The Scotch Game Explained© Gary Lane
The right of Gary Lane to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
ISBN 0713489405
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British library.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission from the publisher.
Printed in Great Britain by Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale
for the publishers
B.T. Batsford Ltd, The Chrysalis Building Bramley Road, London, WI 0 6SP
www.chrysalisbooks.co.uk
Distributed in the United States and Canada by Sterling Publishing Co., 387 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016, USA
An imprint of ChrySalifBookS Group pic
A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK
Scotch Four Knights 37
Steinitz Variation: 4 ... 'iib4 120
Other Black Defences 142
Index of Variations 165
Index of Games 168
To Andrew Osborne
With thanks to Franois Mertens for his help in providing inspiration for this
book
Introduction
T he Scotch is an old opening which has been revived and revitalised with modem ideas to
make it a reliable system with opportunities for attack.
The Scotch occurs after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 lDo lDc6 3 d4 exd4 4 lDxd4
History
Though first mentioned by Del Rio in 1 750, it was the Scottish player John Cochrane ( 1 798- 1 878) who made the opening popular after recommending that the London Chess Club play it against Edinburgh in a maj or
5
correspondence match which took place from 1 824-28 . Thereafter it was immediately recognised as an effective opening weapon - indeed the Edinburgh players also employed it in the match and their success is the reason for its current name ! In the intervening years it has fluctuated in popularity but the 1 960s saw Radulov, Savon and Kupreichik successfully resurrect the relatively forgotten system. This was followed in the 1 970s and 1 980s by Dutch players Van der Wiel and Timman promoting the opening and giving it quite a decent reputation. However it was the great Garry Kasparov who gave the Scotch its biggest boost when in the 1 990s he used it in three world championship matches and inspired a whole new generation to follow his example. Indeed when Kasparov first sprung his surprise weapon on Karpov at Lyon 1 990 it was nothing short of a sensation. Armed with his fantastic analytical skills it seemed that the world champion could unleash forgotten, almost historical, lines at will - and still gain dynamic attacking chances. Thanks to Kasparov's example, the Scotch is today established as a formidable opening, attracting the attention of even the world's leading players.
Introduction
How the Games Were Selected
Originally I intended to update my 1 993 book Winning with the Scotch but I soon realised that merely adding new references was not a practical solution as the subsequent huge turnover of ideas demanded a compete overhaul of the book. And this was not the only problem. I also discovered that I did not have the earlier manuscript in a usuable electronic format because it was done on an Amstrad Word Processor which had long been thrown out ! I therefore set about writing a completely new book which would give lots of ideas to newcomers to the opening as well as club players eager to expand their repertoire.
What to Play
My objective is to provide readers with a range of ideas to suit all kinds of playing styles . For instance, in the game Radjabov­ Karjakin, Dos Hermanas 2005, we see the popular Mieses Variation which occurs after 1 e4 e5 2 ttJO ttJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 ttJxd4 ttJf6 5 ttJxc6 bxc6 6 e5 "fiIe7 7 'ii'e2 ttJd8 8 c4 ttJb6 - and now 9 ttJc3 is my recommendation.
6
I think bringing the knight to c3 is a decent way to pursue the advantage. It also has the merit of being easier to remember because it is more logical than some of the other complicated lines. Radjabov is one of the world's top players so it certainly reflects the latest fashion. If a potential opponent tries to look up a possible retort he will have no luck in the standard reference books such as Nunn s Chess Openings because it is not even mentioned! Maybe someone will do better by looking it up in the latest edition of Modern Chess Openings but even there it is considered a side-line with only a brief mention.
I have tried to provide alternatives for the White player who has no wish to enter sharp lines. This is the reason why the Scotch Four Knights is given in detail so that one can choose a line with a few tricks in the opening but with the main contest actually taking place in the middlegame. This variation has been neglected in some sources but continues to attract some of the brightest stars in chess such as the 2005 USA Champion Hikaru Nakamura. In this position from a game against Karjakin in Cuernavaca 2004
White tried 1 1 iba4!? which is a relatively new idea and it eventually brought him success.
The lines with 4 . . . 1.c5 are popular so I have looked at three alternatives for White.
Now this might be a familiar sight for some who follow the Classical Variation occurring after 1 e4 e5 2 ibo ibc6 4 d4 cxd4 4 ibxd4 1.cs 5 1.e3 'ii'f6 6 c3 ibge7 7 1.c4 and indeed it leads to some interesting tactics. However, White can also play a solid variation with scope for an attack by continuing 5 ibb3, as for example in Zhang Pengxiang - Moradiabadi, Dubai 2005 :
1 e4 eS 2 ibo ibc6 3 d4 exd4 4 ibxd4 1.cs 5 ibb3 1.b6 6 ibc3 d6 7 a4
7
Introduction
The idea is to threaten the bishop with a4-a5 and if in reply he creates an escape square by a7-a6 then ibd5 will force a retreat unless Black wants to play the rest of the game with a buckled pawn structure.
7 ••• a6 8 ibdS 1.a7 9 'l'O!?
Another example illustrating how the Scotch can appeal to all tastes - from those who want the opening to be critical to players who prefer to postpone the battle for supremacy until the middlegame.
If you want a more positional repertoire then I would suggest 5 ibb3 against 4 . . . . 1.c5 and the Scotch Four Knights against 4 .. .. ibf6.
There are bound to be opponents who will want to avoid your opening and try something different and I have made an effort to cover these offbeat replies because in my experience weekend tournament players like to try their luck with unusual ideas. Perhaps one that has more credibility than most is the Steinitz:
1 e4 eS 2 ibo ibc6 3 d4 exd4 4 ibxd4 'ili'h4
Introduction
I used to play this line as Black so I know what is wrong with it! Basically, White has to accept that he will lose the e-pawn but in return he will gain an advantage in development and a strong initiative. The critical position arises upon 5 lDc3 iLb4 6 iLe2 'i!be4 7 lDdb5 iLxc3+ 8 bxc3 'iti>d8
Black is obliged to move his king, thus forfeiting the right to castle. Frankly, the number of miniatures won by White makes this an exciting way to pick up an easy point.
8
In the Other Black Defences chapter I point out that the beginner 's move 4 . . . . lDxd4 can in fact transpose to a line favoured by the Bosnian Grandmaster Ivan Sokolov, whereas 4 . . . g6 transposes into a Pirc Defence against which I suggest the aggressive 1 50 Attack. I also have taken time to discuss the timid 3 . . . d6 which is often played by aspiring players.
Conclusion
The Scotch is well suited to the kind of player who seeks a forcing type of game with ambitions of attack. I have endeavoured to provide a repertoire for White that requires low maintenance and can be learned in a weekend. The Scotch does have some heavily analysed variations and while I have mentioned them, the emphasis remains on systems that are easy to play and will allow White to emerge from the opening with promising prospects.
Mieses Variation : 8 ... ttJb6
1 e4 e5 2 ttJo ttJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 ttJxd4 ttJf6 5 ttJxc6 bxc6 6 e5 'fIe7 7 'fIe2 ttJd5 8 c4 ttJb6
History
The Mieses Variation is so called in honour of Jacques Mieses ( 1 865- 1 954) a strong German master renowned for his attacking style. It is a recurring theme that openings are named not so much after their inventor but after their most famous practitioner and promoter. Such is the case here: Eugen von Schmidt of Moscow fIrst wrote about the line in Schachzeitung in 1 865 and it became so well known that it was recommended by Steinitz in his 1 889 classic Modern Chess Instructor. But a few years later at the famous Hastings international tournament of 1 895 Mieses played
9
the line four times and it was his name that stuck. Since then it has had a steady following, being regarded as one of the sharper lines available to White. In the 1 970s it enjoyed a surge of popularity with Sax and Sveshnikov among its enthusiastic adherents which in turn helped to attract the attention of world class players such as Thnman and Ljubojevic who used it as a surprise weapon. In the 1 990s it became a familiar sight on the international tournament scene with Dutch grandmaster Van der Wiel regularly employing it with success. Then of course Kasparov's use of the opening transformed its reputation so ImItators were queuing up to give it a go. Nowadays it maintains its strong reputation for forcing Black to enter perilous variations where accurate defence is essential.
Basic Plan for White
White tends to dictate matters in the opening by playing 5 ttJxc6 to facilitate the pawn advance e4-e5 harassing the king's knight. The assumption is that Black will be obliged to enter the main line because early alternatives leave him with an inferior position. Therefore the main crossroads comes after
Mieses Variation: 8 . . .tDb6
8 . . . ttJb6 after which White has various choices at his disposal. I have selected 9 ttJc3 because I think it is good, easy to learn and currently played by some of the best attacking players in the world.
Basic Plan for Black
This sharp line has to be treated with respect and with due knowledge of the standard continuations so as to avoid an early calamity. The big test comes at move 8, whether to play . . . ttJb6 or . .. .i.a6 - with the latter being examined in the next chapter. Black will have to contend with positions where the complications are difficult to unravel over the board and where things are easier for White who tends to obtain a standard space advantage from the opening.
Radjabov - Karjakin Dos Hermanas 200S
1 e4 e5 2 ttJt3 ttJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 ttJxd4 ttJf6 5 ttJxc6
The starting point of the Mieses Variation.
5 •••• bxc6
I can honestly say I have never seen anyone at a tournament who has played S . . . . dxc6, allowing a poor ending, but after consulting some old books I discovered that it has occurred a few times so it always best to be prepared. For instance: 6 'ii'xd8+ xd8 7 ttJc3 .i.b4 8 .i.d2 l:te8 9 O-O-O! e7
1 0
(9 . . . ttJxe4?? allows 1 0 .i.gS mate) 1 0 .i.d3 with the better chances.
6 e5
6 ••• fle7
The idea of pinning the e-pawn has now been accepted as the best policy so as to prevent White from dictating play in the opening. Other moves make it easy for White to develop:
a) 6 . . . ttJdS 7 c4 and now:
a l ) 7 . . . ttJb6 8 .i.d3 .i.a6 9 ttJd2 dS 1 0 exd6 .i.xd6 1 1 'ii'e2+ fle7 12 b3 flxe2+ 1 3 xe2 gave White a slight edge because Black's queenside pieces lack mobility, Lane-Wein, Brussels rapidplay 1 999.
a2) 7 . . . .i.h4+ 8 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 9 'ii'xd2 ttJb6 10 ttJc3 fle7 1 1 0-0-0 0-0 12 f4 as 1 3 'ii'f2 with good kingside attacking chances, Wells­ Estrada Nieto, Koszeg 2000.
b) 6 . . . ttJe4 7 'ii'f3 ttJgS 8 flg3 ttJe6 9 .i.d3 d6 1 0 0-0 when White's better development gives him the superior chances, S .Lalic­ Westerkamp, Guernsey 200 1 .
