Redes de comunicación

Whether Black supports the dS-pawn with 2 ... e6 or 2 ... c6, I am recommending that White continues consistently with 3 lLlc3. The Queen's Gambit Declined can be a

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lt:ic3 lt:if6

tough nut to crack and Black has a number of versatile systems designed to steer the game to an old-style equality. In recent years the Exchange Variation has become an at­ tack oriented weapon, particularly the more versatile version characterised by White's holding back the gl-knight. Consequently 3 tlJc3 fits in well here, and Game 7 illustrates how both the use of the e2-square for the knight and the f3-square for the pawn com­ bine to pose Black more problems than the automatic lLlf3. The T arrasch Defence, fea­ tured in Game 8, requires White to adopt a kingside fianchetto in the quest for an advan­ tage, after which Black's isolated dS-pawn becomes the focus of attention. Black's best results in the uncompromising Marshall Gambit (Game 9) tend to come against the less well prepared, and with uninhibited play White has no shortage of activity for his pieces. Finally, for the super-solid Slav (Game 10) it is worth delving into the past for a line that is sound and offers White chances to reach positions in which Black is not without certain problems.

An alternative here is 3 ... i.e7.

This was reasonably popular for a while. Clearly Black wants to prevent i.gS, but the f 4-square is also fine for the bishop. 4 cxdS exdS 5 i.f4 and now Black's options involve the c-pawn.

a) 5 ... lLlf6 6 e3

al) 6 ... i.fS 7 lLlge2 0-0 8 lLlg3 i.e6 (8 ... i.g6 9 h4 h6 10 hS i.h7 1 1 i.d3 i.xd3 12 'i'xd3 cS 13 0-0-0 with an edge for White in Chekhov-Zaitsev, Protvino 1988) 9 i.d3

cS 10 dxcS i..xcS 1 1 0-0 lllc6 12 l::tcl d4 13 ll:lbS i..b6 14 e4 was a shade better for White in Lautier-Marciano, French League 1999.

a2) 6 ... 0-0 7 i..d3 cS 8 ll:lf3 lllc6 9 0-0

a2 1) 9 ... �g4 10 dxcS i..xcS 1 1 h3 and now two games of V.Milov show how to handle the white pieces. 1 1...i..xf3 12 'if xf3 d4 13 ll:le4 i..e7 14 l::tfdl 'ii'b6 15 ll:lg3 l::tfe8 16 ll:lfS dxe3 17 i..xe3 i..cS? 18 lllxg7! i..xe3 (18 ... �xg7 19 �h6+) 19 'ifxf6 l::teS 20 lllfs i..xf2+ 21 �h t l::txfs 22 'ifxfs i..d4 23 l::tfl 'ii'c7 24 'ifxh7+ �f8 25 i..c4 llld8 1-0, V.Milov-Toth, Liechtenstein 1996. In V.Milov-Knoppert, Tilburg 1994, Black in­ stead played 1 1...i..hS?!, but after 12 g4! i..g6 13 i..xg6 hxg6 14 gS d4 White could have played 15 ll:la4! for a safe win of the d4- pawn.

a22) 9 ... c4 10 i..c2 i..g4 (10 ... ll:lhS 1 1 i..eS f6 12 ll:lgS! g6 13 lllxh7 fxeS 14 lllxf8 i..xf8 15 dxeS i..e6 16 i..xg6 ll:lg7 17 f4 with a 5-0 kingside pawn majority, H.Olafsson­ Einarsson, Reykjavik 1988) 1 1 h3 i..hS 12 g4 i..g6 13 ll:leS looked nice for White in Vyz­ manavin-G. Timoshenko, Irkutsk 1986.

b) 5 ... c6 6 e3 i..fS 7 g4. Here we see a typi­ cal battle of wills, as Black is ready for the advance of White's pawn(s) yet White is ea­ ger to push, too. Theory prefers White, as the following examples suggest.

bl) 7 ... �g6 8 h4!

b 1 1) 8 ... i..xh4?! allows 9 'ii'b3 b6 10 l::txh4! 'ii'xh4 1 1 lllxdS, e.g. 1 1...llla6 12 'ifa4.

