Move-Orders an d Transpositions
1 d 4 d 5 2 c 4 c 6
This chapter is extremely impor
tant both for white players, and for black players who wish to play lines with . . . d5xc4. Until recently, it was thought that White had no need to be too accurate with his move-order.
However, due to the efforts of Ivan Sokolov, this is no longer true.
We shall first consider 3 e3 . With this move White aims to remove the force from . . . d5xc4 (White can simply recapture with the bishop and has no need to play a2-a4, preventing . . . b7-b5) , and thus to prevent Black from entering the Slav. Usually, the game continues 3 . . .cbf6 4 e3 e6, leading to the Semi-Slav, a very interesting open
ing but not the one we want to play.
The following game shows the way to meet 3 e3 .
Game 72
Krasenkov-I . Sokolov
Malmo 1995 1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 e3 jLf5 !
I n the introduction, I said that . . . �f5 can only be good for Black if he can defend the b-pawn with his queen. Sokolov noticed that after 4
cxd5 cxd5 5 iYb3, 5 . . :Vllic7 is possible as 6 iYxd5 loses to 6 .. . iYxc1+. 3 . . . ilfs
is not the end of the world for White, but he has only very small chances of
gaining an advantage once Black has developed his queen's bishop outside the pawn chain, while White has shut his inside.
4 �b3 �c7 5 cxd 5 cxd 5 6 CiJc3
6 ,�b5+ is considered in the next game.
6 . . . e6 7 jLd2 CiJc6 8 CiJf3 CiJf6 9 jLe2 a6 1 0 0-0 jLd6 1 1 gfc 1 0-0
Black has developed very naturally, and has equalised comfortably.
1 2 a3 �e7 1 3 jLe 1 h6
Ivan Sokolov suggests that 13 . . . MadS, aiming for . . . e6-e5, was most accurate.
1 4 ctJa2 gac8 1 5 ctJb4 ctJa5 1 6 �a2 iLc7 1 7 ctJe5 ctJe4 1 8 ctJbd3
Somewhere around here, White of
fered a draw, but Black was having none of it!
1 8 .. .f6 1 9 iLb4 ctJd6 20 ctJf4 gfd8!
2 1 g4 iLe4 22 .l:!.xc7? �xc7 23 ctJxe6 �e7 24 ctJxd8 fxe5
2 5 iLd3?
After the natural 25 iiLxa5, winning a piece, 25 . . . nc2 26 iiLdl �h4 gives Black a very dangerous attack: 27 iiLxc2 �xg4+ 28 �f1 �g2+!
(28 . . . iiLxc2 29 �xd5+!) 29 �e2 �g4+
30 �e l �gl+ leads to a draw by per
petual, while Ivan Sokolov also men
tions 29 .. . iiLxc2!? when, with threats of . . . t2Je4 or . . . t2Jc4 and . . . �g4+, the
M o v e - O rd e rs a n d Tra n sp o s i tio n s
attack continues despite Black's deficit of a rook. However, White had to try this as 25 iiLd3?, trying to deflect the bishop on e4 from its protection of the d5-pawn, simply loses a piece.
Sokolov finishes very efficiently.
2 5 . . :�xd8 26 dxe5 ctJdc4 27 iLxe4 dxe4 28 .l:!.c 1 r;t>h8 29 �b 1 ctJxe5 30 .l:!.xc8 �xc8 3 1 �xe4 ctJac6 32 h3 ctJxb4 33 axb4 ctJc6 34 h4 �d8 3 5 h 5 �e7 36 �f5 �xb4 3 7 �c8+ r;t>h7 38 ,, 5 hxg5 39 �f5+ r;t>g8 40 �e6+
r;t>f8 41 �f5+ r;t>e8 42 �g6+ r;t>d8 43
�xg 7 �g4+ 44 r;t>f 1 �xh 5 45 �xb7
�h 1 + 0-1
46 �e2 t2Jd4+ wins the queen on a8. A very important game: Sokolov won his last four games in the tour
nament to pip Krasenkov by half a point!
Game
Nogueiras-I . Sokolov Erevan Olympiad 1 996 1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 e3 2Lf5 4 �b3
�c7 5 cxd 5 cxd 5 6 2Lb5+ ctJd7 ! ?