7 'ii'e2 ttJd5 8 c4
White chases the centralised knight.
8 ••• ttJb6
The main alternative 8 . . . .1i.a6 is examined in the next chapter.
9 ttJc3
I have discussed this position in the introduction but at the risk of repeating myself I think that bringing the knight to c3 is a good way to contest Black's strategy. It also has the merit of being easier to remember because it is more logical than some of the other complicated lines. An opponent might do some research by looking up a possible reply in standard reference books such as Nunn s Chess Openings but it will be to no avail as it is not even mentioned there ! Perhaps someone will do better by looking it up in the latest edition of Modern Chess Openings but it is referred to only briefly. 9 ttJd2 and 9 b3 are the main alternatives.
9 •••• 'ii'e6
The queen attacks the c4 pawn and makes room for the
1 1
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . ttJb6
development of the dark-squared bishop. Another popular continuation is 9 . . . .1i.a6 when 1 0 'ii'e4 ( 1 0 b3 0-0-0 1 1 .1i.b2 g6 1 2 0-0-0 .1i.g7 1 3 f4 l:he8 14 'ii'f2 .1i.b7 1 5 c5 gave White all the chances in A.Osborne-Wilcox, Paignton 1 987) 1O . . . 'ii'e6 transposes to the main game. Black can try to be independent with 1O . . . 0-0-0? but then 1 1 c5 ! gives White the advantage. For instance: 1 1 . . . .1i.xfl 1 2 cxb6 .1i.a6 1 3 bxa7 'iitb7 14 .1i.e3 (the pawn is preserved on the seventh rank maintaining White's better position) 14 . . . d5 15 exd6 'ii'xd6 16 l:dl .1i.d3 17 'ii'a4 'ii'g6 1 8 ttJe2 'ii'd6 1 9 0-0 .1i.e7 20 a8='ii'+ 1 -0 Namyslo-Metaxasz, Budapest 2002.
10 'ii'e4
10 ••• .1i.a6
Black continues to apply pressure on the c4 pawn. 1 O . . . g6 is examined in the next game. The idea of 1 O . . . .1i.h4 to pin the knight has to be respected because it gets another piece into the game but it should be harmless: 1 1 d2 .1i.xc3 ( 1 l . . ..1i.b7 1 2 .1i.d3 0-0-0 1 3 0-0-0 .1i.xc3
Jlieses Variation: 8. Ji:Jb6
14 .i.xc3 liJa4 1 5 .i.a5 liJc5 1 6 Wf4 liJxd3+ 1 7 .lir.xd3 c5 1 8 f3 with roughly equal chances, Lastin­ Zakharov,Novgorod 1 999) 12 .i.xc3 d5 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 'ifb4 liJd7 1 5 .i.b5 .i.a6 ( l 5 . . . c6 should be considered when 1 6 .i.a4 offers equal opportunities) 1 6 .i.a4 0-0-0 17 0-0-0 liJxe5 1 8 W d4 is better for White because he is threatening the a7 pawn and the knight.
Black can try 1 0 . . . d5 which volunteers to enter a slightly inferior ending : 1 1 exd6 cxd6 1 2 .i.d3 'ii'xe4+ ( l 2 . . . .i.a6 1 3 .i.e3 'ii'xe4 14 .i.xe4 l:!c8 1 5 c5 ! dxc5 1 6 0-0-0 gave White the better chances in Sutovsky-Van den Doel, Plovdiv 2003) 1 2 . . . 'i'xe4+ 1 3 .i.xe4
And now:
a) 13 . . . .i.d7 14 b3 0-0-0 1 5 0-0 .i.e7 1 6 .i.e3 l:the8 1 7 l:bc l <3;c7 1 8 .:tfd 1 .i.f6 1 9 .i.f3 .i.f5 when instead of 20 a4 as played in Rublevsky-Kunte, Bled Olympiad 2002, 20 c5 ! manages to exploit the power of the bishops: 20 . . . dxc5 (20 . . . liJc8 2 1 cxd6+ liJxd6 22liJd5+ <3;b7 23 liJxf6 wins due to the threat against the c6 pawn) 2 1 liJb5+ cxb5 22 Ihc5+ <3;b8 23 .i.f4+ winning.
1 2
b ) 1 3 . . . .i.b7 14 b 3 g 6 1 5 .i.b2 .i.g7 1 6 0-0-0 0-0-0 1 7 .i.f3 and White has the better pawn structure but chances should still be level, Pavasovic-Carlsen, Wijk aan Zee 2004.
11 b3
11 ••• .i.b4
Now that the b-pawn has moved Black finds time to attack the knight.
Also possible: 1 1 . . .0-0-0 1 2 .i.b2 .i.b7 1 3 0-0-0 .:te8 14 f4 d5 1 5 cxd5 cxd5 1 6 Wc2 ..ti>b8 ! (a careful move designed to safeguard the a7 pawn and avoid tactics based on liJb5 but not on the other hand 1 6 . . . 'ii'h6 1 7 g3! ? .:txe5 when 1 8 liJb5 l:te7 19 .i.e5 gives White an excellent attack) 1 7 ..ti>b l g6 1 8 .i.e2 c5 19 .i.f3 .i.e7 20 g4, preparing to play f4-f5 , gave White the edge in Kasparov-Adams, Internet 2000.
12 .i.d2 .i.xc3
The idea of the exchange is to enable Black to safely play . . . d7-d5 . Instead 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 cxd5 liJxd5 14 .i.xa6 .i.xc3 1 5 .i.xc3 liJxc3
1 6 'ili'd4 liJd5 1 7 0-0 is better for White due to Black's weak doubled c-pawns.
13 J.xe3 dS 14 'iVh4
Played by Kasparov in 1 999 and a move that has stood the test of time.
14 ••• dxe4
IS :'e1 !
There is no need to worry about the pawn on c4 because it is pinned so White has time to adjust his pieces accordingly. 1 5 iLe2 liJd5 and now:
a) 1 6 iLd4 c5 ( 1 6 . . . 'iVf5 ! is very good because the threat of . . . liJf4 gives Black the initiative: 1 7 0-0 lllf4 1 8 J.f3 ( 1 8 J.xc4? J.xc4 1 9 bxc4 'ili'e4 wins thanks to the threat of mate on g2 and . . . liJe2+) 18 . . . 0-0 1 9 l:.fdl? cxb3 led to the superior position in Morozevich­ Piket, Internet 2000) 1 7 J.xc5 liJc3 1 8 iLxc4 'ili'xe5+ 1 9 iLe3 liJe4 20 0-0 iLxc4 2 1 bxc4 0-0 22 :'fe 1 with a slight edge, Kasparov­ Adams, Sarajevo 1 999.
b) 1 6 J.xc4 g5 ! 1 7 'ili'd4 ( 1 7 'ifxg5?? fails to iLxc4)
1 3
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . liJb6
1 7 . . . iLxc4 1 8 'ili'xc4liJf4 ( 1 8 . . . 0-0-0 is best met by 1 9 i.d4! with the better chances) 1 9 'iVxe6+ liJxe6 20 O-O-O ! rl;;e7 2 1 :'he 1 l1hd8 22 :'xd8 :'xd8 23 :'e4 :'d5 24 'it'c2 c5 25 :'a4 liJd4+ 26 iLxd4 cxd4 27 :'xa7 'it'd7 28 'it'd3 with the better rook and pawn ending, Kasparov­ Timman, Wijk aan Zee 2000.
lS • • • 0-0 16 J.e2 liJdS
Black would like to take the bishop on c3 so as to eliminate the defence of the e5 pawn. Instead Macieja-Korchnoi, Mallorca Olympiad 2004, saw 1 6 . . . liJd7 to put pressure on the e5 pawn but White simply carried on developing: 1 7 0-0 liJxe5 1 8 :'fe 1 f6 1 9 iLxe5 fxe5 20 J.xc4 i.xc4 2 1 'ili'xc4 'ili'xc4 22 :'xc4 with all the chances.
17 i.a1 liJb4 18 bxe4 :'ad8
Or 1 8 . . . liJxa2 1 9 ::tb1 ::tab8 20 0-0 with a double-edged position.
19 0-0 liJd3
If 1 9 . . . liJxa2 then 20 :'cd1 :'xdl 2 1 l:txdl liJb4 22 l:td8 with decent attacking chances.
20 :'e3 liJxeS 21 :'e3 liJg6
An attempt to support the knight by 2 1 . . .f6 makes little impression upon 22 f4 liJg6 23 lhe6 (23 'ili'xh7+ 'i.t>xh7 24 :'xe6 also looks good) 23 . . . liJxh4 24 :'xc6 i.b7 25 :Xc7 iLxg2 26 :'d1 when the ending is better for White.
22 'ii'gS 'ii'd7 23 h4
White cannot resist increasing the attack by trying to push the knight
Mieses Variation: 8 . . .tDb6
out of the way. Instead 23 "a5 is certainly good when the passive 23 . . ... c8 might help Black to hang on to the a-pawn but 24 .i.d3 still leaves White with influential bishops.
23 • • • f6 24 'it'aS 'it'c8 25 l:tg3 'ili'e6
Or 25 . ..lt:Jxh4 26 .i.g4 f5 27 .i.h5 when the pressure on the g7 pawn gives Black problems.
26 l:te3 'ili'c8 27 l:tel
27 ••• ltJxh4?
A risky venture allowing the h­ file to be opened for the benefit of White 's rook. Maybe 27 . . . c5 is necessary so that 28 'it'xc5 .i.b7 at least gets the bishop into the action, although White is still on top.
28 l:th3 ltJg6
28 . . . ltJf5 29 l:ta3 .i.b7 30 .i.g4 g6 3 1 l:tg3 gives White great attacking chances.
29 "h5
The addition of the queen on the h-file seals Black's fate because
14
29 . . . h6 is of course inadequate due to 30 'ili'xg6.
29 ••• 'iIi'e6 30 'it'xh7+ f7 31 l:tg3 1-0
In the next encounter Black follows the same system but provides an alternative idea with 1 O . . . g6.
