Anti Meran [D45 46]terrycucf.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/2/9/19295043/antimeran.pdf · Complications in...

Anti−Meran [D45−46]

Written by GM Ruslan Scherbakov

Last updated Sunday, June 5, 2011

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 e3 e6 5 ¤f3 ¤bd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Themes

In modern practice White often avoids the very unbalanced and complicated Meran

System and prefers a more solid and quiet continuation. Instead of playing ¥d3 which lets

Black begin immediate queenside action with ...dxc4 and ...b5 etc, White develops his

queen first (usually to c2) trying to gain extra time if Black is still planning to attack on the

queenside, as his bishop gets to the c4 square in one move. In practice Black usually

develops his kingside first. The result of such opening strategy is that White is better−

prepared to cope with Black's activity on the queenside but at the same time Black also

takes fewer risks compared to the main Meran variations as he has already developed his

kingside.

Complications in this system are usually postponed to the middle game if they

happen at all, and more ambitious players prefer the Meran (or of course the Botvinnik

variation) which gives more winning chances for both players.

Experts

The main White adherent is Anatoly Karpov who has won a lot of excellent games.

His second, Vladimir Epishin is also one of the main experts with this system.

2

Contents

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 e6 5 e3 ¤bd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6 £c2 ¥d6

6...b6 D45 Anti−Meran/1−Various ideas

7 ¥d3

7 g4 ¤xg4 D45 Anti−Meran/2 Latvian Bayonet 7...Nxg4, 7... ¥b4 D45 Anti−Meran/3 Latvian Bayonet 7...Bb4, 7...dxc4 D45 Anti−Meran/4 Latvian Bayonet 7...dxc4

7...0-0 8 0-0 dxc4 9 ¥xc4 b5

D46 Anti−Meran/6 Slow lines − Black tends to ...Bc8−b7 , 9...£e7 D46 Anti−Meran/5 slow lines − Black tends to ...e6−e5 [D46]

X

Press F5 to toggle the Navigation Pane, then click on the appropriate bookmark to go

straight to that section.

All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd

3

Anti−Meran/1 − Various ideas [D45]

Last updated: 05/06/11 by R.Scherbakov

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+p+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

4.¤f3

Sergey Volkov introduced a curious Anti−Meran set−up: 4.e3 ¤f6 5.¥d2!? White delays ¤g1-f3, reserving this square for... the queen! 5...¤bd7 (5...b6 is another possibility: 6.cxd5 exd5 7.¥d3 ¥a6 8.¥c2 ¥d6 9.£f3 0-0 10.g4 ¦e8 11.¤ge2 with the idea of Ne2−g3 and g4−g5 promises good prospects for White) 6.¦c1 b6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.¥d3 ¥b7 9.£f3!? ¥e7 10.¤ge2 ¤f8 11.g4!? Starting direct actions on the kingside. Yet, Black's position is quite solid, Volkov − Lastin/St.Petersburg 1999.

4...¤f6 5.e3 ¤bd7

A tricky 5...a6

4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9p+p+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

helps Black to avoid main lines of Meran system but at the same time it gives White some

benefit in the AntiMeran approach: 6.b3!? a) The position after and 6.£c2 c5 is considered in D10 Chebanenko System/1 b) In case of 6.¥d3 Black solves the problems by typical 6...dxc4 7.¥xc4 b5 8.¥d3

c5, transposing to QGA with White's early ...Nb1-c3, as we have seen in the game Kramnik − Kasparov/Zuerich 2001 − refer to D24 QGA/12

c) These days White often tries to seal the Q−side by 6.c5!? However, this approach has already been tried many years ago as there was a theoretical dispute in the World Title Match between Alexander Alekhine and Max Euwe in 1935. 6...b6 (6...¤bd7 allows White to fortify his Q−side pawn chain with 7.b4 with better chances, according to the tournament practice) 7.cxb6 (Here 7.b4?! was already met by 7...a5) 7...¤bd7 8.¥d3 (8.¤a4 ¤xb6 9.¥d2 ¤xa4 10.£xa4 is supposed to be less promising these days: 10...¥d7 11.¤e5 c5 12.¤xd7 £xd7 13.£xd7+ ¢xd7 14.dxc5 ¥xc5 with a slightly worse but solid position in the ending) 8...c5 The game Riazantsev − Vitiugov/RUS−ch Moscow 2009 continued 9.0-0 and here the most reliable continuation seems to be 9...¤xb6 (in the game Black faced problems after the ambitious 9...c4?! 10.¥e2! ¦b8 11.e4! ¤xe4 12.¤xe4 dxe4 13.¤d2 ¤xb6 14.¤xe4 ¥b7 15.¤c5 and so on) 10.dxc5 (10.e4!?) 10...¥xc5 11.e4 ¥b7 12.e5 ¤e4 13.£e2 ¤xc3 14.bxc3 £c7 15.¦b1 with a small advantage for White

6...¥b4 (A rather unexpected change of course 6...c5 should not solve the problems completely. Black won't mind to lose a tempo in the very beginning, trying to get benefit from opponent's somewhat passive play. In fact, this pawn push might transpose into Symmetrical Tarrasch with extra tempo for White though this extra b2−b3 move would clarify the way he develops his bishop a bit too early. 7.¥b2

a) The captures 7.dxc5 ¥xc5 8.cxd5 exd5 9.¥e2 ¤c6 10.0-0 0-0 11.¥b2 lead to a typical IQP position, which could be reached in various openings when according to tournament practice Black gets sufficient counter chances.

b) 7.cxd5 exd5 (an interesting 7...cxd4!? 8.£xd4 exd5 9.¥e2 ¤c6 10.£d3 ¥d6 11.0-0 0-0 12.¥b2 leads to the position, which would be reached in the 1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 Sicilian with reversed colours but here White gets a couple of extra moves. Yet, perhaps it is still not so bad for Black...) 8.¥e2 ¤c6 9.0-0 is also a common way when White is trying to gain a tempo compare to the Symmetrical Tarrasch, waiting

5

for Black's dark−squared bishop's move since he has advanced his c−pawn in two steps.

7...cxd4 (A logical capture though 7...¤c6 would be also an option) 8.exd4 (8.¤xd4 has also been tried: 8...dxc4!? 9.¥xc4 ¥d7!? 10.¥e2 ¤c6 11.¥f3 £b6 12.¤xc6 ¥xc6 13.0-0 ¦d8 14.£e2 ¥e7 with acceptable play for Black) 8...b6!? Black tries to solve his main problem first of all. The game Sasikiran − Erdos/CRO−chT Sibenik 2008 continued 9.cxd5 (9.¥d3 is also worth considering) and here 9...¤xd5!? looked more to the point. (a dubious 9...exd5?! 10.¤e5 ¥b7 11.¥d3 ¥d6 12.0-0 0-0 13.¤e2! ¤c6 14.¤g3ƒ gave White a clear advantage) 10.¥d3 (10.¤xd5 £xd5 11.¥c4 £a5+ was okay for Black) 10...¥b4 11.¦c1 ¥b7 12.0-0 ¤xc3 13.¥xc3 ¥xc3 14.¦xc3 ¤d7 with reasonable chances to equalise) 7.¥d2 0-0 8.¥d3 ¤bd7 9.0-0 ¥d6 (9...£e7 can be well met with an interesting An interesting 10.£e1!?, which is impossible in the Anti−Meran since White gets his queen to c2 there.

a) 10.£c2 can also promise better chances for White but Black is only slightly worse and keeps reasonable chances to hold on: 10...e5 11.dxe5 ¤xe5 12.¤xe5 £xe5 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.¤e2 ¥d6 15.¤g3 £g5!? (after 15...£e7 16.¥c3 h6 17.£b2 ¦e8 18.¥xf6 £xf6 19.£xf6 gxf6 20.¦ac1 ¢f8 21.¦fd1± Black faces problems in the endgame due to his damaged pawn structure) 16.¥c3 ¤g4 17.¥e2 ¥xg3 18.hxg3 £h5 19.¥xg4 ¥xg4 20.f3 ¥e6 21.g4 £g6 22.£xg6 hxg6 23.g5 ¦ac8 24.¥d4² White has achieved some advantage in the endgame but it's certainly drawish

b) 10.¤e5 ¤xe5 11.dxe5 ¤d7 12.f4 is also worth considering but perhaps it's less promising, Khotenashvili − Stefanova/EU−ch (w) Tbilisi 2011.

10...a5 (10...¥d6 can be well met with a typical 11.c5 ¥c7 12.e4 e5 13.exd5 ¤xd5 14.£e4 ¤5f6 15.£h4 ¦e8 16.¦ae1ƒ with better chances, 10...dxc4 11.bxc4 e5 12.¥c2 ¦e8 This position arose in the game Dreev − Khenkin/ECC Saint Vincent 2005 which continued 13.£b1! White's queen is doing excellent work moving back and forth along the first rank. 13...¥d6 14.¤g5 h6 15.¤ge4² and White has achieved the better chances thanks to his superiority in the center and more active minor pieces, 10...e5? failed to 11.dxe5 ¤xe5 12.¤xe5 £xe5 13.¤xd5!) 11.a3!? A tempting pawn sacrifice. (In case of 11.¥c2 Black can seriously think about 11...e5!? (11...dxc4 12.bxc4 e5 did not completely equalise in the game Aronian − Kornev/EU−ch Warsaw 2005, which continued 13.a3 ¥d6 14.¤h4 g6 and here White would have thought about 15.c5!? ¥c7 16.f4 exd4 17.exd4 £xe1 18.¦fxe1 b6² with a slightly worse ending for Black) 12.a3 ¥d6 13.¤h4 g6 14.f4 e4÷ with a good play) 11...¥xa3 12.e4 dxc4! The best option.

a) In case of 12...dxe4?! 13.¤xe4 Black could face real problems with his bishop on a3: 13...¤xe4 (13...b6? did not bring desired effect: 14.¤xf6+ ¤xf6 15.c5! bxc5 16.¦xa3 c4 17.¦xa5 ¦xa5 18.¥xa5 cxd3 19.¥b4+−) 14.£xe4 ¤f6 15.£h4ƒ and White got important time for development a strong initiative on the K−side.

b) The concrete option 12...¥b2?! was unsuccessfully tried in the game Navara − Erenburg/GER−chT 2006: 13.e5! ¤e8? (13...¤e4 looked better but it already couldn't extinguish White's initiative: 14.¤xe4 ¥xa1 15.¤d6 ¥b2 16.cxd5!? cxd5 17.£b1 ¥xd4! 18.¤xd4 ¤xe5 19.¥xh7+ ¢h8 20.¤4b5ƒ followed by ¥d2−c3 with the better chances for White) 14.¥xh7+! ¢h8 (14...¢xh7 15.£b1+ ¢g8 16.£xb2 was clearly better for White) 15.¥c2 ¥xa1 16.£xa1ƒ and White has gained superior compensation for the exchange − his pieces are much more powerful than their black counterparts.

6

13.bxc4 e5÷ This complicated position requires more analysis and practical tests for more precise conclusions) 10.£c2

a) 10.¦c1 might also promise some edge for White: 10...e5 11.cxd5 cxd5 12.dxe5 ¤xe5 13.¤xe5 ¥xe5 14.¤e2²

b) An immediate 10.e4 has also been tried: 10...dxc4 11.bxc4 e5 12.c5 (12.d5 ¤c5 13.¥c2 ¥g4 is favourable for Black according to the tournament practice) 12...¥c7 13.¤a4 exd4 14.h3 (White can also try to use the fact Black did not play h7−h6 and pin the knight by 14.¥g5!? but Black can achieve a good play by 14...¦e8 15.¦e1 ¦b8 16.¥c2 h6 17.¥h4 ¤f8 18.£xd4 ¥g4 19.¥g3 ¤e6÷) 14...¦e8 Tournament practice promises good counter chances for Black in this position. The game Moiseenko − M.Gurevich/Tromsoe 2007 continued 15.¦e1 h6 (An alternative 15...¤f8!? is also possible, for example: 16.e5 ¤d5 17.¥g5 £d7 with a complicated play) 16.¦b1 ¦b8 17.£c1 ¤f8 18.¦b4 ¤6d7!? with a good play, in which Black's chances do not seem to be worse

10...h6 (Black has other possibilities, such as 10...¦e8 11.¦ae1 h6 12.e4² with somewhat better chances for White) 11.e4 White also tested other options, improving his pieces first.

a) An interesting rearrangement is 11.¤e2 ¦e8 12.¤g3 c5 13.¥c3 (or 13.cxd5 exd5 14.¥c3 with a slight edge) 13...b6 14.¤e5 ¥b7 15.f4 with a complicated position, in which White's chances look somewhat better

b) 11.¦ad1 e5 12.cxd5 cxd5 and now 13.dxe5 or 13.e4 is also worthy of consideration.

11...dxc4 12.bxc4 e5 13.c5 (13.dxe5 does not look promising: 13...¤xe5 14.¤xe5 ¥xe5 15.¦ad1 ¤g4 with good counter chances) 13...¥c7 14.¤a4 exd4 15.h3 ¦e8 Black is doing well, Chatalbashev − Malakhatko/Athens 2007.

6.£c2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is supposed to be a start position of so−called Anti−Meran approach.

6...¥d6

An immediate 6...b6 is a modern approach − Black develops his light−squared bishop first of all while he usually does it after ...¥f8−d6 and ...0-0. 7.¥d3 (7.¥e2 is less active:

7

7...¥b7 8.0-0 ¥e7 9.¦d1 0-0 10.e4 dxe4 11.¤xe4 £c7 At first glance Black has played rather passively in the opening, but White has not played very aggressively either. Now Black is ready to play c6−c5 completely equalising. The game Cifuentes Parada − Zvjagintsev/Wijk aan Zee 1995 continued 12.¤c3 c5 13.d5 (13.¤b5 £b8 14.g3 cxd4÷ was unclear) 13...exd5 14.cxd5 a6 15.¤h4 g6 16.¥h6 ¦fe8 and here White should have played 17.a4÷ preventing ...b6−b5 with a complicated play.) 7...¥b7 8.0-0 ¥e7 9.b3² White keeps a small and stable advantage but Black's position is very solid.

