Redes sociales

In this section we consider the transposition to the Samisch Variation of the King's Indian with the move 6 ... cS. Our main move order is:

1 .d4 tt:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5.tt:Jc3 0-0

Now White can choose between 6.ile3 and 6.tLlge2 (I don't consider 6.�gS due to the reply 6 ... a6, intending ... c7-cS and ... b7-bS with a fairly good version of the Benko Gambit) . These moves usually transpose, but when Black replies 6 ... cS each move has an independent follow-up.

It was the discovery that 6.�e3 cS is a sound gambit that turned the Samisch into a secondary line against the King's Indian. Before this discovery in the 1 9 70s by my good friend grandmaster Roman Dzindzichashvili, Black tried various moves like 6 ... b6 and 6 ... tLlbd7 to prepare ... c7-cS, but it is obviously better to play it right away if the gambit is sound. Since the gambit lacks a name I suggest 'Dzindzi Gambit' . But if 6 .ile3 fails to prevent ... c7 -cS , perhaps it is not the best move. This is the thinking behind 6.tLlge2, intending to meet 6 ... cS by 7 .dS (7 .�e3 is of course okay but that's just a transposition to 6.�e3 cS 7.tLlge2). Then the dark-squared bishop will usually be happier on gS than on e3. If Black kicks it with ... h7-h6 the bishop then goes to ile3 , in which case the eventual � d2 will gain a tempo by hitting h6.

In Game 4. 1 we examine the gambit accepted ( 6.�e3 cS 7 .dxcS dxcS 8.�xd8 .ld.xd8 9 .�xcS tLlc6) . Notice that Black has three more pieces developed than White (counting the castled king as a developing move) , which is traditionally considered adequate compensation for a pawn. White has several serious tries here; I believe that Black can always achieve full equality, but he has to react differently to each line so there is a fair amount Black should learn if he intends to play the gambit. De-

Sa botage the G riinfeld

pending on White's tenth move, Black may reply . . . b7-b6, . . . �e6 , or . . . tbd7 . I give all the white tries together with what I consider the best black replies to them, plus an unknown miniature with the gambit by Dzindzi himself. Since I am inclined to favor switching to the King's Indian as Black against 3 .f3 , I felt it was necessary to include this analysis for the benefit of those readers who need a defense to 3 .f3 .

Next we begin the analysis of the main line 6.�e3 c S 7 .tbge2 tbc6 8 .dS . In Game 4. 2 we explore the rather rare 8 . . . tbaS . In the game Black played Benko­ Gambit style and didn't get enough for the pawn, but frankly I can't understand why he didn't prepare . . . b7-bS by . . . i::rb8 and . . . �d7. The computers rate this as fully equal, although I suppose the two elite players must have assessed this as at least slightly better for White due to Black's pieces being in each other's way to some degree. In any case I show that 9 .b3 instead of the played 9 .tbg3 may save a tempo against the . . . l:!.b8 , . . . .itd7 plan and should keep a plus.

In Game 4.3 we look at the usual 8 ... tbeS , which led to a Kasparov-recom­ mended piece sacrifice. It led to a three minor pieces vs queen and pawn battle, which Svidler (White in the game) , Komodo and I all rate as much in White's favor had he played differently on move 24, although Houdini disagrees, probably due to a tendency to overvalue the queen. Black has several ways to deviate, but none seem to equalize, although the positions are messy and hard to evaluate. Svetushkin thinks that one of these is okay for Black, but he does not mention the line given here. So at this writing, the line looks good for White by a three to two vote!

The next two games feature 9 ... e6 rather than the 9 ... hS of Game 4.3 . After trading pawns and inserting ... a7-a6 and a2-a4, Black can choose between 1 2 .. hS of Game 4.4 or l 2 . . . �d7 of Game 4. S . It seems to me that 1 2 ... hS is not as logical here as in Game 4.3 because White can reroute the knight via h l to the good square f2 , and in­ deed White keeps a plus in more than one way here. Instead 1 2 .. . �d7 achieves the advance . . . b7-bS, which is usually thought to mean equality for Black in the Benoni, but here White achieves a quick attack with f3-f4 and e4-eS, which is likely to in­ duce Black to play a reasonable but perhaps not quite fully sound piece sacrifice.

