Untitled - e

Winning with the Trompowsky
Peter Wells
B.T. Batsford Ltd, London
@
First published in 2003
© Peter Wells 2003
ISBN 0 7 1 34 8795 X
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
A catalogue record for this book is
available from the British Library.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced, by any means, without prior permission
of the publisher.
Printed in Great Britain by
Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale
for the publishers,
B.T. Batsford Ltd,
The Chrysalis Building
Bramley Road,
London, W I 0 6SP
Distributed in the United States and Canada by Sterling Publishing Co.,
387 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 1 00 1 6, USA
To Melanie
A member of ChrysalifBookS pic
A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK
Contents
Annotated Bibliography
4
Introduction
5
1
2...lLle4 Introduction and Minor Lines
13
2
2 ...lLle4 3 i.f4 c5 4 f3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 lLlf6
The Attacking Repertoire with 6d5!?
23
3
2... lLle4 3 .tf4 c5 4 f3 �a5+ 5 c3 lLlf6
4
The Solid Repertoire with 6lLld2
50
2...lLle4 3 i.f4 d5
74
Introduction and the Attacking Repertoire with 4 f3
5
2...lLle4 3 .tf4 d5
91
The Solid Repertoire with 4 e3!?
6
2...c5
120
Introduction and the Solid Repertoire with 3 j,xf6
7
2...c5
141
The Attacking Repertoire with 3 d5!?
8
2...e63 e4!?
173
9
2...d5 Introduction and 3 i.xf6
209
2...g6and Other Minor 2nd Moves
232
Index of Main Variations
239
Index of Games
240
10
Annotated Bibliography
I have made considerable use of
the customary general sources:
ChessBase's MegaBase 2003 with
its more than 2,300,000 games,
including ChessBase Magazines up
to CBM 91.
Informators 1 -84
The Week in Chess 1 -428.
In addition I have used 5 principal
specialised Trompowsky sources:
1.
Wolfgang
Gerstner.
Der
Damen­
Trompowsky-AngrifJ im
bauernspiel
Schach-Profi-Verlag
-
Dreier, 1 99 5 .
This i s now a little dated, but an
immensely detailed and painstaking
piece of work based on the huge
practical experience of the author.
There were some lines, relatively
neglected by the other books for
which this was invaluable.
2 . Julian Hodgson. Secrets of the
Trompovsky - Hodgson Enterprises,
1 997.
This is of course also an
invaluable source. Talk about the
practical experience of the author!
He is honest and entertaining,
although at times his practical
approach, guiding rather than
risking too much detail, goes
slightly too far. Also of course, the
book only covers 2 . . .'=tJe4 . It is a
shame that Volume 2 never
appeared.
3.
Joe
Trompowsky
-
Gallagher.
The
The Chess Press,
1 99 8 .
Trying t o cover the whole
opening in around 1 40 pages, the
result is inevitably a little thin in
places, but Joe is one of my
favourite chess authors and always a
good read.
4.
Rainer
Trompowsky
The
Knaak.
(CD)
Attack
ChessBase 1 99 8 .
Also contains several thoughtful
contributions from another strong
Grandmaster practitioner.
5. Jesus De la Villa. EI Ataque
EvaAjedrez 200 1 .
My reservation about this is that it
is a repertoire book with at times, a
strangely restrictive repertoire. The
' attacking repertoire ' in Chapter 2
of my book is omitted, and the
slightly
obscure
3
tZJc3
is
recommended
against
2 . . . c5
(fortunately this can transpose to the
Vaganian Gambit of which his
coverage is helpful) . However, this
is a relatively recent book, also
written by a long-time Trompowsky
player - indeed one of those who
inspired Julian ' s interest in the
opening
and is in places
impressively generous with original
analysis .
Trompowsky
-
Introduction
'Knights before Bishops '
-
Emanuel Lasker.
1. Why another book on the
'non-theoretical' Trompowsky?
Without wanting to put words into
the mouths of my readers, I can
imagine a possible reaction along
the lines of:
"Why do we need a third book on
the Tromp in the space of six years?
After all, isn 't the whole idea of the
thing that it is supposed to be
'non-theoretical?"
Part of the reason is in recognition
of a few realities. Success breeds
success and one consequence of a
successful chess opening, like it or
not, is that it generates imitators .
They in tum generate lots of games,
and ipso jacto, a body of that
dreaded impostor
' theory ' .
Admittedly books can generate a bit
of theory too, but even the most
diligent and original authors can
hardly compete, for sheer volume,
with the wealth of modem day
practice.
Statistics
are
not
guaranteed to ensure everybody ' s
trust these days, and I will
endeavour to use them sparingly,
but my database alone reveals
around 7,500 new games played in
the Tromp since 1 998, the date of
the latest publication on the subj ect
in the English language. That is a lot
of chess, and it can reasonably be
argued (at least, I might attempt to
argue it) that the author is
performing a valuable service,
providing a means for normal
balanced human beings to do
continued battle with the database
fanatics
in
this
increasingly
technological age.
So, is it time for the hunters after
originality to look elsewhere? The
Tromp was fun, but has it now had
its day, killed by the chess
equivalent of ' commercialisation' ?
T o m y mind, this i s categorically
not the case. In any case, I think this
'avoiding theory ' thing needs a bit
of clarification. I would say without
hesitation that Julian Hodgson ' s
long-time espousal o f and success
with the Trompovsky has not just
been a very valuable (and often
wonderfully entertaining) creative
exercise in itself, but also part of a
of
fine
tradition
English
experimentation in the opening. The
desire to seek new paths, and even
on occasions to make a little tasteful
6 Introduction
gesture of defiance against fashion
and the ' theory establishment' has
also been evident in the efforts of
such well-rounded English talents as
Jonathan Speelman, Mark Hebden,
Nigel Short and above all the late,
great and deeply missed Tony
Miles. I may myself be positioned
clearly in many peopl e ' s mind as in
the ' theoretical camp ' , but I still
hugely appreciate the positive
influence of these players (and there
are many others I could mention
too) and I take my hat off to them
and their daring approach.
However, having said that, I do
also believe that theory has its place.
Although we do not all understand
chess to the highest peak of
perfection, and furthermore in many
spheres of art and culture I reckon
popularity is a pretty poor proxy for
anything much, I do also believe
that in general the popularity of
chess openings does, over time, bear
a reasonable relationship to their
obj ective merits. Of course, it is not
difficult to point to counter­
examples and some aberrations in
which ' chess fashion' goes mad and
objective merit is propelled from the
window with great force, but I do
not think it is really in doubt that the
attempt to side-step theory on a
permanent basis does require some
sacrifice in terms of the obj ective
merit of the openings we play.
There is simply so much chess
played these days that even
openings which are not ' the very
best' are difficult to play without a
certain level of knowledge.
For this reason the ' avoidance of
theory' argument nowadays should
really focus on two main areas,
boiling down to the following
advice:
1) Aim for pOSItIons in which
understanding and an awareness of
typical plans take precedence over
knowledge of specific moves and
variations. The latter can change by
the week, but in fact the number of
positions in which ignorance of the
very latest wrinkles will spell
disaster is probably rather smaller
than the purveyors of theoretical
journals would (for reasons of
obvious economics ! ) have us
believe.
2) Be the one who dictates the
play. Put your personal stamp on
proceedings at the earliest possible
moment and do not permit your
opponent the luxury of playing on
' his territory ' . It is here that the
Trompowsky really comes into its
own. You cannot ask for much more
than an opening that, after the initial
move 1 d4, can be played against
Black' s clearly most popular
response, and in addition is defined
as early as move two . First of all,
the mass of theory of the Nimzol
Queen ' s Indian, King ' s Indian,
Grunfeld, Benoni and so on is
avoided. Secondly even in these
times where the Tromp is finally
treated with something approx­
imating to the respect it deserves
and the 'underestimation dividend '
which certainly was available to the
pioneers of the opening (at least at
higher levels) is therefore no longer
really in evidence, it is rare indeed
to find someone playing Black who
will have srudied the intricacies of
the Tromp with the same intensity
that he has devoted to the mastery
of his pet Indian defence. So in this
sense, the opening, while inevitably
more ' theoretical ' than it used to be,
still has great value to the player
seeking to avoid a heavy theoretical
tussle. Statistics suggest that a
Introduction 7
full-time ' Tromper' will get the
opening in little short of 60% of his
White games, and it will not
normally take a vast amount of
work (I would heartily and
dispassionately recommend reading
this book as the best way ! ) to be
generally better prepared than your
opponents in these games.
2. Some more good reasons
for playing the Tromp
hope I have shown that the
avoidance of excessive theory, at
least in the sense outlined above
remains a powerful incentive t �
consider playing this opening.
However, there are others :
Of course, some ' occasional '
exponents simply play the Tromp
largely with surprise value in mind.
This is a very valuable element in
any armoury in the computer age.
Playing the same systems again and
again, as some very strong players
such as the esteemed German
Grandmaster Wolfgang Uhlmann
basically have managed to do
throughout there careers, used to be
a viable option but these days it is
asking for trouble. In principle, I
think the Tromp is ideal for such
surprise use. The levels of punch
and required theoretical knowledge
are both about right. Incidentally
.
Ra!ner Knaak makes the interesting
pomt that the Trompowsky might
even be more suited to 1 e4 players
seeking an alternative weapon than
to main line 1 d4 players. I think
this is perhaps rather overstated. It is
an advantage of the Tromp that 1 e4
players will feel the comfort of
familiarity in many of the structures
that arise, but I don't think there is
too much danger of 1 d4 players
feeling stranded either. As regards
its
relationship
with
other
mainstream
openings
it
is
interesting that the Trompowsky
from time to time comes to bear a
strong structural and thematic
resemblance - French and Benoni
style positions in particular seem to
arise, often in quite unexpected
contexts - but there are very few
actual transpositions . This opening
is a fiercely independent beast!
One little caveat on ' surprise
value ' . Nationality might be a
problem, as I discovered when I
tried to ascertain from Hichem
Hamdouchi whether my second
move had scored in this department.
"Of course not" he replied. "The
English are always playing the
Trompowsky against me" !
Another advantage also relates to
my comments above. Whilst it is
true that the Trompowsky can be
regarded as notable for the
extraordinary range of positions to
which it can give rise (Joe Gallagher
effectively makes this point in the
introduction to his book, presenting
a series of positions bearing striking
resemblance to respectively the
Sicilian, the French, the Benoni, the
English and the Blackmar-Diemer
gambit which in fact all come from
the Tromp) there are not only a very
small number of direct trans­
positions to worry about, there is
also a good deal of choice in the
type of positions reached. See '3 '
below, for more on this point.
I suppose there must be some bad
reasons for playing the Tromp too.
' Don 't like bishops very much' is
probably one of the worst, although
I would say that a healthy respect
for the merits of knights and an
aptitude for handling them IS
8 Introduction
probably actually rather a good one .
The willingness of Trompowsky
players to cede the bishop pair is
even more sharply into focus since
2 . . . ctJe4 3 .l1..f4 dS 4 e3 ! ?
with the intention in many cases to
play �d3 and .l1..x e4 has come to the
fore.
Should I summarise then by
saying in good old hackneyed style
that
' The
Trompowsky
has
something to offer to players of all
styles ' ? Quite aside from the cliche
element, I have some mixed feelings
about this one. Read on . . .
3 . A Flexible Repertoire Book
Despite the considerable output of
literature on the opening these days
the different types of books on offer
seem basically to be the product of
two decisions by the author:
Firstly, whether to aim for
comprehensive coverage or on the
other hand, to look at the opening
specifically from one side ' s point of
view, to select a repertoire and to
provide
only
the
required
knowledge for adopting this (the
latter
describing
the
Classic
Repertoire book) .
Secondly, whether to present just
'theory' per se, or to place this in
the context of a collection of
annotated complete games.
I have been in practice rather an
agnostic on the second issue, but
this is my first stab at a repertoire
book. On both dimensions, each
system seems to have plusses and
minuses . Complete games can be
very useful for seeing plans and
strategies through to their logical
conclusion, but not all games fit this
ideal, and it is incumbent on the
author to employ ruthless brevity
when their relevance is up.
Repertoire books can be efficient in
weeding out unnecessary clutter, but
advocacy of an opening is a task
which demands a measure of
responsibility. It is necessary to be
reasonably objective in one ' s bias,
so to speak. There are certainly
some openings where I simply
wouldn 't feel comfortable with the
task of promotion. Especially when
the tag 'Winning with' is added on
in conjunction with some lousy
variation the author has an
unenviable task indeed. However,
while I certainly don 't have such
problems here, I think there are still
serious issues and it is these I have
attempted to address by seeking to
take the best from each model .
I am fortunate here to have a large
amount of space with which to put
together a repertoire book. This I
hope will enable me to avoid the
following familiar scenario: The
author, having scored his cliche
points by declaring the opening ' s
appeal t o players o f all styles then
proceeds to construct a repertoire
which so well reflects this admirable
diversity, it pretty much ensures that
players with anything other than the
most well-rounded versatility will
feel distinctly tentative about parts
of it. In short, I hope to circumvent
Introduction 9
these difficulties by offering
choices, and clearly labelled choices
at that. In each of the main lines
2 . tDe4 and 2 . . . c5 - I will offer a
selection of lines deliberately
earmarked to cater for those seeking
either a ' solid' or an ' attacking '
repertoire respectively. How else
could I really hope with a clear
conscience to include positions
(both arising from 2 . . c5) such as:
-
.
may sometimes be no way out.
Hence, for example, still with 2 . . c5,
the following position
.
.
.
and
m the
same repertoire book. Of
course, life is in reality not
susceptible of quite such neat
compartmentalisation. Firstly, even
having dictated the play at move
two we cannot always entirely
control the way it develops. If the
opponent wants to complicate, there
finds itself somewhat incongru­
ously
placed
in
the
' solid
repertoire ' ! What can I say? If the
possibility of excitement is to be
ruled out altogether maybe try 2
c3 ! ?
Equally, people' s styles are not
really quite so easy to pigeonhole
either, as many who have sought to
bamboozle the likes of Karpov or
Andersson in a tactical melee have
found to their cost. Some might
criticise the whole concept, but I
think the practical advantages
definitely outweigh the blurred
edges and definitional grey areas. It
goes without saying that the reader
may opt to mix and match a
repertoire from the various options,
or switch back and forth within a
section according to mood, and they
can probably pat themselves on the
back that their style will broaden as
a consequence. Again Julian
Hodgson provides a model . The
lines which I will offer as ' solid'
and ' attacking ' respectively against
2 . . tDe4 and 3 . . . c5 for example have
both been enthusiastically employed
by the world's leading Trompowsky
player. It is true he has a well.
10
Introduction
rounded style, but it is also
undeniable that this flexibility has
made him much tougher to prepare
for, and generally a much more
difficult opponent.
There are also instances where I
will not offer a choice. The final
three Chapters seem less susceptible
to this stylistic dichotomy and since
there is a lot of ground to cover, I
have compromised at this level .
This has little cost in Chapter 1 0 for
example. After 2 . . . g6 I simply think
there is little doubt about White ' s
'best' course o f action:- implement
the ' Trompowsky threat' with 3
..txf6, occupy the centre with 4 c4
and then play on the queenside
combining the fiancheUoed king' s
bishop with an advance of the
b-pawn. This is tried and tested, and
above all logical, and the choice of
most leading Trompowsky players.
In a sense it is a 'positional '
solution, but those who play the
Trompowsky to feed their passion
for wild, irrational positions may
just have to grin and bear it. The
position is by no means dull either.
In any case this highlights an
important point worth making in
this regard. Almost no-one disputes
the fun and games which can
confidently be anticipated in the
case of 2 . . . lLle4 and 2 . . . c5.
However, after various other moves,
whilst there is no obligation
whatever to follow through the
' threat' of inflicting damage on
Black's structure by capturing on f6
(I don't think you should exactly be
accused of 'bluffing' if you opt for a
less critical course ! ) it is quite
important to the bite of the
Trompowsky that we are not
bluffing collectively. The repertoire
will be based upon eschewing any
such 'bluff' and it is in my view of
the greatest importance that the
basic techniques of playing with the
knight pair against Black' s bishops
and compromised structure be
learned. They are in any case
instructive in general chess terms,
not exclusively applicable within
the Trompowsky setting.
Again I want to stress that
flexibility is the hallmark of what I
am trying to do . In the interesting
case of 2 . . . e6 while I will briefly
consider alternatives, my treatment
of the main line position arising
after 3 e4 h6 4 ..txf6 �xf6
will again be rather different. In this
fascinating
variation,
itself
distinctive in that White cedes the
for
pair
bishop
dynamic
(development/occupation of the
centre) rather than
structural
compensation, the problem is quite
the opposite of that with 2 . . . g6 . If I
knew what was the best course, I
might try to lay down the law, but
while I have a pretty good idea of
how White would like to proceed in
principle, there are a number of
specific inconveniences (notably
5 . . . d5 in reply to 5 c3 ; and 5 . . . ..th4
in reply to 5 lLlc3) which have
thrown White ' s best course up for
grabs. My treatment of this will still
be in a repertoire book style, but it
Introduction 1 1
will be much more experimental,
hopefully drawing the reader into
the process of trying to sort out the
way forward.
One more note on the 'flexibility '
in the repertoire. I will in places
give some coverage of lines which I
do not recommend, generally
because I think that they are useful
aides to a wider understanding of
more important lines . However, I
will also label clearly where I do not
feel the variation is honestly
recommendable.
I have introduced one further
device which I hope will assist with
the
efficient
presentation
of
material . Since my target audience
is not primarily grandmasters
(although I hope they will find
material of value here too), I intend
to put a primary emphasis on
explanation, the description of plans
and ideas etc . It is to this end that I
have opted primarily for the
approach of including complete
games. However, again I do not
want to be too dogmatic. I am less
convinced of the merits of this
approach where heavy theoretical
sections,
those
particularly
including extensive original analysis
are concerned. These will be the
exception here, but there will be a
few, and for this reason I will
include three ' Theoretical Articles '
in amidst the games, mainly for
highly critical lines (primarily
White ' s sharpest gambit lines,
where the b2 pawn is sacrificed for
attacking chances, and general
pri nciples cease to be of any great
use) .
4. Some Preliminary Strategic
Issues to Bear in Mind
One consequence of the genuinely
diverse nature of the Trompowsky
is that attempts to generalise into a
' strategic introduction' would be
rather problematic. Rather I would
like to raise very briefly a few
questions, and invite the reader to
have these in mind and consider
them as and when they arise
throughout the book. The various
Section/Chapter Introductions will
discuss them in more detail, but for
the moment, just reflect on the
following:
Compensation for the bishop pair
1.
Consider in each case when this is
structural in nature or dynamic.
How the knights can be enhanced,
and especially the vexed question of
how far to open or close the position
to optimise such compensation. See
especially the Strategic Introduction
to 3 . . . h6 4 Sl..xf6 in Chapter 8 on this
question.
2.
Compensation for the b-pawn
Bear in mind that b2 is the central
weakness for White in the
Trompowsky. Try to assess the basis
on which some b-pawn sacrifices
(notably the Vaganian Gambit in
Chapter 7) form an intrinsic part of
the repertoire, while others (notably
3 . .lbe4 4 Sl..f4 �6 5 liJd2?! also in
Chapter 7) just do not make the
grade. Above all, always keep the
implications of a quick . . . 'i'b6 in
mind.
.
J2
Introduction
Missing the Tromp bishop
- dark square weaknesses
3.
It is not just b2. Chapters 6 and 8
will help to get a feel of the
potential dark-squared weaknesses
that arise in the event that the
Trompowsky bishop meets with the
exchange which is already implicit
in its early sortie. Do not become
paranoid about this danger, but try
to develop warning antennae which
militate against creating any further
weakness of the dark squares
without very good cause.
A
Final Note
No book can include everything,
and despite something of a
predilection for history in general, I
will no doubt be accused of neglect
in this area, perhaps with good
cause. There have been probably
two major periods crucial to the
development of this opening. The
1 930s when the Brazilian Octavio
Trompowsky fashioned the basic
system (a large number of his
opponents answered with 2 . . . d5, and
the idea of 3 ..txf6 exf6 with a later
c2-c4 dates from this time) ; and the
period after 1 98 5 when Julian
Hodgson was inspired by the efforts
of Spanish Trompowsky players,
Illescas, De la Villa and Romero
Holmes, and thereafter made
innumerable contributions which
will be felt on almost every page.
The number of very strong players
who will also appear here is a
testimony to the fact that we are
now dealing with a major opening
system with an ever growing
reputation. Playing the Trompowsky
is fun. If reading this book helps
you to add to the collection of
entertaining, original Trompowsky
games then it will have been
worthwhile.
Thanks are due to a few people.
On the technical chess side, I am
grateful to Luke McShane, who
generously provided me with notes
to his game with Wojtaszek in
Chapter 2, and with whom I had the
pleasure of analysing some other
variations when I was his second for
the recent World Junior Champion­
ship in India. As usual it was
supposed to be me introducing him
to new material, but his sharp
insightful chess brain meant that a
number of interesting ideas and
assessments were immediately fired
back my way.
Thanks are also due to the
Batsford team, and Roger Huggins
in particular, who got the balance
between laissezjaire encourage­
ment and necessary cajoling just
about right. Also to Malcolm Pein
who initially discussed the idea of
the book with me, and who in a
recent Daily Telegraph column
when discussing the Trompowsky
wondered "is there any defence to
it" which (although there obviously
is not ! ) can only be good publicity.
On a more personal note, I would
like to thank my parents whose
support and on many occasions
hospitality during the preparation of
this book went well beyond the call
of duty. Last, but certainly not least,
I would like to thank Melanie
Buckley who helps in so many ways
and to whom this book is dedicated.
Chapter 1
-
2
. . .
tiJe4
Introduction and Minor Lines
2 .tbe4!?
..
-
Introduction
It is not too difficult to account
for the popularity of 2 . . . l'Lle4. Black
avoids the damage to his structure
which his opponent has the option
of inflicting after most other second
move choices . Neither does he
suffer the loss of time characteristic
of the 2 . . . e6 3 e4 h6 of Chapter 8 .
I n reality, of course, there i s a loss
of time element to 2 . . . l'Lle4 . Black
breaks the classical ' rules ' of
opening play and moves his knight a
second
either
before
time
developing or even preparing to
develop any other piece. However,
by answering arguable ' attack' with
quite indisputable ' counter-attack ' ,
B lack virtually ensures that his
adversary will have to mirror that
tempo loss, usually with a bishop
move, or more eccentrically with 3
h4 ! ?, which, whatever its merits,
can hardly boast the enhancement of
development near the top of its list.
As I discussed briefly in the
introduction, and we shall see more
of it, especially in Chapter 2, this all
presages a 'balance of lost tempi'
which can become quite a complex
and radical business. Extraordinary
variations ensue in which the
players continue to trade ' time loss '
apparently with reckless abandon.
These would not only have shocked
the classicists, but still raise a few
eyebrows even in today ' s more
pragmatic and broad-minded times .
As for White ' s reply, I strongly
believe that 3 i.f4( ! ) is the best
move, and to be honest this view is
not very controversial these days.
This will be the main repertoire
recommendation in both its ' solid '
and ' attacking ' incarnations. It will
also be the subject of chapters 2 to
5, as well as the remainder of this
chapter. Here, my job is really to
explain why this is the best move.
Well, the best place to start is with
3 iLh4? ! , once the main line, but
now rather discredited.
1 4 2 ..tiJe4 Introduction and Minor Lines
.
The intentions behind the move
are laudable - not least the fact that
keeping the e-pawn pinned rather
restricts Black's options. I think
though that the drawback to the
move is quite simple to understand
too. 3 .th4 is in essence a poor
preparation for combating Black's
dark square strategy. The bishop ' s
desertion of the queens ide, a charge
which purists might indeed level at
the Trompowsky as a whole, is here
greatly reinforced. That this is a real
rather than a merely academic issue
will become clear later in chapter 2 .
There, with the bishop preferring
the f4 square, we shall become
acquainted with quite the range of
cases in which the weakness of b2 is
covered by retreat from f4 to c l .
That may be one of the develop­
mental outrages which so shocks the
traditionalists, but as I shall hope to
explain there are often very good
grounds for this retreat. Of the
alternative defences of b2, 'ii' c l
often smacks of passivity and may
trouble the d-pawn, while the
weakening of the dark squares
which the move b3 implies may
often be more than White ' s position
can comfortably stand.
However, it is not just on the
queenside that the dark squares may
fall under a cloud of suspicion. To
an extent dark square problems are
also from White' s standpoint an
almost Trompowsky-wide Achilles
heel. Even after 3 .tf4, the move
3 . . . c5 ! ? targets these squares and
makes a reasonable shot at it.
However, after 3 .th4 ? ! this
problem is magnified many times
over because, very concretely after
the logical and once-popular
sequence 3 . . . c5 4 f3 g5 ! 5 fxe4
gxh4, Black has also succeeded in
exchanging
the
Trompowsky
bishop.
This account might seem at first a
little inconsistent. Surely Black
initially embarked on 2 . . . ttJe4
precisely to avoid a trade-off
between gaining the bishop pair and
suffering pawn weaknesses? Don 't
the doubled isolated h-pawns
momentous
more
represent
structural harm than the doubled
f-pawns which Black went to such
trouble to prevent? Well, in
isolation maybe, and it was this
belief I suppose that Black' s
kings ide damage was every bit as
important
as
his
opponent' s
weaknesses i n the centre that
resulted in this being an important
line for many years. Gradually
though,
that
assessment
has
changed. White ' s weakened dark
squares in the centre, notably the e3
square which is done no favours at
all by the move 4 f3 , have in fact
been shown to be a serious problem.
The fact that after the further moves
6 e3 .th6 ! White increasingly
turned to 7 'itr>f2 ! ?, a developing
move only in the very broadest
sense of the word, served to
highlight these problems. With
apologies to 3 .th4 specialists, I
have decided that since this is a
repertoire book, and since there is a
great deal of material now in the
main lines crying out for detailed
coverage, a further exposition of
2
. . .
why I believe this variation t o be
inferior for White would be a bit
superfluous . I am confident that a
majority of readers will see the logic
of this, and hopefully even some 3
.Jth4 players will be persuaded of
the merits of the ' other' bishop
move.
3 .tf4
-
Introduction
So, after 3 .Jtf4 we can usefully
ask ourselves 'How is the battle of
tempi unfolding ' ? To recap, Black
has made a second move with his
knight and virtually forced (with
due apologies to the small but
committed 3 h4 ! ? crew) White in
tum to make a second bishop move.
That though, is not the end of the
story. Now Black needs to tum his
attention to White's intention to
establish a classical pawn centre,
with gain of time by playing f3 and
e4.
If Black simply ignores this and
proceeds for example in 'Pirc style'
with 3 . . . g6 4 f3 lZJf6 5 e4, he may
derive some measure of solace from
the fact that f4 might not be the
absolute square of choice for
White ' s bishop in such a structure
(e3 feels more natural, although
some of that feeling might just be
prejudice and
crude
'pattern
recognition'), but this will certainly
not compensate for what is in
essence a loss of tempo. Basically
White has expended two moves to
get his bishop to f4, but Black has
taken a full three moves to reach f6
with his knight. Some compensation
I suppose for those who will miss
the role customarily played by
reams of theory in bringing them
towards the time-control !
lZJe4 Introduction and Minor Lines 1 5
It is because this outcome is none
too satisfactory for Black that his
basic choice here is between 3 . . . c5
(The remainder of this chapter and
the next two) and 3 . . . d5 (Chapters 4
and 5). It is often (rightly) said that
the Trompowsky has the virtue of
forcing Black to face unusual
problems from the very start.
However, when we look at the
nature of these moves it is striking
that what Black really faces here is
quite a familiar decision. He should
decide between a dark-square
strategy aimed in particular at the
square d4, and a light square
strategy contesting the e4 square.
Sound familiar? Well, consider his
defensive choices after the much
more ' theoretical ' 2 c4, and you will
see that they generally reduce to
pretty much these two !
The rest of this Chapter will now
deal with introducing 3 . . . c5 by way
of the positions which occur when
Black simply retreats his knight on
move 4 rather than throwing in the
more highly regarded 4 . . . 'iia 5+( ! ) .
Game 1
Adams Leko
Cap d'Agde, Rapid 1 996.
-
1 d4 lZJf6 2 .Jig5 lZJe4 3 .Jtf4 c5
Every author seems to have a
brief
word
for
the
rather
undeserving 3 . . . lZJc6?! so I shall
maintain the tradition. The idea is
that 4 d5 can be answered with
4 . . . e5, as so often when White' s
bishop i s o n f4 . Again I think White
has a pleasant choice between
' taking Black on' with 4 f3 ! ? e5 5
dxe5 g5 when 6 .Jic l looks
eminently reasonable - why not
invite the opponent to weaken
1 6 2 ..ciJe4 Introduction and Minor Lines
.
himself in this way; alternatively 4
e3 and either 5 t!Dd2 or 5 i.. d 3 look
fine. I am not convinced the knight
really wants to be on c6 in this case.
Hodgson also mentions 3 . . . e6
with the intention of answering 4 f3
with 4 . . . i.d6 5 i.. xd6 t!Dxd6 "with a
playable position". Well, I suppose
it is, although that is the most
generous I would go with my
assessment. Black would like to
follow up with . . . 0-0 and . . . f5 , but
normal development with 6 t!Dc3
and preparing to advance the
e-pawn in reply to . . . f5 looks quite
OK for White too . Of course, if this
does not appeal, 4 e3 is very solid,
and quite likely to transpose into
Chapter 5 after a later . . . d5 by
Black. It is often worth bearing in
mind that, 3 . . . c5 apart, the move f3
can be weakening and is rarely
compulsory.
4 f3(!)
4 d5 is also a serious possibility
for those intending to reach the
' attacking' repertoire. It leads to
play with much similarity to the
main lines of the next chapter, but
there are arguments for both sides
relating to lines avoided / lines
encouraged and so on. My own
view is that 4 f3 is preferable here,
but in fact I will also cover the
position after 4 d5 later in Games
3 6-37 and TA3 . In the case of the
2 . . . c5 move order White, if he
wants to play the sharp 2 . . . c5 3
d5 ! ? has more limited choice since
after 3 . . . ltJe4 it is difficult but to be
sceptical as to the merits of
alternatives such as 4 i.c 1 (? ! ) . More
of that in Chapter 7 .
4 ltJf6
More popular, probably for good
reason, is 4 . . . 'iWa5+, the subject of
Chapters 2 and 3 .
•..
5 dxc5 !
Clearly best in my view. White
aims in most cases for a
quasi-Sicilian position in which he
is invariably about a tempo to the
good compared with standard lines.
The reason for this is partly the
customary equation : - the knight has
taken three moves to reach f6, the
bishop only two to reach f4 .
Collectively,
of course,
this
represents
quite
shocking
inefficiency ! What an argument for
' cooperative chess ' !
5 . . JWa5+
Here is the second manifestation
of Black's problem. The queen
wastes a further tempo to recover
the c5 pawn, while White can cover
this check in a fashion which
promotes his further development
without the slightest inconvenience.
No wonder Black has looked
elsewhere - alternatives here are
considered in Game 2 .
6 ltJc3 ? !
Strictly speaking this i s less
accurate than 6 1i'd2 ! 'i!!V x c5 7 e4 etc
although many games have also
reached the same position in this
way. The reason is given in the next
note. Another point of possible
interest is that with the superior
move order after say 7 . . . d6, White
can also consider a ' Mar6czy Bind'
2 tDe4 Introduction and Minor Lines 1 7
. . .
approach. For example in Kishnev­
Konietzka, Recklinghausen (op)
1 999 he tried 8 c4 ! ? tDc6 9 tDc3
.ltd7 1 0 l:c 1 'iWa5 1 1 tDd5 �xd2+
12 'it'xd2 l:tc8 1 3 tDe2 with a
reasonable
endgame,
although
personally I think I would have kept
queens on - perhaps the immediate
10 tDd5 ! ? in particular was worthy
of consideration. However, since the
main lines are quite rosy versions of
the Sicilian for White, there is no
need for this - it is just a question of
taste.
positional compensation for the
pawn, as in V.Kovacevic-Ftacnik,
Hastings 1 982-3 .
7 e4
7 •••g6
'iVxc5? !
Neglecting t o question White' s
move order. I t speaks volumes for
the
relative
disregard
for
Trompowsky theory which I
discussed in the introduction that a
quality player and theoretical
monster like Peter Leko would be
unaware of such an important
nuance as early as move 6. This
would be almost unthinkable in his
mainstream
Two
repertoire.
apparently forgotten games from the
early 1 980s suggest that after 6 tDc3
e6 ! ? Black has much better chances
to equalise e.g. 7 i.d6 tDd5 8 e4
tDxc3 9 'iVd2 b6 1 0 i.xfS I:xfS 1 1
cxb6 axb6 1 2 'iVxc3 'iVxc3+ 1 3 bxc3
i.a6 14 i.d3 tDc6 15 tDe2 tDe5 1 6
'it>d2 tDc4+ 1 7 .ltxc4 i.xc4 with full
6
.. .
Black has tried a large number of
set-ups here, of which the ' Dragon'
is probably the most popular, not
least because with White playing a
quick 'iVd2
and 0-0-0,
the
' Scheveningen' approach with . . . e6
is quite problematic to arrange.
What can be said
fairly
categorically is that an early .. . e5
has a poor track record, frequently
landing Black in difficulties. A case
in point was the spectacular
Landenbergue-Walther, Swiss (ch)
1 993 which continued 7 . . . d6 8 'iWd2
(interestingly also with 6 tDc3)
8 . . . a6 9 0-0-0 e5?! 10 .lte3 'iVc7 1 1
g4 h6 1 2 h4 i.e6 1 3 .lth3 tDc6 The
game bears some resemblance to a
Richter-Rauzer, but despite playing
. . . e5 ' in one go ' Black is still tempi
behind - the standard tempi
trade-off between White ' s dark­
square bishop and Black' s king ' s
knight i s a tie, but Black's queen
also has some history. Time tends to
increase in importance in sharp
Sicilian
structures,
and
the
following breakthrough is, partly in
consequence, very powerful.
1 8 2 .tlJ e4 Introduction and Minor Lines
. .
1 4 g5 ! hxg5 ? ! 1 5 hxg5 �d7 1 6
g6 ! liJf6 (if 1 6 . . . fxg6 1 7 Sl.xe6
I;Ixh l 1 8 �d5 followed by 1 9 iVg2
is a massacre) 1 7 Sl.xe6 ! l:txh l 1 8
gxf7+ 'it>d8 1 9 Sl.b6 ! a very pleasing
finish! 19 . . . iVxb6 20 'iWxd6+ Sl.xd6
2 1 f8='iV+ �e8 22 1:txd6+ riil c 7 23
�d5+ riilb 8 24 �xb6 I;Ixg 1 + 25 z:rd 1
1 -0 A very crisp attack indeed !
The blame, however, does not lie
at the door of 8 . . . a6 per se. For
example 9 0-0-0 (9 �ge2 ! ? �bd7
1 0 Sl.e3 'iVc7 1 1 �d5 �xd5 1 2 exd5
�f6 1 3 0-0-0 b5 14 h4 Sl.b7 1 5
�f4 ':'c8 1 6 'ittb 1 g6 1 7 g4 gave
White an excellent position where
Black lacks any focus for her
counter-play in the game S .Ionov­
Umanskaya, St Petersburg (op)
1 994) 9 . . . �bd7 ! ? (not 9 . . . g6? here
since 1 0 e5 ! is very powerful) 1 0
�h3 ! ? ( 1 0 g4 ! ?) 1 0 . . . b 5 (in this
case with White ' s knight heading to
f2 there might have been more of a
case for 1 0 . . . e5 ! ?) 1 1 �f2 Sl.b7 1 2
�d3 'iVc7 1 3 g4 .uc8 1 4 h4 e 5 1 5
Sl.h2 �b6 1 6 g5 �c4 1 7 'iVe l �d7
1 8 Sl.h3 �cb6 was Hodgson­
Vyzmanavin, Zaragoza (op) 1 99 3 .
You get a certain feeling from
Julian' s notes here that he was justly
proud of his quite original handling
of the position with �h3-f2-d3 , and
hence all the more annoyed that he
rushed things with 1 9 f4? ! when the
patient 1 9 riilb 1! and 20 Sl.g 1 would
have consolidated his plus. Again
White ' s set-up is instructive for the
way it almost effortlessly restrains
the opponent' s counterplay.
8 'ilVd2 d6
I once (and it will be only once ! )
tried to handle the Black pieces in
this line. For some reason I
preferred 8 . . . Sl.g7 9 0-0-0 �c6 1 0
.te3 ( 1 0 �b5? ! 0-0 1 1 �c7 1:1b8 1 2
�d5 �xd5 1 3 exd5 �e5 leads
nowhere special, although instead
1 1 Sl.e3 ! iVe5 12 Sl.f4 forces a draw)
1 0 . . .'iVa5 1 1 i.c4 d6 1 2 Sl.h6 (I
mention this game mainly because I
found this moment instructive.
During the game I was pleased to
see this, because I felt that the
essence of Black's difficulties was
development and both of the
forthcoming exchanges actually win
Black an element of valuable time. I
was much more concerned about 1 2
�ge2 ! This i s a very good square in
the Dragon when the bishop is
occupying the b3-g8 diagonal and I
think that White is again simply a
tempo or more ahead on standard
positions, with very good play)
12 . . . .txh6 ! 1 3 iVxh6 i.e6 ! 1 4
i.xe6 fxe6 1 5 �ge2 ? ! (The
plausible looking development 1 5
�h3 can be met with 1 5 . . . .l:i.c8 ! and
the customary Dragon exchange
sacrifice on c3 is already in the air.
Best is probably 1 5 riilb l ! ?) 1 5 . . . b5 !
1 6 'i'g5 �e5 ! 1 7 f4 b4 1 8 fxe5 bxc3
19 �xc3 I;Ib8 ? ! (Letting White off.
Instead 1 9 . . . �d7 ! would be very
fine for Black) 20 J:[d3 (Missing
Black ' s idea. Defending the queen
with 20 h4 ! would have forced
Black to recapture on e5 with the
pawn when he again has some
problems) 20 . . . �d7 ! 2 1 .l:i.fl �xe5
2 liJe4 Introduction and Minor Lines 1 9
. . .
22 J:i.g3 h6 ! 2 3 'iVf4 �d7 (and the
swung
very
initiative
has
dramatically to Black) 24 liJd l
l:thc8 25 'iHd2 'ifa6 ! 26 .uf2 liJc4 27
'tWxh6?! 'iY'xa2 0- 1 Povah-Wells,
Portsmouth (op) 2002.
9 0-O-0 .ig7
9 . . . liJbd7 ? ! 10 Sl.e3 'ifa5 1 1 �b l
.ig7 1 2 g4 liJe5 1 3 g5 liJfd7 1 4
Sl.d4 ! all but forces 1 4 . . . 'iii' f8 since
14 . . . O-O? loses to 1 5 liJd5 , and
White ' s advantage is obvious in
Dzindzichashvili-Tukmakov, USSR
(ch) Leningrad 1 97 1 . In any case
though, I assume that 9 . . . llJbd7 is
based on the probably false
assumption that 9 . . . i.g7 10 e5 is a
big problem for Black (see
following note) . Interestingly Julian
Hodgson also suggested this to be
the case, but I don 't think he is right
on this occasion as the note below
indicates.
10 i.h6
Spectacularly successful though
this was on the day, I am not
entirely convinced by it - when
Black has castled, then by all
means, but what is the rush?
As I suggested above, 1 0 e5?!
liJh5 ! only brought White trouble
after 1 1 liJe4 'iY'c6 12 exd6 f5 1 3
liJf2 ( 1 3 dxe7 fxe4 1 4 'iYd8+ cJ;;f7
leaves White struggling for a
follow-up)
1 3 . . . 'tWa4 !
III
Landenbergue-Maksimenko, Bern
(op) 1 994.
I would prefer 10 liJge2 ! ? when
10 . . . liJc6 1 1 Sl.e3 'iYa5 1 2 liJd4 (the
knight would be very good on e2
with the f1 bishop on b3 , but here
the knight is probably better off
centralised) reaches a position
which could arise if Black essays
the unlikely 8 . . . 'tWa5 ? ! in the
Dragon. Such a move may have its
validity in lines in which White has
played Sl.c4-b 3 , but here it looks
very suspicious indeed. Oddly this
logical approach remains untested.
1 0 . . . 0-0?
Sorry, but this really seems to be
on the level of ' castling into it'
made most famous from the classic
game Fischer-Robatsch in the
Scandinavian Defence. Here, as
there, Black would be much better
off exchanging on h6 and then
developing his queenside with a
view to scrambling his king over
there with all possible haste. In this
case his position seems quite
playable.
A poor move even for a rapid
game, and a rare occurrence indeed
from such a class act as Peter Leko,
but again the marketer of the Tromp
would have to point out that the
opening does have a tendency to put
opponents, even top quality ones,
into unfamiliar territory !
1 1 h4 i.e6 1 2 h5! liJxh5 13 Sl.xg7
'iii'x g7 14 g4 liJf6 1 5 'tWh6+ �g8 1 6
liJge2 !
White ' s attack almost plays itself.
The text is much stronger than the
rather over-direct 1 6 liJh3 ? since
1 6 . . . .uc8 1 7 liJg5 'tWe3+ would not
be so clear.
1 6...'tWf2?
20 2. J?Je4 Introduction and Minor Lines
A serious mistake, which loses
immediately to a standard motif, but
in fact the situation appears to be
surprisingly hopeless anyway. De la
Villa suggests 1 6 . . .'�Jbd7, but 1 7 g5
ttJh5 1 8 ttJg3 �e3+ 1 9 'it>b l leaves
Black with little choice but to cling
on by his
fingernails with
1 9 . . . ttJdf6, and a more elegant
version of the standard break 20 e5 !
dxe5 2 1 ttJxh5 ttJxh5 22 l:l:xh5 gxh5
23 �d3 will see him off.
offers a pawn (which is hardly ever
accepted) in order to recapture on c5
and obtain a central majority, form a
clear thematic family, and are
simplest to treat together.
Position before 5 b6!?
. . .
17 eS!
Clearing the e4 square. Further
resistance is symbolic only.
17 . .. l:l:c8 18 exf6 exf6 19 ttJdS
�xdS 20 �xh7+ 'it>f8 2 1 �h8+
'it>e7 22 �xc8 �xf3 23 l:l:h8 �e3+
24 Wbl l-0
Game 2
Akopian - B.Socko
Cappelle la Grande (open) 1 999
1 d4 ttJf6 2 �gS ttJe4 3 �f4 cS 4
f3 ttJf6 5 dxcS b6 ! ?
I hope I will b e forgiven for a
slight messing with historical
accuracy in the interests of clarity.
The actual move order of the game
was 5 . . . ttJc6 6 e4 b6 7 ttJc3 bxc5
etc reaching the critical position at
move 7. The point though is that the
. . . b6 based systems, in which Black
Alternatives here include:
a) 5 . . . ttJc6 as we have seen, does
not yet fully reveal Black' s
intentions. The move can b e
employed t o transpose back into the
main game as Socko used it here, or
can instead be followed up with
. . . �a5+ anyway to reach some
positions from Game 1 . However,
after 6 e4, Black has also tried
6 . . . e5?! although I am a bit
sceptical about this. After 7 �e3 b6
8 cxb6 d5 9 exd5 ttJxd5 1 0 �f2
axb6 1 1 �b5 �b7 12 ttJc3 �b4 1 3
ttJge2 0-0 1 4 0-0 ttJxc3 1 5 ttJxc3
Black's compensation is decidedly
suspect. Beshukov-Kochetkov, St
Petersburg (op) 1 994 .
b) 5 . . . ttJa6 actually seems to
score quite well for Black, but a
small to medium-sized investigation
is all that is required to see that this
should not be the case. The knight is
frequently vulnerable on either c5 or
its regular destination e6, as the
better handled examples show: 6 e4
ttJxc5 7 ttJc3 g6? ! (7 . . . d6 8 �d2
ttJe6 9 �e3 g6 1 0 g4 �g7 was
2 lbe4 Introduction and Minor Lines 21
. . .
M.Gurevich-Yap, Jurmala 1 9 85,
wh en I agree with De la Villa that
1 1 lbge2 followed by lbg3/h4
seems the best way to proceed with
the attack, while the knight on e6
looks quite strange here) 8 ..Ile3 !
lbe6 9 eS lbhS 1 0 �d2 �aS 1 1 g4
lbhg7 1 2 0-0-0 'iUxeS 1 3 .i.bS �c7
1 4 lbdS �d8 IS �c3 f6 16 h4 <3;fl
1 7 hS gxhS 18 lbe2 d6 19 ..Ilc4 and
Black is in really desperate straits.
Beshukov-Shulman, Gausdal 1 994.
6 e4
6 cxb6 'ii'x b6 7 'ii' c 1 is possible,
and De la Villa makes a reasonable
case for it, but my instincts are that
after 7 . . . dS Black should have
healthy compensation, and since the
main line looks promising, I do not
want to go there.
6 bxc5
. . .
The alternative 6 . . . e6 looks
strange and has only been tried once
to my knowledge. White got in
rather a pickle after 7 cxb6 �xb6 8
lbd2 dS
9
exdS
..IlcS
in
Knaak-Kempinski,
Bundesliga
1 998, which might be theoretically
unclear, but is tricky to handle in
pra ctice. It must be right to play 7
..Ild6 ! instead (just as S . . . e6? ! is
well met by 6 ..Ild6 ! ) 7 . . . bxcS 8
lbc3 and I don 't see the point for
Black since 8 . . . lbdS ! ? is countered
by 9 4JbS ! while the attempt to
simplify with 8 . . . ..Ilxd6 9 'ii'x d6
'tlVb6 similarly runs into a 1 0 lbbS !
snag.
7 lbc3 lbc6
8 4Jb5 ! ?
Once regarded a s a slightly
problematic position, it begins to
look as if White just has a fairly
pleasant choice here. Only 8 eS?! is
clearly inferior due to 8 . . . 'iVc7 . The
original theory focussed on 8 ..Ilc4
with the game Hodgson-Shirov,
Groningen 1 996 taking, unsurpris­
ingly, a very sharp course with
8 . . . g6 9 4JbS ! d6 1 0 eS dxeS 1 1
�xd8+ 'iii>x d8 when according to
Julian himself, 1 2 O-O-O+? lbd7 !
was a mistake, and he should have
preferred his original intention to
play 1 2 ..IlgS threatening 4Jd6, when
1 2 . . . h6 1 3 ..Ilxf6 exf6 1 4 0-0-0+
gives "great compensation for the
pawn". White is certainly doing OK,
but 14 . . . ..Iid7 I S ..Ilxfl 4Jd4 ! ? looks
playable enough for Black, which
could be why Akopian decided to
look elsewhere. Incidentally, Julian
was worried about 8 . . . d6, believing
that White had nothing much, but
the game Kasparov-Reinderman,
Hoogovens
(blitz)
1 999 will
probably have eased concern on this
point. The solution comes in the
22 2. J i Je4 Introduction and Minor Lines
form of a familiar breakthrough 9
e5 ! dxe5 1 0 'iVxd8+ 'It>xd8 1 1
0-0-0+ JLd7 1 2 JLbS ! exf4 l 3
JLxc6 l:tc8 1 4 JLxd7 lLlxd7 1 5 lLlh3
'It>e8 ( 1 S . . . g6? 16 lLlg5 ! ) 1 6 lLlxf4
g6 1 7 'it>b 1 with a very pleasant
position for White since the
embarrassment of his opponent' s
king will be a n enduring source of
initiative.
There is even a positional option
in the shape of 8 lLld5, since
8 . . . lLlxdS 9 exdS is a bit awkward,
although the 8 . . . d6 9 lLlxf6+ gxf6
1 0 'iVd2 'iVb6 1 1 b3 fS 1 2 c3 i.g7 of
Pomes Marcet - Oms Pallise, Spain
(ch), Linares 1 99 8 does not look too
bad for Black here, and has
probably been judged harshly on
account of Black blundering and
losing a few moves later.
8 . . . d6 9 e5 !
Yet another incarnation of this
now very familiar breakthrough.
One advantage of this treatment as
we shall see, is that the c4 square is
left clear, and this can be very
useful when White ' s knight must
reposition itself.
9 . . . dxe5 10 'i!Vxd8+ 'It>xd8 1 1
0-0-0+ i.d7 1 2 i.g3 e 6 1 3 lLlh3
White' s treatment is rather
patient. He retains the usual arsenal
of shots such as lLlg5 (which Black
now wisely takes steps to prevent),
but also keeps in reserve the
manoeuvre lLla3-c4 . This initiative
seems particularly durable.
1 3 . . . h6 14 lLla3 lLld5 1 5 i.c4 ! ?
'iitc 8
I S . . . lLle3 does not help matters
since 1 6 l:td3 lLlxc4 1 7 lLlxc4
threatens l:thd 1 and therefore leaves
no time to defend the e-pawn, and if
17 . . . lLlh4 then 1 8 l:ta3 ! with the
threat of lLlb6 opens a new front.
1 6 1Ihei f6 17 f4 ! lLlc7?
After this White recovers his
material with a clear positional plus.
It must have been better to try
1 7 . . . exf4 ! 1 8 lLlxf4 lLlxf4 1 9 i.xf4
eS, when White still clearly has
pressure, but it is not clear to me
after 20 i.a6+ 'iit c 7 (20 . . . 'iit d 8? 2 1
i.b7 ! ) 2 1 lLlbS+ 'It>b6 22 l:i.xd7 J:.d8 !
23 l:tf7 ! ? 'It>xa6 24 lLlc7+ 'It>b6 2S
i.e3 that this does more than
provide adequate compensation in a
tense struggle.
18 fxe5 f5 1 9 lLlf4 lLle7 20 i.f2
g5 2 1 lLld3 lLled5 22 i.xc5
The most indefensible of Black's
weaknesses drops off, and the
remainder does not place too many
difficulties in White ' s path.
22. . .i.c6 23 i.xfS l:txfS 24 lLlc5
l:i.e8 25 i.b3 lLlb6 26 g3 f4 27 gxf4
gxf4 28 l:i.f1 lLlcd5 29 l:td4 a5 30 c4
tLlb4 31 �fxf4 a4 32 i.dl J:.a5 33
lLle4 J:te7 34 lLld6+ 'It>c7 35 lLlab5+
i.xb5 36 lLlxb5+ 'It>b7 37 i.f3+
'It>a6 38 J:.d6 1-0
Chapter 1
-
Conclusion
The main purpose of this Chapter
was to set out the main contours of
the impending rather weightier
material, and to explain why 3 i.f4
and 4 . . . 'iVaS+ both have a strong
claim to be regarded as 'best play ' . I
hope this will have been convincing.
The efficacy of the Sicilian-type
positions for White should to an
extent be clear from just counting
tempi, but the S . . . b6 ! ? of Game 2
does lead to rather more distinctive
positions. The key idea is the eS
break, and though I am rather
agnostic between 8 lLlbS and 8 i.c4,
it is clear that Black is under
pressure in these positions .
Chapter 2 - 2 ttJe4 3 �f4 c5
4 f3 "if a5+ 5 c3 ttJf6
The Attacking Repertoire with 6 d5 ! ?
. . .
Game 3
Rowson - Hadzimanolis
4NCL, Birmingham 200 1
1'3
1 d4 liJf6 2 i.g5 liJe4 3 i.f4 c5 4
'ii' a5+ ! ?
The most frequently encountered
and most respectable move here.
The point is partly revealed by
comparison with Games 1 -2 . White
is all but forced to block the check
with his c-pawn, removing the most
natural developing square from his
knight, and thus rendering at best
harmless any attempt to simplify the
play with a subsequent dxc 5 . In the
bulk of this chapter where White
proceeds after 5 c3 liJf6 with 6 d5
the impact of the move c3 is also
significant. In the Schmid Benoni
structure under consideration in this
game it is by no means all bad (see
the lengthy note to Black's 6th
move), but it creates complications
in lines where Black follows up
with 6 . . . 'ii'b 6, not least by virtually
ruling out any sacrifice of the
b-pawn since the loss of the c-pawn
would generally follow.
5 c3 liJf6 6 d5 d6
Since it is easy to get lost in the
tense theoretical battles which take
place after 6 . . ."iWb6 7 i.c 1 e6, I will
endeavour at all stages of this
chapter to give full coverage to
Black' s attempts to just 'play the
position' . Why in other words
should he get involved in a
theoretical tussle at all? What has
White achieved if his opponent just
reverts back to simple chess with
. . . d6/g6 and so on?
This is a position which cries out
for explanation in comparative
terms, but is at the same time not so
easily susceptible to it. The structure
(once White follows up with e4) is
faintly suggestive of a Schmid
Benoni ( 1 d4 liJf6 2 liJf3 c5 3 d5 d6
4 liJc3 g6 5 e4 i.g7 and so on) but
24 2 tbe4 3 1;..f4 c5 4 j3 �a 5 + 5 c3 tbf6 6 d5 !?
. . .
there are significant differences too
- the f3 pawn weakens White ' s
attempts t o break i n the centre with
e4-e5 , but perhaps encourages other
kingside enterprises; the bishop on
f4 is therefore not always ideally
placed, but may be en route for h6.
Also the position of pawn on c3 is
very significant. In the Schmid
Benoni case, White makes in effect
a clear decision that the pawn
belongs on c2 rather than c4 (which
would lead to other more familiar
Benoni structures), but in the
present case that choice is no longer
present. The remaining options are
still to organise its advance to c4, or
to make a virtue of its position on
c3 . Anybody who has ever played
the White side of a Schmid Benoni
which has gone wrong, will well
appreciate why the pawn on c3,
blocking the potentially malevolent
dark square influence of the g7
bishop might be a very welcome
player indeed. Furthermore, the
effect of this pawn on Black's
traditional queenside counterplay
with . . . b5 is complex. In essence I
would say it makes it more difficult
to hold up, but considerably less
potent when it arrives !
White himself often has to switch
from the standard plan of effecting
an e4-e5 break, but has additional
options on both wings which
Jonathan Rowson 's game well
illustrates. Finally, there is the
traditional Trompowsky ' tempo
count' in all its splendour and
complexity. If we were to kick off
with the moves 1 d4 c5 2 d5 tbf6 3
f3 ? ! d6 4 1;.. f4? ! there would be the
distinct feeling that White ' s play
was much stranger than his
opponent's. However, not only is
additional
the
of
balance
4 . . JIVa5+? ! 5 c3 significantly in
White ' s favour, there is another key
difference between the diagram and
this
rather
peculiar
fictional
sequence. It is White 's move!
A final interesting twist on this
position. I quote below Jonathan
Speelman ' s game with this line
from the recent Bled Olympiad.
Despite the existence of around 1 00
games with either 6 . . . d6 or 6 . . . g6
which would seem to suggest a
degree of intent, he seemed to
assume that his opponent had
simply neglected or even forgotten
to flick in the move 6 . . .'tWb6.
Ignoring the possibility 7 b3 for a
moment, Jonathan was convinced
that to play with . . . g6/d6 after the
inclusion of the moves 6 . . . �6 7
1;.. c l (see Game 6) was an
unambiguous
improvement for
Black and he may very well be
right, although I invite the readers to
make their own judgement on this
point too.
As a postscript to the complexity
of the Tromp ' tempo count' , I just
want to throw in a cheeky and
controversial thought. The queen
might in many cases be better on d8
than either a5 or b6. It might
ironically be precisely because
6 . . . 'i'a5-b6 is not a developing
move that it was worth throwing in!
More seriously a note is due on
the differences between the text and
the
similarly
motivated
but
significantly
less
frequently
encountered 6 . . . g6.
The two will often transpose, but
Black should in general take note of
the merits of White's most favoured
kings ide development with tbh3-f2
and consider whether it is worth
hindering this. The current moment
2 ..ti�e4 3 iLf4 c5 4 j3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 'Df6 6 d5! ? 25
.
is interesting since the merits of the
. . . iVb6 debate above come into
play. If White seizes the moment,
meeting 6 . . . g6 with 7 'Dh3 ! ? he
must reckon with the possibility that
Black will try 7 . . . d6 8 'Df2 'iVb6 ! ?
anyway. Julian once had one o f his
most drastic reversals with the
Tromp by answering this too
optimistically. After 9 'iWd2? Black
was able to play 9 . . . 'Dxd5 ! 1 0
�xd5 �xb2 1 1 iVb3 ..wxa l 1 2 e4
i.g7 1 3 iLc4 0-0 1 4 �d2 b5 ! 1 5
i.d5 iLe6 1 6 lIc 1 iLxd5 1 7 exd5 b4
1 8 'it'd 1 c4 0- 1 in Hodgson­
D.Gurevich, Europe v Americas,
Mermaid Beach 1 99 8 . The queen
emerges with the booty. Note that,
however ghastly this experience
may have been, Julian is quite
consistent in effecting this 'D-h3-f2
manoeuvre as
soon as the
opportunity presents itself.
So perhaps 9 iLc 1 ( ! ) anyway? To
my mind this is a rather pleasant
version of the material from Game
6, and compares quite acceptably
with what is available here. In other
words 7 'Dh3 ! ? is a perfectly viable
choice if followed up judiciously.
Incidentally, if White proceeds in
' standard' fashion, Black should not
delay . . . d6 for too long. Black got
into some difficulties after 6 . . . g6 7
e4 iLg7 8 'Da3 (8 'Dh3 ! ? is to my
mind still the optimal development)
8 . . . 0-0?! 9 'Dc4 'iWd8 1 0 d6 ! e6 1 1
a4 'Dc6 1 2 iLg5 'iWe8 1 3 �d2 b6 1 4
'Dh3 iLa6 1 5 ltd 1 'iWc 8 1 6 'Df2
i.xc4 17 iLxc4 when she was much
more passive than White was over­
extended. K. Georgiev-P. Cramling,
Tarrassa 1 990. There is always a
danger that a wedge like the white
pawn on d6 will simply slice
Blac k's position in two, massively
impeding the coordination of his
forces.
7 e4 g6
S ..wd2
It is the set-up and plans which
are important here rather than
precise move order. Jonathan
Speelman preferred 8 'Dd2 iLg7 9
'Dc4 iVd8 1 0 a4 0-0 1 1 iVd2
transposing to the game position.
Putting the knight on c4 is clearly
the logical and thematic way to
make a virtue out of the pawn on c3,
and to win a tempo by hitting the
queen on a5 . In addition d2 looks
sensible for the queen, still eyeing
d6 in the event of . . . e6 breaks, and
preparing iLh6 on the right
occasion. Incidentally, in all of these
cases there remains a suspicion that
c7 might be a better square than d8
for Black's queen. For this reason
Gerstner
advocates
8 . . . 'Dbd7
against either 8 'Dd2 or 8 'Da3
because he is afraid of 8 . . . iLg7 9
'Dc4 ..wc7 1 0 e5. In fact though, I
think this releases the tension too
early and after 1 0 . . . dxe5 1 1 iLxe5
( 1 1 'Dxe5 �d8 likewise) 1 1 . . .�d8
White lacks a convincing follow-up.
This gives us an interesting general
point. Yes, the e4-e5 break is an
important plan for White, but as a
26 2 tbe4 3 �f4 c5 4 13 �a5+ 5 c3 tbf6 6 d5! ?
. . .
long-tenn goal rather than a
short-tenn threat. If it is rushed then
the pawn on f3 suddenly looks very
silly, and the central dark squares
rather unsightly too.
8 �g7 9 tba3 0-0 1 0 tbc4 �d8
Though rarely played there must
be some case for 1 0 . . . �c7 ! ? - see
for example the Joel Benj amin game
in the note to move 1 2 where the
queen rapidly redeploys here in any
case.
1 1 a4
. . .
A rather basic posItIon for this
variation. I prefer White, since
Black will not find it easy to make
either of the thematic Schmid
Benoni breaks . . . bS or . . . e6.
Right now, Black needs to make
some fundamental choices about
how to develop his queenside.
1 1 tbbd7
In many ways this looks the
natural development, but it has the
drawback that it pennits White to
put his knight on h3 - from where it
is
headed
to
f2,
widely
acknowledged (as I discussed in the
note to 6 . . . g6) to be the optimal
post in these kind of f3 Benoni
positions. From there it can bolster
the e4 and g4 squares, perhaps
enabling White to play aggressively
with f4, while at the same time not
. . .
impeding or crowding out White ' s
other pieces.
Black can therefore try to avoid
this scenario. One recent example:
1 1 . . . b6 12 tbe2 tba6 13 tbg3 tbc7
14 �e2 hS IS 0-0 .a:b8 16 .a:fd 1 a6
17 .a:a3 h4 1 8 tbhl !
White has been building slowly,
ensuring that his pieces are
optimally placed to respond to any
attempt by the opponent to recover
some space, rather than forcing the
issue. So the knight turns out to be
en route to f2 in any case. Those
who know Jonathan Speelman will
be aware in any case that knights in
the comer seem to give him
particular satisfaction - preferably
the opponent' s comer, but his own
will do !
1 8 . . . b S . Thematic, but as so often
the relinquishing of the c6 square
which this involves is a good deal
more than just academic . 1 9 axbS
axbS 20 tbaS �d7 2 1 b4 ! A
common response to . . . bS, it is
this
that
involves
notable
considerably less preparative effort
than in similar Schmid Benoni
positions, a major plus point to
having the pawn on c3 . As well as
preventing further queenside strides
by Black, White gains control of the
d4 square virtually by force. 2 1 . . . c4
22 tbf2 and White has a very
2 ..tiJe4 3 .i.f4 c5 4 j3 'iWa5+ 5 c3 'Df6 6 d5! ? 2 7
.
pleasant
posItIon.
SpeelmanBratovic, Bled (01) 2002 .
1 2 'Dh3 b6? !
Heading for an inferior version of
the above note. It seems more
consistent to exchange some of
White 's
good
pieces
with
12 . . . 'Db6 ! ? (or 1 2 . . . 'De5) 1 3 'Df2
'Dxc4 14 .i.xc4 �c7 (but why not
play here immediately?) 1 5 0-0
�d7 1 6 l:tfe l �fe8 1 7 h3 a6 1 8 a5
�b5 1 9 .i.b3 although White ' s
patient
build-up
still
looks
promising. What Black did next in
Benjamin - MChess Pro, Harvard
Cup, Boston 1 99 5 was untenable:
1 9 . . . 'Dh5 20 .i.e3 .i.e5 2 1 g4 'Dg3 ?
22 c4 .i.d7 23 �g2 and the knight is
not coming out again alive.
13 'Df2 a6 1 4 .i.e2 ctJe8 1 5 h4 ! ?
h 5 1 6 g4 'Ddf6 1 7 .i.h6 .i.d7 1 8
�xg7 �xg7 1 9 a 5 b 5 2 0 'Db6 l:ta7
21 b4? !
Jonathan i s trying to play on the
grand scale, emphasising that his
space advantage in the centre
enables him to play on both wings
simultaneously. Well, maybe, but it
seems to me that there is a time to
recognise that a preponderance on
one of the wings is such that
attention should be focussed there.
2 1 O- O-O ! looks a good alternative,
when
White ' s
chances
seem
excellent.
2 1 . . . cxb4 22 cxb4 llc7 23 �d4
'it>h7 24 g5 ctJg8 25 �d2 ? !
This really seems t o b e pushing it
a bit. It is not the king in the centre
which is the problem so much as
that after Black's reply it is difficult
to reclaim control of the f4 square.
Why not 25 f4 ! ?
2 5 ...e 5 2 6 dxe6 fxe6 2 7 :lac1 e5
28 "ilt'd5 ctJe7 29 �a8! 'i'xa8 30
'Dxa8
It seems that Jonathan Speelman
is not alone in liking knights in the
comer!
30 . . Jbcl 3 1 .l:Ixc1 .i.c6 32 ctJb6
'Dg7 33 ctJd3 'De6 34 'iSi>e3
As the smoke clears the balance
of weaknesses is still very much in
White ' s favour. The plan is slowly
to prepare to play f4.
34 . . . 'Dd4 35 .i.dl 'De6 36 lIc2
�g7 37 J::i. d 2 ctJc8 38 ctJxc8 l:i.xc8 39
f4 exf4+ 40 'Dxf4 ctJxf4 41 'it>xf4
Should be winning for White. The
d6 pawn can scarcely be covered as
4 1 . . . l:i.d8 42 e5 wins all the dark
squares.
4 1 . . JH8+ 42 �e3 lIe8 43 l:i.xd6!
.i.xe4 44 �d4 .i.f5 45 .i.f3 l:tc8 46
.i.d5 �c2 47 l:i.xa6 lIh2 48 .l:Ia7+
�f8 49 a6 :'xh4+ 50 �e5 J::t x b4 5 1
llf7+ �e8 52 a 7 l:!.a4 5 3 l:lh7 1-0
An interesting game, even if
White was sometimes guilty of the
potentially deadly sin of courting
excessive complexity !
Game 4
Wells - Hamdouchi
Pulvermuehle 2000
1 d4 ctJf6 2 .i.g5 'De4 3 .i.f4 c5 4
f3 �a5+ 5 c3 'Df6 6 d5 e6 ! ?
28 2. J i Je4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 �a5+ 5 c3 ti:Jf6 6 d5! ?
The main line i s 6 . . .'iVb6 (Games
6 and 7). The text passes up the gain
of time available there, in order to
aim for a different structure - an
open e-file, and perhaps the hope of
some exploitation of White 's weak
e3 square - rather than the
Benoni-type structure of Games 6
and 7. In fact we have to wait for
the next game to check this out,
since Hamdouchi 's unusual 7th
move allows White to test yet
another structure.
7 e4 d6? !
The slightly harsh marking is at
least in part for the motivation
behind the move. Black is hoping to
avoid both 7 . . . exd5 8 e 5 ? ! or 8
exd5 d6 9 �e2+? ! , neither of which
should hold any terrors for him,
while doing nothing to hinder the
line from the next game which he
might feel genuinely nervous about !
Incidentally, anyone intending to
venture this line with either colour
simply must know that it is too late
for Black now to switch to 7 . . . �6.
The days when hitting the b-pawn
forced concessions are over. White
has 8 ti:Ja3 ! intending to meet
8 'i'xb2
with
the
rather
devastating 9 ti:Jb5 . I was a little
. . .
shocked to see that on my database,
of the five games in which Black
went for this dubious line, in only
one did White know to punish him
in
the
appropriate
manner.
Congratulations Mr Djurhuus . The
others, don't worry, I will not
mention any names !
8 dxe6 !
I think Black 's 7th is a slip which
is worth trying to exploit. Black 's
d6 is a genuine weakness, albeit one
that he is not about to lose. More to
the point, the surrounding light
squares are liable to suffer as we
shall see.
8 i.xe6 9 ti:Ja3 !
The point. White has a n eye on
either c4 or b5 according to Black's
response.
9 ti:Jc6
Since 9 . . d5 1 0 i.xb8 l:i:xb8 1 1
i.b5+ looks very good for White.
1 0 ti:Jc4 i.xc4 1 1 i.xc4 i.e7 ! ?
. . .
. . .
.
I am sure that White stands better
here. Black doesn 't have so much to
offer by way of compensation for
the bishop pair, suspect light
squares and a d6 pawn that might
2 0,e4 3 i..f4 c5 413 'iVa5+ 5 c3 0,f6 6 d5! ? 29
. . .
still prove problematic. O f course,
since he has some lead in
development it is possible to
imagine a scenario in which White
will have to exchange the f4 bishop
for a knight on e5, but his
oppo nent's embarrassment on the
light-squares will outlive this.
12 'ii'b3 ! ?
Trying to punish B lack, going for
high stakes at increased risk. In fact
I calculated as far as move 1 7 here.
Firstly I was convinced that to get
compensation Black must sacrifice a
piece - for the pawn he will not get
much. Secondly, it was necessary to
see that the queen will not actually
get trapped ! Still, I might have
underestimated the difficulties that
it would encounter even then. If I
write that I think that obj ectively the
move comes close to 'winning ' but
that had I foreseen what was to
come I might not have played it,
then I will disgust any computers
reading, but might find empathy
from those who understand our
human frailties.
1 2 ltJe2 ! ? would indeed likely be
the choice of a more positionally­
minded individual, when White has
some safe advantage based upon his
light-square superiority.
12 0-0 13 'ii' x b7 .l:i.ab8 !
I was, and remain amazed that
Hichem seriously contemplated
1 3 . JIfc8?! 14 0-0-0 i:'i.ab8 1 5 'i'a6
'fic7 . It seems to me that White has
far too many positional trumps to be
seriously troubled by Black's
initiative. However, I am in no
doubt
that
my
opponent' s
tremendous optimism when h e has
dynamic
compensation
later
benefited him greatly.
14 'iWxe6 l:!.xb2 15 .:tel ktb6 1 6
'iWe7 i.. d 8 1 7 iVe8
. . .
.
The only square, but in fact
calculation rather than luck. Only
now though did I see what was to
come. I had been fixated on the
unsophisticated trick 1 7 . . . 0,xe4? to
which 1 8 'ii' f5 is an ample response.
Of course, it is rather more
grown-up to open some files !
1 7 . . . d5! 1 8 exd5 �a4 ! 1 9 �xe5
l:!e8+
I admit it - I did enjoy a little luck
here ! I had failed to foresee that
19 . . . 0,d7 20 iVd4 i.. f6 is met with
2 1 i..b 3 ! without which White
would suffer some embarrassment.
20 �f1
Guaranteeing a life-sentence in
the centre in this way was not
undertaken lightly. I just found 20
0,e2 J:xb2 2 1 i.. g 3 i..b 6 22 �c6
iVa3 ! rather scary. Whatever the
obj ective merits of this, the king 's
escape from the line of fire is not
imminent here either!
20 . . . 0,d7 2 1 �d4 ktb2 22 i.. b 3
�a3 23 0,h3 i..b 6 24 'iWb4 ? !
White i s still better after this but
24 iVd l ! is much cleaner after
which the only real problem is
unravelling - his opponent's threats
are
coming
close to being
exhausted.
24 . . :iVa6+ 25 e4
Of course, with time-trouble fast
setting in, I had missed that 25 i.. c4
30 2. J i Je4 3 �f4 c5 4 13 �a5+ 5 c3 CDf6 6 d5! ?
�c8 ! keeps Black very much i n the
game.
25 . . . CDc5 26 J:e1 ?
After this it is no long clear that
White is winning. I managed to see
that 26 z:rd l CDxb3 27 axb3 iVa2
could cause acute embarrassment,
but I missed that 26 �c3 ! was a
much better defence.
26 . . . �c8 !
A fine switch - not just defending
the rook, but re-activating the
queen. Both . . . CDd3 and . . . �f5 , and
(if the rook leaves e l ) even �xh3 in
some variations are added to
Black's considerable armoury.
27 �g3 CDd3 28 �c3 CDxe1 29
�xb2 CDxf3 ! 30 d6? !
Easily
recognisable
as
a
time-trouble reaction. In fact 3 0
gxf3 'iVxh3+ 3 1 'iVg 2 �f5 3 2 �c2
�f6 3 3 �d l 'iVf5 34 �e l (a far
from obvious move to find when
short of time) might preserve some
advantage but even then Black has
34 . . . �d3+ 35 �e2 �a3 . He will
amass some pawns, but even more
to the point White has the tricky
task of developing and making
progress. This position was far from
easy to play even in the post­
mortem!
30 . . . �f5 ! 3 1 gxf3 ! �xf3+ 32
CDf2 �xf2 33 �xf2 �xh1 + 34 �g1
�f3+ 35 �f2 �h1 + 36 �g1 �f3+
YZ-YZ
Avoiding the draw is no longer a
realistic option for either side. A
fine example of what an attacker
can achieve in practical play with
theoretically inadequate compens­
ation, but the psychological plusses
of sustained pressure, impressive
self-confidence and the aura that he
is very much e� oying himself!
Game 5
Hodgson - Wells
Vikings, York 2000
1 d4 CDf6 2 �g5 CDe4 3 �f4 c5 4
f3 �a5+ 5 c3 tiJf6 6 d5 e6 7 e4
exd5
8 exd5
It turns out that 8 e5?! could be a
bit of a paper tiger. The position
after 8 . . . CDh5 9 �c 1 looks
ridiculous indeed. White ' s pieces
are all at home, Black has two
developed but they might well wish
they hadn't ventured into the wide
world either. In fact returning home
with 9 . . . �d8 ! seems to be the key . I
don 't then see an advantage for
White after e.g. 1 0 CDe2 ! ? ( 1 0 �e3
CDc6 1 1 g4? ! d4 ! 12 cxd4 cxd4 1 3
�xf4 CDf4 could well be very
unpleasant for White, while 1 0 g3
d6 ! 1 1 f4 g6 1 2 �xd5 CDc6
intending to meet 1 3 �b5 with
1 3 . . . �6!
also
leaves White
looking distinctly over-extended)
1 0 . . . d4 ! ? ( 1 0 . . . d6 1 1 �xd5 g6 is
probably playable too) 1 1 cxd4 ! ( 1 1
g4 �h4+ 1 2 �d2 �f2 ! 1 3 gxh5 f3 !
is far too risky) 1 1 . . . cxd4 1 2 �xd4
CDc6 1 3 �d5 �b4+ and again Black
looks fine.
I am not saying that there is no
scope for further investigation here.
2 ..tLJe4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 CfJf6 6 d5 ! ? 3 1
.
Most o f this was my own analysis
(largely based on what I had
prepared for Julian at the time ! ) and
comes with the customary caveats.
Still at present I fundamentally
b elieve Black 's position here.
8 d6
. . .
9 �d2!
An important novelty which I just
wished had been revealed at a
different moment! In a sense the
move is a great tribute to 4 . . .'it'a5+ !
A considerable body of practice
revealed that without the availability
of the move c4, White' s space
advantage had a definite downside,
and the ever pragmatic Hodgson sat
down and solved this problem.
Some early annotators awarded a ! ?
marking, but I have no hesitation in
being a bit more generous. I believe
this to be the best move, and
although some of my successors
have handled the Black position
with rather more tenacity than I did,
I am in no doubt that White should
be content to enter this variation.
For comparative purposes, a brief
survey of the alternatives :
a) The tempting 9 'Wie2+? ! looks
sup erficially strong, but is simply
too treacherous . After 9 . . . i.e7 1 0
i.x d6 CfJxd5
a l ) 1 1 i.xb8 l1xb8 12 �e5 'ii'b 6 !
(the key move - that b2 spot again ! )
1 3 �xd5 (or the somewhat more
resilient 1 3 �xb8 0-0 1 4 �e5 J:Ie8 !
when 1 5 'ii'x d5 i.h4+ 1 6 �d l
'ii'x b2 ! is crushing as Hodgson says,
and even the tougher 1 5 g3 CfJc7 ! ?
favours Black. White will get two
rooks for the queen, but his
development, weak squares and
Black' s active bishop pair all add up
to a serious initiative) 1 3 . . .'�xb2 1 4
�e5 0-0 1 5 'Wixe7 i.. f5 1 6 'Wig5
i.. g 6 1 7 CfJd2 'Wixa 1 + and Black had
an overwhelming position in
V.Popov-Novik,
St
Petersburg
(op-ch) 1 992.
a2) 1 1 'Wie5 CfJc6 12 'Wixd5 i.e6
13 'Wixc5 �xc5 14 iLxc5 iLxc5 1 5
i..b 5 0-0-0 with tremendous play
for a pawn in Neihs - Cvitan,
Oberwart (op) 1 99 3 . Note how the
moves c3 and f3 spell trouble for
White ' s king wherever it ends up.
Whilst fighting for the initiative
these moves are all very well, but
they can be a strong argument
against indulging in such bouts of
materialism.
b) 9 CfJe2 CfJbd7 10 CfJd2 CfJb6 1 1
b4 cxb4 1 2 c4 i.e7 1 3 CfJd4 iLd7, is
interesting
not
least because
Hodgson claims "It is now apparent
that Black has won the opening
battle; not only is he a pawn up, but
he has also a lead in development",
while Gallagher believes White has
"excellent play". Such radically
contrasting assessments are relative­
ly rare, especially from strong
players with distinct stylistic
similarities, and are probably a
tribute to the rich originality of the
position. While I rather more incline
towards Gallagher' s view, I am
going to be a cowardly fence-sitter
and claim that White has ' reason­
able compensation ' based on the f5
32 2 ..ei::J e4 3 jJ4 c5 4 j3 �a5+ 5 c3 ttJf6 6 d5! ?
.
square, the chances o f causing
embarrassment on the e-file, and the
feel ing that Black lacks certain
squares to try and reorganise his
forces. Certainly after 1 4 ttJ2b3 'iVa4
1 5 jLd3 lic8 1 6 0-0 0-0 1 7 l:.c 1
ttJh5 1 8 jLd2 jLf6 1 9 g4 it was clear
that White was doing fine in
Gulko-Browne, USA (ch) 1 992.
c) 9 ttJa3 jLe7 10 ttJc4 WII c 7 1 1 a4
0-0 12 g4 ttJbd7 1 3 ttJe2 :re8 1 4
jLg2 jLf8 Pixton-Benjamin, World
Open, Philadelphia 200 1 is fairly
typical of White' s mainstream
handling of this line. The move g4
is fine, and the best way to organise
the pieces, but I still basically
believe in Black' s chances on the
central dark squares. In this case
after 1 5 O-O? ! ttJb6 16 ttJxb6 'iVxb6
White faces a dual embarrassment
to his b2 and d5 pawns.
9 jLe7 1 0 c4 'iVxd2+ 1 1 �xd2
. . .
I am always wary of a too
mechanistic assumption that since
queens are exchanged the king must
belong in the centre. There is such a
thing as the ' queen-less middle­
game ' and king safety is often by no
means guaranteed.
With this
structure though, even with queens
on the board the king often nestles
fairly comfortably on f2 and of
course the task of preserving
White ' s space advantage is also best
served by the knight landing on c3 .
Indeed this was a serious motivation
behind White 's 'iVd2 + c4 plan.
Having said all this, there are
moments where the king can feel a
little uneasy in the next note after
1 1 . . .b5( ! ) . This further goes to
show that I think that is the best
course, but I still feel that 1 1 ttJxd2
would be a serious concession, and I
have seen nothing that persuades me
that White needs seriously to
investigate that road.
1 1 ttJh5 ? !
I did realise during the game that I
was in danger of becoming
cramped, and this does herald an
attempt to win back some territory
on the kingside, but the full extent
of my problems only really clarified
in my mind around move 1 5 .
Otherwise I might have been more
tempted by looking to the other
wing for space with 1 1 . . .b5( ! ) . This
I rejected because I felt that after 1 2
ttJc3 (not 1 2 b3? because 1 2 . . . ttJh5
followed by . . . .ltf6 would cause
major embarrassment) 1 2 . . . bxc4 1 3
jLxc4 White ' s extra mobilisation
would be as important as the
long-term queenside chances Black
might obtain. However, having
analysed this in the light of a
practical test the picture seems a
good deal more complex. In fact
after 12 . . . bxc4 White is well
advised to throw in 13 l':te 1 �d8 and
then faces a tricky but very
important choice:
a) 14 ttJe4 ? ! ttJxe4 15 fxe4 iLa6
16 ttJf3 ttJd7 17 e5 looks very
plausible for White, but after
1 7 . . . ttJb6 ! there is no totally
. . .
2. Ji'Je4 3 i..f4 c5 4 13 �a5+ 5 c3 l:i'Jf6 6 d5!? 33
convmcmg continuation. Pixton­
Browne, USA (ch) Seattle 2002
continued 1 8 exd6 i.. f6 19 i.. g 5
�d7 20 g3 (20 i.. x f6 gxf6 2 1 1:i'Jh4
looks a better try to me, but here too
I have the feeling that it is already
White on the defensive) 20 . . . l:i'Jxd5
2 1 l:i'Je5+ i.. x e5 22 l:!xe5 �xd6 23
l:!xd5+ �xd5 24 i.. g 2+ �e6 25
.ltxa8 l:!xa8 and it is clear that
White is fighting hard for a draw.
It seems to me that 1 8 I:i'Jg5 ! ?
would have created a lot more
complexity, but I suspect this is not
either e.g.
a reliable route
18 . . . i.. x g5 ( 1 8 . . . CDxd5 ? ! is also
possible but 19 I:i'Jxf7+ �d7 20
exd6 ! [though not 20 e6+? ! 'it>c6 2 1
CDxh8 l:!xh8 when Black's bishop
pair and pressure against b2 promise
him ample counter-play] 20 . . J:thfS
21 CDe5+! 'it>xd6 22 I:i'Jxc4+ 'it>c6 23
g3 offers White chances of a safe
positional edge) 1 9 .ltxg5+ 'it>d7 20
e6+ 'it>e8 ! 21 exf7+ (otherwise . . . f6
is annoying) 2 1 . . . 'it>xf7 22 l:te6 and
White has some compensation for
the pawn, but not enough to be
really threatening.
b) 1 4 i..x c4 ! ? I:i'Jbd7 1 5 b3 I:i'Jb6
1 6 I:i'Jge2 ! i..b 7 1 7 CDe4 ( 1 7 CDg3
i.xd5 ! ) 1 7 . . . CDxe4+ ( 1 7 . . . .ixd5 1 8
.ixd5 I:i'Jfxd5 1 9 .ltxd6 should be
worth an edge for White) 1 8 fxe4
f5 ! ?
(otherwise
White
will
consolidate and enjoy a distinct
spatial pull) 1 9 exf5 (also 1 9 h4 ! ? to
stop . . . g5, and then 1 9 . . . fxe4 20
CDc3 can be considered). 19 . . . l:i'Jxd5
20 .l:i.hfl ! and I somewhat prefer
White who is well placed to contest
the
squares.
central
key
Nonetheless, this is far from clear
and to my mind clearly represents
Bl ack ' s best against 9 �d2 .
1 2 i.. e3 f5 13 CDc3
13 0-O ? !
I n view o f the really depressing
passivity in which Black found
himself just a couple of moves later,
every move here is subject to
question, and since castling is by no
means essential this is another
obvious place to try and prioritise
other goals. In K.Berg-Tischbierek,
Bundesliga II 2002, Black tried
immediately to stake a claim to the
dark squares with 1 3 . . . f4 1 4 .in
CDd7 1 5 l:te 1 �d8 16 g4 CDhf6.
...
From the diagram he is a tempo
( 1 7 . . . l:i'Je5)
away
from
the
culmination of his blockading
strategy, but for the moment the f4
pawn is vulnerable and White has to
use this moment well. 1 7 CDh3 ?
certainly misses the mark. The
problem is that the respective
34 2 ..ti'Je4 3 !JLf4 c5 4 j3 �a 5 + 5 c3 Ci'Jf6 6 d5! ?
.
h-pawns will play a key role in
determining the kings ide initiative
and after 1 7 . . . Ci'Je5 1 8 !JLe2 h5 ! 1 9
Ci'Jxf4 hxg4 20 fxg4 !JLxg4 2 1 b3
�d7 Black has no difficulties to say
the least.
Since Black' s strategy is very
thematic and critical it merits a bit
of sorting out. Best in my opinion is
1 7 Ci'Jce2 ! g5 1 8 h4 ! Ci'Je5 1 9 Ci'Jc3 .
Forcing the move . . . g5 at a moment
when White can undermine his
opponent on the kings ide is well
worth the loss of tempo involved in
the manoeuvre Ci'Jc3-e2-c3 . After
1 9 . . . gxh4 20 !JLxh4
a) 20 . . . h5 ? ! allows the little
combination 2 1 Mxe5 ! dxe5 22 d6
with clear advantage.
b) 20 . . . Ci'Jg6 2 1 !JLxf6 !JLxf6 2 1
Ci'Je4 !JLe7 2 2 !JLd3 also favours
White, as 22 . . . Ci'Je5 can be well met
with 23 Ci'Jxc5 !
The altogether simpler 1 3 . . . Ci'Jd7
distinct
also
represents
a
improvement on the main game.
Hodgson-Schandorff,
Bundesliga
200 1 continued 14 J::!. e 1 rJi;f7 1 5 Ci'Jh3
Ci'Je5 16 Ci'Jg5+? ! !JLxg5 1 7 !JLxg5 h6
1 8 !JLe3 !JLd7 19 !JLe2 g5 20 g3 f4
Y2-V2
Instead I would suggest maybe 1 6
!JLe2 ! ? e.g. 1 6 . . . M fS 1 7 f4 Ci'Jg4 1 8
!JLxg4 fxg4 1 9 Ci'Jg5+ ! which looks
potentially a bit awkward. Perhaps
1 6 . . . h6 ! ? is better in view of this.
14 !JLd3 Ci'Jd7 1 5 f4 ! Ci'Jdf6 1 6
Ci'Jge2 g5?
A poor move born of desperation,
but I am in little doubt that from the
theoretical point of view the damage
has already been done. If White
reaches this structure and consolid­
ates in this way, he has won the
opening battle. Tsesarsky calls
16 . . . Ci'Jg4 17 !JLg 1 a6 1 8 h3 Ci'Jhf6 1 9
!JLe3 ' reliable ' but I would say it is
simply ' depressing ' .
1 7 h3 !
Of course, 1 7 fxg5 Ci'Jg4 at least
offers the chance to make some
mess. Julian' s rock solid reply
reveals the folly of my last move,
and I simply go into hari-kiri mode.
1 7 . . . gxf4 1 8 Ci'Jxf4 !JLd7 1 9 Ci'Je6!
Strong, although Black' s position
is a terrible eye sore anyway.
1 9 . . . !JLxe6 20 dxe6 !JLd8 ? ! 2 1
!JLh6 Me8 2 2 g4 !
Blasting open the king ' s position
as well. With so many positional
weaknesses, it is almost a relief to
be getting mated too .
22 . . . fxg4 23 hxg4 Ci'Jg7 24 !JLxg7
�xg7 25 g5 Ci'Jg4 26 Mxh7+ rJi;g8 27
nh5 ! Ci'Je5 28 Mahl Ci'Jxd3 29 rJi;xd3
Mxe6 30 :h8+ rJilg7 31 J::!. l h7+ �g6
32 Md7 Me3+! ?
The first o f two horrible losses to
Julian mentioned in the book.
Somehow in both I managed to
show some warped humour at the
end. There was a time when he
never
seemed
to
play
the
Trompowsky against me. His results
have improved since he got over
that !
33 rJi;c2 1-0
2 ..tiJe4 3 �f4 c5 4.f3 l'Ua5+ 5 c3 ClJf6 6 d5! ? 35
.
Game 6
McShane - Wojtaszek
World Junior (ch), Goa 2002
1 d4 ClJf6 2 �g5 ClJe4 3 �f4 c5 4
f3 l'U a5+ 5 c3 ClJf6 6 d5 �b6
7 �c1 ! ?
O f course
this
outrageous
un-developing move rarely passes
without comment. The respected
player and annotator Igor Stohl
describes it as "An unbelievable
line. White makes 3 moves out of 7
to return his bishop to its initial
square, and doesn' t have a single
developed piece." However, he adds
"Despite this the position is unclear,
as the misplaced queen on b6 will
also cost Black time". At the risk of
repetition, it is the failure of the
moves . . . ClJf6-e4-f6 and . . . l'Ub6 in
tum to promote harmony in the
Black position which lie at the heart
of White ' s conception.
One of the most prevalent
reactions to the Trompowsky these
days seems to be a good deal of
general sympathy, combined with
an
unease
that these
lines
commencing after 6 . . . l'Ub6 are just
a bit too strange - tempi apparently
squandered, pawns grabbed or
sacri ficed with a worrying lack of
stylistic
consistency
and
an
apparently perverse attitude to
development and king safety, and so
on. I think to an extent a little
mystique
these
surrounding
fascinating lines might do the
opening no harm at all, but my
priority is of course to shed some
light on them, so here goes.
I did once toy (thinking in
particular of the large number of 1
e4
openings
in
which
the
light-squared bishop nestles happily
back on the square fl after 0-0 and
J:;te 1 have occurred) with writing an
article advocating that, perhaps by
divine intervention, minor pieces so
often seem to be best placed on their
starting squares. However, I think it
would have been at least partly
tongue-in-cheek! Neither do I go as
far as Rainer Knaak who in effect
says that f4 is a far from ideal
square for the bishop and that
6 . . . �6 might be questionable
since the queen is often poorly
placed here, whereas the white
bishop is really just as well off on
c 1 . Of course in reality such a move
as 7 �c l ! ? can only be fully
explained
in
terms
of the
deficiencies of the alternatives.
So what of them? One is easily
dismissed, whereas my obj ection to
the other is more complex but still
quite specific:
a) If 7 �d2? Black plays
7 . . ClJxd5 ! 8 l'Uxd5 l'Uxb2 and,
whatever the mess along the way,
the queen eventually should emerge
unharmed, trumpeting a decisive
material plus.
b) 7 b3 ! ? is of course much more
interesting, and a major line in its
own right. I do not feel that I can
recommend it though for the very
concrete reason that after 7 . . e6 !
(Of course 7 . . . g6 ! ? is also a valid
.
.
3 6 2 ..'De4 3 .i.f4 c5 4 j3 'iVa 5 + 5 c3 t'fjf6 6 d5! ?
