.b3 Cb6 19.Cd4 and White had a
stron g ini t iat i ve i n A. Sk r ip ch e nk o- M .
Congiu, French Women's Ch., Besancon
2006. ] 10...Cb6 [ 10...Ad6 11.Ag5 h6
12.Axf6 Cxf6 13.Cd2 Ae5 14.Cxc4 Ad4
15.Cb5 Ag4 16.Dd2 Cxd5 17.Cxd4 cxd4
18.Dxd4 gave White some pressure in A.
O'Kelly de Galway-G.Stoltz, Dortmund
1951, due to the strong Catalan bishop on
g2. ] 11.Ce5 Ad6 12.f4 [ It doesn't seem
as good to protect the knight with 12.Te1
, for example Te8 13.f4 Af5 14.h3 Ad3
15.Cxd3 cxd3 16.Txe8+ Dxe8 17.Dxd3
De1+ 18.Rh2 c4 gave Black the initiative
in I.Kan-A.Kotov, USSR Ch., Leningrad
1939.; It's also worth pointing out that
12.Af4? loses a piece to g5! , as this has
b e e n p l a y e d i n a t l e a s t o n e g a m e !]
12...Te8 13.Df3 [ This natural and
aggressive move seems to have been a
novelty. Earlier White focused on 13.a4
, for example a5 ( 13...Axe5 14.fxe5 Ag4
15.De1!? Cfxd5 16.a5 Cxc3 17.Dxc3
gave White active play in B.Nikcevic-F.
Van Hasselt, Paris 1994) 14.Cb5 ( 14.h3
h5 15.Df3 Dc7 16.Ad2 Ad7 17.Cxd7
Dxd7 left Black solid enough in K.Miton-
S.Zavgorodniy, Moscow 2002) 14...Axe5
( 14...Af5 15.Te1 Cg4 16.Cxg4 Txe1+
17.Dxe1 Axg4 18.Ad2 was better for
White in M.Petursson-M.Dutreeuw, San
Bernardino 1989) 15.fxe5 Txe5 16.Af4
Txd5 17.Axd5 Cbxd5 18.Ac7 De8
19.Te1 Dc6 20.Ae5 wasn't clear in V.
Rag ozin-L.Rudakovsky, USSR Ch. ,
Moscow 1940.] 13...Txe5!? [ This might
be a bit of an overreaction, though Black
does get some compensation here. Moves
such as 13...Dc7; and 13...Ad7
look solid enough, with play along the
lines of Miton-Zavgorodniy, given in the
previous note.] 14.fxe5 Axe5 15.h3 Ad7
16.Af4 Ad4+ 17.Rh2?! [ In view of the
possible reply, White should have played
17.Ae3 , when De7 18.Tae1 Axc3
19.bxc3 Cfxd5 20.Ag5! Df8 produces a
sharp position in which both sides have
chances. ] 17...Df8?! [ It seems that both
p l a y e r s m i g h t h a ve m is s e d 17...Cfxd5
18.Cxd5 Ac6 , recovering the piece with a
good game for Black.] 18.Tae1 Te8
[ A n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y w a s 18...Axc3
19.Dxc3 Cfxd5 , for exa mple 20.Axd5
Cxd5 21.Dxc4 Ac6 with two pawns for
the exchange and a solid enough
position. ] 19.g4 Cc8?! [ 19...Axc3
20.bxc3 Cfxd5 is still quite playable, and
indeed probably Black's best. After the
passive text Black gradually drifts into
an inferior position.] 20.a4 b6 21.Dg3 a6
22.d6 Txe1 23.Txe1 Ce8 24.Cd5 Rh8?
[ For better or worse Black had to go for
24...Cexd6 , for example 25.Axd6 Dxd6
26.Dxd6 Cxd6 27.Cxb6 Ae6 produces
Learn Tatics step by step 41
an endgame which is probably tenable
with accurate play. Now White crawls into
his guts. ] 25.Ce7 Ca7? [ After this Black
is completely lost. The best chance lay in
25...g5!? 26.Axg5 Cexd6 , at least getting
rid of White's passed d-pawn.] 26.Ae5
[ 26.Df3! intending 27 Qb7 seems even
stronger. ] 26...Cf6 27.g5 Ce8
[ 27...Axe5 28.Dxe5 Ch5 29.a5
wo u l d d e c i s i ve l y u n d e r m in e B l a c k ' s
queenside pawns.] 28.Ad5 Black doesn't
have any good moves and is threatened
with 29 Rf1, amongst other horrors.
1-0
J.Jirka
I.Brener
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 Ae7
5.Cf3 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Cc3 Cbd7 8.e4
c6 Aiming to hold on to the c4-pawn.
9.a4 [ White might also consider just
9.De2 b5 10.Td1 , relying on his central
p a w n s f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n .] 9...a5
Stopping the further advance of White's a-
pawn and 'sealing' the weakness on b4.
But t he re oth er p oss ibili t ies he r e: [ a)
9...b6 10.De2 Aa6 11.Td1 Dc8 12.d5
( 12.Ag5 Ab4! 13.Cd2 h6 14.Af4!? Te8!
15.Tac1 was V.Inkiov-I.Farago, European
Team Ch., Skara 1980, when e5! 16.dxe5
Cxe5 17.Axe5 Txe5 18.f4 Ac5+ 19.Rh1
Cg4! would have been better for Black
according to Farago) 12...exd5! 13.exd5
( 13.e5?! is good f or Black af ter Ce4
14.Cxe4 dxe4 15.Dxe4 Cc5 ) 13...Te8
14.dxc6 Cc5 15.Cb5 ( 15.Ce5!?
is wor t h con side rin g, f o r example Af8
16.Ag5 Cd3 17.Axf6 gxf6 18.Dg4+
Dxg4 19.Cxg4 Rg7 20.c7 Tac8 21.Cd5
etc ) 15...Cd3 ( 15...Cb3 is strongly met
by 16.Cg5 Cxa1 17.Dxc4 Tf8 18.Af4
with more than enough for the exchange)
16.Txd3! cxd3 17.Dxd3 Dxc6!
seems to leave White with nothing better
than 18.Cfd4 ( instead 18.Cg5 Tad8!
19.Db3 Cd5 20.Ae3 was I.Zaitsev-P.
L u k a c s , D u b n a 1 9 7 9 , a n d n o w Ab7!
would have been good for Black) 18...Dc5
19.Axa8 Txa8 20.Ae3 Dd5 21.Df5
, when he is slightly worse in the coming
endgame.; b) 9...e5 10.dxe5 ( both
10.Cxe5?! Cxe5 11.dxe5 Cg4; and 10.d5
Ab4 are quite good for Black) 10...Cg4
11.Af4 ( 11.e6?! fxe6 12.Cd4 can be met
by Cde5 , the point being that 13.f4
i s r e f u t e d b y Ac5! ) 11...Da5 12.e6
( 12.Cd5!? cxd5 13.exd5 Te8 14.h3
is possible) 12...fxe6 13.e5! ( 13.De2
Cge5 14.Cd4! Cd3! 15.Cxe6 Tf6 16.Ac7
Db4 17.Cd4 Ac5! 18.Cc2 Dxb2 19.Cd1
Db3 20.Cde3 C7e5 was good for Black in
V . To p al o v- V . Kr a mn i k, L in ar e s 19 9 7;
w h i l e a f t e r 13.Ad6!? Axd6 14.Dxd6
Cde5 15.Cxe5 Cxe5 16.Tab1 Td8
17.De7 Cg6 18.Da3 e5 19.b4
, as in G.Sosonko-J.Van der Wiel, Wijk
aan Zee 1987, then cxb3 20.Dxb3+ Rh8
21.Tfd1 Ag4 would have left White
struggling to justify his play) 13...Cdxe5
14.Cxe5 Cxe5 15.Dh5 Ad6! ( 15...Tf5
16.De8+ Af8 17.Ae4 Cf7 18.Axf5 Dxf5
19.Tae1 e5 20.Axe5 was good for White
in E. Mochalov-L. Yagupov, Orel 199 9)
16.Ce4 Tf5 17.De8+ Tf8 18.Dh5 Tf5
19.De8+ ½-½ V.Topalov-G.Kasparov,
Sarajevo 2000.] 10.De2 b6 11.Td1 Aa6
12.Af4 Ab4 Black has succeeded in
holding the c4-pawn, but where does he
go fr om here? Th e pro blem is that h e
lac k s a c le a r pl a n. B l a c k h a s t r i ed a
coup le of o t her mo ves : [ a) 12...Ta7
13.d5! cxd5 14.Cd4 Cc5!? 15.Cc6 Dd7
16.Cxa7 Dxa7 17.exd5 exd5 18.Axd5
Cd3 was L.Szabo-G.Forintos, Budapest
1970, and now 19.Ae3 looks like White's
most solid option with the better game.; b)
12...Te8 13.Cd2 Tc8 14.Cxc4 Cd5
15.Ad2 Cb4 16.Ae3 ( 16.Tac1
would keep things going) 16...Cd5 17.Ad2
Cb4 ½-½ was G.Sosonko-P.Van der
St er re n, Dutch Ch., Hilversu m 198 7.]
13.Dc2 [ T h e i m m e d i a t e 13.d5
seems playable here, for example cxd5
14.exd5 e5 15.Cxe5 Te8 16.d6
wa sn 't c le ar in L . Hans e n -S . H a man n,
Learn Tatics step by step
Da n i sh J u ni or Ch . 19 8 8 .] 13...Te8
[ C.Bauer-S.Conquest, Bilbao (rapid) 2004,
provided a good illustration of how White
should handle this type of position, the
game proceedin g 13...Ta7 14.h3 h6
15.g4 Ae7 16.Ae3 Dc8 17.g5 hxg5
18.Axg5 Te8 19.e5 Ch5 20.Axe7 Txe7
21.Ce4 with ongoing compensation for the
pawn. I n t he mai n ga me I do n' t t hink
White chooses an especially good plan.]
14.Td2 [ Hereabouts White starts to go
the wrong way. I think he should play like
Ba ue r in t h e pre vi ou s no t e wit h 14.h3
followed by 15 g4.] 14...Dc8 15.Tad1
Ta7 16.h4 [ Here, too, I prefer 16.h3
followed by g3-g4.] 16...b5 17.Ah3 bxa4
Black is doing well now as White's pieces
a r e a l l a b i t l o o s e . J i r k a d ec i d e s t o
sacrifice the exchange but never looks
like having enough.
18.Cxa4 Axd2 19.Txd2 h6 20.g4 Db7
21.Cc3 Db3 22.Dc1? [ 22.g5
is a better try, but with a material deficit
one can understand White's eagerness to
avoid the exchange of queens.] 22...Cxe4!
23.Tc2 [ And not 23.Cxe4? Dxf3 etc. ]
23...Cxc3 24.Txc3 Db5 25.Cd2 e5
26.Te3 Taa8 27.dxe5 Cc5
[ Black decides that 27...Cxe5 28.De1 f6
29.g5 would give White more
counterplay.] 28.Af1 Cd3 29.Axd3 cxd3
30.h5 [ A f t e r a n i m m e d i a t e 30.g5
B la c k ca n b lo c k t h e ki ng s id e wi t h h5
, so Whit e must f irst p reclude this
possibility if he wants to make a
breakthrough.] 30...Tad8 31.Tg3 Da4
32.Cf3 Dc2 33.De1 De2 34.Dxa5 Ac4
35.g5 White presses on with his attack,
but Black comes first through the centre.
35...d2! 36.Cxd2 De1+ 37.Rg2 Af1+!
38.Rg1 [ If 38.Cxf1 Dxa5 wins the
queen. ] 38...Ah3+ 39.Rh2 Dxf2+
40.Rxh3 Dxf4 41.Cf3 Td3 42.Rg2 hxg5
0-1
42
Jo.Horvath
V.Manole
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.Cf3 d5 3.c4 e6 4.Cc3 Ae7
5.g3 0-0 6.Ag2 Cbd7 7.Dd3 c6 8.0-0
4 g3 Be7 5 Bg2 0-0 6 0-0 Nbd7 7 Nc3 c6
8 Qd3 would be the Catalanesque route to
this position.
8...b6 [ 8...a6 is a solid option that we'll
l o o k a t i n t h e n e x t g a me .] 9.Td1
This is a good way to encourage Black's
b is h op t o come o u t t o a6 . [ Instead, O.
Roma nish i n-K .B i sc ho ff , Ess en 200 1,
f ea t ur e d t h e i n te r e s ti n g 9.b3 a5!?
, after which 10.Td1 Aa6 11.Ab2 b5!?
12.cxb5 cxb5 13.Cxb5 Ce4 14.a4 Tb8
15.Tdc1 Db6 16.Af1 Axb5 17.axb5
Dxb5 18.Dxb5 Txb5 19.Tc7 Td8
led to a draw.; In V.Korchnoi-T.V.Petrosian,
Moscow 1975, White played 9.e4 Aa6
10.b3 Tc8 11.Af4 ( 11.Td1 would lead
back into the main game) 11...c5! 12.exd5
exd5 13.Cb5 dxc4 14.bxc4 Axb5
15.cxb5 Cd5 , with a good game for
Black. ] 9...Aa6 10.b3 Tc8 [ 10...c5
11.e4 Tc8 would come to the same
thing. ] 11.e4 c5 The critical line, though
ot her moves have also been tried: [ a)
11...dxe4 12.Cxe4 Cxe4 13.Dxe4
leads to a typical Catalan position that
can arise from other lines. White is better
because of his extra space, for example
b5 14.Dc2 bxc4 15.bxc4 Da5 16.Ad2
Ab4 17.Af4 Ae7 18.Tab1 left Black
uncomfortably placed in V.Mikhalevski-L.
Ravi, Calcutta 2001.; b) 11...Dc7 12.Af4
Db7 13.e5! Ce8 14.a4! Db8 15.Ag5
Axg5 16.Cxg5 g6 17.g4 led to a strong
kingside attack in D.Yevseev-S.Azarov,
Minsk 2000.] 12.exd5 exd5 13.Cb5!?
An interesting sideline which deserves
more attention. Other possibilities are as
follows: [ a) 13.Ab2 dxc4 14.bxc4 cxd4
15.Cb5 Axb5 16.cxb5 Cc5 17.Dxd4
Dxd4 18.Cxd4 Ca4 19.Cf5 Ac5
( 19...Tfe8 20.Ad4 was good for White in
O.Romanishin-D.Ciric, Dortmund 1976)
20.Axf6 gxf6 21.Td7 Cc3 22.a4 Tcd8
Learn Tatics step by step 43
23.Txa7 Td2 gave Black enough
counterplay and led to a draw in G.Gross-
S.Roy Chowdhury, Prague 2008.; b)
13.dxc5 dxc4 14.bxc4 Cxc5 ( 14...Txc5!?
15.Cb5 Axb5 16.cxb5 Td5 17.Cd4
Ce5!? 18.Dc3 Ac5! 19.Ab2 Td6 20.Td2
Dd7 21.Tad1 Dg4 22.h3! Axd4 23.hxg4
Axc3 24.Axc3 Txd2 25.Txd2 Cexg4
26.Ac6 gave White much the better
endgame in E.Gleizerov-D.Barua, Calcutta
2002 ) 15.Df1 De8 16.Cb5?! ( 16.Cd4
is stronger, with a tiny edge) 16...Cce4
17.Cfd4 Ac5 18.Ab2 De5 19.De2 Axb5
20.cxb5 was E.Gleizerov-R.Perez, Malaga
2 001, a n d n o w j u st Tfe8 would have
given Black fully equal play.] 13...dxc4
[ This seems to be better than capturing
on d4 as White's pieces would then be
very active. M.Petursson-G.Sigurjonsson,
Icelandic Team Ch. 1995, saw 13...cxd4
14.Cfxd4 Ac5 ( 14...Cc5 was played in M.
Praszak-T.Luther, Koszalin 1997, which
Whit e s hould prob ably have m et wit h
15.Df5 , getting away from the bishop on
a 6 – B l a c k s e em s t o b e u n d e r s o m e
pressure here) 15.Cxa7 dxc4 16.Df1 b5
17.Cxc8 Dxc8 18.Af4 and Black had
inadequate compensation for the
exchange. ] 14.bxc4 Axb5 15.cxb5 c4
16.Df5 g6?! [ It's probably better not to
weaken the kingside. In H.Wirthensohn-H.
Eis, German League 1993, Black played
16...Te8 , when 17.Ag5 ( maybe White
c a n i m p r o v e w i t h 17.Af4 , avoiding
exchanges ) 17...g6 18.Dh3 Ce4 19.Axe7
Dxe7 gave him an e xcellent game.]
17.Dc2 Dc7 18.d5 Ad6? [ Black really
shouldn't allow the white knight to come to
c 6 a s i t d o e s i n t h e g a m e . 18...Ac5
was stronger, so as to meet 19.Cd4 with
Axd4 20.Txd4 Dc5 . I would still prefer
Whi te , but B lac k is f igh t i ng a t lea st.]
19.Cd4 Ce5 20.Cc6 Cxc6?
[ Black should probably do anything rather
than give White this supported passed
p a w n o n c 6 , f o r e x a m p l e 20...Tfe8
l o o k s l i ke a b et t e r f i g h t i n g c h a nc e .]
21.dxc6 Tcd8 22.Ab2 Cg4 23.Dxc4
The fall of the c4-pawn is the beginning of
the end. Black will be unable to blockade
the c 6-pawn forever, especially whe n
White sets up threats elsewhere on the
board.
23...h5 24.Ah3 Ce5 25.Dc3 f6 26.Td5
Ac5 27.Tad1 Txd5 28.Txd5 De7
29.Rg2 g5 30.Af5 g4 31.De1 Te8
32.Axe5 fxe5 33.De4 Tf8 34.Txe5
1-0
C.Bauer
A.Timofeev
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Cc3 Ae7 4.Cf3 Cf6
5.g3 0-0 6.Ag2 Cbd7 7.Dd3 c6 8.0-0
a6 [ Aiming for ...b7-b5 is an interesting
plan, not le ast because Whit e cannot
easily bring a knight in contact with the
potentially weak c5-square. Besides this
and 8...b6 (as in the previous game),;
another idea worth noting is 8...Da5 9.e4
( 9.b3 m a y b e b e t t e r) 9...Da6
. V.Mihajlovic-B.Tadic, Yugoslav Team Ch.
2002, continued 10.b3 dxc4 11.bxc4 e5
( 11...Cb6!? ) 12.dxe5 Cg4 13.Af4 Cc5
14.Dc2 Ce6 15.h3 Cxf4 16.gxf4 Ch6
17.f5 with much the better game for White
because of the badly-placed knight on h6.
But as noted, both sides may be able to
improve on this.] 9.Af4 [ Presumably
Black intended to meet 9.e4 with the
M e r a n e s q u e dxc4 ( 9...dxe4 10.Cxe4
Cxe4 11.Dxe4 simply leaves White with a
nice space advantage) 10.Dxc4 b5
11.De2 ( 11.Dxc6 Ta7 12.Af4 Ab7
wi ll win ba ck t he i mpo rt a nt e 4 - pa wn)
11...Ab7 12.Td1 , as in I.Macejovsky-M.
Nabelek, Ostrava 2002, when b4 13.Ca4
Da5 14.b3 c5 seems to gain adequate
counterplay. Nevertheless, I think this is
the c ritical line, as in t he game Whit e
seems to run out of ideas within a few
moves. ] 9...Ch5 10.Ae3 f5
Now switching to a stonewall formation,
more characteristic of the Dutch than the
Catalan. It looks as if Black has lost time,
but White's 'extra' development seems to
Learn Tatics step by step 44
be ineffective in this type of position, what 60.Dd7 Rg6 61.Re2 Af6 62.Dd6 De5
with his queen on d3 and bishop on e3. 63.Dd7 Rg5 64.Df7 Rh4 65.Dg6 Ag5
11.Tad1 b5 12.c5 [ 12.cxd5 cxd5 66.Dd3 De4
would leave White's pieces poorly placed, 0-1
but it's not clear what they're doing on
these squares after the text move either.]
12...Af6 13.Af4 Cxf4 14.gxf4 a5 15.a3 R.Vaganian
b4 Black already has the initiative. Of Z.Gyimesi
c o u r s e W h i t e ne e d n ' t l o s e f ro m t h i s [Nigel Davies]
position, but the opening certainly hasn't
gone well for him. 1.Cf3 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 Ab4+
16.Ca2 bxa3 17.Dxa3 Aa6 18.De3 Te8 5.Ad2 [ By far the most popular reaction,
19.Td2 Tb8 20.Ta1 h6 21.Dc3?! though 5.Cbd2 also merits consideration
[ Th e que en is e xpos ed on c3 . 21.Cc1 (see Game 38).] 5...Ae7 6.Ag2 0-0 7.0-0
loo ks l i ke a b et t er i de a, int end i ng t o c6 8.Af4 Cbd7 9.Dc2 b6 [ For 9...a5
bring the knight to d3.] 21...Ac4 22.Ce5 see th e next game ,; while 9...Ch5
Cxe5 23.dxe5 Ae7 24.b4 Axa2 i s e x a m in e d i n G am e 3 6 .] 10.Td1
25.Tdxa2 axb4 Black is already winning [ It's difficult to get anywhere by just
here, but he faces stiff resistance in his p la y in g d o wn t h e c -f il e , f or e xa m p l e
attempts to convert it to a point on the 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Tc1 ( 11.Dc6 Aa6
scoreboard. 12.Cc3 Dc8 13.Da4 b5!?N 14.Cxb5 Dc6
26.Dd4 Tb5 27.Tc1 b3 28.Tb2 Da5 15.Cc3 Dxa4 16.Cxa4 Axe2 was fine for
[ Black can even play 28...Axc5 29.Dd3 Black in J.Nogueiras-W.Browne, Linares,
Db6 etc. ] 29.Dd3 Teb8 30.Dg3 Rh7 Holland 1994; as was 11.Ac7 De8 12.Cc3
31.Rh1 Txc5 32.Tg1 Dc3 33.Af3 Af8 Ab7 13.Tfc1 Cb8! 14.a4 Cc6 15.Cb5
[ 33...g5! would, paradoxically, have been Dd7 16.Ce5 Cxe5 17.Axe5 Tfc8
a good way to safeguard Black's king. in J. Plach e tka-J. Ambroz , Cz ech Ch .,
After 34.fxg5 hxg5 35.Dh3+ Rg7 F r e n s t a t 1 9 8 2) 11...Ab7 12.Cc3
there's no further danger and the e5-pawn ( 12.Cbd2 Tc8 13.Dd1 a6 14.Txc8 Dxc8
is h a n g i ng .] 34.Dg6+ Rh8 35.Tbb1 15.Tc1 Da8 16.Ce5 Tc8 17.Cxd7 Cxd7
Dd2? This could have spoiled everything. 18.Cf3 Txc1 19.Dxc1 Dc8 petered out to
Time-trouble? equality in M.Mchedlishvili-Zhang Zhong,
36.Dxe6? [ Missing 36.Txb3! , when Manila 2008) 12...Tc8 13.Dd3 ( 13.Dd1
Txb3? 37.De8 Rg8 38.Ah5 Ce8 14.Tc2 g5 15.Ad2 Cd6 16.Tac1 f6
creates trouble.] 36...b2 37.Dxf5 Tc4 17.Ce1 f5 was again fine for Black in U.
38.Dg6 Dxf4 39.e6 Df6 40.Dg3 Ta8 Andersson-E.Bareev, Ubeda 1997; as was
41.Ah5 Te4 42.Dc7 Ta1 43.Db8 Tb4 13.Db3 a6 14.a4 Tc6 15.Ca2 Da8
44.De8 Txb1 45.Txb1 Rh7 46.f3 g6 16.Txc6 Axc6 17.Cb4 Ab7 18.Cd3 Tc8
47.e7 Dxe7 [ And not 47...Axe7? 19.Cde5 h6 in J.Smejkal-A.Yusupov,
b ec a u se o f 48.Axg6+ Dxg6 49.Dxe7+ Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988) 13...a6
Rg8 50.Dd8+ Rf7 51.Dd7+ Rf8 52.Dd8+ 14.a4 Tc6 15.Tc2 Da8 16.Tac1 Tfc8
Rg7 53.De7+ Rh8 54.Df8+ Rh7 17.Cd2 Ab4 18.Ca2 Txc2 19.Txc2 Ae7
55.De7+ etc with a draw by repetition.] and Black had no problems whatsoever in
48.Dxg6+ Rh8 49.Ag4 Dh7 50.Df6+ A.Wojtkiewicz-Y.Seirawan, Tilburg 1992.;
Ag7 51.Dd8+ Dg8 52.Dd6 Txg4! Another possibility is 10.Cbd2 , as played
53.fxg4 De8 54.Rg1? [ 54.Df4 in G.Kaidanov-A.Ivanov, Chicago 1995.
w o u l d h a v e b e e n m o r e t e n a c i o u s .] The game proceeded Aa6 11.Tfe1 Ch5
54...De4 55.Txb2 Dd4+ 56.e3 Dxb2 12.Ae5!? Tc8 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.Da4 Ab7
57.Dxc6 Db1+ 58.Rf2 De4 59.h3 Rh7 15.Dxa7 Ac6 16.Da6 f6 , and now
Learn Tatics step by step 45
Kaidanov later suggested 17.Ah3! fxe5
18.Axe6+ Rh8 19.Cxe5 Ab4 20.Cxc6
Txc6 21.Db5 , assessing this as better for
White. There are of course many
u n a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s l i n e .]
10...Ab7 [ Black can also play 10...Aa6
, for example 11.Ce5 ( if 11.cxd5 cxd5
12.Cc3 b5! 13.a3 Tc8 with the initiative)
11...Cxe5 ( 11...Dc8 12.cxd5 Cxe5
13.d6! Cg6 14.dxe7 Cxe7 15.e4
was go od for Whit e in Y.Razuvaev-G .
Borgo, Saint Vincent 2000,; but 11...Tc8
12.Da4 Cb8! 13.Cd2! b5 14.cxb5 cxb5
15.Db3 Db6 was fine for Black in V.
Tukmakov-A.Korotylev, G eneva 2001)
12.dxe5 Cd7 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.e4 Tc8
15.Cc3 d4 16.Txd4 Dc7 17.Tad1 Tfd8
18.h4 h6 19.h5 Ac5 20.T4d2 Ae7
21.Td4 Ac5 22.T4d2 was agreed drawn
a t t h i s p oi n t i n A . L a s t i n - V . Y e m e l i n ,
R u s s i a n T e a m C h . 2 0 0 4 .] 11.Ce5
[ W h i t e h a s a l s o p l a y e d 11.Cc3
, but this doesn't appear to trouble Black
unduly after Tc8 ( 11...dxc4 is well met
by 12.Cd2 ) 12.b3 c5! ( 12...Ch5 13.Ac1
f5 14.Ab2 Ad6 15.e3 Chf6 16.Ce2 Ce4
17.Cf4 De7 18.Ce5! Cxe5 19.dxe5 Ab8
20.a4! g5 21.Cd3 g4 22.Cf4 Df7 23.a5
gave White the initiative in M.Marin-R.
Pogorelov, Andorra 1994) 13.cxd5! cxd4!
( 13...Cxd5? 14.Cxd5 Axd5 15.e4! cxd4
16.De2 Ab7 17.Cxd4 gave White a plus
in R.Dautov-Z.Gyimesi, Germany-Hungary
match, Budapest 2004, one of the points
b eing t ha t e5? is met by 18.Cf5 exf4
19.Dg4 Af6 20.Txd7! etc ) 14.Cxd4 ( if
14.d6 Axf3 15.Axf3 Txc3 16.dxe7 Dxe7
17.Ad6! Txc2 18.Axe7 Te8 is fine for
Black ) 14...Cxd5 15.Axd5 Axd5 16.Dd3
Cf6! etc. ] 11...Tc8 12.Cc3 Ch5 13.Ac1
[ Th i s s ee ms to be b e tter t h a n 13.Ad2
. For example, in D.Fridman-A.Yusupov,
E s s e n 2 0 0 2 , B l a c k r e p l i e d wi t h Chf6
, after which 14.e4 c5 15.exd5 cxd4
16.Cc6 Axc6 17.dxc6 Ce5 18.Cb5 Cxc6
19.Af4 Dd7 20.Tac1 Ac5 21.Axc6 Txc6
22.Ae5 De7 23.Cxd4 led to equality.]
13...Chf6 [ 13...Dc7 14.Cxd7 Dxd7
15.e4 dxc4 16.De2 Cf6 17.Dxc4 c5
18.dxc5 Dc7 19.De2 Axc5 20.Af4 e5
21.Ag5 was agreed drawn in S.Ernst-I.
Stohl, German League 2007.; Instead, in R.
Fridman-R.Van der Burght, Dutch Team
Ch. 2005, Black steered the game in the
direction of a stonewall formation with
13...f5 , but after 14.Cxd7 Dxd7 15.Da4
Dc7 16.Af3 White held the initiative, as
Cf6 can be answered by 17.Dxa7! Ta8
18.Af4 etc. ] 14.e4 dxc4 [ In C.Lingnau-I.
F ar a g o , S e n d e n 2 0 0 3 , B l a c k p la y e d
14...c5 , but after 15.exd5 cxd4 16.Cxd7
Dxd7 17.Txd4 exd5 18.cxd5 Ac5
19.Th4 h6 20.Ah3 De7 he could count
himself fortunate that White didn't respond
with 21.Axh6! gxh6 22.Dd2 Ch7
23.Dxh6 f5 24.Axf5 Txf5 25.Dg6+ etc. ]
15.Cxc4 b5 16.Ce3 Db6 17.b3
[ The aggressive 17.f4!? was tried in V.
Filippov-Z.Izoria, European Ch., Istanbul
2 0 0 3 , w h e r e u p o n B l a c k m ig h t h a v e
c o n s i d e r e d t h e i m me d i a t e c5!?
( Instead he played 17...Tfd8 , when the
game reeled on 18.e5 Cd5 19.Df2 f5
20.g4 g6 21.gxf5 gxf5 22.a4 b4 23.a5
Dc7 24.Ccxd5 cxd5 25.Ad2 , with White
havin g t he b ett er of it bec aus e of h is
space. )] 17...Tfd8 [ An earlier game, A.
