ECHECS - CHESS - Valery Aveskulov - Attack with Black(2012) [EN].pdf

Attack with Black

Valery Aveskulov

First published in the UK by Gambit Publications Ltd 20 12

Copyright Valery Aveskulov 20 12

The right of Valery Aveskulov to be identified a s the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1 988 .

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without prior permission of the publisher. In particular, no part of this publication may be scanned, transmitted via the Internet or uploaded to a website without the publisher's permission. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damage.

ISBN- 1 3 : 978- 1 -906454-39-5 ISBN- 10 : 1 -906454-39-6

DISTRIBUTION: Worldwide (except USA) : Central Books Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN, England. Tel +44 (0)20 8986 4854 Fax +44 (0)20 8533 582 1 . E-mail: orders@Centralbooks .com

Gambit Publications Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN, England. E-mail: info@ gambitbooks .com Website (regularly updated): www.gambitbooks .com

Edited by Graham Burgess Typeset by Petra Nunn Cover image by Wolff Morrow Printed in Great Britain by the MPG Books Group, Bodmin and King's Lynn

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Gambit Publications Ltd Managing Director: Murray Chandler GM Chess Director: Dr John Nunn GM Editorial Director: Graham Burgess FM German Editor: Petra Nunn WPM Webmaster: Dr Helen Milligan WPM

Contents

Introduction 4 Symbols 6

White Avoids the Benko 1 Diemer, Veresov and Trompowsky 7 2 Colle, Zukertort, London and Torre Systems 22 3 Anti-Benoni 4lt:Jc3 37 4 Blumenfeld Gambit 42 5 Blumenfeld Gambit: 5 .tg5 55 6 1 d4 lZ'lf6 2 c4 c5: 3 e3 and 3 dxc5 65 7 Vaganian Gambit 80 8 Vaganian Gambit: 7 e3 92

The Benko Gambit 9 Benko Gambit Declined 104

10 Benko: Zaitsev, Dlugy and Modern Lines 120 11 Benko Gambit: 5 b6 137 12 Benko Accepted: Introduction and Rare Lines 148 13 Benko Accepted: King Walk 158 14 Benko Accepted: Fianchetto Lines 177 15 Benko Main Line with 10 J:.b1 192

Understanding the Benko 16 Dream Positions for Black 200 17 Positions to Avoid 207 18 Tactical Exercises 212

Solutions 217

Index of Variations 223

I ntroduction

The aim of this book is to present a complete repertoire for Black against 1 d4. The cornerstones of the repertoire are two gambits that are aggressive but positionally motivated: the Benko Gambit and the Blumenfeld Gambit. While seeking out lines that give Black attacking chances, I have also striven to recommend only those variations which are theoretically sound and reliable. Throughout the book, I have attempted to explain the most relevant strategic concepts for both players, cater for tricky move-orders, and to analyse new moves and ideas for both sides. I hope that by covering logical but untested ideas for White, I have to some degree 'futureproofed' the book.

But why did I decide to write this book on this topic, and at this point in time? Allow me a brief digression.

Our generation has the honour to live in the computer era. Besides the obvious advantages, it also puts certain duties on us; this applies to practically all aspects of life, and chess is no exception. In the 1960s and 1 970s, top chess-players spent months studying an opening to find new ideas, and just to gather relevant material they had to subscribe to many chess magazines and manually assimilate all the data. If somebody played a strong novelty, even in a major event, it could take months before it became well-known to the chess community. Nowadays we can learn the main line of any opening in an hour using a database (though this does not mean we can play it well ! ) . If a novelty is played in a top tournament, a good chess-player watching it live online can figure out even before the game has ended whether it is a really strong idea or if it's just a one-time bomb to surprise an opponent. The speed at which information travels is amazing and we need to take this into account when choosing our openings. I feel it makes sense to have some lines that are special to us, that we have prepared in ways that cannot be replicated by our opponents working with their computer in the few hours before they face us.

But which sort of openings should we study: sharp and fashionable or rare and half-correct? Poor opening choices can ruin your efforts in chess. If you like to play quiet positions with pawn-chains, then the Sicilian Dragon shouldn' t be in your repertoire. And if you are a good tactical player, forget about defending the Queen's Gambit Declined with Black; learn the King's Indian or Benko Gambit ! It will immediately help you to get better results .

From my experiences as a coach of players of a wide variety of ages, I have discovered that many players have little notion of how to study a new opening

INTRODUCTION 5

variation. They have a limited grasp of ChessBase, don' t know how to use an engine effectively and as a result their repertoire barely gets them to move 1 0 without a mishap. I assisted them first with advice about which opening lines to choose, and then I offered some brief lines of that or another variation. Later I wrote some opening articles that started to appear in chess magazines . Eventually, the idea formed: "Maybe I could write a book on the opening to assist even more players ."

The question "Which opening should it be about?" was solved very quickly. When I was 7 or 8, a coach presented me with a handwritten 1 70-page monograph that unfortunately has never been published. It was dedicated to the Benko Gambit ! If I had been asked at that point to explain why I should sacrifice my b-pawn, I could hardly have done so, but I started to sacrifice it and I loved the games I got. Later when I began to face stronger opponents, my Benko games became more difficult. I took up openings like the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Gambit Declined in order to resist against solid players, but against weaker players I still preferred to play the opening from my childhood. As I became stronger, I began to understand more and more about the Benko, but there was never time to devote serious study to my favourite opening. But my students often asked about Benko lines, and I found myself increasingly drawn into the subject. Gradually, more and more Benko analysis appeared on my computer. When I asked Graham Burgess (Editorial Director of Gambit Publications Ltd) whether a Benko guide might be of interest, he asked me if I could extend it into a complete opening repertoire against 1 d4. I readily agreed with his idea since most of the other variations were also worked out on my computer and I already had many interesting ideas for how to complete the repertoire. That is how the idea of this book was born.

So, if you feel at home with aggressive gambit chess, this book is for you ! The last three chapters of the book feature instructive material on the Benko Gambit: positions you should aim for, ones to avoid, and positions for solving (both strategic and tactical) . If you are new to the Benko, you may wish to study these chapters before anything else - the more detailed discussion should make more sense then !

I sought to make this book interesting for both professional players and amateurs. There are a great many new ideas that should be viable in high-level games, while there are also plenty of verbal explanations. I very much hope you will like the results of my work. Also I shall be very thankful if you send me your feedback, ideas, questions or even complaints to me by email: [email protected].

Finally, I would like to thank Graham Burgess, who professionally and cooperatively assisted me throughout the whole process of writing this book; and Alexander Moiseenko, who helped me to believe that I can analyse openings at a high level .

6 AITACK WITH BLACK

And many thanks to my darling wife Irina who gave us a boy, Ivan, on 9th March 201 2 and made me unbelievably happy !

Symbols

X capture + check ++ double check # checkmate ! ! brilliant move

good move ! ? interesting move ? ! dubious move ? bad move ?? blunder +- White is winning White is much better ;!; White is slightly better = the game is equal + Black is slightly better + Black is much better -+ Black is winning Ch championship tt team event 1 -0 the game ends in a win for White lf2- lh the game ends in draw 0- 1 the game ends in a win for Black (n) nth match game (D) see next diagram

Valery Aveskulov July 2012

1 Diemer, Veresov and Trom powsky

1 d4 liJf6 (D)

w

Our main lines in this book start after 2 liJf3 and especially 2 c4. However, White can direct the game in a very different direction on his second move, and this chapter is devoted to these lines. In increasing order of importance, we have: A: 2 tt:Jc3 dS 3 e4? 7 B: 2 liJc3 dS 3 ..tgS 8 C: 2 ..tgS 1 2

Given our repertoire preferences, the move-order 2 c3 gives us no problems as we simply meet it with 2 . . . d5 . After the rare 2 g3, Black can reply 2 . . . c5 3 d5 b5 4 ..tg2 d6, with active play.

A) 2 tt:Jc3 dS 3 e4? This is a form of the Blackmar

Diemer Gambit, a very rare opening at higher levels but it has many adherents among club-level players . An objective evaluation of this gambit is 'not correct' . Its general idea is to give up a pawn for rapid development - a laudable enough aim, but right here this idea can hardly be recommended. Black takes the pawn practically for free.

3 ... tt:Jxe4 4 tt:Jxe4 dxe4 (D)

w

None of White's continuations give him sufficient compensation.

5 ..tc4 Or:

8 AITACK WITH BLACK

a) 5 ..lte3 i.f5 6 g4 ..ltg6 7 lt:\e2 (Ferreira-Chauca, Rio de Janeiro 2008) 7 . . . lt:\c6 8 lDf4 'ied6 + intending . . . 0-0-0 and . . . e5 .

b) 5 i.f4 lt:\c6 6 c3 e6 7 'ic2 f5 ! 8 0-0-0 i.d6 + M.Pfeifer-Neckar, Czech Team Ch 200 1/2.

c) With 5 f3 e5 ! Black gives the pawn back in order to get a development advantage. 6 dxe5 (6 fxe4? 'ii'h4+ -+; 6 ..lte3 exd4 7 'iiixd4 'i!Vxd4 8 ..ltxd4 lt:\c6 9 i.b5 i.d7 10 i.c3 exf3 I l lt:\xf3 0-0-0 12 0-0-0 f6 + Helin-Yurenok, Caleta 2012) 6 . . . 'iiixdl + 7 xdl i.f5 8 f4 lt:\c6 9 c3 0-0-0+ 10 e1 i.c5 +.

5 . lt:\c6 6 d5 lt:\a5! This new move improves over

Abbasifar-Tanaka, Istanbul Olympiad 2000, and forces the exchange of the light-squared bishop. 7 'i!ie2 (7 i.e2? e6 +; 7 i.b5+? c6 8 dxc6 'i!ixd 1 + 9 xd l bxc6 +) 7 . . . lt:\xc4 8 iixc4 e6 9 dxe6 ..ltxe6 10 'ii'xe4 'ii'd5 ! I I 'ii'xd5 i.xd5 + gives Black a very pleasant endgame with the bishop-pair.

B) 2 lt:\c3 d5 3 i.g5 (D)

This is the most common moveorder to reach the Richter-Veresov Attack (we shall call it the 'Veresov' for short) . Other versions are 1 d4 d5 2 lt:\c3 lt:\f6 3 i.g5, I d4 lt:\f6 2 Ji.g5 d5 3 lt:\c3 and I lt:\c3 lDf6 2 d4 d5 3 i.g5 . The opening was named after the German International Master Kurt Richter (who played it from the 1 920s to the 1 940s) and later the Soviet master Gavriil Veresov ( 1 950s- 1 970s ) .

The Veresov has never been popular at the highest levels, though some top players have employed it on occasion. It has appealed mostly to maverick players such as Spassky, Tal, Larsen, Bronstein, Miles, Alburt and Morozevich, who have never objected to irregular play on the board. Nowadays you can find this variation in games of such GMs as Hector, Chemyshov, Khachian and Miladinovic.

White has two main ideas : the first is to damage Black's pawn-structure with i.xf6 (not considered so dangerous nowadays) and the second is to make a pawn advance in the centre with f3 and e4 (often after 0-0-0).

3 . . . lt:\bd7 (D) This is the most popular response

to the Veresov, as Black prepares a strong response to the e4 plan, while also avoiding doubled f-pawns . Now: B l : 4 iid3 9 B2: 4 e3 10 B3: 4 f3 10 B4: 4lt:\f3 1 2

The third of these, preparing the e4 advance, is the most consistent with White 's aims in the Veresov, but

DIEMER, VERESOV AND TROMPOWSKY 9

w

doesn' t work very well if Black plays precisely . The fourth is the most popular move.

There are a few alternatives : a) White can sacrifice a pawn with

4 e4? ! tLlxe4 5 tLlxe4 dxe4 6 f3 but this clearly can't work out well. 6 . . . h6 and now:

a 1 ) 7 iLh4 loses control of the e3-square : 7 . . . c5 ! 8 dxc5 (8 d5? 'iWb6 9 l:tb1 g5 1 0 iL.g3 iL.g7 1 1 c3 'iWg6 + Gomes-Epishin, Las Palmas 1 997 ; Black has kept the extra pawn) 8 . . . e3 9 'iWd4 e5 ! +.

a2) 7 iL.f4 (Lodi-G.Kovacs, Hungarian Team Ch 1999/00) 7 . . . c6 (as is often the case, the simplest reply to a gambit is to give back the pawn for rapid development) 8 fxe4 e5 ! (and Black can even sacrifice one of his own) 9 dxe5 'ia5+ 1 0 'iVd2 'iWxd2+ 1 1 Wxd2 tLlc5 1 2 ..id3 ..ie6 1 3 tt:Jf3 0-0-0 with ideas of . . . tt:Jxe4+ and . . . tt:Ja4.

b) White can also play 4 'iWd2 intending 0-0-0, f3 and e4 - a delayed form of the idea we see in Line B3 . 4 . . . h6 and now:

bl ) 5 iLf4 c6 6 f3 b5 7 a3 transposes to note 'b' to White's 5th move in Line B3 .

b2) 5 iL.h4 c6 6 f3 e6 ! (this quiet move prevents White's e4 advance) 7 e3 (7 e4? tLlxe4 + Misanovic-D.Ivanisevic, Belgrade {women } 1 990) 7 . . . b5 (Black starts an attack on the queenside that is effective since White hasn' t created any tension in the centre) 8 ..if2 a6 (Black adopts a French Defence plan that is especially good with white pawns on e3 and f3) 9 tt:Jge2 c5 1 0 g4 iL.b7 I I iL.g2 c8 + Morozevich-Ehl vest, Podolsk 1 993 .