7.e4

White plays this thematic pawn advance in two steps so Black should be play.

7...dxe4 8.¤xe4 ¤xe4 9.£xe4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlp+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPQ+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Here Black chooses between

9...e5

9...c5 and 9...¥b4+ 10.¥d2 ¥xd2+ 11.¤xd2 0-0 with acceptable play.

8

Anti−Meran/2 − Latvian Bayonet 7 ...Nxg4

[D45]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 c6 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 e3 ¤bd7 6 £c2 ¥d6 7 g4!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlpsn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+P+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zP-zP0 9tR-vL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This aggressive pawn advance is an invention of Latvian (now American) player Alexander

Shabalov, then Alexei Shirov's and recent Garry Kasparov's efforts greatly increased its popularity. Frankly speaking, I am not sure who suggested to call this system "Latvian Bayonet" but I like it.

7...¤xg4

A most direct approach to counter White's idea. Another option to stop g4−g5 is 7...h6!?

9

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+pvlpsn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+P+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zP-zP0 9tR-vL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

, which has got some popularity during last few years. However, it looks a bit slow and also

weakening. The most promising for White seems to be 8 ¥d2 (8 h3 is a bit slow and gives Black some good options. The most promising of them are: 8...a6!? (a pawn sac 8...b5!? is also interesting: 9 cxb5 c5 The point of Black's idea as by removing his opponent's c−pawn he increases his influence in the center. 10 ¥d2 ¥b7 This position arose in the game Vallejo Pons − Roiz/ESP−chT Cala Mayor 2008 which continued 11 ¦g1 (White would have thought about 11 ¥d3!?, taking control over important e4−square and not being much worried about 11...c4 12 ¥e2 with a stable position in center) 11...¦c8 (11...¤e4!?) 12 g5 and here Black should have played 12...¤e4! 13 gxh6 g6! with excellent play) 9 ¥d2 dxc4 10 ¥xc4 (Perhaps an immediate 10 e4!? is more promising. A possible play is 10...¥e7!? 11 e5 (11 ¥xc4!? b5 12 ¥e2 ¥b7 is far from clear) 11...¤d5 12 ¥xc4 ¤xc3 13 ¥xc3 b5 14 ¥e2 (14 ¥d3!? ¥b7 15 ¥e4÷ deserved attention) 14...¥b7 and Black is at least not worse thanks to White's unsafe king) 10...b5 11 ¥e2 c5 and Black's chances were already preferable in the game Rustemov − Lastin/RUS−ch HL Novokuznetsk 2008) 8...dxc4 (8...£e7 is the most popular alternative, after which White usually chooses 9 ¦g1 (9 h3 may also give small advantage, for example: 9...e5 10 0-0-0 e4 11 ¤h4 g6 12 cxd5 cxd5 13 ¤b5 0-0 14 ¤xd6 £xd6 15 ¢b1²) 9...e5 10 cxd5 ¤xd5 11 ¤e4² with better chances for White according to the tournament practice ) 9 ¥xc4 b5 (After a dubious 9...e5?! 10 g5 hxg5 11 ¤xg5ƒ White gets initiative, while 9...¤b6 10 ¥e2 ¤bd5 11 e4 ¤xc3 12 bxc3² is also in his favour) 10 ¥e2 (White also tried 10 ¥d3 but without much success: 10...¥b7 11 ¦g1 ¦c8 (11...b4!? deserves attention as well: 12 ¤e4 ¤xe4 13 ¥xe4 £b6 with acceptable play) 12 g5 (12 a3?! c5! gives Black the better chances) 12...hxg5 13 ¤xg5 £e7 and Black achieves a good play) 10...¥b7 11 g5

a) In case of 11 e4 seems to be less promising. A possible play is 11...¥e7!? (after 11...b4 12 ¤a4 ¥e7 13 g5 hxg5 14 ¤xg5 White's chances look preferable, for example, 14...£c7 (or 14...¦c8 15 e5 ¤d5 16 ¤xe6! fxe6 17 £g6+ ¢f8 18 ¦g1 ¥f6 19 exf6 £xf6 20 £g3± with a big advantage) 15 e5 ¤d5 16 ¦g1² ¥xg5 17 ¥xg5 ¦xh2 18 ¥g4 with good compensation) 12 e5 (after 12 g5 hxg5 13 ¤xg5 tournament practice gives White the better chances but objectively the position remains very complicated and unclear) 12...b4! 13 exf6 bxc3 14 fxe7 cxd2+ 15 ¤xd2 £xe7 16 ¥f3 ¦b8 with excellent play for Black

10

b) 11 ¦g1 is also fine for Black, who quickly comes with a typical ...c6−c5: 11...¦c8! The game Adly − Sebag, Hoogeveen 2008continued 12 h4 b4 13 ¤e4 ¤xe4 14 £xe4 £b6 15 g5 c5 16 dxc5 ¤xc5 17 £d4 ¥xf3! 18 ¥xf3 ¥e5! 19 £c4 hxg5 20 hxg5 a5! and White has found himself in trouble.

11...hxg5 12 ¤xg5 £b6!? Probably the best continuation. (In the game Sargissian − Hillarp Persson/Reykjavik 2006 White has maintained the better chances after In the game Sargissian − Hillarp Persson, Reykjavik 2006 White maintained the better chances after 12...£e7 13 ¤ce4 ¤xe4 14 ¤xe4²) 13 0-0-0 (After 13 ¤ce4 ¤xe4 (13...c5!?) 14 ¤xe4 ¥e7 Black achieves good counter chances) 13...b4 (A typical 13...c5!? was also worthy of consideration.) 14 ¤a4 (Or or 14 ¤ce4 ¤xe4 15 ¤xe4 ¥e7 with a good play for Black. 'with a good play for Black') 14...£a5 15 ¦hg1! Practically forced as Black was already going to grab the initiative by ...c6−c5. 15...¦xh2 16 ¥e1 White has got reasonable compensation for the pawn as Black's forces are not well coordinated while his king is in the center. However, Black can be quite satisfied with his position, Svidler − Karjakin/Foros 2007.

8 ¦g1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlp+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+n+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zP-zP0 9tR-vL-mKLtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...f5

8...¤xh2 is more ambitious but much more risky: 9 ¤xh2 ¥xh2 10 ¦xg7 ¤f8 (an alternative is 10...£f6!? allowing White to win the pawn back but gaining time for development. Nevertheless White usually retreats with 11 ¦g2 with similar play) 11 ¦g2 (the bishop cannot be trapped with 11 f4? as after 11...£h4+ 12 £f2 £xf2+ 13 ¢xf2 ¤g6 the rook is also in trouble: 14 ¢g2 ¢f8 15 ¦xg6 hxg6 and the bishop is protected!) 11...¥d6 (11...¥c7!? is an alternative − Black moves his bishop from a possible attack from the knight on the e4−square. A possible continuation is 12 e4 ¤g6 (Both 12...dxe4!? 13 £xe4©, and 12...dxc4!? are worthy of consideration) 13 ¥g5 f6 14 ¥h6 ¤h4 15 0-0-0! ¤xg2 16 ¥xg2© White has sacrificed a lot of material, but now the Black king cannot hide on the queenside because of Bf3−h5, and Black is therefore forced to float in troubled waters, M.Markovic − Kosic/Subotica 2000) 12 e4 An attempt to develop the bishop to the more active position. (a preliminary 12 ¥d2!? is

11

also worth considering) 12...¤g6!? A rare option. (12...dxe4!? has been played more often: 13 ¤xe4 ¥e7 14 ¥h6 f5 (14...¤g6?! 15 0-0-0ƒ gives White a strong initiative, but 14...£a5+!? with the idea ...Qa5−h5 deserved serious attention, disturbing White's bishop as well as his Q−side development) 15 ¤c3 and here 15...£xd4! 16 ¥g7 ¥f6 17 ¥xh8 ¥xh8 seems acceptable for Black) 13 ¥g5!? (13 cxd5 was a logical alternative: 13...exd5 (13...¤h4 would be met by 14 e5!? ¥b4 15 d6!? (15 ¦g3 exd5 16 ¥d3 h5÷ is unclear) 15...¤xg2+ 16 ¥xg2© with a strong compensation for the exchange) 14 e5 ¥e7 15 ¥d3÷ with a complicated play) The game Morozevich − Kramnik/Tal Memorial Moscow 2008 continued 13...¥e7 (13...f6!? was worthy of consideration: 14 ¥e3 (perhaps White could have considered 14 ¥h6 ¤h4 15 0-0-0 ¤xg2 16 ¥xg2© similarly to the game Markovic − Kosic/Subotica 2000) 14...¤h4 15 ¦g7© with good compensation for the pawn) 14 ¥xe7 £xe7 15 0-0-0 A lead in development and a vulnerability of the dark squares in Black's camp gives White more than sufficient compensation for the pawn. However, Black's defensive resources should not be underestimated.

The knight retreat 8...¤h6 can secure the extra pawn but it gives White a long lasting initiative and so it is not very popular in tournament practice: 9 e4

a) 9 ¦xg7? is impossible as White loses a piece after 9...£f6 10 ¦xh7 ¦xh7 11 £xh7 ¤f8-+

b) 9 ¥d2!? deserves serious attention. A possible play is 9...£e7 (9...¤f8 10 e4 dxe4 11 ¤xe4 ¤f5 12 ¤xd6+ £xd6 13 0-0-0 ¤g6 14 h4 ¤ge7 15 ¥d3 f6 16 h5 ¢f7 17 ¦g4 followed by Bd2−f4 and Rd1-g1 with excellent attacking chances) 10 e4 dxe4 11 ¤xe4 ¤f5 12 0-0-0 ¤f6 13 ¤xf6+ £xf6 14 ¥g5 £g6 15 c5 ¥c7 16 ¤e5 £h5 17 h4! ¥d8™ (17...¤xh4? 18 ¥e2+−) 18 £e4! 0-0 (18...¥xg5+ 19 hxg5 £h4 20 £f3!) 19 ¥e2 ¥xg5+ 20 hxg5 £h4 21 f4± with a huge advantage

9...dxe4 10 ¤xe4 ¥b4+ 11 ¥d2 ¥xd2+ 12 £xd2 ¤f5 (the immediate 12...¤f6!? deserves attention) 13 0-0-0 ¤f6 14 ¥d3© All White's pieces are very active while Black's army is undeveloped. We can conclude that White has more than enough compensation for the pawn, M.Markovic − Kalezic/Subotica 2000

A counter action 8...£f6 cannot extinguish White's initiative as well: 9 ¦xg4 £xf3 10 ¦xg7 ¤f8 (interesting complications may arise after 10...¤f6!? 11 ¥g2 £h5 12 e4 dxe4 13 ¥g5!? (13 ¤xe4!? ¤xe4 14 ¥xe4 £xh2÷) 13...¥f8 14 ¥xf6 ¥xg7 15 ¥xg7 ¦g8 16 ¤xe4 £a5+ 17 ¢f1 ¦xg7 18 £c1!? £d8 19 £f4© with a good compensation for the exchange) 11 ¦g1 ¤g6 12 ¥d2!? ¥xh2 13 ¥e2 £f6 14 ¦h1 ¥d6 15 0-0-0© with more than enough compensation for the pawn. White is ready for actions in center while the Black king cannot escape to the Q−side without concessions.

9 h3 ¤gf6 10 ¦xg7

12

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+-tRp0 9-+pvlpsn-+0 9+-+p+p+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+P0 9PzPQ+-zP-+0 9tR-vL-mKL+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...¤e4

10...¢f8 looks suspicious − the king cannot be quite safe on the K−side, where the g−file is already opened: 11 ¦g2 ¤e4 12 ¥d2 ¦g8 13 ¦xg8+ ¢xg8 14 ¥d3 ¤f8 15 ¢e2ƒ with clearly better chances for White, Chabanon − Sarthou/Cannes 2004.

11 ¥d2 £f6 12 ¦g2 ¤f8 13 0-0-0 ¤g6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+-+-+p0 9-+pvlpwqn+0 9+-+p+p+-0 9-+PzPn+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+P0 9PzPQvL-zPR+0 9+-mKR+L+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position was supposed to be acceptable for Black. However, recently White is able to

make his life less comfortable.

14 £b3!?

A fairly interesting idea − White prevents Q−side castling, which is typical for Black in such positions.

White tried a lot of possibilities, the most popular seem to be 14 ¥d3 ¥d7 15 ¦dg1², maintaining some pressure, or

14 ¥e1!? ¥d7 15 ¥d3 0-0-0 16 cxd5 ¤xc3 17 ¥xc3 exd5 18 ¦dg1 ¦he8 19 ¦g5 This position arose in the game Krasenkow − Akopian/WCh (m/4.1) Tripoli 2004, which

13

continued 19...f4! 20 e4! dxe4 21 ¥xe4 £e6 22 ¦e1² with slightly better chances for White.

14...b6

In case of 14...¤xc3 15 ¥xc3 ¤h4 16 ¤xh4 £xh4 17 ¥b4!± looks pretty strong, securing a clear advantage.

15 ¢b1 ¥d7 16 ¥e1²

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zp-+l+-+p0 9-zppvlpwqn+0 9+-+p+p+-0 9-+PzPn+-+0 9+QsN-zPN+P0 9PzP-+-zPR+0 9+K+RvLL+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Now Black's Q−side is weakened and so he cannot hide his king there. White's chances are

preferable but Black is obviously not without counter chances, Aronian − Stefansson/EU−ch Antalya 2004.

