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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

2S.t/)e4 ti',fl 27.• f3 f5 27...'tIfg2

28.'fi'g2 lLie3 29.~d2 tZJg2

28.tt:lf6

<M7

29.lbeS 29.W'fI! "hI

30.1!t'el t6'b7

29...

We7

30.Q.c3

~g'

31.tLifd7

31.~e2

llh2 32.<;f,1d3'ii'e3 33.'iVe3 t;~e3 34.We3

l:h3

3S.Wd2

Wf6 31..Jlh2

31...tbh2

an elementary win,

but I

presume that

both combatants were in terrible time

trouble.

32.tt:.c6 <iPd7

33.tOeS

<tJe7 0-1

Following Nadanian's g5 plan is perhaps

not advisable for those who seek the truth

(or for those with weak nerves for that

matter).

1. ~f3 b5

2. a4

Now for further analysis I would suggest

3.e4 kb7 4.~c4!? with interesting play,

which has hardly been tried out in practi-

ce. A meek alternative is 4.d3.

Corkett-K.ArkeU, English Team Champi-

onship 1998, went instead: 3.c4 c5 4.b3

.i.b7 5.i.b2 ti:lf6 6.e3 g6 7.d4 cd4 8.ed4

.i.g7 9.ttJbd2 0-0 IO.JLd3 d5 11.0-0 ~c6

and Black was quite

OK.

The eternal

Reti

fianchetto is also possi-

ble. In Vaulin-Sulskis, Bydgoszcz 1999.

Black overreacted a bit: 3.g3 ~b7 4.~g2

gS!? 5.d3 g4 6.~h4 Q.g2 7.cc,g2 d5 (if at

all then 7...~g7 l:<.h3h5 is essential to

keep the pawn structure intact) 8.h3 gh3

9.l:lh3 itd7 IO.l:lhI tLJc6 II.~d2 e6

l2.lbb3 f5 t3..i.g5 ~e5 l4.JLe3 ti;g6

15.'W'd2

l6.tbf4 tbf4 17.i.f4 White

had a huge positional advantage and won.

1. Ci:!f3 bS

2. c3

Not as innocent as it looks. Against the

Sokolsky 1...c6 is also not such

bad

idea.

2. ... e6

So as to answer ].a4 with 3...h4.

• 3.d4 ~b7 4.~g5 was Andersson-Litt-

lewood, Hastings

1980/81,

now 4...

5.~e7 'fIe7 improves on the game which

went 4...f6'1! 5.i.f4 f5 6.ttJbd2 ttJf6 7.e3

a6 R.~gS i.e7 9.a4 b4 IO.iLf6 ~f6

11.~d3 cilc6

12.0-0

g6 13.l!)b3

0-0

14.tz:.c5 ~c8 15.'i'e2 a5 16.~b5 and

White was better .

• 3.g3 has also been played. After

3...~b7 4.~g2 tUf6 5.0-0 ~e7 6.d3 Black

should play 6...a6. In Kortchnoi-Hodgson,

Brussels 1985, White gained a pleasant

edge after 6...d6 7.a4! a6 8.ab5 ab59.lh8

~a8 1O.~b3!

3.-.wb3a6 4.d4 ~b7

5.ttbd2 tbf6

6.a4

b4 7.a5 ~e7 8.e3 0-0 9.~e2 c5 10.deS

tDc6 11.cb4 :b8

And Black had compensation in Lange-

weg-Ivkov, Amsterdam IBM 1972. al-

though he later went wrong: 12.e4 ~a8

13.'*c3 %1b414.0-0

tiJe4

l5.t2).e4 J:te4

16..Q.a6 Q.f6 17.twd2 ttJd4 18.lDd4 .Q.d4

19..Q.e2

.c7

20.h3 I:g4? 20...11h4

2J.~g5; 20....i.cS. 21.~g4 -..g3 22..i.f3

119

~f3 23.1!fgS+- 'tWg5 24.i1Lg5 .adS

25.l:lab1 ~c5 26.b4 i.d4 27.b5 l:lb8

28.~e3 ~e3 29.fe3 ~e4 30.l:tfe1 d5

31.a6 ~8 32.s7 1-0.