81) 4 'iWd3 White prepares the e4 advance, but

Black has a nice way to hinder this thrust:

w

4 ... h6 5 iLh4 c6! (D)

6 tLlf3 Or: a) 6 e4? is not good now because of

a geometric idea: 6 . . . tt:Jxe4 7 tt:Jxe4 dxe4 8 'iWxe4? (it's better not to take

10 AITACK WITH BLACK

this pawn, even though 8 'ili'd2 tt'lb6 leaves Black with a clear extra pawn) 8 . . . g5 9 i.g3 'i!Va5+ 10 c3 f5 1 1 'i!Vf3 f4 + and Black wins a bishop.

b) 6 0-0-0? ! invites a quick attack on the white king : 6 . . . b5 ! 7 tt'lf3 (Gelashvili-Halkias, Erevan Zonal 2000) 7 . . . b4 ! 8 tt'lbi (8 tt'la4? 'ti'a5 9 b3 i.a6 10 'ife3 i.b5 +) 8 . . . 'ili'a5 9 a3 e6 +.

6 . 'i!Vas 7 tt'l d2 7 0-0-0? tt'le4 ! +. The c3-knight is

tied to the defence of a2. 7 a3 e6 8 tt'ld2 (Sengupta-N.Mame

dov, Hastings 2007/8) 8 .. .'it'b6 ! ? (a new move) 9 0-0-0 e5 ! 1 0 e3 ii.d6 +.

7 'ili'b6 8 0-0-0 eS ! 9 dxeS tt'l xeS 10 'i!Vg3

Now: a) Giannakoulopoulos-Dvoirys ,

Ano Liosia 2000 featured 1 0 . . . tt'lg6? ! I I ii.xf6 gxf6, but now 1 2 tt'lb3 ! ? (intending e4) 12 . . . f5 13 e3 ;;\; would have led to a position with a weird pawnstructure for Black.

b) It is safer to avoid the doubling of the pawns: 10 . . . tt'lfd7 ! ? Il f4 tt'lg6 12 e4 d4 ! (the natural 1 2 . . . tt'lxh4? leads to problems due to 1 3 exd5 ! ; e .g . , 13 . . . tt'lf5 14 'i!Ve1 + 'iti>d8 15 tt'lc4 'ili'c7 1 6 dxc6 ! with a very strong attack) 1 3 tt'le2 c5 . Black has the . . . tt'lxh4 idea in hand and has avoided problems with the king in the centre.

82) 4 e3 c6! 5 f4? ! 5 tt'lf3 h6 6 i.h4 transposes to Line

B4. With the text-move, White seeks

slow manoeuvring play in the Stonewall style. However, the difference is

that there is no guard on the queenside - the bishop is on the other side of the wall .

s ... 'ifb6 6 .litbt White can't defend the b2-pawn in

directly by 6 a3? because of 6 . . . h6 7 i.h4 tt'lg4 ! 8 'iVc 1 g5 ! 9 i.g3 (9 fxg5 hxg5 I 0 i.xg5 tt'lxh2 { intending to play . . . tt'lf3+ } 1 1 'ifi>d1 e5 + with a strong initiative) 9 . . . tt'ldf6 10 tt'lf3 tt'lh5 1 1 i.e2 i.g7 + intending to take on f4 and then on d4.

6 e6 7 tt'l f3 (D)

Now I recommend 7 . . . i.b4 ! (a new move, improving over Napoli-Mrsevic, Nis 2008) 8 ii.d3 c5 9 0-0 c4 ! 1 0 i.e2 i.xc3 1 1 bxc3 'ii'a5 12 tt'le5 tt'le4 +.

83) 4 f3 This aggressive interpretation of the

Veresov turns out not to work well. 4 .. c6! This move is important, as it pre

pares a strong reply to White's e4 advance.

5 e4?!


White pushes on regardless. This leads to the most interesting play, but it is objectively better to delay this advance with 5 'id2. Then 5 . . . b5 ! is a strong and typical idea. Black starts queenside play thanks to the fact that White has created no tension in the centre. Besides the obvious idea of playing . . . b4, Black prepares an outpost on c4. Then:

a) 6 e4 involves a pawn sacrifice : 6 . . . b4 7 lt:Jd1 dxe4 8 lt:Jf2 (8 'iVxb4 e5 9 a4 exd4 10 'iWxc6 l:tb8 1 1 .i.xf6 'iYxf6 1 2 'ifxe4+ d8 ! + Summerscale-Miezis, Cappelle la Grande 1999; Black intends to play . . . .1i.b4+ and . . . l:.e8) 8 . . . e3 ! (disrupting White 's development) 9 i..xe3 e6 1 0 .i.d3 .1i.e7 1 1 lZJe4lZJd5 12 i..g5 0-0 1 3 ll'le2 c5 = Heyken-Kengis, Hamburg 1 995 . Black has comfortable play ; the f3-pawn looks ugly.

b) 6 a3 h6 7 .1i.f4 e6 8 e4 lt:Jb6 9 lt:Jh3 .te7 10 lt:Jf2 a5 is equal, OchoaRivas, Medina del Campo 1 980. Black has a good version of the French Defence.

5 .. dxe4 6 fxe4 (D)

6 . e5! Black grabs dark squares in the cen

tre. 7 dxe5 White can't hold the dark squares

by 7 lt:Jf3 because of 7 . . . 1!i'b6 8 dxe5 'ixb2 9 i..d2 (9 :b1 'ti'xc3+ 10 i..d2 'iWc5 1 1 exf6 lt:Jxf6 + Berges-Prie, Fouesnant 1 997; White has no compensation for the pawn) 9 . . . lt:Jg4 10 Ilb1 'iVa3 II e6 fxe6 12 lZJg5 lZJde5 +, when Black is a pawn up.

7 .. 'iVa5! This is the main point of Black's

play. 8 i..xf6 Or: a) White can win a pawn by 8 exf6

'i!Vxg5 9 fxg7 i..xg7, but Black's total control of the dark squares promises him the better chances. For example, 10 'iVd2 xd2+ 1 1 xd2 lt:Jc5 12 .1i.d3 .1i.e6 1 3 lt:Jf3 0-0-0 14 e2 b5 1 5 a3 a5 + Alburt-Tal, USSR Ch, Baku 1 972.

b) 8 'iYd2lZJxe5 9 0-0-0 .i.e6 10 lt:Jf3 (Vooremaa-Bronstein, Tallinn 1 98 1 ) 1 0 . . . .i.b4 +. White's pawn-structure will be terrible after . . . i..xc3 .

8 ... gxf6 White is fighting to avoid a very se

rious disadvantage: a) 9 e6 fxe6 10 i..c4 i..a3 ! (a typi

cal tactic) 1 1 c l (Vallieres-Lesiege, Quebec City 2004) 1 1 . . .'i\Yxc3+ ! 1 2 bxc3 i..xc 1 1 3 l::txc 1 lt:Jc5 ! 14 i.d3 .l:.g8 15 'ifi>f2 e5 +intending . . . i..e6.

b) 9 exf6 .i.a3 ! (the strongest move, again emphasizing the weakness of White's dark squares) 10 'i!Vc l lt:Jxf6 1 1 i..d3 lt:Jg4 ! (intending a double attack by . . . 'i\Yb6) 1 2 h3 ( 1 2 bxa3 ? allows


Black a very strong attack: 1 2 . . . 1'ixc3+ 13 e2 'id4 14 tt:lh3 l:tg8 + BrauerCrosa Coil, Mendoza 2004) 1 2 . . . 1'ib6 ! 1 3 tt:ld1 b4+ 14 c3 tt:le5 1 5 e2 e7 leaves White ' s position badly damaged.

84) 4 tt:lf3 Thi is the number one choice for

White although it does not fit with the word 'Attack' in the name of the opening: White plays solid but passive chess . Naturally, this type of development doesn ' t put much pressure on Black.

4 ... b6 Black immediately determines the

position of White's bishop. 5 .i.h4 5 .i.f4 e6 (5 . . . c6 allows White to

support the e4 advance with 6 1'id3) 6 e3 (now 6 'id3 can be met by 6 . . . c5 ! =) and now 6 . . . a6 ! is the most aggressive. Black prevents tt:lb5 and prepares to seize space on the queenside. 7 d3 c5 8 0-0 b5 9 .l:.e1 e7 10 tt:le5 b7 1 1 tt:lxd7 'ii'xd7 12 dxc5 xeS 13 e5 1'ie7 = Mestrovic-A.Kovacevic, Nova Gorica 2004. Black has solved all his problems.

5 . c6 5 . . . e6 can lead to a strange position:

6 e4 g5 7 .i.g3 tt:lxe4 8 tt:lxe4 dxe4 9 tt:le5 g7 10 h4 with complicated play.

6 e3 6 'id3 transposes to Line B 1 . 6 ... e6 7 d3 e7 8 0-0 0-0 (D) Black has fully equalized. For ex-

ample:

a) 9 xf6? ! tt:lxf6 10 e4 c5 ! gave Black a slight advantage in DeriabinMoiseenko, Ukrainian Team Ch, Alushta 2005 . Black opens lines for his bishops.

b) 9 .l:r.e 1 c5 1 0 tt:le5 tt:lxe5 1 1 dxe5 tt:ld7 12 ii.g3 (Emodi-Groszpeter, Hungarian Team Ch 2002/3) and here I propose 12 . . . a6 ! ? intending . . . b5. The position after 1 3 a4 'ii'c7 14 f4 c4 1 5 e2 b4 i s rather unclear but I prefer Black.

c) 9 tt:le2 b6 10 c3 .i.b7 1 1 .l:te 1 c5 = Gukasian-Zarnicki, Internet blitz 2004.

C) 2 g5 (D) This move defines the Trompowsky

Attack. It is named after the Brazilian player Octavio Trompowsky, who played it in the 1 930s and 1 940s. In modern times, the opening received more widespread popularity on account of the efforts of players such as Lev Alburt, Vlastimil Hort, Konstantin Chernyshov, Igor Miladinovic and especially Julian Hodgson.


The primary idea of 2 .i.g5 is to take on f6, doubling Black's pawns. White will then seek a slow manoeuvring game: he will restrict Black's dark-squared bishop with pawns on c3, d4 and e3, and put his bishop on d3, and his knights on d2 and e2. The plan is that the knights will prove more nimble than the black bishops in this scenario. Although Black has reliable ways to handle this set-up, it is more in keeping with the aim of our repertoire to cut across White's designs with an active move:

2 lL\e4 This leads to concrete positions.

White will seek to gain time by attacking this knight, but Black aims to make use of its influence in the centre. Now: Cl: 3 .th4 1 3 C2: 3 .i.f4 1 5

The bishop retreat to f4 i s the main move, but in addition to the alternative of dropping it back to h4, White can also support it with his h-pawn, odd though 3 h4 appears . Then 3 ... d5

is the easiest way to get a safe posi tion, rather than opening the h-file for White. Black will methodically complete his development while the hpawn' s advance looks irrelevant. 4 liJd2 lLlxd2 5 'iWxd2 .tf5 6 e3 h6 7 .tf4 e6 8 lL\f3 .i.d6 9 .td3 .txd3 1 0 'iWxd3 lL\c6 II c3 'iWe7 = Galego-Ziiger, European Team Ch, Haifa 1 989.

Cl) 3 .i.h4 c5 Naturally, Black attacks the centre. 4 f3 Or: a) 4 lLld2 'ifa5 5 c3 lL\xd2 6 'i!Vxd2

cxd4 7 cxd4 'iVxd2+ 8 xd2 d5 offers White absolutely nothing: 9 e3 lLlc6 1 0 lLle2 e6 1 1 lLlc3 .i.d7 12 .i.e2 i..d6 1 3 .l:.hc l 0-0 14 lLlb5 .i.b8 = RausisInkiov, Gausdal 1 989.

b) 4 dxc5 lLlxc5 5 lL\c3 lL\c6 6 lLlf3 (6 e4? ! reaches a kind of Sicilian, but the bishop on h4 appears awkward: 6 . . . g6 7 .tb5 .tg7 8 lL\ge2 a6 9 .i.xc6 bxc6, and Black was slightly better in the game Sazhinov-Bocharov, Tomsk 2006) 6 ... g6 7 lLld5 .i.g7 8 c3 d6 9 e3 0-0 10 .i.b5 .l:le8 =. Black has no problems.

c) 4 d5? ! is dubious due to the striking manoeuvre 4 . . . 'iVb6 5 'ifc 1 g5 ! 6 .i.g3 .tg7 7 c3 'i!Vh6 ! (a key move: Black exchanges off the g3-bishop in excellent circumstances) 8 .i.xb8 (8 lLlh3 d6 9 lLld2 lLlxg3 10 fxg3 'ii'g6 + Rossetto-Sanguinetti, Buenos Aires 1975) 8 ... l:.xb8 9 liJd2 lLlf6 I 0 e4 0-0 1 1 .i.d3 d6 + Glek-Kharitonov, Vilnius 1 984.

