the trompowskyFirst published in 2005 by Gloucester Publishers ple (formerly Everyman Publishers plc), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT Copyright © 2005 Nigel Davies The right of Nigel Davies to be identified as the author of this work has been as- serted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrjeval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85744 376 4 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: info@everymanchess.com website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under license from Random House Inc. To Louise ¢ Sam EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs General cditor: John Emms Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Production by Navigator Guides. Printed and bound in the US by Versa Press.CONTENTS Bibliography Introduction 14 At6 2 295 OwmANADN PWN 2..De4 3 264543 2..Ded 3 2.4.5 45 2... Ded 3 3.4 d5 and 3...Others 2...e4 3 24 5 and 3...g5 2...De4 3 2h4 and 3 Others 2.05 2.06 2.4.45 Other Second Moves for Black Index of Complete Games 26 40 56 72 83 102 118 130 143BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Winning with the Trompowsky, Peter Wells (Batsford 2003) El Ataque Trompowsky, Jesus De la Villa (Evajedrez. 2001) The Trompowsky, Joe Gallagher (Chess Press 1998) Secrets of the Trompowsky, Julian Hodgson (Hodgson Enterprises 1997) Trompowski Opening and Torre Attack, Robert Bellin (Batsford 1983) Der Trompowsky-Angriff im Damenbauernspiel, Wolfgang Gerstner (Schach-Profi-Verlag 1995) How to Open a Chess Game, Evans et al (R.H.M. Press, 1974) The Soviet Chess Conveyor, Shereshewsky (Semko, 1994) Chess Informators 1-90 Chess Databases . Mega Database 2004, TWIC Internet Sources ChessPublishing.com, Jeremy Silman’s website, Tigerchess Yahoo Group Chess Engines Extensive use was made of Shredder 8 in my analysis of this opening. This has helped me find some tactical errors in existing literature.and has — hopefully — minimised the number of errors I have made. Acknowledgements T would like to thank everyone who helped me with this book, notably Phil Adams for the loan of several books, Nigel Colter for some ancient material, Byron Jacobs for suggesting the project and most of all my wife Louise for her understanding during the weekends I had to work. Let me also wish you luck with your future Trompowsky games. I hope you enjoy playing this opening as much as I’ve enjoyed researching and writing about it.INTRODUCTION Named after the Brazilian player, Octavio Figueira Trompowsky de Almeida, the Trom- powsky Attack (1 d4 @f6 2 Bg5) has enjoyed unprecedented popularity in recent years. British players in patticular have taken a shine to it, perhaps largely due to the presence on these shores of arch-guru Julian Hodgson. Under his influence Michael Adams was to adopt the opening with success, the ranks being further swelled by Stuart Conquest, John Emms, Luke McShane, Tony Miles, James Plaskett, Jonathan Speelman, Chris Ward, Peter Wells and others. ‘The other main Tromp school is based in Armenia, where long-time Tromp aficionado Rafael Vaganian spread the word to his countrymen, notably Smbat Lputian and Artashes Minasian. And in Spain it has been played extensively by Jesus De la Villa and Alfonso Ro- mero Holmes. Why has the Tromp become so popular? Because it creates complex and original posi- tions from the outset which are ideally suited to aggressive and inventive competitors. White isn’t looking for an objective ‘advantage’ as much as a way of messing Black up. A comment T once heard Julian Hodgson make seems apt: his only claim was that White wasn’t worse and that the Tromp led to interesting positions. What’s the idea behind this opening? As early as the second move White prepares to un- balance the game by exchanging bishop for knight and doubling Black’s £-pawns. Is this a serious weakness? Well, not as such as it is unlikely these pawns can be attacked and cap- tuted directly. But they make Black’s pawn structure far less flexible and mobile because further pawn advances will tend to create weaknesses. 1s the Trompowsky the opening for you? It certainly seems to appeal to more aggressive players (Hodgson and Vaganian are prime examples) but you can also find some positional smoothies on White’s side. Besides Adams and Lputian there’s the example of former world number three, Vlastimil Hort. The former Czech Grandmaster has played the opening on and off since the early 1970s, and with excellent results. If you definitely want to play the Tromp, another factor to consider is whether you want to play it full-time or keep it as a surprise weapon. Mikhail Shereshevsky in the Soviet Chess Conveyor has his Tromp analysis listed in a section on ‘One Game Openings’, making it very clear what his advice is on this matter. Many Tromp players do in fact employ the opening §The Trompowsky as a surprise weapon, wheeling it out on selected occasions and against particular opposi- tion. But it scems that there is no need to be so frugal with its use. It is clear from Hodgson’s example that you can play the Tromp in every game. Checking the statistics on Mega Database 2003, Hodgson returns a career performance of 2619 (74%) from 225 Tromp games, his own rating being an average of 2569 during this period. That someone can turn in results like these leads one to the conclusion that the Tromp is a rather serious opening that can be used against the vety best opposition. Indeed Gary Kasparov himself has been spotted on the white side, and lost one game to Adams as Black. My own Tromp career has been on both sides of the position. I have used it as Whitg on and off since the mid 1970s and have had to face it in a number of games with Black. Be- cause of this background I’m just as interested in finding good ideas for Black as for White; there have heen occasions on which I’ve met 1 d4 with 1...d6 or 1...c6 in order to avoid the Tromp but I doubt very much that 1 will be doing this in future. If Black has things well worked out there should be no reason for him to succumb to one of those whirhvind at- tacks which Hodgson and others have pulled off so many times; Black should get his share of the chances in an interesting game. But the problem for Black is that there have been relatively few authors willing to point him in the right direction. I hope to address that issue throughout this book. Meanwhile, here are some repertoire suggestions for both sides: Attacking Repertoire for White | © Meer 2...He4 with 3 Rh4, and after 3...c5 4 £3 g5 5 fed gxh4 6 €3 Rh6 consider Bellon’s idea of 7 d5. After 2...c5 play 3 2.xf6 gxf6 4. d5 Wb6 5 Adz. After 2...e6 play 3 4 h6 4 2xf6 Wxf6 5 Dc3 Bb4 6 Wd2. After 2...d5 play 3 @d2. Attacking Repertoire for White II (more experimental) * Meet 2...He4 with 3 Qf4, and after 3...c5 (3...d5 4 £3 DEG 5 e4!?) play 4 d5 Wh6 5 d2 as in Chapter Two, with 5 Wel as a resetve choice. This line is also a good way to meet 2...c5 because after 3. d5 De4 4 £4 Wh6 you get a transposition. © = After 2...e6 play 3 e4 h6 4 2xf6 Wxf6 5 Ac3 Rb4 6 Wa3. ° After 2...d5 play 3 Ad2. Positional Repertoire for White © © Meet 2...