7 ctJc3 e 6 8 2Ld2 ctJe7 ! ?
An interesting development o f the knight.
1 1 9
9 J:rc 1 ctJc6 1 0 ctJa4 J::tc8 1 1 ctJe2 square, away from the centre.
iLe 7 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 ctJf4 ctJdb8 ! ?
There is no way that White is going to get through on c6!
The next move that we shall exam
ine is 3 tLlc3, which has exactly the same idea as 3 e3: after 3 ... CLJf6, 4 e3 would prevent ... dSxc4 and lead to the highly theoretical pastures of the Semi-Slav after 4 ... e6. This was the main move-order for several years until that man Ivan Sokolov again got cracking.
Game 74 ·
LautieH .Sokolov · Groningen
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 ctJc3 dxc4!
Once White has already committed his knight to c3, the sequence ... b7-b5, a2-a4 (to regain the pawn) ... b5-b4 gains a tempo on the knight on c3, which must then move to an inferior
4 e4
The most natural continuation:
White gets in his desired e2-e4 as soon as possible. If White plays 4 a4 in 0[
der to prevent ... b7-b5, then Black can exploit the fact that White has not played CLJf3 by playing 4 ... e5! 5 e3 (5 dxe5 �xd1 + is very nice for Black) 5 ... exd4 6 exd4 �e6! Instead 4 e3 b5 5 a4 b4 6 CLJe4!? is the critical test of this idea, when 6 ... �dS (not 6 ... �a6 7
Advancing with 7 e5 is possible, al
though 7 ... CLJdS 8 �xc4 e6 9 CLJf3 ile7 10 �d2 as 1 1 CLJc1 CLJdl 12 CLJb3 ilb7 13 'Wie2 c5! was absolutely fine for
Black in Yakovich-Sadler, European Team Championship, Pula 1997.
7 . . . e5 8 iLxc4?
White sacrifices a pawn, but he
must have missed something, as he
never gets anything for it. The correct
move is 8 dxe5, which is considered in the next game.
8 . . .'�Vxd4 9 �c2
9 'i'b3 , attacking f7, is strongly met by 9 .. . iilcS! 10 iilxf7+ cJ;;e7, when Black's threat of . . . 'i'f2+ gives him an overwhelming position.
9 . . . itc5 1 0 itg5 ita6 ! 1 1 itb3 ite7 1 2 liJe2 �b6 1 3 liJg3 h6 1 4 itd2 g6 1 5 �c 1 liJfd7 1 6 liJf 1 liJc5!
White's position is truly horrible.
1 7 a5 �b7 1 8 liJxb4 liJxb3 1 9 �xb3 c 5 !
This wins a piece due to the pin on the knight.
20 �d 5 cxb4 2 1 �xe5 f6 0 - 1
White players will obviously not want to repeat this experience. A re
cent game has shown a more
interest-M o v e - O rd e rs a n d Tra n sp o s itio n s
ing path for White.
Game 75 Hjartarson-Gulko
1996
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 liJc3 dxc4 4 e4 b5 5 a4 b4 6 liJa2 liJf6 7 f3 e5 8 dxe 5 ! �xd 1 + 9 �xd 1 liJfd7 1 0 e6 ! ?
Hjartarson suggests that 10 f4 iila6 1 1 iile3 f6 is unclear, but 10 .. . CLJcS may be stronger, meeting 1 1 iilxc4 by 1 1 ...iila6! 12 iilxa6 CLJbxa6 with ideas of . . . CLJb3 and . . . CLJxa4 as well as . . . CLJxe4.
1 0 .. . fxe6 1 1 itxc4
White has the more attractive pawn structure and hence the better long
term prospects, but Black's piece ac
tivity and the slightly open position of the white king should give him equally good chances.
1 1 .. . ita6
Also possible was l 1 . ..CLJeS!?
1 2 itxa6 liJxa6 1 3 ite3 it c 5 1 4 �e2 see follo wing diagram
1 4 ... 0-0-0?
Hjartarson says that Black should have taken this opportunity to swap
1 2 1
off bishops by 14 . . . ii,xe3 15 �xe3 0-0-0 16 ctJh3 ctJe5 17 Mac 1 with mu
tual chances. In the game, Black fails to make the most of his chances and falls into an unpleasant ending.
