Metaheurístico INS para la formación de lotes

1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 e6 J ltJcJ .i.b4 4 e3 0-0

5 ltJf3 d5 6 .i.d3 c5 7 0-0 b6 (D)

This approach has never been par­ ticularly popular, but nonetheless it deserves to be discussed. If allowed, Black would like to play ... .i.a6 to ex­ change off the light-squared bishops.

8 cxd5

White has to adopt this aggressive approach to take advantage of Black's set-up. Otherwise:

a) 8 'ii'e2 is harmless: 8 ... cxd4 9 exd4 .i.a6 10 .i.gS .i.xc3 1 1 bxc3 .i.xc4 = Lombardy-Keres, Zurich 1 96 1 .

b) 8 a3 .i.xc3 ( 8 ... cxd4 9 axb4 dxc3 I 0 bxc3 dxc4 1 1 .i.xc4 'ii'c7 = Kav­ alek-To lush, Polanica Zdroj 1964) 9 bxc3 and then:

b1 ) 9 ... dxc4 10 .i.xc4 'ikc7 1 1 .i.d3 ! ? .i.b7 1 2 l:.e1 cxd4 1 3 cxd4 .i.e4

14 ..txe4 ltJxe4 I S 'ikd3 t; Garcia Gon­

zales-Mateo, Bayamo 1 984.

b2) The line 9 ... cxd4 10 cxd4 .i.a6

= is credited to Taimanov, but was

played in Nilsson-Pietzsch, Varna OL 1 962.

b3) 9 ... .i.a6 and then:

b3 1 ) 10 iDeS liJbd7 1 1 'ii'a4 'il'c8 1 2 cxdS .i.xd3 1 3 ltJxd3 exdS 14 .i.b2 l:.e8 1 S iDf4 c4 16 l:.ae1 bS with chances for both sides, Reshevsky­ Forintos, Skopje 1 970.

b32) 10 cxdS 'ii'xdS (or 10 ... exdS transposing to note 'c' to White's 9th move) I I .i.xa6 ltJxa6 1 2 'ife2 'ii'b 7 1 3 i.b2 l:.ac8 14 l:.fel ltJe4 = Zsinka­ Ikonnikov, Budapest 1 99 1 .

8 ... exd5 (D)

9 dxc5

Or:

a) 9 .i.d2 .i.g4 (9 ... ..ta6!? as sug­

gested in ECO is also worth attention)

I 0 a3 i.xc3 I I .i.xc3 c4 12 .i.e2 ltJc6 with equality, Gligoric-Keres, Bled Ct

19S9.

b) 9 lDe2 c4 I 0 .i.c2 l:.e8 I I iDeS i.d6 1 2 b3 cxb3 ( 1 2 ... bS !?) 1 3 ..txb3 itJbd7 14 f4 with some initiative for

112 THE NIMZO-INDIAN: 4 e3

White, Atali.k-Bogdanovsk.i, Pula Echt 1997.

c) 9 a3 Jlxc3 10 bxc3 Jla6 and here:

c 1 ) 1 1 dxc5 bxc5 1 2 Jlxa6 lLlxa6 1 3 c4 dxc4 1 4 'ii'a4 lLlc7 15 'ii'xc4 'ii'd5

16 'ii'c2 ltJe6 = Geller-Keres, USSR

1962.

c2) 1 1 Jlxa6 lLlxa6 12 'ii'a4 (or 12 'ii'd3 ltJc7 1 3 c4 lLle6 14 Jlb2 dxc4 1 5 'ii'xc4 .:tc8 with fairly level chances, Szabo-Keres, Amsterdam Ct 1 956) 12 ... 'ii'c8 (as after 12 'ii'd3, Black can also consider 1 2 ... lLlc7 here) 1 3 Jlb2 c4?! (this move is generally a bad idea in this line if White can potentially ac­ tivate his bishop; instead, a solid move like 1 3 ... .:te8 is perfectly good) 14 ltJd2 (or 14 jfc2 .:te8 1 5 .:tfe 1, Salov­ Hjartarson, Reykjavik 1991, 15 ... lUe4!? 16 a4 lLlb8 ! 1 7 lUeS lLlc6 18 lLlxc6 'ii'xc6 1 9 Jla3 .:te6 with counterplay - Pliester) 14 ... .:te8 1 5 .:tfel and now in­ stead 15 ... lLle4?! 1 6 lLlfl h5 17 f3 ltJd6 18 .:te2, when White keeps the initia­ tive, Semkov-Petursson, Thessalonik.i

