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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

nothing left but to do it in a violent way

(3.g4).

Top Surprise Points for this one!

3. 94 f94

3...e6 4.gf5 ef5 and now, for example.

5.~f4

and White's position is preferable.

4. h3

4. ... g3

Accepting the sacrifice is unattractive,

both after 4...gh3 and after 4. "tL.f6. After

the latter move the game Galego-Dias,

Viseu 2000, continued S.hg4 ~g4 6.f3

(also possible is 6.~h3 ~h3 7.tZlh3 with

compensation, but not 6.'lWbStbc6 7. iVb7

tlJd4) 6...Qe6 (6...Ji.h5!?) 7.tL:h3 ~d7

8.lC.g5~f5 9.e4

de4

IO.fe4 ,gg4

Il.'it'b3!

(a funny kind of double attack). White is

better and won after 11...e6 l2 .• b7 i.d6

13.

.Q.e3 .Q.g3

14.';.Pd2 0-0

IS..Q.d3

16.'fi'a8 hg5

17.CUc)

gf3 18.!lh3 t;~h5

19.•

20.~c4 ~h7

2Utahl

~g6

22.• c5 ed4 2J.'ir'g5 1-0.

5. ~g3

Gelling the maximum out of that 2.'iVd3

move. However, the natural 5.fg3 is also

not bad. In Sorensen-Mortensen, Copen-

hagen 1994, White won

quickly

after:

S.fg3 liJf6

6.tDc3

c6?! 7.e4 de4 8.~4

~e4

9.~e4 ~a5? 1O.~d2 ~d5 11.~g2

~e6

12.'i*'e2

~c4

13.'i'e3!

.idS

14.~d5

..-u5 15.tilf3 Q,d7 16.b3 0-0-0

17.c4

~d6

18.

iig5 e5 19.1bf7 'it'd4 20 .... d4 ed4

21.~h8

lUe5

22.0-0 1-0.

5. •.. (2,16

S..:~d6 hoping for6.~c3 ~g3 7.fg3=. is

no good since White has 6..Q.f4 'ilfh4

7.'it'd! (Nijboer),

6. ~c3 ~f5

7. .i.f4 ~hS

course

7.....ic2l:L.~..c7 "cIS 9.1%cl

is hor-

rible.

And, after 7...c6 8.0-0-0 ~bd7

(8...lbh5) 9.~c7! ~c8

1O.tL.f3

is annoying.

8. ..-g5 g6

9. i.eS £g7

Too passive is 9...l:tg8 10.0-0-0 liJc6

11.e4!? de4 12.AbS.

10. ~g7 tLJg7

11. 0-0-0 c6

This is better than I L.O-O?! 12.D b5

13.e4de414.fe4b415.ef5bc316.fg6cb2

7.'it>b

!L;d7

11S.iii.c4

19.Yjb6

hg6

20.iVg6 ~f6 21.~g2

tDb6

22:~'c6 ~d8

23.~e2 l:td6 24.'ll!fc5 ~f5 25.~d3 ~f7

26.tL:c3

~d7 27 J:tdfl l:tb8 28.~gS l:Id4

29.~g6 J::rh4 30.~hgl c5 31.'ilfg3 1-0

Abildlund ..Jorgensen, Randers 1996.

The game Welling-Bosch, Den Bosch

1999. continued:

12. 'ifh6?!~h5!

Dangerous is 12...0-0 13.tLlf3 tLld7

14.llJg5 ltjf6 15.f3 1t'c7 16.e4 'ilff4

17.Qo>hl.

13. ltlf3 ~d6

14. e3

,*t6

ttJd7?!

15.

ilh4!? (I5.~e2 "'f6

(15 0-0-0 16.tbg5) 16.lL>e5Ieads back to

the game) 15...'tIi'f616.lbf5.f517.~e2!.

15. ttJe5

Ci::.d7

16. .Q.e2 ~g7!

16 lUe5 17.deS "'e5 I&.~h5 gh5

19 h5; 16..Plg7 l7.lug4.

17. '*g7

17."g5

'*f6

18.'ikh6 with a repetition of

moves.

17...tLlg7 18.tDd7 wd7 19.~g4 l:rafB

20.f4

.!be8

21.l1dg1 ~d6 22.b3

~c7

23.~f5gt5

Y2.Y2

Instead of 12.'~h6·~! White should con-

tinue 12.f3 or 12.e3. with interesting

play.