Rublevsky - Lautier Poikovsky 2004
1 e4 e5 2 ltJo ltJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJxc6 bxc6 6 e5 'ili'e7 7 'it'e2 ltJd5 8 c4 ltJb6 9 ltJc3 'it'e6 10 'ili'e4 g6
Black wants to undermine the e5 pawn by means of a kings ide fianchetto.
11 .i.d3
The bishop supports the queen and prepares to castle kingside. It is also possible to support the e-pawn by 1 1 f4. For example: 1 1 . . ..i.a6 (or l 1 . . .d5 12 exd6 cxd6 1 3 .i.e3 .i.g7 14 0-0-0 is level) 12 b3 .i.g7 1 3 .i.b2 0-0 14 0-0-0 f6 1 5 c5 ! (White pushes the knight back
granting himself a space advantage) 1 5 . . . i.xfl 1 6 .:thxfl lLlc8 1 7 exf6 i.xf6 1 8 'ii'xe6+ dxe6 1 9 .:tfe l lLle7 20 .:txe6 gave White a winning advantage in Dworakowska­ Greenfeld, Coventry 2005 .
1l •.• i.a6
The game Antal-Estrada Nieto, Hungarian Team Championship 2003 saw 1 1 . . .i.g7 when play proceeded 12 f4 d5 1 3 exd6 cxd6 14 0-0 i.xc3 1 5 bxc3 'ii'xe4 1 6 i.xe4 i.b7 1 7 c5 dxc5 1 8 f5 ( 1 8 i.a3 0-0-0 1 9 i.xc5 with roughly equal chances) 1 8 . . . 0-0-0 1 9 fxg6 fxg6 20 i.g5 .:tde8 2 1 i.f3 h5 22 a4 with the initiative.
12 b3 i.g7 13 f4
13 .•. 0-0
Black completes his development - having his king removed from the centre makes it easier to safely prepare ... d7-d5. Instead 1 3 . . . d5? ! is not as accurate : 14 cxd5 cxd5 1 5 lLlxd5 lLlxd5 1 6 "'a4+ ( 1 6 i.xa6 'ii'xa6 1 7 'ii'xd5 .:td8 1 8 'ii'c5 is also promising) 1 6 . . .... d7 1 7 "'xd7+ xd7 1 8 i.xa6 lLlb4 1 9 i.b7 lLlc2+ 20 'i.t>e2 .:tab8 2 1 .:td 1 + 'i.t>e7 22 i.f3 .:thd8 (22 . . . . lLlxal 23 i.a3+ <;ite6
1 5
Mieses Variation: 8 .. . lLlb6
24 i.g4+ f5 25 exf6+ <;itxf6 26 l:.d7 wins) 23 .:tb 1 led to the better position, David-Brochet, Evry 2003 .
14 i.a3
The idea is to oblige Black to move the rook so White can respond accordingly.
14 ••• .:tfc8!?
This i s what I call thinking ahead even if it does look daft. Black intends to play . . . d7-d5 and wants to have the rook on c8 to protect his pawn after central exchanges. It seems that 14 . . . .:tfe8 is the logical choice although admittedly the line 1 5 0-0 d5 1 6 cxd5 cxd5 1 7 'ii'e2 i.xd3 1 8 'ii'xd3 f6 19 lLlb5 "'d7 20 .:tac 1 does show why protection is needed for the c-pawn in order to avoid certain tactics.
15 0-0 d5 16 cxd5 cxd5
Black's rook on c8 will support any future c7-c5 advance.
17 "'1'3 i.xd3 18 'ii'xd3 f6
19 f5!?
Mieses Variation: 8 . ..!'i:Jb6
A clever way to try and unsettle Black by offering a temporary pawn sacrifice.
Other ideas :
a) 1 9 exf6?! 'ii'xf6 20 lLle2 c5 2 1 f5 c4 2 2 'ifh3 gxf5 ! (22 . . . . 'ii'xal 23 %:txal .i.xal 24 fxg6 hxg6 25 'ii'e6+ c:J;;g7 26 lLlf4 .i.f6 27 .i.e7 favours White) 23 l::tae l l:te8 favours Black.
b) 19 ':ad 1 fxe5 20 lLlxd5 'ii'xd5 2 1 'ii'xd5+ lLlxd5 22 ':xd5 ':d8 23 ':xd8+ ':xd8 24 .i.b2 with a likely draw.
19 ••• gxfS 20 exf6 'ii'xf6 21 lLle2
Not 2 1 lLlxd5? because of 2 1 . . .'ii'd4+ and Black wins.
21 ...c5
Instead 2 l . . .'ii'xal 22 ':xal .i.xal might win two rooks for a queen but 23 .i.c5 ensures a double-edged game where White has decent attacking prospects because the black king is exposed.
22 'ii'f3 c4 23 lLlg3
23 ':ad 1 is worth investigating.
23 ••• 'ii'd4+
23 . . . 'ii'c3? ! 24 'ii'xc3 .i.xc3 25 l:tadl is roughly level.
24 c:J;;hl 'ii'g4 25 ':adl .i.f8?
In a difficult position Black goes astray in his bid to carry out a favourable exchange of the dark­ squared bishops. After 25 . . . 'ii'xf3? ! 2 6 ':xf3 c 3 2 7 lLlxf5 White i s fine thanks to his attacking prospects. The best line is 25 . . . cxb3 26 axb3
1 6
':c3 2 7 'ii'xf5 'ii'xf5 2 8 lLlxf5 ':xb3 29 lLlxg7 ':xa3 leaving White struggling to draw.
26 .i.b2
26 ... .i.g7
Black tries again to exchange pieces to reduce White's dominance of the a l -hS diagonal but the difference is that the king is poorly placed on g7 . Alternatively 26 . . . 'ii'xf3 27 l:txf3 .i.b4 28 .i.d4 c3 29 lLlxf5 leaves White with the better position.
27 .i.xg7 'ii'xD 28 ':xf3 c:J;;xg7 29 lLlxfS+ <t'h8 30 c:J;;gl
As usual for the ending the king is brought into the centre. By contrast Black's king must remain in the comer to avoid an attack - Lautier is in trouble !
30 ••• ':f8 31 c:J;;fl ':ae8 32 lLle3 l:txf3+ 33 c:J;;xD l:tf8+?!
A time-trouble move just to avoid making a decision. A better idea is to seek exchanges with 33 . . . cxb3 when 34 axb3 ':b8 leaves White still having a lot to do to secure a win.
34 e2 l:te8?!
35 l:.d4!
White blocks the position and can move his king to a better square.
35 •••• g7 36 d2 cxb3 37 axb3 h5?!
Black should seek exchanges by 37 . . . aS .
38 d3 l:te5 39 l:.f4 l:.e8 40 d4 g6
After 40 . . . aS 4 1 liJfS+ g6 42 cS liJd7+ 43 xdS leaves White on top.
41 b4!
White needs to stop the a-pawn advance to rule out drawing chances. Then again 4 1 g3 is possible because it protects the rook which is vital in view of the line 4 l . . .aS 42 liJxdS liJxdS 43 xdS l:.b8 44 c4 l:.b4+ 4S c3 revealing White to be in good shape.
41. •• l:tb8
On 4 l . . . .l:ta8 42 bS a6 43 cS ! liJc4 (43 . . . liJd7+ 44 c6 liJeS+
1 7
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . liJb6
4S b7 winning) 44 liJxc4 dxc4 4S b6 and Black should give up.
42 h4! l:te8 43 liJxd5
Rublevsky evaluated precisely that the forthcoming rook endgame is won for him.
43 ••• liJxd5 44 xd5 l:.e2 45 g4 hxg4 46 :xg4+ h5 47 ':c4 l:tb2 48 c6 l:tb1 49 b7 1-0
Rublevsky - Vajda Budva 2004
1 e4 e5 2 liJo liJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJxc6 bxc6 6 e5 'ike7 7 'ike2 liJd5 8 c4 liJb6 9 liJc3 a5
Black advances the a-pawn so that when his bishop is developed to a6 his bishop will not blocked in as he now has the possibility of . . . as­ a4. The idea of a kingside fianchetto is attractive in that it can help to apply pressure to the eS pawn. After 9 . . . g6 1 0 liJe4 play might continue:
a) 1 O . . . 'iWe6 1 1 .i.d2 ( 1 1 liJf6+ d8 1 2 .i.d2 .i.a6 is delightfully
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . lLlb6
unclear but Black has a good record with it) 1 l . . ..i.g7 1 2 f6+ .i.xf6 1 3 exf6 0-0 14 0-0-0 .i.a6 and now:
a l ) 1 5 'ii'xe6 fxe6 1 6 .i.g5 d6 1 7 c5 .i.xfl 1 8 l:thxfl lLld5 1 9 l:tfe 1 c:Ji;f7 20 l:te4 a5 (20 . . . h6 2 1 .i.xh6 l:th8 22 l:th4 c:Ji;xf6 23 f4 is equal) 2 1 c:Ji;b l l:tfb8 22 l:tc l l:ta6 23 a3 Ih-Ih Van der Wiel-Grabarczyk, Pula 1 997
a2) 15 "'f3 .i.xc4 16 'ii'f4 (White is poised to land the queen on h6) 1 6 . . . c:Ji;h8 ( 1 6 . . . .i.xa2? is a mistake in view of 1 7 'iVh6 'ii'xf6 1 8 .i.c3 winning) 17 l:te 1 "'f5 18 .i.xc4 'ii'xf4 1 9 .i.xf4 lLlxc4 20 l:te7 gave White a clear advantage in the ending, Zezulkin-Grabarczyk, Krakow 1 999.
b) 1 0 . . . .i.g7 1 1 .i.g5 'ii'b4+ ( 1 1 . . .... xe5?? walks into the clever trap 12 .i.f6 ! when White wins) 1 2 "'d2 'ii'xd2+ 1 3 c:Ji;xd2 .i.xe5 14 lLlf6+ .i.xf6 1 5 l:te 1 + c:Ji;f8 1 6 .i.xf6 l:tg8 1 7 .i.d8 led to an edge in Feygin-Mikhalchishin, Dortmund 1 999.