.
reaction to the weakening o f the c3
square) 8 e4 (8 c4? ! is bad due to
8 . . . exdS 9 cxdS c4 ! 10 t'fjc3 [ 1 0 e3
'iVaS+ ! ] 10 . . . .i.cs 1 1 t'fjh3 d6 1 2
t'fja4 "iVaS+ 1 3 i.d2 i.b4 1 4 .i.xb4
"iVxb4+ I S 'iVd2 'iVxd2+ 1 6 �xd2
.i.xh3 1 7 gxh3 cxb3 =+ and White ' s
structure i s not for public display Dunworth-G.Buckley, 4NCL 200 1 )
8 . . . exdS 9 exdS .i.d6 ! 1 0 i.gS ! ? ( 1 0
t'fjh3 0-0 1 1 �d2 l:te8+ 1 2 i.e2
c4 ! ? 13 .i.xd6 �xd6 14 bxc4 bS I S
cxbS a6 1 6 c4 axbS 1 7 cxbS �eS 1 8
t'fjc3 t'fjxdS 1 9 'iix dS 'iix c3+ 2 0 �f2
.i.b7 ! 21 �c4 ! �e3+ 22 �g3 hS
was fine for Black in I. Sokolov­
Smirin, Wijk aan Zee (op), 1 993)
10 . . . .i.e7 !
while I accept that White ' s space
advantage can offer him rather
pleasant prospects if he can mobilise
and reach a ' normal position ' I do
not see how he can do this without
quite tangible inconvenience. Some
examples :
b l ) 1 1 d6? ! is unusual and
interesting in the sense that after
1 1 . . .�xd6 1 2 �xd6 .i.xd6 1 3 .i.xf6
gxf6 while Black's structure is far
from pretty, this is basically all
White has for the pawn. It is quite
rare to have an opening gambit
which involves so little dynamic
compensation. Since Black has not
just miserable f-pawns but also a
backward d-pawn I suspect that it is
just about sufficient but I would be
very surprised if the defender will
be unduly troubled.
b2) 1 1 t'fja3 ( ! ?) is suggested by
Gallagher as 'probably best' but
remains untested to my knowledge.
The critical reply should be
1 1 . . .'iVaS ! ? when 12 t'fjc4 �xc3+
13 .i.d2 "iVd4 does not look quite
enough for White.
b3) 1 1 t'fje2 ! ? O-O? ! 1 2 c4 l:te8 1 3
t'fjbc3 d6 1 4 "iVd2 a6 I S .i.e3 t'fjbd7
16 t'fjg3 "iVb4 1 7 ..te2 bS 1 8 0-0
bxc4 1 9 bxc4 t'fjeS 20 a3 "iVaS 2 1
�c2 Hodgson-Shaked, Las Vegas
1 998 is pleasant for White, and an
excellent example of the sort of
position where he obtains the kind
of pleasant trouble-free spatial plus
to which I referred above. But what
did Julian intend against 1 1 . . . �d6 ! ?
This i s s o often White ' s dilemma.
The dS pawn is weak, but the move
c3 -c4 is weakening in the short
term. Here White can try 1 2 t'fja3 ! ?
"iVxdS 1 3 .i.xf6 �xd 1 + 1 4 ':'xd l
.i.xf6 I S t'fjbS �d8, but again the
nuisance to Black is relatively
minor. It feels like the kind of
sacrifice in which White gives up a
pawn with not much greater
perspective than to try and win it
back again.
b4) 1 1 c4 ! ? is the main line. What
is interesting is that White is often
allowed to settle to the task of
building his desired structure utilising his extra space and
eventually withdrawing his bishop
from gS to prevent its exchange. My
feeling though is that here too
Black's ' disruption options ' are
quite tempting. 1 1 . . . "iVc7 1 2 �e2
0-0 1 3 t'fjc3 d6 1 4 0-0-0 a6 I S �c2
t'fjbd7 1 6 ':'e l i.d8 1 7 i.d3 bS !
2. J i Je4 3 iLf4 c5 4 j3 Wlia5 + 5 c3 tiJf6 6 d5! ? 3 7
gave Black quite decent counterplay
in Tumer-Nunn, Golombek (mem),
Paignton 2000, but I am still more
by
the
slightly
intrigued
crude-looking 1 1 . . .�d6 ! ? since 1 2
�e2 tiJc6 ! 1 3 tiJh3 tiJd4 looks
awkward for White. Specifically
after 14 Wlid2 �e5+ 1 5 Wfl
Orr-Gillen, Belfast 200 1 , I doubt
that White has full compensation
after 15 . . . tiJxb3 ! 16 axb3 'ii'x al .
perhaps just the exchange on d5) in
reserve?
raises
several
This
interesting questions, and I shall
draw on various examples in a bid
to answer them.
First of all, what does the 'pure
Modem Benoni ' case look like?
Bundesliga
Hodgson-Gallagher,
2002, is a fairly typical move order.
Black played 7 . . . d6 and after S e4
g6 9 c4 iLg7 1 0 tiJc3 0-0 1 1 tiJge2
e6 1 2 tiJg3 exd5 1 3 cxd5
7 . . .e6
This, of course, is the main line
here and can be a prelude to
entering the heavy theoretical
battleground covered in the last two
items of this chapter. However, for
the moment I want to assume that
Black
aims,
as
Wojtaszek
presumably does here, to reach
some Modem Benoni type of
position. As I mentioned in my
notes to Game 3 , it seems
reasonable to assume that such a
strategy of 'just playing chess '
would be more sensible now after
forcing 7 iLc 1 than on move 6.
However, there is still an important
question of move order. Should
Black, as here, first clarify the
position in the centre, or would he
be
better
off
immediately
developing, and holding . . . e6 (or
we arrive almost exactly at a
position which can be reached from
a Modem Benoni, with the single
difference that the black queen is, in
that case, still on dS. I have seen all
possible views expressed regarding
that difference. The queen can
certainly cause some irritation down
the b6-g 1 diagonal, but it also
blocks . . . b5, and is likely to be
targeted either by an advancing
a-pawn, or by the g3 knight
manoeuvring itself to c4 . I am a bit
of an agnostic, but the Trompowsky
version has certainly scored quite
well for White in practice.
Gallagher himself tried a radical
approach here with 13 . . . tiJh5(? ! )
but after 1 4 tiJxh5 gxh5 1 5 iLe2 f5
1 6 f4 ! ? fxe4 1 7 0-0 h4 I S tiJxe4
iLf5 1 9 tiJg5 c4+ 20 �hl c3 2 1
bxc3 iLxc3 2 2 iLd2 iLxa l 2 3 �xa l
-
38 2. J I Je4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 'Df6 6 d5 ! ?
his weakened kings ide ensured that
White would get good value for his
material investment. The more
standard approach is 1 3 . . . hS ! ?
S .Agdestein-Djurhuus, Norwegian
(ch) play-off 2000. Black wants to
bother the knight on g3 and create
critical play in which White will be
inconvenienced by his bishop being
tied to the defence of b2 . However,
the knight can also head for e3 , and
b6 is in other respects not the
natural square
for furthering
ambitions on the kingside. After 1 4
i.e2 'Dbd7 ( 1 4 . . . h4 ! ?) I S 'iVc2 h4
1 6 'Dfl h3 ! ? ( 1 6 . . . 'DhS ? ! 1 7 g4 ! ) 1 7
gxh3 'DhS 1 8 'Dg3 'Ddf6 1 9 h4 i.h3
20 'Dd l ! l:tfe8 2 1 'Df2 i.d7 22 0--0
l:lac8 23 a4 c4 24 'it'g2 the play is
very complex, but White seems to
be faring quite well in the battle for
squares. Another radical departure
from standard patterns is worth a
mention. In Knaak - Bekker Jensen,
European Club Cup, Panormo 200 1
Black departed from the above with
I S . . . 'Dh7 ! ? and we were treated to
the notable phenomenon of White
castling queens ide in a Benoni
structure, and in the sharp battle
which arose after 1 6 i.d2 a6 1 7 f4
"ilic7 1 8 0--0-0 bS 1 9 eS ! ? - a
standard
pawn
' anti-Benoni'
sacrifice to gain control of e4 1 9 . . . b4 20 'Dce4 dxeS 2 1 fS
White 's kingside chances look the
more promising to me.
Still, another question raised by
7 . . . d6. Should White necessarily
handle the position with c4, rather
than in the style of Game 3? I think
the answer here is probably yes
since otherwise the gain for Black in
6 . . :i'b6 7 i.c 1 seems the most
ambiguous. As usual, 8 'Dh3 ! is a
good reply to 7 . . . g6 though, and
while I once received a good deal of
criticism for trying 7 . . . d6 8 e4 g6 9
a4, I think that my idea of 9 . . . i.g7
10 i.bS+ might have been
somewhat validated by answering
1 0 . . . 'Dbd7 with 1 1 'Dh3 ! ?
Nonetheless, i f White really feels
uncomfortable with the ' pure
Benoni ' then I think he can
nonetheless play 8 c4 and follow
Luke 's example against an early
. . . exdS, while perhaps try to arrange
to recapture with the e-pawn if
Black delays this . After 7 . . . d6 8 e4
g6 9 c4 i.g7 1 0 'Dc3 0-0 1 1 'Dge2
e6 either of these are worthy of
attention:
a) 12 'Df4 ! ? exdS and now 1 3
'DfxdS ! ? 'DxdS 1 4 'DxdS 'it' as+ I S
i.d2 'it'd8 1 6 ':'b 1 fS 1 7 i.d3 is also
a bit better for White according to
Finkel, although there is a suspicion
that the check on as may have been
a bit counter-productive.
b) 1 2 g4 ! ? exdS 1 3 exdS J:te8 1 4
� f2 i s also a n interesting set-up,
although it is obviously very
double-edged. I am suspicious that
White ' s play in Alburt-Browne,
Santiago 1 98 1 , needs a little
refining, since after 1 4 . . . 'Dbd7
( 1 4 . . . 'Dfd7 is also interesting) I S
'Dg3 hS 1 6 gxhS 'DxhS 1 7 'DxhS
i.d4+ 1 8 'ifi1g2 gxhS 1 9 'it'd2 'De5
20 'it'g5+ 'Dg6 2 1 f4 Black has the
interesting possibility of 2 1 . . . i.f5 ! ?
2. Jbe4 3 i..f4 c5 4 13 'iN a5+ 5 c3 CiJf6 6 d5! ? 3 9
when White 's position looks a bit
loose. Food for thought here
nonetheless.
It is also just worth noting that
after 7 . . . e6 8 c4 d6 9 e4 g6,
Levitina once played 1 0 CiJe2 ! ? and
tZ'lec3, attempting to handle the
position as Luke did, when Black
still has to decide what to do if not
take on d5. This might be yet
another workable route to avoid the
'pure Benoni' .
8 c4 exd5 9 cxd5 d6 ! ? 10 e4 g6
1 1 tZ'le2 !
I like this very much since I am
sure that White should in some way
react to the position of Black' s
queen o n b 6 , and try for more than
the routine 1 1 CiJc3 . The queen ' s
knight ideally belongs o n c 4 a t some
stage. The issue though is timing.
My 1 1 CiJa3 ? ! by contrast was just
a bit too impetuous, a symptom
perhaps of going into 'punishment
mode ' as a reaction to Black' s
modest 9 . . . d6 ! ? Having said this, I
also think that the search for a very
ambitious and concrete solution in
Wells-Nunn, 4NCL, Birmingham
2002 was not so far wide of the
mark, since any move which
effectively rules out 1 1 . . . i.. g 7 here
is worthy of consideration. Some of
the descriptions I have seen of this
game make a very generous use of
hindsight. After 1 1 . . . CiJbd7 1 2 CiJc4
'fIIc 7 1 3 a4 CiJb6 ! 1 4 CiJa3 i.. d7 1 5 a5
CiJc8 1 6 CiJb5 �8 1 7 i.. g 5 i.. g7 1 8
e5?! (Consistent, and perhaps that is
precisely the problem ! Of course
White can return to normal
developing moves, but then it is
clear that the whole concept was
flawed. At the time Nunn was also
far from certain as to the merits of
the text) 1 8 . . . dxe5 19 d6 0-0 20
CiJc7 CiJe8 2 1 CiJxa8 CiJexd6 it
becomes clear that White has
overstretched, facing considerable
active compensation for the material
he has gained. The various
insightful
commentators
who
pointed this out have not been
imparting any great revelation !
1 1 ... i.. g 7 1 2 CiJec3 0-0 13 i.. e 2
CiJbd7 14 0-0 a6 15 a4 l:tb8 1 6
�hl ? !
Luke criticises this and suggests
1 6 CiJa3 instead intending to meet
1 6 . . . 'flld 8 for example with 1 7 i.. e 3
lIe8 1 8 'iNd2 ! and the simple plan of
:tab 1 and b4. In terms of a
theoretical assessment, this seems to
be an important vindication of
White' s opening play. However,
although he may have missed the
moment in a sense, it was his
restraint hitherto in precisely not
rushing towards the c4 square with
this knight that seems to have been a
significant improvement on several
previous handlings of the position.
It is also instructive that later, as
he points out, his king might have
been more comfortable still on gl its new position merely encourages
counterplay with . . . CiJh5 and
. . . iVh4.
1 6 .. :ili'd8 1 7 i.. e3 l:te8 ! 18 CiJa3
Anyway. The semi-waiting move
on move 1 6 had been partly about
40 2 ctJe4 3 �f4 c5 413 iVa5+ 5 c3 ctJf6 6 d5!?
. . .
wanting t o play 1 8 ctJd2 ? ! here, but
this is well met with the trick
1 8 . . . bS ! 1 9 axbS axbS 20 ..txbS
ctJxdS 21 ctJxdS l:i.xbS 22 ctJc4 ctJeS
when Black is fine.
18 ... h6 19 iVd2 'it'h7 20 l:i.abl
ctJh5 !
Both offensive and defensive, at
least in the sense that the threat of
21 . . . iVh4 diverts White from his
intended b4 break to make play on
the other side.
21 g4 ! ? ctJhf6 22 h3 ctJe5 23
l:i.f2 ! ?
Now Black gets t o play . . . g S and
put in a claim on the dark squares,
although this of course creates
weaknesses at the same time. It is
interesting that Luke regards
Black's compensation after 23 f4
ctJexg4 ! 24 hxg4 ctJxg4 2S �xg4
�xg4 as not merely rather scary at
the board, but as quite possibly
theoretically adequate too, and the
more I consider it, the more I
applaud his judgement.
23 ... g5 24 f4 gxf4 25 ..txf4 b5
A fairly standard pawn sac in the
Benoni, but the coming exchange of
light-squared bishops also has the
effect of rendering the fS square still
more of a problem. 2S . . . ctJg6 ! ?
might b e a better try, but it seems
sensible to avoid the wild tactics of
26 ctJc4 ktxe4 ! ? and settle for the
sane and sober 26 ..tg3 ctJxe4
(26 . . . ktxe4 27 ..td3 );Ie7 28 ktafl ! )
2 7 ctJxe4 l:i.xe4 2 8 �d3 :te7 2 9 ctJc4
which looks rather nice for White
(rather than
29 ..th4 ? ! when I
would suspect Black can give the
exchange for reasonable play) .
26 axb5 axb5 27 ctJaxb5 ..ta6 28
ctJa3 �xe2 29 iVxe2
'Black has some compensation,
and practical chances given the
impact of the new time control, but
it should not really be enough '
should be a fair summary of Luke 's
thoughts at this point.
29 ... ctJfd7 30 ctJc2 ? ! c4 ! 31 ..td2 !
'it'g8?
3 1 . . . ctJcS ! was a much better try .
The text merely enhances the power
of White ' s coming g4-gS resource.
32 l:i.f5 ! ctJc5 33 g5 hxg5 34
l:i.xg5 ? !
34 ..txgS i s better, although after
34 . . . iVd7 3 S l::l: g 1 ctJg6 it is still a
fight.
34 ... ctJg6 35 );Ig4 ctJd3 ? ! 36 ctJe3
ctJde5 37 :tg3 ..tf6 38 ctJf5
At last! A couple of rather passive
decisions from Black and the long
awaited fS square is reached.
38 . . . );Ib7 39 iVh5 :tee7 40 h4 ! ?
Practical grounds i f nothing else
suggest that in such positions
keeping the initiative scores over
cashing in.
40 ... ctJd3 41 iVf3 ..txc3 42 ..txc3
l:i.xe4 43 h5 :th4+ 44 ctJxh4 iVxh4+
45 �gl ctJdf4 46 :tel l-0
Stopping the tricks on e2 and at
the same time preparing a decisive
2. Ji:Je4 3 jJ4 c5 4 j3 �a 5+ 5 c3 C{jf6 6 d5!? 41
penetration on eS is sufficient to see
some
Despite
off.
Black
inaccuracies, an entertaining game,
and something of a model for
handling the White side of the
opening.
Game 7
Hodgson - Turner
British (ch), Scarborough 200 1
1 d4 C{jf6 2 ..tg5 ltJe4 3 ..tf4 c5 4
f3 'i' a5+ 5 c3 ltJf6 6 d5 �b6 7 ..tel
e6 8 c4
8 . . . exd5
This and S . . . �b4+, the subject of
the theoretical article that follows
are clearly the most critical moves.
In addition Black can also try to
develop around White ' s centre and
possibly even exploit the bS-h2
diagonal on which his opponent is
momentarily
vulnerable
with
S . . . ii.d6, although I am sceptical as
to the merits of this. A couple of
examples:
a) 9 liJc3 might just complicate
matters a bit, although this is
certainly not due to 9 . . . 0-0 10 e4
..teS ? ! 1 1 ..td3 ..txc3+ 1 2 bxc3 d6
13 liJe2 l:!eS ( 1 3 . . . liJbd7 1 4 dxe6
fxe6 1 5 f4 ! also looks unpalatable)
14 'i'c2 liJbd7 1 5 f4 exd5 16 exd5
'i'a5 1 7 0-0 a6 I S a4 C{jb6 1 9 liJg3
..td7 20 ..td2 liJxa4 ! ? which was
Knaak-Wells, Bundesliga
1 99 5
when I just had t o grit m y teeth and
hope that he wouldn 't find 2 1 jU5 !
b 5 2 2 C{jh5 ! C{jxh5 2 3 ..txd7 l:.e7 24
..tc6 .l:tbS 25 cxb5 axb5 26 c4 which
would have been immensely
unpleasant. Rainer Knaak was very
generous in his notes about my
original opening play, but it still
looks to me just like a bad
Nimzo-Indian, and it was probably
original because others have had
more sense !
Rather the play after 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 e4
l:.eS ! ? looks rather intricate. It is
even possible that 1 1 f4 ! ? works
here, but it is clearly not without
risk. It is not clear that this is worth
the effort with a good alternative
available . . .
b) 9 e4 ! ? looks quite appropriate
to dealing with each of the various
Black strategies here.
9 . . . 1te5 1 0 liJd2 ..td4 1 1 liJe2 e5
12 liJxd4 cxd4 13 liJb3 d6 1 4 ..td2
a5 1 5 c5 dxc5 1 6 liJxc5 0-0 1 7 C{ja4
�d6 I S 'ib3 was definitely a
success for White 's opening concept
in Summerscale-McShane, British
(ch), Nottingham 1 996, while
42 2 . ..ttJ e4 3 �f4 c5 4 13 'ii' a 5 + 5 c3 0,f6 6 d5! ?
9 . . . 'ii'c 7 1 0 0,e2 ! exd5 1 1 exd5 ( 1 1
cxd5 ! ? also looks good) 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2
0,bc3 a6 1 3 �g5 1Ie8 1 4 �xf6 gxf6
1 5 WVd3 was awful for Black in
Kanep-Jobava, World U- 1 8 (ch)
2000. 1 0 . . . �xh2 (and indeed on
almost any other move) is
successfully met with 1 1 f4 0,g4 1 2
'i'd3 , and hence Black' s whole
concept looks distinctly ropey.
9 cxd5 c4 ! ?
1 0 e3 !
The first effect of 9 . . . c4 is to
encourage this modest advance .
Practice confirms what the naked
eye suggests, that 1 0 e4? ! �c5 is
just too risky for White.
1 0 . . . �c5 ! ?
T o my mind this pawn sacrifice is
the best way to make sense of
9 . . . c4 ! ?
Alternatives d o not look entirely
trustworthy:
a) 1 0 . . :iVc5 ? ! seems simply
inferior. There is no reason to
commit the knight to c 3 , and no
consistent follow-up for Black after
the logical 1 1 e4 !
b) 1 O . . :Yi'a5+ 1 1 0,c3 b5 (but not
1 1 . . . �b4 12 �xc4 ! ? [Hodgson
points out that 12 �d2 is a good
option too] a strong tactical solution
based upon the undefended bishop
on c8) 1 2 WVd4 �b4 1 3 'Yi'e5+ 'it>f8
( 1 3 . . . 'it>d8? ! looks worse, since
although it is obviously attractive
that the rook on h8 can play, the
undefended g7 pawn will imply an
extra tempo for White. Hodgson
gives 14 �d2 :'e8 1 5 'ii' g5 ! which
looks good) 14 a3 and now :
b l ) 1 4 . . . �b7 ? ! 1 5 axb4 ! 'i!Vxa l
1 6 0,ge2 'ii' a 6 1 7 0,d4 d6 1 8 'i!Vf4
'Yi'b6 was Hodgson-Stohl, Isle of
Man (op) 1 995, when the simplest
according to Julian is 1 9 0,dxb5
0,xd5 20 'i'xd6+ WVxd6 2 1 0,xd6
0,xc3 22 bxc3 which does indeed
look like tremendous value for an
exchange, pawns and a potentially
dominating dark-squared bishop.
b2) 1 4 . . . �c5 ! is a much more
testing line. White should continue
to play aggressively with 1 5 d6 0,a6
1 6 �d2 �b7 1 7 0,e4 ! ? (Julian
considers 1 7 0,d5 instead, but
1 7 . . . 'Yi'd8 1 8 0,c7 l:rc8 does not
look very special for White)
1 7 . . . �b4 ! 1 8 'i'e7+ 'ifi>g8 1 9 0,xf6+
gxf6 20 �xb4 ! (20 l:!.d l ? ! �xd2+
2 1 .l:txd2 0,c5 gives strong
counterplay) 20 . . . 00xb4 2 1 0-0-0
0,d5 (2 1 . . .0,a2+? 22 'it'b l 0,c3+ 23
bxc3 'it'xc3 24 l:td4 is good for
White) 22 'i'xd7 'iWb6 ! ? (22 . . . 0,xe3
23 'Yi'xb7 lId8 24 �e2 0,xd l 25
2 'be4 3 il.f4 c5 4 13 �a5+ 5 c3 'bf6 6 d5! ? 43
. . .
�c 7?! �e l ! is problematic but the
simple 25 il.xd l ! 1::t xd6 26 'be2
lo oks sufficient) 23 l:Id4 'bxe3 24
'be2 and White has good chances to
c onsolidate his advantage.
1 1 �f2 0-0 12 il.xc4
Rather a critical position for the
variation. Black's compensation
hardly needs describing. He can
intensify pressure against e3 by
means of Ii:e8, and his queens ide
will normally enter the fray by
means of . . . 'bd7-e5 when White
needs to beware of ' " 'bg4+ motifs
too. However, aside from his
slightly over-active king, White ' s
development i s not that bad. I t is
very useful that he can make some
mobilising moves with tempo �3 often threatens a queen
exchange, and after 'bc3 Black must
reckon with 'ba4 and the exchange
of one of his best pieces.
1 2 . . . d6
12 . . . 1::t e 8 ! ? is the alternative,
which used to be near enough
dismissed on the grounds of 1 3
�b3 , but has now been somewhat
rehabilitated by Black' s queen
simply fleeing the exchange and
regrouping. In practice some
SUccess has been enjoyed with two
queen moves:
a) 13 . . . �d6 looks unnatural, but
does force White to keep an eye on
h2 as well. V.Milov-Landenbergue,
Swiss (cht) 2002 was an almighty
mess that became quite uncomfort­
able for White after 1 4 'be2 'ba6 1 5
'bbc3 'bc7 1 6 J::i.d l b 5 1 7 'bxb5
'bxb5 1 8 il.xb5 1::tb 8 1 9 �d3 �xh2 !
with good attacking prospects.
However,
against
such
an
artificial-looking set-up it is hard to
believe that White cannot find a
way to emphasise his positional
plusses . What about 1 6 'ba4 ! ? and if
16 . . . b5 then 1 7 'bxc5 �xc5 1 8
.td3 'bfxd5 1 9 il.e4 and there are
still some solid qualities about
White ' s
game
which
must
compensate
for
his
slightly
uncomfortable king.
b) 1 3 . . .'iVd8 to my mind looks the
most likely to prove a durable
threat.
In Mamedyarov-Sulskis, Euro­
pean (ch), Batumi 2002 Black
generated quite dangerous play after
14 'be2 d6 1 5 lid l a6 1 6 a4 'bbd7
17 'bd4 'bb6 1 8 'bc3 'bxc4 1 9
�xc4 b 5 2 0 �d3 b4 2 1 'bc6 �c7
22 'be2 'bxd5 ! 23 �xd5 .te6
winning back the pawn and
retaining a light initiative. I have a
feeling that White should look to
improve on move 1 5 . Maybe 1 5
'bbc3 a 6 1 6 a4 'bbd7 1 7 'bg3 'be5
1 8 .te2 offers White a more stable
coordination of his forces. However,
this is not clear, and the cleverness
of Black ' s strategy is reflected in
the slight awkwardness of White' s
queen o n b3 .
13 'be2 'bbd7 14 'bbc3 'be5 ? !
1 4 . . . �c7 i s well motivated b y a
desire to avoid the forthcoming
exchange, but it is a bit passive and
White consolidated quite easily in
Ward-Gormally,
British
(ch),
44 2 tDe4 3 iLf4 c5 4 13 �a5+ 5 c3 tDf6 6 d5! ?
. . .
Millfield 2000 by 1 5 tDd4 iLb4 1 6
iLe2 a6 1 7 e4 iLxc3 1 8 bxc3 tDc5
19 l:!.e l iLd7 20 iLfl with a clear
advantage.
15 tDa4! �b4 1 6 b3 !
A strong move which to my mind
pretty much refutes this line for
Black. The point is that as the
position simplifies White will find
himself in possession of a number
of major positional trumps : an
excellent square on d4 and above all
the long black diagonal, on which
Black is in no position to conduct
much of a contest.
16 . . . tDxc4 17 bxc4 �xc4 1 8
tDxc5 �xc5 1 9 tDf4 g5
Amazingly this was the novelty( ! )
and even here it was a familiar idea
In
Hodgson-Wells,
adapted.
Copenhagen 1 996 Black also
suffered, but achieved a modicum of
counterplay after 19 . . . l:!.e8 20 l:!.e l
g5 2 1 tDd3 �6 22 l\Vb3 �xb3 23
axb3 tDxd5 24 l:!.a5 iLe6 25 e4 tDe7
26 l:!.xg5+ tDg6 27 f4 f6 28 l:!.b5
l:!.ac 8 ! and somehow survived. I
remember being very surprised by
22 �3 . To me 22 ii.b2 ! tDxd5 23
iLd4 looked and still looks very
scary indeed. If Black eschews . . . g5
altogether, he simply has no
compensation for the state of his
position !
20 tDd3 �xd5 2 1 e4 �a5 22
iLd2 �b5 23 �e2 l:!.e8 24 a4 �b6+
25 iLe3 �a5 26 h4 !
Black is so weak on the dark
squares around his king that White
has a range of options as to how to
exploit it. How bad is Black' s
position? I would say enough that
the coming desperate piece sacrifice
might have been the best practical
chance.
26 . . . ii.g4 27 �b2 ! tDxe4+ 28
fxe4 l:!.xe4 29 �b5 �xb5 30 axb5
gxh4 31 l:!.xh4 h5 32 l:!.hhl l:!.ae8 33
l:!.hel ii.d7 34 tDf4 iLxb5 35 tDxh5
White is left with only one pawn,
and I think Turner did well to reach
this non-trivial ending. However I
also know for a fact that Julian can
mate with bishop and knight v the
lone king !
35 ... l:!.4e6 36 iLxa7 l:!.xel 37
l:!.xel l:!.xe l 38 '\t>xel �f8
The long ending which follows is
beyond our scope. I suspect it is
winning, albeit requiring both
technique and patience.
39 tDf4 �e7 40 ii.d4 iLc6 41
'\t>d2 �d7 42 �c3 ii.e4 43 �c4
'\t>c6 44 iLe3 ii.bl 45 tDe2 ii.a2+ 46
�b4 iLbl 47 g3 iLd3 48 tDd4+
'\t>d5 49 �c3 iLg6 50 ii.f4 �c5 5 1
tDb3+ '\t>d5 5 2 tDa5 b6 53 tDb7 f6
2 ..tDe4 3 �4 c5 4 j3 �a5+ 5 c3 0,/6 6 d5! ? 45
.
54 �b4 �f5 55 0,xd6 �d3 56 0,e8
b5 57 0,a7 �e4 58 0,xb5 i.d3 59
0, e7 + �d4 60 0,e8 f5 6 1 0,d6 �d 5
62 �e3 i.bl 63 0,e4 1-0
Analytical Article 1
The Pawn Grab 8
. . .
'iVb4+!?
1 d4 0,f6 2 �g5 0,e4 3 �f4 e5 4
f3 �a5+ 5 e3 0,f6 6 d5 'iVb6 7 �el
e6 8 e4 'iib 4+! ?
For a long time this acceptance of
White ' s gambit was barely taken
seriously despite receiving a first
outing as long ago as 1 982, ancient
history in Trompowsky terms. It
took a full 1 5 years for a
reappearance,
in
the
game
Speelman-Kazhgaleyev, from the
Luzem World Team Championship,
and even this failed to ignite real
enthusiasm, despite the fact that not
much reading between the lines was
required to understand that the notes
of the victor betrayed a certain
respect for Black' s bold greed.
More recently there has been a
resurgence of interest, perhaps aided
by the rather shocking degree of
scepticism
displayed
by
the
Ches sBas e
on
commentator
Trompowsky affairs lIya Tsesarsky
who at one moment plunged to the
extreme condemnation "8 c4?
Losing or sacrificing a pawn - it' s
not important. I n any case White
hasn 't compensation . . . Better are all
other continuations without material
loss". Recently he seems to have
recovered his composure a bit, and
practical examples have also done
their bit to re-emphasise that White
has rich compensation for the pawn.
Gradually there seems to be
clarification that the most convinc­
ing is to try to interest Black in the
b-pawn rather than the c-pawn, with
positions analogous to the Vaganian
gambit (see chapter 7) except that
White ' s pawn is on c4 rather than
c2. This can restrict the scope of his
bishop, but is j ust as likely to
promote his ambitions in the centre
by facilitating the e5 breakthrough.
a) 9 0,c3 'iixc4
1 0 e4 (It is possibly unwise to
mention this, because I may have
completely got the wrong end of the
stick, but I recently had a rather
random conversation with Jonathan
Speelman about this gambit and I
think he said he thought the general
view was that White should play 1 0
�d2 here. It i s certainly true that
1 0 . . exd5 ? 1 1 e4 would be terrific
for White, but the problem is that
after 1 0 . . 'i' a6 ! I cannot see any
.
.
46 2 . ..tDe4 3 i..j4 c5 4 f3 'ii' a 5 + 5 c3 liJj6 6 d5! ?
independent significance since 1 1
e4 'ii'b 6 leads back to the main line.
apologies to Jonathan if I mis­
understood ! )
1 0 . . . 'ii'b4 !
(10. . .
'iYd4?! 1 1 i.d2 ! would transpose to
' b 1 ' below) 1 1 i.. d2 'iiVb 6 1 2 i.. c 4
and now Black has a choice :
a 1 ) 1 2 . . . exdS 1 3 liJxdS liJxdS 1 4
i.. x dS liJc6 was Black's choice in
the above mentioned Speelman­
Kazhgaleyev, World Team (ch),
Luzem 1 997, when Jonathan points
out that I S SLc3 ! was the most
promising continuation. B lack ' s
development here looks quite
problematic, and he proposes to
solve it in fairly dramatic style with
l S . . . liJb4 16 SLc4 dS ! 1 7 exdS i.. fS .
This is indeed quite complicated,
but I still like White after 1 8 g4 ! ?
i..g 6 (White' s idea i s in fact to rule
out an irritating check on h6.
1 8 . . . liJc2+ 19 'iti>f2 'iVh6 ! ? 20 'iYe2+
is worse) 1 9 'iYa4+ ! ? ( 1 9 'ii' e 2+
'iti>d7 ! 20 0-0-0 SLd6 is less clear)
1 9 . . . 'iiitd 8 20 a3 liJc2+ 2 1 'it>f2 'ii'd 6
22 ::tc 1 liJd4 23 liJe2 with a rather
obscure position in which both sides
face unusual problems, but Black's
seem rather more intractable.
a2) 12 . . . d6( ! ) is maybe indicated,
and it certainly makes sense to keep
the position blocked and prevent
e4-eS ( 1 2 . . . g6? 1 3 eS ! is strong,
since if 1 3 . . . liJxdS 1 4 SLxdS ! there
is a crushing attack in the offing) 1 3
liJge2 ( 1 3 f4 might be playable, but
1 3 . . . SLe7 cannot yet be met with
any convincing e4-eS breakthrough
and Black will follow with a
well-timed . . . exdS) 1 3 liJge2 eS 1 4
f4 liJbd7 I S 0-0 a 6 1 6 liJg3 and
now:
a2 1 ) 1 6 . . . exf4? ! 1 7 i.. x f4 g6
permitted White a rather elegant
breakthrough with 1 8 eS ! dxeS 1 9
i.. g S ! i.. g 7 2 0 d6 0-0 2 1 liJdS liJxdS
22 .l::[x f7 ! 'ii'x b2? (22 . . . liJSf6 was
compulsory but also pretty grim) 23
'ii'x dS 'ii'd4+ 24 'ii'xd4 exd4 2S
l::tx d7+ and wins . Wells-Borriss,
Austria League 200 1 .
a22) 1 6 . . . g6 was discussed in the
post-mortem, but I think that with
1 7 fxeS fxeS 1 8 i.. g S ! 'ii'd 6
( 1 8 . . . i.. g 7 1 9 d6 ! ) 1 9 'ii'a 4 ! i.. g 7 20
liJbS 'ii'b 8 ! (20 . . . 'ii'b 6? 21 SLxf6
i..xf6 22 z:.xf6 ! 'ii'x f6 23 liJc7+) 2 1
SLxf6 i.. x f6 22 ::txf6 axbS 23 'ii'x bS
0-0 24 J:1f2 White retains a
reasonable initiative, a line which I
hope justifies its place for some
instructive hacking ideas.
a23 ) 1 6 . . . 'ii'd 8 ! is a much tougher
move with which Borriss improved
2 . . . CD e4
3 �f4 c5 4/3 'iWa5+ 5 c3 CDf6 6 d5! ? 4 7
his defence for the game Dunworth­
Borriss, European Club Cup,
Panormo 200 1 in which White
prosecuted his initiative much too
slowly and had insufficent play after
1 7 a4 g6 1 8 l:Ia3 �h6 1 9 f5 �xd2
20 �xd2 Itg8 2 1 fxg6 fxg6 22 CDd l
�f8 23 �aD CDg8 24 h3 .i:txD 25
1:i.xD CDdf6. My instinct was to look
at 1 7 �a4 ! ? sacrifices and all, but
after some analysis I have to say
that I am pretty sure that 1 7 . . J�tb8 !
1 8 fxe5 b5 1 9 CDxb5 axb5 20 �xb5
�6! falls short for White. It is still
possible to handle the position more
positionally by 1 8 .te2, provoking
. . . b5 and then launching a second
front with a later a2-a4 and so on,
but I am now sceptical about all
this.
b) 9 i.d2 ( ! ) offers B lack a choice
of pawns, but the key point is that
the aggravation suffered by the
Black queen if she opts for the
c-pawn is that much more
unpleasant.
I shall consider
b 1 ) 9 . . :�xc4 now looks very
risky. After 1 0 e4 'i'd4 1 1 CDc3
exd5 12 CDge2 �e5 13 �f4 'i'e6 1 4
exd5 'i'b6
1 5 d6 ! gives back the c6 square,
but prevents any ideas of . . . iLd6 .
After 1 5 . . . CDc6 1 6 'i'd2 CDd8 1 7
0-0-0 h6 White won quickly with
1 8 CDd5 in Pixton- Efimenko, World
U- 1 6 (ch) 200 1 , but 1 8 iLe5 ! ? looks
still more convincing as after
1 8 . . . CDe6 1 9 iLxf6 gxf6 20 CDd5
�d8 2 1 'i'c3 i.g7 22 CD2f4 Black
must be all but lost.
The
fast improving young
American Aaron Pixton gives the
impression of having a very well
thought
through
Trompowsky
repertoire, and it is probably worth
keeping an eye on his evolving
choices.
b2) 9 . . . 'i'xb2( ! ) is therefore
critical. After 1 0 CDc3 'i'b6 practice
has witnessed two plausible tries :
b2 1 ) 1 1 1:r.b l �d8 1 2 e4 d6 1 3 f4
e5 ( 1 3 . . .te7 ? ! 1 4 e5 ! ) 1 4 CDD
CDbd7 1 5 .td3 iLe7 16 0-0 ( 1 6 f5
ideas are also possible here as in
'b2 1 ' below, but I am not sure why
the insertion of 1:r.b l and 'ifd8
should be beneficial in this case) 1 6
. . . exf4 (After 1 6 . . 0-0 White has a
choice between the closed treatment
with 1 7 f5 ! ? or exchanging with 1 7
fxe5 CDxe5 1 8 CDxe5 dxe5 1 9 'i'D
b6 20 'ili'g3 ! ? when he has
reasonable play, but should beware
of Black returning the e-pawn at a
moment when he can construct a
48 2 ..'i'Je4 3 iJ...f4 c5 4 f3 'ika5 + 5 c3 CDf6 6 d5!?
.
useful
dark
square
blockade
thereafter) 1 7 iJ... x f4 CDg4 1 8 CDb5
CDge5 1 9 iJ... x e5 CDxe5 20 CDxe5
dxe5 2 1 �h5 (The rather bizarre
alternative 2 1 d6? ! iJ... xd6 22 iJ... c 2
(22 iJ... e 2 iJ... e 7 23 �xd8+ iJ... x d8 24
CDd6+ <3;e7 25 CDf5+ �f8 26 CDd6
�e7 seems only good for a draw)
2 1 . . .0-0 22 'iYxe5 a6 23 d6 ! (23
CDa3 i.f6 is not in White ' s favour
positionally - again the dark squares
are the issue) 23 . . . iJ... f6 24 ':'xf6 !
axb5 (A pragmatic decision as
24 . . . 'ikxf6 25 'ikxf6 gxf6 26 CDc7
:'a7 27 CDd5 <j;; g 7 28 l:tfl looks to
offer quite promising compensation
for the exchange) 25 lIfl l:la6 26
cxb5 'ikxd6 27 �c3 1;2-1;2 Hall­
Berndt, Bundesliga, 200 1 .
b22) 1 1 e4 ! ? d6
has curiously enough twice arisen
from the move order 3 . . . c5 4 d5
'ikb6 5 iJ... c 1 e6 6 f3 'ika5+ 7 c3 CDf6
8 e4 d6 9 iJ... d 2 'ikb6 1 0 c4 �xb2 1 1
CDc3 �6 - see also Chapter 7 for
more on the intervening mischief.
1 1 e4 ! ? makes better sense to me,
particularly in the context of the
'blocking' strategy since the queen
is certainly not performing great
duties on b6. 1 2 f4 CDbd7 1 3 CDf3 e5
( 1 3 . . . iJ... e 7? ! is well met by 14 e5 !
dxe5 1 5 fxe5 CDg4 1 6 l:tb I ! when
the possibility of d6 basically rules
out the only normal retreat for the
black queen) 14 f5 ! ? It is strangely
difficult to find a good attacking
alternative, but this does leave
Black extremely short of air.
14 . . . g6 1 5 iJ... d 3 'ikd8 1 6 0-0 gxf5 ? !
(This i s rather ugly, but 1 6 . . . iJ... g 7
might even be answered with the
very simple 1 7 fxg6 hxg6 1 8 CDg5
and Black will have huge difficulty
unravelling) 1 7 exf5 h6 ( 1 7 . . . iJ... g 7? !
1 8 CDg5 ! h6 1 9 CDe6 i s a good
illustration of what Black is up
against here) 1 8 �h l iJ... e 7 1 9 �c l
b5 ! ? 20 CDxb5 ! A fine sacrifice,
without which Black's last move
would have been rather a decent bid
for some freedom 20 . . . e4 2 1 iJ... f4 !
'ikb6 (2 1 . . . CDb6 ! ? at least demands a
very picturesque refutation by 22
iJ... x e4 ! CDxe4 23 f6 ! iJ... xf6 [or
23 . . . CDxf6 24 �e l 0-0 25 iJ... x h6
with a raging attack] 24 l:f.e l 0-0 25
l:lxe4 iJ... x a 1 26 'iYxa 1 and again
White has tremendous attacking
chances for a small material
investment) 22 l:f.b l exf3 23 lie! !
fxg2+ 24 <j;; g 1 <j;; d 8
25 lIxe7 ! Vyzmanavin ' s conduct
of the attack is both vigorous and
artistic. 25 . . . <j;;x e7 26 CDxd6 'ii a 5
27 'iYe3+ <j;; f8 28 l:te l <j;; g 7 29
2 . ..tije4 3 J..f4 c5 4 13 �a 5+ 5 c3 t'iJf6 6 d5!? 49
'tlt'g3+ 'it>h7 3 0 l:te7 ! J:!.g8 3 1 ltxt7+
'it>h8 32 'ii'h4 l:tg4 33 J:rf8+ ! (but not
33 'ii'xh6+?? 'It>g8 and with no direct
follow-up attention switches by
magic to the white king ! ) 3 3 . . .
t'iJxf8 34 �xf6+ 'it>h7 3 5 �t7+ 1 -0
Vyzmanavin- Ehlvest, USSR (ch),
Lvov 1 984.
One of the real Trompowsky
attacking classics which cried out
for inclusion in full .
8 . . . 'iVb4+
-
Conclusion
Black has sufficient resources in
this 'pawn grab ' line that it is hardly
surprising that its long period of
neglect eventually came to an end.
Indeed, although White has some
interesting attacking ideas after 9
t'iJc3 which are worth studying for
their own sake, in the specific line
' a23 ' with 1 6 . . . �d8 ! he is at
present struggling for a convincing
continuation. Therefore I think
White should tum to 9 .i.d2( ! ) when
he seems to get excellent attacking
prospects whichever pawn Black
decides to take, although I would be
less surprised to see a strengthening
of the defence after 9 . . . 1i'xb2 ! ?
Chapter Conclusion
This was always going to be one
of the toughest and most difficult
chapters, although I tried to
emphasise ways to play ' normal '
positions rather than just fixate on
the latest theory. Of those, I think
that the Schmid Benoni-style set-up
of Game 3 can never hold out real
hope of equality, but of course the
Modem Benoni style of Game 6
will always have its supporters,
even
though
from
White ' s
standpoint
McShane ' s
Luke
handling was very heartening. It
seems White can avoid the 'pure
Benoni ' if he wants.
the
Of
more
typically
Trompowsky material, both Games
5 and 7 contain some tense and
critical moments . Black would do
best to look at the note to 1 1 . . . b5 ! if
he wishes to rehabilitate the Black
position in the former, while the
pawn sacrifice 1 0 . . . .lic5 ! ? in the
latter retains some vitality. The line
with 12 . . . l:te8 ! and 1 3 . . . 'ii'd 8 ! could
well be the focus of future attention.
I am also not entirely convinced that
the strange 1 0 . . .'i'a5+ of Hodgson­
Stohl would not justify an even
closer look - Julian' s own notes
drop hints that it might !
Chapter 3 2 .tiJe4 3 �f4 c5
4 f3 "if a5+ 5 c3 l2Jf6
The Solid Repertoire with 6 l2Jd2
-
. .
As w e have seen, the lines with 6
d5 lead to enormously complex,
challenging and sharp positions
which can be great fun to play.
However, the objection of some to 6
d5 is not hard to fathom. Moves like
the retreat 7 j.c 1 are not to every­
body ' s taste. It may be desirable to
maintain a spatial plus, but in the
context of such ' un-development' it
carries palpable risks.
Hence the importance of a safe,
structurally
sound,
developing
alternative in the form of 6 tDd2 .
The first point is that 7 tDb3 is
threatened, and therefore 6 . . . cxd4 7
tDb3 is a virtually forced sequence.
Then, however, Black has a serious
choice of squares for his queen
available.
Game 8 examines 7 . . . 'iVf5 , by
which Black secures the bishop pair
but must cede an undeniable
initiative to do so.
At first sight the 7 . . . 'i'd8 of
Game 9 would appear to be
motivated
almost
entirely
by
negative considerations. It seems
intrinsically unlikely that d8 could
be as effective a square as b6 for
Black' s queen given the pawn
structure with the open c-file and
White ' s knight on b3 . Fear of the
type of endings to be examined in
Games 1 1 - 1 4 looks like the primary
motivation. However, this move has
recently been quite popular, and
Black ' s ' achievement' of ensuring a
middle-game, is bolstered by the
fact that in the main line (8 . . . d5)
White indeed needs to proceed quite
adroitly not to be irritated to some
degree by the dual possibilities of
. . . j.b4+ and . . . tDh5 - the latter
revealing a plus side to . . . 'i'd8,
namely coverage of the d8-h4
diagonal.
So on to the main line 7 . . . 'iWb6.
Game 10 with 8 cxd4 does not form
part of the recommended repertoire,
but is usefully illustrative of why it
is circumspect for White to prefer
the exchange of queens here. Julian
used to play this way, but Boris
Gelfand' s novelty 8 . . . tDc6 ! has
finally put him off a line which, in
my opinion, was creaking a bit in
any case.
Game 1 1 , the final game with the
' c-file clearance ' structure shows
quite how favourable this can be to
White in the absence of queens.
Games 1 2- 1 4 cover 8 ... tDc6,
leading to the ending which will
likely
determine
the
ultimate
efficacy of 6 tDd2 .
2 0:,e4 3 iLf4 c5 4]3 'ii'a 5+ 5 c3 0:,f6 6 0:,d2 51
. . .
Game 8
Lomineishvili - Gruenberg
Bundesliga II (South), 200 l .
1 d 4 0:,f6 2 iLg5 0:,e4 3 iLf4 c5 4
f3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 0:,f6 6 0:,d2 cxd4 7
0:,b3 'iVf5
This is ' critical ' in the sense that
any answer to a ' zwischenzug'
which itself contains a threat will
tend to be. The tactical justification
of White' s play is that 8 iLxb8
maintains material parity, and the
attacking potential which he is
subsequently able to generate to
compensate for the bishop pair
looks to the naked eye far in excess
of the value obtained for this
investment in many other lines of
the Trompowsky. However since
White' s trumps are almost entirely
dynamic, and his opponent can
claim some longer-term plusses,
there are still those willing to
champion the Black cause as this
interesting game illustrates. Since 8
'i'xd4 0:,c6 is distinctly unpromising
for White, the next few moves have
a fairly forcing character.
8 iLxb8! �xb8 9 'i'xd4 b6 10 e4
'ii'f4 1 1 0:,h3 !
There is now a fair consensus that
this is the right way to gain further
time on Black ' s queen. The fl
bishop is not blocked, and access to
the g5 square can be important, as
we shall see. Trying to manoeuvre
this knight via e2 to c3 has also
been tried, but is at best a bit
' fussy ' . White should aim to strike
before Black can bring his forces
out.
1 1 . . . 'i'c7 1 2 e5! 0:,g8
This is the key pOSItIon for an
assessment of 7 . . .'ti'f5 . As I
suggested above, White ' s lead in
development looks quite awesome,
and Black's attempt to get his own
pieces out will entail playing . . . e6
after which the d6 square also gives
some cause for concern. For all that,
practice suggests that the defender
has resources. Perhaps it is the sheer
flexibility of his kings ide pawns.
Nothing achieved, everything still
possible !
13 0-0-0
Natural and good, of course, but
1 3 0:,f2 ! ? might also be worth a
closer look, trying to discourage
. . . e6 by waving the prospect of an
immediate 0:,e4 at Black. In this
case 1 3 . . . g6? ! 1 4 e6 seems to run
into trouble. Perhaps there is a case
therefore for resorting to the
immediate 1 3 . . . f5 ! ?
1 3 . . . e6
52 2. J i Je4 3 iLf4 c5 4 f3 jVa5+ 5 c3 CiJf6 6 CiJd2
14 CiJg5 ! ?
I n a sense more ambitious,
although also more committal than
either:
a) 14 iLd3 ! ? CiJe7 1 5 iLe4 CiJc6 1 6
i.xc6 jVxc6 1 7 CiJg5 iLe7 1 8 CiJe4
..ib7 1 9 1:!.he l 1:d8 20 jVe3 White ' s
play looks logical and methodical
and Black's task rather toilsome.
Nonetheless, it is also not obvious
where White can improve, and it
seems that a well timed . . . f6 will
give Black just sufficient breathing
space. It seems that with the knight
pair against the bishops a good deal
of compensation is
required.
20 . . . 0-0 2 1 CiJd6 iLa8 22 'it'b l f6 !
23 1:e2 fxe5 24 jVxe5 1:f6 2 5 1:!.ed2
l:i.g6 26 jVe2 jVc7 and Black is close
to equalising, although even now
this position would of course not be
everybody ' s cup of tea. Moiseenko­
Svidler, Russia (chT) 2002.
b) 14 f4 f5 ! ? 15 ..ie2 Salov also
marvels at Black ' s resilience given
his developmental
woes,
but
identifies the key point that the well
protected d7 is his only weakness.
So he opens the kingside, but this is
also not crystal clear. 1 5 . . . CiJh6 1 6
kIhg 1 iLe7 1 7 g4 fxg4 1 8 ..ixg4 0-0
1 9 jVd3 ! 'it'h8? ! ( 1 9 . . . b5 ! ?) 20 ..if]
(Salov prefers 20 CiJd4, which
indeed looks reasonable although it
is not yet transparent to me where
the axe will fall) 20 . . . CiJf5 2 1 iLe4
b5 22 ..ixf5 exf5 (22 . . . 1:xf5 ? ! 23
CiJd4 1:f8 24 CiJg5 ! ) and again we
have the knight pair doing battle
with Black's bishops. V. Salov­
Nunn, Amsterdam, 1 99 5 . In this
case given a mixture of good
outposts and concrete attacking
threats I fancy their chances. I must
say I find this stylistically a strange
opening choice for the Doctor!
14 . . . CiJe7 15 iLb5 ! ?
This seems to b e a novelty and I
like White ' s idea, even though its
ultimate worth rests upon some
quite intricate and unverified detail.
Note for starters that if 15 . . . CiJc6
16 ..ixc6 jVxc6 she would find
herself a full tempo up on
Moiseenko-Svidler (note ' a ' above) .
1 5 . . . a6 16 jVf4 ! CiJf5 1 7 g4
1 7 . . . CiJh6
Rather a critical moment. It is
definitely a concession to be driven
back to this square, therefore
1 7 . . . axb5 ! ? 1 8 gxf5 f6 is highly
critical to the assessment of White' s
conception. Then 1 9 jVh4?! fxg5 20
jVh5+ 'it'e7 2 1 jVxg5+ <t>f7! seems a
good deal too speculative from
White ' s standpoint as the king
nestles happily enough on g8.
Consequently the more positional
2 ..ttJ e 4 3 .i.f4 c5 413 'iWa5+ 5 c3 t:"tJf6 6 t:"tJd2 53
.
1 9 fxe6 ! dxe6 20 t:"tJe4 "ii'x e5 2 1
'i'xe5 fxe5 22 l:f.hg l - or maybe
even 22 a3 ! ? to prioritise the boxing
in of the black bishops - is
preferable, with perfectly fair
compensation, but not, I would say,
a clear advantage.
18 .i.d3 d6!
There is not much to be done
about h7, and the window of
opportunity to effect this break
could easily be slammed shut if
Black delays.
19 t:"tJxh7 dxe5 20 �g5 .i.b7 2 1
liJd2 Itd8 ? !
Trying
to
muster
some
counterplay with 2 1 . . . b5 ! ? looks
more precise based upon the idea
that 22 �b l ? ! �d8 ! rather frees
Black 's
game.
White
should
probably settle for 22 t:"tJxfS �xfS
23 �b 1 but with this releasing of
the kings ide tension I think she
would enjoy only a slight edge.
22 .i.c2 �d5 ? !
This also does not help, although
e5 is a genuine problem and Black
has no obvious means to free
himself from White ' s rather novel
and very effective bind on the
kingside.
23 t:"tJxf8 !
A correct transformation of
advantages . To save his e-pawn
Black will be forced to throw in the
move . . . f6 and this creates a new
and decisive target in front of his
king.
23 . . . �xf8 24 .te4 f6 25 "ii'g 6
�d7 26 .i.xb7 ? !
A
slight
inaccuracy.
The
immediate 26 g5 ! would have
precluded the following note, while
op ening the f-file is hardly an option
for the defender.
26 . . JlVxb7 27 g5 t:"tJf7? !
Failing
to
seize
the
last
half-chance. 27 . . . t:"tJf5 28 gxf6 (28
t:"tJe4? t:"tJh4 ! ) �h6 ! staves off
immediate disaster, although the
defence is still very unpleasant.
28 t:"tJe4 f5 29 "YWxe6 .l:[xdl + 30
�xd l fxe4 31 l:f.d7 1-0
Even if White ' s system does not
get the ultimate vote on the
theoretical level, it was a very
briskly conducted attack and a good
demonstration of the development
of this
deficit
characteristic
variation really counting.
Game 9
Grigore - Jianu
Bucharest (open ) 200 1
1 d4 t:"tJf6 2 .tg5 t:"tJe4 3 .i.f4 c5 4
f3 � a5+ 5 c3 t:"tJf6 6 t:"tJd2 cxd4 7
t:"tJb3 'iWd8 ! ?
A t first glance this makes a rather
negative impression, at least in the
sense that the preference for this
square over b6 is liable to be made
on the basis of fear of the ending
which arises in Games 1 1 - 1 4 rather
than for the positive virtues of the
queen ' s initial square. Having said
this, both Gallagher and Hodgson
seem a little too dismissive of a
move which has recently enjoyed a
54 2 . . . 4:Je4 3 �f4 c5 4 j3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 4:Jf6 6 4:Jd2
surprising resurgence of interest.
The square dS does have one
positive virtue - White has to be
aware of potential embarrassment
arising from the harassment of his
bishop by . . . 4:Jf6-h5 , and the game
chosen is notable for a particularly
radical response to this resource.
8 cxd4 !
This must be right now. Oddly,
the Trompowsky specialist Igor
Miladinovic tends still to proceed in
'7 . . . 'iVf5 mode ' here with S �xbS?!
l:!xbS 9 'iWxd4 . However, the
justification for this in Game 9 was
the gain of further tempi against
both the black queen and remaining
knight, whereas here Black has
neither of these headaches to
contend with and is well-placed to
answer e4 with . . . d6 further
dark-square
his
emphasising
ascendancy in the centre.
For example, 9 . . . a6 1 0 e4 (The
attempt to grab a pawn with 1 0 'iVa7
"fic7 1 1 e4 e6 1 2 �xa6 Miladinovic-K.Georgiev,
Skopj e
(op) 2002 also backfires. Black
recovers his material with ease and
secures a position with the two
bishops and an unbalanced pawn
structure which gives him good
prospects after 1 2 . . . �d6 1 3 �b5
�xh2 14 4:Je2 b6 1 5 "fixc7 �xc7 1 6
4:Jbd4 'it>e7) 1 0 . . . d6 1 1 f4 g 6 1 2
4:J f3 �g7 1 3 e 5 4:Jd7 1 4 0-0--0 dxe5
1 5 fxe5 "fic7 1 6 i.c4 e6 1 7 l:the l b5
I S i.d3 0-0 1 9 �b l a5 20 i.c2 b4
2 1 cxb4 ':xb4 and Black, since
move ten, has consistently opted for
the most ambitious deployment of
his forces available, and he has got
away with it and enjoys a great
position. That was Miladinovic­
Kolev, Skopje (op), 2002.
8 . . . d5
Definitely the most reliable choice
However,
are
there
here.
alternatives, two of them rather
dubious, but two others sharp,
ambitious and worthy of attention:
a) S . . . g6? ! Joe Gallagher quotes a
game with this move with a view to
suggesting that 7 . . . "fidS "does not
challenge the centre at all", but
recent practice having revealed
resources in the main line, it is
rather against this lifeless fianchetto
that the charge sticks. Strange that
this too still crops up at a high level.
De La Villa - lPolgar, Pamplona
2000 continued 9 e4 i.g7 1 0 4:Je2
0--0 1 1 4:Jc3 d6 12 �e2 a6 1 3 0-0
b5 1 4 a3 4:Jbd7 1 5 "fid2 i.b7 1 6
�e3 e6 1 7 4:Ja2 l:!bS I S 4:Ja5 �aS
19 .l:r.ac 1 'iVb6 when as Alterman
points out, 20 b4 ! would have fixed
the queenside pawn structure to
White' s advantage e.g. 20 . . . l:f.fcS 2 1
4:Jc3 d5 2 2 e5 4:JeS 2 3 4:Jb3±.
b) S . . . e6? ! was a misguided
attempt at improvisation which I
wheeled out some months ago in an
Open tournament in Germany when
caught, I am ashamed to say,
somewhat unprepared for the
Tromp ! My idea was that after 9 e4
d5 I would hope to get a French in
which the bishop on f4 was rather
misplaced and my chances to
undermine White ' s pawn centre
2 .tt'J e4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 'ilVa5+ 5 c3 t'tJf6 6 t'tJd2 55
. .
thus enhanced. The move 10 i.xb8 !
was a rude awakening. After
1 0 . . Jhb8 1 1 e5 liJd7 12 f4 White
has an impressive centre against
which it is unusually difficult to
generate play - Black profoundly
misses the pressure his b8 knight
customarily exerts when it arrives
on c6. This should more than
compensate for the bishop pair.
c) 8 . . . t'tJc6 was recently tested by
Nenad Sulava, a player whose
careful opening preparation has a
sufficient reputation that his choices
almost
automatic
demand
examination. This however looks a
tad too provocative. As so often
with the move . . . t'tJc6 in the i.f4
Tromp, Black has in mind to answer
9 d5 with 9 . . . e5, and in reply to 9
e4 is also intending the related
counterblow 9 . . . e5 1 0 dxe5 t'tJh5 .
The latter does indeed grant Black
some active play after 1 1 i.e3
WUh4+ 12 i.f2 �g5 when White
should probably get on with
development with 1 3 t'tJe2, perhaps
with a slight edge. However, I am
more tempted by 9 d5 ! ? e5 1 0 i.. g 3
i..b4+ 1 1 �f2 and if now
1 1 . . .'ii'b 6+ 1 2 e3 t'tJe7 1 3 i.xe5
t'tJfxd5 14 i.. d4 White 's terrific
square on d4 compensates, as we
have seen in other lines in the
previous chapter, for the slight
inconvenience to his king.
d) 8 . . . a5 ! ? Another attempt to
Sulava to create speedy counterplay
in this line. However after 9 e4 a4
1 0 t'tJd2 a3 1 1 bxa3 e6 Gonzalez De
la Nava-Sulava, Lisbon (op) 200 1 I
would be very comfortable with
White ' s position provided he
ensures against future development­
al log-jams by organising his forces
with 12 i.b5 ! ? intending to meet
1 2 . . .'ii" 6 with 1 3 .l:tb l 'ilVxd4 1 4
t'tJe2 'iVa7 1 5 t'tJc4 and a strong
attack, and otherwise to proceed
systematically with 1 3 t'tJe21 1 4 0-0
and so on. It is not totally clear to
me what Black's opening of files on
the queenside has really achieved in
this case.
9 e3 e6
10 g4 ! ?
A n unusual and radical, but t o my
mind rather attractive if risky
solution to the problems associated
with an early . . . t'tJh5 by Black.
There are of course others :
a) 1 0 i.d3 is perfectly reasonable,
but in common with the other
moves
can
result
in
very
complicated positions. 1 0 . . . t'tJc6 1 1
t'tJe2 i.b4+ 1 2 �f2 and now:
a l ) 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 g4 t'tJd7 1 4 'iVc2
g6 1 5 h4 e5 1 6 dxe5 �dxe5 1 7 a3
i.. d 6 (Kosi6 seems to suggest that
17 . . . i.. e 7 ! ? heading for the f6
square might have been more
prudent) 1 8 h5 .l::t e 8 was D.Kosi6I.Sokolov, Bosnia 200 1 and now
Kosi6 believes that simply 1 9 hxg6
followed by doubling on the h-file
would have given quite a powerful
attack, although I think he would
56 2. J { je4 3 Jif4 c5 4 j3 �a5+ 5 c3 4::Jf6 6 4::J d2
agree that after 1 9 . . . fxg6 throwing
in 20 'iit> g 2 is for tactical reasons a
wise precaution. It is a tense
position, but full of potential for
White.
a2) 1 2 . . . 4::Jh S 1 3 .Jlg3 0-0 1 4 l:tc l
fS I S 4::J c S eS 1 6 dxeS 4::J x g3 1 7
hxg3 4::Jx e5 1 8 a 3 .JlxcS 1 9 l:txcs
with every promise of a solid albeit
not immense positional plus . Zhao
Zong Yuan - Lloyd, Australia (ch),
Melbourne 200 1 . White ' s king
looks so secure here, that I cannot
help wondering if . . . .Jlb4+ is really
worth throwing in at all.
b) 10 l:tc 1 ! ? Hodgson seems to
have a fondness for this move.
10 . . . 4::J c 6 1 1 .JlbS ( 1 1 .td3 4::J h S !
looks OK for Black) 1 1 . . . .Jld7 1 2
4::J e 2 .tb4+ 1 3 � f2 'ilVb6 ( I suppose
Black didn't care too much for
1 3 . . . 4::Jh S 1 4 4::J c S) 1 4 .td3 0-0 I S
g4 ! ? was the move order of
Hodgson-Babula which transposes
to the main game and is considered
below. I mention it here because it
might be quite a viable and less
risky route than 10 g4 . It might also
be that at move I S there are other
viable plans too. What about I S
a3 ! ? .Jle7 1 6 �c2 with 4::J c S to
follow. It will not set the world
alight, but if the main game seems a
little too ' tense ' then it might be a
reasonable risk-free alternative. In
general, the idea of provoking
. . . 4::J c 6 in order to put the bishop on
bS rather than d3 makes quite good
sense to me.
1 0 . . . 4::J e 6 11 !:tel ! ?
I quite like this, especially a s 1 1
.td3 4::Jd 7 ! ? intending a quick . . . e5
might
offer
quite
promising
counterplay. This is of course, one
of the consequences of 1 0 g4 which
demands special care from White.
1 1 . . . .tb4+ 12 'iit> f2 0-0 13 .Jlb5
.Jld7 14 4::J e 2 'iVb6 15 .Jld3
15 . . JIfe8? !
This variation does seem to have
the habit of throwing up extremely
double-edged positions, and every
prospect of a good old kingside
hack.
The strength of White ' s coming
concentration there suggests to me
that a counter-punch in the centre is
more likely to yield a dividend, and
to this end I prefer Babula's
IS . . . .u.fe8 ! ? In the aforementioned
Hodgson-Babula, Bundesliga 2000
play continued 16 a3 ( 1 6 .teS ! ?)
.tf8 1 7 .tgS 'iVd8 1 8 h4 e5 1 9 4::J c 3
.Jle6 ( 1 9 . . . exd4 ! ?) 20 dxeS 4::J x e5
21 .tbS 4::J c 6 22 4::J d4 l:tc8 23 'iVa4
h6 24 .tf4 'iVb6 2S 4::J c e2 .td7 26
b4 a6 27 .txc6 bxc6 and White' s
decision to play o n both sides o f the
board has
led to
immense
complications . Perhaps he should
have tried 28 gS ! ? here since
28 . . . c5 can be met with 29 bxc5
i.xcs 30 'iVb3 ! ? but the whole
business is very tough to assess.
16 h4 a5 1 7 a3 .JlfS 18 h5 ! ? a4
1 9 4::J e 5 .txe5 20 .l:!xe5 'iVxb2 21 g5
4::J e 8 22 1lb5 ! ?
show
White
continues
to
admirable faith in the efficacy of his
2 . ..tije4 3 iLf4 c5 4 13 �a 5 + 5 c3 ti'Jf6 6 ti'Jd2 5 7
kings ide play, given which his
queens ide pawns are viewed as
expendable if time I S gained
thereby. This makes for great
entertainment, and if with the aid of
computer analysis it is possible to
point to question marks over its
1 00% soundness, I am not sure how
tragic that really is.
22 . . .'iVxa3 23 'iVb l QJa5 ? !
I t i s here that I have had trouble
re ally knocking 23 . . . QJd6 ! ? on the
head.
The point is that 24 iLxh7+ 'it;>h8
25 �b6 gives some counterplay
after 25 . . . ti'Jc4 26 �xb7 e5 ! while
25 iLxd6 'iVxd6 26 h6 g6 27 iLxg6
hxg6 28 'iVxg6 'iVe7 is not quite
convincing either. 29 QJf4 ! ? iLe8 3 0
�xb7 ! for example leads t o a very
picturesque draw, but no more. Best
is probably the simple retreat 26
iLd3 in this last line, but though
White still has serious attacking
prospects, there is all to play for.
24 iLxh7+ WfS 25 �b6 ! iLc6 26
iLd3 QJc4 ? ! 27 iLxc4 dxc4 28 h6!
Now it clarifies nicely (from the
Trompowsky player' s standpoint)
into a rout.
28 . . . gxh6
There is nowhere to run.
28 . . . 'it;>g8 29 hxg7 'iVd3 30 �h8+
Wg7 3 1 �h l is even more
devastating.
29 gxh6 'it;>e7 30 �xb7+!
No respite in the centre either.
The rest is fun, but quite
self-explanatory!
30 . . . iLxb7 3 1 'iVxb7+ QJc7 32
iLxc7 'iVb3 33 iLb6+ Wf6 34 d5 e5
35 f4 l:Iab8 36 fxe5+ �xe5 37
'iVe7+ �xd5 38 'iVd7+ 1-0
A very entertaining attacking
game. This line is clearly very
sharp. The notes at move 1 0 should
be carefully scoured by those
seeking a quieter life.
(Non-Repertoire For Illustration Only!)
Game 1 0
Hodgson - Gelfand
Groningen 1 996
1 d4 QJf6 2 iLg5 QJe4 3 iLf4 c5 4
f3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 QJf6 6 QJd2 cxd4 7
QJb3 'iVb6 8 cxd4 ? !
For a long time Julian' s main
preference here, the text is now
rather out of favour. Black has
tended to switch from the rather
static centre which arises from
8 . . . d5 towards more dynamic
approaches which better serve to
utilise the active position of the
queen on b6. Gelfand' s novelty is
the latest and most effective of these
and bolsters my view that this
certainly cannot be included in the
recommended repertoire.
8 . . . QJc6 !
Julian describes this is "one of the
most vicious novelties I have ever
had to face in my chess career".
Boris Gelfand sets out to show that
the . . . ti'Jh5 theme can have a place
58 2. J i Je4 3 �f4 c5 4 13 'iVa5+ 5 c3 etJf6 6 etJd2
with the queen on b6 too. Since this
seems to be ' the latest word ' I will
mention just one other move. Black
needs to play sharply to make a
virtue out of the queen ' s position,
and therefore 8 . . . d5 is essentially
too static. Therefore, prior to
Gelfand ' s inspiration, 8 . . . e6 ! ? had
looked the best e.g. 9 �d2 (9 e3 is
met with 9 . . etJdS ! whilst I suspect
that 9 e4 as ! does not guarantee
White a quiet life either) 9 . . . etJc6 1 0
e 3 as ! 1 1 a4 �b4 1 2 �b5 etJdS 1 3
'iVe2 0-0 1 4 etJh3 d6 1 5 etJg5 e S 1 6
.txb4 etJdxb4 1 7 dxeS and now in
Hodgson-Suetin, Bern (op) 1 99 5
Black simply recaptured with
1 7 . . . dxeS with a pleasant enough
position. Hodgson gives instead
1 7 . . . etJc2+ ! ? 1 8 'ti'xc2 'ti'xe3+ 1 9
'iti>f1 �xgS as leading to severe
problems for White, but after 20
exd6 .tfS 2 1 'iVcS ! I am not
convinced it is so terrible.
9 e4
As so often in similar positions, 9
d5? ! is well met with 9 . . . e5 ! when
the weaknesses created by the pawn
on f3 are brought into brutally sharp
focus . Also 9 e3 d6 ! followed by
. . . e5 looks very dynamic for Black.
9 . . . eS! 10 dxeS �b4+
.
11 �e2 ! ?
Once or twice since, White has
felt moved to repeat this line and try
1 1 .td2, but Black has very easy
equality with 1 1 . . . etJxeS 12 �xb4
'iVxb4+ 1 3 'iVd2 when either
1 3 . . . 'iVxd2+ 1 4 etJxd2 dS ! I S f4
etJc6 1 6 eS etJg4 1 7 etJgf3 f6 with
the idea to meet 1 8 exf6?! with
D .Muse-Jurkovic,
1 8 . . O-O !
Croatia (chT) 1 998, or keeping
middlegame tensions with the
untested 1 3 . . . �e7 ! ? both look very
viable .
1 1 . . . etJxeS !
Cleaner in my opinion than the
complex 1 1 . . . etJhS 1 2 ii.e3 .
1 2 �d4 etJg6! 13 �e3
1 3 �xb6? fails to 1 3 . . . etJxf4+ 1 4
�e3 and a knight fork on d5 .
13 dS! 14 exdS 0-0
Black pursues his initiative with
great vigour, and indeed he should,
because if he loses his momentum it
is still not impossible to arrive at an
endgame with certain weaknesses.
Now however, White should play
I S 'iti>f2 when there seems nothing
better than 1 5 . . J Wxd4 1 6 �xd4
etJxd5 and there is really nothing
between the two sides . That is a
familiar problem with chess. You
can play very well indeed with
Black, but it does not always suffice
for a plus. I S a3 ? ! though, causes a
slight weakness to the b3 square and
grants Black some time to regroup.
How often does the move preceding
a draw offer betray a player' s slight
uneasiness?
IS a3? ! �xd4 16 �xd4 �e7 1 7
'iti> f2 etJxdS 1 8 etJe2 �e6 1 9 etJcS
.
•. •
2 .tiJe4 3 i..f4 c5 413 'tIka5+ 5 c3 'tJf6 6 'tJd2 5 9
. .
This feels like the wrong
ex ch ange in terms of the initiative.
1 9 i.. c 5 ! ? would lose less time.
19 . . . i.. x c5 20 i.. x c5 .l:f.fc8 2 1
.:te l ? ! 'tJe5 22 'tJ d 4 b6 2 3 'tJxe6
fx e6 24 .:tel 'tJxf3 ! 25 gxf3 .:txc5
2 6 .:txe6 Itf8!
It is impressive how a few rather
weak squares, plus the presence of a
bishop of the wrong colour squares
to defend them can add up to
something significant even with
reduced material.
27 .l:f.e4 .l:f.c2+ 28 Wg3 'tJf6 29
l:le2 'tJh5+ 30 �f2 lifc8 3 1 b3 Wf8
32 .l:Igl .l:I8c3 33 .l::!. g5 g6 34 l:.b5
ctJf4 35 .l::!. x c2 .l::!. x c2+ 36 We3 'tJe6
and White has a very difficult task
ahead. To annotate the rest seriously
would not be an efficient use of
limited space. Black commits an
inaccuracy on move 48 which gave
several drawing chances, but in the
' second round' , the queen ending,
Gelfand ' s technique was faultless.
37 i.. c 4 'tJc7 3 8 .l::!. e 5 .l:f.xh2 39 a4
lihl 40 �f4 1Ih4+ 41 We3 l:thl 42
'itf4 as 43 Wg4 l:.gl + 44 �h3 l:.dl
45 f4 �d7 46 1,!e4 �g7 47 �g4 Wf6
48 Wf3 l:i.d6? 49 i.. g 8! h5 50 b4
lid3+ 5 1 Wf2 Itd8 52 lic4 'tJa6 53
J:tc6+ rJii g 7 54 lhb6 'tJxb4 55 .te6
'tJd5 56 .txd5 i.:txd5 57 �e3 h4 58
J:b5 J:xb5 59 axb5 a4 60 b6 a3 61
b7 a2 62 b8='iW al =iV 63 'it>f3
�c3+ 64 Wg2 Wh6 65 'tIkd6 'tIkg3+
66 Whl 'tIkh3+ 67 Wgl �h5 68
�d4 'tIkf5 69 Wg2 'itg4 70 'tIkdl +
�xf4 7 1 'tIkd2+ Wg4 72 'iWdl + Wg5
73 iVd8+ Wh5 74 �h8+ Wg5 75
'tIkd8+ �f6 76 'tIkd2+ Wh5 77 'tIke2+
�h6 78 �h3 �f4 79 Wg2 'i'g3+ 80
�h l 'iVh3+ 81 Wgl 'i'f5 82 �h2 g5
83 'tIke8 'iVf6 84 'tIkc8 'i'f4+ 85 �hl
�h5 86 'tIke8+ Wg4 87 �e6+ 'i'f5
88 'i'c4+ 'itg3 89 �c7+ 'i¥f4 0-1
Game 1 1
Lputian - Mirumian
Ankara (zonal) 1 995
1 d4 'tJf6 2 .tg5 'tJe4 3 i.. f4 c5 4
f3 �a5+ 5 c3 'tJf6 6 'tJd2 cxd4 7
'tJb3 'i'b6 8 'i¥xd4 'i'xd4? ! 9 cxd4
This exchange leads to the same
old structure with which we are
becoming quite well acquainted.
Nonetheless, there is a difference,
and from Black' s point of view, I
don 't like it at all. In essence it
concerns the effect of simplification
on White' s two key developed
minor pieces-the bishop on f4 and
the knight on b3 .
The point is this. In a
middle-game setting, both of these
squares seem to carry some
down-side. As Gelfand demon­
strated most graphically, the bishop
on f4 can easily be vulnerable to a
central break with . . . e5, and it
might also be a target for the simple
. . . 'tJh5 familiar from so many
queen' s pawn openings. The knight
on the quite unusual b3 square can
also suffer if Black can organise
counter-play based on a quick
. . . a5-a4, perhaps in conjunction
with a queen on b6. Without queens
on the board, on the other hand,
both squares start to look a lot
60 2. J i Je4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 'Df6 6 'Dd2
rosier. Assuming Black wants to
contest the centre with the move
. . . d5 the knight suddenly has access
to the c5 square for which in similar
structures (the Exchange Slav for
example) it is often worth
manoeuvring at some length. The
bishop on f4 also looks very good
here and further impedes Black's
attempts to defend his vulnerable
queenside. Lastly, White is simply
free to pursue his space advantage
with much less regard to king
safety. First to the c-file on the
queenside, he can also have realistic
and promising expansionary aspirat­
ions on the other wing.
9 . d5
In a sense it seems a shame to
grant White the c5 square so lightly,
but if Black does not contest the
centre in this way he can expect a
further range of difficulties . Again it
is the c-file which is so significant,
forcing Black to address the
question of how to develop his
queenside sooner than he might
have preferred e.g. 9 . . . d6 1 0 e4
'Dc6 ( 1 0 . . . g6 1 1 lIc U ) 1 1 d5 'De5
12 i.b5+ 'iit d 8 ( 1 2 . . . i.d7 looks like
a lesser evil) 1 3 i.d2 i.d7 14 i.xd7
'Dfxd7 was Degraeve-Lane, Capelle
La Grande 1 994, and now the
simple 1 5 i.c3 ! ? should suffice to
persuade Black not to repeat this
approach.
However, the attempt to reach a
French-style position with the
bishop sitting a little strangely on f4
was perhaps relatively better. In
Lputian-Shipov, Belgrade 1 999
Black played for counterplay with
9 . . . e6 ! ? 10 l:!.c 1 ( 1 0 e4 d5
[ 1 0 . . . 'Dc6 ! ?] 1 1 i.xb8 ! ? l':txb8 1 2
e 5 'Dd7 1 3 f4 i s an interesting
alternative) 1 0 . . . 'Dc6 1 1 e4 d5 1 2
e 5 'Dd7 1 3 i.b5 a 5 1 4 a4 ! 'Da7 1 5
'Dxa5 'Dxb5 1 6 axb5 but after
1 6 . . . 'Db6 1 7 i.d2 Black had little to
show for the pawn. However with
either 1 6 . . . 'Dc5 ! ? 1 7 dxc5 l:Ixa5 1 8
b4 l:txb5 1 9 i.d2 b6 ! 20 cxb6 i.a6
which Hertneck was generous
enough to attribute to his Fritz or
maybe even 1 6 . . . f6 Black would
have secured a share of the dynamic
chances .
1 0 e3 e6 1 1 g4 !
. .
1 1 ... i.b4+
This was suggested as a possible
improvement for B lack following
another beautifully thematic White
win in this line. However, I suspect
that it doesn 't really change the
fundamentals. The oft-quoted game
V.Salov-Akopian, Wijk aan Zee
1 993 is well worth re-visiting
though,
for
White ' s
patient
treatment of his spatial plus . After
1 1 . . .'Dc6 1 2 i.b5 i.d7 1 3 a3 ! �d8
( 1 3 . . . 'De7 ! ? - De la Villa looks like
a better try although the basic
assessment
unaltered.
remains
White should play 14 i.d3 still
enjoying a healthy spatial plus) 1 4
l:tc 1 'De8 1 5 ttJc5 i.xc5 (A trade of
advantages . In exchange for his fine
knight on c5 White wins not just the
bishop pair, but the better half of
Black' s pair) 1 6 �xc5 �e7 17 ttJe2
2. J i je4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 �a5+ 5 c3 0,f6 6 0,d2 61
0,d6 18 i.d3 l:.tac8 1 9 b4 b6 20 lIc3
a5 ? ! 2 1 b5 0,a7 22 a4 .l:txc3 23
0,xc3 l:tc8 24 'it'd2 0,c4+ 25 'iit c 2 f6
26 e4 ! (Encouraged by Black's
threat of . . . g5 this is in any case a
break
central
in
well-timed
principle. Note that in his attempts
to promote queenside play Black
has landed himself with a truly
awful knight on a7, while White ' s
control o f key squares o n the c-file
ensures that he will never face more
than minor inconvenience in this
sphere) 26 . . . dxe4 27 fxe4 0,d6
(Still on the theme of trading
advantages, White is ready to
answer 27 . . . e5 with 28 �b3 ! which
would in all likelihood return the
bishop pair in exchange for a total
domination of the light squares) 28
'i£tb3 0,fl 29 e5 ! (now though it is
on the dark squares that White will
appropriately enough emphasise his
as cendancy) 29 . . . l:th8 3 0 0,e4 h5
3 1 g5 fxg5 32 0,xg5 0,h6 33 i.c l !
0,c8 34 l:tfl h4 3 5 h3 lIg8 3 6 i.h7
l:th8 3 7 i.g6 i. e 8 3 8 i.a3+ 'it>d7 3 9
i.e4 0,e7 40 i.xe7 'i£txe7 4 1 J:t c 1
i.d7 42 l:lc7 'it'd8 43 J:tb7 1 -0 A
sup erb technical display by White, a
model handling of the bishop pair
whic h reduced the defender to utter
pas sivity.
1 2 'it>n rJi;e7 13 lIc1 .i.d6 14
.i.xd6+ rJi;xd6
Black has successfully organised
a different exchange of pieces from
that of dark-squared bishop for
knight which left Akopian in such
an unpleasant predicament in the
last note. However, as we shall see
White still enjoys a powerful pull,
not just on the dark squares. Black' s
king position i s also a serious issue,
and this, along with the passivity of
his pieces, prevents him from
convincingly contesting White ' s
expansion (see the note to Black' s
1 9th i n particular o n this point) .
1 5 0,e2 b6 1 6 g5 0,fd7 1 7 0,c3
a6? !
Of course this is not a decision
that Black makes lightly, (the
weakness created on b6 is much
more than academic ! ) but his desire
to put a stop to 0,b5+ once and for
all is understandable. However, in
view of the developmental log-j am
which we are to witness shortly
there was a case for 1 7 . . . i.a6 ! ? 1 8
e4 ( 1 8 i.b5 ! ? l:tc8 1 9 a4 ! ? is
another valid approach) 1 8 . . . i.xfl
1 9 llhxfl a6 and although Black's
king still looks quite uncomfortable,
the range of the attacker' s tactical
options
has
been
somewhat
62 2 ..tl:Je4 3 iLf4 c5 4 j3 'iVa 5 + 5 c3 t/jf6 6 t/jd2
.
diminished by the reduction of
material . 20 e5+ ! ? is nonetheless an
interesting way to again pose the
key question as to how Black ' s
forces will emerge.
18 iLd3 iLb7
At first sight 1 8 . . . t/jc6 100ks more
natural and 1 9 t/je4+ ! ? �c7 is more
attractive than decisive - 20
1:.xc6+ ! ? �xc6 2 1 .l:i.c 1 + <t£tb7 22
t/jd6+ <t£tb8 23 t/jxfl for example
gives pleasant compensation, but
why offer material when ' normal
means ' can also increase the
pressure? However, 1 9 e4 is again
strong, when if B lack avoids
transposing back into the game with
1 9 . . . iLb7
and
instead
tries
19 . . . dxe4 White can show another
dimension of his initiative with 20
iLxe4 iLb7 2 1 d5 ! t/jb4 22 dxe6
iLxe4 23 exd7 with a clear
advantage. When the centre files are
blasted open, Black' s king position
clearly becomes untenable.
1 9 e4 t/je6
Again 19 . . . dxe4 20 fxe4 e5 which
looks positionally plausible in terms
of the contest for centre squares
fails on the level of common sense
to the simple 2 1 d5 ! The blocked
centre hardly helps Black. His
knights can barely move, let alone
aspire to reach the blockading
square. Note again how the g5 pawn
plays a valuable cramping role.
White' s ability to advance on both
wings really is the crux of his
advantage here.
20 exd5 exd5 2 1 iLf5 !
Simple chess. White turns his
attention to the weak b6 square.
2 1 . . . t/je7?
Losing without a struggle. He had
to try 2 1 . . . t/jf8.
2 2 iLxd7! <t£txd7 23 t/ja4 ! t/je8 24
.l:i.xe8 lIaxe8 25 t/jxb6+ �d6 26
t/jxe8+ iLxe8 27 lIel iLd7 28 t/je5
With a rather simple technical
task, since White has won a pawn
and kept a number of his positional
trumps .
28 . . . h6 29 t/jb7+ �e6 30 l:te7
iLe8 31 g6 fxg6 32 t/je5+ <t£tf6 33
t/jxa6 1-0
Game 1 2
Torre - Svidler
Bad Homburg 1 99 8
1 d 4 t/jf6 2 iL g 5 t/je4 3 iLf4 e5 4
f3 � a5+ 5 c3 t/jf6 6 t/jd2 exd4 7
t/jb3 'iVb6 8 'iVxd4 t/je6! 9 'iVxb6
axb6
This is still the critical position for
the assessment of 6 t/jd2 . As so
often in the Trompowsky we have
arrived at fascinating clash between
static and dynamic elements. On
this occasion though, it is Black
who is looking to prove his dynamic
accepted
having
credentials,
structural weaknesses in exchange
for free development, the half-open
a-file and mobile centre pawns. So
just how weak are the doubled
isolated b-pawns? I think it would
be fair to say that theory is replete
2 . . . !De4 3 iLf4 c5 4 13 'ilVa5+ 5 c3 !Df6 6 !Dd2 63
with examples of White coming to a
sticky end when he tries to attack
and remove them too quickly - on
which level Julian Hodgson' s
p es simistic remark that "Black i s far
too active for White to exploit this
factor" clearly makes some sense.
However, if White concentrates on
trying to catch up with his
development and succeeds in
mobilising his kings ide forces, then
I think Black has to be really quite
careful not to end up in a position
where his initiative is exhausted and
the b-pawns prove to be a static
long-term
embarrassment.
Of
course, he is also interested in trying
to make a virtue out of these pawns,
to advance the front b-pawn in a
strange kind of minority attack for
which the pawn on c3 can prove to
be a target. White' s 1 0th moves will
also be judged according to their
ability to take the sting out of this
intention. I do not know how much
of an impact Julian ' s book had on
the popularity of this line, but he
was clearly feeling exceptionally
bleak about it when he concluded "a
computer program might feel
comfortable playing White after
8 . .'�� c6! but I doubt that too many
humans would enjoy playing the
White side". I note only that a year
later he himself, that most
non-computer like of chess-players,
gave us the superb demonstration of
White ' s resources that is Game 1 3
b elow !
1 0 !Dd4 ! ?
In my opinion this i s clearly the
most promising for White, and for
this reason it is the focus of
attention for the remaining games of
the chapter. Given what I said above
about White ' s need to begin
catching up in the development
stakes, moving the same piece twice
might look like an odd way forward.
However, the move improves a
knight which can otherwise start to
look rather misplaced in the new
structural setting (vulnerable even,
as some of the notes that follow will
suggest) and in addition forces
Black to reckon with the possibility
of !Db5 . It again invites a full
opening of the c-file, an invitation
which once more it seems wise to
politely decline, but in this case the
move also scores in terms of
restraining the b-pawn.
I will cover alternatives in brief,
but only to the extent that they
throw interesting light on the nature
of this complex position.
a) 1 0 e4 has a rather dubious
reputation, and there is obviously
the danger that after 10 . . . d5 ! the
opening of the position will only
emphasise Black' s greater activity.
.
Bad for example is 1 1 exd5 !Dxd5
1 2 iLd2 e5 ! 1 3 a3 (not 1 3 iLb5 iLe6
14 !De2 as 14 . . . !Dc7 ! forces 1 5
iLxc6+ when Black has a glorious
position) 1 3 . . . iLe6 14 c4 !Df6 1 5
iLe3 !Dd7 1 6 lIc 1 !Dc5 1 7 !Dxc5
i.xc5 1 8 iLxc5 bxc5 1 9 !De2 rJ;; e 7
20 !Dc3 lthd8 and Black has
superiority in terms of both piece
placement and structure - Rausis­
Muhutdinov, Moscow, 1 992.
64 2 . . . 'De4 3 .t.j'4 c5 4 13 'i'a5+ 5 c3 'Df6 6 'Dd2
However, White could at least try
1 1 i.e3 ! ? dxe4 1 2 i.xb6 when I do
not see a better move than 1 2 . . . e5
transposing to a line to be
considered under c), which, though
not to my taste for White, is at least
theoretically respectable.
b) 10 a3 ? !
I think Jonathan Rowson would
refer to this move as 'uni­
dimensional ' .
Black has two
principal sources of counterplay the advance of his b6-pawn and his
lead in development. This addresses
the one, but palpably ignores the
other. Black can mobilise his centre
and obtain good play with 1 0 . . . e5 ! ?
( l O. . .d5 1 1 i.xc7 e 5 1 2 i.xb6
amounts to the same thing. In this
case White has the additional option
of 1 1 'Dd4 ! ? but after 1 1 . . . e5 1 2
'Dxc6 exf4 1 3 'Dd4 w e reach the
structure which is critical to the
assessment of Games 1 3 and 1 4 .
Black should b e quite happy t o have
. . . d5 on the board [in my opinion
his play in Game 14 is in principle
' tougher'
than
the
. . . 'Dd5
approaches] and therefore the
question arises as to quite what 1 0
a3 has achieved here) 1 1 i.e3 d5 1 2
i.xb6 d4 ! 1 3 cxd4 i.e6 1 4 d5 ( 1 4
'Dc5 'Dd5 1 5 'Dxe6 fxe6 1 6 i.c5
'Dxd4 17 i.xd4 exd4 1 8 %:te l i.d6
also clearly represented an utter
failure of White ' s strategy. He has
no compensation for his weak dark
squares and the fact that his pieces
have hardly ventured out beyond the
front door. V.Kovacevic-Smirin,
Zagreb (zt) 1 999) 14 . . . 'Dxd5 1 5
i.c5 which was Lesiege-Shaked,
Bermuda 1 997 and now Black
obtained very decent compensation
after 1 5 . . . i.e7 1 6 c;i;>f2 f5 etc, but
Julian seems to be right to point out
that 1 5 . . . 'Da5 ! 1 6 'Dxa5 i.xc5 1 7
'Dxb7 i.e3 1 8 'Dd6+ cj;; e 7 1 9 'Dc4
l::t hb8 giving a second pawn for a
much tighter control of the dark
squares leaves White desperately
tied up.
c) 1 0 i.e3 attempts to cause the
b6-pawn immediate embarrassment,
and is without much doubt the
second most significant choice. Its
drawback is of course that it further
blocks the development of the
White kingside. My view is that
Black has a choice of very
reasonable ideas here, the second of
which is again the advance of the
centre pawns, sacrificing the b6
pawn to emphasise his active forces:
c l ) 10 . . . b5 ! ? 1 1 'Dd4
1 2 a3 [ 1 2 e4 b4 is
comfortable for Black,
liquidates his only
( 1 1 i.d2 e5
also quite
who easily
weakness]
2 . . . lDe4 3 iLf4 c5 4 J3 '1Wa5+ 5 c3 lDf6 6 lDd2 65
1 2 . . . d6 1 3 e4 iLe6 and the poor
knight on b3 will cost White further
time - another argument for 1 0
lDd4 ! ) 1 1 . . . lDdS ( I I . . . lDxd4 1 2
iLxd4 e6 1 3 e4 b4 1 4 iLbS is
sli ghtly better for White according
to Vadim Milov) 1 2 iLf2 lDxd4 ! ?
