C40-C43:

2 Nf3 - Various Black replies

Written by GMs Nigel Davies, Tony Kosten, Victor Mikhalevski & Olivier Renet

Last updated Wednesday, April 20, 2011

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

his eBook covers the replies to 2 ¤f3 apart from 2...¤c6: mainly the Petroff and

Philidor's Defences, but there are also the very rare lines like the Latvian and Elephant

Gambits.

T

All the game references highlighted in blue have been annotated and can be downloaded in PGN form using the PGN Games Archive on www.chesspublishing.com.

Contents

1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

2...d6

2...¤f6 3 ¤xe5 (3 d4 ¤xe4 4 ¥d3 d5 Petroff 3.d4 [C43]) 3...d6 4 ¤f3 ¤xe4 Petroff 3.Nxe5 (3.Nc3, 3.Bc4) [C42]

2...f5 Latvian/Elephant Gambits etc. [C40]

3 d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

3...exd4

3...¤f6 4 ¤c3 ¤bd7 5 ¥c4 Philidor - Hanham & 3...f5 [C41]

4 ¤xd4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 g6

2

Philidor Defence 3...exd4 [C41]

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

straight to that section.

Ctrl + 2 resizes the page.

All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd

3

Latvian/Elephant Gambits etc. [C40]

Last updated: 27/01/08 by Tony Kosten

1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 f5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zppzpp+-zpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-zpp+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The Latvian Gambit White needs to know what he's doing against 2...d5!?, the Elephant Gambit. After 3 exd5

¥d6 4 d4 e4 5 ¤e5 ¤f6 he should play 6 ¥b5+ (Less good is 6 ¥c4 as in Topholm,P−Pape,R/Correspondence 1988 (12))

The Damiano Defence with 2...f6 allows 3 ¤xe5! after which 3...fxe5 (3...£e7 is relatively best but after 4 ¤f3 £xe4+ 5 ¥e2 White has a large lead in development) 4 £h5+ ¢e7 (4...g6 5 £xe5+ £e7 6 £xh8 wins material) 5 £xe5+ ¢f7 6 ¥c4+ d5 7 ¥xd5+ and White has three pawns for the piece and a continuing attack.

2...£e7 aims to strongpoint e5 in the same way Black does this in the Philidor Defence. After 3 ¤c3 c6 4 d4 d6 5 ¥c4 (5 a4 a5 6 ¥e2 £c7?! lost a lot of time for Black in Nikolenko,O−Sadiku,B/Berlin Summer Open 1995 (25)) 5...¥g4 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 h3 ¥h5 8 g4 ¥g6 9 ¥g5 f6 10 ¥e3 ¤d7 11 ¤h4 was preferable for White in Adams,M−Radjabov,T/Tripoli LBA 2004 (44), but Black still has a game here.

3 ¤xe5

Critical. For 3 ¥c4 fxe4 4 ¤xe5 d5 see Guido,F−Hector,J/Geneva Open, Switzerland 1989 (33). 3 ¤c3 fxe4 4 ¤xe5 ¤f6 5 ¤g4 is very interesting as in Gamboa,N−

Karklins,A/Philadelphia 1995 (8).

4

Another sharp continuation is 3 d4 fxe4 4 ¤xe5 ¤f6 5 ¥g5 d6 6 ¤c3!? but after 6...dxe5 7 dxe5 £xd1+ 8 ¦xd1 h6 9 ¥xf6 gxf6 10 ¤d5 ¢d7 the onus was still on White to justify his play in Pietrusiak,B−Hector,J/Linkoping, Denmark 1984 (37).

3...£f6 4 d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvlntr0 9zppzpp+-zpp0 9-+-+-wq-+0 9+-+-sNp+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The traditional mainline. 4 ¤c4 is Leonhardt's Variation, and is one of White's most dangerous tries: 4...fxe4 5 ¤c3

£f7 6 ¤e3 c6 7 d3! Budovskis' idea, refusing the pawn and playing for the attack. (7

¤xe4 d5 8 ¤g5 is the main alternative where White takes a pawn and tries to hang on to it.) 7...exd3 8 ¥xd3 d5 9 0-0 ¥c5 (9...¥d6 is the most popular alternative, when 10

¦e1 ¤e7 11 ¤exd5! cxd5 12 ¤b5 leads to a clear white advantage) 10 b4!? see Rosenstielke,M−Melchor,A/cr V World Ch. final e−mail 2005.

4...d6 5 ¤c4 fxe4 6 ¤c3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvlntr0 9zppzp-+-zpp0 9-+-zp-wq-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+NzPp+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White can also try Bronstein's 6 ¥e2 in order to prevent 6...£g6 because of 7 ¥h5, but the

text move also seems strong.

6...£g6 7 f3! exf3

5

7...¥e7 8 fxe4 Black had insufficient compensation in Rajlich,V−Lapshun,Y/Manhattan CC 1999 (21).

