Bosch J. (editor) SOS: Secrets of Opening Surprises. Volume 1

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

e4 c5

2. tDf3 tDc6

d4 cd4

4. lfid4 lLlf6

5. 0c3

6. ti::,db5

7. lbdS

The other Sveshnikov move order (5...e6

6.ttJdb5 (6) prevents this line of course.

However, in that case we advise you to

have another look at chapter

7. ... CiJd5

8. ed5 tDb8

Here !L.tlJe7 is an important alternative.

We will not delve into this, but it seems

relevant to point out that after 9.c3

Black.

forced to play

9...tbf5

for purely

tactical reasons. Positionally, Black

would never even consider to place the

knight on

1'5

as it obstructs the natural

n-fS:

forming (hat typical Sveshnikov

pawn centre.

However the alternatives allow some

crude tactics:

A) 9 a6 lO.'ii'a4± wins material;

B) 9 f5 JO.'fVa4

<>t>n

is awkward:

9 tL;g6 IO.~a4 ~d7 II. ... c4

forces the concession I I....Q.b5 as

II...l:tc8? l2.~b4 is even worse.

So. because the knight is badly placed on

f5 White keeps a small plus.

9. ~f3

The 'normal' (read positional) move is of

course 9.c4 when the main question is:

who is faster? White on the queensidc or

Black on the kingside.

The main idea

of9.'iVf3 is

overtly tactical

(some people would perhaps use stronger

language here: anti-positional). White is

playing for the same sort of tricks that

were shown above after lL.tDe7 9.c3. The

queen is ready to switch along the third

rank. Thus.

future"a3 will attack d6,

prepare 'ii'a4. and pin the a-pawn in case

of a6 (keeping the knight on b5). The

other tactical switch can be effective too:

"'c3 threatening

tDc7

can be quite an em-

barrassing

move

meet.

9. ,.. 86

Questioning the knight is clearly Black's

strongest move. The alternatives give

White at least a slight edge:

- 9...~d7 and now after 1O.~a3 Black. is

forced 10 take on b5, leaving While with

the slightly better position.

- 9...g6? 1O:it'a3 b6 (l0 ...a6 11..~.g5!)

1Ute3! ~d7 (ll...tLla6 12.1tc6 ~d7

13.~6 q;e7 14.~g5 f6 15.tDe8+-)

12.~g5! iLe7 13.iLe7 rbe7 14.'it'c7

(14.tLlc7 wins outright) 14...'i!¥d7 15.1Vc4

tLla6 16.0-0-0 ~g4? 17.~c6 ~d7

18.'i!¥d6 ~d8 19:~f6 1-0 Molander-

Kunnas. Helsinki 1995.

- 9...

~e7 1O:iic3 tDa6 11.~e3

with the following options:

1l...0-0 12.tUa7lDc5

(or

12...~d7

13.Qa6

ha6

14.0-0±) 13.tDc8 ttcB

14.0-0-O± Guyot-De Lagontrie, Cannes

1995 ;

11...b6

HIi'c6

~d7

13.tLld6 ~ffi

14.1It'c3 (l4.~c4±) 14...~d6 15.~a6

't/ih4 16.0-()-O± Plenkovic-Zovko, Pula

2000;

C) 11...f5

12.0,a7 (I2.l;':1l7

13,~b6

~b6 14,lL,c8

'lWb4 15.Aa6

~c3

16.bc3

ba6 17.tbe7 'ft¥e7 18J:tbl l:1hc~=)

12...0-0~

Runte-Jelen,

Pula tt

1990.

with

some compensation for the pawn.

10. 'i!t'a3

This pin is one of the main points of

9.tt'D.

100

10.... Jie7

A main alternative here

10...b6. After

defending the rook with ~b7, the white

knight will have to retreat. However. it

must be pointed out that the bishop is not

well-placed on b7.

The move 11.'fVa4 is double-edged

af-

ter ll...lbd7 (or 1l....Q.d7!?) 12,tt:xJ6!?

~d6l3.tt'c6.c714,.a8tbb8(hequeen

is trapped. The

game Kutuzovic-

Zelenika, Rijeka 200

went 15.c3

0-0

16...te3 f5 17.0

18.a4 'ird8 19..ie2

l::td720.0-0-0 'ire7. Here, instead

the

game continuation 21.a5 1:[a7 22. 'fka7

~a7 23...tb6 'iVe7-+, White should

draw with 21.~b6 .Q.b7 22.'it'a7 .ac8

23.'ira8 .ih7 or play 21..~c4.

