1 d4 d6 2 c4 g6
2 .. .fS 3 ll'lc3 ll'lf6 is covered in Game 2S. This leaves two others:
a) 2 ... eS is not unusual these days. White has a few choices, the least interesting being to trade queens (3 dxeS dxeS 4 "ii'xd8+), while after 3 ll'lf3 e4 4 ll'lgS f S Black tends to have more fun than White. Consequently many players settle for the space advantage that results from 3 ll'lc3:
al) 3 ... exd4 4 "ii'xd4 ll'lc6 S 'ii'dl g6 6 e4 i.g7 7 i.d3 leads to 'a2 1', below.
a2) 3 ... ll'lf6 is the Old Indian Defence. Ei ther Black is content with a rather passive game in the lines with ... i.e7 or the intention
is to transpose to the KID. 3 ... eS 4 e4!? and
now:
a2 1) 4 ... exd4 S "it'xd4 and thanks to the grip on dS White enjoys a space advantage. Sample set ups: S ... ll'lc6 6 "ii'dl g6 7 i.d3!? i.g7 8 ll'lge2 0-0 (8 ... ll'leS 9 b3) 9 i.c2, and 6 ... i.e6!? 7 ll'lf3 g6 (7 ... tl'ieS?! 8 ll'ld4) 8 h3 i.g7 9 i.e3 0-0 10 i.e2 ll'ld7 (10 ... tl'ieS 1 1 tl'id2) 1 1 0-0
l.Sokolov-Marin, European Team Ch.
(6 ... i.g7? 7 eS dxeS 8 'ii'xd8+ <it>xd8 9 tl'idS ll'lbd7 10 0-0-0 <it>e8 1 1 ll'lxc7+ was embar rassing in Guliev-Filip, Hollabrunn 1998) 7 "it'd2 i.g7 8 f3 0-0 9 ll'lh3 l:te8 10 ll'lf2 ll'lcS 1 1 i.e2 a6 12 l:tdl i.d7 13 0-0 with an edge for White, Douven-Speelman, Dutch League 1994.
a22) 4 ... ll'lbd7 f4!?. Once again this aggres sive move cuts across Black's plans. Then S ... exd4 does nothing to exploit White's queen after 6 'ii'xd4 i.e7 7 ll'lf3 0-0 8 i.e2 c6 9 i.e3. Instead Flear-Anic, Montpellier 2000 continued S ... i.e7 6 ll'lf3 c6 7 i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 exd4 9 ll'lxd4 tl'icS 10 i.f3 "ii'b6 1 1 l:tbl a5 1 2 i.e3 l:te8
It is understandable that Black wants to exert pressure on White's centre, but now White went on the offensive with 13 ll'lb3! when Black was the one with problems on the gl-a7 diagonal.
3 l2Jc3 .i.g7 4 e4 liJc6
The most aggressive. Others:
a) 4 ... ll'ld7 aims to reach a King's Indian Defence on Black's terms. However, rather than the accommodating S ll'lf3 eS, when Black can choose e7, f6 or even h6 for the
g8-knight, I recommend the uncompromis ing S f4:
al) S ... cS is quite rare. 6 dS i.xc3+ 7 bxc3 li:Jgf6 8 i.d3 'if aS 9 'ii'b3 bS 10 cxbS a6 1 1 b6! li:Jxb6 1 2 'ii'a3 'ii'xa3 13 i.xa3 c4 14 i.c2 i.d7 lS <.iid2 with an edge for White in Hiibner-Spassky, Bundesliga 1981.
a2) 5 ... eS 6 fxeS dxe5 7 dS
This is how the game normally continues because Black then has the cS-square at his disposal. Now we have another branch since Black has tried two ways of developing.
