How to beat 1e4 by rizzitano

The QGA is difficult for a 1 d4 player to avoid if he wants to fight for an advantage because the opening arises after only two moves - you will be learning lines which you will actually

Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com

Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com

How to Beat 1 d4

James Rizzitano

[e3Ah~IBIIT www.Ebook777.com

First published in the UK by Gambit Publications Ltd 2005

Copyright © James Rizzitano 2005

The right of James Rizzitano to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in dance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

accor-All rights reserved This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being im-posed on the subsequent purchaser

A copy of the British Library Cataloguing in Publication data is available from the British Library ISBN 1 904600 33 6

DISTRIBUTION:

Worldwide (except USA): Central Books Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN

Tel +44 (0)20 89864854 Fax +44 (0)20 8533 5821 E-mail: orders@Centralbooks.com

USA: Continental Enterprises Group, Inc., 302 West North 2nd Street, Seneca, SC 29678, USA For all other enquiries (including a full list of all Gambit chess titles) please contact the publishers, Gambit Publications Ltd, 6 Bradmore Park Rd, Hammersmith, London W6 ODS, England E-mail: info@gambitbooks.com

Or visit the GAMBIT web site at http://www.gambitbooks.com

Edited by Graham Burgess

Typeset by John Nunn

Cover image by Wolff Morrow

Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press, Trowbridge, Wilts

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Gambit Publications Ltd

Managing Director: GM Murray Chandler

Chess Director: GM John Nunn

Editorial Director: PM Graham Burgess

German Editor: WPM Petra Nunn

Part 1: Queen's Gambit Accepted

1 White's Third Move Alternatives

8 Classical Variation: 7 i.b3

9 Classical Variation: 7 'iVe2 b5 8 i.d3

10 Classical Variation: 7 'iVe2 b5 8 i.b3 i.b7 9 a4

11 Classical Variation: 7 'iVe2 b5 8 i.b3 i.b7 9 Mdl

Part 2: Queen's Pawn Games (White plays without c4)

12 Hodgson Attack: 1 d4 d5 2 i.g5

13 Veresov Opening: 1 d4 d5 2 ct:Jc3 ct:Jf6 3 i.g5

14 London System: 1 d4 d5 2 ct:Jf3 ct:Jf6 3 i.f4

Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com

Symbols

;!; White is slightly better sim game from simultaneous display

=+= Black is slightly better qual qualifying event

Wcht world team championship

Dedication

To my Dad

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Joe Fang for access to his outstanding chess library Special thanks to my wife Kim and

to our children Jillian and Jay for their enthusiasm and support

Bibliography

Books

Aagaard, J & Lund, E.: Meeting 1 d4, Everyman 2002

Adams, 1.: Richter Veresov System, The Chess Player 1988

Baburin, A.: Winning Pawn Structures, Batsford 1999

Bellin, R.: Queen's Pawn: Veresov System, Batsford 1983

Bronznik, Y.: The Colle-Koltanowski System, Kania 2004

Buckley, G.: Easy Guide to the Queen's Gambit Accepted, Cadogan/Gambit 1998

Burgess, G.: 101 Chess Opening Surprises, Gambit 1998

Burgess, G.: The Gambit Guide to the Torre Attack, Gambit 1999

Davies, N.: The Veresov, Everyman 2003

Dunnington, A.: Attacking with 1 d4, Everyman 2002

Flear, G.: New Ideas in the Queen's Gambit Accepted, Batsford 1994

Gallagher, J.: Beating the Anti-King's Indians, Batsford 1996

Harding, T.: Colle, London and Blackmar-Diemer Systems, Batsford 1979

Janjgava, L.: The Petroff, Gambit 2001

Khalifman, A.: Opening for White According to Kramnik 1 0.j3, Volume 4, Chess Stars 2002 Lane, G.: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Batsford 1995

Lane, G.: Ideas Behind the Modern Chess Openings, Batsford 2002

Lane, G.: The Ultimate Colle, Batsford 2001

Matanovi6, A ed.: Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings C ('ECO'), 4th ed., Sahovski Informator 2000 Matanovi6, A ed.: Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings D ('ECO'), 4th ed., 2004; 3rd ed., 1998; 2nd ed., 1987; 1st ed., 1976 (Sahovski Informator)

Neishtadt, I.: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Cadogan 1996

Nunn, 1., Burgess, G., Emms, J & Gallagher, J.: Nunn's Chess Openings (,NCO'),

GambitJEveryman 1999

Palliser, R.: Play 1 d4!, Batsford 2003

Sakaev, K & Sernkov, S.: The Queen's Gambit Accepted, Chess Stars 2003

Sawyer, T.: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Keybook, Thinker's Press 1992

Varnusz, E.: The Queen's Gambit Accepted, Schmidt Schach 1997

Ward, C.: The Queen's Gambit Accepted, Batsford 1999

Watson, J.: 40.c3 Gambit in the Queen's Gambit Accepted and Slav, Chess Enterprises 1986

Electron ie/Period ieals

ChessBase Mega Database 2004

ChessBase Opening Encyclopaedia 2002

Chess Mail MegaCorr3 2003

Jeremy Silman's website

New In Chess Magazine

New In Chess Yearbook (up to No 74)

Sahovski Informator (up to No 92)

Schipkov, B.: Queen's Gambit Accepted (CD), ChessBase 2002

The Week In Chess (up to No 554 dated 20 June 2005)

Introduction

The goal of writing How to Beat 1 d4 is to

pro-vide the reader with a solid, dynamic opening

repertoire versus 1 d4 There are no shortcuts or

secret variations which enable Black magically

to seize the initiative from White during the

opening phase of the game - in order to beat 1

d4 we must fIrst neutralize 1 d4

Here are my criteria for selecting an opening:

1) The opening must be played with

regu-larity by strong players

2) The opening must have a healthy

theoret-ical reputation

3) The opening must be solid - the

charac-teristic positions should not require the player

to incur excessive risk (time loss, material

defI-cit, or space disadvantage)

4) The opening must be dynamic - the

ma-jor variations should enable the player to

de-velop active counterplay

If an opening passes the fIrst criterion above,

then the other criteria often fall into place

-strong players prefer to play openings in which

they have a reasonable expectation of achieving

success

The highly-regarded Queen's Gambit

Ac-cepted (QGA) is the foundation of our opening

repertoire versus 1 d4 The QGA has been

played by all of the fIrst 14 World Champions

-recent titleholders Kramnik, Kasparov and

Karpov have contributed to the development of

several critical lines Fischer and Spas sky had

some topical QGA battles during their 1992

match Other modem players including Anand,

Ponomariov, Shirov, Ivanchuk, Kariakin,

Rub-lev sky, Sadler, Short, and Seirawan have

con-tributed to the development of QGA opening

theory The QGA is a suitable opening for all

players, not just World Champions and

world-class grandmasters - one of the advantages for

the club and tournament competitor is that the

characteristic positions can be understood by

players of widely varying ability Black's

open-ing strategy conforms to classical development

principles because he fIghts for his share of the

centre and he can usually develop his pieces quickly and safeguard his king Black usually does not have to worry about being overrun by

a central pawn steamroller, he does not have to struggle with a bad bishop, and he does not have to embark on any complicated knight tours to complete his development A classical opening can be a powerful and effective weapon

in your opening arsenal, especially in view of today's increasingly faster time-limits The QGA is difficult for a 1 d4 player to avoid if he wants to fight for an advantage because the opening arises after only two moves - you will

be learning lines which you will actually have the opportunity to play! A black repertoire has also been provided to combat Queen's Pawn Games in which White plays without c4 - the result is a complete one-volume repertoire ver-sus 1 d4

How to Beat 1 d4 is an opening repertoire book written from the perspective of the black player, though white players will benefIt from the ob-jective coverage of topical lines and the numer-ous suggested improvements for both sides The recommended lines against White's vari-ous options have been developed by carefully analysing the games and opening preferences

of the world's best players I have investigated all game sources at my disposal including cor-respondence and e-mail games Correspondence chess plays an important role in advancing the theoretical knowledge of many sharp variations, particularly in lines that tournament players may be reluctant to try over the board I have provided mUltiple solutions to combat White's main variations and within these lines some alternative options have also been examined Many players will be content with learning a single variation, but it is useful to have alterna-tives ready in the event a particular line runs into some difficulty - it doesn't hurt to keep your opponents guessing either!

Let's explore the main line of the QGA and investigate the alternative moves for each player

INTRODUCTION 7

We shall also identify the specific variations

which fonn the basis of our opening repertoire:

1 d4

The Queen's Gambit Accepted can also be

reached by some other common move-orders:

This move is necessary if Black wishes to

playa QGA - after 1 lLlf6 2 c4, the

opportu-nity has passed

2c4

White has several alternatives at this

junc-ture; some may transpose into a QGA (for

ex-ample, 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 c4 dxc4), and some are

truly independent openings if White decides to

play without the c4 pawn advance (Part 2 of this

book - ECO code range DOO-D05):

• 2 tg5 is covered in Chapter 12: Hodgson

There are a couple of important points to

re-member about these openings:

• Queen's Pawn Games in which White plays

without c4 do not give White a theoretical

opening advantage

• Queen's Pawn Games should be treated with

the utmost respect

Of course this last statement can be made

about all openings, but one of the challenges in

facing these aggressive attacking lines is that

your opponent is likely to be more familiar with

the thematic positions than you are - in the

hands of an experienced attacking player, they

are extremely dangerous With the exception of

the Stonewall Attack and the Blackmar-Diemer

Gambit, these openings have frequently been employed by strong grandmasters with very good results - they can be used as an occasional surprise weapon or as part of an attacking rep-ertoire Our repertoire includes a solid response

to all of these aggressive lines

to retain the possibility of playing the c7 -c5 pawn-break in one move (not possible in the Slav Defence, although Black sometimes plays

a later c6-c5 advance to free his game) The

2 dxc4 capture is flexible - White may lose some time recapturing the c4-pawn, and Black will gauge White's reply before deciding upon

a response Of course we cannot conclude that anyone of these openings is superior to another

- they are simply different methods of working toward the common goal of developing Black's pieces

3lLlf3

8 How TO BEAT 1 d4

This is the most frequently played move here

- White prevents Black from playing e5

White has several alternatives:

• 3 ~a4+, 3 tDc3, and 3 e3 are covered in

Chapter 1: White's Third Move Alternatives

The move 3 e3 is the most important of these

as it is sometimes used as a move-order

fi-nesse to bypass the i.g4 variations

• 3 e4 is covered in Chapter 2: Central

Varia-tion This is one of White's most popular

and ambitious attempts to obtain an opening

advantage because he immediately seizes

the centre and prepares to recapture the

c4-pawn Our repertoire response is the

tradi-tional counterstroke 3 e5, whereby Black

immediately stakes his claim to the centre

3 tDf6

Black continues his development and

pre-vents White from playing e4 The minor

alter-native 3 a6 (Alekhine Variation - ECO code

D22) is not part of our repertoire

4e3

This is the most popular move here; White

has a couple of alternatives:

• 4 'iVa4+ is covered in Chapter 3: Mannheim

Variation Our repertoire reply is the solid

4 tDc6

• 4 tDc3 is covered in Chapter 4: Two Knights

Variation White continues developing and

usually offers to make it a true gambit Our

repertoire reply is the traditional 4 a6 and

includes both a solid and a sharp response to

White's attacking ambitions There are

sev-eral alternatives here:

a) 4 c5 is not part of our repertoire

b) 4 tDc6 transposes into the Queen's

Gambit Chigorin Defence

c) 4 e6 usually transposes into the Queen's

Gambit Vienna Variation after 5 e4 i.b4 6

.i.g5

d) 4 c6 transposes into the Slav Defence

-see The Slav by Graham Burgess for coverage

of this opening

4 ••• e6

Black opens the diagonal for his dark-squared

bishop and prepares to challenge White's

d4-pawn by playing c5 The alternative 4 i.g4

is not part of our repertoire

d4-6 0-0

White continues his development by guarding his king White has a popular alterna-tive here:

safe-• 6 ~e2 is covered in Chapter 5: Furman ation White prepares to play dxc5 followed

Vari-by a quick e4 pawn advance - the queen move avoids a potential exchange of queens This attacking variation has been very popu-lar over the past several years

6 • a6

Black prepares to win a tempo by playing b5, kicking the white bishop away and clear-ing the b7-square for his own bishop Many of the queen's pawn openings revolve around a battle for tempi involving the light-squared bishops The older 6 cxd4 (Steinitz Varia-tion) is not part of our repertoire

7~e2

This is the main line of the Classical tion White has plenty of alternatives here:

Varia-• 7 tDbd2, 7 tDc3, 7 e4, 7 dxc5, 7 b3, 7 a3, and

7 i.d3 are all covered in Chapter 6: Classical Variation: White's Seventh Move Alterna-tives

• 7 a4 is covered in Chapter 7: Classical tion: 7 a4

Varia-• 7 i.b3 is covered in Chapter 8: Classical Variation: 7.i.b3

7 b5 (D)

Black follows through with the plan of side expansion The alternative 7 tDc6 is also part of our repertoire and is covered in Chapter 5: Furman Variation - this position is frequently

queen-Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com

White has another bishop retreat:

• 8 i d3 is covered in Chapter 9: Classical

Variation: 7 'i\Ve2 b5 8 td3

8 ••• i b7

The light-squared bishop takes up a strong

position on the long diagonal

9.l:!.dl

The rook slides over to control a central file

White has a popular alternative here:

• 9 a4 is covered in Chapter 10: Classical

Vari-ation: 7 'i\Ve2 b5 8 i b3 tb7 9 a4 White

im-mediately attacks the b5-pawn

9 lLlbd7

Now White has a choice between 10 e4 and

10 lLlc3 - these lines are covered in Chapter 11: Classical Variation: 7 'i\Ve2 b5 8 tb3 iLb7 9

ev-I believe this is the extra value that a good thor brings to a book A detailed bibliography has also been provided to enable both the pro-fessional player and the ambitious amateur to keep the material current - as a long-time con-sumer of chess books, these are the things I look for in an opening book Finally, I would like to thank the Gambit Publications team of Graham Burgess, Murray Chandler, and John Nunn for their great enthusiasm, helpful sug-gestions, and tremendous support for this pro-ject I wish the reader luck in his or her own Queen's Gambit Accepted and Queen's Pawn Game adventures!

au-James Rizzitano Southborough, Massachusetts 2005

1 White's Third Move Alternatives

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 (D)

w

In this chapter we shall consider White's

third-move alternatives to 3 e4 and 3 4Jf3, of

which the most important is Line B:

B: 3 e3 11

3 'iVa4+ 4Jc6 4 4Jf3 is rarely seen:

a) 4 i.g4 5 4Jc3 i.xf3 6 exf3 e6 7 i.e3

4Jf6 8 i.xc4 a6 ("! =1=" - Schipkov, but

appar-ently he overlooked White's next move) 9 d5!

(stronger than 9I'i'dl4Jb4 = Rey-Baburin, San

Francisco 1997) 9 exd5 (9 4Jxd5 10 0-0-0 b5

11 ~xd5 exd5 12 I'i'c2 ;1;) 10 i.xd5 4Jxd5 11

0-0-0.i.d6 12l:txd5 0-0 =

b) 4 4Jf6 - 3 4Jj3 4Jj6 4 'iV a4 + 4Jc6

trans-poses into Chapter 3: Mannheim Variation

c) 4 a6!? (this is the most aggressive

try-Black gains time by hounding the white queen)

5 'iVxc4 i.e6 6 ~d34Jb4 7 'iVdl4Jf6 84Jc3 and

now 8 c5! gives Black a slight edge This is

more challenging than ECO's 8 4Jbd5 =

A)

34Jc3 a6

Also sufficient is the central thrust 3 e5 4 e3

(4 dxe5 I'i'xd1+ 5 'it'xdl i.e6 =1=; 4 d5 c6 5 e4

4Jf6 =) 4 exd4 5 exd44Jf6 6 ii.xc4 i d6 74Jf3

0-0 8 0-0 - 3 e3 e5 4 Lc4 exd4 5 exd4 ii.d6 6

4Jj3 4Jf6 7 0-0 0-0 8 4Jc3

4e4?!

This inaccurate move is frequently seen at club level Alternatives:

a) 4 a4?! e5 5 d5 (5 dxe5 'iVxdl+ 6 'it'xdl

~e6 was slightly better for Black in blanca-LRabinovich, Moscow 1935) 5 4Jf6 6 e3 i.b4 7 i.xc4 c6 8 dxc6 'iVxdl+ 9 'it'xdl 4Jxc6 =1= Noble-Sadler, British Ch (Eastbourne)

Capa-1990 "The ceding of the b4-square leaves White with an inferior game." - Flear

b) 44Jf3 b5 (4 4Jf6 - 34Jj34Jf6 44Jc3 a6

transposes into Chapter 4: Two Knights tion) 5 a4 b4 6 4Je4 4Jd7 7 4Jed2 (7 'iVc2 was

Varia-suggested by Portisch - 7 ii.b7 looks like an

adequate reply) 7 c3 8 bxc3 bxc3 94Je44Jgf6

10 4Jxc3 e6 = Karpov-Portisch, Tilburg 1983 c) 4 e3 4Jf6 5 ~xc4 e6 6 4Jf3 c5 7 0-0 - 3

a) 64Jbl i.b7 7 f3 e5 8 dxe5 (8 d5 c6! + Korchnoi-Htibner, TV game 1984) 8 :~xdl+

WHITE'S THIRD MOVE ALTERNATIVES 11

9 ~xdl lbc6 10 i.xc4 0-0-0+ (also strong is

1O J:td8+ I1lbd2lbxeS 12 i.b3 oltcs +

Leva-cie-Semkov, Cannes 1989) 11 lbd2 lbxeS 12

i.e2 b3 + lRichardson-Baburin, British League

(4NCL) 1999/00

b) 6 lbd5 e6 7 lbe3 i.b7 8 f3 lbc6 9 lbe2

lbaS + Polpur-Stiazhkina, St Petersburg worn

Ch 2002

c) 6lba2 ltb7 7 f3lbc6 8 dS (8 olte3 eS 9 dS

lbaS +) 8 lbaS 9 i.d2 (9lbxb4 e6 + Alterman;

9 Wilc2 b3 10 'tWc3 c6 11 dxc6 lbxc6 12 lbb4

lbd4 +) 9 lbb3! (9 e6 10 dxe6 fxe6 11 i.xb4

i.xb4+ 12lbxb4 Wilh4+ 13 g3 Wile7 is slightly

better for Black, Alterman-Av.Bykhovsky,

Is-raell994) 10 ltxc4lbxal I1lbxb4 "with

com-pensation" according to Alterman, but I think

White's position falls apart after l1 e6! 12

dxe6 fS! 13 Wilxal (13 exfS?? Wilh4+ relieves

White of a bishop) 13 .fxe4 +

B)

3e3

This move is sometimes employed as a

move-order finesse to avoid the variation 3lbf3

a6 4 e3 i.g4 - the choice of 3 e3 is often a

mat-ter of taste as some players prefer not to allow

the pin on the f3-knight

3 eS (D)

The central counterattack is the most

chal-lenging reply The frequently played

alterna-tive, 3 lbf6 4 i.xc4 e6 Slbf3 cS 60-0 (6 ~e2

is covered in Chapter S: Furman Variation)

6 a6, transposes into the Classical Variation

(Chapters 6-11)

4 i.xc4 exd4 5 exd4 i.d6

The immediate development of the bishop is generally considered to be the most precise move-order as the alternative 5 lbf6 gives White the additional option of playing 6 Wilb3!? (Black has nothing to fear here - the more fre-quently played 6 lbf3 i.d6 transposes into our repertoire line) 6 Wile7+ 7 lbe2 Wilb4+ (Black can avoid the exchange of queens by playing

7 lbbd7!? 8 0-0 lbb6 9 lbf4 lbxc4 10 Wilxc4 Wild7 11lbc3 i.e7 12lbcdSlbxd5 13lbxd5 c6

{13 0-0 14 lbxc7 :b8 IS i.f4 ±} 14 lbxe7

"Wixe7 15 d5 0-016 dxc6 i.e6 17 "Wie4 bxc6 18

"Wixc6 l:tac8 with compensation for the pawn,

Granda-P.Nikolie, Zagreb IZ 1987) 8 lbbc3

~xb3 9 oltxb3 i.d6 and now:

a) 10 lbbS i.e6 11 i.f4 i.xb3! (11 i.xf4

12 i.xe6 a6! 13lbxf4 axb5 = lovie, Birmingham 1975) 12 axb3 i.xf4 13

Janosevie-Matu-lbxf4 ~d7 14lbd3lbc6 IS 0-0-0 'iitc8 + Sakaev and Semkov

b) 10 0-0 a6 (1O i.e6 11 dS i.d7 12 l::tel 0-0 13 i.g5 ;1;) 11 lbg3 lbc6 12 l::tel + ~f8 13 lbge4 lbxe4 (13 lbxd4?? 14 lbxf6 gxf6 15

i.h6+ mates) 14 lbxe4 i.b4 (14 lbxd4?! 15 lbxd6 cxd6 16 i.f4 i.e6 17 i.xd6+ ~e8 18 i.xe6 lbxe6 19 f4 ;1;) 15 l::tdl oltf5 and now instead of 16 lbgS (Wirthensohn-Miles, Biel

1977) 16 i.g6 =, Miles suggested 16 lbg3!?

i g6 17 i f4, when I think Black can defend

with 17 lbaS 18 ltxc7 lLlxb3 19 axb3 l::tc8 =

6 lbf3 lbf6 7 0-0 0-0 (D)

8lbc3 (D)

White can also play 8 i gS h6 9 i.h4 lbc6

(this position is classified as a Petroff Defence

by ECO {code C42} - more about this in the note to Black's 8th move), and now:

12 How TO BEAT 1 d4

a) 10 l'2::lc3 iLg4 11 h3 ii.xf3 12 ~xf3l'2::lxd4

13 'iVxb7 l:tb8 14 'iVxa7 (14 'iVa6?! ':'xb2 is fine

for Black) 14 :a8 (Black has no reasonable

way to avoid the repetition; e.g., 14 J:Ixb2?! 15

l'2::ld5 ±; 14 l'2::lf5?! 15 ixf6 ~xf6 16 l'2::le4

'iVxb2 17l'2::lxd6 cxd6 18 a4;!;;) 15 'iVb7l:Ib8 16

~a7 .:I.a8 17 'iVb7 l:tb8 112-112

M.Gurevich-Az-maiparashvili, Valle d' Aosta 2003

b) 10 h3 g5 11 ig3 ii.xg3 12 fxg3 l'2::la5 13

.id3l'2::lc6 14 ic4l'2::la5 = Lautier-Anand, Monte

Carlo Amber rpd 1999

B

S •.• l'2::lc6

The plausible but inaccurate 8 ig4?! has

been played more than 80 times in my database

- the tempting pin is premature because of 9 h3

~h5 (the lesser evil is 9 ixf3 10 'iVxf3 c6 ;!;;)

