In this chapter we shall examine the variations where White plays g2-g4 in conjunction with kingside castling.
It goes without saying that the plan involving g2-g4 is the most aggres
sive one. Here we have a case where White quite reasonably applies the well-known strategic rule that the side with the opening advantage should attack. The sharp positions that arise are reminiscent of those from the Scheveningen Sicilian. The differ
ence that his light-squared bishop has been developed at d3 and not at e2 suits White.
Usually the advance g2-g4 is made after the following introductory moves: 1 e4 c5 2 l0f3 l0c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l0xd4 1lb6 S l0b3 l0f6 6 l0c3 e6 7 _ad3 a6 8 0-0 ll.e7 9 £e3 .c7 10 r4 d6 u trn o-o (DJ.
It is also interesting to play the line g2-g4 without the move 'it'f3. With this White can gain time if, later in the game, he plays directly 'iWh5 without the intermediate move 'iff3. For ex
ample, 11 a4 b6 12 g4 .i.b7 1 3 g5 tZ:Id7 14 f5! tZ:Ide5 15 'ith5 gave a prefer
able position for White, Kolker
Nadanian, USSR 1991.
As usual, instead of 'i!Vf3, White can also develop his queen on the e2-square: 11 .e2 0-0 (It's possible to postpone castling and first start counterplay on the queenside, 1 1 ... b5 1 2 g4 Ab7 { 1 2 ... h5?! 1 3 gS tZ:Ig4 14 .i.d2} 1 3 gS tZ:Id7 ;!; ) 12 g4 l:e8 (12 ... b5) 13 g5 tZ:Id7 1 4 l:tf3 g6 1 5 :afl ! b5 1 6 :h3 b4? (This move only helps White to move his knight to the kingside and exploit the weak f6 and h6 squares.) 17 tZ:Idl �f8 1 8 lLlt2 ii.g7 19 tZ:Ig4 dS 20 lLlh6+! with a clear advantage for White, A.
Rodriguez-Carlier, Amsterdam 1987.
w
Again we have the position after 1 1 ...0-0 which was the main subject of Chapter 2, but here White's plan
is more aggressive. It is convenient to consider separately:
A: 1 2 g4 and
8: 1 2 l:!.ae1 b5 1 3 g4.
The ideas are similar but there are also differences, which are better no
ticed if the material is given separately.
Before starting to examine these variations, let us mention the follow
ing. If White intends to play the varia
tion with g2-g4, it is unnecessary to play 1 2 a3 ftrst, which here can be consid
ered a waste of time. The following two examples, where this move order was played, are interesting:
a) l2 . . . b5 1 3 g4 �b7 14 g5 lt:Jd7
I 5 'i!Yh3 l:!.fe8 1 6 f5 exf5 1 7 lt:JdS ft'd8 1 8 'iWxf5 lt:Jce5 1 9 h4 -tf8 20 i..d4 g6 21 'iWf4 -txd5 22 exd5 Ag7 and Black managed to solve his prob
lems, Schweber-Rubinetti, Mar del Plata 1968.
b) That Black cannot treat the variation passively is seen from the example Pyhala-Perlstein, Warsaw 1 989, where after 12 ... l:le8 1 3 g4 {jjd7 14 g5 g6 1 5 h4 b5 16 h5 l:!.b8
1 7 'it>g2 b4 1 8 l:th 1 ! bxc3 1 9 hxg6 fxg6 20 l:!.xh7! White obtained an ir
resistible attack.
For other lines with 1 2 a3 see Chapter 2.
A :
12 g4
Editor's Note: As this is one of the options GMs Nunn and Gallagher give for White in their popular book Beating The Sicilian J, players of the black side need to be attentive to the
details. In particular, their suggestion at White's 1 5'h move in line A23 awaits practical tests.
Black has these possibilities:
A 1 : 1 2 ... lt:Jb4!?