Wojtkiewicz-Zhang Zhong, Internet blitz
2 0 0 4 , w e n t 17...Tfe8 18.h4 ( I rather
suspect that Vaganian would have played
18.Ab2 , as he does after 17...Rfd8; with
sensible play White should be slightly
better here because of his nice central
pawn configuration) 18...c5 19.d5 exd5
20.Cexd5 Axd5 21.Cxd5 Cxd5 22.Txd5
Cf6 23.Td1 c4 with good counterplay for
Black. ] 18.Ab2 Cf8 19.a4 a6 [ And not
19...Txd4? because of the reply 20.Txd4
Dxd4 21.Ccd5 Dc5 22.b4! etc. ] 20.De2
Cg6 21.h4 Reminiscent of Wojtkiewicz's
play against Zhang Zhong, this kingside
pawn advanc e is going to be much
stronger now that Black has put his knight
on g6.
21...h6 [ 21...Txd4? is still bad due to
22.Txd4 Dxd4 23.h5 Cf8 24.Ccd5 Dc5
25.b4 etc. ] 22.axb5 axb5 23.e5 Ce8
[ Going very passive, but he probably
Learn Tatics step by step
didn't like 23...Cd5 because of 24.Cexd5
cxd5 ( 24...exd5 would give White a
menacing kingside pawn majority) 25.h5
Cf8 26.Dxb5 Dxb5 27.Cxb5 Tc2 28.Aa3
. ] 24.Ce4 c5 25.dxc5 Axc5 26.Txd8
Txd8 27.Cxc5 Axg2 28.Cxe6
This wins a pawn, though the position
gets quite exciting due to the exposure of
White's king.
28...Dxe6 29.Rxg2 Cxe5 30.Dxb5 Cd3
31.Td1 Cf4+ 32.Rf3 [ And not 32.gxf4?!
becaus e o f Txd1 33.Cxd1 Dg4+ etc. ]
32...Txd1 33.Cxd1 Cd5 34.Dc4 Cd6
35.Dg4 Cf5 36.De4 Dd7 37.Rg2
Getting back to relative safety.
37...h5 38.Cc3 Cf6 39.Da8+ Rh7
40.Ce4 Cd5 41.Cg5+ Rg6 42.Da4 Db7
43.Rh2 Cde7 44.Dc4 f6 45.Axf6 Db6
46.Ae5 Dxf2+ 47.Rh3 Rh6 48.Ce4
De1? [ This could have lost immediately.
48...Dg1 was better, though Black is still
. just a p awn do wn af t er 49.Da6+ g6
50.Da1 . ] 49.Af4+? [ White could have
saved himself a lot of trouble with 49.De6+
g6 50.Af4+ Rg7 51.De5+ Rf8 ( or
51...Rg8 52.Cf6+ ) 52.Db8+ Rf7
( 52...Rg7 53.Ae5+ leads to mate next
move ) 53.Cg5+ Rg7 54.Ae5+
etc. He eventually brings home the point
a n ywa y, b u t wi t h c o n s i d e ra b l y mo r e
effort. ] 49...Rh7 50.Cg5+ Rh8 51.Rg2
Db1 52.Da4 Dc2+ 53.Rh3 Dc8 54.Dc4
Db7 55.Rh2 Db6 56.Rg2 Db7+ 57.Rf2
Db6+ 58.Rf1 Db7 59.Re1 Dh1+ 60.Rd2
Dg2+ 61.Rc1 Cc6? [ Black should have
tried 61...Cxg3 . Is White still winning
here? I don't know.] 62.De4 Df1+ 63.Rb2
Df2+ 64.Rb1 Dg1+? [ It would have been
better to play 64...Df1+ , though White's
king gets to run away via 65.Rc2 Df2+
66.Rc3 Dc5+ 67.Rd3 Db5+ 68.Dc4
etc. ] 65.Ac1 Cce7 66.Da8+ Cg8 67.Df3
Dxg3? [ Losing on the spot. 67...Cfh6
w o u l d h a v e b e e n m o r e t e n a c i o u s .]
68.Cf7+ Rh7 69.Dxf5+ g6 70.Cg5+
1-0
46
B.Gelfand
G.Kamsky
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 Ab4+
5.Ad2 Ae7 6.Ag2 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Af4
Cbd7 9.Dc2 a5!? A somewhat bizarre-
looking semi-waiting move, with which
Black keeps options of ...b7-b6 plans, a
stonewall formation with ...Nh5 and ...f7-f5,
or a queenside expansion via ...b7-b5.
10.Td1 [ In P.Eljanov-K.Asrian, Russian
Team Ch. 2008, White played 10.Cbd2
, b u t a f t e r Ch5 could then only drop his
bishop back to e3 rather than the neater
c1-square. The game continued 11.Ae3
b6 ( 11...f5!? seems playable here)
12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Ce5 , and now Black
might have considered Cxe5 14.dxe5
Aa6 , t h e i d e a b e i n g t h a t 15.g4
can be met by Tc8 16.Da4 b5 17.Dd1
d4 etc. ] 10...Ch5 11.Ac1 b5 12.Ce5
Ab7 13.Cxd7 Dxd7 14.c5 f5
This looks very solid. If White can't find
a n yt h i n g b e t t e r t h e n 9 . . . a 5 m u s t b e
considered very reasonable.
15.Cd2 Dc7 16.Cf3 Af6 17.Ag5 Tae8
18.Dd2 [ 18.Axf6 Cxf6 19.Ce5 Cg4
wo u ld l e ad t o t he p r o m pt e je c t i o n o f
White's well-placed knight. You need more
than a knight on e5 to break through a
s t o n e w a l l .] 18...Ac8 19.Tac1 Axg5
20.Dxg5 Cf6 21.Df4 Dxf4 22.gxf4
Of course White is 'better' in this endgame,
but where does he break through?
22...Te7 23.Ce5 Ad7 24.Td3 Ta8
25.Th3 Ae8 26.e3 Tc7 27.Tg3 Te7
28.Af1 Tc7 29.Ad3 Rf8 30.Rf1 Td8
31.Re2 Ta7 32.Tcg1 Tc7 33.f3 Ch5
34.Tg5 Cf6 35.T5g3 Ch5 36.Tg5 Cf6
37.T5g3
½-½
Learn Tatics step by step 47
R.Vaganian
D.Kalashian
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 Ab4+
5.Ad2 Ae7 6.Ag2 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Dc2
Cbd7 9.Af4 Ch5 10.Ac1 f5 Setting up a
stonewall looks like the most consistent
follow-up, though Black has tried other
m o v e s h e r e t o o : [ a) 10...Chf6
could result in a draw by repetition after
11.Af4 Ch5 12.Ac1 Chf6 etc, though
White can play one of the moves covered
in the previous chapter such as 13.b3 ( or
13.Cbd2 . ); b) 10...b5?! is well met by
11.Ce5! , for example Ab7 ( if 11...Cxe5?
12.dxe5 bxc4 13.g4 w in s a p ie c e)
12.Cxd7 Dxd7 13.c5 a5 14.Cd2 b4
15.Cf3 Aa6 16.Te1 f5 17.b3 Db7 18.a3
Cf6 19.Cg5! Dc8 20.axb4 axb4 21.Ad2
was good for White in E.Dizdarevic-N.
Short, European Cup, Solingen 1988.; c)
10...Ad6?! is answered by 11.e4 dxe4
12.Cg5 Chf6 13.Cc3 , recovering the e4-
pawn with a typical space advantage.]
11.b3 g5 This looks like the move of a
wild man, though with the centre closed
such things are possible . Quite a few
alterna tives have b een t ried here: [ a)
11...Ad6?! 12.Aa3 Axa3 13.Cxa3
costs Black a tempo because his dark-
s qu a r e d b i s h o p m o ve d b e f o r e be i n g
exchanged. The game A.Khalifman-R.Lau,
Dordrecht 1988, continued De7 14.Db2
a5 15.Cc2 Chf6 16.Cce1 b6 17.Cd3
Ab7 18.Tac1 Tfc8 19.Cfe5 Cxe5
20.Cxe5 c5 21.Tfd1 Tc7 22.Cd3
when Black's pawn structure was starting
to look a bit exposed.; b) 11...Cdf6 12.e3
Ad7 13.Aa3 Axa3 14.Cxa3 Ce4 15.Cb1
Ae8 16.Ce5 Dg5!? 17.Cc3 Chf6
18.Tae1 Dh6 19.f3 Cg5 20.Cd3!? Ad7
21.Dc1 Cf7 22.Da3 b6 23.Ce5 Ae8
24.f4 was better for White at this stage in
V.Korchnoi-M.Chandler, Hastings 1988/
89.; c) 11...Chf6 is well met by 12.Cg5
, when Black has to retreat his knight with
Cb8 .; d) 11...b6 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Dc6
looks devastating, though White gets no
more advantage than two rooks for his
queen after Cdf6 14.Dxa8 Dc7 15.Ad2
Aa6 16.Dxf8+ Axf8 17.Tc1 Db7 18.Cc3
etc.; e) 11...b5!? is an interesting line, for
example 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Dc6 Db6
14.Dxa8!? ( 14.Dxb6 axb6 15.Ag5 Ad6
16.Tc1 Ab7 would offer both sides
c ha n c es i n t h e e n dg a m e) 14...Cb8
15.Ad2! Ab7 16.Aa5! Da6 17.Dxb8 Txb8
18.b4! Ad8!? 19.Axd8 Txd8 20.Cbd2
Dd6 21.a3 Cf6 22.Cb3 Cd7 23.Cc5
gave White compensation for the queen in
V.Salov-P.San Segundo Carrillo, Madrid
1996. ] 12.Aa3 [ Logically exchanging
Black's better bishop so as to leave him
with the one that's blocked in by pawns. In
E.Bareev-Y.Balashov, Russian Ch., Elista
1996, White played it another way with
12.e3 , after which g4 13.Ce5 Cxe5
14.dxe5 Cg7 15.Cc3 h5 16.Ab2 h4
17.Tad1 De8 18.f3 hxg3 19.hxg3 Dg6
wa s n' t c l e ar .] 12...g4 I've often seen
stonewallers p lay this move, t he
argument b eing t hat it becomes more
difficult for White to break through with f2-
f3 followed by a later e2-e4. The drawback
is that it leaves Black without any chance
of counterplay on the kingside.
13.Ce5 Axa3 14.Cxa3 Cxe5 15.dxe5
De7 16.Db2 Ad7 17.e3 Cg7 18.Tfc1
h5 19.b4 a6 20.Cb1 h4 21.a4 Rf7
22.Cd2 Th8 23.b5! A key pawn lever,
prising open files.
23...hxg3 24.hxg3 axb5 25.axb5 Txa1
[ If Black does nothing, say with 25...Rg6
, White could just improve his position with
26.Dd4 . This is why he tries to shoot his
wa y o u t o f t ro u b l e , t h e o n ly pr o bl e m
bein g that White has t he bigger gun.]
26.Txa1 cxb5 [ After 26...Dd8
White could play 27.b6 , intending Ra1-a7
followed by Nd2-b3-c5 (or a5), which is
very very nasty for Black.] 27.cxd5 exd5
28.Axd5+ Rg6 29.Axb7 Ce6 30.Ag2
Td8 31.Ta6 Ac8 32.Tb6 Dd7 33.Cf1
Rh6 34.f4 [ White had another powerful
option in 34.e4 . ] 34...gxf3 35.Axf3 Rg6
36.Td6 De8 37.Dh2 Rg7 38.Dh4 Df8
[ Or 38...Txd6 39.Df6+ Rh7 40.exd6
Learn Tatics step by step
etc. ] 39.Tb6 Rg8 40.g4 f4?
[ Letting White's king's bishop into the
g a m e w i t h d e a d l y e f f e c t . 40...Te8
would have put up a bit more of a fight.]
41.Ae4 Rf7 42.Df6+ Rg8 43.Txe6 Axe6
44.Dg5+ [ 44.Dg5+ Rh8 ( blocking the
check wi t h 44...Dg7 would lose the rook
on d8 ) 45.Dh4+ leads to mate. ]
1-0
G.Kaidanov
H.Stefansson
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Cf3 Ab4+
5.Ad2 Ae7 6.Ag2 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Ag5
A very natural-looking move. The only
issue is whether or not it's that effective,
as it can easily lead to exchanges.
8...Cbd7 [ After 8...dxc4 9.Ce5
, White would recover his pawn with a
g o o d g a m e .] 9.Cbd2 b6 10.Dc2
[ In A.Kuligowski-W.Browne, Wijk aan Zee
1983, White chose instead to play 10.Tc1
, but after Ab7 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Ce1?!
Te8 13.Cd3 Ce4! 14.Axe7 Dxe7 15.Te1
Tad8 Black already had an excellent
game. ] Instead of playing down the c-file
Kaidanov plans to gain space with e2-e4,
wh i c h i s u su a l l y t h e mo r e p r o mi s i n g
procedure. But the drawback here is that
more pieces are exchanged, on account
of White's bishop being on g5.
10...Ab7 11.e4 dxe4 12.Cxe4 c5
13.Cxf6+ Axf6 14.Axf6 Dxf6 15.Ce5
Axg2?! [ This looks okay at first sight, but
I'm not sure that this is really the case.
I n s t ea d I s u s p ec t B l a c k sh o u l d p l a y
15...Cxe5 16.dxe5 ( 16.Axb7 Cf3+
17.Axf3 Dxf3 18.dxc5 bxc5 looks more
or less equal) 16...De7 17.Axb7 Dxb7
. It's true that White will be slightly better
after putting a rook on d1, b ut this
position looks easier to defend that the
one Black gets in the game.] 16.Cxd7
Df3 [ 16...Dxd4 isn't good because of
17.Tfd1 De4 18.Dxe4 Axe4 19.Cxf8
Rxf8 20.Td7 etc. ] 17.Cxf8 Txf8 18.Db3
48
cxd4 [ Probably the right decision. At first
sight it looks as if Black can reach a safe
e ndg a m e vi a 18...Dxb3 19.axb3 Axf1
, b u t a f t e r 20.Rxf1 his troubles become
rather evid ent . For example, after Ta8
there is 21.dxc5 bxc5 22.Ta5 Rf8
23.Tb5 intending Rb7, when Black would
not have an easy time of it.] 19.Tfd1 e5
20.Dxf3 Axf3 21.Td3 Ae2 22.Td2 Axc4
[ There was another possibility in 22...d3
, but then White can bring his king forward
with 23.f3 f5 24.Rf2 . It's not clear he
can wi n, b u t ce rt ainly h e h as wh at
chances that are going.] 23.Te1 f6 24.f4
Axa2 25.fxe5 fxe5 26.Txe5 Td8 27.Te4
d3 28.Ta4 Ab3 29.Txa7 Now it's clear
that White is on top. Where did Black go
wrong? Move 15 perhaps?
29...Ac2 30.Tc7 Td5 31.Rf2 Te5 32.Rf3
h6 33.Tc4 Tb5 34.b4 Te5 35.Te4 Td5
36.Re3 Rh7 37.Td4 Te5+ 38.Te4 Td5
39.Tc4 Tf5 40.Rd4 Tf6 41.Rc3 Rg6
42.Tc7 Tf5 [ 42...Rh7 would have been
more tenacious as now White gets a pair
of rooks off.] 43.Tc6+ Tf6 44.Txf6+ Rxf6
45.Tf2+ Black won't be able to defend
both the b6-pawn and his kingside.
1-0
M.Carlsen
O.Stubberud
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Cf3 Ab4+
5.Cbd2 0-0 6.Ag2 dxc4 One of several
moves that Black can try. The others are
as follows: [ a) 6...b6 7.0-0 Ab7 8.cxd5
exd5 ( 8...Axd5 9.Dc2 Axd2 10.Axd2
Cc6 was tried in Kir.Georgiev-B.
Abramovic, Yugoslav Team Ch. 2002, and
now the most economical move is
probably 11.Ac3 with the better game for
White because of his bishop pair) 9.Ce5
Te8 ( 9...Ad6 10.Cdf3 c5 11.b3 Ca6
12.Ab2 Tc8 13.Tc1 Tc7 14.Te1 Te8
was J.Ehlvest-J.Timman, Manila Olympiad
1 9 9 2 , w h e n 15.e3 was probably best;
Black's position is probably h arder t o
Learn Tatics step by step 49
p l a y b e c au s e o f t h e re s p o n si b i l i t i e s
imposed by his hanging pawns, though it's
not clear that he's worse here) 10.Cdc4
h6 11.a3 Af8 12.b4 Ce4 13.Ce3 Cd7
14.Ab2 Ad6 15.f3! Cef6 16.f4
gave White the initiative in D.Gurevich-L.
Psakhis, Beersheba 1993.; b) 6...c5
7.dxc5 Axc5 8.0-0 Cc6 9.a3 a5 10.cxd5
exd5 11.Cb3 Ab6 12.Cbd4 Te8 13.b3
( 13.Ae3 can be met by the dangerous
Txe3!? , as in A.Raetsky-V.Tukmakov,
Biel 1994; Najdorf was probably aware of
this when he played 13.Te1 in M.Najdorf-
C.Merlo, Argentine Ch., Buenos Aires
1960, with White having the better game
after Ce4 14.Ae3 Ag4 15.Dd3 Cd6
16.Cxc6 bxc6 17.Axb6 Dxb6 18.Dd4 )
13...Ag4 ( 13...Cxd4 14.Cxd4 Axd4
15.Dxd4 Txe2 16.Ag5 gives White more
than enough for the pawn) 14.Ab2 Ce4
15.Tc1 Dd6 16.Dd3 Tad8 17.e3 h6
18.Tc2 and White had some pressure in M.
Petursson-I.Jelen, Ljubljana 1981.] 7.Dc2
Cc6 8.Dxc4 Ce4 Trying to exchange an
e xt r a s e t of m in o r p ie c e s , b ut W hi t e
maintains persistent pressure.
[ A b ett er way t o play it is wit h 8...Dd5
, though there, too, White maintains an
edge b ecau se of his extr a space an d
Catalan bishop. For example, 9.0-0 Axd2
( 9...Td8 10.e3 Dxc4 11.Cxc4 Ad7
12.a3 Af8 13.b4 Ce7 14.Cfe5
gave White a pleasant positional plus in
N.Birnboim-S.Tatai, Israel-Italy match,
Trento 1987) 10.Dxd5 exd5 11.Axd2
Te8 12.e3 Ce4 13.Tfc1 a5 14.Ae1 Af5
15.Cd2 Cf6! 16.a3 ( 16.Tc5!? ) 16...a4
17.Tc3 Ta6 18.f3 h5 19.h3 Tb6 20.g4
hxg4 21.hxg4 Ag6 22.b4 left White with
an ong oing edge in the endgame in V.
Mikhalevski-N.Rashkovsky, Biel 2001.]
9.Dd3 Cxd2 10.Axd2 De7 [ In an old
game G.Shainswit-O.Ulvestad, US Ch.,
South Falls burg 1948, Black tried
10...Axd2+ 11.Dxd2 Dd6 but failed to
equa li ze . Th e gam e co n tinu e d 12.Dc3
Td8 13.e3 Ad7 14.0-0 Cb4 15.a3 Cd5
16.Dc2 h6 17.Tac1 Tac8 18.Tfd1
with W hite having persistent pressure.]
11.0-0 Td8 12.Axb4 Cxb4 13.Dc4 Cd5
14.Tac1 c6 15.Tfd1 Black's game is
solid enough but very passive. Young
Carlsen gradually improves his position in
masterful style.
15...Ad7 16.Ce5 Ae8 17.Cd3 Cb6
18.Dc3 Cd7 19.Da5 Dd6 20.e3 f6
21.b4 a6 22.Cc5 Cxc5 23.bxc5
Black's backward pawn on b7 is
defensible, but in the long term he'll have
t ro u b le d e f e n di n g o n t he o t h e r fl a n k
because of White's extra centre pawn.
Carlsen is in no hurry.
23...De7 24.Tb1 Ag6 25.Tb4 Td7
26.Td2 Tc8 27.h4 Tcc7 28.Da4 Af7
29.Dd1 g6 30.Tbb2 Rg7 31.Tbc2 Td8
32.Da1 Tcd7 33.Ah3 Td5 34.e4 T5d7
35.Dc3 Tc7 36.a3 Df8 37.Td3 De7
38.Te2 Tcd7 39.Tee3 Tc7 40.f4 Df8
41.Te1 Rg8 42.Rh2 Te8 43.Tde3 Tce7
44.T1e2 e5 Finally Black's nerve goes
and he tries t o do somet hing, so that
White's advantage crystallizes into direct
pressure on the kingside.
45.dxe5 fxe5 46.f5 Td8 47.Tf3 Td4
48.fxg6 hxg6 49.Tef2 De8 [ After
49...Txe4? there follows 50.Txf7! Txf7
51.Ae6 etc. ] 50.De3 Rg7?! [ 50...Ac4
was a better try, but probably forlorn after
51.Tf6 i n t e n d i n g 5 2 Q g 5 .] 51.h5!
White is crawling in with Rf6 and Qg5,
and there's not a thing Black will be able
to do about it.
1-0
V.Ivanchuk
E.Alekseev
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 d5 2.d4 Cf6 3.c4 e6 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 Ab4+ 6.Ad2 a5 7.0-0
[ A n o n c h a l a n t r e p l y . F o r 7.Dc2
s e e t h e n e x t g a m e .] 7...0-0
[ Black shouldn't try defending the c4-
pawn bef o re Whit e spe nds a move t o
attack it. After 7...b5? 8.a4! Axd2 ( 8...c6
is met by 9.axb5 Axd2 10.Cfxd2! )
9.Cfxd2 Ta7 10.axb5 Dxd4 11.Ca3 Ab7
Learn Tatics step by step
12.Axb7 Txb7 13.Cdxc4 White was
clearly better in P.Genov-J.Kuzev,
B u l g ar ia n C h . 1 9 9 5 .; In A.Shirov-V.
Korchnoi, Carlsbad 2007, Black played it
in another way with 7...Cc6 8.e3 0-0
9.De2 e5 , b u t a f t e r 10.Cxe5 Cxe5
11.dxe5 Cg4 12.f4 Af5 ( if 12...Dd3
13.Dxd3 cxd3 14.Cc3 Ac5 15.Tae1
, followed by h2-h3 and g3-g4, will shut
out Black's h6-knight) 13.e4 Dd4+
14.Rh1 Ac8 15.Cc3 Td8
( a n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y i s 15...Ac5
, but this too doesn't look promising for
Black af ter, for exa mple 16.h3 Cf2+
17.Rh2 Td8 18.Cd5 Dxb2 19.Tfb1 Da3
20.Dxc4 etc ) 16.Tad1 Axc3 17.bxc3 Dd3
18.Af3 Dxe2 19.Axe2 White had a clear
a d v a n t a g e .] 8.Ag5 [ Black can meet
8.Dc2 with b5 , for example 9.a4 bxa4
10.Txa4 Ab7 11.Axb4 axb4 12.Txa8
Axa8 13.Cbd2 c5 14.dxc5 Da5 15.Dxc4
Ad5 16.Dd4 Td8 17.Cc4 Axc4 18.Dxc4
Tc8 19.Cd4 Txc5 saw Black equalize in
A.Karpov-J.Piket, 4th matchgame, Monte
Carlo 1999.; Another high-level game, E.
Bareev-V.Kramnik, Monte Carlo (rapid)
2005, varied with 8.Cc3 Cc6 9.a3 Axc3
10.Axc3 Cd5 11.Ad2 b5 12.e4 Cb6
13.Ae3 Ab7 14.Dc2 Ce7 15.Tad1
, W h it e ha vin g c o mp en s a ti on f or t h e
pawn. ] 8...b5 9.a4 [ Logical, but not the
o n l y m o ve . I n V . K r a m n i k - D . N a va r a ,
Prague (rapid) 2008, White played 9.Ce5
, after which Ta6 10.a4 bxa4?! ( 10...c6
is probably better, tran sposing into
Buhmann-Bartel in the next note) 11.Cxc4
Cbd7 12.Cc3 c5 13.Cxa4 h6 14.Ad2
Dc7 15.Af4 left him with an excellent
game. ] 9...c6 10.Cc3
[ Another interesting possibility is 10.Ce5!?
, opening the Catalan diagonal. After Ta6
11.Cc3 h6 12.Axf6 gxf6 13.Cg4 e5
14.e3 Rg7 15.h3 Axc3 16.bxc3 De7
17.Dc2 a double-edged position arose in
the game R.Buhmann-M.Bartel, Polanica
Zd roj 2 00 7.] 10...Db6 11.Axf6 gxf6
12.axb5 cxb5 13.d5 Td8?!
[ This is incorrect as White stands clearly
better after his re ply. Black s hould
50
p r o b a b l y p l a y 13...e5 , despite the
a pp a re n t l y vul n e r a b il i t y o f h i s k i n g .]
14.Dd4! Dxd4 [ On 14...Cd7
there follows 15.dxe6 fxe6 ( 15...Dxe6
16.Dh4 threatens Nf3-d4) 16.Dg4+ Rh8
17.Cg5 , winning material.] 15.Cxd4 Ta6
16.Cdxb5 Tb6 17.Tfd1 e5 18.Ca3
Aa6?! [ After this White's advantage
incre a ses. Bl ack s ho u ld p ro b ab ly t r y
18...Axa3 19.Txa3 Txb2 20.Txa5 Tc2
, when he has better drawing chances
than in the game.] 19.Ca4 Tb7 20.Tdc1
Tc7 21.e4 f5 22.exf5 Cd7 23.Af1 Tdc8
24.Cc2 Af8 25.Ce3 e4 [ Maybe 25...Cc5
wo uld ha ve be en bet ter, t hou gh aft er
26.Cxc5 Txc5 27.f6 White would be well
in control.] 26.Cc3 Cc5 27.Td1 Cb3
28.Ta4 Ab4 29.d6 Tb7 [ On 29...Tc6
White could even play 30.Txb4! axb4
31.Ccd5 as at least a couple of things will
be forked by the move Nd5-e7.] 30.Ccd5
Rf8 31.Cxb4 Ab5 32.Ta2 axb4
33.Axc4! The loss of this vital pawn spells
the beginning of the end. Black can't take
t wic e on c4 bec a u se W hit e's d-p aw n
would queen.
33...Axc4 34.Cxc4 Rg7 35.Ce3 Td8
36.Td5 Tb6 37.Ta4 [ 37.d7! was also
very strong.] 37...Cc1!? [ Trying for some
counterplay rather than going meekly to
his doom. 37...Tbxd6 38.Txd6 Txd6
39.Txb4 leaves Black two pawns down
with little hope of a swindle.] 38.Cc4 Tb7
39.Tc5 Cd3 40.Tc7 Tb5 41.g4 Td5
42.Taa7 Tf8 43.h4 h5 44.g5 Ce1
45.f6+ Rg6 46.Rh2 Tf5 47.Ta5 Txf2+
48.Rg1 e3 49.Ce5+ Rh7 50.Txf7+ Txf7
51.g6+ [ And not 51.Cxf7?? Cf3+ 52.Rh1
Th2# . ] 51...Rh6 52.gxf7 Txf6 53.d7
1-0
V.Kramnik
V.Topalov
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 d5 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 Ab4+ 6.Ad2 a5 It's interesting
that Topalov should play a line that
Learn Tatics step by step 51
Kramnik has also used as Black. David
Bronstein first tried this tactic in his 1951
encounter with Mikhail Botvinnik.
7.Dc2 [ Varying from 7.0-0 which featured
in the previous game.; Another move White
m i g h t w a n t t o c o n s i d e r i s 7.Ca3!?
, f o r e x a m p l e Axa3 8.bxa3 0-0
( P s a k h i s l a t e r s u g g e s t e d 8...a4!?
t o st o p W hit e und ermi n i ng t he bl a ck
queenside wit h a3 - a4 him self ; as th e
cliché goes, it deserves tests) 9.Dc2 b5
10.a4 c6 11.Tb1 Aa6 12.a3! Cbd7
13.0-0 Tb8 14.Tfd1 Db6 15.e4 h6
16.Ac3 gave White good compensation for
the pawn in M.Marin-L.Psakhis, Internet
( r a p i d ) 2 0 0 5 .] 7...Axd2+ [ 7...Cc6
b ri n g s a b o u t a p o s i t i o n t h a t is mo r e
freque ntly re ached via a Bogo-India n
move order (3...Bb4+ 4 Bd2 a5 5 g3 d5 6
Bg2 Nc6 7 Qc2 dxc4) and represents a
reason able alternative for Black. After
8.Dxc4 Dd5 9.Dd3 0-0 ( 9...De4
10.Dxe4 Cxe4 11.Axb4 Cxb4 12.0-0!
wa s go od f or W hit e in A .B e liavsk y-L .
Ljubojevic, Linares 1991, the point being
that Cc2 13.Ce1! Cxa1 14.Axe4
leaves the knight on a1 trapped) 10.Cc3
Dh5 11.a3 Axc3 12.Axc3 b6 13.0-0
Aa6 14.Dc2 Tac8 15.Tfe1 Ce7 16.e4
favoured White because of his space and
bishop pair in A.Chernin-A.Yermolinsky,
Chicago 1998.] 8.Dxd2!? [ It looks odd to
spend another tempo moving the queen,
but there's method to this madness. After
the natural 8.Cbxd2 Black can hold on to
his extra pawn with b5 , though admittedly
this position offers White compensation.
B.Avrukh-P.Eljanov, Calvia Olympiad 2004,
continued 9.a4 c6 10.b3 cxb3 11.Cxb3
0-0 12.0-0 Aa6 13.Cc5 Cbd7 14.Tfd1
with ongoing play for the pawn, though
not sufficient for more than a draw.] 8...c6
[ In A.Wojtkiewicz-B.Gulko, US Ch., San
D i e g o 2 0 0 6 , B l a c k p l a y e d 8...b6
, b u t a f t e r 9.Ce5 Ta7 10.Ca3 Ab7
11.Axb7 Txb7 12.Caxc4 White was
better because of his superior
development and extra centre pawn.] 9.a4
b5 10.axb5 cxb5 11.Dg5 Recovering
Learn Tatics step by step
his pawn by forking g7 and b5. Cxe5 21.Txb5 Cxd3 22.exd3 Td8
11...0-0 [ This is certainly the natural ( 22...a4 23.Ta3 Cd7 24.Ac6 Cf6
decision, making sure his king gets to 25.Tb4 Td8 26.Taxa4 Txa4 27.Txa4
safety. But there was a case for keeping was better for Whit e in E.Gleizerov-T.
the queenside intact, say with 11...b4!? Luther, Rumanian Team Ch. 2007) 23.d5
. After 12.Dxg7 Tg8 13.Dh6 Ab7 a4 24.Ta3 Cd7 25.dxe6 fxe6 26.Tb4
Black has active piece play to compensate Cf6 27.Ac6 Ta6 28.Tc4 Cd7 29.Ab7
for his vulnerable king.] 12.Dxb5 Aa6 Td6 with enough counterplay for equality.]
