Moscow Variation Written by GM Ruslan Scherbakov Last updated Sunday, June 5, 2011 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 ¤f3 e6 5 ¥g5 h6 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl tr0 9zpp+ +pzp 0 9 +p+psn zp0 9+ +p+ vL 0 9 +PzP + +0 9+ sN +N+ 0 9PzP +PzPPzP0 9tR +QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 ¥g5 the move 5...h6!? leads to the so− called Moscow variation. Before taking the pawn on c4 Black tries to clarify the bishop's position. White has two reasonable possibilities; after 6 ¥xf6 £f6 we have reached the starting position of the Moscow variation itself while the system after 6. ¥h4!? is called the Anti−Moscow Gambit. Themes in the Moscow These two branches of the same system lead to completely different types of position. The variation 6. ¥xf6 £f6 is rather quiet and much more strategic then tactical. White concedes the bishop pair but gains a lead in development and increases his influence in the centre, which helps him realise the pawn advance e3−e4. On the other hand black has
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Moscow Variation
Written by GM Ruslan Scherbakov
Last updated Sunday, June 5, 2011
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 ¤f3 e6 5 ¥g5 h6
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 ¥g5 the move 5...h6!? leads to the so−
called Moscow variation. Before taking the pawn on c4 Black tries to clarify the bishop's
position. White has two reasonable possibilities; after 6 ¥xf6 £f6 we have reached the
starting position of the Moscow variation itself while the system after 6. ¥h4!? is called the
Anti−Moscow Gambit.
Themes in the Moscow
These two branches of the same system lead to completely different types of
position. The variation 6. ¥xf6 £f6 is rather quiet and much more strategic then tactical.
White concedes the bishop pair but gains a lead in development and increases his influence
in the centre, which helps him realise the pawn advance e3−e4. On the other hand black has
a rather passive but solid position. His pair of bishops makes it not so easy for white to
realise his active plans, because any opening of the position would be in Black's favour. So
this system with its rather complicated strategy has a lot of adherents.
Experts
The main black experts are: Evgeny Sveshnikov, Alexey Dreev, Vladimir Kramnik,
Mikhail Gurevich, Igor Novikov and Robert Kuczynski. Objectively white has a small plus
but it's completely playable for black. Alexander Filipenko, Dreev's coach, popularised this
system at GM Panchenko's school. But in those days I was not going to change, despite the
fact that gaining the two bishops was one of the favourite methods of pupils of the school.
Trying to remember why I did not begin to play the Moscow variation only one thought
came to my mind. Because of 6. ¥h4.
Anti−Moscow Gambit
The Anti−Moscow Gambit is a completely different story. As in the Botvinnik
variation Black has the possibility of taking the pawn on c4 and retaining his kingside
pawns, but there are of course some drawbacks. The main ones are: 1) White has a strong
pawn centre; 2) White has a development advantage; 3) Black's pieces are more passive,
especially his rooks.
Now it's much more difficult for Black to castle long but his king side pawn
structure has not been destroyed, only seriously weakened and Black castles there quite
often. Usually black develops his pieces so as to be well prepared for the central
breakthrough d4−d5 but white also tries to create problems for black with action on both
wings so very complicated strategic and tactical play usually occurs.
Evaluation
I first had the idea to try this gambit with white when I was refreshing my
knowledge of the Noteboom variation while working on a book. There is a line where
White just ignores the pawn on c4; it was rather popular some ten years ago. Black's life is
not so easy there, all the positions are very unclear, but compared to the Anti−Moscow
gambit Black in my opinion is better off, as his kingside has not been weakened by the
moves ...h7−h6 and ...g7−g5.
Of course it's only a first glance and things are much more complicated but I started
to feel that white has a promising position. At least it is interesting and unclear. This came
2
as a surprise to me because one of my addictions is to take the pawn on c4 with black.
Another surprise was the fact that I found less then 150 games in the big database. Almost
everyone used to take on f6. But not for example Garry Kasparov. That was something to
think about ...
Conclusion
The situation has completely changed now. Now I have about 400 games in my
database and the number is increasing. A curious idea came to my mind. In the Botvinnik
variation Black's life is difficult. In the Anti−Moscow gambit Black starts to have problems.
Maybe Black will have to think about more solid systems like the Carlsbad and Cambridge
Springs? It's impossible to say exactly but what can we say now is that we'll see a lot of
exciting games with the Moscow variation in the near future.
3
Contents
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
4...e6 5 ¥g5 h6 6 ¥h4
6 ¥xf6 £xf6 7 e3 (7 £b3 D43 Moscow Variation/2 - 6 ¥xf6 £xf6 7 £b3; 7 g3 D43 Moscow Variation/1− ¥xf6 £xf6 various 7th move) 7...¤d7 8 ¥d3 D43 Moscow Variation/3 - 6 ¥xf6 £xf6 7. e3
6...dxc4 7 e4 g5 8 ¥g3 b5 9 ¥e2
9 e5 D43 Moscow Variation/4 6 ¥h4 − early e5
9 ¤e5 D43 Moscow Variation/5 6 ¥h4 − early 9. Ne5!?
9...¥b7
9...¥b4 D43 Moscow Variation/6 6. Bh4 − 9. Be2 NOT 9...Bb7
10 h4
10 0−0 D43 Moscow Variation/7 6. Bh4 − 9...Bb7 NOT 10. h4
10...g4
10..b4 D43 Moscow Variation/8 6. Bh4 − 9...Bb7 10. h4 NOT 10...g4
11 ¤e5 h5
4
D43 Moscow Variation/9 − 6...¥h4 − 10.h4 g4 11 ¤e5 various, 11...¦g8 D43 Moscow Variation/10 − 6...¥h4 10.h4 g4 11 ¤e5 g4−pawn sac
Press F5 to toggle the Navigation Pane, then click on the appropriate bookmark to go
straight to that section.
Ctrl + 2 resizes the page.
All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd
5
Moscow Variation/1 − 6. Bxf6 Qxf6
various 7th moves [D43]
Last updated: 02/06/05 by R.Scherbakov
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 ¤f3 e6 5 ¥g5 h6 6 ¥xf6 £xf6
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+p+pwq-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
The starting position of the Moscow variation. It is rather quiet and much more strategic
then tactical. White concedes the bishop pair but gains a lead in development and increases his influence in the centre, which helps him realise the pawn advance e3−e4. On the other hand Black has a rather passive but solid position. His pair of bishops makes it not so easy for White to realise his active plans, because any opening of the position would be in Black's favour. White has some other possibilities.
7 g3 ¤d7 8 ¥g2 dxc4 9 0-0
6
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+p+pwq-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This Catalan type of position may promise a slight edge for White.
9...¥e7
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+nvlpzp-0 9-+p+pwq-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
The main continuation. The natural 9...¥d6?! seems to be an inaccuracy since White has a rather annoying reply. 10
¤d2! (This is more precise than 10 ¤e4 £e7 11 ¤fd2 as now both 11...¥c7 (and 11...b5!? are worthy of consideration) ) 10...¤b6 (10...£xd4?? is impossible because after 11 e3+− White wins the bishop by a fork in all lines, after 10...£e7 11 ¤xc4 ¥c7²
White obviously has many more sensible ideas than playing the knight to e4.) 11 e3 0-0 (The immediate 11...e5!? deserves attention. White could think about 12 ¤de4!? (or 12 d5!? ) 12...£e7 13 d5ƒ trying to utilise his development advantage.) 12 ¤ce4 £e7 13 ¤xd6 (The immediate 13 f4!? was maybe more precise.) 13...£xd6 14 f4 and here in the game Kramnik − Anand/Monaco 2000 Black could make life more tricky for White by 14...£b4!? followed by ...c6−c5, while the idea of developing the Bishop to d6 anyway after 9...£d8 does not seem to fully equalize. For example, 10 ¤d2 ¤b6 11 e3 ¥e7 (11...c5 12 ¤xc4 cxd4 13 exd4 ¥e7 14 ¤e5²) 12 £e2 0-0 13 ¤xc4 ¤xc4 14 £xc4 ¥d7 15 ¦fd1² with a certain advantage.
10 e3
7
10 ¤e4 £f5 11 ¤fd2 is an alternative option.
10...0-0
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+nvlpzp-0 9-+p+pwq-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPNzP-0 9PzP-+-zPLzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Here White chooses between
11 £e2
and 11 ¤d2, hoping for a small advantage but Black can be satisfied with his solid position.
8
Moscow Variation/2 − 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 7. Qb3
[D43]
Last updated: 08/02/11 by R.Scherbakov
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¤f3 e6 5.¥g5 h6 6.¥xf6 £xf6 7.£b3
This line is not very popular but maybe it's just underestimated.
7...a5!?
In case of 7...¤d7 the most precise reply seems to be 8.¦d1 (8.g3 gives Black an interesting possibility: 8...dxc4!? (8...g6 leads to the main line) 9.£xc4 e5 and Black looks okay. For example, 10.0-0-0!? ¥e7 (10...exd4!? 11.¤e4 £g6 12.£xd4 ¥e7 13.¥h3 ¤b6 14.¤e5
£h5 15.¥xc8 ¦xc8÷) 11.¤e4 (11.¥h3? ¤b6, 11.¥g2 exd4 12.¤e4 £g6=) 11...£f5™ 12.£c2 0-0 13.¢b1 exd4 14.¤xd4 £a5 15.¥h3 (15.¥g2 ¤f6 16.h3!?) 15...¤f6 16.¥xc8 ¦axc8 17.¤xf6+ ¥xf6 18.¤f5 ¦cd8= with equality) and after 8...g6 9.g3 ¥g7 10.¥g2 0-0 11.0-0 dxc4 12.£xc4 e5 White has the interesting possibility 13.¤e4!? (13.d5 ¤b6 is fine for Black as White's active knight will be exchanged and the c8−bishop will activate comfortably.) 13...£e7 14.d5!? ¤b6 (14...cxd5 15.£xd5 ¤b6 did not solve Black's problems as it does not exchange the knights. In the game R.Scherbakov − Shalimov/St. Petersburg 2000 White achieved a certain advantage after 16.£c5! £xc5 (16...£e6 17.b3 is also in White's favour) 17.¤xc5² The strong knight on c5 disturbs Black greatly, although objectively White's advantage is not so big. ) 15.d6! That's the idea, White is getting a strong passed pawn in the center. 15...£d8 (15...¤xc4? is losing by force: 16.dxe7 ¦e8 17.¦d8 ¥e6 18.¦xa8 ¦xa8 19.¦d1 ¥d5 20.b3+−
and White wins a piece.) 16.£c2² White's chances should be preferred but Black's position is still rather solid and it is impossible to break it quickly. The pawn on d6 looks strong but White should play energetically to use its full potential, R.Scherbakov − Dreev/EU−ch (blitz) Neum 2000.
7...dxc4 may lead to the same position as 7 ...¤d7 after 8.£xc4 ¤d7 9.¦d1 and so on.
8.e4
9
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvl-tr0 9+p+-+pzp-0 9-+p+pwq-zp0 9zp-+p+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+QsN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
8...dxe4
As a rule, Black pushes his a−pawn with the idea to secure the b4−square for the bishop rather than to disturb his opponent's queen by 8...a4 this further pawn advance is rarely played as it supposed to be in White's favour after 9.£c2 dxe4 (Perhaps Black should seriously think about pushing his pawn even further: 9...a3!? which is rather unpopular but certainly deserves more attention) 10.¤xe4 ¥b4+ 11.¢d1 the standard king's retreat. White's knight remains on its strong position in the center while Black's advanced bishop might be cut off from its camp by c4−c5. (The dubious 11.¤c3?! gave White the initiative after 11...a3 followed by ...c6−c5) 11...£f4!? Only this move can justify Black's approach. Here it does not win a tempo as White's knight on e4 is protected but the queen would still be disturbing for White. (after 11...£d8?! 12.c5 0-0 13.a3 ¥a5 14.£xa4 White keeps everything under proper control and is going to secure his king by simple means: ¥f1-d3, ¢d1-e2 etc. Practice shows that Black is unable to disturb White's plans: 14...b5 15.cxb6! ¥b7 16.¤c5 ¥xb6 (16...£c8 17.£b3 ¤d7 18.¥d3 ¦b8 19.¢e2 ¥a8 20.£c2 ¥xb6 21.¦hd1 ¥c7
22.¢f1 was unsatisfactory for Black in the game Shulman − Shabalov/Ledyard 2009)
17.¤xb7! ¦xa4 18.¤xd8 ¦xd8 19.¢c2 ¥xd4 20.¢b3 ¦a7 21.¤xd4 ¦xd4 22.¢c3² with a small but comfortable edge in the ending) 12.c5 (or 12.¥d3 f5„) 12...0-0 13.¥d3 ¤d7 with complicated play.
9.¤xe4 ¥b4+ 10.¢d1 £f4
10
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+-tr0 9+p+-+pzp-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9-vlPzPNwq-+0 9+Q+-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+K+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
11.¥d3
11.£e3!? deserves attention: 11...£xe3 Otherwise White will consolidate easily and achieve an advantage. The game Sulava − G.Timoshchenko/Arco 1999 continued 12.fxe3 ¥e7 13.c5 0-0 14.¤e5 ¤d7 15.¤c4² and White has got chances for some advantage but Black's position is very solid.
11...f5 12.¤g3 c5 13.a3 a4 14.£c2 ¥a5÷
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+-tr0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9vl-zp-+p+-0 9p+PzP-wq-+0 9zP-+L+NsN-0 9-zPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-+K+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
A very complicated position is reached. According to tournament practice Black has good
counter chances.
11
Moscow Variation/3 − 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 7. e3
[D43]
Last updated: 05/06/11 by R.Scherbakov
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¤f3 e6 5.¥g5 h6 6.¥xf6 £xf6 7.e3
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+p+pwq-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
7...¤d7 8.¥d3
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+p+pwq-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
A good alternative seems to be 8.a3 g6 9.b4!? ¥g7 10.cxd5 exd5 11.¥d3 0-0 12.0-0² as
considered in the game Piket − Dreev/Wijk aan Zee 1996. As Jeroen Piket explained
12
he was inspired to go for it when he realised that White is doing well here compared to a line from the Grunfeld Defence: 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4. ¤f3 ¥g7 5.¥g5 ¤e4 6.cd5 ¤g5 7 ¤g5 e6 8.¤f3 ed5. But of course the game position is quite playable for Black.
White can also begin with 8.£c2 Then Black should probably go for a typical plan, connected with ...g7−g6 and ...¥f8−g7 while 8...£d8 9.¥d3 ¥e7 is rather passive. The game Gelfand − Kasimdzhanov/Candidates (m/1) Elista 2007 continued 10.0-0 0-0 11.¦ac1 dxc4 12.¥xc4 b5 13.¥e2 ¥b7 14.¤e4!? and White has increased control of the key c5−square.
8...dxc4
8...£d8 is a bit passive: 9.0-0 (White might also think about Q−side castling: 9.a3 ¥e7 10.£c2 0-0 11.h4!? (11.0-0 a6 was tested a couple of times. Here Vassily Ivanchuk introduced an interesting plan − he delayed his rook development, waiting for the situation to become clearer in order to find the most precise square for both rooks. 12.¤e2!? ¥d6 (In case of 12...b5 White would obtain the advantage by 13.cxd5 cxd5
14.¦fc1±) 13.c5! ¥b8 14.e4 e5 (This counter advance makes things more complicated but only for Black. More accurate was 14...dxe4 15.¥xe4 e5 although here White's chances look preferable too) 15.¦ad1 f5!? 16.exd5! e4 17.d6 White gives up a piece but the bishop on b8 is completely locked out so it is not a real piece anymore. 17...exf3 18.¤f4 ¤f6 (18...fxg2 19.¦fe1‚ with the initiative) 19.¦fe1 ¥xd6 This is forced otherwise Black just does not have the pieces to play. 20.cxd6 £xd6 21.g3² White has proved the advantage, Ivanchuk − Anand/Linares 1992) 11...a6 12.cxd5 (the immediate 12.0-0-0!? deserves attention) 12...exd5 13.g4 ¤f6 14.g5 ¤g4 15.0-0-0² White's chances are preferable, Polugaevsky − Sveshnikov/Moscow 1985) 9...¥e7 10.e4 (Sometimes White begins with 10.a3 followed by b2−b4, taking space on the Q−side) 10...dxc4 11.¥xc4 0-0 12.£e2² White has maintained a small advantage, Rowson − Granda Zuniga/Palau 2008.
9.¥xc4
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+p+pwq-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
13
9...g6
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+n+p+-0 9-+p+pwqpzp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
As long ago as the early 80's Dreev's coach Alexander Filipenko popularized the bishop
fianchetto among pupils of Panchenko's school. In those days the Moscow variation was a rare guest in tournament practice. Now the situation has changed and the whole system, especially the set−up with ...g6 and ...¥g7, has gained popularity.
9...¥d6 is an old approach but it appears on stage from time to time. 10.0-0 (10.¤e4 ¥b4+ is acceptable for Black but White is still able to obtain some edge: 11.¢e2!? (or 11.¤fd2 £e7 12.0-0 0-0 and if 13.f4 then 13...c5) 11...£e7 (11...£g6!?) 12.a3 ¥a5 13.£c2 ¥c7 14.¦ac1 0-0 15.¦hd1 ¦d8 16.¥a2 and so on) 10...£e7 11.¤e4 ¥c7 12.¦c1 0-0 This is a typical position not only for the Moscow variation, but it may also arise from the Cambridge Springs. Black seems to be suffocating but he has a solid position without pawn weaknesses and a pair of bishops, which may play its role some day. As a rule, the course of play is very similar but the understanding of numerous subtleties should bring a positive result. 13.¥b3 (White tried other options, such as 13.£c2, or 13.£e2 ) 13...¦d8 (The last move prevents 13...e5?!, which is now met by 14.d5 cxd5 15.£xd5 ¥b8 (15...¤b6? 16.£c5!) 16.¦fd1 with a clear advantage) 14.£c2 (14.£e2 is another popular option) 14...¦b8!? This seems to be the most useful move at the moment.
a) After 14...¤f6 15.¦fd1 ¥d7 16.¤c5 ¦ab8 17.a3 ¥e8 18.¥a2 White maintains the pressure
b) Black also tried 14...a5 15.a3 ¦b8, not losing control over the e5−square too early c) 14...¤f8 is a typical arrangement but it's possibly not the best. 15.¤e5!? (15.¦fd1
¦b8 leads to a typical boring play with a slight edge for White: 16.a3 ¥d7 17.¤c5 ¥e8
etc.) 15...¥d7 (15...f6!? is worth considering: 16.¤d3 ¢h8 but here Black is under pressure, too) 16.f4! and suddenly Black faces problems on the light squares as the f4−f5 push is a very serious idea, Zhu Chen − E.Sveshnikov/Khanty−Mansiysk (ol) 2010.
Then if White is also waiting by 15.a3 then 15...e5!? may work! For instance, the direct 16.d5 is parried by 16...¤f6! and in case of 17.dxc6 bxc6 18.¤xf6+ £xf6 19.£xc6 ¥d6 Black is doing well.
10.0-0
14
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+n+p+-0 9-+p+pwqpzp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
10...¥g7
Black can prevent the forthcoming b2−b4 by playing 10...£e7 but now he misses a chance to counter e4−e4 with ...e6−e5. 11.e4 Taking a good opportunity to push the pawn forward. White also tried many other options, which lead to typical slow play with a slight edge. (For example, 11.¦b1, preparing the b−pawn's advance: 11...¥g7 12.b4 0-0 13.£c2 (or 13.£b3 b6 14.¦fd1 ¥b7²) 13...b6 (13...¢h8 does not solve the problems: 14.a4 e5 15.a5 f5 16.£b3 e4 17.¤d2 ¤f6 18.b5ƒ and White's initiative on the queenside soon allowed him to create weaknesses in Black's pawn structure) 14.a4 (or 14.¦fd1
¥b7 15.¥e2 ¦fd8 16.a4 ¦ac8²) 14...¥b7² with a typical position with a small advantage for White) 11...¥g7 (In case of 11...e5 12.d5 White gets clear benefit compared to the line 10...¥g7 11. e4 e5) 12.e5 (The straightforward 12.d5 is interesting but it can hardly give Black serious problems since it increases the power of his dark−squared bishop: 12...exd5 13.exd5 0-0 14.¦e1 (14.d6 £f6 is unclear as White's advanced pawn is not well−supported) 14...£b4 15.¥b3 ¤c5 16.dxc6 bxc6 17.¤e5 ¥xe5 18.¦xe5 ¤xb3 19.axb3 ¥f5 (19...¥e6 20.£c1 ¢g7 21.¤a4 £d4 22.¦e3 ¥d5 23.¤c5 ¦fe8 is also good for Black) 20.h3?! ¦fd8 21.£f3 £xb3 22.¦e2 £b6 23.¦ae1 ¢g7 and Black's chances are slightly better) 12...0-0 13.¦e1 (13.£e2 is an alternative, which leads to similar play. For example, 13...¦d8 (Black also played both 13...b6, and 13...b5 )
14.¦ac1 b6 15.¦fe1 ¦b8 16.¥a6 c5 17.d5 ¥xa6 18.£xa6 exd5 19.¤xd5 £e6 and Black is holding on) 13...b5!?
