% BOOKTITLE = Attacking with 1 d4
[Event "French Team Championship"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Van Wely, L."]
[Black "Milov, V."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D20"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "131"]
[EventDate "1999.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 Nc6 {Obstructing the c-pawn can be justified here
because White no longer has e2-e3 to protect the d4-pawn. The immediate
pressure is designed to induce a concession from White, while a further
challenge in the centre with ...e7-e5 is planned.} 4. Nf3 {With 4 Nf3 White
avoids these complications in favour of simple development, hoping to be the
one who benefits most from Black's plan.} ({The knee-jerk} 4. d5 {
is also possible, when} Ne5 5. Bf4 Ng6 6. Bg3 e5 7. Bxc4 Nf6 8. Nc3 Bd6 9. Bb5+
Kf8 {is not unlike the main game.}) (4. Be3 {is natural, when} Nf6 5. -- (5. f3
e5 6. d5 Nd4 $5 7. Bxd4 exd4 8. Qxd4 c6 9. Nc3 cxd5 10. O-O-O Bb4 11. Bxc4 Bxc3
12. bxc3 O-O {has been assessed as unclear.}) ({. The variation} 5. Nc3 e5 6.
d5 Na5 7. Nf3 Bd6 $1 8. Qa4+ Bd7 9. Qxa5 a6 {pays very close attention to
White's queen. Illescas-Sadler, Linares Zonal 1995, did much for the popularity of
3...Nc6 when Black won after} 10. Nb1 $2 ({instead of 10 Nb1 White has} 10. Na4
Nxe4 11. Bxc4 b5 {with chances for both sides}) 10... Nxe4 11. Kd1 c3 $1 {
, preventing the queen's escape.})) 4... Bg4 5. d5 ({This forcing advance
seems to hold more promise of an advantage than the alternative} 5. Bxc4 {.})
5... Ne5 6. Bf4 {Again White selects the most direct continuation.} (6. Qd4
Nxf3+ 7. gxf3 Bxf3 8. Bxc4 e5 $1 {
is another line that typifies the attraction to 3...Nc6.}) (6. Nc3 {
tends to transpose to the main line after} Nf6 {
, but it also invites Black to challenge the d5-pawn.} ({. After} 6... e6 {
White can escape the pin and create one of his own with} 7. Qa4+ Nd7 8. Ne5) ({
, while Kasparov-Deep Thought, New York 1989 went} 6... c6 7. Bf4 Ng6 8. Be3
cxd5 9. exd5 Ne5 (9... a6 {has been suggested}) 10. Qd4 $1 Nxf3+ 11. gxf3 Bxf3
12. Bxc4 {with the threat of Bb5+. Now} Nf6 ({and} 12... a6 {make sense,}) ({
rather than Deep Thought's} 12... Qd6 {, which met with} 13. Nb5 Qf6 14. Qc5
Qb6 15. Qa3 e6 16. Nc7+ $1 {etc.}))) 6... Ng6 {
The most sensible move, putting the question to the bishop.} (6... Nd3+ 7. Bxd3
cxd3 8. Qxd3) ({and} 6... Nxf3+ 7. gxf3 Bd7 8. Bxc4 {
simply speed up White's development.}) ({After} 6... Bxf3 7. -- ({
, White should avoid} 7. Qa4+ $2 b5 $1 8. Qxb5+ c6 9. Qa4 Bxe4 {
with advantage to Black}) ({, and instead follow the course of Z.Varga-Fochtler, Agria 1992, where White was happy to trade:} 7. gxf3 Nd3+ 8.
Bxd3 cxd3 9. Qxd3 c6 10. Nc3 Nf6 11. O-O-O cxd5 12. Qb5+ $5 Qd7 13. Nxd5 $1
Nxd5 (13... Rc8+ 14. Nc7+ Rxc7+ 15. Bxc7 Qxb5 $2 16. Rd8# {,}) ({or} 13... Qxb5
$2 14. Nc7#) 14. Qxd7+ Kxd7 15. Rxd5+ {with a clear lead.})) 7. Be3 {With this 
move White is able to monitor the f4-square as well as the queenside, and the
bishop is free to change location.} ({Also seen is} 7. Bg3 {
, after which Black can push his e-pawn either one or two squares:} -- (7...
Nf6 8. Nc3 e6 9. Bxc4 exd5 {
was the course of Xu Jun-N.Nikolic, Belgrade 1988. After} 10. Bxd5 $5 c6 (10...
Nxd5 11. Nxd5 {retains White's pull}) 11. Qa4 $1 Bxf3 12. gxf3 Be7 13. Bb3 O-O
14. e5 Nd7 15. Rd1 Qc8 {White essayed} 16. Bxf7+ {. The game continued} Rxf7 ({
although this does seem preferable to the bizarre} 16... Kxf7 17. e6+ Kxe6 18.
Qc4+ (18. Qg4+ Kf7 19. Rxd7 {slightly favours White}) 18... Kf6 19. Ne4+ Kf5
20. Nd6+ Bxd6 21. Rxd6 {, e.g.} Nf6 22. h4) 17. e6 Rxf3 18. exd7 Qf8 19. Qb3+
Qf7 20. O-O {and Black had to worry about the d7-pawn.}) (7... e5 {is a more natural approach, hoping to leave the g3-bishop closed out of the game.} 8. Bxc4
{and now:} -- (8... a6 {defends the often useful (for White) b5-square but
presents White with the opportunity to activate his other bishop with} 9. d6 $5
{, e.g.} cxd6 {(to defend the b7-pawn next move)} 10. Qb3 Qe7 ({or} 10... Qd7
11. Ng5 Nh6 12. f3 Bh5 13. Nc3 {with good play for the pawn}) 11. Nc3 {.}) (
8... Bd6 {keeps the position closed.} 9. Bb5+ Bd7 ({
Costa suggests preserving the light-squared bishop with} 9... Kf8 $5) 10. Bxd7+
Qxd7 11. Nc3 Nf6 12. O-O {
was played in Timman-Lautier, Wijk aan Zee 1994. The game continued} O-O ({
the aggressive} 12... h5 {can be comfortably handled with} 13. Nh4) 13. Rc1 b5
14. Qc2 Rfb8 15. Nd1 $1 b4 16. Ne3 Qb5 17. Nc4 {with an advantage to White.})))
7... e5 ({After} 7... Nf6 8. Nc3 e6 9. -- (9. Bxc4 exd5 10. exd5 Bd6 11. Bb5+
Bd7 {Black is doing fine.}) ({. Instead} 9. Qa4+ Qd7 10. Qxd7+ {
offers White good chances:} Nxd7 {takes Black's eye off e4 and d5.} 11. Nd4 ({
Smyslov-Fontaine, Cannes 1996 went} 11. Bxc4 exd5 12. Nxd5 Bd6 13. Nd4 c6 14.
Nc3 Nde5 15. Bf1 Bd7 16. h3 f6 17. O-O-O Bc5 {and White was ready to get his
kingside pawns rolling, leaving him considerably better after} 18. f4 Nf7 19.
g3 h5 20. Na4 Bd6 21. f5 Nge5 22. Ne6 Ke7 23. Nac5 Bxe6 24. Nxe6 b6 25. Be2 Rh7
26. a3 h4 27. g4 c5 28. g5) 11... exd5 12. h3 c5 13. Ndb5 d4 14. hxg4 ({
the simple} 14. Nc7+ {looks good for White}) 14... O-O-O {
has been evaluated as unclear.}) (9. Qa4+ Qd7 10. Qxd7+ Kxd7 {
aims to connect the rooks quickly.} 11. -- ({. Now} 11. Bxc4 exd5 12. O-O-O $5
Bxf3 (12... Kc8 13. exd5 Bd6 {limits White to an edge}) 13. gxf3 Ne5 14. Nxd5
$1 Nxc4 15. Nb6+ Kc6 16. Nxc4 {gives White a clear advantage.}) ({. Note that
recapturing with the king leaves the f7-pawn unprotected, which is why
Karpov-Lautier, Monte Carlo (rapid) 1997, went} 11. Ng5 exd5 12. Nxf7 Rg8 13.
f3 Be6 14. Ng5 c6 15. O-O-O {
with pressure against d5 and on the light squares in general.}))) 8. Bxc4 ({
Van Wely deliberately holds back his knight rather than play the automatic} 8.
Nc3 Nf6 9. Bxc4 {, when} a6 10. Be2 Bd6 11. Nd2 {
offers an exchange of Black's more mobile bishop. Play might continue} Bxe2 12.
Qxe2 O-O 13. O-O Qd7 14. f3 Rfc8 15. Rfd1 Ne8 16. Nb3 h6 17. Rac1 Kh7 18. Rc2
Rcb8 19. Rdc1 b5 {as in Azmaiparashvili-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1993. Then} 20. Na5
{eyes the c6-square, securing White a slight advantage.}) 8... Bd6 ({
Some players prefer to keep White out of b5 with} 8... a6 {here. Since the
kings have yet to castle White now has a couple of plans available.} 9. -- ({
. In Alterman-N.Nikolic, Zagreb 1993, White decided the enemy minor pieces on
the kingside made for attractive targets:} 9. h3 Bd7 10. h4 $5 Bd6 11. h5 N6e7
12. h6 gxh6 {and it was time for the kings to head to the queenside after} 13.
Nc3 Ng6 14. Qd2 Qe7 15. O-O-O O-O-O {. It is true that the pawn sacrifice has
damaged Black's structure, but Black's influence on the dark squares is
significant. Consequently White turned his attention to the other wing:} 16.
Kb1 Nf6 17. Qe2 ({now} 17. Bxh6 {is okay}) 17... Rdg8 18. Nd2 Ng4 19. Bxa6 $6
bxa6 20. Qxa6+ Kd8 21. Qa8+ Bc8 22. Nc4 Nxe3 23. fxe3 Qd7 {with an odd
situation in that, for the moment, Black can do little with his extra piece.
The game was eventually drawn after White was able to make inroads down the
c-file, but it is interesting that the combination of the closed centre
(instigated by Black) and White's space advantage afford the first player such
flexibility.}) ({. The more circumspect} 9. O-O {
will appeal to most players. Then} Nf6 10. Be2 Bd6 11. Nfd2 {leads to similar
play to that in the note to White's 8th move should Black trade bishops.
Instead Karpov-V.Milov, Switzerland 1997, continued} Bd7 12. Nc3 O-O 13. Rc1
Qe7 14. a3 b5 15. Nb3 {Black's queenside expansion has left both c5 and c6
potentially weak but there is the usual dark-square grip in compensation.} -- (
{. Attempting to alleviate the pressure with} 15... c6 {looks sensible but is,
in fact, what White is hoping for in this type of position, since after} 16.
dxc6 Bxc6 17. Na5 $1 {Black learns that opening the position can leave him too
vulnerable on the light squares, e.g.} Bxe4 18. Nxe4 Nxe4 19. Bf3 f5 20. Qd5+
Kh8 21. Bxe4 fxe4 {, and now} 22. Rfd1 {poses serious problems.}) ({. No doubt
aware of such an eventuality Black stuck with the strategy of concentrating on
the dark squares, exploiting the closed centre to launch a kingside offensive
with} 15... Nf4 16. Bf3 Kh8 (16... g5 $5) 17. Na2 g5 {. This no-nonsense
thrust is consistent with the general plan but creates another light square
weakness on f5. White, meanwhile, has yet to make a concession on the kingside,
permitting him to further remind his opponent of the holes on the other flank:}
18. Nc5 Rg8 (18... g4 19. Be2) 19. Nb4 Rg6 20. Qc2 g4 21. Be2 Rag8 22. Rfd1 (
22. Nbxa6 Bc8 23. Nb4 N6h5 24. g3) 22... N6h5 23. g3 Bc8 24. Nc6 $1 ({
there is no need to give Black what he wants with} 24. gxf4 $2 g3 25. hxg3 Nxg3
26. fxg3 Rxg3+) 24... Qg5 25. Bf1 Rh6 26. Qc3 $1 Nf6 27. Nd3 $1 ({again} 27.
gxf4 $6 Qh4 28. Bg2 exf4 29. Bd4 f3 {helps only Black}) 27... Qh5 28. h4 $1
gxh3 29. Ndxe5 Rg7 30. Bxf4 Nxe4 31. Qe3 Qf5 32. Bxh6 h2+ 33. Kxh2 Nxf2 34.
Bxg7+ Kxg7 35. Rd4 {1-0. An excellent instructive display from Karpov,
highlighting the power of the traditionally under-rated queenside attack.
White's knights on c5 and c6 certainly make their presence felt!}))) 9. Bb5+ ({
In Smyslov-Semkov, Rome 1990, the former world champion was in fighting mood.
After} 9. h3 Bd7 10. h4 h6 11. h5 Nf8 12. Nh4 Ne7 13. g4 {White was in danger
of clamping down on both sides of the board. Consequently Black hit out with}
b5 14. Bb3 c6 15. Nc3 b4 {but} 16. dxc6 Bxc6 17. Nd5 Ne6 18. Rc1 Bxd5 19. exd5
Nf8 20. Ba4+ Nd7 21. Rc6 $1 {highlighted yet again how Black needs to be
careful on the light squares. The text leads either to an exchange of
light-squared bishops that is favourable to White or a misplacement of Black's
king.}) 9... Kf8 {By now we are aware of the problems Black can face on the
light squares and, with the centre closed and a number of black pieces posted
on the kingside, tucking the king away on f8 is not too inconvenient.} 10. O-O
{Sensibly opting for quick and easy development. With Black's rooks still
waiting to get acquainted the queenside will not be easy to defend.} ({
However, White successfully left his king in the centre in readiness for the
ending in I.Nikolaidis-Valkesalmi, Moscow Olympiad 1994, at the same time
addressing the possibility of any future counterplay on the kingside:} 10. Be2
Nf6 11. Nfd2 Bd7 12. g3 h5 13. h4 Ng4 14. Bxg4 $5 Bxg4 15. Qb3 b6 16. Nc3 a6
17. f3 Bd7 18. Nc4 Qe7 19. Nxd6 Qxd6 20. a4 $1 Kg8 21. Qa3 Rb8 22. Qxd6 cxd6
23. Ke2 f6 24. Rhc1 Kf7 25. b4 Rhc8 26. b5 a5 {, and now} 27. Nd1 $1 {
followed by sending the knight to c4 to attack both b6 and d6 kept Black busy,
giving White time to switch to the kingside.}) 10... Nf6 11. Nbd2 {I like this
idea of keeping the knight on b1 for a while. If White does not intend to
offer an exchange of bishops with Be2 and Nf3-d2, then posting the queen's
knight on d2 supports the f3-knight while still protecting e4, thus freeing
White's queen. If Black retreats his bishop after an inevitable h2-h3 the
knight already has access to c4 while, in the event of ...b7-b5, there is
Nd2-b3-a5-c6 etc.} h5 {A logical follow-up to the play thus far, the closed
centre setting the scene for flank attacks. However, White need not worry
about the coming offensive since he has enough pieces either on or near the
kingside. The same cannot be said of Black's defensive resources on the other
wing.} 12. Qc2 a6 13. Bd3 h4 14. h3 Bxf3 15. Nxf3 Nh5 16. Rfc1 $1 Ngf4 17. Bf1
{This is why White sent his king's rook to the c-file, vacating f1 for the
bishop in order to provide the g2-pawn with necessary extra protection. There
is a temptation in this kind of situation to leave a rook near the king for
defensive purposes, but here the f2-pawn is not a target.} Rh6 18. Qb3 b6 19.
Rc6 Kg8 20. Rac1 Qe7 21. a4 a5 22. Kh1 $1 {A prophylactic measure worth
remembering. An unwelcome major piece is sure to come to the g-file soon, when
the h3-pawn will come under attack, so White takes time out to unpin his
g-pawn in advance. Over on the queenside Black is powerless on the light
squares and, as we will soon see, rather precariously placed on the dark
squares.} Rg6 23. Nd2 Kh7 24. Nc4 {With his kingside quite safe White has been
able to conduct his queenside assault with little difficulty, culminating in
considerable pressure against b6, c7 and d6. It is interesting that White's
rooks, queen, knight and dark-squared bishop combine to attack these
weaknesses, while the remaining bishop plays an equally vital role in
defending the kingside.} Bb4 25. d6 $1 {Ironically it is the blockade of this
pawn upon which Black's strategy is based in this line. Now the c7-b6-a5 pawn
chain is about to be seriously undermined, and the opening of the a2-g8
diagonal for the white queen causes Black further trouble.} cxd6 ({
Black's queenside also falls apart after} 25... Bxd6 26. Nxd6 cxd6 27. Bxb6 {.}
) 26. Nxb6 Rd8 27. Rc7 Qe6 28. Qxe6 $6 ({
There is no doubt that White stands very well after the queen exchange, but} 
28. Bc4 {looks much stronger, e.g.} d5 29. Nxd5 Nxg2 30. Nf4 {. Nevertheless
with an attack no longer a realistic prospect Black's pieces - particularly
his rook - look out of place on the kingside.}) 28... fxe6 29. R7c4 (29. Nd7 {
followed by Ra7 and Bb6 is not easy to meet, but White has another plan in mind.
}) 29... Rf6 {The rook rushes to re-enter the game.} 30. Rxb4 $5 {Despite this
exchange sacrifice working out well for White it would have been simpler to
try and exploit the existing advantage.} axb4 31. a5 {Each one of White's
pieces points to the queenside, while three of Black's - two of them
notoriously slow knights - are far away.} d5 32. a6 Rf7 33. Ra1 Ra7 34. Nxd5
Rxa6 35. Rxa6 exd5 36. exd5 Rxd5 (36... Nxd5 37. Bg5 {.}) 37. Bc4 Rd1+ 38. Kh2
{The smoke has cleared and White's bishops are enough to give him a
potentially decisive lead.} Nf6 39. Ra5 Ng6 40. Rb5 e4 41. Rxb4 Ne5 42. Bb3 Rd8
43. Bg5 $6 {White should be winning without looking for a second pawn.} ({
A more incisive way to use the bishops and passed pawn is} 43. Bd4 Re8 44. Rb7
Kg6 45. Ba4 Re6 (45... Ra8 46. Bc2) 46. b4 {etc.}) 43... Kg6 44. Bxh4 Rd2 45.
Rb5 Nd3 46. Be6 Nxf2 47. Bf5+ Kh6 48. Rb8 g6 49. Rb6 $6 (49. Bxg6 {
parts with the other bishop and looks preferable, e.g.} N6g4+ 50. hxg4 Kxg6 51.
Rb6+ Kg7 52. Kg3 e3 53. Kf3 Nd1 54. b4 {
and White has passed pawns on both flanks.}) 49... Kh5 50. Rxf6 Kxh4 51. Rxg6
e3 52. Bg4 $6 ({It is time for} 52. b4 {
since the e-pawn is going no further after} e2 53. Re6 {.}) 52... Nd3 53. Rh6+
Kg5 54. Re6 Kf4 55. Rf6+ Ke5 56. Rf8 Ne1 57. Re8+ Kf4 58. Rf8+ Ke5 59. Rf5+ Ke4
60. Rf1 Rxg2+ 61. Kh1 Rxg4 $1 62. hxg4 Nf3 63. Kg2 e2 64. Rh1 e1=Q 65. Rxe1+
Nxe1+ 66. Kg3 1/2-1/2

[Event "Los Angeles (rapid)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Miton, K."]
[Black "Sadvakasov, D."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D20"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "91"]
[EventDate "2000.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 Nf6 ({
This time Black hits the e4-pawn, practically forcing its advance as} 3... Nf6
4. Nc3 e5 {promises White little.}) 4. e5 Nd5 5. Bxc4 Nb6 {
The most obvious and the most popular, putting the question to the bishop.} ({
It is also possible to insert} 5... Nc6 6. Nc3 {and now:} -- (6... Be6 {
has the nasty threat of 7...Nxc3 8 bxc3 Bxc4. Hauchard-Collas, Cappelle la
Grande 1997, continued} 7. Bb3 Nxc3 8. bxc3 Bd5 {
when, instead of the natural 9 Nf3 White tried the provocative} 9. Ne2 {
with a view to an early eviction of Black's bishop. After} Bxg2 10. Rg1 Bd5 11.
c4 Be6 12. d5 Nxe5 13. dxe6 Nf3+ 14. Kf1 Qxd1+ 15. Bxd1 Nxg1 16. Ba4+ c6 17.
Kxg1 fxe6 {White had two good pieces for a rook but was running short of pawns.
Obviously such lines require careful handling from both sides, although I'm
not convinced 6...Be6 is worth the trouble in any case.}) (6... Nb6 7. Bb5 Bd7
8. Nf3 {with a further branch:} -- (8... a6 9. Bd3 Bg4 10. Be4 e6 {and Black had developed his light-squared bishop outside his pawn centre in Glek-Kozlov,
Frunze 1988. However, White's bishop stands very well on e4, monitoring
squares that its counterpart can no longer defend. After} 11. O-O Be7 12. Be3
Bh5 {
White's control of the centre gave him an edge, which remained in place after}
13. d5 Nxe5 14. dxe6 Qxd1 15. Rfxd1 Nxf3+ 16. gxf3 fxe6 17. Bxb7 Rb8 18. Bc6+
Kf7 19. b3 {thanks to his more active pieces and superior pawn structure.}) (
8... e6 9. O-O Nb4 (9... Ne7 10. Bd3 Bc6 11. Ng5 h6 12. Qh5 g6 13. Nge4 $1 Bg7
14. Qg4 {
gave White something to aim at in Beliavsky-Portisch, Thessaloniki 1984}) 10.
Be2 Bc6 11. a3 N4d5 12. Ne4 {. There is no denying Black has a firm grip on
the d5-square! How useful this will prove is another matter, particularly if
White is able to lessen the influence of a central knight by playing 'around'
it and exploiting his extra territory.} -- ({
. Korneev-Arakelian, Kstovo 1994, continued} 12... Qd7 13. Nc5 Bxc5 14. dxc5 Na4
15. Qc2 O-O-O 16. Be3 $5 {
(White wants to prove that the knight on the rim is indeed 'dim')} Nxe3 17.
fxe3 Qd5 18. Rac1 Qe4 19. Qxe4 Bxe4 20. b3 Nb2 21. Nd4 {
with a clear advantage to White.}) ({. More testing is} 12... Nf4 13. Bxf4 Bxe4
{, removing White's annoying knight:} 14. Ng5 Bg6 ({
after the alternative retreat} 14... Bc6 $5 15. Bh5 $1 g6 16. Bf3 Bxf3 ({or} 
16... Nd5 17. Bd2 Be7 18. Ne4) 17. Qxf3 Be7 18. Ne4 {
, the holes in Black's kingside will be a constant worry}) 15. Bf3 {
, when Korchnoi-Sadler, Arnhem 1999, continued} Rb8 ({while} 15... Nd5 16. Bd2
Be7 17. Ne4 O-O 18. Qb3 Rb8 19. Rac1 {
is a shade better for White according to Huzman}) 16. Qc1 Be7 (16... c6 $5 {
limits White to the usual space advantage}) 17. Bxb7 $1 {. Now} Rxb7 ({
instead the game went} 17... O-O 18. Bc6 Qxd4 19. Nf3 {and White stood better})
18. Qc6+ Nd7 19. Qxb7 Bxg5 20. Bxg5 Qxg5 21. Qxa7 Be4 22. f3 {
is poor for Black after either} Bd3 ({or} 22... Bd5 23. Qxc7) 23. Rfc1 Qe3+ 24.
Kh1 O-O 25. Rxc7 {etc.})))) 6. Bd3 {I prefer this to the alternative 6 Bb3,
because without the f5-square available Black must still solve the problem of
where to develop his light-squared bishop.} ({
Nonetheless, dropping back to b3 is a viable option. After} 6. Bb3 Nc6 {
play might develop as follows:} 7. Be3 Bf5 8. Nc3 e6 (8... Nb4 9. Qf3 $1 Nd3+
10. Kf1 {rebounds on Black according to Atalik}) 9. Nge2 {and now:} -- (9...
Be7 10. O-O Qd7 11. Ng3 Bg6 12. f4 {. Gormally-Law, British League 1997.
Launching the f-pawn looks like an effective plan in this line, reminding
Black who has more space and endeavouring to open the position for the
light-squared bishop with d4-d5 or f4-f5. Consequently Black chose to remove
this bishop -} Na5 13. d5 Nxb3 14. Qxb3 $1 Bd3 {
(taking on d5 invites f4-f5, trapping the bishop)} 15. Rfd1 Bc4 16. dxe6 Qxe6
17. Qc2 O-O 18. Qe4 $1 {and White is doing well.}) ({. Black immediately went
for the bishop in Giorgadze-Narciso Dublan, Linares 1999. After} 9... Na5 10.
Bc2 Bxc2 11. Qxc2 Be7 12. O-O O-O 13. Rad1 Re8 {White again pushed his f-pawn:}
14. f4 Nd5 15. Nxd5 Qxd5 16. Nc3 Qc6 17. f5 Nc4 18. Bc1 exf5 19. Qxf5 Qe6 20.
Qf3 c6 21. Ne4 {with a slight pull.} (21. --))) ({If these lines are to your
liking it is worth taking a closer look at 6 Bb3, but make sure Black's
control of the d5-square does not become a long-term plus. To be avoided is} 6.
e6 $2 Nxc4 7. Qa4+ Nc6 8. exf7+ Kxf7 9. Qxc4+ Be6 {etc.}) 6... Nc6 {After the popular 6 Bd3, Black's task of achieving smooth development is more problematic.
} ({Don't expect too many opponents to oblige with} 6... Qxd4 $4 7. Bb5+ {
and the queen is lost.}) 7. Be3 {It is a little unusual to see bishops finding
posts before knights, but here the idea is to deny the c8-bishop an outing.} ({
The helpful} 7. Ne2 {, for example, permits} Bg4 {, whereas now both f5 and g4
remain unavailable, hence the suggestion in the note to Black's next move.})
7... Nb4 {This natural move is seen the most often. Black aims to punish
White's uncompromising bishop. Two other strategies have also been tried:} (
7... Be6 {rather stubbornly addresses the problem of the queen's bishop. After}
8. Nc3 {Black has played a number of moves:} -- (8... Qd7 9. Nf3 Bg4 ({
in Karpov-Ivanchuk, Reggio Emilia 1991, Black improved with} 9... O-O-O 10. h3
Nb4 11. Be2 f5 12. O-O h6 13. a3 N4d5 {, and now} 14. Ne1 {
(heading for c5) gave White an edge}) 10. h3 Bxf3 11. Qxf3 e6 12. Rd1 O-O-O 13.
O-O Nb4 14. Be4 {was clearly better for White in Korchnoi-Hübner, Tilburg 1987.
}) (8... Nb4 9. Be4 N4d5 10. Nge2 f5 11. exf6 exf6 12. Nf4 {was seen in
Shaked-Ibragimov, Berlin 1997. White has an isolated d-pawn that does seem
well blockaded but 10...f5 has led to a positional concession involving a
weakening of the light squares in Black's camp. After} Nxf4 13. Bxf4 {
Black's attempt to reduce his opponent's piece activity with} Bd6 14. Bxd6 Qxd6
15. Bxb7 Rd8 {met with} 16. Qh5+ Bf7 17. Qb5+ Nd7 18. Qe2+ {
and White was a safe pawn up.}) (8... Nc4 9. Be4 Bc8 {is the odd course chosen
by Black in Furman-Noskov, Moscow 1991. White is happy to allow the capture on
e3 in these positions because fxe3 both supports the d4-pawn and opens the
f-file, so Black has achieved less than nothing. In fact White struck
immediately with} 10. e6 {,} ({which looks like a nice alternative to the
comfortable advantage that results from simple development, e.g.} 10. Nge2 {.})
) (8... Bd5 {is a consistent follow-up to 7...Be6. Then} 9. Nf3 e6 10. O-O {
slightly favoured White in Salov-Hübner, European Team Ch. 1989. Again White
can 'ignore' the central bishop until such time that an exchange on d5 can be
carried out in favourable circumstances. With Black so involved with the
d5-square he has less influence in other areas and less room in which to
manoeuvre.})) ({With} 7... g6 {Black waits to determine the future of his
queen's bishop. However, I don't believe the fianchetto is appropriate here.
After} 8. Nc3 Bg7 (8... Nb4 9. Be4 Bf5 10. Bxf5 gxf5 {is an interesting way to
use 7...g6, although I doubt the damage to Black's kingside structure is worth
the d5-square}) 9. Nge2 O-O {White has two avenues to explore.} 10. -- (10. h4
{is a blunt yet effective means with which to demonstrate that ...g7-g6 is
simply too risky. Faced with h4-h5 Black must seek counterplay in the centre:}
Nb4 11. Be4 -- ({, when Portisch-Spraggett, Wijk aan Zee 1985 continued} 11...
N4d5 $2 12. h5 Be6 (12... Nxe3 13. fxe3 {
serves only to strengthen White's centre,}) (12... c5 13. hxg6 hxg6 14. Bh6 $1
Bxh6 15. Rxh6 Kg7 16. Rh2 {maintains White's initiative}) 13. Qc1 Nxe3 (13...
c5 14. hxg6 fxg6 15. Bh6 {is dangerous}) 14. Qxe3 (14. fxe3 $5) 14... c5 (14...
Nd5 15. Bxd5 Bxd5 16. hxg6 hxg6 17. Nf4 e6 {
is uncomfortable for Black but at least avoids the following}) 15. d5 $1 {
. The game went} Nxd5 ({now} 15... Bxd5 {runs into} 16. hxg6 hxg6 17. Qh3 Re8
18. Nxd5 Nxd5 19. e6 $1 {, e.g.} Nf6 ({or the lesser evil} 19... Qd6 20. Rd1
fxe6 21. Bxg6) 20. exf7+ Kxf7 21. Bxg6+ $1 Kxg6 22. Nf4+) 16. Bxd5 Bxd5 17.
O-O-O e6 18. Nf4 Re8 {, and now} ({or} 18... Qc7 19. hxg6 hxg6 20. Ncxd5 exd5
21. Nxd5 {and White dominates}) 19. h6 $1 Bh8 20. Nfxd5 exd5 21. Rxd5 Qe7 22.
f4 {would have given White a clear lead, e.g.} f6 23. f5 $1 {etc.}) (11... c5 {
has been suggested as an improvement. Then} 12. dxc5 ({after} 12. d5 Bf5 {
Black seems to be doing fine}) 12... Nc4 (12... Qxd1+ 13. Nxd1 Nc4 14. f4 Bf5
15. Bxf5 gxf5 16. Kf2 Nd3+ 17. Kf3 {favours White}) 13. Qb3 Nxe3 14. Qxb4 a5 {
, both} 15. Qd4 ({and} 15. Qa4 Ng4 16. Bxb7 Bxb7 17. Qxg4 Bxe5) 15... Nf5 16.
Qxd8 Rxd8 17. Nd5 {(e.g.} Bxe5 18. g4 {) look promising for White.})) (10. Be4
{expresses an interest in the centre rather than a kingside attack. In
Timman-Korchnoi, European Team Ch. 1997,} Nb4 11. Qb3 a5 12. Nf4 $1 {placed a fourth white piece within range of the crucial d5-square and consequently left
Black struggling. After} e6 13. a3 N4d5 (13... Nc6 14. Rd1 {
is very pleasant for White}) 14. Nfxd5 exd5 15. Bxd5 (15. Nxd5 $4 Be6) 15... a4
16. Qa2 Ra5 (16... Nxd5 17. Qxd5) 17. Bc4 Nxc4 18. Qxc4 {
Black did not have enough for a pawn.})) 8. Be4 f5 {This is the thrust upon
which Black's opening strategy is based in this particular line. Black will
not allow the bishop to remain in such a commanding position in the middle of
the board and, in order to fight for this outpost, White must give up his
advanced e5-pawn.} (8... N4d5 9. Nc3 c6 10. Qf3 $5 {
provides White with a menacing set-up}) ({while after} 8... c6 {
the game Sadler-Shaw, Isle of Man 1994, continued} 9. Nd2 $5 Be6 10. Ngf3 Qd7
11. Nb3 Bxb3 12. Qxb3 e6 13. O-O Be7 14. Rfd1 N4d5 15. Bd2 a5 16. a3 {
and Black was missing his bishop.}) 9. exf6 {Of course White refuses to give
way, and taking the pawn retains the advantage of the move.} exf6 10. a3 {
The beginning of a complex and practically forced sequence that Miton treats
with some skill.} ({The chief alternative is} 10. Nc3 f5 {
, when the second pawn to land on f5 puts the question to the bishop.} 11. -- (
{. Karpov-Short, Linares (3rd matchgame) 1992, went} 11. Bf3 {
(keeping an eye on d5 and tying the bishop down to the b7-pawn)} N4d5 ({
the solid} 11... c6 {merits attention; in Zaja-Ganguly, Istanbul Olympiad 2000,
White managed to remove his opponent's light-squared bishop after} 12. Nh3 Be6
13. O-O Bd6 14. Re1 O-O 15. Ng5 Bc4 16. b3 Bf7 17. Nxf7 Rxf7 {, but then} 18.
a3 N4d5 19. Nxd5 Nxd5 20. Bxd5 cxd5 21. Qf3 Qh4 {was fine for Black}) 12. Bd2
Be6 13. Nge2 Qd7 14. O-O O-O-O 15. Re1 {with an edge for White. Surprisingly
Black's blockade on d5 is not as secure as it first appears, as the logical}
Rg8 16. Bg5 Re8 17. Nf4 Nxf4 18. Bxf4 g5 19. Be5 Bg7 {meets with Curt Hansen's}
20. Bxg7 Qxg7 21. d5 {and White stands better.}) ({
. Dropping back to b1 is more popular. In fact} 11. Bb1 {only temporarily
ignores the d5-square, as a later a2-a3 will offer the a2-square as an active
long-range post for the bishop. After} N4d5 12. Nf3 {
it is Black's turn to decide where is best for his king's bishop.} -- ({
. Timman-Salov, FIDE Candidates match, Sanghi Nagar 1994, continued} 12... Bd6
13. Bg5 Qd7 14. Qe2+ Qe6 15. Ne5 {, highlighting one of the potential problems
for Black caused by an early push of the f-pawn(s) - the weakness of the
e5-square. After} O-O 16. O-O Nxc3 17. bxc3 Bxe5 18. dxe5 Qc6 19. Bd3 Be6 {
Black could do with a bit of help on the dark squares but must only be a shade
worse.}) (12... Bb4 13. Bd2 Be7 ({the text move is designed to reduce White's
support of the d4-pawn and is better than} 13... O-O 14. Nxd5 Bxd2+ 15. Qxd2
Nxd5 16. O-O {when the hole on e5 is significant}) 14. O-O O-O 15. Re1 Bf6 16.
a3 $1 Kh8 17. Ba2 f4 18. Ne5 {Hübner-Sulskis, European Team Ch, Pula 1997.
Black's occupation of d5 is looking less secure and the e5-square is a genuine
problem. Consequently he now sought to generate complications with a further
advance:} f3 {, the point being that} 19. Nxf3 ({instead the game went} 19.
Nxd5 Nxd5 20. Nf7+ Rxf7 21. Bxd5 Rf8 22. Bxf3 Bxd4 (22... Qxd4 23. Bb4 c5 24.
Qxd4 Bxd4 25. Bc3 {and e7 beckons}) 23. Bc3 $1 Bxc3 24. Qxd8 Rxd8 25. bxc3 Rb8
26. Re7 {and White's lead was still intact}) 19... Bg4 20. Ne4 Bxf3 21. Qxf3
Bxd4 22. Qd3 Nf6 {is about even.}) ({. Incidentally the immediate} 12... Be7 {
was agreed drawn in Hebden-Drasko, Vrnjacka Banja 1991. Of course there is
still everything to play for. Note that with the bishop still on e3 it is
tempting to hit it with ...f5-f4 at some point, but then White's other bishop
comes to life on the b1-h7 diagonal.}))) 10... f5 {Another one!} ({
In fact Black's uncompromising response is called for as} 10... N4d5 $6 11.
Qh5+ g6 ({while} 11... Ke7 {is hardly an attractive move}) 12. Bxg6+ hxg6 13.
Qxh8 {nets White too much material for insufficient compensation.}) 11. axb4
fxe4 {Huzman gives this move a '!';} ({
and it does look better than the tempting} 11... Bxb4+ 12. Nc3 fxe4 13. Qh5+ {
, when Black can spend so much time checking out 13...g6 14 Qe5+ that he
overlooks 14 Qb5+ picking up the bishop. After} Kf8 14. Nge2 {
Black tends to bring his queen to e8 soon.} -- (14... Be6 15. O-O {and now:} --
(15... Kg8 16. Nxe4 Qe8 17. Qxe8+ $1 Rxe8 18. Rfc1 (18. Rxa7 Bc4 19. N4g3 Ba6 {
looks risky but might be good for White}) 18... -- (18... a5 19. Rxc7 Nd5 20.
Rcc1 $1 {leaves White with an extra pawn, e.g.} Bf5 21. N4g3 Bg4 22. h3 Bxe2
23. Nxe2 Nxe3 24. fxe3 Bd2 (24... Rxe3 $2 25. Rc8+ Bf8 26. Rf1) 25. Rc7 Bxe3+
26. Kf1 b6 27. Rb7 {.}) ({. Dreev-Svidler, Elista 1997, went instead} 18... Bc4
19. N2g3 Bd5 (19... a5 20. Nc5 Bd5 21. Bf4 {
and Black's queenside is still under pressure}) 20. Bd2 $1 Bxd2 (20... a5 21.
Bxb4 axb4 22. Nc5 {limits White's advantage}) 21. Nxd2 Bc6 22. Rxa7 Kf7 23. Nf3
$1 Nd7 24. d5 $1 Bxd5 25. Rxc7 {with excellent winning chances for White.})) (
15... Qe8 {intends to recapture on e8 with the king, so this time White does
best to decline the offer with} 16. Qh4 {
, as played in A.Ziegler-Brynell, Sweden 1998. Then} Bc4 17. f3 $6 ({
rather than sacrifice the exchange White should have played} 17. Rfc1 Bd3 18.
Ng3 {, when Black's problem king is compensation for the pawn}) 17... Bxc3 18.
fxe4+ Kg8 19. Nxc3 Bxf1 20. Rxf1 Qd7 21. d5 h6 {saw Black wriggle out.})) (
14... Qe8 15. Qh4 Kg8 $1 ({the text move improves on} 15... Bf5 16. O-O Bxc3 $2
17. Nxc3 Nc4 18. Qf4 Nd6 19. Ra5 {, Tregubov-Stajcic, Harkany 1992}) 16. O-O {
and after} Bf5 17. -- ({, White can try} 17. d5 Bg6 18. Nf4 Bd6 19. Bxb6 Bxf4
20. Qxf4 cxb6 21. Rfe1 Qf7 22. Qd2 h6 23. Nxe4 {, which offered decent
prospects of an advantage in Bezgodov-Nikitin, Tomsk 1998.}) ({, or} 17. Ng3
Bg6 18. Ngxe4 h6 19. d5 Bxe4 20. Nxe4 Nxd5 21. Bc5 Bxc5 22. Nxc5 b6 23. Qd4 {
which has been assessed as slightly better for White despite the pawn deficit.
Tregubov-Nikitin, St Petersburg 1995, illustrates what White is looking for:}
Qf7 ({perhaps} 23... Nf6 {is better, although White's compensation is obvious})
24. Nd3 c5 25. Qe4 Re8 26. Ne5 Qe6 27. Rae1 $1 h5 28. Qb1 $1 {
and Black was struggling.}))) 12. Nc3 $1 ({Here White should refrain from} 12.
Qh5+ g6 13. Qe5+ Kf7 14. -- ({, first because} 14. Qxh8 $4 {loses to} Bxb4+) ({
, but really because} 14. Nc3 Bxb4 15. Qxe4 ({and} 15. Bg5 Bd6 $1 16. Bxd8 Bxe5
17. dxe5 Rxd8 18. Nxe4 Bf5) 15... Re8 16. Qf3+ Kg8 17. Nge2 Qd5 {
are both preferable for Black.})) 12... Be6 (12... Bxb4 13. Qh5+ Kf8 14. Nge2 {
leads us back to the note to Black's eleventh move.}) 13. Nh3 Bd6 14. Ng5 Bc4 {
Part of the grand plan.} 15. Qg4 (15. Ngxe4 {
, on the other hand, inconveniences White more than Black, e.g.} O-O 16. b3 Bd5
17. b5 Bxe4 $1 18. Nxe4 Bb4+ 19. Nd2 Qd5 20. O-O Bxd2 21. Qxd2 Qxb5 {and this time the knight will be fantastic on d5, Ibragimov-Yakovich, St. Petersburg
1998.}) 15... Bxb4 16. Nxh7 $1 {The point. This is the position both players
have been aiming for since 8...f5. Neither king sits comfortably in the centre,
but the e4-pawn is a sitting duck, and White hopes to emerge from the
complications with a material lead that will provide realistic winning chances
as the game moves into the ending.} Qd7 17. Qg6+ Kd8 18. Ng5 Re8 19. Ngxe4 Nd5
20. Kd2 $5 {This remarkable move escapes the pins on the e-file yet calmly
retains the pin on the a5-e1 diagonal, not forgetting walking into potential
hazards on the d-file! However, young Miton's contribution to opening theory
is in fact quite logical, as the king is heading for the relatively safe haven
on c1. Black's king is no better, and Black is a pawn down.} ({Before} 20. Bd2
{had been played, when} Bxc3 21. bxc3 Qc6 $1 {highlighted the problem on the
e-file and saw White happy to make the draw in Ehlvest-Volzhin, Koszalin 1998.}
) 20... c5 {With White's centre in danger of becoming sufficiently solid Black
strikes before White has time to bring his king's rook to the middle of the
board.} 21. Kc1 {As per plan.} (21. Nd6 $2 cxd4 {
is going a little too far and backfires on White.}) 21... Nxe3 22. fxe3 cxd4
23. exd4 Bd3 {Introducing another pin.} (23... Qxd4 {
is critical - should Black be afraid of} 24. Rd1 Bd3 {
or will he hang on to see his bishops devour the knights? Well, after} 25. Qg3
Bxc3 26. Nxc3 $1 Re3 {White has} 27. Ra4 {.}) 24. Qg5+ Be7 (24... Kc8 25. Nc5 {
does not help Black.}) 25. Qa5+ $2 ({It is difficult to criticize White since
his whole strategy has been wonderful thus far, but the simple} 25. Qxg7 {
might well leave Black with nothing to show for a two pawn deficit. In such a
complex position, with uncomfortable kings, awkward pins and the presence of
queens, White can be forgiven for 'playing safe'.}) 25... Kc8 (25... b6 26.
Qxb6+ $1 axb6 27. Rxa8+ Kc7 28. Ra7+ {picks up a second pawn.}) 26. Rd1 b6 ({
Again the d-pawn is safe:} 26... Qxd4 $2 27. Qf5+ Kb8 28. Qf4+ Kc8 29. Qg4+ Kb8
30. Qg3+ {.}) 27. Qa4 {No doubt forcing the exchange of queens is what White
had in mind when turning down the g7-pawn earlier and, under the circumstances,
this is understandable. However, Black now proceeds to defend the ending very
well indeed, a situation that could have been avoided with 25 Qxg7.} Bxe4 28.
Qxd7+ Kxd7 29. Nxe4 Bb4 30. Nc3 a5 31. Kd2 {White has an extra pawn and decent
prospects of converting it, but with the clock ticking and a strong opponent
the task can be rather difficult. The game continued:} Bd6 32. g3 (32. h3 Bf4+
33. Kd3 Re3+ 34. Kc4 {is nothing for White to be afraid of.}) 32... Rh8 33. Rh1
Rh3 34. Raf1 $6 (34. Nd5 Kc6 35. Ne3 {.}) 34... g5 35. Ne4 Be7 36. Kd3 a4 37.
Ra1 b5 38. Nf2 Rh6 39. Ng4 Rha6 $1 40. Rhc1 b4 41. Ne5+ Ke8 42. Rc6 (42. Rc7 {
is more ambitious, e.g.} a3 43. Re1 $1 a2 ({or} 43... axb2 44. Rb1 Ra3+ 45. Kc2
) 44. Nf3 Kf8 45. Rcxe7 g4 (45... a1=Q 46. Rxa1 Rxa1 47. Rb7) 46. Ng5 a1=Q 47.
Nh7+ Kg8 48. Rxa1 Rxa1 49. Nf6+ Kf8 50. Rd7 {.}) 42... a3 43. Rxa6 Rxa6 44.
bxa3 bxa3 45. Nc4 Kd7 46. Kc3 {
. Black's long-range bishop carries out a game-saving dual-purpose role.}
1/2-1/2

[Event "Yugoslav Team Championship"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Atalik, S."]
[Black "Gyimesi, Z."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D20"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "89"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 c5 {While it is quite logical to exploit Black's
early queenside pawn majority immediately, 3...c5 invites White to continue
with his territorial claim in the centre.} 4. d5 (4. Nf3 cxd4 5. Qxd4 {
is a risk-free variation, but we are concerned with the less compromising push
of the d-pawn. Quite simply White hopes to regain his sacrificed pawn with an
advanced centre, leaving his opponent cramped.}) 4... e6 {
Black sets about dealing with the important d5-square head on.} ({
The next main game features the wild} 4... Nf6 5. Nc3 b5 {.}) 5. Nc3 (5. Bxc4 {
tends to transpose after} Nf6 ({alternatively} 5... exd5 $6 6. Bxd5 {
is already difficult for Black, since} Nf6 $2 {, permits} ({
blocking the d-file with} 6... Bd6 {runs into} 7. e5 $1 {, e.g.} Bxe5 $2 8.
Bxf7+ {etc.}) 7. Bxf7+ $1) 6. Nc3 exd5 7. Nxd5 Nxd5 ({as} 7... Nxe4 $2 {
walks into} 8. Qe2 {.})) 5... exd5 6. Nxd5 {Maintaining a piece on d5 is a key
part of our strategy here, for the square ceases to be a weakness for Black
once White captures with his pawn (unless this gives him a powerful passed
pawn, of course).} Ne7 ({Black does best to avoid} 6... Nf6 7. Bxc4 Be6 8. Qb3
{.}) 7. Bxc4 Nxd5 8. Bxd5 Be7 {
By far the most popular response to White's threatened 9 Bxf7+.} ({
Petrosian-Radulov, Plovdiv 1983, went} 8... Bd6 9. Qh5 Qf6 10. Nf3 Qg6 {
and the exchange of queens did nothing to diminish White's presence in the
centre.}) ({After} 8... Nc6 9. Bxc6+ bxc6 {
Black's poor queenside pawns are worth parting with the bishop.}) 9. Nf3 {
White intends to let the d5-square look after itself, in some cases dropping
the bishop back to c4 or b3, or trading on e6 after ...Be6. Meanwhile White's
knight protects d4, monitors e5 and is ready to transfer to c4 (via d2 or e5)
should an opposing piece need to be removed (or attacked) or the d-pawn -
after a recapture on d5 - advanced.} ({It is a matter of choice whether White
selects f3 or e2 for his knight. The difference between Atalik's choice and} 9.
Ne2 {is that the latter seeks to maintain maximum control over the d5-square.
Using e2 also rules out a pin after ...Bg4 since now White has f2-f3. Let us
look at a few examples of how play can go after 9 Ne2.} -- (9... Nd7 10. O-O
Nb6 11. Nc3 O-O 12. Bf4 {. This is typical. White is ready to meet the
challenge to his bishop with the supporting knight. Black has tried a number
of moves in this position.} -- (12... Bg5 {
harasses the other bishop but presents White with the cheeky response} 13. Bd6
{, the point being that the bishop is safe in view of} Qxd6 $2 ({
Black can persevere with} 13... Be7 {, when White has} 14. e5 $1 {with the prospect of having at least one rather large bishop right in the heart of Black's
position. After} Bxd6 15. exd6 {the new passed pawn can prove equally
unwelcome, the bishop oversees both halves of the board and} Nxd5 16. Qxd5 {
merely adds to Black's problems}) 14. Bxf7+ {etc.}) (12... Kh8 {rules out any
funny business with Bxf7+ and frees the f-pawn in case Black elects to
challenge the remaining centre pawn. Comas Fabrego-Cifuentes Parada, Platja
d'Aro Barcino 1994, went} 13. Qh5 ({I like} 13. Qf3 {here, intending to meet}
Nxd5 {with} 14. Rad1 {to stay in charge of the d5-square}) 13... Nxd5 14. Nxd5
Bd6 15. e5 Bb8 16. Rad1 {and Black was being pushed back. After} Qe8 17. Qh4
Qe6 18. Rfe1 Re8 19. h3 Bd7 {White struck with} 20. Nf6 $5 gxf6 21. Rxd7 Bxe5 (
21... Qxd7 22. Qxf6+ Kg8 23. Bh6) 22. Bxe5 fxe5 23. Red1 {, but after} Qf5 24.
Rxb7 Rg8 {walked into 25 Rc7?? Qf3!. This is a pity because with by far the
better pawn structure White is clearly better, e.g.} 25. Rdd7 Rg7 26. Rxa7 Rag8
27. g3 {.}) (12... Bf6 13. e5 $5 (13. Bd6 Be7 14. e5 {transposes to 12...Bg5})
13... -- ({. Then} 13... Nxd5 14. Nxd5 Bg5 (14... Be7 15. e6 $1) 15. Bxg5 Qxg5
16. f4 $1 {is precisely what White is looking for.}) ({
. In Khalifman-Vulfson, St Petersburg 1995, Black retreated:} 13... Be7 14. Be4
$1 Qxd1 15. Rfxd1 {and White's authority in the centre was still present after
the exchange of queens. After} g5 {(undermining the support of the e5-pawn)}
16. Be3 Rb8 (16... Nc4 $2 17. Nd5) 17. b3 Be6 18. Nb5 {
Black's queenside was starting to creek.})) (12... Nxd5 13. Nxd5 Bd6 14. e5 Bc7
15. Rc1 ({White went for more in Kacheishvili-Spangenberg, World U26 Team Ch.,
Roque Saenz Pena 1997, finding himself on the way to a modest material lead
after} 15. e6 $5 Bxf4 16. e7 Bxh2+ 17. Kh1 Qd6 18. exf8=Q+ Kxf8 19. g3 {
, there followed} Qh6 20. Qc1 $1 Qc6 21. Qg5 Be6 22. Rad1 h6 23. Qe5 Rd8 24.
Kxh2 Rxd5 25. Rxd5 Qxd5 26. Qb8+ Ke7 27. Qxa7 Kf6 28. Qb6 Kg6 {, and now} 29.
Rc1 {would have caused Black the most problems}) 15... b6 16. Qf3 Be6 17. Rfd1
Bxd5 {was agreed drawn in Rausis-Lev, Eupen 1997.})) (9... O-O {and now:} 10.
-- (10. O-O Nd7 11. Nc3 Bf6 12. Be3 Bxc3 13. bxc3 Qc7 14. c4 Nf6 {. Zontakh-Mirkovic, Novak Nikolic Mem. 1998. White's bishop is too strong to be allowed to
survive in this kind of position, but after} 15. Qd2 Nxd5 16. cxd5 Bd7 17. Bf4
Qd8 18. Rfe1 Re8 19. Rac1 Rc8 20. Rc3 {White was ready to swing his rook over
to the kingside, leaving Black with the standard dilemma of being unable to
contest the dark squares.}) (10. Be3 Qb6 11. O-O Nc6 12. Qd2 Be6 13. Nf4 Ne5
14. b4 $5 Qxb4 (14... Nc4 15. Bxc4 Bxc4 16. Rfc1) 15. Qxb4 cxb4 16. Nxe6 fxe6
17. Bxe6+ Kh8 18. f4 Nd3 19. Rad1 Rad8 20. Bd5 {and the bishop pair favoured
White in Granda Zuniga-Gendler, Yerevan Olympiad 1996.})) (9... Na6 10. O-O Nc7
11. Nc3 O-O 12. Bf4 {. In Hertneck-Kallai, European Cup, Strasbourg 1994, the
knight travelled further with} Ne6 {. Then} ({now} 12... Nxd5 13. Nxd5 {
transposes to 12...Nxd5 above}) 13. Be3 Rb8 14. a4 a6 15. a5 b5 16. axb6 Qxb6
17. b4 $1 Qc7 18. bxc5 Bxc5 19. Qd2 {was enough to provide White with
something to build on in the form of his supremacy in the centre. For the
moment the a-pawn is irrelevant, while White's grip on d5 and his kingside
pawn majority are relevant indeed.})) ({Incidentally} 9. Qh5 {looks ambitious
but soon peters out to equality. Ward-J.Howell, British League 1996, continued}
O-O 10. Nf3 Nd7 11. Ng5 Bxg5 12. Bxg5 Nf6 13. Bxf6 ({Ward gives} 13. Qh4 Qa5+
$1 14. Bd2 Qa4) 13... Qxf6 14. O-O Qxb2 ({
instead of 14...Qxb2 Black chose the safer} 14... Rb8 $1 15. Rac1 b6) 15. Rab1
Qf6 16. Rfc1 {.}) 9... O-O 10. O-O Na6 {Occasionally starting on the edge of
the board can be the most flexible way to develop a piece, and here the knight
is able to drop back to c7 to contest the d5-square or continue to e6 (-d4),
or advance to b4. Of course the b4-square can be reached via c6, but in 10...Nc6, below, White puts a stop to this. Here are examples of alternatives to
Gyimesi's speciality.} (10... Nc6 {looks fine until one considers that White
might well part with his excellent bishop if it means causing serious and
permanent damage to Black's queenside pawns. Romero Holmes-Estremera Panos,
Salamanca 1998, is typical of how White should patiently go about addressing
his opponent's new weaknesses after} 11. Bxc6 bxc6 {. The game continued} 12.
Be3 Be6 13. Qc2 Qa5 14. Rfc1 Rfd8 {
and now White exploited the position of his knight with} 15. Ne5 $1 ({avoiding
} 15. Bxc5 $2 Bxc5 16. Qxc5 $2 Rd1+ {). Notice that since doubling Black's
pawns White has directed his forces against c4, c5 and, now, c6!. Additionally
White is also ready to mobilize his kingside pawn majority with f2-f4.})) (
10... Nd7 11. Qe2 Qc7 {met with} 12. e5 $1 {in Beim-Wagman, Aosta 1990. With
his knight on f3 this centre/kingside expansion is available to White. After}
Nb6 13. Be4 Be6 (13... Bg4 14. Bxh7+ Kxh7 15. Qe4+) 14. Re1 {Black might
consider placing his rooks on d8 and e8, although White's pieces point to the
kingside and the e-pawn provides White with much room for manoeuvre.
Black played} Rae8 15. Ng5 Bxg5 16. Bxg5 Bd5 {in order to further alleviate his
defensive task with another trade of minor pieces. White's response, however,
serves to remind us how a space advantage can soon grow to decisive
proportions after ostensibly logical moves from the defender:} 17. Bxh7+ $1
Kxh7 18. Qh5+ Kg8 19. Bf6 $1 {. A fitting culmination of White's strategy -
Black has taken over the d5-square but g7 is the new focus of attention. After}
gxf6 20. Qg4+ Kh7 21. exf6 Kh6 22. f4 {Black will soon be mated.}) (10... Qb6
11. Be3 $1 {. We have already seen that Black's queen can be embarrassed when
it shares the a7-g1 diagonal with White's bishop.} -- ({
. Here the b2-pawn is safe because} 11... Qxb2 12. Rb1 {
and 13 Bxb7 opens the queenside in White's favour.}) ({
. Now Yusupov-Ehlvest, Belfort 1988, saw the automatic} 11... Be6 $2 {
allow White's intended} 12. b4 $1 {with a clear advantage to White, since} Qxb4
13. Rb1 {is even worse for Black than before. Meanwhile the c5-pawn is pinned,
and White threatens to open the b-file anyway.}) ({. Black came up with a
perfectly sound continuation in Ibragimov-Estrada Nieto, Ubeda 1997:} 11... Nc6
12. Rc1 Bg4 13. h3 Be6 ({if Black maintains the pin with} 13... Bh5 {White has}
14. g4 $1 Bg6 15. Nd2 {, heading for the attractive c4-square and toying with
the idea of trapping Black's bishop with f2-f4-f5 etc. Again this is a key
difference between posting the knight on f3 and e2}) 14. Bxe6 fxe6 15. Qc2 {
and now Chris Ward justifiably recommends} Nb4 {
, when Black must be only slightly worse.} ({Instead there followed} 15... Qa6
$2 16. Bxc5 Bxc5 17. Qxc5 Qxa2 18. Qb5 $1 {and White threatened both 19 Ra1
and 19 Qxb7. In fact the game was over after only ten more moves:} a6 19. Qxb7
Na5 20. Qc7 Rf7 21. Qe5 Nb7 22. Ng5 Re7 23. Rc7 Rxc7 24. Qxc7 Qxb2 25. e5 Qb3
26. Qf7+ Kh8 27. Nxe6 Rg8 28. Nd8 $1 {1-0.}))) 11. Bb3 $5 {As if expecting a
future ...Nc7/b4 to be too inconvenient White elects to retreat his bishop
anyway. Otherwise why not just get on with normal development?} ({After} 11.
Bf4 -- (11... Qb6 {,} 12. Ne5 {again hopes to justify 9 Nf3 by teaming up with
the queen's bishop to cover the d6-square after landing on c4. Now} Qxb2 $2 ({
alternatively} 12... Be6 13. Nc4 Qd8 14. Bxe6 {
leaves White with both superior pieces and pawn structure}) 13. Bxf7+ $1 {
is final, e.g.} Rxf7 ({or} 13... Kh8 14. Qh5 {etc.}) 14. Qd5 {.}) ({
. The logical continuation is} 11... Nc7 {. From c7 the knight hits d5 and
supports ...Be6 without voluntarily accepting an isolated pawn on e6 after the
bishop trade we just considered.} 12. -- ({. Now} 12. Bxc7 Qxc7 13. h3 Qb6 14.
Qc2 Be6 15. Rad1 Rad8 16. b3 Bxd5 17. exd5 Bf6 {is approximately equal as it
is not clear how White can successfully infiltrate with his knight.}) ({
. However, in Z.Varga-Afek, Budapest 1991, White provided us with an interesting
plan which involves a 'positive' retreat, namely} 12. Bc4 Be6 13. Be2 $5 {
. The idea is to eventually exploit White's kingside pawn majority and extra
space to generate play in the centre and on the kingside. The game went} Ne8 ({
should Black seek to avoid an unpleasant offensive with} 13... Qxd1 14. Rfxd1 {
, White will already have the d-file and Black's knight will be misplaced on c7
}) 14. Qc2 h6 15. Rfd1 Qb6 16. Ne5 $1 Nd6 17. Be3 Rac8 18. f4 {with the by now
familiar plan of Nf3-e5 and f2-f4. White's bishops perform a dual-purpose task
in that they support the thematic advance of the kingside pawns while
simultaneously monitoring the queenside in order to slow down Black's
counterplay. It is surprising how quickly White's kingside pawns can trouble
Black's minor pieces and kingside in general, and awareness of this fact makes
White's game so much easier to play. Here the tempo of the game soon changed:}
Qc7 19. Bf2 g6 20. g4 $5 Bf6 21. Nxg6 $1 fxg6 22. e5 {
and Black's third rank was beginning to look a little suspect.}))) 11... Nc7 {
Keeping an eye on d5 and preparing to challenge the bishop anyway by bringing
his own to e6.} ({Against} 11... Nb4 {
it has been suggested that White follow up} 12. Qxd8 Rxd8 {with} 13. Bg5 $5 {
, which looks enough for a tiny pull. Black experiences some discomfort but
with queens off he has reasonable chances to secure a level game.}) (11... Qb6
{again meets with} 12. Ne5 {when, as well as the usual outpost on c4, White
has the f7-pawn in his sights. After} Bf6 ({White should respond to} 12... Be6
{with} 13. Nd7 Bxd7 14. Qxd7 {, e.g.} Bf6 15. Qf5 g6 16. Qf3 Bg7 {when both}
17. Rd1 ({and} 17. Bg5 $5) 17... Rad8 18. Bg5 {
favour White thanks mainly to the poor knight}) 13. Nc4 Qc7 14. Qf3 {
the prospect of the tempo-gaining Bf4 augments White's lead.}) 12. Qxd8 {
A queen trade does not necessarily mean an end to uncompromising or aggressive
play. In this case White judges that his development advantage is sufficiently
significant to permit him to keep the momentum going, and there is an important
factor to consider here in that the 'natural' recapture on d8 is the inferior
choice. Moreover White's kingside pawn majority is no less mobile without a
queen on the board, and while other pieces remain the plan of a kingside
offensive will be effective.} Rxd8 ({
Gyimesi proposes the ostensibly less active} 12... Bxd8 {as an improvement.
The reasoning behind this is that in the game Black's knight proves awkwardly
placed on e6, whereas on c7 at least the d5-square is protected. Therefore by
recapturing with the bishop Black defends the knight and earns time to get his
queenside in order, no longer having to worry about 13 Bf4. Consequently} 13.
Be3 b6 14. Rad1 {and then:} -- (14... Bf6 15. e5 Be7 16. Bg5 $5 {has been suggested as White's best try, and it is true that the onus is still on Black to
keep his opponent's advantage to a minimum.}) ({
. However, this looks preferable to the greedy} 14... Bb7 15. Ne5 Bxe4 16. Rd7
Bg6 17. Nxg6 hxg6 18. Rfd1 {, e.g.} Ne6 ({or} 18... Rc8 19. Bxf7+ {etc.}) 19.
Bd5 {.}) ({. Perhaps Black might consider} 14... Be6 15. Bxe6 Nxe6 {
with the intention of evicting White's rook after} 16. Rd7 Re8 17. Rfd1 Nf8 {.}
)) 13. Bf4 {Now White is happy to lure the knight to e6, where it will be a
target - eventually - for the f-pawn. Forcing it from c7 also hands the
d5-square back to White.} Ne6 ({Note that} 13... Bd6 $2 {walks into a pin after
} 14. Rad1 {, when both} Ne8 ({and} 14... Nb5 15. Ng5 {- exploiting another pin
}) 15. Bg5 Rd7 16. Ba4 {practically win for White.}) 14. Bg3 $1 {White has a
development lead, the better pieces and the d5-square holds more promise than
does the d4-square for Black. Add to this his potentially more dangerous pawn
majority, and the exchange of queens becomes irrelevant.} Bf6 $5 {
Black provokes the e5-pawn. Others:} (14... Bd7 15. Bd5 Bc6 16. Rad1 Bf6 17.
Bxc6 bxc6 18. Be5 Bxe5 19. Nxe5 Nd4 20. f3 Rab8 (20... f6 21. Nc4) 21. b3 {
is typical, with Black's queenside weaknesses too big a price to pay for the
outpost on d4.}) ({The immediate} 14... Nd4 15. Nxd4 {favours White after both}
Rxd4 ({and} 15... cxd4 16. Bd5) 16. Bd5 {.}) ({
Finally, the attempt to pretend normal development is enough with} 14... b6 $6
15. Rfd1 $1 Bb7 {, invites White to cement his grip on d5 with} ({
worse for Black is} 15... Ba6 $2 16. Ne5 Bf6 17. Bd5) 16. Bd5 $1 {, when the
shop is wonderfully positioned on g3 to facilitate the advance of the d-pawn
in the event of an exchange on d5.}) 15. Ne5 $1 Kf8 {At first glance an odd
looking move, but now Black can land his knight on d4 without Bxf7 being check.
} ({After the hasty} 15... Nd4 $2 {, for example, White has} 16. Bxf7+ Kf8 17.
Bd5 {and now} Ne2+ 18. Kh1 Nxg3+ 19. fxg3 {pins the bishop!}) (15... Rd2 $5 {
needs to be investigated.} 16. -- (16. Nc4 Re2 17. e5 Be7 18. Bd1 Re4 19. Nd6 {
leaves the rook punching air}) ({, and} 16. Rab1 $5 {
also looks good for White. First} Nd4 $6 ({while} 16... Bxe5 17. Bxe5 Nd4 18.
Bd5 {reminds Black that half of his queenside is still at home}) 17. Bxf7+ Kf8
18. Bd5 Ne2+ 19. Kh1 Nxg3+ 20. fxg3 {again backfires.})) 16. f4 $1 {After seeing the black king move away from the a2-g8 diagonal and on to the f-file White
is more than willing to permit the doubling of his pawns if this means
clearing the way for his rook.} Rd2 $6 {
After this act of aggression White's pawns dominate.} ({Black should try
testing his opponent's plan regardless of the subsequent attention to his
f-pawn:} 16... Bxe5 17. fxe5 Rd2 (17... Rd4 18. Bd5) 18. Rf3 $1 Ng5 (18... Rxb2
19. Raf1 Ng5 20. Rxf7+ Nxf7 21. e6) 19. Rxf7+ $1 Nxf7 20. Rf1 {. If White can
keep Black under pressure after taking on f7 the sacrifice will have been
worthwhile.} -- ({. After} 20... Ke8 21. Bxf7+ (21. Rxf7 $2 b5 $1) 21... Kd8
22. Bh4+ Kc7 23. Bd5 $5 Rxb2 24. Rf7+ Kb6 25. e6 {Black's rook and bishop are
still shut out of the game, White's e-pawn is close to glory and Black's
kingside pawns are doomed. Black does have the c-pawn, but it lacks support.})
({. The other try is} 20... b5 21. Bxf7 Rb8 ({when} 21... Rd1 22. Rxd1 Kxf7 23.
Rd5 {is good for White}) 22. Bf4 $5 Kxf7 (22... Re2 23. e6 Rb6 24. Bh5 {;}) (
22... Rxb2 23. e6 Rb6 24. Bg5) 23. Bxd2+ Ke6 (23... Ke7 24. Be3) 24. Rf8 {
, e.g.} Ra8 (24... Kxe5 25. Bf4+) 25. Re8+ Kf7 26. Rd8 Ke6 27. Bf4 c4 28. Kf2
b4 29. Ke3 c3 30. bxc3 bxc3 31. Kd4 Bb7 (31... c2 32. Rd6+ Ke7 33. Rc6) 32.
Rd6+ Ke7 33. Bg5+ Ke8 34. Re6+ Kf8 35. Re7 Rd8+ 36. Kxc3 Bxe4 37. Rxa7 {etc.}))
17. Nf3 $1 ({Better than} 17. Nc4 Bd4+ 18. Kh1 Re2 19. Bd1 Rxe4 20. Bf3 Rxf4
21. Bxf4 Nxf4 {which might give White an edge.}) 17... Rxb2 18. e5 Bd8 19. f5
Ng5 (19... Nd4 20. Nxd4 cxd4 21. e6 fxe6 22. fxe6+ Bf6 23. Bd6+ Ke8 24. Rae1 {
and White brings his final piece into play.}) 20. e6 Nxf3+ ({Or} 20... Ne4 21.
Be5 Re2 22. Rae1 $1 Rxe1 23. Rxe1 Nf6 24. exf7 Be7 25. g4 b5 (25... Bd7 26. Ng5
{;}) (25... Nxg4 26. Bd6 $1) 26. g5 c4 (26... Bb7 27. gxf6 gxf6 28. Bf4 c4 29.
Bd1 $1) 27. Bc2 $1 {, and now} Ng4 ({and} 27... Bb7 28. Nd4 Nd5 29. g6 hxg6 30.
fxg6 Bc5 31. Kf1) 28. Bxg7+ Kxf7 29. g6+ hxg6 30. fxg6+ Kxg7 31. Rxe7+ Kf6 (
31... Kg8 32. Be4 Rb8 33. Bd5+) 32. Rf7+ Ke6 33. Rf8 {win for White.}) 21. Rxf3
Rd2 22. Bf4 Rd4 23. Be5 Bf6 ({
Black's rook is in danger of running out of steam, e.g.} 23... Rd2 24. Bc3 Re2
25. Rd1 {.}) 24. Bxf6 gxf6 25. Re1 fxe6 ({Not} 25... c4 $2 26. e7+ Ke8 27. Ba4+
Bd7 28. Rg3 Bxa4 29. Rg8+ Kd7 30. Rxa8 {etc.}) 26. fxe6 Ke7 {
The king is not an ideal blockader.} 27. Rg3 $5 (27. Rh3 {is more logical, e.g.
} Kd6 (27... c4 28. Rxh7+ Kd6 29. Rh8 cxb3 30. e7) 28. Rxh7 c4 29. Rh8 $1 Ke7
30. Bc2 {.}) 27... b5 28. Rg7+ Kd6 29. Rg8 Ke7 ({White wins after both} 29...
c4 30. e7) ({and} 29... Bb7 30. Rxa8 Bxa8 31. e7 Bc6 32. Re6+ {.}) 30. Bc2 $1
Rd5 31. Rg7+ $4 {Whoops.} ({White can get another passed pawn rolling after} 
31. Bxh7 Re5 32. Rxe5 fxe5 33. Be4 Rb8 34. h4 {, e.g.} c4 ({or} 34... Kxe6 35.
h5 Kf7 36. Bd5+ Ke7 37. h6) 35. h5 b4 36. h6 b3 37. axb3 cxb3 38. h7 {.}) 31...
Kd6 32. e7 Be6 33. Be4 Re8 $1 34. Bxd5 Bxd5 35. Re2 $2 {
Now Black is in the driving seat...} ({Again White ignores the h7-pawn:} 35.
Rxh7 $1 Bxa2 36. Rd1+ Ke6 37. Re1+ $1 {draws.}) 35... c4 36. Rxh7 c3 $1 37. Kf2
b4 $2 {Another in a series of mistakes that feature in the rest of the game -
understandable in such a complex ending.} ({Correct is} 37... Bc4 $3 38. Re3 b4
39. Rh6 c2 40. Rxf6+ Kd7 41. Re1 Bxa2 42. Ra6 b3 43. Rxa7+ Kc6 44. Rc1 Kd6 {.})
38. Ke3 $1 {Excellent. White faces facts and is prepared to part with his once
mighty e-pawn.} Kc5 $6 (38... Rxe7+ 39. Rxe7 Kxe7 40. Kd4+ Kd6 41. h4 a5 42. h5
Bxa2 $1 43. Rxa2 b3 44. Kxc3 bxa2 45. Kb2 Ke7 46. g4 Kf7 47. Kxa2 Kg7 48. Kb3
Kh6 49. Ka4 f5 {with a draw.}) 39. Rf2 Bxa2 $1 {A good try.} ({Instead} 39...
a5 40. Rxf6 Bxa2 41. Rf8 {wins for White.}) 40. Rxa2 b3 41. Rh5+ $2 {
Wrong rook!} (41. Ra5+ {wins:} Kd6 (41... Kb4 42. Rxa7 c2 43. Kd2 Rc8 44. Rb7+
Ka3 45. Kc1 {;}) (41... Kb6 42. Ra3 b2 43. Rb3+ Ka5 44. Kd3 {;}) (41... Kc6 42.
Ra3 c2 43. Kd2 {;}) (41... Kc4 42. Rh4#) 42. Ra6+ Kd7 43. Rxa7+ Ke6 44. Rb7 b2
45. Kd3 Rc8 46. e8=Q+ $1 {.}) 41... Kd6 42. Ra6+ $2 (42. Ra1 $1 b2 43. Rd1+
Kxe7 44. Rc5 Kf8+ 45. Kf4 Rb8 46. Rb1 Rb3 47. Ke4 Ra3 48. Kd3 {.}) 42... Kxe7
43. Rh7+ Kf8+ $4 {The final blunder.} ({White still has work to do after} 43...
Kd8+ $1 44. Kd3 c2 {since here after} 45. Raxa7 {Black can queen his pawn. I
have a feeling that White should have a win somewhere,} ({
but there is always the simplifying} 45. Rd6+ Kc8 46. Rc6+ Kb8 47. Rcc7 Re1 $1
48. Rb7+ Kc8 49. Rxa7 Kb8 50. Rab7+ Kc8 51. Rxb3 c1=Q 52. Rc3+ Qxc3+ 53. Kxc3 {
.})) 44. Kd3 c2 45. Raxa7 ({After} 45. Raxa7 -- (45... Kg8 46. Rag7+ Kf8 47.
Rb7 Kg8 48. Rhc7) ({, and} 45... Re7 46. Ra8+ Re8 47. Rxe8+ Kxe8 48. Rc7 ({or} 
48. Kd2 {, are fairly simple})) ({, while the other try} 45... Rd8+ {is met by}
46. Ke4 Re8+ (46... Kg8 47. Rag7+ Kf8 48. Rb7 Kg8 49. Rhc7) 47. Kf5 Re7 48.
Ra8+ Re8 49. Kxf6 $1 Kg8 50. Rg7+ Kf8 51. Rf7+ {mates.})) 1-0

