Absorción de agua

However, it seems that the patient has got worse. White has an extra pawn and a convenient strongpoint on f5. 33...Rd7 34 Ne3 b4 35 Ng3 Kf7 36 Rc8 Stronger is 36 Rb8 +–. 36...Nb7?! 36...Bh6 37 Nef5 (37 Kf1 +–) 37...Bf8 38 Kf1 Rxd5 39 Rxc7+ Rd7 +/–. 37 Rb8 Nd8 38 Ngf5 Better is 38 Ne4. 38...c6 39 d6 Bxd6 40 Nxd6+ Rxd6 41 Rxb4 Ne6 42 Rb7+ 42 Rb6!?. 42...Kg6

The situation is difficult for Black but the exchange of his bad bishop increases his chances of salvation.

43 b4 Nd4 44 Kf1 f5 45 Rb6 Kf6! 46 c3 Nb5 (D)

White to play 47 c4?!

A logical move, but there was a better option. White should have broken up the pair f5-e5 as it is well-known that connected passed pawns are stronger than isolated ones: 47 g4! fxg4 (47...f4 48 Nf5 Re6 49 c4 +–) 48 c4! Nd4 49 hxg4 +–.

47...Nd4 48 b5?! Ke6 49 bxc6 Rxc6 50 Rxc6+ Nxc6

In my childhood I heard the assertion: “If the pawn ending is won, then the knight ending is also won”. Well, in practice it doesn’t always work... 51 Ke2 e4 52 f4 exf3+ 53 Kxf3 Ke5 54 Nc2 Na5 55 c5 Nc6 56 g3 Nd8 57 Nb4 Ne6 58 c6 Kd6 = 59 h4 Kc5 60 c7 Nxc7 61 Kf4 Kxb4 62 Kxf5 Kc5 63 g4 Kd6 64 Kf6 Nd5+ 65 Kg7 Ne3 66 g5 Nf5+ 67 Kxh7 Nxh4 ½-½

Conclusions

6 Ne5 may be connected with opposite-side castling and a kingside attack with h4, etc. The black pawn on g6 provides a ‘hook’ for White, as he can seek to open the h-file by playing h5. There is also the idea of playing Bf4, Qd2 and Bh6 (Sarić-Jovanović), exchanging the main defender of the black king. This also helps relieve the pressure against White’s queenside on the long dark-square diagonal.

Obviously, it’s better for Black to play by analogy with Kurnosov-Rakhmanov, where exchanges led to a more or less safe position for Black.

To be honest, White can also pose Black problems by castling kingside (Varavin-Landa).

In the main game after 6 Bc4 Vovk developed the other bishop on a3 and exerted strong pressure on Tiviakov’s fortifications in the centre. The ending that emerged was initially ‘worse’, and then

‘losing’ for Black, but with a superhuman effort, and some inaccuracies from his opponent, Tiviakov managed to save a half-point.

In one example (Gonzalez de la Torre-Kurajica), Black quickly got into a bad position after he put his knight on b4, where it was much stressed. So, does Black get a worse position in all the main lines after 5...g6? Well, it’s certainly a difficult line for Black, and as things stand at present I can’t recommend it.

Conclusions on 3...Qd6

Having played this line many times and studied the theory and games of other players, it is time to present my overall assessment of the line.

When playing 3...Qd6, Black may come under some pressure, but it’s still less than in case of other queen moves (i.e. to a5 or d8). After the standard 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nf3, I recommend the ‘central strategy’ and the move 5...c6. This line is the safest option, whereas the fianchetto set-up with 5...g6 looks more vulnerable. Kovalenko’s 5...Bg4 may confuse an opponent who is not specially prepared for it. It’s an interesting line but not for everyone. Finally 5...a6 is probably playable, but it doesn’t appear to equalize.

3: 3...Qa5

1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 (D)

White to play

Before the emergence of 3...Qd6 as the modern main line of the Scandinavian, putting the queen on a5 was almost automatic. Indeed, there are good reasons for playing 3...Qa5. In contrast to the placement on d6, the queen doesn’t hinder the 101

development of the king’s bishop, which, as we shall see, quite often appears on b4. The queen can also do useful work on its fourth rank.