a21) 7 ... li:Jgf6 8 i.e2 0-0 and now 9 li:Jh3! is a nice move. First Black is denied the pos sibility of sending a knight to f4 as the hS square is covered, but there is also li:Jh3-f2 coming, when White increases the protection of the e4-pawn, defends g4 and prepares to hit the e5-pawn and contest the cS-square with N(f2)-d3. Add to this the unobstructed rook on fl (after 0-0) and this is an effective way of meeting ... li:Jgf6. Cifuentes-Bosboom,
Wijk aan Zee 199 1 went 9 ... li:Je8 10 O-O aS 1 1
i.g5 i.f6 12 i.e3 i.e7 13 li:Ja4 b6 14 li:Jf2 with the better game for White. This im proved to a decisive advantage after 14 .. .fS? 15 d6! .
a22) 7 ... li:Jh6 8 li:Jf3 0-0 9 i.e2 f6 (9 .. .fS?! is too eager, as was demonstrated in Adorjan J .Kristiansen, Esbjerg 1986: 10 i.gS li:Jf6 1 1 0-0 li:Jf7 12 i.h4 'if e7 13 exf5! gxfS 14 �hl i.d7 15 'iib3 and White stood better across the board) 10 h3 li:Jf7 and now Vaiser-
O th er D e fe n c e s
Todorcevic, French League 1994 illustrated how White can contain Black on the kingside and expand on the other flank: 1 1 g4!? b6 12 i.e3 li:Jc5 13 b4 li:Jb7 14 cS! a5 15 a3
Black is in danger of getting pushed off the board. In the game Black broke out with 15 .. .fS 16 gxf5 gxfS but White retained his lead after 17 l:tgl!? <iiih8 18 l:tcl axb4 19 axb4 bxcS 20 bxc5 i.h6 21 'iid2 i.xe3 22 'iixe3 etc.
b) 4 ... c6 can also be met with 5 f4!?. Then automatic play leaves Black too cramped, so theory's recommendation is to hit the d4- pawn with 5 ... 'ii'b6, when 6 es is interesting.
b l) 6 ... dxe5 7 cS! 'iid8 8 fxeS f6 9 exf6 li:Jxf6 10 i.e2 favoured White in Grigorian Nikolaevsky, USSR Ch. 1971. Black tried
10 ... eS?! but his situation worsened after 1 1 dxeS 'iixdl+ 1 2 i.xdl li:Jfd7 1 3 li:Je4 li:Jxe5
14 li:Jd6+ <iiid7 15 i.e2.
b2) 6 ... li:Jh6 makes sense, when 7 li:Jf3
i.g4 is unclear according to ECO. Instead
Koch-Alber, Schoeneck 1988 witnessed an imaginative idea from White: 7 h3!? li:Jf5 8 li:Jf3 li:Jg3 9 l:tgl li:Ja6 10 <iiif2!? li:Jxfl 1 1
l:txfl 0-0 1 2 <iiigl and White had succeeded
in castling 'by hand' with his impressive pawn centre still intact! There followed 12 ... dxeS 13 fxe5 i.e6 14 b3 l:tad8 15 'it'e2 l:td7 16 i.e3 'iiaS 17 li:Je4 with a balanced game. If White can maintain the broad pawn centre in this way then 7 h3 gets the nod over the usual 7 li:Jf3.
c) 4 ... eS is not too popular at any level, mainly because White is able to force an ad vantageous queenless middlegame in which Black is reduced to defending. Consequently, rather than let Black get away with not hav ing to prepare ... e7-eS, I suggest the spoiler S dxeS dxeS (S ... .li.xeS?! loses time, e.g. 6 lt:Jf3 .li.g7 7 .Ii.gs etc.) 6 'it'xd8+ 'it>xd8 7 f4!
