Centre Counter [B01]

Written by GMs Gawain Jones, Jonathan Rowson, Nigel Davies, Neil

McDonald, IMs John Watson & Andrew Martin

Last updated Friday, June 24, 2011

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

he Centre Counter or Scandinavian Defence is an excellent weapon particularly at

club level, as it is sound and solid yet rarely encountered, henceforth many of

your opponents will be unable to hit you with theory, increasing your chances of

success.

TBlack has many dangerous gambit lines with which to surprise the opponent, and

White can so easily be blown away before move 20. Black can of course play safely and

solidly with 2...£xd5 but dynamic options are plentiful in this exciting and relatively

uncharted opening.

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 d5 2 exd5 £xd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvlntr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+q+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

2...¤f6 Centre Counter 2...Nf6 [B01]

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

3 ¤c3 £a5 Centre Counter − 2...Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5− [B01] 3...£d6, 3...£d8 3...£e5+ Centre Counter − 2...Qxd5 not −3...Qa5 [B01]

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

2

Centre Counter − 2...Nf6 [B01]

Last updated: 24/06/11 by Gawain Jones

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 ¤f6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

2...c6?! Total rubbish but it works a treat in our featured game. 3.dxc6 ¤xc6 4.¤f3 (4.¤c3!)

4...e5 5.¥b5 ¥d6 Vela Ignacio,J−Razmyslov,A/Coria del Rio ESP 2004, Black won, but White played rather nervously...

3.d4

Others: 3.c4 e6!? The so−called "Icelandic Gambit", (3...c6 4.d4 cxd5 is a Panov Caro−Kann)

4.dxe6 ¥xe6 5.¤f3 (5.d4 ¥b4+ Zarnicki,P−Fiorito,F/Buenos Aires Zonal Tournament 2000) 5...£e7 6.£e2 ¤c6 7.d4 ¥g4 8.¥e3 0-0-0 9.d5 ¤e5 10.¤c3 ¤fd7 11.h3 ¤xf3+ 12.gxf3 ¥h5³ Very calm− Black plays for structural advantage− regaining the pawn can come later, Kosmo,S−Smerdon,D/41st WJun, Goa IND 2002.

3.¥e2! This calmly develops the kingside and certainly prevents any 3...¥g4 nonsense. White intends to follow up with ¤f3, d2−d4 and 0-0 after which his d4 pawn gives him a small space advantage. 3...¤xd5 now, 4.d4 transposes to a main line, whilst cutting−out the possibility of Black's gambit line with 3... Bg4 and is, in my opinion, more precise.

3.¤c3 Of course, in playing this way White can hardly obtain an opening advantage and the whole line is considered as quite harmless for Black. However it has occurred a few times at top level. Even Paul Keres has tried it once − and with great success! 3...¤xd5 4.¤ge2 Keres,P−Mikenas,V/URS 1968 (see B02) contains a summary of this line.

3

3.¥b5+ ¥d7 (3...¤bd7! This move leads to a very sharp and interesting game. It allows White to keep an extra pawn but Black has good prospects for gaining the initiative, 4.c4 a6 5.¥a4 (5.¥xd7+ ¥xd7 6.d4 Movsesian,S−Damaso,R/Pula 1997.) 5...b5 6.cxb5 ¤xd5 with compensation, Velicka,P−Dausch,R/Boeblingen GER 2009.) 4.¥e2 ¤xd5 5.d4 ¥f5 The most popular move. (5...¤b6 6.c4 e5!? A rare but very interesting gambit line. Black's ideas are similar to those in the well−known line 3.d4 ¤xd5 4.c4 ¤b6 5. ¤c3 e5 which we have considered already (see Remizov − Bezgodov) Movsesian,S−Biolek,R/Olomouc 1997., 5...g6?! Black plays in a similar fashion to the main line with 3.d4, but this is a different position! The difference will become clear after White's 8th move, Bronstein,D−Lutikov,A/ USSR (ch) 1960., 5...g6 6.c4!

¤b6 7.¤c3 ¥g7 8.¥e3 0-0 9.£d2 ¥f5 10.g4 ¥c8 11.0-0-0 ¤c6 12.h4‚ Becquart,J−Sacliez,A/6th St Quentin Open, Elancourt FRA 2003. If this is the best that Black can do 5...g6 is heading for the scrapheap., 5...b5!? an original idea, to prevent c4, Blesic,V−Karaklajic,N/Belgrade SRB 2008) 6.¤f3 e6 7.0-0 ¥e7 8.a3 (8.c4!? is Rybka's suggestion) 8...0-0 (8...h6 9.c4 ¤f6 10.£b3 £c8 11.¤c3 0-0 12.d5 exd5 13.cxd5 c6„

Black's position cannot be taken by storm. 14.¤d4 ¥g6 15.dxc6 ¤xc6 16.¤xc6 bxc6

17.£c4 ¤d5 18.¤e4 £e6 19.¥d3 ¦ad8 20.£c2 ¦fe8∓ Collutiis,D−Genocchio,D/ch−ITA, Montecatini Terme ITA 2002, activity towers over structure!) 9.c4 ¤b6 10.¤c3 ¥f6 (10...¥g4 Kosintseva,N−Mohota,N/Dresden GER 2008.) 11.¥e3 ¤c6 12.h3 The "tabia" of this line. White has a certain advantage in space while Black has counterchances due to his pressure on the d4−pawn. By the way the position looks like one from the Alekhine Four Pawns Attack, (without the f2 and f7 pawns it's just a position from Yudasin − Kengis!) and the ideas of both sides are very similar, Kaminski,M−Gipslis,A/Cappelle la Grande 1998.

3.¤f3 ¤xd5 4.d4 transposes.

3...¤xd5

3...¥g4 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

A very interesting but dubious line. Black sacrifices a pawn hoping to get active piece play,

but White's defensive resources are huge and it's quite difficult to get full compensation. On the other hand White has to tread very carefully, otherwise Black's initiative may become extremely dangerous. 4.f3

4

a) 4.¤f3 is a good move here, (as is 4 ¥b5+) 4...£xd5 5.¥e2 ¤c6 6.h3 ¥xf3 7.¥xf3 £d7 8.c3 e5 the sharpest response (8...0-0-0 9.£b3 e5 10.dxe5 £d3 a sacrifice which simply doesn't work, Spangenberg,H−Llanos,G/II American Continental, Buenos Aires A 2003) 9.d5 ¤e7 10.c4 ¤g6 11.0-0 ¥c5 with counterplay, Nabaty,T−Chatalbashev,B/Eforie Nord ROU 2010

b) 4.¥e2?! by contrast, is rather innocuous: 4...¥xe2 5.£xe2 £xd5 6.¤f3 e6 7.0-0 ¤c6 8.¥e3 0-0-0 9.c4 £h5 10.¤c3 ¦g8 11.¦fd1 g5! Black's chances of a successful attack are rather higher than White, Sonter,M−Smerdon,D/Mount Buller AUS 2005

c) 4.¥b5+ is a very interesting approach, helping Black's development but hurting his piece coordination, 4...¤bd7 5.¥e2 ¥xe2 6.£xe2 ¤xd5 7.¤f3 with more central control, Ahn,M−Rosse,S/Kallithea GRE 2008

4...¥f5 5.¥b5+ In my opinion only by playing this move can White hope for an opening advantage. (5.c4 is very natural but probably far from best. It may seem that now Black is in trouble as White has an extra pawn and a very strong pawn centre. But Black has something in mind! 5...e6! 6.dxe6 ¤c6! The point. 7.¤e2 (White couldn't solve his problems with 7.¥e3 because of 7...¥b4+ 8.¤c3 £e7!, Dutreeuw,M−Rocha,S/Batumi 1999, for only a pawn Black has a huge advantage in development and great activity for all his pieces. It's extremely difficult to find a sufficient defence for White.) 7...¤b4! Aiming at the c2 and d3 squares, Burovic,I−Monange,S/Torcy 1991.) 5...¤bd7 6.c4 The position is somewhat similar to Movsesian − Damaso. But compared to that game White has gained some tempi here, so it's not so easy for Black to prove he has something for a pawn. 6...a6 (Black has also tried 6...e6 7.dxe6 ¥xe6 8.d5 ¥f5 9.¤c3 ¥b4 (9...¥c5 10.£e2+ ¢f8 11.g4 ¤xg4!

