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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

White has a nice game, he is ready to con-

tinue with f4-f5. Black, on the other hand,

will have to retrieve his bishop at some

point and is lacking a clear plan:

A) 12...0-0 13.f4 !Ji..e7 14.gS!? g6

15.nO wg7 16.h4 :th8 17.h5 h6 18.hg6

hg5 19.fg5 fg6 20JU6~ Wil-

liams-Grechihin, Bled

2002 (via trans-

position).

B) 12...~e7 13.£4 ~d7 14.t2ld2 fic7

15.~a3 ~a3 16.1:la3, see

Mortensen-Farago, Esbjerg 1985; White

is better but Black should now have con-

tinued 16...0-0-0 according to

Mortensen.

C) 12...f5(?) 13.gf5 ef5 14.'it'h5 g6

15.1i'h6~n 16.tiJa3i..e717.ttJb5.ie6±,

see Mortensen-Tisdall, Torshavn 19R7.

For the final part of the game see the sec-

tion on general ideas.

D) 12...g6 13.£4 1'5 14.ef6

!Ji..f6

is a

suggestion of Mortensen who feels that

While may either continue quietly with

15.tL'-d2

or aggressively with 15.g5 YJ..g7

16.h4.

Variation B2

5. ... ~a5

Black prevents ab4 and wants to restrain

his opponent on the queenside. In Varia-

tion A (5.d4) we saw the same idea. There

it was stronger because of the discovered

threat of check.

6. ~b2

White covers the rook and plans a future

ab4. A transposition to Variation A occurs

after 6.d4. while 6...te2 is interesting.

6. ... "'b6!?

have selected this prophylactic move of

the Dane Kjeldsen as the main line. A nat-

ural idea is 6...~d7, again aiming to ex-

change the white-squared bishops. White

should continue quietly with 7.!iLe2.

when he is better after 7...~h5 8.0-0 ~e2

9.'ft'e2 12Jc6 (9...~e7 10.ab4±

Bosch-Rubingh,

Dutch Junior Champi-

onship, Hilversum 1988) lO.ab4 .b4

uh3

fic4 12.d3 tr'g4 13.~f8~ Mar-

tens-Prakken, Dutch Team Champion-

ship 1993.

ab4

Also playable is 7.~e2 ~d7 8.0-0 a6

9.~d4 ~c7 10.ab4 .ib4

II.c3

iie7

12.~b3 with compensation, Bosch-

Kjeldsen. Tamowsky Gory 198ft

7. ~b4

8. ~d4

~c5

9. ~c5 1fe5

10.

'fiIe7

11. i.d3

White has compensation for the sacri-

ficed pawn. Kjeldsen twice reached this

position as Black. In the first game he

played II. ..a6 12.0-0

tUc6

13.lDa3 lc,a5

(l4.tZlb5 was a threat) 14.... e2

Christensen-Kjeldsen, Arhus 1988. The

149

second time he went for the h-pawn with

II...h6 12.0-0 i..d7 13.tba3

Alkarsig-Kjeldsen, Arhus 1989 (see the

study material).

Variation 83

5.... d4

Djurhuus' pet line. Black gains space

the centre and prevents the typical

ad-

vance French pawn chain

(c3-d4-e5).

hopes to isolate

the e5-pawn. and win

it at

some point. This

indeed

dangerous

idea. White has two alternative

roads

travel

on.

Variation B31

6. ab4 ..Q.b4

7. e31?

Sacrificing a

pawn

get the queen into

play. The alternatives are

bishop

moves,

but

none

of them

particularly good:

A) 7..sib2 tOc6 8.~b5 ~c5

promises

little.

Los- Vanheste,

Semifinal Dutch

150

Championship

1991, went 9.0-0 tOe7

lO.d3 0-0 II.tLJbd2 b6 IV2Je4 ..Q.b7+.

White should perhaps seek refuge in

the

messy

9.ife2 tUe7

lO.c30-0

1Ula4 i..d7

12.cd4 ~b4 13.lDc3

Reinderrnan-Ronneland, Hallsberg jr

1991.

B) 7...Q.a3.ia3!