In Game 4. 6 we consider the alternative defense 7 . . . 'if aS , which is probably the safest move and perhaps the best. As the notes show, a likely result (if both oppo­ nents are well-prepared) is a transposition to a Maroczy Bind vs. the Accelerated Dragon, but with Black having the option of reaching a normal position of the bind with the queens off, based on new original analysis here. I think that this increases Black's chances to equalize, so although I would still prefer the white side I don't think it would be very difficult for Black to hold.

Finally we come to the critical line 6.tbge2 cS 7 .dS in Game 4. 7. This is the way for White to play if he really wants to win the game, as it avoids the rather drawish line mentioned above. I think White keeps a plus in all lines, but the rare l l ... tbe8 ! line given there (planning to prepare . . . b7-bS by a later . . . tbc7 while avoiding the

pinning �gS) leaves some doubt about it. Usually Black instead plays . . . h7-hS at some point, but Komada and I like White in those lines. If Black avoids 6 . . . cS , then 6 . . . eS 7 . .ite3 or 6 . . . tbc6 7 . .ite3 will transpose to lines given in this book via the 6 . .ite3 move order in most cases.

(E8 I ) Game 4. 1 Kovalenko, Igor Chojnacki, Krzysztof Trzcianka 2 0 1 3 (7 .4) 1 .d4 tLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 ii.g7 4.e4 0-0 5.tLlc3 d6 6.ii.e3 c5 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.�xd8 .l:!.xd8 9.ii.xc5 tLlc6 1 0 . .ie3

This move is rare but it requires accu­ racy by Black. White postpones the committal I O.tLlge2.

The alternatives are: A) I O .tLldS A l ) 1 0 ... tLlxdS ?! 1 1 .cxdS b6 1 2.ii.a3 tLld4 1 3 .0-0-0 e6 1 4.tLle2 tLlbS 1 5 .�e7 .l:!.d7 1 6.d6?! ( 1 6.�gS!t) 1 6 ... ii.es 1 7.f4 hd6 1 8.�f6? �b7 1 9.eS nc8+ 20.@bl Analysis diagram

2 0 .. . tLla3 + ! ( 2 0 .. . ilxeS ! ! was even better) 2 1 .bxa3 ? .ixe S ! 2 2 . .ixeS .l:!.xd l + 2 3 . Wb2 .l:!.d2 + 24.Wal ii.e4 2 5 . tLlc3 .l:!.xc3 ! and White resigned, Dlugy-Dzindzichashvili, rapid, New York, circa 1 990. The moves have been

Chapter 4: The Somisch wi th . . . c 7 -c5

Roman Dzindzichashvili

given to me from memory by 'Dzindzi' , the game is not in any data­ base. I included it both because the game is pretty and shows the power of the gambit, and because 'Dzindzi' was the inventor of the gambit;

A2) I O .. . tLld7 1 1 .�xe7 ( 1 1 .tLlxe7+ tLlxe7 1 2 . .txe7 ilxb2 1 3 .�b l (in case of 1 3 .ilxd8 ilxa l 1 4.tLle2 +0.0 7 , Black's better development and better structure compensate for the pawn mi­ nus) 1 3 .. . .tc3+ 1 4.Wdl ld.e8 1 5 .tLle2 .tes 1 6 . .tb4 tLlb6 1 7 .tLlc3 aS 1 8 .ila3 ii.xc3 I 9.l:rxb6 ilb4 20.�c l nds+ 2 l .@c2 .td7 22.ile2 ilc6 23 .�e3 fS=; White will have to surrender his extra pawn for tactical reasons) I 1 . . . tLlxe7 1 2.tLlxe7+ Wf8 1 3 .lLldS �xb2 1 4 . .l:!.b l ii.g7 I 5 .tLle2 tLlcS I 6.tLlec3 .te6=.

S a b o tage the G riinfeld

Black's better pawn structure together with White's 'bad' bishop offset the half-pawn material deficit. Both sides have good knight outposts, but White's second knight is redundant.

B) 1 O.tllge2 b6 l l . .ia3 .ia6 1 2 .tllbS .ib 7 1 3 . .l::!.d l tlld7 1 4. tllec3 tllc5 1 5 .�xcS l:lxd l + 1 6 .@xd l bxc5 1 7 .tlla4 a6 1 8 .tllbc3 �d4 1 9 .@c2 <i£tg7 2 0 .�e2 h5 =.

