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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Or 25.e5

];Ial 26.'ihl

Ual 27.'~al ~e5

28.Wbl

~e3.

25. ... h4

26. trb2 "*,c5

White resigned. There is no sensible de-

fence against the threat ttc3 and

l:ta

mate, for example

27.ci~e6

'fi'c3.

RECENT GAMES

The following two recent games clearly

demonstrate

the

strength

of 4...~d6!?

Pavel Blalny

• John Bartholomew

las Vegas 2002

1.b3 e5 2.

.£b2

tLe6 3.e3 tbf6 4..tb5

iLd65.d4

This move was not mentioned in the main

article. Black gets an easy game by play-

ing natural moves. Skytte-Palliser, Wit ley

2001,

went

5.a3 0-0 0..tc2 tbe7!?

(both

6...

~e7

and 6..

Jle8 are

mentioned under

E. S.a3. The knight move illustrates an-

other way of regrouping: c6. i.c7 and dS

is Black's plan) 7.tL:.O tbg6 R.d3

9.h4'?

l:te8

lO.hS

tL:f8

n.ne

g6 12.c4 ~c 7 \3.e4

d5 and

Black

was slightly better. Shulman

was confronted with

5.t::~e2,after 5...0-0

(the alternative for

5...a6

which was what

Sutovsky played in the main game.) 6.d3

CiJe7

(Shulman also opts for this re-shuf-

fling of the pieces.

is here particularly

strong as the b5-bishop is in danger of be-

ing trapped. Naturally,

6..J:te8

is also

good.)

7.d4 e4 8.t~g3 c6

9.~e2

~c7

JO.c4

d5 Il.~d2l:tel:! Black was better in

Lawson-Shulman, Toronto

2002.

5...ed4 6.ed4 0-0 7.a3 tre8 8./Oe2 .i18

9_~_jd2d5

Black is a little better here.

10.0-0 £15 11.893 ~94 12.f3

~_d7

13.~d3

~d6 14.l:t12

0.e7

15.lLjd11

0.g6

16kJ5

Q.fB 17.93 e5 18.tb1e3

nes

19.'tIt'd2 c4 20.

.£11

~b6 21.h4 Ci:,e7

22.ti\h4 tL;g6!?

Ready to repeat moves versus the grand-

master? Instead 22 ...g6, planning Qh6, is

possible.

23.cilhg2

~d6 24.~c3

'fIc7

25.

.te2

h5!

26.~fl

~h3 27..I:!e1 h4 28:i'g5

tLlh7

29..-h5 ~f6 30:~g5 t?h7 3UWd5

Forcing Black to win the game.

31...hg3 32.hg3 iLg3 33.tLig3 ~g3

34.~fl

tLf4 35. 'iWb5.£d7

Alternatively, 35 ...l:tel 36.~e I ~g2

37..i.g2 tL:g2also wins.

36.'ifd7 tLih3 37.~hl {~f2 38.'it>g1 lLJh3

39.whl ned8 40.~b7 00.1241.<.tgl llJg5

42.~e2 4!gh3 43.';t>fl tL:d3

White resigned.

Milan Zurek

• Zbynek Hracek

Czech Republic

2002

1.b3 eS 2.~b2 ~c6 3.e3 t1.Jf6 4..tb5

~d6 S.~3 tLlaS!? 6.~e2

This prophylactic move is best. After

6.tilc4lilc4 7.Qc4 0-0 8.~f3 ~c7 9.a4 c6

10.0-0 St.c7

I 1..~.a3 d6 12.h3 e4 I3.ltJd4

c5 14.'Ob5 ~b8 15.d4 36

16.tDc3

d5! and

Black won in Shutalev-Sibaev, Samara

2002.

6...a6 7.c4 0-0

7.JiJc6 8.tt.

c2 0-0 9.d3 ne8 10/t:f3 ~f8

II.e4 d6 l2.h3 Cije7 13.0-0 q~g6 14Jtel

c5 Grabuzova-Prudnikova, Varna 2002.

8.liJf3 ne8

9.tLic2 e4

Preferable is IO.tDfd4 c5 u.ers ~e5,

although Black is still OK.

10...tec6 11.f4

Black also has an easy game after the al-

ternatives: Il.tLlfS ~e5, or I L.d4 ed3ep

12..id3 .ieS.

11...~c5 12.l'bf5

12...d5 13.cdS t,J',b4!14.ti\cd4?