8 £xf3 ¤c6?! 9 ¤b5!

and Black didn't have a good reply in Kosten,A−Ruggeri Laderchi,G/email 2001 (26).

6

Philidor's Defence 3...exd4 [C41]

Last updated: 12/05/09 by Victor Mikhalevski

1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 d6

Philidor's Defence is solid, but can be passive. XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

3 d4 exd4 4 ¤xd4 ¤f6

The obvious reply to the immediate 4...¥e7 is to gain space with 5 c4 (though for some reason White chose 5 ¥d3 in Djuric,S−Pegorari,P/Cutro 1999 (18).)

5 ¤c3 ¥e7

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+-zp-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7

The Antoshin Variation with is playable, if solid. 5...g6 is Larsen's Variation, and is more risky. 6 ¥e3 ¥g7

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7 £d2 White plays in 'Yugoslav Attack−style', he intends castling long, playing ¥h6, then

h4−h5 with a quick mate. (7 f3 ¤bd7 8 £d2 h6 looks a bit passive to me and in fact turned out badly for Black in Sermek,D−Fominich,A/Dhaka Open 2002 (30).) 7...0-0 8 0-0-0 ¦e8 (8...¤c6 9 f3 ¤xd4 10 ¥xd4 ¥e6 is the alternative.) 9 f3 ¤c6 10 g4 (10 ¤b3 is an interesting move that was played in Prasad,D−Saravanan,V/New Delhi IND 2001 (26). White prevents exchanges and makes it difficult for Black to play a later ...c7−c5 because of the pressure on the d6 pawn.) 10...a6 11 ¥e2 ¤e5 12 g5 ¤h5 13 f4 ¤g4 14 ¥g1 put Black in terrible trouble in Rytshagov,M−Meijers,V/Mezezers zonal tourn., Latvia 2000 (34).

6 ¥e2

6 ¥f4 0-0 7 £d2 a6 8 f3 b5 gave Black good counterplay in Mrdja,M−Scalcione,M/Reggio Emilia ITA 2003 (19)

6 g3 tries to clamp down on d5, 6...d5! TK felt this was the best move 17 years ago when he wrote his book on the Philidor, and his opinion hasn't changed since. 7 e5 ¤g4!? (7...¤e4 Zaitsev's move is rarer, 8 ¤xe4 dxe4 9 ¥g2 Almasi,Z−Nisipeanu,L/Heviz HUN 2008) 8 ¥g2 0-0! 9 f4!? (9 0-0 is analysed in Rizouk,A−Argandona Riveiro,I/San Sebastian 2007) 9...c5 10 ¤de2 d4 11 ¤d5 Anand,V−Morovic Fernandez,I/Santiago CHI 2009.

6...0-0 7 0-0 ¦e8 8 ¦e1

I prefer 8 f4

8...c5!?

8

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqr+k+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+-zp-sn-+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+LzPPzP0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black weakens the pawn on d6 and the d5−square but can Black really take advantage of

these factors? In compensation Black gains space and a freer game 8...¤c6 looks reasonable, aiming to exchange a pair of knights. 8...a6 9 ¥f1 h6 10 b3! and Black suffered from cramp in the game Ivanchuk,V−

Urban,K/Team tournament, Poland 2002 (39)

9 ¤f3 ¤c6 10 ¥f4 ¥g4 11 h3 ¥h5 12 ¥c4 a6 13 a4

Ivanchuk,V−Aronian,L/Monte Carlo MNC 2006.

9

Philidor Hanham & 3...f5 [C41]

Last updated: 25/04/07 by Olivier Renet

1 e4 e5

Recently Black has been trying to reach a Philidor via 1...d6 2 d4 ¤f6 3 ¤c3 (For 3 ¥d3 e5 4

c3 ¤c6 5 ¤f3 g6 6 0-0 ¥g7 see Smirin,I−Bologan,V/Debrecen 1992 (60)) 3...e5 when White's main independent try is 4 dxe5 (After 4 ¤f3 ¤bd7 Black gets what he wants)

4...dxe5 5 £xd8+ ¢xd8 6 ¥g5 (6 ¤f3 ¥d6 7 ¥c4 ¥e6 8 ¥xe6 fxe6 was fine for Black in Van Beers,E−Van Houtte,T/Belgium 2000 (28)) 6...¥e6 7 f4 exf4 8 ¤f3 h6 9 ¥xf4 ¤bd7 10 0-0-0 c6 was OK for Black in Degraeve,J−Kasparov,S/Bethune Open, France 2002 (24) but he still needs to be careful.