RECENT GAME

Folco Castaldo

• Vlad Tomescu

Reggio Emilia 2003

1.~f3 b5 2.e4 ~b7 3..ab5 .ae4 4.0-0

tOf6 5.d4

6.c4 ~e7

6...c6 7.~a4 'it'b6 is an interesting try:

A) 8.c5

.tf3?

(8...'\i'c7; 8...'iWa6)and

now not 9.'~f3, but 9.cb6 ~d I 10.h7 win-

ning

the spot.

B) 8.tlJc3 j(_f3 9.'i'f3 ~d4 obviously

Wile has compensation for the pawn. but

is it enough? 10.~f4 ~d6 II.~d6 ~d6

12.Afdl ~c7 13.c5 0-0 vokac-

Hasangatin, Karvina 200 I.

7.4'\c3 .ab7 8.dS 0-0 9•.i1La4tDa6

Bad is 9...a5?! 10J:l:cl (i:;a6 II.~f4 ed5

(l1...lLJc5 12.~(;2 d6 13.i.e3

±)

12.cd5

~b413 ...Q.c2!i.c3 14.bd Qd5 (14 ...~5

15.~d3 tLJf6 16.~g5) 15.~g5 Qe6

16.it'd3 0c5 17.'tid4 d6 18.'ith4 h6

19.~h6! with a winning attack in

Castaldo-Bertazzo, Milan 2003.

9...~b4 as in Speelman-Hodgson, Lon-

don 1985, was my recommendation in the

main text.

1Ute1 tileS

10...Qb4.

11.i.c2 a51Vbe5?!

Bad is 12.~g5?

C2,d5,

but possible are

12.~f4 and 12.a3. planning l:tbl and b4.

12...d613.tt:lc6 i.c614.dc6 lIa6

Targettiog the weak pawn.

120

1S_tt'13ita8

1S...Q.g5

16.ltJd5 ed5 l7.ne7 dc4.

16 h6!

16 ~c6 IHWh3

17 h6 18._~h6 gh6 19.~h6+-.

B) 17 t'ucd7 J8.4\d5 ed5 19.ne7 and

White is better. e.g.:

- 19 dc4 20Jld7 ~d7 2J..~h7.

- 19 ~d8 20JId7 1td7 21.SLf5 ~e7

22..tf6 'ft'f6 2J.'ft'h7 ~f8 24.'iIt'h8 We7

25.Ael.

- 19...g6 20.ltf5 gf5 (20...Ad8

21..~c6+-) 2 L~f5 't!fc4 22..if6 liJf6

23.'\i'g5 <;t;>hR24.~f6 ~g8 25.l:!e3.

17..ah6

Not correct but otherwise White just loses

c6 without compensation.

17...

gh6

18.~f4

18.~g3 ~h8 19.'\!j'f4

tbg8-+.

18..'(J.?g7 19.ne3 lIh8 20.li'\dS ed5

21.lIe7 :e8 22.::If7?

This accelerates the end, but White had

nothing anyway. 22.'iWg3

,.pf8

23.%[c7

~d8-+.

22...

~f7

23.~h6

~g8

24.lIe1

"'f8

25."'h3 ~a8 26.~d1 l:lh8 27. -.f5 lIe8

0-1

CHAPTER 15

Trumping the Tromp

3...c5: the SOSalternative

NICKEYQP7.7

Why counter an off-beat opening with an

off-beat line? This is a question you

might well ask when seeing the subject

of this

SOS

chapter: the Trompowsky

Opening. However, due to the efforts of

several English players. with Julian

Hodgson

their front

man,

the 'Tromp'

has grown into a respectable opening.

An opening with its own rules and theo-

retical lines against which it is not so

easy to equalise.

The game we present here will provide

you with a new and strong weapon to

counter the Trompowsky.

Hikaru Nakamura

• Leonid Yudasin

New York 2001

1.d4

Cd6

2.~g5 e6 3.e4cS!?

The whole world plays

3...

h6 here, but the

text is

good SOS alternative.

4.e5

This

the most principled reply.

Let

look at some alternatives:

A) 4.1.:3'iWb6

5.tlJd2

'i'b2 6.tL:.c2gave

White some compensation in D.loneS(;u-

Bumoiu, Bucharest 1999.On move 4 Black

can also play 4...cd-l!? answering S.eS

with 5..