OL 1 988, Black should try something

like 1 5 ... .:tb8 ! ? or 1 5 ... ltJc7! ? with a perfectly reasonable position.

d) 9 ltJe5 ! ? (D) is another approach

for White:

B

d l ) 9 ... .:te8 and here:

d 1 1 ) 10 Jld2 Jla6 1 1 Jlxa6 lLlxa6 12 'ii'a4 'ii'c8 1 3 .:tac l 'ii'b7 14 'ii'c6

.:tabS = Portisch-Spassky, Geneva Ct

( 14) 1 977.

d 12) 10 Jlb5 !? is a recent idea of

Sadler's. After lO ... .:te6 l l lLle2 a6 1 2

Jla4 c4 1 3 lLlg3 ( 1 3 lLlf4!?) l 3 ... Jlb7 14 f4 b5 1 5 Jlc2 lLlbd7 16 Jld2 Jlf8 17 'ii'f3 White has a k.ingside initiative, Sadler-Nickoloff, Elista OL 1 998.

d l 3) 10 lLle2 ! ? c4?! (Dolmatov gives 10 ... 'ii'c7 ! ? as better) 1 1 Jlc2 Jld6 1 2 f4 b5 1 3 lLlg3 ltJbd7? ! (Gulko suggests 1 3 ... Jlb7!? as a better op­

tion) 14 ji'f3 (in lnformator, Gulko

gives 14 e4! ? as an interesting possi­ bility, but after 14 ... lLlb6 I5 lLlc6 'ii'c7

16 e5, Black can improve on Gulko's 16 ... ltJfd7 with 1 6 ... Jlg4!?) 1 4 ... Jlb7 15 Jld2 Jlf8?! ( l 5 ... lLlf8 ! ? Gulko) 1 6 a4 b4 1 7 aS .:tc8 1 8 a6 Jla8 1 9 lLlfS with a strong initiative for White, Korchnoi-Gulko, Novgorod 1 995. d2) 9 ... Jlb7 is also popular: d2 1 ) 10 lLle2 c4 1 1 Jlc2 ltJbd7 1 2 f4 b5 (Portisch-Sanguinetti, Biel IZ 1 976) 1 3 lLlg3 ! :;!; ECO. d22) 10 Jld2 ltJc6 ( 10 ... cxd4 1 1 exd4 lLlc6 and now according to Plies­ ter 1 2 'ii'a4 and 12 Jlg5 are White's most critical options) 1 1 a3 Jlxc3 1 2 Jlxc3 .:te8 ( l 2 .. . lLlxe5?! 1 3 dxe5 lLle4 14 Jlxe4 dxe4 1 5 'it'g4 'it'e7 1 6 .:tfd l 'it'e6 17 'ii'h4 Jld5 1 8 .:td2 is very pleasant for White, Gligoric-Szabo, Yugoslavia-Hungary 1 960) 1 3 lLlxc6 Jlxc6 14 dxc5 bxc5 15 b4! d4 16 exd4 cxd4 17 Jlb2 'it'd5 1 8 f3 ltJg4! ? 1 9 'ifd2 ( 1 9 Jle4? 'it'e5 !) 1 9 ... lLle3 20 .:tfc 1 with a solid advantage for White due to his bishop-pair, Gligoric-Lju­ bojevic, Belgrade ( 10) 1979.