®e4 with 3 Rf4, and after 3...c5 (3..d5 4 3 or 4 Fd2) play 4 £3 WaSt+ 5 3 4F6 6 Ad2 and go into the endgame covered in Chapter One. © After 2...c5 use the 3 Rxf6 gxf6 445 Wb6 5 Wet variation. © After 2...c6 play 3.4 h6 4 Rxf6 Wxf6 5 c3. e = After 2...d5 play 3 Rxf6 exf6 4 ¢3 followed by 5 g3. Aggressive Repertoire for Black (suitable for King’s Indian, Benoni or Benko Gambit players) Play 2...c5, after which 3 d5 De4 4 $2.4 Wb6 5 Rct e6 6 £3 Af6 7 c4 transposes to Buckley- Gormally in Chapter One. In the event of 3 Rxf6 gxf6 4 d5 Wh6 the game Buckley-Lalic is a good model for Black, whilst 3 Ac3 cxd4 inevitably leads to a sharp game.introduction —_—— Active Positional Repertoire for Black (suitable for Griinfeld Players) Play 2...Ae4 3 Rf4 (3 Kh4 c5 is covered in Chapter Four) 3...d5 and meet 4 €3 with 4...c5 5 &d3 D6 (McShane-Sutovsky). I’ve suggested improvements for Black on this game. Positional Repertoire for Black (suitable for Nimzo/Queen’s Indian Players) Play 2...e6 and go for the bishop pair. Black is okay in Chapter Seven. Nigel Davies, Southport, January 2005.CHAPTER ONE 2..DHDe4 3 2465 43 1d4 Of6 2 295 De4 3 24 ch 4 f3 This has developed into one of the most popular lines of the Trompowsky, with both sides playing sharp and logical moves. After the further 4...Wa5+ 5 c3 @\f6 White has a major decision to make in whether to take space with 6 d5 or to try for a slightly fa- vourable endgame with 6 @d2. My personal preference has been for space with 6 d5, but after 6...W#b6 White currently faces a crisis in the 7 &ct line thanks to the game Buckley-Gormally and Black’s brilliant innovation (16...b5!). This position appears to offer Black a very dan- gerous initiative for his pawn, so perhaps White should take another look at the 7 b3 of Hodgson-Shaked. White is usually the one who sacs a pawn in this line and his possibilities are far from exhausted. In par- ticular I think that Gallaghet’s suggestion of 11 a3 is worth another look. Neither 6...e6 (Hodgson-Wells & Davies-Jilley) nor 6...d6 (Davies-De Weerd) are very critical, and seem to offer White good chances. After 6 @d2 the game usually heads to- wards an endgame, with 6..cxd4 7 @b3 Who 8 Wad4 @c6 9 Wxb6 axb6 when 10 @Bd4 5 11 Dxc6 as the main line. Black - hasn’t been doing well after 11..exf4 12 @d4 (Aleksandrov-Kotronias) and his pawn structure is a wreck. Instead it looks to me -as if Hebden’s pawn sac with 11...dxc6 (Karttunen-Volokitin) is Black’s best try, and it has been holding up well theoreti- cally. But one should note possible im- provements for White, such as 14 3. Both sides have ways of avoiding this variation. In my opinion Black should seri- ously consider modelling his play on that of Jan Timman in Hall-Timman (8...Wxd4 9 exd4 eG!?) in which the endgame has been dismissed as being better for White without Black’s manifold resources being fully con- sidered. As far as White is concerned I don’t recommend the 10 e3 of Wirig- Kazhglaeyev as this seems excellent for Black after 10...b5 or 10...d5!? but, on the other hand, Torre’s 10 &g5 (Torre-Paragua) looks interesting and deserves further atten- tion. Game 1~ S.Buckley-Gormally Portsmouth Open 2003 1 d4 D6 2 295 Ded 3 Af4 c5 4 £3 Wa5+ 5 c3 Df6 6 d5 For 6 Dd2 see Games 6-10. 6...Wb6 The most critical response. 6...c6 is cov- gThe Trampowsky ered in Games 3 and 4, while 6...d6 features in Game 5. 7 Act This has been White’s main choice in this line, but in view of this game there’s an ar- gument for 7 b3 as in Hodgson-Shaked (Game 2). 7 Wd2? would be a blunder in view of 7...Axd5 8 Wxd5 Wxb2 etc. 7...e6 8 04 Smelling a rat, T played 8 ¢4 against Be- lotti in Bratto 2000, but after 8...exd5 9 exd5 d6 (9... R61?) 10 He2 (10 c4 may be better, intending &d3 and @e2) 10..Me7 11 g4?! (11 4e3) 11...2fd7 12 e3 Ded 13 Re2 £5 14 gxf5 0-0 Black already had an excellent and active position. 8...exd5 Wells makes a convincing case that 8...b4+ leaves Black with all sorts of prob- lems to solve after 9 2d2! (9 @c3 Wixe4 10 4 Whb4! is much less convincing) 9...Wxb2 (0...Wxc4 10 04 Wd4 11 Ac3 exd5 12 Age2 We5 13 Qf4 We6 14 exd5 Wh6 15 dé! 6 16 Wd2 Ad8 17 0-0-0 led to a quick win for White in Pixton-Efimenko, World U16 Championship, 2001) 10 @c3 Wh6 11 ¢4 d6 12 £4 Dbd7 13 AEB e5 and now 14 fl? g6 15 23 Wd8 16 0-0 left Black horribly cramped and under terrible pressure in Vyzmanavin-Ehlvest, USSR Championship, Lvov 1984, 9 cxd5 c4! This advance is most definitely the criti- cal move, and one which poses White seri- ous concems. 9..d6 10 e4 g6 11 De2! Lp7 12 Bec3 0-0 13 Re2 Abd7 14 0-0 a6 15 a4 Eb8 was McShane-Wojtaszek, World Junior Championship, Goa 2002 and now McShane suggests 16 @a3 Wd8 17 &c3 e8 18 Wd2 intending Babi followed by b2-b4, with a rather grotty looking Benoni for Black. 10 e3 10 e4 &c5 should appeal only to White players with suicidal tendencies. 10...205 In Hodgson-Stohl, Isle of Man 1995 Black played 10...Wa5+ and after 11 @c3 b5S 12 Wd4 &b4 13 We5+ £8 14 a3 should have continued 14,,.8c5. This is all very complex and far from clear, but we won’t delve into the complications because they also aren’t relevant. Black should play 7010...&c5, and White should avoid this line. 11 Sf2 0-0 12 &xc4 dé In my one outing in this variation my. opponent played 12...2e8, and after 13 Wb3 Dab 14 De2 Wxb3?! 15 Rxb3 DAb4 16 Hd1 d6 17 a3 Ba6 18 Bbc3 I had successfully consolidated the extra pawn (Davies- Rajlich, Totonto 1998). Here 13...Wd8 14 @e2 d6 and now 15 “bc3 is suggested by Wells, when Black still has it all to prove. 13 De2 Dbd7 14 DAbc3 De5 15 Dad Wh4 16 b3 This is all given as good for White by Wells, but he reckons without Black’s next move, 16...b5! A very important new move which changes the assessment of this line. 16...xe4 17 bxc4 Wee4 18 Dxc5 Wxc5 19 D4 gives White a solid advantage because after 19.25 20 @d3 Wxd5 21 e4 Wa5S 22 d2 Wb5 23 We2 White had more than enough for the pawn in Hodgson-Turner, British Championship, Scarborough 2001. 17 a3 Wa5 18 b4 One of the points of Black’s 16th move is that 18 Sd2 can be answered by 18..Rxe3H 19 Rxe3 bxc4 with ferocious counterplay. 18...Wxa4d 19 2b3 Wa6 20 bxc5 dxc5 Black’s active pieces are quite a handful, not to mention the mobile b- and c-pawns. 21 04 2d7 22 Rf4 Bte8 23 h3 Dgé 24 2...De4 32 24 c5 4 F3 ReB DAxe4+!? A ae ee \ wy a J WA \ \ ee Perhaps this is not strictly necessary, but it is promising for Black nonetheless. 25 fxe4 Wi6+ 26 Yg1 Uxe4 27 &xcb Zae8 28 2d4 28 @d4 might be a better try, but then 28...AF4 continues the attack. 28...Wg5 29 Wel Wad8 30 WF1? This loses. 30 &d1 would have kept White on the board, although Black is still doing well after 30...Mxe2 31 Rxe2 Mxe2, with more than enough for the exchange. 30...Bxe2 31 d6 Dh8! 32 WI3 Xd2 33 wre 33 Md1 Exdit+ 34 Wxd1 Wg5 is also good for Black. 33.,.2ee2 34 Zh2 We8 35 Efi Rc6 36 Rf2 DGS 37 Rxf7+ Wexf7 38 Wxf7+ dxf7 39 2e3+ Le6 40 2xd2 Axd2 41 g3 Exh2 42 dxh2 HeS 43 g4 Sxdé 44 Ef8 a5 45 MgB g6 46 Bh8 Ac4 47 Exh7 D@xa3 48 Ba7 Dc4 49 h4 b4 50 h5 gxh5 51 gxh5 b3 52 h6 b2 0-1 A superb example ‘of restless dynamism, which has serious implications for the ‘Tromp. Game 2 Hodgson-Shaked Las Vegas 1998 1.d4 D6 2 Rg5 Ded 3 At4 c5 4 43 Wa5+ 5 c3 Af6 6 d5 Wh6 7 b3!? 7The Trampowsky An alternative approach to 7 Sc1 of Game 1. And in the light of what happened there it may become White’s standard way of playing this line. 7...e6 8 04 8 c4 is poor here due to 8...exd5 9 cxd5 c4 10 4&c3 (or 10 e3 WaSt) 10..2c5 11 Dh3 dé 12 4a4 WaSt+ 13 Rd2 Qb4 14 Sixb4 Wxb4t+ 15 Wd2 Wxd2+ 16 dxd2 &xh3 17 gxh3 cxb3 which left White with a very ugly pawn structure in Dunworth- G.Buckley, British League 2001. 8...exd5 9 exd5 2d6 10 2g5!? ‘This is the most testing move available to White. 10 4h3 0-0 11 Wd2 MeB+ 12 Rc2 4! 13 Stxd6 Wxd6 14 bxc4 b5 15 cxb5 a6 16 c4 axb5 17 cxb5 We5 18 2c3 Dxd5 19 Wxd5 Wxc3+ 20 f2 Rb7! gave Black ac- tive counterplay in I.Sokolov-Smirin, Wijk aan Zee 1993. 