2 ¤f3 d6 3 d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

3...¤f6

After the immediate 3...¤d7 White can play 4 ¥c4 c6 (4...¥e7 5 dxe5 wins material − a recent example being Banikas,H−Sofronie,I/Kubbeli Salon, Turkey 2002 (6), 4...h6 is also bad because of 5 dxe5 dxe5 6 ¥xf7+ as in Skatschkov,P−Krovelstschikov,A/Tomsk Open, Russia 2001 (14)) 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 ¤g5! (Better than 7 £e2 as played in Fischer,R−Fine,R/New York Blitz 1963 (10)) 7...¤h6 (7...¥xg5 8 £h5 gets a useful pair of bishops) 8 ¤e6!! fxe6 9 ¥xh6 ¤b6 10 £h5+! ¢f8? 11 f4!! 1-0, was the dramatic conclusion of A. Mende−M.Tyrtania, 2nd Bundesliga 1987/8. After 11...£d4+ 12 ¢h1 £xc4 13 ¤d2 £d4 White wins quickly with 14 fxe5+ ¥f6 15 ¦xf6+ ¢e7 16 ¦f7+ ¢d8 17 £g5+ ¢e8 18 £e7#

10

The ultra−aggressive 3...f5!? gets played occasionally, a recent example being 4 ¤c3 exd4 5 ¤xd4 fxe4 6 ¤xe4 ¤f6 7 ¤xf6+ £xf6 8 ¥c4 ¤c6 as in Rguez,J−Ruiz,D/Correspondence, 1993 (19).

4 ¤c3

The critical test of the 3...Nf6 move order (and part of the reason why Black has switched to 1...d6) is 4 dxe5 ¤xe4 5 £d5 ¤c5 6 ¥g5 ¥e7 7 exd6 £xd6 8 ¤c3 when 8...a6 (8...0-0 9 0-0-0 £xd5 10 ¤xd5 was also better for White in Velimirovic,D−Sekulic,V/Bijeljina, Yugoslavia 2001 (33)) 9 0-0-0 ¥e6 10 ¥xe7 £xe7 11 £e5 and White had the initiative in Keitlinghaus,L−Gretarsson,H/Iceland 1997 (26).

4...¤bd7 5 ¥c4

5 g4!? early g4−thrusts occur in many openings but this one has only come to the fore in recent years, 5...g6 6 g5 ¤h5 7 ¥e2!? ¥g7 8 ¥e3 c6 9 £d2 0-0 10 0-0-0 with a Pirc−type position, Smerdon,D−Gagunashvili,M/Cappelle la Grande FRA 2007.

5...¥e7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zppzpnvlpzpp0 9-+-zp-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+LzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Saveilly Tartakover used to play the Philidor with the idea of advancing his kingside

pawns. In this position Black could implement this plan (and stop sacrifices against f7) with 5...h6 after which 6 0-0 c6 (6...¥e7 7 £e2 0-0 leads to normal Philidor positions but with Black having played ...h7−h6 rather early − see Pozzo,S−Person,A/World Youth Championships, Spa 2001 (15)) 7 a4 ¥e7 8 £e2 £c7 9 h3 g5 with double−edged play in prospect in the game Luyckx,W−Verheyen,N/Belgian Interclubs 1999 (15).

6 0-0

6 ¥xf7+ is interesting but perhaps too speculative − see Rabinovich,I−Ilyin−Zhenevsky,A/Moscow 1922 (23).

11

6...0-0 7 ¦e1

For the standard 7 a4 c6 8 ¥a2 b6 9 £e2 a6 see Motwani,P−Rowson,J/Dundee 1995 (31).

7...c6 8 a4 b6

I don't like the move 8...a5 which rules out the possibility of a queenside pawn expansion based on ...b7−b5 − see Plaskett,J−O'Connell,K/Hastings Challengers 1991 (21).

9 d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zp-+nvlpzpp0 9-zppzp-sn-+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9P+L+P+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9-zPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

. The immediate advance of the d−pawn is critical, trying to capture the d5 square before

Black plays ...¥b7 and/or ...a6 with the idea ...b5. 9 ¥g5!? a6 10 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 11 d5 leads to a hybrid structure resembling the Franco−Benoni,

Bologan,V−Eljanov,P/Wijk aan Zee NED 2007. 9 ¥a2 ¥b7 10 ¤h4!? was the game Morrison,C−Ruck,T/Koszeg, Hungary 1999 (23) when

Black could have unleashed wild complications with 10...¤xe4!?

9...cxd5!

a) 9...¥b7 10 dxc6 ¥xc6 11 ¥b5! is a clever trick: 11...¥b7!? (11...¥xb5 12 axb5, perhaps best is 11...¦c8 12 ¥xc6 ¦xc6 13 £e2 h6) 12 ¤h4! a6 (12...¤xe4? 13 ¤xe4 ¥xh4 14 ¤xd6±) 13 ¥xd7! £xd7 14 ¤f5 ¦fd8 (14...b5 15 axb5 axb5 16 ¦xa8 ¦xa8 17 ¤xb5 ¥xe4 18 ¤xe7+ £xe7

19 £xd6 £b7 20 £xe5 ¥xg2 21 ¤d6) 15 ¥g5 intending £f3. White has good attacking chances, and Black can't achieve ...d5.