White in his turn tries to cause Black discomfort, often putting his bishop on d2 to create threats against the enemy queen. The most fundamental plan for Black, to my mind, is the ...c6 advance, which secures squares for the queen’s possible retreat to c7 or even d8. Please don’t get the mistaken impression that Black is just wasting time with these queen moves. Although the knight moves to c3 with tempo (by 3 Nc3), it also blocks the c-pawn’s strategically-desirable advance. Future moves by this knight (such as Nd5) usually lead to an exchange of knights, which is rather welcome to Black, who is a little short of space. In short, the strategy for both sides is based on positional nuances and it is rather difficult to give an unequivocal verdict like ‘White stands better’ or ‘equality’.

We shall not be examining the 3...Qa5 lines in as much detail or as systematically as we did the 3...Qd6 main line. Instead we shall look into a number of specific strategic themes, while naturally taking in most of the key variations along the way (please refer to the

Index of Variations

if you have trouble locating a specific sequence that you are interested in). These themes are: Doubled Black f- or g-Pawns

Black Plays ...Bg4 Before Nf3

Black Plays ...Bb4 6 Ne5 Rare Plans for White Doubled Black f- or g-Pawns

Firstly, let’s acquaint ourselves with both sides’ plans when Black has the f7-f6-e6 pawn-structure. This typically emerges after the knight’s jump to d5 or (more seldom) to e4, when White has played an early Bd2 and the knight move discovers an attack on the black queen.

Game 24 Alavi – S. Kasparov Ahvaz 2007 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 c6 5 Nf3 Nf6 6 Bc4 Bf5 (D) White to play 7 Bd2

This is one of the negatives of the queen’s placement on a5. The bishop lies in ambush and, from now on, Black has to take into account discovered attacks by the c3-knight. Generally we are talking about Nd5 here; there is little point in the knight going to b5 because after ...Qd8 it is unclear what to do next. Moving to e4 is possible but seldom used, and in any case generally has no advantages over moving to d5. I wouldn’t say the Nd5 idea is highly dangerous but it can be used to create positional pressure.

In the following example White did not handle the position in the best way: 7 Ne5

e6 8 Bd2 Nbd7 9 Nd5 Qd8 10 Ne3 (a creative idea, but it doesn’t disturb Black) 10...Be4 (10...Nxe5 11 dxe5 Ne4 =) 11 0-0 Bd6 12 N3g4 h5 (forcing the knight to reveal its intentions) 13 Nxf6+ gxf6!? (opening the g-file, which can have an impact on the health of the white king) 14 Nxd7 Kxd7 15 Qe2 Bf5 (15...Bxc2!?) 16 Bd3 Bxd3 17 Qxd3 Qc7 18 h3 Rag8 and later on Black created pressure on the kingside in Toma-S.Kasparov, Wroclaw 2009. 7...e6 8 Nd5 Qd8 (D)

White to play

This retreat is one of the reasons why ...c6 is played.

9 Nxf6+ gxf6

The most solid reply: Black keeps full control over his fourth rank. He plans to castle queenside and the half-open g-file can prove useful for his rooks.

Capturing with the queen is less popular. Although this avoids damage to the pawn- structure, the queen is exposed on f6. 9...Qxf6 10 Qe2 (D) and now:

Black to play

a) 10...Bxc2?! 11 d5 (11 Bc3!?; White could also prepare d5 by playing 11 Rc1 or 11 0-0) 11...Qxb2?! 12 0-0 +/– gives White a huge superiority in development.