1 5 .l1i. g 5 ! ctJf6 1 6 b3 .l1i.d4 1 7 nc1
Nice technique from Hjartarson, and a critical new idea for White.
In view of Ivan Sokolov's success with 3 . . . dxc4 against 3 ctJc3, you may be wondering whether Black can play 3 . . . dxc4 against 3 ctJf3 but, amongst others, the following game has put the line under a cloud. It is so unbalanced, however, that I would not be at all surprised if there is a sneaky resource for Black! is tactically possible as 6 'i'xd5 allows mate after 6 .. . 'i'xc1+. The crucial dif
The main difference between 3 ctJc3 and 3 ctJf3 is that Black cannot ad
vance his queenside pawns with tempo against 3 ctJf3. This gives White plenty of time to undermine them.
5 . . . e6 6 axb5 cxb5 7 b3 iLb4+ 8 iLd2 iLxd 2+ 9 CLlbxd 2 a5 1 0 bxc4 b4
A very confusing situation: Black has two passed queenside pawns while White has more central control. The essential conflict is whether Black can get his pawns moving or whether White can blockade them so that they will become weak.
1 1 CLle5 !
Threatening 12 ttJxf7! 'it>xf7 1 3
"Wf3+, winning the rook o n a8 .
1 1 . . . CLlf6 1 2 �a4+!
This is the key idea, forcing Black's pieces into a nasty tangle. 12 .. . ttJbd7 loses a pawn to 13 ttJc6, while 12 .. . �d7 1 3 ttJxd7 is exactly what White wants: 13 . . . ttJbxd7 14 �e2 0-0
M o v e - O r d e rs a n d Tra n sp o s i tio n s
15 0-0 "¥IlIc7 16 �f3 ! (16 ttJb3? ttJe4!, aiming for c3, is to be avoided at all costs) 16 . . . �a7 17 cS is very nice for White.
1 2 .. . CLlfd7 1 3 c 5 ! 0-0 1 4 CLlec4!
Exchanges help Black free himself.
1 4 .. . CLlf6 1 5 iLe2 CLld5 1 6 iLf3 iLd7 1 7 �c2 iLb5 1 8 CLld6 iLa6 1 9 CLl2c4 ttJc6 20 0-0 Wifc7 21 Bfc 1 iLxc4 22 CLlxc4 CLlce7 23 �b3 Ba7 24 g 3 ! R b 8 25 �g2 !
Very instructive: Black's pawns are going nowhere, so White quietly im
proves his position, removing the possibility of back-rank mates and making sure that if Black does queen, it won't be with check.
25 . . . h6 26 Rc2 CL'lc3?
1 23
Allowing a combination, but Black b3 0-0 1 2 e4?
was struggling to find anything to do.
27 nxa5 ! �xa5 28 tLlxa5 �xa5 29
�xc3 bxc3 30 �xb8+ \t>h7 3 1 �b7 f5 32 �xe7 c2 33 �xe6 c 1 � 34
�xf5+ g6 35 �f7+ \t>h8 36 �f8+
\t>h7 37 .li d 5 !
Mate cannot be averted.
37 . . . �h 1 +! ? 38 �xh 1 1 -0
The next line is 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 e3. I am surprised at how popular this variation is, as it really doesn't prom
ise White very much at all, and his results have not really been that good.
Game
Kozul-lilescas
Erevan Olympiad 1996 1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 e3 .lif5 !
I don't think that this needs any comment!
5 .lid3
5 cxd5 cxd5 6 iVb3 is the other way to play, leading to positions very simi
lar to Game 72.
5 . . . .lixd3 6 �xd3 e6 7 0-0 tLlbd7 8 tLlc3 1I..b4 9 1I..d2 a5 1 0 a3 .lie7 1 1
1 2 .. . tLlc5 ! ! 1 3 dxc5 dxe4! 1 4 �xd8
�fxd8
The point: Black regains his piece with a vastly superior position, as the knight on f3 is tied to the defence of
the bishop on d2.
1 5 tLla4 exf3 1 6 �fd 1 �d3 1 7 itc3 :ad8 1 8 ne1 :8d7 1 9 :ac 1 fxg2 20 tLlb2 �f3 21 \t>xg2 z:i.f5 22 t2Ja4
�d3 23 .l:!.cd 1 .l:i:df3 24 �e2 h 5 ! 25 h3 g 5 !
