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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

top opposition (scoring a respectable 2lh

out of 4). Keene then dubbed it 'the Seira-

wan Attack'. which is disrespective of

chess history but sounds nice. Other nota-

ble 3.~g5 adherents include Kholmov,

Meister. R. Sherbakov and Kortchnoi.

Leaving history aside, we will now turn to

the moves.

3. ...

This is clearly the main line. Black either

acquires the bishop pair or, by inserting

3...h6 4..Q.h4, increases his possibilities.

However. let's examine a few alternatives

rst:

A) 3...d5 is a solid move; after either

4.tLlc3,4.e3 or4.cdS!? the game will most

likely transpose to a Queen's Gambit of

some sort. Respectable as the Queen's

Gambit clearly is. it is hardly a l.d4

player's worst nightmare.

B) 3...liie7. This move is also most li-

kely to transposes into QGD waters after

4.0..c3 d5 - note that after 4...c5 White

should play 5.dc5~ and not 5.d5? tDd5.

C) 3...c5 4.d5 (4.4',0 cd4 5.tiid4 leads

to a line from the Symmetrical English)

4...ed5 (Euwe rightly indicated 4...'ita5

5."d2 'ii'd2

6.tLld2:;!;)

S.cdS h6'!! (this is a

dubious set-up, but the stronger S...'(I!t'b6

6.~f6 (6.'iYd2 now runs into 6...tDe4)

6..

:.f6

.t1~c3

is also slightly better for

White) 6..sih4 '*'b6'!! 7.,*,d2! (more am-

bilious than 7..H6 ti'f6 Nicolai-Romani-

shin. Dortmund 1976) 7...tLle4 8.~f4 f5

9.~f5 'iWb4

IO/Dc) CDd6

UWg6

Ct)f7

12.'tIYe4.and Black's risky strategy has

clearly backfired: White is winning

Kortcbnoi-Kosten, London 1982.

D) 3...~b4 Black's most important al-

ternative to 3...h6. 4JiJc3 now transposes

to the Leningrad Variation of the Nimzo-

Indian. So to give 3..Q.g5 its own arena

White should play

4.tDd2,

when we are at

a crossroads:

D I) 4...

~e4

is unambitious; Black will

at best be able to draw an inferior ending:

5.~d8 .Q.d2 6.~d2

lDd2

and now

Sosonko's suggestion of 7.~d2 ¢ld8

H.f4! may well be stronger than

7.iLc7

ti:}c48.b3 'iJa6 9.i.f4 tLla3 1O.~d2 with

only a small edge, Haberditz-Lengheim,

Vienna 1952.

D2) 4...d5 was recommended by

Euwe. The theory gives 5.e3 cS 6.a3 ~d2

7.'''''d2 cd4 8.ed4 tDc6 9.~f3 0-0 \O.~d3

dc4 11.~c4 ttJe4 Muller-Fischer, Vienna

1952 as equal. This verdict is correct, but

in my opinion White should play 6.dc5!

and have the better chances.

03)

4...h6; now, after 5..Q.h4,we have

transposed to the main line (see below).

However. with (he bishop already on b4,

taking on f6 comes into consideration (as

opposed to 3 h6 4..i.f6 - this also illus-

trates why 3 h6 is Black's best choice,

White's options are more restricted). Let

me give one tame and one wild example of

how play could continue after 5..af6 "'f6:

K~.t. E

iiii ii

II lIi'iV i

.t~~

-~.--

6.33 £d2 7.'i'd2 0-0

(7...

d6 8.e3 e5

9.lC,e2 was seen in the postal game

Euwe-Napolitano, 1953; White won, but

this is due

the difference in playing

strength and Black's next move 9...ed4?~.

which hands White a pleasant edge) 8.e3

d6 9.~d3 e5 1O.~e2

tDc6(

IO...lLld7~?has

also been recommended) 11.d5 tiJe7

12.0-0..tf5 13.e4 ..td7. with equal chan-

ces, Seirawan-L.Portisch, London 1982.