b) 10...Bg4 looks principled as it inevitably ‘spoils’ White’s pawn-structure, but it fails to equalize: 11 d5 Bxf3 12 gxf3 cxd5 13 Bxd5 Nd7 (pawn- grabbing is risky when you are behind in development: 13...Qxb2?! 14 0-0 Nc6 15 Rab1 Qxc2?! 16 Be4 +/– is unlikely to find any takers as Black) 14 0-0-0 (obviously bad is 14 Bxb7? Qxb2 15 Bxa8 Qxa1+ 16 Qd1 Qxd1+ 17 Kxd1 Bd6 =+) 14...Ba3 (prosaic play doesn’t bring equality either: 14...0-0-0 15 Be4 Qe5 16 Bc3 Qc7 17 h4 f6 18 Rhg1 g6 19 Kb1 Bd6 20 h5 {the doubled pawns provide a ‘hook’ for White’s advance} 20...g5, Landa-Bosch, Rosmalen 2014, 21 Rd3 +=) 15 c3 0-0 16 Be4! += Shirov-Salov, Madrid 1997.

c) 10...Nd7 11 0-0-0 (11 d5 is sharper: 11...cxd5 12 Bxd5 Be7!? {12...Qxb2?! 13 0-0 gives White the initiative} 13 Bc3 Bb4! 14 Bxb4 Qxb2 15 0-0 Qxb4 16 Rab1 Qa4 with very unclear consequences, David-Tkachev, Cannes 1999) 11...Be7 (D.Howell-Papaioannou, European Team

Ch, Porto Carras 2011) 12 Bg5 Qg6 13 Bxe7 Kxe7 14 h4 +=. We now return to 9...gxf6 (D): White to play 10 c3 Or: a) 10 0-0 Nd7 11 Nh4 Bg6 12 c3 Qc7 13 Qf3 0-0-0 14 Bf4 Bd6 15 Bxd6 Qxd6 16 g3 (White is better, and plans the unhurried advance a4-a5; meanwhile Black’s prospects are unclear – he tries to create counterplay but this just aggravates the situation) 16...c5 17 Rfd1 Bc2 18 Rd2 Ne5? (more prudent is 18...Ba4, trying to redeploy the bishop to c6) 19 Qxf6 Nxc4 20 Rxc2 +/– Caruana-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2012.

b) The immediate 10 Qe2 offers a pawn sacrifice. Then:

b1) 10...Qd6!?

looks odd, putting the queen in front of the bishop, but isn’t obviously bad. White can use his advantage in development to launch an attack: 11 0-0-0 Nd7 12 Nh4! Bg6 13 f4! (clearly intending f5) 13...f5 (necessary to prevent the further advance of the white f-pawn; it looks like the g6- bishop is entombed, but with ...Nf6 and maybe ...Ne4 on the agenda, matters are not so simple) 14 g4! Be7 15 gxf5! Bxh4 16 fxe6 0-0-0 17 Qg4 fxe6 (stronger is 17...Nb6 18 exf7+ Rd7 {18...Kb8? 19 f5 +–} 19 Be6 Bf6, with unclear play) 18 f5! Bxf5 19 Qxh4 += Vachier-Lagrave – Hamdouchi, French Team Ch 2010.

b2) 10...Bxc2 (D).

White to play

11 0-0 (11 Rc1 Bg6 12 0-0 Be7 13 Rfe1 0-0 14 Nh4 Re8 15 Nxg6 hxg6, Zhang Zhong-Nisipeanu, Cap d’Agde rapid 2000, 16 h4!? gives White the initiative) 11...Bg6 12 Rfe1 Qd7?! (12...Qd6!? intending ...Nd7 is far less clear) 13 Rad1 b5?! 14 Bb3 Na6 15 d5! +– (White must strike while he has a lead in development and the black king is still in the centre; this is not a question of style, but rather of chess logic – even for such a cautious player as the author, it is obvious that White must attack in a position like this, regardless of the material cost) 15...cxd5 16 Bc3 (Black has two extra pawns but they are unprotected) 16...Be4 17 Bxf6 Rg8 18 Ng5 Nc5 19 f3 Nxb3 20 fxe4 Be7 21 exd5 Nd4 22 Qh5 +– Negi-Van Wely, Spanish Team Ch, Leon 2012.

c) 10 Bb3

Nd7 11 Qe2 Qc7 12 Nh4 Bg6 13 0-0-0 0-0-0 14 g3 (D) sees White using a plan that is typical for this kind of structure.