CHAPTER 9

Another Tarrasch Variation

~~ ~ ~~~

~' Cjj

\it ~ ~

NIC KEVSI46,1

Preventing 3,d4 after

1.e4

c5 2.c3 'iVa5

For many

Sicilian players

2.d

is quite

an-

noying. While objectively

less strong

than

2.t:~f3

and

3.d4.

the Alapin is less

combative than the open Sicilian. If

you

are

looking for

unclear positions and a

weapon

versus 2.c3 then

why

not try

Tarrasch's recipe versus the father

of the

whole line: 2...'i'a5

!'!.

The stem game:

Simon Alapin

• Siegbert Tarrasch

Vienna 1698

1. e4 cS

'iNa5!1

This move shows that Tarrasch was not as

dogmatic

in his own games

chess lore

has it. The queen move contradicts 'he

rules of

opening play. 'Don't play your

queen

out early in

the

game.'

Please note.

however.

that 2.c3

can hardly

called

developing move either. What's more. it

even lakes away

the

natural

square of the

queen's knight.

The point of 2..... a5 is

simply to prevent White from building up

his ideal centre with

d4.

3. tDf3 ti,c6

4. [ila3

A logical move. White aims to gain a

tempo on the intrepid queen.

4. ... e6

5. ~c4

S..ie2 d5 6.ed5 ed5 7.d4 c4 f(~c2 ~d6

9.Qg5 ljjgc7 IO.~c3 0-0=. Bed-

ouin-Movsesian, Bourbon 1997.

5. ... 'fie7

The queen

has

ended up on her regular Si-

cilian spot. Also. the knight on c4 is not so

comfortably placed itself - j{ may be

kicked away by either d5 or b5.

6. d4 ed4

7. tbd4

7.cd4 is objectively best. However. after

7...d5 8.ed5 ed5 9.0e3 ~f6 10.Qd3 i..d6

1.0-00-0 Black has comfortable equal-

ity, H. Hoffmann- Vokler, Germany 1991.

7.... a6

~.d3

8.~g5 b5

9.ti)d2

il:.b7.and a 100 years on

Black was also slightly better in

Stoker-Truman. cr 1989.

9. ~e3 [d6

10. 0-0 1i.b7

I •

.i.

.t.'iV~

~Ai

~ .~

Seeing this position no one would guess

that this game started off as a 2.c3 Sicil-

ian! Black's set-up corresponds

mod-

ern Taimanov. Alapiri's pieces - the

knight in particular - are clumsily placed.

So we can safely conclude that Black has

a small edge already.

11.tDf3 Trying to re-shuffle his pieces

somehow. 11..•gd6 12.!:te1tLle513.~e5

~e5 14.QJ11

0-0

15. 't\te2

~c6 16. ~g5

!:tle8 17.'fi'e3 Threatening f4. 17...h6

lB •.1t.h4 tL:.h5!

A knight on the rim ...

More evidence

that the Praeceptor Germaniae was not

100

dogmatic not to break his own rules

when necessary. Tarrasch is going for

dark-square-domination.

19.:ig3

~14

20..Q.e2

g5!

With a bind on the dark

squares.

21.~L;d2

l\Yd8 2V2Jf3 f6 23.~e5

fe5 24.13 <;t;h8Tarrasch is preparing a

kingsidc auack. Alapin appears bliss-

fully unaware of what is hanging over

him. 25.,*e5

fi'f6

26.'1¥'d6 ag8

27.a4

aaf8 Transferring all his forces to the

kingside. 28.~d3 h5! 29.ab5 ab5

30.!:tf1 h4 31..Q.f4White is in a bad way:

J .

..tf2

g4, and Black is just winning;

3 I.~e I g4, when 32.fg4 1:tg4 wins as

does 32.~h1 tUd3 33.'i!Vd3 gf3 34.9f3

1!t'g6 35JWe2 ~e4. 31...9f4

3VM2?

There is no time to run, 32J:Lt2 was

called for.

32...1:[g533Jlh1 h3! 34.gh3

.I.'lfg8 35.~e1

is also too late for

35.~f1 ... g6 36.

'itfe

I (36.h4 11g1-+)

36....Q.e4~.35...1:19236.....e2 .te4! 37.fe4

f3 38..Q.f1ltg11

White resigned.

nice

game by Tarrasch

and ajust reward

for

playing

the

anti-dogmatic 2.... a5. Or

should we say that Alapin the eponym

was rightfully punished for inventing

2.c3'!

our

modem

times

2..