Much more exciting was the game Khol-

mov-Furman, Baku 1951: 6.4Jf3 c5 7.a3

~a5?! (7....id2 8.'it'd2 cd4 9./Dd4!) 8.b4

cb4 9."a4 tbc6 lO.tOb3 .-d8 Il.d5 ba3

12.~dl ed5 13.cdS ~c3 14.~a3 0-0

15.dc6 dc6, and Black has definite com-

pensation for the piece.

Ah4

The exchange on f6 is quite harmless:

4.~f6 't!i'f65.lLie3, and now:

A} 5...g6 6.0.f3 ~g7 7.e3 d6 8..Q.e2

0-09.0-0 eS 10Jkl ltJd7 II.'fiVd2 ~e8

12.de5 deS 13Jlfdl e4 14.~d4 'ife5

15.b4

tDf6

16.h3 ~d7= Sideif Zade-Short,

Baku 1983.

B) 5...b6 6.tLlf3 i.b7 7.e3 g6 8.~d3

~g7 9..Q.e4! ..Q.e41O/t:Je4 'ile7 II.'6'a4

0-012.0-0 d6{12.Ji;c6(!)) 13.~adl, and

White is slightly better. Seirawan-Short,

London 1982. This is from Seirawan's

brief spell with 3.~g5. However, 7....Q.b4

was simpler, giving Black equality in

what is essentially a position from the

Queen's Indian.

C) 5...~b4!? is probably best; play has

transposed to a very innocuous Iine of the

Nirnzo-Indian (l.d4

tDf6

2.c4 e6

3.tDc3

..tb4 4...tg5 h6, and here everyone prefers

5...th4 to 5...tf6 Wf6).

4....

.ib4

Black declares his willingness to transpo-

se to the Leningrad

Nirnzo-Indian.

Note

thaI4 ...g5 5.~g3 ~b4 is inaccurate since,

in addition to 6.tUd2. which is our main

line, White might prefer 6.lLlc3, which is

once again a Nimzo-Indian, but here

Black has committed himself to an early

g5. In line with this. White should meet

4...g5 5.~g3lbe4 with 6.~c3 rather than

with 6.tiJd2, when besides 6.....tb4 Black

also has 6...tiJg3 7.hg3 ~g7, R.Rodri-

guez-Romanishin, Riga Interzonal 1979.

Some other possibilities:

A) 4...c5!'! S.d5 ed5 6.cd5 d6

7.tDc3

~e7 (worse is 7...gS I:Utg3 tDh5? when

9.'ih4 is annoying: 9...'tWd7IO.tDbStDg3

Il.hg3

Wd8

LRodriguez-Ginzburg. Bue-

nos Aires 1993) 8...tg3 0.h5 9.e3 /Dg3

lO.hg3 a6 l1.a4 ~f6= Meister-Obukhov,

Kuibyshev 1990.

B) 4...h6 5.~c3 ..Q.b76.f3!? d5 7.cd5

ed5 R.e3 fLe7 9.fLd3 0-0 IO.tDge2lLle4!?

) I.fLe7 tDc3 12.fLd8 0.dl 13.:ldJ :IdS

14.~c I c6 15.g4, and White had a pleasant

plus in Meister- VAnas, Podolsk 1990.

5. lUd2

White does not allow any structural

weaknesses (as he would after

5.tLlc3

and

a future ~(3), but the knight is more pas-

sive on d2. Therefore Euwe recommen-

ded

5...

d5!? in the 1950s. Bad now is

6.tOf3 dc4! 7.a3 ~a5 8.~f6 *'f6 9.*,a4

tCc6

1O.'tWc4~d2 II.~d2+ Spiridonov-

Schinzel, Polanica

Zdroj 1981. White can

claim a slight edge with 6.e3 c5 7.dc5

lD<:6

H.ttJf3

~c5 9.a3 0-0 1O.'\Wc2~e7

11.~e2 Gofshtein-Kutsyn, Kiev 1986.

The lines diverge here.

variation A we

will examine the forcing

5...

g5 6.i.g3

tbe4.

Striking in the centre

with

S...

c5 will

be the subject of line B.

Variation A

5. ...