14

Anti−Meran/3 − Latvian Bayonet 7 ...Bb4

[D45]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 c6 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 e3 ¤bd7 6 £c2 ¥d6 7 g4!? ¥b4!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vlPzP-+P+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zP-zP0 9tR-vL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This surprising move (the bishop moves again!) become known after Vladimir Kramnik's

convincing victory over Boris Gelfand in 1996. The idea of the bishop lunge is quite obvious − to secure the e4−square for the knight in view of the forthcoming ...g4−g5.

8 ¥d2

8 a3 seems to be less promising: 8...¥xc3+ 9 bxc3 (9 £xc3? is bad as Black can simply capture the pawn: 9...¤xg4 10 ¦g1 ¤gf6 Now 11 ¦xg7?? is impossible due to 11...¤e4 12 £c2 £f6-+ winning a piece)

a) A natural 9...b6 was tested in the game Akesson − S.Ivanov/Stockholm 2000. 10 ¦g1 ¥b7 11 ¤d2!? c5 (11...£c7!? 12 g5 ¤g8 followed by ...Ng8−e7 seems to be quite acceptable for Black) 12 cxd5 exd5 13 g5 ¤e4 14 ¤xe4 dxe4 15 ¥b2 cxd4 16 cxd4 and here it was more reliable not to allow White to open the long diagonal by 16...¥d5!?÷

b) 9...e5 is another possibility which would lead to unclear and complicated play after 10 ¦g1 e4 11 ¤d2 £c7 12 g5 ¤g8 13 f4 ¤e7÷

15

c) 9...£a5!? 10 ¥d3 (apart from this move which allows Black to begin concrete play White has a number of possible continuations: 10 ¦g1 10 a4

or even 10 ¤d2 all are worthy of consideration) 10...dxc4 11 ¥xc4 e5!? Quite in the spirit of position − Black's main problem is the bishop on c8. (11...b6 deserves attention as well) 12 g5 ¤e4!? 13 ¥b2 ¤d6 An interesting manoeuvre. 14 ¥d3 exd4 15 exd4 ¤b6 (15...¤f8!? deserved attention with the idea of ...Bc8−f5 followed by covering the king with ...Nf8−e6 in case of a check on the e−file) 16 0-0-0 ¥e6 17 ¦he1 0-0-0= Thanks to his control of the c4 square Black can be satisfied with his position, Krasenkow − Kuczynski/POL−ch, Plock 2000.

8...£e7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+nwqpzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vlPzP-+P+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQvL-zP-zP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has a wide choice.

9 ¦g1

9 a3 gives Black a satisfactory play: 9...¥xc3 10 ¥xc3 b6! 11 ¥d3 (11 cxd5 exd5=) 11...¥a6 12 £a4 dxc4! 13 £xa6 (13 £xc6 ¦c8 14 £a4 ¥b7 15 ¥e2 a5∓ is in Black's favour) 13...cxd3 14 £b7 (after 14 £xd3?! 0-0 15 g5 ¤d5 16 ¥d2 f5!∓ followed by ...c6−c5 Black takes the initiative) 14...0-0 15 ¤e5! £e8 16 ¤xd3 ¦c8 17 £xa7 ¤xg4³ with very good prospects

9 g5 has also been tried: 9...¥xc3 10 ¥xc3 ¤e4 11 ¥d3!? (11 ¦g1 b6 12 0-0-0 ¥b7 is good for Black) 11...¤xc3 12 £xc3 dxc4!? 13 ¥xc4 (13 £xc4 allows Black to equalise by 13...e5 14 dxe5 ¤xe5 15 ¤xe5 £xe5=) 13...b6 14 0-0-0 ¥b7 15 e4!? (after 15 ¤e5 ¤xe5 16 dxe5 0-0 17 f4 c5 18 ¦hf1 ¦fd8= Black has no problems) 15...0-0 16 ¦he1 b5 17 ¥f1 ¦fd8 (17...b4 is weaker as it gives good prospects to the bishop on f1: 18 £e3 a5 19 ¢b1² with the upper hand) 18 ¢b1 a6„ The program advance ...c6−c5 cannot be prevented so Black is okay.

In case of 9 ¥d3 Black has some options. a) 9...e5 does not seem fully equalising: 10 cxd5 a1) 10...¤xd5 leads to the position with small but comfortable edge for White: 11 ¤xd5

cxd5 (or 11...¥xd2+ 12 ¢xd2!? cxd5 13 dxe5 h5!? 14 g5 ¤xe5 15 ¤xe5 £xe5 16 f4 £d6 17 ¦ac1 0-0 18 £c5 £d8² with a slightly worse position) 12 dxe5 ¥xd2+ 13 £xd2 (13 ¢xd2!?

16

deserves serious attention, transposing to 11 ...Bxd2) 13...0-0 14 £c3 f6 15 £d4 ¤xe5 16 ¤xe5 £xe5 17 h3 ¥d7 18 f4 £xd4 19 exd4 ¦ac8 20 ¢d2² with a small but stable advantage

a2) 10...¥xc3 11 ¥xc3 e4 12 dxc6 exd3 (12...bxc6 doesn't solve the problems: 13 g5 exd3 14 gxf6 £xf6 15 £d1ƒ followed by Rh1-g1, Nf3−g5 with a certain advantage, Alexandrov − El Gindy/WCh (m/1.1) Tripoli 2004) 13 cxd7+ £xd7 14 £b3!? (after 14 £xd3 £d5 15 e4 ¤xe4© Black could be satisfied with his blockading position) 14...£xg4 (14...£c6 is met by 15 d5 £xd5 16 £xd5 ¤xd5 17 ¥xg7 ¦g8 18 ¥d4 with better chances for White) 15 £d1! The game Vorobiov − Smirnov/RUS−ch Krasnoyarsk 2003 continued by 15...£e4!? (15...¤e4 16 ¤e5 £xd1+ 17 ¦xd1 f6 18 ¤xd3 ¥g4 19 ¦c1 ¥f3 20 ¦g1 ¢f7 gives Black reasonable compensation for the pawn but not everyone is ready to play such kind of the endgame without pawn) 16 ¦g1 0-0 and here it looked more energetic and promising for White to continue 17 d5!? ¤e8 18 ¤d4 f6 with more or less acceptable play for Black − this position certainly requires more practical tests

b) 9...¥xc3!? A rather fresh idea. It looks a bit strange − Black parts with his bishop with no apparent cause but actually he just keep a concrete option in mind. 10 ¥xc3 dxc4 11 ¥xc4 b5 The point − Black quickly develops his light−squared bishop to the long diagonal and gets good counter chances since it was weakened by the early advance g2−g4.

b1) 12 ¥d3 is an obvious alternative − White places his bishop on the more active position but now Black can take advantage of White's weaknesses on the long diagonal: 12...¥b7 13 e4 ¤xe4! This moves comes as a shock but in fact Black does not sacrifice a piece. (13...a6?! is slow: 14 b4 ¤b6 15 ¦g1 ¤fd7 16 ¥d2 with a clear advantage) 14 ¥xe4 f5 15 ¥d3 c5 16 ¥e2 (Both 16 dxc5!? ¥xf3 17 ¦g1

and the immediate 16 ¦g1!? deserved serious attention as possible improvements) 16...b4! (this is more precise than 16...cxd4 17 ¤xd4 ¥xh1 18 gxf5ƒ with initiative) 17 ¥d2 fxg4 18 dxc5 ¦c8 19 ¥xb4 gxf3 20 ¥b5 0-0 and Black has got the better chances, Zhao Xue − Fontaine/Cannes 2004

b2) 12 ¥e2!? 12...¥b7 13 g5 (in case of 13 b4 ¤d5 14 ¦b1 0-0 Black keeps very good counter chances such as ...a7−a5 followed by ...c6−c5, in some cases ...e6−e5 − most probably White cannot keep everything under control) 13...¤d5 14 ¥d2 0-0² with a complicated play, in which White's chances still look preferable.

9...¥xc3

9...b6 does not seem fully equalising: 10 cxd5 cxd5 (or 10...exd5 11 g5 ¤h5 12 0-0-0 ¥b7 13 ¥d3 g6 14 h4 ¦c8 15 a3 ¥d6 16 e4 with a certain advantage) 11 ¥d3 ¥b7 12 g5 ¤e4 (12...¥xc3?! 13 £xc3 ¤e4 can be strongly met by 14 £c7 ¤xd2 15 ¢xd2 ¥c8 16 ¦ac1 0-0 17 a3± with a big advantage) 13 ¤xe4 dxe4 14 ¥xe4 ¦c8 15 £b3 ¥xd2+ 16 ¤xd2 ¥xe4 17 ¤xe4 0-0 Black tried to prove his compensation in some games but it does not seem to be an easy task: 18 ¤c3! (after 18 ¢e2 f5 19 ¤d2 f4© White king was not safe) 18...e5!? (after 18...b5!? White can secure his advantage by 19 £xb5 ¦b8 20 £e2 ¦fc8 21 ¢f1 £b4 22 ¦c1 £xb2 23 £xb2 ¦xb2 24 ¢g2±) 19 0-0-0± and Black does not achieve sufficient compensation for the pawn.

10 ¥xc3 ¤e4

17

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+nwqpzpp0 9-+p+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzPn+P+0 9+-vL-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zP-zP0 9tR-+-mKLtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11 0-0-0

11 ¥d3 was tested many times but actually Black can just get an extra tempo compare to 11. 0-0-0 by playing 11...¤xc3 12 £xc3 dxc4 and so on − you may also take a look at the similar lines after the move 9. g5.

11 cxd5 exd5 12 ¥d3 is not much harmful for Black: 12...0-0 13 0-0-0 ¦e8 14 ¥e1 c5„ with good counter chances.

11...¤xc3

A straightforward 11...£f6 can be well met by a simple 12 ¥e2! and a capture 12...¤xf2?! looks very suspicious: 13 ¦df1 ¤e4 14 ¥b4! c5! 15 cxd5 exd5 16 dxc5ƒ and Black faces serious problems.

12 £xc3 dxc4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+nwqpzpp0 9-+p+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+pzP-+P+0 9+-wQ-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9+-mKR+LtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black's approach reminds one of Lasker's Defence in the QGD − he exchanges his only

active piece but simplifies the position and makes it easier to develop his light−squared bishop.

18

12...0-0 has also been tried: 13 g5 (13 £c2 e5 14 cxd5 cxd5 15 dxe5 ¤xe5 16 ¤xe5 £xe5 is more or less acceptable for Black) 13...dxc4 14 ¥xc4 b5 (14...c5!?) 15 ¥d3 ¥b7 16 £c2 g6 17 ¥e4 ¦ab8 followed by ...c6−c5 but White looks better in this line without any doubts.

13 £xc4!?

Trying to stop development of the Black bishop. A natural 13 ¥xc4 is also worthy of consideration, for example: 13...b6 14 ¥d3 ¥b7 15

d5!? cxd5 16 £xg7² with better chances for White.

13...0-0 14 g5 ¦b8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trl+-trk+0 9zpp+nwqpzpp0 9-+p+p+-+0 9+-+-+-zP-0 9-+QzP-+-+0 9+-+-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9+-mKR+LtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Both 14...e5 15 £c2 exd4 16 ¦xd4² and 14...c5 15 ¥d3 cxd4 16 £xd4² promised small but stable advantage for White.

15 ¤e5!?

15 ¥d3!? deserves attention as well.

15...c5 16 f4 b5 17 £c3 ¤xe5 18 dxe5²

19

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trl+-trk+0 9zp-+-wqpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+pzp-zP-zP-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-wQ-zP-+-0 9PzP-+-+-zP0 9+-mKR+LtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White's chances are preferable, Alexandrov − Lautier/Poikovsky 2004.

20

Anti−Meran/4 − Latvian Bayonet 7 ...dxc4

[D45]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 c6 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 e3 ¤bd7 6 £c2 ¥d6 7 g4!? dxc4

An immediate 7...e5!? was successfully tried in the game Shchukin − Asrian/St.Petersburg 1999 but generally it looks rather risky. After 8 g5 Black is forced to sacrifice a pawn by 8...¤e4 9 cxd5 (9 ¤xe4!? dxe4 10 £xe4 0-0 seems to be the most critical line for the assessment of Black's idea) 9...¤xg5 10 ¤xg5 £xg5 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 ¤e4 ¥b4+ 13 ¥d2 ¥xd2+ 14 £xd2 £g6 15 ¥d3 f5 16 ¤g3 e4 and here the simple 17 ¥e2!? could have promised better chances for White: 17...0-0 18 ¦g1² and so on.