Analysis diagram

White has half a pawn, but a bad bishop, while Black has a strong out­ post bishop;

C) For 1 O.�a3 b6 l 1 .tllge2 see the previous note.

1 o ... tt:Jd7

A) 1 O .. . tllb4 1 1 ..l:lcl �e6 1 2 .@f2 ld'.ac8 1 3 .a3 tlld3 + l 4 . .ixd3 ld'.xd3 1 5 .tllge2 hc4 1 6 . .ld.hd l .l::!.xd l 1 7 . .l::!.xdl a6 1 8 . .ld.d2 ( 1 8 .g4 + 0 . 04) 1 8 .. . bs 1 9.b4=

Analysis diagram 1 2 0

0.00. White plans a3-a4 and/or g2-g4. Black has the bishop pair, but the natu­ ral . . . tlle8 allows .l::i.d7 , while Black must always be prepared for e4-e5 ;

B) 1 O . . . b6 is the most frequent move: 1 1 ..l::!.c l tlld7 1 2 .tllh3 (almost always a good move with a pawn on f3 when the knight can't be taken) 1 2 .. . tllcS 1 3 .tllf4 ( 1 3 . tllf2 is usual, but it seems better to leave this square for the king) 1 3 .. . e6 14 . .ie2 �a6 1 5 .@f2 tllb4 1 6.l:!'.hd l g5

Analysis diagram

1 7 . tllfd5 ! exd5 1 8 .exd5 .ic8 1 9 .a3 tllba6 2 0 .b4 tllb3 2 1 . .ld.b l .2.xc3 22 . .ld.xb3 .if6 2 3 .cS tllc7 24.d6;\;

Analysis diagram

+0.4 1 . The two powerful advanced passers together with White's superior development count for more than Black's extra knight;

C) 1 0 .. . �e6 ! . This rare move (or transposing by playing 1 O .. . tllb4 first)

seems to be the only one that gives Black full equality, for example: 1 1 .ld'.c l tbd7 (for l 1 . . . tLlb4 see 1 0 .. . tt:Jb4) 1 2 .@f2 aS 1 3 . .l::tb l �xc3 1 4.bxc3 tlJdeS 1 S .tbe2 tbxc4 l 6 . a4 tbxe3 1 7 .@xe3 ld'.dc8 1 8 .llxb7 tbd8 1 9.llb l @g7 2 0 .tbf4 i::Ixc3 + 2 l .�d3 l:!.a3 2 2 .i::Ia l l::rb3=

• •

Analysis diagram 0. 00. 1 1 .tt:Jge2 tt:Jde5 1 2.tt:Jf4 tt:Jb4 A) 1 2 .. . tt:Jas 1 3 .tLlfdS tt:Jexc4 l 4.tt:Jxe7 + <it>h8 1 S .�gs �e6 1 6.tlJcdS ;!;;

B) 1 2 .. . b6 1 3 .l:tc l e6 1 4.�e2 �a6 1 S .b3 tt:Jb4 (in case of 1 S .. . tbd4 1 6.@f2 tbxe2 1 7 .@xe2 Black doesn't have anything for his half-pawn defi­ cit) 1 6 .0-0 .l::!.d7 1 7 .a3 tt:Jbc6 1 8 .llfd l tt:Jas 1 9 .llb l ld'.xd l + 20.tt:Jxd l l:td8 2 1 .tLlfl;t

Analysis diagram

C hap ter 4: The Siimisch w i t h . . . c 7 - c S

+0 .44. Black may get a piece to the good square d4, but that's hardly enough for a pawn.

1 3Jk1 �e6

14.b3

The novelty 1 4.tlJcdS may be even better than the move played, for exam­ ple: 1 4 .. . �xdS l S .cxdS gS 1 6 .�d2 tbxa2 1 7 .l:tal gxf4 1 8 . .l:i.xa2 tbg6

l 9.�c4 �es 20.@e2;!;

Analysis diagram

+ 0 .48. White has a clean bishop pair advantage, although Black has good holding chances.