10 g4 iLg6 11 l'2::le5 c5 12 l'2::lxg6 hxg6 13 dxc5

.i.xc5 14 ¥i.xf7+!! rJ;;xf7 15 'iVb3+ rJ;;e8 16

~e1 + ¥i.e7 17 'iVxb7 l'2::lbd7 18 g5 with a strong

attack in Ulybin-Erykalov, USSR 1986 and

many later games

The position after 8 l'2::lc6 is classified as a

Petroff Defence by ECO (code C42), based

upon the move-order 1 e4 e5 2 l'2::lf3 l'2::lf6 3

l'2::lxe5 d6 4l'2::lf3l'2::lxe4 5 d4 d5 6 id3 ii.d67 0-0

0-0 8 c4l'2::lf6 9 l'2::lc3 dxc4 10 ixc4l'2::lc6 - note

that each side has played two extra moves here

The same position can also be reached from an

Exchange French via the move-order 1 e4 e6 2

d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 l'2::lf3 ii.d6 5 c4 l'2::lf6 6 l'2::lc3

dxc4 7 i.xc4 0-0 8 0-0 l'2::lc6 Sorry for the

ex-tended digression, but I believe it is important

for the reader to be aware of this unusual

exam-ple of opening convergence so as to facilitate

his own independent research I suppose I could

take the easy way out and refer the reader to

The Petroff by Lasha Janjgava (page 158) for

detailed coverage of this variation, but I am analysing the positions which arise from the Queen's Gambit Accepted move-order here be-cause they are an important part of our reper-toire

b) 10 !tel ~e8 11 ie3 if5 and then: bl) 12 d5 l'2::le5 13 l'2::lxe5 ixe5 14 id4 (14 'iVb3!? b6 15 ~ac1) 14 ixd4 15 'iVxd4 a6 with equality, Tyomkin-Estrade Nieto, Oakham

2001

b2) 12 a3 a6 13 l'2::lh4 ih7 14 'iVf3 'iVd7 15 g4 (15 l':!.ed 1 l'2::le4 16 id3 l'2::lxc3 17 iLxh 7 + rJ;;xh7 18 bxc3l'2::la5 = Mikac-Ulybin, Bled open 2002) and here:

b21) 15 J:tad8 (so far this is Short-Bareev, Pula Echt 1997) 16l:tadl (=Bareev) 16 l'2::le4!?

17 l'2::lf5 ixf5 18 gxf5 l'2::lxc3 (18 l'2::lf6!?) 19

WHITE'S THIRD MOVE ALTERNATIVES 13

bxc3 b5 20 j.a2 0,e7 21 f6 'iUf5 with equal

chances

b22) 15 ~f8!? 16 l:!.edl 0,e4 is

unclear-Korotylev-Fominykh, St Petersburg (Petroff

A common motif in such positions - Black

accepts an isolated e-pawn in order to relieve

the pressure from White's light-squared bishop

In return Black opens the f- file for his rooks and

obtains the d5-square for his knights

12 .i.xe6 fxe613 nel ~e814 0,e4

14 j.d2 0,bd5 (14 'iUf7!?) 151iVd31iVf7 =

Tkachev-Golubovic, Pula 2000

14 0,bd515 0,c5 i.xc516 dxc5 (D)

B

Now Black has:

a) 16 0,d7?! 17 c6! (more incisive than 17

'iUc2 c6 = Ramirez Alvarez-Morozevich, Bled

OL 2002) 17 bxc6 18 ~e4 with compensation

for the pawn

b) 16 c6 17 a3!? (17 0,d4 'iNf7 "=1=" - Sakaev

and Sernkov, but I think White can hang on with

al) l5 j.xe6?! (Kotter-Baumhackel, mund 2000) 16 :xe6 fxe6 17 ~xe6+ l:tf7 18

Dort-~f4 = Lautier

a2) 15 fxe6 16 ~xe6 (16 i.f4?! 0,b6 17 j.a2 0,d5 18 ~xd5 exd5 =1= Liogky-Lautier, French Cht 1996) 16 'it>h8 17 :el 0,a5 (I think Black can also consider 17 0,de5!? 18

~f1 ~d3 =) 18 0,e3 l:tae8 19 j.d2 = Lautier b) 12 j.e3 l:te8 13 Ikl ~d7 = Hauchard-Sadler, Cannes 1996

12 J:te8 l2 ~d7 13 d5 0,e7 14 0,e5 i.xe5 15 l:txe5 0,g6 16 llell:tfe8 intending 0,e5 = Lautier

13 i.b2 liVd7 The chances are equal, Todorov-Stojanovic, Belgrade 2001

2 Central Variation

1 d4 dS 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4

The characteristic move of the Central

Varia-tion - White immediately establishes a

power-ful central pawn duo The traditional 3 ttJf3 was

the automatic choice for many years - the

wide-spread opinion was that White's first priority

was to prevent Black from playing the freeing

eS pawn advance This opinion was gradually

challenged and the number of games played

with the Central Variation has steadily increased

throughout the past decade - the line is rich in

strategic and tactical complexity

3 eS

This is our repertoire move - the immediate

central counterattack is the logical choice to

ex-ploit White's omission of 3 ttJf3 During the last

two decades, 3 ttJc6, 3 cS, and 3 ttJf6 have

proven themselves to be viable alternatives

4 ttJf3 exd4 (D)

S~xc4

White has some minor alternatives here:

a) S ttJxd4 i.cs 6 i.e3 ttJf6 7 ttJc3 ttJg4 and

now:

a1) 8 i.xc4 0-0 9 0-0 'iUd6 10 g3 (Roc

ius-Mikac, Aschach 1993) 10 ttJxe3 11 fxe3 ttJd7

~e7 14 i.c3 ttJgeS with roughly level chances)

12 f4 f6 with equal chances

a22) 11 ~a3 0-0-0 12 h3 ttJgf6 13 f4 gave White reasonable compensation for the pawn in Bischof-Huhndorf, Germany tt 200112

b) S 'iUxd4 'iUxd4 6 ttJxd4 ttJf6 7 ttJc3 ~cS

and then:

b1) 8 ~e3 ttJg4 and here:

b11) 9 ~xc4 ttJxe3 10 fxe3 ttJd7 11 ttJdS 'it'd8 and now:

b111) 12 ~d1 ttJeS 13 ~e2 iLd7 140-0 c6

IS ttJf4 ~c7 =+= The King-Yakovich, Oviedo rpd

1983

bl12) 12 b4 ~f8 13 bS ttJeS 14 iLb3 c6 IS

ttJf4 ~b4+ 16 ~f2 ~e7 17 bxc6 bxc6 18l:tac1 i.d7 19 l:thd1 l:thd8 20 h3 (Cifuentes-Bron-stein, Oviedo rpd 1983) 20 aS =+=

b12) 9 ttJdS ttJxe3 10 fxe3 ttJa6 (10 'it'd8!?

is another idea for Black) 11 ~xc4 c6 12 i.xa6 cxdS 13 iLbS+ ~d7 (13 'it'e7 14 exdS iLxd4

IS exd4 liz-liz Mikhalchishin-Gulko, USSR Ch (Riga) 1985) 14 i.xd7+ 'it'xd7 IS 0-0 i.xd4 16 exd4 (Knezevic-Garcia Palermo, Havana 1985)

1965

6 ••• iLe6 White has temporarily sacrificed a pawn and now he must decide whether to retain his light-squared bishop for attacking purposes at the cost of losing a tempo (Line A), or exchange light-squared bishops and quickly recover the pawn (Line B):

A: 7 tbS IS B: 7 txe6 19

Rarely seen is 8ltJg5 ~e7 (after 8 ltJe7?? 9

ltJxe6 fxe6 10 ~h5+ White wins the loose

bishop; 8 ~d7 9 ltJxe6 ~xe6 10 i.f4 i.b6 =

Krush-Bergsson, Reykjavik 2004) 9 i.xc6+ (9

f4 i.d7 leaves the g5-knight looking rather

fool-ish) 9 bxc6 10 ltJxe6 ~xe6 11 ltJd2 J:1d8 12

~c2 (12 f4!?) 12 i.b6 13 ~d3 ltJf6 14ltJc4

ltJd7 (also possible is 14 0-0 15 f3 ltJd7 and

Black has a comfortable game) 15 b4 c5! (an

instructive manoeuvre - Black liquidates his

doubled c-pawns and strengthens his passed

d-pawn) 16 b5 c6 17 bxc6 ~xc6 18 i.g5 f6 19

.i.h4 i.c7 20 f4 0-0 21 l:tac1 l:tde8 +

Vyzh-manavin-Rublevsky, Novosibirsk 1995 White

has insufficient compensation for his pawn

def-icit

AI)

Sb4

This aggressive thrust should appeal to fans

of the Evans Gambit

S ~b6 (D)

9.i.b2

Or 9 a4!?:

a) 9 a5 (the drawback of this reflex move is

that Black loses the ability to dislodge the

b5-bishop) 10 bxa5 l:txa5 11 ltJg5 ~d7 12 ltJd2

w

ltJge7 (lvanisevic-Sakalauskas, Baturni Echt 1999) 13 ltJxe6! and here:

al) 13 .fxe6? is poor:

all) 14ltJc4?! l:ta8 and now 15ltJe5 ~d6 16 ltJc4 'li'd7 repeats, while 15 i.a3 gives White compensation according to Khuzman

a12) 14 ltJb3! (the knight protects the rook and enables the a-pawn to advance rap-idly) 14 J:ta8 15 a5 i.a7 16 a6 - Ivanisevic, and indeed White has a crushing advantage af-ter 16 bxa6 17 l:!.xa6 l:!.b8 18 ~d3 +- a2) 13 ~xe6 14 ltJc4 lIxb5 (14 l:ta8 15 ltJxb6 cxb616 ~xd4 ±) 15 axb5 ~xc416 bxc6 ltJxc6 17 'Ii' g4! 0-0 18 i.h6 g6 19 i.xf8 'iiitxf8

al-20 ~c8+ <l;g7 211Ia8 with an attack - man

Khuz-b) 9 a6! (Black breaks the pin before it comes troublesome) 10 i.xc6+ bxc6 11 a5 (11 i.b2 'li'd6 is unclear - Khuzman) 11 i.a7 and here:

be-bl) 12 ~d3ltJe7 (12 c5 is unclear ing to Khuzman) 13 l:tdl c5 14 bxc5 i.xc5 15 i.a3 with an attack - Khuzman

accord-b2) 12 i.b2 i.g4 (12 iVd6 13 ltJa3!?) 13

~c2!? is worthy of investigation

The above variations demonstrate the tance of breaking the pin in these types of posi-tions

impor-We now return to 9 i.b2 (D):

9 ••• ltJe7 This is the solid choice

9 ~d6!? is a provocative alternative 10 a4 ltJe7 11 a5 ~xb4 12 \\!Ve2 d3 13 i.xd3 and then:

a) 13 ltJd4? 14 i.xd4 i.xd4 15 l:!.a4! i.xf2+

16 l:.xf2 (± Khuzman), Yuferov-Ibragimov, St Petersburg 1996

16 How TO BEAT 1 d4

B

b) 13 ~d4! 14 ttJxd4 ttJxd4 15 i xd4 ~xd4

"is unclear but at least Black is a pawn up"