[Event "Russian Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sakaev, K."]
[Black "Ibragimov, I."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D20"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "75"]
[EventDate "1999.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 c5 4. d5 Nf6 5. Nc3 b5 {Bizarre but entirely
logical! Black protects his extra pawn and threatens to undermine the defence
of White's e4-pawn by attacking the knight with ...b5-b4.} ({Of course the
b5-pawn itself is not defended, but White should refrain from taking it, e.g.} 
5... b5 6. Nxb5 $6 Qa5+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8. Bd2 Nxd2 9. Qxd2 Ba6 10. Nf3 Nd7 11. Be2
g6 {and Black was better, Korchnoi-Lindinger, Wichern 1997.}) 6. Bf4 {
White simply brings a piece to a good square and prepares to add weight to Nb5
in the event of ... b5-b4 by hitting the c7-square. Consequently Black has
three ways of defending b5 before attacking the knight.} (6. e5 {
has the right look but is less effective than Sakaev's choice. After} b4 7.
exf6 bxc3 8. bxc3 -- ({, Black should play} 8... Nd7 $1 {, when} 9. Qa4 (9.
fxe7 Bxe7 10. Bxc4 Nb6 11. Bb5+ Bd7 {is fine for Black}) 9... exf6 10. Bf4 Qb6
11. Bxc4 Bd6 {is equal.}) ({. Instead} 8... exf6 $6 9. Bxc4 Bd6 10. Qe2+ {
invites Black into an ending in which White's superior pawn structure counts
for something}) ({, while Bacrot-Peric, Corsica (rapid) 1997, continued} 8...
Qa5 9. Qd2 gxf6 10. Bxc4 Nd7 11. Nf3 Nb6 12. Be2 c4 13. O-O Bb7 14. Rd1 Rd8 15.
Qf4 {with a development lead for White worth a pawn (or two). Black chose} Nxd5
$2 {rather than the better 15...Bxd5, and soon paid the price:} 16. Qxc4 Nxc3
17. Rxd8+ Kxd8 18. Bf1 Bxf3 19. Bd2 $1 Qc7 20. Qd3+ Nd5 21. Rc1 Qb6 22. Rb1 $5
Qc7 23. Rb5 Ke8 24. Rxd5 Bxd5 25. Qxd5 {.})) 6... Ba6 {As a6 may well be the
best square for the bishop - especially as from here the c4-pawn is given
added protection as well as the b5-pawn - this relatively recent idea is a
promising alternative to the outwardly more aggressive pin (see below). Others:
} (6... Qa5 {is popular.} 7. -- (7. a4 {
is better than its reputation, although after} Nxe4 8. -- ({
, White should ignore} 8. axb5 Nxc3 9. Rxa5 Nxd1 10. Kxd1 Nd7 11. Bxc4 Nb6 12.
b3 Bb7 13. Nf3 Bxd5) ({, in favour of} 8. Nge2 Nd6 9. axb5 Qb6 10. Bxd6 {, e.g.
} exd6 ({or} 10... Qxd6 11. Ng3 g6 12. Bxc4 Bg7 13. O-O O-O 14. Nge4 {
, with a slight edge for White in both cases despite the absence of his
dark-squared bishop}) 11. Ng3 Be7 12. Bxc4 O-O 13. O-O Bf6 14. Qc2 {
, Beliavsky-Kamsky, Linares 1993.})) ({. Again} 7. e5 {
cries out to be played but should be avoided. After} Ne4 8. Nge2 Na6 9. f3 Nb4
$1 10. fxe4 Nd3+ 11. Kd2 g6 $3 {
Black was having all the fun in Gelfand-Anand, Linares 1993. There followed}
12. b3 ({in Beliavsky-Comp Fritz 4, Slovenia (rapid) 1996, White tried} 12. e6
Nf2 13. Qe1 Nxh1 14. a4 fxe6 15. axb5 Qb4 16. Kc1 {, this does look like an
improvement and is worth further investigation, but White has to be at least
as careful as Black in this line, so it makes more sense to settle for 7 f3 or
7 Bd2, below, both of which seem superior anyway}) 12... Bg7 13. bxc4 Nxf4 14.
Nxf4 Bxe5 15. Nfe2 b4 16. Qa4+ Qxa4 17. Nxa4 Bxa1 18. Nxc5 O-O {
and by now Black was winning.}) (7. f3 {sensibly bolsters the centre and
denies Black use of the g4-square. The main line is} Nh5 ({now} 7... g5 $6 {
has been seen occasionally but the pawn is too much to pay for Black's
subsequent Benko-style activity after} 8. Bxg5) ({; over on the queenside} 7...
b4 {is well met by} 8. Qa4+) 8. Bd2 Nd7 9. f4 {
(Vyzmanavin-Azmaiparashvili, Burgas 1994)} g6 (9... Nhf6 $2 10. e5) 10. -- ({
. After the forced 9...g6 Vyzmanavin proposes} 10. e5 Bh6 11. Nge2 {with the threat of snaring a piece by launching the g-pawn. Black's best is the obvious}
b4 {, e.g.} 12. Ne4 $6 ({Ward suggests} 12. Qa4 {with an evaluation of unclear}
) 12... Bb7 {.}) ({. Instead the game went} 10. Be2 Bg7 (10... b4 11. Qa4 $1 {
is a reply given by Ftacnik}) 11. e5 b4 12. Qa4 {.} ({
White preferred the thematic 12 Qa4 to} 12. Ne4 Bb7 13. Bxc4 Nb6 14. Qb3 {
in view of} Rd8) 12... -- ({. Then the retreat} 12... Qb6 {
works out well for White after} 13. Ne4 Ba6 $2 ({or the lesser evil} 13... Bb7
14. Bxc4) 14. e6 $1 fxe6 15. dxe6 Qxe6 16. Nxc5 {.}) ({
. However, Black might consider} 12... Qd8 13. Ne4 O-O {when the consistent}
14. g4 {means parting with a couple of pawns for the piece after either} Nxf4
$1 15. Bxf4 Nb6 ({or} 15... Nxe5 {. Nevertheless in these complex positions
the extra piece tends to be more useful than pawns.})) ({
. If this is not to Black's liking Ward's clever} 12... Qa6 $5 {
is a realistic possibility, forcing the exchange of queens on Black's terms.})
({. The game itself continued} 12... Qxa4 13. Nxa4 Ba6 14. g4 Nxf4 15. Bxf4 Bb5
16. b3 Bxa4 (16... Nxe5) 17. bxa4 Nxe5 18. O-O-O c3 19. Bb5+ Kf8 20. h3 Rd8 21.
Rh2 {and both sides had chances of making something of their respective
material 'gain'.}))) (7. Bd2 {is most successful in the line} b4 ({
another possibility to consider is} 7... e5 8. f4 Nbd7 9. Nf3 Bd6 {
with a view to establishing a grip on the dark squares}) 8. e5 bxc3 (8... Ng4
$5 9. e6 Nf6 {is stronger for Black than it first appears and will be just as
inconvenient to White as e5-e6 has been for Black}) 9. Bxc3 {, e.g.} Qa6 10.
exf6 exf6 11. b3 Be7 12. Bxc4 Qd6 13. Ne2 O-O 14. O-O {with a pleasant
position for White in Shirov-Kramnik, Linares 1993. All in all I prefer 7 f3.})
) (6... a6 {guards b5 with a lowly pawn rather than bringing out a piece. After
} 7. e5 b4 8. exf6 bxc3 9. bxc3 {Black has tried three moves:} -- (9... Qa5 10.
Rc1 gxf6 11. Bxc4 h5 12. Nf3 Nd7 13. O-O Nb6 14. Bc7 {(Legky-Peric, Martinez
2000). The position is hardly any better for Peric than his game against
Bacrot, above. The fact that an IM can find himself in trouble so early
illustrates how Black's game-plan can so easily fall apart in the 5...b5
variation. In fact after} Ra7 15. d6 exd6 16. Re1+ Be6 17. Bxb6 Qxb6 18. Rb1
Qd8 19. Bxe6 fxe6 20. Rxe6+ Kf7 21. Qd5 Kg7 22. Nh4 {
Black's situation was embarrassing enough to resign at once.}) (9... Nd7 10.
Qa4 Qb6 11. fxe7 Bxe7 12. Bxc4 Qb2 13. Rc1 Bd6 14. Be3 Rb8 15. Nf3 O-O 16. Bd3
f5 17. O-O {and Black - faced with the prospect of Nf3-d2-c4 - was much worse
in Markeluk-Juarez, Buenos Aires 1989.}) ({. The same players reached the same
position in a tournament in Acasusso 1991. Then Black tried} 9... gxf6 10. Bxc4
Nd7 11. Qa4 Bg7 {and White endeavoured to justify his early queen sortie with}
12. Qc6 $5 Ra7 13. Rb1 O-O 14. d6 $5 exd6 15. Bxd6 Ne5 16. Bxe5 Re8 17. Ne2
fxe5 {
. White's light-square control is enough to leave him comfortably better after}
18. O-O {,} ({but he decided to take the strategy further by sacrificing the
exchange - and bagging a couple of pawns in the process! - after} 18. Qxc5 Rc7
19. Qd5 Qe7 20. Qe4 Rd8 21. O-O Bb7 22. Rxb7 Rxb7 23. Bxa6 Ra7 24. Bc4 Qd7 25.
Ng3 {.}))) 7. e5 {With the e4-square not available to Black this thrust makes
more sense. Now Black must decide whether to retreat or make a counter.} b4 ({
The alternative is} 7... Nfd7 $5 {and now:} 8. -- (8. e6 Nb6 (8... Nf6 9. Bxc4
$1 bxc4 10. Qa4+ Nfd7 11. Bxb8) 9. exf7+ Kxf7 10. Qf3 {is complex indeed.
White should complete his development as quickly as possible.}) (8. a4 b4 9.
Nb5 Bxb5 10. axb5 Nb6 11. e6 $5 f6 12. Bg3 g6 13. Be2 a5 14. Bf3 Ra7 {
. Chess should be fun, and both sides can claim to be having a good time in
this strange position.}) (8. Nf3 {
. This looks a bit too sensible compared with 8 e6 and 8 a4! After} b4 9. Ne4
Nb6 10. d6 N8d7 11. Qe2 {
followed by castling queenside White has compensation for the pawn.})) 8. e6 $5
{Pawns certainly have a lot to do in this variation! Amazingly White doesn't
bother capturing the knight on f6 and - despite his own knight coming under
fire - instead elects to play his positional card by disrupting Black's
kingside development.} ({Before investigating the implications of this thrust
let us consider what happens after} 8. exf6 bxc3 9. bxc3 {
, when Black's best is} gxf6 ({instead of} 9... exf6 10. d6) 10. Rb1 {.} -- ({
. Then} 10... Nd7 11. Qa4 Qc8 12. Bxc4 Bxc4 13. Qxc4 Nb6 14. Qe4 Qd7 15. Rd1
Rd8 16. Nf3 {
gives White a slight pull as the d5-pawn is (for the moment) safe, e.g.} Nxd5 (
16... f5 17. Qc2 Nxd5 $2 18. Ne5) 17. c4 Nc3 18. Rxd7 Nxe4 19. Rxa7 {.}) ({
. Khalifman-Ponomariov, European Cup 2000, saw a more interesting course:} 
10... Bg7 11. Qg4 (11. Bxc4 Bxc4 12. Qa4+ Nd7 13. Qxc4 Nb6) 11... Qxd5 12. Be2
Qe4 13. Rxb8+ Rxb8 14. Bxb8 Qb1+ 15. Bd1 O-O 16. Bc7 Rc8 17. Qf4 {
, and now after} Qb7 (17... e5 18. Qd2 Rxc7 $4 19. Qd8+) 18. Ba5 Qb5 19. Bc7
Qb2 $1 20. Ne2 e5 21. Bxe5 fxe5 22. Qg4 Rf8 23. O-O f5 {
and White was in a degree of trouble.})) 8... fxe6 $6 (8... Qa5 $5 {
carries on as normal and forces the exchange of queens with} 9. Qa4+ (9. exf7+
Kxf7 10. Ne4 Nxe4 11. Qf3 Nf6 12. d6 c3 {is good for Black, e.g.} 13. bxc3 ({or
} 13. Qxa8 cxb2 14. Rd1 b3+ 15. Bd2 bxa2 16. Bxa5 a1=Q 17. Qxb8 Qxa5+ 18. Rd2
Bxf1) 13... b3) 9... Qxa4 10. Nxa4 Nxd5 {
, when White should leave his pawn on e6,} 11. Nh3 c3 12. bxc3 Bxf1 13. Rxf1
bxc3 14. Nxc5 {offering compensation for the pawn in the form of Black's
problems with development. A typical continuation might be} fxe6 15. Nxe6 Nd7
16. O-O-O N7f6 17. Be5 {. Black still needs to sort out his kingside but White
is running out of pieces to make his bind pay, and this general factor makes 8.
..Qa5 Black's most attractive option as long as he can hold his position
together.}) (8... bxc3 {on the other hand, cannot be recommended, as} 9. Qa4+
Nbd7 10. Qxa6 Nxd5 (10... cxb2 11. Rb1 fxe6 12. dxe6) 11. exd7+ Qxd7 12. O-O-O
{is decisive, e.g.} cxb2+ 13. Kxb2 c3+ 14. Kc1 c2 15. Rxd5 $1 (15. Bb5 $4
cxd1=Q+ 16. Kxd1 Nc3+) 15... Qxd5 16. Bb5+ {.}) 9. Qa4+ Qd7 $2 {A mistake is
understandable in such a complex situation (and so early in the game).} ({After
} 9... Nbd7 $2 10. dxe6 bxc3 11. Qxa6 cxb2 12. Rd1 {Black is in trouble}) ({
while} 9... Nfd7 10. dxe6 bxc3 11. bxc3 Qb6 12. Bxc4 Bxc4 13. exd7+ Nxd7 14.
Qxc4 {gives White a definite advantage thanks to the fewer pawn islands and
more secure king position (after 0-0).}) ({
Instead of blocking the check, Black's best is} 9... Kf7 $1 10. dxe6+ Kg8 (
10... Kxe6 $2 11. Bxb8) 11. Nb5 Qe8 12. Bxc4 Bb7 {with a very messy position
indeed. In the main game Black has nothing to show for the unwelcome visitor
on e6.}) 10. dxe6 Qxa4 11. Nxa4 {Black cannot hang on to the extra pawn and,
unlike the variation with 9...Kf7! in the previous note, his pieces lack
harmony.} Bb5 ({
I suspect that Black's best chance lies in returning the pawn as follows:} 
11... c3 12. bxc3 Bxf1 13. Kxf1 Nd5 {.}) ({The sequence} 11... Ne4 12. f3 Bb5
13. fxe4 Bxa4 14. Bxc4 Nc6 {
works out very well for White, who can maintain the queenside pressure with}
15. b3 $1 Na5 16. Bd5 Bc6 17. Rc1 {.}) 12. Nxc5 Nc6 ({
Unfortunately for Black the attempt to relieve some of the pressure with} 12...
Nd5 13. Bg3 Na6 {fails to} 14. Nb3 $1 {, with the nasty threat of Nd4. After
the text Black must lose the second c-pawn.}) 13. Rc1 Nd5 14. Bxc4 $1 Bxc4 15.
Rxc4 Nxf4 16. Rxf4 {The position is a good advert for the disruptive plan with
e5-e6, regardless of Black's possible improvements earlier. White has a points
lead to add to the e6-pawn, and both sides need to get their kingside pieces
into the game.} g5 17. Rc4 Bg7 18. Nf3 (18. h4 $5 g4 19. Ne2 {is another way
to keep White well in control, although with such a good position it is
difficult to avoid a very good ending.}) 18... Ne5 (18... g4 {
fails to avoid a clearly worse position after either} 19. Na6 ({or} 19. Rxg4
Bxb2 20. Ke2) 19... gxf3 20. Rxc6 fxg2 21. Rg1 Rd8 22. Rxg2 Bxb2 23. Nxb4) ({
while} 18... Bxb2 $6 19. Na4 $1 Ne5 20. Nxb2 Nxc4 21. Nxc4 {
gives White two great knights for a rook.}) 19. Nxe5 Bxe5 20. Nd3 Bd6 21. h4 $1
{A nice way of connecting the rooks.} gxh4 22. Rcxh4 {
The h7-pawn makes a far more attractive trophy than the one on b4.} a5 23. Rxh7
Rg8 24. g3 O-O-O 25. Ke2 Kb7 26. R7h4 Rg6 27. Re4 Rg5 28. g4 Rd5 29. Rd1 Kb6
30. b3 Rc8 31. Rd2 Kb5 32. Nb2 Rxd2+ 33. Kxd2 Bc5 34. Nd3 Bd6 35. f4 a4 36. g5
a3 37. f5 Rf8 38. f6 1-0

[Event "Yugoslav Team Championship"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sakaev, K."]
[Black "Rublevsky, S."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D20"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "74"]
[EventDate "1999.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 4. Nf3 exd4 {
The immediate check has had less success than the main game.} ({
White's easiest route to advantage is as follows:} 4... Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.
Qxd2 exd4 7. Nxd4 {
when White intends to win back the (c4-) pawn with more space.} -- ({. After} 
7... Nf6 8. Nc3 Qe7 9. f3 Be6 10. Nxe6 Qxe6 11. Qd4 Nc6 12. Qxc4 {
White has the added bonus of a potentially useful bishop.}) ({
. Instead Black usually plays} 7... Qe7 8. f3 Nf6 9. Bxc4 O-O 10. Nc3 {
. White is slightly better thanks to his secure e4-pawn - which affords him
more room for manoeuvre and keeps Black on his toes with the constant menace
of an advance - and centrally located pieces.} -- ({
. Groszpeter-Zsu.Polgar, Hungarian Ch. 1991, went} 10... Nbd7 11. O-O (11. Nf5
Qc5 12. Qg5 $2 g6 {is fine for Black}) 11... Rd8 {and now after} 12. Qe3 $6 ({
best is} 12. Be2 $1 Ne5 13. Qe3 {and White maintains the lead}) 12... Nb6 $1
13. Bb3 c5 $1 14. Nde2 c4 {White loses his grip on d5.}) ({. With} 10... c5 {
Black addresses the centre on his own terms, concentrating on d4. In Andersson-Seirawan, Tilburg 1990, Black came up with an interesting way of defending d5:
after} 11. Nde2 Rd8 12. Qe3 Be6 13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. O-O Nc6 15. Rad1 b6 {
Black had pawns covering both d4 and d5. In fact White resorted to the same
method to maintain a slight lead, replying with} 16. e5 Nd5 17. Qe4 Qf7 18. f4
Nxc3 19. bxc3 $1 {, when the d6-square became more significant now that d5
could be protected with the move c3-c4 if necessary.}))) 5. Bxc4 Bb4+ 6. Nbd2
Nc6 ({The stubborn} 6... c5 {spends valuable time protecting the d4-pawn and
also cuts off the bishop on b4. Sulypa-Hollerbuhl, Berlin 1998, continued} 7.
Ne5 Nh6 8. O-O O-O 9. Nb3 Qf6 10. Qh5 Re8 11. f4 Be6 12. a3 Bxc4 13. Nxc4 b5
14. e5 Qe6 15. Nd6 Rf8 16. Qf3 {and White was winning. I'm sure there are
improvements but this is not the way for Black to play.}) 7. O-O Nf6 {
Black anticipates the aggressive advance of the enemy e-pawn, after which the
d5-square becomes available. White, for his part, finds himself with the
e4-square after e4-e5, so he should be happy to carry on with the plan.} (7...
Qe7 {is one of two tries with the queen. After} 8. Nb3 Bg4 9. Nbxd4 Ne5 {
White is given the opportunity for a nice - albeit temporary - queen sacrifice:
} 10. Nxe5 $1 Bxd1 11. Bxf7+ {
(Tukmakov-Avner, World U26 Team Ch. 1966). Now Avner played} Kf8 ({as} 11...
Kd8 12. Rxd1 {will soon see Black down on points}) 12. Ne6+ Qxe6 13. Bxe6 Be2 {
, but} 14. Nf7 Bxf1 15. Kxf1 Ke7 16. Bb3 Nf6 17. Nxh8 Rxh8 18. f3 {
left White with an extra pawn and the bishop pair.}) (7... Qf6 {borrows an
another position (after 6 Bd2 Bxd2+ 7 Nbxd2 Nc6 8 0-0) but looks too risky
here.} 8. -- ({. As Ward points out White can already secure a safe lead by
steering the game to an ending with} 8. Nb3 Bg4 9. Nbxd4 Nxd4 10. Qxd4 Bxf3 11.
Qxf6 Nxf6 12. gxf3 {etc.}) ({. However,} 8. e5 {
is crying out to be played, e.g.} Qg6 9. Nh4 Qg4 10. Ndf3 Be6 11. h3 Qe4 12.
Bd3 Qd5 13. Ng5 {.} -- ({. Now} 13... Qxe5 $5 14. Nhf3 Qd5 15. Be4 Qd7 16. Bxc6
bxc6 17. Nxe6 fxe6 18. Nxd4 ({while} 18. Qxd4 {leaves White with much the
healthier pawn structure that outweighs the pawn deficit}) 18... O-O-O 19. Qa4
$5 Qxd4 20. Be3 {was complicated in Bönsch-Chekhov, Halle 1987.}) ({
. From this position Timman-Tal, Candidates playoff 1985, went} 13... Be7 14.
Be4 Qd7 15. Nxe6 Qxe6 16. Bxc6+ bxc6 17. Qxd4 Rd8 18. Qa4 Bc5 19. Qc2 {
. Tal tried} Rd5 ({now} 19... Bb6 20. Bg5 Ne7 21. Bxe7 Kxe7 22. Nf5+ Kd7 {
looks fun only from White's side of the board}) 20. b4 $1 -- (20... Bd4 21. Nf5
Bxe5 22. Re1 {(threatening 23 Nxg7+)} Kf8 23. Bb2 Qxf5 24. Qxf5 Bh2+ 25. Kxh2
Rxf5 26. Rad1 Rd5 27. Rxd5 cxd5 28. Rc1 {
and Black's yet to be developed pieces were the decisive factor.}) ({
. Incidentally} 20... Bb6 21. Nf5 Qg6 22. Bg5 $1 {
highlights Black's problem, e.g.} Qxg5 (22... h6 23. e6 fxe6 24. Nd6+ {- Timman
}) 23. Qxc6+ Rd7 24. e6 {(M.Trauth)} fxe6 25. Rad1 Qxf5 (25... Nf6 26. Qxe6+
Kd8 27. Rxd7+ Nxd7 28. Rd1) 26. Qxd7+ (26. Rxd7 Ne7) 26... Kf8 27. a4 $1 a5 28.
bxa5 Bxa5 (28... Ba7 29. Qd8+ Kf7 30. Qxc7+) 29. Qd8+ Kf7 30. Rd7+ Kg6 31. g4
Qe5 32. Qe8+ Kh6 33. h4 {etc.})))) ({No better is} 7... Nh6 8. Nb3 Bg4 9. Bd5 {
, e.g.} Ne5 10. Qxd4 $1 Nxf3+ 11. gxf3 Bxf3 12. Bxh6 Qd7 13. Qe5+ {
1-0 Korchnoi-Mestrovic, Sarajevo 1969.}) (7... Bxd2 {
voluntarily surrenders the bishop and facilitates White's development.} 8. Bxd2
Nge7 9. Ng5 Ne5 10. Bb3 h6 11. f4 hxg5 12. fxe5 O-O 13. Bxg5 Be6 14. Bxe6 fxe6
15. Rxf8+ Qxf8 16. Qg4 Qf7 17. Rf1 Qg6 18. h4 {is not untypical, e.g.} Nc6 19.
h5 Nxe5 20. Qf4 Qxh5 21. Qxe5 {
and Black soon resigned in Xu Jun-Ardiansyah, Jakarta 1987.}) ({
The main alternative to Rublevsky's choice is} 7... Be6 8. Bxe6 fxe6 {
, when I prefer the thematic} 9. Qb3 {with pressure against e6 and b7,} ({
although} 9. Nb3 {
has been seen a number of times and leads to a better game for White}) 9... --
{and then:} ({. Touzane-Pinkus, Geneva 1996, should serve as a warning to
Black of the danger of hanging on to pawns at the cost of development:} 9...
Bxd2 $6 10. Bxd2 e5 $2 11. Rac1 Rb8 12. Ng5 Qd7 13. Rxc6 $1 Qxc6 14. Qf7+ Kd8
15. Ne6+ Kc8 16. Rc1 {1-0.}) ({. Instead, in Amado-H.Garcia, Zarate 1972,
Black quickly sent his king to the queenside:} 9... Qd7 10. Nc4 O-O-O 11. Bg5
Rf8 12. Nfe5 $1 Nxe5 13. Qxb4 {(hitting f8)} Ng6 14. Rac1 {. With most of his
pieces over on the kingside Black has obvious defensive problems. The game
continued} Kb8 ({hoping to improve on} 14... c6 15. Ne5 $1 Qe8 16. Nxg6 hxg6
17. Qxd4 {, Florian-Sliwa, Gyula 1965}) 15. Na5 Qc8 16. Rc5 Ka8 17. Rfc1 c6 18.
Qxd4 e5 19. Qa4 Nf4 20. Bxf4 exf4 21. Nxc6 $1 bxc6 22. Rxc6 Qd7 (22... Qb7 23.
Rc7 Qb6 24. Rc8+ Rxc8 25. Rxc8+ Kb7 26. Qd7+ Ka6 27. Rc6) 23. Qa6 Kb8 24. Qb5+
(24. Rc7 Qxc7 25. Rxc7 Kxc7 26. Qxa7+ Kd8 27. Qxg7 {favours the queen}) 24...
Qb7 $2 25. Qe5+ Ka8 26. Rc7 Qb6 27. Rc8+ Rxc8 28. Rxc8+ {1-0.})) 8. e5 Nd5 9.
Nb3 {Seeking to establish an imposing knight on d4 with the capture of Black's
extra pawn.} ({Also possible is} 9. a3 -- ({, when} 9... Bxd2 10. Bxd2 Be6 11.
Bb5 Nde7 12. Bg5 {has been considered good for White since Forintos-Golz,
Rubinstein Memorial 1968:} Qd5 13. Nxd4 Bd7 14. Nxc6 Qxd1 15. Raxd1 Bxc6 16.
Bc4 {and the two bishops were enough for an advantage. More recently Black has
kept his bishop.}) ({. After} 9... Be7 10. Qb3 Be6 ({the most popular choice is
} 10... Na5 {, when} 11. Qa4+ {is slightly worse for Black after either} Nc6 ({
or} 11... c6 12. Ba2 b5 13. Qxd4) 12. Nxd4 (12. Bb5 $5 Nb6 13. Bxc6+ bxc6 14.
Qxd4) 12... Nb6 13. Nxc6 Nxa4 14. Nxd8 Bxd8 15. f4) 11. Qxb7 Na5 12. Bb5+ Kf8
13. Qa6 {Black has been more inconvenienced than White.})) 9... Nb6 (9... O-O
10. Nbxd4 Nxd4 ({while} 10... Nb6 11. Nxc6 Qxd1 12. Rxd1 bxc6 13. Bb3 {
merely saddled Black with weak queenside pawns in B.Ahlander-Wahlstrom, Rodeby
1997}) 11. Qxd4 Ne7 $2 ({or} 11... Nb6) 12. Bxf7+ {helps White.}) 10. Bg5 Be7
11. Bxe7 Qxe7 ({It might be more accurate to recapture with the knight here:} 
11... Nxe7 12. Bd3 {and now:} -- (12... Bf5 13. Nfxd4 Bxd3 14. Qxd3 {
accelerates White's development.}) (12... O-O 13. Nbxd4 Ng6 14. Re1 Bg4 15. h3
Bxf3 16. Nxf3 Nf4 17. Be4 {illustrates a key difference between the two sides,
namely White's unchallenged bishop. Whether Black trades queens:} Qxd1 ({
C.Hansen-Lautier, Groningen 1995, continued} 17... c6 18. Qc2 h6 19. Rad1 Nbd5
20. h4 $1 Qb6 21. a3 {and White was gradually creeping forward}) 18. Raxd1 c6 {
or allows his opponent more space, the bishop makes life difficult.}) (12...
Bg4 13. Nbxd4 Ned5 {makes sense. Then} 14. h3 {can be met with} Bh5 {, maintaining the pin. G.Timoshenko-Matulovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1990, was agreed drawn
after} 15. Qb3 O-O 16. Be4 {but there is obviously much to play for. The pin
on the d1-h5 diagonal hinders White after a rook comes to the natural post on
d1, but White has more space and the better bishop.}) ({
. Curt Hansen's experience of this line with Black saw him play} 12... Ng6 {
. Then} 13. Nfxd4 {gives Black three choices, one of which he should avoid:} --
({. Not surprisingly} 13... Nxe5 $2 {
runs into trouble with Black's king still in the centre. The simple} 14. Re1
Qf6 15. Qe2 Nbd7 16. Nf3 {nets White a piece.}) (13... O-O 14. f4 Nd5 15. Qd2 {
adds to White's territorial superiority.}) (13... Nf4 {
puts the question to the bishop. Now Ward proposes} 14. Be4 {with the opinion
that White's central supremacy is worth something. He does seem to have a
point as the bishop is excellent in the middle of the board.} ({Instead Ftacnik-C.Hansen, Yerevan Olympiad 1996, followed a more complex course:} 14. Bb5+ $5
c6 (14... Bd7 15. Qg4 $1 {is not an uncommon theme}) 15. Qf3 {, and now rather
than letting himself be drawn into complications that favoured White after} (
15. Nxc6 bxc6 16. Bxc6+ Bd7 17. Bxa8 Qxa8 18. f3 O-O {brings about an unclear
situation in which White has a rook and two pawns for two pieces}) 15... Nh3+
$2 16. gxh3 cxb5 17. Qg3 (17. Nxb5 O-O 18. Nd6 Qg5+ 19. Qg3 Qxg3+ 20. hxg3 Bxh3
21. Rfc1 {is preferable for White according to Ftacnik}) 17... O-O 18. Rad1 {
, Black should have played 15...Qg5 when it is not clear whether White has
anything substantial. Of course it would be simpler to opt for Ward's sensible
14 Be4.})))) 12. Bb5 Bd7 ({Black did nothing to prevent the doubling of his
pawns in Wilder-Lazic, Belgrade 1988, the idea being, perhaps, that after} 
12... O-O 13. Bxc6 bxc6 14. Qxd4 Be6 15. Rfe1 Bd5 {
the new c6-pawn supports the bishop. However, after} 16. Qf4 Rfe8 17. Rac1 $1 {
(keeping an eye on both c5 and c6)} a5 18. Nfd4 a4 19. Nf5 Qe6 20. Nbd4 Qg6 21.
Ne3 Rad8 22. Nxd5 {
this inevitable capture on d5 left Black with significant weaknesses after all.
}) 13. Bxc6 Bxc6 14. Nfxd4 {Freeing the f4-pawn, opening the d1-h5 diagonal
and denying Black an immediate exchange of minor pieces on f3.} Bd5 15. Qg4 {
This is the kind of position White should be more than happy to play in this
variation. With Black about to castle short White's kingside pawn majority
takes on more significance, and the e5-pawn serves to highlight Black's
potential problems on the dark squares. The first matter for Black to address
is the attack on his g7-pawn.} O-O {
Black prefers to commit his king before his g-pawn.} ({After} 15... g6 16. Rfe1
O-O 17. Nf5 Qd7 18. Nh6+ Kg7 19. Qg5 $1 {Black was already under pressure on
the dark squares in Kasparov-Hübner, Skelleftea (World Cup) 1989. The game
continued} f6 20. exf6+ Rxf6 21. Re7+ $5 (21. Nd4 $5 Bf7 22. Rad1 {
also looks good}) 21... Qxe7 22. Nf5+ Rxf5 23. Qxe7+ Rf7 24. Qe5+ Kg8 25. Nc5
c6 {and now} 26. Ne4 {again homes in on f6.}) 16. f4 {White's strength lies in
his general menacing presence on the kingside. From a psychological point of
view Black tends to feel a little ill at ease when his king - already lacking
in defensive options - faces advancing enemy pawns.} (16. Qxg7+ $6 {, on the other hand, looks nice but leads to an ending that is better for Black, if
anyone, after} Kxg7 17. Nf5+ Kh8 18. Nxe7 Bxb3 19. axb3 Rfe8 {etc.}) 16... g6 (
16... Bxb3 17. Nf5 Qc5+ 18. Kh1 g6 19. axb3 Nd5 {is given as unclear by
Beliavsky. Certainly it makes sense to improve Black's knight, which makes no
valid contribution to the game over on b6. Then} 20. Rac1 Qb4 21. Rcd1 {
tempts Black into} Qxb3 $2 (21... Rad8 22. Rd3) ({and} 21... c6 22. Rd3 Qe4 23.
Rg3 {keep the game rolling, when White's obvious pull on the kingside is
offset by structural weaknesses on the other flank}) 22. Rxd5 {, when} Qxd5 {
drops the queen to} 23. Ne7+ {.}) 17. Rae1 (17. Nf5 Qd7 18. Nh6+ Kg7 19. Qg5
Bxb3 ({in Michaelsen-Putzbach, Hamburg 1991,} 19... f6 20. exf6+ Rxf6 {
soon turned sour for Black:} 21. Nd4 Re8 22. Ng4 Rff8 23. f5 c5 24. fxg6 cxd4
25. Rf7+ $1 {and White won}) 20. axb3 Qd8 21. Nf5+ Kh8 22. Ne7 Nd5 {
was okay for Black in I.Sokolov-Hübner, European Team Ch. 1989.}) 17... Bc4 18.
f5 $5 {From a practical point of view this is a decent choice in view of
White's far superior presence on the kingside.} Bxf1 19. f6 Qb4 (19... Qd7 20.
Qg5 Qd5 21. Rxf1 Kh8 22. Rf4 {and the net closes in on Black's king, e.g.} Rg8
23. Qh6 {.}) 20. Qh4 Rfe8 ({Here or on the next move Black might exploit the
extra rook to give up his queen, thus lifting some of the pressure from his
king, e.g.} 20... Bc4 21. a3 Qxe1+ 22. Qxe1 Rfe8 {. Nonetheless, after} 23. Qe3
{the prospect of a mate threat on g7 is a constant worry for Black.}) 21. a3
Qf8 22. e6 $1 Bc4 ({Not} 22... fxe6 $2 23. Rxf1 Qf7 24. Nf3 {etc.}) ({However,
} 22... Rxe6 23. Nxe6 fxe6 24. Rxf1 Qf7 {is not clear.}) 23. e7 Rxe7 24. fxe7
Qe8 25. Nc5 Bd5 26. Qf6 {For the price of a pawn it is safe to say that White
has ample compensation in the form of the dark squares and the protected
passed pawn on the seventh rank, behind which White enjoys much space.} Nd7 {
If Black sits back White has h2-h4, either threatening to advance further or
inducing the concession ...h7-h5.} 27. Nxd7 Qxd7 28. Nf5 $1 {
This thematic turn of events deserves more than a draw.} gxf5 29. Qg5+ Kh8 30.
Qf6+ Kg8 31. Re3 $1 Bf3 $5 ({
After the alternative effort White forces a decisive ending:} 31... f4 32. Qg5+
Kh8 33. Qe5+ Kg8 34. e8=Q+ Rxe8 35. Qxe8+ Qxe8 36. Rxe8+ {.}) 32. Qg5+ Kh8 33.
Qf6+ Kg8 34. gxf3 $2 (34. Rxf3 $1 {is imperative, when} Qd1+ 35. Kf2 Qd2+ 36.
Kg3 Qd6+ 37. Qxd6 cxd6 38. Rc3 {allows White to retain winning chances. Now
White has nothing better than perpetual.}) 34... Re8 35. Qg5+ (35. f4 Qd1+ 36.
Kf2 Qd2+ {draws.}) 35... Kh8 36. Qf6+ Kg8 37. Qg5+ Kh8 1/2-1/2

[Event "Linares"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kasparov, G."]
[Black "Anand, V."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D20"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "57"]
[EventDate "1999.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 4. Nf3 exd4 5. Bxc4 Nc6 {Not entirely satisfied
with the ...Bb4+ lines, QGA specialists have turned to the more flexible text.}
6. O-O ({After} 6. Qb3 {Black should return to} Bb4+ {, when} 7. Bd2 Qe7 8.
Bxb4 Qxb4+ 9. Qxb4 Nxb4 10. Nxd4 c5 11. a3 cxd4 12. axb4 Nf6 13. Nd2 Be6 {
was probably a shade better for Black in Kramer-Szabo, Hamburg 1965.}) 6... Be6
{The main line. Others:} (6... Be7 $6 7. Qb3 {
is not easy for Black to meet, and three moves have been tried:} -- (7... Be6
8. Bxe6 fxe6 9. Qxb7 Nb4 10. Qb5+ Qd7 11. Na3 {can't be right for Black.
Berezovsky-Prestel, Boblingen 1998, saw White's queen continue to cause Black
problems after} c6 12. Qh5+ g6 13. Qe5 O-O-O 14. Bg5 $1 Bxg5 15. Nxg5 Nh6 16.
Qa5 Qe7 17. Rac1 Kb7 18. Rc4 Na6 19. Ra4 {etc.}) ({
. Black did no better in Volkov-Sukhorukov, Smolensk 1997:} 7... Nf6 8. Bxf7+
Kf8 9. Ng5 Qd6 10. f4 d3 11. e5 Qc5+ 12. Kh1 Ng4 13. Bh5 Nf2+ 14. Rxf2 Qxc1+
15. Bd1 Ke8 16. Rf1 Bxg5 (16... Qc5 17. Qf7+ Kd8 18. Qxg7 Rf8 19. Nxh7) 17.
Bh5+ {1-0.}) (7... Na5 {is best, when} 8. Bxf7+ Kf8 9. Qa4 c5 10. Bxg8 Rxg8 11.
Ne5 Nc6 12. f4 Be6 13. Nd2 {was uncomfortable for Black in Jakab-Nguyen Thi
Thanh An, Budapest 1998. On the whole 6...Be7 looks suspect.})) ({Nenashev's} 
6... Nf6 {has some strong followers so it must be taken seriously. After} 7. e5
{the attacked knight has used both d5 and e4:} -- (7... Nd5 8. Nxd4 Nxd4 9.
Qxd4 Be6 10. Nc3 Nxc3 11. Qxc3 Bxc4 12. Qxc4 {trades a few pieces but leaves
Black lagging behind in the development stakes. In fact Lewandowska-Byczynska,
Konin 1990, demonstrated how quickly this factor can become decisive, as} Qd7
13. Bg5 c6 $2 14. e6 $1 fxe6 15. Rad1 Qc8 16. Rfe1 {
already produced a win for White.}) ({
. Less compromising and more convincing is} 7... Ne4 8. Re1 Nc5 {. The eagle-eyed might notice that the diagram position resembles the Open variation of the
Ruy Lopez! Remember that White is still a pawn down here, so attacking play is
called for. Consequently} 9. Bg5 {is a good way to start the next phase:} Qd7 (
{more popular than} 9... Be7 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 11. Nxd4 Nxd4 12. Qxd4 Be6 13. Bf1
$5 Rd8 14. Qe3 O-O 15. Nc3 a5 16. h3 {, which was slightly advantageous to
White in Sherbakov-Skripchenko Lautier, MK Cafe Cup 1999, his extra space and
kingside pawn majority affording him an easier game}) 10. -- {and then:} ({
. Ward-Nenashev, Metz 1995, went} 10. Na3 Ne6 11. Nb5 Bc5 12. Rc1 Bb6 13. Re4
$5 O-O 14. Rh4 Nxg5 15. Nxg5 Nxe5 16. Nxh7 Qf5 (16... Nxc4 $2 17. Nf6+ gxf6 18.
Qh5) 17. Nxf8 {with complications that favoured White. However, Ward himself
has said that there is 'room for improvement' here, and perhaps inserting 11..h6 is worth considering.}) ({. Instead, with} 10. Nbd2 {White intends to send
the knight to the kingside, and this looks like a logical plan}) ({, while} 10.
b4 {is different again.} Ne6 (10... Nxb4 $6 {is rather greedy, e.g.} 11. e6 $1
Nxe6 12. Ne5 Qd6 13. Qh5 g6 14. Qf3) 11. b5 Ncd8 ({Ward's proposed} 11... Na5 {
deserves further tests}) 12. Nbd2 {gave White a significant development lead
in Notkin-Nenashev, Cappelle la Grande 1995}))) 7. Bb5 {For his pawn deficit
White has easier development and pressure against the d4-pawn. The kingside
pawn majority might prove extra troublesome for Black in the event of Bxc6 ...b7xc6, inflicting doubled pawns on Black and - by subsequently establishing a
knight outpost on c4 - effectively immobilizing the defender's queenside.} ({
The major alternative is} 7. Bxe6 fxe6 8. Qb3 Qd7 {. The main line involves} 9.
Qxb7 (9. Ng5 O-O-O $1 10. Nxe6 Re8 11. Nxf8 Rxf8 12. Na3 Nf6 13. f3 Rhg8 14.
Bd2 g5 15. Rae1 {, which gave White a pull in Hertneck-Sermek, Austrian League
1999, deserves further tests}) 9... Rb8 10. Qa6 Nf6 {. Black has a passed pawn
but it can be easily handled, while a closer look at the diagram position
reveals weaknesses on a7, c6, c7 e6 and e5. To compensate for the structural
shortcomings Black has active pieces and open files for his rooks (after ...0-0).} 11. Nbd2 {and now:} -- (11... Bb4 12. Qd3 Bxd2 (12... O-O 13. Nc4 Bc5
14. Bd2 e5 15. Rac1 Qe6 16. Na5 $1 Nxa5 17. Rxc5 {
was poor for Black in Najer-Gazarian, Krasnodar 1997}) 13. Bxd2 Rxb2 14. Rac1 {
, when White has succeeded in creating an initiative.} -- ({
. Bykhovsky-Lev, Herzliya 1998, continued} 14... O-O 15. Rc5 Ng4 16. h3 $1 Qd6
$1 (16... Rxf3 17. Qxf3 Nh2 {met with} 18. Qa3 Rxd2 19. Rfc1 Qd6 20. Qg3 {
in Karpov-Xu Jun, Beijing (rapidplay) 1998}) 17. Rxc6 Qxc6 18. Qxd4 Rxa2 (18...
Qb6 19. Bc3 Qxd4 20. Bxd4 Rxa2 21. hxg4 {favours the three pieces}) 19. hxg4
Ra4 20. Qd3 Qxe4 21. Qxe4 Rxe4 22. g5 Ra4 (22... Rc4 23. Ra1 Ra8 24. Ra6) 23.
Rc1 Rc8 24. Rc6 {and White was able to contain Black's pawns:} Ra1+ 25. Kh2 a5
26. Rxe6 a4 $2 (26... Kf7 27. Ra6 a4 {is better}) 27. Re7 a3 ({or} 27... Ra3
28. Bf4) 28. Bc3 Rc1 (28... Kf8 29. Rxg7 Rc1 30. Rxh7) 29. Rxg7+ Kh8 30. Be5 {
and White won.}) (14... Qd6 $6 {keeps the rook out of c5 but the price is to
leave the king in the centre. After} 15. Qc4 Ne5 16. Nxe5 Qxe5 17. Qa4+ $1 Qb5
({a lesser evil is} 17... Nd7 18. f4 Qb5 {
, although White has a clear advantage after both} 19. Qxd4 ({and} 19. Qxb5
Rxb5 20. Rxc7)) 18. Qa3 $1 Rxd2 $2 19. Rxc7 {the cost has increased (e.g.} Ng8
20. Qd6 {).})) ({. With} 11... Bd6 {Black concentrates on e5 rather than
removing the d2-knight. Again White returns the queen with} 12. Qd3 {
, after which} O-O 13. h3 e5 (13... Nb4 $6 14. Qc4) 14. Nc4 {leads to the
position: Black's centre pawns are blockaded and the e5-pawn is under pressure.
The contrasting roles of White's knight (c4) and Black's bishop suggest that
White benefits most from their continued involvement.} -- ({. C.Hansen-Schandorff, Danish Ch. 1999, witnessed a brief skirmish in the centre from which White
emerged with a clear lead:} 14... Nb4 15. Qb3 Nbd5 16. Qd1 $1 Nxe4 17. Nfxe5
Bxe5 18. Nxe5 Qe6 19. Qxd4 Rb4 20. Nc4 Nb6 21. b3 Nxc4 22. Re1 $1 Re8 23. bxc4
Qxc4 {, and now} ({both} 23... Rxc4 24. Qxa7) ({and} 23... c5 24. Qd5 Qxd5 25.
cxd5 Rd4 26. f3 Nd6 27. Rxe8+ Nxe8 28. Be3 Rxd5 29. Rc1 {
are very good for White}) 24. Qd1 Rbb8 25. Be3 {left Black with the inferior
minor piece and an isolated, albeit passed, c-pawn.}) (14... Kh8 15. Bd2 Qe6 {
both supports the e5-pawn and avoids any trouble on the a2-g8 diagonal.
However, both c6 and c7 no longer have the protection of the queen. Consequently
in Notkin-Makarov, Russian Club Cup 1998, White quickly turned to the c-file:}
16. Rac1 Bb4 17. a3 Bxd2 18. Ncxd2 $1 Rxb2 19. Qc4 $1 Nd8 (19... Qxc4 20. Rxc4
Nd8 21. Rxc7) 20. Qxc7 Nf7 21. Qxa7 {and White had the upper hand (e.g.} Nd6
22. Rc5 {).}))) 7... Bc5 (7... Bd7 {
is a somewhat negative response to the pin. After} 8. Nxd4 Nge7 9. Nc3 Nxd4 10.
Qxd4 Nc6 11. Qd1 Bd6 12. Be3 O-O 13. f4 {White's unfettered pawns gave him the
advantage in Caiafas-Rüfenacht, World Team Ch., Lucerne 1985.}) 8. Nbd2 {
White is spoilt for choice here. Others:} (8. b4 $5 {
keeps up the momentum. After the sensible} Bb6 {White can continue his
harassment of the bishop or immediately occupy the long diagonal with his own.}
({Black should be content with his one pawn lead, as} 8... Bxb4 $6 9. Nxd4 Bd7
10. Bxc6 bxc6 ({and} 10... Bxc6 11. Nxc6 Qxd1 12. Rxd1 bxc6) 11. Qc2 {
are both pleasant for White according to Ward.}) 9. -- {Now:} (9. Bb2 Nge7 10.
Bxd4 (10. Nxd4 O-O 11. Nxc6 Nxc6 12. Bxc6 Qxd1 13. Rxd1 bxc6 14. Nd2 a5 15. a3
{was agreed drawn in Van Wely-Sermek, Mitropa Cup 1995, White's b4-pawn giving
Black a convenient target}) 10... O-O 11. Bc5 {
was tried recently in Beliavsky-Sherbakov, Niksic 1996. The point is that after
} Bxc5 12. bxc5 a6 13. Bxc6 Nxc6 14. Nc3 {White is looking to post his knight
on d5 and a rook on b1, although Black's position is perfectly fine. In the
game Black parted with his bishop a little too freely with} Qe7 15. Nd5 Qxc5
16. Nxc7 Rad8 17. Nxe6 fxe6 18. Qb3 {
, when the new weakness on e6 had certainly not improved Black's prospects.}) (
9. a4 a5 (9... a6 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. Bb2 Qd6 12. a5 Qd7 {is unclear}) 10. bxa5
Rxa5 11. Ng5 {seems to suit White more than 9...a6. Then} Qd7 (11... Bd7 12.
Na3 Ne5 13. Bf4 c6 14. Bxe5 Qxg5 15. f4 Qg6 16. Nc4 $5 cxb5 17. Nxb6 Qxb6 18.
Bxg7) 12. Nd2 Nge7 13. Nxe6 {is probably best met with} fxe6 ({after} 13...
Qxe6 14. Nc4 Rxb5 (14... Ra8 15. Nxb6 cxb6 16. Qxd4) 15. axb5 Qxc4 16. bxc6
Nxc6 17. Qg4 $1 {Black is under pressure, e.g.} O-O 18. Bh6 g6 19. Bxf8 Kxf8
20. Qc8+ Kg7 21. Ra8) 14. Nc4 Ra8 {, and now a draw results from} 15. Ne5 ({
or White can try} 15. Ba3 {with obvious compensation for the pawn}) 15... Qd6
16. Nc4 Qd7 {.})) ({With} 8. Ng5 {
White clearly intends to remove the bishop on e6} -- ({
, but Black must be careful as} 8... Nge7 $4 9. Nxe6 fxe6 10. Qh5+ {
picks up the other bishop.}) (8... Qd6 {
serves only to help White augment his desired initiative after} 9. e5 Qxe5 10.
Re1) ({, while} 8... Nf6 9. e5 Nd5 10. Nxe6 fxe6 11. Qg4 Qe7 12. Nd2 {
has been suggested as favourable for White.}) ({. This leaves} 8... Qe7 {, when
} 9. f4 {looks logical, mobilizing White's kingside pawn majority before Black
has completed development.} (9. --))) (8. Qc2 Bb6 9. a4 a5 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11.
Qxc6+ Bd7 {evens the score. Now} 12. Qc4 ({otherwise} 12. Qc2 {
keeps the game going, although} Ne7 13. Na3 O-O 14. Nc4 Nc6 15. Rd1 Nb4 16. Qb3
c5 {was approximately equal in Van Wely-Anand, Monaco (blindfold) 1997}) 12...
Be6 13. Qc6+ Bd7 {and so on is a way to end the game peacefully. --- Of these
three alternatives to 8 Nbd2 I prefer 8 Ng5.}) 8... Qd6 {A theoretical novelty
at the time, bringing the queen into the game supports the pinned knight and
prepares to quickly castle queenside, thus presenting Black with an
opportunity to use his passed d-pawn to the full.} (8... Nge7 9. Ng5 Qd7 (9...
Bd7 $2 10. Nxf7 Kxf7 11. Qh5+) 10. Nxe6 Qxe6 11. Nb3 Qd6 ({now} 11... Bb6 12.
Nxd4 Bxd4 13. Qxd4 {
gave White a pull (bishops v. knights) in Piket-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1999}) 12.
Bf4 $1 Qxf4 13. Nxc5 {has been evaluated as slightly better for White. Then
the kingside offers Black's king the better protection as} O-O-O (13... O-O 14.
Rc1 {is normal when, in return for the pawn, White has a pull on the queenside
and the makings of an assault with his kingside pawn majority}) 14. Qb3 {
favours White.}) 9. e5 $5 {Consistent with White's game-plan.} ({
A natural reaction to the queen's arrival on d6 is} 9. Nc4 Bxc4 10. Bxc4 Nge7
11. Re1 {with the idea of softening Black up on the light squares by pushing
the e-pawn. In Tunik-Nachev, Aratovsky Memorial 1999, Black addressed this
possibility by anyway compromising his light squares with} f6 {
, only to see White carry out the advance regardless. After} 12. e5 $5 Nxe5 (
12... fxe5 13. Ng5 {
leaves White two pawns down but with obvious compensation on the light squares}
) 13. Bf4 O-O-O (13... N7g6 14. Nxe5 fxe5 {runs into} 15. Bxe5 Nxe5 16. Qh5+)
14. Nxe5 fxe5 15. Qg4+ Kb8 16. Bxe5 Qg6 17. Qxg6 Nxg6 18. Bxg7 Rhe8 19. g3 {
White had won back his gambit pawn(s) with interest thanks to his potentially
powerful bishop pair. With the text White decides to actually use his e-pawn
on the board - rather than sacrifice it immediately - in order to create a
space advantage and control two key squares in Black's half of the board.})
9... Qd5 10. Ng5 $1 {Homing in on Black's 'good' bishop, which surveys both
halves of the board from e6.} O-O-O ({Black's king comes under fire on the
queenside but, with his kingside still lagging behind, the centre is hardly an
ideal place in which to remain for too long, e.g.} 10... Rd8 11. Bc4 {when}
Qxe5 ({the more circumspect} 11... Qd7 12. Nxe6 fxe6 13. Ne4 {improves but the
problem remains of what to do with the king, as castling short is out of the
question now that White looks so menacing on this side of the board}) 12. Nxe6
fxe6 13. Re1 {is typical of the kind of breakthrough White is looking for.})
11. Bc4 Qd7 12. Nxe6 fxe6 13. b4 $1 {Openings involving a gambit - usually a
pawn - tend to require further offers in order to exert maximum pressure on
the opponent. Apart from affording the aggressor the luxury of remaining in
the driving seat it is also important, from a psychological perspective, not
to allow the opponent to feel he has successfully weathered the storm.} Nxb4 {
Black hopes to bolster the king's defences with his bishop on b6.} ({
Taking the second pawn with the bishop looks less desirable after} 13... Bxb4
14. Qb3 Re8 15. Rb1 {etc.}) (13... Bb6 {gives the game a different feel after}
14. Qb3 Qe7 $1 15. Bxe6+ Kb8 16. Nf3 Qxb4 17. Qxb4 Nxb4 18. Bg5 {.}) 14. Qb3
Nd5 15. Ne4 Bb6 ({After} 15... Qc6 16. Rb1 Nb6 17. Bxe6+ Kb8 18. Nxc5 Qxc5 19.
Re1 $1 {White's long-range pieces are well worth the invested pawn, whether
Black seeks to relieve some of the pressure with} Qc3 ({or retreats -} 19...
Qe7 20. a4 {etc.}) 20. Bg5 Re8 21. Bf7 {.}) 16. a4 $1 {If White is to make a
breakthrough it is imperative that he forces a structural concession from
Black.} a5 (16... a6 17. a5 Ba7 18. Bg5 Rf8 19. Rfc1 {
puts Black under considerable pressure on both the b- and c-files.}) 17. Nd6+
$1 {Now we see the main point behind White's previous move - the c7-pawn is
now the sole defender of the bishop, permitting White to land his knight on d6.
} Kb8 (17... cxd6 18. Bxd5 exd5 19. Qxb6 dxe5 20. Bd2 {
transposes to the main game after} Kb8 {,} ({while} 20... Ne7 21. Qa7 $1 Nc6
22. Rfc1 {is unclear. Anand prefers to keep the enemy queen out of a7.})) 18.
Bxd5 exd5 19. Bd2 {Threatening 20 Bxa5 etc.} cxd6 20. Qxb6 dxe5 {Black's collection of extra pawns has now grown to three, and if he can survive the attack
on his king there will be no stopping the cluster in the centre.} 21. f4 {
Another thematic attempt to make the most of both White's development advantage
and his potentially decisive command of the dark squares. As well as holding
the centre pawns together the e5-pawn prevents the bishop from coming to the
sensitive h2-b8 diagonal.} ({Kasparov offers an alternative means to deal with
the e5-pawn in the equally direct} 21. Rfe1 {, which has the bonus of
simultaneously threatening to bring the rook into the game with the capture of
the pawn. Sending over the cavalry with} Ne7 (21... Re8 {fails to} 22. Rxe5 $1
Rxe5 23. Bf4 {etc.}) 22. Rxe5 Nc6 {is sensible, when} 23. Bf4 $1 Ka8 24. Rb1
Rhe8 $5 25. Rxd5 Re1+ 26. Rxe1 Qxd5 {
still leaves Black defending but at least a pair of rooks has left the arena.})
21... Nf6 {Active defence.} (21... e4 $2 {
closes out the bishop only temporarily, since} 22. f5 e3 23. Be1 {
succeeds in getting the bishop to the appropriate diagonal anyway.}) (21... Ne7
22. fxe5 Nc6 23. e6 (23. Rab1) ({and} 23. Bxa5 {can be considered}) 23... Qxe6
24. Rab1 Rd7 25. Bf4+ Ka8 26. Bc7 {
looks practically winning for White at first glance, but after} Nd8 27. Qxa5+ (
{or} 27. Bxd8 Qe3+) 27... Qa6 {Black is holding on.}) 22. fxe5 Ne4 23. Bxa5 (
23. Bf4 Qc6 $1 24. e6+ Ka8 25. Qxa5+ Qa6 {is equal.}) 23... d3 24. e6 $6 ({
Kasparov offers} 24. Qb4 $1 {
as the best winning try, with the following variation:} Rde8 (24... Rc8 25. Bb6
) 25. Bb6 d2 26. a5 $1 Qe7 (26... Rxe5 27. a6 Qe7 28. Ba7+ $1) 27. Qb3 Qxe5 28.
a6 Re7 29. axb7 {, when} Rxb7 30. Rf8+ $1 Rxf8 31. Ra8+ $1 Kxa8 32. Qa3+ Kb8
33. Qxf8+ {is a good advert for chess.}) 24... Qd6 25. Qxd6+ Rxd6 26. e7 Rf6
27. Rxf6 Nxf6 28. Rd1 Re8 29. Bb4 ({After} 29. Bb4 Ng8 30. Rxd3 Kc7 31. Rxd5
Nxe7 32. Rh5 h6 33. Bc3 {White has an edge.}) 1/2-1/2