14.lj-M ~f5

15.

tc2 4jd5 was better

though not too attractive either.

14..•'iYd515.a3?

Losing

IS.tL:g3

had to be tried.

15...[~d316.~d3 ed317.b4

What else? For, 17.'i'O

ii"f3

IS.gO .i.d4~

loses

piece.

17...~d4 18.tDd4l1Vg2 19.1:rfl

Here 19.'tWf3fails to 19..J:Lc3!20.de3 d2

2J.Wdi gg4.

19...i.g4 20'ci:.f3 Ci:.e4

And White resigned as there is no satis-

factory defence to (he threat of21. ·.~h3.

Section III: Early queen moves

Beginners often make the mistake of mo-

ving their queen too early in the game.

However. the queen is not only vulnera-

ble. Because her majesty is so powerful

there can also

very concrete reasons

for developing her.

In Chapter8 you will find Alapin's wayof

meeting the Dutch.

1.d4f52."d3

This line works especially well against

players of the Leningrad Dutch. After

2.• d3 Black is more or less forced to

play the Stonewall. This is certainly not to

everyone's taste. However. combined

with an early g4 White may even try to

tear down thai Stonewall!

Chapter 9 demonstrates that Tarrasch was

not as dogmatic

:IS

is often thought.

1.e4 c5 2.c3 'i'aS

With this queen sortie. Black aims to pre-

vent the main idea of

2.d.

While can on

longer

form

his ideal centre. Moreover,

chasing the queen away

turns

out to be

double-edged affair.

Chapter lOwe present the reader with

50S

line against the so-called 'Hodgson

variation'.

1.d4 d6 2kf3 .ag4 3."d3

With his

last move

White poses

threat

('iWb5

check) and defends against

possi-

ble ~f3.

The line is good enough to pre-

serve a slight opening

edge.

Moving your queen

out

early can make

sense in the Alekhine too.

1.e4 ~f6 2.eS [ild5 3.d4 d6 4.c4

liJb6 5.ed6 ed6 6J~:c3fLe7

7.iVf3

This

a creative

way

of meeting the

Alekhine -

first

played

none other than

Viktor Kortchnoi. White prevents d5,

possibly intends

castle queenside. and

prepares a kingside attack. That should be

quite

enough for one

move!

tactical way to meet

the Sveshnikov is

the subject of Chapter 12.

1.e4 c5 Vt.i13 tLic6 3.d4 cd4

4.tL:d4 tDf6 5.~c3 eS 6.tLJdbSd6

V;\d5 tLld58.ed5 tDb8 9.'itf3

This line clearly demonstrates that it can

make sense to use your strongest piece

early in the

game.

Quick wins are posxi-

hle using such crude threats as We3 and

14k?,

or ~a3 followed

5t.d2-b4.

Coffeehouse

chess of a

high

order.

CHAPTER 8

Alapin bites the Dutch

NIC KEY HD 12.1

One of Alapin's many thought-provoking ideas

Alapin was a great theoretician (think of

his 2.c3 against the Sicilian). and his

odd-looking 2.'i'd3 is not a bad surprise

to spring on lovers of the Dutch Defence.

What is the point of this queen move,

which thwarts the rules

respectable

opening play?

On a

technical level the answer is: 'White

auacks the f-pawn and prepares for the

strategically desirable move e2-e4. Not

only

does he hope

gain active play in

the centre, but he may also get chances

against the

black king

(whose position

has been weakened hy the hold advance

of the f-pawn).' On a more subjective le-

vel, the answer could be: 'White is for-

cing his opponent

playa type of positi-

on he resents. thus gaining a marked

advantage in the psychological depart-

ment:

Let me explain what

mean

the latter.

After

2:.d3

the 'theory' considers

2...d5

Black's best option, preventing e2-e4

and

moving into

(he

territory of the

so-called Stonewall. There is nothing

against the Stonewall as such (Borvinnik

used to play it all the time, with great re-

sults), but it isn't everyone's cup of tea!

Certainly those players who play the

Dutch in order

get the dynamic Lening-

rad will think twice before pushing their

d-pawn

the fifth rank. 'The dark squa-

res will be weak forever', 'How will I ever

get my e-pawn to e5', and 'I didn't play

the Dutch to get into this sort of

straightforward,

slow and solid position:

will be thoughts that are sure to wreck

their brain during the game.