b 12) 8 ... hs 9 gS i..d6 10 lllge2 llla6 1 1 i..xd6 'ifxd6 soon cleared off into an ending in Karpov-Portisch, Linares 1989: 12 lllf4 ll\c7 13 i..e2 'ii'b4 14 'ifd2 llle7 15 i..f3 llle6 16 lllce2 lllxf4 17 lllxf4 'ifxd2+ 18 �xd2 i..e4 19 i..xe4 dxe4 20 l::tacl 0-0-0 21 l::tcS! lllds 22 lllxdS l::txdS 23 l::thcl l::thd8 24 b4 �c7 25 �e2! a6 26 f3 exf3+ 27 �xf3 and White had an edge which was eventually converted.

b 13) 8 ... h6 9 lllf3 ll:ld7 10 i..d3 i..xd3 1 1 'ii'xd3 lllgf6 12 l::tgl 'if aS was played in Knaak-Raicevic, Athens 1992. After shadow­ boxing with 13 llld2 lllf8 14 f3 ll:le6 15 i..eS 'if d8 16 l::thl i..d6 White finally castled: 17 0-0-0 i..xeS 18 dxeS llld7 19 f4 llldcS 20 'ii'c2 with an interesting game in prospect.

b2) 7 ... i..e6 8 h4!?

b21) 8 ... i..xh4 9 'ii'b3 b6 (9 ... gS 10 i..h2! i..xg4? 1 1 'ii'xb7 'ii'e7 12 'ii'xa8 'ii'xe3+ 13 i..e2 'ifxf2+ 14 �d2 and Black soon ran out of steam in Vaiser-Diaz, Havana 1985) 10 lllf3 i..e7 1 1 llles lllf6?! (1 1...i..d6!? 12 i..d3 ll:le7 with a pawn to compensate for Black's passive position) 12 gS lllfd7 13 g6 lllxeS 14 i..xeS i..f6! (14 ... fxg6 15 i..xg7 l::tg8 16 l::txh7) 15 l::txh7 0-0!

We are following Gulko-Lputian, Glen­ dale 1994. It is not often that we see castling when an enemy piece is so close to g8! 16 i..g3 fxg6 (after 16 ... i..fS 17 0-0-0 i..xg6 18 l::th2 White is ready to double on the h-file) 17 l::th2 �f7! 18 0-0-0, and now 18 ... ll:ld7! 19

Q u e en 's G a m b i t D e c lin e d a n d Sla v D e fe n c e s

e4 i.e7 would have left Black only slightly worse. Instead 18 ... l:th8?! 19 l:txh8 'ii'xh8 20 e4! was clearly better for White.

b22) 8 ... i.d6. White has gained a tempo here compared with the Exchange Variation in which the bishop arrives on f4 via gS. 9 ltJh3 ltJe7 10 i.d3 h6 1 1 'i'f3!? ltJg6 12 .txd6 'ii'xd6 13 ltJf4!? ltJxf4 14 exf4 f6 15 0-0-0 was a demonstration of direct, aggres­ sive play from White in Y akovich-Arlandi, Valle d'Aosta 2000.

b23) 8 ... cS is a thematic central strike to counter the flank attack. Then Dautov­ Lputian, Istanbul Olympiad 2000, saw a new idea from White: 9 i.eS!? i.f6 10 i.xb8 l:txb8 11 gS i.e7 12 i.g2 h6 13 ltJge2 hxgS 14 hxgS l:txh l+ 15 i.xh l i.xgS 16 'ii'a4+ and White emerged from the experiment with the superior position.

4 cxd5 exd5

4 ... ltJxdS leads to the Semi-Tarrasch after 5 e4 ltJxc3 6 bxc3 cS 7 ltJf3. Black has two moves after 7 ... cxd4 8 cxd4

a) 8 ... ltJc6 9 i.c4 and now 9 ... bS (hoping for 10 i.xbS?? 'i'aS+; 9 ... i.b4+ leads to 'b', below) 10 i.e2 i.b4+ 1 1 i.d2 leaves the bS­ pawn looking oddly placed. Bacrot­ Korchnoi, Albert (match) 1997, is a good illustration of how White should use the d­ pawn: 1 1...i.xd2+ 12 'i'xd2 l:tb8 13 dS! exdS 14 exdS ltJe7 (14 ... ltJaS 15 'ii'e3+ 'i'e7 16 'i'c3 'i'f6 17 i.xbS+!) 15 d6 ltJfS 16 l:tdl. Now 16 ... i.d7 17 g4! piles on the pressure,

with 17 ... ltJh4 18 'ii'e3+ winning for White after either 18 ... i.e6 19 d7+ �f8 (19 ... 'i'xd7 20 ltJxh4) 20 'i'cS+ �g8 21 'ii'xa7 (threaten­ ing 22 'i'xb8!), or 18 ... �f8 19 'i'e7+, when White picks up the knight. The alternative 17 ... ltJh6 leaves Black's forces embarrassingly situated after 18 'i'e3+ �f8 19 h3 etc.