This kingside advance finishes off
the game.
26 b4 axb4 27 axb4 g4 28 hxg4 tLlxg4
Now f2 must fall.
29 .l:i:h 1 :xf2+ 30 nxf2 tLlxf2 3 1
J:!.a 1 h4 3 2 tZ:lb6 h3+ 33 �h2 J::!.g 5 34 J:!.g 1 .l:!.xg 1 3 5 �xg 1 tZ:lg4 36 tZ:lc8
�f8 0 - 1
And finally, 4 'iVb3 and 4 'iVc2. In both case White's queen protects c4 and prevents the light-squared bishop from developing safely: 4 'iVb3 attacks b7, while 4 'iVc2 covers the f5-square.
However, these moves do nothing to further White's development, while exposing the white queen to attack by Black's minor pieces. Although nei
ther line promises much, they are both popular with positional players who wish to avoid any sharp options.
Recently, black players have been
The most solid and reliable option.
Black diverts the queen from its attack on b7, thereby allowing the light which both guards b4 and blocks the c-file) is met by 10 .. . CtJa5! (10 .. . CtJxd4
A typical manoeuvre, preventing e3-e4 and neutralising White's bishop on g2.
1 3 c4 c5 1 4 ld:.d 1 wtic7 see fol/o wing diagram
1 5 .itb2 tZ:lb6 ! ?
1 25
The start of an eccentric plan from Shirov. 1 5 .. . MfdS, intending 16 .. . MacS and then . . . ct:Jd7-bs-c6 to pressurise c4 and d4, was also interesting.
1 6 gac 1 jfLf6 1 7 jfLf 1 !
To chase the bishop from e4 with
out allowing the exchange of bishops.
1 7 .. . ltJa4 ! ? 1 8 jfLa 1 .l::i.fd8 1 9 ltJd2 jfLc6 20 ltJb3 b6 21 d5
21 . . . jfLxa 1 22 dxc6 jfLf6 23 jfLg2 ltJc3 24 .l::i.xd8+ gxd8 25 �c2 gd6 26 .!de 1 gxc6 27 jfLxc6 �xc6 28 ltJd2 a6 29 ltJb 1 ltJe4 30 h4 b5 3 1 cxb5 axb5 32 ltJd2 ltJc3 3 3 ltJ b 1 ltJe4 3 4 ltJd2 ltJc3 % - %
I am a little surprised that White accepted the draw here. Although his opponent has good counterplay,
White i s material up, after all!
Razuvaev-Sturua
Erevan Open 1996
1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 c6 3 ltJf3 d 5 4 �c2 g6
A very sensible idea. Black allows his bishop to develop to g7 whilst supporting . . . �cS-f5, attacking the queen. 4 .. . a6 5 �f4 b5?! 6 cxb5 cxb5 7 ct:Jbd2! (intending ct:Jb3) is best avoided, as White's pieces are well placed to exploit the queenside dark
square weaknesses, so Black should try 5 .. . dxc4 6 'iVxc4 e6 7 e3 b5 S 'iVc2
�b7, intending . . . ct:Jbs-d7 and . . . c6-c5.
Finally, 4 .. . dxc4 5 'iVxc4 transposes to the previous game.
5 �f4 �g7
5 .. . ct:Ja6!? is considered in the next game and 5 ... dxc4 is also good: 6 'iVxc4 �g7 7 e3 (7 ct:Jc3 0-0 S e4 b5 leads to a typical Griinfeld position which, though reasonable for Black, may not appeal to pure Slav players) 7 .. . 0-0 S �e2 �e6 9 iVc1 ct:Jbd7 10 0-0 c5! 1 1 ct:Jc3 ct:Jd5! 12 Mdl MCS 13 ct:Jxd5
�xd5 14 dxc5 ct:Jxc5 15 �c4 ct:Jd3! 16
g,xd3 g,xc4 17 'iVd2 e6 gave Black no problems in Goldin-Yusupov, Tilburg 1992. However, s . . . iiJs 6 'iVb3 'iVb6 7 cS 'iVxb3 S axb3 is a touch better for White, and not very exciting for Black.