6. ~g3 li:\e4

6...b6 7.~f3 t.b7 g.a3 Yi.e7 9.e3 d6

JO.tte2 eS 11.0-0-0 llJbd7 12.Wbl ~c7

13.i.d3 ttJh5 was more or less equal in

Sherbakov-Kholmov, Cheliabinsk 1991.

7.lUf3

The diagram position promises a sharp

struggle. Black has

momentarily

taken

the initiative, he plays for piece activity.

His pieces lack permanent strongholds.

however. and they might be hanging in

the air. White plays for the better pawn

structure, reasoning that

is too weake-

ning.

seems that White holds stronger

arguments to claim an edge. but of course

only concrete analysis. and time. will tell.

Some examples

are

in order:

A) 7...

g48.a3~59.b4~g3

lO.hg3gf3

Il.baS c5 12.lLlb3t2Jc613.dS.and While is

better. Olexa-Josef, Brno-Prague

1929(!).

B) 7...f5

8.e3 g4

9.33

lOg3 IO.hg3

~f8!? D.Bischoff-Schneider, Dortmund

1988.

C) 7 h5lUIf'c2~d29.tLld2,andnow:

CI) 9 h4 1O.~e5 i.d2 11.~d2 (a ty-

pical move in this line, the queen is nee-

ded on c2 to prevent f6 and the loss of the

bishop) 1l...:h6 12.d5 d6 13.~e3 e5

14.e3 'ti'f6 Haberditz-Stockl, Vienna

1952. And here Euwe

rightly

considers

IS.f3as;!;.

C2) 9...~d2 lO.'itd2 (again this is for-

ced: 1O.*'d2? loses to 10...h4

II.u5

f6)

1O...tLJc6 11.h4 d6

J...ttJd4?

12.1fc3+-) 12.~e3 e5. The theory calls

this unclear, but I would prefer White.

Sherbakov-Karprnan, Belgorod 1991.

7.Juc6

8.a3! (this pawn sacrifice

is probably best, 8.e3 leads to a more or

less equal position. e.g, 8...h5 9.... c2

(9.d5 h4 JO.~c7

'fie7

Il.dc6 dc6= Ba-

zan-Recalde, Sao Paulo 1960) 9...llJd2

lO.tDd2 Jld2 II.'Bd2 (cf Scnerbakov-

Karpman

(C2 above), with a white pawn

on h4 instead of on e3) II ...h4 12.i.e5

ttJe5 (J2 ...l%h6 13.f4)

13.de5

Z.Szabo-

Torok,

Gyor

jr 1992. and

the

correct

move is J3...d6 instead of 13...g4?)

8...

-"d2

9.lL\d2

tLJg3 10.hg3 tDd4 11.tDe4

e5?! 12.e3 lLle6 13."f3 d6 14.0-0-0 ~f8

15.c5! g4 16.1H5± Nogueiras-Calvo

Minguez, Torremolinos 1984; after the

subsequent

J6 ...

tZld417.'I!t'h5..tf518.ed4

~e4 19.'6'g4 d5 20.f3

jLg6

2 J.de5 White

was winning easily.

Rather than the dubious ll...e5 Black

should play Il ...~c6, when 12.'Wd2 for-

ces the weakening 12...f6. Then 13.0-0-0.

preventing d5. gives compensation for the

pawn according to

Estevez.

suspect

that

the position is about equal.

Variation B

5. ... cS

6. a3

6.dc5 ~c5 7.e3 b6 l:!.tUgf3 ~b7

9.~d3

fi.e7

10.0-0

was slightly better for White

in Meister-Ikonnikov, Cheliabinsk 1989.

Black should investigate 6...tLia6!?

6. ... i.d2

7. 'i!'fd2 g5

Consistent, Black plays for the initiative.

7."ci:Jc6

.i.f6 (better is 8.dc5

9.i.g3

t'De4 IOJ~'cl see below)

8...·c!ff6

9.dc5

IO.tiJO

a4 II.e3 'fie7 12.'fid6

1:1a5=Sidorov-Brodsky, Kstovo 1994.

B) 7...cd4 8.'I!t'd4~c6, and now either

9."'dl (Euwe) or 9.'i!Vc3 Kortchnoi-

Sosonko, Netherlands tt 1982.

i.g3

g~.t'iV.