10...2e7 11 De2i? One of several moves. The slow 11 4?! does not work out well for White after 11...Wd6! 12 We2 0-0 (or 12...c6), but Gallagher’s suggestion of 11 “a3 looks interesting after 11...Wa5 12 Dc4 Wxc3+ 13 I> Wells mentions only 13 2d2) 13...0-0 (13... De4+ 14 fred Rxgs 15 DB looks promising for White) 14 De2 Wh4 15 s$g1, threatening to encircle Black’s queen with 16 a4. 11...0-0 Casting is natural enough, but now White cements his space advantage. Against 11..M#d6!? Hodgson intended 12 a3i? Wexd5 13 Wad5 (13 &xf6 Wxdi+ 14 Bxdi Bxf6 15 Db5 Sd8 leaves White with some compensation, but Black is hardly getting mated here) 13..Axd5 14 Bxe7 DAxe7 15 0-0-0 with some compensation for the pawn. 12 c4 He8 13 Dbe3 dé 14 Wd2! 14 g4? runs into 14...@xg4! 15 Rxe7 De3 etc. 14...a6 15 2e3 Abd7 16 Dg3 Wha 17 e2 b5 18 0-0! bxc4 19 bxc4 Deb 20 a3! By forcing the retreat of Black’s queen and therefore nipping in the bud any coun- terplay White secures an advantage. 20...Wa5 21 We2 2f8 22 2d2 We7 23 h3 Covering the g4-square in preparation for White’s next. 23...b8 24 f4 Ag6 25 Rd3 2d7 26 Rxg6! This non-standard captute is an excellent move. White wants to launch the f-pawn without Black’s knight hopping onto the 5- square. 26...hxg6 27 £5 gxf5 28 Dxf5 Qxf5 After 28..@h5 White could press on with 29 g4l ete, 29 ExfS Dd7 30 Haft Ded 31 Dea Wb7 32 Dh5? 122...De4 3 24 c5 4 3 Missing Black’s inspired reply. In his notes to the game Hodgson preferred 32 Wed), giving the line 32...Wb3 (32...£6 might hang on for a bit longer) 33 Wh5 2e7 34 Rxe5! dxe5 35 Wxf?+ Gh7, when 36 Bes! looks like the best. 32...f51 After 32...Dg6?! 33 Dg! it would be all over bar the shouting. 33 Dg3 33 BMhxfS5 Whb3! sees Black hit both c4 and a3, with counterplay in the endgame. 33...g6 34 Hg5 Wb2? Black loses his way. 34...$h7!? 35 DxfS Wb3 looks better for Black because c4 is dropping off. 35 Wxb2 Rxb2 36 &c3! Hb3 Not 36...&€7? 37 Rxe5 etc. 37 2xe5 dxe5? This recapture leaves White with a deci- sive lead. Black had to try 37...Exe5, after which 38 Axf5! (38 Hxg6+? @h7 39 Mp5 &h6) 38..0h7 39 Rg3 Uxg3 40 Axg3 is good for White but the game is far from over. 38 ®xf5 2h7 39 Dh4 RHE 40 Uxgé6 Re3+ 41 Sh1? 41 @h2! is more accurate. 41...2f41 42 g3! Hxg3! 42...&x23? 43 D7 Bhs 44 MAS Me7 45 Hxa6 Rxh4 46 Mh5+ gives White two pawns more in the rook endgame. 43 Ixg3 2xg3 44 D5 &f4 45 Ade! Hb8 46 De4 Hb3 47 dg2 dg6 48 Of3 Mb2+ 49 Bf2 Hb3 50 Axc5 Hxa3 51 De6 23? 51...£5! was the last chance of survival. 52 Hf3! e4 53 Hxe3! Hxe3 54 d6 He2+ 55 $f1 Hd2 56 d7 1-0 If Black takes the d-pawn he loses his rook. Game 3 Hodgson-Wells Vikings GM, York 2000 1 d4 4f6 2 295 Dea 3 2t4 c5 4 F3 Wa5+ 5 c3 D6 6 d5 e6 7 e4 oxd5 7..d6 is inaccurate in view of 8 dxe6! Rxc6 9 Aa3 Ac6 10 Ac4 Rxcd 11 Rxc4 when White’s bishop pair and control of the d5-square gave him a clear advantage in Wells-Hamdouchi, Pulvermuehle 2000. For the belated 7...Wb6 sce Davies-Lilley, Game 4. 8 exd5S ‘The fearsome looking 8 e5 actually seems rather harmless after 8..4h5 9 &ci Wag! 10 De2 (10 g3 dG 11 £4 g6 and 10 Re3 Aco 11 g4 d4 12 cxd4 exd4 13 Qxd4 Af4 also give Black excellent counterplay) 10...d4 11 cxd4 cxd4 12 Wxd4 Dc6 13 Wd5 Qb4t+ with good play for Black. 8...d6 9 Wa2! An important new move from Hodgson 13The Trompowsky which makes this line rather unpalatable for Black. The point is that White can now play ¢3-c4 in order to support the d5-pawn. Others: a) White had previously played 9 a3, when 9...SL¢7 10 Dc4 We7 11 a4 0-0 12 De2 Me8 13 Wd2 Dbd7 14 HE2 DB gave both sides chances’ in Manievich- P.Cramling, Bern Open 1995. b) Another possibility is 9 ®e2 when 9..@\bd7 10 DBd2 Db6 11 b4 exb4 12 c4 Se7 13 Dd4 Rd7 14 D2v3 Wa4 15 Bd3 Ac¥ 16 0-0 0-0 17 Hct gave White compen- sation for his pawn in Gulko-Browne, USA Championship 1992. The problem with both these lines is that White’s d5-pawn can easily come under attack. 9...2e7 10 c4! This is the point behind White’s previous move. Now White’s space advantage gives him the better endgame. 10...Wxd2+4+ 11 dxd2! Because queens are off the board the loss of castling rights is not that important. 11...Dh571 Black tries to gain some space on the kingside but this is probably not the best approach. Wells later regretted not playing 11...b5!? in this position, offering the sequel 12 ®c3 bxc4 13 Mel ds (13..f8 14 Rxc4 also looks slightly better fur White) 14 &xc4 Dbd7 15 b3 DAb6 16 DAge2 Rb7 (16...Axc4+ 17 bxc4 RaG 18 Hd3 lends solid protection to c4) 17 Ded Axe4+ (the alternative 17..Sxd5 18 Rxd5 Dfxd5 19 &xd6 leaves Black with a weak c5-pawn) 18 fxe4 £5 19 exfS (19 hdl? fxed 20 Ac3 is also worth thinking about) 19..@xd5 20 Ahft with a slight preference for White. I agree that the move 11...b5 seems like Black’s best try. 12 203 f5 13 Dc3 13...0-0 Black subsequently tried a couple of im- provements in this position: a) 13...£4 14 S2£2 @d7 aimed to establish an outpost on e5 in K-Berg-Tischbierek,’ Bundesliga II 2002. But after 15 Met dd8 16 g4 hf6 White could have shown up the dark side of Black’s plan with Wells’ sugges- tion of 17 Ace2 (17 Dh3 De5 18 Re2 h5! was fine for Black in the game) 17...g5 18 b4 BDe5 19 Ac3, when Black’s kingside is disin- tegrating. b) 13..0d7 was played in Hodgson- Schandorff, Bundesliga 2001 but after 14 Bet $£7 15 Dh3 De5 I think Wells’ sug- gested 16 Me2! is really rather good for White after 16...0f8 17 £4 Dgs 18 DgsSH S&xg5 19 fxg5 as the knight on h5 is badly out of play. 14 2d3 Ad7 15 f4 Adf6 16 Dge2 g5?! Wells admitted in his notes that he was becoming somewhat desperate at this time. 14'Tsesarsky, in his notes to the game, sug- gested 16...Dg4 and gave the line 17 gi a6 18 h3 Agt6 19 Re3 as just slightly favour- “able for White. However, this assessment ‘hardly describes the miserable future Black > would have to face here. 17 h3! Simply and calmly preventing 17...Ag4 and leaving Black to think about his weak- nesses. 17...gxf4 18 Dxf4 V2d7 19 DeG! Rxe6 20 dxe6 2d8?! 21 2h6! He8 22 g4! ‘This advance opens up Black’s king posi- tion and effectively terminates his resis- tance. 22...fxg4 23 hxg4 Ag7 24 Rxg7 Sxg7 25 g5 Dg4 26 Exh7+ Yg8 27 Ens! ®e5 28 Baht Axd3 29 Sxd3 Lxe6 30 Hh8+ gg7 31 Mth7+ Sg6 32 Hd7 He3+ 33 Sc2! 1-0 2...Ne4 3 2f4c5 4 f3 Game 4 Davies-Lilley Preston 2003 1 d4 ATE 2 2g5 Hes 3 Ata cB 4 £3 Wa5+ 5 c3 Df6 6 d5 e6 7 04 Wbh6?! It is very dangerous for Black to switch back to this idea. 7...exd5 was coveted in the Jast game, while 7...d6 is seen in the next. 8 Aa3 8...207 After due consideration Black decides against taking the b2-pawn, but this lands him with an inferior game without any compensating material or complexity. For better or worse Black had to play 8...Wxb2, after which 9 @b5! (9 Dc4 Wxc3+ 10 Rd2 Wa4 11 Wet allows Black to escape with 11...Dxe4 12 fred Wxe4t 13 De3 exd5 etc.) 9..Qa6 10 Hbt Wxa2 11 Hal Wb2 12 Hxa6l is strong. B..exd5 9 exdS Wxb2 10 Abs Dao (10..Dxd5 11 Wxd5 Wxatt 12 Bf2 Dae 13 DdG+ Bxd6 14 Rxd6 is crushing) 11 Bb (11 2c4 Wyxp2) 11..Wxa2 12 Rat Wxd5 (12...Wifb2 13 d6 divides Black’s position in half) 13 We2+ ®e7 14 Hxa6 0-0 15 Mxa7 Exa7 16 @xa7 Rd6 17 c4 Wd4 18 Re3 leaves Black with inadequate compensation for the piece. But at least this way there wete some practical chances. . 9 DAc4 WdB 10 d6 2FB 11 Dh3 bs 1 15The Trompowsky De3 Whe 13 a4 Aiming to secure the c4-square in addi- tion to the other advantages. Another strong move was the immediate 13 ¢5, for example 13...Dh5 14 Rg5 £6 15 f4 26 16 cxf6 &xd6 17 Re2 c4 18 £5! with a winning attack. 