4 g5 5 fxe4 gxh4 (D)


w

6 e3?! I am giving this as the main line

only due to its great popularity. In fact, I think it's a poor move that lets Black seize the advantage. Other moves:

a) 6 lt:Jc3? ! allows Black to isolate White's e2- and e4-pawns. 6 . . . cxd4 7 'iVxd4 l:[g8 8 e5 lt:Jc6 9 'ifxh4 lt:Jxe5 1 0 0-0-0 (Teske-Kocwin, Guben 2008) 10 . . .'i!i'b6 ! + intending to exchange queens by .. .'i!Vh6+. White 's isolated e-pawn provides Black with a longlasting advantage.

b) 6 c3 ! ? is not the most popular move, but it looks clearly the most logical. White avoids isolated pawns on the e-file and does not weaken any new squares. There is limited practical experience here; the main line so far is 6 .. .'ib6, but I prefer to offer something new and interesting. One idea is 6 . . . i..h6 ! ?, but I ' ll focus on 6 . . . d5 ! ?, blowing open the centre to provide more lines for his bishops. Then :

b 1 ) 7 e5 ? is an attempt to keep the game closed, but it doesn 't work well. 7 . ..ti::Jc6 8 lt:Jf3 b6 9 'ifb3 (9 b3? ! i..h6 + gives Black a strong initiative

thanks to the absence of a pawn on f2) 9 . . . cxd4 10 'ii'xb6 axb6 1 1 cxd4 i..h6 12 lt:Jc3 lt:Jb4 13


knight moves to g6 , where i t will defend h4 and help to stop the e5 advance; besides, the queen' s bishop is now free to be developed) and Black has an obvious advantage after either 1 3 e5 dxe5 14 lt:lxe5 lt:lg6 15 .tb5+ 'it>f8 16 lt:lgf3 'ii'd6 17 lt:ld3 g7 + Van Ruitenburg-Rogers, Hoogeveen 2005 or 1 3 lt:lf3 lt:lg6 14 0-0-0 .td7 ! + (but not 14 . . . 'i!Vd7?? 1 5 lt:lb6 ! Paltrinieri-Bomheim, Vung Tau 2008) .

c) 7 'ii'd3 'ifb6 8 b3 lt:lc6 9 c3 a5 ! (Black opens the a-file for his rook) 1 0 lt:lf3 a4 1 1 lt:lbd2 axb3 12 lt:lxb3 h3 ! (an important move in Black's plan) 1 3 gxh3 ( 1 3 lt:lxc5?? 'ib2 14 .l:tbl hxg2 -+; 1 3 g3 d6 +) 1 3 . . . cxd4 14 exd4 lt:la5 +. Black has a mass of open lines for his pieces, and the white king will soon feel uncomfortable.

7 . cxd4 8 exd4 Black has plenty of possibilities

and a very good practical score with almost all of them. But in fact the position is not so easy and it's important to keep in mind at least one good arrangement. I offer a simple one: . . . lt:lc6, . . . :g8, . . . d6, . . . h3 and . . . .tg4. For in-stance, 8 . . . lt:lc6 9 lt:lc3 (9 lLlf3 .l:.g8 10 .tc4 d6 1 1 lt:lc3 leads to the same position) 9 . . . l:tg8 ! 10 lt:lf3 ( 1 0 'ii'h5? loses a pawn to 10 . . . .tg7 +; 10 .tc4 d6 1 1 'ii'h5 .:tg6 12 lt:lf3 .tg4 1 3 'ii'xh4 'ii'b6 +) 10 . . . d6 1 1 .tc4 ( 1 1 h3 .tf4 1 2 .tc4 .tg3+ 1 3 'it>fl e6 14 lt:le2 'ii'f6 15 c3 .td7 1 6 lt:lxg3 l:txg3 1 7 'i!Ve2 0-0-0 + Kireev-Zwardon, Karvina 20 1 1 ) l l . . .h3 1 2 g3 .tg4 1 3 :n e6 +.

C2) 3 .tf4 d5 (D)

This healthy move guarantees Black good play. I like this continuation more than 3 . . . c5, which is positionally risky because it does not help Black to develop his pieces.

w

Now: C21 : 4 lt:lf3 1 6 C22: 4 f3 1 7 C23: 4 e3 1 8

4 lt:ld2 allows Black active play after 4 . . . c5 ! 5 lt:lxe4 (5 e3 transposes to note 'c ' to White's 5th move in Line C23) 5 ... dxe4 6 dxc5 'iia5+ 7 c3 'i!Vxc5, and now:

a) Black is even slightly better in the endgame after 8 'ia4+ 'ii'c6 9 'ifxc6+ lt:lxc6 10 f3 ( 1 0 e3 e5 1 1 .tg3 .te6 12 f3 exf3 13 lt:lxf3 f6 + Barbero-Pelletier, Swiss Team Ch 1 998) 10 . . . e5 1 1 .te3 .tf5 12 g4 .te6 1 3 lt:lh3 f6 14 lt:lf2 exf3 15 exf3 (Tunik-Avrukh, Beersheba 1 996) 1 5 . . . 0-0-0 +.

b) 8 'ii'd4 'tWxd4 9 cxd4 lt:lc6 1 0 0-0-0 e5 ! (opening lines for the bishops) 1 1 dxe5 .te6 12 bl e3 ! (Black cleans up the bl -h7 diagonal) 13 .txe3

1 6 AITACK WITH BLACK

liJb4 14 lic l ( 1 4 a3 i..f5+ 1 5 al lDc2+ 16 a2 ltJxe3 17 fxe3 il.c5 leads to a promising endgame for Black) 14 . . . i..f5+ 1 5 a1 lDc2+ 16 l:txc2 .txc2 was OK for Black in V.Mikhalevski-Ma.Tseitlin, Beersheba 1996.

C2 1 } 4 tiJf3 White opts for a slow approach, but

there is a danger that Black's knight, now securely placed on e4, will simply turn out to generate useful activity. That is not exactly the outcome White had in mind when provoking this piece forward !

4 . c5 5 c3 5 e3? ! is dubious due to 5 . . . 'i!Vb6 ! .

Then : a) 6 ltJc3? ! 'iia5 ! and now: a l ) 7 il.xb8 ltJxc3 8 Wi'd2 .l:lxb8 9

bxc3 c4 ! ? (a new move; 9 . . . e6 was chosen in the game Zaja-Berebora, Croatian Team Ch, Sibenik 2005) 1 0 g3 e6 1 1 i..g2 i..d6 1 2 0-0 0-0 + with . . . b5-b4 to follow.

a2) 7 dxc5 ltJxc3 8 'i!Vd2 f6 9 bxc3 e5 10 il.g3 liJd7 ! +.

b) 6 liJbd2? ! is not a correct pawn sacrifice: 6 . . . ltJxd2 7 'iixd2 xb2 8 l:!.c 1 c4 9 i..e2 e6 10 0-0 i..b4 1 1 d1 liJd7 12 e4 0-0 + Berend-Kappler, Dijon 1 994.

c) 6 c 1 cxd4 7 exd4 lDc6 8 c3 i.f5 9 ..lte2 e6 10 0-0 i..e7 II liJbd2 l:l.c8 is objectively equal , but Black is more active, Okrajek-Magerramov, Bad Worishofen 1993 .

5 cxd4 6 cxd4 ltJc6 (D) Note the similarity to the Exchange

Slav, an opening in which White is

often happy to spend a move playing his knight into e5 . That means White needs to take some action here, as routine play could leave him effectively playing the black side of that opening.

7 ltJc3 7 e3? lets Black start a strong attack

by 7 . . . e5 ! . Then: a) 8 dxe5 .Yi.b4+ 9 tiJfd2 (9 tiJbd2??

li.g4 ! +) 9 . . . g5 10 .Yi.g3 h5 1 1 f3 ltJxg3 12 hxg3 'iib6 +.

b) 8 i..xe5 .Yi.b4+ 9 liJfd2 (after 9 tiJbd2?? White again loses a piece to 9 . . . i..g4 ! -+) 9 . . . ltJxe5 1 0 dxe5 0-0 1 1 a3 i..a5 1 2 ..ltd3 ! ( 1 2 ..lte2? d4 ! 1 3 b4 liJxf2 ! 14 'it>xf2 dxe3+ 1 5 'it>fl , McDonald-Wells, Southend 2008, and now 1 5 .. .'iM4 ! wins right away : 1 6 lita2 i..e6 1 7 litc2 .litfd8 1 8 bxa5 .Yi.b3 -+) 1 2 . . . 'iVg5 1 3 0-0 li.g4 14 Ae2 i..h3 1 5 i..f3 .Yi.c7 ! +.

7 .. ltJxc3 Or: a) 7 . . . ..1tf5? ! is unconvincing due to

an immediate attack on the b7-square: 8 b3 ltJxc3 ( d5 was also hanging) 9 bxc3 d7 10 ltJe5 ltJxe5 1 1 Axe5 (intending e4 and il.b5) l l . . .a6 12 e3 and


Black should play . . . f6 at some moment to develop the f8-bishop. Later White will play c4, exposing Black' s vulnerability on the a2-g8 diagonal.

b) But Black can start with 7 . . .f6 ! ? . This covers the e5-square and amongst other things prevents l2Je5 . The c6-knight is useful in these positions - it avoids unpleasant checks on the a4-e8 diagonal, attacks d4 and is ready to move to b4 or a5 to attack on the queenside; on the other hand, the f3-knight only defends d4. Black's next few moves could be . . . i.f5 , . . . e6, . . . i.d6, . . . 0-0, etc . , or the same but leaving the bishop on c8 .

8 bxc3 g6 This is a simple solution to Black's

problems, leaving him a tempo up compared to a position that can arise from the Exchange Slav or a quiet form of Griinfeld (e.g., Portisch-Kramnik, Biel Interzonal 1 993) . After 9 e3 i.g7 10 i.e2 0-0 1 1 0-0 i.f5 Black is comfortably equal .

C22) 4 f3 l2Jf6 5 l2Jc3 Or: a) 5 e3? ! doesn't fit in with White's

previous play (i .e. f3) , and 5 . . . c5 ! exploits this . Black has a development advantage after 6 c3 l2Jc6 7 l2Jd2 e6 8 i.g5 e5 9 dxe5 l2Jxe5 1 0 e4 i.e7 + M.Gurevich-Cvitan, Vrsac 1985 .

b) 5 e4 is an interesting pawn sacrifice. After 5 . . . dxe4 6 l2Jc3 (following 6 fxe4 l2Jxe4 7 %Vd3 , as in R.LeyvaVazquez Igarza, Cuba 1 997, Black can simply continue 7 . . . l2Jf6 8 l2Jc3 l2Jc6 9 0-0-0 l2Jd5 +, when White has only

partial compensation for the pawn). 6 . . . l2Jd5 ! is a key move for Black. avoiding any complications related to accepting the gambit pawn. Now:

b 1 ) 7 %Vd2 l2Jxf4 8 %Vxf4 %Vxd4 9 l:.d 1 e5 ! (forcing a favourable liquidation) 10 l:txd4 ( 1 0 %Vg5? h6 is much better for Black) 1 0 . . . exf4 1 1 l:txe4+ 'iit>d8 12 l:txf4 ( 1 2 i.c4, DunworthD.Buckley, Monmouth 2000, 1 2 .. .f5 ! 1 3 l:txf4 l2Jc6 + intending . . . g5 or . . . i.d6) 12 . . . ..ie6 +. Black's bishoppair will be powerful in the endgame.

b2) 7 l2Jxd5 %Vxd5 8 i.xc7 (8 %Vd2? yields nothing good: 8 . . . l2Jc6 9 i.e3 e5 ! 10 fxe4 %Vxe4 1 1 ..id3 %Vh4+ 12 g3 %Vh5 13 d5 , Kanep-Nureev, Internet blitz 2003, 1 3 . . . l2Jb4 +) 8 . . . l2Jc6 9 c3 .i.f5 10 .i.e2 (Djurhuus-Elsness, Gausdal 1995) IO . . . e6 1 1 fxe4 i.xe4 12 l2Jf3 l:tc8 1 3 .i.g3 .i.d6 =. Black i s fine here.

c) 5 c4 e6 6 l2Jc3 c5 ! (D) .

w

Again Black attacks his opponent 's awkward pawn-structure in the centre - the pawn on f3 looks disharmonious . Now:


c 1 ) With the continuation 7 tlJb5 tt:Ja6 8 e4 (Devereaux-Gallagher, British League (4NCL) 2004/5) White tries to get some initiative but his pieces are unprepared for such play. Here I recommend the new move 8 . . . cxd4 ! - as is often the case in complicated positions, the most important thing is to castle; after that everything becomes clear. 9 cxd5 i..b4+ 10 'iii>f2 0-0 + gives Black an obvious advantage.

c2) 7 e3 cxd4 8 exd4ltJc6 9 c5 i.e? was equal in the game SantacruzPineda, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1 988 . Everything would be quite typical if White's pawn weren 't on f3. It just gets in the way ofWhite's plans, while Black has no such problems.

5 . e6 6 e4 After 6 'ifd2 c5 ! (with a pawn on c5

it's very hard for White to arrange his planned e4 advance) 7 e3 Black can advance his queenside pawns in much the same way that we saw in a couple of Veresov lines : 7 . . . a6 8ltJge2 lDc6 9 g4 b5 1 0 i..g2 i.e? 1 1 0-0 b4 1 2 lDd 1 a5 1 3 c 3 i..a6 + Rusanov-Emelin, St Petersburg 1 998.

6 . c5! 7 tt:Jb5 tt:Ja6 8 e5 8 c4 transposes to note 'c 1 ' to

White 's 5th move above. 8 .. 4Jd7 9 c3 tt:Jab8! Improving the worst piece. Now: a) 1 0 c4? a6 1 1 ltJd6+ i..xd6 12

exd6 (Treppner-Assmann, 2nd Bundesliga 1 998/9) 12 . . . cxd4 ! 13 'i!i'xd4 e5 ! 14 'ii'e3 ( 14 i..xe5? ltJc6 costs White his bishop) 14 . . . d4 1 5 'i!i'e4 0-0 +.

b) 1 0 dxc5 i..xc5 1 1 b4 i.e? 12 i..g3 0-0 1 3 f4 tbc6 14 tt:Jf3 (VatterBlauert, Germany 1 989) 14 . . . a6 1 5

lDbd4 tt:Jxd4 1 6 lDxd4 a5 1 7 a3 tlJb6 + followed by . . . i..d7, . . . 'ii'c7 and . . J1fc8. White' s play on the kingside can be stopped with . . . g6.

C23) 4 e3 This is the most popular move. 4 . c5 (D) Black immediately puts pressure on

White 's centre.