[Event "Tallinn/Parnu"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lautier, J."]
[Black "Oll, L."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D36"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "85"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 ({An alternative here is} 3... Be7 {. This was
ably popular for a while. Clearly Black wants to prevent Bg5, but the
f4-square is also fine for the bishop.} 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bf4 {
and now Black's options involve the c-pawn.} -- (5... Nf6 6. e3 -- (6... Bf5 7.
Nge2 O-O 8. Ng3 Be6 (8... Bg6 9. h4 h6 10. h5 Bh7 11. Bd3 Bxd3 12. Qxd3 c5 13.
O-O-O {with an edge for White in Chekhov-Zaitsev, Protvino 1988}) 9. Bd3 c5 10.
dxc5 Bxc5 11. O-O Nc6 12. Rc1 d4 13. Nb5 Bb6 14. e4 {
was a shade better for White in Lautier-Marciano, French League 1999.}) (6...
O-O 7. Bd3 c5 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. O-O -- (9... Bg4 10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. h3 {
and now two games of V.Milov show how to handle the white pieces.} Bxf3 ({
in V.Milov-Knoppert, Tilburg 1994, Black instead played} 11... Bh5 $6 {
, but after} 12. g4 $1 Bg6 13. Bxg6 hxg6 14. g5 d4 {White could have played}
15. Na4 $1 {for a safe win of the d4-pawn}) 12. Qxf3 d4 13. Ne4 Be7 14. Rfd1
Qb6 15. Ng3 Rfe8 16. Nf5 dxe3 17. Bxe3 Bc5 $2 18. Nxg7 $1 Bxe3 (18... Kxg7 19.
Bh6+) 19. Qxf6 Re5 20. Nf5 Bxf2+ 21. Kh1 Rxf5 22. Qxf5 Bd4 23. Rf1 Qc7 24.
Qxh7+ Kf8 25. Bc4 Nd8 {1-0, V.Milov-Toth, Liechtenstein 1996.}) (9... c4 10.
Bc2 Bg4 (10... Nh5 11. Be5 f6 12. Ng5 $1 g6 13. Nxh7 fxe5 14. Nxf8 Bxf8 15.
dxe5 Be6 16. Bxg6 Ng7 17. f4 {
with a 5-0 kingside pawn majority, H.Olafsson-Einarsson, Reykjavik 1988}) 11.
h3 Bh5 12. g4 Bg6 13. Ne5 {
looked nice for White in Vyzmanavin-G.Timoshenko, Irkutsk 1986.}))) (5... c6 6.
e3 Bf5 7. g4 {. Here we see a typical battle of wills, as Black is ready for
the advance of White's pawn(s) yet White is eager to push, too. Theory prefers
White, as the following examples suggest.} -- (7... Bg6 8. h4 $1 {and now:} --
(8... Bxh4 $6 {allows} 9. Qb3 b6 10. Rxh4 $1 Qxh4 11. Nxd5 {, e.g.} Na6 12. Qa4
{.}) (8... h5 9. g5 Bd6 10. Nge2 Na6 11. Bxd6 Qxd6 {
soon cleared off into an ending in Karpov-Portisch, Linares 1989:} 12. Nf4 Nc7
13. Be2 Qb4 14. Qd2 Ne7 15. Bf3 Ne6 16. Nce2 Nxf4 17. Nxf4 Qxd2+ 18. Kxd2 Be4
19. Bxe4 dxe4 20. Rac1 O-O-O 21. Rc5 $1 Nd5 22. Nxd5 Rxd5 23. Rhc1 Rhd8 24. b4
Kc7 25. Ke2 $1 a6 26. f3 exf3+ 27. Kxf3 {
and White had an edge which was eventually converted.}) (8... h6 9. Nf3 Nd7 10.
Bd3 Bxd3 11. Qxd3 Ngf6 12. Rg1 Qa5 {
was played in Knaak-Raicevic, Athens 1992. After shadow-boxing with} 13. Nd2
Nf8 14. f3 Ne6 15. Be5 Qd8 16. Rh1 Bd6 {White finally castled:} 17. O-O-O Bxe5
18. dxe5 Nd7 19. f4 Ndc5 20. Qc2 {with an interesting game in prospect.} (20.
--))) (7... Be6 8. h4 $5 {and then:} -- (8... Bxh4 9. Qb3 b6 (9... g5 10. Bh2
$1 Bxg4 $2 11. Qxb7 Qe7 12. Qxa8 Qxe3+ 13. Be2 Qxf2+ 14. Kd2 {
and Black soon ran out of steam in Vaisser-Diaz, Havana 1985}) 10. Nf3 Be7 11.
Ne5 Nf6 $6 (11... Bd6 $5 12. Bd3 Ne7 {
with a pawn to compensate for Black's passive position}) 12. g5 Nfd7 13. g6
Nxe5 14. Bxe5 Bf6 $1 (14... fxg6 15. Bxg7 Rg8 16. Rxh7) 15. Rxh7 O-O $1 {
. We are following Gulko-Lputian, Glendale 1994. It is not often that we see
castling when an enemy piece is so closetog8!} 16. Bg3 fxg6 ({after} 16... Bf5
17. O-O-O Bxg6 18. Rh2 {White is ready to double on the h-file}) 17. Rh2 Kf7 $1
18. O-O-O {, and now} Nd7 $1 ({instead} 18... Rh8 $6 19. Rxh8 Qxh8 20. e4 $1 {
was clearly better for White}) 19. e4 Be7 {
would have left Black only slightly worse.}) (8... Bd6 {. White has gained a
tempo here compared with the Exchange Variation in which the bishop arrives on
f4 via g5.} 9. Nh3 Ne7 10. Bd3 h6 11. Qf3 $5 Ng6 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 13. Nf4 $5 Nxf4
14. exf4 f6 15. O-O-O {was a demonstration of direct, aggressive play from
White in Yakovich-Arlandi, Valle d'Aosta 2000.}) (8... c5 {is a thematic
central strike to counter the flank attack. Then Dautov-Lputian, Istanbul
Olympiad 2000, saw a new idea from White:} 9. Be5 $5 Bf6 10. Bxb8 Rxb8 11. g5
Be7 12. Bg2 h6 13. Nge2 hxg5 14. hxg5 Rxh1+ 15. Bxh1 Bxg5 16. Qa4+ {
and White emerged from the experiment with the superior position.})))) 4. cxd5
exd5 (4... Nxd5 {leads to the Semi-Tarrasch after} 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 c5 7. Nf3
{. Black has two moves after} cxd4 8. cxd4 {:} -- (8... Nc6 9. Bc4 {, and now}
b5 (9... Bb4+ {leads to 8...Bb4+, below}) 10. Be2 ({not} 10. Bxb5 $4 Qa5+)
10... Bb4+ 11. Bd2 {leaves the b5-pawn looking oddly placed. Bacrot-Korchnoi,
Albert (match) 1997, is a good illustration of how White should use the d-pawn:
} Bxd2+ 12. Qxd2 Rb8 13. d5 $1 exd5 14. exd5 Ne7 (14... Na5 15. Qe3+ Qe7 16.
Qc3 Qf6 17. Bxb5+ $1) 15. d6 Nf5 16. Rd1 {.} -- ({. Now} 16... Bd7 17. g4 $1 {
piles on the pressure, with} Nh4 ({the alternative} 17... Nh6 {
leaves Black's forces embarrassingly situated after} 18. Qe3+ Kf8 19. h3 {etc.}
) 18. Qe3+ {winning for White after either} Be6 ({or} 18... Kf8 19. Qe7+ {
, when White picks up the knight}) 19. d7+ Kf8 (19... Qxd7 20. Nxh4) 20. Qc5+
Kg8 21. Qxa7 {(threatening 22 Qxb8!).}) ({. Korchnoi tried} 16... O-O {, when}
17. d7 $1 Bb7 (17... Ba6 18. O-O) 18. O-O Qf6 19. Qf4 a6 20. g4 $1 {
prepared to take the game into the next phase with a crippling exchange on f6.}
)) (8... Bb4+ 9. Bd2 Bxd2+ (9... Qa5 10. Rb1 Bxd2+ 11. Qxd2 Qxd2+ 12. Kxd2 {
helps White}) 10. Qxd2 O-O 11. Bc4 Nc6 12. O-O {with a couple of sample lines:}
-- (12... b6 13. Rad1 Bb7 14. Rfe1 Rc8 15. d5 Na5 16. Bd3 exd5 17. e5 $1 {
. White has good attacking prospects.} Nc4 ({in Khenkin-Straeter,
Recklinghausen 1996, White set his kingside pawns rolling after} 17... Rc6 18.
Nd4 Rh6 {, when} 19. f4 Nc6 20. Nf5 Re6 21. Nd6 Rxd6 22. exd6 Qxd6 23. Kh1 Rd8
24. Qe3 g6 25. f5 $5 Kg7 26. Rf1 {kept up the pressure}) 18. Qf4 Nb2 $2 {
fails to} 19. Bxh7+ $1 Kxh7 20. Ng5+ Kg6 (20... Kg8 21. Qh4 Re8 22. Qh7+ Kf8
23. e6 {is final}) 21. h4 Rc4 ({or} 21... Nxd1 22. h5+ Kh6 23. Ne6+ Kh7 24.
Nxd8 Rcxd8 25. Rxd1 Rde8 26. Qf5+ Kg8 27. Qd7 Ba8 28. f4 Rd8 29. Qxa7 d4 30.
Qxb6 d3 31. Qe3 {1-0 D.Gurevich-Massana, New York 1985}) 22. h5+ Kxh5 23. g4+
Kh6 24. Qh2+ {1-0 Avrukh-Donk, Antwerp 1998.}) (12... e5 13. d5 Na5 {
alters the pawn structure. Then} 14. Nxe5 ({I prefer} 14. Rac1 f6 15. Qb4 b6
16. Be2 Nb7 17. Nd2 Nc5 18. Nb3 a5 19. Qc4 Ba6 20. Qc2 {
(White's queen is busy but it is the d5-pawn that counts here)} Nxb3 21. axb3
Rc8 22. Qd2 Bxe2 23. Qxe2 {with an advantage to White according to Alterman})
14... Re8 15. Qd4 Rxe5 16. Qxe5 Nxc4 17. Qd4 b5 $5 18. a4 Nd6 {
is far from clear.}))) 5. Bg5 c6 (5... Bb4 6. e3 h6 7. Bh4 {and then:} -- (7...
O-O 8. Bd3 c5 9. Nge2 {highlights an advantage of keeping the knight on g1, as
now its partner is offered useful support.}) ({
. The same can be said after the insistent} 7... g5 8. Bg3 Ne4 {, e.g.} 9. Nge2
Nc6 10. a3 Bxc3+ 11. Nxc3 Nxc3 12. bxc3 Bf5 13. h4 g4 14. c4 Qd7 15. Be2 h5 16.
O-O {, Mirzoev-Bayramov, Baku Cup 1999.} (16. --))) 6. Qc2 {Preventing ...Bf5.}
Be7 {Also seen are the following:} (6... g6 7. e3 Bf5 8. Qb3 b6 9. f3 Be7 10.
g4 Be6 11. Bh6 Bf8 12. Bxf8 Kxf8 13. Nge2 Qd6 14. Nf4 Nbd7 15. O-O-O {
, Alterman-Parker, London Lloyds Bank 1994, is exactly what White is looking
for.}) (6... Na6 7. a3 Nc7 8. e3 Ne6 9. Bh4 Be7 10. Bd3 g6 11. Nge2 Ng7 12. f3
$1 O-O 13. O-O {with the usual pull for White in view of the constant threat
of e3-e4, Kruppa-Faibisovich, Chigorin Memorial 1999.}) 7. e3 Nbd7 8. Bd3 O-O (
{Black has also traded bishops here:} 8... Nh5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nge2 g6 11.
O-O-O Nb6 12. Ng3 Ng7 $1 {. Kasparov-Andersson, Reykjavik 1988, continued} 13.
Kb1 Bd7 14. Rc1 O-O-O 15. Na4 Nxa4 16. Qxa4 Kb8 17. Rc3 b6 18. Ba6 {,} ({
while Timman-Short, FIDE Candidates (match) 1993, saw} 18. Ra3 {
, with an interesting struggle ahead in both cases.})) 9. Nge2 Re8 10. O-O {
Natural and the most popular, but not the only choice.} ({Even if castling
short is the plan it is possible to keep Black guessing here with} 10. f3 {.}
-- ({. With} 10... c5 {Black immediately challenges the centre now that e3 is
less secure, although the advance of the c-pawn does leave d5 weaker. After}
11. O-O {Black can either take on d4 or maintain the tension. Reinderman-Van
der Sterren, Dutch Ch. 1998, continued} b6 (11... cxd4 12. Nxd4 Nf8 13. Rad1 h6
14. Bh4 a6 15. Kh1 {gave White a pleasant edge in P.Varga-Remling, Budapest
1994. The isolated d-pawn and White's more harmonious development more than
make up for the e3-pawn}) 12. Rad1 Bb7 {
, when White elected to play against the hanging pawns after} 13. dxc5 bxc5 14.
Bb5 {and then:} -- ({. 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... Nh5 15. Bxe7 Qxe7 16. Nxd5 Bxd5 17. Rxd5 Qxe3+
18. Rf2 Nhf6 {. White played} 19. Rd3 $1 ({now} 19. Rxd7 Nxd7 20. Bxd7 Red8 21.
Ba4 Rd2 22. Qe4 Qxe4 23. fxe4 Rxb2 24. Nc3 Rab8 25. Bb3 Rxf2 26. Kxf2 c4 27.
Bd1 Rb2+ 28. Kf3 {offers the better chances to the two pieces}) 19... Qe6 (
19... Qe7 20. Ng3) 20. Ng3 Rab8 21. Bxd7 $1 Nxd7 22. Re2 Qc6 23. Nf5 $1 {
, when after} Rxe2 24. Qxe2 Qb5 25. Qd2 $1 Nf6 (25... Nf8 26. Ne7+ Kh8 27. Rd8
c4 28. Nc8 $1) 26. Qg5 (26. Rb3 Qe8 27. Nxg7 $3 Kxg7 28. Qg5+ Kf8 29. Qxc5+ Kg8
30. Qg5+ Kf8 31. Rxb8 Qxb8 32. Qxf6 {is strong}) 26... Ne8 27. Rb3 Qe2 {
White should have secured a near decisive lead with} 28. Nh6+ Kh8 (28... Kf8
29. Qxc5+) 29. Nxf7+ Kg8 30. Qe5 $1 {etc.}) ({. Black might try} 14... a6 15.
Ba4 Rf8 $5 {, 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. Nf4 Nb6 {
. However,} 17. Bxf6 Bxf6 18. Nfxd5 $1 Bxd5 (18... Nxd5 19. Nxd5 Bxd5 20. Qxc5)
19. Nxd5 Nxa4 20. Qxa4 Bxb2 21. Qc2 {is clearly better for White.})) (10... b5
{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. O-O Qb6 12. h3 a6
13. a4 b4 14. a5 Qd8 15. Na4 {
resulting in weaknesses for Black on b6, c6 and c5.}) (10... Qa5 11. O-O h6 12.
Bh4 c5 {looked rather loose in Urday-Suarez, Merida 1997. After} 13. Rad1 cxd4
14. Nxd4 Ne5 15. Bxf6 $1 Bxf6 16. Nb3 Qd8 17. Bb5 {
the d5-pawn was about to drop.}) ({. After} 10... Nf8 {White can also play} 11.
Bh4 (11. O-O {transposes to the main game}) 11... -- {and then:} (11... Nh5 12.
Bf2 Bh4 13. g3 Be7 14. g4 Nf6 15. g5 N6d7 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,} b5 17. Ng3 Nb6 18. Kf1 $5 Bd6 19. Nf5 Bxf5 20. Bxf5
Nc4 21. Re1 {producing a situation in which both sides have chances. Note that
White's king is not poorly 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 queenside.}) ({
. In P.Varga-Gogniat, Ambassador 1998, White did soon castle, following up
with an instructive deployment of his dark-squared bishop:} 11... Ng6 12. Bf2
Bd6 13. O-O a6 14. Rad1 Qc7 15. Kh1 $5 Be6 (15... Bxh2 16. g3) 16. Bg1 {
. It is tempting, albeit occasionally unwise, to spend time sending a piece to
an unconventional square. However, in this case g1 is quite useful - and safe!
- because h2 is protected and, as we shall see, the extra cover offered to the
d4-pawn affords White the thematically desirable plan of central expansion.
There followed} Rad8 17. e4 $1 dxe4 18. fxe4 {and here the hanging pawns are
extremely well supported and consequently troublesome for Black, who is denied
the use of the squares c5, d5, e5 and f5.}))) ({White can also play} 10. O-O-O
{. 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} Qa5 11.
Kb1 b5 12. Ng3 {
Black quickly goes on the offensive but the price is the hole on c5:} -- (12...
Rb8 13. Nce2 $1 {(the beginning of an important knight manoeuvre)} Rb6 14. Nc1
Ra6 15. Nf5 Bf8 16. g4 $1 {.} -- ({. Now} 16... Nxg4 17. Rhg1 {
puts Black in trouble. For example} Nxh2 (17... Ngf6 {also runs into} 18. Nh6+
Kh8 19. Nxf7+ Kg8 20. Bxf6 Nxf6 21. Ng5) ({, finally} 17... Ndf6 18. h3 h6 19.
Bf4 g5 20. Bg3 {leaves the knight stranded on g4}) 18. Nh6+ gxh6 (18... Kh8 19.
Nxf7+ Kg8 20. Bxh7+ Kxf7 21. Qg6#) 19. Bd8+ {.}) ({
. Ward-Fant, Gausdal 1993, continued} 16... c5 17. Bxf6 $1 gxf6 18. dxc5 Nxc5
19. Nd4 Nxd3 20. Qxd3 b4 21. Rhg1 Bb7 22. Qb5 $1 Qxb5 23. Nxb5 Rc8 24. Nd4 Rb6
25. Nd3 {and Black was severely hampered by the four pawn islands.})) (12... h6
13. Bxf6 Nxf6 14. Nce2 Bd7 15. Nc1 Rac8 16. Nb3 Qb6 17. Rc1 Be6 18. Nc5 {
favoured White in Ward-Parker, Guildford 1991. After} Nd7 19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. Qe2
Nf6 21. Nh5 b4 22. h4 c5 23. Nxf6+ Bxf6 24. g4 c4 25. Bg6 Red8 26. g5 {
White's attack had gained the most momentum.}) (12... Nf8 {takes Black's eye
off the c5-square. Shirov-Wedberg, Stockholm 1990, witnessed a wonderful
knight manoeuvre:} 13. Nce2 $1 Qb6 14. Rc1 Bd7 15. Nf5 Bd8 (15... Bxf5 16. Bxf5
g6 17. Bh3 Ne4 18. Bxe7 Rxe7 19. Nf4 {is good for White}) 16. Neg3 a5 17. Bxf6
Bxf6 18. Nh5 Qd8 (18... Bxf5 19. Nxf6+ gxf6 20. Bxf5 Ra6 21. h4) 19. Nd6 $1 Re6
20. Nb7 Qc7 21. Nc5 {(very nice)} Rd6 22. Nxf6+ Rxf6 23. f3 Be8 24. e4 {
and White, having assumed control of the queenside, pressed forward in the
centre.})) 10... Nf8 {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 Rab1 (preparing b2-b4), for example, but we are going to concentrate on the
theme of expansion in the centre (threatened or executed) 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} 11. Bf4 Nf8 {. White can continue as per plan with} 12.
f3 {, when} Ne6 13. Be5 c5 $6 {is an attempt to justify Black's play that is
best replaced with the more solid 13...Bd6. S.Ivanov-Ignatiev, Chigorin
Memorial 1997, continued} 14. Rad1 c4 (14... b6 15. Bxf6 $1 Bxf6 16. dxc5 Nxc5
17. Bh7+ Kh8 18. b4 Na6 19. Nxd5 {is good for White, e.g.} g6 20. Bxg6 fxg6 21.
Qxg6 Bg7 (21... Bg5 22. Nc7) 22. Nxb6 $1 {etc}) 15. Bf5 Nf8 $6 (15... a6 16. e4
dxe4 17. fxe4 b5 {had to be played, although with} 18. Ng3 {
White assumes a menacing stance}) 16. Nf4 Be6 17. Nxe6 fxe6 18. Bh3 N6d7 {
, and now} (18... Qb6 19. e4 N8d7 20. Bg3 Bb4 21. exd5 Bxc3 22. bxc3 exd5 23.
Rfe1 {and White's raking bishops dominate}) 19. Bg3 Qa5 20. e4 {
would have left White clearly better.}) 11. f3 Be6 {
One of several possibilities.} ({After} 11... Nh5 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. e4 dxe4 14.
fxe4 Bg4 (14... Be6 {is an improvement - Bareev-Ahlander, Naestved 1988, gave
chances to both sides after} 15. Rf2 Nf6 (15... c5 16. Nd5 Bxd5 17. exd5 cxd4
18. Nxd4) 16. h3 Rad8 17. Raf1 Ng6 $1) 15. e5 $1 Rad8 (15... c5 $2 16. Nd5) 16.
Ne4 {
White had the advantage in Ivanchuk-Yusupov, Candidates match, Brussels 1991.}
-- ({. If} 16... Ne6 {White has} 17. Nd6 {, e.g.} Rxd6 (17... Bxe2 18. Bxh7+)
18. exd6 Qxd6 19. Bxh7+ {.}) ({. Instead the game went} 16... Ng6 17. Rad1 $1
Rf8 (17... Bxe2 18. Bxe2 Nhf4 19. Bc4) 18. h3 Bxe2 19. Bxe2 Nhf4 20. Bc4 {
, and now Black should have played} Nd5 {.})) (11... g6 12. Kh1 Ne6 13. Bh4 {
. Sakaev-Nikitin, Smolensk 2000, continued} b6 ({better than} 13... Ng7 $6 14.
Bf2 c5 $2 15. dxc5 Bxc5 16. Bh4 $1 {when Yakovich-Baburin, Voronezh 1988, ended}
Bxe3 17. Bxf6 Qxf6 18. Nxd5 Qg5 19. Nc7 Bh3 20. Nc3 {1-0}) 14. Rad1 Bb7 15. Qc1
$1 {, the point being that apart from defending the e3-pawn White also
protects the e3-square, in anticipation of e3-e4 dxe4, fxe4 Ng4. Then, with
the queen on c1 instead of c2, White will not have to worry about the knight
fork on e3. There followed} Nh5 16. Bxe7 Qxe7 17. e4 dxe4 18. fxe4 Rad8 19. Bc4
{with a clear advantage to White according to Baburin. The plan is e4-e5
followed by sending a knight to d6.}) (11... Qa5 {just loses time, e.g.} 12. a3
h6 (12... Ng4 $2 13. b4 Qd8 14. Bxe7 Qxe7 15. fxg4) 13. b4 Qb6 14. Na4 Qc7 15.
Bf4 Bd6 16. Bxd6 Qxd6 17. e4 dxe4 18. fxe4 {
and again White has succeeded in launching the e-pawn.}) (11... c5 {
is premature.} 12. Bxf6 (12. Bb5 Bd7 13. Bxd7 Qxd7 14. Rad1 c4 15. Bxf6 $1 Bxf6
16. e4 dxe4 17. Nxe4 {, Vaisser-C.Flear, French Team Ch. 1998, is another})
12... Bxf6 13. dxc5 Rxe3 14. Rad1 Be6 15. Be4 d4 16. Nb5 d3 17. Bxd3 Qe7 18.
Nd6 b6 19. c6 $1 {, Mozetic-Abramovic, Yugoslav Ch. 1995 is one example of how
White can exploit the weakened d5-pawn.}) (11... Ng6 12. Rad1 {
and now the following are possible:} -- (12... h6 13. Bxf6 Bxf6 14. Bxg6 fxg6
15. e4 g5 16. e5 Be7 17. f4 gxf4 18. Nxf4 Rf8 19. Ng6 Rxf1+ 20. Rxf1 Be6 21.
Ne2 {. Kasparov-Barua, 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} Qd7 22. h4 Re8 23. Ng3 {Baburin recommends}
Bd8 {in case this bishop comes in handy.} ({Barua played} 23... Bf7 $6 24.
Nxe7+ Rxe7 {when} 25. Nf5 Re6 26. Nd6 Bg6 27. Qc3 Rxd6 28. exd6 Qxd6 29. Qa3
Qb8 30. Qe7 {was very good for White.})) (12... Nh5 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. e4 dxe4
15. fxe4 Be6 16. e5 {brings about another situation in which White threatens
to use d6 as a juicy outpost for a knight. In Yakovich-Ahlander, Stockholm
1999, Black tried to undermine this plan with} c5 $6 {, but} 17. d5 $1 Bg4 18.
e6 $1 {was strong, e.g.} fxe6 ({after} 18... Nf6 {, the simplest route is} 19.
Ne4 Rf8 (19... fxe6 20. d6 $1 Qf7 21. Ng5 Qd7 22. Nxh7) 20. exf7+ Rxf7 21. d6
Qe5 22. Nxf6+ Rxf6 23. Rxf6 Qxf6 24. Qxc5 {etc.}) 19. Bxg6 hxg6 20. Qxg6 Qh4
21. Qf7+ Kh8 22. d6 {.})) 12. Rad1 Rc8 13. Kh1 h6 ({
The idea behind White's previous move can be seen after} 13... c5 14. dxc5 {.}
-- ({. First} 14... Bxc5 $6 {
no longer pins the e-pawn, so White is able to play} 15. e4 dxe4 16. fxe4 {
with advantage.}) ({. This leaves} 14... Rxc5 {when both} 15. Bb5 ({and} 15.
Qa4 a6 16. Bb1) 15... Bd7 (15... N8d7 16. Nd4) 16. Bxd7 N8xd7 (16... Qxd7 17.
e4) 17. Qb3 {(followed by Nf4) favour White.})) ({
Best seems Lautier's own suggestion, namely} 13... Ng6 {. Then} 14. e4 dxe4 15.
fxe4 Ng4 16. Bc1 c5 $1 {is a thematic strike at White's centre that seems to
secure Black a decent game, e.g.} 17. Bb5 ({or} 17. e5 cxd4 18. Nxd4 Qxd4 19.
Bxg6 Qxe5 20. Bf4 Qc5 21. Bxh7+ Kh8 22. Be4 Rcd8 23. Rc1 Bd6 24. Qd2 Bxf4 25.
Qxf4 Qe5 {with equality in Sadler-Asrian, Las Vegas 1999;}) ({finally} 17. d5 {
gives away the e5-square}) 17... Qc7 18. Nf4 cxd4 19. Bxe8 dxc3 20. Bb5 cxb2
21. Qxb2 Nxf4 22. Bxf4 Qc2 23. Qxc2 Rxc2 24. Rd2 Rxd2 25. Bxd2 Bc5 {
, which was nice for Black in Gulko-Sturua, Elista Olympiad 1998.}) 14. Bh4 a6
{Black wants to rule out Bb5 before pushing his c-pawn.} 15. Nf4 ({
Note that the arrival of the pawn on a6 introduces the possibility of} 15. Bxf6
$5 Bxf6 16. e4 {because} dxe4 17. fxe4 Bxd4 {can be met with} 18. Bxa6 bxa6 19.
Nxd4 {, when} Qa5 20. Nxe6 {gives White an edge after} Rxe6 ({or} 20... Nxe6
21. Rd7) 21. Rf5 {. If the manoeuvring in the main game is not to your liking
then this forcing line is promising.}) 15... Bd7 {
Now 16...g5 is a genuine threat.} ({After} 15... c5 16. dxc5 Rxc5 17. Qb1 {
Black will have problems with the newly isolated d-pawn.}) 16. Bf2 ({Remember that the g1-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. Bg3 Ne6 17. Nxe6 Bxe6 18. e4 Nh5 {
either gives Black time, in the case of} 19. Bf2 ({
or gives him counterplay on the dark squares after} 19. e5 Nxg3+ 20. hxg3 c5 {
etc.}) 19... Nf4 {.}) 16... Bd6 (16... Ne6 17. Nxe6 Bxe6 18. e4 {is standard.
White threatens to march on with e4-e5 and f3-f4-f5 etc. Consequently Black
has two ways of addressing matters in the centre:} -- (18... dxe4 19. fxe4 Ng4
20. d5 $5 cxd5 (20... Nxf2+ $2 21. Qxf2 {hits f7,}) ({while} 20... Bd7 21. Bg1
{is a shade better for White}) 21. exd5 Bd7 22. Bh7+ Kh8 23. Bd4 {is an interesting transformation, the position now having a much more open nature. Then the
crafty} Qc7 {runs into} 24. Bxg7+ $1 Kxg7 25. Rxf7+ $1 Kh8 26. d6 $1 Bxd6 27.
Qg6 Be5 28. Bg8 {etc.}) (18... c5 19. dxc5 Bxc5 (19... d4 20. e5) 20. e5 Nd7
21. f4 {and White's mobile majority is under way.})) 17. Qd2 {
Toying with the idea of e3-e4 by protecting the knight.} Qc7 {
Doubling the guard on f4.} (17... Bxf4 18. exf4 {does not damage White's pawns,
rather increases their attacking potential, since f4-f5 followed by supporting
and advancing the g-pawn could soon unsettle Black's king. Note that in the
meantime the f3-pawn covers e4.}) 18. Bg1 $1 {
This time White takes time out to protect h2 in order to free the f4-knight.}
b5 $6 {It is significant that White's calm manoeuvring 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 c5 means that White can now change plans.
Others:} ({Again} 18... Bxf4 $6 19. exf4 {is incorrect, e.g.} Ne6 20. f5 Nf4
21. Bb1 {and Be3 is coming.}) (18... Ne6 19. Nxe6 Bxe6 20. e4 {
is also what White is waiting for, e.g.} Bf4 21. Qc2 (21. Qf2 $5) 21... dxe4
22. fxe4 Bg4 23. Rde1 {etc.}) ({After} 18... Re7 19. Nfe2 {
White is ready to execute the desired push:} -- (19... b5 {is slightly
different to the main game in that White has already dropped his knight back
to e2. Moreover} 20. e4 b4 21. e5 Bxe5 22. dxe5 bxc3 23. Nxc3 {
demonstrates that ...Re7 does not mix well with advancing the b-pawn, as both}
Rxe5 ({and} 23... Qxe5 24. Bc5 Ree8 25. Bxa6) 24. Bd4 Re6 25. Bxa6 {
see the rook moving again.}) (19... Rce8 {
is consistent with the previous move. Then} 20. e4 dxe4 21. fxe4 Nxe4 22. Nxe4
Rxe4 23. Bxe4 Rxe4 {is an interesting exchange sacrifice that should be dealt
with energetically by White -} 24. d5 $1 Bg4 25. Nc3 Re7 26. Rde1 {
concentrating on open lines to give White an edge.}) (19... c5 $6 {
does not hold White back:} 20. e4 $1 {! and now} cxd4 ({we also have} 20...
dxe4 21. fxe4 cxd4 22. Bxd4 {, e.g.} Be5 23. Rxf6 $1 gxf6 24. Nd5 Qd8 25. Nxe7+
Qxe7 26. Qxh6 {etc.}) 21. Bxd4 N8h7 22. exd5 {wins a pawn as} Bxh2 $2 {
loses, e.g.} 23. Bxh7+ Kxh7 (23... Nxh7 24. f4) 24. Bxf6 gxf6 25. d6)) 19. Bb1
$1 {Highlighting the flexibility of the system. Black has had to watch out for
e3-e4 for much of the game but his latest attempt to undermine White's control
of the e4-square presents White with a second option. Consequently the text
frees the d3-square for the knight in order to closely monitor Black's
weakness on c5. Meanwhile the f3-pawn, ostensibly there to add weight to an
eventual e3-e4, provides valuable protection to e4 - particularly useful now
in the event of ...b5-b4.} Rcd8 ({Lautier suggests} 19... Ne6 20. Nd3 Ng5 {
, pointing out that with 20 Nxe6 White retains a slight edge.}) 20. Rc1 $1 {
Remember that 18...b5 neglected the c6-pawn as well as the c5-square, so White
improves a rook before relocating his knight.} (20. Nd3 {walks into} Bf5 {.})
20... Qb8 (20... Qb6 {keeps an eye on the c-pawn but places the queen on a
more vulnerable square, e.g.} 21. e4 $5 b4 22. Na4 Qb5 23. e5 Qxa4 24. exf6 {
and our attention is brought to Black's kingside.}) 21. Nce2 {
Again White is in no rush, the text keeping an eye on c6.} ({Instead} 21. Nd3
$6 Bf5 $1 {makes life a little easier for Black.}) 21... b4 {
Part of the plan, perhaps;} ({but Lautier's} 21... Re7 {is preferable.}) 22.
Nd3 Ne6 {Sensibly contributing to the struggle for c5.} 23. Bf2 $1 {Excellent play from White. Having served its purpose on g1 the bishop is ready to
challenge its opposite number in White's quest to take control of the key
c5-square, after which thoughts can return to more aggressive matters.} a5 ({
The only logical way to avoid the coming trade of dark-squared bishops is to
vacate the h2-b8 diagonal:} 23... Qb6 24. Bg3 Bf8 {and Black continues to hold
c5. However, the backward c6-pawn and the hole in front of it are long-term
weaknesses and, in evading capture, Black's bishop has had to retreat, whereas
White's now enjoys more freedom.}) (23... Bxh2 $6 {
is too desperate. White stands much better after either} 24. Nxb4 ({or} 24. f4
Ng4 25. Ne5) 24... Qd6 25. Nxa6 {.}) 24. Bg3 Rc8 25. Nc5 $5 {
White has a nice idea in mind.} (25. Be5 $5 {is another wise suggestion of
Lautier. The plan is to transfer the knight from e2 to f5. After} Bxe5 26. dxe5
$1 Nh7 27. f4 {
White does, finally, manage to release the kingside pawns. Black's best is then
} Nhf8 ({an example of how quickly things can go wrong for Black is} 27... Qb6
28. f5 Neg5 29. Nc5 Rcd8 30. Nxd7 Rxd7 31. h4) 28. Nd4 {
when White has the makings of an initiative.}) 25... Nxc5 26. Rxc5 {White is able to keep a piece on c5 rather than a pawn thanks to the 'pin' on the h2-b8
diagonal. It is true that he has given up the flexible knight in the process,
but in doing so a key defender has also been eliminated. As long as White
makes sure to have more pieces controlling c5 it is necessary to face facts
and be willing to part with one or two hitherto loyal servants.} Re7 {
Ignoring the attack on the a5-pawn in order to apply pressure to White's usual
weakness in the f3-system, the e3-pawn.} 27. Bxd6 (27. Rxa5 $2 Rce8 {and then}
28. Bf2 $2 {withdraws from the h2-b8 diagonal to permit} Qb6 29. Ra4 c5 {etc.})
27... Qxd6 28. Ng3 {So far so good for White, who has succeeded in winning the
c5-square. Black's only counterplay lies in hitting the e3-pawn.} Rce8 29. Re1
{With an undisputed advantage on the queenside White need not be obsessed with
achieving e3-e4.} ({Lautier gives} 29. e4 dxe4 30. fxe4 Nxe4 31. Nxe4 Rxe4 32.
Bxe4 Rxe4 {as steering the game to equality. This exchange sacrifice should be
borne in mind when engineering the central push.}) 29... Qf4 $2 {Black initiate
s complications that are clearly to White's advantage. Once again Black
appears to lose patience, overestimating his chances in the complications.} ({
More circumspect is} 29... Qc7 {which keeps White's lead to a minimum.}) 30.
Ne4 $1 {White is happy to go along for the ride.} (30. Nf1 $1 {
(Lautier) is also good, e.g.} Qc7 31. Rec1 h5 32. Bc2 $1 h4 33. Ba4 Re6 34. Qc2
Rc8 35. Qf2 $1 {.}) 30... Nxe4 (30... Qh4 {is clearly better for White after}
31. Nxf6+ (31. Nd6) 31... Qxf6 32. Rxa5 {when} Qf4 33. Ra8 $1 {
introduces a new and important pin.}) 31. fxe4 Qd6 32. Rxa5 ({Not} 32. e5 $2
Rxe5) ({but} 32. exd5 $1 cxd5 33. Rxa5 {is a decent option (again} Qf4 {
runs into} 34. Ra8 $1 {).}) 32... dxe4 33. Rc5 {Returning to the strongpoint
to cut the communication between Black's queen and the b4-pawn.} Re5 ({
After the sensible} 33... Rb8 {White improves his bishop with} 34. Bc2 {
followed by 35 Bb3.}) 34. Rec1 $1 (34. Qxb4 $2 {lifts the pin on the d-file
only to walk into a new one on the a3-f8 diagonal, thus leaving Black free to
play} Rh5 $1 {. The b4-pawn is not going anywhere so if White is to convert
the hard-earned positional advantage he must make the most of the c5-square
while keeping an eye on the kingside.}) 34... Rxc5 35. Rxc5 f5 {Notice that
Black concentrates on the kingside, the area in which White is more vulnerable.
} 36. g3 ({Again} 36. Qxb4 {is somewhat careless, as then} f4 {gives Black
chances of at least making his presence felt near White's king, e.g.} 37. Qc3
f3 {.}) 36... g5 $2 {Too ambitious, although indicative of Black's game-plan
since surrendering the c5-square.} (36... Rb8 37. Bc2 Be6 38. Bb3 Bxb3 39. axb3
Rb5 $1 {is the most uncompromising continuation, fighting for the square that
Black neglected more than twenty moves earlier!}) ({Incidentally after} 36...
f4 $6 37. gxf4 Bg4 {the calm} 38. Kg1 $1 {leaves Black with little to show for
the pawn, and there is still the matter of the weak b4-pawn.}) 37. Qxb4 Be6 ({
Now} 37... f4 $4 {loses to} 38. Rxg5+ {.}) 38. Bc2 {Tidy play.} ({The tricky} 
38. Bxe4 $6 {works if Black falls for} fxe4 ({but} 38... Bf7 $1 39. Bxf5 Rxe3 {
offers Black unnecessary counterplay}) 39. Rxg5+ {.}) 38... Bd5 39. Bb3 f4 40.
Qb6 {Threatening 41 Rxd5.} Bxb3 41. Rxc6 $1 Qf8 ({Or} 41... Qd5 42. Rg6+ Kf8
43. axb3 fxe3 44. Rxh6 {etc.}) 42. Qxb3+ Kh8 43. Qb6 (43. Qb6 Kh7 44. Rc7+ Re7
({or} 44... Kh8 45. Qg6) 45. Qd6 {.}) 1-0

[Event "Bermuda"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Pelletier, Y."]
[Black "Chandler, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D34"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "74"]
[EventDate "1999.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 ({
Before continuing with the main line it is worth investigating the tricky} 4...
cxd4 {. In this system Black sacrifices a pawn for rapid development and the
prospect of an attack against White's king, since the main line sees the kings
settling on opposite sides of the board. The following sequence is practically
forced:} 5. Qxd4 Nc6 6. Qd1 exd5 7. Qxd5 Bd7 8. e3 Nf6 9. Qd1 $1 {
(placing the queen where it is least exposed)} Bc5 10. Nf3 Qe7 11. Be2 O-O-O
12. O-O g5 $1 13. b4 $1 {. Having already sacrificed a pawn Black has wasted
no time with 12...g5. With this in mind White replies in kind, distracting
Black, opening the b-file and making way for the bishop to come to the a1-h8
diagonal.} Bxb4 14. Bb2 g4 (14... Kb8 15. Nd5 Nxd5 16. Bxh8 Nxe3 17. fxe3 Rxh8
18. Qd3 {does not give Black enough for the exchange}) 15. Nd4 {
. Black has three moves in this position.} -- (15... Nxd4 $2 16. Qxd4 {
helps White, e.g.} Bc5 (16... Bb5 $2 17. Qxa7 $1 Bxc3 18. Bxb5 Bxb2 19. Rfc1+
Bxc1 20. Rxc1+ {mates,}) ({while} 16... Kb8 17. Nd1 Ne4 18. Qe5+ {
nets White material}) 17. Nd5 $1 Nxd5 18. Rfc1 $1 {with the following lines:}
-- (18... b6 19. Qxd5 Bb5 20. Bxg4+ Kb8 21. Be5+ Bd6 22. Rc8+ $1 Rxc8 23. Bxd6+
{.}) (18... Nc7 19. Rxc5 (19. Qxc5 Qxc5 20. Rxc5 Rhg8 21. Bd3) 19... Be6 20.
Qe5 Rhe8 21. Rxc7+ Qxc7 22. Rc1 {.}) ({. Best is} 18... Rhg8 19. Rxc5+ Bc6 20.
Bxg4+ Kb8 21. Qe5+ Qxe5 (21... Ka8 $2 22. Rxd5) 22. Bxe5+ Ka8 (22... Nc7 23.
Rxc6 bxc6 24. Rb1+ Ka8 25. Bxc7) 23. Bf3 {
, when White has an extra pawn and the bishop pair.})) (15... Kb8 16. Ncb5 a6 (
16... Ne5 $2 17. Qb3 Rhg8 18. Rab1 Bc8 19. Nxa7 $1 Ne4 20. Ndc6+ {
1-0 Illescas-Rodriguez Vargas, Catalunya 1996}) 17. Nxc6+ Bxc6 18. Nd4 Bd5 19.
Bd3 Rhg8 20. Qa4 Ne4 21. Nf5 Qe6 22. Qxb4 Qxf5 {
and now in Vlasin-Cech, Czech League 1992, White could have safely played} 23.
Bxa6 {.}) (15... h5 {and now:} 16. -- (16. Ncb5 Kb8 17. Qa4 a6 18. Nxc6+ Bxc6
19. Bxf6 Qe4 $3 {is very dangerous for White, e.g.} 20. f3 Qxe3+ 21. Kh1 Qxe2
22. Qxb4 gxf3 23. Qf4+ Ka8 24. Nc7+ Ka7 25. gxf3 {
, when Krush-Kapnisis, World U18 Ch., Oropesa del Mar 1999, went} Rhg8 26. Bg5 (
26. Bd4+ {does not help in view of} b6 27. Rf2 Rxd4 28. Nb5+ Ka8 $1) 26... Rd3
27. Rab1 Rxf3 28. Qd4+ Kb8 29. Rxb7+ Kxb7 30. Rb1+ Rb3+ {0-1.}) (16. Rb1 $1 {
looks to be the best move for White if there are no decent improvements in 16
Ncb5. For example} Nxd4 ({the standard} 16... Kb8 17. Ncb5 {
is 15...Kb8, above, with White having Rb1 and Black ...h7-h5}) 17. Qxd4 Bf5 $2
{rebounds on Black after} 18. Qc4+ Qc5 (18... Kb8 $4 19. Qf4+) 19. Qxc5+ Bxc5
20. Rbc1 {, as now both} Kd7 ({and} 20... Kb8 21. Nb5 Be7 22. Be5+ {
win for White,}) ({while} 20... Rd2 {meets with} 21. Na4) 21. Rfd1+ Ke7 (21...
Ke6 22. Bc4+) 22. Nd5+ $1 Rxd5 23. Rxd5 Nxd5 24. Bxh8 {win for White.}))) 5.
Nf3 Nc6 6. g3 {Thanks to the fianchetto White is able to exert constant
pressure on the d5-pawn, whether or not the d4-square becomes available.} Nf6 {
The main line.} ({Black can also close the centre with} 6... c4 {
, when White should play the thematic} 7. Bg2 Bb4 8. O-O Nge7 9. e4 {. Reintroducing tension in the centre puts Black on the defensive. In fact there is a
good chance that the centre will soon open up, leaving the g2-bishop very
powerful on the long diagonal. Whereas in the main game White blockades the
d5-pawn with a knight on d4, here it is Black who tends to blocked White's
(passed) d4-pawn.} -- (9... dxe4 10. Nxe4 O-O (10... Bg4 11. a3 Ba5 12. Bf4 O-O
13. Nd6 Bc7 14. Nxb7 Qb8 {
was played in Semkov-Nogueiras, Varna 1982, White gaining clear advantage with}
15. d5 Qxb7 16. dxc6 Qxc6 17. Ne5 Qxg2+ 18. Kxg2 Bxd1 19. Rfxd1 Rfc8 20. Rd7)
11. Qc2 $1 {.} -- (11... Bg4 12. Qxc4 Bxf3 13. Bxf3 Nxd4 (13... Qxd4 14. Qb3)
14. Bg2 {is very good for White due to the light-squared bishop. Gual
Pascual-Moskalenko, Paretana 2000, saw an instructive mistake from Black:} Rc8
$2 15. Qxb4 Nc2 16. Nf6+ $1 gxf6 17. Qg4+ Ng6 18. Rb1 {
and the bishop pair alone is decisive.}) (11... Nxd4 12. Nxd4 Qxd4 13. Rd1 Qe5
14. Qxc4 {gives White a pull.}) (11... Bf5 12. Nh4 $1 {
attacks one light-squared bishop and unleashes another.} -- (12... Qxd4 $6 13.
Nxf5 Nxf5 14. Rd1 Qe5 15. Rd5 $1 Qe6 16. Bf4 {is clearly better for White.}) (
12... Bxe4 13. Bxe4 Qxd4 (13... g6 14. Bh6 Re8 15. Qxc4) 14. Rd1 {
and White is active.}) ({. The fun soon peters out for Black after} 12... Nxd4
13. Qxc4 Be6 14. Qxb4 Nc2 15. Qa4 Nxa1 16. Bg5 f6 (16... b5 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18.
Qd1) 17. Be3 b5 18. Qa6 $1 Bc8 19. Qxb5 {etc.}) (12... Bg4 13. Ng5 Ng6 (13...
g6 14. Qxc4 Qxd4 15. Qxd4 Nxd4 16. Bxb7) 14. d5 $1 Nce5 15. h3 $1 Bd7 16. Nxg6
hxg6 17. Qe4 $1 {
. Moskalenko-Semenov, Alushta 1994. White threatens 18 Qh4. There followed} f6
18. Ne6 Qc8 $1 {and now} 19. Nxf8 ({while} 19. Be3 Re8 20. Rad1 $1 {
would have led to a clear advantage}) 19... Bf5 {
has been assessed as unclear but looks good for White after} 20. Qd4 {.}) ({
. After} 12... Rc8 13. Nf6+ $1 gxf6 (13... Kh8 {is forced, after which} 14.
Nxf5 Nxf5 15. Qxf5 Qxf6 16. Qxf6 gxf6 17. Be3 Rfd8 $1 18. Rfd1 $1 {
is very good for White}) {
, the best Black can expect is to be considerably worse following} 14. Nxf5
Nxd4 (14... Nxf5 $2 {loses, e.g.} 15. Qxf5 Nxd4 16. Qg4+ Kh8 17. Rd1 Bc5 18.
Be3) 15. Nxd4 Qxd4 16. Bxb7 Rb8 17. Rd1 {.}))) ({. With} 9... O-O 10. exd5 Nxd5
{
Black hopes to maintain a hold on the d5-square. Then, instead of the automatic
} 11. Nxd5 ({White has} 11. Bg5 Qa5 (11... f6 $6 12. Nxd5 Qxd5 13. Ne5 Qb5 14.
a4 Qa6 15. Nxc6 bxc6 16. Bd2 {
was unpleasant for Black in Tregubov-Moskalenko, Alushta 1994}) {
, and only then} 12. Nxd5 Qxd5 13. a3 Ba5 14. Ne5 Qb5 15. a4 Qa6 16. Nxc6 bxc6
{, when Timoshchenko-Tseitlin, Palma de Majorca 1989, saw White turn his
superior forces into something more tangible after} 17. Qc2 $5 Be6 18. Rfc1
Rab8 19. Bf1 Qb6 20. Bxc4 Qxd4 21. Bxe6 Rxb2 22. Be3 Rxc2 23. Bxd4 Rxc1+ 24.
Rxc1 fxe6 25. Rxc6 {etc.}))) 7. Bg2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Bg5 {
Concentrating on the d5-pawn by monitoring a key defender.} cxd4 {
Alternatives are inferior.} (9... c4 10. Ne5 Be6 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. b3 Qa5 13.
Na4 Rfd8 14. e3 c5 15. dxc5 Bxc5 16. Bxf6 gxf6 17. Nxc5 Qxc5 18. Qh5 {
gives White a clear advantage according to 'NCO'.}) ({In reply to} 9... Be6 {
White instigates a forcing line that leads to a superior ending:} 10. dxc5 Bxc5
11. Bxf6 Qxf6 12. Nxd5 Qxb2 13. Nc7 Rad8 14. Qc1 $1 {. Black has no time to
prevent Nxe6, after which the weaknesses on the light squares give White
something to aim at:} Qxc1 15. Raxc1 Be7 {(defending the g5-square)} 16. Nxe6
fxe6 17. Rc4 {with a difficult defensive task ahead for Black.}) 10. Nxd4 h6 {
Taking the pressure off the f6-knight and lifting the 'pin' in anticipation of
...Bf8 to clear the e-file for the rook.} ({Also seen is} 10... Re8 {when} 11.
Qa4 Bd7 12. Rad1 {requires careful play from Black.} a5 $2 ({
Flear-J.Cooper, British Ch. 1988 was also poor for Black after} 12... h6 13.
Bf4 Bc5 14. Nxc6 bxc6 $6 ({the lesser evil} 14... Bxc6 {
would have reduced White to a slight but enduring edge}) 15. e4 $1) 13. Qc2 Qc8
14. Qd2 Bh3 15. Ndb5 Bxg2 16. Kxg2 Ne4 17. Nxe4 dxe4 18. Bxe7 Rxe7 19. Qf4 {
led to the kind of advantage White enjoys in the Catalan in A.Shneider-Leski,
Corsica (rapidplay) 1997.}) 11. Be3 {At first f4 might seem like a more
suitable square, but White needs to pay attention to d4 in order to exert
maximum pressure on the isolated pawn.} Re8 {Preparing to drop the bishop back
to f8, when the rook is well placed on the e-file.} ({Of course} 11... Bg4 {
is almost identical to the main game, but after} 12. Qa4 $1 {White has a
little more flexibility in that he has not yet committed his rook(s). Then:} --
(12... Qd7 {and now} 13. Bxd5 $5 {has been questioned for giving up the
traditionally important bishop, but in this case} Nxd5 14. Nxd5 Bd8 (14... Qxd5
15. Nxc6 Qxc6 16. Qxg4) 15. Nxc6 bxc6 16. Nc3 Bb6 17. Rfd1 Qc8 18. Bxb6 axb6
19. Qf4 {just seemed like a free pawn in A.Lastin-Potkin, Moscow 1999.}) (12...
Na5 13. Rad1 $1 Rc8 14. Nxd5 Nxd5 15. Nf5 Rc4 {. Tal-Zhidkov, USSR Ch. 1972.
Another skirmish surrounding the d5-pawn. In fact it is not untypical of the
Tarrasch to see White win (or Black lose/sacrifice) the d5-pawn at the cost of
the light-squared bishop or a period of inconvenience. While it is necessary
to properly analyse these sequences over the board it is useful to remember
where certain pieces are at their most vulnerable (here the 'dim' a5-knight
and the g4-bishop). Tal continued} 16. Qb5 Bxf5 17. Rxd5 a6 18. Qxa5 Qxa5 19.
Rxa5 Bc8 {and then tidied up nicely with} 20. Rd5 Be6 21. Rd2 Bb4 22. Rdd1 Rc2
23. a3 Be7 24. Bd4 b5 25. e3 a5 26. Be4 {etc.})) 12. Rc1 {
Rooks belong on open files.} Be6 {Highlighting a fundamental problem with
Black's d-pawn in that this form of protection both obstructs the rook and
leaves Black open to a well timed Nxe6, in turn introducing fresh problems on
the light squares. However, as we have already seen, failing to provide d5
with sufficient support can easily lead to the pawn falling.} ({
Nevertheless I prefer the consistent} 12... Bf8 {, when Karpov's} 13. a3 {
is a sensible move that is the first step of a reliable route to a plus for
White. Play might continue} Bg4 14. h3 Be6 15. Nxc6 $1 bxc6 16. Bd4 {. We are following Karpov-Illescas, Leon 1993. The capture on c6 leaves Black with a
backward pawn and a weak c5-square and is therefore another common feature of
the main line Tarrasch. Karpov's latest is directed against 16...c5 (see below)
but in any case the bishop stands well on d4 and now the e-pawn is free.} -- ({
. In fact Black can try} 16... c5 {because} 17. Bxf6 Qxf6 18. Nxd5 Qxb2 {
drops the b-pawn, but then} 19. Nc7 Rad8 20. Qe1 Re7 21. Qa5 $1 {
has been evaluated as giving White a clear lead.}) ({. Anand considers} 16...
Nd7 17. b4 {to be excellent for White}) ({, and} 16... Ne4 17. Nxe4 dxe4 18.
Bc5 Bxc5 19. Rxc5 Bd5 20. b4 {clamps down on the c5-square.}) ({. This leaves} 
16... Bd7 17. Qd3 Nh7 18. Be3 $1 ({
shadowing the knight rather than getting careless with} 18. e4 $2 c5) {, when}
18... Ng5 ({instead Illescas stood worse after} 18... Bd6 $6 19. Rfd1 Be6 ({
one to remember is} 19... Qe7 20. Nxd5 $1 cxd5 21. Qxd5 {,}) ({as is} 19... Nf8
20. Nxd5 $1 cxd5 21. Qxd5 Be5 22. Qxa8 Qxa8 23. Bxa8 Rxa8 24. Bd4 Bxd4 25. Rxd4
Bxh3 26. g4 h5 27. gxh5 {White has good rooks and too many pawns}) 20. b4 $1)
19. Bxg5 hxg5 (19... Qxg5 20. e4 $1 Qg6 21. Rfd1) 20. Rfd1 ({not} 20. e4 dxe4
21. Nxe4 Bxh3 $1) 20... Rb8 21. Rc2 {gives White a long-term structural lead.})
) 13. Qa4 Qd7 14. Rfd1 {Both sides have completed development and the game
continues to revolve around the d5-pawn and surrounding squares. We have
another example here of how attacking play is not exclusive to crushing
sacrificial mating combinations or kingside pawn storms. A look at the 
position shows that the squares c5, c6 and d5 are covered by every single one
of White's pieces except the king! It is this form of attacking chess that
tends to be overlooked and, consequently, underestimated at club level. From a
theoretical viewpoint Black is only slightly worse but practically it is
another matter, particularly at club level. Black's next tucks the king away
in case White takes on e6 and seeks to open up the light squares.} Kh8 15. Nb3
Rad8 {Black has d5 well protected now, but the same cannot be said of the
neighbouring square.} 16. Nc5 Bxc5 17. Bxc5 Bg4 18. Rd2 ({Earlier in Sadler-Chandler, British League 1997, White decided it was time to clear away a few
pieces:} 18. Bxd5 Bxe2 19. Bxc6 Bxd1 20. Bxd7 Re1+ 21. Kg2 Bxa4 22. Rxe1 Bxd7
23. Bxa7 Bc6+ 24. Kg1 Rd2 25. Re2 Rd3 26. Re3 Rd2 27. Re2 Rd3 28. Be3 Ne4 29.
Nxe4 Bxe4 30. Rd2 Rxd2 31. Bxd2 {and Sadler went on to convert the ending,
although at this point White's lead is not great. It is understandable that
Pelletier prefers to avoid wholesale exchanges until the time is right. Thus
far White has been increasing the pressure on Black's centre and, during the
last few moves, on the dark squares, so there is no reason to believe that
White cannot try for more than an edge in the ending.}) 18... Qf5 {
In view of what happens next this must be wrong.} ({
Black could try his luck defending a typically unpleasant Tarrasch ending after
} 18... b6 19. Be3 Ne5 20. Qxd7 Rxd7 21. Nxd5 Nxd5 22. Rxd5 Rxd5 23. Bxd5 Bxe2
{, but} 24. Rc7 {looks strong. Perhaps, now that circumstances have changed
slightly, Black should simply put the king back on g8. At least this adds
protection to the f7-pawn for later possibilities such as the one mentioned
above.}) 19. f3 $5 {A move for which Black is prepared, of course, but White
calculates that the ensuing complications are in his favour.} d4 20. Bxd4 Nxd4
21. Rxd4 Qe5 {This is the point of Black's play. For the price of a pawn Black
has eliminated a powerful bishop in the hope of exploiting White's newly
vulnerable dark squares, and the remaining bishop is locked out of the game on
g2. Unfortunately for Black White is otherwise free of structural weaknesses
and inevitable exchanges reduce Black's attacking potential.} 22. Rcd1 b5 {
Throwing more fuel on the fire since both a7 and g4 were attacked as well as
the rook.} 23. Qxa7 Qe3+ 24. Kh1 b4 {Refusing to back down. White needs only
to weather the storm to emerge with a decisive advantage.} 25. Nb5 Ra8 26. Qxf7
{Here is another reason why the king could have come back to g8. Again Black
can now bounce off the queen, but the pawns are adding up and White's forces
are hardly passive.} Be6 ({After} 26... Bh5 27. Qc4 Qxe2 28. a3 $1 bxa3 29.
Qxe2 Rxe2 30. bxa3 {
the dust settles to reveal a safe two pawn lead for White, e.g.} Be8 31. Nc3
Rc2 32. Nb1 {etc.}) 27. Qg6 Rxa2 28. Bf1 Rxb2 29. Nc7 $1 Rg8 30. Nxe6 Qxe6 31.
Rb1 (31. Rd6 {looks good, e.g.} Qe5 32. Rb6 {.}) 31... Rxb1 (31... Qb3 {
puts up more resistance.}) 32. Qxb1 Nd5 33. Qb3 Rd8 (33... Nc7 34. Rxb4 {
does not alter the result.}) 34. e4 Qb6 35. Rxd5 Rc8 36. Qd3 Qf2 37. e5 b3 (
37... b3 38. Rd8+ Rxd8 39. Qxd8+ Kh7 40. Bd3+ g6 41. Qe7+ Kg8 42. Bc4+ {
is coming.}) 1-0

[Event "Ubeda"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1996.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Wells, P."]
[Black "Korneev, O."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D31"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "95"]
[EventDate "1996.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. e4 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Qxd4 7. Bxb4 Qxe4+
8. Ne2 {Less common than 8 Be2, but equally playable, the text is also not as
generous because White gets to keep the g-pawn. In fact in this line it is the
g7-pawn that tends to drop, after which White aims to make his presence felt
on the dark squares. Meanwhile Black's queen can be difficult to evict and
White's kingside difficult to develop. After 8 Ne2 Black has a number of moves.
} Nd7 {Others:} (8... c5 {parts with a pawn in order to provide Black with
some breathing space and facilitate the development of the queenside. After} 9.
Bxc5 Nc6 10. Qd6 Nge7 11. Qf4 $5 Qxf4 12. Nxf4 b6 13. Ba3 e5 14. Nd5 {
White's bishop pair guarantees an advantage. The untouchable dark-squared
bishop is a strong piece.}) (8... e5 9. Qd2 Na6 10. Bf8 $1 {. This move -
which is by no means rare in the Marshall - highlights Black's vulnerability
on the dark squares. Already a pawn up, mobilization with} Ne7 {
is preferable to material;} ({the bishop is safe as} 10... Kxf8 $4 {
allows mate on d8}) ({, while} 10... Qg6 {
is passive and gives White time to mobilize.}) 11. Bxg7 Rg8 12. Bf6 Be6 {
has been assessed as giving Black counterplay. It is true that the second
player enjoys a development advantage but he is still susceptible on the dark
squares, and with} 13. Qd6 $1 Nf5 (13... Ng6 $2 14. Rd1) 14. Qxe5 Qxe5 15. Bxe5
Bxc4 16. Ng3 {White enters the next phase of the game with the superior
prospects thanks to his majestic bishop and Black's weak kingside pawns.}) (
8... Ne7 9. Qd2 $1 {and now:} -- (9... c5 10. O-O-O $1 O-O 11. Bxc5 {
worked out well for White in Georgadze-Cruz Lopez, San Sebastian 1991. If now}
Qxc4+ ({instead Black tried} 11... Nbc6 12. Nd4 Nxd4 13. Bxe7 e5 14. Bxf8 Kxf8
15. f3 Qc6 16. Bd3 Be6 {but after} 17. Kb1 {
White was an exchange up for no compensation}) 12. Qc3 Qxc3+ 13. Nxc3 Nbc6 {
White wins material in view of} 14. Bb5 $1 Re8 15. Bxe7 {etc.}) (9... Nd7 10.
f3 Qh4+ 11. g3 Qf6 12. Nc3 c5 13. Ne4 Qxf3 14. Bg2 {, Lputian-Pavasovic,
Cannes 1996, gives White a clear advantage according to 'NCO'.})) (8... Na6 {
is the most popular move. Then} 9. Bc3 Ne7 10. Bxg7 {presents Black with the
choice of saving his rook or threatening to win the one in the opposite corner.
} -- (10... Nb4 {. This is certainly in the spirit of this line. Thanks to
White's backwardly developed kingside Black can entertain the possibility of
checking on d3 instead of c2 and, consequently, White might have to suffer
some discomfort in order to hang on to any booty. I would seriously consider
calling Black's bluff with} 11. Bxh8 ({ironically the situation soon became
rather peaceful in Hauchard-Neves, World U26 Team Ch. 1993 -} 11. Qd6 Nd3+ 12.
Kd2 Nf5 13. Qxd3 Qxd3+ 14. Kxd3 Nxg7 {
leaving White with the more active king to go with his better pawns}) {
, when the recommended} 11... e5 {closes the bishop out of the game and renews
the threatened check(s). Two moves spring to mind for White:} 12. -- ({
. The direct} 12. Bxe5 {(intending 12...Nd3+) is thought to favour Black after}
Bf5 $1 (12... Nd3+ 13. Kd2 Nxf2 14. Qb3 Nxh1 15. Bf4 Bf5 (15... Bg4 16. Bc7)
16. Qxb7 Rd8+ 17. Ke1) 13. -- ({, one line offered being} 13. Bc3 Nc2+ 14. Qxc2
Qxc2 {, with Black's activity tipping the balance in his favour, albeit
temporarily if White can wake the remaining pieces.}) ({. However, White seems
to be able to throw a small but annoying spanner in the works by ruling out ...Rd8(+), namely} 13. Bc7 {. For example} Nc2+ (13... Nd3+ 14. Kd2 Nxf2 15. Qb3)
14. Kd2 Nxa1 ({an improvement is} 14... Qd3+ 15. Kc1 Nxa1 16. Qxd3 Bxd3 17. Nc3
Bg6 18. Be2 {but then White has an extra pawn plus the better position;
sometimes an opponent's sacrifice puts us under so much pressure that we
forget how much can be returned in order to successfully weather the storm and
stay ahead on 'points', and here is a good example of how a whole rook can be
too much a price to pay}) 15. Qxa1 {sees White maintain a decisive material
lead and - more importantly - Black's forces drastically reduced.})) (12. Qd6 {
is best according to Chekhov, although} Nc2+ 13. Kd2 Bf5 14. -- (14. Rd1 Rd8
15. Qxd8+ Kxd8 16. Kc1+ (16. Ng3 Qf4+ 17. Kc3+ Nd5+ $1) 16... Nd4 $5 17. Nxd4
Qb1+ 18. Kd2 Qxb2+ 19. Ke1 Qc3+ 20. Ke2 Qxc4+ 21. Ke1 {ends in a draw}) ({
, as does} 14. Ng3 Qf4+ 15. Kc3 Nd5+ $1 16. cxd5 Qd4+ 17. Kb3 Nxa1+ 18. Ka3
Nc2+ 19. Kb3 Na1+ {½-½ Gomez Esteban-Illescas, Lisbon Zonal 1993.}))) (
10... Rg8 {is normal:} 11. -- ({, when} 11. Qd4 {
leads to a very slight edge for White in the ending, e.g.} Qxd4 12. Bxd4 c5 13.
Bc3 Nb4 14. Bxb4 cxb4 15. g3 Bd7 16. Bg2 Bc6 17. O-O O-O-O 18. Rfd1 Bxg2 19.
Kxg2 Nc6 20. f4 {and White's more compact pawns gave him some chances in
Reinderman-Kharlov, Leeuwarden 1994.}) ({
. Wells-Knaak, German League 1996, saw the Marshall expert try} 11. Bc3 {
. There followed} e5 12. Qd6 Bf5 13. Rd1 $5 Ng6 14. Qf6 Be6 15. f3 Qh4+ 16.
Qxh4 Nxh4 17. Ng3 f6 18. Kf2 Kf7 19. Ne4 Rad8 20. Rxd8 Rxd8 21. Be2 c5 22. f4 {
. It is important to remember that the absence of Black's dark-squared bishop
affords White promising long-term prospects, and the position is a good
illustration of how a well timed thematic strike can open the game for the
'extra' bishop. There is more to attacking chess than going for mate or
decisive material gain - here White simply concentrates on a colour complex
with which his opponent will have problems defending, and the subsequent
advantage gradually takes on decisive proportions. The game continued} Bf5 23.
Ng3 exf4 24. Nh5 f3 25. gxf3 Rd6 26. Rd1 $1 Rxd1 27. Bxd1 Be6 28. Bxf6 Nf5 29.
Bc3 Bxc4 30. Bc2 Nd4 31. Bxh7 Bxa2 32. Ke3 Nb5 33. Be5 Nb4 34. Nf4 Nc6 35. Bg6+
Ke7 36. Bg7 $1 Bf7 37. Be4 Nbd4 38. h4 Ne6 39. Nxe6 Kxe6 40. f4 a5 41. f5+ Kd7
42. Bf3 Ne7 43. Kf4 {1-0. The power of the dark-squared bishop in this example
is not untypical of endings in the Marshall.} (43. --)))) 9. Qd6 a5 {
Not surprisingly Black wants to know where the bishop will reside.} (9... c5
10. Bc3 {and Black's next move determines the placement of the king.} -- (10...
Ne7 11. O-O-O Nf5 12. Qd2 O-O 13. Ng3 {with another branch:} -- (13... Qh4 14.
Nxf5 exf5 15. g3 Qg4 (15... Qe7) 16. h3 Qg6 (16... Qf3 17. Rg1) 17. g4 {
and White had succeeded in opening lines for his pieces in Grigore-Danilov,
Bucharest 1998.}) (13... Qc6 14. Nxf5 exf5 15. Be2 Nf6 16. Qg5 Ne8 17. Rd8 f6
18. Qd2 (18. Qg3 Qc7 $2 19. Rxe8) 18... Qxg2 19. Re1 $5 {(Flear-Bryson,
Hastings 1993/94). Black's sole developed piece is the queen and there is an
unwelcome visitor on Black's back rank. In these situations the fact that
White trails by two pawns has little relevance because this is more than
compensated for by other factors. Note also that White's play thus far is
based on finding optimum posts for his pieces, in so doing - hopefully -
restricting Black's forces. After} b5 (19... Qc6 20. Qd1 $1 {and Bf3 is coming}
) 20. Bf1 Qb7 21. Rexe8 Rxe8 22. Rxe8+ Kf7 23. Qd8 Qh1 {
White finished off nicely with} 24. Re7+ Kg6 25. Rxg7+ $1 {
1-0. Again Black came unstuck on the dark squares.})) (10... Ngf6 11. O-O-O Qc6
12. Qg3 Rg8 13. f3 Ke7 {is another try, the reasoning being that the king
might be as safe on e7 as it is on g8. Giorgadze-Matlak, Naleczow 1989, saw the
usual patient build up from White:} 14. Nf4 b6 15. Nd3 Ba6 16. Ne5 Nxe5 17.
Bxe5 Rad8 18. Be2 {and Black had problems guarding d6 and g7. After} Qa4 {
White could have played} 19. Rxd8 Rxd8 20. Qxg7 Ne8 (20... Nd7 21. Qg5+ Ke8 22.
Rd1) 21. Qxh7 Qxa2 22. Kc2 Qa4+ 23. b3 Qa2+ 24. Bb2 {
with a near winning position.})) 10. Ba3 Qe5 {
Consistent with the plan of dealing with the mighty bishop.} ({
Instead, the greedy} 10... Qxc4 {
grabs a second pawn at the cost of more time after} 11. Nc3 ({alternatively} 
11. Qg3 {practically forces} g6 {
, when Black's dark squares could hardly be any uglier}) 11... Qh4 12. Be2 {
/d3 followed by 0-0, Rad1 etc.}) 11. Qd2 ({
White has obvious compensation for the pawn in the event of} 11. O-O-O Qxd6 12.
Bxd6 Ngf6 13. Nc3 {, but it seems more logical to leave the queens in play
since Black is the one who is looking to relieve the pressure. Moreover there
is still time to be gained by hitting Black's exposed queen.}) 11... c5 {
Closing the door for now, but White's ambitious bishop will have its day.} (
11... Ngf6 {meets with the same response.}) 12. f4 Qe4 13. O-O-O Ngf6 {
Again Black is not tempted into doubling his spoils.} ({This time} 13... Qxc4+
{runs into} 14. Nc3 Qd4 15. Qxd4 cxd4 16. Nb5 Kd8 17. Rxd4 {
, when Bf8 is threatened and the coming Nd6 is strong.}) 14. Nc3 Qc6 15. Be2
O-O ({Black can finally feel a bit more relaxed now that his king has found a
safe haven, which would not be the case were the queen to return to enemy
territory with} 15... Qxg2 {, when} 16. Rhg1 Qxh2 17. Rxg7 {
softens Black up on the dark squares and leaves Black's king in the centre.})
16. Bf3 Qb6 17. g4 Nb8 {With little in the way of legal moves Black offers the
c5-pawn in return for some freedom of movement. However, White prefers to
continue turning the screw in order to keep Black in a defensive, negative
mode.} 18. Na4 Qc7 19. Qd6 (19. Bxc5 Bd7 20. Nb6 Qxc5 21. Nxa8 {
is also good for White.}) 19... Qxd6 20. Rxd6 Nfd7 (20... Ne8 21. Rd2 Nd7 22.
Nxc5 {is decisive.}) 21. Rhd1 {
Now it is White's turn to refuse a pawn, albeit for different reasons!} (21.
Nxc5 Nxc5 22. Bxc5 {
restores material equilibrium but otherwise White stands much better.}) 21...
Ra6 22. Nxc5 {Finally.} Rxd6 23. Rxd6 Nxc5 24. Bxc5 Re8 25. Bb6 a4 26. Kd2 {
White dominates.} f6 ({Or} 26... Nd7 27. Be3 {and Bxb7 is in the air.}) 27. Kc3
Kf7 28. h4 Ke7 29. Bc5 Nd7 $2 {A mistake in a poor position.} ({Imperative is} 
29... Kf7 {, although Black can do little but wait for matters to get worse.})
30. Rxe6+ $1 Kd8 (30... Kxe6 31. Bd5# {.}) 31. Rxe8+ Kxe8 32. Bd4 Nb8 33. g5
fxg5 34. fxg5 g6 35. Bd5 Nc6 36. Bf6 Bd7 37. Bg8 Bg4 38. Bd5 (38. Bxh7 Kf7 39.
b4 {.}) 38... Kd7 39. Be4 Ke6 40. Bc2 a3 41. b4 Ne5 42. c5 Nf3 43. Be4 Nxh4 44.
Bxb7 h5 45. b5 Kd7 (45... Bf3 46. Bc8+ Kd5 47. Kb4 {.}) 46. Bc6+ Kc8 47. b6 Nf3
(47... Bf3 48. b7+ Kc7 49. Be5+ {.}) 48. Be7 1-0