.'fh5

or 5...h6. If White takes

121

back 5.cd4 'i'a5 6.Qd2, Black can play

6...~b4 or 6...tt'b6. Plenty of room for in-

vestigation!

B) 4.tl2f3 cd4 5.e5 is an innocuous

line, more commonly reached via the Tor-

re Attack, i.e.

l.d4

tL::f6

2.l2:f3

e6 3._Qg5

c5 4.e4 cd4 5.e5. Teske-Bologan, Frank-

furt 2000, continued 5...h6 6.~c I (6.~h4

is alsoOK for Black) 6...tL:.h7!'?7.1!t'd4

tLlc6g.~e4 d5 9.ed6 ..Q.d6with a nice po-

sition.

C) 4.d5 (this is the main alternative to

the text) 4...d6 (this is safest: 4...h6 5.~f6

1t'f6

6.tLic3

must be slightly better for

White: 4...ed5 5.e5 ~e7

6.'lWe2

h6 7.~f4

0.c4 8.f3 0g5 9.lLc3 d4 10.!t:id5 ~d8

II.e6 was Hodgson-Bclkhodja, France

Team Championship 1999) 5.4'c3

fJ..e7

6.~b5 (6.

i\f3 0-0 threatens 7...ti':d5)

6...~d7 7.de6 fe6 8.~.d7 'ltd7 Y/U3

cl;c6

and Black was fine in Marcelin-Lalic,

Ubeda 2001.

4...h6

5..ic1

Back

to square

one:

One of Black's main

ideas is that this retreat is more or less for-

ced. The following gamc extracts show

why

this is:

122

A) 5.ef6 hg.5 6.fg7 Qg7 7.dc5 ~b2

8.t'i;d2

'*'Ve79J.tb I 'i'c5 and Black is bet-

ter, Reddmann-Nisipeanu, Hamburg

1998.

B) 5..if6 gf6 6.4\f3 cd4 7.ef6 ..wf6

8.41od2 d5, Rahman-Dunnington, British

Championship, Scarborough 1999.

C) 5.~h4 g5 6..ig3 tDe4 7.c3 004

!UWd4

tL:g3 9.hg3

t2;,c6

IO.tt'e3 b6

IJ..ad3

'WIc7

12.f4 .tb7 13.tL:f3 0-0-0,

Povah-Rowson,

England Team Champi-

onship

997.

In all

cases Black's position was prefera-

ble. However, after the withdrawal of the

bishop the knight must retreat too or ex-

pose itself to further attacks.

5...~~d5

Black's idea is reminiscent of an (im-

proved) Alekhine's defence. He has lured

White's centre forwards and is already at-

tacking

too! Yet, there

a playable al-

ternative in: 5...tL:h7!?

E'Ij_iV~j_ E

i ••

'i~

• i

• 8

analysis diagram

6.~d3 (6.d5 ed5 7.'it'd5

tL\c6

8.Qc4

'WIe7

9.tL.f3 C":'1'610.'i't7

"*'f7

11.~f7 wt7

12.ef6 d5 13.fg7 ii.g7, with excellent

compensation for the minor investment in

B.Schmidt-Hellstcn, Germany Bundes-

liga 2000/01) 6...

cd4

7.~h7 l:[h7 R.r~f3

~c6 9.0-0 d6

iO.~f4 deS

and in this

un-

clear position the players called it

day in

Slipak-Fiorilo, Buenos Aires

2000.

Finally,l should like

point out that even

5...

tDg8!?

not entirely stupid.

6.c4

g&.t~~.l.

ii i ii

i&~

t3Jt3J

6...~b4!?

This is a novelty. The more mundane

6...

lL\b6 was an earlier Yudasin effort:

7.dc5 kc5

8.ti'J3

d5 9.edf>~d6

1O.~d6

(I0.~d2 was the stem game

Hodgson- Ward, British Championship.

Eastbourne 1(91) 10...Ji.d6 I

1.~c3

~c6

12.~d2 ~d7 13.0-0-0 \[}e7 14.tL;bS

Ifl-lfl,

Soffer- Yudasin, Israel Championship.

Tel-Aviv 1994. Instead of 8.t2::fJ White

can go 8.'t!fg4, which is perhaps the rca-

son why Yudasin preferred 6...

4'\04

this

time round.