A2: 1 2 ... b5
He cannot be satisfted with:
a) 12 ... d5?! 1 3 e5 lt:Jd7 14 l:!.ae1 b5 1 5 'Wh3 g6 1 6 :n f6 1 1 'Wh6 lt:JdxeS! (The only chance. 1 7 ... l:tf7 loses after 18 .i.xg6 hxg6 19 l:th3 l:tg7 20 lt:Jxd5 !) 1 8 fxe5 lt:Jxe5 19 .l:h3 .i.d6 20 'ifh4 .i.b7? (20 ... ..td7) 21 'Lld4 lhe8 22 lt:Jcxb5! axb5 23 lt:Jxb5 'ffd7 24 lt:Jxd6 lt:Jf3+ 25 l:txf3
�xd6 26 l:th3 l:!.e7 27 g5 f5 28 .i.d4 1 -0 Geller-Gufeld, Moscow 1 970.
The central structure which appears after ... d6-d5, e4-e5, where Black doesn't have the possibility ... lt:Je4, but is forced to play ... lt:Jd7, favours White in the majority of cases.
b) 12 ... 1:le8!? 1 3 g5 lt:Jd7 (D)
w
Now:
b1) 14 lrh3 is imprecise. White loses a tempo, because he will later play 'YWh5 anyway. For example,
14 ... ltJf8 1 5 f5 lL\e5 1 6 ltJd4 b5 1 7 'it'h5 i..d7?! (Better i s 17 ... i..b7) 18 f6 i..d8 1 9 ltJD! ltJxd3! 20 cxd3 b4 2 1 fxg7 lL\g6 22 ltJe2 and now, in
stead of22 ... .i..b5? (Gallagher-Z.Ilic, Bern 1 989), which was too slow, Black should have played 22 ... 'it'c2 with counterplay.
b2) After 14 1rh5 it is best for Black to continue 14 ... g6 1 5 �h6 i..f8 1 6 'ifh4 b5 1 7 .:n, transposing into variation A22, discussed below.
Also possible is 14 ... �b4 1 5 .l:tf3 g6 16 'ifh6 Af8 1 7 'ti'h4 i..g7 1 8 .l:tafl ltJxd3 1 9 cxd3 f5 20 gxf6 (20 exf5! ?) 20 ... i..xf6 oo Delgado-Larduet, Ha
vana 1 997. The plan which avoids the move . . . g6, played in the game Hawelko-Sznapik, Slupsk 1 988, is less reliable: after 14 ... �f8 1 5 f5 lL\e5 1 6 f6 i..d8 1 7 ltJd4 White's position was preferable.
b3) There is another way of con
ducting the kingside attack: 14 fS lL\de5 1 5 � g3 i..f8 1 6 l:[f4 seems promising for White, Bezgodov
Kozlov, Perm 1 997.
A1:
12 �b4!?
13 gS �d7
14 lrhS g6
15 1Wh6 l:te8 (D) This is one of the typical positions for the 1 2 g4 variation. Instead of 1 5 ... .:e8, it's probably better to play lS ... bS and after 16 .l:tf3 to transpose into the main line (A23 below) with the radical 16 ... f5.
After 15 ... lle8 both the attack and w
defence need to be extremely precise and enterprising. Even a slight im
precision is sufficient for the oppo
site side to gain a decisive initiative.
a) 16 .a.ad1!? (A seldom played idea that deserves attention. White brings the queen's rook into the game, combining threats on the kingside with the pressure along the d-file.) 16 ... b5 1 7 a3 ltJxd3 18 l:.xd3 i..f8 19 'ii'h4 i..b7 (19 ... i..g7?! 20 .l:tfd1) 20 i..d4 e5 21 fxe5 ltJxe5 22 .l:th3 h5 23 gxh6 �h7 24 'iVf4 .l:te7 25 ltJd2!
with advantage to White, G.Mainka
Martinovic, Dortmund 1 988.
b) 16 llf3 Af8 1 7 'ilfh4 'ifds! 18 1'ff2 (White gives up the idea of a direct attack) 1 8 ... f6 1 9 h4 b5 20 .l:tg3 fxg5 2 1 hxg5 i..g7 22 i..fl ltJc6 23 :d1 b4 24 ltJa4 'fiic7 with chances for both sides, Ciobanu-Lupu, Odor
heiu 1 993. Worthy of consideration is 18 l:lh3 h5 ( 1 8 ... h6!?) 19 ltJe2 with the idea lL\g3.
