(Sam Collins) : ! !" " #" # $# "$%&' #Diagrama
(Sam Collins) : ! !" " #" # $# "$%&' #Diagrama
(Sam Collins) : ! !" " #" # $# "$%&' #Diagrama
20.Bxb5+ gave White a winning
Ê
advantage in E.Sveshnikov-
[Sam Collins] J.Timman, Tilburg 1992.; 11...Rc8
transposes to P.Haba-C.Renner,
! !" " #" # $# Austrian Team Ch. 2004, where
"$%&' #Diagrama White had a healthy extra pawn
after 12.Qb1 Qb6 13.Qxb6 axb6
14.Rb1 Bxa3 15.Rxb6 Bc6 16.Bb5
Ne7 17.Ke2 0-0 18.Bxc6 Nxc6
19.Ra1 Ra8 20.Rb3 Be7 21.Rxa8
Rxa8 22.Rxb7 Rc8 23.Kd3 .; 11...Ba4
12.Qb1 Qc7 13.Bd3 Ne7 14.0-0 ,
followed by Rc1 and c4, gave White
the better game in A.Praznik-
A.Yakimenko, correspondence
G$'! (!G I feel this is sloppy as 1993.] (! &#G -
White's last move contained a itherwise White would consider
positional threat which Black Ng5 and, if kicked, Nh3-f4-h5 to
shouldn't ignore. )'* [The point, pressurise the g7-pawn. $-
although White has also tried 8 Be2, [This may seem to be shooting into
8 g3 and 8.Rb1 , all of which tend to thin air, but White reckons that
transpose to the main lines after Black can't hold back ...g6 for long
8...Na5, but note that delaying this (if necessary, an f4-push should
move with 8...Nge7? runs into force it in any event). Pascal
9.Bxc4! which wins a pawn since Charbonneau implemented a more
9...dxc4 10.Nxc4 , 11 Nd6+, 12 conentional plan against Mark
Nxf7+ and 13 Nxh8 is crushing. Bluvshtein in Montreal 2003:
However, immediately opening the 14.Qe2 Nc8 15.Be3 Nb6 16.Nd2 Bc6
queenside is best and will neutralise 17.f4 g6 18.Rfc1 Qd7 19.a4 Nxa4
Black's long-term advantage on that 20.c4 Nb2 21.cxd5 exd5 22.Bb1 Bb5
wing, as well as draw attention to 23.Qf3 Nd3 Ê
could cast
the underdevelopment of the black doubt on the pawn sacrifice 24.Rc3
kingside. ] )#+' ,$+' $" Rc8? Êswallowing his pride with
$+" &+" (! $G The was best 25.Rxc8+ Qxc8
alternatives don't change the nature 26.Qf1 Qc3 27.Rxa7 with a winning
of the position: [11...Qa4 12.Qb1!? position.] . ". $#)
Bc6 13.Bd3 Ne7 14.0-0 h6 (+. */ [Typically enterprising
Ê.Kroeze-H.Hoeksema, Enschede play from Motylev, whereas 16.Ng2
1994 deviated with followed by Ne3, Qe2 and playing
when simplest is for c4 or f5 is a more sedate way of
and Black's handling the position.] ('"/*
compensation is insufficient 15.Rc1 [After this White is definitely much
Nc8 16.c4 dxc4 17.Rxc4 Qb5 better and so 16...fxg6 is superior,
18.Qxb5 Bxb5 19.Rxc8+ Rxc8 although 17.Nxg6 Rg8 18.Qh5 Kd8
19.Nxf8 Rxf8 20.Bxh6 gives White
c
three good pawns and a centralised adopted this plan with good results.
black king for the piece.] G&. )( [Preparing to meet an
%+. )$+. (+% ,&+ 0 $G eventual ...Bc5 with kingside
$+-)(! $%G&!G$! 0 castling is an obvious and good plan.
1!) &% */ After a queen In contrast to the previous game,
exchange, White could take a fourth 7...f6 puts much more pressure on
pawn on either h6 or b7, but the white centre and so 8.b3 is
Motylev is an aggressive player and inappropriate: 8...fxe5 9.Nxe5
was clearly enjoying his position too Ê is nothing for White
much to opt for a better endgame. 9...Nxe5 10.dxe5 Bc5 11.Qh5+ g6
1#G&%( "2' [25.c4! 12.Qh4 was D.Bronstein-L.Roos,
was even stronger, when the pawn Hastings 1993 and now 12...cxb3
is untouchable in view of Ba5+.] 13.Rb1 Ne7 14.Rxb3 Qc7 gives
"& # 2!) G$+'G (+'G Black good chances.; Another
)("0 1#) ,(+!) $%" standard plan, 8.g3 , also falls short
2+'G* 1+'G #+!"0 &#) after 8...fxe5 9.Nxe5 Ê
! 01 &!01'G&'"0 plans to hit the e5-pawn with ...Nf7
1)"(#G &# 0&'GG!G and ...Qc79...Nf6 and 10...Bd6 with
equality, as in J.Johansson-
L.Karlsson, Swedish Ch.,
Ê'3.
45-
6 Lindesberg 1993.; However, Dvoirys
preferred 8.Nh4!? in S.Dvoirys-
7!Ê
G.Vallin, Cappelle la Grande 2001
and was rewarded after 8...g6
Ê
[Sam Collins] is roughly equal 9.f4 fxe5?
ÊMcDonald suggests 10.fxe5
! !" " #" # $#
Bg7 11.Nhf3! Nh6 12.Bxc4! dxc4
"$% &' # G$'! %
13.Nxc4 Qa6 14.Nd6+ Kd7 15.Bxh6
Diagrama
Bxh6 16.d5! with an attack.]
)%+" ,$+" It makes sense to
capture with the knight in order to
free the f-pawn and to let the light-
squared bishop out. ,$+"
[Preventing White from gaining a
bind as he obtained after 9...Nf6
10.f4 Bd6 11.Ndf3 in J.Prizant-
D.Erashchenkov, Essentuki 2003.]
!+" (#" $G By no
This is probably the best alternative means the only try: [11...Bd7 12.Rb1
to 7...Na5. Black reopens Ê followed by b4 is another
discussions on the stability of the way of playing on the queenside
white centre, intending to exchange although the immediate
on e5 to secure the c5-square for his runs into
bishop, and recently Pelletier has 12...Ne7 13.b4 cxb3 has seen White
2
try two plans: 14.c4 (14.Nxb3 0-0 20.Rab1 b6 Ê
looks more
Ê
15.Nxc5 Qxc5 solid 21.c4 Nf5 22.cxd5 h6 23.dxe6
16.Rxb7 Qc8 17.Rb4 Qxc3 18.Bd3 Bxe6 24.Bg6 Qc4 25.Qh3 Ne7
Be8 19.Bb2 Qc5 20.Qg4 Nf5 21.Rb7 26.Bd3 Qa2 and now instead of
Qc6 22.Qb4 also led to a draw in Grischuk's 27 Qh5, 27.f5! looks very
.Braga-J.Vilela, Bayamo 1984) convincing as 27...Bxf5 28.Bxf5 Nxf5
14...0-0 15.Bf3 Rad8 Ê
29.Bf6! g6 30.Rbd1 supplies a clear
is more advantage; Pelletier then switched
ambitious 16.Qxb3 Bc6 17.cxd5 to 15...Rf7 16.Rb1 Ê
Bxd5 18.Qa4 Qc6 was drawn in
S.B.Hansen-S.Brynell, Copenhagen was equal in Li Shilong-
1993.; 11...Nh6 12.b4 cxb3 13.Nxb3 J.Arizmendi Martinez, Linares
Nf5 14.a4 Be7 15.Bb5+ Kf7 16.Nd4 200216...b6 17.Qh3 Qc7 18.Bd3 g6
Rd8 17.Bd3 Kg8 18.Bxf5 exf5 19.Re1 Qxc3 20.Bb2 Qc6 21.Rbc1
19.Ba3 Re8 20.Re1 Be6 21.Qd3 saw Qd7 which left White struggling to
White dominate in E.Prie-J.Roos, show enough compensation in
rench Ch., Chambery 1994. ; S.Conquest-Y.Pelletier, rance
11...Qc7 12.b3 cxb3 13.c4 Bd4 2002, but 19 Bg5!? may improve.]
14.Rb1 Bxe5 15.Nf3 and the 2%G G(-" A standard
exchange of Black's dark-squared device to weaken the kingside dark
bishop will leave White with the squares. G. )(.$%" ,(."
initiative.] '*Diagrama This position is extremely difficult
for Black as after the inevitable
exchange of his knight, he will be
unable to control his own dark
squares. ,&# &- -"
(+%"* +%" 2% ( (%
2#) & 1-G "2# 2%#G
- !/ [26...Qg4 , trying to
create his own play, was much more
[Winning the bishop pair at the cost tenacious, but after 27.Qd2 f4 28.f3
of some queenside looseness, Qg3 29.a5 b5 30.a6! White will
whereas 12.Bh5+ g6 13.Bg4 h5 penetrate along the b-file.] G#+!
14.Be2 Bd7 15.Rb1 0-0 16.Nxc4 dxc4 &+# 0)2+# 2+# 0,1-The
17.Qxd7 Rad8 18.Qa4 Rxf2 19.Rxf2 black rooks just aren't effective
Bxf2+ 20.Kh1 Qc6 21.Qxc6 Nxc6 enough, whereas the white queen
22.Bg5 Re8 23.Bf6 gave White a has the long-range power as well as
slightly better endgame in .Vallejo the short-range knife required to
Pons-Y.Pelletier, Biel 2002.] mount a lethal attack on the black
#+' $+' $+#" king. ,2 # &! (!"