8 ¥xc4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlpsn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LzP-+P+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zP-zP0 9tR-vL-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black has a number of possibilities. 8 g5 ¤d5 9 ¥xc4 is less precise − the play would be transposed into the lines, in which the

early g4−g5 is not much promising for White. Here Black can continue by 9...b6 − this position is considered below in the line 8. ¥xc4 b6 9. g5

8...e5

8...b5 gains a tempo but weakens a square c5. For example, 9 ¥d3 (or 9 ¥e2 b4 10 ¤a4 ¥b7 11 g5 ¤d5 12 ¤c5 ¥xc5 13 dxc5 £a5 14 e4 ¤e7 15 ¥e3 ¥a6 16 ¥xa6 £xa6 17 £e2 £xe2+ 18

21

¢xe2²) 9...¥b7 10 g5 ¤d5 (10...¤h5!? 11 ¤e4 ¥e7 12 ¥d2²) 11 ¤e4 ¥e7 12 ¥d2 £b6 13 ¦c1 ¤b4 14 ¥xb4 ¥xb4+ 15 ¢e2² with better chances

8...b6 is an important option. Black develops his light−squared bishop, keeping the Q−side pawn structure compact. 9 e4 (9 g5 seems to be less promising. The position after 9...¤d5 10 ¥d2 (10 ¤xd5 cxd5 11 ¥d3 ¥b7 12 ¥d2 ¦c8 is completely okay for Black, 10 e4 ¤xc3 11 bxc3 ¥b7 12 ¥e3 c5 is unclear) 10...¥b7 was tested many times with acceptable results for Black) 9...¥b7!? A tactical attempt to exploit drawback of the White's 7th move − the weakened long diagonal. (9...e5 does not seem consistent with the previous move: 10 g5 ¤h5 11 ¥e3 £c7 12 0-0-0 0-0 13 d5! b5?! 14 dxc6! bxc4 15 ¤b5! £xc6 16 ¤xd6 ¥b7 17 £c3± with a clear advantage) 10 e5 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-zp-vlpsn-+0 9+-zp-zP-+-0 9-+LzP-+P+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPQ+-zP-zP0 9tR-vL-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11 exf6 (11 ¥e2 does not promise much: 11...cxd4 12 exf6 dxc3 13 fxg7 ¦g8 14 £xh7 ¤f6 15 £h6÷

with a complicated play) 11...¥xf3 (11...£xf6? fails to 12 ¥e2 ¥xf3 13 g5+− and Black loses the piece) 12 fxg7 ¦g8 13 £xh7 ¤f6 14 ¥b5+! This very important resource helps White to take initiative, not losing time for the queen retreat. 14...¢e7 15 ¥g5 ¥f4! A spectacular attempt to get rid of the pin. (15...¥xh1? is bad due to 16 £h6+−, while in case of 15...cxd4?, as was played in the game Barsov − Reefat/Asia−ch Calcutta 2001, White could have won by 16 £h6! ¥e5 17 ¤e4!! ¥xe4 18 f4 £d5 19 fxe5 £xe5 20 0-0!+−) 16 £h3! Both sides must be very creative in this line! (16 ¥xf6+ ¢xf6 17 ¤e4+ leads to the drawish endgame after 17...¥xe4 18 £xe4 £xd4 19 £xd4+ cxd4 20 ¦d1 ¦xg7=) 16...¥xh1 (16...¥xg5 17 £xf3 is unsatisfactory for Black) 17 ¥xf4 £xd4 (17...cxd4?! can be strongly met by 18 0-0-0ƒ and Black can hardly hold the position) 18 £g3! ¤e4! 19 £h4+ £f6 Otherwise White was winning by Ra1-d1. 20 g5 £xg7! The only move! (20...£f5? fails to 21 0-0-0! ¦ad8 22 ¦xd8 ¢xd8 23 ¥d3 ¦xg7 24 ¤xe4! ¦h7 (or 24...¥xe4 25 ¥xe4 £xe4 26 ¥c7+, winning the queen) 25 ¥c7+!! ¢xc7 26 £g3+ e5 27 ¤f6+− and White wins) 21 0-0-0 ¦ad8 This very important position for this line was tested in the game Tikhonov − Novitsky/Minsk 2004. Perhaps it was more promising for White to continue 22 ¦xh1!? ¦h8! (22...¤xc3? 23 g6+ f6 24 bxc3+−) 23 ¥e5! £xe5 (23...¦xh4 24 ¥xg7 ¤xg5 25 ¥e5) 24 £xe4 £xg5+ 25 f4 £f6² with better chances but the question is whether White can comfortably play here for a win or not.

8...£e7 is a rare but interesting continuation. Black is hinting that he may already take on g4 as his g7−pawn would be secured after ...f7−f5. He is trying to force White to advance his pawns and to get some benefit by using his queen on e7. A drawback is

22

also clear − he delays castling. 9 e4 (In case of 9 ¥d2 Black can really think about 9...¤xg4 10 ¦g1 f5 although White gets certain compensation for the pawn after 11 e4 ¤b6 12 ¥d3©, An immediate 9 g5 gives Black good counter chances after 9...¤d5 10 ¥d2 ¤xc3! 11 ¥xc3 b5„ followed by ...Bc8−b7 or ...b5−b4 first.) 9...e5 10 g5 ¤h5 11 ¥e3 g6 (11...exd4!? is worthy of consideration. White can probably prove the better chances by 12 ¤xd4 ¤b6 (or 12...¤e5 13 ¥e2 ¤g4 14 ¥xg4 ¥xg4 15 ¦g1 ¥h3 16 0-0-0²) 13 ¥b3 ¥f4 14 ¦g1!?²) 12 ¥e2 (an immediate 12 0-0-0!? deserved serious attention) 12...exd4 13 ¤xd4 ¤f4 14 0-0-0 The game Rustemov − Bocharov/RUS−ch Qualifier, Tomsk 2004 continued by 14...¤g2!? 15 ¥d2 ¤c5 16 ¥f1!? ¤h4 17 ¥e3 ¥g4 18 ¥e2 ¥xe2 19 £xe2ƒ and White has secured the better chances.

9 g5

9 ¥d2 has recently been tried − White is not pushing the Black knight at all! 9...exd4 (9...0-0 is an important alternative: 10 0-0-0 (the line 10 g5 ¤d5 still does not promise much for White − see 9. g5 Nd5 10. Bd2) 10...exd4 11 ¤xd4 ¤e5 12 ¥e2 ¤exg4 rather consistent play − otherwise White would simply push his K−side pawns forward. However, this capture is not without drawbacks − White is given the opened file for his rook. In the game Dreev − L.Dominguez/Poikovsky 2005 White has achieved very good attacking prospects on the K−side after 13 ¦hg1© but Black's position still seems quite playable) 10 ¤xd4 ¤e5 Black takes the challenge! (10...¤b6 does not seem fully equalising: 11 ¥e2 0-0 12 0-0-0!? (or 12 ¤f5 ¥xf5 13 £xf5 £c8 14 £xc8 ¦axc8 15 e4 ¦fe8 16 f3 ¦cd8 17 0-0-0² with a small advantage in the endgame ) 12...¤bd5 13 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 14 ¤f5 ¥xf5 15 gxf5 £h4 16 £c4 £f6 17 ¦hg1² with better chances for White) 11 ¥e2 ¤fxg4!

a) 11...¥xg4 seems weaker: 12 f4 ¤g6 (Surely not 12...¥xe2? 13 fxe5+−) 13 ¥xg4 ¤xg4 14 ¤f5 Not only placing the knight for the strongest position but also preventing ...Qd8−h4 check. This position has been tested in the game Shirov − Fressinet/Calvia (ol) 2004. Black should have played 14...0-0 (14...¤h4? was proved to be wrong: 15 ¤xg7+ ¢f8 16 0-0-0! ¤f2 17 ¤e4! ¤xd1 18 ¦xd1 ¥e7 19 f5!‚ with almost decisive attack) 15 ¤e4 ¥e7 16 0-0-0ƒ with more than enough compensation for the pawn.

b) 11...¤exg4!? deserved attention as well. Then a possible play was 12 0-0-0 with good compensation for the pawn thanks to his much more active pieces − White already completed the development and his both rooks got the opened files for actions. However, Black could also be satisfied with his extra pawn and solid position.

12 ¤e4 (The above mentioned 12 h3 ¤f6 13 0-0-0© would be a subject for the future disputes) 12...¥e7 (12...¥c7!? is also worthy of consideration) 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 ¥c3 £c7 15 ¦dg1 f5÷ and Black was doing well in the game Gelfand − L.Dominguez/Calvia (ol) 2004 although the position remains extremely complicated.

9...¤d5

23

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+pvl-+-+0 9+-+nzp-zP-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zP-zP0 9tR-vL-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

One of the most critical lines in the 7. g4 system.

10 ¤e4

This continuation can still promise better chances for White. An attempt to gain material by 10 dxe5?! ¤xe5 11 ¤xe5 ¥xe5 12 £e4?! can be strongly

met by 12...£xg5! 13 f4 £h4+ 14 ¢d2 £f2+ 15 ¤e2 ¥e6!‚ with an almost decisive attack.

10 ¥xd5 also gives White the extra pawn but still does not look impressive − White parts with his light−squared bishop but the light squares in his camp are rather vulnerable: 10...cxd5 11 ¤xd5 0-0 The game Browne − Shabalov/Stratton Mt 2004 continued 12 ¥d2 ¦e8 13 ¥b4 ¥xb4+ 14 ¤xb4 e4! 15 ¤d2 ¤b6ƒ and Black seized a rather annoying initiative.

10 ¥d2 is one of the main options but it seems that Black can achieve a good play. 10...0-0 This natural move is probably the most precise continuation. (in case of 10...exd4 a rather unexpected 11 £e4+!? can really put pressure on Black (11 ¤xd4 can be well met by 11...0-0!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+pvl-+-+0 9+-+n+-zP-0 9-+LsN-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzPQvL-zP-zP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Alexei Shirov's patent. Black prefers quick development, trying to seize the initiative. 12

¤xd5 (12 ¤e4 ¤e5„ is fine for Black, as well as 12 ¥xd5 cxd5 13 0-0-0 ¤e5„) 12...cxd5

24

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-vl-+-+0 9+-+p+-zP-0 9-+LsN-+-+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9PzPQvL-zP-zP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13 ¥d3 (Actually White cannot even win a pawn since 13 ¥xd5 £xg5 14 ¥e4 ¤f6 gives Black

a very good play) 13...g6 14 h4 ¤c5!? (14...¤e5 15 ¥c3 ¥g4 16 ¥e2² does not equalise completely) This position arose in the game Radjabov − Shirov/Leon (m/7) rapid 2004. Here 15 ¥c3² was more solid, placing the bishop on the main diagonal and securing a slight edge although Black can be satified with his position) 11...£e7 (11...¤e7!? is worthy of consideration: 12 £xd4 ¤f5 13 £e4+ ¤e7 and, despite it looks like White just won a tempo, it is not so easy for him to get real benefit of it. However, small advantage is achievable: 14 £c2 ¤b6 15 ¥e2 ¥f5 16 e4 ¥e6 17 0-0-0²) 12 £xd4 ¤e5 (12...¤b4? 13 £xg7 ¦f8 14 £xh7+− is just lost for Black, while both 12...0-0? 13 ¥xd5 cxd5 14 ¤xd5 £e6 15 ¥c3±, and 12...¥e5? 13 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 14 ¥xd5 cxd5 15 0-0-0± are also bad) 13 ¤xe5 ¥xe5 14 ¤xd5! cxd5 15 ¥b5+! Thanks to this check White deprives Black from castling and secures the advantage. 15...¢f8 16 £xd5 ¥xb2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-mk-tr0 9zpp+-wqpzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+L+Q+-zP-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9Pvl-vL-zP-zP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The game Krasenkow − Volkmann/Calvia (ol) 2004 continued 17 ¦b1 (17 £b3!? is maybe

stronger: 17...¥a3! (after 17...¥e5 18 ¥b4 ¥d6 19 ¥xd6 £xd6 20 ¦d1 £e7 21 ¥c4 White achieves a certain advantage) 18 ¥c4² with a small advantage for White) 17...¥e6 (17...¥a3 18 ¥c4 (White could also think about interesting 18 ¥a6!? ) 18...¥e6 19 £e4 could have been a transposition) 18 £e4 ¥a3 19 ¥c4 ¥xc4 20 £xc4 and here Black should have preferred 20...b6 with a good play.) 11 0-0-0 (11 ¤e4 does not promise much: 11...¥c7 12 dxe5 ¤xe5 13 ¤xe5 ¥xe5 14 f4 ¥c7 15 0-0-0 ¥g4 16 ¦de1 ¥a5 17 ¦hg1 ¥f5 with a complicated and quite acceptable play for Black, 11 ¤xd5 cxd5 12 ¥xd5

25

exd4 13 0-0-0 ¤b6 14 ¥e4 ¥g4 may lead to the position considered below) 11...exd4 This position arose in the game Shariyazdanov − Dreev/Aeroflot Moscow 2006. Here White should have played 12 ¤xd5 cxd5 13 ¥xd5 ¤b6 14 ¥e4 ¥g4 15 ¢b1 (15 ¤xd4!? deserves attention. However, the position is rather unclear after 15...¦c8 16 ¥c3 ¥xd1 17 ¦xd1 £xg5÷) 15...¥xf3 16 ¥xf3 £xg5² with acceptable but probably slight worse play for Black.

10...¥b4+ 11 ¥d2 ¥xd2+ 12 £xd2 £e7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+nwqpzpp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-+nzp-zP-0 9-+LzPN+-+0 9+-+-zPN+-0 9PzP-wQ-zP-zP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

One of the critical positions of this line. 12...¤7b6!? deserves attention but White can probably secure the advantage by 13 ¥b3

exd4 14 £xd4!? 0-0 15 h4!?²

13 0-0-0

13 a3 is hardly promising: 13...¤7b6 14 ¥a2 ¥h3! (14...¥g4? 15 ¤xe5) 15 ¦g1 (15 ¤xe5? ¥g2) 15...exd4 16 £xd4 0-0-0ƒ and Black gets at least equal chances thanks to his development advantage

Another attempt to prevent ...Bc8−g4 is 13 ¦g1 but Black seems to be fine: 13...¤7b6 (13...0-0 is also not bad: 14 0-0-0 ¤7b6 15 ¥b3 ¥f5 16 ¤f6+ ¢h8 17 e4 ¥g6! 18 exd5 cxd5ƒ with initiative) 14 ¥b3 exd4 15 £xd4 ¥f5 (15...0-0!? is also playable: 16 ¤f6+ ¢h8 17 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 18 ¥xd5 cxd5 19 £xd5 ¦d8© with a good compensation) 16 ¤g3 ¥e6!? 17 £xg7 0-0-0© with a very complicated play

13...¤7b6 14 ¥b3

14 ¤xe5?! fails to 14...f6 and White loses a piece without sufficient compensation: 15 gxf6 gxf6 16 ¤xf6+ ¤xf6 17 ¥f7+ ¢d8 18 ¥b3 ¥e6 19 £c2 ¥xb3 20 £xb3 ¢c7 and so on

14 ¥e2 looks passive. A possible play is: 14...exd4 15 £xd4 0-0 16 h4 ¦e8 17 ¥d3 ¥e6 18 h5 c5! 19 £e5 ¤d7 20 £d6 ¤b4 21 a3 ¥g4!ƒ with initiative

14...¥g4 15 £e2!?