5 i..d3 There are plenty of alternatives at

this point: a) 5 4Jf3? ! transposes to the note to

White's 5th move in Line C2 1 . b) 5 c3 ltJc6 (Black creates the po

sitional threat of gaining the bishoppair by . . . g5 ; the immediate 5 . . . g5 is met by 6 i..e5 ! ) 6 lDf3 ( 6 ltJd2 i..f5 7 tbgf3 e6 leads to the same position; 6 i..d3? ! is dubious in view of 6 . . . g5 ! 7 i..g3 tbxg3 8 hxg3, as in BudrewiczShishkin, Wroclaw 2009, when V.Mikhalevski recommends 8 .. .'i!i'b6 9 'i!i'b3 h6 = ; Black has the bishop-pair and faces no problems) 6 . . . i..f5 7 tlJbd2 e6


8 tt:lxe4 il.xe4 9 il.d3 Axd3 10 Wt'xd3 and now:

b 1 ) It's important for Black to avoid taking on d4 for the time being, as this would give White nice attacking prospects on the kingside since the e-file and 3rd rank prove very useful. Just take a look at how easily White won the following game: 10 . . . cxd4? ! 1 1 exd4 ..td6 1 2 il.g3 a6 13 0-0 h6 (although 13 . . . 0-0 ! ? looks scary for Black because of 1 4 i.xd6 xd6 1 5 tt:lg5, in fact it's not fatal for him yet: 15 . . . g6 16 'ih3 h5 keeps a fighting position) 14 liae1 0-0 15 tt:ld2 ! (preparing a pawn-storm) 1 5 . . . ..txg3 1 6 'ixg3 tt:le7 17 lle2 tt:lf5 1 8 'iVh3 'iVa5? ! 1 9 tt:lf3 'ii'xa2? (Black wins a pawn but gives White time to pursue his attack) 20 g4 tt:le7 2 1 tt:le5 a5 22 f4 d8? (the black queen does not get back in time; 22 . . .'ifb5 ! ?) 23 f5 tt:lc6 24 f6 tt:lxe5 25 dxe5 'ii'b6+ 26 .:tef2 'ic7 27 'ili'h5 with a winning position for White, Miladinovic-Ftacnik, Croatian Team Ch, Sibenik 2007. Black could have defended better in this game, but there is nothing to be gained from inviting White to attack in this way.

b2) 1 0 . . . .te7 1 1 0-0 0-0 leaves Black fine; e.g . , 12 dxc5 ( 1 2 tt:le5 .l:.c8 13 a3 i.f6 14 tt:lf3 {White has just wasted two tempi } 14 . . . a6 = Schubert-Navara, 2nd Bundesliga 200 1/2) 12 . . . i.xc5 13 e4 dxe4 14 'iVxe4 'ii'e7 1 5 l:lfe 1 h6 = Shmirin-Uhlmann, Leutersdorf 200 1 .

c ) 5 tt:ld2 and now: c 1 ) The popular 5 . . . 'i!Vb6 does not

equalize because of 6 tt:lxe4 dxe4 7 dxc5 ! 'ixb2 8 'id4 'ii'a3 (White is

better in the endgame after 8 . . . 'ii'xd4 9 exd4 tt:lc6 10 ..tb5 ;l;;) 9 ..txb8 'ia5+ (forced) 1 0 c3 .l:.xb8 (Mesias RojasLopez Silva, Chilean Ch, Fenach 2007) 1 1 .:td l ! (a new move) 1 l . . .i.f5 1 2 f3 ;l;; with a strong initiative - Black's king is in big trouble.

c2) 5 . . . tt:lxd2 6 1!Vxd2 tt:lc6 7 tt:lf3 and here :

c2 1 ) Black can't develop his queen's bishop because 7 . . . .tf5? is answered by 8 dxc5 ! . Then 8 . . . e6 9 tt:ld4 ! i.g6 (9 . . . il.xc5 10 tt:lxf5 exf5 1 1 0-0-0 and the d5-pawn drops as 1 1 . . .tt:le7? fails to 12 'ii'c3 +-) 10 'ic3 gives White a clear extra pawn. 8 . . . f6 looks a better try but still does not help to win the pawn back: 9 tt:ld4 il.d7 10 tt:lb3 e5 1 1 il.g3 i.e6 1 2 l:i.dl leaves White a pawn up.

c22) 7 . . . e6 8 c3 i.d6 9 il.b5 0-0 1 0 0-0 'iVe7 ( a new move; 10 . . . i.xf4? ! strengthens White's control of the e5-square: 1 1 exf4 cxd4 12 cxd4 i..d7 13 lirfc 1 ;l;; Pelletier-Vogt, Swiss Team Ch 1 998) 1 1 .l:lac l i.d7 with an equal position.

5 ... cxd4 (D)

20 ATTACK WITH BLACK

6 il.xe4 This is the most critical reply -

White creates a target on e4 that he will attack in the near future; fortunately, Black can defend it or in some cases successfully give it up.

If White wants to avoid risk he can simply take on d4. 6 exd4 tDc6 and then:

a) Black feels OK in the case of 7 c3 il.f5 (D). Now:

a l ) 8 tDe2 e6 9 f3 tLld6 10 i..xd6? ( 1 0 0-0 = is more solid) 10 . . . il.xd6 ! (unexpectedly for White, his opponent is not scared by the doubling of his pawns, since in return Black gets an open file and weak squares to target on e3 and e4) 1 1 il.xf5 exf5 1 2 f4 0-0 13 0-0 .l::te8 14 tLld2 'ilc7 1 5 g3 tDa5 16 .l::tf2 tDc4 + Vitiugov-Kariakin, Russian Ch, Moscow 20 10 . Black's advantage is obvious.

a2) 8 e2 e6 9 tLld2 tLld6 10 tDgf3 il.xd3 1 1 xd3 ttJf5 1 2 g4 tDfe7 13 h4 tDg6 14 il.g5 c7 1 5 h5 tDf4 1 6 il.xf4 'ii'xf4 1 7 :g1 h6 1 8 0-0-0 i..e7 = Timman-Van Wely, Breda rapid 1 998 .

b) 7 i..xe4 dxe4 8 tDe2 (the aggressive 8 d5 is met by a typical opening counterbreak: 8 . . . e5 ! 9 il.g3 tDe7 10 tDc3 tDg6 and i n Stefanova-Kuraj ica, Solin 2007 Black was even slightly better considering that the e4-pawn is indirectly defended: 1 1 tDxe4? f5 1 2 tDc3 f4 +) 8 . . . il.g4 9 tDbc3 'tleb6 transposes to line 'c ' of the next note.

c) 7 tDe2 il.f5 8 0-0 (8 f3 tDd6 9 i..xd6 i..xd3 10 'ii'xd3 'i!Vxd6 =) 8 . . . e6 9 c3 il.g6 10 tbc 1 i..d6 1 1 ..ltxd6 tDxd6 = A.Smimov-lordachescu, Paleochora 2010.

6 dxe4 7 'ilxd4 White can also take on d4 with the

pawn. 7 exd4 Vi'b6 8 tDc3 tDc6 (D) (8 . . . xb2? ! 9 tDge2 gives White the initiative) and now:

a) After 9 't!Vd2? Black can take the pawn: 9 . . .'ii'xd4 ! 10 tLlb5 'i!Vxd2+ 1 1 i..xd2 .l::tb8 ! + Stefanova-Mamedyarov, Wijk aan Zee 2005 .

b) 9 d5 e5 ! (again we see this typical counterblow - it is worth memorizing it ! ) 10 i..e3 'iVxb2 (this is forced, but there doesn't appear to be any way


to punish Black for his greed; instead, IO .. .lbd4? loses a pawn with no compensation: 1 1 lZJge2 i..g4 1 2 xd4 exd4 13 xd4 xd4 14 LDxd4 R.Janssen-Visser, Dutch Ch, Rotterdam 1 999) 1 1 lZJge2 (the only move) l l . . .lZJb4 ! 12 0-0 xc2 (the white queen cannot avoid exchange) 1 3 lZJb5 ..ig4 14 xc2lZJxc2 1 5lZJg3 b4 ! +.

c) 9 lZJge2 ! ? g4 10 0-0 (a new move, improving over 1 0 h3? xe2 1 1 lZJxe2 .l:l.d8 1 2 c3 e5 ! + Laurie-Tsesarsky, Tel Aviv 1 997) 10 . . . .l:.d8 1 1 d5 e6 ! ? is unclear. Black's king is still uncastled but his bishop-pair and well-coordinated pieces don't allow White to exploit this fact.

7 ... lZJc6! 7 . . . xd4? ! is in my opinion not ad-

visable: 8 exd4lZJc6 9 c3 f5 (9 . . . g5 ? 10 ..ixg5 .l:.g8 1 1 i.f4 ;!; and 1 1 . . Jhg2? 12 ..ig3 traps the rook) 1 0 lZJd2 ;!;, Once White plays f3, Black will have problems on the e-file.

8 xd8+ 8 xe4? is not good because of

8 . . . a5+ 9 c3 i.f5 10 f3 ( 1 0 c4? e5 1 1 ..ig3 lZJb4 ! 1 2 cxb4 i.xb4+ and . . . c8 wins) 1 0 . . . e5 1 1 ..ig3 b5 ! 1 2 b3 ..ic2 + followed by . . . .l:!.d8, when White is in trouble.

8 lZJxd8!? (D) With this new move (varying from

the game Stefanova-Mongontuul, Russian Women's Team Ch, Sochi 2006), Black preserves his right to castle and doesn't experience any problems with the king on e8.

w

9 lZJc3 f6! That 's the point behind Black's

8th move. He temporarily sacrifices a pawn in order to get a pleasant pawnstructure.

10 lZJdS Attacking c7 and delaying . . . e5 for

a while. If White decides to take the pawn by 10 lZJxe4 he should be prepared for 10 . . . e5 1 1 ..ig3 ..if5 1 2 f3 lZJf7 with . . . ..ixe4 and . . . lZJg5xe4 coming next; Black is preferable due to his better pawn-structure. 10 0-0-0 also does not change the character of the play ; after 1 0 . . . e5 1 1 i.g3 ..if5 the pawn is defended and the g3-bishop is out of play. Black is OK.

10 ... lZJe6 11 lZJe2 ..id7 12 lZJec3 .l:!.c8 13 0-0-0 lZJcS

Next Black will play . . . e5 (probably after . . . e6 to push the d5-knight back) . Considering that Black has the bishop-pair and the white bishop will be bad on g3, Black's chances are even preferable.

2 Col le , Zu kertort , London a nd Torre Systems

These four opening systems have no main concrete order of moves; that's why they are called ' systems' . The common thread is that White plays d4 and an early tt:'lf3, and meets our . . . c5 by supporting his pawn with c3 and/or e3. The defining features are as follows: Colle : e3 and c3, with Si.d3 Zukertort: e3 intending a later b3 London: Si.f4 Torre: Si.g5

Let's note that against the Zukertort, we shall be adopting a set-up with . . . g6, which may discourage White from playing b3. In other lines we need to be careful that White can't play an early dxc5 to good effect, so in most cases we shall be occupying the centre with . . . e6 and . . . d5 . Each system has its own unique themes, so let's move on to a discussion of each of them: A: Colle 22 B: Zukertort 27 C: London 30 D: Torre 34

A) Colle The first notable master to adopt this opening (including a game against

Capablanca in 1 929) was the Belgian player Edgar Colle. This variation is characterized by the following moves for White, in one order or another: d4, e3, tt:'lf3, i.d3, 0-0, c3 and tt:'lbd2. This is similar to Black ' s set-up in the Semi-Slav, and therefore it' s no surprise that one of White ' s main ideas in the Colle is to make the e4 advance. The main advantage of the Colle is its solidity, and there is the practical advantage that White can save a lot of time in the opening making these automatic moves. The main disadvantage is that White practically ignores his opponent' s replies, and Black has a wide choice and can direct the game towards the kind of position he wants . Also, while the Semi-Slav works well as a counterpunching opening, the reversed form proves less effective for taking the initiative. That' s why you rarely see games with this system at GM level. So, let' s see our way to respond to the Colle system !

1 d4 tt:'lf6 2 tt:'lf3 cS 3 c3 We shall discuss the consequences

of 3 e3, which we shall meet with 3 . . . g6, in Section B of this chapter.

3 ... e6 Here 3 . . . g6 can be met by 4 dxc5 ! ?,

after which Black has no simple way

COLLE, ZUKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSTEMS 23

to take his pawn back ( . . .'i'a5 is not check any more). Usually Black sacrifices a pawn by . . . b6, but it does not look very convincing to me.

4 e3 dS Black captures space in the centre,

and we now see the contours of a Semi-Slav with reversed colours .

Another popular continuation for Black is 4 . . . b6, planning . . . ii.b7, . . . d6, . . . tZ:lbd7, . . . i..e7, . . . 0-0, etc. The disad-vantage of this arrangement is that White can make the e4 advance: 5 tLlbd2 i..b7 6 ii.d3 ii..e7 (Black also can switch back to the idea we recommend in the main line by 6 . . . d5 , but if Black wanted to play . . . d5 it was better to do so on move 4 as now it lets White proceed with another typical Colle idea: 7 tbe5 tLlbd7 8 f4 i..e7 9 0-0 0-0 10 'if3 with attacking chances on the kingside) 7 e4 cxd4 8 cxd4 tbc6 9 a3 0-0 10 0-0 d6 1 1 b4 with a space advantage for White, Bricard-Bischoff, Bissen 1 995 .

5 i..d3 Of course, White can make other

moves in this position, but this move is logical, and is a basic part of the Colle set-up. Having played c3, there is little point in playing b3 and i..b2, while dxc5 is premature before Black has moved his king's bishop.

5 tLlbd2 tbc6 6 i..d3 ii..e7 7 0-0 would lead to the same position.

5 ... tbc6 6 0-0 White can also try to get a space ad

vantage with 6 tbe5 tZ:lxe5 7 dxe5 tLld7 8 f4. However, Black easily obtains interesting active play : 8 . . . c4 9 i..c2 (this position was reached in the game

Kemeny-P.Richardson, New York 1 894) 9 . . . 'iVh4+ ! 10 g3 'iVh3 1 1 tLld2. Black has prevented White from castling kingside and now it' s time to start play on the queenside: 1 1 . . . b5 (a new move, deviating from Atanaskovic-Lajthajm, Serbian Ch, Leskovac 2002) 12 f3 :b8 with an unclear position.