10 f4
A speciality of Rublevsky who has not lost a game with it. Also
1 8
possible is 1 0 .i.d2 .i.a6 1 1 'ii'e4 "'c5 (not 1 l . . .'ii'b4 due to 1 2 lLlb5 winning) 1 2 b3 0-0-0 1 3 f4 f6 14 exf6 gxf6 1 5 0-0-0 c:Ji;b8 1 6 .i.e3 'ii'b4 17 c:Ji;c2 with the superior chances, Averjanov-Geraschenko, Alushta 2005 .
10 ••• .i.a6
Black sticks to traditional methods and increases the pressure on the c4 pawn.
The heavyweight encounter Lautier-Hebden, Clichy 200 1 , saw 1 O . . . a4 1 1 'ii'e4 g6? ! Black is slow to develop so White has time to consolidate his space advantage ( 1 1 . . . .i.b7 ! ? [intending . . . d7-d5] 1 2 .i.e3 [ 1 2 .i.e2 d5 1 3 exd6 'ii'xe4 14 lLlxe4 cxd6 is level] 1 2 . . . 'ifh4 1 3 l:tb l .i.e7 14 .i.d2 ! d5 1 5 exd6 'ii'xd6 1 6 .i.e3 with an edge) 12 .i.d3 .i.g7 13 0-0 0-0 14 .i.e3 f5 ( 1 4 . . . f6? allows 1 5 c5 winning easily; 14 . . . .i.b7 1 5 .i.d4 with the brighter prospects) 1 5 "'f3 gave White the better chances.
11 b3 "'e6 12 .i.b2 .i.b4 13 0-0-0
White swings the queen's rook into action which is a more positive
response than 1 3 .c2 played in Rub1evsky-Adams, Rethymnon 2003 , which ended in a tame draw after 1 3 . . . a4 14 l::tc 1 'ii'h6 1 5 g3 0-0 1 6 ..td3 d5 17 exd6 cxd6 112-1/2.
13 ••• a4 14 .!De4 axb3 15 axb3 ..tb7
Vajda has managed to open the a­ file for the benefit of his king's rook but he needs reinforcements before he can launch an attack.
16 'iVa .e7
17 .!Dd6+!
A clever sacrifice which will permit White to infiltrate Black's position.
17 • • • cxd6 18 exd6 .e6?
The first time I saw this game I just assumed it was a brilliancy and nobody would repeat the line for Black but things are never quite so simple at international level and indeed someone later found an improvement: l S ...• dS ! ? However I would still rather be White because 1 9 ..txg7 f6 ! ( 1 9 . . . l::tgS?? 20 .e2+ 'ile7 2 1 "xe7 mate) 20 ..te2 ! (20 ..txhS c:Ji;f7 traps the
1 9
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . .!Db6
bishop with equal chances) 20 . . . c:Ji;f7 21 'ilg3 h5? ! 22 f5 gave White the initiative in Rublevsky­ Zhang Zhong, Moscow 2004.
19 'ilxb6 ..txd6 20 g3
Maybe 20 f5 is even stronger in view of 20 . . ... e7 2 1 .xb7 'iVe3+ 22 c:Ji;b 1 l::tbS 23 'ii'a6 "xb3 24 l::te 1 + c:Ji;f8 25 'ila2 'iVc3 26 l::tc 1 and the attack is repelled.
20 ••• ..te7
Or 20 . . . l::tbS 2 1 ..tg2 0-0 22 "d4 threatening 'iVxg7 mate and .xd6.
21 ..tg2 ..td8 22 .xb7 1-0
In the next game Black tries something different with 9 . . . ..tb7 preparing to castle queenside.
Macieja - Stetlitsch Chalkidiki 2002
1 e4 e5 2 .!Do .!Dc6 3 d4 exd4 4 .!Dxd4 .!Df6 5 .!Dxc6 bxc6 6 e5 "e7 7 "e2 .!DdS 8 c4 .!Db6 9 .!Dc3 ..tb7
This move is just a prelude to queens ide castling and does not
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . ll:Jb6
10 i.d2! 0-0-0
Probably better is 1 0 . . . d5 ! ? 1 1 exd6 cxd6 1 2 0-0-0 'ii'xe2 1 3 i.xe2 which is in White's favour because Black's pawn structure is weak.
11 0-0-0 l:.e8
Black is keen to put the e-pawn under pressure. Also possible:
a) l 1 . . .g6 12 h4 h6 13 f4 d5 14 exd6 cxd6 15 h5 led to equal chances in De la Villa Garcia­ Korneev, Mondariz 2000.
b) l 1 . . .f6 12 exf6 'ii'xf6 1 3 f3 d5 14 'ii'f2 'itb8 ( 1 4 . . . dxc4 1 5 ll:Je4 'ii'g6 1 6 h4 favours White) 1 5 i.e3 i.e7 1 6 cxd5 cxd5 1 7 'itbl with a slight plus, Gysi-Tait, Internet 2002.
12 l:.e1
Macieja is content to reinforce the e-pawn with the rook so that if Black plays . . . d7-d5 he has extra support on the e-file. 12 f4 has been tried when Motylev-Zhang Zhong, Anibal 200 1 , continued 1 2 . . . f6
20
1 3 exf6 gxf6 ( 1 3 .. .'ii'xe2 14 i.xe2 gxf6 1 5 l:.he 1 with the better ending for White thanks to the better pawn structure) 14 'ii'h5 l:.d8 1 5 i.d3 'iig7 1 6 'ii'a5 led to the brighter prospects.
12 ••• 'iie6
Now 1 2 . . . d5 presents White with the superior ending due to his better pawn structure after 1 3 exd6 'ii'xe2 1 4 d7+ ll:Jxd7 1 5 i.xe2 i.c5 16 i.g4.
13 f4 i.b4?!
Black wants to complete his development so activates his dark­ squared bishop. If 1 3 . . . d5 then 14 'ii'f2 is a strong reply in view of 14 . . . dxc4 1 5 f5 'ile7 1 6 g4 with the better prospects due to White 's space advantage and Black's weakened queenside pawn structure.
14 'ii'fl d5
Now this strike is not so effective, but it's very hard to point out any improvement. Maybe 1 4 . . . c5 is required to get the light-squared bishop into the action when 1 5 a3 i.xc3 1 6 i.xc3 ll:Jxc4 1 7 'ii'xc5 ll:Jb6 1 8 i.d3 favours White due to his better piece co-ordination.
15 a3! i.xc3
After 1 5 . . . i.f8 White can advantageously push Black on to the defensive by 1 6 f5 'ii'd7 1 7 c5 d4 ( 1 7 . . . ll:Ja8 just looks embarrassing) 1 8 cxb6 dxc3 1 9 i.xc3 cxb6 20 i.c4.
16 i.xc3 dxc4
An optimist might point out that Black is a pawn up but the tripled c-pawns are nothing to boast about because they are so weak.
17 l::tdl
Macieja choses the solid continuation without giving Black any active counterplay. 1 7 f5 is also good as 1 7 .. :ild7 is met by 1 8 l::tg l intending g2-g4 with the better position.
17 ••• l::td8 18 i.e2
18 •• .lt::ldS
A better practical chance seems to be 1 8 . . . c5 to relieve the light­ squared bishop - Black really needs to take the gamble of a rather vulnerable c5 pawn in return for a free bishop.
19 i.xe4 'ii'fS 20 i.d2
White's position is strategically winning, so Black must look for some tactical chances.
20 ••• gS 21 g3 gxf4 22 gxf4 l::thg8 23 l::thgl
2 1
Mieses Variation: 8.JiJb6
Though 23 'fIxa7? lLlxf4 24 l::thfl lLld3+ 25 i.xd3 'fIxd3 26 'fIc5 l::td5 is still in White 's favour, this capture would relinquish the offensive.
23 • • • l::tg6 24 l::tg3 lLlb6 25 i.e2 eS!?
Too late. By now getting the bishop on b7 into play offers little hope.
26 l::txg6
I can see nothing wrong with gleefully taking the offered pawn: 26 'ii'xc5 l::tc6 (26 . . . l::td5 27 'fIc2 invites a favourable ending: 26 . . . ..ti>b8 27 l::txg6 bxg6 28 i.e3 l::txdl + 29 i.xdl 'fId3 30 'ii'd4 is good) 27 'ii'xc6 ! i.xc6 28 i.g4 'ii'xg4 29 l::txg4 i.f3 30 l::tdg l i.xg4 3 1 l::txg4 when the extra pawn leaves White clearly on top.
26 ••• hxg6 27 'ii'xeS l::tdS
28 'fIgl!?
If given the chance White's next move will be i.g4 but he stands much better upon 28 'ii'e7, e.g. 28 . . . l::td7 29 'iVh4 (this active queen
Mieses Variation: 8 . . .li)b6
supports the threat of i.g4) 29 . . . 'ii'e4 30 'ii'h8+! (30 i.g4? looks reasonable but 30 . . . 'ii'c4+ 3 1 'ifi>b 1 i.e4+ 32 'ifi>al i.d5 ! swings the advantage to Black) 30 . . J::td8 3 1 i.g4+ ttJd7 32 'ii'h3 i.d5 33 'ii'c3 winning.
28 ••• 'ifi>b8 29 i.e3
Perhaps 29 'ii'e3 is more precise.
29 • • :iWe4 30 'ii'fl ttJc4?!
Black offers a pawn in the hope of complicating matters. 30 . . . i.c8 ! ? 3 1 'ii'D l:.xdl+ (3 1 . . .i.f5 32 'ii'xe4 i.xe4 33 b4 and the extra pawn gives White winning chances) 32 i.xdl 'ii'c4+ 33 'ifi>d2 leaves White with the better prospects.
31 i.xa7+ 'ifi>a8
32 i.d4?
Yes, even top class grandmasters make mistakes! Instead 32 l:.xd5 maintains White's advantage after 32 . . . i.xd5 33 i.d4 ttJa5 34 'ifi>d2 ! ttJb3+ 35 'ifi>c3 when Black is not able to create any serious threats to compensate for the two pawns deficit.
22
32 ••• ttJa5!
The monster threat is . . . ttJb3+ when suddenly White is in trouble.
33 b4
The point is that 33 'ii'e3? is met by 33 . . . l:.xd4 34 'ii'xd4 ttJb3 mate.
33 ••• ttJb3+ 34 'ifi>b2 ]::txd4 35 'ifi>c3 'ii'c6+ 36 'ifi>xb3 'ii'd5+ 37 'ifi>b2 ]::txdl 38 i.xdl 'ii'xdl
Black has all the wInnmg prospects but White has a slim chance to draw thanks to his two pawns for the piece. The game concluded:
39 'ii'c5 'ii'd2+ 40 'ifi>b3 'ii'd1+ 41 'ifi>b2 'ii'd2+ 42 'ifi>b3 i.d5+ 43 'ifi>a4 'ii'd1+ 44 'ifi>a5 'ii'd3?