14 ... tt:Jed3+

1 4 .. . g S ! 1 S .tbxe6 fxe6 ( 1 S .. . tt:Jed3 + 1 6 .�xd3 tbxd3 + 1 7 .@e2 tbxc l + 1 8 .l:txc l fxe6 1 9 .�xg S transposes) 1 6 .�xg S tbed3 + 1 7 .�xd3 tbxd3 + 1 8 . @ e 2 tbxc l + 1 9 . l::rxc l @f7 2 0 .�e 3 ;!;

S a b o t a g e the G riinfeld

Analysis diagram

+ 0. 3 7 . White is up a quarter of a pawn, has a much better pawn structure, and retains a rook, which is quite important when down the exchange. So he is clearly better, although Black scored 5 0% in three games played at high level from this position.

1 5.]Lxd3 tllxd3+ 1 6.tllxd3 .l:!.xd3 1 7.tlld1 f5 1 8.exf5 ]Lxf5 1 9.@e2

+0.89. White is up half a pawn and has a better pawn structure and better-placed king, for example l 9 ... �d6 20.tllc3±.

1 9 ... a5?? 20.tllf2?

Even in a rapid game, it's hard to believe that both players (each rated well over 2400) would miss 2 0 .g4+- . Perhaps Black's 1 9th and 20th moves were re­ versed.

20 .. J�dG 21 .g4 �d7 22.tlle4± White's outposted knight, better pawn structure, and coming control of the open file easily offset Black's bishop pair, so White is a pawn up plus position.

1 2 2

22 .. JkG 23 . .l:i.hd1 ]Lea 24.�c2 a4 25 . .l:!.cd2 axb3 26.axb3 .l:icc8 27.�d4 b5 28.]Lxg7 @xg7 29.c5 b4 30.ld.d4 J::f.cb8 31 .�c1 �c6 32.tlld2 :!.a2 33.@e3 :!.a5 34.h4 .l:i.bb5 35.@d3 l:rxc5 36 . .l:!.xc5 .i::!.xc5 37.J::f.xb4 .lk1 38.nbs �d5 39.@d4 �f7 40.l::!:b7 �d1 41 .Wd3 41 ... Wf8? 42.b4 42 . .!:i.b8 + ! @g7 43 .b4+- . 42 ... �d5 43 . .!:!'.bS+ @f7 44.@e3 44.bS ! . 44 ... .l::th1 45.b5 l::!:xh4? 46 . .!:!.dS! @e6? 47.bG �c6 48.tllb3 Wf7 49.tlla5 1 -0 (E8 l ) Game 4.2 Svidler, Peter Radjabov, Teimur London ct 2 0 1 3 ( 3. 1 ) 1 .d4 tllf6 2.c4 g6 3.tllc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.�e3 c5 7.tllge2 tllc6 8.d5 tlla5

9.tllg3

The novelty 9.b3 ! may be the most pre­ cise, as White keeps open the option of �e2 or �d3 as long as possible. The point is that if Black aims directly for . . . b7-b5 by playing . . . a7-a6, . . . I:i.b8 , and . . . �d7 , White wants his bishop on d3 so as to be able to defend c4 a second time with 'iYe2 . For instance: 9 . . . .l:!b8 1 O.a'.c l a6 1 1 .tllg3 �d7 1 2 .�d3 b5 1 3 .0-0 bxc4 1 4.bxc4

Analysis diagram

1 4 .. . lab2 (or 1 4 .. . .l::!.b4 1 5 .'t!Ve2 'iYc7 1 6 .tlld l ;!; + 0 . 2 6 . White can attack on the kingside while Black's knight on a5 is out of play) 1 5 . .l::!.f2 .l:!b4 1 6 .e5 tll e8 1 7 .exd6 exd6 1 8 . tllce2 f5

1 9 .tllfl :t

Analysis diagram

+ 0.. 1 5 . White's advantage is Black's off­ side knight on a5 .

9 ... a6 1 0.�e2

Chapter 4: The Siimisch w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5 Loo

�

for a way to postpone the between �e2 and �d3 until Black has chosen between . . . �d7 and . . . tlld7. That's why I prefer 9. b3 in this line .