8.lLJa3lLJe7

..Q.d3(as

9.!i:lb5 ~bc6

10.tiJd6

~f8 is nothing for

White)

9 ... 1Z1g6

10.0-0 lLlc6 1Ute I

0-0

and Black's concept

has

succeeded: Mar-

tens-Djurhuus, World Junior Champion-

ship. Santiago 1990.

7.~d3ttJc6~.U-OtUge7l)JleltOg6

10.i..a3

Aa3

11.lL.a30-0

was equally

un-

convincing

Besch-Lilley, York 1995.

7. de3

'it'

a4 tUe6

de3

Quite an

unclear position.

Black

is a pawn

up. but

White's queen is

ready to

switch to

the kings ide with ~g4 and

may

get

some pressure on the

open

files. 1suspect

that White does not

have

quite

enough.

but there is certainly room for improvisa-

tion.

See

Reinderman- Tondivar,

Leeuwarden

1995

the

study material.

Variation

832

6. ..Q.b2 lDc6

7. i..bS i.d7

8. 'fie2

Worthy of investigation

8.0-0. After

8...tLJe59.t;"e5 .tb5

White has 1O.lbf7 (see

Bueker-Uhlmann,

Bad

Neuenahr 1991 in

the section on general ideas).

Dovzik-Kecskes, Eger Open 1994

went

8...

ba3 instead,

and after 9.ltJa3 ~c5

10.ltJc4 0.ge7 II.tLld6 ~d6 12.ed6

tDf5

13.~d3

0-0

14.j(_fS

efS

IS.tLld4 0.d4

16.~d4

~bS I7

.lie

a draw was agreed

upon.

8. ... a6

9. .tc6

Bad is 9.~d3

~c5

lO.ab4

tUb4

II..~d4

.td4 12.tDd4

~b6

13.~e4 tljd3 14."iYd3

'it'b2 Gausel-Djurhuus, Norwegian

Championship, Bronnoysund 1990.

9. .Q.c6

10. .!(jd4 .Q.g2

11. Ug1

interesting position

with

roughly

equal chances has arisen. The game

Re-Miana, Semifinal Argentinean Cham-

pionship, Rosario 1992 was drawn after

II...~d5 12.ab4 '*h4 13.c4 ifh2

14.~fl

..wh5 15.~e I

'i'h2

16.,.pfl 'it'h3 17.<;tteI

'ith2.

While in

Santos-Dias,

City Cham-

pionship. Lisbon

1996, White quickly

gained the edge after 1l...ba3 12.lZ:a3

~d5 l3.c4 (13.ttJab5 ab5 14.'it'b5 ~c6

15.ltc6

J:ta\ J6 ...Q.al

bc6

17."'c6

'W'd7

18.• a8 'it'd8 is only equal, Djurhuus

1990) 13...• b6 14.cd5 'ifb2 J5.tOac2

.i.c516.de6..id417.ef7<;t;>f7l8."c4+-.

Variation B4

5. ... ~c6

5...£d7

6.ab4.i.b4

7.c3 has no independ-

ent value. Black cannot do without 0.c6

anyway.

6. ab4 ~b4

6...ttJb4 7.c3 ctJc6 8.d4

transposes to

Vari-

ation B42.

7. c3

.t~.

.t..t. i.t.i

~ i

it::.

Now Black must withdraw his bishop. the

question is where

10?

If he wants to de-

velop his g8-knight via e7. then ..iaS

~f8

should be played.

On a5

the bishop does

not

obstruct

the de-

velopment of the kings ide, and is eying

c3. The drawback is that he might be lack-

ing a defender on the kings ide .

Putting the bishop on its original square is

hardly

consistent

If Black wants to play in this way he

should prefer

5 ...ba3 6.d4 tL.c6 7.<.:3,

for in

that case there is still a Black pawn on a3!

mind

~e7

most

logical, yet this

leaves the problem of the g8-knight

which

will

probably have to be developed

now via h6.

151

Variation B41

7. ... ~a5

B. d4 llJge7

Most logical. Black completes his

kingside development as fast as possible.

Still, other moves are not without interest.

A) 8..... c7!? Black is playing for a

trick, obstructing the natural 9..id3 be-

cause of 9...~d4 1O.~d4 ~c3 11.~d2

'iYe5 12.ltJe2

.ia

1and White has lost too

much material, although he won quickly

in Padovani-Paetz, Berkeley 1984. Much

better is 9.~a3. though, when White's po-

sition is preferable.

