3. PLANEAMIENTO ESTRATÉGICO:
3.3 Análisis FODA
• E94 King’s Indian, Orthodox Variation • E95 King’s Indian, Orthodox, 7...Nbd7, 8.Re1 • E96 King’s Indian, Orthodox, 7...Nbd7, Main line • E97 King’s Indian, Orthodox, Aronin–Taimanov
Variation (Yugoslav Attack / Mar del Plata Varia- tion)
• E98 King’s Indian, Orthodox, Aronin–Taimanov, 9.Ne1
• E99 King’s Indian, Orthodox, Aronin–Taimanov, Main
8.3.6
References
[1] Gallagher, Joe(2004). Play the King’s Indian. Everyman Chess.ISBN 978-1-85744-324-0.
[2] Cherniaev, Alexander; Prokuronov, Eduard (February 12, 2008). The Sämisch King’s Indian Uncovered. Everyman Chess.
[3] http://www.365chess.com/view_game.php?g=2427799
8.3.7
Further reading
• Burgess, Graham(1993). The King’s Indian for the Attacking Player.Batsford.ISBN 0805029362. • Nesis, Gennady; Shulman, Leonid (1993). Tactics
in the King’s Indian. Translated by Gesthuysen, Mal- colm. Henry Holt & Co.ISBN 9780805026399. • Gallagher, Joe(1995). The Samisch King’s Indian.
Henry Holt.ISBN 0805039023.
• Petursson, Margeir (1996). King’s Indian De- fense: Averbakh Variation. Cadogan Books. ISBN
9781857441185.
• Gligorić, Svetozar(2003). King’s Indian Defence – Mar Del Plata Variation. Batsford. ISBN 978-
0713487671.
• Panczyk, Krzysztof; Ilczuk, Jacek (2004). Off- beat King’s Indian. Everyman Chess. ISBN
9781857443615.
• Ward, Chris (2004). The Controversial Samisch
King’s Indian.Batsford.ISBN 9780713488722. • Golubev, Mikhail(2006). Understanding the King’s
Indian. Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-904600-31- X.
• Cherniaev, Alexander (2008). The Samisch King’s Indian Uncovered. Everyman Chess. ISBN
1857445406.
• Markoš, Ján(2008). Beat the KID. Quality Chess.
ISBN 978-1-906552-15-2.
• Komarov, Dmitry; Djuric, Stefan; Pantaleoni, Clau- dio (2009). Chess Opening Essentials, Vol. 3: Indian Defences. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-270- 3.
• Panczyk, Krzysztof; Ilczuk, Jacek (2009). The Clas- sical King’s Indian Uncovered. Everyman Chess.
ISBN 1857445171.
8.3.8 External links
• Chess Siberia: King’s Indian Defence. Saemisch
System
• Vladimir Bagirov–Eduard Gufeld, USSR champi-
onship 1973 “The Mona Lisa” at chessgames.com
8.4 King’s Indian Defence, Four
Pawns Attack
The Four Pawns Attack in theKing’s Indian Defenceis achess openingthat begins with the moves:
1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 g6
3.Nc3 Bg7
4.e4 d6
5.f4
White immediately builds up a largepawn centrein or- der to gain aspatialadvantage. Black first develops his pieces, then tries to attack White’s centre by means of the pawn advances ...e7–e5, ...c7–c5 or ...f7–f5, depending on circumstances.
The main variations of the Four Pawns Attack are: • The main line 5...0-0 6.Nf3 c5, when after 7.d5
Black can attack White’s centre with the pawn
sacrifice7...b5 or the quieter 7...e6. The latter can
transposeinto theModern Benoni.
• The modern alternative 5...0-0 6.Nf3 Na6!? aims at sacrificing a pawn with 7...e5 and going into tactical complications.
The relevantEncyclopaedia of Chess Openingscodes are E76 through E79.
8.4.1
The main line
After 6...c5 7.d5 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5
The main line of the Four Pawns Attack after 6...c5 7.d5 continuing 7...e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 now gives Black a choice of the old main line with 9...Re8 or the new main line with 9...Bg4.