Goh Wei Ming−Darwin Laylo/Duty Free Fiesta Mall, Philip 2008) 10.¤ge2 In my view this line calls 6...e6 into question, 10...0-0 11.¥xd7 ¤xd7 12.0-0 ¦e8!?N (12...¤c5 Agnos,D−Santos,C/Pula 1997) 13.¤g3 ¥g6 14.¤ce4 f5 15.¥g5 £b8 16.£a4!± Martin,A−Lalic,S/Correspondence 2005) 7.¥xd7+ £xd7 8.¤e2 e6 9.dxe6 £xe6 10.b3 0-0-0 11.0-0 ¥c5 12.¢h1 ¥xd4 13.¤xd4 £d7 14.¥b2 c5 15.b4! cxd4 16.b5 ¦he8!? A very interesting attempt to improve Black's play. (After 16...axb5?!

White obtained crushing attack with 17.¤a3! Lanka,Z−Hauchard,A/Torcy 1991.) 17.bxa6 bxa6 18.¤d2 Volzhin,A−Gausel,E/Bergen 2000.

4.c4

5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+n+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

4.¤f3 ¥g4 a) 4...g6 5.¥c4 is a relatively slow line, (5.c4 transposes to the mainline) 5...¥g7 6.0-0

0-0 7.¦e1 Adams,M−Pechenkin,V/Edmonton CAN 2009. b) 4...¥f5 A rather rare move, Black's simple reply shows why: 5.¥d3 ¥xd3 6.£xd3

e6 7.0-0 ¤c6 (7...¤d7 8.c4 ¤5f6 9.¤c3 Wan Yunguo Scandi−Laylo,D/Subic Bay PHI 2009) 8.c4 ¤b6 9.¤c3 ¥e7 10.¥f4² White has achieved an effortless advantage with simple moves, Topalov−Kamsky/Wijk aan Zee 2006 .

5.h3 (5.¥e2 ¤c6 6.0-0 DeFirmian,N−Schroer,J/New York (USA) 1984.) 5...¥h5 (5...¥xf3

6.£xf3 c6 7.¥e2 g6 8.0-0 with the bishop pair and a space advantage, Carlsen,M−Short,N/Wijk aan Zee NED 2010) 6.c4 I like this move order, 6...¤b6 7.¤c3 e6 (7...e5?! Svidler,P−Dreev,A/Elista 1997.) 8.g4 ¥g6 9.¤e5 Tzermiadianos,A−Shen Siyuan/Budapest HUN 2009.

4.¥e2! g6 (4...¥f5 5.¤f3 e6 6.0-0 Degraeve,J−De Wolf,J/Belgium 1996.) 5.¤f3 ¥g7 6.0-0 0-0 7.¦e1! Kotronias,V−Thorhallsson,T/Reykjavik (Iceland) 1988.

4...¤b6

4...¤b4?! 5.£a4+ ¤8c6 and now, rather than 6.d5? Rohde−Tsitevic/1971, which leads to a nice trick, White should play (6.a3)

5.¤f3

5.¤c3 This move order prevents the 5. ¤f3 ¥g4 line but allows an interesting counterblow in the centre. 5...e5!? (5...g6 6.c5! is the idea behind an early Nc3. 6...¤6d7 7.¥c4 ¥g7

8.¤f3 0-0 9.0-0 b6 10.¤g5 ¤f6 11.£b3 e6 12.d5 h6 13.dxe6 hxg5 14.exf7+ ¢h7 15.¥xg5 with a tremendous attack for White, Strikovic,A−Tissir,M/Dos Hermanas 2004) 6.£e2! This 'gambit' appears to be the most promising course.

a) 6.d5!? A continuation which deserves serious attention, Bielczyk,J−Slabek,G/Katowice 1992.

b) Let's see how Black might develop his attack against White's unpromising sixth move 6.dxe5?! In my opinion this is a dubious move, 6...£xd1+ 7.¤xd1 (7.¢xd1?!

Remizov,J−Bezgodov,A/St.Petersburg 1994) 7...¤c6 8.f4 f6! 9.exf6 gxf6 10.¤f3 ¥g4 11.¤e3 ¥xf3 12.gxf3 ¤d4 13.¢f2 ¥c5 Belaska,P−Sikora Lerch,J/TCh−CZE

6

2002 Already White's position is very difficult and he went on to lose quite effortlessly.

c) 6.¤f3 ¥g4 7.¥e2 Frolov,D−Vshivkov,K/Perm 1997. 6...£xd4 7.¤f3 £g4!? Sarenac,D−Scepanovic,L/Senta SRB 2009, 8.£xe5+

5...g6

5...¥g4 is the alternative.

6.¤c3

6.¥e2 ¥g7 7.0-0 0-0 8.¤c3 ¤c6 (8...¥g4 is the main alternative to the text, Rusanov,M−Alekseev,E/St Petersburg RUS 1999.) 9.d5 ¤e5 10.c5! This move is the most serious attempt to fight for an opening advantage, Solovjov,S−Alekseev,E/St Petersburg 1999. (10.¤xe5 Polgar,J−Stefansson,H/Egilsstadir 1988.)

6.a4!? a5 7.¤c3 ¥g7 8.c5 is like 7.c5, below, except that Black has the b4−square, see Ni Hua−Muzychuk,A/Wijk aan Zee NED 2010.

6...¥g7 7.¥e3

7.c5! looks very impressive if the evidence of the following games is anything to go by. White harries Black and gets good squares for his pieces, 7...¤d5 8.¥c4 c6 (8...¤xc3

9.bxc3 0-0 10.0-0 ¤c6 11.¦e1 ¥g4 12.¥g5 Kovalev,A−Pluemer,D/Dresden GER 2009.) 9.0-0 ¥e6!? a speciality of Jacek Tomczak, (9...0-0 10.¦e1!± White threatens ¥g5, which is hard to parry without making a major concession. 10...h6 (Black has fallen for a trap after 10...b6? 11.¥g5 ¥e6 12.¤xd5 cxd5 13.¥xe7! Friedel,J−Pechenkin,V/Edmonton CAN 2009.) 11.£b3 Vuckovic,B−Vukanovic,S/Bar SCG 2005.) 10.¤g5 (10.£b3 has scored much better for White.) 10...¤xc3 11.¤xe6 ¤xd1 12.¤xd8 ¤xb2 13.¥xb2 ¢xd8 14.¥xf7 Brkic,A−Muzychuk,A/Aix−les−Bains FRA 2011.

7...0-0 8.h3 ¤c6 9.£d2

9.¥e2 e5 10.d5 ¤e7 11.g4!? This line should become more and more popular as recent practice proves Black has difficult problems to solve here. 11...¦e8!? Psakhis,L−Manor,I/Israel 2000, the alternative (11...a5 was played in Varavin,V−Terekhin,A/Perm 1998, where Black failed to equalise)

9...e5 10.d5 ¤e7

7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-snpvlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+P+-+-+0 9+-sN-vLN+P0 9PzP-wQ-zPP+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Nowadays the old move 10...¤a5!? is becoming more and more popular Grischuk,A−

Malakhov,V/Lausanne 2000.

11.g4

Very typical for this kind of position. White prevents Ne7−f5 and prepares a kingside attack.

11...f5 12.0-0-0 fxg4 13.¤g5 g3!?

13...¤f5 Gipslis,A−Maric,R/Erevan 1971.

14.c5

Milos,G−Sapis,W/Cappelle La Grande 2000.

