Bad Harzburg 2000
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5 i..g2 c5 6 0-0 ttJc6 7 ttJe5This is probably the most ambitious choice. Indeed 7 dxcS 'iWxd1 8 lIxd1 �xcS appears insufficient for an advantage, e.g. 9 tDbd2 c3 10 bxc3 0-0 1 1 tDb3 i.e 7 12 tDfd4 �d7 1 3 �gS .l::!.ac8 14 i.xf6 .l1.xf6 1 5 tDcs tDxd4 1 6 cxd4 �bS with equality in Speel man-Van der Sterren, Yerevan 1 996. 7 �a4 features in Games 81 -83 below.
7 " 'ttJxe5
This is, of course, not forced. 7 ... i.d7, which is considered in the next two main games, should be the strongest alternative. 7 ... tDxd4??, on the other hand, spells disaster for Black due to 8 e3 tDf5 9 'iNxd8+ 'it>xd8 10 tDxf7+ and White wins. 7 ... tDdS 8 tDxc6 bxc6 9 dxcS �xcS 10 ifa4 'iVb6 1 1 tDd2 favours White, e.g. 1 1 ...�a6 1 2 tDxc4 'iVbs 1 3 �xbS cxbS 14 tDeS b4 l s lId1 �b7 1 6 �d2 i..e7 1 7 lIac1 as 1 8 e4 tDf6 1 9 �gS i.d8 20 tDc4 ()-() 21 tDd6 with a pleasant game for \x'hite in Savchenko-Galliamova, Rostoy 1 996. S dxe5 ttJd5
Black cannot equalise here. 8 ... tDd7 9 f4 l:tb8 1 0 a4 i.e7 1 1 tiJa3 b6 1 2 tiJxc4 i.b7 13
b 3 .Jtxg2 1 4 �xg2 'iYc7 1 5 .Jtb2 'iVc6+ 1 6 �g1 0-0 1 7 'it'c2 .l:!.bd8 1 8 e4 was better for White in ljngnau-Klovans, Berlin 1 996, and 8 ... 'it'xd1 9 J:txd1 ttJd7 10 f4 l:tb8 1 1 a4 .Jte7 12 ttJa3 0-0 1 3 ttJxc4 is also very pleasant for White, who was successful in Hajtun-Gecsei, Budapest 1951: 13 ... b6 14 ttJd6 l:td8 1 5 .Jte3 .Jtxd6 16 ':xd6 .Jtb 7 17 l:tad 1 .Jtxg2 1 8 �xg2 lIb 7 1 9 fS h6 20 g4 � f8 2 1 g5! exfS 22 gxh6 gxh6 23 l:txh6 l:tdb8 24 l:[xd7! and White won. 9 ttJa3
Another strong option is 9 'it'a4+!? .Jtd7 10 'ii'xc4, when Black needs to find an im provement on Vaulin-Koc, Koszalin 1 997, which went 1O ... .Jtc6 1 1 ttJc3 'it'd7 12 lId1 b5 1 3 'iVg4 'iVb7 14 ttJxd5 .Jtxd5 1 5 .Jtxd5 exd5 16 e6 l:[d8 17 .Jtg5 .Jte 7 1 8 .Jtxe 7 'iVxe 7 1 9 'it'xg 7 and White was already close to wmrung.
9 . . . i.d7
Black does not have time for 9 ... c3 10 bxc3 ttJxc3 11 'iVc2 ttJd5 1 2 l:td1 .Jtd7 1 3 ttJc4 which put the defender under too much pressure in Andersson-Guyot, France 1 993, when 13 ... 'it'c8 14 .Jtb2 .Jte7 15 ttJd6+ .Jtxd6 16 exd6 0-0 17 .Jtxd5 exd5 1 8 .l::lxd5 left White with a clear advantage. However, Black's capitulation soon followed as 1 8 ... b6? met with immediate punishment in the form of 1 9 .Jtxg 7! �xg 7 20 llg5+ �h8 21 l:th5 etc. 1 0 ttJxe4 i.e6
1 1 e4!
White should play with energy. After the quieter 1 1 b3 White achieved little in Raet sky-Enders, Forchtenberg 1 997, when 1 1 ...ttJb4 1 2 .Jtb2 .Jtxg2 1 3 �xg2 'it'd5+ 14 'iVxd5 exd5 15 ttJd6+ .Jtxd6 16 exd6 �d7 17 .Jtxg 7 l:thg8 18 .Jtc3 ttJc6 saw the game drift into equality .