Svetushkin gives 1 0 . .i::!.c 1 ! �d7 1 1 .�d3 b5 1 2 .b3 bc4 1 3 .bc4 !:!'.b8 1 4. 0-0, which transposes to my 9 .b3 line. But I prefer the 9 .b3 move order to avoid

1 O . . . h5 after 1 O . .l:!c 1 . 1 0 ... tlld7

A better option for Black was 1 O .. . .l::rb8! and now:

A) 1 1 . 0-0 �d7 1 2 .a4 (after 1 2 .'iYd2 b5 1 3 .�h6 tllxc4 1 4.�xc4 �xh6 1 5 .'iYxh6 bxc4 1 6 . .l::rf2 (Fedoseev­

Kurnosov, Vladivostok 2 0 1 2)

1 6 .. . 'iYc7 = 0 . 0 0 . White has compensa­ tion for the pawn but not more)

1 2 .. . tlle8 1 3 .'iYc2 e6 + 0 . 04;

B) Or White can play 1 1 .�c l �d7 1 2 .b3 b5 1 3 .�d3 .

Analysis diagram

The loss of one tempo by White should give Black equality, and does, according to the engines. Probably the two players judged this line as a bit better for White; the bishop blocks the natural . . . tlld7 while the knight on a5 may prove to be a liability.

1 1 .l:!.c1 b5 1 2.cxb5 axb5 1 3.�xb5 tlle5 1 4.0-0 tt:Jac4

Sabo tage the Griinfeld

1 5.�g5

Komodo prefers to play 1 5 . ..tf4;!; + 0. 1 1 directly rather than to provoke . . . h7 -h6 first. Either way, we have a Benko Gambit-like position but White has already solved his development problems. Svidler stated that White is clearly better here, and I agree despite Komodo's modest plus score. Black just doesn't have as much compensation as in the real Benko.

1 5 ... �d7?

1 5 .. . h6 1 6 .�f4 �as ( 1 6 .. . .iild 7 1 7 .�xd7 �xd7 1 8 .b3;!;) 1 7 .�e2;!;

Analysis diagram

0 . 00 . This looks like a Benko Gambit, but White has already solved his devel­ opment problems. Svidler claimed a 'large advantage' after 1 5 . .iilg S , and while I question the word 'large' , I do agree that White is better.

1 6 . ..txd7 �xd7 1 7.�e2

124

1 7 ... tllxb2?

This shows very bad judgment. Black just ends up down two good minor pieces for a rook in the middlegame, which is much worse than having a poor version of the Benko Gambit. A top ten player should not do such things, but everyone can have a bad day.

After 1 7 .. . tllb6 1 8 .b3 c4 1 9 .�e3 ( +0.3 7) Black doesn't have that much for the pawn, but there is still some Benko-like compensation so Black has decent drawing chances.

1 8.�xb2 tlld3 1 9.�d2 tt:Jxc1 20.l:i.xc1 �xc3 21 . .&!.xc3 ( + 1 . 1 2) 21 ... .llfba 22 .�c2 f6 23 . .iilc1 �a4 24.a3 @f7 25.tllf1 �xc2 26.l:i.xc2 f5 27.tlld 2 l::ra4 2a.tt:Jc4 fxe4 29.fxe4 l:!.b3 30.@f2 @ea 31 .e5 l:!.a6 32.exd 6 exd 6 33.@e2 @d7 34.�f4 h5 35.h4 :cla4 36.@d2 .l:!.b1 37.@c3 .&!.a6 38 . .l::i.e2 �d1 39 . .t!e6 l::rxd5 40 . .l:!.xg6 .l:!.d4 41 .iilxd6 .&!.xh4 42.tlle5+ @ca 43.l::!.g8+ @b7 44.�xc5 .lle6 45 . .&!.g7+ @ca 46.tllc4 .l::rg4 47.tlld6+ @ba 4a.l:rb7+ @a8 49.�d7 .&!.98 50.tllc4 .&!.xg 2 51 .�d6 1Ixd6 52.tllxd6 h4 53.l:Ih7 �h2 54.@b4 h3

(E8 1 ) Game 4.3 Svidler, Peter Grischuk, Alexander London ct 2 0 1 3 (9.2) 1 .d4 tt.Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.tt.Jc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.�e3 c5 7.tt.Jge2 tt.Jc6 8.d5 tt.Je5 9.tt.Jg3 h5 1 o.�e2 h4 1 1 .tt.Jf1 e6 1 2.f4 The move l 2 .tLld2 , recommended by Svetushkin, is the safe continuation if White fears the piece sacrifice of this game. However it seems Svetushkin missed one equalizing defense:

1 2 ... exdS 1 3 . cxdS and now:

Analysis diagram A l ) 1 3 ... a6 1 4.0-0 bS ( 1 4 ... h3 1 5.g4;!;) I S.h3 c4 1 6.�gs �6+ 1 7.'it>h2 Analysis diagram 1 1 .. . tt.Jd3 ( 1 7 .. . tt.Jhs I 8 .f1;t +0.44) 1 8 .�d3 cxd3 1 9 .Wfb l ;!; +0.26;

A2) 13 ... h3 ! (Svetushkin does not consider this strong move) l 4.g3

Chapter 4 - The Siimisch with . . . c 7 -c 5

Peter Svldler

(White would rather play g2-g4 in order to make h3 a target, but in this precise position 1 4. g4? runs into 1 4 .. . �xg4! , which favors Black) 1 4 .. . a6 1 5 .a4 �d7 1 6 .0-0 b5=.

Analysis diagram

This version of Carlsen's gambit after 1 3 .. . �d7 (see line A3 below) is sound, because there will be no way to support a bishop on bS by a2-a4;

A 3 ) 1 3 .. . ..td 7 ? ! 1 4 . 0 - 0 b S ? ! 1 S .tLlxb S ± . This was an unsound gambit played by Magnus Carlsen against Ruslan Ponomariov in Medias 2 0 1 0 . The point is that in this case White can support a bishop on bS by a2-a4.

Sabotage the G riinfeld

1 2 ... lbxc4

Kasparov is reported to have found and endorsed this sacrifice many years ago, claiming it favored Black, but that was before powerful computers could prove him wrong.

A) 1 2 . . . lbeg4 1 3 . .txg4 lbxg4 1 4.'iixg4 exd5 1 5 .f5 d4 1 6.lbd5 dxe3 1 7 .lbfxe3 .ixb2 1 8 .0-0 .te5 1 9 . .ld.ad l .td7 2 0.l:!'.f3 t

8

•

Analysis diagram

+ 0 . 6 0 . White's attack and splendid development should count for more than Black's extra pawn and bishop pair;

B) Alternatively, after 1 2 .. . h3 1 3 .gxh3 lbxc4 1 4 . .txc4 b5 1 5 .�xb5 exd5 1 6.exd5 l::i.b8 1 7 .'iid2t +0.80 Black can probably pick up a couple pawns for the piece, but it should not be enough.

1 3.�xc4 b5 1 4 . .ixb5 exd5

1 26

1 5.e5!

1 5 .exd5 .l::!.b8 1 6.'iid2 �f5 1 7 .:i::rc l + 0 . 5 6 . Komada considers this line as also in White's favor by half a pawn, but since White is a piece up this means that Black has tremendous (if not quite full) compensation for it. White surely made the right practical choice in the game .

1 5 ... dxe5

Svetushkin calls 1 5 .. . .ig4 best and con­ siders that it casts doubt on 1 2 .f4. But is it so? 1 6 . .te2 it..xe2

••

i

Analysis diagram

1 7 .'iixe2 ! (Svetushkin considers only the obvious recapture with the knight (to avoid the pawn fork) and rightly concludes that it gives White nothing. But the queen recapture looks strong) 1 7 .. . dxe5 1 8.fxe5 and now:

A) 1 8 .. . lbd7 1 9 .lbxd5 lbxe5 2 0 .1::1'.d l t

Analysis diagram

+0.68. Black has a pawn and better de­ velopment for the knight, which should not be enough, e.g. 2 0 .. . .ld.e8 2 l .�f2;

B) 1 8 .. . d4 1 9.exf6 �xf6 2 0 .llle4

Analysis diagram

B 1 ) 2 0 .. . �e6 2 l ..tf4 .ld.fe8 2 2 .lllfd2 f5 23 .0-0 fxe4 24 . .l::!.ae l e3 2 5 .lllf3 +0.64. Black has two strong passers for the knight, but they are on the same color square as his bishop, and White has kingside attacking chances;

B2) 20 .. . �e5 2 l .llled2;!;

Analysis diagram

Chapter 4 : The Siimisch w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5

+ 0 . 5 2 . Here too Black should not have quite enough for the piece, although it is rather double-edged. There can fol­ low: 2 l . . . h3 2 2 .lllc4 hxg2 2 3 . �xg2 �e6 24 . .ld.c l .ld.ad8 2 5 .h4 dxe3 2 6.hS;!; +0.68. Black has two pawns for the knight, but White's pieces are all rather well placed so he should be better.