-Sakaev and Semkov I think White's attack

pe-ters out after 16 ttJa3 0-0 (16 a6!?) 17 ttJb5

~d7 18 ~fd1 a6 and White's compensation

ttJb4!? and Black has the initiative -

Scher-bakov) 15 ~e7 16 :tel ~xc5 17 ttJd5 b5 =+=

(14 c5!?, to eliminate the doubled c-pawns, is

worth trying) 15 a3 liz-liz Van Wely-Sermek,

Biikfurdo Mitropa Cup 1995

b) 12 bxc6 13 ~c2 as =

Rakhmangulov-Svetushkin, Alushta 1999

A2)

8 ~c2 i b6 9 a4

The flank thrust is the most frequently played

move here, but it is uncertain which side

bene-fits more from the advance of the opposing

a-pawns Similar positions arise after 9 i xc6+

bxc6 10 ~xc6+ i d7 11 ~c4 (11 ~c2 should

be compared with 9 a4 a5 10 hc6+ bxc6 11

~xc6+ i d7 12 "Wic2 - the advance of both

a-pawns does not fundamentally change the

posi-tion) 11 ie6 (Black can avoid the repetition

by playing the double-edged 1l c5!? 12 ttJe5 ie6 13 ~5+ \t>f8 14 ttJa3 ttJf6 with an un-clear position) 12 ~c6+ i d7 llz-lh Korchnoi-Ponomariov, Donetsk (4) 2001

13 • 0-0 14 ttJe5

14 ttJc4 ttJc6 15 %1d1 (15 ~g5 "Wie8 16 i.f4 ttJb4 is also fine for Black; 15 ttJxb6 cxb6 =)

15 ttJb4 16 "Wib3 c5 17 ~d2 ~c7 18 i xb4 :f.b8 19 "Wic2 .l:.xb4 20 ttJce5 i.d6 =+= Van Wely-Anand, Monte Carlo Amber rpd 1997

14 ttJg6 Now:

a) 15 ttJxg6 hxg6 16 ttJc4 i.e6 17 i:!.d1 (17 ttJxb6 cxb6 =) 17 ixc4 (17 c5!?) 18 ~xc4

~h4 = Ward-LaW:, England 1998

b) 15 ttJac4 ttJxe5 16 ttJxe5 i:!.e8 17 if4

~f6 (simplifying into an equal major-piece game; 17 ~c8!? is worth a look to retain the bishop-pair) 18 ttJxd7 'iVxf4 19 ttJxb6 cxb6 = Ibragimov-Makarov, Russian Ch (Elista) 1996

end-A3)

8 ttJbd2 This is the most popular choice here

8 ttJe7 (D)

Or 9 i.b6, and then:

a) 10 tbfxd4 i.d7 11 i.e20-0 12 ~e3 tbxd4

13 tbxd4 tbc6 14 tbc2 WIIe7 Ih-1J2

Tunik-Zakh-arov, Tula 2000

b) 10 tbbxd4 i.d7 (10 0-0? carelessly

con-cedes the bishop-pair after 11 tbxe6 fxe6 12

i.g5 ± Cavallieri-Uchoa, Brasilia 2002) 11

tbxc6 ~xc6 and here:

bl) 12 WIIb3 0-0 13 i.g5 i.xb5 14 WIIxb5

~e8 15 WIIb3 (15 a4?! ~xb5 16 axb5 tbg6 +

Sargisian-Kaidanov, Moscow 2005) 15 tbg6

112-112 Romanishin-Solak, Athens (Acropolis)

2005

b2) 12 WIIe2 0-0 13 i.g5 WIIe8 14 i.xc6 tbxc6

= A Kuzmin-Rublevsky, Moscow PCA qual

a2) 12 WIIxb7 tba5 (12 tbb4!? 13 e5 c6 14

i.g5 {14 e6? ':a7 15 exf7+ 'itf8 16 tg5J:txb7

17 i.xd8 'itxf7 +} 14 'Ii'b8 15 WIIxb8+ l1xb8

=) 13 WIId5 WIIxd5 14 exd5 0-0-0 +

b) After 10 0-0 we have:

bI) 11 i.f4 i.b6 12 l::i.fel (12 l:!.fdl!? was

suggested by Khuzman -12 a6 is an adequate

reply) 12 a6 13 i.d3 tbg6 14 i.g3 WIIe7 and

B

although White has some compensation for the pawn, Black's position is very solid

b2) 11 i.xc6!? tbxc6 12 ~xb7 ~d6 13 i.f4 'li'xf4 14 WIIxc6 i.b6 15l:tadl (";\;" - Khuzman, but I don't see it) 15 ~ad8 =

A321}

12 ~g4? 0-0 13 i.f4 tbeS14 i.xeS WIIxeS1S

f4 d3+ 16 'ithl

112-112 Dreev-Rublevsky, Elista (1) 1998 A premature ending to a very interesting game - I think Black has a clear advantage here Now Rublevsky analysed:

18 How TO BEAT 1 d4

16 •• :~xb2 17 J:.abl 'iVe2

17 'iVa3 18 e5 i.b6 19 ~xd3 "with

com-pensation" according to Rublevsky, but I think

the black queen can continue swallowing pawns

with 19 .'iVxa2 20 ~e4 a5 21 'iVh3 lZJg6 22 f5

lZJxe5 23 f6 lZJg6 +

18 i'i'h3 ~b6 19 i.xd3 'iVxa2 20 e5

Black is two pawns ahead and more

impor-tantly, the b6-bishop prevents the b3-knight

from joining the attack Now:

a) 20 g6? 21 f5 gxf5 22 ':xf5! with an

at-tack according to Rublevsky

b) 20 h6 (Rublevsky thought this was the

only move) 21 ~a1 (21 f5!?) 21 'iWb2 22 ~fb1

WVf2 23 lIfl iilVb2 (23 .'~e3?? 24 ~f3 +-) 24

':fbl = Rublevsky

c) 20 lZJg6 ("?" Rublevsky) 21 e6 fxe6! (I

think this is stronger than Rublevsky's 21 '~a4)

22 WVxe6+ (22 i.xg6 hxg6 23 'iYxe6+ l:tf7 24

White can boot the black queen immediately

with 14 g3 ~h6 (l4 iilVd6 = was proposed by

Dreev in 1999 - a possible continuation is 15

lZJxb7 i'i'b4 16 WVa4 ':ab8 17 \txc6 lZJxc6 18

-~g4+, with a draw

14 •• a6!

The alternatives 14 J:tfb8, 14 lZJe5 and

14 b6 have all been played, but I prefer this idea of Lithuanian 1M Vaidas Sakalauskas

15 g3 Or:

a) 15 i.a4 b6 and then:

al) 16lZJxa6 ~xa6 17 ~xc6 lZJxc6 18 ~xc6

iilVxe4 19 ':xc7 ~xa2 20 WVb3 WVe6 21 'iVxe6 fxe6 + Sakalauskas

a2) 16 ~xc6lZJxc6 17 lZJd7 ':fd8 18 lZJxb6 cxb6 19 ':xc6 WVxe4 20 l:txb6 d3 +

a3) 16 lZJd3 WVxe4 17 l:!.el WVd5 + Ganguly, Calcutta 2001

Magai-b) 15 ~xc6lZJxc6 16lZJxb7 WVxe4 and here:

b 1) 17 WVa4 lZJe5 18 l:txc7 WVf4 + Gandalf, Paderborn 2004

Yace-b2) 17 ':el WVd5 and then:

b21) 18 iilVa4 ~fe8! 19 ':edl (19 ~xe8+?

:xe8 20 h3 d3 -+) 19 l:re6 20 lZJc5 lIg6 21 g3 lZJe5 -+ Sakalauskas

b22) 18 l::!.c5 iilVd7 19 'iVa4 ':fe8 20':fl (20

~dl d3 21 lIc3 d2 22 ':'e3 l:txe3 23 fxe3 iilVd3 -+) 20 :a7 21 ':xc61hb7 + Sakalauskas b23) 18lZJc5! (I think this is the best choice

in a difficult situation) 18 a5 19 lZJd3 l:tfe8 with just a slight advantage for Black

15 •• 'iVh6 16 \te2

Or 16 ~xc6lZJxc6, and here:

a) 17 f4 b6 18lZJd3 l:tfe8 19 e5lZJe7! lauskas only considered 19 J::tad8 with an eval-uation of unclear - his analysis is also quoted in

(Saka-ECO; the knight redeployment is clearly

stron-ger) 20 ':xc7 (20 ~f3 c6 +) 20 lZJd5 21 ':d7 lZJe3 22 WVb3 lZJxfl 23 iilVxf7+ ~h8 24 <t>xfl 1:tf8 + Black has a material advantage

b) 17 lZJxb7 ~ab8! 18lZJc5 (18 iilVa4lZJe5 19 'iVb3 WVh3 20 f3 c6 + Sakalauskas) 18 .lhb2

19 ':c2 (19 lZJxa6 lZJe5 -+) 19 :xc2 20 'iYxc2 lZJe5 + Sakalauskas

Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com

Sakalaus-kas, but I think his assessment is too optimistic

in view of 20 i.n! l2Jce7 21 f5! ~d7 (not

2l l2Jxf5? 22 i.xdS l1xd5 23 l2Jf4 ~xe5 24

l:tel ~d6 {24 l2Je3 25 l2Jxd5 ~xd5 26 ~xe3

+-} 25 'iUn c6 26 l:Ixc6! ±) 22 f6, with good

compensation for the pawn

b) 17 d3! (best) 18 i.xd3 (or 18 l2Jxd3

{G.Georgadze-Sakalauskas, Istanbul OL 2000}

18 ~e6 + Sakaev and Sernkov; indeed, 19 e5

~xa2 20 i.f3 l2Jd5 is quite good for Black)

8 'iUd7 9 'iUxb7 l:tb8 10 ~a6

White has recovered the sacrificed pawn at the cost of easing Black's defensive task

10 l2Jf6 11l2Jbd2 Minor alternatives:

a) 11 e5?! l2Jg4 12 l2Jbd2 (Xu Iun-Svidler, Bad Homburg 1995) 12 J::[b6 13 ~a4l:tb4 14 'iVa6l2Jgxe5 15l2Jxe5l2Jxe5 16 ~xa7 ~c6 + b) 11 l:tel i.b4 12 i.d2 0-0 (12 i.xd2? 13 l2Jbxd2 l:txb2 14 l2Jc4 l:tb8 15 l2Jfe5 l2Jxe5 16 l2Jxe5 ±) 13 a3 and now 13 i.e7! was fine for Black in Mikhalevski-Bosch, Hoogeveen 1998 Bosch points out that instead 13 i.xd2 14 l2Jbxd2l:txb2 15l:tac l1:[b6 16 ~a4 gives White compensation

c) 11 i¥d3 i.d6 12 l2Jbd2 - 11l2Jbd2 i.d6

pro-al) 15 l2Jb3 c5 (15 0-0 16 f4 l2Jg6 17 e5 i.b4 18 l:1dl {18 l:.e4? ~d5 19 ~d3 c5 was good for Black in Zaja-Soppe, Istanbul OL 2000} 18 .'tWd5+) 16i.f4:b617~e2d3! 18 i¥dl (18 ~h5+ g6 19 ~g5l2Jf7 20 i¥g3 i.xf4