Korchnoi tried 16 ... 0-0, when 17 d7! i.b7 (17 ... i.a6 18 0-0) 18 0-0 'i'f6 19 'i'f4 a6 20 g4! prepared to take the game into the next phase with a crippling exchange on f6.

b) 8 ... i.b4+ 9 i.d2 i.xd2+ (9 ... 'i'aS 10 l:tbl i.xd2+ 1 1 'i'xd2 'i'xd2+ 12 �xd2 helps White) 10 'i'xd2 0-0 1 1 i.c4 ltJc6 12 0-0 with a couple of sample lines:

bl) 12 ... b6 13 l:tadl i.b7 14 l:tfel l:tc8 15 dS ltJaS 16 i.d3 exdS 17 eS!

White has good attacking prospects. 17 ... ltJc4 18 'i'f4 ltJb2? fails to 19 i.xh7+! �xh7 20 ltJgS+ �g6 (20 ... �g8 21 'ii'h4 l:te8 22 'ii'h7+ �f8 23 e6 is final) 21 h4 l:tc4 22 hS+ �xhS 23 g4+ �h6 24 'ii'h2+ 1-0 Avrukh­ Donk, Lost Boys 1998, or 21...ltJxdl 22 h5+ �h6 23 ltJe6+ �h7 24 ltJxd8 l:tcxd8 25 l:txdl l:tde8 26 'ii'fS+ �g8 27 'ii'd7 i.a8 28 f4 l:td8 29 'i'xa7 d4 30 'ii'xb6 d3 31 'i'e3 1-0 D.Gurevich-Massana, New 0York 1985. In Khenkin-Straeter, Recklinghausen 1996, White set his kingside pawns rolling after 17 ... l:tc6 18 ltJd4 l:th6, when 19 f4 ltJc6 20 ltJfS l:te6 21 ltJd6 l:txd6 22 exd6 'i'xd6 23 �hl l:td8 24 'ii'e3 g6 25 fS!? �g7 26 l:tfl kept up the pressure.

b2) 12 ... eS 13 dS ltJaS alters the pawn structure. Then 14 ltJxe5 l:te8 15 'it'd4 l:txe5 16 'ifxeS ltJxc4 17 'it'd4 bS!? 18 a4 ttJd6 is far from clear. I prefer 14 l:tacl f6 15 'ifb4 b6 16

i.e2 ttJb7 17 ttJd2 ltJcS 18 ttJb3 a5 19 'it'c4

i.a6 20 'if c2 (White's queen is busy but it is the dS-pawn that counts here) 20 ... ttJxb3 21 axb3 l:tc8 22 'ifd2 i.xe2 23 'ifxe2 with an advantage to White according to Alterman.

5 ..ltg5 c6

5 ... i.b4 6 e3 h6 7 i.h4 0-0 8 i.d3 cS 9 ttJge2 highlights an advantage of keeping the knight on gl, as now its partner is offered useful support. The same can be said after the insistent 7 ... gS 8 i.g3 ltJe4, e.g. 9 ltJge2 ttJc6 10 a3 i.xc3+ 1 1 ttJxc3 ltJxc3 12 bxc3 i.fs 13 h4 g4 14 c4 'it'd7 15 i.e2 hS 16 0-0, Mirzoev-Bayramov, Baku Cup 1999.

6 'ifc2

Preventing ... i.fS.

6 . . . �e7

Also seen are the following:

a) 6 ... g6 7 e3 i.fS 8 'ii'b3 b6 9 f3 i.e7 10 g4 i.e6 1 1 i.h6 i.f8 12 i.xf8 �xf8 13 ttJge2 'ii'd6 14 ttJf4 ttJbd7 15 0-0-0, Alter­ man-Parker, London Lloyds Bank 1994, is exactly what White is looking for.

b) 6 ... ttJa6 7 a3 ttJc7 8 e3 ttJe6 9 i.h4 i.e7 10 i.d3 g6 11 ttJge2 ttJg7 12 f3! 0-0 13 0-0 with the usual pull for White in view of the constant threat of e3-e4, Kruppa­ Faibisovich, Chigorin Memorial 1999.