6 . . . i..e7 7 tLlbd2 0-0 (D)

w

Black continues developing and is ready for play in the centre.

8 dxc5 Besides this exchanging operation,

which is also a standard theme in the Semi-Slav, White can continue playing slowly :

a) After 8 'ie2 b6 White has plenty of possibilities but none of them should scare Black too much, as he is ready to meet all White's active ideas such as tbe5 or e4:

a 1 ) 9 dxc5 ? ! (giving up control of the centre does not look good) 9 . . . bxc5 1 0 e4 'ic7 1 1 e5 ( 1 1 l;lel does not change too much - Black is still preferable : l l . . .Jtb7 12 e5 tbd7 1 3 tZ:lfl ,


Sydor-Smejkal, Sandomierz 1 976, 13 . . . c4 ! 14 c2 a6 + intending to occupy the d3-square with . . . lt:'lc5-d3) 1 l . . .lt:'lg4 12 :e 1 c4 13 .i.c2 c5 ! (Black simply ignores the scare tactics) 14 xh7+ 'ii?h8 ! (now White needs to defend f2; 14 . . . 'ii?xh7? leads to an unclear position after 1 5 lt:'lg5+ g8 16 xg4 f6) 15 lt:'ld4 xeS + Guimard-Granda, Porto Velho 1 988 . Black is better since he has exchanged a rook' s pawn for a central pawn.

a2) 9 e4? ! is another self-destructive idea. 9 . . . cxd4 10 e5 ( 1 0 cxd4 can lead to the same position after 10 . . . lt:'lb4 1 1 e5 lt:'ld7) 10 . . . lt:'ld7 1 1 cxd4 lt:'lb4 12 b5 a6 1 3 a4 (D) and now:

a2 1 ) 1 3 . . . a5 ? ! allows the white bishop to return to the a6-fl diagonal : 14 b5 ( 1 4 a3 happened in F.CruzC.Cruz, Sabadell 2009) 14 . . . .i.a6 1 5 .i.xa6 lt:'lxa6 16 lt:'lbl ! and Black certainly isn't better.

a22) I prefer 13 . . . b5 ! . With this new move, Black temporarily blocks the a6-fl diagonal in order to open it with greater effect later. 14 d1 ( 1 4 b3

6 15 lt:'lb l a5 followed by . . . a4, . . . a6, etc . , gives Black an advantage) 14 . . . 6 1 5 lt:'lb 1 a5 with the same plan: . . . a6, . . . lt:'lc6, . . . b4, etc .

a3) White again gets nothing with 9 lt:'le5 lt:'lxe5 10 dxe5 lt:'ld7 1 1 f4 c4 1 2 .i.c2 lt:'lc5 13 .l:tf3 (Muse-Kritz, German Ch, Hoeckendorf 2004) 13 . . . .i.a6 ! intending . . . lt:'ld3 (to block the c2-bishop) and then . . . f6.

a4) 9 b3 is the most solid move for White since, as we have seen, all the active options rebound on him. After 9 . . . b7 10 b2 the natural 10 . . . c7 followed by . . . .l:tad8 leads to simple and equal play, while in Bruno-Gyimesi, European Team Ch, Gothenburg 2005 Black played a somewhat fussy but still viable plan: 10 .. Jk8 1 1 .l::tac 1 :c7 1 2 .l:r.fd 1 'ifa8, after which 13 dxc5 bxc5 14 c4 ! d4 1 5 exd4 cxd4 1 6 a3 a 5 led to a very complex and unclear position.

b) White can again try to attack with 8 lt:'le5 . Then:

b l ) Black gets a strategically risky pawn-structure after 8 . . . lt:'lxe5 9 dxe5 lt:'ld7 10 f4 f5 1 1 exf6 lt:'lxf6 1 2 e4 ! , although he is not worse at the moment, Bareev-Tukmakov, Tilburg 1 994. But anyway I prefer to recommend something clearer.

b2) Black has a typical way to stop White 's lt:'le5-based attack: 8 . . . lt:'ld7 ! . After 9 f4 Black plays 9 . . . f5 ! = ArayaVazquez Igarza, Asuncion 1 99 1 . Now Black is ready to take on e5 since fxe5 does not create any attacking potential for White any more. If White takes a risk with 10 c4? ! , Black gets the better game thanks to his more harmonious

COLLE, Z UKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSTEMS 25

pieces: 10 . . . cxd4 1 1 tt'lxc6 bxc6 1 2 exd4 c 5 ! 1 3 cxd5 tt'lf6 ! +.

8 i.xc5 Now:

Al: 9 e4 25 A2: 9 b4 26

Al) 9 e4 This is a logical continuation, but

after the following natural move, using the queen to prevent e5, Black gets a very promising position in all variations.

9 ... 'i/c7 (D)

10 e2 After 1 0 exd5 exd5 Black has more

than enough activity to compensate for the isolated pawn. 1 1 tt'lb3 i.b6 and then:

a) 1 2 i.g5 is met by 12 . . . tt'le4 ! , with pressure.

b) 1 2 tt'lbd4 iLg4 gives Black the initiative ; his ideas include . . . tt'le4, . . . tt'le5 and . . . .lir.fe8.

c) 12 h3? ! can lead to a forced line where Black has a choice between

giving perpetual check or continu ing the game with three pawns for a piece .

c 1 ) In his book A Rock-Solid Chess Opening Repertoire for Black, Eingom suggests 12 . . . tt'le4 13tt'lbd4tt'lxd4 14 tt'lxd4 'ild6 intending . . . i.c7, which "maintains the tension and keeps the initiative".

c2) 12 . . . i.xh3 ! ? 1 3 gxh3 g3+ 14

26 ATTACK WITH BlACK

f6 1 6 .l:!.ae 1 a6 ! ? (covering the b5-square to keep the knight out; 16 .. . g5? ! i s less convincing: 1 7 ..txe5 fxe5 1 8 'iWxe5 xe5 1 9 l:.xe5 ..tc7 20 l:te2 e5 2 1 ltlb5 ..tb8 22 c4 ! = Fenollar JordaBrynell, Barbera del Valles 201 1 ) 1 7 ..tb 1 g5 1 8 ..txe5 ( 1 8 ..tg3 'ilig7 +) 18 . . . fxe5 19 'iVxe5 'iVxe5 20 J:.xe5 .l:f.f6 21 l:rfe 1 ..td7 + Ferrufino-Leitlio, Mar del Plata 2009.

c) 1 1 ..tc2 ! ? ..tb6 12 a4 a6 13 h3 ! ? (suggested by Finkel as an improvement over 13 g3? ! ..td7 14 g2 .l:!.ad8 1 5 h3 e5 + Mamedyarov-Volokitin, Calvia Olympiad 2004) 13 . . . ltlh5 14 .l:!.d1 ltlf4 1 5 fl (White must control the d3-square; 1 5 'ilie1 ?? lt:lb4 ! 1 6 cxb4 'ilixc2 -+ and . . . lt:ld3) 1 5 . . . ..td7 leaves Black fine.

11 e5 lt:ld7! After this accurate move, White is

virtually forced to sacrifice his bishop even though it leads to nothing clear.

1 1 . . .lt:lg4? ! is worse in view of 12 ..txh7+ xh7 13ltlg5+ g8 14 'ilixg4 'iWxe5 1 5 'ifh5 f5 (forced) 1 6 ltldf3 ! intending lt:lh4 and then to push the black queen away from the h7-square. As Eingorn indicates, Black has nothing better than 16 . . . ..td8 ! ? (White is better in the endgame after 1 6 . . . 'i!Vg6? ! 1 7 xg6 fxg6 18 i.e3 ..tc7 1 9 .Uad 1 , a s i n Ahues-Engels, Bad Nauheim 1935) 17 ..te3 ..txg5 1 8 ltlxg5 lt:le5 1 9 f4 g6 20 e2 lt:lc6 2 1 l:r.ad 1 with a somewhat better position for White.

12 ..txh7+ 12 l:te 1 ? f6 ! 13 exf6lt:lxf6 +. Thanks

to the weakness of f2, Black plays . . . e5 with an obvious advantage.

12 . 'itxh7 13 lt:lg5+ g6

It appears that White has been making the running, but he has no especially convincing follow-up:

a) 14 g4? f5 ! is winning for Black if he continues accurately: 1 5 'iVg3 f4 ! (not 1 5 . . . xe5? 1 6 lt:lxe6+ 'iVxg3 1 7 lt:lxf8+ lt:lxf8 1 8 hxg3 +) 1 6 h4 lt:ldxe5 -+ or 1 5 'iVh4 lt:ldxe5 16 'ifh7+ f6 -+ ( 16 . . . xg5?? allows 17 ltle4++ g4 1 8 h3#).

b) 14 'ii'd3+ f5 15 lt:lxe6 'i!fxe5 16 lt:lxf8+ lt:lxf8 reaches a complex position with chances for both sides.

A2} 9 b4 ..td6 10 ..tb2 (D) Or: a) Black gets easy equality after 10

b5 ltla5 1 1 c4 dxc4 12 ltlxc4 lt:lxc4 13 i.xc4 b6 ! ? (this new move varies from Jirovsky-Vesselovsky, Czech Team Ch 2002/3) 14 ..tb2 ..tb7 1 5 'i!fe2 'i!fe7 1 6 l:.ac l .l:.ac8 1 7 .l:.fd 1 l:!.fd8.

b) 10 a3 a5 1 1 b5 lt:le5 12 lt:lxe5 ..txe5 13 ..tb2 ..td7 14 a4 .l:!.c8 1 5 .l::[c 1 e7 1 6 e2 l:.fe8 i s also even, DjerfiTodorovic, Serbian Team Ch, Vmjacka Banja 2010.

COUE, ZUKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSTEMS 2 7

10 lt:Jg4!? Though this move has been used

just once, and in a game between untitled players , it looks good. Black wants to place one of his knights on e5, disrupting White' s plans of playing either e4 or c4.

White gets some pressure in the case of both IO . . . ..td7? ! 1 1 b5 lt:Je5 1 2 lt:Jxe5 .i.xe5 13 li:Jf3 .i.d6 14 c4 ;!; and 10 . . . 'i!Vc7? ! 1 1 b5 lt:Ja5 1 2 c4 ! dxc4 13 l;lc l ;!; Z.Rahman-Ganguly, Kolkata 2009.

1 0 . . . 'i!Ve7 ! ? (Soln-Jelen, Slovenian Ch, Skofja Loka 2000) could be a good alternative.

11 h3 Inserting 1 1 a3 a5 does not change

too much. ll ... lt:Jge5 12 ..te2 lt:Jxf3+ 13 li:Jxf3

lt:Je5! Black seeks simplifications. 14 'ii'd4 14 lt:Jxe5 .i.xe5 1 5 'ii'b3 .i.d7 16

.l:!.fdl (White can play to restrict the d7-bishop by 1 6 b5, but this pawn becomes a target for Black's counterplay : 1 6 . . . a6 1 7 a4 "ilc7 =) 16 . . . b5 ! (fixing White 's queenside pawns and preparing . . . a5) 1 7 e4 "ilf6 ! 1 8 exd5 exd5 1 9 'ii'xd5 .i.c6 20 'ii'd2 a5 gives Black excellent piece activity.

14 ... 'ikf6 15 li:Jd2 'ii'g6 The position is unclear.

8) Zukertort 1 d4 tt:lf6 2 li:Jf3 c5 3 e3 This sequence can be used to reach

a standard Colle System (with c3 coming soon) , but White can also play systems where the pawn remains on c2 or

moves to c4. Notable among these schemes is a set-up with b3 that i s named after Johannes Zukertort, one of the leading players of the late 19th century . This set-up features b3, .i.b2, e3, .i.d3 and 0-0, and several moveorders are possible. The Zukertort setup is most often seen when Black plays . . . d5 and . . . e6. The king ' s knight can move to e5 , spearheading an attacking push on the kingside that may also feature f4 and tt:lbd2-f3 and/or a rook-lift on the third rank. White can also seek a more boardwide battle by playing c4 and tt:lc3. However, the move 3 e3 is somewhat committal because White can no longer develop his queen' s bishop to f4 or g5, while playing the pawn to e4 would involve a loss of time. With that in mind, I propose that Black plays . . .

3 ... g6 (D)

This can lead to positions that we study in Line B of Chapter 6 or to completely new situations that are not hard to understand and play. At club level, many opponents may continue


with the Zukertort plan, even though it has a lot less bite against a set-up with ... g6.