Sorokin has played the even more provo-

cative

6...ti;;e7.

when 7.dcS ~bc6 8.':::'c3

~e5

9.lL:hS

tL:f5

IO.~f4 a6 II

:~a4

f61ed

to great complications in Sargissian-So-

rokin, Ubeda 2000.

7.dS

To stop the knight from reaching c6. After

7.a3

04c6 the knight has been effectively

re-routed to attack the squares d4 and

e5.

And

?len

cd4 8.<i::d4

tb8c6

is also good

for Black.

7...d6

Immediately attacking the white pawn

centre.

8.83 li.J4a69.ed6 ..id6

Note that Black is developing quickly and

has fine dark square control. His position

is already

preferable.

10.0c3 0-0

11.

.Q.dJCi:Jc7

12.!Dge2

After l2.de6 ~e6 13_tDf3~c6 Black has

a lead in development.

12...ed5 l3.cdS tDd7 14.0-0

ttJf6

15.~c4 b6

The pawn on d5 is well blockaded and so-

mewhat weak. In practice Black's positi-

on is much easier to play, as he has a

clear-cut plan to besiege and indeed win

d5.

16.

.!Lg3..Q.e5

Threatening one of the pawn's defenders.

17.tDh5~b7

Quietly continuing his plan. 17...

~.c3

123

IS.bc3 ti"ifd5 falls into 19.~h6! gh6

20.~d5 tbd5

21.'CWd5

'i'd5 22.~f6 ~g7

23.ti)d5, although even here, if anyone.

Black is better.

18.~f4 ~f4!

Again better than

18...

~c3 19.~c7

(19.bc3 tncd5) 19..."fVc720.bc3 with a

slight edge for Black.

19.1Of4..-d6

Gaining time.

20....'3 ~e6!

Making use

the opportunity. This

knight certainly has a busy life.

21.'~:,e6?

This is cooperative. However, the alterna-

tive 21.ttJh5 tUhS22.'ifh5 ~d4 is also bet-

ter for Black. Only 21.t2Jfe2 prevents

Black's advantage from growing.

21...

fe6

22.l:tad1 {~d5

Naturally

22 ...ed5

23.tL.Jd5

dead equal.

23.~d5

So this was the idea. Rather than defen-

ding a weak pawn White sacrifices it for

some positional compensation.

23...llf3 24.lilf6 tU6 25J:td6

rLe8

26.l:1e1

26J:ld7 l:tt7 and White cannot keep the

pressure with 27.l:tfd I? (27 .l:td6) because

124

of 27...R.c& or even stronger 27....id5

28.l17d5 ed5

29.~d5

!:te2

30.~n ~n

with a winning rook ending.

26..

.';T;>f7

27.b4 cb4 28.ab4 l:te7 29.13

~c8

Black has an extra pawn, albeit a weak

one.

Yudasin's

technique is up to the mark

of course.

30.%ic1 .td7 31.1:1a1l:.tf4!

This is very unpleasant

32.11a7?

The alternative

32.1:1<:I

does not give

White a rosy future either: 32.l:tc

33..ta2 l:tb4 34J:tc7 ~e8 35J:te6

(35.Ac6 WfR and Black is

better)

35..J:k7 36.l:tc6 ~f8 37Jk7 a5 and

Black wins.

32....Alc8!

32..Jk4

33.1:[dI17 l:td7 34.!:td7

~f6

is a

good rook

ending. but the text

wins a pie-

ce.

33.~.e6

33J~e7 We7

34Jk6

~d7 wins more easi-

ly (35.l:tc7 Wd&).

33...

..Q.e6

34Jle7 We7 35.l:tb6

I give [he rest without much comment.

35..J%.c436.h3 :1c2 37Jla6 U,b238.:lb6

~c4

39.h4

wf7

40.h5

i..d5

41.l::td6

i..c4

42.1:lb6 :;t,>g843.1:I:b8~h7 44.1:I:b6 ~f7

45.nb5 ~e8 46.1:%e5~c6 47.:c5 ~a4

48.l:!c4 ~e8 49.l:th4 ~g8 50.~f1l:td2!

Threatening 51...lld5

which there is no

satisfactory reply.

51.g4

J:[b2

52.l:lh1 ~f7

53J:th3

<J.;>f6

54.14 llb4 55.nf3 .Qd7 56.g5 hg5 57.f95

<o9g558.:g3 ..Q.g4

While

resigned.