6 e3 0-0 7 tLlc3 ilLe6
S tLlg 5
S 'iVb3 dxc4 9 �xc4 (9 'iVxb7 ctJdS!?, intending to trap the queen in the corner after 10 'iVxaS 'iVb6, is ex
tremely murky but not worse for Black) 9 . . . �xc4 10 'Vi'xc4 ctJds 1 1 �g3 ctJa6, intending . . . ctJdS-b6 and . . . c6-cS is about equal.
S . . . ilLf5 9 �b3 �b6 1 0 ilLe2 tLlbd7 1 1 tLlf3
The endings with 1 1 cS 'iVxb3 12
M o v e - O r d e rs a n d Tra n sp o s i tio n s
axb3 are improved for Black, as the white knight is misplaced on gS, which makes . . . e7-eS easier to achieve.
1 1 .. . ilLg4 1 2 cxd 5 tLlxd 5 1 3 tLlxd 5 cxd5 1 4 �xb6 tLlxb6 Y2 - Y2
And finally, an amazing sacrificial line in this most solid of openings!
Game 80 Alburt-Shabalov
USA 1996
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 �c2 g6 5 ilLf4 tLla6 ! ? 6 e3 ilLf5 7 �b3 tLlb4! !
A typically inventive idea of Ku
preichik.
S �xb4 e5 9 �xb7
9 cS cxf4 10 exf4 b6 1 1 ctJeS bxcs 12 'iVb7 �d7 13 ctJxd7 ctJxd7 14 'iVxc6 g,cS 15 'iVxds cxd4 16 �bs �b4+
(16 .. . g,c1+ 17 �d2 g,xh1 1S 'Vi'eS+!
'iV e7 19 'Vi' xhS+ 'Vi' fs 20 'Vi' eS+ leads to a draw by repetition) gave Black a powerful lmtlatlve in Epishin
Kupreichik, Russia 1989.
9 . .. gbS 1 0 �xc6+ ilLd7 1 1 �xf6!
�xf6 1 2 ilLxe5 �b6 1 3 b3 ilLb4+ 1 4 tLlbd2 0-0 1 5 ilLxbS J::!.xbS
1 2 7
1 6 cxd 5
A strange move to play since Shabalov had already won a convinc
ing game in this line. 16 i,d3 is the theoretical recommendation, meeting 16 .. . i,g4 with 17 �e2 ik'a5 (threatening .. . i,b4xd2) 18 �hdl, which is a bit of a mess. 17 O-O!? seems more natural, to counter 17 .. . ik'a5 with 18 h3 ! i,h5 (18 .. . i,xd2 19 hxg4 i,c3 20 �ac1 i,b2 2 1 �c2 ik'xa2 22 4::ld2! [intending �b l] 22 .. . �xb3 23 4::lxb3 ik'xb3 24 �b l ik'xd3 25 �cxb2 dxc4 26 �c1 , intending �bc2 with an advantage) 19 a3! i,xd2 20 b4! i,xb4 21 axb4 ik'xb4 22 �ab l ik'f8 23 g4!,
wmmng.
1 6 .. . 'ii'a5 1 7 �c4 �g4 1 8 0-0 �xd2
White has some pawns, but Black has the big guys!
1 9 CLJe5 �f5 20 a3 'ii'c3 21 d6 �g7 22 CLJxf7 .l::!.b6 23 e4 �c8 24 .l:i:fd 1
�f4 25 e5
25 .. Jbb3 26 �xb3 'ii'xb3 27 CLJd8 'ii'b6 28 g3 'ii'xd8 29 gxf4 'ii'h4 30 f3 'ii'xf4 3 1 �f2 �b7 32 .l:i:d3 �a6 33 d7 'ii'xh2+ 34 �e3 'ii'h6+ 35 �e2 'ii'h4 36 �d2 �f7 37 d5 �e7 38 e6 'ii'f2+ 39 �c3 'ii'c5+ 40 �d2 �xd3 41 .l::!.c 1 'ii'd4 42 .l::!.c8 �b5+ 43 �c2
�xd7 0- 1
A fascinating game.