B) 8...f5. This gains space but weak-

ens the dark squares on the kingside

which makes the absence of the bishop

felt. Heiberg-Rudolph, Women

Interzonal Malaysia

1990,

went

9.~g5 g6

(9...

tlJge7(!)

1O:~h5 g6 11.~h6 lD<i4

12.'i"

with

great

complications is worth

investi-

gating for Black) lO.lbh3 ~d7 unclear.

Simpler is 9..td3 0,ge7 10.0-0 (lO.g4?

fg4 11.tLlg5

h6!)

JO...

~d7

11.tt:.g5

0-0

12.M h6 13.c1\h3~e8 14.0,f4 ~f7 15.h5

and While had plenty of compensation

152

for the pawn in Bosch-Sims, Swansea

1987.

C) 8...f6 9.~d3 ljjge7 (9 ...a6 10.0-0

b5 II.~d2 ~b7 12.~e I f5 l3.g4~.

Hoiberg-Hassan, Moscow Olympiad

1994) IO.ef6 gf6 1J..th6 ~g6 12."c2

'ike7 13.0-0 ~d7 14.~bd2 with excellent

compensation in Bosch-Beulen, Dutch

Junior Championship, Hilversum

1989.

D) 8...~d7 9...Q.d3 f5 10.h3 was

Levi-Reeves. Australian Championship,

Melbourne 1994. Also possible are

10.0-0

1O.h4.

9. ~d3

9. ... h6(!)

I like this move for Black. With the bishop

he needs 10 control as many dark

squares

possible on the kingside as I

have already pointed out. There is also an-

other good reason for this move: it pre-

vents the classical bishop sacrifice on h7!

Thus, 9...0-0? fails to 10.~h7! 9;h7

II.lLlg5

A) 1l...9;g~ l2....

~e8

13:.h7

(or

13.~a3) 13...o;t.;.f814.'ikh8 tOgS 15.(tJh7

r/;;e716.i..g5+-.

B) II...<ot>g612.h4! ~b6 13.~g4 .!Df5

14.h5 ~h6 IS.lbe6 9;h7 and now White

wins with

16.h6!

or with

16.1lff5!.

After

the latter

move Black resigned

the

cor-

respondence game Dormann-Pollen,

1991. 16...~g8 17.h6!

wins

for

White.

Bosch-Walsh, Plymouth 1989 went 9 ...a6

10.0-0 b5!?

(Black wants to destroy the

pawn chain) Il.ttJfd2!? b4 I2.tDb3 ~b6

13.'il'g4 ~g6 (13...0-0) 14..tg5

with

compensation. Perhaps even stronger was

14.~b5!?

10.

0-0

11. .Q.a3

Gaining space with

II.h4!?

comes into

consideration.

11. ~d7

12. 93 b5

13. .ics .Q.b6

14. ~b6 ~b6

15. ttJbd2

With

compensation.

Westerinen-

Brinck-Claussen, Esbjerg 1978. See the

study material.

Variation 842

7. ... ~f8

As I stared above, this set-up is inconsis-

tent. In Variation 85 Black gets the

same

position with a. admittedly soon to be

confiscated.

pawn on

a3.

Still it takes time

to actually

capture the

pawn. and White

often

prefers to postpone either

tba3

~a3 until Black has laid some of his cards

on the table.

~d7

Dzindzichashvili once

played

ILlbge7

9.~d3

[1)f5 10.0-0

1e7

(Ansel-Dzindzichasbvili, New York

1989),

when White 'forgot'

play

II.g4!

with excellent chances. Black realized

this in Bosch-Claesen, European Junior

Championship, Arnhem 1989. and there-

fore played the

prophylactic

1O...h5. Nev-

ertheless

was worse after

II.tlJa3

12.~bS

Qe7

)3.~fS cf5 14..ia3. See the

section

general

ideas for the rest of the

game.

Reinderman-Gokhale,

Oakham 1992,

saw

8...f6

9.i.d3

fe5

O.ttJe5

ttJe5

II.deS

Ci:Je7

12.~g5

with an

unclear

position.

IO.de5

is probably

be preferred.