DELA YED FIANCHETTO VARIATION 113

d3) 9 ... .txc3 10 bxc3 .ta6 and then:

d3 1 ) I I .ta3l:l e8 1 2 .J:lcl .txd3 1 3 �xd3, and now 1 3 .. . 'ii'c8 14 c4 left Black struggling due to his lack of de­ velopment in Szabo-Lengyel, Miskolc 1963. Black has to play 1 3 ... c4, which is normally dubious in this line, but here Black is doing OK.

d32) I I .txa6 lDxa6 1 2 a4 .J:le8 1 3 �f3 'ii'c8 1 4 .tb2 'ii'e6 1 5 �e2 lDc7 with equality, Farago-Forintos, Buda­ pest 1 968.

d33) I I f3 attempts to build up a rolling centre, as seen frequently in the Rubinstein Nimzo-Indian. Here, however, Black can obtain equality af­ ter l l ....txd3 12 'iWxd3 .J:le8 1 3 ._f5 lDbd7 14 lDd3 'it'c8 1 5 lDf2 b5 16 e4 lDf8, as in Garcia Gonzales-F.Olafs­ son, Novi Sad 1 976.

9 . . . bxc5 (D)

Taking back with the bishop makes less sense in this position, as Black is too far behind in development to ob­ tain enough counterplay to compen­ sate for the isolated pawn.

10 lDe2

10 ltJa4 has scored reasonably for White, but shouldn't worry Black, as

he can challenge the knight and equal­ ize after IO ... lDbd7 l l b3 lDb6 1 2 lDb2 .tg4, Smyslov-Keres, Bled Ct 1 959.

10 . . . .tg4

Or:

a) IO ... lDc6 1 1 b3 .tg4 transposes

to the main line.

b) IO ... .tb7 (or IO ... ltJbd7 1 1 b3 .tb7) 1 1 b3 ltJbd7 1 2 .tb2 .taS 1 3 ltJg3 g6 1 4 .J:lc l .J:lc8 1 5 .J:lc2 'ike7 1 6 'ike2 .J:lc7 17 .J:lfcl .J:lfc8 (Gligoric­ Szabo, Moscow OL 1 956) 1 8 .ta3 (Pliester) with a pull for White.

11 b3 .'Dc6 12 .tb2 d4!?

An active alternative is 1 2 ... ltJe4?!, which has mainly been tested in cor­ respondence chess games: 1 3 'ikc2 .txf3 14 gxf3 ltJd2 (Dal.ko-To1ush, corr. 1 962) and here White does best to continue with 1 5 .J:lfd l ! .'Dxf3+ 16 �g2 lDce5 17 .txh7+ �h8 1 8 a3 .ta5 1 9 ii'xc5, when Black has to find com­ pensation for the pawn(s) ( 1 9 .. .'�xh7 20 .txe5 ltJxe5 2 1 .J:lxd5).

13 exd4 .txf3 14 gxf3 "Dxd4 15 .'Dxd4 cxd4 16 .txd4 (D)

Obviously Black cannot now play 16 .. .'ii'xd4?? on account of 17 .txh7+ winning the queen.

114 THE NIMZO-INDIAN: 4 e3

Instead of building up on the king­ side, Black seeks to activate his pieces to control the central squares.

The older continuation 1 6 ... llJh5 is best answered with 1 7 �hl 'ii'h4 1 8 ..i.e5 ! :fe8 1 9 ..i.g3, when Black does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn, Taimanov-Limbos, Luxem­ bourg 1 963.

17 ..teJ :adS 1S ..tc4 'ii'eS 19 f4 'ii'e4 20 'ii'e2 :res (D)

Black has now activated his major pieces. Doubtless feeling uncomfort­ able, White allowed Black to force a repetition of moves in Levitt-Grosz­ peter, Copenhagen 1 988: 2 1 :ad l 'ii' g6+ 22 �h I :xd 1 23 :xd I 'ii'e4+

24 �gl 'ii'g6+ 25 �hl 'ii'e4+ 1h-1h.

Conclusion

The Delayed Fianchetto Variation isn't seen very often, but according to the lines considered above, Black is doing reasonably OK. White's best chances at present spring from 9 llJe5 ! ?.