M o v e - O rd e rs a n d Tra n sp o s i tio n s
Summary
3 e3 JLfs equalises for Black; 3 CDc3 dxc4 is a very interesting line and only Hjartarson-Gulko (Game 7S) is a possible attempt to play with White; 3 CDf3 dxc4 is very unbalanced but seems to be good for White; 3 CDf3 CDf6 4 e3 JLfs is nothing for White; while 3 CDf3 CDf6 4 'iVc2 and 4 'iVb3 are also nothing spe
cial. Hence 3 CDf3 CDf6 4 CDc3 dxc4 is the most accurate order for both sides.
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6
3 e3
3 CDc3 dxc4 4 e4 bs S a4 b4 6 CDa2 CDf6 7 f3 eS (D) 8 JLxc4 -game 74
3 CDf3
8 dxeS -game 75 3 . . . dxc4 -game 76 3 . . . CDf6
4 e3 JLfs -game 77 4 'iVb3 -game 78 4 'iVc2 g6 S JLf4 (D)
S . . . JLg7 -game 79 S . . . CDa6 -game 80
3 . . . i1Lf5 4 �b3 �c7 5 cxd 5 cxd 5 (D)
6 CDc3 -game 72
6 JLbS + -game 73
7 . . . e5 5 �f4 5 . . . cxd5
1 29
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6
In this chapter, we take a brief look at all the sidelines that I couldn't fit into the main chapters!
A) T h e Winawer Counter
Gambit: 3 CL'lc3 e5
This gambit was all the rage four or five years ago, but the following game somewhat dampened the ardour of the black players.
Game 81
. Kasparov-Nikolic
Olympiad 1992 1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 ltJc3 e5 4 dxe5 d4 5 ltJe4 \'l;Va5+ 6 �d2!
This natural move had been practi
cally ignored prior to this game (6 CL'ld2 had been the main line) .
6 . . . . \'l;Vxe5 7 ltJg3 !
This move looks obvious, but it was Kasparov's new idea. Of course, the genius is not in the move itself, but in the astonishing attacking plan that flows from it. It is not easy to guess that White is gearing up for kings ide attack!
7 . . . \'l;Vd6
Black has also tried 7 .. . cS, but after 8 CL'lf3 Vi c7 9 e3 dxe3 1 0 �xe3 CL'lf6 1 1
�d3 White i s slightly better due t o his
lead in development.
8 ltJf3 ltJf6 9 \'l;Vc2 �e7 1 0 O-O-O!
0-0
1 1 e3
Azmaiparashvili, a long-time ana
lyst for Kasparov, played 1 1 jLc3 objectively correct, as White's mate
rial advantage, coupled with the threat of e4-e5, driving away the knight on f6 and exposing the bishop on f4 to attack by White's pieces ('iVb2-d4, ctJg3-h5), should tell in the end. How
ever, in a practical game White's dark
square weaknesses and exposed king give Black definite counter-chances.
Eslon played 1 1 . . .'iVf4+, unpinning, pawn. This looks very smooth and, in his annotations, Azmaiparashvili comments that if Black tries to im
prove with 15 . . . ctJb4 (instead of . . . jLb4) then 16 'iVb3 c5 17 �e 1 wins after 17 .. . 'iVgS 18 �xe7 cxd4 19 jLxb4, but in fact 16 .. . jLcS! is extremely good for Black, as 17 jLxb4 'iVxb3 18 ctJxb3 jLxb4 and 17 �e1 'iVf4! (threatening . . . jLxd4) 18 jLxb4 'iVxd4 both leave Black simply a pawn up. The position is extremely risky for Black, of course, and I would not recommend this sort of position against a good attacking player, but Black's tactical chances must not be underestimated.
1 1 .. . dxe3 1 2 fxe3!
This is the key to the whole idea as 12 jLxe3 'iVc7 promises nothing for White. The text allows the bishop on d2 to move with tempo to the attack
ing diagonal a1-h8.
the f5-square with his knight.
1 5 .. . 1l.xf5 1 6 CLlxf5 ZUeS 1 7 CLlxg7 ! !
�xg7 1 S �f5 CLlfS 1 9 h4!
In order to chase away the knight on fs if it should surface on g6.
1 9 .. . h6 20 g4? !
20 �g4! iDg6 2 1 h5 was even stronger according to Kasparov.