[ At the time of the game this was a new 19...Cbd7 20.Cec4 [ 20.Cxd7
move, though it has subsequently been doesn't look like much f or Whit e after
t r i e d b y se v e r a l o t h e r p l a ye rs . I n A . Axd7 21.Ta3 and now g5!? , which is
Grischuk-A.Moiseenko, Russian Team Ch. similar to Topalov's 21...g5 in the game.]
2006, Black played the dubious 12...Ca6?! 20...Tb8 21.Tfb1 [ Capturing on a5 would
, after which 13.Dxc4 Cb4 14.Db3 e5 be ver y draw ish a f ter 21.Txa5 Txa5
15.Cxe5 Tb8 16.0-0 Dxd4 17.Txa5 22.Cxa5 Axe2 23.Axe2 Txb2 etc.;
left White on top.] 13.Da4 [ Faced with a In V .P ot kin-E .Rom anov, Krasn oyarsk
new move over the board, Kramni k 2007, White tested a different square for
understandably avoids the sharpest line. his rook with 21.Tfc1 , but after g5 22.e3
In some later games White plunged in with g4 23.Ad1 Ac6 24.Cxa5 Txa5 25.Txa5
13.Dxa5 , but this seems to be rather Txb2 26.Txc6 Tb1 27.Rg2 Txd1
d r a w i s h a f t e r Ab7 14.Dxd8 Txa1! he certainly didn't stand better.] 21...g5!?
15.Dxf8+ ( not 15.Db6? Txb1+ 16.Rd2 An interesting move from Topalov, making
c3+! 17.Rxc3 Cd5+ etc ) 15...Rxf8 16.0-0 room for his king while gaining space on
Ta2 , f o r e xa mp l e 17.Cc3 ( 17.Cbd2 the kingside. It's not going to be easy to
Axf3! 18.Cxf3 ½-½ was E.Postny-T. find a great square for White's bishop.
Luther, German League 2007) 17...Txb2 22.e3 g4 23.Ad1 Ac6 24.Tc1 [ And not
18.Tb1 Txb1+ 19.Cxb1 Cd5 20.Ce1 24.Cxa5? beca use of Ae4! . ] 24...Ae4
½-½ as in D .B lag ojevic-R. Woj taszek, 25.Ca4 Tb4 26.Cd6 Af3!? A sharp and
E u r o p e a n T e a m C h . , C r e t e 2 0 0 7 .] a m bi t i o u s d e c i s i o n t h a t i s t yp i c a l o f
13...Db6 14.0-0 Dxb2 15.Cbd2 Ab5 Topalov's play. Will the pawn on f3 be a
16.Cxc4 Axa4 17.Cxb2 Ab5 weakness or a strength? Certainly it adds
The exc ha nge of queens has bro ught to the tension in what could have become
about a position in which White has one a dull endgame.
pawn island against Black's two, but then 27.Axf3 gxf3 28.Cc8 Ta8 29.Ce7+ Rg7
Blac k has a pass ed a-p awn. W hite is 30.Cc6 Tb3 31.Cc5 Tb5 32.h3?!
probably a bit better, but it isn't much. [ This seems to be the cause of White's
18.Ce5 Ta7 [ In A.Zontakh-O.Chebotarev, coming difficulties. He should have played
Lipetsk 2007, Black played his rook one 32.Ta4!? , when Cxc5 33.dxc5 Cd7
square further with 18...Ta6 , after which 34.Tac4 a4 35.Cd4 gives him a strong c-
19.Tfe1 ( White may be able to improve on pawn to balance Black's passed a-pawn.]
this with 19.Cbd3 , leading to similar play 32...Cxc5 33.Txc5 [ 33.dxc5 is met by
to the next note) 19...a4 20.e3 Cbd7 Cd7 , when the c5-pawn can't easily be
21.Cec4 Cd5 22.Ca3 Ac6 seemed fine defended. ] 33...Tb2 Threatening 34...
for him, at least at this stage.] 19.Af3 Ne4.
[ In subsequent games White tried to 34.Tg5+ Rh6?! [ 34...Rf8 was better, for
i m p r o v e w i t h 19.Cbd3 , and this does example after 35.Tgxa5 Txa5 36.Cxa5
seem to keep rather more pressure than ( and not 36.Txa5? Ce4 ) 36...Ce4 37.Tf1
t h e t e xt . K i r . G e o r g i e v - D . P a va s o v i c , f6 White is completely tied up and can
Valjevo 2007, continued Cfd7 20.Tfb1 only watch while the black king crawls
52
forward. ] 35.Tgxa5 Txa5 36.Cxa5 Ce4
37.Tf1 Cd2 38.Tc1 Ce4 39.Tf1 f6
Keeping White's knight out of e5, just as
in the 34...Kf8 line, but this time White
has a resource.
40.Cc6 Cd2 41.Td1 Ce4 42.Tf1 Rg6
43.Cd8! Had Black's king gone to f8 this
wouldn't have been a problem, but now
Black has to withdraw his rook to defend
e6.
43...Tb6 [ 43...e5!? was well worth
considering, both here and later. I won't
dwell on this interesting endgame because
it is, after all, a book about the opening!]
44.Tc1 h5 45.Ta1 h4 [ 45...e5!?
was possible here too.] 46.gxh4 Rh5
47.Ta2 Rxh4 48.Rh2 Rh5 49.Tc2 Rh6
50.Ta2 Rg6 51.Tc2 Rf5 52.Ta2
White can only wait.
52...Tb5 53.Cc6 Tb7 54.Ta5+ Rg6
55.Ta2 Rh5?! [ Black finally threatens ...
Rb7-g7-g2, but this way of doing it allows
White unexpected counterplay. He should
have played 55...Rh6 , when 56.d5 Tg7
57.dxe6 Tg2+ 58.Rh1 Rg7! 59.Ta7+
Rg6 60.Ce7+ Rh6 61.Ta2 Cxf2+
62.Txf2 Txf2 63.Cf5+ Rg6 64.Cd6 Tf1+
65.Rh2 f2 66.e7 Th1+ 67.Rxh1 f1D+
will be a draw by perpetual check.] 56.d5!
e5 [ Black can probably still play 56...Tg7
, but then 57.dxe6 Tg2+ 58.Rh1 Cxf2+
59.Txf2 Txf2 60.e7 Tf1+ 61.Rh2 Tf2+
62.Rg3 Tg2+ 63.Rxf3 certainly leaves
Whit e wit h th e c ha nces .; Note that
56...exd5 would be bad because of
57.Cd4 , followed by capturing on f3.]
57.Ta4 f5? [ No doubt shocked by the
change in events Topalov misses
57...Cxf2 58.Rg3 e4 59.Rxf2 Tb2+
with a draw by perpetual check. Now he's
losing. ] 58.Cxe5 Tb2 59.Cd3 Tb7
60.Td4 Tb6 61.d6 The simplest way to
win, freeing up White's king.
61...Cxd6 62.Rg3 Ce4+ 63.Rxf3 Rg5
64.h4+ Rf6 [ 64...Rxh4 is met by 65.Cc5
. ] 65.Td5 Cc3 66.Td8 Tb1 67.Tf8+ Re6
68.Cf4+ Re5 69.Te8+ Rf6 70.Ch5+
Rg6 71.Cg3 Tb2 72.h5+ Rf7 73.Te5
Learn Tatics step by step 53
Cd1 74.Ce2 Rf6 75.Td5
1-0
H.Nakamura
G.Serper
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 d5 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 Ab4+ 6.Ad2 Axd2+ Unusual but
interesting. With 5...Bb4+ currently being
quite fashionable, we might well see more
of it.
7.Cbxd2 b5 [ The only logical follow-up.
Af ter e ither 7...0-0 8.Cxc4; or 7...De7
8.Cxc4 Db4+ 9.Cfd2 , White is going to
be better because of his superb Catalan
bishop on g2 and central pawn majority.
Such positions are a joy to play for White,
and even more miserable to defend as
Black. ] 8.a4 [ It seems that Serper has
made a speciality of this line, the game V.
Strugatsky-G.Serper, Los Angeles 2001,
h a vi n g g o n e 8.Ce5 Cd5 9.b3 Ab7
10.bxc4 Cc3 11.Axb7 Cxd1 12.Txd1 f6
13.Axa8 fxe5 14.dxe5 Dd4 15.cxb5
Dxe5 with a draw being agreed in this
unclear posit ion.] 8...c6 9.0-0 Ab7
[ In V.Zilberstein-J.Klovans, Tbilisi 1973,
Black played 9...0-0 , after which 10.e4
Cbd7 11.e5 Cd5 12.Ce4 brought about
a messy position where White had
compensation for his pawn.] Serper's
m o ve l o o k s l i k e a p r e p a r e d n o ve l t y ,
immediately challenging the long diagonal.
10.Dc2 0-0 11.b3 cxb3 12.Cxb3 Cbd7
13.Ce5 Cxe5 14.dxe5 Cd5 15.Cc5 De7
16.Tfc1 a5 17.Axd5 exd5 18.Cxb7
Dxb7 19.Dxc6 Dxc6 20.Txc6 b4
Properly speaking this endgame should be
a draw, the strength of Black's b-pawn
compensating him for the pawn deficit. But
in practice it proves far from easy to play,
with White coming close to victory at one
point.
21.Rf1 Tfc8 22.Td6 Tc5 23.Tb6 Tac8
24.Td1 Rf8 25.Re1 Re7 26.f4 g6
27.Td3 h5 28.Rd2 T8c7 29.Re3 Td7
30.h3 Tdc7 31.g4 hxg4 32.hxg4 Tc3
33.Tb5 T7c5 34.Txc3 Txc3+ 35.Rd4
Tc4+ 36.Rxd5 Txf4 37.Txa5 b3 38.e4
Tf1 [ A safer line might have been
38...Txg4 , f or e xa mp l e 39.Ta7+ Rf8
40.Tb7 Tg1 41.Txb3 Ta1 42.Tb4 g5
43.e6 fxe6+ 44.Rxe6 g4 45.e5 g3
46.Tf4+ Re8 47.Tg4 Rf8 48.Txg3 Txa4
with a draw in sight .] 39.Ta7+ Rf8
40.Tb7 Td1+ 41.Rc5 Tc1+ 42.Rd4 Ta1
43.e6 Txa4+ [ And here 43...f6
looks better, keeping White's king out of
e5. ] 44.Re5 fxe6 45.Txb3?!
[ Missing what looks like a genuine
opportunity via 45.g5! . Black's king would
be unable to slip away to h6.] 45...Rg7
46.Tb7+ Rh6 47.Tb5 Rg5 48.Rxe6+
Rxg4 49.e5 g5 50.Rf6 Tf4+ 51.Rg6
Te4 52.Rf7 Rf3 53.Tb3+ Rf4 54.e6 g4
55.e7 Txe7+ 56.Rxe7 g3 57.Rf6 g2
58.Tb1 Rf3 59.Rf5 Rf2 60.Rf4 g1D
61.Tb2+ Re1 62.Tb1+ Rf2 63.Tb2+ Rf1
64.Tb1+ Rg2 65.Txg1+ Rxg1
½-½
N.Davies
T.Wilczek
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2
[ In the other games in this chapter White
had already played Ng1-f3 by this point,
and could do so here as well, when 4.Cf3
Ab4+ 5.Cbd2 dxc4 6.Ag2 Cc6
reaches the position at move six below.
However, there are some advantages to
playing 4 B g2 firs t, as we'll see in the
n e x t n o t e .] 4...Ab4+ 5.Cd2 Cc6
[ One of the points behind 4 Bg2 is that
B l a c k c a n 't p l a y 5...dxc4 because of
6.Da4+ , winning the bishop on b4. So
Black gets his knight out before making
this capture.] 6.Cgf3 dxc4 7.0-0 c3
Ma k ing su re he k e ep s t h e p a wn , b u t
White gets a lot of compensation.
[ Black has a major alternative in 7...Axd2
, when I think White should recapture with
the queen. After 8.Dxd2 ( 8.Axd2!? Cxd4
9.Ce5! 0-0 10.Tc1 c5! 11.Txc4 Cd7
Learn Tatics step by step
12.Cd3! e5 13.Cxc5 Cxc5 14.Txc5 De7
15.Ab4 Ag4 16.f3 Ae6 was fine for Black
in V.Tukmak ov-S.Lputian, Novo sibirsk
1986 ) 8...Tb8 ( 8...0-0 9.a4 a5 10.Dc3
Cb4 11.Ce5 Cfd5 12.Dxc4 b6 13.Db3
Aa6 14.Te1 c5 was N.Birnboim-A.Avni,
Israeli Ch. 1988, and now 15.e4 Cf6
16.dxc5 bxc5 17.Ae3 would have been
very promising for White) 9.b3!? cxb3
10.Aa3! Ce7 11.axb3 Ad7 ( 11...a6
12.Tac1 0-0 13.Dc2 c6 14.e4
gave White nice compensation in P.Haba-
A.Hell mayr, Austrian Tea m Ch . 200 1)
12.Ce5 Ab5 13.Tfc1 a6 14.g4!? 0-0
15.g5 Ce8 16.Tc3 f6 17.gxf6 Txf6
18.Td1 Cd5 19.Tg3 gave White a strong
attack in Z.Kozul-Z.Vukovic, Yugoslav Ch.,
B a n j a V r u c i c a 1 9 9 1 .] 8.Cc4
[ Another promising possibility is 8.Cb3
, for example cxb2 9.Axb2 0-0 10.Dc2
Ca5 ( 10...De7 11.Ce5 Ca5 12.Cd3
Cxb3 13.axb3 c6 14.Cxb4 Dxb4 15.Aa3
was good for White in A.Mikhalevski-A.
B y k h o v s k y , I s r a e l i Te a m C h . 1 9 9 6)
11.Cc5 De7 12.Tfd1 b6 13.Ce5 Tb8
14.Cb3 Cd7 15.a3 Cxe5 16.axb4 Cxb3
17.Dxb3 Cg4 18.Txa7 was terrific for
White at this stage in S.Porat-V.Golod,
Tel Aviv 2001.] 8...0-0 [ Black has also
t ak e n t h e b 2 - p awn imm e di a t el y, le s t
White withdraw the offer. For example,
8...cxb2 9.Axb2 0-0 10.Dc2 ( 10.Db3
Ae7 11.Tfd1 De8 12.Tac1 Cd8 13.Cfe5
a5 14.e4 was also promising for White in
the old game V.Makogonov-G.Kasparian,
Parnu 1947) 10...Ae7 ( 10...Ad7 11.e4
Ca5 12.Ce3 Tc8 13.Tfd1 De8 14.a4
De7 15.Ce5 gave White a strong initiative
in I . Ga po nen ko-R . Ako p ov, Sm olen sk
1991 ) 11.Tac1 Cb4 12.Db1 Ad7
( 12...c6 13.e4 Ca6 14.Tfd1 b6 15.Cce5
was also very nice for White in T.Toshkov-
N.Spiridonov, Albena 1984) 13.Cfe5 Tb8
14.Ca5 and White had a lot of pressure for
the pa wn in T.Toshkov-S .Makarichev,
War saw 198 5.] 9.Dd3 There are other
moves here: [ a) 9.b3 strikes me as being
a bit mean spirited as it tries to recover
the pawn. After Tb8 ( 9...Ce4!? ) 10.a3
54
Ae7 11.Dc2 b5 12.Cce5 Ab7 13.Cxc6
Axc6 14.Dxc3 Ae4 15.Ab2 Cd5 16.Dc1
Dc8 17.Ce5 Axg2 18.Rxg2 c5
Black was doing okay in P.Haba- L.
Ostrowski, Czech League 1999, and he
might have done better trying to hold the
pawn.; b) 9.Tb1 e5 ( 9...c2 10.Dxc2
Cxd4 11.Cxd4 Dxd4 12.Ae3 would give
White a strong initiative for the pawn,; but
9...Dd5!? looks interesting) 10.bxc3 e4
11.Cfe5 Axc3 12.Cxc6 bxc6 13.Aa3 Te8
14.Da4 Ag4 15.e3 Ae2 16.Tfc1
was good for White due to his superior
pawn st ruct u re i n P.H a ba -A. S t ra us s,
Vi en n a 1 9 98 .; c) 9.Db3!? is worth
considering, for example Cd5 10.e4 cxb2
11.Axb2 gives compensation similar to the
game. ] 9...cxb2 10.Axb2 Ae7 11.e4
[ It seems that this obvious move is a
theoretical novelty. In Z.Kozul-L.Ljubojevic,
B elg ra d e 1 9 89 , W h it e pl a ye d 11.Tac1
and also h ad com pens ation after a5!?
12.Db1?! a4 13.e4 a3 14.Aa1 Cb4
15.Tfd1 Ta4 16.Ce3 . ] 11...b6 12.a3
I felt it was worth a tempo to stop any ...
Nc6- b4 no n sens e . Bla ck n ow f in ds it
difficult to formulate any kind of plan,
whereas White can improve his position
almost at leisure.
12...Ab7 13.Tfe1 a5 14.Tad1 a4 15.d5
Ca5 [ 15...exd5? 16.exd5 Ca5
i s b a d d u e t o 17.Cg5 (threatening 18
Bxf6) g6 18.d6! etc. ] 16.Ce3 Cb3?!
[ I think this may be a mistake, as there's
just not enough time to transfer the knight
to c 5 eff ec t ively. 16...Ac5 might have
been a better try, but then one of White's
options is to recover his sacrificed pawn
with 17.Dc2 De7 18.Dxa4
, w h il e k e e p i n g t h e b e t t er p o s i t i o n .]
17.Dc2 Dc8 [ And this could well be the
decisive mistake, though White generates
tremendous pressure in any case. I think
Black should play 17...exd5 , when I was
considering lines like 18.Cf5!? ( 18.exd5
i s a s i m p l e wa y t o p l a y i t , wi t h v e r y
strong pressure against the black king)
18...Ac5 19.Cxg7! Rxg7 20.exd5 h6
21.Cg5 hxg5 22.Df5 with a winning
Learn Tatics step by step 55
attack. ] 18.Ah3 Cc5 19.Cg5 Setting up
threats against e6 and h7.
19...Ce8 [ On 19...h6 I was intending
20.dxe6 fxe6 21.Cxe6 Cxe6 22.Cd5
Te8 23.Cxc7 etc. ] 20.dxe6 fxe6
21.Cxe6 Cxe6 22.Dc4 Rf7 23.Cd5! b5
[ After 23...Aa6 White should maintain his
p re s su r e o n th e a 2-g8 d i ag on al wi t h
24.Da2 . ] 24.Dxb5 One of the secrets of
attacking chess is to know when to start
taking material rather than attempt to land
a haymaker.
24...Aa6 [ And not 24...c6 because of
25.Axe6+ Rxe6 26.Cf4+ etc. ] 25.Da5
Ae2 I considered several alternatives for
Black in this position: [ a) 25...Ab7 26.Dc3
Af6 27.e5 Ag5 28.Dc4 threatens 29 f4.;
b) 25...Tb8 26.Ad4 Ac4 27.Cxe7 Rxe7
28.Dh5 traps Black's king in the centre.; c)
25...c5 26.Cb6 Dc7 27.Td7 Ac4
28.Dxa8 Dxb6 29.Tb7 Dd6 30.Dxa4
puts White ahead on material while
maintaining a huge attack.; d) 25...Ag5
26.Dc3 threatens 27 Qe5 amongst other
things. ] 26.Axe6+ Cashing in.
26...Dxe6 [ 26...Rxe6 is met by 27.Cf4+
Rf7 ( or 27...Txf4 28.Dd5# ) 28.Dd5+
followed by mate next move.] 27.Dxa8
Axd1 28.Cxe7 Ab3 29.Cc6 Gaining time
through the threat of 30 Nd8+.
29...Rg8 30.Cd4 Dc4 31.Dc6
Th e ex ch a ng e of q u ee n s wil l r e du c e
Black's counterplay, which is why I chose
it instead of other promising lines.
31...Cd6 32.e5 Dxc6 33.Cxc6 Cc4
34.Ac1 Ta8 35.f4 Ca5 Hoping for
salvation in an opposite-coloured bishop
endgame. But even this is not enough.
36.Cxa5 Txa5 37.f5 Td5 38.Rf2 Td1
39.g4 h5 40.h3 White needs to keep his
pawns together.
40...Txe1 41.Rxe1 Rf7 [ Black can't
attack the pawns with 41...hxg4 42.hxg4
g6 43.e6 gxf5 44.gxf5 Ac2 45.f6 Af5
because 46.f7+ Rg7 47.Ah6+
would lead to promotion of the f-pawn.]
42.Ag5 Re8 [ After 42...g6 there follows
43.e6+ Re8 44.gxh5 gxh5 45.Rd2 Ad5
46.Re3 and White protects the pawns,;
while 42...hxg4 43.hxg4 g6 44.e6+ Re8
45.Rd2 is similar.] 43.e6 Ad5 44.Rf2
After this everything is clear: White can
p r o t e c t h i s p a wn s wi t h h i s k i n g a n d
prevent any blockade by keeping them on
light squares.
44...c5 45.Rg3 hxg4 46.hxg4 Rf8
47.Ae3 c4 48.Ac5+ Rg8 49.Ab4 g6
50.Rf4 gxf5 51.gxf5 Rh7 52.Re5 Ac6
53.f6
1-0
M.Umansky
O.Rause
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Cf6 4.g3 Ab4+
5.Cbd2 dxc4 6.Ag2 b5 Setting about
holding the c4-pawn in the most direct way.
No te again that t his lin e would not be
possible against a 3 g3 and 4 Bg2 move
order, as 5...dxc4 loses a piece to 6 Qa4+.
However, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 g3 has its
own issues because of 3...dxc4! 4 Nf3 c5!
5 Bg2 Nc6 !. On the oth er hand, Black
cannot play this way if he's already put
his knight on f6, which often happens on
move one.
Other moves seen here: [ a) 6...a5 7.0-0
b5 8.Cb1!? a4 9.Ce5 Ta6 10.a3 Ae7
11.Cc3 c6 12.e4 0-0 13.Ae3 Cbd7
14.f4 gave White compensation in Z.Kozul-
A.Saric, Nova Gorica 2007, though this
all looked very weird and messy.; b) 6...0-0
7.0-0 Ad7 8.Cxc4 Ac6 9.Cce5 Ad5
10.a3 Ae7 11.Ag5 gave White a
c om f o rt a b l e a n d r i s k -f r e e e d g e i n J .
Kraai-Zhang Zhong, Beijing (blitz) 2008.]
7.0-0 [ The move 7.a4 was played in a
rare loss for the young Norwegian star,
Magnus Carlsen. The game M.Carlsen-I.
Ivanisevic, European Team Ch., Crete
200 7, went c6 8.Dc2 Ab7 9.0-0 0-0
10.e4 Cbd7 11.e5 Cd5 12.Ce4 h6
13.Ad2 with compensation for the pawn,
but maybe not enough.
My own feeling is that White should be
much more violent and direct in this kind
Learn Tatics step by step 56
of line, rather than sitting back and trying
to let the compensation manifest itself.]
7...0-0 8.a4 c6 9.axb5
[ Another possibility is 9.Ce5 , when R.
Buhmann-R.Jedynak, French Team Ch.
2007, was agreed drawn after Cd5 10.e4
Cf6 11.Cdf3 Ab7 12.De2 Cbd7 13.Td1
a6 14.Ag5 Ae7 . ] 9...cxb5 10.Ch4 Cd5
11.e4 Cc7 [ There's also a case for
11...Cf6 , after which White would
p r o b a b l y p l a y 12.e5 Cd5 13.Ce4
intending 14 Qg4. I wouldn't attempt to
assess this before seeing some more
trials by strong players.] 12.e5 Dxd4
13.Dh5 g6 14.Dg5 a5 15.Ce4 Cd7
16.Af4 Cd5 17.Dh6 Td8 [ Black had an
a l t e r n a t i v e i n t h e m o v e 17...Ae7
, when White should play 18.Ag5 Te8
19.Axe7 Txe7 20.Cg5 Cf8 21.Chf3
Dxb2 22.Tfb1 , once again with a
powerful initiative as his pieces bounce
off Black's queen into the attack.] 18.Cg5
Cf8 19.Chf3 Dxb2?! [ Maybe 19...Dd3
would have been better, but after 20.Tfd1
De2 21.Tab1 White still has a strong
initiative and is only one pawn down.]
20.Tfb1 De2? [ Losing the queen. Black
had to try 20...Dc2 , even though it allows
W h i t e t o p l a y 21.Cd4 Dc3 22.Cxb5
, breaking up the pride of Black's position,
his qu eenside pawns.] 21.Af1 Dc2
22.Cd4 Dxb1 23.Txb1 Cxf4 24.Cc6!
Ab7 25.Cxd8 Txd8 26.gxf4 c3 27.h4!
Td2 [ One of the points behind White's
last move is that 27...c2 28.Tc1 Td2
c a n b e a n s w e r e d b y 29.f5 exf5
( 29...gxf5 30.Df6 is t er m in a l) 30.h5
threatening Nxh7.] 28.f5 exf5 29.Txb4!
axb4 30.e6! fxe6 31.Cxh7! Cxh7
32.Dxg6+ [ After 32.Dxg6+ Rh8
there follows 33.De8+ Rg7 34.De7+ Rg8
35.Dxe6+ Rg7 36.h5 c2 37.h6+ Rf8
38.Dxf5+ Re8 39.De5+ Rd7 ( or 39...Rf7
40.Df4+ ) 40.Ah3+ Rc6 41.Ag2+ Rd7
42.Dxb5+ with a winning attack. White is
picking everything up with check. ]
1-0
Z.Almasi
C.Balogh
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.d4 d5 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 Ab4+ 6.Cc3 This would not be my
choice and this game is given largely to
show how Black should play against it.
Having said that the line has been used
b y s o m e v er y s t r o n g p l a y e r s , a l b e i t
sometimes via the move order 1 d4 Nf6 2
c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 g3 d5 5 Bg2 0-0 6 Nf3
dxc4, which qualifies it as a '4 g3 Nimzo'.
6...0-0 7.0-0 Cc6 [ In O.Renet-M.Sharif,
M a r s e i l l e s 1 9 8 6 , B l a c k p l a y e d 7...c5
, but was under pressure after 8.dxc5 Cc6
( 8...Axc5 9.Da4 gives White the
init ia tive) 9.Da4 Da5 10.Dxa5 Cxa5
11.Ce5 Axc5 12.Td1 .] 8.Ag5
Whit e has tried other m oves here: [ a)
8.Te1 Cd5 9.Dc2 Ae7! was B.Gulko-A.
Yusupov, Linares 1990, and now White's
best was probably 10.a3 , so as to play
e2-e4 without having to worry about a
black knight going to b4 and then d3.; b)
8.a3 Aa5 9.Ag5 h6 10.Axf6 Dxf6
11.Da4 Ab6 12.e3 Ca5 13.Ce5 De7
14.Ce4 Td8 15.Cxc4 Ad7 16.Dc2 Cxc4
17.Dxc4 Ac6 was about equal in M.
Illescas-A.Yusupov, Linares 1990.] 8...h6
[ B l a c k c a n a l s o c o n s i d e r 8...Ae7
, f o r e x a m p l e 9.e3 ( 9.Da4!? Cxd4
10.Tfd1 looks like a more interesting try)
9...Cd5 10.Axe7 Dxe7 11.Cd2 Cb6
12.De2 Ca5 13.Dh5 f5 14.e4 Cc6!
was already better for Black in E.Ubilava-
G.Agzamov, Sevastopol 1986.] 9.Axf6
Dxf6 10.e3 Td8 [ Another possibility is
10...Tb8 , when Z.Kozul-A.Delchev, Nova
Go ri ca 2005, con tinued 11.Cd2 Ca5
12.Dh5 ( 12.Da4 De7 13.a3 Axc3
14.bxc3 b6 left White struggling to
equalize in G.Fish-I.Khenkin, German Ch.,
Altenkirchen 2005) , and now 12...Df5
( rathe r t ha n th e 12...b6 played in the
game ) 13.Dxf5 exf5 seems to leave
White struggling.] 11.De2 Alternatives are
n o i m p r o v e m e n t : [ a) 11.Ce4 De7
( 11...Df5!? ) 12.a3 Ad6 13.Cfd2 e5
Learn Tatics step by step 57
14.Cxc4 exd4 15.exd4 Af5 16.Cc3 Df6
17.Cd5 Dxd4 led to equality in J.Ehlvest-
A.Yermolinsky, Moscow 2005.; b) 11.Da4
Ad7 12.Dc2 Ad6 13.Tfd1 Tac8 14.De2
e5 15.Dxc4 exd4 16.Cxd4 Cxd4
17.Txd4 Ae5 18.Txd7 Txd7 19.Ah3
Tcd8 saw Black rather more than equalize
in Z.Kozul-G.Dizdar, Croatian Ch., Split
2008. ] 11...e5 12.Dxc4 exd4 13.Cd5
It looks like White might be pressing, but
the position soon fizzles out to stone cold
equality.
13...Dd6 14.Cxb4 Ae6 15.Db5 Dxb4
16.Dxb4 Cxb4 17.Cxd4 Ad5 18.Tfc1
c6 19.b3 a5 20.a3 Ca6 21.Tc3 Cc7
22.Tac1 Ce6 23.Axd5
½-½
L.Van Wely
E.L'Ami
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 d5 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 c5 6.0-0 Cc6 7.Da4 cxd4
[ Black has a major alternative in 7...Ad7
which features in the next game. Frankly
I don't think that 7 Qa4 offers White very
much, which is why I've simplif ied the
mass of theory on it.] 8.Cxd4 Dxd4
9.Axc6+ Ad7 10.Td1 [ White has also
tried to eke out a little somethin g with
10.Ae3 , though after Axc6! ( 10...Dxb2?!