15
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zp-+nwqpvl-0 9-+p+p+pzp0 9+p+-zP-+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
An active approach. Black wins time for the development of his light−squared bishop but
weakens the important c5−square. Since he must prepare ...c6−c5 anyway from now on his play should be very creative. (13...¦d8 with ...b7−b6 and ...¥c8−b7 is a common option: 14.£c2 b6 15.¦ad1 ¥b7 16.a3 ¦ac8 (16...a6?! seems to be slow: 17.¥a2 ¦ac8 18.h4!? (or 18.£e4!? ¥a8 19.h4 b5 20.£f4 c5 21.d5²) 18...c5 19.d5 The game Sakaev − Potkin/RUS−chT Sochi 2005 continued 19...c4! 20.h5! exd5 21.hxg6 ¤c5! 22.¤d4 fxg6 23.£xg6 £f7 (23...¤d3? 24.¥b1!) 24.¥b1! £xg6 25.¥xg6 and White has a clear advantage − his K−side pawns are very strong while Black's Q−side pawns are well blocked) 17.¥a2 and here he already came up with 17...c5 18.d5 exd5 19.¤xd5 ¥xd5 20.¥xd5 ¤f8 21.£e4 (after 21.a4 ¦d7 22.¥c4 ¦cd8 23.¦xd7
£xd7 24.h4 ¤e6 25.g3 £c6 26.¦e3 ¢f8 27.b3 ¢e7 28.h5 g5 29.£f5 ¦d1+ 30.¦e1 ¦xe1+ 31.¤xe1
a6! Black had no problems in the game Dizdar − Dreev, Luzern 1997) 21...¤e6 22.¥c4 ¦xd1!? (after 22...¦d7 23.g3 ¦cd8 24.¦c1! h5 25.¢g2 ¥h6 26.¦b1 ¦c7 27.a4² White has maintained his small advantage in the game Anand − Dreev, Hyderabad 2002)
23.¦xd1 ¦d8 24.¦xd8+ (here White would also think about 24.¦e1!? but Black could probably equalise after 24...¤d4!?) 24...£xd8 25.g3 £d7 with almost equal play.) 14.¥f1
a) White also tried other bishop retreats: 14.¥b3 ¥b7 15.¦c1 ¦ad8 (15...¦fd8 is also playable: 16.£e2 (16.¤e4? can be met by 16...¤xe5!) 16...c5! 17.¤e4 cxd4 18.¦c7 ¦ab8„ with good counter chances) 16.£e2 c5! 17.¤e4 ¥xe4 18.£xe4 cxd4 19.¦c7 £b4! and Black has achieved the better chances
b) 14.¥d3!? deserves serious attention: 14...¥b7 15.¥e4 ¦ab8 16.a3 ¦fd8 17.£c2² with small advantage for White
14...¦d8 15.¦c1 ¥b7 16.£b3 The game Geller − Galkin/RUS−chT Sochi 2005 continued 16...a6!? (an immediate 16...c5!? seemed good enough to solve the problems if they existed: 17.¤xb5 a6!? 18.¤d6 ¥xf3 19.£xf3 cxd4 20.¤c4 £g5 21.£e4 ¤c5 22.£f3 ¤d7=)
17.¤e4 c5! 18.¤xc5 ¤xc5 19.¦xc5 ¦xd4! 20.¦xb5! axb5 21.¤xd4 ¥d5 22.£xb5 ¦xa2© and Black has achieved excellent play for the pawn.
11.b4
One of the main plans, White takes the opportunity to gain space on the queenside.
16
There are some other possibilities. 11.¤e4 £e7 12.£c2 does not look too dangerous for Black. After 12...0-0 13.¥b3 e5 14.¦fe1 (14.¦ad1 was also tried but without much success: 14...exd4 15.exd4 ¤b6!? 16.¦fe1 ¥g4 17.¤ed2 £d6 18.h3 ¥f5 19.¤e4 £f4 and Black had solved all his problems) 14...¢h8! (Less precise was preparing ...f7−f5 with 14...¢h7 because after 15.¤c3 f5 16.e4 exd4 17.exf5 White could utilise the Black king's bad placement.) 15.¤ed2 ¦e8! with the idea of ...e5−e4 Black achieved excellent play in the game Dautov − Dreev/Yerevan (ol) 1996
The immediate 11.e4 is not very popular. After 11...e5 12.d5 ¤b6 13.¥b3 (13.¤d2 also promises nothing: 13...£g5 (or 13...0-0 14.a4 ¦d8 15.a5 ¤xc4 16.¤xc4 £g5 17.£b3 ¥h3
18.¤e3 ¦ab8 19.¦ac1 ¥f8 20.¢h1 ¥d7 with good play for Black) 14.£e2 0-0 15.¦fd1 ¥h3 16.f3 ¦ad8 17.¥b3 ¥c8 18.¤c4 ¤xc4 19.¥xc4 h5„ followed by ...¥g7−h6 with sufficient counterplay) 13...¥g4 Black solves all his problems. The game Rebel Century − Junior6/Cadaqu 2000 continued by 14.h3 ¥xf3 15.£xf3 £xf3 16.gxf3 ¢e7 17.dxc6 bxc6 with an obviously drawn endgame. The weakness of the c−pawn can hardly be exploited while White cannot be too proud of his kingside pawn structure.
11.¦c1 is one of the main continuations, 11...0-0 12.e4 a) White also tried other options: 12.¤e4!? £e7 13.¥b3 Stopping the typical
development of Black's light−squared bishop to b7. The game Aronian − Gelfand/WCh Mexico City 2007 continued 13...¦d8! 14.£c2 e5 15.¦fe1 ¢h8 and here White came up with the interesting 16.g4!? and after 16...¦f8! 17.g5 f5!? 18.gxf6 ¥xf6 Black has reasonable counterplay but it seems that White could still manage to maintain somewhat the better chances.
b) after 12.¦e1 the most precise continuation is supposed to be 12...¦d8! (12...£e7
13.e4² gives White a slight edge) 13.£c2 (after 13.£e2 £e7 14.¤e4 a5 15.¥b3 b6 16.¤c3
¥b7= Black is okay) 13...£e7 14.a3 b6 15.e4 ¥b7 A rather typical position for this system has arisen. White has more space but Black has no weaknesses and is ready to use any opportunity to open up the game to use his pair of bishops.
12...e5 a) 12...¦d8 13.e5 £e7 14.£e2 b6 (the immediate 14...c5!? is interesting: 15.d5 ¤xe5!?
16.¤xe5 exd5 17.¤f3! £xe2 18.¥xe2 ¥e6÷ with complicated play) 15.¦fe1² gave White somewhat better chances in the game Rebel Century − Shredder 4/Cadaqu 2000
b) while the surprising novelty 12...c5!? may not be fully equalising: 13.e5!? (after 13.d5 ¤b6 14.b3 exd5 15.¤xd5 £d8 16.h3 ¤xc4 17.bxc4 ¦e8 18.¦e1 ¥d7 19.£d2 ¦c8 20.£f4
b5!? 21.e5 g5! 22.£g3 bxc4 23.¦ed1 ¦c6! Black had excellent play in the game Anand − Giri/Wijk aan Zee 2011) 13...£d8!? (13...£e7 does not seem to solve the problems: 14.¦e1 ¤b6 15.¤e4 cxd4 16.£xd4 ¦d8 (16...¤xc4?! 17.¤f6+!?) 17.¤d6!? (17.¤f6+
£xf6! 18.exf6 ¦xd4 19.¤xd4 ¥xf6 20.¦ed1 is only somewhat better for White) 17...¥xe5 18.¤xe5 ¦xd6 19.£f4 ¤xc4 20.¦xc4 with some initiative for the pawn) 14.dxc5 ¤xe5 15.¤xe5 ¥xe5 16.£e2 and White keeps some pressure as it's still not so easy for Black to develop his Q−side.
13.d5 ¤b6 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.¥e2 Thanks to the better pawn structure White keeps a slight edge but Black's position is very solid.
11...0-0 12.a4
17
12.¦c1 is the main alternative, Black usually plays 12...£e7 and after 13.£b3 chooses between two way of developing the light−squared bishop. 13...¤b6 Intending to transpose the bishop to e8. (13...b6 is known to be safe: 14.¦fd1 (after 14.b5 ¥b7
15.bxc6 ¥xc6 16.¥e2 ¦ac8 17.¤d2 ¤b8 18.a4 ¦fd8 Black has no problems) 14...¥b7 15.e4 ¦fd8 16.a3 ¦ab8 with good play) 14.¥d3 ¦d8 15.¤e4 ¤d5 16.a3 (16.b5 ¥d7) 16...¥d7 17.¤c5 ¥e8 with a very solid position, Pr.Nikolic − Anand/Groningen 1997. You may remember that Black used to play a very similar set−up in the Cambridge−Springs with an early ...d5xc4.
12...£e7
12...b6 is also not so bad. After 13.a5 ¦b8 14.axb6 axb6 15.¦a7 ¦b7 16.¦a2 £e7 17.£b3 c5 18.¤b5 White maintains some pressure but in practice Black did not have too many problems in holding the balance.
The immediate 12...e5 does not solve the problems due to 13.a5! exd4 14.exd4 £d6 (14...¦d8² is worthy of consideration) 15.£b1! and Black is still not allowed to move the knight from d7! The game Azmaiparashvili − Dreev/ECC Neum 2000 continued by 15...¢h7?!
a) Black has tried some alternatives but it looks like he is already suffering. For example, 15...b6 16.¦e1 bxa5 17.bxa5 (17.¦xa5 ¦b8 18.¦xa7 ¦xb4 19.£a2²) 17...c5 18.¤b5!ƒ
b) 15...g5 16.¤e4 £f4 17.¦e1ƒ c) 15...b5 16.¥a2 ¥a6 17.¤e4 £f4 18.£d3 ¦ae8 19.¦fe1ƒ ¥c8 20.g3 £c7 21.¦ac1
¤b8 22.d5ƒ with the initiative in all cases. 16.£b3!ƒ with a rather annoying initiative.
13.£b3 ¦d8!? 14.¦fd1 ¤b6 15.¥e2 ¤d5²
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9zpp+-wqpvl-0 9-+p+p+pzp0 9+-+n+-+-0 9PzP-zP-+-+0 9+QsN-zPN+-0 9-+-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Thanks to the space advantage White keeps a typical slight edge but Black has a solid
position and quite acceptable play.
18
Moscow Variation/4 6. Bh4 − early 8. e5
[D43]
Last updated: 16/08/10 by R.Scherbakov
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 ¥g5 h6 6 ¥h4 dxc4 7 e4 g5 8 ¥g3 b5
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zp-+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+NvL-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
This is the starting position of so−called Anti−Moscow Gambit. As in the Botvinnik
Variation Black takes the pawn on c4 but here he retains his kingside pawns. Of course, there are some drawbacks − the main ones are: 1) White has a strong pawn centre, 2) White has a development advantage, 3) Black's pieces are rather passive, especially his rooks. Now it's much more difficult for Black to castle long but his kingside pawn structure has not been destroyed, only seriously weakened, and Black castles there quite often. Usually he develops his pieces so as to be well prepared for the central breakthrough d4−d5 but White also tries to create problems for Black with action on both wings so very complicated strategic and tactical play usually occurs.
9 e5
19
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zp-+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-zP-zp-0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+NvL-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
This pawn push was always supposed to be rather harmless for Black but it recently gained
some popularity. White clarifies the central pawn structure a bit early, losing control over the d5−square and depriving himself of the thematic d4−d5 break. However, he thinks that his strong knight on e4 might overcome such drawbacks. By the way, this position might also be reached via the Botvinnik Variation if White suddenly moves his bishop back to g3 instead of capturing the g5−pawn with the knight...
9...¤d5
9...¤h5!? XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zp-+-+p+-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9+p+-zP-zpn0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+NvL-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
is also quite typical, Black takes care of his opponent's potentially dangerous bishop: 10
¥e2 (White can also begin with 10 a4!?, which might be more precise. Then after 10...a6 (10...¥b7!?, 10...¥b4!?) 11 ¥e2 ¥b7 might be a transposition to 10. ¥e2, although here White has got the interesting 12 ¤xg5!? ¤xg3 13 ¤xf7 ¢xf7 14 fxg3 with good attacking chances − see 10. ¥e2.) 10...¥g7!? Black leaves his vulnerable d6−square without any protection, fortifying his K−side first of all.
a) The immediate 10...¤xg3!? deserved attention as well: 11 hxg3 (here 11 fxg3?!
does not promise much: 11...¤d7 12 0-0 ¥g7 13 a4 0-0³) 11...¤d7 (11...¥b7 12 ¤e4 ¥e7 13
¤fxg5!) 12 a4 ¥b7 (12...¥b4 would be strongly met with 13 ¢f1! ¥b7 14 axb5 c5 15 g4
with better chances for White) 13 axb5 cxb5 (13...c5!? 14 0-0²) 14 ¤xb5 and here
20
14...£b6! would give Black acceptable play. (14...g4?! is dubious: 15 ¤d2 ¥xg2 16 ¦h2
£b6?! 17 ¦xg2 £xb5 18 ¤xc4 £b7 19 ¢f1 h5 20 ¦h2+−) Then after 15 £a4 a6 16 ¤d6+ ¥xd6 17 exd6 £xd6 18 £xc4 ¦c8 19 £d3 g4 20 ¤h4 ¤f6 21 0-0 0-0 22 £e3 ¢g7 Black should be fine.
b) 10...¥b7 is also playable for Black but here the immediate 11 ¤xg5! might pose problems.
b1) 11 a4!? can be met by 11...b4! (in case of 11...a6 White plays the same 12 ¤xg5! ¤xg3 13 ¤xf7 ¢xf7 14 fxg3 with good attacking prospects for the sacrificed piece: 14...¦h7!? (after 14...¢g8 15 0-0 ¤d7 16 ¥g4 £e7 17 ¤e4 Black found himself under pressure in the game Kramnik − Anand/Beograd 1997, while 14...¢g7!? 15 ¥h5 ¦h7 16
0-0 might be far from clear) 15 0-0+ ¢g8 16 ¥g4 ¤d7 17 ¥xe6+ ¢h8 18 £g4 ¦g7 19 £h3 with the initiative) 12 ¤e4 c5! 13 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 14 dxc5 £xd1+ 15 ¦xd1 ¤d7 16 ¦d4 ¦c8 17 ¥xc4 ¦xc5³ and Black has obtained a slight edge in the endgame
b2) 11 0-0 promises nothing: 11...¤d7 12 a4 a6 13 ¢h1 (here 13 ¤xg5? is impossible because White has already castled: 13...¤xg3 14 ¤xf7 ¤xe2+ check!) 13...¤g7 14 ¤e4 ¤f5 15 ¤fd2 £b6 with excellent play
11...¤xg3 12 ¤xf7 ¢xf7 13 fxg3 ¦h7 (13...¢g8 14 0-0 ¤a6? 15 ¤e4 ¥g7 16 ¥h5‚ is bad for Black) 14 0-0+ ¢g8 15 ¥g4 (15 ¤e4?! ¢h8∓) 15...¢h8 (15...¥c8!? 16 ¤e4 ¢h8÷) 16 ¥xe6 Almost the same position can be reached with the inclusion of the moves a2−a4 and ...a7−a6, which might be important − compare this with the line 11. a4!? a6 12. ¤xg5! 16...¤d7 (16...¤a6!? 17 ¤e4 ¤b4÷ is worth considering, using the vacant a6−square for the knight's transfer) 17 £g4 ¦g7 18 £h3 ¦e7 19 ¤e4 ¥g7 20 ¤d6 ¤f8 and here 21 ¥g4! would have secured somewhat the better chances for White
11 a4 (The immediate 11 ¤e4 might be less dangerous for Black: 11...0-0 12 £c2 (here the straightforward 12 ¤fxg5?! is insufficient: 12...¤xg3 13 hxg3 hxg5 14 £c2 f5! 15 exf6 ¦xf6
16 ¤xf6+ £xf6 17 £h7+ ¢f7 and White lacks resources for the attack) 12...¤a6 (12...g4!? is a logical alternative: 13 ¥h4 £b6! 14 0-0-0!? ¤d7÷ with very complicated and unclear play) 13 ¦d1!? (13 0-0-0 should be met by 13...¤b4! 14 £b1 g4 15 ¤h4 f5 16
exf6 ¤xf6 with better chances) 13...¤b4 14 £b1 This position has been tested in the game Jakovenko − Motylev/RUS−chT Dagomys 2010: 14...f5 (Black could have tried other interesting options, such as 14...g4!? 15 ¤fd2 c5!?÷) 15 exf6 ¤xf6 and here White had some decent options, such as 16 ¥d6!? (16 ¥e5!?) 16...¤xe4 17 ¥xb4 ¤d6 (17...¦f4? 18 g3) 18 ¤e5² with more than sufficient compensation for the pawn.) 11...a6!? (11...£b6? looks more natural but in fact Black's queen might be needed on d8 since after 12 ¤e4 0-0 White has the strong 13 ¤fxg5! ¤xg3 14 hxg3 ¤d7 (14...hxg5? 15 ¤f6+ ¥xf6 16 £c2! ¦d8 17 exf6+−) 15 a5 £c7 16 £c2 ¦d8 17 ¤h7! c5 18 ¤ef6+ ¤xf6 19 exf6 cxd4 20 £e4 and Black can resign) 12 ¤e4 (After 12 axb5 cxb5
13 ¤xb5 axb5 14 ¦xa8 ¥b7 15 ¦a1 0-0© Black has reasonable compensation for the exchange) 12...0-0 This position arose in the game Gongora Reyes − Gagarin/Barbera del Valles 2010. White came up with 13 ¤fxg5!? ¤xg3 14 hxg3 hxg5 15 £c2 f5! 16 exf6 ¦xf6 17 ¤xf6+ £xf6 18 £h7+ ¢f8 19 ¦a3! An excellent resource, which White has got because he cleverly inserted a2−a4! 19...£xd4?! (19...¢e7!? 20 ¦f3 £xd4 seemed to be the more precise order of moves) 20 ¦f3+?! (White had an interesting option 20 £g6!?, which might have been more promising − in this line his rook would be used on the h−file) 20...¢e7 21 £g8! £xb2! 22 0-0 ¤d7 23 ¦f7+ ¢d6÷ and Black seems to be able to hold on in such a messy position.
21
10 ¤d2!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zp-+-+p+-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9+p+nzP-zp-0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
White shifts his knight to e4 without delay, not only improving the knight itself but also
giving support to the other one on c3. In case of 10 ¥e2 Black can think about the more concrete 10...£a5!? (or even 10...¥b4!?,
while the position after 10...¥b7 usually arises after 9. ¥e2 ¥b7 10.e5 ¤d5 and it is also quite playable for Black.)
10...¥b7
Black also tried some other possibilities. 10...¤d7 seems playable as well: 11 ¥e2 (11 a4 might be less promising: 11...b4 12 ¤ce4 c3
with good counter chances) 11...£b6 (11...£a5!? 12 0-0÷) 12 a4 ¥b4 13 ¤de4© with good compensation
10...¥b4 11 ¤de4 £a5 would be met with 12 a3! while 10...£a5!? 11 ¤de4 b4!?„ would also be a serious alternative. 10...h5 is typical for the Anti−Moscow Gambit but in this particular position it has been
played rarely. In my opinion, Black should still take care of his Q−side development first of all: 11 h4 g4 12 ¤de4
a) Other typical moves are also playable for White. For example, 12 ¥e2 ¤d7 (12...£a5 13 0-0 ¤xc3 14 bxc3 £xc3 15 ¤e4 £a3 16 £d2ƒ) 13 a4 ¥b7 14 0-0 a6 15 ¤de4 £b6 16 £d2ƒ
b) or 12 a4 ¥b7 13 ¥e2 (13 ¤de4!?) 13...¤xc3 14 bxc3 c5 15 axb5 ¥xg2 16 ¦g1 ¥d5 17 ¤xc4 ¥xc4 18 ¥xc4 ¤d7 19 ¥f1! cxd4 20 ¥g2 dxc3 21 ¥c6ƒ with initiative in both cases
12...¤d7 13 ¥e2 (the aggressive 13 f3?! is too double−edged as Black gets a lot of counter chances: 13...¦g8 (he could have thought about 13...¤e3!? 14 £d2 ¤f5 15 ¥f4 ¥b7,
keeping many important squares under control) 14 fxg4 ¦xg4 15 £f3 b4 and Black has obtained excellent counter chances, Moiseenko − Sharapov/UKR−chT Alushta 2010) 13...£b6 14 0-0 ¥b7 15 a4 White keeps more than sufficient compensation for the pawn.