9. Ad3

Again this

move

playable.

A) 9...ttJgc.7 1O.h4 hS

11.0.g5 tLJf5

12.~f5 ef5

13.jLa3

should by now

be afa-

miliar idea. See Bosch-Greben,

Amstelveen

1994,

in the section on gen-

eral

ideas.

B) 9...f5 1O.g4

should

compared

Variation BS.

Now

1O... fg4? II.tbg5 tlih6

IVi\h7

Ci:Je7

13.~h6

gh6

14.0.f6

bad,

Vinzenz-Kappelt,

DUsseldorf

1990.

1O...tL\ce7

is spectacular

(1O...ttJge7

transposes

to Variation

B5)

1I.h3?! a6?!

l2.lt~g5 tLih6 13.tbe6!? ~e6 14.~h6 gh6

15.gf5,

La Rota-Reyes, New York Open

1988.

153

Dankert-Karpov, Munich 1979, now

went 10.0-0 CfJge7

Il.g3 a6 I2.lDh4 g6

13.~e3 b5 14.tZJd2 tt2a5. Stronger is

IO.h4. For example,

1O...a6 II.h5

CUa7

12.liJa3

CUe7

13.CUh4~. Drazic-

Giocastro, Callolica 1990.

Variation 843

7. ii..e7

8. d4

.t~ •..

i' .tiii

.. i

Again we are at a crossroads:

8431)

8...f6

8432) 8..

.'~c7

8433) 8...

~d7

Variation 8431

8....

Glek's favourite line. This move is played

grandmasters only. Hence,

deserves

serious consideration.

The following moves

are

not

main lines:

8...

f5 9.~d3 tUh6 10.h3!?

154

(1O.~h6) 10..liJn I J.g4 g6 12.gf5 ef5

]3.h4~, Martens-Lempert, Hyeres

Open

1992.

B) R...tDh6 9.i..h6

(9.h4 is preferred

Wing Gambit expert Dovzik) 9...

gh6

10.'tWd2

(IO.'@'cl

srs

J.~d3 .Rd7

12.0-0 is rather similar, Drnitriev-

Shliakhtin,

Podolsk 1992;

I0.~d3 f5

11.'~'d2

~g5 Reinderman-Andriessen,

Netherlands 1992. should be answered

12.'li'b2

planning 13.h4) IO_..

~f8

II.~d3 ~d7 12.0-0 with unclear play and

compensation for the pawn, Peelen-

Hoeksema.

Semifinal Dutch Champion-

ship. Enschede 1990. Answering 8...11\h6

with 9.~d3 is not a bad idea either. After

9...f5 White continues 10.~h6 and after

9...tbf5

with

10.0-0,

when 10...

0-0

II.g4

should he a familiar reaction

now.

9. ii..d3 fe5

10. ~e5

In my opinion, 10.de5 is stronger. After

1O tbh6 11.~h6 gh6

12.... d2(!) is best

(I2 ~g5 13.~e2 planning 14.h4). In-

stead the game K.S(;hmidt- Vaiser, Paris

1990. continued 12.0-0 0-0 13.~a3

l:tf7

14.~el .Rd7 15.tt2bd2 ~h8 16.tt:.fL'*'g8

17.lDg3

J:taf8 18.c4l:H3!+.

10. .!Lif6

11. ~g5 tL.e5

12. deS

tDe41

13. iLe7 'iWe7

14.

~e4

de4

15. 'Wd4 0-0

Normally speaking White aims for good

knight versus 'had' light-squared bishop

in the French. But here something clearly

has gone wrong. The knight is crippled

(it

lacks useful squares to jump to) whereas

the 'bad' bishop is a giant. Black has the

advantage after both l6.J:ta7 ~a7 17.'ih7

'iWgS. Buturin-Glek, Belgorod Open

1989, and l6.~e4 .Rd7 17.~e3 .Rb5.

Rcindcrman-Glck,

Groningcn 1992.

Variation 8432

8.... Wc7

A common move-order to reach this posi-

tion is 6...'i!¥c7 7.04 ~b4 S.c3

sa.

9. ~d3 ~d7

Sometimes Black touches the I-pawn:

A) 9...fS lO.tUa3 (normally speaking

you would postpone this move, but with

the queen on c7 is definitely a thought)

IO..JiJh6 11..~h6 gh6 12.• d2 O-o'!