Enough cheap psychology, let's play

some moves:

A Black allows e4:

2...d6 and others

Most books on the Dutch will settle for the

remark that Black must not allow

e4,

usu-

ally quoting a few helpful examples. The

following game is especially popular:

2...g6?! 3.e4

fe4

4.~e4

tUf6

5.~h4 ~g7

6.~f3 b6 7.ttJc3 c5 8.~h60-0 9.~g7 <tJg7

10.0-0-0, and Black was in trouble in

Fairhurst-Dreyer. Dublin 1957.

Note

how well White's plan worked here:

play e4. get the queen to the

kingside,

de-

velop the knights, put the bishop on

even better h6,

and castle

queenside.

Against

co-operative opponent (like

Mr.

Dreyer) this will do the trick. One more

example

to get the hang of

it (this

time

against

2...c6):

2 ...e6 3.e4 fe4 4.~e4 lljf6 5.'i!t'h4 __e7

6.tbf3 ttJc6

7.tbc3

d6 8.~g5

'it't7

9. 0-0-0

toe7 10.~d2 h6 II.~d3 ~d7 12.J:thel

~h5 (the queen swap doesn't make

things easier for Black) IHWhS tbh5

14.~c4!, once again with a pleasant edge.

Harnann-Ofstad, Halle 1963.

So far I have done nothing more than quo-

te from the classics.

the way, 3.g4!? is

not bad either against 2 ...e6 (we are going

to see more of this move later). Needless

to say (but

I'll

show you anyway),

iI'S

sil-

ly not

play one of these pawn moves at-

tacking f5:

2...e6 3.ttJd2'~! d5 4.c4 ~c6!? 5.lbgf3

tOf6 6.g3

tLle4

7.i.g2 ~e7

8.0-0 ~f6

9.edS ed5 lO.a3 a5 II.b3 0-0

12.

.ab2

neB

13JUdl

'i'd6

14.nacl .ie6

IS.e3

.Q.t7!

16."iS'b5

nabS 17.nc2 g5!.

Fine

Stone-

wall play

Black, who won convincing-

lyon the

kingside, Skernbris- Yilrnaz, Pu-

carevo zonal 1987.

Having dismissed

2...g6

and

2...

e6,

I am

going to temper our happiness a bit. I am

not so sure how well our simple e4-plan

works against 2...d6. In any case, things

are not as straightforward as the 'theory'

seems to suggest.

No more beating about the bush, then,

here goes:

'fi'd3 d6

fe4

1We4

ttJf6

5. 'tWh4

~f5!

This is the main problem (some sources

just stop after 5.'ii'h4). Black develops

piece and attacks c2 at the same time.

White loses more time while Black devel-

ops fairly harmoniously, making up for

his slightly inferior structure.

6. c3 eS

In Hassabis-Mayers, Hastings Masters

1995. Black

quickly gained an advantage

after

6...tt.lbd7 7...Q.<.:4e5

8.~e2

i.e7

9.• g5 Slg6 IO.n

I U!Vd2 d5 12.Q.d3

e4.

7. "'93

White fared no better with 7.'L:e2 in

Meier-Galdunts, Germany 1996. After

7...~e7

8.~g5

0-09.tLJg3

~g61O.~c4d5

11..ib3

tDc6

I2.tDd2 e5 Black was

slightly better.

7. tL;bd7

8. li)d2

9. ~d3 d5

10• ..i.f5 ef5

11. ~e2

.i.d6!

White's strategy has clearly failed. Black

has more active play, the game Lev-Sof-

fer, Tel-Aviv 1990, continued:

12.'fid3 We7 13.0-0 0-0-0 14.tDf3 rtde8

15.:el t;';e4 16.Q.f4 95 17.~d6 'fi'd6

18.ltj93

~f6

19.c4

94! 20.tt::d2 '@'g5

21.tDde4 de4 22JWe3? 22 .• a3

22...14-+ 23.tbe4

fe3 24.tiigS h6

25.:e3 hg5 26.l:ae1 r.t>d827.h3

gh3

28.gh3 lOf6 29.'~g2 tiJh5 30.l:e8 l:e8

3Ule8 ;pe8 32.Wf3 W 33.We4 Wl6

34.dS cS 3S.de6 be6 36.b4 <;t,"le637.a4

lLlf6 38.Wd4 tiid7 39.a5 c5 40.bc5 lL:oeS

41.a6lUc6 42.'..Ire4 tUb4 43.14 gf4 44.h4

~6 4S.c6

Cile5

4S.Wt4 <;i;>d647.h5 lUeS

48.~e3 tLJg7

White resigned.