RECENT GAMES

Nigel Povah

• Alexander Cherniaev

England

2002103

1.d4

tL:;f6

2.~g5

e6 3.e4

4.e5 h6

5.~d2

A novelty but

not

a good one. Likewise,

after 5.i.f6 gf6 6.

/',f3

cd4 7.~d4

tiO,c6

8:iWh4

!ii.e7

9.'i"h5

fe5 Black's position

was more or less winning in Morel-

Leygue, Creon 2002. As pointed out

above 5.jLc I is the main move.

S...

tiJe4 6.~d3 tDd2 VLd2 cd4 8.f4

tlJc69.~igf3d5

With two bishops and a pawn up Black's

opening may be called a success.

0.a3

~c5 11.b4 ~b6 1VLb3 ~d7

13.0-0 a6 14:tVe1 0-0

15.~h1

!1c8

16.g4

White has no

compensation and

seeks

chances with this dubious move.

16...f6! 17....93 fe5 18.1e5 g5! 19.'it'h3

"pg7

20.

i:;c1

Aiming for tbe2-g3-h5, but this plan is

obviously too slow.

20...

~c7

21.tl':e2? ti\e5

22.lDe5

~e5

23.tL.g3

!ii.g324.•

"'c7 25.tfh3 tfd6

White resigned as he is simply two pawns

down (26.~h5 e5).

Simon Buckley

• Francis Rayner

England 112002103

1.d4 tLi16

2.~gS

e6 3.e4

c5 4.d5

s.eea

ssa

6.~b5 ~d7

7.de6

No better

was

7 .~d7 tijbd7 8.de6 fe6

9.tI\f3

0-0 10.~f6

C.i::f6

Il.e5 de5 12.'fi'e2

tDd5 13.'i'e5

tL;c3

14.~c3 _~f6 15....wb3

1*'d5 with a slight plus, Pert-Collinson,

England

tt 2002/03.

125

7...fe6 8.e5!? deS 9.'tfe2 tDc6 10.0-0-0

~';d5 11.'ifh5

II.~e7 tDc3.

11...g6 12.~e7

'fIJe7

2...liJc3

13.~f3tz:.d4

13..."iWg5!.

14.ti~d5

ed5 15.~d7 'it'd7 16.'i!i'f6! Ilf8

17 e5We6

~f71

18.d

1:raeR.

18.l:Ie1! '.tJ>d719.e3

19...~f7??

This blunders the game. However, after

19...

nae8

20.iWg7!

(but nOI

20.cd4

'fi'g8!-+

(20...

'(lff7? 21.~f3+-)) Black

is in

LfOUhJe

too,

for

instance: 20...

1:rc7

J~e6 l:lg7 22.rte5 winning a pawn.

20.cd4 !:tae8 21.Ciif3 1-0

Christopher Dunworth

• Daniel Gormally

England

2001

1.d4 tiif6 2..195 e6 3.e4 c5 4.d5 'iVb6

This is

extremely risky, but

you have

good nerves why not give it a try.

s.srs

S.tDc3

~b2

6..ild2 is critical in my opin-

126

ion. White has decent compensation for

the pawn in view of his lead in develop-

ment.

5...

gf6

6:~cl

6.0.d2 ~b2 7.tijgf3 Qg7 R.Qd3 Wb6 and

White did not have enough compensation

in Mensch-Belotelov, Budapest 1998.

~g7

6 ~h6!? 7.1i'h6!? (7.tbd2 .id2 8.~d2

'iWb2

better for Black) 7...1i'b2 Ittbe2

tval

9.tL·;c3

'il'b2

IO.Qd3 and White has a

dangerous attack

for

his

sacrificed

mate-

rial.

7.e3

tLJd2was stronger.

7...f5! 8.li'la3

This is a dubious pawn sacrifice.

8...1e4 9.LUc4 1fe7 10.'i'g5 0-0 11.d6

'it'c6 12.l:tdl b5! 13ke5 'tfb6 14.'lJg4

wh815 ..!Dh6 Ciic616.~h5 ~e517.f4

This was

White intention, Gormally's

puts him out

business.

17...c4! 18.'~e2?

18.fe5 We3.