A2:
12 bS (D)
Preference should be given to this continuation.
w
13 g5
13 ffh3!? is a cunning move with which the talented Bojan Knezevic scored two effective victories against renowned grandmasters. The fact that Knezevic has the variation 4 ... 'i¥b6 in his repertoire as Black leads to the conclusion that the continuation 13 fVh3 is the result of his home analy
ses and should not be underestimated.
White threatens to play g4-g5 after e4-e5 and thereby eliminate the de
fence of the h7-square.
Black has to be very cautious:
a) 13 .. . b4? is a mistake because White obtains a winning attack by force after 14 e5!, e.g. 14 ... dxe5 15 g5 lLlh5 16 ..txh7+ 'ifr>xh7 17 fVh5+
�g8 1 8 l:!.f3 ..txg5 19 fxg5 lLle7 20 'Lle4 f5 21 gxf6 4Jf5 22 l:!.h3 1-0 B.
Knezevic-Kurajica, Zaragoza 1996.
This is an instructive example which shows that the d3-bishop must always be kept under control.
b) With the continuation 13 ... g6, which in a radical way eliminates the threats to the h7-square, Black was not successful either in the game B.
Knezevic-Barlov, Yugoslavia eh,
Belgrade 1998. There followed 14 g5 lLlh5 15 f5 b4 16 lLla4 exf5 17 exf5 'Llg7? (A mistake that enables White to sacrifice the exchange and gain an irresistible attack.) 1 8 lLl b6 .i.xf5 19 Axf5 lLlxf5 20 l:!.xf5 gxf5 2 1 lLld5 'ii'd7 22 lLld4 lLle5 23 lLlxf5 .i.d8 24 l:!.fl 'ii'e6 25 lLlf4 �d7 26 .i.d4 l:ta7 27 lLld5 l:!.b7 28 'ii'h6 f6 29 lLlde7+
�fl 30 'Wxf6+ We8 3 1 lLlg7+ 1-0.
The centralisation of the white knight should not have been allowed. Cor
rect is 17 ... .l::tb8! when in the case of 1 8 'it'h4 l:Ie8 19 l:!.ae 1 lLle5 20 f6 ..ttE 21 ..te2 Black has 21 ...'ii'c6.
These two examples clearly dem
onstrate the hidden dangers lying be
hind the continuation 1 3 Vit'h3. What is the best defence for Black?
c) The usual 13 . . . it)b4 is also un
satisfactory because of 14 e5! dxe5 1 5 fxe5 'ffxe5 16 .i.f4! �c5+ 1 7
�g2! .i.b7+ 18 'it>g3 and Black loses the queen.
d) Apart from Barlov's 1 3 ... g6 where, despite Black's defeat, mat
ters are not quite clear, Black has at his disposal 13 ... it)d7. In that case one of the possible variations is 14 e5 g6 15 exd6 �xd6 16 lLle4 J..e7 1 7 f5 exf5 1 8 gxf5 lLlde5 19 � g3 l:lfe8 20 fxg6 (20 a4!?) 20 ... hxg6 21 lLlf6+ ..txf6 22 l:Ixf6 fie?. Thanks to the centralised e5-knight, Black's position is defensible.
13 it)d7
The position with the inflexible 13 . ..ltle8?! arose by a different move order in the game Fischer-Saidy, New York 1966. Black quickly faced
se-rious problems after 1 4 'it'h5 g6 15 'it'h6 f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 lt:Jd4 lt:Jd8 1 8 l:tae 1 lt:Jg7 19 l:tf3 lLlfl 20 'iVh4 lt:Jh8 2 1 l:lh3 h5 22 �e2 etc.
14 'lfh5 (D)
The most enterprising plan. Before considering this in detail, let us men
tion that the attacking plan involving the march of the h-pawn is possible but less dangerous. For example: 14 .x::lad1 l:le8 15 l:tf2 �f8 16 h4 l:tb8 1 7 h5 lt:Jb4 1 8 ... g3 i.b7 19 ... h3 lt:Jc5 20 g6 fxg6 21 hxg6 h6 22 ll:Jd4 ..tc8 23 'ifh5 lt:Jd7 24 An lLlf6 25 'ifh4? (This mistake allows Black to achieve a winning position by force) 25 ... e5! 26 fxe5 lt:Jg4 27 l:.xfl ._,b6!