44 . . . 'ifi>b8 is an improvement.
45 'ii'xc7 'ii'xa3+ 46 'ifi>b5 'ii'd3+ 47 b6 'ii'd4+ 48 'ii'c5 'ii'xc5+ 49 'ifi>xc5! i.e6 50 'ifi>c6 'ifi>b8 51 b4 'ifi>c8 52 'ifi>d6 'ifi>b7 53 'ifi>e7 'ifi>c6 54 'ifi>f6 'ifi>b5 55 fS gxfS 56 'ifi>g5! f4!
Amusingly 56 . . . 'ifi>xb4?? runs into 57 'ifi>f4 ! and the h-pawn will promote.
57 <it>xf4 <it>xb4 58 h5 i.b3 59 <it>g5 <it>c5 60 h6 i.c2 61 <it>f6 <it>d5 Ih-lh
Conclusion
The Mieses Variation with 8 . . . ltJb6 allows White to lure his opponent into complicated lines where tactics flow. If White consistently employs the Scotch then his greater experience will stand him in good stead when handling tricky lines. This will not necessarily be the case for Black who having played 1 . . .e5 will have all sorts of other openings on his mind such as the Ruy Lopez, the Bishop's Opening and the King's Gambit. Therefore, unless the opponent is a strong player who has diligently learned his openings, there is a fair chance that Black will go astray. However at the very top level it is clear that precise play will lead to equal opportunities in the forthcoming middlegame.
In the game Radjabov - Karjakin White employs 9 ltJc3
23
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . ltJb6
against 8 . . . ltJb6 and this is the theme of the chapter. Black responds with 9 . . . 'ii'e6 to attack the c4 pawn and free his dark-squared bishop. In this world class encounter it is White 's aggressive set up that prevails. Rublevsky - Lautier follows the same pattern of moves with the addition of 1 0 . . . g6 . The game drifts towards equality until 1 9 f5 is played to sharpen the position and in the end it all works out well for White. The introduction of 9 . . . a5, providing the option of . . . a5-a4, is seen in Rublevsky - Vajda as a way of keeping the bishop on a6 active after White has played b2-b3 to protect the c-pawn. White chooses his favourite 1 0 f4 which seems to lull the strong opponent into a false sense of security as 1 7 ltJd6+ proves a terrific coup de grace.
The early fianchetto with 9 . . . i.b7, in preparation for queens ide castling, is seen in Macieja - Steflitsch. White employs a line where Black is reduced to a cramped position and this works out in White's favour.
Mieses Variation : 8 ... i..a6
1 e4 e5 2 li:If3 li:Ic6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:Ixd4 li:If6 5 li:Ixc6 bxc6 6 e5 'i!le7 7 'it'e2 li:Id5 8 c4 i.a6
History
This variation has been known for ages and, for example, was employed as long ago as the Blackburne-Zukertort match in London 1 88 1 where it was played twice. However it failed to inspire any imitators and dropped out of fashion. It was not until the 1 970s, during a Scotch revival, that it picked up again and lines were further developed. It finally became a heavyweight defence in the 1 990s when chess stars such as Anand, Ivanchuk, Karpov, and Timman used it to good effect. Nowadays it is still one of the top defensive continuations for Black and its main lines have been heavily analysed.
24
Basic Plan for White
The line I advocate, 9 li:Id2, is a low maintenance idea for those with limited time for study. Though reliable it also contains its fair share of tricks and traps. The knight move adds extra protection to the c4 pawn in the hope that White can shut the enemy bishop on a6 out of the game.
Basic Plan for Black
The pin on the c4 pawn clears the path for queens ide castling while allowing the knight to remain in the centre and increase Black's options. If Black wants to ensure his light­ squared bishop gets back into the game then a future . . . d7-d5 is one possibility. Then again, it might be necessary to play . . . c6-c5 followed by dropping the bishop back to b7.
Najer - Sulskis Pardubice 2004
1 e4 e5 2 li:If3 li:Ic6 3 d4 exd4 4 li:Ixd4 li:If6 5 li:Ixc6 bxc6 6 e5 'i!le7 7 'it'e2 li:Id5 8 c4 i.a6 9 li:Id2
This is a relative side-line compared to the mass of analysis devoted to 9 b3 and to a lesser extent 9 g3 . I selected the knight move because it is easy to absorb the ideas and avoids the necessity of keeping up to date with every new game. Of course it does mean that White will have to contend with a middle game battle rather than trying to find a new idea on move 28 after a long line of theory comes to an end. Here are the main alternatives:
a) I looked at 9 b3 in depth but quickly concluded I would need to add another 30 pages to the book to satisfy myself that I had looked closely at all the various complicated suggestions. I also realised it would take the reader a lot longer to learn how to handle Black's numerous replies : 9 . . . gS ! ? (this was looked upon a s a sensation when Anand played it in his 1 995 World Championship match against Kasparov but the idea has caught on and an echo of it is revealed in the main game) 1 0 g3 Jig7 1 1 Jib2 0- 0-0 1 2 liJd2 ( 1 2 Jig2 l:r.he8 1 3 0-0 liJb6 14 %:.e 1 led to equal chances in Dunn-Mitchell, Coventry 200S) 12 . . . . liJb4 13 liJf3 cS 14 Jig2 l:r.he8
2S
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . Jia6
IS 0-0 Jib7 16 %:'fe l with a level position, Mueller-Volke, Kreuzberg 2004.
b) I wanted to recommend 9 g3 but the main line 9 . . . g6 1 0 b3 Jig7 1 1 Jib2 0-0 12 Jig2 l:r.ae8 1 3 0-0 JixeS 14 "xeS .xeS I S JixeS l:r.xeS 1 6 cxdS Jixfl 1 7 'iftxfl cxdS 1 8 liJc3
stops at this point and opinion is divided on who is better. Therefore I was reluctant to force readers to reel off 1 8 moves of theory while keeping a close watch on the latest developments via the internet ! Rublevsky-Tseshkovsky, Sochi 200S, continued 1 8 . . . c6 19 %:.d 1 l:r.fe8 20 JLf3 'iftf8 21 liJe2 'ifte7 22 %:.d4 'iftd6 23 l:r.a4 l:r.a8 24 %:.as 'iftc7 2S b4 with a doubled­ edged game although a draw was agreed 20 moves later.
9 .... 0-0-0
Black moves his king out of the way so he can bring the queen's rook into play.
Also possible are:
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . iLa6
al) 10 liJf3 fxe5 1 1 'it'xe5 'ii'xe5+ 12 liJxe5 liJf6 1 3 iLd3 with a level ending;
a2) 1 0 exf6 liJxf6 1 1 b3 0-0-0 1 2 iLb2 l:Ie8 1 3 'ii'xe7 lhe7+ 14 iLe2 l:Ie6 15 a3 iLc5 16 fl l:Ihe8 1 7 iLf3 led to equal opportunities in Makropoulou­ Zlatanova, Athens 1 992.
a3) 1 0 'ii'e4 liJb6 1 1 exf6 'it'xe4+ 1 2 lDxe4 iLxc4 1 3 iLxc4 liJxc4 14 b3 liJd6 th-th Sax-Ivkov, Novi Sad 1 976.
b) 9 . . . liJf4 and now:
1 0 'it'e4 liJg6 1 1 f4 (the advantage of having the queen on e4 is that a quick . . . d7-d6 is ruled out because then the c6 pawn would be loose) 1 1 . . .0-0-0 12 g3 d5 1 3 cxd5 iLxfl 1 4 d6! 'ii'd7 1 5 dxc7 xc7 1 6 xfl 'ii'h3+ 1 7 e2 with the better chances, Alburt-Radashkovich, Dubna 1 970.
10 'ii'e3 liJg6 1 1 f4 d6 12 g3 'it'e6 1 3 iLg2 liJe7 1 4 0-0 d5 1 5 'ii'£2 led to the advantage in Vajda­ Holzmann, Balatonbereny 1 996.
26
The alternatives 9 . . . liJb4, 9 . . . . g6 and 9 . . . liJb6 are discussed later in the chapter.
10 b3
White prepares a queens ide fianchetto to help support the c4 pawn and bring a bishop to b2 in order to defend e5 . White has various alternatives:
a) 10 liJf3 when Black may try:
a l ) 1 0 . . . l:.e8 1 1 'it'c2 liJb6 ( 1 1 . . .liJb4? ! allows White to seize the initiative by 1 2 'ii'a4 iLb7 1 3 a3 liJa6 14 c5 ! ) 1 2 iLe2 f6 1 3 0-0 fxe5 1 4 iLe3 c5 1 5 b4 led to double­ edged play in Oll-San Claudio Gonzalez, Oviedo 1 99 1 .
a2) 1 0 . . . f6 1 1 'ii'c2 liJb6 1 2 iLd3 fxe5 1 3 0-O h6 14 l:1e l g5 ( 1 4 . . . d6 is met by 15 c5 ! iLxd3 16 'it'xd3 favouring White) 1 5 l:Ixe5 'it'g7 1 6 l:.a5 .i.b7 1 7 iLd2 gave White a clear advantage in Vukovic­ Todorovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 998.
b) 10 'ii'e4 to avoid the pin is a decent possibility: 1 O . . . liJb6 1 1 c5 iLxfl 1 2 cxb6 iLa6 1 3 bxa7 b7 and now:
b l ) 14 b3 f6 1 5 llJc4 .i.xc4 ( I S . . . dS ! 1 6 llJaS+ 'iti>a8 1 7 'it'e3 'it'e6 is slightly better for Black because the white king is stuck in the middle of the board) 1 6 bxc4 'it'xeS 1 7 'it'xeS fxeS 1 8 .i.e3 cS with an equal positIOn, Hitech­ Krabbe, Man v Machine, The Hague 1 994.
b2) 14 llJb3 'it'b4+ 1 5 'ii'xb4+ .i.xb4+ 1 6 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 1 7 'iti>xd2 d6 (Black rightly guards the cS square while preparing to shed the problem of his doubled c-pawns) 1 8 exd6 (or 1 8 f4 dxeS+ 1 9 'iti>e3 l:r.he8 is level) 1 8 . . . cxd6 1 9 l:r.hel l:r.d7 20 l:r.ac1 with equal chances, Trescher­ Dijckmans, Dresden 2000.