&+#" "&! ' [In A.Grischuk- &' 2' & 2# (G*
Y.Pelletier, Biel 2001, Black Introducing the possibility of Bd6
preferred 15...Qc7 16.Bg5 Rf7 17.f4 followed by running with the e-
Bd7 18.Bh5 Ê is Pelletier's pawn, as well as the slightly more
suggestion 18...Qc5+ 19.Kh1 Rff8 exotic Qd2 and Bf8 to engineer a
j
dark-squared breakthrough. %
&!%"(%)1.) &- 2#G
,
G&+. 0 securing equality 11...0-0-0 12.Rb1
Kb8 13.h4 Ka8 14.h5 Qc7 15.Nf1
Ê!
89:
Nb3 16.Bf4 g6 17.g4 gxh5 18.gxh5
;9-9-9
Nf5 19.Ng3 Nxg3 20.fxg3 Be7
!99Ê
21.Nh2 Rdg8 22.Ng4 Bg5 23.Rf1
White was doing well in A.Motylev-
[Sam Collins]
A.Berelovich, Bucharest 1998.]
%" [10...Nf5 can hardly be classed
! !" " #" # $#
as a mistake, but gives White the
"$% &' # G$'! $"
interesting option of Bg2-h3xf5 and
Diagrama
in such closed structures, bishops
are generally inferior to knights:
11.Re1 Be7 12.Rb1 h5 13.h4 Rc8 Êor
with the better chances for
White in G.Hernandez-J.Gonzalez
Zamora, Cuernavaca 2003 14.Bh3
g6 15.Qc2 Rc7 16.Nf1 Qb3 17.Qe2
Ba4 18.Bxf5 gxf5 19.Bg5 Qc2 20.Qe3
). I've taken some liberties with Qe4 21.Bxe7 Qxe3 22.Nxe3 Kxe7
the move-order of this game as 23.Ng5 and the h5-weakness,
Golod actually fianchettoed his coupled with Black's inferior pieces,
bishop a little earlier, but it really gave Black a difficult defensive task
doesn't make much difference so in J.Nunn-K.Arkell, Isle of Man
long as White remembers not to let 1994.] +% Diagrama
the black knight into b3. )(!G
,(. ine of three possible spots
for the white bishop. in g2 it
doesn't do a great deal, of course,
but it has the benefit of blocking
neither the e-file nor the h-pawn.
It's fair to say, however, that this
development, according to recent
practice, isn't enough for an
advantage. ,$G [Instead after
9...h6 10.0-0 Ne7 11.Re1 ÊBlack
I think this is the correct response,
played more precisely in B.Ivanovic-
because otherwise White risks
V.Dimitrov, Niksic 1996 with
becoming worse on the kingside.
(saving a
.+% $- The
tempo in the journey to a4)
3
structure which has arisen is a
typical and fascinating one. Black
has control of the centre and the
possibility of an eventual ...e5 which
could give him an overwhelming
game, but in the meantime White
will be exerting as much pressure as
possible on the e6-pawn. The
present game is a good example of
both sides playing sensibly and
maintaining a dynamic equilibrium. ,(- Probably the most logical
&-" () & $. "$!% spot for the bishop, and certainly so
There's a strange balance on the after 8 g3, because from h3 the
kingside, since neither side wants to bishop targets both the f5-square
exchange knights: White would be and the e6-pawn, thereby
improving the black structure by discouraging Black's typical moves,
doing so, while Black would be ...f5 and ...Nf5. It must be said that
resolving the awkward position of against this plan Black has enjoyed
the f3-knight. "(%G ( 1') a lot of success with a rapid ...g5
G2% 1) )(- (.G ,&# and ...h5 pawn storm, gaining time
2!) 2 $# 2 $+- on the bishop, but I don't think this
$+- $G (% $. $. is objectively worrying. I have
" [Had Black tried 24...Nxf4 pointed out improvements below,
25.Nxf4 e5 , the response 26.Qf5! although anyone who gets queasy
would have generated enough seeing pawns running towards their
counterplay to hold the balance.] king should consider a set-up with
"( Quite possibly Black g3, h4 and Bh3 where such a plan is
should have played on. < < much harder for Black to pull off.
, [Korchnoi once wrote that
Ê
(-
= castling is always the most natural
move, but not always the best. In
239> these lines it can be useful to leave
-9-9Ê
the c8-square free for the king's
knight so that it can swing round to
b6. That said, it's a blocked position
[Sam Collins]
and the black king frequently ends
up on b8 or a8 anyway, so I don't
! !" " #" # &'
think it's a big deal. 9...Ne7 is the
"$% $# # G$'! $"
main alternative as Black judges
).(!GDiagrama
that castling is not an immediate
necessity and plans to save a tempo
by keeping the c8-square free for the
knight. The idea is ...Qc7 and ...Nc8-
b6 before committing the king, and
x
after 10.0-0 we are at something of a Qc7 18.Nxb3 cxb3 19.Bd2 Na5
tabiya. Then 10...h6 leads to a 20.Rbc1 Nc4 21.Nxc4 Qxc4 22.Rg1
further split and appears best: Kb8 23.g4 Bb5 24.Bf1 Qc6 25.f5 gxf5
10...Qc7 11.Nh4 Nc8 12.f4 g6 13.Rb1 26.gxf5 Bg5 27.Bxg5 hxg5 28.Rg2
Nb6 14.Ndf3 h6 15.Ng2 0-0-0 Rh7 29.fxe6 fxe6 30.Qf6 Bxf1
16.Bg4 Ê is even better, 31.Rxf1 a6!? 32.Rxg5 Rgh8 33.Rf2
intending 17 Ng4 and if Black stops Qc4 was L.Psakhis-I.arago, Banja
it with then
leaves Luka 1985 and in view of the h-file
White with more options than in the pressure and his insecure king,
game, since he can prepare g4 with White's winning chances were
h3 16...Be7 17.h4 h5 18.Bh3 Kb8 minimal. ; Some strong players have
19.Ng5 Rdf8 20.Be3 Ka8 21.Rf3 Nc6 recently experimented instead with
22.g4 hxg4 23.Bxg4 Nd8 24.Rh3 Qc6 9...Be7 . Then 10.0-0 Êagainst
25.Qe2 Qb5 26.Rf1 Qb3 27.h5 gxh5 , Black found an interesting
28.Rxh5 Rxh5 29.Bxh5 Na4 30.Bc1 plan in P.Etchegaray-M.Apicella,
Nb6 31.Ne3 and White was pressing rench Ch., Nantes 1993 and
in J.Pinter-E.Mednis, Budapest secured fine play after
1976.; ' 10...g6 was Tigran
, but White should prefer
Petrosian's choice against Igor a trick:
Zaitsev at Sochi 1977. After 11.Rb1 , gaining the
h6 White produced an instructive advantage 10...h5 11.Rb1 is the
knight manoeuvre: 12.Nh4!? 0-0-0 usual way to meet 9...Be7 and is a
13.Ng2 Kb8 14.Ne3 Rc8 15.Ng4 Bg7 move generally in White's favour
16.Bg2 when a draw was agreed, because otherwise ...Nb3 is an
although I think White has an edge important resource for Black. After
because 17 h4 will follow, while 11...0-0-0 Ê
16...h5 17.Nf6 slightly favours was good for Black in
White.; # 10...Qc6?! 11.a4 Qc7 is A.Minasian-V.Korchnoi, European
senseless provocation and Black can Ch., ihrid 2001, but White should
easily lose control of the queenside. ; have allowed the black 'threat' with
Returning to 10...h6: 11.Nh4 the simple 12 Re1 Qc6 13 Qe2 Ba4
Ê
14 Nf1, obtaining the better game
12.Ne1 g5 13.Bg2 Nh6 14.Bh1! Nf5
15.Ng2 f6 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.Re1 g4
saw Black produce a classic 18.Nf4 h4 19.b4 White was doing
counterattack typical of this line in well in M.Bosboom-
R.Burnett-Hoang Thanh Trang, J.Brenninkmeijer, Dutch Ch. 1992.]
Budapest 2000: - [10...Nh6 11.Rb1 Bb5
12.Re1 Qc6 13.b3 Êbut I'd
recommend
with
which won material in view of a normal edge 13...cxb3 14.Nxb3
Nxb3 15.Qxb3 Bd3 left White with
11...Nec6 12.f4 0-0-0 13.Rb1 Êand no advantage in I.Zaitsev-A.Lunev,
not 13...Be7 14.Ng2 irel 1994.] $ Diagrama
Rdg8 15.Kh1 g6 16.Ne3 Nb3 17.Qf3
J
just grab the pawn.] $!%*
Immediately heading for the
weakened square. $' 2'
$+# &+# Black was virtually
compelled to go in for this exchange,
but now White has a natural
kingside build-up which is hard to
prevent. ( "$."$- %
. G$.(G )&!1') ,$
2!%) $% &% 1G
[Against 11.Rb1 , Black can sit tight (.* 2!) - $%" This is
with 11...Kb8 , when the position definitely best, because otherwise
after Ê
the knight would be sidelined after
g4. $+%" +%"*/ [24...gxf5 looks
tighter, although after 25.Ng5 Rdf8
left White clearly better in G.Sax- 26.h4 the h-pawn is a target while
D.Marovic, isijek 197812.Ne1 Ne7 Black needs to keep an eye on the
13.Ng2 has been reached several b3-break.] "-2#) $!2-!)
times, with Black making a plus G2%# 2# )$% 2#G ,(%*
score. The reason for this isn't the &" &. 2#!G $ White
magnificence of his position but the has achieved a perfect set-up, but
fact that white players messed it's difficult to see a breakthrough
around with moves like Kh1 and and so Motylev manoeuvres
Qf3 to no end - I'm not giving these patiently until his 39th move.
games since I regard them as (' 2 &'" 2 (%)
theoretically irrelevant. I think that 1- ""2 ( 2!(G
a much better plan is to play Ne3 G2 (' )2! &# What
and push for f4-f5, with normal follows isn't too difficult for the
play.; Note that 11.Nh4 g5 12.Ng2? Russian Champion: , * %+
h5 was good for Black in K.Regan- $+!" +!" 2+G (
E.Mednis, Budapest 1978.] -"/ 2 2+G2+G&% 2"
[The problem with this is that now (# "&*[While material is still
...g5 will be very difficult to achieve, equal, the superiority of every white
whereas 11...g5 12.Bg2 Be7 13.Rb1 piece makes the black position
h5 14.Qe2 is very logical play from untenable, although Motylev had to
both sides and 14...Nh6 Ê
avoid 45.Bxd5?? Qxe5! .] "2!