10 ¤xd5 ¥b7

This is close to equal. As a general rule, one outpost isn't usually enough to win the game, compare with the Sicilian Defence, Chadaev,N−Kazhgaleyev,M/Moscow RUS 2007.

12

Petroff 3 Nxe5 & others (3 Nc3, 3 Bc4)

[C42]

Last updated: 20/04/11 by Victor Mikhalevski

1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤f6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Petroff's Defence has an excellent reputation as a drawing weapon.

3.¤xe5

White can offer a gambit with 3.¥c4 ¤xe4 4.¤c3 when the critical test is acceptance with 4...¤xc3 (For 4...¤f6 5.¤xe5 see Benjamin,J−Carter,G/London Amateur Ch., 1975 (19)) 5.dxc3 f6 as in Moody,D−Ippolito,D/USA Open 1994 (17).

With 3.¤c3 White invites transposition into a Four Knights Game with 3...¤c6, though Black can also play 3...¥b4, for example 4.¤xe5 0-0 5.¥e2 ¦e8 6.¤d3 ¥xc3 7.dxc3 ¤xe4 8.¤f4 d6 9.0-0 ¤d7 when White's chances were marginally better because of his bishop pair in Shirov,A−Akopian,V/Linares 1995 (49).

3...d6 4.¤f3

Adventurous players might want to consider the Cochrane Gambit with 4.¤xf7 ¢xf7 5.d4, when the critical line is 5...c5! (For 5...¥e7 see Nalbandian,T−Perl,J/Batumi GEO 2003 (32), whilst 5...£e8 is covered in Blazkova,P−Szuveges,N/Adelaide 2003 (27))

6.¤c3!? (6.dxc5 ¤c6! was good for Black in Short,N−Shirov,A/Dubai UAE 2002

13

(15), whilst 6.¥c4+ d5 wasn't clear in Stellwagen,D−Smirnov,I/Heraklio 2002 (39))

6...cxd4 7.¥c4+ ¥e6 8.¥xe6+ ¢xe6 9.£xd4 ¤c6 (9...£c7 10.£a4 Williamson,H−Taylor,S/Corr. 2003 (22)) 10.£c4+ ¢d7 11.¥f4 £a5 12.0-0-0 and White had compensation for the sacrificed piece in Sulskis,S−Rytshagov,M/Tallinn EST 2004 (19).

4...¤xe4 5.d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPn+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The main line, though there are a number of interesting sidelines: a) 5.c4!? gains space and makes it difficult for Black to play ...d6−d5, for example 5...¤c6 a) 5...c6 6.¤c3 ¥f5 7.¥d3! ¤xc3 8.dxc3 ¥xd3 9.£xd3 ¥e7 10.0-0 0-0 11.¤d4 once

again with pressure for White in Balashov,Y−Maciejewski,M/Miedzybrodzie 1991 (19).

b) 5...¥e7 6.¤c3 (6.d4 ¥g4 7.¥e2 0-0 8.0-0 c6 9.£b3 gave White a pull in Dvoirys,S−Prokopchuk,E/Moscow RUS 2002 (39)) 6...¤g5 7.¥e2 0-0 8.0-0 ¤c6 9.d4 ¦e8?! 10.¤d5 was slightly better for White in Nisipeanu,L−Motylev,A/Bucharest 2001 (24)

c) 5...g6 6.d4 (6.d3!?) 6...¥g7 7.¥d3 ¤f6 8.0-0 0-0 9.¤c3 ¦e8 10.h3 ¤c6 11.¥e3 ¤e7 proved to be very solid in Dvoirys,S−Hort,V/Hoogeveen NED 2002 (25)

d) 5...d5 6.¤c3 ¥c5 7.d4 ¥b4 8.¥d2 (8.£b3!?) 8...¤xd2 9.£xd2 0-0 10.cxd5 ¤d7 (10...¦e8+!?) 11.a3 ¦e8+ 12.¥e2 left Black under pressure in Keres,P−Keller,D/Zurich 1959 (39)

e) 5...¥e6!? 6.£b3 ¤a6!? 7.d4 d5 8.c5 ¤axc5! 9.dxc5 ¥xc5 gave Black good compensation for the piece in Dvoirys,S−Bezgodov,A/Hoogeveen 2002 (40)

6.d4 (6.¤c3 ¤xc3 7.dxc3 ¥e7 8.¥d3 ¥g4 9.¥e4 0-0 10.£c2 h6 11.¥e3 was quite promising for White in Stefansson,H−Sokolov,I/19th International Open, Reykjavik 2000 (25))