28 i.f2 dxe5 and Black had a deci
sive advantage, Shamkovich-Z.I\ic, Saint John 1988.
Another less direct approach was seen in the game Sarnrnalvuo-Grivas, Moscow OL 1994, in which after 14 a3 b4 15 axb4 lt:Jxb4 16 ll:Jd4 l:tb8 17 l:tf2 l:le8 18 f5 lt:Je5 19 'i!ie2 exf5 20 lt:Jxf5 .i.f8 there appeared a com
plex position with mutual chances.
White's direct attack with heavy pieces along the h-file seems danger
ous and Black has to be extremely skilful and cool-blooded in his de
fence. A single mistake is enough to lose the game. Nevertheless, although Black's situation seems dangerous, in practice players on several occasions have demonstrated the vitality of their positions.
There are several modes of de
fence. Different types of positions arise when Black plays:
B
A21 : 14 ... l:te8 (followed by ... ll:Jf8 without the move ... g6),
A22: 14 ... g6, and A23: 14 . . . liJb4.
A21:
B
14 .x::le8
15 .x::lf3 (D)
Now:
a) 15 ... �b4 1 6 .il.d4 (With the idea 16 ... g6? 1 7 'trxh7+!) 1 6 ... e5 17 fxe5 lUxe5 1 8 AxeS g6 19 l:txfl 'it'a7+ 20 .i.d4 gxh5 \12-\12 Schiifer
Liicke, Munster 1992.
b) 1 5 ... .ab7 16 l:th3 liJf8 1 7 l:tfl b4 1 8 liJd1 g6 19 'i:Vh4 (19 'ffh6) 19 ... a5 20 f5 exf5 21 exf5 lt:Je5 22
4Jd4?! (I don't see how Black would defend himself in the case of 22 f6!
'iWc6 23 .l:.g3 �d8 24 'ii'h6 4Je6 25 4Jd4) 22 ... �d8 23 f6 h5 24 �e2 'iWd7 25 .l:.g3 4Jh7 26 .i.xh5 gxh5 27 'i!Vxh5 �h8 28 :f4 4Jg6 and Black managed to parry White's threats and win the game, Stebbings-Plaskett, London 1993.
c) 15 . . . �18 (It is better to play this move after White's :h3) 16 e5 g6 (If 1 5 ... dxe5?, then 1 6 .i.xh7+ 4Jxh7 17 .l:.h3 wins) 17 exd6 'ii'xd6 1 8 'ifh6 f5 19 gxf6 ..i.xf6 20 4Je4 'it'd8 21 4Jxf6+ 'it'xf6 22 .i.e4 .i.b7 23 .l:.dl (23 4Jc5) 23 ... :ac8 24 ..i.c5 Yz-Yi
Nekrasov-Fomichenko, Krasnodar 1996.
Although in the last two examples Black scored good results, the impres
sion is that in both games he had a hard time. The most economical de
fensive set-up for Black - where he plays ... 4Jf8 without the prior ma
noeuvre ... g6, ... ..i.f8, ... �g7 - is not entirely reliable. It's true that the f8-knight is a powerful kingside de
fender, but it's not a sufficient guarantee for a successful defence.
A22:
14 g6
15 'ffh6 (D)
In the case of the straightforward attack 15 'ffh4 .l:.e8 16 :n h5 1 7 4Je2 .i. f8 1 8 4Jg3 .i.g7 19 4Jxh5 gxh5 20 'it'xh5 4Jf8 21 c3 .l:.e7 22 l:g3 .i.b7 Black had sufficient de
fensive resources in the game David
B. Knezevic, France 1997.
B
After the correct 1 5 'it'h6, Black has in practice played two contin-uations.
15
This is the stronger. The other is
15 . . . f6 e.g. 16 4Jd4 4Jxd4 (Weak is
16 ... 'Llc5? 17 f5 'Lle5 18 fxe6 'Llxe6 1 9 tLld5 'i!Vd8 20 tLlxe6 J&.xe6 21 .i.b6 'i!Vd7 22 gxf6 .td8 23 tLle7+
and White won, B.Knezevic-Zivic, Kladovo 1994) 1 7 ..i.xd4 d5! (17 ...