8

Centre Counter − 2...Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5

[B01]

Last updated: 24/06/11 by Gawain Jones

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 £xd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvlntr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+q+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

3.¤c3

3.¤f3 intends to keep c4 as an option: 3...¥g4 a) 3...g6 4.¤c3 (4.d4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 £d6 6.¤e5 ¥g7 Zakharstov,V−Epishin,V/Elista RUS

2001) 4...£d8 (4...£d6 5.¥c4 ¤f6 6.d3 Okrajek,A−Epishin,V/Werther GER 2002.) 5.d4 (5.¥c4 ¥g7 6.d4 ¤h6 7.¥f4 ¤f5 this is a very risky, time−consuming idea for Black which can only be recommended for experimentation. 8.¥e5 0-0 9.¥xg7 ¢xg7 10.£e2

¤d6 11.h4 ¥g4 12.h5 ¤d7 13.¥d3 ¤f6 14.£e5! Hinks−Edwards,T−Martin,A/England T/T 2003 and White has a strong initiative.) 5...¤h6 6.¥f4 ¤f5 7.¥e5 ¦g8 is an odd line which might not be too bad for Black. The d4 pawn will come under pressure.

b) 3...¤f6 4.d4 ¥g4 (4...g6 5.c4 £d8 Tal,M−Bronstein,D/Moscow 1967, 4...¥f5!? an unusual move which sets up a durable position. if you are looking for something very solid, this may well be a sensible choice. 5.¥e2 c6 6.0-0 e6 7.¦e1 ¥b4!? 8.c3 ¥e7

9.¤e5 £d8= It is not clear to me whether White has even the slightest edge here, Drljevic,L−Milovanov,O/Budva SCG 2004) 5.¥e2 e6 (5...¤c6?! 6.h3 ¥xf3 7.¥xf3 £e6+ 8.¥e3 0-0-0 9.0-0 ¤d5 (I think I prefer 9...£d7 attempting to unravel, but White is better anyway.) 10.£e2 ¤xe3 11.fxe3 £d7 12.¥xc6 £xc6 13.¦xf7±

9

Lee,G−Ledger,S/Scarborough ENG 2004) 6.0-0 ¥e7 7.¥f4 (7.h3 ¥h5 8.c4

Degraeve,J−Kovarcik,G/Saint−Affrique (France) 1999 and Rowson,J−Martin,A/Southend 2002.) 7...£d8 8.c4 0-0 9.£b3 £c8 10.¤c3 ¤bd7 11.¦ad1 a6 12.¦fe1 ¦e8 13.¤e5² White is surely better but if Black is rational he should be able to minimise his disadvantage, Ferguson,M−Martin,A/4NCL Telford 2003.

4.¥e2 ¤c6! I like this move, which directly challenges the key square d4, (4...c6!? Tiviakov 5.d4 ¤f6 6.c4 £d8 7.¤c3 e6 8.h3 ¥h5 9.0-0 ¥d6?! (Simply 9...¥e7 is indicated, with a solid game for Black, albeit a little passive.) 10.¥g5 h6 11.¥xf6 gxf6? (She simply had to play 11...£xf6 12.¤e4 £e7 13.¤xd6+ £xd6 14.£b3 b6 15.c5² and take her chances.) 12.d5 £e7 13.¦e1 with a big plus, Kaidanov,G−Zatonskih,A/San Diego 2006.) 5.d4 (Or 5.¤c3 £d7 6.h3 ¥xf3 7.¥xf3 0-0-0 8.d3 ¤d4 (8...e5 Black establishes a grip on d4, which should equalise, Van den Doel,E−Tiviakov,S/Dresden GER 2007.) 9.0-0 e6 10.¥e3 ¤e7 Vachier Lagrave,M−Tiviakov,S/Hoogeveen NED 2010) 5...0-0-0 Direct, vigorous attacking play by Black. It intimidates lower rated opponents and doesn't allow a higher rated player a calm positional advantage. 6.c4 (6.¥e3 e5 (6...¤f6 7.c4 £h5 8.¤bd2 Morozevich,A−Rogers,I/Germany 1999.) 7.c4 £a5+ 8.¥d2 ¥b4 9.d5 with sharp play in Bologan,V−Grafl,F/Warsaw POL 2009) 6...£f5 7.¥e3 ¥xf3 (7...¤f6 resulted in a quick White win in De Firmian,N−Waitzkin,J/New York (USA) 1996.) 8.¥xf3 ¤xd4 9.¥xd4 £e6+ 10.¥e2 c5!? (10...£e4 11.0-0 £xd4 12.£a4

with a strong initiative for the pawn, Bruzon Batista,L−Kurajica,B/La Laguna ESP 2010.) 11.£a4 cxd4 12.£xa7 ses Baron,T−Kurajica,B/Rijeka CRO 2010.

3.d4?! Inaccurate. 3...e5! Clearly the best move. (3...¤c6 4.¤f3 ¥g4 transposes to 3 ¤f3, below) 4.¤f3 ¤c6 5.¤c3 ¥b4 6.¥d2 ¥xc3 7.¥xc3 e4 8.¤e5 ¤xe5 9.dxe5 ¤e7 10.£xd5 ¤xd5 11.¥d4 ¤b4 12.¥b5+ c6 13.¥a4 ¥e6= Fernandez Garcia,J−Karpov,A/Basque Country vs. World Advanced, Sant 2003 Black has a very free and easy game. The two bishops will never get to show their strength.

3...£a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvlntr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

4.d4

10

The move 4.g3!? represents a much quieter way of playing this opening for White, aiming to complete his development and hopefully develop pressure on the h1-a8 diagonal: 4...¤f6 5.¥g2 c6 (5...¥g4 6.¤ge2 ¤c6 7.h3 ¥h5 8.d3 Rozentalis,E−Milos,G/Tilburg 1992) 6.¤f3 (6.¤ge2 g6 7.0-0 ¥g7 8.¦b1 0-0 9.b4 £d8 10.a4 ¤e8 11.b5 ¤d6 12.d3 c5„

Casper,T−Speelman,J/Bundesliga 2002, note the careful delay in developing the queenside, giving Black the maximum chance to defend against b4−b5.) 6...¥g4 7.0-0 e6 8.h3 ¥xf3 9.£xf3 ¥e7 (9...¤bd7 Tiviakov,S−Hansen,C/Wijk aan Zee 1994)

10.a3 0-0 11.¦b1 £c7 12.b4 Rozentalis,E−Khalifman,A/Germany 1993. 4.¤f3 ¤f6 (4...¥g4 5.h3 ¥h5 6.g4 ¥g6 7.¥g2 Chiburdanidze,M−Klaric,Z/Banja Luka 1985)

5.¥c4 (5.h3 c6 6.¥d3!? Suetin,A−Steiner,G/Velden op 1996) 5...¥g4 (5...c6 6.£e2!? anti ...¥f5 strategy according to Speelman, 6...¥f5 7.¤e5 an approach which seemed dangerous at the time, but I believe Black defused White's tricks with accurate play, Speelman,J−Martin,A/4NCL (2) Birmingham 2004) 6.h3 ¥h5 7.£e2 ¤bd7 8.g4 ¥g6 9.b4!? Rohde,M−Seirawan,Y/USA 1976.

4.¥c4 ¤f6 5.¤ge2 ¤c6 6.0-0 ¥g4 7.d3 e6 Zinchenko,Y−Bauer,C/Metz FRA 2010.

4...¤f6

4...e5 A rare continuation which can confuse the White player if he does not know what to do, Ritov−Skuya/USSR 1971.

4...c6! A good move order, sidestepping a number of attacking ideas. 5.¥c4 (5.¤f3 ¥f5 6.¥c4 ¤d7 (6...e6! also seems good: 7.0-0 ¤f6 8.£e2 ¥b4 9.¥b3 0-0 10.¥d2 ¤bd7 11.a3

¥xc3 12.¥xc3 £c7 13.¥d2 c5!= Kosintseva,N−Zhukova,N/Elista RUS 2004, a good moment to begin active play with the Bishop on b3 unimpressive. Black is fully equal.) 7.¥d2 e6 8.¤e4 £c7 9.¤g3 ¥g6 10.h4 h6 11.h5 ¥h7 12.£e2 ¥xc2!∓ Heinatz,T−Keitlinghaus,L/Stuttgart GER 2004 Why not? After this cold−blooded capture, White never proved that he had enough compensation. ) 5...¥f5 6.¥d2 e6 (6...¤f6 may transpose to a later line) 7.g4 (7.d5 suggested by Eric Prié, 7...cxd5 8.¤xd5

£d8 9.£e2 ¤f6 transposes to 5.¥d2 below.) 7...¥g6 8.£e2 (8.h4 h5 9.d5! Leyva,R−Matamoros,C/Capablanca Mem Premier II, Var 2000.) 8...¥b4 9.0-0-0 ¤e7 10.¤h3 ¤d5 11.¥xd5 cxd5 12.¤f4 ¤c6 13.¤fxd5 ¥xc2! 14.¦de1 0-0 15.¤xb4 £xb4 Handke,F−Zill,C/7th BayEM, Bad Wiessee GER 2003, Black has a virtually winning attack.