.l.l .l .l

.l~ .l

8. ...

tDe4

This is best. The alternative is

8...tOc6,

when 9.0-0-0 ttJd4 1O.'Wd3d6 II.e3

lDf5

12.ii.e5 offers some compensation for the

pawn, Gliksman- Y.Sokolov, Kraljevo

1967. Ivkov's recommendation of 9.dcS

tLle4

IO.'tWc1!,

however, is much simpler:

While is just better.

9. 'i'e3 CDg3

10.

hg3

"'a5

Black does not hold on to the initiative,

his dark-square weaknesses will take

their toll. This position is quite interesting

and relatively uninvestigated. The follo-

wing moves are possible:

A) Dubious is I 1.b4?! cb4 12.... d2dS

13.cdS ed5

14.

Lif)

(J4.iWb4

...wb4IS.ab4

tDc6)

14...l~c6 15.~e5 ba3 16.tbc6 'ft'd2

17.'it>d2bc6, and Black was better in Sei-

rawan-Andersson,

Tilburg

1983.

B) Bad is I J.~d2 'f.fd2 12.'~d2 cd4

13.tiJf3

tUc6 14.tUg5 lLa5! 15.~d3 tLlb3

6.1:1d

bo, and the ending favours Black.

C) Playable

11.'tWc3

~c3 12.bc3, of

course, with an equal ending, according

to Sveshnikov.

D) Interesting - and who is willing to

try

this out? - is I I.~d I

Black's wea-

knesses may be more important than the

untypical position of the king on d I. Mo-

reover, the black. king is not entirely safe

either. Meanwhile dc5 is being threate-

ned. while a future

lbf3

will stress the pin

along the h-file. Black's initiative is cert-

ainly gone. Food for thought!

RECENT GAMES

Abdulla AI-Rakib

• Sarunas Sulskis

Calcutta 2002

1.d4 .!Df62.c4 e6 3..i.g5 c5

similar set-up

3...h6 4.i.h4

c5.

after

5.d5 d6

6.lDc3

YLc7

7.lDD 0-0

(planning

ttJd5) 8..ig3 ed5 9.1,;d5lDh5 10.e3 lDd7

11.~e2

play was about equal

Golod-Anastasian,

Ubeda

2001.

4.dS edS

s.ecs

The

alternative is

5...

d6. Play may con-

tinue:

6.lVc3 $Le7

7.QJt3 0-0 8.e4 ~g4

9.it.e3 (better than 9.~e2

$Lf3

lO.~t1

tLJd5 11.~d5 ~g5 12.'i'b7 tal7)

9...

~bd7 lO.~e2 a6

1l.tDd2 (stronger is

perhaps

Il.a4) II...$Le2 12.~e2 b5

Husari-Ghacm Maghami,

Sanaa 2002.

6.~h4 1!fb6

Vilc3

Stronger is 7.~d2! as in Kortchnoi-

Kosten, London 1982.

7...1tb2 8.~16

gf6

9.:c1 15

10.e3 d6

11.~ {Dd7 12.{Dge2 ~b4 13.0-0 .£g7

14.~d3 0-0 1S.iLd7 fi.d7 16.I:tb1

flaS

17Jlb7 $LcB!

18Jlb3

The ending after IlU:tb5 Qao 19.1:r.a5

~d3 is clearly

Black's favour.

1B...

$La6

19.0b5

19."c2 ~c3-+.

19..Jlab8

20.I:tfb1

c4!

21.'ii'e4

nfc8

22.~d3I:lc5

White resigned because of 23.a4 ~a4

24.~ed4 iLd4 25.ed4 .I:lcb5-+.

Dimitri Tyomkin

• Humpy Koneru

Oakham 2001

1.d4

llJf6 2.c4 e6 3..tg5 Ab4 4.~d2 h6

4...d5 5.e3 0-0 6.8f3 b6 7.~cl ~b7

8..ic2 (8.cd5 is stronger) 8...de4 9J:lc4

~d2 10.