4 .i.d3 Or: a) For 4 c4, see Line B of Chapter 6. b) 4 .ie2 .i.g7 5 0-0 0-0 and now: b 1 ) 6 c4 transposes to Line B2 of

Chapter 6. b2) If White really wants to fian

chetto his bishop, he can play 6 b3, although this is not too effective given that the black bishop is already on g7. After 6 ... d5 7 .i.b2 'Lle4 ! ? (Black emphasizes his prevalence in the centre; he could also make this move after ... 'Llc6) 8 'Llbd2 'Llc6 ('Llxe4 is not a real threat, so Black simply continues developing) 9 c4 .i.f5 Black has solved his opening problems; for example, 10 cxd5 'iVxd5 1 1 .ic4 'iVd8 1 2 'Llxe4 .i.xe4 13 .U.c 1 (or 13 'Lle5? ! cxd4 14 exd4 e6 1 5 'iVg4 .i.d5 with nice play against the isolated d-pawn, MahmudHodgson, Jakarta 1 996) 1 3 ... .i.xf3 14 'iVxf3 cxd4 1 5 .ixd4 'Llxd4 1 6 exd4 'iVd7 with equal play.

c) 4 b3 .i.g7 5 .i.b2 and now 5 ... cxd4 6 exd4 d5 7 .id3 'Llc6 8 0-0 0-0 transposes to the main line of this section. If Black delays this exchange, the dxc5 option becomes relevant: 5 ... 0-0 6 dxc5 ! ?. The point is that after the natural 6 ... 'iVa5+ White can choose the as yet unplayed 7 c3 ! ?, intending to win the e7-pawn if Black takes on c5 immediately : 7 ... 'iVxc5 8 .ia3 'iVc7 9 .i.xe7 .l:te8 10 .i.d6 'iVb6. Black has some compensation but there is a strategic risk of being left with a weak isolated d-pawn.

d) 4 dxc5 deserves attention. I have seen many cases where both players ignored this capture even when it was advantageous for White. I therefore urge you to bear this idea in mind. Here Black can win the pawn back immediately by 4 ... 'iVa5+ 5 'Llbd2 .ig7, when White's only active option is to advance with b4 followed by c4 and .ib2; e.g., 6 a3 'iVxc5 7 b4 (7 c4 0-0 8 b4 'iVc7 9 .ib2 comes to the same thing) 7 ... 'iVc7 8 .ib2 0-0 9 c4 (9 .ie2 b6 10 0-0 .ib7 1 1 c4 is the same) 9 ... b6 10 .ie2 .ib7 1 1 0-0 d6 (D), when Black has a flexible position with no problems:

w

d 1 ) 1 2 'iVb3 'Llbd7 1 3 .l:i.fc 1 (for 1 3 I:tac 1 see line 'd3 ' ) 1 3 ... lifc8 1 4 h3 a6 1 5 .ic3 'iVd8 leads to an equal position, V.Kovacevic-Cebalo, Croatian Ch 1 992.

d2) 12 'Lld4 a6 13 .if3 'Llbd7 14 .U.c l ( 14 .ixb7 'iVxb7 1 5 'iVf3? ! cannot be recommended because in the endgame Black more easily besieges the c4-pawn: 1 5 ... 'iVxf3 16 'Ll4xf3 .U.fc8 17 .l:!.fc 1 'IJ.c 7 1 8 fl .l:tac8 with better

COLLE, Z UKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSTEMS 2 9

chances for Black, Taimanov-Vaganian, Erevan 1 994) 14 . . . tZ:le5 1 5 xb7 'ii'xb7 1 6 'ii'e2 l:.ac8 17 e4 lLled7 1 8 tZ:l4b3 llfe8 = Muse-Khalifman, Bundesliga 2000/1 .

d3) 1 2 l:.c 1 tZ:lbd7 13 Vi'b3 .litac8 14 .l:.fd l Vi'b8 1 5 'ia2 Vi'a8 1 6 'ital l:!.c7 17 tLlel l:tfc8 = Abramovic-Nestorovic, Belgrade 2006.

4 . . . g7 5 0-0 0-0 Here White has a choice of set-ups. 6 b3 Continuing with Zukertort's fian

chetto. While this is a popular choice among the system's adherents, there are other options too:

a) 6 c3 arranges the pawns in the 'Colle' style. Black is flexible, and can choose a variety of set-ups here. I like 6 . . . d6 7 tZ:lbd2 tZ:lc6 8 li'e2 flic7 9 .:tel .td7 10 a4 l::!.ac8 1 1 lLlfl .l:.fe8, as in Meduna-Antoniewski, Czech Team Ch 1 997/8 . All the black pieces are wellplaced, while White still has some development problems. Black aims to play . . . e5 with slightly higher chances.

b) 6 tZ:lbd2 keeps White's queenside pawn-structure flexible. Then Black can seize the centre by 6 . . . d5 7 c3 'itc7 8 'ii'e2 tZ:lbd7 (intending . . . e5 ; after 8 . . . tLlc6 Black needs to reckon with 9 dxc5) 9 e4 cxd4 10 cxd4 (Daumen-Zhukova, Caleta 201 1 ; not 10 e5? lLlh5 + and . . . tZ:lf4) 1 0 . . . e5 ! ?, which should lead to simplifications and complete equality, but it is White who needs to be more accurate. 1 1 dxe5 tZ:lxe5 12 tZ:lxe5 'ii'xe5 13 tZ:lf3 ( 1 3 exd5? ! Vi'xe2 14 .txe2 tZ:lxd5 gives Black pressure against the b2-pawn) 13 . . . flih5 14 e5 l1e8 1 5 f4 g4 16

flid2 ! tZ:le4 1 7 xe4 dxe4 1 8 tZ:lg5 xe5 1 9 tZ:lxe4 .litad8 20 'ib4 ! g7 with equality .

w

6 . d5 7 .tb2 cxd4! 8 exd4 tLlc6 (D)

The knight eyes the b4-square. 9 l:!.el This seems like White 's best op

tion, since now he is ready for both . . . tZ:lb4 and . . . tZ:le4. Otherwise:

a) 9 a3? ! prevents . . . tZ:lb4 but invites Black's other active option: 9 . . . tZ:le4 ! 10 l:tel (after 10 tZ:lbd2, as in C.FlearHebden, Guernsey 1 989, Black has a strong knight manoeuvre: 10 . . . tZ:lc5 ! 1 1 .i.e2 tLle6 12 c3 lLlf4 +. gaining the bishop-pair) 10 . . . g4 ! (attacking d4) 1 1 .txe4 dxe4 12 l:txe4 xf3 13 'ifxf3 ( 1 3 gxf3? does not help due to 13 . . .f5 ! +, winning back the d4-pawn and leaving White with a terrible pawnstructure) 1 3 . . . tZ:lxd4 1 4 .txd4 .txd4 1 5 c3 .i.g7 and Black is better, BeltzHund, Women's Bundesliga 1994/5 .

b) 9 tZ:lbd2? ! (conversely, preventing Black's . . . tZ:le4 but 'forgetting' about . . . tZ:lb4) 9 .. . tZ:lb4 10 e2 f5 (note that this follow-up is possible


since Black has played . . . g6 instead of . . . e6) 1 1 liJel 'iVc7 ! ? (more useful than l l . . .l:!.c8, as played in Rojas KeimCruz, Mollet del Valles 20 1 1 , as the a8-rook can be developed to d8) and Black's next plan is . . . e5 ; e.g . , 1 2 c3 ltJc6 13 it.d3 e6 ! ? + intending to take on f5 with the e6-pawn to get an open file and an outpost on e4. If White does not take the bishop, . . . l:.fe8 and . . . e5 is a plan (naturally Black should not allow i.xf5 when he has to reply . . . gxf5 and then dxe5 would leave weak pawns on d5 , f5 , f7 and h7) .

9 . liJb4 10 St.n i.f5 U liJa3 ltJe4 12 c3 liJc6 13 liJc2 e5 ! (D)

w

Now: a) After 14 dxe5 tL'lxe5 1 5 liJfd4

'i!kb6 1 6 tL'le3 i.e6 the active black knights fully compensate for the isolated d-pawn.

b) 14 c4 gives Black a choice between the quiet 14 . . . tL'lxd4 15 tL'lcxd4 exd4 16 i.xd4 dxc4 17 i.xc4 .l:!.e8, with a simple and equal position, and the sharp 14 . . . dxc4 1 5 g4 tL'lxf2 16 'iii>xf2 i.xg4 1 7 dxe5 'i!kb6+ 1 8 i.d4 'i!kc7,

with enough compensation for the piece, Malaniuk-Todorov, Cappelle la Grande 1995 .

C) London The London System is the name of an opening scheme that begins with 1 d4 followed by an early i.f4. In the introduction to Win with the London System, Sverre Johnsen and Vlatko Kovacevic state : "Basically the London is a set of solid lines where after 1 d4 White quickly develops his dark-squared bishop to f4 and normally bolsters his centre with pawns on c3 and e3 rather than expanding. Although it has the potential for a quick kingside attack, the white forces are generally flexible enough to engage in a battle anywhere on the board. Historically it developed into a system mainly from three variations: 1 d4 d5 2 tL'lf3 tL'lf6 3 it.f4, 1 d4 liJf6 2 tL'lf3 e6 3 i.f4 and 1 d4 tL'lf6 2 tL'lf3 g6 3 i.f4." The London System, like the Colle system, does not require much knowledge of opening theory and normally leads to solid positional play. Its main advantage and difference compared to the Colle System is that White develops his bishop before playing e3. But even this does not change the character of the c3-d4-e3 arrangement. In Russian-speaking countries, players often call it a 'pig system' to demonstrate that it's as solid as a pig. The name dates back to the London tournament of 1 922, where it was used by Rubinstein, Maroczy and Alekhine. Modem grandmaster adherents include the Russian Boris Grachev. We shall choose a solid set-up for Black that

COLLE, Z UKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSTEMS 3 /

can be used against most of White ' s 'London' move-orders.

1 d4 tt:lf6 2 tt:lf3 White can also start with 2 i.f4 but

it does not affect our plans: 2 . . . e6 3 tt:lf3 c5 4 e3 tt:lc6 5 c3 d5 comes to the same thing. We can happily meet 2 c3 by 2 . . . d5 , with . . . e6 and . . . c5 to follow, or answering the Trompowsky-like 3 i.g5 with 3 . . . tt:le4.

2 .. c5 3 c3 e6 4 i.f4 tt:lc6 5 e3 d5 (D)

My opening philosophy says : if you are allowed to put pawns in the centre, just do it. At this point . . . d5 is the most logical continuation. Black makes White 's e4 advance more complicated and less advantageous . Now Black's plan is to exchange darksquared bishops with . . . i.d6 and follow by . . . e5 .

6 tt:lbd2 White can also start with 6 i.d3, but

this slightly restricts his options - with the bishop on f1 , there is always the possibility of playing i.b5 . 6 . . . i.d6 and then:

a) 7 i.g3 0-0 8 tt:lbd2 transposes to the main line of this section.

b) The immediate attempt to establish control of the centre by 7 tt:le5? ! leads to trouble: 7 . . . 'fic7 ! 8 tt:lxc6 i.xf4 9 exf4 bxc6 10 'fWd2 cxd4 1 1 cxd4 'fWb6 12 'ir'c3 i.a6 +.

c) 7 i.xd6 'ixd6 8 tt:lbd2 0-0 9 i.b5 leads to a quiet and equal game. If White wanted to get this kind of position, it would make more sense to play 6 tt:lbd2 and avoid wasting time on i.d3 (see note 'b' to White's 7th move below). 9 . . . i.d7 1 0 a4 ( 1 0 0-0? loses a pawn to a typical tactic : 10 . . . tt:lxd4 ! 1 1 tt:lxd4 cxd4 12 i.xd7 dxe3 +) 10 . . . a6 1 1 i.xc6 i.xc6 12 tt:le5 tt:ld7 = .

d) 7 tt:lbd2 has an interesting strategic idea: White wants to place a pawn on f4 to stop . . . e5 . But there is also a disadvantage with this idea -the d4-pawn is less well defended. 7 . . . i.xf4 8 exf4 'ir'b6 and now :

d 1 ) 9 dxc5 ? ! damages White 's pawn-structure even more: 9 . . . 'li'xb2 1 0 'li'c 1 ( 1 0 0-0? ! looks like a dubious sacrifice since White doesn 't get much for the pawn: 10 . . . 'ili'xc3 1 1 tt:lb3 tt:ld7 + Klaric-I.Novikov, Hungarian Team Ch 1 993) l O . . . 'i!i'xc l+ 1 1 .l:txc 1 i.d7 1 2 l:lb1 tt:ld8 ! 1 3 tt:le5 .l:tc8 14 tt:lb3 0-0 1 5 d2 .l:!.c7 +. Black is preferable due to White 's weak c-pawns.

d2) 9 'itb3 is a standard reply to . . . 'ifb6 when White still has a pawn on e3, but here it allows White 's pawns to become isolated: 9 . . .'it'xb3 (9 . . . cxd4 10 'fWxb6 axb6 1 1 tt:lxd4 tt:lxd4 1 2 cxd4 i.d7 1 3 e2, as in Rozentalis-Dreev, Tbilisi 1 989, is also possible but I prefer White to

32 ATFACK WITH BLACK

have the doubled b-pawns since the half-open file is unimportant due to the possibility of a3/ . . . a6, whereas there are real chances to exploit the weak squares on the b-file) 1 0 axb3 cxd4 1 1 .!Dxd4 .!bxd4 1 2 cxd4 .td7 1 3 'it>e2 'it>e7 with a preferable endgame for Black; the a-file will be blocked by . . . a6, the knight will be directed to e8 and d6 to support . . . ..tb5 or placed on b5 itself. White ' s pawn-structure is not good.

6 ..td6 (D)

Black will fight for the e5-square. 7 ..tg3 Or: a) 7 i..d3 transposes to note 'd' to

White 's 6th move. b) 7 .txd6 'ti'xd6 8 .tb5 is a type of

position we saw when analysing 6 i..d3, but here White has saved a tempo. However, Black still solves his opening problems . 8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0 ..td7 10 i.xc6 i.xc6 1 1 .!be5 .!bd7 12 f4 f6 1 3 .!Dxd7 i.xd7 led to equality in Schlindwein-Timman, German Cup, Walldorf 1 998.

c) 7 .!be5 again leads to nothing special for White. 7 . . . 'ilc7 8 .tb5 0-0 9 ..txc6 (White wants to take total control of the dark squares but it can't be achieved without Black's assistance) 9 . . . bxc6 10 0-0 ( 1 0 'i!Va4.!bh5 +) 10 . . . i..a6 1 1 l:.e1 cxd4 12 exd4 c5 with a fighting position where Black has good prospects due to his bishop-pair.