26

White can still hope for advantage, placing his queen under the annoying−looking pin!

15...exd4

15...f5 is insufficient to equalise: 16 gxf6 ¤xf6 17 ¦hg1 0-0-0 18 ¤xf6 ¥xf3 19 £xf3 gxf6 with clearly worse position as the White bishop is very strong

15...0-0-0 does not solve the problems: 16 ¦hg1!? (16 dxe5 seems less precise: 16...¥xf3 17 £xf3 £xe5 18 ¦d4 f5! 19 gxf6 ¤xf6 20 ¦xd8+ ¦xd8 21 ¤xf6 gxf6 22 £h3+ f5 although here 23 ¦g1!?² could have still secured White's advantage in the game Aronian − Gormally/Gibraltar Masters Caleta 2005 as Black has weak pawns on h7 and f5) 16...¥h5 (16...¥xf3 17 £xf3 exd4 18 ¦xd4²) 17 dxe5 ¥xf3 18 £xf3 £xe5 However, here White could have continued, for example, 19 h4 − it seems rather important to have the rook already on g−file in case of 19...f5 20 gxf6 ¤xf6 21 ¤xf6 gxf6 and here 22 ¦g7² (or 22 h5² would secure a certain advantage for White.)

16 ¦xd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zpp+-wqpzpp0 9-snp+-+-+0 9+-+n+-zP-0 9-+-tRN+l+0 9+L+-zPN+-0 9PzP-+QzP-zP0 9+-mK-+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position arose in the game Bluvshtein − Novikov/Montreal 2004. Here Black should

have preferred

16...0-0-0! 17 ¤d6+

Both 17 ¦g1 ¥f5 and 17 ¦hd1 ¢b8 were quite acceptable for Black.

17...¦xd6 18 ¦xg4 ¦hd8²

with a solid but probably slightly worse position.

27

Anti−Meran/5 slow lines − Black tends to

...e6−e5 [D46]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 e3 e6 5 ¤f3 ¤bd7 6 £c2 ¥d6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlpsn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7 ¥d3

White often begins with 7 b3 0-0 and now a) 8 ¥b2 clarifies the position of the dark−squared bishop a bit early. a1) the immediate 8...b6 is a good alternative: 9 ¥d3 (9 ¥e2 is nothing special) 9...¥b7 10 0-

0 h6!? (10...£e7 is also not bad) 11 ¦ad1 £c7 12 £e2 ¦fe8 13 ¥b1 a6!? 14 e4 e5!÷ and Black is well prepared for the complications.

a2) 8...£e7 9 ¥e2 dxc4 This continuation which gives White a pawn majority in the centre leads to sharp play. (9...b6 is known to be a solid alternative which promises good play for Black) 10 bxc4 e5 11 0-0 ¦e8 12 ¦fe1 (12 ¦ae1 is also played. The principal line is probably 12...e4 13 ¤d2 ¤f8 14 f3 exf3 15 ¥xf3 ¤g4 16 ¥xg4 ¥xg4„ with a very complicated play. The active pieces would promise Black a reasonable compensation against White strong pawn center.) 12...e4 13 ¤d2 ¤f8 14 f3 exf3 in case of (14...£c7 White can change his mind and play 15 f4!?², getting a small advantage) 15 ¥xf3 ¤g4 16 ¤f1

a2a) The preliminary 16...£h4!? is also interesting. After 17 h3 (17 g3 £g5 18 ¤e4 £g6 19 £g2 ¥b4 20 ¦e2 ¥f5 seems to be in Black's favour) 17...¤f6 18 e4 ¤e6 19 ¦ad1 ¥c7

28

20 £f2 £xf2+ 21 ¢xf2 ¤g5 Black has obtained a very good counterplay in the game Gofshtein − Huzman/chT−ISR, Ramat Aviv 2000. White's central pawns are not only strong but require certain attention.

a2b) 16...£g5 17 e4 (17 c5!? ¥c7 18 e4 is worthy of consideration) 17...¤e6 18 ¦ad1 White's pawns look strong but actually Black has a lot of tactical possibilities, thanks to his very active pieces. (18 e5? is bad for White because of 18...¤xd4! 19 exd6 ¤e5 20 ¦xe5 ¤xf3+ 21 ¢h1 ¤xe5-+ and Black's material advantage is too big to talk about compensation.) 18...¤xd4!? (such moves as 18...¥c5!? were also interesting.) 19 ¦xd4 ¤xh2! 20 ¤xh2 ¥xh2+ 21 ¢f1™ ¥e5 22 ¦d3 ¥e6© This position arose in the Gelfand − Anand/Monaco (blindfold) 2000. Black has two pawns for the sacrificed piece and has hopes for more thanks to his initiative and White's weakened pawn structure. White's chances looks slightly preferable but Black's game is easier to play.

b) 8 ¥e2 8...¦e8 (here Black has a few possible plans, 8...b6 followed by ...Bc8−b7 is one of most solid ones) 9 0-0 dxc4 10 bxc4 e5 An active approach, which helps Black to get diagonals for both bishops. Yet, at the same time it gives White pawn superiority in the center.

b1) 11 ¦d1 seems to be more precise, keeping the rook on a1 for a while. Some examples: 11...exd4 (11...£e7 is maybe a bit early: 12 a4 e4 13 ¤d2 ¤f8 14 £a2² with idea Bc1-a3 and White's chances look preferable) 12 exd4 ¤f8 13 h3 ¤g6 14 ¥f1 £c7 15 ¥g5 ¤h5 16 ¦e1 ¥d7 17 c5 ¥f8 18 ¥c4² and White has seized some pressure.

b2) 11 ¦b1 11...£e7 12 ¦d1 e4 13 ¤d2 ¤f8 b2a) White can also use the knight in defence by 14 ¤f1 but it does not look very

promising. Then possible is 14...¤g6 (14...h5!?) 15 a4 ¤h4 16 ¤g3 ¤f5 17 ¦b3 ¤xg3 18 hxg3 h5 19 c5 ¥c7 20 d5! cxd5 21 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 22 ¦xd5 ¥e6 23 £xe4 ¥xd5 24 £xd5÷ with unclear play but Black should be satisfied with his position

b2b) 14 c5 Intending to move the knight to d6 after Bc1-a3, Nd2−c4 and so on. 14...¥c7 15 ¥a3 ¤g6 16 ¤c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zppvl-wqpzpp0 9-+p+-snn+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9-+NzPp+-+0 9vL-sN-zP-+-0 9P+Q+LzPPzP0 9+R+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

An important position for this line. White has already prepared the knight's invasion so

Black has to act quickly. b2b1) 16...¤h4 can be met by 17 d5!? ¤xd5 18 ¤xd5 cxd5 (18...£g5 does not work well: 19

¤f4 ¥xf4 20 g3 ¥c7 21 ¤d6 ¥xd6 22 cxd6 ¤f3+ 23 ¥xf3 exf3 24 d7 ¥xd7 25 ¦xd7 £g4 26 ¦xf7!

29

¢xf7 27 ¦xb7+ ¢g8 28 ¥b2±) 19 ¦xd5 with a complicated play, in which White's chances look slightly preferable.

b2b2) 16...£e6!? is fairly interesting. It was successfully used by Dmitry Tyomkin in a couple of games: 17 ¤d6 ¥xd6 18 cxd6 ¤h4 19 ¥f1 £g4 20 ¢h1 £h5 21 ¤e2 ¤f5 22 ¤f4 (22 ¤g1 ¤d5³ is very good for Black) 22...£h4„ with good counter chances. Yet, White can maybe improve his play in this line and somehow find the way to use his trump d6−pawn.

b2b3) 16...¤g4 There are two reasonable alternatives. 17 ¤d6 This position arose in the game Sebenik − Dao Thien Hai/Bled 2002. Black has achieved good counter chances by 17...¥xd6!? 18 cxd6 £h4 19 ¥xg4 £xg4 20 ¤e2 ¤h4 21 ¤g3 h5! 22 d5 ¤xg2! 23 dxc6 bxc6 24 ¢xg2 h4„ and so on.

Another bishop's move 7 ¥e2 was the main line during years but now it is just the alternative, which often leads to the same positions if Black takes on c4 soon.

7...0-0 8 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlpsn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...dxc4

The direct attempt 8...e5 can be met by 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 e4 and the extra tempo gives White the initiative. 10...exd4 After (10...dxe4 11 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 12 ¥xe4 h6™ 13 ¥e3! exd4 an important intermediate check 14 ¥h7+! ¢h8 15 ¥xd4 ¤f6 16 ¥f5² secures a small but lasting advantage) 11 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 12 exd5 h6 13 ¤xd4 £h4 (13...¥xh2+ is risky in view of 14 ¢xh2 £h4+ 15 ¢g1 £xd4 16 ¦d1ƒ with a serious initiative.) 14 ¤f3 £h5 15 ¥h7+ (15 £c4!? also deserves attention) 15...¢h8 16 £f5 This position is known to be in White's favour and the unexpected and probably dubious Kramnik's idea 16...g5?! didn't change the assessment very much, Karpov − Kramnik/Las Palmas 1996. (16...£xf5 17 ¥xf5 ¤f6 18 ¥c2! is certainly better for White)

9 ¥xc4

30

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlpsn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

An important position which can be also reached if White begins with 7. Be2. Black has a

lot of possible plans.

9...£e7

An immediate 9...e5 is often played: 10 ¥b3 (10 a3 followed by Bc4−a2 is also a good idea − see the line 9 ...Qe7) 10...£e7 11 ¥d2

a) 11...¥b8 does not look very good here: 12 h3 h6 13 ¤h4 ¦d8 14 ¤f5 £e8 (14...£f8!? is worthy of consideration although Black often uses this square for the knight.) 15 f4 A standard approach, White takes the initiative on the kingside. 15...exd4 16 exd4 ¤f8 (in case of 16...£f8 White would begin the direct actions: 17 g4!? ¤b6 18 g5 ¤fd5 19 gxh6 g6 20 ¤g7 £e7 21 £e4 £h4 22 f5 £xh3 23 £g2 £xg2+ 24 ¢xg2± with a strong initiative in the ending.) 17 ¦ae1 ¥e6 18 d5! cxd5 (18...¤xd5 is similar: 19 ¤xd5 cxd5 20 ¤xh6+! gxh6 21 f5 £d7 22 fxe6 ¤xe6 23 £f5±) 19 ¤xh6+! gxh6 20 f5‚ and Black has found himself in trouble, Shariyazdanov − Sasikiran/Guntur, 2000

b) 11...e4 A typical bishop retreat in this type of position 12 ¤g5 ¥xh2+ 13 ¢xh2 ¤g4+ 14 ¢g1 £xg5 15 £xe4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-+-+-wq-0 9-+-zPQ+n+0 9+LsN-zP-+-0 9PzP-vL-zPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position is rather important for the assessment of this line. b1) The alternative 15...¤b6 was put under question in the game Shariyazdanov −

Barua/Calcutta 2002: 16 ¤e2

31

b1a) Black also tried 16...¤f6 but it does not help to solve the problems: 17 £f4 £g6 18 ¤g3 ¤bd5 19 £h4 ¦e8?! (19...£d3!?) 20 e4 ¤b6 21 f3 ¥e6 22 ¥c2± with a clear advantage

b1b) 16...a5 17 f3! A strong novelty, which allows White to build a powerful pawn center e4−d4. 17...¤f6 18 £d3 The e−pawn advance comes inevitably. 18...¤bd5 19 e4 £g6 20 a3 Black has no counterplay so White is in no hurry and slowly improves his position. 20...h6 21 ¦ae1± White's big advantage is beyond doubts.

b2) 15...¤df6 16 £f4 £xf4 (16...£h4?! was proved to be dubious in the excellent game Sakaev − Kobalia/St. Petersburg 1997: 17 f3 g5 18 £d6! ¤e8 19 £xf8+! ¢xf8 20 fxg4 f6 21 ¤e4± with certain advantage for White.) 17 exf4 ¤h6 (after 17...¥e6?! 18 f3 ¤h6 19 g4!± Black is in trouble due to the knight on h6.) 18 d5! ¥d7 (18...cxd5 19 ¤xd5! ¤xd5 20 ¥xd5 ¦d8 21 ¦fe1 18...¦d8 19 ¦fe1) 19 dxc6 ¥xc6 20 ¦ad1 ¤f5 21 ¥c1 ¦ad8 22 ¦xd8! ¦xd8 23 f3² White has achieved a small but lasting advantage.

10 h3 e5 11 a3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+nwqpzpp0 9-+pvl-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+P0 9-zPQ+-zPP+0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...¥b8!?