Old main line with 9...Re8
Highly tactical possibilities abound in which the critical position occurs after 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Ng4 12.Bg5, a position which is perhaps better avoided by Black.[1] After 12...Qb6 13.0-0 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.Qd2 Bf5 white was not able to achieve any significant advantage.
New main line with 9...Bg4
A common-sense move with the idea of exchanging the bishop for the knight and taking the energy out of White’s e5 attacking plan.[2]The development of the bishop also frees Black’s queenside for smooth development and ac- tive play.[2]Invariably, development continues with 10.0- 0 Nbd7 when White faces the possibly of kicking the bishop with h3 or delaying with Re1 first.[3]In the game
Jesus Nogueiras–Garry Kasparov, White opted for the immediate kick, 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Re8 in a game that was eventually drawn.[4]
White varies on move 7, 8 or 9
• White can vary with 7.dxc5 or 7.Be2; this allows Black to equalize with accurate play.
• Of the various alternatives at move eight, 8.dxe6 opening the d5-square has gained interest.[5]The re- ply 8...Bxe6 leaves White a possible f5 push at an appropriate moment, so normally 8...fxe6 is played when White has a choice of the solid 9.Be2 or the aggressive 9.Bd3.[5]
• 9.exd5. Although once common, the f4-pawn looks out of place and White’s weakness on e4 is clear.[6] White varying with 9.e5 has a certain logic to quicken the centre play, however the reply 9...Ne4 seems to adequately halt the plan.[6]
The sacrifice 7...b5
Having similar ideas to theBenko Gambit, this b5 push remains uncharted.[7]After 8.cxb5 (8.e5 is to be consid- ered) 8...a6, White has choices between the possibility of taking the a-pawn, or supporting the pawn on b5.[7]The more common response is to support with 9.a4.[7]
8.4.2 The modern alternative 6...Na6!?
Position after 6...Na6!?Black first develops one additional piece before reacting in the centre. The idea is to bring in the push e7–e5 in- stead of the main line c7–c5. This is agambitin which Black hopes to take advantage of the slight underdevel- opment of White forces in order to win back the sacri- ficed pawn or to directly attack the white king. The move ...Na6 is designed post on c5 (once the d4-pawn has left) in order to attack the e4-pawn. An important difference between this move and Nbd7 is that Na6 does not block the queenside bishop.[8]
After the normal 7.Be2, Black must immediately unleash 7...e5!? when White has several possibilities, but only a capture on e5 is assumed to make sense:
• 8.0-0 is not well considered for White because of the hidden tactical idea 8...exd4 9.Nxd4 Nc5 10.Bf3 Re8 11.Re1 Bg4! when White cannot win the piece on g4 without losing the Nd4 (by the Bg7). • 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Nxe5 is considered dubious but is
better than its reputation, e.g. 9...c5 10.Be3 cxd4 11.Bxd4 Qe7?! (Gallagher) 12.Nf3! and White is a full pawn up because Black cannot recapture the e4-pawn without running into trouble: 12...Nxe4? 13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.Qd4+ Nf6 15.Nd5 Qd6 16.Ng5! and White wins.
• 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Nxe4 c5 d5 is considered slightly du- bious due to Nxe4! and Black is fine after Nxe4 Bxe5.
• 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Nxe5 (9.Qxd8 is considered slightly inferior because it develops Black’s Rf8) 9...Nc5 10.Bf3 Qxd1+ 11.Kxd1 Rd8+ 12.Kc2 Nfxe4! (a temporary piece sacrifice, e.g. game Hansen–Berg, Aarhus 1991) 13.Nxe4 Bf5 14.Re1 Bxe5 15.fxe5 Rd4 (thus Black regains his piece) 16.b3! Nxe4 17.Kb2 Nc5 when White still has a slight advan- tage thanks to good diagonals for his bishop pair, but Black controls thed-fileand can try to pressure the e5-pawn.
• 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.fxe5? is bad because Black can gain back the e5-pawn and leave White with a poorpawn structure.
8.4.3 Black varies on move 5
Black can also vary with 5...c5, electing to strike at the White centre before castling and discouraging any 6.e5 ideas from White. Teimour Radjabov, perhaps the lead- ing contemporary practitioner of the King’s Indian De- fence, has been known to play this line. If 6.dxc5, Black can answer with ...Qa5, effectively forking the pawns at