13...2a6 14 e5 QhS 15 g5 6 16 f4 g6 17 94 Shredder prefers the more brutal 17 exf6, but I wanted to keep my d6-pawn well pro- tected. 17...c4 18 Wd2 fxg5 19 gxh5 gxf4 20 Shredder considers this only slightly bet- ter for White, perhaps weighing Black’s extra pawn rather too heavily. 20...2g7 After 20...8b7 one way for White would be 21 Wxf4 Rxhi 22 Ags Rxd6 23 cxd6 Hee 24 DL6+ etc. 21 h6 &xe5 22 AxeS 0-0 23 Rg2 Rb7 24 aS Wa6 25 0-0 f3 25.265 can be answered by 26 Wad4 Rxg2 27 Uxf4l with devastating conse- quences. 26 Wg5 Wxd6 27 Axg6 BFS 28 He7+ $f7 29 Axf5 We5+ 30 Ad4 1-0 Game 5 Davies-De Weerd Véssingen Open 1998 1 d4 46 2 2g5 De4 3 24 c5 4 £3 Wa5+ 5 c3 Of6 6 d5 dé 7 24 0 Black could also play 7...e6, after which White should play 8 dxe6! &xe6 9 Dad @®c6 10 Wcd Rxc4 11 Rxcd Re7 as in Wells-Hamdouchi, Pulvermuehle 2000, and now I would have favoured 12 @e2 with two bishops and nice control of the d5- square (Wells played the sharp 12 Wb3!?, which also seems good). 8 2e3 8 dxe6 transposes to Wells-Hamdouchi, given in the previous note. I liked the idea of keeping the position closed along King’s Indian lines, but with White having the c4- square. 8...2e7 9 2d3 0-0 10 He2 Dns 10...Dbd7 looks more solid, keeping op- 16‘tions open. Putting the knight on h5 invites g2-e4. 11 Wd2 g671 And this invites a kingside attack based on an advance of White’s h-pawn. 42 2h6 Ag7 13 h4! f5 14 HS f4 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 g3! Prising the position right open. With Black lagging behind in development he is in terrible trouble. 16...c4 17 2xc4 Wed 18 gxf4! The sacrifice is not Shredder’s first choice but the attack is overwhelming. 18...Wixc4 19 a3 Wed After 19...Wa4 White could, for example, continue with 20 £5 £6 21 fxg6 Dd7 22 Dg3, intending 23 Wh2. 20 0-0-0 g5 21 f5 Ad7 22 Rdg 2...De4 3 24 c5 4 3 After 22...@£7 White can make it a whole rook with 23 Rxg5 Bxgs 24 Wxg5 ete. 23 Axg5 2fB 24 Dg3 bS 25 Le3 We7 26 Wh2 Be7 27 DxbS Wh8 28 Wh7+ $t7 29 Wg6+ Sg8 30 Axdé ‘The main benefit of taking this pawn is that the knight covers the £7 escape square. 30...0Df6 31 Wxf6 Md7 32 Eh8+ 1-0 Game 6 Aleksandrov-Kotronias 4th IECC, Istanbul 2003 1 d4 Sf6 2 2g5 Det 3 Rf4 c5 4 £3 Wa5S+ 5 c3 AE 6 Ad2 ‘This usually leads to a double-edged end- game in which Black has the two bishops and White the better pawns. 6...cxd4 7 Db3 Wh6 8 Wxd4 Ac6 8... Mixd4 features in Game 10. 9 Wxb6 axb6 10 Ada This is the critical move. Alternatives will be examined in Games 8 and 9. 10...e5! ~ And this, in turn, is the critical response. Others: a) Black has tried to prepare the text with the ugly 10..Ma5 but then comes 11 b4! (White can also repeat the position with 11 @®b3 MaB 12 Ad4 etc), eg. 11...Ma4 (11...Dxd4 12 cxd4 forces 12..Ma8B because of the precatious position of Black’s bishop on c8, but then 13 e4 looks nice for White 17The Trompowsky thanks to his territorial lead) 12 Db5 g6 13 04 By7 14 Dc7+ HB (14... Gd8 15 DbS is also nice for White) 15 RbS Ba3 16 De2 Dh5 17 Kct Mxc3 18 Kb2 Hc2 19 Rxg7+ Sxg7 20 Dd5 and White was weaving a net around Black’s rook in Torre-Svidler, Bad Homburg 1998. b) 10..4Ad5 is strongly met by 11 Ab5! Had 12 &d2 a5 13 0-0-0 dé (13...Bxa2 14 Hb Ha4 15 e4 is very strong) 14 e4 D6 15 Sb1 DAc4 16 Rect He5 17 Re3, when White had a tremendous position in Rausis- L Ivanov, Riga 1993. ©) The obvious 10..Axd4 11 cxd4 leaves Black with no compensation for his dou- bled b-pawns — after 11..d5 12 e3 Rd7 13 Rd3 Rc6 14 De2 e6 15 Hd2 Hd7 16 23 RAG 17 b4 Rxl4 18 exf4! Gdo 19 Dc3 Ehc8 20 a4 Black was under heavy pressure in Timman-Rochey, Kilkenny 1999. 11 @xc6 exf4 Further uglifying Black’s pawn structure _ but getting the two bishops and creating a ‘hole? on 3. For 11..dxc6 see the next game. 12 Dd4 Q2d6!? A new move from Kotronias which doesn’t have a happy outcome in this game. ‘There are three major alternatives: a) 12...&c5 13 Dh3 DdS 14 e4 fxe3 15 Rcd Dc7 Wells also analyses 15...Db4 16 cxb4 &xd4 17 0-0-0 as being good for White but 17...2e5!? seems mote testing than his 17...&@£6) 16 “4 0-0 17 0-0-0 b5 18 Axb5 Dxb5 19 Vxb5 Hxa2 20 Hb1 Ma7 21 Rxd7 b5 22 RxcB Bxc8 23 Md5 and White was clearly better because of the weak pawns on e3 and b5 in Hodgson- Satovsky, Vikings GM, York 1999. b) 12..Ad5 13 g3 Rc5 (13.25 14 e4 De3 15 Rb5 Rg7 16 Dge2 SAB 17 d2 left Black with little activity to compensate for his horrific pawns in Soffer- V.Mikhalevsky, Israeli Championship, Tel Aviv 1994) 14 gxf4 De3 15 Sd2 Dxfi+ 16 Hixfl Kxa2 17 @c2 d6 18 e3 Rd7 19 Age2 $e7 20 Hal produced a tough fight in which White was slightly better in Berkes- Sevo, Paks 1998. ¢) 12...d5 seems like the most sensible of Black’s 12th move options, after which 13 3 fxe3 14 Be2 Wc (14...8d6 15 Sxe3 0-0 is probably best met by 16 &b5) 15 dxe3 Rd7 (15...0-0 16 &d3 &d7 17 Yd? is less accurate as Black is unable to advance his b- pawn) 16 &d3 b5 17 @ge2 b4 18 cxb4 Rxb4 19 Mhel 0-0 20 Mc7 Rfew+ 21 Hz was just slightly better for White in Chakov- Kir.Georgiev, Bulgarian Championship 1995. 13 g3 is worth considering here but doesn’t look that dangerous for Black after 13...R.d6 14 SF2 0-0. 13 4 fxe3 14 DIS Qc5 15 Dxg7+ Lf8 ‘Thus fat Shredder likes Black, but after White’s next it changes its mind. This makes me wonder if Kotronias had prepared his 18novelty with the aid of a computer without probing quite far enough. 16 D5 16...d6 Black can try to improve his play with 16...d5 but after 17 Dd4 (17 Rd3 KxF5 18 SxfS b5 19 b4 Bd6 offers counterplay) 17.,.@2g7 18 RS White is clearly better. 17 2d3 b5 18 b4 2b6 19 Ae2 Ro6 After this White enjoys a clear advantage. It is better to go for opposite coloured bishops with 19...%xf 20 QxfS Ye7, in~ tending 21...a3 and 22...2ha8. 20 0-0 &xf5 Admitting his mistake on the previous move. But the lost tempo has serious impli- cations. 21 2xf5 Has 22 Sc2 Ads 23 Lb3 @xc3 24 Axc3 e2+ 25 Mf2 Rd4 26 Hct e1W+ 27 Exel &xc3 28 Hea 2...De4 3 2f4 65 4 F3 Suddenly it is White who has the initia- tive. One of White’s threats is 29 Ec2, and this prompts a rather desperate response. 28...Uxb3?7! 29 axb3 d5 30 He3! 2xb4 Winning back the exchange with 30...$2.d4 leaves Black with a hopeless rook endgame after 31 Md3 &xf2+ 32 Sxf2 Mps 33 Exd5 etc. 31 He2 $g7 32 Hd3 Nd8 33 Hd4 2a5 34 Sf1 S16 35 Ec5 Ye5 36 Lh4 b6 37 Bxb5 Mc8 38 Hh5+ f5 39 94 1-0 Game 7 Karttunen-Volokitin European Club Cup, Halkidiki 2002 1 :d4 Of6 2 2g5 Aes 3 Rta cB 4 13 Wa5+ 5 c3 DI 6 DAd2 cxd4 7 Dds Wb6 8 Wxd4 Dc6 9 Wxb6 axb6 10 Ada e5 11 Axc6 dxc6!l? Hebden’s idea, which he used to great ef- fect in a game against Tony Miles. 12 2xe5 2e6 Hitting a2 immediately is probably Black’s best. After 12...b5 White has the option of sacrificing the a-pawn for devel- opment. Collier-Ahn, European Club Cup, Halkidiki 2002 continued 13 ¢4 @e6 14 Rd3 Dd7 15 Rd4 Bxa2 16 Mxa2 Rxa2 17 HE2 Ac4 18 Bc2 Rc5 19 b3 Reb 20 De2, intending Hal with a small but clear advan- tage. 13 a3 19The Trompowsky Elguezabal Varela-Fernandez Garcia fol- lowed one of De la Villa’s ideas with 13 Rd4, and after 13_.b5 14 a3 b4 15 cxb4 Rxb4+ 16 BE2 0-0 17 e4 Red8 White’s best was probably 18 De2 (18 Re3 Rd2 19 Re2 Rd3 20 Rxd2 Hxd2 21 b4 Rc4 gave Black strong counterplay in the game). 13...b5 14 e4 In this position De la Villa suggested 14 ¢3, but after 14..4d7 it is irritating for White that he doesn’t have d4 available for the bishop. Nevertheless, this represents an interesting way for White to treat the posi- tion. 14...b4 15 cxb4 2xb4+ 16 $e2 The alternative king move 16 @f2 &c5+ 17 Set (17 Hg3 Dh5+ 18 Hh4 est 19 Bxh5 Ha5 20 £4 HxeS+ 21 fre5 h6 0-1 was the dramatic end to the game Coleman- Boyce, England 2004) 17...