7 e3 lt:lbd7 8 �d3 0-0

Black has also traded bishops here: 8 ... tiJhS 9 i.xe7 'ifxe7 10 ltJge2 g6 1 1 0-0-0 ttJb6 12 ltJg3 ltJg7!. Kasparov-Andersson, Reykjavik 1988, continued 13 �b l i.d7 14 l:tc l 0-0-0 15 ltJa4 ttJxa4 16 'ii'xa4 �b8 17 l:tc3 b6 18 i.a6, while Timman-Short, FIDE Candidates (match) 1993, saw 18 l:ta3, with an interesting struggle ahead in both cases.

9 lt:lge2 .l:.eS 1 0 0-0

Natural and the most popular, but not the only choice.

a) Even if castling short is the plan it is possible to keep Black guessing here with 10

f3.

al) With 10 ... cS Black immediately chal­ lenges the centre now that e3 is less secure, although the advance of the c-pawn does leave dS weaker. After 1 1 0-0 Black can ei­ ther take on d4 or maintain the tension. l l...cxd4 12 ttJxd4 ttJf8 13 l:tadl h6 14 i.h4 a6 15 �h 1 gave White a pleasant edge in P.Varga-Remling, Budapest 1994. The iso­ lated d-pawn and White's more harmonious development more than make up for the e3- pawn.

Reinderman-V an der Sterren, Dutch Ch. 1998, continued l l...b6 12 l:tadl i.b7 and now White elected to play against the hang­ ing pawns after 13 dxcS bxcS 14 i.bS

White's bishops attack the defending knights and therefore exert considerable pressure on Black's centre pawns. Black traded in one target for another: 14 ... ltJhS 15 i.xe7 'ifxe7 16 ttJxdS i.xdS 17 l:txdS 'if xe3+ 18 l:tf2 ttJhf6, and now 19 l:txd7 ttJxd7 20 i.xd7 l:ted8 21 i.a4 l:td2 22 'ife4 'ifxe4 23 fxe4 l:txb2 24 ttJc3 l:tab8 25 i.b3 l:txf2 26 �xf2 c4 27 i.dl l:tb2+ 28 �f3 offers the better chances to the two pieces. Instead White played 19 l:td3! 'ii'e6 (19 ... 'it'e7 20 ltJg3) 20 ltJg3 l:tab8 21 i.xd7! ttJxd7 22 l:te2 'if c6 23 ttJfS!, when after 23 ... l:txe2 24 'ifxe2 'ifbs 25 'if d2! ttJf6 {25 ... ttJf8 26 ttJe7+ �h8 27 l:td8 c4 28 ltJc8!) 26 'ii'gS {26 l:tb3 'ii'e8 27 ltJxg7!! �xg7 28 'ii'gS+ �f8 29 'ii'xcS+ �g8 30 'it'gS+ �f8 31 l:txb8 'ii'xb8 32 'ii'xf6 is

Q u e en 's G a m b i t D e clin e d a n d Sla v D e fe n c e s

strong) 26 ... llle8 27 .l::tb3 'ii'e2 White should have secured a near decisive lead with 28 lllh6+ 'it>h8 (28 ... 'it>f8 29 'ii'xcS+) 29 lllxf7+ �g8 30 'ifeS! etc.

Returning to the diagram position Black might try 14 ... a6 1S i.a4 .l::tf8!?, withdrawing the rook from the e-file - and in doing so taking his eye off the e3-pawn - in order to unpin the d7-knight. The point of attacking White's bishop first is to hit it again after 16 lllf4 lllb6. However, 17 i.xf6 i.xf6 18 lllfxdS! i.xdS (18 ... tllxdS 19 lllxdS i.xdS 20 'i'xcS) 19 tllxdS lllxa4 20 'ii'xa4 i.xb2 21 'i'c2 is clearly better for White.

a2) 10 ... bS convinces White that queenside castling involves some risk, but of course this is not a problem, and Black's rigid pawn structure is a ready-made target. Cruz Lopez­ Garcia Gomez, Spanish Ch. 1994 is typical,