[Event "Sochi"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1966.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Vladimirov, B."]
[Black "Fuchs, R."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D10"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "55"]
[EventDate "1966.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 {The solid Slav Defence, like almost all openings,
features both interesting and dull variations.} ({The problem for White in
choosing how to meet the Slav is the incredibly lengthy process of getting
acquainted with the tactical, positional and structural intricacies of the
main lines. Then there is the matter of transposing to other openings such as
the Semi-Slav (e.g.} 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 {) when we find ourselves back to
the drawing board. I recommend bypassing the ridiculous amount of theory
required to learn just one line in favour of (3 Nc3 Nf6) 4 Bg5. This is one of
those perfectly natural moves that one is surprised not to see more often.
Despite being used from time to time by strong players, 4 Bg5 lacks the
historical clout and theoretical clout to find a place in a super-GM's
repertoire, but for mere mortals - particularly club players - it has a number
of attractions.}) 3... Nf6 (3... e6 4. e4 {enters the Marshall Gambit (see
Wells-Korneev). Black also has other alternatives:}) ({With} 3... e5 {
Black takes the opportunity to strike at d4. Best is} 4. dxe5 d4 5. Ne4 Qa5+ 6.
Bd2 Qxe5 7. Ng3 {. Beginners are urged to avoid exposing the queen to attack
so early in the game, so what is Black aiming to achieve here? To learn this
we need only look at the d4-pawn, which is waiting for e2-e3, after which
Black will clear the centre of pawns and exploit the open position with easy
development. Note that White, too, is losing time with the queen's knight.} --
({. Now} 7... c5 8. Nf3 Qc7 9. e3 {
. Black hung on to d4 in Agrest-Hector, Malmo 1993:} Nc6 (9... dxe3 10. Bxe3
Nf6 11. Bd3 Be7 12. O-O O-O {left Black in the unenviable situation of being a
couple of moves behind in an open, symmetrical position in Sturua-Minasian,
Panormo 1998}) 10. exd4 cxd4 (10... Nxd4 11. Nxd4 cxd4 12. Bd3) 11. Bd3 {.} --
({. Black must already be careful. For example,} 11... Nb4 12. Bxb4 Bxb4+ 13.
Kf1 {and White threatens 14 Qa4+ and 14 Nxd4 (} Bc5 14. b4 $1 {)}) ({, while} 
11... Nf6 12. O-O Be7 13. Ng5 $1 O-O $6 (13... h6 14. N5e4 O-O 15. Nxf6+ Bxf6
16. Nh5 {followed by launching the f-pawn is good for White}) 14. Nh5 $1 g6 (
14... h6 $2 15. Nxf6+ Bxf6 16. Nh7) 15. Nxf6+ Bxf6 16. f4 {
is awkward for Black to deal with.}) ({. Instead the game went} 11... Bd6 12.
O-O Nge7 13. Qc2 Bg4 14. Ng5 $1 h6 15. N5e4 Bb4 (15... O-O $2 16. Bxh6 $1 {,})
({or} 15... Bf4 16. h3 $1 Bd7 17. Nh5 $1 Bxd2 18. Qxd2 O-O $2 19. Nef6+ $1) 16.
h3 (16. c5 $5) 16... Bd7 17. c5 $1 {and Black's king was a problem in view of}
O-O 18. Bxh6 $1 f5 (18... gxh6 19. Nf6+ Kh8 20. Qc1 Ng8 21. Nxg8 Kxg8 22. Qxh6
f5 23. Bc4+) 19. Nd6 gxh6 20. a3 {etc.})) ({
. The most reliable continuation for Black is} 7... Nf6 8. Nf3 Qd6 9. Qc2 -- ({
, when} 9... c5 10. e3 Nc6 11. O-O-O {should be avoided, e.g.} Bg4 ({or} 11...
Be6 12. exd4 Nxd4 13. Nxd4 cxd4 14. Be3 Qa6 15. c5 Qxa2 16. Bb5+ Nd7 17. Bxd4
O-O-O 18. b4 {, P.Varga-Kovacova, Balatonbereny 1993}) 12. Bd3 Bxf3 (12...
O-O-O 13. Bf5+ Bxf5 14. Nxf5 Qd7 15. exd4 {
was a clear lead for White in Herraiz-Rios, Spain 1995}) 13. gxf3 O-O-O 14. Ne4
{with a grip on the light squares.}) ({. Theory favours} 9... Be7 {
, and now I believe the sensible} 10. Nf5 ({the main line} 10. O-O-O O-O 11. e3
dxe3 12. fxe3 Qc7 13. Bc3 {has not been doing badly for Black after} c5) 10...
Bxf5 11. Qxf5 {will grow in popularity. In Schandorff-Mah, Politiken Cup 1999,
Black simply missed his light-squared bishop:} Na6 12. g3 g6 13. Qc2 Nc5 14.
Bf4 Qd8 15. O-O-O Ne6 16. Be5 Qa5 17. Kb1 c5 18. e3 dxe3 19. fxe3 O-O 20. Bh3
Rad8 21. Bc3 Qc7 22. Ne5 {and White had the initiative.}))) (3... dxc4 {
also seeks to profit from the fact that White has brought the queen's knight
out first, the point being that in certain lines Black can win a tempo after ...b7-b5-b4. White's most aggressive response is} 4. e4 {
when the game can take one of two paths.} -- (4... b5 5. a4 b4 {
, is quite common.} (5... Qa5 6. Bd2 b4 7. Na2 e6 8. Bxc4 Nf6 9. Qc2 Nbd7 10.
Nc1 $1 Ba6 11. Nb3 {with an edge for White, Lengyel-Rukavina, Sombor 1974}) 6.
Nce2 $5 ({this more attack-minded move is a relatively recent fashion;} 6. Na2
Nf6 7. e5 Nd5 8. Bxc4 {tends to lead to a balanced position after} e6 9. Nf3
Be7 10. O-O Bb7 11. Bd2 a5 {etc.}) 6... e6 7. Nf3 Nf6 8. Ng3 Ba6 9. Bg5 $5 {
. It is true that White is yet to win back the gambit pawn, but by transferring
the knight over to g3 immediately White has been able to establish a menacing
space advantage on the kingside and a decent centre.} -- (9... Be7 10. e5 ({
also good for White was} 10. Bxf6 $5 Bxf6 11. Rc1 {
in Halkias-Groffen, Vlissingen 2000:} c3 12. bxc3 Bxf1 13. Kxf1 c5 14. Nh5 O-O
$6 15. Nxf6+ Qxf6 16. dxc5 bxc3 17. e5 Qf4 18. Rxc3 Nc6 19. g3 Qb4 20. Qc2 Rfd8
21. Kg2) 10... Nd5 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. Ne4 O-O 13. Nc5 c3 14. Nxa6 cxb2 15. Rb1 {
has been evaluated as clearly better for White, e.g.} Nc3 16. Qc2 Nxb1 17. Qxb1
Nxa6 18. Bxa6 {.}) (9... Qa5 {is more double-edged. After} 10. Be2 Nbd7 (10...
b3+ 11. Bd2 Bb4 12. O-O O-O 13. Rc1 {is interesting}) ({, while Hübner proposes
} 10... c3) 11. O-O -- (11... c3 12. Bxa6 cxb2 13. Bb7 $1 bxa1=Q 14. Qxa1 Rd8
15. Bxc6 h6 16. Bxf6 gxf6 17. d5 {White seems to have enough for the exchange})
({, and} 11... Be7 12. Rc1 c5 $2 ({Hübner's} 12... Nb6 13. Ne5 Rc8 {is unclear}
) 13. d5 exd5 14. e5 {
went wrong for Black in Ovsejevitch-P.Varga, Hungary 1999.}) ({. Gelfand-Huzman
, Ramat Aviv 2000, saw the difference between the two pawn structures grow
after} 11... h6 $5 12. Bxf6 gxf6 (12... Nxf6 13. Rc1 {
clearly favours White according to Gelfand}) 13. Qc1 Nb6 14. Nd2 {, when} O-O-O
(14... Rd8 15. Bxc4 Nxc4 16. Nxc4 Qc7 17. Rd1 h5 {[Hübner] improves for Black})
15. Bxc4 $1 Nxc4 16. Nxc4 Qc7 17. Rd1 {was complex. Black's bishops should
compensate for the structural shortcomings on both sides of the board.}))) (
4... e5 {leads to a queenless middlegame that benefits White thanks to the
extra presence in the centre resulting from the sequence} 5. Nf3 exd4 6. Qxd4
Qxd4 7. Nxd4 {and now:} -- (7... b5 8. a4 b4 9. Nd1 Nf6 10. f3 Ba6 11. Bf4 Bc5
12. Nf5 O-O {. White has more than enough pieces to attack the c4-pawn so
Black will be left with a potential weakness in the shape of the remaining
c-pawn. Two recent examples are} 13. Bd6 ({and} 13. Rc1 g6 14. Ng3 c3 15. bxc3
Nfd7 16. cxb4 Bxb4+ 17. Bd2 Bxf1 18. Nxf1 a5 19. Nfe3 Nb6 20. Nb2 c5 21. Nec4 {
, Gomez Esteban-Granados Gomez, Barcelona 2000}) 13... Bxd6 14. Nxd6 c3 15.
bxc3 Bxf1 16. Rxf1 Na6 17. cxb4 Nxb4 18. Ne3 Rfd8 19. Ndc4 Nd7 20. Ke2 {
, Bernal Moro-Avila Jimenez, Barcelona 2000, with an enduring pull for White
in both cases. This kind of advantage requires patience from White and
confidence in technique from Black.}) (7... Bc5 {is played with a view to
completing development rather than hanging on to the pawn. Portisch-Saidy, San
Antonio 1972, is typical, with White having the more active pieces to accompany
the extra space that the e4-pawn provides:} 8. Be3 Nf6 9. f3 Nbd7 10. Bxc4 O-O
11. Kf2 Nb6 12. Bb3 Re8 13. Rhd1 Bd7 14. Rac1 {etc.}))) 4. Bg5 $5 {A glance at
the position reveal a completely normal set up from White, 4 Bg5 introducing
the possibility of doubling Black's pawns and occupying the same diagonal as
the black queen while ignoring the stand-off in the centre in good old Queen's
Gambit style. One of the most important factors in chess is thwarting the
opponent's plans, and White's choice here has the psychological plus of ruling
out Black's main lines as early as the fourth move.} Ne4 {It is interesting
that the majority of club players I tested with 4 Bg5 also proposed this
'knee-jerk' reaction to the bishop's arrival, yet theory's albeit half-hearted
recommendation is 4... dxc4 Perhaps the logic behind 4...Ne4 is based on the
belief that White's sudden change of direction requires the same 'flexibility'
from Black, while the fact that Bg5 is an active move could be sufficient to
distract Black from the game plan on the queenside.} ({After} 4... dxc4 5. a4 {
Black has a number of choices.} -- ({. After} 5... Bf5 6. f3 $5 {has a lot going for it. Borrowing an idea from one of the main lines, White prepares to
erect a solid pawn centre and subsequently exploit a space advantage:} ({
the Trompovsky treatment with} 6. Bxf6 exf6 7. e4 {also looks okay for White})
6... e5 (6... e6 7. e4 Bg6 8. Bxc4 {followed by 9 Nge2 and 10 0-0 is passive
for Black; a key difference between this specific move order and the main line
with 4 Nf3 is that there is no need to lose time vacating the f3-square since
here the knight is still on g1}) 7. dxe5 Qxd1+ 8. Rxd1 Nfd7 9. e4 Be6 10. f4 {
and White is considerably better.}) (5... e6 6. e4 h6 7. Bxf6 Qxf6 8. Nf3 Bb4
9. Bxc4 O-O 10. O-O {(P.Cramling-Ekstrom, Katrineholm 1995). White has more
space, more fluid development and the superior centre. Black has the bishop
pair but is slightly cramped. Passive play by Black will see White advance
e4-e5 and then use the e4-square for general purposes and the b1-h7 diagonal
to threaten mate. Consequently the game continued} c5 11. e5 Qd8 12. d5 (12.
Na2 $5) 12... exd5 13. Bxd5 (13. Nxd5 Be6 14. Rc1 Nc6 {
gives White an advantage akin to the QGA}) 13... Nc6 14. h3 {with chances for
both sides. Black must decide what to do with the b4-bishop, which at the
moment plays little part in the game other than to threaten ...Bxc3.}) (5...
Qa5 {is the 'book' move, threatening the bishop and pinning the knight, when
White has:} 6. -- (6. Nf3 {and then:} -- (6... Bf5 7. Nd2 $5 Be6 8. Bh4 Qb6 9.
e3 {was played in Fyllingen-Gausel, Oslo 2000. After} Qxb2 10. Rc1 Qb4 11. Qc2
Nbd7 12. Rb1 Qa5 13. Bxc4 Bxc4 14. Nxc4 Qa6 15. Qb3 Nb6 16. Nxb6 axb6 17. Qxb6
Qxb6 18. Rxb6 Ra7 19. Bxf6 exf6 20. Ke2 Kd7 21. Rhb1 Kc7 {Black had returned
the pawn(s) but now stood slightly worse in view of White's more mobile
kingside pawns.}) (6... Ne4 $1 {
does appear to be Black's safest treatment of 4 Bg5, as long as} 7. Bd2 {
is answered by the accurate} Nxd2 ({and not} 7... Nxc3 $6 8. Bxc3 Qd5 {
, when Vanheste-Dekker, Dieren 1990, continued} 9. Nd2 b5 (9... Bf5 10. f3) 10.
b3 $5 cxb3 11. e4 {and Black was walking on very thin ice in terms of the
light squares and was lagging behind in development}) 8. Nxd2 {
produces a balanced game after} e5 $1 ({
since 8...e5 is not exactly obvious Black has also tried} 8... Nd7 9. Nxc4 Qg5
{, but then} 10. g3 e6 11. Bg2 Bb4 12. O-O O-O 13. Qb3 Qe7 14. a5 {gave White a pleasant position that has numerous similarities with the Catalan in
Tran-Dippel, Nuremberg 1999}) 9. Nxc4 Qb4 10. Nxe5 Qxb2 11. Rc1 Bb4 12. Qd2
Qxd2+ 13. Kxd2 O-O 14. e3 {, when White (who eventually ground out a win) had
good pawns, a well placed king and a central presence, and Black the bishop
pair.})) (6. Bd2 -- (6... e5 7. Ne4 $5 ({White has the sober} 7. Nf3 exd4 8.
Nxd4 Qe5 9. e3 Bc5 10. Nf3 Qe7 11. Bxc4 O-O {
with an even game, Christiansen-Donaldson, Philadelphia 1987}) 7... Bb4 8. Nd6+
Ke7 9. dxe5 Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2 Qxd2+ 11. Kxd2 Ng4 12. Nf3 Nd7 13. e3 Rd8 14. Ke1
Ndxe5 {was agreed drawn in Vladimirov-Sasikiran, Goodricke 2000.}) (6... Qb6 7.
e3 (7. Nf3 Bf5 8. e3 Qxb2 9. Bxc4 Bc2 10. Qc1 Qxc1+ 11. Rxc1 Bg6 {left White
less than a pawn's worth of compensation in Taimanov-Sveshnikov, 41st USSR Ch.
1973}) 7... Qxb2 8. Rb1 Qa3 9. Bxc4 e6 10. e4 Qd6 11. Nf3 Qc7 12. O-O {
and Black had invested a lot of time for the pawn in Hall-Ernst, Swedish Ch.
1998.})))) 5. Nxe4 {Introducing an imbalance in the pawn structure.} dxe4 6.
Qd2 ({And absolutely not} 6. e3 $4 Qa5+ {when the bishop is about to drop.})
6... Bf5 {Others.} (6... Nd7 7. e3 h5 $5 {is typical 'make it up as you go'
chess - an approach with which we have all been too well acquainted at one
time or another! To be fair Black does threaten to trap the bishop with 8...f6
etc.} 8. Bh4 g6 9. f4 $5 c5 10. Ne2 Bg7 11. d5 Nb6 12. Nc3 Bf5 {, Tosic-Misailovic, Kladovo 1994. Both players, in fact, have coped well with this line, as
can be seen from the strategic look of the respective pawn structures. The
game continued} 13. Be2 Nc8 $1 14. h3 Nd6 {(just in time)} 15. Kf2 Qa5 16. Rac1
a6 17. Qc2 {and the prospect of Black either losing touch with the e4-pawn or
having to part with his dark-squared bishop is enough to keep White on top.
Notice that the f4-pawn fits in well in this example.}) (6... g6 7. f3 $5 Bg7
8. Rd1 ({instead of 8 Rd1 White can consider} 8. O-O-O {
(or 7 0-0-0) followed by marching the kingside pawns}) 8... Bf5 9. e3 O-O 10.
Ne2 c5 11. fxe4 Bxe4 12. Nc3 Bf5 {
was approximately even in Ramon-Sieiro Gonzalez, Garcia Memorial 1998.}) 7. e3
{White opts to simply send the knight to c3 to keep an eye on the potentially
weak e4-pawn. The alternatives are certainly food for thought.} (7. O-O-O $5 {
is interesting, e.g.} Nd7 8. e3 f6 9. Bh4 e5 10. f3 {(Nei-Mnatsakanian,
Yerevan 1965). White is not worried about opening the b1-h7 diagonal for
Black's bishop because this piece can be comfortably dealt with, after which
Black's king should come under pressure.} exf3 11. gxf3 exd4 12. exd4 Be7 13.
Bh3 $1 {and the e6-square was a cause for concern to Black.}) (7. f4 $5 {
is ostensibly illogical but in actual fact positionally desirable, this Bönsch
speciality is designed to surround the e4-pawn and clamp down on the e5-square.
The f5-bishop, too, plays a part in the justification of f2-f4, as a future
retreat to g6 might allow f4-f5.} -- ({. Bönsch-Kuczynski, Polanica Zdroj 1987,
saw the centre pawns coming into contact:} 7... f6 8. Bh4 e6 9. e3 c5 10. d5
Na6 11. Ne2 Nc7 12. Ng3 ({another plan for White is} 12. Nc3 {
followed by Be2 and the threat of g2-g4}) 12... Bg6 13. O-O-O (13. dxe6 Qxd2+
14. Kxd2 f5) 13... Qd6 {and White had a pull.}) ({. In Bönsch-J.Horvath,
Budapest 1987, Black sensed that stereotyped play would lead to a disadvantage
and hit out with} 7... Nd7 8. e3 h6 9. Bh4 g5 $6 10. fxg5 e5 {, but after} 11.
Ne2 hxg5 12. Bg3 Bg7 13. O-O-O Bg4 {White could have punished this with} 14.
Qc2 $1 {.})) 7... Nd7 8. Ne2 (8. f3 Qc7 9. Ne2 h6 10. Bh4 exf3 11. gxf3 {
had the desired effect in Vanheste-Finegold, Dieren 1990. After} e5 $6 (11...
O-O-O) 12. e4 Bg6 13. O-O-O f6 14. Bh3 $1 {White was well ahead.}) 8... h6 9.
Bh4 g5 {This is a popular move because with the pawn on g6 the f5-bishop
(which protects e4) lacks a retreat square, and White's bishop on the h4-d8
diagonal restricts Black's development. The downside to ...g7-g5 is that it
presents White with a target, making a well timed h2-h4 a problem for Black.}
10. Bg3 Bg7 11. Nc3 O-O (11... e5 {can lead to similar play to the main game,
but Stanec-Lungu, Moscow Olympiad 1994, took a different course when White
pushed:} 12. d5 O-O 13. h4 $1 Qf6 14. hxg5 hxg5 15. O-O-O Rfd8 {
, and now White forced a near decisive queen trade with} 16. dxc6 bxc6 17. Qd6
$1 {when Black's weak pawns were his downfall.}) 12. Be2 e5 13. Rd1 exd4 14.
exd4 c5 15. d5 Ne5 16. O-O Re8 17. d6 $1 {Now Black is too busy weighing up
the implications of a well protected passed pawn right in the heart of his
position to consider anything else. Add to this the new potential base on d5,
and White is back in charge.} Qd7 18. h4 {It is always worth keeping an eye on
all sectors of the board as it is often easier to make progress in one area by
temporarily opening a new front of attack in another. In this case White
returns to Black's 9th move for a fresh target.} ({Also possible is} 18. Qd5 b6
19. Nb5 {, e.g.} Be6 20. Qxe4 Bf5 21. Qd5 Be6 22. Qd2 Nxc4 23. Bxc4 Bxc4 24.
Nc7 Bxf1 25. Rxf1 {and the d6-pawn is no less of a problem.}) 18... g4 19. Rfe1
Kh7 ({Note that} 19... Nd3 20. Bxd3 exd3 21. Nd5 {creates a second protected
passed d-pawn but favours White because Black's f5-bishop is unable to help in
the defence of the dark squares.}) 20. Qe3 $1 b6 21. Nxe4 Ng6 (21... Nxc4 22.
Bxc4 Rxe4 23. Qb3 {clears the e-file for White's gain, e.g.} Rxe1+ ({or} 23...
Rf8 24. Bb5) 24. Rxe1 Bg6 25. Re7 {.}) 22. Bd3 Bxe4 (22... Ne5 {does not help:}
23. Bxe5 Bxe5 (23... Rxe5 24. Qf4) 24. Ng3 $1 {etc.}) 23. Bxe4 f5 24. Bxa8 $1
Rxe3 25. Rxe3 Bd4 (25... f4 26. Bxf4 Nxf4 27. Re7 Qd8 28. Be4+ Kg8 29. d7 $1 {
is winning for White.}) 26. h5 $1 Bxe3 27. hxg6+ Kxg6 28. fxe3 1-0

[Event "New York Open"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1991.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Goldin, A."]
[Black "Mengarini, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D08"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "51"]
[EventDate "1991.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 {The problem with the Albin Counter-Gambit is that accurate
play gives White a good game however he reacts.} 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Nbd2
{I prefer this to the traditional 5 g3, which is also good for White. With the
flexible text White refrains from making the fianchetto in case an alternative
development of the bishop becomes more appropriate or, alternatively, it might
be possible to post the bishop on the h1-a8 diagonal with the more aggressive
g2-g4.} ({Another interesting option is} 5. a3 {, which tends to transpose to
the main game but can also have independent significance. Apart from defending
b4 White toys with the simple idea of expanding with b2-b4 in anticipation of
Black castling queenside.} -- (5... a5 {
seems rather automatic. Now three moves have been tried.} 6. -- (6. e3 {
stakes an immediate claim for the centre, e.g.} Bg4 7. Be2 d3 8. Qxd3 Qxd3 9.
Bxd3 O-O-O 10. Be2 Bxf3 11. gxf3 Nxe5 12. Bd2 Nc6 13. Bc3 {
left Black a pawn down for nothing in Polak-Galeev, Vienna 1995.}) (6. Bg5 Be7
7. h4 $5 {was seen in Karpov-Stoma, Koszalin (simul) 1997. White should not be
able to get away with such moves as h2-h4 after accepting a gambit pawn in the
opening, but this illustrates the general nature of the game in the Albin
Counter-Gambit, namely that White suffers insufficient inconvenience for his
booty. After} Bg4 8. Nbd2 h6 9. Bf4 Qd7 10. e3 dxe3 11. fxe3 {the usually
desirable option to castle queenside is no longer a realistic possibility with
the pawn on a5 since White would then be able to open lines for attack with
b2-b4. This is one of the reasons behind 5 a3. Consequently Black played} Rd8
12. Qb3 b6 {and now White castled long:} 13. O-O-O f6 14. exf6 Nxf6 15. c5 $5
Be6 16. Bc4 Bxc4 17. Nxc4 {and White was close to winning.}) (6. Nbd2 Bg4 {
(note that this position can arise in the main game after 6...a5). Pachman-Plachetka, Luhacovice 1968, continued} 7. h3 Be6 8. g3 Qd7 9. Bg2 Bc5 10. Ng5 $1 Nge7
11. O-O O-O 12. Kh2 Rad8 13. f4 Nf5 14. Nde4 Ba7 {. White has good prospects
even without the extra pawn, his kingside being excellent. After} 15. g4 Nh4 (
15... Ne3 16. Bxe3 dxe3 17. Qc2 {
and Black has similar problems with h7 and the light squares in general}) 16.
Qd3 $1 {the deadly threat of 17 Nf6+ forced a further concession from Black,
and the sequence} f5 17. Nxe6 fxe4 (17... Qxe6 18. Ng5 {and 19 Bd5+}) 18. Nxf8
exd3 19. Nxd7 dxe2 20. Bd5+ Kh8 21. Re1 {
resulted in a decisive advantage for White, the game ending} d3 22. e6 Bf2 23.
Bd2 Nd4 24. Ne5 Re8 25. Nxd3 Bxe1 26. Bxe1 {1-0.})) (5... Be6 6. Nbd2 {
(again this position can be reached via the main game after 5 Nbd2 Be6 6 a3)
and Black must decide whether or not to allow b2-b4:} -- (6... a5 7. b3 Qd7 8.
Bb2 O-O-O 9. b4 $1 {(Karr-Jossien, Bethune 1999). White's thrust is an
important idea to remember. By exerting more pressure on the d4-pawn with the
queenside fianchetto White induced ...0-0-0 from Black, facilitating the
creation of a queenside attack with what is essentially an obvious pawn break.
There followed} axb4 10. g3 (10. axb4 {is more to the point}) 10... Bh3 11.
axb4 Bxf1 12. Ra8+ Nb8 13. Qa1 $5 ({the simple} 13. Rxf1 {
is enough to keep White firmly in the driving seat}) 13... c6 {
and now White got a bit excited and pushed with} 14. c5 Bg2 15. Nc4 Qe8 (15...
Qe6 16. Nb6+ Kc7 17. Qa5 Bxh1 18. Nd5+ Kd7 19. Rxb8 $1 Rxb8 20. Qc7+ Ke8 21.
Qxb8+ Kd7 22. Nb6+ Ke7 23. Nxd4) 16. Qa7 Kc7 (16... Kd7 17. Nxd4) 17. Na5 Kd7
18. Nxb7 Rc8 19. Rxb8 Bxh1 20. Nd6+ Rc7 21. Qa8 Qe7 22. Re8 {1-0. I am sure
there is room for improvement from both sides in this game, but it does
demonstrate that White's attacking chances are as good as Black's in this
opening.}) (6... Qd7 {accepts the inevitable. After} 7. b4 Nge7 {
we have a further branch:} 8. b5 ({more recently White played} 8. Nb3 {
in Volzhin-Rewitz, Skolernes 1997. After} Ng6 9. Nbxd4 Bxc4 10. Nxc6 Qxc6 {
Black had insufficient compensation for the pawn}) 8... Na5 9. Qa4 b6 10. Bb2
a6 11. Nxd4 axb5 12. cxb5 Ng6 13. Nxe6 Qxe6 14. e3 {was already winning for
White in I.Farago-Berczy, Budapest 1968 (Black resigned after} Nxe5 $4 15. Qe4
{).}))) 5... Bg4 {The most aggressive move. Others:} (5... Be6 {is the major
alternative. Then 6 a3 transposes to 5...Be6 in the note to White's fifth move.
Instead White can elect to sort out matters in the centre with} 6. Nb3 Bxc4 7.
Nbxd4 {. White still has a material lead and the d4-pawn has been eliminated.
Here are two sample continuations:} -- (7... Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Qxd4 9. Nxd4 Rd8 10.
Nc2 Ne7 11. e3 Bxf1 12. Rxf1 Nc6 13. f4 {and White followed up with Ke2,
Bd2-c3 and then contested the d-file to begin the ending with a valuable extra
pawn in Guimard-Piazzini, Argentina 1938.}) (7... Bc5 8. e3 Bxf1 9. Rxf1 Qd7
10. Nxc6 Qxc6 11. Bd2 Bb6 12. Rc1 Qg6 13. Qc2 $1 {
(Dzevlan-Furhoff, Rilton Cup 1992). Now} Qxg2 14. Qa4+ Kf8 (14... c6 15. Rxc6)
15. Qe4 Rd8 16. Bb4+ Ne7 17. Rg1 Qh3 18. Ng5 Qh5 19. e6 {was winning for White.
})) (5... f6 {is the kind of gambit inspired move you are sure to come up
against in this type of opening. After} 6. exf6 {
Black can recapture with either piece.} -- (6... Qxf6 {
prepares to castle queenside.} 7. g3 Bg4 8. Bg2 O-O-O 9. h3 Bf5 10. O-O {
is Teichmann-Mieses, Berlin 1910, but the course of the game is still relevant
today. The queen is no better on f6 than d7 or e7. Moreover Black must also
take into account the possibility of Bg5 in these positions. In the game Black
threw his kingside pawns forward, but to no avail,} g5 11. Qa4 h5 12. Ne1 $1 {
successfully side-stepping ...g5-g4 as well as unleashing the g2-bishop. After}
Nge7 13. Nd3 g4 (13... Qe6 14. Ne4 $1 Bxe4 15. Nc5) 14. h4 Bxd3 15. exd3 Qf5
16. Ne4 Kb8 {White's undisputed advantage had little to do with his extra pawn.
}) (6... Nxf6 7. a3 a5 8. Nb3 $1 {. Yet again we see this idea of homing in on
the d4-pawn, a theme that is responsible for the recent popularity of 5 Nbd2.
Burmakin-Halser, Graz 1997, went} Be6 9. Qd3 Bf7 10. Nbxd4 Nxd4 11. Nxd4 Bc5 12.
Nb3 $1 Bb6 13. Be3 O-O 14. Qxd8 Raxd8 15. Bxb6 cxb6 16. e3 {
, and White's points lead had doubled to two pawns.})) (5... Bf5 6. Nb3 (6. g3
$2 Nb4) 6... Bb4+ 7. Bd2 {
and Black has the familiar problem of the insecure d4-pawn.}) (5... Bb4 6. a3
Bxd2+ 7. Bxd2 {helps only White, e.g.} Bg4 8. Qb3 $5 Rb8 9. Bg5 Nge7 10. O-O-O
{Marshall-Showalter, USA Ch. 1909. A number of players are yet to learn this
lesson nearly a century later.}) 6. a3 {By now we are well aware that nudging
the a-pawn forward comes in very handy for later.} Qe7 {Putting the e5-pawn in
Black's sights and clearing the way for the king to castle. When White has not
deployed his bishop on g2 Black's queen does not have to reside on the h3-c8
diagonal.} 7. h3 {Without the traditional threat of (after g2-g3 and Bg2) ...Bg4, ...Qd7 and ...Bh3 Black's bishop struggles for a worthy role. White
already knows that his opponent's queenside provides him with a target in the
shape of the b7-pawn (not forgetting more serious attacking options should
Black castle queenside), so delaying the commitment of the king's bishop with
the useful 5 Nbd2 and 6 a3 is quite logical.} Bh5 (7... Bxf3 8. Nxf3 O-O-O {
has also been played, after which White is guaranteed an advantage with} 9. Bf4
{,} (9. Qd3 Nxe5 10. Qf5+) ({, and} 9. Bg5 {, e.g.} f6 10. exf6 gxf6 11. Bf4
Qe4 12. Qd2 d3 13. Qe3 Qxc4 14. exd3 Qf7 15. Be2 Nge7 16. O-O {etc.})) 8. Qa4 {
Threatening 9 Nxd4.} O-O-O 9. b4 {Ironically Black has sacrificed a pawn to
then find himself coming under attack, and herein lies the problem. It is true
that White is yet to get his kingside in order but, for the moment, his king
is safer than Black's.} Kb8 {Defending the a7-pawn before b4-b5 comes.} (9...
Nxe5 10. Nxe5 Qxe5 11. g4 {is very good for White according to Ftacnik.} -- ({
. Ftacnik gives the line} 11... Bg6 12. Nf3 Qe4 13. Qxa7 d3 14. Be3 {
to support this reasonable assessment}) ({, but does not mention} 11... d3 {
However, once White addresses the attack on his rook and the subsequent ...
dxe2 his dual threats against h5 and a7 put him back in the driving seat, e.g.}
12. Ra2 dxe2 13. Bg2 $1 Bg6 14. Qxa7 c6 15. Bb2 Qd6 16. Qa8+ Kc7 17. Qa5+ b6 (
17... Kb8 $4 18. Be5) 18. Qa7+ Kc8 19. Qa6+ Kc7 20. Bc3 {
and, with the knight defended, White's next will be Qa7+ followed by Qxb6.}))
10. g4 {Another feature of this particular system. White is afforded the
luxury of being able to play with a more cavalier style on the kingside
because his attack is already under way on the other flank.} Bg6 11. Bb2 Nxe5 {
Re-establishing material equilibrium, albeit temporarily thanks to Black's
vulnerable back rank.} 12. Nxe5 Qxe5 13. Nf3 Qe4 14. Bxd4 $1 {The point;} ({
since after} 14. Bxd4 Rxd4 15. Nxd4 {Black cannot take on either d4 or h1 in
view of the mate on e8. Consequently White remains with his extra pawn intact
as well as enjoying play against Black's king.}) 14... c5 {
Opting to tuck the king away in the corner,} ({
rather than weaken a6, c6 and the h1-a8 diagonal with} 14... b6 {, when} 15.
Rd1 {is very good for White.}) 15. Be5+ Ka8 16. Bg2 {Of course there is
nothing wrong with the simple plan of lining up the bishop on the same, clear
diagonal upon which Black's king stands, and the text prepares - finally - to
castle.} ({However,} 16. Rd1 {
is another reminder that Black's back rank is cause for concern, e.g.} Rxd1+
17. Qxd1 {and Black's king is alone on the queenside!}) 16... Nf6 17. O-O Qxc4
({After} 17... Qxe2 18. Qb5 {Black's queen stands on an awkward square because
the threatened 19 Nd4 clears the way for Qxb7 mate. Blocking the diagonal does
not help, e.g.} Be4 ({or} 18... Ne4 19. Rae1 Qd3 20. Nh4) 19. Rae1 Qd3 20. Re3
Qc2 (20... Qd7 21. Bxf6) 21. Bxf6 gxf6 22. Ne1 {. Nevertheless the text hardly
contributes to Black's chances of fending off the attack.}) 18. Rfc1 Qe6 19.
bxc5 {With his king under fire - and seriously lacking in the defence
department - Black cannot expect to survive much longer.} Nd7 20. Bd4 ({
A nice win results from} 20. Nd4 $1 Qxe5 21. Nc6 {(} bxc6 22. Qxc6+ {mates).})
20... Qe4 (20... Nb8 21. c6 {.}) 21. Ne5 $1 {The beginning of the end.} Nxc5
22. Rxc5 Bxc5 23. Bxe4 Rxd4 24. Bxb7+ $1 Kxb7 25. Qc6+ Kb8 26. Qxc5 1-0

[Event "Linares Open"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1997.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "San Segundo Carrillo, P."]
[Black "Gallego Jimenez, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D07"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "56"]
[EventDate "1997.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. e3 e5 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 $5 ({
In the good old days} 7. bxc3 {was universally played. The text exploits the
coming pin on the d-file to ensure that a piece lands on d4, after which White
should stand better due to his bishop pair (Black will miss his dark-squared
bishop).}) 7... exd4 ({
In Matamoros-Insua Mellado, Seville 2000, Black side-stepped the issue with} 
7... e4 {
, keeping the centre closed. Unfortunately for Black after the ambitious} 8.
Ne2 g5 9. h4 f6 10. Ng3 g4 11. b3 $1 f5 12. Bc4 Qd6 13. d5 Ne5 14. Qd4 Nf7 15.
Bb5+ {the bishops had taken over nonetheless.}) 8. Ne2 {The point. Thanks to
the pin Black is in danger of surrendering his bishop for nothing.} Bg4 $5 {
Introducing an uncompromising reaction that is typical of Chigorin fans. Black
enjoys more space and development and already has an extra pawn, so this
attempt at disruption is logical. By introducing a pin of his own Black
refuses to give way in the centre and threatens to reinforce his grip by
castling queenside. Therefore White is practically forced into complications
that require careful handling from both players. --- The major alternative is
to develop the other knight on f6 or e7:} (8... Nf6 9. Nxd4 {and now:} -- (9...
Ne4 $6 10. Nb5 $1 {gives White a clear advantage. A sample line is} Qxd1+ 11.
Rxd1 O-O 12. Nxc7 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Bg4 14. Nxa8 Bxd1 15. Kxd1 Rxa8 {
and Black was a pawn down in Costa-Baumhus, Gelsenkirchen 1991.}) (9... Bg4 10.
Qa4 Bd7 11. Nb5 {
also drew attention to the c7-pawn in Riemersma-Heisel, Germany 1998. After}
O-O-O {White could have played} 12. Nxa7+ ({
but instead continued the theme with} 12. Qf4 $5 Ne8 13. Bxg7 Rg8 14. Bc3 Rg4
15. Qf3 {etc.})) ({. Even} 9... O-O {runs into} 10. Nb5 $1 {, e.g.} Qg5 11.
Nxc7 (11. h4 $5 {is popular but committal}) 11... Bg4 12. Qb3 Rad8 {. Black has
a development lead in return for the pawn but White's position is quite sound.
Now} 13. Qxb7 Qc5 14. h3 Ne4 {seems risky for White but} 15. Qb5 $1 Qd6 16. Nd5
$1 {throws a spanner in the works. Not surprisingly it took a computer to
discover this tidying resource, which leads to an ending in which White's
points lead is decisive after} Qxd5 (16... Be6 17. Qxc6 $1 {,}) ({or} 16... Bd7
17. Rd1) 17. Qxd5 Rxd5 18. hxg4 Nxc3 19. bxc3 {.}) (9... Nxd4 10. Qxd4 Qxd4 11.
Bxd4 O-O 12. Rc1 c6 {is typical of how Black's willingness to trade is too
accommodating when White is in possession of the bishop pair. T.Christensen-Charles, Suncoast 1999, continued} 13. Be2 Be6 14. a3 Bb3 15. Rc3
Be6 16. f3 Nd5 17. Rc1 Rfc8 18. Kf2 Ne7 19. e4 b6 20. b4 {
and White's advantage was beginning to take shape.})) (8... Nge7 9. Nxd4 {
with a further branch:} -- (9... Nxd4 10. Qxd4 Qxd4 11. Bxd4 O-O 12. Bc4 Re8
13. O-O-O Nc6 14. Bc3 Bf5 15. Rhe1 Ne5 16. Bf1 f6 17. e4 Be6 18. f4 {, Biriukov-Sepman, Chigorin Memorial 1998. Black has the same problem as in 9...Nxd4 in
the 8...Nf6 variation, above.}) (9... O-O {.} 10. -- ({
. Now the safest route to a definite edge is} 10. Nxc6 Qxc6 11. Qd4 Qg6 12. Bd3
Bf5 13. Bxf5 Nxf5 14. Qf4 Nd6 15. O-O {, when White enjoyed the superior minor
piece in K.Nikolaidis-Miladinovic, Aegina 1996.}) ({. However, I'm sure you're
wondering what happens if White hits the c7-pawn! Certainly} 10. Nb5 $5 Qg5 {
leaves the knight less actively placed on e7 than f6 (e4 is unavailable, for
example), and in Hertneck-Hermann, Munich 1998, White exploited this difference:
} 11. h4 Qh6 12. Nxc7 Rb8 13. Nd5 $1 Be6 14. Nf4 Rfd8 15. Qh5 $1 {
forcing the exchange of queens.} (15. --)))) 9. f3 Bxf3 {By far the most
exciting continuation, and one that we are happy to go along with. There are
several alternatives, each leading to varying degrees of difficulty for Black.}
(9... Be6 {
lacks consistency. Black is hardly poised to exploit f2-f3 here. After} 10.
Nxd4 Nxd4 ({the line} 10... O-O-O 11. Qa4 $1 Nge7 12. Nxc6 Nxc6 13. Bb5 {
is good for White, Mastrokoukos and And.Tzermiadianos offering the variation}
a6 $2 14. Bxc6 Qxc6 15. Qxc6 bxc6 16. Bxg7 Rhg8 17. Bf6 Rd3 18. Rg1 Rxe3+ $2
19. Kd2 {, trapping the rook}) 11. Qxd4 {results in the now familiar ending in
which Black will find his opponent's bishops difficult to handle.} ({
However, the more testing} 11. Bxd4 $5 f6 12. Qa4+ $1 {looks interesting, e.g.}
Bd7 13. Qc2 Qc6 14. Qd2 Qd6 15. Rc1 Rc8 16. b4 Ne7 17. Bd3 {
with a promising lead, when} Bf5 18. e4 $1 Rd8 19. Rd1 {
helps White increase his advantage in view of} Qxd4 20. Bb5+ {.})) (9... Bd7 {
also makes little sense, e.g.} 10. Nxd4 f6 11. Qb3 $5 Qxb3 12. Nxb3 b6 13.
O-O-O O-O-O 14. Ba6+ Kb8 15. Rd2 Nge7 16. Rhd1 Be6 17. e4 {
with long-term prospects that White converted in Tunik-Sepman, Russia 1996.}) (
9... Nf6 10. Nxd4 O-O-O {. It almost appears that Black can get away with this
cavalier play, but White has a very strong move in} 11. Qa4 $1 {.} -- ({. Then
} 11... Nxd4 12. Bxd4 Bxf3 13. gxf3 Qxf3 14. Rg1 Ng4 15. Rxg4 $1 Qxg4 16. Qxa7
Qh4+ 17. Kd2 Qxh2+ 18. Kc3 {
sends White's king to c3 but leaves Black's in more danger}) ({, while} 11...
Bd7 12. Nxc6 Bxc6 13. Qxa7 {nets White a safe pawn.}) ({. This leaves} 11...
Qg5 12. Nxc6 Qxe3+ 13. Be2 Rhe8 {, when Schandorff-Kjeldsen, Danish Team Ch.
2000, saw White comfortably deal with the threat down the e-file:} 14. Qc2 $1
Ne4 ({both the lines} 14... bxc6 15. Bxf6 gxf6 16. fxg4 {,}) ({and} 14... Bxf3
15. Qf5+ {are winning easily for White}) 15. fxe4 Rxe4 16. Nxd8 Bxe2 17. Qd2 $1
Qc5 18. Nxf7 Bh5+ 19. Kf1 Bxf7 20. Qf2 Qd6 21. Qf5+ Re6 22. Re1 {1-0.})) (9...
Rd8 10. Nxd4 Nxd4 $4 11. Qxd4 {. Black has been punished for leaving the
bishop on g4 with the loss of material, the lesser evil being} Qxd4 12. Bxd4
Rxd4 13. exd4 {.}) (9... Qg5 10. exd4 Bd7 11. d5 $1 {unleashes the bishop and
targets the g7-pawn. S.Pedersen-J.Andersen, Aarhus 1999, went} Nce7 12. h4 Qg6
13. h5 Qg5 14. Qc1 $1 {with a clear advantage to White.}) 10. gxf3 Qxf3 11.
Nxd4 $1 {For the moment at least White is best advised to keep his
dark-squared bishop in play.} (11. Bxd4 $5 -- ({, is justified after} 11...
Qxh1 $2 12. Bxg7 {, e.g.} Qxh2 13. Qa4 $1 f6 14. Bxh8 O-O-O 15. Qg4+ Kb8 16.
Rd1 {etc.}) ({. However, after the sensible} 11... Nxd4 $1 12. Qxd4 Qxh1 13.
Qxg7 O-O-O $1 14. Qxh8 Qxh2 {White must be careful. The only move is} 15. Qg7 (
15. Nd4 $2 {fails to} Qh4+ 16. Ke2 Nf6 17. Qg7 (17. Bh3+ Ng4) 17... Ng4 $1 {
when Black is on the warpath}) 15... Qh4+ 16. Qg3 (16. Ng3 $2 Nh6 $1) 16...
Qb4+ 17. Kf2 Qxb2 18. Rc1 Qb6 {
with a position that favours White but is less promising than in the main game}
)) 11... Qxh1 12. Nxc6 Nf6 {Ruling out Bxg7.} ({
It might be more accurate to play} 12... Qxh2 $5 {
first, as 13 Bxg7? loses to the fork on g3. Therefore} 13. Qg4 Nf6 $1 {is best:
} 14. -- ({, when} 14. Bxf6 gxf6 15. Qe4+ Kf8 16. Qb4+ Kg7 17. Qg4+ ({while} 
17. Qxb7 {leaves White's queen too far from the vulnerable king for my liking})
17... Kf8 18. Qb4+ {draws.}) ({. Instead} 14. Qxg7 $1 Qh4+ 15. Kd1 Rg8 16. Qxf6
Qxf6 17. Bxf6 bxc6 18. Rc1 {pits the rook and bishops against two rooks.
Black's extra pawns are weak but the h-pawn is passed, and White has only
three left. Nevertheless White effectively has an extra piece, which should
tip the balance in his favour.})) ({Another possibility is} 12... bxc6 13. Bxg7
Qxh2 {, when White activates the queen before taking the rook:} 14. Qf3 ({
I prefer Baburin's} 14. Qg4 {with the idea of meeting} Rd8 {with} 15. Rd1 {
. In Baburin-J.Cobb, British Ch. 1999, exchanges led to a winning ending for
White after} Rxd1+ 16. Kxd1 Qd6+ 17. Qd4 f6 18. Bxh8 Ke7 19. Bd3 Qxd4 20. exd4
h5 21. Ke2 Nh6 22. Bg6 h4 23. Bg7 Nf7 24. Bxf7 Kxf7 25. Bh6 Ke6 26. Bf4 {etc.})
14... Ne7 15. Bxh8 Rd8 16. Bc3 {has proved successful, e.g.} Rd5 17. e4 Qh4+
18. Ke2 Rd6 19. Bh3 Qg5 20. Rf1 Qg6 21. Bf5 Nxf5 22. Qxf5 Re6 23. Qxg6 hxg6 24.
Kf3 c5 25. e5 Ra6 26. a3 {
and White eventually won in Krallmann-Heisel, German League 1997.}) 13. Na5 ({
Also good is} 13. Ne5 {with a view to trading queens and relying on the two
bishops in the subsequent ending. Here are two typical examples:} -- (13... Qe4
14. Qd4 O-O 15. O-O-O Qxd4 16. Bxd4 $1 c5 17. Bc3 Rad8 18. Rxd8 Rxd8 19. Bc4 {
, Lugovoi-Terasti, Finland 1998. Not surprisingly Black turned down the
passivity that follows} Rf8 {,} ({but} 19... Nd5 $2 20. Nxf7 $1 Kxf7 21. e4 b5
22. Bxd5+ Kf8 23. Be5 {saw the bishops dominate the entire board.})) (13... O-O
14. Qf3 Qxf3 15. Nxf3 Nd5 16. Bd4 Rfe8 17. Kf2 {was played in Ehlvest-Mertanen
in the same event. The problem for Black in these endings is the rather
ineffective knight, which combines with the rooks less well than its opposite
number works with the rook and bishops.})) 13... Qxh2 {Others:} (13... O-O 14.
Bxf6 gxf6 15. Qg4+ Kh8 16. O-O-O Rfd8 17. Bd3 {
didn't do Black's king any favours in Galinsky-Prihotko, Pocztowy 1999.}) (
13... Qe4 {might be best,} 14. Qd4 O-O 15. O-O-O b6 16. Nc4 Qxd4 17. Bxd4 {
giving White the usual bonus of superior fire power.}) 14. Qa4+ c6 15. O-O-O $1
({Improving both king and rook makes more sense than} 15. Nxc6 Qg3+ 16. Ke2
Qh2+ (16... O-O 17. Be5 Qg4+ 18. Qxg4 Nxg4 19. Ne7+ Kh8 20. Bd4) 17. Kd3 O-O {
even if White's king is safe on d3.}) 15... O-O ({Black preferred} 15... Qc7 {
in Averkin-Batikiants, Krasnodar 1998. White immediately made sure that his
opponent's king was to stay in the centre for the time being:} 16. Qb4 {and now
} Nd5 $2 {, is met with} ({Black still has problems with his king after} 16...
Qe7 17. Qxe7+ Kxe7 18. Nxb7) 17. Rxd5 $1 cxd5 18. Bb5+ Kd8 19. Nxb7+ $1 Kc8 (
19... Qxb7 20. Qd6+ Kc8 21. Ba6 Qxa6 22. Qxa6+ Kd7 23. Qb7+ {
and the queen and bishop have fun while the rooks have yet to stir}) 20. Nd6+
Kb8 (20... Kd8 21. Nxf7+ $1 Qxf7 22. Qd6+ Kc8 23. Ba6+) 21. Ba6+ Qb6 22. Nc4 $1
{1-0. The deadly check on e5 will be a fitting testament to the power of the
bishop pair.}) (15... Qh6 {
worked out okay for Black in Koniushkov-Dubinsky, Russia 1997:} 16. -- ({
. After} 16. Nxb7 O-O 17. Nd6 Nd5 18. Nf5 Qg5 19. Rxd5 $5 cxd5 20. Qd4 Rfe8 {
White was forced into} 21. Qxg7+ Qxg7 22. Bxg7 Rxe3 23. Nxe3 Kxg7 24. Nxd5 h5
25. Nf4 h4 26. Kd2 {and a draw was agreed.}) ({. Borrowing Averkin's idea,} 16.
Qb4 $1 {looks good, e.g.} Qxe3+ $2 ({this time} 16... Nd5 {
is even worse for Black:} 17. Rxd5 cxd5 18. Bb5+ Kd8 19. Nxb7+ Kc7 20. Qc5+
Kxb7 21. Qxd5+ Kc7 22. Be5+ Kb6 23. Bd4+ Kc7 24. Qd7+ {and mate}) 17. Bd2 Qb6 (
17... Nd5 18. Qd6) 18. Re1+ Kd8 19. Qe7+ Kc8 20. Bh3+ {etc.})) 16. Bxf6 $1 {
Parting with the good bishop is worth it here if it means damaging the pawn
cover in front of Black's king.} gxf6 17. Nxb7 {
Opening the b-file is not a problem for White.} ({Another option is} 17. Bd3
Rfe8 18. Qg4+ Kh8 19. Qf3 Qh4 20. Nc4 {as in Pereyra-Myc, World Junior Ch.
1997. This looks rather promising in view of the weaknesses on f6 and h7. The
game went} Rg8 21. Nd6 Rg3 22. Qf2 Rg4 23. Qxh4 Rxh4 24. Rg1 $5 Rf8 25. Bc4
Rxc4+ 26. Nxc4 {and the extra knight eventually proved too much for Black.})
17... Rab8 18. Ba6 $1 Qe5 19. Qa3 $1 {Defending b2 and e3 and supporting both
c5 and d6. Note that Black's extra pawns - split into four groups! - are
irrelevant at the moment, three of them busy keeping the king company.} Rfe8 $6
{Neglecting the f7-pawn.} ({The lesser evil is} 19... Rbe8 20. Rd3 {.}) 20.
Rg1+ Kh8 21. Nd6 Re7 (21... Qxe3+ $4 22. Qxe3 Rxe3 23. Nxf7# {.}) 22. Bc4 Rg8
$2 (22... Rf8 {is necessary. Then White switches to the h-file:} 23. Rh1 $1 {
e.g.} Rd7 ({after} 23... Qxe3+ 24. Qxe3 Rxe3 25. Nxf7+ {
Black must take the knight as} Kg7 26. Rg1+ {mates}) 24. Qd3 f5 25. Qxf5 Qxf5
26. Nxf5 {and the three pieces will have the upper hand.}) 23. Nxf7+ $1 Rxf7
24. Rxg8+ Kxg8 25. Qxa7 Qe8 26. a4 {Thanks to the pin White wins the race.} h5
27. Kd2 $1 h4 28. Ke2 h3 {and Black resigned rather than wait for 29 Kf2.} 1-0

[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1994.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ivanov, V."]
[Black "Rausis, I."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D06"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "43"]
[EventDate "1994.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Bf5 {This move is designed to develop the bishop actively
before supporting d5 with ...e7-e6, the c6-square often left free for the
queen's knight. Instead of allowing such a set up by meeting Black's second
move with routine play, this game features an uncompromising treatment by
White.} ({Less popular and less sound is} 2... Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 {. The patient}
4. Nf3 {, is the best way to make something of White's extra centre pawn. After
} (4. e4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 {
is what Black is waiting for and should therefore be avoided}) 4... Bf5 5. Qb3
{Black has tried two moves:} -- (5... Nc6 6. Nc3 Nxc3 7. bxc3 b6 {and now in Muhtarov-Ilin, Sevastopol 2000, White sought an immediate decision with} 8. e4 $1
{. Then the lesser evil is} Bd7 {with a sizeable advantage for White,} ({
but Ilin's} 8... Bxe4 $2 {at least serves to illustrate what can befall Black
if an unorthodox defence is mishandled:} 9. Bb5 {(threatening 10 Ne5)} f6 10.
Qe6 Qd5 11. Qxd5 Bxd5 12. c4 Bxf3 13. gxf3 O-O-O 14. Bxc6 Rxd4 15. Bd5 {
and the piece by far outweighed the pawns.})) (5... e6 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. e4 $1 Nxc3
8. exf5 $1 {is clearly better for White thanks to the bishop pair and
subsequent play on the light squares.})) ({
Another quite rare attempt to muddy the waters is} 2... c5 {. Then} 3. cxd5 {
and now:} -- (3... Qxd5 4. Nf3 Nc6 $6 (4... cxd4 5. Nc3 Qa5 6. Nxd4 Nf6 {
improves, although} 7. Nb3 Qc7 8. g3 {, for example, is pleasant for White}) 5.
Nc3 Qd8 6. d5 {and Black's experiment had been rightly punished in
Izeta-Martinez Vildosola, Pamplona 2000.}) (3... Nf6 4. dxc5 Qxd5 5. Bd2 $1 {
White's plan is to gain an advantage by developing at the expense of the queen
with Nf3, Nc3 and Rc1 etc. The attempt to avoid this with} Ne4 {
leads to a clear plus for White after} 6. Nf3 e5 ({or} 6... Qxc5 7. e3 Nc6 8.
Nc3 Nxd2 9. Nxd2 $1) 7. Nc3 Nxc3 8. Bxc3 Qxd1+ 9. Rxd1 f6 10. b4 {(Podgorny).})
) 3. cxd5 ({Now} 3. cxd5 Qxd5 $6 {
breaks a golden rule and deservedly loses time and space after} 4. Nc3 {
, so Black first eliminates the knight before recapturing on d5.}) 3... Bxb1 4.
Qa4+ $1 {By no means an obvious possibility, this check throws a small spanner
in the works.} c6 {Now that Black has already parted with his bishop (and the
d5-pawn) the exchange of queens is sure to benefit White.} (4... Qd7 5. Qxd7+
Nxd7 6. Rxb1 Ngf6 7. Nf3 Nb6 8. e3 Nbxd5 {regains the pawn but does not alter
the fact that White has a 2-1 pawn majority on the centre files to add to the
definite advantage of the bishop pair. Inkiov-Trzaska, Sweden 2000, is a good
example of how patient play helps White nurture his pluses:} 9. a3 e6 10. Bd3
Be7 11. e4 Nb6 12. O-O O-O 13. Be3 Rfd8 14. Rfc1 {
. Black should settle for a cramped but solid position here with} c6 {
, when White continues to build up the pressure.} ({
Instead Black struck out with} 14... c5 {, but after} 15. dxc5 Rxd3 16. cxb6
axb6 17. Rc7 Rad8 18. Re1 {soon found himself a pawn down.})) (4... c6 {
also invites} 5. dxc6 {, when} Nxc6 6. Rxb1 {gives White an edge. However, the
treatment adopted in the main game can lead to complex play that is near
winning for White should Black be tempted into mixing it early on.}) 5. Rxb1
Qxd5 6. f3 {I like this move. It is perfectly natural to want to erect a good
centre around which White can mobilize his superior forces (two bishops).
Passive play from Black will inevitably allow White to generate a healthy
initiative, challenging the centre will open lines for the bishop pair and -
as we will see - trying to justify the queen's early central posting with
tactics backfires on Black.} Nd7 {One of a number of moves available. With
the sober 6...Nd7 Black grants White his wish with a view to challenging with
a timely ...e7-e5.} (6... f5 {is a dubious attempt to keep White's e-pawn at
bay. However, with his light-squared bishop no longer around to help the cause
Black is poorly prepared for a battle on the light squares. Consequently White
should carry on anyway:} 7. e4 $1 fxe4 8. Bc4 b5 (8... Qf5 9. Qc2 Nf6 10. Ne2 {
looks uncomfortable for Black,} ({while} 10. g4 {and 11 g5 is worth a try})) 9.
Bxd5 bxa4 10. Bxe4 Nf6 11. Bc2 a3 12. bxa3 {
and White's bishops are just as effective without queens on the board.}) (6...
b5 {also meets with} 7. e4 {. Then} Qd8 (7... bxa4 8. exd5 cxd5 9. Bb5+ Nd7 10.
Bc6 Rc8 11. Bxd5 {
as in Barsov-Rausis, Untergrombach 1995, again favours the bishops}) 8. Qd1 {
sees both queens return to base but, whereas White has a proud centre, Black
has an odd queenside and no light-squared bishop. After} e6 9. a3 Nf6 10. Be3 {
White has more space, better pawns, better centre and the bishop pair.}) ({
Belov's} 6... e5 $5 {is sensible. After} 7. dxe5 {Black has tried two moves:}
-- (7... Nd7 8. Bf4 {. S.Ivanov-Skatchkov, Chigorin Memorial 1997, went} Nc5 ({
Black should be only slightly worse after} 8... Nxe5 9. Rd1 ({or} 9. e4)) 9. e4
$1 Qd8 (9... Nxa4 10. exd5 {, and} cxd5 $4 {loses to} 11. Bb5+) 10. Qc4 Ne6 11.
Bg3 Bc5 12. Nh3 {and Black had insufficient compensation for the pawn. Black
did manage to disrupt White's king, but only at the cost of subjecting his own
to a similar fate:} b5 13. Qc3 a5 14. a3 b4 15. Qc4 bxa3 16. bxa3 Bxa3 17.
Qxc6+ Kf8 18. Bc4 Ne7 19. Qa4 Bb4+ 20. Kf1 {
and White had just managed to keep his advantage intact.}) (7... Qxe5 8. Bf4
Qf5 9. Rd1 Na6 {requires patience from White, who has an edge after} 10. e3 Nc5
11. Qc4 Ne6 12. Bg3 {, when the kingside forces are ready for action.})) ({
Now we come to the tempting} 6... Nf6 7. e4 Nxe4 $6 {. With White's rook
standing alone on b1, 7...Nxe4 is understandable, but then White can make a
point of highlighting his undisputed supremacy on the light squares with} 8.
Bc4 $1 {, which gains a vital tempo on the queen and introduces dangerous
possibilities involving the potentially vulnerable f7-pawn:} ({
rather than the automatic} 8. fxe4) 8... Qf5 (8... Qxd4 $4 9. Bxf7+) 9. fxe4
Qxe4+ 10. Ne2 {, when three important moves must be addressed:} -- (10... b5
11. Qb3 $1 bxc4 12. Qb7 e6 13. O-O {turns out well for White after either} Be7
({or} 13... Qxe2 14. Qxf7+ Kd8 15. Qb7 {Lorscheid-Van der Raaf, Ostend 1992})
14. Qxa8 O-O 15. Qxa7 {, Lorscheid-Stromer, German League 1992.}) ({
. Umanskaya-Poliakova, Russian Women's Ch. 1996, continued} 10... Qxg2 11. Rg1
Qe4 12. Qb3 Nd7 (12... Qxb1 13. Qxb7 {, e.g.} Qf5 14. Bxf7+ $5 Kd8 15. Bf4) 13.
Bxf7+ Kd8 14. Ra1 e5 15. Qe3 Bb4+ 16. Kd1 Qxe3 17. Bxe3 g6 18. Kc2 Kc7 19. Rad1
{and the piece was more effective than the pawns.}) (10... Qxb1 {
is even more fun after} 11. Qb3 $1 {.} -- ({
. Now Kishnev-Pronold, Munich 1992, went} 11... Qf5 12. Qxb7 Qa5+ 13. Bd2 Qb6
14. Qc8+ {1-0 in view of} Qd8 15. Bxf7+ {.}) ({. Instead} 11... b5 {
keeps White's queen out of b7 but after} 12. Bd3 Qa1 13. O-O {Black's queen is
trapped and White might anyway infiltrate with his queen on f7.}) ({. Finally} 
11... Nd7 12. Bd3 Qa1 13. O-O {is an irrelevant improvement on 11...b5.} (13.
--)))) 7. e4 Qd6 ({
Despite its recommendation by a couple of commentators I would steer clear of} 
7... Nb6 8. exd5 Nxa4 9. dxc6 bxc6 {because} 10. d5 $1 {again exploits Black's
vulnerability on the light squares. White has a definite plus after} Kd7 ({and
} 10... e6 11. dxc6 Bb4+ 12. Bd2 Bxd2+ 13. Kxd2 O-O-O+ {is too generous.}) 11.
Bc4 {.}) 8. Ne2 (8. Be3 e5 9. Ne2 {transposes.}) ({However, if White is not in
the mood to see Black plant a pawn on e5 he can do so himself, e.g.} 8. e5 $5
Qg6 9. Ra1 e6 10. Ne2 {and the price for White's extra space and the two
bishops is Black's knight outpost on d5.}) 8... e5 ({The idea behind playing 8
Ne2 rather than 8 Be3 is to be ready to meet the modest} 8... e6 {with} 9. Bf4
{, when} Qb4+ 10. Qxb4 Bxb4+ 11. Nc3 Ngf6 {gives Black the traditional
'passive but solid' set up. Eventually - after bringing his kingside pieces
into the game - White might consider pushing his b-pawn in order to open the
queenside for his pieces, thus reminding Black who rules the light squares. In
this kind of position Black should refrain from trading his remaining for the
knight, as then White's bishops would dominate.}) 9. Be3 Qb4+ (9... Ngf6 10.
Rd1 Qb4+ 11. Qxb4 Bxb4+ 12. Kf2 O-O-O 13. g3 $1 {was the course of
Kishnev-Rausis, Moscow 1987. Even with such a sound structure Black finds
himself under pressure on the light squares, this time the h3-c8 diagonal the
source of activity for White's uncontested bishop. After} exd4 14. Nxd4 Ne5 15.
Bh3+ Kc7 16. Bf4 Rhe8 17. Ne6+ fxe6 18. Bxe5+ {White was well on top. This
example and White's undeniable lead in the main game suggest that perhaps
Black should not exchange queens.}) ({In fact Belov proposes (} 9... Ngf6 10.
Rd1 {)} Qc7 {as an improvement on Kishnev-Rausis, above, and there seems
nothing wrong with this plan. Of course it does not alter the assessment of
the game being in White's favour, but Black's queen can contribute to play on
the dark squares in an effort to make up for the deficiency on the other
colour complex.}) 10. Qxb4 Bxb4+ 11. Kf2 (11. Nc3 Ngf6 12. Bc4 O-O 13. Ke2 {
followed by bringing the king's rook to d1 is equally good, guaranteeing White
the better chances as the ending approaches.}) 11... Ne7 12. dxe5 ({Avoiding} 
12. Rd1 f5 13. Nc3 O-O 14. Bc4+ Kh8 {when Black enjoys too much activity.})
12... Nxe5 13. Nd4 O-O {
Black prefers to keep his king in front of White's kingside pawn majority.} ({
Donev's proposed} 13... O-O-O {
runs the risk of walking into an attack should White launch his minority.}) 14.
g4 $6 {White plans to use the f5-square but this is dealt with quite
comfortably by Black, who gets the time to draw the sting out of White's
bishops.} ({Belov's} 14. Be2 {deserves a try. Combining 15 Rhd1 with f3-f4 and
posting the bishop on f3 will pose Black problems, and the pre-emptive strike}
f5 {does not diminish White's pull after} 15. exf5 Nxf5 16. Nxf5 Rxf5 17. h3 {
according to Belov. The advantage of the bishop pair requires patience in that
the scope of the bishops tends to gradually increase during the course of the
game. As long as there pawns on both flanks the defender will not have an easy
task.}) 14... Rfd8 15. Be2 {White must defend the d3-square before moving his
knight. Consequently Black wastes no time improving his pieces.} Bc5 16. Rhd1
Rd7 ({That White's strategy beginning with 14 g4 is indeed faulty is
demonstrated by the fact that here Black has the option of accentuating his
influence on the dark squares with} 16... g5 $5 {. Then} 17. Nf5 ({while} 17.
b4 Bb6 18. Nf5 N7g6 {is not clear}) 17... Bxe3+ 18. Kxe3 N7g6 {looks even.
Note that the rash g2-g4 practically invited this idea by creating a hole on
f4. Of course the text is sensible, too, preparing to make his presence felt
on the d-file.}) 17. b4 (17. Nf5 Bxe3+ 18. Kxe3 Nxf5+ 19. gxf5 Rad8 20. Rxd7
Nxd7 {offers Black good drawing chances.}) 17... Bb6 18. Nf5 Nxf5 $1 ({
Better than} 18... N7g6 $6 19. Rxd7 Nxd7 20. Rd1 Ndf8 21. a4 $1 {
when Black is too passive.}) 19. gxf5 Rad8 20. Rxd7 Rxd7 $2 {Whoops!} ({
Forced is} 20... Nxd7 21. Rd1 Bxe3+ 22. Kxe3 {with an edge to White.}) 21. Bxb6
axb6 22. f4 ({Unfortunately for Black after} 22. f4 Nd3+ 23. Ke3 {
the knight has nowhere to hide.}) 1-0

[Event "Yerevan Zonal"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Banikas, H."]
[Black "Minasian, A."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A68"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "94"]
[EventDate "2000.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f4 O-O (5... Bg4 {
speeds White's development, e.g.} 6. Be2 Bxe2 7. Qxe2 {and now:} -- (7... O-O
8. Nf3 c5 9. dxc5 {. Note that} ({Vaisser assesses} 9. d5 e6 10. e5 exd5 11.
exf6 Re8 12. fxg7 Rxe2+ 13. Nxe2 {as unclear}) 9... Qa5 $2 {
, does not work here:} (9... dxc5 10. e5 Nfd7 11. O-O Nc6 12. Rd1 {
favours White}) 10. cxd6 Nxe4 11. Qxe4 Bxc3+ 12. Kf1 {
and White is winning after} Bf6 13. dxe7 Re8 14. Qxb7 Na6 15. Bd2 {etc.}) (7...
Nc6 8. Nf3 e5 (8... Nd7 9. e5 $1) 9. dxe5 dxe5 10. fxe5 Ng4 11. Bg5 {
is good for White since} Qc8 12. Nd5 Ncxe5 $2 {, runs into} ({
Black's lesser evil is} 12... O-O 13. O-O Re8 14. Bf6 $5 Ncxe5 15. Ne7+ Rxe7
16. Bxe7 Qe6 {but there is certainly not enough for the exchange}) 13. h3 $1 {
, e.g.} h6 ({or} 13... Nxf3+ 14. Qxf3 Ne5 15. Qc3) 14. Bf4 g5 15. Bg3 Nxf3+ 16.
Qxf3 Ne5 17. Qc3 {.})) 6. Nf3 c5 (6... e5 $6 7. dxe5 dxe5 8. Qxd8 Rxd8 9. Nxe5
{is poor for Black, e.g.} Nxe4 ({or} 9... Na6 10. Be3 $1) 10. Nxe4 f6 11. Nxf6+
Bxf6 12. Nf3 ({or} 12. Bd2 {.})) (6... Nbd7 $6 7. e5 Ne8 8. c5 $1 {uses White's
formidable centre pawns to the full. Skembris-Kalesis, Greece 1994, continued}
c6 9. Be3 b6 (9... dxc5 10. dxc5 Qa5 11. a3 $1) 10. cxd6 exd6 11. Bc4 b5 12.
Bb3 Nb6 13. O-O {with a significant space advantage and grip on the centre.}) (
6... Bg4 7. Be3 Nfd7 8. h3 $1 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 e5 10. dxe5 dxe5 11. f5 Nc6 12.
O-O-O Nd4 13. Qf2 c6 14. g4 Qa5 15. g5 Rfd8 16. h4 {
was more fun from White's side of the board in Glek-Damljanovic, Belgrade 1988.
}) 7. d5 e6 8. Be2 exd5 9. cxd5 Bg4 {With this and (usually) 10...Nbd7 Black
just about completes development while observing the often critical e5-square.}
({The major alternative is} 9... Re8 {
, when we will concentrate on the more sober, but no less compromising,} 10.
Nd2 ({rather than the wild} 10. e5) 10... -- {and then:} (10... a6 $6 11. a4 {
weakens the b6-square.} -- (11... Nbd7 12. O-O c4 {
is best met with the sensible} 13. Kh1 {, e.g.} Nc5 14. e5 $1 dxe5 15. fxe5
Rxe5 16. Nxc4 Re8 (16... Rf5 17. Bf4) 17. Bg5 h6 18. Bh4 Nce4 19. Nxe4 Rxe4 20.
Bg3 {, Yrjola-Vaisser, Sochi 1984, when} Nxd5 $2 (20... h5 {- Yrjola}) 21. Rxf7
$1 {turned out well for White.}) (11... Ng4 {looks too blunt,} 12. Nc4 $1 {
being enough to keep White on top:} -- (12... f5 13. Bxg4 fxg4 14. e5 (14. O-O
$5 Bxc3 15. bxc3 Rxe4 16. Qb3 {is interesting}) 14... dxe5 15. O-O exf4 16.
Bxf4 Bd4+ 17. Kh1 Nd7 18. Nd6 Rf8 19. Qd2 Nf6 20. Rae1 {
, Schmidt-Aepfler, Germany 1994.}) (12... Bxc3+ $2 13. bxc3 Rxe4 14. O-O {
and now the recommended line is} f5 ({the game Penzias-Mashian, Tel Aviv 1993,
is a good illustration of the problems Black might experience after parting
with the dark-squared bishop:} 14... Nh6 15. a5 Nf5 16. Bd3 Re8 17. Nb6 Ra7 18.
Re1 Nd7 $6 19. Bxf5 gxf5 20. c4 Nxb6 21. axb6 Ra8 22. Bb2 Bd7 23. Qh5 f6 24.
Qh4 Rf8 25. Ra3 $1 Rf7 26. Rg3+ Kh8 27. Rg6 Be8 28. Rxe8+ Qxe8 29. Qxf6+ {1-0})
15. a5 Nf6 16. Rb1 (16. Nb6 $5 Ra7 17. Bd3 Re8 18. c4 {followed by lining the
queen and bishop on the a1-h8 diagonal is another good plan}) 16... Rxc4 (16...
Qc7 17. Bd3 Re7 18. Nb6 Ra7 19. c4) 17. Bxc4 Qxa5 18. Be2 Qxc3 19. Bb2 $5 Qe3+
20. Kh1 Ne4 21. Qe1 {when White's more active pieces get the vote.}))) (10...
Nbd7 11. O-O c4 {is similar to 10...a6, above, but without the weakness on b6.}
12. a4 Nc5 13. Bf3 b6 14. e5 dxe5 15. fxe5 Rxe5 16. Nxc4 Re8 (16... Rf5 17. d6
Rb8 18. Nb5 Be6 19. Ne3 Bb3 20. Nxf5 $5 Bxd1 21. Ne7+ Kh8 22. Rxd1 {
and the pieces do more than the queen according to Gleizerov}) 17. d6 Be6 {
, Chernin-Granda Zuniga, Buenos Aires 1992, when} 18. Nd5 {is promising.}) (
10... Na6 11. O-O Nc7 {is the main line, finding a decent home for the knight
rather than automatically playing ...a7-a6. After} 12. a4 b6 {, is favoured,} (
12... a6 13. Bf3 Rb8 14. a5 $1 Bd7 15. Re1 Bb5 {Vaisser's} 16. Ndb1 {
secures White a plus}) 13. Re1 Rb8 14. Bf3 {with a choice for Black:} -- (14...
a6 15. Nc4 b5 {
achieves the desired expansion but gives White two promising options:} 16. -- (
16. axb5 axb5 17. Na5 Bd7 18. e5 b4 19. exf6 bxc3 20. fxg7 cxb2 {was the entertaining course taken in Barrett-Povah, British League 1999. Unfortunately the
game was agreed drawn after} 21. Bxb2 Rxb2 22. Nc4 Rb4 23. Nxd6 Rxe1+ 24. Qxe1
Rxf4 25. Qe5 Rb4 26. Ne4 ({but Kinsman suggests} 26. Re1 {with the nice idea of
} -- 27. Nxf7 $1 Kxf7 28. Qe7+ $1) 26... Ne8 27. h3 c4 {.}) (16. Nxd6 {
is the other good move. Kozul-Marovic, Toronto 1990, went} Qxd6 17. e5 Qd8 18.
d6 Ne6 19. axb5 axb5 20. exf6 Bxf6 21. Nd5 {and White enjoyed an initiative.}))
({. The solid} 14... Ba6 {
makes more sense, when White has to decide where to put the d2-knight.} 15. --
({. Both Kinsman and Vaisser prefer} 15. Ndb1 {
, and this impressive regrouping looks good for White, e.g.} Nd7 16. Na3 c4 17.
Ncb5 $1 Bxb5 18. axb5 c3 19. Rb1 cxb2 20. Bxb2 Bxb2 21. Rxb2 {
as in Malich-Tringov, Sarajevo 1965, when} Qf6 {could have been met with} 22.
Qd2 {(} Nxd5 $2 23. e5 $1 {
) followed by returning the knight to the fold, Nc4, and preparing e4-e5.}) ({
. Recently attention has returned to} 15. Nf1 {
. Savchenko-Sicherl, German League 2000, continued} Bxf1 16. Kxf1 $5 a6 17. Rb1
Nd7 18. Ne2 b5 19. b4 bxa4 20. Qxa4 Rb5 21. Bd2 cxb4 22. Rxb4 Nc5 23. Qc2 Qe7
24. Reb1 {and White's knight eventually lodged on c6 (via d4).} (24. --)))))
10. O-O Nbd7 {Others:} (10... Bxf3 {is premature.} 11. Bxf3 Nbd7 12. g4 $5 h6
13. h4 Nh7 14. g5 {is typical, when Arencibia-Baron, Manresa 1996, continued} a6
15. Be3 b5 16. Qd2 Nb6 17. b3 b4 18. Ne2 Bxa1 19. Rxa1 a5 20. Ng3 a4 21. Rb1
Nd7 22. e5 dxe5 23. f5 {and White had ample compensation for the exchange.}) (
10... Re8 {asks for trouble according to Vaisser, who proposes} 11. e5 $1 {.} --
(11... Nfd7 $6 12. e6 fxe6 13. Ng5 Bxe2 14. Nxe2 Nf8 15. dxe6 Nc6 (15... Nxe6
$2 16. Qd5 Qd7 17. f5 gxf5 18. Nf4) 16. f5 {
and White is chipping away on the kingside.}) (11... dxe5 12. fxe5 Bxf3 (12...
Nfd7 13. Bg5 f6 14. exf6 Bxf6 15. Qd2 {favours White}) 13. Bxf3 Rxe5 14. Bf4
Re8 15. Qb3 Qb6 16. Qxb6 axb6 {
is Vaisser-Guyard, Aubervilliers (rapidplay) 1993. Now} 17. Bc7 $1 Nfd7 18. Rfe1
$1 {wraps up a clear advantage, e.g.} Na6 19. d6 Rxe1+ 20. Rxe1 Bxc3 21. bxc3
Nxc7 22. dxc7 Rc8 23. Re7 Rxc7 24. Bd5 {etc.})) ({
Black gets no time for queenside expansion after} 10... a6 $2 {
because White charges down the middle of the board:} 11. e5 $1 dxe5 12. fxe5
Nfd7 13. e6 fxe6 14. Ng5 $1 Bxe2 15. Qxe2 {
, Vegh-Dambacher, Haarlem 1994. After} e5 16. Be3 Rxf1+ 17. Rxf1 Nf6 18. Ne6 {
White was well on top.}) (10... Nfd7 {avoids the g2-g4-g5 plan seen in 10...
Bxf3, above, and unleashes the g7-bishop. Vaisser offers the interesting} 11.
Nb5 $5 {with the following possibilities:} -- ({. After} 11... Nb6 12. a4 a6
13. Nc3 {White benefits most from the shadow-boxing.}) (11... Qb6 12. a4 c4+
13. Kh1 Bxf3 14. Bxf3 Nc5 15. Qe2 {favours White, e.g.} Nxa4 16. Rxa4 Qxb5 17.
Rxc4 {with a grip on the light squares.}) ({. In reply to} 11... Nf6 {
Vaisser suggests} 12. e5 $5 {without going any further. In fact he appears to
be on the right track once again, since the natural} dxe5 13. fxe5 Nxd5 (13...
Ne8 14. Bg5) 14. Bc4 Nb6 {walks into} 15. Bxf7+ $1 {. Then} Kxf7 16. Ng5+ Ke7 (
16... Kg8 17. Rxf8+ Qxf8 18. Qxg4) 17. Qxg4 Rxf1+ 18. Kxf1 {
is excellent for White in view of} Qd3+ 19. Kf2 {, when} Qxb5 $4 {loses to} 20.
Qe6+ Kd8 21. Nf7+ Kc7 22. Qd6+ {.})) 11. Re1 Re8 {Natural and best, activating
the rook and in so doing nipping in the bud (for the moment, at least) any
ideas White might have of e4-e5.} ({Again} 11... a6 $2 {is punished by} 12. e5)
({and, again,} 11... Bxf3 {is too accommodating, Vaisser-Al Modiakhi, Tunis
1997, turning out good for White after} 12. Bxf3 Ne8 13. Re2 $5 Nc7 14. a4 a6
15. Qe1 Re8 16. Be3 {etc.}) (11... Ne8 {is best met with} 12. Ng5 $1 Bxe2 13.
Rxe2 {, e.g.} a6 14. a4 Nc7 15. Qd3 Nf6 16. b3 b5 17. Bb2 {when White's grip
on the position was enough for an advantage in Chabanon-Degraeve, Meribel 1998.
}) 12. h3 Bxf3 13. Bxf3 Qa5 {Played to guarantee ...b7-b5 since 14 a4 c4! is
fine for Black. Of course Black has alternatives to the text, the most popular
being 13...a6, below.} ({The immediate} 13... c4 $6 {is not quite right here
as White is able to use the d4-square for his bishop, e.g.} 14. Be3 Qa5 (14...
a6 $6 15. Bd4 $1 b5 16. e5) 15. Bd4 Nc5 (15... Re7 16. b4 $1) 16. b4 $1 {.} --
({. Now Vaisser analyses} 16... cxb3 17. axb3 Qb4 18. Na2 $1 Qb5 19. Be2 $1 Qxb3
(19... Qd7 20. Bxc5 dxc5 21. Bf3) 20. Bxc5 Qxd1 21. Raxd1 dxc5 22. e5 Nd7 23.
Bb5 Red8 24. e6 fxe6 25. dxe6 Nf6 26. Rxd8+ Rxd8 27. e7 {
and White emerges with the better prospects.}) ({
. Komarov-Strowski, Belfort 1992, continued} 16... Qxb4 17. Rb1 Qa5 18. Rb5 Qa6
({Kinsman prefers} 18... Qa3) 19. Bxc5 dxc5 $2 ({Black should have played} 
19... Nxe4 $1 20. Nxe4 Qxb5 {, when after} 21. Bf2 $1 (21. Bxd6 $2 Rxe4 22.
Rxe4 Qb6+) 21... Qa6 22. Re2 {the minor pieces have more potential}) 20. e5 Nd7
21. d6 Rab8 22. a4 b6 23. Nd5 {.})) (13... Rc8 14. Kh1 a6 15. a4 c4 16. Be3 {
favours White after either} Qa5 ({or} 16... Nc5 17. Bxc5 Rxc5 18. e5 dxe5 19.
fxe5 Nd7 20. e6 {, Vaisser-Berelovich, Groningen 1993}) 17. Bd4 Nc5 18. Bxc5
Rxc5 19. e5 dxe5 20. fxe5 Nd7 21. e6 {, Cebalo-Zelenika, Pula 1999.}) (13... h5
14. Be3 h4 15. Kh1 Nh7 16. Qc2 g5 $6 {is a fairly recent attempt by Black to
fight for the dark squares on the kingside. Cebalo-Kruppa, Budapest 1999,
continued} 17. Bg4 $1 gxf4 18. Bxd7 Qxd7 19. Bxf4 b5 20. Rad1 Nf8 {
and now, with ...Ng6-e5 a threat, White carried out a thematic sacrifice:} 21.
e5 $5 dxe5 (21... Bxe5 22. Bxe5 Rxe5 23. Rxe5 dxe5 24. Qf2 {
is also good for White}) 22. Bg5 {with superior pieces and structure.}) (13...
a6 14. a4 {and now:} -- (14... Rb8 15. a5 b5 16. axb6 Rxb6 17. Re2 {
leaves the a-pawn weaker than the b-pawn.}) (14... c4 {
is the main idea, for after} 15. Be3 Qa5 {White can no longer meet ...Nc5 with
the cheeky fork on b4 thanks to the insertion of the moves ...a7-a6 and a2-a4.
Consequently I prefer} 16. Kh1 Nc5 (16... Re7 17. Re2 Rae8 18. Bd4 Nc5 19. e5
$1 Nfd7 (19... dxe5 $2 20. fxe5 Nfd7 21. d6) 20. e6 $1 {
favours White according to Vaisser}) 17. Bxc5 Qxc5 18. e5 dxe5 19. fxe5 Nd7 20.
Ne4 Qb4 21. e6 {. White's advance in the centre has culminated in one of the
pawns coming face to face with one of the king's protectors.} -- ({
. Flear-Drabke, Aosta 2000, went} 21... Ne5 22. exf7+ Nxf7 23. Bg4 Rad8 (23...
Ne5 24. Be6+ {is 21...fxe6, below, with an extra move for both players}) 24.
Be6 Rxe6 25. dxe6 Rxd1 26. exf7+ Kxf7 27. Raxd1 Bxb2 28. Rd7+ {
and White went on to successfully attack the king.}) ({. Black's best is} 21...
fxe6 22. Bg4 Ne5 23. Bxe6+ Kh8 {with a balanced position.}))) 14. Be3 b5 {
The point.} (14... c4 $6 {is 13...c4 in the previous note.}) (14... Rac8 $6 {
is inconsistent. Vaisser-Kindermann, Biel 1991, saw immediate punishment in the
shape of kingside expansion:} 15. g4 $1 h6 16. h4 b5 17. g5 hxg5 18. hxg5 Nh7
19. Bg4 Rcd8 20. e5 $1 dxe5 21. f5 e4 $1 22. fxg6 fxg6 23. Be6+ {etc.}) 15. a3
b4 {One of three moves, the best of which is probably 15...Nb6, below.} (15...
Rac8 $6 16. Bf2 a6 (16... c4 $6 17. a4 $1) 17. Bg3 Nb6 18. e5 dxe5 19. fxe5
Nfd7 {, and in Elbilia-Grivas, Yerevan Olympiad 1996, the Four Pawns
specialist turned down} 20. e6 $1 {, this familiar push presenting Black with
obvious problems on the light squares.}) (15... Nb6 {
is the most important move, depending on how Black deals with} 16. e5 {.} -- (
16... dxe5 $6 17. fxe5 Rxe5 18. Bxc5 Rxe1+ 19. Qxe1 Re8 20. Qf2 {and Black's
queen did not look too happy in B.Lalic-Zapata, Elista Olympiad 1998.}) (16...
Nfd7 $5 {is interesting. Banikas-Kotronias, Korinthos 1998, produced some
entertaining play:} 17. e6 Nc4 18. exd7 Rxe3 19. Rxe3 Nxe3 20. -- ({
, and following} 20. Qe2 Qd8 21. Qxb5 Rb8 22. Qc6 Rxb2 23. Rc1 Rb6 {
, White bravely sacrificed his queen with} 24. Nb5 $5 (24. Qc8 Rb8 25. Qc6 Rb6
{draws}) 24... Rxc6 25. dxc6 {, but then Kinsman's} Bf6 26. c7 Qxd7 27. Bb7
Qxb5 28. c8=Q+ Kg7 {looks good for Black.}) ({. However,} 20. Qd3 {is worth considering, when Banikas-Agnos, Greece 1997, was already very good for White
after 20...Nc4? 21 Re1. Agnos offers the following improvement} b4 21. Nb5 Bxb2
22. Re1 bxa3 23. Rxe3 a2 24. Re8+ Kg7 25. Rxa8 a1=Q+ 26. Kh2 Bf6 {. The accompanying assessment is an understandable 'unclear', but despite the fact that
Black has two queens I believe White is well on top after} 27. Nxd6 {. White has
a rook and a knight for the second queen and the d7-pawn is one step away from
doubling White's tally. Add to this the threat of 28 Ne8+ and Black's queens
seem out in the cold on the queenside.})) (16... Nc4 {
is the recommended continuation. Then} 17. exf6 -- (17... Bxf6 $2 {
, should be avoided, e.g.} 18. Bd2 Nxb2 19. Ne4 $1 Bd4+ 20. Kh2 Qd8 (20... Nxd1
21. Bxa5 Bxa1 22. Rxd1 Bg7 23. Nxd6 {etc.}) 21. Qc2 Nc4 22. Bc3 f5 23. Ng5 Rxe1
24. Rxe1 Nxa3 25. Qe2 $1 {and Black is welcome to the queenside since it is on
the other flank that White threatens to decide.}) ({. Instead Black plays} 
17... Nxe3 18. Rxe3 Rxe3 19. fxg7 {, when} f5 (19... Rae8 20. f5 $5 {
and the onus is on Black to defend his kingside and tame the minor pieces}) 20.
Qd2 Rae8 21. Kf2 R3e7 22. g4 $1 {is good for White according to Vaisser.}))) 16.
axb4 Qxb4 17. Re2 ({A new alternative to} 17. Qc2 Nb6 18. Bf2 Nfd7 19. Re2 Bd4
20. Kh1 Bxf2 21. Rxf2 {, Lautier-Smirin, Cap d'Agde 1996. There followed} c4
22. Re2 a5 23. Bg4 Nf6 24. Qd2 Nxg4 25. hxg4 Nd7 {and now} 26. Ra4 $1 Qc5 {
denies Black's knight use of the c5-square and secures White the better
chances after} 27. g5 {.}) 17... Nb6 18. Bf2 Nfd7 19. Ra3 $5 (19. Qc2 {
transposes to Lautier-Smirin in the previous note. White's deployment of the
rooks along the ranks is worth remembering, with the king's rook being
particularly flexible in that as well as defending the b2-pawn it can also
play a part in aggressive operations on the kingside by facilitating the e4-e5
advance.}) 19... Nc4 {Embarking on a natural but suspect sequence from which
White emerges with a clear lead in the subsequent ending.} ({White's last eyes
the b3-square as well as protecting c3, so continuing the theme with} 19... c4
{must be investigated. Unfortunately for Black pushing the c-pawn frees the
d4-square for White in addition to c5 for Black, thus enabling White to plant
his bishop in the middle of the board with} 20. Bd4 {, in so doing challenging
its often influential opposite number. The other downside (for Black) of the
arrival of the bishop on d4 is White's increased control of the crucial
e5-square, and after} Bxd4+ 21. Qxd4 Nc5 ({trying to hold back the tide with} 
21... f6 {neglects e6, e.g.} 22. Bg4 Qc5 23. Be6+ Kg7 24. Qxc5 Nxc5 25. Nb5 $1)
22. e5 Nb3 23. Qe3 {
White's grip on the centre outweighs Black's queenside play.}) 20. Rb3 Qa5 21.
Qd3 Nxb2 $2 {With White's position steadily improving (note that White's
forces are creeping forward!) Black looks for simplifying complications.} 22.
Rexb2 c4 23. Qxc4 Rec8 24. Ra2 $1 Rxc4 25. Rxa5 Bxc3 26. Rxa7 Rxa7 27. Bxa7 Nc5
28. Rb8+ Kg7 {White has an extra pawn and the bishop pair and should win quite
comfortably from here. Black's only hope is to drum up some counterplay on the
dark squares while White's bishop is temporarily away from the action on a7.
However, a key problem for Black is the d6-pawn, which currently holds the
position together and holds back the d5-pawn.} 29. Rc8 Bd4+ 30. Kh2 Be3 31. g3
Rc2+ 32. Bg2 g5 $1 {A good practical decision that eventually has the desired
psychological effect on White.} 33. fxg5 Bd4 34. h4 $2 (34. Rc6 Be5 35. Bb8 Rb2
36. Bxd6 Bxd6 37. Rxd6 Nxe4 38. Rd7 Nxg5 39. g4 {
returns the pawn but keeps White in the driving seat.}) 34... Rc3 35. Bxc5 Bxc5
36. Kh3 Bd4 37. Rc6 Be5 38. Rxc3 Bxc3 39. Bf1 Be5 40. Bb5 f6 41. gxf6+ Kxf6 42.
Bd7 h6 43. Bf5 Kg7 44. Kg4 Kf6 45. Kf3 Kg7 46. g4 Bf6 47. g5 hxg5 1/2-1/2