&b4+ would tepeat the position. 16...0-0 ‘This natural move looks like a novelty. Miles-Hebden, British Championship, Mill- field 2000 varied with 16...Qa5 17 @h3 (White probably intended to ‘improve’ with 17 Hci, aftet which 17...0-0-0 might be an- swered by 18 b4!?; Black’s compensation seems rather nebulous here, although it is still quite irritating) 17..Sb3 18 Zf4 0-0-0 19 &c3 &b6 when Black had compensation for his pawn. 17 Het 2a5 18 Vc3 RbE 19 Sd2 Bringing the king over to the queenside is quite an interesting concept. 19...2d7 Black should probably play 19...Rfd8+ 20 ¥c2 2c3 as 21 Hdl is refuted by 21...2b3+ etc. 20 De2 MfdB 21 dc2 Re3 22 Bd1 Dcd 23 Dd4 Dad 24 Le2 Axc3 25 Sxc3 \\ WY Ly \ nd \ GY, Y se \ cE “on RS WS ~ 25...295 Black should probably keep this bishop on with 25...8d7 as now he is clearly worse. Tlowever, it isn’t easy for White to win. 26 Dxe6 fxe6 27 Rcd 216+ 28 Sc2 St7 29 14 bS 30 Re2 Rd4 31 e5 Se7 32 Hd3 HabS 33 Hhd1 c5 34 Hh3 b4 35 a4 h6 36 2c4 Ef8 37 Efi Mt7 38 g4?! I'm not sure this is the best as White is now obliged to defend the f4-pawn. The move 38 b3 seems interesting to me, with the idea of bringing the king to e4 in some . lines. 38...0ff8 39 b3 Ha8 40 Eh5 Rads 41 Eh3 2c3 42 Hd3?! Hxd3 43 2xd3 g5! Undermining White’s kingside pawns and essentially forcing a draw. 44 fxg5 Exf1 45 Rxf1 hxgS 46 a5 Sd7 47 2g2 &c7 48 Sd3 2xe5 49 h4 gxh4a 50 g5 Sb8 51 ded &c3 52 Sf4 da7 53 2f1 2d2+ 54 dg4 h3 55 Axh3 c4 56 g6 2c3 57 bxc4 b3 58 £F1 b2 59 2d3 $a6 60 c5+ dxa5 61 Sf3 b1W 62 &xbt &b5 63 ved Sxc5 64 g7 Axg7 65 Ra2 $d6 %-% 20Game 8 A.Wirig-Kazhgaleyev French Team Ch., Montpellier 2004 541 d4 D6 2 2g5 De4 3 Ata cB 4 £3 ,Me5+ 5 c3 DG 6 Ad2 cxd4 7 DAb3 Woe 8 Wxd4 Dc6 9 Wxb6 axb6 10 203 Hitting the b6-pawn like this is probably White’s most serious alternative to 10 Ad4. 10...b5 It is interesting to sacrifice the b6-pawn with 10...d51? 11 &xb6 ¢5, when White should probably return the pawn with 12 el? (12 RE2 d4 13 e4 Reb 14 Ad2 Rc5 15 a4 0-0-0 16 c4 a7 gave Black good counterplay in E.Lawson-Gormally, Hast- ings Challengers 2003) 12...2e6 (White’s idea is to meet 12...dxe4 with 13 &c4, but this seems far from convincing) 13 &b5 (13 exd5 Dxd5 14 Lc5 Dxc3 15 LxfB PxfB 16 bxc3 &xb3 is fine for Black) 13...dxe4 14 Dc5 Axc5 15 Vxc5 Mxa2 16 Mxa2 Lxa2 and Black was fine in Berend-Polzhin, European Club Cup, Panoroma 2001. 11 Rd2 e5 12 a3 12 e4 b4 sees Black try to liquidate his weak pawn but 13 c4 maintains a bind (13 Rb5 bxc3 14 Rxc3 Rb4 15 De2 was also slightly better for White in Nguyen Ngoc Truongson-Predojevic, Budapest 2004). 12...d6 13 2g5 Re6 14 Ad2 d5 15 4 ba 2...Be4 3 &f4c5 4 3 Black is doing well here, notwithstanding the result of the game. 16 cxb4 dxeq 16..&xb4 is an improvement, giving Black at least an equal game. Now he has to struggle. 17 Hct exf3 18 Dgxf3 Ad7 19 Ac4 S.xc4 20 Dxc4 {6 21 2e3 $e7 Not a bad idea, intending to bring his king to e6. 22 bS 22...0a5? 22...Qa7 improves, after which 23 Da5 @®xb5 24 Dxb7 He6 is far from clear. 23 Db Dxb6 24 2xb6 Se6 This leads to the knight getting trapped. 24...b3 was mandatory, although White is doing well after 25 Bic3. 25 Hd2 Closing the gate. 21The Trompowsky 25...2e7 26 b4 2d8 27 bxad Rxb6 28 axb6 Hhd8 29 De4 Exa3 30 Dc5+ ke7 31 Oxb7 Md5 32.Hc5 Ma8 33 0-0 Ebs 34 b7 $d6 35 De4+ $d7 36 Mfd1 1-0 Game 9 Torre-Paragua Ho Chi Minh City Zonal, 2003 1 d4 Of6 2 2g5 De4 3 Af4 c5 4 £3 Wa5+ 5 c3 DAG 6 Dd2 cxd4 7 D3 Wb6 8 Wxd4 %c6 9 Wxb6 axb6 10 &g5I? As far as I can tell 10 &g5 hadn’t been played before this game. It is certainly a natural move which doesn’t interfere with White’s development. Alternatives: a) White has also tried 10 e4 but this left Black better after 10..d5 11 exdS Dxd5 12 Rd2 €5 13 a3 Le6 14 c4 Dl 15 Re3 Dd7 16 Het De5 17 Dxc5 Kxc5 18 KxcS bxc5 in Rausis Muhutdinov, Moscow 1992, b) Another possibility is 10 a3, when 10...c5 11 Re3 d5!? 12 Rxb6 d4 13 cxd4 Re6 14 dd Dxd5 15 Bcd was played in Lesiege-Shaked, Bermuda 1997, and now 15...Da5! 16 Dxa5 Rxc5 17 Dxb7 Rc3 18 Dd6+ de7 19 Dc4 Hhb8 would have give Black a terrific position according to Hodg- son. Here 14 @c5 Dd5 15 Dxeb feb 16 RcS Dxd4 17 Rxd4 exd4 was much better for Black in V.Kovacevic-Smitin, Zagreb Zonal 1999. 10...d5 11 Ad4 Axd4 After this trade White is slightly better, but what else can Black play? 11..e6, for example, is well met by 12 Db5. 12 cxd4 2d7 13 e3 e6 14 2d3 bd 14...Rb4+ doesn’t inconvenience White after 15 Be2. 15 De2 Ad6 16 Rl4 Axa 17 oxt4 17 @xf4 may be better, avoiding any weakening of White’s pawn structure. 17...04 18 dd2 te7 19 Mhet fd6 20 b3 DeB 21 Me2 Dc7 22 Het Abs 23 Rxb5 Rxb5 24 Det f6 25 Ads Axd3 26 Sxd3 : LY, This rook endgame looks rather drawish. 26...Khc8 27 Uxc8 Exc8 28 $d2 WaB 29 Ma1 h6 30 h4 g5 31 hxg5 hxgS 32 fxg5 fxg5 33 be3 b6 34 $d3 Wh 35 Hel Uh2 36 Hqi te7 37 be3 of6 38 f2 Hh4 39 Hd1 e7 40 e3 Wh2 41 222...De4 3 &f4c5 4 f2 -iid2 Hh 42 #4 2f6 43 fxg5+ Oxg5 44 $f3 Bi+ 45 be3 4-% Game 10 Hall-Timman Sigeman <> Co, Malmé 1999 1 d4 ATG 2 &g5 De4 3 At4 c5 4 £3 Wab5+ 5 c3 D6 6 Dd2 cxd4 7 Abs Wb6 8 Wxd4 8 exd4 has been quite disreputable since Hodgson-Gelfand, Groningen 1996, when 8..Ac6! 9 e4 (9 d5 eS!) 9...c5 10 dxe5 Rb4+ 11 Pe2l? Axe5! 12 Wd4 Ape 13 Re3 d5 14 exd5 0-0 saw White’s king most uncom- fortably placed. 8...Wxd4 1 must admit to having some sympathy for this move as Black avoids those weak pawns on b6. 9 cxd4 9 @xd4 a6 looks very reasonable for Black. . 9...e6!? This is far and away Black’s most inter- esting move, aiming for a kind of reversed French. Others: a) After the natural 9...d5 White gained a serious space advantage with 10 e3 e6 11 g4! in Lputian-Mirumian, Ankara Zonal 1995. The game continued 11...&b4+ 12 £2 He7 13 Hel Rd6 14 Rxd6Gt Hxd6 15 De2 b6 16 95 @fd7 17 Dc3 with serious problems for Black. . b) 9...d6 also left Black seriously short of “space after 10 e4 Ac6 11 d5 De5 12 BbS+ Sd (12..Rd7) 13 Rd2 Rd7 14 Bxd7 @fxd7 in Degsaeve-Lane, Cappelle La Grande 1994. 10 e4 10 Ect Ac 11 4 d5 12 e5 Ad7 13 RbS a5 14.04 @a7 15 Gxa5 AxbS 16 axb5 was played in Lputian-Shirov, Belgrade 1999, and now 16..@c5!?2 17 dxc5 Bxa5 18 b4 Hxb5 19 Rd2 b6 20 cxb6 Kab would have given Black good counterplay. - 10..Dc6 Another possibility is 10..d5 11 &xb8 Exb8 12 ¢5 @d7 13 £4 with double-edged play. Vaz 11 Het d5 12 e5 Dd7 13 Rb5 a5 crans- - poses to J .putian-Shirov, given above. 11.,.d5 12 e5 Dd7 13 Re3 Db6 14 Act Rd7 15 Rd3 Dad 16 Uc2 WbB 17 De2 b5 18 Dd2 18...Da5 This leads to some heavy manoeuvring. Perhaps 18...b4 is stronger, e.g. 19 b3 bxa3 20 bxa4 Ab4 which looks good for Black. 19 b3 DbE 20 Ha2 Ra? 21 0-0 0-0 22 4 Hfc8 23 g4 b4 24 axb4 After 24 a4 Black could seize the initia- tive with 24...be4! 25 bxc4 dxc4 etc. 24,..2xb4 25 D3 Axb3 26 Uxa7 ’ 26 Ra6 is preferable, when Black might 23The Trompowsky try sacrificing the exchange with 26..A\c4 (26..Mc7 27 Bbi a4 28 Hxa4 Axa4 29 Exb3 looks good for White) 27 &xc8 &xc8, not that there seems to he enough compensation after 28 Hb1. 26...Aa5 27 £5 Ac6 28 Kaal Dc4 29 cl Re7 30 Of4 Eb3 31 Ha2?! Probably missing the reply. 31 HaG is better. 31...Dxd4! 32 Dxd4 &c5 33 Re3 33...2a3! Not 33..Dxe5 34 fxe6 Rxe6 35 Dfxeb fxeG 36 Ba6 etc. 34 Zxa3 Dxe3 35 Mc3 35 a6 Ma8 also leaves White struggling. 