1 1 .. . ttJb6 1 2 ttJd6 + i.xd6 1 3 exd6 This pawn can easily be underestimated. Karpov and Kramnik are known masters in exploiting such circumstances.
1 3 .. . ttJe4? !
A lesser evil is 1 3 ... 0-0 14 .Jtd ttJd7 15 'iVc2 with a clear advantage for White.
1 4 'We2!
Black will soon find that winning the pawn is not much fun.
1 4 .. . ttJxd6 1 5 .l:I.d 1 'fie 7 1 6 i.e3 b6 1 7 i.xe5! bxe5 1 8 'fIxe5 'fIb7?!
1 8 ... .Jtb 7 1 9 J:lxd6 is more accurate, al though White still has a pawn for nothing. 1 9 'fIxd6 1 -0
Black has had enough.
Game 79
Shipov-Volzhin
Hastings 1997/98
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxe4 5 i.g2 e5 6 0-0 ttJe6 7 ttJe5 i.d7 8 ttJa3!
This has become the modem way to han dle the position, taking over from continua tions such as 8 ttJxc6 .Jtxc6 9 .i.xc6+ bxc6 10 'it'a4, e.g. 1 O ... cxd4 (1O ... 'iib6 1 1 dxc5 .Jtxc5 12 'i'xc4 l:td8 1 3 ttJd2 'iVb5 14 'i'xb5 cxb5 1 5 ttJb3 .Jtb6 was even in Belichev Mukhametov, Yalta 1 995) 1 1 'iVxc6+ ttJd7 12 'i'xc4 .Jtc5. Then 13 ttJd2 0-0 14 ttJe4 .Jtb6 1 5 .Jtg5 ttJe5 1 6 'i'b5 might look like Black is under pressure but after 1 6 ... 'iYd5! 1 7 'it'xd5 exd5 1 8 ttJd2 f6 1 9 .Jtf4 ttJc4 20 a4 l:He8 it was actually the other way around in Pav lovic-Byrne, New York 1 997. Salov A.Sokolov, Sochi 1 982 went 1 3 b4 .i.b6 14 .Jt b2 l:tc8 15 'iVb3 0-0 1 6 ttJd2 ttJe5 17 .l:lad 1 'i'f6 1 8 a4 a6 and Black was no worse.
Worth further investigation is 8 ttJxc4 cxd4 9 .i.f4 ttJd5 10 ttJd6+ .i.xd6 1 1 .i.xd6. Gelfand-Dokhoian, Sverdlovsk 1 987 contin ued 1 1 ...'fib6 12 'iVc1 f6 1 3 ttJd2 �f7 14 ttJb3 ttJa5! 1 5 ttJxa5 it'xa5 1 6 'it'c4 and White emerged with good play for the pawn, while 1 1 ...ttJde7 1 2 ttJd2 0-0 1 3 'fib3 .i.c8 1 4 .i.a3 e 5 1 5 .l:tac1 it' c 7 1 6 ttJc4 .l:.d8 1 7 .i.c5 .i.g4 18 l:tfe1 .l:!.d7 19 'ili'a3 l:tad8 20 b4 also resulted in compensation in Romanishin A.Sokolov, Cannes 1 998.
8 . . . cxd4
Black can also try 8 ... ttJd5!?, when 9 ttJaxc4 seems harmless, e.g. 9 ... ttJdb4 10 ttJxc6 .i.xc6 11 .i.xc6+ ttJxc6 1 2 dxc5 .i.xc5 13 .i.f4 0-0 14 it'xd8 .l:!.fxd8 15 ttfd1 f6 1 6 .i.d6 .i.xd6 1 7 lIxd6 � f7 1 8 l:tad 1 � e 7 1 9 .l:.xd8 l:txd8 with a draw in Raetsky ASokolov, Biel 1 996. Instead White should consider 9 ttJxd7 it'xd7 10 e4 ttJdb4 1 1 d5!? with possibilities of stepping up a gear. 9 ttJaxc4 ttJxe5
For 9 ... .i.e7 see the next main game, which also covers Black's alternatives. 1 0 ttJxe5 'ifb6
1 1 i.f4
Not surprisingly this is not White's only opportunity. In the event of 1 1 ttJxd7 ttJxd7 1 2 it'a4 Black should avoid the risky 1 2 ... 0-0-0?! 1 3 .l:.d1 .i.e7 1 4 .l:.xd4 .i.c5 1 5 l:!.c4 �b8 1 6 '.t> f1 e5, which was seen in To palov-Morozevich, Madrid 1 996. Now White could have played 1 7 .i.e3! f5 (17 ... .i.xe3 1 8
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 c 5
.l:tb4! 'ilif6 1 9 l:hb7+ �c8 20 J:!.c1+! and White wins) 1 8 .l:f.d1 .i.xe3 1 9 .l:tb4 ttJc5 20 J:!.xb6 ttJxa4 21 lIxd8+ .l:txd8 22 .l:[xb7+ �c8 23 fxe3 with a clear plus according to Moro zevich. A more sober approach was essayed in Cvitan-Gyimesi, Baden 1 999, when 1 2 ... .i.c5 1 3 .i.f4 .l:.d8 1 4 ttac1 0-0 1 5 b4 'iWxb4 1 6 'it'xb4 .i.xb4 1 7 .i.c7 l:tde8 1 8 .i.xb 7 .l:.e 7 1 9 i:tb 1 ttJb6 20 .i.xb6 axb6 21 J:!.xb4 l:hb 7 22 ':xd4 ended in a draw.