1 6.fxe5 1 6 . .. �g4 A) 1 6 .. . h3 1 7 .exf6 hxg2 1 8 . .l::!.g l gxfl �+ 1 9 . .ld.xfl .txf6 2 0 .l:rxf6 'iixf6 2 l .�xd5 .tfs 2 2 . 0-0-0± Analysis diagram +0.64. White is up 1 1/.. pawns by my count. Black has some compensation in that he can achieve a desirable rook trade, but that's not nearly enough;

B) 1 6 .. . d4 1 7 . ..tgs .tg4 ( 1 7 .. . .ld.e8 1 8 . .txe8 'iixe 8 1 9 . �xf6 .txf 6 2 0 .llle4 �xe5 2 l .�f3 c4 2 2 .lllfd2 c3 2 3 . 0 - 0 cxd2 24.lllxd2 .te6 2 5 . .ld.ae l

S a b o tage the G riinfe]d

�g7 2 6 .tlJe4t Svetushkin) l 8.�xf6 �xf6 1 9 .'i¥xg4 dxc3 2 0 . exf6 cxb2 2 1 . i::t'.b 1 'i¥a5 + 2 2 . Wf2 'i¥xb 5 2 3 .tt:Je3 t.

Analysis diagram

White is up half a pawn, but it's a messy position. Black has 'connected' passers but they are quite far apart vertically. I think I'll just have to trust Komodo's evaluation here. 2 3 ... c4 24.'i¥xc4 'i¥g5 2 5 . l::thd l .l:lac8 2 6 . 'i¥d5 ( + 0 . 6 8) 2 6 .. . 'i¥xf6+ 2 7 .'i¥f3 'i¥e5 28.Wg l .l::rc3 2 9 .tt:Jg4 'i¥c5 + 3 0 .'i¥f2 f5 3 1 .'i¥xc5 .l:lxc5 3 2.tt:Jf2t.

Analysis diagram

Normally a knight for two pawns would just be winning with the queens off, but the black passer on the 7th rank gives him some drawing chances.

1 7.exfG �xd 1 1 8.fxg7 Wxg7 1 9.�xcS h3 1 9 .. . �h5 2 0 .�d4+ Wh6 2 1 .tlJe3 f5 1 2 8 Analysis diagram 2 2 . 0 - 0 ( 2 2 .g4 ! ? + 0 . 5 6) 2 2 .. . I;lb8 23 .�e2t +0.44. Three minor pieces for queen and pawn is pretty even, but Black's king is not secure and he has weak pawns.

20 . .l:!.xd 1 hxg2 21 .�g1 gxf1 +'iV 22.Wxf1 'il¥h4 23.�g2 �fd8

24.�d4?

24.�d4 + ! Wg8 2 5 . Wg l ± + 0 . 8 0 . Houdini rates this position virtually dead even, but Komodo, Svidler, and I all say White has a significant advan­ tage.

Houdini simply overvalues the queen. Two bishops and a knight for queen and pawn is dead even according to my ma­ terial table, but here both the black king and the d-pawn are targets, and it is generally accepted that three minor pieces vs. queen is more favorable than the sum of the piece values would indi­ cate.