.'~a5 is also

played from time to time.

Its

supporters

include such creative grandmasters as

Movsesian,

Rornanishin and

Kupreichik,

Let us examine 2...iVa5 in the form of a

theoretical overview:

A) Alternatives

for

3.tLlf3

B) 3.ltJf3 ltJc6 everything but 4.d4

and 4.~c4

3.llJf3

tLc6

4.d4

D) 3.tijf3 t:Jc6 4.~c4

Variation A

There are several alternatives for 3.~fJ,

which

will

examine

one

one.

.3.b4

This pawn sacrifice

was first

played by

Marshall.

3...cb4 4.cb4 'W'b45.

2.c3{i;c6

For historical reasons, and for Marshall's

imaginative rook switch, here is the stem

game: 5...e66J1b

'fIa5

7.<1\f3~e7 8.~e2

ttJf6 9.0-0 ~c6 1O.l:tb5 ~c7 II.d4 a6

12J~g5 O-O? 13.e5 tLld5 14.t2:ld5 ed5

IS..I.'lg3d6? 16.~h6. White wins the ex-

change, Marshall-Loman, London (sec-

ond match game)

1902.

6.tDf3

7.l:b1

"as

8.~c4 a6 9.a4liJt6

10...-e2

soa

11.0'() ds

And now

that

White's temporary activity

has gone

Black is clearly

better,

Castaldo-Romanishin, Saint

Vincent

2000.

• 3.a3!?

While refusing to develop pieces this in

fact not such a bad

move.

Both

and d4

arc prepared.

Bad is 3...e5?

4.t1\f3

l.ijc6 5.~c4 ~e7

6.-.b3 ~h6 7.d4!,

and

White is belief.

Pavasovic-Mrva, Mitrnpa

Cup 1997.

Playable

3...ci:;c6

4.t'i:;f3

d6 5.d4

l~d4l

6.'i:!d4 cd4 7.b4 'ii'c7'!! (7 ...'tit'e5 should

be investigated here) 8.cd4lbf6 9..ad3 g6

1O.0-0.Q.g7 II.h3 0-0 12.~e3,

and

While

was

slightly

better.

Pavasovic-

Vombek,

Krsko 1997.

Finally, the game Kharlov-Carnara, Sao

Paulo 1991. was

equal

after 3...e6

4.ttJf3

lDc6

5.d4 0d4 6.tlJd4 cd4 7.b4 ~c5

R."i!fd4

~c7

9.ti'ld2

CDe7 IO.CDf3

lL:c6

11.'tWe3.

• 3.tDa3 e6 4.e5!?

Here

4.tL;tJ

tDc6 transposes

Alapin-Tarrasch,

while 4.~c4

~c7.

fol-

lowed

dS, is

for Black.

4...

lbc6 5.tDf3

~c7 6.d4 cd4 7.cd4

~a3

8.ba3 Q'ge7

and according to Rozentalis the game is

very unclear. Rozentalis-Kupreichik,

Minsk 1983.

.3.g3

Saving the best for last.

Of all

the moves

besides 3.1ZJf3

this

one looks best.

3...tlJc6

4.£g2 (LifS5.lLle2 h5!?

Of course Black has more modest alter-

natives. The text is an ambitious and

double-edged attempt to gain control of

the dark squares.

S.h3 h4 7.g4 tlJe5

Movsesian played this twice:

- 8.d4 cd4 9.f4 d3 JO.fc5 dc2 11.-.114

li.Jh7. with a very unclear position, was

seen in Kacheishvili-Movsesian, Pula

1997. Gallagher has recommended

lO.tDd4;l;as an improvement.

- 8.d3 'ita6!?

creative solution to the

demands of the position. By forcing c4

Black gains more dark-square

control)

9.c4 ~d6 1O.tt:::.f4

e6Il.ti'ld

a6. and in

this complex

position

there are chances

for both

sides. Ponomariov-Movsesian,

World Junior Championship,

Zagan

1997.

Variation B

tL:.f3 ees

will investigate only this move. Natu-

rally Black has alternatives at this stage,

e.g. 3

e6, played by

Romanishin,

Note

that

d6 is

best

countered by 4.~c4.

shall take this

the main line.

While

prepares 5.<.14cd4

6.b4

(compare

3.a3).

Some quiet alternatives:

- 4.d3

rather meek:

4..