21 'iVxf4 c4 + Khuzman) 18 0-0 19 i.xe5 i.xe5 20 l2Jxc5 ~b5 21 l2Jxd3 (the passed d-pawn is too strong) 2l l:i.d8 22 l:te3 l:tbd6 23 www.Ebook777.com

20 How TO BEAT 1 d4

'iVg4 hS! (stronger than Khuzman's 23 Jhd3)

24 'iVg6 l:1xd3 2S 'ilKxe6+ ~h7 26 ~xd3 l:1xd3

and Black is much better

a2) IS tbc4 0-0 16 tbxeS ~xeS 17 '¥Vd3 cS

(17 'iiVbS!? was also a little better for Black in

Pelletier-Rublevsky, Lucerne Wcht 1997) 18

b3 'ilKbS 19 'ilKxbS l:1xbS 20 id2 c4 liz-liz

Gyi-mesi-A.Horvath, Hungarian Cht 2002 Black

could play on; for example, 21 bxc4 ~b2 22

l:1ed1 nc8 with a faint edge

b) 12 eS!? and here:

b1) 12 tbxeS 13 tbxd4 0-0 14 tbc4 tbxc4

IS 'iiVxc4 l:1b4 (1S l:1fe8!? also looks

reason-able) 16 'ilKxe6+ 'iiVxe6 17 tbxe6 l:1e8 18 tbgS

.:te2 with good compensation for the pawn,

Ovseevich-Efimenko, Ukrainian Ch

(Ordzhon-ikidze) 200l

b2) 12 ~xeS 13 l:1e1 (13 tbxeS tbxeS 14

'ilKxa7 0-0 is slightly better for Black,

Khudaver-dieva-Muhren, Calvia worn OL 2004; 13 tbb3

{Komljenovic-N.Guliev, Nice 2004} 13 l:1b6

14 'iiVd3 td6 is fine for Black) 13 id6 14

'iiVc4 l:.b4!? (14 0-0 IS ~xe6 ~h8 was

ana-lysed by Khuzman - he didn't give an

evalua-tion, but Black looks comfortable here as the

passed d-pawn is strong) IS ~he6+ (IS 'iiVxe6+

'ilK xe6 16 l:1xe6+ Wd7 17 l:te 1l:!.e8 +; the passed

d-pawn is strong) lS ~f8 16 'ilKe2 tbd8 with a

slight advantage for Black

c) 12 a3 0-013 b4 (13 'ilKd3 -12 'iiVd3 0-0 13

a3) 13 tbg4 14 'ilKa4 as IS bS!? (1S bxaS d3 16

l:1a2 l:!.a8 17 a6 tbceS 18 'ilKxd7 tbxd7 19 h3

tbgeS = Rogozenko-Ibragimov, Berlin 1995)

lS tba7 16 h3 tbeS 17 'ilKxd4 tbxf3+ (not

81)

13 tbc4 tbg414 h3 l:i.xf3

14 tbgeS!? IS tbfxeS tbxeS 16 tbxeS

(af-ter 16 'iiVxd4?? tbf3+ Black wins the queen)

16 txeS 17 f4 if6 =

15 'ilKxf3 tbh2 (D)

W

Now:

a) 16 'ilKe2 tbxfl 17 'ilKxfll:tf8 18 il d2 ~g3

19 tel tbeS 20 tbxeS ixeS 21 'iiVc4 d3 with

equal chances, Milton-Korchnoi, Krynica rpd

13 •.• e514 tbc4 (D)

Black has an interesting choice in this tion:

posi-B21: 14 ••• tbb4 21 B22: 14 •.• ~h8 21 Another idea is 14 h6 IS id2 'iiVe6 16lhc1

tbe7 ("unclear" - Khuzman) 17 b3 tbg6 18 tbxd6 cxd6 19 l:1c7 tbhS 20 l:1fc1 'ilKf6 with

chances for both sides

20 lDf3 ~e6 21 lDh4 (21 l1fel I?) 2l l:tfd8

with roughly level chances

16 ~dl lDxe4 17 lDfxeS i.xeS 18 lDxeS

~e6 19 ~xd4 l:1b4 20 lDc4 ( D)

B

Now Black has:

a) 20 lDxf2? and then:

al) 21 td2? lDxh3+!! (this unexpected shot

is considerably stronger than 21 lDf4? {"only

move" - Khuzman} 22 ~xf4 .uxc4 23 ~xf2

l:lcxf4 24 ~xf4 ~xf4 25 ~xf4 ~e3+ 26 ~f2

when White is much better) 22 gxh3 ~g6+ 23

'i.t>h2 (23 'i.t>h 1 J::i.xfl + 24 l:Ixfl 'iVc6 is equal)

23 ~d6+!! 24 'i.t>g2 (24lDxd6l:txd4 25 l:!.xf8+

'i.t>xf8 26 l1fl + 'i.t>g8 27 i.h6! =) 24 ~g6+ 25

'i.t>h2 (25 'i.t>hl l:i.xfl + 26 lixfl ~c6 - 23 'i.t>hl

.l:!.xfl + 24 l:!.xfl ~c6 =) 25 ~d6+! ! repeats the position

a2) 21 J::i.xf2! ~el + 22 'i.t>h2 ~xf2 23 ~xd5+

~f7 24 ~xf7+ l:1xf7 25 b3 +-

b) 20 lDdc3 21 bxc3 ~xc4 22 'fIxa7 i c) 20 lDb6 21 b3lDxc4 22 l::tel! i Cu.Han-sen-Schandorff, Danish Ch (Arhus) 1999 d) 20 lDg3! 21 fxg3 l::txfl+ 22 ~xfl ':xc4

23 ~d3 c5 with compensation for the pawn

822)

14 Wh8

A sensible move - Black removes his king from any potential danger along the a2-g8 diag-onal

15 iLd2 ~e6 16 l:!.ac1 Another idea is 16 a3 lDd7 17 b4 i.e7 with equal chances

16 i.b4 Black's plan is to exchange dark-squared bishops in preparation for placing a knight on the vulnerable f4-square

by 14 'i.t>h8!? and 16 i.b4 Black should avoid the greedy 18 l:txb2? (an instructive mistake

as it allows White to generate considerable sure along the c-file) 19 ~c4! lDd8 20 ~xc7

pres-lDf7 21 Wixa7 h6 22 l::tc7 lDh5 rov, Russian Clubs Cup (Maikop) 1998) 23 lDc4! l:!.bb8 24 ~c5 l::i.be8 25 ~c6 with a near-decisive advantage according to Khuzman I

(Notkin-Maka-22 How TO BEAT 1 d4

have spent a considerable amount of time

ana-lysing 18 tDh5! and I believe that it

rehabili-tates the 14 <;t>h8 line

19~c5

Or 19 'ilYc4 ~f6 20 b4 tDf4 with roughly

level chances - the well-placed knight inhibits

White's ability to build up along the c-file

19 • tDf4 20 'ilYc4 ~g6 21 g3

White has no time for 21 tDh4? tDxh3+ 22

Wh1 ~g4 with a crushing attack after:

Black's back rank becomes vulnerable and

his king is flushed out after 22 tDg5? 23 tDh4

'ilYh5 24 l:!.xc6 l:!.xb2 25 l:!.xc7 l:txd2 26 l:!.c8 l:te8

27 ifc6! lIg8 28 Ihg8+ <;t>xg8 29 'ilYc8+ <;t>f7

30 ifd7 + <;t>g8 31 <;t>g2 ±

23.l:!.xc6

White may as well continue eating as Black

has a perpetual check after 23 <;t>g2 l:!.xf3 24

White has an extra piece for a couple of

pawns, but his knights are handcuffed together

and Black is able to generate sufficient

counter-play Now:

a) 25 :bl 'ilYh3 26 'iVfl 'ilYxg3+ 27 'iVg2 'tlVf4

28 l:!.xc7 ~e3+ and then:

al) 29 <;t>fl?? l:!.xf3+! 30 tDxf3 (30 ~xf3

tDh2+) 30 ifd3+ and Black wins

a2) 29 <;t>h 1 'ilYh6+ 30 <;t>g 1 'tlVe3+ with a draw by repetition

b) 25 ~e2 d3 26 ~xd3 (26 'ilYe1 'tlVh3)

26 "iVh3 27 'tlVe2 'tlVxg3+ and here:

bl) 28 'iVg2 'ilYxg2+ 29 <;t>xg2 tDe3+ 30 <;t>g3 tDxfl + 31 tDxfl l:txb2 with an equal endgame b2) 28 <;t>h1 ~h3+ 29 <;t>g1 ~g3+ with a draw by repetition

83)

13 a3 tDg4 Now:

B31: 14 b3 22 B32: 14 h3 23

831)

14 b3 tDce5 15 tDxe5 tDxe5!

Rublevsky had played the weaker 15 i.xe5? against Dreev earlier in the year - this was his improvement

CENTRAL VARIATION 23

a2) 18 :tel! ~b5 19 ~g2 is a mess

b) 17 .'iYe7 (suggested by Dreev) 18 'iYd3

.i.c5 =1=

c) 17 .'~b5 and here:

c1) 18 ~c4? ~h5 19 h4 ttJxf2 20 ~xe6+

(20 llxf2 tc5 -+; 20 Wg2 ~g4 21 e5 ~h3+

and Black mates) 20 ~h8 21 ~g2 ~e2 22

'iYc4 'iYg4 and Black has a decisive

advantage-Rublevsky

c2) 18 i b2 i e5 19 'iYc4 i xb2 20 'iYxe6+

.l:.f7 21 'iYxg4 (21 ~a2 'iYh5 -+) 2l i.xa1 22

This powerful centralizing manoeuvre

demonstrates a fine understanding of the position

-the black pieces work toge-ther beautifully

Black seizes control of some important light

squares and disrupts White's development

Black should avoid the tempting 16 ttJg4?

(this move has been passed over with no

com-ment by various sources, but it appears to be a

serious error) 17 f4! (Black is left searching for

B

equality after this move; the weaker 17 ~h1?

c5 was fine for Black in Bacrot-Waitzkin, muda 1999) 17 ~5 18 b4 and now:

Ber-a) 18 i.xf4 19 l::i.xf4 l::i.xf4 20 hxg4 l:i.bf8

21 i.b2 l::!.xg4 22 ~e3 ±

b) 18 .lhf4 19 ~xf4 .i.xf4 20 ttJf3 i.e5 21 ttJxe5 ~xe5 22 ~xe5 ttJxe5 23 i.e3 ± Black's pawns are weak

18 ~xe3 19 fxe3 ttJd3 20 l:rxf8+ txf8! This is the correct way for Black to recap-ture - the bishop will be well-placed along the a1-h8 diagonal Black runs into problems after

20 ~xf8 21 ttJc4 (Gormally-Krush, London 1999) 2l ~b3 22 i.d2! (22 ttJa5 ttJxcl 23 l:txc1 l:txe3 gives Black a slight advantage)

22 ttJxb2 23 ttJxd6 cxd6 24 l::!.b1 l::!.b6 25 i.a5

~a6 26 tc3 t

21 ttJc4 g6 22 Wfl.tg7 23 ~e2 ttJe5 The chances are equal

3 Mannheim Variation

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ~a4+

The characteristic move of the Mannheim

Variation The idea behind the check is to

dis-rupt Black's development and to recapture the

c4-pawn with the queen White will often

fol-low up by playing e4 in one step - Black will

counter by harassing the white queen with his

minor pieces The variation derives its name

from the game Bogoljubow-Alekhine,

Mann-heim Wch (6) 1934; however, it was apparently

first played in the game F.Brown-A.Mackenzie,

London 1904 The line has never been very

popular because there are several ways for Black

to equalize Polish GM Michal Krasenkow has

played 4 ~a4+ several times and the check was

a favourite of Swedish GM VIf Andersson

dur-ing the 1980s

4 • ttJc6

This is our repertoire move - the main

alter-natives 4 ttJbd7 and 4 c6 are also

satisfac-tory

5 ttJc3 ttJd5 (D)

w

The black knight manoeuvre is attributed

to the 9th World Champion Tigran Petrosian

The resulting positions bear some similarity to

Alekhine's Defence and to the Smyslov

Varia-tion of the Griinfeld Defence Now White has

the option of recapturing the pawn or building a

AI)

6 • ttJdb4 This move gives Black a satisfactory game, but the drawback is that White has the option of forcing a draw by repetition

~a4+ ~d7 11 ~b3 ~e6 12 ~a4+ ~d7 112-112

Andersson-Korchnoi, Johannesburg 1981 and many later games

9 •• ttJa6 Not 9 ttJc6? 10 ttJd5 ±

10 e4!?