18....!Dd3

19.c2Jh3

'ii6f2! 0-1

20.<2;(2tDf4 2 I.:l;e I tjjh5 22.lbhg4 f5 is

curtains.

CHAPTER 16

The improved LisitsinGambit

t2J

b8b bbb~

~t2J~~~~

NIC KEY HD 13.6

Trying to repair the omission of l.e4!?

One of the reasons why many players

love the Dutch is that you can play it

against l.d4. l.c4 and

l.tbf3.

One system

playas Black against

all non-Le-t

play-

ers means reducing your theoretical

workload and improving your practical

understanding of

Moving your f-pawn

an admittedly risky strategy. but

might pay offas you tight and win the bat-

tle for the e4-square. However. supporters

of the Dutch should be warned against

over-using

1...f5. In the

Dutch proper

(l.d4 f5) Black is well on his way to gain

control of the e4 square. This docs not

hold true for l.c4 f5 or 1.0';f3f5. though.

This SOS chapter is

case

point. dem-

onstrating as it does the merits of

l.tlif3

1'5

2.d3!?

Michal

Krasenkow

• Stefan Kindermann

Panormo 2001

1. tbf3 '5

2. d3!?

This modest-looking move is in fact an ef-

fective reaction to Black 's first move.

White prepares e4. arguing that 1...f5 is a

weakening move. To understand the mer-

127

its of 2.d3 we must compare (his move to

the Lisitsin Gambit (1.08[3 f5 2.c4!?).

This gambit

is a

violent attempt to crush

the Dutch. Dangerous though it may be, it

is more like a double-edged sword: risky

for the victim as well

for its wielder.

Byway of contrast (as well

to provide

playable SOS alternative) we hereby

present a

survey of

Lisitsin's

gambit:

l.ti)f3 f52.e4!?

2...fc4

tbg5.

A) 3...

d5 4.d3 'lWd6(4...e3, as played

by Malaniuk a couple of times, is also in-

teresting) 5.de4 h6 6.ltJf3 (6.~h5 g6

7.'ii'h4 is also

possible) 6...

de4 is a

well-known 'refutation' (as it was called

by Kavalek). White has a major alterna-

tive on the fifth move, though:

5.o8c3

(this

prepares a piece sacrifice) 5...h6 (5...~f6

6.de4 h6!?) 6.ti\b5 ~c6 (worse is

6...~b6,!! 7.~h5 g6 Vuc7 ~d7 -

lL-.c7 9.~g6 ~d7

IO.tbf7 -

9.tL_;a8

be-

cause now the queen is attacked on the b6

square, 9..:~a5 1O...td2 'i'd2 11.~d2

ghS l2.~f7, as indicated by Piket) 7.de4

hg5 8.ed5 'l'd7 9.Ag5 a6

1O.~c3

11..Q.d3.and White has good compensa-

128

lion for the piece. A verdict both based on

the stem game Piker-Van Mil. Dutch

Championship. Eindhoven 1992, and

subsequent games.

B) 3...e5 4.d3 e3 (4 ...ed3 5.~d3 is

suicidal) 5..ae3

lUc6

has always had a re-

liable reputation. However, in 1990 Mi-

chael Rohde discovered 4.d4!?, which is

serious challenge:

4...

ed4 5.lCe4

ttJc6

6.~c4 ttlf6 7.~g5 Qe7

s.ers

~f6

9:~e2 ~e7

1O.~d5,

with good compen-

sation, Ronde-Castro, Philadelphia

Open 1990. Therefore,

3...lDc6

is per-

haps stronger.

3...lDc6!'!

(Kindermanns recom-

mendation to avoid 3...e5 4.d4) 4.d3 (as

4.d4 d5! is OK for Black) 4...e3 5.~e3 e5,

and we have transposed to 3...e5 4.d3

without allowing Rohde's 4.d4.

D) 3 tbf64.d3 .

01)

4 ed3? 5.~d3 g6 6.lDh7 l:th7

7.~g6 llf7 8.g4!. and White is better, ac-

cording to Milic and Bozic.

02)

4...d5 5.de4 h6 6.tDt3 de4 7.e-d8

~d8 8.lUe5 ~e6 9.lDc3 tDbd7 1O.~g6.

and White is slightly better in this end-

game. Lisitsin-Kortchnoi, Soviet Cham-