5.¤f3

11

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvl-tr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

5.¥c4!? is a dangerous move, directed against an early ...¥f5. In that case White will play

¤ge2−g3 and probably f4−f5. 5...¥g4! Black tries to sidestep that plan, (5...c6 6.¤ge2 this poses a real challenge to Black's development, 6...¥f5 7.¥d2 (7.¤g3 is similar, 7...¥g6 8.0-0 ¤bd7 9.f4 e6 10.f5 with an attack, Heinemann,E−Sieber,H/Apolda GER 2007) 7...e6 8.¤g3 ¥g6 9.h4 Erturan,Y−Exizoglou,D/Athens GRE 2007, and now 9...h6 is best) 6.f3 (6.¤f3?! is well met by 6...¤c6! 7.h3 (7.¥d2? 0-0-0! and White is already in trouble! Vaklinov,A−Prié,E/Saint Vincent 2004) 7...¥h5 (7...¥xf3?! 8.£xf3 ¤xd4 9.£xb7) 8.g4 ¥g6 9.¥d2 0-0-0! 10.g5 ¤xd4! White is again flirting with disaster, Kotlyar,D−Prié,E/Bad Kreuznach 2004.) 6...¥f5 (6...¥h5 7.¤ge2 ¤c6 8.¥d2 0-0-0 9.¤b5 £b6 10.a4 ¤xd4 (10...a5) 11.¤bxd4 ¦xd4!? an interesting exchange sac, Sprenger,J−Martyn,R/Open, Vienna AUT 2003.) 7.¤ge2 ¤bd7! 8.g4 (8.0-0 ¥g6 9.f4 e6 10.¤g3 0-0-0 with direct pressure against the enemy d4−pawn, 11.¥e3? ¤b6! Schoucair,H−Prié,E/Rochefort 2005, 8.¥d2! c6 9.g4 ¥g6 10.h4 is strongest) 8...¥g6 9.h4 h6 10.¤f4 e5! with adequate play, see Cornette,M−Prié,E/Saint Vincent 2004.

5.¥d2 is dangerous 5...¥g4! a) 5...¥f5? a mistake as the f3 square is left vacant for the white queen! 6.£f3

Kvisla,J−Jakobsen,M/Prague 2006 b) 5...c6 6.¥c4 ¥f5 7.£e2 e6 8.¤d5 (8.d5!? cxd5 9.¤xd5 £d8 10.¤xf6+ £xf6

(10...gxf6?! 11.0-0-0 £c7 12.g4! ¥g6 13.¤h3! ¥d6 14.f4 and Black was quickly overrun in Solodovnichenko,Y−Pantioukhine,S/Rochefort 2005.) 11.0-0-0 the most dangerous, (11.¤f3 ¤c6= Handke,F−Motwani,P/12th Monarch Assurance, Port Erin IOM 2003.) 11...¤c6 12.¥c3! offering a hot pawn, Muzychuk,A−Repkova,E/Lille FRA 2011.) 8...£d8 9.¤xf6+ when 9...£xf6 lost quickly in Hamdouchi,H−Boe,M/Plovdiv BUL 2010.

6.f3 ¥h5 (I prefer 6...¥f5 ) 7.g4 ¥g6 8.f4! the critical line, 8...e6 9.f5 consistent, 9...exf5 10.g5 ¤fd7 11.£e2+ ¢d8! 12.0-0-0 (12.¥g2 ¤c6 13.¥xc6 bxc6 14.0-0-0 is Golubev,M−Kislinsky,A/Kharkiv UKR 2006) 12...f4! 13.¥g2 ¤c6 14.¥xf4 ¤b4! with a violent counter attack, Koepke,C−Kislinsky,A/Kharkiv UKR 2006.

5...c6

12

This is the most common move here, because if necessary Black's queen can later retreat to c7 or d8.

5...¤c6 6.¥d2 (6.¥b5 ¥d7 7.d5!? Kalegin,E−Galkin,S/Perm 1997.) 6...a6?! (6...¥g4 is better, but 7.¤b5 (7.d5!? Kristensen,B−Bern,I/Gausdal 1993) 7...£b6 8.c4! ¤b8 (Or 8...¥xf3

9.£xf3 with advantage to White, Spassky,B−Prie,E/Coupe de France Fin 1992) 9.c5 and Black is in lethal trouble, Strikovic,A−Larino Nieto,D/Mondariz ESP 2009.) 7.¥c4 threatening ¤d5 trapping the Black queen, 7...£f5 (7...£h5 8.¤e5! Filipovic,B−Furrer,M/Basel SUI 2006, 7...£b6 8.¤a4! £a7 9.¥e3 ¤g4 10.¤g5! led to a nice win in Zawadzka,J−Socha,A/Straszecin 1999) 8.h3 ¤e4 is a very fishy way to handle Black's position which cannot be recommended. 9.¤d5 £d7 10.¥f4 ¤d6 11.£e2 e6 12.0-0 ¥e7 13.¤xe7 ¤xe7 14.¥b3± Li Shilong−Mariano,N/Tagaytay City PHI 2004 White has two good Bishops and excellent development.

5...¥g4!? 6.h3 (6.¥e3?! ¤c6 7.¥b5 ¤e4 8.¥d2 ¤xd2 9.£xd2 ¥xf3 10.gxf3 e6 Black has no particular problems, Perez Ferris,M−Hernando Rodrigo,J/VII Pablo Gorbea, Madrid ESP 2003) 6...¥h5 7.g4 (7.¥e2 is a safe move where White counts upon a small space advantage, Maze,S−Bauer,C/Pau FRA 2008) 7...¥g6 8.¤e5 e6 9.h4

a) 9.¥g2 c6 10.h4 ¤bd7 11.¤xd7 ¢xd7 12.¥d2 h6 Wynn Zhaw−Rogers,I/Bangkok 2004 and now I think that 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 ¦xh1+ 15.¥xh1 ¤e8 16.d5 is rather dangerous.

b) 9.¥d2 £b6 (9...¤c6?? 10.¤b5 Diringer,B−Link,M/Wurttemberg 1990.) 10.£e2 ¤c6! Rivera,D−Bauer,C/Ourense ESP 2009.

9...¥b4 10.¦h3 c6 11.¥d2 £b6 12.h5 ¥e4 13.¦e3 Karpov,A−Rogers,I/Bath 1983. 5...¤e4!? is an interesting idea of Reprintsev: Black tries to damage White's structure and

then hunker down to eke out his long−term advantages. If any good, it provides a good reason why White should play 5 ¥c4 instead. 6.¥d3! natural development is best,

a) 6.£d3 ¤xc3 7.£xc3 £xc3+ 8.bxc3 e6 9.¥b2 ¤d7 10.c4 ¥b4+ 11.c3 ¥e7 12.¥d3 b6= Russell,M−Sulskis,S/Mallorca 2004 is nothing special for White at all.

b) 6.¥d2 ¤xd2 7.£xd2 e6 8.g3 ¥b4 9.a3 (9.¥g2 ¤d7 10.0-0 0-0 11.£d3 ¥xc3 12.bxc3 ¦b8

13.¦ab1 b6 14.c4 £h5 15.¦b5 £g6 16.£c3 ¥b7 17.¦fb1 c5= It is clear that White is the one fighting for equality! Ponizil,C−Bombek,P/Frydek Mistek CZE 2006) 9...b6 10.¥g2 ¥b7 11.0-0 ¥xc3 12.£xc3 £xc3 13.bxc3 ¤c6 14.¤d2 ¤a5 15.a4 0-0-0= Once again Black equalizes effortlessly and maybe a bit more! Howell,D−Sulskis,S/Catalan Bay ENG 2004

c) 6.¥c4 ¤xc3 7.£d2 b6 8.bxc3 ¥a6 Karpatchev,A−Prie,E/Rochefort 2005 6...¤xc3 7.bxc3 g6 (7...£xc3+?! is suicidal, Chomet,P−Collas,D/Chartres 2005, and 7...¥g4