11.Axd7+ Cxd7 12.Td1 b5 13.Da6 Dxa1
14.Ad4 is good for White) 11.Dxc6+ Dd7!
12.Dxc4 a6 ( 12...Ae7 13.Cc3 0-0
14.Tfd1 Dc8 15.Db5!? a6 16.Db6 Ad8?!
17.Db4 was better for White in B.Gulko-
Zsu.Polgar, Biel 1987) 13.Cc3 b5 14.Db3
Ae7 15.Tfd1 Db7 it wasn't much for
White in W.S chlemermeyer-J.S tanke ,
German League 2004.; Another possibility
is 10.Axd7+ Dxd7 11.Dxc4 , but after
Ae7 12.Db3 0-0 13.Td1 Dc6 14.Ae3
the position was equal and a draw was
agree d in A.Stefanova-T.Luther,
R e c k l i n g h a u s e n 1 9 9 8 .] 10...Dxd1+
This positio nal queen sac rific e has
proven very difficult for White to break
down. In this game Black shows great
p re c isio n i n hi s ha nd l i n g o f t h e li n e .
[ Instead, 10...Axc6 11.Dxc6+ bxc6
12.Txd4 is supposed to be better for White
because of Black's split pawns, but Black
nevertheless equalized with c5 13.Txc4
Ae7 14.Ag5 Cd7! 15.Axe7 Rxe7 16.Cd2
Thb8 17.Tc2 a5 18.Td1 a4 in the game
T.Markowski-S.Mamedyarov, European
Team Ch., Plovdiv 2003.] 11.Dxd1 Axc6
12.Cd2 b5 13.a4 Ae7 14.axb5 Axb5
15.Cxc4 0-0 16.b3 Tfd8 [ After 16...Tfc8
17.Aa3 Axa3 18.Cxa3 Aa6 19.Cc2
B l ac k h a d t o f i g h t f or t h e d r a w i n J .
Hjartarson-H.Olafsson, Reykjavik 1986.]
17.Dc2 Tdc8 18.Aa3 Axa3 19.Txa3
Tc7 20.Da2 Axc4 21.bxc4 It's going to
be impossible for White to do anything
h er e , de s p i t e h is s u pp o se d m a t e r i a l
advantage. The c- and a-pawns are likely
to come off and he won't be able to win on
the kingside alone.
½-½
Le Quang Liem
A.Ismagambetov
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 d5 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 c5 6.0-0 Cc6 7.Da4 Ad7 8.Dxc4
b5 [ There are interesting alternatives here,
f o r e x a m p l e 8...cxd4 9.Cxd4 Tc8
10.Cxc6 Axc6 11.Axc6+ Txc6 12.Db5
Dc8 left Black without much to worry about
in I.Hera-D.Pavasovic, European Club
Cup, Kallithea 2008; and 8...Db6!? 9.dxc5
Dxc5 10.Ca3 Ae7 11.Td1 0-0 12.Af4
Db6 13.Db5 Axa3 14.Dxb6 axb6
15.bxa3 Tfc8 gave Black a solid game in
B .A v ru k h- A . Graf , S pa n i s h T ea m C h .
2008. ] 9.Dd3 Tc8 [ I don't particularly like
9...c4 , although ambitious players may
want to play this way, as it gives Black a
queenside pawn majority. After 10.Dc2
Tc8 11.Cc3 Ae7 12.Ag5 0-0 13.Axf6
Axf6 14.Cxb5 Db6 15.Cd6 Tc7 16.Cxc4
Cxd4 17.Cxb6 Cxc2 18.Cxd7 Txd7
19.Tac1 Black had inadequate
Learn Tatics step by step 58
compensation in E.Postny-C.Marcelin,
F r e n c h T e a m C h . 2 0 0 8 .] 10.Ag5
This hasn't been played too much so it
still offers some surprise value. In this
gam e Bla ck goes wr ong immedi ate ly.
[ The most popular move has been 10.Cc3
, but cxd4 11.Cxd4 Ce5!? 12.Dd1 b4
13.Ce4 Cd5 14.Cg5 Ae7 15.Axd5 exd5
16.Cgf3 Cc4 gave Black excellent
counte rplay in V.Korchnoi-V.Ivanchuk,
Istanbul Olympiad 2000.] 10...Ae7?!
This isn't good because of White's reply,
so ins t ead B lack sh ould consid e r th e
alt er nat ives : [ a) 10...cxd4!? 11.Cxd4
Cxd4 ( 11...Ce5 12.Db3 Db6 13.Cf3
Cxf3+ 14.Axf3 Ae7 15.Td1 h6 16.Ae3
Ac5 17.Axc5 Dxc5 18.Cc3 0-0 19.Td2
was a bit better for White at this stage in
P.Nikolic-S.Pedersen, German League
2005 ) 12.Dxd4 Ac5 13.Dh4 Ae7 14.Cc3
b4 15.Ce4 Cxe4 16.Axe7 Dxe7 17.Dxe4
Dc5 was rather equal in M.Hoffmann-M.
Willsch, Solingen 2005.; b) 10...c4
is not a concept that I'm hugely fond of,
though it is probably better here than on
the previous move. R.Hübner-M.Müller,
German League 1997, continued 11.Dd1
( 11.Dc2 Ae7 12.e4 h6! 13.Ad2 0-0
14.a3 Db6 15.Ae3 Cg4 16.Af4 Cxd4!
17.Cxd4 e5! was good for Black in B.
Gulko-S.Smagin, Moscow 1983) 11...Ae7
12.Cc3 b4 ( 12...a6 13.e4 b4 14.Axf6
Axf6 was comfortable for Black in V.
Filippov-J.Pi ket, Europea n Team Ch. ,
Batumi 1999) 13.Axf6 gxf6 14.Ce4 Da5
15.Dd2 f5 16.Cc5 Axc5 17.dxc5 Dxc5
18.Tfd1 and White had compensation for
the pawn. ] 11.dxc5 With Black having
used a tempo putting his bishop on e7, he
doesn't really want to use another one to
recapture the pawn. As a result 11 dxc5
is quite awkward.
11...Cb4 12.Dd2 Axc5 13.Cc3 Ac6
14.Dxd8+ Txd8 15.Tac1 [ 15.a3!
looks even s tronge r, f or exa mp le Ca6
( 15...Cbd5 16.Ce5 ) 16.Ce5 Axg2
17.Rxg2 b4 18.axb4 Cxb4 19.Tfd1
is unpleasant.] 15...Ab6 16.a3 Ca6
17.Ce5 Axg2 18.Rxg2 b4 19.Cb5 bxa3
20.bxa3 0-0 21.Cc6 Td7 22.Tfd1
This kind of endgame is typic al of the
Catalan. White is first to the d- and c-files,
and because of this has the initiative.
22...Tb7 23.Af4 h6 24.Ad6 Ta8 25.a4
Rh7 26.Tc4 Ce8 27.Aa3 Tc8 28.Tdc1
Cb8 29.Ce5 Txc4 30.Txc4 f6 31.Cd3
[ 31.Tc8 was worth considering.] 31...a6
32.Cd6 Cxd6 33.Axd6 Cd7 34.Cf4 e5
35.Cd5 Aa5 36.Tc6 Cb6 37.e4 Rg8
[ And not 37...Cxa4? because of 38.Txa6
Tb5 39.Ta7 , suddenly turning his
attention to Black's kingside and the g7-
pawn. ] 38.Ac7 Cxd5 39.Axa5 Cb4
40.Td6 Rf7 41.Rf3 h5 42.Ab6 Cc2
43.a5 Te7 44.Re2 Tb7? [ This could be
the losing move. Having defended himself
very solidly, Black seems to have rejected
his initial intention of 44...Te6 for some
reason. Now White gets to bring his king
in. ] 45.Rd3 Ca3 46.Td8 Cb5 47.Rc4
Re7 48.Tg8 Rd6 49.Ta8 Cc7 50.Td8+
Re7 51.Tc8 Ce8 52.Rd5 Td7+ 53.Rc6
Cd6 54.Tg8 I'm not sure if this was on
time or due to general depression about
Black's prospects. Certainly his position is
very difficult, if not lost, but he might have
continued for a few more moves.
1-0
P.Eljanov
M.Adams
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 dxc4
5.Cf3 c5 6.0-0 Cc6 7.Ce5 Ad7
[ This seems to be Black's best. Note that
7...Cxd4? is bad because of 8.e3 Cb5
9.Dxd8+ Rxd8 10.Cxf7+ etc.; White also
h a s t h e i n i t i a t i v e a f t e r 7...Cxe5
, fo r e xam ple 8.dxe5 Cd7 ( 8...Dxd1
9.Txd1 Cd7 10.f4 Tb8 11.a4 Ae7
12.Ca3 0-0 13.Cxc4 Td8 14.Ae3
gave White strong pressure in the game
A.Stefanova-J.Krivec, European Women's
Ch., Warsaw 2001; while 8...Cd5!? 9.Ca3
Ad7! 10.Cxc4 Ac6 was T.V.Petrosian-O.
Panno, Palma 1969, and now Petrosian
Learn Tatics step by step 59
suggested 11.Cd6+ Axd6 12.exd6
, rather than his 11 a3) 9.f4 Ae7 ( 9...Dc7
10.Ca3 Cb6 11.Cb5 Db8 12.Ae3 Ad7
13.Cd6+ Axd6 14.exd6 Dc8 15.Af2 Ac6
was M.Vukic-I.Hausner, Banja Luka 1981,
when 16.e4 0-0 17.Tc1 looks good for
White to me) 10.Ca3 0-0 11.Cxc4 Dc7
12.Ae3 Cb6 13.Cd6 Td8
was N.Alexandri a-N.Ioseliani, 6th
matchgame, Tbilisi 1981, and now
U b i l a v a ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f 14.Dc2
Axd6 15.exd6 Txd6 16.Axc5
looks strong.] 8.Ca3 [ There is a major
alternative in 8.Cxc4!? , which is covered
in the next game.] 8...cxd4 9.Caxc4 Ac5
This natural move looks comfortable for
Black, though there are some alternatives
h er e t o o . F o r e xa m p l e : [ a) 9...Tc8
10.Db3 Cxe5 11.Cxe5 Db6! 12.Dxb6
axb6 13.Axb7 Tc2 14.Cxd7 Cxd7
15.Td1 ½-½ was B.Avrukh-Z.
Azmaiparashvili, European Cup, Chalkidiki
2002.; b) 9...Cxe5 10.Cxe5 Db6 11.b4!?
Td8 12.a3 Ae7 13.Ab2 Da6 14.Axd4
0-0 15.e3 Ab5 16.Te1 was a bit better
for White at this stage in M.Brodsky-M.
U li b i n , B y d g o s z c z 2 0 0 1 .] 10.Db3
[ White has also tried 10.a3 , but this
doesn't seem to help too much after a5
( or 10...Tc8 11.b4 Ae7 12.Ab2 0-0
13.Cxd7 Dxd7 14.b5 Cb8 15.Db3 Dc7
16.Tac1 Ac5 17.Df3 Cd5
as in V.Ivanchuk-A.Sokolov, Minsk 1986)
11.Af4 ( 11.Cxc6 Axc6 12.Axc6+ bxc6
13.Da4 0-0 14.Dxc6 Dd5 15.Dxd5 Cxd5
was very comfortable for Black in R.Vera-
J.Vilela, Manzanillo 1987) 11...0-0 12.Tc1
Tc8 13.Cd3 Ae7 14.Cd6 Axd6 15.Axd6
Te8 16.Ce5 Db6 17.Ac5 Da6
, when it was difficult for White to prove
anything in I .Ivanisevic-M.Stojanovic,
B o s n i a n T e a m C h . 2 0 0 7 .;
Another possibility is 10.Af4 , but after 0-0
11.Db3 just transposes into the note to
Whit e 's 11t h mo ve belo w.] 10...0-0
[ Black has also played 10...Cxe5; and
10...Dc8 , but the text seems like the most
natural. ] 11.Dxb7 [ Here 11.Af4
is a major alternative, but Black has a
g ood an t i d o t e i n Dc8 12.Cd3 Ae7
13.Tfc1 Cd5 , f or exa mp le 14.Cce5!?
( 14.Axd5 exd5 15.Cce5 Td8 16.Dxd5
Ae8 17.Db3 Rf8! 18.Cxc6 bxc6 19.Dc4
Df5 was fine for Black in V.Ivanchuk-Y.
Dokhoian, Irkutsk 1986) 14...Cxf4 15.gxf4
Tb8 16.Tc4 Af6 17.Cxc6 Axc6 18.Axc6
bxc6 19.Dc2 De8 20.Tc5 Rh8 21.Tc1
Tg8 22.Txc6 e5 23.fxe5 Axe5 24.Dc5
f6 25.Cxe5 was equal and agreed drawn
at this poin t in V.Tkachiev-A. Sokolov,
European Ch., Ohrid 2001.] 11...Cxe5
12.Cxe5 Tb8 13.Df3 Ad6 14.Cc6
[ Instead, 14.Cxd7 Dxd7 15.Ag5 Ae5!
16.Tab1 h6 17.Af4 Axf4 18.Dxf4 Tfe8!
19.Tfc1 e5 20.Dd2 Tec8 was at least
equal for Black in R.Vaganian-G.Serper,
World Team Ch., Lucerne 1993,; while
14.Af4 Cd5!; and 14.Cc4 Ab5!
d o n ' t g i v e W h i t e a n y t h i n g e i t h e r .]
14...Axc6 15.Dxc6 De7! [ This looks like
a n e q u a l i z e r . 15...e5 is worse after
16.Tb1! Tb6?! ( 16...Dd7 is only slightly
better for White) 17.Da4 Db8 18.Ag5!
Ae7 19.b4! Axb4 20.Axf6 gxf6 21.Dd7!
an d White was clearly better in G.
Kasparov-Comp Deep Blue, 2nd
matchgame, Philadelphia 1996.] 16.Tb1
[ In V.Laznicka-J.Werle, European Ch.,
Liverpool 2008, White tried to improve with
16.Da4 , but found himself much worse
after e5 17.Tb1 h6 18.Ad2 Ab4
19.Axb4 Txb4 20.Da3 e4 etc. ] 16...h6
17.e3 Ac5 18.exd4 Axd4 19.Dc4 Tfd8
20.b3 The vulnerability of f2 compensates
for White's pair of bishops.
½-½
B.Gelfand
M.Adams
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 dxc4
5.Cf3 c5 6.0-0 Cc6 7.Ce5 Ad7
8.Cxc4!? An interesting line, trying to
exploit the negative side of Black's last
move by probing d6.
8...cxd4 [ The critical reply. Both 8...b5
Learn Tatics step by step 60
9.Ce5 Tc8 10.Cxd7; and 8...Cxd4 9.Axb7
Tb8 10.Ag2 favour White.] 9.Af4 Ae7
[ B l a c k ' s m a i n a l t e r n a t i v e i s 9...Cd5
, for example 10.Cd6+ Axd6 11.Axd6
Cde7 ( 11...h5 12.h4 g5 13.Cd2 gxh4
14.Aa3 b5 15.Ac5 hxg3 16.Ce4 gxf2+
17.Txf2 gave White a huge attack in J.
Houska-T.Kett, European Ch., Liverpool
2008; while 11...Db6 should be met by
12.Cd2 with a possible sequel of Dxb2
13.Tb1 Dxa2 14.Ta1 Db2 15.Aa3 Db5
16.Ce4 ) 12.Cd2 ( this is more accurate
than 12.Db3 , as apart from 12...0-0 13
Nd2 transpos ing , Black has a good
alternative in Ca5! , when 13.Db4 Cf5!
14.Ac5 b6 15.Axd4 Cc6 16.Axc6 Axc6
17.Ac3 was equal at best for White in M.
K r a s e n k o w - Z . S t u r u a , U S S R 1 9 8 7)
12...0-0 13.Db3 ( White can also try
13.Cf3 , for example Te8 14.Cxd4 Cxd4
15.Dxd4 Cf5 16.Db4 Cxd6 17.Dxd6 Ac6
18.Dxd8 Texd8 19.Axc6 bxc6 20.Tfd1
with a nominal advantage in a drawish
endgame ) 13...b6 ( if 13...Ac8 14.Aa3!?
Te8 15.Tac1 Cf5 16.Ce4 e5 17.Cc5
Cd6 18.Ad5 Rh8 19.Cxb7 Cxb7
20.Axc6 Ca5 21.Dxf7 Cxc6 22.Txc6
Dd7 23.Dxd7 Axd7 24.Tc5 with a clear
advantage to White in O.Romanishin-S.
Smagin, Essen 2001) 14.Cc4 Te8!?
( 14...Tc8 15.Tfd1 was M.Krasenkow-S.
S h e s t a k o v , U S S R 1 9 8 7 , w h e n Te8
would h ave been b e st w ith a d o ubl e-
edged game a rising aft er 16.e3 Cf5
17.e4 Cfe7 18.e5 ) 15.Aa3 Cf5 16.Tad1
Tb8 17.e4! b5! ( 17...Cfe7 18.Cd6 Tf8
was B.Gelfand-L.Stratil, Oakham 1988,
and now 19.e5! Cxe5 20.Txd4 Ac6
21.Cb5! Ad5 22.Axd5 exd5 23.Cxa7
would have given W hite a clear
ad va n t age a cc o rd in g to G elf an d a n d
Kapengut ) 18.exf5 ( 18.Cd6!? Cxd6
19.Axd6 Tc8! 20.e5 is also possible)
18...bxc4 19.Dxc4 e5! was a game G.
Orlov-V.Nasybullin, USSR 1988, and now
I like the idea of 20.f4!? , for example Ce7
21.fxe5!? Ab5 22.Dc2 Axf1 23.Axf1
gives White two powerful bishops and a
dangerous k in gside pawn majority for
the sacrificed exchange .; Note that
s to p pin g t he che c k o n d 6 wi th 9...Ac8
is not good. L.Alburt-B.Chesney,
Somerset 1986, continued 10.Ce5 Cxe5
11.Axe5 Ac5 12.Dc1! Ab6 13.Dg5 0-0
14.Td1 h6 15.Dh4 Ch7 16.Ca3 Dxh4
17.gxh4 Td8 18.Cc4 with more than
e nou g h co mp e ns a ti o n f o r t h e p aw n .]
10.Cd6+ Rf8 [ 10...Axd6 11.Axd6
would make it very difficult for Black to
develop. ] 11.Cxb7 Db6 12.Cd6 Dc5!
This looks like Black's best, as the
alternatives leave White with a powerful
i n i t i a t i v e : [ a) 12...g5? is bad, due to
simply 13.Axg5 Axd6 14.Axf6 etc.; b)
12...e5? i s answere d b y 13.Cc4 Dc5
14.Cxe5! when the knight on c6 is pinned
against the rook on a8.; c) 12...Cd5
13.Cc4 Da6 ( 13...Dc5 14.Ce5 Td8
15.Cd3 Db5 16.a4 Da6 was I.Rogers-E.
Varnusz, Balatonbereny 1983, and now
a cc o rd i ng t o Ro g ers h e s ho u ld ha ve
played 17.Axd5! exd5 18.b4!
with a strong initiative) 14.Ce5 Ae8
15.Axd5! exd5 16.Cxc6 Axc6 17.Dxd4
Dxe2?! 18.Cd2! De6 19.Tfe1 Dd7
20.Tac1 Tc8 21.Cb3! threatening 22 Na5
was tremendous for White in I.Rogers-B.
T ot h , Re g g i o E m i li a 1 9 8 3 / 8 4 . B l a c k
misses the use of his king's rook here.; d)
12...Dxb2 13.Cd2 would leave White with
mo r e t ha n e no u g h f o r t h e p a wn ; t h e
position is opening up and Black's rook on
h 8 wi l l be ou t o f p la y f o r qu i te a f e w
moves. ] 13.b4!? An interesting new try
that makes it far from easy for Black to
defend. He has an easier life after other
moves: [ a) 13.Dc1 Axd6 14.Dxc5 Axc5
15.Tc1 Ab6 16.Axc6 Tc8 brings about
an endgame in which Black is at least
equal.; b) 13.Db3 Axd6 14.Tc1 Db4
15.Dxb4 Axb4 leaves White with nothing
better than 16.Axc6 Tc8 17.Axd7 Txc1+
18.Axc1 Cxd7 19.Ad2 and equality.; c)
13.Cd2 c a n b e a n s w e r e d b y e5
, for example 14.C6e4 Cxe4 15.Cxe4
Db6 16.Ad2 f5 17.Cg5 h6 with White
getting driven back.; d) 13.Ce4 Cxe4
14.Axe4 g5 15.Ac1 ( 15.Ad2 Tb8
Learn Tatics step by step 61
16.Ca3 Txb2 17.Tc1 Dxa3 18.Axc6
Dxa2 19.Axg5 Axg5 20.Dxd4 Axc1
21.Dxh8+ Re7 22.Axd7 Rxd7 23.Txc1
Tb1 fizzled out to a draw in V.Loginov-D.
Yevseev, St Petersburg 2004; while
15.b4?! Dxb4 16.Ae5 f6 17.a3 Db2
18.Axc6 Axc6! 19.Axd4 Db7 is rather
good f or B lack wh o is no w d ef endin g
comfortably and still has his extra pawn)
15...f5 16.Ag2 Tc8 17.e3 Af6 18.Cc3
( improving on 18.exd4 Cxd4 19.Ae3
Ab5 20.Te1 f4 21.gxf4 gxf4 22.Axf4
Tg8 23.Ag3 Ce2+ 24.Rh1 Td8
wh ich was p retty g ood f or Blac k in V .
Loginov-P.Anisimov, St Petersburg 2006)
18...Td8 19.exd4 Cxd4 20.Ae3 Ac6
21.Axd4 Txd4 22.De2 Axg2 23.Rxg2
Dc6+ 24.Rg1 was approximately even in
V.Loginov-M.Zacurdajev, St Petersburg
2007. ] 13...Dxb4 14.a3 Dc5 15.Cd2 e5
[ 15...Axd6 is strongly met by 16.Cb3 Db6
17.Axd6+ with more than enough for the
pawn. ] 16.C2e4 Cxe4 17.Cxe4 Db6
18.Tb1 Dc7 19.Ad2 f5 20.Cg5 h6
21.Cf3 Rf7 Black's last few moves have
connected his rooks, but his king is still
quite weak.
22.e3 [ White has an interesting option in
22.e4!? , for example fxe4 23.Ch4 Axh4
( 23...The8 24.Axe4 Axh4 25.Dh5+ Rg8
26.Dxh4 gives him more than enough for
the pawn ) 24.Dh5+ Rg8 25.Axe4 Ae7
26.Ad5+ Rh7 27.Df7 Thf8 28.Ae4+ Rh8
29.Dg6 and Black has to give up the
exchange on f5, because Rg8 30.Axh6
would be a disaster.] 22...e4 23.Cxd4
Cxd4 24.exd4 Tab8 25.Txb8 Dxb8
26.f3 e3 27.Axe3 Axa3 28.d5 [ 28.Dd3
wa s a ls o p l a ya bl e , a nd t h er e t o o I ' d
prefer White .] 28...Te8 29.Ad4 Ab2
30.Ac5 Dc7 31.Af2 Aa3 32.Db3 Ad6
33.Ta1 a5 Now Black's king is safe and
his a-pawn is starting to look dangerous.
White has certainly missed his chance
and he's even a bit lucky to draw.
34.f4 a4 35.Dd3 Tb8 36.Af3 Tb3
37.Dd1 Tc3 38.Ad4 Tc4 39.Rg2 a3
40.Dd3 Tc2+ 41.Rh3 Tc1 42.Txa3
Axa3 [ I'm not sure if this was why the
players agreed to a draw here, but there
does seem to be a perpetual check after
42...Axa3 43.Dxa3 Ab5 44.d6 Af1+
45.Rh4 Dd8+ 46.Rh5 g6+ 47.Rxh6
Df8+ 48.Rg5 Dd8+ 49.Rh6 . ]
½-½
D.Fridman
V.Inkiov
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 d5 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 c5 6.0-0 Cc6 7.Ca3!?
[ This is another interesting gambit line,
and even less well explored than 7.Ce5
Ad7 8.Cxc4 in the previous game.]
7...cxd4 8.Cxc4 Ae7 The most popular
choice in a little explored position. Other
games have gone as follows: [ a) 8...Ad7
9.Af4 Cd5 10.Cd6+ Axd6 11.Axd6 Db6
12.Dd2 was very good for White in S.
Bezgodova-E.Semenova, Kazan 2008,
Black being unable to castle.; b) 8...Ac5
9.a3 a5 10.Af4 0-0 11.Tc1 Ad7
( 11...De7 was played in U.Bönsch-A.
Chernin, Austrian Team Ch. 2002, and
now White seems to keep a slight edge
with 12.Cce5 Cxe5 13.Axe5 Td8
14.Dc2 Td5 15.Tfd1 Ad7 16.Axd4 etc;
ano t her possibility is 11...Cd5 when
12.Cce5 Ab6 13.Ad2 gives White
ongoing compensation) 12.Cd6 Db6
13.Cxb7! Ae7 14.Ce5 Cxe5 15.Axe5
Cd5 16.Axd5 exd5 17.Tc7 and White
was better in B.Avrukh-A.Mikhalchishin,
European Team Ch., Gothenburg 2005.]
9.b3!? A very interesting novelty from
Fridman, simply aiming to recapture the
d4-pawn with Bb2 and Nxd4. [ In previous
g a m e s W h i t e h a d t r i e d 9.Af4
, for example Cd5 ( 9...0-0 10.Db3 Cd5
11.Tfd1 Cxf4 12.gxf4 Ac5 13.Tac1 De7
14.Cg5 gave White sufficient
compensation for the pawn in A.Kosten-
S. Ko zhuharov, Metz 2007) 10.Cxd4!
( 10.Cfe5?! f6 11.Cxc6 bxc6 12.Da4
Dd7 13.Tac1 c5 left White struggling to
find enough play in S.Iskusnyh-O.Biriukov,
Learn Tatics step by step
St Petersburg 2005) 10...Cxf4 11.Cxc6
Dxd1 12.Tfxd1 Cxg2 13.Cxe7 Rxe7
14.Tac1! Td8 15.Txd8 Rxd8 16.Cd6 f6
17.Rxg2 Tb8 will lead to equality
a c c or d i n g t o m y a n a l ysi s .] 9...d3
Trying t o ret urn t he paw n on h i s own
terms, with White getting an isolated d-
pawn. Understandably White rejects this
possibility.
10.e3 0-0 11.Ab2 Ce4 12.Cfe5 Cxe5
13.Cxe5 Cc5 14.b4 [ There was another
poss ibili ty in 14.Ad4 , which also looks
like a n edge f or W hit e after, sa y, Da5
15.Cxd3 Cxd3 16.Dxd3 Td8 17.Tfd1 Af6
18.Dc2 Axd4 19.Txd4 Txd4 20.exd4
. Blac k's lagging development is a
problem in this line.] 14...Cd7 [ After
14...f6 White should probably play just
15.Cc4 Ca6 16.a3 , when sooner or later
the d3-pawn must fall.] 15.Cxd3 a5
16.a3 Af6 17.Tb1 axb4 18.axb4 Db6
19.Db3 h5?! This looks rather dodgy to
me; i n t he w orse p o sitio n it 's u su all y
advisable to avoid further weaknesses.
But Inkiov is an aggressive player and
probably wasn't to o happy just sittin g
there without counterplay.
20.Tfd1 h4 21.Axf6 Cxf6 22.Ce5 Db5
23.Db2 hxg3 24.hxg3 Ta4 25.Dd4 Cd5
26.Af1 De8 27.e4 This looks like the end
of the counterplay, with Black's position
having been further damaged by it. For
example, there might be the possibility of
an attack down the h-file for White.
27...Cf6 28.f3 Ta3 29.g4 Da4?!
[ 29...Ch7 s ee ms li ke a bet te r tr y .]
30.Tbc1 Tb3 31.Ac4 [ Not bad, but
31.g5! looks even stronger. After Ch5
32.Tc7 Txb4 ( if 32...Dxb4 33.Dxb4 Txb4
34.Tdc1 f6 35.gxf6 gxf6 36.Cg6
w in s a p i e c e) 33.Dd6 Td8 34.g6!
White has a winning attack.] 31...Ta3
32.Ae2 Tb3 33.b5 [ And here 33.Tc7!
is the best way, for example Txb4 ( or
33...Dxb4 34.Dxb4 Txb4 35.Tdc1 Cxe4
36.Txc8 ) 34.Dc3 Tb3 35.Dc5 De8 36.g5
Ch5 37.Ac4 Tc3 38.Db4 Tc2 39.Te7
etc. ] 33...Tb4!? [ Black was evidently
unimpressed with his endgame prospects
62
after the continuation 33...Dxd4+ 34.Txd4
, and who can blame him. The text gives
White more chances to go wrong, and he
s o o n d o e s .] 34.Dc5 Tb2 35.Rf1?
[ The correct line was 35.g5! Ch7 ( if
35...Txe2 36.gxf6 gxf6 37.Rh1!
is deadly ) 36.g6 fxg6 37.Rf1 when Black
i s l i k e a s q u i rr e l i n t h e h e a d l a m p s .]
35...Cxe4! 36.fxe4 Dxe4 37.Te1
[ 37.Af3 was better, but still just a mess
now. ] 37...b6 [ 37...f6! was simpler, for
example 38.Cd3 Txe2 39.Txe2 Dxd3
40.De3 Dd5 . ] 38.Dxf8+ [ No doubt
shake n by t he s u dd en tur n of e ven t s
White forces a draw. He is probably still
b et t er a f t e r 38.Tc4 , but with his king in
the open the position is not for those of
a n e r v o u s d i s p o s i t i o n .] 38...Rxf8
39.Txc8+ Re7 40.Af3 Dh7 41.Tc7+
Rd8 42.Td1+ Rxc7 43.Td7+ Rb8
44.Td8+ Rc7 45.Td7+
½-½
E.Gleizerov
A.Adly
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Cf6 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 c5 6.0-0 Cc6 7.dxc5 Although
this is not the most thrilling alternative, it
does give W hite so me chanc es of a n
ed g e wi t h o u t ha vi n g t o k n ow a l ot of
intricate theory. This is why it's often been
my own preference.