This is the only move to trouble Black, and certainly the move that tends to dissuade most people from actually playing this varia tion in the first place. It is true that White might end up with an isolated e-pawn, but this is a small price to pay for an effective initiative. Let us briefly investigate how play might proceed from the diagram position.
cl) 7 ... .li.e6 8 lt:Jf3 lt:Jd7 9 .li.e2 lt:Je7 10 0-0 cl 1) 10 ... c6?! protects dS but neglects d6. Cebalo-Marangunic, Croatia 199S continued 1 1 .li.e3 'it>e8 12 .l:t.ad1 h6 13 h3 exf4 14 .txf4 gS lS .td6! lt:Jc8 16 .li.g3 lt:Je7 17 lt:Jd4!? .li.xd4+ 18 .l:t.xd4 lt:Jg6 19 lt:JdS!. It is impor tant to remember that the absence of queens does not preclude aggressive play. The dia gram position is typical of White's initiative in this line. Black's hopes of dancing around with the knights are dashed. 19 ... cxdS 20 exdS lt:Jdf8 2 1 .l:t.e4! 'it>e7 22 cS! (threatening to lodge the bishop on d6) 22 ... lt:Jf4 23 .li.xf4
gxf4 24 .l:t.fxf4 .l:t.c8 2S b4 a5 26 .li.hS! .l:t.h7
(26 ... axb4 27 .l:t.xf7+ 'it>d8 28 dxe6) 27 dxe6 lt:Jxe6 28 a3 and White was winning.
c12) 10 ... h6 is the 'book' move, after
which 1 1 .l:t.dl! causes a few problems. Suba Azmaiparashvili, Reykjavik 1990 went 1 1...exf4 12 .li.xf4 gS 13 .tg3 lt:Jg6 14 .l:t.d2 c6 lS lt:Jd4 .li.xd4+ 16 .l:t.xd4 �e7 17 .li.d6+ �f6 18 .l:t.fl+ �g7 19 cS! b6 20 cxb6 axb6 21 a3 lt:JdeS 22 .l:t.b4! bS 23 .l:t.dl .l:t.hc8 24 a4 bxa4 2S lt:Jxa4 and White was still on top.
c2) 7 ... lt:Jd7 8 lt:Jf3 c6 9 .li.e2 f6 10 0-0 lt:Jh6?! (10 ... �e8 1 1 g3 lt:Jh6 12 �g2 lt:Jf7 13 ii.e3 .tf8 14 .l:t.adl b6 lS a3 .li.e7 16 lt:Jel .Ii.cs 17 lt:Jc2 .li.xe3 18 lt:Jxe3 hS 19 b4 is slightly better for White according to ECO)
1 1 fxeS lt:JxeS 12 lLixeS fxeS 13 b4!? .li.e6 14 bS lt:Jf7 (14 ... 'it>c7 lS bxc6 bxc6 16 lt:Ja4! and cS beckons) lS .tg4!.
We are following Crouch-Norwood, Brit ish League 1998. Black is in big trouble, e.g. 1S ... .li.xc4 16 .l:t.d1+ �e7 17 bxc6 bxc6 18 .li.a3+ �f6 (18 ... cS 19 .li.xcS+ �f6 20 .l:t.fl+! .li.xfl 21 .l:t.xf1+ 'it>gS 22 .l:t.xf7 'it>xg4 23 .l:t.xg7 .l:t.ac8 24 .li.b4 .l:t.c4 2S a3) 19 .l:t.fl+ .txf1 (19 ... 'it>gS 20 .li.e2 .li.xe2 21 .l:t.xf7) 20 .l:t.xfl+ <it'gs 21 .li.e2! .l:t.hf8 (21...lt:Jh6 22 ii.el+) 22 .Ii.cl+ 'it>h4 23 .l:t.f3 lLigS 24 .l:t.g3 (Speelman and McDonald). Instead the game went 1S ... .li.xg4 16 .l:t.xf7 .tf8 17 .Ii.gs+ 'it>c8 18 .li.e7! .li.h6 {18 ... .li.xe7 19 .l:t.xe7 and Black is tied up) 19 .li.d6 .li.e3+ 20 'it>hl .li.b6 21 cS .li.aS 22 .li.xeS .l:t.e8 23 .tf6 .txc3 24 .li.xc3 cxbS 2S .l:t.xh7 a5 26 .l:t.fl .li.e6 27 .Ii.es .li.c4 28 c6! bxc6 29 .l:t.c7+ 'it>d8 30 .l:t.d1+ .tds 3 1 .li.g3! 1-0 (3 1....l:t.xe4 3 2 .l:t.xc6).