8.0-0 e6 9.h3 ¥h5 10.£e2 c6 11.¥f4 ¤d7 12.¦ab1 g5 13.¥g3 ¥xf3 14.£xf3 £xc3 15.¦xb7±

Sanchez,L−Marchal,N/Le Touquet 2002, is not inspiring for Black either.) 8.0-0 ¥g7 9.¦e1 0-0 (9...¤c6 10.h3!? ¥f5 11.¦b1! Nevednichy,V−Afek,Y/La Fere FRA 2006)

10.¥d2 is an attempted recent improvement: (10.¦xe7 ¤c6 11.¦e3 £xc3 is the critical test and now 12.¥d2 (12.¦b1! looks best.) 12...£b2 Groszpeter,A−Reprintsev,A/Pardubice 1998 13.c3 with a plus.) 10...¤c6 the fact that Black has to play this move, thus blocking his c−pawn in order to defend e7, is an alarming sign for the line, (10...¦e8? 11.¦b1! Perelshteyn,E−Gonzalez,R/Las Vegas USA 2006, 10...c5

Palliser,R−Majer,C/Port Erin IOM 2006 11.¥g5!) 11.h3 Eric gave this refutation "of Black's optimistic 5th move" one year ago, but it seems to have gone unnoticed...

13

(11.¥e4 ¥g4 12.h3 ¥xf3 13.¥xf3 e5 14.d5 ¤e7 15.c4 £a4„ Black approached the problem in exactly the right manner, aiming for active counterplay rather than the hoarding of unimportant pawns, Lacasa Diaz,J−Sanchez Guirado,F/Merida ESP 2005) 11...£a3 (11...¥f5 12.c4 £a4 13.d5) 12.£c1! £xc1 13.¦axc1 ¥e6 14.¤g5! Trabert,B−Fakhiridou,E/Ermioni GRE 2006.

5...¥f5 6.¥c4 ¤e4!? Thipsay,P−Tiwari,A/Gurgon IND 2009.

6.¥c4

6.¥d2 ¥f5!? This way Black inherits doubled pawns. I am not sure that this is altogether wise: (6...£b6 7.¥c4 ¥f5 (7...£xb2? Saiboulatov,D−Geirnaert,S/Namur BEL 2006)

8.0-0 e6 9.¦e1 ¥e7 10.¥b3 0-0 11.¥g5 ¤bd7= Myhrvold,R−Pedersen,L/Oslo NOR 2004, effortless equality for Black against a bog−standard, routine White set−up.) 7.¤e4 £c7 (7...£b6! 8.¤xf6+ gxf6 9.¥c4 (Or 9.b4 White tries to make a virtue out of the necessity of defending b2 by clearing the way for the rook on a1 to enter the game via b3. But this time−consuming plan doesn't work out well as White lags behind with the development of his kingside, 9...¦g8!? Starostits,I−Hamdouchi,H/Seville ESP 2010) 9...¦g8!? Renet,O−Prié,E/Clichy catX 1995 (9...e6

is more solid and transposes to the note to move 8) ) 8.¤xf6+ gxf6 9.g3 e6 (9...¤d7 10.¥g2 0-0-0 11.0-0 e5 (11...e6 is safer, transposing to 9...e6.) 12.c4 Pikula,D−Saric,S/Kragujevac SRB 2011.) 10.¥g2 ¤d7 11.0-0 0-0-0 12.¦e1 (12.¤h4!?) 12...¥d6 13.c4² Glek,I−Nakamura,H/Minneapolis USA 2005

After 6.¤e5 ¥f5! seems pretty reliable: (6...¥e6) 7.¥d3 ¥xd3 8.£xd3 ¤bd7 9.¥f4 e6 (9...¤xe5 10.dxe5 (10.¥xe5 ¤d7 11.¥g3 e6=) 10...¤d5=) 10.0-0 ¤b6 11.a3 ¤bd5 12.¤xd5 cxd5 13.b4 £a4 14.c4 dxc4 15.¤xc4 £d7 16.¥e5 ¥e7 17.f4 0-0 18.f5 ¤g4 Gormally,D−Nakamura,H/Caleta ENG 2005. Perhaps White has a faint edge, but the Black position is solid and entirely manageable.

6...¥f5

6...¥g4 7.h3 ¥h5 (7...¥xf3 Black gets rid of his bad bishop and establishes the kind of position in which White can't make progress without allowing Black's knights to become effective, 8.£xf3 e6 9.0-0 ¤bd7 10.¥b3 ¥e7 11.¤e4 0-0 12.c3 with a classic battle between White's bishop pair and Black's pawn structure, Senff,M−Mann,C/Muelheim GER 2007) 8.g4 ¥g6 Roth,P−Rogers,I/Baden 1999.

7.¥d2

7.¤e5 is the main alternative, 7...e6 8.g4 (8.£e2 ¤bd7 9.0-0 ¥b4 10.¥d2 0-0 11.a3 ¥xc3 12.¥xc3

with 0-0 instead of 0-0-0, White doesn't have to worry about queenside onslaughts and so can take his time and try to use the bishop pair, Cuartas,J−Mohota,N/Barbera del Valles ESP 2007) 8...¥g6 9.h4 ¤bd7!

14

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psnl+0 9wq-+-sN-+-0 9-+LzP-+PzP0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zP-+0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The best line 10.¤xd7 ¤xd7 11.h5 ¥e4 12.¦h3 ¥g2 The idea of this move is that if White

plays ¦g3, then Black will gain a tempo with a later ...¥d6. 13.¦e3! (Stronger than 13.¦g3 ¥d5 Fedorov,A−Hauchard,A/Belfort FRA 1999.) 13...£c7! It now seems that this novelty from Eric Prié should replace all other moves. Black prevents f2−f3 and is ready to prod at the over−extended White pawn chain: (13...¤b6 Anand,V−Lautier,J/Biel 1997.) 14.f4 ¤b6 15.¥b3 0-0-0 16.¢f2 ¥d5 17.¤xd5 ¤xd5 18.¦f3 ¤f6 19.¢g3 g6∓ Moriuchi,T−Prié,E/San Sebastian ESP 2005.

7...e6 8.¤d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9wq-+N+l+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPvL-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.¤e4 is a similar try, 8...£d8 a) 8...£c7 Votava,J−Mueller,K/Hamburg 2002. b) 8...£b6!? Eric considers it important to gain counterplay against the d and b−

pawns in such positions, 9.¤xf6+ gxf6 10.¥b3 (10.£e2 is a possible improvement: 10...£xb2 11.0-0 £xc2 12.¦fe1 ¤d7 (For better or worse Black has to play 12...¥a3™

) 13.¦ac1 £b2 14.¤h4 ¥g6 15.¥xe6± Nisipeanu,L−Prie,E/Montpellier FRA 2006) 10...a5! (10...¤d7 11.£e2 Popovic,P−Savic,M/Subotica SRB 2008) 11.a4 ¤a6! with strong play, Tan,D−Prié,E/West Bromwich 2005

15

9.¤g3!? (9.¤xf6+ transposes to the mainline) 9...¥g4 10.c3 ¤bd7 11.h3 ¥xf3 12.£xf3 ¥e7² Cheparinov,I−Lorenzini,M/Linares ESP 2005 (I prefer 12...¥d6! when I think that Black has equalized.)

8.£e2 ¥b4 (8...¤bd7?! Vaibhav,S−Yu Ruiyuan/Mashhad IRI 2011, 9.d5!) 9.0-0-0 ¤bd7 10.a3 ¥xc3 (10...¤b6 Chytilek,R−Konopka,M/Ostrava CZE 2002.) 11.¥xc3 £c7 12.¤e5 b5 (12...¤xe5 is logical, but it does give White a permanent space advantage, 13.dxe5 ¤d5 14.¥d2 0-0-0 Black is solid, Lemos,D−Flores,D/San Luis ARG 2007)

13.¥d3 ¥xd3 (13...0-0 14.¥xf5 exf5 Brynell,S−Hodgson,J/Hamburg GER 2002)

14.¦xd3 ¤xe5 15.dxe5 ¤d5 equal, Pavlogianni,D−Makropoulou,M/Aghia Pelagia GRE 2004.