11 ¥e2 ¤d7 12 0-0 £b6
22
Both sides are improving their pieces, preparing for the forthcoming collision.
13 a4
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9zpl+n+p+-0 9-wqp+p+-zp0 9+p+nzP-zp-0 9P+pzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9-zP-sNLzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
13 ¤de4 can be well met by the thematic 13...c5 14 dxc5 ¥xc5 (not 14...¤xc5? 15 ¤xd5 ¥xd5
16 ¤f6++−) 15 a4 ¤xc3 16 ¤xc3 and here 16...¦d8!?∓ is maybe the most promising continuation, which secures the better chances for Black.
13...a5!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9+l+n+p+-0 9-wqp+p+-zp0 9zpp+nzP-zp-0 9P+pzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9-zP-sNLzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This pawn advance deserves serious attention. Black's idea is to push his c6−pawn after a
preliminary ...b5−b4. The natural 13...a6 is also playable. Black supports his Q−side pawn massive, intending to
advance his c−pawn and open his light−squared bishop. However, White usually gets very good compensation for the pawn: 14 ¤de4 0-0-0!? This seems to be the most reliable of Black's options.
a) Black also tested 14...¥e7 which can be answered by 15 ¤d6+!? (after 15 £d2?!
c5! 16 dxc5 ¤xc5 17 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 18 ¤e4 ¦d8!? White has to do a good work to prove his compensation for the pawn) 15...¥xd6 16 exd6 with more than sufficient compensation after the possible 16...c5 17 dxc5 ¤xc5 18 £d4
23
b) In case of 14...c5 White can begin concrete action in the center: 15 ¤xd5! exd5 (15...¥xd5 couldn't extinguish White's initiative: 16 ¤c3 cxd4 17 ¤xd5 exd5 18 ¥h5ƒ) 16 ¥g4! and White has got a strong initiative, Stocek − Krejci/CZE−ch Ostrava 2010.
15 £d2!? (After 15 ¥h5 Black keeps sufficient counter chances by 15...¤f4! 16 ¥xf7 ¤xe5! 17 ¥xe6+ ¢b8! 18 ¤e2 (the queen sacrifice 18 ¥xf4 gxf4 19 dxe5 ¦xd1 20 ¦fxd1 is worth considering but Black's chances seemed preferable after 20...b4 21 ¤f6 £a5 22
¤ce4 ¢a7 23 ¤d7 c3 24 bxc3 bxc3 25 ¦ac1 ¥b4∓) 18...¥g7 (it was also possible to play 18...¤ed3!? 19 b3 ¦xd4! 20 ¤xd4 £xd4 21 ¥f5 ¥b4 with more than enough compensation)
19 ¤xf4 gxf4 20 ¥xf4 ¦xd4ƒ and Black takes the initiative) 15...c5 The thematic pawn advance. Black should not be afraid to make his king more vulnerable as the activity of his pieces, especially his light−squared bishop, is more important! 16 axb5 axb5 17 ¤xd5 ¥xd5 18 ¤c3 This position arose in the game Stocek − Najer/Wheeling 2010. It continued 18...¥b7!? This retreat looks logical as Black secures his important light−squared bishop. However, his king still cannot be completely safe... (18...¤b8 would be well met by 19 ¤xd5! (in case of 19 b3? cxb3!
20 dxc5 Black can obtain a big advantage with the astonishing 20...¥c4!! 21 cxb6 ¦xd2 22
¥xc4 bxc4∓) 19...¦xd5 20 ¦a8ƒ with some initiative. Yet, perhaps it was still far from clear after 20...¥g7 21 ¦fa1 ¦hd8„) 19 d5! ¥g7 20 b3! and White has got the initiative.
14 ¦c1!?
14 ¤de4 seems worse: 14...b4 15 ¤a2 0-0-0! (15...c5 16 ¥xc4 cxd4 17 ¥b5 ¥e7 18 ¤c1 h5 19 h3
¦d8 20 ¤b3²) 16 ¥xc4?! ¤f4! 17 ¤d6+ ¥xd6 18 exd6 c5! 19 ¥xf4 gxf4 20 £h5 £xd6∓ and White is in trouble.
14...¥e7 15 ¤de4©
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+l+nvlp+-0 9-wqp+p+-zp0 9zpp+nzP-zp-0 9P+pzPN+-+0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9-zP-+LzPPzP0 9+-tRQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
White keeps sufficient compensation for the pawn in this extremely complicated position.
24
Moscow Variation/5 6. Bh4 − early 9.
Ne5!? [D43]
Last updated: 08/02/11 by R.Scherbakov
1.d4 d5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.c4 c6 4.¤c3 e6 5.¥g5 h6 6.¥h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.¥g3 b5 9.¤e5!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zp-+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-sN-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
This early knight's jump has recently become popular. White keeps in mind the typical h2−
h4 and in some cases he may save time by delaying the move ¥f1-e2. However, Black may also find some extra options.
9...¥b7
9...h5!? deserves serious attention: 10.h4 g4 11.¥e2 b4!?
25
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zp-+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-+-sN-+p0 9-zppzPP+pzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+LzPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
Black goes for concrete action without wasting time for development of the light−squared
bishop. (11...¥b7 12.0-0 would be a transposition to one of the main lines: 12...¤bd7
13.£c2 ¤xe5 14.¥xe5 ¥g7 15.¦ad1 0-0, which is considered in D43 Moscow Variation/7)
12.¤a4 ¤xe4 13.0-0! (both 13.¥xc4?! ¤xg3 14.fxg3 ¤d7! 15.¤xd7 £xd7 16.0-0 ¥b7 17.£e2
¥g7∓, and 13.¥f4?! £f6 14.g3 ¥h6! 15.£c2 ¥xf4 16.£xe4 ¥xe5! 17.dxe5 £f5! 18.£xf5 exf5
19.¥xc4 ¤d7 20.0-0-0 ¢e7! 21.¦he1 ¤b6 22.¤xb6 axb6 23.¦d6 b5! 24.¥b3 c5 as has been played in L'Ami − Motylev/Wijk aan Zee 2009 are clearly better for Black)
13...¤xg3 (or 13...¥a6!? 14.¥f4 ¥h6 15.£c2 ¥xf4 16.£xe4 ¥xe5 17.£xe5 ¦h6 18.¤c5 ¤d7
19.¤xd7 ¢xd7!÷) 14.fxg3 ¥g7 15.¤xf7 £xd4+ 16.¢h2 £xd1 17.¦axd1 0-0 18.¤g5÷ with unclear play in the ending.
9...¥b4!? is also interesting: 10.£f3 (10.¥e2 is double−edged: 10...¤xe4 11.0-0 ¤xg3! (in the game Cheparinov − Nepomniashchy/Wijk aan Zee B 2008 Black was too greedy: 11...¥xc3? 12.bxc3 ¤xc3 13.£c2 ¤xe2+ 14.£xe2ƒ and White's development advantage gave him a very strong initiative) 12.fxg3 (12.hxg3 ¥b7 is acceptable for Black) 12...0-0 and White has to do a good work to prove his compensation for the pawn since 13.¥h5 (a rather unexpected 13.¤xb5 did not bother Black much: 13...cxb5
14.¥f3 c3!? 15.£d3 cxb2 16.¦ad1 ¤d7 17.¤c6 £b6 18.¤xb4 ¤e5! followed by ...¤xf3 and ...¥c8−b7 with excellent play) 13...f5 does not promise him real chances to break his opponent's defence) 10...h5!?
a) an immediate 10...£xd4?? loses to 11.£xf6 ¥xc3+ 12.bxc3 £xc3+ 13.¢e2 £b2+ 14.¢f3 £c3+ 15.¢g4+−
b) while the common 10...¥b7 is possibly not the best: 11.¥e2 (11.0-0-0!? is also tempting) 11...¤bd7 (11...¥xc3+ 12.bxc3 c5 13.d5 exd5 14.exd5 0-0 15.0-0-0 ¦e8 16.h4‚)
12.0-0 with better chances for White 11.h3 Now Black can already capture the pawn: 11...£xd4! 12.£xf6 ¥xc3+ 13.bxc3
£xc3+ 14.¢e2 £b2+ 15.¢f3 £c3+= with a perpetual check. This line deserves further investigation as surprises are quite possible.
The surprising 9...¤bd7!? is rather interesting. Black immediately takes care of White's advanced knight, forcing matters and hoping that his opponent's other pieces will be too late to join the battle. 10.¤xc6 £b6 11.d5 ¥b7 12.a4 a6! (12...b4?! fails to solve the problems: 13.¤b5 ¥xc6 14.¤c7+ ¢d8 15.a5!? £b7 16.a6 £b6 17.dxc6 £xc6 18.¤xa8 and so on) 13.¥e2 This position occurred in the game Kasimdzhanov − Gelfand/FIDE GP Nalchik 2009. It continued 13...¥g7 14.dxe6 (14.0-0 was a natural alternative:
26
14...0-0 15.¥f3!? (in case of 15.¥d6 Black would be fine after giving up the exchange: 15...¥xc6 16.dxc6 £xc6 17.e5 (thanks to his powerful bishop and other active pieces as well as Q−side pawn majority Black would have no problem after 17.¥xf8 ¦xf8) 17...¤d5 18.¥f3 ¤xe5 19.¥xe5 ¥xe5 20.¤xd5 exd5 21.¥xd5 £c5 22.¥xa8 ¦xa8 23.axb5 £xb5 with a probable draw) 15...g4! 16.¥xg4 ¤xg4 17.£xg4 ¥xc6 18.dxc6 £xc6 19.¦ad1 and White would still hope to somehow exploit opponent's K−side weaknesses although Black should have sufficient resources) 14...¥xc6 15.exd7+ ¤xd7 with complicated play, in which White would still hope to prove the better chances.
10.h4
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-sN-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-zP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+-zPP+0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
10...g4
10...¦g8 is a very rare and apparently dubious option. White is given a chance to grab the h−file although his king would find no really safe place on the board. Yet, this rather unexpected gain in rook's power still seems to be in White's favour. 11.hxg5 hxg5 12.£f3 (White also tried some other options but without much success. A brave sacrifice 12.¤xf7 can hardly promise more than some repetition of moves: 12...¢xf7
13.e5 ¤d5 14.¦h7+ ¥g7 15.£h5+ ¢f8 16.£f3+ ¢e8 17.£h5+ with a draw) 12...£e7 13.0-0-0!? (13.¥e2 ¤bd7 14.¦d1 0-0-0 is acceptable for Black) 13...¤bd7 14.d5!? (in case of 14.¤xd7 ¤xd7 15.e5 Black can achieve good counter chances by 15...0-0-0 16.¤e4 c5!
17.d5 £e8! with a very unclear play) 14...¤xe5 15.¥xe5 ¤d7 This position arose in the game Fier − Guerra Tulcan/South America U20 Cochabamba 2009. White came up with an interesting 16.¥c7!?, which prevented Q−side castling and restricted opponent's pieces. After 16...£f6?! (Black should have tried the more concrete 16...g4! 17.£g3 b4 although White's chances seemed preferable after 18.dxe6 £xe6
19.¤e2 but this position certainly requires more analysis) 17.dxe6 £xe6 18.£g3 b4 19.¤a4 White has obtained somewhat the better chances.
10...¥g7!? is playable: 11.hxg5 a) 11.£f3 deserves attention: 11...b4 12.hxg5 hxg5 13.¦xh8+ ¥xh8 14.¤xc4! bxc3
15.bxc3 ¢f8 16.¤d6 £e7 17.¦b1 ¥a6 18.e5 ¤e8 19.¥xa6 ¤xa6 20.¦b7 ¤ec7
27
21.£xc6± and White has achieved a big advantage. However, Black's play can probably be improved
b) 11.a4 is also worth considering: 11...a6 12.hxg5 hxg5 13.¦xh8+ ¥xh8 14.¥xc4! This line, which has been played by Baadur Jobava in some games, is interesting but still not so clear: 14...b4 15.¤a2 (15.¥d3!? bxc3 16.bxc3 c5 17.¤c4©) and here Black should think about 15...c5!? opening his light−squared bishop and getting reasonable counter chances.
11...hxg5 12.¦xh8+ ¥xh8 13.£d2!? This continuation poses some problems for Black. a) Let's take a look at the other options White has tried here: 13.£f3!? can be met
with 13...¤bd7 (but not 13...b4? 14.¤xc4! bxc3 15.bxc3 ¢f8 16.¤d6 £e7 17.¦b1 ¥a6 18.e5
¤e8 19.¥xa6 ¤xa6 20.¦b7 ¤ec7 21.£xc6±, 13...£xd4? is also bad Black due to 14.¦d1 £b6
15.¥xc4!) 14.0-0-0 ¤xe5 15.¥xe5 £e7 16.¥e2!? (in the game Krylov − Dubov, Moscow 2010, White unsuccessfully tried 16.¥h2?! ¥g7 17.g4 ¢f8 18.¥e2 ¦d8 and Black was doing well) 16...0-0-0 17.¦h1 ¥g7 18.£e3 ¤e8 19.¦h7 ¥xe5 20.dxe5 ¢b8÷ with unclear play
b) An immediate 13.¥xc4!? bxc4 14.¤xc4 is interesting but Black can probably defend: 14...¢f8 15.¤d6 (or 15.e5 ¤e8 16.£h5 ¥g7 17.¤e4 £e7 with unclear play)
15...£e7 (15...£d7!? 16.£b3 ¥a6 17.0-0-0÷) 16.e5 ¤e8 17.¤ce4 ¤xd6 (17...c5?! 18.£h5
¥g7 19.¤xg5ƒ) 18.exd6 £e8 19.¥e5 f6 20.¥xf6 ¥xf6 21.¤xf6 £g6 22.£b3 ¥c8 and Black is okay
13...b4!? Black forces matters. (13...¤h5!? is a worthy alternative but perhaps it couldn't completely solve the problems: 14.¥h2 ¤f4!? (14...¤d7 15.¤xd7 ¢xd7 16.0-0-0ƒ)
15.¤f3! (15.¥xf4 gxf4 16.£xf4 £f6÷) 15...e5!? 16.¤xe5 (16.0-0-0!? ¤d7÷) 16...¥xe5 17.dxe5 £xd2+ 18.¢xd2 ¤d7 and in this ending White had chances to get advantage: 19.¥xf4 (19.¢e3 ¤g6÷) 19...gxf4 20.¤e2 ¤xe5 21.¤xf4 ¦d8+ 22.¢e3 ¤g4+ 23.¢e2 and temporary activity of Black's pieces may not be sufficient to compensate White's superior pawn structure) 14.£xg5! (14.¤a4 ¤xe4 15.£xb4 £e7 is far from clear: 16.¤c5 ¤xc5 17.dxc5 ¤a6 18.£xc4 ¦d8 with good counter chances)
14...bxc3 15.bxc3ƒ White has got a strong initiative for the sacrificed knight and Black must be very careful. The game Nakamura − Gelfand/Khanty−Mansiysk (ol) 2010, continued 15...£e7 16.¤xc4 ¤xe4 17.£xe7+ ¢xe7 18.¦b1 ¥a6 19.¦xb8 ¦xb8 20.¥xb8 ¥xc4 21.¥xc4 a5 22.¥a7 ¤xc3 23.¢d2 ¤b5 24.¥c5+ ¢d7 25.¢d3² Thanks to his pair of bishops White keeps a certain advantage. However, a lack of pawns on the board and the impossibility to create any real pawn weakness or passed pawn make his winning chances unrealistic.
11.¤xg4
28
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+pzPP+NzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+-zPP+0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
11...¤xg4!
A principled continuation. In case of 11...¤bd7?! White can really postpone the move ¥e1-e2: 12.¤xf6+ £xf6
(12...¤xf6 does not solve the problems: 13.£f3! ¦g8 14.¥e2 The game Gelfand − Alekseev/RUS−chT Sochi 2008 continued 14...a6?! (14...b4!? 15.¤a4 c5 should have been tried but after 16.¥xc4 ¥xe4 (16...¤xe4 17.d5! exd5 (17...¥xd5?! 18.0-0-0ƒ)
18.¥b5+ ¢e7 19.0-0-0ƒ seemed too dangerous for Black) 17.£e2 cxd4 18.¥b5+ ¢e7 19.¦c1 ¦c8 20.0-0© White had excellent compensation for the pawn) 15.¦d1!? ¤d7 16.0-0 £f6 17.£e3 0-0-0 18.b3! and White's advantage was beyond doubt as Black's position was compromised and he hasn't even got a pawn to suffer for) 13.¥e2!? (13.£d2 also promises better chances for White: 13...0-0-0 (or 13...¦g8 14.0-
0-0 ¤b6 15.£e3 b4 16.e5 £f5 17.¤e4 0-0-0 18.¥e2²) 14.h5 ¥g7 15.0-0-0 £e7 16.£e3² with advantage) 13...0-0-0 (Perhaps Black should consider 13...¦g8!?, taking White's important bishop under control) 14.e5 £f5 15.a4 This position arose in the game Radjabov − Cheparinov/Sochi 2008, which continued 15...b4?! (Again, 15...¦g8! looked much stronger − it already creates a threat of capturing on g3 and e5. Then after 16.0-0 (16.¥f3 ¦xg3 17.fxg3 ¤xe5„) 16...b4 Black was doing well.) 16.¥xc4! ¤c5
a) 16...bxc3? 17.¥d3!+− b) 16...¦g8 was already not fully satisfactory: 17.¥d3 £g4 18.¤e2 (18.¤e4 £xd1+
19.¦xd1 c5²) 18...c5 19.f3 £g7 20.a5ƒ with initiative. 17.¤e2 ¦g8 18.0-0 and White has achieved a big advantage.
12.£xg4 £xd4
29
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+kvl-tr0 9zpl+-+p+-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+pwqP+QzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+-zPP+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
13.¦d1
White also played 13.¥e2 ¤d7!? (13...¤a6 is also playable: 14.0-0 (or 14.¦d1 £g7÷)
14...¤c5 15.£h5 ¦g8 16.¥e5 £d7 17.¦fd1 ¤d3÷) 14.¦d1 £c5 15.£f4 ¦d8 16.0-0 ¥g7÷ and Black obtains good counter chances.
13...£f6
13...£g7 is a natural alternative: 14.£f4 ¤a6 15.¥e2 (15.a4 ¥b4 16.¥e2 0-0 17.0-0 ¤c5÷)
15...¥e7 16.0-0 (16.e5?! ¤b4 17.¤e4 ¤d5 18.£c1 ¥b4+ 19.¢f1 0-0-0³ gives Black a clear advantage) 16...¤c5÷ with unclear play. Yet, White's chances might still be preferable: 17.e5 £g6 18.¦d4 ¦d8 19.¦fd1 ¦xd4 (19...¦d5?! is insufficient: 20.£e3 h5
21.¥f3 a6 22.b4! cxb3 23.axb3 with clearly better chances) 20.¦xd4 and things are still too far from clear.
14.e5
A preliminary 14.a4 can be met by 14...h5!? 15.£e2 (15.£g5!?) 15...¥b4 (15...¤d7!? seems even more to the point) 16.£d2 £e7 17.¥e2 ¤d7 18.0-0 a6 and Black has managed to fortify his position.
14...£f5 15.£d4 ¥e7 16.a4
30
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+k+-tr0 9zpl+-vlp+-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9+p+-zPq+-0 9P+pwQ-+-zP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9+-+RmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
16.b3?! is well met by 16...c5! 17.£e3 ¤c6! 18.bxc4 ¤b4! 19.£f4 ¤c2+ 20.¢e2 £xf4
21.¥xf4 bxc4 and White has to fight for a draw.
16...c5!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+k+-tr0 9zpl+-vlp+-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9+pzp-zPq+-0 9P+pwQ-+-zP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9+-+RmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
16...¢f8 does not solves the problems: 17.f3!? White neutralises his opponent's light−
squared bishop in advance. (However, the simple 17.¥e2 might be even more promising. Then after 17...b4 18.¤e4 should have been played: (in case of 18.¥g4?! c5! 19.£xc4 £c2! White has to force a draw by 20.¦d2 £c1+ 21.¦d1 £c2 (21...£xb2
22.¤b5÷) 22.¦d2) 18...c5 19.¤xc5 ¥d5 (19...¥xg2 20.¥g4! £c2 21.£f4‚) 20.¥g4, maintaining the better chances.) The game Shulman − Van Wely/Foxwoods 2009, continued with 17...¤a6!? 18.axb5 and here it seemed more precise to play 18...¤b4! without delay. (after 18...cxb5?! 19.¤xb5 ¤b4 20.£f4! White maintained the better chances) 19.£xc4 (19.£f4?! would be met with 19...£c2! 20.bxc6 ¥xc6 21.£xc4
¦g8„ with excellent counter chances.) 19...cxb5 (19...£c2 20.bxc6 ¥xc6 21.¦d2!? £c1+
22.¤d1) 20.¤xb5 ¦c8 21.£f4 ¤d5 22.£xf5 ¥b4+ 23.¢f2 exf5© with active play for the pawn.