7 . 0-0 8 .td3 'ti'e7 Black prepares . . . e5 . 9 .!be5 Or: a) The simple 9 0-0 lets Black pro

ceed with his plan: 9 . . . .txg3 1 0 hxg3 e5 1 1 dxe5 .!bxe5 1 2 .!bxe5 'ii'xe5 . Black has captured the centre and it's hard even to imagine that there could be any problems for him now:

a 1 ) One idea is to bring the queen to f4: 1 3 f3 .l:le8 14 l:tfe1 ..tg4 (this looks more harmonious than 1 4 . . . .td7 1 5 'ii'f4 1Wh5 1 6 .te2 1Wg6 1 7 .tf3 .lir.ac8? ! 1 8 e4 dxe4, when the players agreed a draw in Z.MamedyarovaZhukova, European Women's Team Ch, Plovdiv 2003 , although White had slightly better chances due to her superior pawn-structure) 1 5 'ilf4 .l:!.ad8 1 6 f3 ..tc8 = .

a2) After 13 l:le 1 l:r.d8 14 'i!Va4, an interesting approach is l 4 . . . c4 !? . Black abandons the d4 square, but grabs the d3-square, which can prove more important. 15 .te2 .tf5 1 6 .:tad 1 'i!Vc7 1 7 b 3 (White removes the annoying c4-pawn to free his game; after 1 7 .!Df3 .!be4 1 8 .!bd4 i.g6 White faces the threat of . . . .!bc5-d3 and a queenside advance) 1 7 . . . cxb3 1 8 ii'xb3 .te6 1 9 'i!Va3 l:.d6 20 .l:!.b1 l:.c6 2 1 l:.ec 1 b6 +

COLLE, Z UKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSTEMS 33

Appel-Sebag, Vlissingen 2007 . Black has pressure on the c3-pawn.

b) 9 dxc5 .txc5 10 e4 ! ? and now: b 1 ) In Mag em-de la Villa, Spanish

Ch, Linares 1 990 White seized a strong initiative after 10 . . . dxe4? ! 1 1 lt:'lxe4 lt:'lxe4 12 i.xe4 e5 1 3 0-0 i.g4 14 lte1 ;!;. He has better coordination and pressure on the c6- and e5-squares.

b2) Black should keep the balance in the centre rather than giving it up for free. With the new move 10 . . . lt:Jh5 ! ? Black aims to exchange off the g3-bishop at the right moment. 1 1 'i!Ve2 (White's best chance is to attack on the h-file, which is why Black does not rush to capture on g3; 1 1 i.h4 f6 ! 1 2 0-0 lt:'lf4 1 3 .tc2 dxe4 14 lt:Jxe4 l:td8 1 5 'iie l .i.b6 16 i.g3 lt:'lg6 = followed by . . . e5) l l . . ..l:te8 1 2 lt:'lb3 i.b6 1 3 0-0-0 .i.d7 preparing . . . .l:tac8 with an unclear position.

9 lt:Jd7 Now:

C1: 10 lt:Jdf3!? 33 C2: 10 f4 34

Cl} 10 lt:'ldf3!? (D) This is an interesting idea. The point

is to avoid exchanging the e5-knight until Black weakens his pawn-structure with . . .f6.

10 .. . c4!? This is a new move I am proposing .

Generally, it's not good to play . . . c4 in this type of position since it makes the e4 advance easier for White. But considering the upcoming simplifications, Black can seemingly ignore this principle.

B

Here's what can happen if Black immediately pushes back the e5-knight: l O . . . f6 1 1 lt:'lxc6 bxc6 12 i.xd6 'i!Vxd6 and now 1 3 'i!Vc2 ! is an important move that forces Black to make some weakening reply :

a) After 1 3 . . . g6 White should avoid 14 i.xg6? f5 ! , when he is worse after 1 5 i.h5 lt:'lf6 + or 1 5 dxc5 'ilie7 (not 15 . . . 'ilixc5? 16 i.xh7+ ! xh7 17 lt:'lg5+ ) 1 6 i.h5 lt:'lf6 +. However, he should just castle: 14 0-0 ! ? e5 15 e4 ! , opening the centre in a way that promises access to the black king.

b) 13 . . . f5 weakens the e5-square and makes Black's task more complicated: 14 0-0 a5 1 5 l:tfd 1 c4 16 i.e2 i.a6 1 7 b3 ! lt:'lb6 1 8 lt:Je5 cxb3 19 axb3 .i.xe2 20 xe2 l:r.fb8 2 1 'ic2 with a slight advantage for White, Elianov-Sebag, French Team Ch, Guingamp 2010.

ll i.c2 1 1 i.e2 leaves the bl -h7 diagonal ,

so Black changes plan and simply takes on e5 : 1 l . . .lt:'lcxe5 1 2 dxe5 i.c7 1 3 0-0 lt:Jc5 with a good position .

ll ... f6 12 lt:'lxc6


1 2 t:bxd7 also looks OK for Black: 1 2 . . . ..ixd7 1 3 0-0 ..ixg3 14 hxg3 b5 1 5 e4 b4 16 exd5 exd5 17 .l::te 1 "flif7 = .

12 bxc6 13 i..xd6 'ii'xd6 Now we can see why we played

. . . c4 first. With the bishop on c2, the attack on h7 is not so useful: 14 'iVbl f5 1 5 0-0 a5 =. After 14 0-0 a5 1 5 e4 i..b7 1 6 l:.e1 c5 Black is OK.

C2) 10 f4 f6 11 t:Dxc6 1 1 i..xh7 +? is simply bad for White:

1 l . . .'it>xh7 1 2 h5+ 'it>g8 1 3 t:bg6 'iVe8 14 t:bf3 t:be7 ! + Blatny-lotov, European Ch, Kusadasi 2006.

l l ... bxc6 12 0-0 (D)

12 ... e5! ? Black can also close the centre by

1 2 . . . f5 ! ? = , with an absolutely safe position.

13 fxe5 fxe5 14 'iVh5 lL'lf6 15 h4 h6!?

This new idea removes the pawn from the firing line. Not 1 5 . . . i..d7?? 16 dxe5 i..xe5 17 .txh7 + +- LiogkyFingerov, Odessa rapid 2005 .

16 e4 The most critical continuation. 16 ... cxd4 17 cxd4 l1b8 Black is tine; for example, 1 8 dxe5

..ixe5 19 ..ixe5 'iVxe5 20 lL'lf3 'ilc7 2 1 exd5 cxd5 22 .l:tac 1 'iVb6+ 23 'iff2 i..a6 with a drawish endgame.

D) Torre 1 d4 lL'lf6 2 lL'lf3 c5 3 c3 e6 4 .tg5 With this move, White opts for a

form of the Torre Attack (the most standard sequence is 1 d4 lL'lf6 2 t:Df3 e6 3 ii.g5, when 3 . . . c5 4 c3 transposes to our position). It's named after the famous Mexican master Carlos Torre Repetto. Compared to the London System, the key difference is that White places his bishop on g5, exerting a little more pressure on Black, but the general set-up is quite similar: c3, e3, lL'lbd2, .i.d3 , 0-0, etc . Against accurate play, such modest development is unlikely to produce any advantage in the opening.

4 ... d5 I prefer this move-order over 4 . . . h6,

since then besides 5 i..h4 White can take on f6 followed by e4.

5 e3 h6 6 i..h4 Now there is no reason for White to

exchange on f6. 6 ... t:bbd7 7 lL'lbd2 i.d6 8 i..d3 0-0

9 0-0 (D) 9 ... b6 This quiet-looking but actually

rather ambitious move has recently been tried out in high-level chess. Black wants to play . . . i..b7, when he will have a stable and pleasant position, since if White then plays e4, it

COLLE, ZUKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSn'MS .15

will merely lead to exchanges that are by no means unfavourable for Black. So if White is going to create active play, or prove an opening advantage, he needs to take forcing measures right now.

In case of the natural 9 . . . e5, Black must be prepared to meet the aggressive 10 dxe5 tt:lxe5 1 1 tt:lxe5 .ltxe5 1 2 f4 ! . Then:

a) 12 . . . .itd6? ! 1 3 e4 c4 14 .lte2 b6+ 15 .ltf2 .ltc5 16 e5 tt:le4 (the alternative 16 . . . .1txf2+ is similar: 1 7 l:txf2 tt:le4 1 8 tt:lxe4 dxe4 1 9 d4 xd4 20 cxd4 :l.d8 2 1 l:!.d 1 .lte6 22 f5 .itd5 23 .ifl ! t intending l:.c2 and f2-e3) 1 7 tt:lxe4 dxe4 1 8 .txc5 'i!Vxc5+ 19 'ii'd4 'ii'xd4+ 20 cxd4 with a slightly better endgame for White, Morozevich-Alekseev, Moscow 2008.

b) The computer offers the coldblooded 12 . . . .1tc7 1 3 e4 g5 14 fxg5 tt:lg4 with an 'equal' evaluation. You may wish to investigate this further, but of course you would need to prepare it very carefully, since in such a position even the most natural move can be a fatal mistake.

10 e4 Otherwise Black plays . . . .ib7, when

White's e4 advance will evidently be less dangerous.

10 . . cxd4 1 1 cxd4 White has nothing special after I I

.ixf6 xf6 ( l l . . .tt:lxf6? 12 e5 ) 12 cxd4 dxe4 1 3 tt:lxe4 'fie7 = .

l l ... dxe4 1 2 .ltxe4 Or 12 tt:lxe4 i.e7 =. 12 . . J:tb8 Black can be happy from a posi

tional viewpoint, so from now on he can focus on simplification. White in turn tries to complicate matters.

13 .itc6 Another attractive-looking continu

ation is 1 3 'ii'e2 but here Black also copes with his problems: 1 3 . . . .ib7 14 .ltxb7 llxb7 1 5 tt:le4 (15 tt:lc4 .if4 ! puts the bishop on a very good square, where it controls c 1 ; then 1 6 tt:lfe5 "file? is equal) 1 5 . . . i.e7 16 .l:.ac l tt:ld5 (Black exchanges more and more pieces) and now 17 .ltg3 tt:l7f6 1 8 "ila6 .l:!.d7 19 tt:lxf6+ .ltxf6 = , 1 7 .ltxe7 'fllxe7 18 tt:le5 tt:lxe5 1 9 dxe5 .Uc7 and 17 tt:ld6 l:.c7 1 8 .ltg3 hc 1 19 l:.xc 1 .ixd6 20 i.xd6 .l:!.e8 21 'ii'a6 tt:l7f6 22 i.e5 'i!Vd7 all lead to equal play.

13 ... .ib7 14 l::.cl (D) 14 ... .if4!? Again the bishop is good on f4

since it pins the d2-knight and prepares . . . i.xc6 and . . . .l:tc8, which had been impossible due to l::txd6.

I am offering this new move as an improvement over 14 . . . b5 ? ! , which allows White to achieve his desired complications: 1 5 d5 ! exd5 16 .ltxd7 'ii'xd7 17 i.xf6 gxf6 1 8 tt:\d4 with


quite an unpleasant position for Black, Andreikin-Kovchan, Moscow 20 1 2.

1S g3 This is the safest move for White.

Other continuations tend to rebound on him:

a) 15 g3 ? ! forces an exchange of Black's annoying bishop but leaves White 's h4-bishop in a precarious situation. 1 5 . . . ..txc6 1 6 llxc6 ..txd2 1 7 1!Vxd2 l:r.c8 1 8 !!xc8 ( 1 8 llfc l ? ! llxc6 19 .Uxc6 1Wa8 ! 20 'iVc 1 lt::lb8 21 llc3 lt::ld5 +) 1 8 .. .'i!i'xc8 19 ..txf6 lt::lxf6 leaves Black more comfortable.

b) 15 d5? ! does not work so well now because Black's pieces are more active than they were in AndreikinKovchan. 1 5 . . . exd5 16 ..txd7 'i!i'xd7 17 xf6 gxf6 1 8 g3 e5 ! (not allowing White to obtain the d4-square for free) 19 lt::lxe5 fxe5 20 'ii'h5 'i!i'd6 2 1 lt::lf3 fe8 22 l:tfel e4 23 lt::ld4 'ii'g6 +. White has taken one blockade square but lost ground in all other parts of the board.

c) 1 5 'i!Va4? ! is strongly met by 1 5 . . . b5 ! , gaining an important tempo for Black's development. Then:

c l ) 16 'fixa7 ..txc6 17 l:txc6 .l:.a8 and here :

e l l ) 1 8 'fib7? loses to 1 8 . . . 'ii'a5 ! (intending . . . l:ta7) 1 9 lt::lb3 ( 1 9 xf6 .l:ta7 20 lt::lb3 'fia4 -+ is the same) 1 9 . . . 1!Va4 ! (defending b5) 20 ..txf6 .l:la7 , trapping the queen. It can only be saved at the cost of a piece : 2 1 lt::lc5 lt::lxc5 22 b3 lt::lxb7 23 bxa4 gxf6 24 axb5 l:txa2 -+.

c 1 2) 1 8 ..txf6 ! lt::lxf6 ( 1 8 . . . gxf6? 19 'fib7 ;!; leaves the d7-knight hanging; e .g . , 1 9 .. .'ia5 20 .l::!.c3) 1 9 1\Vc5 .l:txa2 +.

c2) 1 6 1Wxb5 ..txc6 17 'ifxc6 ..txd2 1 8 lt::lxd2 .l:r.xb2 1 9 lt::lc4 (unexpectedly Black wins a pawn since after 1 9 l:lc2, the d4-pawn drops: 19 . . . lt::lb8 ! 20 'ii'c3 .l:txc2 21 'fixc2 'fixd4 +) 19 . . Jha2 20 lt::le5 aS ! + and White needs to fight for a draw.

c3) 1 6 'ii'b4 'ifb6 1 7 xb7 .l::!.xb7 + followed by . . . lt::ld5 .

1S xg3 16 hxg3 xc6 17 .l::!.xc6 .l:!.c8

Black has solved his opening problems ; for example, 1 8 'i!i'a4 .l:lxc6 1 9 'ili'xc6 lt::lb8 20 'ii'b7 'i!Vd7 2 1 'iWxd7 lt::lbxd7 22 .:!.c 1 lt::ld5 =. White has captured the only open file but Black has safely blockaded the d4-pawn and taken control of the only dangerous square on the c-file - c7. The position is equal .

3 Anti - Benon i 4 ltJc3

1 d4 lDf6 2 lDf3 c5 3 d 5 (D)

B

White gains ground in the centre, and shows that he is in an uncompromising mood.