2GG&"1'))1. 1G
,1% 1' "1 1 " 1!
G
Ê" $:3
9 has been the main player here and I
?
> think his games tell the story of the
Ê "
" position: 12...Kb8 (12...Nec6 13.Rb1
Kb8 Ê
[Sam Collins]
saw Black improve in
The young GM and new US
N.Pokazanjev-V.Kosyrev, Kazan
Champion, Hikaru Nakamura, has
2005 14.Qc2 Qc7 15.Nf1 Nb3
demonstrated touching fidelity to
16.Be3 Nca5 17.N3h2 Ba4 18.Qe2
the Advance Variation over the past
h5 19.Bg5 Be7 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.Nf3
year or two, even within the context
Nc6 22.Ng5 was pleasant for White
of an extremely wide repertoire
in S.Erenburg-J.Lechtynsky,
(anyone who successfully plays 1 e4
Budapest 2002; White had
e5 2 Qh5 clearly likes variety!). As
favourably exchanged the dark-
he has made exceptionally rapid
squared bishops, while the black
progress which shows no sign of
minor pieces had the control of a
abating, we could soon have another
desert) 13.Rb1 Qc7 Ê
adherent of the Advance at the
was
highest level. ! !" "
S.Erenburg-E.Bareev,
#" # &' "$% $# #
playchess.com (blitz) 2004;
G.(!G)-Diagrama
Erenburg abstained from the h5 and
f4 plan, but without gaining
anything and
supplied balanced play 14.Nf1
Nc8 15.N3h2 Ê
was
S.Erenburg-Hoang Thanh Trang,
Budapest 2002 and Black assumed
the initiative after
)$" ,$'! We've seen that
White often wants to gain space 15...Be7 16.Ng4 looked very
with h4 and that a bishop on h3 gets promising to me at first, with the
in the way. Thus one aim of White's idea being that White wants to
8th is to get an improved version of occupy f6 as soon as possible once
the Bh3 lines, while he also has the Black g-pawn moves.
interesting independent play based urthermore, after 16...h5 17.Ngh2
on Ng5 or pushing the h-pawn. , he's on the the point of establishing
Racing the king away, but Black a bind, but it is precisely here that
has experimented with a number of Black has an excellent pawn
alternatives: [9...Ne7 10.Bh3 h6 sacrifice: 17...g5! 18.Bxg5 Bxg5
11.0-0 0-0-0 12.Re1 has been 19.hxg5 h4 20.gxh4 Rxh4 21.Bg2
extensively tested. Sergey Erenburg Rdh8 22.Nf3 R4h7 with more than
enough compensation and after 12.Bh3 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Ng8 14.Qg4 g6
23.Ne3 Nb6 24.Ng4 Ba4 25.Qe2 Nd7 15.0-0 Ne7 16.Nf3 Nb3 17.Be3 Qc7
White is still stuck for a plan.; 9...h5 18.Rad1 h6 19.h5 g5 20.Nd4 Nxd4
10.Bh3 Nh6 has been played several 21.cxd4 0-0-0 22.Bd2 Nc6 23.Kh2 b5
times, but the model response was 24.f4 gxf4? Ê
demonstrated in one of its first
is
outings: 11.0-0 Be7 12.Ne1 g6 unclear 25.Rxf4 Qb6 26.Rf6 b4
13.Ng2 0-0-0 14.Rb1 Kb8 15.Nf3 27.axb4 Nxb4 28.Bxh6 saw White
Qb3 16.Qe2 Ba4 17.Bg5 Bxg5 shortly win in A.Grischuk-
18.Nxg5 Qc2 19.Qf3 Nb3 20.Qf4 M.Apicella, rench Team Ch. 2003.
Nd2 21.Rfc1 Qd3 22.Rd1 Nxb1 ] (-Diagrama
23.Rxd3 cxd3 24.Nf3 d2 25.Nxd2
Nxd2 26.Qxd2 gave White a
winning position for White in
G.Sax-H.Ree, Amsterdam 1979. ;
9...Qc6 10.Ng5 h6 11.Nh3 Qa4
12.Qf3 Qc2 13.Nf4 Ne7 14.Ng2 Qh7
ran into 15.b4! cxb3 16.Bd3 Qg8
17.Rb1 Ba4 18.Ne3 Rc8 19.c4 dxc4
20.Ndxc4 Nxc4 21.Nxc4 Nd5 22.Bd2
Be7 23.0-0 in E.Sveshnikov-
V.Eingorn, Sochi 1986. ritz [10.Bg2 makes less sense and was
assesses this as being clearly better well met by 10...Nh6 11.0-0 f5
for Black but it is probably winning 12.exf6 gxf6 13.Re1 Ng4 14.Nh2 h5!
for White due to the comical 15.Nxg4 hxg4 16.Qxg4 e5 17.Qf3 e4
position of the stuff on g8 and h8.; 18.Qe2 f5 with a bind in
9...h6 10.Bh3 Be7 Ê K.Valkesalmi-J.Tisdall, Torshavn
1987. ] %" +% The only
correct response, and Black has
was scored very heavily when White
balanced in S.Vysochin-E.Andreev, doesn't take en passant, especially
Barlinek 200211.0-0 g5 12.h5 0-0-0 when h4 has weakened the g4-
13.Re1 Kb8 14.Rb1 Rh7 15.Bg4 Rg7 square and made an ...f4-advance
16.Qe2 Ba4 was also level in attractive. .+% -"
Y.Gonzalez-i.Almeida, Barcelona [Instead 12...Bd6 13.Qe2 Re8 14.Re1
2003 when neither side could do Kb8 15.Nf1 h5 16.Ne3 Nh6 17.Ng2
much on the kingside, while Black Ng4 18.Nf4 Nb3 19.Nxh5 Nxa1
couldn't break through on the 20.Bxg4 f5 21.Nf6 Qd8 22.Nxe8
queenside.; 9...f5 10.exf6 Ê Qxe8 23.Bh3 Nb3 24.Bg5 was
crushing in M.Panarin-L.Psakhis,
, as in EU Internet Ch. (blitz) 2004,; but
D.Schneider-V.Akobian, Las Vegas I.Khairullin-M.Rodshtein, Belfort
2005, is a less convincing treatment 2005 indicated a possible defence:
because Black can't be stopped from 12...Ne7 13.Re1 Rg8 14.Nf1 Ê
playing ...g5 10...Nxf6 11.Ne5 Bd6
is good for Black 14...Nb3 going to the g-file.] 2 (%)
15.Rb1 Qd6 16.Kh1 Nxc1 17.Qxc1 $% (!G $! 2 2+
Nc6 18.Qc2 Rg6 19.Ne3 Qc7 20.Ng2 (+ $+' White now has
e5 21.Bf5 Rg7 22.Ne3 Kb8 23.Bxd7 something real to work with and
Qxd7 24.Qf5 e4 25.Nh2 Rg6 26.Kg2 Nakamura sets about his task.
Qxf5 27.Nxf5 Ne7 28.Rh1 and a 1# "1# 1'" $! 1
draw was agreed.] 2 $- G$% (! )$ (#G ,$!
$- The attack on the h5-pawn (+" (+" 1+" 1' 1'
creates problems for Black. $%" $# " 1 (!G0 1
[This leads to a thankless defensive White was unable to retain the a5-
task, but Black was already under pawn, but the minor piece endgame
pressure. 14...Nf7 15.Bg2 Nd6 is tough for Black to defend.
16.Rb1 Re8 17.Ndf1 Bg7 18.Bf3 Looking at how to play this would
favoured White in G.Sax- take us too far afield, but I'll give
A.Kuligowski, Warsaw 1979. ] the moves anyway: (#
"(+%" +%" %* (! G1%* "$01'" 1'('GG$#0
The g3-pawn is now covered, and 1' )1(# ,'1 "1'
there's very little room to hit the 1' " $0 1'" "'+" 1+"
white king on either side, while the "$#" () "$ (%G ""$!)
f-pawns render the black bishops () " $'G0 1' "G$! (!G
almost entirely useless. Black ")1' 1# ",$'" 1' $#
needn't necessarily lose this position (# $' (!G $! ('"
(and a subtle point is that a queen $' (!G $#" () "$
trade, which is generally in White's (%G $%) 1# G$-G 1!
favour, will leave the h-pawn safe )$+% (. ,$.) (%G G$%
from diagonal attack), but White (. G $.) (%G G$- (
can play on forever. G2!) G1'" (!G0 G1" ( G"1'
)2+)0 2+) ,$-% $' 1!G G 1#" 1#G GG$+%" (+%"
$+' &+' &+' #+' G)1+!" 1!G G,1" (. )1%
* Another precise move by the 1! ) %" 1!G )1. (% )!"
US Champ. If Black were able to fix (+!" )1+-" 1G )"1." 1%G
the pawn on a3 with ...b5, then ) . (% )G-" 1.G ))1- (!