Black to play

After 14...Bd6, the exchange 15 Nxg6 looks strange as it ‘glues’ Black’s kingside pawns back together again. However, matters are not that simple. 15...hxg6 16 h4 f5 17 Bg5 Rde8 18 h5 (that’s the idea: the black knight didn’t reach f6 in time, so this flank breakthrough is possible) 18...gxh5 19 Rxh5 Rhg8 20 Bh4 Kb8 21 Kb1 a6

22 c4! (after the annihilation of the g6-pawn the soldier on f7 is somewhat weakened, but right now it can only be attacked by the rook – and the immediate 22 Rh7 has little impact due to 22...Nf8 – so White intends to play d5, ripping through Black’s central structure; then the bishop- pair will be more effective) 22...f4 23 c5 Be7 24 gxf4 Bxh4 25 Rxh4 += (White has won a pawn, albeit doubled, and has total control over e5; soon it will be possible to destroy the enemy structure by playing f5) 25...Qd8 26 Rh6 Ka7 27 f5! exf5 28 Qf3 +/– Kasimdzhanov-Papaioannou, Bled Olympiad 2002. You don’t need to be a grandmaster to understand that Black has serious problems here.

10...Nd7 11 Qe2 Qc7 12 Nh4 Bg6 13 f4 (D)

Black to play 13...0-0-0

13...f5

seems to be the most precise move-order. It prevents the f5 advance and led to a valuable example from a theoretical point of view in Z.Varga-Friedrichs, Dortmund 2001: 14 Nxg6 (the sacrifice 14 Bxe6 looks scary, but White lacks the resources to back it up; after 14...fxe6 15 Qxe6+ Kd8 16 Nxg6 hxg6 17 Qxg6 Qa5 –/+ the white queen on its own doesn’t pose much danger to Black) 14...hxg6 15 g3 0-0-0 16 0-0-0 Kb8 17 Kb1 Nf6 and Black’s position is at least no worse. 14 0-0-0

Black’s move-order means that 14 f5!?

is possible here. It is not deadly but it changes the pattern of the struggle: 14...exf5 15 0-0 Bd6 16 g3 Nb6 17 Bb3 += de la Riva-Am.Rodriguez, Catalonian Team Ch 1999.

14...f5 15 g3 (D) 104

Black to play

The key point here is that the g6-bishop is not as bad as it may seem at first sight. In case of Nf3 it can immediately jump to h5. It wants to make that move anyway after the intended ...Nf6. The black knight also has a potential outpost on e4.

15...Bd6

15...Bg7 looks interesting, with latent pressure on the white queenside.

16 Bb3 Kb8 17 c4

This advance is a significant decision. While it is a reasonable and usually desirable move as it establishes control over d5, the weakening of d4 may become significant.

17...Nf6 18 Nxg6 hxg6 19 Bc2 (D)

Black to play 19...Rhe8

The straightforward 19...Rh3!? is worth noting because it both physically prevents the advance of the h-pawn and prepares frontal pressure on it (...Rdh8, ...Ng4, etc.).

20 Bc3 Ka8 21 Kb1

Of course, 21 d5? is bad because 21...exd5 uncovers an attack on the queen.

21...Nd7 22 Qf3 Be7 23 h4 Nf6

Don’t consider the manoeuvre ...Nf6-d7-f6 as a waste of time; there is a point to it as the position has changed. The white pawn has shifted to h4 and intends to advance with destructive effect; if White manages to open up the h-file and bring his rook to the seventh rank, he will gain the initiative. This leaves the black knight with more to do on the kingside, both due to the need to parry that idea, and because there are more potential weaknesses in the white kingside now.

24 Ka1 Rd7 25 Rhe1 Red8 26 a4?!

Personally, I doubt the appropriateness of moves like this. I can understand the desire to create a broad pawn-front (d4-c4-b4-a4), but it is a bad idea to put the pawn on a light square at this point. 26...a5!? (D)

White to play

The ‘dark-square symphony’ begins. In this book I aim not only to teach the Scandinavian Defence but also, when possible, to widen your general chess arsenal. Here in the fight for the dark-square complex Black actually has an ‘extra’ piece because the c2-bishop can play little role in this particular struggle.