Much safer is II.c4. Two examples:

- 11...~b7 12.tiJc3 i.e7 13..ie3 0-0

14,'fVb3tiJd715 ..ie211b816.0-0f517.f3

~c8 (I7 ...Ag5) 18.1!t'c2 f4 19..Q.f2 l::tf6

20.l't;e4 llh6 21.b4~ Armanda-Drei,

Opatija 2001.

- 11...1le7 12..ie2 0-0 13.0-0 f5 14.[4

Si.b7 15.LtJe3~d7 16.~e3 a5 IHWb3 cf4

18..Q.f4~c8 19.1i.b5

tDc5

20.~c2 again

with a slight plus, Wise-McShane, Mill-

field ch-GB 2000.

g~.t'+W~ g

i .tiii

How can White increase the pressure? We

will investigate:

A 11.~d2

B I 1.~g5!?

A) 11.

.id2

White intends to attack d6 with .ib4

(sometimes after the preparatory ~a5).

11. ... 0-0

12. ~b4

There is a clever idea behind 12.~a5!?

provoking b6 White ensures that his

queen will not

trapped

on aX

after

fu-

ture ...ab5. After 12...b6 13..Q.h4

analysis diagram

Black appears to be in big trouble. An ex-

ample is Snarhcirn-Lonngren. Hallsberg

jr 1999:

1)...

ti\d7 14.~d6 ..Q.d615.li.':;d6

lL!cS 16.tI;c4 't'd5 17.tLlb6 ~e4 J8.~e2

li)e6

19.0a8 (stronger was 19.0-0±)

9...tbd4

20.'i'd3 'i'g2 (better

20 ...

with approximate equality) 21.0-0-0 ~f5.

However, Black has an excellent tactical

defence at his disposal. With 13 d7!

he protects d6 as 14.t2::d6?fails to 14 a5

lind 14._~d6,!to 14...ab5. Hence, White is

forced to retreat the knight at an awkward

moment (he hasn't played c4 yet). Thus

after 14.tL.c3 ~b7 15.~b3 ti'c7 16.~e2

~d7 17.a4

tL:.c5

18.'ii'c4 b5 Black was

slightly better in Gullaksen-Chemiaev,

Catalan Bay 2003.

12.... ab5

This exchange sacrifice is quite playable,

but not forced. Also good is

J2 ...

~g4!?

when after 13.~d6 ab5 14.i.e7 Black has

14...~d5! (but not 14..

J:ta3

l5.~d8±)

15.'iW1l8 'fi'e4 with perpetual check:

16.<it>d2'itf4 17.<it>eJ

(17.Wc3?

~e6-+)

17...'ii'e4

J8.Wd2 'fl'f4 J9.Wel 'iWe4

20.Wd2

Vz-'/2

Guyot-Popchcv, Podgorica

1991.

After the text there follows a logical se-

quence.

13. 'lWa8 !Ua6

14.

£d2 'lWb6

15. ~e3

White is a full exchange up, but his queen

is trapped and his game as yet undevel-

oped. Clearly, Black has compensation,

but is it enough? Here are two practical

examples with light annotations. Black

won the stem game (Markovic-Joksic)

but White's play can be improved upon.

101

The second example suggests that both

sides should be satisfied with the draw .

• 15..... c7 16.c3 15 (16...~e6 17.~a7

j(d5 18.~b5)

17.fi'a7

f4 18.~d2

(18.~b6 ~d7 19.a4 - 19.~d3! -

19 ba4 20..

ba6 2I.1!i'd7 ~d7~)

18 ~d7 19.a4 tUc5 20.ab5

';'g4

21."a2

'fka

5 'tfi'd7 22 .• b4) 21...e4

22.fi'c4

~h4 23.g3 (23.j(e2 n, 23.h3

l:le8)

23...:e8

24.1:1841

e3 25.~e3 lle4

26.:a8

(26.'i'e4 Cile4 27.1:1e4 ~a5

28.~cl "al

29.~d2 ~f3)

26...

wf7

27.-.a2 !:te3! 28.fe3 "'e7-+ 29.$..e2

We3 30."c4

~f6 3V;.t'd1 f332.11e1

fe2

33.:e2 ltJd3 34.fi'c7 wg6 35.<.t>c2

'fi'e2

36.~b3

"d2

0-1 Markovic-Joksic, Bela

Crkva 1986.