6...d5 7.c5!? ¥g4 8.¥b5 £f6 9.¤c3 ¥xf3 10.£xf3 £xd4 11.0-0 led to complex play in Dvoirys,S−Mamedyarov,S/Moscow RUS 2004 (55)

b) 5.¥d3 looks artificial but poses some problems for Black. For example after 5...d5 (5...¤f6 6.0-0 ¥e7 7.c3 ¥g4 8.¥c2 was a neat way to develop White's bishop in Nouro,M−Koskela,N/ShakkiNet tourn., Helsinki, Fi 2000 (26)) 6.£e2! (This is the most unpleasant move for Black, but 6.0-0 ¥e7 7.¦e1 was tried in Westerinen,H−Pihlajasalo,H/FIN 2001 (21)) 6...£e7 7.0-0 ¤d6 (7...¤c5 8.¦e1 £xe2 9.¥xe2 gave

14

White a slight lead in development in Zarnicki,P−Szmetan,J/Rosario ARG 2001 (23)) 8.£d1 £d8 9.¦e1+ ¥e7 10.¤c3 c6 11.£e2 and Black had problems completing his development in Giaccio,A−Pierrot,F/Villa Martelli ARG 2001 (26).

c) 5.¤c3 is becoming very popular, 5...¤xc3 (For 5...¤f6 6.d4 ¥e7 7.¥d3 see Naiditsch,A−Koneru,H/Wijk aan Zee NED 2003 (28)) 6.dxc3 ¥e7 (6...¤c6 7.¥f4 £f6!? Karjakin,S−Ivanchuk,V/Foros 2008) 7.¥f4 Preventing Black from playing ...¤d7−e5 in some lines, (7.¥e3 0-0 8.£d2 (8.¥d3 see Bakhandi,K−Oza,N/Sacramento USA 2002)

8...¤d7 9.0-0-0 Topalov,V−Gelfand,B/Linares ESP 2010) 7...0-0 8.£d2 ¤d7 9.0-0-0 ¤c5 10.h4

a) 10.¢b1!? with sharp play in prospect in the game Shirov,A−Morozevich,A/Moscow 2002

b) 10.¥e3 ¦e8 11.¥c4 ¥e6 trading pieces, 12.¥xe6 ¤xe6 13.h4 (13.¢b1

Ivanchuk,V−Kosteniuk,A/Cap d'Agde FRA 2008) 13...£d7 14.£d5 Anand,V−Kramnik,V/Wijk aan Zee 2008

10...¥f6 11.¤g5 h6 12.f3! White's intention are perfectly clear: he wants to play g4 and try to prepare the break with g5 (12.¥d3 was Topalov,V−Bacrot,E, Wijk aan Zee NED 2006) 12...¦b8!? 13.g4 b5 14.¥d3! see the fantastic game Rublevsky,S−Shirov,A/Sochi RUS 2006.

5...d5 6.¥d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-zPn+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...¤c6

A less frequently played alternative is 6...¥d6 after which 7.0-0 0-0 8.c4 c6 9.cxd5 (9.£c2 ¤a6! 10.a3 ¥g4 11.¤e5 ¥xe5 12.dxe5 ¤ac5 13.f3 leads to a dangerous exchange sacrifice, 13...¤xd3 14.£xd3 ¤c5 15.£d4 ¤b3 16.£xg4 ¤xa1 17.¥h6 g6 18.¤c3 £b6+ 19.¦f2 the most popular continuation, (19.¢h1 is rare, Jakovenko,D−Kramnik,V/Dortmund GER 2009) 19...¦fe8 20.£f4 £c7 21.¦e2 ¦e6 22.b4 (22.¢f1

see Navara,D−Timman,J/Carlsbad CZE 2007) 22...¦d8! Bacrot,E−Kramnik,V/Dortmund GER 2009.) 9...cxd5 10.¤c3 ¤xc3 (10...¦e8 is worth considering − see Topalov,V−Gelfand,B/Melody Amber (Rapid), Monaco 2 2002 (18)) 11.bxc3 ¥g4 (11...¤c6 12.h3! prevented Black from playing ...¥g4 in Morovic

15

Fernandez,I−Small,G/Philadelphia USA 2002 (22)) 12.¦b1 ¤d7 (12...£d7 13.h3 was good for White in Cijs,P−DellaValle,M/Correspondence Game, 1999 (18)) 13.h3 ¥h5 14.¦xb7! for a long time it was considered very dubious to take the b7 pawn, but now concrete analysis shows that Black is in difficulty in many lines, 14...¤b6 15.£c2 ¥xf3 (15...¥g6?! 16.¤g5 (16.¥xg6 hxg6 17.¤g5! Kovacevic,A−Skatchkov,P/Zadar CRO 2004) 16...£c8 17.¦xf7! ¥xf7 18.¥xh7+ ¢h8 19.¥g6! Edouard,R−Libiszewski,F/ La Roche sur Yon FRA 2007) 16.¥xh7+ ¢h8 17.gxf3 £h4! (17...g6 Alavkin,A−Frolyanov,D/Ishevsk RUS 2005, when 18.£d2! is strong.) 18.¥f5 g6 19.¥g4 f5 it looks like White's bishop is simply trapped, but... 20.f4! ¦ae8! 21.¥f3 g5! with a dangerous attack in Bournival,B−Ippolito,D/Peabody United States 2007.