7...Dxd1 [ Black can also play 7...Axc5
, f o r e x a m p l e 8.Dxd8+ ( or White can
avoid the exchange of queens with 8.Da4
Ad7 9.Dxc4 De7 10.Ag5 Ab6 11.Cc3
h6 12.Axf6 Dxf6 13.Tfd1 De7 14.Ca4!
0-0 15.Cxb6 axb6 16.Db3 Ta6 17.Cd4!
with an edge in J.Speelman-A.Sokolov,
Brussels 1988; another way is 8.Cbd2!?
, but then c3! 9.bxc3 e5 10.Dc2 0-0
11.Cg5 h6 12.Cge4 Cxe4 13.Cxe4 Ae7
14.Ab2 Ae6 was very comfortable for
Black in D.Kosic-D.Feletar, Bizovac 2004)
8...Cxd8! ( 8...Rxd8 9.Cbd2 Re7
10.Cxc4 Cd5 11.a3 b5 12.Cce5 Cxe5
Learn Tatics step by step 63
13.Cxe5 Ab7 14.Cd3 Thc8 15.Ad2 Ad4
16.Tfc1 Txc1+ 17.Txc1 Tc8 18.Txc8
Axc8 19.e3 Ab6 20.e4 was very slightly
better for White in A.Miles-A.So kolov,
Cran s Mont a na 200 1) 9.Ce5 Ad7!
10.Cd2! c3 ( 10...Tc8 11.Cdxc4 Ab5
12.b3 would also be a bit better for White)
11.Cxd7 Cxd7 12.Ce4 Tc8 13.bxc3 Ae7
14.Td1 Cb6 15.Ae3 Cd5 16.Axa7 f5
17.c4 Txc4 18.Cd2 Ta4 19.Axd5 exd5
20.Ab6 Af6 21.Tab1 0-0 22.Cf3 Txa2
23.e3 Cc6 24.Txd5 gave White a small
edge in S.Atalik-S.Smagin, Yugoslavia
1992, though this wasn't enough to stop
Black getting a draw] 8.Txd1 Axc5
9.Cbd2 c3 Damaging White's pawn
structure but giving him the possibility of
play a lo ng t h e b -f i le . [ In one of my own
games , N.Da vies- A.Che rnin, Mo scow
1988, Black tried 9...Ca5?! , when 10.Ce5
c3 11.bxc3 Cd7 12.Cec4 Cxc4 13.Cxc4
f6 14.Cd6+ Axd6 15.Txd6 put him under
serious pressure.; Another possibility is
9...Re7?! , b u t a f t e r 10.Cxc4 Td8
11.Txd8 Cxd8 12.Cfe5 Cd5 13.Cd3
Black was again under strong pressure in
M.Sorokin-F.Benko, Buenos Aires 1997.]
10.bxc3 0-0 11.Cb3 Ae7 12.Cfd4 Ad7
[ D.King-M.Quinn, Dublin 1993, varied with
12...Td8 13.Af4 Cd5 14.Cxc6 bxc6
15.Ca5 Aa6 16.Cxc6 Te8 , and now
17.Cxe7+ Txe7 18.e3 would have left
Black with an uphill struggle.] 13.Ag5
The only move that seems to trouble Black.
The alternatives seem to be rather equal,
for example: [ a) 13.Ae3 Tfc8 14.Cb5
Cd8 15.Cd6 Axd6 16.Txd6 Ac6
was f ine T.Ma rk owsk i-G. Kaidan ov,
Moscow 2002.; b) 13.Cxc6 Axc6 14.Axc6
bxc6 15.c4 a5?! ( 15...Ce4
seems better) 16.Ad2 a4 17.Ca5 Tfc8
18.Tab1 Rf8 19.f3 Ta7 20.Ac3
and White was pressing in A.Yermolinsky-
B.Gelfand, Sverdlovsk 1987.] 13...Tfc8
Black has t ried ot h er mo ves here: [ a)
13...Tfd8 14.Axf6 ( 14.Cb5 Cd5 15.Axe7
Ccxe7 16.c4 Axb5 17.cxb5
wa s m argi nal ly mo r e co m fo rt a bl e f or
White in K.Urban-A.Fernandes, Yerevan
Olympiad 1996) 14...Axf6 15.Cc5 Cxd4
( 15...Tab8? 16.Cxd7! Txd7 17.Axc6
bxc6 18.Cxc6 Txd1+ 19.Txd1
left Black struggling in M.Ulibin-A.
Belozerov, Tomsk 1997) 16.cxd4 Ac6
17.Axc6!? bxc6 18.e3 Tab8 19.Cd3 Tb5
20.Tac1 and White had a small edge in K.
Miton-G.Papp, World Junior Ch. 2001.; b)
13...Tac8 14.Axf6 ( 14.Cb5!? looks like
the acid test of 13...Rac8 as now the a-
pawn isn't protected; a game between
two amateur players, E.Lomer-B.Schramm,
E c k e r n f o e r d e 2 0 0 7 , c o n t i n u e d Tfd8
, when White should have tried 15.Cd6 )
14...Axf6 15.Cc5 Cxd4 16.cxd4 Ab5
17.e3 b6 18.Ce4 Ae7 19.a4 Ae2
20.Td2 Ac4 21.Tb2 subsequently led to a
draw in J.Speelman-P.Van der Sterren,
Y e r e van O l ym p i a d 1 9 9 6 .] 14.Axf6
[ 14.Tab1!? was played in L.Aronian-R.
Vaganian, German League 2006, wit h
White having the chances after Cd8 ( or if
14...Cd5 15.c4!? is interesting, as Cc3
is answered by 16.Axc6 ) 15.Ca5 Aa4
16.Td3 e5 17.Cf5 Af8 18.Tb2 Tab8
19.Ch6+ gxh6 20.Axf6 Cc6 21.Axc6
bxc6 22.Txb8 Txb8 23.Td7 though the
game later ended in a draw.] 14...Axf6
15.Cc5 Cxd4 16.cxd4 Ac6 [ Not
16...Ab5 because of 17.Axb7 . ] 17.Cxb7
Axg2 18.Rxg2 Tab8 19.Cc5 Axd4
20.Txd4 Txc5 21.Tb1 So White gets the
slightest of initiatives by taking the open
files for his rooks. But as the old
expression says, 'all rook endgames are
drawn'.
21...Tf8 22.Tb7 Ta5 23.a4 g5 24.h4 h6
25.h5 Rg7 26.g4 Rf6 27.Rg3 a6
28.Ta7 Tb8 29.e3 Tb1 30.f4 Tb3
31.Rf3 Ta3 32.Tdd7 gxf4 33.Txf7+
Rg5 34.Txf4 Te5 [ And not 34...T3xa4?
because o f 35.Rg3 Txf4 36.exf4+ Rf6
37.Th7 etc. ] 35.Tg7+ Rh4 36.Te4 Txe4
37.Rxe4 Txa4+ 38.Rf3 a5 39.Tg6 e5
40.Txh6 Txg4 41.Ta6 e4+ 42.Rf2 Rxh5
43.Txa5+
½-½
Learn Tatics step by step
N.Davies
B.Nickoloff
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.Cf3 d5 3.c4 e6 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 Cc6 6.Da4 [ White can also
sacrifice a pawn with 6.0-0 , after which
Tb8 intending 7...b5 is very messy (see
Game 54 for coverage of this). If White
doesn't like being a pawn down, then 5
Q a 4 + i s t h e c o w a r d l y a l t e r n a t i v e .]
6...Ab4+ 7.Ad2 Cd5 [ White can meet
7...Ad6 with 8.Ce5 , when Axe5 9.Axc6+
bxc6 10.dxe5 Dd5 11.f3 Cd7 12.Cc3
Dc5 13.f4 Ab7 14.0-0-0 Cb6 15.Dc2
gave him the better game in B.
Damljanovic-C.Marcelin, French Team Ch.
2008. ] 8.Db5!? [ There's another
pos sib il ity i n 8.Axb4 , though it doesn't
seem to trouble Black unduly, for example
Cdxb4 9.0-0 ( 9.a3? b5! 10.Dxb5 Cc2+
11.Rd2 Ad7 12.Rxc2 Cxd4+ 13.Cxd4
Axb5 14.Cxb5 Tb8 was good for Black in
D.Khismatullin-P.Smirnov, Zvenigorod
2008 ) 9...Tb8 10.Ca3 ( 10.Cc3 a6
11.Ce5 0-0 12.Axc6 Cxc6 13.Cxc6 bxc6
14.Dxc4 Dd6 15.Ce4 Dd5 16.Dc2 Dxd4
wa s f i ne for B la ck a t th i s s ta g e in E .
Gleizerov-R.Miedema, Bucharest 2008)
10...0-0 ( 10...a6 11.Ce5 0-0 12.Cxc6
Cxc6 13.Dxc4 Dxd4 14.Axc6 Dxc4
15.Cxc4 bxc6 16.Tac1 Td8 17.Tfd1 Ad7
18.f4 Ae8 led to a draw in Wang Yue-E.
Ghaem Maghami, Asian Team Ch. ,
Visakhpatnam 2008) 11.Db5 b6 12.Dxc4
Aa6 13.Cb5 Dd5 14.Dxd5 Cxd5
( 14...exd5 15.a4 Ca5 seems fine for
Black too ) 15.a4 Ca5 16.Ce5 Tbd8
17.Axd5 Axb5 was equal and later drawn
in A.Grischuk-B.Gelfand, FIDE Grand Prix,
So ch i 2008 .] 8...Axd2+ 9.Cbxd2 c3
10.bxc3 Cxc3 11.Dd3 Cd5 12.0-0 0-0
[ It's easy for Black to assume that he's
just a pawn up with no weaknesses. I
think that this led to my opponent's claim
du rin g the p o st mo r t e m t h a t 12. .. 0 -0
'loses' and that 12...b6 would be better for
B l ac k , b e c a u s e h e wo u l d be a b l e t o
develop his queen's bishop. Personally
64
s pe a k i ng , I th in k t h i s a s s es s m en t i s
rather too definitive and feel that White
would not be without compensation for his
pawn. ] 13.Tfc1 [ In V.Tkachiev-M.Palac,
P u l a 2 0 0 0 , W h i t e v a r i e d wi t h 13.Tfe1
, but after De7 14.e4 Cf6 15.Tac1 Td8
16.De3 h6 17.Cb3 Ad7 18.Tc3 a5
19.Cc5 b6 20.Cxd7 Dxd7 21.Td1 Ce7
agreed a draw. Interestingly, Tkachiev
seems to have come round to my way of
thinking after this game, playing 13 Rfc1
a g a i n s t I n k i o v ( s e e t h e n e xt n o t e ) .]
13...Cce7 [ V.Tkachiev-V.Inkiov,
Aubervilliers (rapid) 2003, went 13...h6
14.Tab1 Cb6 15.e4 De7 16.Cb3 Td8
17.De3 a5 18.Cc5 a4 19.Af1 Ta5
20.Dc3 Ta8 21.Td1 a3 22.Ab5 Ca7
23.Ad3 when White had very strong
pressure and later won. This line
certainly seems to be a highly unpleasant
one for Black in practice, as White has a
lot of pressure for the pawn.] 14.Tab1 h6
[ Safeguarding his position against the
possibility of Nf3-g5. When Black played
this move I was considering whether or
not I could take advantage of an
immediate 14...b6 . Something like
15.Cg5 Cg6 16.h4 is interesting but
could hardly masquerade as a refutation.]
15.Dc4 c6 16.Ce5 f6 After this I was
reall y licki ng my lips, b eca us e of t h e
weakness it creates on e6. Before this
Black's position was definitely
uncomfortable, but there was no obvious
attacking plan available to White.
17.Cd3 b6 18.Cf3 g5 There's an
int er est in g par all el he re wi th h ow a n
athlete might have a niggling ankle strain
but then does something far more serious
in an attempt to compensate for it. In a
wa y this is a con seque nce o f 16... f6:
Black wants to prevent the possibility of a
later Nd3-f4, but in doing so weakens his
kingside even further.
19.h4 Rg7 20.hxg5 hxg5 21.e4 De8?
[ This quite astonishing move is explained
by the fact that Nickoloff is a player who
likes to exercise control in his games. I
was expecting 21...Cc7 , which I intended
Learn Tatics step by step 65
t o m e e t w i t h 22.e5 , effectively
demolishing Black's kingside pawn
structure. After the text there is surely
not enough for the piece if White plays
with sufficient energy.] 22.exd5 exd5
23.Db4 Af5 24.Te1 Tf7 25.Te3 Dd7
[ This allows White a decisive
breakt hro ug h. 25...Ae4 26.Cd2 Axg2
27.Rxg2 Dd7 was a better chan ce.]
26.Cfe5! fxe5 27.Cxe5 Dc7 28.Cxf7
Rxf7 [ After 28...Axb1 there is 29.Txe7
etc. ] 29.Tbe1 Cg6?! 30.Tf3
1-0
V.Kramnik
A.Naiditsch
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 dxc4
5.Cf3 Cc6 6.Da4 Cd7 7.Dxc4 Cb6
8.Db5!? [ This strange-looking move
attempts to make it difficult for Black to
play ...e6-e5, though it's clear that White
will have to lose more time with the queen.
For the t radi tional 8.Dd3 see the next
game, Damljanovic-Pavasovic.] 8...Ad7
'Shadowing' the queen but reducing the
p r e s s u r e o n t h e d 4 - p a w n . [ The main
alternative is 8...a6 , when after 9.Dd3 e5
10.Cxe5 Cb4 11.Dc3 Dxd4
, W h i t e s h o u l d p r o b a b l y t r y 12.0-0
( 12.Dxc7 is very risky, for example Ae7
13.0-0 C6d5 14.Axd5 Cxd5 15.e3 De4
16.Cd2 Df5 left White very weak on the
light squares in D.Yevseev-V.Orlov, St
Petersburg 2005; however, 12.Dxd4
is q uit e inter esting , f or e xampl e Cc2+
13.Rd1 Cxd4 14.Ae3 Cf5 15.Axb6 cxb6
16.e3 b5 17.Cc3 Ad6 18.Cd3
left White with a nice edge in I.Rausis-A.
Gavrilov, Tallinn 2008, because of the
centra l squa res available to his minor
pieces ) 12...Dxc3 13.Cxc3 Ad6 14.Cf3
. The fact that Black has played his a-
pawn f orwar d one square gives Whit e
mor e p r ospe ct s t h an in D aml ja n ovi c-
Pavasovic; for example 0-0 15.Td1 Tb8
16.Cd4 Ad7 17.a3 Cc6 18.Cxc6 Axc6
19.Axc6 bxc6 was A.Khalifman-K.Landa,
Russian Team Ch. 2007, when the quiet
20.Tb1 would have kept a little
some t hi ng .] 9.Db3 Ca5 With ...e6-e5
having been rendered difficult, Black tries
to get in ...c7-c5.
10.Dd3 [ An interesting move which was
new at the time. Naiditsch had previously
had 10.Dc2 played against him in two
games, B.Avrukh-A.Naiditsch, European
Cup, Saint Vincent 2005, and P.H.Nielsen-
A.Naiditsch, Dortmund 2005. In both of
these he got a very comfortable game with
just Tc8 followed by ...c7-c5.] 10...c5
[ The most logical move, though not
without risk. With White's queen on d3,
10...Tc8 could be answered with 11.0-0
c5 12.Cc3 , when White's lead in
deve lopment give s him the in itiative.]
11.dxc5!? [ This represents an attempt to
refute Black's last move. In a later game,
V.Tkachiev-F.Libiszewski, French Ch.,
Besancon 2006, White played just 11.0-0
and, af te r Ac6 12.Td1 cxd4 13.Cxd4
Axg2 14.Rxg2 Dd5+ 15.e4 , had the
better of it thanks to his space and lead
in development.] 11...Axc5 12.Dc3 Tc8!?
Preparing to give up a lot of material for a
dange rous at tack. Whether o r not i t's
correct, it certainly manages to make Mr.
Kramnik nervous.
13.Dxg7 [ After 13.Dxa5 Black has Ab4+
14.Dxb4 Txc1+ 15.Rd2 Tc4
with a strong initiative for the sacrificed
piece. For example, 16.Dd6 can be met
by Tc2+! 17.Rd1 Txe2! , threatening ...
Ba4+, and meanwhile marauding White's
second rank. Kramnik u nderstandably
refrains fro m this.] 13...Af8 14.Dg5
[ Bailing out into an endgame. The critical
line is 14.Dxh8!? , which looks very scary
but doesn't seem to leave Black with a
clear solution. In fact White keeps a large
part of his material advantage after Txc1+
15.Rd2 Txh1 16.Axh1 Aa4+ 17.Dd4
Cbc4+ 18.Re1 . ] 14...Dxg5 15.Axg5
Ag7 16.Cbd2 h6 17.Af4 Axb2 18.Tb1
Cd5 19.Ad6 Ag7 White has the superior
pawn structure, Black t he more active
Learn Tatics step by step
pieces. The chances are about even.
20.Ce5 Cc3 21.Tc1 Cxa2 22.Txc8+
Axc8 23.0-0 Cc3 24.Ta1 Cb5 25.Txa5
Cxd6 26.Cec4 Re7 27.Txa7 Ad4
28.Ta8 Cxc4 29.Cxc4 b5 30.e3 Ad7
31.exd4 Txa8 32.Axa8 bxc4
Black actually has the chances here, but
Kramnik steers the game safely to a draw.
33.Rf1 Rd6 34.Re2 Ac6 35.Axc6 Rxc6
36.Rd2 Rd5 37.Rc3 Re4 38.Rxc4 Rf3
39.d5 exd5+ 40.Rxd5 Rxf2 41.Re5
Rg2 42.Rf6 Rxh2 43.Rxf7 Rxg3
44.Rg6
½-½
B.Damljanovic
D.Pavasovic
[Nigel Davies]
1.c4 e6 2.Cf3 d5 3.d4 Cf6 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 Cc6 6.Da4 Cd7 7.Dxc4 Cb6
8.Dd3 e5 9.Cxe5 White has
experimented with some other moves here,
but none of them seem particularly testing:
[ a) 9.dxe5 Dxd3 10.exd3 Cb4 11.Ca3
Cxd3+ 12.Re2 Cxc1+ 13.Taxc1 c6
i s f i n e f o r B l a c k , wh os e b i s h o p p a i r
compensate for White's active pieces.; b)
9.Ae3 c a n b e n e u t r a li z e d b y Ab4+
, when G.Flear-B.Lalic, Hastings 1996/97,
went 10.Cc3 exd4 11.Cxd4 Cxd4
12.Dxd4 Dxd4 13.Axd4 0-0 14.a3 Ae7
15.Cb5 c5 16.Ac3 Ad7 with equality.; c)
9.Ag5 Ae7 10.Axe7 Dxe7 11.Cxe5
Cxe5 12.dxe5 Dxe5 13.Cc3 0-0 14.0-0
c6 15.Tfd1 Ae6 16.Dd4 Dc7 17.b4 Tfd8
w a s s o o n d r a w n i n A . P o l u l j a h o v- M .
Brod sky, Kra snoda r 1999 .] 9...Cb4
10.Dc3 This leads to an almost equal
endgame in which most strong players
may slightly prefer White. Attempts t o
extract more from this position are risky,
for example: [ a) 10.Dd1 Dxd4 11.Dxd4
Cc2+ 12.Rd1 hopes that White's
centralized king will be useful, but it can
a l s o b e c o m e a t a r g et . B . G e l f a n d - V .
Ivanchuk, Sochi 1986, continue d Cxd4
13.e3 Ce6 14.Cc3 f6! 15.Cd3 Cc5
66
16.Cxc5 Axc5 17.Rc2 Af5+! 18.e4 Ae6
19.f4 0-0-0 20.b3 h5 21.h3 f5
and Black had his full share of the play.; b)
10.Db3 Ae6 11.Dd1 Dxd4 12.Dxd4
Cc2+ 13.Rd1 Cxd4 14.Axb7 Td8
15.Cd2 f6 16.Cc6 Cxc6 17.Axc6+ Rf7
18.Rc2 Ac5 and Black had excellent play
for the pawn in G.Kaidanov-A.
Shariyazdanov, Elista Olympiad 1998.]
10...Dxd4 11.0-0 [ Grabbing the c7-pawn
with 11.Dxc7!? is not for the squeamish:
Ae6 ( 11...Ae7 also seems playable, for
example 12.Cf3 Dc4 13.Dxc4 Cxc4
14.Cd4 Af6 15.a3 was P.Haba-J.Klovans,
Leinfelden 2001, and now Axd4 16.axb4
Cxb2 17.Ta2 Cc4 looks more or less
equal ) 12.Axb7 ( 12.Cf3?! Dc4! 13.Dxc4
Cxc4 14.Cd4 0-0-0 15.a3 Txd4 16.axb4
Axb4+ 17.Cc3 a6 gave Black the better
endgame in E.Vladimirov-Li Wenliang,
Asia n Ch. , Cal cu tt a 20 01) 12...Td8!
13.Ac6+ ( 13.0-0? Ad6 14.Ac6+ Ad7
15.Axd7+ Txd7 wins material) 13...Cd7!
14.Axd7+ Axd7 15.Cxd7?!
( of t h e alte rna tive s 15.Cf3?? Dd1+!
16.Rxd1 Aa4+ leads to mate; 15.0-0?!
Ad6 16.Cf3 Axc7 17.Cxd4 Ah3
wi n s t h e e xc h an ge; while 15.Cd2
gives Black a vitriolic initiative after Ad6
16.Cef3 Dd5 17.Dc3 Tc8 18.Dxg7 Cc2+
19.Rd1 Tf8 ) 15...Ad6! 16.Dc3?! ( 16.Db7
Cc2+ 17.Rf1 Cxa1 would be better for
B la c k, b ut n ot a s g o od as t h e g am e)
16...Dxc3+ 17.bxc3 Cc2+ 18.Rd1 Cxa1
19.Ab2 Txd7 and White didn't have
enou gh f o r the e xc ha ng e b e c ause of
Black's act ive pieces in A.Flumbort-A.
Ga vrilov, Novi Sad 200 2.] 11...Dxc3
[ 11...Ac5 doesn't improve Black's
chances after 12.Cf3 Dxc3 13.Cxc3 0-0
14.Td1 . ] 12.Cxc3 This endgame isn't as
promising for White as the equivalent one
after 8 Qb5 a6 9 Qd3, (see the notes to
the previous game). Even so it's playable,
and with patience and a strong cup of
coffee might even be winnable.
12...Ad6 Black has tried a number of other
moves: [ a) 12...g6?! 13.Cb5 Ca6 14.Af4
c6?! ( 14...Ag7 15.Cd3 c6 16.Cd6+ Re7
Learn Tatics step by step 67
17.e4 would give White an edge without
any fireworks) 15.Cxc6! bxc6 16.Axc6+
Ad7 17.Axa8 Axb5 ( 17...Cxa8 18.Ae5!
would be good for White, as Black must
misplace his rook) 18.Ae5! Tg8 19.Tfc1!
Ae7? ( 19...Rd7! 20.Af3 Ae7 21.b3 Aa3
22.Tc2 would still have been good for
White, but not as clear as in the game)
20.a4! Ad7 21.Af3 Cxa4 22.Txa4 Axa4
23.Tc8+ Ad8 24.Af6 Rd7 25.Ag4+ Rd6
26.Txd8+ left White a good pawn up in V.
Tukmakov-B.Gelfand, Sverdlovsk 1987.; b)
12...f6 13.Cf3 c6 ( 13...Ad7 14.Td1 Ad6
15.Af4 Axf4 16.gxf4 was slightly better
for White in A.Mikhalchishin-G.Kaidanov,
USSR 1988 ) 14.Ad2!? Ag4 ( 14...Cc4!?
15.Af4 Cxb2 16.Cd2 g5 17.Ac7 Ae6
18.Tab1 Cc4 19.Cxc4 Axc4 20.a3 Cd5
21.Txb7! is an interesting line given by
Dokhoian ) 15.h3 Ad7 16.Tfc1! Rf7
17.a3 C4d5 18.Ce4 Te8 19.Cd4! Ac8
( 19...Axh3!? 20.Cxf6! Rxf6 21.Axh3 c5
22.Cb5 Txe2 23.Td1 would give White a
strong initiative) 20.b4 a6 21.Cc5 Ad6
22.Tab1! and White had pressure in I.
Smirin-S.Kishnev, USSR 1989.] 13.Cf3
c6 [ In Y.Razuvaev-R.Dautov, Reggio
Emi lia 19 95 / 96, B la ck pl ayed 13...Ad7
, but had the worst of it after 14.a3 C4d5
15.Cxd5 Cxd5 16.Cd4 c6 17.Td1 Td8
18.Axd5 cxd5 19.Af4 Axf4 20.gxf4
. The isolated d- pawn is a more
si gni f i can t we ak n e ss th an W hi te 's
k i n g s i d e p a w n s .] 14.Ce4
[ A n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y i s 14.Td1
, for example Ae7 15.Cd4 0-0 ( 15...Ad7
16.a3 Ca6 17.b4 Cc7 18.Af4 0-0-0
19.Ce4 gave White some pressure in R.
Markus-A.Istratescu, European Team Ch.,
Gothenburg 2005) 16.a3 C4d5 17.Cxd5
Cxd5 18.e4 ( 18.Ad2?! Td8 19.Aa5 Cb6
20.Td3 Af6 was very comfortable for
Black in A.Beliavsky-M.Adams, Madrid
1998; while 18.Axd5 cxd5 19.Af4 Ad7
20.Tac1 Tfc8 was very comfortable for
Black in A.Beliavsky-M.Adams, Madrid
1998 ) 18...Cb6 19.b3 ½-½ was possibly
a ti n y bit b e tt er f o r W hit e in th e f in a l
position in A.Khalifman-M.Adams, German
Le ag ue 20 01.] 14...Ae7 15.Af4 0-0
16.Tfc1 [ This looks like a new move,
though it isn't particularly stunning. In K.
Sakaev-O.Korneev, Russian Team Ch.
2007, W hit e played 16.Cd6 , but after
C4d5 17.Cxc8 Taxc8 18.Ag5 Tfe8
19.Axe7 Txe7 h e wa s n o b e t t e r .]
16...C4d5 17.Ad2 Te8 18.Cd4 Cf6
19.Cc5 Axc5 20.Txc5 Ce4 21.Tc2
Cxd2 22.Txd2 Td8 23.Tdd1 Ae6
[ Rather than allow the weakening of his
pawn structure that follows Nxe6, I think
Black sh ould have considered 23...Ad7
. It's true that White's p osition is more
c o m f o r t a b l e h er e t o o , b u t i t ' s b y n o
means easy to win.] 24.f4 Cc4 25.Cxe6
fxe6 26.Rf2 Rf7 27.b3 Cb6 28.e4 Re7
29.Re3 a5 30.Af1 Td7 31.Ae2 Tad8
32.Txd7+ Cxd7 33.Tc1 Ta8 34.h4 h6
35.h5 Td8 36.Tc4 Ta8 37.Tc1 Td8
38.Td1 Ta8 39.Tb1 White is in no hurry.
He can try out different squares for his
pieces while playing on Black's nerves.
39...Ta7 40.a3 Ta8 41.Af3 Cb6 42.Tc1
Cd7 43.e5 Cb6 44.g4 Td8 45.Tc5 Ta8
46.Tc1 Td8 47.Ae4 Cd5+ 48.Axd5
Txd5 [ The best recapture, and probably
enough to draw with continued accurate
d e f e n c e . A f t e r 48...exd5 49.Rd4
Black would be under serious pressure,;
while 48...cxd5 49.Tc7+ Td7 50.Txd7+
Rxd7 51.b4 would give White a winning
pawn endgame.] 49.a4 Rd7 50.Tg1 Re7
51.Tb1 b5? [ I think this is wrong as it
allows the white rook to get active.
Instead he should have playe d 51...c5!
52.Tc1 b6 , and after 53.Tc3 Td4 54.Td3
Tb4 I don't see how White can make any
progress. ] 52.Tc1 Rd7 53.Tc3 bxa4
54.bxa4 c5 55.Tb3 Rc6 56.Tb8 Td7
57.Tc8+ Rd5 58.Ta8?! [ Time pressure
might have been playing its part at this
stage. 58.Rd3 looks like the right move,
for example Tf7 59.Td8+ Rc6 60.f5 exf5
61.e6 is winning for White.] 58...Rc4
59.f5 Td3+? [ Giving White another bite
at the cherry. Black can draw with 59...Td5
60.Te8 Txe5+ 61.Rf4 Te1 62.Txe6 Tf1+
63.Re5 Rb3 etc. ] 60.Rf2 Td2+ 61.Rg3
Learn Tatics step by step
Td3+ 62.Rh4 exf5 63.e6 Te3 64.gxf5
Rb4 [ Or 64...Rb3 65.Ta7 c4 66.Txg7
c3 67.Tb7+ etc. ] 65.Tg8 c4 66.Txg7 c3
67.Tc7 [ And not 67.Tb7+ because of Rc5
, w he n B l ac k ca n a t t a c k t h e p a s s e d
pawns. ] 67...Rb3 68.e7 c2 69.f6 Rb2
70.Txc2+! Rxc2 71.f7 Txe7 72.f8D
Te4+ 73.Rg3 Txa4 74.Dxh6
1-0
K.Miton
P.Charbonneau
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Ag2 dxc4
5.Cf3 Cc6 6.0-0 A nonchalant approach.
But will Black's next move allow him to
hold the pawn?
6...Tb8 [ 6...a6 produces the same
posit io n as 5. .. a6 6 0-0 Nc6 wh ich is
examined in the next chapter.] 7.Cc3 b5
[ H e r e , t o o , 7...a6 transposes into lines
c o v e r e d i n t h e n e x t c h a p t e r .;
Another possibility is 7...Ab4 . I.Ivanisevic-
H.Mas, Biel 2008, continued in
entertaining style with 8.a3 Axc3 9.bxc3
0-0 10.Ag5 h6 11.Ah4!? g5 12.Cxg5
hxg5 13.Axg5 Rg7 14.e4 Ce7 15.f4
Ch7 16.Dh5 Cxg5 17.fxg5 e5 18.Tf6
Cg8 19.Taf1 , when White had a winning
attack. ] 8.Ce5 [ The great
correspondence champion and Catalan
expert Mikhail Umansky once played 8.e4
in this position, which is exactly the same
treatment as he uses after 5...a6 6 0-0
Nc6. Evidently he was not worried that
Black has saved half a tempo compared
with th at line. Anyway, M.Uman sky-A .