11 0-0 'ifb6 12 h3 a6 13 a4 b4 14 a5 'ii'd8 lS

ltJa4 resulting in weaknesses for Black on b6, c6 and cS.

a3) 10 ... 'if aS 11 0-0 h6 12 i.h4 cS looked rather loose in Urday-Suarez, Merida 1997. After 13 .l::tadl cxd4 14 lllxd4 tlleS lS i.xf6! i.xf6 16 lllb3 'if d8 17 i.bS the dS-pawn was about to drop.

a4) 10 ... lllf8 transposes to the main game after 1 1 0-0, but White can also play 11 i.h4. Then:

a41) 1 1 ...lllhs 12 i.f2 i.h4 13 g3 i.e7 14 g4 lllf6 lS gS lll6d7 16 h4 gives the game a slightly different flavour to 10 0-0. Byshkovsky-Murugan, Gausdal 1991, saw Black get to work on the queenside, 16 ... bS 17 lllg3 lllb6 18 'it>fl!? i.d6 19 lllfs i.xfS 20 i.xfS lllc4 21 .l::tel producing a situation in which both sides have chances. Note that White's king is not pooFly placed, with g2 a decent square. Meanwhile Black, despite the fact that his king is faced with two advancing enemy pawns, still has a pretty solid position and prospects of counterplay on the queen­ side.

a42) In P.Varga-Gogniat, Ambassador 1998, White did soon castle, following up

with an instructive deployment of his dark­ squared bishop: 1 1 ...lllg6 12 i.f2 i.d6 13 0-0 a6 14 .l::tadl 'if c7 lS 'it>hl!? i.e6 (1S ... i.xh2 16 g3) 16 i.gl

It is tempting, albeit occasionally unwise, to spend time sending a piece to an uncon­ ventional square. However, in this case gl is quite useful - and safe! - because h2 is pro­ tected and, as we shall see, the extra cover offered to the d4-pawn affords White the thematically desirable plan of central expan­ sion. There followed 16 ... .l::tad8 17 e4! dxe4 18 fxe4 and here the hanging pawns are ex­ tremely well supported and consequently troublesome for Black, who is denied the use of the squares cS, dS, eS and fS.

b) White can also play 10 0-0-0

The minor problem here is that Black is not slow in generating an attack, so White tends to switch to positional play on the

queenside! After 10 ... 'ifaS 1 1 'it1b l bS 12 lllg3 Black quickly goes on the offensive but the price is the hole on cS.

bl) 12 ... l:tb8 13 lllce2! {the beginning of an important knight manoeuvre) 13 ... l:tb6 14

lllcl l:ta6 15 lllfS 16 g4!. Now

16 ... lllxg4 17 .l:thgl puts Black in trouble. For example 17 ... lllxh2 runs into 18 lllh6+ gxh6 {18 ... 'it1h8 19 lllxf7+ 'it1g8 20 i..xh7+ �7 21 'ifg6 mate) 19 i..d8+, as does 17 ... lllgf6 - 18 lllh6+ 'it1h8 19 lllxf7+ 'it1g8 20 i..xf6 lllxf6 21 lllgS. Finally 17 ... llldf6 18 h3 h6 19 i..f4 gs 20 i..g3 leaves the knight stranded on g4. Consequently Ward-Fant, Gausdal 1993, continued 16 ... cS 17 i..xf6! gxf6 18 dxcS lllxcS 19 llld4 lllxd3 20 'ifxd3 b4 21 l:thgl i..b7 22 'ifbS! 'ii'xbS 23 lllxbS l:tc8 24 llld4 l:tb6 25 llld3 and Black was severely ham­ pered by the four pawn islands.

b2) 12 ... h6 13 i..xf6 lllxf6 14 lllce2 i..d7 15 lllcl l:tac8 16 lllb3 'ii'b6 17 l:tcl i..e6 18 lllcS favoured White in Ward-Parker, Guild­ ford 1991. After 18 ... llld7 19 lllxe6 fxe6 20 'ife2 lllf6 21 lllhs b4 22 h4 cs 23 lllxf6+ i..xf6 24 g4 c4 25 i..g6 l:ted8 26 gS White's attack had gained the most momentum.