c3 1) 8 ... ..tg4 9 fxeS and now Atalik gives 9 ... llJxeS 10 ..te2!? llJxf3+ (10 ... ..te6 1 1 lLigS) 1 1 gxf3 ..te6 12 ..tgS+!? ..tf6 (12 .. .f6 13 0-0-0+ 'it>c8 14 i..e3) 13 0-0-0+ followed by 14 h4 (whichever way the king goes) with the usual pull for White. Against 9 ... ..txf3 10 gxf3 ..txeS Atalik proposes the sensible 1 1 i..e3, when after 0-0-0( + ) White's bishops guarantee a comfortable game.
c32) 8 ... lLid4!? 9 'it>f2 when White has the better chances, e.g. 9 ... llJxf3 10 gxf3 c6 1 1 ..te3 f6 1 2 l:tdl+ 'it>e8 1 3 h4! ..th6 14 lLie2 lLie7 15 fxeS ..txe3+ 16 'it>xe3 fxeS 17 lLicl ! 'it>f7 18 l:td6 l:te8 1 9 hS, Gorbatow-Nannelli, Porto San Giorgio 2000, or 9 ... exf4 10 ..txf4 lLie6 1 1 ..tg3!? i..d7 12 l:tdl 'it>c8 13 ..td3 lLie7 14 llJdS!
Sadler-Ehlvest, FIDE World Ch, Gronin gen 1997. Now 14 ... llJxdS 15 cxdS llJcS 16 b4 lLixd3+ 17 l:txd3 leaves White free to come to the c-file, so Ehlvest played 14 ... l:te8, when 15 eS llJcS (15 ... c6 16 lLif6) 16 lLif6 i..xf6 17 exf6 was not easy for Black.
5 d5 li:Jd4
The provocative 5 ... llJeS loses time and helps White broaden his centre after 6 f4 llJd7 7 llJf 3 etc.
6 iLe3 c5
6 ... eS?! 7 lLige2 lLixe2 8 ..txe2 wastes valu able time and therefore gives White a souped
up KID, e.g. 8 ... lLif6 9 0-0 0-0 10 b4! lLie8 1 1
cS fS 1 2 f3.
7 li:Jge2
Oth er Defences
By far the most popular and part of the grand plan - if Black gets his way. Both al ternatives benefit only White.
7 . . . 'ii'b6
a) 7 ... eS 8 dxe6 lLixe6 9 'ifd2 lLif6 10 f3
0-0 1 1 0-0-0 and Black lacked the usual KID
attacking chances that go with the weak nesses on dS and d6, Crouch-Ruotanen, Jy vaskyla 199 1.
b) 7 ... lLixe2?! is hardly in the spirit of the
variation. 8 ..txe2 lLif6 9 0-0 0-0 10 °ii'd2 l:te8
1 1 ..tgS a6 12 f4 Shneider-Petran, Cappelle la Grande 1992. White's kingside offensive is already happening.
8 'ii'd2
Just as sound as the main line, the text avoids the complexities that Black is hoping for from the offset, namely 8 lLia4 'ifaS+ 9 ..td2 'ii'a6 (or 8 lLixd4 cxd4 9 lLia4 'iiaS+ 10 ..td2 'ii'c7 etc.). Moreover after 8 'ii'd2 Black has an unpleasant choice between attempting dubious complications or settling for a rather passive middlegame.