[Event "Russian Team Championship"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chernyshov, K."]
[Black "Semeniuk, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A68"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "51"]
[EventDate "1999.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. f4 Bg7 8. Nf3
O-O 9. Be2 b5 {This is another of those moves that looks interesting from
Black's point of view but, ultimately, offers only White a pleasant game.
Obviously the aim of the provocative thrust is to counter White's formidable
looking centre with aggressive play on the queenside.} (9... a6 $6 10. a4 Re8
11. Nd2 {gives White a favourable version of the system with 9...Re8, below,
(see Banikas-Minasian)}) (9... Re8 {and White can also consider} 10. e5 ({
as well as} 10. O-O b5 11. e5 {.})) (9... Nbd7 {. Vaisser proposes the sensible}
10. O-O (10. e5 dxe5 11. fxe5 Ng4 {is unclear}) 10... Re8 11. Qc2 $5 {
which leaves the knight on f3 in order to keep Black busy weighing up the
consequences of e4-e5.} (11. Nd2 {transposes to 9...Re8.})) 10. e5 $1 {
There is no point getting side-tracked with either capture on b5 - which, of
course, is what Black is hoping for - when White can anyway get on with the
plan of rolling down the centre. Moreover the b5-pawn is not going anywhere
and thus remains a target.} dxe5 (10... Nfd7 {
is a major alternative that is less risky than the choice in the main game.}
11. Bxb5 $1 ({Frolov's} 11. exd6 a6 12. f5 {is interesting and by no means
inappropriate, but White's most reliable route to an advantage must be to
activate the king's bishop}) 11... dxe5 12. O-O {and now:} -- (12... Qb6 13. a4
$1 exf4 {was played in Lautier-Rogers, Yerevan Olympiad 1996: , when White
could have caused Black considerable problems with} ({after} 13... Ba6 {
the simplest way to stay on top is} 14. fxe5 Nxe5 15. Nxe5 Bxe5 16. Bh6 Bg7 17.
Bxg7 {, when White was doing well in Peng-Xie Jun, FIDE Candidates (Women) 1997
}) 14. d6 {. In fact Lautier had prepared this line for Kasparov for the VSB
(Amsterdam) tournament earlier in the year, but now automatically recaptured
on f4 when faced with the same position! Vaisser gives the following example of
play after the strong 14 d6:} ({rather than} 14. Bxf4) 14... a6 15. a5 Qb7 16.
Bc4 Nc6 17. Nd5 $1 Nde5 18. Nxe5 Bxe5 19. Bxf4 Bxb2 20. Rb1 Bf5 21. Ne7+ $1
Nxe7 22. dxe7 Rfe8 23. Bd5 {.}) (12... Ba6 13. a4 $1 Bxb5 (13... c4 14. d6 {
gives White a clear advantage,}) ({and} 13... Qb6 {is 13...Ba6, above}) 14.
axb5 Re8 (14... exf4 $5 15. Bxf4 Nb6 16. Re1 ({while Vaisser recommends} 16. Ne5
{,}) ({also possible is} 16. Be5 $5 {to eliminate Black's potentially
troublesome bishop and perhaps home in on the c6-square - after} Bxe5 17. Nxe5)
16... N8d7 {has been evaluated as slightly favouring White}) 15. d6 $1 {
is quite unpleasant for Black as} e4 $2 {, fails to} ({and} 15... exf4 16. Nd5
{makes the most of the d6-pawn}) 16. Nxe4 $1 {(} Rxe4 17. Qd5 {).}) (12... Bb7
{was seen in Papaioannou-Peng Xiaomin, World Under U26 Ch. 1998. The bishop
does nothing on b7 to counter White's influence on the light squares, and in
the game} 13. Re1 exf4 14. Bxf4 Nf6 15. d6 $5 Nc6 16. Bg5 {
was already difficult for Black.})) 11. fxe5 Ng4 12. Bg5 $1 ({Also played is} 
12. Bf4 {
but the attack on the queen packs more punch. Black has three choices here.})
12... Qb6 ({Worse is} 12... Qa5 $6 13. O-O Nxe5 (13... b4 14. Ne4 h6 15. Be7 $1
Ne3 16. Qd2 Nxf1 17. Rxf1 Bf5 18. Nf6+ Kh8 19. Nh4 Bc8 20. Qd3 $1 {
and White comes crashing in on g6}) 14. d6 Nbd7 (14... Bb7 15. Be7) ({, or} 
14... Be6 15. Nxe5 Bxe5 16. Bf3) 15. Be7 {
, and now Black can limit his situation to being clearly worse with} Bb7 ({
instead of} 15... b4 $2 16. Bxf8 Kxf8 17. Nxe5 $1 Nxe5 18. Qd5 Rb8 19. d7 $1 {
1-0 Bronznik-Majzlan, Bratislava 1992, due to} Bxd7 20. Qd6+ {.})) (12... f6 {
is the other move. Then} 13. exf6 Bxf6 14. Qd2 $1 {
guarantees White a very comfortable game, e.g.} Re8 ({or} 14... Bf5 15. O-O b4
16. Nd1 Nd7 17. Nf2 $1 Nxf2 18. Rxf2 {
and the d-pawn was still a problem for Black, Semkov-Tasic, Cannes 1989}) 15.
O-O b4 16. Na4 Bxg5 17. Nxg5 Ne3 18. Nf7 Qh4 (18... Nxf1 19. Rxf1 Qe7 20. Nh6+
Kh8 21. Bf3) 19. Nxc5 {
, when Black was struggling in Cebalo-Armanda, Bled 1999.}) 13. O-O Nxe5 $2 {
Returning to the main game, White has all the fun after 13...Nxe5.} (13... h6
$6 14. Be7 Ne3 15. Qd2 c4 16. Kh1 Re8 17. d6 {is poor for Black.}) (13... Nd7
14. e6 fxe6 15. dxe6 Qxe6 (15... c4+ $1 16. Kh1 {is 13...c4+, below,}) ({while
} 15... Ndf6 $2 {runs into} 16. e7 Re8 17. Bxb5 Rxe7 18. Nd5) 16. Nxb5 Rb8 17.
Nc7 {favours White.}) ({Best is} 13... c4+ 14. Kh1 {, when} Nd7 (14... a6 15.
d6 Be6 16. Nd4 Nxe5 17. Be7 {, e.g.} Rc8 18. Nxe6 fxe6 19. Nd5 $1) ({, and} 
14... f6 $6 15. exf6 Bxf6 16. d6 {give White a clear advantage}) ({
, while the awful} 14... Nf2+ $2 15. Rxf2 Qxf2 16. Nxb5 $1 {
will soon see White's material investment reap rewards}) 15. e6 fxe6 16. dxe6
Ndf6 $1 (16... Qxe6 $2 17. Nxb5 Rb8 18. Nfd4 Qd5 19. Bxg4 Qxg5 20. Be6+ Kh8 21.
Nd6) 17. e7 Re8 18. Qd4 $1 Bd7 {is the recommended continuation - which is, in
fact, probably Black's most accurate way of handling the whole variation.
Kaidanov offers the following:} 19. Qxb6 $1 axb6 20. Nd4 h6 21. Bxf6 Nxf6 22.
Ndxb5 Rxe7 23. Bxc4+ Kh7 {. Opinion differs here, with White's lead ranging
from 'slight' to 'clear' depending on the commentator. White does miss the
dark-squared bishop but there is an extra pawn. In any case if this is the
best that Black can hope for in the 9...b5 line - and to reach this position requires a certain degree of accuracy (from both players, remember) -
then White should be happy.}) 14. Nxe5 $1 Bxe5 (14... c4+ {
fails to improve Black's lot after} 15. Kh1 Bxe5 16. Be7 Re8 17. d6 {
, when the threat of 18 Nd5 is too much.}) 15. Be7 Nd7 (15... Re8 16. d6 Bxc3 (
16... Be6 17. Bf3 Nc6 18. Nd5) 17. bxc3 Nc6 18. Bf3 Be6 {(Meszaros-Belaska,
Ceske Budejovice 1999). Now after 19 Bf6 White rules the dark squares. Instead
the game continued} 19. Bd5 c4+ 20. Kh1 Qc5 21. Bxe6 fxe6 22. Qf3 Nxe7 23. Qf7+
Kh8 24. Qf6+ Kg8 25. Qxe6+ Kh8 26. Qf6+ Kg8 27. Qf7+ Kh8 28. Qf6+ Kg8 29. d7
Red8 30. Qf7+ Kh8 31. Rae1 Nf5 (31... Rxd7 32. Qf6+ Kg8 33. Qe6+) 32. Re8+ Rxe8
33. dxe8=Q+ Rxe8 34. Qxe8+ Kg7 35. Qd7+ {and White went on to win.}) 16. d6 Bb7
(16... c4+ 17. Kh1 Bb7 18. Bf3 Bxc3 19. bxc3 Ne5 20. Bxb7 Qxb7 21. Qd4 {
, Cobo Arteaga-Perez Perez, Havana 1965, is typical. The open f-file means
that Black's rook is tied to f8, and White will take it when the time is right.
}) 17. Nd5 $1 ({An improvement on} 17. Bf3 Kg7 18. Bxb7 Qxb7 19. Bxf8+ Rxf8 20.
Qe2 c4 21. Rad1 {which was good for White in Jimenez-Medina, Malaga 1966.})
17... Bxd5 (17... Qc6 18. Bf3 Kg7 19. Nc7 Qb6 20. Nxa8 Rxa8 {(Gorelov-Vasiukov,
Moscow 1981). White's superior forces are worth more than the sacrificed pawn,
and} 21. Bxb7 Qxb7 22. Qe2 {keeps White in the driving seat.}) 18. Qxd5 {
The queen is just as powerful on d5 as the knight, with the pressure on the
pinned f-pawn beginning to tell. Now the blockading knight can be attacked
with Bg4, so Black frees the e5-square.} Bxb2 {Grabbing another pawn before
cementing the bishop on d4. However, it is on the light squares that the
battle will be won. Note that the d-pawn effectively cuts the board in two,
and White's bishop is such a nuisance on e7 that there is no question of
giving it up for a rook just yet.} 19. Rab1 Bd4+ 20. Kh1 a6 21. a4 $1 b4 $6 (
21... Ne5 22. axb5 a5 23. Rbd1 {and White threatens to take on d4,} ({or} 23.
Rf4 {.})) 22. Rxf7 $1 {White can get away with this because his forces far
outnumber Black's on the kingside.} Rxf7 (22... Rfc8 23. Rf8+ Kg7 24. Qf7+ Kh6
25. Bg5+ Kxg5 26. Qf4# {.}) 23. Bc4 Qa7 (23... Ne5 24. Qxa8+ Kg7 25. Bxf7 Kxf7
26. Rf1+ Ke6 27. Rf6+ Kd7 28. Qd5 {wins for White}) (23... Rc8 24. Qxf7+ Kh8
25. Be6 {is curtains for Black in view of} Qb7 26. Bxd7 Qxd7 27. Bf6+ {.}) 24.
Qxf7+ Kh8 25. Re1 Bg7 ({Or} 25... Nb6 26. Bd5 $1 Nxd5 (26... Rc8 27. Bf6+) 27.
Qxd5 {and the d-pawn will have its day.}) 26. Bd8 $1 ({After} 26. Bd8 Rxd8 27.
Re7 {mate is forced.}) 1-0

[Event "Belgrade"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1997.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lautier, J."]
[Black "Shirov, A."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "E76"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "89"]
[EventDate "1997.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f4 O-O 6. Nf3 c5 7. d5 b5 {Aggressive, perhaps, but White experiences less inconvenience here than in the Benko
proper. Consequently the menace of e4-e5 has more significance.} 8. cxb5 a6 9.
a4 axb5 {Others:} ({Equally popular is} 9... e6 {
, adding to the tension. White replies} 10. Be2 {and now:} -- (10... axb5 11.
Bxb5 -- (11... Ba6 12. Bxa6 Nxa6 13. dxe6 fxe6 14. O-O {
is a Benko gone wrong for Black:} d5 15. e5 Ne8 16. Ng5 Qe7 $2 17. Nxd5 $1 {
1-0 Michaelsen-Binzenhoefer, Berlin 1993, is one to remember.}) (11... Na6 12.
O-O Nb4 13. dxe6 {. Cebalo-Rudolf, Nova Gorica 2000, continued} Bxe6 (13...
fxe6 14. e5 {is clearly better for White}) 14. Kh1 Qc7 15. f5 $5 gxf5 16. exf5
Bxf5 17. Bf4 Rfd8 18. Qd2 Qb6 19. Nh4 {
and, by returning the pawn, White was firmly in the driving seat.}) ({. After} 
11... exd5 {White ignores the d5-pawn and plays} 12. e5 $1 {
with an excellent game, e.g.} Ne8 ({a lesser evil is} 12... dxe5 13. fxe5 Ne4 (
13... Ng4 14. Qxd5 Qxd5 15. Nxd5 {is a direct transposition to 10...exd5, below
}) 14. Qxd5 Nxc3 15. Qxd8 Rxd8 16. bxc3 Bb7 17. Bg5 Rc8 18. Bf4 Bxf3 19. gxf3
Nc6 20. Kf2 Nxe5 21. Rhe1 {, Priehoda-Svejkovsky, Michalovce 1989}) 13. Nxd5
Bb7 14. Bc4 Nc6 15. Be3 $1 dxe5 16. Bxc5 Nd6 17. Ne7+ Nxe7 18. Qxd6 {
, Piskov-Savon, USSR Ch. 1987.})) (10... exd5 11. e5 $1 dxe5 12. fxe5 Ng4 (
12... Ne4 13. Qxd5 Qxd5 14. Nxd5 axb5 15. Ne7+ Kh8 16. Nxc8 Rxc8 17. Bd3 $5 f5
18. exf6 Nxf6 19. Bxb5 {
and White had an extra pawn in Sutter-Krahenbuhl, Swiss League 1995}) 13. Qxd5
Qxd5 14. Nxd5 axb5 15. Bxb5 {. Remember that this position can also be reached
from 11...exd5, above. Thanks to his passed a-pawn White is doing very well:}
-- ({. After} 15... Nxe5 16. Nxe5 Bxe5 17. Bh6 Bg7 18. Ne7+ $1 Kh8 19. Bxg7+
Kxg7 20. Nxc8 Rxc8 21. Kd2 Nc6 22. Kc3 {White was already making his presence
felt on the queenside (unlike Black on the other flank) in Flear-Nevednichy,
Creon 1999.}) ({. Alternatively} 15... Bd7 16. Nb6 Ra7 17. Nxd7 Nxd7 {
is another way to snare Black's light-squared bishop. Then} 18. e6 $5 fxe6 19.
O-O Nge5 20. Ng5 {persists with the theme, Kilpi-Manninen, Tampere 1996,
resulting in a near decisive ending -} Re8 21. Be3 Ng4 22. Rf7 (22. Bxc5) 22...
Nxe3 23. Bxd7 Rf8 24. Rxg7+ Kxg7 25. Nxe6+ Kg8 26. Nxf8 Kxf8 27. Bb5 {etc.})) (
10... Bb7 11. O-O axb5 12. Bxb5 exd5 13. exd5 {simply leaves Black a pawn down
for next to nothing. Typical of what tends to happen are} Nbd7 ({
recently Black tried} 13... Na6 {in Flear-Lanka, Montpellier 2000, though} 14.
f5 Nc7 15. Bc4 Ba6 16. Qd3 Qc8 17. fxg6 fxg6 18. b3 {
should have been enough to keep Black struggling}) 14. f5 $1 Ne5 ({and} 14...
Nb6 15. fxg6 hxg6 16. Bg5 Qc7 17. Bxf6 Bxf6 18. Qd2 Ba6 19. Bxa6 Rxa6 20. Qf4 {
as in Piskov-Friedrich, Berlin 1990}) 15. Nxe5 dxe5 16. fxg6 fxg6 17. Bg5 {
, Banikas-Agopov, European Junior Ch., Tallinn 1997.})) (9... Qa5 {
is also played.} 10. Bd2 $1 Qb4 (10... e6 $6 11. dxe6 Bxe6 12. Be2 axb5 13.
Bxb5 {is comfortable for White}) 11. Qc2 c4 (11... axb5 12. Bxb5 Bd7 {
favours White,} ({but Black should avoid} 12... Ba6 $2 13. e5 {, e.g.} Ng4 14.
Na2)) 12. e5 $1 {with a further branch:} -- (12... dxe5 $2 13. fxe5 Ng4 (13...
Bf5 14. Na2 $1) 14. Ne4 Qb3 15. Qxc4 Qxc4 16. Bxc4 Nxe5 17. Nxe5 Bxe5 18. Bc3 {
was a clear pawn in Cifuentes Parada-Van der Weide, Dutch Ch. 1998.}) ({
. Instead} 12... Bf5 13. Na2 Qc5 14. Qxc4 Nxd5 15. Qxc5 dxc5 16. Rc1 axb5 17.
Bxb5 {improves. Although I'm sure that this is not what Black is looking for!})
) 10. Bxb5 Ba6 ({Better than} 10... Na6 11. e5 Ne8 12. O-O Nb4 13. Qe2 Nc7 14.
Bc4 Bb7 15. Rd1 {, Banikas-Karner, World U18 Ch. 1996. White has had time to
support both d5 and e5 and his material lead is intact.}) 11. Bd2 Bxb5 {
Another consistent move typical of the Benko. Black hopes that doubling
White's pawns and trading a pair of rooks will ease his defensive task.} (11...
e6 12. dxe6 fxe6 13. O-O d5 {challenges the centre but again has less punch
than is usual in the Benko. Gustafsson-Kapischka, German League 1999,
continued} 14. Ng5 Qb6 15. e5 Ne8 16. Qg4 Nc7 {
and Black was too busy defending.}) (11... Qb6 12. O-O c4+ 13. Kh1 Bxb5 14.
axb5 Rxa1 15. Qxa1 Nbd7 16. Qe1 Nc5 17. Qe2 Nd3 18. Be3 Qb7 19. Nd4 {
was good for White in Bagaturov-Kuzmin, Enakievo 1997.}) 12. axb5 $1 {
The b5-pawn proves to be stronger than it looks.} Rxa1 ({Hazai's} 12... Nbd7
13. O-O e6 14. dxe6 fxe6 15. Qb3 {is worse than the game continuation.
Mackova-Koys, Czech League 1997, was unpleasant for Black after} Re8 16. Ng5
Nf8 17. Rxa8 Qxa8 18. b6 {etc.}) 13. Qxa1 Qb6 ({Or} 13... Nbd7 14. O-O {
and Black has tried a couple of moves here:} -- ({
. In Vaisser-Nataf, French League 1996, White met} 14... Qb8 {with} 15. Qe1 $1 {
, the e1-square being useful in that both e2 and h4 are then available. After}
e6 16. dxe6 (16. Qh4 exd5 17. e5 {is Vaisser's suggestion}) 16... fxe6 17. e5
Nh5 18. exd6 Qxd6 19. g3 {Black remained a pawn down with nothing to bite on.})
(14... Nb6 15. Qe1 $1 Qc8 16. Qe2 {(this time White uses the e2-square,
anticipating the coming play on the light squares)} e6 17. dxe6 Qxe6 18. Ra1
Nfd7 19. Qd3 Rb8 20. Ra7 h6 21. f5 $1 gxf5 22. exf5 Qf6 23. Bf4 Ne5 24. Bxe5
dxe5 25. Ra6 {and White had the familiar advantage and bonus pawn in
Peng-Kachiani Gersinska, German League 1998.})) 14. O-O Nbd7 (14... Ne8 15. Qe1
$1 Nc7 16. Qh4 Nxb5 17. Nxb5 Qxb5 18. Qxe7 {
was excellent for White in Nogueiras-Sax, Graz 1984.}) 15. Qe1 $1 {With such a
presence in the centre White does not miss his queen's rook. Apart from the
obvious threat to press home the central supremacy with e4-e5 Black must also
keep in mind how to defend should White essay a direct kingside offensive
beginning with Qh4.} (15. Qa6 {looks fine but leads to equality, e.g.} Rb8 16.
Ra1 Ne8 17. Qxb6 Nxb6 18. Ra7 Kf8 19. b3 {when} Nc8 20. Rd7 Nb6 21. Ra7 {
was agreed drawn in Banikas-Agnos, Greek Ch. 1996.}) 15... Qb7 {Keeping an eye
on the d5-pawn in order to dissuade White from e4-e5. Dropping back to b7 also
vacates the b6-square for a knight (thus adding to Black's concentration on d5)
.} 16. e5 $5 (16. f5 {works out fine for White after} gxf5 ({but} 16... Ng4 $1
17. Qh4 Nde5 {takes control of the e5-square}) 17. Nh4 {.}) ({However} 16. Qh4
$1 {looks stronger than the text.} e6 ({after} 16... Nb6 17. f5 {
(Hazai) the e5-square is not readily available to Black}) 17. dxe6 fxe6 18. Ng5
Re8 19. e5 dxe5 20. Nce4 {is an example of how White can pile on the pressure
with just a few aggressive moves, e.g.} h6 $2 21. Nd6 hxg5 22. fxg5 Qd5 23.
gxf6 Bxf6 24. Rxf6 Nxf6 25. Qxf6 Qxd6 26. Qxg6+ Kf8 27. Bh6+ Ke7 28. Bg5+ Kf8 (
28... Kd7 29. Qf7+) 29. Qh7 $1 Rb8 30. Be7+ $1 Qxe7 31. Qh8+ Kf7 32. Qxb8 {.})
16... Nxd5 (16... dxe5 17. fxe5 Nxd5 18. e6 N7b6 19. exf7+ Rxf7 20. Qe6 Nc7 21.
Qe2 {is slightly worse for Black in view of the persistent vulnerability on
the light squares.}) 17. e6 {The point. White combines an infiltration on the
light squares on the kingside with a plan of steering the game to an ending
using his passed pawn on the other wing.} N7b6 18. exf7+ (18. f5 gxf5 19. Ng5
f6 $1 20. Nxh7 Kxh7 21. Qh4+ Kg8 22. Rf3 {
is good for only a share of the spoils after} Qc8 {-} 23. Rh3 ({or} 23. Rg3
Qxe6 24. Rxg7+ Kxg7 25. Qh6+ Kf7 26. Qh5+) 23... Qxe6 24. Qh7+ Kf7 25. Qh5+ Kg8
26. Qh7+ {.}) 18... Rxf7 19. Ng5 Bd4+ $1 20. Kh1 Rf5 $6 ({
Better to keep the queen out of e6 with} 20... Rf6 {, when} 21. Qe4 Qa8 (21...
e5 22. f5) 22. Nxd5 Nxd5 {keeps Black's head above water.}) 21. Qe6+ Kh8 {
Regardless of where the king goes White's knight will have some fun.} ({After} 
21... Kg7 22. Qe4 $1 {White sets up a pin on the long diagonal and paves the
way for the knight's entry to e6. After} e5 ({while} 22... Qa8 23. Ne6+ Kg8 24.
Nxd4 cxd4 25. Qxd4 {is just clearly better for White}) 23. Ne6+ Kh8 (23... Kf6
24. Nd8) 24. g4 Rf6 25. f5 {White turns the screw on the kingside but must
then be careful himself on the h1-a8 diagonal.}) 22. Nf7+ Kg7 23. Nd8 {
An enjoyable move to play!} Qa8 (23... Qd7 $6 24. Nxd5 Qxd8 (24... Rxd5 $2 25.
Qf7+ Kh6 26. f5+) 25. Nxe7 $1 {.}) 24. Nc6 Qg8 $2 {
A mistake in a difficult position.} (24... Qf8 $2 {
also hands White a decisive advantage:} 25. Nxd5 Nxd5 (25... Rxd5 26. Ba5) 26.
g4 $1 Nxf4 (26... Nc7 27. Qd7) 27. Qe4 d5 (27... Rf7 28. Rxf4) 28. Qf3 Rf6 29.
Bxf4 g5 30. Nxd4 cxd4 31. Be5 {.}) ({The correct course is} 24... Bxc3 25.
Bxc3+ (25. bxc3 $5 Qf8) 25... Nxc3 26. bxc3 Qf8 {according to Hazai, although}
27. Qxe7+ Qxe7 28. Nxe7 Rf7 29. f5 $5 {
looks promising for White with the b-pawn loitering on the fifth rank.}) 25.
Qxg8+ Kxg8 26. Nxd5 Nxd5 27. b6 $1 {Fifteen moves after arriving alone in
Black's half of the board the pawn performs the ultimate sacrifice in order to
lure the knight away from the defence of e7.} Nxb6 28. Nxe7+ Kf7 29. Nxf5 gxf5
30. Bc3 Ke6 31. Re1+ $6 {Helping Black to centralize his king.} ({
Hazai suggests tying Black down with} 31. g4 fxg4 32. f5+ {.}) 31... Kd5 32. g4
$6 fxg4 33. f5 {
Now Black can use the knight rather than the king to deal with the passed pawn.
} ({With this in mind} 33. Re7 {
is called for, when White can still entertain hopes of winning.}) 33... Nd7 34.
Re7 Nf6 35. Kg2 h5 36. Kg3 {
Preventing 36...h4 but walking into an annoying check.} Ne4+ $1 37. Rxe4 ({
After} 37. Kf4 $6 Nxc3 38. bxc3 Bxc3 39. Kg5 c4 40. Kxh5 ({while} 40. f6 Bxf6+
41. Kxf6 h4 {should be at least a draw for Black}) 40... Bd4 $1 41. Kxg4 c3 42.
Re2 Kc4 {Black appears to be quicker.}) 37... Kxe4 38. f6 (38. Bxd4 $6 cxd4 39.
f6 d3 40. Kf2 h4 $1 {draws:} 41. f7 g3+ 42. hxg3 hxg3+ 43. Kxg3 (43. Ke1 g2)
43... d2 44. f8=Q d1=Q {.}) 38... Bxf6 39. Bxf6 d5 $1 40. Kh4 $6 (40. b3 {
offers better chances, Black's most accurate course being} d4 41. Kf2 Kd3 42.
Be7 h4 $1 43. Ke1 (43. Bxh4 $2 Kc2 {;}) (43. Bxc5 g3+ 44. hxg3 hxg3+ 45. Kxg3
Kc3 46. b4 d3) 43... g3 $1 44. h3 g2 $1 45. Kf2 Kc2 46. Bxc5 (46. Bxh4 $2 d3
47. Bg5 Kxb3 48. h4 c4 49. h5 c3 50. h6 d2 51. h7 d1=Q) 46... d3 47. Be3 Kxb3
48. Kxg2 Kc2 49. Kf3 d2 50. Bxd2 Kxd2 51. Kg4 Ke3 52. Kxh4 Kf4 {.}) 40... d4 $1
41. Kxh5 Kf3 42. Kg5 d3 43. Bc3 c4 $1 44. Kf5 Ke2 45. Kxg4 ({After} 45. Kxg4 d2
46. Bxd2 Kxd2 47. h4 Kc2 48. h5 Kxb2 49. h6 c3 50. h7 c2 51. h8=Q+ Kb1 {
White cannot make progress, as} 52. Qb8+ Ka1 53. Qa7+ Kb1 54. Qb6+ Ka1 55. Qc5
Kb1 56. Qb4+ Ka1 57. Qc3+ Kb1 58. Qb3+ Ka1 $1 {
leaves a repetition or stalemate after} 59. Qxc2 {.}) 1/2-1/2

[Event "Hastings Premier"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1997.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Rausis, I."]
[Black "McShane, L."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E76"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "81"]
[EventDate "1997.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f4 O-O 6. Nf3 Na6 {In recent years a
number of KID fans have taken to developing the knight in this fashion. In
this particular variation the justification is quite logical since Black's
bishop is not impeded and both ...c7-c5 and ...e7-e5 are still possible.} 7. e5
$5 {A promising alternative to the more usual 7 Bd3 and 7 Be2 - which
opponents will be expecting and thus be best prepared for. Attacking the
knight and putting the e5- and d6-pawns face to face also has the advantage of
giving Black a few choices to consider over the next few moves, and more than
one of these can lead Black into difficulties.} Nd7 {Best. Others:} (7... dxe5
$6 8. fxe5 {and now:} -- (8... Nh5 $5 9. Be3 f6 10. Be2 Bg4 {gives White an
edge and looks like the most appropriate follow-up for Black, although here
the a6-knight has a less promising future than Black would have hoped.}) (8...
Nd7 9. Bf4 {. The lesser evil} Nb6 ({White is clearly better after both} 9...
f6 10. e6 Nb6 11. d5) ({and} 9... c5 10. d5) 10. h3 f6 11. Qd2 c5 12. exf6 Bxf6
(12... exf6 13. O-O-O) 13. Bh6 Re8 14. O-O-O {
was not too appealing for Black in Vokac-Petrov, Komercni Banka 1997.}) (8...
Ne8 9. Be2 ({Vaisser recommends} 9. c5) 9... f6 10. Bf4 {. The problem with 7...
dxe5 is that it makes the f4-square available and therefore helps White
maintain the healthy centre. Leitao-Ivanovic, Yerevan Olympiad 1996, went} c5 (
10... fxe5 11. Bxe5 Nf6 12. O-O c5 13. d5) 11. dxc5 Qa5 (11... Qxd1+ 12. Rxd1
Nxc5 13. Nd5) 12. Be3 $1 fxe5 13. O-O e4 14. Qd5+ e6 15. Qxe4 Nxc5 16. Qh4 {
and White enjoyed both superior pawn structure and development.})) ({
In contrast,} 7... Nh5 {targets the f4-pawn. Movsesian gives} 8. Be2 Bh6 ({
in B.Lalic-Hebden, Iona Tech Masters 1998, Black first pushed his c-pawn:} 8...
c5 9. d5 Bh6 10. g3 {and now, in a bid to justify placing his minor pieces on
the edge of the board, Black hit out in the centre with} e6 {, although after}
11. dxe6 Bxe6 12. exd6 Bg7 13. O-O Bh3 14. Rf2 Nf6 15. Bf1 Bxf1 16. Kxf1 Re8
17. Ne5 Re6 18. Qf3 $1 Rb8 19. Nb5 {White's extra pawn was still intact}) 9. g3
f6 10. O-O dxe5 11. fxe5 Bxc1 12. Rxc1 Bh3 13. Re1 {
as slightly better for White.}) ({After} 7... Ne8 8. Be3 ({Vaisser's} 8. h3 {
is good because White already has more than his fair share of the board and
now Black has a problem with his queen's bishop}) 8... Bg4 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 {
White has more space and is ready to castle queenside before launching the
h-pawn.}) 8. Be2 {This is the most frequent follow-up to 7 e5;} ({
but there is an argument for the brutal} 8. h4 $5 {. Of course there are no
prizes for guessing what White has in mind! Clearly Black must react
energetically in the centre in order to avoid being blown away on the kingside.
} -- (8... dxe5 {and now:} 9. -- (9. dxe5 Ndc5 10. Be3 {keeps White in charge
of the centre and Black's knights look a little artificial. Vaisser believes}
Bf5 ({Mohamed-Geenen, Elista Olympiad 1998, continued} 10... Bg4 11. Be2 f6 {
, Black has good counterplay according to Vaisser, but this assessment was not
borne out in the game:} 12. Nd4 fxe5 13. fxe5 Bxe2 14. Qxe2 Bxe5 15. O-O-O Qe8
16. h5 {and White had a dangerous kingside offensive}) 11. Nd4 Qd7 12. Be2 {
is good for White, e.g.} f6 13. Nxf5 Qxd1+ $1 (13... Qxf5 $2 14. Bxc5 Nxc5 15.
Qd5+ Ne6 16. g4) 14. Rxd1 gxf5 15. e6 $1 Nxe6 16. Bd3) ({
. Vaisser prefers the more consistent} 9. fxe5 {, unleashing the queen's bishop
as well as maintaining a presence in the centre. In fact he backed up this
claim over the board against Desbonnes, French League 1998, but failed to get
the desired initiative after} c5 10. Bf4 cxd4 11. Qxd4 Nb4 12. Rc1 ({
Vaisser's proposed improvement is} 12. O-O-O $1 {, although this needs tests
and Black is not without chances on the queenside after} Qa5 {, for example})
12... Qa5 13. Qe3 Qc5 14. e6 Qxe3+ 15. Bxe3 fxe6 16. h5 gxh5 17. Rxh5 Rf5 {
etc. Food for thought, and in the meantime I believe that with 9 dxe5 White is
able to hold on to the advantage.})) (8... c5 {is a thematic response,
following the rule that a flank attack should be met with a central counter.}
9. -- (9. e6 fxe6 10. h5 cxd4 11. Nxd4 {is messy,} ({but Rodriguez
Vargas-Magem Badals, Spanish League 1991, was soon over for White after} 11.
Ne4 $2 Nf6 12. Neg5 h6 13. hxg6 hxg5 14. Nxg5 e5 15. fxe5 Qa5+ {0-1.})) (9. d5
{endeavours to keep the centre closed, allowing White to meet} dxe5 {with} 10.
h5 {, e.g.} exf4 11. Bxf4 Nf6 {.} 12. -- ({. Now} 12. Ne5 $5 Nxh5 13. Rxh5 gxh5
{leads to what looks like a slight edge to Black after Vaisser's entertaining}
14. Bd3 ({perhaps White should opt for the simple} 14. Qxh5 {with compensation
for the exchange in the form of a kingside initiative and better pieces}) 14...
Bxe5 15. Qxh5 $5 Bxc3+ 16. bxc3 f5 17. Qg5+ Kh8 18. Be5+ Rf6 19. d6 Bd7 (19...
Qg8 20. Bxf6+ exf6 21. Qxf6+ Qg7 22. Qd8+ Qg8 23. Qf6+ Qg7) 20. dxe7 Qxe7 21.
Qxf6+ Qxf6 22. Bxf6+ Kg8 {.}) (12. hxg6 fxg6 13. Qd2 Bf5 14. Bd3 (14. Bh6 $5)
14... Bxd3 ({instead Vaisser-Petit, French League 1992, continued} 14... Nh5 15.
Bxf5 (15. Bh2) 15... Rxf5 16. Be3 {and White had compensation for the pawn})
15. Qxd3 b5 {was tried recently in Kahn-G.Horvath, Budapest 1996:} ({
Vaisser suggests} 15... e6) ({, and} 15... Nh5) 16. Ng5 {
required careful defence. For example,} Nb4 $6 ({Black played} 16... Qb6 {
, when White's best is} 17. cxb5 Nb4 18. Qc4 Nc2+ 19. Kd2 Nxa1 20. d6+ Kh8 (
20... e6 $2 21. Qxe6+ Kh8 22. Nxh7 $1) 21. dxe7 {- Vaisser}) 17. Qe2 bxc4 $2 18.
Qe6+ Kh8 19. Rxh7+ $1 {wins for White -} Nxh7 20. Qh3 Nd3+ 21. Kd2 Bxc3+ 22.
bxc3 Kg7 23. Qxh7+ Kf6 24. Ne4+ Kf5 25. Qh3+ Kxf4 (25... Kxe4 26. Qf3+ Kf5 27.
Bc7+ Kg5 28. Qe3+) 26. Rf1+ Kxe4 27. Qe6+ Ne5 28. Re1+ Kf4 29. Qxe5+ Kg4 30.
Re4+ {.})))) 8... c5 9. exd6 exd6 ({Equally popular is} 9... cxd4 10. Nxd4 (10.
dxe7 $2 Qxe7 11. Nxd4 Nb6 {, e.g.} 12. O-O $2 Rd8) 10... -- {and then:} (10...
exd6 11. Ndb5 Qh4+ 12. g3 Qh3 13. Bf1 Re8+ 14. Kf2 Qf5 {
was played in Vokac-Spisak, Cappelle la Grande 1995. Now} 15. Nxd6 Qc5+ 16. Kg2
{is a safe pawn for White, who plans Qd5.}) (10... Nb6 $5 11. O-O Qxd6 12. Be3
{. White still has a greater influence in the centre and Black's knights are
poor.} -- (12... Rd8 $6 13. Ndb5 Qxd1 14. Rfxd1 Rxd1+ 15. Rxd1 Be6 16. b3 {
accentuates White's lead. Black's queenside is particularly vulnerable.}) (
12... Qb4 $6 13. a3 Qxb2 {is asking for trouble:} 14. Ncb5 Rd8 15. Rf2 $1 Nc5
16. Rb1 Qa2 17. Bd3 {and Knaak analyses} Qxf2+ 18. Bxf2 Nxd3 19. Qxd3 Bf5 20.
Qb3 Bxb1 21. Qxb1 Nxc4 22. Qb4 {and White emerges on top.}) ({. After} 12...
Qc5 13. Ne4 Qc7 14. Qb3 {White threatens Nd4-b5xa7 when the b6-knight is
hanging (a recurring theme in these positions). A sample line is} Rd8 15. Nb5
Qc6 16. Nxa7 Qxe4 17. Bf3 Qxe3+ (17... Qxc4 18. Nxc8) 18. Qxe3 Bd4 19. Qxd4
Rxd4 20. Nxc8 Rxc8 21. Bxb7 {.}) (12... Be6 {
is sensible and leads to an edge for White, e.g.} 13. b3 Rfd8 14. Ncb5 Qb8 ({
in reply to} 14... Qc5 {White has} 15. Qe1 {since} Bxd4 ({and} 15... Rxd4 16.
Qf2 Rad8 17. Rad1) 16. Nxd4 Rxd4 17. Qf2 {rebound on Black}) 15. Qe1 {
followed by Rd1.}))) 10. O-O ({The natural} 10. d5 {invites Black to make a
rare trade of his bishop for a knight, the point being that after} Bxc3+ $1 11.
bxc3 f5 {the closed position is more suitable for Black's knights than White's
bishops. Moreover a well timed ...b7-b5 could prove uncomfortable for White
and ...Nd7-f6-e4 is not easy to deal with. The text keeps Black guessing.})
10... Re8 (10... Nb6 {prevents White's next. Then} 11. d5 Bxc3 ({in Summerscale-Sasikiran, British Ch. 1999, Black chose to keep his dark-squared bishop,
parting with the other one after} 11... Bg4 12. h3 Bxf3 13. Rxf3 f5 {, here White has not been saddled with a permanent queenside weakness and the e4-square
is not a problem, but Black still has the use of an influential bishop on the
long diagonal, so the chances are roughly even}) 12. bxc3 f5 {is still on but
at least here Black's knight is further away from the e4-square, a factor that
should add weight to an assault on the light squares involving Nf3-g5-e6 etc.})
(10... Nf6 11. d5 Re8 {
transposes to Leitao-J.Polgar in the note to White's next move.}) 11. f5 $5 {
Pushing the f-pawn introduces an interesting way to treat the position that is,
in fact, in keeping with the general spirit of the variation.} (11. d5 Nf6 {
is Leitao-J.Polgar, Sao Paulo 1996, when} 12. h3 Nc7 (12... Ne4 $5) 13. a4 Na6
14. Bd3 Nb4 15. Bb1 {saw Black's knight settle on b4. Meanwhile Black had
plans for her other knight, securing the e4-square with} Bf5 16. Bxf5 gxf5 {
. Now} 17. Nh4 Qd7 18. Ra3 $5 {with the idea of Nc3-e2(-g3) and swinging the
rook across the third rank should have met with the immediate} Ne4 {
with chances for both sides.}) 11... cxd4 {
Eventually Black will be left with an isolated d-pawn;} ({but} 11... gxf5 12.
Bg5 {voluntarily damages Black's kingside pawns.}) 12. Nd5 Nc7 {
Bringing the knight back into the fold,} ({which Black has no time for after} 
12... Ne5 13. Nxd4 {due to the weakness of the f6-square.}) 13. fxg6 hxg6 14.
Bg5 Nf6 ({Black seeks to relieve some of the pressure by reducing White's
attacking force, rather than further compromise his defences with} 14... f6 15.
Bh4 {.}) 15. Nxf6+ Bxf6 16. Bxf6 Qxf6 17. Nxd4 Qg5 ({
Mah-S.Bekker Jensen, Witley 1998, went} 17... Qe5 18. Bf3 Ne6 19. Nxe6 Bxe6 20.
b3 Rab8 21. Re1 Qc5+ 22. Kh1 {and Black had the same structural problem as in
the main game but this time was facing a bishop as opposed to a knight.}) 18.
Bf3 Ne6 19. Bd5 ({White can hit the d6-pawn immediately with} 19. Nb5 $1 {
because} Nf4 20. Kh1 Re2 $2 {, fails to} ({and} 20... Re3 21. Qd2 Rd3 22. Qf2 {
merely leaves Black's pieces awkwardly placed}) 21. g3 {.}) 19... Re7 $1 ({Not
} 19... Qe3+ $2 20. Kh1 Qxd4 21. Bxe6 Qxd1 22. Bxf7+ Kg7 23. Raxd1 {etc.}) 20.
Nf3 Qf6 21. Bxe6 (21. Qd2 Nf4 {should also be better for White.}) 21... Qxe6
22. Re1 Qf6 23. Rxe7 Qxe7 24. Qd4 $1 Be6 25. b3 {Sensible play has resulted in
Black having to defend a slightly worse position, White's knight enjoying the
flexibility that a bishop lacks.} a6 26. a4 Rc8 27. Rd1 Bf5 ({
The rook looks passive after} 27... Rc6 {
when it has been suggested that White switch fronts with} 28. h4 $5 {.}) 28.
Re1 Qc7 $2 {With the d6-pawn the main focus of attention Black takes his eye
off the equally sensitive f6-square.} ({With this in mind} 28... Qd8 $1 {
is necessary.}) 29. Qf6 $1 {
Threatening to infiltrate with Re7, hence Black's next.} Rf8 30. Nd4 Bc8 31. h3
Qd8 32. Re7 $1 Qb6 33. Kh2 Qc5 34. Re4 $5 {Now the threat of Rh4 means that
Black's queen must stay within range of e5. Consequently White can toy with
the idea of harassing the queen with b3-b4, for example.} b5 {
An error in an anyway difficult position.} 35. cxb5 axb5 36. Nxb5 Bb7 37. Rd4
Qc2 38. Rg4 Re8 $2 39. Nxd6 Qc7 40. Rh4 Qxd6+ 41. Qxd6 1-0

[Event "Wijk aan Zee"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1996.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sokolov, I."]
[Black "Topalov, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A67"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "57"]
[EventDate "1996.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. d5 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. f4 Bg7 {
Others lead to an inferior game for Black.} (7... a6 $6 8. e5 -- ({, and now} 
8... Qe7 $2 9. Nf3 Bg4 (9... Bg7 10. h3) 10. Be2 Nfd7 11. exd6 Qxd6 12. Ng5 $1
Bxe2 13. Qxe2+ Qe7 14. Nce4 {(Vaisser) is clearly better for White.}) ({
. Guseinov-Zaichik, Volgodonsk 1983, went} 8... Nfd7 9. Nf3 Bg7 10. Ne4 dxe5
11. Nd6+ Kf8 (11... Ke7 12. Nxc8+ Qxc8 13. Be2) 12. Be2 $5 Qc7 (12... exf4 13.
Bxf4 Qf6 14. Bg3 Qxb2 15. Rb1 {is bad for Black - Kapengut}) 13. Nxc8 Qxc8 14.
fxe5 Nxe5 15. Nxe5 Bxe5 16. Bh6+ Bg7 17. Qd2 Qf5 18. Qc3 $1 {
and Black was in trouble.})) (7... Qe7 $6 8. Nf3 $1 {and now} Nxe4 $2 {
drops a piece to} 9. Qa4+ {.}) (7... Bg4 $6 8. Qa4+ $1 Bd7 9. Qb3 Qc7 10. Nf3 {
and e4-e5 is coming.}) 8. Bb5+ {
Now Black will have problems to overcome one way or another.} Nbd7 $6 {
There was a time when both sides seemed content to try their luck in the
following complications but, in recent years, Black has preferred to block
with the other knight.} ({After} 8... Nfd7 9. a4 {
Black can throw in the check on h4 or develop normally.} -- (9... Qh4+ 10. g3 {
and now:} -- (10... Qe7 11. Nf3 O-O 12. O-O Na6 13. Re1 Nb4 14. Bf1 {
puts the bishop on a flexible post. Then} Re8 ({while} 14... b6 15. Ra3 Bb7 16.
Bc4 a6 17. h3 Rac8 18. Be3 Rfd8 19. Bf2 Qf8 {left Black too passive, unable to
break out with ...b6-b5, in Yusupov-Pekarek, German League 1993}) 15. Nb5 Nf6
16. e5 Nfxd5 (16... dxe5 17. d6) 17. Nxd6 {is clearly better for White.}) ({
. With} 10... Qd8 {Black avoids any problems on the e-file but has spent two
moves just to force a slight weakening of White's kingside. In
Olafsson-Psakhis, Moscow 1989, the extra time proved more significant than
g2-g3 after} 11. Nf3 O-O 12. O-O a6 13. Bc4 $5 ({also possible is} 13. Be2 Re8
14. Kg2 $5 {, addressing the potential weak points on the kingside while
exploiting the additional space}) 13... Nb6 14. Be2 Bg4 15. Ng5 $1 Bxe2 16.
Qxe2 {.})) (9... O-O 10. Nf3 {is far more popular.} -- (10... a6 11. Be2 {
is a natural reaction from Black when the bishop stands provocatively on b5,
but now Black finds that his queen's knight is a problem and, consequently,
the development of his queenside in general. In order for the b8-knight to see
light Black has to move his other knight for a third time!} -- (11... Re8 12.
O-O Nf8 {is too artificial. Petursson-Perenyi, St John 1988, went} 13. e5 $1
Nbd7 14. Ng5 dxe5 15. f5 $1 {. White's thematic sacrifice is designed to
hinder Black's forces (particularly the g7-bishop) with his own pawn, in front
of which White has an excellent outpost on e4. The game continued} Nf6 16. g4
b5 17. axb5 c4 18. Be3 h6 19. Nge4 Nxe4 20. Nxe4 {
and Black's queenside exertions had made matters worse.}) ({
. This leaves the more sensible} 11... Nf6 12. O-O {, when} Bg4 ({while} 12...
Qc7 $2 13. e5 Ne8 14. e6 $1 fxe6 15. Bc4 Qe7 16. dxe6 Nc6 17. f5 Nc7 18. Bg5 {
, was close to winning for White in Kasparov-Cuijpers, World Junior Ch.,
Dortmund 1980; Black should avoid ...a7-a6 while the knight is still on b8}) 13.
Re1 Re8 14. e5 Bxf3 15. Bxf3 dxe5 16. fxe5 Nfd7 17. e6 {, with a clear
advantage to White in Lautier-Sandner, Bad Zwesten 1999, is nevertheless
preferable for Black to 12...Qc7.})) (10... Na6 {
is a considerable improvement, with a choice of b4 or c7 for the knight after}
11. O-O {.} -- (11... Nb4 {is given a '?!' by Kinsman, who offers the
common-sense argument that on b4 the knight not only does nothing to
facilitate the desired ...b7-b5 (as it does from c7) but - if and when this
can be played - it also obstructs ...b5-b4. White's best is} 12. Re1 $1 a6 13.
Bf1 {in order to have the bishop keeping an eye on b5 from the safe haven on
f1, in so doing leaving the e-file clear to support a future e4-e5. After} Re8
14. h3 Nf6 ({while} 14... Qc7 15. Be3 {
might leave the queen poorly placed on the c-file,}) ({instead} 14... Rb8 15.
Be3 b6 16. Bf2 Bb7 17. Bc4 Ba8 {, Komarov-S.Kovacevic, Massy 1993, is feasible
but rather slow; White's e4-e5 is more likely to succeed than is ...b6-b5}) 15.
Bc4 {White toys with the e4-e5 push without having to worry about being hit
with ...Nb6.}) (11... Nc7 {hits the bishop and supports ...b7-b5 while still
monitoring the d5-pawn in case of e4-e5.} 12. Bd3 {(White is advised to keep
his bishop for now, and with f1 unavailable this is the most suitable square)}
a6 ({in Aagaard-Reinderman, Groningen 1998, White carried out an instructive
reorganization of his forces after} 12... Re8 {:} 13. Kh1 Rb8 14. Nd2 Nf6 15.
Nc4 b6 16. Qf3 Ba6 17. Be3 Nd7 {and now} 18. Rae1 $1 {
would have justified leaving the other rook on f1}) {, is more usual, e.g.} 13.
Qe1 Rb8 14. e5 $5 ({or just} 14. a5 {with the better prospects for White})
14... Nb6 15. f5 dxe5 16. fxg6 {(Gulko-Savon, Lvov Zonal 1978). This is an
appealing line since Black can easily go wrong. The game continued} fxg6 ({
Gulko gives} 16... hxg6 $2 17. Ng5 f6 18. Nh7 $1 Kxh7 19. Qh4+ Kg8 20. Bxg6 Rf7
21. Qh7+ Kf8 22. Bh6) 17. Bg5 Qd6 18. Qh4 Ncxd5 $6 ({recently} 18... Re8 {
led to an even quicker win in Ovod-Stellwagen, Groningen Young Masters 1999,
after} 19. Ne4 Qxd5 20. Nf6+ Bxf6 21. Bxg6 $1 {1-0;}) ({however, with} 18...
Nbxd5 $1 {Black survives, e.g.} 19. Bc4 Be6 20. Rad1 Qc6 {when the onus is on
White to demonstrate enough of an initiative for the two pawns}) 19. Rad1 c4
20. Nxd5 cxd3 (20... Qxd5 21. Bxg6 Qc5+ 22. Kh1 hxg6 23. Be7) 21. Ne7+ Kh8 22.
Nxe5 $1 Bf5 (22... Qxe5 23. Nxg6+) 23. Rxf5 Bxe5 24. Rxe5 Rf7 {1-0. Of course
the position after 14 e5 is rich in possibilities, and there is always the
reliable 14 a5.})))) ({Finally} 8... Bd7 {is seen only occasionally because it
seems worse than 8...Nbd7. Crying out to be played is} 9. e5 {when} dxe5 ({
alternatively} 9... Nh5 10. Nf3 O-O 11. Bxd7 Qxd7 12. O-O {afforded White a
wonderful, advanced centre in Hillarp Persson-Valgardsson, Reykjavik 1998}) 10.
fxe5 Nh5 11. Nf3 O-O 12. Bxd7 Nxd7 13. g4 Nxe5 14. gxh5 Nxf3+ 15. Qxf3 Qh4+ 16.
Kf1 Bxc3 17. bxc3 Qc4+ 18. Kf2 {gave Black insufficient compensation for the
piece in Ward-Quillan, British League 2000.}) 9. e5 {Obvious and best.} dxe5 (
9... Nh5 $2 10. e6 fxe6 (10... Qh4+ 11. Kf1 Bd4 12. Qe1) 11. dxe6 Qh4+ 12. g3
Nxg3 13. Nf3 Qh3 14. Qxd6 $1 {.}) 10. fxe5 Nh5 (10... Qe7 $2 11. Qe2 {
is a backward step for Black.}) 11. e6 Qh4+ (11... fxe6 $2 12. dxe6 O-O 13. Nf3
{looks terrible for Black.} -- ({
. This time there is another pin on the d7-knight as} 13... Ndf6 14. Qxd8 Rxd8
15. e7 Rd6 16. Ng5 Be6 17. O-O a6 18. Nxe6 axb5 19. Nc7 Rc8 20. N3xb5 {
(Nei) wins for White.}) (13... Rxf3 {has been tried. Then} 14. Qxf3 Ne5 (14...
Bxc3+ 15. bxc3 Ne5 16. Qe4 Qf6 17. e7 $1 Qxe7 18. O-O {is excellent for White})
15. Qd5 Qh4+ 16. g3 Qe7 {runs into} 17. Bg5 $1 {, e.g.} Bf6 (17... Qxe6 18.
Qd8+ Bf8 19. O-O) 18. Bxf6 Qxf6 19. Rf1 Qxe6 20. Qd8+ {
1-0 Wessman-Melgosa, Tunja 1989.}) ({. Vaisser offers the game Simoncini-Caruso,
correspondence 1989, as an example of how to deal with} 13... Bd4 {. There followed} 14.
exd7 Bxd7 15. Bg5 Qe8+ (15... Qb6 16. Qb3+) 16. Be2 Nf4 17. Bxf4 Rxf4 18. Nd5
Rxf3 19. gxf3 Qe5 20. Nc3 {
and Black certainly did not have a rook's worth of compensation!})) 12. g3 ({
Believe it or not} 12. Kd2 $5 {has been played here and it even seems to give
White the better game. However, since the main line is difficult for Black we
might have to wait a while before the plan of sending the king to the
queenside grows in popularity.}) 12... Nxg3 13. hxg3 Qxh1 (13... Qxg3+ $2 14.
Kd2 Bxc3+ 15. bxc3 Qg2+ 16. Qe2 Qxd5+ 17. Kc2 Qxe6 18. Qxe6+ fxe6 19. Bh6 $5 {
as in Fecht-Betker, correspondence 1989, leaves White with a decisive advantage 
according to Vaisser.}) 14. Be3 $1 ({Keeping the pin is preferable to} 14. exf7+
{.}) 14... Bxc3+ (14... O-O 15. exd7 Bxd7 16. Bxd7 Rae8 17. Bxe8 Rxe8 {
was seen a few times in the early 1980s. Then} 18. Qe2 Bd4 (18... Bh6 {
and now Kinsman gives} 19. Kf1 Rxe3 20. Qg2) 19. O-O-O Rxe3 {
is P.Littlewood-Norwood, Commonwealth Ch., London 1985, when} 20. Qc2 $1 {
would have put White well in front, e.g.} Rxg3 21. Nge2 Qh6+ 22. Kb1 Rg2 23.
Qa4 $1 {(Konikowski),} ({or} 23. d6 {
with a clear advantage to White according to 'NCO'.})) (14... fxe6 $2 {
is weak on account of} 15. dxe6 O-O 16. exd7 Bxd7 17. Bxd7 Rad8 18. Qb3+ Kh8
19. O-O-O {.}) 15. bxc3 a6 (15... Qe4 $5 {is an important alternative. After}
16. Qf3 Qxf3 17. Nxf3 fxe6 18. dxe6 {
the game Kalinin-Konev, correspondence 1991, continued} O-O ({
in K.Urban-Ciemniak, Polish Ch. 1993, Black improved with} 18... a6 19. exd7+
Bxd7 20. Bxd7+ Kxd7 21. Bxc5 Kc6 22. Be3 Rae8 23. Kd2 Re4 24. Nd4+ Kd5 25. Kd3
Rc8 26. Nc2 Rce8 27. Rb1 {
, although the two pieces gave White a clear advantage}) 19. Bh6 $3 {.} -- ({
. Then} 19... Re8 20. O-O-O Rxe6 (20... Nf6 21. Bxe8 Bxe6 22. Ba4 Bxa2 23. Ne5
$1 {is excellent for White}) 21. Bc4 Nb6 22. Ng5 $1 {wins for White}) ({
, while after} 19... Rxf3 20. Rd1 $1 Rxc3 (20... Nf8 21. e7 Bd7 22. exf8=Q+
Raxf8 23. Bc4+) 21. exd7 Bxd7 22. Rxd7 a6 {, White has} 23. Bf1 $1 {
, the bishops being too powerful.})) 16. exd7+ Bxd7 17. Bxd7+ Kxd7 18. Qb3 $1 {
A new move at the time;} ({this is an improvement on} 18. Qf3) ({and} 18. Qa4+
b5 19. Qg4+ f5 20. Qf3 {with an ending in which Black tends to have decent
chances. Sokolov's idea, in contrast, is to keep the queens on the board,
castle queenside and then hope to highlight the plight of Black's king.}) 18...
b5 19. O-O-O ({Vaisser prefers this to} 19. Bxc5 Qg2 {.}) 19... Rhe8 ({
Natural but perhaps not best. Another suggestion is} 19... Rac8 {
, against which Ftacnik proposes} 20. Qa3 ({while Sokolov gives} 20. d6 c4 21.
Qc2 Rhe8 22. Qf2 f5 23. Nf3) 20... Qe4 21. Bxc5 {
. Both these lines are good for White.}) ({However, a possible improvement is} 
19... Rhc8 $5 20. Qa3 Qe4 21. Bxc5 -- ({
, when Ftacnik believes White is clearly better after} 21... Qc4 22. Bd4 (22.
Bb4 $5) 22... b4 23. Qa4+ Qb5 24. Qxb5+ axb5 25. Kb2 {etc.}) ({
. This reasonable assessment led Kinsman to offer} 21... Qg4 {
with the idea of restricting the knight to g1. Then instead of Kinsman's} 22.
Bd6 ({I prefer} 22. Bf2 {, e.g.} b4 23. Qa4+ Ke7 24. Ne2 $1 Qxe2 $2 25. Re1)
22... Qe4 {.})) 20. Bxc5 Rac8 $6 {This leaves the a6-pawn unprotected and is
justifiably criticized by both Kinsman and Vaisser.} ({They suggest} 20... Qg2 {
with the intention of doubling on the e-file after} 21. d6 Re6 22. Bb4 Rae8 {
etc.}) 21. Bd4 Qg2 (21... Rc4 22. Ne2 Qf3 23. Nf4 {
and the knight is heading for d3 with both c5 and e5 in its sights.}) (21...
Re4 {threatens to take on d4, so White should lift the pin on the c-file with}
22. Kb1 {.}) 22. Qa3 $1 {
Underlining the problem with 20...Rac8 by hitting the a6-pawn.} Qxg3 23. Qxa6
Rxc3+ {There is nothing else.} (23... Qg5+ 24. Kc2 Qg2+ 25. Rd2 Qf1 {fails to}
26. Ne2 $1 {since} Rxe2 $2 {loses to} 27. Qxb5+ {.}) 24. Kb2 ({Not} 24. Bxc3 $2
Qxc3+ 25. Kb1 Qb4+ 26. Kc2 Qc4+ {with a draw.}) ({However,} 24. Kb1 $1 {
is simpler, e.g.} Rb3+ 25. Ka1 {.}) 24... Rcc8 ({
Black can at least go down with a fight after} 24... Qg2+ 25. Kxc3 (25. Ka1 $2
Qxd5) 25... Rc8+ 26. Kd3 Qc2+ 27. Ke3 {, when Ftacnik gives the following:}
Re8+ (27... Qxd1 28. Qxb5+ Kd6 29. Ne2) 28. Kf4 Qf5+ (28... Qxd1 29. Qxb5+ Kd8
30. Bb6+ Ke7 31. Bc5+ Kd8 32. Qb8+ Kd7 33. Qb7+ Kd8 34. Bb6#) 29. Kg3 Qg5+ 30.
Kf2 Qh4+ 31. Kf1 Qf4+ 32. Bf2 {.}) 25. Qxb5+ Kd6 (25... Ke7 26. d6+ $1 Qxd6 27.
Re1+ Kf8 28. Rxe8+ Rxe8 29. Bc5 {(Sokolov).}) 26. Ka1 $1 Qa3 (26... Re1 $2 27.
Qb4+) ({or} 26... h5 27. Bc5+ $1 Rxc5 28. Qb6+ {.}) 27. Bb2 Qc5 (27... Qa7 28.
Nf3 {.}) 28. Qa6+ Kd7 (28... Kc7 29. d6+ {.}) 29. Qa4+ $1 ({The finale will be
} 29. Qa4+ Kd8 (29... Kc7 30. d6+) 30. Bf6+ {.}) 1-0