27 Qe2 Bb4 28 Qe3 Ng4 29 Qf3

Now Black faces a pleasant dilemma. I probably did not choose the strongest continuation.

29...Rxd4

Better is 29...Bxc3! 30 Qxc3 (30 bxc3 c5 31 d5 exd5 32 cxd5 c4 –/+ is no improvement for White) 30...Qb6 31 c5 Qb4 –/+.

30 Rxd4 Rxd4 31 Rxe6

Of course, the rook doesn’t want to die ‘for nothing’ and takes with him a black pawn. 31 Bxd4 Bxe1 –/+.

31...fxe6 32 Bxd4 Qd6 33 Bc3 Qc5 34 Bxb4 axb4 (D)

White to play

The right decision. Now Black stands very solidly on the queenside and has a slight but comfortable advantage.

35 Qd3 Ka7 36 Bb3 e5 37 fxe5 Nxe5 38 Qd8 Nf3 39 Ka2 Nd4 40 Qc7??

A mistake in a cheerless situation. It is well- known that it is psychologically difficult to defend prospectless, passive positions.

40...Ne2

...Nc1+ is threatened, and the way to g1 is opened for the queen.

41 Bc2 b3+ 0-1

Material losses are unavoidable; e.g., 42 Bxb3 Nc1+. 42 Kxb3 is no better due to 42...Nc1+ 43 Kc3 Qe3+ 44 Kb4 Na2+ 45 Ka5 Qc5#.

Conclusions

The combination of different plans was not very successful in Toma-S.Kasparov. White played in a creative way but that is all that can be said. In the end the black pawns were doubled on the f-file but with the king on g1 it gave rise to an attack along the g-file.

White usually castles queenside, and then seeks kingside activity. Of course, this scenario is radically altered if Black accepts the sacrifice of the c2-pawn. On the other hand, it is risky to be

greedy when behind in development. In Negi-Van Wely we saw a crushing attack in the centre. In other notes we saw typical pressure on the kingside. The placement of the black queen on d6 (after the lengthy manoeuvre ...Qxd5-a5-d8-d6) is seen in Vachier-Lagrave – Hamdouchi.

In Caruana-Van Wely, White preferred a slight but stable plus. Van Wely couldn’t bear the pressure and rashly sought central counterplay. White’s play in Kasimdzhanov-Papaioannou is instructive: he used a typical plan with an aggressive advance of his h-pawn. He didn’t win the game but got an extra pawn and gave his opponent significant problems.

Black is well-advised to use a move-order that prevents White from carrying out a powerful f5 advance (de la Riva-Am.Rodriguez).

If Black gets a ‘pawn-diamond’ on f7, g6, f5 and e6, then if he places a knight on f6, he can generally stabilize the kingside in a satisfactory manner (see both Z.Varga-Friedrichs and the main game).

Clearly, there are certain pros and cons in positions with doubled black f-pawns for both players.

In the next game we shall move on to a structure where Black has doubled g-pawns, generally following an exchange of white knight for black bishop on g6. Game 25 Lupulescu – S. Kasparov Bucharest 2008 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 Nf6 5 Bc4 White is not obliged to bring the knight to f3 immediately. It can be delayed while he seeks to exploit his activity on the queenside and in the centre. Similar positions emerge after 5 Bd2, but I want to acquaint you with the dangers of combining the ideas ...g6 and ...e6. 5...c6 (for 5...Bg4, see the next game) 6 Bc4 (D) (6 Bd3 is discussed in the next game) and then:

Black to play

a) 6...Qb6 7 Nf3 Qxb2 8 Ne5 e6 9 Rb1 gives White the initiative, Degraeve-Tomczak, Cappelle la Grande 2006.

b) 6...Bf5

allows the bishop to be hunted down with 7 Nge2 e6 8 Ng3 Bg6 9 h4 h6 10 Nd5 Qd8 11 Nf4 Bh7 12 Qe2 Bd6 (12...Be7!?) 13 Ngh5 Nxh5 14 Nxh5 Rg8 15 0-0-0 += Nedev-Slovineanu, Turin Olympiad 2006. White is definitely ahead in development. The rook may go to the third rank, where it will have nuisance value to Black on both flanks.

c) 6...Nbd7 7 Nf3 e6 8 Qe2 Bb4 += Hendriks- Tiviakov, Dutch Ch, Hilversum 2007.

d) 6...Qc7 (this seems best) 7 Qe2 and then: d1) 7...g6?!