11...¥c7 is also played. 12 ¥a2 h6 (12...exd4 13 exd4 ¤b6 14 ¥g5 £d6 15 ¦ae1² leads to a small advantage for White.)

a) Another possibility is the immediate 13 ¤h4 ¦e8 (13...exd4?! is weak as White can retake this pawn comfortably with 14 ¤f5 £e5 15 f4 with Nf5−d4 or ed4 next with the better prospects.) 14 ¤f5 £f8 The game Karpov − Anand/Bruxelles (m/8) 1991 continued by 15 ¤b5 ¥b8 16 ¥d2!

a1) 16...exd4 does not solve all the problems: 17 exd4! a5 18 ¤c3 ¢h8™ (18...¤b6 19 ¤xh6+ gxh6 20 £g6+ £g7 21 ¥xf7+ ¢f8 22 ¥xe8 ¤xe8 23 ¥xh6+−) 19 ¦ae1² with the better chances for White.

a2) 16...a5 17 dxe5 and here Black should have better played 17...¦xe5!? 18 ¤c3 ¤c5÷ with unclear play

b) 13 ¥d2!? 13...a5 (13...e4?! is dubious: 14 ¤h4 ¤b6 15 ¤g6 £d6 16 ¤e5 ¥f5 17 f3± and Black is in trouble.) 14 ¤h4 ¦e8 15 ¤f5 £f8 16 ¦ae1 ¤b6 17 dxe5 This position arose in the game Epishin − Akopian/ECC, Ljubljana 1995. Black has found a very

32

interesting and unusual way to activate his pieces by (17 ¤xh6+?! is in Black's favour: 17...gxh6 18 £g6+ £g7 19 ¥xf7+ ¢f8 20 ¥xe8 ¤xe8∓ with a clear advantage) 17...¦xe5 18 ¤d4 ¦c5!÷ At first glance, the rook is in trouble on c5 but in reality it's not so easy to catch, and it helps Black to gain counterplay. 19 f4 ¤c4 20 ¥c1 b5!„ and so on.

12 ¥a2 h6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rvll+-trk+0 9zpp+nwqpzp-0 9-+p+-sn-zp0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+P0 9LzPQ+-zPP+0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13 ¤h4

13 ¥d2 is a possible alternative. 13...¦e8 (13...¦d8 may lead to the line 13. Nh4 after 14 ¤h4 and so on.) 14 ¤h4 ¤f8 15 ¤f5 (15 dxe5 £xe5 16 f4 £c5 17 ¦ae1 a5÷ is unclear) 15...¥xf5 (15...£c7!? deserves attention.) 16 £xf5 This position occurred in the game Shariyazdanov − Korneev/ch−RUS Elista 1996. Here 16...exd4!? was a principled decision. After 17 exd4 £d6 (17...£d7 18 £xd7 ¤8xd7 19 d5² leads to a White edge in the endgame) 18 g3 £xd4 19 ¦ad1 £e5 20 £f3© White had the initiative thanks to the pair of bishops, especially the light−squared bishop on a2 which creates annoying pressure on the diagonal a2−f7 but, objectively speaking, Black should be okay because of his extra pawn.

13...¦d8

33

XIIIIIIIIY 9rvlltr-+k+0 9zpp+nwqpzp-0 9-+p+-sn-zp0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-zP-+-sN0 9zP-sN-zP-+P0 9LzPQ+-zPP+0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14 ¥d2!?

White delays the knight move, waiting for the bishop on c8 to move first. 14 ¤f5 £e8 has been played many times with good results for Black.

14...¤f8 15 dxe5 ¥xe5 16 ¦ad1 ¥e6 17 ¤f5

Only now!

17...£e8 18 ¥xe6 £xe6 19 f4 ¥c7 20 e4 ¤g6„

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+k+0 9zppvl-+pzp-0 9-+p+qsnnzp0 9+-+-+N+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9zP-sN-+-+P0 9-zPQvL-+P+0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

An important position for the assessment of White's idea. At first glance it looks dangerous

for Black as the pawns are strong, and tactical possibilities like Nf5−g7 or Nf5−h6 are hovering in the air. However, in the game J.Horvath − Akopian/Calcutta 2000 Black has proved that his active pieces give him reasonable counterplay.

34

Anti−Meran/6 slow lines − 8 ...dc4 9.Bxc4

b5 10. Be2 [D46]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 e3 e6 5 ¤f3 ¤bd7 6 £c2 ¥d6 7 ¥d3 0-0 8 0-0 dxc4 9 ¥xc4


9...b5

Sometimes Black begins with 9...a6 10 ¦d1 (An immediate 10 ¤e4 ¤xe4 11 £xe4 can be well met with 11...£e7 For example, 12 b3 (12 ¥b3?! e5 13 dxe5 ¤xe5 14 ¤d4?! c5! 15 ¤f5 ¥xf5 16 £xf5 c4 17 ¥c2 g6 18 £e4 ¦fd8ƒ) 12...e5 (12...c5 13 ¥b2 ¤f6 followed by 14 ...cxd4 with a good play) 13 ¥b2 ¤f6 14 £h4 e4 15 ¤e5 ¥e6 16 f3 exf3 17 ¦xf3 ¤d5 with acceptable play for Black) 10...b5 (A delay with ...b7−b5 by 10...£c7 is less precise as after 11 ¤e4 ¤xe4 12 £xe4 b5 White can put his bishop to d3 in one step: 13 ¥d3ƒ) 11 ¥e2

a) 11 ¥d3 is considered in D46/7 Anti−Meran slow lines − 8 ...dc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10. Bd3

b) while 11 ¥f1 deserves attention as well. However, Black should be okay: 11...£c7!? (11...c5 may still promise small advantage for White after 12 a4!? (12 dxc5 ¥xc5 13 ¤e4 ¤xe4 14 £xe4 can be strongly met by 14...¤f6! solving all the problems) 12...b4 13 ¤e4 ¤xe4 14 £xe4 ¦b8 15 £d3! This position arose in the game Aronian − Gelfand/WchT Bursa 2010. It seems that Black should have seriously thought

35

about 15...¥b7!? (in the game Black found himself under pressure after 15...cxd4 16 £xd4 ¥e7 17 £f4! ¥f6 18 a5! £e7 19 e4 e5 20 £e3) 16 e4 c4! 17 £xc4 ¥xe4 18 ¥g5 ¤f6 19 ¤e5 (19 £xa6?! ¥xf3 20 gxf3 ¦a8 with idea ...Ra8−a5) White has some initiative. However, it seems bearable after 19...¥b7 ) 12 e4 e5 13 ¤e2!? This is a rather typical knight transfer to the K−side. (13 g3!? deserves attention among other continuations. However, Black can get a good play by 13...c5!? 14 dxe5 ¤xe5 15 ¤xe5 ¥xe5) 13...¦e8 14 dxe5 ¤xe5 15 ¤xe5 ¥xe5 16 g3 ¥b7 and Black gets acceptable play, Akopian − Harikrishna/WchT Bursa 2010.

11...£c7 With White's bishop on e2 Black's queen must leave the d−file immediately to be ready to counter e3−e4 with ...e6−e5. The tournament practice promises a small edge for White after 12 e4 (12 ¤e4 is worth considering but it might be less promising: 12...¤xe4 13 £xe4 e5 Black tried some other options.

a) 13...¥e7!? 14 ¥d2 (or 14 a4 ¥b7 15 £c2 ¦fc8 16 ¥d2 b4 17 a5 c5 18 ¥e1 £b8 19 £b1 ¤f6 20 dxc5 ¥xc5, 14 ¥d3 g6 15 b3 ¥b7 16 ¥b2 c5 17 £g4 f5 18 £g3 £xg3 19 hxg3 ¥f6 20 ¦ac1

¥xf3 21 gxf3 cxd4 22 ¥xd4 ¥xd4 23 exd4 ¦fc8 with good play for Black in both cases) 14...¥b7 15 ¦ac1 c5 Black has realised the program advance ...c6−c5 and seems to have no problems, Kir.Georgiev − Bareev/Sarajevo 2000.

b) 13...¥b7 14 ¥d3 g6 (14...¤f6 15 £h4 c5 couldn't solve the problems: 16 e4! c4!? (16...cxd4?! 17 ¥g5 e5?! 18 ¥xf6 gxf6 19 ¤xd4!±) 17 e5 (17 ¥c2 c3„) 17...cxd3 18 exf6 ¦fc8 19 ¤g5ƒ with initiative although it still deserves further analysis) 15 £h4 c5 16 ¤g5 h5 (16...¤f6 17 dxc5 £xc5 18 ¥d2² promises the better chances for White) In the game Kasimdzhanov − Cheparinov/FIDE GP Jermuk 2009 White came up with an interesting idea 17 g4!? (17 ¤e4 was known to be White's common option, which could not put serious problems for Black: 17...¥xe4!? 18 ¥xe4 ¦ae8 (or 18...¦ac8!? 19 ¥d2 c4 ∆ ...b5−b4„) 19 ¥d2 ¥e7) 17...¤f6 18 gxh5 ¤xh5 19 ¥e2 ¢g7! 20 dxc5 ¥e5! (A natural 20...£xc5 let White to seize the initiative: 21 ¥d2 (21 b4!? was very tempting but Black had a counter strike 21...¥xh2+! 22 ¢xh2 £e5+ 23 ¢g1 £xa1 with sufficient defensive resources in all cases) 21...¤f6 (perhaps Black should have preferred the more reliable 21...¥e7!? 22 e4 ¦ad8 23 ¦ac1 ¥xg5! 24 ¥xg5 ¦xd1+ 25 ¦xd1 ¦h8 26 ¥f3²) 22 ¦ac1ƒ) 21 f4 ¥f6 22 ¥d2² and Black's play was not so easy although he should have sufficient counter chances here.

14 £d3!? (14 £h4 is the main continuation but many games ended with repetition of moves after 14...¦e8 15 ¥d3 h6 16 ¥d2 ¥e7 17 £g3 ¥d6= with a repetition of moves) 14...exd4 15 £xd4 ¥e7 16 £f4!? White is going to put pressure on Black's Q−side in the ending. However, Black seems to be able to hold balance: 16...£xf4 17 exf4 ¥f6 18 ¤d4 c5!?

a) Black is under pressure after 18...¦e8 19 ¥e3 c5 20 ¤f5 ¥xb2 21 ¦ab1 ¥d4 22 ¥f3 ¦b8 23 ¤xd4 cxd4 24 ¦xd4²

b) while 18...¥xd4 is also not fully equalising: 19 ¦xd4 ¤f6 20 ¥f3 ¤d5 21 ¥xd5 (21 b3!? ¥b7 22 ¥a3 ¦fe8 23 g4²) 21...cxd5 22 ¦xd5 ¥e6 23 ¦d4 ¦fd8 24 ¦xd8+ ¦xd8 25 ¥e3²

19 ¥f3 ¦a7 20 ¤c6 ¦c7 21 ¥d2 b4 22 ¦ac1 White seems to be doing well but Csaba Balogh defended it twice without serious problems: 22...¥b7 23 ¤xb4 ¥xb2 24 ¦c2 ¥xf3 25 gxf3 ¥f6 26 ¥e3 ¦fc8 27 ¤d5 (or 27 ¤xa6 ¦c6 28 ¦xd7 ¦xa6 29 ¦b7 h6 30 ¦xc5 ¦xc5 31 ¥xc5 ¦xa2=) 27...¦c6 28 ¤xf6+ ¤xf6 29 ¦xc5 ¦xc5 30 ¥xc5 h6² and Black held balance) 12...e5 13 g3 ¦e8 14 a3² and so on.

36

10 ¥e2 ¥b7 11 ¦d1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlpsn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+LzPPzP0 9tR-vLR+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Intending to play e3−e4 so Black should move his queen from d−file to counter it by e6−e5.

11...£c7

11...£b8 is quite typical for these positions but it does not seem fully equalising: 12 e4 e5 13 g3 Nowadays this pawn advance is a common option while some 15−20 years ago White was afraid to weaken the long diagonal and often played h2−h3, giving Black more options in the center. (White also tried other moves, such as 13 dxe5 ¤xe5 14 ¤d4 (14 g3!? is an alternative: 14...¦e8 15 ¥g5 ¤eg4!? A risky but fairly interesting approach − Black is ready to sacrifice his minor pieces in order to destroy White king's pawn shield. (15...¤xf3+ deserves attention as well: 16 ¥xf3 ¥e5 17 ¥g2 a6 18 ¥e3 c5!„ with good counter chances) 16 h3 ¥xg3! 17 hxg4 ¤xg4 This position has been reached in the game Volkov − Sedlak/Aeroflot Moscow 2006. Here 18 ¦f1!? seemed more reliable: 18...h6 19 ¥d2 and White kept his hopes for advantage although Black's position was still full of life) 14...¤g6 (An active 14...¤eg4?! is wrong − the knight on g4 is unstable and so limits Black's counterplay against the e−pawn: 15 g3 b4 16 ¥xg4! (The hasty 16 ¤a4?! helps Black to solve the problem with the standard 16...c5! 17 ¥xg4 (17 ¤xc5? ¥xc5 18 £xc5 ¤xf2!) 17...cxd4 18 ¥f3 ¦c8!?ƒ with excellent play.) 16...¤xg4 17 ¤a4 White has achieved a clear advantage thanks to the control of the c5−square which is the key to the whole position, Huzman − Pelletier/Pula 2000) 15 g3 ¦e8 16 ¤f5 ¥f8 17 ¥g5 £e5² Black has reasonable counterplay although it seems that he had not yet equalised completely) 13...a6 (Black often played 13...exd4 but faces similar problems: 14 ¤xd4 ¥c7 (14...b4? would be met with 15 ¤f5!, 14...¦e8 15 ¤f5 ¥c7 16 ¥f3 and so on) 15 ¥e3 ¦e8 16 ¦ac1 with a certainly advantage for White) 14 dxe5 ¤xe5 15 ¤d4 and White has maintained the better chances in the game Koneru − Perez Candelario/Zafra 2009.

12 e4 e5

37

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zplwqn+pzpp0 9-+pvl-sn-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPQ+LzPPzP0 9tR-vLR+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13 ¥g5

The most ambitious continuation. In case of 13 dxe5 ¤xe5 14 ¤d4 Black has an interesting counter resource 14...¤ed7!?