[Event "Yerevan Olympiad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1996.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lalic, B."]
[Black "Polgar, J."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D83"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "105"]
[EventDate "1996.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 {Rather than build an imposing pawn centre
only to see Black seek to undermine it throughout the opening (and middlegame),
White gives his own dark-squared bishop an active role, after which the
d4-pawn can be bolstered with e2-e3. As we shall see in this chapter, Bf4
facilitates an early entry into the game of the queen's rook, which is well
placed on the c-file. Moreover, by ignoring the 'knights before bishops'
general rule White is free to post his king's knight on either e2 or f3,
whichever is the most appropriate when the time comes. --- This flexibility is
an important characteristic of this variation and, I believe, an
underestimated advantage over the more popular 4 Nf3, 5 Bf4 system.} Bg7 5. e3
({The actual move order was} 5. Rc1 O-O 6. e3 c5 {.}) 5... O-O 6. Rc1 c5 {
Again we see the thematic response, fighting fire with fire in the centre
despite the presence of White's rook on the soon to opened c-file.} (6... dxc4
7. Bxc4 Nbd7 8. Nf3 Nb6 9. Bb3 c6 10. O-O {does nothing to make White pay for
the luxury of having his dark-squared bishop in play - as opposed to being
walled in on c1 by the e3-pawn.}) ({Nor is} 6... c6 {what Black wants, e.g.} 7.
Nf3 Bg4 8. Qb3 $5 ({White can also play in more sober fashion with} 8. h3 Bxf3
9. Qxf3 {, enjoying extra protection of the e5-square and not having to worry
about the b2-pawn since} Qb6 10. Rc2 {holds nicely}) 8... Bxf3 9. gxf3 Qd7 10.
h4 e6 11. Be5 {
which was comfortably better for White in Lukacs-Kolbus, Budapest 1996.}) 7.
dxc5 (7. cxd5 $2 cxd4 8. Qxd4 (8. exd4 Nxd5 {favours Black}) 8... Nxd5 $1 {and}
9. Qxd5 $4 {loses to} Bxc3+ {etc.}) 7... Qa5 {The familiar queen sortie is the
most natural choice available to Black but not the most accurate.} ({After} 
7... dxc4 $6 8. Qxd8 Rxd8 9. Bxc4 {Black will have problems regaining the pawn}
) ({but the slightly odd} 7... Be6 $1 {is in fact the move that causes White
the most inconvenience. White should avoid opening the long diagonal for his
opponent by trading on d5 and instead opt for the mobilization of his kingside.
} 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. Be2 Ne4 {is typical, and now} 10. Nd4 {
leaves the centre bursting with possibilities:} -- (10... Nxd4 11. exd4 Nxc3
12. bxc3 dxc4 13. O-O Bd5 14. Bf3 {can only be slightly advantageous for White,
who can lodge his rooks on b1 and e1. In Kraidman-Moberg, Gausdal 1996, Black
challenged the c5-pawn, perhaps prematurely -} b6 $6 15. c6 $1 Rc8 16. c7 Qd7
17. Re1 Rfe8 18. Bxd5 Qxd5 19. Qa4 {and Black was under pressure.}) (10... Nxc3
11. bxc3 Qa5 12. O-O Rad8 13. Nxe6 fxe6 {is T.Paunovic-Djuric, Liosia 1998.
Giving up the light-squared bishop for a knight in this fashion is good only
when the added support of the centre helps generate counterplay for Black.
This is not the case here because the central configuration is yet to be
decided and, in the meantime, White has a target in the shape of the b7-pawn.}
14. Qb3 $1 Qxc5 15. cxd5 exd5 16. Qxb7 {
and the queen was safe in enemy territory:} e5 17. Bg5 Rb8 18. Qd7 Bf6 19. Bxf6
Rxf6 20. c4 $1 {(softening Black up on the light squares)} d4 21. Qd5+ Qxd5 22.
cxd5 {with an extra pawn.} (22. --))) 8. cxd5 {
White doubles his pawn collection.} Rd8 {As per plan.} ({
The other move to consider is} 8... Ne4 {. Then} 9. Nge2 $1 {shuts in the
bishop in favour of cementing White's grip on the pinned knight. After} Na6 {
White has two promising continuations:} 10. -- (10. f3 Nexc5 11. a3 {. In Eslon-Insua Mellado, Seville 1994, Black at least addressed the pawn deficit by
muddying the waters with} e5 ({now} 11... Nd7 12. Nd4 Nf6 13. e4 Bd7 14. Be3
Ne8 15. Be2 Nd6 16. O-O {
left White a clear pawn up in Eslon-Chiburdanidze, Seville 1994}) 12. Bg3 e4
13. Nd4 exf3 14. gxf3 Re8 {
. On first impressions the plan seems to have worked for Black, but the calm}
15. Kf2 Bh6 16. f4 Ne4+ 17. Nxe4 Rxe4 18. Bg2 Re8 19. Rc3 $1 {
saw White emerge in control, pushing Black back after} Bd7 20. b4 Qd8 21. Qc2
Rc8 22. Rxc8 Bxc8 23. Rc1 Qe7 24. e4 {etc.}) (10. Qa4 Qxa4 11. Nxa4 Bd7 12. c6
bxc6 13. dxc6 Nb4 14. Nd4 {was equally effective for White in P.Nikolic-Lautier, Monte Carlo (rapid) 1999.})) 9. Bc4 ({Better than} 9. Qd2 $6
Nxd5 10. Bc7 (10. Nxd5 Qxd2+ 11. Kxd2 Rxd5+ {favours Black}) 10... Qxc7 11.
Nxd5 Rxd5 12. Qxd5 Be6 13. Qd2 Nc6 {when Black is way ahead in development and
certainly not without an initiative in return for the sacrificed exchange.
Tolush-Botvinnik, USSR Ch. 1939, went} 14. Rd1 Rd8 15. Qc1 Qa5+ 16. Rd2 Rd5 $1
17. Ne2 Rxc5 18. Nc3 Bxc3 19. bxc3 Rxc3 20. Qb2 Ra3 21. Qb5 Qc3 22. Qb2 Qc5 {
and there was no respite for White,} 23. Qb1 (23. Qxb7 Qc1+ 24. Ke2 Bc4+ 25.
Kf3 Qxd2 26. Bxc4 Ne5+ 27. Kg3 Rxe3+ $1) 23... Bxa2 24. Rxa2 Qa5+ 25. Rd2 Ra1
26. Bd3 Rxb1+ 27. Bxb1 Ne5 {soon leading to a decisive advantage for Black.})
9... Qxc5 (9... Be6 10. -- ({, invites} 10. e4 {
, the point being that Black has} Nxe4 {. Then} 11. Nge2 -- (11... Nxc5 12. O-O
Bd7 13. Bg5 {leads to a position in which White's pieces are more effectively
placed, with Black's less co-ordinated.}) ({
. However, this is a lesser evil than} 11... Nxf2 $6 12. Qa4 $1 Qxa4 13. Nxa4
Nxh1 14. dxe6 {which was the course taken in Pinter-K.Allen, Thessaloniki
Olympiad 1988. Black's material lead is only temporary, the game continuing}
fxe6 15. Kf1 $1 Rf8 16. Kg1 Nf2 17. Be3 (17. Kxf2 g5) 17... Be5 (17... Ng4 18.
Bxe6+ {,}) ({or} 17... Ne4 18. Bxe6+ Kh8 19. Bd5) 18. Bxf2 Bxh2+ 19. Kxh2 Rxf2
20. Kg3 Rf6 21. Nac3 Kg7 22. Nf4 Nc6 23. Nxe6+ {and White eventually won.})) ({
. Another option for White is} 10. b4 $5 Qxb4 11. Qb3 Qxb3 12. Bxb3 {, e.g.}
Nxd5 (12... Bxd5 $2 13. Rd1 e6 14. e4) 13. Nxd5 Rxd5 (13... Bxd5 $2 14. Rd1 e6
15. e4) 14. Bxb8 $1 Rxb8 15. Bxd5 Bxd5 16. Nf3 Bxa2 17. Ke2 {
with a pull for White in Milic-Shaitar, Yugoslavia 1947.})) 10. Bb3 {
Tidy play from Lalic.} ({Also possible is Pinter's} 10. Qb3 $5 a6 11. a4 Nbd7
12. e4 (12. d6 $5) 12... Qa5 13. Bd2 Nc5 14. Qc2 {. Both this and the game
continuation suggest that Black does not have enough play for the pawn once
White establishes his pawns on e4 and d5. Nonetheless ...Qa5 remains a popular
general theme in the Grünfeld at all levels.}) 10... Nc6 11. Nf3 Na5 12. O-O {
What is the fate of the d-pawn?} Bg4 ({Unfortunately for Black} 12... Nxb3 13.
Qxb3 Nxd5 $2 {fails to} 14. Rfd1 Bxc3 15. Rxc3 Qa5 16. Bc7 $1 {. Consequently
Black is left trying to obtain play by exerting pressure on White's centre in
order to generate something on the dark squares, relying on the long-range
bishop.}) 13. e4 Qb4 {Thus far Black has made the most of her situation, the
text forcing White to address both the threat to take the e4-pawn and the
overloaded queen, which defends both b3 and f3 (in the latter case to avoid
doubled pawns).} 14. Bc7 $1 {Securing an advantage at the cost of surrendering
the dark-squared bishop. In return, of course, White gets to hang on to his
extra, healthy pawn.} Bxf3 (14... Nxb3 15. Qxb3 Qxb3 16. axb3 Rd7 17. Bg3 Bxf3
18. gxf3 {gives Black nothing for the pawn, White's new f-pawn serving to
support the centre.}) 15. Bxa5 $1 ({Not} 15. Qxf3 Nxb3 16. axb3 Rd7 17. Bg3
Qxb3 {.}) 15... Qxa5 (15... Bxd1 16. Bxb4 Bxb3 17. axb3 Nd7 {.}) 16. Qxf3 Nd7 {
Black's prospects would be fine were it not for the pawn deficit. White's
bishop does not enjoy the same freedom as the one on g7 but his other pieces
are fine and, while c5 and e5 might offer Black something, a pawn is a pawn.
In fact White's next makes way for the f-pawn to first deny Black use of e5
and subsequently, after e4-e5, to close out Black's bishop.} 17. Qe3 $1 Rac8
18. f4 Qc5 19. Qxc5 Nxc5 20. e5 ({After} 20. Bc2 Bxc3 21. bxc3 b6 {White has a
bishop and Black a knight. Instead Lalic prefers to keep his knight and
frustrate Black's bishop.}) 20... Nxb3 21. axb3 f6 {White's secure knight
protects the d5-pawn, both serving to tame Black's rooks. If Black is going to
win freedom for her bishop it is necessary to challenge the e5-pawn, otherwise
White will centralize his forces - including the king - and consequently
dominate the board.} 22. Rce1 ({Refusing to be drawn into} 22. e6 f5 23. Rfd1
Rc5 {when Black goes on the offensive.}) 22... Rc5 23. g3 fxe5 24. fxe5 e6 {
Another attempt to undermine the restrictive e5-pawn,} ({
this time using the rook along the rank to meet} 24... e6 25. dxe6 {with} Bxe5
{. By now it is clear that the e5-pawn's role in demoting the bishop to
spectator status is a key factor in White's winning strategy, hence White's
next.}) 25. b4 $1 Rc4 26. dxe6 Re8 (26... Rxb4 27. e7 Re8 28. Nd5 Rxb2 29. Nf6+
Bxf6 30. exf6 Kf7 31. Rd1 {trades one advantage for another.}) 27. Rf7 Rc6 ({
This time} 27... Rxb4 {runs into} 28. Nd5 Rxb2 29. Nf6+ Bxf6 30. exf6 {, e.g.}
Rb6 31. Rg7+ Kh8 32. f7 Rc8 33. Rg8+ $1 Rxg8 34. fxg8=Q+ Kxg8 35. e7 {.}) (
27... Rxe6 {help:} 28. Rxb7 Bxe5 (28... Rxe5 $2 29. Rxg7+) 29. Kg2 a6 30. b5 $1
a5 31. Ra7 {etc.}) 28. Rxb7 Rcxe6 29. Rxa7 Rxe5 30. Rxe5 Bxe5 31. Kg2 {
Avoiding the fork on d4 and entering the final phase of the game. The exchange
of a pair of rooks and the clearance of Black's queenside pawns has brought
about an ending in which White's decisive lead should eventually be converted.
The game continued:} Rb8 32. b5 {
Again White is content with a clear-cut winning plan.} Bxc3 33. bxc3 Rxb5 34.
Kf3 Rc5 ({Or} 34... Rb3 35. Rc7 Rb2 36. h4 Rd2 37. Ke4 Rg2 38. Kf4 Re2 39. Kg5
Rf2 40. g4 {etc.}) 35. Ra3 Rc4 36. Ke3 h5 37. Kd3 Rg4 38. Rb3 Kf7 (38... h4 39.
Rb4 $1 {.}) 39. Rb4 Rg5 40. Re4 $1 {
Cutting off Black's king. The game ended as follows:} Rd5+ 41. Kc2 g5 42. c4
Ra5 43. Kb3 Kf6 44. Re2 h4 45. Kb4 Ra1 46. gxh4 Rb1+ 47. Ka5 Ra1+ 48. Kb6 Rb1+
49. Kc6 gxh4 50. c5 Kg5 51. Rc2 h3 52. Kd5 Kf6 53. Rc3 1-0

[Event "Arco"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Inkiov, V."]
[Black "Konopka, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D82"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "77"]
[EventDate "2000.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 Bg7 5. e3 ({The immediate} 5. Rc1 {
is dealt with in Dreev-Leko.}) 5... c5 {Typical of this uncompromising defence.
Black is happy to heighten the tension with a stand-off in the centre, the aim
being to clear the long diagonal for his bishop.} ({For} 5... O-O {
see Lalic-Polgar.}) 6. dxc5 Qa5 {The average Grünfeld fan loves to play ...c7-c5 followed by ...Qa5, the pin and the prospect of ...Ne4 (unleashing the
bishop) and ...Rd8 quite difficult to resist. For his part, White must also
continue with his strategy of queenside development.} 7. Rc1 dxc4 (7... Ne4 {
is the major alternative, when White has two choices:} 8. -- (8. cxd5 Nxc3 9.
Qd2 {pins a black knight on c3! Then after} Qxa2 10. bxc3 {
Black decides the fate of the queens:} -- (10... Qa5 11. Bc4 Nd7 12. Nf3 $1 (
12. Ne2 Nxc5 13. O-O O-O 14. Nd4 Bd7 {is level}) 12... Nxc5 13. Be5 {
, eliminates Black's annoying bishop,} Bxe5 14. Nxe5 f6 15. Nf3 Bd7 16. O-O b5
17. Ba2 Rc8 {resulting in an unclear position. The battle is on between
White's territorial, central supremacy and Black's queenside pawns and
pressure on the c-file. As usual with balanced chances familiarity with the
position will pay dividends.}) ({
. Instead of returning the queen to a5, Black can trade:} 10... Qxd2+ 11. Kxd2
Nd7 12. Bb5 O-O 13. Bxd7 Bxd7 14. e4 {and the struggle revolves around White's
central pawn mass. The danger for Black in the diagram position is that the
pawns might close out the bishop pair whilst marching down the middle of the
board, the semi-closed nature of the game suiting the lone knight. Kasparov
offers the following variation, in which Black exploits the fact that White's
limited influence on the light squares comes from the pawns on e4 and d5:} f5
15. e5 e6 16. c4 Rfc8 17. c6 bxc6 18. d6 g5 19. Bxg5 Bxe5 20. c5 Bg7 21. f4 h6
22. Be7 Rcb8 23. Nf3 Rb2+ 24. Rc2 Rb4 25. Ne5 Bxe5 26. fxe5 a5 {
. Not surprisingly the assessment is unclear!})) (8. Nge2 {is sensible,
highlighting the significance of holding back the king's knight. The f3-square
might cover e5 as well as d4, but from e2 the knight offers valuable support
to the pinned and consequently oft troubled c3-knight. Understandably Black is
not without options here:} -- (8... Nxc3 9. Qd2 $1 {
and White prepares to post a second knight on c3. A sample line such as} O-O (
{after} 9... e5 10. Bg3 {, followed by Nxc3, both d5 and e4 are available}) 10.
Nxc3 dxc4 11. Bxc4 Qxc5 $2 12. Nb5 $1 {, when White threatens 13 Nc7 and 13
Bxf7+, illustrates how easily Black can find himself in trouble. The rook's
potential on the c-file is a key element in this variation.}) ({. The natural} 
8... e5 $6 {backfires after} 9. Bxe5 $1 Bxe5 10. Qxd5 {, e.g.} Bxc3+ ({or} 
10... Nc6 11. Qxe4 Bf5 12. Qh4 Nb4 13. Nd4 Bxd4 14. exd4 Nc2+ 15. Kd1 {
when Black has little to show for the two pawn deficit}) 11. Nxc3 Nxc3 12. Qe5+
Kd7 13. Rxc3 {.}) (8... Nc6 9. cxd5 Nb4 {
looks menacing but White's extra protection of c3 is near decisive, e.g.} 10.
a3 Na2 11. b4 $1 -- (11... Naxc3 12. Nxc3 Bxc3+ (12... Nxc3 13. bxa5 Nxd1 14.
Bb5+ {keeps White well ahead}) 13. Rxc3 Nxc3 14. Qd4 Qxa3 15. Qxh8+ Kd7 {
. Neither king is particularly comfortable, with White's threatened with
immediate mate on c1. However, White has the move and, as is often the case in
situations with mutual threats, this decides:} 16. c6+ $1 bxc6 17. dxc6+ Kxc6
18. Qe8+ Kd5 (18... Kb6 19. Qd8+ Kc6 20. Qc7+ Kd5 21. Qc4#) 19. Qd8+ Ke6 20.
Bc4+ Kf5 21. O-O {
and now there are no prizes for guessing who has the more vulnerable king!}) ({
. Instead, Hergott-Kudrin, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988, continued} 11... Qxa3
12. Nxa2 Qxa2 13. f3 Nf6 14. e4 O-O 15. Be5 $1 Qa3 16. Qd4 Nh5 17. Bxg7 Nxg7
18. Ra1 Qb3 19. Nc1 Qc2 20. Rg1 $1 {
and the threat to trap the queen with 21 Bd3 proved too much for Black.})) (
8... dxc4 {is best. Then} 9. Qa4+ Qxa4 10. Nxa4 Bd7 11. Nec3 Nxc3 12. Nxc3 Na6
13. Bxc4 Nxc5 14. O-O O-O {offers Black decent prospects of equality, although
White's slightly more active pieces do guarantee a persistent pull.}))) 8. Bxc4
O-O ({Despite the fact that} 8... Qxc5 $4 9. Nb5 $1 {is given in numerous
places as giving White a decisive advantage, the capture on c5 is not that
uncommon - at all levels! Black's immediate problem is his queen, which is
being indirectly attacked at the moment in view of the threatened 10 Bxf7+.
Therefore after} Qb4+ (9... O-O {still allows} 10. Bxf7+) 10. Kf1 $1 {
we arrive at the analysis position:} -- ({. Now} 10... O-O 11. a3 Qa5 12. b4 {
followed by picking up the rook after 13 Nc7 is easily winning for White.}) (
10... Na6 {does defend c7 and seems to bring White's menacing play to a
standstill but, in fact, Black's queen is not much safer on b4 than c5.
Leitao-Van Wely, Antwerp 1998, saw} 11. a3 Qxb2 ({
the top GM now probably realized that} 11... Qa5 {, runs into} 12. Nc7+ $1 Nxc7
13. Bxc7 Qxc7 14. Bxf7+ {picking up the queen anyway!}) 12. Rb1 Qxb1 13. Qxb1
O-O 14. Nf3 Bf5 15. Qa2 Nc5 16. Ne5 e6 17. f3 Rfd8 18. g4 {White was soon on
his way to victory. I don't like recommending lines on the strength of
possible traps or amusing combinations, but if Van Wely (and other titled
players) can walk into this, then I'm sure 8...Qxc5?? will be played again,
particularly when we consider that this is a normal idea in this defence.})) 9.
Nge2 (9. Nf3 {leads directly to the line in which White prefaces 5 Bf4 with 4
Nf3. Here, owing to the specific order of moves, we concentrate on using the
e2-square. While Ne2 is not stronger than Nf3, there are subtle differences in
how the game might develop and, from a psychological point of view, the onus
is on Black to appreciate this.}) 9... Qxc5 10. Nb5 ({
An interesting alternative to the more usual} 10. Qb3 {
when Black has tried three moves:} -- (10... e5 $6 {tends to be a thrust that
Black plays 'because he can'. The problem, of course, is that the consequent
weakening of the d5-square plays into White's hands, more so when both knights
have access to c3. After} 11. Bg5 Nc6 12. Bxf6 $5 Bxf6 13. Ne4 Qe7 14. N2c3 Bg7
15. Qa4 Kh8 16. O-O f5 17. Nd5 Qd8 18. Nc5 {
White was making progress in Hoang Than Trang-Piankov, Budapest 1994.}) (10...
Qa5 11. O-O {and now:} -- (11... Nbd7 12. Rfd1 a6 ({instead} 12... Nc5 13. Qb5
Qxb5 14. Nxb5 Be6 15. Be5 Bxc4 16. Rxc4 Ne6 17. f3 a6 18. Nbd4 ({
but GM Rowson proposes} 18. Nc7 {with an advantage to White}) 18... Rfd8 {
was agreed drawn in Lagunov-Konopka, German League 1994}) 13. a4 Ne5 14. Nd5 $1
Nxc4 15. Nxe7+ Kh8 16. Nxc8 Nxe3 17. Bxe3 Raxc8 18. Rxc8 Rxc8 19. Qxb7 {
netted White a safe pawn in Timoshenko-Pelletier, Ubeda 1998.}) (11... Nc6 12.
Rfd1 e6 13. Nb5 e5 14. Bg3 Ne4 15. Bd5 Nd2 16. Qd3 Nb4 17. Qxd2 Qxb5 18. Bc4
Qb6 19. a3 Nc6 {was the interesting course of Hoang Thanh Trang-A.Gara,
Hungarian League 1995. Again the d5-square beckons, and with} 20. Nc3 Rd8 21.
Nd5 Qc5 22. Bh4 $1 Rd7 23. Qe2 {White was able to create an initiative.})) (
10... Nc6 11. Nb5 Qh5 12. Ng3 Qh4 13. Nc7 {
and now there are two ways of dealing with the f4-bishop:} -- (13... g5 $5 {
and here:} 14. -- (14. Bxg5 {is the simplest,} Qxg5 15. Nxa8 Bd7 16. Qxb7 Rb8 (
16... Qa5+ 17. b4 Nxb4 18. O-O Bc6 19. Qc7 Qa3 20. Nf5 $1 Bxa8 21. Qxe7 {
is good for White}) 17. Qc7 ({also possible is} 17. Qa6 Rxa8 18. Be2 $5 {
with the idea of} Rc8 ({perhaps Black should head for the ending with} 18...
Qa5+ 19. Qxa5 Nxa5 20. Rc7 Bc6 21. Bf3 Bxf3 22. gxf3) 19. Bb5 Qd5 20. O-O {
and White's rooks are in control}) 17... Rxa8 18. Ba6 {
having been assessed as unclear, which seems reasonable.}) ({
. Black experiences more difficulty after} 14. Nf5 $5 {
. This pesky knight looks like a winner, since after} Bxf5 15. Bg3 Qe4 ({and} 
15... Qg4 16. Nxa8 Na5 17. Qb5 Nxc4 18. Rxc4 Bd3 19. Rxg4 Bxb5 20. Rxg5) 16. f3
Nd4 (16... Na5 {transposes}) 17. Bxf7+ $1 Rxf7 (17... Kh8 18. fxe4 Nxb3 19.
Bxb3) 18. Qxf7+ Kxf7 19. fxe4 {White emerges with a points lead.}) ({
. However, matters are less clear after} 14. Nf5 Bxf5 15. Bg3 {
, when the game Gretarsson-Schandorrf, Gentofte 1999, went} Nd4 $5 ({or} 15...
Na5 16. Qb5 Qe4 17. Qxa5 Rad8 {, although} 18. O-O {
is awkward for Black thanks to the rather comical g5-pawn}) 16. exd4 ({
the alternative} 16. Qxb7 {has been tagged with a '?' and accompanied by} Rab8
17. Qxa7 Qe4 18. Qxd4 Qxg2 19. Rf1 Ne4 {
, with an attack for Black, but White seems to be doing better than fine after}
(19... Ng4 20. Qc5) 20. Be5 Bxe5 21. Qxe5) 16... Qe4+ 17. Kf1 Rac8 {
and White was effectively a rook down.})) (13... e5 {
springs to mind more readily.} 14. -- ({. Then} 14. Nf5 $2 Bxf5 {is different
because there are no possible attacks on the f5-bishop and g5 is available to
Black's queen.}) ({
. In Piskov-Dvoirys, Podolsk 1992, Black had a dangerous initiative after} 14.
Bh6 $2 Bxh6 15. Nxa8 Ng4 16. Nc7 Nd4 $1 17. Qa3 Nf5 18. Nd5 Ngxe3 $1 {.}) ({
. Krasenkov believes this to be an endorsement of 13...e5 and goes on to
evaluate the position after} 14. Bxe5 $1 Nxe5 15. Nxa8 Bd7 {as giving Black
compensation for the exchange. However, this appears somewhat optimistic in
view of} 16. Nc7 Rc8 17. Be2 {
, when Black cannot extract enough from the pin, e.g.} Ne8 18. Qxb7 Qd8 ({or} 
18... Nd6 19. Qb3 Ne8 20. f4 $1 Nxc7 21. Qb7 $1 Qd8 22. fxe5 Bxe5 23. O-O {
and Black is an exchange down for nothing}) 19. Qxa7 Nxc7 20. O-O {
. White has too many pawns and a rook for two pieces.})))) 10... Be6 ({
Black can be forgiven for steering clear of} 10... Qb4+ 11. Kf1 {because the
queen is running short of breathing space. In order to worry the queen White
has relinquished the right to castle, in itself a significant concession.
Consequently Black looks to be holding his own even after 'losing' the queen:}
-- ({. Krasenkov likes} 11... Ne4 12. a3 Nd2+ 13. Kg1 Qxb2 14. Rc2 Nxc4 15.
Rxb2 Nxb2 {when Black's knight picks up a rook and bishop for the queen.
Meanwhile White's remaining rook is stuck in the corner on the wrong side of
the king. De Firmian-Wolff, New York 1987, continued} 16. Qc2 Na6 17. Nbd4 e5
18. Qxb2 Nc5 19. h4 $1 Nd3 20. Qb5 Nxf4 21. Nxf4 exf4 22. h5 fxe3 23. fxe3 {
with chances for both sides.}) (11... a6 $1 12. a3 Qxb2 13. Rb1 Qxb1 14. Qxb1
axb5 15. Bxb5 {is also feasible, as long as Black finds} Rxa3 $1 {
, when Dydyshko-Begun, USSR 1990, continued} 16. Qb2 (16. Bxb8 $2 {runs into}
Ne4 17. Qe1 Ra1 18. Nc1 Bb2 {- Dydyshko}) 16... Ra8 17. Be5 Nc6 18. Bxc6 bxc6
19. h3 {and a draw was agreed.})) 11. Qb3 {
Whether or not White should jump into c7 is a difficult matter to judge.} ({
Here, for example,} 11. Nc7 $6 Bxc4 12. Nxa8 Na6 $1 {rebounds on White.}) 11...
Bxc4 12. Rxc4 Qf5 13. Ng3 (13. Nc7 {
makes more sense now (and on the next move) but the position is equal after}
Nc6 14. Nxa8 Na5 {etc.}) 13... Qd7 14. O-O Nc6 15. Rd1 Qc8 {Thus far the queen
is responsible for a third of the fifteen moves played by Black, White having
developed with tempo to begin the middlegame with modest but definite pressure
thanks to the pin on the c-file and Black's subsequent structural weakness.}
16. Nd4 $1 Rd8 ({Black can avoid being saddled with a broken queenside with} 
16... Nxd4 {, but after} 17. Rdxd4 $1 {the b7-pawn drops.}) 17. Nxc6 Rxd1+ 18.
Qxd1 bxc6 19. e4 Qe6 20. b3 a5 {In an otherwise level position White has a
comfortable advantage in view of the easy target on c6. Black is without
counterplay.} 21. h4 $6 {An odd move decision. White should clearly be
attacking on the queenside - if only to tie Black down before switching flanks.
Even if this is White's intention the timing seems inappropriate, so perhaps
the text is designed purely for psychological reasons, reminding Black who
holds the lead.} ({Nevertheless} 21. h3 {is preferable for the time being,
defending g4 as well as creating an escape square on h2.}) 21... Nd7 22. Qc2 c5
23. Be3 Rd8 24. Qd1 $6 {
White's approach to this game is hardly straightforward.} ({Here the simple} 
24. Bxc5 {would be the logical culmination of White's queenside play, but the
Bulgarian GM prefers to prolong his opponent's discomfort by allowing the
liability to remain for the time being. In fact the rest of the game is a
continuation of this theme, with White looking to demonstrate that the
difference between the queenside pawns is decisive.}) 24... Qb6 25. Rc2 Bd4 26.
Rd2 Ne5 ({White might begin to regret his casual approach after} 26... Bxe3 $1
27. Rxd7 Bd4 28. Rxd8+ Qxd8 {when the advantage is slipping away.}) 27. Ne2 Nc6
28. Bg5 f6 29. Bf4 e5 30. Be3 Kf7 31. Qc1 Bxe3 {Avoiding this exchange puts
the onus on White to make progress. Now White's doubled pawns defend and
control d4 and d5 respectively.} 32. fxe3 Nb4 $2 {Correct square, wrong piece.}
33. a3 Nc6 34. Qc4+ Kg7 35. Rxd8 $6 ({More to the point is} 35. Rd5 $1 {
, once again focusing on the c-pawn. However, White is able to prove his point
anyway thanks to Black's now glaring weaknesses on a5, c5 and d5.}) 35... Nxd8
36. Nc3 Ne6 37. Na4 Qd6 38. Qd5 Qa6 (38... Qxd5 {alters nothing, e.g.} 39. exd5
Nc7 40. d6 Ne6 41. d7 Kf7 42. Nxc5 Nd8 43. b4 {etc.}) 39. Kf2 {. I suspect
that Father Time might have caught up with Black, although in the position
Black is almost in zugzwang.} 1-0

[Event "Wijk aan Zee"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1996.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Dreev, A."]
[Black "Leko, P."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D82"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[EventDate "1996.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 Bg7 5. Rc1 {By activating his queenside as
quickly as possible - now doing without e2-e3 as well as Nf3 - White prepares
for a central skirmish.} Nh5 {With White yet to even disturb his kingside
Black sets about denying the bishop its desired outpost.} (5... O-O 6. e3 {
transposes to Lalic-Polgar.}) ({An alternative is} 5... dxc4 {
. Then White can justify his move order with} 6. e4 {, when} c5 {
is the only way in which Black can challenge the otherwise formidable centre.}
7. dxc5 Qa5 8. Bxc4 O-O ({Black should avoid} 8... Nxe4 $2 9. Qd5) {. Now} 9.
e5 $5 {requires precise play from Black. Portisch-Nunn, Interzonal play-off,
Budapest 1987, continued} Nfd7 (9... Ng4 10. e6) (9... Ne4 10. Qa4 $1 Qxa4 11.
Nxa4 Bd7 12. Bd5 $1) ({, and} 9... Nh5 10. Bd2 Bxe5 11. Nf3 {
are all clearly better for White}) 10. Nf3 Nxc5 (10... Nc6 11. e6) 11. O-O Nc6
12. Nd5 Be6 13. b4 $1 Nxb4 14. Nxe7+ Kh8 15. Bd2 Rad8 16. Bxe6 fxe6 (16... Nxe6
17. Rc4) 17. a3 $1 Qxa3 18. Rxc5 Na6 19. Nxg6+ hxg6 20. Rc2 {
and White had the better of a complex position.}) 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 {It is more
appropriate to keep the bishop actively placed rather than drop back to d2. It
is true that on f4 the bishop teamed up with the rook to exert pressure on c7,
but by chasing it to another diagonal Black's knight no longer protects d5
(and e4).} dxc4 {Solving the problem of the stand-off in the centre. Before
investigating Black's other option in this sector let us look at what happens
of Black continues to harass the bishop:} (7... g5 {is not inconsistent, but
Black must be careful when contemplating such a committal alteration to his
kingside pawn structure, particularly when castling queenside is not a
realistic possibility. In fact with} 8. e3 $1 {
Black is practically forced to retreat. After} Nf6 (8... gxh4 9. Qxh5 {is awful
}) 9. Bg3 c6 {Black has an already inferior version of the Slav (White's
dark-squared bishop is usually shut in by the e3-pawn) with the added
inconvenience of weaker kingside pawns. Rogozenko-Munteanu, Bucharest 1992,
illustrated this well:} 10. Bd3 dxc4 11. Bxc4 O-O 12. Nf3 Bf5 13. O-O Nbd7 14.
Qe2 Ne4 15. Rfd1 {and White - with simple, patient play - had the advantage.
In fact after the trade of Black's light-squared bishop for a knight White
eventually managed to line up his bishop and queen on the b1-h7 diagonal.}) (
7... c5 {, as usual in this opening, counters the challenge to Black's d-pawn
with an attack on its opposite number. However,} 8. e3 cxd4 9. exd4 dxc4 10.
Bxc4 O-O 11. d5 $1 {stakes a claim for central territory, reminding Black that
his knight on the edge of the board is far less effective than the bishop it
set out to nullify. In Dydyshko-Novik, Katowice 1992, Black tried to justify
his play thus far by seeing his strategy through, rather than eventually
accept a loss of time by returning the knight to f6. Indeed after} Nd7 12. Nf3
g5 13. Bg3 Nxg3 14. hxg3 g4 15. Nh4 $5 (15. Nd4 {looks sensible}) 15... Ne5 16.
Bb3 Qb6 17. O-O Bd7 {Black's kingside frailties were more or less offset by
his well placed knight and the bishop pair.}) 8. e3 Be6 {Beginning a stubborn
campaign which is designed, quite simply, to hang on to the extra pawn. It is
often sensible to get on with development in these circumstances, but Black's
idea appears to be an effective one.} (8... O-O {was the more accommodating
approach of Gabriel-Oral, European Team Ch. 1999. After} 9. Bxc4 c6 10. Nge2 ({
in this case} 10. Nf3 {is natural}) 10... Nd7 11. O-O Nb6 12. Bb3 Nd5 {
White went for a modest but long-term edge with} 13. Nxd5 ({perhaps instead of
bringing about a symmetrical pawn structure by taking on d5 White should
consider} 13. Ne4 {
with a view to lodging the knight on c5 and following up with a later e3-e4})
13... cxd5 14. Nc3 Bf6 $1 15. Bxf6 Nxf6 16. Qf3 Be6 17. Qf4 h5 18. Nb5 {
. It is true that White's game is easier to play thanks to his slightly
superior pieces and presence on the c-file, but accuracy is called for in
order to maintain any winning chances.}) 9. Be2 ({
More threatening than the routine} 9. Nf3 {
, White puts the knight in his sights. How Black responds is down to choice.})
9... Nf6 {This is consistent with the overall plan of defending the c4-pawn
and refusing to relinquish a hold on the centre.} ({Not surprisingly Black can
again call his opponent's bluff by hitting out with his loyal c-pawn:} 9... c5
10. Bxh5 cxd4 {.} 11. -- ({. Then} 11. Bf3 $6 dxc3 $1 12. Qxd8+ Kxd8 13. Bxb7
cxb2 14. Rd1+ Kc7 15. Bxa8 Rd8 $1 {is best avoided since Black's passed pawns
are worth at least the sacrificed rook, e.g.} 16. Be4 (16. Rb1 c3 17. Be4 Bf5)
16... Bf5 17. Bxf5 gxf5 18. Rb1 c3 19. Nf3 c2 20. Ke2 cxb1=Q 21. Rxb1 Nc6 {etc.
}) ({. Consequently, Yusupov-Stohl, German League 1995, continued} 11. exd4
gxh5 12. Nge2 Bg4 13. h3 $1 Bxe2 14. Qxe2 Nc6 15. O-O Qxd4 (15... Nxd4 16. Qxh5
{and 17 Rfe1 with compensation for the pawn}) 16. Qxh5 {
and now Black should have played Yusupov's proposed} Qe5 ({instead of} 16...
O-O $6 17. Rfe1 $1 Qd6 18. Nd5 Qg6 19. Qf3 {with a clear advantage to White})
17. Qf3 Qd4 {limiting White, who enjoys the more sound pawn structure, better
pieces and a definite initiative for the pawn, to a slight advantage.})) 10.
Nf3 c6 11. Ne5 ({Ftacnik prefers this to} 11. O-O O-O (11... Nbd7 $5) 12. Ne5
b5 13. b3 cxb3 14. axb3 a6 15. Qc2 {
which was agreed drawn in J.Horvath-Fogarasi, Zalakaros 1994.}) 11... b5 12. f4
$5 {Ftacnik goes as far as to give this blunt-looking push a '!'. Maybe this
is optimistic but it is logical to bolster the strongpoint on e5, providing
the bishop with a re-route possibility back on f2/g3. Certainly Black's recent
efforts have concentrated on the queenside, so in this respect White should be
looking to the other flank for aggressive ideas.} Nd5 (12... b4 {
is tempting but draws unwanted attention to both c4 and c5 (and b4), e.g.} 13.
Na4 Ne4 14. Bxc4 Bxc4 15. Rxc4 {
and the knight on e4 is less useful than it looks.}) 13. Qd2 {Defending the
e3-pawn, supporting the f4-pawn and thus preparing e3-e4, hence Black's next.}
Nxc3 14. bxc3 {Further reinforcement of White's centre.} ({
However, Leko's suggestion of} 14. Qxc3 $5 {deserves tests. Then} Bd5 15. O-O
Nd7 16. b3 $1 Nxe5 17. fxe5 cxb3 18. axb3 O-O 19. Bf3 {
reintroduces the threat of e3-e4. Leko offers} g5 20. Bg3 Rc8 {
with the fair opinion that White has compensation for the pawn.}) 14... Bd5 15.
Qc2 {The struggle for the e4-square continues.} (15. O-O {gives Black time for}
Nd7 {.}) 15... Bf6 ({Before grabbing the g2-pawn Black sensibly chases away an
active piece (unless White makes the mistake of unhinging his own knight after
} 15... Bf6 16. Bxf6 $2 exf6 {).}) 16. Bf2 $6 {I have a feeling both players
were already aware of the game was to end at this point.} ({
Otherwise White has another option in} 16. Bg3 {, intending to meet} Bxg2 17.
Rg1 Qd5 {with} 18. Bxc4 bxc4 19. Rxg2 Nd7 20. e4 {when White has a menacing
pawn centre and good development for the pawn. In view of Black's possibility
in the main game on the 19th move this variation should be investigated
further.}) 16... Bxg2 17. Rg1 Qd5 (17... Bd5 18. e4 Be6 {is messy and comes
down to taste. White is clearly the aggressor and has much the easier game in
terms of space and choice, but Black is a pawn up.}) 18. Rxg2 {
No doubt the point of the previous selection.} Qxg2 19. Bf3 Qh3 ({
Black can try for the win with} 19... Qxh2 {, e.g.} 20. Ng4 (20. Nxc6 Bh4 $1)
20... Qh3 21. Ke2 h5 {, when} 22. Rh1 ({while} 22. Nxf6+ exf6 23. d5 {
keeps up the pressure but at what cost?}) 22... hxg4 23. Rxh3 gxh3 {
sees White running out of pieces.}) 20. Bg4 Qg2 ({
Denying White's queen the use of the e4-square, although} 20... Qxh2 {
is also possible here.}) 21. Bf3 Qh3 22. Bg4 Qg2 23. Bf3 1/2-1/2

[Event "Doha"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1993.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sakaev, K."]
[Black "Guseinov, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E20"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "107"]
[EventDate "1993.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 c5 5. d5 Nh5 {Black continues to
concentrate on his opponent's weakened dark squares. Knights on the rim are
not always 'dim', the text releasing the queen and monitoring g3 to add weight
to the check on h4.} 6. Nh3 {
For me this is the whole point of the 4 f3 variation.} ({
It is true that the alternative} 6. g3 {denies Black his check, but we are
happy to see Black's queen travel around the board at this early stage of the
game.}) 6... Qh4+ 7. Nf2 {The knight is well placed on f2, where it does not
obstruct the other pieces and is ready to operate on either flank.} Qxc4 8. e4
Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Qxc3+ 10. Bd2 {In chess, as in life, everything has a price. Of
course we don't necessarily assign the same value to certain factors and,
fortunately, this is what makes life interesting. A glance at the diagram
position is enough to give us two contrasting approaches - Black puts material
ahead of development (and inconvenience), while White is interested only in
getting his pieces working together as quickly as possible. Both arguments
have their logic, so - as usual - it is a matter of taste and style.} Qd4 {
The most popular choice, leaving the queen in the heart of enemy territory.
The central position alone seems justification enough, but d4 does have its
problems. Let us have a look at the alternatives.} (10... Qe5 {is similar to
the main line but does not 'pin' the d2-bishop. White does better with} 11. Rc1
{when Black has two ways to protect c5.} ({The point is that} 11. Qc1 exd5 12.
Bc3 {meets with} d4 {.}) 11... -- ({. After} 11... d6 12. g4 {
there is a further branch:} -- (12... Nf6 13. f4 Qd4 14. Rc4 Qb2 15. g5 {
(with these consistent attacks White hopes to find a way in)} Nfd7 16. dxe6 {
is typical of what might happen. White does seem to be making progress, e.g.}
Nb6 (16... fxe6 17. Bc3 Qa3 18. Qxd6 Nb6 19. Rxc5) 17. Rc2 Qa3 (17... Qd4 18.
Bb5+ Nc6 19. Qf3 {and Bc3 is coming}) 18. Bc3 Bxe6 19. Qxd6 N8d7 20. Bxg7 Rg8
21. Bf6 Nxf6 22. gxf6 Qb4+ (22... Qe3+ 23. Be2 Nc8 24. Qc7) 23. Rd2 Qb1+ 24.
Ke2 Qb5+ 25. Ke3 Qd7 26. Qxc5 Rc8 27. Qa3 {. Of course such a line needs
testing, but Black can easily find himself in trouble.}) (12... Nf4 13. Bc3 Qg5
14. h4 {.} -- ({. Now} 14... Qg6 15. dxe6 Nxe6 (15... O-O 16. e7 Re8 17. Qd2 $1
Ne6 18. Qxd6 Nc6 19. Bb5) 16. Qxd6 Nc6 17. f4 {
and White has formidable kingside pawns. Then} Ned4 (17... Ncd4 {
keeps the c5-pawn but still leaves f4-f5 looming. After} 18. Rh3 $1 Qf6 19. f5
Ng5 ({while} 19... Qd8 20. Qg3 Nf8 21. Qe5+ {hits g7}) 20. Qxf6 Ngf3+ 21. Rxf3
Nxf3+ 22. Ke2 Ng1+ 23. Ke3 gxf6 24. Bxf6 {the errant knight will soon drop})
18. Qxc5 b6 19. Qd5 {sees Black lose his material advantage and suffer on the
dark squares in the process. After} Qe6 (19... Be6 {runs into} 20. Qxc6+ $1
Nxc6 21. h5 Qxg4 (21... Qh6 22. g5) 22. Nxg4 Bxg4 23. Bb5 Bd7 24. h6) 20. Bxd4
Qxd5 21. exd5 Nxd4 22. Rc4 {another piece comes under fire:} Nf3+ 23. Ke2 Bb7
$5 24. Kxf3 Bxd5+ 25. Ne4 Bxc4 26. Bxc4 {
with two excellent minor pieces for a rook.}) (14... Qh6 {
is slightly different:} 15. g5 Qg6 16. dxe6 O-O {. White should continue} (
16... Nxe6 17. Qxd6 Nc6 18. f4 Nxg5 19. Qd3 Ne6 20. f5 Qh6 21. Bd2) 17. Qxd6 {
. The natural} ({after} 17. e7 Re8 18. Qd2 {Black has} Nh5) 17... Nxe6 ({when} 
17... fxe6 18. Qxc5 {is unclear}) 18. f4 {is tricky for Black.} f5 (18... Nd4
19. Qxc5 Nf3+ 20. Ke2 Qh5 {loses to} 21. Qxf8+ $1 Kxf8 22. Bb4+ Ke8 23. Rxc8+
Kd7 24. Bh3+) ({and} 18... Rd8 {invites} 19. Qxb8 Rxb8 20. h5) 19. gxf6 Rd8 (
19... gxf6 20. f5) 20. f5 Rxd6 (20... Qh6 21. f7+ $1 Kxf7 22. fxe6+ Bxe6 23.
Qxd8 Qxc1+ 24. Nd1) 21. fxg6 {, e.g.} hxg6 ({or} 21... gxf6 22. gxh7+ Kxh7 23.
Bxf6 {and Black's kingside is bare}) 22. fxg7 Nxg7 23. Rg1 Nd7 (23... Nc6 24.
e5) 24. Bc4+ {with plentiful play for the pawn.}))) (11... b6 {
meets with the same response, namely kingside expansion.} 12. g4 {and now:} --
(12... Nf4 13. Bc3 Qg5 14. h4 Qh6 {. Here Black does not threaten to close
with ...e5. Moreover the e5-square is not defended. Consequently White's
kingside prospects are improved. Here is a sample variation:} 15. Qd2 $1 f6 16.
g5 fxg5 17. Ng4 Qg6 18. h5 $1 {and White achieves his goal. . Taking on h5
sees the queen and knight continue their troubled relationship after} Nxh5 ({
no help is} 18... Qf7 19. h6 Rg8 20. hxg7 Rxg7 21. Bxg7 Qxg7 22. Rxh7 Qf8 23.
Qh2 Ng6 24. Qh5 {
; note that Black's doomed queen has taken ten moves to reach f8!}) 19. Ne5 $1
({better than the awkward} 19. dxe6 Nc6) 19... Qh6 20. dxe6 dxe6 21. Ng4 Qg6 {
, when} 22. Bb5+ {is too much for Black (} Ke7 23. Rd1 {).}) ({
. In Khenkin-Kholmov, Voskresensk 1990, Black was less adventurous, choosing} 
12... Nf6 {. However, this seems a bit too accommodating since White is free
to launch his kingside pawns.} 13. f4 Qc7 14. g5 Ng8 15. Bc3 Kf8 16. d6 Qd8 {
. Black's queen, having taken six of the sixteen moves, returns to base.
White's powerful dark-squared bishop has no opposition and the space advantage
is enormous, but he is two pawns down. Unclear is a fair assessment! After} 17.
Qd2 h6 18. Qb2 Rh7 {Khenkin stepped up a gear:} 19. g6 $5 fxg6 20. Rg1 Nf6 21.
Rxg6 Qe8 22. Rg1 Qf7 23. Bd3 {
and White had succeeded in giving his pieces maximum activity.}))) (10... Qf6 {
is seen less often. Again Black opts to monitor the kingside, where White
plans to make his presence felt.} 11. g4 Nf4 12. g5 $5 {is an uncompromising
policy, causing the queen further inconvenience. Black will have difficulty on
the dark squares whether or not he accepts the latest pawn offer.} -- (12...
Qe5 13. Qc1 Ng6 14. Bc3 Qd6 15. Bxg7 Rg8 16. Bd4 $1 Na6 (16... b6 17. Ng4) 17.
Bc3 {offers White excellent prospects for the pawn, as the following
variations illustrate:} -- (17... b6 $6 {looks too slow; e.g.} 18. Ng4 Ke7 19.
Nh6 Rf8 (19... Re8 20. Bf6+ Kf8 21. Qc3 {transposes, as} e5 {permits} 22. Bg7+
$1 Kxg7 23. Nf5+ {etc.}) 20. Bg7 Re8 21. Qc3 $1 Qf4 (21... e5 22. Nf5+) 22.
Qf6+ Qxf6 23. gxf6+ Kd8 24. Nxf7+ {and Black is struggling.}) (17... exd5 {
makes more sense, putting to good use Black's collection of pawns. Then} 18.
Ng4 Kf8 19. Nf6 d4 $1 (19... Rh8 20. Nxd5) 20. Nxg8 Kxg8 $1 (20... dxc3 $6 21.
Nf6 Qe5 22. Nxh7+ Kg7 23. Nf6) 21. Bd2 Ne5 22. Kf2 Qe7 {prepares to bring the
bishop and rook into the game. White's king is no better than its counterpart
and Black has two pawns for the exchange, but the bishop pair have long-term
potential. White can make slow but sure progress with} 23. f4 Nc6 24. Qb1 $1
Nc7 25. Bd3 d6 26. Qc2 {
activating his rooks before advancing either the e- or f-pawn (or even h4-h5).}
)) (12... Qxg5 {walks into a pin but at least keeps the knight on f4. With
black queen now on the kingside White can turn to the other flank, and after}
13. Qc1 e5 14. Qxc5 Na6 15. Bxa6 bxa6 16. Rc1 Qd8 {
Black still needs to defend accurately.} 17. -- ({
. In Fahimi-Gottschlich, Schoeneck 1996, he failed to do so, capitulating after
} 17. d6 Ng6 $4 ({instead the sober} 17... O-O 18. Qxe5 Ng6 {
offers Black a decent game}) 18. Ba5 {. His extra pawn is irrelevant and there
are the usual problems on the dark squares (c7 is weak), but White's kingside
structure is not ideal.}) (17. Ba5 {
is a worthy alternative to the tricky 17 d6 - after} d6 18. Qc6+ Bd7 19. Bxd8
Bxc6 20. Bc7 Bd7 21. Bxd6 f6 22. Kd2 {gives White an edge.}))) ({
The most frequently seen alternative to the game continuation is} 10... Qa3 {
, hoping to make a nuisance of the queen on the queenside rather than worry
about White's inevitable initiative on the kingside.} 11. -- (11. e5 {
'traps' the knight on h5, but} Qb2 $1 12. Ne4 Qxe5 13. Bc3 Qxd5 14. Qc2 O-O 15.
Rd1 Qc6 {saw Black successfully regroup and in Hochstrasser-Cebalo, Cannes
1996, when the four pawn advantage eventually told.}) ({
. The immediate and consistent} 11. g4 Nf6 12. g5 {
was seen in Eslon-Bevia, Javea 1992. In the game} Ng8 (12... Nh5 13. f4 g6 {
creates further weaknesses on the dark squares}) 13. Rg1 e5 14. Rg3 $5 Qb2 15.
Rb1 Qd4 16. Qc1 {
highlighted the problems Black can run into with his queen. After} a6 (16... d6
$4 17. Bc3 Qa4 18. Bb5+) 17. Bc3 Qa4 18. Bxe5 {White soon won.}) (11. Rb1 {
has a stamp of approval from Vadim Milov. White aims to gain more time at the
expense of the black queen and he is content to leave the knight on h5. In
fact in Sakalauskas-Cebalo, Graz 1994, Black brought the knight back into play:
} Nf6 12. Qc2 Na6 13. Bb5 c4 14. Qxc4 exd5 15. exd5 O-O 16. O-O d6 17. Bc3 Bf5
18. Rb3 {and now the lesser evil} Qc5 (18... Qxa2 19. Ra1 Qc2 20. Rb2 Rfc8 21.
Bc6 $1 b5 22. Qd4 {1-0}) 19. Qf4 {(} Bc2 20. Bxf6 gxf6 21. Rc1 {
) was better than Cebalo's 18...Qxa2.})) 11. Qc1 exd5 {
Consistent with Black's pawn-grabbing policy.} ({In Steffens-Siegmund,
Nettetal 1991, Black added to the tension in the centre with} 11... f5 {
, but after} 12. Bc3 Qa4 13. Qg5 O-O 14. Qxh5 Qc2 15. Bd2 exd5 16. Bd3 Qb2 17.
Rc1 {he had much less compensation than in the main line. In fact White's
considerable development lead in these positions effectively negates the
defender's extra pawns. The game continued} c4 18. Nd1 Qb6 19. Ne3 $5 cxd3 20.
Nxd5 Qe6 21. Nc7 Qxa2 22. Nxa8 Nc6 23. Rd1 Nd4 24. O-O g6 25. Qh6 d5 26. Nc7
dxe4 27. fxe4 {and Black decided enough was enough. Notice from this example
that the player with the extra piece tends to enjoy more activity, the onus
being on the defender to weather the storm. Many players on the black side of
this variation simply look at the points tally (i.e. 'a piece is worth three
pawns') rather than the situation as a whole.}) 12. Bc3 Qa4 13. Qg5 {Now it is 
White's turn to send his queen into enemy territory, but this time the arrival
is less welcome. Black must address the problem of what to do about h5, d5 e5
and g7. Of course it is impossible to defend all the weaknesses.} O-O {
The most natural, tidy choice, abandoning the knight in favour of concentrating
on his pawn mass. Not surprisingly in this already complex position, a couple
of alternatives deserve our attention.} (13... d4 {
is premature in view of White's new option along the fifth rank, namely} 14.
Qxc5 $1 ({an improvement on} 14. Bd2 {; this change of direction ignores the
dim knight and instead announces two fresh threats, forking c8 and d4}) 14...
-- {and now:} (14... dxc3 15. Qxc8+ Ke7 16. Qc5+ $1 {
followed by 17 Qxh5 is a simple route for White}) ({, while} 14... Nc6 15. Bd2
Nf6 16. Bb5 b6 17. Qxc6 $1 {
is another example of a quick knockout brought about by Black's wayward queen.}
) ({. This leaves} 14... Qc6 15. Qxd4 O-O {
, when White should prepare an effective deployment of his rook with} 16. Rb1
$1 ({instead of the automatic} 16. g4) 16... -- {
and now in V.Milov-Oren, Israel 1993,} ({, in view of} 16... d6 $2 17. Rb5 Nf6
({not} 17... g6 $4 18. Qh8# {mate!}) 18. Rg5 Nbd7 (18... Kh8 $4 19. Qxf6) 19.
Bb5 {, when Black is caught in the firing line}) ({, or} 16... a6 $2 17. g4 Nf6
18. Rb6 Qc7 19. Rxf6 {etc.}) ({, Black sent his queen over to the kingside with
} 16... Qg6 {and found himself under great pressure after} 17. Rb5 {. The immediate threat is 18 Rxh5, although Black has more than two-movers to worry about.
} -- ({. Milov gives the following lines to illustrate this:} 17... Nf4 {
sends the knight to e6 in order to protect g7. However, White's initiative is
such that the kingside offensive is easy to conduct:} 18. Qe3 Ne6 19. h4 f6 (
19... h5 20. g4 {does not hold back the tide}) 20. h5 Qf7 21. h6 g6 22. Ng4 Qe7
23. e5 $1 fxe5 24. Qxe5 Kf7 25. Bb4 {.}) ({. With} 17... Nf6 {Black hopes to
alleviate the pressure on the long diagonal with minimal loss of time. Then
play might continue} 18. Nd3 Nc6 19. Qe3 d6 20. Rg5 Qh6 21. Qf4 {, and now} Nh5
({the circumspect} 21... Kh8 {is necessary, when} 22. Qxd6 Be6 23. Bd2 Rad8 {
sees White emerge with the superior position after} 24. Qa3 ({or} 24. Qg3 {
thanks in no small part to his wonderful dark-squared bishop})) 22. Qh4 g6 23.
Nf4 f6 24. Nxh5 fxg5 (24... Qxg5 25. Bc4+ {,} ({or} 25. Nxf6+)) 25. Bc4+ {
is a nice reminder of the brute force of the bishop pair.}) ({. Oren found} 
17... Nc6 18. Qd2 d5 $1 {. Unfortunately for Black - now without even a
material lead to ease the pain - there was no respite:} ({correctly avoiding} 
18... d6 19. Rg5 Qh6 20. Rxg7+ $1) (18... f5 19. g4 $1 fxg4 20. Qd5+) ({and} 
18... h6 19. g4 Nf6 20. g5 {; e.g.} a6 21. Rc5 Nh7 22. gxh6 Qxh6 23. Qxh6 gxh6
24. Ng4 Re8 25. Nxh6+ Kf8 26. Rg1) 19. Rxd5 h6 20. Bd3 $1 f5 $6 (20... -- {
the threat was} 21. g4 Nf6 22. e5) ({, or if} 20... Be6 21. g4 Nf6 {, then} 22.
Nh3 $1 Rad8 23. Nf4 Qh7 24. O-O $5) 21. O-O f4 ({otherwise} 21... -- 22. exf5
Bxf5 23. Bxf5 Rxf5 24. Rxf5 Qxf5 25. g4 Qg6 26. Qd5+) ({, or} 21... Ne7 22. Re5
) 22. Rd6 Qf7 23. Bc2 $1 Kh7 (23... Qxa2 24. e5) 24. Ng4 Be6 25. e5+ Kh8 26.
Qd3 Bf5 27. Nxh6 $1 {. The game ended} Bxd3 28. Nxf7+ Rxf7 29. Bxd3 Rc7 30. Rd1
(30. Bg6 Ne7) 30... Ne7 31. Bb4 Nc6 32. Bg6 $1 Rg8 33. Be1 {1-0.})))) ({
Returning to 13 Qg5, another try for Black is} 13... d6 14. Qxh5 d4 15. Bd2 Be6
{. Black's reasoning for not castling is that the king will be safer on the
queenside. In Marin-Vehi Bach, Roses 1992, Black did not make the best of this
plan. There followed} 16. Be2 Nc6 17. O-O O-O-O 18. Rfc1 {. With Black's extra
pawns employed merely as protection for the king it is logical to assume that
the piece deficit becomes more important. Planting his rooks on the b- and
c-files will facilitate White's quest to exploit his fire-power. Perhaps this
had something to do with Black's decision to use his queenside pawns more
positively, although} c4 19. f4 $1 f6 20. Bd1 Qa3 $2 ({of course} 20... Qa6 {
keeps the game going, but} 21. f5 Bg8 22. Qg4 Rd7 23. Be2 {is the first step
in the process of halting (or blockading) the pawns in preparation for making
an assault on Black's outnumbered army}) 21. Bg4 {brought an abrupt end to the
game anyway (when the c4-pawn goes so does any hope of survival).}) 14. Qxh5 (
14. Qxd5 Nf4 15. Qxc5 d5 16. Bb5 Qc2 17. O-O dxe4 18. Rac1 Ne2+ 19. Bxe2 Qxe2
20. Qe5 f6 21. Qd5+ Kh8 22. Nxe4 {turned out well for White in the game
Machelett-Cordes, Germany 1996, but I much prefer to simply take the piece and
set about dismantling Black's position.}) 14... d4 15. Bd2 d6 {It helps Black
that he still has all eight pawns because this restricts White's pieces, and
establishing the solid cluster of pawns in the centre fits in well with the
general plan of frustrating White's strategy of making the extra piece tell.
Black also has two connected passed pawns. On the downside there is a danger
that White can more or less ignore the pawn mass and generate sufficient
activity anyway, or - worse - immobilize the pawns as well as have an
initiative!} 16. Be2 Nc6 17. O-O Be6 18. Rfc1 {White adopts a patient policy,
monitoring the enemy pawns and in some ways even challenging Black to use them
for aggressive purposes. Note that at the moment the pawns on c5 and d4 do a
good job of penning in the dark-squared bishop.} ({In Simantsev-Shishkin,
Swidnica 1999, White first gave his opponent something to think about on the
kingside:} 18. f4 {(since White has a kingside majority it is likely that an
advance will result in a concession from Black)} f6 19. Rfb1 $5 Rab8 20. Bb5
Qc2 21. Qe2 a6 22. Rc1 Qb2 23. Bc4 Bxc4 24. Qxc4+ Kh8 25. Be1 Qb6 26. Rab1 Qd8
27. a4 {and White was beginning to take control.}) 18... f6 {Perhaps anticipating f3-f4, although in general Black should refrain from weakening squares. In
this case the text compromises the light squares slightly, as now a challenge
on the a2-g8 diagonal cannot be ignored, as was seen in the previous note.} 19.
Nd3 Ne5 20. Nb2 {It is not clear what the knight can achieve on this tour
other than lure Black's pawns forward (if so this is a crafty plan!).} ({
Otherwise} 20. Nf4 Bf7 21. Qf5 {actually does something constructive, with d5
in White's sights and the option of chipping away at Black's kingside by
pushing the h-pawn.}) 20... Qa3 21. Nd1 (21. Nc4 Qa6 {.}) 21... Rae8 22. Qh4 d5
$6 {Black's last few moves have been leading up to this change of gear.
However, the d6-pawn has been (literally) the foundation of Black's impressive
centre, and opening the position even a little improves the prospects of
White's pieces. Less ambitious but more precise is to sit tight and leave
White to do the work, which should involve either positive action on the
kingside or a regrouping on the queenside.} 23. Nf2 d3 24. exd5 Bxd5 25. Bf1 {
Black still has three pawns for the piece but, thanks to the advanced d-pawn,
he enjoys less influence on the dark squares than before.} b5 ({After} 25... c4
26. Qd4 Bf7 27. Ne4 {White sets about containing the pawns, improving his
pieces and concentrating on the dark squares.}) 26. f4 {
Evicting the knight and in turn undermining Black's protection of the d3-pawn.}
Ng6 27. Qh5 $1 Bc4 28. Qd1 $6 ({Having reasoned that he can surround the
d-pawn White fails to spot the less subtle} 28. Nxd3 $1 Bxd3 (28... Rd8 29. Rc3
) 29. Qd5+ Kh8 30. Qxd3 Qxd3 31. Bxd3 {
which picks up one pawn and threatens others, e.g.} Rd8 32. Bxg6 Rxd2 33. Be4
c4 34. Bc6 a6 35. a4 Rb2 36. Bb7 {etc.}) 28... Rd8 29. Rc3 Qa6 30. Qf3 $2 ({
This time there is no excuse for not taking the pawn -} 30. Bxd3 {
is virtually decisive.}) 30... Rd4 $2 (30... Bd5 {is better because} 31. Qxd3 {
walks into} Bxg2 {.}) 31. Bxd3 Bd5 32. Qh3 Qd6 33. Bxg6 (33. Be3 $1 {.}) 33...
hxg6 34. Be3 Be6 35. Qf3 Bd5 36. Qg3 Rc4 37. Rd3 Qe6 38. Rad1 {As so often
happens in these situations the player with two or three pawns for a piece
easily ends up defending his pawns at the cost of key squares or even sections
of the board. Consequently the extra piece becomes more evident. Perfect play
is no longer required from White to convert his advantage.} Be4 39. Rd6 Qf5 40.
Nxe4 Qxe4 41. Bf2 Qxf4 42. Qxf4 Rxf4 43. Bxc5 {White is winning.} Rc8 44. Rd8+
Rxd8 45. Rxd8+ Kh7 46. Rd4 Rxd4 47. Bxd4 a6 48. Kf2 Kg8 49. Ke3 Kf7 50. Bc3 g5
51. Kd4 Ke6 52. h3 f5 53. Kc5 g6 54. Kb6 1-0