8 0-0-0 Bg7 9 Re1 (D) latches onto the e7-pawn, not allowing Black to castle out of trouble.

Black to play Now:

d11) In Abergel-S.Kasparov, Toulouse 2008 I grudgingly played 9...e6?!. Of course, things are not too bad after this, but it’s better not to shut in the c8-bishop. Alas, I didn’t see how else to

complete development and castle. 10 h4 b5 11 Bd3 Nbd7 12 Nf3 Bb7 (if only Black also had time for ...a6 and ...c5, everything would be fine...) 13 Ng5 Nb6?! (13...0-0 14 h5 gives White an attack) 14 h5 gxh5 (by the 14th move Black already has a lost position; there is no chance to hide on the queenside: after 14...0-0-0? 15 h6 Bf8 16 Qe5 +–, the points f7 and f6 crumble) and in the game 15 Rh4?! (a good move, though not the strongest) 15...Qe7 +/– enabled Black to put up some resistance and prolong the fight. There was a cleaner win by 15 d5!, a breakthrough in what appears to be the best-fortified spot: 15...h6 (15...cxd5 16 Nxe6 fxe6 17 Qxe6+ Kd8 18 Bg5 Rf8 19 Bxb5 +–) 16 Nxe6 fxe6 17 Qxe6+ Kd8 18 d6 Qd7 19 Qe7+ Qxe7 (19...Kc8 20 Bf5 Qxf5 21 Qc7#) 20 Rxe7 +–.

d12) 9...b5! is correct, immediately starting queenside counterplay. After 10 Bd3 (or 10 Bb3 a5 with counterplay) 10...b4 11 Na4 Nd5 the knight protects the e7-pawn and Black will castle next move.

d2) 7...Bf5!? (D) is stronger.

White to play

However, Black must be ready for some sharp lines; if he follows up carelessly, he can come under attack or end up in a stably worse position. 8 Nf3 e6 and now:

d21) 9 Ne5 is imprecise: 9...Nbd7 10 Nxd7 (expansion with 10 g4? doesn’t work: 10...Nxe5 11 dxe5 {11 gxf5 Nxc4 =+} 11...Nxg4 –/+) 10...Qxd7 11 d5 0-0-0 12 dxe6 (12 dxc6 Qxc6 =) 12...Bxe6 13 Bxe6 Qxe6 14 Qxe6+ fxe6 =.

d22) 9 Nh4 Bg6 (when behind in development, it would be hard to venture 9...Bxc2 10 Rc1 Bg6 11 d5; even if objectively {from the computer’s point of view} there is nothing terrible, it is unpleasant for a human to defend as Black here) 10 f4 Bd6 11 107

f5 += A.Muzychuk-Chasovnikova, Moscow 2009. The e6-pawn is under threat and the g6-bishop also feels uneasy.

We now return to 5 Bc4 (D):

Black to play

Now Black must make a major decision. 5...c6

Or: a) 5...Nc6

is a highly combative move, putting pressure on the d4-pawn and with ideas of ...0-0-0. The drawbacks are that the queen won’t have any way home (as it does with ...c6 and ...Qc7/d8), so the white knight will have opportunities to jump to b5 or d5. 6 Ne2 Be6 7 Bxe6 fxe6 (clearly this is a dubious pawn-structure, and it doesn’t seem that Black gets enough dynamic play in return) 8 0-0 0-0-0 9 Qd3 e5 10 Qh3+ Rd7 11 Rd1 += Duda- Reinderman, Wijk aan Zee 2014. One way or