I3.lbb5 'ti'd8

14.•

h6±. Barendregt-

Bonkenburg, Beverwijk 1966.

B) 9...f6 1O.'\i'e2 (10.0·0 fe5 Il.deS

ttJe5 l2.ttJe5

'fVe5 13.~b5 Wf8

14.f4

and

White should not have enough for two

pawns, although he won in Lahti-

Haapamaki,

Kuopio

Kalakukko

1987;

1O.~f4!'!) IO...fe5 1l.de5lL::h6 12.~6 gh6

unclear Nyholm-Si.Maus, Lyngby 1988.

10.

0-0

Black has not completed his kingside de-

velopment yet, and should therefore be

worse:

A) 10...Ci.Jh6 is once again answered

by I

1.~h6:

B) IO...tba5 ) I.ti).g5 fS 12.lia3 tbc4

13.~e7 Ct:,e7 14.~h5 g6 15.'i'h6

tDc6

16..i.c4 dc4 17.~a3 liJa5 UtltJe6!,

Bosch- Bergmann, Berl in 1991. See the

section on general ideas.

C) 1O...f5 and now several moves

come into consideration II.lt':;g5

(Hoiberg-Petek, Thessaloniki Olympiad

155

198&),

l1.g4?! (Stock-Nissen. Germany

1990),

II.h4!?, 11.4\a3!?

Variation 8433

8. ~d7

9. ~d3

Certainly the most popular tabiya posi-

tion after 5...ttJc6. The correct evaluation

of this position is probably roughly equal.

Hence, this is not a bad line for Black. On

the other hand, White need not exactly

fear this set-up either: he gets sufficient

compensation for the pawn, and is proba-

bly more familiar with the resulting posi-

tions than his opponent.

lack has a choice of four logical moves:

B4331) 9...£5 to forego White's play

on the kings ide;

B4332) 9 a6

B4333) 9 l:tc8

84334) 9 tba5

The final three moves all aim to start

counterplay on the queenside.

156

In Ganbold- Villamayor, Istanbul 012000,

Black was severely punsihed for playing

9...1It'c7?!. The game continued: 10.~f4

Il.g4 fg4

l2.~g5

~g5

13.~g5

1!tf7

14.1Wg40,ge7 15.l::tgl

lDf5

16.lDa3 0-0

17.0,h5 ~h8 18.~h3 h6

19.iH6!!

A lo-

vely finish! Black rightly threw in the to-

wel (we leave the reader to check the lines

for himself).

Variation 84331

9. ...

10.

is not quite clear whether this is best.

lO.g4? fg4 I

lUg1+ Dannevig-Scholler

Larsen, Copenhagen 1990, is too rash.

The modest 1O.h3 should not be an-

swered by 1O...a6':' II.g4 t6a5 12.gf5 ef5

13.lIgl

(Lucaroni-Werner, Budapest

1991), but by 10...hS!

However, W.O-Ocould well be best. After

1O...ttJh6, White should play 11.~h6 gh6

12.~d2~ rather than II.J:teI?! O-O?!

(1I .

..tuf7

12.~f5 ef5 I3.e6 0-0+)

12.~h6 gh6 I3.~cl Cherkasov-

Kakabadze, Naberezhnie Chelni 198R.

10. ... h5(T)

This looks odd. but

effectively stops

some of White's standard manoeuvres.

The first player should now seek compen-

sation for his pawn deficit by exchanging

the dark-squared bishops, hoping to infil-

trate the weakened squares gS and d6 at

some point. Still, I don't think that Black

is in trouble here. e.g. II.tDg5?! g6

12.l:th3 ~h6 13J~g3

ttJf7

14.~e2,

Prokhorov-Kiseleva, Yalla 1995. Or

1Uig5 g6 12.0-0

lDh6 13.~b3 .Yt.c8

14.lLla3

CiJf7

IS.i.e7 "ike7 16.'iJb5 and

now it should not

too difficult to im-

prove over the suicidal 16...g5?

Htinerberg-Schulle. Braunschweig 1986.

Variation 84332

9.... a6

This is

bit slow. although a6 is nearly al-

ways

useful move.