[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1990.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Yakovich, Y."]
[Black "Sokolov, A."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "E25"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "49"]
[EventDate "1990.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 {Rather than waste
a tempo by dropping the bishop back (see the next main game) Black steers the
game to the Sämisch Variation. Here White is happy to invest a tempo in
return for the bishop pair and an extra centre pawn. The attraction for Black
is fairly smooth development and the possibility of play against the c3-pawn
and the c4-square.} c5 {The thematic approach, increasing the tension in the
centre safe in the knowledge that dxc5 creates a third c-pawn for White.} ({
An interesting alternative is} 6... c6 $5 {which contradicts the general rule
that our pawns should be placed on the opposite colour squares to the bishop.
However, now the capture on d5 can be met with ...cxd5 to open the c-file (one
of the ideas behind 6...c5) which, combined with ...b7-b6 and challenging
bishops on a6, is a desirable positional plan. Add to this the Queen's Gambit
policy of ...dxc4 and ...e7-e5, and 6...c6 is by no means illogical.
Nevertheless the specific move order affords White some freedom in the centre
and, even if the idea proves to be a viable alternative to the usual 6...c5,
it is not the most natural option to spring to mind. After} 7. Qc2 $1 {
Black has tried three moves.} -- (7... dxc4 8. e4 b5 9. a4 Nbd7 10. Ba3 Qc7 11.
Ne2 a6 12. e5 Nd5 13. Bd6 {and White had pleasant compensation in the form of
command of the dark squares and more space in the centre and on the kingside
in Moskalenko-Vehi Bach, Parenta 1999.}) (7... b6 {
looks premature if Black is unable to use the a6-square. After} 8. cxd5 cxd5 9.
e4 Bb7 (9... Ba6 $4 10. Bxa6 Nxa6 11. Qa4+) 10. Bb5+ $1 Bc6 11. a4 dxe4 12.
fxe4 O-O 13. e5 Nd5 14. Nf3 h6 15. O-O Qc7 16. Be2 $1 Bb7 17. c4 Rc8 18. Qd2
Ne7 19. Ba3 {things had gone badly wrong for Black in Sakaev-Yudasin, St.
Petersburg 1997. White has more space on all fronts.}) (7... O-O {
is best, sending the king to safety before choosing a plan. Then} 8. cxd5 $1
cxd5 9. e4 dxe4 10. fxe4 e5 11. d5 $1 Qa5 (11... Ne8 $5 {prepares ...f7-f5})
12. Bd3 Nbd7 13. Nf3 {, Khenkin-Rozentalis, German League 2000.} -- ({. Now} 
13... Nxe4 $4 {loses:} 14. Bxe4 f5 15. Bxf5 Rxf5 16. Qxf5 Qxc3+ 17. Ke2 Qxa1
18. Qe6+ Kf8 19. Ng5 {etc.}) (13... Ne8 {is a reasonable continuation, the
idea being to use d6 and c5 for Black's blockading knights. After both} 14. Bd2
({and} 14. a4 Nd6 15. Ba3 Qc7) 14... Nd6 15. c4 Qc7 {White has more aggressive
pieces and only one c-pawn to worry about, but Black is quite solid.}) ({
. Instead, the game went} 13... Re8 14. O-O Nc5 15. c4 Bg4 16. Be3 Rac8 ({
perhaps Black can consider parting with the second bishop with} 16... Bxf3 {
, although it seems that in general after 6...c6 Black's strategy is based on
holding back pawns as opposed to seeking counterplay}) 17. Nd2 $1 Nfd7 18. Rfb1
Qc7 19. a4 Bh5 20. a5 Bg6 21. Be2 Nf6 22. Bf3 b6 23. Rb5 {
and Black was under pressure.}))) 7. cxd5 Nxd5 {
Without doubt the most common move;} ({but} 7... exd5 $5 {is reasonable.} 8. e3
{and now:} -- (8... Bf5 9. Ne2 {with two versions of the same theme:} -- ({
. In Flear-Dunworth, British Ch. 1989, Black met} 9... Nc6 10. g4 {
with the speculative} Nxg4 $6 11. fxg4 Qh4+ 12. Kd2 Be4 13. Rg1 Qxh2 {
but White found an amusing rearrangement to leave Black regretting the
sacrifice -} 14. Qe1 Na5 15. Kd1 {. Black has some pressure plus a couple of
pawns for the piece, and White's pieces are yet to see any (positive) action.
However, with a relatively solid wall of pawns in the centre White is now
ready to start pushing the enemy forces back, and after} O-O 16. Qg3 Qh6 17.
Bg2 Qa6 18. Bxe4 dxe4 19. Ke1 $1 Nb3 20. Rb1 Nxc1 21. Rxc1 cxd4 22. cxd4 Rac8
23. Rxc8 Rxc8 24. Qe5 Qc6 25. Kf2 {
the piece was more significant than two pawns.}) (9... c4 10. g4 Bd3 {
improves, but} 11. Ng3 Bxf1 12. Kxf1 Nc6 13. e4 dxe4 14. fxe4 Qd7 15. h3 O-O
16. Qf3 b5 17. Bf4 a5 18. Nf5 {
was clearly better for White in Vladimirov-Szabo, Leningrad 1967.} (18. --))) (
{. The superior} 8... Qc7 $1 {is nice and flexible. I like} 9. Ne2 $5 (9. Bd3 {
invites} cxd4 {with the threat of a nasty check on c3}) 9... -- {and then:} (
9... Nc6 10. Nf4 O-O 11. Bd3 Re8 12. O-O Ne7 13. g4 cxd4 14. cxd4 Ng6 {
, Gallego-Suba, Spanish League 1994. Then} 15. Ng2 {is the logical follow-up
to g2-g4, preparing to launch the h-pawn, after which the g6-knight becomes a
target. There is also the bonus that the knight protects the e3-pawn.}) ({
. More recently Moskalenko-N.Mitkov, Sitges 2000, continued} 9... cxd4 10. cxd4
Bf5 11. g4 Bc2 12. Qd2 h6 13. a4 $1 Bh7 14. Ba3 {
and Black missed his dark-squared bishop.} (14. --)))) 8. dxc5 Qa5 (8... f5 {
is the other move, clearly directed at e2-e4. After} 9. Nh3 {
Black has three options.} -- (9... Bd7 $6 10. c4 Qh4+ 11. Nf2 Qf6 12. Bg5 $5
Qxg5 13. cxd5 exd5 14. Qxd5 Qe7 (14... Nc6 $2 15. Ne4 $1 {;}) (14... Bc6 15.
Qe6+) 15. e4 Nc6 16. Bb5 Rf8 17. O-O O-O-O 18. Qc4 {
left White a clear pawn up in D.Bronstein-Dely, Budapest 1961.}) (9... O-O 10.
Nf4 -- (10... Nc6 $6 11. Nxd5 exd5 12. Bf4 Be6 13. e3 Qa5 14. Qd3 Qxc5 15. Be2
Rad8 16. Kf2 {was about even in Arencibia-Del Rio Angelis, Santa Clara 2000,
but this soon changed after} Ne7 $6 17. Qd4 $1 Qxd4 18. cxd4 Rc8 19. Rab1 b6
20. Rhc1 Rxc1 21. Rxc1 Rc8 22. Bc7 Ra8 23. Ba6 Bc8 24. Bd3 Bd7 25. h3 Rf8 26.
Ke2 Rf6 27. g4 $1 {etc. Of course Black tends to have problems on the dark
squares in this opening, but trading queens does not necessarily help the
defender. Moreover if this exchange repairs White's pawns after the recapture
c3xd4, then White - with the bishop pair - is the most likely to benefit.}) (
10... Qe7 $1 11. Nxd5 exd5 {
and White should resist the temptation to take a second pawn in favour of} 12.
Bf4 Qxc5 13. Qd4 Qa5 14. e3 Nc6 15. Qd2 Be6 16. Be2 Rfc8 17. O-O {, Toth-Lengyel, Hungarian Ch. 1971. This position is well balanced, White hoping to make
something of the dark squares and the bishop pair, Black concentrating on the
c-file. With this in mind Black transferred his knight to f7 (still protecting
e5, but now d6 is also safe), thus exerting more pressure on both c4 and c3.
White replied with a3-a4 to put his rook on a3, defending the c3-pawn and
facilitating White's queenside play.} (17. --))) ({. After} 9... Qa5 10. e4
fxe4 11. Ng5 $5 -- ({, White seeks to open lines for his pieces, e.g.} 11...
Qxc3+ 12. Bd2 Qe5 (12... Qxc5 $4 13. Rc1) 13. Nxe4) ({, or} 11... Nxc3 12. Qd4
Nb5+ 13. Qd2 Qxd2+ 14. Kxd2 Nd4 15. Kc3 Nbc6 16. Nxe4 {.}) ({
. Yrjola-Rantanen, Helsinki 1986, saw Black frustrate this plan with} 11... e3
12. Qd4 O-O 13. Bxe3 Nc6 14. Qd2 Rd8 {, but} 15. Bd3 $1 Nxc3 16. Rc1 Nd5 17.
Bxh7+ Kf8 18. Qxa5 Nxa5 19. Kf2 Nxe3 20. Kxe3 {was decisive.}))) 9. e4 Ne7 {
This knight - not the one on b8 - is heading for a5. Let us have a look at the
numerous alternatives:} (9... Qxc3+ {is the beginning of a journey to the
kingside, although this is in White's favour since} 10. Bd2 Qe5 11. Ne2 Ne7 12.
Rc1 Nbc6 13. Bc3 Qg5 14. h4 Qh6 15. Nd4 Nxd4 16. Bxd4 O-O 17. Qd2 Qxd2+ 18.
Kxd2 {gave White an edge in Damljanovic-Ivanovic, Yugoslav Ch. 1989.
Structurally Black is fine but there are the usual worries on the dark squares.
It is also important to remember that the c5-pawn accentuates White's grip on
the dark squares.}) (9... Nxc3 {initiates a practically forced sequence that
leads to an excellent ending for White:} 10. Qd2 Nc6 11. Bb2 Na4 12. Qxa5 Nxa5
13. Bxg7 Rg8 14. Bh6 Bd7 15. Kf2 Rc8 16. Ne2 Nxc5 17. Nd4 Ke7 18. Be3 a6 19.
Be2 {and Black was struggling in Genov-Nikolov, Bulgarian Ch. 1991.}) (9... Nc7
10. Qd4 f6 (10... O-O $6 11. Qb4 Nc6 12. Qxa5 Nxa5 13. Bf4 $1 Na6 14. Bd6 Re8
15. Bb5 Nc6 16. Bxc6 bxc6 17. e5 {
with a massive bishop on d6, Gutman-I.Farago, Hastings 1984/85}) 11. Qb4 $1 Nc6
12. Qxa5 Nxa5 13. Rb1 Bd7 14. Ne2 Na6 15. Be3 {, Ulibin-Hulak, Pula 2000.
White's queenside pawn majority does not look too healthy and nor do a few
squares in this sector. However, in order to restore material equilibrium by
winning the c5-pawn Black is required to expend a certain amount of time,
during which White should be able to generate some sort of offensive on the
queenside. This tends to involve the b-file. In fact in this game White turned
the ostensibly weak c-pawns to his advantage with an instructive piece
sacrifice:} O-O 16. Nf4 Kf7 17. Bb5 {(Black's knight seems to be as much of a
liability on a5 as it is a menace to White)} Rfd8 18. Ke2 Nc7 19. Bd3 Rab8 20.
Rb2 Bc6 21. c4 $1 Bd7 22. Rhb1 Bc8 23. Nd5 $1 exd5 24. cxd5 (24. Bf4) ({and} 
24. Bd2 {were threatened}) 24... Ra8 25. Bd2 b6 26. cxb6 axb6 27. Rxb6 Bd7 28.
Rc1 Nb5 (28... Ne8 29. Rc5) 29. Bxb5 Nb3 30. Rc7 Nd4+ 31. Kf2 Nxb5 32. Rxb5
Rxa3 33. Rbb7 {and White soon won.}) (9... Nf6 $5 {, with three possibilities:}
10. -- (10. Be3 O-O 11. Qb3 Nfd7 {
has been recommended as a good line for Black, the point being to meet} 12. a4
Qc7 13. Qa3 {with the sensible sacrifice} b6 $1 14. cxb6 axb6 {, when Black's
development lead more or less negates the extra pawn. Instead White has two
other options which both involve giving back one of the c-pawns.}) (10. Qb3 {
and then:} -- (10... Nc6 11. Bb5 Bd7 12. Bxc6 Bxc6 13. Qb4 Qa6 14. Ne2 O-O 15.
Bf4 {was pleasant for White in Kataev-Tavadian, USSR 1979. Apart from the
d6-square White's bishop keeps a rook off the b-file. Meanwhile the c3-pawn
controls d4 and can later nudge forward to reduce Black's control of the light
squares and introduce the possibility of Ne2-c3-b5 (or in some circumstances
sacrifice on d5, as in 9...Nc7, above).}) (10... Qxc5 {accepts the offer. Then}
11. Qb5+ Nbd7 12. Qxc5 Nxc5 13. Be3 Nfd7 {secures the c5-square for Black.
However, with so many pieces still on the board - two of them being Black's as
yet undeveloped rook and bishop on the queenside - it is easy to overestimate
this outpost at the expense of other factors. Branicki-Makarczyk, Lodz 1954,
continued} 14. Ne2 Ke7 15. Nd4 g6 {
(Black prepares to evict the knight with ...e6-e5)} 16. O-O-O a6 17. Kc2 $1 e5
18. Nb3 Ne6 19. Bc4 {and White was well on top.} (19. --))) (10. Rb1 O-O 11.
Rb5 Qxc3+ 12. Kf2 {is an interesting idea, using the queen to accelerate
White's development. V.Milov-Magerramov, Berlin 1993, saw White force a queen
trade with} Qe5 13. Bb2 Qc7 (13... Qf4 14. Ne2 Qg5 15. h4 Qh6 16. Bc1 Qh5 (
16... Qg6 17. h5 $1 Nxh5 18. c6) 17. g4 Qe5 $2 18. Bf4) 14. Qd6 {
, earning an edge after} Ne8 15. Qxc7 Nxc7 16. Rb3 Nc6 17. f4 {.})) 10. Be3 O-O
(10... Qxc3+ 11. Kf2 {plays into White's hands, the king quite safe tucked in
on f2 (particularly when an exchange of queens is on the cards). Again the
c5-pawn is as much a strength as a weakness, one reason being that it
restricts Black's b7-pawn, which tends to be attacked down the b-file. In
Golod-Pushkov, Moscow 1991, White first gained time on the queen before
offering a trade:} Nbc6 12. Ne2 Qa5 13. Qe1 $1 ({more precise than} 13. Qd2
Qxd2 {when the bishop no longer teams up with the c5-pawn to prevent ...b7-b6})
13... Qxe1+ 14. Rxe1 e5 15. Nc3 Be6 {and now White demonstrated another use of
the c5-pawn by homing in the juicy d6-square with} 16. Nb5 O-O 17. Nd6 {
, in turn hitting b7. There followed} Rfb8 18. Rb1 {
and now the attempt to break out rather than remain passive rebounded after} b6
19. Ba6 $1 Na5 20. Rhd1 bxc5 21. Bxc5 Rxb1 22. Rxb1 {
with a wonderful position for White despite the symmetry.}) 11. Qb3 Qc7 {
The queen tends to drop back to c7 at some stage and a5 can prove to be an
unfortunate square if Black mistimes the capture on c5. Others:} (11... Nec6
12. Nh3 Nd7 13. Bb5 a6 $6 14. Bxc6 bxc6 15. Qb4 Qc7 16. O-O a5 17. Qd4 Ba6 18.
Rfd1 Rfd8 19. Qd6 {(Sakaev-Ivanov, Thessaloniki 1996). White has a positional
lead to add to his not insignificant extra pawn.}) (11... e5 {
is premature and hands over the d5-square on a plate after} 12. Bc4 {, e.g.}
Na6 13. Ne2 Nc6 (13... Nxc5 14. Qb4 $1 {and the forced} Qxb4 {
repairs White's pawns [in this case} 15. axb4 {looks strong, but usually cxb4
facilitates White's play on the queenside by opening the c-file], for which
Black has no compensation}) 14. Rb1 Nxc5 15. Qb5 $1 {with another reason why
a5 can be a problem square for the queen. Malaniuk-Tolnai, Kecskemet 1989,
continued} Qxb5 16. Rxb5 Ne6 17. Bd5 Ned8 18. c4 Re8 19. Kf2 {
and White had fantastic bishops.}) 12. Nh3 Nec6 {
Black prefers piece play to hunting down the pawn.} (12... Nd7 $5 13. Nf2 Nxc5
14. Qc4 b6 (14... Na6 15. Qxc7 Nxc7 16. Bc5 Re8 17. Bd6 Na6 {
favours White whether or not he takes on a6}) 15. Bxc5 Qxc5 16. Qxc5 bxc5 {
alters the pawn structure but benefits White after} 17. Rb1 $1 {,} ({although} 
17. Nd3 $6 Ba6 18. Nxc5 Bxf1 19. Rxf1 Rfc8 {is fine for Black.})) 13. Rb1 e5
14. Nf2 Na5 15. Qa4 $1 {
Making way for the rook to come to b5 and tempting Black to play 15...Bd7.} Be6
(15... Bd7 $6 16. Bb5 Be6 17. O-O a6 {is Black's idea but now the b6-square is
too weak. Arencibia-Franco, Havana 1990, was clearly better for White after}
18. Be2 Nd7 19. Qb4 Rac8 $2 20. c6 $1 bxc6 21. Bxa6 Rb8 22. Qe7 Rbe8 23. Qh4
Ra8 24. Be2 {
, when White found new pastures on the kingside (f3-f4 is effective).}) 16. Be2
({With all the action over on the queenside it seems more logical to carry on
there before dealing with the kingside, so the immediate} 16. Rb5 $5 {
is a worthy candidate.}) 16... Nd7 17. Rb5 b6 18. O-O (18. Qb4 $5 {deserves consideration, again concentrating on more pressing matters before castling.})
18... Nb7 {Introducing an interesting drawing possibility that White seems
content to go along with. Black also has two other reasonable moves.} (18...
Rfb8 19. Rfb1 h6 20. g3 bxc5 $2 (20... Nb7 $1 {is necessary, when} 21. Nd3 bxc5
22. f4 Nb6 23. Qc2 Bd7 24. Nxe5 Bxb5 25. Rxb5 {
results in a slight material imbalance that gives chances to both sides}) 21.
Rxb8+ Rxb8 22. Rxb8+ Nxb8 23. Qe8+ Kh7 {
. In Arencibia-Lobron, Manila Interzonal 1990, White opened a new front with}
24. f4 $1 {when} Nc4 (24... Bc4 25. Bg4 Qb6 26. h4) 25. f5 $1 Nxe3 $2 (25...
Nd6 26. Qf8 Nd7 27. Qe7 Nc8 28. Qh4 Bb3 29. Ng4 Qc6 30. f6 Nxf6 31. Nxf6+ Qxf6
32. Qxf6 gxf6 33. Bxc5 {
is a lesser evil, although Black is struggling in this ending}) 26. fxe6 {
was the beginning of the end. The game finished} Qb6 (26... fxe6 {loses after}
27. Bh5 g5 28. Qg6+ Kh8 29. Qxh6+ Qh7 30. Qf8+ Qg8 31. Qf6+ Qg7 (31... Kh7 32.
Nh3) 32. Qd8+ Qg8 33. Qd3) 27. exf7 Qb1+ 28. Bd1 Nxd1 29. Qg8+ Kg6 30. f8=N+ $1
{1-0.}) (18... Rfc8 $5 19. Rc1 $1 {
follows the same logic as the previous line, shadowing Black's rook. Then} Nb7
({while} 19... Nc6 20. Nd3 {favours White}) 20. cxb6 axb6 21. Qb4 Nd6 22. Bxb6
Qc6 23. Be3 {transposes to the note to White's 23rd move, below.} Nxb5 24. Bxb5
Qb7 25. c4 {.}) (18... a6 $2 {is asking for trouble on the dark squares:} 19.
Rxb6 Nxb6 20. cxb6 Qxc3 21. Nd1 {.}) 19. cxb6 axb6 20. Qb4 Nd6 $1 21. Bxb6 Qc6
22. Be3 Rfc8 23. Ra5 {Agreeing to split the point.} ({
If White wants to keep pressing for the win then} 23. Rc1 {
is a sensible way to continue, e.g.} Nxb5 24. Bxb5 Qb7 25. c4 {. With excellent
pieces and no real weaknesses White has certainly done okay out of the deal,
the pawns being provided with good support and, consequently, Black's rooks
relegated to contributing to their blockade.}) 23... Rxa5 24. Qxa5 Ra8 25. Qb4
1/2-1/2

[Event "USSR Women's Championship, Lvov"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1991.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Prudnikova, S."]
[Black "Sakhatova, G."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "E20"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "65"]
[EventDate "1991.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 d5 5. a3 Be7 {Here Black opts to keep the
bishop on the board now that White's dark squares have been slightly
compromised by 4 f3.} (5... Bd6 {transposes to the main game}) ({while} 5...
Bxc3+ {transposes to Yakovich-Sokolov.}) 6. e4 {White erects an impressive
looking centre, which Black needs to address one way or another.} dxe4 {Others:
} ({The major alternative is} 6... c5 {, when} 7. cxd5 exd5 8. dxc5 {
gives the game a different character. Black has two options.} -- (8... Bxc5 {
is the most popular, one reason being that 5...Bd6 might have been played
instead of 5...Be7, thus ruling out 8...d4, below. Black has already moved the
bishop three times but the current post highlights the downside to the 4 f3
system, namely the potential weakness of the g1-a7 diagonal. In this case the
price Black pays for opening the position is the d-pawn after} 9. e5 Nfd7 10.
Qxd5 O-O 11. f4 {when the justification of Black's play is to prevent White
from castling kingside -} Bxg1 12. Rxg1 {and now:} -- (12... Qh4+ $6 13. g3
Qxh2 14. Qg2 $1 Qxg2 15. Rxg2 $1 (15. Bxg2 Nc5) 15... Nc5 16. Be3 {is clearly better for White, whose dark-squared bishop dominates. Khenkin-Barle,
Voskresensk 1990, continued} Nb3 ({now} 16... b6 17. Bxc5 bxc5 18. Na4 Nd7 19.
Rc2 Rb8 20. O-O-O) ({and} 16... Nbd7 17. b4 {are poor for Black}) 17. Rd1 Bh3 (
17... Nc6 18. Bc4 Nca5 19. Bd5) 18. Rc2 Bxf1 19. Kxf1 Nc6 20. Nb5 $1 Rad8 21.
Nd6 $5 (21. Rxd8 Rxd8 22. Nxa7 Nxa7 23. Bxa7 {is a pawn}) 21... a6 (21... Rd7
22. Rd3 Nca5 23. Bxa7) 22. Rc3 Nca5 (22... Nba5 23. b4) 23. Bb6 Rd7 24. Rd5 {
1-0. Note that 15 Rxg2 brings the rook into the game conveniently along the
second rank.}) (12... Qb6 {is consistent. After the forced} 13. Rh1 -- ({
, Gelfand-Spassky, Linares 1990, saw Black come a cropper on the dark squares:
} 13... Nc5 $6 14. b4 Ne6 15. Na4 Qc7 16. Be3 Nc6 17. Qd6 $1 Qxd6 18. exd6 Re8
19. Kf2 Bd7 20. Nc5 Nxc5 21. bxc5 {
and White's extra pawn was both protected and passed!}) ({
. Instead, Yakovich-Piza Cortizo, Cordoba 1991, went} 13... Nc6 14. Qb5 Nd4 (
14... Qd4 15. Qc4 Nb6 $1 (15... Nc5 16. Nb5 Qxc4 17. Bxc4) 16. Qxd4 Nxd4 {
transposes}) 15. Qxb6 Nxb6 ({after} 15... axb6 16. Rb1 Nc5 17. Be3 Nc2+ 18. Kf2
Bf5 19. Rd1 {White's small but near decisive material lead is intact}) 16. Bd3
Rd8 17. Be3 $1 {. Unfortunately for Black there is no useful discovered attack
on the d-file, which leaves Black a pawn down. In fact the game now ended} Nb3
18. Rd1 Rxd3 {(a nice try from Black that almost deserves to work)} 19. Rxd3
Bf5 20. Ne4 $1 Na1 21. Bxb6 axb6 22. Ke2 $1 Bxe4 23. Rd4 {1-0. Assuming there
are no big improvements for black in these examples it is reasonable to assume
that White's discomfort on the g1-a7 diagonal is worth a pawn here.}))) (8...
d4 {is the other try, Black relying on the d-pawn to both provide space and
hinder White's development. Again the cost is a pawn and, again, this seems
like too big a price in the absence of concrete advantages. Of course White
must take time out with} 9. Na4 O-O 10. b4 {but} b6 11. cxb6 axb6 12. Bd2 $5
Bd6 13. Bd3 Qc7 14. Ne2 Nbd7 15. Nb2 {left White a pawn up with a nice and
tidy position in Hauchard-Rodriguez, Santiago 1990. I'm sure there are better
ways for Black to play but not to the extent that sufficient compensation can
be demonstrated.})) (6... dxc4 {
is rather passive but not too bad for Black. After} 7. Be3 $1 {
(directed against ...c7-c5) Black has challenged the centre with both pawns:}
-- (7... Nbd7 8. Bxc4 e5 {would be fine were it not for the wasted moves with
Black's bishop and the e-pawn. In Gutman-Mandl, Gladenbach 1992, White sensibly
exploited his development lead to secure an advantage along the lines of the
QGA:} 9. Nge2 O-O 10. O-O a6 11. Ba2 exd4 12. Bxd4 c5 13. Be3 Ne5 14. Nf4 b5
15. Qxd8 Rxd8 16. Ncd5 Nxd5 17. Nxd5 {
with a superior version of the traditional edge.}) (7... O-O 8. Bxc4 Nbd7 9.
Nge2 c5 10. O-O a6 11. e5 $1 Ne8 12. f4 Nc7 13. dxc5 Nxc5 14. b4 $5 {.} (14. --
))) ({Too passive is} 6... O-O 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e5 Ne8 9. f4 {, although White
should then be content with the extra breathing space rather than launch a
rash kingside attack.}) 7. fxe4 e5 {
The point - White's next is forced and gives away the c5-square.} 8. d5 {
This time Black has succeeded in clearing away the g1-a7 diagonal without
having to donate a pawn to the cause. However, White's centre is solid and
provides her with more room in which to manoeuvre, and if Black's hoped for
activity does not fully materialize the resulting middlegame will be played
under cramped conditions. Clearly Black intends to stick a piece on c5 soon
(usually the restless bishop), the question is whether this should be prefaced
with the precautionary ...a7-a5.} Bc5 {
Wasting no time. Black plans to strike before White is able to consolidate.} ({
The more positional approach is} 8... a5 9. Bd3 O-O 10. Nf3 {and then:} -- (
10... Nbd7 11. O-O Re8 12. Rb1 (12. Kh1 Bd6 13. Rb1 c5 $6 14. Nb5 Bb8 15. Bg5
h6 16. Bh4 Qe7 17. Nd2 Rd8 18. Be2 Ra6 19. Qc2 g5 $6 {
took the dark-square theme a bit too far in Moskalenko-Kholmov, Belgorod 1990})
12... Nf8 13. b4 Ng6 14. c5 h5 15. Bc4 {, Meissner-Berezovsky, German League
1999. Black's show of aggression on the kingside lacks the genuine
effectiveness of White's flowing play on the queenside.}) (10... Bg4 11. h3
Bxf3 12. Qxf3 Nbd7 13. O-O Ne8 14. Rb1 Bc5+ 15. Be3 Qe7 16. Na4 Bxe3+ 17. Qxe3
c5 {, Khenkin-Bergstrom, Gausdal 1991. Black's radical lunge for c5 has the
advantage of releasing the e8-knight as well as avoiding White's pawn roller
after b2-b4, c4-c5 etc. However, with} 18. dxc6 bxc6 19. c5 {
White's majority still had presence, and Black had new worries on b6 and d6.}))
(8... Ng4 {is just as direct as 8...Bc5.} 9. -- ({. After} 9. Be2 {
Black has two choices:} -- (9... Bc5 10. Bxg4 Qh4+ 11. g3 Qxg4 12. Qxg4 Bxg4
13. h3 Bd7 14. Nf3 f6 15. b4 {with a sizeable space advantage in return for
giving Black the bishop pair, Lima-Cao Sang, Manila 1992.}) (9... h5 10. Nf3
Bc5 11. Qc2 Bf2+ 12. Kf1 O-O 13. Nd1 $1 Bc5 14. h3 {. This is typical of the
variation. Black rocks the boat with ...Bf2+ only to be pushed back, after
which White's territorial superiority is a major factor. In Moskalenko-Garcia
Padron, Fuerteventura 1992, Black refused to yield:} f5 $6 15. hxg4 fxg4 16. Ke1
gxf3 17. gxf3 h4 18. Be3 Bd4 19. Qd2 Bxe3 20. Qxe3 {and White followed with
Nf2 and Kd2, when the king was perfectly safe behind the imposing wall of
pawns. It is important to remember that, despite the general importance of
castling, reliable alternative protection to a dislodged king is usually
enough in 'closed' positions where one side has stable, advanced centre pawns.}
(20. --))) (9. Nf3 O-O (9... Bc5 {transposes to the main game}) 10. Bd3 Bc5 11.
Qe2 Bf2+ 12. Kd1 Bd4 13. Kc2 Nf2 14. Nxd4 Nxd3 (14... Nxh1 15. Nf3) 15. Qxd3
exd4 {and now in Shirov-Pira, Paris 1990, White decided against 16 Qxd4 Nc6
(which gives Black the e5-square but nothing else) in favour of} 16. Nb5 $5 c6
(16... c5 17. Bf4) 17. Nxd4 {. White is a very healthy pawn to the good, has
an excellent centre, well posted queen and knight and his king is doing fine
on c2. Consequently Pira tried to muddy the waters but was forced into a poor
ending after} b5 18. Bf4 bxc4 19. Qg3 Bd7 20. Rhf1 f6 21. Bc7 Qe8 22. e5 cxd5
23. exf6 Qg6+ 24. Qxg6 hxg6 25. fxg7 Ba4+ 26. Kc3 {.})) 9. Nf3 Ng4 {
Homing in on f2 as per plan.} ({This is preferable to} 9... Bg4 10. h3 Bxf3 11.
Qxf3 a5 12. Bd3 Nbd7 {. The position is not sufficiently closed to justify
trading a bishop for a knight, and the queen is well placed on f3.
Lerner-Mednis, Copenhagen 1990, continued} 13. Bg5 ({in Bagirov-Maherramzade,
Abu Dhabi 1999, Black made the common mistake of assuming that ...Bd4 is good
in all circumstances:} 13. Bd2 O-O 14. g4 Bd4 15. O-O-O Nc5 16. Bc2 Ne8 17. Nb5
$1 Nd6 18. Nxd4 exd4 19. Bf4 Nxc4 20. Rxd4 b5 21. e5 {
and the c2-bishop came to life}) 13... O-O 14. O-O-O Be7 15. h4 Nc5 16. Bc2 a4
{with a queenside pawn configuration that is not unusual for this system.
Black's knight is secure on c5 and White needs to keep an eye on the b3-square,
but there are no effective pawn breaks for Black. Meanwhile White has a simple
plan in sending his kingside pawns towards the black king.}) 10. Na4 ({
White should avoid getting too excited here, as} 10. b4 $6 Bf2+ 11. Ke2 c5 $1 {
adds weight to Black's infiltration by clamping down on the d4-square whether
or not White plays} 12. dxc6 {.}) 10... Bf2+ ({Equally popular is} 10... Nd7 {
, when Black is content to see the removal of the bishop if this means a good
knight can take its place:} 11. b4 Bf2+ 12. Ke2 {and now:} -- (12... b5 13. h3
bxa4 14. hxg4 {
is an inferior version of the game, although the options don't seem any better:
}) (12... f5 13. h3 fxe4 14. hxg4 Bg3 15. Ng1 $1 Nf6 16. Kd2 Nxg4 17. Nh3 {
and White will soon emerge a piece up, the king well protected as it travels
west.}) (12... Bd4 13. Nxd4 exd4 14. Qxd4 {. Material is an important factor
and White's extra pawn does come in handy, but White also has more space, the
bishop pair and, consequently, considerable power on the dark squares. Once
White's king finds a more secure resting place these advantages will combine
to prove decisive.} -- ({. Alonso proposes} 14... Qh4 $5 15. Qxg7 Qf2+ 16. Kd3
{with an assessment of unclear after both} Rf8 ({and} 16... Nde5+ 17. Kc3) 17.
Qd4 f5 18. Bg5 fxe4+ 19. Qxe4+ Nde5+ 20. Kc3 Bf5 21. Qe2 $1 {. However, with
Black's king doing no better than its opposite number and White's ability to
play on the dark squares at will, I see no concrete evidence of compensation
for the two pawns.}) (14... O-O 15. Bb2 ({
the natural home under the circumstances, but} 15. h3 $5 Ngf6 16. Bg5 {
is also good}) 15... Qg5 16. h3 Ngf6 (16... Nge5 $5 17. Nc5) 17. Re1 $1 Re8 18.
Kd1 {and Black has neither the territory nor the fluidity with which to
trouble White. Another problem for Black is White's enormous queen, since a
trade reduces Black's potential counterplay and does nothing to limit White's
dark-square control.}))) 11. Ke2 b5 {It is almost as if this latest instalment
is played only because it adds to the bizarre nature of the game!} ({
The alternative is} 11... Bd4 12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Qxd4 O-O 14. h3 Qh4 {
, Ooi Chern Ee-Parameswaran, Calcutta 1997. After} 15. g3 $1 Qxg3 (15... Qh5
16. Bg2 $1 {and there is no decent discovery for Black}) 16. hxg4 Bxg4+ 17. Kd2
Qf3 18. Rg1 Nc6 19. Qe3 Qd1+ 20. Kc3 f5 21. b3 {
White was simply a piece up despite Black's efforts.}) 12. h3 $1 ({
There is no need to allow Black hopes of counterplay with} 12. cxb5 Bd7 13. Qb3
a6 {
. Instead the text guarantees that White's three centre pawns remain intact.})
12... bxa4 13. hxg4 Bg3 {Best.} ({This time} 13... Bd4 $6 14. Nxd4 exd4 15.
Qxd4 Bxg4+ 16. Kf2 {is clearly better for White.}) (13... Bc5 {
, on the other hand, requires more precise play from White:} 14. Qxa4+ c6 (
14... Bd7 15. Qa5 $1 Qe7 ({or} 15... Bb6 16. Qc3) 16. Qxc7) 15. b4 Bd4 16. Nxd4
exd4 {, and now} 17. g5 $1 {. This limits the scope of black's queen and keeps
White in the driving seat, e.g.} Qe7 (17... O-O 18. Kf2 f5 ({or} 18... f6 19.
g6 $1) (18... Qe7 {- see below}) 19. e5 cxd5 20. Bf4 $1 Be6 21. c5) 18. Kf2 $1
Qxe4 $6 ({or} 18... O-O 19. Bd2 $1 Qe5 $1 20. Be2 {
(Yakovic-Herrera, Santa Clara 1990)} f5 $1 21. gxf6 Rxf6+ 22. Bf3 Bg4 (22...
Qxe4 $2 23. Rae1) 23. Qb3 {when White is slightly better}) 19. Qb3 Bf5 20. Bd2
O-O 21. Re1 Qc2 (21... Qg4 22. Be2) 22. Qxc2 Bxc2 23. Rh4 $1 d3 24. Re3 {
with a clear advantage to White.}) 14. Rh3 $1 Bf4 15. Bxf4 exf4 16. Qd4 $1 f6 (
16... O-O 17. Rh4 {was played in Raicevic-Ruban, Pula 1989, when} g5 $2 (17...
f6 {improves, with} 18. Kf2 ({and} 18. c5 {the candidate moves for White})) 18.
Rh6 $1 Bxg4 19. Kf2 f6 20. e5 $1 Kg7 21. Rh2 Bxf3 22. gxf3 Nd7 (22... Nc6 $2
23. Qd3) 23. Bd3 {was excellent for White.}) 17. Rh4 $1 O-O 18. Kd2 c5 $5 19.
Qc3 (19. Qxc5 {is also possible, Black's idea being to gain time with} g5 20.
Rh2 Bxg4 21. Bd3 Nd7 22. Qd4 Bxf3 23. gxf3 Qa5+ 24. Ke2 Rab8 {etc.}) 19... Nd7
20. Bd3 h6 21. Rah1 Rb8 22. Bc2 {The b3-square must be protected.} Re8 23. Rh5
$1 {Covering e5 and giving us a clue as to why White has doubled rooks on the
h-file even after 20...h6.} Nf8 $2 (23... Rb6 {
is necessary, defending along the third rank.}) 24. g5 $1 {
This pawn break guarantees a way into Black's kingside.} fxg5 (24... hxg5 25.
e5 g4 26. Nh4 {does not keep White at bay.}) 25. Rxh6 $3 {With all of Black's
pieces idling on the back rank this kind of sacrifice is always going to be on
the cards, particularly with White's forces so aggressively posted.} gxh6 26.
Rxh6 {White is winning.} Rb6 {Others:} (26... Qe7 27. Qh8+ Kf7 28. e5 Rb6 29.
e6+ $1 Rxe6 30. dxe6+ Bxe6 31. Ne5# {.}) (26... Bf5 27. Qh8+ Kf7 28. exf5 Rb6
29. f6 $1 {.}) (26... Re7 27. Rh8+ Kf7 28. Nxg5+ Ke8 29. Rxf8+ Kxf8 30. Qh8# {.
}) (26... Rb7 27. Qh8+ Kf7 28. Rh7+ Nxh7 29. Qxh7+ Kf8 30. Qh8+ Kf7 31. Ne5+ {.
}) (26... Kf7 27. Qh8 Qa5+ 28. Kd1 $1 Ke7 29. Ne5 $1 Rb6 30. Qg7+ Kd8 31. Rxb6
Bg4+ 32. Nxg4 Qxb6 33. Bxa4 {.}) 27. Qh8+ Kf7 28. Rh7+ $1 Nxh7 29. Qxh7+ Kf8
30. Qh8+ Kf7 (30... Ke7 31. Qg7+ Kd6 32. e5+ Rxe5 33. Qxe5+ Kd7 34. Bxa4+ {.})
31. Qh7+ Kf8 32. Qh8+ Kf7 33. Qh7+ $4 ({Missing} 33. Ne5+ $1 {, e.g.} Rxe5 (
33... Ke7 34. Qg7+ Kd6 35. Nf7+) 34. Qxd8 Bg4 35. Qc7+ Re7 36. Qxc5 {etc.})
1/2-1/2

[Event "Budapest"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1989.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Zsinka, L."]
[Black "Timoscenko, G."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A85"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "56"]
[EventDate "1989.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 ({Occasionally Black plays} 3... d6 {first, perhaps waiting for White's reply before committing to a kingside fianchetto. Note
that this position can also be reached via 1 d4 d6 (see Volzhin-Kakageldyev).
A good response is} 4. Bg5 {, after which Black has a number of moves:} -- (
4... g6 $6 5. Bxf6 exf6 {gives the game a Trompovsky feel. In
Zakharevich-Dukhov, Novgorod 1995, White soon targeted Black's kingside pawns:}
6. e3 Bg7 7. Bd3 O-O 8. Nge2 c6 9. h4 $5 Re8 10. h5 Nd7 {
(the f6-pawn obstructs both the knight and the bishop)} 11. Qc2 Nf8 12. hxg6
hxg6 13. g4 $1 fxg4 {, Black's kingside is falling apart.} 14. Bxg6 Re7 15. Nf4
Qd7 16. Bh7+ Kf7 17. Ng6 Nxg6 18. Bxg6+ Kf8 19. O-O-O {
and White was in the driving seat.}) (4... e6 5. e4 fxe4 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 7. Nxe4
Qh6 $1 (7... Qd8 {is somewhat passive}) 8. Nf3 Be7 9. Bd3 O-O 10. O-O Nc6 11.
Re1 Bd7 {leads to a balanced position, with White having more space and Black
the bishop pair.}) (4... Nbd7 5. Qc2 g6 6. e4 fxe4 7. Nxe4 Bg7 8. Nf3 {
White has started aggressively and has made a play on the light squares. If
Black is afraid of coming under pressure on the kingside he should trade
knights immediately, as in 8...Nxe4, below.} -- (8... c6 9. Ng3 $1 {
(sensibly avoiding the exchange)} Qa5+ 10. Bd2 Qc7 11. Bd3 e5 12. Ng5 $1 Nf8
13. dxe5 dxe5 14. O-O-O {with a positional plus to add to the lead in
development, Sorin-Saldano, Buenos Aires 1995.}) (8... Nxe4 9. Qxe4 Nf6 10. Qc2
c6 11. Bd3 Bf5 12. O-O (12. Bxf5 Qa5+) 12... Qd7 13. Rfe1 O-O {was the more
thoughtful continuation in Likavsky-Banas, Bratislava 1993, when White could
have taken a slight edge with} 14. Bxf5 gxf5 15. Rad1 {.}) (8... c5 9. Nc3 O-O
10. Be2 Qa5 11. Bd2 Qb6 12. d5 Ng4 13. O-O Nde5 14. Nxe5 Bxe5 15. Bxg4 Bxg4 16.
Bh6 Rf7 {was unclear in Barlov-Topalov, Candas 1992.}))) 4. h4 $5 {Being able
o play in such an audacious fashion and get away with it is a luxury, but this
less than subtle thrust is a perfectly playable and dangerous weapon against
the would-be Leningrad Dutch. The plan is to break up Black's kingside as
quickly as possible - even at the cost of the exchange. Not surprisingly White
has good practical chances in this line. Black tends to walk on thin ice in
terms of the often crumbling kingside whereas White has no such problems to
overcome.} d6 (4... Bg7 $6 {is seen often, more or less calling White's bluff.
As the following examples demonstrate this can be a risky policy.} 5. -- (5. e4
$5 fxe4 (5... d6) 6. h5 Nxh5 $6 7. Rxh5 gxh5 8. Qxh5+ Kf8 9. Bh6 {
and White has enough for the exchange.} -- (9... e6 10. Nxe4 Qe7 11. Nf3 d5 {
, Videki-Lenz, Budapest 1991. The game went} 12. Neg5 $6 ({now} 12. Bxg7+ Qxg7
13. cxd5 {looks difficult for Black}) 12... Qf6 13. Bxg7+ Kxg7 14. Ne5 h6 (
14... Nc6 15. Nef7 Nxd4 16. Nxh8 Nc2+ 17. Kd1 Nxa1 18. Qxh7+ Kf8 19. Ng6+ Ke8
20. Nf7 $1 {and White wins, e.g.} c5 21. Nge5 Kf8 22. Nd6 {and Ng6+ is coming})
15. Ngf7 {and now} Rg8 {would have kept the game going, although White can
quickly bring his rook over to the kingside via d3.} ({Not} 15... Rf8 16. Qg4+
Kh7 17. Bd3+ {.})) ({
. In Zsinka-Reinemer, Oberwart 1995, Black's king was in need of company after
} 9... d6 10. Nxe4 Bd7 11. Bxg7+ Kxg7 12. Qg5+ Kf8 (12... Kf7 13. Be2 Rg8 14.
Qh6) 13. O-O-O {etc.})) (5. h5 {attacks Black's defences as early as the fifth
move. Black must weigh up the consequences of White pushing to h6 or landing
Black with a backward pawn and vulnerable g5-square after hxg6. Or should
Black rule out both possibilities by accepting the offer?} -- (5... Nxh5 6. e4
Nf6 7. e5 $1 Ne4 (7... Ng8 8. f4 {looks ridiculous for Black}) 8. Nxe4 fxe4 {
puts Black under a lot of pressure for a mere pawn.} 9. -- ({
. Piket-Onischuk, Biel (blitz) 1999, ended in a quick win for White:} 9. Bh6
Bxh6 10. Rxh6 c5 $2 ({instead} 10... O-O {
creates a threat of 11...Rxf2!?, but White should play} 11. Qc2 {anyway, when}
e3 12. Nf3 exf2+ 13. Qxf2 {followed by 0-0-0, Bd3 and piling the major pieces
on the h-file is excellent for White,}) (10... d6 11. Qc2 dxe5 12. O-O-O $1
exd4 13. Qxe4 {is unclear}) 11. d5 Qc7 12. f4 b5 13. Ne2 d6 14. e6 {
(now Black has a weak back rank)} Na6 15. Nc3 bxc4 (15... Bb7 {
and ...0-0-0 is imperative}) 16. Qg4 $1 Bb7 (16... Kf8 17. f5 Qb6 18. Rb1) 17.
Qxg6+ Kd8 18. Rxh7 {1-0.}) (9. f4 {adopts a different approach, seeking to
round up the e4-pawn and emerge with more space and the h-file. Zsinka-Petro,
Sarospatak 1995, continued} d5 10. cxd5 Qxd5 11. Be3 Be6 $6 ({
Black has an improvement in} 11... Nc6 {, e.g.} 12. Ne2 Bg4 13. Nc3 Qd7 {
with chances for both sides}) 12. Ne2 c6 13. Nc3 Qa5 14. a3 Bd5 15. Qg4 $1 O-O
16. Qh4 Kf7 17. f5 gxf5 18. Qh5+ Ke6 19. Qxh7 {and White was winning.})) ({
. Black was deservedly punished in Barrett-Tozer, British League 1998, when} 
5... c6 $6 6. h6 Bf8 7. Bg5 e6 $6 8. d5 Bc5 9. Nh3 $1 e5 10. d6 {
gave him serious development problems.}) (5... d6 6. h6 Bf8 7. Bg5 e6 $6 (7...
Nbd7 {looks better, when Black is cramped}) 8. e4 $1 Be7 9. exf5 exf5 10. Qc2
O-O 11. O-O-O Ne4 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. Nf3 Nxc3 14. Qxc3 Qf6 15. Re1 {
with a clear advantage to White in Gausel-Vidarsson, Reykjavik 1993.}) (5... e6
6. hxg6 hxg6 7. Rxh8+ Bxh8 {and now both} 8. Nf3 ({and} 8. Bg5 Qe7 9. e4 {
, Aagaard-Winge, Swedish League 1998}) 8... Ne4 9. Qd3 $1 Nxc3 10. bxc3 Bf6 11.
e4 {, Djurhuus-Silseth, Gausdal 1992, favour White.}) (5... O-O $2 6. hxg6 hxg6
7. Nf3 d6 8. Bg5 Nbd7 9. Qd2 c6 {, Correa-Rodriguez, Osasco 1992. This should
serve as a good example of castling into an attack!} 10. Bh6 Ng4 11. Bxg7 Kxg7
12. Ng5 Ndf6 13. f3 {and Black lost material.}) (5... gxh5 $6 6. Bg5 O-O 7. e3
d6 8. Nh3 c6 9. Nf4 {
with a clear lead in Dao Thien Hai-P.Petran, Hungarian League 1995.}) (5... Nc6
6. hxg6 hxg6 7. Rxh8+ Bxh8 8. Nf3 d6 9. Qd2 $1 {, Schlindwein-Saumweber, Bad
Wörishofen 2000. White's queen is coming to either g5 or h6 to attack the
g6-pawn and worry Black's king.}))) ({Finally there is} 4... c5 $5 {, providing
the king with an escape square. Honestly. Kotronias-Yilmaz, Istanbul 1988,
continued} 5. d5 d6 6. h5 Nxh5 7. e4 Nf6 8. Bd3 fxe4 9. Nxe4 Nbd7 (9... Bg7 10.
Nxf6+ Bxf6 11. Rxh7 $1 Rxh7 12. Bxg6+ Rf7 13. Qh5) 10. Nxf6+ Nxf6 11. Bxg6+ Kd7
12. Ne2 Kc7 {and White had got what he wanted but was only slightly better
thanks to the extra space and superior presence on the light squares.}) 5. h5 (
5. e4 {is the other consistent follow-up to 4 h4, sticking to the strategy of
softening Black up on the light squares.} fxe4 6. h5 Nxh5 7. g4 $5 (7. Rxh5
gxh5 8. Qxh5+ {transposes to the main game}) 7... Nf6 8. g5 Nfd7 9. Nxe4 Bg7
10. Ne2 c6 11. Nf4 Nf8 12. Be3 Qa5+ 13. Bd2 Qc7 14. Qe2 $5 Bxd4 15. O-O-O Kf7 {
, Piket-Malaniuk, Lvov 1988. White has obvious compensation for the two pawns
in the shape of good pieces, more space and Black's severely disrupted
development.}) 5... Nxh5 (5... Bg7 {
leads back to 5...d6 in the note to Black's 4th move.}) 6. Rxh5 $1 {The point.}
({Again} 6. e4 {is possible, then Black has} Nf6 (6... fxe4 7. Rxh5 {
is the main game}) 7. Bd3 e5 8. Bg5 f4 9. Nf3 Nbd7 {which produced an almost
normal position in Summerscale-G.Wall, London MSO 1999. It is not clear that
White has enough for the pawn, although Black does lack space and will
struggle if White can open lines.}) 6... gxh5 7. e4 {For the exchange White is
about to cause Black's king some major inconvenience and, consequently, a
serious development problem.} fxe4 {Others:} (7... Be6 {intends to meet} 8.
Qxh5+ {, with} Bf7 9. Qxf5 Qd7 {etc.}) ({Therefore White prefers} 7... Be6 8.
Be2 {. This way White is guaranteed to unsettle the black king. Black has
tried three moves.} -- (8... Bf7 9. Bxh5 Bxh5 10. Qxh5+ Kd7 11. Nf3 c6 12. Ng5
Qe8 13. Qh3 Na6 14. exf5 $1 Kc7 15. Ne6+ Kb8 16. Bf4 {
with the usual bind in Welling-Nilssen, Taastrup 1997.}) (8... fxe4 9. Bxh5+
Kd7 10. d5 $1 Bf5 11. Bg4 {
helps White to the light squares but is not as bad for Black as it might look.}
) (8... Kd7 {and now both} 9. Nh3 ({and} 9. d5 Bf7 10. Bxh5 Bg6 11. exf5 Bxh5
12. Qxh5 Bg7 13. Bd2 Na6 14. Nge2 Qg8 15. Qh3 Bf6 16. Nf4 Re8 17. O-O-O {
, Welling-Ammann, Velden 1995}) 9... Kc8 10. Ng5 Bg8 11. exf5 Bh6 12. d5 Bxg5
13. Bxg5 h6 14. Bh4 Bh7 15. Bd3 Qf8 16. Qxh5 {
, Holst-Jessen, Copenhagen 1991, saw the minor pieces enjoy much more activity.
})) (7... Bg7 8. Qxh5+ Kd7 $5 (8... Kf8 9. Nf3 Qe8 10. Qh4) 9. Nf3 Qe8 10.
Qxf5+ Kd8 {looks like the board has been set up incorrectly but is a sensible
try from Black to help the struggling kingside. White has a pawn for the
exchange and should concentrate on castling queenside and posting his pieces
optimally. Even Black's task of actually connecting rooks is an unenviable one.
}) 8. Qxh5+ Kd7 9. Qh3+ e6 10. Nxe4 $6 (10. d5 $1 {is more to the point, e.g.}
Qe7 (10... Qf6 11. Nxe4 Qe5 12. Bd3) 11. Nxe4 {and Black is yet to stabilize.
In the game Black is given time to hold the position steady.}) 10... Be7 11.
Be3 Qg8 $1 12. O-O-O Kd8 {Notwithstanding White's possibility on move ten, the
diagram position represents Black's sensible general treatment of the system,
with the king 'safely' tucked in behind the centre pawns and no genuine
weakness on the light squares. On the downside Black has hardly any space in
which to carry out what are awkward manoeuvres, none of the pieces has access
to a decent outpost and the rooks are a long way from getting acquainted on
the crowded back rank.} 13. Nf3 Bd7 14. Bd3 Kc8 15. Qh2 {The queen cannot
share a diagonal with Black's bishop indefinitely so White switches on his own
terms.} Nc6 16. c5 $6 ({Black still needs to get his rooks into play so White
might consider improving (} 16. a3 {
, for example) before making a commitment in the centre.}) 16... d5 17. Nc3 a6
18. Bf4 Qd8 19. a3 ({Since the chief positional justification of White's
system is to establish superior piece placement to accompany the significant
development lead it makes little sense to then voluntarily walk into a pin
with the greedy} 19. Bxh7 {, e.g.} Bf6 20. Ne2 Qe7 21. Rh1 Qg7 {
and White is having to defend.}) 19... Bf6 20. Bc2 Be8 $1 21. Na4 $5 Bg6 22.
Bxg6 hxg6 23. Qg3 Rg8 $2 (23... Rh7 $1 {protects c7 and sees Black finally
begin to get into the game, the material lead thus growing in significance.})
24. Bxc7 $1 Qxc7 25. Nb6+ Kb8 ({Now after} 25... Kd8 26. Nxa8 Qxg3 27. fxg3 {
the d4-pawn is safe.}) 26. Nd7+ Kc8 27. Nb6+ Kb8 28. Nd7+ Kc8 {. If the precise
regrouping that is required from Black in this line can prove difficult for
strong players I imagine the club player will be left in dire straits when
faced with such an aggressive, no-nonsense attack.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "Polish Championship, Plock"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kempinski, R."]
[Black "Grabarczyk, B."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A85"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventDate "2000.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 {This is a good point at which to have a brief look at
Black's alternatives made possible with this particular move order.} (2... Bb4+
3. Nc3 {transposes to the Nimzo after} Nf6 {. Others:} (3... Bxc3+ 4. bxc3 {
saves White a tempo (a2-a3) on normal lines, and now the Dutch treatment with}
f5 {affords White an interesting possibility in the shape of the aggressive} 5.
e4 $5 fxe4 6. Qh5+ g6 {. Not very subtle play, I agree, but quite effective
nonetheless. White has two moves.} 7. -- (7. Qe5 Nf6 8. Bg5 Rf8 9. h4 d6 10.
Qg3 Qd7 11. Be2 Qf7 12. Nh3 Nc6 13. Bxf6 Qxf6 14. Ng5 Qe7 15. Nxe4 {and White's
extra space was enough for an edge in I.Sokolov-Romero Holmes, Manila Olympiad
1992.}) ({
. In Garcia Ilundain-Romero Holmes, Leon 1992, White had compensation after} 7.
Qe2 Nf6 8. f3 $1 exf3 9. Nxf3 d6 10. Qc2 Qe7 11. Bd3 {etc.} (11. --))) (3... c5
4. d5 Bxc3+ (4... d6 5. e4 Nf6 6. Bd3 Nbd7 7. Nge2 e5 8. O-O Bxc3 9. Nxc3 {
and Black did not even have doubled c-pawns to play against in Korchnoi-Barcza,
Sochi 1966}) 5. bxc3 Qa5 {is another attempt to do without ...Nf6. However,
White can safely ignore the threat to the c3-pawn with} 6. e4 $1 {
. Best for Black is} Nf6 (6... Qxc3+ {loses too much time after} 7. Bd2 Qe5 8.
Bd3 {followed by Nf3 etc}) 7. Bd2 $1 d6 (7... Nxe4 $2 8. Qg4 Nxd2 9. Qxg7 Rf8
10. Kxd2 {and White threatens Ng1-f3-g5xh7}) 8. Bd3 O-O 9. Ne2 Re8 {, and now}
10. Bg5 $1 exd5 11. Bxf6 dxe4 12. Bc2 gxf6 13. Qxd6 {is unclear, while Dorfman
suggests that Black avoids the crippling of his kingside pawns with 10...Ng4.})
) ({Apart from the check Black can also play the English Defence with} 2... b6
{, aimed at unsettling White by employing virtually any means (usually ...f7-f5) to strike at the broad centre after} 3. e4 Bb7 {. The game can get very
complex very quickly if White overestimates his chances, so I recommend
supporting the e-pawn with} 4. Qc2 {when Black invariably plays} Qh4 5. Nd2 $1
Bb4 6. Bd3 {and now:} -- (6... Qg4 {hopes for the weakening 7 g3, but White
does better to give up the right to castle:} 7. Kf1 $1 f5 8. f3 Qh4 9. exf5 --
({
, and here King, in his excellent book 'English Defence', analyses the following:
} 9... exf5 10. Bxf5 Nc6 11. Qe4+ Qxe4 12. Bxe4 Nf6 {suggesting that Black has
some compensation in the form of development. This seems reasonable, but I
doubt it is worth a pawn after} 13. Ne2 {, for example.}) ({
. He also investigates} 9... Nc6 10. fxe6 dxe6 {
, but does not consider the less compromising} 11. d5 $1 {
, which puts Black on the defensive in view of the menacing check on a4, e.g.}
(11. Ne2 O-O-O) 11... exd5 {
(protecting the bishop along the rank but in so doing opening the e-file)} 12.
cxd5 Nce7 ({or} 12... Ne5 13. Bb5+ Kd8 14. a3 $1) 13. Bb5+ Kd8 14. Qe4 {
with a clear advantage to White in both cases since Black has nothing to show
for the pawn and his king is no better than White's.}) ({
. Levitt-Ehlvest, New York 1994, went} 9... Qxd4 {
, when Levitt could have played} 10. a3 $1 {with much the better game, e.g.}
Bc5 11. Nb3 {etc.})) (6... f5 {is the main move, when} 7. Ngf3 {
presents a further branch:} -- (7... Qg4 8. O-O Bxd2 9. Nxd2 Nc6 10. f3 Qh4 11.
Qc3 {gives White an edge after either} Nf6 ({or} 11... Qf6 12. e5 Qh4 13. f4
Nh6 14. Nf3) 12. b4 ({or} 12. d5 $5 {.})) ({. In reply to} 7... Qh5 {
King mentions} 8. O-O Nf6 9. exf5 Bxd2 10. Nxd2 Qg4 {, with an accompanying
assessment of unclear from Kengis. In fact this looks like an interesting
approach for White after the thematic} 11. d5 $1 {. Already a pawn up, White
should be prepared to return one in order to frustrate Black on the long
diagonal, while any further opening of the position benefits the bishop pair.
After} exd5 ({alternatively} 11... Na6 12. h3 $1 Qh5 13. fxe6 dxe6 ({and} 13...
Nb4 14. exd7+) 14. Qa4+ Kf7 15. Ne4 $1 {are not to be recommended for Black})
12. Re1+ Kf8 13. Be2 $1 {White proceeds with development at the cost of the
queen with 14 Nf3, when Black's kingside attack disappears and it is his own
king that is poorly placed.}) (7... Bxd2+ 8. Bxd2 Qg4 {
is seen most frequently, resulting in a complicated position after} 9. Ne5 Qxg2
10. O-O-O {. Black must play} fxe4 (10... Bxe4 $6 {does not work in view of}
11. Rhg1 Bxd3 12. Qxd3 Qe4 ({Black's queen is walking on thin ice after} 12...
Qxf2 13. Nf3) 13. Qg3 g6 14. Nxg6 $1 {
, when White was already winning in Vujacic-Le Blancq, London Lloyds Bank 1991}
) 11. Be2 {
when there is a decision to make as to which knight to bring out first.} -- (
11... Nc6 12. Nxc6 Bxc6 13. d5 Bb7 (13... exd5 14. cxd5 Bxd5 15. Qxc7 {
gives White a clear advantage according to 'ECO'}) 14. Bh5+ g6 {
, was seen in Remlinger-Rogers, Philadelphia 1986, when} 15. Qc3 {
would have been decisive, e.g.} Nf6 16. Qxf6 Rf8 17. Qg7 {.}) (11... Nf6 {
has done reasonably okay for Black. However,} 12. Rhg1 {
looks more fun for White:} Qxh2 (12... Qxf2 {, runs into the unlikely} 13. Bh6
$1 {, e.g.} Qxh2 (13... gxh6 $4 14. Bh5+ {;}) (13... g6 14. Rgf1 Qxh2 15. Bg7)
14. Bxg7 Rg8 15. Bxf6 Rxg1 16. Bh5+ $1 Qxh5 17. Rxg1 {
(Keene, Plaskett and Tisdall) and Black is in trouble:} Qh6+ 18. Bg5 Qh3 19.
Qf2 Qf5 20. Bf6 $1) 13. Rh1 Qxf2 {, when King offers the following:} 14. Bh6 $1
e3 15. Rdf1 Qg3 (15... Bxh1 16. Rxf2 exf2 17. Bxg7 Be4 18. Qd1 Rg8 19. Bxf6 Rg1
20. Bf1 {favours White, e.g.} d6 21. Ng4 Bg2 22. Ne3) 16. Rhg1 Qh2 17. Bxg7 Rg8
18. Qd1 Ne4 19. Bh5+ {. King does not mention} Kd8 {, when White wins with} (
19... Ke7 20. Rf7+ Kd6 21. Nf3 {and White is winning}) 20. Bf6+ $1 Nxf6 21.
Rxg8+ Nxg8 22. Rf8+ Ke7 23. Re8+ Kf6 ({or} 23... Kd6 24. Nf7+ Kc6 25. Qa4+) 24.
Ng4+ {.})))) 3. Nc3 Nf6 ({In reply to} 3... Bb4 {White has two choices:} 4. --
(4. Qc2 Nf6 5. Bd2 O-O 6. e3 {is Kempinski's approach, his game against
Ostrowski, Frydek Mistek 1997, continuing} b6 7. a3 Bxc3 8. Bxc3 Bb7 9. f3 a5
10. Bd3 a4 11. Ne2 {with a pleasant position for White. Black's problem here
is that White's bishops are not properly contained, making it awkward for
Black to contest the centre without opening the game too much, and, therefore,
easier for White to expand.}) (4. e4 fxe4 (4... Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 {
leads to 3...Bxc3+ in the note to Black's second move}) 5. Qg4 {, when} (5.
Qh5+ Kf8 $5) 5... Nf6 ({while} 5... Qe7 6. Qxe4 Nf6 {
is safer and approximately even}) 6. Qxg7 Rg8 7. Qh6 Rg6 8. Qh4 Nc6 9. Nge2 d5
10. Bg5 dxc4 11. O-O-O {was unclear in Szabo-Grob, Vienna 1947.})) 4. f3 $5 {
Here the intention is not to automatically play for e2-e4, rather to cover the
e4-square in anticipation of ...Bb4 and/or a queenside fianchetto from Black
(when the long diagonal is shortened and White's bishop need no longer protect
g2).} ({Again White has a less committal option, namely} 4. Qc2 {, when:} -- (
4... d5 {puts a stop to e2-e4. Then} 5. Bf4 c6 6. e3 {
gives White a definite edge in the Stonewall set up after either} Be7 ({or} 
6... Bd6 7. Bxd6 Qxd6 8. Bd3 Ne4 9. Bxe4 fxe4 10. f3 {
, as in Ryskin-Dluski, Karvina 1992}) 7. Bd3 Ne4 8. Nge2 O-O 9. g4 $1 ({
the sober} 9. O-O {is fine}) 9... Bh4 10. Bg3 Kh8 11. Nf4 Na6 12. a3 Nc7 13.
O-O-O {, when White looked more menacing in Miton-Kruger, World Junior Ch.,
Yerevan 2000.}) (4... b6 {looks to monitor the e4-square from a distance.
Loginov-Driamin, Aratovsky Memorial 1999, went} 5. e3 Bb7 6. f3 c5 7. d5 $1 {
when the clearance} exd5 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Nxd5 Bxd5 10. Qxf5 {favoured White.}))
4... Bb4 5. Bd2 O-O 6. a3 Bxc3 (6... Be7 {allows} 7. e4 {.}) 7. Bxc3 {
Taking time to recapture on c3 with the bishop fits in well with f2-f3 because
the annoying ...Ne4 is not possible. Additionally, the bishop's presence on c3
dissuades Black from challenging the centre with ... c7-c5 or ...e7-e5, yet
these are natural after the exchange of Black's dark-squared bishop.} b6 {
Despite looking perfectly natural the queenside fianchetto has been criticized
in this position.} ({The alternative is to concentrate on the centre, e.g.} 
7... d6 8. e3 Qe8 9. Qd2 Nc6 10. Bd3 e5 11. Ne2 {. We are following the game
Kempinski-Gleizerov, Rilton Cup 2000. Black has succeeded in staking a claim
for the centre but must be careful not to unleash his opponent's bishops.
White's flexibility is such that it is possible to castle on either side. The
game continued} e4 12. Bc2 b5 $6 13. cxb5 Ne7 14. fxe4 Nxe4 15. Bxe4 fxe4 16.
d5 $5 Qxb5 17. Nf4 {and White's bishop had come to life as per plan.}) 8. e3
Bb7 9. Qd2 a5 10. Nh3 {From h3 the knight can go to f2 (adding to White's
control of e4) as well as f4.} a4 11. Bd3 Nc6 12. O-O Na5 13. Rae1 {Having completed his development White is ready to push his e-pawn in order to go on the
offensive, a skirmish in the centre likely to result in opening lines for the
bishops (which both point toward Black's king). Black's bishop has no positive
influence on the game and he is not well placed to face advancing pawns.} Nb3 {
Consistent. Unfortunately for Black it takes too long to generate any effective 
play on the queenside, whereas White's game is quite easy to conduct.} 14. Qc2
{Now 15 e4 will pack more punch since after 15...fxe4 16 fxe4 White threatens
to unleash the queen and bishop with e4-e5.} ({
Of course, White is going to open up with e3-e4 anyway, and after} 14. Qc2 d5
15. cxd5 {Black will still be hit with 16 e4. Faced with an unenviable
situation Black seeks counterplay.}) 14... c5 15. d5 $1 {Closing out Black's
bishop and accentuating the power of his own, the idea being to concentrate on
the area of the board where Black is least able to defend himself. White's
next will be 16 e4, clamping down on d5 as well as further opening up the
position.} exd5 16. cxd5 Bxd5 (16... Nxd5 17. Bxf5 (17. Bc4 $6 Kh8 18. Bxb3
axb3 19. Qxb3 Nxc3 {is only equal}) 17... h6 18. Bh7+ Kh8 19. Be4 {
gives White a clear edge.}) 17. e4 $5 {
A move with which White demonstrates confidence in his position;} ({
as the simple} 17. Bxf5 Be6 18. Ng5 Bxf5 19. Qxf5 {
is very good. Instead he puts his faith in the power of the bishop pair.})
17... Bc6 ({After} 17... fxe4 18. fxe4 c4 (18... Be6 19. e5 c4 20. exf6 cxd3
21. Qxd3 gxf6 22. Qg3+ Kh8 23. Qg5) 19. exd5 cxd3 20. Qxd3 {
White's excellent pieces put Black under considerable pressure, e.g.} Nc5 21.
Qd4 d6 22. Nf4 {.}) 18. Nf4 (18. e5 Nd5 19. Bxf5 {
wins back the pawn with interest}) ({but after} 18. exf5 d5 {Black's pawns are
rolling. The text simply improves the knight before taking further action.})
18... b5 {Black's counter is too late. White's bishops dominate.} 19. e5 Nd5 (
19... Ne8 20. Bxf5 $1 g6 {does not work in view of} 21. Bxg6 Rxf4 (21... hxg6
22. Qxg6+ Ng7 23. Nh5) 22. Bxh7+ {, e.g.} Kh8 (22... Kf8 23. Qg6 Rf7 24. e6 {
wins for White}) 23. e6+ Nd4 (23... Ng7 24. e7 Qe8 25. Bg6 Rf7 26. Qf2) 24. e7
Qc7 25. Qg6 {.}) 20. Nxd5 Bxd5 21. Bxf5 b4 (21... h6 22. Rd1 Bc6 23. Rfe1 ({and
} 23. Be6+ $5 {do not help Black's lot.})) 22. Bxh7+ ({Not} 22. axb4 cxb4 23.
Bxb4 $2 Qb6+ {.}) 22... Kh8 23. Bd2 bxa3 24. bxa3 Nxd2 (24... Bxf3 25. Bg6 {.})
25. Qxd2 Bxf3 (25... Kxh7 26. Qxd5 {is equally decisive.}) 26. Bb1 Bh5 27.
Rxf8+ Qxf8 28. Qg5 Qe8 (28... g6 29. g4 {.}) 29. Qf5 g6 30. Qf6+ Kg8 31. Ba2+
Kh7 32. g4 $1 Bxg4 33. Bf7 Qf8 34. Qxg6+ Kh8 35. Re4 1-0