Black can also play 6...¥e7 7.0-0 ¥f5 as in Korneev,O−Perez,R/Albacete, Spain 2000 (28)

(7...¤c6 transposes back into the main line)

7.0-0

7.¤c3 is extremely rare, 7...¤xc3 8.bxc3 Leko,P−Gelfand,B/Miskolc HUN 2010, when 8...¥d6 looks best.

7...¥e7

After the aggressive 7...¥g4 White should play 8.c3 (8.c4) 8...¥e7 9.¦e1 f5 10.£b3 (10.¤bd2

featured in Westra,R−Van Kemenade,R/British Rapidplay, Leeds, Engl 2000 (17).) 10...0-0 11.¤bd2 ¤a5 12.£c2 ¤c6 13.b4 a6 14.¦b1 the latest fashion, Morozevich,A−Wang Yue/Nice FRA 2009.

8.c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzPn+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.¤c3!? is becoming popular, 8...¥f5 (8...¤f6 this retreat is too passive, 9.h3 ¤b4?! 10.¥b5+!

Black soon fell for a classic trap, see Nisipeanu,L−Mista,A/Warsaw POL 2005, 8...f5

9.¤e2! White may gain an advantage if his able to attack the d5 point with c4, Grischuk,A−Gelfand,B/Bastia 2003, 8...¤xc3 might be strongest, 9.bxc3 0-0 10.h3

Najer,E−Nielsen,P/playchess.com INT 2004) 9.£e1 This a key move in this line −

16

Black can't simplify the position so easily now. 9...¥b4 10.£e3 ¥xc3 (10...0-0 11.¤xe4

dxe4 12.¥xe4 ¦e8 13.¥xf5! with full compensation for the queen, Svidler,P−Topalov,V/Monaco 2004) 11.bxc3 0-0 12.c4! White needs to play with a lot of energy, see Nisipeanu,L−Iordachescu,V/Tusnad ROM 2005.

8.¦e1 ¥g4 9.c4 ¤f6 10.¤c3!? is a critical pawn sacrifice, that has been presumed to be OK for Black ever since the early K−K matches, 10...¥xf3 (10...¤xd4!? A relatively rare line, which was tested at the top level by Karpov, Gelfand and Gashimov, however. 11.cxd5 ¥xf3 12.gxf3 c5 13.d6!? (13.dxc6 ¤xc6 Radjabov,T−Gashimov,V/Sochi RUS 2008) 13...£xd6 14.¤b5 with the initiative, Gashimov,V−Smeets,J/Nice FRA 2010) 11.£xf3 ¤xd4 12.£d1 ¤e6 13.cxd5 (13.¥f5 Radjabov,T−Gelfand,B/Medias ROU 2010) 13...¤xd5 14.¥b5+ c6 15.¤xd5 cxb5 16.£b3 the mainline, (16.¥f4 ¤xf4

17.¦xe7+ ¢f8 see Naiditsch,A−Kramnik,V/Dortmund 2008., 16.a4!? 0-0! Gashimov,V−Gelfand,B/Linares ESP 2010) 16...0-0 17.¥e3 ¥c5! any exchange is useful, 18.¦ad1! Svidler,P−Gelfand,B/Moscow RUS 2009.

8...¤b4

For 8...¤f6 9.h3 0-0 10.¤c3 see Leko,P−Adams,M/Einstein Candidates K.O. tourn 2002 (45).

9.¥e2

Another option for White is 9.cxd5 after which 9...¤xd3 10.£xd3 £xd5 11.¦e1 ¥f5 12.¤e5 g6 (12...0-0-0?! looked rather dubious in Ulibin,M−Miton,K/Genf 2002 (42))

13.g4? ¤xf2! won quickly for Black in Thao,L−Pourkashiyan,A/Tehran IRI 2002 (16).

There's also 9.¦e1 ¤xd3 10.£xd3 c6 11.cxd5 cxd5 12.£b5+ £d7 13.£b3 0-0 14.¤c3 (14.¥f4 b6 15.¤e5 £b7 16.¤c3 ¥e6 gave Black counterplay in Peng Xiaomin−Motylev,A/Shanghai 2001 (42)) 14...¤xc3 15.bxc3 ¥f6 16.¥g5 ¥xg5 17.¤xg5 when White had a slight initiative in Sadvakasov,D−Karpov,A/Astana KAZ 2004 (39).

9...0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-snPzPn+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17

Black has an interesting alternative in 9...¥e6, for example 10.¤c3 (10.c5 ¤c6 11.¥b5 ¥f6

12.¥xc6+ bxc6 13.£a4 ¥d7 was very comfortable for Black in Al Modiahki,M−Iordachescu,V/Dubai UAE 2004 (31).) 10...0-0 11.¥e3 (11.¤e5 f6 12.¤f3 ¢h8 13.£b3

was Sammalvuo,T−Iordachescu,V/Calvia ESP 2004 (47)) 11...¥f5 12.¦c1 dxc4 13.¥xc4 c6 14.¤e5 ¤xc3 15.bxc3 ¤d5 16.£f3 ¥e6 17.¥d2 and White's slight initiative was nothing to write home about in Kotronias,V−Motylev,A/Moscow RUS 2004 (61).