10 ••• g5? !
The pawn lunge i s well motivated to stop f2-f4 and its origin, from a Kasparov-Anand game, can be traced by looking at the note to White 's ninth move. The line with 1 0 . . . f6 is critical because it forces an ending where White has to rely on his better co-ordinated pieces to seek an advantage. After 1 1 .i.b2 fxeS 1 2 0-0-0 llJf6 1 3 'it'xeS 'it'xeS 14 .i.xeS llJg4 White can try:
27
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . .i.a6
a) 1 5 .i.g3 .i.a3+ 16 'iti>c2 .:thf8 1 7 llJf3 .i.cs 1 8 .:td2 dS (White has prevented all the tactics so now the task is to use the bishop on a6) 1 9 .i.h4 (I prefer 1 9 .i.d3 !? to try and keep the bishop on a6 out of the action) 1 9 . . . llJf6 ( 1 9 . . . dxc4 20 bxc4 with the better chances for White) 20 cxdS .i.xfl 2 1 l:r.xfl cxdS 22 .:tfdl c6 23 llJeS with a level position, Amonatov-Kuznetsov, Voronezh 2003 .
b) 1 5 .i.d4 cS ! (the bishop cannot go back to b2 because of the threat against f2) 1 6 .i.e2 cxd4 1 7 .i.xg4 .i.b7 1 8 .i.f3 l:r.e8 1 9 .i.xb7+ 'iti>xb7 20 llJf3 cS 2 1 .:the 1 led to equal chances in Sulskis-Hemandez, Yucatan 2004.
11 .i.b2 .i.g7 12 0-0-0
Najer tucks his king away and brings the rook into play.
12 ••• .:the8
Not 1 2 . . . d6 because then 1 3 'it'g4+ breaks the pin and enables cxdS.
13 h4!
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . 1.a6
White wants to undennine the kingside and open the g-file so he can break the pin on the c4 pawn by advantageously moving the queen.
13 •••• gxh4?!
Or 1 3 . . . h6 1 4 hxg5 hxg5 1 5 'ii' g4 lLlf4 1 6 lLlf3 with the better chances because the g-pawn is vulnerable.
14 'ii'g4 f5
The only move because the knight on d5 and the bishop on g7 are under attack.
15 'ii'd4 lLlb4
If 1 5 . . . lLlb6 1 6 lLlf3 d6 1 7 1.d3 continues to be in White's favour.
16 'ii'xa7 1.b7 17 a3 lLla6 18 b4
Maybe 1 8 lLlf3 to secure the e5 pawn will halt any hint of counterplay and allow White to make progress on the queenside.
18 ••• c5 19 lLlb3 1.xe5 20 b5 'ii'f6
The retreat 2o . . . lLlb8 allows 21 lLlxc5 when 2 l . . .1.e4 22 lLlxe4 1.xb2+ 23 'iftxb2 'ii'xe4 24 'ii'd4 gives White the advantage.
21 1.xe5 'ii'xe5 22 l:th3 lLlb8
Or 22 . . . 'ii'f4+ 23 'iftbl 1.e4+ 24 'iftal lLlb8 25 f3 1.c2 26 lLlxc5 wins.
23 'ii'xc5 'ii'f4+
23 . . . 'ii'xc5 24 lLlxc5 1.a8 25 l:txh4 leads to a superior ending.
24 'iftb2 l:te5 25 'ii'd4 l:te4 26 'ii'a7 l:tde8?
28
27 lLla5!
White has calculated that he has nothing to fear from a few hannless checks and goes for the attack.
27 ••• J%e2+ 28 b3 1.xg2
28 . . . 'ii'e4 is met by 29 1.xe2 winning.
29 1.xg2 'ii'xfl 30 1.b7+ 1-0
One way to try and exploit the knight being on d2 is to target the c2 square by 9 . . . lLlb4.
Arkhipov - Lukjanenko Voronezh 1 997
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 exd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlxc6 bxc6 6 e5 'ii'e7 7 'ii'e2 lLld5 8 c4 1.a6 9 lLld2 lLlb4
The knight targets the temporarily vulnerable c2 square to make the most of the knight being developed to d2.
10 lbo c5
Black provides a square for the knight to retreat. Black attempts to exploit the pin on the fl -a6 diagonal with l O . . . d5 and after 1 1 a3 ! i.xc4 1 2 'it'd 1 i.xfl 1 3 xfl lba6 14 'it'a4 lbb8 1 5 i.g5 Black can try:
a) 1 5 . . . 'it'd7? 16 e6 ! (a great trick which swings the game hugely in White's favour) 1 6 . . . fxe6 1 7 llle5 1 -0 H.Janssen-Euwe, Amsterdam 1 979. The idea is 1 7 . . . 'ii'd6 1 8 'ii'f4 i.e7 1 9 'ii'f7+ 'iii>d8 20 'it'xg7 winning. However, I should point out that the former world champion playing Black was very elderly at the time !
b) 1 5 . . . 'ii'e6 ! 1 6 .l:.c 1 i.e7 ! ( 1 6 . . . h6 ! ? 1 7 i.h4 i.e7 1 8 lbd4 'ii'd7 1 9 e6 fxe6 20 lbxe6 g5 2 1 .l:.e l 1 -0 Tatai-Adorjan, Amsterdam 1 977) 1 7 lbd4 'it'd7
b 1) 1 8 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 1 9 lbxc6 ( 1 9 e6? ! 0-0 is better for Black) 1 9 . . . 'ii'd7 20 'ii'c2 lbxc6 2 1 'ii'xc6
29
'ii'xc6 22 .l:.xc6 'iii>d7 23 .l:.c5 is equal.
b2) 1 8 h4 0-0 1 9 .l:.h3 .l:.e8 20 i.xe7 .l:.xe7 (20 . . . 'it'xe7 ! ? 2 1 lbxc6 lbxc6 22 'it'xc6 .l:.ad8 is level) 2 1 'ii'b4 with an edge, Strikovic-Voiska, Zaragoza 1 993 .
b3) 1 8 e6 fxe6 1 9 i.xe7 xe7 ! ( 1 9 . . . 'ii'xe7? allows 20 lbxe6 ! with advantage) 20 'iib4+ (20 lbxe6? is useless upon 20 . . . xe6) 20 . . . 'ii'd6 2 1 'iib7 lbd7 22 .l:.xc6 .l:.hb 8 ! 2 3 'ii'a6 'it'f4! 24 lbe2 'iWd2 2 5 g3 .l:.b6 gave Black all the chances in Tseitlin-Mikhalevski, Beersheba 1 997.
11 a3 lbc6 12 i.d2
White is keeping his options open by preparing i.c3 to protect the e-pawn, queenside castling or the adventurous b2-b4.
12 ••• 0-0-0?!
Black follows the standard idea of castling queenside quickly but this allows White to stage an attack. Instead 1 2 . . . 'it'e6 is a sterner test:
a) 1 3 0-0-0 i.e7 14 'it'e4 i.b7 1 5 i.c3 lba5 1 6 'ii'f4 lbb3+ 1 7 'iii>c2
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . i.a6
.l:r.b8 18 i.d3 ( 1 8 xb3?? fails spectacularly to 1 8 . . . i.xf3+) l 8 . . . g6 19 h4 led to roughly equal chances in Peters-Sanga, Internet 2004.
b) 1 3 i.c3 i.e7 14 0-0-0 f6 (or 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 h4 ! ':ae8 1 6 'iie4 intending i.d3 with decent chances but perhaps 14 . . . :tb8 needs to be thought about) 1 5 exf6 'iixe2 1 6 f7 + xf7 1 7 i.xe2 :ad8 1 8 i.d3 with the superior ending, Svidler­ Yemelin, St Petersburg 1 995 .
13 b4
The pawn advance sparks an aggressive attack on the queenside. Instead 1 3 i.c3 allows 1 3 . . . d5 ! to equalise after 14 exd6 ':xd6 ! 1 5 'iixe7 he7 1 6 i.e2, Oll-Kalinin, USSR 1 986. However 1 3 0-0-0 is certainly worth taking seriously: 13 . . . :te8 ( 1 3 . . . h6 14 i.c3 'ife6 1 5 h4 g6 1 6 'iie3 b8 1 7 'iif4 when White is on tp due to his space advantage) 14 'ifd3 ltJxe5 1 5 ttlxe5 'iixe5 1 6 :te l 'iixe 1 + 1 7 i.xe 1 ':xe 1 + 1 8 d2 with a material advantage and the white queen able to accelerate the attacking chances.
13 ••• i.b7
30
The pawn is taboo because 13 . . . cxb4? invites complications that benefit White: 14 axb4 ttlxb4 1 5 :ta4 ! c5 1 6 i.xb4 cxb4 1 7 ':xa6 winning.
14 :tbl d6? !
Black wants to take out the stronghold represented by the e5 pawn but this works out poorly.
15 exd6 ':xd6
Instead 1 5 . . . cxd6 16 i.e3 'iif6 1 7 'ifc2 intending to develop the light-squared bishop followed by castling kingside
16 bxc5 ':e6 17 i.e3
White blocks the e-file and protects the c5 pawn.
17 .•. 'iff6 18 ttlg5
18 •.• :txe3 !?
Black spots a chance to try and bamboozle White by giving l!P the exchange. Or l 8 . . . :te7 1 9 'Wg4+ b8 20 ttle4 'iie5 21 ttld2 with the better prospects.
19 'iixe3 i.xc5 20 ttle4
Arkhipov is happy to head for the ending thanks to his material advantage.
20 ... i.xe3 21lZ:lxf6 i.b6
Instead 2l . . .i.xf2+ 22 'ifi>xf2 gxf6 23 i.d3 is bleak for Black.
22 lZ:ld5 1:.e8+ 23 'ifi>dl i.a5 24 i.d3 lZ:ld4 25 'ifi>el
White has to indulge in some manoeuvring before trying to convert his material advantage and the first stage is to co-ordinate the rooks.