Gavrilov, Internet (blitz) 2003, continued
Ae7 9.d5 exd5 10.exd5 Cb4 11.Ce5
Ad6 12.f4 Ab7 13.a3 Cbxd5 14.Cxd5
Axd5 15.Cc6 Ac5+ 16.Rh1 Axg2+
17.Rxg2 Dxd1 18.Txd1 Tc8 19.Te1+
Rf8 20.a4 b4 21.Ad2 g6 with the game
ending in a draw.] 8...Cxe5 9.dxe5 Cd7
10.Af4 This move attracts my interest
bec au se it is so nat ural ye t h as bee n
relatively little played. W hite has tried
68
several other possibilities here:
[ a) Another Umansky game, M.Umansky-
C.Singer, Fuerth 1999, varied with 10.a4
, but after b4 11.Cb5 Ac5 12.Af4 g5
13.Ae3 Axe3 14.fxe3 a6 15.Ca7 Cxe5
it became clear t hat White didn't have
enoug h. Um ansky's creativit y doesn't
a lwa ys wo rk o u t so we l l i n o ve r -t h e -
b o a r d e n c ou n t e r s wi t h s o l i t t l e t i m e
available.; b) 10.Ac6 a6 11.Dd4 Ab7
12.Axb7 Txb7 13.Td1 is neutralized by
c5! 14.Dg4 Dc7 15.Af4 Dc6! 16.f3! f5!
17.exf6 Cxf6 18.Dg5 Ae7 ( I played
18...Rf7 in P.Taboada-N.Davies,
corres pondence 2003 , with a draw
resulting after 19.Ae5 Ae7 20.Ce4 Td7
21.Cxf6 Axf6 22.Axf6 gxf6 23.Dh5+
Rg7 24.Dg4+ Rf7 25.Dh5+ etc ) 19.Dxg7
Tg8 20.Dh6 Tg6 21.Dh3 b4
wa s E .Gle izerov- J.W er le, Hoogevee n
2 0 0 0 , a n d n o w 22.Ce4 ( rather than
22.Cb1?! in the game) 22...Cxe4 23.Dxh7
e5 24.Dh8+ Rf7 25.Dh7+ Tg7 26.Dh5+
Rg8 27.Axe5 looks very messy.; c) 10.Dd4
c5 11.Df4 Dc7 ( 11...Ae7 12.a4 b4
13.Cb5 Ab7 14.Td1 0-0 15.Cxa7 Axg2
16.Rxg2 Dc7 17.Cb5 Dc6+ 18.f3 Cb6
gave both sides chances in A.Raetsky-A.
Groszpeter, Geneva 2003) 12.a4 a6
13.axb5 axb5 14.Td1 was D.Antic-V.
Savicevic, Leposavic 2003, and now Ae7
was probably best, when 15.Dg4 Rf8
16.f4 b4 17.Ce4 would have been far
f r o m c l e a r .] 10...Ab7 [ In M.Ulibin-K.
Kulao ts, B erli n 199 6, Bl ack p layed
10...Ae7 , which White might have
exploited with 11.a4 ( rather than 11.Dc2
, when Ab7 12.Axb7 Txb7 13.a4
c a n b e a n s we r e d w i t h c6! ) 11...a6
( 11...b4 12.Cb5 Ab7 13.Cxa7
is better for White) 12.axb5 axb5 13.Dc2
Ab7 14.Axb7 Txb7 15.Tfd1 with strong
pressure. ] 11.Axb7 Txb7 12.Dc2 [ 12.a4
i s l e s s e f f e c t i v e h e r e b e c a u s e o f c6
, f o r e xa m p l e 13.Dc2 ( 13.Ce4 Cc5
14.Dc2 Ae7 15.axb5 cxb5 16.Ag5 Cxe4
17.Dxe4 Dd5 was at least equal for Black
i n M . I va n o v -C u . H a n s e n , A a r s 1 9 9 5)
13...Ae7 14.Tfd1 0-0 15.Ce4 and a draw
Learn Tatics step by step 69
was agreed in this unclear position in E.
Gleizerov-H.Olafsson, Osterskars 1995.]
12...Ae7 13.Tfd1 c6 [ Another Miton
game, K.Miton-E.Berg, World Junior Ch.
2001, went 13...Dc8 14.a4 ( 14.De4 c6
15.Df3 , as in E.Gleizerov-A.Rustemov,
B yd g o sz c z 2 0 00 , do e sn 't s ee m ve r y
convincing after f5 16.exf6 Cxf6 ) 14...a6
( 14...c6 could be an improvement, with
White having long-term compensation for
h is pa wn af t e r 15.Ce4 0-0 16.Td2 )
15.axb5 axb5 16.Ta5 c6 17.Ce4 0-0
18.Cd6 Axd6 19.exd6 e5 20.Ae3 Cf6
21.Ac5 Td8 22.Rg2 and White had
enough compensat ion, but maybe no t
more than that.] 14.Ce4 Dc7 15.Td2
[ White should probably take this
o p p o r t u n i t y t o p l a y 15.Cd6+ Axd6
16.exd6 , gaining a tempo on Black's
queen, and then following up with a2-a4.
In the game he also has 'compensation',
but this looked distinctly iffy until Black
erred later on.] 15...Cxe5 16.Dc3 f6
17.Cg5 b4 18.De3 Db6 19.De4
[ 19.Cxe6? Dxe3 20.fxe3 Rf7
is just good for Black.] 19...Cg4 20.Ch3
e5 21.Df5? [ White should go for
21.Dxc4!? exf4 22.De6 , when fxg3
23.hxg3 Ce5 24.Dc8+ Ad8 25.Txd8+
Dxd8 26.Dxb7 0-0 27.Dxb4
looks surprisingly equal.] 21...Cxf2 [ Here
21...c3! looks very strong, for example
22.bxc3 bxc3 23.Td3 Db2 etc. ] 22.Cxf2
0-0 23.Ah6 This is just about the most
damage White can do while he gives up
the bishop. But he really doesn't have
enough for the lost pawns here, at least
not yet.
23...gxh6 24.Rg2 c3 25.bxc3 bxc3
26.Tc2 De3?! [ 26...c5 looks good for
Black. ] 27.Td1 Td8 [ And here 27...Rh8
is bett er. Now White has enough for a
draw. ] 28.Txd8+ Axd8 29.Dc8 Db6
30.Txc3 Dc7 31.Dg4+ Rh8 32.Td3 Ae7
33.De6 c5 34.Cg4 Tb6? [ 34...Rg7
is the right move, when 35.Ce3 Tb6
36.Cf5+ Rf8 37.Dd7 Tb7 38.De6 Tb6
was a possible draw by repetition.] 35.Df7!
Dc6+?? [ Losing on the spot. 35...Tb8
was the only way to stay on the board,
though the position has turned against
Black big time.] 36.Rh3 h5 37.Td8+!
A messy game which raises more
questions than it answers.
1-0
M.Umansky
D.Weber
[Nigel Davies]
1.c4 Cf6 2.d4 e6 3.Cf3 d5 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 a6 6.0-0 Cc6 7.Cc3 Tb8
The critical line, getting ready to hold the
c4-pawn with ...b7-b5. [ Another possibility
is 7...Cd5 8.e4 Cxc3 9.bxc3 Ae7
, as in M.Umansky-C.Singer, Fürth 1999.
W h i t e s h o u l d n o w p l a y 10.De2
( rather than the 10.Cd2 o f t h e ga m e)
10...Ca5 11.Td1 , which would have given
him excellent compensation for the
sacr i fic ed p a wn, one o f Blac k 's ma in
p r ob l e m s b e i n g hi s l a c k o f e f f e c t i ve
pawn levers.] 8.e4 b5 [ For 8...Ae7
see the next game.] 9.d5 Cb4 [ 9...Ca5
is strongly met by 10.Ad2 , for example
b4 ( 10...exd5 11.Cxd5 Cxd5 12.exd5
Cb7 13.Ce5 allows White a great game
without any material investment) 11.Da4+
c6 12.Tad1 bxc3 13.Axc3 Db6 14.dxe6
Ab4 15.exf7+ Rxf7 16.Ce5+ , followed
by 17 Bd4, gives White a strong attack.]
10.b3 Undermining the c4-pawn so as to
stop Black's knight being irritating on d3.
Other moves don't do the trick: [ a) 10.Ce5
Ad6 11.f4 exd5 12.a3 Cd3 13.Cxd3
cxd3 14.exd5 Ac5+ 15.Rh1 Af5!
was good for Black in M.Vukic-S.
Marjanovic, Yugoslav Ch., Skender Vakuf
1980.; b) 10.Ag5 Ae7 11.Ce5 Cd7
12.Axe7 Dxe7 13.Cxd7 ½-½ V.Inkiov-M.
Brancaleoni, Montecatini Terme 2001,
was a good tactical draw offer by a GM
against his sub-2200 opponent. White
doesn't stand too well here.] 10...cxb3
[ After 10...exd5?! 11.exd5 cxb3 ( or if
11...Cfxd5 12.Cxd5 Dxd5 13.Cd4
, with ideas of Re1+ and/or Ba3, is very
Learn Tatics step by step
strong ) 12.Dxb3 Cd3 13.Ag5 Ae7
14.Cd4 Ad7 15.Tad1 Cc5 16.Dc2
White had a nice game in S.Gorelov-S.
A b r a m o v , U S S R 1 9 9 1 .] 11.Dxb3
[ White can also try 11.Cd4!? , when c5
( if 11...e5 12.Cxb3 threatening 13 a3 is
awkward; so maybe Black should go the
whole hog with 11...bxa2 ) 12.dxc6 e5
13.Cd5! Ad6 14.c7 Axc7 15.Cxb4 Dxd4
16.Dxd4 exd4 17.axb3 was better for
W h it e in O. C vit an - T . Lu t h er , G e r ma n
League 1998.] 11...c5 12.dxc6 Cxc6
13.Af4 [ Another possibility is 13.Td1
, for example Db6 ( 13...Dc7 14.Af4 e5
15.Cd5 Cxd5 16.exd5 exf4 17.Dc3
seems pretty good for White) 14.Af4 Tb7
15.e5 Cd7 ( 15...Cg4 16.Ce4 is strong )
16.Ce4 Cc5 17.De3! Cxe4 18.Dxe4
was V.Tukmakov-K.Hulak, Croatian Team
Ch . 1 9 99 , wh en Ac5 would have been
B l a c k ' s b e s t w i t h a b o u t e v e n p l a y .]
13...Tb7 14.Tad1 Umansky finds what's
probably the strongest move for White.
Over the board players have done less
well he re: [ a) 14.e5 Cd7 15.Ce4 Ca5
16.Dc3 Dc7 17.Dd4 Db6 18.Tfc1 Tb8
saw Black hold on in P.H.Nielsen-L.Van
Wely, Dortmund 2005.; b) 14.Tac1 Ca5!
15.Dc2 Aa3 16.Tcd1 Cd7 17.Ag5 Dc7
18.Af4 Dd8 19.Ag5 f6!? 20.Cd4 Tb6
was unclea r in R.Bator-Se.Ivanov,
Stockholm 2000.; c) 14.Tfd1 should be
met by Td7 , when 15.e5 Ca5 16.Dc2
Ch5!? isn't clear either.] 14...Cd7 15.Dc2
[ In P.Haba-A.Morozevich, European Club
Cup, Kemer 2007, W hite prepared the
k n i g h t s a c r i f i c e o n d 5 w i t h 15.Tfe1
, b u t a f t e r Ae7 16.Cd5 Black simply
sidestepped it with Ac5 . There followed
17.e5 Ca5 18.Dc2 Cc4 19.Cg5 Ta7
20.Cxh7 Da5 21.Cg5 Cdb6 with very
c o m p l e x p l a y .] 15...Ca5 16.Cd5!?
A brilliant sacrifice from Umansky, which I
believe was at least partly intuitive. It's
fascinating that someone can successfully
play this way in a f orm of chess that's
dominated by computers.
16...exd5 17.exd5 Ae7 [ There's a
critical alternative in 17...Ac5 , but White
70
s ee m s t o h a ve mo re t h an e n o u gh . A
sample line is 18.Cg5 Ab4 19.De4+ De7
20.Dd4 Cc4 ( if 20...0-0 21.d6 ) 21.Dxg7
Tf8 ( or 21...Df6 22.Tfe1+ ) 22.d6 Df6
23.Tfe1+ Axe1 24.Txe1+ Rd8 25.Ce6+
fxe6 26.Ag5 Cxd6 27.Txe6 etc. ] 18.Cd4
0-0 19.Cc6 Cxc6 20.dxc6 Ta7
[ 20...Tc7 is powerfully answered by
21.Ae4 , threatening Bxc7 and c6xd7.]
21.c7! De8 22.Tfe1 Cc5 23.Ad6 Axd6
24.Txe8 Txe8 25.Ac6! Tf8 26.Txd6
The smoke has cleared to leave White
wi t h a ma t eri al a dvan t ag e . U ma ns k y
solves the technic al proble ms ve ry
convincingly.
26...Ce6 27.f4 Txc7 28.Dd2 g6 29.g4
Cg7 30.Da5 Ce8 31.Axe8 Tc1+ 32.Rf2
Txe8 33.Td8 Txd8 [ Black probably
considered 33...Tc2+ , but after 34.Rg3
Txd8 35.Dxd8+ Rg7 36.Dd4+ Rg8 37.f5
gxf5 38.Dd8+ Rg7 39.Dg5+ Rf8 40.gxf5
White is threatening 41 f6.] 34.Dxd8+
Rg7 35.f5 Tc6 36.Dd4+ Rf8 [ Or 36...f6
37.Da7+ Rf8 38.Dxh7 etc. ] 37.Dh8+ Re7
38.Dxh7 gxf5 39.g5 Tc2+ 40.Re3 Tg2
41.h4 Ae6 42.Dh8 a5? [ 42...Txa2
w o u l d h a v e p u t u p m o r e o f a f i g h t .]
43.Df6+ Rd7 44.h5 Txa2 45.h6 Th2
46.Dg7 Rd6 47.h7 Th3+ 48.Rf4 Th4+
49.Rg3 Txh7 50.Dxh7 b4 51.Dh8 Rd5
52.Da8+ Rc4 53.g6 fxg6 54.Dc6+ Rd4
55.Dxe6 Rc5 56.Rf4 Rd4 57.Dd6+ Rc3
58.Re3
1-0
B.Gelfand
Y.Drozdovskij
[Nigel Davies]
1.c4 Cf6 2.d4 e6 3.Cf3 d5 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 a6 6.0-0 Cc6 7.Cc3 Tb8 8.e4
Ae7 9.De2 [ Offering the d-pawn as a
gambit. There's also a case for playing
9.d5 Cb4 10.Ce5 , for example exd5
11.exd5 Cd3 ( if 11...Af5 12.Cxc4!? Ad3
13.Ce3 Axf1 14.Dxf1 a5 15.a3 Ca6
16.Db5+ Dd7 17.Cf5! gives White a
strong initiative for the sa crificed
Learn Tatics step by step 71
exchange ) 12.Cxd3 cxd3 13.Dxd3 0-0
14.h3 Ad7 15.Td1 Ce8 16.Ae3 Cd6
17.Tac1 , when White's position was
preferable due to his space in B.Lalic-L.
T r e n t , B r i t i s h C h . , L i v e r p o o l 2 0 0 8 .]
9...Cxd4 [ Black is well advised to take d4
before White defends it. E.L'Ami-S.Sulskis,
European Ch., Liverpool 2008, featured
9...b5 10.Td1 0-0 11.d5 exd5 12.e5 d4
( 12...Cd7 13.Cxd5 is just good for
White ) 13.exf6 Axf6 14.De4 Cb4
15.Cxd4 Ab7 16.Cc6! Dc8 ( 16...Axc6
17.Txd8 Axe4 18.Txb8 Txb8 19.Axe4
leaves Black with inadequate
compensation) 17.Ce7+ Axe7 18.Dxe7
Axg2 19.Rxg2 , when Black didn't have
enough for the piece.] 10.Cxd4 Dxd4
11.Td1 Dc5 [ In A.Zontakh-S.Slugin,
L i p e t s k 2 0 0 8 , B l a c k p l a y e d 11...Da7
, af ter which 12.e5 Cd7 13.Dg4 Rf8
14.Ae3 b6 15.Ag5 left Black's queen
totally out of the game, while he had to
face horrible threats on t he kingside.]
12.e5 [ There's a noteworthy alternative in
12.Ae3!? , f o r e xa m p l e Da5 13.Ad2
( 13.Dxc4 e5 14.Cd5 Cxd5 15.Txd5 Ae6
16.Txa5 Axc4 17.Txe5 f6 18.Txe7+
Rxe7 19.Tc1 Axa2 20.Txc7+ Rf8
gave W hit e just about en ough for th e
exchange in A.Ri azantsev-V. Milov,
Venaco rapid 2005) 13...Dc5 14.e5 Cd7
15.Ce4 Db5 ( 15...Dxe5 16.Ac3 Df5
17.Dxc4 0-0 18.Dxc7 also left Black in
trouble in V.Mikhalevski-I.Krush, Ashdod
2006 ) 16.a4 Dxb2 17.Dxc4 0-0 18.Ac3
Db6 19.Tab1 Da7 20.Cf6+! Axf6 21.exf6
Te8 22.Txd7 Axd7 23.Dg4 g6 24.Dg5
Rh8 25.Tb4 Db6 26.Dh6 1-0 was the
brilliant game E.Gleizerov-B.Itkis, Predeal
2 007. Af t e r Tg8 27.Dxh7+ Black gets
mated.
All these lines are highly complex so it's
difficult to know what the 'absolute truth'
is, at least without f urther tests .
Personally I wouldn't like to face White's
powerful initiative after either 12 e5 or
12 Be3. ] 12...Cd5 [ Or 12...Cd7 13.Ce4
( 13.Af4 , as played in E.Bareev-A.
Timofe ev, S erpukh ov 2 0 07, pr o babl y
isn't necessary, as after 13 Ne4 Black is
ill advised to take the e5-pawn) 13...Db4
( after 13...Dxe5 a sample line is 14.Af4
Da5 15.Dxc4 e5 16.Ag5 Cf6 17.b4 Db6
18.Ae3 Ae6 19.Axb6 Axc4 20.Axc7
with much the better endgame) 14.Dg4
Af8 ( on 14...Rf8 White can consider
opening more lines with 15.b3!? ) 15.a3
Db3 16.Ad2 Dxb2 17.Ac3 Db6?!
( 17...Db3 is better ) 18.Tab1 Da7 19.Ad4
c5 20.Cd6+ Axd6 21.exd6 cxd4
22.Dxg7 Tf8 23.Te1 1-0 T.Thaler-
ChessWorld.net, correspondence 2004,
as Black is defenceless against the threat
of 2 4 Rxe 6 +.] 13.Ce4 [ Playing for the
attack rather than the recovery of material.
In an earlier game, B.Gelfand-E.Vallejo
Pons, Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 2006,
Boris opted for 13.Cxd5!? exd5 14.Axd5
, but after 0-0 15.Ae3 Da5 16.Aa7 Ta8
17.e6 Axe6 18.Axe6 Txa7 19.Td7 Ad6
20.Txf7 Txf7 21.Df3 Rh8 22.Axf7 Db4
23.De4 Ta8 found himself in an equal and
drawish position.; K.Miton-M.Perunovic,
Vrsac 2008, varied with 13.Axd5 exd5
14.Cxd5 , b u t a f t e r Ad8 ( 14...Ae6
15.Ae3 Dc6 16.Cxe7 Rxe7 also looks
okay for Black) 15.Ae3 Dc6 16.Cb4
( 16.Tac1 0-0 17.Txc4 De6 18.Ac5 Te8
19.Tcd4 b6 20.Cf4 Dc6 21.Txd8 Ab7
22.T8d5 bxc5 wasn't clear in A.Huzman-
M.Venkatesh, Montreal 2008) 16...Db5
17.Txd8+ Rxd8 18.Td1+ Re8
, White had nothing better than 19.Cd5
Dc6 20.Cb4 Db5 21.Cd5 with a draw by
repetition.] 13...Db5 14.Dg4 Rf8 15.Ag5
Axg5 16.Dxg5 Ad7 17.a4?!
[ This may be asking too much, but after
17.Cc3 Dxb2 18.Axd5 Dxc3 19.Axb7 h6
it would fizzle out to a draw.] 17...Db4
[ 17...Dxb2 is the critical line, for example
18.Cc5 Ac6 and does White have enough
for the pawns? If so, I don't see it.] 18.Cc3
h6 19.Dh4 [ After 19.Cxd5 exd5 20.Df4
, Black can defend via Ae6 21.Axd5 De7
22.Dxc4 Axd5 23.Dxd5 h5 , intending ...
h4 and/or ...Rh6.] 19...c6 20.Dd4 Re7
[ Black probably took fright at the prospect
of 20...Dxb2 21.Dc5+ Rg8 22.Cxd5
Learn Tatics step by step
exd5 23.Dd6 Td8 24.Tab1 , but he is still
defending here with Dc2 25.Tdc1 Df5 . ]
21.Ce4 Thd8 22.Cd6 c3 23.Dxb4 Cxb4
24.bxc3 Cd5 25.c4 Cb4 26.a5 c5
27.Cxb7 White has emerged with an edge,
but Black holds a draw.
27...Tdc8 28.Cd6 Tc7 29.Tab1 Ac6
30.Axc6 Cxc6 31.Txb8 Cxb8 32.f4
Cc6 33.Tb1 f6 34.Tb6 fxe5 35.fxe5
Cxe5 36.Txa6 Td7 37.Ce4 Tc7 38.Cd6
Td7 39.Cc8+ Rf6 40.Cd6 Re7
½-½
V.Kramnik
M.Carlsen
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 dxc4
5.Ag2 a6 6.0-0 Cc6 7.e3 [ This is less
d i r e c t t h a n 7.Cc3 but has similar aims:
White wants to build a broad pawn centre
with e2-e4, but keeps his d-pawn
defended while preparing Qe2 and Rd1.]
7...Ad7 [ After 7...Tb8 White recovers his
pawn with 8.Cfd2 ,; while 7...b5
i s a n s w e r e d b y 8.Ce5 .] 8.Cc3
[ White has a major alternative here in
8.De2 b5 9.Td1 ( 9.Ce5!? Cxe5!
10.Axa8 Dxa8 11.dxe5 Ce4 gave Black
more than enough for the exchange in R.
Janssen-J.Piket, Dutch Ch., Rotterdam
1999; but both 9.a4 Tb8 10.axb5 axb5
11.b3 cxb3 12.Cbd2 Ad6 13.Ab2 0-0
14.Cxb3 as in Kir.Georgiev-P.Leko, Dubai
(rapid) 2002,; and 9.e4 Ae7 10.b3! cxb3
11.axb3 0-0 12.Td1 Cb4 13.Ce5 Ac8
14.Cc3 Ab7 15.Aa3 Te8 16.Tac1 Db8
17.g4! as in Z.Ilincic-O.Cvitan, Bosnian
T ea m C h. 2 0 0 4 , c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d)
9...Ae7 ( another possibility is 9...Ad6
, when after 10.e4 e5 11.dxe5 Axe5
12.Cc3 0-0 13.Ag5 Axc3 14.bxc3 De8
, White's best may be 15.h3!? according
to Acs and Hazai) 10.Cc3 Tb8 ( 10...0-0
11.Ce5 De8 12.b3 Cd5 13.Axd5 exd5
14.Cxd5 Cxe5 15.dxe5 Ta7 16.bxc4 c6
17.Cf4 Dc8 18.Ab2 g5 19.e4 gxf4
20.gxf4 gave White a strong attack for the
72
sacrificed piece in L.Aronian-M.Carlsen,
Morelia/Linares 2007, though Black held a
draw with accurate defence; while 10...Cb4
11.e4 Cd3 12.Ce5! Cxc1 13.Taxc1 0-0
14.g4!? gave White the initiative for his
pawn in P.Haba-L.Gorin, Pardubice 1999)
11.e4 0-0 12.Af4 Te8 13.Ce5 h6
14.Cxf7 Rxf7 15.e5 Rg8 16.exf6 Axf6
was N.Davies-M.Chandler, British League
1 9 9 9 , a n d n o w t h e q u i e t 17.Ae3
might have been best with on going
compensation for the pawn.] 8...Cd5
Not the only move by any means. The
alternatives are as follows: [ a) 8...Ad6
9.De2 0-0 ( on 9...b5 White can play
10.e4 , when e5 11.dxe5 Cxe5 12.Cxe5
Axe5 13.f4 Ad4+ 14.Ae3 c5 15.h3
looks promising) 10.Dxc4 b5 11.De2 b4
12.Cb1 Ca5 13.Td1 Ab5 14.De1 De8
15.b3 Tc8 16.Ab2 c5 17.dxc5 Axc5
18.Cbd2 was better for White in A.
Beliavsky-L.Portisch, Paks 2004, because
of the weakness of Bla ck's queenside
pawns and White's harmonious
development.; b) 8...Tb8 9.Ce5 Ca5
can be answered by 10.e4! b5 11.g4! b4
12.g5 bxc3 13.bxc3! as in G.Sosonko-J.
Piket, Dutch Ch., Rotterdam 1997, when
Cg8? ( 13...Tb5 14.gxf6 gxf6 15.Cxd7
Dxd7 16.Df3 Tg8 17.Rh1 was quite
promising for White in the game; as is
13...Cc6 14.Cxc6 Axc6 15.gxf6 Dxf6
16.De2 ) 14.Df3 f6? ( 14...De7
w o u l d l o s e i m m e d i a t e l y t o 15.Aa3;
so the only way to hang on would be with
14...Cf6 ) 15.Dh5+ g6 16.Cxg6 hxg6
17.Dxg6+ Re7 18.Aa3+ leads to mate.;
c) W hi te c an t a ke ad va nt ag e of 8...b5
with the immediate 9.Ce5! , when Cxe5
10.dxe5 Cd5 11.Cxd5 exd5 12.Dxd5 c6
13.Dd4 c5 14.Dd5 Tb8 15.a4 bxa4
16.Td1 Ab5 17.Ad2 was better for White
in B. Gelfand-L.Van Wely, Monte Carlo
(rapid) 2001.; d) 8...Ab4 9.Ce5 ( on 9.De2
Black can try Cd5!? ) 9...Cxe5 10.dxe5
Axc3 11.bxc3 Cd5 12.Aa3! Dg5 13.Dd4
0-0-0 14.Da7 Ac6 15.Tfd1 Dxe5 16.Td4
b6 17.Dxa6+ Ab7 18.Dxc4 c5! 19.Tb1
of fered complex play and chances f or
Learn Tatics step by step 73
both sides in B.Gelfand-M.Adams,
E n g h i e n l e s B a i n s 2 0 0 3 .] 9.Cd2
[ Aga in th ere i s 9.De2 , b u t a f t e r b5
( 9...Cxc3 10.bxc3 Ad6 11.Td1 b5
12.Ce5! Axe5 13.dxe5 Cxe5 14.Dh5!
Cd3 15.Aa3 Tb8! 16.Ae4 b4! 17.Axb4
was A.Khalifman-A.Petrosian, Moscow
1 9 8 7 , a n d n o w Tb5! 18.Dg4 Dg5
wo u l d h av e b ee n b e st , w h e n 19.Dxg5
Txg5 20.Axd3 cxd3 21.c4! Ac6 22.f4!
is just slightly better for White) 10.Cxd5
exd5 11.e4 Ad6 ( 11...De7?! 12.a4 b4
13.Te1 0-0-0 14.Df1 dxe4 15.Dxc4 Rb7
16.Cg5 gave White a powerful attack in A.
Beliavsky-E.Van den Doel, European Ch.,
Dresden 2007) 12.exd5+ Ce7 13.b3
cxb3 14.axb3 0-0 15.Ce5 Ac8 16.Ab2
a5 17.Tfc1 a4 18.bxa4 bxa4 19.Cc4
Ab7 20.Cxd6 cxd6 Black had completely
equalized in D.Yevseev-D.Jakovenko, St
Petersburg-Moscow match 2003.] 9...Cb6
[ In view of the possibility of 12 Bd2 below,
m a y b e B l a c k s h o u l d p r e f e r 9...Cxc3
10.bxc3 b5 here, for example 11.a4 Ae7!
( 11...Tb8 12.axb5 axb5 13.Dg4 g6
14.De2! Ad6! 15.Ce4 0-0 16.Aa3! De7
17.Df3! was good for White in F.Berkes-L.
Aronian, World Junior Ch. 2002, the point
being that Axa3 18.Txa3! Dxa3 19.Cf6+
Rg7 20.Cxd7 Ca5 21.Df6+ Rg8 22.h4!
, followed by h4-h5, gives White a strong
attack ) 12.Aa3 Tb8 ( 12...Axa3 13.Txa3
0-0 14.Ce4 gave White more than enough
f or t he pawn i n V. Filipp ov-K .S ak aev,
Moscow 2004, due to his control of c5)
13.axb5 axb5 14.Ce4 0-0 15.De2 Axa3
16.Txa3 e5 17.d5 Ce7 18.Cc5 Ah3!
19.e4 Axg2 20.Rxg2 c6 21.Ta7 Db6
22.Txe7 Dxc5 23.Txe5 fizzled out to
equality in F.Berkes-P.Leko, Budapest
2003. ] 10.De2 Ca5 11.Cde4 [ 11.e4
Ab4 ( or 11...Ae7 12.Cf3 0-0 13.Ae3
Tc8 14.Tad1 Ca4 15.Ce5 Cxc3 16.bxc3
Aa4 17.Td2 c5! 18.d5 Dc7 19.Cg4
exd5 20.Af4 Db6 21.exd5 was A.Lastin-
Kir.Georgiev, Serbian Team Ch. 2004,
when Tce8! would have produced a
complex position with chances for both
sides ) 12.Dg4 Df6 13.Cf3 h5 14.Df4
Dxf4 15.Axf4 0-0-0 16.Tac1 gave White
only nebulous compensation for the pawn
in T.Radjabov-M.Adams, FIDE World Ch.,
T r i p o l i 2 0 0 4 .] 11...Ae7 12.Cc5
[ In M.Sebenik-V.Vehi Bach, European Ch.