...Bxa3 would be a major resource to ),."(#,- 01-G, 1.('
restrain White's ambitions. '" ,1% (# ,1" (! ,1
" ' itherwise the b3-pawn (#0 ,"1G (' , % 1. ,G%G
would fall to Be3 and Nd2. (! (+%G ,)-G 1+-G ,,1+%G 1-)
'+# "(+# This is probably 1. * [And not 100.g6
quite close to equal since Black stalemate.]
should be able to cover all his
pawns, but in practical terms I'd Ê 4 9#
1#-9
much prefer White because Black is
the one with all the weaknesses. 9 3
@9A9. Ê
2# 1'G G$ ( )1
2#) ,1! 2# [29...Rc7 is more
flexible, retaining the option of
[Sam Collins]
c
! !" " #" # $# 16.Qg2 g5 17.Qf1 Qc7 18.f4 gxf4
"$% &' # G$'! $" 19.Qxf4 h5 20.Rb1 h4 21.Nf1 Rdg8
).(GDiagrama 22.Rg1 Qd7 23.Qf2 hxg3 24.hxg3
Rg7 25.Bf4 Rgh7 26.Bf3 didn't give
Black enough for the pawn in
V.Malaniuk-G.Kuzmin, Nikolaev
Zonal 1995.] ,--"[Korchnoi had
previously tried 9...Bd7 against
Grischuk at Biel in 2001 and after
10.Bh3 f5 11.exf6 gxf6 12.0-0 h5
13.Re1 Nh6 14.Nh2 0-0-0 , it was
rare to see Korchnoi giving, rather
than receiving, pawns. However,
here it was fully justified in terms of
[Here we will look at lines where open lines for his rooks and 15.Qxh5
Black delays ...Bd7, although often, Rdg8 16.Qe2 f5 17.Ndf3 Ê
as in our main game, this simply was a better attempt 17...Nb3
amounts to a transposition. 18.Bxh6? Rxh6 19.Rad1 Bxh4
Korchnoi is quite fond of these 20.Nxh4 Rxh4 was in Black's
systems, and his games are favour.] (-Diagrama
generally worth studying for offbeat
methods of dealing with the
Advance Variation. Another
delaying ...Bd7 idea is 8...h6 which
has been played a couple of times
against Malaniuk, and his response
9.Nh4!? aims to place the knight
optimally on e3 before committing
either his h-pawn or his king's
bishop: 9...Bd7 10.Ng2 0-0-0 11.Ne3
Ne7 12.Qf3! ÊMalaniuk's
improvement on his game with
Prandstetter from erevan 1984,
when Black was fine after
(!G $- 2
2' 1') $-*/ [Enabling
the other knight to come to f3.
Instead 14.Ng5 Bxg5 15.hxg5 Nf5
looks quite playable for Black.]
. "$!% &' & (
and went on to win12...Nf5 13.Be2
G(." (+." )$+." &# ,$%
Be7 Êprovacative, but
[19.Qf3 is more ambitious and
looks nice for White and the
19...Nb3 20.Nf1 offers an edge.]
f7-pawn will be a permanent
,&+ 2+ $# Black now
problem 14.Nxf5 exf5 15.Qxd5 Be6
has a safe position and drew
cc
comfortably: % 2!%) 1. intending to swing the knight round
$%" (+%" .+%" $ $G to f5, was well dealt with in E.Prie-
"1% 1#G $. 1' G$% M.Apicella, rench Ch., Auxerre
1" )1 (!G ,2! ' 1996: 10.Rb1 Nh6 11.Re1 Nf5
2- 1 $ $. $% 12.Nf1 0-0-0 13.Bf4 Rdf8 14.Ng3
$G$$. < < Nxg3 15.Bxg3 h5 16.h4 f6 17.Qd2
Nb3 18.Qe3 Be8 19.exf6 gxf6 20.Bd1
ÊG 7.
B 9
Bg6 21.Bxb3 cxb3 22.Rbc1 Kd7
23.Nd2 Bc2 24.c4 left White with
8#- > -9-9 some advantage. ; 9...f5 10.a4 Be7
11.Qe1 g5 12.Kh1 Nh6 13.Bd1 Nf7
Ê G
"
14.Ng1 h5 15.Bc2 0-0-0 16.Rb1 Kb8
[Sam Collins] 17.Qd1 Rc8 18.f4 Rcg8 19.Nh3 Qd8
20.fxg5 Nxg5 21.Nxg5 Rxg5 and
! !" " #" # &'
now 22.b4 would have been pleasant
"$% $# # G$'! $"
for White in E.Prie-M.Apicella,
)((!G,Diagrama
Clichy 1993. ; A.Delchev-J.Moreno
Carnero, Andorra 2002 showed the
downside to early queenside castling
for Black: 9...0-0-0 10.Rb1 Kb8
Ê
was better for White in
S.Mamedyarov-E.El Gindy, Dubai
2003 as the bishop on b3 is seriously
out of play 11.b3! cxb3 12.c4 Ba4
Ê
sees the queenside open to the
detriment of the black king and
[Better than 9.Rb1 Ne7 10.Nf1 Qb3 now 13.c5 would have been very
11.Bf4 Ba4 which was comfortable promising for White.] 2 In
for Black in S.Erenburg-M.Shur,Tel turn, White has essayed a number
Aviv 2001. ] ,$GThere have also of alternatives: [10.Qc2 f6 11.Bd1 0-
been important games after other 0-0 12.a4 Nec6 13.b4?! just created
responses from Black: [After 9...f6 weaknesses after 13...cxb3 14.Nxb3
White successfully opened the Nxb3 15.Qxb3 Qxb3 16.Bxb3 Na5
queenside in V.Anand-D.Prasad, 17.Ba2 f5 in I.Asmundsson-
Delhi 1987 with 10.Rb1 0-0-0 J.Hjartarson, Vestmannaeyjum
11.Re1 Ne7 12.Bf1 Ng6 13.b3 cxb3 1985 - only rarely can White take
14.c4 fxe5 15.c5 Qc7 16.Nxe5 Nxe5 the queenside initiative in this line.
17.Rxe5 Bxc5 18.Nxb3 Bd6 19.Nxa5 ; After 10.g3 A.Volzhin-R.Kholmov,
Qxa5 20.Bd2 Qc7 21.Re3 Kb8 irel 1992 demonstrated that
22.Reb3 leaving him with an attack, Black's position is resistant to early
but Black missed the excellent knockouts: 10...Qc7 11.Nh4 Nc8
18...Bxd4! after which he would 12.f4 g6 13.g4 Be7 14.Ng2 Nb6
have been clearly better.; 9...Be7 , 15.f5!? exf5 16.Ne3 Ê
c2
would have ensured an improve coordination. ] 2'
exchange of bishops under more Diagrama
favourable circumstances when
White has compensation 16...fxg4
17.Bxg4 Be6 18.Qf3 Qd7 19.Bxe6
Qxe6 (White is struggling, but his
attempt to accelerate the play
doesn't help) 20.b4? cxb3 21.c4 dxc4
22.d5 Qxe5 23.Qxf7+ Kd8 24.Nf3
Qf6 and 0-1.; 10.Rb1 Qc7 11.Nh4
Ê is better when can
be met by and 13 h411...Ng6!
12.Ndf3 Nxh4 13.Nxh4 Be7! &#G $% $' [Recent
(otherwise White would be able to practice has also seen 12...Nb6 and
play f4 before the knight dropped 13.Bg5 Ê
back to f3) 14.Nf3 f5 gave Black a
very solid game in S.Dvoirys-
R.Vaganian, European Club Cup,
Izmir 2004. White should be careful
about playing Nh4 before the e7-
gave Black an
knight has committed itself to the overwhelming attack in P.Simacek-
queenside.] $#) Black's play is T.Petrik,Cartak 2003 13...h6
very logical and his delay in castling 14.Bh4 Ba4 15.Qd2 Ê
queenside has two benefits: i. The
typical manoeuvre of ...Qc7 and
was also drawn in
...Nc8-b6 takes one fewer move, B.Predojevic-Wang Hao, Istanbul
because Black doesn't have to spend 2005. 15...Kd7 16.Bd1 Re8
a tempo on ...Kb8 to vacate the c8- 17.Bxa4+ Nxa4 18.Qc2 Nb6 19.N3d2
square. ii. With ...h6 omitted, ...0-0- g5 20.Bg3 h5 21.h3 Be7 22.Ne3
0 would leave the f7-pawn Reg8 23.a4 Qc6 was agreed drawn
vulnerable to a quick attack (Ng5 in Ni Hua-Wang Hao, Xiapu 2005. ]
would certainly be on the cards) and ( $' $! I'd like to
so the king stays on e8 to guard this draw the reader's attention to the
pawn, thereby drawing some of the manner in which White played his
sting from Ng5. [However, I'm less last five moves, because he
than convinced by the 10...Ng6 proceeded in extremely thematic
11.g3 Be7 12.h4 f5 of P.Motwani- fashion: firstly, he played Re1 to
I.Gurevich, Hastings Challengers give his knight the f1-square;
1991/92. Here I think that White secondly, he went Rb1 so that ...Nb3
should continue 13.exf6 gxf6 14.h5 wouldn't fork the rook and the
Nf8 when the f8-knight is a poor bishop; thirdly, he got his bishop out
piece as, although it defends e6, it to e3 (f4 can also be a useful
impedes the rooks and lacks options square); and fourthly, he challenged
itself. or White, the manoeuvre the black knight with N3d2, and not
Be2-f1-h3 seems a good way to
cj
with N1d2, because White wants to 2+- G&+- $# )&-" $%
clear the d1-h5 diagonal so his ,&." &+." (+." The
queen and bishop can get out. simplification hasn't been kind to
$" "(."*/ Dramatically Black whose g-pawn is falling.
raising the stakes, in so far as any $) (! $! (+.1!G
chess move is capable of being (% $) $-" 1G "(."0
dramatic. The bishop keeps the 1%G $% $.G G(% $') ).
black king in the centre and White (#) ,(- (!G "(+.G 1+.G
plans to follow up with f4 (and f5, if " ." $ "1. $#G "$-"0
possible). A trade of dark-squared 1. "1% $) ""$. $.G
bishops is positionally unacceptable " (! "0 "G1+" 1+."
for Black, and so he is virtually ")1+!" 1- ",$% (- $!
forced to block this bishop out with $%" 1 1. $+# 1%
his own kingside pawns, thereby 1%
gaining space but creating
weaknesses. "( &# - Ê) 4 9#
4'9:
G(- ." )(. -" ,- (-
$ I suppose White would like 93
?3Ê)
to play Rf1 and f4, which is why
Black undertakes the following
operation. .*/ -+. (+
[Sam Collins]
%+ -+. (% 2.) The g4-
! !" " #" # $#
pawn is a difficult target to attack
"$% &' # G$'! $"
and it controls some crucial kingside
)((!G,$GDiagrama
squares. The game is still balanced
at this point, but it gradually slips
away from Black. (! (#
"$% $. &G G1%
$!G[White also would have gained
the advantage after 27...Ba4
28.Bxa4 Nxa4 29.e4! .] )2- %
,+% &+% 2- 2. 2+.