:n?! 1 8 f5 .i.f8 19 'it'h3! ± Ulybin
Akopian, USSR 1988) 1 8 exd5 .i.c5 19 .i.xc5 'ii'xc5+ 20 l:!f2 exd5 21 .i.xg6 hxg6 22 'iVxg6+ �h8 23 l:1e 1 l:!a7 24 b4 'i!fxb4 25 'it'h6+ Yz-Yz
Schiifer-Kohlweyer, Germany 1992.
16 l:ln Af8
16 ... b4? loses after 17 :h3 tLlfS 1 7 f5.
17 'ffh4 (D)
This is an important position for the g2-g4 variation. In practice, it can also appear from the move order char
acteristic of the Sozin line: 1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 tLlf6 5 tLlc3 tLlc6 6 .i.c4 'ii'b6 7 tLlb3 e6 8 .i.e3 'i!fc7 9 f4 .i.e7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 .i.d3 a6 1 2 g4 b5 1 3 g5 tLld7 1 4 'ifh5
g6 15 'it'h6 .l:.eB 16 .l:.f3 �fll 17 �h4 (We see that White compensated for the loss of tempo �c4-d3 by playing not �d1-f3-h5 but directly �d1-h5).
B
The dynamic position above re
quires a concrete approach and en
terprising play by both sides. From the existing examples from practice it is not easy to conclude which of Black's defensive plans is superior.
17 b4
It seems that this is a useful inter
mediate move in this particular posi
tion. The point is that White plans to attack with f4-f5 and in the event that the c3-knight has been chased away, Black may be able to answer f4-f5 with ... exf5, not worrying about the d5 square. 17 ... Ab7?! is definitely weaker: 1 8 l:th3 h6 19 gxh6 �h7 20 :n Jle7 2 1 'it'f2 l:g8 22 'Lld2 'Llb4 23 'Llf3 ± Z.Markovic-Martinovic, Niksic 1 997.
The alternative is 17 ... Jlg7 when:
a) 18 J:lafl !? �b7 (18 ... b4) 1 9 f5 (Probably 19 l:th3 lt:lfll 20 f5 is bet
ter and after 20 ... b4 21 f6 bxc3 22
fxg7 �xg7 it is less favourable for Black that his bishop is on the b7 square) 1 9 ... b4 20 f6 �h8 2 1 'Lldl lt:lce5 22 l:h3 'Llfll 23 .li.d4 'Llxd3 24 cxd3 e5 25 �f2 �c8 26 l:lg3 lt:le6 27 i.e3 'ii'c2 and Black obtained counterplay in A.Martin-Garcia Ilundain, Spain 1993.
b) 18 l:lh3 lZ:lf8 19 f5 and now:
b 1 ) 19 ... exf5 20 'Lld5 �d8 2 1
�b6 is in White's favour,
b2) while in case of 19 ... Axc3?
there follows 20 f6! with the inde
fensible attack as in the game Akopian-Prakash, Mamaia 1 99 1 . After 20 ... �xf6 21 gxf6 h5 22 'i!Vf4 e5 23 1Wh6 'Lle6 24 ""h1 'i¥d8 25 1:.fl Black resigned since he is de
fenceless against 26 l:rxh5 and 27 l:g l .
b3) 1 9 ... b4! 20 f6 (Forced because after the knight move there would follow 20 ... exf5 and White does not have the 'Lld.5 option.) 20 ... bxc3 2 1 fxg7 �xg7 22 bxc3 e5 23 .l:.f3 �e6 24 .l!tafl lt:la5 25 'Lld4 exd4 26
�xd4+ f6 27 'it'h6+ ""g8 28 llxf6 l:leb8 29 h4! (29 f!f7? 'it'xf7 30 l:txf7
�xf7 3 1 �g7+ 'ltr>e8) 29 ... lt:lc6 30 h5 lt:lxd4 3 1 cxd4 �xa2. This analy
sis is by Ulybin and Lysenko (Jnf
onnator 66). Further they recommend 32 d5!? or 32 e5!? with the idea .te4, assessing the positions in both cases with the unclear sign ( oo ).