b3) 12 ... lllf8 takes Black's eye off the cS­ square. Shirov-Wedberg, Stockholm 1990, witnessed a wonderful knight manoeuvre: 13 lllce2! 'ii'b6 14 l:tcl i..d7 15 lllfs i..d8 {15 ... i.xfS 16 i..xfS g6 17 i..h3 llle4 18 i..xe7 l:txe7 19 lllf4 is good for White) 16

llleg3 a5 17 i..xf6 i..xf6 18 lllhs 'ii'd8

{18 ... i..xfS 19 lllxf6+ gxf6 20 i..xfS l:ta6 21 h4) 19 llld6! l:te6 20 lllb7 'ii'c7 21 lllcS (very nice) 21...l:td6 22 lllxf6+ l:txf6 23 f3 i..e8 24 e4 and White, having assumed control of the queenside, pressed forward in the centre.

1 0 . . . ll'ifS

Black adopts the standard set up with the knight dropping back to defend the h7-pawn. Now White can play on the queenside with 12 l:tab 1 {preparing b2-b4), for example, but we are going to concentrate on the theme of expansion in the centre {threatened or exe­ cuted) involving an early f2-f3, the possibility

that is a key difference when developing the knight on e2 instead of f3.

10 ... h6 removes the pawn from the firing line of the queen and bishop but restricts Black slightly in that the g6-square is no longer available after 1 1 i..f 4 lllf8. White can continue as per plan with 12 f3, when 12 ... llle6 13 i..eS cS?! is an attempt to justify Black's play that is best replaced with the more solid 13 ... i..d6. S.Ivanov-lgnatiev, Chi­ gorin Memorial 1997, continued 14 l:tadl. Then 14 ... b6 15 i..xf6! i..xf6 16 dxcS lllxcS 17 i..h7+ 'it1h8 18 b4 llla6 19 lllxdS is good for White, e.g. 19 ... g6 20 i..xg6 fxg6 21 'if xg6 i..g7 {2 1...i..gS 22 lllc7) 22 lllxb6! etc. In­ stead Black played 14 ... c4 15 i..fS lllf8?! {15 ... a6 16 e4 dxe4 17 fxe4 bS had to be played, although with 18 lllg3 White assumes a menacing stance) 16 lllf4 i..e6 17 lllxe6 fxe6 18 i..h3 lll6d7 {18 ... 'ifb6 19 e4 lll8d7 20 i..g3 i..b4 21 exdS i..xc3 22 bxc3 exdS 23 l:tfel and White's raking bishops dominate), and now 19 i..g3 'if aS 20 e4 would have left White clearly better.

1 1 f3

1 1 . . . i.e6

One of several possibilities.

a) After 1 1...lllhS 12 i..xe7 'ii'xe7 13 e4 dxe4 14 fxe4 i..g4 15 eS! l:tad8 {15 ... cS? 16 llldS) 16 llle4 White had the advantage in lvanchuk-Yusupov, Candidates match, Brus- sels 1991. If 16 ... llle6 White has 17 llld6, e.g. 17 ... l:txd6 (17 ... i..xe2 18 i..xh7+) 18 exd6

Q u e en 's G a m b i t D e c lin ed a n d Sla v D e fe n c e s

'i'xd6 19 .i.xh7+. Instead the game went 16 ... ltJg6 17 l:tadl! l:tf8 {17 ... .i.xe2 18 .i.xe2 ltJhf4 19 .i.c4) 18 h3 .i.xe2 19 .i.xe2 ttJhf4 20 .i.c4, and now Black should have played 20 ... ttJd.5. 14 ... .i.e6 is an improvement - Bareev-Ahlander, Naestved 1988 gave chances to both sides after 15 l:tf2 ttJf6 {15 ... c5 16 ttJd5 .i.xd5 17 exd5 cxd4 18 ltJxd4) 16 h3 l:tad8 17 l:tafl ltJg6!.

b) 1 1...g6 12 'it1h 1 ltJe6 13 .i.h4 b6 is bet­ ter than 13 ... ttJg7?! 14 .i.f2 c5? 15 dxc5 .i.xc5 16 .i.h4! when Y akovich-Baburin, Voronezh 1988 ended 16 ... .i.xe3 17 .i.xf6 'ii'xf6 18 lbxd.5 'ii'g5 19 ttJc7 .i.h3 20 ttJc3 1-0. Sa­ kaev-Nikitin, Smolensk 2000 continued {13 ... b6) 14 l:tadl .i.b7 15 'ii'cl!, the point being that apart from defending the e3-pawn White also protects the e3-square, in anticipa­ tion of e3-e4 dxe4, fxe4 ltJg4. Then, with the queen on cl instead of c2, White will not have to worry about the knight fork on e3. There followed 15 ... ttJh5 16 .i.xe7 'i'xe7 17 e4 dxe4 18 fxe4 l:tad8 19 .i.c4 with a clear

advantage to White according to Baburin.