25 ••. i.e6 26 'ifi>b2 'ifi>d7 27 lZ:lb4 i.a4 28 e5 l:te5 29 l:tbel e6 30 1:.he1 1:.h5 31 1:.e4lZ:lb3
321:.dl
White has a definite advantage but misses a clear route to victory: 32 i.e2! l:.xh2 (32 ... lZ:lxc l 33 i.xh5 lZ:lb3 34 i.g4+ 'ifi>d8 3 5 lZ:ld3 revealing an attack against the bishop on a4) 33 1:.dl + (now Black cannot avoid mate) 33 . . . 'ifi>c7 34 1:.e7+ 'ifi>c8 35 l:te8+ 'ifi>c7 36 lZ:la6+ 'ifi>b7 37 l:tb8 mate.
3 1
The game concluded:
32 .•. lZ:lxe5 33 i.e2+ 'ifi>e7 34 l:te7+ 'ifi>b6 35 l:txti g6 36 h3 i.b5 37 l:td8 lZ:le6 38 l:tb8+ 'ifi>e5 39 i.d3 i.e7 40 l:te8 i.e5+ 41 'ifi>a2
lZ:ld4 42 i.xb5 'ifi>xb5 43 l:tb7+ 'ifi>e5 44 l:txa7 l:tf5 45 1'3 h5 46 l:te7 'ifi>d6 47 l:tee8 i.f6 48 l:tfS e5 49 lZ:ld3
lZ:le6 50 l:tti h4 51 'ifi>b3 lZ:lg5 52 l:.a7lZ:le6 53 'ifi>e4 i.d4 54 l:.b8 'ifi>e6 55 1:.a5 'ifi>e7 56 l:te8 lZ:lfS 57 l:te7+ 'ifi>d8 58 l:taa7 i.gl 59 1:.g7 1-0
In the next game Black attempts to undermine the e5 pawn with a quick kingside fianchetto:
Van Wessel - Jonkman Amsterdam 2002
1 e4 e5 2 lZ:l1'3 lZ:le6 3 d4 exd4 4 lZ:lxd4 lZ:lf6 5 lZ:lxe6 bxe6 6 e5 'ike7 7 'ike2 lZ:ld5 8 e4 i.a6 9 lZ:ld2 g6
The kingside fianchetto is played to enable Black to exert pressure on the e5 pawn.
10 b3 i.g7 11 i.b2
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . i.a6
It is worth pointing out that this position can also be reached via a different move order.
1l .•. lLlb4!
Black reacts sharply by threatening . . . lLlc2+ to make the most of the white knight being on d2.
12 lLln cS
This is simply to make room for a knight retreat to c6.
13 g3 0-0 14 i.g2
14 ... dS
This is consistent with Black's odd-looking piece formation because it makes use of the bishop on a6. Black can also try:
a) 14 . . . Jbe8 1 5 0-0 d6 1 6 lLle l (the threat is a2-a3 when Black will have no escape square) 1 6 .. :ii'd7 1 7 'ii'd2 ( 1 7 f4 ! ? looks like a decent alternative) 1 7 . . . i.xe5 1 8 i.xe5 lIxe5 19 a3 lLlc6 20 lLld3 lIe7 2 1 lLlf4 (2 1 lLlxc5 dxc5 22 'ii'xd7 lIxd7 23 i.xc6 lId3 24 i.a4 is also worth considering) 2 l . . .lLld4 22 'ii'a5 with
32
equal chances, Hjartarson-Portisch, Reykjavik 1 99 1 .
b) 14 . . . i.b7 1 5 0-0 lIae8 1 6 'ii'd2 'ii'd8 1 7 lIfe l lIe7 1 8 a3 gave White an edge because he can endeavour to defend the e-pawn by doubling rooks on the e-file, Karpov­ Kolosowski, Koszalin simu1 1 998.
IS 0-0
IS ... lIad8
Jonkman takes his queen's rook off the h 1 -a8 diagonal and supports the d-pawn. In the game Sveshnikov-Kharitonov, Leningrad 1 99 1 , Black released the tension in the centre which made things easier for White: 1 5 . . . dxc4 1 6 bxc4 lIad8 1 7 lIfd l 'ii'e6 1 8 i.f1 i.b7 ( 1 8 . . . lIxdl 1 9 lIxd l lLlxa2 20 lLlg5 ! ? 'ii'e7 21 f4 lLlb4 22 lLle4 i.b7 23 i.g2 offers equal chances) 1 9 lLlg5 'ii'f5 20 f4 h6 21 lLlf3 g5 22 a3 (22 i.g2 is worth investigating in view of 22 . . . gxf4 23 lLlh4 lIxd 1 + 24 lIxd 1 f3 25 lLlxf3 is better for White) 22 . . . lLlc2 23 lIxd8 lIxd8 24 lIc1 lLld4 25 lLlxd4 cxd4 26 lIdl gxf4 27 lIxd4 led to equal chances.
16 a3 !?
The knight is pushed away from the b4 outpost. Just one good reason to play this is to side-step the established theory that belongs to
1 6 :fd l .
a) 1 6 . . .l:tfe8 when play might continue:
a 1 ) 1 7 lLlel dxc4 ( 1 7 . . . 'ii'd7? 1 8 a3 lLlc6 19 :XdS with a clear advantage, Collas-Sanchez Aller, Lisbon 200 1 ) 1 8 bxc4 lhd1 1 9 ':xd1 i.xeS 20 i.xeS 'ii'xeS 2 1 'ii'xeS :XeS 22 a3 i.xc4 23 axb4 cxb4 24 f4 with a tricky ending because although Black has three pawns for the piece it will take time to advance all of them, Schaper­ Johansson, Internet 1 998.
a2) 17 a3 lLlc6 18 'ili'c2 ( 1 8 :leI should be considered) 1 8 . . . d4 ! (Black opens the h 1 -a8 diagonal in order to bring his light-squared bishop back into the game) 1 9 :tel 'ii'd7 20 b4 lLlxeS 2 1 bS i.c8 22 lLlxeS :XeS 23 :lxeS i.xeS gave Black winning chances thanks to his extra pawn in Svidler-Adams, Ti1burg 1 997 .
33
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . i.a6
b) 16 . . . lLlc6 1 7 :lac 1 ':fe8 18 ':e1 dxc4 19 bxc4 lLlb4 20 :tc3 ! ? (an enterprising sacrifice hoping for active play as compensation for the pawn) 20 . . . lLlxa2 2 1 :la3 lLlb4 22 i.h3 i.b7 23 :Xa7 i.xf3 24 'ii'xf3 lLld3 2S :te2 i.xeS (Black has an extra pawn but it is difficult to make use of it due to White's active pieces) 26 i.c3 'ii'd6 27 i.aS 'ii'f6 28 'ii'xf6 i.xf6 29 l:.xe8+ :Xe8 30 i.fl lLlel 3 1 :Xc7 i.d4 32 i.xe 1 :lxe 1 33 :la7 Ih-Ih Tiviakov­ Kuzmin, Doha 2002.
16 ••• lLlc6 17 :lfet
Van Wessel is content just to defend the e-pawn and make room on fl for a bishop to cover the c4 pawn if necessary.
17 ••• :tfe8 18 'ii'c2 d4 19 lLld2
White can get away with this manoeuvre because 1 9 . . . lLlxeS runs into 20 f4 exploiting the pin.
19 • • • :i'e6 20 f4
A key idea in this line is to support the advanced e-pawn, while the traditional break . . . f7-f6 is currently ruled out due to the threat of .tdS .
20 ••• lLle7 21 lLle4 'i'b6 22 bl
A cautious move to get away from any irritating checks on the g l -a7 diagonal if he can fmd the right time to play b3-b4. I would prefer 22 :tab 1 , intending 'ili'd3 to block the d-pawn, c 1 and eventually b3-b4.
22 •••• lLlfS 23 'ili'd3 lLle3 24 i.o i.b7 25 i.c1 lLlfS?!
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . i..a6
The Dutch grandmaster makes it easier for White by retreating. A sterner test is 25 . . . f6 ! when 26 exf6 i..xe4 27 i..xe4 i..xf6 offers equal chances.
26 i..d2 a5 27 :tab 1
The fight is on to force through b3-b4.
27 ..... a7 28 gl :tb8 29 g4!
Now that the black queen has taken up residence far away on a7 the time is right to pursue his kings ide ambitions.
29 ••• tt)e7
After 29 . . . tt)h4 the reason for the king moving again is revealed because 30 i..hl leaves the knight on the side of the board somewhat stranded.
30 tt)f6+ h8
Or 30 . . . i..xf6 3 1 exf6 tt)c6 32 i..d5 intending "d3-h3-h6 with a big advantage.
3 1 tt)xe8 ':xe8 32 :te2
White has extra material and can now look for a decisive
34
breakthrough.
32 ••• tt)c6 33 ':be1 i..f8 34 i..d5 tt)d8 35 i..xb7 tt)xb7 36 e6
A ploy to allow the rooks to infiltrate Black's position which if ignored will grant White a very strong passed pawn.
36 ... f6 37 f5 g5 38 e7 i..g7 39 "0 a4 40 'iVc6 tt)d6 41 l:.e6 'ifb8 42 i..a5 1-0
If the knight retreats with 9 . . . tt)b6 White can enjoy a space advantage and seek to rapidly develop his pieces:
Langer - Molina Tulsa 2004
1 e4 e5 2 tt)0 tt)c6 3 d4 exd4 4 tt)xd4 tt)f6 5 tt)xc6 bxc6 6 e5 'iVe7 7 'iVe2 tt)d5 8 c4 i..a6 9 tt)d2 tt)b6!?
The knight retreats to increase pressure against the c4 pawn. This is only occasionally played because with a bishop on a6 it is deemed rather passive.
10 b3 0-0-0 11 i..b2
11 ••• b8!?
A careful move which is designed to wait and see what White is planning.