35...2xd4 36 Uxc8+ RxcB 37 Act @xf5+ 38 b9g2 He7 39 Het 2c3 40 He2 2b7 41 2b5 g5 42 Dd3 Dgs 43 ég3 d4 44 De5 2d5 Y \ < \ \ Me aN \ ae ¥ \\r+ Lr \\ , ip a Ja Ww Ww .. \ \Y WS WS PAY > ww NY For Trompowsky aficionados this move 26will come as little surprise. Retreating the bishop is an efficient way to defend the b2- pawn, after which White hopes his central space will count for something. 5...g6 Besides the moves examined in this chapter Black can also play 5...e6, when 6 £3 Wa5+ (6..Df6 7 c4 transposes to Buckley- Gormally, Game 1) 7 c3 @f6 8 e4 d6 (8...cxd5?! 9 e5 Dg8 10 Wxd5 Ae7 11 We4 is nice for White) 9 &d2I? exd5 10 c4 (10 exd5 Dxd5 11 c4 Db4 isn’t clear) 10... Wb6 11 cxd5 Wxb2!? 12 c3 transposes to * Vyzmanavin-Ehlvest, given in the note to Black’s 8th move in Buckley-Gormally. + 6 £3 Dd6!? A highly original knight retreat which aims to play a later ...£7-£ in response to White’s e2-c4. If Black plays 6..2£6 a fairly standard Benoni can arise after 7 ¢4 d6 8 c4 Rg7 9 Dc3 0-0, for example 10 Rd3 6 11 Age? exd5 12 exd5 Dbd7 13 f4 DeB 14 0-0 6 15 Shit DAdfe 16 Agt Ld7 17 A3 Wc7 and, although White has a space advantage, it was difficult to do much with it in Rad- jabov-Grischuk, Bastia 2003. Playing along the lines of a Modern Benoni with 10 Age2 £6 11 Ag3 exd5 12 cxd5 h5 13 Re2 Dbd7 14 0-0 is another plan which would meet 14...h4 with 15 Dh1, intending 16 A2. 7 e4 The more modest 7 “\c3 Sg7 8 €3!? 0-0 9 ®b3 has also been played, with the fol- 2...De4 3 2f4 65 4d lowing continuations: a) In Ward-Chandler, Southend 2002 there followed 9...4a6!? (setting out to sur- round White’s d-pawn) 10 Re2 c4 11 Sf2 We5 12 a4 b6 13 Wd2 &b7 14 Md Aba 15 Set Mads 16 As2 £5 17 e4 a5! 18 Mad fred 19 Déxe4 Dxe4 20 Dxe4 Wxd5 and White didn’t have much for his pawn. b) 9.265, threatening 10...Axe3, should be met by 10 e4 @d4 11 Dad but this doesn’t look very clear after 11...Wa5+ 12 c3 d6 13 Rd2 Axf3H 14 pxf3 b5 15 Axcd dxc5 etc. c) 9...04 10 Af2 e6 11 Be2 Ass 12 Wa2 ®xe3 13 Wxe3 2d4 was played in Rowson- Lalic, Glasgow Open 1999, and now 14 Dad! Rxe3 15 Dxb6 Rxb6 16 Vh6 dB 17 x4 looks better for White. ) 9... Wec7 10 a4 b6 11 D2 £5 12 Re2 eS 13 e4 f4 14 a5 2a6 was OK for Black in Hodgson-Turner, Oxford 1998. 7...2.g7 8 Dc3 #5 9 exfS DxfS 10 g4!? A very aggressive move. White can also play more quietly than this, for example: a) 10 b3 0-0 11 Aedl? Dae (11... Rxb2 12 Hbi Wa5t+ 13 Rd2 Wxa2 14 <3 would trap Black’s bishop) 12 c3 @c7 13 a4 De8B 14 Re2 AE6 15 0-0 was better for White in Stefanova-Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee 2004, b) 10 &d3 0-0 11 RxfS MxfS 12 Dge? c4 13 Dg3 Hee 14 We2 Da6 15 a4 Db4 16 a5 Wad4 17 Ba4 Dxd5 18 DxdS Wxd5 19 Weac4 Wxe4 20 Mxc4 MFG was fairly even in 27The Trompowsky Adams-Gelfand, Cap D’Agde 2003. 10...2n6 There are two alternative knight moves, neither of which seem quite as good: a) 10..@d4 11 De4 and White threatens c2-c3, After 11...e6 12 2c4 White mects 12...Milb4+ with 13 c3 Wxc4 14 Bd6+ etc. b) 10..Ad6 11 b4!? DE7 (11...0-0 12 h5 g5 13 h6 Red 14 We2 Ry3+ 15 Sdl) 12 Be4 db 13 c3 Ba and now Wells’ sugges- tion of 14 h5!? looks rather promising. 11 d6! e6 Black could also consider 11...A£7, after which 12 dxe7 Rxc3+ 13 bxc3 WG doese’t look very clear. It is very difficult to reach a clear-cut assessment of such a sharp posi- tion. 12 Abd DaG 13 Aa Preparation or perspiration? I suspect the latter. Wells proposes the interesting 13 h4!?, when Karhanek-Schwarz, Frydek Mistek 2004 went 13...Wc6 14 h5 Dxg4 15 hxg6, which put Black in setious trouble. In the case of 13...c4 Wells suggests 14 Rxh6 (14 &xc4 Axpd isn’t clear) 14..Rxh6 15 Wd4, which looks better for White after 15..Wxd4 16 Axd4 Re3 17 c3 Rxd4 18 cxd4 @b4 19 Hh2 b5 20 a4 etc. 13 Le3 isn’t too good because after 13...0-0 Black is threatening 14...Dxg4. 13...We6 Another interesting possibility is 13...0-0, after which 14 Wd2 can be met by 14..Dxg4 15 fixed We6 16 0-0-0 gS! (16..2ixf4 17 Wxf4 Wxh1 18 “£3 leaves , Black’s queen trapped) 17 &g3 Hxfl 18 Exfl Wxb5, threatening f1 and b2. It looks like a draw by repetition after 19 WY Wxb2+ 20 d1 Shs 21 WET Wd4+ 22 He2 We4+ 23 Sai Wad4+ ete. 14 &xh6 2xh6 15 c4 0-0 16 h4 2F4 17 h5 293+ 17...g5 looks better, keeping the kingside closed. 18 %e2 Db4 28 Once again 18...25 is better. 19 hxg6 h6 20 g7 &xg7 21 Wd2 2f4 22 Wc3+ 8 22...e5 23 4h3 is also good for White. 23 a3 Dab 24 Wd3 &g7 25 Dh3 Red 26 &g2 Another way is 26 Ags Mh8 27 Ded etc. 26...b6 27 Ehg1 &f4 28 Wc3+ &g6 29 @xt4+ Bxf4 30 $e3! 30...e5 30...Ef8 31 £4 wins Black’s queen. 31 Wxe5 Exc4 32 Zht 1-0 Game 12 Golod-Tyomkin Beer Sheva Rapidplay 2004. 1 :d4 D6 2 Rgd He4 3 Rf4 c5 4 5 Wb6 5 2c1 e5 6 f3 Dd6!?A very interesting idea. The knight is very well placed here, but what about the devel- opment of Black’s queen’s bishop? In earlier games Black had played a kind of Czech Benoni with 6...2f6, for example 7 ¢4 d6 8 Ba3 (8 a4 Re7 9 Dc3 0-0 10 g3 Bbd7 11 Rh3 DAc8 12 Wd3 Wd8 13 Rc3 Rg5 was okay for Black in Van der Wiel-Nunn, Lei- den 1982) 8...e7 9 Dc4 Wd8 10 a4 0-0 11 Rd3 AcB 12 De2 Rg5 and now 13 £4 (13 0-0 &xci 14 Wxcl b6 wasn’t much for White in Lima-Delgado, Osasco 2004) 13...exf4 14 Dxf4 Dd7 15 0-0 De5 16 Re2 Bxc4 17 Rxcd We7 18 We2 ho 19 Ad3 Rxcl 20 Kaxcl DFG 21 e5 gave White a strong initiative in Stefanova-Manca, Saint Vincent 2000. 7 e496 A couple of alternatives have been tried in this relatively unexplored position: a) 7...f5 8 c4 fre4 9 fxe4 DE7 10 Dc3 Sc7 11 DEB We6 was played in Karttunen- S.Movsesian, Rethymnon 2003, and now 12 Re2! (12 BWe3 db 13 Wad2 0-0 was less clear in the game) 12...d6 (12... Wxg2 13 Zg1 Wh3 14 Exg7 is good for White) 13 0-0 would have been the simplest with a nice space advantage for White. b) 7...Re7 8 Dc3 0-0 9 Hh3 DeB 10 Az d6 11 &d3 Wd8 12 g3 AaG 13 Re3 Hb8 14 Wa2 was better for White ar this stage in Golod-Ma.Tseitlin, Beer Sheva 2004. 8 Dc3 WdB 9 Re3 b6 10 Wd2 &g7 11 2...Be4 3 Rf4c5 4d5 @h3 0-0 12 Dt2 #5 13 exfS gxfS 13...Dxf 14 gS leaves White with a gteat outpost on e4, 14 14 exf4 15 Qxf4 MeB+ 16 Sd1 Despite White’s loss of casting rights he is better here. White has only one badly placed piece which is his king; Black has several plus the weak pawn on £5. 16...W6 In the event of 16...2£7 White has the strong 17 &d3. 17 &xd6 17 g4!? was interesting, playing for the at- tack, The text seems to win material but matters are not that simple. 17...Wxd6 18 DBS Wed? Black had to try 18...Wg6, when 19 @c7 Sh6 20 We3 He is messy. Now he’s lost. 19 Dd3 Wxd5 20 Dc7 WET 21 AxeB Wxe8 22 Df4 \ vy \ y YW \ “yy £G 29The Trompowsky Tt is not just the exchange, White has very active pieces as well. 22...2b7 23 Rc4+ ChB 24 2d5 Qxd5 25 Wxd5 Dc6 26 c3 We3 27 g3 Re8 28 e2 Dd4+ 29 cxd4 WF2+ 30 dd1 Hed 31 Wa8+ 1-0 . Game 13 Stefanova-Jaksland Dos Hermanas Open, 2002 1d4 Df6 2 295 He4 3 La c5 4 d5 Wb6 5 2c1 £51? LL, 4 ne An interesting if somewhat exotic look- ing attempt to restrain White in the centre. 6 3 Dd6 Another Stcfanova game, Stefanova- Panchenko, Barbero Open 1999, varied with 6...0f6 7 “c3 e6 8 e4 feed 9 fxe4 exdd 10 Dxd5 Dxd5 11 Wxd5 We6 12 Rc4 (12 4 also looks quite good for White) 12...Wxd5 13 Rxd5 Dc6 14 c3 Hed 15 Re3 Des 16 V4 DG 17 2b3 Dxe4 and now 18 £3 (rather than the speculative 18 0-0-0 2, as played in the game) looks very promising for White after 18...2e7 19 0-0 HEB 20 Re5 Dl6 21 Madi d5 22 Mfel erc. 7 a4 g6 8 a5 Wb4+ 9 c3 Wh4+ 10 g3 Wf6 11 Dh3 Da6 12 Ag2 Rg7 13 0-0 DI7 14 04 d6 15 f4 d7 16 Re3 0-0 17 Dd2 Bfe8 18 Wh3 Hab8 19 Dc4 e6 If 19...fxe4 then the reply 20 2g5 is very strong. 20 e5 We7 21 exd6 Axdé 22 Dg5 eS 22...20xc4 23 Wxc4 also leaves Black in a very unpleasant situation. 