20 . . :�cS 21 �xcS .!:!:axcS 22 g 5 !
The ending i s still very unpleasant for Black, and Kasparov powers through with his customary energy.
22 . . . CLlSd7 23 e4 �cdS 24 �df1 �fS 25 gxf6 1l.xf6 26 e5 1l.g7 27 .i:i.hg 1 c5 2S �c2 .!:!:e6 29 .!:!:g4 1l.hS 30 b4 b6 3 1 bxc5 bxc5 32 .!:!:b 1 �a6 33 .!:!:b2 1l.g7 34 �b7 .i:i.xa2+ 3 5 �b3 1;!a6 36 e6 .l::!.xe6 37 .!:!:xg7 1 -0
If Black wishes to play this line, he needs to find an improvement on 12 .. . �c7.
82
Rogozenko-Bets
Moldovan 1994
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 CLlc3 e5 4 dxe5 d4 5 CLle4 �a5+ 6 1l.d2 �xe5 7 CLlg3 CLlf6 S CLlf3 �d6 9 �c2 1l.e7 1 0 0-0-0 0-0 1 1 e3 dxe3 1 2 fxe3
Following Kasparov's example.
1 2 .. . CLla6
12 .. . .sdS is possible, preventing 13 Jtc3 as 13 .. . �xd1+ 14 �xd1 .sxd1+ 15 'ii;>xd1 exchanges queens, destroying White's attacking possibilities.
1 3 1l.c3 �c7
Since this turns out so badly, Black must consider 13 .. . �e6, keeping the queen close to the kingside to help with defence, while threatening . . . iDb4 and . . . iDg4 as well as . . . �xe3+.
14 a3!
s e e follo wing diagram
Preventing 14 .. . iDb4, activating the knight.
1 4 .. . CLlg4 ! ? 1 5 '!:!:e 1 1l.f6
This manoeuvre, exchanging the dangerous bishop on c3, briefly gave black players hope in this line.
1 6 h 3 ! jLxc3 1 7 hxg4
Obviously 17 .. . .txe l loses to 1 8 iYxh7+ mate.
1 7 .. . h6 1 8 �xc3 �xg3 1 9 g 5 ! hxg 5 20 jLd3 �d8 2 1 l:!.h7 f6 22 l:Ieh 1
�c7 23 l2Jxg 5 �f8 24 c 5 ! jLg4 25
�xf6+! 1 -0
25 . . . gxf6 26 �h8+ cJi;e7 27 �lh7+ is mate!
B) The Schleeter Slav:
3 CDc3 CDf6 4 e3 96
Question 1 : What is the idea behind this system?
O dds a n d En ds
Answer: This is another Smyslov favourite. Black accepts a slight space disadvantage and develops his king's bishop on g7, avoiding . . . e7-e6 in or
der to retain the option of developing his bishop on c8 outside the pawn chain if he wishes.
Game 83 Gulko-Salov
Reykjavik 1991
1 l2Jf3 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 e3 l2Jf6 4 l2Jc3 g6 5 d4 jLg7 6 jLe2 0-0 7 0-0 b6
A solid move, developing the bishop to b7 to support Black's cen
tre. The more active 7 .. . dxc4 8 .txc4 .tg4 is dealt with in the next game.
8 cxd 5 cxd 5 9 l2Je5 !
When the central pawn structure becomes fixed, the first side to gain a central space advantage will be able to claim the initiative.
9 . . . jLb7 1 0 jLd2 l2Jfd7? !
10 . . . CDc6 was stronger, meeting 1 1 f4 with 1 1 . . .CDe8 !, intending to de
velop the knight to d6, when Black only stands a little worse.
1 1 f4! f6 1 2 l2Jf3 ! ?
1 2 CDd3 i s also possible. Black has
1 33
not developed his pieces harmoni
ously: the king's knight stops the queen's knight from developing to d7 and has no moves of its own.
1 2 .. JH7 1 3 iLd3 CL:Jf8
1 4 f5? !
A little hasty according to Gulko, who prefers 14 g4! e6 15 f5.