18 llh3
Weaker is 1 8 'Lldl �g7 19 'Llf2 (19 l:th3!?) 19 ... f5 (Or 19 ... 'ftfd8 20 l:h3 h5 2 1 f5 exf5 22 exf5 lLlde5 23
�e4 gxf5 24 i.d5 f4 25 .txf4 �xh3
26 'ifxh3 l:tc8 27 'ifxh5 liJe7 28 Ae4 liJ7g6 29 Ae3 liJc4 + A.Martin
Eiguezabal, Alicante 1989) 20 gxf6
�xf6 2 1 'i¥g3 'Ot>h8 22 :n �b7 oo
Gullaksen-Mochalov, Debrecen 1992.
B
18 h5
19 itle2 (D)
Now:
a) 19 ... Ag7 when:
a1) 20 itlg3 a5 21 l:!.fl a4 22 liJd2 liJc5 when unclear complications arose after the direct attack 23 liJxh5 gxh5 24 'i!Vxh5 in Schurade-Borriss, East Germany 1989. The game con
tinued 24 ... liJxd3 25 cxd3 l2Jd4 26 e5!? (26 'Ot>h1 ) 26 ... liJf5 27 liJe4 lUxe3 (Interesting is 27 ... �b7 28 lbf6+ 'Ot>f8 29 llc1 'i!Vd8) 28 CUf6+
'Ot>ffl 29 'ifh8+ �xh8 30 l:!.xh8+ <J;;g7 31 l:!.xe8 �b7? (The decisive mis
take: after 3 l ...'it>g6 32 f5+ 'ifi>xg5 33 l:tg8+ �h6 White would have noth
ing better than perpetual check) 32 l:txa8 'Ot>g6 33 f5+ and White won.
a2) 20 Dn Axb2? 2 1 f5 exf5 22 liJf4 liJe7 23 exf5 liJf8 24 liJxh5
gxh5 25 'ir'xh5 liJxf5 26 liJd4 lllh6 27 gxh6 �xh3 28 'it'g5+ liJg6 29 'iVf6 1-0, Ulybin-N.Kirov, Capelle la Grande 1996. The capture on b2 was overoptimistic, but the line 20 ... itlf8 21 liJd2 .i.xb2? ! (2 1 . . . l:!.b8) 2 2 'Llc4 .tg7 2 3 lllb6 l:!.b8 24 liJxc8 l:bxc8 25 f5 is also in White's favour according to Ulybin and Lysenko.
b) 19 ... a5!? (In cold blood Black hurries with his counterplay on the queenside.) 20 itlg3?! .i.a6 21 �xa6 l:xa6 22 CUxh5 gxh5 23 'tlfxh5 �g7 24 1i'h7+ 'it;fl! 25 l:tfl a4 + Ulybin
Ruban, Kursk 1987. To assess the validity of the continuation 1 9 ... a5, it is necessary to test in practice the position arising after the superior 20 Ilfl instead of the committal move 20 'Llg3?!.
A23:
14 itlb4
This is the introductory move for a defensive system that essentially differs from the two previously ex
amined ones. The standard move ... lllb4, as in many other positions, is useful here too. The knight controls the d5 square and, if necessary, can eliminate White ' s light-squared bishop. The control of the d5-square will enable Black to take a radical action on the kingside with ... f7-f5, with which he parries White's threats along the h-file. This theme gives the variation a completely independent character.
15 :o
BTSJ says that 15 f5!?, to fore
stall Black's planned reaction, de
serves consideration.
15 g6
15 .•. lle8 transposes into the game Schiifer-Liicke, given above in A2l .
1 6 .h6 f5!
17 exf5 (D)
Less enterprising is 17 gxf6 l:txf6 1 8 l:g3 ( 1 8 tlJd4 g5!) 1 8 ... t2Jf8 19 t2Jd4 (19 e5?! dxe5 20 fxe5 l:f7 21 .i.e4 .i.b7 �) 1 9 ... tlJxd3 ( l 9 ... e5? 20 tLlf5 ± ) 20 cxd3 .i.d7! with a satis
factory position for Black, Bellia
Grivas, Vinkovci 1989.
B
17 exf5
18 l:th3
It should be noticed that in this line Black still hasn ' t played ... .i.b7. Is the reduced control of the d5-square significant, that is, can White utilise this square in a concrete way?