17.£d2
31
17.£f4!? is a natural alternative: 17...£xf4 18.¥xf4 a6! (18...b4? is bad for Black: 19.¤b5
¤a6 20.¥xc4 ¥xg2 21.¦g1 ¥f3 22.¦d3 ¥c6 23.¢e2 and his pieces are too restricted)
19.axb5 axb5 20.¤xb5 ¦a2 21.¥c1 ¦a4 22.¦h3 ¤c6 with a complicated play in the ending. White's chances might still be somewhat better but the more precise analysis are still required for more precise conclusions.
17...a6 18.axb5 axb5 19.¤xb5 £e4+!
The point of Black's previous play, as otherwise he would simply be worse. Both 19...0-0?! 20.£xh6 and 19...¢f8?! 20.¥e2 were hardly satisfactory for Black.
20.¥e2
20.£e2!? comes to mind. Then in case of 20...£xe2+ 21.¥xe2 ¦a2 the position would be similar to the line 17. £f4 with a small difference in White's bishops placement. Here White cannot comfortably protect his b2−pawn so he has to continue by 22.¥xc4 ¦xb2 23.0-0 and after 23...¦g8 24.¦fe1 ¦g4 Black is doing well.
20...£xg2
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+k+-tr0 9+l+-vlp+-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9+Nzp-zP-+-0 9-+p+-+-zP0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-zP-wQLzPq+0 9+-+RmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
21.¦h2
An inclusion of 21.¤c7+ ¢f8 22.¦h2 is interesting but Black has sufficient resources: 22...£g1+! 23.¥f1 ¤c6, heading the knight to a strong d4−square, which has been left without proper control after the jump of its counterpart: 24.¤xa8 ¤d4 25.£f4 and here another strong manoeuvre 25...¥d8! forces White to resign himself to a possible draw after 26.¢d2 ¥a5+ 27.¢c1 ¥f3! Here, by the way, White had the only move to maintain balance: 28.¦g2!= and White keeps balance: 28...£xf1 (or 28...£h1
29.¦h2, 28...¤b3+ 29.¢b1 ¥xg2 30.¥e2 ¥e4+! 31.¢a2 £g2 32.£f6 ¦h7 33.¦d8+ ¥xd8
34.£xd8+ ¢g7 35.£f6+=) 29.£xf3! ¤e2+ 30.¢c2 ¤d4+ 31.¢c1=
32
Another option 21.¦f1!? is worth considering but the position remains too complicated and it certainly requires more analysis.
21...£c6
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+k+-tr0 9+l+-vlp+-0 9-+q+p+-zp0 9+Nzp-zP-+-0 9-+p+-+-zP0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-zP-wQLzP-tR0 9+-+RmK-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Here 21...£g1+? would be a big mistake because of 22.¥f1 0-0 23.¢e2!!+−, winning the
queen after the forthcoming ¥f1-h3. This position arose in the game Grischuk − Leko/FIDE GP Nalchik 2009, which continued
22.¤d6+ ¥xd6 23.exd6 ¤d7 24.h5 £b5 25.£c3 £a5!
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+l+n+p+-0 9-+-zPp+-zp0 9wq-zp-+-+P0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-wQ-+-vL-0 9-zP-+LzP-tR0 9+-+RmK-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
and Black has solved all his problems in the ending.
33
Moscow Variation/6 6. Bh4 − 9. Be2 NOT
9...Bb7 [D43]
Last updated: 08/02/11 by R.Scherbakov
1.d4 d5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.c4 c6 4.¤c3 e6 5.¥g5 h6 6.¥h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.¥g3 b5 9.¥e2
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zp-+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+NvL-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
9...¥b4
Apart from the main 9...¥b7 Black has a lot of possible continuations. 9...b4?! is recently supposed to be very dubious because of 10.¤a4 ¤xe4 11.¥e5 ¤f6
12.¤c5! This idea of Vladimir Kramnik puts this line under a cloud. White secures his powerful bishop on e5 from being attacked after ...¤b8−d7 while the c4−pawn can be captured later. 12...¦g8!? A new attempt to revive this line, connected with an interesting rearrangement.
a) Other continuations are unsatisfactory for Black: 12...¥xc5 13.dxc5 ¤bd7 14.¥d6± with a big advantage
b) 12...¥g7 13.¥xc4 0-0?! Black's king will not be safe on the kingside. (13...¤bd7
14.¤xd7 ¥xd7 is probably better but here White also has a clear advantage) 14.£c2! An important move. 14...¤bd7 15.h4! gxh4 (in case of 15...g4 White would launch a direct attack by 16.¤g5! and after 16...£a5!? 17.¥b3!‚ Black's king is in trouble)
16.¤xd7 ¥xd7 17.¦xh4‚ with an almost decisive attack, Sakaev − Kobalija/Russia (ch) St. Petersburg 1998
34
c) 12...¤bd7 13.¤xd7 ¥xd7 14.¥xc4© is similar − Black's life is not easy. 13.£c2 ¤bd7 14.¤xd7 ¥xd7 15.0-0 ¤d5 Black's idea becomes clear − he intends to push
the bishop with ...f7−f6. 16.¤d2!? A strong and typical manoeuvre − the knight was too restricted on f3. Besides, the e2−bishop gets the possibility to go to h5. (16.£h7
¦g6 17.¥xc4 could have been met by 17...g4 18.¤d2 ¤f6 19.£h8 h5! with the idea ...Rg6−h6.) 16...f6 17.¥g3 ¢f7!? (17...c3 looked suspicious due to 18.¥h5+ ¢e7 19.¤e4ƒ with a strong initiative.) 18.£h7+ ¦g7 19.¥h5+ ¢e7 20.£xh6² White's advantage is beyond doubt − he has won an important pawn and intends to restore material balance as the pawn on c4 cannot be saved, P.H.Nielsen − Thorhallsson, Reykjavik 2001.
9...¤h5?! XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zp-+-+p+-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9+p+-+-zpn0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+NvL-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
looks too risky. Instead of queenside development Black hunts down the dark−squared
bishop − one of the most important White pieces. 10.¥xb8!? (strangely enough, White often included 10.¥e5 but after 10...¦g8 the rook sometimes proves to be more useful on the g−file. Yet in most cases it does not seem to be very important: 11.¥xb8 (The direct attempt to refute Black's play by 11.¤xg5?! is unsuccessful. After 11...£xg5 12.¥xh5 £xg2 13.¢e2?! (13.¥f3 would be strongly met by 13...£xh1+! 14.¥xh1 ¦g1+ 15.¢e2 ¦xd1 16.¦xd1 ¤d7 and Black can be satisfied with his position.) 13...b4 (13...£h3 14.¥f3 ¤d7 was also worth considering.) 14.¥f3 £g5 15.h4 £d8 16.¤a4 ¤d7 17.¥f4 ¥a6-+ Black has obtained an almost decisive advantage in the game Lipinsky − Godena/Aosta 2000) 11...¦xb8 12.¤e5 ¤f4 13.¤xc6 £b6 14.¤xb8 ¤xg2+ 15.¢f1 ¤f4 16.¥xc4! (16.a4 is much weaker due to 16...b4 17.¥xc4
bxc3 18.¥b5+ ¢e7 19.¤c6+ ¢f6© with excellent compensation) 16...a6 (16...bxc4? fails to 17.£a4+ ¢e7 18.£xa7+! (18.¤c6+!? ¢f6 19.¦d1) 18...£xa7 19.¤c6+ followed by 20. ¤a7 with a big material advantage in the ending.) 17.¤xa6 (17.£b3!? £xb8 18.a4
b4 19.¤e2 deserves attention as well) 17...bxc4 (17...¥xa6 is bad due to 18.£b3!+−)
18.£a4+ ¢d8™ 19.¤c5 ¥xc5 20.dxc5± and the game Borovikov − Rogic/Bled 2000 cast serious doubts upon Black's set−up) 10...¦xb8 11.¤e5 ¤f4 12.¤xc6 £b6 13.¤xb8 ¤xg2+ 14.¢f1
35
XIIIIIIIIY 9-sNl+kvl-tr0 9zp-+-+p+-0 9-wq-+p+-zp0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LzPnzP0 9tR-+Q+K+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
14...¤h4!? A new idea − Black supposes he can create more threats with the knight on the
edge of the board! (14...¤f4 is an obvious alternative: 15.¥xc4! a6 16.¤xa6 (again, 16.£b3!? deserves serious attention: 16...£xb8 17.a4 b4 18.¤e2 and White's chances look preferable) 16...bxc4 17.£a4+ ¢d8 18.¤c5 ¥xc5 19.dxc5 £xc5 (19...£xb2 could be very similar to the game Borovikov − Rogic/Bled 2000 − the only difference is that the rook is on h8 instead of being on g8) 20.¦d1+ (20.£b5!? £xb5 21.¤xb5 ¥a6 22.¤c3
was maybe safer. In the endgame White kept winning chances although Black still had compensation thanks to his very active pieces) 20...¤d3 21.¦d2 ¢e7 22.¦g1 ¥d7 23.£d1 ¥c6© and Black's active pieces, especially the knight on d3, promise him reasonable compensation for the exchange) 15.¥xc4! a6 16.¤xa6! bxc4 17.£a4+ ¢d8 18.¤c5 ¥xc5 19.dxc5 £xb2 This position arose in the game Schenk − Cyborowski/Lippstadt 2003, which continued 20.£d1+!? (By analogy with the game Borovikov − Rogic/Bled 2000 it was logical to continue 20.¦d1+ ¢e7 21.£a5! (21.£xc4 could have been strongly met by 21...£a3! (21...e5? 22.£d3) 22.¢g1 ¥a6 23.£b3 £xc5 and White cannot bring his rook into play) 21...¢f6 22.¦g1 ¤f3 23.¦g3 g4 24.c6 and White's chances look preferable.) 20...¢e7 21.£c1!? £b4 and here it seemed more reliable to continue 22.£e3 followed by ¦a1-b1, which could still promise the better chances for White.
9...¤bd7 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zp-+n+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+NvL-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
36
Recently this move is supposed to be less precise than 9 ...¥b7. 10.d5 (10.0-0 gives Black a wide choice: 10...b4!? (10...¥b7 would be a transposition to one of the main variations) 11.¤a4 (A counter strike 11.e5 leads to a very unclear play after 11...bxc3
12.exf6 cxb2 13.¦b1 c3) 11...¤xe4 12.¥e5 (12.¥xc4 ¥g7 is fine for Black, for example: 13.£e2 ¤xg3 14.fxg3 0-0 15.¦ad1 ¥b7 with better chances) 12...¤ef6 The game Inarkiev − Dreev/RUS−ch Superfinal Moscow 2007 continued 13.¦c1!? ¥b7 14.¦e1 and here 14...g4 seemed more to the point: 15.¤d2 ¤xe5 16.dxe5 ¤d5 17.¥xg4 £c7 18.¤xc4 0-0-0 with a playable position although White's chances still seemed slightly better) 10...b4 A direct attempt.
a) Other possibilities are: 10...cxd5 11.exd5 ¤b6 12.dxe6 ¥xe6 (12...£xd1+ 13.¦xd1
¥xe6 does not solve the problems due to 14.¥e5 ¥g7 15.¤xb5 0-0 16.0-0 ¤fd5 17.¥xg7
¢xg7 18.¤fd4 a6 19.¤xe6+ fxe6 20.¤d4 ¢f6 21.¦fe1ƒ − Black faces problems with his pawn weaknesses) 13.¤d4!? ¥b4 (13...a6!? might be the most principled reply) 14.0-0 0-0 15.¤cxb5± Black's pawn weaknesses promise a certain edge for White, Beliavsky − Bacrot/ECC Bugojno 1999
b) 10...exd5!? 11.exd5 b4 (11...¥b7 did not solve the problems: 12.dxc6 ¥xc6 13.¤d4! ¥xg2 14.¦g1 ¥b7 (14...¥h3 seems to be worse: 15.¤dxb5 ¦c8 16.¤xa7 ¦c5 17.¤ab5 £a5 (17...£b6 18.£a4 ¦c8 19.0-0-0ƒ) 18.¤d6+ ¥xd6 19.£xd6 ¦d5 20.£c7± with a certain advantage) 15.¤dxb5 ¦c8 16.¤xa7 ¦c5 17.¤ab5 £b6 18.a4± and White's advantage is beyond doubt.) 12.dxc6 Thanks to the preliminary exchange on d5 Black has prevented a capture on e6. However, his position is still full of weaknesses. 12...bxc3 13.cxd7+ £xd7 (perhaps it is better to give up a pawn immediately by 13...¥xd7!? 14.bxc3 ¥g7!? (14...¥e6 couldn't save the c4−pawn anyway: 15.£a4+ £d7 16.£a6ƒ with a strong initiative) 15.¥xc4 0-0 (15...£e7+?!
16.¤e5) 16.0-0 ¤e4 and here the best way to secure a big advantage seems to be 17.£d3! ¥f5 18.¥e5!±) 14.bxc3 £xd1+ 15.¦xd1 ¥g7 (15...¥e6?! is dubious: 16.¤d4
¥d5 17.¤b5ƒ) 16.¥xc4 0-0 17.0-0± White has got an extra pawn in the endgame, Yermolinsky − Hayward/Las Vegas 2002.
c) 10...¥b7!? is not without interest. 11.dxe6 bxc3 12.exd7+ ¥xd7 (12...£xd7?! may lead to a disastrous finish for Black:
13.£c2 g4 14.¦d1! (14.¤e5? £d2+!) 14...£b7 15.¤e5 £xb2 16.£a4 £b5 (16...c2 was also bad: 17.£xc6+ ¤d7 18.¦xd7!+−) and now 17.¦d8+!+− finishes Black off) 13.bxc3 ¤xe4 14.£d4! (14.¥e5?! f6™ 15.£c2 ¥f5 16.¤d4™ ¥g6! 17.¥f3 £d5! 18.¥xf6 ¦g8 is acceptable for Black) 14...¤xg3 15.hxg3 ¦g8 16.£xc4 ¥g7 17.0-0± Black is suffering for little gain. The king cannot find a safe place, and White's plan is very clear − to put his rooks on the open lines and take the initiative, Beliavsky − Atalik/Vrnjacka Banja 1999.
9...¥g7!? is a rare option − as a rule, Black develops his light−squared bishop first. 10.a4 a) After 10.h4 g4 11.¤e5 Black can think about 11...0-0 (or 11...b4!?÷ with a very
unclear play)
b) 10.e5!? ¤d5 11.a4 is interesting c) as well as a natural 10.0-0 10...g4! The game Werle − Motylev/Wijk aan Zee 2009 continued 11.¤d2!? b4 12.¤a2
£xd4÷ with complicated play.
10.£c2
37
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zp-+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9-vlpzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+NvL-0 9PzPQ+LzPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
The e4 pawn can hardly be sacrificed here.
10...¤bd7
Winning another pawn is suspicious for Black: 10...g4 11.¤e5 £xd4 (in case of 11...h5?!
White proves his advantage by 12.0-0 ¥b7 13.¦ad1 ¥e7 14.d5! Black is behind in development so this central break should work well. 14...cxd5 15.exd5 ¤xd5 16.¤xb5 h4
17.¥f4 ¤d7 18.¦xd5! ¥xd5 19.¤g6!± and Black is in trouble) 12.0-0 ¥xc3 a) The alternatives are: 12...¤h5 13.¦ad1 £c5 (13...£b6 14.¥h4) 14.¥h4! ¢f8
15.¦d8+ ¢g7 16.¦xh8 ¢xh8 17.¤xf7+ ¢g7 18.e5!‚ and White's attack looks overwhelming
b) 12...h5 13.¦ad1 £c5? (13...£b6 is obligatory) 14.¦d8+! ¢xd8 15.¤xf7+ ¢e8 16.¤xh8 £f8 17.e5± with a clear advantage
13.bxc3 (13.¦ad1? is a big mistake because Black wins all White's active pieces in return for the queen after 13...£xe5! 14.¥xe5 ¥xe5∓) 13...£xe4 14.£d2 ¤bd7 15.f3! (much weaker is 15.¤xg4?! ¤d5÷) 15...£d5 16.£f4 ¦g8 With the idea of 17...£e5. (the swapping of queens leads to immediate disaster: 16...£xe5? 17.£xe5 ¤xe5 18.¥xe5 ¢e7
19.fxg4+−, in case of 16...£c5+ 17.¢h1 gxf3 18.¥xf3 ¥b7 19.¦ad1+− Black is also in big trouble) 17.¤xd7 ¤xd7 18.fxg4 e5 19.£xh6± White has regained two pawns and has seized the initiative. Black's problem in finishing his development without further losses can hardly be solved successfully, Goldin − Ippolito/Philadelphia 1999.
11.0-0 ¥b7 12.¦ad1
38
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zpl+n+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9-vlpzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+NvL-0 9PzPQ+LzPPzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This position is very similar to one of the main lines after 9 ...¥b7 but instead of the usual
...£d8−b6 Black has played ...¥f8−b4 which seems to be in White's favour. Still, the position is far from clear.
12.¤e5 might be countered by the interesting 12...h5!? 13.h3 h4 14.¥h2 ¤h5 15.¥xh5 ¦xh5 16.¦ad1 £e7 17.¤xd7 (17.d5 ¤xe5 18.¥xe5 g4!) 17...£xd7÷ with quite acceptable play.
12...¤h5 13.d5
13.e5!? with the idea of ¤c3−e4 deserves attention.
13...¤xg3 14.hxg3 £b6
14...¥xc3?! is bad for Black: 15.dxe6 fxe6 16.£xc3 £f6 17.e5 £e7 18.¦d6 c5 19.b3 ¦d8 20.¦fd1ƒ and Black is in trouble.
15.dxe6 fxe6 16.¤d4 0-0-0
16...¢e7? looks dodgy due to 17.¤xe6! but 16...¤c5!? is worth considering as after 17.¥h5+ ¢e7 Black has the very important
resource ...¤d3 in many variations.
17.¤xe6 ¦de8 18.¤g7
18.¥g4?! ¤e5 19.¥f5 ¢b8÷ is unclear.
18...¦eg8!
Theoretically this move is an improvement but it had already been suggested by Petursson in his analysis.
18...¦e7? gives White a couple of tempi to seize a strong initiative by 19.¤f5ƒ followed by b2−b3 and so on.
39
19.¤f5 ¤e5„
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+k+-+rtr0 9zpl+-+-+-0 9-wqp+-+-zp0 9+p+-snNzp-0 9-vlp+P+-+0 9+-sN-+-zP-0 9PzPQ+LzPP+0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This position occurred in the game B.Lalic − Prakash/Calcutta 2000. Black defended
successfully but White can probably improve his play in this line.
40
Moscow Variation/7 6. Bh4 − 9...Bb7 NOT
10. h4 [D43]
Last updated: 08/02/11 by R.Scherbakov
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.¥g5 h6 6.¥h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.¥g3 b5 9.¥e2 ¥b7
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+NvL-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
10.0-0
White has a wide choice here. 10.e5 is considered in chapter D43 Moscow Variation/4 6. Bh4 − early 8.e5 10.£c2 ¤bd7 11.¤e5!? is not very popular. However, Veselin Topalov conclusively won a
few games with this knight sortie. It should be mentioned that Veselin gets this position by a slightly different move, playing ¤f3−e5 on the previous move. 11...¥g7 (the alternatives are: 11...¦g8 12.¦d1 ¤xe5 13.¥xe5 ¤d7 14.¥g3 £b6 15.0-0 a6
16.d5ƒ and White takes the initiative, 11...¤xe5!? deserves attention: 12.¥xe5 ¥e7 13.0-0
£b6 14.¦ad1 ¦g8 15.b3 cxb3 16.axb3© with a complicated position with mutual chances)
12.¦d1 (in case of 12.h4 Black can reply with 12...£b6!? (while 12...c5?! looks too risky: 13.hxg5 cxd4 14.¤xb5 ¤xe4 (14...£a5+ 15.¢f1 £xb5 16.gxf6 ¤xf6 17.¤xc4 0-0²)
15.¤xc4 ¤xg3 16.¤bd6+ƒ followed by ¤d6xb7 with the initiative) ) The game Filippov − Galliamova, Russian Cup Final, Kazan 2001 continued by 12...£a5 (12...¤xe5 13.¥xe5 £a5 does not look very good. White can take the initiative with the natural 14.0-0 0-0 15.f4 ¤h7 16.¥xg7 ¢xg7 17.fxg5 hxg5 18.e5 c5 19.d5 exd5 20.¤xd5 ¥xd5
41
21.¦xd5 ¦ad8 22.¦d6!± with a certain advantage, 12...£b6!? is more natural) 13.0-0 h5 (both 13...¦d8, and 13...0-0 seemed to be more solid alternatives) 14.d5ƒ and White took the initiative although the things are still too far from clear.