The plan is e4-e5 followed by sending a knight to d6.

c) 1 1...'i'aS just loses time, e.g. 12 a3 h6 {12 ... ttJg4? 13 b4 'ii'd8 14 .i.xe7 'ii'xe7 15 fxg4) 13 b4 'ii'b6 14 ltJa4 'ii'c7 15 .i.f4 .i.d6 16 .i.xd6 'ii'xd6 17 e4 dxe4 18 fxe4 and again White has succeeded in launching the e­ pawn.

d) 1 1...c5 is premature. 12 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 13 dxc5 l:txe3 14 l:tadl .i.e6 15 .i.e4 d4 16 ttJb5

d3 17 .i.xd3 'i'e7 18 ttJd6 b6 19 c6!,

Mozetic-Abramovic, Yugoslav Ch. 1995 is one example of how White can exploit the weakened d.5-pawn. 12 .i.b5 .i.d7 13 .i.xd7 'i'xd7 14 l:tadl c4 15 .i.xf6! .i.xf6 16 e4 dxe4 17 ttJxe4, Vaiser-C.Flear, French Team Ch. 1998, is another.

e) 1 1...ltJg6 12 l:tadl and now the follow­ ing are possible:

el) 12 ... h6 13 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 14 .i.xg6 fxg6 15 e4 g5 16 e5 .i.e7 17 f4 gxf4 18 ttJxf4 l:tf8 19 ltJg6 l:txfl + 20 l:txf 1 .i.e6 21 ltJe2

Kasparov-Barna, Kasparov Grand Prix 2000. Black has the bishops but White has a knight firmly ensconced in enemy territory, another ready to support it and the f-file. After 21...'i'd7 22 h4 l:te8 23 ttJg3 Baburin recommends 23 ... .i.d8 in case this bishop comes in handy. Barua played 23 ... .i.f7?! 24 ttJxe7+ l:txe7 when 25 ttJf5 l::te6 26 ttJd6 .i.g6 27 'ii'c3 l:txd6 28 exd6 'i'xd6 29 'ii'a3 'i'b8 30 'i'e7 was very good for White.

e2) 12 ... ttJh5 13 .i.xe7 'i'xe7 14 e4 dxe4 15 fxe4 .i.e6 16 e5 brings about another situation in which White threatens to use d6 as a juicy outpost for a knight. In Y akovich­ Ahlander, Stockholm 1999 Black tried to undermine this plan with 16 ... c5?!, but 17 d.5! .i.g4 18 e6! was strong, e.g. 18 ... fxe6 19 .i.xg6 hxg6 20 'i'xg6 'ii'h4 {20 ... .i.xe2 21 d6) 21 'i'f7+ 'it1h8 22 d6. After 18 ... ttJf6 19 ltJe4 l:tf8 {19 ... fxe6 20 d6! 'i'f7 21 ltJg5 'ii'd7 22 ttJxh7) the simplest route is 20 exf7+ l:txf7 21 d6 'i'e5 22 ttJxf6+ l:txf6 23 l:txf6 'i'xf6 24 'i'xc5 etc.

1 2 llad 1 :ca 1 3 �h 1 h6

The idea behind White's previous move can be seen after 13 ... c5 14 dxc5. First 14 ... .i.xc5?! no longer pins the e-pawn, so White is able to play 15 e4 dxe4 16 fxe4 with advantage. This leaves 14 ... l:txc5 when both 15 .i.b5 .i.d7 {15 ... ltJ8d7 16 ltJd4) 16 .i.xd7 ttJ8xd7 {16 ... 'ii'xd7 17 e4) 17 'i'b3 (followed by ttJf4) and 15 'i'a4 a6 16 .i.bl favour White. Best seems Lautier's own suggestion,