3 e6 This move is my recommendation

for Black. After White 's main reply, 4 c4, our repertoire choice is to reach the Blumenfeld Gambit by playing 4 . . . b5. In this chapter we look at White's alternative options, most notably 4lbc3 .

Many Benko players choose 3 . . . g6 or 3 . . . b5, hoping to transpose to a Benko. In practice, White rarely cooperates, and some of his alternatives are by no means easy to face. Also, some of our repertoire choices in the Benko are based on an early . . . e6 rather than . . . g6, so opting for 3 . . . g6 would re-quire additional preparation. A few

specific thoughts on these possibilities :

a) 3 . . . g6 and now : a l ) 4 c4 b5 5 cxb5 takes us outside

our Benko repertoire if White meets 5 . . . a6 with 6 b6 or 6 e3 .

a2) I don 't like 4 lbc3 .ii.g7 5 e4 d6 (a form of Schmid Benoni) for Black, since the positions that arise are of a completely different character from the Benko. Black's position is cramped and if there is a good technical player on the white side, it is usually very hard to get a comfortable game. There is little scope for activity for Black unless White is particularly careless. Of course, it's possible for Black to play this way, but I think when you examine the lines after 3 . . . e6 you will agree that they offer Black far better winning chances.

b) 3 . . . b5 transposes to a Benko Declined if White replies 4 c4. But 4 i.g5 is a popular alternative that leads to play of a different nature. Then you may wish to investigate 4 .. .'ti'b6, which leads to interesting irregular positions.

4 lbc3 This is White 's last chance to avoid

serious complications. White seeks to control the d5-square with his pieces and hopes to establish this as an outpost that gives him a long-lasting edge. Other moves:


a) 4 c4 is the main move, when our choice is 4 . . . b5 , the Blumenfeld Gambit. See the next two chapters .

b) 4 dxe6 fxe6 5 c4 is a rare sequence in practice, as it allows Black easy play in a variety of ways. If you are really keen on the Blumenfeld, then you can choose 5 . . . b5, transposing to Line C of Chapter 4, but there are safe and very satisfactory alterna-tives such as 5 . . . d5 , while 5 . . . i..e7 and 5 . . . lLlc6, with . . . d5 often coming soon, have achieved solid plus scores for Black.

c) Black has several good answers to 4 i..g5, but I recommend 4 .. .'ifb6 ! ?, which immediately attacks two pawns - b2 and d5 . Black is OK; e.g. , 5 dxe6 dxe6 6 'i'c1 lLlc6 7 e3 i..e7 8 lLlbd2 0-0 9 lLlc4 'i!Vd8 = .

4 ... exd5 It doesn' t make any real difference

if Black takes with pawn or knight, as they both lead to the same position : 4 . . . lLlxd5 5 lLlxd5 exd5 6 'itxd5 . If you were hoping for coverage of the Pseudo-Blumenfeld, 4 . . . b5? ! , then I 'm sorry, but I consider the text-move to be objectively better.

5 lLlxd5 lLlxd5 6 'i!Vxd5 (D) White's queen has taken up an in

fluential but exposed central post. If White can establish firm control of e4 and d5, then Black will come under strong pressure. His main mission is therefore to push the queen back in the quickest possible way, which is . . . lLlc6, . . . d6 and . . . i..e6 .

6 . lLlc6! This move appears to invite an im

mediate attack on the f7 -square, but

careful analysis shows that there is no real problem.

In case of 6 . . . i..e7 Black needs to be ready to face 7 i..f4 lLlc6 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 i..d6 ! ? (a new move), which leaves Black rather cramped. I don't enjoy such positions, and won't recommend them to my readers.

Now: A: 7 i..g5 39 B: 7 e4 39

Or: a) Now White does not have time

to blockade the d7-pawn with 7 i..f4 because of 7 . . . d6 (Rakhmangulov-Efimenko, Ukrainian Team Ch, Alushta 2002) 8 e3 i..e6 9 'i!Vd2 i..e7 1 0 .!:i.d1 0-0 with an equal position because the pawn is indirectly defended: 1 1 i..xd6? i..xd6 12 'i!Vxd6 'i!Va5+ 1 3 'iWd2 xa2 +.

b) 7 i..d2 d6 ! (again the priority is to push the white queen back; the next move is . . . i..e6 with a comfortable position; Black can also play 7 . . . i..e7 8 e4 0-0 9 i..c4 d6, which proved unclear in P.H.Nielsen-Jobava, European Team Ch, Khersonissos 2007, but I don ' t see

ANTI-BENONI 4 tiJc3 39

any reason to allow White to arrange his pieces in this way) 8 liJg5 'i/e7 9 e4 h6 10 .i.b5 ! (this is the only way for White to keep the balance; 10 liJf3? -te6 1 1 'ilid3 .i.f5 ! + costs him the e4-pawn) 10 . . . -td7 1 1 liJf3 (FodorPaschall, Paks 2005) l l . . .a6 1 2 .i.e2 _te6 1 3 'ilid3 g5 ! (intending . . . g4 or . . . .i.g7) 14 .i.c3 .litg8 1 5 0-0-0 0-0-0 = followed by . . . .i.g7.

c) 7 c3 is a prophylactic move -White stops . . . liJb4. Then 7 . . . d6 8 liJg5 'ilie7 9 .i.f4 (D) was played in Rombaldoni-Vezzosi, Arvier 2009.

B

Here I would like to offer a new move, 9 . . .f5 ! . This cuts off the white queen from defending the g5-knight and prevents ltJe4. The idea is simple : . . . h6 and . . . .i.e6 (the immediate 9 . . . h6? allows 10 ltJe4 ). After 10 0-0-0 h6 l l liJf3 i.e6 1 2 'ixd6 'iVxd6 13 -txd6 i.xd6 14 .l:txd6 i.xa2 = Black is OK.

A) 7 i.gS 'ilib6 8 liJeS After 8 0-0-0 d6 = followed by

. . . i.e6 Black is fine.

8 . . . ltJxe5 9 'ilixe5+ 'ilie6 10 'ilic7! White threatens mate in one. The

endgame after 10 'i!Vxe6+ dxe6 1 1 g3 f6 1 2 i.e3 i.d7 1 3 i.g2 0-0-0 14 0-0-0 i.e7 is approximately equal .

10 . . . 'ib6!? This is a new move (varying from

Berkes-Wojtaszek, Balatonlelle 2002) . Black's safest path is to move towards an endgame.

1 1 'ixb6 1 1 'ie5+ 'ie6 leads to a repetition. ll . . . axb6 12 e4 i.e7 13 i.f4 It 's useful for White to keep the

dark-squared bishops on the board since his bishop is going to be more active than Black's . After 1 3 i.xe7? ! 'i;;xe7 14 a4 d6 1 5 b3 i.e6 intending . . . c4 Black is comfortably equal .

13 . . . d6 White retains some pressure in the

endgame, but Black has sufficient resources to hold the balance, and White can easily get in trouble if he is careless. Here are some sample lines : 14 a3 i.d7 1 5 0-0-0 0-0-0, and now:

a) 1 6 i.xd6? i.g4 1 7 f3 i.xd6 1 8 e5 ( 1 8 fxg4?? ..tf4+ 1 9 'i;;bl .Uxdl+ -+) 1 8 . . . i.xe5 1 9 .l:!.xd8+ %hd8 20 fxg4 iLf4+ 2 1 'i;;b 1 l:td 1 + 22 'it>a2 'i;;c7 +.

b) 16 iLc4 i.e6 17 i.d5 Wc7 1 8 l:l.d3 l:the8 19 .l:.hdl iLf6 i s rather unclear. White may enjoy slightly better chances, but Black's position is very solid.

B) 7 e4 d6 As we know, it's important to pre

pare a quick . . . i.e6 to prevent White


from establishing control over the a2-g8 diagonal .

8 ltJg5 After 8 .tc4 .te6 9 Vi'd3 ltJb4 1 0

e2 .txc4 1 1 xc4 d5 ! Black exchanges his backward pawn. 12 exd5 'itxd5 and here:

a) 1 3 xd5 ltJxd5 1 4 .td2 (Martinez Rodriguez-Veingold, Alicante 2000) 14 . . . f6 ! (an important restricting move) 1 5 0-0-0 0-0-0 is equal . Of course, it would be much better for Black if the pawn were back on c7, but thanks to the good location of the black knight, his pawn-structure should not be a big problem.

b) Black should not be scared of the check 1 3 'ife2+ (D) . Then:

b l ) 1 3 .. .'ir'e6? ! 14 'ii'xe6+ fxe6 creates a weakness on e6 that White will exploit later. 1 5 'it>dl ! and now:

bl l ) 1 5 . . . lir.d8+ 1 6 .td2 .te7 1 7 .l:te 1 l:!.d6 1 8 a3 ltJc6 1 9 .l:.e4 i.f6 20 c3 f7 21 c2 lir.hd8 22 .li1.ae1 ;!; Epishin-Lubbe, Deizisau 20 1 1 .

b l 2) 1 5 . . . 0-0-0+ doesn ' t change matters much. 16 i.d2 .te7 17 .l:tel

l:td6 1 8 a3 ltJd5 1 9 'it>c l ! ( 1 9 c3? ! ltJf4 =) 1 9 . . J:U8 20 c3 g5 2 1 h3 h5 22 .l:te4 l:tf5 23 'it>c2 followed by .l:.ae 1 , with a slight advantage for White.

b2) I prefer the untried 1 3 . . . .te7 ! : b2 1 ) After 14 0-0, 1 4 . . .'ii'e6 ! now

works well because White has problems with the c2-pawn. 1 5 'ii'xe6 fxe6 16 c3 ltJd3 is equal .

b22) 14 ..tg5 f6 1 5 a3 (retreating the bishop is worse : 1 5 i.f4? 'if5 ! + or 1 5 i.h4? ! 0-0-0 1 6 0-0 { 1 6 a3? llhe8 1 7 0-0 ..td6 + } 1 6 . . . ..td6 + and . . . lir.he8) 1 5 . . . fxg5 1 6 axb4 g4 1 7 ltJe5 0-0 1 8 0-0 cxb4 1 9 ltJxg4 i.c5 =. Black has solved his problems.

8 'iVe7 (D)

w

9 i.c4 Another interesting idea for White

is to start with 9 .tb5 , forcing 9 . . . i.d7, and then drop the bishop back:

a) After 10 .tf4? ! h6 l l ltJf3 a6 12 i.e2, a s i n McDonald-Kaufman, Budapest 2006, Black can win material by 1 2 . . . ltJb4 ! 1 3 'ii'd2 'ii'xe4, when I don't see full compensation for White; e .g . , 1 4 0-0-0 ( 1 4 0-0 Vfxc2 1 5 'ii'e3+

ANTI-BENONI 4 li:Jc3 41

iL.e6 1 6 l:tad l .l:.d8 +) 1 4 . . . lt::lxa2+ 15 b 1 iL.e6 1 6 l:the l 0-0-0 ! + followed by . . . a4.

b) 10 JL.c4 ! ? (this untried move looks more critical to me) 10 . . . lt::ld8 (Black retreats for the time being, but plans to return soon ; the point of White inserting i..b5 is revealed by 1 o . . . f6? 1 1 ti:Jf7 lt::lb4 1 2 'i!fxb7 { with the bishop on c8, this capture was impossible ! } 12 . . . iL.c6 1 3 xe7+ iL.xe7 14 iL.f4 ! lt::lxc2+ 1 5 'iti>d2 lt::lxal 1 6 ti:Jxh8 ) 1 1 0-0 h6 1 2 lt::lf3 lt::lc6 1 3 iL.f4 iL.e6 1 4 'i!Vd3 iL.xc4 1 5 'ii'xc4 'ife6 16 'ib5 0-0-0 with an unclear position .

9 f6! (D)

Black pushes White's pieces back. 10 'iff7+ The over-ambitious 1 0 ti:Je6?? can

be punished by 10 . . . lt::lb4 1 1 iL.b5+ rli;f7 and Black simply takes the knight after 1 2 lt::lg5++ 'iti>g6 1 3 h4 h5 -+ or 1 2 ti:Jd8++ 'iti>g6 1 3 h4 ! h5 -+ (not 1 3 . . . lt::lxd5?? 14 h5#, with a spectacular checkmate). White must also avoid 10 lt::lf7? lt::lb4 1 1 iL.b5+ iL.d7 12 'ii'xb7

iL.xb5 1 3 lt::lxd6+ 'ii'xd6 14 ifxb5+ 'iti>f7 +.

10 'iti>d7! Black gives up his castling rights . If

White could keep the queens on, this would be a real problem, but since the queens are going to be exchanged, the black king can feel quite secure.

1 1 'ifxe7+ 1 1 iL.e6+? ! 'iti>c7 1 2 iL.xc8 fxg5 1 3

'i!fxe7+ JL.xe7 14 iL.e6 lt::ld4 1 5 iL.b3 .i.f6 16 'iti>d 1 lt::lxb3 17 axb3 l:the8 1 8 liie l a6 + Hebden-Plaskett, British League (4NCL) 1 998/9. Next Black will double on the e-file.

ll . . . JL.xe7 12 lt::le6 Black has no problems after 1 2 lt::lf3

(S.Muhammad-Plaskett, Internet blitz 2000) 12 . . . f5 ! 1 3 exf5 r:J.c7 =.

12 lt::lb4! (D)

w

Black's ideas include . . . lt::lxc2+ and . . . b5, and White can't stop them both . 1 3 0-0 b5 14 iL.d5 lt::lxd5 1 5 exd5 (Glud-Skovgaard, Skanderborg 2005) 1 5 . . . i..b7 1 6 .l:l.d 1 iL.xd5 1 7 lt::lxc5+ dxc5 18 .l:.xd5+ 'iti>c6 with an equal endgame.

4 B l u menfel

ECHECS - CHESS - Valery Aveskulov - Attack with Black(2012) [EN].pdf

Documents

Transcript of ECHECS - CHESS - Valery Aveskulov - Attack with Black(2012) [EN].pdf