• 15...'''a5

16.c3

b4 17J~c1!

White

rightly forces the draw. After 17.~d2

bc3 18.~c3 'iWd5 Black has excellent

compensation.

17...'iWa2 18.cb4 'i'b2

19.1:lc8

19.~a6 'fYb4 20.~d2 (20.Wf)

ba6 21.1:1c8 'flfbl 22.~cl "cl 23Jkl

aa8

24.Wc2t) 20.....we4 21.~e2 ~g4

22.f3 ~f3 23.~f8

~ffi

24.gf3oo.

19...fi'b4 20.~d2 'fkb1 21.~c1 '*I'b4

22.~d2

Ill-V:!

Paragua-Poliakov, Goa

Wch-jr 2002.

8) 11. ~g5!?

Now that's a real shocker: Clearly. there

need for

'the slow' 11.h4 (to

prepare

12.~g5). after 11...0-0 12.~g5 1'6

13.~d2 f5 14.~g5 _~g5 15.hg5 ab5

16:;,I;'a8

tLJa6

Black has excellent com-

pensation,

Gagglottini-Ravagnani,

Ischia

1997.

11. ...

Bad is 1l...~g5

12.0d6

<.i.>d7(l2 Wf8

l3.tt.:-c8 wg8 14.tt~d6

14 ~e7

102

l5.tt_'b7) 13.lt:lf7. The best reply to

1l...~f5!? is 12.~e2.

12. ~d2

So here we have the same position as in

line A.

but for the

Black

pawn on f6.

first

sight

(he difference

looks advanta-

geous

for

White, but there

are

too few

practical examples (only one!) too sup-

port this view.

The game lordachescu-Gcnocchio, Lido

Estensi 2002. went:

12...

a51 This is a

clear mistake.

13."c3±

~a6 13...Wd7?

14.l2Ja7+-.

14.'i'a5

b6 15.t1B4 0-0

16.c4

~f5 17.'ii'd1 "eB 1B.b4 '*"96

19 b3

19:itD

19.....td7 20."g3

'iff7

20 ...,..e4

2t..e)

'tIfe3 22.fe3. 21..ie2

15 22.0-0 f4

23. 'irf3

'ot?h8

24.a4 95

25.,*h5 'itg7

25...1!t"h526..ih5 g427.D

26.~g4+-

~e8 27.

'ii'h3

~'6 28.a5 ~d8

29.ab6 ';'b6 30.11a3 h5 31.:'a1 'i'h7

32..te1 llh6 32...hg4 33.1!fh7 ~h7

34.11a6 lla6 35J136 ~b5 36.cb5 ~d4

37.l:lc6+-

33..tfS 'tWb7 34.~e6 94

3S.~g4 ~b5 3S.cbS

!be7

37.11a8

tLla8

38.~f3

1-0.

White is slightly better after 12...b6

13.~b4 (J3.c4!·!) 13...0-0 14.~d6 ab5

15.~e7 ft'd5 16.'itd3.

The only real test of Iordachescu's

11..~g5!? is of course 12...0-0. Black

continues just as in line A, and it is up to

White to prove that the inclusion of f7-f6

makes adifference. So the followi ng

nes

ought to be checked (by the serious stu-

dent!):

- 13.~aS b6 14.Ab4 ~d7;

-13 ..i.b4~g414.Ad6ab515.~e7"d5;

- 13..i.b4 ab5 14.-'a8 tLla6l5.~d2 'tWb6

16..te3.

In conclusion, the whole line starting with

9.'tIff3

fulJ

of pitfalls -

lack may easily

go astray. The tactics are quite attractive

and there is plenty of scope for 'private

investigations'. On the other hand. on the

basis of the material presented here White

is not entitled to claim an edge. However,

as there is no such thing as a an easy ope-

ning advantage at present against the

Sveshnikov, there is every reason to try

this SOS weapon.

Section IV: An SOS pawn thrust

This section discusses four opening vari-

ations in which the initiative is grabbed

by means of an original pawn move in the

early stages of the game. These SOS-

pawn moves will shock your opponent.