'it'd2 l1'1,bd7II.tte I c5

12.0-0

lhe4!

with equality, Bozinovic-Zaja,

Velika Gorica 2002.

5.~h4 dS

In Efimov- Vallin, Bordeaux 2003, Black

fared

well with: 5...b6 6.f3?! (6.~~f3!)

6...~h7 7.e4? ~d2! 8.~d2 ~4 9.~d8

li\d2 1O.~c7lt\fl I

.~fl

.aa6.

6.e3

Bad

6.tDt1'!!

dc4!. After 6.a3 ~e7 7.e3

0-0 8.ttJgf3 tt:Jbd7 9.'i'c2 (9Jk I) Black

equalized in Tyomkin-Shahade,

Paget

Parish

20()!,

with:

9...e5! lO.ed5 LUd5

ll.iLe7 'W'e7 12.iLb5 ed4 13.tlJd4 lO7f6

14.0-0

V:z-'/2.

6...0-0 7.a3 SLe7 8.tbgf3 b6 9.cd5 tLdS

10.SLg3

White has

a small

but definite

plus.

10...

S;_b7

11..~.e2

f)·.d7

12.0-0

13.~c1

IIc814.lbc4lD7f6

15.dc5!

$Lc5

16.b4 .te7 17.1iJfd2

b5?

18.~a5

S;_a8

19.5;_e5

Protecting e3 and transferring [he bishop

the main diagonal.

19...tLJd7 20.SLa1 ~f6? 21.~e8 "08

22.~b5 IId8

22...tUc3 23.~c3 S;(.c324.'itc2 and White

better.

23.1i'c1! ~b8

23 ...1Dc3.

24.~f6 If',7f6 25...Q.e2 'ite5 26.ltJac4

lDc3 27.~'3 ~f3 28.0..e5 ltJe2 29.q.,h1

.i.g2 30.'~g2 tile1 31.ti)df3 0.d3 3Vbc6

.Ild733.b5

White is better.

33 lDe4 34.l1b1 l1b7

tL.df2.

35.a4 tate5

35...~f2 36.ttJa7 lla7 37.b6 llb7 38.a5

lDg4 39.a6.

36.a5lOe3 37.l:te1 0,584 38.b6+- 0.b5

38...ab6 39.a6l:c7 40.a7.

39..!bd8 J:lbS 40.<!LJc6l1b7 41.tZlfd4 a6

4V~b5 ab5 43.tDd8 l::tb844.b7 1·0

Jerry Simon

• Dennis de Vreugt

Bermuda 2002

1.d4 l£;f6 2.c4 e6 3.i.g5 h6 4.~h4 .Q.b4

5.~2g5

5...~6 6.e3 g5 7.5ig3 c2.e4 8.tLlf3 h5

9."c2 ttjd2 IO.tDd2 h4 n.z-s Qd2

12.wd2 (l2.'fi'd2?? f6) 12...tLle5 13.deS

d6 14.ed6 cd6 15.~d3 'fi'f6 with about

equal chances. Sirnon-Karklins, Saint

Paul

2000.

Instead of 6.e3 White can try:

6.a3 ..Q.d2

7.1i'd2

tUe4 8...Q.d8

tDd2

9.~d2

(9.~c7) 9...Wd8 1O.'~c3.

6.~g3 tDe4 7.tZJf3tbc6

Weaker is 7...d6?! 8.a3 ~d2 9.tild2

lbg3

1O.hg3 b6 Il.e3 Ab7 12."c2 'ite7:!:

n.c5!?

Nguyen Chi Minh-Peter, Clermont

2003.

8.83 ..Q.d2 9.tUd2 ttJg3 10.hg3 ttJd4

11.loe4 ttJc6

Here 1l ...e5'!' 12.e3

ti)e6

l3.'it'f3 db

14.0-0-0 gives White excellent compen-

sation. Nogueiras-Calvo Minguez, Torre-

molinos 1984.

12.~d2 1613.0-0·0

So far the players have followed an analy-

sis of Estevez, who considered that While

had adequate compensation.

13..:"e7 14.e3 f5 15.0.c3 d6 16.~e2

~d717.~h5

The position of Black's king gives White

enough for the pawn.