So what to do against 2...d6? Here comes

the answer!

2. d6

3. 94!?

g~.t'i¥ •

.t~A

This

idea is well known in several versi-

ons. Notably, I.d4 f5 2.g4 fg4 3.h3 g30)

and l.d4 f5 2.h3 preparing g4.

is not a

bad idea to combine this wing gambit

with 2.ii'd3. The queen controls the

b l-h7

diagonal, prepares

and might

operate along the third rank.

3.... fg4

4. h3

Accepting the pawn sac is dangerous, e.g.

4...gh3?! 5.~h3 tilf6 6.~.g5.

5.llJh3!?,

planning 0.g5 or

.'tJf4(

-g6) is not bad eit-

her.

5. Ig3

Here 5.• g3 is also possible. The game

Barva-Garbisu de Goni, Rotterdam 1998

5th World Universities Championship,

developed along somewhat curious lines:

5...~f6 6.tLic3ti.jc67.~g5 e6 (7...llJd4~?)

8.0-0-0 ~e7 9.~f3 t£:d5 10.llJd5 ed5

11.l:tgI g6 and now 12.e3 instead of

12.~e7?, and White is better.

5....

(jf6

6 • .1Lg2

Here 6.e4 can also be considered.

6. ... ttJc6

Stopping e4 with 6...d5 also gives White

the more active position after

.t?~c.;3

li"..

8.jLg5 e6 9.

[J3.

7. e4 d5?!

According

Peicheva, 8.c3

is a

good re-

ply to 7...c5.

8. e5

9. l£)e2

10. 0-0

.£:.e4

~f5

'i'd7

11.

94 .ig6

12.

l/~f4

White is dearly better, although she later

blundered in lime trouble and lost.

Peicbeva-Al. Karpov. Bankia 1989:

12...

~f7

13.c4 e6

14.cd5

ed5 15.~e3

95!

16.tbh5

Not 16.0d5? ..ad5 17.it.e4

lbb4.

16...

0-0-0 17.tbc3 ~g6 18.tbe4

de4

19.~e4

tbd4 19...tbc5 20 ..tb7 Wb7

21.*b3 ~a8 22.de5 nbS

23.*,c4;!;

Peicheva. 20.~_g5± fi.e7

21.~96?

blunder: 21.~f6 and White is better.

21...hg6 2VLif6 ~e6 23.l:tfe1 "'c6

24.1111 tfie6

25."*'g6 IIh3 26.

i:;e4~g5

White resigned.

B Black settles

for

the

'Stonewall': 2••.d5

So we did it, we lured Black into the Sto-

newall! Unfortunately, we can't rest on

our laurels just yet. As

said above, the

Stonewall is

respectable line of the

Dutch. Still, White has a number of possi-

bilities to try and break down that wall.

I'll give them in increasing order of

SOS-value, although you may choose for

yourself which approach best suits your

own particular style.

Just play that Stonewall

(3.g3

etc.)

This is

not a

shocking follow-up to

2.1!Yd3,of course, and it is not the way to

prove an opening advantage (why play

"*'d3 in a Stonewall). However,

you

prefer quiet positional play this could be

your choice.

3. g3 .!Df6

4. ~g2 e6

5. c4 ~d6

The most active spot for the bishop, hut

there is nothing wrong with the e7-squa-

rc. Ostojic-Malaniuk, Pula 1990. went

(via

3.(4): 3.1.:4e6 4.01\f3

o1',f6

5.g3 $;.e7

6.~g2 0-0 7.0-0 tLJe4

Lic3

9.tbe5

~b7 1O.~e4 de4 II.'iVc3 ~f6 12.b3 c5

and Black was OK.

t;-;fJ

0-0

7. 0-0

White wants to swap the dark-squared

bishops. emphasising (he weakness of,

particularly, e5. Another way to do this is

by putting the bishop on f4. See. Stro-

mer- Yrjola, Cappelle la Grande 1992.

which went (via transposition): 8..1Jc3b6

9.~f4 ~a6 IO.b3.Q.f4II.gt4 Q',bd7with

approximate equality. The game now

continued:

12.lbg5?!

~e8 13.~h3 h6

14.cd5 cd5 15.

Lif3

tbe4 16.~fcl ~c8

17.

lC.e5ltJe5

18.

_~e4

tL,g6_

and White was

in trouble.

9. Ji.a3

10. ~.d6

kd7!