( 1 2 . . . lDc7 has always been played
here, but it looks a little passive) 1 3
iLxd4 eS ! ? is a radical attempt I
dreamt up some time ago to solve
Black's problems by means of a
different pawn offer. This is based
upon the very direct threats posed
after 14 iLxeS (It seems the offer
pretty much has to be accepted since
if 14 iLf2 b4 ! I S c4 lDc7 followed
by . . . lDe6 and . . . iLcs is an optimal
formation for Black) 1 4 . . . lDe3 I S
'It>f2 ( 1 S llc 1 lDc4 wins back the
pawn with active play) I S . . . lDc2 1 6
l:rc 1 ( 1 6 l:td l .i.cS+ 1 7 iLd4
iLxd4+ ! ? 1 8 cxd4 l:txa2 might be a
safer option, but it does not put
Black
under
any
pressure)
16 . . . iLcS+ 1 7 c;t>g3 lDe3 and
White ' s
king
position
looks
decidedly awkward. So far as I can
see, this well deserves a practical
test from Black.
c2) 1 0 . . . dS 1 1 i.. x b6 eS 1 2 e4 ! ?
(There is quite a widespread feeling
that if White does not thus return the
pawn, there is a very real risk that
his pieces might be murdered in
their beds. Some Canadian players
seem to have started to look at 1 2
.i.f2 but after 1 2 . . . d4 1 3 e4 .i.e6 1 4
lDd2 .i.cs ( 1 4 . . . dxc3 I S bxc3 l:txa2
is less ambitious, but also looks
sufficient) I S a4 0-0-0 1 6 lDc4
i.. a7 White has trouble putting any
more pressure on d4 to challenge
B lack' s dark square bind. E.Lawson
- Gormally, Hastings Challengers
2003 . 1 2 . . . i.. e 6 (if 1 2 . . . dxe4 then
1 3 iLc4 is supposed to be good) 1 3
i.. b S ( 1 3 exdS? ! lDxdS 1 4 iLcs
lDxc3 I S i.. x fS l:!xfS 1 6 lDcs lDd4 ! )
1 3 . . . dxe4 ( I am also quite in
sympathy with 1 3 . . . lDd7 ! ? 1 4 iLf2
dxe4 ! I S lDd2 exf3 1 6 lDgxf3 iLe7,
when I am not sure what headway
White can make if Black follows up
with . . . f6, while even the more
ambitious . . . fS and . . . e4 might be
possible too) 1 4 lDcs ( 1 4 lDaS iLd7 !
I S lDc4 l:rc8 leaves White ' s forces
looking a little tangled) 14 . . . iLxcs
I S i.. x cs :'xa2 16 ':xa2 iLxa2 and
now if 1 7 .i.d6 �d8 ! ? 1 8 iLxc6
bxc6 1 9 iLxeS lDd7 20 iLd4 cS
looks fine for Black, while after the
1 7 lDh3 of Berend-Polzin, European
Club Cup, Panormo 200 1 1 7 . . . lDd7
was sufficient, but I am also not
sure what White has after simply
17 . . . exf3 1 8 gxf3 iLdS 1 9 �f2 lDd7
20 .I:.a l lDd8 2 1 .i.d6 f6 when there
are a lot of good things about the
Black position once he succeeds in
freeing himself.
l O l:!a5 ? !
The best move is almost certainly
10 . . . eS (see Games 14 and I S) .
Still, this does involve a further
compromising of Black's pawn
structure and the search for
alternatives is understandable. The
text move aims at stopping lDbS and
threatening a more ' aesthetic'
version of . . . eS.
Other tries in brief:
. . .
66 2 . ..tiJe4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 fia 5 + 5 c3 t"iJf6 6 t"iJd2
a) If 1 0 . . . t"iJdS ? ! then 1 1 t"iJbS ! is
strong. There can hardly be any
plausible exchange sacrifices since
the doubled pawns ensure an easy
route back out from the comer.
Rausis-l.Ivanov, Riga 1 993 was
striking as after 1 1 . . . J:f.a4 (If
1 1 . . . eS? 12 e4 ! is very strong, while
1 1 . . .J:f.aS ? ! 1 2 t"iJc7+ t"iJxc7 1 3
i.xc7 eS 1 4 e3 is a case where the
b-pawn grab comes with no real
drawbacks) 1 2 .i.d2 t"iJaS White
played the very calm and very
strong 1 3 O-O-O ! and had a
wonderful position very quickly
after 1 3 . . . d6 14 e4 t"iJf6 I S �b 1
t"iJc4 1 6 i.c l t"iJeS 1 7 .i.e3 . Of
course it is 1 3 . . . ::'xa2 which is
critical to the assessment, but 1 4
�b l I:ta4 I S e4 d6 1 6 b4 ! t"iJb3 ! ? 1 7
i.gS ! just wins since the tricks are
exhausted and the b3 knight remains
trapped.
b) 1 0 . . . t"iJxd4 1 1 cxd4 leads to a
similar open c-file structure to those
of which we have already seen a
good deal. This, although the
doubled b-pawns are in themselves
no great target, looks like another
fairly good version for White.
1 1 . . . dS 1 2 e3 ! (I think Gallagher is
right to claim that White should not
get involved in the greedy 1 2 i.c7?!
e6 13 i.xb6 �d7 ! e.g. 1 4 .i.cs
i.xcs I S dxcS �c6 ! 16 b4 d4 ! ? and
there are good prospects that
White ' s pieces are going to continue
to get familiar with their starting
squares for a while yet) 1 2 . . . i.d7
1 3 i.d3 i.c6 1 4 t"iJe2 e6 I S �d2
�d7 1 6 a3 i.d6 1 7 b4 .i.xf4 1 8 exf4
�d6 1 9 t"iJc3 l:thc8 20 a4 t"iJe8 2 1 h4
h6 22 g4 .i.d7 23 hS �e7 24 .!:the l
�f8 2S fS and whilst I would not
deny that the defence could have
been improved, we again have the
welcome sight in this line of White
prosecuting his initiative on all
fronts. Timman-Rochev, Kilkenny
1 999.
11 t"iJb3 .!:ta8 1 2 t"iJd4 J::!. a 5 13 b4 !
After a little orientating repetition,
White hits on the right plan. Again
the move t"iJbS will be strong
enough to outweigh any queenside
weakness this creates.
1 3 .. J!a4
If 1 3 . . . t"iJxd4 1 4 cxd4 .!:ta8
(forced, since otherwise the c-file
and the bishop on c8 become an
issue) then simply I S e4 e6 16 .i.d2
results in a very pleasant position
for White.
1 4 t"iJb5 g6 1 5 e4 .i.g7 1 6 t"iJe7+!
WfS
Neither does 16 . . . 'iii' d 8 17 t"iJbS
t"iJhS ! ? 1 8 .i.c7+ 'iii' e 8 suffice for
Black. The simplest is probably 1 9
l:rd l ! ?
intending
to
answer
1 9 . . . 'uxa2 with 20 g4 t"iJf6 2 1 .i.c4
with tremendous play. White has a
lot of leeway as a result of his
knight' s almost untouchable status
on b S .
1 7 i.b5 .l:.a3 1 8 t"iJe2 t"iJ h 5 1 9
i.el ! ':'xe3
Even if Black foresees the fate of
his rook he really has to try this
otherwise White simply has a tight
structure and much the better pieces.
20 i.b2 ':'e2 21 i.xg7+ �xg7 22
t"iJd5 e6 23 t"iJe3 .l:.b2 24 a3 !
2. J i Je4 3 iLf4 c5 413 iVa 5+ 5 c3 CiJf6 6 CiJd2 6 7
How the mighty are fallen. After
m aking more than a third of his
mo ves so far, it becomes clear that
the active rook has been lured into
an elaborate trap, and that White has
cle verly exchanged off the only
piece which either supported the
counterplay, or could have come to
its assistance. Of course Black can
extract some concessions as a price
for the exchange, and his knights
find some squares, but the
remainder of his forces and his
weakened structure strongly suggest
that this will not be enough.
24 . . . d5!
A better try than 24 . . . CiJe5 25
0-0-0 lIb3 26 CiJc2 ! and the rook is
not long for this world.
25 CiJd1
De la Villa suggests 25 exd5 ! ?
exd5 first and only then 2 6 CiJd 1 . I
think he is probably right, although
it is not so trivial a task to neutralise
the extra initiative this grants Black
after 26 . . . lIxe2+ 27 iLxe2 CiJf4 28
i.. fl .l:.e8+ 29 �f2 (29 �d2 ! )
2 9 . . . d4 when White, although he
must stand better, still has to show
how the rest of his pieces will come
into play.
25 .. .lbe2+ 26 iLxe2 CiJd4 27
tLJe3 CiJf4 28 iLfl dxe4 29 fxe4 e5
30 g3 CiJfe6 3 1 0-0-0 b5
Black has done a good job of
minimising his difficulties . His
knights are well placed, and his
b-pawns now look less of a problem
than the White e-pawn.
32 Wb2 iLd7 33 i.. h 3 iLe6 34
i.. x e6 CiJxe6 35 CiJd5 CiJd4 36 lIhel
h5 37 h4 .l:.e8 38 CiJe3 lIe6 39 lIn
f5
Is it now Black playing for more
than the draw? I do not really see a
clear breakthrough plan for White in
any case.
40 .l:.de1 Wf6 4 1 �e3 �e7 42
�fe1 fxe4 43 CiJxe4 iLxe4 44 lIxe4
�d6 45 �e3 �d5 46 �d3 CiJf5 47
J:!.c1 b6 48 'u'e8 CiJxg3 49 �d8+ We6
50 �e1 e4+ 51 �e3 CiJf5+ 52 �f4
e3 53 lIel + Wb7 54 �d7+ �b8 55
.l:.d8+
The draw is now inevitable.
Black' s e-pawn is too dangerous for
White to play for a win, while any
. . . �a6?? begets instant punishment
with mate along the 7th rank.
55 ... �b7 56 lId7+ Wb8 57 �g5
e2 58 lId8+ �b7 59 �d7+ Wb8 60
lId8+ �b7 YZ-YZ
Game 1 3
Hodgson - Sutovsky
Vikings, York 1 999
1 d4 CiJf6 2 iLg5 CiJe4 3 iLf4 e5 4
f3 iVa5+ 5 e3 CiJf6 6 CiJd2 exd4 7
CiJb3 iVb6 8 iVxd4 CiJe6! 9 iVxb6
axb6 10 CiJd4 e5! 1 1 CiJxe6
1 1 ... exf4
It is clear that the further
structural concessions that Black is
making are far from trivial either.
Still, the prize of the dark squares,
and the apparently gaping hole on
68 2 ..tiJe4 3 �f4 c5 4 f3 �a5 + 5 c3 tiJf6 6 tiJd2
.
e3 in particular, look at first sight to
represent substantial compensation.
there
another
is
However,
possibility here, the pawn sacrifice
1 1 . . . dxc6 ! ? which hit prominence at
home when Mark Hebden used it to
defeat Tony Miles in the British
Championship in 2000. When I first
saw this, I found it scarcely credible
that Black's extra development
could provide sufficient play, but
White does need to take the
inconvenience to his king seriously,
and the extra punch with which
Black's 'minority attack' tends to
arrive. After 1 2 �xe5 �e6 ( 1 2 . . . b5
gave White more respite and the
opportunity to return the pawn with
interest after 1 3 e4 .Jie6 14 �d3 ! ?
tiJd7 1 5 .Jid4 �xa2 1 6 �xa2 �xa2
1 7 'it'f2 .Jic4 1 8 �c2 �c5 1 9 b3
�e6 20 tiJe2 when he will be first to
the a-file and has rather the better
chances Collier-Ahn, European
Club Cup, Halkidiki 2002)
White has:
a) 13 e4 a less effective attempt to
return the pawn since after
1 3 . . ..lha2 1 4 l:!.xa2 �xa2 1 5 tiJh3
tiJd7 16 �d4 f6 1 7 �e2 �d6 1 8
'iit d2 �e6 1 9 tiJf2 'iit e 7 20 tiJd3 J:Ia8
Black has gained time by omitting
. . . b5, is first to the key file and
White has nothing. Marzolo-Pujos,
French (ch), Marseilles 200 1 .
b) 1 3 a3 b 5 1 4 e4 b4 1 5 cxb4
�xb4+ 1 6 'it'f2 �c5+ 1 7 'iit e l
�b4+ 1 8 'iit e 2 �a5 ! ? 1 9 tiJh3 .Jib3
20 tiJf4 0-0-0 2 1 �c3 �b6 22 'it'e 1
l:!.he8 23 .Jie2 tiJxe4 24 fxe4 l:!.xe4
25 g3 g5 26 �f6 l:!.g8 ! was
Miles-Hebden,
British
(ch),
Millfield, 2000 when Black is
winning back his material with a
tremendous initiative. There are
various places where possible
improvements suggest themselves.
De la Villa has his eye on
king-safety and wonders about 1 4
e3 ! ? but h e admits that flicking in
14 . . . tiJd7 here is irritating since
there is no safe retreat to d4 in
answer. Later on 1 9 J:Ic I ! ? and 20
�c3 or if 1 9 . . . 0-0-0 then perhaps
20 b4 might be possible. Also, what
of 1 9 b4 �b6 20 'it'd2 ! ? 0-0-0 2 1
We I followed by 2 2 tiJe2 . In all of
these cases I realise that Black has
some play for the pawn, but while
the compensation can prove a l ittle
insidious, it is at this stage not
obvious that it suffices.
c) 13 �d4 ! ? another suggestion
from De la Villa. His intention is
that after 13 . . . b5 14 a3 b4 1 5 cxb4
�xb4+ 1 6 'iit f2 White ' s king should
be shielded from danger in
comparison with 'b' below . The
only practical test so far did not
work out so well after 16 . . . 0-0 1 7
e4 .l:tfd8 1 8 �e3 ? ! �d2 1 9 tiJe2
lId3 20 �xd2 .l:txd2 2 1 b4 �c4
when Black was very active in
Elguezabal Varela - Fernandez
Garcia, Spain 200 1 , but 1 8 ltJe2 ! ?
looks better. White ' s development is
still an issue, but the idea certainly
looks worth further consideration.
12 tiJd4
2 . . .ciJ e4 3 iLf4 c5 4 j3 'it'a5+ 5 c3 CiJf6 6 CiJd2 69
entire strategy in need of some
repair given the very elegant
treatment that we are about to
witness. Only in line ' b ' below to
my mind is White ' s advantage still
to any degree in question:
The other is 12 . . . CiJdS which is
probably best met with 13 g3 ! ( 1 3
e4 ! ? i s also interesting, but perhaps
less effective in the case of
13 . . . CiJe3 ! ? with the bishop not yet
committed to cS) and now:
Quite possibly the critical position
for the assessment of 1 0 CiJd4, and
perhaps therefore for the entire
chapter. The players have done
wonderfully well at producing
imbalance. Black has only two
pawns which are neither doubled
nor isolated. The b-pawns have been
effectively immobilised for the
moment, and the isolated d-pawn
can prove a very serious liability in
the context of these other structural
defects . However, the advanced
f-pawn is quite another matter. It
spearheads Black' s compensation
which consists primarily in the
restraint
of
natural
White ' s
development, the distinctly shaky e3
square and chances to utilise the
bishop pair to emphasise more
general potential difficulties on the
dark squares. The position carries a
few nuances too. As a warning to
Black I would say that the evidence
suggests subtlety is the order of the
day. An excessively direct approach
backfires. Indeed I am rather
persuaded that 1 2 . . . dS ! ? - the
subject of Game 14 - might be
Black' s best move here.
1 2 iLc5
This I would classify as one of the
two moves which are quite brazen
in their desire to exploit the e3
s quare, and which represent an
. . .
a) 1 3 . . . gS ? ! is too ambitious .
White has too many options for
trying to break the bind over e3 for
such a direct approach to succeed. It
was powerfully met by 14 e4 ! CiJe3
( 1 4 . . . fxe3 I S iLc4 is worse than in
the main game to approximately the
degree that . . . gS is an ugly
weakness) I S iLbS ! ? iLg7 16 CiJge2
�f8
17 �d2 and to have
compensation for such structural
difiiculties Black would need
dangerous and direct threats, which
he has clearly failed to generate.
Soffer-Mikhalevski, Israel (ch), Tel
Aviv, 1 994 and an important
forerunner of Julian' s play in the
main game.
b) 1 3 . . . iLcS ! ? 1 4 gxf4 CiJe3 I S
�d2 CiJxfl + 1 6 nxfl ':'xa2 1 7 �c2
d6 1 8 e3 ! ? (I once played 1 8 e4
here, but the text keeps an even
70 2. J i Je4 3 iLf4 c5 413 'iVa5+ 5 c3 tDf6 6 tDd2
more solid grip on the key d4
square) 1 8 . . . �d7 1 9 tDge2 r:3;; e 7 20
�a l Itha8 2 1 ':xa2 �xa2 22 llg l
and although it is still a tough fight,
I rather prefer the knight pair here.
Berkes-Sevo, Paks 1 99 8 .
14 e4 !
A fine extension of the ' Soffer
idea ' above. Not even the weakness
caused by the move . . . g5 is required
to justify the idea, so long as White
is in time to control the d5 square.
1 4 . . . fxe3 I S iLc4 tDc7
It looks at first sight tougher to try
1 5 . . . tDb4 ! ? still looking to tactics to
mask
his
various
positional
difficulties . However, after 1 6 cxb4 !
iLxd4 1 7 0-0-0 iLf6 ! (not 1 7 . . . b 5 ? !
1 8 �xd4 bxc4 1 9 a3 0 - 0 20 tDf4 and
2 1 .l:!.he 1 with tremendous control of
key squares) 1 8 tDf4 ! (otherwise a
well timed . . . d5 really confuses the
issue) 1 8 . . . iLg5 1 9 �d4 ! (note on
how many squares White' s pieces
enjoy virtually untouchable status
by virtue of Black's many damaged
pawns) 1 9 . . . 0-0 20 h4 iLh6 2 1 g4 !
White should recover his pawn with
an excellent position.
16 tDf4 ! 0-0
It might seem tempting to try to
disturb White ' s pawns a little too
with 1 6 . . . iLxd4 1 7 cxd4, but after
for example 1 7 . . . g5 ! ? (otherwise
just 1 8 'iit e 2 and :thc 1 will be very
awkward) 1 8 tDd5 tDxd5 1 9 iLxd5
f5 20 f4 ! Black' s position remains a
grand collection of weaknesses.
1 7 0-0-0 bS!
The best try. Black ensures the
exchange of some of his less healthy
pawns, although the resulting
ending is still clearly in White' s
favour.
18 tDxbS tDxbS 19 iLxbS .l:!.xa2
20 r:3;;b l l:ta7 21 iLxd7 bS 22 iLxc8
.l:txc8
Black will experience problems
with his e3 and b5 pawns even with
the reduced material. It is interesting
to watch how the lack of any real
contest on the light squares enables
White to go about exploiting this in
a very unhurried manner.
23 ':dS llb7 24 .l:!.hdl g6 2S
Itd8+ �xd8 26 ':xd8+ r:3;; g 7 27 .l:!.dS
iLa7 28 'iit c 2 'iit f6 29 'iit d3 gS? ! 30
tDe2 h6 31 tDd4 b4 32 c4 iLb8 33
g3
It is effectively all over. The e3
pawn is dropping and Black has
next to no counterplay whatsoever.
From Julian, both a notable opening
idea and a ruthless technical
conversion.
33 . . Jle7 34 r:3;; e 2 .l:.c7 3S l:td6+
'iit e S 36 �dS+ 'itt f6 37 b3 1:[a7 38
tDc6 .l:.a2+ 39 r:3;; x e3 iLc7 40 .l:!.d2
iLb6+ 41 'it>e2 1:1.a3 42 tDxb4 i.gl
43 r:3;; n i.cs 44 tDdS+ r:3;; e S 4S b4
iLf8 46 �e2+ 'iit fS 47 r:3;; g 2 lld3 48
h4 Itd4 49 hS g4 SO f4 1-0
2 . . . CD e4 3 i.f4 c5 4 j3 li'a5+ 5 c3 CDf6 6 CDd2 71
Game 1 4
Rogers Ftacnik
(rapid match) Znojmo 1 999
-
1 d4 CDf6 2 i.g5 CDe4 3 i.f4 c5 4
13 li'a5+ 5 c3 CDf6 6 CDd2 cxd4 7
CDb3 �6 8 �xd4 CDc6 9 �xb6
axb6 10 CDd4 e5 1 1 CDxc6 exf4 1 2
CDd4 d5 ! ?
The more modest and realistic of
Black' s 1 2th move options. He
prevents CDh3 and keeps his options
open as to the best square for his
dark-squared bishop. Note for
example that the option . . . i.d6 is
more likely to raise questions about
the strength of the freeing move g3
which emerged rather unscathed
from Game 1 3 .
One alternative which can lead to
related play is 1 2 . . . g6? ! 1 3 g3 ! i.d6
14 CDbS i.eS I S gxf4 i.xf4 1 6 e3
similar to Turner-Ftacnik below,
except for a suspicion that . . . g6 has
been revealed as little more than a
tempo loss.
1 3 e3 ! ?
This i s a moment o f fundamental
decision for White. The text move
aims at the cleanest structural
contrast - 3v3 on the kingside, and
White' s sound queenside pawns
pitted against Black's various
weaknesses. The drawback is that
after . . . fxe3 , this pawn is almost
bound to need to be recovered by
the king, not necessarily a safe task
given open diagonals, the e-file and
other dangers. There is also a
concern that the time spent safely
regaining the pawn might afford
Black the chance to initiate some
counterplay, the b-pawn advance
again being one of the most
plausible.
Incidentally De la Villa suggests
that there might be a case for
preparation of the e3 idea by first
playing 1 3 'itt f2 ! ? One point would
be in response to 1 3 . . . i.cS , to keep
the option open of playing 14 g3 ! ?
This has not been tested, but I am
inclined to wonder whether Black
should not seize the moment to play
1 4 . . . bS ! ? since 1 5 gxf4 b4 1 6 e3
bxc3 1 7 bxc3 i.d7 might be decent
compensation for a pawn. Again
this serves to reintroduce into the
discussion the importance of this
. . . b5-b4 idea.
The main alternative is to head for
a more obscure structure by
exchanging the g-pawn for B lack's
front f-pawn. This also deserves
attention, for example 1 3 g3 ! ? i.d6
14 CDb5 (or 1 4 'it'f2 ! ? h5 ! ? 1 5 gxf4
i.xf4 when 1 6 h4 0-0 1 7 e3 i.h6
seemed to be OK for Black, since
the bishop sits fairly happily on h6,
preparing to embarrass the e3 pawn
- Liang Chong-Stellwagen, Wijk
aan Zee (op) 200 1 . However, why
not immediately 1 6 e3 ! ? and if
16 . . . i.h6 1 7 i.b5+ White has
gained time over the game in the
event of 1 7 . . . 'it'd8, while against
1 7 . . . i.d7, exchanging bishops and
occupying f5 looks a reasonable
plan) 14 . . . i.eS 15 gxf4 i.xf4 1 6 e3
i.e5 1 7 i.h3 i.e6 ! It is important to
encourage the dragging of pawn
support to the d-pawn in this way,
72 2 Ci'Je4 3 iLf4 c5 4 13 'ifa5+ 5 c3 Ci'Jf6 6 Ci'Jd2
. . .
otheIWise the reduction in material
will favour White, and the exchange
of light-squared bishops highlights
further weakened squares. 1 8 iLxe6
fxe6 19 f4 ! ? iLb8 20 Ci'Jf] �d7 ? ! 2 1
Mg l g6 2 2 a 3 Me8 2 3 0-0-0 e 5 24
fxe5 iLxe5 . We have been following
Tumer-Ftacnik, Hastings Premier
2000 in which I think White could
now have created some quite testing
problems with 25 Mgfl ! iLd6 and
now 26 Ci'Jd2 is solid, perhaps
meeting 26 . . . iLe7 with 27 Ci'Jc4 .
However, it may already be possible
to strike with 26 e4 ! ? iLf4+
(26 . . . Mxe4 27 Ci'Jxd6 �xd6 28 Ci'Jg5
also favours White) 27 �b l Mxe4
28 Ci'Jd2 iLxd2 29 Mxf6 with
enduring pressure.
However, I also do not much like
20 . . . �d7? ! . lt seems more logical
to me to play 20 . . . O-O ! ?, which
gains a tempo, and maybe more, by
keeping an eye on the g7 pawn.
White probably has to switch plans
in this case since 2 1 a3 Ci'Je4 ! ? 22
Mg l ? ! e5 ! would give Black active
counterchances. In general pros­
pects seem well balanced in this
case.
1 3 . . . fxe3 14 �e2
14 ... iLd6
This looks slightly strange to me.
lt feels like the bishop should make
more impact on c5, where the pin
can gain time to pursue other plans.
14 . . . iLc5 ! ? 15 �xe3 and now :
a) 1 5 . . . 0-0 is perhaps best
answered by 1 6 iLd3 ! ? iLd7 (or
1 6 . . . Ci'Jd7 1 7 Ci'Jge2 Ci'Je5 1 8 b3 and
the presence of light-squared
bishops clearly favours White) 1 7
�d2 ! when I prefer White. D e la
Villa draws attention to the
instructive game BOIWell-Glaser,
corr. 1 994, which went instead 1 6
iLb5 iLd7 1 7 iLxd7 Ci'Jxd7 1 8 Ci'Jge2
Ci'Je5 1 9 b3 but this seems to merely
encourage Black's counterplay as
1 9 . . . Ma3 ! 20 Ci'Jf4 Me8 2 1 �f2 Ci'Jc6
22 Mhd 1 g5 ! ? 23 Ci'Jh5 Me6 resulted
in an early draw. lt is increasingly
clear that the question of who
benefits from an exchange of
light-squared bishops is both
from
and
significant,
far
straightfoIWard. Whilst often the
effect is to free up squares for the
white knights, here it was Black's
this
which
and
benefited,
encouraged the creation of a
weakness sufficient to hold the
balance.
b) 1 5 . . . iLd7 ! therefore looks to be
a more consistent execution of the
'minority attack' idea. Although
White got an edge in the game
Chakov-Kir. Georgiev, Bulgaria (ch)
2 . ..ti:Je4 3 �f4 c5 4 J3 'iVa5+ 5 c3 ctJf6 6 ctJd2 73
1 995 after 1 6 �d3 b5 ! 1 7 ctJge2 b4
I S cxb4 iLxb4 1 9 l:f.hc 1 0-0 20 �c7
l:tfe S+ 2 1 'it'f2 l':.abS 22 l:td 1 iLa5 23
l:tc2 �b6 24 Wfl l:taS 25 a3 .l:tedS
26 �b5 ! iLcs 27 ctJc3 it feels that
Black should have been quite OK
somewhere in there, perhaps with
2 1 . . . b6 ! ? and . . . iLc5 . In any case
though, from a certain perspective it
is encouraging that Black can
dissolve one of his key weaknesses,
thereby further activating his
bishops, but the White position is
still quite playable.
1 5 �xe3 0-0 1 6 'itJf2
I find this a bit passive. 16 iLb5 ! ?
i.d7 1 7 ctJge2 looks worth a try.
16 . . . iLd7 17 iLd3 iLc6 18 ctJge2
tbd7 19 a3 ctJe5 20 l:.adl .l:tfe8 2 1
g3 g6
An useful moment to take stock,
if only because both sides have
made a series of very plausible
moves, and Black has shown a
willingness to simply 'play the
position ' rather than trying to force
some early freeing manoeuvre.
Also, White needs to find a plan
here, but in the game the move
chosen lost control and ceded Black
far too much counterplay.
22 ctJf4 iLc5 23 �g2 iLxd4 24
cxd4 ctJxd3 25 .l:txd3 g5 26 tbh5
l:.e2+ 27 �h3 f5 28 f4 h6 29 g4
fxg4+ 30 �xg4 gxf4 3 1 ctJxf4 l:te4
32 'itJg3 'itJh7 33 J:.f3 l:i.xd4 34 ctJd3
l:tg8+ 35 �f2 .l:!.dg4 36 l:i.g3 d4 37
l1hgl .l:tf8+ 38 �e2 .l:te8+ 39 �d2
l:.xg3 40 .l:!.xg3 f!e4 4 1 tbf2 l:tf4 42
tbg4 h5 43 tbe5 .l:tf2+ 44 �d3
l:.xh2 45 'it'xd4 l:i.xb2 46 ctJg6 l:[f2
47 ctJe5 .l:tf4+ 48 Wc3 h4 49 .l:tg5
�h6 50 .l:tg6+ �h5 51 J:tg7 1:I.f5 52
l:i.h7+ 'it'g5 53 tbc4 .l:tf3+ 54 �d2
h3 55 ctJe5 J:.g3 56 .l:tg7+ Wf4 57
ctJd3+ .l:txd3+ 58 �xd3 h2 Yz-Yz
Chapter 3
-
Conclusion
As a practitioner (hitherto ! ) of the
' attacking ' repertoire in the case of
3 . . . c5, I have to say that I am
pleasantly surprised about how
attractive much of the material of
this chapter actually looks. The
early deviations for Black 7 . . . 'iVf5
and 7 . . . 'tlV dS are both quite
interesting, but neither look likely to
suffice for real equality. The former
in particular gives White a broad
and pleasant choice. 1 3 ctJf2 ! ? for
example, slightly hidden in the
notes certainly might repay a visit.
Game 10 fully deserves to be
'non-repertoire ' - S cxd4 seems to
be effectively dead - but I am
giving the S 'tlVxd4 ! endings a much
cleaner bill of health than Julian
afforded them in his book. Of
course S . . ctJc6 is critical, and
alternatives to 1 0 ctJd4 ! seem to be
asking for trouble, but sticking to
the main lines of the repertoire
looks promising. Black's best set-up
is to be found in Game 1 4 . Pay
especial attention to his attempts to
play a quick . . . b5. However, this is
a part of the book where the
theoretical status of the ' solid
repertoire '
is
overall
quite
encouragmg.
.
Chapter 4
2 'De4 3 �f4 d5
Introduction and the Attacking
Repertoire with 4 f3
-
Throughout much of the book, I
have tried so far as possible to guide
the reader by offering sets of
alternatives categorised according to
their ' sharpness ' . Out there in the
hurly-burly of over-the-board chess,
of course, the opponent gets to
make a few choices too. This 3rd
move decision is a significant one.
If we were in tum to categorise
Black's responses into ' solid' and
' attacking ' then there would be little
doubt here. 3 . . . d5 is the safe move,
aimed primarily at frustrating
White ' s rather classical intention of
occupying the centre with pawns.
This is the light-square approach,
and with his knight already
occupying e4 there is really no time
to control this square with pieces.
Therefore if Black wants to control
e4 it must be with pawns. In other
words, there is no reasonable
' Queens-Indian-style '
approach,
hence the ' Queen ' s Gambit-style '
text.
. . .
In keeping with this solid image,
it seems likely that the play will be
less forcing than that seen in the
previous chapter. The key question
is: How can White best exploit the
position of Black's knight on e4?
There are broadly three possible
approaches:
a) 4 liJd2, seeking to exchange the
piece off, aims at rather modest
gains in terms of development and
possible queenside play. This was
once considered a main line, but
was none too exciting at the best of
times and is now under something
of a cloud due to the sharp reply
4 . . . c 5 . I will give one game in this
line for illustrative purposes, but it
will not form part of the
recommended repertoire.
b) 4 f3 ! ? declares that White still
regards the direct battle for the e4
square very much alive. After the
standard 4 . . . liJf6 White can proceed
with two approaches 5 liJc3 and 5
e4 ! ? The latter is the ultra-sharp
gambit treatment, which can result,
if Black accepts, in positions similar
to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
with the difference that White
enjoys the extra tempo i.f4 . This is
perhaps not the ideal square (the
bishop would normally prefer g5 in
a perfect world) and probably not
the ideal gambit either ( ! ), but with
this extra move the positions are
very interesting and unclear, and for
the attacking-minded I certainly
2 CDe4 3 ..if4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 75
. . .
intend to give a detailed enough
treatment of this possibility. On one
p oint I am in no doubt. 5 e4 ! ? is the
crit ical attacking choice, not just
because it might be fun if Black
takes up the challenge, but for the
concrete theoretical reason that the
kind of French positions which tend
to ensue when Black declines are
hugely more promising for White if
his knight is not yet committed to
c3 . This view is not entirely
universal perhaps, but with the
evidence from Game 1 9 the
argument seems a very powerful
one indeed.
c) 4 e3 ! ? is the move I will be
recommending for less reckless
souls and the one I have played
myself in practice. As a move, it
looks far from startling of course,
but as part of a wider plan to
' attack' the e4 knight with pieces it
packs a surprising amount of punch.
This is really the discovery of the
last 5 years or so, and has in my
view played one of the most
significant contributions in re­
energising the entire Trompowsky.
This is the subject of Chapter 5 .
a public service ! Perhaps it is not
just the obj ective merits of the thing,
but the feeling that if even such a
solid move does not guarantee
White a quiet life there must be
something wrong. My lack of
enthusiasm for 4 CDd2 goes
somewhat
deeper
though.
I
understand that some players of the
White pieces like to use the
advantage of the first move not to
achieve anything concrete, but just
to ease the task of reaching some
sort of a playable position, and I am
not
intrinsically
unsympathetic
towards this. However the kind of
positions which White is aiming for,
which most typically materialise
against the main alternative 4 . . . ..if5
(4 . . . CDxd2 is similar) strike me as
just a bit too sterile e.g. 5 e3 CDxd2 6
Wixd2 e6 7 CDf3 CDd7 8 c4 dxc4 ! 9
..ixc4
CDb6 (this simplifiying
manouevre is worth remembering.
The liquidation counts against the
d4/f4 formation serving to keep
Black cramped) 1 0 ..id3 CDd5 1 1
0-0 ..ixd3 1 2 �xd3 CDxf4 1 3 exf4
Wid5 1 4 �fe l ..id6 1 5 f5 0-0 with
full equality in V.Salov-Van der
Sterren, Biel (izt) 1 993 .
4 ttJd2 (Non-Repertoire ­
For illustration only)
-
Game 1 5
Mikhalevski - Mark Tseitlin
Beersheba 1 996
1 d4 CDf6 2 ..ig5 CDe4 3 ..if4 d5 4
CDd2 c5 ! ?
This interesting reply to White 's
unpretentious 4th move seems to be
a major influence in turning White
away from this course, and I have to
admit that if is the case then to my
mind it is performing something of
5 CDxe4 ? !
This leads White into difficulties
remarkably
quickly.
Therefore
76 2 ttJe4 3 j.,f4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3
. . .
Julian Hodgson suggests that S e3 is
better, but the line he gives
commences with S . . . ttJxd2 ? ! which
looks a bit too sluggish. S . . . �6 ! is
more to the point when if White
wants to avoid slipping into
passivity 6 dxcS looks indicated.
Then V.Milov-Avrukh, Israel (Tch)
2000 continued fairly sedately with
6 . . . ttJxcS 7 ttJb3 e6 8 ttJf3 ttJc6 9
.te2 j.,e7 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 c3 ttJe4 1 2
�c2 j.,d7 1 3 j.,d3 ttJf6 1 4 l:tfd l
when White certainly has nothing
special. However, it is Black who
could choose to play much more
sharply with 6 . . :iVxb2 ! ? 7 ttJxe4 (If
7 l:f.b l �c3 ! ? 8 j.,xb8 �xb8 9 j.,bS+
'iit d 8 I also feel that Black has
gained a lot in positional terms to
make up for the inconvenience)
7 . . . dxe4 8 �d4 �a3 ! 9 j.,xb8
�aS+ 1 0 c3 l:txb8 1 1 l:Id l (threaten­
ing a very nasty 1 2 j.,bS+) 1 2 . . . a6
and again Black has to soak up
some pressure, but I don' t see
anything very concrete for White,
and the long-term prognosis is good
for the defender especially on the
dark squares.
5 . . . dxe4 6 dxc5
6 c3 can hardly be an
improvement. 6 . . :�'b6 7 j.,c 1 (not
the move which is sometimes was in
Chapter 2) 7 . . . cxd4 8 �xd4 (8 cxd4
eS ! 9 dxeS .tb4+ 1 0 j.,d2 e3 ! ? gives
Black good play according to
Gallagher) 8 . . :iVxd4 9 cxd4 ttJc6 1 0
e 3 eS ! 1 1 j.,bS exd4 1 2 exd4 j.,d7
1 3 ttJe2 ttJb4 14 j.,xd7+ 'it>xd7 and
Black
has
a
straightforward
positional plus based on both pawn
structure and superior minor pieces
in Landenbergue-Vaganian, Biel
1 994.
6 . . .�a5+ 7 c3 �xc5 8 "iVd4
Again alternatives inspire still less
confidence e.g. :
a) 8 j.,xb8 l:Ixb8 9 �a4+ bS 1 0
"iVxe4 b4 ! (Gallagher) gives Black
excellent play. It is one thing for the
bishop to be missed from the dark
squares, but quite another when
Black has such an automatic
initiative there.
b) 8 �a4+ �c6 9 "iWxc6+ ttJxc6
10 f3 eS 1 1 j.,e3 j.,fS and Black' s
doubled e-pawns have represented
not a weakness, but a ready-made
space advantage and the chance for
free development. Tunik-Avrukh,
Beersheba 1 996( ! ) .
8 . . . �xd4 9 cxd4 ttJc6 1 0 0-0-0
Since 1 0 e3?! eS ! is far worse
with the king stuck in the centre.
1 0 . . . e5 !
Again it is very striking that in
what is supposed to be a safe, solid
variation for White, his opponent is
continually able to sharpen the play
and deny his opponent any rest.
White probably thought that castling
has taken the sting out of this break,
but his king is revealed to be pretty
vulnerable in his new home too .
1 1 dxe5
It looks tempting to try and
exchange some material instead
with 1 1 j.,xeS? ! but it turns out that
Black ' s attack after 1 1 . . . ttJxeS 1 2
2 ttJe4 3 .if4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 77
. . .
dxe5 e3 ! 1 3 fxe3 .lif5 i s vastly
stronger even than in the game.
1l . . . .ie6 12 c,t>b l ? !
This, however, i s a serious error
as Avrukh points out. Perhaps as a
result of his opponent' s bishop
apparently settling for the e6 square,
White 'takes his eye off the ball ' for
a moment and forgets the potency of
the . . . e3 and . . . .if5 motif. It was
necessary to cover the b4 square,
with 12 a3 ! when Avrukh gives
12 . . . .lib3 1 3 1!d2 l:f.c8 14 c,t>b l
i.c5 ! 1 5 e3 �e7 ! ( 1 5 . . 0-0 1 6 .lib5 !
is worse) with compensation. In fact
it seems to me that with best play
the position is liable to clarity into
early equality after 1 6 ttJe2 .l:.fd8 1 7
l:f.xd8 k'lxd8 1 8 ttJc3 l:!d2 1 9 .ie2
i.b6!
1 2 . . . e3 ! 13 .ixe3
Criticised by A vrukh, but I do not
find the choice between the text and
the profoundly un-aesthetic 1 3 fxe3
i.f5+ 1 4 'iii> a 1 ttJb4 15 a3 ttJc2+ 1 6
�a2 .lic5 a simple one by any
means .
13 ttJb4 14 .l:.c l .lif5+
Avrukh gives 1 4 . . . ttJxa2 ! ? 1 5
.!:td l ttJb4 as stronger, but 1 5 :r.c7 ! ?
looks trickier since then the c 1
square is then not necessarily out of
bounds for White ' s king.
1 5 'iii> a l ttJc2+ 1 6 ':'xc2 .lixc2 1 7
ttJ f3 .lie4
Black's advantage has clarified his
opponent' s
compromised
structure ensures that the two pawns
do not provide full compensation.
However, the task of conversion is
far from simple. I will give only
very light notes from here. There
are several errors to come, but the
play has limited relevance for the
opening phase.
.
. . •
18 g3 b6 19 .lih3 .lic5 20 .lixc5
bxc5 21 llf! 'iii> e 7 22 ttJd2 .lid5 23
�bl 1!hd8 24 �c2 ? a5?
Repaying
compliment.
the
24 . . . .lixa2 ! was very strong in view
of 25 b3 a5 26 .!:ta l a4 27 l:f.xa2
axb3+ with decisive simplification.
25 ':'al l:.ab8 26 e4 i.c6 27 f3
.!:tb4?
Another important opportunity
missed. Returning the exchange
with 27 . . . .l::f. x b2+ ! 28 'iii> xb2 I:rxd2+
29 'iii> c 3 l:.xh2 would have resulted
in a decisive rounding up of White ' s
kingside pawns. After the text move
it is scarcely even clear who stands
better any more.
28 .if! .l:.bd4 29 ttJc4 .lib5 30
ttJd6 .lid7 3 1 'iii> c3 .l:.b8 32 ttJc4 a4
33 ttJe3 .lie6 34 .ic4 .lixc4 35
ttJxc4 'iii> e 6 36 1:.el l:f.bd8 37 ttJd6 f6
38 ttJb7 Itd3+ 39 'iii> c 2 l:.d2+ 40
�cl 1!8d4 4 1 ttJxc5+ 'iii> x e5 42 f4+
�d6 43 e5+ �xc5 44 e6 a3 45 b4+
�xb4 46 e7 1!b2 47 e8=" Itc4+ 48
�dl I:!.d4+ VI-VI
Attacking Repertoire
-
4 f3!?
Game 1 6
Jansa - Sosonko
IBM, Amsterdam 1 975
1 d4 ttJf6 2 .lig5 ttJe4 3 .if4 d5 4
f3 ttJf6 5 e4 ! ?
78 2 tiJe4 3 j.,f4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3
. . .
5 dxe4 6 tiJc3 exf3
Clearly in one sense the acid test
of any gambit is its acceptance. In
effect Black is putting in the claim
here that the Blackmar-Diemer
Gambit is bad enough that an extra
developing tempo Ji.f4 is not
sufficient to justify White ' s play.
There is no definitive theoretical
verdict on this, but I think the
evidence of this and the next game
is that White' s initiative is
considerable and that the defence
requires extremely careful handling.
This kind of material grab is of
course very much to some players '
taste, but I would at the very least
say that in Game 1 9 we shall see
some other options which give
Black prospects of a rather easier
life.
7 tiJxf3
. . .
7 e6
Passive, but not without logic. I
like Joe Gallagher ' s description of
Black's set-up in this game as
"curling up like a ball," and clearly
the defender is willing to accept a
fair degree of passivity if he can
thereby avoid making tangible
positional concessions. Unfortunate­
ly, in endeavouring to thus blunt
White ' s initiative there is a strong
implicit priority given to preventing
...
pawn breaks, and on this level it has
to be said that Black' s strategy fails
rather
spectacularly
on
this
occasion.
Of the alternatives, Game 1 7 will
consider 7 . . . g6, but there is a third
major possibility in 7 . . . Ji.g4 ! ? still
intending an . . . e6/c6 formation but
with the bishop outside the pawn
chain e.g. 8 h3 and now:
a) 8 . . . Ji.h5 ? ! is perhaps asking too
much. White gains time for moves
which fit in well with his attacking
aspirations with 9 g4 Ji.g6 1 0 Ji.g2
c6 1 1 tiJe5 tiJbd7 1 2 'i'e2 tiJxe5? !
( 1 2 . . . e6! should b e preferable. The
imperative to keep such a position
as closed as possible is a powerful
one. Still I like White) 1 3 dxe5 tiJd7
14 e6 ! fxe6 1 5 0-0-0 e5 1 6 j.,xe5
'tWa5 1 7 j.,g3 0-0-0 1 8 lli'e6 lli'g5+
1 9 'i¥tb 1 'iWf6 20 tiJb5 ! (attractive
and strong, although the prosaic 20
'iWe3 would also be tough to meet)
20 . . . cxb5 2 1 i.xb7+ �xb7 22
l:.xd7+ l:.xd7 23 lli'xd7+ 'i¥ta6 24
'iVc8+ 'iti>a5
25
i.c7+ 'i¥ta4
G.Meszaros-F.Lengyel,
Hungary
(Tch) 1 998, when 26 i.d8 ! clearing
the c-file for White 's queen would
have won immediately.
b) 8 . . . j.,xf3 ! ? 9 lli'xf3 led to a
crushing and sweetly conducted
attack in the game S-B .Hansen­
H.Olafsson, Reykj avik (zt) 1 995
after 9 . . . c6 10 0-0-0 e6 1 1 j.,c4
Ji.e7 12 'i¥tb l ! O-O? ! 1 3 h4 tiJd5 1 4
tiJe4 b5 1 5 Ji.d3 tiJd7 ? ! 1 6 tiJg5
tiJ7f6 1 7 Ji.e5 a5 1 8 ladfl a4? 1 9
Ji.xh7+ tiJxh7 2 0 lli'h5 1 -0 All good
entertaining stuff, but it seems to me
to raise quite a few questions . Why
does Black feel the need to castle
into it? Baburin proposes instead
12 . . . tiJd7 ! ? and this makes a good
deal of sense. There is also
1 5 . . . tiJxf4 ! ? 1 6 'iVxf4 tiJd7 . I don 't
2 liJe4 3 .tf4 d5 Introduction and 413 79
. . .
deny that White can still get a lot of
mileage out of pushing 17 g4 ! and
continuing the pawn storm, but I do
think that the exchange of the
bishop
must
dark-squared
significantly assist Black's efforts at
survival. One more thought. Having
examined a number of games in
which White plays an early .tc4 and
later switches it back to the d3 -h7
diagonal, I wonder if there is not a
case for delaying the development
of this piece. The problem will
relate to a quick . . . liJdS . Perhaps 1 1
�b l .te7 1 2 g4 ! ? deserves
consideration.
S .tc4 c6
strange.
White ' s
intention to
sacrifice on f7 is clear enough, but
Black parries this without undue
difficulty. Perhaps 20 .te3 ! ? is a
better version of the same idea since
if Black answers in the same
manner 20 . . . fS 2 1 .tc4 .tgS 22
l:td6 the fact that White ' s queen will
recapture on e3 leaves his major
pieces looking distinctly more
harmonious than in the game.
Whether this really adds up to any
advantage is another question)
20 . . . f5 2 1 i.c4 .tgS 22 l:tfe l .txc 1
23 l:.xe6 'it>g7 24 l:.xe8 'i'xe8 2S
::'xc 1 'ili'eS and the price for
regaining his pawn has been that
White ' s serious attacking chances
are a thing of the past. There is
already a feeling in the air that in
terms of the centralisation of his
forces Black's prospects are slightly
preferable.
9 liJbd7
Sosonko ' s idea of putting a knight
on dS looks the sensible way to
handle the position, but his method
allows White quite a serious tactical
shot. Perhaps 9 . . . i.e7 and if 1 0
immediate
0-0-0
then
the
1 0 . . . liJdS ! ? ( 1 0 . . . 0-0
is also
possible) should be preferred. 1 1
i.d2 is playable, but doesn 't look
especially incisive, while the critical
1 1 i£.xdS cxdS 1 2 i£.xb8 ! ? lIxb8 l 3
'iWeS can be met with l 3 . . . 1i'd6 ! 1 4
'ili'xg7 'iWf4+ I S <it>b 1 .tf6 when 1 6
liJe2 .txg7 1 7 liJxf4 looks about
equal. White has some decent
squares for his knights while the
enemy bishops slightly lack targets,
but I would be surprised if Black is
seriously in trouble.
1 0 0-0-0 liJb6 ? !
This move inevitably stands or
falls entirely according to its
capacity to effect a blockade on the
. . .
9 'iWe2 !
Playing through a number of
examples from this gambit, I am
gaining a clear impression that
White ' s
chances
more
look
convincing with long castling pretty
much regardless of the set-up which
Black adopts. Still, 9 0-0 still has a
certain following and the game
Barbero-Magerramov,
Cattolica
1 994
offers
an
interesting
illustration of the possibilities after
9 . . . .te7 1 0 liJeS 0-0 1 1 'it>h l liJbd7
12 .td3 cS ! ? l 3 liJxd7 .txd7 1 4
dxcS .txcS I S .tgS .te7 1 6 'i'f3
i.c6 1 7 'i'h3 g6 1 8 %lad l liJd7 1 9
i.h6 l:.e8 20 .tc 1 (This looks a bit
80 2 ..tiJe4 3 i.f4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3
.
d5 square. Since it appears that the
following fine breakthrough works
quite effectively, it must be judged
harshly.
De la Villa considers 1 0 . . . i.b4
but this still allows 1 1 d5 ! liJxd5
when 12 i.xd5 i.xc3 is messy, but
12 .I:txd5 ! looks quite strong as
neither 1 2 . . . cxd5 1 3 liJxd5 nor
1 2 . . . i.xc3 1 3 .I:txd7 i.xb2+ 1 4
�xb2 i.xd7 really solve Black' s
difficulties.
Therefore I feel that 1 0 . . . i.e7 ! ?
and only then . . . liJb6 must be
better, when of course White has
compensation but Black keeps his
solid structure intact.
1 1 dS!
A brilliant breakthrough, based on
the weakness of c7 - a great
triumph for the benefits of the extra
i.f4 tempo.
11 . . . liJbxdS 1 2 i.xdS liJxdS 13
':'xdS ! cxdS 1 4 liJbS f6 l S liJc7+! ?
This does not spoil anything yet,
although it could be interpreted as
psychologically a step in the wrong
direction. Julian criticises the move
and proposes instead 1 5 lUI ! ?
giving for example the variation
1 5 . . . e5 16 liJxe5 fxe5 1 7 �xe5+ as
crushing, which it almost is,
although with mechanical help it
turns out surprisingly that 17 'Yi'h5+!
'it'd7 18 'iVxe5 is a good deal more
so, as 1 8 . . . 'it'c6 1 9 �c3+ �xb5 20
a4+ results in much more substantial
gains . It is also true that 1 5 . . . i.d7
1 6 liJc7+ 'it'f7 1 7 liJe5+ ! 'it'g8 1 8
liJxd7 'Yi'xd7 1 9 liJxa8 is one
occasion on which taking the
material does look very promising
indeed. However, strangely, moving
the king onto the newly occupied
file with 1 5 . . . 'it'f7 ! does not seem to
leave White with any better than 1 6
liJc7 ! transposing into the next note.
l S . . �t7
.
1 6 liJxa8(? ! )
This however does, technically
speaking, j ettison most of White' s
advantage. However, while i t i s true
that the annotator unlike the player
has always had the luxury of
criticising with the j oint benefits of
time and hindsight there used to be
a sense in which we could at least
say most of the time that the player
' ought to have' ; or 'might have'
seen the proposed line. Computers
occasionally bring us to a new
dimension of analysis where I think
any sort of criticism is rather
misplaced. The truth on occasion
may be simply ' beyond human
calculation' , and I think this is a
good case in point. I would also
2 tiJe4 3 ..tf4 d5 Introduction and 413 81
. . .
l o ok first at the best move 1 6 .l:[fl !
h ere since the urge is deeply rooted
to intensify the attack rather than
snaffle the material. The problem is
to foresee that 1 6 . . . ..td6 1 7 tiJ g 5+
.
'it>g8 1 8 tiJgxe6+ ! ..txf4+ ( 1 8 . . JWe7
1 9 ..txd6 �xd6 20 tiJf4 ! ! ':'b8 2 1
tiJfxd5 is an incredible ' twin line '
and also seems very good for
White) 1 9 tiJxf4 ! !
There is nothing better, but this
does not prevent the knight from
being trapped. Instead it sells itself
at the price of entry into the position
for the White rook which secures
the draw.
22 . . :iVd6 23 tiJc7 "iVxg3 24 hxg3
a6 25 l:i.el �d6 26 l:i.xe6+ �xc7 27
l:i.e7+ Yz-Yz
A fascinating battle, and one
where I think that all but the most
hardened Luddite would have to
concede that the computer can
enhance rather than detract from our
enjoyment and appreciation.
Game 1 7
Hodgson - Panchenko
Bern 1 994
f3
1 9 . . . l:i.b8 20 tiJfxd5 and the
knights dominate the position,
covering key squares and making a
slightly rude gesture to those who
say that knights are not well
employed defending each other!
White threatens 2 1 "iVc4 followed by
deadly discovered checks. Black can
try 20 . . . b5, but 2 1 'i'd3 seems
strong meeting 2 1 . . . f5 with 22 g4 !
and the attack rages on. To my mind
a fascinating line, but one which I
would suspect that hardly any
human player would expect to find
and correctly judge.
16 . . . .td6 17 ..txd6
De la Villa gives ' 1 7 'i'e3 ! '
instead, but if Black replies
accurately with 1 7 . . . e5 1 8 tiJxe5+
fxe5 1 9 ..txe5 l:tf8 ! White ' s chances
do not seem better than in the game.
1 7 . . . 'i'xd6 1 8 l:i.f1 ..td7 19 tiJe5+
�e7 20 "iVg4 :g8 21 tiJxd7 'i'xd7
22 "iVg3
1 d4 tiJf6 2 ..tg5 tiJe4 3 ..tf4 d5 4
4 ... tiJf6
4 . . . tiJd6 ! ? is a relatively rare
alternative, which looks strange but
definitely merits a look. Black' s
idea is t o answer a quick e5 with
. . . tiJf5 and a timelier one with
. . . tiJc4 . I think White should castle
short and avoid the frequently
tempo losing "iVd2 (two precautions
which would already place him in a
small minority of the prudent
82 2. J i Je4 3 iif4 d5 Introduction and 413
among players
handling this
position ! ) e.g. S ct:Jc3 e6 6 e4 c6!
(only keeping the centre solid in this
way makes any sense) 7 .\td3 .\te7 8
ct:Jge2 0-0 9 0-0 bS ! ? and now 1 0
eS ! ? ct:Jc4 I I �c 1 followed by 1 2 a4
is one way when I slightly prefer
White. Still this is an interesting line
- it is not a trivial task to translate
lead
III
numerical
White ' s
development into something more
concrete.
S e4 dxe4 6 ct:Jc3
6 ... exf3
One alternative which does not
really fall into the category of
' gambit declined ' and which fits our
. . . g6 theme here is 6 . . . cS ! ? This
seems a bit strange since after 7 dS
(7 dxcS ! ? also looks interesting)
7 . . . exf3 8 ct:Jxf3 while it is true that
Black can argue that he has ensured
that the c4-f7 diagonal will not
cause its customary problems, in
other ways White ' s space advantage
seems merely to have been
Hertneck-Gavrikov,
enhanced.
Bundesliga 1 994 continued 8 . . . g6 9
ct:JbS ! ct:Ja6 1 0 .\tc4 .\tg7 and now in
contrast with most of the lines we
are seeing in this gambit it seems
White should castle short (logical
perhaps with the d-pawn' s advance
guaranteeing
space,
but
also
opening
the
long
diagonal).
Gavrikov was concerned about 1 1
0-0 0-0 1 2 d6 ! and indeed Black 's
task seems pretty tough here. The
knight on a6 is very unfortunately
placed for competing for the dark
squares in the centre.
Perhaps 8 . . a6 ! ? is a better bet. I
am sure White should try 9 �e2 !
and after, for example 9 . . . g6 1 0
0-0-0 .\tg7 1 1 d6 e6, either 1 2
ct:JeS ! ? ct:JhS 1 3 �d2 0-0 ( l 3 . . . �xd6
14 �gS ! ) 14 g4 or simply 1 2 �gS
should offer good play for the pawn.
7 ct:Jxf3 g6 ! ? 8 �c4 �g7
.
9 �e2 !
In his notes to the Hertneck game
above Julian Hodgson makes the
intriguing observation "in principle
I prefer to castle kings ide when the
opponent has a bishop on g7". Well,
here I think he is right to break his
principles although of course since
his breakthrough still involved the
move dS, the consequences for the
king on b 1 do need to be taken
seriously. The more cautious 9 0-0
0-0 10 �d2 cS 1 1 dS ct:Jbd7 was
played in I. Sokolov-Hellers, Malmo
1 997. However, after 1 2 1:Iae l ct:Jb6
l 3 b3 White ' s compensation is
already looking pretty tenuous .
Maybe 1 2 d6 ! ? should be tried. If
2 'LJe4 3 Jif4 d5 Introduction and 4 f3 83
. . .
then 1 2 . . . e6 1 3 Jih6 ! ? looks decent
enough, but 1 2 . . . .:tjb6 ! ? i s more
promising for Black. If 1 3 dxe7
'WIxe7 1 4 Jid6 'LJxc4 1 5 Jixe7
'LJxd2 1 6 'LJxd2 J.f5 ! ? 17 J.xf8
'iii x f8, White is probably not
' theoretically' worse, but it is hardly
the sort of position for which one
gambits a pawn on move 5. In short,
long castling looks the right way
here !
9 . . . 0-0 1 0 0-0-0 c6!
Stohl suggests instead
10 . . .
J.g4(? ! ) when Hodgson proposes 1 1
d5 ! targeting e7 before Black can
even dream of some kind of
light-square blockade. Neither is it
easy to set up something on the dark
squares. 1 l . . . 'LJh5 looks critical, but
12 J.g5 ! works well, while the
routine 1 l . . . 'LJbd7 1 2 J:: e l 'LJb6 1 3
Jib3 J:: e 8 1 4 h3 is just very pleasant
for White. It is instructive quite how
enduring is the cramp which Black
suffers here.
1 1 d5!
That breakthrough again. Black ' s
development is too slow for the
White king to be in serious danger,
while White ' s superior pieces crave
open lines. Easy to explain thus, but
to make such practical decisions
takes excellent powers of judge­
ment.
1 1 ... cxd5
1 l . . .'WIb6 is well met by 12 d6 !
when 1 2 . . . exd6 1 3 Jixd6 J:: e 8 1 4
J.xf7+ 'iii x f7 1 5 'LJg5+ 'iii g 8 1 6
'WIc4+ 'LJd5 1 7 J:: h e l ! , (but not 1 7
J::x d5 ? cxd5 1 8 �xd5+ J.e6 ! 1 9
'LJxe6 'WIe3+ -+) gives White a
decisive onslaught.
12 'LJxd5 'LJxd5 13 J:: x d5!
13 ... 'WIb6? !
I n my view this i s perhaps the
critical mistake. Black simply had to
try the developing 1 3 . . . 'LJd7 ! 1 4
J:!hd 1 and now instead o f the
1 4 . . . 'WIb6 1 5 c3 'LJf6 1 6 J::b 5 'WIc6
1 7 'LJe5 �e8 1 8 g4 ! given by
Hodgson, I think 14 . . . e6 ! 1 5 J:: d6
'WIf6 ! poses more questions. The
strange 1 6 i:t6d4 ! ? �d8 1 7 'LJe5
'WIf6 ! 1 8 'LJg4 ! ? might represent
White ' s best try (rather than 1 8
'LJf3=), since 1 8 . . . 'WIxd4 1 9 'LJh6+
'iiih 8 20 J:: xd4 Jixd4 2 1 Jid6 looks
promising, but after 1 8 . . . 'WId8 ! ?
although
White
has
enough
compensation, Black is very much
fighting.
14 J::b 5! 'WIc6 15 'LJe5 'WIe8 16 h4 !
Black is so passive now that he
has little to offer against opening a
new front. As we shall see, g6 is
chronically weak and will be the
focus of numerous tactics .
84 2 lDe4 3 i..f4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3
. . .
1 6 . . . lDc6 1 7 h5! g5?
This loses by force, albeit very
elegantly. Black should probably
have tried 1 7 . . . e6 ! ? with some
chances to cling on.
18 lDxc6 'ii'x c6 19 .l:r.xg5 �f6 20
'ii'e 5 !
An elegant solution after which
Black has a choice of broadly
disastrous ways to pick up the
exchange,
but no
acceptable
defence.
20 . . . h6
Julian was hoping for the more
natural 20 . . . 'it>h8 against which he
had prepared 2 1 h6 ! 'ii'x e5 22
bxg7+ 'ii'x g7 23 l'.Ixg7 'iit x g7 24
i.. h6+ 'iit g 8 with the very sweet 25
l'.Ih5 ! ! to finish off. Black will be
mated after for example 25 . . J ld8
26 l'.Ig5+ �h8 27 i.. x f7. Vintage
Hodgson!
2 1 l'.Ig6 ! 'iix g6 22 hxg6 ..txe5 23
i.. x e5 i.. e 6
This leads to a desperately uneven
contest between White ' s two
awesome bishops and a hapless
black rook. Still, the only argument
for 23 . . . e6 24 g7 ! would be brevity.
24 ::'xh6 f6 25 ..txe6+ 'it>g7 26
i.. f4 l'.Ih8 27 l'.Ixh8 .u.xh8 28 c4
�xg6 29 g4 l'.Ih3 30 'it>d2 a5 31 c5
a4 32 b4 axb3 33 axb3 1-0
One of the classic attacking
Hodgson games in the Trompowsky
which demands inclusion in any
collection.
Game 1 8
Moiseenko - Romanishin
Ukraine Team Championship 2002
Generally speaking I may have
felt moved to jot down a few words
to justify my choice of games, but
only to explain why I find them
important or instructive. Here
though, I must admit I feel a little
bit guilty about this one . I would
have preferred not to show a hugely
talented
personable
and
Grandmaster, whose career has
made a tremendous and very
original contribution to chess,
having such a miserable off day. My
excuse is that while Black ' s move 6
alternatives to acceptance of the
gambit are both important and
interesting, they do seem to have
thrown up a curious paucity of
quality games, and in particular the
encounters between strong players
have tended to result in a spineless
and premature sharing of the
honours. So, with apologies, this
game, which at least is instructive in
terms of the methodical way White
builds up his attack.
1 d4 lDf6 2 ..tg5 lDe4 3 ..tf4 d5 4
f3 lDf6 5 e4 dxe4 6 lDc3 e3 ! ?
Having seen that acceptance of
the gambit is really a much more
treacherous course of action than in
Blackmar-Diemer
the
related
Gambit, it is natural to tum attention
to ways of declining the challenge.
The idea of bypassing the f3 pawn
with 6 . . . e3 is known from various
related openings. Black is really
saying that while f3 makes perfect
sense if he cooperatively takes and
2. " c De4 3 iJ.j'4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 85
invites White 's king' s knight to
develop to its optimal square, the
move is a bit thin on secondary
ideas. Indeed it can be argued that
not only does it contribute little to
getting White ' s pieces out, it even
slightly weakens the dark squares
and blocks development to f3 . In the
present case there is an additional
justification for 6 . . . e3 - since
White ' s bishop is already on f4, the
capture of the pawn will not be a
developing move either.
However this is not the only
option for Black which merits
serious attention here. I shall
two
other
moves .
consider
Particularly interesting is ' b ' which
both Hodgson and Gallagher
curiously neglect to consider.
Although theory is at a rather early
stage of development, the initial
impression it makes is not at all bad:
a) 6 . . . ..tf5 is interesting, since
Black will still by and large net a
pawn, and he develops a piece into
the bargain. The merit of the move
will be determined by whether the
bishop and/or the b7 pawn can be
shown to be vulnerable. White has
three consistent approaches:
a l ) 7 g4 ! ? is a radical attempt to
demonstrate that 6 . . . ..tf5 merely
renders this player the target of
attack. After 7 . . . ..t g 6 White must be
precise. 8 ..tg2?! ttJc6 ! and 8 h4? !
h5 ! (Gerstner) 9 g 5 ttJd5 both look
distinctly ropey. However, that still
leaves Julian Hodgson ' s suggestion
of 8 fxe4 ! ? ttJxe4 9 ..tg2 ttJxc3 1 0
bxc3 after which he assesses
White ' s development and queenside
pressure as "well worth a pawn". I
am not quite so sure, since I think
White should pay serious attention
to the possibility of Black
attempting to drum up counterplay
with a quick . . . e5 (perhaps
1 0 . . . ttJd7 ! ? returning the pawn even
comes into consideration) . The
expansion with g4 has both a plus
and a minus side, but there is clearly
food for thought here. Incidentally, I
think it is this position which is
critical to the assessment. De la
Villa rejects Julian' s line due to
9 . . e5 ' ! -+ ' but I think that after the
clever 1 0 �e2 ! exf4 ( l 0 . . . 'iVh4+ 1 1
'it'f1 does not necessarily help Black
since the queen will be out of play)
1 1 ..txe4 ..txe4 1 2 O-O-O! we reach a
position in which the type of players
to opt for 4 f3 and 5 e4 would be
quite in their element.
a2) 7 ..tc4 is suggested by De la
Villa who, if I understand him
correctly, points out that the
analogous approach scores well in
the Blackmar Diemer gambit. He
gives 7 . . . e6 8 fxe4 ttJxe4 9 ttJxe4
..txe4 10 �e2 . White ' s develop­
ment is certainly harmonious here,
and 1 0 . . . '1Wxd4? does indeed lose a
piece to 1 1 c3 . This could be worth
testing.
a3) 7 fxe4 ! ? ttJxe4 (if 7 . . . ..txe4 ? !
8 ttJxe4 ttJxe4 Hodgson suggests
that either 9 'iVd3 or 9 c3 ( ! ) offer
good play. I would prefer the latter
which keeps the centre solid and
forces Black to reckon with 1 0 '1Wb3
too) 8 �f3 ttJxc3 9 bxc3 'iVc8
.
86 2 tDe4 3 .§if4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3
. . .
(9 . . . c6?? 1 0 iLxb8 ! ) 1 0 l:tb l c6 1 1
i.d3 ! ? is Hodgson ' s recipe here,
although in practice players have
tended to prefer 1 0 i.c4 and so on. I
like the idea of exchanging bishops
on d3 . It forces Black to address the
problem of fl, and indeed Julian' s
variation l 1 . . .iLxd3 1 2 cxd3 e 6 1 3
tDh3 ! iLe7 1 4 WUg3 looks quite
tricky to meet. One possible
complication though is that Black
can try 10 . . . wge6+ ! ) 1 1 �f1 iLe4 .
Now 1 2 iLc4 for example 1 2 . . .
i.xf3 1 3 iLxe6 iLc6 is not very
convincing for White. So perhaps
we have to do without the rook
move at this stage and opt straight
for 1 0 i.d3 ! ? This should be fine,
but it is true that after for example
10 . . . i.xd3 1 1 cxd3 e6 Black will
often have the option of . . . tDc6 in
reply to a leter l:tb l . Still, I do not
think this invalidates Julian' s
interesting plan, even though the
detailed execution seems to require
some finesse.
b) 6 . . . tDd5 ! ? looks logical and
has the appeal that it seeks to make
White' s extra iLf4 tempo over the
Blackmar-Diemer look like a
liability rather than an asset. To the
extent that theory has a recipe for
White here, after 7 tDxd5 wgxd5
there seems to have been a bit too
much credence given to the
continuation . . .
8 c4(? ! ) wga5+ 9 iLd2 WUf5 1 0 f4? !
based o n a n old Hungarian game
succeeded
White
where
in
generating very decent compens­
ation after 1 0 . . . e6. However, it all
looks rather unlikely. I rather like
Black' s treatment in Barnard-Vigus,
British
(ch),
Swansea
1 995,
blockading on the light-squares with
1 0 . . . wgg6 ! ? 1 1 i.e3 tDd7 1 2 WUa4 c6
1 3 0-0-0 tDf6 1 4 h3 h5 1 5 tDe2 and
then returning the pawn for
excellent positional compensation
with 1 5 . . . b5 ! 16 cxb5 tDd5 17 �3
iLd7 1 8 bxc6 i.xc6 and a lovely
position.
Sensing that White ' s 1 0th move
makes a very strange impression,
both De la Villa and Gerstner
consider
instead
10
wg e2 ! ?
However, while it is quite
believable that White ' s development
after 1 0 . . . exf3 1 1 tDxf3 might
constitute sufficient compensation,
1 0 . . . tDc6 ! ? complicates matters e.g.
1 1 fxe4 ( 1 1 iLc3 e5 ! looks fine for
Black since if 1 2 fxe4, Wif4 !
pressures White o n the dark
squares) 1 1 . . .wgf6 1 2 tDf3 ( 1 2 e5
wgh4+ 13 g3 wgxd4 1 4 iLc3 WUg4 !
does not really convince either)
1 2 . . . i.g4 ! ( or 1 2 . . . tDxd4 1 3 tDxd4
wgxd4 1 4 iLc3 Wid6 ! ? (it could be
worth a tempo to prevent long­
castling) 1 5 l:Id l WUg6 1 6 wgd3 but
here White ' s attack looks more
plausible) 1 3 iLc3 tDxd4 1 4 iLxd4
i.xf3 1 5 gxf3 ( 1 5 �f2? e5)
15 . . . WUxd4 16 l:[d l wgf6 17 Wid2
WUc6 and White clearly has some
pressure for the pawn but Black will
play . . . e6 next and it is unclear how
tangible trouble can be caused.
Maybe White should check his
play
a
little
further
back.
Notwithstanding that it might go
against the grain a little to permit
the exchange of queens in such a
2 lL'le4 3 .if4 d5 Introduction and 4 j3 8 7
. . .
po sition, 9 'iVd2 ! ? 'iVxd2+ 1 0 'it>d2
m ight generate serious play if Black
were to react passively. However
1 0 . . . lL'lc6 ! is interesting, intending
to meet 1 1 d5 ? ! with 1 1 . . . e5 ! 1 2
.i g3 e3+! when 1 3 'it>xe3 lL'ld4 1 4
.i d3 i.c5 i s very pleasant for Black,
while even 1 3 'it>c 1 lL'le7 14 .ixe3
c6 ! 1 5 ':'d l cxd5 1 6 cxd5 .id7
him
very
decent
sec ures
counterplay.
The other alternative is to settle
for 8 .ixc7 ! ? This is definitely the
safe move, and it is not entirely
without perspective since this
structure can prove rather pleasant
for White if he can proceed
undisturbed. Berkes-Buzas, Szeks­
zard (op) 1 998 was a good example
of the kind of pleasant position
White can aspire to against
cooperative play after 8 . . . lL'lc6 9 c3
exf3 ? ! 1 0 lL'lxf3 .ig4 1 1 i.e2 �d7
12 .ig3 e6 1 3 0-0 and I prefer
White, although the further careless
13 . . . i.d6? 14 .ixd6 'iVxd6 1 5 lL'lg5 !
invited a completely unnecessary
catastrophe. However, Black can
erect far greater obstacles with
9 . . . i.f5 for example, keeping the
tension, and as usual somewhat
stymieing White ' s development.
After 1 0 i.e2 Black then played the
rather interesting 1 0 . . . e5 ! ? in
Djurhuus-Elsness, Gausdal 1 99 5 .
H e clearly obtains some positional
compensation in the form of the
bishop pair and the weakness of
White ' s extra pawn following 1 1
.ixe5 ( 1 1 dxe5 �c5 ! ) lL'lxe5 1 2
dxe5 �xe5 1 3 'iVa4+ i.d7 1 4 �xe4
"i'xe4 1 5 fxe4 0-0-0 1 6 0-0-0 and
this was duly converted by a
mini-combination 1 6 . . . i.c5 1 7 lL'lf3
i.c6 1 8 i.d3 ':'xd3 ! 1 9 l:Ixd3 i.xe4
into a dead equal ending. This all
looks like a very tempting approach
for Black, not least because I would
be very surprised if our gambiteers
would
temperamentally
feel
comfortable on the White side of
this kind of a tussle.
7 i.xe3
With this move, the regular
Trompowsky tempo battle so
familiar throughout the 2 . . . lL'le4
variation ends here, for the moment,
in a tie. This bishop and the knight
on f6 have both expended three
tempi to reach their rather
unexceptional locations and the
result is a direct transposition to the
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit declined.
However, White is not absolutely
forced to acquiesce in this outcome.
Joel Benjamin did once try to
preserve his bishop ' s active posting
on f4 by capturing e3 with his
queen, commencing 7 'iVd3 ! ? e6 8
'iVxe3 .ie7 9 0-0-0 0-0 1 0 'it>b l
(Hodgson suggests the more direct
10 .id3 . In this case Black should
probably p refer 1 0 . . . c6 and . . . lL'ld7
etc) 1 0 . . . tL\c6 ! ? 1 1 g4 lL'lb4 1 2 .ig3
b6 1 3 a3 lL'lbd5 14 lL'lxd5 lL'lxd5 but
the queen is not ideal here either,
and White had nothing special.
Benjamin-Yermolinsky, USA (ch)
Modesto 1 99 5 .
7 e6
...
8 �d2
88 2. Ji'Je4 3 iLf4 d5 Introduction and 413
Alternatively White can take
matters on the kings ide at a more
leisurely pace, concentrating first on
development. Still, putting the g l
knight o n e4, as in the following
example, takes 3 tempi, and I am
not quite convinced that it is worth
it 8 ltJge2 ltJbd7 9 ltJg3 iLe7 1 0
'l'd3 0-0 1 1 0-0-0 a 6 1 2 ltJge4
ltJd5 1 3 h4 b6 1 4 ltJxd5 exd5 1 5
ltJg5 ltJf6 1 6 i.f4 c 5 1 7 dxc5 Y2-Y2
was V.Milov-Gelfand, Biel 1 99 5 .
Hodgson says that h e likes White
here at the end after 1 7 . . . bxc5 1 8
iLe5, but I ' m not sure why since
1 8 . . . c4 ! 19 'ilVc3 'i!Vb6 leaves Black
in my view with play on the b-file to
match anything that his opponent
can hit him with on the kings ide.
8 ... i.e7 9 0-0-0 0-0 1 0 g4 ltJe6 ? !
I think that I would have
considered either . . . c6 or . . . ltJbd7
during any of the last few moves,
and here too that would be my
preference.
There
is
nothing
intrinsically wrong about the c6-b4
route to d5, but here it does seem to
presage a rather ambitious and
misplaced plan of action on the
queenside.
11 'it>bl ltJb4 12 h4 as? ! 13 ltJge2
a4 14 a3 ltJbdS I S gS!
Perhaps this is what Black
underestimated. The e3 bishop
simply is not integral to White ' s
plans i n lines like 1 5 . . . ltJxe3 1 6
'i'xe3 ltJd5 1 7 ltJxd5 exd5 1 8 ltJf4
followed by lIe 1 and a pleasant bind
on the kings ide and a superiority on
the only open file into the bargain.
IS . . . ltJxe3+? ! 16 ltJxe3 ltJdS 1 7
ltJxdS 'ilVxdS 1 8 i.d3 !
Without
knights
Black
is
strangely impotent to offer any sort
of counterplay on the queens ide.
White ' s victory on the kings ide is
pretty much automatic here, and he
even passes up along the way an
exchange sacrifice which has
dejection written all over it.
18 . . . 'I'aS 1 9 e3 Iia6 ? ! 20 'iVe2
:tb6 21 'it>al J:tb3 22 i.el 'iit h 8 23
iLxh7 i.xa3 24 bxa3 l:lxe3 2 S 'iVbl
l:lb3 26 iLh2 bS 27 iLe2 l:1xf3 28
l:1df1 1-O
Game 1 9
Benj amin - Malisauskas
Olympiad, Moscow 1 994
1 d4 ltJf6 2 i.gS ltJe4 3 iLf4 dS 4
f3 ltJf6 S e4 e6
This attempt to reach a kind of
French Defence is not bad in itself,
but it seems to me to vindicate
massively White ' s 5th move choice.
Although the most
common
motivation for preferring 5 e4 over
5 ltJc3 is almost certainly the love of
a good gambit and its hacking
potential, I am convinced that the
contrast between the two sets of
French-type positions - those with
ltJc3 , and those without - is so
strong in favour of the latter that all
efforts should be made to make 5 e4
work for precisely this reason hence the repertoire ! To be able to
put the bishop on e3, and defend the
d4 pawn with c2-c3 is quite
luxurious for White.
6 eS ltJfd7 7 i.e3 !
Of course the moves f3 and i.f4
appear far from optimal in a French
this
Defence
setting,
but
reorganisation is strong, and in
terms of tempi, justified as so often
by the wanderings of Black's king' s
knight.
7 . . . eS 8 e3 ltJe6
2 CLle4 3 jif4 d5 Introduction and 413 89
. . .
The alternative plan 8 0 0 .b6 is also
known from the Tarrasch French,
but White ' s development feels too
flowing here to pennit such
p o sitional niceties. In Hodgson­
Benj amin, Las Vegas (op) 1 995
White got a clear advantage after 9
f4 ii.a6 1 0 ii.xa6 CLlxa6 1 1 CLlf3 ii.e7
12 0-0 0-0 (De la Villa suggests
1 2 0 0 . 'iVc8, but 1 3 fS ! ? - anyway ! 1 3 0 0 . exfS 1 4 ..tgS ! should give
dangerous play) 1 3 fS ! exfS 14 'iVd3
CiJc 7 I S 'iVxfS and White has a
spatial plus and fair prospects on the
kingside. It is curious indeed that
the master of the White side in this
line should want to have a go at the
defence !
9 f4
9 . . . cxd4
My feeling is that Black ' s only
hopes of equalising must involve
ruffling his opponent ' s feathers a
little here, and that after the text
move White ' s build-up seems a
little too smooth.
Perhaps 9 . . . 'iVb6 is a better shot.
De la Villa commends Black's play
in Moreno Ruiz-Mitkov, Mondariz,
1 999 1 0 'iVd2 as ! ? 1 1 CLlf3 a4 1 2
ii.d3 cxd4 1 3 cxd4 ii.b4 1 4 CLlc3 a3
I S b3 'iVas 16 J:.c l CLlf8 17 0-0 ii.d7
but although the pin against c3 is a
bit annoying, strengthening it is not
a straightforward task (especially
given the nice circumstance that 1 8
J:.c2 ! ? J:.c8 1 9 J:.fc l CLle7? ! can be
well met by 20 CLlbS ! ) and
elsewhere White still seems to hold
the ascendancy.
1 0 cxd4 'iVa5+
I am sure Malisauskas also felt the
need to disrupt the flow of White ' s
game, but the impact o f having to
move the king seems quite
containable.
However,
another
game of Joel Benjamin ' s from the
same event seems to confinn that
there is no easy way to make
trouble.
In
Benj amin-Popovic,
Moscow (01) 1 994 Black tried
1 0 0 0 . CLlb6 but after 1 1 CLld2 ( 1 1
b3 ! ?) 1 1 . . . as 1 2 a3 a4 1 3 ii.d3
ii.d7 14 CLle2 CLlaS I S 0-0 g6 16 g4
ii.c6 1 7 CLlg3 CLlbc4 1 8 CLlxc4 CLlxc4
1 9 'iVe2 bS 20 fS ! White had
achieved the key breakthrough
without undue difficulty. Later
Black' s king was able to escape to
the queenside, but the domination of
the open f-file still gave White a
considerable advantage.
1 1 'it>f2! CLlb6 12 b3 ! ii.d7 13 CLlf3
.l:Ic8 1 4 a3 CLla8
A recognition of her maj esty ' s
discomfort o n the 'wrong side ' of
the other Black pieces.
15 J:.a2 CLle7 1 6 ii.d2 'ib'b6 1 7
CLlc3 CLlf5 1 8 b4 !
A strong move. Covering cS
indirectly
defends
d4
since
1 8 0 0 . CLlxd4 1 9 ..te3 wins material.
1 8 . . JWd8 1 9 g4 CLlh4 20 CLlxh4
'iVxh4+ 21 'it>g2 CLlb6 22 ii.el 'iVd8
23 ..td3 CLlc4 24 'iVf3
I do not think it would be too
unfair a caricature of this variation
to say that Black often manages to
find a strong square or two, but it is
much easier for White to find a
90 2 ..'i::J e4 3 i..f4 d5 Introduction and 413
.
plan. Again the advance of the
f-pawn when it comes, will carry
some force.
24 . . . iLe7 25 �f1 ? !
25 t2Je2 ! was more precise. I n the
next few moves Black is able to
make some exchanges to arrive at
an ending in which White clearly
holds the initiative, but there are
chances to defend.
25 . . . iLh4 ! 26 t2Je2 i.. x el 27 !bel
a5 28 f5 axb4 29 axb4 h5! 30 gxh5
'it'h4 31 �g3 �xh5 32 'it'xh4 ':'xh4
33 'is;g3 .l:th6 34 fxe6 i.. x e6 35 t2Jf4
t2Jb6 36 l:[c2 l:[xc2 37 iLxc2 g5 38
t2Jxe6 fxe6 39 i.. d l �h7 40 i.. g4
%lc7 !
The start of a very active defence
which comes very close to saving
the game.
4 1 i.. x e6 �c4 42 l:i.dl rJite7 43
i.. f5 t2Ja4 44 ..tt g4 t2Jc3 45 l:i.d3
t2Je4 !
Superb.
After
the
routine
45 . . . t2Jb5 46 l:[h3 ! Black's king
finds himself in some trouble. The
text, however, should hold in view
of the variation 46 i..x e4 dxe4 47
l:i.d 1 ..tt e 6 48 d5+ ..tt x e5 49 d6 .l:tc8
50 d7 .ud8 (close to ' mutual
zugzwang ') 5 1 b5 b6! 52 h3 e3 53
..tt f3 ..tt e 6 54 ..tt e 3 ':'xd7 and the
pawn ending is drawn - Benj amin.
46 'itt f3 t2Jc3 47 rJitg4 t2Je4 48
..tt h 5 ! ? .u.xb4 49 rJitg6 l:i.b6+ 50 e6
l:i.b2 51 ':'h3 l:i.f2?
Rather sad after such a dogged
defence. 5 1 . . . t2Jf6 52 ':'c3 ttJe8 !
would have kept White out.
52 lIh7+ ..tt e 8 53 l:i.h8+ rJite7 54
'uh7+ rJite8 55 i.. x e4 ! dxe4 56 d5
%ld2 57 rJitf6 1-0
A tough struggle, but sufficient
evidence
that
this
particular
French-like position leaves White
rather in the driving seat.
Chapter Conclusion
I will probably not be revealing a
huge secret if I confess that my
personal sympathies are on this
occasion more with the ' Solid'
Repertoire of Chapter 5 than they
are with the Pseudo-Blackmar
approach covered here.
However, I certainly have not
found anything that looks like a
refutation of White ' s gambit and
given White ' s possibilities in Game
1 9 I am confident that I selected the
right ' attacking repertoire ' . It is in
addition undoubtedly a lot of fun,
no small element in the equation.
The gambit accepted in particular
would be very effective against the
right opponent. It also gives terrific
opportunities for creative play.
On specifics, I suspect that a few
bad results have led commentators
to relatively neglect the 7 . . . iLg4 ! ?
and 8 . . . i.. x f3 covered i n the Notes
to Game 1 6. That game itself also
raises questions as to exactly how to
play White ' s attack if Black avoids
the quick d5 break that gave White
all his fun. There is always
' compensation ' but exploiting it
requires some attacking virtuosity .
However, if I was playing Black I
think I would probably decline
�hite ' s generous offer. My analysis
III
Game 1 8 is quite important.
6 . . . e3 I find quite hard to judge, but
6 . . . t2Jd5 ! ? really deserves much
more recognition than it has
received hitherto, and if I were
going to venture the gambit with
White I would put considerable
effort in trying to kick this into
touch.
Chapter 5
-
2
. . .
l2Je4 3 .tf4 d5
The Solid Repertoire with 4 e3 ! ?
Game 20
Win ants - Wiedenkeller
European Club Cup, Neum 2000
e3
1 d4 lLlf6 2 i.g5 lLle4 3 i.f4 d5 4
4 i.f5
This was once the most popular,
but provided that White takes a
broad view in his attempts to show
that the piece is a target. (see the
note to 6 c4), I am sceptical about it
as, incidentally, is Julian Hodgson.
First
though,
two
other
developing
moves
deserve
a
mention here. 4 . . . lLlc6 looks rather
suspicious, but should probably be
met either in the customary manner
with 5 i.d3 or perhaps even the
simple 5 lLld2, rather than 5 f3 ? ! g5 !
when its main point is revealed. As
usual, the move f3 has a detrimental
effect if White is likely to have to
give up his dark-squared bishop for
a knight in any case.
.•.
It is also possible to play the
slightly odd-looking 4 . . . lLld7 to
' defend' the knight, or perhaps
more precisely to defend the pawn
structure from the i.xe4 idea which
will dominate much of this chapter.
However, there is a distinct
suspicion that the knights, to say the
least rather tread on each others '
toes after 5 i.d3 lLldf6 6 f3 ! lLld6 7
lLlc3 e6 8 e4 lLlh5 9 i.e3 i.e7 1 0
g4 ! dxe4 1 1 fxe4 i.h4+ 1 2 'it>fl f5
1 3 e5 fxg4 14 'iYxg4 0-0+ 1 5 'it>e2
lLlf5 16 ttJf3 and Black is losing a
piece for very little. Hodgson­
Paunovic, C acak 1 996.
5 f3
Best. Since I will be advocating a
plan involving the inherently risky
business of expansion on both
wings, I think it is important to
stress getting the order right!
Absolutely not 5 c4? first (although
the Tromp expert Romero Holmes
was among those to once go down
this road, and get away with it! ) due
to the strength of 5 . . . e5 ! . This
reveals rather drastically a plus side
to the knight' s presence on e4. With
due apologies to White, the game
Karhanek-Bartos, Ostrava (op) 2002
ended rather abruptly with 6 dxe5
i.b4+ 7 cJi>e2 �4 8 g3 'i'h5+ 9 f3
dxc4 1 0 g4 'i'h4 1 1 lLlh3 i.xg4 1 2
'iYa4+ lLlc6 1 3 i.g3 'ili'h5 1 4 fxg4
'il¥xg4 mate, which does at least
provide a most graphic warning on
this point!
92 2 tUe4 3 �4 d5 4 e3
. . .
Other moves like 5 i.d3 and 5
tUd2 are not of course so fatally
flawed, but if play proceeds quietly
then the logical development of the
bishop to f5 eases Black's play,
whereas the move should really
herald a possibility for active
expansion.
5 . tUf6
The obvious retreat, and the most
common one. For 5 . . . tUd6 see
Game 2 1 .
6 c4 !
I like this. White confidently
looks at gaining space on both
wings. Why? Because he can! Of
course there might be a danger of
overstretching resources, but prac­
tice suggests that if, alternatively,
White merely concentrates on the
kings ide then Black' s chances of
developing really significant play on
the queenside are not at all bad here.
It is by no means unique in opening
theory for the king to be safer
castled on a wing where the player
is himself expanding rather than
waiting for the opponent to seize the
initiative there. The King ' s Indian
Defence is riddled with such
examples, and I am impressed by
the logic here too.
By
way
of contrast,
in
Hodgson-Nunn, Bundesliga 1 995,
(and many others) White immed­
iately committed wholesale to the
kingside with 6 g4 i.g6 7 h4 h5 8
g5 tUfd7 9 tUc3 c6 1 0 i.d3 i.xd3
1 1 �xd3 g6 ! ? 1 2 e4 e6 1 3 0-0-0
i.e7 1 4 !:te l tUa6 1 5 a3 tUb6 1 6
i.e5 0-0 and interestingly without
the option of a pawn-stonn (he has
in a sense already exhausted this
resource) it is relatively harder for
him to make any impression against
the black king.
. .
6 . . . c6
This, or 6 . . . e6 which usually
amounts to the same thing after 7
tUc3 c6, seem modest, but are
probably best. Two others merit a
mention:
a) 6 . . . c5?! once became rather
high profile due to a game in which
Mickey Adams, usually merciless in
the technical phase, won a piece but
failed to convert. The ' tactical
refutation' is 7 cxd5 tUxd5 8 i.xb8 !
':xb8 (8 . . . tUxe3 9 i.b5+ i.d7 1 0
i.xd7+ �xd7 1 1 �e2 tUxg2+ 1 2
�xg2 ':xb8 1 3 dxc5 + - was the
course of Adams-Van Wely, Tilburg
1 996. Black can generate some
practical 'mess ' for the piece, but
theoretical
too
not
much
compensation; while 8 . . . �a5+ ! Adams - also falls short after 9 �d2
tUb4 when Hodgson 's 1 0 e4 ! ? is
interesting, but 1 0 tUc3 tUc2+ [or
10 . . J:lb8 1 1 i.b5+ tUc6 12 d5 a6 1 3
dxc6 axb5 1 4 �d5 ! ] 1 1 'it> f2 tUxa l
12
i.b5+
looks
the
most
straightforward.
White
has
a
tremendous attack) 9 e4 tUe3 1 0
exf5 ! (That good old b5-e8 diagonal
again) 10 . . . �a5+ ! 1 1 �d2 tUc2+
which was played in Bombek­
E.Pinter, Slovak (ch) 2000 . Now
instead of 12 �d l �xd2+ 1 3 tUxd2
tUxa l 14 i.b5+ �d8 1 5 tUe2 g6 1 6
�c l i.h6 1 7 ':d l gxf5 1 8 'it>b l
cxd4 1 9 'it>xa 1 e6 when the rook and
2. . . lLle4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 93
p awns have a reasonable shot
a gainst White ' s two minor pieces,
White should have played 12 c;t>f2 !
'i'xd2 1 3 lLlxd2 lLlxa l 1 4 i.b5+
�d8 1 5 i.d3 ! followed by lLlh3
with a clear advantage. In the
second case White ' s position
coordinates
beautifully,
while
Black's is frankly rather a mess!
b) 6 . . . i.xb l is relatively safe, but
rather pliant. I prefer White ' s
position i n Adams-Emms, British
(ch) Hove 1 997 after 7 lIxb 1 c6 8
i.d3 e6 9 lLle2 i.b4+ 1 0 c;t>f2 i.e7
1 1 g4 dxc4 12 i.xc4 0-0 1 3 e4 .
Note that as so often in the
Trompowsky, especially where
White is expanding on the kings ide,
his king settles fairly comfortably
on f2 .
7 lLlc3 e 6 8 iVb3
Good to see it is White giving the
b-pawn some hassle for a change !
Again we are concerned with plans
more than move order. 8 g4 is also
quite valid. White ' s 8th, 9th and
1 0th are fairly interchangeable with
the important structural proviso that
g4 should precede h4 !
8 b6
This is something of a positional
concession of course, although its
. . .
importance will depend upon where
White chooses to press his initiative.