8...£d8 9.¤xf6+ £xf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+p+pwq-+0 9+-+-+l+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPvL-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

After 9...gxf6!? the position is similar to a Caro−Kann line: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.¤c3 dxe4

4.¤xe4 ¤f6 5.¤xf6 gxf6. In my opinion White has the better chances here. 10.¥b3 the main move,

a) 10.c3 ¥d6!? a simple move that retains the active character of Black's position, (10...£c7 11.¤h4 ¥g6 12.£f3 ¤d7 13.£h3 with uncomfortable pressure, 10...¤d7 is noncommittal, Zhigalko,S−Tomczak,J/Warsaw POL 2008) 11.£e2!? ¤d7 12.¤h4 (12.0-0 Hungaski,R−Di Diego,O/Mar del Plata ARG 2007.) 12...¥g6 13.0-0-0 with a plus, Haznedaroglu,K−Gogolis,A/Athens GRE 2007.

b) 10.0-0 Gashimov,V−Hamdouchi,H/Ourense ESP 2009, 10...¤d7 10...a5!? 11.a4 Hagen,A−Boe,M/Denmark DEN 2011.

10.£e2!?

Shirov's try.

10...¥g4!

This is probably best,

16

10...¤d7 11.0-0-0 (11.d5 David,A−Tkachiev,V/Cannes 1999.) 11...¤b6 12.¤e5 This hardly seems testing. Black obtains comfortable play: 12...¤xc4 13.£xc4 ¥d6 Jaulin,P−Prié,E/2nd Open, Nantes FRA 2003.

11.0-0-0 ¤d7 12.d5!

An important move, creating some fluidity in the position.

12...¥xf3 13.gxf3 cxd5 14.¥xd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-+pwq-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzPPvLQzP-zP0 9+-mKR+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has managed to get in the d4−d5 push (dangerously opening the play for his better

developed pieces) and the doubled f−pawns (usually so crippling when Black could hold onto the d5 square) prove to be irrelevant as he is going to castle queenside anyway. In addition, the opening of the g−file seems to serve him well combined with the further harassment of the Black queen, more exposed than ever!

14...0-0-0!

14...¥a3 Shirov,A−Salov,V/Madrid 1997.

15.¥e4

15.¥xb7+ leads to a draw, as in Ye Jiangchuan−Malakhov/Moscow 2004.

15...£e5! 16.¥c3

16.¥e3 ¥c5 and Black is OK, Shirov,A−Mueller,K/Nordhorn 2005.

16...£c7 17.¢b1 f6 18.f4!

This appears to be a novelty and it is probably quite a good one, see Shirov,A−Bauer,C/Pamplona ESP 2006.

17

Centre Counter − 2...Qxd5 not 3...Qa5

[B01]

Last updated: 24/06/11 by Gawain Jones

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 £xd5 3.¤c3

Here we will discuss the other black queen moves, which have become rather fashionable recently.

3...£d6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvlntr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-wq-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Recently this move became quite popular in tournament practice− it is not clear how White

conclusively demonstrates any advantage and the statistics of this line are improving rapidly from the Black side of the board.

Alternatives: 3...£d8

18

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

The BANKER variation, completely underestimated in my opinion. From time to time it

occurs even at the very highest level, mainly in the games of Michael Adams. 4.d4 The initial position of the variation. Now Black has two different plans. One possibility is the fianchetto of his dark−squared Bishop, and the other is to play the light−squared Bishop to f5 when the position looks like a typical Caro−Kann. The latter plan is the most reliable. (4.¥c4 e6 5.d4 c6 Ridiculously passive. 6.¤f3 ¤f6 7.0-0

¥e7 8.¦e1 0-0 9.¥g5 ¤bd7 10.£e2 ¤b6 11.¥d3 ¤bd5 12.¤xd5 cxd5 13.c3 ¥d7 14.¤e5±

Ristic,N−Markovic,M/ch−Serbia, Dimitrovgrad YUG 2003 White is in total control and has more than a chance to win with direct attack against the Black King., 4.¤f3

¥g4 5.h3 ¥xf3 6.£xf3 c6 is Glek's simplistic solution. That said, it will be difficult to break Black down: 7.b4 a6 8.¦b1 ¤f6 9.a4 e6 10.b5 £c7 11.¥d3 ¤bd7 12.¤e4 ¤e5÷

Gabrielian,A−Glek,I/Moscow RUS 2006) 4...¤f6 a) 4...g6 5.¥f4! (5.¥e3?! ¤h6 6.£d2 ¤f5 7.¥d3 ¥g7 8.¥xf5 ¥xf5 9.h3 was nice for Black in

Winawer,S−Blackburne,J/Nuremberg 1883) 5...¥g7 6.£d2! Fischer,R−Robatsch,K/Varna 1962.

b) 4...c6 5.¥g5 ¤f6 6.¥c4 ¥f5 7.¤f3 e6 8.£e2 ¥b4 9.0-0 0-0 10.¦ad1 White has decided that simple development will do but this will not provide enough impetus to contest the advantage, 10...¤bd7 11.¤e5 ¥xc3 12.bxc3 £a5 Ibragimov,I−Fierro Baquero,M/North American Open, Las Vegas USA 2003. The game soon took a downhill turn from White's point of view.

5.¤f3 c6 6.¥c4 (6.¥g5 h6?! (6...¥g4! is much better or indeed, 6...¥f5) 7.¥xf6 exf6 8.¥c4 ¥b4 9.0-0 0-0 10.£d3² Stellwagen,D−Bartel,M/Istanbul TUR 2005) 6...¥f5 (6...b5 is weakening, but may be playable: 7.¥b3 e6 8.0-0 ¤bd7 9.¥g5 £c7 10.£e2 ¥d6 11.¤e4 ¥f4

12.¤xf6+ ¤xf6 13.¥xf4 £xf4 14.£e5 £xe5 15.¤xe5 Zorko,J−Vukovic,Z/24th Open, Bled SLO 2003 White approached the problem sensibly and has a slightly better ending.) 7.¤e5! This move is the only way to fight for any real opening advantage. 7...e6 8.g4!? ¥g6 9.h4 ¥b4 (9...b5?! is too weakening, 10.¥b3 ¥b4 11.f3! Black has problems with his light−squared bishop, Najer,E−Kruchev,B/Olginka RUS 2011.) 10.f3!? is the most ambitious continuation. White hopes to trap the Bishop (11 h5), (10.¦h3!?

An interesting attempt to fight for an opening advantage. White intends transferring the rook to the e3−square threatening h4−h5, and meanwhile the Knight on c3 is "overprotected" which is important in many lines (for example, ...Bxc2 will never work), Ponomariov,R−Garcia Ilundain,D/ Pamplona 1996.) 10...¤d5 (10...¥xc2?! A

19

striking blow but does it really favor Black? 11.£xc2 £xd4 Perez,L−Lopez Martinez,J/ Varadero 2000, when 12.f4! is best) 11.¥xd5 cxd5 12.£e2 £c8? (12...¥xc3+ 13.bxc3 £a5 gives Black excellent counterplay.) 13.¥d2 ¤c6 14.¤b5 ¥e7 15.¥f4 ¤xe5 16.¥xe5 f6 17.¤c7+ ¢f7 18.¥f4± Kotronias,V−Candela Perez,J/X Anibal Open, Linares ESP 2003. Cool control.

3...£e5+ XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvlntr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-wq-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

is a very unusual line which I have developed and christened the 'Patzer Variation', 4.¥e2

c6 5.¤f3 £c7 6.d4 ¥f5 7.¤e5! this is the most testing, (7.d5 is not dangerous. Black continues developing calmly: 7...¤f6! 8.dxc6 ¤xc6 9.¤b5 £b8 10.¤bd4 ¥d7 11.0-0 e5

12.¤xc6 ¥xc6 13.¦e1 ¥d6 14.¥d3 0-0 15.¤g5 £c7 16.¤e4 ¤xe4 17.¥xe4 ¦ad8 18.£e2 ¥xe4

19.£xe4 f5ƒ Webb,R−Buckley,S/Open, Portsmouth ENG 2003 The central pawns are about to take a walk towards the White King., 7.0-0 e6 8.¥g5 ¤d7 9.¥h4 ¥d6 See the Dec 02 Update for theoretical notes.) 7...¤d7 8.¥f4 ¤xe5 9.¥xe5 £b6 10.¤a4 £a5+ 11.c3 f6 12.b4 £d5 13.¥g3 with a critical position, Shaw,J−Zeidler,S/EuTCh, Plovdiv BUL 2003. Black has some serious work to do if he wishes to rehabilitate this line.