1 4 .. . gxf5 1 5 iLxf5 e6 1 6 iLd3 CL:Je6 1 7 CL:Je2 �d6 1 8 CL:Jg3 CL:Jg6 1 9 CL:Jh5 iLh8 20 W'e2 gaf8 21 a3 e5 22 dxe5 fxe5 23 CL:Jg5 gxf 1 + 24 .i:l:.xf 1 iLe8?
25 .i:l:.xf8+ W'xf8 26 iLe4!
A very nice move: 26 .. . dxe4 loses to 27 "ik'c4+.
26 . . . CL:Jee7 27 iLb4! iLb7 28 W'g4
\�i"c8 29 W'f3 �f8 30 �h3 �e8 3 1 CL:Jf6+ �g7 3 2 W'xh7+ �xf6 33
iLxe7+ CL:Jxe7 34 W'h6+ CL:Jg6 35 W'xg6+ �e7 36 W'h7+ �d6 37 CL:Jf7+
rt;e7 38 iLf5 1 -0
Game 84
Dreev-Piket
Dortmund 1994
1 d4 CL:Jf6 2 e4 e6 3 CL:Jf3 d 5 4 e3 g6 5 CL:Je3 iLg7 6 iLe2
White can try 6 �d3 (preventing . . . �f5) 6 .. . 0-0 7 h3 (preventing . . . il,g4) if he wants to prevent the plan in the game, although 7 .. . c5 is an interesting reply. The game transposes to a quiet variation of the Griinfeld, in which White has played the useful, though hardly earth-shattering, extra move h2-h3 .
6 . . . 0-0 7 0-0 dxe4 ! ? 8 jLxe4 iLg4
This is a much more active idea:
Black will follow up with . . . 4Jbd7 and a quick . . . e7-e5.
9 h3 iLxf3 1 0 W'xf3 CL:Jbd7 1 1 iLb3
The critical line is 1 1 gd1 e5 12 d5 e4!? 13 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 14 "ik'xe4 4Jb6 15
�b3 (threatening d5xc6; Bareev sug
gests 15 gb 1 !?, protecting b2 and seek
ing to avoid the time-loss with �c4-b3xd5 as in the game) 15 .. . cxd5 16
,�xds CiJxds 17 Mxds 'i'b6.
2: What is going on here?
A nswer: Black has sacrificed a pawn for a lead in development and pres
sure against the b2-pawn. However, this play is sufficient to regain the pawn, but not to achieve complete equality: i s 'i'd3 MadS 19 e4! itd4 20 Wh l itxf2 2 1 ith6 Mxds 22 exdS Mds 23 Mdl 'i'd6 24 'i'c3, intending 'i'g7+
mate, when White's passed d-pawn and Black's weak kingside gave White a slight advantage in Bareev-Kramnik, Novgorod 1994.
1 1 . . . e5 1 2 gd 1 '¥fie7 1 3 e4? ! exd4 1 4 gxd4 gad8 1 5 jLe3 tLlc5 1 6 jLc2 tLlfd7 1 7 gdd 1 b 5 !
O dds a n d En ds
ity and gains space.
1 8 '¥fie2 tLlb6! 1 9 gxd8 gxd8 20 ge 1 tLlc4 !
Imperceptibly, White has drifted into big trouble: Black controls the central dark squares and White's queenside is an easy target.
2 1 jLc 1 tLle6 22 '¥fif 1 '¥fic5 23 jLb3 tLld2 24 jLxd2 gxd2 25 jLxe6 fxe6 26 e5 gxb2 27 tLle4 '¥fixe5 28 '¥fid3 IWd 5 29 IWg3 jLe5 30 f4 jLd4+ 3 1
�h2 c 5 3 2 \\!,Vh4 gxa2 3 3 \\!'ve7 h 5 !
3 4 \\!'ve8+ � g 7 35 \\!'ve7+ � h 6 36 h4 IWf5 37 tLlg3 \\!'vxf4 38 gxe6 g a 1
Here White lost on time.
What I like about the Schleeter Slav Black activates his queenside major- is its flexibility: on move 7, Black has
1 35
a huge range of plans. We have seen:
a) 7 .. . b6 reinforcing the centre by fianchettoing the other bishop; and
b) 7 .. . dxc4 8 i1Lxc4 i1Lg4 to break British Championship 1995, contin
b) 7 .. . dxc4 8 i1Lxc4 i1Lg4 to break British Championship 1995, contin