1 0 ~e3 ~f6! is "unclear" according to Sakaev and Sernkov, but I think this is risky for

Now White can try:

a) 12 lbdS i d6 13 lbc3 i f8! repeats the

position - note that the careless 13 i e7?

al-lows the surprising shot 14 i h6!! ± clearing

the white rook's path to the d-file

b) 12 i.e3!? 'ilk'd8 13 lbbSlbe6 14 J::i.d 1 i d7

IS .i.c4 with compensation for the pawn

12 i.b4 is also possible:

a) 13 fxeS lbxdS 14 i.d2 (14 ~3 c6 also

leads to equality) 14 i xc3 IS bxc3 Wie7 16

l:.bl c6 =

b) 13 e4lbd6 14 i g2 (Bukal jr-L.Hansen,

Sitges 1999) 14 fS IS O-O!? i xc3 16 bxc3

lbxe4 17 i.xe4 fxe4 18 ~hS+ 'it>f8 19l:1d 1 with sharp play

c) 13 i.bS+!? (this disruptive check looks best) 13 'it>f8 14 fxeS lbxdS IS ~b3 c6 16

i d3 lbh4 17 i.e4 ~e7 with equal chances

A21}

12 exf413 e4lbh414 i xf4 (D)

a) 8 dxeS ~xd3 9 exd3lbb4 10 'it>dl (10 'it>d2

.i.g4 11 a3 lbc6 12 te2 {Magula-Kuchyna,

corr 2000} 12 I1d8 =) 1O tfS Illbel 0-0-0

with compensation for the pawn,

Goormach-tigh-Velikov, Haifa Echt 1989

b) 8 lbxeS lbb4 9 'ilk'bl (9 ~dl ~xd4 10

~xd4 lbc2+ 11 Wdl lbxd4 12 e3 lbe6 and a

draw was agreed here in Davies-P.Stempin,

Polanica Zdroj 1989) 9 :ihd4 10 lbf3 ~d6 11

e4.i.g4 12 a3 i.xf3 13 gxf3lbc6 14lbbS ~e7

with equality, Conquest-Dlugy, New York Open

26 How TO BEAT 1 d4

Another idea is 15 h5!? 16 ~g3 g517 i.xc7

liJf3+ with initiative according to Sakaev and

Semkov

16 llbS+ rJi;e7!?

This is an ambitious move - Black prepares to

castle 'by hand' with l:thd8 and rJi;f8 Sakaev

and Semkov analysed 16 .'~f8 17 i.xd6+ cxd6

18 Jie2 hS with an unclear position

17.JigS

Or 17 i.e3 liJf3+ 18 rJi;e2 liJd4+ 19 rJi;dl h6

with sharp play ahead

17 •• liJf3+ 18 ~xf3 ~xgS

The position is equal; Black has a firm grip

on the e5- and f4-squares

A22)

12 ••• Jid6 13 ~gl exf4 14 e4 liJh4 IS ':xg7

liJg616 ~hS 'iVf617 l1xh7 (D)

17 •• rJi;e7!

I think this is stronger than 17 0-0-0 18

l:txh8 l:txh8 ("with initiative" - Sakaev and

Semkov) 19 'iVg4+ rJi;b8 20 h3 liJeS 21 "iUe2

with an unclear position

18l:!.xh8

Black's king is safe after the reckless 18 e5?

.Jixe5 19 liJe4 l:txh7 20 liJxf6 l:!.xh5 21 liJxh5

liJxd5 =t

18 •• l:txh8 19 "iVe2 J::txh2

Black is slightly better The material balance

has been restored and Black has a strong

out-post on the e5-square

B)

6 e4 liJb6 7 "iVdl i.g4 8 dS

White should avoid 8 i.e3?! i.xf3 9 gxf3 e6

10 i.e2 "iUh4 '+= Cruz-Sanguinetti, Buenos Aires

14 liJxb6 (so far this is Djurkovic-Raetsky, Aschach 1995) 14 liJxb6 '+=

B1)

9~d4?!

This relatively popular but dubious idea was suggested by Rajkovic - White offers a pawn in order to seize the initiative

9 •• tLlxf3+ 10 gxf3 i xf3 lll:tgi Now:

a) 11 e6!? (Neishtadt considered this move

to be dubious, but the real mistake comes later)

12 ~e3 .llh5 13 "iUh3 g6 14 dxe6 Sadler, Hastings 1992/3) 14 "iUf6! IS Jie3

(Crouch-~xe6 16 "iVxe6+ fxe6 17 lld4l:!.g8 18 i.xb6 axb6 19 i.xc4 We7 =t

b) 11 'iYd6! was Sadler's later preference, and gives Black a promising position:

bl) 12 ~e3 .Jih5 13 lld2 (13 f4 e6 =t

Crouch-C.Duncan, Hampstead 1998) 13 e5 (the greedy 13 "iVxh2!? also favours Black) 14 dxe6 fxe6 =t Markus-Mannion, Calvia OL 2004 b2) 12 IIg3 e5 with the idea of llhS was suggested by Neishtadt

Now Black can retreat his knight or hold his

ground in the centre:

The solid choice, but it does not offer Black

many winning chances

10 tg3

This is more challenging than the stem game

of this variation, Botvinnik-Petrosian, Moscow

Wch (22) 1963, which saw 10 te3 e6 = liz-liz

This was the final game of the match which

Petrosian won by a score of 1211z-911z; he played the black side of the Queen's Gambit Accepted seven times and drew every game

10 • e5 11 dxe6 i.xe6 12 'iVxd8+ ~xd8 13

txc7l::[d7!

Stronger than the older 13 Jk8

14 i xb6 Relatively unexplored is the probing move

14 tb8!? i.b4 IS a4 (Zagorskis-Hjelm, penhagen 1998) lS a5! 16 i.a7lbc8 17 i.e3

Co-lbd6 18 lbgS lbeS with equal chances

Now Black is threatening lbd3+, so White

must retreat his bishop:

a) 11 te3 gS!? (the consistent move; the more restrained 11 e6 12 f4lbed7 is also pos-sible, with roughly level chances) 12 txgS 'iVb4 13 l::[b1 tg7 with sharp play

b) 11 tg3 gS!? (the calm 1l e6 gives Black

a comfortable game) 12 h4 i g7 (12 gxh4!?)

13 hxgS 'ieb4 14 ~b1 0-0-0 = Engqvist-Sadler, Isle of Man 1995

4 Two Knights Variation

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 (D)

B

This position is the starting point for one of

White's sharpest attempts to refute the Queen's

Gambit Accepted White offers a true pawn

sacrifice and Black has the option of either

re-taining the gambit pawn or returning the booty

in order to concentrate on completing his own

development The main lines in which Black

at-tempts to hang onto the pawn (Line B) are

among the most tactically rich variations in the

entire opening and they require thorough

prep-aration by both players I have provided an

al-ternative repertoire (Line A) for players who

may prefer to avoid the complications The

Two Knights Variation has not been a popular

choice during recent years - this may be due to

the complexity of the lines or simply a whim

of chess fashion I expect the line to regain its

popularity at some point as there are a lot of

unanswered questions and interesting ideas

waiting to be tried; there is plenty of fertile

ground for independent analysis As we shall

see there are several points where White's

at-tack can be strengthened, whereas in other

lines Black's defensive resources appear to

have been underestimated Chess is ultimately

a game of moves, not opinions, so in positions

where I disagree with previously published

analysis I have provided specific variations so

that the reader may compare and draw his own conclusions

4 a6 Black has several alternatives here:

a) 4 c5 is not part of our repertoire b) 4 ttJc6 transposes into the Queen's Gambit Chi gorin Defence

c) 4 e6 usually transposes into the Queen's Gambit Vienna Variation after 5 e4 tb4 6 tg5

d) 4 c6 transposes into the Slav Defence This last choice is popular among players who have both the QGA and the Slav Defence in their opening repertoire

5 e4 The main alternative is 5 a4 (harmless, but popular at club level) 5 ttJc6 and now:

a) 6 ~g5 h6 7 txf6 exf6 8 e3 ttJa5 9 te2 te7 10 0-0 0-0 +' LSokolov-Kramnik, Khal-kidhiki 1992

b) 6 e4 tg4 7 d5 (7 te3 txf3 8 gxf3 ttJa5

+' Bajkovic-Djukic, Bar 2005) 7 ttJe5 8 te2 txf3 9 gxf3 e6 10 f4 (1 0 ~d4? ttJfd7! 11 te3 tc5 12 ~d2 exd5 13 f4ttJd3+ 14 txd3 cxd3

15 ttJxd5 c6 16 ttJc3 txe3 17 ~xe3 ~e7! + A.Ho-Adianto, Manila OL 1992) 1O ttJd3+ 11

~xd3 cxd3 12 dxe6 fxe6 13 ~b3 ~d7 14

~xb7l:td8 15 td2 (Nadera-Ye Rongguang, karta 1993) 15 ~c5 <X) Ye Rongguang

Ja-5 bJa-5 6 eJa-5ttJdJa-5 7 a4 (D)

TWO KNIGHTS VARIATION 29

Now Black has a major decision:

A: 7 e6 29

B: 7 tiJxc3 30

A}

7 e6

This is a relatively quiet sideline for players

who wish to avoid the complications of the

main line 7 tiJxc3 (Line B) Black returns the

gambit pawn and concentrates on completing

his development

S axb5 tiJb6 (D)

w

British GM Tony Miles introduced this

para-doxical knight retreat in 1995 - here is an

in-structive quote from his NIC Yearbook 38 article

in which he describes the birth of the variation:

"In the characteristic positions the doubled

black pawns are no weaker than d4 and b2 In

addition the black pieces - particularly the

b7-bishop - are all active and the c4-pawn, by

preventing i.d3, restricts White's kingside

chances." Another idea behind the knight move

is to protect both the a8-rook and the c4-pawn

in preparation for the opening of the a-file

White has a wide choice here, with Lines A2

and A3 having emerged as the most topical:

AI: 9 bxa6 29

A2: 9 i.e2 29

A3: 9 i.e3 30

Minor alternatives:

a) 9 tiJgS?! h6 and now:

a1) 10 ~hS?! and then:

all) 1O hxgS? (Miles wrote that he "got

[his] lines crossed" here) 11 ~xh8 'iWxd4 12

.i.e2 with a clear edge in Kramnik-Miles, don rpd 1995 - this was the stem game of the variation