But alternatives are no bed of roses
either:
a) 8 . . . 'ilid7 9 g4 i.g6 10 h4 h6 1 1
c5 i.e7 1 2 lLlb5 ! (a notable trick,
based upon the iLxb8 motif which is
a regular visitor in the Tromp,
particularly indeed later in this
chapter) 1 2 . . . cxb5 1 3 i.xb8 a6 1 4
i.g3 0-0 (I notice with some
incredulity that Slobodan Kovacevic
recently decided to play this
position a second time as Black. He
is by no means lost, but I do find the
judgement implicit in this decision
rather curious. It seems to me that
White can claim an obvious spatial
plus and a promising kingside
attack. ) 1 5 lLlh3 ( 1 5 lLle2 was also
good) 1 5 . . . iVc6 16 lLlf4 i.h7 1 7
i.d3 iLxd3 1 8 lLlxd3 += Miles­
Kovacevic, Benasque (op) 1 997.
b) Neither does 8 . . . 'itb6 look
especially appetising. White has 9
c5 iVxb3 1 0 axb3 with a structure
well-known from other d-pawn
openings in which the open a-file
helps White secure further benefits
from the b4-b5 break which, owing
to the pinned a-pawn will not be
hindered should Black opt to play
. . . a6. This should secure White a
definite initiative.
9 g4 i.g6 10 h4 h6 n lLlh3 iLe7
An attempt to improve upon
1 1 . . . dxc4 which cedes the centre
still further in return for a shade
more space for the Black pieces.
This led to one of the
reat
Trompowsky classics after 1 2 xc4
lLld5 1 3 0-0-0 i.d6 ( 1 3 . . . lLlxf4
would remove the e6 pawn ' s shield,
and leave it hugely vulnerable to
either a sacrifice or a d4-d5
breakthrough) 1 4 iLxd6 iVxd6 1 5 e4
J.
•
94 2 ..tiJe4 3 .i.f4 d5 4 e3
.
lDxc3 1 6 'iix c3 lDd7 1 7 h5 ! .i.h7 1 8
c;to>b l 0-0-0 1 9 c;to>a l ! (As we have
seen, issues of where to press home
the initiative in this line are
inextricably linked with the question
of king placement and king safety.
Here Stuart wisely invests time in
tucking the king into the comer, as
he has his own sights on the
queenside now that Black's king
nestles there) 1 9 . . . 'iiitb 8 20 lDf2 f6
2 1 .i.a6
A strong move in itself, this
bishop sortie also embodies a
strategic lesson in itself. White
emphasises how the black bishop is
shut out, biting only on the
supremely well-guarded e-pawn,
while his own bishop can adopt a
threatening posture on the other
wing. To cap it all, its own influence
is a direct consequence of its
adversary' s difficulties.
2 1 . . . c 5 ? ! (2 1 . . . r;£j>a8 += keeps
White' s advantage within bounds)
22 'i'a3 'iig 3 23 Ithfl cxd4 24 lDd3
lDe5 25 .l:.c 1 Ilhe8 26 'ii' a4 ! (still
infiltrating the deserted light
squares) 26 . . . l:!.e7 27 'i'xd4 ! ned7
28 'i'c3 and mate on c8 cannot be
prevented at acceptable cost,
therefore 1 -0 . Conquest-Xie Jun,
Hastings 1 996, a model of patient
attacking build-up from Stuart.
1 2 0-0-0 as 13 cxdS exdS 14
.i.d3
This is OK, but I would prefer 1 4
lDf2 in order to recapture on d3 with
the knight.
14 . . . i.. x d3 IS .l:.xd3 lDbd7 1 6
Ilddl lDh7
I suppose Black is trying to
predict a menacing g5-g6 advance.
The problem is that White has a
very flexible formation in the centre
anyway, and this gives grounds for
extra optimism regarding any
coming central breakthrough.
17 e4 dxe4 1 8 lDxe4 !
Eyeing both the d6 square and the
g5 break, as well as ensuring that
. . . .i.xh4 will not confuse the issue.
1 8 . . . lDdf6 19 gS lDdS
Opening the h-file would provide
no respite. After 1 9 . . . hxg5 20 hxg5
lDd5 , Luc Winants himself gives 2 1
i.. e 5, but 2 1 g6 fxg6 22 lDhg5 !
looks considerably more incisive.
20 gxh6 gxh6 21 .i.xh6 i.. x h4 22
lDf4
This game is a model for the kind
of momentum which plays a maj or
role in the concept of the
' initiative ' . Black is given no pause
for thought before facing a further
barrage - his best pieces are
2 lLle4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 95
. . .
likewise given no time to settle.
Since d5 is a good square, pester
th at knight !
22 . . . a4
With the next couple of moves
Black loses the exchange and the
remaining difficulties can be
classified in the traditional manner
as ' technical ' . It is a tribute to the
power of White ' s play that Fritz
seems
to
suggest
that this
unfortunate scenario was Black
coping as best he could!
23 llVc4 1:!.c8 24 l'Llxd5! cxd5 25
l'Lld6+ 'it>d7 26 'ii' x c8+ 'i'xc8+ 2 7
l'Llxc8 .uxc8+ 28 'it> b 1 i.f6 29 i.g7!
Further exchanges ensure an easy
win.
29 l:1.g8 30 l:Ixh7 l:.xg7 31 l:txg7
..txg7 32 'it>c2 �e6 33 �d3 �f5 34
l:tcl ..tfS 35 .l:i.c8 i.b4 36 ktc6 .lta5
37 .l:i.d6 f6 38 l::i. x d5+ 'it>f4 39 l:1.b5
1-0
. . .
Game 2 1
Lputian - Z.Ilincic
Yerevan (zt) 2000
1 d4 l'Llf6 2 .ltg5 l'Lle4 3 .ltf4 d5 4
e3 .ltf5 5 n l'Lld6 ! ?
Having witnessed above the force
of the c2-c4 plan, it is under­
standable that some players felt
encouraged to check out this
alternative. There may be an almost
automatic suspicion of a certain
artificiality attached to such a
retreat. However, it has some solid
qualities. Aside from preventing the
move c2-c4 for the moment, c4 is an
important square to keep an eye on
anyway, and the knight is also
spared being a target for White ' s
g4-g5 aspirations. Here I a m much
more agnostic than in the last game
about whether White should still
play for c2-c4, or just play in the
centre and on the kings ide.
However, I still have a sneaking
respect for the quiet approach which
White adopts in the game, backed
by an enormous respect for 5mbat
Lputian' s chess understanding in
general.
6 l'Lld2 ! ?
This of course signals White ' s
determination t o press o n in
' Queen' s Gambit' mode with c4 . In
this position though it is quite
reasonable that the knight' s position
on d6 rather than f6 should
encourage White to hit in the centre
with e2-e4, which will put greater
than usual pressure on d5 . In my
view though, Black has reasonable
compensation for this. If White
castles long for example, the knight
on d6, keeping contact with the
important c4 square, can be rather a
potent attacking piece.
Some
examples:
6 lLlc3 e6 and now:
a) 7 g4 ! ? (anyway! ) 7 . . . ..tg6 8
i.d3 ! ? (8 iVd2 ! ?) 8 . . . lLlc6 9 lLlge2
.lte7 1 0 llVd2 a6 1 1 i.g3 b5?! To my
mind this is a rather instructive
moment. It is not such a bad move,
but there is a question of timing that
deserves a mention. The problem is
that White, for all his kings ide
96 2 ..tiJe4 3 Jif4 d5 4 e3
.
commitment is still reasonably
flexible. Such a move is more
appropriate when White has really
no more possibility to switch back
and start examining the undeniable
weaknesses on the c-file that such a
pawn break entails. The next few
moves demonstrate that this is not
the case here. 12 h4 b4? ! 1 3 liJa4
liJb 7 14 h5 .lixd3 1 5 cxd3 ! both
covering the c4 square (I think this
recapture has been in White ' s mind
for some moves here) and opening
the c-file for operations. What about
White ' s king? It went to d2 and
looked reasonably comfortable with
the fact. Moreno Camero - Cao,
Collado Villalba (op) 2000.
b) 7 'ife2 .lig6 ! (Better I think
than 7 . . . .lie7 8 e4 when Black is
forced to capture. Despite the fact
that after 8 . . . dxe4 he has a neat
avoids
being
trick
which
immediately flattened in the centre
(9 fxe4? liJxe4 ! 1 0 liJxe4 �xd4
with a spot of embarrassment on
White ' s 4th rank) after 9 0-0-0 exD
1 0 liJxD 0-0 1 1 h3 h6 1 2 g4 .lih7
1 3 h4 White had oodles of
compensation in Efimov-Olivier,
Monaco Masters 2000) 8 0-0-0
(Now
on
the
other
hand,
' exploiting ' the pin on the e-pawn
by 8 e4 c6 9 exd5? ! cxd5 1 0 ctJxd5
liJc6 1 1 0-0-0 ':'c8 ! invites serious
counterplay) 8 . . . .lie7 9 e4 c6 1 0
'ilVe l ( 1 0 h4 ! ?) 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 h4 h6 1 2
.lid3 ( 1 2 g4 b 5 1 3 g5 h5 ! also gives
Black decent counter-chances, as
Avrukh shows.
The knight' s
absence from f6 has the up-side o f
complicating the process o f opening
files against the black king) 1 2 . . . b5
1 3 .lixd6 ! ? .lixd6 14 e5 .lixd3 1 5
Zlxd3 .lie7 1 6 f4 �a5 1 7 'it'b l c5 !
1 8 dxc5 liJc6 with a hugely
complicated race between the
respective attacks in which I think
Black
should
have
adequate
resources. Leko-Krasenkow, Polan­
ica Zdroj , 1 99 8 . Clearly it' s not just
English 2700 players who play the
Tromp from time to time !
6 . . . e6 7 c4
7 ... liJxc4
To my mind it is slightly strange
to capture in this way. Is Black
afraid of 7 . . . dxc4 8 e4 ! ? I doubt if it
is too scary since after 8 . . . .lig6
White has nothing better than 9
liJxc4 in any case.
In fact, the resulting positions are
all fairly similar anyway (as coaches
like to say, learn the structure not
the moves, and there is something in
this advice ! ) but it is worth
mentioning that the possibility of
which Lputian decided to avail
himself in the game is created by
Black ' s move order.
In order to get a feel for the
positions, here is the Julian himself
behind the wheels. 7 . . . dxc4 8 liJxc4
liJd7 9 l:tc 1 liJxc4 1 0 .lixc4 .lid6 1 1
liJe2 0-0 1 2 e4 .lig6 1 3 0-0 e5 1 4
dxe5 i..x e5 1 5 'i!Vb3 .lixf4 1 6 liJxf4
liJb6 1 7 'i!V e3 It is interesting that
White does not fear the coming
exchange. 1 7 . . . liJxc4 1 8 l:lxc4 c6
2 tiJe4 3 ..ltf4 d5 4 e3 97
. . .
1 9 J:.d4 �6 20 'lif2 was Hodgson­
He rtneck, Bundesliga 2000. It may
not look that much, but the contrast
in the respective minor pieces is
actually quite serious . It is very hard
to bring the bishop back from the
doldrums of g6 without granting the
knight and rooks key squares. Julian
was duly able to convert this
advantage.
8 tiJxc4 dxc4
9 e4 ! ?
This i s the additional option
which I explained above. It enables
White to play with his king on g l
rather than f2 , and whatever the
relative merits, it is understandable
that some might feel more
comfortable with this option. In
Winants-Van Haastert, Netherlands
(tch) 200 1 , White preferred 9 Sl.xc4
..ltb4+ 1 0 <;t>f2 . This is important
since in the event of 7 . . . dxc4 he
would be obliged to go down this
route anyway. After 1 0 . . . Sl.d6 1 1
tiJe2 h6 1 2 'lib3 Sl.xf4 1 3 tiJxf4
tiJd7 ! 1 4 :!:i.ac 1 0-0 1 5 J:.hd 1 tiJb6 1 6
Sl.f1 �d6 1 7 <;t>g l e 5 1 8 dxe5 'lixe5
1 9 'Iic3 'lixc3 20 l:.xc3 g5 White
was unable to win, although he did
make some serious headway with
what at this stage is just a miniscule
nibble. The problem? Basically
Black' s bishop was allowed time to
rejoin the action in contrast with the
other games in this section. The
reason for this? I think 1 2 �3
makes limited sense if he is
unwilling to follow through by
snaffling the b-pawn. White could
have considered 1 2 e4 ! ? Sl.h7 1 3
J:.c 1 for example when I still prefer
his chances.
9 . . . ..ltb4+ 1 0 ..ltd2 Sl.xd2+ 1 1
'lixd2 Sl.g6 1 2 Sl.xc4 0-0 1 3 tiJe2
'lie7 14 0-0 tiJd7 15 l:.ac1 c6 1 6
:!:i.fd l <;t>h8
Hugely exciting it is not, but the
examples already given in the notes
do assist in our understanding of the
basic point. The bishop on g6 is
passive, and Black has precious
little by way of compensation for
this. Note that either attempt to
strike back in the centre ( . . . c6-c5 or
. . . e6-e5) can be forcefully met with
d4-d5 . In most cases an opening of
the centre which still leaves the e4
pawn as a rock-like presence will
only serve to highlight the absence
of the g6 bishop from the main
action. I mentioned earlier that
White is sticking to ' Queen ' s
Gambit' mode and the position to
me greatly resembles a Slav defence
which Black has rather mishandled.
17 tiJf4 J:.fd8 1 8 l:.c3 tiJb6 1 9
Sl.b3 l:.d7
Perhaps 1 9 . . . e5 now, if ever, but
after 20 tiJxg6+ hxg6 any ensuing
freedom would come at the price of
a weak f7 pawn. These are typical
dilemmas. When playing against
such a bishop re-capturing space
often involves enhancing the
opponent' s minor piece.
20 l:.d3 l:.ad8 21 'liaS ! tiJc8 22 g3
l:.d6 23 <;t>g2 f6? !
98 2 ..tiJe4 3 �f4 d5 4 e3
.
52 <s;xg6 1:Ig3+ 53 <S;h7 :a3 54
<S;g8 1-0
Not a pleasant experience for the
defender, although towards the end
one which he could have shortened
with a clear conscience !
Game 22
Akopian - Mohandesi
Elista (01) 1 998
Definitely an impatient move, but
doing nothing is one of the hardest
things in chess, and finding
intelligent moves over a period of
time when there is no real plan has
been the speciality of only a select
band of defenders . The temptation is
always to make the position
' critical ' again, in the sense that
White must adjust to finding
accurate moves rather than building
at his own pace. Black ' threatens ' to
use his g6 bishop once again. Here
the weak e6 pawn and the increased
vulnerability of Black's king are too
high a price to pay.
24 e5! fxe5 25 ltJxg6+ hxg6 26
'iYxe5 ltJb6 27 lie3 ttJd7 28 ll+'a5
ltJb6 29 l:te4 !
Lputian denies his opponent any
respite. Black I guess hoped for 29
W1ixa7 c5 when he could at least play
some chess again.
29 . . . ltJd5 30 W1ixa7 'i/Vg5 31 l:tdel
b6 32 W1if7 W1if6 33 'iYxf6 gxf6 34
1:Ixe6
The rest is easy.
34 . . . ltJb4 35 l:txd6 lixd6 36 a3
ltJd5 37 �xd5 l:txd5 38 1:Ie6 l:txd4
39 l:txf6 <s;g7 40 lhc6 l:i.d2+ 4 1
<S;h3 l:i.xb2 4 2 a 4 �h6 4 3 f4 �g7
44 �g4 1:Ixh2 45 l:txb6 l:i.hl 46 a5
:al 47 a6 �a3 48 l:tb7+ <S;f6 49 a7
<s;e6 50 <s;g5 lIxg3+ 5 1 <S;h6 l:ta3
1 d4 ltJf6 2 �g5 ltJe4 3 �f4 d5 4
e3 e6
At first sight a little passive, there
is actually a certain amount of
respect knocking around for this
unpretentious move. The main point
is that Black can rapidly aim to
question the Tromp bishop with the
move . . . i.d6. As we shall see, it is
also a choice that can work in
conjunction with an early . . . c5 .
This seems like a reasonable
moment to consider another simple
developing move. 4 . . . g6 5 �d3
ltJd6 (looks a bit passive. 5 . . . i.g7
looks better, but after 6 �xe4 dxe4,
whether White plays 7 ltJc3 or tries
to keep his centre tighter with 7
ltJd2 and c3, Black will need the
. . . c5 break and we will be highly
likely to transpose to Game 26 note
to Black's 7th) 6 h4 ! ? An enterpris­
ing effort to punish Black ' s caution
which works a treat here 6 . . . �g7 7
ltJc3 c6 8 h5 W/ib6 9 �e5 ! �xe5 1 0
dxe5 ltJc4 1 1 hxg6 fxg6 1 2 �xg6+
<S;d8 1 3 ii'd4 with clear advantage
in Lputian-Ashley, Las Vegas (op)
200 1 .
5 i.d3
As usual there are also playable
quiet moves, but I can only reiterate
that I think the �d3xe4 idea has
added hugely to the punch of the
Trompowsky, and poses Black
tricky and un-stereotyped problems.
2 ctJe4 3 .tf4 d5 4 e3 99
. . .
5 . .td6
This makes the most sense. The
simplicity of White ' s ' capture on e4
and then harass the e-pawn' plan
comes under fire. The possibility of
capture on f4 in tum forces White to
reckon with some new structures.
Of the others, aside from 5 . . . c5
which I will touch upon in the notes
to Game 26, one other possibility
deserves a
mention,
if not
intrinsically
then
necessarily
because of the significant outing
that was its debut. In Hodgson­
Yermolinsky, Hastings, 1 995 Black
chose 5 . . . b6 ! ? 6 .txe4 (Of course 6
ctJd2 is also legitimate here if White
wants a quiet and safe life. I am
trying on the whole to avoid the
quiet and frankly slightly dull Torre
Attack!3 .tf4 type positions, but it
might be an encouragement to some
that B lack' s development pattern is
already determined. Also I would
consider 6 ctJe2 ! ? with a quick c4 to
follow) 6 . . . dxe4 7 ctJc3 .tb4 ! ?
(7 . . . .tb7 8 �g4 �d7 ! ? 9 0-0-0 ctJa6
was Hauchard-A. Sokolov, France
(Tch) 1 998, when I would suggest
1 0 f3 exf3 1 1 ctJxf3 with good
development to compensate for the
bishop pair) 8 �g4 ! ? (8 ctJge2 looks
a sensible ' safe option' ) 8 . . 0-0 and
now Julian went badly wrong and
was quickly worse with 9 �g3 ?
. .
.txc3+ ! 1 0 bxc3 ctJc6 1 1 ctJh3 ( 1 1
..Itxc7? ! �d5 1 2 �d6 �c4 l 3 ctJe2
.tb7 leaves White desperately weak
on the light squares) 1 1 . . ...Ita6 !
The key question revolves around
the attempt to win material with the
superior 9 .te5 ! f6 1 0 �xe4 fxe5 1 1
�xa8 exd4 1 2 0-0-0 when Julian
does not trust Black' s compen­
sation, and indeed 12 . . . .txc3 1 3
bxc3 �d6 1 4 Mxd4 �a3+ 1 5 �b l
looks safe enough for White, but
1 2 . . . .td7 ! ? is interesting since l 3
1:.xd4 .txc3 1 4 bxc3 'Yi'e7 ! 1 5 �xa7
( 1 5 'Yi'e4 .tc6 also carries dangers)
1 5 . . . ctJc6 wins back the exchange
and matters seem far from clear. For
this reason, I think White would be
better off opting for one of the early
deviations.
6 ctJe2 !
I like this. There are a number of
games in which White plays 6 ..Itxe4
.txf4 ! 7 exf4 dxe4 but this structure
does not inspire confidence. After 8
ctJc3 ctJc6 ! 9 ctJge2 f5 for example,
it might seem superficially attractive
to possess the knight pair given the
weak dark squares, but in fact they
lack access to any convincing posts.
Neither is 6 .txd6 the answer either 6 . . . �xd6 or 6 . . . ctJxd6 look
quite adequate.
.
6 . . . ctJd7
1 00 2 ..'i:Je4 3 kf4 d5 4 e3
.
The more I look at the diagram
position the trickier it looks for
Black. White has two familiar
enough strategies - to capture on e4
and try to round up the e-pawn, or
to play with c4 which is liable to
lead to either a good Queen ' s
Gambit, o r a very healthy Dutch,
depending on Black' s attitude to his
e4 knight. One example of this latter
White plan:
6 . . . 0-0 7 0-0 (7 c4 ! ? immediately
might be still more to the point)
7 . . .'iJ d7 8 c4 .l:.e8 ? ! (Already we
see how Black ' s pieces might feel a
little awkward. 8 . . . c6? would be the
' nonnal ' move, other things being
equal, but they are not, since it can
be met with 9 kxe4 kxf4 1 0
kxh7+ winning a pawn) 9 1i'c2
lLldf6 10 cS kxf4 1 1 exf4 !
(revealing further embarrassment
for Black's knights) 1 1 . . . lLld7 1 2
i.xe4 dxe4 1 3 �xe4 lLlf6 1 4 1i'c2
and Black should not have enough
for a pawn in
Szymanski­
Jakubowski, Poland (U- 1 8ch) 200 1 .
7 i.xe4 ! ?
Again 7 c4 ! ? i s an interesting
option.
7 . . . dxe4 8 lLld2 ! f5 9 lLlc4 'ilie7
10 1i'd2 i.xf4
Positionally, this very much
clarifies things in White' s favour.
White is better on the dark squares,
and has tremendous knights. Black ' s
difficulties are compounded b y the
fact that 1 0 . . . O-O? fails to 1 1 kxd6 !
cxd6 1 2 'Vib4, but he might have
better seized the moment to play
1 0 . . . bS ! since 1 1 lLlaS?? loses to
1 1 . . . i.b4, while if 1 1 lLlxd6+ cxd6
he can reclaim control of eS,
although after 12 'iWb4 e5 13 kg3 I
still somewhat prefer White ' s tidier
structure.
1 1 lLlxf4 0-0 12 0-0-0 lLlf6 13 h 4
The immediate 1 3 lLle5 ! ? woul d
also be possible, since . . . gS is
hardly a threat.
13 . . . b5 14 lLle5 kb7 15 h5 kd5
16 l::t h3 �d6 17 g4 ! lLlxg4 18 lLlxg4
fxg4 1 9 .l:.g3 �a6 20 a3 l:tab8 2 1
�b4 �d6 22 ':'xg4
This moment should be the
culmination of White ' s strategy. He
seems to have everything: Chances
on the g-file; a solid position and
control of key squares on the
queen ' s wing; as well as the better
minor piece (although it is fair to
say that Black has made the best of
his
once
rather questionable
bishop) . It seems surprising that a
player of Akopian' s considerable
class did not put Black away here.
Still,
al l
is
not
quite
as
straightforward as it might appear.
The main difficulty is that the
knight, for all its undoubted
qualities, is also charged with
' shielding ' the weak f2 pawn. This
job it perfonns well, but only if it
stays put. Black's next two moves
also herald a good makeshift
solution to the problems on the
queenside. In fact, the position
might be no more than slightly
favourable for White.
2 ctJe4 3 iif4 d5 4 e3 1 01
. . .
22 . . JlVxb4! 23 axb4 1:.a8! 24
l::t d gl kIn 25 Wd2
Neither is 25 b3 a5 26 bxa5 l::tx a5
27 'it>b2 b4 ! an automatic route to
success. If White can penetrate to b4
and c5 it all looks much more
promising (his rook is happy
enough moving to c 1 to keep Black
out) but it is hard to organise.
25 . . . a5 26 bxa5 J::i. x a5 27 kIg5 c6
28 'it>c3 kIa4 ! 29 b3 b4+! 30 'it>b2
J::i. a8 31 kIal
Probably necessary to prevent
counterplay along the a-file, but the
main danger has clearly passed. An
undoubted achievement for Black ' s
defence.
3 1 . . . l::t x al 32 'it>xal J::i. a 7+ 33
�b2 'it>n 34 ctJe2 'it>f6 35 kIg4 e5
36 dxe5+ 'it>xe5 37 ctJf4 'it>f5 38
kIgl 'it>e5 39 kIg5+ 'it>f6 40 kIgl
�e5 41 c3 bxc3+ 42 'it>xc3 kIb7 43
b4 �f5 44 kIdl iLn 45 kIgl 'it>f6 46
J::i. a l 'it>g5 47 kIa5+ 'it>g4 48 �e5
Wf3 49 l:tf5 Wg4 YZ-YZ
An instructive example of the
dangers of ' assessment at first
glance ' .
Game 23
Romero Holmes - Garcia Luque
Spanish (ch), Linares 1 998
1 d4 ctJf6 2 iLg5 ctJe4 3 iLf4 d5 4
e3 c6
"This move does not look a
particularly
inspired
choice"
declares Hodgson, and I must say I
see where he is coming from. Still,
it has been played at a high level
and virtually obliges White to play
quite critically to demonstrate an
advantage.
5 iLd3
5 ...�6
The first of a series of related but
subtly different attempts to grab the
b-pawn which will provide this
chapter with some of its top notch
entertainment. Sometimes looking
at all this consumption of poisoned
wares, it is tempting to wonder "will
Black never learn"? In fact though,
while White tends to win the most
publishable games in such positions,
the theoretical status of these
gambits is often ' interesting but
unclear' or as Julian likes to put it
"well worth a punt", but not
necessarily more. Don 't forget
either, in the earlier chapters we
have seen key positions where I was
unable to recommend a gambit, and
White was forced to go passive in
defence of his brittle b-pawn. Not
here. In this particular case I am no
great fan of Black's approach. The
reason? I guess because 4 . . . c6 does
little more than prepare this sortie.
Of course, it might be argued that
the move has the advantage over
4 . . . c5 that it keeps the position
closed, surely a more logical
prelude
pawn-grabbing.
to
Moreover it denies the squares b5
and d5 to White ' s knights of
source
potentially
a
embarrassment when the queen is
away from home. Well, maybe, but
1 02 2 .,tiJe4 3 �f4 d5 4 e3
.
there is also an issue of ' active v.
passive' . My feeling is that the
positions in which Black revels in
his greed and just sits back to take
the punishment work in general less
well than those in which some
pressure is applied to White ' s
centre, even i f this means opening
some lines for the White pieces. In
this specific case, White is not even
gambling too much, since part of his
compensation comes in the form of
a black e-pawn which is very hard
to defend !
So, can Black eschew the b-pawn
and handle the position more
quietly? Well, he can, but I believe
he cannot ultimately escape the lack
of counterpunch otherwise inherent
in his fourth move. Two examples :
a) 5 . . . ttJd7 6 �xe4 ! dxe4 7 ttJc3
ttJf6 8 ttJge2 i.. f5 9 ttJg3 e6 1 0 �g5
( 1 0 0-0 i..b 4 1 1 ttJxf5 exf5 12 ttJe2
also looks worth considering)
1 0 . . . �b4 1 1 0-0 i.. x c3 1 2 bxc3 h6
1 3 �xf6 'ii'xf6 14 f3 gave White
some initiative in Zaichik-Anand,
Coimbatore 1 987 (a strange line to
choose against Zaichik who at that
time was regularly wheeling out the
very indifferent 5 f3 ?! against the
more
active
c-pawn
move ! ) .
Julian
Hodgson
Incidentally
suggests 7 ttJd2 ! ? which would
usually be much more to the point,
targeting Black' s weak e-pawn
without allowing the resource of the
. . . �b4 pin, but in this odd case, it
seems that another pin 7 . . . 'ii' a 5 ! ? is
rather better than it looks. Lines
such as 8 c3 e5 9 ttJc4 'it'b5 1 0
ttJxe5 ttJxe5 1 1 �xe5 'ii'x b2 1 2 ttJe2
�g4 might offer a degree of
attacking chances but are by no
means clear.
b) 5 . . . ttJf6 6 h3 g6 7 ttJf3 �g7 8
0-0 0-0 9 c4 ttJbd7 1 0 ttJc3 dxc4 1 1
i..x c4 ttJb6 1 2 �b3 a5 1 3 l:tc l ttJfd5
1 4 ttJxd5 ttJxd5 1 5 �g3 += was Tu
Hoang Thong-Juswanto, Sea Chess
(chT), Kuala Lumpur 200 1 . Of
course in this type of Grunfeld-Slav
position White has some extra space
and the easier position to handle,
and here he also enj oys the
customary tempo gain which
. . . ttJf6-e4-f6 tends to imply. It is
clearly often worth forcing this
without playing f3 if the option is
available.
We shall see various instances of
the retreat 5 . . . ttJf6. To my mind, it
seems to represent some sort of
moral victory for White ' s opening.
White ' attacks ' the knight on f6 - it
runs. He ' attacks ' it on e4, it runs
again. Black seems to hold the
bishop pair in about as much regard
as his opponent does !
6 i.. x e4 !
To my mind a fully justified
gambit. I mention the alternative 6
'it'c 1 ? ! (which at least really
threatens i..x e4 now) only because I
find Black ' s retort 6 . . . 'it'a5+! rather
instructive. Black forces c3 to
weaken the d3 bishop . After 7 c3
i.. f5 8 f3 ttJd6 (of course 8 . . . ttJf2?
would send the knight to its doom,
whatever your Fritz tells you) 9
2 ctJe4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 1 03
. . .
i.xf5 ctJxf5 1 0 e4 ctJh4 1 1 i.g3
ctJg6 12 ctJe2 e6 1 3 ctJd2 i.e7 1 4
0-0 0-0 1 5 �c2 ctJd7 1 6 ltae l l:tac8
with a position in which White has
succeeded in the goal of creating an
unusual and original position, but
not really in obtaining an opening
in
Adams-Leko,
advantage
Groningen 1 99 5 .
6 dxe4
In this case it makes little
di fference whether Black plays the
' zwischenzug' 6 . . . �xb2 or not, as
White ' s knight is going to d2
anyway.
7 ctJd2 ctJd7 ? !
Again 7 . . �xb2 ! ? i s more usual.
In his notes to his game with Leko
quoted above, Mickey Adams then
gives the line 8 ctJxe4 1Itb4+ 9 c3
�a5 1 0 ctJf3 ctJd7 1 1 0-0 g6 as
unclear, which is what presumably
put him off the gambit. More recent
experience seems to confirm that e2
is probably a superior square for
White ' s king ' s knight.
Perhaps we can assume that
Black, in playing the text move,
would have welcomed a passive
response such as 8 .l:Ib l or 8 �c l ! ?
Theoretically,
I
think
these
(probably the latter) should have
been considered. Black ' s e-pawn is
very fragile, and his compensation
for this far from clear.
8 ctJe2 �xb2 !
At last!
9 ctJxe4
I am not quite sure about the order
of Julian ' s 1 996 games in this line. I
believe that he played this first, but
then graduated later to the more
ambitious 9 a-a ! ? which he then
discussed in his book saying that
"White ' s lead in development easily
compensates for the pawn deficit".
. . .
.
As usual his opinIOn should
command at least prima facie
respect. After 9 a-a ! ? ctJf6 10 c4 !
�a3 1 1 ctJg3 g6 1 2 i.e5 ! i.g7 1 3
ctJgxe4 ctJxe4 1 4 i.xg7 ctJxd2 1 5
�xd2 I:tg8 1 6 i.e5 f6 1 7 i.g3 b6 1 8
e4 c5 1 9 d5 Black's position makes
a terrible impression although he
went on to hold the draw in
Hodgson-Hjartarson, Politiken Cup
Copenhagen 1 996. There is nothing
wrong
with
the
immediate
re-cooping of material on move 9,
but it would appear that exercising a
little extra patience might enable
White to extract still more positional
concessions.
9 ctJf6
An interesting attempt to improve
on the 9 . . . g6 of Hodgson- Smejkal,
Bundesliga 1 996. One of Julian' s
specialities - which goes a fair way
to explaining his prowess as a
Trompowsky player - is the deft
handling of a space advantage in
combat against the bishop pair. This
was a true model .
1 0 0-0 i.g7 1 1 �d3 �b6 1 2 a4 !
0-0 1 3 a5 �d8
1 4 'iYc3 !
(prophylaxis of course against . . . e5,
but also containing ideas of a6 to
undermine
Black's
queens ide)
1 4 . . . a6 1 5 1:tfd l h6? ! 1 6 l:tab l ctJf6
1 7 ctJxf6+ exf6 1 8 �a3 .
. . .
1 04 2 t'i:,e4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3
. . .
A quite masterful demonstration
of how to make the bishop pair look
at best irrelevant,
at worst
ridiculous, achieved against a player
whose own chess understanding is
of the highest calibre.
1 8 . . . Ite8 1 9 c4 i.f8 20 c5 g5 2 1
i.g3 f5 22 t'i:,c3 'ili'f6 2 3 i.e5 Ihe5
(What else? Other things being
equal such a sacrifice might greatly
ease Black' s problems, but as it is
he has the back rank weakness and a
huge square to contend with on b6
which together finish him off. ) 24
dxe5 'iVxe5 25 l:.d8 <J;; g 7 26 t'i:,a4
i.e7 27 l:te8 'iVc7 28 t'i:,b6 l:[b8 29
t'i:,xc8 J::tx c8 3 0 'ilib2+ i.f6 3 1 l:txc8
'ili'xc8 32 'ili'xb7 'ilt'e6 3 3 'ilt'xa6 �a2
34 �d3 1 -0
Another Trompowsky classic
from Julian.
10 t'i:,xf6+ exf6 1 1 0-0 i.e6 ? !
The motivation for this serious
error of judgement is not so hard to
fathom. Inviting White ' s rook to b7
when your development is suffering
always involves risks, but the
precise way in which this can be
exploited was quite easy to
overlook. 1 1 . . . i.e7 would have
been much safer, when De la Villa
gives 12 'iWd2 (since 1 2 �d3 is met
with 12 . . .'iVa3 ! ) 1 2 . . . �6 1 3 a4
+=, although I think I might prefer
to kick off with 1 2 a4 ! ? and still put
the queen on d3 . In either case,
White has chances on the queenside
and space in the centre, while
Black ' s bishops still lack real scope.
12 l:tbl 'ilt'xa2 13 ':'xb7 'ilt'a6 14
�1
This idea of leaving the e2 knight
unguarded could well be what Black
underestimated when embarking on
his incautious 1 1 th move.
14 . . . i.c8
Of course not the immediate
14 . . .'ihe2? as 1 5 .l:f.b8+ ':'xb8 1 6
�xb8+ 'it'd7 1 7 .l:tb 1 wins outright.
15 J::tb 8 .l:f.xb8 16 'iVxb8 i.e7 1 7
i.d6 !
This second incarnation of the
sacrifice on the other hand, is both
much more subtle and instructive. I
would have loved to have known
this example when I recently wrote
an article on ' the initiative ' since
such a move all but exemplifies the
concept in one go .
The main point from the
attacker' s point of view is the
priority afforded to preventing
castling. Positionally it is important
that the exchange of bishops is such
a boon to the White cause that the
piece offer can scarcely be
satisfactorily declined. Relevant
from the practical standpoint is that
White ' s ' gamble' is kept within
bounds as it is not hard to calculate
that his control of the black squares
is sufficient to secure perpetual
check if Black accepts the offer. It is
possible, in other words to play this
with nothing more firm than the
'probability' that there will tum out
to be more. Lastly, but crucial from
the standpoint of ' initiative ' White
keeps the momentum. Dealing with
the threat to the knight would lose
2 t{je4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 1 05
. . .
Preventing Black from
time.
attending to king safety wins it,
heap s of it.
1 7 . . . i.xd6 18 iVxd6 WiVxe2 1 9
iVxc6+
1 9 ... We7
It would be safer to stay closer to
home. 1 9 . . . �d8 ! would have put
greater pressure on White to prove
more than the draw which 20 iVd6+
would secure. Since trying to bring
in the rook generally requires
expending a tempo to prevent back
rank embarrassment, it seems that
pushing the two passed pawns is
rather the key. Therefore I like 20
iVd5 ! + (20 iVd6+ �e8 2 1 iVc7 iVg4
22 l:tb 1 iVd7 is not fully
convincing) 20 . . . �e8 2 1 c4 iVb2 !
(to try to exclude White ' s rook from
the action) 22 iVc6+ Wd8 23 iVd6+
We8 24 c5 and I am reasonably
optimistic about White ' s compens­
ation given Black ' s problems either
developing or competing for the
dark squares. However, this would
still have meant a tougher fight.
20 iVc5+ �e6 ? !
Really too risky . 20 . . . � d 8 2 1 c4 !
is an improved version for White of
the above note, but should still have
been tried.
2 1 c4 ! iVa2 22 iVc7 j.a6?
The final and decisive mistake
which scarcely challenges White ' s
intention t o weave a mating net.
After the more gritty 22 . . . j.d7 23
d5+ �e7 White has a choice. He
can go all in with 24 d6+ �e6 25
f4 ! f5 26 iVc5 iVb2 27 g4 ! Wf6 28
WiVc7 which wins back the piece and
retains an attack, although after
28 . . . iVc3 29 iVxd7 iVxe3+ Black
can at least slightly disturb the white
king in tum. Alternatively assuming
he trusts the kind of initiative
outlined in previous notes, he can
opt for a still better version with the
more solid 24 iVc5+ �e8 25 d6 (De
la Villa) 25 . . . Wf8 ! 26 iVc7 iVa4 27
iVd8+ j.e8 28 �b 1 and it is difficult
to see Black escaping from his cage.
23 e4 ! j.xc4 24 f4 ! f5 25 d5+
j.xd5 26 exf5 ! + 1-0 as mate in two
follows after 26 . . . Wxf5 27 iVe5+
Wg6 28 iVg5 mate.
Game 24
Adams - Xie Jun
Hastings 1 996
1 d4 t{jf6 2 j.g5 Cbe4 3 j.f4 d5 4
e3 c5 ! ?
Since Black gets whipped in this
game, it is worth reminding
1 06 2 0,e4 3 iLf4 d5 4 e3
. . .
ourselves that this is a very
respectable move, arguably the best.
5 iLd3 !
We are becoming used to this
move increasingly replacing the
alternatives. The older move 5 f3 ? !
'1Wa5+! 6 c 3 0,f6 7 0,d2 cxd4 8 exd4
looks distinctly unattractive for
White. The move f3 makes a very
poor impression in an Exchange
Caro-Kann structure.
5 . . ,'iY'b6? !
The evidence suggests that this
ambitious queen sortie is probably
asking just a bit too much. I have
already had occasion to refer to the
scepticism of 1M Ilya Tsesarsky
who writes on Trompowsky topics
for ChessBase Magazine, and seems
to have particularly little sympathy
with a number of those cases where
the White cause has to take on a
gambit element. This is a case III
point as (admittedly in 1 997) he
attached the highly optimistic
marking '5 . . .'iY'b6=+ ' .
6 .txe4
6 ... dxe4
No ambitious soul has felt moved
to check out the immediate capture
on b2 here. 6 . . . '1Wxb2 ! ? is far from
ridiculous and raises two questions :
Can White sacrifice the exchange
here? If not, is it clearly the better
move (as De la Villa implies it
would be) or might White ' s knight
actually be just as happy to head for
d2 as c3?
In fact I am not certain about the
soundness of the 7 iLxd5 'ii'x al 8
0,f3
which
was
originally
mentioned by Mickey in his notes
and which just about everyone
quotes without elaboration. It would
give good prospects for creating
mess of course and scenarios like
8 . . . e6 9 iLc4 'ifVb2 1 0 0-0 iLe7 1 1
d5 ! ? exd5 1 2 iLe5 'iVb6 1 3 0,c3 ! ?
would b e enough to scare off
opponents against the right kind of
attacking player. But pause for
thought and try to assess the
superior 1 1 . . . O- O ! 1 2 iLxb8 (what
else) 1 2 . . ..lhb8 1 3 d6 iLf6 ! 14 d7
b5 1 5 dxc8='ii' .l:!.fxc8 and it is
difficult to avoid feeling that
Black ' s problems have been turned
into assets at a rather acceptable
material price.
I suspect that the sacrifice is what
puts Black off in practice, but the
real theoretical point might be that 7
0,d2( ! ) dxe4 8 0,e2 is similarly
promising compensation to that
found in the main line. Black has
better chances of surviving the
quick knockout, but every chance of
emerging without an e-pawn and
with less space, much as in the notes
to game 23 . Replacing . . . c6 with
. . . c5 gives Black's pieces a bit more
breathing space, but still no very
good squares to settle on.
7 0,c3 'ii'x b2
It is at this juncture that Tsesarsky
gets excited about Black's prospects
after 7 . . . cxd4 ! ? which he hails as a
major improvement. I am sceptical
if only because White can now play
2 CLJe4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 1 0 7
. . .
8 �xd4 ! �xd4 9 exd4 i.f5 (9 . . . f5? !
1 0 f3 CLJc6 1 1 0-0-0 exf3 1 2 CLJxf3 ±
was Hodgson-A.Jackson, Southend
( op) 1 998 and is worth a mention
because if you are interested in the
'dream position' for White in this
opening, here it is ! ) 1 0 CLJge2 e6 1 1
0-0-0 CLJc6 and now the tempting 1 2
d5 exd5 1 3 CLJxd5 0-0-0 looks
tolerable for Black but the equally
direct 12 CLJg3 i.g4 1 3 1:td2 looks
hard to meet satisfactorily. If we
compare the note to 7 �xd4 in
Game 26, even though White might
have preferred d2 to c3 for his
knight so that he can securely
bolster his d-pawn with c3, it is
hardly surprising that the tempo
Black has wasted playing . . . �b6
before exchanging on d4 counts for
much more.
However, we should also discuss
8 cxd4 here, because the position
can also arise from the more
sensible move order 5 . . . cxd4 6
i.xe4 dxe4 7 cxd4 �b6 ! ? 8 CLJc3 .
Now Black has a choice:
a) 8 . . . �xb2 has never been
te sted, but does look like some
i mprovement on Xie Jun ' s play. As
we shall see, when she eventually
did take on d4, White had a strong
zwischenzug available, which here,
of course, i s not. I suggest 9 CLJge2
i.g4 1 0 O-O ! ? �xc3 1 1 CLJxc3 i.xd l
1 2 1:tfxd l CLJd7 1 3 J!!. ab l b6 1 4 CLJxe4
when White ' s active play seems to
outweigh his slight structural
defects on the queens ide. One clear
illustration of this is that 1 4 . . . 1:tc8
can probably be answered with 1 5
c4 ! ? relying on the fact that opening
a file with all the other boys at home
by 1 5 . . . lIxc4 16 l:!.dc I ! is asking for
trouble. Still, this is an unexplored
and far from stupid approach for
Black, provided he comes from the
5 . . . cxd4 move order.
b) 8 . . . CLJc6 ! though looks like the
more critical move. Now White has
to decide how to deal with the threat
to his e-pawn.
b 1 ) Twice in practice White has
opted for the calm, purposeful but
not perhaps entirely watertight 9
�d2 ! ? but the offer has both times
been declined. Black should really
test the soundness of this. Best is
9 . . . �xd4 ! (9 . . . i.g4 1 0 h3 i.h5 1 1
g4 .tg6 1 2 d5 looks promising for
White) 1 0 'iWxd4 CLJxd4 1 1 0-0-0
CLJe6 ! 12 i.d2 ! ( 1 2 i.e3 f5)
1 2 . . . b6 ! ? (now the risky 1 2 . . . f5 1 3
f3 exf3 1 4 CLJxf3 ought to give
White enough play since his
development is so smooth while his
opponent' s is distinctly awkward)
J 08 2. J i Je4 3 .i.f4 d5 4 e3
1 3 4:Jxe4 .i.b7 1 4 Me l and White
may have just enough piece play to
compensate for the bishop pair, but
I think the defender' s game is at the
same time fundamentally sound,
and he has long-term trumps if he
can develop satisfactorily.
b2) 9 4:Jge2 ! ? (9 d5 ? ! e5 ! ) is
therefore perhaps more plausible,
e.g. 9 . . .i.g4 10 0-0 1 ( 1 0 4:Jxe4 ? !
'sd8 ! [but not 1 0 . . . .i.xe2 1 1 �xe2
4:Jxd4 1 2 �d3 which looks grim for
Black. Compare the Hodgson-Wells
note to move 9 of Game 26.] 1 1
.i.e3 e5 and White ' s position is
starting to creak) with a further
subdivision:
.
b2 1 ) 1O . . . 0-0-0? ! looks risky for
example 1 1 .i.e3 ! ? ( 1 1 �c 1 is a
viable and solid option too) 1 1 . . . e5
( 1 1 . . .�xb2 1 2 ,Sb l .i.xe2 1 3 �d2 ! )
1 2 d 5 �xb2 1 3 ,Sb l 'i'xc3 1 4 4:Jxc3
.i.xd l 15 dxc6! iLxc2 1 6 1hb7 with
a dangerous initiative.
b22) 10 . . . 'sd8 ! is the way to
pressure the d-pawn and retain
greater solidity. However, having
once been a bit sceptical about
White 's position I am now some­
thing of a convert. He seems to get
very acceptable play, and even has a
choice of ways of going about it,
e.g. 1 1 'i' c I ! ? (This looks the most
solid when Black ' normalises ' the
play by recognising that all of
White ' s offers come at a price. 1 1
'i'e l also seems to work very well if
Black gets greedy. For example
1 1 . . .'i'xb2? ! 12 d5 ! seems really
awkward as the superficially
plausible 12 . . . iLxe2 13 dxc6 ! .i.xfl
1 4 'sb 1 just wins for White;
1 1 . . . 4:Jxd4 1 2 4:Jxd4 'i'xd4 1 3 4:Jb5
is as usual too dangerous as well.
1 1 . . . iLxe2 has an added twist this
time since after 12 'i'xe2 4:Jxd4 1 3
'i'xe4 White has to reckon with
13 . . . 'i'xb2. Still, 14 4:Jd5 Mxd5 ! ? 1 5
'i'xd5 4:Je2+ 1 6 �h l 4:Jxf4 1 7 'i'c4
e5 1 8 Mad l also offers a very
dangerous initiative for the material
while it is nice in addition that
White again has a ' safe option' in
1 2 4:Jxe2 . However after the modest
and sensible 1 1 . . . e6 ! 1 2 ,Sb l (The
sacrifices are no longer convincing)
1 2 . . . iLxe2 1 3 'i'xe2 4:Jxd4 14 'i'xe4
'i'c6 I think Black can just about
claim equality) 1 1 . . . e6 ! (Again
sol idity is the order of the day.
1 1 . . . .i.xe2 1 2 4:Jxe2 4:Jxd4 is
possible, but 1 3 4:Jxd4 'i'xd4 1 4
iLe3 'i'e5 1 5 'sd l ! draws attention
to the possibility that the d-file
might become an important factor
while Black's pieces are not yet up
and running)
1 2 .i.e3
(The
advantage of the queen on c l . When
Black plays safe, White does not
have to expend a tempo worrying
about the b-pawn) 1 2 . . . 'i'a5 1 3
4:Jg3 This looks worth an edge for
White, since as the position quietens
down we return to old questions
about the e-pawn' s viability.
All in all, this line, which I once
held to be rather problematic, now
looks decidedly promising for the
attacker.
2 tLle4 3 �f4 d5 4 e3 1 09
. . .
8 tLl ge2 !
8 tLld5 tLla6 is, as Mickey Adams
points out, not so convincing.
8 ... J.. g4? !
Mickey gives this a ' ? ' and it is
true that it doesn 't really succeed in
its main goal. However, I find it
more evident how Black can
improve both before and after,
rather than at this moment.
9 tLlxe4
9 0-0 again allows 9 . . . 'iYxc3 .
This should be quite playable here
too for White, but Mickey ' s route is
much nastier for the defender. With
Black' s rather modest development
the desirability of playing with
queens on the board hardly needs to
be explained. The fact that Black
can force his opponent' s king to e2
hardly impacts on this assessment at
all.
9 ... J.. x e2 10 Wxe2 exd4? !
Black should have insisted on a
queen exchange before it was too
late with 1O . . . 'iYb5+ ! 1 1 'iYd3
'iYxd3+ and now I rather like the
idea of playing with open b and
c- files by 1 2 cxd3 cxd4 and now
instead of 1 3 :tfc 1 tLlc6 1 4 :tab 1 e5
when White would like to have 1 5
:txb7? but has to consider
1 5 . . tLld8 ! , I would suggest the
.
immediate 1 3 :tab 1 with continuing
p ressure.
1 1 'iYd3 !
This seems to be what Black
overlooked, or at least under­
estimated. By denying Black' s
queen the b5 square, White a t a
stroke creates huge embarrassment
in the opposition camp . I don 't
know if Xie Jun simply assumed
that Adams would recapture, but if
her calculations fell down for this
reason she would find herself part of
a very long illustrious tradition !
Assumptions of recaptures have
been
responsible
for
some
memorable mistakes at absolutely
all levels.
1 1 . . . fS ? ! 1 2 tLlgS tLle6 1 3 tLle6!
:te8 14 l:l.hb l 'iYe3 1 5 'iYxe3 dxe3
16 l:l.xb7 Wf7 1 7 tLld4 Wf6
1 8 J.. e 7!
As usual it is the sheer simplicity
of Adams ' solutions which is so
striking. It is easy to understand that
if White has the e5 square on which
to nestle his bishop then the ' stay-at
home ' Black kingside will render
him quite lost. However, to move
from this realisation to this move
which ' attacks ' the c6 knight in a
most unusual way seems to be, for
many, not quite so automatic.
1 1 0 2. Ji:Je4 3 j.f4 d5 4 e3
18 . . . lbxd4+ 19 exd4 a6 20 .:I'.a7
e6 21 .:I'.bl j.e7 22 j.e5+ 1-0
White wins the bishop by
doubling on the 7th in conjunction
with .i.d6.
Game 2S
Speelman - Y.Wang
Beij ing (op) 1 997
1 d4 lbf6 2 j.g5 lbe4 3 j.f4 d5 4
e3 c5 5 .i.d3 lbc6
This looks logical enough, and if
White' s very critical response in the
game was to be found wanting it
would probably be declared the best
move by a broad consensus. As it is,
White can push forward ambitiously
in the centre, and the current
theoretical view seems to be that
Black's hyper-modernism, intent­
ional or otherwise, is just a shade
too provocative.
6 j.xe4 ! dxe4 7 d5
White is basically committed to
this very aggressive approach. 7 c3
would be rather passive, and
7 . . .'i'b6 8 'ib3 j.e6 ! would punish
this quite efficiently.
7 . . . lbb4
This seems the most logical .
Black would like to show that the
space which the d-pawn' s advance
has forged comes at a price - the
weakness of that pawn. At this stage
of historical development we can
say
' classic
hypermodernism'
without being accused I hope, of a
contradiction.
However, there is another equally
ambitious method of handling the
Black position. By playing 7 . . . eS 8
j.g3 lbe7 9 lbc3 f6 Black
endeavours to render White ' s
remaining bishop - the Tromp
bishop no less - a problem piece,
albeit at the expense of further time.
In K.Berg-Navara, Morso 2002
White began appropriately combat­
ive counter-measures with 1 0 'i'hS+
lbg6 ( 1 0 . . . g6 ! ? looks a little
anti-positional, but this may be a bit
of an illusion. It loses a pawn after
1 1 'i'h4 but 1 1 . . .lbfS 1 2 'i'xe4 lbd6
does offer Black some positional
compensation. Still I suspect White,
who can look to break out with e4
and f4 must stand somewhat better)
1 1 0-0-0 'i'aS (how else to defend
the e-pawn even indirectly?) 1 2 f4 !
( 1 2 'iitb 1 ! ? 'ib4 1 3 a3 would also be
worth investigating were it not for
the strength of the text move)
12 . . . exf3 1 3 lbxf3 'iII c 7 (to meet the
threat of lbh4 amongst others)
and now White tried 1 4 lbbS 'i'd7
I S lbh4 when the young Czech
talent showed his considerable
under- standing by giving a piece
temporarily to reach a comfortable
ending with I S . . . 'illg4 ! 1 6 lbc7+
'iit f7 17 'i'xg4 j.xg4 1 8 lbxa8 j.xd l
1 9 .:I'.xd l lbxh4 20 j.xh4 j.d6 2 1 e4
.:I'.xa8 22 .:I'.fl bS 23 g4 h6 24 j.g3
as 2S 'iit d 2 c4 26 a3 a4 27 c3 .:I'.h8
28 h4 gS Yz-Yl
I would prefer the apparently
rather more subtle 14 .:I'.hfl ! to
check out just how Black intends to
strengthen (or even stabilise) his
2 lDe4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 1 1 1
. . .
choose the words
position.
' app arently subtle' because the
move has some pretty brutal sting to
it to o. For example the plausible
1 4 . . . a6 is very strongly met with the
immediate sacrifice 1 5 i.xe5 ! fxe5
1 6 lDh4 with a huge attack.
Attempting to duplicate Navara ' s
app roach with 1 4 . . :i'd7 also falls
victim to a similar assault as this
time 15 i.xe5 ! fxe5 1 6 lDxe5 �d6
1 7 lDfl is very powerful. I think us
hackers always enj oy a little
'schadenfreude ' when a sophistic­
ated idea which trades time for
structure suffers at the hands of
caveman tactics which indeed blow
that very structure apart. Black' s
idea i s i n need of repair.
S lDc3 e6!
Continuing to lure the d-pawn
forward is a much more thematic
test of White ' s play than 8 . . . i.f5 ? !
9 a3 lDa6 1 0 f3 ! exf3 1 1 lDxf3 g6
12 e4 i.d7 1 3 �d2 h6 14 e5 g5 1 5
e6 ! gxf4 1 6 'i'xf4 fxe6 1 7 lDe5 ( 1 7
'ilYe5 ! ?) 1 7 . . :,,*' c 7 1 8 d6 exd6 1 9
'ilYfl+ 'i1td8 2 0 'i'f6+ 'i1tc8 2 1 'iVxh8
with
decisive
advantage
in
Komev-Prokopchuk, Russia Cup
Nefteyugansk 2002 .
9 d6!
The only way to keep the black
bis hop pair under wraps . If this
fails, White needs a whole new
strategy.
9 . . . lDc 6
Black can also take pains to try
and preserve his e4 pawn ' s
existence. A s is s o often the case
when the white knight is on g 1 ,
9 . . . f5 ? ! 1 0 f3 looks rather grim for
Black, but 9 . . :1' a5 ! ? 1 0 lDge2 i.d7
1 1 0-0 f5 makes much more sense.
White
enjoys
the
temporary
advantage of better development,
but is faced with potential long-term
problems if he loses the initiative.
His d-pawn can be weak, and the
bishop pair is not without prospects.
In Hodgson - Ma. Tseitlin, Ischia
1 996 Julian showed his customary
virtuosity for handling the initiative
by playing 1 2 a3 lDc6 1 3 b4 ! but
after 1 3 . . . cxb4 1 4 axb4 'i'b6 he
slightly lost his way and had to
resort to highly speculative means to
keep the momentum. As Greenfeld
points out, with 1 5 'iVd2 ! lDd8 (or
1 5 . . . g5 1 6 i.xg5 lDxb4 1 7 i.e7 ! ?)
1 6 lDa4 White ' s advantage would
be incontestable.
10 lD xe4 f5
Speelman criticises this, but has
little to offer by way of advice for
his adversary. His variation 1 0 . . . e5
1 1 i.g5 �6 12 �d5 ! answering
1 2 . . . 'ii'x b2 with 1 3 l:Id l and, much
more spectacularly, 1 2 . . . i.e6 with
the crushing blow 1 3 lDxc5 ! scores
on aesthetics but will not generate
adherents of the Black position in
their droves. It is somewhat better
after 1 0 . . . e5 to answer 1 1 i.g5 with
the time-gaining 1 1 . . .'i'a5+ 1 2 c3
i.e6. However, 1 3 i.h4 ! followed
by 1 4 lDf3 and so on, still leaves
Black
headache
definite
a
concerning how to recover his
pawn.
1 1 i.g5 'i'b6
112
2
.
..tiJe4 3 iLf4
d5
4 e3
19 ... l::Lc7 20 'iibl i.d6 2 1 :dl
i.e5 22 ttlxe5+ ttlxe5 23 iLf4 1-0
Game 26
Gallagher - Rytshagov
Elista (01) 1998
1 d4 lLJf6 2 iLg5 ttle4 3 i.f4 d5 4
e3 c5 5 i.d3
12 ttlf6+!
If White wants to prioritise the
initiative over material he can play
12 d7+ i.xd7 13 ttlxd6+ i.xd6 14
'iixd6 as
Speelman mentions.
However after 14...'iib4+ 15 c3
'ti'xb2 it is not clear that he has full
compensation. The text must be
stronger.
12 .'�f7
••
Of course 12 ...gxf6 13 'iih5+
�d7 14 'iWf7+ doesn't bear thinking
about.
13 ttlxh7 l::Lxh7 14 d7 iLe7?
This, however, certainly does
deserve criticism. When faced with
such a position Black must look to
cause whatever disruption he can.
This rather irrelevant developing
move really invites White's smooth
development, whereas 14 .. :iVb4+!
15 c3 'iixb2 16 llb1 'if'xc3+ 17 �f1
'if'c4+ ISlLJe2 'if'd5 (18...�g8!?) 19
'if'xd5 exd5 20 dxcS="iW :xc8 21
l:[xb7+ is given as better for White
by Speelman, but he acknowledges
that there is still a good deal of fight
here.
15 ttlf3! 'iixb2 16 0-0 'i\Vb6 17
dxc8='ik l::Lxc8 18 .l:tbl 'i\Va5 19
ztxb7
White is a pawn up and retains a
strong attack. Black survives just a
few more depressing moves.
5 ...cxd4!?
Almost
by
a
process
of
elimination Black came by the idea
of first trying to clarify the centre.
In my opinion this is his best.
Whether he wants to play in a
manner analogous with the last two
games (with ...'iWb6 or ...ttlc6
respectively) or attack the centre in
other ways such as ... g6, the
exchange on d4 helps him. Of
course White also has the option
(after first exchanging on e4) of
recapturing on d4 with the queen,
but there are some question marks
over the efficacy of this strategy too
at present. I am in some doubt as to
exactly White's best course, but I do
not wish to paint too bleak a picture.
I am still quite happy to play this
position with White.
I should first just mention 5...e6
although it appears both more
passive and less flexible. If Black is
embarking on a strategy of ...cxd4
2 lDe4 3 .tf4 d5 4 e3 1 1 3
. . .
and . . . lDc6 there may be some
superficial attraction to holding up
White' s coming d4-d5 advance, but
it would seem to be more important
to keep options for the c8 bishop. 6
i.xe4 ! dxe4 7 lDc3 cxd4 8 'ii'xd4 (8
exd4 ! ? also looks tempting. The
plausible S . . . lDc6 9 lDge2 .tb4 1 0
0-0 .txc3 1 1 lDxc3 'ii'xd4 feels very
dangerous for Black although I
can't really find a knockout.
However, 1 2 lDb5 ! ? 'ii'x d l 1 3 lDc7+
ctie7 1 4 l:taxd l l:!bS 1 5 .td6+ would
probably suffice to make me
unenthusiastic for the Black cause)
8 . . . 'iVxd4 9 exd4 .tb4 10 lDge2 f5
1 1 0-0-0 lDc6 was K.Berg­
Prusikhin, Morso 2002. White ' s
plan o f 1 2 l:lhfl and f3 was
positionally quite reasonable, but
did afford Black some respite to
catch up in development. The
immediate 1 2 d5 ! ? looks more to
the point, and retains a serious
initiative.
6 .txe4 ! ?
This interesting zwischenzug has
been the most popular move, but it
only really has something concrete
to add to White ' s case if he intends
to follow up by capturing on d4
with the queen. It was initially my
intention to recommend that and
this would have added significance
to the note that follows on
6 . . . 1Ii'a5+ ! ? I am now less sure, but
would like to remain vaguely
agnostic between 7 exd4 and 7
'ii'xd4 and hence I have kept in
much of my analysis in both this
note and the next.
What might be less controversial I
think is the claim that if White
intends to keep queens on in any
case then there is at the very least an
' economy of effort' argument for
the immediate 6 exd4 ! ? In this case
after 6 . . . lDc6 he would do well to
have the transpositional 7 .txe4 ( !)
in mind, since 7 c3 .tf5 was
comfortable for Black in Timman­
Van Wely, Breda (m) play-off 1 99 5 .
However, i t i s not inconceivable
that White might have extra ideas
against other 6th moves? For
example the position reached after
6 . . . g6 (thinking a little off the top
of my head, I also wonder whether
he could consider the unusual idea
of meeting 6 . . . 1\i'b6 with 7 lDc3 ! ?) 7
.te5 ! ? f6 8 .txbS lhbS 9 lDe2
.th6 ! (denying f4 to White ' s knight
is an important indirect defence of
the key d5 point) 1 0 c4 0-0 1 1 0-0
.te6 is quite strategically rich
enough to be of interest. In the game
Akopian-Herrera, Linares (op) 200 1
after 1 2 .txe4 dxe4 l 3 d5 .tV 1 4
lDbc3 f5 1 5 b4 "fIc7 1 6 c 5 'ii'e 5 1 7
1\i'b3 f4 play had degenerated a little
into a race in which Black has quite
potent counter-chances against the
white king, but White ' s pressure
against the centre could be exerted
with greater delicacy by 1 2 l:le l ! ?
after which I think Black must tread
with real care.
6 ... dxe4
A simple automatic recapture. Or
is it? I am often struck by how many
important novelties are simply
1 1 4 2 ..tiJe4 3 .i.f4 d5 4 e3
.
overlooked unless they are played in
really top flight events. Even now
that databases routinely include
even tournaments of a very modest
level it is still possible to strike gold
with a little careful research. Do we
have a case in point here? I was
surprised to stumble across an
encounter which, for all its brevity
is extremely rich in implications . In
Staufer
Lomineishvili-Jobava,
(open) 200 1 Black flicked in the
check 6 . . :iWa5+ ! ? here, and play
ended abruptly after 7 'iVd2 'iVxd2+
8 tUxd2 dxe3 9 .i.xd5 exd2+ 1 0
.i.xd2 tUc6 and a draw was agreed.
Interestingly, when I showed
6 . . . 'iVa5+ to Luke McShane, his
reaction to this final position
differed markedly from my own. I
found it rather lifeless for White, but
he wanted to put the bishop on c3
and the knight on e2, with options to
hassle the bishop when it comes to
f5, and also with the lever £2 -f4 to
dissuade Black from putting his
e-pawn on e5 . I think he was
basically right. This is certainly
enough to keep the discussion here
very much alive.
However, by this stage I had
already set my caveman-like
instincts to work, with their
tendency, when faced with some
kind of resource such as a
zwischenzug
which
is
itself
inherently tactical, to examine the
very sharpest ideas. I was attracted
by the idea 7 c3 ! ? dxc3 8 b4 ! (if 8
tUxc3 dxe4 then White ' s attempts to
generate compensation for the pawn
always seem to show quite how
badly he misses the light-squared
bishop ) 8 . . . 'iVxb4 9 .i.c2 suggests
itself. Black should then go for the
proffered material with 9 . . 'iVb2 1 0
tUe2 'iVxa l when I believe that
further emphasising the imbalance
.
in development with 1 1 O-O ! is
White ' s best course.
The problem of course, is that
White tends to be really quite a lot
of material to the bad - a couple of
pawns in addition to the exchange
on average. Black has no real
structural weaknesses (as tends to be
the case when he has hardly moved
anything ! ) , but the lack of
mobilisation would be a serious
source of worry for many. Black
faces a pretty fundamental choice to attempt to catch up in
development with all haste, or to
concentrate first on getting his
queen out
safely.
A much
summarised version of my analysis
follows :
a) 1 1 . . :iVxa2 looks risky, e.,g. 1 2
tUbxc3 'iVa5 1 3 tUb5 ! tUa6 1 4 'Wxd5
'iVd8 1 5 1fVe4 f5 1 6 .i.a4 ! ! <j;f7 1 7
J..b 3+ and I would not happily take
on Black's defensive task.
b) 1 1 . . . 'iVb2 1 2 tUbxc3 e6 1 3 e4 !
and Black will face serious threats
in the centre.
c) 1 1 . . . tUc6 1 2 tUexc3 ! e5 1 3
tUb5 ! .u.b8 1 4 J.. g 3 and I believe the
coming tUc7+ will give the attacker
dangerous compensation.
d) 1 1 . . . e6 12 e4 ! and now
12 . . . dxe4 1 3 tUexc3 a6 14 J.. a4+
J.. d7 1 5 J.. x b8 ! b5 1 6 J.. e 5 ! is
2 lLle4 3 .tf4 d5 4 e3 1 1 5
. . .
awkward for Black, as is 1 2 . . . �e7
13 exd5 O-O? ! 14 �xh7+ ! 'it>xh7 1 5
�c2+ 'it>gS 1 6 lLlbxc3 and after
16 . . :�Wxf1 + White will retain the
initiative for the tiniest of material
deficits.
Of course these lines are by no
means exhaustive. It may very well
be that Black can improve. My aim
was to illustrate with maximum
economy that White has a fair
arsenal of attacking ideas here
which may well add up to full
compensation.
7 exd4
As I mentioned above I had been
recommend the
to
intending
alternative recapture 7 Wkxd4 ! ? as I
felt that the exploitation of Black ' s
weak e-pawn i s likely t o be cleaner
in the endgame after e.g. 7 . . :�'xd4
S exd4 lLlc6 9 c3 b6 (Or 9 . . . e6
when Romero Holmes - Gulbas,
European Club (ch) Halkidiki 2002
went 10 lLld2 f5 1 1 f3! e5?! 1 2
�xe5 lLlxe5 1 3 dxe5 .te6 1 4 lLle2
exf3 1 5 lLlxf3 g6 1 6 lLlfd4 with
clear advantage. I had been
intrigued by the idea of making use
of the undefended g2 pawn to
recover a little space with a timely
. . . g5. However l l . . .g5 ! ? 1 2 .txg5
Iig8 1 3 .tf4 .l:!.xg2 14 fxe4 fxe4 1 5
tLJxe4 J:txb2 in this case also looks
better for White after 1 6 lLlf6+.
Perhaps the immediate 9 . . . f5 is
more to the point) 1 0 tLJd2 .tb7 1 1
lLle2 0-0-0 1 2 lLlg3 h6 1 3 h4 !
Simple. Of course not 1 3 lLlgxe4?
g5 1 4 .te3 f5) 1 3 . . . g6 1 4 lLldxe4
.tg7 1 5 0-0-0 f5 1 6 lLld2 e5 1 7
dxe5 lLlxe5 I S .txe5 �xe5 1 9 lLlf3
�f6 and Black has enough
considerably
to
compensation
complicate the technical task, but he
is clearly on the defensive.
Lputian-Rytshagov, Istanbul (01)
2000.
The problem is that Black can
simply play 7 . . . lLlc6 ! an important
novelty from Swiss 1M Claude
Landenbergue who we are more
accustomed to seeing on the White
side of a Trompowsky. The game
Gilles-Landenbergue, Bern (op)
2000 continued S WkxdS+ 'it>xdS 9
lLlc3 e5 1 0 0-0-0+ 'it>eS 1 1 �g3
�f5 12 lLlb5 .l:!.cs 13 lLle2 �g4
( 1 3 . . . f6 ! ?) 14 .l:!.he l f6 1 5 h3 .th5
1 6 a3 a6 1 7 lLlbc3 .tg6 and Black is
very comfortable. The doubled
pawn on e4 is tremendously assisted
by the presence of a white pawn on
e3 rather than d4, both in the
absence of frontal assault on the
e-file, and because after 9 . . . e5 the
bishop is very badly placed on g3,
hindering White ' s attempts to
organise any attack against e4 .
There have been many 7 Wkxd4
games since then and I am
enthusiastic indeed to know quite
what White has in mind. Taking the
pawn seems to be fraught with risk
- S �xe4 can be answered variously
either s . . :iVa5+ 9 c3 (9 lLlc3 seems
to run into a later . . . .ta3 in too
many lines) 9 . . . e5 (or 9 . . . .tf5 ! ?) 1 0
.tg3 and now maybe simply
1 0 . . . f6. when White ' s structure is
rather lifeless; or just 8 . . .'iVb6 ! ?
1 I 6 2. Ji'Je4 3 iLf4 d5 4 e3
It is cl ear that for the moment
7 . . .'�Jc6( ! ) is chief prosecutor in the
case against 7 'iVxd4.
7 0,c6
7 . . . g6 is also interesting here.
Again White has in principle a
choice between keeping his centre
super-solid and playing c3/0,d2, or
playing 0,c3 and endeavouring to
cover d4 just with his pieces. In
practice he has always opted for the
latter e.g. 8 0,c3 iLg7 9 0,ge2 iLfS
(If 9 . . . 0-0 ! ? 1 0 0-0 fS as in
Atea-Visser, Cairo 2002, I would be
tempted to keep very principled and
tight on the dark squares with 1 1
Wic 1 ! ? 0,c6 1 2 J::i. d l with iLh6 to
follow if possible) 1 0 0-0 0-0
( 1 0 . . . 0,c6 1 1 dS 0,eS 12 0,g3 0,c4
was Hodgson-Leitao, Europe v
Americas, 1 99 8 when simply 1 3
0,cxe4 ! ? looks sensible, since now
the threat to capture on fS becomes
a much weightier one, and if
1 3 . . . iLxe4 14 0,xe4 0,xb2 I S 'iVf3
White enjoys a handy space
advantage)
11
0,g3
0,c6 ! ?
( 1 1 . . .'ifxd4 1 2 0,xfS gxfS 1 3 'ifhS
looks promising for White, who also
threatens 14 0,bS) 12 dS eS t ? 1 3
0,xfS gxfS 1 4 dxc6 exf4 I S cxb7
J::i.b 8 16 'ifhS ! 'iVf6 1 7 0,dS 'ifeS 1 8
'ifxfS 'ifxfS 1 9 0,e7+ Wh8 2 0 0,xfS
iLxb2 2 1 J::i. ae 1 and since the critical
. . .
position at move I S White has
played with admirable actively
.
p:eventmg Black from exploiting
hIS long-term promise, and stands
clearly
better.
Pixton-Kudrin
'
Philadelphia 200 1 .
8 0,e2 iLg4 9 0,bc3 'iVa5 ! ?
Preparing to add further pressure
to the d-pawn with . . . 0-0-0, as
indeed does 9 . . . 'iVb6 which was
analysed in some detail in the note
to Black ' s 7th in Game 24. The
modest 9 . . . e6 is also possible. In
view of what happened later in the
game, it is a bit confusing to recall
that I was probably doing OK in
Hodgson-Wells, Oxford GM 'A'
Oxford 1 998 after 1 0 h3 iLhS ! (A
nice point. If 1 0 . . . iLxe2 1 1 'iVxe2
0,xd4 12 'ife4 ! White has a nice
position. This e4 square needs to be
occupied before Black can embark
on this exchange, hence the game
continuation). 1 1 0,xe4 iLxe2 1 2
'iVxe2 0,xd4 1 3 'ifd3 0,c6 1 4 0-0-0
'iVxd3 I S J::i.xd3 0,b4 ! 1 6 J::i.b 3 0,dS
and this fine knight should give
Black a stable enough position.
Unfortunately after 1 7 iLg3 b6 1 8
J::i.d l J::i. c 8 1 9 Wb l I ruined
everything with the ridiculous
1 9 . . . J::i. c 6? (Losing critical time.
Development was called for - such
a tricky concept! Simply 1 9 . . . iLe7
20 J::i. d4 0-0 is fine) 20 J::i. d4 ! iLe7
(20 . . . fS 21 c4 ! ) 2 1 c4 0,f6 22 0,d6+
iLxd6 23 iLxd6 0,d7 24 J::i. g 3 !
(Rather rubbing in Black's plight on
the dark squares) 24 . . . g6 2S J::i. g d3
f6 26 iLe7 ! (An artistic touch and
the best move to boot ! ) 26 . . . 0,eS 27
J::i. a 3 ! 0,xc4 28 J::i. x a7 eS (Retaining a
sense of humour?) 29 J::i. d 8+ Wf7 30
iLb4+ 1-0
A superb example of Julian ' s flair
once he establishes the initiative
but one I would have preferred t�
2 lLIe4 3 .if4 d5 4 e3 1 1 7
. . .
have read about in a book. As for
9 e6, it is not such a bad move.
10 h3 .ih5 1 1 0-0 0-0-0
Given that the king is not always
so happy on the queens ide, it is
natural to consider 1 1 . . . .l:.dS ! ? as
well. Then 12 �e l lLIxd4 l 3 lLIxd4
l:i.xd4 1 4 lLIxe4 �xe l 1 5 l:tfxe l
..\ig6 looks barely more than equal,
while 1 2 g4 .ig6 l 3 d5 e6 1 4 lLId4 !
could be a lot more fun, but of
course carries some risks too .
. . .
12 d5 e6
13 dxc6 !
In a sense this is a matter of
already having said ' a ' . In any case
in the critical position at move 1 5 ,
White seems to have a good deal of
initiative, and the whole thing seems
quite promising.
13 . . . .u.xd l 14 cxb7+ c;itxb7 1 5
ki.fxd l .ib4
White has only a rook and two
knights v. queen and bishop, but
nonetheless his chances look quite
reasonable. The concrete task of
preventing a rook invasion which
will harass the a-pawn and cause
Black's king further anxiety is not
an easy one. However, since in 7
moves time White is able to
liquidate to a terrific ending, this
indeed looks like a moment where
Black could seek to improve. It is
tempting to think that Black might
wait for the g4 move and try to
exploit he weakness of White ' s
kings ide, but faced with a fierce
initiative it does not seem to work
like that. Therefore maybe better to
commence with 1 5 . . . .ixe2 1 6
lLIxe2 e 5 1 7 .ie3 and now:
a) 1 7 . . . �c7 I S lLIc3 ..Itc5 1 9
..Itxc5 �xc5 2 0 .l:f.d5 'iVc6 2 1 :ad l
and it is hard to assess whether
White actually stands better, but I
am confident he has full value for
the queen.
b) 1 7 . . . ..Itc5 ! ? I S b4 ! ? .ixb4 1 9
J:.d7+ \itlaS 2 0 l:txa7+ �xa7 2 1
.ixa7 \itlxa7 2 2 �d l ! when White
might retain slight winning chances,
but Black's queen has certainly sold
her life a good deal more dearly
than in the game.
1 6 g4 ! ..Itg6 1 7 :d7+ �a8 1 8
..Ite3 .ic5
IS . . . a6 19 J:.a7+ 'iitb S 20 lLId4 !
:cS 2 1 lLIb3 ! ? �e5 22 l:lxa6 does
little to stem the flow.
1 9 lL1d4 ! .ixd4 20 ..Itxd4 .l:tb8 ? !
Black i s already i n trouble.
20 . . . a6 21 b4 ! would give White a
fierce attack. A quick glance at the
relative prospects of the knight on
c3 and the bishop on g6 should help
to explain why I concentrated on
their exchange at move 1 5 !
2 1 l:lxa7+ 'iVxa7 2 2 ..Itxa7 \itlxa7
23 b3 e3 24 fxe3 ..Itxc2 25 l:tc1 ..Itg6
26 'iit f2
Gallagher' s
Although
Joe
reputation tends to b e built first and
foremost around his attacking play,
I have often been impressed with his
clinical finishing in the technical
phase. For obvious reasons, what
1 1 8 2 ..tLJe4 3 i..f4 d5 4 e3
.
follows has limited relevance to our
theme. Suffice to say that I would
normally have expected him to
convert this advantage.
26 . . . h5 27 'it>O hxg4+ 28 hxg4
.l:!.h8 29 'it>g3 .l:.d8 30 .l:[d l ? !
Was this really necessary?
Pushing White ' s queenside looks
simpler with rooks on.
30 .. Jhdl 3 1 lLlxd i 'iir b 6 32 'it>f4
f6 33 e4 'iir e 5 34 'iir e3 e5 35 lLlb2
'it>b4 36 lLle4 ..te8 37 lLld6 ..td7 38
lLlf5 'ita3 39 'ito g6 40 lLle7 'it>xa2
41 lLlxg6 'itxb3 42 lLlrs i.e8 43
lLlh 7 'it>e4 44 lLlxf6
I expect Joe assumed this would
be winning, but in fact it may be
impossible to make any progress.
44 . . . i.g6 45 'ite3 'ite5 46 'itd3
'itd6 47 lLld5 'it>e6 48 'iir e3 i.. h 7 49
'ito i.g6 50 lLlb6 i.. e 8 5 1 g5 i.h5+
52 'it>g3 i.g6 53 lLla4 'iir d 6 54 'iir o
i.h5+ 55 'iir e3 'itt e 6 56 'it>f2 'it>f7 57
'it>g3 'iir g 6 58 'itt h 4 i.. d l 59 lLle5
i.. e 2 60 lLld7 i.xe4 6 1 lLlxe5+ 'it>g7
62 'iir g 4 i.e2 63 g6 '/z-'/z
A bit sad, but a very instructive
queen sacrifice and an impressively
forceful handling of the opening
from White.
Game 27
Summerseale - Hermansson
Oxford GM ' B ' 1 99 8
1 d 4 lLlf6 2 i. g 5 lLle4 3 i.f4 d5 4
e3 e5 5 i.d3 lLlf6
In general I have been quite harsh
on the various attempts to avoid a
fight by this retreat which have
cropped up every so often
throughout the chapter. Not because
I think Black is somehow morally
obliged to engage in a good scrap,
but rather because I feel that White
should generally be doing well if
not even the slightly weakening
move f3 is required to induce this.
6 dxe5 !
I am convinced this is the critical
move, as I wrote back in 1 999 for
ChessBase, and while De la Villa
agrees, it has found only a limited
following in practice. Of course
White can instead continue with
' normal ' chess with lLlf3/c3 and so
on. My feeling is simply that this
leads to the kind of position in
which time is not the critical factor,
and that Black should rather be
punished for his loss of tempo. I
think Aaron had done his homework
rather well !
6 . . :iVa5+
I had reached this position just a
couple of days before and had
wanted to capture on c5, but was
concerned about 6 . . . lLlc6. The
problem is that 7 lLlf3 i.. g 4 is
since
White
has
awkward,
insufficient to offer against the
freeing move . . . e5. In my original
notes I gave the variation 8 i.b5
'i'a5+ 9 tDc3 e6 1 0 'ilVd4 (or 1 0 a3
lLle4 1 1 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 2 b4 lLlxc3
13 �d3 'iVb5 14 �xc3 i.. x f3 ! 1 5
gxf3 a 5 with serious counterplay)
1 O . . . i.xf3 1 1 gxf3 lLld7 1 2 i.xc6
bxc6 13 b4 'ilVa3 14 0-0 i.e7 with
good compensation, and this looks
2 lLle4 3 i.f4 d5 4 e3 1 1 9
. . .
equally problematic now as it did
th en.
Rather I think 7 i.b5 ! is the key.
White avoids the irritating pin on
his f3 knight. All similar positions
are hugely more favourable for
White with the knight and Black ' s
light-squared bishop still o n the
board since the contest is really
about the dark squares. After
7 . . 'iVa5+? ! 8 lLlc3 a6 (8 . . . e6 9 a3 ! ) 9
i.xc6+ bxc6 1 0 'iVd4 iLf5 l l lLlf3 ! ?
i.xc2 1 2 0-0 with a fantastic dark
square bind.
Perhaps Black would be better off
with 7 . . . a6 8 i.xc6+ bxc6 9 b4 a5
1 0 c3 lLld7, but full compensation it
is not.
7 lLle3 e6 8 a3 !
Forcing recapture by the queen
rather than the bishop.
8 . . :iVxe5 9 lLlb5!
The queen is afforded no peace.
This expansion is known from
another English speciality, the
so-called ' Barry Attack' (3 lLlc3 d5
4 i.f4) against the King' s Indian.
Black' s knight is ' dragged' to a6,
which markedly reduces Black ' s
control o f the key centre squares.
9 . . . lLla6 1 0 b4 'iVb6 11 lLlf3 i.d7
12 'iVe2 i.e7 13 i.e5!
.
A very powerful redeployment of
the Trompowsky bishop. The
respective levels of activity of the
two side ' s pieces pretty much tells
the full story.
13 . . . 0-0 14 i.d4 'tWe6?
Whether or not White can capture
on a7 and emerge in tact after
1 4 . . . 'iVd8 , it had to be tried. The
only raison d 'etre of the text move
is to ' prepare' a terrible blunder!
1 5 0-0 b6?? 1 6 i.xf6! i.xf6 1 7
lLlbd4
Netting a piece and the game.
1 7 . . . 'iYa4 18 i.xa6 b5 1 9 i.b7
l:tab8 20 i.e6 i.xe6 2 1 lLlxe6 i.xal
22 lLlxb8 i.e3 23 lLle6 a6 24 e4
dxe4 25 'iVxe4 h6 26 lLlfe5 f5 27
'iVd3 'iVxa3 28 'iVd6 'iVa2 29 h4 1-0
I am very surprised that the take
up rate on 6 dxc5( ! ) has been so
low, since so far as I can see it
should come close to winding up the
debate on the passive 5 . . . lLlf6.
Chapter Conclusion
This chapter has been quite a long
haul, in part for the good obj ective
reason that Black' s multifarious
replies result in a rich variety of
positions, but perhaps also because I
have a thinly disguised affection for
White' s plan of e3 and i.d3 . It was
preparing to face Julian in this
variation which rekindled my
interest in the whole opening back
in 1 99 8 .
A s for the detail, Black seems to
be really struggling in the ' old main
line ' 4 . . . i.f5 - White ' s plan in
Game 20 is so automatic that I think
the 5 . . . lLld6 ! ? of Game 2 1 might be
a better bet just to mix it up a bit.
None of Black' s other 4th move
alternatives to 4 . . . c5( ! ) really look
scary either. The really critical
material of the Chapter can be found
in Game 24 (the note to the line
with . . . cxd4 and . . :iVb6) and Game
26 which is quite unclear. The
common denominator is 5 . . . cxd4( ! )
and I am absolutely convinced that
it is here Black must look if he is to
reach fully satisfactory play. In
short, this is one of the Chapters that
leaves the Trompowsky looking like
a very good opening !
Chapter 6
-
2 . . . c5 Introduction
and the Solid Repertoire with 3 iLxf6
2 . . . c5 Introduction
2 . . . c5 is a challenging dark­
square based response, which in my
opinion leads to some of the most
challenging
and
strategically
complex positions in the entire
Trompowsky. It is interesting that it
has not enjoyed quite the popularity
of either 2 . . . lLIe4 or 2 . . . e6. Perhaps
the contrast between the types of
position arrived at after White' s two
main responses is just too great,
Black ' s
complicating
from
standpoint the task of learning the
system. As I have hinted at before I
still have the impression that ma�y
1 . . . lLIf6 defenders find the notion of
preparing the Trompowsky an
irritating encumbrance, very much
an addendum to the main task of
honing their pet defence to 2 c4.
From the perspective of the Tromp
player this has the not insignificant
advantage that obj ective merit might
tum out to be not the only criterion
with which Black has selected his
response. However, it may simply
tum out to be the material of this
chapter, the thematic reply 3 J.. xf6
which is the most feared. I am
convinced at least
that
the
popularity of 2 . . . lLIe4 and 2 . . . e6 is
no coincidence. These are the only
two moves which avoid the
possibility of White inflicting the
dreaded doubled f-pawns, and,
whatever the specific verdict of
theory in a given case, I think many
players are just not comfortable
handling these.
I described 2 . . . c5 as a ' dark­
square ' response, and as I have
stressed throughout, it is on these
squares that White is potentially
vulnerable in the Trompowsky. This
is most evidently true once the g5
bishop has been traded for a black
knight, but there is in any case a
weakness on b2, and it is this that
2 . . . c5 seeks to highlight, with a
limited emphasis on disguise. This
directness also rather limits White' s
options. H e has in fact only three
main approaches, one of which I
view with great scepticism and will
not be covering in the book and the
other two which divide with some
neatness if a little approximation
into the solid and attacking options :
1 ) 3 lLIc3(? ! ) is an astonishingly
aggressive invitation to a Sicilian
structure. White will meet 3 . . . cxd4
with 4 'iVxd4, then send the queen to
2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 1 2 1
. . .
h4 and follow-up with e4 and 0-0-0
and a good old hack. It has enj oyed
a certain following among the
Sp anish anny of Trompowsky
devotees, and is consequently given
a thorough treatment in De la
Villa ' s book. According to one
example there, even Julian Hodgson
entered into the spirit when playing
in Matalascanas in 1 990. I have no
evidence that he repeated the
experience and I suspect there are
solid reasons for this. The Sicilian
type set-up is quite fun, but I think
its potency is greatly reduced if
Black gives due consideration to
king-safety by refusing to commit it
to the kingside too early. There is
also the issue of 3 . . . d5 transposing
to the Veresov, and while I would
be the first to admit that 3 . . . c5
might be one of the Veresov lines
which holds out the best promise of
general entertainment, I personally
would not view this variation as a
plus point either. Finally, Black can
also choose 3 . . . 'iib 6 which after 4
d5 transposes to the Vaganian
Gambit which I cover in the next
chapter. All in all though, I cannot
recommend 3 etJc3 and since the
two main lines give more than
enough food for thought, I have
decided to dismiss it without further
ado.
2) 3 d5 makes one dark-square
concession (in general these squares
would be tighter if White could
strong-point his d4 pawn, or perhaps
even capture on c5 rather than
advance it) but of course at the same
time White does retain the bishop
pair. As I suggested above the main
bone of contention in this line is the
b2 pawn. The most graphic
illustration of this is the Vaganian
Gambit 3 . . . 'iib 6 4 etJc3 'iix b2 5
i.d2 and so on. Black has refined
his defence to this considerably
since the 1 970s when Vaganian
verily
stonned
through
the
opposition with a series of sparkling
attacking games, but of the various
b2 pawn grabs to which the Tromp
gives rise, this one still has rather a
sound reputation. The other serious
option for Black is 3 . . . etJe4 meeting
4 ..tf4 with either 4 . . . e6 or 4 . . . 'i¥b6,
the latter of which all but forces 5
i.c 1 . It is interesting that Hodgson,
a long-time devotee of 3 i.xf6, has
switched back to this line, perhaps
as he became more sympathetic to
the virtues of the i.c 1 retreat
elsewhere too . All these complex
questions will receive full coverage
in Chapter 7.
3) 3 ..txf6, the subject of the
remainder of this chapter to which I
shall tum in just a moment.
First a word on one other minor
idea 3 dxc5 . Joe Gallagher suggests
that this has "more bite than one
would suspect", which is certainly
tme if Black tries to get too clever,
but the unpretentious 3 . . . e6 ! looks
quite satisfactory often reaching the
sort of rather bland positions I tend
to associate with the generic
Pawn
' Queen ' s
description
Opening ' e.g. 4 etJd2 ..txc5 5 e3
..te7 6 etJgf3 0-0 7 i.d3 etJa6
(setting up a more standard
Hedgehog with the s imple . . . d6 and
. . . etJbd7 is of course a very viable
approach too) 8 c4 b6 9 0-0 ..tb7 1 0
ktc 1 l:l.c8 1 1 etJd4 d5 1 2 ..te2 etJc5
13 b4 etJce4 14 etJxe4 etJxe4 1 5
..txe7 'iix e7 with rather sterile
equality in Miladinovic-Tzoumbas,
Ano Liosia (op) 1 99 5 .
Incomparably more entertain­
ingly, but not necessarily with more
convincing logic, the amazing
Hector-De Finnian, Copenhagen
122 2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6
. . .
2002 continued instead 4 e4 ! ? i.. x c5
5 i.. d3 �6 6 lZ'lh3 d5 (6 . . .'iWxb2 ! ?)
7 exd5 'iWxb2 8 lZ'ld2 'it'e5+ 9 �f1
exd5 1 0 lZ'lf3 'it'd6 1 1 'it'e2 + �f8 1 2
l:!.e l i.. xh3 ( 1 2 . . . i.. g4 ! ?) 1 3 i.. xf6
i.xg2+ 1 4 �xg2 gxf6 1 5 'it'e8+
�g7 16 lZ'lh4 ! J:Ixe8 17 J:Ixe8 'iWf8
1 8 lZ'lf5+ 'itt g 8 1 9 lZ'lh6+ �h8 20
lZ'lxf7+ 'itt g7 2 1 l:!.xf8 i.. x f8 22 lZ'ld8
lZ'lc6 23 lZ'le6+ 12-12
I don 't think my failure to
recommend this approach will be
widely regarded as irresponsible !
O n t o the main business.
2 c5 3 iLxf6
- The Solid Repertoire
weaknesses) . On the other hand,
White still has the threat to d4 and
the issue of b2 to consider. It is the
need for White to make further
concessions
on
his
already
compromised dark squares which
gives
this
version
of
the
' Trompowsky exchange ' its special
and double-edged flavour. In effect,
both sides make larger concessions
than usual . Still, given the wild
hacking of much of Chapter 7, and
the essentially positional and
heavily ' structure dependent' nature
of much of the play here, the choice
of this for the ' solid repertoire ' , was
largely automatic.
. . .
3 i.. xf6 is the consistent attempt
to 'punish ' 2 . . . c5 by executing the
Trompowsky 'threat' to Black's
structure. The resulting positions are
really very rich and complex
strategically - Black in most cases
recaptures for good reason with the
g-pawn, which, for all that it
admirably follows the very familiar
'towards the centre ' rule, does have
implications for both king safety
and general kings ide structure (the
h-pawn and/or the h5 square, might,
for example also tum out to be
Game 28
Hodgson - Kotronias
Belgrade 1 993
1 d4 lZ'lf6 2 i.. g 5 c5 3 i.. xf6 gxf6
This is the almost universal
choice, at the higher levels. In
contrast with many lines of the
Trompowsky in which capturing
with the e-pawn is to my mind often
the sounder option 3 . . . exf6? ! makes
a rather ugly impression in
conjunction with 2 . . . c5, weakening
the square d5, and in all probability
the d-pawn too.