A brief analysis shows that Black has a satisfactory defence in all lines.
For instance: 1 8�d4 tlJc5, or 18 a3
t2Jxd3 19 �d5 (If 19 l:th3 l:tf7 20 tlJd5 'it'b7 21 tlJxe7+ l:xe7 22 cxd3 'ii'd5 and Black i s doing fine) l9 ... 'iVd8 20 cxd3 (20 �d4?! tlJ3e5!) 20 ... �b7 2 1 �d4 l:lf7 and Black is O.K., or here 20 �xe7+ 't!Vxe7 21 cxd3 .i.b7 and Black has promising play once more.
1s :n
19 .i.d4
19 .i.xf5 doesn't work because after 1 9 ... gxf5 20 g6 Black has 20 ... l:tg7.
w
19 �fB (D)
The only adequate defence; Black keeps his head above water.
Compare this position with the one from the game Chandler-Gufeld, Dortmund 1 983 (Variation B 1 1 ).
Things are more favourable for Black here since White doesn't have the move 20 .i.xf5 because of the sim
ple 20 ... .i.xf5. In the above-men
tioned game the moves l:tae 1 and ... .i.b7 were interpolated, so White had the decisive 21 .i.xf5.
If White now continues 20 l:te1,
Black is not forced to play the in
correct 20 ... Ab7? 2 1 Axf5 ! gxf5 22 g6 ! +-, but instead chooses 20 ... /Qxd3. Then in the case of 2 1 lt:ld5 'it'b7 22 lhe7 l:xe7! (22 ...
'ifxd5? 23 'ifg7+) 23 lt:lf6+ �f7 Black's king has escaped while his opponent (the white king) has be
come the target.
The positions from chapters A and B are very similar so it's necessary to compare them in order to have an adequate opinion about the line.
B:
12 llael
Everything in this section needs to be compared with line C in Chapter 2, where Black' s alternative 12'h moves and White's alternative 13'h moves are analysed.
12 b5
Nunn points out that 12 ... /Qd7 may be best, when if 1 3 g4 (avoiding the transpositions discussed in Chap
ter 2) 1 3 ... b5 14 g5 Ab7 we reach line Bl l below. We shall see there some improvements for Black on the lines given in BTSJ.
13 g4 (D)
This is aggressive but perhaps not as dangerous as 13 e5 (Chapter 2, line C35) which is Nunn's rec
ommendation.
We see that this variation differs from the previous one because the moves .:tae1 and (usually) ... Ab7 have been interpolated. It's difficult to say for which side it is the more favourable.
B
At first glance, it seems that 1 2 .l:.ae 1 slows down the whole idea of the g2-g4 attack but it is unsafe to generalise because, in many posi
tions, the e-file becomes a very im
portant factor if the centre is opened.
On the other hand, notice the fact that in the most common move order (line 81 below) Black lacks the de
fensive potential of his bishop along the c8-h3 diagonal.
Therefore, although the bishop can play an active role on the b7-square, one should seriously consider the variations where Black postpones the development of this piece.
The alternatives are:
B1 : 1 3 ... Ab7 B2: 1 3 ... lt:ld7
a) 13 ... b4?! 14 lt:le2 d5?! (Black has no justification for such activity) 15 e5 lt:le4 16 lt:lg3 f5 1 7 exf6 lt:lxf6 1 8 g5 lt:le8 19 'ifh5 g6 20 J.xg6! +
Videki-Varga, Harkany 1993. Here 14 ... a5, with the idea ... J.a6, is a bet
ter plan.
b) 13 ... g6 14 g5 lt:lh5 1 5 lt:le2 f6 16 lt:lg3 lt:lxg3 17 'ifxg3 fxg5 18 fxg5 e5 oo Dervishi-Bellon, Bern 1 996.
B1:
13 Ab7
This is the main continuation.
14 g5 �d7
15 Ylh5 (DJ
1 5 Ylh3 c auses Black fewer problems. After the correct 1 5 .. . CZJ b4 there are several examples from tournament practice where, as a rule, there arose very complex positions with mutual chances.