10...¤bd7
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+NvL-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
11.¤e5!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-sN-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This continuation has recently become popular. 11.d5 was one of the critical positions some years ago: 11...cxd5 12.exd5 ¤xd5 13.¤xb5
and here an idea of Alexander Filipenko 13...a6! promises good play for Black. For example, 14.¤bd4 (in case of 14.¤d6+ ¥xd6 15.¥xd6 £b6 16.¥g3 ¦c8 Black's chances already look preferable) 14...¥g7 15.¥xc4 0-0 16.¦e1 ¦c8 17.¦c1 £b6÷ and so on.
11.a4 is another option: 11...a6 a) 11...b4 is also not bad, after 12.e5 ¤h5 (in case of 12...bxc3 13.exf6 cxb2 14.¦b1 c3
15.£b3± White would achieve a strong initiative) 13.¤e4 c5 14.¤d6+ (after 14.¤fd2
¤xg3 15.fxg3 ¥e7 Black is at least not worse) 14...¥xd6 15.exd6 ¤xg3 16.hxg3 £b6 17.dxc5 £xc5 18.¦c1 ¥d5 19.¥xc4 ¥xc4 20.¤d2 ¦d8! and Black had almost equalised
42
b) 11...£b6?! is dubious: 12.¤e5 a6 13.d5 cxd5 14.exd5 ¥g7 15.¤xd7 ¤xd7 16.dxe6 fxe6 17.¥f3!± with a clear advantage
12.d5 (12.axb5 cxb5 13.d5 ¤c5 14.¤d4÷ is unclear) 12...cxd5 13.exd5 ¤xd5 14.axb5 ¤xc3 15.bxc3 axb5 This position arose in the game R.Scherbakov − M.Gurevich/chT−YUG, Niksic 1996. White should probably have played 16.¦b1!?© with good compensation for the pawn but he probably cannot hope for a real advantage.
11...¥g7
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zpl+n+pvl-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-sN-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
11...b4?! is well met by 12.¤xd7 ¤xd7 13.¤a4± with a clear advantage while 11...¤xe5 12.¥xe5 ¥g7 13.f4 also gives the better chances. 11...h5!? is a modern approach. Black is not so much pushing his K−side pawns toward his
opponent's king as trying to get rid of the coming pin by developing his rook to h6. 12.¤xd7 £xd7 (12...¤xd7 allows 13.¥xh5 and Black wants to keep something in his pocket) 13.¥e5 (the immediate 13.£c1!? deserves attention: 13...¦g8!? (13...¦h6 does not seem to solve the problems: 14.£xg5 b4 15.¤a4 ¤xe4 16.£e3 ¤xg3 17.hxg3 0-0-0
18.¦fd1 h4 19.¤c5 £c7 20.g4 ¦f6 21.¦ac1 ¥xc5 22.dxc5 ¦xd1+ 23.¦xd1 £f4 24.£d4! £xd4
25.¦xd4 ¥a6 26.¥xc4 ¥xc4 27.¦xc4 with a clear advantage in the rook ending) 14.¦d1 ¥b4 15.£e3 £e7 16.h3 h4 This position arose in the game Kramnik − Gelfand/WCh Mexico City 2007. Here 17.¥e5! could have maintained the better chances since 17...¥xc3 18.bxc3 g4? was impossible due to the simple 19.¥xf6 £xf6 20.¥xg4) 13...¦h6!?
43
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-+0 9zpl+q+p+-0 9-+p+psn-tr0 9+p+-vL-zpp0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
14.£c1 a) White has also tried other options: 14.f3 h4!? (after 14...£e7 15.a4 a6 16.£c2 ¦d8
17.¦ad1© White obtains good compensation) 15.a4 b4 (15...¤h5!? deserved attention as well) 16.¤b1?! (16.¤a2 is much better) 16...¤h5 with the idea ...f7−f6 with clearly better chances for Black
b) 14.f4 can be well met by 14...g4! 15.£c2 c5 16.d5! b4 (16...exd5!? deserves attention) 17.f5! exd5 18.¤xd5 ¥xd5! 19.exd5 ¥d6 20.¥xd6 £xd6 21.¥xc4 h4! and Black obtained sufficient counterplay in the game Radjabov − Vallejo Pons/Morelia Linares 2006.
14...¤g4!? A good reaction − Black gives his pawn back but eliminates one of White's bishops.
a) The attempt to win another pawn by 14...b4?! 15.¤a4 ¤xe4 could only help White to improve his pieces after 16.f3 ¤f6 17.¥xc4 with a clear advantage
b) in case of 14...¦g6 White can continue improving his position by 15.¦d1 (in case of 15.f3 Black should try something like 15...g4!?, immediately attacking the advanced pawn. (15...h4?! turned out to be a serious mistake in the game L'Ami − Cheparinov/Wijk aan Zee B 2008, which continued 16.f4! gxf4 17.£xf4 ¥h6 18.£xh4
¥g5 19.£f2 ¦h6 20.¥f3 with a clear advantage) A possible play would have been 16.£c2!? (16.f4 c5!) 16...gxf3 17.¥xf3 ¤g4 18.¥xg4 ¦xg4 19.¦ad1 0-0-0 with good play for Black) 15...¤g4!? (15...g4 16.b3 cxb3 17.axb3© gave White more than enough compensation for the pawn, Filippov − Yevseev/RUS−chT Sochi 2006) 16.¥xg4!? As a rule, in such a position White's dark−squared bishop is more important. (nevertheless 16.¥g3!? still deserves attention: 16...f5 (16...h4!? is interesting, getting rid of White's strong dark−squared bishop) 17.f3 and here 17...h4!? was still possible) 16...hxg4 17.b3 A typical breakthrough. 17...cxb3 18.axb3 f6 19.¥g3© This position arose in the game Gajewski − Predojevic/EU−ch Dresden 2007. White has achieved good compensation for the pawn and here the immediate 19...f5!? deserved attention, trying to gain some counterplay despite the risk.
c) 14...¤h7!? is also interesting: 15.f4 (15.h4?! is weaker: 15...gxh4 16.£e3 ¤f6 17.¥xf6
¦xf6 18.e5 ¦f5 19.¤e4 c5! with excellent play) 15...¥e7 16.£e3 0-0-0 17.¦ad1 f6 18.fxg5 fxe5 19.gxh6 exd4 20.£g3 £e8 For the exchange Black has got superior pawns but it is a bit early for any conclusions since the complications are not over yet. The game Radjabov − DEEP Junior/Man vs Machine 2006 continued 21.£g7!
44
¦d7! 22.¦f7 ¤g5 23.¦xe7 £xe7 24.£xe7 ¦xe7 25.¦xd4 ¦h7 26.h4 ¤f7 27.¥xh5 ¤e5 28.¥e2 c5 and Black has almost equalised
15.¥xg4 hxg4 16.£xg5 ¦g6 17.£e3 c5!? A typical pawn advance. (17...f6 has been played in the game P.H.Nielsen − Vallejo Pons/Monte Carlo 2006. After 18.¥g3 ¥h6 19.£e2
0-0-0 20.¦fd1 £e7÷ Black has gained acceptable play but his king may never get into safety, anyway, while his counterplay is not so strong) 18.dxc5 (18.¦ad1 cxd4 19.¥xd4
£c6 is good for Black) 18...b4 19.¤e2 £c6 20.¤g3 £xc5„ and Black has achieved good play, Sakaev − Cheparinov/EU−ch Dresden 2007.
12.¤xd7
White also tried other options and some of them deserve serious attention. For example: 12.f4!? gxf4 (12...¤xe5 13.fxe5 gives White a strong pawn center and the better
chances, according to tournament practice) 13.¥xf4 ¤xe5 (13...0-0!? was worthy of consideration) 14.¥xe5 0-0 15.£e1!²
or 12.£c2!? ¤xe5!? (12...a6 13.¦ad1 0-0 14.f4² is better for White, while 12...£b6 13.¦ad1 0-0
14.f4 gxf4 15.¥xf4 ¦ad8÷ is not so clear) 13.¥xe5 0-0 14.¦ad1 ¤d7 15.¥d6 and here Black can sacrifice the exchange by 15...£b6! 16.¥xf8 ¤xf8 17.d5 cxd5 18.exd5 ¥xc3! 19.£xc3 exd5÷ with acceptable play.
The very unexpected sacrifice 12.¤xf7!? is interesting: 12...¢xf7 13.e5 ¤d5 14.¤e4 ¢e7 (14...¢g8!? is another option, which deserves attention) 15.¤d6 ¦b8!? Black keeps his queen at home in order to parry a possible penetration Qc2−g6. However, White still has good attacking possibilities. (In the game Topalov−Kramnik/Wijk aan Zee 2008 Black played 15...£b6 16.¥g4 ¦af8 (here 16...c5 could have been met with 17.£c2)
17.£c2 ¦hg8! (17...£xd4? turned out to be a serious mistake, which has led to the problems after 18.£g6! £xg4 19.£xg7+ ¢d8 20.¤xb7+ ¢c8 (20...¢c7?? 21.¤c5+−)
21.a4! b4 22.¦ac1 c3 23.bxc3 b3 24.c4ƒ) 18.£g6!? a) 18.¦ad1 is worthy of consideration: 18...c5!? (in case of 18...¥a8 White would
continue by 19.£g6 ¤c7 20.£h7 and if 20...¢d8 then 21.f4!) 19.£g6 ¤c7 20.¤xb7 cxd4 (20...£xb7? 21.d5!+−) 21.£e4 (21.¤d6? ¥xe5-+) 21...¤d5 22.¤d6 ¤f4 23.¥xf4 gxf4 24.¥xe6! with very unclear play
b) while 18.a4?! can be strongly met with 18...£xd4! 19.¥xe6 ¢xe6 20.£g6+ ¢e7 21.¤xb7 ¥xe5-+
18...¤c7 19.£e4! ¥a8 20.f4© with compensation for the piece) 16.¥g4 (16.¥h5!? was also interesting: 16...c5 17.f4! cxd4 (in case of 17...¤e3?! White could simply play 18.£d2! ¤xf1 19.¦xf1 with initiative, for example: 19...¦f8 (19...£b6 20.fxg5)
20.£c2! ¥d5 21.£h7 £a5 22.£xg7+ ¢d8 23.f5ƒ) 18.fxg5 ¤xe5 (18...¥xe5!? 19.¤f7
£b6 20.¤xe5 ¤xe5 21.¥xe5 d3+ 22.¢h1 ¦bf8÷) 19.¤f7 £b6 20.¤xe5 d3+ 21.¥f2 ¤e3 22.¤g6+ ¢d6÷ with a very unclear play) The game Beckhuis − SteingrimssonEU−ch Plovdiv 2008 continued 16...c5 (16...£f8 17.£c2 was far from clear., but 16...£g8!?
was interesting and perhaps would promise the better chances for Black) 17.f4! and here 17...cxd4! was probably stronger. A possible play could have been 18.¥xe6! (18.fxg5? ¤xe5-+) 18...¤xf4! 19.¤f5+ ¢xe6 20.¤xg7+ ¢f7 21.¤h5 ¦f8!³ and although White keeps the initiative Black's chances seem preferable.
12...¤xd7
45
12...£xd7 13.e5 ¤d5 14.¤e4 ¥f8 does not look encouraging for Black.
13.¥d6
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zpl+n+pvl-0 9-+pvLp+-zp0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
13...a6!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9+l+n+pvl-0 9p+pvLp+-zp0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
A very important position is reached. White has some possibilities and it is still unclear
which is the most promising. In the game Izoria − Riazantsev/Ajaccio Corsica 2005 Black came up with 13...e5?! but it
has been refuted by the very strong 14.¥g4! h5 (In case of 14...exd4 White had 15.e5!!)
15.¥xd7+ £xd7 16.dxe5± and White achieved a huge advantage. 13...¥f8!? is another option: 14.¥xf8 ¢xf8 15.e5© Black's approach does not look safe but
perhaps he can still play like this − the position remains far from clear although White's compensation for the pawn seems more than sufficient.
14.a4
46
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9+l+n+pvl-0 9p+pvLp+-zp0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9P+pzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9-zP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
14.e5!? deserves attention: 14...c5 15.¥h5! (15.d5 can be met by 15...¤xe5 16.dxe6 ¤d3!
17.exf7+ (17.¥xd3?! £xd6! 18.exf7+ ¢f8! gives Black the better ending) 17...¢xf7 18.¥xd3 cxd3 19.£xd3 The game Babula − M.Hoffmann/GER−chT Bremen 2010, continued 19...£f6! A good idea, which probably solves Black's problems in this particular line. Building a battery on the long a8−h1 diagonal is a rather important resource. (In case of 19...£d7 White may still hope for a slight edge: 20.£g3!? b4!? (20...£f5 21.f4 g4 22.¥e5 ¦he8 23.¦ae1 ¦ad8 24.¤d1ƒ) 21.¤d1 ¥d4 22.¤e3 ¦he8 23.¦ad1 £c6 24.¤f5² and White's chances look somewhat better) 20.¥xc5?! This is dubious. (White could have considered 20.¦ad1 ¦he8!? 21.£g3 c4 22.f4 ¢g8, and 20.£g3 ¦he8!?
21.¥xc5 £c6 22.¦ad1 ¦ad8 but Black was doing well in all cases) 20...£c6 21.£f5+ ¥f6 22.f3 £c8! 23.£xc8 ¦hxc8ƒ and it was White who began to experience problems) 15...¥f8! The best defence − Black eliminates White's dominating bishop. 16.d5!? (16.¥xf8 ¤xf8 17.¥f3 £d7÷ leads to unclear play with mutual chances)
16...¥xd6 17.exd6!? (in the game Agrest − Vallejo Pons/FRA−chT Asnieres sur Seine 2006 White invited his opponent's king to go for a walk by 17.¥xf7+ ¢xf7 18.dxe6+ ¢g7 and here 19.£xd6!? seemed stronger (19.exd6?! ¤e5! 20.f4 ¤d3 21.£h5
£f6! has been proved better for Black ) although after 19...¤f8 20.e7 £xd6 21.exd6 ¤d7 22.f4 Black's chances do not seem worse in this very complicated endgame) 17...0-0!÷ This very complicated position requires more analysis and practical tests.
The very energetic 14.¥h5!? is also interesting and may promise better chances for White: 14...¥f8!? At first sight this continuation looks suspicious. Black plays a wasteful move just to exchange the dark−squared bishops, which does not look good for him because of the pawn structure. However, White's bishop on d6 is too strong and it makes all other reasoning insignificant. (14...e5 is a risky approach. Black prevents e4−e5, which would give support to the bishop on d6, but such a central push will prove harmful for his insecure king. 15.f4!
47
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9+l+n+pvl-0 9p+pvL-+-zp0 9+p+-zp-zpL0 9-+pzPPzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
A wonderful blow − White is trying to get to the Black king at any cost! 15...gxf4!? a) 15...exd4?! is dubious: 16.£g4 ¤f8 The game Pashikian − Deepan
Chakkravarthy/WCh U20 Yerevan 2006 continued 17.fxg5 (17.¥xf7+!? was also rather interesting − White's chances were preferable in the wild complications after 17...¢xf7 18.fxg5+ ¢e8 19.gxh6 ¥xh6 20.¥c5! ¥g5! (20...¥e3+ 21.¢h1 £c7 22.¦xf8+
¦xf8 23.£e6+ ¢d8 24.¥xf8 £d7 25.£f6+ ¢c8 26.¥c5±) 21.e5! with a strong initiative) 17...£xd6 18.¦xf7 ¢d8 19.¦xg7 and Black found himself in trouble.
b) 15...exf4!? 16.e5 £b6 is also worth considering. 16.dxe5 ¤xe5!? (16...¥xe5 was met by 17.¥xf7+! ¢xf7 18.£h5+‚ with a strong attack although
Black is still very much alive) 17.¦xf4 White's position looks threatening but Black can defend: 17...¦h7! 18.¦f5 £b6+ 19.¢h1 ¦d8 20.¥xf7+! ¤xf7 21.£h5 ¥xc3 22.¥c5! Here Black has to give up his queen but he gets some pieces for it: 22...£xc5! (22...£c7? 23.£g6!) 23.¦xc5 ¥d4 24.¦f1!? (24.¦f5 ¥c8) 24...¥xc5 25.£g6! ¥c8 26.£xh7 ¥e6 27.£g6 ¢e7 28.£f6+ ¢d7 29.¦d1+ ¢c7 30.¦xd8 ¤xd8 31.£xh6 ¥d4² and Black has reasonable counter chances although his play is more difficult here as his opponent can just push the K−side pawns, supporting them with possible queen tricks. Besides, both sides might improve their play in the above variations so we may expect more encounters in the future) 15.¥xf8 ¦xf8 16.e5!? (16.d5?! can be well met by 16...cxd5 17.exd5 ¤f6! 18.dxe6 (18.¦e1?! could have been parried by 18...¢e7! and after 19.¥f3 b4! 20.d6+ (both 20.£a4 £b6, and 20.¤e2?! ¥xd5 21.¤d4
¦e8 were also in Black's favour.) 20...£xd6 21.¥xb7 bxc3 22.¥xa8 cxb2 23.£xd6+ ¢xd6 24.¦ad1+ ¢c5 25.¥f3 ¦b8 White might have been lost with his extra rook in the ending!) 18...£xd1 19.¥xf7+ ¢e7 20.¦axd1 ¦fd8 The extra pawn does not help White to claim advantage in this ending − moreover, he must already be very careful, Radjabov − Van Wely/Wijk aan Zee 2008) 16...£b6 17.¤e4 (the immediate 17.b3!? is worthy of consideration but Black is holding on: 17...0-0-0 (17...c5?! 18.d5!
0-0-0 19.bxc4 ¤xe5 20.cxb5ƒ is suspicious for Black) 18.bxc4 ¤xe5 19.c5 £a5 20.¤e4 ¤c4! A small improvement, which solves all the problems. (In the game Kramnik − Anand/WCh Mexico City 2007 Black played 20...£b4 and after 21.¤d6+ ¦xd6 22.cxd6
¤d7 23.a4 £xd6 rather logical play has led to this position, in which White's chances look preferable. He has an extra exchange and chances to create threats against his opponent's king. However, Black's two extra pawns should also be counted and it is actually not so easy for White to get at Black's king) 21.¥e2 f5! 22.¥xc4 (the attempt
48
22.a4 could be met by the cool 22...£b4!, getting good play after 23.axb5 cxb5 24.¦b1
£a4! 25.¥xc4 £xc4 26.¤d6+ ¦xd6 27.cxd6 £d5 28.£c1+ ¥c6 29.f3 £xd6 and so on)
22...fxe4 23.¥xe6+ ¢b8 24.¦e1 £c3 25.¦xe4 £b2!? and White equalised with accurate play after 26.f3 in the game Eljanov − Anand/ECC Kemer 2007) 17...0-0-0 18.¤d6+ ¢b8 19.b3!? This typical undermining move deserves serious attention. (19.¤xf7?! ¦xf7! 20.¥xf7 ¤xe5 21.¥xe6 ¦xd4 22.£h5 c5ƒ gave Black excellent play in the game Radjabov − Anand/Mainz (m/3) rapid 2006) 19...f6 (19...c3!? is worthy of consideration) 20.bxc4 fxe5 and after 21.c5! £c7 22.dxe5ƒ White's chances look preferable − he can follow with £e2, getting the rooks into play and launching an attack against Black's king, using the wonderful knight outpost on d6.
14.¦e1!? is a fresh and interesting continuation − before starting anything White places his rook on the e−file, preparing for a possible opening of the center. 14...¥f8!? Perhaps the best reply.
a) 14...c5?! is risky and probably dubious: 15.dxc5! ¦c8 16.a4 b4 17.c6! ¥xc6 18.¥xb4!? White gets the pawn back, still keeping Black's king in the center. (In the game Inarkiev − Aronian/World Cup Khanty−Mansiysk 2007 White continued 18.¤d5! ¤e5?! (after 18...¥xb2? 19.¥e7 £a5 20.¥xb4 £d8 21.¥xc4‚ White gets a very strong initiative) 19.¥e7 and here Black sacrificed his queen for two minor pieces by 19...£d7!? (19...£a5!? 20.¥xb4 £d8 21.¤e7 seemed better for White but perhaps they know that after 21...¦b8 22.£xd8+ ¦xd8 23.¤xc6 ¤xc6 24.¥a3 ¤e5 followed by ...¥g7−f8 Black can defend this ending) 20.¤f6+ ¢xe7 21.¤xd7 ¥xd7, extinguishing White's initiative and getting good control over the position but objectively White's chances should be preferable 22.£d2 a5 and here White could have secured a tangible advantage by 23.¦ed1! ¦hd8 24.£d6+ ¢e8 25.£b6±) 18...£b6 19.¥a3 ¥d4! This position arose in the game Mamedyarov − Gustafsson/Dortmund 2008, which continued 20.¥xc4! (in case of 20.¦f1 ¤e5 Black's control over some important central squares would secure his king by keeping White's pieces on distance)
20...¤e5 (20...¥xf2+?! 21.¢h1 ¥xe1 was dubious because of 22.£d6! £d8 23.¦xe1 ¤f8
24.£b4 with a big advantage) and here White should have inserted 21.a5! (21.¥xa6?