&+. (# &.G &! I think
White has several factors in his
favour: he controls more kingside
squares, which means he's more
likely to win overall control of that [Black can also play 9...h6 at this
sector; the black g-pawn is a juncture at this juncture when
significant weakness; and there's no White has one standard and one
real room to the side of the white enterprising plan: 10.Rb1 Ê
king, but there is to the side of the was an invention of the ever-
black one (a black rook on h2 would creative Ukrainian GM ileg
be ineffective, but a white one on h7 Romanishin against Karsten
could prove devastating). 2-) Mueller in Altensteig 1992; after
2% ' "&! ('G 2-
c3
kingside in Peng Xiaomin-B.Nadera,
Asian Team Ch. 1995, but after
White had a 18.Bf4 Qb6 19.Bc2 Be7 20.Nxf5 exf5
substantial queenside initiative and 21.Qe3 Bf8 22.e6!? (I guess Black
was clearly better 10...Qc7 (or could have put his bishop here were
10...Ne7 11.g3 ÊZaitsev later he concerned about this advance)
switched to and 22...Bxe6 23.Ne5 Rg8 24.Bxh6 Bd6
25.Bf4 Qc7 26.g3 Nc6 27.Qd2 a6
28.Bd1 Rce8 29.Ba4 Bxe5 30.Bxe5
Qd7 31.Bf4 White was considerably
was better.] 2 ince again, a
much better for White in I.Zaitsev- number of different plans have been
I.Naumkin, Moscow 1995 11...0-0-0 tested: [10.a4 is something of a
Ê
Romanishin patent in this line and
10...h6 11.Ne1 Ê
was agreed drawn in
E.Sveshnikov-I.arago, Novi Sad was soon
197912.Nh4 f5 13.exf6 gxf6 14.Bg4 drawn in E.Vasiukov-G.Kuzmin,
e5 15.b3 cxb3 16.Nxb3 f5 17.Bh3 Moscow 1991 as Black didn't feel
Ba4 18.Nxa5 Bxd1 19.Rxb6 axb6 like pushing the h-pawn, although
20.Rxd1 bxa5 21.dxe5 and White readers may have different
had more than enough for the sentiments and
exchange in I.Zaitsev-I.arago,
Szolnok 1975) 11.Re1 0-0-0 and now is
there have been two instructive unclear 11...Nf5 12.Nc2 Nb3
displays: 12.Qc2 Ê
13.Nxb3 Qxb3 14.g4 Nh4 15.Ne3
Qxd1 16.Bxd1 g5 17.f3 Be7 18.Bc2
0-0 19.Ng2 Nxg2 20.Kxg2 f6 21.exf6
Rxf6 22.Bd2 Raf8 23.Rf2 saw White
soon arrange h4, with a superior
was endgame in i.Romanishin-
B.Miljanic-A.Istratescu, Bucharest A.Vaisser, Tallinn (rapid) 1988.;
1999 when White proceeded to 10.g3 h6 11.Nh4 0-0-0 12.Kh1 Kb8
potter around and drew; that was 13.f4 f5! (an appropriate response
largely due to not playing the only because the knight on h4 looks
aggressive plan (pushing b3), misplaced in the new structure)
although that would have been very 14.exf6 gxf6 15.Rb1 Qc6 16.Qe1 Rg8
double-edged since lines would have 17.Ndf3 Nf5!? 18.Nxf5 exf5 19.Qf2
been opened for the black pieces and b6 20.Nd2 Nb7 and Black soon got
weaknesses would have been his knight to e4, where White left it
created on a3 and c3 12...Kb8 which led to a draw in B.Ivanovic-
13.Bd1 Rc8 14.Nf1 Ka8 15.Ng3 g6 J.Sofrevski, Skopje 1991.; 10.Ng5 h6
16.h4 Ne7 17.Qe2 Nf5 was an 11.Nh3 0-0-0 12.f4 Nf5 13.Nf3 Nb3
interesting attempt to plug the 14.Rb1 Ba4 15.Qe1 Na5 16.Bd1
cx
Bxd1 17.Qxd1 h5 18.Bd2 Be7 his knights can be aggressively
19.Qe2 Kd7!? was Shulman's placed on relatively central squares
interesting idea in R.Biolek- whereas Black's can only attack
Y.Shulman, Pardubice 1999 - the from the a-file.; ' 12.Nf1 Nb3
king is going to e8 to hold the f7- 13.Be3 Ba4 14.N3d2 Nf5 15.Bg4
pawn and Black drew comfortably. ; Be7 16.Nxb3 Bxb3 17.Qd2 Nxe3
10.Rb1 Qc7 11.Ng5 h6 12.Nh3 0-0-0 18.fxe3 a5 19.e4 dxe4 20.Rxe4 was
13.Nf4 g6 14.Re1 Kb8 15.h4 Nf5 about equal in L.ressinet-
16.h5 g5 17.Nh3 Be7 was quite T.Radjabov, iropesa del Mar 1999. ;
comfortable for Black in Qin Returning to 12 Qc2: 12...Kb8
Kanying-Hoang Thanh Trang, 13.Bd1 Êthis is one of the main
Shenyang 2000, because the h5- points behind 8 Be2, covering the
pawn can prove to be a weakness, sensitive b3-square, whereas
while the f5-knight blocks the white
rooks after an f4-break. ] &#G
[10...h6 is again a major alternative occured in
with several options arising after H.Nakamura-Y.Timman,
11.Rb1 and 11...0-0-0 Ê Copenhagen 2005 when the white
a4-pawn was in need of constant
protection and this factor made it
very difficult for White to play for a
win 13...Rc8 14.Nf1 Nb3 15.Bf4
was E.Prie- Ka8 16.Ng3 Ba4 17.Qe2 Qb5 18.Nh5
L.Roos, rench Ch., Chambery Na5 19.Nd2 Rc7 20.g4 Nc8 21.Bxa4
1994, where White gained the Qxa4 22.Nf1 Nb6 23.Bg3 Qb3
advantage by playing Bc2, Ne2-f4 24.Ne3 Na4 25.Nxd5!? exd5 26.e6
and Bf6, hitting the weak g6-pawn Re7 27.Nf4 Nb6 28.Qf3 Qb5 29.exf7
12.Qc2 is by no means the only Rxf7 30.Nxd5 Rxf3 31.Nc7+ Kb8
move tried: 12.h4 Kb8 Ê 32.Nxb5+ Kc8 33.Nxa7+ Kd7 34.Re5
Nc6 35.Rb5 Nxa7 36.Rxb6 Kc8
was 37.Re1 Nc6 38.d5 and 1-0 was
less than clear in T.Shaked- E.Sveshnikov-T.Casper, Moscow
Y.Shulman, Halle 1995, although 1987; one of the stem games in this
White has more to justify in view of line.; Another instructive
his pawn deficit) 13.h5 Ka8 14.Qc2 Sveshnikov game was
Qc7 15.Bd1 Nc8 16.Nf1 Nb6 17.Bf4 E.Sveshnikov-V.Eingorn, Palma de
Ba4 18.Qc1 Bb3 19.N3d2 Bxd1 Mallorca 1989, although this was
20.Qxd1 Qd7 21.Ne3 Rc8 22.Bg3 one of the first examples of good
Be7 23.Qg4 Rhg8 24.Bh4 Bxh4 black defence in this line, and
25.Qxh4 brought about an repays close study: 10...Qc6 11.Qc2
interesting position in E.Prie- Nc8 (playing this before ...0-0-0
i.Renet, Paris 1994. I think Black effectively saves a tempo on ...Kb8)
is fine in the pure major piece 12.Ng5 h6 13.Nh3 Nb6 14.Nf4 0-0-0
positions, but with knights on the 15.Nh5 Qc7 16.a4 Bc6 17.Bd1 Kb8
board I'd take White, if only because 18.Re3 Rc8 19.Rg3 g6 20.Nf6 Nd7
cJ
21.Nxd7+ Qxd7 22.Rf3 Rc7 23.Qb1 but White gets tremendous
Qe8 24.h4 h5 25.Rg3 Bd7 26.Nf3 compensation and 20...Nf8! would
Nb3 27.Bxb3 cxb3 28.a5 Bb5 29.Bg5 have been much tighter, since
Be2 30.Bf6 Rg8 31.Ng5 Bh6 32.Nh3 21.Qxf7?? loses to 21...Be8 .]
Bg4 33.Bg5 Bxh3 34.Rxh3 Bxg5 &+%G$%)$%(+' 2+'
35.hxg5 Qd8 36.Rg3 Rc6 and Rooks are never going to be the star
Eingorn had nothing to fear.] pieces in such a blocked position,
2' $#) $% $' (%- which means that White's
&!Diagrama compensation is very promising.
&!G $. $+. "&+.