2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 123
. . .
However, the move should not be
completely ignored, and the lack of
guidance from ' theory' may account
for some pretty ad hoc solutions
having been adopted over the board.
The weakness of the square dS leads
me to believe that to continue as in
th e main lines with 4 dS ? ! lets Black
off the hook to say the least. He can
organise his forces logically with
d6/ . . . g6/ . . . .1i.g7/and . . . fS (with or
without . . . �6) and his position
looks quite tidy, while White will
rather miss the light-square kings ide
weaknesses (such as hS) which are
customary targets after 3 . . . gxf6. It
is curious to say the least that a
number of quite strong players have
elected to go down that road. I
would like to mention three other,
more attractive ideas :
a) 4 c3 is plausible. The kind of
positions which typically arise after
4 . dS S e3 ctJc6, for example 6
tiJd2 .1i.e7 7 dxcS .1i.xcs 8 ctJb3 .1i.b6
9 ctJe2 0-0 1 0 ctJf4 .1i.e6 1 1 .1i.e2
�d7 12 0-0 l:.ad8 13 �d2 ctJeS 1 4
l:.fd l a 6 I S ctJd4 Grigore-Gheng,
Bucharest Juventus 2002 I would
assess as, at the very least, easier for
White to play. Black's pawn
formation is static, and White ' s
knights have n o trouble finding
good squares. However 4 . . . �6 ! is
rather disruptive. After S �d2 dS 6
e3 .1i.e6 7 ctJf3 ctJc6 8 .1i.e2 .1i.e7 9
0-0 0-0 the queen on d2 blocks
further development, and the time
which White will consume in
unravelling will clearly ease Black's
task.
b) 4 e3 �b6 S ctJc3 ! ? is tempting
(certainly S b3 ? ! constitutes a
weakness of the dark squares which
would render 4 e3 unappealing) .
Neither S . . . �xb2 6 ctJdS ! .1i.d6 7
dxcS .1i.eS 8 l:.b 1 followed by 9 f4,
nor S . . . cxd4 6 �xd4 �xd4 7 exd4
. .
.1i.b4
8
ctJge2
really
looks
satisfactory for Black. The critical
line is probably S . . . cxd4 6 �xd4
�xb2 ! ? 7 l:.b l �a3 . Now perhaps 8
ctJdS ! ? �xa2 ! ? (a kind of gambling
mentality. White has excellent play
for own pawn, so Black should
justify his bad ways by carrying
on ! ) 9 �e4+ 'ltd8 1 0 c3 is critical. I
would not say that White has cast
iron assurance of sufficient play, but
I don ' t think players will arrive to
defend Black's cause in their droves
either.
c) 4 ctJc3 ! ?
and Black can choose between:
ci) 4 . . . cxd4 S �xd4 ctJc6 6 �e4+
.1i.e7 7 e3 0-0 8 .1i.c4 a6 9 ctJge2 bS
10 .1i.b3 .1i.b7 1 1 0-0 g6 12 l:.ad 1 fS
1 3 �dS d6 1 4 ctJf4 ctJaS I S �d3
ctJxb3 1 6 axb3 .l:Ie8 1 7 ctJcdS .1i.f8
1 8 !Ife 1 .1i.g7 1 9 c3 Chandler-Knott,
British ch, Millfield 2000. Black ' s
pawn weaknesses are not only
problematic in themselves, they also
provide the knights with excellent
squares which in tum adversely
affects the efficacy of the bishop
pair.
cii) 4 . . . dS ! ? reaches a Veresov
theoretically somewhat favourable
to White (since after 1 d4 dS 2 ctJc3
ctJf6 3 .1i.gS cS 4 .1i.xf6 Black is
again advised by the experts to play
4 . . . gxf6 ! ) . Still, this looks a better
chance for Black. One, rather old
but still instructive example is S e3
ctJc6 6 ctJge2 .1i.e6 7 g3 cxd4 8 exd4
.1i.d6 (8 . . . �b6 ! ? is critical, but after
9 .tg2 �xb2 1 0 .l:Ib l �a3 1 1 lhb7 !
.1i.b4 1 2 0-0 .1i.xc3 1 3 l:.b3 �xa2 De la Villa - I like White' s
compensation after either 1 4 ctJxc3
�aS I S f4 fS 1 6 g4 ! ?, or even 1 4
l:.xc3 ! ? e.g. 1 4 . . . l:tc8 I S J:Ics ctJe7
16 J:Ixc8+ ctJxc8 1 7 ctJf4 0-0 1 8 l:.e 1
with enduring pressure for the
124 2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6
. . .
pawn) 9 i.g2 0,e7 1 0 0-0 a6 1 1
0,c 1 h5 1 2 Ite 1 �f8 1 3 0,d3 Itc8
14 0,e2 g5 15 0,c5 :'c7 Smyslov­
Bobotsov, Sochi 1 963 , and now 1 6
0,c3 'iVc8 1 7 0,3a4 ! ? looks a
promising intensification of White ' s
pressure.
To my mind ' b ' is fun, but ' c '
alone should provide a sufficient
argument against Black' s un­
aesthetic recapture.
4 d5
I firmly believe the advance 4 d5
(the subject of Games 28-32) to be
the best move. However, at the
same time I do also regard it as
something
of
a
positional
concession, and therefore felt it
would be useful background to
mention briefly why attempts to
construct a structure more obviously
suited to the possession of only a
light-squared bishop appear to fall
short.
For I time I toyed with 4 dxc5
since it is easier to place pawns on
c3 and e3 with a view to 'blunting '
Black' s dark-squared bishop if there
is no d5 pawn to worry about.
However, I have had to concede that
Black' s solid centre majority and
bishop pair give
him very
reasonable chances. After all, his
weaknesses are not that severe.
Take for example Teske-Gallagher,
Bundesliga 2002. After 4 . . . 0,a6
which seems best, 5 0,d2 0,xc5 6
g3 f5 7 c3 i.g7 8 i.g2 d5 9 0,gf3
e6 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 0,d4 i.d7 1 2 e3
l:tc8 White has achieved the
appropriate structure for blunting
Black' s dark-squared bishop, and
his pieces look reasonably well
placed. The question is, What to do
next? I have seen several examples
of this kind of structure, and the
dominant impression is that White ' s
set-up i s essentially designed to
contain Black, and it is very difficult
to find a constructive plan. Pawn
breaks risk reactivating Black' s
forces. The next few moves confirm
this : 1 3 �e2 �6 1 4 0,2b3 0,e4 1 5
l:tfd l a5 1 6 Ii.ab l l:tfd8 1 7 i.fl 0,d6
1 8 0,d2 and now it was already
Black who felt justified in
modifying the structure in an
attempt to seize the initiative. My
feeling after the further 1 8 . . . e5 ! ? 1 9
0,c2 i.e6 2 0 0,f3 i.f6 2 1 0,a3 �h8
22 l:tbc 1 :'g8 23 i.g2 'ilVc5 24 0, e l
b5 i s that his optimism i s justified.
4 i.g7
As Gallagher writes it is a
"relatively small school of thought"
which doesn't find the inclusion of
4 . . . �6 5 'ilVc l in Black's interest.
Presumably the idea is to keep the
b-pawn unblocked, but White ' s
queen i s undeniably better placed on
dl than c l , and the general view is
that this factor is of greater
relevance. See the note to White ' s
6th i n Game 30 for an attempt at
direct comparison. The conclusion
is that the attack on White ' s b-pawn
remains the more respectable choice
and will be the subj ect of Games
29-3 2 .
5 c3
In common with the main line
White faces a principled choice
. . .
2 . . . c5 Introduction and 3 hf6 125
be twe en thus seeking to contain the
d ark- squared bishop and playing 5
which
looks
seriously
c4 ! ?
co nc essionary on the dark squares,
but on the other hand gives much
firmer support to the d5 pawn, and
p ermits White a more natural
development of his knight to c3 . I
will not give this alternative
in dependent coverage here since the
c4 lines which I cover in the notes
to Game 29 are fairly similar. I have
a suspicion that 5 c4 may be a less
impressive way of exploiting the
absence of . . . �6, but this I must
admit I have not checked out in
detail.
5 . . . d6
If now 5 . . . 'Y!IYb6 then 6 Wkc2 looks
like the right square.
6 e3 f5 7 liJe2
It is interesting that when . . . 'Y!IYb6
is omitted White almost invariably
adopts this formation rather than the
fianchetto of his king ' s bishop . I
assume that this has to do with a
consensus that White should attempt
to keep the lid on Black ' s queenside
expansionary aspirations and that
the bishop is therefore needed to
cover b5. At this moment White is
safe enough on this front, since
Black needs to bring his knight over
immediately to cover the threat of
liJf4-h5 .
7 . . . liJd7
Stohl suggests an alternative
development 7 . . . liJa6 ! ? 8 liJf4 liJc7
with the intention to play . . . e6.
Laudable enough in itself, but I
cannot help feeling that Black will
suffer for not covering h5 . The
tempting 9 'iVh5 .i.e5 ! is not too
convincing, but 9 liJh5 .i.h6 and
now maybe even 1 0 c4 ! ? looks quite
promising.
8 liJf4 liJf6 9 .5tc4
Not just strong-pointing the
crucial d5 pawn, but also hindering
a potential . . . e6 break which always
needs to be borne in mind in this
variation.
9 . 0-0 10 a4 b6 1 1 liJd2 a6 1 2
liJf1 ! ?
I like this move, which gives
priority
to
probing
Black ' s
weaknesses, both the f5 pawn and in
particular the h5 square, over
automatic mobilisation of the forces.
Interestingly, Kotronias must have
been reasonably content at this stage
because he was willing to repeat
these moves two years later.
Although I prefer Julian ' s treatment,
the continuation of that game was
quite instructive too. White chose
simple, perhaps overly routine
development with 1 2 'iVe2 .l:l.e8 1 3
0-0 e5 ! ? (rather than 1 3 . . . e6? ! , after
which no exchange on d5 is
threatened, and since the bishop is
needed on c8 to protect the e-pawn,
no pressure can really be added to
d5 either) 1 4 liJh5 liJxh5 1 5 Wkxh5
�f6 1 6 f4 exf4 1 7 exf4 .i.d7 (Black
is probably OK here because his
counterplay with . . . b5-b4 needs to
be addressed, while his own
weaknesses are not especially easy
.
.
126 2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6
. . .
to access) 1 8 .1I.d3 ( 1 8 .l:i.fe 1 .l:i.xe 1
1 9 .l:i.xe 1 bS ! is similar, and more
convincing than 1 9 . . . .1I.xa4 ? ! 20
.1I.d3 .i.d7 2 1 ct:Jc4 with some real
pressure to compensate for the
pawn. This reminds us that although
the bishop has performed useful
work on c4, it has also occupied a
square on which the knight could
have been a potent force) 1 8 . . . bS 1 9
l:t f3 c4 20 .1l.fl WUh6 2 1 WUxh6 .1I.xh6
22 �f2 .i.g7 23 l:ta2 .i.f6 24 l:te3
l:tec8 2S .1I.e2 .1I.d8 and Black has
manoeuvred
his
bishop
pair
intelligently and is certainly not
worse. Minasian-Kotronias, Ankara
(zt) 1 995.
1 2 . . .1I.d7 13 ct:Jg3 b5 1 4 .1I.b3 !
Stohl also mentions the more
obvious 14 .i.d3 e6 I S ct:JghS but if
I S . . . ct:JxhS 1 6 WUxhS Black will get
quite decent play with 1 6 . . . c4 1 7
.1I.c2 b4, while the more natural 1 6
ct:JxhS .1I.eS also looks playable for
Black. The point is precisely that
from a defensive perspective the
black queen stands well on d8 since
. . . �h4 will be such a valuable
resource in many positions - not
least as an answer to the otherwise
interesting 17 f4 .11. h 8 1 8 WUf3 . For
this reason White should probably
settle here for the more restrained
1 8 0-0 with a very sharp and unclear
position, but there is no denying
Black's share of the chances.
Julian's move has the concrete
purpose of preventing . . . e6 for the
time being, and of forcing Black to
consider the possible vulnerability
of his d6 pawn when White attacks
fS from c2 rather than d3, as well as
the practical advantage that Black ' s
moves are less forced, and he h a s to
make tricky decisions about how to
further his counterplay.
14 . . . �6? !
•
I don't like this for precisely the
reason outlined in the last note. The
queen deserts the kings ide and
thereby makes the building of
White ' s attack that much more
straightforward. My hunch is that it
was probably here that Kotronias
was
subsequently looking
to
improve. However, this is not so
easy since 1 4 . . . c4? ! I S .1I.c2 e6 1 6
dxe6 fxe6 1 7 WUxd6 leaves Black
short on compensation. The best bet
would seem to be 14 . . . b4 ! ? I S cxb4
l:tb8 ! since 1 6 bxcS WUaS+ looks
very risky. Still, the move . . . b4 has
general drawbacks too. Firstly it
enables the bishop to remain on the
a2-e6 diagonal, and secondly, since
there is no . . . c4 resource any more
White has the additional possibility
of harassing the fS pawn with WUd3 .
I S c4 comes into consideration, but
best of all might be to permit Black
a measure of counterplay while
putting faith in his own attacking
chances with I S O-O ! ? bxc3 1 6 bxc3
�aS 1 7 WUd3 when the play is very
sharp but I would prefer White .
15 as WUc7 1 6 .1I.c2 e6 1 7 ct:Jgh5
ct:Jxh5 18 ct:Jxh5 !
Clearly better than 1 8 WUxhS when
1 8 . . . b4 ! is irritating. In any case, as
I discussed above, with Black ' s
queen o n c 7 the plan of g 4 to
support a knight hS is in general
quite potent.
2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 1 2 7
. . .
18 . . . .l:tae8 1 9 g4 ! 'it>h8 20 gxf5
exf5 2 1 lLlxg7
This was criticised by Stohl and it
does indeed seem a rather strange
exchange to hurry, especially from a
player who has such a flair for
maintaining the tension. Nonethe­
less if followed up correctly, the text
appears to be by no means inferior
to the more natural 2 1 'iVf3 J:tg8 ! 22
.i.xf5 iLxf5 23 'iVxf5 J:te5 24 �f3
J:tg5 ! when although I prefer White,
Black ' s occupation of the g-file
complicates the task of his further
developing an attack. White has also
received a timely reminder that
there are safety issues regarding his
own king too.
21. 'it>xg7 22 �f3 ? !
This seems to b e the more clearly
questionable decision. It was better
to give a second dimension to the
attack with 22 'iVh5 ! which forces
Black to address not just the
removal of the f5 pawn, but the
possibility of invasion on the h6
square too. After 22 . . . 'i¥i>h8 23 �6
f6 24 llg l Sl.c8 25 0-0-0 Black' s
defensive
task
looks
very
problematic.
22 . . . 'i¥i>h8! 23 Ji.xf5 Sl.xf5 24
'iVxf5 f6!
Suddenly, with his king still in the
centre, White looks a little over­
extended.
25 :!gl J::i. e 5 26 'iVf3 f5 27 J:tg5 b4
28 c4 'ike7 29 h4 'iVf6 30 0-0-0
Yz-Yz
A fair decision. The moment
when the initiative has switched
hands, even in exchange for a slight
material gain, is a good one for calm
realistic appraisal . After 30 . . . .l:e4
3 1 'iVe2 f4 Black' s compensation,
which could well include a
psychological element by now,
looks very reasonable.
Game 29
Hodgson - Van der Wiel
Netherlands (op ch) 1 994
1 d4 lLlf6 2 Sl.g5 c5 3 Sl.xf6 gxf6
4 d5 'tlVb6 ! 5 'iVcl Ji.h6?!
•.
Of course it is known that the
bishop is immune since 6 'iYxh6?
�xb2 leaves White with no
reasonable follow-up, but still it
strikes me as a little odd to play this
here. The reason is that after 6 e3 f5
if White chooses to clamp down on
the f4 square then, the bishop ' s role
on h6 looks a bit of a mystery.
Having said this, Julian had
previously followed this logic in the
game Hodgson-Peelen, Leeuwarden
1 993, choosing 7 g3 ! ? but he found
that Black' s play in this case is not
entirely without point. Gallagher
explains that after 7 . . . iLg7 8 c3,
White ' s extra tempo (the pawn is
usually on e2 in this position) does
not benefit him too much. Indeed in
the event of the rather direct
8 . . . lLla6 ! ? 9 lLld2 lLlc7 1 0 Sl.g2 'iVd6
there is even a case for claiming that
the lack of e3 square for the knight
hinders White. The analogous
position with the pawn on e2 has
indeed been reached and in that case
White continued with 1 1 (or in
reality 1 0) lLlc4 'iVa6 1 2 'iVf4 ! with
128 2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6
. . .
tDe3 to come and a pleasant
position. With a pawn on e3 his
course of action is less clear. Julian
chose 1 1 e4 ! ? fXe4 1 2 tDxe4 �g6
when 13 d6? ! f5 ! brought him
nothing special. However, what
about the ' materialistic ' 1 3 liJxc5 ! ?
d6 1 4 tDb3 .Jli.f5 instead? Gallagher
notes that Black' s bishop pair has
come to life, which is true so far as
it goes, but after 1 5 �e3 ! (it is
important to stop . . . i.e4) followed
by 16 liJe2 he should be able to
weather the storm, indeed it is not to
clear to me that there will be much
of a storm to cope with . For those a
bit squeamish about pawn grabbing
element to 1 3 liJxc5 ! ?, winning the
d4 square also offers a positional
justification ! If this is all just a bit
too complicated, I would suspect in
addition that 9 .Jli.g2 liJc7 1 0 liJh3
might also be a valid move order for
White.
For the perfectionist, it still seems
a shame not to find a 7th move
which prevents 7 . . . f4, but has no
concomitant drawback. Whilst I
make no claims for the quality of
Black's defence in the following
example, I do find White ' s set-up
quite appealing. 7 tDe2 ! ? d6 8 c4
liJd7 9 liJbc3 liJe5 1 0 liJf4 i.d7 1 1
�c2 a6 1 2 tDh5 �a5 1 3 f4 tDg6 1 4
i.d3 from Vigus - De Vreugt,
Glomey Cup, 1 996 looks quite
harmonious and certainly offers
food for further thought.
All in all, I wouldn't be surprised
if logically Black should really wait
for c4 before venturing . . . i.h6 (see
the note to 5 . . . f5) although
undeniably with all those tempting
dark squares on the long diagonal,
this also has its element of paradox.
Of course, it may simply be that the
main game is very strong for White
and that the entire . . . i.h6 project
might be open to severe question.
Since
Games
30-32
wil l
concentrate on the c3/g3 approach,
this seems like an opportune
moment to examine the c4 based
system in general terms as the very
sharp, exciting but rather specific
events of the main game throw but
limited light on these. This is most
normally introduced by the moves
5 . . . f5 6 c4 ! ? iLg7 (6 . . . iLh6 7 e3 f4
is the normal, and in my view more
logical route to Hodgson-van der
Wiel) 7 liJc3 d6 (or 7 . . . �b4 8 e3 d6
9 f4 ! [This I find rather instructive.
White fixes the f5 weakness and
tries to capture back control of at
least one important central dark
square.] 9 . . . liJd7 1 0 liJf3 tDb6 1 1
liJd2 i.d7 1 2 iLd3 iLxc3 1 3 bxc3
�a5 14 a4 ! tDxa4 1 5 �c2 �xc3 1 6
l:lxa4 �xc2 1 7 i.xc2 i.xa4 1 8
i.xa4+ with some advantage for
White
in Hodgson-P .Schlosser,
Horgen 1 994) 8 e3 tDd7 (8 . . . e6 ! ? 9
liJge2 liJd7 1 0 tDf4 tDf6 1 1 i.e2
i.d7 12 0-0 0-0-0 13 dxe6 fXe6 1 4
l:. d 1 l:!he8 1 5 l:t b 1 i.c6 1 6 a 3 liJe4
1 7 liJxe4 i.xe4 1 8 i.d3 i.c6 1 9 b4
gave White chances on the
queenside in Kharitonov-Rozentalis,
Sverdlovsk, 1 984 although I must
admit I do not really understand
Black ' s 1 4th move)
2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 129
. . .
and now White has quite an
interesting choice:
a) 9 ctJge2 ? ! ctJf6 ! 10 ctJg3 (This
gets nowhere fast, but White was
prob ably afraid of 10 ctJf4 ctJe4 ! 1 1
..t d3 'it'xb2 ! when I don 't see full
co mpensation for a pawn) 10 . . . hS
1 1 i.d3 e6 12 'it'c2 i.d7 13 ctJge2
0-0-0 14 z:tb I ctJg4 ! ? when Black
looks very active in M.Gurevich­
Alterman, Haifa 1 99 5 . White ' s
knight simply lost tempi here. This
suggests either that it headed for the
wrong square, or that it would be a
better idea to develop his kingside
p ieces 'the other way round ' .
b) 9 ctJ f3 ctJf6 ! 1 0 .Jid3 ctJe4 1 1
..txe4 (It is interesting that Kanstler
gives 1 1 'ilVc2?! ctJxc3 as unclear,
but when Lputian tried this Black
revealed the 1 1 . . :iVxb2 ! trick, and
to my mind White again does not
get full value) 1 1 . . . fxe4 1 2 ctJd2 fS
1 3 0-0 .Jid7 was Faerman- Kanstler,
Beer Sheva 1 998 and now instead of
14 l:tb I ? ! hS I S a3 h4 1 6 b4 h3 1 7
g3 'ilVa6 when if forced to choose I
would probably take Black, I would
suggest 14 f3 ! ? exf3 I S l:hf3 with a
very
interesting
and
unusual
struggle ahead. Black's main
weakness - the fS pawn - is not
really vulnerable exactly, but it does
at least tie his pieces down to its
defence to a degree.
c) 9 'ilVc2 ! ? followed by i.d3
looks the most logical, and it is
rather curious that it has not been
played more often. Romero Holmes
- Reinaldo Castineira, Spain (ch)
1 997, for example was very quickly
favourable for White after 9 . . . ctJf6
1 0 i.d3 ctJe4 1 1 ctJge2 ctJxc3 1 2
bxc3 ! ? e6 1 3 0-0 'i!Vd8 1 4 dxe6 !
fxe6 I S e4 0-0 ( I S . . . 'ilVgS ! ? might
be a bit tougher) 1 6 exfS exfS 1 7
ctJf4 'ilVgS 1 8 ctJdS with serious
positional trumps. In such a position
the c-pawns are scarcely a problem
at all, indeed they control very vital
squares.
I suspect Black should prefer
9 . . . ctJeS . There is little practical
experience with this, but I would
like to kick this beast away, and
wonder whether 10 h3 ! ? is asking
too much. Lines like 1 0 . . . l:t.g8 1 1 f4
ctJg6 1 2 ctJf3 ! eS ! ? 1 3 dxe6 fxe6 1 4
i.d3 followed possibly b y I S g4
look quite interesting. 1 0 . . :iVa6 ! ? is
an interesting try to disrupt White ' s
plans, but 1 1 'iVb3 i s quite playable.
Food for thought here.
Incidentally, Black can also
choose to put a distinctive stamp on
the play by means of the immediate
S . . . e6 ! ? If White plays 6 c4 we are
highly likely to reach the note to
8 . . . e6 ! ? given in the discussion
above. Also interesting is 6 e4 ! ? (6
ctJc3 and g3 is also quite playable)
6 . . . .Jig7 (6 . . . i.h6 ? ! 7 'it'xh6 ! 'iWxb2
8 ctJe2 'ilVxa l 9 ctJec3 'ilVb2 1 0 i.e2 !
Casagrande-Banas, Mitropa Cup
I 99S gives White a terrific attack;
while 6 . . . fS ! ? 7 exfS exdS is more
interesting, but White still has
decent prospects with 8 ctJc3 ! ?) and
now maybe 7 ctJc3 ! ? 0-0 8 ctJge2
followed by g3 , again with a good
deal of appeal for those seeking an
unusual struggle.
6 e3 f5 7 c4 ! ?
Accepting the challenge. As
discussed in the note to Black' s Sth,
7 g3 ! ? or perhaps even better 7
ctJe2 ! ? might have come into
consideration. However, the game is
still critical for anyone who wishes
to play an early c4 since Black can
then approach this position by
means of S . . . fS . Others could
minimise their learning at this point,
but what is to come is a lot of fun !
7
. . .
f4 ! ?
1 3 0 2 c5 Introduction and 3 bf6
. . .
Having said ' a ' , Black really must
say ' b ' . There is little other positive
idea attached to . . . i.. h 6.
8 exf4 i.. xf4
17 0-0 lLlb4 1 8 lLla3 'iNxfl + 1 9
i.. xfl ':xa3 is insufficient in view of
20 'iNb2 ! ) White has two plausible
tries :
9 �xf4 !
Taking up the challenge, and
indeed, if this fails White must
reconsider his strategy at an earlier
stage, since 9 'ili'c2 i.. e 5 is certainly
not acceptable given Black' s
command o f the central dark
squares.
9 . . .'ili'xb2 10 lLle2 'ili'xa l l l lLlec3
'ili'b2 ? !
Until now the play has been quite
forcing. However, understandable
though John Van der Wiel ' s desire
was to release his ensnared queen
without delay, it is here that other
players wishing to venture down
this risky road have chosen to
deviate. In the game White gets a
very powerful attack. After the
alternative 1 1 . . . d6 ! ? the focus is
much more back to the usually more
mobile of Black's monarchs, and
the question is simple enough. Can
she escape? After 1 2 'iNd2 ! J:tg8 ! ?
( 1 2 . . . a6 does not seem sufficient
either. The point is that after 1 3
i.. e 2 b 5 1 4 cxb5 axb5 1 5 i.. x b5+
i.. d 7 16 i.. d 3 ! White still has time to
round up the queen and 16 . . . lLla6
a) 1 3 g3 ? ! is the only move to
have been seen in practice. The
problem is that 1 3 . . . a6 ! is now
much
stronger.
Aleksandrov­
Zhelnin, St.Petersburg (op) 1 994
was good for Black after 14 'iVc2 ? !
'it' f8 1 5 l\Vb3 lLld7 1 6 i.. e 2 b5 1 7
cxb5 axb5 1 8 i.. x b5 lLl e 5 1 9 i.. e 2 c4
20 l\Vb6 i.. f5 2 1 0-0 lIxa2 22 lLlxa2
'ili'xa2 since there is only one major
dimension to the position, and the
queen is out! However even the
apparently more promising 14 i.. d3
b5 1 5 cxb5 axb5 1 6 i.. x b5+ i.. d 7 1 7
i.. d3 ! ( 1 7 i.. x d7+? ! lLlxd7 1 8 0-0
lLle5 looks fine for Black) meets
with the interesting manoeuvre
1 7 . . . i.. h 3 ! ? 1 8 'ii'h6 i.. g2 1 9 :g l
i.. f3 ! when it is difficult for White
to strengthen his encirclement of his
opponent' s queen. 20 'ii'x h7 'iit f8 2 1
'ili'h6+ �e8 2 2 'iVh7 forced a draw,
but I do not see better here.
b) Joe Gallagher' s 1 3 i.. e 2 !
therefore looks a far more
promising choice. White sacrifices
the g-pawn, banking on the idea that
�e2 and kIc 1 is to all intents and
purposes as efficient as castling.
The critical line seems to be
2 c5 Introduction and 3 iLxf6 1 3 1
. . .
1 3 . . J ohg2 1 4 i.f3 J:tg6 ( 1 4 . . . i.h3
1 5 iVh6 "iVb2 1 6 i.xg2 ! .txg2 1 7
,Ug l is very awkward for Black) 1 5
�e2 ! and now:
b l ) 1 5 . . . b5 1 6 cxb5 a6 1 7 b6 !
llJd7 1 8 �c 1 llJxb6 1 9 llJa3 Gallagher - is good for White.
There is not too much compensation
in this case.
b2)
1 5 . . . .tg4 ! ?
16
J:tc l !
( Strangely, Joe Gallagher whose
analysis was otherwise excellent,
gives 1 6 i.xg4? ::txg4 1 7 'uc 1 here
which allows 1 7 . . . l:td4 ! 1 8 Wi'c2
�xc4
wmnmg
for
Black)
1 6 . . . llJc6 ! ? 1 7 dxc6 'ue6+ 1 8 c;f;f1
.i.xf3 1 9 cxb7 %:.b8 20 llJa3 'ilixc 1 +
2 1 iVxc 1 %:.xb7 and while I prefer
White here too on material grounds
(queen and two knights v. two
rooks, a bishop and two pawns)
Black does have rather more
counterplay this time. The white
king is not entirely happy and if
Black can activate the rook on b7,
he has reasonable chances to
generate annoying threats.
1 2 d6!
This is the problem of course. The
queen' s escape has been secured at
the price of terrible threats around
the black king, and pretty grim
development perspectives to boot.
1 2 . . . llJc6 1 3 i.d3 exd6
1 3 . . . e6 1 4 0-0 f5 1 5 1i'h6 ! �f7 1 6
i.e2 ! is also crushing. The detail of
analysis which was required in the
case of 1 1 . . . d6 would be super­
fluous here. It is clear that Black ' s
pieces are i n n o state t o come to the
king ' s assistance. Once White safely
castles it is a matter of time.
1 4 0-0 llJe5 1 5 iVf6! 0-0 1 6 llJd5
l:.e8 17 iVg5+ llJg6
17 . . . �h8 1 8 llJf6 ! llJxd3 19 'iWh6
is also hopeless. White ' s attack has
been nicely conducted, but it is no
surprise that 1 1 . . . d6 has not been
repeated .
1 8 llJf6+ 'iit fS 19 �h6+ 'iit e 7 20
ttJd5+ �d8 2 1 i.xg6 hxg6 22
ttJbc3 1-0
Game 30
Adams - Lautier
PCNIntel Rapid, Paris 1 995
1 d4 ttJf6 2 i.g5 c5 3 i.xf6 gxf6
4 d5 'iWb6 5 "iVcl f5
6 c3
Quite aside from the c4-based
systems which I briefly examined in
the previous game, White has quite
a bewildering array of set-ups
available in this complex position. I
1 32 2 c5 Introduction and 3 hf6
. . .
have decided to be quite selective in
my coverage, and while I shall
make passing reference to others
where I believe this will contribute
to a general understanding of what
is going on, I have decided to
concentrate on a detailed survey of
the lines where White plays in some
order g3/c3 lDd2 and lDh3 . To my
mind this gets the balance between
solidity and a bit of punch about
right, and has the endorsement of
several of the Trompowsky ' s
leading exponents . The next three
games will examine this set-up in
some detail . As we shall see, there is
no very clear consensus on the best
move-order to reach the basic
position, nor I suspect on whether
this really even matters very much.
Certainly this is more a position for
concentrating on understanding
ideas than learning moves, but I
shall make some observations on
move order as we come across
them. For the moment, I think I
would just observe that 6 g3 seems
to be perfectly valid here too, and
might even be preferable depending
on the evaluation of the note that
follows to Black's 6th.
Before getting stuck into this
main discussion, I would like first,
partly by way of analogy to take a
look at one possible approach with 6
e3 which aims at reaching the
formation of Hodgson-Kotronias
(Game 28) only with the inter­
polation of the moves 4 . . . 1Wb6 5
'it'd . A good example of this was
seen in Bellon Lopez- G.Hemandez,
Las Palmas (op) 1 995 which
continued 6 e3 iLg7 7 c3 d6 8
lDh3 ! ? lDd7 9 tbf4 lDf6 1 0 iLc4 ( 1 0
lDd2 ? ! e5 ! i s fine for Black)
1 0 . . . iLd7 1 1 a4 0-0 1 2 0-0 (Clearly
there is no time for Hodgson ' s
lDfl -g3 manoeuvre in this version -
. . .'iWb6
has
assisted
Black' s
development and a 1 2 lDd2 l:tae8 1 3
lDfl ? e5 ! would b e very satisfactory
from Black's standpoint) 1 2 . . J:tae8 !
(I reckon this is rather more to the
point than the slower 1 2 . . .';ii' h 8 .
However, some record seems vital
of James Vigus ' admirable bravery
in becoming, so far as I can see, the
first player ever to venture a
against
Julian
Trompowsky
Hodgson in a serious game. Of
course, the maestro ' s choice of
variation is not without interest
either, but my feeling was at the
time that after 1 3 l:f.e l J:.g8 14 'iWc2
�ae8 1 5 a5 'it'd8 1 6 �3 'it'c8 1 7
'it'd l iLh6 1 8 lDa3 ! J:.g4 1 9 g3 z:i.eg8
White had shown a pretty good feel
for the position and that the
exchange sacrifice that ensued with
20 iLe2 iLxf4 ! ? 2 1 iLxg4 i.xg3 22
hxg3 z:i.xg4 should not have fully
sufficed, although Julian did later
carry home the full point and indeed
the title. Vigus-Hodgson, British
Championship, Millfield 2000) 1 3
a5 'it'c7 1 4 'iWd l 'it>h8 1 5 tbd2 �g8
16 lDh5 e6 ! 17 lDxf6 i.xf6 1 8 g3
J:!g6 19 .l:Ie l 'it>g7 20 f4 b5 2 1 axb6
axb6 22 e4 e5 23 exf5 iLxf5 24 fxe5
:'xe5 25 l:txe5 i.xe5 and Black has
perfectly respectable counterplay. In
fact it seems to me that this is a
good illustration of how much
Black gains from 4 . . . �6 if White
adopts 6 e3 . Bellon Lopez actually
handled the position rather deftly
but still achieved nothing concrete.
6 iLg7
There might be a case for playing
the
immediate
6 . . . e6
here.
However, capturing on d5 is but
rarely acceptable positionally, and
this affords White time and some
choices. I quite like his set-up in
Tchemyi-Sakaev, Pardubice (op)
1 997. 7 g3 lDa6 8 iLg2 lDc7 9
. . .
2 c 5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 1 3 3
. . .
ttJh3 ! ? ttJxd5 (If 9 . . . 'ifd6 then
maybe 1 0 ttJd2 ! ? to meet 1 0 . . . ttJxd5
with 1 1 ttJc4) 1 0 .Jtxd5 exd5 1 1
ttJf4 .Jth6 led to a position which I
think has considerable attacking
potential for White. Why not 1 2
'ife3+ 'it> f8 1 3 ttJd2 ! ? I f Black does
nothing special then I think his
weaknesses will be problematic in
the long term. However, 1 3 . . . d4 1 4
cxd4 'i'xb2 looks very risky too.
One possible line 15 ttJb3 ! c4 16
�e5 ! �g8 17 O-O ! cxb3 18 ttJh5
threatening 19 'i'f6 and a very
powerful onslaught against Black ' s
king.
7 g3
Having rejected c2-c4, White is
obliged to set his mind to providing
the d5 pawn with the requisite
protection, and the text is the most
respectable way of doing this.
7 d6
Best in my view. There are good
sound reasons for Black' s knight to
head for the kingside. It is also
possible to put it on c7, but I prefer
White after e.g. 7 . . . ttJa6 8 .Jtg2 ttJc7
9 ttJd2 (9 ttJh3 ! ? also looks logical,
trying to reach something like
Tschemyi-Sakaev from the note to
6 . . . e6. If 9 . . . �d6 ! ? White could
even consider 1 0 ttJa3 ! ? b5 1 1 � g5)
9 . . . e6 10 ttJc4 �a6 1 1 'i'f4 0-0 1 2
...
harmonious
a
with
ttJe3
organisation of White 's pieces.
Dumitrescu-Shishkov,
European
(ch), Tallinn 1 997.
8 .Jtg2 ttJd7 9 ttJh3
It cannot really be over­
emphasised that f4 is absolutely the
optimal square for the knight in this
line. It provides helpful back-up in
the ongoing bolstering of the d5
pawn, it plays a role in trying to
restrain Black's centre pawns,
whether Black has his sights set on
. . . e6 or . . . e5, and last but not least
keeps an eye on the h5 square, a key
Black weakness as we have
discussed. It is also a useful post
from which to harass Black's dark­
squared bishop and try to drum up
some kingside play.
9 ttJf6
Covering h5 and preparing to
develop his queens ide too. Also
interesting was the attempt to cut
across White ' s intended deployment
with the radical 9 . . . e5 ! ? the price of
which, of course, is a still weaker f5
pawn.
V.Popov-Yemelin,
St
Petersburg (op), 1 994 continued
with the very committal 1 0 f4
(Instead, I think White could
consider 1 0 ttJd2 �a6 1 1 �c2 ! ?
'ifa6 1 2 ttJfl and if now 1 2 . . . .Jth6
then 1 3 f4 ! ? e4 14 ttJe3 would in my
view be a much improved version of
Popov ' s idea)
10 . . . ttJf6 (The
decision to ' exchange ' squares in
such a position requires consider­
able positional acumen. My hunch
though is that 10 . . . e4 ! ? was
possible here e.g. 1 1 ttJa3 ttJf6 1 2
ttJc4 'iVa6 1 3 ttJe3 h5 ! 1 4 ttJf2 .Jtd7
and B lack is ready to meet 1 5 .Jth3
with 1 5 . . . ttJg4 ! when Black' s
position looks very healthy. In
essence, my objection to 1 0 f4 is
that it actually makes Black' s most
. . .
134 2 c5 Introduction and 3 iLxf6
. . .
significant weak spot - the fS pawn
- easier to cover! ) 1 1 CDd2 CDg4 1 2
CDc4 �a6 1 3 CDe3 .ltd7 1 4 �d2
0-0-0 I S 0-0 hS 1 6 CDgS lIdf8 1 7
fxeS CDxe3 1 8 �xe3 .ltxeS 1 9 .lth3
and Black's pawn weaknesses have
become a more pressing issue than
White ' s slightly vulnerable king.
9 . . . hS ! ? is dealt with in Game 32.
1 0 CDd2 0-0
Natural enough. 1 0 . . . .ltd7 ! ? is the
subject of Game 3 1 .
1 1 0-0 e6
The standard way to create
maximum tension in the centre. It is
far from obvious, but part of
Black' s motivation for this is
prophylactic. It may be useful to be
ready to counter White attempts at
breaking in the centre with e4, with
the move . . . eS when capturing ' en
passant' is no longer an option ! An
example where Black focuses on the
queens ide will illustrate this point.
Hernandez - Martin Gonzalez,
Benasque (op) 1 997 reached (by
transposition) 1 1 . . . .ltd7 1 2 �c2
�c7 1 3 lIad l bS 14 CDf4 :tab8 I S
e4 �c8? ! ( 1 S . . . .lth6 ! ? would still
be interesting. I suspect 1 6 lIfe 1
.ltxf4 1 7 gxf4 CDhS 1 8 exfS favours
White, but the position is very
complex indeed) 1 6 1:He l lIe8 1 7
.lth3 fxe4 1 8 .ltxd7 'ilkxd7 1 9 CDxe4
with good play in the centre.
1 2 CDf4
Best I think. I was guilty of an
instructive misconception here in
Wells-Popovic, Austrian League
2002 with the somewhat premature
release of the tension 1 2 dxe6 and
was rather let off by the
continuation 1 2 . . . .ltxe6 ? ! 1 3 CDf4
dS 1 4 c4 ! �ad8 I S 'ilkc2 d4 1 6 a3
.lth6 1 7 CDd3 'iit h 8 and could have
consolidated a tidy plus with the
simple 1 8 b4 ! intending to meet
1 8 . . . cxb4 1 9 axb4 .ltxd2 with 20
cS. Strange things happen in these
leagues on the Sunday morning unfamiliar territory for many a
chess-player. The rationale for my
1 2th move? I seem to recall fondly
imagining that after 1 2 . . . fxe6 ! 1 3
e4 fxe4 1 4 CDxe4 Black' s centre
pawns would be fairly static and I
could set about attacking them, and
also making some gestures against
the h7 pawn into the bargain.
However, I failed to reckon in this
case with 1 3 . . . eS ! ? which could
create
a
situation
of acute
embarrassment for the knight on h3 .
1 4 �c2 for example could be met
with 1 4 . . . fxe4 I S CDxe4 h6 ! ? while,
whatever the theoretical verdict,
14 . . . f4 ! ? I S gxf4 .ltxh3 1 6 .ltxh3
CDhS would be quite scary to meet in
practice. However, it is not as bad as
all that. After 1 2 . . . fxe6 White has to
settle for the more modest 1 3 CDf4 !
d S 1 4 c4 and I think the position is
still quite playable. If 14 . . . d4 I S
CDd3 there is every chance that the
e-pawn can be blockaded.
1 2 .lth6
The real difficulty in trying to
discuss this variation lies in
confronting the question: 'What are
the respective sides ' plans?' This is
...
2" . c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 135
very hard to answer. It is easier to
speak in terms of moves which
represent some improvement of the
pieces, since early breaks in the
c entre with e4 (still a possible
long-term option) do not look very
likely here. Any of the moves
Md l la4/ttJc4 with arguably 'iVc2 as
well, are, in some order likely to
feature. At some point Black will be
forced to confront the issue of his
d-pawn, and this is likely to lead to
a clarification of the central pawn
structure, at which point it becomes
easier to talk in terms of plans. The
timing of the move . . . e5 is
immensely difficult. We have
already considered it when the
knight was still on h3 . Black could
consider it here too, although d3 is
not a bad square for White ' s knight.
Eventually Black opts for . . . e5 as a
reply to 1 4 i:[d l , and of course this
makes some sense as the rook
would not choose this square with
an already closed centre. 12 . . . .i.h6
itself also invites comment. Is Black
keen to provoke e3 because he is
also concerned that the white queen
could also find a role on the c I -g5
diagonal?
As for an assessment, I think it
would be optimistic to speak of a
White advantage as such, but I
would
personally
feel
more
comfortable playing on this side. 'A
matter of taste ' seems a very fair
comment here. I am for example not
at all surprised to see Mickey
Adams handling the position so
consummately.
The
kind
of
manoeuvring required is absolutely
his forte, the ability to sense good
squares without the aid of very
concrete planning. It is my hope that
players attracted to the ' solid'
repertoire will feel at home here too .
13 e 3 .i. d 7 1 4 Md1 eS ! ?
Probably sooner o r later this
ought to come anyway. The
alternative here would be 14 . . . 'iVc7
and now for example 1 5 iVc2 J:Iae8
16 a4 ! ? and again, the way forward
without . . . e5 is unclear. I suspect
that White need not feel too fearful
of his opponent turning greedy here.
1 6 . . . .i.xf4 1 7 exf4 ttJxd5 1 8 .i.xd5
exd5 1 9 ttJfl ! I like for White,
despite the potential danger on the
light squares around his king. The
positional prize on offer is pretty
substantial.
15 ttJe2 MaeS 16 iVc2 iVdS 1 7
ttJc4 iVe7 I S a 4 b6 1 9 M e l 'it'hS 20
Ilad1 J:IgS 21 ttJc1 !
Typical Adams. Rather than rush
with his queenside aspirations, he
takes a prophylactic time-out to
reduce Black ' s potential. This takes
the sting out of . . , f4 based ideas in
particular. The knight is also better
placed on d3 from the offensive
standpoint. If instead 2 1 b4 Black
could even consider 2 l . . . cxb4 22
cxb4 .uc8 ! ?
2 1 . . . l:i.g6 2 2 ttJd3 IlegS 2 3 b4 !
ttJhS 24 bxcS bxcS 25 I:tb 1 .i.cs 26
iVd1 I:tg4 2 7 ttJaS f4 2S exf4 !
White ' s queens ide position is
strong enough that he should
concentrate his efforts there and stay
solid on the other wing. 28 h3 ? !
Ilh4 ! i s the kind o f complication to
avoid especially in a rapid game. It
would result in Black suddenly
getting quite a fierce attack.
2S . . . ttJxf4 29 ttJxf4 .i.xf4 30 ttJc6
'YWf6 31 I!.bS!
Threatening 32 I!.xc8. Black' s
kings ide initiative has entirely
evaporated.
3 1 . . . .i.fS 32 .uxgS+ l:i.xgS 33
ttJxa7 iVg6 34 ttJc6 iVgS 35 as hS
36 h4 !
1 3 6 2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6
. . .
The final blow. It is pennitted to
weaken the kings ide structure when
the
result
is
such
decisive
simplification !
36 . . .'VWf6 37 'YWxh5+ �h6 38
liJe7! 1-0
Game 3 1
Akopian - G.Hernandez
Merida 2000
1 d4 liJf6 2 � g5 c5 3 �xf6 gxf6
4 d5 'li'b6 5 'iVcl f5 6 g3 �g7 7 c3
d6 8 liJd2 liJ d7 9 liJh3 tiJf6 10 � g2
� d7
A sensible developing move with
a little hint of poison. It is of course
far from exceptional that the timing
of tucking away the king should be
significant, and Black is hoping to
punish an over-casual 1 1 0-0 with
1 1 . . . h5 ! and fair attacking chances.
11 'iWc2 ! ?
None o f the pieces are susceptible
of particularly easy handling in this
complex position. It is not out of the
question for example that if Black
takes premature action the queen
could find a role on the c 1 -g5
diagonal. However, I think there is a
case for saying that the queen is
generally better placed trying to
bolster light-square activity and that
nonnally c2 is the appropriate
square for this. This move is also
often linked to the idea of
improving the queen' s knight by the
manoeuvre liJc4-e3. Black' s reply
would seem to indicate that he
regarded this as worth avoiding especially since the other possible
rationale for his next move would
have been trying to grab the e-pawn
and this he in fact abstains from.
1 1 :i*'a6
It is interesting to speculate on
whether this was really necessary.
••
For example if 1 1 . . . O-O ! ? 1 2 liJc4
'YWa6 1 3 liJe3 e6 14 0-0 l:tfe8 1 5
]:tfd l there could be a feeling that
the knight on e3 helps to
compromise Black ' s flexibility.
Nonetheless, as so often White still
has to reckon with 1 5 . . . �h6 ! and
the position remains very complex
since 1 6 f4 would again leave the h3
knight a little uncomfortable.
1 2 0-O ! ?
This game i s fascinating for the
degree
to
which
intricate
manoeuvring suddenly gives way to
a fierce tactical exchange despite
Black ' s apparent desire to decline
this initial challenge.
1 2 ... 0-0
Black, probably rightly, decides
against the pawn grab . White ' s
possibilities after 1 2 . . :i'xe2 ! ? are
quite instructive. When White ' s
pieces
spring into
life,
his
opponent' s weakened kingside can
become quite a serious factor e.g. 1 3
:tfe l 'i'a6 1 4 �fl ! ? - Wells 1 4 . . . 'i'b6 1 5 liJc4 'iVc7 1 6 liJe3 0-0
1 7 liJxf5 liJxd5 1 8 liJxe7+ ( 1 8 liJg5
is nothing special in view of
1 8 . . . �xf5 19 'i'xf5 liJf6) 1 8 . . . liJxe7
1 9 lhe7 lUe8 ( 1 9 . . . .l:.ae8?? 20
liJg5 ! ) and now violent solutions fall
short, but the simple retreat 20
2 c5 Introduction and 3 .\txf6 1 3 7
. . .
l:!ee l ! ? followed by ttJf4 looks very
pleasant for White.
13 e4 ! ?
to
determination
White ' s
complicate matters makes for a lot
of fun, but is at the same time a little
curious since Black seems thereafter
to be able to ensure that the
conclusion of the tit-for-tat is that
White is obliged to take a perpetual
check. In view of this, for most
occasions the more patient 1 3 ttJf4 ! ?
suggests
itself
with
definite
similarities to Adams-Lautier. As
usual 1 3 , . . e5 loses some of its
appeal when White can retreat to d3 .
13 ... fxe4 14 ttJxe4 ttJxd5!
This time boldness is called for.
1 4 , . .ttJxe4? ! 1 5 'iVxe4 is just not
very comfortable for Black since
1 5 , . . e5? fails of course to 16 dxe6
fxe6 1 7 ttJg5 .
1 5 ttJhg5 ! i.f5
Pretty well forced, as 1 5 , . .f5? fails
to 16 ttJxc5 dxc5 17 .ltxd5+ e6 in
view of the pleasing follow-up 1 8
'iWb3 !
1 6 l:.adl
16 . . . e6
This is OK, but there are
alternatives which need to be
checked out.
a) Against 1 6, . .ttJc7, Finkel
indicates that White can build a
formidable attack with 1 7 g4 ! i.g6
1 8 f4 f5 (maybe 1 8 , . . d5 ! ? is better
since after 1 9 f5 dxe4 20 fxg6 'iVxg6
2 1 h4 White again with good play,
although 2 1 . . .'if h6 ! ? may offer
chances to defend) 1 9 ttJg3 ! fxg4 20
f5 .lte8 2 1 f6 .ltg6 22 i.e4 ! ':'xf6 23
llxf6 i.xf6 (23 , . . exf6 24 .ltxg6
hxg6 25 'iVxg6 ! fxg5 26 ttJf5 Finkel) 24 ttJxh7 i.xh7 25 .ltxh7+
'itt h 8 26 'ii'g 6 with very strong
threats.
b) 1 6, . .'iWxa2 ! ? 1 7 �al 'ii'c4 and
now White should probably settle
for 1 8 l:!fc 1 ! ? ttJb6 ! 1 9 ttJxd6 .ltxc2
20 ttJxc4 ttJxc4 2 1 llxc2 when
White has light-square based
compensation for the pawn, but can
hardly claim to stand better. The
problem is that White is really
courting danger after either 1 8 b3 ? !
'ii'x c3 ! 1 9 ttJxc3 .ltxc2 2 0 ttJxd5
i.xa l 2 1 l:.xa l e6 ! when White is
really facing a fearful mass of
pawns, or 1 8 l:.a4 'iWb5 ! 19 c4 'ii'x b2
20 'it'xb2 .ltxb2 2 1 cxd5 b5 ! when
likewise, Black's queenside runners
look quite a menacing prospect.
So while White gets excellent
play after the passive 1 6 , . . ttJc7? !
the apparently risky 1 6 , . . 'ifxa2 ! ? is
probably actually a simpler route to
an acceptable position.
1 7 llxd5! exd5 18 ttJf6+ .ltxf6 1 9
'it'xf5 .ltxg5 20 'it'xg5+
So far so forced. It seems almost
inconceivable that White could try
20 i.xd5 , but in fact although
20, . . .ltf6 ! 2 1 'iixf6 'ii'd 3 leaves
White short of full compensation, it
is at the same time striking that he
must try this as 20, . . i.d2 2 1 .lte4 is
really quite dangerous .
20 ... 'it;>h8 2 1 'it'f6+ �g8 22 �dl ! ?
138 2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6
. . .
White teases a little before
acquiescing in the inevitable draw.
22 . . JIae8 23 .i.f1 'iVc6 24 'iVg5+
'it'h8 25 'iVf6+ 'it'g8 26 .i.h3 'iV a4
This will do fine, but the task of
finding a move which obliges White
to force the issue was not so
difficult. 26 . . J:te6 27 f4 Me2 ! or
even 26 . . . d4 27 .i.f5? d5 ! would
also have sufficed.
27 'iVg5+ '/z-'/z
Some imperfection, but as so
often the errors made for an
especially entertaining struggle.
Game 32
Sargissian - Frohlich
Linares Open 200 1
1 d4 lbf6 2 .i.g5 c5 3 .i.xf6 gxf6
4 d5 'iVb6 5 'iV c1 f5 6 g3
6 . . . .i.g7 7 c3 d6 8 .i.g2
So what of the validity of . . . h5 in
response to the ' Akopian move
order' S lbd2? On the face of it this
would seem to prevent any such
complications since S . . . h5 could be
neatly countered with 9 lbf3 .
However, an interesting question
then arises as to quite how
inappropriate this square might be
with the bishop still on f1 , since
Black has 9 . . lbf6 1 0 lbf4 e5 !
8 . . . lbd7 9 lbd2(! ?)
For a time I thought that this was
the preferable move order in terms
of the opportunities it afforded for
dealing with a quick . . . h5 . I
that
somehow
White ' s
felt
opportunities were expanded by
luring the black knight to f6 before
venturing lbh3 . Now though I
suspect that White is pretty much
able to react ' Sargissian-style ' in
any case. In fact it is against 9 lbh3
(the order of Adams-Lautier) that
9 . h5 ! ? has been most often tested.
A few typical examples after 1 0
lbd2 h4 :
.
. .
As I indicated above, my aim in
adding in a brief coverage of this
game is to discuss the efficacy of
Black' s plan of a quick h-pawn
advance in response to lbh3 in
various positions. As I indicated
above, I am sympathetic with
White ' s move order. I can find no
argument against this approach of
commencing with the fianchetto and
adding c3 only according to need.
a) 1 1 lbf3 ? ! hxg3 1 2 hxg3 lbf6
(better than 1 2 . . . lbe5 1 3 lbf4
lbxf3+ 1 4 .i.xf3 Mxh l + 1 5 .i.xh l
.i.h6 1 6 'iV c2 .i.xf4 1 7 gxf4 .i.d7 I S
0--0--0 0--0-0 1 9 .l:Ig 1 i:IhS 20 ..Itf3
which though clearly draw ish,
2 c5 Introduction and 3 Lf6 1 3 9
. . .
might still offer White chances for
an edge Amura-Paunovic, ' Super­
stars' Benidorm 2002) 1 3 lDh4 .lid7
1 4 'iic 2 lDe4 ! (The key move. It is
going to be difficult for White to get
organised without ceding another
'bishop for knight') I S lDf4 0-0-0
1 6 .lixe4 fxe4 1 7 0-0-0 'iYa6 1 8
'I1tb l 'iVa4 1 9 'iVd2 .lif6 and the
position is customarily complex, but
if I had to choose I would be
inclined to put my money on
Black' s
bishops.
K.Georgiev­
Marinkovic, Cacak 1 996.
b) 1 1 lDc4( ! ) 'iVa6 12 lDe3 lDf6 1 3
'iVc2 and White has successfully
transposed back into the main game,
which I find considerably more
interesting and promising for White.
9 lDf6 1 0 lDh3 hS 1 1 'iic 2 'it'a6
12 lDf1 h4 13 lDe3 e6 14 dxe6 fxe6
I S g4 l:.tg8
. • .
16 gxfS
The text leads to an interesting
version of the typical heavy
positional battles associated with
this variation, with both sides forced
to nurse a number of vulnerable
weak spots. I just wonder whether
there might have been some mileage
here in very direct assault with the
pieces instead. 16 gS ! ? lDd7
( 1 6 . . . lDhS 17 .lin lIh8 1 8 lDg2
looks rather unappealing for Black.
If 1 8 . . . .lieS White has the idea to
break in the centre with 1 9 e4) 1 7
O-O-O ! when neither 1 7 . . . 'iWxa2? ! 1 8
lDxfS ! or 1 7 . . . dS 1 8 .lixdS ! exdS 1 9
lDxdS ! 'ii a S 2 0 1lt'xfS lDeS 2 1 'iVh7
�f8 22 f4 +- look especially
unappetising for the defence.
16 . . . .lih6! 1 7 .l:r.gl .lixe3 1 8 fxe3
eS
Still giving priority to positional
over
material
considerations.
However, in this case there might
have been a case for 1 8 . . . exfS ! ? 1 9
lDf4 .lid7 2 0 'iid3 ! ? (20 0-0-0 'iix a2
2 1 .lixb7 l:.txg l 22 lIxg l l:.tb8 23
.lidS is also positionally complex,
but I could not claim an advantage
for White) 20 . . . O-O-O! (but not
20 . . . 'iix d3 2 1 exd3 0-0-0 22 �d2
when White has a clear plus in
terms of both structure and excellent
minor pieces) 2 1 'iWxa6 bxa6 22
0-0-0 �c7 when again both sides
have a liberal sprinkling of
weaknesses, but White' s e-pawns
look scarcely less vulnerable than
anything he can point to on the
other side.
1 9 O-O-O ! �xa2 ! ?
At worst understandable and very
probably even the correct decision.
If White can thus castle with
impunity then his extra pawn and
1 40 2 c5 Introduction and 3 iLxf6
. . .
dynamic possibilities must give him
the advantage, certain less than
beauteous
positional
features
notwithstanding. The text again
leads to forcing play which very
radically changes the nature of the
position.
20 .ltd5 ! �a1 + 21 'it>d2 .l:!.xgl 22
l:lxal khal 23 �b3 ct:Jxd5?
A very serious but instructive
mistake. Black probably became too
wrapped up in his whole concept of
returning some material in order to
stem White ' s initiative. However,
realising that White is not obliged to
accept the coming sacrifice he
should have stepped back and seen
that in terms of the dynamic values
of the pieces this exchange must be
wrong. It doesn't take many more
moves to show that this knight was
Black' s best piece and that it is also
White ' s knight which is the pride
and joy in tum of his attack. Black
had to try 23 . . . l:lb8 ! instead when
24 .ltc6+ 'it>e7 (24 . . . 'it>f8 25 ct:Jg5 is
not too healthy, while the fact that
24 . . . 'it>d8 25 "iVf7 ! ? bxc6 26 �xf6+
'it>c7 27 �e7+ .ltd7 2 8 ct:Jg5 .l:!.xb2+
29 <itd3 seems to favour White only
goes to strongly reinforce the point
about the superiority of White ' s
knight over his adversary' s bishop.
Of course even this is incomparably
better for Black than the game
continuation) 25 ct:Jg5 d5 26 .ltxd5
.ltxf5 27 e4 retains some initiative
for White, but it is still a hard
struggle ahead.
24 �xd5 .ltxf5 25 "iVg8+ cJ;e7 26
�g7+!
Naturally ! Black may well have
been right in his belief that 26 �xa8
.ltxh3 was not so bad for him, but
n?w the white queen and knight
sImply cause devastation to the
Black defences.
26 'it>e8 27 ct:Jg5 'it'd8 28 �xb7
.l:tc8 29 ct:Jf7+ 'it>e8 30 ct:Jxd6+ 1-0
. . .
Chapter Conclusion
This turns out to be another ' solid
repertoire ' chapter where it is
difficult not to feel sympathetic to
White ' s cause. In effect, despite the
heavy emphasis on the system
covered in Games 30-32, two
approaches are considered here. I
had expected to be sceptical towards
systems involving a quick c4, but
very specifically, 9 �c2 ! ? consider­
ed in the notes to move 5 in Game
3 1 looks a very valid option and
means that not all hangs upon
sympathy with the c3/g3/ct:Jh3
set-up. The latter is admittedly very
diffi.cult, alth �ugh I find the play
partIcularly nch and instructive.
Special emphasis should be given to
Adams-Lautier (Game 30). Most
sources suggest that White is
slightly better, which I believe he is
but it is an advantage whic h
demands a lot of patience, and to
understand this game would place a
player at a great advantage over the
board. Specific problems? I am
concerned that there is something
rather tactical and specific about
White ' s success in Game 32, and
furthermore would have been
pleased to find a more generic
ans,w er to the advance of the h-pawn
WhICh retains its vitality. Also, take
another look at 9 . . e5 ! ? in the notes
to � ame 30. I am not saying that
WhIte has problems, but this does
introduce a whole new set of
strategic problems and a careful
study would be advisable before
tackling this from either side.
.
Chapter 7
-
2 . . . c5
The Attacking Repertoire with 3 d5 ! ?
As I explained in the introduction
to 2 . . . c5, this is the really sharp way
to tackle Black's challenging second
move. The dark squares are to some
extent weakened, but at the same
time the Trompowsky bishop lives
to fight another day. Black has two
main options : 3 . . . 'iWb6, which
virtually obliges a pawn sacrifice
(Games 34-35 and TA 2) and
3 . . . lbe4
which
bears
strong
similarities with Chapter 2, and
which could usefully be considered
in conjunction with it (Games
(36-37 and TA 3). The sharpness of
the play is reflected in the
theoretical articles, which seemed a
useful vehicle for dealing with some
of the material where more than
usually precise and intricate theory
is called for. First though some
minor moves, which are also not to
be underestimated.
Game 3 3
Gallagher Knott
British (ch), Scarborough 200 1
-
1 d4 lbf6 2 i.g5 c5 3 d5 d6
This could of course presage a
simple fianchetto, but Simon Knott
has his own pet idea in mind. Aside
from the main lines of Games
34-37, a couple of others merit
attention here too :
a ) 3 . . . g 6 4 lb c 3 i. g 7 5 e 4 and
now:
a l ) 5 . . . h6 6 i.f4 d6 7 h3 'ib6 8
i.b5+ lbfd7 9 .l:.b l 'i'a5 1 0 i.d2
0-0 1 1 lbf3 a6 1 2 i.e2 lbf6 1 3 0-0
�d8 14 a4 e6 1 5 dxe6 jLxe6 1 6
i.e3 lbc6 1 7 'i'd2 �h7 1 8 .l:.fd l
gave White a pleasant positional
edge in Hodgson-P.Cramling, Bern
Cup 1 996.
a2) 5 . . . d6 ! ? looks much more
sensible. White can try many
approaches. 6 lbf3 0-0 7 lbd2 is
reasonable, as is 6 'iVd2 ! ? although
White has to take account of the
possibility 6 . . . a6 7 a4 'iVa5 8 f3 b5,
when I think 9 lbd 1 !? is worth
investigation. Not to be recom­
mended though is the previously
highly regarded 6 f4? ! for the quite
concrete reason that 6 . . JlVa5 7 'i'd2
�b4 is very hard to meet.
Iceland
Thorhallsson-Hardarson,
(ch), Arborg 1 998 continued 8
i.b5+ jLd7 9 i.d3 c4 ! 1 0 i.e2
�xb2 1 1 .l:.b l lbxe4 ! 1 2 l:txb2
i.xc3 13 'iVxc3 lbxc3 14 l:txb7 f6
1 5 i.h6 lbxd5 and White had
nothing for the two pawn deficit.
b) 3 . . . �a5+ 4 jLd2 (4 c3 �6 5
jLxf6 ! ? �xf6 6 e4 is also possible)
4 . . . 'i'c7 (4 . . . 'i'b6 5 lbc3 has
similarity with note ' a ' to Black' s
4th i n Game 34) 5 lbc3 g 6 6 e 4 d 6 7
1 42 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
liJf3 i.g4 8 h3 ! ? i.xf3 9 'iVxf3 i.g7
1 0 i.e2 0-0 1 1 0-0 liJbd7 12 'iVg3
a6 13 a4 l:Iab8 14 as l:Ife8 I S l:tfe l
b S 1 6 axb6 l:Ixb6 1 7 b 3 and White
enjoys the bishop pair and the better
structure
in
Gelpke-Bosboom,
Netherlands (chT) 1 994.
4 liJc3 h6! ? 5 i.xf6 exf6
Black's play looks very strange at
first glance, but in fact by
expending just one tempo on 4 . . . h6
he has succeeded in arriving at a
structure which is otherwise very
difficult to attain without undue
cooperation. As I pointed out in the
notes to Game 28 in the previous
chapter, Black would very much
like to recapture with the e-pawn
after 1 d4 liJf6 2 i.gS cS 3 i.xf6 if
he thought White was going to
block the centre with 4 dS? ! , but the
risks to the health of his d-pawn if
White replies more appropriately
are generally deemed unacceptable.
Knott ' s idea is clever - once the
committal 3 dS is on the board he
reasons, the potential play on the
dark squares and the gains in terms
of structure and kings ide safety
which . . . exf6 represents over
. . . gxf6 should justify a lost tempo.
He might even want to make a
purist case against 4 liJc3 which
might be seen as further enhancing
the scope of the g7 bishop, since
White can no longer try and blunt
this piece by playing a pawn to c3 .
So, what are the objections? To
some extent I think Joe Gallagher's
excellent handling speaks for itself,
but my general feeling is that if
White sets about trying to extract a
reasonable
price
for Black ' s
execution of h i s essential freeing
move . . . fS , then he has good
prospects of looking every bit as
healthy on the light squares as his
opponent does on the dark squares.
Incidentally, I think our purist might
have a word or two to say about
4 . . . h6 too. It is just a little bit more
than a tempo loss, and there are
some positions in which the
weakening of the g6 square which
this move entails seems to be of
more than academic interest.
6 e4
For the reasons outlined above
this must be correct. By contrast if
Black is allowed to play . . . fS
unchallenged, for example with 6 g3
g6 7 i.g2 i.g7 8 e3 fS 9 liJge2 bS ! ?
1 0 liJxbS i.xb2 1 1 J::tb l i.g7 1 2 0-0
0-0 Povah-Knott, 4NCL 2000, it all
looks a little too easy to create play.
6 . . . g6
The immediate 6 . . . fS ? ! is no
panacea either. Indeed it is possible
that 7 i.b5+ ! ? is very awkward.
Still, it is useful that there is a
solution also applicable after for
example 6 . . . a6 7 a4 f5 . White can
simply play 8 exfS i.xf5 9 i.d3 !
which forces either an exchange
rendering the fS square an obvious
target, or a very awkward retreat. In
the latter case Black can hardly even
fianchetto his bishop without
complications on the e-file.
7 i.d3 i.g7 8 liJf3 0-0 9 0-0
liJd7 10 liJd2 a6 1 1 a4 liJe5 12 .i.e2
f5
2 c5 3 d5 1 43
. . .
13 exf5 !
So Black has achieved his freeing
break, but it is now clear that it will
come at the cost of definite pawn
weaknesses. l 3 . . . .ixf5? is imposs­
ible due to 14 f4 lbd7 1 5 g4 netting
a piece. Having said that, it is true
that the weak f5-pawn does perform
a valuable role in controlling both
e4 and g4 . The latter of course has
the value of obliging White to take
. . . lbg4 into account after the move
f4. Indeed, this happens in the
game.
13 . . . gxf5 14 as! b5 15 axb6
�xb6 16 l:!a2 l::t e 8 17 �hl �d8 1 8
f4 !
Well judged. After the coming
exchange White ' s knights will have
good targets in the f5 pawn and the
b6 square, while it is precisely
something concrete to aim at which
the Black bishop pair seems to miss.
Even for an opening in which White
implicitly expresses a willingness to
part with the bishop pair, I am
surprised both by the number of
examples in the book in which
White ends up with just a pair of
knights battling against the Black
bishop pair, and by quite what a
good account they
give
of
themselves, always in return for
some compensation, but frequently
not of the self-evident type
characteristic
the
of
worst
textbooks.
18 . . . lbg4 1 9 .ixg4 fxg4 20 lbce4
f5
It would appear to be worth
Black ' s while to try and force the
move c2-c4 to take this square away
from White ' s knight, even if this
cost a tempo or two. Therefore
20 . . . .ib7 ! ? came into consider­
ation. If White does acquiesce in 2 1
c4 f5 22 lbg3 �d7 2 3 �c2 .ic8
then although Black is rather tied
down to the defence of his f-pawn,
it is significantly more difficult for
White to activate his queen ' s knight.
Neither does 2 1 �xg4 .ixd5 22
lbg3 �f6 ! look very promising as
the position becomes open to an
unacceptable degree. However, it
seems that White has direct
attacking chances by way of 2 1
�xg4 .ixd5 22 f5 ! ? although
22 . . . h5 ! 23 �g3 .ixe4 24 f6 .ig6 is
not so clear either. All in all, this
looks like a tangible improvement
for the defence.
2 1 lbg3 l::t a 7 22 lbc4 l::t f7 23 �d3
.if8 24 l:!aal �f6 25 c3 �g6 26
l:!fel l:!xe 1+ 27 l::t x el h5
An instructive case in which the
two knights utterly dominates the
bishop pair. Black is tied to
weaknesses on d6, e6, and f5 , but is
1 44 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
also vulnerable on b6, the entry
point that will break the camel ' s
back. With reference t o the note on
the possibility of 20 . . . �b7 ! ? the
importance of the knight on c4 and
of the c-pawn restricting Black' s
dark-squared bishop and denying
access to the d4 square hardly need
further elaboration.
28 'hb6 ..tb7 29 S:e6 �h7 30
'it'gl h4 31 'hn �h5 32 'he3 ..th6
33 g3
Joe ' s handling of the remainder of
the game rather bears out this
decision, but it was also possible to
play 33 �fl and conduct the matter
without permitting any weaknesses
at all.
33 . . . hxg3 34 hxg3 �f8 35 'hg2 !
..te7 36 �e3 �h7 37 'it'f2 �g7 38
�d3 �h7 39 �e3 �g7 40 �d3
�h7 41 �dl 'it'g7 42 �a4 !
A nice change of direction. Now
the bishop on b7 can itself be
categorised as a weakness too !
42 . . . �h8 43 �d7 �d8 44 �xb7
�f8 45 �c6 1:i.c7 46 �e8 1-0
Game 34
Vaganian - Kupreichik
USSR (ch), Leningrad, 1 974
1 d4 'hf6 2 ..tg5 c5 3 d5 �b6
4 'hc3 ! �xb2
The most principled of course,
although taking the pawn is not
compulsory.
There
are
two
reasonable ways to decline:
a) After 4 . . . h6 Gallagher points
out that while many moves have
been tested, the most logical is 5
..td2 ! when the b-pawn will clearly
be immune. However, Black's move
retains some validity since d2 is
perhaps not the ideal square for the
bishop. It is interesting to see how
in Hodgson-T.Piihtz, Bundesliga
2002, faced with a ' Czech Benoni'
structure, White manoeuvred his
knight to e3 despite the standard
route via d2 being blocked off. Of
course this is only one of several
valid treatments : 5 ..td2 e5 ! ? (or
5 . . . d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 'hbd7 S lL'lfJ
..tg7 9 �d3 0-0 1 0 'ha4 ! �c7 1 1 c4
when White has a very promising
Four Pawns Attack. Chepukaitis­
Ignatiev, St.Petersburg (op) 1 995) 6
e4 d6 7 lL'lge2 ! ? a6 S a4 �c7 9 a5
'hbd7 1 0 'hg3 g6 1 1 ..te2 h5 1 2
'hfl ! �h6 1 3 �xh6 J:i.xh6 1 4 �d2
J:i.hS 1 5 'he3 �f8 1 6 0-0 �g7 1 7
'hc4 b 5 I S axb6 'hxb6 1 9 'ha5 and
with f4 to come, White enjoys good
play.
b) 4 . . . d6 5 e4 g6 (5 . . . a6 ! ?
reintroduces the possibility of
. . . �xb2. White should probably
either settle for 6 J:i.b 1 or try the
ambitious 6 a4 �xb2 7 ..td2 �6 S
f4, although the insertion of the
a-pawn
moves
may
have
implications after S . . . e6 ! ?) 6 �b5+
..td7 (6 . . . lL'lbd7 ! ?) 7 a4 ..tg7 S lL'lfJ
0-0 9 lL'ld2 h6 10 ..th4 a6 1 1 a5
�dS 1 2 ..te2 �b5 1 3 0-0 'heS
( 1 3 . . . ..txe2 ! ?) 14 J:i.e l 'hc7 1 5 f4
'hd7 1 6 �g4 ! lL'lf6 1 7 �fJ S:eS I S
e5 ! with an excellent active position
for White in Kashtanov-Bratchenko,
St. Petersburg, 1 999.
2 c5 3 d5 1 45
. . .
5 .i.d2
I have already discussed how one
obj ection
to
the
possible
Trompowsky lies in the bishop ' s
desertion of the b 2 pawn. This, as
we have seen, has the consequence
of introducing a plethora of possible
gambits. In the context of a
repertoire book I have been fairly
ruthless in excluding several of the
more suspect of these. This,
however, the Vaganian Gambit,
named after the highly respected
Armenian Grandmaster who strung
together a series of convincing wins
with the line as early as the 1 970s,
unquestionably earns its place. I
think the appeal is largely that
White' s development, for all that
the Tromp bishop is obliged to
make a tactical retreat, remains so
harmonious. This tends to bring into
sharp focus the tempi expended on
tracking down the b-pawn. In
addition, while the loss of the
b-pawn does of course engender
some weaknesses - the d2 bishop
needs to take care that its future
wanderings will not leave the knight
on c3 too vulnerable - the central
pawn structure fixed as early as
move three is in some ways quite
beneficial to White. The contest
between White' s attempts to push
through in the centre with e4-e5 and
his opponent' s queens ide aspirations
are a typical 'Benoni ' theme, but
here, while White ' s preparations are
already at quite an advanced stage
by the time we reach the next
diagram position, the open b-file
can often be gainfully employed to
ensure that the majority of damage
to White ' s queenside has already
been inflicted. In other words Black
can have real problems creating
In
case,
counterplay.
any
Vaganian' s convincing play has put
the attempt to mirror 'routine '
Benoni development under a fairly
thick cloud. First things first. The
queen should not ' hang around' on
b2 !
5 "iVb6 6 e4 d6
. . .
The two e-pawn moves are the
subj ect of the Theoretical Article 2
below.
7 f4
7 g6? !
As I said above, I am sceptical
that Black can enter Benoni territory
quite so nonchalantly. Aside from
striking back in the centre with
7 . . . e6, the subj ect of Game 3 5 , the
only other moves which seem to
make much sense are the queen
retreats :
. . .
146 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
a) 7 . . . eS is an uneconomic move
order for Black in terms of learning
time since in addition to a
transposition into the Theoretical
Article 2 below, White has the
option of capturing en passant 8
dxe6 ! ? leading to note ' b ' to
White ' s 8th in Game 3 S . However,
if it turns out that 8 . . . .i.xe6 renders
the latter questionable, there can be
no objection to Black giving his
opponent a chance to play a less
than optimal line.
b) 7 . . . a6? ! fails to address the eS
break which in most cases,
including this one, Black would do
well to regard as a threat.
Vaganian-Passerotti, Rome 1 977
was a typically crisp attack
following 8 eS ! dxeS 9 fxeS ltJg4? !
1 0 e6 ltJf6 1 1 exf7+ �xf7 1 2 ltJf3
g6 13 i.c4 'iVd6 14 0-0 bS I S ltJe4
ltJxe4 (A nice variation could run
l S . . . 'iVd8 1 6 ltJfgS+ �g8 1 7 .l:[xf6 !
gxf6 1 8 d6+ ! bxc4 1 9 i.aS �xaS 20
�dS+, but it must be said all
White ' s opening goals were attained
with such ease that combinations are
highly likely to flow in this way) 1 6
ltJgS+ �g8 1 7 ltJxe4 'ilVe S 1 8 � f3
.i.fS 1 9 i.d3 c4 20 .i.c3 �c7 2 1 g4
cxd3 22 gxfS ltJd7 23 fxg6 1-0.
Devastating stuff, and little wonder
that the gambit started to be taken
very seriously indeed.
c) The logic behind 7 . . . i.g4 ? !
does not impress either. White can
play 8 i.e2 (8 'iVc 1 ! ? also has the
virtue of leaving the bishop
stranded, while even 8 � 1 ! ? - De
la Villa - is interesting, not least the
fact that Black ' s best might be
8 . . . i.c8 ! ?) 8 . . . i.xe2 9 'ilVxe2 when
the exchange seems merely to have
enhanced White ' s chances of
breaking through in the centre e.g.
9 . . . a6 (9 . . :i'd8 10 ktb I ! ) 10 .l:tb l
"ilc7 1 1 eS dxeS 1 2 fxeS ltJfd7 1 3
ltJf3 e6 1 4 0-0 exdS? ! I S e6 fxe6 1 6
"ilxe6+ i.e7 1 7 ltJxdS 'ilVd6 1 8 ltJgS
ltJc6 19 ltJc7+ "ilxc7 20 "ilf7+ 'itt d 8
21 ltJe6+ 'itt c 8 22 ltJxc7 'ittx c7 23
i.f4+ 1-0 Hodgson-R.Pert, British
(ch Rapid) Bradford, 200 1 .
d) 7 . . . "ild8 at least holds White
up a bit, and like ' e ' below has
scored well in practice. 8 i.c4
(logical as Black is targeting dS
rather than eS in his efforts to
prevent White ' s central expansion. 8
ltJf3 i.g4 ! ?) 8 . . . a6 (8 . . . ltJbd7 9
a4 ! ? ltJb6 1 0 i.bS+ .i.d7 1 1 "ile2 !
looks good for White) 9 a4 g6
(9 . . . i.g4 ? ! 1 0 'iVb 1 ! - De la Villa ­
is strong. As we have seen in note
' b ' above, there is little to be said
for . . . i.g4 unless it pins a knight)
1 0 eS ltJfd7 1 1 "ile2 dxeS ? ! (de la
Villa prefers 1 1 . . . ltJb6 ! ?, but after
1 2 i.a2 White threatens 1 3 as and it
is still far from clear how Black
solves his considerable development
problems) 1 2 fxeS .i.g7 1 3 ltJf3 0-0
14 0-0 ltJb6 I S i.a2 i.g4 was
Fink-Formanek, Philadelphia (op)
2000, when I would probably
choose 1 6 i.f4 ! ? and White has a
good deal of initiative for the pawn .
e) 7 . . . "ilc7 ! ? might be the most
testing of the minor moves.
Black prevents eS while waiting
for . . . i.g4 to pin a knight which, of
2 c5 3 d5 1 4 7
. . .
course has much more impact upon
the battle for key centre squares. I
astonishingly have only 5 games on
my database with this move of
'
which two went 8 ttJf3 it.g4 and
quickly looked pretty lifeless for
White.
More promising alternatives are:
e l ) 8 it.b5+ ttJbd7 ! ? (I like
8 . . it.d7 9 'ii'e 2 ! ? for White as a
quick e5 looks pretty hard to fend
off, including after 9 . . . it.xb5 1 0
ttJxb5 'i'd8 1 1 c4 ! ?; also 8 . . . ttJfd7
seems to offer White a wider range
of choices. Perhaps 9 it.e2 a6 1 0 a4,
although I admit it is not ideal to
block the e-file in this way) 9 ttJf3
a6 1 0 it.xd7+ ttJxd7 1 1 0-0 was
reached in Palos-Bachler, Graz (op)
1 996 when 1 l . . .b5 was reasonable
but 1 l . . . g6 ! ? also looks natural :
when White' s best might be 1 2 ttJe2
it.g7 1 3 �c3 , but while practical
chances there surely are, I would
not claim full compensation in
theory.
e2) 8 �c4 ! ? is suggested by De la
Villa, and I think it is probably best.
He gives the line 8 . . . a6 9 a4 g6 1 0
'i'e2 ! it.g7 1 1 e 5 (once this is
achieved at no special cost I am
rarely fearful for the value of
White ' s compensation) 1 1 . . . ttJfd7
1 2 exd6 'i'xd6 1 3 ttJe4 �6 1 4 a5
'ikb2 when in fact 15 .:ta2 ! 'ib l + 1 6
<it;f2 is even stronger than his 1 5
:'c 1 . The winning threat o f ttJc3 is
virtually impossible to meet.
However while it is true that
1O . . . �g4 1 1 'ii'e 3 does not help
much, the precautionary retreat
1 0 . . . ttJfd7 ! does hold up e5 and
must therefore be an improvement.
After 1 1 ttJf3 it.g7 1 2 0-0 0-0 there
is no doubt that White has
compensation - after all, the knight
on d7 can easily be missed from the
kingside after a typical transfer of
the queen to h4 in conjunction with
a well-timed f5-but the position is
by no means clear.
.
8 e5 !
90% o f the time White should
make this break if Black has failed
to take steps to prevent it.
8 . . . dxe5
Opening up lines in this way
looks like it should make matters
worse, but 8 . . . ttJfd7 9 ttJf3 �g7 1 0
.l:tb 1 'i'd8 1 1 e6 fxe6 1 2 ttJg5 ! ttJf8
( 1 2 . . . ttJf6 ! ? 13 it.b5+ 'it>f8 14 dxe6
"fIc7 1 5 it.c4 ! ? also looks very
strong) 1 3 it.b5+ it.d7 1 4 dxe6
it.xb5 1 5 ttJxb5 'i'c8 1 6 O-O ! was
equally devastating in Vaganian­
Jansa, Kragujevac 1 974. The game
continued 1 6 . . . a6 1 7 it.c3 ! axb5 (If
1 7 . . . it.xc3 , then 1 8 ttJxc3 h6 1 9
ttJfl Ith7 20 f5 ! is crushing) 1 8
�xg7 lIg8 1 9 �xf8 lIxf8 2 0 ttJxh7
ng8 2 1 f5 gxf5 22 "fIh5+ <it;d8 23
'i'fl .l:[e8 24 .l:[xf5 'iVc6 (to defend
against the threat of 25 'i'xe8+ ! ) 25
ne l nxa2 26 ttJf6 ! lIxc2 (26 . . . exf6
27 e7+ �c7 28 'i'xa2) 27 'iVxe8+
'i'xe8 2 8 ttJxe8 �xe8 29 h4 J::t c4 30
h5 ttJc6 3 1 .l:[efl �d8 32 .l:[5f4 ! and
the h-pawn decides.
9 fxe5 ttJfd7 10 ttJf3 it.g7 n lIbl
"fId8 12 e6! fxe6 13 ttJg5 ttJf6
1 48 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
1 3 . . . liJe5 1 4 .ib5+ �f8 1 5 0-0+
<iit g 8 at least discourages White
from capturing on e6 with the pawn.
However, either 1 6 liJxe6 and 1 6
.ll e 3 ! ? look very strong.
14 .ib5+ Wf8 15 dxe6 a6 1 6
.ie3 ! �a5 1 7 O-O !
One case where the white bishop
can abandon defence of c3 with a
very clear conscience indeed.
17 . . . h6? !
It is easy after this, but the fierce
attack
launched
by
White ' s
excellent 1 6th move i s very tough to
restrain. Both 1 7 . . . axb5 1 8 J:txb5
�c7 19 liJd5 'ilVe5 20 .ll x c5 liJc6 2 1
liJxe7 ! and 1 7 . . . 'it>g8 1 8 liJd5 !
liJxd5 1 9 �xd5 axb5 20 l:Ixb5 ! are
also hopeless.
1 8 'ilVd3 ! 'it> g8 19 �xg6 .ll x e6 20
liJxe6 l:Ih7 2 1 l:Ixf6 liJd7 22 .ll x d7
1-0
A superb demonstration of
White' s attacking potential if Black
fails to deal with the e5
breakthrough.
Game 3 5
Chepukaitis - Yemelin
St. Petersburg 1 996
1 d4 liJf6 2 .ig5 c5 3 d5 'ili'b6 4
liJc3 'ilVxb2 5 .ll d 2 'i!Vb6 6 e4 d6 7 f4
e6
Compared with some of the less
combative lines from the previous
game this has the advantage that
White ' s centre is challenged before
he can organise the potent e4-e5
break. On the other hand there is an
obvious danger that such a fluid
centre can still be blasted open to
the detriment of the side whose
development lags behind. This is a
rather confusing variation to write
about, since the main line 8 . . . 'iVd8
has produced a series of fine and
rather spectacular games and looks
immensely dangerous for Black, but
the very logical alternative 8 . . . 'iIi'c7
has generally produced little
analysis from the commentators,
and a good deal of muddle from the
practitioners .
8 l:rbl (! )
This is very much the main line. It
is not so much about driving the
queen back, as prefacing a check on
b5, preparing to answer . . . ..td7 with
dxe6 . There are other moves, but the
merits of variation ' b ' are closely
intertwined with those of the main
line, but in general I find the
immediate exchange on e6 less
flexible:
a) 8 liJf3 , played here recently by
England' s top young talent Luke
McShane looks a little strange. Of
course Luke often very effectively
goes his own way, but here after his
opponent' s very thematic antidote it
is already not easy to suggest any
improvements. I did not much care
for the compensation after 8 . . . exd5
9 e5 (9 liJxd5 liJxd5 1 0 exd5 .ll e 7
1 1 l:.b l �d8 12 .ll d 3 liJd7 should
not be quite sufficient either)
9 . . . dxe5 1 0 fxe5 liJe4 1 1 liJxd5
'iVd8 12 c4 .ll g4 (I don't know what
Luke intended after the simple
2 c5 3 d5 1 49
. . .
1 2 . . . llJxd2 1 3 �xd2 llJc6 . It doesn 't
look especially promising to me) 1 3
1ltb l ! llJxd2 1 4 1lt'xb7 llJxf3+ 1 5
gxf3 Sl.xf3 1 6 llJc7+ cJi;e7 1 7 llJd5+
WeS I S llJc7+ 'i;e7 19 llJd5+ �eS
20 llJc7+ liz-liz McShane - Ni Hua,
Bled (01) 2002.
b) S dxe6 ! ? is also a respectable
option, closely related to the main
line, and one which of course can
also arises if Black chooses 7 . . . e5.
The assessment of Black's two
possible
replies
IS
already
complicated by some strange
choices in practical play, again
linked to the issue of the relative
merits of the dS and c7 squares for
Black' s queen. I consider:
b l ) S . . . fxe6 has generally been
answered with 9 �b 1 , when
9 . . . 'tidS
transposes
to
Golubenko-Sepp (see the note to
White' s 9th below) . To my mind,
given the potency of the whole
e4-e5 break there is a strong prima
facie case for 9 . . . 'ilVc7 ! ? This is also
transpositional, leading to the note
to Black's Sth. If this prevention of
e5 does tum out to be annoying then
the question naturally arises, why
not try 9 e5 ! ? immediately? In
Arduman-Gombac, Nova Gorica
(op) 200 1 White quickly gained a
strong initiative after 9 . . . dxe5 1 0
fxe5 llJd5 1 1 Sl.d3 g 6 1 2 'tig4 Sl.d7
1 3 .l:i.b l WII c 7 1 4 llJf3 llJxc3 1 5 Sl.xc3
Sl.e7 1 6 0-0 llJc6 which was quickly
converted into a material advantage
that should prove decisive by 1 7
llJg5 0-0-0 I S llJxe6 llJxe5 1 9 'tie4
Sl.xe6 20 Sl.xe5 'tid7 2 1 Sl.xh S .
b 2 ) S . . . Sl.xe6 ! ? seems more
problematic. Now I am not
convinced that White has full
compensation whether with or
without throwing in ktb 1 . The
problem is what to do when Black
holds back the move . . . llJc6,
preparing to answer any subsequent
push of the f-pawn with the
manoeuvre . . . Sl.-d7-c6. For ex­
ample Black has problems after 9
llJf3 llJc6? ! 1 0 i:tb l 'tic7 1 1 f5 Sl.d7
12 Sl.c4 a6 13 llJd5 ! llJxd5 14 Sl.xd5
Sl.e7 1 5 Sl.c3 with strong pressure.
However, I am less sure about
9 . Sl.e7 ! 1 0 .i:i.b 1 WII c 7 1 1 f5 Sl.d7 1 2
Sl.c4 ( 1 2 Sl.f4 should not distract
Black from his plan either:
1 2 . . . Sl.c6 ! 1 3 e5 dxe5 1 4 llJxe5
llJbd7 looks fine for Black since the
queen is heading for a5 in most
sharp lines) 12 . . . Sl.c6 13 0-0 llJbd7
14 Sl.f4 a6 1 5 a4 0-0 16 'tie2 .l:r.aeS
M.Piket-Blees, Netherlands (chT),
1 996 and White has more space, but
it does not really look worth a pawn.
S . . . Wlld S
This is the big decision. It boils
down to this. The text move
prioritises placing the queen on the
least vulnerable square, but on the
other hand it neither deals with the
prevention of the e5 break, nor the
defence of b7. As we shall see later
in the game, both of these are of
very great significance.
.
.
S . . : �c7 ! ?
on the other hand better serves both
of these goals, but leaves the queen
1 50 2 . . . c5 3 d5
potentially vulnerable to tLlb5 ideas,
and in addition - although the
significance of this is far from
self-evident - fails to cover the d5
square. My strong hunch is that this
is the better move. However,
enough generalities, on to some
(albeit rather tentative) analysis. As
in the main line, White can try:
a) 9 dxe6 fxe6 (9 . . . i.xe6 ! ? was
dealt with in the note to 8 dxe6, and
seems eminently reasonable. I
would recommend it here too) 1 0
tLl f3 a6 (I think that 1 0 . . . tLlc6
would be possible if 1 1 e5 turned
out to be a problem, but if White is
pursuing the plan we witness in this
example then it makes little
difference) 1 1 a4 tLlc6 1 2 i.c4 ! and
one of the slight drawbacks of
. . . "fic7 is revealed - Black cannot
play . . . d5, and White has a
reasonably potent plan of playing
f4-f5) 1 2 . . . tLld4 1 3 0-0 i.e7 14 f5
exf5 1 5 tLld5 tLlxd5 1 6 i.. x d5 f4 1 7
tLlxd4 cxd4 1 8 �xf4 i.f6 1 9 "fih5+
g6 20 "fie2 i.e5 21 nf2 i.d7
Puschmann-Adzic, Hungary (chT2)
1 994 and the black king has no safe
place to go.
b) 9 i..b 5+ tLlbd7 ! ? (9 . . . i.d7 also
has some logic since the plan of
dxe6 and i.c4 from the main game
makes little sense with b7 defended.