10.¤c3 ¥f5

The artificial looking 10...b6 deserves attention because it was tried by Vladimir Kramnik. But after 11.¦e1 ¥b7 12.¤e5 it looks to me as if White had the initiative in Fernandes,A−Dutreeuw,M/Istanbul Olympiad, Turkey 2000 (18).

11.a3 ¤xc3 12.bxc3 ¤c6 13.¦e1

13.cxd5 £xd5 14.¦e1 transposes.

13...¦e8 14.cxd5

14.¥f4 dxc4 15.¥xc4 ¥d6 16.¦xe8+ £xe8 17.¤g5 and White had a small but clear advantage in Grischuk,A−Adams,M/Europa Cup, Greece 2002 (43).

14...£xd5 15.¥f4

The attack on c7 will be slightly annoying for Black over the coming moves.

15...¦ac8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+r+k+0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-+q+l+-0 9-+-zP-vL-+0 9zP-zP-+N+-0 9-+-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A modern tabiya for this line. 15...¥d6 also proved to be quite solid for Black in Kasparov,G−Karpov,A/Rapid match,

New York 2002 (28).

18

16.h3

16.£a4!? is unusual, 16...¥d7 Anand,V−Kramnik,V/Mexico City MEX 2007, when 17.¦ab1 £f5 18.¥g3 is best, as in Shirov,A−Gelfand,B, Monte Carlo 2003.

16.¥d3 White's idea is to exchange the light−squared bishops to prepare an advance of the c and d−pawns. 16...£d7 17.¦b1 b6 18.d5 (18.¥b5 is a temporary exchange sacrifice, 18...¥xb1 19.£xb1 ¥f6! 20.¦d1 Timofeev,A−Wang Yue/Ningbo CHN 2010) 18...¥xd3 19.£xd3 ¥xa3 Kramnik's move seems fine for Black, see Leko,P−Gelfand,B/Moscow RUS 2009.

16.g3 the idea behind this move is to protect the bishop to prepare 17.c4. 16...¥f6 17.¦c1 h6 18.c4 £a5 19.d5 Ivanchuk,V−Gelfand,B/Monaco MNC 2011.

16...¥e4

16...h6 17.¤d2 (17.g4 this aggressive idea was recently introduced by Jakovenko, 17...¥g6

18.¥f1 ¥d6! Grischuk,A−Ivanchuk,V/Linares ESP 2009, 17.£c1!? ¥f6 18.£b2 with pressure, Akopian,V−Gashimov,V/Novi Sad SRB 2009.) 17...£d7 (17...¤a5 is also good, 18.¥f3 (18.¤f1 £b3 Shirov,A−Smeets,J/Wijk aan Zee NED 2010) 18...£d7 19.¤e4 Shirov,A−Gashimov,V/Sestao ESP 2010.) 18.¤c4 ¥d6 19.£d2 ¥xf4 20.£xf4 ¦e4 and Black was doing fine at this stage in Kasparov,G−Motylev,A/Moscow RUS 2004 (76).

17.¥e3

17.£c1!? White protects the bishop on f4 and thus prepares c4. 17...¤a5 18.£e3!? with advantage, Anand,V−Kramnik,V/Wijk aan Zee NED 2010.

17.¤d2 ¥xg2 18.¥g4 ¥h1 19.f3 ¥h4 20.¦e4!? Shirov,A−Kramnik,V/Wijk aan Zee NED 2010.

17...¤a5

Kramnik's move seems best. 17...¥f6 18.¤d2 ¥f5 19.¥f3 White's space and active pieces give him a pull, Socko,B−

Frolyanov,D/Dresden GER 2007.

18.¤d2 ¥g6 19.£a4

with a small plus, Timofeev,A−Wang Yue, Nizhniy Novgorod RUS 2007.

19

Petroff 3 d4 [C43]

Last updated: 21/10/09 by Victor Mikhalevski

1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤f6 3 d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

3...¤xe4

The usual reply. A less commonly played alternative is 3...exd4 after which 4 e5 ¤e4 (4...¤d5 5 £xd4 is good

for White − see Alekhine,A−Cruz,A/Lisbon 1941 (20)) 5 £xd4 d5 6 exd6 ¤xd6 7 ¤c3 ¤c6 (7...¥f5 8 ¥g5 f6 9 ¥f4 ¤c6 10 £a4 put Black under pressure in the game Stein,L−Sakharov,Y/Ukrainian Ch. Match, Kiev 1960 (26)) 8 £f4 ¥e6 (8...¥f5 is the book move) 9 ¥e3 £d7 10 0-0-0 0-0-0 11 £a4! was very awkward for Black in Motwani,P−Buchi,M/European Jnr Ch 1980 (14).