¥xf2+ 22.¢h1 ¦d8! was okay for Black) 21...£a7 (21...¥xf2+ 22.¢h1 £d8 wasn't better: 23.¥xa6 ¥xe1 24.£xe1 ¦b8 25.£f1! followed by ¦a1-d1 with a strong initiative)
22.¥xa6! ¥xf2+ 23.¢h1 and here in case of 23...¦d8 White had a very strong resource 24.¤b5!!, which could have secured a decisive advantage
b) perhaps Black should pay more attention to other possibilities, such as 14...£b6!? 15.¥g3!? (in case of 15.¥xf8 Black should capture with the king, moving it from the e−file
and so making White's rook move a bit useless: 15...¢xf8! (15...¦xf8?! seems worse − compare to the game Radjabov − Anand/Mainz rapid (m/3) 2006 White has played the more useful ¦f1-e1 instead of ¥e2−h5: 16.b3! b4 (16...c5 17.bxc4 £a5 18.¦c1 does not look acceptable for Black − his king is in real danger since he cannot prevent the position opening) 17.¤a4 c3 18.a3 a5 19.d5! £e7 20.d6 £f6 21.e5! £f4 22.¥d3! and White has obtained a clear advantage, Radjabov − Anand/Wijk aan Zee 2008) 16.b3 (or 16.e5 c5 with excellent counterplay) 16...cxb3 17.£xb3 ¢g7 with acceptable play. White keeps compensation for the pawn but Black can be also satisfied with his position) 15...¥g7 16.e5!? White admits that the bishop's sortie is well parried but now Black moves his king from the center. Yet, the K−side is not quite safe and White can also send his knight to d6 or c5. On the other side, Black has got extra
49
pawn to compensate these minuses. 16...c5!? A principled reply. (after 16...0-0 White stopped ...c6−c5 by 17.¥f3 The game Inarkiev − Cheparinov/FIDE Grand Prix Baku 2008 continued 17...£e7 (Black did not want to move his queen from the K−side but perhaps he could give support to his bishop by 17...¦b8!? ) 18.¤e4 ¤b6 (18...c5!? deserved attention despite all the danger: 19.¤xg5! hxg5 20.¥xb7 ¦ab8 21.¥e4
cxd4 22.£h5 ¦fc8! 23.f4 gxf4 24.£h7+ ¢f8 25.¥xf4 d3 26.¢h1 and here Black would have defended by 26...f5! although the position remained rather dangerous for him. Yet, this line deserves more thorough analysis...) 19.£e2 ¦ad8 20.¦ad1 ¤d5 21.a3 with better chances for White) 17.d5 0-0 18.¥f3 £b6 (in the game Radjabov − Aronian/Sofia 2008 Black tried 18...¦a7?!, which is probably dubious: 19.dxe6 ¥xf3 (In case of 19...fxe6 20.£d6 (20.¥g4!? £e7 21.£d6 was also promising) 20...¥xf3 (20...£b6 21.¥g4!) 21.£xe6+ ¢h8 22.gxf3 White's chances should have been preferred) 20.exf7+ ¦xf7 21.gxf3 and White has achieved a clear advantage) 19.a4!? (19.dxe6 ¥xf3 20.£xf3 £xe6 is okay for Black) 19...b4 20.a5 £a7 (or 20...£c7 21.d6 £b8
22.¤a4 ¥xf3 23.£xf3 £b5 24.h4!? gxh4 25.¥f4, disturbing Black's K−side, which certainly lacks defenders) 21.¤a4² White's chances seem preferable since Black's queen went too far from his weakened K−side. However, everything is still very unclear in such a messy position.
14...e5
14...b4!? is a new and very interesting attempt to solve Black's problems in this principled and well−developed line. 15.¥xb4 £b6 16.¥a3 £xd4 17.£c2 Certainly White should keep the queens on the board if he wants to exploit the vulnerability of his opponent's king. (The ending after 17.£xd4?! ¥xd4 18.¥xc4 c5 can hardly pose serious problems to Black: 19.¤e2 ¥e5 20.f3 0-0 21.¦ac1 ¦fc8 22.¦fd1 ¦c7 with a solid position)
17...c5 18.¦ad1 £e5 19.¥xc4 £c7! Preparing castling and vacating the strong e5−square for the minor pieces. In the game Harikrishna − Sandipan/King of Prussia 2010, White came up with 20.¥b5!? (Routine play, such as 20.¦d2 0-0 21.¦fd1 ¦fd8
was rather harmless for Black) 20...¥c6 ( Accepting the gift still seemed possible: 20...axb5!? 21.¤xb5 £c6 22.¦d6 £xe4! 23.¦xe6+! £xe6 24.¤c7+ ¢d8 25.¤xe6+ fxe6 and Black has enough for the queen. However, it might not be easy to play against the queen with such an open king.) 21.¥xc6 £xc6 22.¤e2² and White has maintained a slight edge.
15.¥g4!?
15.d5 is a logical alternative: 15...c5 16.b4!? This strange−looking move helps White to secure his bishop. (16.axb5?! could be fatal for the bishop on d6 after 16...£b6)
16...£b6! A strong idea. (After 16...cxb4 17.¥xb4 a5 18.¥d6 b4 19.¤b5 ¦c8 White break through the c−file by 20.¥xc4! ¦xc4 21.£b3! A strong novelty, which poses certain problems for Black. (In the game Izoria − Erenburg/World Cup Khanty Mansyisk 2005 White played 21.¦c1 and after 21...¦xc1 22.£xc1 £b6! he had to force repetition of moves by 23.¤c7+ ¢d8 24.¤b5 ¢e8 25.¤c7+) 21...£c8
50
a) in case of 21...¦c8 White continues by 22.¦ac1 ¥f8 23.¦xc8 £xc8 24.£e3 £c2! (24...¤f6? 25.¦c1 £d8 26.¤c7+! ¢d7 27.¥xe5+−) 25.¦c1 £b2 26.h3! with a rather annoying initiative
b) 21...¤b6!? deserved attention but it does not solve all the problems: 22.¦ac1 ¦xc1 23.¦xc1 ¤a8! 24.£e3! ¥f6 (24...£d7 25.£a7 f6 26.¥c7!±) 25.£f3! ¦g8!? 26.£e3!, maintaining a strong initiative while Black is already deprived from castling.
22.¥c7! £xc7 (Or 22...¦xc7 23.¤d6+) 23.¤xc7+ ¦xc7 24.¦ac1ƒ and White has secured the better chances and comfortably won the game although Black could still defend, Gustafsson − Rodshtein/World Cup Khanty−Mansiysk 2007.) 17.bxc5 ¤xc5 18.¥xc5 £xc5 19.axb5 axb5 20.¦xa8+ ¥xa8 21.£a1 0-0 22.£a5 ¦b8 23.¦b1 ¥f8 The forced play has led to the position, in which White wins the b5−pawn but it is not sufficient for him to get a full point. The game Alekseev − Bareev/World Cup Khanty−Mansiysk 2007 continued 24.¤xb5 (after 24.¦xb5 ¦xb5 25.£xb5 (or 25.¤xb5 ¥b7 26.£a4 c3 27.£c2 ¥a6 28.£xc3 ¥xb5 29.£xc5 ¥xc5 30.¥xb5) 25...£xb5 26.¤xb5 Black escapes to the ending with opposite−squared bishops by 26...¥b7! 27.¥xc4 ¥a6 28.¢f1 ¥xb5 29.¥xb5 ¥c5=) 24...f5! 25.£a6 and here 25...fxe4! seemed more precise. After 26.£e6+ ¢h7!= White had no more than perpetual check.
An idea of Vladimir Kramnik 15.¦e1!? deserves attention: 15...£f6 (15...exd4? is too dangerous: 16.e5 dxc3 17.¥h5 with decisive attack) 16.¥a3 ¥f8 (16...exd4? is strongly met by the obvious 17.e5!, but a preliminary 16...¦d8 is worthy of consideration)
17.¥g4 ¦d8 The game Kramnik − Leko/Nice (rapid) 2009 continued 18.axb5 axb5 19.¥xf8 ¢xf8 20.¥xd7 ¦xd7 21.dxe5 £e6! 22.£h5 £xe5 23.f4! and White has eventually prevailed though Black can probably find the way to defend his position.
15...exd4 16.e5 c5!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9+l+n+pvl-0 9p+-vL-+-zp0 9+pzp-zP-zp-0 9P+pzp-+L+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Compared to the game considered above, Izoria − Riazantsev/Ajaccio Corsica 2005, the
b5−pawn is already protected. or
17.¦e1
51
17.¥f3!? seems rather promising − in many cases after eliminating the strong black light−squared bishop Black's position may lose its attractiveness. However, he has good counter chances after 17...¤xe5! (17...¦a7? has been proved bad in the game ljin − Nepomniashchy/EU−ch Dresden 2007: 18.¥xb7 ¦xb7 19.¤e4 ¤xe5 20.axb5 axb5 21.f4!
gxf4 22.£h5!‚ and White launched a decisive attack) 18.¥xb7 (18.¥xe5? ¥xf3!)
18...£xd6 19.¥xa8 0-0 Black does not get his rook back but he hopes that the powerful pawns, supported by his strong pieces, will promise reasonable compensation. 20.f4!? (20.¤e4 £c7 21.axb5 ¦xa8 is fine for Black) 20...gxf4 (not 20...¦xa8? 21.fxe5 ¥xe5 22.¤e4) 21.¥e4!? (21.¥f3 ¤xf3+ 22.¦xf3 £e5÷) 21...b4 (or 21...f5
22.¥d5+ ¢h8 23.axb5 axb5 24.¥f3 with similar play but the opened a−file would be helpful for White) 22.¤d5 f5 23.¥f3÷ with very complicated play, in which White's chances still look preferable as Black's king is not quite safe and White will get a chance to organise a strong attack. Black's pawns should not be underestimated and White may also face problems but it still seems that it's easier to play with an extra rook.
17.f4!? is a surprising idea, which poses some problems for Black. However, they seem to be bearable: 17...dxc3 (17...gxf4!? was worth considering but perhaps it would be useful for Black in the line 17. ¥f3, 18.¥f3! (18.¦xf4?! ¤xe5∓, 18.e6? ¤f6-+) 18...¤xe5 19.¥xb7 £xd6 20.¥xa8 0-0 see 17. ¥f3) 18.bxc3 This position arose in the game Bacrot − Aronian/EU−chT Novi Sad 2009, which continued 18...¥f8! 19.£e2 ¥xd6 20.exd6+ ¢f8 21.fxg5 hxg5 22.¥e6! ¦h7! 23.£c2! and here Black failed to find the only defence: 23...¦g7! 24.£f5! ¤f6! 25.£xf6 £xf6 26.¦xf6 ¦d8 and Black should have held the balance. For example, 27.¦af1 ¦xd6 28.¦xf7+ ¦xf7 29.¦xf7+ ¢e8 30.¦xb7 ¦xe6 31.axb5 axb5 32.¦xb5 ¦e5 33.¢f2² with only a theoretical advantage for White thanks to his better pawn structure.
17...¤xe5!
17...dxc3? was losing to 18.e6 ¤f6 19.¥h5! ¤xh5 20.£xh5 £f6 21.exf7+ ¢d7 22.¦ad1 ¢c6 23.¥e5+−
18.¥xe5 0-0 19.¥xg7 ¢xg7 20.¤e2 f5 21.¥h5 f4
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-tr-+0 9+l+-+-mk-0 9p+-+-+-zp0 9+pzp-+-zpL0 9P+pzp-zp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-zP-+NzPPzP0 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
52
Black has got safety for his king and a strong pawn massive in the center.
22.b4!?
Trying to break Black's formidable pawn massive. 22.¤xd4!? is an interesting attempt, which, however, may not be sufficient to obtain the
advantage. 22...cxd4 23.¦e6 Now White is two pawns down but Black's king is in danger and so he must solve concrete problems. 23...¦f6! This seems to be the most precise defence. (after 23...¥c8 Black faced problems in the game Anand − Leko/Tal Memorial Moscow 2009: 24.¦g6+ ¢h7 25.axb5 ¦f6 26.¦xf6 £xf6 27.£c2+ ¥f5 28.£xc4 ¦c8
29.£d5 axb5 30.h3! and he couldn't cope with the problems) 24.£e1 ¥d5! (24...¦xe6?
gives White a strong initiative after 25.£xe6 £c7 26.¦e1!ƒ) 25.¦e7+ ¢g8 (25...¥f7?
failed to 26.£e5!+−, while after 25...¢f8?! 26.¦e8+ £xe8 27.¥xe8 ¦xe8 28.£b4+ ¢f7
29.£c5 followed by £c5xd4 White would have obtained good winning chances)
26.axb5 £d6! This position arose in the game M.Hoffmann − Sandipan/Caleta 2010. Perhaps White could have still obtained somewhat better chances by 27.¥g4! ¦f7 (27...axb5? 28.¦xa8+ ¥xa8 29.¦d7‚) 28.¦e5ƒ, maintaining the pressure.
22...cxb3
22...d3!? deserves serious attention. After 23.bxc5 Black plays 23...b4! with excellent counter chances thanks to his strong Q−side pawns. Yet, top players should know more about this line...
23.£xb3 £d5 24.£h3 ¥c8
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-tr-+0 9+-+-+-mk-0 9p+-+-+-zp0 9+pzpq+-zpL0 9P+-zp-zp-+0 9+-+-+-+Q0 9-+-+NzPPzP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
25.¤c3!
This strong idea helps still allows White to fight for advantage. 25.£d3?! ¥f5 26.£d2 £d7 was fine for Black, who has eventually scored the full point in
the game Radjabov − Anand/Mainz (m/7) rapid 2006.
53
25...dxc3
In case of 25...£d8 26.£f3 ¦a7 27.axb5 dxc3 28.£xc3+ £d4 White would have found a few better options than 29.£f3, transposing to the game.
26.£xc3+ £d4 27.£f3
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-tr-+0 9+-+-+-mk-0 9p+-+-+-zp0 9+pzp-+-zpL0 9P+-wq-zp-+0 9+-+-+Q+-0 9-+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
White keeps the initiative but Black seems to be able to defend his position with precise
defence, Kramnik − Aronian/Wijk aan Zee 2008.
54
Moscow Variation/8 6. Bh4 − 9...Bb7 10.
h4 NOT 10...g4 [D43]
Last updated: 30/01/03 by R.Scherbakov
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 ¥g5 h6 6 ¥h4 dxc4 7 e4 g5 8 ¥g3 b5 9 ¥e2 ¥b7 10 h4
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-zp-0 9-+pzPP+-zP0 9+-sN-+NvL-0 9PzP-+LzPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
Recently this is the main White's attempt to put problems for Black and it almost distracted
his attention from other possibilities.
10...b4
55
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+-+-+-zp-0 9-zppzPP+-zP0 9+-sN-+NvL-0 9PzP-+LzPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
10...¥b4?! looks too suspicious as Black leaves his kingside to the mercy of fate. After 11
hxg5 ¤xe4 12 ¥e5! (12 g6 is weaker as it allows Black to eliminate a very important bishop by 12...¤xg3!? 13 gxf7+ ¢xf7 14 fxg3 ¤d7 15 £c2 Here in the game Wallace − Solomon/Oceanic zt Gold Coast 1999 Black should have probably played 15...£c7!?
16 0-0-0 ¦ag8 17 ¤e4 ¢e7 planning his king's escape to the queenside by ...¢d8−c8 with a very good play) Black faces problems. For example, 12...¤xc3? is just bad: 13 bxc3 ¥xc3+ 14 ¢f1 ¥xa1 15 ¥xh8+− and so on.
11 hxg5!?
An interesting option. 11 ¤a4 ¤xe4 12 ¥e5 (12 ¥xc4?! is just dubious: 12...¤xg3 13 fxg3 ¤d7 14 hxg5 £c7! 15 ¦h3 0-0-0
16 £d2 ¥d6 17 gxh6 ¥xg3+ 18 ¢f1 ¥f4 19 £xb4 ¥xh6∓ with a clear advantage for Black)
a) 12...f6 seems to be weaker due to a1) 13 £c2 is too risky: 13...c5 14 ¥xc4!? (14 ¥xb8 ¦xb8 is not what White is playing for)
14...fxe5 15 0-0-0 exd4 16 ¦he1© with real compensation for the large material losses although Black should not be worse, R.Scherbakov − Yagupov/St.Petersburg 1999
a2) 13 ¥xb8!? 13...¦xb8 14 hxg5 White can already be happy as material is nearly equal. (14 ¥xc4 looks less promising: 14...g4 15 £c2 f5 16 0-0-0!? gxf3 17 gxf3 ¤d6 18 ¥xe6©
Thanks to the piece sacrifice White has gained the time to complete his development. Now he is ready to attack the uncastled rival's king. Black's play is not easy as his army is disorganised for the moment but the material advantage would reconcile him with these inconveniences, J.Gonzales − Novikov/New York 2001.)
a2a) Both 14...¤xg5?! 15 ¤xg5 fxg5 16 ¥xc4 a2b) and 14...fxg5?! 15 ¤e5 look dodgy for Black a2c) A rather strange looking 14...b3 was tried in the game S.Ivanov − Sitnikov/Smolensk
2000 which continued by 15 axb3 and here Black should have played 15...¥b4+ (after 15...fxg5? 16 0-0± Black had no compensation for his totally ruined position) 16 ¢f1 and after 16...fxg5 Black's counterplay (for example ...g5−g4 followed by an attack on f2) should not be underestimated although White's chances look preferable
a2d) 14...£a5!?
56
a2d1) after 15 b3 ¤xg5 16 ¥xc4 £f5 17 ¤h4 (The position after 17 ¤xg5 £xg5 18 ¥xe6 £xg2
19 £h5+ ¢d8 is not too dangerous for Black.) 17...£e4+ 18 ¢f1© White has obtained compensation for the pawn but Black can also be satisfied with his position, Halkias − Filipenko/Pardubice 2000.
a2d2) Here White can think about something like 15 ¥xc4!? 15...b3+ 16 ¢f1 £xa4 17 axb3 £b4 18 £e2ƒ with the initiative
b) 12...¦g8!? leads to very unclear play. 13 £c2 (13 hxg5 hxg5 14 ¥xc4 ¤d7÷ looks acceptable for Black) The game I.Sokolov − Dreev/Dos Hermanas 2001 continued by 13...c5 14 ¥xc4 g4 15 ¥b5+ ¤d7 16 dxc5! The advance c5−c6 seems irresistible, however... 16...b3!! An excellent move − Black makes the b4−square available for his bishop. Here White should have probably played 17 axb3!? gxf3 18 0-0-0! fxg2 19 ¦hg1÷ with sharp and unclear play.
11...bxc3 12 bxc3
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+-+-+-zP-0 9-+pzPP+-+0 9+-zP-+NvL-0 9P+-+LzPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
Unbelievable! At first glance this seems dubious but looking at the position more carefully,
we notice that the open b−file could give Black a headache. 12 gxf6 cxb2 13 ¦b1 £a5+ 14 ¤d2 c3 15 0-0 was also tried but Black seems to be fine
here: 15...¥a6!? (15...cxd2 16 ¦xb2 ¥b4 17 ¦b3! followed by a2−a3 allows White to win back his piece) 16 ¤b3!? (in case of 16 ¤c4?! £xa2 White is forced to retreat the knight back: 17 ¤e3 ¥xe2 18 £xe2 ¤d7 with clearly better chances for Black)
16...£xa2 17 ¤c5 ¥b5! 18 £c2 £a3∓ and White has not found sufficient resources to break Black's position, Atalik − Dreev/Bosnia 2001.
12...¤xe4 13 ¥e5 ¦h7
The alternatives 13...¦g8 14 gxh6 f6 and 13...¤xc3 look dangerous for Black but of course need to be tested.
14 £c2 £a5
In case of 14...c5 15 ¦b1 ¥c6 (15...¥d5?! 16 ¥xb8 ¦xb8?? 17 £a4+ winning) 16 ¥xc4ƒ with the idea of Bd3 White keeps the initiative.
57
15 0-0ƒ
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+kvl-+0 9zpl+-+p+r0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9wq-+-vL-zP-0 9-+pzPn+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9P+Q+LzPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
White has obtained a strong initiative for the piece, S.Ivanov − Potkin/St.Petersburg 2000.
58
Moscow Variation/9 6. Bh4 − 10. h4 g4
11. Ne5 various [D43]
Last updated: 08/02/11 by R.Scherbakov
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.¥g5 h6 6.¥h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.¥g3 b5 9.¥e2
The same position might be reached via a different order of moves: 9.¤e5 h5 10.h4 g4 11.¥e2 ¥b7 etc.
9...¥b7 10.h4 g4 11.¤e5
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-sN-+-0 9-+pzPP+pzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+LzPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
There are some other options.