Chapter

focusses on an aggressive

pawn thrust for Black.

1.e4 g6 2.d4 .ig7 3.tt:lc3 d5

This is a real shocker! White has no ad-

vantage after 4.Q::d5c6, so he has to take

the gauntlet with 4.edS. Play will often

resemble the Larsen variation of the

Alekhine.

The reversed Sokolsky is the subject of

chapter 14.

1.~f3 b5

The idea of 1...b5 is to liven things up a bit

after White's solid start. So here is a com-

plete and provocative repertoire against

l.lbf3.

Chapter

provides the second player

with an aggressive line against the

Trornpowsky.

1.d4 (i:.f62..ig5 e6 3.e4 c5

The 'normal' continuation after 3.e4 is

3...

h6 when Black acquires the bishop

pair at the expense of central influence

and development. The 'Sicilian" move c5

undermines White's pawn centre. and is

therefore much sharper. This SOS-recipe

leads to exciting play where White may

easily go wrong.

Don't play the Dutch against I.tlJf3 is the

message of chapter

16.

1.tL:f3 f5 2.d3

The Lisitsin gambit (or Lviv gambit as it is

also called) is characterized by the sharp

2.e4. While this move has distinct SOS

qualities (sharp, enterprising, original). it

also has quite a history (Lisitsin-Borvin-

nik, Leningrad

1933!)

and is therefore un-

likely to suprise your opponent. The move

2.d3 is a subtle preparatory move and, as

this chapter demonstrates, difficult

meet

for the second player.

105

CHAPTER 13

Modern, Scandinavian or Alekhine?

KF10.4

3...d5: an aggressive central thrust

New ideas that are both surprising and

solid are hard to come

in the opening.

you don't like to memorise heaps of

theory and still want to get through

the

opening stages unscathed,

the subject of

Ihis chapter might

just what you've

been looking for. Just study the next

pages and you'

find all you need to

know to avoid major problems in your

next few games as Black. Easy to learn.

easy

to play!

.:.lg7

106

3. lI.c3

d5!?

A remarkable idea. Once you've con-

vinced yourself that Black hasn't just in-

advertently

pushed

his d-pawn

one

square

too

far it dawns on you that noth-

ing is gained

4.tt~d5.

After

4...

S.Q\e3~d4 6.~.d3 (6.'i'd4 ~d4

7.li::f'3

$t.g7 provides instant equality) 6...'L:f6

(stronger

perhaps

6...e5!?

7.l2Jf3

~dR

8.0-0 ~e7) 7.0.e2

'iVdR R.O-O

0-0 9.f4

~g4 IO.tL;g4~g4 I1.h3 ~e2 12.'it'e2

the

position was only slightly better for

White

in the

game Hector-Schulze,

Berlin IY95.

Equally unpromising is 4.eS cS as in

Skripchenko-Lakos, Porec 1998. Com-

pare this to l.e4 g6 2.1.14c6 3.tiJc3 d5 4.e5

where Black has wasted a tempo on

c7-c6.

Similarly,

4.00

de4 5.CLie4is easy for

Black,

cr.

1.e4 g6 2.d4 c6 3.tDc3 dS

4.00

iLg7 S.h3

de4 6.t11e4

(h3 is much more

useful than

c6).

All

this leaves

ed5

as the only move to refute Black's con-

cept.

4. ...

tL,f6

Compared to the Scandinavian l.e4 dS

2.ed5 tt.Jf6 White has lost all sorts of

c4-options.

Seen from

this light,

Black

calls 3.~c3 an inaccuracy as it does not

prevent d5! (as 3.c4 would of course).

Still he does have to retrieve his

pawn

course.

5. ~c4

Strongest, White

uberdecks

dS, making it

as difficult as possible for Black to win

the pawn back.

With

the

same purpose 5.~b5 has also

been played. This is less logical though as

Black plans tt.\h8-d7-b6 anyway! After

5.1Lb5

even encouraged to play

S...li\bd7.

The game

might

continue:

A) 6.0ge2 0-0 7.~d7 'fr'd7 8.ltJf4 b6

9.0-0 ~b7 10Jlellte8 I1Jle5 J:lad8

12.h3 c6 13.dc6 tfc6 14.dS1!l'd6 15.'ii'e I

4';1.1516Jtd5 ..tc3 17.:d6 i.e 1 18.Ad8

Ud8 19.tOd3 Q.a6!= Andersen-Schulz,

Baden

1991.