~e8

'6'd6

White has succeeded in swapping the

dark-squared bishops, but as so often in

the Stonewall his so-called 'good' bishop

is no better (or even worse) than Black's

'bad' one. The position is about equal.

However. Black went on to win in a

model game: 11.e3 0..bd7

12.l;~3

i.hS

1J.tDd2 tDe4 14.f4 :ac8 15.cS 'ir'e7

16.b4 g5 17.a4 9f4 18.ef4 tLidf6 19.1:1ac1

b6 20.tiJb3 :b8 21.~a2

.te8

22.l:Ic2

23.h4?! <;ph8 24.1:1f3 1:1g825.<;Ph2 Qd7

26.i.h3

ng6

27.<.t>h11:1bg828.1:1g21:1g3!

29.::I993 1:1g330J~g3 tDf2 31.~g2lZ:ld3

32.~d3 tDe4 0-1 Gavrikov-Psakhis,

Tallinn 1983.

82 Avoid the fianchetto

( 3 •..Q.f4)

Why fianchetto the light-squared bishop,

when you know

will bite on granite. So

we're going to play e3, but

first

we're

going to put the dark-squared bishop out-

side the pawn chain.

3 • ..Q.f4

White used the gf4 set-up in Soro-

kin-Rozhkovan, Vladivostok 1995, but

chose a different move order. However,

after 3.c4 c6

4.ti.:lc3

~f6 5.tLlf3 e6

6.tbe5

~d6 7.£f4

0-0 8.e3 lDh5!? 9.~e2 tbf4

IO.ef4 tUd7 Il.cd5! ed5 12.0-0 tOeS

13.fe5.i.b4 14.f4 White was ~till slightly

better.

As Bellin correctly points out, Black can

easily go wrong here with the natural

3...

e6 (as, for instance, Alekhine did

against Kmoch in Bad Semmering 1926).

3. ... e6?

Funnily enough, White can now use his

second move to his advantage by setting

up an unusual battery with

4. "'g3!

After the forced

4. tba6

5. e3 c6

6. ~a6

Black has

6. ... "a5

Check! Taimanov (1983) therefore calls

the whole line after 4.... g3 'not dan-

gerous' for Black. Bellin (1990). howe-

ver, plays on for a few more moves:

7_ lDc3 'fiIa6

8. .id6

Or 8.~e5. and White dominates on the dark

squares and is much better. Perhaps 5...c5 is

slightly stronger,

but

after 6.h6

"'as

7.tiJc3

't!t'a6

8.~e5 White is still a lotbetter,

Not only did the great Alekhine allow

this, but his rival Euwe did not use this

possihility when he played 2.it'd3 in a

correspondence game more than 50 years

later! The game

Euwe-Praagman,

Dutch

correspondence championship 1982.

went 3..fi.f4 e6'! 4.1t'g3!

tba6

S.e3 c6

6.~c3 (6.~a6!) 6...b6 7.~eS 'tVd7

8.0-0-0

Ab7 9.0 0-0-0

10.e4

tbe7

l.liIh3

ti',g6

12.ef5 ef5

13.f4

~c7

14.~d3

tLle5 15.fe5, and in

this

bad

posi-

tion, Praagman made a typical correspon-

dence blunder. Instead of writing down

15...g6 he sent IS ...tiJe6? by mail, blun-

dering the f5 pawn.

Coming back to the position after

3..$(t4.

Black should play

3...ttJf6

instead of

3 e6, preventing 4.tt'g3 in view

4 tbh5/4 ...~e4. White should then play

along the lines of Sorokin-Rozhkovan,

mentioned above. This position is virtual-

ly unexplored. and play could continue:

3. l{',f6

4. tUf3 e6

5. c4

ssa

5...c6 6.e3 tue4 7.tbfd2 b6 8.~4 fe4

9.'ili'c2 ~d6 1O.~g3 0-0 Il.ttlc3 Van der

Werf-Cozianu, Strzybnica 1987.

6.e3 c6 7.'fYb3!? 0-0 B.tt:ic3

~bd7

8...'ito>h89.0-0-0!'!;!; Van der Werf-Bosch.

Dutch junior championship, Hilversurn

1988.

9. ..Q.d3 tLlhS

10. t"i.eS

And White was slightly better in Van der

Werf-Th.Nielsen. Eeklo 1987.

83 Tear down that wall

(3.g4!?)

you don't want to combat the Stonewall

in the traditional way (3.g3) or an original

but still solid way

(3.jLf4).

then there is