This retreat looks a bit strange but it plays important role in Black' active strategy. a) 14...¤g6 is a more common way to prevent opponent's plans of building a strong

pawn chain by g2−g3, f2−f4, e4−e5 but the tournament practice promises the better chances for White after 15 g3² when the knight on g6 is restricted.

b) an immediate 14...b4 is a bit premature: 15 ¤f5! ¥c5 16 ¤a4 when Black is practically forced to play 16...¥xf2+ 17 ¢xf2 ¤eg4+ 18 ¥xg4 ¤xg4+ 19 ¢f3 (19 ¢e1 £xh2 leads to the same) 19...¤xh2+ 20 ¢f2 (20 ¢e2!? ¥a6+ 21 ¢e1 ¤g4„) 20...¤g4+ 21 ¢e1 £h2 and here White would have secured the better chances by 22 £e2!

c) In case of 14...¤eg4 White should play the same 15 g3² (while 15 h3 gives Black good counter chances after 15...¥h2+!? 16 ¢f1 ¤xf2! 17 ¢xf2 b4„ 18 ¤a4?! (18 ¤f5!) 18...c5! 19 ¤xc5 £xc5! 20 £xc5 ¤xe4+ 21 ¢f1 ¤xc5ƒ)

15 g3 ¦fe8 (An immediate 15...b4?! is still a premature since after 16 ¤a4 ¦fe8 17 ¤f5! Black's bishop had to retreat to the passive position: 17...¥f8 (17...¤xe4? 18 ¥d3 c5 19 f3 ¥xg3 20 ¥xe4 ¥xe4 21 fxe4±, 17...¥e5? 18 f4) 18 ¥f4 (18 f3!?) 18...£a5 (18...¤e5!?) 19 f3± with a clear advantage for White) 16 a3 This modest pawn advance prevents thematic ...b5−b4 followed by ...c6−c5. (White has an interesting tactical shot 16 ¥xb5!?, which was not so easy to parry. Perhaps Black should keep in mind a counter blow 16...¥xg3! (16...cxb5 17 ¤dxb5 ¥xe4 would have been met by 18 £xe4! (18 ¤xc7? ¥xc2 19 ¦xd6 ¦e1+ 20 ¢g2 ¦c8 21 ¦d2 ¥g6© gives Black more than sufficient compensation for the pawn) 18...¤xe4 19 ¤xc7 ¥xc7 20 ¦xd7± with extra pawn in the ending) 17 hxg3 cxb5 18 ¤dxb5 (18 ¥f4 ¤e5„ 19 ¤dxb5 ¤f3+ 20 ¢g2! ¤h4+!=) 18...£c6© with compensation thanks to the active pieces and vulnerability of the opponent's king. However, White can still search for advantage in this line) 16...a6 Resuming the idea to open the light−squared bishop by ...c6−c5. The game Akopian − Aronian/FIDE GP Jermuk 2009 continued 17 ¤f5 ¥e5! Now Black is threatening ...¥e5xc3 followed by ...¤f6−e4 so White does not have time for the f2−

38

f4 pawn push. 18 ¥f3 (18 ¥e3 could be well met with 18...c5!) 18...g6 19 ¤h6+ ¢g7 20 ¥g5 c5 with good counter chances in this complex position.

13 g3 is another White's option, which might be a transposition to the line 13. dxe5 ¤xe5 14. ¤d4 ¤ed7!? 15. g3 ¦fe8 after 13...exd4 14 ¤xd4 ¦fe8

13...exd4

in case of 13...¦fe8 14 ¦ac1!? (14 dxe5 is harmless: 14...¤xe5 (14...¥xe5 15 ¤xe5 £xe5 16 ¥e3²) 15 ¥xf6 can be well met with 15...¤xf3+!? (15...gxf6 16 ¤d4²) 16 ¥xf3 gxf6 with acceptable play for Black − his damaged K−side pawn structure cannot be easily exploited while his dark−squared bishop is rather strong) 14...a6!? Preparing the typical ...c6−c5. (14...¦ac8?! can be strongly met by 15 £d2! This move helps White to exchange Black's dark−squared bishop for the knight. The game Drozdovskij − Korobov/UKR−ch Poltava 2006 continued 15...a6 16 dxe5 ¥xe5 17 ¤xe5 £xe5 18 f3² with a certain advantage thanks to the good pieces and the pawn chain f3−e4, which restricts Black's minor pieces) 15 ¤d5!? White keeps the better chances: 15...¤xd5 16 exd5 ¦ac8 17 dxc6 ¥xc6 18 d5 ¥b7 19 £f5 ¤c5 20 ¤d2!² This prophylactic move, which prepares for ...£c7−d7, secures a small advantage for White

14 ¦xd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zplwqn+pzpp0 9-+pvl-sn-+0 9+p+-+-vL-0 9-+-tRP+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPQ+LzPPzP0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...¤e5!

39

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zplwq-+pzpp0 9-+pvl-sn-+0 9+p+-sn-vL-0 9-+-tRP+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPQ+LzPPzP0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black should not be much worried about his K−side pawn structure. Other moves are not completely satisfactory for Black, for example, 14...¥c5 15 ¦dd1 (15

¦d2!?) 15...¤g4 16 ¥h4 14...¦fe8 15 ¦ad1 ¥c5 16 ¦4d2 ¦ad8 17 ¥h4 in case of 14...b4 White can think about 15 ¦ad1! (15 ¥xf6 also promises better chances for

White as well: 15...¤xf6 (15...gxf6? 16 ¦ad1±, 15...bxc3? 16 ¥xg7!) 16 ¤a4 ¦fe8 17 ¦ad1 ¥f8 18 ¥d3 c5 19 ¦xb4! ¦ad8 20 ¦xb7 £xb7 21 e5 ¤e4 22 ¦e1 f5 23 ¤c3 ¤xc3 24 £xc3 g6 25 ¥c4+ ¢h8 26 b3² with a stable advantage) 15...¥c5 16 ¦xd7! ¤xd7 17 ¤a4! ¥b6 18 ¥e7 With series of energetic moves White seized the initiative. If Black won't be able to find good squares for his pieces he will soon be pressed to the back rank, Akobian − Becerra Rivero/USA−ch, Saint Louis 2009.

15 g3!?

White restricts opponent's dark−squared bishop and is still planning to build a powerful pawn chain g3−f4−e5. Yet, this approach should be well−prepared as Black gets counter chances using g4−square for his knights.

15 ¥xf6 gxf6 16 ¤h4 ¤g6 17 ¤f5 ¥xh2+ 18 ¢h1 ¥e5 is okay for Black. while 15 h3!? ¤xf3+ 16 ¥xf3 £e7 17 ¦ad1² may also promise a slight edge for White.

15...¥c5

Simplifications after 15...¤xf3+ 16 ¥xf3 ¥e5 17 ¦d3 ¦ad8 18 ¦ad1² do not completely equalise.

16 ¦d2

40

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zplwq-+pzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9+pvl-sn-vL-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9PzPQtRLzP-zP0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...¤eg4!

In the game Akobian − Esen/WchT Bursa 2010 White proved his superiority after 16...¤fg4 17 ¤d1! ¥b4 (Here 17...£b6?! could be easily parried by 18 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 19 ¥e3 ¥xe3 20 ¤xe3 with a clear advantage for White., while 17...¥b6 did not equalise either: 18 ¥f4 ¦ad8 19 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 20 ¦xd8 ¦xd8 21 ¤e3, maintaining the edge) 18 ¦d4! ¥a5 (18...¥d6!? seemed more stubborn, keeping the dark−squared bishop closer to important squares) 19 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 20 ¤e3 f6 21 ¥f4 with a certain advantage.

17 ¥d3

17 ¤d1 might be also somewhat better for White: 17...£b6 18 ¥d3 ¦fe8 19 h3 h6 (19...¤e5!? 20 ¤xe5 ¦xe5 21 ¥f4²) 20 ¥h4!? (20 ¥xf6 ¤xf6 21 e5 ¤d5 22 ¦c1 ¥b4 23 ¤c3 ¦ad8÷) 20...g5 21 hxg4 gxh4 22 ¤xh4 ¤xg4 23 ¤f5 but perhaps Black is okay after 23...¥c8!?, taking care of White's strong knight.

17...¦fd8!

17...¦ad8?! is less accurate due to 18 e5! ¤xe5 19 ¤xe5 £xe5 20 ¥xh7+ ¢h8 21 ¥xf6 £xf6 22 ¤e4! ¦xd2 23 £xc5! £xb2 24 £xf8+ ¢xh7 25 ¦e1 with a huge advantage.

18 e5! ¤xe5 19 ¤xe5 £xe5 20 ¥xh7+ ¢h8 21 ¥xf6 £xf6 22 ¦ad1²

41

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+-mk0 9zpl+-+pzpL0 9-+p+-wq-+0 9+pvl-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-zP-0 9PzPQtR-zP-zP0 9+-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Thanks to the idea ¤c3−e4 White has time to get his bishop back to e4, stopping ...c6−c5

and maintaining a small advantage.

42

Anti−Meran/7 slow lines − 8 ...dc4 9.Bxc4

b5 10. Bd3 [D46]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.e3 e6 5.¤f3 ¤bd7 6.£c2 ¥d6 7.¥d3 0-0 8.0-0 dxc4 9.¥xc4


9...b5

Sometimes Black begins with 9...a6 10.¦d1 b5 (A delay with ...b7−b5 by 10...£c7 is less precise as after 11.¤e4 ¤xe4 12.£xe4 b5 White can put his bishop to d3 in one step: 13.¥d3ƒ) 11.¥d3

43

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+n+pzpp0 9p+pvlpsn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLR+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

(11.¥e2 is an alternative, which is considered in D46/6 Anti−Meran slow lines − 8 ...dc4

9.Bxc4 b5 10. Be2.) 11...£c7 (With White's bishop on d3 Black can also begin with 11...¥b7 12.e4 e5 13.¤e2 (13.dxe5 ¤xe5 14.¤xe5 ¥xe5 15.¥xb5 does not promise much due to 15...¥xh2+! 16.¢h1 £e7 17.¥e2 ¥e5„ with good counterplay for Black, after 13.¥g5 h6 14.¥h4 it might be more accurate to play 14...exd4!? 15.¤xd4 £c7÷) 13...£c7 14.¤g3 (14.¥g5 exd4 15.¤exd4 g6!÷) 14...¦fe8 15.dxe5 ¤xe5 16.¤xe5 ¥xe5÷ with acceptable play) 12.¥d2!?

a) an immediate 12.¤e4 ¤xe4 13.¥xe4 ¤f6 14.¥d3 c5 would be acceptable for Black

b) 12.e4 deserves attention among other options: 12...e5 13.h3 ¦e8 with a complex play (while 13...h6 14.¥e3 c5 does not equalise: 15.dxc5 ¥xc5 16.¤d5 ¤xd5 17.exd5 £d6 18.¦ac1 ¥xe3 19.fxe3 £b6 20.£f2 ¥b7 21.e4 £xf2+ 22.¢xf2 with a stable advantage for White)

c) 12.a4!? is worth considering, provoking some weakening of the opponent's Q−side before going to Nc3−e4: 12...b4 13.¤e4 ¤xe4 14.¥xe4 The game Eljanov − Aronian/FIDE GP Jermuk 2009 continued 14...¤f6 15.¥d3 c5 16.b3 cxd4 17.£xc7 ¥xc7 18.¤xd4 ¥b7 19.¥b2 ¦ac8 20.¦ac1 In the ending, which is like that from a QGA, Black does not have serious problems but his Q−side might become vulnerable so White still keeps a very slight edge.

12...c5 (12...¥b7 allows White to carry on his idea: 13.b4! e5 (13...¥xb4?! 14.¤xb5! axb5 15.¥xb4±) 14.¤e4 ¤xe4 15.¥xe4 h6 (15...exd4 16.¥xh7+ ¢h8 17.¥f5 c5 18.bxc5 ¤xc5 19.exd4 ¤a4 20.£b3 was unsatisfactory for Black in the game Barsov − Jumabayev, Guangzhou 2010, 15...g6!? deserved serious attention) 16.¦ac1 exd4 17.¤xd4! ¤f6 and here in the game Goganov − S.Savchenko, Donetsk 2010 White could have obtained more advantage by 18.¥f3 ¥xh2+ 19.¢f1 followed by Nd4xc6.) 13.¤e4!? An interesting idea. White is not afraid of the further Black's pawn advance. Then he is going to undermine opponent's pawn chain, hoping to get advantage thanks to his strong pawn center. (A common 13.dxc5 does not promise much: 13...£xc5 (after 13...¤xc5?! 14.¥xb5! ¥b7 15.¥e2 Black does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn) 14.a4 bxa4 15.¦xa4 ¥b7 and Black is okay) 13...c4 14.¤xd6 £xd6 15.¥e2 ¥b7 16.b3 ¥d5 17.£b2 ¤e4 18.¥a5 ¦fc8 19.¤e1! White is going to push Black's pieces away by f2−f3 and e3−e4. Besides, the knight's manoeuvre to c2 secures the

44

bishop on a5. His chances are somewhat better, Hammer − Spoelman/Wijk aan Zee B 2011.

10.¥d3 ¥b7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlpsn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.a3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-+pvlpsn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-sNLzPN+-0 9-zPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position might also be reached in the Meran when Black plays ...d5xc4 followed by

...b7−b5 and ...¥f8−d6. An immediate 11.e4 e5 deserves attention: 12.dxe5 (12.¦d1 deserves serious attention.