, Plovdiv 2008, White tried to improve on
Kramnik's play with 12.Ad2 , shadowing
the knight on a5. In fact he stood better
after 0-0 13.Tfd1 De8 ( if 13...Ac6
14.Cb1 f o r c e s B l a c k t o p l a y Axe4
15.Axe4 Cc6 in order to save the knight
on a5 ) 14.Cc5 Tb8 15.Cxd7 Dxd7 16.d5
e5 17.Ce4 c3 ( 17...Db5 is strongly met
by 18.b3 ) 18.Axc3 Cac4 19.a4
threatenin g 20 a 5, whic h was very
unpleasant for Black.] 12...Ac6 13.Axc6+
Cxc6 14.Cxb7 Dc8 15.Cc5 0-0
16.C5a4 Cb4 17.Ad2 Td8 18.a3 Cc6
19.Tac1 Tb8 20.Tfd1 e5 21.Cxb6 cxb6
[ 21...Txb6? would run into 22.Dxc4 exd4
23.Cd5 . ] 22.Dxc4 exd4 23.Ce4 dxe3
24.Axe3 Txd1+ 25.Txd1 Db7
Carls en's a ccurate defence gradua lly
steers the game towards equality.
26.Tc1 Ce5 27.Dc7 f6 28.Dxb7
½-½
A.Beliavsky
A.Mammadov
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Cf6 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 a6 6.0-0 c5 An unusual line,
which attempts to equalize by exchanging
of f Whit e's d-pa wn . Bu t it see ms that
such simple methods will not really work,
given Whit e's Catalan bishop bearing
down on Black's queenside from g2. Note
that it can also be reached via a 5...c5 6
0-0 a6 move order.
7.dxc5 Dxd1 8.Txd1 Cc6
[ In Y.Razuvaev-E.Geller, USSR 1988,
Black tried 8...Axc5 , but lost in dramatic
fashion after 9.Ce5 Cbd7 10.Cxc4 Ta7
( or 10...0-0 11.Cc3 Ta7 12.Ca4
with strong pressure) 11.Cc3 b5 12.Cd6+
Re7? ( 12...Axd6 is mandatory, though
unpleasant because of White's bishop
Learn Tatics step by step
pair ) 13.Cce4 Cxe4 14.Cxe4 Tc7
15.Ad2! 1-0. Black has suddenly found
himse lf wit hout a dec ent move, fo r
example Ab7 ( if 15...Ab6 16.Ab4+; or
15...f5 16.Cxc5 Cxc5 17.Aa5 Td7
18.Ab4 ) 16.Aa5 Tcc8 17.Txd7+ Rxd7
18.Cxc5+ Txc5 19.Axb7 b4 20.Td1+
wins. ] 9.Cfd2! [ Unveiling the mighty
Catalan bishop, while routing his knight to
the queenside. In A.Lastin-A.Schupaleev,
V l a d i m i r 2 0 0 4 , W h i t e p l a ye d 9.Cbd2
, but after Axc5 10.Cxc4 Cd5 11.e4 Cb6
12.Cd6+ Axd6 13.Txd6 Re7 he had only
a sligh t adva nt age.] 9...Ad7 [ After
9...Axc5 White has a pleasant choice
between, say, mangling Black's pawns
with 10 Bxc6 and 10.Cxc4 Cd5 11.Cc3
Cxc3 12.bxc3 , with strong piece play
coming on the queenside.] 10.Cxc4 Axc5
11.Cc3 0-0 12.Af4 Tad8 13.Ac7 Tc8
14.Ad6 Axd6 15.Cxd6 Tc7 16.Tac1
This p osition is deeply unpleasant for
Black. He can hope for a draw at best and
is unlikely to get even that.
16...Ce8 17.Cce4 Cxd6 18.Cxd6 Tb8
19.b4 b5 20.a3 Rf8 21.Ce4 Ae8
22.Cd6 Ad7 23.f4 The repetition of
moves is a Capablancan techn ique t o
clarify the posit ion in your mind wh ile
increasing the psychological pressure.
23...Re7 24.e4 Ta7 25.e5 Cd8 26.Ae4
h6 27.Tc5 f6 Understandably trying to
free hi mself . Unf ortuna te ly i t c r eat es
weak pawns that B ig Al can set abou t
attacking.
28.exf6+ Rxf6 29.Af3 Cf7 30.Ce4+ Re7
31.Tc2 Tb6 32.Cc5 Td6 33.Te1 Tc7
34.Tce2 Cd8 35.f5 The pressure on e6
is mounting.
35...Rf7 36.Ah5+ Rg8? [ It seems that
Black has been tortured enough and takes
t h e c h a n c e t o e n d i t a l l . 36...Re7
was mandatory.] 37.fxe6 Black loses a
piece when h e recapture s on e 6, an d
otherwise the pawn goes on to e7.
1-0
74
V.Kramnik
A.Morozevich
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 dxc4
5.Ag2 a6 6.Ce5 [ This is thought to be a
saf e r m ove t han 6.0-0 , aiming for the
immediate recovery of the pawn. Black
is supposed to be able to equalize with 6...
c5, but wit h Kramnik invit ing t his an d
Morozevich avoiding it, the likelihood is
that it's not so simple.] 6...Ab4+ [ On
6...c5 White has tried several different
moves: A) 7.e3 cxd4 8.exd4 Cbd7
9.Cxc4 Cb6 10.Ce5 Ae7 11.0-0 0-0
12.Cc3 Cbd5 was fine for Black in A.
Lukin-Y.Balashov, USSR 1967, as White's
bishop is not appropriately placed on g2
in this isolated queen's pawn position.; B)
7.Ae3 Cd5 was thought to be good for
Black, because both 8 dxc5 and 8 0-0 are
well met by 8...Nd7!, but White has an
interesting and little tried alternative in
8.Cc3!? . C.Bauer-Al.David, Cannes 2006,
continued Cxe3 9.fxe3 Ae7 10.Da4+
Cd7 11.dxc5 0-0 12.0-0-0!? Cxe5
13.Txd8 Axd8 14.Td1 Ag5 15.Ce4
Axe3+ 16.Rb1 and Black had inadequate
compensation for the queen.; C) 7.Ca3
is the current favourite, for example cxd4
( 7...Ta7?! 8.dxc5! Dxd1+ 9.Rxd1 Axc5
10.Caxc4 b5 11.Cd3! Td7 12.Cce5 Td8
13.Ad2 Ab6 14.a4 was better for White at
this stage in Y.Razuvaev-A.Beliavsky,
Baku 1977; while 7...Dxd4 8.Dxd4 cxd4
9.Caxc4 Cbd7 10.0-0! Cxe5 11.Cxe5
Ad6 12.Cc4 Ac7 13.Af4 Axf4 14.gxf4
Tb8 15.Tfd1 Re7 16.Txd4 Ad7 17.Cd6!
gave White an edge in A.Karpov-L.Van
W e l y , M o n t e C a r l o b l i n d f o l d 2 0 0 1)
8.Caxc4 Ac5 ( 8...Ta7 9.Ad2 b6 10.0-0
Ab7 11.Axb7 Txb7 12.Tc1 Ac5 13.b4
Ae7 14.Ae3! 0-0 15.Axd4 Cfd7 16.Db3
Cxe5 17.Axe5 was uncomfortable for
Black in A.Huzman-I.Novikov, Montreal
2004; and 8...Ae7?! 9.Ad2 a5!?
was played in I.Almasi-L.Vadasz,
B u d a p e s t 1 9 9 7 , w h e n 10.Da4+
would have given White some pressure)
Learn Tatics step by step 75
9.Ad2 ( 9.0-0 0-0 10.Cd3 Ae7 11.Ad2
Cc6 12.Tc1 Cd5 13.Db3 b5 left White
with less than convincing compensation in
I.Ivanisevic-D.Blagojevic, Niksic rapid
2008 ) 9...Cd5 10.Tc1 0-0 11.0-0 Cd7
12.Cd3 b6 ( 12...Aa7 13.Aa5 De7
was B.Gulko-Y.Shulman, US Ch., Tulsa
2008, when 14.Axd5 exd5 15.Ab4 Df6
16.Cd6 seems to give White pressure)
13.Ca5! Te8 14.Cc6 Df6 15.b4 Ab7
was P.Kiss-A.Beliavsky, Hungarian Team
Ch. 1999, an d now White shou ld play
16.Cxc5 bxc5 ( or 16...Cxc5 17.bxc5
Axc6 18.cxb6 ) 17.Ca5 with a clear
advantage.; D) 7.-- ] 7.Cc3 Cd5 8.0-0!?
A n ex c e l l e n t n e w m ov e b y K r a m n i k ,
simply ignoring Black's threat to capture
on c3. [ White had previously played
8.Ad2 , b u t t h e n b5 9.0-0 Axc3
( 9...Ab7!? ) 10.bxc3 0-0 11.e4 ( 11.a4 f6
12.Cg4 Ab7 13.e4 Cb6 14.Db1?!
was I.I vanisevic-D.Pavasovic, Valjevo
2007, whe n f5!? would have given Black
a good chance to blockade on the light
squares ) 11...Cb6 12.f4 Ab7 13.f5 exf5
14.Txf5 C8d7 15.Cg4 De7 16.Dc2 Tae8
17.Te1 f6 saw Black regroup nicely in J.
Nogueiras-V .Ivanchuk, Havana 2006.]
8...0-0 [ After 8...Cxc3 9.bxc3 Axc3
W h i t e s h o u l d p r o b a b l y p l a y 10.Tb1
( 10.Aa3?! seems wrong because of
Dxd4 ) 10...Axd4 ( 10...Dxd4 11.Da4+ b5
12.Da3 Dxe5 13.Af4 would see White
recover most of his material and keep a
strong initiative) 11.Cxc4 0-0 12.Aa3
Te8 13.Ca5 Ta7 14.Cxb7 Axb7 15.Axb7
c5 16.e3 leaves him with a powerful
initiative for his pawn.] 9.Dc2 b5 10.Cxd5
exd5 11.b3 c6 12.e4 [ Ambitious play by
K ra m n ik , p o ur i n g ga s o li n e o n t o t h e
flame s . The re wa s a s afe o ption in
12.bxc4 , b u t a f t e r dxc4 White should
probably just protect his d4-pawn with
13.Td1 , ( since Black would stand well
after 13.Cxc6 Cxc6 14.Axc6 Ah3 . )]
12...f6!? [ 12...Ae6 has been suggested
as a possible improvement, but it seems
that White is better after 13.bxc4 dxc4
( or 13...bxc4 14.Tb1 ) 14.d5 .]
13.exd5!? A brilliantly creative piece
sacrifice from Kramnik. Is it sound? Who
knows. Certainly it gives White a most
dangerous initiative.
13...fxe5 14.bxc4 exd4 15.dxc6 Ae6
16.cxb5! [ Of course Kramnik never
intended to win the rook on a8 via 16.c7
Dxc7 17.Axa8 , as this would surrender
the initiative, and Black would have more
than enough for the exchange after Dxc4
.] 16...d3?! [ After this the position
clarifies in White's favour. Kramnik might
h a ve h a d a mo r e d i f f i c u lt t a s k a f t e r
16...Ta7 , when 17.Tb1 can be answered
by d3 18.Dd1 Ac5 with pressure against
f2. The position is still very complicated,
but this definitely seems like an
i m p r o v e m e n t f o r B l a c k .] 17.c7
[ There was another possibility in 17.Da4!?
, when Da5 18.Dxa5 Axa5 19.a4 d2
20.Aa3 Te8 21.c7 Cd7 is again difficult
to assess.] 17...Dd4? [ This might be the
losing move. Black would also be in big
trouble after 17...dxc2 18.cxd8D Txd8
19.Axa8 axb5 20.Ag5 Tc8 21.a4 ,; but
17...Dd6!? was an interesting alternative:
for example, 18.Da4 d2 19.Axd2 Axd2
20.Axa8 Dxc7 21.bxa6 Da7 22.Ab7 Ah3
23.De4 Axf1 24.Txf1 gives White three
pawns for the piece, though the a-pawns
are doubled.] 18.Da4 [ Kramnik probably
rejected 18.Ae3 b e c a u s e o f dxc2
19.Axd4 Cd7 20.Axa8 Txa8 , which still
looks very messy] 18...Cd7 19.Ae3 Dd6
20.Axa8 Txa8 21.Af4?! [ This slip could
have had serious consequences. White
had a very convincing move in 21.Tac1!
, after which Tc8 22.Tc6 Dd5 23.Dxb4
Ah3 24.Db3 would leave him with a
w i n n i n g e n d g a m e .] 21...Df8??
[ Missing his chance to complicate matters
with 21...Dd5! , and if 22.Dxb4? Df3
threatens ...Bd5 and ... Bh3.] 22.b6!
A bone-crusher from Kramnik, the point
being that 22...Nxb6 loses a piece to 23
Qc6 . Moroz evich t ri es despe rately t o
counterattack, but it's too late.
22...Ce5 23.Axe5 Df3 24.Dd1 De4
Learn Tatics step by step
25.b7! Tf8 26.c8D Ad5 27.f3
1-0
Y.Balashov
A.Beliavsky
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Cf6 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 b5 6.a4 c6 7.axb5 White has
tried various other move s in th is line ,
many of which offer him compensation.
But I won't be looking at them because I
think the text is the best and I don't want
to spread my coverage too thin.
7...cxb5 8.Ce5 Cd5 9.Cc3 Ab4 [ 9...f6!?
is feat ured in the next game.] 10.0-0
Axc3 11.e4! [ Upping the ante! 11.bxc3
Cxc3 12.Dd2 Cd5 would also give White
c om pe ns a t i on , b u t it 's n ot c le ar ho w
much. ] 11...Axb2 The critical line. After
other moves White is doing very nicely:
[ a) 11...Ce7 12.bxc3 f6 ( 12...0-0
13.Aa3 f6 14.Cxc4! bxc4 15.e5 Cbc6
16.Axe7 Dxe7 17.Axc6 recovers the
material and leaves White with a
positional advantage) 13.Dh5+! g6
14.Cxg6 Cxg6 15.e5 Cc6 16.Axc6+ Ad7
17.Axa8 Dxa8 18.Ah6 Rf7 19.exf6 a5
20.Ag7 won quickly for White in B.Gulko-
A.Mikhalchishin, Volgodonsk 1981.; b)
11...Axd4 was tried in Frunko-J.Matousek,
correspondence 1982, but it seems to be
very good for White after 12.Dxd4! Db6
13.Cf3! Dxd4 14.Cxd4 Ce7 15.e5 Cd5
16.Cxb5 .; c) 11...Cf4 also seems very
g o o d f o r W h i t e a f t e r O l l ' s 12.Axf4!
, f o r e x a m p l e Axb2 ( or 12...Axd4
13.Cxc4 bxc4 14.e5 ) 13.Tb1 Axd4
14.Cxc4! bxc4 15.e5 etc. ] 12.exd5
[ W h i t e c a n a l s o c o n s i d e r 12.Axb2
, fo r e xampl e Ce7 ( 12...Cf6 13.Aa3
would leave Black unable to castle) 13.d5!
0-0 14.Aa3 ( 14.d6?! is worse due to
Cec6 15.Dh5 a6 16.Cg4 f6
a s i n Y . Do k h o ia n - L . O ll , U S SR 19 8 4)
14...Cd7?! ( Oll's recommendation of
14...f6!? m a y b e b e s t m e t b y 15.Cf3
intending 16 Nd4) 15.Cxf7! Rxf7 ( if
76
15...Txf7 16.dxe6 Tf8 17.exd7 Axd7
18.e5 is strong ) 16.dxe6+ Rxe6 17.Dh5
g6 18.Dxh7 Ce5 19.Tad1 Cd3 20.Ah3+
gave White a winning attack in I.Polovodin-
V. Zhelnin, Moscow 19 83.] 12...Axa1
13.Aa3 a5 Black has a couple of other
moves he can try: [ a) 13...exd5 14.Dh5!
g6 ( 14...Ae6 is strongly met by 15.Cxf7!
g6 16.Df3 ) 15.Df3! ( 15.Cxg6 hxg6
16.Dxh8+ Rd7 lets Black's king get
away ) 15...f6 ( 15...f5 16.Te1 Ae6
17.Cxg6 hxg6 18.Txe6+ Rf7 19.Td6
w a s g o o d f o r W h i t e i n A . V i k u l o v- O .
Mitlashevsky, Moscow 2003) 16.Te1! Ae6
17.Cxc4 ( 17.Ah3 ) 17...bxc4 ( or
17...dxc4 18.Txe6+ Rf7 19.De3 )
18.Txe6+ Rf7 19.Dxd5 and Black is
defenceless.; b) Fritz 11 pointed out the
amazing 13...Ab2!? which is far from easy
to deal with. Together with my German
f r i e n d I a n a l y s e d t h e l i n e s 14.Axb2
( 14.Dh5 g6 15.Df3 f5 16.Axb2 Ab7
is good for Black) 14...exd5 15.Aa3
( a n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y i s 15.Cxf7!?
, f o r e x a m p l e Rxf7 16.Dh5+ g6
17.Axd5+ Rg7 18.De5+ Df6 19.Dc7+
Ad7 20.Axa8 Tc8 21.Da5 Cc6 22.Axc6
Axc6 23.Te1 with a messy and double-
edge d p os ition) 15...Ae6 16.f4 g6
( 16...Da5 17.f5 Dxa3 18.fxe6 fxe6
19.Dg4 De7 20.Axd5 exd5 21.Dc8+
Dd8 22.De6+ De7 23.Dxd5 is good for
White ) 17.Te1 ( 17.g4 is answered by
Da5 ) 17...Da5 18.f5 gxf5 19.Axd5 Dxa3
20.Cxf7 Rxf7 ( on 20...0-0 White plays
21.Txe6 ) 21.Dh5+ Re7 22.Dg5+ Rd6
23.Txe6+ Rxd5 24.Dxf5+ Rxd4 25.Df4+
Rc3 26.Te3+ Rb2 27.Df2+ Rb1 28.Txa3
and W hite wins.] 14.Dg4 [ There is a
m a j o r a l t e r n a t i v e i n 14.dxe6 Axe6
15.Axa8 , when E.Kengis-Y.Meister,
T o g l i a t t i 1 9 8 5 , c o n t i n u e d Axd4?
( Black has several better moves, for
example 15...b4 16.Dxa1 0-0! 17.Ab2
c3 18.Axc3 bxc3 19.Dxc3 is only a bit
better for White; while 15...Ac3!? 16.Ac5
Ab4 17.Cc6 Dd5 18.Cxb4 Dxa8 19.d5
Cd7 20.Dd4 Cxc5 21.Dxc5 axb4
22.Dxb5+ Ad7 23.Te1+ Rd8 24.Db6+
Learn Tatics step by step 77
Rc8 25.Dc5+ leads to a draw by
perpetual check; and 15...Dxd4 16.Dxa1
Dxa1 17.Txa1 b4 18.Ac1 0-0 19.Txa5
Td8! gives Black adequate compensation
for the piece) 16.Cc6 Axf2+ 17.Rxf2 Dc7
( if 17...Db6+ 18.Rg2 Cxc6 19.Dd6 Ad7
20.Td1 wins ) , and now 18.Cxb8
( r a t h e r t h a n 18.Ad6 Db6+ 19.Dd4
as in the game, when Cd7 would have
been a tough nut to crack) 18...Da7+ ( or
18...b4 19.Da4+ Rf8 20.Ac1 ) 19.Re2
Dxa8 20.Dd6 is winning for Whit e.]
14...b4 Here, too, there are other moves:
[ a) 14...Df6 15.Txa1 Ta6 16.De2
( 16.Ac5 has been recommended, but I
don't see what White should play after
Cd7 17.Cxd7 Axd7 ) 16...Cd7 17.Tb1 b4
18.Dxc4 0-0 19.Cxd7 Axd7 20.Dxa6
bxa3 21.Dxa5 Dxd4 22.Dxa3 exd5
23.Dd6 Dd3 24.Tb8 Dd1+ 25.Af1 Te8
26.Txe8+ Axe8 27.Dd8 Rf8 28.Dd6+
leads to a dr aw b y rep et it ion.; b)
14...Axd4!? 15.Dxg7 Axe5 16.Dxe5 Tg8
17.dxe6 Axe6 18.Axa8 b4 19.Ac1
l e a v e s a n e n o rm o u s l y c o m p l e x a n d
difficult position in which Black's king is
in grave danger, but he does have three
connected passed pawns.; c) 14...g6
15.Txa1 Ta6 16.Df4 was unhelpfully
agreed drawn at this point in I.Glek-L.Oll,
Tallinn 1986. An 'unclear' assessment is
p r o b a b l y t h e s a f e s t , f o r e xa m p l e f6
17.Cxc4 ( 17.Dh6 b4 18.Cxg6 hxg6
19.Dxh8+ Rd7 allows Black's king to get
away; while 17.Cg4 fails to impress after
e5 18.dxe5 Axg4 19.Dxg4 fxe5 20.Te1
Cd7 ) 17...bxc4 ( 17...b4 is also possible,
for example 18.Dxb8 bxa3 19.dxe6 Txe6
20.Ad5 0-0 21.Ce3 Rg7 22.Axe6 Axe6
23.Dxd8 Txd8 24.Txa3 leads to a drawn
endgame ) 18.Dxb8 Tb6 19.Da7 Tb7
20.Dc5 gives White more than enough for
the sacrificed exchange.] 15.Dxg7 Tf8
16.Txa1 Ta6!? [ In A.Chernin-L.Yudasin,
Sverdlovsk 1984, Black played 16...bxa3
, t h e g a m e g o i n g 17.dxe6 Axe6
( 17...Ta7 18.exf7+ Taxf7 19.Cxf7 De7
20.Ad5 is good for White) 18.Axa8 Dxd4
19.Tb1! ( 19.Txa3? Ah3! 20.Af3 Db2
wins for Black) 19...Cd7 ( if 19...Dd6
20.Dg5! Cd7 21.Cxd7 Axd7 22.Af3
with a clear advantage) 20.Ac6 Dd6?
( 20...a2! is critical, for example 21.Axd7+
Axd7 22.Tb8+ Re7 23.Dxf8+ Re6
24.Dxf7+ Rxe5 25.De7+ Ae6 26.Tb5+
Re4 27.Dxe6+ Rd3 28.Df5+ Rd2
29.Dg5+ would lead to a draw by
p e r p e t u a l c h e c k) 21.Axd7+ Axd7
22.Cxc4 Dc5 ( 22...Dc7 23.Te1+ Ae6
24.Txe6+ is also winning) 23.Tb8+ Ac8
24.Txc8+ 1-0. ] 17.Ac1 exd5?! [ 17...c3?!
wou l d b e s tr ongl y met by 18.Af1! ,;
but Black has another possibility in 17...f6
, for example 18.Cxc4 ( neither 18.Ah6?!
De7 19.Dxe7+ Rxe7 20.Axf8+ Rxf8
21.Cxc4 a4!; nor 18.Af3 De7 19.Ah5+
Rd8 20.Cf7+ Rd7 21.Ah6 exd5 22.Dxf8
Dxf8 23.Axf8 b3 gives White convincing
compensation) 18...Tf7 19.Dh6 exd5
20.Ce3 Td6 21.Af3 produces a messy
and unclear position.] 18.Ah6! Txh6?
[ Had Black foreseen the strength of 20
Re1 he might have tried 18...De7! 19.Te1
Ae6! ( 19...f6? 20.Dxe7+ Rxe7 21.Cg6+
Rf7 22.Cxf8 i s g o o d f o r W h i t e)
, after which 20.Dxh7 Cd7 is very difficult
to assess.; Note that 18...Dd6 is inferior
due to 19.Te1 Dxh6 20.Cg4+ ( if
20.Cc6+ De6 21.Txe6+ Axe6 22.Cxb8
Td6 holds Black's position together)
20...Te6 21.Txe6+ Dxe6 22.Cf6+ Re7
( or 22...Dxf6 23.Dxf6 Ae6 24.Axd5 etc )
23.Cxd5+ Rd7 24.Dxf8 , when White has
recovered most of his material with his
attack still in progress.] 19.Dxh6 Ae6
20.Te1! This key move reignites the
flames of the attack.
20...De7 21.Cxc4! [ Another possibility is
21.Cxf7 Dxf7 22.Txe6+ Rd7 23.Te5
, since Dxf2+ 24.Rh1 is fine for White.]
21...dxc4 22.d5 Rd7 [ After 22...Dc5
there f ollo ws 23.dxe6 fxe6 24.Dxe6+
Rd8 25.Td1+ Rc7 26.Td5 Dc6 27.De5+
Rb6 28.Td6 , winning the queen.] 23.De3
[ 23.Dh5 might have been even stronger.]
23...Dd6 24.Da7+ Dc7 [ On 24...Rc8
there would follow 25.dxe6 fxe6 26.Ab7+
Rd8 27.Dxa5+ Re7 28.Dg5+ Tf6 29.Ad5
Learn Tatics step by step 78
h6 30.Dg7+ Tf7 31.Dd4 Tf6 32.Dxc4
, re ac hi ng m a t e ri al eq u a l it y b u t w i t h
o n g o i n g p r o b l e m s f o r B l a c k ' s k i n g .]
25.dxe6+ fxe6 26.Dd4+ Rc8?
[ The losing move. Black had to try
26...Dd6 when 27.Dg7+! ( neither
27.Dxc4 Tf5!; nor 27.Da7+ Dc7 28.Td1+
Rc8 does the trick for White) 27...De7
28.De5! Dd6 29.Db5+ Re7 30.Dxc4
leaves White for choice, but with Black
a b l e t o p u t u p s t a u n c h r e s i s t a n c e .]
27.Txe6 c3 [ Or 27...Td8 28.Dg4 h5
( 28...Cd7 can be answered by 29.Tc6 )
29.Df5 Td1+ 30.Af1 Td7 31.Te8+ Rb7
32.Db5+ Ra7 33.Txb8 Dxb8 34.Dxd7+
and W hite wins .] 28.Ah3 Rb7 [ If
28...Cd7 29.Ta6 Rb8 30.Ag2 wins. ]
29.Dd5+ Ra7 [ 29...Cc6 30.Ag2
is also decisive. ] 30.Ag2 Ca6 31.Tc6!
1-0
M.Ulibin
A.Kharlov
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Cf6 4.g3 c6
5.Ag2 dxc4 6.Ce5 b5!? 7.a4 Cd5
8.axb5 cxb5 Normally this position would
be reached via 4...dxc4 5 Bg2 b5 6 a4 c6
(or 5...c6 6 a4 b5) 7 axb5 cxb5 8 Ne5 Nd5.
9.Cc3 f6!? [ An interesting alternative to
9...Ab4 in the previous game, but one with
which there is ve ry litt le prac tica l
experience.] 10.Cf3 [ Other games with
9 . . . f 6 h a v e s e e n W h i t e p l a y 10.e4
, for example Cxc3 ( 10...Cb4? allows
11.Dh5+ g6 12.Cxg6 hxg6 13.Dxh8
Cc2+ 14.Re2 Cxa1 15.Ah6 Cd7 16.e5
Tb8 17.Ce4 with a winning attack)
11.Dh5+ g6 12.Cxg6 hxg6 13.Dxh8
( 13.Dxg6+ Rd7 14.bxc3 Ab7 15.0-0
gave White questionable compensation
for the piece in R.Milovanovic-V.Raicevic,
Pula 1990 ) 13...Dxd4 14.Ah6 Cd7 15.0-0
was M.Hackel-S.Rausch, German League
1996, and now Ce2+ ( rather than 15...f5
16.Dg8 , which was good for White in the
game ) 16.Rh1 Ab7 17.Tad1 Dxb2
18.Td2 Db4 19.Txe2 0-0-0 would give
Black more than enough for the
exchange.; One other possibility is 10.Cg4
, though this has yet to be tried.] 10...Cxc3
11.bxc3 Ab7 12.0-0 Ae7 13.Dc2
[ White needs to prepare e2-e4 because
13.e4 Axe4 14.Cg5 ( 14.Ce5 Axg2
15.Dh5+ g6 16.Cxg6 Dd5! 17.Ce5+ Rd8
18.Cf7+ Rd7 19.Dxd5+ Axd5 20.Cxh8
Cc6 21.Cf7 e5 22.Ch6 exd4 would be
very good for Black) 14...Axg2 15.Cxe6
Dd7 ( if 15...Dc8 16.Cxg7+ Rf7 17.Dh5+
Rxg7 18.Ah6+ Rg8 19.Tfe1 Cc6
20.Rxg2 threatening d4-d5 is strong)
16.Te1 ( 16.Cxg7+?! doesn't work after
Rf7 17.Dh5+ Rxg7 18.Ah6+ Rg8
19.Rxg2 Af8 ) 16...Ad5 17.Dh5+ g6
18.Dxd5 Dxd5 19.Cc7+ Rd7 20.Cxd5
Ad8 21.Af4 Cc6 leaves White a pawn
down in the endgame.; But is 13 Qc2 the
best way, or should 13.Te1 have been
tried? ] 13...f5 14.Ch4 [ 14.Td1
is an interesting move, intending to meet
0-0 with 15.d5 Axd5 16.Ce5 ( or maybe
16.Cg5 Axg5 17.Axg5 Dxg5 18.Txd5
exd5 19.Axd5+ ) 16...Af6 17.Txd5 exd5
18.Dxf5 with a dangerous initiative for the
sacrificed exchange.] 14...Dc8 15.Axb7
Dxb7 16.Cg2 0-0 17.Cf4 Tf6 18.Ch5
[ 18.Te1 c a n b e a n s w e r e d b y Cc6!
, in t en d in g 19.e4 e5! 20.Cd5 exd4!