[Event "Scottish Championship, Edinburgh"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Summerscale, A."]
[Black "Mannion, S."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A57"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "129"]
[EventDate "1999.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. f3 {Not even mentioned in 'Nunn's Chess
Openings', I am sure this move will continue to grow in popularity over the
next few years. The fact that the well-prepared Summerscale, amongst others,
has worked with 4 f3 is indicative of the variation's soundness. Obviously
White plans to erect a centre with pawns on f3, e4 and d5, a strategy very
similar to the system with 5 f3.} ({However, the difference here is that by
declining the gambit (missing out the moves} 4. cxb5 a6 {) White proceeds with
development without permitting Black the traditional queenside counterplay. Of
course Black is not put under any immediate pressure, but the a-file is not
available and White, by addressing the centre so quickly, is ready to face a
challenge involving ...e7-e6.}) 4... bxc4 {The natural response if Black is to
generate counterplay by using the f1-a6 diagonal or by contesting the centre.
There are two alternatives.} (4... b4 $6 {closes the queenside while White
still has his pawn on a2, thus leaving Black at the mercy of a well timed
a2-a3. Meanwhile White has the makings of a formidable centre. After} 5. e4 d6
{we have two contrasting examples:} 6. -- (6. a3 Qa5 7. Be3 g6 8. Nd2 Bg7 9.
Nb3 Qa4 {and now in D.Gurevich-Vasto, Chicago 1989, White could have justified
his play thus far with} 10. axb4 $1 Qxb4+ 11. Bd2 Qb7 12. Ne2 $1 O-O 13. Nc3 {
etc. White's knights control key squares on the queenside, with a future
Nb3-a5-c6 a possibility that Black must consider.}) ({. In Summerscale-D'Costa,
British Ch. 1999, White elected to keep his options open on the queenside,
exploiting the early grip on the centre and a space advantage by preparing for
a kingside offensive:} 6. Be3 Nbd7 7. Ne2 a5 8. Ng3 g6 9. Be2 Bg7 10. Qc1 $5 {
, when Black chose} h5 {rather than be subjected to a ready-made kingside
attack in the case of 10...0-0 11 Bh6 followed by the launch of the h-pawn.
The game continued} 11. O-O Qc7 12. Nd2 Bb7 13. h3 Ra6 14. f4 $1 Bh6 15. Nf3
Bg7 16. Bd3 Nh7 17. Qc2 O-O 18. Rae1 a4 19. Bc1 $1 {and White, almost primed
to let loose with e4-e5 and/or f4-f5, was clearly better. Moreover} Rb6 20. Qe2
b3 21. a3 {left every one of White's pieces ready for action on the kingside
and half of Black's idling on the other wing.} (21. --))) (4... e6 {
has another go at White's centre.} 5. e4 exd5 6. cxd5 c4 {. This thrust is
seen in the 5 f3 variation after (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 f3) 5...
e6 6 e4 c4!?, but the position is significantly different in that White's
c-pawn has journeyed to d5, whereas in the main line the pawn is distracted
westward: c2-c4xb5 etc. Consequently in the diagram position White has a
strong centre, thus making counterplay more difficult for Black to create.} 7.
Be3 Bb4+ 8. Nc3 Qe7 9. Qd2 d6 10. Nge2 Bd7 11. Nd4 O-O 12. Be2 Na6 13. O-O {
was excellent for White in S.Larsen-U.Nielsen, Danish League 1994.}) 5. e4 d6 (
{Again} 5... e6 {is possible.} 6. Nc3 {and now:} -- (6... d6 7. Bxc4 e5 {
wastes a tempo and is too passive. White responded immediately in Summerscale-G.Morris, Wales 2000:} 8. f4 $1 Nbd7 9. Nf3 exf4 10. Bxf4 a6 11. O-O Nb6 {
. Compared with Pribyl-Vokac Black is already in dire straits.} 12. e5 $1 Nh5 (
12... Nxc4 13. exf6) ({or} 12... dxe5 13. Nxe5 Nxc4 14. Qa4+ Bd7 15. Qxc4) 13.
Re1 $5 Nxf4 14. exd6+ {and White is winning. A sample line is} Be6 ({
instead the game ended} 14... Be7 15. Rxe7+ Kf8 16. Ne5 Qxd6 17. Rxf7+ Kg8 18.
Rxf4 Nxc4 (18... Qxe5 19. Re4) 19. Rxc4 Qxe5 20. Re4 {1-0}) 15. dxe6 fxe6 16.
Bd5 $1 Rc8 (16... Nfxd5 17. Nxd5 Bxd6 18. Rxe6+ Kf7 19. Nxb6 Kxe6 20. Qd5+) 17.
Bb7 Rb8 18. Bc6+ Kf7 19. Ne5+ Kg8 20. Qf3 Qf6 21. Rad1 {etc.}) (6... exd5 7. e5
{. Bringing about another similarity, this time with the line 4 cxb5 a6 5 f3
e6 6 e4 exd5 7 e5. Again the key difference is good news for White, since the
knight is already on c3 (hitting d5).} -- ({. Consequently the 'usual'} 7...
Qe7 {here meets with} 8. Qe2 Ng8 9. Nxd5 {.}) ({. After} 7... Nh5 8. Qxd5 Nc6 {
White secures a safe advantage with either} 9. Ne4 (9. f4 {
both directed against} Qh4+ {,}) ({while} 9. e6 $5 {looks fun.})) ({. In Rabinovich-Gershon, Israel 1997, Black tried to turn the move order to his advantage
with} 7... d4 8. exf6 Qxf6 9. Qe2+ $1 Qe6 10. Nb5 Na6 11. Qxe6+ fxe6 12. Bxc4
d5 13. Be2 e5 {with a wall of pawns for the piece. However, materially
speaking Black has only two pawns for the knight, and now} 14. b3 $1 {
, preventing} c4 {, would have been quite promising for White.} (14... --))) (
6... Bb7 7. Bxc4 Nxd5 8. Bxd5 (8. exd5 Qh4+) ({but} 8. Nxd5 {
makes more sense, using d5 as an outpost}) 8... exd5 9. exd5 d6 10. Nge2 Be7
11. O-O O-O 12. Ng3 g6 {was fine for Black in Gabriel-Taggatz, Germany 1997.}))
6. Bxc4 ({
White chose to post a knight on c4 in Chernosvitov-Boehle, Dortmund 1993. After
} 6. Na3 g6 7. Ne2 Bg7 8. Nc3 O-O 9. Nxc4 Ba6 {Black did not like the look of
this piece, although the knight's replacement proved even stronger:} 10. Be2
Bxc4 11. Bxc4 Nbd7 12. f4 Rb8 13. O-O Rb4 14. Qe2 Qc7 15. a3 Rbb8 16. Ra2 $1
Nb6 17. Bb5 {and White was simply too strong on the light squares, for which
Black lacked sufficient play in compensation.}) 6... g6 7. Ne2 Bg7 8. O-O ({
The automatic} 8. Nbc3 {
is another possibility. Reshevsky-Ernst, Lugano 1987, continued} O-O 9. O-O Ba6
10. Nb5 Nfd7 11. Nec3 Nb6 12. Be2 N8d7 13. a4 {and Black was a little tied up
on the queenside. White's sturdy centre rules out an attack on the e4-pawn and
Black's pieces are not properly placed to challenge with ...e7-e6. After} Qb8
14. a5 Nc8 15. Qa4 Qb7 16. Ra3 $5 (16. Nxd6 $2 exd6 17. Bxa6 Qxa6 18. Qxd7 Bd4+
) 16... Rb8 17. Rb3 {White had succeeded in more than just taming Black's
Benko queenside ambitions. Notice that the impressive g2-f3-e4-d5 pawn chain
needs minimal support and affords White space in which to operate on both
sides of the board. Black, meanwhile, does not enjoy the desired play in the
more open position that often results from 4 cxb5 a6. There followed} Ne5 18.
Nd4 Qc7 (18... Nxf3+ 19. Nxf3 Qxb3 20. Bxa6 Bxc3 21. Qxb3 Rxb3 22. bxc3 Rxc3
23. Bh6 {is not too clear because Black has a rook and two pawns for two
bishops, but White's pieces are active}) 19. Bxa6 cxd4 20. Rxb8 Qxb8 21. Ne2 {
and Black was struggling. Instead of 9...Ba6 Black should consider either
knight to d7 followed by evicting the bishop from c4, a logical plan that
exploits the 'natural' but in fact artificial placement of White's knights.})
8... O-O 9. Nec3 $5 {I like this set-up. Clearly White wants a knight on c3,
but this does not mean that the role should always go to the queen's knight.
The c4-square is also important and White is advised to monitor/occupy it with
more than the bishop, and this can be done with Na3 (which also covers b5).}
Nbd7 10. a4 {White judges that the b4-square is a price worth paying in return
for the constant menace of a4-a5, after which the often useful b6-square is no
longer available to Black.} Rb8 {Introducing the possibility of ...Rb4 to
contest the c4-square. White carries on with his queenside strategy.} 11. Na3 {
Notice that as well as increasing White's grip on b5 - which Black cannot
realistically cover with ...a7-a6 because this creates a target and leaves a
potential hole on b6 after a4-a5 - the knight on a3 does not get in the way of
the dark-squared bishop, which White is holding back until an appropriate post
becomes apparent.} Ne8 {Preparing a typical Benko manoeuvre aimed at
(eventually) sending the knight to b4 or even leaving it on c7. The other
advantage, of course, is that the g7-bishop now has more light on the long
diagonal.} 12. Qc2 Nc7 13. Bg5 {Tying Black down to the newly pinned e7-pawn.}
Ne5 $6 {Once White retreats his bishop the knight serves no other purpose on
e5 than as a tempo-gaining target for the f3-pawn.} ({
If Black wants to keep White busy} 13... Nb6 14. Be2 Ba6 {is okay, when} 15.
Nab5 {justifies White's pattern of development on the queenside and results in
a pull in the middlegame after the sensible} Qd7 {.}) 14. Be2 Na6 15. f4 $1 {
A well-timed attack that switches attention to the kingside before Black's
advancing knights become a problem.} ({Now retreating with} 15. f4 Nd7 {
gives White time for} 16. Nab5 $1 {
(threatening Nxa7-c6 etc.), so Black keeps going forward.}) 15... Ng4 16. Bxg4
Bxg4 17. f5 $5 {Having lured the bishop into the heart of his kingside White
cuts off the escape route, introducing the threat of h2-h3, when the bishop
has nowhere to run.} gxf5 18. h3 Bh5 19. exf5 f6 {Not a great way to save the
stranded bishop since its partner is now locked away.} ({Being reduced to
closing in the traditionally powerful bishop is every Benko player's nightmare,
but prefacing ...f7-f6 with} 19... Bd4+ {runs the risk of leaving Black's king
without the necessary protection. For example after} 20. Kh1 f6 21. Bh6 Nb4 ({
while} 21... Re8 22. Qd3 $1 {threatens both 23 Qxa6 and the deadly check on g3}
) 22. Qe4 Re8 23. Qh4 {White wins as} Bf7 24. Qg4+ {is final.}) 20. Be3 Qd7 21.
Nc4 {Thanks to White's clever knight deployment both c3 and c4 offer perfect
outposts, a factor that Black immediately hopes to address.} Rb4 22. Qd3 Rfb8
23. Rae1 Nc7 24. Bc1 Bf7 {With his queenside well protected White is able to
enjoy a considerable space advantage that gives him much more than his fair
share of freedom both in the centre and on the kingside. Black has weaknesses
on e6 and e7 and his once mighty dark-squared bishop is awful (the other
bishop is not much better). In order to convert his advantages White needs to
step up a gear and find an effective plan.} 25. Na5 $6 ({After} 25. Rf2 {
followed by doubling on the e-file Black is reduced to passivity. The text is
aggressive but perhaps premature.}) 25... Rd4 $1 26. Qg3 Kh8 $2 {Under the circumstances, of course, Black - a Benko expert - can be forgiven for believing
that everything has gone wrong, particularly as White's last move homes in on
the pinned, disgraced bishop.} ({
However, for better or worse Black has to hit out with} 26... Bxd5 $1 {
, when White needs to find a breakthrough.} 27. Bh6 Ne8 28. Nxd5 Rxd5 {
, for example, seems to hold for Black.}) 27. Nc6 {
Now White gets what he wants.} Re8 28. Nxd4 cxd4 29. Ne2 Qxa4 30. Rf4 Nxd5 31.
Rxd4 Qb5 32. Qf2 a5 33. Nf4 Nb4 ({After} 33... Nxf4 34. Qxf4 {White is well on
top. The problem for Black - apart from material down! - is that he is playing
without his g7-bishop.}) 34. Ne6 Bxe6 35. Rxe6 Nd3 36. Qf1 {
White is winning. The inevitable outcome is a matter of time and technique.}
Qc5 37. Qxd3 Qxc1+ 38. Qd1 Qxb2 39. Rdxd6 Rg8 40. Rd2 Qb4 41. Kh1 Bf8 42. Rd4
$1 Qb7 43. Rg4 Rxg4 44. Qxg4 Qb1+ 45. Kh2 Qb8+ 46. Qg3 Qb5 47. Qf2 Qb8+ 48. g3
{Now that White's king position has been tidied up it is time to use the
'extra' rook.} a4 49. Ra6 Qb5 50. Ra8 Kg7 51. Qc2 $1 {Threatening 52 Rxa4.} Qb3
52. Qxb3 axb3 53. Rb8 Kf7 54. Rxb3 Bh6 {The bishop finally enjoys freedom, but
now the game is effectively over because the rook is too strong.} 55. Kg2 Bd2
56. Kf3 h5 57. Rd3 Bc1 58. Rd4 Bg5 59. h4 Bc1 60. g4 $1 {
Creating a passed pawn.} hxg4+ 61. Rxg4 e6 62. Ke4 Bh6 63. Rg6 Bf8 64. h5 exf5+
65. Kxf5 1-0

[Event "Koszalin"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stohl, I."]
[Black "Socko, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A52"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "109"]
[EventDate "1999.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

{The Budapest Gambit is tricky and designed to bully White from the very
beginning. I am recommending 4 Bf4 because if Black insists on mixing it White
- ultimately - has the most fun, whereas Black's most precise line gives White
the bishop pair and a comfortable advantage.} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 ({
Less sound is} 3... Ne4 {, when} 4. a3 {is one good move.} -- (4... b6 5. Nf3
Bb7 6. Nbd2 a5 (6... f5 7. exf6 Nxf6 8. g3 Bc5 9. Bg2 Qe7 10. O-O a5 11. b3 O-O
12. Bb2 Nc6 13. Qc2 {, Flear-Spinelli, Asti 1997}) ({, and} 6... Nc5 7. b4 Ne6
8. Bb2 g6 9. Qc2 Bg7 10. e3 O-O 11. Be2 Re8 12. O-O {, Caposciutti-Toulzac,
Montecatini Terme 1998, both left White with an extra pawn for nothing}) 7.
Nxe4 Bxe4 8. g3 Nc6 9. Bg2 Nxe5 10. Qd4 Nxf3+ 11. exf3 Bc6 12. O-O Qe7 13. Bh6
$1 {. This must have been an unpleasant surprise for Black in Ricardi-Perez
Pietronave, Olivos 1993.}) (4... Nc6 5. Nf3 d6 6. Qc2 $1 {calls Black's bluff.}
-- (6... d5 7. e3 {is clearly better for White after either} Be6 ({or} 7... Bg4
8. cxd5 Qxd5 9. Bc4 Qa5+ 10. b4 $1 Bxb4+ 11. axb4 Qxa1 12. Qxe4 Bxf3 13. gxf3
Qxe5 14. Bb5) 8. Be2 Qe7 9. O-O O-O-O 10. Rd1 f5 11. b4 dxc4 12. Nbd2 $1 {
as in Yrjola-Hamdouchi, Manila Olympiad 1992.}) (6... Bf5 7. Nc3 {and now:}
Nxf2 ({or} 7... Ng3 8. e4 Nxh1 9. exf5 dxe5 10. Be3 Be7 11. Qe4 O-O 12. Bd3 {
and White finally collects the knight after 0-0-0}) 8. Qxf5 Nxh1 9. e6 $1 fxe6
10. Qxe6+ Qe7 11. Qd5 h6 12. g3 g5 13. Bg2 {also gave White two juicy pieces
for a rook in Reshevsky-Bisguier, New York Rosenwald 1955.})) (4... Qh4 5. g3
Qh5 6. Bg2 {:} -- (6... Qxe5 7. Qc2 Nf6 8. Nf3 {is typical. Black loses too
much time. Van Wely-Alburt, New York 1994, was pretty awful for Black after}
Qh5 9. Nc3 Be7 10. h3 c6 11. e4 d6 12. b4 {etc.}) ({. In reply to} 6... Nc5 7.
Nc3 Nc6 {White got greedy in Gyimesi-Kahn, Budapest 1995, but his opponent
resigned four moves later:} 8. f4 d6 9. Nb5 Ne6 10. Bf3 Qg6 11. e4 f5 $2 {
(to be fair, 'resigns' is an option in any case)} 12. Bh5 {1-0.} (12. --)))) 4.
Bf4 Bb4+ {An indication that we are in for some fireworks.} (4... g5 {
is justified in terms of the Budapest spirit if not for accuracy. Black seeks
to regain the pawn with a fianchetto, but the (voluntary) damage to the
kingside is too big a price to pay.} 5. Bg3 Bg7 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Nc3 (7. h4 $5 {
is also enough for an advantage, but this is simpler}) 7... Ngxe5 8. Nxe5 {
and then:} -- (8... Nxe5 9. e3 d6 10. h4 h6 11. Qb3 O-O 12. hxg5 hxg5 13. Rd1
Be6 14. Nb5 $1 f5 15. Bxe5 Bxe5 16. Nd4 {
gave White a nagging edge in Korchnoi-Yukhtman, USSR Ch. 1959.}) (8... Bxe5 $6
9. Bxe5 Nxe5 10. Qd4 d6 11. c5 Qf6 (11... O-O 12. O-O-O Be6 13. e3 Ng4 14. Rd2
$1) 12. Rd1 O-O 13. cxd6 Qxd6 14. Qxd6 cxd6 15. e3 Be6 16. Rxd6 Rfd8 17. Rxd8+
Rxd8 18. Be2 Bc4 19. Bxc4 Nxc4 20. b3 Ne5 21. Ke2 {
and White was on his way to the full point, Bulthaupt-Preuss, Germany 1998.}))
(4... Nc6 5. Nf3 Bb4+ {is Black's most sensible course. Now} 6. Nbd2 {
, is bad news for Black, who is practically forced into defending a position
lacking in counterplay:} ({
I prefer to deny Black the satisfaction of creating an unclear situation after
} 6. Nc3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 Qe7 8. Qd5 Qa3 {etc.}) 6... -- (6... f6 7. exf6 Qxf6 8.
e3 Qxb2 9. Be2 d6 10. O-O O-O 11. Nb3 Qf6 {and now Gleizerov-Bosch, Cappelle
la Grande 1996, saw White earn himself a clear advantage after} 12. c5 $1 Bc3
13. Rc1 Be5 14. Nxe5 dxe5 15. Bg3 Qg6 16. Qc2 Bf5 17. Qc3 {.}) (6... Qe7 $1 7.
e3 Ngxe5 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9. Be2 {. It is a common feature in gambits for one side
to return the material for an alternative advantage. In this case Black is
slightly behind in development and the b4-bishop is awkwardly placed in the
event of a future a2-a3 and subsequent queenside expansion from White. As we
will see in the examples that follow, the c4-pawn has a major role to play in
this variation, often used as a battering ram to disrupt Black's pawns.} -- (
9... b6 {looks premature since after} 10. O-O Bxd2 11. Qxd2 {
White cannot be denied a clear advantage; e.g.} Bb7 ({or} 11... d6 12. e4 $1
Bb7 13. f3 O-O 14. Bg3 f5 15. exf5 Rxf5 16. f4 Nc6 17. Rae1 {
as in Fedorowicz-Shain, New York 1991}) 12. b4 a5 (12... d6 13. c5 $1 dxc5 14.
bxc5 {, intending} Qxc5 15. Rac1 Qe7 16. Qc3) 13. c5 $1 axb4 14. Qxb4 O-O 15.
Rfc1 {, Lazarev-Plesec, Berne 1994.}) (9... d6 10. O-O Bd7 11. a3 (11. Nb3 Ba4)
11... Bxd2 12. Qxd2 f6 {concentrates on the e5-square. In Ivanchuk-Epishin,
Terrassa 1991, White went for the thematic queenside push:} 13. b4 Rd8 14. Bh5+
Nf7 15. c5 $1 Bb5 16. Rfd1 d5 {, and now} (16... dxc5 $4 {loses a piece to} 17.
Qxd8+) 17. a4 {is the simplest way for White to stay in the driving seat.}) ({
. The main line runs} 9... O-O 10. O-O {with the following possibilities:} -- (
10... Ng6 {hopes for the greedy 11 Bxc7?? d6, but after} 11. Bg3 {
Black's lot has not been improved. The consistent} Bd6 {
removes White's formidable bishop but} 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 13. Ne4 $1 {
is very pleasant for White, e.g.} Qxd1 ({
alternatively, White is also happy to keep the queens on the board:} 13... Qe7
14. Nc3 c6 15. Qd4 d6 16. Rad1 Rd8 17. f4 $1 {with several pluses for White in
Petursson-Brestian, Moscow Olympiad 1994, when White was invited to
demonstrate his idea after} f5 18. e4 fxe4 19. f5 $1 Nh4 20. f6 gxf6 21. Nxe4 {
etc}) 14. Rfxd1 d6 15. Nc3 Rd8 16. f4 c6 17. Rd2 Kf8 18. Rad1 Ke7 19. Kf2 {
when White is ready to further increase the territorial advantage by advancing
pawns on both flanks.}) (10... d6 11. Nb3 b6 12. a3 Bc5 13. Nxc5 bxc5 (13...
dxc5 $2 14. Qd5 Ng6 15. Qxa8 Nxf4 16. Qf3) 14. b4 {and now both} Nd7 ({and} 
14... cxb4 15. axb4 Bb7 16. Qd4) 15. Bf3 ({or} 15. Bg4 {
are difficult for Black.})) (10... a5 11. Nb3 a4 12. a3 Ba5 ({after} 12... axb3
13. axb4 Rxa1 14. Qxa1 {the b3-pawn soon drops}) 13. Nd4 Bb6 14. Nb5 d6 15. Nc3
Qe8 16. Nd5 Ba5 {
was Rogozenko-Moldovan, Ciocaltea Memorial 2000, which continued} 17. Qd4 Nd7 (
{better is} 17... Nc6 18. Qd3 Ne5 19. Qc2 {although White is well ahead}) 18.
Bd3 Nc5 19. Bc2 Be6 $2 {, and now White missed} (19... f6) 20. Nf6+ $1 gxf6 21.
Bh6 $1 Bd7 22. Qh4 Ne6 23. Bxh7+ $1 Kxh7 24. Bg5+ $1 Kg8 25. Bxf6 Ng7 26. Qh6 {
and mates.}) (10... Bxd2 11. Qxd2 d6 {is the most popular continuation, when
White has a few moves that guarantee a long-term lead. Quite logical is} 12.
Rfd1 $1 {, e.g.} b6 13. b4 Bb7 14. c5 $1 {
White's thematic advance exploits his supremacy on the dark squares.} dxc5 15.
bxc5 {. In Rogers-Dreyer, Auckland 1992, Black stood considerably worse in the
ending after} Ng6 (15... Qxc5 16. Rac1 Qe7 17. Qc3 Ng6 18. Qxc7 Qxc7 19. Bxc7 {
sees the bishop pair dominate}) ({, while} 15... bxc5 $2 16. Qb2 Ng6 17. Bh6
gxh6 18. Qxb7 {
leaves Black with awful pawns and a knight that is no match for the bishop})
16. Qd7 $1 Qxd7 17. Rxd7 Nxf4 18. exf4 Rac8 19. cxb6 $1 axb6 20. Rc1 Ra8 21.
Bc4 {. The problem for Black in this line is that White's bishops have too
much power, the dark-squared bishop being particularly strong because it
cannot be challenged. Consequently any opening of the position is sure to
benefit White, hence White's eagerness to break open the queenside with c4-c5,
even at the cost, albeit temporary, of a pawn. Nevertheless this is really the
best that Black can hope for in the 4 Bf4 variation, as the continuation in
the main game, despite being rather exciting, is worse for Black.})))) 5. Nd2
d6 $2 {The beginning of what seems to be an unreliable line.} ({With} 5... Nc6
{Black returns to the safer waters of 4...Nc6 in the note to Black's fourth
move.}) 6. exd6 Qf6 7. Nh3 $1 Nxf2 $6 {The (dubious) point of the variation,
initiating complications that favour only White.} ({The alternative is} 7...
Qxb2 8. Rb1 Qa3 9. Rb3 Qa5 10. dxc7 Nc6 11. a3 Be7 {
when Gleizerov-Ritova, Berlin 1996, saw White build on his lead with} 12. e3
Nf6 13. Qc1 $5 Nd7 14. Qc3 Bf6 15. Qxa5 Nxa5 16. Rb5 Bc3 17. Kd1 a6 18. Rd5 Nc6
19. Ne4 Bb2 20. Nd6+ Ke7 21. Nf5+ Ke8 22. Nd6+ Ke7 23. Nxc8+ Rhxc8 24. Bd6+ Ke8
25. Kc2 Be5 26. c5 {. I'm sure there is an improvement for Black here, but
after the tenth move the deficit is two pawns!}) 8. Kxf2 Bxh3 {A glance at the
position suggests that Black is doing well, with White's king having being
flushed out. However, practice has shown that this is not the case, since
White is able to consolidate and assume control.} 9. g3 $1 Bxf1 (9... Bc5+ $5
10. e3 g5 {has also been seen. Beikert-Chatalbashev, World U26 Ch. 1994, was
soon close to winning for White:} 11. Ne4 Qxb2+ 12. Qe2 $1 Qxa1 ({or} 12...
Qxe2+ 13. Bxe2 gxf4 14. Nxc5 fxe3+ 15. Kxe3 cxd6 16. Nxb7 Kd7 17. Bf3 $1) 13.
Bxh3 $1 Qxh1 14. Qb2 $1 O-O 15. Nf6+ Kh8 16. Bxg5 c6 17. Ng4+ {1-0.}) 10. Rxf1
(10. dxc7 $5 Nc6 11. Rxf1 {is also good for White, when Black should avoid}
Bxd2 ({the lesser evil is} 11... O-O $1 12. Ne4 Qxb2 13. Qb1 $1 {
and the c7-pawn will be a problem}) 12. Qxd2 g5 13. Qe3+ $1 {, e.g.} Kd7 (13...
Kf8 14. Qc5+ {,}) ({or} 13... Ne7 14. Qe5 Qxe5 15. Bxe5) 14. Rad1+ Kc8 15. Qd3
Qe6 (15... Ne5 16. Qd8+ $1 Rxd8 17. cxd8=Q+ Qxd8 18. Rxd8+ Kxd8 19. Bxe5) 16.
Bxg5 {.}) 10... Qd4+ (10... Bxd2 11. Qxd2 g5 12. dxc7 Nc6 13. Qe3+ {
transposes to the previous note}) ({while} 10... Bc5+ 11. Kg2 cxd6 12. Ne4 {
puts Black on the defensive.}) 11. Kg2 Bxd6 12. Qb3 $1 {Now it is White's turn
to activate his queen. White is no longer a pawn up but development is much
better and Black has only two pieces in the game. From b3 the queen attacks b7,
but there is also another possibility in the air. In fact Black needs to be
very careful here just to earn the right to defend a poor position!} Nd7 $2 ({
In the case of the more circumspect} 12... Bxf4 {White has} 13. Rxf4 $1 Qb6 (
13... Qxd2 $4 {loses to} 14. Re4+ {and 15 Rd1}) 14. Qa3 $1 {
to cut off the king. After} c5 15. Qe3+ Kf8 16. Qf2 $1 f6 17. Ne4 Nd7 18. Rd1
Qc7 19. Rf5 {Black is clearly worse.}) 13. Be3 Qe5 (13... Qg4 14. c5 $1 {.})
14. c5 Be7 (14... Bxc5 15. Qxf7+ Kd8 16. Bxc5 Nxc5 (16... Qxc5 17. Qxg7) 17.
Nf3 Qxe2+ 18. Rf2 Qe6 19. Qxg7 Rg8 20. Qxh7 {wins for White.}) ({
Komarov-Chatalbashev, St Raphael 1998, was even worse for Black after} 14...
Nxc5 {:} 15. Qxf7+ Kd8 16. Nc4 Qe4+ (16... Qe7 17. Nxd6 cxd6 18. Bxc5 $1) 17.
Rf3 Ne6 18. Nxd6 cxd6 19. Rd1 {1-0.}) 15. Qxf7+ Kd8 16. Bf4 Qxb2 ({An attempt
improve on Summerscale-Szabolcsi, French League 1996. That game went} 16...
Qxe2+ $2 17. Rf2 Qd3 18. Re1 $1 {and White is already winning -} Bf6 (18... Re8
19. Rxe7 $1 Rxe7 20. Qg8+ Re8 21. Bg5+ Nf6 22. Qxg7 Qd5+ 23. Nf3) 19. Rfe2 Kc8
20. Re8+ Rxe8 21. Rxe8+ Bd8 22. Qe7 Qd5+ (22... Nf6 23. Qxc7#) 23. Nf3 {1-0.})
17. Rab1 Qd4 18. Rxb7 Rf8 19. Qc4 {Offering to trade queens when on the
offensive is indicative of the size of White's lead. The c7-pawn and the
d-file make life difficult for Black. It is ironic that Black's own king is
under pressure after the energetic start which saw White's come to f2.} Qxc4 (
19... Rxf4 $2 20. Rxf4 Qxd2 21. Rd4 $1 {.}) 20. Nxc4 Nxc5 (20... Rc8 21. c6 {
fails to alleviate the pressure.}) 21. Rd1+ Ke8 22. Rxc7 Ne6 23. Rxe7+ Kxe7 24.
Bd6+ $1 Kf7 25. Ne5+ Kg8 26. Bxf8 Nxf8 (26... Rxf8 27. Rd7 {.}) 27. Rd5 Rc8 28.
Ra5 Rc7 29. Kf3 {The series of exchanges has resulted in an ending in which
Black is a (passed) pawn down and also quite passive. White's rook and knight
are actively posted and the king is already part way up the board. The same
cannot be said of Black's forces. Consequently Black tries his luck in a rook
ending.} Nd7 30. Nxd7 Rxd7 31. e4 Kf7 32. h4 Ke6 33. g4 Rb7 34. Kf4 Rf7+ 35.
Kg5 Kd6 36. Rd5+ Ke6 37. Rf5 Rb7 38. Kf4 Rc7 39. Re5+ Kd6 40. Ra5 Rf7+ 41. Ke3
Ke6 42. a3 Rd7 {White can afford to be patient because the ending is winning.
The rest is a matter of technique.} 43. Rh5 h6 44. Ra5 Rb7 45. h5 Rd7 46. e5 $1
Rd1 $2 (46... Rc7 {prolongs the game, White making progress as follows:} 47.
Kd4 Rd7+ 48. Ke4 Ke7 49. Ra6 Rb7 50. a4 Rc7 51. a5 Rb7 52. Rc6 Kd7 53. Rg6 Ke8
54. a6 Rc7 55. Kd5 {etc.}) 47. Rxa7 Kxe5 48. Rxg7 Re1+ 49. Kd3 Ra1 50. Ra7 Kf4
51. Ra4+ Kg5 52. Kc2 Re1 53. Rd4 Re8 54. a4 Rb8 55. a5 1-0

[Event "Calcutta"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1996.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Volzhin, A."]
[Black "Kakageldyev, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A42"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventDate "1996.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 d6 2. c4 g6 (2... f5 3. Nc3 Nf6 {
is covered in Zsinka-Timoscenko. This leaves two others:}) (2... e5 {is not unusual these days. Many players settle for the space advantage that results from}
3. Nc3 {.} ({
White has a few choices, the least interesting being to trade queens (} 3. dxe5
dxe5 4. Qxd8+ {)}) ({, while after} 3. Nf3 e4 4. Ng5 f5 {
Black tends to have more fun than White}) {. Now:} 3... -- (3... exd4 4. Qxd4
Nc6 5. Qd1 g6 6. e4 Bg7 7. Bd3 {leads to 4...exd4, below.}) (3... Nf6 {
is the Old Indian Defence. Either Black is content with a rather passive game
in the lines with ...Be7 or the intention is to transpose to the KID.} 4. e4 $5
{and now:} -- (4... exd4 5. Qxd4 {
and thanks to the grip on d5 White enjoys a space advantage. Sample set-ups:}
-- (5... Nc6 6. Qd1 Be6 $5 (6... g6 7. Bd3 $5 Bg7 8. Nge2 O-O (8... Ne5 9. b3)
9. Bc2) 7. Nf3 g6 (7... Ne5 $6 8. Nd4) 8. h3 Bg7 9. Be3 O-O 10. Be2 Nd7 (10...
Ne5 11. Nd2) 11. O-O {, I.Sokolov-Marin, European Team Ch. 1992. After} Nb6 12.
Nd5 $1 Bxb2 13. Bg5 f6 14. Bh6 Bxa1 (14... Re8 15. Rb1) 15. Bxf8 Kxf8 (15...
Be5 16. Bh6) 16. Qxa1 Kf7 17. Nd2 Nd7 18. f4 {
White had compensation for the pawn.}) ({. Black can also resist the urge to
attack White's queen and instead use d7 for his b8-knight, e.g.} 5... g6 6. Bg5
Nbd7 (6... Bg7 $2 7. e5 dxe5 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 9. Nd5 Nbd7 10. O-O-O Ke8 11. Nxc7+
{was embarrassing in Guliev-Filip, Hollabrunn 1998}) 7. Qd2 Bg7 8. f3 O-O 9.
Nh3 Re8 10. Nf2 Nc5 11. Be2 a6 12. Rd1 Bd7 13. O-O {
with an edge for White, Douven-Speelman, Dutch League 1994.})) (4... Nbd7 5. f4
$5 {- once again this aggressive move cuts across Black's plans. Then} exd4 ({
instead Flear-Anic, Montpellier 2000, continued} 5... Be7 6. Nf3 c6 7. Be2 O-O
8. O-O exd4 9. Nxd4 Nc5 10. Bf3 Qb6 11. Rb1 a5 12. Be3 Re8 {; it is understandable that Black wants to exert pressure on White's centre, but now White went
on the offensive with} 13. Nb3 $1 {
when Black was the one with problems on the g1-a7 diagonal}) {
, does nothing to exploit White's queen after} 6. Qxd4 Be7 7. Nf3 O-O 8. Be2 c6
9. Be3))) 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 Nc6 {The most aggressive. Others:} (4... Nd7 {
aims to reach a King's Indian Defence on Black's terms. However, rather than
the accommodating 5 Nf3 e5, when Black can choose e7, f6 or even h6 for the
g8-knight, I recommend the uncompromising} 5. f4 {and then:} -- (5... c5 {
is quite rare.} 6. d5 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 Ngf6 8. Bd3 Qa5 9. Qb3 b5 10. cxb5 a6 11.
b6 $1 Nxb6 12. Qa3 Qxa3 13. Bxa3 c4 14. Bc2 Bd7 15. Kd2 {
with an edge for White in Hübner-Spassky, German League 1981.}) (5... e5 6.
fxe5 dxe5 7. d5 {. This is how the game normally continues because Black then
has the c5-square at his disposal. Now we have another branch since Black has
tried two ways of developing.} -- (7... Ngf6 8. Be2 O-O {and now} 9. Nh3 $1 {
is a nice move. First Black is denied the possibility of sending a knight to
f4 as the h5-square is covered, but there is also Nh3-f2 coming, when White
increases the protection of the e4-pawn, defends g4 and prepares to hit the
e5-pawn and contest the c5-square with N(f2)-d3. Add to this the unobstructed
rook on f1 (after 0-0) and this is an effective way of meeting ...Ngf6.
Cifuentes-Bosboom, Wijk aan Zee 1991, went} Ne8 10. O-O a5 11. Bg5 Bf6 12. Be3
Be7 13. Na4 b6 14. Nf2 {
with the better game for White. This improved to a decisive advantage after} f5
$2 15. d6 $1 {.}) (7... Nh6 8. Nf3 O-O 9. Be2 f6 (9... f5 $6 {
is too eager, as was demonstrated in Adorjan-J.Kristiansen, Esbjerg 1986:} 10.
Bg5 Nf6 11. O-O Nf7 12. Bh4 Qe7 13. exf5 $1 gxf5 14. Kh1 Bd7 15. Qb3 {
and White stood better across the board}) 10. h3 Nf7 {and now Vaisser-Todorcevic, French League 1994, illustrated how White can contain Black on the kingside
and expand on the other flank:} 11. g4 $5 b6 12. Be3 Nc5 13. b4 Nb7 14. c5 $1
a5 15. a3 {Black is in danger of getting pushed off the board. In the game
Black broke out with} f5 16. gxf5 gxf5 {but White retained his lead after} 17.
Rg1 $5 Kh8 18. Rc1 axb4 19. axb4 bxc5 20. bxc5 Bh6 21. Qd2 Bxe3 22. Qxe3 {etc.}
))) (4... c6 {can also be met with} 5. f4 $5 {. Then automatic play leaves
Black too cramped, so theory's recommendation is to hit the d4-pawn with} Qb6 {
, when} 6. e5 {is interesting:} -- (6... dxe5 7. c5 $1 Qd8 8. fxe5 f6 9. exf6
Nxf6 10. Be2 {
favoured White in Grigorian-Nikolaevsky, USSR Ch. 1971. Black tried} e5 $6 {
but his situation worsened after} 11. dxe5 Qxd1+ 12. Bxd1 Nfd7 13. Ne4 Nxe5 14.
Nd6+ Kd7 15. Be2 {.}) (6... Nh6 {makes sense. Koch-Alber, Schoeneck 1988,
witnessed an imaginative idea from White:} 7. h3 $5 (7. Nf3 Bg4 {
is unclear according to 'ECO'}) 7... Nf5 8. Nf3 Ng3 9. Rg1 Na6 10. Kf2 $5 Nxf1
11. Rxf1 O-O 12. Kg1 {and White had succeeded in castling 'by hand' with his
impressive pawn centre still intact! There followed} dxe5 13. fxe5 Be6 14. b3
Rad8 15. Qe2 Rd7 16. Be3 Qa5 17. Ne4 {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 Nf3.})) (4... e5 {is not too popular at any level, mainly because
White is able to force an advantageous queenless middlegame in which Black is
reduced to defending. Consequently, rather than let Black get away with not
having to prepare ...e7-e5, I suggest the spoiler} 5. dxe5 dxe5 (5... Bxe5 $6 {
loses time, e.g.} 6. Nf3 Bg7 7. Bg5 {etc}) 6. Qxd8+ Kxd8 7. f4 $1 {. This is the only move to trouble Black, and certainly the move that tends to dissuade
most people from actually playing this variation 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 position:} -- (7... Be6 8. Nf3 Nd7 9. Be2 Ne7 10. O-O {
and now:} -- (10... c6 $6 {
protects d5 but neglects d6. Cebalo-Marangunic, Croatia 1995, continued} 11.
Be3 Ke8 12. Rad1 h6 13. h3 exf4 14. Bxf4 g5 15. Bd6 $1 Nc8 16. Bg3 Ne7 17. Nd4
$5 Bxd4+ 18. Rxd4 Ng6 19. Nd5 $1 {. It is important to remember that the
absence of queens does not preclude aggressive play. The position is typical
of White's initiative in this line. Black's hopes of dancing around with the
knights are dashed.} cxd5 20. exd5 Ndf8 21. Re4 $1 Ke7 22. c5 $1 {
(threatening to lodge the bishop on d6)} Nf4 23. Bxf4 gxf4 24. Rfxf4 Rc8 25. b4
a5 26. Bh5 $1 Rh7 (26... axb4 27. Rxf7+ Kd8 28. dxe6) 27. dxe6 Nxe6 28. a3 {
and White was winning.}) (10... h6 {is the 'book' move, after which} 11. Rd1 $1
{causes a few problems. Suba-Azmaiparashvili, Reykjavik 1990, went} exf4 12.
Bxf4 g5 13. Bg3 Ng6 14. Rd2 c6 15. Nd4 Bxd4+ 16. Rxd4 Ke7 17. Bd6+ Kf6 18. Rf1+
Kg7 19. c5 $1 b6 20. cxb6 axb6 21. a3 Nde5 22. Rb4 $1 b5 23. Rd1 Rhc8 24. a4
bxa4 25. Nxa4 {and White was still on top.})) (7... Nd7 8. Nf3 c6 9. Be2 f6 10.
O-O Nh6 $6 (10... Ke8 11. g3 Nh6 12. Kg2 Nf7 13. Be3 Bf8 14. Rad1 b6 15. a3 Be7
16. Ne1 Bc5 17. Nc2 Bxe3 18. Nxe3 h5 19. b4 {
is slightly better for White according to 'ECO'}) 11. fxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 fxe5
13. b4 $5 Be6 14. b5 Nf7 (14... Kc7 15. bxc6 bxc6 16. Na4 $1 {and c5 beckons})
15. Bg4 $1 {. We are following Crouch-Norwood, British League 1998. Black is
in big trouble, e.g.} -- (15... Bxg4 16. Rxf7 Bf8 17. Bg5+ Kc8 18. Be7 $1 Bh6 (
18... Bxe7 19. Rxe7 {and Black is tied up}) 19. Bd6 Be3+ 20. Kh1 Bb6 21. c5 Ba5
22. Bxe5 Re8 23. Bf6 Bxc3 24. Bxc3 cxb5 25. Rxh7 a5 26. Rf1 Be6 27. Be5 Bc4 28.
c6 $1 bxc6 29. Rc7+ Kd8 30. Rd1+ Bd5 31. Bg3 {and Black resigned (if} Rxe4 {
, then} 32. Rxc6 {).}) (15... Bxc4 16. Rd1+ Ke7 17. bxc6 bxc6 18. Ba3+ Kf6 (
18... c5 19. Bxc5+ Kf6 20. Rf1+ $1 Bxf1 21. Rxf1+ Kg5 22. Rxf7 Kxg4 23. Rxg7
Rac8 24. Bb4 Rc4 25. a3) 19. Rf1+ Bxf1 (19... Kg5 20. Be2 Bxe2 21. Rxf7) 20.
Rxf1+ Kg5 21. Be2 $1 Rhf8 (21... Nh6 22. Be7+) 22. Bc1+ Kh4 23. Rf3 Ng5 24. Rg3
{(Speelman and McDonald).})) (7... Nc6 8. Nf3 -- (8... Bg4 9. fxe5 {
and now Atalik gives} Nxe5 ({against} 9... Bxf3 10. gxf3 Bxe5 {
Atalik proposes the sensible} 11. Be3 {
, when after 0-0-0(+) White's bishops guarantee a comfortable game}) 10. Be2 $5
Nxf3+ (10... Be6 11. Ng5) 11. gxf3 Be6 12. Bg5+ $5 Bf6 (12... f6 13. O-O-O+ Kc8
14. Be3) 13. O-O-O+ {
followed by 14 h4 (whichever way the king goes) with the usual pull for White.}
) (8... Nd4 $5 9. Kf2 {when White has the better chances, e.g.} exf4 ({or} 9...
Nxf3 10. gxf3 c6 11. Be3 f6 12. Rd1+ Ke8 13. h4 $1 Bh6 14. Ne2 Ne7 15. fxe5
Bxe3+ 16. Kxe3 fxe5 17. Nc1 $1 Kf7 18. Rd6 Re8 19. h5 {
, Gorbatow-Nannelli, Porto San Giorgio 2000}) 10. Bxf4 Ne6 11. Bg3 $5 Bd7 12.
Rd1 Kc8 13. Bd3 Ne7 14. Nd5 $1 {
, Sadler-Ehlvest, FIDE World Ch., Groningen 1997, when} Re8 (14... Nxd5 15. cxd5
Nc5 16. b4 Nxd3+ 17. Rxd3 {leaves White free to come to the c-file}) 15. e5 Nc5
(15... c6 16. Nf6) 16. Nf6 Bxf6 17. exf6 {was not easy for Black.}))) 5. d5 Nd4
({The provocative} 5... Ne5 {
loses time and helps White broaden his centre after} 6. f4 Nd7 7. Nf3 {etc.})
6. Be3 c5 (6... e5 $6 7. Nge2 Nxe2 8. Bxe2 {
wastes valuable time and therefore gives White a souped-up KID, e.g.} Nf6 9.
O-O O-O 10. b4 $1 Ne8 11. c5 f5 12. f3 {.}) 7. Nge2 {By far the most popular
and part of the grand plan - if Black gets his way. Both alternatives benefit
only White.} Qb6 (7... e5 8. dxe6 Nxe6 9. Qd2 Nf6 10. f3 O-O 11. O-O-O {
and Black lacked the usual KID attacking chances that go with the weaknesses
on d5 and d6, Crouch-Ruotanen, Jyvaskyla 1991.}) (7... Nxe2 $6 {
is hardly in the spirit of the variation.} 8. Bxe2 Nf6 9. O-O O-O 10. Qd2 Re8
11. Bg5 a6 12. f4 {Shneider-Petran, Cappelle la Grande 1992. White's kingside
offensive is already happening.}) 8. Qd2 ({Just as sound as the main line, the
text avoids the complexities that Black is hoping for from the offset, namely} 
8. Na4 Qa5+ 9. Bd2 Qa6) ({or} 8. Nxd4 cxd4 9. Na4 Qa5+ 10. Bd2 Qc7 {etc. Moreover after 8 Qd2 Black has an unpleasant choice between attempting dubious
complications or settling for a rather passive middlegame.}) 8... Bd7 (8... Bg4
$2 9. f3 $1 {is an inferior version of the main game for Black after} Bd7 ({
since} 9... Bxf3 $2 {seems to lose:} 10. Na4 $1 Qa6 (10... Qb4 11. Nxd4 Qxd2+
12. Bxd2) 11. Nxd4 cxd4 12. Bxd4 Bxd4 13. Qxd4 {
and now Timman-Suttles, Hastings 1973, went} Nf6 ({Speelman gives the following:
} 13... Qxa4 14. Qxh8 Qb4+ 15. Kf2 Bxe4 16. Qxg8+ Kd7 17. Qg7 $1 Qb6+ {and now}
18. Ke2 f6 19. b3 Qd4 20. Rd1 Qe5 21. Rd3 $1 {
is the simplest of his suggestions, when Black is running out of steam.}) 14.
c5 Qa5+ 15. Nc3 dxc5 16. Qe5 Bg4 17. d6 {.})) ({The stubborn} 8... e5 {
meets with} 9. dxe6 {:} -- (9... Bxe6 10. Rd1 {, when} Nxe2 ({while} 10... Nc6
11. Nb5 O-O-O 12. Nec3 Nf6 13. f3 Ne8 14. Nd5 {
was clearly better for White in Ivkov-Suttles, Sousse Interzonal 1967}) 11.
Bxe2 Rd8 12. O-O Ne7 13. Bg5 $1 {
Sobek-Petran, Czech League 1992, is awkward for Black.}) (9... fxe6 10. O-O-O e5
{cements the knight on d4 but, unfortunately, leaves a gaping hole on d5.} 11.
Nd5 Qd8 {favoured White in Minaya-Suttles, Havana Olympiad 1966.})) (8... f5 $6
{is an interesting, albeit suspect, try for complications. It is quite safe
for White to castle long here:} 9. O-O-O Nxe2+ 10. Bxe2 Nf6 ({Speelman suggests
} 10... fxe4 {but goes on to point out that after both} 11. Nxe4 Nf6 (11... Bf5
12. Nc3 Nf6 13. Bh6) 12. Nc3 Bf5 ({and} 12... h6 13. Bd3) 13. Bh6 {
we find ourselves in Ivkov's position anyway!}) 11. exf5 Bxf5 12. Bh6 $1 Bxh6
13. Qxh6 O-O-O 14. Rhe1 Rhf8 {, Ivkov-Hübner, West Germany 1975. Now White
could have got the most from some accurate play with} 15. Bf1 $1 {
, denying Black counterplay by keeping the c4-pawn defended.}) (8... Nf6 {
is the best of Black's 8th move options, leaving d7 free for the knight. This
time White should opt for} 9. f3 ({avoiding} 9. Nxd4 $6) 9... O-O 10. Rd1 Nd7
11. b3 $1 {. White ungenerously rules out any funny business related to the
capture on d4, culminating in forcing Black to acquiesce to} Nxe2 12. Bxe2 {
, when three moves have been tried:} -- (12... Ne5 13. O-O Qa5 {
(threatening a nasty discovery on the long diagonal)} 14. Rc1 a6 15. a4 Rb8 16.
f4 Ng4 17. Bxg4 Bxg4 18. f5 $1 {, Ikonnikov-Emmerich, Wiesbaden 2000 (White's
same reaction to the new arrival on g4 can also be seen in Summerscale-Mannion)
.} gxf5 19. exf5 f6 20. Qf2 Bh5 21. Qh4 Be8 22. Rf3 $1 Rf7 23. Ne2 Bd7 24. Qh5
Rff8 25. Nf4 b5 26. axb5 axb5 27. Ne6 bxc4 28. bxc4 {1-0.}) (12... f5 $6 13.
exf5 gxf5 {and now Speelman offers} 14. Bh6 {with the line} Rf7 15. O-O Ne5 16.
Bxg7 Rxg7 17. f4 Ng6 18. Bh5 {resulting in a structural superiority for White.}
) (12... Qa5 {is best.} 13. Rc1 a6 ({
Speelman suggests that Black invest a tempo in} 13... Re8 {in order to meet}
14. Bh6 {with} Bh8) 14. Bh6 Rb8 {
was played in King-Markgraf, Germany 1997. After} 15. h4 Bxh6 16. Qxh6 Re8 17.
h5 Nf8 18. Kf2 b5 19. e5 $5 dxe5 20. hxg6 fxg6 21. Ne4 {
White's attack looked the more dangerous.})) 9. Rb1 $5 ({The simple} 9. Rd1 {
is also good enough for an advantage. After} Nxe2 10. Bxe2 a6 11. O-O Qa5 12.
f4 $1 b5 13. e5 {
Black faced a mighty pawn roller in A.Ivanov-Kakageldyev, Simferopol 1989.})
9... a5 ({The idea behind 9 Rb1 was demonstrated in Yakovich-Pinheiro, Santo
Antonio 1999. Black hit out with} 9... f5 {
only to see White ignore him and respond with the more powerful} 10. b4 $1 {.}
-- ({. Now} 10... f4 11. Nxf4 cxb4 12. Nce2 Nxe2 13. Bxb6 Bc3 14. Kxe2 $1 Bxd2
15. Bd4 {wins for White}) ({, so Black once again was reduced to parting with
the showpiece knight under unfavourable circumstances:} 10... Nxe2 11. Bxe2 Nf6
$6 (11... f4 12. Bxf4 cxb4 13. Nb5 Nf6 14. Be3 Qd8 {is far from ideal for Black
}) 12. bxc5 Nxe4 13. Rxb6 Nxd2 14. Rxb7 Nxc4 (14... Bc8 15. Rxe7+ $1 Kxe7 16.
cxd6+ Kxd6 17. c5+ Ke7 18. Kxd2) 15. Bxc4 Bxc3+ 16. Ke2 dxc5 17. Bxc5 {
and White soon converted his initiative.})) 10. Rd1 {White's brief stop on the
way to d1 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.} Nxe2
11. Bxe2 Nf6 12. h3 O-O 13. O-O a4 14. Rb1 {Entertaining the plan of b2-b4 as
well as protecting the b2-pawn in preparation for the coming Bh6. Black is
struggling to latch on to a reasonable plan.} Qa5 15. Bh6 Ne8 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17.
f4 {White's game is easy to conduct, the kingside pawns begging to be pushed.
Meanwhile, Black rushes to generate something on the queenside.} Nc7 18. e5 b5
{Now both sides are on the offensive, but Black has the traditional problem
that, by definition, his queenside attack is less menacing than the charge
aimed at his king's defences.} 19. cxb5 Bxb5 20. exd6 exd6 21. Bxb5 Nxb5 22. f5
$1 {With White's queen just one step away from h6 the threat of 23 f6+ is
enough to force a concession from Black.} f6 ({Black does not have time for} 
22... Qb4 $2 {in view of} 23. f6+ Kh8 24. Qh6 Rg8 25. Rf4 {
. The text creates a hole on e6, for which White now takes aim.}) 23. fxg6 hxg6
24. Rbe1 Rf7 (24... Rae8 $2 25. Rxe8 Rxe8 26. Qf4 {.}) 25. Re6 (25. Rf4 $1 Nd4
26. Rh4 g5 27. Rhe4 {looks good.}) 25... Raf8 $6 {As is often the case both
players are too busy acting out their respective roles of attacker and
defender to be on the lookout for positive alternatives for Black.} (25... a3
$1 {distracts White.}) 26. Qd3 $1 Nxc3 27. bxc3 Rd7 28. c4 Qd8 29. Qa3 $1 {
Black's weaknesses on a4, d6, f6 and - ultimately - g6 cannot be adequately
protected.} Ra7 30. Qg3 Rd7 31. h4 $1 Re7 32. h5 Rxe6 (32... g5 33. Rfxf6 $1 {.
}) 33. Qxg6+ Kh8 34. Qh6+ Kg8 35. dxe6 1-0

[Event "Lazne Bohdanec"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1994.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Pribyl, J."]
[Black "Vokac, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A44"]
[Annotator "Angus Dunnington"]
[PlyCount "119"]
[EventDate "1994.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.25"]

1. d4 c5 2. d5 e5 ({The Czech Benoni results from} 2... Nf6 3. c4 e5 4. Nc3 d6
5. e4 {. Black's plans involve either ...Be7 or a kingside fianchetto.} -- (
5... Be7 6. g3 $1 {with a couple of examples:} -- (6... a6 7. a4 O-O 8. Bg2 Ne8
9. Nge2 Nd7 10. O-O g6 ({or} 10... Rb8 11. Bd2 g6 12. a5 $1 Ng7 13. Na4 h5 14.
b4 h4 15. Nc1 cxb4 16. Bxb4 Nc5 17. Nxc5 dxc5 18. Bc3 h3 19. Bh1 f6 20. Nd3 Bd6
21. f4 {with the usual space advantage in Avrukh-Paehtz, Bonnevoie 1998}) 11.
Bh6 Ng7 12. Qd2 Nf6 13. h3 Kh8 14. Be3 Nd7 15. Nc1 $1 f5 16. Nd3 Nf6 17. f3
Nfh5 18. Ne2 b6 19. Bh6 Rf7 20. Kh2 fxe4 21. fxe4 Nf6 22. b4 {, Forintos-Schussler, Gausdal 1981. The theme has already begun to take shape - White gets too
much space.}) (6... O-O 7. Bg2 Ne8 8. Nge2 Bg5 {is an approach similar to the
one in the main game, but here, too, White is ready:} 9. f4 $1 {and now:} -- (
9... exf4 10. gxf4 Bh4+ 11. Ng3 f5 12. O-O ({it is also worth investigating} 
12. e5 $5 dxe5 13. fxe5 f4 14. O-O fxg3 15. Rxf8+ Kxf8 16. hxg3 $1 {
, when Lacrosse-Luciani, Imperia 1996, continued} Be7 17. Qh5 Kg8 18. Be4 g6 19.
Bxg6 hxg6 20. Qxg6+ Ng7 21. Bh6 {and Black was in trouble}) 12... fxe4 13.
Ncxe4 Nd7 14. Bd2 Ndf6 15. Ng5 Nc7 16. f5 {
favoured White in Crouch-C.Cobb, Newport 2000.}) (9... Bh6 10. O-O Bg4 11. Be3
Qd7 12. Qd2 b6 {, Benko-Huguet, Las Palmas 1972. Having tried, unsuccessfully,
to trade dark-squared bishops, Black now 'threatens' to challenge the one on
g2. White's next is designed to monitor b4, c5, e5 and f4 - four key squares
in the Czech Benoni.} 13. Nc1 $1 Bh3 14. Nd3 Bxg2 15. Kxg2 Qe7 16. Rae1 Nd7 17.
Qe2 g6 18. f5 Bxe3 19. Qxe3 Kh8 20. a3 Nc7 21. b4 {and White dominated.}))) ({
. Against} 5... g6 {I recommend restricting Black with an early g2-g4, an
approach on the flank that has more justification against the committal Czech
Benoni set up than the KID, one reason being that in this case Black cannot
counter with ...c7-c6.} 6. h3 Bg7 {and now:} 7. -- (7. g4 a6 8. Bd3 O-O 9. Bg5
Bd7 10. Nf3 b5 11. Nd2 bxc4 12. Nxc4 Bb5 13. Qd2 Qc7 {, Mitenkov-Maljutin,
Moscow 1996. Black's queenside break has given White the c4-square.} 14. O-O
Bxc4 15. Bxc4 Nbd7 16. b3 Nb6 17. Be2 Nfd7 18. Rac1 Bf6 19. Be3 Qd8 20. Kg2 Bh4
21. Bd3 f6 22. Ne2 Bg5 {and now} 23. f4 $1 exf4 24. Nxf4 Bxf4 25. Bxf4 Ne5 26.
Bxe5 $1 fxe5 27. Rxf8+ Qxf8 28. Rf1 Qd8 29. Qf2 Qe7 30. Qf6 {
left Black struggling in view of the weaknesses on a6 and d6.}) (7. Be3 O-O 8.
g4 Na6 9. Nge2 Nc7 10. Ng3 {. This really does clamp down on the f5-square. In
Banikas-Bakhtadze, European Junior Ch., Tallinn 1997, Black sought activity on
the queenside with} Bd7 11. a3 b5 $5 {, but after} 12. cxb5 Qb8 13. Rb1 Nxb5
14. Nxb5 Bxb5 15. b4 {White had gained most from the clearing of the b-file.} (
15. --)))) 3. e4 d6 4. Nc3 (4. c4 {transposes to the Czech Benoni (where Black
has yet to move the king's knight) but, thanks to the omission of ...Nf6,
White is able to leave out c2-c4. The point is that d5 does not need extra
protection here, ...b7-b5 can be addressed with a2-a4 and White has the
c4-square available for a piece. Add to this that White has saved a move and
we see why this option is an attractive one.}) 4... Be7 ({
A transposition results from} 4... Nf6 {. The text toys with the idea of first
trading dark-squared bishops on g5, but the aggressive f2-f4 cuts across this
plan. Others:}) (4... Ne7 {sends the knight to g6 to keep an eye on both f4
and e5. The downside for Black is that the knight tends not to be secure on g6
and the f5-square can be a problem. Larsen-Andersen, Danish Ch. 1963, is a
good illustration of how White should deal with 4...Ne7. After} 5. Be2 Ng6 6.
g3 $1 Be7 7. h4 Na6 8. Nf3 O-O 9. Nd2 Nc7 10. a4 Rb8 11. Nc4 b6 {White had covered the f4-square, threatened to dislodge the g6-knight and was now ready to
offer a thematic exchange of his own with} 12. Bg4 $1 {. There followed} Re8
13. Bxc8 Qxc8 14. Ne3 h6 15. Nf5 Kh7 16. h5 Nh8 17. Be3 Bf8 18. Nb5 Qd7 (18...
Nxb5 19. axb5 {leaves Black's pawn structure looking particularly unpleasant})
19. Nxa7 Nxd5 20. Qxd5 Qxa7 {
and White finally decided to castle, with a clear advantage.}) ({With} 4... g6
{Black hopes to get the best of both worlds with a peaceful route to a King's
Indian position.} 5. f4 $1 {exerts immediate pressure on Black's centre and
the dark squares, requiring precise play from the defender just to keep White
at bay.} -- (5... f6 {and now} 6. Nf3 {
followed by Be2 and 0-0 gives White a comfortable lead,} ({
while the no-nonsense} 6. h4 {was seen in S.Ernst-Gaprindashvili, Groningen
1999. With more space it is logical for White to launch a quick assault on
Black's brittle kingside pawns, the threat of marching on with h4-h5 inducing
a reaction from Black:} h5 {. Then} 7. f5 $5 (7. Nf3 {is normal}) 7... gxf5 8.
Be2 Bh6 9. Bxh5+ Ke7 10. exf5 Bxc1 11. Rxc1 {was entertaining, with perhaps
the better prospects for White, although familiarity with this variation is
important.})) (5... Bg7 6. fxe5 Bxe5 7. Nf3 {is a little awkward for Black,
the bishop not an ideal piece to be standing on e5. Vegh-Busch, St Ingbert
1987, continued} Bg4 8. Bb5+ Nd7 9. O-O Bxf3 10. Qxf3 Qe7 11. a4 {. The position illustrates the typical inconvenience Black can experience. The bishop has
the unenviable task of securing e5, Black is lagging behind in development and
the f-file belongs to White. Black sought to relieve the pressure with} a6 (
11... Ngf6 $2 {walks into terrible pins after} 12. Bg5) 12. Bxd7+ Qxd7 {when}
13. a5 $1 f6 14. Na4 Rd8 15. Nb6 {left White in charge.}) (5... exf4 6. Bxf4
Bh6 7. Bg3 Nf6 {and now} 8. Bb5+ {is the most testing move:} Bd7 (8... Kf8 9.
Nf3 {obviously favours White (e4-e5 will be difficult to meet) but is the
lesser evil compared to 8...Bd7}) 9. Bxd6 Bxb5 10. Nxb5 Qa5+ 11. Nc3 Nxe4 12.
Qe2 f5 {, E.Rotshtein-Mosionzhik, World Senior Ch. 1999. This game ended} 13.
Nf3 Nd7 14. O-O O-O-O 15. Nxe4 Rhe8 $2 16. Be7 $1 Rxe7 17. Nd6+ Kc7 18. Qxe7
Bf8 $2 19. Qxd8+ {1-0.})) (4... a6 {is also well met with} 5. f4 {, e.g.} exf4
6. Bxf4 Ne7 7. Nf3 Ng6 8. Bg3 Be7 9. e5 dxe5 10. Nxe5 O-O 11. Nxg6 hxg6 12. Be2
Bh4 13. Qd2 Re8 {, Azmaiparashvili-Rashkovsky, Strumica 1995. Now the direct
14 0-0-0 is excellent for White, providing the passed d-pawn with plenty of
support and making the otherwise desirable ...Bxg3 less attractive thanks to
the open h-file after the recapture hxg3.}) 5. f4 {Chekhov's thrust mounts an
early offensive, undermining Black's grip on the e5-square as well as keeping
Black's bishop out of g5 (for the moment). It is also possible to throw in the
check on b5 to see how Black reacts.} (5. Bb5+ Kf8 {
, gives up the right to castle but leaves White's bishop punching air on b5;} (
5... Nd7 6. f4 exf4 7. Bxf4 Ngf6 8. Nf3 O-O 9. O-O a6 10. Bxd7 Bxd7 11. e5 {
was only a shade better for White in Volkov-Malakhov, Minsk 1997}) 6. f4 {
(again White can push his f-pawn)} exf4 7. Bxf4 Bg5 8. Qd2 Bxf4 9. Qxf4 a6 10.
Bd3 Qf6 11. Qg3 Nd7 12. Nf3 Qe7 13. O-O Ngf6 14. Rae1 {and the familiar plan
of e4-e5 is enough for an advantage, prompting Black to blockade with} Ne5 {
, when} 15. Nxe5 Qxe5 ({better than} 15... dxe5 16. a4 $1) 16. Qxe5 dxe5 17.
Na4 Nd7 18. c4 Rb8 19. Rc1 $1 {(preventing 19...b5)} b6 20. a3 a5 21. Rb1 Ba6
22. b4 {gave White a queenside initiative in K.Georgiev-Gheorghiu, European
Team Ch. 1992. Interesting, but I prefer the more flexible 5 f4, waiting to
see when and where the bishop joins the game.}) 5... exf4 (5... a6 {ignores the
stand-off in the centre in favour of queenside expansion. Lobron-Ivanovic,
Reggio Emilia 1984, went} 6. fxe5 dxe5 7. a4 Nf6 8. Nf3 Bg4 9. Be2 Bxf3 10.
Bxf3 O-O 11. O-O Ne8 12. Be3 Nd7 13. Bg4 $1 Ndf6 14. a5 $1 Nd6 15. Ra4 {
and White's pawns were easier to maintain than Black's.}) (5... Nd7 6. Nf3 a6
7. a4 Ngf6 8. Be2 O-O 9. O-O Rb8 10. a5 b5 11. axb6 Rxb6 {
and now, instead of inflicting structural damage on Black with} 12. fxe5 {,} ({
White opted for a stranglehold in Petursson-Ljubisavljevic, Smederevska
Palanka 1984:} 12. f5 $5 h6 13. Nd2 $1 {. This highlights how the availability
of the c4-square and the open f1-a6 diagonal gives White a superior version of
the ...b7-b5, a5xb6 Rxb6 scenario.} Rb4 14. Bxa6 Bxa6 15. Rxa6 c4 16. Rc6 Nc5
17. Qe2 Nfd7 18. Nxc4 Nb8 19. Rxc5 dxc5 20. Nxe5 {and Black was being overrun.
})) 6. Bxf4 Nf6 {
Settling for standard development, although there are alternatives:} ({
Black can still seek to trade bishops with} 6... Bg5 $5 {
, when White has a choice:} 7. -- (7. Qd2 Bxf4 8. Qxf4 a6 (8... Qf6 9. Qg3) 9.
e5 $1 Qe7 10. Nf3 Nd7 11. O-O-O {.} -- ({. Now} 11... Nxe5 $5 {
looks like the best way to take the pawn, e.g.} 12. Qg3 Kf8 $5 ({or} 12... Nf6
13. Nxe5 dxe5 14. d6 Qe6 15. Qxg7 Rg8 16. Qh6) 13. Nxe5 Qxe5 14. Qxe5 dxe5 15.
Na4 {, with a definite advantage to White in both cases.}) ({
. Shariyazdanov-Malakhov, Ekaterinburg 1996, continued} 11... dxe5 $6 12. Qg3
Qf6 (12... Ngf6 13. d6 Qe6 14. Ng5 Qf5 ({and} 14... Qg4 15. Nd5 Qxg3 16. Nc7+
Kf8 17. hxg3 Rb8 18. Bc4) 15. Bc4 O-O 16. Rhf1 {are poor for Black}) 13. d6 Qg6
14. Nd5 Qxg3 15. hxg3 Kf8 16. Ng5 h6 17. Nc7 Rb8 18. Bc4 {
, and Black was in dire straits,} hxg5 19. Rxh8 Ndf6 20. Nd5 Bg4 21. Rf1 Re8
22. Ne7 {adding to his problems in view of the threat of} -- 23. Rxf6 $1 gxf6
24. Rxg8# {.})) (7. Bxg5 Qxg5 8. Nf3 Qe3+ 9. Qe2 Qxe2+ 10. Bxe2 {rids the game
of two bishops and queens and leaves each side with a backward pawn. However,
White has more space and superior development, which is sufficient for a lead;
e.g.} Nd7 ({Black fared worse in Gomez Esteban-J.Gonzales, Barbera 1996:} 10...
f6 {(the e5-square is not the most important factor here)} 11. Nb5 $1 Kd7 12.
Nd2 a6 13. Nc4 axb5 14. Nb6+ Kd8 15. Nxa8 Bd7 16. Nb6 Be8 17. a4 {etc}) 11. O-O
Nh6 12. Bb5 f6 13. a4 Nf7 14. a5 {, Pribyl-Schian, Berlin 1995, when} Ke7 (
14... a6 {avoids the following but weakens b6}) 15. a6 bxa6 16. Bxa6 Bxa6 17.
Rxa6 Rhb8 18. b3 {gave White a target on a7.})) (6... a6 $6 {is a luxury Black
can ill afford, as White does not necessarily need the b5-square to maintain
his lead and there is no time for ...b7-b5 with Black's kingside still at home.
} 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. Be2 Bxf3 9. gxf3 {
is interesting. Huzman-Boim, Ramat Aviv 2000, continued} Bf6 (9... Bh4+ 10. Bg3
Qg5 11. Rg1 Nf6 12. Qd2 Qxd2+ 13. Kxd2 Bxg3 14. hxg3 {
gives White formidable pawns}) 10. Qd2 Ne7 11. Bg3 O-O 12. Nd1 $1 Ng6 13. c3
Be5 14. Nf2 (14. f4 $2 Nxf4 15. Bxf4 Qh4+ 16. Bg3 Bxg3+ 17. hxg3 Qxh1+) 14...
h5 15. f4 h4 16. fxe5 hxg3 17. hxg3 Nxe5 18. O-O-O {and Black - ironically
with the e5-square secure - had cause for concern on the h-file.}) (6... Bf6 7.
Nf3 Bg4 8. Bb5+ Kf8 9. Be2 Bxf3 10. Bxf3 Ne7 11. Bh5 Qb6 12. O-O Nd7 {
has been evaluated as unclear, although White's extra space, the bishop pair
and the f-file should more than compensate Black's control of the e5-square.})
7. Nf3 O-O ({
If Black wants to use his light-squared bishop he should do so now:} 7... Bg4
$5 8. Bb5+ Nbd7 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 O-O 11. Bxd7 Qxd7 12. O-O-O Ne8 13. e5 dxe5
14. Bxe5 Bd6 {, Hodgson-Lerner, Moscow 1987. Again the d-pawn is the focus of
attention. After} 15. Rhe1 Bxe5 16. Rxe5 Nd6 17. Ne4 Nxe4 18. Qxe4 Rfe8 {
White could have kept up the pressure with the natural} 19. d6 {.}) 8. Qd2 Nbd7
({The idea behind 8 Qd2 is to meet} 8... Bg4 {with} 9. e5 -- ({, because after
} 9... dxe5 10. Nxe5 {is on}) ({, while} 9... Nh5 10. exd6 {
is possible since the bishop on f4 is defended. Play might continue} Bxd6 ({or
} 10... Nxf4 11. Qxf4 Bxf3 12. dxe7 Qxe7+ 13. Kd2 Bh5 14. Re1 {
with the better game for White}) 11. Bxd6 Re8+ 12. Be2 Qxd6 13. O-O-O Nf4 14.
Bc4 {.})) 9. Be2 (9. e5 $5 {is worth considering, when White can follow up by
castling queenside. Pribyl's choice is more patient. White prepares to castle
short, thus providing his rook with a ready-made useful outpost on the f-file.
Meanwhile Black is left to weigh up the consequences of the e4-e5 advance, as
well the positional significance of blockading with a piece on e5 and the
eventual arrival of a pawn after an exchange and the recapture ...d6xe5.}) 9...
a6 10. a4 Ng4 11. O-O Nge5 {An important decision.} ({
Clamping down on the e5-square with} 11... f6 {solves one potential problem
(weakening e6 to do so) but leaves White free to 'fix' the queenside thanks to
the thematic} 12. a5 $1 {, when a future transfer of a knight to c4 will
monitor both the inviting b6-square and the d6-pawn, while ...b7-b5, axb6
leaves Black with an isolated a-pawn.}) 12. Nxe5 {White forces an alteration
in the pawn configuration before Black has time to consolidate with ...Bf6.}
Nxe5 {If Black is to suffer structurally he at least wants to see White's
dark-squared bishop out of the game.} 13. Bxe5 dxe5 14. a5 $1 {As soon as the
c5-pawn loses its natural protection White prevents support by the b-pawn, in
the process creating a new target in the form of the b6-square. With the
passed d-pawn to keep an eye on as well as b6 and the newly 'isolated' c5-pawn,
Black's game is not easy.} Bg5 (14... Bd7 $5 {has been suggested, the simple
point being to eliminate the knight as soon as it lands on a4, after which the
bishops of opposite colour make lifting the blockade or generating play in
another sector practically impossible. Obvious and best is} 15. d6 Bg5 {
with a position that has been assessed as unclear. It is true that Black has
the bishop pair and good control of the dark squares, but how these factors
can be used either aggressively or to cope with the powerful d-pawn, White's
outpost on d5 and the squares b6, c7 and e7 is a another matter.}) 15. Qe1 b5
$6 {Black endeavours to drum up some activity at the expense of further damage
to his queenside pawns.} ({Again} 15... Bd7 {might improve}) ({but} 15... Be3+
$6 16. Kh1 Bd4 17. Nd1 {serves only to put the bishop in trouble.}) 16. axb6
Qxb6 17. Na4 Qh6 18. Ra3 $5 (18. Nxc5 $4 Be3+ {is one to avoid.}) 18... Rb8 19.
Kh1 Bf4 20. g3 Bd2 21. Qd1 (21. Qf2 {looks sensible. For the moment White
seems happy to see his pieces come under attack, confident that Black's
divided pawns will eventually prove decisive.}) 21... Bh3 22. Rff3 f5 (22...
Bb4 {is a logical continuation of Black's harassment policy. Then} 23. Rae3 ({
and} 23. Rab3 Bd7) 23... Bg4 {see the bishops come out on top, so White should
drop back to either a2 (to defend the b-pawn in anticipation of Nxc5) or a1,} (
{while} 23... f5 {should be met with} 24. exf5 ({
rather than allowing complications with} 24. c3 fxe4 25. Rxf8+ Rxf8 26. cxb4
Rf2 {etc.}))) 23. Nxc5 Bb4 $2 (23... Rxb2 24. Rxa6 g6 {has been suggested as
giving Black enough for the pawn. However, taking the b2-pawn permits the
knight to race over to the kingside for defensive duties with tempo,} 25. Nd3 (
{the calm} 25. d6 {gives Black something to worry about, e.g.} Bg4 26. Rd3 Bxe2
27. Qxe2 {etc}) 25... Rb7 26. Nf2 {being clearly better for White.}) 24. Rxa6
Rb6 (24... Rf6 25. Rxf6 gxf6 26. Rb3 {does not help Black's cause, e.g.} Rc8 (
26... Rb6 27. d6) 27. Rxb4 Rxc5 28. Rb8+ {and 29 d6.}) 25. Rxb6 Qxb6 26. Nd7
Qa7 27. Nxf8 fxe4 {Black has found the best try.} 28. Ne6 $5 (28. Rb3 Qf2 29.
Qg1 Qxe2 30. Ne6 {is another option but, not wanting to be greedy, White
prefers to have a say on the light squares.}) 28... exf3 29. Bxf3 {Apart from being two pawns up White has three connected passed pawns (Black's e-pawn should
pose few problems). All that is now required to convert this advantage into
the full point is to deal with Black's light-squared bishop and thus tidy up
on the kingside.} Qf2 (29... h6 30. Bg2 {.}) 30. Ng5 Bf5 31. Be4 (31. Ne4 $5
Qe3 32. Qd3 {should be enough to preserve excellent winning chances.}) 31... h6
32. Bxf5 Qxf5 33. Ne6 Bd2 $6 (33... e4 {should be tried, although after} 34. c3
Bd6 35. Kg2 e3 {White can even bale out into a winning queen ending with} 36.
Nf4 Bxf4 37. gxf4 Qxf4 38. Qe2 {etc.}) 34. Kg2 Qe4+ 35. Qf3 Qb4 (35... Qxc2 36.
Qf8+ Kh7 37. Qxg7# {.}) 36. c3 Qd6 ({Again} 36... Qxb2 $4 {allows mate.}) 37.
Qd3 ({Another possibility is} 37. Qe4 {
followed by bringing the king round to d3.}) 37... Bc1 38. b4 Qe7 39. Qg6 (39.
h4 {covers g5 and threatens 40 d6! etc.}) 39... Qa7 40. h4 (40. Qc2 Qe3 41. Qf2
{.}) 40... Bd2 41. Qd3 Be1 $5 42. Qf3 e4 43. Qf8+ $1 (43. Qxe4 $6 Qf2+ {.})
43... Kh7 44. Qf5+ Kg8 45. h5 Bxc3 46. Qf8+ Kh7 47. Qf5+ Kg8 48. Qxe4 Qb7 49.
Nc5 $5 Qxb4 50. Qxb4 Bxb4 51. Ne4 g6 52. g4 $1 Kf7 53. Kf3 gxh5 54. gxh5 Ba3
55. Kf4 Bb2 56. Kf5 Bd4 57. Nd2 Bf6 58. Nc4 Bh4 (58... Bg5 59. d6 {.}) 59. Ne5+
Ke8 60. Ke6 1-0