(!) $!2%)[26...Qe8 is better,
since endgames are less favourable
for White than middlegames, and
27.Qc2 g5 forces White to find the
excellent 28.h5! , giving up a pawn
in order to prosecute his queenside
advantage in comfort.] G' #+'
)$+' $+' ,2+' &%G
') #."#+!".+-
[If the black knight goes to b3, the !+ &+ (- (' "(#
queen can now nestle on e3, 2#) 2# &. G 0 1)
whereas 14.Bg3 Ba4 15.Qc1 0-0-0 )(" 2-.)/ [Black should have
16.h4 Bb3 17.N3d2 Ba2 18.Ra1 Bb3 played more dynamically with
19.h5 Be7 20.Ne3 Kb8 21.Rf1 Ka8 38...Bxd4! 39.Bxh8 Rxh8 , when
22.Qe1 Ba4 23.Kh1 g6 24.Rc1 Rdg8 40.Bd5 Ê is annoying
left the white pieces clumsily placed 40...Bxc3 41.Qxc3 leaves White with
in P.Haba-I.Naumkin, Cappelle la good chances, but also a much less
Grande 1998. ] (G "- clear position than in the game.]
$. [Heading to the h5-square ,(% / [White must have been
in order to pressurise the g7-pawn, rushing to make move 40 and
whereas 16.Bg3?! makes it more misses the beautiful multipurpose
difficult for White to co-ordinate his move, 39.Bd5! , which wins easily
pieces and 16...Rdg8 17.h5 Ê
as, for example, 39...Rxc3 40.Qxc3
! !" " #" # $# [White holds the d-pawn and keeps
"$%&' $- Diagrama as many pieces on the board as
possible, while 9.Be3 is the other
method of defence, detailed in
Games 10-11.] ,(!G [Black
prepares for rapid queenside play,
aiming to exploit White's slight lack
of development. 9...Be7 is a major
alternative and is dealt with in
Games 12-16. Then any g4-advance
can be met by ...Nh4, and so it takes
a little more work to deal with the
f5-knight.] .White has a couple
of minor alternatives, but the only
Black consistently plays for real way to challenge Black is to
pressure against the d4-pawn and kick this knight and to gain some
he chooses this route, rather than kingside space. $%G [The
going via e7, so as not to obstruct knight temporarily blocks the f8-
the bishop's defence of the c5-pawn. bishop, but it plans to relocate to g6
G' White logically continues with from where it will hit the weak f4-
his plan on the queenside. G#+! square, as we'll see in Game 19. The
[Black has to trade as 7...c4 would alternative is the 10...Nh6 of Games
leave White with a very strong 17 and 18 when Black gains some
position on the queenside and in the time by hitting the g-pawn, and the
centre. ] )#+![This is the natural knight can perform some useful
response, but the 8.Bxh6 gxh6 work after ...f6 and ...Nf7.] D
9.cxd4 of Game 9 is a good
alternative, setting up a struggle
Ê
4
between the white centre and the
black bishops. ] )$%"Bringing the 4.3! 9
?
knight to a strong square with gain 5'! Ê ,
of time. ,('Diagrama [Sam Collins]
c
! !" " #" # &' 1999: 12...a5! 13.b5 Nxd4!! 14.Nxd4
"$% $# $- G' #+! Ê
)(+- Diagrama
wins 14...Bc5 15.Nc2 Bxf2+ 16.Kd2
Bxg3 17.Rf1 Bxe5 18.Ra2 Bxb5
19.Bxb5+ Qxb5 20.Qe2 Qb3 21.Qf3
Bf4+ 22.Qxf4 Rg2+ 23.Rf2 Rxf2+
24.Qxf2 Qxb1 and 0-1) 10...Bd7
11.Na4 Qd8 12.g3 , taking care of
the threats on the g-file; this is well
worth a tempo. R.Antonio-
B.Villamayor, Quezon City 2000
continued 12...f6 13.Bd3 fxe5 Ê
).+- ,#+! The benefits and
burdens of this exchange are readily
apparent: White gains a structural is strategically very favourable
advantage and, more importantly, for White, and he won in
easy development, while Black has L.Keitlinghaus-C.Sielecki, Bremen
a big old bishop-pair and prospects 199814.dxe5 Rg7 15.0-0 Kf7 16.Rc1
down the g-file. ,(!G [Assuming Kg8 17.Nc5 Bxc5 18.Rxc5 Qf8
Black wants to play a system with 19.Bb5 Qf5 20.Bxc6! bxc6 21.Nd4
...Bg7, the text is the most precise Ê
way to start because White is
21...Qxe5
denied his most active set-up for a 22.Nxc6 Qd6 and now best was
reason we'll shortly discover. If 23.Qc1! , followed by Re1 and Ne5,
though Black wants to play ...Rg8, with an excellent game. ] (
he should do so now before White [Not the best square for the bishop,
has a chance to meet this move with but the problem is that 10.Bd3??
castling. 9...Rg8 is a dynamic drops a pawn for nothing since, with
selection, playing down the g-file at the a4-e8 diagonal covered, there is
the cost of weakening h7 and no Bb5+ after 10...Nxd4 11.Nxd4
denying obvious paths to the black Qxd4 .; urthermore, 10.Nc3 ,
king and dark-squared bishop intending 11 Na4 and 12 Bd3, runs
(...Bg7 now seems nonsensical). The into 10...Nxb4! 11.axb4 Bxb4 12.Qb3
rook hits the g-pawn and White Rc8 13.Rc1 Qa5 Ê
must also be attentive to the idea of was the continuation of
...Rg4! which can prove very M.Rodriguez Boado-M.Sion Castro,
disruptive. Against 9...Rg8, White Spanish Team Ch. 2002, but the
should prefer 10.Nc3 (the attempt to text is more precise 14.Kd2 when
keep everything covered with 10.h3 White is in a very uncomfortable
Bd7 11.g3 Rc8 12.Be2 was pin. 14...0-0 15.Bd3 Rc7 16.Ng1 f6!
emphatically refuted in Peng 17.exf6 Rxf6 18.Nge2 Ba4 19.Qa2
Xiaomin-B.Villamayor, Shenyang e5!! 20.dxe5 Rxf2 21.Ke1 Bxc3+
22.Kxf2 Rf7+ 23.Kg3 Bxe5+ 24.Kh4
c
Qd8+ and Black has a winning
attack.] 2#) [Trying to
destabilise the white queenside was winning for Black in
structure with 10...a5!? 11.b5 Ne7 A.Rodriguez-E.ernandez Romero,
looks like a reasonable idea to me. Ayamonte 2004 13...f6 Êthe
I.Rogers-D.Velimirovic, Vrsac 1987 of E.Polovnikova-S.Matveeva,
continued 12.Nc3 Ê Krasnoturinsk 2004 should have
22
Be8 24.Bb5 Nc6 gave Black an extra
23
%+ &+#1-)[Black is shortly broke through on the queenside:
busted after this, but 26...Nxe5 12.Qd2 Qd8 13.Bxf5 exf5 14.Nc3 g5
27.Qxe6+ Nf7 28.b6 would also have 15.Ne1 h4 16.f4! gxf4 17.h3 Bg5
been very good for White.] G$ 18.Nf3 Bh6 19.Rac1 Be6 20.Na4
2) )$! 2G ,% 2') %" Qe7 21.Rc2 Rg8 22.Rfc1 Rg3 23.Nc5
&)0 &# $- &+) 2+) Nd8 24.Qe2 Rg6 25.Bc3 Kf8 26.Be1
' 2')'G+%""2%# Bg5 27.b5 a5 28.Qd3 Kg7 29.a4 b6
30.Na6 ÊWhite can regain his pawn
Ê "
:9
with superb play after but
he wants more 30...Ra7 31.Rc7
239 > Rxc7 32.Rxc7 Qf8 33.Nxg5 Rxg5
34.Bxh4 Rg6 35.Qf3 Kh7 36.Qxf4
-9-9 Ê
Qa3 37.Bxd8 Qxa4 38.Rc1 Qxb5
39.Nc7 Qb2 40.Bg5 and 1-0.;
[Sam Collins] 10...Bd7 11.0-0 has also seen Black
suffer: 11...Rc8 Ê
! !" " #" # $#
"$% &' $- G' #+!
)#+! $%" ,(' (G (!