JU'6 5.ttJbd2 d5

6.t;jb3

~b6

7.edSlLld5 8.d4 cd4 9.tlJbd4

~g4

JO.~a4

~d7 11..~.b5f6!?, planning

e5.

and Black

has

a good position.

Bogut-Movsesian, Neum 2002.

- 4.~e2 d6

5.0-0

tlJf6

n.d3 e5

7.ttJbd2

~e7 8.a3

tIIc7

9.b4

0-0 IO.b5 tbb8=

Shrentzel-Rabicga,

Berlin 1997.

- 4.g3 Less good than

3.g3;

including

3.tlJf3 tlJc6 favours Black.

4...

tL;f6

HWe2

(It is important that 5.e5?! does not work:

5...lLlg46.d4 cd4 7.b4, ami now White

gOI

a nice advantage in the game De la

Riva-Moreno, Torrevieja

1997. after

7 ~d8? S.cd4 d6 9.h3. However.

7 ~115! would have been very strong.)

5 <.156.ed5 tLJdS7..ig2 ~g4 S.h3 .i.1i5

9.0-0

e6 JO.d3 ~c7 II.tDbd2 ~e7

12.tLlc4

0-0

with equality,

Rozentalis-

Movsesian, Hastings

1996/97.

4....

5. d4

t2d4

lLid4 cd4

7. b4

Now

7...'f!Ic7,

as played in Svesh-

nikov- Kupreichik, Soviet Union 1984, is

no good. After B.cd4

tL;f6

9.~d3 d5 lO.eS

CiJd7

I Ula2liJb6 12Jlc211Wd813.iVg4 g6

14.~g5 i.e7 15..th6 White had a huge

edge in this French-like position. So Black

must follow

Rozentalis'

suggestion

7. ... 'tWeS

cd4

8:~d4

should be equal.

8. lWe4

9. ~e3 'i'c6

Rozentalis now feels

that

White has good

compensation. However,

(as

he notes) in

the absence of practical tests it is impossi-

ble

give a clear verdict.

Variation C

tbf3

~c6

4. d4

In a way this is White's most consistent

move.

4....

5. b4

Otherwise Black is just fine.

cd4

5. ... 'ilt'c7

Only someone like Kupreichik could

come up with 5..:</.lfd8!?6.b5li'ia5 7.~d4

(7.cd4 d5) 7...d6 8.c4 eS 9.v,wdl ~e6

10.tC.g5 tDf6 11.tUe6

fe6 12.~d3 ~e7 13.

0-0 0-0,

with approximate equality.

Michalczak-Kupreichik,

Munster

1997.

6. bS ~e5

7. CDeS

Better than taking on d4: 7.cd4

~f]

g.g!]

d5! 9.~.e3 de4 1O.fe4 tLJf6 (1.f3 e5

12.de5 'ite5 J3.'i'd4 "e'h5 14.tild2

~.e7

15.~e2. and Black was slightly better in

Rausis-Moor, Neuchatel 1996.

7. ... ~e5

8. ~d4

Here 8.cd4 ~e4 9.Ae3 e6 should not

yield White enough.

8.... 'tIre7

White has a small endgame plus after

8.......d49.cd4.

Or 9.e5

b6;

9.c4 e6. followed

b6.

9...e5 10.~c4

'i'c4

11.~c4 liJ1612.13

d6 13.~e3 .i.e6 14.l!jd2 d5

With an equal position. This was the stem

game of 4.d4.

Makropoulos-Ljubojevic.

Athens

1981.

Variation D

3. ~f3 (ile6

4. S:l.e4

This is the main line in Rozentalis and

Harley's book on the

Alapin:

Play

the

2.d

Sicilian.

White

not bothered by

2...ifa5,

he makes no direct attempt to re-

fute it, but simply continues his develop-

ment. Ideally he will castle kings ide, put

his rook on e

and play d4. This

is a

very

sensible strategy'

To understand the dangers we wiII/irst in-

vestigate some natural responses that. in

my opinion, do not even come close to

equalizing.

Thus:

• 4. b5

is best met by

5. ~d5!

This is stronger than the more popular

5.~b3.

S. ~b7

5...tC.f66.0-0 is also better for White.

6. d4 01'.f6

7. dc5 e6

8. b4 "tIfc7

9. 0-0

And this piece sacrifice gave White a

Ire-

mendous position in Van

Mil-Baltus,

Dicrcn 1993.

What if Black quietly continues with his

development too'!