24 ... 'iVhS 25.l::rf4 d4 26.�xd4+ .lhd4 27.:i::rxd4 .!:f.b8 28.a4 a6 29.�xa6 'iVf3+ 30.:i::rf2 'iVh1 + 31 .<it>e2 l::rxb2+ 32 . .l:f.d2 'i!Yc1 33.<it>d3 �b6 34.�c4 .i:!:d6+ 35.�dS l:!:d7 36.l::rf4 f5 37 . .!::rd4 <it>h6 38.h4 'JJ,.c7 39.�c4 'iVf1 + 40 . .:i.e2 f 4 41 . 'lt>c2 f3 1/2-1/2 (A65) Game 4.4 Caruana, Fabiano Vachier-Lagrave, �axillle Biel 2 0 I 0 ( I . I ) 1 .d4 tt:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.tt:Jc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.�e3 c5 7.tt:Jge2 tt:Jc6 8.d5 tt:Je5 9.tt:Jg3 e6 1 O.�e2 exd5 1 1 .cxd5 a6 1 2.a4 hS 1 3.0-0 1 3 ... tt:Jh7 1 3 ... �es 1 4.'iVd2 tt:Jh7 1 s .tt:Jh l fs 1 6 .tt:Jf2t. 1 4.'iVd2 h4 1 5.tt:Jh1 Chapter 4: The S ii m i s c h w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5 1 5 .. .fS 1 5 .. . gS 1 6 .tt:Jf2 'i!Yf6 1 7 .aSt + 0 . 7 2 . White plans tlJa4 and b2-b4.

1 6.tt:Jf2 �d7

A) 1 6 .. . .!:f.e8 1 7 .as tt:Jf7 1 8 .�d3 t +0.4 1 ;

B) 1 6 .. . 'iVf6 1 7 .f4 tt:Jf7 1 8 .eS dxeS 1 9 .�xcS e4 2 0 .�xf8 �xf8 2 1 . tt:Jfd 1 t +0.56. The knight aims to blockade the passer on e3. Black has the bishop pair and a protected passed pawn vs. an iso­ lated one, but that is not enough for the exchange. 1 7.<it>h1 1 7 .exfS gxfS 1 8 .tlJh3 tlJg6 1 9 .tlJf4 tt:Jxf4 2 0 .�xf4 'iVf6 2 1 .<it>h l t +0.44. Tomashevsky-Khairullin, Moscow Fabiano Caruana

S a b o t a g e the Griinfeld

2009. Black has more weaknesses than White.

1 7 ... �e7

A) 1 7 .. . .ld.e8 1 8 .aS ( 1 8 . l:I g l tLlf7 1 9 .�ae l (+O. l S) is another plan, aim­ ing for g2-g3) 1 8 .. . �b8 1 9 .tLla4t ;

B) 1 7 .. . �f6 1 8 . exfS gxfS 1 9 .tLlh3 tLlg6 2 0 . f4 �fe8 2 l .�f2 .l:!.ab8 2 2 .aS bS?! (22 .. . �d8 2 3 . �h S t) 2 3 . axb6 llxb6 2 4 . .l:!.xa6 1::!.x a 6 2 S . �x a 6 ± + 0 . 7 2 and Black doesn't have much for the pawn , Khenkin-Nijbo er, Groningen 2 0 1 0 .

1 8.exfS gxf5

1 8 ... �xfS 1 9 . .l::tae l t +0.29.

1 9.t2lh3 .i::!.ae8 20.l:Iae1

2 0 .1::!.fe l t + O. S 2 . Is a rook needed on fl here? 20 ... �fG 2 0 ... t2Jg6 2 l .�f2t +0.3 7 . 21 .t2lf4 �f7 22.b3 2 2 .aS +0.60. 22 ... @h8 23.tLid1 ng0 24.t2lf2?! 24.ast +0.48. 24 ... �hG 24 ... t2lg6 ! +0. 1 1 . 25.ttJ2d3? �g7? 2 S ... tLlf6+. 26 . .ld.g1 t2lf6= 27.ttJxeS .l:rxe5 28.tLlgG+ �xg6 29.�xhG .l:rxd5 30.�c1 t2lh5 31 .h3 .l:re5 32.�f4 t2Jg3+ 1 -0 1 3 0

This being a rapid game, perhaps White won on time; the position is about even.

(A6S) Game 4.5 Parligras, Mircea

Miron, Lucina-Costin Baile Olanesti ch-ROM 20 1 3 (6. 1 )

1 .d4 t2lf6 2 .c4 g 6 3 .f3 �g 7 4.e4 d 6 5 .t2Jc3 0-0 6 .�e3 t2Jbd7

7.t2Jge2

I consider 7 .tLlh3 to be the best move in this position, since f2 should be a better square for the knight than any it can reach from e2. (However if Black plays 6 . . . cS , after 7.t2lge2 tLlbd7 we transpose to this game.) 7 ... es (7 . . . cs 8 .ds tLleS

In document Fernanda Gómez Velárdez (página 38-42)