8 . . . ..lld7
a) 8 ... ..tg4? 9 f3! is an inferior version of the main game for Black after 9 ... ..td7 since 9 ... ..txf3? seems to lose: 10 lLia4! 'ii'a6 (10 ... °ii'b4 1 1 lLixd4 °ii'xd2+ 12 ..txd2) 1 1 lLixd4 cxd4 1 2 ..txd4 ..txd4 1 3 'iixd4 and now Timman-Suttles, Hastings 1973 went 13 ... llJf6 14 cS 'if aS+ 15 llJc3 dxcS 16 'if eS ..tg4 17 d6. Speelman gives the following: 13 ... °ii'xa4 14 'ii'xh8 'ii'b4+ 15 'it>f2 ..txe4 16
'ifxg8+ �d7 17 'i'g7! 'i'b6+ and now 18 �e2 f6 19 b3 'ifd4 20 :dt 'ifeS 21 :d3! is the simplest of his suggestions, when Black is running out of steam.
b) The stubborn 8 ... eS meets with 9 dxe6: bl) 9 ... .ixe6 10 :dt, when 10 ... lLixe2 1 1 .ixe2 :ds 1 2 0-0 ltJe7 1 3 .igS! Sobek Petran, Czech League 1992 is awkward for Black, while 10 ... lLic6 1 1 ltJbS 0-0-0 12 lLiec3 ltJf6 13 f3 ltJe8 14 ltJdS was clearly better for White in Ivkov-Suttles, Sousse Interzonal 1967.
b2) 9 ... fxe6 10 0-0-0 eS cements the knight on d4 but, unfortunately, leaves a gaping hole on dS. 1 1 ltJdS 'i'd8 favoured White in Mi naya-Suttles, Havana Olympiad 1966.
c) 8 .. .fS?! is an interesting, albeit suspect, try for complications. It is quite safe for White to castle long here: 9 0-0-0 ltJxe2+ 10 i.xe2 lLif6 1 1 exfS i.xfS 12 i.h6! i.xh6 13 'i&'xh6 0-0-0 14 :hel :hf8
Ivkov-Hiibner, West Germany 1975. Now White could have got the most from some accurate play with 15 i.fl!, denying Black counterplay by keeping the c4-pawn de fended. Returning to Black's 10th move, Speelman suggests 10 ... fxe4 but goes on to point out that after both 1 1 lLixe4 lLif6 12 ltJc3 .ifs (12 ... h6 13 i.d3) 13 i.h6 and 1 1....ifS 12 ltJc3 ltJf6 13 i.h6 we find our selves in Ivkov's position anyway!
d) 8 ... lLif6 is the best of Black's 8th move options, leaving d7 free for the knight. This
time White should avoid 9 lLixd4?! in favour of the far superior 9 f3 0-0 10 l:.dl ltJd7 1 1 b3 !. White ungenerously rules out any funny business related to the capture on d4, culmi nating in forcing Black to acquiesce to 1 1...lLixe2 12 i.xe2, when three moves have been tried:
dl) 12 ... ltJeS 13 0-0 'i&'aS (threatening a nasty discovery on the long diagonal) 14 :c 1 a6 15 a4 :bs 16 f4 ltJg4 17 i.xg4 .ixg4 18 fS!, Ikonnikov-Emmerich, Wiesbaden 2000 (White's same reaction to the new arrival on g4 can also be seen in Summerscale Mannion, Game 27). 18 ... gxfS 19 exfS f6 20
'iff2 i.hS 21 'i'h4 i.e8 22 :f3! l:.f7 23 lLie2
i.d7 24 'i'hS :ffs 25 ltJf 4 bS 26 axbS axbS 27 lLie6 bxc4 28 bxc4 1-0.
d2) 12 .. .fS?! 13 exfS gxfS and now Speel
man offers 14 i.h6 with the line 14 ... l:.f7 15 0-0 lLieS 16 i.xg7 :xg7 17 f4 lLig6 18 i.hS resulting in a structural superiority for White. d3) 12 ... 'ifaS is best. 13 :ct a6 14 i.h6 :bs was played in King-Markgraf, Germany 1997. After 15 h4 i.xh6 16 'ifxh6 :es 17 hS lLif8 18 �f2 bs 19 eS!? dxeS 20 hxg6 fxg6 21 lLie4 White's attack looked the more danger ous. Speelman suggests that Black invest a tempo in 13 ... :es in order to meet 14 i.h6 with 14 ... i.hS.