There is an interesting alternative in 1 1 b4!?, White making no secret of his quest for the initiative, e.g. 1 1 ...it'xb4?! 1 2 .i.f4 .i.a4 1 3 it'c1 .i.e7 14 .l:i.b1 it'c3 1 5 .i.xb7 .l:td8 1 6 ttJc6 .i.xc6 1 7 .i.xc6+ � f8 1 8 it'xc3 dxc3 1 9 i:tfc1 and the endgame indeed looks like a grim ordeal for Black. Brodsky-Ulibin, Bydgoszcz 2001 went 1 1 ...l:td8 1 2 a3 .i.e 7 1 3 .i.b2 it'a6 14 .i.xd4 0-0 1 5 e 3 .i.b5 1 6 l:1e1 .i.d6 17 a4 .i.xe5 18 axb5 it'd6, when Ulibin gives 1 9 l::txa7 it'xb4 20 l:txb7 .i.xd4 21 exd4 l::txd4 22 'iWb 1 ttJd5 23 b6 with a pull for White.
1 1 . . . iLb5 1 2 a4
More challenging might be 1 2 b4!? .l:!.d8 1 3 a4 .i.c6 14 .i.xc6+! bxc6 1 5 .l:tc1 nc8 1 6 b5! ttJd5 17 ttJxc6 ttJc3 18 'it'd3 ttJxa4 19 .i.e5 with play for the pawn in Tukmakov ASokolov, Lenk 2001 .
1 2 . . . i.a6 1 3 b4! ?
Nothing more than equality is achieved af ter 1 3 as 'fibs 14 it'xd4 .i.c5 1 5 'iWc3 0-0. 1 3 . . . i.xb4 1 4 a5
14 .. :iVb5!
After 14 ... 'iii'c5 15 .i.xb7! .i.xb7 1 6 'it'a4+ 'it'ffi 1 7 l:tab 1 White is given some attacking possibilities.
1 5 'it'b3 0-0
1 5 ... .i.c3 1 6 'it'xb5+ .i.xb5 17 .i.xb 7 l:tb8 1 8 .i.c6+ .i.xc6 19 ttJxc6 l:tc8 20 l:tab I ! and White has good compensation for the pawn.
1 6 l:tab 1 g5 1 7 'it'xb4
In the case of 1 7 ttJd3 gxf4 1 8 ttJxb4 l:tab8 White cannot fully justify the sacrifice of a pawn.
1 7 .. . 'it'xb4 1 8 l:txb4 gxf4 1 9 il.xb 7 il.xe2 Also fine is 19 ... .l:!.ab8 20 l:tfb 1 .i.xe2 21 l:txd4 with equality.
20 il.xa8 il.xf 1 21 il.b 7
White should not lose his sense of reality. For example 21 'it'xfl lIxa8 22 gxf4 lld8 even allows Black to play for the win. 21 . . . il.e2 22 l:txd4 fxg3 23 hxg3 il.b5 24 l:tb4 a6
A last try?
25 l:txb5! ? axb5 26 a6 lLld5 27 a7 lLlb6 28 lLlc6 f6 29 lLle 7 + �f7 30 lLlc8 l:txc8 31 il.xc8 b4 32 �f1 b3 33 il.a6 Y:z - Y:z
Game 80
Piket-Van Wely