17...¢>d8 18.g4 fg4 19..ig4 tDe5

20...Q.e2Q.c6 21.f4 tDd7 22.~d3 .!De5

23.~e2 'iWf624.'Wd4 <t;e7

When Black exchanges queens there fol-

lows: 24..:ti'd4 25.ed4

- 25 ...tud726.d5+-;

- 25 .ig2 26.llh2 ~f3 27J:tfl±;

- 25 tDa626.fg5±.

2S.t'th2 g14

Or 25...c5!?

26.b4

26 e5 27.'iWd2tile6

27 fe3 28:ft'e3 tbe6 29.b5 merely trans-

poses.

28.b5 fe3 29.'iWe3 ~g5 30."g5 hg5

31.nh8 ':h8

32.bc6 bc6

This is a very unclear ending. Black

clearly

has

compensation for the piece.

33.~e4 tl2d4 34.wd2lbb3?

This is very bad, the knight was

well-placed on d4.

35.Q;>e2LDa5?36.'.t;>d3~e6 37.1:1f1

White is now much better because of the

off-side position of the black knight.

37...'l;e7 38.1t1S Ilg8 39.g4 %%g740..tg2

And since he cannot prevent tiJe4. Black

resigned.

Boris Avrukh

• Yannick Pelletier

Bie12000

1.d4

ttJf6

2.c4 e6 3.~g5 h6

3...~b4 4.q:;d2 c5

5.tbf3

(stronger are

S.a3 or S.dcS) 5...cd4 6.tbd4 h6 7..ih4

4lc6

8.lDc2

i.e7 9.e3 0-0 1O.j(e2 d5 and

Black has equalized comfortably.

Bozinovic-Senff, Bie12001.

4.~h4

~b4

5.thd2 c5

s.ees

~a6!?

This was my recommendation in the orig-

inal article. Avrukh

responds

well.

Alternatively,

6...lbc6

7.ttJf3 ~c5 8.e3

0-0 9.~e2 ~e7 10.0-0 a6 II.it'c2 d6

12.lUdl 'i'c7 13Jbcl l:1d8 14.h3 ~d7

15.~g3 'it'b6 16.a3l:lac8 17.b4 a5 t8.c5!

deS

19.1Dc4

it'a7 20.b5 with a clear edge.

Abdulla-Liang Chong. Calcutta 200 I.

7..!lJf3 0c5 8.a3 ~d2 9.tDd2 d5 10.b4

tDcd7 11.cd5 ed5 12JDb3;!; O.() 13.e3

li'Je514 .• d41

14.~e2 t1~g6 J5..tg3 (not 15.$.f6 'it'f6

l6.'tWd5?

(16.0-0=) 16....ie6-+)

15...liJe4 with counterplay.

14..Jle8 15.Ae2 i.g4

White is also better after 15...g5 16..i.g3

ttJc6

17.'tWb2.

16.f3 .tf5 17.0-0 ldc6

17...lijg6 18.

.if6

(l8 .

.it'2)

18...'fH6

19.1!H6gf6 20.~f2 and White is better.

18.~d2

Not 18.~.f6? t;ld4 19.~d8 t;\b3-+.

18...1We719.i.f2;!;

19...a6 20.%1ac1a5!? 21.b5 a4

Bad is 21. ..'i'a3 2Uk3! toe? 23.e4 de4

24..ic5+-.

22.lDC5

o1ia5

23..Kdl tDb3!

24.fl.b3

Clearly stronger than 24.tDb3 ab3

25.~b3 l:1a3 with equality, as 26.~d5??

1:Id3loses on

the

spot.

24...ab3 25.CUb3 l:Ia3 26.llJd4 it.d3

27.l::tfel ~c4 28.e4!? de4 29.1:104 e3

30.1:1e3 l::te3 31.~e3 ~e3 32.1We3 l1e3

33.1:1c7

White still has the intitiative in this end-

ing. but Pelletier defends well.