Lon-a12) 1O g6! 11 'iWh3 (White's position lapses after 11 ~h4? .i.e7) 1l ~xd4 12 tiJf3

col-~d8 13 i.gS i.e7 14 l::tdl tiJ8d7 IS tiJe4 i.xgS

16 tiJfxg5 axb5 17 tiJh7 lhh7 (I think Black can also play 17 ~e7!? 18 'iWxh6 ~b4+ 19

~d2 i.b7 20 tiJhf6+ We7 21 'iWgS Wf8 +) 18 tiJf6+ tiJxf6 19 ~xd8+ Wxd8 20 exf6 tiJdS + Va'isser

a2) 10 tiJge4 i.b4 11 ~g4 Wf8 12 i.e3 i.b7 13 bxa6 hS 14 ~g5 ~xgS 15 tiJxgSl::txa6

16 Iha6 tiJxa6 =+= Deak-Schrancz, Hungary tt (Ostrava) 2000

b) 9 b3?! i.b4 10 i.d2 i.b7 11 bxa6 (11 i.xc4 i.xf3 12 ~xf3 ~xd4 13 ~e3 ~xe3+ 14 fxe3 a5 IS tiJe2 tiJ8d7 is much better for Black)

11 i.xf3 12 'iWxf3 'iWxd4 13 i.xc4 0-0 ger than 13 ~xeS+ 14 i.e2 tiJdS IS l:tc1 0-0 160-0.i.d6 17 g3 tiJxa6 {Maksimovic-Bojko-vic, Split worn 1989} 18 tiJxdS exd5 19 ki.fel with some compensation for the pawn) 14 ~e3

(stron-~xe3+ IS fxe3 tiJxc4 16 bxc4lixa6 and Black has a slight edge because of his superior pawn-structure, Ward-Ganguly, British Ch (Torquay)

2002

AI}

9bxa6 The immediate exchange of pawns is slightly premature - White should wait for Black to commit his light-squared bishop before captur-ing

9 l::txa6 10 I1xa6 i.xa6 This offers a clearer path to equality than

10 tiJxa6 11 i.e2 i.b7 - 9 i.e2 i.b7 10 bxa6

lUa6 11 Ilxa6 tLrta6

ll.i.e2 i.e712 0-00-013 i.e3 tiJc614 ~al

14 b3 (14 'iWd2!?) 14 tiJb4 IS i.xc4 i.xc4

16 bxc4 tiJxc417 i.f4 cS liz-liz Ernst-Rotsagov, Stockholm 2002

14 i.b7 15 I1dl tiJb4 The game is level, Pecorelli-Zambrana, Ha-vana 2004

A2}

9 i.e2 i.b7 (D)

10 bxa6

30 How TO BEAT 1 d4

W

10 0-0 axb5! (this seems clearer than the

fre-quently played alternative 1O i.e7) 11 ':xa8

.i.xa8 12 ttJxb5 ~d7 13 ttJa3 i.d5 14 ~c2 (14

ttJd2!?) 14 i.xa3 15 bxa3 ttJc6 =

ttJb4 16 :dl 0-0 with compensation for the

pawn, Bacrot-Zilberman, Havana 1998

ttJxc4 16 i.xc4 O-O?! (16 ttJb4!?) liz-liz

Tyom-kin-Lesiege, Montreal 2000 White should play

17 l:td7 with some advantage

b) 15 ~e4 ttJb4 and then:

bI) 16 ttJc3 ttJ4d5 17 i.d2 i.b7 18 ~g4

~h8 = Porper-Mannion, Triesen 2004

b2) 16 ~g4 f5 17 exf6 i.xf6 and here: b21) 18 ttJe5 (Khuzman) 18 ttJc2! 19 ttJxc4 e5 20 ~e4 ttJxd4 = Sakaev and Semkov b22) 18 ~dl ttJ4d5 19 ~e4 (Najer-Sulskis, Linares 2001) 19 ~e7 (19 ~d7 20 ttJc3 i.b7

"with counterplay" according to Khuzman, but

I think White can claim some advantage after

21 'ii'g4) 20 ttJc3 'ii'b4 with equal chances

B)

7 ttJxc3 This is the main line and as we shall see it re-quires thorough preparation by both players

8 bxc3 ~d5

Back in 1986, American 1M John Watson called this move " the most direct and logical way to contest the light squares." His opinion still holds true today

9 g3 i.b7 10 tg2 ~d7 (D)

White has several ways to develop his tack:

at-Bl: 11 ttJh4 31 B2: 11 e6!? 31 B3: 11 i.a3 32

Two KNIGHTS VARIATION 31

w

White can also reach the same position as in

Line B 1 by playing 11 0-0 e6 121Oh4 ~xg2 13

lOxg2 b4 - lllOh4 Lg2 12lUxg2 b4 13 0-0

e6

BI}

lllOh4

The idea behind this move is to exchange

Black's only developed piece Then the knight

will usually make its way to the powerful

13 bxc3!? is worthy of attention After 14

~e21Oc6 15 ~e3 e6 16 ~xc4 ~b4 17 lOf4 0-0 '+ Black will follow up with J:lfb 8 and 1OaS 141Of41Oc6 (D)

w

Now:

a) 15 ~e2 bxc3! 16 i.e3 lOaS 17 l:f.ad1 c6

18 ~c2 ~b4 19 lOh5 0-0-0 20 lOf4 arevich- Yakovich, Russian Ch (Elista) 1995)

(Zakh-20 'ii>c7! 211Oe2 .l:i.b8 221Oxc3 i.xc3 23 ~xc3

~d5 + Nikitin

b) 15 i.e3 b3 16 ~e21OaS '+ Wendt-Melts, ICCF COIT Wch 1989

c) 15 lOh5 bxc3 16 i.e3 lOb4 (16 lOe7!?

with the idea 17 'iVg41Of5 '+) and then:

c1) 17 ~e2 (Kremenietsky-A.Zakharov, Moscow Ch 1998) 17 lOd3 +

c2) 17 'iVg4 0-0-0 18 'iVf3 and here:

c21) 18 ~d5 19 ~xf7 .l:i.d7 20 ~e8+ (White must allow the repetition as 20 ~f4? lOd3 21

~h4 c5! is overwhelming for Black) 20 l:i.d8

21 ~f7 .l:i.d7 =

c22) 18 c5! 19 dxc5 (the sucker check 19

~a8+? loses to 19 ~c7 20 ~a7+ 'it>c6 -+)

11 'iVxe6+ 12 ~e3 ~c8

Black may wish to consider 12 i.d5!? here 13dS

White must act quickly to justify his sacrifice

- too slow is 13 ~bl? lOd7 140-0 c6 151Og5

The alternative is 17 td6 ("! only move"

according to Sakaev and Sernkov in 2003, but

they appear to have been unaware of Ille;;cas's

1995 Infonnator notes which had been quoted

by Neishtadt in 1997) 18 txf6 0-0 19 ixg7

cj;;xg7 20 'iVg4+ cj;;h8 21 txb7 'iVxb7 22 'ii'xe6

and White had a slight edge in

Beliavsky-Illescas, Linares 1995

18 ~xf6

White has no time for 18 cj;;xg2? ~b7+ 19

'it'gl l:rd8 20 ~e2 i.e7 +

18 • h5 (D)

"!!" according to Illescas - his astonishing

idea appears to have prematurely extinguished

interest in the 11 e6!? line Although the

h-pawn thrust prevents ~h5+, the drawback is

that it creates a gaping hole on the g6-square This position has generally been considered ad-vantageous for Black, but I believe White's at-tacking chances have been underestimated here

- Black must play accurately to equalize

19 'iVc2 This move takes aim at the weak g6-square Two other moves are also quite playable: a) 19 'it'xg2 gxf6 20 tZJg6 l::[h6 21 tZJxf8 cj;;xf8 ('T' according to Illescas, but I think White is doing fine here) 22 axb5 (another idea

is 22 'iVf3!?) 22 axb5 23 'iVf3 ':xa1 24 lha1 'iVd7 25 1:td1 and White has some compensa-tion for the pawns as it is difficult for Black to safeguard his king

b) 19 ~h4 ~d6 20 tZJg6 ~xfl 21 tZJxh8 'it'd7 (2l i.d3 22 ~xh5+ 'it'd7 23 ~f7+ 'it'c6

24 ~f3+ cj;;b6 25 tZJf7 with compensation for the pawn) 22 tZJf7 td3 23 'iVxh5 with an un-clear position

19 •.• gxf6!

Stronger than 19 l::th6 ("also good" ing to Neishtadt, but he offered no analysis) 20 tg5 txfl 21 l:txfl (21 'iVe4!?) 2l ~d6 ('T'

accord-according to Illescas in Infonnator, but I think

White is doing fine here also) 22 txh6! txe5

23 l:!.e1 gxh6 24 :xe5 and White has a slight edge as the black king has no shelter

20 'iVg6+ 'it'e7 21 'iVf7+ cj;;d6 Illescas suggested this with no evaluation

22 'iVxf6!? ~xfl23 :xfl i.g7!

White has a mating attack after 23 l!h7? 24 l:rd 1 + 'it'c5 25 ~f3 'it'b6 26 as+! 'it'xaS 27 :Ia1 + 'iitb6 28 ~c6+ 'iita7 29 ~xb5 +-

24 ~xg7 Wc5 25 axb5 axb5 26 l::rbl White has good compensation for the ex-change and Black must defend accurately

26 •• 1:td8 27 'iVe7 + l:td6 Not 27 cj;;b6? 28 tZJxc4+ cj;;c6 29 tZJe5+ cj;;b6 30 c4 ±

28 'iVg5 J::td5 29 'iVe7+ :d6 30 'iVg5 with a draw by repetition

83)

ll ta3 This is the most popular continuation - White deploys the bishop to a powerful diagonal and discourages the natural developing move e6 1l g6 (D)

This move has replaced the older 11 e6

Two KNIGHTS VARIATION 33

The most prominent exponent of this line is

GM Ildar Ibragimov The idea of playing l1 g6

had not yet been discovered at the time of John

Watson's 1986 monograph on this variation

Now White must make a committal decision

- play for an all-out attack or complete his own

Black must decide where to put his king - he

can continue his development at the risk of

cas-tling into a kingside attack, or he can focus on

untangling his queenside pieces

18 g5 with sharp play ahead) 17 :~xf3+ 18

ttJxf3 ~e8 (Black vacates a square for his

dark-squared bishop - the alternative is 18 ttJc6 19

h6 i.h8 20 i.c5 ;!; Mchedlishvili-Charboneau,

Erevan jr Wch 1999) 19 e6 (another idea is 19

h6 i.f8 20 e6!? fxe6 21 ttJe5 with compensation

for the pawns) 19 .fxe6 20 l:tael ttJd7 21 hxg6

w

hxg6 221:txe6 i.f6 23 g4 (23 J::tc6!? deserves tention - the idea is to answer 23 ttJb6 by 24 axb5 axb5 25 i.xe7! with an unclear position)

at-23 ttJb6 24 g5 ttJd5! 25 'it>g3 'it>f7 (25 i.g7!?