Therefore I suggest 10 'i' e2 ! ? since
the position of the queen on c7
renders 10 . . . exd5 ? ! a very risky
business in view of 1 1 e5. Therefore
in Palos-H.Nagel, Vienna (op),
1 994 Black preferred 1 0 . . . a6 [If
1 0 . . . i.e7 1 1 dxe6 fxe6 12 e5 still
looks quite dangerous] 1 1 i.. x d7+
'i'xd7 12 dxe6 fxe6 1 3 e5 dxe5 1 4
fxe5 tLld5 1 5 tLlh3 ! ? tLlc6 1 6 0-0
but White retains a good deal of
activity for the pawn) 1 1 tLlf3 a6 1 2
i.. c4 tLlb6
1 3 .uxb6 ! ? A hugely thought­
provoking sacrifice, and actually
quite critical to the assessment of
8 . . . 'ikc7 . It is at least easy to see that
retreating the c4 bishop does not
look very promising. 1 3 . . . "fixb6 1 4
e 5 and now
b l ) 14 . . . dxe5 is critical since the
conduct of White ' s attack requires
some precision. However, the
position still looks very dangerous
for Black after 1 5 fxe5 tLld7 1 6 O-O !
and now both:
b 1 1 ) 16 . . . i.e7 1 7 i.. g 5 i.xg5 1 8
tLlxg5 tLlxe5 1 9 'i'h5+ g6 20 'i'h6
'i'd8 2 1 fig7 'i'd4+ 22 �h l tLlxc4
23 'i'f7+ 'itd8 24 �d l when White
recoups most of his material and
keeps a dangerous initiative.
b 1 2) and 16 . . . "fic6 1 7 tLlh4 ! g6
( 1 7 . . . b5 1 8 'i'h5+ 'itd8 1 9 i.d3 ! ) 1 8
i.g5 ! leave Black with a serious
defensive task.
b2) 14 . . . d5 1 5 exf6 gxf6 was
Mamedyarov-Aroshidze, European
U-20, Baku 2002. White, not liking
the look of the imposing pawn
phalanx which his opponent would
enjoy if he retreats his bishop,
decided to sacrifice it instead with
16 i.. x d5 ? ! but after 1 6 . . . exd5 1 7
tLlxd5 'i'e6+ 1 8 i.e3 'i'd6 he was
clearly struggling to prove anything.
However, I think another sacrifice
2 c5 3 d5 1 5 1
. . .
offers much better prospects. White
has 1 6 lbeS ! ! when 1 6 . . . fxeS 1 7
"ii'h S+ �d7 1 8 "ii'x eS J::t g 8 1 9 lbxdS !
exdS 20 "ii'x dS+ .i.d6 2 1 "ikxg8
yields a decisive advantage since
2 1 . . ."ikb l + 22 �t2 "ii'x h l 23 'ii'e 6+
�c6 24 .i.dS+ �c7 2S �aS+ b6 26
�xb6 ! + �xb6 27 'ii'xd6+ is a
mating attack. This long and
complex line could be of great
theoretical value, and strongly
suggests that 9 �bS+ is the way to
press forward White 's attack.
9 �b5+! ?
As we shall see, this leads to very
interesting complications, but with
the queen already committed to d8,
the case for 9 dxe6 is enhanced
since recapture with the bishop is
effectively ruled out. Moreover,
after 9 . . . fxe6 1 0 eS ! White seems to
get dangerous play e.g. :
a) 1 0 . . . lbdS 1 1 i.d3 ! lbxc3 1 2
.i.xc3 dS 1 3 'ii'h S+ �d7 1 4 fS ! �c7
( 1 4 . . . "ike8 leads to a glorious
variation given by Golubenko. After
I S fxe6+ �d8 1 6 lhb7 ! ! .i.xb7
[ 1 6 . . . 'ili'xhS 1 7 i.aS+ �e8 1 8 i.bS+
lbd7 19 exd7+ wins trivially] 1 7
i.aS+ �e7 1 8 "ikh4+ �xe6 1 9 lbf3
he gives simply ' clear advantage ' ,
but in fact in the event o f 1 9 . . . i.e7
this only becomes really transparent
after the far from obvious 20 �g4+ !
[20 'ii' f4? ! "ikhS 2 1 g4 11f8 ! ; and 20
.i.fS+ �f7 ! ! are not so good]
20 . . . �f7 2 1 0-0 �g8 22 lbd4 ! i.f8
[22 . . . i.gS 23 'ii'x gS cxd4 24 e6
followed by l:[f7 is very strong for
White] 23 i.fS hS 24 .i.e6+ 'lith7 2S
'Y/NgS i.e7 26 l';H6 ! ! �xf6 27 exf6 g6
28 .i.d2 'ii'f8 29 lbfS with a winning
attack)
IS
lbf3
lbc6
was
Golubenko-Sepp, Eesti 1 996 when
1 6 fxe6 gave reasonable chances,
but Golubenko now prefers 16 f6 !
intending to meet 1 6 . . . d4 with 1 7
i.d2 gxf6 1 8 exf6 �xf6 1 9 0-0 and
an enduring initiative.
b) 10 . . . dxeS ! ? might be better 1 1
fxeS lbdS 1 2 i.d3 lbxc3 1 3 i.xc3
'Y/NgS (If 1 3 . . . g6 14 lbf3 i.e7 I S h4
0-0 1 6 hS gS 17 �e2 I agree with
Golubenko that White has good
compensation) 14 'ilVe2 lbc6 I S lbf3
"ikhS 1 6 i.e4 ! ? and now if
16 . . . lbd8? 1 7 .i.xb7 ! .:r.b8 1 8 i.c6+
lbxc6 1 9 l:txb8 lbxb8 20 'iib S+
lbd7 21 'ilVc6 �d8 22 0-0 lbb6 23
i.aS i.d7 24 i.xb6+ axb6 2S l:[d l
and lbgS is devastating, but De la
Villa seems right to point out
1 6 . . . .i.e7 ! is critical when 1 7
i.xc6+ bxc6 1 8 1i'e4 0-0 1 9 1i'xc6?
allows Black a strong counterpunch
in 1 9 . . . �h4+ ! , but just 1 7 0-0 0-0
and now either 1 8 a3 ! ? or 1 8 i.xc6
bxc6 19 'ilVe4 i.a6 20 l:tfd l maintain
sufficient pressure for the pawn.
9 ... i. d7 1 0 dxe6 fxe6 1 1 �c4
The more direct alternative is 1 1
eS ! ? dxeS 1 2 fxeS lbdS 1 3 �g4
lbxc3 when 1 4 'ilVxe6+?! Wie7 I S
i.xd7+ lbxd7 1 6 �xe7+ i.xe7
threw away White ' s initiative in
Kolev-Dochev, Bulgaria (ch) 1 994,
but simply 1 4 i.xc3 ! looks quite
dangerous for Black.
1 52 2 . . . c5 3 d5
1 1 . . . ltJc6 ? !
A very understandable mistake,
but probably a mistake nonetheless.
However, Black' s other options are
not entirely convincing either. De la
Villa gives 1 1 . . . ..tc6' ! ? ' 1 2 ..txe6
ltJxe4 1 3 ltJxe4 'ile7 as unclear, but
it seems that in the battle for the
e-file White can neatly tum the
tables with 14 ltJxd6+ 'ilxd6 1 5
�e2 ! ..te7 1 6 f5 with good
attacking chances. That may only
really leave 1 1 . . . ..tc8 ! ? when De la
Villa gives 12 e5 dxe5 1 3 fxe5 ltJd5
14 ..td3 ! ? again giving the
assessment ' unclear' . There are two
interesting things about this. One is
that the retreat 14 ..td3 looks a bit
strange but I think he is probably
right that there is no real way to use
this piece more effectively on c4.
The other is that we have in fact
transposed into note ' b ' to 9 dxe6
which I think is somewhat
favourable for White, but indeed
one of Black ' s toughest defences.
1 2 l:!.xb7! ltJaS 1 3 l:!.xd7! 'ilxd7
Neither does 1 3 . . . ltJxd7 14 ..txe6
look tenable. The loss of this pawn
spells light-square catastrophe.
14 ..tbS ltJc6
IS eS! dxeS 16 ltJ f3 ! 0-0-0 1 7
'ile2 ! ?
A n admirably ambitious move
maintaining the momentum of
White ' s initiative. It was possible to
cash in with 1 7 ltJe5 'ilxd2+ 1 8
'ilxd2 l:!.xd2 1 9 Wxd2 ltJxe5 20 fxe5
ltJg4 2 1 ..tc4 ! �d7 22 l:!.e 1 but this
leads to only a small advantage,
although certainly enough to offer a
default vindication to White ' s entire
approach.
17 . . . 'ilc7 1 8 0-0 ltJdS
Again White retains good chances
after 1 8 . . . ltJd4 19 ltJxd4 cxd4 20
..ta6+ Wb8 21 l:!.b 1 + Was 22 'ilf3+
ltJd5 23 ltJxd5 l:!.xd5 24 fxe5 . The
whole concept is both very original
and highly effective.
19 l:!.b l ltJb6 20 ..txc6 'ilxc6 2 1
ltJxeS 'ilc7 ? !
I t was better t o try 2 1 . . . 'ilb7 but
22 a4 ! still guarantees a strong
attack.
22 ltJbS 'ilb7 23 ..taS c4 24 ltJxc4
24 ltJc6 ! was even stronger.
24 . . . ..tcS+ 2S Whl l:!.d7 26 'ilxe6
ltJxc4 27 'ilxc4 'ilc6 28 h3 .i:.b7 29
l:!.b3
Again White could have wrapped
things up more clinically with 29
ltJxa7+! .i:.xa7 3 0 l:!.b5 and there is
no defence.
2 c5 3 d5 1 53
. . .
29 �b8 30 .i.e3 I:te8
and now the database (as well as
Joe Gallagher' s book) gives the
game continuation as 3 1 JLxg7??
but since this loses immediately to
3 1 . . . 1:te l +, while 3 1 .i.e5+! instead
seems to decide matters fairly
convincingly, I shall put simply 1-0.
There seems little purpose to
struggling
on
with
dubious
historical record. White ' s excellent
play in the early stages of the game
makes
a
lasting
impression
nonetheless.
. . .
Analytical Article 2
Vaganian Gambit
with 6 . . . e5 (or 6 . . . e6)
Fascinating and critical though the
diagram position is, I am going to
come clean right away. A part of the
motivation for treating this as an
analytical article, quite aside from a
fair degree of original analysis, is
the complete lack of games which
could really be described as
'models ' ! Even though the position
has, according to my database, been
known for virtually three decades,
one or other of the players with a
few
honourable
exceptions
generally appear to be very much at
sixes and sevens here.
One point to note, I have headed
the article 6 . . . e5, but in practice the
key position after 7 f4 d6 also often
arises from a 6 . . . d6 move order.
The difference of course is that in
this case White can capture en
passant, returning to material
covered in Game 3 5 .
I have included 6 . . . e 6 too, which
also, thanks to De la Villa' s
analysis, i s at a far more advanced
stage in its theory than in practice.
This is a relatively recent addition to
Black' s repertoire, and on the basis
of what I can see, its career could
prove to be rather a short-lived one.
A) 6 . . . e6? ! 7 f4 ! has, so far as I
can see, only occurred once in
practical play.
However I think De la Villa is
correct to identify it as the most
promising course. After 7 . . . exd5
(7 . . . d6 returns to Game 3 5 ) 8 e5
there are three plausible moves :
A I ) 8 . . d4? ! 9 exf6 dxc3 1 0
.i.xc3 'ii' e 6+ (after either 1 0 . . . g6 or
10 . . . gxf6, White ' s compensation
following 1 1 i.. c 4 looks very
considerable) or 1 1 'it>f2 gxf6 1 2
'i'h5 ! ? ( 1 2 �d2 - D e l a Villa - is
also rather hard to meet, but the text
seems quite sufficient) 12 . . . i.. e 7 1 3
Ire l � 6 (or 1 3 . . . �6 1 4 tiJh3
followed by i.. c4 . It is under.
154 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
standable that Black wants the
possibility of moving the d-pawn)
14 .lic4 d5 1 5 'fi'xd5 ? ! (Presumably
White was concerned by 1 5 .lixd5 !
c4+, but 1 6 J:te3 followed by
liJf3/�d4 and 'uhe l just looks
devastating) 1 5 . . . �e6 1 6 �e4 �c6
1 7 'iie 2 'iid6 1 8 �xe6 fxe6 1 9
'fWh5+ � f8 2 0 iih6+ � f7 2 1 liJf3
liJc6 22 liJg5+! with a winning
attack which White duly converted
in Navarro Cia-Vehi Bach, Andorra
(op) 2002. A pretty convincing
demonstration of the deficiencies of
8 . . . d4? !
A2) 8 . . . 'Y!IVe 6 9 liJ f3 liJe4 ! (The
only serious move, as White can
otherwise deploy a rather varied
battery of liJb5/liJg5 and even f5) 1 0
liJxe4 dxe4 1 1 liJg5 'i'd5 ! 1 2 .lic3 ! ?
(De l a Villa gives either this or 1 2
�e3 a s similar. This i s basically
true, although the text gets my vote.
It seems a more purposeful square
as the variation comes to a close)
12 . . . 'iWxd 1 + 1 3 �xd l �e7 1 4 liJxe4
b6 1 5 iLe2 ! ? (de la Villa prefers 1 5
liJd6+ [admittedly after 1 2 �e3]
which is also good for an edge, but I
find it easier to foresee an effective
plan for White in this way)
1 5 . . . �b7 1 6 iLf3 liJc6 1 7 f5 with a
very workable initiative.
A3) 8 . . . liJe4 9 liJxd5 �d8
and now De la Villa gives 10 iLe3
(If 10 liJf3 liJc6 ! 1 1 .lie3 [Perhaps
1 1 'iie 2 ! ? liJxd2 12 liJxd2 is more
interesting] 1 1 . . . Wia5+ is incon­
venient) 1 0 . . . d6 1 1 �d3 f5 1 2 liJf3
but I am not fully convinced that
White has enough after 1 2 . . . liJc6.
The main problems that Black
faces in the diagram position after
move 9 are the rather stranded
knight on e4 and the fact that the
necessity of defending it with . . . f5
can lead to problems on the e-file.
This leads us to the paradoxical 1 0
�c 1 ! ? which, odd though it may
seem in the context of sacrificing a
pawn for better development,
promises, I think, much more
concrete compensation e.g. 10 . . . d6
( 1 O . . . 'Y!IVa5+ 1 1 c3 liJc6 1 2 .lib2 ! still
leaves the knight on e4 in trouble)
1 1 iLd3 ! (Better than 1 1 'iVe2 ? !
.lif5 ! when a t last the possibility of
. . . iih4+ actually counts for some­
thing in the position) 1 1 . . . f5 1 2
exf6 liJxf6 1 3 .lib2 ! Another
significant advantage of �c 1 is
revealed - this diagonal is optimal
for reinforcing White ' s hold on d5
and consequent kingside play
1 3 . . . �e7 ( 1 3 . . . liJxd5? 1 4 �h5+)
14 �c4 �e6 1 5 liJf3 and Black has
no obvious way to challenge
White's coming reinforcement of
his play on the e-file and the long
black diagonal. This quite neatly
seems to complete the impression
that Black is struggling after 6 . . . e6.
B) 6 . . . e5 ! ? is a much more
serious proposition. In essence
White has two possible strategies
after 7 f4 d6:
Either to try to keep the position
open and rely on
superior
development and piece play, or to
block the centre and attempt a pawn
storm on the kings ide, claiming that
2 c5 3 d5 1 55
. . .
B lack' s extra pawn in this case is
less relevant than his lack of
counterplay. The first of these can
take various forms, but practice
little
more
than
provides
fragmentary evidence as to which
approach is the most effective.
I think the best way to get a feel
for the position is to take a quick
look first at two scenarios which
White should definitely steer clear
of. The first arises from delaying
too long the exchange on eS. The
possibility of a timely . . . exf4 should
be taken very seriously indeed e.g. S
tLlf3 tLlbd7 9 a4? ! exf4 ! 1 0 as 'i¥dS
1 1 i.xf4 i.e7 1 2 tLld2 ? ! 0-0 1 3
tLlc4 tLleS 1 4 tLlbS ? a6 I S tLlbxd6
.ixd6 1 6 tLlxd6 tLlxd6 1 7 i.xd6
'i¥h4+ I S i.g3 'i'xe4+ 1 9 'i'e2
�xdS with a winning advantage.
Sahovic-Ribli, Vrbas (7), 1 977.
Advancing the a-pawn to take away
the b6 square from the knight is too
great a luxury.
The second relates to a set of
exchanges which should clearly be
avoided. Soos-Leko, Budapest First
Saturday 1 993, gave an indication
of the complexity of the position
arising after S fxeS dxeS 9 tLlf3
tLlbd7. White proceeded thematic­
ally enough with 1 0 i.c4 .td6 1 1
0-0 0-0 1 2 tLlh4 'i'dS ! 1 3 tLlfS but
after the simple 1 3 . . . tLlb6 ! 1 4 .te2
i.xfS I S ':'xfS tLleS ! , Black already
had his eyes on a firm blockade of
the d-pawn, while the exchange on
fS is quite destructive to White ' s
attacking potential.
I will start the more positive
search for solutions from here. Two
questions spring to mind. Could
White have saved a tempo by
delaying castling? Is c4 the best
square for the bishop anyway?
After S fxeS dxeS 9 tLlf3 tLlbd7 1 0
i.c4 .td6 the immediate 1 1 tLlh4 ! ?
seems rather more to the point.
However, the essence of Black' s
defence i s still valid I think since
after 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 tLlfS tLleS 13 0-0
�dS, although White has a lot more
choices than in Soos-Leko, it is still
not clear what action should be
taken against the 'threat' of . . . tLlb6
and . . . i.xfS .
B 1 ) So what about putting the
bishop on bS . I started with the
notion that there might be some
perspective in the idea S tLlf3 tLlbd7
9 i.bS ! ? and indeed Marcelin­
Hartereau, Creon (op), 1 999 was
very encouraging 9 . . . �c7 1 0 0-0
i.e7 1 1 fxeS dxeS 1 2 tLlh4 a6 1 3
tLlfS :gS ? ! ( 1 3 . . . i.fS is relatively
better) 1 4 d6 was great for White
and after 14 . . . i.xd6 I S .tgS axbS
1 6 tLlxbS 1lVc6 1 7 tLlfxd6+ 'it>fS I S
'ins already 1 -0 . However, maybe
9 . . . a6 is better, and if then 1 0
i.xd7+ tLlxd7 1 1 0-0 i.e7 1 2 J::[b l I
would be happy if I could somehow
reach the position after 1 2 . . :iWdS 1 3
fxeS fxeS 1 4 d6 ! i.xd6 I S i.h6 !
which seems to give terrific play
since I S . . . i.fS 1 6 tLlgS ! is very
strong, but in general, regardless of
move order, either . . :ilic7 instead of
the retreat to dS, or . . . tLlxeS instead
of the pawn recapture scuppers
1 5 6 2 . . . c5 3 d5
these plans. I am therefore still
intrigued by i.bS ideas, but
sceptical as to whether they really
provide the answer.
B2) I may therefore have to
conclude that 8 fS( ! ) looks like the
best practical bet. The plan is simply
the advance of the kings ide pawns,
and the extra justification is that
White ' s extra space on the queen­
side additionally serves critically to
hold up Black ' s counterplay there.
Astonishingly
limited
practical
experience is nevertheless quite
suggestive of real problems for
Black here. One fine example of the
plan is Emms-C.Franklin, British
(ch) Swansea, 1 987, when after
8 . . . lZ'lbd7 9 g4 h6 1 0 h4 a6 1 1 �f3
Wlic7 12 a4 l:tb8 1 3 i.c4 lZ'lb6 1 4
i.e2 i.e7 I S gS lZ'lg8 1 6 lZ'lh3
White clearly has a dream
pOSItIon with excellent attacking
prospects.
The question is what can Black
do? All the ' counter-examples ' until
now have somehow featured White
failing to follow through his plan
consistently. Radically preventing
g4 by means of 8 . . . hS looks
unlikely - this h-pawn will still be
targeted with i.e2/lZ'lh3/0-0 and so
on, and Black will still have troubles
with committing his king to the
kingside. De la Villa considers the
defensive plan 8 . . . i.e7 9 g4 h6 1 0
h4 �d8 1 1 �f3 lZ'lh7 but simply 1 2
�g3 followed by lZ'l f3 obliges . . . f6
after which the passivity of Black' s
game just looks ridiculous .
I think it is fair to say that the
onus is very much on Black to show
a viable defensive set-up after 8
fS( ! )
Conclusion to Vaganian
Gambit 6 . . . e6/6 . . . e5
The conclusion of the Theoretical
Article has to be that the Vaganian
Gambit is still alive and well, at
least in the case of the main lines.
De la Villa ' s analysis of 6 . . . e6 was
a very useful starting point, and in
the critical line B3, the strange­
looking 1 0 i.c ! ! ? may deal it a
further hefty blow. I strongly
suspect that after 7 f4 ! the 'best
move' is really 7 . . . d6 leading back
to Game 3 S .
6 . . . e S holds up much better when
White attempts to rely on piece
play, but as yet Black has failed
even to give a clue as to what a
viable set-up against 8 fS( ! ) would
look like. I think it is quite possible
that the only barrier to White
scoring very heavily here is the
or
gambiteer' s
psychological
stylistic aversion to this type of
blocked position !
3
• • •
l2Je4
Game 3 6
Savchenko - Golubev
Luzem (op) 1 994
1 d4 lZ'lf6 2 i.g5 c5 3 d5 lZ'le4 4
i.f4
2 c5 3 d5 1 5 7
. . .
(The actual move order in the
game was 2 . . . t2Je4 3 ..tf4 c5 4 f3
t2Jf6 5 d5 e6, but for clarity ' s sake I
have taken a slight liberty with this)
4 e6! ?
This i s both potentially highly
transpositional
and
relatively
infrequently encountered. Perhaps
this is in part because the view I
expressed in Chapter 1 that 4 f3 ! ? is
a more reliable handling of the
2 . . . t2Je4 Trompowsky than 4 d5 is
quite widespread, and therefore a
move, one rationale for which could
be to force White into the more
highly regarded version, has limited
appeal.
Still, quite aside from the fact that
Black has a very interesting
independent system here in 5 f3
..td6 ! ? the existence of this move is
important. Firstly, unless they are
hugely impressed by 5 dxe6 below
(which I am not) advocates of 4 d5
really do have a tough job
explaining their preference. The
usual argument runs something
along the lines of OK 4 d5 allows
Black the extra option of 4 . . . 'iVb6 5
..te l g6 ! ? (see the Theoretical
Article at the end of the chapter) but
at least it cuts out the line 4 f3 'VWa5+
5 c3 t2Jf6 6 d5 e6 (4-5). ' I was never
terribly impressed by this, since I
did not see the latter as a maj or
problem at all, but until I worked on
this book I at least thought the
argument to be interually consistent.
It may seem strange but some quite
illustrious Trompowsky practition­
ers have put it to me in these terms.
They are simply mistaken. Note ' b '
t o Black' s 5th move below (on
5 . . . 'VWa5+) shows that after 5 f3
there is nothing to stop Black
heading to the material of Games
4-5 at all and the only remaining
. . .
'
question i s why h e would want to to cut down on learning I suppose
would be the best reason. I am not
sure why this fact is so little
appreciated, but not least because
Gallagher and Hodgson were both
so seduced by the charms of
5 . . . ..td6 ! ? it is true that theory has
been a bit neglectful.
5 f3
This still looks like the most
logical continuation to me, although
clearly the verdict of theory will be
based upon quite specific analysis
rather than visual impression .
White 's most serious alternative is
5 dxe6, and while I do not intend to
advocate it for all, I recognise that it
has to be considered by two groups :
Those who wish t o play 4 d5 after
2 . . . t2Je4 3 ..tf4 c5 and who are
determined to avoid transposition
back into the 4 f3 of Chapters 1 -2,
as well as those who, like Hodgson
and Gallagher back in 1 99 8 , are
impressed by 5 . . . ..td6 ! ? (Note ' c ' to
Black' s 5th below).
The two key variations after 5
dxe6 fxe6 6 e3 are :
a) 6 . . . 'VWf6 sharp and creative, but
probably rather questionable too. 7
c3 ..td6 8 t2Jd2 t2Jxd2 9 ..txd6 t2Jxfl
1 58 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
and now 1 0 c,t>xfl b6 1 1 ttJf3 .tb7
12 h4 ttJc6 1 3 .i:th3 ttJe7 14 ttJeS
ttJfS I S ttJg4 'fifl 1 6 .tf4 worked
out well for White in Adams­
Adorjan, Manila (01) 1 992, but
1 6 . . . 0-0-0 would have been quite
unclear, a very sharp position in
which neither king can feel too
relaxed about his security. In view
of this, the safer option 1 0 'ii'h S+( ! )
has understandably been suggested,
the first point being that 1 0 . . . g6 is
well met with 1 1 'ii'x cs, while
10 . . .'iWg6 1 1 'ii'xg6+ hxg6 1 2 c,t>xfl
b6 is assessed as being a better
ending for White. Unfortunately, in
the only recent example of this,
Rey-Kriventsov, USA (ch), Seattle
2002, White showed that he was
taking the ' safety first' angle a step
too far by immediately agreeing to a
draw here ! In fact I think White is
significantly for preference. This is
not so much because the d6 bishop
might prove a thorn in Black' s side,
but even more because there is the
possibility of clamping down in the
centre with e4 and f3, before turning
to harassing the g-pawns with his
knight from the vantage point of
well-covered black squares.
b) 6 . . . dS ! ? looks more solid 7
.td3 ttJf6 8 ttJf3 ttJc6 9 0-0 .td6 !
(There is a certain variety of move
order available to both sides here an earlier c4 by White for example,
or 6 . . . ttJc6 first by Black), but I
think the key point is that this
exchange eases Black' s position and
gives him reasonable counter­
chances 1 0 .txd6 'ii'x d6 1 1 c4 0-0
1 2 ttJc3 T.Schwarz-Mik.Tseitlin,
Werther Schloss (op) 200 1 and now
I think Black would best emphasise
his active pieces by 12 . . . ttJeS ! ?
after which he has quite acceptable
play.
5 ttJf6
This retreat is by no means
automatic here. Alternatives have
already been touched upon at the
conceptual level, but it is time for
some detail :
a) S . . :iWf6? ! should not be sound.
After 6 i.xb8 ! 'ii'xb2 7 fxe4 'ii'x a l 8
.tg3 'ii'x a2 White must be doing
very well so long as he can get his
pieces making threats before
Black' s queenside pawns can start
motoring. In Nikolaev-Kopasov, St
Petersburg 2002, White achieved
this fairly effortlessly up to a point
with 9 e3 bS 1 0 ttJf3 .tb7 1 1 .te2
"ii'a S+ 1 2 ttJbd2 exdS 1 3 O-O ! f6 1 4
exdS 'iib 6 but then spoiled his
excellent build-up to some extent
with I S e4? ! which I do not like at
all, mainly because e4 is such a
great square for the pieces to attack
from. I S c4 ! looks much better,
keeping maximum dynamism in the
White position, and ensuring an
advantage.
b) S ... "ii' a S+ ! ? was discussed at
length above. It is significant
because it virtually obliges 6 c3 and
with it a direct transposition back
into Chapter 2. 6 ttJd2 ? ! is not a
serious
option.
Summerscale­
Wojtkiewicz, Oz. com (qual) blitz,
2000 was very good for Black after
6 . . . ttJf6 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 e4 dS 9 exdS
. . .
2 c5 3 d5 1 5 9
. . .
exd5 1 0 tLJe2 tLJc6 1 1 tLJc3 i.e7 1 2
tLJb3 'iVd8 1 3 i..b 5 0-0 1 4 0-0 d4 as
he is considerably the more active. I
feel a little guilty including such a
blitz game, especially when Aaron
had demonstrated in previous slow
games that he was someone who
appreciated that 6 c3 was the right
response, but the game nonetheless
illustrates fairly efficiently quite
why Black's position is so good if
his opponent gets it wrong.
c) 5 . . . i.d6 ! ? as I mentioned
above, is given by both Gallagher
and Hodgson as an argument
against 5 D .
After 6 i.. xd6 tLJxd6 there i s an
important choice:
a) 7 dxe6? ! dxe6 8 c3 0-0 9 e4
tLJc6 1 0 tLJa3 �e7 was very pleasant
for Black in Weindl-Gutrnan, B iel
1 994. I mention it only because it is
given by both Gallagher and
Hodgson as their basis for rej ecting
5 D, and if this was really the main
line White would indeed have a
problem.
b) 7 e4 ! ? is a better try (as Julian
does admit it might be). However, I
still find 7 . . . 'iVb6 ! quite annoying.
White could probably feel quite
happy answering this in classic
Trompowsky gambit style with 8
tLJc3 'ii'xb2 9 tLJge2 were it not for
the move 9 . . . tLJb5 ! when Black
transforms his potentially problem
piece into really rather an irritating
one. Stuart Conquest played 1 0 'i!Vb l
here, which cannot really be
enough, and which I take to be a
sign of discontent with the
alternatives, although 1 0 tLJxb5
'ii'x b5 1 1 'ii'd 2 does look a
somewhat better try. However,
Winants is probably right to suggest
that 8 b3 is the right move here. A
lot revolves around the position of
the knight on d6. It can prove to be
awkward but it might equally be
able to support pressure on the
centre with . . . 0-0 and . . . f5 .
However, this also needs careful
execution as the very direct 8 . . . 0-0
9 tLJc3 f5 1 0 e5 tLJf7 1 1 f4 d6 1 2
tLJD looks fine for White who has
an ambitious centre to sustain, but
pretty active development with
which to do it.
c) 7 'ii'd 2 ! ? though rather strange
looking, also has its appeal.
However, it can become rather
complex. White got a really
fantastic position in Stefanova-Van
Elst, Montpellier ( op ) 2000 after
7 . . . 0-0? ! 8 e4 exd5 9 'ii'x d5 'iVb6 1 0
'iWb3 'iVa5+ 1 1 tLJc3 tLJc6 1 2 0-0-0
tLJd4 1 3 'iVd5 'ii'c 7 14 tLJge2 tLJxe2
1 5 i.. x e2 tLJe8 16 e5. In fact the
European Women' s Champion has
twice reached the position after
move ten, and 1 0 . . . 'ii'x b3 1 1 axb3
f5 1 2 tLJc3 tLJc6 1 3 0-0-0 tLJe8 1 4
exf5 l:hf5 1 5 i.c4+ Stefanova­
Hagarova, European (chT) Batumi
1 999 re-emphasised quite how grim
the defence ' s cause is here.
However, Black has two more
disruptive options:
c 1 ) 7 . . . 'iWh4+ 8 g3 'iWd4 is an
interesting bid to cause trouble, but
White ' s position seems strangely
promising after 9 'ii'xd4 cxd4 10 c3 !
1 60 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
e.g. 1 0 . . . liJfS 1 1 cxd4 ( 1 1 'itt f2 is
also interesting) 1 1 . . . liJxd4 1 2 liJa3
exdS 13 lId I or i O . . . liJa6 1 1 'itt f2
and now 1 1 . . . exdS 1 2 cxd4 leaves
Black
with
relevant
pawn
weaknesses, while 1 1 . . . dxc3 1 2
liJxc3 emphasises that the knight on
d6 is not so happy.
c2) 7 . . . liJc4 ! ? looks like a more
refined version of this idea. After 8
'iVc3 'ikh4+! 9 g3 'ikd4 1 0 e4 liJe3
Black probably has sufficient play
to hold the balance for example 1 1
.lid3 exdS 1 2 'ikxd4 cxd4 1 3 exdS
liJxdS 1 4 liJa3 liJc6 I S liJbS a6+ ! 1 6
liJd6+ rj;; e 7 1 7 liJfS+ �f6 1 8 liJe2
liJdb4 with approximate equality.
Still, I see S . . . .lid6 as another
interesting move, rather than an
especial problem.
6 e4
I see no real reason to avoid the
structure that occurs in the game,
and although 6 liJc3 looks a
perfectly reasonable alternative, it
affords Black the opportunity to
give an original twist to the play
with 6 . . . liJhS ! ? (6 . . . exdS 7 liJxdS
liJxdS 8 'iVxdS 'iVf6 9 .lieS �e6 1 0
0-0-0 Rogers-Miezis, Japfa (op)
2000 looks structurally worth an
edge for White) 7 .lie3 d6 8 'iWd2 ! ?
(The less restrained 8 Sl. f2 Sl.e7 9 g4
liJf6 1 0 e4 0-0 1 1 h4 a6 1 2 a4 'ikaS
1 3 l::t a 3 exdS 14 exdS liJbd7 I S Sl.e2
liJb6 16 �fl c4 17 Sl.xb6 'iVxb6 1 8
Sl.xc4 liJd7 1 9 .i.e2 liJcS gave Black
reasonable play for the pawn in
Lputian-Kharitonov, USSR (ch),
1 984) 8 . . . Sl.e7 9 .lif2 0-0 1 0 e3
liJf6 1 1 .i.c4 [ 1 1 e4 exdS 12 exdS
liJa6 12 liJge2 liJc7 1 3 e4 exdS 1 4
exdS a6 I S a4 b 6 1 6 liJf4 .lid7 1 7
h4 b S and Black has staked his
territorial claim and has no real
in
problems
lPiket-Shaked,
Hoogovens, Merrillville 1 997.
6 . . . exd5 7 exd5 d6
7 . . . liJhS now makes little sense. 8
"iVe2+ "iVe7 9 .ligS ! looks a
convincing answer.
S liJc3
It is a bit strange how rarely
White has handled this position so
simply. If we compare this to the
related structure which arose with
Black' s queen on as and White ' s
pawn o n c3 (Game S) i t should be
remembered that the difficulty
which White encountered in playing
his queen ' s knight to its natural
square was his Achilles Heel .
S . . . .i.e7
Quite aside from the fact that the
open
e-file
militates
against
fianchettoing this piece, it is
probably better anyway both to
protect the d-pawn, and to avoid
running into a quick 'iVd2/.lih6.
9 'iVd2 0-0 10 O-O-O ! ?
Inevitably this involves a serious
sharpening of the position, opening
up the prospect of serious
counterplay too. It might be
tempting to try 1 0 g4 ! ? perhaps
subsequently putting the king on f2 .
1 0 . . . a 6 l l liJge2 b 5 1 2 liJg3 c4 !
White had prepared to answer
1 2 . . . b4 with 1 3 liJce4, but this
2 . . . c5 3 d5 1 61
keeps Black' s aggressive pawn mass
nice and flexible.
13 .i.e2 lbbd7
Golubev marks this ' only move '
without further explanation, and it is
not totally clear to me how he
means this. In the sense that it is
hard to develop further without this
move at some point, I understand,
but the timing is not so clear.
Perhaps he is concerned that
1 3 . . . :re8 14 l:the l does not help the
cause
because
of
potential
embarrassment on the e-file. In any
case, Black undeniably misses his
dark-squared bishop in what is to
come.
14 lbf5 lbe5 1 5 lbxe7+ 'fixe7 1 6
:hel Wic7 1 7 .i.g5 lbfd7
Perhaps, in view of what is to
come, Black might have considered
1 7 . . . lbbd7 ! ?
1 8 .i.e7! l:te8
1 9 .i.xc4 !
A nice tactic, not so much for the
basic point (that 1 9 . . . bxc4 20 .i.xd6
'fid8 is met with 2 1 .i.c7) as for the
exchange sacrifices implicit within
it.
1 9 . . . .i.b7
Probably the best reaction.
Clearly it cannot be right to
exchange off key defenders for a
small material gain and indeed
1 9 . . ':'xe7 20 1:lxe7 bxc4 is much
too risky as 2 1 'iWf4 ! will give White
a decisive attack. Also, White ' s
compensation for the exchange after
1 9 . . . lbe5 20 ':'xe5 ! dxe5 2 1 d6
compares well with that in the main
line.
20 .i.b3 f6 21 .l:te6! lbxe6 22 dxe6
lbe5 23 .i.xd6 lbxb3+ 24 axb3
The smoke clears and White not
only has two pawns for the
exchange, but one of them is a
healthy, protected passed pawn deep
in the Black camp which guarantees
a big advantage.
24 .. :iYe8 25 e7 'fie6 26 �bl
.l:tae8 27 b4 'iWe4 28 lbe2 l:te6 29
lbf4 'iWf7 30 b3
When measuring compensation
for an exchange, it is always a good
idea to check out the mobility and
effectiveness of the rooks of the side
that enjoys an ' extra' one. Black' s
queen ' s rook occupies a half-open
file, but it has absolutely no back-up
as the remaining major pieces are
coping with the e7 pawn. It is
understandable that Black lashes
out, even though his next move
really just serves to create more
weaknesses.
30 . . . g5 31 lbe2 'fie6 32 lbg3
}:tee8 33 .i.e5 a5 34 l:tel 'iWa6 35
'iWd6
White already had the luxury of
choosing whether to win in the
middle-game or the endgame. 3 5
lbh5 was also very effective, but the
text
also
affords
Black no
counterplay.
35 . . . 'iWxd6 36 .i.xd6 l:tc6 37 .i.e5
.lie8 3 8 lbe4 axb4 39 lbd6 :xd6 40
.lixd6 .i.f5 41 .i.xb4 �f7 42 .l:tdl
1-0
.
1 62 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
A fine display of controlled
aggression from White.
Game 3 7
Stefanova - Panchenko
Barbera (op) 1 999
1 d4 liJf6 2 Sl.g5 liJe4 3 Sl.f4 c5 4
d5 'iWb6
The main line. A word is due
though on the ' other queen move '
4 . . . 'iWa5+ which is quite interesting,
particularly given that according to
Julian Hodgson, the stem game
against Mickey Adams arose from
Black confusing it with the 4 f3
lines of Chapter 2 ! In fact it is
perfectly viable to play 5 c3 here (as
in practice White generally does)
when Black has the customary range
of choices for transposing into parts
of that chapter, only 5 . . . 'iWb6? ! is
highly illogical since 6 liJd2 covers
everything. However, while I have
suggested already that White should
feel little reticence in general in
permitting a transposition from here
to Chapter 2, it still might be fun to
try 5 liJd2 ! ? in order to challenge
Black's idea. I do not want to give
this too much coverage. Suffice to
say that of the ideas mentioned by
Hodgson, 5 . . . e6 6 c3 ! ? exd5 7
liJxe4 dxe4 8 'iWd5 appeals, although
I have to admit that 8 . . 'iWb6 ! 9
'ifxe4+ 'iiV e 6 does limit White ' s
edge. H e should exchange queens
and play 1 1 e4, but how much
theoretical plus that is worth is
unclear.
5 Sl.cl
To those who have read the
Introduction and/or Chapter 2 this
retreat will hopefully no longer
appear
so
shocking.
Similar
arguments apply here - White loses
time, but so will Black ' s knight, and
the placing of his queen on b6 is by
no means invariably a happy one.
Here it is again the main move. Two
others are worth a mention. The first
is probably weaker, but the second
merits a qualified commendation:
a) 5 liJd2 ? ! is a sacrifice towards
which I share Julian Hodgson' s
scepticism. O f course 5 . . . liJxd2 ? ! 6
Sl.xd2 'ifxb2 7 e4 could be expected
for sure to compete well along-side
the standard fare of Trompowsky
b-pawn offers . The problem is the
already well-known tactical solution
5 . . . 'iWxb2 ! The compensation after 6
liJxe4 'iib 4+ 7 'iWd2 'iWxe4 is
questionable especially in those
lines for example 8 e3 'iib 4 ! , where
the queen scrambles back to the
queenside. For this reason I have
decided to exclude it from the
repertoire.
b) 5 'ifc l ( ! ?) is fairly consistently
castigated by all authors on the
Trompowsky.
Nonetheless,
I
decided that a slightly closer look
was justified when I noticed that in
a recent game Joe Gallagher elected
not to follow his own prescription.
In fact, though I do by any means
advocate this slightly passive queen
move, I do not think it has been
rather unfairly dismissed. As usual,
if advocating that the Trompowsky
.
2 c5 3 d5 1 63
. . .
bishop should expend another
tempo to return home, I am keen to
are
that
alternatives
ensure
genuinely inferior! Black has a
choice:
b l ) 5 . . . e6 ! ? might tum out to be
very sensible, as the 6 f3 ctJf6 7 e4
exd5 8 e5 ctJh5 9 ctJe2 d6 10 ctJbc3
i.e6 1 1 g4 dxe5 12 i.xe5 ctJc6 of
Hodgson-B.Lalic, St Helliers (op),
1 997 looks at best terribly random. I
think Julian was rather lucky to
come away with a swift half.
White should probably settle for 6
c4 e.g. 6 . . . i.e7 7 ctJd2 ctJxd2 8
i.xd2 exd5 9 cxd5 i.f6 1 0 i.c3 0-0
1 1 e3 i.xc3+ 1 2 �xc3 d6 with
some sort of a playable Nimzo­
Indian type position in which Black
successfully got his bits out in
Casagrande-Titz, Austria (chT)
200 1 .
b2) Also 5 . . . g6 is as usual
playable, though not perhaps so
critical . Again I mention it with a
specific
purpose
in
mind.
Eschewing some less convincing
recent treatments, and delving back
a little into history, I very much l ike
White 's idea in Timman-Torre, IBM
Amsterdam 1 977 of not rushing to
play f3 (indeed maybe even
avoiding
it
altogether) .
Play
continued 6 c3 d6 (I guess that the
natural 6 . . . i.g7 7 ctJf3 ! ? 0-0 8
ctJbd2 ctJxd2 9 �xd2 could be one
idea, when White can follow up
with e4, and, having controlled e5
enough times, he is unlikely to be
hit with . . . f5) 7 ctJa3 ctJf6 8 e4 ! and
finally
f3
proves
altogether
unnecessary. White had a pleasant
edge after 8 . . . i.g 7 9 i.d3 'VlHd8 1 0
ctJe2 0-0 1 1 0-0 ttJa6 1 2 h3 i.d7 1 3
ctJg3 kIb8 1 4 ctJc2 b5 1 5 b4 ctJe8 1 6
'VlHa3 ! ? and even managed to make a
virtue out of the move 'VlHc l . Of
course 8 . . . ctJxe4(? ! ) 9 ctJc4 'VlHc7 1 0
'VlHe3 looks pretty risky for Black,
although a little part of me is
intrigued to know what cold­
blooded contemporary chess might
make of 1 0 . . . g5 here. Still,
obj ectively White must enj oy some
advantage.
b3) 5 . . . c4 ! ? is generally given as
the 'refutation ' , but there are a few
points in the story that arouse my
suspicion. After 6 e3 'VlHa5+
White has a choice:
b3 1 ) 7 ctJc3 ! ? ctJxc3 8 'VlHd2 'VlHxd5
(What of the widely touted 8 . . . e6 ! ?
9 bxc3 exd5 which both Gallagher
and Gerstner give as '=+'? Well, it
may be that 1 0 e4 dxe4 1 1 i.xc4
ctJc6 1 2 ctJe2 offers just enough play
to be off-putting. What about
9 . . . �xd5 ! ? though? 1 0 'VlHxd5 exd5
1 64 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
1 1 l:td l b5 ! 1 2 l:txd5 a6 looks at
least equal to me) 9 'ii'x c3 ttJc6 1 0
..txc4 'ii'a 5 ( I O . . . 'ihg2 1 1 0-0-0 e6
( l l . . .'ii'x h I 12 ..td5 ! ) 12 ttJe2 d5 1 3
l:thg I 'ii'x f2 I 4 l:txg7 ! ? d4 1 5 ttJxd4 !
..txg7 1 6 ttJxc6 0-0 1 7 ..te5 f6 is far
from clear but a fun line which
looks like the sort of thing that Joe
would enjoy more with White than
Black ! ) 1 1 'ii'x a5 ttJxa5 1 2 i.e2 d6
was
Sarthou-Gallagher,
France
(chT) 2002 when 1 3 e4 ! ? looks
logical, and perhaps slightly more
pleasant for White.
b32) 7 c3 ! ? 'ii'x d5 8 f3 ttJc5 9 e4
has the nice point that 9 . . ttJd3+ 1 0
..txd3 'ii'x d3 1 1 ttJh3 ! is shockingly
strong. Black's queen is suddenly in
very hot water. 9 . . . 'iVc6 is much
better, when 1 0 i.xc4 ttJe6 ! indeed
wins the bishop pair, 1 1 i.d5 not
withstanding, due to the resource
1 1 . . . ttJxf4 ! when 1 2 'iVxf4 'ii' g6
looks quite nice for Black. He will
follow-up with . . . e6 and . . . i.c5 to
emphasise his healthiness on the
dark squares.
b33) 7 ttJd2 c3 8 bxc3 and now
theory tends to endorse 8 . . . ttJxc3,
although after 9 d6 ! ? ttJe4 10 ttJgf3 !
ttJxd6 1 1 i.xd6 exd6 1 2 'i¥b2 ! ? I
rather like White ' s compensation.
Hodgson suggests that instead
8 . . . 'ii'x d5 ! ? is stronger, remarking
"it is clear that White does not have
enough compensation for his
ruptured queenside". I must say I ' m
rather surprised b y this. After 9
ttJxe4 'ii'x e4 1 0 ttJf3 it really is quite
a lead in development, and I think
many of Julian' s fans would expect
the White cause to quite appeal to
him. I have definitely seen him
conjure something out of less
I
promising
compensation!
understand what he is getting at White' s initiative is in some danger
of drying up when Black gains a
foothold in the centre with . . . d6 and
e5. However, I think that concretely
10 . . . d6 1 1 i.d3 'iVc6 1 2 'ii' b2 ! ?
ttJd7 1 3 0-0 should offer sufficient
dynamic chances to compensate .
After this long, but I hope rather
interesting diversion, back to the
main line 5 ..tc l .
.
5 . . . f5
A rarely played but not
uninteresting attempt to restrain
White in the centre. Important
alternatives:
a) 5 . . . e6 is the main line, 6 f3 and
now :
ai) 6 . . . ttJf6 7 c4 which directly
transposes to Chapter 2, Game 7 and
TA 1 .
aii) 6 . . . 'ii' a 5+ ! ? 7 c3 ttJf6 8 e4 is a
strange ' cousin ' line of that
examined in Games 4 and 5 of
Chapter 2. The tirst point is that
throwing in the extra moves . . . 'iVb6
.te l might look an unambiguous
gain for Black, but he immediately
finds that in contrast with the
analysis of 7 . . . exd5 8 e5?! at the
beginning of Game 5, the bishop is
considerably better positioned in the
current case since 8 . . . exd5 ? ! 9 e5 !
ttJg8 - what else? - 1 0 'iVxd5 ttJe7
1 1 'ii' e4 is very pleasant for White.
2 c5 3 d5 1 65
. . .
Therefore it is necessary to play
8 . . . d6 (or 8 . . . 'iVc7 9 c4 i.d6 which
was also covered in Game 7, but is
not especially good) when I think
that 9 i.d2 ! preparing to support the
centre with the move c3-c4 is
clearly White ' s best move, and
9 . . . exdS 1 0 c4 ! ( 1 0 exd5 tiJxdS 1 1
c4
tiJb4
courts
unnecessary
complication) looks quite promising
as, while queen retreats to the safety
of c7 or d8 are not disastrous, any
subsequent attempt to reach a
Benoni-style formation must reckon
with the move i.d2-c3, while
grabbing the pawn here is partic­
ularly treacherous ; also 9 . . . �6 1 0
c4 ! 'it'xb2 1 1 tiJc3 was the actual
move order of the fierce attack
covered in note 'b22 ' in TA l (see
Chapter 2).
b) S . . . g6 6 f3 and now 6 . . . tiJd6 ! ?
i s considered i n some detail in the
Theoretical Article at the end of this
chapter, and is in my view clearly
Black ' s most important alternative
to S . . . e6, and therefore his most
important independent idea after
3 . . . tiJe4 .
6 f3 tiJf6
Another of Stefanova' s opponents
tried 6 . . . tiJd6 with rather similar
ideas to those we shall see more of
in TA3 , except that with . . . fS
already played rather than merely an
available lever, the case for
avoiding/delaying e4 seems to be
strengthened.
White ' s
strategy
seems admirable in Stefanova­
laksland, Dos Hermanas (op) 2002.
After 7 a4 g6 8 as 'it'b4+ 9 c3 'it'h4+
1 0 g3 'it'f6 1 1 tiJh3 tiJa6 1 2 i.g2
i.g7 1 3 0-0 tiJI! 14 e4 d6 I S f4
i.d7 1 6 i.e3 0-0 1 7 tiJd2 l!fe8 1 8
�3 l:tab8 1 9 tiJc4 she has much
greater piece activity and at the
same time there is little in the
position for Black to aim at.
7 tiJc3 e6 8 e4 fxe4 9 fxe4 exd5
10 tiJxd5 tiJxd5 11 'iVxd5 �e6 1 2
i.c4
There is also a case for 1 2 i.f4 ! ?
after which recapturing on d S with
the d-pawn becomes a more
enticing option. However, the
potential weakness of White ' s
e-pawn notwithstanding, her desire
to keep the strong bishop on dS is
very understandable.
1 2 . . .'iVxd5 13 i.xd5 tiJc6 14 c3
tiJe5 15 i.e3 tiJg4 16 i.f4 tiJf6 1 7
i.b3 ! ? tiJxe4
1 8 0-0-0 ! ?
This has the obvious emotional
appeal of the sacrifice, and does
lead to an ending in which White
enjoys a slight edge. However,
when we stop to consider quite how
difficult life could be made for the
knight on e4 and Black's king, the
move seems guilty in effect of
initiating exchanges. The problem
of the knight on e4 is solved by the
capture of a rook! I assume that
White miscalculated how comfort­
ably the advanced Black knight will
re-emerge, otherwise she might
have preferred 1 8 tiJf3 ! i.e7 1 9 0-0
l:tf8 20 i.eS tiJf6 (20 . . . i.f6? 2 1
.:tfe 1 ) 2 1 l:tae 1 'it>d8 22 tiJgS ! dS 23
i.c7+ 'it>xc7 24 l:1xe7+ which looks
very promising.
1 66 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
19 . . . lL'lf2 1 9 lL'l0 lL'lxh1 20 �el+
'it>d8 2 1 lL'lg5 d6 22 lL'lf7+ cj;e7 23
lL'lxh8
There is no particular mileage in
23 1:[xh l g5 24 i.. g 3 l:.g8 25 lL'lxd6
i..xd6 26 i..xd6+ 'it>xd6 27 i.. x g8
i.. f5 with equality.
23 . . . lL'lf2 24 i.. e 2 i.. d 7 25 h3
It might have been better to try 25
.i.xh7 lL'lg4 26 JLd3 JLc6 27 lL'lg6
when the bishop pair will ensure
White an edge.
25 . . . e4 26 .i.xh7 JLe6 27 i.. g3
lL'ld3+ 28 i.. x d3 exd3 29 lL'lg6 JLxg2
30 h4 'it>d7 31 cj;d2 i.. d 5 32 b3 i.. f7
33 lL'lxfB+ IixfB
With opposite coloured bishops,
White cannot even claim a nominal
advantage, and inevitably the game
winds down.
34 J:tfl 'it>e6 35 liO d5 36 lhd3
i.. g 6 37 .l:Id4 i.. e 4 38 e4 :to 39
exd5+ i.. x d5 40 lig4 cj;f7 VI-VI
Theoretical Article 3 :
5
. . .
g6 6 f3 ttJd6!?
1 d4 lL'lf6 2 i.. g 5 e5 3 d5 lL'le4 4
i.. f4 �b6 5 .i.cl g6 6 0 lL'ld6 ! ?
This rather striking knight retreat
burst into the limelight in the 1 98 8
Oxford G M tournament when Julian
Hodgson was confronted with it and
managed to emerge with only two
short (albeit
highly
thought­
provoking) draws. I note though
that the earliest known example on
my database was from 1 987 when
the Peruvian Grandmaster Julio
Granda Zuniga, better known for his
rich natural talent than his
contributions to opening theory,
tried it with success. Since 1 99 8 the
Black cause has had many imitators,
and although White has wheeled out
quite a variety of ideas, there is little
consensus as to the best approach.
Indeed
despite
the
potential
awkwardness which the knight on
d6
might
involve
for
the
development of Black ' s queenside,
the evidence suggests that the power
of the bishop on the long diagonal
combined with the possibility of
creating
play
with
. . . f7-f5
(especially in reply to White
occupying the centre with e4) offer
Black very reasonable counter­
chances. The . . . f5 plan, targetting
the f2 square, useful given that
White is some way from the safety
of castling, gains further credit for
trying to make a virtue out of the
often ambivalent position of the
queen on b6.
I think we can best categorise
White ' s options as follows :
1 ) Going for the ' Full Monty' White plays both lL'lc3 and e4 as he
normally would and soaks up the
extra play which both the . . . f5
break and the strong bishop afford
his opponent. This is the most
ambitious and will be examined
under 'A' .
2) White compromises in one way
or another: either by settling for a
more modest advance of his e-pawn
(from e3 it will not be attacked by
2 c5 3 d5 1 67
. . .
. . f5 , and also a certain claim is
again laid to some of the vulnerable
c entral dark squares) - this is
examined under ' B ' ; or by still
playing e4, but avoiding lLlc3 thus
retaining the option of putting a
pawn on this square, which may
help to contest the key d4 square
and also to blunt the influence of the
sweeping g7 bishop. This IS
considered as ' C ' .
A) 7 lLlc3 .i.g7 8 e4 ! ? i s the
uncompromising
and
fearless
reaction. Black can now choose
between the immediate strike at
White ' s centre, or waiting to see
first how White intends to bring his
kingside pieces into play. I shall
consider:
A I ) 8 . . . f5 . The best place to start
consideration of this combative
move is with the game which did so
much to bring 6 . . . lLld6 ! ? to general
attention. Of course, short draws fall
into many categories, including all
too frequently the simply dull and
lifeless, but Hodgson-Nunn, Oxford
(GM) 1 99 8 is one of those in which
the players seem almost deliberately
to tease the crowd with a series of
bold imaginative decisions followed
by a peace settlement just as the
battle is really hotting up. Play
continued 9 exf5 lLlxf5 1 0 g4 !
(Described by Hertneck as ' typical
Hodgson' and of course it is easy to
see what he means. However, it is
also useful to appreciate that there is
probably not much choice. It is not
just that the knight on f5 is a good
piece but that if White waits, it is
difficult to imagine even vaguely
constructive moves which would
not assist it in later settling on d4,
whereas
immediately
heading
forwards is somewhat problematic­
see below)
·
and now:
A l l ) 1 0 . . . lLlh6 1 1 d6 ! e6
( 1 1 . . . lLlf7 1 2 dxe7 �e6+ 1 3 �e2
.i.xc3+ 14 bxc3 �xe7 1 5 .i.f4 is
also quite a mess but again White ' s
active pieces will always guarantee
a share of the chances) 1 2 lLlb5 lLla6
1 3 .i.e3 ( 1 3 h4 ! ? looks more to the
point - perhaps White wanted to
stop any 1 3 . . . c4 nonsense, but this
is not so urgent - then even 1 4
.i.xh6 .i.xh6 1 5 �d4 looks quite
promising) and the players agreed a
draw. White must reckon with one
or two irritating resources - after
1 3 . . 0-0 he is often threatening
. . . lLlxg4 followed by either . . . �c6
or even J::!.x fl +. This is why I prefer
the very direct 1 3 h4 . It would be
fair to say that the positions in this
line bear only a passing resemblance
to normal chess, and are hence that
much harder to assess. As the whole
thing was new to both players it is
not surprising that they felt rather
cautious.
A 1 2) So, what of 1 0 . . . lLld4?! The
problem is that White can play 1 1
lLle4 ! threatening to hassle the poor
beast further with 12 c3 lLlb5 and
maybe 1 3 �3 . The knight on e4 is
itself very well posted and 1 1 . . . e6
can be well met by 1 2 .i.c4 ! ? This
looks good for White.
.
1 68 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
A 1 3) 1 0 . . . liJd6 is possible, on the
other hand, but the best perspective
is probably f7 for this piece anyway.
One example 1 1 h4 ! ? liJf7 (If
1 1 . . . 0-0 12 hS gS 1 3 h6 ! ( 1 3 liJh3
h6 14 f4 gxf4 I S gS f3 is rather too
double-edged) 1 3 . . . .i.eS 14 'iVe2 !
.i.g3+ I S 'it'd i a very sharp position
arises, in which king security is of
overwhelming importance and I
prefer White 's) 1 2 liJe4 ( 1 2 hS ! ?)
1 2 . . . d6
13
c3
liJa6
was
Poland
Orzechowski-Wismont,
(Tch) 1 998 when 14 hS ! looks quite
promising for White.
A2) 8 . . . 0-0 ! ?
i s a flexible alternative. Black
would
like
to
exploit
the
circumstance (touched upon in the
note to 1 0 g4 in A l above) that his
opponent has no good developing
move which retains the option of
answering a subsequent . . . fS with
the Hodgson formula of exfS and
g4 . Therefore White is forced to set
about trying to bolster his e4 pawn
instead. First, an example of what I
believe
he
should
avoid.
S.Kovacevic-B .Lalic,
Navalmoral
( op) 1 999 saw Black quickly attain
a promising position after 9 liJh3 fS
1 0 liJf2 fxe4 1 1 liJfxe4? ! liJxe4 1 2
fxe4? .i.xc3+ ( 1 2 . . . .i.d4 ! ? also
looks pretty tempting - f2 is
seriously vulnerable ! ) 13 bxc3 'iVf6
1 4 'iVd3 'iVf2+ I S 'it'd i d6 1 6 h3
liJd7 17 'iii' e3 'iVxe3 1 8 .i.xe3 liJf6
1 9 .i.d3 c4 20 .i.xc4 liJxe4 =+.
Allowing the full opening of the
f-file looks decidedly risky and
therefore 1 1 liJcxe4 ! is the obvious
place to improve (since in my view
against 1 1 liJfxe4 Bogdan could
have considered other moves such
as 1 1 . . .liJfS ! ?) . The first point to
note is that captures on b2 fail
miserably.
Still, Black can also look to
improve.
There
was
nothing
compulsory about 1 0 . . . fxe4 .
1 0 . . . .i.d4
is
plausible
and
consistent with the whole . . . liJd6
and . . . fS schema, but after 1 1 exfS
liJxf5 ( 1 1 . . JhfS 1 2 liJg4 ! looks a
bit awkward to meet) 1 2 liJce4 ! ?
liJe3 (Again 1 2 . . . .i.xb2 runs into
problems 1 3 �b l 'iVaS+ 1 4 .i.d2 and
I S c3 ! will be very strong against
either 14 . . . 'iVxa2 or 14 . . . 'iVa3) 1 3
.i.xe3 .i.xe3 1 4 d6 ! (a useful motif
throughout this section. The pawn
can prove a very useful wedge, and
ensure that Black' s development
difficulties will not be so short term)
14 . . . liJc6 ( 1 4 . . . e6 I S liJg4 ! ) I S
dxe7 liJxe7 1 6 'iVd6 ! White has
promising play.
Maybe 10 . . . c4, but this pawn can
of course become quite weak, and
Black needs to generate some quite
tangible trouble to compensate for
this . White can try 1 1 'iVe2 ! ? ( 1 1
exfS lIxfS 1 2 liJg4 liJa6 1 3 .i.e2
liJb4 seems to give Black reasonable
play against White' s d-pawn)
1 1 . . . .i.d4 (If 1 1 . . . liJa6 12 eS ! ? liJf7
1 3 f4 then although White might
appear a bit overextended, Black
cannot really open the centre and his
c-pawn is still an issue; and
1 1 . . . fxe4 1 2 liJfxe4 liJxe4 1 3 'iVxe4
2 c5 3 d5 1 6 9
. . .
also favours White as c4 will drop
off for minimal compensation) 1 2
exfS (also 1 2 'bcd 1 ! ?, though a bit
passive, initiates a regrouping which
is worth remembering. Playing c3
after the move of the queen' s knight
is an important instrument for
temporary
Black' s
limiting
initiative) 1 2 . . . 'bxfS 1 3 'bfe4 and
again I like White.
I suspect therefore Black should
go still further back in re-examining
his play. Strangely, perhaps even
9 . . . fS should be shelved in favour
of 9 . . . c4 ! ? The position arising after
for example 1 0 ..te2 'ba6 1 1 'bf2 is
typical of the whole section in that
neither side can exactly develop
freely. The position is unusual, and
deserves practical tests.
B) 7 'bc3 ..tg7 8 e3 ! ?
This unassuming move was the
natural try once Black's . . . fS based
counter-attack was found to pack a
certain punch. It is interesting that in
practice Julian turned to this only
after the hyper-tension of the Nunn
game, whereas he had already
recommended this course of action
in his book a year before. However,
I am far from convinced that 8 e3 is
any panacea, and recently it is
White who has been experiencing
some difficulties from the diagram.
The main problem seems to be that
the dS pawn can become rather
vulnerable to attack (with the
manoeuvre . . . 'ba6-c 7
suggesting
itself as the way to exploit this) and
further counterplay based on . . . 'bfS
and . . . c4 is not implausible either.
In a way this is logical. White may
be wary of putting a pawn on e4 in
view of the . . . fS pawn lever, but
somehow, from the point of view of
restricting the knight on d6 it looks
a bit strange to refrain too !
8 . . 0-0 9 'bh3
.
and now Black has quite a wide
choice:
B 1) 9 . . . 'bfS contains more than a
drop of poison, and in Helbig-Thiel,
Bundesliga 1 997 White drank most
of the glass with 1 0 g4? allowing
1 0 . . . 'bxe3 1 1 ..txe3 �xb2 1 2 'bbS
a6 1 3 1:.b l 'i!VeS 14 �f2 axbS I S
':xbS d6 and he is in a terrible mess
on all fronts . However, White
should fare better with 10 e4 'bd4
( 1 0 . . . 'be3 ? 1 1 ..txe3 �xb2 1 2 'bbS
is now a very different story with
the e-pawn on the board) 1 1 'ba4 !
(Again that strategy of playing for
c3 . It makes one wonder about the
e4+c3 system examined under ' C ' ! )
1 l . . .�aS+ 1 2 c 3 d6 1 3 i.d2 'bxf3 + !
1 4 gxf3 bS I S b4 ! ? cxb4 1 6 axb4
�xa4 1 7 'iWxa4 bxa4 1 8 l1c 1 and
1 70 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
White has some compensation for
sure, I would suspect probably
enough.
B2) 9 . . . c4 1 0 tbf2 e6 (I think I
am not crazy about the move . . . e6
in general for Black in this
variation, since . . . exdS is rarely a
good idea, and the knight on d6 can
be weakened somewhat. However I
would be the first to admit that the
positions are so idiosyncratic that it
is quite doubtful how much we
should speak of "in general" at all ! )
1 1 iLe2 tbfS 1 2 'iYd2 tbxe3 1 3
'iYxe3 iLd4 1 4 �d2 ! (A brave
decision, and a better try than 1 4
tba4 iLxe3 I S tbxb6 iLxb6 1 6
iLxc4 exdS 1 7 iLxdS tbc6 1 8 c3
tbe7 19 iLb3 dS when Black has
good pieces, and the isolated
queen' s pawn will not mean too
much) 14 . . . iLxf2+ I S 'it'fl d6 1 6
iLxc4 iLh4 1 7 tbe4 exdS 1 8 iLxdS
iLe6 19 b3 (Or 1 9 iLxe6 fXe6 20
lWxd6, but White has nothing
special in view of 20 . . . 'iYxd6 2 1
tbxd6 .l::t d 8 22 iLf4 ? ! gS ! ) 1 9 . . . J:.e8
20 iLxe6 �xe6 2 1 g3 iLf6 22
tbxf6+ l:lxf6 23 �g2 'i' c6 24 l:tfl
tbd7 2S iLb2 tbeS 26 iLxeS Yl-1Iz
Rowson-Lalic, Glasgow (op) 1 999.
B3) 9 . . . 'i1Ic7 ! ? 10 a4 b6 1 1 tbf2
fS 12 iLe2 e5 13 e4 f4 1 4 a5 iLa6 1 5
0-0 �7 liz-liz Hodgson-Turner,
Oxford (GM) 1 99 8 . I have to say
that having been at the post-mortem
to this game didn't really help me to
understand it. I am not sure why
blocking the position with 1 2 . . . eS
should really be necessary, but the
feeling at the end was certainly that
Black has found a way to develop
and that it is not easy for White to
undertake too much.
B4) 9 . . . tba6 ! ? makes little
attempt to disguise the coming
attack on the d-pawn, and is, I
suspect, the most testing of all.
After 1 0 iLe2 c4 1 1 'it'f2 'iY c5 1 2 a4
b6 1 3 'i'd2 iLb7 1 4 l:i.d l tbb4 1 5
�fl l:tad8 1 6 tbf2 fS 1 7 e4 as ! 1 8
l:f.a3 fXe4 1 9 tbfXe4 tbxe4 2 0 tbxe4
'iYxdS 2 1 'i'xdS+ iLxd5 White has
no tangible compensation for the
pawn. Real improvements are
needed for ' B ' to remain viable.
Ward-Chandler,
Redbus
(KO)
Southend, 2002 .
C) After 7 e4 iLg7, alternatives to
8 tbc3 come in a variety of forms. I
will just give a brief survey:
C l ) 8 c3 ! ? 0-0 9 tba3 f5 1 0 exf5
( 1 0 tbc4 ! ? is worth a look. If
1 0 . . . tbxc4 1 1 iLxc4 the threat of
d6+ wins a useful tempo, while
10 . . . 'iYa6 1 1 iVb3 fXe4 12 iLe3 ! is
an
unusual
temporary
pawn
sacrifice, which sets some slightly
awkward questions. 1 2 . . . b5 1 3
tbxd6 'i'xd6 1 4 'i'xb5 looks a shade
better for White) 1 0 . . . tbxf5 1 1 iVb3
'i'f6 1 2 tbh3 'iit h 8 1 3 iLg5 �f7 1 4
tbbS tba6 I S 0-0-0 d6 is
Miltner-Lanka, Bundesliga 1 996,
routinely given as favourable for
Black, but in fact after a sensible,
neutral sort of move like 16 l:te l ! ? I
find his position rather harmonious.
C2) 8 tbd2 is another move
played with similar aims in mind.
White retains the option of closing
2 c5 3 d5 1 71
. . .
the diagonal while developing a
piece. This has worked out quite
well in practice after e.g. 8 . . . 0-0 9
f4 ! ? Julian suggests that this "looks
far too ambitious with White so
underdeveloped", but the results
command attention.
Stefanova­
Roder, Barbera (op) 1 999 continued
9 . . . e6 1 0 eS tbfS 1 1 tbc4 'iVd8 1 2
tbf3 ! b S ? ! (Rotstein prefers 1 2 . . . d6
1 3 dxe6 Jt.xe6 14 tbxd6 tbxd6 I S
'iVxd6 �xd6 1 6 exd6 .:re8 1 7 'iit f2
tbd7 which does indeed look quite
active) 1 3 tbe3 Jt.b7?! 14 tbxfS
exfS I S d6 Jt.xf3 1 6 'i¥xf3 tbc6 1 7
c3 'iVb6 1 8 Jt.e3 l:Iae8 1 9 Jt.e2 gS 20
g3 with a total bind. However, to be
honest I cannot see a convincing
answer to 8 . . . e6 ! ? The knight on d2
means that for once Black really
means business with . . . exdS and if
9 c4 0-0 followed by . . . fS the g7
bishop is a fine piece.
C3) White can also go back to
move 7 and examine 7 a4 c4? !
(7 . . . Jt.g7 8 as �c7 9 e4 0-0 1 0 c3 fS
looks OK for Black) 8 e4 Jt.g7 9 c3
0-0 10 tba3 fS 1 1 exfS tbxfS 1 2
tbxc4 �cS 1 3 g4 tbd6 1 4 Jt.e3 �c7
I S tbxd6 �xd6 1 6 tbh3 b6 1 7 tbf2
Jt.b7 1 8 Jt.c4 �f6 was Rabinovich­
Sax, European (ch) Saint Vincent
2000 and now 1 9 0-0 was a bit too
modest. The more ambitious 1 9 f4
eS 20 tbe4 �h4+ 2 1 i.f2 is simply
very strong.
6 . . . ttJd6!? Conclusion
Though certainly one of Black' s
richest options against 3 d S , I
cannot help feeling that practice so
far and the score which Black has
achieved flatters a little. It is
interesting that White moved swiftly
from
the
ambitious
tbc3/e4
approach, and chose in many cases
to settle for 8 e3 instead. In my
opinion this is probably the worst of
the three systems outlined, since the
dS pawn simply becomes too much
of a target. I would prefer either
sticking with 'A' (my analysis of
8 . . . 0-0
in particular became
increasingly encouraging as I went
along - initially sceptical I was
quite converted by the end) or
switching to ' C ' , since . . . fS really
does not seem such a challenge
when White competes for the long
diagonal and the d4 square in
particular. All in all, another
interesting battle-ground rather than
a serious problem for White.
Chapter Conclusion
3 d5 seems very much alive ! I
began with two major concerns:
1) That the Vaganian Gambit
might be a great deal of fun if Black
reacts too passively, but that the
systems with a quick . . . e5 could
cast doubt on its ultimate soundness.
I am now fairly satisfied that,
whatever the truth about the ' piece
play' approaches, the blocking 8
fS( ! ) followed by a kingside pawn
storm is sufficient to deny Black an
easy life in this case. I was glad
when I saw that De la Villa ' s book
broadly
concurs
with
that
conclusion. Indeed, 7 . . . e6 also
retains great complexity which is
not all one way traffic, and Black
may decide
in
addition to
investigate the logical 7 . . . fkc7 ! ?
which, whatever the ultimate
verdict, does seem to have been
strangely neglected.
2) That the impressive results
recently put together by the 3 . . . tbe4
and 6 . . . tbd6 ! ? system might reflect
some fundamental vulnerability in
1 72 2 c5 3 d5
. . .
the White position. As I concluded
above, I now think that White
probably even has a choice of viable
set-ups here. The line is appealing
for its rich strategic content, but it
represents no refutation of White ' s
play.
As in previous chapters, some of
the minor lines also raise interesting
questions. As usual, early . . . g6/d6
lines tend to have a basic
playability. Again as in Chapter 2, a
certain understanding of the Schmid
Benoni is useful. In this case, the
bishop development on g5 may not
be entirely typical, but of course
White can be quite comfortable with
these posItIons too. On White ' s
behalf too, I have t o say that while 5
'iVc l ! ? in Game 37 does not feel
quite in the spirit of the attacking
repertoire, and I am a long way
from advocating it, it does seem to
have been rather unfairly maligned.
More importantly, while I am
reasonably happy that my analysis
of 4 . e6 5 f3 i.d6 ! ? commends
White a playable enough system I
make no grand claims for its
exhaustive nature, and Gallagher
was probably right to identify this as
an area which Black could fruitfully
investigate further.
.
.
Chapter 8
-
Introduction
The apparently modest 2 . . . e6 can
be seen as the move by which Black
seeks both to maintain his structure
intact
and
to
ensure
that
complications are kept within
manageable limits. An under­
standable caution about entering
complications on the attacker' s
'territory ' inevitably ensures that
2 . . . lbe4 and 2 . . . c5 are not
everybody ' s cup of tea. When we
take into account that accepting
structural weaknesses might not
make for an easy life either, then it
is not hard to account for the
popularity
of
2 . . . e6
which
according to my database is the 2nd
most frequent response to the
Trompowsky. Moreover, I think it
would be fair to say that the
reputation of Black' s resources in
the main line which arises after 3 e4
h6 4 .ltxf6 'iVxf6 are on something
of a high at the time of writing.
2
. . .
e6 3 e4 ! ?
Of course, such an unpretentious
move as 2 . . . e6 cannot in itself be a
special problem for White, and does
not oblige such critical play. White
clearly has the option of playing
conservatively with such moves as 3
e3, 3 c3 or even 3 lbf3 which
transposes directly to the Torre
Attack. However, with apologies to
devotees of such a quiet approach, I
find it both rather insipid, and of
limited theoretical interest. For the
most part, to be honest, those who
wish to play such positions can
probably do so without the
assistance of a book. Joe Gallagher
also
makes
the
interesting
observation here that precisely the
kind of players against whom
such a deliberately uncomplicated
approach might be effective (the
lovers of a sharp scrap) are unlikely
to be found playing 2 . . . e6 in the
first place. Of course if you find
known King ' s Indian fanatics
wheeling out 2 . . . e6 on a regular
basis then it might be worth just
checking out the breadth of their
understanding, but I suspect this
will be a pretty rare event.
All in all, I therefore hope the
reader will agree that in a repertoire
book there is a strong case for
restricting my attention to the much
more interesting 3 e4 ! ? which is in
any case very clearly the move in
the spirit of the Trompowsky. I
firmly believe that if 3 e4 ceases to
be regarded as a viable approach
then the Trompowsky would be
1 74 2 . . . e6 3 e4
widely viewed as just that little bit
less scary. I am also reasonably
confident that this will not happen !
The most critical lines of this
chapter (and certainly far and away
the most popular) arise when Black
forces the gain of the bishop pair
with 3 . . . h6 4 .txf6 'it'xf6 (Games
3 9-45). In my opinion this results in
one of the most fascinating
conceptual battlegrounds in the
entire Trompowsky and is worthy of
study not just by those intending to
play the position, but by anyone
interested in such key strategic
issues as the importance of the
bishop pair, how best to handle it
and how to play against it. As I
mentioned right back in the
Introduction, I will in the remaining
chapters
dispense
with
the
customary division into ' stylistic
repertoires ' . Despite a lot of study, I
am myself still trying to work out
the approach to this position which
best suits me personally, and I
would like to encourage the reader
to join me in exploring a number of
possibilities and to draw his own
conclusions . I am in any case
confident that while there is
inevitably a 'dynamic' feel to
White' s play in a position where he
has space and development as
compensation for the bishop pair,
there is enough flexibility in the
position to be able to appeal too to
those seeking a more solid flavour
(for
example
Adams ' s
very
thought-provoking strategy with 7
g3 ! ? [see the note to game 4 1 ] as a
case in point) .
I will return later to a detailed
strategic introduction to 3 . . . h6. For
the moment there is other pressing
business. Black has viable third
move alternatives too, and it is to
these that we should now tum.
Game 3 8
Tregubov - Shulman
Gausdal 1 994
1 d4 tLlf6 2 .tg5 e6 3 e4 d5
Black attempts to steer the game
directly into French Defence
channels.
I would like to deal with three
other alternatives here. The first two
might aspire to claim the virtue of
flexibility, but can equally easily
come across as merely passive,
whereas the third can be an
introduction to great complications,
although I think White is not
necessarily obliged to ' play along '
with that intention:
a) 3 . . . .te7 is solid and enjoys a
considerable following among those
seeking a simple unpretentious
defence to the Tromp. Black keeps
the option of entering French
structures after first asking how his
opponent intends to support the
e-pawn:
a 1 ) The first point is that 4 tLlc3 ! ?
in addition to inviting a direct
transposition to the Classical
French, also offers a pawn by
allowing 4 . . . tLlxe4, and although
after 5 .txe7 tLlxc3 6 i.xd8 tLlxd l 7
.txc7 tLlxb2 8 .td6 tDa4 9 c4 tLlc6
10 tDf3 White has compensation
2 e6 3 e4 1 75
. . .
based upon his excellent bishop on
d6 and the considerable awkward­
ness that it causes, De la Villa ' s
suggestion o f 1 0 . . . b6 ! ? looks
sensible since the natural 1 1 .lid3
.lia6 12 .i::!. c 1 will now be irritated by
12 . . . tiJb2 1 3 .lie2 tiJaS . I considered
instead 1 1 lIc 1 ..ta6 1 2 lIc2 lIc8 1 3
.lid3 tiJaS 1 4 tiJd2 but this also
gives Black time for 14 . . . bS ! It
seems that this excellent plan is
sufficient to take the edge off
White ' s initiative.
a2) I am unenthusiastic about 4 eS
tiJdS S ..txe7 �xe7 6 c4 tiJb6 7 tiJc3
d6 8 tiJf3 tiJc6 which seems to me
to be quite playable for Black.
a3) 4 .lid3 ! ? is a natural
development, but Black can try
4 . . . cS ! ? (4 . . . dS S eS tiJfd7 6 ..txe7
�xe7 7 c3 cS 8 tiJe2 looks like a
pleasant French) S dxcS (or S eS ! ?
tiJdS 6 ..txe7 �xe7 7 dxcS although
then 7 . . . tiJf4 must be reckoned
with) S . . :it'aS+ (S . . . tiJa6 ! ? feels as
if it should be interesting, since
..td3xa6 is a tempo loss. However
Black needs to improve his
follow-up after 6 .lixa6 bxa6 7 tiJd2
..tb7 8 �e2 lIc8 9 tiJgf3 l:txcS 1 0 c4
�aS
of Aleksandrov-I.Zaitsev,
Moscow 1 996 since White missed
the brutal shot 1 1 b4 ! winning
significant amounts of material ! ) 6
�c3 tiJxe4 7 ..txe7 tiJxc3 8 �d2
�xe7 9 tiJe2 'it'xcs 10 tiJxc3 �eS+
1 1 ..te2 tiJc6 12 0-0-0 dS 13 f4
'ilc7 1 4 .l:the l although White has
quite dangerous compensation for
the pawn. Rossetto-Migliavacca,
Buenos Aires, 1 977.
a4) 4 tiJd2 ! ? has both flexibility
and Garry Kasparov on its side,
although White has to be a little
wary of early . . . 'iib 6 sorties if he
handles the consequent French
structure too routinely. 4 . . . dS
(4 . . . cS?! S eS tiJdS 6 .lixe7 'ilxe7 7
tiJe4 is just bad for Black) S eS
tiJfd7 6 ..txe7 'it'xe7 7 f4 ! ? cS 8
tiJgf3 tiJc6 9 .lid3 is an interesting
treatment known from the Tarrasch
French, albeit with dark-squared
bishops still on the board. If
9 . . . cxd4 1 0 0-0 White has time to
round up the d4 pawn, and chances
on the kingside. Still, this is better
than 9 . . . tiJb4 1 0 ..te2 f6 1 1 c3 tiJc6
1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 a3 llb8 14 b4 b6 I S
.lid3 with a lot of extra space in
Kasparov-Centea, Deurne (simul),
2000.
b) 3 . . . d6 is more committal in
terms of the centre pawns and
therefore perhaps still more subj ect
to the charge of negativity.
After 4 tiJc3 .lie7 (4 . . . h6 gives
White a pleasant enough choice. He
can exchange on f6, returning the
play to Games 3 9-4 1 , without the
headache of the . . . i.b4 lines.
However retreating also looks quite
viable. In Gil Gonzales-Gonzalez
Velez, Spain (ch) 1 997 White
played S ..te3 tiJbd7 6 h3 a6 7 a4 cS
8 dS exdS 9 exdS g6 1 0 tiJf3 ..tg7
1 1 'it'd2 hS 1 2 ..te2 0-0 1 3 0-0 b6
14 i.h6 which must be worth at
least an edge) S f4 ! ? h6 6 ..txf6
..txf6 7 'it'd2 a6 8 0-0-0 bS 9 tiJf3
..tb7 1 0 �d3 b4 1 1 tiJe2 as 1 2 'it'b l
tiJd7 1 3 eS ..te7 1 4 fS exfS I S ..txfS
1 76 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
(Keeping a sufficient hold on the
dark squares while seeking to
generate attacking chances on the
more promising territory of the light
squares will constitute a pretty
text-book strategy for White
throughout the chapter. This is an
excellent exposition from Grand­
master Tolnai) 1 5 . . . tDf8 1 6 'iVe3
.lii. g 5 1 7 'iWf2 g6 1 8 h4 ! .lii. e 7 1 9 .lii. h 3
d5 20 �hf1 �h7 2 1 tDf4 with a
strong attack in Tolnai-Fogarasi,
Hungary (ch) 1 99 5 . I am a bit
sceptical in general about White 's
ability to generate as much play
when the bishop recaptures on f6
rather than the queen, but I wouldn 't
want to be too dogmatic on this
point. Here with the f4 advance in
place, and Black expending a tempo
on h6, it seems well justified.
c) 3 . . . c5 ! ? is a much more
ambitious approach.
c 1 ) 4 d5 d6 ! (4 . . . h6 5 .lii. xf6 'it'xf6
6 tDc3 looks good for White to me.
Black will have problems getting
mobilised which will count for
much more than White ' s slightly
suspect dark squares; 4 . . . 'iWb6 5
tDc3 [or 5 .lii.xf6 gxf6 6 'it'c 1 which
was covered in Chapter 6] 5 . . . Wixb2
6 .lii. d2 Wib6 7 f4 leads to either
Game 35 or Analytical Article 2
from Chapter 7) 5 tDc3 .lii. e 7 6
.lii.b 5+ (6 tDf3 is also possible, but
nothing special) 6 . . . .lii. d 7 ! (6 . . .
tDbd7? 7 .lii. x f6 ! is great for White)
7 dxe6 fxe6 8 e5 !? (otherwise
. . . tDc6 follows with reasonable play
for Black) 8 . . dxe5 9 'iVe2 and now
even 9 . . . .lii. x b5 1 0 Wixb5+ Wid7 1 1
.l:[d l tDd5 1 2 tDxd5 exd5 1 3 'iWxd7
tDxd7 14 .lii.x e7 <:J;;x e7 1 5 l:txd5 does
not look like a real advantage for
White.
c2) 4 e5 ! ? was described by
Gerstner in his 1 995 book as
unambitious, but a year later,
perhaps through discovering 8
'iVg4 ! ? he had apparently revised his
view. At the time of writing I think
this would be my preference. After
4 . . . h6 5 .lii. c 1 ! Black can try:
.
c2 I ) 5 . . . tDd5 6 c4 tDb6 (or 6 . . .
tDe7 7 dxc5 tDbc6 when 8 tDf3 ! ?
tDg6 9 .lii. e 3 tDgxe5 1 0 tDxe5 tDxe5
1 1 tDc3 which looks more
comfortable for White to me) 7
dxc5 i..x c5 8 'iWg4 ! ? (I like this . It is
significantly more energetic than 8
tDf3 d5 9 exd6 'iYxd6 1 0 'ii'xd6
.lii. xd6 1 1 tDc3 tDc6 1 2 i.. d 2 tDd7 1 3
0-0-0 We7 1 4 tDb5 which does not
seem to give White much. Indeed
Soffer-Yudasin, Israel (ch) 1 994
was agreed drawn right here)
8 . . <:J;; f8 (8 . . . .lii. f8 is playable, but
passive) 9 a3 tDc6 (9 . . . f5 ? ! 1 0 Wid l
.
2 e6 3 e4 1 77
. . .
'iWh4 1 1 'iVc2 a5 1 2 tDf3 'iVe4+ 1 3
'iWxe4 fxe4 1 4 tDh4 r:Ji; f7 1 5 tDc3
i.d4 16 tDxe4 ii.xe5 17 tDf3 ii.f6 1 8
tDxf6 gxf6 1 9 ii.e3 led to a fantastic
position for White in Gerstner­
Ksieski, Bundesliga II 1 996) 1 0
tDf3 filc7 1 1 'iVe4 d 5 1 2 exd6 ii.xd6
1 3 tDc3 a6 14 b4 tDe5 1 5 c5 tDxf3+
16 'iVxf3 ii.e5 17 ii.b2 tDd5 1 8 l:l:dl
tDxc3 19 ii.xc3 ii.d7 20 'iVe3
i.xc3+ 2 1 �xc3 and Black still has
a number of problems to solve in
getting his forces coordinated.
Povah-Wu, 4NCL Birmingham,
2002.
c22) 5 . . . tDh7 ! ? was proudly
awarded an ' ! ' by its originator
B .Certic in Informator 69, and De la
Villa seems broadly persuaded that
this is a problem for 4 e5. I am still
sceptical. If White can get the
handling right and render the idea
. . . tDg5 irrelevant, then the move
can look quite odd. 6 d5 ! ? (6 dxc5
tDc6 7 tDc3 ! ? is also interesting, but
7 . . . i.xc5 8 tDf3 d5 ! 9 exd6 'ilUxd6 is
a rational and safe response) 6 . . . d6
(6 . . . exd5 7 'ikxd5 tDc6 8 tDf3 'iVe7
9 i.e3 ! The key move. The e-pawn
needs to be unpinned. 9 . . . tDb4 1 0
'iVb3 tDg5 1 1 tDbd2 tDxf3+ 1 2 tDxf3
b6 1 3 0-0-0 and I like White ' s
position i n M.Muse-Zeicic, Croatia
(chT) 1 997) 7 i.b5+ ! ? i.d7 and
now what about the untested 8
ii.c4 ! ? I do not see a simple
defence here as both 8 . . . exd5 9
'ikxd5 and 8 . . . dxe5 9 tDf3 'ilUf6 1 0
tDc3 ! look quite dangerous for
Black. If White can open the
position quickly it is quite easy for
the knight on h7 to look somewhat
ridiculous.
4 eS
Of course 4 tDc3 is a direct
transposition into main lines of the
French, while if 4 tDd2 h6 ! is a
good answer since 5 ii.xf6 'iVxf6 6
e5 is likely to be similar to Game 45
and satisfactory for Black.
4 . . . h6 5 ii.e3 tDfd7 6 f4
As with the pseudo-French
positions which arose when Black
declined White ' s gambit in Chapter
4 (see Game 1 9) I think this is a
formation, a kind of Tarrasch with
the . bishop already developed to e3 ,
WhICh does not arise normally in the
French not because White does not
want it, but because he cannot attain
it.
6 . . . cS 7 c3 tDc6 8 tDf3
8 . cxd4
The plan of . . . cxd4/ . . . tDb6/
. . . ii.d7 is known from the Tarrasch
French too, but I think that i.e3 is a
useful development for speeding up
White ' s play, the only possible
drawback of which is its weakening
of b2. For this reason I would first
look
at
8 . . JWb6,
when
in
G.Grigore-N .Grigore,
Bucharest
Juventus 2002 White countered with
9 'iVc l ! ? in a sense the most
ambitious move (9 'iVd2 is perhaps
more modest), intending to continue
with smooth development by tDd2
and so on. Play then took a very
sharp tum with 9 . . . g5 ! ? 10 'iVd2 g4
1 1 tDg 1 f5 1 2 h3 gxh3 1 3 :xh3
. .
1 78 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
cxd4 1 4 cxd4 'i¥b4 1 5 lDc3 a6 1 6 a3
'i!Va5 and White presumably stands
well. I would want to look at 1 7
Wid 1 ! ? lDd8 and now 1 8 .lte2 ! ?
having ruled out for the moment the
manoeuvre . . . lDd7-b6 and therefore
freeing this bishop to cause damage
on the kingside.
9 cxd4 lDb6 1 0 lDbd2 i.d7 1 1
i.e2 a5 1 2 0-0 a4 13 lDel !
Eyeing both kingside expansion,
and the c5 square. Already there is a
suspicion that in the forthcoming
race White ' s aspirations are the
more focused. In analogous lines in
the French, one of White ' s
headaches i s usually how t o develop
his queen' s bishop, but here that
began to be solved on move two !
13 . . . i.e7 1 4 lDd3 0-0 1 5 l:!c1
lDa5 1 6 lDc5 i.xc5 17 dxc5 lDbc4
1 8 lDxc4 lDxc4 1 9 i.d4 !
Not the usual destination for the
Trompowsky bishop, but a very
satisfactory one. The solid defence
it provides the e5 pawn is an
excellent basis for the action on the
kings ide that follows.
19 . . . i.b5
In the context of the coming
storm on the other side, the
exchange of light-squared bishops is
something of a positional nicety.
20 J:[fJ �d7 21 l:tg3 lDa5 22 f5
i.xe2 23 'ir'xe2 �h7
24 l:lxg7+!
Not a difficult combination, but a
pleasing one. The wayward Black
pieces cannot even dream of
covering the two key squares h6 and
g7.
24 . . . 'ihg7 25 f6+ 'itt h 7 26 �d3+
�h8 27 �h3 'i.t>h7 28 i.e3 1-0
White mates in a couple more
moves.
3 h6 4 i.xf6 'i¥xf6
Strategic Introduction
. . .
As I mentioned above, the
diagram posItIon is the key
battleground for the remainder of
this chapter and one of the most
for
positions
important
Trompowsky theory. Before getting
stItck into too many specifics it cries
out for some strategic overview.
The trade-off between the bishop
pair and some compensating
advantage is of course one of the
dominant imbalances which enrich
modem opening play. We are
especially accustomed from the
classics to seeing the compensation
in terms of structItral weakness
(doubled pawns in particular), or the
setting up of a fixed pawn structItre
which enhances the scope of the
remaining bishop, and at the same
2 e6 3 e4 1 79
. . .
time seeks to restrict the opponent' s
bishop pair (e.g. some lines o f the
Nimzo-Indian where Black puts his
centre pawns on c5/d6/e5). Another
common idea is the creation of a
dominant outpost for a knight - I
expect the nurturing of the d5
square in the Sveshnikov and other
Sicilians is generally hardly even
perceived in terms of ' compensation
for the bishop pair' .
However, there is another whole
range of positions in which the
compensation is in terms of better
development, a space advantage,
occupation of the centre and so on.
These need not of necessity be
' intangible' compared with those
already discussed, but they are
generally factors which need careful
cultivation - with reckless handling
they can be easily dissipated, and
for this reason they tend to be
classified as ' temporary' - in need
of transformation into something
more permanent. White ' s compens­
ation in the diagram is rather of this
kind. He is occupying the centre
with pawns which give him a good
deal of space, and since the position
of the queen on f6 is rarely ideal in
the longer run, Black usually feels
the need to
conduct some
re-organisation which will cost
further time. One of the fascinating
conundrums which such cases throw
up (especially as here when the
structure is still very fluid - basic
decisions remain for both sides as to
how to handle their centre pawns) is
the question of opening the position.
To whose advantage will it be if the
position blasts open? The traditional
answers would be:
i) The player with the advantage
in terms of space and time;
ii) The player with the bishop
pair.