Then possible is 12...£b8!? (or 12...£c7 ) 13.h3 a6 14.a4 ¦e8 15.¥e3 exd4 16.¥xd4 (16.¤xd4? b4 17.¤ce2 c5 18.¤f5 ¥h2+ 19.¢h1 ¤xe4) 16...b4 (16...¤e5 17.¤xe5 ¥xe5 18.¤e2²) 17.¤b1! c5 18.¥xf6 ¤xf6 19.¤bd2² with a small advantage for White) 12...¤xe5 13.¤xe5 ¥xe5 14.h3 b4! (in case of 14...¦e8 White achieves the better prospects after 15.¥e3²) 15.¤e2 (15.¤a4 ¥d4! with the idea of ...c6−c5 is in Black's favour since 16.e5?! ¥xe5 17.¤c5 ¥c8³ doesn't give White sufficient compensation for the pawn) 15...c5! Although the queenside pawn structure is weakened piece activity is much more important here. The game Topalov − Illescas Cordoba/Madrid 1997

45

continued by 16.f3! c4! 17.£xc4™ £b6+ 18.¢h1 ¦fd8!© with more than enough compensation for the pawn thanks to much more active pieces.

11.¥d2 has also been tried.

11...a6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+l+n+pzpp0 9p+pvlpsn-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-sNLzPN+-0 9-zPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black wants to open his light−squared bishop by ...c6−c5 but it is going to be not so easy. 11...a5!? is an alternative. Black prevents blockade of his Q−side and, despite a typical

...c6−c5 does not seem possible now, he might find some moment to open his light−squared bishop, using some tactical options. 12.e4 e5 13.dxe5 ¤xe5 14.¤xe5 ¥xe5 15.h3 ¦e8 16.¥e3 £c7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+r+k+0 9+lwq-+pzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9zpp+-vl-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9zP-sNLvL-+P0 9-zPQ+-zPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Probably the best continuation. (Other options do not promise a full equality for Black:

16...¥d4 17.¦fe1 h6 18.¦ad1 ¥xe3 19.¦xe3², 16...¥xc3?! 17.bxc3 c5 18.¥xb5 ¥xe4 19.£d1 £xd1

20.¦fxd1± with a clear advantage in the endgame, or 16...£e7 17.¤e2 ¦ad8 18.¦ad1 ¥c7 19.¥c5 £e6 20.¤d4 £e5 21.f4 £h5 22.¤f5!ƒ with superior play.) 17.¦ad1!? (17.f4 is less accurate: 17...¥xc3 18.bxc3 c5! 19.e5 c4! and Black has obtained excellent counter chances in the game P.H.Nielsen − Grachev/EU−ch Plovdiv 2008) 17...¦ad8 18.¤e2 ¥d6 19.¤d4 ¤h5 20.¦fe1 ¤f4 21.¥f1² White keeps a small advantage.

Black also tried 11...£e7 12.e4

46

a) In case of 12.¤g5 Black should probably react with 12...h6 (after 12...¥xh2+ 13.¢xh2 ¤g4+ 14.¢g1 £xg5 15.f3 ¤gf6 16.e4© White gets a good compensation for the pawn: 16...£h4 17.£f2 (17.¥e3!?) 17...£xf2+ 18.¢xf2 e5 19.¥e3 exd4 (19...a6 20.dxe5 ¤xe5 21.¥e2 ¦ac8 22.b4©) 20.¥xd4 a6÷ with complicated play) 13.¤ge4 ¤xe4 14.¤xe4 and here 14...c5! gives Black sufficient counter chances: 15.¤xd6 £xd6 16.¥xb5 cxd4 17.¦d1 £d5 (or 17...¦ac8 18.£e2 ¤c5 19.¦xd4 £b6 20.¥c4 e5 21.¦d1 £g6 22.f3 e4 23.f4 ¤d3 24.b3 ¥a6©, 17...e5 18.exd4 exd4 19.£f5 ¤e5÷) 18.¥f1 ¦ac8 19.£e2 ¤c5 20.¦xd4 £f5ƒ and White found himself under pressure on the Q−side

b) Other options White often plays are 12.¤e2 c) and 12.¥d2 12...e5 13.¥g5 (White used to shift his other knight to the K−side first of all: 13.¤e2 ¦fe8 a) other Black's options are: 13...c5 14.¤g3 g6 15.dxe5 ¤xe5 16.¥xb5 with better

chances b) and 13...a6 14.¤g3 (or 14.¤xe5 ¥xe5 15.dxe5 ¤xe5 16.¤g3 ¤xd3 17.£xd3 c5 18.f3²)

14...g6 15.¥g5 c5 16.d5 c4 17.¥e2² with somewhat better chances for White 14.¤g3 g6 (14...exd4 should have been met by 15.¤f5! £f8 16.¤3xd4²) 15.¥g5 a6 16.b4 a5

17.¦ab1 axb4 18.axb4 ¦a4÷ with reasonable counter chances, this line deserves further investigation) 13...¦fe8 (13...exd4 14.¤xd4 ¥xh2+ could not solve Black's problems: 15.¢h1! (15.¢xh2 might have been also better for White: 15...¤g4+ (15...£e5+ 16.f4 £xd4 17.¥e2!ƒ was worse for Black) 16.¢g3 £xg5 17.f4 £d8! (17...£h5?! 18.¦h1 £c5 19.¤f3 ¤e3 20.£e2±) 18.¤f5 g6 19.¢xg4 gxf5+ 20.exf5² ¦e8„) 15...¥e5 16.¤f5 £e6 17.f4 ¥xc3 18.£xc3 c5 19.¦ae1 c4 20.¥c2ƒ and White keeps the initiative) 14.dxe5 (Here an attempt to transpose to the above mentioned line by 14.¤e2 would be well met by 14...h6 15.¥h4 c5„, but other options, such as 14.¦ad1!?, could have been considered) 14...¤xe5 15.¤xe5 ¥xe5 (15...£xe5? fails to 16.f4 £d4+ 17.¢h1 and White build a strong pawn chain: 17...¤g4 (17...h6? 18.¥xf6 £xf6?? 19.e5) 18.e5!ƒ ¤e3 (18...h6 19.¦ad1! £b6 20.¥h7+ ¢h8 21.¦xd6 hxg5 22.£e2!+−) 19.¥xh7+ ¢h8 20.£f2! ¢xh7 21.¦fd1! £b6 22.¦xd6± with a huge advantage) 16.f4 ¥d4+ (A concrete 16...¥xc3?! is dubious: 17.bxc3 £c5+ 18.¢h1 ¤g4 19.¦ae1 (or 19.e5 ) ) 17.¢h1 h6 This position arose in the game Kasimdzhanov − Gelfand/FIDE GP Jermuk 2009. Here 18.¥xf6!? deserved serious attention: 18...£xf6 (or 18...gxf6 19.¦f3) 19.e5 £e7 20.¤e4 ¦ad8 21.¦ad1² with a small but certain advantage.

12.b4

A common option, which leads to the complications. 12.¤g5!? is very interesting. This typical manoeuvre is connected with a pawn sacrifice but

White gets excellent compensation for that. 12...¥xh2+ Black is almost forced to accept the gift as otherwise White would increase control over the key c5−square after ¤g5−e4. 13.¢xh2 ¤g4+ 14.¢g1 £xg5 15.f3! ¤gf6 16.e4 £h4 17.¥e3© Thanks to his strong pawn center, the weakness of the dark squares in Black's camp, and the passivity of Black's pieces, White has got more than sufficient compensation for the pawn. His chances are preferable, Anand − Aronian/Linares 2009.

12...a5 13.¦b1 axb4 14.axb4 £e7 15.e4 e5

47

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+l+nwqpzpp0 9-+pvl-sn-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-zP-zPP+-+0 9+-sNL+N+-0 9-+Q+-zPPzP0 9+RvL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16.¤e2

An immediate 16.dxe5 is harmless for Black: 16...¤xe5 17.¤xe5 ¥xe5 18.¤e2 (18.f4?! is dubious: 18...¥d4+ 19.¢h1 ¤g4ƒ and Black grabs the initiative) 18...£e6 A choice of top players − Black is going to get his rook into his opponent's camp. 19.f4 (19.¥f4 does not bother Black very much: 19...¦a2 20.£c5 ¤d7 21.£e3 ¥xf4 22.¤xf4 £e7 23.¦fd1 ¤e5 24.¥e2 ¥c8 25.¦d2 ¥e6 26.¤xe6 £xe6 27.¦xa2 £xa2 with acceptable play) 19...¦a2 20.£d1 This position arose in the game Gelfand − Anand/Nice (rapid/blindfold) 2008. Black came up with astonishing 20...¥a1!! (After 20...¥c7 21.¤c3 ¥b6+ 22.¢h1 White pushes opponent's rook off his camp: 22...¦aa8 23.e5 ¤d5 24.¤e4 with better chances) 21.e5?! (In case of 21.¥e3 Black was able to secure his bishop by 21...¦fa8, then White would keep defending by 22.¤c1 ¦2a3 23.¦b3) 21...c5!-+ and White has already found himself helpless!

16...¥xb4!

A principled choice. Otherwise White can simply protect the pawn, for example: 16...¦fe8 17.¥d2 ¦a3 18.¦b3

¦xb3 19.£xb3 exd4 20.¤exd4² with better chances.

17.¤g3

48

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+l+nwqpzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-vl-zPP+-+0 9+-+L+NsN-0 9-+Q+-zPPzP0 9+RvL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.dxe5 ¤g4 18.¥g5 £c5 is good for Black.

17...g6

17...exd4!? deserves attention: 18.e5 ¤xe5 19.¤xe5 c5 20.¦xb4 (or 20.f4 c4 21.¥xc4 bxc4 22.£xc4 ¤d5 23.¤f5 £e6 24.¦xb4 ¤xb4 25.£xb4 £xf5 26.£xb7 £c2÷ with sufficient counterplay) 20...cxb4 21.¦e1 £e6 and here White should have thought about 22.£d2, fortifying the position (while after 22.¤f5 ¤e4!? 23.¤c6 ¥xc6 24.¤xd4 b3! Black gets the better chances. This line certainly required more analysis − White has to find something more convincing to prove his advantage)

18.dxe5! ¤g4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+l+nwqp+p0 9-+p+-+p+0 9+p+-zP-+-0 9-vl-+P+n+0 9+-+L+NsN-0 9-+Q+-zPPzP0 9+RvL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19.¥g5

In case of 19.e6!? fxe6 (19...¤de5 20.exf7+ ¦xf7 21.¤g5! might lead to the problems) 20.¥g5 Black has 20...£d6!? (20...£c5 21.£b3 is a transposition to 19. Bg5) 21.¥e2 ¦f7 22.¦bd1 After this natural move Black seems to be fine.

49

a) In case of 22.£b3 ¥c5! (in the game Kasimdzhanov − Aronian/FIDE GP Jermuk 2009, which is considered below in the main line 19. Bg5 Black put his queen on c5 instead of d6 and so was suffering because of his poor bishop on b4) 23.¦bd1 ¦a3 24.£c2 £f8„ Black could have obtained good counter chances

b) However White had an interesting option 22.e5!?, freeing a strong e4−square for the knight: 22...¤gxe5! (22...¤dxe5?! is weaker: 23.¤xe5 ¤xe5 (23...£xe5?? 24.¦xb4 £xg5 25.¦xg4+−) 24.¤e4 £d5!? (24...£f8 25.f4) 25.¦xb4 ¦a2 26.£b1! ¦xe2 27.¦d1 £a2 28.¤f6+! ¢g7 29.£c1!+− with decisive initiative) 23.¤e4 (23.¤xe5?! £xe5! 24.¦xb4 £xg5) 23...¤xf3+ 24.¥xf3 £f8 25.¥g4 ¦e8÷ with very unclear and complicated play in which White keeps sufficient compensation for the pawn thanks to his more active pieces and weakened opponent's king.

22...£f8!„ Black has achieved sufficient counter chances, Kasimdzhanov − Leko/FIDE GP Jermuk 2009.

19...£c5 20.e6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+l+n+p+p0 9-+p+P+p+0 9+pwq-+-vL-0 9-vl-+P+n+0 9+-+L+NsN-0 9-+Q+-zPPzP0 9+R+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

20...¤de5!?

After 20...fxe6 21.£b3 ¤de5 22.£xe6+ ¦f7 23.¤xe5 ¤xe5 24.¥e2 White gets more than sufficient compensation for the pawn: 24...¥c8 (or 24...£d6 25.£b3 and White eventually proved his superiority in the game Kasimdzhanov − Aronian/FIDE GP Jermuk 2009) 25.£b3 This position has been reached in the game Morozevich − Navara/Reggio Emilia 2011. Black should have preferred 25...¦a4 26.¦bc1 £f8 and although 27.¢h1, preparing an advance of the central pawns, looks promising for White, the position remains quite complicated.

21.¤xe5 ¤xe5 22.¥f6

50

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+l+-+p+p0 9-+p+PvLp+0 9+pwq-sn-+-0 9-vl-+P+-+0 9+-+L+-sN-0 9-+Q+-zPPzP0 9+R+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position arose in the game Svidler − Karjakin/Baku 2008. Here Black should have

played

22...¤xd3! 23.£xd3 fxe6 24.e5 £c3

though after

25.£e4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+l+-+-+p0 9-+p+pvLp+0 9+p+-zP-+-0 9-vl-+Q+-+0 9+-wq-+-sN-0 9-+-+-zPPzP0 9+R+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has good compensation for the pawn.

51

Anti-Meran [D45-46] Contents Anti-Meran/1 - Various ideas [D45] Anti-Meran/2 - Latvian Bayonet 7 ...Nxg4 [D45] Anti-Meran/3 - Latvian Bayonet 7 ...Bb4 [D45] Anti-Meran/4 - Latvian Bayonet 7 ...dxc4 [D45] Anti-Meran/5 slow lines - Black tends to ...e6-e5 [D46] Anti-Meran/6 slow lines - 8 ...dc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10. Be2 [D46] Anti-Meran/7 slow lines - 8 ...dc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10. Bd3 [D46]

Anti Meran [D45 46]terrycucf.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/2/9/19295043/antimeran.pdf · Complications in...

Documents

Transcript of Anti Meran [D45 46]terrycucf.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/2/9/19295043/antimeran.pdf · Complications in...