21.Cxf6+ Axf6 etc. The theme of a
counter-sacrifice by Black seems very
common in this line.] 18...Tf7 19.Cf4 Dc6
20.e4 Cd7 [ White would get more play
af ter ei the r 20...Dxe4?! 21.Dxe4 fxe4
22.Cxe6 Cc6 23.Te1 ,; or 20...fxe4
21.Te1 followed by 22 Qxe4.] 21.exf5?!
[ After this White's initiative seems to
peter out. 21.Te1 would have been better,
so that after Cb6 22.Ad2 he could double
rooks on the e-file.] 21...exf5 22.Te1 Ad6
23.Ce6 Cb6 24.Ag5 Dd7 25.Af4 Te8
26.Cc5 [ 26.Axd6 Txe6 27.Txe6 Dxe6
28.Ac5 Ca4 leaves Black with a lot of light
square control.] 26...Axc5 27.dxc5 Ca4
28.Ad6 h6 29.Dd2 Txe1+ 30.Dxe1
[ 30.Txe1 Cxc5! would exploit the pin on
White's bishop.] 30...f4! Emerging from
Learn Tatics step by step 79
de fence , Bl ac k s ud de nly tak e s t he
initiative.
31.Td1 [ Neither 31.Axf4 Cxc5 ,; nor
31.gxf4 Dg4+ 32.Rh1 Df3+ 33.Rg1 Tf6
would be helpful to White.] 31...f3 32.Af4
Te7! 33.Df1 Dc8 34.Te1 Dxc5 35.Txe7
Dxe7 And the rest, as they say, is a
matter of technique.
36.Dc1 De2 37.h4 Cb2 38.Da1 Rh7
39.Ae3 Cd3 40.Db1 a6 41.Rh2 De1
42.Dxe1 Cxe1 43.g4 Cg2 44.Ab6 b4
45.cxb4 c3 46.Ad4 c2 47.Ab2 Cxh4
0-1
A.Pashikian
G.Meier
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.Cf3 e6 3.c4 d5 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 c6 6.a4 This may be the simplest
wa y o f a n sw e ring B la ck ' s l a st move .
[ After 6.Ce5 Black has an additional
p o s s i b i l i t y i n Ab4+ ( on 6...b5
White should transpose into the last two
games with 7 a4, rather than play
7.Cxc6?! Db6 ) 7.Cc3 ( 7.Ad2 Ae7 8.Ac3
a5 9.a4 Ta6 10.Ca3 Axa3 11.bxa3 Cd5
12.Dd2 b5 13.Tb1 Ad7 led to a complex
game in E.L'Ami-P .Negi, Malmo 2007)
7...Cd5 8.0-0 ( 8.Ad2 b5 featured in S.
Conquest-D.Sengupta, Hastings 2008/09,
once again with a very messy position)
8...Cxc3 9.bxc3 Axc3 10.Aa3 Dxd4
11.Dxd4 Axd4 12.Cxc4 Axa1 13.Txa1 f6
14.Cd6+ Rd7 15.Td1 Rc7 left White with
dist inc t ly d ubi ous comp ensa t io n in I .
Ivanisevic-G.Meier, Mainz (rapid) 2008,
though this didn't stop him winning!] 6...c5
[ Attempting to reach positions akin to
t h o s e in C h a p t e r 1 0 , b u t wi t h W h i t e
having playe d his a-pawn forwa rd two
squares. Instead, 6...b5 7.axb5 cxb5
8.Ce5 Cd5 would lead to lines covered in
t h e l a s t t w o g a m e s .] 7.0-0
[ A n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y i s 7.Ca3!?
, f or examp l e H . Me lkum ya n-G. Meie r ,
Martuni 2008, went Cc6 8.Cxc4 cxd4
9.0-0 Ac5 10.Af4 Cd5 11.Ae5 Cxe5
12.Ccxe5 0-0 13.Cxd4 f6 14.Cc4
with balanced chances at this stage. But
I must admit to likin g the simplicity of
Pashikian's play, taking the view that a2-
a4 will be useful in the queen exchange
line. ] 7...Cc6 8.dxc5 Axc5 [ There's also
8...Dxd1 9.Txd1 Axc5 , when 10.Cbd2
c3 11.bxc3 Ad7 12.Cb3 Ae7 13.Cfd4
0-0 14.Aa3 Axa3 15.Txa3 Tac8 16.Cc5
gave White some pressure in L.Ftacnik-A.
Lauber, German League 2008.] 9.Cbd2
c3 10.bxc3 e5 11.a5!? [ I'm not very
convinced by this a-pawn charge. The
immediate 11.Cg5 looks more promising,
just routing the knights into the game via
e4. ] 11...0-0 12.Da4 Dc7 13.Cg5
White's pieces are getting quite active
here , though it' s not clear if this is
anything more than a temporary thrill.
13...Ad7 14.Cde4 Ae7 15.Cxf6+
[ 15.Dc2 Cxe4 16.Axe4 can be answered
by h6 17.Axc6 hxg5 ,; which is an
argument for preceding this with 15.a6!?
b6 16.Dc2 Cxe4 17.Axe4 , the point
being that h6 18.Axc6 would now win the
exchange. ] 15...Axf6 16.a6 b6 17.Td1
Tac8 18.Txd7?! [ It's not clear that White
shou l d ha ve ta k e n ad van t ag e o f t h is
p o s s i b i l i t y . 18.De4 Axg5 19.Axg5
seems better, getting the two bishops at
least. ] 18...Dxd7 19.Ah3 Dd5 20.Axc8
Txc8 21.Ce4 Ae7 22.Aa3? [ This could
have landed White in deep trouble. 22.Tb1
is better here.] 22...Axa3?? [ Missing the
reply. Black should play 22...b5! , when
23.Dc2 Axa3 24.Txa3 f5 is very good for
him. ] 23.Cf6+! gxf6 24.Dg4+ Rf8
25.Dxc8+ Re7 26.Txa3 Dd1+ 27.Rg2
Dd5+ 28.f3 Dc4 29.Rf1 h5 30.Ta1
Not a particularly good game, but one
with some interesting points. For example
I'd p ref er t o play W hite af ter 11 Ng5,
whi c h would mak e s ense ou t of hi s
opening strategy.
1-0
Learn Tatics step by step
N.Davies
P.Lukacs
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 d5 2.Cf3 Cf6 3.c4 e6 4.g3 dxc4
5.Ag2 Ad7 This has not been played
much in the last few years, but it
deserves respect nonetheless.
6.Ce5 I think this is the most thematic
move, though it involves the sacrifice of a
pawn. [ Whi t e's ot her move is 6.Dc2
, but it's not easy to prove anything after
c5 7.0-0 ( 7.Ce5 Cc6 8.Cxc6 Axc6
9.Axc6+ bxc6 10.dxc5 Axc5 11.0-0 Dd5
12.Cc3 Dh5 13.Rg2 0-0 14.Ca4 Dd5+
15.f3 Ae7 16.Td1 Db5 17.Td4 Cd5
18.Txc4 Tfd8 19.a3 Tac8 was equal in R.
Vaganian-L.Portisch, 6th matchgame ,
Saint John 1988; and 7.Dxc4 Ac6 8.dxc5
Cbd7 9.Ae3 Ad5 10.Db4 a5 11.Df4
Axc5 12.Axc5 Cxc5 13.Cc3 0-0
14.Cxd5 Cxd5 15.Dd4 Db6 16.0-0
was equally equal in G.Sosonko-A.Karpov,
Wijk aan Zee 1988) 7...Ac6 8.Dxc4 Cbd7
9.Ag5 ( 9.Cc3 b5! 10.Dd3 b4 11.Cb1
cxd4 is fine for Black) 9...Tc8 10.Axf6!
Cxf6?! ( 10...Dxf6! seems better, for
example 11.Cc3 Ae7 12.e4 0-0 13.d5
Cb6 14.Dd3 exd5 15.exd5 Tfd8 16.Cd2
c4 17.Cxc4 Cxc4 18.Dxc4 Axd5
19.Cxd5 Txc4 20.Cxf6+ would fizzle out
to a draw ) 11.dxc5 Axf3 12.Axf3 Axc5
13.Db5+ Dd7 14.Cc3 Dxb5 15.Cxb5
Re7 16.b4! and White managed to take
the initiative in G.Kasparov-V.Korchnoi,
7th matchgame, London 1983.] 6...Ac6
[ B l a c k h a s a l s o p l a y e d 6...Cc6
, bu t a f t e r 7.Cxc4 Ab4+ 8.Cc3 Cd5
9.Dd3 Df6 10.e3 Dg6 11.Ae4 Dh5
12.a3 Axc3+ 13.bxc3 Cf6 14.Ag2 0-0
15.h3!? Tad8 16.g4 Db5 17.a4 Da6
18.De2 White kept an edge in Y.Razuvaev-
J.Klovans, Bern 1993.] 7.Cxc6 Cxc6
8.0-0 Ae7 Interestingly enough, I had half
expected this move, even though it had
rarely been seen at the time. I had
noticed that Lukacs' compatriot, Istvan
Fara go , had playe d i t an d guessed i t
might have been studied in Hungarian
80
circles.
Whit e also seems to have a p romising
game after other moves, for example: [ a)
8...Cxd4?! is just good for White after
9.Axb7 Tb8 10.Ag2 Ac5 11.Cd2 c3
12.bxc3 Cb5 13.Dc2 0-0 14.a4
as in B.Gulko-V.Korchnoi, Amsterdam
1989.; b) 8...Dd7 9.e3 ( it's time for White
t o d e f e n d h i s d 4 - p a w n , s i n c e 9.Cc3
is fine for Black after Cxd4 10.Axb7 Tb8
11.Ag2 Ae7 12.e3 Cb5 13.Dc2 Cxc3
14.Dxc3 Db5 15.b3 0-0 16.bxc4 Db6
as in A.Yusupov-A.Karpov, Belfort 1988)
9...Tb8 10.De2 b5 11.a4 ( 11.b3 cxb3
12.axb3 Ab4 seems okay for Black, for
example 13.Ta6 Cd5 14.Ad2 Axd2
15.Cxd2 Tb6 16.Txb6 cxb6 17.Dxb5
Ccb4 18.Dxd7+ Rxd7 as in L.Janjgava-B.
Abramovic, New York Open 1990) 11...a6
12.axb5 axb5 13.b3 cxb3 14.Cd2 Ae7
15.Cxb3 0-0 16.Ad2! ( 16.Ab2 Cb4
17.Tfd1 Tfd8 18.Tac1 Ca2 19.Ta1 Cb4
20.Tac1 Ca2 21.Ta1 ½-½ was A.
Y u s u p o v - L . P o r t i s c h , L i n a r e s 1 9 8 8)
16...Tfc8 17.Tfc1 Cd5 was Kir.Georgiev-
V.Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1989, and now
18.h4! , intending h4-h5-h6, would have
k ep t a n e d ge f or W h it e a c co r d in g t o
Anand. ] 9.e3 [ 9.Da4 is less good after
0-0 10.Td1?! b5! . N.Sulava-I.Farago,
Vinkovci 1993, continued 11.Dxb5 Cxd4
12.Da4 Cxe2+ 13.Rf1 Cd4 and White
w a s a l r e a d y i n t r o u b l e .] 9...0-0
[ In Zsu.Polgar-A.Maric, Tilburg
Candidates 1994, Black tried to improve
on this with 9...Dd7 , but White was better
following 10.Da4 Cb4 11.Dxd7+ Cxd7
12.Cd2 Cb6 13.Axb7 Tb8 14.Af3
t han ks to th e us eful pa i r of bi shop s.]
10.Cd2 Ca5 11.Da4 c6 [ On 11...c5
W h i t e ' s s i m p l e s t i s 12.dxc5 Axc5
13.Cxc4 Cxc4 14.Dxc4 with an edge,
thanks to the powerful Catalan bishop.]
12.b4 c3 13.bxa5 cxd2 14.Axd2
White is clearly better here because of his
strong pair of bishops and potential for
pressure down the c- and b-files.
14...Cd5 15.Tab1 Dd7 16.Tfc1 Tfc8
17.Db3 Tab8 18.a4 h6 19.h4 Ad6
Learn Tatics step by step
20.e4 Ce7 21.Db2 Introducing the
possibility of taking aim at g7 via Bd2-c3,
followed by a later d4-d5. So Black makes
a bid for freedom.
21...b5 22.axb6 Txb6 [ 22...axb6
would keep the pawns together but leave
Black ve ry passi ve .] 23.Da1
24.Txb1 f5 [ Trying to get the d5-square,
but creating weaknesses along the e-file.
24...c5 would have been a better move,
for e xample 25.Ac3 cxd4 26.Axd4 f6
and Black is still fighting.] 25.Te1 Td8
26.Da2 Rh8 27.h5 fxe4 28.Txe4 Cd5
29.Dc4 Tf8 30.De2 Cc7 31.Ah3 Tf6
32.Rg2 I was trying to follow Capablanca's
advice not to hurry.
32...c5 33.Ac3 Tf8?! [ It would have
b e e n m o r e s t u b b o r n t o p l a y 33...Cd5
, though this is still good for White after
34.Ab2 c4 35.Dxc4 Db7 36.Dc2 . ]
34.Axe6 Dc6 35.Rg1?!
, threatening 36 d5, or even 36 Qxg7+,
followe d by d4-d5+, would h ave bee n
i m m e d i a t e l y d e c i s i v e .]
[ Here, too, Black missed a more
s t u b b o r n d e f e n c e i n 35...Cd5
, when White would do well to f ind the
variation 36.Axd5 Dxd5 37.dxc5 Axc5
38.Dg4 Axf2+ 39.Rh2 Db7 40.Dg6 Rg8
41.Ab4! , threatening both 42 Bxf8 and 42
Re7. ] 36.Axc4 Dxa4
This unveiling of the dark-squared bishop
spells the beginning of the end.
37...Dd7 38.De3 Rg8 39.De2
40.Tg4 Tf7 41.De4 Cb5 42.Ab2 Da7
43.De8+ Af8 44.d6! Dxf2+ 45.Rh1
[ After 45.Rh1 Df3+ 46.Rh2
47.Rh3 Black runs out of checks. ]
1-0
H.Mecking
L.Portisch
[Nigel Davies]
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 d5 4.g3 dxc4
5.Da4+ Cbd7 6.Dxc4 [ If White wants
something from 5 Qa4+ he should
probably try 6.Ag2 a6 7.Cc3 as in the
81
next game . Here Black equalizes wit h
some ease.] 6...a6 7.Dc2 [ After 7.Ag2
c5 ( 7...b5 is not bad either, for example
8.Dc2 Ab7 9.Ag5 Tc8 10.0-0 c5 11.Dd1
Db6 12.Axf6 Cxf6 13.dxc5 Axc5 14.Ce5
Axg2 15.Rxg2 0-0 was fine for Black in N.
Txb1 Kelecevic-A.Beliavsky, Sarajevo 1982)
8.0-0 ( 8.Dc2 b6 9.dxc5 Axc5 10.Cd4
Cd5 11.Cb3 Ab7 12.0-0 Ae7 13.Cc3
Tc8 was nothing for White in B.Kurajica-A.
Kolev, La Laguna 2007) 8...b5 9.Dc2
Ab7 10.a4 cxd4 11.Cxd4 Axg2 12.Rxg2
Tc8 13.Dd1 b4 was very comfortable for
Black in P.Salzmann-N.Guliev, German
League 2008.] 7...b6 [ S.Djuric-J.Pinter,
S z i r a k 1 9 8 5 , v a r i e d w i t h 7...c5
, which proved to be more entertaining
after 8.dxc5 Axc5 9.Ag2 b5 10.Cd4
Tb8 11.Cc6 Dc7 12.Cxb8 Axf2+ 13.Rd1
Dxb8 . Unfortunately most of the
[ 35.Dg4! entertainment will fall to Black as, with
an extra pawn and the white king on d1,
he has more than enough for the
35...c4?! exchange. ] 8.Ag2 Ab7 9.0-0 c5 10.Cc3
cxd4 11.Cxd4 Axg2 12.Rxg2 Dc8
13.e4 Ab4 14.Cde2 A new move from
Mecking, but one which has little impact
o n t h e a s s e s s m e n t of t h i s l i n e . Tw o
earlier games had gone as follows: [ a)
14.f3 Axc3 15.bxc3 0-0 16.Aa3 Td8
37.d5 17.Ae7 Te8 18.Ad6 Dc4 19.Tab1 b5
20.a4 Tec8 21.Tfc1 Dxa4 22.Dxa4 bxa4
wa s ver y c omf o r tab l e f o r B la ck in R.
a6 Hübner-P.Van der Sterren, Munich 1994.;
b) 14.Ad2 0-0 15.Tfd1 Dc4 16.Ae1
Tfd8 17.a3 Af8 18.f3 Tac8 19.Tac1
Df2+ Dc7 was similarly fine for Black in L.
Konietzka-A.Naiditsch, Senden 2000.]
14...0-0 15.f3 Db7 16.Ae3 Tac8
17.Tac1 Ae7 18.Cf4 Ce5 19.Cd3 Cxd3
20.Dxd3 Tfd8 21.De2
½-½
Learn Tatics step by step
A.Karpov
L.D.Nisipeanu
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 dxc4
5.Da4+ Cbd7 6.Ag2 a6 7.Cc3 Ae7
[ Wit h this tricky move order (if 7...b5?
8.Cxb5! ) White is trying to get his
opponent to waste a tempo on ...Ra8-b8
before recapturing on c4. But even that
may not be much, and Black can also try
7...c5. For example:; a) 7...Tb8 8.Dxc4 b5
9.Dd3 Ab7 10.0-0 c5 ( 10...Ad6 11.Cg5
Axg2 12.Rxg2 Ae7 13.Af4 Ch5!
14.Cce4 Cxf4+ 15.gxf4 Cb6 16.Tac1 h6
17.Cf3 Cd5 18.e3 Tb6 19.Tfd1 g5!
was u nclear in A. G raf-A. Naid itsch,
German Ch., Höckendorf 2004) 11.Af4
Tc8 12.dxc5 Axc5 ( 12...Cxc5 13.Dxd8+
Txd8 14.Tac1 b4 15.Cd1! Cd5 16.Ce5
f6 17.Cc4 was a bit better for White in B.
Kurajica-E.Sveshnikov, Sarajevo 1983)
13.Tad1 ( in B.Kurajica-S.Marjanovic,
Yugoslav Ch. 1983, White tried 13.Cg5
, but after Axg2 14.Rxg2 Db6 15.Tad1
h6 16.Cf3 Black could equalize with just
0-0 ) 13...0-0 ( 13...b4?! 14.Ca4 Ae7
15.Ce5! Axg2 16.Rxg2 Da5 17.Cxd7
Dxa4 18.Cxf6+ Axf6 19.b3 Dc6+ 20.Df3
Dxf3+ 21.Rxf3 left White better because
of Black's queenside pawn weaknesses in
U.Andersson-V.Milov, FIDE World Ch.,
Groningen 1997) 14.Ce5 Axg2 15.Rxg2
Cxe5 16.Axe5 Ae7 ( 16...Dxd3 17.Txd3
Tfd8 18.Txd8+ Txd8 19.Axf6 gxf6
20.Td1 Txd1 21.Cxd1 f5 was also equal
in U.Andersson-A.Karpov, Wijk aan Zee
1988 ) 17.Df3 ( 17.Dxd8 Tfxd8 18.Txd8+
Txd8 19.Tc1 Tc8 20.Af4 Rf8
was nothing in U.Andersson-Y.Gonzalez,
H a v a n a 2 0 0 3) 17...Da5 ( 17...Db6
18.Td2 b4 19.Axf6 Axf6 20.Ce4
gave White some hope of an edge in U.
Andersson-V.Inkiov, Rome 1985) 18.Db7
Tfe8 19.a3 b4 20.Axf6 gxf6 21.axb4
Dxb4 22.Dxb4 Axb4 23.Ce4 Rg7
24.Cd6 ½-½ U.Andersson-G.Kasparov,
6th matchgame, Belgrade 1985.; b) 7...c5
8.0-0 ( 8.Dxc4 b5 9.Dd3 Ab7 10.0-0
82
Db6 11.Ae3 cxd4 12.Axd4 Ac5 13.a4!
Axd4 14.Dxd4 b4 15.Cd1 0-0 16.Ce3
Tac8 17.Tfd1 Tfd8 was about equal at
this stage in G.Agzamov-I.Novikov, Riga
1985 ) 8...Ae7 ( 8...Cd5 9.dxc5 Cxc3
10.bxc3 Axc5 11.Dxc4 gave White some
active piece play in G.Kaidanov-P.Blatny,
Chicago 2000) 9.dxc5 Axc5 10.Cd2!?
( 10.Dxc4 b5 11.Dh4 Ab7 12.Ag5 0-0
13.Tad1 was U.Andersson-I.Radulov,
Indonesia 1983, when Dc7! 14.Tc1 Db6
would have been about equal) 10...Ta7!?
11.Dxc4 b5 12.Dd3!? Ab7 13.Cde4
Cxe4 14.Cxe4 Axe4 15.Axe4 f5!?
16.Ag2 0-0 17.Ae3 gave White some
chances due to Black's slightly exposed
pawns in I.Nikolaidis-S.Skembris, Greek
Ch . , A gi o s N ik o l a os 2 0 00 .] 8.Af4
[ Ulf Andersson has made a speciality out
of 8.Ce5 , but without wreaking any
particular havoc, for example 0-0 ( 8...Tb8
9.Cxd7 Dxd7 10.Dxc4 b5! 11.Dd3 Ab7
12.Axb7 Txb7 13.Df3 Tb6 14.0-0 Dc6
15.Dxc6+ Txc6 16.Ag5 Tc4! 17.e3 c5
18.Axf6! gxf6! 19.dxc5 0-0!? 20.Tac1
Td8 21.Cb1 Txc5 22.Txc5 Axc5 23.Tc1
Ab4! held the balance for Black in U.
Andersson-R.Hübner, Tilburg 1981) A)
9.Cxd7 Axd7!? ( 9...Dxd7 10.Dxc4 b5
11.Dc6 Dxc6 12.Axc6 Tb8 13.0-0 Ab7
14.Axb7 Txb7 15.Td1 c5 was rather
equal in U.Andersson-A .Aleksandrov,
Polanica Zdroj 1997) 10.Dxc4 b5 11.Db3
b4 12.Ce4 Ab5 13.Cxf6+ Axf6 14.Ae3
( 14.Axa8 Dxa8 15.f3 Axd4 gives Black
compensation for the exchange) 14...Tb8
15.Td1 c5! 16.dxc5 Da5 17.Td2 Aa4
18.Dc4 Ac3! 19.0-0! Ab5 20.Db3
was U.Andersson-A.Sokolov, Bar 1997,
when Black should have repeated t he
position with Aa4 21.Dc4 Ab5 etc.; B)
9.Cxc4 c5 ( 9...Cd5 10.Dd1 c5 11.dxc5
Cxc3 12.bxc3 Axc5 13.Af4 gave White
some init ia tive in B. Ku raj ica- A. Brki c,
Croatian Ch., Split 2008) 10.dxc5 Axc5
11.Ae3 ( 11.0-0 Tb8 12.Dd1 b5 13.Cd6
De7 14.Af4 e5 15.Cxc8 Tbxc8 16.Ag5
h6 17.Cd5 De6 18.Axf6 Cxf6 19.Cxf6+
Dxf6 was very drawish in U.Andersson-M.
Learn Tatics step by step 83
Tal, Niksic 1983) 11...Axe3 12.Cxe3 Tb8
13.0-0 b5 14.Df4 was just a shade better
for Wh ite in B.Kurajica-V.Malakhatko ,
S p a n i s h Te a m Ch . 2 0 0 7 .; C) 9.--
and now:; Another possibility is 8.Dxc4
, but after b5 9.Dd3 Ab7 10.0-0 0-0
11.Ae3N Cb6 12.Ag5 c5!? 13.Axf6 gxf6
14.Tfd1 c4 15.Dc2 f5 Black was doing
quite well in A.Lein-R.Hübner, Chicago
1982. ] 8...Cd5 9.Dxc4 Cxf4 10.gxf4 b5
[ In R.Vera-A.Antunes, Havana 1990,
Black tried to do without this move by
playing 10...0-0 11.0-0 Cb6 . Although
this is a solid way to play it, it does leave
Black rather passive, and after 12.Db3
Cd5 13.e3 c6 14.Tac1 Rh8 15.Tfd1 f6
16.Ca4 White's position was preferable.]
11.Dd3 Ab7 12.Td1 This seems to be a
new move from Karpov, aimed at inhibiting
...c7-c5. But it doesn't do that for long and
thus does little to affect the assessment
o f t h i s l i n e . [ In earlier games White had
played 12.0-0 whereupon c5 ( 12...0-0
13.Tfd1 c5 14.d5 exd5 15.Cxd5 Cf6
16.Ce5 Cxd5 17.Axd5 Dxd5 18.Dxd5
Axd5 19.Txd5 Tfd8 20.Cc6 Te8 21.a4
Af8 was also fine for Black in C.Bauer-J.
Lautier, Enghien les Bains 1999) 13.Tad1
c4 14.Dc2 Cf6 15.Ce5 Axg2 16.Rxg2
0-0 17.e3 Tc8 18.f5 b4 19.Ce2 Dd5+
even gave Black the initiative in I.Hausner-
V.Babula, Martin 2003.] 12...Cf6 13.0-0
0-0 14.a3 c5 15.dxc5 Axc5 16.Dxd8
Tfxd8 17.Ce5 Axg2 18.Rxg2 Tdc8
There's nothing much happening in this
endgame, even for Karpov.
19.Td3 Ae7 20.Rf3 Tc7 21.Tfd1 Tac8
22.e3 g6
½-½
E.Bacrot
V.Korchnoi
[Nigel Davies]
1.Cf3 e6 2.c4 Cf6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 dxc4
5.Da4+ Ad7 6.Dxc4 c5 A little played
and rather risky move, all of which will
make it attractive to an old warrior like
Learn Tatics step by step 84
Korchnoi. [ Another, safer possibility is In the rest of the game Korchnoi presses
6...Ac6 , when White doesn't have the young Frenchman all the way,
a n y t h i n g s p e c i a l , f o r e x a m p l e 7.Ag2 narrowly falling short of converting to a
( 7.Cc3 Axf3 8.exf3 c6 would leave full point.
White with a lack of structural dynamism 19.Txc3 Txc3 20.bxc3 Tc8 21.Axb7
on account of the firmly restrained d4- Txc3 22.Ta1 Cc5 23.Aa8 a5 24.e3 f5
pawn ) 7...Ad5 ( 7...Cbd7 8.0-0 Cb6 25.Ta2 Cd3 26.Ab7 Rd6 27.Aa6 Cc5
9.Dd3 Dd5 10.Cc3 Dh5 11.e4 28.Af1 a4 29.Ab5 g5 30.fxg5 hxg5
was better for White in K.Hulak-B.Ivanovic, 31.Rg2 Rc7 32.h3 Rd6 33.Td2+ Re7
Yugo slav Ch. , Bo rovo 19 81) 8.Dd3 34.Ta2 e5 The advance of Black's
( 8.Dc2 Ae4 9.Da4+ Dd7 10.Dxd7+ kingside pawns adds to the pressure.
Cbxd7 11.0-0 Ad6 12.Cc3 Ac6 13.Td1 35.Td2 f4 36.exf4 gxf4 37.Ta2 e4
wa s a t i n y b i t b e t t e r f o r W h i t e i n M . 38.h4 Rf6 39.h5 Rg5 40.Ae8 Cd3?!
Ko n op k a-S. Cif k a , Z da r na d S azav o u [ Perhaps this was the point at which
2008 ) 8...Ae4 9.Dd1 c5 10.Cc3 Ac6 B l a c k c o u l d h a v e w o n . 40...f3+
11.0-0 Cbd7 12.Dd3! ( more testing than looks very unpleasant after 41.Rh2 e3
12.Ag5 h6 13.Axf6 Cxf6 ½-½ as in U. 42.fxe3 Txe3 , threatening both 43...Re2+
Andersson-M.Krasenkow, Polanica Zdroj and 43 ...Ne4.] 41.Ag6 Tc4 [ 41...e3
1997; while 12.Ae3 Ae7 13.dxc5 Axc5 looks like the last chance to keep it going.
14.Axc5 Cxc5 15.Dxd8+! Txd8 16.Tac1 Now White manages to equalize.] 42.Td2
Re7 was also rather equal in U.Andersson- f3+ 43.Rg3 Cf4 44.Tb2 Cxh5+ 45.Axh5
M. Ill escas Cord o ba, Pa mp lona 199 7) Rxh5 46.Tb5+ Rg6 47.Rf4 Tc3 48.Tb4
12...cxd4!? 13.Cxd4 Axg2 14.Rxg2 Txa3 49.Txe4 Rh5 50.Rg3 Rg5 51.Tf4
Ac5N 15.Cb3 Ab4 16.Ce4 0-0 17.Td1 ½-½
Ce5 18.Dxd8 Tfxd8 19.Txd8+ Txd8
20.Ag5 Ae7 21.Tc1 Rf8 22.Cxf6 gxf6
23.Ae3 led to Black being tortured in the
endgame in U.Andersson-C.Lutz,
Katrineholm 1999, though to his credit
he survived.] 7.Ag2 [ There's another and
prob ably s up erio r poss ibilit y i n 7.dxc5
, after which Ac6 8.Cc3 Cbd7 9.Ae3
Tc8 10.Ag2 ( 10.b4!? is interesting too)
10...Cd5 11.Cxd5 Axd5 12.Dd4 Ae7!?
13.Dxg7 Af6 14.Dg4 Axb2 15.0-0 h5
16.Db4 Axa1 17.Txa1 gave White
compen sa ti on f o r the e xchan ge in U.
Andersson-J.Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee
1984. ] 7...Ac6 8.0-0 Cbd7 9.Cc3 Tc8
Black is developing very efficiently here,
and his opening has been a c omplet e
success. This is one of the advantages of
surprise in the opening.
10.Ag5 cxd4 11.Dxd4 Ac5 12.Df4 h6
13.Axf6 Dxf6 14.Tfd1 Dxf4 15.gxf4
Ab4 16.Tac1 Re7 17.a3 Axf3 18.Axf3
[ 18.axb4 Axg2 19.Rxg2 Thd8
wo uld also be be tt er f or B lac k due t o
White's somewhat tatty pawns.] 18...Axc3