However here that is White in the
first case and Black in the second,
so we are denied the luxury of an
automatic answer. In fact modem
theory abounds with situations in
which the player opposing the
bishop pair opens the position both
to create good squares for his
knights and to feed his initiative so much so that the highly respected
positional thinker John Watson even
coined a ' rule ' that "time favours
the bishops". However, the position
should be opened keeping in mind a
healthy respect for key squares and
colour complexes . In the current
case, White should think long and
hard, ensuring that the counter­
vailing
advantages
are
very
significant before he considers
enhancing his opponent' s dark­
squared bishop by advancing his
d-pawn. The central advance of
preference will tend to be e4-e5 of
course, and in several cases we shall
see White trying to give his own
pieces more space while at the same
time restricting his opponent' s in
precisely this way. Game 44 for
example is very much about a
successful case of this, and the most
basic choice that shapes this chapter
is that while I have considered 5
ltJc3 , 5 'iVd2 and 5 c3 , I have
rejected 5 ltJf3 since I cannot
conceive that the solution to White ' s
problems will l i e i n blocking the
very f-pawn which is so pivotal to
effecting the sought after e5
advance.
In short, while White will often
try to drum up play on the light
squares (see especially game 3 9
where this i s even a necessary
response to Black's ability to dictate
the pace on the dark squares), there
is generally speaking a ferocious
battle for the dark squares
180 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
throughout. I would like to finish
this preamble with one classic
example
in
which
White ' s
premature e4-eS advance comes
unstuck in the face of Black' s
ability t o undermine its pawn
Las
support.
Adams-Karpov,
Palmas 1 994 went:
1 d4 tLif6 2 i.gS e6 3 e4 h6 4
..txf6 'iVxf6 S tLic3 d6 6 Wid2 gS ! ? 7
0-0-0 i.g7 8 eS ? ! - this is now
believed to be premature. If the
supporting f4 pawn can itself be
bolstered by the g-pawn then this
pawn wedge has a valuable
space-gaining role to play, but here
it proves vulnerable 8 . . . dxeS 9
dxeS 'iVe7 1 0 f4 tLic6 1 1 ctJf3 ..td7
12 h4 gxf4 l 3 �xf4 0-0-0 14 ctJe4
With the battle for colour
complexes in the centre very much
in mind, we move on to the main
course.
Game 39
Hodgson - Magem Badals
Linares (zt) 1 995
1 d4 lLlf6 2 ..tg5 e6 3 e4 h6 4
i.xf6 �xf6 5 lLlc3
5 d6
The other main line S . . . i.b4, is
the subject of Games 42-43 . In
addition, the apparently rather
passive retreat S . . . �d8 ! ? is also
worth mentioning here. Black' s
thinking i s that since h e i s likely to
have to lose some more time with
his queen at some juncture he can
gain a measure of flexibility by an
immediate retreat which will keep
White guessing whether he intends
to head for a . . . d6/eS structure or
for a . . . dS French-type structure.
The latter can be a strangely
effective way of fighting for the
dark squares. For example after 6
'iVd2 dS ! ? 7 0-0-0 i.e7 (7 . . . c6
intending
. . . ..tb4
might
be
interesting too) 8 �b 1 I became
intrigued by quite how White would
build up his attack in the event of
...
14 . . . tLib8 !
The
move
which
justifiably gets so much attention.
Adams probably felt that for all its
formal isolated status, his e-pawn is
difficult to get at. This super
reorganisation gains space for the
currently passive d7 bishop, and
indeed soon enables it to be
exchanged for a knight which is the
lynchpin of the e-pawn' s defence.
I S tLif6 i.c6 1 6 ..te2 ctJd7 17 ctJhS
..txf3 1 8 ..txf3 ..txeS and Black has
won the battle for the dark squares
in the centre, and along with it a
critical pawn and later the game.
2" . e6 3 e4 1 81
Black keeping the centre very tight
with 8 . . c6 ! ? and then later
expanding with . . . b5/ . . . liJd7/ . . . 'iWa5
(of course watching out for liJxd5
tricks if he has castled) . It is
annoying for White that he can but
rarely consider advancing his
e-pawn
to
e5
because
the
undermining . . . c5 break which
follows packs a certain punch - as
we shall see in Game 45, even
without the slightly clumsy knight
on c3 , the Advance French structure
is not great for White in the absence
of a dark-squared bishop.
recently
when
Therefore,
confronted with this idea, I decided
to settle for an apparently more
modest development with 6 .i.d3 ! ?
.
This was primarily a prophylaxis
against 6 . . . d5 which I planned to
answer with the slightly inelegant
but fairly effective 7 exd5 exd5 8
'iVe2+ ! iLe7 (8 . iLe6? ! 9 .i.f5 ! ) 9
'iVe5 . Then after, for example,
9 . . c6 10 'iVxg7 iLf6 1 1 'iiig3 iLxd4
1 2 liJge2 I definitely prefer White,
since the damage done to Black's
kings ide structure can be quite
significant, with or without queens .
It is worth noting that if Black tries
1 2 . . . iLxc3+ intending 13 liJxc3
.
'YWg5 , White might do well to
consider 1 3 bxc3 ! ? since this is
more likely to result in a useful c4
lever with which to attack Black' s
centre than i n a weakness.
For this reason 6 . . . .i.e7 looks
preferable, when adventures such as
7 'iiig4? ! 0-0 8 e5 should be avoided
since Black is happy to play 8 . . . d5,
keeping the defensive resource . . . f5
in reserve for whenever the going
gets tough. However, White can still
plausibly castle on either side, and
elect to play f4 or not. I would say
only
that
against
restrained
development such as 7 liJf3 Black is
well advised not to play for the
French type positions as White ' s
space/development advantage is
generally too great if he sub­
sequently captures on e4 . Better
7 . . .d6! 8 0-0 0-0 9 'tWd2 liJd7 and
now 1 0 liJe2 ! is important, to be
ready to support the centre with c3
in the event of 1 0 . . . e5, and maybe
in response to . . . c5 ideas too. In this
case White keeps hold of his extra
space, contains the bishop pair, and
still poses the question as to how
Black
proposes
to
complete
development.
6 'iii d 2
.
.
6 ... c6 ! ?
1 82 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
An important and critical idea.
Black wants to cover the dS square
as preparation for playing . . . eS,
fighting very directly for the central
dark squares. Having chosen this
approach, it is important to set about
it immediately, before White can
either castle, or establish a wedge in
the centre with the moves f4 and eS.
6 . . . ctJd7 ? ! 7 f4 c6 8 eS for example
favours White as his opponent
enjoys
limited
potential
for
undermining him on these key
squares.
7 f4(!)
Playing like this before castling
carries a certain risk (see the note to
Black's next move, and also Game
40) However, in this particular case
I think it is almost certainly best, as
whilst 7 0-0-0 should be playable,
and has been tested by some strong
players, my instinct is that after
7 . . . eS ! Black has already staked his
claim to key squares, has no
immediate problems on the d-file,
and therefore must be OK. One
example: 8 ctJf3 (8 dS? ! carries the
nice point that 8 . . . Sl.e7 ? ! 9 dxc6
bxc6 1 0 ctJdS ! favours White.
However, 8 . . . ctJd7 ! looks logical
and the positional foundation of
White' s play looks less secure than
the tactical tricks) 8 . . . Sl.e7 9 h3 (9
'litb l is possible since 9 . . . Sl.g4 ! ? 1 0
dxeS
dxeS
11
Sl.e2
Sl.e6
[ 1 1 . . . ctJd7 ? ! 12 ctJxeS ! ] 12 l:r.hg l
ctJd7 1 3 Sl.c4 ! ltd8 1 4 Sl.xe6 �xe6
looks about equal. I rather get the
feeling that 1 3 Sl.c4 ! was an
' equalising resource' though which
is not a ringing endorsement of
White' s opening) 9 . . . ctJd7 1 0 'litb l
0-0 1 1 'iVe3 :Le8 1 2 dS Sl.d8 1 3 Sl.c4
cS - looks like a concession, but
closing the centre enables Black to
tum more purposefully to the
queens ide - 14 ctJh2 a6 I S ctJg4
'ifg6 1 6 'iff3 bS and Black had very
play.
Hall-Glek,
reasonable
Bundesliga II 1 997.
7 e5
Consistent, but Black has an
interesting alternative in 7 . . . gS ! ?
here, a closely related idea to that in
Game 40, indeed on the face of it
likely to be somewhat more
promising since the move 6 . . . c6
puts paid to most ctJdS-based
nonsense, whereas the contribution
of 6 . . . a6 in the analogous game is
less clear. It is important to establish
whether ' theory ' , in adopting a
sceptical tone towards this sharp
move has really been guilty of
'judgement by results ' or whether
the pawn sacrifice 8 fS ! ? is
genuinely strong here. The 'result'
in question was David-Daly, Linares
(zt) 1 99 5 in which an almighty
attack ensued after 8 . . . exfS 9 0-0-0
fxe4?! 1 0 ctJxe4 'iVg6 1 1 Sl.d3 fS 1 2
.l:re l ! fxe4 1 3 Sl.xe4 �f6 1 4 Sl.xc6+
'litd8 I S 'iWaS+ b6 1 6 'iWc3 and White
is already winning. Improvements
are clearly required at move 9 .
Gallagher mentions 9 . . . f4, but 1 0
eS ! ? �d8 1 1 exd6 Sl.xd6 1 2 Sl.c4
looks like a pretty good King' s
Gambit. Again i n keeping with
Game 40, 9 . . . Sl.g7 seems best,
when I think White does best to
handle the position in line with my
...
2 e6 3 e4 1 83
. . .
recommendation there, and play 1 0
exf5 Ji.xf5 1 1 .i.d3 ! Ji.e6 ! 1 2 tDge2
with undeniable compensation for
the pawn.
S dxe5 dxe5 9 f5
In this particular position it might
be quite hard to suggest an
alternative, but as part of a general
plan of campaign, White 's play is
noteworthy. Rather than trying to
compete on the dark squares (a
battle which would not look very
promising given Black's fairly
single-minded opening strategy to
control these) the text move sort of
concedes control of them in
exchange for further enhancing
on
the
White' s
prospects
light-squares, not least by trying to
shut the c8 bishop out of the game.
The question is How much can
Black make the dark squares count?
9 :iVd6
This very reasonable attempt to
improve the position of the queen
may well be best, but others also
merit attention:
a) 9 . . . 'i'd8 is instructive for trying
to measure
the
amount
of
concessions which the defender has
to make for White to become
interested in exchanging queens.
This is reckoned to just about cross
. .
the threshold, but after 1 0 "i!Vxd8+
�xd8 1 1 .i.c4 �e8 12 tDf3 tDd7 1 3
0-0-0 Ji.c5 1 4 �b 1 b5 1 5 Ji.b3 clte7
16 g4 Rabinovich-Belichev, Euro­
pean (ch u-20) Tallinn 1 997 I think
Black should ' go active ' on the
queens ide with 1 6 . . . a5 1 7 a4 i..b 4 !
when White has the edge, but at
least he cannot cultivate it gently
without distractions.
b) 9 . . . 'i' g5 ! ? is suggested by
Hedman, but after 1 0 'i'xg5 hxg5 1 1
tDf3 ! f6 1 2 0-0-0 the light squares
look more likely to be the big issue,
and these are clearly White ' s
domain.
c) 9 . . . tDd7 1 0 tDf3 tDb6 ! ? was an
unusual attempt to organise the
pieces to predict White ' s potential
for kingside expansion and facilitate
an early evacuation of the king to
the other wing. It worked out well in
Povah-Ansell, 4 NCL, 1 997 but I
think that after 1 1 0--0--0 i.. d 7 a
chance was missed to embarrass
Black with 1 2 tDa4 ! ? (Freeing up a
lot of squares for the queen,
including c3 itself) 12 . . . 0--0-0 1 3
tDxb6+ axb6 1 4 'i'c3 i.. c 5 ! ? 1 5 .i.c4
(but not 1 5 'i'xe5 'i'xe5 16 tDxe5
i.. x f5 ! ) 1 5 . . . �he8 1 6 g4 and I feel
that the exchange of knights has
somehow clarified the position in
White ' s favour.
d) 9 . . . g6 ! ? is clearly very
combative. White should answer
with 1 0 Ji.d3 (tactically defending
the f-pawn since 1 0 . . . gxf5 ? ! 1 1
exf5 Ji.xf5?? 1 2 'iYt'l wins a piece)
and now after 1 0 . . . tDd7, Gallagher
gives the straightforward 1 1 0-0-0
h5 1 2 �b 1 as better for White and
this looks credible since the move
. . . Ji.h6 has lost its chief irritation
value. However, White can also
consider settling for short castling.
In Gabriel-P. Schlosser, Bundesliga
1 84 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
1 997 he quickly attained the upper
hand after 1 1 ttJf3 h5 1 2 fxg6 fxg6
1 3 0-0 .th6 14 �e l 0-0 1 5 .tc4+
-J;>g7 ? ! 16 ttJd4 ! although 1 5 . . .'.ii' h 7 !
1 6 lId l ttJb6 looks less clear. This
might be significant as Igor Glek
recently refined Black's play with
the immediate 1 0 . . . h5 ! ? which of
course cuts out the Gallagher recipe.
1 0 .td3
1 0 ... .te7
In Engqvist-Hedman, Stockholm,
1 996 Black played
a very
interesting pawn sacrifice which
certainly merits a mention. At first
sight 10 . . . b5 ! ? looks distinctly rash
since after 1 1 a4 (not compulsory,
but very thematic) 1 1 . . . b4 1 2 ttJd 1
ttJd7 1 3 ttJe3 it appears that Black
has still further compromised
himself on the light squares for not
much in return. However, the well
motivated offer 13 . . . b3 ! puts all this
in a different light. After 14 cxb3
llb8 1 5 .tc2 'iff6? ! 1 6 0-0-0 .th4
1 7 'iff2 .ta6 1 8 ttJf3 Wie7 1 9 ttJg4 !
White consolidated and started to
build his own threats based upon a
similar ' clearance ' pawn sacrifice
with f5-f6, but Engqvist believed
1 5 . . . 'ifxd2+ 1 6 -J;>xd2 .th4+ 1 7
\t>e2 .ta6+ 1 8 � f2 f6 followed by
. . . ttJc5 to be much tougher. I am
sure White is OK here too, but
whether he himself can undertake
anything positive is not so clear. In
short, an interesting pawn offer
which White would do well to have
covered.
1 1 ttJf3 ttJd7 1 2 a4 !
It is not difficult to see that . . . b5
is worth stopping, or that c4 might
be a good square to preserve for the
bishop. However, the fact that
1 2 . . . ttJc5 for example can be
answered by 1 3 .tc4 ! and White has
no reason to fear the exchange of
queens, this is something of a key
insight. Note that in comparison
with the endgame considered in
note ' a ' to Black's 9th above (with
9 . . . 'iVd8) White has time to play a4
here because in order to arrive at the
ending Black has to block his f8
bishop, thus ruling out the
possibility of . . . .i.h4 . It is this detail
which really renders the ending
viable for White, and 1 2 . . . CtJc5 ? !
something o f a clumsy move.
12 . . . a5 13 g4 'iWc5 14 'iVf2
14 . . . 'iVxf2+? !
By general
agreement this
understandable liquidation was a
step in the wrong direction. By
playing 1 4 . . . Wib4 ! 1 5 0-0-0 .i.c5
Black would have maintained his
2 e6 3 e 4 1 85
. . .
share of the chances in a very
complicated middlegame. It is easy
to see his reservation - Black 's king
is not entirely happy, and on the
kingside there is a ready made pawn
roller. Still, 16 'iWe l �d4 gives a
fair share of the chances, while 1 6
'iWg3 �e3 + ! ? 1 7 �b l �f4 i s also
none too clear, although in the
former case, 1 6 . . . .id4 1 7 CLlxd4
exd4 1 8 CLlb l ! ? 'ili'xa4 1 9 e5 ! might
rather illustrate the dangers Black
still faces.
On a more general note, I recently
wrote
an
article
on
space
advantages,
and
during
the
preparation of it I was struck by
quite how often the exploitation of a
spatial plus is in fact facilitated by a
queen exchange. This is especially
noteworthy because it goes against
the basic rule of thumb about the
player with the advantage keeping
material on the board in such
situations. The key point seems to
be that the kind of spatial plus
which White has here, requiring an
expansion of the kingside pawns is
greatly hampered if there are
outstanding issues of king safety.
The queen exchange can assist in
this, no matter on which wing the
king is residing.
15 �xf2 .id6 16 .ic4 CLlf6 1 7
l:f.ad l ! ?
1 7 ... �c7
It is not clear to me that it was
entirely necessary for White to
present his opponent with this
opportunity to complicate the
struggle over again, but since he
did, I feel Black should probably
have tried 1 7 . . . CLlxg4+ ! ? 1 8 c;t>e2
.ltc5 1 9 l:.d2 (otherwise . . . CLle3)
19 . . . 0-0 20 h3 CLlf6 21 CLlxe5 .ltxf5 !
(De la Villa) 22 CLlxf7 .ltg6 with
approximate equality since White
lacks a really juicy discovered
check. Admittedly this is not so easy
to spot, but I nonetheless sometimes
get the feeling there is a kind of
'Hodgson
dividend'
whereby
Julian' s fearsome reputation in
complex
positions
encourages
opponents to try and keep things
simple when in fact the more
double-edged path offers better
chances of survival.
18 g5 ! ?
A striking decision. Rather than
trying to arrange a traditional pawn
storm with h4 and g5 etc, White
advances immediately to obtain a
quite superb knight on g5 .
1 8 . . . hxg5 19 CLlxg5 1:[fB 20 CLle2
.ltd7?
This is the most important missed
opportunity on the strategic front.
Black simply had to try to challenge
White ' s cramping f5 pawn with
20 . . . �e7 2 1 CZSg3 g6 ! when after 22
h4, White still has a nice position,
but not the easy, uncontested
domination he enjoys in the game.
After the passive text, Hodgson is
able to fix the Black g-pawn too,
and create another target for his
operations.
2 1 h4 c;t>e7 22 h5! .lte8 23 1:[d3
1:[h8 24 CLlg3 1:td8 25 l:f.b3 l:.b8 26
J:[d l 1:th6 27 �f3 CLlh7 28 c;t>g4
CLlxg5 29 �xg5 f6+ 30 �g4
1 86 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
Black's rather passive play has
left us with a model restriction of
the bishop pair. Moreover both
knight' s pawns still look like serious
targets. Shortly Black hastens the
end by accepting a thematic pawn
sacrifice which illustrates yet
another technique for combating the
bishop pair - the exchange of
bishops leaving the knight dominat­
ing the remaining bad bishop.
30 . . . .td7 3 1 .tn �hh8 32 �bd3
.l:.bd8 33 .te6! .txe6 ? ! 34 fxe6
�xd3 35 l::t x d3 �xe6 36 lbf5 �g8
37 .l:tb3 b6 38 .l:tc3 �d7 39 �h4 !
Black no longer has
the
appropriate forces to mount a
defence of his various weaknesses.
It is a nice irony that as soon as he is
able to advance his backward
g-pawn he resigns, for although a
weakness, this pawn was also
performing the crucial task of
holding his opponent' s passed
h-pawn !
39 ... g6 40 �g3 g5+ 4 1 �g4 �e6
42 lld3 1-0
Game 40
Wells Britton
British Rapidplay 2002
-
1 d4 lbf6 2 .tg5 e6 3 e4 h6 4
.txf6 'iYxf6 5 �d2 ! ?
5 . . . d6
Consideration of the special
implications of White ' s unusual
move order might seem to be
jumping ahead a bit, but it is not
hard to imagine that it is all about
avoiding 5 lbc3 .tb4 ! ?, the subject
of Games 42 and 4 3 . Here, Black
acquiesces in the transposition back
to main lines, but 5 �d2 does suffer
from a certain undeniable in­
flexibility, and therefore raises
special issues too. Black has various
ways to try to inject an independent
flavour into the proceedings :
a ) 5 . . . e5 6 dxe5 (or 6 lb c 3 .tb4 7
dxe5 which comes to the same
thing) 7 . . :i'xe5 7 lbc3 .tb4 8
lbge2 ! and now:
a l ) 8 . . . c6 is too risky. 9 0-0-0
0-0 1 0 �b l �d8 1 1 f4 Wile7 1 2 a3
.ta5 1 3 lbg3 d6 1 4 .li.e2 .tc7 1 5
�hfl b5? A blunder, but Black' s
position i s already very susceptible
to attack. 16 .li.xb5 ! cxb5 17 lbd5
�d7 1 8 Wilc3 .tb6 19 lbf5 f6 20
lbxb6 axb6 21 �xd6 1 -0 OIl-De
long, Wijk aan Zee (op) 1 997.
a2) 8 . . . d6 ! is much sounder. 9 f4
'iYf6 1 0 O-O-O ! ? 0-0 ( 1 0 . . . .tg4 - is
given by De la Villa, but I like 1 1 e5
dxe5 12 fxe5 'Wie7 1 3 'iWf4 ! and if
1 3 . . . .txe2 then 14 lbd5 ! ) 1 1 �b l ! ?
(threatening lbd5) 1 1 . . . lbd7 1 2 a3
.ta5 13 'Wid3 offers fairly balanced
chances, but I quite like this
treatment for White who has
reasonable hopes to create play on
the kingside.
b) 5 . . . c5 ! ? is a good candidate for
the move most likely to cause
trouble.
Such a direct attack on the centre
severely curtails White ' s options.
2 . . . e6 3 e4 1 8 7
b l ) 6 c 3 ? ! makes little sense.
After 6 . . . d5 ! Black achieves the
French structure which we shall see
is perhaps the most effective
antidote to the 5 c3 system (see
Games 44 and 45) only with the
addition of what here is a frankly
absurd position for the white queen.
b2) 6 e5 is therefore all but forced
when Black again has a choice:
b2 1 ) 6 . . J Wh4 ! ? is recommended
by De la Villa as a virtual refutation
of White ' s play on the basis of the
game Condie-Grant, Scottish (ch)
1 995. It is true that the move
effectively
obliges
White
to
sacrifice a pawn. However, after 7
lbf3 1IVe4+ 8 i.e2 cxd4 9 0-0 (9 c3
d3 ! offers no advantage) 9 . . . lbc6 1 0
i.d3 1IVg4 instead of 1 1 h3 ? ! White
could try 1 1 c3 ! ? dxc3 1 2 lbxc3
with quite promising play.
b22) After 6 . . .'i'd8, it would
seem slightly surprising if 7 d5 (7
dxc5 i.xc5 8 lbc3 d5 ! ? ) 7 . . . exd5
8 'i'xd5 were good for White, since
the queen has required 3 moves to
get to d5. Still Froehlich-Delchev,
Metz (op) 2002 showed that Black's
task should not be underestimated.
He got in quite a mess after 8 . . . lbc6
9 lbc3 d6 10 i.b5 lib6 ( 1 O .. :tic7
1 1 0-0-0 i.e6 12 i.xc6 ! + bxc6 1 3
lbb5 ! also looks dangerous) 1 1 exd6
i.e6 1 2 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 3 'iVe5 when
=
he felt moved to sacrifice a piece
with 1 3 . . . i.xd6 which should
certainly not be sufficient. The
critical try would seem to be
8 . . . 'i'b6 ! ? since if 9 lbd2 'iYxb2 1 0
.!:Ib l 'i'd4 I would b e sceptical as to
whether White has full value for the
pawn. This awaits further tests.
c) 5 . . . d5 ! ? is also well worth
considering, the rationale being that
against other attempts by Black to
reach French structures (e.g. 5 lbc3
�d8 ! ? and . . . d5) I have argued that
d2 is not always the optimal square
for the white queen. (See the note to
S . . .'i'd8 in Game 39 above) .
6 lbc3 a6
This has rather the appearance of
a waiting move, although Black can
sometimes have . . . b5 in mind.
Having said this, the by no means
minor list of victims of a quick lbbS
in these lines, along with those who
have found the i.bS pin an irritation
will well understand the motivation.
7 f4
As usual this and long castling is
the plan, the main issue is timing. In
contrast with the previous game,
6 . . . a6 carries no immediate ' threat' ,
and therefore White has a little more
time. Thus a case can be made for 7
O-O-O ! ? A few illustrations :
a) 7 . . . g5 in contrast with Game
4 1 , allows White time to get in 8 g3
and f4 . Of course this is playable
too, but I like White in such cases.
b) 7 . . . bS 8 e5 ! 'iWd8 9 i.d3 b4 1 0
lbe4 lbc6?! 1 1 lbf3 dS 1 2 lbg3 g6
1 3 lbe2 h5 14 h4 led to an unusually
pleasant looking French for White
in Romero Holmes - Zlotnik, Ceuta,
1 993 .
c) 7 . . . 'iie 7 8 f4 g6 9 lbf3 i.g7 1 0
i.d3 lbd7 i s one of several plausible
move orders to reach a position that
1 88 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
has occurred in a surprising number
of high level games.
All the discussion so far would
lead us to think that White should
have good chances by setting up the
dark square pawn wedge with 1 1 eS
(De la Villa describes this as the
' ideal formation ' ) 1 1 . . . dS and now
de la Villa suggests 1 2 h4 ! when
12 . . . cS 1 3 dxcS CDxcS 14 hS gS I S
fS ! indeed looks very grim for
Black. He must rather play 1 2 . . . hS,
when White can either set about
organising a timely g4, or even try
to create play with the pieces e.g. 1 3
CDgS ! ? c S 1 4 llde l ! ? when
14 . . . cxd4?! is probably already too
risky with the sacrifice I S CDxdS ! in
the air. Interestingly, a couple of
strong players have rather been
enticed by the murkier pleasures of
1 1 fS ! ? As a move in this position I
do not really think it can compete,
but to illustrate White ' s possibilities
in the position I think it is worth a
look. Pomes Marcet - B .Lali6,
Manresa, 1 995 continued 1 l . . . 0-0
( 1 1 . . . eS ? was ripped apart by 1 2
CDdS 'ilfd8 1 3 dxeS CDxeS 1 4 llhfl
c6 I S CDe3 0-0 1 6 CDxeS jtxeS 1 7
CDg4 1-0 i n Benjamin-Yermo linsky,
USA (ch) playoff 1 994. Ouch ! ) 1 2
g4 ! ? ( 1 2 lldfl looks more solid
since
the
text
has
serious
implications for the long white
diagonal, but I suppose 1 1 fS ! ? is
not the choice for a solid mood. In
any case, the speed and force of
White ' s no holds barred build-up in
the game is the feature of this that I
found instructive) 1 2 . . . bS 1 3 h4 cS
1 4 gS cxd4 IS CDe2 exfS 16 exfS
.ib7 1 7 f6 (the more restrained 1 7
llh3 ! ?
looks
reasonable too)
1 7 . . . CDxf6 1 8 gxf6 'ilfxf6 1 9 lldfl
llae8 and now sadly White
blundered with 20 CDfxd4 allowing
20 . . . llxe2 ! Instead with the rather
passive-looking 20 CDeg l followed
by llh2-f2 . White might have had
hopes of a successful reorganisation,
although I would not try to argue
that his advantage is easy to handle.
7 g5 ! ?
Striking back on the dark squares
before White can consolidate. While
it may look as if 6 . . . a6 is going to
find limited relevance in the ensuing
kings ide and centre dominated
contest (this is certainly how I
viewed it during the game) in fact
there is a lot to be said for thus
' striking while the iron is hot ' . This
is not least because in general once
the White king is safely tucked
away, g3 might be a very decent,
solid reply, bolstering the f-pawn,
but here 8 g3 ? would of course fail
to the disruptive 8 . . . gxf4 9 gxf4
'ilfh4+.
. . .
2 e6 3 e4 189
. . .
8 f5 ! ?
An interesting pawn sacrifice, and
a noteworthy and instructive idea,
which we have already encountered
in Game 3 9 . I have to take issue
though with those commentators
who give the impression that from
here on Black is in very hot water.
With correct play White has
undeniable compensation, but the
precise assessment is very much up
for grabs. What I would say,
however, is that if this sacrifice
should be found wanting, White
might have to go back and
re-consider 7 O-O-O ! ?, as other
moves here do not really impress
e.g. 8 'Dh3 gxf4 9 'Dxf4 h5 ! ? 1 0
.ic4 'Dc6 1 1 'Dce2 .ih6 where
White ' s position should be just OK
dynamically,
but
Black
has
sufficient counter-chances on the
dark squares.
8 . . . exf5? !
Simply too dangerous. It is
understandable that Black is afraid
of the consequences of his opponent
being
able
to
support
his
light-squared pawn wedge, and it is
far from obvious over the board that
acceptance of the gambit is better
timed once White has castled but in
fact 8 . . . .tg7 ! first is a great
improvement. The point is that after
9 0-0-0 (releasing the tension with 9
fxe6 fxe6 1 0 'Dge2 0-0 1 1 0-0-0
'Dc6 looks fine for Black)
acceptance of the pawn sacrifice
becomes a rather different ball game
since f6 square is covered, and the
black king has a flight square on fS .
Therefore 9 . . . exf5 ! ? 1 0 'Dd5 ? ! �d8
1 1 exf5 .ixf5 ! no longer looks like
full compensation although the 1 2
�e3+ .te6 1 3 'Dxc7+?? �xc7 1 4
d 5 .te5 ! 0- 1 o f P .Huber-Ksieski,
Schwaebisch Gmuend (op) 1 99 8
was hardly necessary either !
However, I think White, with a
little more restraint, can still get
very decent play. I would prefer 1 0
exf5 ! (Of course 1 0 e5 ! ? �d8 1 1
exd6 �xd6 1 2 J::t e l + �fS offers
some sort of compensation too, but I
am sceptical if it suffices since it
will also be necessary to keep an
eye on the d4 pawn) intending to
meet 1 0 . . . .txf5 with the positional
1 1 .td3 ! (threatening J::t fl ) and now
for example after 1 1 . . . .te6 ! 1 2
'Dge2 0-0 1 3 J::thfl �e7 1 4 d5 ! ?
.ic8 1 5 'Dg3 White clearly has
development and attacking chances
for the pawn, but I could not claim a
'clear advantage' here.
There is of course a very close
parallel with this in my analysis of
Alberto David' s pawn offer (see the
note to move 7 of Game 39). I
strongly suggest analysing these two
in conjunction.
9 'Dd5!
Now this is best. It is all about the
f6 square !
9 . . . �d8 1 0 exf5 c6!
The
best
fighting
chance.
1 0 . . . .txf5 1 1 �f2 ! is awful for
Black.
In
Akopian-Iljushkin,
Novgorod (op) 1 999, only another
ten moves were required to see him
off after 1 1 . . . c6 12 �xf5 cxd5 1 3
0-0-0 'Dc6 1 4 .td3 .te7 1 5 'De2
�d7 1 6 �f2 'Dd8 1 7 'Dc3 �c6 1 8
J::t de l 'De6 1 9 �f5 J::td 8 20 'Dxd5
�a4 2 1 J::tx e6 ! 1 -0.
1 l 'De3 !
The queen does not belong on the
e-file, and I rightly decided that 1 1
�e2+?! �d7 would only hinder my
own development.
1 1 . . . .tg7 12 0-0-0 'Dd7 13 h4 ! ?
I t i s important to ensure that the
kingside remains an uncongenial
1 90 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
territory In which to shelter the
king.
If Black
could
play
. ' . liJf6/ . . . dS and 0-0 without special
difficulty his position would be very
comfortable.
13 . . . gxh4 ? ! 14 liJf3 i.. f6 15 Wbl
J:tg8?
Even though I realise that it was
more on the grounds of keeping
files closed than out of misguided
materialism, I was a bit surprised by
my opponent' s pawn grab, since it
is difficult thereafter to develop his
remaining pieces. The text move
however, is a serious mistake.
Preventing liJg4 is a nice bonus, but
it should be well down Black ' s
check-list o f priorities.
1 6 liJc4 d5 17 �e1+ �f8 18
'ii'x h6+ J:.g7 1 9 liJd6 i.. e 7 20 .l:.xh4 !
A nice solution, although not too
difficult to spot. Black is completely
tied up.
20 . . . liJf6
Missing White ' s little combin­
ation, but it is too late to offer much
constructive advice.
2 1 liJxf7 ! <j;xf7 22 liJe5+ 1-0
If 22 . . <j;g8 23 1i'h8 is mate,
while 22 . . <j;f8 23 liJg6+ is also
quite brutal.
.
.
A fierce demonstration of White ' s
attacking possibilities if Black
somewhat mis-timed his compet­
ition for the dark squares.
Game 4 1
Shereshevsky - Kolev
Elenite 1 994
1 d4 liJf6 2 i.. g 5 e6 3 e4 h6 4
i..xf6 1i'xf6 5 liJc3 d6 6 1i'd2 g5
Perhaps the move with the most
pedigree in this position, the choice
of amongst others Karpov, Leko,
and Topalov. Whatever fun we may
have seen emanating from the
strategy of provoking the move f4
and then attacking it with . . . gS, a
decent proportion of the enjoyment
has always been White ' s and simply
preventing the advance of White' s
f-pawn
with
this
' extended
fianchetto ' bears the mark of
common sense. Of course, it is not
all roses. Here too competing for
dark squares involves weakening
some light ones - White can hope to
exploit the ' hole' on hS, and of
course, more often than not the
advance . . . e6-eS is now ruled out if
only
on
aesthetic
grounds.
Moreover, White can try to target
gS itself, as his next move
illustrates.
2 e6 3 e4 1 91
. . .
Nonetheless, in my view this is
clearly the right way to fianchetto.
6 . . . g6? ! holds out little better
prospect than the kind of thankless
task for Black which we saw in
Note ' c ' to White' s 7th move in
Game 40 above.
7 h4 ! ?
An interesting addition t o White ' s
arsenal . The idea o f 0-0-0 and h4
has long been familiar, but the
immediate pressuring of g5 does
contain some independent features.
White has a number of quite
contrasting strategies at this juncture
though and I shall try to deal
thoroughly with the more promising
of them:
a) 7 0-0-0 has long been the main
line but White' s strategy only really
becomes defined with the further
parting of the ways after 7 . . . �g7 :
a 1 ) 8 e5 has already been
chapter
the
in
considered
introduction. The problem of course
is the difficulty of supporting this
pawn with f4 such a contested
square. In addition to Karpov ' s
sophisticated recipe, Black can even
try 8 . . . dxe5 9 dxe5 'iUf4 ! ? 1 0 �xf4
gxf4 1 1 t2Jf3 �d7 1 2 �b5 a6 1 3
�xd7+ t2Jxd7 1 4 l:the 1 l:i.g8 1 5 lId4
�h8 1 6 g3 fxg3 1 7 hxg3 rj;; e 7 with
full equality in Mamedyarov­
Jobava, European (ch) Batumi 2002.
Further evidence that this is a little
too committal for White. The e4-e5
advance remains an aspiration, but
requires more careful preparation.
a2) 8 g3 ! ? This is as much
designed to support the advance of
the f-pawn as it is to prepare a
fianchetto. This might well be the
other critical line, and has been
Hodgson' s choice both times that he
was confronted by this position.
Still, Black' s reply 8 . . . t2Jc6 ! hits the
nail on the head by targeting d4 and
now:
a2 1 ) 9 t2Jb5 'iUd8 (After 9 . . . 0-0 ! ?
decided
understandably
Julian
against 1 0 t2Jxc7 Mb8 when 1 1 t2Jb5
a6 1 2 t2Jxd6 t2Jxd4 would give
Black some serious play on the dark
squares. However, his 1 0 f4 ! ? in
Winnipeg
Hodgson-Vukadinov,
another
revealed
1 997
(op)
dimension of White ' s strategy. The
sensible 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 e5 "fiIe7 1 2 t2Jc3
would give White fair attacking
chances - castling short is a mixed
blessing with such a structure) 1 0
d5 ! ? (This always involves a degree
of risk given White ' s vulnerability
on the dark squares in general, and
his king sitting at the end of the long
diagonal. It is possible of course to
play 1 0 c3 ! ? in the style of Adams '
idea in note ' c ' ) 1 0 . . . exd5 ! 1 1 exd5
Garcia
was
�g2
12
t2Je7
Paolicchi-David, Linares (zt) 1 995
when I quite like simply 1 2 . . . .ltd7 ! ?
for Black.
a22) 9 .ltb5 ! ? I prefer this.
9 . . . .ltd7 (De la Villa has praise for
9 . . . 0-0 ! ? 1 0 �xc6 bxc6 1 1 f4 c5 ! ?
and Black could well be first with
the serious hits in the battle of
opposite side castling, although 1 2
dxc5 ! ? i s not clear at all. However, I
do not really see an objection to 1 0
1 92 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
liJge2 ! ? and 1 1 f4) 1 0 liJge2 a6
( 1 0 . . . �xf2? is asking for trouble.
1 1 lldfl 'YWg2 12 h4 ! takes away the
queen ' s last flight square and
threatens for example 'YWe3/�fg l , or
�e l lJ:i.f2) 1 1 iLxc6 .ixc6 12 f4
0-0-0
1 3 �e3 ! ? ( 1 3 .l:!hfl �e7 ! ?)
1 3 . . . �b8 1 4 J:i.hfl ( 1 4 �b l ! ? looks
worth considering as leaving the
rook on the h-file brings h-pawn
moves into consideration. If White
wants to encourage Black to capture
on f4, then h2-h4 can be a useful
lever) 14 . . . 'iWg6 (again I suspect
that 14 . . . �e7 ! is stronger, with a
tense equilibrium. Either side will
be punished here for premature
action - Black risks weakening
squares for his opponent' s knights,
while White must weigh the
consequences of any advance in the
centre for opening either the g7-b2
diagonal, or the d-file) and now
maybe I S g4 ! ? intending to meet
I S . . . hS with 1 6 fS and I slightly
prefer White in this very finely
balanced contest.
b) 7 .ic4 ! ? was a quite original
take on the position which was
essayed in Anand-Karpov, World
(ch final k.o) Lausanne, 1 998 and
which Anand attributes to Yusupov
who was on his team for the match.
It is actually a precursor of rather
sharp play, since in all probability
the players will castle on opposite
sides .
In the game White got fair
attacking prospects after 7 . . . liJc6 8
liJge2 i.g7 9 J:i.d l i.d7 1 0 0-0
0-0-0 1 1 liJbS a6 1 2 liJa3 g4 1 3 f4
gxf3 1 4 J:i.xf3 'iWe7 I S c3 hS 1 6
l1dfl lIdfS 1 7 b4 liJ a7 1 8 liJc2 .
However, the manoeuvre liJbS-a3 ,
which we shall revisit in ' c ' below,
while necessary here to provoke a
target for White ' s
queenside
operations feels somehow more
suited to a slower positional struggle
rather than the kind of attacking
contest that has an element of a race
about it. Indeed the view now is that
Black can strike back a little more
directly with 1 2 . . . 'YWg6 1 3 J.. d 3 fS ! ?
( 1 3 . . . liJxd4 ? ! 1 4 liJxd4 J.. xd4 I S
J.. x a6 ! ) 1 4 exfS exfS I S c 3 d S 1 6 b4
'iWd6 as in Sarthou-Marciano,
Montpellier (op), 200 1 . White
should try 1 7 bS ! ? liJa7 1 8 'iVb2 as !
which looks like a sharp position
with well balanced chances.
c) 7 g3 ! ? J.. g 7 8 liJbS 1i'd8 9 c3 a6
1 0 liJa3 is a much more positionally
motivated idea, and rather typical of
the very pragmatic Michael Adams.
I suppose the argument would be in
effect that S liJc3 has done its job by
2 e6 3 e4 1 93
. . .
provoking the weakening 6 . . . g5,
and that this justifies expending
some time to bolster up the dark
squares. The idea worked rather
well in its debut Adams-Leko,
European (ch) Rapid, Cap d'Agde,
1 996 when after 10 . . . b6 1 1 i.g2
i.b7 12 lDc2 lDd7 13 lDe3 'fie7 1 4
lDe2 0-0-0 1 5 0-0-0 'it'b8 1 6 'it'b l
lDf6 1 7 �c2 h5 1 8 e5 liJd5 1 9
i.xd5 i.xd5 2 0 liJxd5 exd5 2 1 f4
White had the much pleasanter
position. However, not only does
the whole thing suit Mickey' s style
perfectly, I also have the feeling that
Leko ' s reaction did not take the play
onto the right kind of battle ground
either. Maybe it was possible to play
instead 8 . . . �e7 9 c3 and now either
9 . . . c6 1 0 liJa3 d5 1 1 e5 f6 ! ? or even
9 . . . a6 1 0 liJa3 f5 ! ? Whatever the
answer, White' s position remains
solid, and it seems Adams '
sophisticated solution is here to stay
as a reliable option.
7 . . . i.g7 8 hxg5 hxg5
If 8 . . . �xd4, simply 9 'fixd4
i.xd4 1 0 liJb5 ! is embarrassing.
9 lhh8+ i.xh8
shocking 1 0 liJD ! ? does indeed look
by far the most interesting of
various bids for a quick knockout.
The point is to answer 1 0 . . . g4 with
1 1 e5 ! after which White won a
super game in Schlenker-Pfrommer,
Waldshut 2002 following 1 1 . . . 'fig7
1 2 liJg5 dxe5 1 3 d5 ! f6? ! (Weak,
but nothing else looks much good
either for example 1 3 . . . 'iWh6 1 4
dxe6 i.xe6 1 5 liJd5 with strong
threats. From time to time it is
handy not yet to have castled
queenside in this line ! ) 14 i.b5+ ! ?
c 6 1 5 liJxe6 i.xe6 1 6 dxe6 cxb5 1 7
liJxb5 liJc6 1 8 'ikd6 .l:tc8 1 9 lId l
liJd4 20 liJxd4 exd4 2 1 .l:txd4 :a8
22 l:hg4 ! although I think it is true
that the more prosaic 1 4 liJxe6 was
also strong. It was 1 1 . . . 'ile7 which I
had expected to leave White rather
loose, but after 1 2 liJb5 ! , I cannot
now see any way to prove this for
example 1 2 . . . gxD 1 3 'iWh6 i.xe5 !
1 4 dxe5 d5 1 5 0-0-0 (but not 1 5
�h8+ �d7 since the resource
. . . �g5
is
likely
to
prove
embarrassing at some level) 1 5 . . . a6
1 6 liJd4 ( 1 6 liJc3 liJc6 looks about
equal) 1 6 . . . fxg2 1 7 i.xg2 and
White
has
quite
dangerous
compensation, indeed if 1 7 . . . c5
White already has the option to
force a draw with 1 8 liJf5 ! ? exf5 1 9
i.xd5 lDd7 2 0 i.xf7+, but may well
play for more with 1 8 liJf3 ! ?
Black can of course try to avoid
these complications, but both
1 0 . . . a6 1 1 e5 dxe5 1 2 liJxe5 ! ? and
perhaps more surprisingly 1 0 . . . liJc6
1 1 liJb5 �e7 12 'fixg5 'fixg5 1 3
liJxg5 liJxd4 1 4 liJxc7+ �d7 1 5 c3 !
look quite promising for White.
1 0 liJc6
As usual Black can alternatively
take precautions against the pin, but
1 0 . . . i.d7 1 1 liJf3 liJc6 1 2 d5 ! liJb4
1 3 i.c4 b5 1 4 e5 ! (An unusual
. . .
10 0-0-0
Clearly the main line. However,
whilst I started out deeply sceptical,
I have to admit that the rather
1 94 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
example of the dual advance of the
centre pawns) 1 4 . . . �f4 1 5 �xf4
gxf4 1 6 lLlxb5 iLxb5 1 7 iLxb5+
�e7 18 dxe6 fXe6 19 exd6+ cxd6
20 c3 was very good for White in
Lputian-Tukmakov, Tilburg (blitz)
1 994.
11 i.b5 ! ?
This looks more dependable than
1 1 lLlf3, another attempt to blast
Black from the board, but one
which wobbles a little on closer
examination. Tsesarsky in his notes
for ChessBase Magazine was
understandably unhappy with the
position he obtained as Black after
1 1 . . .�f4 1 2 �xf4 gxf4 1 3 i.b5
iLd7 14 lLle2 e5 1 5 l:!.h l 0-0-0 1 6
d5 'De7 1 7 iLxd7+ �xd7 in
Chemiak
Tyomkin-Tsesarsky,
(mem), Ramat Aviv 2000, when I
agree with him that 1 8 g3 ! (and if
1 8 . . . f5 19 c4 ! fxe4 20 'Dg5 with
advantage) would have been the
most convincing route to emphasise
White ' s superiority on the light
squares. However, he says that he
could not make the more natural
1 1 . . . g4( ! ) work, but in contrast with
the analogous note to move 1 0
above, I am less convinced by
White ' s attack here after 1 2 lLlb5
�e7 !
1 3 �h6 ! (Better than
Tsesarsky ' s
recommended
13
'Dh2 ? ! a6 1 4 �h6? iLf6 1 5 'Dxc7+
when I hardly see a way to even
struggle on after the simple
15 . . . 'it>d8 ! ) 13 . . . i.f6 when I think
he should bail out with a draw by
means of 14 e5 dxe5 1 5 dxe5 'Dxe5
16 'Dxc7+ ! "V/iix c7 17 �xf6 gxf3 1 8
iLb5+ i.d7 1 9 "V/iih 8+ �e7 20 �h4+
etc. and Black cannot escape the
checks at an acceptable price.
1 1 . . .i.d7 1 2 'Dge2 0-0-0 13 "iHe3
�b8 14 f3
The rather forcing nature of the
further course of the game
encourages the thought that maybe
the immediate 1 4 g4 ! ? could have
been considered here.
1 4 . . . iLg7 1 5 g4 ! ?
An interesting twist. Rather than
the g3/f4 formation which we saw
in note ' a ' to White ' s move 7, in
which the aim was to time
appropriately an opening of the
position, here White hopes to pursue
a traditional, thematic light-square
strategy by keeping the position
rather closed, and trying to direct a
knight to the weakened square h5 .
The idea demands an energetic
response to maintain the balance,
and is an important addition to
White' s armoury.
15 . . . l:!.h8 16 'Dg3 "iHf4 ! 17 "V/iixf4
gxf4 1 8 iLxc6
2 e6 3 e4 1 95
. . .
1 8 fxg3 !
An important tactical resource.
Permitting White to fulfil his plan
with 1 8 . . . .1i.xc6 1 9 ttJh5 would be
rather unpleasant to defend since the
bishops really lack perspective.
1 9 .1i.xd7 .1i.h6+ 20 'ioti>bl .te3 2 1
ttJe2 g 2 2 2 .1i.a4 ? !
This leads t o a forced draw, a s the
g-pawn costs White precisely his
extra piece. It was possible at least
to try 22 c3 ! ? preparing 'ioti>c2, since
22 . . . c6 can be answered by 23 d5
and the bishop lives to fight another
day. However, whether this would
be enough to seriously trouble
Black is doubtful.
22 . . . .1i.xd4 23 c3 .1i.e3 24 'iit c 2
. . .
YZ-YZ
(Non-Repertoire Mainly For Illustration)
Game 42
Hodgson - Rowson
Vikings, York 2000
1 d4 ttJf6 2 .1i.g5 e6 3 e4 h6 4
.txf6 'iVxf6 5 ttJc3 .1i.b4 ! ?
A s far a s I can see i t i s this pin
which has caused a certain crisis of
confidence in 5 ttJc3 in recent times.
This game I am discussing is by no
means for imitation by White. Quite
the contrary, it is a fairly clean
example of Black' s model strategy
in action. Rather it can be seen as a
starting point for deciding whether
5 . . . .1i.b4 can be tackled, or whether
it must be somehow avoided.
6 'i¥d2 c5!
This is the real challenge. White
must react at once to the threat to
take on d4.
However the more modest
6 . . . d6 ! ? is not without point either.
Examples of White trying to blast
this away (for example with 7 a3
.1i.a5 8 f4? ! which allows 8 . . . .1i.xc3 !
9 bxc3 e5 ! and an early dose of
embarrassment for the attacker, and
one of several such motifs where the
possibility of . . . 'i¥h4+ plays a maj or
role) lead me towards the belief that
a more modest approach is in order.
After 7 a3 .1i.a5 ! ? (7 . . . .1i.xc3 8 'iDxc3
ttJc6 9 ttJf3 0-0 1 0 .1i.d3 'iDe7 1 1 e5 !
f6 1 2 exd6 cxd6 1 3 0-0 f5 1 4 Itae 1
'iVf6 1 5 b4 a6 1 6 a4 l:.d8 1 7 b5 axb5
1 8 axb5 ttJe7 1 9 l:Ia l ttJd5 20 'iVb3
gave White a pleasant initiative in
Gelfand-Rozentalis, Tilburg (rapid),
1 992. This should generally be the
case after the exchange as long as
White
successfully
anticipates
Black's intention to find a painless
moment to play . . . e5 himself)
White should probably settle for
either:
a) 8 ttJge2 c6 ! ? (I prefer this to
8 . . . e5 9 b4 .1i.b6 1 0 ttJd5 'iDd8 1 1
lId 1 exd4 1 2 ttJxd4 0-0 1 3 .1i.e2
l:Ie8 when although sceptical of the
pawn offer played in the game with
14 0-0 lIxe4 1 5 ttJb5 Romero
Holmes - Van Beek, Sonnevanck
1 96 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
1 998, I quite like White ' s spatial
pull after simply 14 'i!Vf4 ! ?) 9 b4
�c7 ? ! (9 . . . �b6 ! looks more active,
and 1 0 e5 dxe5 1 1 �e4 'i!Ve7 1 2
dxe5 0-0 should b e nothing to fear
particularly) 1 0 a4 O-O?! ( 1 0 . . . a5 ! ?
looks better, to win some dark
squares in exchange for White ' s
coming light-square superiority in
the centre) 1 1 a5 e5 1 2 d5 �d7 1 3
�g3 'i!Vg5 1 4 �xg5 hxg5 1 5 dxc6
bxc6 16 b5 with another model
demonstration of containing the
bishop pair by ensuring that the
light squares are the crucial battle
ground. Knaak-Enders, Bundesliga
1 99 8 .
b ) 8 �f3 ! ? a modest development
which I have not tended to endorse
elsewhere, but which with the
bishop on a5 gains considerably in
force. 8 . . . �d7 9 �e2 0-0 1 0 0-0
c6 1 1 b4 �c7 (Nothing is gained by
1 1 . . . �b6 here as 12 �a4 �c7 1 3
c4 fits in fine with White ' s plans) 1 2
.:Ife l e 5 1 3 d5 c 5 1 4 �a4 g 5 1 5
'it'd3 ! ? �b6 1 6 �b2 �g6 1 7 bxc5
dxc5 1 8 'ii'e 3 f5 Soffer-Rapoport,
Rishon Le Zion 1 997, and now 1 9
�c4 ! ? looks promising for White.
This could well be White ' s best, and
also seems to be broadly applicable
in the analogous case after 6 'ilVd3 ! ?
Position after 6 c5
. . .
7 a3
Securing the return of the bishop
pair, but only at the cost of some
structural damage. It is difficult to
avoid the recognition that this must
rather go against the grain for a
Trompowsky player. Still, the
doubled c-pawns are not in
themselves disastrous news. If
White could organise a central break
with f4/�f3 and e5 then his
light-squared bishop would have
promising scope and his kings ide
prospects would represent very
reasonable compensation. It is rather
the fact that Black appears to be
able to set up a blockade on the
dark
central
squares
in
'Nimzo-Indian-like ' fashion which
is really off-putting from the White
side.
Alternatives? Well I shall briefly
consider two, but the first though
clearly
not
refuted
looks
intrinsically a little unlikely, while
the second seems to have such a
clearly definable flaw, that the
attempt to overcome this has been
the inspiration for the refinement in
White ' s set-up which I shall
examine in Game 4 3 .
a ) 7 dxc5 ! ? might actually b e the
best move in the position.
2 e6 3 e4 1 9 7
. . .
Black
has
two
reasonable
approaches - to try and show that
the ' opening up ' of the dark squares
is to his advantage, or to give up a
pawn to shatter White ' s structure.
The evidence to some extent
sanctions the latter course:
al) 7 . Ji'Jc6 8 f4 g5 ! ? 9 ctJge2
gxf4 10 ctJxf4 1I.. x c5 1 1 1I.. e 2 was
Kurajica-Razuvaev, Zaragoza (op)
1 996, and a very unbalanced
position which is hard to assess, not
aided either by the fact that the
record of the game seems to be
faulty. I think White ' s attacking
chances should probably compen­
sate for Black' s superiority on the
dark squares. It is not too clear what
Black should play either. He would
like to keep . . . 11..b 4 in reserve as an
answer to 0-0-0, but would fear
short castling if he plays it
IS
immediately.
1 1 . . . i.. d4
interesting, intending to meet 1 2
:If! with 1 2 . . . i.. x c3 ! ( 1 2 . . . 'Yi'h4+? !
J 3 g3 'Yi'xh2 1 4 ctJh5 ! ) 1 3 bxc3
'Yi'g5 !
with
good
defensive
prospects . However, 12 ctJb5 ! ?
i.. xb2 l 3 :Id l i.. e 5 1 4 0-0 looks a
better bet to keep maxImum
dynamic chances .
a2) 7 . . . 0-0 ! ? 8 f4 i..x c3 9 bxc3 b6
(9 . . . e5 ! ? might be worth consider­
ing too) 1 0 cxb6 axb6 1 1 ctJf3 ( 1 1
i.. d 3 1I..b 7 1 2 ctJe2 ! ?) 1 1 . . . i..b 7 1 2
1I.. d3 :Ia4 1 3 0--0 1I..x e4 1 4 ctJe5
'Yi'e7 1 5 c4 and now perhaps the
simple
1 5 . . . 1I..b 7 ! ?
was
an
interesting alternative to 1 5 . . . d6 1 6
ctJg4 d5 although in any case I think
Black is doing fine. Schlindwein­
Lutz, Bundesliga 2000.
b) 7 e5?! is to my mind the way
White would wish to play, and looks
promising if (but sadly only if)
Black answers too routinely. Indeed
it has been tried in a handful of
games and Black has in general
been rather compliant. De la Villa
also examines the move, but
suggests 7 . . . 'Yi'd8 ? ! which to me
seems quite OK for White. The
problem rather is very concrete. If
Black finds the slightly awkward­
looking, but very effective 7 . . . 'iWf5 !
there seems to be no way for White
to prevent serious damage to his
centre e.g. 8 ctJf3 (Insipid, but
probably less harmful than 8 a3
cxd4 9 axb4 dxc3 10 'Yi'xc3 ctJc6 1 1
ctJf3 'Yi'e4+ 1 2 i.. e 2 'Yi'xb4 l 3 'Yi'xb4
ctJxb4 when there is very little to
show for the pawn. By the way,
Fritz 7 finds the White position here
satisfactory, final proof for me that
caution
should
be
exercised
regarding his judgement of pawn
sacrifices. He tends to let his
optimism run away with him ! ; or 8
1I.. d 3 'Yi' g4 ! ; or 8 f4? cxd4 9 'Yi'xd4
ctJc6 1 0 'Yi'd2 g5 ! and in all cases
Black is clearly better) 8 . . . cxd4 9
'Yi'xd4 ctJc6 1 0 'Yi'd3 'Yi'xd3 1 1 i..x d3
and Black can choose between
1 1 . . . i.. x c3+ or even 1 1 . . . f6 as
routes to a slight plus.
Awareness of this irritating hitch
will help to explain the otherwise
rather perverse-looking 6 'Yi'd3 ! ? of
Game 4 3 .
7
. . .
i.. xc3 !
1 98 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
This is the structure which best
hinders
dynamic
White ' s
possibilities . 7 . . . cxd4 ? ! 8 axb4 dxc3
9 bxc3 0-0 10 ttJf3 ttJc6 1 1 b5 ttJe5
12 ttJxe5 'i¥xe5 1 3 'i¥d4 ! was good
for White in Hodgson-Pritchett,
European Club Cup, London 1 996.
8 bxe3 d6
had reached this unpromlsmg
position. 13 . . . b6 14 Ji.c4 Ji.g4 Yl-Yl
Hodgson - De Firmian, Donner
(mem) Amsterdam 1 996 also sums
up quite well the potential in
White ' s game. I suspect Jonathan
was already playing for more.
14 'iVxe5 };tfe8!
9 ttJf3
Given the ease with which Black
is able to block his opponent' s play
in the centre after this, it is no
surprise that 9 f4 has also been tried.
As usual White would be fine if he
could advance his e-pawn to e5, but
as again seems customary in this
variation, he does not get the
chance. Indeed 9 . . . e5 1 0 Ji.b5+
Ji.d7 1 1 Ji.xd7+ ttJxd7 12 ttJe2
'ili'h4+ 13 g3 'i¥e7 14 fxe5 dxe5 1 5
d5 ttJb6 1 6 a4 0-0 1 7 0-0 c4 1 8
'iit g 2 'i¥d7 1 9 a5 ttJc8 2 0 ttJg l ttJd6
Schirbel-Rowson, Bundesliga 200 1
was pretty much a model for
everything White should avoid
positionally. It is true that 1 1 l:tb l !
is a considerable improvement, but
still 1 1 . . . exd4 ! 1 2 cxd4 cxd4 1 3
ttJ f3 ttJc6 1 4 0-0 0-0 does not look
very exciting for White.
9 . . . 0-0 1 0 Ji.e2 ttJe6 1 1 0-0 e5
1 2 dxe5 dxe5 13 'i¥e3 Ji.g4 ! ?
Perhaps surprisingly, this was
actually the second time that Julian
1 5 'iVe3 'iVf4 ! ?
A good solution for ensuring that
Black can still press with minimum
risk. Black adds the e5 square to his
assets, and ensures that he will make
the ' right' exchange, leaving his
promising knight against a rather
restricted bishop.
1 6 'i'xf4 exf4 1 7 .l:tabl Ji.xf3 1 8
gxf3 b 6 1 9 ltb5 ttJe7 ? !
I d o not fully understand this.
Jonathan must have had his reasons
for rej ecting the natural 1 9 . . . ttJa5 ! ?,
but I cannot work out what they
were. In any case, from our
standpoint the message is clear.
White is on the defensive, and the
variation from 7 a3 onwards at least
has no place in the repertoire.
20 e4 l:te7 2 1 l::[ d l .l:i.ae8 22 a4
'iit fS 23 'it;g2 g6 24 ktd6 Yl-Yl
White has covered his key
weaknesses, and his rooks are active
enough to hold the balance.
2 e6 3 e4 1 99
. . .
Game 43
Wells - Seel
Hastings Challengers 2003
1 d4 tLif6 2 �g5 e6 3 e4 h6 4
�xf6 jyxf6 5 tLic3 �b4 6 jyd3 ! ?
W e are s o used t o employing the
queen to wield whatever influence
she can manage over the dark
squares that this move makes a very
odd impression. Concretely, it also
blocks the fl bishop and fails to
customary
defend
the
£2 ,
preparation for castling long here.
To make a case for it, there certainly
need to be major plus points ! I am
coming to believe more and more
strongly that there are. The two
main ideas are:
i) Covering the f5 square in
readiness for playing 7 e5 ! in
response to 6 . . . c5 . This is a very
specific argument, and I refer you to
7th move notes in this and the
previous game for details.
ii) Leaving the knight ' less
pinned ' ! Yes, a strange concept
maybe, but White now only needs
to play 0-0-0 and the knight can be
on its way again. Again, this will be
seen to play a key role in the game.
In addition another point:
iii) The claim the queen may head
for g3 on occasion is rather l ess
proven, but not totally implausible.
6 ... c5
Continuing in the same vein as he
would have against 6 jyd2 .
However, whilst the jury is still very
much out in what follows, there is a
prima facie case for suggesting that
with ' normal play' d3 might be a
less convenient square than d2, and
therefore that alternative moves
might come into their own here.
6 . . . d6 is the most obvious of these.
However, I suggest that White
should play quietly with 7 a3 ..lia5 8
tLif3 as in note ' b ' to Black' s 6th
move in Game 42, and in this case,
it is even possible that d3 has
advantages (Indeed, White actually
played jyd2-d3 on move 1 5 there ! ) .
7 e5 !
Good or bad, the fact that having
the f5 square covered enables this
move is one half of what 6 jyd3 is
all about.
7 . . . jye7
Looks natural, but since Black has
to reckon with a quick a2-a3 , there
might be a case for d8 as a square,
preparing to meet such a challenge
to the bishop with the irritating pin
. . . jya5 . In the case of 7 . . . jyd8 ! ?
however, White has an extra option
too in 8 dxc5 ! which is almost
certainly best. There is no practical
experience here, but I would be
happy to play White after for
example 8 . . . jya5 9 tLige2 tLic6 ! 1 0
f4 ..lixc5 1 1 0-0-0 and now
1 1 . . . tLib4 is simply met with 1 2
JYc4 while against others, there are
tLie4 and �g3 to come with a
promising attacking position.
200 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
8 0-0-0 ? !
Not very well thought through. I
had got as far as realising that the
pin must be broken, and that Black
probably should capture on c3
' uninvited ' after the text, and
therefore it seemed like it must be
the right move, gaining the better
part of a tempo over 8 a3 ! ? What I
had failed to appreciate is that
useful though 8 0-0-0 is in general
terms, the specifics of having the
king on c l will work to Black' s
favour i n a moment, and that this
probably overrides the tempo gain.
In other words, 8 a3 ! ? �xc3+
(8 . . . .taS ? ! 9 0-0-0 �xc3 [9 . . cxd4
1 0 ltJe4 0-0 1 1 'ifg3 ! ? ltJc6 1 2 ltJf3
�b6 1 3 �d3 also looks quite
promising for White] 1 0 iVxc3 ltJc6
1 1 dS ! - enabled by the coverage
which a3 affords the b4 square - is
better for White too) 9 'ifxc3 seems
rather more awkward for Black,
who is all but forced to play 9 . . . b6.
8 ... .txc3
It is quite striking that the threat
of ltJbS is strong enough to induce
this exchange, and quite a feather in
6 'iYd3 ' s cap in general terms.
The point is that 8 . . . cxd4 is very
dubious in view of 9 ltJbS 'iV gS+ 1 0
'ottb 1 'iVxeS 1 1 ltJf3 'iVcs 1 2 a3
.
winning a piece for clearly
insufficient compensation.
9 iVxc3 ltJc6! 10 dxc5
It is no longer really an option to
play 10 dS in view of 10 . . . exdS 1 1
IhdS ltJb4 !
1 0 . . . iVg5+ 1 1 �bl 'ifxe5 1 2
ltJe2 ! ?
Making the best o f it, but already
I felt that any endgame advantage
would be minimal .
1 2 . . . b6! 13 cxb6 axb6 1 4 f4
14 ... 'i'a5 ? !
Quite a momentous decision
which my opponent made very
quickly. Of course, the actual
theoretical assessment of the hugely
double-edged text move would
probably lie somewhere deep in the
notes to Black's 1 8th. What is not in
question is that such moments when
the character of the play can swing
from dullish ending to extremely
sharp tense middle game occur just
once or twice at the most in the
game and usually merit careful
consideration. I must say I was
delighted
by
my
opponent' s
bravery.
An analysis of 1 4 . . . 'iVxc3 ! largely
bears out this emotion. After I S
ltJxc3 �e7 1 6 .tb5 .ta6 ! 1 7 �xa6
2 . . . e6 3 e 4 201
Iha6 1 8 'uhe 1 l:i.d8 1 9 f5 I think
there is enough pressure on the
Black position to prevent him even
really considering the exploitation
his slight structural plus (the extra
centre pawn). However, I think it is
very hard to increase this from
irritation into something more
tangible.
1 5 'iWxg7! 'iWxa2+ 16 <;t;?c1 %:tf8 17
ttJc3 ! 'iWa1+ 1 8 'it>d2 'iWxb2?
Black continues to underestimate
his opponent' s attacking resources.
It was necessary to play 18 . . . 'iWa5 !
1 9 .i.d3 and now maybe 1 9 . . . 'i!¥b4
(directed against 20 l:i.a l , since
' winning' two rooks for the queen
could entail serious risks for the
defence) 20 g3 i.b7 and Black
seems to be OK.
1 9 l:i.bl 'iWa3 20 ttJb5 'iWa5+ 2 1
'it>dl 'iII a 2 2 2 <;t;?c1 l:i.a4 2 3 f5 !
It is not so much that White had
some great array of attacking ideas,
so much as that this one main idea is
very hard to meet. Opening the
e-file is out of the question, and
otherwise the arrival of the pawn on
f6 portends serious danger. Black
decides to sacrifice a piece,
probably a wise practical decision,
especially with my clock starting to
play an unwelcome role.
23 ttJd4 ! ?
Not 23 . . . ttJb4 2 4 l:i.xb4 ! .l::t.xb4 2 5
ttJd6+ rtle7 26 f6+ �xd6 2 7 'iIIx f8+
and wins.
24 ttJxd4 'iVa3+ 25 'it>d2 'iWd6 26
'it>e3 ! f6 27 ttJf3!
The advanced White king is
strangely safe after this, and Black
could find nothing better than to
drive it back again.
27 . . . 'iWc5+ 28 'it>d2 'iWa5+ 29 'it>cl
.l::t. a l 30 ..td3 'iWa2 ? !
This makes it easy, since by
returning material White in tum gets
a decisive attack. Still, any
improvement would already be at
best in the realm of seeking
practical swindling prospects.
3 1 l:i.xal 'iWxa1+ 32 �d2 'iWxhl
33 fxe6 dxe6
Or 33 . . . f5 34 i.b5 . Black ' s
decision t o play o n here should be
something of an embarrassment to
the Hastings Tourist Board.
34 .i.b5+ 'it>d8 35 'iWxf8+ 'it>c7 36
'iVe7+ 'it>b8 37 'iWd6+ 'it>a8 38 i.c6+
i.b7 39 'iWd8+ 'it>a7 40 'iWc7 'iVxg2+
41 �c3 1-O
Game 44
Hodgson - Rowson
Oxford 1 998
1 d4 ttJf6 2 ..tg5 e6 3 e4 h6 4
..txf6 'iIIxf6 5 c3 ! ?
. •.
I suppose i t was just a logical
matter of evolution. As White
became disillusioned with the pin
5 . . . i.b4 against 5 ttJc3 (for I am
sure it was this rather than Games
3 9-4 1 which was the area of
discontent) and as the lack of punch
inherent in 5 ttJf3 became more
overt, so White sought a system
202 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
which kept both his c and f-pawns
flexible. Keep those knights at home
- they only block your pawns up !
With the move S c3, which made its
very first appearance as late as
1 994, White seeks to bolster the
d-pawn (at times a vulnerable spot
in the systems with S lbc3 as we
have seen) and prepare to develop
with i.d3/lbe2/0-0/f4 etc. In this
game White is able to implement
that full plan, and though there was
no unanimous verdict that this
necessarily
suffices
for
an
advantage, I am increasingly of the
view that I would play White every
time here if I thought I would be
allowed this set-up.
S d6
Once the almost automatic reply,
there is now a clear and probably
justified movement towards S . . . dS ! ?
- see Game 4 S . Another alternative
is S . . . cS but White is solid enough
on the dark squares to be able to
make a slight concession there in
the interests of trying to hamper
Black's free development. With 6
lbf3 lbc6 7 dS ! lbeS 8 i.e2 lbxf3+
9 i.xf3 White should be a little
better although Black' s eccentric­
looking strategy in V.Milov­
Macieja, European (ch), Batumi
2002, 9 . . . eS 1 0 a4 g6 I 1 lba3 d6 1 2
i.e2 h S 1 3 i.bS+ rj;; e 7 1 4 a s 'it'h4
I S 'it'e2 fS is worthy of attention,
since it is not so easy for White to
find targets to attack.
6 i.d3 g6
An indication that Black is not
afraid of White 's planned build-up.
However, there is an interesting
alternative which seeks to disrupt
White' s plans in 6 . . . 'iWgS ! ? White
has two plausible tries :
. . .
a) 7 g3 represents to my mind a
moderately serious concession. In
Karttunen-Relange, European Club
Cup, Halkidiki 2002 after 7 . . . eS 8
lbd2 g6 9 lbe2 i.g7 1 0 f4 'WIe7 1 1
0-0 i.h3 1 2 1:.£2 lbd7 a position
was reached comparable with those
seen in the discussion of 6 . . . eS
below, with the exception that the
inclusion of . . . i.h3 and .l:t£2 seems
to create difficulties for White' s
smooth organisation.
b) 7 lbf3 ! ? is the move I would
like to make work, the only one
which could cast real doubt upon
Black's idea. The problem is that
after 7 . . . 'it'xg2 8 �g 1 'it'h3 for all
White 's development advantage,
Black has no real weaknesses, and it
is not a trivial task trying to make an
impression. The best chance seems
to be to play against the still rather
exposed queen. Perhaps 9 lbbd2
'it'hS 1 0 lLlfl ! ? is best, when B lack
should probably lose more time
with 10 . . . 'it'aS ! ? ( 1 0 . . . lbd7 1 1 eS !
dxeS 1 2 lbg3 'it'h3 1 3 'iWe2 ! ? looks
dangerous to me. Black's king will
have trouble finding peace either in
the centre or on the kings ide) 1 1
lbe3 ! ? and now perhaps 1 1 . . . c6 is
prudent. Attitudes to such a position
will always be heavily determined
by style - it is I think, genuinely a
2 e6 3 e4 203
. . .
matter of taste. Black is still very
challenged in the developmental
stakes, and White can consider
either central break, d4-d5 or e4-e5
in a bid to make trouble. I am aware
that many players would not feel
entirely comfortable with White ' s
compensation here, but I can
imagine many more would be put
off by the prospect of defending
Black.
Another major idea is to stake a
claim to some dark squares with
6 . . . e5 ! ? which might well be the
most promising option after 5 . . . d6.
The problem is that White 's c3
move gives him sufficient hold of
the dark squares that he can calmly
apply further pressure to Black's
e-pawn by proceeding with his
original plan. However, just how
dangerous this should be is open to
doubt too. Problems seem to ensue
when the defender feels the need to
clarify the centre, but if he too sits
tight he may have few worries.
Examples:
7 t2Je2 g6 8 0-0 �g7 9 f4 and
now:
a) 9 . . . exd4 1 0 cxd4 t2Jc6
( 1 0 . . . �g4 ! ? is tougher. 1 1 'iVa4+ ! ?
( 1 1 e 5 i s not the desired route to a
bind in view of 1 2 . . . dxe5 1 2 dxe5
'iVb6+) 1 1 . . . t2Jd7 1 2 t2Jbc3 0-0 1 3
e5 dxe5 1 4 fxe5 worked well for
White after 1 4 . . :ikg5? ! 1 5 t2Jf4 in
Wells-Fish, Bundesliga 11, 2002, but
1 4 . . . 'iWd8 ! ? eyeing tactics against
the bishop on d3 , and intending a
quick . . . c5 is still very complex and
unclear) 1 1 e5 'iWd8 1 2 t2Jbc3 0-0
1 3 J::I c l dxe5 1 4 dxe5 g5? ! (If my
obj ection to . . . exd4 and . . . t2Jc6 is
that they permit White to establish
the d4/e5/f4 pawn wedge already
discussed at several points through
the chapter, the charge here is even
more serious. Well motivated
positionally, asking for trouble with
the king on g8 ! 1 4 . . . i.e6 is more
circumspect) 1 5 t2Jd5 gxf4 1 6
t2Jexf4 t2Jxe5 1 7 J::Ix c7 �g4 1 8 �e2
'iYg5 19 �xg4 t2Jxg4 20 h3 t2Je5 2 1
t2Jh5 J::I a d8 22 t2Jxg7 'iWxg7 2 3 t2Je7+
'it>h8 24 'iWc2 and even after some
simplification the f5 square repres­
ents a gash in Black's kingside
which is likely to have very adverse
Hodgson-Ward,
consequences.
British (ch), Millfield 2000.
b) 9 . . . 'iWe7( ! ) looks calm and
quite sound. It is not clear how
White should intensify the pressure,
while simply switching to the direct
light square attack with 1 0 dxe5
dxe5 1 1 f5 0-0 1 2 t2Jg3 t2Jd7 1 3
t2Jd2 t2Jf6 1 4 'iWe2 h5 1 5 t2Jf3 �h6
16 h3 �d7 was not especially
White
impressive
in
for
Summerscale-Levitt, Redbus (KO)
200 1 . Bringing the queen' s knight
to f3 instead of rushing with 1 0
dxe5 would keep the tension, and
force Black to address the
development of his queenside pieces
in that context, but still I have a
feeling this is one of the best lines
for the defence.
7 t2Je2 �g7 8 0-0 0-0
To some extent this is another
variation in which the general plan
204 2 . . . e6 3 e4
is of far greater importance than
precise move order, but nonetheless,
play took a series of very instructive
and notable turns in Hodgson­
Ivanov, World (op), Philadelphia
2000, after 8 . . . CDd7 9 f4 'V/iie 7 l O eS
b6 1 1 ..ie4 ! ? A very interesting
idea, modifYing the structure. For
the follow-up it is important that
White ' s knight has not yet been
committed to d2 . 1 1 . . . dS 1 2 ..id3
hS. With a closed centre, Black
clearly felt uneasy about the
possibility of a quick g4) 1 3 c4 ! ? A
nice twist to the light square
strategy. I have seen games in this
line in which surprisingly strong
players sought as Black to exchange
light-squared bishops, presumably
to take the sting out of White ' s
kings ide attack, but positionally this
should suit White down to the
ground.
1 3 . . . .ib7 14 cxdS ..ixdS I S CDbc3
.ib7 16 .ie4 ! .ixe4 17 CDxe4 0-0
1 8 lIc 1 l:Iac8 1 9 CD2c3 a6 20 'V/ii a4
ltJb8 2 1 dS ! with a real positional
triumph on the light-squares. The
ideas in this game would repay
study, and greatly enrich White ' s
strategic arsenal .
9 f4 CDd7 1 0 CDd2 'V/iie 7 1 1 'V/iie l
More recently Julian has switched
to advancing his e-pawn pretty
much as soon as Black retreats his
queen to e7. I assume this reflects
the prevalent respect for the system
discussed above in note ' b ' to
Black' s 6th, which after the text
move Black could still reach a
respectable version of with 1 1 . . . eS .
1 1 . . .b6 1 2 'V/ii g3 .ib7 13 e5!
13 . . . l:!.ad8
Another game from Julian
featured an instructive positional
error here. In Hodgson-Saint
Amand, World (op) Philadelphia
2000, Black played 13 . . . dxeS?! but
after 1 4 fxeS 'V/iig S?! I S 'V/iix gS hxgS
1 6 .ie4 .ixe4 1 7 CDxe4 ..ih6 1 8 g4
it is again revealed that this whole
line is as much about light-square
based initiative as it is about trying
to mate Black. White has a distinct
positional advantage here too.
14 CDe4 b5 ! ? 1 5 l:!.ael b4 1 6 h4 !
bxc3 1 7 bxc3 �h8 18 h5 ! ?
I t i s not strictly necessary t o play
this position with anything like the
flamboyant aggression that Julian
shows over the next few moves, but
when he is in the mood there is
really no stopping him. It is
probably true, as De la Villa
suggests, that the modest 1 8 l:!.b 1 is
worth an edge. Still, in the game
extremely precise defence is also
2 e6 3 e4 205
. . .
required - as so often there is a
strong practical element to Julian ' s
j udgement.
18 . . . gxh5 19 �h3 h4 20 exd6
exd6 21 f5 ! ?
Right or wrong there i s an elegant
consistency to White' s blasting
through on the White squares. For
that reason I am sceptical about the
claim that 2 1 . . . ..txe4 next would
have improved Black's defence.
The opposite coloured bishops
might only serve to magnify
control.
White' s
light-square
Black' s mistakes definitely come
later.
2 1 . . .d5 22 f6 'Llxf6 23 'Llxf6 ? !
This feels wrong, since drawing
out the bishop in this case makes it
easier to defend key squares on the
kingside. 23 'Llc5 ! was better, when
23 . . . 'Lle4 ! 24 ..txe4 dxe4 25 'Llxb7
�xb7 26 �xh4 �d5 27 'Llg3 f5 2 8
'Llh5 should muster sufficient
threats to hold the balance, but I
would be surprised is Black is really
at risk.
23 . . . ..txf6 24 'Llf4 l:td6
If 24 . . . ..tg5 White has 25 l:txe6 !
�d7 26 l:te5 �xh3 27 'Llxh3 with
reasonable activity, but 24 . . . 'it>g8 !
leaves no obvious attacking follow­
up.
25 ..te2 l:tg8 26 'Llh5 ..tg5 27
�d3 f6 28 'Llxf6 ..txf6 ?
Only now does Black really spoil
his defensive efforts. 28 . . . l:tg7 ! was
still quite playable, as 29 'Llh5 ..ta6
is certainly not worse for Black.
29 l:txf6 �g7 30 �f3
In the absence of the excellent
defensive bishop, White ' s maj or
pieces flood in, and there is no
defence.
30 . . . l:te6 3 1 l:tf7 lIxe3 32 .l:rxg7
.l:rxf3 33 l:th7 mate.
An interesting game, despite
errors from both attack and defence.
However, the positional treatments
to be found in the notes might throw
a greater light upon the 'theoretical
truth ' of the position.
Game 45
Dishman - Ward
4NCL 200 1
1 d4 'Llf6 2 ..tg5 e6 3 e4 h6 4
..txf6 �xf6 5 e3 d5 ! ?
Black radically alters the flow of
the play with a move which at first
severely dampened my enthusiasm
for 5 c3 . I was sceptical about this
French structure for White in the
absence of a dark-squared bishop,
but now I have to say the situation is
still very unclear.
6 e5
Perhaps due to my initial
scepticism regarding the pseudo
' Advance French ' it took me a
while to realise that 6 'Lld2, the
' Tarrasch without the dark-squared
bishop ' is most likely more feeble.
Perhaps not surprisingly, it is the
206 2 . . . e6 3 e4
. . . c5 lines with their consequent
Isolated Queen Pawn positions in
which the bishop pair enhances the
dynamic qualities in Black' s
compensation. Therefore after 6 . . .
c5 ! (6 . . . dxe4 7 ct:Jxe4 does seem
promising for White - opening the
position brings his superior develop­
ment to the fore) 7 exd5 (or 7 ct:Jgf3
ct:Jc6 [7 . . . cxd4 is also quite play­
able] 8 i.b5 cxd4 9 ct:Jxd4 ..\td7 1 0
0-0 ..\te7 1 1 l::t e l [ 1 1 exd5 ! ? exd5
1 2 'iib 3 might be slightly better,
although after 1 2 . . . 'iVd6 Black is
still very solid] 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 ct:J4f3
a6 1 3 i.f1 &tfd8 1 4 e5 'iVg6 1 5 ct:Jb3
f6 1 6 exf6 'Vi'xf6 was fine for Black
in McDonald-S .Buckley, British
(ch) 2002) 7 . . . exd5 8 ..\tb5+ ..\td7 9
..\txd7+ ct:Jxd7 1 0 ct:Je2 ( 1 0 ct:Jgf3
looks more natural, but 1 0 . . . 'Vi'e6+ !
1 1 'iiVe 2 ..\td6 is very annoying)
1 0 . . . 0-0-0 1 1 ct:Jf1 cxd4 1 2 ct:Jxd4
..\tc5 1 3 ct:Je3 i.xd4 1 4 cxd4 i¥a6 1 5
b4 ct:Jf6 1 6 'iVe2 Y2-Y2 Wells-Ward,
Redbus (KO) 2002 . White has
absolutely nothing here.
6 . . . i¥dS 7 ct:Jf3 c5 S dxc5 !
White has effectively conceded
the bishop pair for some time, and
this is the best way to try and keep a
degree of momentum. Attempts to
merely defend d4 will leave b2 a
serious issue.
S . . i.xc5
A more ambitious plan involves
trying to recapture this with the
knight, but in this case White has
chances to retain the pawn when the
compensation
is
not entirely
uncontroversial. Epishin has tried
this twice, but on neither occasion
was it so convincing: 8 . . . ct:Jd7 9 b4
and now
a) 9 . . . g6 10 ct:Jbd2 ..\tg7 1 1 ..\tb5
0-0 12 ..\txd7 ..\txd7 1 3 0-0 'Vi'c7 1 4
&te l b 6 1 5 ct:Jb3 ..\ta4 1 6 'iVd4 &tfc8
1 7 .l:Iac 1 'iYb7 1 8 ct:Jfd2 and Black is
some way from the clean return of
his pawn in V.Milov-Epishin, Lost
Boys (op), Amsterdam 2000.
b) 9 . . . ..\te7 10 ..\td3 'Vi'c7 1 1 'Vi'e2
a5 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 ct:Jbd2 b6 14 cxb6
ct:Jxb6 1 5 l:Ifc 1 ..\td7 1 6 c4 dxc4 1 7
ct:Jxc4 ct:Jxc4 1 8 .l:Ixc4 'iVb7 1 9 ct:Jd4
&ta7 20 b5 ..\txb5 2 1 ct:Jxb5 'Vi'xb5 22
&tg4 'Vi'd5 23 i¥e3 ! and there is a
distinct feeling that the ' improve­
ment' has been even worse.
I.Rogers-Epishin, Bundesliga 200 1 .
That a player of Epishin ' s class
should appear to be so determined
to avoid 8 . . . ..\txc5 is interesting and
rather encouraging to White ' s cause.
9 ..\td3 ct:Jc6
Sensible, but there is a case for
throwing in 9 . . . 'iib 6 just to check
out White ' s plans for bringing his
queen' s knight into the play.
Hodgson-Rowson, Redbus (KO)
Southend 200 1 , continued 1 0 'Vi'e2
ct:Jc6 1 1 0-0 ..\td7 1 2 b4 i.. e 7
( 1 2 . . . i.. f8 ! ?
could
also
be
considered if . . . g5 is coming) 1 3
ct:Jbd2 :rc8 1 4 a3 (preparing c4)
14 . . . g5 1 5 ct:Jb3 a5 16 &tac 1 ( 1 6
i..b 5 ! ?) 1 6 . . . a4 1 7 ct:Ja l g4 1 8 ct:Jd2
i.. g 5 1 9 J:tc2 .l:!.g8 and Black looks
very active, but 20 b5 ! ? ct:Je7 2 1 c4
still offers White counterplay.
.
2 e6 3 e4 207
. . .
1 0 0-0
It is interesting just to make some
moves such as 1 0 'iY'e2 .ltd7 1 1
tDbd2 O-O ! ? 1 2 tDb3 ii.b6 when we
reach by transposition the game De
La Villa Garcia-Garcia Ilundain,
Pamplona 1 992. This is significant,
not for the precise move order, but
because elsewhere there seems to be
an assumption that Black should
avoid castling short, but here with
after 1 3 0-0 playing a quick 1 3 . . . f6 !
he seems to be OK, even though the
continuation 1 4 c4 fxe5 1;2-1;2 was
not in itself very enlightening.
10 . . :i!Vc7 1 1 'i!Ve2 a6 1 2 tDbd2 g5
13 �fel g4 14 tDd4 ! .l:[g8 15 tDxc6
bxc6 1 6 c4 !
As usual this break is a legitimate
source of play for White, and the
structure with . . . bxc6 seems to
increase its force. The whole plan
with
. . . g5
requires
delicate
handling, and here I have the
suspicion that Black rushed at the
further advance to g4 . White ' s
tDd4xc6 effectively ruled out the
queenside as a haven for Black' s
king and finding cover is now a
very tricky business.
1 6 . . . �g5 17 cxd5 cxd5 1 8 �ac1
�b6 19 tDb3 ii.b4 20 J::t fl ii.b7 2 1
�hl :Id8 2 2 a3 ii. f8 2 3 tDd2 .l:[d7
24 f4 !
Another consequence o f . . . g4,
this positionally almost painless
opening of the f-file implies further
woe for Black' s king in the centre.
24 . . . gxf3 25 tDxf3 l:!.g4 26 h3
�f4 27 tDh2
27 b4 ! ? might have been worth a
look too, trying ultimately to
embarrass the bold black rook.
27 . . . �xfl+ 28 l:!.xfl l:tc7 29 tDg4
.ltg7 30 tDf6+
I wonder whether 30 'iY'd2 ! ? might
have been better. It is just that every
exchange offers solace to the black
king, until eventually when the
queens are traded it appears to be
Black in the driving seat.
30 . . . Sl.xf6 31 exf6 'iY'd4 32
ii.xa6? ii.xa6 33 'iY'xa6 �c4 34
'iVxc4 l:txc4 35 :If2 �d7 36 g4 e5
Black' s rook, king and mobile
centre pawns combine to give more
than sufficient compensation for the
pawn minus. I suspect White' s
defence can be strengthened, but the
rest has no bearing upon our theme.
37 �g2 �e6 38 �g3 d4 39 h4
.l:.c8 40 g5 hxg5 41 hxg5 .l:.g8 42
�g4 e4 43 �f4 e3 44 �g2 �d5 45
�f3 lIe8 46 �e2 �c4 47 �g4 �h8
48 g6 1:i.h2+ 49 'iit> fl 1:i.f2+ 50 �gl
fxg6 5 1 l:lxg6 l:lf5 52 f7 l:lxf7 0-1
Chapter 10
-
Conclusion
From the start of the chapter I
made no efforts to disguise that this
is positionally quite complex,
difficult material with few clear
answers to come at the end of it. I
began fairly agnostic between 5
lbc3 and 5 c3, and both moves have
survived close examination pretty
much in tact, but the j ourney has
challenged a few of my initial
assumptions.
208 2 e6 3 e4
. . .
On 5 lDc3 I think I was probably
right to be most concerned about
5 . . . ..tb4 .
Game
42
remains
unsatisfactory for White (probably
including 7 dxc5 which is a shame,
although aesthetes might celebrate) .
However, I am now persuaded that
the apparent artificiality of 5 'ii'd 2
matters (either 5 . . . c5 ! ? or 5 . . . d5 ! ?
could b e a problem) but 6 'ii d 3 ! ?
seems to hold up better. The survey
though has increased my respect for
the old main line with 5 . . . d6. I
found Game 3 9 of particular interest
positionally - Black ' s ambitious
dark-square strategy should be
treated with respect - and 6 . . . g5 is
of enduring merit. Unless I have
miscalculated and severely over­
estimated the idea, I expect practice
will soon reveal a lot more about 1 0
lDf3 ! ? to be found i n the notes to
Game 4 1 . This is new, original and
fascinatingly
Also
sharp .
Shereshevsky ' s positional treatment
is noteworthy - take a look at 1 4
g4 ! ? All in all, I like 7 h4 ! ? in
preference to the g3/f4 approach
which has been hitherto popular.
What of 5 c3? Well, I had
assumed that 5 . . . d5 was the
problem (indeed as a player rather
than an author, it was this that led to
my re-examination of 5 lDc3).
However, I now have to say that I
find Game 45 and the notes
surprisingly acceptable for White not a clear advantage, but positions
that can be played with perspective.
The other area of concern is now the
6th move options for Black in game
44. I do not really anticipate that
6 . . . �g5 will be an enduring
problem (even if my recommend­
ation is a bit controversial), but it is
the good old dark squares again that
will decide. If you are happy against
6 . . . e5 ! ? with 9 . . . 'fiIe7 then by all
means give 5 c3 a try !
Chapter 9 2 d5
Introduction and 3 i.. xf6
-
The move 2 . . . dS ! ? has managed
to acquire a very solid reputation
despite permitting White to see
through his intention of exchanging
on f6 and inflicting doubled pawns.
Indeed I come into contact every
now and again with an apparent
school of thought among Russian
players that this is simply "the
equalising
line"
against
the
Trompowsky. In my opinion the
respect afforded to this move is well
deserved, but at the same time the
idea that White can scarcely hope to
play for the advantage is a
considerable overstatement.
In comparison with the minor
lines to be examined in the next and
final chapter (2 . . . g6 in particular)
2 . . . dS has the advantage that it
prevents an automatic execution of
a White plan involving the
exchange on f6 followed by for
example c4, g3 , it.g2 and a queen­
side advance. In other words in the
3 it.xf6 exf6 lines White does not
. . .
necessarily get the advance c4
unchallenged. On occasions Black
can keep a foothold in the centre,
but more often, and of considerable
strategic note is that Black can
sometimes get a reasonable position
by exchanging on c4 at some point,
playing in fact with no centre
pawns. Much more on this later on
though.
I feel that I am in danger of
falling into a common trap and
talking about the positions after 3
it.xf6 as if the re-capture away from
the centre is the only option. In fact
the
alternative
3 . . . gxf6 ! ?
is
double-edged, ambitious and its
relative neglect does not really seem
to be founded on any sound
theoretical basis. It is also a pretty
good practical weapon especially at
lower levels. My database indicates
that White is well over 3 times as
likely to follow-up with 4 e3 as with
the more critical 4 c4 . This at least
facilitates the task of equalising
even
with
relatively
limited
knowledge.
Before getting into the main body
of 3 it.xf6 theory, a word on
alternatives. There is no denying
that several of the leading
Trompowsky players have recently
shown an inclination to settle for the
unpretentious 3 e3 ! ? - a flick
through the database will reveal
quite an illustrious group taking the
White side here: Lputian, Stefanova,
Kasparov in his many simultaneous
2 1 0 2 d5 3 Lf6
. . .
outings, Speelman, Adams, Knaak
and of course Hodgson himself have
all favoured 3 e3 at some time in the
last couple of years . The question
for the author is how much valuable
time to devote to this. Throughout
the book I have tried to treat the
most
Trompowsky
in
its
characteristic and critical form, and
while I am much more inclined to
the modest approach after 2 . . d5
than after for example 2 . . . e6, I have
decided that there is still enough
bite in the White position after 3
i.xf6 ! ? and sufficient stylistic
variety that I would like to
concentrate on that.