Black achieved satisfactory results.
a) 16 a3 is not in the spirit of the sharp g2-g4 system. White's attack loses its intensity. For example, 16 ... lbxd3 17 cxd3 ctJc5 18 CZJc 1 d5 1 9 exd5 l:ad8! (With the pawn sac
rifice Black achieves excellent play along the diagonal a8-h1) 20 d4 ctJa4 21 4Jxa4 bxa4 22 dxe6 'i!Vc6 23 ext7+
%1xt7 24 lbd3 i..xg5! 25 ctJe5 'it'h 1 + 26 <itt2 'We4 27 4Jxt7 �h4+! 28 We2 't!Vc2+ 29 j.d2 Wxf7 0-1 Rose
Liicke, Germany 1992.
b) 16 �d4 l:lae8 17 1:10 i..d8 (An interesting defensive set-up for Black.) 1 8 'ii'h4 g6 19 l:!.h3 h5 20 j.e2 Wg7 2 1 f5 .l:!:h8 22 a3 (22 f6+!?
Wh7 23 j.xh5? �g8) 22 ... lbc6 23 l:fl lbde5 oo Bemdt-Grivas, Dort
mund 1992.
c) 16 f5 exf5 17 exf5 lbxd3 1 8 cxd3 (18 g6 ctJf6! eo ) 18 .. J:!.ae8! and now:
c 1 ) The direct advance 19 f6 fa
vours Black after 19 ... gxf6! 20 gxf6 .ixf6! 21 l:txf6 lZJxf6 22 'llg3+ �h8 23 i..d4 :xel+ 24 flxe1 l:lg8+, while 19 g6 leads to perpetual check in the case of l 9 ... hxg6 (19 ... lbf6 !?) 20 fxg6 fxg6 21 'i!t'e6+ <1r>h7 22 1Wh3+.
c2) 19 �d4 i..d8! (Opens the e
file and prepares the transfer of the bishop to the a7-g1 diagonal.) 20 a3 lbe5 21 f6 gxf6 22 gxf6 'ifi1h8 23 �h6 'ifc5 24 .ag7+ Wg8 25 4Je2 'fi'd5 26 ctJf5 ctJg4 27 lt:lh6+ ctJh6 28 .i.xh6 .i.b6+ 29 d4 ..txd4+ 30 lbxd4 'ifxd4+ 3 1 i..e3 'ifd3 ! 32 'i!t'g3+
'ifg6 33 �h6 l:Xe1 34 l:!.xe1 l:lc8 35 l:le7 �d5 36 l:a7 .te4 Y2-Y2 Ulybin-Akopian, USSR 1986.
B
After 15 Vl\fh5 Black has in prac-tice played two continuations:
B l l : 15 ... ctJb4 and B12: 15 ... l:fe8.
GM Grivas, who is a great ad
herent of the 4 ... Vl\fb6 system, has concluded from his experience that 1 5 ... l:!.fe8 is a more reliable con
tinuation.
There are several examples from his practice .
Bll:
15
16 l::lf3 �b4
�xd3!
A significant improvement on the
game Chandler-Gufeld, Dortmund 1983, where there followed 16 ... g6
1 7 �h6 f5 1 8 exf5 exf5 19 l:th3 .l:tf7 20 �d4 lLJ:ffl (20 ... 'ifc6 21 't!Vxg6!+
�:ffl 22 Jl.fl !?) 21 ..txf5 ! ± . 17 cxd3
Nunn gives an interesting analy
sis: 1 7 .l:.h3 ! h6 1 8 cxd3 .l:tfe8 19 lLl d5 ! exd5 20 .td4 ..txg5! (20 ... lLle5
2 1 gxh6 g6 22 h7+ and 23 fxe5) 21 .txg7! (21 fxg5? lLle5 !i= ) 2l...'itxg7 22 fxg5 l:te6 23 gxh6+ 'ith8 24 'ti'xf7 .l!g6+! 00 .
w
17 l:lfe8 (D)
Black intends to respond 1 8 ... lLJ:ffl if White plays 18 l::lh3.
Now instead of entering 18 llefl?! g6 1 9 'iWh6 ..t:ffl 20 'it'h4
Now instead of entering 18 llefl?! g6 1 9 'iWh6 ..t:ffl 20 'it'h4