23 DxeS Qxe5 24 fxeS Wxed 25 2f4 W6 26 De6 c4 27 Wd 2xe6 28 2xd6 Zbd8 29 dxe6 c7 Or 29...Aixe6 30 2d5 Hdxd6 31 Hel ete. 30 &xc7 Xxd1 31 HMaxd1 ég7 32 Wd7+ Sh6 33 h4 1-0 Game 14 Winants-Schebler Belgian Team Championship 2002 1 d4 D6 2 &g5 De4 3 2f4 cd 4 dd Wb6 5 4d2!? An old favourite of Hodgson, sacrificing a pawn. The Belgian Grandmaster Luc Wi- nants has been its main exponent in recent yeats. 302...De4 3 &f4¢05 4 d5 -—— 8... Wxb2 This is the reason Wells doesn’t like 5 @d2. Less good is 5...Axd2 6 &xd2: a) 6...Wxb2 7 e4 and now: al) 7..,We5 gains time on the ¢4-pawn so as to safely retreat the qucen. 8 &d3 Wec7 9 cA (better than the 9 £4 of Hodgson-Lanka, Cappelle 1992, in which Black was better after 9...c4 10 Re2 e6 11 5 exd5 12 &c3 b5 13 Wsxd5 2b7 14 WxbS Qxg2 15 23 Rxh1 16 Rxht Acé etc.) 9...e5 (it might be - better to play 9...d6, when I like the flexible 10 e2) 10 f4! exf4 11 DES do 12 Rxf4 Re7 13 0-0 0-07! (13...Rg4 14 Wel is also very promising for White) 14 e5! gave White a strong attack in [eissel-Kummerov, Dort- mund 1993. a2) 7..Wb6 8 £4 d6 leaves Black with some difficulty in getting his pieces out after Hodgson’s 9 &c3, for example 9...2d7 10 Des Deo 11 Bbt We7 12 Rb5+ Rd? 13 Wed3 a6 14 S.xd7+ Wxd7 15 0-0 b5 16 Bfe1 with strong pressure. a3) 7...c6 8 D3 exd5 9 exd5 Re7 10 Bbi WEG 11 2d3 d6 12 0-0 h6 13 Hel 0-0 14 Hb3, threatening 15 &c3, gave White pow- erful compensation for the pawn in Plask- ett-Hebden, Lloyds Bank 1987. 24) 7..06 8 Ebi WEG 9 £4 e5 10 RbS+ Da7 11 DEB exf4 12 0-0 Re7 13 €5 dxe5 14 Bic3 0-0 15 Rxd7 Rxd7 16 Bxb7 gave White a potent initiative in J.Piket- Hertneck, Tilburg 1993. a5) 7..26 8 Bb1 We5 9 Rd3 2g7 was Hodgson-Jonsson, Reykjavik 1989, and now Hodgson thought he should have tried 10 h4!? here. b) 6...c6 7 £c3 exd5 8 Wxd5 We6 9 e4 Wxd5 10 exd5 d6 11 0-0-0 £6 12 De2 gave White a clear advantage in J.Pikct-].Polgar, Melody Amber 1995. c) 6..e5 7 &c3 d6 8 e4 Re7 9 Re2 0-0 10 DB Dd7 11 Dd2 Wa8 12 a4 Ms 13 0-0 @f6 14 a5 Bd7 15 Ma3! a6 16 £4! also gave White a good game in J.Piket- P.Cramling, Spijkenisse 1989. 6 Dxe4 Wha+ Ar Jl, cz. 2 \\ We 7 Wd2 © a : 7 3?! Wxe4 8 €3 6 9 dxeé Wxc6! was better for Black in Djurhuus-Tisdall, Nor- wegian Championship 1995. 7...Wixe4 8 03 8 £3 is dubious as 8...Wd4! sees Black get the queens off the board with a nice end- game. Meanwhile, 8 DAI? is given as dubi- ous by Hodgson but I think it is White’s best move. Then 8...g6 9 Se5 £6 10 Rb2 Rg7 11 3 c4 was seen in Mardcr-Harstad, Copenhagen 2003, when 12 Wd4 Wxd4 13 @xd4 wins back the pawn with the better endgame. After 8...d6 9 3 g6 10 c4 WE 11 Rd3 Wet Polaczek-Socko, Internet 2004) White has 12 h3! Wd7 (t2...Wxg2 13 Be2 wins the queen) 13 e4 (or 13 Wb2) 13... 2e7 14 e5! with a strong initiative. 37The Trampowsky The critical move is 8...c6, e.g. 9 dxe6! (9 d6 Dc6 10 e3 Ab4 11 Kd3 Dxd3+ 12 cxd3 We6 13 We3 £6! and White was losing the d6-pawn too in Gilles-Golubev, Biel 1995) 9...dxe6 (9..Wxe6 10 e4!? Wxe4t+ 11 Qe2 Sc7 12 0-0 0-0 13 Efel gives White a huge lead in development for the sacrificed pawns) 10 e3 Wy6 11 2d3 WF 12 0-0 Aco 13 Dgs and White had compensation for the pawn in Kerkmeester-Jolles, Dieren 1988. 8...Wb4 Others: a) The wild 8...g5!? accelerates Black’s development but leaves him with long-term weaknesses around his king. After 9 £3 (9 Sixg5? We5) 9..WS 10 Rp3 d6 11 2d3 W£6 12 Hb1 b6 13 De2 Rb7 14 0-0 Rg7 15 £4 White took the initiative in Vande- voott-Vachier Lagrave, Paris 2003. b) It would be interesting to know what Winants and Vandevoort had in mind after Hodgson’s recommendation of 8...e5 as 9 dxe6 (9 &g3 d6 leaves White with nothing for the pawn) 9...Wxe6! 10 De2 b6 11 Ac3 2b7 12 Hd1 Re7 13 DbS 0-0 14 Ac? Wxa2 gave Black more than enough for the exchange in Klinger-Dimitrov, Velden 1993.” ©) 8..e6 is not quite as good because White can try 9 De2!?, when after 9... Wxd5 10 Wxd5 exd5 11 Dc3 dé 12 Axdd Sa8 13 0-0-0 he had good compensation for the pawn in Klinger-Akopian, Palma de Mal- lorca 1989. 9 ¢c3 Wad 9..Wb6 10 Rd3 d6 11 €4 €5 12 dxe6 Sxe6 13 Bb1 We7 14 Rg3 Dc6 15 fl gave White compensation for the pawn in Weindl-Leutwyler, Ziirich 1992. 10 d6! Dc6 11 Df3 exd& 11..g6 12 Bel Rg7 13 dxe7 d5 14 4 Dxe7 (14..dxe4 15 Ags Dxe7 16 Rc4 0-0 17 S.d6 Wd8 18 W4i — menacing the {7 pawn and 19 Wh4 — leaves Black in dire straits) 15 exd5 0-0 was played in Bellon- Dorfman, Logrono 1991, and now just 16 c4| Wxd2+ 17 @xd2 would have given White the better endgame. 12 &c4 Re7 13 h4 Another possibility is the simple 13 0-0, when 13...0-0 14 &xd6 leaves White with 32compensation for the single pawn he is down. 13...De5 14 2d5 Dxf3+ 14..WaG 15 Hd1 0-0 16 &g5 leads to intricate play. 15 gxf3 216-16 He1 205 17 Bgl g6 After 17...2xf4 18 exf4 0-0 19 £5 White has strong threats on the kingside. 18 2h6 Wd8 19 f4 Rf6 20 f5 We7 21 Hg4 Zbs? \N 390 KS I & S. << ie in EN S WS 21...gxf5 was better, but 22 Hf4 would still keep Black under serious pressure. - 22 e271 Missing an immediate win with 22 Bed! Re5 23 Rxf7+ Sxf7 (23... Wxt7? 24 Wxdo) 24 Wd5+ Se8 25 Rg5 etc. 22...b5 23 Hed Re5 24 2q7 Bxg7 25 xe7+ dxe7 This position must be lost for Black, al- though he hangs on with a combination of tenacity plus control of the dark squares. White must be winning it somewhere, but at which point exactly? 26 Wd3 b4 27 We4+ ¢d8 28 c4 a5 29 Wa 2e5 30 Wg5+ &c7 31 f4 &b2 32 Zb1 &c3 33 Rxf? gxf5 34 Wxf5 a4 35 We2 a3 36 Wd3 Eb6 37 dd Rb7 38 xb7 @xb7 39 Mb3 Rb2 40 di wc7 41 Wd5 &c3 42 $c2 Bbb8 43 Ebi Hhe8 44 Bd1 Eb6 45 Wf3 Bg8 46 h5 h6 47 &b3 Bg7 48 Wa8 Bc6 49 Edd 4f7 50 We8 If6 51 Wg8 Zb6 52 Wg3 4f7.53 Hd1 Mb8 54 Wg6 Bf6 55 Wd3 2...De4 3 2f405 4d5 Hg8 56 We2 Zf7 57 Wf3 Bt6 58 Lad Hb8 59 db3 MgB 60 W2 Et7 %-% Game 15 Bronstein-“Virtual Chess” The Hague 1995 14 D6 2 Rg5 ch 3 d5 Dea 4 fa Wb6 5 We1!? This move had been roundly condemned by the books until Wells queried the rea- sons. And with Vlastimil Hort having used it in a recent game it cleatly deserves a closer look. . 5...c4 Commended by theory, this move looks rather dubious to me. Black has several al- ternatives: a) Black’s best might well be 5...e6, when White should play 6 c4 (6 £3 @f6 7 e4 exd5 8 cS Dh5 9 He2 d6 10 Abc3 Kes 11 g4 dxe5 12 &xe5 AFG was rather good for Black in Hodgson-B.Lalic, St Helliers Open 1997) 6.807 7 Ad2 (7 £3. REG! 7..Axd2 8 Rxd2 exd5 9 cxd5 REG 10 Bc3 0-0 11 €3 Sxc3+ 12 Wxc3 d6 which was quite play- able for Black in Casagrande-Titz, Moer- bisch 2001. b) 5...d6 6 £3 DG 7 e4 e5 8 Re3 Re7 9 £.d3 0-0 10 De2 gave White a useful space advantage in Trombik-Vysoglad, Ostrava 2002. . ©) 5...g6 6 c3!? d6 7 Ha3 AFG 8 ed! Rp7 33The Trompowsky (8..Dxe4 9 Ac4 Wd8 10 We3 looks good for White) 9 &d3 Wd8 10 De2 0-0 11 0-0 Dab 12 h3 Rd7 13 Dg3 BbB 14 Dc2 b5 15 b4 De8 16 Wa3 gave White a pull in Tim- man-Torre, IBM Amsterdam 1977. d) 5..g5!7 6 ReS2! £6 7 Rxb8 (7 Wc3 is better, although after 7...e6 8 £3 Axc3 9 @xc3 Black’s two bishops are more than enough compensation for his exposed look- ing pawns) 7..Axb8 8 £3 @d6 gave Black a nice two bishop game in Gohil-Solonar, Griesheim 2003. Instead 6 Se3! p77 c3 is much better, when Black may live to regret the early advance of his g-pawn. 6 e3 Wa5+ 7 Dd2! ‘This looks like White’s best and in fact appears to be rather troublesome fot Black. After 7 2@\c3 Black may be able to improve "on existing theory with 7...d6!? (7...Axc3 8 Wd2 e6 9 bxc3 exd5 doesn’t look bad, ei- ther) 8 Age? g5 9 Rg3 Vg7 10 3 Axc3 11 Dxc3 Rxc3+ 12 bxc3 Wxc3+ 13 #2 Dao when I don’t see much for the pawn White has lost. Neither is 7 c3 a problem for Black after 7...Wxd5 8 £3 Dc5 9 64 We6 (9... Dd3+ 10 &xd3 Wxd3 11 Dh3! — threatening 12 ®f2 — is very unpleasant), which has the poine that 10 Sxc4 is well met by 10...Axe4! 