4.d4

4.g3!? ¤f6 5.¥g2 c6 6.d4 g6 7.¥f4 £b4 8.¤ge2 ¥g7 Black has near equality, Topalov,V−Nisipeanu,L/Sofia BUL 2007.

4...¤f6

4...c6 5.¤f3 ¥g4!? is an interesting new idea. By delaying the entry of the g8−knight into the game Black hopes to talk White out of playing the more aggressive systems of development. 6.h3 (6.¥e3 ¤f6 is Fressinet,L−Bauer,C, below) 6...¥xf3 (6...¥h5)

7.£xf3 ¤f6 8.¥e3 see 5...c6, below.

5.¤f3

20

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+kvl-tr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-wq-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The most natural, but there are others: 5.¥e2 a6 6.¥f3 ¤c6 (6...h6 7.¤ge2 g5!? Solak,D−Nadanian,A/Saint Vincent ITA 2000)

7.¤ge2 ¥f5 8.¥f4 £d7 9.£d2 0-0-0 10.¦d1 e6 11.a3 h6 12.h3 g5 13.¥g3 ¥d6 14.¥xd6 £xd6 15.¥xc6 £xc6 16.0-0 ¤e4 17.¤xe4 ¥xe4 18.f3 ¥f5 19.c3 h5 20.£xg5 ¥xh3 21.£c5 £xc5 22.dxc5 ¥f5³ Rosandic,D−Zelcic,R/9th Open, Bosnjaci CRO 2003 In order to beat back the Black attack, White has to accept a slightly worse ending.

5.¥d3 is favoured by Kasparov. 5...¥g4 (5...c6 6.¤ge2 e6!? 7.0-0 ¥e7 8.¤e4 ¤xe4 9.¥xe4 0-0

10.£d3 g6 11.¥h6 ¦e8 12.¦ad1 ¤d7 13.¦fe1 ¤f6 14.¥f3 b6 15.c3 ¥b7 16.¤g3 ¦ad8=

Stripunsky,A−Lein,A/ch−USA, Seattle USA 2003 Lein knows how to handle his manageable disadvantage.) 6.f3 ¥h5 7.¤ge2 a6 Perhaps 7...c6 is most appropriate. 8.¥f4 £d7 9.d5!ƒ Kasparov,G−Rogers,I/EUR−ASIA Rapid Match, Batumi GEO 2001.

5.¥c4 a6 (5...¥g4!? is an interesting aside. The position of the Black queen on d6 means that f2−f3 isn't that useful for White. 6.f3 ¥f5 7.¤ge2 Makropoulou,M−Papadopoulou,V/Athens GRE 2004, and now just the modest 7...c6 to be followed by ...¤bd7−b6 is OK for Black.) 6.¤ge2!? £c6!? The Poisoned Pawn variation of the Scandinavian. Very risky, although unrefuted, (6...b5! seems most straightforward: 7.¥b3 ¥b7 8.¥f4 £b6 (8...£d8 9.0-0 e6 10.£d2 ¥d6 also looks good for equality) 9.f3 e6 10.£d2 c5! Black is in fine shape, Chulivska,V−Stanislavskaya,K/Alushta 2005) 7.¥b3 £xg2 8.¦g1 £h3 (For me, learn the lines after 8...£xh2 and go the whole hog!) 9.¥f4 £d7 10.£d3 ¤c6 11.a3 e6 12.0-0-0 ¤e7 13.¥e5 ¤g6 14.¥xf6 gxf6 15.d5!‚ McShane,L−Lalic,B/Gibraltar Masters, Catalan Bay ENG 2003. Some might like the Black position, I don't.

5.¤ge2 is examined in the notes to Saric − Milanovic. 5.¥e3 a6 6.g3 is a reasonable way to proceed. White may castle long and prepares £d2 and

maybe ¥f4, 6...c6 7.¥g2 ¥f5 8.¤f3 e6 9.0-0 ¤bd7 10.¤h4 ¥g6 11.¥f4 £b4 12.a3 £b6 13.¤xg6 hxg6 White should be a touch better in these structures, Zhang Zhong−Dreev,A/Ergun CHN 2006.

5.¤b5!? £b6 6.c4 c6 7.¤c3 g6 8.h3 ¥g7 9.¤f3 Najer,E−Ajrapetian,G/Olginka RUS 2011.

5...a6

21

5...c6 6.¤e5 This strikes me as the most critical option. a) 6.¥g5!? Campos,R−Tiviakov,S/Alajuela CRC 2008 b) 6.¥e2 ¥f5 7.¤e5 ¤bd7 8.f4!? now g4 is becoming a major theme, Amin,B−

Sengupta,D/Gaziantep TUR 2008 c) 6.¥e3 this apparently passive move is actually rather hard to contend with, others:

6...¥g4 7.h3 ¥xf3?! (7...¥h5 8.g4 ¥g6 9.¤e5 ¤bd7 is better, in my opinion, see Fressinet,L−Bauer,C/Pau FRA 2008) 8.£xf3 ¤bd7 (8...e6 9.0-0-0 ¥e7 10.¢b1 with a plus, Vorobiov,E−Hasangatin,R/Cappelle la Grande FRA 2006.) 9.0-0-0 e6 10.¢b1 £c7 11.g4! preventing long castles, while gaining space, Fressinet,L−Feygin,M/Emsdetten GER 2008.

d) 6.g3 ¥g4 7.¥g2 e6 8.0-0 ¥e7 9.h3 (9.¥f4 keeps an edge, Macieja,B−Tiviakov,S/Wolvega NED 2008) 9...¥xf3 10.¥xf3 0-0 Black is solid, Socko,B−Tiviakov,S/Eppingen GER 2008.

6...¤bd7 this natural move seems a bit shaky after White's reply, 7.¥f4 a) 7.f4!? is the most aggressive line, 7...¤b6 8.g4!? creating maximum imbalance,

8...¤bd5 (8...¥e6 Shirov,A−Tiviakov,S/Benidorm ESP 2008) 9.¥g2 g6 10.g5 ¤xc3 11.bxc3 ¤d7 my suggested improvement, (11...¤d5?! Shirov,A−Tiviakov,S/Hoogeveen NED 2010.) 12.0-0 h6 13.£f3! Svidler,P−Zolotukhin,V/Olginka RUS 2011.

b) 7.¤c4 £c7 8.£f3 is a very direct plan, 8...¤b6 9.¥f4 £d8 (9...£d7 10.h3!?

Bologan,V−Tiviakov,S/Sibenik CRO 2010.) 10.¥e5 ¥g4 11.£g3 h5 12.h3 h4 13.£e3! Huschenbeth,N−Dranov,A/Bonn GER 2011.

7...¤d5 8.¤xd5 £xd5 (8...¤xe5 9.¥xe5 (9.¤e3 ¤d3+ 10.£xd3 £xf4 11.d5!? with an attack, Gashimov,V−Tiviakov,S/Reggio Emilia ITA 2008) 9...£xd5 10.c4 £a5+ 11.£d2 £xd2+ 12.¢xd2 White has a little something, based upon his greater control of territory, Nakamura,H−Vallejo Pons,F/Donostia ESP 2009) 9.¤f3! clear and logical, emphasising White's space advantage, (9.¥e2!? this pawn sacrifice is the way Anand played against Tiviakov in Wijk aan Zee 2006, 9...¤xe5 10.¥xe5 £xg2 11.¥f3 £g6 12.£e2 h5 (12...£e6 13.d5 cxd5 14.0-0-0 with a strong initiative, Bulski,K−Stopa,J/Warsaw POL 2010) 13.0-0-0 ¥g4 see Caruana,F−Milanovic,D/Budva MNE 2009.) 9...¤f6 10.¥e2 ¥g4 11.0-0 e6 12.h3 ¥xf3 13.¥xf3 £d7 14.c4 with a plus, Ni Hua−Tiviakov,S/Reggio Emilia ITA 2008.