11...h5
59
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+p+-sN-+p0 9-+pzPP+pzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+LzPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
Black does not want to give up his g4−pawn. 11...b4?! 12.¤a4 ¤xe4 is suspicious for Black: 13.¥xc4 ¤xg3 (or 13...h5 14.£e2 ¤xg3
15.fxg3 ¦h6 16.0-0 f5 17.d5! £a5 (17...¥g7 18.¦xf5) 18.¦xf5!‚ with a decisive attack) 14.fxg3 ¤d7 and now after the typical 15.¤xf7! ¢xf7 16.£xg4 £e7 17.0-0+ ¢e8 (17...¤f6? loses after 18.¦xf6+! £xf6 19.¦f1 £xf1+ 20.¢xf1 ¦e8 21.£h5+ ¢e7 22.£e5 ¦h7
23.£c7++−) 18.¥xe6 ¥c8™ 19.¦ae1 ¢d8 20.d5!ƒ Black found himself in trouble, Khalifman − Dreev/Elista 1998.
12.0-0
Garry Kasparov drew our attention to the immediate 12.f3!?, which looks rather double−edged and unclear. 12...¤bd7 13.fxg4 hxg4 (13...¤xe5 has also been tried: 14.¥xe5
hxg4 15.¥xg4 ¦h6!? with wild play although White's chances look preferable here)
14.0-0 This position has been tested in the game Kasparov − Dreev/RUS−ch Moscow 2004, which continued 14...¤xe5 15.¥xe5 ¤d7! (passive defence does not help Black much: 15...¥e7 16.£d2 ¦xh4? 17.£f4‚ with a decisive attack, but perhaps 15...¦h6!? is not so bad for Black) 16.¥xh8 £xh4 17.¥xg4 £xh8 18.e5!
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-wq0 9zpl+n+p+-0 9-+p+p+-+0 9+p+-zP-+-0 9-+pzP-+L+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+P+0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
18...0-0-0! (In the game Kasparov − Dreev/RUS−ch Superfinal Moscow 2004 Black failed
to hold the endgame after 18...¤xe5?! 19.dxe5 ¥c5+ 20.¦f2 £xe5 21.£e2 £xe2 22.¥xe2 ¦d8
23.¢f1 ¥xf2 24.¢xf2±) 19.£e1! (19.£e2 can be well met by 19...c5!„ as can be seen in
60
the game Bacrot − Dreev/Poikovsky 2005) 19...£g7 (after 19...c5 20.¤xb5 a6 (20...cxd4? 21.£a5+−) 21.¤a3 cxd4 22.¤xc4± the d−pawn advance comes without tempo!) 20.¦f4!?² White looks better but Black is certainly not without counter chances.
12...¤bd7
12...¥g7 was also tried.
13.£c2
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+p+-0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+p+-sN-+p0 9-+pzPP+pzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzPQ+LzPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
13.d5?! is not so good due to 13...¤xe5 14.¥xe5 ¥d6! 15.¥xd6 £xd6 16.dxe6 £xe6
17.£d4 £e7! with better chances for Black, Kohlweyer − M.Gurevich/chT−BEL 1999.
13...¤xe5
13...¥g7 14.¦ad1 £b6 can be strongly met by a typical idea for these positions 15.¤a4! and after 15...£a5 (15...bxa4 is maybe better: 16.¤xc4 £b4 17.e5 ¤d5 18.a3 £b3 19.£xb3 axb3
20.¤d6+ ¢e7 21.¤xb7 a5 22.¦c1 with advantage for White) 16.¤c5 ¤xc5 17.dxc5 £b4 18.¦d6! £xc5 19.¦fd1± White takes a strong initiative.
13...¥e7 is rarely played. In the game Bocharov − Sveshnikov/RUS−ch Krasnoyarsk 2003 White achieved a promising looking position after 14.¦ad1 £b6 (14...a6 15.b3 cxb3
16.axb3 ¤xe5 17.¥xe5 also looks promising for White) 15.b3 cxb3 16.£xb3 ¦d8 17.d5!? but Black is not without counter chances.
14.¥xe5 ¥g7
61
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zpl+-+pvl-0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+p+-vL-+p0 9-+pzPP+pzP0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPQ+LzPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
An important position for this line. In the game Sakaev − Khenkin/Belgrade 1999 Black preferred to stay with the king in the
center by 14...¦g8 but it didn't solve the problems: 15.¦ad1 ¦g6 (in case of 15...¤d7
16.¥g3 £b6 17.b3 cxb3 18.axb3ƒ White keeps the initiative as well) 16.¥f4 ¥e7 17.g3 a6 18.b3 cxb3 19.axb3 ¥b4?! (19...¢f8!? deserved attention, with ...¢g8 next, evacuating the king from the centre) 20.¥d3!ƒ and White seized a strong initiative.
The rather unexpected 14...¥h6!?, introduced by Alexey Dreev, probably does not solve the problems. 15.¥g3!? This immediate bishop's retreat is rather interesting − similarly to his game against Svidler (against Grischuk, WCh Mexico City 2007, though Black's bishop was on g7) Grischuk does not waste time for rook's development.
a) 15.b3 seems less promising: 15...cxb3 16.axb3 0-0 17.¥d3 a1) 17.¦fd1!? £e7 (17...¤e8!? deserved serious attention) 18.¥g3 ¤d7 19.e5 f5
20.exf6 ¤xf6 21.¤e4 ¤xe4 22.£xe4 ¦f6 23.¥d3ƒ with a clear advantage for White in the game Krush − Erenburg, Las Vegas 2007
a2) 17.¥g3?! can be well met with 17...c5! 18.dxc5 b4 19.¦fd1! £c8 20.¤b5 ¤xe4 21.¤d6 £c6! 22.¥b5 £xc5 23.£xc5 ¤xc5 24.¤xb7 ¤xb7 25.¥c6 ¤c5 26.¥xa8 ¦xa8 with a drawish ending
a3) 17.g3?! is dubious: 17...¤e8! 18.d5 cxd5 19.exd5 ¥g7! 20.¥xg7 ¤xg7 with better chances for Black, Werle − Motylev/EU−ch Plovdiv 2008
17...¦e8! (both 17...¤e8 18.¤e2 £xh4 19.£c5!©, and 17...£e7 18.¥g3 ¤d7 19.e5 are better for White) 18.¤e2 (18.¦fd1!? ¤d7 19.¥g3 e5 20.d5!) 18...¤d7 19.¥d6! (after 19.¥g3?! e5 20.f3
¥e3+ 21.¢h2 exd4 22.fxg4 hxg4 23.¦f5 ¦e6 followed by ...¦e6−h6 Black gets the advantage) 19...e5 20.¤g3! (20.f4?! gxf3 21.¦xf3 ¦e6³) 20...exd4 21.¤f5© with reasonable compensation for a couple of pawns
b) We have already considered other options: 15.¦ad1 is a natural alternative: 15...0-0 16.¥g3 (16.b3!?) 16...£e7 17.e5 ¤d5 18.¤e4 f5 19.exf6 £h7! 20.¦fe1 (in the game A.Mastrovasilis − Avrukh/Athens 2005 White faced problems after 20.¥e5?! c5!
21.dxc5 £f5∓) 20...£f5! (20...c5? 21.dxc5 ¤b4 fails to 22.f7+! ¦xf7 23.¤f6+ ¦xf6 24.£xh7+
¢xh7 25.¦d7+ ¢g8 26.¦xb7±) 21.¥f1 (in his turn, Black prepared a strong counterblow in reply to 21.b3?! − 21...¤e3!! 22.fxe3 c5 23.¢h2 ¥xe4 24.£c3 £xf6³) 21...¤xf6 22.¤xf6+ ¦xf6 23.£c3© and White has got reasonable compensation for the pawn
c) an immediate 15.d5 has also been tried. Here Black should seriously think about 15...cxd5!? Then a possible line would be (15...0-0 16.dxe6 fxe6 17.¦ad1 ¤d7
62
18.¥g3 (18.b3!?) 18...£e7 19.e5 (not 19.¥d6?! £xh4 20.g3? £h3 21.¥xf8 ¤e5-+) 19...¦f5 (19...¥g7!? was worth considering though after 20.¦fe1 White's chances seemed preferable) 20.¤e4 ¦af8 21.¤d6 was better for White in the game A.Onischuk − Stripunsky, Reno 2001) 16.exd5 ¥xd5 (16...exd5 17.¤xb5ƒ) 17.¦ad1 (17.¤xd5 exd5
18.£f5 ¥g7÷, 17.a4 0-0! 18.axb5 ¤d7!, 17.¤xb5 0-0÷) 17...0-0 18.¥xf6 £xf6 19.¤xd5 exd5 20.¦xd5 a6 21.¦xh5 ¦ad8 22.¥xg4 ¦d2© with a good play for Black.
15...£xd4 (In case of 15...0-0 16.e5 followed by ¤c3−e4 White would have gained time for the move Rad1) 16.¦fd1 (White prefers to keep his other rook on a−file − 16.¦ad1
£b6 17.b3 cxb3 18.axb3© could have also promised a typical sufficient compensation for the pawn) 16...£b6 The game Grischuk − Karjakin/Odessa rapid 2008 continued 17.b3 cxb3 18.axb3 a6 and here 19.¥e5! deserved serious attention: 19...¥g7 (a tricky 19...g3 did not bring desired effect: 20.¥xg3 ¤g4 21.e5 ¥f4!? 22.¥xg4 ¥xg3 23.¥xe6!
£xf2+ 24.£xf2 ¥xf2+ 25.¢xf2 fxe6 26.¤e4 ¢e7 27.¤c5 ¥c8 28.¦d6± with domination in the ending) 20.£d2 ¦h6 21.b4 with better chances for White.
Black recently tried the interesting 14...¦h6!?, unpinning the knight: 15.¦ad1 ¤d7 16.¥g3 a6 17.d5 A highly logical push. (However, White could also try to make some preparations first, such as 17.b3 cxb3 18.axb3, removing Black's c4−pawn and so increasing the potential of the queen on c2 and bishop on e2) 17...cxd5 18.exd5© and White has maintained good compensation for the sacrificed pawn but Black can also play, S.Williams − Hillarp Persson/Reykjavik 2006.
15.b3!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zpl+-+pvl-0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+p+-vL-+p0 9-+pzPP+pzP0 9+PsN-+-+-0 9P+Q+LzPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
A typical break − White's main problem is that he cannot include the bishop on e2 in his
attack as the d3 square is unavailable, so the idea of eliminating the pawn on c4 looks reasonable.
White also tried other possibilities, mainly connected with the undermining b2−b3 and play in the center and on the K−side. 15.¦ad1 has been one of the main options but recently White fails to put problems for Black: 15...0-0 16.¥g3
a) 16.f3 was thought to be harmless for Black. However, in the game Zhao Xue − Karjakin/Cap d'Agde 2006 White came up with an interesting idea: 16...¤h7 17.¥xg7 ¢xg7 18.g3!? (Black has no problems after 18.fxg4 £xh4 19.gxh5 ¤g5 and many games ended by perpetual check after 20.£d2 (20.¥f3 f5! gives Black the
63
better chances) 20...¤h3+! 21.gxh3 £g3+=) 18...£c7 (Perhaps it was stronger to put pressure on White's d4−pawn by 18...£b6!? 19.¢h2 ¦ad8„ with good counter chances − this position might be a subject of future battles) 19.¢h2 f5 20.fxg4 fxg4 21.b3ƒ and has achieved a promising position.
b) here 16.b3!? also deserves attention. 16...¤d7 (16...¤h7 does not solve the problems completely. The game Kramnik −
Akopian/Dortmund 2000 continued 17.e5 f5 18.exf6 £xf6 and here White should have played 19.b3! removing the c4−pawn, which White's active possibilities very much increase.) 17.f3 c5! This strong idea of Vishy Anand gives Black sufficient counterplay. (Before Black only played 17...£b6 18.¢h1 (18.¢h2!? is also worthy of consideration. Black should probably react with the same 18...c5!? (in the game Onischuk − Lastin/RUS−chT Sochi 2005 Black played 18...¦ad8 19.fxg4 hxg4 20.¦f4 and after 20...e5?! (20...c5! was still preferable) 21.¦xg4 exd4 22.£c1! c5 23.¤xb5!± faced serious problems although later he managed to outplay his opponent) 19.d5 ¤e5÷ − this position is also rather important and requires thorough analysis and practical tests.) 18...c5! 19.d5 ¤e5 20.fxg4 hxg4!? 21.£c1
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zpl+-+pvl-0 9-wq-+p+-+0 9+pzpPsn-+-0 9-+p+P+pzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+L+P+0 9+-wQR+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy
21...¤d3! (After 21...exd5 22.¤xd5 ¥xd5 23.¦xd5 ¦ae8 24.¦f5ƒ White got the better chances in
the game Avrukh − I.Novikov/Calvia (ol) 2004.) 22.¥xd3 cxd3 23.¦xd3 b4! Pushing the knight and opening the a6−f1 diagonal for the bishop. This position arose in the game Van Wely − Kobalia/Aeroflot Open Moscow 2005. It seems that objectively it was stronger to play 24.¤a4!? but it could lead to a more or less forced draw after 24...£b5 25.¤xc5 ¦ac8 26.¥d6 ¦xc5! Black has to act quickly. 27.¥xc5 ¦c8 and White probably cannot get more than a perpetual check by 28.£f4 £xd3 29.£xf7+ ¢h7 30.£h5+ ¢g8 31.£f7+=) 18.dxc5 Probably the best continuation.
a) 18.¤xb5?! is dubious: 18...cxd4 19.¤xd4 £b6 20.¥f2 g3! 21.¥e3 £d8!ƒ and White couldn't prevent the dangerous ...£d8xh4 since 22.¥g5? failed to 22...¥xd4+! 23.¦xd4 £b6 24.¥e3 e5-+
b) 18.d5 is also not quite satisfactory for White: 18...¥d4+!? 19.¢h1 ¥e5! 20.f4 ¥xc3 21.bxc3 exd5 22.e5! (22.exd5?! ¦e8 23.¦fe1 £f6∓) 22...f5! with Black's superiority.
18...£e7 This position has been tested in the game Aronian − Anand/WCh Mexico City 2007. It seems that White should have played 19.¦d6 but Black had good counter chances after 19...¦ac8 20.¤xb5 ¦xc5 21.¦fd1 ¤e5„ and so on.
64
15.¥g3!? is a rather unexpected retreat, which deserves serious attention. White spends time moving the bishop back from its strong central position, leaving the d4−pawn unprotected. The main idea e4−e5 and ¤c3−e4 gains power after the black bishop has left the a3−f8 diagonal. 15...£xd4!? A principled and probably the best continuation. (Other continuations did not solve the problems either: 15...¤h7 16.e5
£xd4 17.¦ad1 £b6 18.¤e4 0-0 19.b3!ƒ, or 15...b4 16.¤a4 £xd4 17.¥xc4ƒ, Sakaev − Borovikov/ECC Halkidiki 2002, with a strong initiative in both cases) 16.¦ad1 (16.¦fd1 is an alternative − White leaves the other rook on a1 in order to increase the effect of the a−pawn advance. 16...£c5!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zpl+-+pvl-0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+pwq-+-+p0 9-+p+P+pzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzPQ+LzPP+0 9tR-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
An interesting option. (16...£b6 is the more popular retreat. After 17.a4ƒ White keeps a
promising initiative to compensate a couple of pawns. However, Black can be also be satisfied with his position. The game Khalifman − Kobalia/RUS−chT Sochi 2005 17...a6 (in case of 17...a5!? White should play 18.e5! (but not 18.£d2 b4! with a clear advantage for Black) 18...¤d7 19.¤e4ƒ with the initiative) 18.£d2 ¥h6 19.£d6! ¥f8 20.£e5 ¥e7 21.¥f4 ¦g8 and Black has achieved acceptable play. However, White might still find a way to maintain the better chances.) 17.¥d6 (In case of 17.e5
¤d5 18.¤e4 £b6 19.¤d6+ ¢f8 White might be missing his rook on the f−file) 17...£b6 This position arose in the game Grischuk − Svidler/WCh Mexico City 2007, which continued 18.a4 a6 19.e5 ¤d7! 20.a5 £a7 21.¤e4 c5! 22.¤g5 ¤xe5 23.¥xe5 ¥xe5 24.¥xc4!! bxc4 25.£a4+ ¢f8 26.¦d7 ¥d5! 27.¦d1! ¥d4! 28.¦xa7 ¦xa7 and it seems that Black can hold on with precise defence) 16...£b6 (16...£c5!? is more risky as it gives White time to get his knight to d6 by 17.e5 ¤d5 18.¤e4 £b6 19.¤d6+ while his f−rook could play an important role in the attack. However, things may not be so clear, for example, the straightforward approach 19...¢f8 20.¢h1 ¢g8 21.£e4 ¦f8 22.f3 is well met by 22...¥a8! 23.fxg4 £e3! 24.¦f3 £xe4 25.¤xe4 hxg4 26.¦a3 b4 with better chances for Black) 17.b3!? (In the game Wu Shaobin − Al Sayed/Asia−ch Doha 2003 White unsuccessfully tried 17.e5?! ¤d5 18.¤e4 and after 18...0-0-0! 19.¤d6+ ¦xd6 20.exd6 f5∓
Black has obtained a clear advantage) 17...cxb3 18.axb3 This position arose in the game Aronian − Gustafsson/World Cup Khanty−Mansiysk 2007, which continued 18...a6 19.¦d2 c5 20.¦d6 and here Black should have preferred 20...¥c6!? The move looks suspicious but it's probably the best defence as Black's pawn on c5 requires protection. Then a possible line would be (after 20...£a5?! 21.e5 ¤d7 22.¦fd1 0-0-0
23.¤e4 £c7 24.¤f6! White's initiative has become threatening) 21.e5 (White would
65
have considered many options, such as 21.¥e5 ¢e7 22.£d2, 21.¦fd1 £b7 22.e5 ¤d7, or maybe even 21.£c1!? ) 21...¤d7 22.¦fd1 (22.¤e4 ¥f8 23.¦fd1!? would also be worth considering) 22...0-0-0 (22...£b7!?) 23.¤e4 but here, compared to the game, Black could have played 23...¥xe5! with unclear play. For example, 24.¦xd7 ¦xd7 25.¦xd7 ¥xg3 26.¦xf7 ¥e5 27.¤xc5 g3! 28.¢f1 gxf2„ with reasonable counter chances.
15...cxb3
15...b4? 16.¤a4 c3 17.¤c5 is bad for Black 15...0-0!? deserves serious attention. Black gives up his extra pawn in order to get time for
counter actions. 16.bxc4 White has to spend time for capturing this pawn, which otherwise would become useful for Black. (16.¥g3? would be strongly met by 16...c5! 17.dxc5 (here a presence of the pawn on c4 allowed Black to counter 17.e5?
with 17...cxd4! 18.exf6 d3!) 17...b4 with better chances for Black. For example, 18.e5 bxc3 19.exf6 £xf6 20.¥xc4 ¦fc8 21.b4 a5 22.a3 £d4 23.£d3 axb4 24.axb4 ¥e4 25.£xd4 ¥xd4 and Black's passer on c3 becomes really annoying) 16...¤h7 17.¥xg7 ¢xg7 18.¦ad1 Apart from this natural move White has some interesting options.
a) 18.£d3!? deserves attention: 18...£xh4 19.cxb5 ¦fd8! (in case of 19...cxb5 20.£xb5 ¦ab8 21.£e5+! ¢g6 (21...£f6? 22.£xh5, 21...¤f6?? 22.g3) 22.¦ab1 £f6 23.£g3 £xd4 24.¦fd1 White could obtain good attacking prospects) 20.¦fd1 ¦ac8 21.a4² with somewhat better chances for White.
b) A tempting pawn push 18.d5 can be well met by 18...cxd5 19.exd5 bxc4 20.dxe6 £xh4! with a good play for Black, according to the tournament practice
c) A simple 18.cxb5!? cxb5 19.¤xb5 requires further investigation. 18...£xh4 19.cxb5 cxb5 20.¤xb5 ¦ac8! 21.£d3 This position arose in the game Grischuk −
Aronian/Linares 2009. Here Black could have solved all the problems by playing 21...g3! 22.£xg3+ (or 22.fxg3 £xe4 23.£xe4 ¥xe4 24.¥xh5 ¦c2) 22...£xg3 23.fxg3 ¥xe4 24.¥xh5 ¦c2 with good play in the ending.
16.axb3 0-0
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpl+-+pvl-0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+p+-vL-+p0 9-+-zPP+pzP0 9+PsN-+-+-0 9-+Q+LzPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
66
17.¥g3!
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpl+-+pvl-0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+p+-+-+p0 9-+-zPP+pzP0 9+PsN-+-vL-0 9-+Q+LzPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This is also a typical idea for such positions but, strangely enough, it has been rarely tried in
combination with b2−b3 and without a rook on d1. Meanwhile, it seems to be very strong!