namely 13 ... ltJg6. Then 14 e4 dxe4 lS fxe4 ltJg4 16 i..cl cS! is a thematic strike at White's centre that seems to secure Black a decent game, e.g. 17 i..bS 'if c7 18 ltJf4 cxd4 19 i..xe8 dxc3 20 i..bS cxb2 21 'ii'xb2 ltJxf4 22 i..xf4 'ifc2 23 'ii'xc2 .l::txc2 24 .l::td2 .l::txd2 2S i..xd2 i..cS, which was nice for Black in Gulko-Sturua, Elista Olympiad 1998, or 17 eS cxd4 18 ltJxd4 'ii'xd4 19 i..xg6 'ii'xeS 20 i..f4 'ii'cS 21 i..xh7+ 'it1h8 22 i..e4 .l::tcd8 23 .l::tcl i..d6 24 'ii'd2 i..xf4 2S 'ifxf4 'ii'es with equality in Sadler-Asrian, Las Vegas 1999. Finally 17 dS gives away the eS-square.

1 4 .th4 a6

Black wants to rule out i..bS before push­ ing his c-pawn.

1 5 ll'if4

Note that the arrival of the pawn on a6 in­ troduces the possibility of lS i..xf6!? i..xf6 16 e4 because 16 ... dxe4 17 fxe4 i..xd4 can be met with 18 i..xa6 bxa6 19 ltJxd4, when 19 ... 'ii'aS 20 ltJxe6 gives White an edge after 20 ... .l::txe6 21 .l::tfS or 20 ... ltJxe6 21 .l::td7. If the manoeuvring in the main game is not to your liking then this forcing line is promising.

1 5 .. . .td7

Now 16 ... gS is a genuine threat. After lS ... cS 16 dxcS .l::txcS 17 'ii'bl Black will have problems with the newly isolated cl-pawn.

1 6 .tf2

Remember that the gl-a7 diagonal is a useful home for this bishop in the f3- variation. From f2, for example, the bishop

supports the d4-pawn (after e3-e4) and is also safe from harassment, whereas 16 i..g3 ltJe6 17 ltJxe6 i..xe6 18 e4 ltJhS either gives Black time, in the case of 19 i..f2 ltJf 4, or gives him counterplay on the dark squares after 19 es ltJxg3+ 20 hxg3 cs etc.

1 6 .. . .td6

16 ... ltJe6 17 ltJxe6 i..xe6 18 e4 is standard.

White threatens to march on with e4-eS and f3-f 4-fS etc. Consequently Black has two ways of addressing matters in the centre:

a) 18 ... dxe4 19 fxe4 ltJg4 20 dS!? cxdS (20 ... ltJxf2+? 21 'ifxf2 hits f7, while 20 ... i..d7 21 i..gl is a shade better for White) 21 exdS i..d7 22 i..h7 + 'it1h8 23 i..d4 is an interesting transformation, the position now having a much more open nature. Then the crafty 23 ... 'ii'c7 runs into 24 i..xg7+! 'it1xg7 2S .l::txf7+! 'it1h8 26 d6! i..xd6 27 'ii'g6 i..eS 28 i..g8 etc.

b) 18 ... cS 19 dxcS i..xcS (19 ... d4 20 eS) 20 eS ltJd7 21 f 4 and White's mobile majority is under way.

1 7 'ifd2

Toying with the idea of e3-e4 by protect­ ing the knight.

1 7 . . . ifc7

Doubling the guard on f4. 17 ... i..xf4 18 exf 4 does not damage White's pawns, rather increases their attacking potential, since f 4-fS followed by supporting and advancing the g­ pawn could soon unsettle Black's king. Note that in the meantime the f3-pawn covers e4.

Q u e en 's G a m b i t D e c lin e d a n d Sla v D e fe n c e s

1 8 ..tg1 !

This time White takes time out to protect h2 in order to free the f 4-knight.

1 8 .. . bS?!

It is significant that White's calm manoeu­ vring has induced a dubious reaction from Black. This queenside expansion is designed to provide Black with some activity when White finally gets round to pushing his e­ pawn, but the creation of a fresh weakness on cS means that White can now change plans. Others:

a) Again 18 ... i..xf4?! 19 exf4 is incorrect, e.g. 19 ... llle6 20 fS lllf4 21 i..bl and i..e3 is commg.

b) 18 ... llle6 19 lllxe6 i..xe6 20 e4 is also what White is waiting for, e.g. 20 ... i..f4 21