Diagrama
and Black
faced an unpleasant defence in
J.edorowicz-Y.Dokhoian, Wijk aan
Zee 1989while
loses a whole tempo for
Black, although White is
committing to the capture on f5:
ivetchkin-Shipov, Russian Cup
(blitz) 2004 continued and
now I don't like the game's 15 Qa4,
but
Here White relies on piece play and
Black must find some quick
counterplay. "* [Throughout would have been a stable edge
the Advance, Black is committed to 12.Nbd2 g5 13.Nb3 h5 14.Rc1 g4
a strategy of disruption and if he 15.Ne1 a5 16.Bxf5 exf5 17.Nd3 axb4
holds back, White will develop freely 18.Nbc5 is a typical pawn sacrifice -
when his space advantage gives him both for this line and of Khalifman's
a very pleasant game: 10...a6 11.0-0 enterprising style - and 18...Be6 Êor
h5 misses the mark and
K.Valkesalmi-A.Shneider, Espoo and White is
1988 was a paradigm of how to deal much better 19.axb4 Qb5 20.Nf4
with this type of Black play. White Rh6 21.Bc3 Bg5 22.Bd2 Bxf4
compromised the black centre, spoilt 23.Bxf4 Rg6 24.Be3 Rg8 25.Re1 Ne7
the black kingside advance and 26.Qd2 h4 27.Bg5 h3 28.Bxe7 Kxe7
2x
29.Qh6 Rc6 30.Qf6+ Ke8 31.Ra1 and
1-0 was A.Khalifman-S.Dolmatov,
European Club Cup, Rethymnon
2003. ; 10...0-0 11.0-0 a5 12.b5! is a occurred
crucial white resource because a in K.Kiik-V.Korchnoi, Stockholm
volley of captures on d4 ends in 2003. The veteran won this one, but
tears for the black queen after I'd take White here; in general when
Bxh7+, and 12...a4 13.Ra2! Na5 I sacrifice an exchange for a pawn
14.Nc3 g6 15.Bxf5 gxf5 16.Bc1 Qd8 and an outpost, I like the square to
17.Bh6 Nc4 18.Nxa4 Re8 19.Nc3 be untouchable which isn't the case
Kh8 20.a4 Rg8 21.Ne2 Bd7 22.Ra1 here because White always has the
left White much better in .Vallejo option of Bxe4 13.Bxf5 exf5
Pons-G.Hernandez, Dos Hermanas ÊS.Vysochin-B.Sambuev, St
2002.] &*[I'm convinced this is Petersburg 2003 deviated with
best, whereas 11.Bxf5 exf5 12.Nc3 , but after
Be6 13.b5 a4! has scored very well
for Black in practice. The fact that
both h-pawns are at home (rather
than on h4 and h5) is enormously in
, the
Black's favour, since the weakness complications had ended badly for
of g5 is a vital strategic factor, but Black 14.0-0 Be6 15.Nc3 Na7
I've never seen the weakness of g4 16.Qb3 Rfd8 17.Rfe1 fxe5 18.Nxe5
come into play in such structures. Bf6 19.a4 Qxd4 20.Ne4 Qxe4
Given this clear inferiority to a 21.Rxe4 fxe4 22.f3! saw the queen
known line, I won't cover the prove to be stronger than the
variation in depth but will just give assortment in A.Lastin-Se.Ivanov,
one high level example: 14.bxc6 Moscow 2004. ] '"
Qxb2 15.0-0 bxc6 16.Nxa4 Qb5 $G [After 13...f6? 14.Bxf5 exf5 ,
17.Nc3 Qc4 18.Ne2 0-0 19.Rc1 Qa6 simplest is the decisive 15.Nc3
20.Rc3 Rfc8 was agreed drawn in Êwhereas
A.Shirov-A.Khalifman, Linares
was
2000.; Likewise 11.b5 is dubious, in D.Schneider-C.Marzolo, Moscow
view of the 11...Ncxd4 12.Nxd4 2004, although even here
Nxd4 13.Qg4 Nf5 14.Bxf5 Qxb5
15.Bd4 exf5 16.Qxg7 Rf8 17.Nc3
Qc4 18.Ne2 of P.Haba-I.Glek, Stare would have been much better for
Mesto 1992 when 18...Bd7! 19.e6 White 15...Be6 16.bxc6 Qxb2
Bb5 would have been excellent for 17.Nb5 .] $# $- "$+-
Black.] (!G [Placing a bishop (+- &! %" G$ [17.exf6
on the same diagonal as the enemy Bxf6 18.Na4 Qd6 19.Qe2 Rae8 20.f4
queen is a very natural approach, b6 21.Rf3 g6 22.Raf1 was also
but Black can also simply castle. pleasant for White in G.Guseinov-
After 11...0-0 12.b5 , he has tried D.Schneider, Nakhchivan 2003. ]
two approaches: 12...f6 Ê G&!) )&' ' ,$# ()
(G $ (%G - ('
2J
( (+ &+ It's -" [10...Bd7 looks like a less
interesting to note that Black could effective version of Dolmatov's idea
find nothing to do with his dark- (which we'll see below in Yemelin-
squared bishop other than to Dolmatov) and 11.g4 Nh6 12.Rg1 0-
present it for exchange. The white 0 13.Nc3 f6 14.Na4 Qd8 15.exf6
advantage is now obvious and Rxf6 16.g5 Rxf3 17.Qxf3 Nf5 18.Rg4
Motylev converts confidently: Ncxd4 19.Bxd4 Nxd4 20.Rxd4 Bxa4
2#) "2# &!G . %+. 21.Bd3 Qc7 22.Kf1 Qh2 23.Re1 Bd7
G-+. 2+# )2+# 2#) 24.Rf4 gave White excellent chances
,1. 2+# &+# $#) &# in A.Grischuk-L.Johannessen,
. &# 1.G$.$G&." Reykjavik 2000.] (! "
$.) "$-"0 1-) $% &G [Instead 11...Bd7? is an awful move
G&- - )." 1.G ,.+- 0 and 12.Bxf5 exf5 13.Nc3 Be6 14.Qd3
$+- $-"0 1%) &% .+-" Rc8 15.0-0 Qd8 16.Rac1 0-0 17.g3
&+- 0 1) (. &- left White with a clear advantage in
(+%G0 1+%G "% &+! M.Rytshagov-S.Pedersen,Gausdal
&+-"0 1G G&-G0 1!) 2000.; There's also 11...g6 but this is
)&.)0 1G ,&.G0 1) always a move Black needs to play
"&. 01G" &% 01!G"&%G0 with caution because the g5-square
1!) "&+ &!0 "1- &! is now an outpost: 12.Bxf5 gxf5
""&.)0 1G " &.G0 1) 13.Nc3 Rg8 14.0-0 Êalternatively
"G&-)01G")&-0
Ê 4!9
(3
7
was drawish in
A.Grischuk-K.Sakaev, Russian
;!9 -
9:- Team Ch. 2001, but
Ê
[Sam Collins]
left White with excellent
! !" " #" # $#
compensation for his two pawns in
"$% &' $- G' #+!
A.Shabalov-V.Akobian, US Ch.,
)#+! $%" ,(' (G -
Seattle 2003 14...Rg4 15.Ne2 Bd7
Diagrama
16.g3 0-0-0 17.Bc1 Rdg8 18.Kh1 Kb8
19.Bf4 Ka8 20.Qd2 f6 21.exf6 Bxf6
22.Rfc1 and White had a bind in
A.Grischuk-Zhang Pengxiang,
Shanghai 2001. ] &*/
Diagrama
2G
weaknesses on b7, f7 and h5.
G( )2# (# ,2# 2+
&+ 1%) $- 1.G $%
&' 2 &! 1. '"/
"$+ 0* %+ &G0 1.
G&G (! )&+ 0 1-G
,&G0 1. &."0 1-G
&+-"0 1.G &."0 1-G
&G0 1- &% 0 1-G
"&%G0 1- -" % G&+%0
[12.Bxf5 will be examined next, but 1-G )&%G0 1- ,2% (
this is an interesting alternative. In "1-
addition to pinning the a-pawn, the
white queen simply occupies a4 and Ê G #-9
4
so the black pawn can't advance. ] ?9
(!G [12...Bd8 13.b5 Nce7 is -9.9
4
offbeat, and for a good reason as the ?'3. Ê "
black pieces are treading on each [Sam Collins]
other's toes. ] '" $G $#
&!) "&! . [15...Nxh4 16.Nxh4 ! !" " #" # $#
Bxh4 17.g3 , followed by Rxh5, is "$% &' $- G' #+!
nice for White and so, by defending )#+! $%" ,(' (G - -"
his h-pawn, Black makes 16...Nxh4 (!"Diagrama
a real threat, although the
weakening of f6 is a big positional
problem for Barua.] .
G(# * $#) )(." $' ,
(+." $+." &G (# 2#)/
[21...Nc4! , using Black's positional
trumps on the queenside, is a big
improvement. After 22.Nf3 Êand not
22...0-0 the game is
balanced.] $+ $+
[Continuing in compliant mode,
(+%"+%" $#( [13...axb4
whereas even here 22...Nc4 would
was a rare idea essayed in
have supplied some compensation. ]
E.Sveshnikov-E.Bareev, Russian
(+ 2# (#*/ [A deep
Ch., Elista 1996, but so far, no
approach and 24.b6 was more
further takers have been found for
straightforward.] (+'" "2
the pawn-down opposite-coloured
2+ (+%" .+%" G&' White
bishop endgame arising after
has gone from a pawn up to a pawn
14.Nxd5 Qa5 15.Nxe7 b3+ 16.Nd2
down, but I still prefer his position
Nxe7 17.Qxb3 Rh6 18.Bc3 Qd5 19.0-
due to Black's poor coordination and
0 Qxb3 20.Nxb3 Rc6 21.Bb4 Nd5
2
22.Na5 Rc2 23.Rfc1 , probably would still have been
because Bareev wasn't able to hold equal, because if Black ever castles
it.] '"[Instead 14.Qa4 0-0 15.b5 Qh6 will cause enough disturbance
Na7 16.Qd1 Qd8 17.a4 worked out to compensate for the pawn, and
well for White in Y.Gonzalez- otherwise Qg5 is threatened)24...0-
W.Schilow, Guillermo Garcia 0 25.Rad1 Rc8 26.Rxc3 Qxc3 and
Memorial 2005, but Black has Black went on to win.] )&+'"
improvements based on the [18...Nxb5 19.Bg5! Bxg5 20.hxg5
vulnerability of the b2-bishop in also gives White strong
15...Rac8!? and 16...a4!. ] compensation and he can play with
"&!Diagrama his major pieces on the b- and c-
files, while the kingside can be
effectively tidied up with Nf4, g3
and Kg2.] ,(."Diagrama
2
1. 2."0 1- 1 $# was better, but still grim.]
"$% G$+! )$+!" (+'" ,(#
&!) $+G (+! (' $.)
Ê )=9
7
4 $+.)&!"2.&- 0
239-
1: Ê ,4-
$@39
4
Ê
[Sam Collins] 3>-
(39
Ê G
,,,
! !" " #" # $# [Sam Collins]
"$% &' $- G' #+!
)#+! $%" ,(' (G - "*/ ! !" " #" # $#
Diagrama "$% &' $- G' #+!