17.¦ad1 has been tried more often but Black keeps reasonable defensive resources: 17...£e7!? (17...¤h7 has been played in the game Goldin − Novikov/New York 2000: 18.¥xg7 ¢xg7 19.g3÷ White's idea is simple − to open the kingside by f2−f3. However, Black's position doesn't look too bad) 18.¥g3 ¤d7 19.e5 with complicated play
In case of 17.¦fd1 £e7 Black gets acceptable play. For example, 18.¥f4 ¤d7 19.e5 f5! 20.exf6 ¤xf6 21.¥g5 c5! 22.d5 (22.¤xb5 a6 23.¤c3 £f7„) 22...exd5 23.¤xd5 ¥xd5 24.¦xd5 £e4 25.¦xc5 £xc2 26.¦xc2 ¤e4 with a roughly equal endgame.
17...c5!?
A typical break. Other options seem to be worse. Here in case of 17...£xd4 18.¦ad1 £b6 (other options are: 18...£b4 19.e5 ¤d5 20.¤e4, or
18...£c5 19.¥d6 £b6 20.e5 ¤e8 21.¥xf8 ¢xf8 22.¤e4 ¥xe5 23.£c1!ƒ) 19.e5 ¤d5 20.¤e4 White's initiative is rather annoying since Black has already castled compare to the line 15. ¥g3 £xd4.
In the game Avrukh − Sargissian/GER−chT Kreuzberg 2007 Black has found himself in trouble after 17...b4 18.¤a4 ¤d7 19.¦ad1 £e7 20.¤c5 ¤xc5 21.dxc5± with a clear advantage for White.
18.e5 ¤d5
67
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpl+-+pvl-0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+pzpnzP-+p0 9-+-zP-+pzP0 9+PsN-+-vL-0 9-+Q+LzPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
19.¤xb5
19.dxc5 is also worthy of consideration: 19...¤b4 20.£c1 a6!? (or 20...£d4 21.¦d1 £xc5
22.¤xb5²) 21.¦d1 £e7 22.¦d6 ¦fc8 with acceptable though maybe slightly worse position for Black.
19...cxd4 20.¤d6
The game Grischuk − Karjakin/Sochi 2008 continued
20...¦b8
After 20...£b6 21.£d2² White gets the better chances.
21.£d2 ¤c3 22.¥d3 a5 23.¦a3 ¥d5 24.¥c2
XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvl-0 9-+-sNp+-+0 9zp-+lzP-+p0 9-+-zp-+pzP0 9tRPsn-+-vL-0 9-+LwQ-zPP+0 9+-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
and White eventually proved his trumps to be higher.
68
Moscow Variation/10 6.Bh4 − 10. h4 g4
11. Ne5 g4 pawn sac [D43]
Last updated: 08/02/11 by R.Scherbakov
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.¥g5 h6 6.¥h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.¥g3 b5 9.¥e2 ¥b7 10.h4 g4 11.¤e5 ¦g8!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvlr+0 9zpl+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-sN-+-0 9-+pzPP+pzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+LzPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
The idea to give up the g4−pawn and then to use the rook on the newly opened g−file is
recently the most promising way for Black to play this variation. The idea of Ukrainian IM Valery Shalimov 11...¤bd7!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpl+n+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-sN-+-0 9-+pzPP+pzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+LzPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
is similar and sometimes transpositions occur. Here White has a choice. 12.¥xg4
69
a) in case of 12.¤xd7 Black should probably take with the knight: 12...£xd7?! seems to be dubious: 13.¥e5 ¥g7 14.¥xg4 ¦d8 (14...0-0-0!?) 15.¥h3 0-0 16.£e2 £e7 17.0-0-0 a6 18.g4‚ and the attack looks irresistible
b) the natural 12.0-0 is playable: 12...¤xe5 13.¥xe5 ¦g8 This position arose in the game S.Ivanov − Korobov/ECC Halkidiki 2002. Here 14.d5! seemed to be a principled attempt to disprove Black's strategy. (14.£c2?! was too slow: 14...¤h5! A strong idea − the h4−pawn is hanging while Black keeps in mind the aggressive advance ...g4−g3. 15.g3 f6! 16.¥xg4 White gives up another bishop, which was doing nothing. (16.¥f4 ¤xf4 17.gxf4 £xd4-+ was also not satisfactory for White)
16...¦xg4 17.£e2 f5! 18.exf5 £xh4!-+ Black's pieces are quickly coming into the battle area. Now he is going to open the diagonal of the bishop on b7 by...c6−c5 and White has no way to prevent it.) Then possible is 14...¤d7 15.¥g3 h5 16.£c2 £b6!? 17.a4 a6÷ with very unclear and complicated play.
c) In case of 12.¤xg4 Black can think about 12...b4!? − this pawn push brings Black excellent results. (12...¦g8 is a transposition to the line 11...¦g8) However, White still seems to be able to pose some problems by playing 13.¤xf6+ (13.¤a4 ¤xe4 is fine for Black: 14.¥xc4 h5 15.¥e5 ¦g8 16.¤e3 ¤xe5 17.dxe5 ¥h6 18.£d3 c5³) 13...¤xf6 14.¤a4 ¤xe4 15.¥e5 ¦g8 and here 16.¥f3!?
c1) in case of 16.£c2 c5 17.0-0-0 £a5 18.¥f3 Black can seize the initiative by 18...cxd4! 19.¥xe4 (or 19.¥xd4 b3 20.axb3 cxb3 21.£xb3 ¦c8+ 22.¥c3 ¥d5 23.£c2 ¤xc3
24.¤xc3 ¥xf3 25.gxf3 ¥b4ƒ) 19...b3! 20.axb3 cxb3 21.¥c6+ ¢e7 22.¦xd4 (22.£c4 ¦c8!)
22...£xe5 23.¦d7+ ¢f6 24.£c4 ¥xc6 25.£xc6 ¥b4ƒ c2) White used to play 16.¥xc4 ¥d6 17.£e2 (17.£h5!? deserves serious attention −
Black should probably play 17...c5!?÷ but White may still hope for the advantage)
17...¥xe5 18.dxe5 c5 19.¥b5+ (in the game Timoscenko − Pavasovic/Turin (ol) 2006 White suddenly found himself in trouble after the natural 19.¦d1? £a5 20.¥b5+
¢f8 21.¦d7 b3+!-+) 19...¢f8 20.¥d3 £d4 21.¥xe4 £xe4 22.£xe4 ¥xe4 23.¤xc5 ¥xg2 24.¦g1 ¢e7 The endgame is roughly equal. However, White has to somehow secure his e5−pawn − otherwise Black will have the advantage thanks to his superior bishop.
16...c5 (16...£d5!? deserved attention. White would have thought about 17.0-0!? 0-0-0 18.£e2 f5
19.¦fc1!? and his chances seemed preferable but this line requires more analysis)
17.£e2 £d5 18.0-0-0 cxd4 19.¥xd4 This position has been tested in the game Korobov − Gasanov/Poltava 2009: 19...£c6 20.¦he1! £xa4 21.¥xe4 and White maintained somewhat the better chances.
12...¦g8 13.¤xd7 £xd7 14.¥f3 This is one of the critical positions. 14...b4!? a) The natural 14...0-0-0 may not solve all the problems: 15.£d2!? a1) Another option 15.a4 a6 16.¥e5 was tested in the game S.Ivanov − Shalimov/St.
Petersburg 2000. Black reacted quite well: 16...¤e8! 17.axb5 cxb5 18.d5 £e7 19.£e2 ¥g7 20.¥g3 ¥d4! with good play
a2) while in the game Gelfand − Kasimdzhanov/Candidates (m/3) Elista 2007, Black obtained good counter chances after 15.¥f4!? White moves the bishop away, ruling out possible exchange sacrifices on g3. 15...a6 (15...c5!?) 16.a4 (16.e5!? deserves serious attention: 16...¤d5 17.¤xd5 cxd5 18.£d2 with a position resembling the French Defence. White can hope to get an advantage because of Black's weakened kingside)
16...¥b4 17.e5 c5!? and here White had to play 18.axb5! (after 18.exf6? cxd4 19.axb5
70
£xb5! White faced problems) 18...cxd4 19.bxa6 ¥xf3 20.£xf3 ¤d5 21.0-0 dxc3 22.bxc3 ¥xc3 23.¦ac1 with sharp and unclear play.
15...¦xg3 (15...£xd4?? 16.£xd4 ¦xd4 17.¥e5) 16.fxg3 e5!? (or 16...£xd4 17.£xd4 ¦xd4 18.¦d1
with a certain advantage) 17.0-0-0 £xd4 18.g4 Black's compensation for the pawn does not look sufficient.
b) 14...c5!? is worth considering but White keeps somewhat the better chances: 15.e5!? (15.dxc5 does not promise much: 15...£xd1+ (or 15...b4 16.£xd7+ ¤xd7 17.¤b5 ¦c8 18.0-0-0 (18.a3!?) 18...¤xc5 19.¤c7+ ¢e7 20.¥d6+ ¢f6 with good play for Black) 16.¦xd1 a6 17.e5 (17.¥d6 ¤d7÷) 17...¥xf3 18.gxf3 ¤h5 19.¤e4 ¦c8 and Black is okay) 15...¤d5 16.¤e4 0-0-0 17.0-0 (perhaps 17.dxc5!? is more promising)
17...¦xg3!? 18.¤xg3 ¤f4 Black has got reasonable compensation for the exchange but White's chances still seem preferable.
15.¤a4 c5 (15...0-0-0 16.¥e5 £e7 17.£e2 ¤d7 18.¥g3 looks favourable for White) 16.¤xc5 ¥xc5 17.dxc5 ¤xe4
a) 17...0-0-0?! 18.£xd7+ ¦xd7 19.¦c1 ¥xe4 20.¦xc4 ¥xf3 21.gxf3 a5 22.¢e2± is clearly better for White
b) while 17...¥xe4 18.£xd7+ (perhaps 18.¥d6!?ƒ is stronger) 18...¢xd7 19.¦c1² gives White a small edge in the ending
18.£xd7+ ¢xd7 White can still maintain a small advantage in this ending but it should be defendable for Black. The game Vachier Lagrave − Gelfand/Khanty−Mansiysk (ol) 2010, continued 19.0-0-0+!? ¢e8! 20.¥f4! ¤xc5 21.¥xb7 ¤xb7 22.¥xh6 ¤c5! 23.¥e3 ¤d3+ 24.¢b1 ¦xg2 25.h5 and here the restrained 25...f6!? seemed more reliable. (after 25...f5?! 26.h6 ¢f7 27.h7 ¦h8 28.b3! Black faced problems but perhaps he could still hold on by 28...f4!) 26.h6 ¢f7 with idea to meet 27.b3 with 27...¤e5! with good chances to hold balance. For example, 28.bxc4 ¤xc4 29.¦d7+ ¢g8 30.¥xa7² though Black still has to defend accurately to secure half a point.
12.¤xg4
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvlr+0 9zpl+-+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+pzPP+NzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+LzPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
The dubious 12.h5?! gives Black excellent play: 12...¤bd7 13.¤xd7 ¤xd7 14.¥xg4 £b6
and so on, Timman − Vallejo Pons/Pamplona 1999. White's task is not easy now as he is suffering not only from the weakness of the d4−pawn but also from the unstable position of both bishops.
71
12.0-0 ¤bd7 13.¤xg4 is a transposition to the main line − this order of moves might be more precise.
12.¥xg4!? deserves serious attention as after 12...¤bd7 there would be a transposition to 11...¤bd7 12. ¥xg4 ¦g8.
12...¤bd7
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvlr+0 9zpl+n+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+pzPP+NzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+LzPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
12...¤xg4!? 13.¥xg4 b4!? deserves serious attention. (13...¤d7 is considered after 12...¤bd7
13. 0-0) However, Black might still face problems after 14.¤a4 c5! (14...¤d7 is less logical − after the simple 15.0-0 White gets the better chances. This position might be reached if in one of the main lines 12...¤bd7 13. 0-0 b4 14. ¤a4 Black suddenly takes on g4 instead of the natural 14...¤xe4.) 15.d5!? (The ending which arises after 15.¤xc5 ¥xc5 16.dxc5 £xd1+ 17.¥xd1 ¥xe4 is acceptable for Black, according to tournament practice. For example, 18.0-0 ¤c6 19.¦c1 ¥d5 and so on, Rogozenko − Spiess/EU−ch Dresden 2007) 15...exd5 (15...¤d7? is strongly met by 16.¥xe6!‚)
16.exd5 £xd5 17.£xd5 ¥xd5 18.0-0-0 ¦xg4 19.¦xd5 ¤d7 20.¦e1+ ¢d8 This endgame is rather important for the assessment of this line. 21.¦ed1 (21.¤xc5 does not promise much: 21...¥xc5 22.¦ed1 ¦c8 23.¦xd7+ ¢e8 and Black achieves good play)
21...¦d4 22.¦5xd4 cxd4 23.¦xd4 ¦c8 At first sight Black should be fine but the game Grischuk − Anand/WCh Mexico City 2007 shows that he might not be able to secure his advanced Q−side pawns: 24.¥d6! ¢e8 (24...¥e7!? deserved attention)
25.¦e4+ ¢d8 26.¥xf8 ¤xf8 27.a3! bxa3 (27...a5? 28.axb4 axb4 29.¤b6) 28.bxa3 and he eventually lost his c4−pawn but just managed to save the game.
12...¤h5!? is rather interesting, trying to eliminate White's important bishop: 13.¥e5 ¤d7 14.g3 (14.¥f3!? is worthy of consideration, after which Black could think about 14...¦xg4!? 15.¥xg4 ¤xe5 16.dxe5 ¤f4© with reasonable compensation) 14...b4 15.¤a4 In the game Cmilyte − Galliamova/FIDE WCh KO (women) Ekaterinburg 2006 Black came up with the thematic 15...c5! but after 16.¥xc4 ¥xe4 17.¦g1 ¥c6 18.b3 ¦g6 19.£e2 f5!? 20.¤e3 ¤xe5 21.dxe5 ¤f4 22.£f1 ¤d5 23.0-0-0 £d7 24.£d3!² White was able to maintain control over the position and prevent his opponent's counterplay, keeping the better chances thanks to the better pawn structure and the vulnerability of the Black king.
72
13.0-0
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvlr+0 9zpl+n+p+-0 9-+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+pzPP+NzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+LzPP+0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
13.e5 is a logical alternative. White not only prepares the manoeuvre ¤c3−e4, but also
deprives Black of the possibility to create annoying pressure on the most vulnerable point of White's position − the d4−pawn − by playing ...¤d7−f6, ...£d8−b6 and ...0-0-0. The drawback of such an approach is that White's options in the center are reduced now. 13...¤xg4 14.¥xg4 £b6 15.0-0 0-0-0
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-vlr+0 9zpl+n+p+-0 9-wqp+p+-zp0 9+p+-zP-+-0 9-+pzP-+LzP0 9+-sN-+-vL-0 9PzP-+-zPP+0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Both sides have almost completed their development and are ready for action, Sakaev −
Lastin/ECC, Panormo 2001. White's chances look preferable but Black players would probably disagree.
The simple capture 13.¤xf6+!? may also promise the better chances for White. 13...¤xf6 (It seems that Black should pay more attention to 13...£xf6!?, after which White failed to show a clear way to get any advantage: 14.e5 (14.£d2, which was tried in the game Sakaev − Dreev, chessassistantclub.com 2004 should have been met by 14...b4! 15.¤a4 c5„ with counter chances, 14.¥f3 was well met by 14...e5!, Komljenovic − Korneev, Sevilla 2003, while 14.0-0 0-0-0 15.e5 £f5÷ was unclear in Chow − Stripunsky, Minneapolis 2005) 14...£f5 15.¥f3 0-0-0 16.£e2 ¤b6„ and Black could be satisfied with his counter chances in the game Van Wely − Dreev, Moscow 2004.) 14.¥f3 (14.0-0, which has been played in the game Khalifman − Acs/Hoogeveen 2002, could have been met by 14...b4!? (14...£b6 15.a4 ¥b4!? 16.¥e5
73
¤d7 17.¥f4 was unclear) 15.e5 bxc3 16.exf6 ¦xg3! 17.fxg3 cxb2 18.¦b1 c3∓ and Black's chances look preferable) 14...b4 A new continuation − Black immediately begins concrete action. (14...£b6 15.£d2 was tested in some recent games and Black experienced problems: 15...¦d8 (the interesting 15...h5 let Black achieve good counter chances after 16.0-0 ¦d8 17.¤e2 c5 18.d5 exd5 19.exd5 ¥xd5 20.£f4 ¥xf3 21.£xf3
¦d3 but White's play should be improved) 16.£f4 ¥g7 17.¦d1 c5 18.dxc5 ¦xd1+ 19.¢xd1 £xc5 (after 19...£c6 20.¢c1 ¤d7 21.e5! ¥xe5 22.£e3 ¦xg3 23.fxg3 Black's compensation is not sufficient) 20.£b8+ £c8 21.£xc8+ ¥xc8 22.¤xb5 with an almost decisive advantage) 15.¤e2 c5 16.d5! This pawn push secures the better chances for White. 16...£d7 (16...exd5 17.exd5 wasn't easier for Black in the game Vitiugov − Czarnota/Herceg Novi 2005: 17...¥d6 (Black couldn't capture the d5−pawn: 17...¥xd5? 18.£a4+ £d7 19.£xd7+ ¢xd7 20.0-0-0 ¢c6 21.¦xd5 ¤xd5 22.¤f4+−) 18.0-0 £d7 19.¦c1ƒ with a strong initiative) 17.0-0 0-0-0 (In case of 17...exd5 18.exd5 ¥xd5 19.¤f4 Black's life is not easy: 19...0-0-0 (or 19...¥xf3 20.£xf3 ¦c8 21.¦fe1+ ¥e7
22.¦ad1 £c6 23.£e2 £b7 24.£xc4) 20.¤xd5 ¤xd5 21.£c2 ¥g7 22.£xc4 ¥d4 23.¢h1± intending to open the Q−side by a2−a3.) 18.£c1!
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-vlr+0 9zpl+q+p+-0 9-+-+psn-zp0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-zpp+P+-zP0 9+-+-+LvL-0 9PzP-+NzPP+0 9tR-wQ-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
This very strong multi−purpose move secured White's superiority in the game Potkin −
Grischuk/RUS−ch Krasnoyarsk 2003, which continued 18...exd5 19.£f4!ƒ with an annoying initiative.
13...b4
13...¤xg4 is less popular: 14.¥xg4 £b6 (14...¤f6?! is dubious as after 15.¥f3 White has played one extra move (actually castling) compared to the 13. ¤f6!? line, above)
15.a4 (15.e5 is a transposition to the line 13. e5) and here both 15...a6 (and 15...a5 are worthy of consideration although White always keeps very good compensation for the pawn.)
13...¤h5!? deserves attention: 14.e5!? (14.¤xh6?! is hardly possible due to 14...¤xg3 15.¤xg8
¤xf1 followed by ...£h4, 14.¥h2?! also does not look very good as the pawn on h4 is hanging) 14...¤xg3 15.fxg3 £b6! Preparing to castle and at the same time looking closely at the most vulnerable point of White's position − the pawn on d4. 16.a4!?© and here in a very unclear and complicated position a draw was agreed in the game Glek − Dreev/Essen 2000. Yet, White's chances still look preferable.
74
14.¤a4 ¤xe4 15.¥xc4
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvlr+0 9zpl+n+p+-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9NzpLzPn+NzP0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9PzP-+-zPP+0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
15...£a5
15...h5 has been tried without much success: 16.¤e3 £a5 (16...¤df6?! 17.¥e5± is clearly better for White) 17.¥h2 ¤df6 18.¥b3 with better chances
It's rather tempting to get rid of this strong bishop by 15...¤xg3?! but it opens the file for White's rook and makes it more difficult for Black to move his king to the Q−side: 16.fxg3 £e7 (After 16...£a5?! 17.£e2 Black couldn't secure his king without serious concessions) 17.¤c5!± and White has obtained a big advantage in the game Vitiugov − Stripunsky/St.Petersburg vs New York 2005.
16.¦c1
16.b3 does not promise much: 16...¤xg3 17.fxg3 ¦g6 18.£e2 ¥g7„ with good counter chances.
16...0-0-0 17.¥h2
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-vlr+0 9zpl+n+p+-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9NzpLzPn+NzP0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPvL0 9+-tRQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
75
This position arose in the game Nakamura − Dreev/Stepanakert 2005, which continued
17...¥d6!?
Which looks reasonable − Black's king would never be safe with White's bishop on the diagonal h2−b8.
18.¥d3 ¥xh2+ 19.¤xh2 ¤df6 20.¥xe4! ¤xe4 21.¤c5 ¤xc5 22.¦xc5²
White has managed to lock the bishop on b7 but after
22...£xa2!„
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-+r+0 9zpl+-+p+-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9+-tR-+-+-0 9-zp-zP-+-zP0 9+-+-+-+-0 9qzP-+-zPPsN0 9+-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
Black has also got something to be satisfied with. Nevertheless, White's position looks
preferable.
76
Related Documents