11 Sxf7+ Hxf7 12 fred Wrest 13 De2 d6, once again leaving White with insufficient compensation for the pawn. 7...¢3 & bxe3 Axc3 Hodgson gives 8...Wxd5 but I agree with Wells that after 9 Dxe4 Wxe4 10 D3 dé 11 d3 Wee 12 Wb2 Ad7 13 0-0 White has enough compensation. 9 d6! This advance is an important move. Af- ter 9 Agf3 Axd5 White doesn’t have much for his pawn. 9...Dd5 As Wells points out, 9..De4 10 Dgf3 Dxd6 11 Rxd6 exd6 12 Wh2 also gives White excellent compensation. In Hort- Goldstern, Davos Open 2002 Black played 9..cxd6 but after 10 Dgf3 d5 11 a3! (pre- venting 11...8a3) 11...Dc6 12 Db3 Wh6 13 Wed2 De4 14 Wad5 Des 15 Wd3 d5 16 Re2 Re7 17 0-0 0-0 18 DAbd4 Dxd4 19 Axd4 Rd6 20 Habi We5 21 Rxdo Wado 22 263 White had a nice edge in the shape of Black’s isolated d-pawn. Perhaps Black should play 13...d4, although after 14 Afxd4 Dad4 15 Wxd4 Wxd4 16 Dxd4 White has the better endgame duc to his active picces and Blacks’ isolated d-pawn. 10 &g3 exd6 11 Agf3 DAc6 12 Rd3 @cb4 13 0-0 Axd3 14 cxd3 Dc3 15 Oda : AW St White is clearly better here thanks to his more compact pawn structure and lead in development. Of course it is never easy when playing against the machine. 15...b5 16 a3 h5 17 h4 La6 18 H2e3 18 @2b3 We7 19 Wd2 looks stronger. 18...0c8 19 Wd2 d5 20 Wb2 Daa 21 342...De4 3 &2f4c5 4 d5 Wa2 Qc3 22 Wbh3 Rb7 23 Nici Bh6 24 Bc2 b4 25 Wb2 Za6 26 Bcct Wbh6 27 axb4 &xb4 Having been clearly better for White the position is now very messy. 28 th2 d6 29 Ags {6 30 Dge6 Sf7 31 f4 Uxal 32 Uxat a5 33 15 2a6 34 Ata $g8 35 Re1 Wbh7 36 Wt2 Wt7 37 WIS eS 38 2d2 2cB 39 AxhS Rb7 40 Ara Rab 41 Wt2? An oversight. 41 We4 is stronger with a bind on the position. . 41...2xd3! 42 Wf3 2e4 43 Wt1 Hc8 44 We Bc4 45 h5 a4?! 45...M#d7 is better. "Virtual Chess" seems unaware of the danger to its king. 46 Wh4 @h7 47 h6 gxh6 48 Dns Axf5 49 Bft &g6 50 Bxf6? Missing 50 Dxf6H fg7 51 e4! with a winning attack. 50...We7 51 Wg3 We5 52 D5 De4 53 Wxe5 dxe5 54 Hb6 2xd2 55 Zb7+ 27 56 94 2g6 57 dg2 Hc2 58 $f3 a3 59 Eb6+ Yg5 60 Dhg7 Rel 61 De6+ Rxe6 62 Mb2 axb2 63 Dd4 Wf2 mate (0-1) Game 16 Golod-Adamson Las Vegas 2004 14 Of6 2 &g5 Dea 3 2f4 c5 4 d5 e6!? 53 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 ¢3 is harmless after 6...d5 7 Rd3 AlG B DEE Ac6 9 0-0 Rd6 10 Rxd6 Wexd6 11 c4 0-0, as in Schwarz-Mi.Tseitlin, Werther Schloss Open 2001. 5... D6 Black’s most solid move, but by no means the only one. Three alternatives have been tried: a) 5...WE6 is dubious in view of 6 &xb8! Whxb2 7 fxe4 Waal 8 &2g3 Wxa2 9 ¢3 b5 10 DPB Rb7 11 Le2 WaSt+ 12 Dbd2 exd5 13 0-0 £6 14 exdS Wh6, Nikolaev-Kopasov, St Petersburg 2002, and now Wells’ suggestion of 15 c4 looks strong rather than the game’s 15 e4 c4+, which was unclear. b) 5... WWaS+ 6 c3 (6 Dd2 Af6 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 e4 d5 is excellent for Black) 6...Af6 7 e4 transposes to Hodgson-Wells in Chapter 35The Trompowsky One. ¢) 5...82.d6!? looks Jike Black’s best alter- native, when Wells gives 6 Rxd6 Dxd6 7 Wid2l2 @c4!? (the immediate 7...Wh4+ seems to leave White with the better end- game after 8 g3 Wad4 9 Wxd4 cxd4 10 c3! Bab 11 SF2 exd5 12 cxd4, while the obvi- ous 7...0-0 leaves Black struggling after 8 ¢4 exdS 9 Wxd5 Wb6 10 Wb3, for example 10... Wxb3 11 axb3 £5 12 ®c3 Dc6 13 0-0-0 and White was much better in Stefanova- Hagarova, European Team Championship, Batumi 1999) 8 Wc3 Wh4+ 9 93 Wd4 10 e4 Be3 11 Rd3 exdS 12 Wxd4 cxd4 13 exd5 @xd5 14 a3 @c6 15 DbS a6 16 Dd6+ Se 17 DS+ SE6 18 De2 Ddb4 with a fair assessment that Black holds the balance. Instead after 7 €4 the reply 7...Wb6! is irti- tating as 8 Dc3 Wxb2 9 Dge2 Db5! leaves White without much compensation for his pawn. Note that 7 dxe6 dxe6 might even be better for Black. GY “ SR \ re Y pf” \ 6c4 Angling for a type of Modern Benoni. There are two other moves: a) 6 e4 exd5 7 exd5 d6 (7...h5 is mean- ingless in this position because of 8 We2+ We7 9 &g5) 8 Dc3 Re7 9 Wad2 0-0 10 0-0-0!? a6 11 Age2 b5 12 Dg3 c4 13 Rcd Dbd7 14 AS ADAc5 15 Dxe7+ Wrxe7 16 Ehet Wc7 17 &g5 led to very sharp play in Savchenko-Golubev, Lucerne Gpen 1994. OF course White’s approach was double- edged here, and Wells suggests 10 g4 with the idea of gaining space on the kingside - and possibly putting the king on e2. It does, in fact, look like a pretty good idea. b) 6 Ac3 Dh5 (...exd5 7 Axd5 Dxd5 8 Wxd5 WE 9 25 We6 10 0-0-0 is better for White due to the pressure on the d-file) 7 Se3 dé 8 Wd2 Re7 9 VEZ 0-0 was J .Piket- Shaked, Merrillville 1997, and now Shaked recommended 10 e4, after which 10.,.Rp5 11 e3 Rxe3 12 Wxe3 c5 13 Age? (intend- ing 14 g4) would be quite promising for White. In the game 10 ¢3?! DG 11 Bcd Dab. 12 Dge2 De7 13 4 exdS 14 exd5 a6 15 a4 b6 (intending 16..Bb8) gave White problems defending his d-pawn. 10 0-0-0!? seems worth a try. 6...0h5 6...exd5 7 exd5 d6 8 4c3 brings about a kind of Modern Benoni with an extra &c1- £4 for White. 7 Re3 dé After 7..Wh4+ 8 2£2 Wxce4 9 Dc3 White has compensation for the pawn. 8 Dc3 e5 9 RIZ Re7 10 e4 0-0 11 DBge2 AN, ~~ RSS 5 Ye ac ~\ \\ tS IO, \\ White has emerged with quite a nice po- sition from the opening. Black’s Czech Be- noni formation suffers here from a lack of space. 11...g6 12 g4 Dg7 12..Af4 is unwise because of 13 Dxf4 exf4 14 Wad2 g5 15 h4 etc. 3613 h4 Dab 14 Wd2 Dc7 15 hS Rgds 16 fe3 &xe3 17 Wxe3 g5 Clesing the kingside but leaving White with a free hand on the other flank. Black could suffer for a long time from here, as indeed happens. 18 a3 h6 19 b4 b6 20 Ag3 Ld7 21 61 We7 22 Bh2 BfbS 23 Bhb2 Da6 24 &d3 Sf8 I’m not sure it was a good idea for Black to march his king across. But this is a nasty position in any case. 25 Di1 WdB 26 Bc2 ve7 27 We2 EcB 28 Sad 2xa4 29 Dxad4 Wd7 30 Dc3 Hab8 31 De3 Bb7 32 Wd3 Ecb8 33 ®Dbs Sf 34 Wd te7 35 We2 16 36 ¢d1 &d8 37 Yc1 te7 38 Wh3 Rc8 39 Mic2 &dB 40 wb2 te7 41 haz dB 42 @®d1 De8 43 wal Dac7 44 Dbc3 Da6 45 De3 Ag7 46 Mcb2 Mcb8 47 Ma2 Zc8 48 Wd1 Bbb8 49 Wd3 Nb7 50 Dez $c7 51 Dg3 &b8 52 We2 das 53 Dh1 Ebc7 54 f2 Bb7 55 2d3 Rbc7 56 Wd1 %b7 57 Wd2 Zbc7 58 b5! Something happens! Here Black is not well placed to deal with the opening of the a-file. 58...0Qb8 59 a4 Wd8 60 a5 Ad7 61 axb6 Dxb6 62 Ha6 Zbh7 63 Aci BcbB 64 Db3 Axc4 ‘The proverbial desperation. 65 @xc4 UxbS 66 Mxa7+ txa7 67 Wa2+ 2b7 68 Dxc5+ 1-0 2...De4 3 2f4c5 4d5 Game 17 Radjabov-Romero Holmes Benidorm 2003. 1 d4 @f6 2 295 Hes 3 24 cS 4 d5 WaS+ 53 5 Dd2 is also interesting, when 5...c6 6 3 exd5 7 Dxe4 dxcd 8 Wd5 Wh6 9 Wxe4t+ Wes 10 WrxeG+ followed by 11 ¢4 gives White the better endgame. 5...Wb6 This is very strange. Romero Holtmes is a Tromp expert in his own right, but this doesn’t make any sense.’The critical move is 5...e6 6 £3 Ate 7 ¢4 with a transposition to Davies-Lilley (Game 4) in Chapter One. 6 Dd2! wv v \ me Ww aie ‘says “ 6...Dxd2 7 Wxd2 Covering the b2-pawn without any in- convenience. White’s extra space and lead in development secure the much better game, 7...d6 8 04 eS Had Black been ‘pinning his hopes on this Czech Benoni structure, but with less cramp because a piece has been exchanged? Possibly. But White’s next move keeps the game open. 9 dxe6 2xe6 10 Dt3 Dc6 Perhaps 10...S¢7 improves, when 11 Dod Rxg5 12 Rxgs 0-0 13 Re2 Ac6 14 0-0 £6 15 &f4 Had8 seems just about play- able. The light-squared bishop is much 37