33...%1d334.0.f5 lld7 35.b6 h5 36.h4 96

37.li2e3

c;t;f8

38.tL',c4

lte7 39Jte8 lle8

40.%lc7 l:Ie7 41.c;t;f2 CUdS 42.:1:Ic8 1:1e8

43.Ilc5 li2f4 44.:c7 lIe7 45.g4 16

46.gh5 lLlh547.tDd6 ~f4 48.hS!?

48.ti:lb7 tijd5=.

48...llJdS!

Bad are 48 ...Ci:JhS4~.tob7, and 48...gh5

49Jk8 ~g7 50.lDfS+-.

49.lIc5 <cb6 50.l:1b5 liJd7 51.hg6 1l~e5

5ViJf5 J:ld7 53.g7 Wg8= 54.na5 tbc6

55.1:[a8!:Id856.%%84IrdS 57.Ira8

1/:z-1f:z

Boris Avrukh

• Boris Gulko

Istanbul 01

200D

1.d4

~f6

2.c4 e6 3.£95 h6 4..th4 .tb4

5.<1:d2c5 6.a3 ~d2 7."'d2 g5

A main alternative is 7...

cd4:

A) 8.0f3

<1',c.:6

9.ltJd4 ~e4 10.~d8

tLld21l.tbc6dc.:6 12.~d2Wd813.<;t;1dc5

14.g3 ~d7 15.~g2

<tJc7

16.l:thdl ~t:6

17.~c6

Wc6

18Jtd3!/= Ivanov-Aseev,

St Petersburg 2000.

B) 8.'ilfd4

tUc6

9.~c3 (9.~d I is

the

alternative)

9...0-0!

B I) IO.O-O-O?

li\e4;

B2) !Olef3 g5 II...Q.g3 t::Ge4;

B3)

IO.~f6 'itf6 ) 1.~f6 gf6 12.d b6

13.lbf3 $:a6

with equality, Bosch-

Ligterink,

Dutch

2002.

..Q.g3

Ci;e4

9.ffe3 t2g3 10.hg3 ~a5

11.Wd1

This was the

novelty

I suggested at the

end

the

original article.

11...d6 1ViJf3 i.d7 13.d5

13.<1':g5?

Aa4 14.b3cd4 Black better.

13...t/)a6 14.tegS C~c7 15Jtc1!? :[g8

16.~e4 O-O-O!?17.tLlf6

Is 17.~d6 wb8 I

~.tZ:lt7

really

too

danger-

ous?

17...~a4 18.b3 Irg6 19.~h5 _~d7

20.4;f4 %tf621.de6 fe6

22....c3

This forces

the

exchange of

queens, ren-

dering White a safe pius.

22...ftc3 23.%%c3bS 24.e3 bc4 2S.bc4

e5 26.4\d3 -'l.e6 27.~h2 tt:le6 28.we1

~c7 29.%%b30:g5 30.~e2 %%df831.14

lP-';e432.fe5 deS 33keS ..Q.8434.l:tb2

!:Ie635.lt';d3 ti,g3 36.t2'J4!:ta637.~id5

37.~.D.

37..

:~c8

3e.~g4 ~d7 39.~d7 'it>d7

40.:tb7 ,.pc841.rtb3 1:[f142.'.t>d2tta1?!

Black draws

immediately

with

42..

.l:U2

43.~d3

(43,~d I lUI::) 43 tte6

44,~f4

(not

44.l:!.h5'!'!

tf~e4-+) 44 l:td6 45.(/',d5

J:le6 with a repetition,

43.%%h4%%68344.1:[a3%la345.J:lh6li}e4

46.'it>e2:a2 47.,.pf3 ti'\d2 48.$14 li.Jc4

49.g4 ~d7

50.

rj;;e7 51.~',d5 Wd7

5VZ::J6 ~e7 53.li:;e4 l:te2 S4.tlJc5 Ire3

5S.l:!.h7'i?eB 56.~e4 %%e157.¢f5 %ta1

5B.g5 l:ta5 59.,t<f6 :::la6 60.<i7g7ti\e3

61.WhB

Cuts

62Jtb7 <,i,1f863.tbf6 li}e7

64kd7

CHAPTER 6

on move

NIC KEY SI 33.5

This is not a slip of the hand!