5...¥g4!? 6.h3 ¥h5 7.g4 ¥g6 8.¤e5 The most challenging move, and I think best. 8...¤bd7 9.¤b5 (9.¥f4 ¤d5!? Kosten,A−Govciyan,P/Pau FRA 2008.) 9...£b6 10.¤c4! Najer,E−Kovalenko,I/Moscow RUS 2010.

5...g6 is the 'Czebe Variation', 6.¤b5!? the critical test, (6.g3 ¥g7 7.¥g2 see Fedorchuk,S−Tiviakov,S/Ohrid MKD 2009.) 6...£b6 7.¥f4 ¤d5 8.¥e5 (8.¥d2 Boros,D−Motylev,A/Rijeka CRO 2010) 8...f6 9.¥g3 a6 10.c4 axb5 11.cxd5 both sides' pawn structures are compromised, see Petrosian,T−Kurajica,B/Plovdiv BUL 2010.

6.g3

This introduces a plan which permits ¥f4 but at the same time puts pressure on Black's queenside. It seems effective against an early ....a6. Others:

6.¥c4 e6 (6...¤bd7 7.0-0 b5 8.¥b3 ¥b7 9.¤g5! Ponomariov,R−Fressinet,L/Batumi 1999, 6...b5

7.¥b3 ¥b7 led to a quick Black knockout in Keserovic,M−Lajthajm,B/Vrnjacka

22

Banja SCG 2006, 6...g6?! 7.¤g5! forces 7...e6 see READER Question/2009) 7.£e2 b5 8.¥b3 ¥b7 9.¥g5 ¤bd7 10.0-0-0 ¤d5 11.¤e4 £b6 12.¢b1 h6 13.¥c1 ¥e7 14.¦he1 0-0-0 15.c4?! With this move, Zelcic is more or less saying that he isn't satisfied. Safer and equal was (15.c3 ¤7f6 16.¤xf6 ¥xf6 17.¥c2 ¦he8 18.g3=) 15...bxc4 16.¥xc4 ¤7f6 17.¥xd5 ¤xd5 18.¢a1 ¤b4 19.a3 ¤c6 20.¥e3 £b5!³ Zelcic,R−Kurajica,B/Salona Rapid 1hr, Solin−Spilt CRO 2002.

6.¤e5 ¤c6 7.¥f4 Arakhamia,K−Mashinskaya,I/Varna BUL 2002. 6.¥e3 ¥f5 (6...b5 7.¥d3 ¥b7 8.0-0 ¤bd7 9.£e2 e6 10.¥g5 ¥e7 11.a4 b4 12.¤e4 £d5! equalized in

Goldin,A−Stripunsky,A/San Diego USA 2004. If White wants to get rid of the strongly posted Black Queen, he will have to make a positional concession.) 7.£d2 e6 8.0-0-0 Golubev,M−Jirovsky,M/Bundesliga 2002.

6.¥e2 e6 7.0-0 ¤bd7 8.g3!? obviously planning ¥f4. Black must be modest in his ambitions: 8...c5 A little too sharp. Safer was 8...¥e7 or 8...£b6 9.¥f4 £c6 10.¦e1 b5? 11.d5! Bologan,V−Gofshtein,Z/playchess.com INT 2004.

6.¥d3 (sets a little trap, in that 6...b5 is poor due to 7 a4 b4 8 ¤e4!) 6...¥g4 (6...g6!? 7.h3 ¥g7

Saric,I−Milanovic,D/Sarajevo BIH 2006) 7.h3 ¥xf3? But this is equally poor. (7...¥h5! intending ...¤c6 and 0-0-0 is OK for Black.) 8.£xf3 ¤c6 9.¥e3 0-0-0 10.0-0-0 ¤b4 11.a3 ¤xd3+ 12.¦xd3 e6 13.¦e1 ¥e7 14.¥g5 £d7 15.d5!± Ansell,S−Martin,A/4NCL West Bromwich 2005.

6.¥g5 should be met by 6...b5 (although 6...¤c6 7.d5 ¤e5 8.¥e2 ¤xf3+ 9.¥xf3 ¥f5 10.0-0 h6

11.¥h4 0-0-0÷ is possible too, but not perhaps to everyone's taste, Collins,S−McPhillips,K/Bunratty IRL 2006) 7.¥d3 ¥b7 8.£e2 ¤bd7

6...¥g4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+kvl-tr0 9+pzp-zppzpp0 9p+-wq-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9PzPP+-zP-zP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Fortunately, this is a good alternative to 6 ...b5. Black develops quickly and targets the

pawn on d4. 6...g6 7.¥f4 £d8 8.¤e5 ¥g7 9.¥g2 0-0 10.0-0 c6 11.£d2 ¥e6 12.¦fe1² Sakaev,K−

Kurajica,B/4th IECC, Istanbul TUR 2003. 6...b5 7.¥f4 £b6 Black's most interesting option, 8.¥g2 ¥b7 9.0-0 e6 10.a4 b4 (Brustkern

has also played 10...¥d6 and to me this seems more effective.) 11.a5 £a7 12.¤e2 ¥d5 13.c4 (13.¥g5 intending ¤f4, is more to the point.) 13...bxc3 14.bxc3 ¥d6 15.¥xd6

23

cxd6 16.¤f4 ¥e4 Fairly equal, Steiner,B−Brustkern,J/FSIM September, Budapest HUN 2003.

6...¤c6 7.¥f4 £d8 (Almost automatic, but Melts analyses 7...£e6+ at some length, for example, 8.¥e2 ¤d5 9.¤xd5 £xd5 10.¥xc7 ¥h3 with compensation.) 8.¥g2 e6 9.0-0 ¥e7 10.£e2 0-0 11.¦ad1 White's development should give him a big edge, but... 11...¤d5! see Spasov,V−Kurajica,B/La Laguna ESP 2007.

7.h3!

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+kvl-tr0 9+pzp-zppzpp0 9p+-wq-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+-sN-+NzPP0 9PzPP+-zP-+0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The advantage of playing this now is that when things liven up, White is ready to play g4 to

keep the knight on f3 controlling the centre. However, there is also something to be said for keeping the bishop on g4, 7.¥g2 c6!? is

Tiviakov's new idea. Black envisages a coherent setup, with pawns and pieces complimenting one another, (7...¤c6 8.0-0 0-0-0 9.d5 ¤b4 10.¥f4 £c5 11.¥e3 £d6 12.£c1

Already White is struggling for moves. 12...¤bxd5∓ Glek,I−Muhammad,S/Minneapolis USA 2005.) 8.¥f4 (8.h3 ¥xf3 9.¥xf3 e6 10.¥f4 £d8 11.£d3

¥d6 Black regains the time he lost with his queen, Haslinger,S−Parker,J/Swansea WLS 2006.) 8...£d8 9.h3 ¥xf3 10.£xf3 £xd4 (10...e6 11.0-0 is So,W−Bosboom,M/Wijk aan Zee NED 2009) 11.0-0 e6 12.¦ad1 £b6÷ Al Modiahki,M−Tiviakov,S/Amsterdam NED 2006.

7...¥h5 8.¥g2

8.£e2 ¤c6 9.¥e3 0-0-0 10.¥g2 e6 11.0-0 ¥e7 12.a3 ¤d5 13.¤e4 £d7 14.b4 f5 15.¤c5 ¥xc5 16.bxc5 f4 17.gxf4 ¦hf8∓ Zelcic,R−Sermek,D/Sibenik 2005 does not impress from the White side.

8...¤c6 9.0-0 0-0-0 10.¥f4 £b4 11.g4! ¥g6 12.a3 £xb2

12...£c4!? and Black was suffering, Svidler,P−Tiviakov,S/Wijk aan Zee NED 2007.

13.£e1! e6! 14.¦b1 £xc2 15.¤e5

24

White's compensation is clearly visible, Caruana,F−Strikovic,A/Lorca 2005.

25