Just a few thoughts on 3 e3 which
hopefully will be of interest, not
only
for
those
who
have
reservations about the material in
the main body of this chapter:
i) No worries on 3 . . . ltJe4 which
transposes to Chapter 5 and was
dealt with in particular detail there. I
think it was the vitality of White' s
position i n this case which played a
key role in rendering 3 e3 a fully
viable option.
ii) 3 . . . e6 is a solid if none too
exciting move. White can of course
continue in Torre Attack mode, or
can try to set up a kind of Stonewall
with the bishop outside the pawn
chain on g5. However, I suspect that
the theoretically best course might
be 4 c4 ! ? with which it seems White
has every chance of turning play
back into an Orthodox Queen' s
Gambit. But i s this why we play the
Tromp?
iii) 3 . . . c5 ! ? is the reply which
would
cause
me
the
most
headaches . This to me highlights my
main reservation about 3 e3 . It is not
just about finding a flexible move,
awaiting Black's response and then
.
always having the option of playing
in 3 i.xf6 style against everything
except 3 . . . l2Je4 and 3 . . . l2Jbd7 . The
point is that after 3 . . . c5 4 i.xf6
gxf6 ! we find ourselves in the note
to 4 e3 from Game 47 and a position
describes
Julian
which
as
' extremely dynamic for Black ' . In
fact I think that 5 c4 is still playable,
but that is not the main point. It
already feels a bit like Black is
dictating the play.
iv) The real point is much the
same as that I made at the beginning
of Chapter 8. If you think you have
an opponent who is in a sense
bluffing - who is attracted to the
dynamic
unbalanced
positions
which arise after the exchange on
f6, but who would be utterly turned
off by, and out to sea in the rather
amorphous manoeuvrings of a Torre
Attack style position then by all
means head for 3 e3 . However, for
everyday use, I hope the reader will
agree with me that 3 i.xf6 still has a
lot to offer.
3 i.xf6 gxf6!?
In Chapter 6 I already discussed a
similar choice of whether to capture
with e- or the g-pawn after 2 . . c5 3
i.xf6. Some (but only some ! ) of the
same points apply here. With
3 . . . gxf6 Black accepts further
weaknesses, a certain looseness on
the kings ide - the h5 square in
particular - and does not gain the
easy development which flows from
the 'tempo-gain' which 3 . . . exf6
effectively is. Here 3 . . . exf6 (Games
49 and 50) is much stronger than in
Chapter 6 - since Black is not
obliged to follow up with . . . c5 and
hence it does not involve an
automatic weakening of his d-pawn.
.
2 . . . d5 3 hf6 2 1 1
However, there are still key . . . cS
issues at work. The point of
3 . . . gxf6 ! ? is precisely to keep a
tight pawn mass in the centre and to
follow up with . . . cS attacking
White ' s centre and trying to create
play on the dark squares. As I said
before, I think this line has a good
deal of potential and should be on a
short-list of Black' s best answers to
the Trompowsky.
Game 46
Plaskett J.Cooper
Hastings (op) 1 993
-
1 d4 ct'lf6 2 ii.g5 d5 3 ii.xf6
gxf6 ! ?
4 c4
The best in my opinion. After the
natural 4 e3 Black has a good reply
in 4 . . . cS ! but due to its strong
thematic links with the play in
Game 47 I would prefer to deal with
it there. Incidentally I have had to
fiddle the actual move order here not for the first time. Plaskett in fact
did play 4 e3, and only after
4 . . . ii.fS did he continue with S c4
c6 and so on.
4 . . . c6
To my mind this is too passive,
and allows White quite a wide
choice o f ways to build up an
initiative. Better the 4 . . . dxc4 ! of
Games 47 and 4 8 .
5 e 3 i.f5
The most popular way to develop
here. One alternative is to set-up a
kind of Pseudo-Stonewall, but while
the doubled f-pawns have one clear
advantage in this regard - it is
possible to play . . . fS without
weakening the castled king 's
position in general and e6 in
particular - they do afford White a
plan of attack too - using the g4
lever. This is well illustrated by
S . . . e6 6 ct'lc3 f5 7 ct'lf3 ii.g7 8 �c2
ct'ld7 9 h3 ! ? (Positionally, the
exchange on dS would also be
reasonable, but Julian has a more
aggressive plan in mind for which
the queenside is better left closed)
9 . . . dxc4 ? ! (9 . . . ct'lf6 allows 1 0 ct'leS,
but the text is still rather too
accommodating) 1 0 i.xc4 �c7?! 1 1
0-0-0 b S ? ! 1 2 i.b3 ii.a6 1 3 g4 ! f4
and now despite having made very
substantial positional gains, White
opted for a very effective and
elegant tactical solution with 1 4
ct'lgS ! ? ct'l f8 I S ct'lce4 h 6 1 6 ct'lxfl
�xfl 1 7 dS ! ii.eS (To defend eS.
17 . . . ii.xb2+ ! ? looks a plausible try ,
18 'it>xb2 'ifeS+ 19 �b l cxdS but
again there is a very aesthetic
solution in 20 llxdS ! exdS 2 1 exf4
�xf4 22 i.xdS+ and the attack
rages on) 1 8 dxe6+ 'it>g7 1 9 'ifcs
ii.c8 ? ! ( 1 9 . . . .l:f.h7 is better, but also
fails to the spectacular 20 lld6 ! ! ) 20
.:td7+! 1 -0 in Hodgson-A.Martin,
British (ch) Plymouth,
1 992.
Another for the collection of
Julian' s attacking classics in the
Trompowsky.
6 ct'lc3 e6
212 2 d5 3 1Lxf6
. . .
7 ltJf3 ! ?
Not the most critical move, but
one which,
if followed up
judiciously certainly limits Black' s
the
counterplay.
However,
alternative 7 ltJge2 ! ? is quite
attractive and now:
a) 7 . . Sl.d6 8 ltJg3 Sl.g6 9 'iVb3
�6? ! (Better 9 . . . b6 ! ? lO cxd5 cxd5
1 1 �c 1 a6 which should be
somewhat favourable for White,
although the 12 ltJa4 Miladinovi6Grund, Cappelle la Grande 1 995
does not impress after 12 . . . ltJd7 !
Instead 1 2 �a4+ ! ? for instance
looks promising) 1 0 c5 �xb3 1 1
axb3 Sl.c7 1 2 b4 e5 1 3 b5 gave
White terrific play on the queenside
in Zlochevskij-Leoncini, Forrnia
(op) 1 994. The position is typical albeit very pleasant - of many
similar queen' s pawn openings
except that here the doubled
e-pawns
substantially
hamper
Black' s hopes of counterplay in the
centre.
b) 7 . . 'iVb6 ! ? therefore looks
worth throwing in. After 8 �d2
dxc4 ! ? 9 ltJg3 Sl.d3 ! ? l O Sl.xd3 cxd3
1 1 0-0-0 ltJd7 12 �xd3 0-0-0 1 3
�c2 White had only a slight edge in
Polovnikova-Kovalevskaya, Russia
(women ' s wch) Moscow 1 999.
.
.
7 . . . Sl.e7
Again 7 . . . 'iVb6 ! ? might be
while
considered,
somehow
7 . . . ltJd7 first also looks more
natural.
8 c5 ! ?
Committal, but not without merit.
Plaskett has found a very rational
plan, and though his execution at
this point arguably gives the
impression more of resolution than
finesse, it is not easy to counter. 8
Sl.d3 looks more flexible, and if
8 Sl.g6 then 9 c5. Of course he
would also have to reckon with
8 . . . Sl.xd3 9 �xd3 dxc4 1 0 �xc4,
but I would prefer White ' s space
and knights in that case too.
8 . . . b6
Logical enough. Usually such a c5
advance is countered either in this
way, or by an advance of the
e-pawn in the centre, and here the
effect on the f-pawns and the f5
square militates against the latter
course.
9 b4 bxc5
9 . . . a5 lO ltJa4 ! works well for
White.
1 0 bxc5 �a5 1 1 �d2 ltJd7 1 2
Sl.d3 Sl.xd3 13 �xd3 �b8 1 4 0-0 f5
1 5 h3 0-0 1 6 'Othl ! ?
. . .
2 d5 3 Lf6 2 1 3
. . .
In a sense a declaration that Black
has done enough by getting first to
the b-file to render problematic
White ' s task of pressing home his
advantage on the queens ide alone.
The advance of the g-pawn again, as
in the note to move 5 , an instructive
method of play against the doubled
f-pawns, but of course less
' clean-cut' in front of a castled
king !
16 . . . �h8 1 7 .l:.gl ..\tf6
1 7 . . . .l:.b2 ! ? was well worth
considering.
18 .l:.ael .l:.g8 1 9 .l:.e2 'i'a3 20
CLld2 ..\td8 2 1 g4 fxg4 22 CLldbl
'i'a5 23 hxg4 'i'e7
It looks more sensible to be first
to the h-file. However, after
23 . . . .l:.g6 ! ? 24 f4 .l:.h6+ 25 .l:.h2
.l:.xh2+ 26 �xh2 it is equally true
that the exchange of a pair of rooks
is no panacea.
24 f4 CLlfS 25 CLld2 f6 26 CLlf3 .l:.g6
27 .l:.h2 �g8 28 g5 !
White seems to have reached
pretty much his optimum formation
and effects the breakthrough.
28 . . . fxg5 29 CLle5
Perhaps 29 fxg5 ! ? was also worth
considering. After 29 . . . 'i'g7 it is
possible to play 30 e4 to meet
30 . . . ..\tc7 with e5 and then try to
manoeuvre a knight to f4 . However,
to advance the e-pawn in this way is
positionally hugely committal, and
Plaskett ' s
approach
is
very
understandable, and also strong.
29 . . . .l:.g7 30 f5 exf5 3 1 'i'xf5
'i'e8 32 'i'f3
A wise retreat. The immediate 3 2
e 4 'i'xf5 3 3 exf5 ..\tf6 34 CLlxc6 l:1c8
35 CLlxd5 ! ? Ihc6 36 .l:.h6 CLld7
leaves Black rather tired up, but
there i s n o clear way to strengthen
White' s position.
32...'i'e6 33 e4! CLlg6 34 CLlxg6
The immediate 34 exd5 ! ? was
also strong since 34 . . . CLlxe5 35 dxe5
'i'xe5 36 .l:.e2 looks embarrassing,
e.g. 36 . . . 'i'f6 37 .l:.e8+ �f7 3 8
'i'xf6+ �xf6 3 9 .l:.f1 + �g6 4 0 .l:.e6+
�h5 4 1 ktxc6 with very dangerous
united passed pawns. Still, again
Plaskett' s move should suffice.
34 . . .'i'xg6 35 exd5 ..\ta5 36 CLle4
.l:.fS 37 'i'e2 exd5 38 CLlxg5 h6 39
CLlf3 'i'e4 40 .l:.xg7+ �xg7 41 'i'g2+
�f7 42 ktxh6?
Sometimes time trouble can be
sensed even when the moves are not
especially bad. I suspect as much
here. Otherwise White would surely
have headed for 42 CLle5+ �e6 (
42 . . . \t>e8 43 'i'xe4 dxe4 44 .l:.xh6
and the resource .l:.e6+ will ensure
that the e-pawn does not embark on
a major new career) 43 .l:.xh6+ .l:.f6
44 .l:.xf6+ \t>xf6 45 'i'xe4 dxe4 46
CLlc4 ! ensuring the survival of his
strong pawns, and with it victory.
42 . . . \t>e8 43 .l:.h3 ..\te7 44 a3
';2-';2
Black has a strange bind here
which renders any further progress
highly problematic.
Game 47
Galyas - R.Ruek
Elekes (mem), Budapest 2000
1 d4 CLlf6 2 .\tg5 d5 3 ..\txf6
gxf6 ! ? 4 e4
In keeping with the battle for the
initiative, White gets his strike in
the centre in first. As I mentioned
above the alternative 4 e3 risks
yielding the initiative when Black
counters with 4 . . . c5 !
2 1 4 2 d5 3 Lf6
. . .
Then White has a choice, but even
the best line offers Black at the very
least a transposition back into the
game, and probably more:
a) S dxcS is very insipid. It was
already established, nearly 30 years
ago in Lombardy-Ivkov, Amster­
dam, 1 974 that by simple means
5 . . . e6 6 c4 dxc4 7 'ii'x d8+ 'it>xd8 8
i.xc4 i.xc5 9 lbc3 'it>e7 Black
would reach a very comfortable
position. In that case after 10 :c 1
i.d7 1 1 i.b5 ! ? (some apprehension
regarding the bishop pair seems
reasonable here) 1 1 . . . .l:tc8 1 2 i.. x d7
lbxd7 1 3 lbge2 lbeS 14 0-0 a6 1 5
lba4 i.. d 6 1 6 l:txc 8 ? ! :xc8 1 7 :c l
:d8 ! it was already White trying to
fully equalise.
b) S c4, though a little late, still
looks best, but after S . . . cxd4
(S . . . dxc4 6 i.xc4 lets White off the
hook a little, returning to the main
game. Useful though for proving
that even if he is able to clean up the
next couple of notes there are no
grounds for actually preferring 4 e3
and 5 c4) 6 exd4 (6 'ii'xd4 dxc4 7
�xd8+ 'it>xd8 8 i.xc4 e6 is safer,
but offers no advantage) and now:
bi) 6 . . . 'iVb6 7 lbc3 'it'xb2 8 lbxd5
i.f5 9 'it'c 1 (If 9 lbc7+? 'it>d8 1 0
lbxa8 'ii'c 3+ 1 1 'it>e2 i.h6 ! the threat
of . . . i.c2 just seems to win
outright) 9 . . . 'ii'x c 1+ 1 0 :xc 1 lba6
1 1 cS ( 1 1 lbe3 ! ?) 1 1 . . . i.. h 6 1 2 lbe3
lbc7 1 3 i.. c 4 i.e4 14 lbe2 was
Anastasian-Leko,
FIDE
(Wch)
Moscow 200 1 and now 14 . . . e6
would have been about equal.
bii) 6 . . . lbc6 ! ? 7 lbc3 ! (7 cxdS
'ili'xd5 8 lbf3 i.g4 9 i.. e 2 i.. x f3 1 0
i.. x f3 'it'e6+ ! was good for Black in
Winants - Glavina Rossi, France
(Tch) 200 1 ) 7 . . . dxc4 (7 . . . i.. e 6 is
also playable) 8 d5 lbe5 9 i.xc4
lbxc4 10 'ii' a4+ i.d7 1 1 'ili'xc4 ':'c8
was
Bigg-Summerscale,
Ron
Banwell (mem) 2002 when after the
correct 12 'iVb3 ! White ' s space
might just about compensate the
bishop pair, but not more.
4 . . . dxc4
The best move in my view, more
active than 4 . . . c6, since saddling
White with an isolated d-pawn
always holds the promise of some
counterplay, even if there is a
certain soaking up of pressure
required first. Black has also
sometimes tried the rather audacious
4 . . . c5 with similar ideas. He would
like after 5 e3 ? ! to transpose back
into the notes above to 4 e3 c5. It is
important therefore that 5 cxd5
'ili'xd5 6 lbf3 cxd4 7 lbc3 achieve
something.
Fortunately,
after
7 . . . 'ii' d 8 (7 . . :iWa5 8 lbxd4 i.d7 9
'iVb3 ! ?) 8 lbxd4 e6 9 e3 a6 1 0
2 d5 3 Lf6 2 1 5
. . .
iVh5 ! ? i.b4 1 1 �c 1 iVa5 as played
in Hodgson-Lukacs, Kesckemet
1 988, the simple 1 2 iVxa5 ..txa5 1 3
t'Llb3 is pleasant for White, indeed I
even suspect that 1 3 . . . i.xc3+ is
advisable, otherwise 1 4 t'Lle4 will
create more problems.
5 e3 c5
White ' s 5th move looks to me too
solid to justify 5 . . . �g8 (in contrast
with Game 48 where the analogous
idea has much more bite). I find
plans involving the fianchetto
attractive here. Either 6 t'Llc3 c6 7
g3 ! ? b5 8 i.g2 or even 6 g3 ! ? - De
la Villa - look worth a try.
6 i.xc4 cxd4 7 exd4
7 ... i.g7
Black has also tried 7 . . . t'Llc6 a
few times here when play has
usually continued as in the main
game. I am also tempted to look at 8
d5 ! ? t'Lle5 9 i.b5+ since the
exchange of light-squared bishops
feels like definite progress in
positional terms. However, there is
an element of assisting Black to
develop quickly about this, and
9 . . . i.d7 1 0 i.xd7+ 'iWxd7 1 1 t'Llc3
:g8 ! ? 12 f4 t'Llc4 1 3 iVe2 iVc7 does
indeed lead to a very complex
position. Nonetheless I am a little
surprised no one has thought fit to
venture this.
Adventures initiated by Black
again fail to impress. 7 . . . J:.g8 8
'ilkh5 e6 9 t'Lle2 �xg2 1 0 t'Llbc3 l:!g5
1 1 'iWxh7 'iWc7 was lanse-Van Delft,
Utrecht (op) 2000 when I think
White should continue 1 2 h4 ! ? l';Ig7
1 3 iVd3 when his opponent' s
development looks very ungainly
for such an open position.
8 t'Lle2
The standard way to develop here.
Is it just me though, or could White
consider something a little more
aggressive at this stage? I feel
drawn to at least check out 8 'iWh5 ! ?
Black' s kings ide after castling
doesn't look that secure, and that
would seem to offer good
compensation for the weakening of
d4 and b2 which such a sortie
clearly entails. At the very least, I
am surprised that nobody even
mentions the possibility. A few
sample lines:
8 . . . 0-0 (After 8 . . . e6 even 9
t'Llf3 ! ? comes into the reckoning.
Pawn grabbing with 9 . . . 'ilfb6 1 0 0-0
'ilkxb2 1 1 t'Llbd2 then looks a
distinctly risky business, and
9 . . . t'Llc6 1 0 t'Llc3 t'Llxd4? 1 1 O-O-O !
still more so) 9 t'Llge2 (I am less
inclined to venture 9 t'Llf3 t'Llc6 here
as 1 0 t'Llc3 t'Llxd4 could well work
for Black) 9 . . . t'Llc6 (after 9 . . . 'ilfb6
2 1 6 2 d5 3 iLxf6
. . .
1 0 tZ:\bc3 'ii'xb2 1 1 0-0 'iii'c2 ! is
unclear, but 10 O-O ! ? �xb2 1 1 SLd3 !
h6 1 2 tZ:\bc3 makes a good
impression) 10 tZ:\bc3 tZ:\xd4 1 1 l:td l
e5 1 2 tZ:\xd4 ! ? exd4 1 3 0-0 f5 1 4
tZ:\e2 looks well worth investigating
since the positional rewards for
success would be quite high.
8 0-0 9 tZ:\bc3
. . .
9 f5
This complicated and strategically
rich position is much more about
ideas than precise theory and move
orders. I will consider at this point a
game in which 9 . . . tZ:\c6 was played,
but in fact the Black set-up is fairly
clear - it is White who has a major
decision to be made whether to try
and keep his d-pawn covered on d4
- under fire, but at least staking
some sort of claim to the dark
squares in the centre - or to advance
it, a riskier option, but one
promising still more spatial gains .
Anastasian-Tiviakov,
European
(chT) Batumi 1 999 was an
interesting test of the latter course
after 9 . . . tZ:\c6 1 0 d5 ! ? ( 1 0 'ii'd 2
should transpose to the main line)
10 . . . tZ:\e5 1 1 SLb3 f5 1 2 0-0 'ili'd6 1 3
tZ:\d4 tZ:\g4 (I wonder whether Black
can consider 1 3 . . . f4 ! ? in such a
position. Of course it renounces
control of the important e4 square,
but the threat of . . . f3, with the
menace of . . . .ltg4 to consider, is not
to be underestimated) 14 tZ:\f3 SLd7
1 5 h3 tZ:\e5 16 l:te l tZ:\g6 17 'ii'd2 b5
1 8 tZ:\e2 a5 1 9 11ad l a4 20 .ltc2 .l:i.fc8
2 1 tZ:\g3 .ltxb2 22 .ltxf5 .ltc3 23
�6 SLxf5 24 tZ:\xf5 �f6 25 g4
.ltxe 1 26 l:txe 1 l:ta 7 27 tZ:\g5 'ii'h 8 28
�h5 when White actually had very
good
compensation
for
the
exchange. However, my feeling is
that Black was doing OK earlier - it
is hard to believe with attacking f5
almost the exclusive string to
White ' s bow that he should be able
to pose really serious difficulties.
1 0 �d2 tZ:\c6 11 Itdl
...
11 :V/Vd6
Similar play can result from
1 1 . a6. Again the really decisive
choices are White 's. The problem is
how to construct a plan without
pushing in the centre. The evidence
from Romero Holmes - I.Farago,
Rome 1 986 was not particularly
encouraging on this point although
White ' s build-up with:
12 a3 'iVd6 1 3 0-0 .ltd7 14 .lta2
Itac8 1 5 'ili'e3 ? ! tZ:\a5 16 'ili'd3 b5 was
rather ponderous . I mention it
largely as a reminder of the
importance of the c4 square, here
without White even having played
d4-d5 . However the main game
..
. .
2 d5 3 Lf6 2 1 7
. . .
makes a rather better shot at this as
perhaps did Romero Holmes­
A.Rodriguez, Medina del Campo,
1 986, although after 12 �f4 il.d7 1 3
0-0 �b8 1 4 �h4 �d6 it is still not
entirely clear where White is going.
So what of advancing in the
centre? Another example was 1 2
0-0 �d6 1 3 d5 ! ? tLJe5 1 4 il.b3 tLJg4
( 1 4 . . . il.d7 ! ?)
15
tLJg3
il.d7
( 1 5 . . . f4? ! 1 6 tLJge4 �h6 17 h3 tLJe5
1 8 f3 ! now looks secure enough for
White, whereas his opponent has to
be constantly watchful of a d5-d6
break) 16 h3 il.h6 ! ? ( 1 6 . . . tLJf6 1 7
�d3 might b e an edge for White) 1 7
�e2 tLJe3 1 8 fxe3 �xg3 1 9 l:If3
�e5
Galyas-Naiditsch,
Elekes
(mem) Budapest, 2000, and now 20
il.c2 and 2 1 �f2 looks the best way
to pester the f5 pawn, when I
slightly prefer White.
1 2 0-0 �d8 13 �fe1 �b4 ! ? 1 4
il. d 5 e6 1 5 il.xc6 bxc6
16 a3
Black's very aggressive and
forcing 1 3 th move sought to in
effect punish White for his
determination to keep his d-pawn on
d4. The result is yet again further
pawn weaknesses and a pure clash
knights against bishops. White
would like to explore whether
Black' s queen is rather guilty of
deserting
the
kingside,
but
unfortunately 1 6 �g5 ! ? il.a6 1 7
tLJg3 h6 ! 1 8 �e 3 l:Ixd4 1 9 tLJh5
l:Ixd l 20 �xd l f4 ! 2 1 �f3 il.e5
does not look quite sound.
16 . . . �e7 17 �e3 il.a6 18 tLJf4
�g5 1 9 tLJd3?
I do not like this move at all . It
seems very negative, at a time when
I still think there is a good deal of
life in White' s position. 1 9 tLJa4 !
looks indicated, when White ' s
blockade o n the dark squares offers
him perfectly satisfactory play.
19 . . .�xe3 20 fxe3 il.xd3 2 1
l:Ixd3 f4 ! 22 exf4 l:Ixd4 2 3 l:Ixd4
il.xd4+ 24 �f1 l:Ib8 25 l:Ie4 c5
Once White ' s d-pawn was
undermined it was clear that the
dark-squared bishop would become
an impressive sight. The contrast
between the respective minor pieces
tells the full story. White wisely
gives up a pawn and enjoys some
drawing chances based upon his
more active rook.
26 tLJd 1 ! il.xb2 27 tLJxb2 l:Ixb2
28 l:Ic4 l:Ib5 29 �e2 �f8 30 a4 l:Ia5
31 l:Ie4 �e7 32 f5 �f6 33 fxe6 fxe6
34 l:Ih4 �g6 35 l:Ig4+ �f5 36 l:Ih4
�g6 37 IIg4+ �f5 38 l:Ih4 �e5 39
l:Ixh7 l:ha4 40 �c7 c4
Maybe 40 . . . �d5 ! ? here. After the
text I do not see a win, and although
far from our main focus of interest,
White ' s defence in the rook ending
has been impressively active and
resilient.
41 h4 �e4 42 h5 l:Ia2+ 43 �f1
�d3 44 h6 l:Ial + 45 �f2 l:Ihl 46
h7 c3 47 l:Id7+ �e4 48 l1xa7 c2 49
l1c7 �d3 50 l:Id7+ �c3 51 �c7+
�d2 52 .i;Id7+ �c1 53 .i;Ic7 �d2
YZ-YZ
2 1 8 2 d5 3 Lf6
. . .
Game 4 8
Hodgson - Sonntag
Benidorm (op) 1 98 9
1 d 4 lLlf6 2 i. g 5 d5 3 i.xf6 gxf6
4 c4 dxc4 5 e4 ! ?
This i s a radical departure from
the game above, a move which
gives a slightly anti-positional
impression, further gambling with
the dark squares for the sake of
rapid development and dynamic
chances. In particular I suppose the
hope is that the highly desirable
move . . . f5 will not be effected so
effortlessly.
I am not sure that I quite believe
it, but it is relatively unexplored
(perhaps in part because several of
the existing examples feature
players of the White pieces merrily
motoring in self-destruct mode).
Since it might offer more promising
territory for those who find the plan
of action in Game 47 rather
intangible, I thought it merited brief
coverage. Inevitably for such
unexplored terrain, I will be giving
pointers to further research rather
than trying to unearth ' the truth' .
5 . . . lLlc6
The attack on d4 is easily parried
but Black has his sights set on the
other bishop too. However, this
concedes further space and in the
resulting position the knight pair has
quite acceptable squares and
therefore reasonable potential, while
the bishops can easily find
themselves shut out. I think some
alternatives could cause more
worry:
a) 5 . . . b5 led to an absolute
catastrophe for White after 6 a4
iLb7 7 f3? c6 8 axb5 cxb5 9 b3 e5 !
1 0 bxc4 i.b4+ 1 1 'i£;>f2 i.c5 ! and the
rest has been censored in the public
interest, Gerstner-Voekler, Germany
(ch) Binz, 1 99 5 . Sorry to present a
normally highly competent Tromp­
owsky practitioner and the author of
a good book on the subject in this
uncharacteristic light, but the lesson
of quite how awful the move 7 f3 ?
can be i s a n important one. There
are just some things which the
overall distribution of force on the
dark squares should rule out
absolutely, and this is one of them!
However, from the theoretical angle
5 . . . b5 does not cause great distress.
After 6 a4 i.b7, 7 axb5 ! is a
considerable
improvement
7. . .
i.xe4 8 lLlc3 i.d5 (If 8 . . . i.b7 9
i.xc4 ! is strong, intending to
answer 8 . . . i.xg2? with 1 0 i.xf7 !
�xf7 1 1 'ii'h 5+ picking up the
bishop on g2 - De la Villa) 9 'iVa4 !
- De la Villa - and now the most
testing 9 . . . i.b7 ! ? results in a right
old mess after 1 0 b6+ ! lLlc6 1 1 bxc7
'ii'xd4 1 2 i.xc4 'iVe5+ 1 3 lLlge2
'iVxc7 14 lLld5 when I rather fancy
White ' s attacking prospects.
b) 5 . . . f5 ! ? is interesting. White
can consider 6 i.xc4 (6 e5?! i.e6 7
lLlc3 c6 8 lLlh3 i.d5 does not look
sufficient) 6 . . . fxe4 7 'iVh5 e6 8
lLlge2 (Though not 8 'iV e5 :g8 9
'iVxe4 'ii'g 5 ! ) 8 . . . lLlc6 9 lLlc3 lLlxd4
2 d5 3 i..xf6 2 1 9
. . .
1 0 0-0-0 lLlxe2+ 1 1 �xe2 �g5+ 1 2
�b 1 , although o f course the
resulting attack comes with no
guarantees. Perhaps better is the
fractionally more subtle 7 ttJc3 ! ?
i.. g 7 8 �h5 0-0 9 ttJge2 when
White doesn 't get to force . . . e6, but
has better chances of holding the
d-pawn. This looks more sensible.
After all, . . . e6 is not such a bad
defensive move here anyway.
c) 5 . . . :tg8 ! ? also poses unusual
problems.
unlikely to find a secure haven
without a real struggle. However,
this line is interesting, and the level
of irritation caused by Black' s
occupation o f the g-file may prove
to be the biggest single question
mark over 5 e4 ! ?
6 d 5 ttJe5 7 f4
7 lLld3+
I think I prefer De la Villa ' s
suggestion o f 7 . . . ttJg6 ! ? 8 g 3 b5 !
and up to a point I cannot fault his
analysis either. He continues 9 a4
f5 ! 1 0 axb5 fxe4 but now his 1 1
�d4 seems counterproductive after
1 1 . . . f5 ! ? when 1 2 i..x c4?! is met
with the embarrassing 1 2 . . . e5 ! 1 3
fxe5 i.. g 7 when Black's play on the
long diagonal has been enhanced
rather than held back. The more
modest 1 1 i.. x c4 i.. g 7 12 ttJc3 looks
safer, although here too the position
is immensely unusual and unclear.
Scope for future tests here as well !
8 i.. x d3 cxd3 9 �xd3 'i'd6
This looks a little strange. Despite
the risks of opening the position
when behind in development, there
would seem to be a case for 9 . . . c6 ! ?
to stake some sort of a claim to the
centre. However, after 1 0 lLlc3 cxd5
1 1 exd5 ! ? the weak squares on f5
...
Simply fianchettoing the king ' s
bishop n o longer looks s o tempting
with the pawn on e4 . 6 11Va4+ c6 7
�xc4 is play able, especially since
7 . . . �6 8 tiJd2 ! ? should generate
reasonable compensation for a
pawn. More ambitious is 6 lLlc3 c6
7 i.. x c4 ! ? �xg2 8 ttJge2 (8 �h5 is
met with 8 . . .1.1g7 and the irritating
threat of . . . i.. g 4) with compen­
sation, although I am not certain
how much. In Ennsberger-Troyke,
Passau (op) 1 998 Black played
8 . . . b5(? ! ) , but I do not really see a
convincing answer to 9 lLlxb5 ! cxb5
1 0 i.. d 5 as 1 O . . . e5 1 1 �d3 ! seems
to secure White' s king, with good
prospects. In all of these positions
after 5 . . J �g8 White does enjoy the
long-term solace that Black's king is
220 2 d5 3 LJ6
. . .
and h5 in conjunction with White ' s
space advantage still suggest no
easy time for the defender.
10 liJe2 f5 ? !
Hoping t o lure the centre pawns
forward to prove them vulnerable,
but somehow Sonntag ' s moves
seem to mix rather strangely here.
1 1 e5 �b6 1 2 liJd2 ! e6
Of course 1 2 . . . �xb2 would be
ridiculously risky, although the line
1 3 l:.b l 'i'xa2 14 liJc3 'i'a6 1 5 liJb5
is a nice illustration of how well
White ' s knights cooperate here.
13 liJc3 �b4 1 4 liJc4 'i'a6
1 8 . . . l:tc8??
Which Black somehow manages
to overlook! I think that if Black
had found 1 8 . . . '�c6 ! he would have
achieved his best position since
about move 1 0. White needs to
break the pin and defend g2, hence
1 9 l:td2 is indicated, but 1 9 . . . �xc3
20 bxc3 'i'e4+ 2 1 liJe3 'i'xd4 22
l:.xd4 keeps White ' s advantage
within acceptable bounds.
19 �f6 !
If 1 9 . . 'it> f8 2 0 liJe5 confinns the
misery. A shocking denouement one
move away from a playable
position.
1-0
.
3 i.xf6 exf6
15 d6! ?
This looks fairly fonnidable, but
Black has chances to blockade the
centre, when his bishops can ' l ive
around ' the big d-pawn. There
would seem to be a strong case for
keeping greater fluidity, perhaps
even with 1 5 0-0-0 �xc3 1 6 'i'xc3
iVxa2 (If 1 6 . . . exd5 1 7 liJe3 �e6 1 8
�xd5 ! looks strong) 1 7 d6 c5 1 8
'it>c2 ! 'i'a4+ 1 9 b3 'i'c6 20 'i'g3 !
with an enduring bind.
15 . . . cxd6 16 exd6 �d7 17 'i'd4
J:tg8 18 .i:f.dl
With a very powerful threat . . . .
The more solid move, keeping a
tighter structure on the kings ide and
also gaining time for development.
Here
this
recapture
makes
considerably more sense than in the
case of 2 . . . c5 as there are no special
implications for the weakness of the
d-pawn either. Black will sometimes
follow up with . . . c5 here, but this is
very much the exception. White has
several plans from the diagram, but
most of them involve either quickly
2 d5 3 Lf6 221
. . .
playing or slowly preparing the
move c4 to challenge Black ' s
d-pawn. Again, the logic o f a
repertoire book, and the desire to
treat in some depth dictates that I
should be quite selective and in this
chapter I have decided to be rather
more ruthless than usual . This is in
part
because
I
am
rather
unconvinced as to the chances of
obtaining an advantage in some of
the more traditional variations, and
also due to the appeal of a system
which
is
almost
universally
applicable against Black ' s various
4th moves. Its endorsement by a
number of very strong players does
no harm either. I would like to
restrict coverage to those lines in
which White fianchettoes his bishop
- in general following up with
c2-c4, and ultimately some kind of
minority attack on the queenside. In
essence, this is the same plan which
we shall see in the final chapter
against 2 . . . g6 too,
but the
opponent' s pawn presence in the
centre of course has an impact on
proceedings. Again it is not just the
familiar trainer' s mantra to declare
plans and ideas more important than
precise move orders. This is true to
an unusual degree here, as Black ' s
choices i n the next few moves have
a relatively limited impact upon the
execution of 'the plan ' . The main
decision White has to make is
whether he is content to recapture
on c4 with a piece and can thus
make this advance without further
ado, or whether he would like to be
able to take back with a pawn and
must therefore play b3 . This is
roughly the division of material
between Games 49 and 50. In the
latter White prepares c2-c4, but here
he just gets on with it.
Game 49
McDonald - Lukacs
Budapest First Saturday, 1 995
1 d4 tiJf6 2 iLg5 d5 3 iLxf6 exf6
4 e3
This is virtually the only move
played here. It is of course quite
consistent with the intention to
fianchetto because the e2 square is
needed to develop the knight.
4 c6
This together with 4 . . . iLd6 is far
and away the most popular move,
but there are others.
a) 4 . . . iLe6, interestingly, was
once apparently described by
Hodgson as the most accurate since
it holds up 5 c4 . However, this was
presumably at a time when he
regarded that as White ' s most
dangerous line. More recently he
tended to graduate towards g3
systems anyway. After 5 g3 the
independent
significance
is
determined by the degree to which
. . . iLe6 features in Black's optimal
set-up. Two thoughts : The first is
that Black should probably not
delay
. . . iLd6 too
long.
In
Banikas-Veingold, Dos Hermanas
(op) 2000 he seemed to suffer a
• • •
222 2 d5 3 i..xf6
. . .
little for this after 5 g3 c6 6 �g2
ltJd7 7 ltJd2 f5 8 ltJe2 ltJf6 ? ! 9 ltJf4
.Jtd6 1 0 ltJh5 ! ? 0-0 1 1 ltJxf6+ 'ili'xf6
1 2 0-0 %:tac8 1 3 �e2 b6 1 4 Itfd l
and there i s a distinct suspicion that
the exchange of knights is helpful to
the White cause. I think the fact that
Black's knight often has good
squares on either e4 or d5 , and that
White ' s two knights can on
occasion give the impression that
they are struggling not to impede his
major pieces accounts for this.
Banikas here chose a very ambitious
version of the plan from the next
game, by arranging most intricately
for c4, with b3 and ltJb 1 , so much
so that Black got impatient and
himself played . . . c5. I suspect that
1 5 c4 ! ? immediately would have
been
good
enough
for
an
unpretentious plus.
The second is that if Black
routinely castles, I quite like White,
either with, for example 5 g3 c6 6
ltJd2 �d6 7 ltJe2 0-0 8 .Jtg2 f5 9
0-0 lle8? ! 1 0 c4 ( 1 0 b3 ! ?) 1 0 . . . dxc4
1 1 �c2 ltJd7 ( l 1 . . .b5? ! 1 2 b3 gives
White strong positional compen­
sation) 1 2 ltJxc4 .Jtf8 1 3 ltJf4 g6 1 4
ltJxe6 fxe6 1 5 b4 ! .l:[b8 ( 1 5 . . . �xb4?
allows 1 6 kIth l Wie7 1 7 a3 .Jtd6 1 8
.l:[xb7) 1 6 'i!i'b3 'it'h8 1 7 l:.fd l 'ili'e7
1 8 a3 and an agreeable pull in
Benj amin-Shapiro, Long Island,
1 995; or perhaps after 9 . . . ltJd7 ! ?
then 1 0 b3 ! ? Again the key test is
' Can Black answer the coming
c2-c4 break with . . . dxc4, and after
bxc4 play . . . c5T The position of
the bishop on e6 pretty much
guarantees that this will be
answered in the negative, and also
10 . . . ltJf6 1 1 c4 c5 Little-Stone,
Canada (ch) 1 995 can be met with
1 2 dxc5 .Jtxc5 1 3 ltJf4 with some
advantage based on the light squares
and every chance of a great long
diagonal. Otherwise White can
reach the Ward-Akesson formation
(see the note to Black's 1 0th) which
I will tend to regard as a kind of
generic success for White in this
line.
b) There is little doubt that d6 is
the right square for the bishop.
4 . . . �e7 ? ! leaves the bishop more
passive, and takes a natural square
away from the major pieces too.
It was found wanting in
Hodgson-Upton, Moscow (01) 1 994
which continued 5 g3 0-0 6 �g2 c6
7 ltJd2 �e6 8 ltJe2 ltJd7 9 0-0 f5 1 0
c4 ltJf6 1 1 ltJf4 �d7 1 2 ':c l g5 (a
rather reckless weakening when
there are few causes for optimism,
but it is difficult to play with the
white knight ensconced on f4.
Hence . . . .Jtd6 ! ) 1 3 ltJd3 ltJe4 1 4
ltJe5 �d6 1 5 f3 ! ltJxd2 1 6 �xd2
�f6 1 7 f4 with a tremendous knight
on e5 the standard bearer of an
excellent position.
Another example with 4 . . . .Jte7 is
worth
mentioning,
since
it
introduces us to an early and well
conducted version of the plan of
including b3, which we shall
examine more closely in Game 50.
After 5 g3 0-0 6 �g2 c6 7 ltJd2
.Jte6 8 ltJe2 ltJd7 9 0-0 l:le8 White
opted for 1 0 b3 ! ? in Shereshevsky-
2 . . . d5 3 Lf6 223
Ilinsky, Spartakiad US SR, 1 979.
Play continued 10 . . . f5 1 1 c4 ctJf6
1 2 a3 ! ? dxc4 (In general I think this
exchange is more permissible for
Black when the White queen' s
knight i s n o longer coming t o c 3 see the note on 1 0 b3 ! ? below.
However, this is not a hard and fast
rule. Black's piece formation
hinders the organisation of any
quick . . . c5 move, and it is primarily
when that is available that this
argument comes into force) 1 3 bxc4
�a5 ? ! 14 �c2 .l:!.ad8 1 5 l:tfb l �c8
16 c5 !
(A model set-up for White takes
shape. Further weaknesses will be
forced on the Black queens ide, and
it scarcely matters that the c6 pawn
blocks the g2 bishop - White has
enough alternative fire power in this
zone) 1 6 . . . �c7 1 7 ttJc4 g6 1 8 �a4 !
a6 1 9 .l:!.b2 ctJd5 20 .l:!.ab l �g5 2 1
�xd5 ! cxd5 22 ctJd6 with a winning
advantage
already.
A
nice
illustration of the strategy of this
line, in spite of Black' s sup-optimal
formation.
Another move which is played
surprisingly often, albeit not at the
highest levels, is 4 . . . �f5 . This is
sufficient to encourage White to
change plans, since the exchange of
light-squared bishops is likely to be
quite helpful for White
therefore 5 �d3 ! is indicated.
and
De la Villa quotes the game
Shereshevsky-Barkovsky,
Minsk,
1 98 1 in his strategic introduction
and it does indeed illustrate some
key ideas rather nicely. However, I
am not sure he is right to criticise
5 . . . �g6 ! ? since the immediate
exchange looks quite cooperative
too. It is rather after 6 ctJe2 iLd6 7
0-0, that 7 . . . ttJc6?! looks a bit odd
and 8 �b5 ! ? is a principled
response placing a serious premium
upon pawn structure. White was
clearly better after 8 . . . 0-0 9 �xc6
bxc6 1 0 ctJbc3 J::!.b 8 1 1 b3 �c8 1 2
ctJf4 l:i.d8 1 3 ctJa4 ! '¥Wf5 1 4 ctJxg6
hxg6 1 5 �d3 since his plan of
playing c4 will highlight Black' s
weaknesses, while there is little to
face in the way of counterplay.
Shereshevsky, the writer of fine
works on endgame strategy, gave a
serious insight into the quality of his
strategic planning in these two
examples .
The move which really places a
distinctive stamp on the play is of
course 4 . . . c5. The general feeling is
that Black should not have full
compensation for the isolated
queen' s pawn in the . . . exf6
formation, but White should beware
224 2 d5 3 iLxf6
. . .
of reacting too passively and
assuming that the pawn weaknesses
will
somehow
do
the job
automatically.
�xb5 ! 1 -0 in M.Gurevich-Wolff,
Palma de Mallorca (GMA) 1 989
was at least partly of Black' s
making !
5 dxc5 (5 4:Jc3 ! ? was covered in
Chapter 6 and was also quite good
for White, but the text looks more
natural here 5 . . . i.xc5 6 4:Jc3 ! ? (I
rather like this, although 6 c3 is of
course legitimate too. Mikhail
Gurevich gives 6 . . . 4:Jc6 7 4:Jf3 0-0
8 i.e2 i.f5 as ' unclear' presumably
with the idea of popping the bishop
to e4) 6 . . . i.e6 (6 . . . ..Itb4 would be
well met by 7 i.b5+ 4:Jc6 8 4:Jge2) 7
i.b5+ 4:Jc6 8 4:Jge2 0-0 9 0-0 4:Je5
(attempting to leave the b5 bishop
looking rather ' stranded ' Black
merely encourages it to a good
square. 9 . . . a6 ! looks better) 10 4:Jf4
a6 1 1 ..Ita4 ! 4:Jc4 (The knight on f4
serves to discourage Black from
playing l l . . .d4 which would leave
him weak on the light squares,
specifically 12 4:Je4 ..Itb6 13 4:Jxe6
fxe6 14 exd4 �xd4 1 5 �xd4 ..Itxd4
16 c3 i.b6 1 7 ..Itb3 with clear
advantage) 1 2 i.b3 ! 4:Jxb2 1 3 �e2
l:rc8 1 4 4:Jcxd5 i.xd5 [ 1 4 . . . b5 1 5
4:Jxe6 fxe6 1 6 4:Jf4±] 1 5 4:Jxd5 b5
16 c3 i.a3 17 l:tab 1 4:Jc4 18 l:tfd 1
and White has a clear plus in the
centre, although the abrupt finish
with 1 8 . . . �d6? 1 9 ..Itxc4 ! l:rxc4 20
4:Jb6 ! �xb6 21 �xc4 �xe3 22
This is a common reaction to
4 . . . c6, among those wishing to
enter the g3 systems. However,
while there are virtually no games
with 5 g3 ! ?, my general enthusiasm
for b3 systems makes me at least
curious as to whether 5 . . . �6 6 b3
is really so bad for White. The only
move I can see to make trouble
would be perhaps 6 . . . ..Itf5 (6 . . . a5? !
7 a3 ! ) trying t o answer a casual 7
..Itg2 ? ! with 7 . . . ..Itb4+. In this case
though, I would be willing to switch
back with 7 i.d3 ! ? forcing Black to
expend another tempo with his
bishop . In this case g3 does not
seem a fatal weakening, while
. . . �6 looks a little ill-directed.
Similarly in the position after 5 g3
5 . . . ..Itd6 De la Villa is concerned by
6 i.g2 �6' ! ' but again the logic
escapes me, and again I would
respond happily enough with 7 b 3 .
5 ..Itd6 6 g 3 0-0
Game 50 will examine the whole
question of Black delaying castling,
which is in my view one of the most
significant in the position.
5 4:Jd2
. . .
2 d5 3 Lf6 225
. . .
7 i.g2 f5 8 ttJe2 ttJd7
The plan of . . . fS and the
manoeuvre of this knight to f6
seems the most reliable to me.
White has to ensure that the knight
will not simply nestle down
comfortably on e4 . Also, as we shall
see, this move order leaves Black
well-placed to face the b3 idea, once
the white knight is committed to d2 .
9 0-0 ttJf6 1 0 c4
The standard break. The problem
is that Black gains reasonable piece
play after the clearance of his
remaining centre pawn, mainly due
to the possibility of utilising the dS
square. There is quite a tricky
balance to all this. As we have seen
White is often quite pleased to se�
the exchange of light-squared
bishops, but he does have to feed
into the equation the potential
vulnerability of his kings ide. Black
will tend to respond to his
opponent' s minority attack by
hurling his own h-pawn down the
board to create kings ide weak­
nesses. Incidentally De la Villa
gives the insightful note 10 b3 'iVe7 !
1 1 c4 dxc4 1 2 bxc4 cS ! which
although not so bad for White - he
can still play for example 1 3 'ub I ! ?
causing some irritation to Black ' s
plans for queens ide development -
is fru � trating in that he wants to put
a kmght on c3, and this risks
counterplay based on . . . cxd4 and
. . . f4 . Again this should be
compared with various notes to
Game SO, Ziegler-Akesson III
particular.
1 0 . . . dxc4 !
I feel sure this is right in principle
here. There is no clear consensus
about the blocked positions which
can arise from 1 0 . . . i.e6 1 1 cS ! ? ,
but I am rather optimistic about
them even though stylistically such
things do not always appeal. A
typical example is W ard-Akesson,
Isle of Man (op) 2000 in which
White did not finally succeed in
breaking through, but I am sure
Black had some rather anxious
moments after 1 1 . . . i.e7 1 2 b4 as
1 3 a3 axb4 14 axb4 bS IS 'i¥'b3 'i¥'c7
16 'ua3 'ua7 17 :rfa 1 'ufa8 1 8 'uxa7
J:txa7 1 9 J:Ia3 �7 20 'iVa2 J:txa3 2 1
'iVxa3 i.d8 22 ttJf3 i.c8 2 3 ttJeS
ttJd7 24 ttJxd7 i.xd7 2S ttJf4 i.c8
and there is still a good deal of
passive defence to undertake. My
game with Jonathan Parker also has
similarities, although there the issue
of counterplay against the white
king complicated the equation. I am
not surprised that on the whole
Black tends to avoid this structure.
1 1 ttJxc4 i.c7
226 2 d5 3 Lf6
. . .
12 �c2 ! ?
A nice refinement to White ' s play
from Neil McDonald. White ' s
formation looks more purposeful
than that of the extraordinary
England-Hungary match duo, where
two boards of the same match
proceeded in tandem right up to 1 2
ctJc3 .ie6 1 3 'iVe2 'iVe7 1 4 a 3 .l:i.ad8
1 5 b4 a6 ! 1 6 l:rab 1 l:rfe8 but in both
Black looked very comfortable. In
Adams-Z.Almasi, Moscow (01)
1 994 Black even enjoyed a light
initiative after 1 7 l:i.fc 1 h5 ! ? 1 8 ctJd2
h4 1 9 ctJf3 hxg3 20 hxg3 ctJd5 ! 2 1
.l:i.b2 a5 ! 22 ctJxd5 .ixd5 2 3 'iVd2
axb4 24 axb4 when 24 . . . .ie4 ! ?
looks interesting. Since 2 5 b 5 .id6 !
only serves to embarrass White ' s
rooks, Black's kings ide efforts look
the more likely to cause problems.
Hodgson-Leko, Moscow (01) 1 994
went instead 17 a4 ctJd5 1 8 ctJxd5
.ixdS 1 9 'iVc2 .ixg2 20 �xg2 I;1dS
with rather easy equality, although
again Black could have looked at
1 7 . . . hS ! ?
The queen on c 2 keeps a n eye on
f5, and reserves the possibility to
put the knight into eS.
1 2 . . . .ie6
Natural enough, but once White ' s
plan is revealed the move starts to
look a bit more questionable. In
Hennig-Kveinys, Bundesliga 2000
Black chose 12 . . . 'iVe7 ! ? 13 a3 .ie6
14 1:rac 1 Mad8 I S ctJd2 ? ! g6 1 6
.l:!.fd 1 .l:i.fe8 1 7 ctJb3 hS 1 8 ctJc5 .ic8
19 b4 h4 20 ctJd3 hxg3 2 1 hxg3
.id6 and the position starts to look
rather similar to those reached by
Hodgson and Adams in the last
note, and which fail to impress
particularly. However, it seems to
me that White could still find
mileage in the 14 ctJeS ! ? idea here.
1 4 . . . .ixeS I S dxeS ctJg4 1 6 �c3
does not seem to be a problem, and
again the threat to f5 prevents
. . . .idS and gives White the time to
follow up with f4. In view of all
this, perhaps Black should look at
1 3 . . . g6 ! ?
13 ctJe5 ! ctJd5 ? ! 1 4 ctJd3 g 6 1 5
ctJc5
An
excellent
and
notable
manoeuvre which really gives
White' s coming minority attack an
extra dimension.
15 . . . .ic8 16 ctJc3 ctJf6 17 b4 !
Compared with the 1 2 ctJc3
couplet discussed above, White' s
plan i s much more clear-cut, and his
opponent has not even begun to
address the question of what he
might be able to achieve on the
other wing.
2 d5 3 Lf6 22 7
. . .
1 7 . . . a6 1 8 a4 .Jtd6 1 9 b5 axb5 20
axb5 ':xal 2 1 !hal "iJic7 22 bxc6
bxc6 23 �a4 ctJd7 24 ctJa6 .Jtxa6
25 "iJixa6 ctJb8 26 "iJic4 h5?!
Maybe not bad as a move per se,
but as part of a plan it merely draws
attention to Black ' s passivity. If you
take a step back and look at the two
sides ' pieces, the fact that ultimately
it is White who will benefit from the
opening the h-file is scarcely a
surprise.
2 7 ctJa4 h4 28 ctJc5 hxg3 29 hxg3
�c8 30 l:tbl "iJie7 31 �b7 "iJie8 32
e4 ! ? .Jtxc5 33 dxc5 ? !
I t i s not clear that White was
obliged to open a ' second front' but
it is only here that I really have to
take issue with his method. He was
probably afraid of 33 "iJixc5 fxe4 34
l:te7 "iJif8, when 35 .Jtxe4 l:te8 !
looks a shade too drawish. However
by first playing 35 "iJie5 ! I think he
would maintain the bulk his
considerable initiative.
33 . . . fxe4 34 .Jtxe4 ctJd7 35 J::!. a 7
ctJe5 36 "iJic3 J::!. d 8 37 l:tc7 "iJie6 38
<Jtg2 �d7? ?
White ' s last few moves have the
slightly directionless feel which is
often an indicator of some
time-trouble, but this is an outright
blunder just as Black's disadvantage
was
becoming
manageable.
38 . . . J::!.e 8 ! ? for example looks fairly
playable.
39 �c8+ <Jth7 40 �al ! �dl 41
"iJixdl "iJixc8 42 "iJih5+! 1-0
A slightly messy finish, but
White ' s plan was important and
represents the state of the art for
handling this variation without the
double-edged refinement to which
we now turn.
Game 50
Wells - Parker
4NCL, Telford 2003
1 d4 ctJf6 2 .Jtg5 d5 3 .Jtxf6 exf6
4 e3 .Jtd6 5 g3
5 ... c6
Whilst the primary focus of this
game is to explore whether the
refinement
the
of
adding
preparatory move b2-b3 really
represents a major strengthening of
the whole plan, there is an important
sub-plot too. This is the question of
when and how Black should commit
his king. I was faintly aware before
the game that the idea of holding
back . . . 0-0 was not completely
innocent, but the very real
complexity of the play if Black is
persistent in his readiness to answer
castling by White by launching a
kings ide attack with a quick . . . h5
was something of a revelation. At
this moment I think I would almost
go as far as to depict an early . . . 0-0
by B lack as something of an
inaccuracy.
As we shall see, some . , . h5 by
B lack even comes into consider­
ation before White is committed to
the kingside. However 5 . . . h5 I find
228 2 d5 3 .Lf6
. . .
rather over-exuberant. White is
probably well justified in playing 6
h4 and seeing what else Black wants
to throw at him. In Nataf-Rigo,
Paris (op), 1 995 Black tried to bash
away at a rather wide front with
6 . . . c6 7 ttJd2 'ifb6 8 !Ib l ..if5 but I
quite like 9 ..ih3 ! ? ..ig6 1 0 ttJe2
'iVa6 1 1 ttJf4 ttJd7 12 a3 ttJfS 1 3
ttJxg6 fxg6 1 4 c4 ! dxc4 1 5 'iVc2 b5
16 0-0 f5 17 e4 ! and White clearly
has a dangerous initiative now. Of
course this is only one example, but
the down-side of 5 . . . h5 is certainly
there for all to see.
6 ..i g2 f5 7 ttJe2 ttJd7 !
I think this could well be Black ' s
optimal move order, and hence the
critical position, interesting if true
for the fact that I have only three
games with it on my database !
White is kept guessing as to whether
a decision to castle will be placidly
responded to in kind or will be met
with some serious aggression on the
h-file. My feeling is that the latter
should be treated with some respect.
8 b3 ! ?
A difficult and unfortunately
rather time-consuming decision
based upon two factors :
i) A concern about (for which
read ' fear of' ! ) 8 0-0 h5 ! ? The only
example I have of this is rather
curious . After 9 c4 dxc4 1 0 ttJd2
ttJb6 1 1 ttJc3 i.b4 1 2 l:te l 'iit fS 1 3
a3 ..ie7 1 4 ':c l h4 1 5 ttJe2 hxg3 1 6
hxg3 ..ie6 1 7 ttJf4 i.d5 1 8 ttJxd5
cxd5 White has insufficient comp­
ensation for a pawn in Karttunen­
Sammalvuo,
Helsinki
2002,
although this is a world away from
the ' getting mated' scenarios which
were occupying my mind. I guess
that the pawn sacrifice was a desire
to act fast before 9 ttJd2 h4 kicks in,
but I now think that, sitting at the
board, I probably exaggerated the
danger of this. 1 0 c4 hxg3 1 1 hxg3
ttJf6 (adventures with the queen
leave the centre too vulnerable, as
White can play !Ie 1 often with ttJf4
to follow) 1 2 ttJc3 ! dxc4 1 3 ttJxc4
and now I like 1 3 . . . ..ic7 14 d5 ! for
White, although 1 3 . . . ..ie6 ! ? is still
quite unclear.
S.Buckley-Krupenski, European
Junior (Ch) Baku, 2002, was also
relevant in this regard. This actually
began 8 ttJd2 ttJf6 9 0-0 (It is
interesting that the Hodgson-Leko
game discussed in the notes to
Game 49 took this move order, and
Black decided not to check out the
sharp option) 9 . . . h5 ! ? 1 0 c4 dxc4
1 1 ttJxc4 ..ic7 12 'iWc2 h4 1 3 lIfd l
hxg3 1 4 hxg3 g6? ! 1 5 ttJe5 'iit fS 1 6
ttJf4 'iit g 7 1 7 b4 'Wie7 1 8 'ifb2 when
White enjoyed both acceptable
safety levels on the kingside, and an
initiative elsewhere, but 14 . . . ..ie6 ! ?
might have been more testing.
This
whole
idea
adds
a
challenging dimension to the play,
rather, I think than the major
problem which I perceived when
facing it for the first time.
2 d5 3 L[6 229
. . .
ii) A desire to retain the option of
playing CLlc3 rather than settling for
the more ' convenient' 8 CLld2 ! ?
The reason for this i s probably
best explained by the example
which was in my mind at the time,
namely Ziegler-Akesson, Excelsior
Cup
Gothenburg
1 99 8
By
transposition it would have been
possible, for example, to reach this
by 8 b3 O-O? ! 9 0-0 l:te8 1 0 c4 !
when the usual recipe 1 0 . . . dxc4 1 1
bxc4 c5 1 2 CLlbc3 ! looks much
healthier than usual for White. This
is the ideal square for the queen ' s
knight here. 1 2 . . . CLlf6 1 3 l:tb l WIIe 7
14 WII c 2 CLle4 ? ! 1 5 CLld5 WII e 6 1 6
dxc5 CLlxc5 1 7 CLld4 WIIg 6 1 8 CLlb5
gave White very fluid play in the
centre and on the queenside.
8 CLlf6! 9 c4 ! ?
...
risky
consciously
Another
decision, but I really think that 9 0-0
might be a bit suspect now, as 8 b3
can be quite unhelpful if Black
attacks hard with 9 . . . h5 . 9 CLld2 ! ? is
possible again, but as explained I
regarded it as a concession !
9 �e6 ! ?
Naturally enough I had devoted
most attention to various checks . I
was fairly happy that 9 . . . Wll a 5+ 1 0
CLld2 i..b4 1 1 a3 i..x a3? 1 2 0-0
would be suitably awkward for
. . .
Black, but 9 . . . i.. b4+ ! ? is a much
more complicated business after 1 0
CLlbc3 WIIa 5 when 1 1 l:tc 1 i s probably
best ( 1 1 WIIc2 CLle4 1 2 l:tc 1 i.. e 6 ! ? 1 3
c 5 i.. a 3 gives Black at least the
option to force an immediate draw)
1 1 . . . �xa2 ! ( 1 1 . . . dxc4 ? ! 1 2 bxc4
i.. e 6 1 3 Wlib3 CLle4 14 i.. xe4 fxe4 1 5
0-0 0-0 1 6 CLlxe4 b5 1 7 d5 bxc4 1 8
l:txc4 cxd5 1 9 CLlf6+ ! ) 1 2 0-0 � a5
1 3 cxd5 cxd5 14 WIId 3 0-0 1 5 Ita l
WIId 8 1 6 �b5 ! ? i..x c3 1 7 CLlxc3
offers White just about decent
compensation, but more than that I
could not claim.
10 CLld2
The concession arrives anyway !
Since White settles for advancing
the c-pawn anyway in a few moves,
it is at least arguable that 10 c5 ! ?
would have represented a very
rational economy of effort!
10 h5 ! ?
Black's aggressive intentions are
clarified, although without castling
by White, this is primarily
positional . White ' s advance of the
h-pawn in tum, renders the black
knight much more secure when it
arrives on e4 .
Interestingly, we had transposed
to Hodgson-Tiviakov, Groningen,
1 994, but Jonathan declined to go
down the very critical road which
. . .
230 2 . . . d5 3 Lf6
Black selected there with 1 0 . . .
..tb4 ! ? (Tiviakov also mentions
1 0 . . . lLle4 ! ? 1 1 cxd5 cxd5 as being
unclear. The claim that the good
knight on e4 compensates for the
further pawn weaknesses is an
interesting one, rich in implications,
but I think I would have been happy
with this. Anyone who disagrees
could consider 1 1 c5 ! ?) 1 1 O-O ! ?
(Typical Hodgson! 1 1 cxd5 ..txd5
does not look especially promising
as Black' s possible resources
include . . . ..txd2 and . . . lLle4-g5)
1 1 . . . i.xd2 ( 1 1 . . . dxc4 was also
possible, as White is obliged to
recapture with the knight, although
the bishop is a bit strange on b4
here) 1 2 'iiixd2 ! ? dxc4 1 3 lLlf4 ! cxb3
14 lLlxe6 fxe6 1 5 l:i.fb I ! 0-0 1 6
1:Ixb3 llVd7 1 7 'iVb4 and White has
reasonable compensation for a
pawn, but the Black knight on d5
will be a very solid influence, and I
would be surprised if he were
worse.
11 b4 lLle4 1 2 e5 ! ?
Anyway. I t i s not obvious how
else to push forward.
12 . . . i.e7 13 b4 g6 14 a4 �f8 1 5
'iVe2 rJ;;; g 7 1 6 iVb2 ..td7 1 7 lLlf4
l:i.b8 1 8 l:i.a3 ! ? llVe7 1 9 lLlf3 a6 20
lLle5 i.e8 2 1 lLled3 f6
22 b5? !
At last, the shadow boxing draws
to a close. White ' s problem
throughout has been that Black' s
admirable single-mindedness in
fixing the kings ide and then keeping
his rook permanently fixed on h8,
has ensured that castling has never
been a risk-free option for White.
Still, the text is a bit impatient, and
arguably involves excessive risk
too. The impact of timetrouble on
both sides in what is to follow could
scarcely be overemphasised !
22 . . .i.a5+ 23 lLlb4 g5?
Weakens squares and allows
White to consolidate. I had seen that
23 . . . b6 ! ? was a problem, but I have
to confess that I did not see much of
what could follow. In fact White
might be doing OK after 24 0-0
axb5 25 lLla6 ! b4 26 Itb3 and now
26 . . . l:i.a8 can be met with 27 lLlc7,
or even 27 lLlxb4 bxc5 2 8 lLlxd5 !
cxd5 29 �b7 ..td7 30 ..txe4 fxe4 3 1
dxc5 and it is strangely difficult to
meet White ' s threats. 26 . . . bxc5 ! ? is
better, but 27 lLlxb8 c4 28 l:Ic 1 !
llVd6 29 lLla6 is hugely unclear.
24 lLld3 ..tg6 25 0-0 llVd7 ? ! 26
hxg5 lLlxg5 27 J:i.b3 axb5 28 axb5
h4 29 J:i.al ..txb4 30 l:i.xb4 hxg3 3 1
fxg3
Black's counterplay should have
run its course. Without the factor of
time the exploitation of White ' s
various positional plusses should
not be too problematic.
3 1 . . . 'iVe7 32 lLlf4 llVe7 33 llVb3
..te8 34 bxe6 i.xe6 35 l:i.a7! l:i.he8
36 Irb6 'iVe7 37 lLlxd5??
I think I can get away with using
the word 'tragedy' here. Just as
White ' s
advantage
becomes
decisive, his hanging flag leads him
to throw everything away.
37 . . :�xg3 38 lIxe6 lLlf3+ 0-1
2 d5 3 hf6 231
. . .
Chapter Conclusion
The solid reputation of 2 . . d5
the
unsurprisingly
survives
microsope in this chapter. I have
given rather more coverage than is
customary to 3 . . . gxf6 ! ? because I
think that Black ' s dynamic idea
(with 4 c4 dxc4 ! ) represents a
serious challenge. Game 47 is
clearly playable for White, and
highly complex, but some strong
Trompowsky players have come
unstuck here, and I do have the
feeling that the level of accuracy
required renders this main line
problematic. Hence my enthusiasm
for early deviations in particular my
idea of 8 �h5 ! ? which I hope will
get an outing soon. 5 e4 ! ? is of
course another matter. It is
.
immensely entertaining, but a
convincing answer is needed to
5 . . . l:.g8 ! ? especially.
3 . . . exf6 is also not easy to play
although I am rather enthusiastic for
the g3 approach I have advocated.
The key questions remain:
Should White add b3 to his plan,
and how should White react if Black
delays castling? My inclination is to
answer yes to the first question, but
White probably needs to improve on
the move order I played against
Jonathan Parker' s rather precise
opening play. One further issue
arises . How important is it to retain
the option of tLlbc3 which I was so
fixated on? If the answer to this is
' not crucial ' then the building
blocks for an optimal solution might
be in place.
Chapter 1 0
-
2 . . . g6 and Other Minor
2nd Moves
Game 5 1
Aleksandrov - Janev
European (ch) U-20,
Sas van Gent 1 992
1 d4 ttJf6 2 ..tg5 g6
Whether in all cases by design, or
whether in some cases by a failure
on the part of King ' s Indian players
to take on board the full strategic
implications of 2 ..tg5 ! this appears
relatively often. From our point of
view
it
has
the
additional
importance that it enables White to
carry out a particularly methodical
and logical plan to which I have
alluded at various junctures already.
This game I hope will be instructive
as a very ' clean ' example of this.
Of the other moves which Black
can try here, I think it is fair to say
that several are quite analogous with
those covered elsewhere in the book
(2 . . . d6 for example is very likely to
be similar to 2 . . . g6, while 2 . . . h6? !
will lead to familiar positions just
with Black suffering by about a
tempo) and can be negotiated on the
basis of what we have already seen.
Two others though merit particular
mention:
a) 2 . . . c6 might pose questions for
some Trompowsky players, but for
those who follow the repertoire here
which shows a good deal of faith in
the main ' threat' 3 ..txf6, this holds
no difficulties. After 3 . . . exf6 4 c4 ! ?
I would b e happy with the structure
arising after 4 . . . d5 5 cxd5 cxd5 6
ttJc3 , while 4 . . . 'iWb6 5 'iid 2 seems
to involve no real inconvenience.
The most challenging could be
4. . . ..tb4+ 5 ttJd2 d5 but in
Hodgson-Slobodj an,
Bundesliga
1 999 with 6 e3 ..te6 7 cxd5 ..txd5 8
a3 ..td6 9 e4 ! ..te6 1 0 ..tc4 ! ..txc4
1 1 ttJxc4 0--0 1 2 ttJe2 l:te8 1 3 'iVc2
..tc7 14 0--0 ttJd7 15 l:tad l ttJb6 1 6
ttJe3 'iVe7 1 7 ttJc3 l:tad8 1 8 f4 White
got a nice position by simple, direct
means.
It is all possible to play 3 . . . gxf6,
but after 4 c4 ! there seems to be no
better move than 4 . . . d5 5 e3
directly transposing to Game 46.
b) 2 . . . b6 ! ? poses some slightly
unusual problems, especially for a
repertoire in which systems with g3
play a significant role.
Unusually, I am none too
impressed by 3 ..txf6 here since
after 3 . . . exf6 (3 . . . gxf6 is much
easier - 4 e4 ! ..tb7 5 ttJc3 e6 6
ttJge2 ! d6 7 ttJg3 was Zlochevskij ' s
tidy solution) I am not quite sure
2 g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves 233
. . .
how to proceed. The system with
e3/CDD/.Jte2 for example seems
rather insipid when Black plays with
. . . g6.
3 c4 ! ? might be quite appropriate
for those with a more general
d-pawn background. Black should
probably play 3 . . . .lib7 4 CDc3 e6,
when 5 CDD transposes to main­
stream things. Also 5 e4 h6 6 .lixf6
'iYxf6 is interesting, but White ' s
dark squares are potentially a little
more vulnerable than in Chapter 8
due to the inclusion of c4, and I can
understand this might not be to
everybody' s taste.
3 CDd2 is of course solid, and after
3 . . . i.b7 4 CDgD e6 White can
reasonably venture 5 e4 ! ? since
5 . . . h6 6 i.xf6 'iYxf6 7 .lid3 with a
perfectly decent version of the
Chapter 8 type, since it is not clear
to me that . . . b6 systems (although
they have been played enough it is
true) fit so well here.
However, for those seeking
something a little different I am
quite tempted by 3 CDc3 ! ? .lib7 4
ttJD still intending to meet 4 . . . e6
with yet another version of this
familiar 5 e4 h6 6 i.xf6 'iVxf6
routine, but one which looks quite
pleasant to me. Of course, Black can
try other 4th moves. The most
notable was 4 . . . g6 5 d5 ! ? Reinaldo
Castine ira-Castaldo, European U20
(ch) Aviles 2000 which after
5 . . . iJ.. g 7 6 e4 d6 7 'iVd2 0-0 8 .lih6
:le8 9 .lixg7 <j;xg7 1 0 0-0-0
rapidly reached an original and
rather appealing position.
3 i.xf6 ! exf6 4 g3
Roughly I would like to use this
game to consider White ' s overall
scheme, and the following game to
consider move-order issues and
early complications.
4 . . . i.g7 5 .lig2 f5 6 c4 c6
As I said I want to postpone a
serious consideration of early detail.
Just to note that 6 . . . c5 ! ? looks a bit
problematic and might lead to the
endorsement of a different move
order for White !
7 e3 d6 8 CDc3 CDd7 9 b4 0-0 1 0
CDge2 CDf6
Instead 1 0 . . . a5? ! is a very strange
idea, designed to force the b-pawn
forward at a moment when the
c-pawn can still be harangued by
. . . CDb6. Black held a draw in
Lputian-Kveinys, European Club
Cup, Budapest 1 996 but the pawn
sacrifice 1 1 b5 CDb6 ( 1 1 . . .c5 1 2
l:!.c 1 CDb6 1 3 dxc5 dxc5 1 4 'ii'x d8
l:txd8 1 5 CDd5 also looked nice for
White in Wang Yue-Pashikian,
World U- 1 6 Heraklion 2002) 1 2
bxc6 bxc6 1 3 .lixc6 l:!.b8 1 4 i.b5
( 1 4 kIb l ! ?) 14 . . . .lib7 1 5 0-0 i.D 1 6
'i'd3 h 5 1 7 h4 i.f6 1 8 e4 certainly
does not look full value.
1 1 0-0
A certain similarity between
White ' s set-up and that examined in
Games 49-50 is evident, but it
makes a significant and in my
opinion favourable difference that
Black has not occupied the centre
with a pawn and must now address
the question of how to tackle the
increase in the scope of the
234 2 g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves
. . .
fianchettoed bishop which the
queenside pawn stonn has every
hope of engineering.
1 l .. :i¥e7
Other moves:
Azmaiparashvili recently tried
1 1 . . . i.e6 here and was successful in
provoking 12 dS? ! which looks to
me like an instructive error - the
right way to make some waves on
the light squares here is only with
b4-bS , not to concede a load of dark
squares in tum. In I.Rogers­
Azmaiparashvili,
Europe-Asia
Rapid, Batumi 200 1 , after 1 2 dS
cxdS 13 cxdS i.d7 14 'i!i'b3 'i!i'b6 I S
1:tac l lbg4 ! I already prefer Black.
The right way must be simply 1 2
'i¥d3 , when Black has tended to
reply 1 2 . . . dS, but either 1 3 cxdS , or
perhaps better 1 3 cS ! ? lbe4 14 bS
gS IS .:tab 1 hS 16 1:Lb3 h4 17 f3
lbxc3 1 8 'ifxc3 hxg3 1 9 hxg3 'ii' f6
20 f4 Kozul-Bukic, Slovenia (chT),
Bled 2000, with a position still more
reminiscent of the last chapter, but a
version in which White has already
achieved quite a lot. It is also none
too clear what the bishop is
expecting from life on g7 . It is
really helpful here that the
repertoire
already
gave
us
considerable insights into the
treatment of the light-squared
fianchetto against Black's dS pawn.
1 1 . . J le8 has also been tried.
Hodgson-Strikovic, C acak, 1 996
was not entirely convincing for
White after 1 2 a4 ( 1 2 'ii'd3 ! ? is also
sensible trying to keep the knight
back from e4) 1 2 . . . lbe4 1 3 'ilid3
i.e6 14 as .l:.c8 I S .l:.fc l dS 1 6 cxdS
cxdS 1 7 a6 b6 1 8 lbf4 'ii'd7 and the
game was drawn a few moves later.
Even though it might look to the
naked eye as if White has made
some inroads on the light squares it
is not so clear where to go from
here. The obvious question is why
not 14 bS ! ? instead? If 14 . . . cxbS I S
axbS 'ii' c 7 ! ?, then 1 6 lbdS ! ? i.xdS
17 cxdS looks like a safe route to a
small plus, while 1 6 l:ta4 l:tec8 1 7
i.xe4 fxe4 1 8 lbxe4 dS ! ? could be
risky try for more. Perhaps
1 4 . . . cS ! ? was a concern, although
after I S lbxe4 ! ? fxe4 1 6 i.xe4
i.xc4 1 7 'iVxc4 �xe4 1 8 'iVdS ! ? I
still prefer White.
1 2 b5 lbe4 13 'iVd3 l:te8 14 l:[ab l
i.e6 1 5 bxc6 bxc6 1 6 lbxe4 fxe4
1 7 i.xe4 !
A powerful and well judged
exchange sacrifice. White will get
two pawns for the exchange and his
bishop will be a monster on the light
2 g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves 235
. . .
squares, whereas Black will have
trouble, as so often in this line,
finding a convincing role for his.
Incidentally 17 'iVxe4 .i.xc4 1 8
Viix e7 lixe7 1 9 .i.xc6 lic8 20 .i.O
.i.xa2 is certainly comfortable for
White as the bishop on g7 is in no
fit state to support the a-pawn, but it
is difficult to make real inroads.
1 7 . . . d5
Or 17 . . . .i.xc4 1 8 Viix c4 'iVxe4 1 9
Ii.b7 when Black really i s obliged to
play 1 9 . . . lif8 to defend f7 which
hardly inspires confidence.
1 8 cxd5 cxd5 19 .i.f3 .i.f5 20
'iVd2 .i.xb1 21 lixb1 .l:!:ab8
A recognition that attempting to
defend the d-pawn would be futile White has two minor pieces which
can hit it, his opponent has none for
the defence.
22 .l:txb8 .l::!. x b8 23 .i.xd5 .i.h6 24
'iVd3 lib2
When judging any exchange
sacrifice, the quality of the minor
piece usually gets a lot of attention,
but sometimes the scope of the
major pieces rather less so. Here
Black' s rook looks superficially
healthy enough, the problem is
rather in the sphere of cooperation
with the other pieces. There are
scarcely any entry points into the
White position, and he can
moreover mobilise his extra pawns
at leisure without creating any.
25 .i.b3 'iVf6 26 �g2 a5 27 h4 a4
28 .i.xa4 lixa2 2 9 .i.b3 lib2 30
.i.c4 'iVe7 ? !
3 0 . . .'�c6+ ! ? looks a slightly
better attempt to provoke some
chink in White ' s armour since 3 1 e4
I;Id2 offers a morsel of hope.
3 1 e4 'iVb4 32 .i.d5 �g7 33 e5
.i.d2 34 'iVf3 'iVe7 35 .i.c4 .i.e1 36
�f1 lib1 37 �g2 lib2 38 �f1 .l:tb1
39 .i.d3 l:ra1 40 'It>g2 I;Ia2 4 1 h5
The
then
rather
young
Aleksandrov' s entire handling of
this ending shows an admirably
mature patience. Now though he is
ready for the direct assault which
proves decisive.
4 1 . . . .i.d2 42 'iVe4 .i.e1 43 .i.c4
.l:tb2 44 d5 'iVc5 45 'iVf4 �b4 46 e6
f5 47 'iVe5+ �h6 48 4Jd4! l:rxc4 49
4Jxf5+ gxf5 50 'iVf6+ 'It>xh5 5 1
'iVxf5+ �h6 5 2 'iVf6+ �h5 5 3 'iVf5+
'It>h6 54 'iVf6+ �h5 55 'iVf7+ 'It>h6
56 e7 l:re4 57 'iVf6+ �h5 58 'iVf5+
'It>h6 59 'iVf8+ �g5 60 f4+ �g4 6 1
'iVg8+ �f5 62 'iVg5 mate
White' s conduct of the final
attack was both forcing and
faultless.
Game 52
I.Sokolov Har Zvi
Wijk aan Zee (op) 1 993
-
1 d4 4Jf6 2 .i.g5 g6 3 .i.xf6 exf6
4 e3
In addition to a clear outline of
White' s plan and where he should
put his pieces there is the additional
question of move order which, if
botched, might reveal itself to be
236 2 . . . g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves
not quite so subsidiary. There are
two possible issues - whether to
permit Black a foothold in the
centre with . . . d5, and in which
positions it is necessary to worry
about a strike back with . . . c5 (this
game being an illustration of just
such a ' disruption strategy ' by
Black) .
I began with the idea that it would
be nice to prevent 4 . . . d5, although I
think that this is in a sense the
' luxury ' side of the question.
Having examined the material in
Chapter 9, I have to say I would be
quite happy to play those positions
with Black committed to the move
. . . g6, the relevance of which is
going to be questionable, and is
certainly never optimal. Having said
that, a part of me does want to
'punish' Black for playing 2 . . . g6,
and since 4 c4 is Hodgson ' s regular
choice, it is fair to assume that there
is some way to neutralise the ' . . . c5
problem' . I think there probably is,
but it requires some accuracy. I am
unsure for example about 4 c4 i.. g 7
5 lbc3 f5 6 g3 0-0 7 i.. g 2 c5 ! ? since
I suspect that Black' s play in
Kosten-Rozentalis, Belfort, 1 997
could be improved. After 8 dxc5
lba6 9 l:.c 1 lbxc5 10 e3 what about
the immediate pawn sacrifice
1 O . . . d5 ! ? since 1 1 cxd5 'iVb6 1 2 b3
f4 looks dangerous, and even 1 1
i..x d5 ! ? f4 ! 1 2 b4 ! ? lba6 1 3 a3 fxe3
14 fxe3 lbc7 looks like a fair degree
of unnecessary hassle.
Therefore, I like the look of 4 c4
i.. g 7 5 lbc3 f5 6 e3 0-0 7 lbge2 and
only then 8 g3 which gets my final
vote. Alternatively, as I suggested
above, permitting . . . d5 is also
legitimate. One final thought. For
those who are unconcerned about
. . . d5 ideas, but are unenthusiastic
about the current game there is the
interesting move
order
from
Knaak-Tabatt,
Germany
(ch)
Bremen 1 998, which went 4 e3 i.. g 7
5 g3 0-0 6 i.. g 2 d6 7 lbe2 c5 8 0-0
f5 and now the point of delaying c4
was revealed as having provoked
. . . c5 White preferred 9 lbbc3 ! ?
lbd7 1 0 'iWd3 lbf6 1 1 �fd l 'iWe7 1 2
a4 i.. e 6 1 3 lbf4 with a very
harmonious position.
4 . . . f5 5 lbe2 i.. g 7 6 g3 0-0 7
i.g2 d6 8 c4 c5 ! ?
Despite the apparently convincing
and undeniably swift nature of
White ' s success in this game, this is
one of the more thematic . . . c5
based attempts to gain counterplay,
which deserves serious attention.
9 lbbc3 cxd4
9 . . . lbc6 ! ?
is
an
interesting
alternative.
2 g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves 23 7
. . .
Its relative popularity increases
my suspicion as to whether Black
really gets to create enough 'mess '
in the main game continuation .
White can try:
a) 1 0 dxcS ( 1 0 .I1i.xc6? ! cxd4 ! )
1 0 . . . .I1i.e6 ! ? ( l O . . . dxcS results in
really quite severe structural defects,
and White also gets to simplify;
10 . . . llJeS seems to have been rather
pragmatically met in Pixton­
Kriventsov, USA (ch), Seattle 2003
by I I .I1i.dS ! ? dxcS 12 llJf4 gS?! 1 3
ctJd3 'iV as 1 4 0-0 .I1i.e6 I S ctJxeS
.I1i.xeS 1 6 'iVhS with advantage) I I
cxd6 ! ? (De la Villa claims that after
I I .I1i.xc6 bxc6 1 2 'iVxd6 'iVaS 1 3 0-0
.I1i.xc4
Black
enj oys
good
compensation for the pawn, and I
am inclined to believe him)
1 1 . . . .I1i.xc4 1 2 0-0 'iVb8 ! ? 1 3 'iVa4
i.xe2 14 llJxe2 'iVxd6 I S gfd l and
Black still cannot claim full
equality. Of course Black has other
possibilities on move 1 2 , but
nothing obviously stronger.
b) 1 0 O-O ! ? avoids this early
clarification of the position, while
also averting the complexity of Har
Zvi ' s pawn sacrifice to which 1 0
'iVd2 can lead. In Speelman-Poldauf,
European Club Cup, Slough 1 997
Black reacted much too passively
with 1 0 . . . Sl.d7 and quickly stood
somewhat worse after I I 'iVd2 gb8
1 2 gad l cxd4 13 llJxd4 llJxd4 1 4
exd4 .I1i.c6 I S llJdS . Perhaps
1 0 . . . cxd4 1 1 cxd4 f4 ! ? makes more
sense, although the bishop pair does
not fully compensate for Black's
weaknesses after the simple 12
ctJxf4 ctJxd4 13 ge l (De la Villa).
10 exd4
Ivan has opted for this recapture
twice, but on the basis of the
improvement to Black' s play which
has been suggested at move 1 2 (see
the note below) I have to wonder
whether White should give the
alternative 1 0 ctJxd4 ! ? a little more
consideration. This will if anything
heighten still further the contest
'dynamic '
between
Black' s
aspirations on the dark squares in
general
(especially
the
long
diagonal), and White ' s hopes to
exploit his opponent' s weakened
structure and suspicious light
squares (most obviously dS) .
Black has limited options to try
and mix it, as the key retreat ctJde2
seems to me broadly to hold the
position together, in which case
keeping the d-file half-open has
useful ' positive ' virtues, as well as
the ' negative ' virtue of avoiding
Black' s pawn sacrifice. Neither
1 0 . . . llJc6 I I llJde2 ! .I1i.e6 1 2 b3, nor
1 0 . . . 'iVb6 1 1 b3 ctJc6 1 2 llJde2
make much impact. This deserves a
practical test.
10 llJc6 1 1 'iVd2 f4 !
. . .
Without this resource, Black' s
position i s really lacking i n dynamic
possibility, but I actually find this
sacrifice quite promising.
12 gxf4
Taking up the challenge. 1 2
'iVxf4 ? ! is well countered by
12 . . . 'iVb6 but I suppose 12 0-0 is
legal, although it would also be an
238 2 g6 and Other Minor 2nd Moves
. . .
admission that
1 1 . . . f4
is a
considerable achievement for Black.
12 . . . 'it'h4 13 dS tDe7 14 0-0 tDfS
15 tDg3 tDh6?
A mistake which seems to reflect
an overestimation of Black' s
attacking chances. The simple
pursuit of his development and
influence on the centre with
1 5 . . . 'it'f6 1 6 tDxf5 .txf5 would
have yielded quite reasonable
compensation as Ivan Sokolov
himself acknowledged.
16 tDce4 tDg4 17 h3 tDf6
After this Black is lost. 20 . . . 'i!i'h4
still puts up a fight.
21 �g3 !
It is quite a rare treat to see a king
emerge to help trap a queen. Black
is quite helpless. A dramatic turn of
events indeed !
2 1 . . . f6 22 .tf3 1-0
Chapter 10
Conclusion
Of Black ' s minor second moves,
only 2 . . b6 ! ? has the independent
merit possibly to distract White
from the customary Trompowsky
plan commencing 3 .txf6.
2 . . . g6 retains a considerable
following, but in fact the conduct of
White' s plan here is arguably in its
purest form. There are interesting
questions of move order, although if
White is happy to permit 4 . . . d5 then
there is a lot of leeway. An early
. . . c5 by Black certainly creates the
most critical positions, but if my
suggestion of 1 0 tDxd4 ! ? holds up
in Game 50 then the most celebrated
of these fails to dent the general
optimism which pervades the whole
chapter.
.
1 8 tDgS!
Oops ! Suddenly it becomes clear
that the main issue is not the white
king at all, but the black queen !
1 8 . . . tDhS 1 9 tDxhS 'ii'x hS 20
�h2 .th6?
-
Index of Main Variations
Chapter 1: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �gS ttJe4 3 �f4 cS 1 5 4 f3 ttJf6 S dxcS 1 6
S .. :1WaS+ 1 6 5 . . .b6 ; 5 . . . ttJc6; 5 . . . ttJa6 2 0
Chapter 2: 1 d 4 ttJf6 2 �gS ttJ e 4 3 �f4 c S 1 5 4 f3 �aS+ S c 3 ttJf6 6 d S
�b6 6 . . . d 6 23; 6 . . . g 6 25; 6 . . . e 6 28-3 0 7 �cl 7 b3 35 7 . . . e6 7 . . . d 6 3 7 8 c 4 3 9
8 . . :�·b4+ 4 5 8 . . . exd5 3 9; 8 . . �d6 41
.
Chapter 3: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �gS ttJe4 3 �f4 cS 4 f3 'iWaS+ 5 1 S c3 ttJf6 6 ttJd2
cxd4 7 ttJb3 'ti'b6 7 . . :�f5 51; 7 ... 'ti'd8 53 8 'ti'xd4 8 cxd4 57 8 ... ttJc6
8 .. :�·xd4 59 9 'ti'xb6 axb6 10 ttJd4 63 10 e4 63 ; 10 a3 64; 10 �e3 64
10 ... e5 10 .. Jb5 6 7 1 1 ttJxc6 67-71
Chapter 4 : 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �gS ttJe4 3 �f4 dS 4 f3 4 ttJd2 75 4 ... ttJf6 81 S e4
7 7 5 ... dxe4 5 ... e6 88 6 ttJc3 e3 6 ... exf3 82 ; 6 ... .i.f5 85; 6 ... ttJd5 86 7 .i.xe3
87
Chapter 5 : 1 d 4 ttJf6 2 �g5 ttJe4 3 �f4 d S 4 e3 9 1
4 . . .�f5 5 f3 ttJ d 6 5 . . . ttJf6 9 2 6 ttJd2 6 ttJc3 95
4 e6 S �d3 99;
4 ... c6 S .i.d3 �b6 1 01 ; 5 . . . ttJd7, 5 . . . ttJf6 1 02 6 .i.xe4 1 03
4 ... c5 1 06 S �d3 ttJf6 5 . . . �6 1 06; 5 . . . ttJc6 1 1 0; 5 . . . cxd4 1 1 2 6 dxcS 1 1 8
•..
Chapter 6: 1 d 4 ttJf6 2 i.gS c S 3 .i.xf6 3 ttJc3 1 20; 3 d 5 1 2 1 ; 3 �xf6 1 2 1
3 ... gxf6 122 3 . . . exf6 122 4 d S 'ti'b6 4 . . �g7 124; 4 . . . i.h6 1 2 7 5 �c1 fS 6 c3
1 3 1 6 g3 1 3 6 6 ... .i.g7 7 g3 1 3 3 - 1 38
.
Chapter 7: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 .i.gS cS 3 dS
3 .. :tlVb6 3 . . . d6 4 ttJc3 h6 5 .i.xf6 exf6 1 42 4 ttJc3 'iVxb2 5 i.d2 1 45- 1 58
3 ... ttJe4 4 �f4 156 4 .. J1Vb6 4 . . . e6 1 5 7 S .i.c1 5 ttJd2 1 62; 5 'ti'c 1 1 62 S ... fS
5 . . . g6 6 f3 ttJd6 1 66 6 f3 ttJf6 1 65
Chapter 8: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �g5 e6 3 e4 1 73 3 ... h6 3 . . . d5 1 74; 3 . . . i.e7 1 74;
3 . . . d6 1 75; 3 . . . c5 1 76 4 �xf6 'ti'xf6 1 78
S ttJc3 5 �d2 186- 1 90 5 ... �b4 5 . . . d6 1 80 6 'ti'd3 1 99 6 'iVd2 1 95
S c3 201 5 ... dS 2 05 5 . . . d6 202
Chapter 9: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �gS dS 3 �xf6
3 ... gxf6 2 1 0 4 c4 2 1 1 4 ... dxc4 2 1 4 4 . . . c6 2 1 1 ; 4 . . . c5 2 1 4 5 e3 2 1 5 / S e4
218
3 . . . exf6 2 2 0 4 e 3 c 6 22 1 ; 4 . . . �e6 22 1 ; 4 . . . i.e7 222 ; 4 . . . �f5 223 ; 4 . . . c 5
2 2 3 4 . . . �d6 22 7 5 ttJd2 224
Chapter 1 0: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 �gS g6 2 . . . c6; 2 . . . b 6 232 3 .i.xf6 exf6 4 g3 233 /
4 e3 235
Index of Games
(numbers refer to pages)
Adams-Lautier
Adams-Leko
Adams-Xie Jun
Akopian-Hernandez
Akopian-Mohandesi
Akopian-B. Socko
Aleksandrov-Janev
Benjamin-Malisauskas
Chepukaitis-Y emelin
Dishman-Ward
Gallagher-Knott
Gallagher-Rytshagov
Galyas-R.Ruck
C'rrigore-Jianu
Hodgson-Gelfand
Hodgson-Kotronias
Hodgson-Magem B adals
Hodgson-Panchenko
Hodgson-Rowson
195,
Hodgson-Sonntag
Hodgson-Sutovsky
Hodgson-Turner
Hodgson-Van der Wie!
Hodgson-Wells
Jansa-Sosonko
Lomineishvili-Gruenberg
131
15
1 06
136
98
20
232
88
148
205
141
1 12
213
53
57
1 22
1 80
81
20 1
218
67
41
1 27
30
77
51
Lputian-Z.Ilincic
95
Lputian-Mirumian
59
McDonald-Lukacs
22 1
McShane-Woj aszek
35
75
Mikhalevski-Mark Tseitlin
Moiseenko-Romanishin
84
21 1
Plaskett-J.Cooper
Rogers-Ft<icnik
71
Romero Holmes-Garcia Luque 1 0 1
Rowson-Hadzimanolis
23
Sargissian-Frohlich
138
Savchenko-Golubev
1 56
Shereshevsky-Kolev
1 90
I . Sokolov-Har Zvi
235
1 10
Spee!man-Y.Wang
Stefanova-Panchenko
1 62
Summerscale-Hermansson
1 18
Torre-Svidler
62
Tregubov-Shulman
1 74
Vaganian-Kupreichik
1 44
1 86
Wells-Britton
27
Wells-Hamdouchi
Wells-Parker
227
1 99
Wells-See!
91
Winants-Wiedenkeller