9 �b1 ! ?
The simple 9 :dt is also good enough for an advantage. After 9 ... lLixe2 10 i.xe2 a6 1 1 0-0 'i&'aS 12 f4! bS 1 3 eS Black faced a mighty
pawn roller in A.Ivanov-Kakageldyev, Sim feropol 1989.
9 . . . a5
The idea behind 9 I:.b 1 was demonstrated in Y akovich-Pinheiro, Santo Antonio 1999. Black hit out with 9 .. .f5 only to see White ignore him and respond with the more pow erful 10 b4!. Now 10 .. .f4 1 1 tl:ixf4 cxb4 12 tl:ice2 tl:ixe2 13 i.xb6 i.c3 14 �xe2! i.xd2 15 i.d4 wins for White, so Black once again was reduced to parting with the showpiece knight under unfavourable circumstances: 10 ... tl:ixe2 1 1 i.xe2 tl:if6?! (1 1...f4 12 i.xf4
cxb4 13 tl:ib5 tl:if6 14 ..li.e3 'iid8 is far from
ideal for Black) 12 bxc5 tl:ixe4 13 I:.xb6 tl:ixd2 14 l:txb7 tl:ixc4 (14 ... i.c8 15 l:txe7+! �xe7 16 cxd6+ �xd6 17 c5+ �el 18 �xd2) 15 .txc4 i.xc3+ 16 �e2 dxc5 17 i.xc5 and White soon converted his initiative.
1 0 l:l.d1
White's brief stop on the way to dl has lured Black's a-pawn forward, thus taking some of the sting out of Black's thematic queenside expansion involving ... a7-a6, ... b7- b5 etc.
1 o . . . ttJxe2 1 1 i.xe2 lLif6 1 2 h3 0-0 1 3 0-0 a4 1 4 :b1
Entertaining the plan of b2-b4 as well as protecting the b2-pawn in preparation forthe coming i.h6. Black is struggling to latch on to a reasonable plan.
1 4 .. . 'ifa5 1 5 i.h6 ltJe8 1 6 i..xg7 �xg7 1 7 f4
White's game is easy to conduct, the king side pawns begging to be pushed. Mean while, Black rushes to generate something on the queenside.
1 7 .. . ltJc7 1 8 e5 b5
Now both sides are on the offensive, but Black has the traditional problem that, by definition, his queenside attack is less menac ing than the charge aimed at his king's de fences.
19 cxb5 .i.xb5 20 exd6 exd6 21 i.xb5 ltJxb5 22 f5!
With White's queen just one step away
O th er D e fen c e s
from h6 the threat of 23 f6+ is enough to force a concession from Black.
22 . . .f6
Black does not have time for 22 ... 'ji'b4? in view of 23 f6+ �h8 24 'ji'h6 I:.g8 25 l:tf4. The text creates a hole on e6, for which White now takes aim.
23 fxg6 hxg6 24 :be1 :t1
24 ... l'.:.ae8? 25 l:txe8 l:txe8 26 'iif4.
25 :e6?!
25 :f4! tl:id4 26 l:th4 g5 27 li:he4 looks good.
25 . . . :af8?!
As is often the case both players are too busy acting out their respective roles of at tacker and def ender to be on the lookout for positive alternatives for Black. 25 ... a3! dis tracts White.
26 'i'd3! ltJxc3 27 bxc3 :d7 28 c4 'i'd8 29 'ifa3!
Black's weaknesses on a4, d6, f6 and - ul timately - g6 cannot be adequately protected.
29 . . . l:l.a7 30 'i'g3 :d7 3 1 h4! :e7 32 h5 :xe6
32 ... g5 33 li:fxf6!.
33 'i'xg6+ �h8 34 'i'h6+ 'ito'g8 35 dxe6 1 -0
Game
JOPribyl-Vokac