B) 6.lLlf30-07.0-0 tLlb68.~g5 (S.Ue I

lbbdS 9.ltJd5 tLJd5 1O.h3i/= Lederman-

Vydeslaver, Beer-Sheva 1991) 8...tDbd5

9.lLld5 lild5

1O.J:reI ~g4 II.h3

~f3

12.'i!i'f3c6 14.~c4 and Black has gained a

tempo (.ib5-c4) and almost equalized,

Svatos-vokac, Czech Republic Champi-

onship.

Usti nad Labem 1994.

Compare

this

position to

similar

ones below.

The position

strongly

resembles

the

middlegames that may arise out of the

Larsen variation of the Alekhine: 4...de5

S.ciJe5g6 (a respectable

line).

6.tLlf3 0-0 7.h3 tbb6 8.0-0 ltJbd5

9.ltJd5lild5 1O.c3 'W'd6 II..ic4 (prevent-

ing c5) I I...b6 12.~el .ib7 13.~g5 e6

107

14.~4c515.~g3~e716.iYb3andnow

not 16..

J:lac8??

17.~d5 1-0 Gofshtein-

Vydeslaver, Beer-Sheva 199 L.but simply

16...

~fd8=.

A rather meek alternative is 5.~(] ~d5

6.tbd5

'iWdS

7._~e2

(or

7.c4 'fId6 8.~e2

9.~e3 cd4 1O.J.d4 ~b4=,

as in

Mahesh-Chandran-Bjelobrk, World Ju-

nior Championship, Cali cut 1998) 7 ...c5

8.~e3 cd4 9.

.i.d4

0-0 10.0-0

tDc6

11..ig7

Wdl 12.~fdl ~g7

13.tb.d4 tiJd4 14.nd4

~f5 15.c3

l:lfd8 with equality,

Gyimesi-Banikas, World Junior Champi-

onship, Zagan

YY7.

5. ... <1~bd7

This is more accurate than 5...0-0 in view

of 6.lDge2! tbbd7

7.gb3

tLlb6 8/tJf4

and

Black has

difficulties winning the pawn

back, Yudasin-

Vydeslaver,

Beer

Sheva

1992.

6. ~f3

Now

6.~b3 ttlb6

7.tbf3

will just trans-

pose

the text.

And

7.h3

S.a3

a4 9.~a2 tbbd5

io.eas

tDd5

II.lbf3 0-0 12.0-0 c6

13.~g5

~e6

14.Ael

15.~d7 CUc7 was equal in

Andrey Sokolov-Plachetka,

Ostrava

108

1994. This is a good example of Black's

standard set-up.

White cannot keep his extra pawn with

6.Wf3

because of

6...~b6 7.~b3 ~g4

8.1Wg3

..Q.f5

when

Klovans-Gurevich,

Dnepropetrovsk 1970 (possibly the stem

game) continued

9.*,0 -tg4

10.~g3

~f5

n.ers

tUbd5 IVtJd5 tLld5 13.0-0

0-0 14.lie1,

and

White

had only a slight

edge.

However, While's most ambitious try is

6.~g5!?

as suggested in

Nunn's Chess

Openings,

the only book I know

men-

tion 3...d5!'? White intends

give up his

bishop

to keep the d5-pawn, thus turning

3 d5!?

into a

real

sacrifice. After

6...

lDb6

(6 0-0 7.gb3 ttJb6 8.'~f3 gd7?!

9.1lff4

c6 10.d6

and White kept

his

extra pawn,

Sadler- Turner, British Championship,

Hove 1997) 7..lH6 _~.f6 8.~b3

is useful

for

Black

to throw

in 8...a5!? (8 ...0-0 is

worse, as shown in Keitlinghaus-

Siebrecht,

Dortmund Open

1998: 9.tilge2

..Q.g4\0.0 ~.h4 Il.ti'lg3 ~f5

12.0-0

~g3

13.hg3±)

when the lines diverge:

A) 9.a3 a4 10.~a2 0-0 Il.lDge2 c6

12.dc6

bcf

13.0-0 ~a6 14.Ael Martin