10.

h4 'iWc7!?

After

10...

hS II .lUgS~gS 12.hgS g6 both

13Jlli4 'i'c7 14.g4, Bosch-Schult, Dutch

Team Championship 1989 and the imme-

diate 13.g4 h4 J4.tbd2, Bosch-De Wolf.

Antwerp

1991,

are possible.

11. ttJg5

Not II.lba3 ~c8 of course, but the text

looks strong in view of

ll...h6

l2.'i-'h5.

However. since Black can give back the

pawn with reasonable play. Il.h5!'! or

11.n-O!? may well be better.

11.

~h6(!)

12. tDh7

and

now either

12...

0-0-0,

Van

Voorthuijsen-De Ruiter, Netherlands

1991,

12...t?lf5.

Peelen-Biebinger,

Groningen

1990.

Variation 84333

:c8

9....

10. h4

Again

White

has to choose between h4 or

castling kingside. Patrick Chandler was

once successful with the latter: 10.0-0 a6

1l.tbel !? CiJa712.~g4 (this sortie is the

point of ~el) 12...g6 D.• g3 ~bS

14.i..e3 .td3 lS.~d3 (P.Chandler-T.Mul-

ler. Moscow Open 1990, 1-0,27). How-

ever, Black seems to be quite OK at this

stage.

10. ... 'fIc7

The alternatives are not worse:

JO ..

.tba5

11.~g5 ~b6 12.~c2 h5

I3.ft'f3 i.gS 14.hgS

tLlb3, Nieuwelink-

Brenninkmeijer. Dutch Championship

semi-final, Eindhoven 1988. See the

study material.

1O...a6 I U:t.h3?' h6 12.~g3 ~f8

13.'~fJ

t;",a5

14,~g

'it'b6,

Spraggeu-

Ross, Canadian Zonal

1989.

See

the

study material.

11. ~f4?!

'iWb6

12.

0-0 ~b2

13. .aa4

14. tL.g5

15. 'i'h5

tt.;d8

16. ~c1 'iWb3

17. .aa1 ~b5

And Black was slightly better in Cuartas-

U.Geller, Siegen Olympiad 1970.

157

Variation 84334

9. ... tba5

10. h4

IO."c2?! 'tWb6 I J.~bd2 ~b5, Bucker-

Breutigarn. Germany Bundesliga 1993,

was good (or Black. The alternative for

the text is of course 10.0-0. After 10...a6

I J.Cilbd2 1:k8 l2.1ub3 tUc4 13Jte I h5

14.tilfd2!? was an original way of getting

play for the pawn, Rahls-Breutigam, Ger-

many Bundesliga 1995. No less original

was Il.ttJel?!

12.1:1a2(the start of a

dubious and time-consuming plan)

12...l:lc8 13J:te2 tijh6 14.11e3 g6 15.l:rh3

~c6 16.g4 Wd7 but the resulting position

clearly favours Black, Bucker-Hort, Ger-

man Championship. Bad Neuenahr

1991).

10.... a6

White had

a slight

edge in

Reinderman-Vogel, Eindhoven 1989, af-

ter IO...tDc4 I 1.~~g5ttJh6 12.tDh7.

11_ 0-0 .Q.b5

12. 1:[a2 ~d3

13. 1i'd3

t2.\c4

14. h5!

And despite the exchange of the

light-squared bishops. White has nice

compensation for the pawn in

Reinderman-Pliester, Purmerend 1993.

Black is unable to extricate his knight and

rook on the kingside without making con-

cessions.

Variation 85

5.... ba3

6. d4

Some

players prefer 6.c3li\c6 7.d4. There

is little wrong with this

move order.

the other hand, it is not quite clear exactly

what they

are avoiding.

since

6.d4 ~a5 is

well-answered

7...Q.d2(hut indeed not

7.c3

a2!).

6.... t;',c6

Black should not try to give

6...~d7

independent value (of course

there is nothing wrong with 6...~d7

7.~d3 tLlc6

8.d).

After 7..id3 both

7...~h6 8.0-0 ..Q..b59..!L~a3:.td3 1O:~d3

tL:a6 II .c4, Bosch- Vedder, Amhem 11:188

(see the section on general ideas) and