)#+! $%" ,(' (!G Here Black
doesn't concern himself with
controlling the h4-square, believing
that the gain of time for queenside
operations, coupled with potential
white weaknesses on the kingside,
will more than compensate him for
any inconvenience when his knight
is kicked. .Diagrama
jc
Black should play 19...a5 or
19...Rg8. What Lputian actually
does allows Short to consolidate and
quickly reach a better endgame.
, /* ( ('" &!*
&+! (+! 2%) ." (+
1+ $!G ".+% " ('
2+% G2.)0 2%) )2+%)0 1+%)
,2! ! % " %+" +'
+' 2 2! $+"
(+! 2+!0 "1+! $%0 [A natural counter, but there are
1# 1G G- $." )- $% other approaches: 11...Rc8 12.Nc3
,-"$-1!$%" ("1 Na5 13.Na4 Qc6 14.Nc5 Ê
1 $G '" ine would
expect Short to convert from here,
but Lputian manages to hang on.
saw White go on
$#) (') $G "# '+# to win in A.Shirov-D.Sadvakasov,
' $!"G'G$% 0)1%$!G Astana 2001, but I'd be sceptical of
,(#G 1%" "(% #" " (! # my ability to demonstrate enough
"1 1 "(. # "( # compensation here)14...Nc4 15.Bc1
""1! 1!" " (. 1# "G')& Be7 Ê
$+') ")(+') 1!" ",1+# 1
looked
- 1%" (G 1. ( 1%G balanced in P.Haba-G.Dizdar,
1! 1.) 1 1%) "1%" Germany 1991 16.Bd3 b6 17.Nxd7
1%G (! 1.) G1% 1%) Kxd7 18.0-0 Ng8 19.Nd2 Bh4 20.Qf3
)(#"0 1.) ,1G 1-) G1%) Ne7 21.Nxc4 dxc4 22.Be4 Nd5
< < 23.Qxf7+ was winning in
S.Vysochin-I.Smikovski, St
Ê69
Petersburg 1996.; 11...Be7 gives
:-:
White a little more breathing space
(.9>-Ê and 12.Bd3 Ê
)
"
[Sam Collins]
also left White
better in P.Haba-S.Koutsin,
! !" " #" # $# Wattens 1999 12...Rc8 13.Nbd2
"$% &' $- G' #+! Nb8 14.Qe2 a6 15.Nb1 Nc6 16.0-0 0-
)#+! $%" ,(' (!G . $- 0 17.Nc3 Nxd4 18.Nxd4 Qxd4
-% Diagrama 19.Ne4 Qb6 20.Nf6+ Bxf6 21.exf6
Bb5 22.Bxb5 Qxb5 23.Qe3 gave
White a decisive advantage in
J.Timman-Cu.Hansen, Malmo 2003.
; 11...Na5!? 12.Nbd2 Nc4 13.Bxc4
dxc4 14.Nxc4 Qb5 was a typical
pawn sacrifice in D.Prasad-
j2
P.Harikrishna, Hyderabad 2000. It pawn.] %+" !+" ."*
could catch on, since the game was "$% 2# 2! 2!) G2!
drawn after 15.Nfd2 Bc6 16.0-0 Be7 () )$' ' ,2 ! 2#G
17.f3 Rc8 18.Qe2 Qa6 19.Nd6+ Bxd6 2! 2!#) $'! 2#
20.Qxa6 bxa6 21.exd6 f6 22.Rfc1 .] $% 2 $ 2## 2!
(!Diagrama 2+! "$+! 2 $ $!)*
G$+." $'G )-/ $#" ,-"
2+ 2! ! $! (+'"
%(# 01%2'
Ê 9#-3:
2!E'
>
69E:FÊ ,
[Sam Collins]
jj
14.Nb7 Qc7 15.Nd6+ and Black iron fidelity to his pet systems but
could resign in A.Grischuk- also a good instinct for saving his
A.Khruschiov, Dos Hermanas (blitz) own hide!) 16...Kd8 17.Nxf7+ Ke8
2003. if course Black needn't play 18.Nd6+ Kd8 19.Nf7+ Ke8 20.Nd6+
this badly, but even after a stronger a draw was agreed.] 2#)
13th move White is solidly better.; 2# Diagrama
11...Ng6 12.Na4 Qd8 13.h4 h5 14.g5
, as in V.Nevednichy-S.Lputian,
European Ch., ihrid 2001, leaves
White better in view of his extra
space, for instance 14...b6 15.Rc1 a5
16.b5 Nce7 17.Qd2 and White has
an edge.; 11...Qd8 12.Na4 Ng6
transposes to 11...Ng6.] $!
Diagrama
j3
16...Nc4 Ê
is
comfortably better for White
17.Bxc4 (giving up this bishop is a
concession, but I think it's worth it
in order to get the white knights
going) 17...dxc4 18.Qg4! Bc6 19.Rh3
(defending lots of important squares
along the third rank) 19...Rfd8
20.Ne2 Bd5 21.h5 Nf8 22.Nf4 with a
continuing attack, such as 22...a5
[Though I shamefully forgot to play 23.g6 axb4 24.gxf7+ Kxf7 25.axb4
this move in my European Club Cup Qxb4 26.Rg3 Ke8 27.Qxg7 Qb5
game against Valery ilippov (in 28.Nxd5 exd5 29.Rf3 leaves Black in
which Black was doing well after 14 trouble. ] .+- 2+- [I'm
g5? h6), it used to be the only real grateful to GM Bogdan Lalic for
try for an advantage until drawing my attention to 16...gxh6!?
A.Motylev-R.Ponomariov, Khanty . He says it has been played, but not
Mansyisk 2005 introduced a new in a game that's in my database. In
concept: 14.Qe2!? Be7 15.Qe3 0-0 any event, given Black's difficulties
16.h4 f6 17.h5 Nh8 18.Rc2 Nc6 in the main game, the move merits
19.Na4 Qd8 20.exf6 Bxf6 21.Nc5 consideration. After 17.h5 Nf4
with an edge.] (G "." - 18.Qf3 Bg5 Black is pretty well
[Black preferred 15...0-0 in placed, but the position doesn't
V.Potkin-W.Hug, European Ch., permit a clear assessment, with a
Silivri 2003 which is one of the sample variation running 19.Rc2
major talking points in this line. Nc4! Ê leaves White
Here 16.Ba1!? is my own suggestion close to consolidation 20.Nxc4 dxc4
which I haven't seen played or dealt 21.Ne4 Bc6 22.Rxc4!? Rd8 . White's
with, and so I'll draw on my original extra pawn is then almost entirely
analysis from 'An Attacking irrelevant from a material point of
Repertoire for White'. There's also: view, but it cuts out a lot of black
16.Qg4 Bxb4 17.axb4 Qxb4 play on the d-file and on the g1²a7
18.Rb1 Rxc3 19.Bxc3 Qxc3 20.h5 diagonal. Black has beautiful light-
Ne7 is unclear according to Psakhis. square control, but Nd6+ can be a
After 21.Rh3 Qc7 22.h6 g6 both useful resource and, in general, I
sides have some king safety issues.; think I'd take White, but we really
' 16.Ne2 Rfd8 17.h5 Nf8 18.Rg1?! need some good games here before
Ê is better 18...Rxc1 Ê the truth is known.] G-" The pin
means the knight isn't threatened
is also promising for Black19.Nxc1 in a conventional sense, but with
and now 19...Rc8 would have been Rg1 on the cards it had better move
slightly better for Black in A.Shirov- somewhere. G$- [Heading for
M.Gurevich, Khanty Mansyisk f5, whereas 17...Nf8 18.Rc2! Nc4
2005; Returning to 16 Ba1!?: Ê is also
bad for Black 19.Nxc4 dxc4 20.Bc1
jx
Rh8 21.Qg4 was clearly better for "1# &#"0 " 1! &-" "&!
White in P.Thipsay-D.Barua, 1G "&0 1%) "&! 1G
Calicut 2003 and; 17...Nc4? 18.Nxc4 ""&0 1%) " &# (#" "G1#
dxc4 19.Rg1 sees White win the g7- &-G0 ")1! &-" ",&)0 1G
pawn.] )&.Diagrama &'G0 1%) &#)0 1G
&#G01) &# 01%) &)0
1G "2% &. 20 1!G
G&'G0 1! )2% 1 ,&# 0
1"G&#G01 G %%"G&# 0
1%G G&!"0 1% G1! &."
G"& &. G 1# &%G0 GG&!"
&+!"0 G)1+!" ( G,2# %
)2# 0 1%" ) 2#) 1% )2%)0
1G )2%" (! )2"0 1!G
)"2-" ( ) 2-G0 1!) )G1
(#" ))2!G0 1#) ),2%G (
)$%" ,(! (%) $
,1! 1') , 1# '" ,1+'"
[Promising, but 20.Bxf5 exf5 21.Qf3
1#) ,1# 1!) ,1! 1)
Nc4 22.Nxc4 dxc4 23.Rd1 was even
,"1 (! , 2#G 1%) ,G1%
stronger.] $# $+# !+#
1),)2G01!),,2
(+%" +%" In the space of two
moves the black centre has literally
stepped aside. &. " (#
+'"+'2) !"The white
centre is overwhelming. 2
G1% * Avoiding any ...Bxb4xc3+
ideas, and White enjoys an
overwhelming centre. G&
)2 1!),2-%2-&
2+ 2+ &+# 2-
&# 0 [33 exd7 was more precise,
because here Radjabov missed
33...Qxb4 34.exd7 Qb1+ 35.Re1 Qf5
which complicates matters, since
36.Re8+ Kxd7 37.Rxf8 Qb1+ 38.Ke2
is a perpetual.] 2 &!
"+!G (+' 2 2
G&+.G (#" )2% 2+ 0
,&+ &+!" &-)0 1+!G
2+% # &+# &- 0 1
&+-"0 2% ' "&% 1)
&# 0 1G G&'G0 1)
)&01%)What follows is a long
and precise technical
demonstration: ,1!* (!
jJ