26 l::i.xg6 ttJxc3 was unclear in Monacell-Nava, IEBG e-mail 2000) 26 l:i.hel i.g7 with roughly level chances, Zakharevich-Ibragimov, St Pe-tersburg 1994

21 gxf4 l::i.f8 22 l:tM ± Sakaev-Ibragimov, Kherson 1991

18 ttJh3

Or 18 ttJe4 ttJc6 with unclear play

Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com

18 ••• liJc6 19 'iVe2

Another idea is 19 'iVc2 'iVd5+ (Black can

play on with the double-edged 19 ~g4!?) 20

'it>h2 ~xe5 21 dxe5 l/Z-1f2

Simmelink-Cotteg-nie, IEBG e-mail 2000 - the finish would be

21 liJxe5 22liJf4liJf3+ 23 'it>h3liJg5+ 24 'it>h2

liJf3+ with perpetual check

So far this is S.lvanov-Degerrnan, Swedish

Cht 2000 Now 24 'it>h7!? 25 liJf4 'iVf5 is

equal

8312)

12 •• i.dS!? (D)

W

The bishop overprotects the e6-square and

blockades the d4-pawn in readiness for liJc6

13hS

13 'iitf1 liJc6 14 h5 - 13 h5 liJc6 14 'iitf1

13 •.• liJc6

No one has tried the aggressive counterstroke

13 g5!? 140-0 g4 15 liJh2 i.xg2 16 'iitxg2

l:!.g8 17 'iVc2, when White has good play for the

sacrificed pawn

14 hxg6

White can maintain the tension for another

move by playing 14 'it>f1liJa5 15 hxg6 fxg6 16

liJg5 Then:

a) 16 i.xg2+ 17 'it>xg2 ~d5+ 18 ~f3

'iVxf3+ 19 'itxf3liJb3 20 l:!.adl h5

(Lomineish-vili-Flear, Tunis 2000) 21 liJe6 = Sakaev and

Semkov

b) 16 liJb3! (this looks safer as the white rook is driven to an inferior square) 17 lita2 i.xg2+ 18 'iitxg2 'iVd5+ (Van Dijk-Sukhov, IEBG e-mail 2002)19~f3.iVxf3+20.it>xf3

h5 =

14 • fxg6 15 0-0 i.h6 16 e6 Stronger than the passive 16 liJh2 i.xg2 17 'it>xg2 0-0 + Filippov-Flear, Reykjavik ECC

1999

16 'iVxe617l:tel (D)

B

Now:

a) 17 'iVc8? 18liJe5 i.xg2 19liJxc6 i.xc6

20 lhe7+ 'it>d8 21 d5 (+- Sakaev and Semkov)

21 ~e8 22 'tlYd4 11f8 23 d6 +-

b) 17 'iVf6! (Flear) and then:

bI) 18 liJh2 i.xg2 19 'it>xg2 (after 19 axb5 axb5 20 i.xe7?? liJxe7 Black defends the a8-rook) 19 ~f5 20 d5 0-0-0 favours Black -White is two pawns down and his attack has evaporated

b2) 18 liJe5 i.xg2 and here:

b21) 19liJxc6? 'iVxc6 20 l:!.xe7+ 'it>d8 gested by Flear - I don't see an effective fol-low-up for White) 21 d5 (21 axb5 axb5 22l:!.e5 i.d5 wins for Black) 21 'ilVxd5 22l:!.e5 'iVxdl +

(sug-23 l:!.xd 1 + 'it>c8 24 'iitxg2 i.g7 and Black is much better

b22) 19 'it>xg2 (this move is White's best

try) 19 liJxe5 20 l:txe5 O-O! (power Black safeguards his king and launches a coun-terattack against White's f2-pawn) 21 f4 l:tfe8

castling-22 'iVf3 l:!.ab8 (castling-22 c6 23 axb5 cxb5 24 i.xe7 'ilVf7 with roughly level chances) 23 axb5 axb5

24 'ilVd5+ 'tlYf7 25 'ilVc6 i.g7 26 l:!.xb5 l:!.xb5 27 'iVxb5 i.f6 with roughly level chances since Black's extra pawn is of little value

www.Ebook777.com

Two KNIGHTS VARIATION 35

White must retain the light-squared bishop

for the attack as 16 i xb7 ~xb7 17 ~g4 I:tf5

looks fine for Black

16 ••• i dS (D)

17 i xe7

White recovers one of his pawns

Alterna-tives:

a) 17 liJg4?! (this knight redeployment is

too slow) 17 liJc6 18liJe3 and now:

al) 18 ~d8 19liJxd5 exd5 20 i c5 'it>h8 =1=

Repasi-Vass, Fezesabony 2002

a2) 18 i f3 19 '¥Vc2 (19 '¥Hbl I?) 19 'it>h8 20 i c5 liJa5! (20 nb8 was played in Lesiege-Charbonneau, Montreal sim 1999; now White should try 21 axb5 axb5 22 liJg2 ~b7 =1=) 21 i.xe7 l1e8 22 i b4liJb3 23 l:ta2 c5 + Lugovoi-Ibragimov, St Petersburg 1993 - White's king-side pressure has disappeared and Black still has an extra pawn

b) 17 ~d2!? and then:

bl) 17 ~e8 18liJg4 (this was suggested by Ibragimov) 18 c6!? 19liJe3 $ f6 20 '¥Ve2 with sharp play ahead

b2) 17 liJd7!? 18liJg4 (the tempting fice 18 i xe6+? i xe6 19liJc6 is considered de-cisive by some sources, but I have been unable

sacri-to find anything convincing for White after the bold 19 'it>f7! 20 liJxe7 ~b7 +) 18 c5 looks fine for Black

b) 18 liJd7 19 liJg4 Wj'b7 20 liJh6+ and then:

bl) 20 'it>h8 21 liJf7+ 'it>g8 22liJh6+ 'it>h8 23liJf7+ with a draw by perpetual check, Kan-torik-Jurek, Prerov 2001

b2) 20 $ xh6!? (Black avoids the perpetual check at the risk of incurring some dark-square weaknesses) 21 i.xh6 b4 (2l c5!?) 22 cxb4

~xb4 23 J:tbl Wj'd6 (23 ~a5!?) 24 iVd2 ~ab8

(24 :tlVa3!?) was unclear in lishvili, 0hrid 2000

Arbakov-Mched-36 How TO BEAT 1 d4

8322)

14 ~cS ~dS1S ttJgS (D)

B

Black has the choice of either continuing his

development or exchanging the light-squared

bishops The latter option is safer as piece

ex-changes reduce White's attacking possibilities

B3221: IS •• ttJc6 36

B3222: IS i.xg2 37

83221)

IS ttJc6 16 e6

ECO suggests 16 i h3!? - play might

con-tinue 16 ~d8 17 e6 f6 18 ttJf7 ~e8 with an

unbalanced position

16 fxe617 'iVg4 ~xg218 Wxg2 ~dS+ (D)

19 f3

Another idea is 19 ~e4!? ~xg5 20 ~xe6+

~h8 21 ~xc6 ~d2 22.l:!.fl with an unclear

'iVe6+ lWxe6 24 l:1xe6 ttJxd4 25 lhg6 ttJb3 26 i xb4 ttJxal {Zakharstov-Ibragimov, Smolensk 1991} 27 ~c3! ~f6 28 l:[xg7 + Wxg7 29 ttJxa8 ttJc2 30 ~f2 and White is certainly not worse)

23 ~xf3+ 24 ~gl ~f2+ 25 ~hl ~f3+ 26

~gl WVf2+ with a draw by repetition

22 axbS axbS 23 l:Ia6 IUS 24 ttJf4

So far this is Bacrot-C.Bauer, French Ch (Haute Vichy) 2000

2S eS (D)

Now:

a) 26 ttJxg6 l:!.f7 27 ~xd7 l:txd7 28 lixc6 hxg6 =t

b) 26 dxc6 ~d2+ 27 :te2 'iVdl 28 l:txe5!

~xe5 29 ttJxg6 'iVc2+ and then:

ex-Two KNIGHTS VARIATION 37

This capture is the most conservative choice

- White's attacking possibilities are reduced

17 ttJe4 White can consider the queen exchange 17 1lVf3!? llVxf3+ 18 ttJxf3 ttJd7 19 txe71He8 20 tb4 ttJb6 with equal chances

17 ttJc6 181lVf3 'it>h8 Another idea is 18 llVd7!?

19 h4 (D)

NCO ends its analysis here with an tion of "White has enough compensation for the material" 19 ttJg5!? is another possibility for White

evalua-B

19 b4!

This is safer than 19 .f6 20 exf6 txf6 21 ttJxf6 llVxf3+ 22 'it>xf3 ~xf6+ 23 'it>g2 with compensation for the material, Cebalo-Ibragi-mov, Bled 1996

20 txb4 ttJxb4 21 cxb4 ~xd4 22 ttJc5 c3

23 lite4 ~d2 24 l:re2 ~d4 25 lIe4 ~d2

with a draw by repetition

5 Furman Variation

1 d4 dS 2 c4 dxc4 3 lDf3lDf6 4 e3 e6 5 iLxc4 cS

6 'ilVe2

This is the characteristic move of the

Fur-man Variation White's plan was popularized

by the Russian GM Semion Furman, perhaps

best known as the trainer of Anatoly Karpov

The idea behind the queen move is to play dxc5

followed by a quick e4 pawn advance

Less common is 6lDc3 a6, and now:

15 iLf4 lDg6 16 i.e3 iLxe3 17 'iVxe3 ~f6

(17 e5!?) 18 l:!.abl (White doesn't quite have enough for the pawn after 18 e5!? ~xe5 19 i.e4 nb8 20 f4 ~d6 =1=) 18 e5 19 ~fdllDf4 20 ~d2

i.e6 =1= Van der Werf-Skripchenko, Cannes 1997

Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com

IS ~h4!

Khuzman's suggestion Lputian-A.Horvath,

Kallithea ECC 2002 saw the less aggressive

15 ~f6 16 l:.bl ~b7 17 ~e3 i.xe3 18 ~xe3

Black has the initiative - Khuzman White

is under a lot of pressure here; for example, 18

axb5 axb5 19 i e3 (19 ~xb5?? .l::txc2! wins for

Black) 19 ~xe4 20 i xe4 ~xe4 21 ~xb5

White must decide whether to advance his

e-pawn or continue with straightforward

Now Black has two options:

a) 14 :~e4 15 i.dl (15 'ilVxe4 i xe4 16 i f4 i d3 =+= Sakaev and Semkov) 15 l:1d8 16 'ilVxe4 i xe4 ,+

b) 14 i xf3 15 'ilVxf3 0-0 16 ~g3 lbxf2!! (the temporary knight sacrifice is much stronger than 16 ~h8? = Rapoport-Mariasin, Beersheba 1998) 17 ':'xf2 f6! (this gives new meaning to the phrase 'castling into the attack') 18 ~f1

(18 ~xe6+ ~h8 -+) 18 fxe5 19 IH3 e4 20 1:(f4 i d6 21 i xe6+ ~h8 -+ Black wins ma-terial

A22)

11 0-0 lbd4!

This is an interesting untried suggestion from Sakaev and Semkov 11 lbd7 is also suffi-cient: 12 i c2 (Kempinski-Kharlov, Saint Vin-cent Ech 2000) 12 ~c7 13 lbb3 i.b6 (also worthy of consideration is 13 i d6!? 14l:idl

lbde5 =) 14 i e3 0-0 15 l:i.ac1 (";1;" Khuzman)

15 :r.ac8 ("Black is very close to equality" Sakaev and Semkov) 16 l::i.fdl ~xe3 17 ~xe3

-~fd8 =

12lbxd4 'ilVxd4 13 ~c2 'ilVeS 14 a4 0-0 Black has equalized according to Sakaev and Semkov