4 ¥d3

An interesting alternative is 4 dxe5!?, for example 4...d5 5 ¤bd2 ¤c5 This retreat was introduced by the oldest GM Andre Lilienthal back in 1938!

a) 5...¥e7?! 6 ¤xe4 dxe4 7 £xd8+ ¥xd8 8 ¤d4 ¥d7 (8...c6?! strikes me as passive, Ivanchuk,V−Wang Yue/Sochi RUS 2008) 9 ¥f4 was clearly better for White in Ponomariov,R−Greenfeld,A/Ohrid MKD 2001.

b) 5...¤xd2 6 £xd2 ¥c5 7 ¥d3 0-0 8 0-0 f6 9 c4 gave White promising attacking chances in Glek,I−Timoshchenko,G/Lido Estensi, Italy 2002 (23).

6 ¤b3 ¤e6 7 ¤bd4 ¤xd4 8 ¤xd4 c5! Jakovenko,D−Wang Yue/Nanjing CHN 2009.

20

4...d5

Black also has the surprising 4...¤c6!? 5 dxe5 (5 0-0 d5 6 c4 ¥g4 7 cxd5 £xd5 8 ¦e1 f5 9 h3 ¥h5

was messy in Davies,N−Evans,P/Liverpool Open 2004 (78),, whilst 5 d5 ¤f6 6 dxc6 e4

7 cxb7 ¥xb7 8 ¥e2 exf3 gave Black at least equality in Tiviakov,S−Bellia,F/Saint Vincent ITA 2003 (26)) 5...d5 (5...¤c5 6 ¤c3 ¤xd3+?! 7 £xd3 d6 8 ¥f4 dxe5 9 ¤xe5 left Black under serious pressure in Rublevsky,S−Iordachescu,V/Tripoli LBA 2004 (35)) 6 exd6 ¤xd6 7 ¤c3 ¥e7 8 ¥f4 ¥e6 9 £d2 £d7 10 0-0-0 0-0-0 11 £e3! proved to be rather unpleasant in Rublevsky,S−Motylev,A/Ajaccio FRA 2004 (46).

5 ¤xe5

Here too White can play 5 dxe5, for example 5...¥e7 6 0-0 ¤c5 7 ¥e2 0-0 8 ¥e3 as in Romanishin,O−Arkhipov,S/Tbilisi 1986 (30).

5...¤d7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zppzpn+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+psN-+-0 9-+-zPn+-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

5...¥e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 c4 ¤f6?! 8 ¤c3 gave White the initiative in Short,N−

Tempone,M/World Junior Ch., Mexico 1981 (25).

6 ¤xd7

This exchange of knights doesn't seem to promise White much so he could investigate the alternatives:

a) 6 £e2 £e7 7 ¤xf7!? ¢xf7 8 £h5+ is quite dangerous for Black − see Ninov,N−Olcayoz,T/Kubbeli Salon, Turkey 2002 (12).

b) 6 ¤c3 ¤xe5?! (6...¤xc3 is more solid) 7 dxe5 ¥b4 8 0-0 is a dangerous pawn sacrifice that won quickly for White in Oral,T−Rozentalis,E/Montreal, Canada 2001 (15).

c) 6 0-0 ¤xe5 7 dxe5 ¤c5 8 ¤c3 c6 gave Black a very solid game in Rozentalis,E−Turov,M/Quebec, Canada 2001 (25).

6...¥xd7 7 0-0 ¥d6

21

7...¥e7 8 c3 0-0 9 £c2 ¥d6 and Black has good counterplay as in Enders,P−Yusupov,A/Germany 1994 (17).

8 c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zppzpl+pzpp0 9-+-vl-+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzPn+-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

8 £h5!? ¤f6 9 ¦e1+ ¢f8 10 £e2 ¤g4 11 g3 £f6 led to a brilliant Black victory in Can,E−

Jussupow,A/Dresden GER 2007.

8...c6 9 cxd5

9 ¤c3!? 0-0 10 cxd5 cxd5 (10...¤xc3 11 bxc3 cxd5 is safest, transposing to the mainline.) 11 ¤xd5 Guseinov,G−Karpatchev,A/Dresden GER 2007.

9...cxd5 10 ¤c3 ¤xc3 11 bxc3 0-0 12 £h5 g6 13 £xd5 £c7 14 ¥h6

14 £f3 led to a theoretical draw in Alekseev,E−Jakovenko,D/Elista RUS 2008.

14...¦fd8

A side line. 14...¦fe8 is much more popular.

15 h4

15 £g5 is met by 15...¥xh2+ 16 ¢h1 ¥d6 17 c4 ¥f8 Guseinov,G−Kramnik,V/Baku AZE 2009.

15...¥e6 16 £g5

Anand,V−Kramnik,V/Nice FRA 2009.

22