• 4. d6

5. 0-0

ll',f6

6. lIe1

turns out that he

is a

little slow. While

the database statistics are fairly

for

Black from this position, this is

reflec-

tion of the respective playing strengths

rather than of the objective merits of

Black's position.

- Very often

Black

now continues with

6...il.g4? and quite often he gets away

with it too! In fact, Black

walking

tightrope after

7.'i'b3 ~i..\d88.eS!

One

point is 8..J;~d7 9__

~f7!

0.n

lO.e6

Pridal-Palas, Czech Republic U 18

Championship

1997.

No picknick

either

8••

~f3 9.ef6 ~c6

lO.fe7 j)_e7

II.d3

first

played in Pridal-M.Movsesian,

Czech Republic tt 1997.

- Movsesian

has

played 6...b5 7..idS!

7,_j(_d7.

Keitlinghaus-Movsesian,

Lazne

Bohdanec 1996, now went

8.b4 cb4

9.cb4

1!S'b6,

with

approximate equality.

However, Rozentalis and Harley rightly

point out that White achieves everything

he ever aimed

for

when he goes

8.d4

9.~b3

instead,

- Possibly Black's best option is to

'transpose' to some sort of Ruy Lopez

with 6.••eS. However, it is not clear what

the queen

doing on

a5.

White should

have a comfortable ~ position.

opinion. there's no need for Black

to despair,

though. The

antidote is presen-

ted in the next section.

• 4. ... ~f6

5. e5

The natural response, Too quiet is 5.d3 e6

6.xb3

d5 7.e5 tLd7 Baklan-Bezold,

Berlin 1997. Black is not obliged

go for

the 'French' -

S...d6

was

also

possible.

S.... d5!

This

the point! Black makes use of the

bishop on c4. Very suspect is 5...lcg4

6.~e21!S'c7 7.d4 cd4 8..if4.

6. ~b3

No advantage results from either capture:

6.ed6 e6 or even simply 6 ...

ede;

and 6.ef6

dc4:f.

6.... ti...g4

7 . .Q.d5

Good

for Black

7.1!S'e2

8.~c2 ~c7.

7.... thge5

8. tbe5

Favourable for Black

8.0-0

c4 9..~c6

~6 10.d3

cd3 I

'it'd 3 ~f5.

Hablizel-Priehoda, Passau 1997.

8. ... ~e5

9. '*e2

Or 9.d4 cd4

IO.iVd4

c6!, with an equal

position.

After

White's last

move

Holt-Brustkern.

St.

Helier 1999. continued: 9.•.

ttJc6

IO:i!t'f3 tileS 1UWe4

We7

12.d4 cd4

13.0-0 , and now 13...e6 would have been

equal. Even simpler, though, is the direct

9. ... ~c7

After lO.d4 there would follow IO...cd4

1l.M4 ~d3 12.1It'd3"f4 13.0-0a6!.

But not 13...eo? 14.~b7!

So when next confronted with 2.c3: play

the Tarrasch Variation!

RECENT GAME

The following game was played after pu-

blication of Rozcntalis' book on 2.c3 and

the publication of this SOS article in New

in Chess

Maga<.ine.

Rozentalis employs a

novelty but achieves little against Miezis'

defence.

Eduardas Rozentalis

• Normunds Miezis

Gausdal 2003

1.e4 es 2.c3 "'a5 3.t~A3 4':c6 4.~c4

lDf6 S.d3

5.e5 d5!

5...

6~95N d5! 7.ed5 ed5 S.1Lf6

Or 8..i.b3 ~e6 9.i.f6 gf6 and Black is not

worse.

8...004 9.~h4

cd3 10.~d3 ~e6 11.0-0

c4 12.~e2 ..Q.d6 13Jld1 £c7

14.tL:a3

O-O!15..!bc4 'CI#'a616.b3 h6

Taking his time. White has no good way

of covering c4.

17.t;';d4

17.c~fd2

eLiaS

but not 17...li\e5 18..~.g3!

17...fLc4 18.... c4 '*¥c4 19.be4 lUeS

20.11ab1 ~b6 21.G'Lc6be6 22.l:te1

White cannot keep a healthy extra pawn

as Miezis' next

move demonstrates.

22....Q.a523.11e3 ~b6

Here 23...1:le3 24.fe3 ~.c3 2S.l:tb7

also possible. hut the text is even more ac-

curate.

24Jlee1

24J:ld3

answered by 24...

l:1e4

24...1:e2.

24....

QaS

Draw.