1.e4

Vljf3 ~c6 3,d4 cd4 4.l2;d4 g6

S,c4.QhS!?TN

Ir looks as

the bishop has got out of con-

irol and

shot

past

its

natural square g7.

However, this is not the case. What if I

told you that

the

'TN'

in the title

stands

for:

TIVIAKOV'S NOVELTY. In a game

against Bcshukov, Tiviakov played

5...~h6!?

instead

ofhis

usual Gurgenidze

variation (5....!"6f6

6.t.6c3

d6 7.~e2

tbd4).

Isn't

reassuring. in a time when novel-

ties are sometimes found well beyond

move

20,

that a strong grandmaster co-

mes up with something new on move 5!

The move actually has a sound positional

basis: Black is going to exchange the

dark-squared bishops.

Since White

has

put pawns on c4 and e4, he can no longer

control the central dark squares after

(his

exchange.

The ultimate goal for

Black

play good knight versus bad

(light-

squared) bishop.

Before we investigate Tiviakov's idea,

however. we will take a look at a similar

manoeuvre in the Hungarian variation.

1. e4 c5

2. (iif3 d6

3. d4 cd4

"d4 .Q.d7

4 ...l2Jc6

5...Q.b5kd7 6.~c6 is more com-

mon, but the text is perfectly reasonable.

Black intends

lbc6,

gaining a tempo on

me queen. The only way

take advan-

tage of 4...kd7 is hy settling for a

Maroczy set-up.

~\c6

'iWd2

White intends

and

~b2

anyway, so it is

logical to withdraw the queen to d2 rather

than to d 1.

6, ,.,

The most natural move is now 7.lDc3.

However, according to theory this is bad

because of Ciocaltea's 7...~h6!. The

queen

is forced back to a lesser square.

There are two possibilities:

- After

'iVd

Black plays

8...

.tg7, when

Bishop takes c3 is threatened, and if

White wants to prevent this he has to set-

tle for the passive 9,~d2,

- 8.tt'c2, when the queen is exposed (on

the c-tile because of a future ~c8, and be-

cause of a possible tLib4).An extreme ex-

ample of what might happen: 8....ig7 9.b3

.!fif6 IO.~b2 ~a5

II.aT?

tDc4!

12.b4 ~b4

13.ab4 'ilfb4 14.lk14Jc5

15.

.ial (l5 ..ie2

~f5) 15...tUb3 16.'itb2 a5 17..id3

ss:

18.0-0(l8.cb5lC.cl 19.'f:Vcl

:te8)

t8 ...be4

19..te2 lC.aI 20.

'ti'

a I 0-0 21.l:tfd I e6

22.liJd4

d5 and Black was winning in

Packroff-Schoneberg,

East German Cham-

pionship. Erfurt 1973.

The strength of

7...

~h6 in this example

lies in the fact thaI White's most hannoni-

ous set-up ('ti'd2, tbc3, b3, .ib2) is dis-

turbed, giving Black good counterplay af-

ter the paradoxical S...~g7.

By adapting his move order White may

try to avoid these problems.

The idea is that 7....th6 is now answered

by 8.'f:Vc3.Play therefore usually contin-

ues: 7...kg7 8.~b2

tN6 9.

i':c3

0-0. This

the

main

line which is not relevant for

our present purposes.

The sideline 8...~b2 (instead of 8...~f6)

is more interesting from our point of

view: 8....ib2 9.~b2lUf6. Black's play is

not devoid of logic: he has already ex-

changed the dark-squared bishops and

has therefore achieved his strategic aim.

Although the theory gives White a slight

edge,

has been played by world-class

players and therefore deserves attention.

A few examples

show how these

Maroczy positions without dark-squared

bishops are played:

A) 1O.tDbd2 0-0 II.j_e2 tL:)h5!?

12.0-0 (Aronin has recommended 12.g3

as slightly better for White) 12...~f4

13.1:Hel e5 14...Q.fl ~g4 happened in

Bannik-Spassky, Soviet Championship,

Moscow

1957.

Black intends

~f3,

fol-

lowed by tDf4-e6-d4; he is already

slightly better;