Other moves:
a) 1 l . . .:le8 1 2 0-0-0 dS 13 'ifg4+ b8 14 cxdS ( 14 'iff4!? maintains White's space advantage) 14 . . . .i.c8 I S d6 cxd6 16 exd6 .i.xg4 17 dxe7 :lxe7 1 8 f3 .i.fS 1 9 g4 .i.c8 20 lLlc4 f6 2 1 h4 h6 22 .i.d4 gave White the advantage in Meu1ders-Rivas Pastor, Marbella 1 982.
b) 1 l . . . g6 1 2 0-0-0 .i.g7 13 f4 and now:
b 1 ) 1 3 . . . dS 14 'ire3 dxc4 I S .i.xc4 .i.xc4 16 lLlxc4 liJxc4 1 7 bxc4 <;t>b7 1 8 'iVb3+ a8 1 9 .i.d4 l:tb8 20 'if a4 l:tb7 2 1 :ld3 (or 2 1 'irxc6 'ifa3+ 22 <;t>d2 'irxa2+ 23 <;t>e3 is much better for White despite his king going for a walk) 2 1 . . . 'ife6 22 :lhd1 :lc8 23 :lb3 l::tcb8? 24 .i.xa7 ! 1 -0 Harding-Shivodov, Corr 1 978.
b2) 13 . . . :lhe8 14 'iff2 d6 ( 14 . . . .i.b7 is a suggestion by Keres presumably to avoid the forthcoming positional crisis but
3S
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . .i.a6
Black will nevertheless remain passive) I S cS ! .i.xfl 16 'ifxfl dxcS 17 'ira6+ b8 18 lLlc4 gave White the better chances because the triple c-pawns are weak, Pinkas-Pioch, Gdynia 1 973 .
c) l l . . .dS 1 2 exd6 ( 1 2 'ife3 is encouraging in view of 1 2 . . . dxc4 1 3 :lc 1 with the advantage) 1 2 . . . 'ifxe2+ 1 3 .i.xe2 cxd6 14 0-0-0 with a level position, Vukovic­ Bellia, Porto San Giorgio 1 996.
12 0-0-0 .i.b7? !
A passive response designed to activate the bishop by . . . c6-cS .
13 f4
White can carry on with the usual tasks of supporting the e-pawn while Black is suffering from passivity.
13 •.• d5 14 exd6 'ifxd6
Black has managed to free his pieces at the cost of having to put up with weak doubled c-pawns. If 14 . . . 'ifxe2 then I S dxc7+ <;t>xc7 16 .i.xe2 wins a pawn.
15 g3 c5
Mieses Variation: 8 . . . i.a6
Black frees his light-squared bishop but White still dominates the position.
16 i.g2 i.xg2 17 'ii'xg2 'ifg6 18 lLlf3 i.d6
If 1 8 . . . i.e7 then 1 9 lLle5, heading for the c6 square, is lethal.
19 l:.d2 f6 20 lLlh4 'ii'h5 21 'ii'e2 'ii'ti
The ending with 2 l . . .'ii'xe2 is in White 's favour because Black's terrible pawn structure is a long­ term worry. For instance: 22 l:.xe2 nhe8 23 %:thel l:.xe2 24 l:.xe2 with the better position.
22 lLlf5 l:.he8 23 'iff3 i.f8
Black is hoping exchanges will lessen the attack but it is a difficult task.
24 l:.xd8+ nxd8 25 lLle3 l:.d7 26 l:.el f5?
Or 26 . . . i.d6 when 27 lLlf5 keeps White on top.
27 lLlxf5! 'ii'xfS 28 ne8+ lLlc8
29 ':xc8+!
29 .•• xc8 30 'ifa8 mate
Conclusion
The Mieses Variation with 8 . . . i.a6 is a stout defence and 9 lLld2 is designed to avoid a hefty amount of theory yet still emerge from the opening with decent opportunities.
Najer - Sulskis examines 9 . . . 0-0-0 which is recommended in various sources such as Nunn s Chess Openings so White needs to be prepared. This top level encounter sways in favour of White but is admittedly helped by the rash 1 0 . . . g5 which weakens the black kingside. In the game Arkhipov - Lukjanenko Black tries 9 . . . lLlb4 in order to gain time by exploiting the fact that the knight is on d2 and it should have offered good chances of equality had he not prematurely castled queenside. Van Wessel - Jonkman considers the sequence 9 . . . g6 coupled with . . . lLlh4 and this is a critical line. It is worth following the example with 1 6 a3 which is slightly different from the established line and looks promising. What do when Black plays passively is revealed in Langer - Molina where 9 . . . lLlb6 is a quiet continuation. White finds it easier to improve his pieces by using his space advantage and manages to find a clever mating combination.
Scotch Four Knights
1 e4 e5 2 liJo liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3
History
This positional line came to prominence in the first official World Championship match in 1 886. The eventual winner Wilhelm Steinitz ( 1 836- 1 900) played it against Johannes Hermann Zukertort ( 1 842-88), which naturally spread the word. It was somewhat different from the usual swashbuckling King's Gambit, popular at the time, and attracted those who had a feel for such a modem opening. Perhaps this is why Aron Nimzowitsch ( 1 886- 1 935) practised it, successfully, for some time. This added to the line's status because Nimzo was a world
37
class player and is still fondly remembered today through the pages of his classic work My System. The variation undoubtedly has a fine pedigree and in fact has always been highly regarded. However by the 1 950s top players were finding it hard to achieve anything more than a draw in this solid variation and devoted less time to it - although even in the 1 970s it still had its supporters, e .g . Kuraj ica and Radulov. But then came a new lease of life in the 90s after the Scotch revival inspired by Kasparov and a re-examination of various older lines in an attempt to discover ways of breathing new life into the opening. This had the desired result and attracted grandmasters such as Hector, Nunn, Salov and Spassky who in tum inspired a new generation of club players to take up the line. Nowadays, it is still a regular guest at the highest level and has been employed recently by the young American champion Nakamura.
Basic Plan for White
The idea is to develop the kingside rapidly and postpone any confrontation until the middlegame. In the main line the knights settle on
Scotch Four Knights
c3 and f3, a bishop is posted on d3 and then comes kingside castling. Of course the reason for the line's enduring popularity is that it is easy to play and there are a few tactical tricks for Black to watch out for in all variations. Thus it is ideal for those who want to play something sound in the opening yet have possibilities of a kingside attack.
Basic Plan for Black
The main line has been fairly well worked out for the first ten moves so these should be navigated comfortably. It is then a matter of understanding the ideas behind White 's manoeuvres which at times can be quite subtle. Therefore Black should take a little time to study the various lines and get to grips with them. Then a well prepared player will be able to find a route to equality and thereafter it is a matter of dealing with the middlegame battle.
I have noticed a trend among strong players to avoid the main lines when facing the Scotch because of the general feeling that White 's solid opening is difficult to
break down. Therefore I have made a point of discussing a few early deviations:
Senff - Reeh German Team Championship 2004
1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 exd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 c5
38
This is a good example of Black endeavouring to avoid the main lines and trying to make White think for himself right from the early stages. This ploy can work so it is best to have something ready against it. 5 . . . b4 is the main continuation discussed at length in the rest of the chapter, while 5 . . . g6 should be met by 6 iLe3 with similar play to the 4 . . . g6 line in the Other Black Defences chapter. Finally, 5 . . . lLlxe4 is examined in the next main game.
6 lLlxc6
I think this is the easiest way to handle the opening. Also possible is 6 e3 iLb6 and now:
a) 7 lLlxc6 bxc6 8 e5 :
al ) 8 . . . lLlg8? ! 9 'ii'g4 'it>f8 10 'iif4 xe3 1 1 'iixe3 lLlh6 12 0-0-0 with the advantage because Black will have trouble because of his poorly placed king, Gluzman-Smirnov, Canberra 200 1 .
a2) 8 . . . xe3 is a sterner test when Smerdon-Mastrovasilis, Goa 2002, continued 9 fxe3 lLld5 10 lLlxd5 cxd5 1 1 'iixd5 'iih4+ 1 2 <;Iidl %:tb8 1 3 'iid4 :b4 14 'iic5 :xb2 1 5 iLc4
'ifh5+ 1 6 'it>d2 when White 's king is relatively safe and his compensation lies in Black's problems with castling.
b) 7 g3 ! ? is unusual but at the time I was in the mood to experiment: 7 . . . 0-0 8 i.g2 d6 9 h3 (I wanted to stop Black activating his bishop via g4) 9 .. .lle8 1 0 0-0 i.d7 I I .!:tel led to equal chances in Lane-Hebden, London 1 994.
6 .•. bxc6 7 i.d3 d6
7 . . . d5 slightly favours White because the position will be similar to the main line but with the bishop on c5 there is no pressure on White 's queen's knight. For instance: 8 0-0 0-0 9 i.g5 i.e7 1 0 lit e 1 ':b8 I I litb 1 with a slight edge, Santo Roman-Lana Prieto, Candas 1 992.
8 0-0 lZ:lg4
An aggressive idea making way for the queen to join in the kingside attack. Instead 8 . . . lZ:ld7 has been tried with the same theme: 9 i.e2 0-0 1 0 lZ:la4 ! (the dark-squared bishop is the key to Black's success so preparations to exchange it have started) 1 0 . . . i.b6 1 1 b3 'ii'h4
39
Scotch Four Knights
1 2 lZ:lxb6 axb6 1 3 f3 i.a6 14 c4 (White shuts out the bishop on a6 from the action) 14 . . . c5 1 5 i.b2 and the bishop on the a I -h8 diagonal gave White the superior chances, Miles-Hebden, London 1 994.
9 h3 !?
The game Miles-Sorin, Matanzas 1 995 deals with 9 i.f4, primarily designed to defend h2, and is certainly impressive. However, I couldn't help wonder why Black still plays this line until I found a serious improvement: 9 . . . g5 ! ? (It is rather unusual for Black to start attacking so early in the Scotch, especially after only 9 moves, but the idea is to unsettle White and provoke a mistake. However Black needs to be less robust in the opening and try 9 . . . 'iff6 ! ? when 1 0 'ifd2 0-0 1 1 h3 lZ:le5 1 2 lZ:la4 offers roughly equal chances) 10 i.d2 (The bishop retreats so it can keep an eye on the weakened g-pawn. Instead 1 0 i.g3? ! allows Black to create an initiative upon 1 0 . . . h5 1 1 h3 h4 1 2 i.h2 lZ:lxh2 1 3 'it>xh2 g4! ) 10 . . . 'iff6 1 1 'ife2 (the f2 pawn is protected with White aiming to consolidate before trying to undermine Black's position) 1 l . . .'ife5 (or 1 1 . . :ifh6!? 12 h3 lZ:le5 13 lZ:la4 .id4 14 c3 with a slight edge) 12 g3 and now instead of 1 2 . . . 'ii'e6 13 lZ:la4 ! as played in the game I think Black can improve with 12 . . . h5 ! when a sample line runs 1 3 lZ:la4 lZ:lxh2 ! 1 4 xh2 h4 1 5 lZ:lxc5 ( 1 5 g2 i.h3+! 1 6 'it>xh3 hxg3+ 1 7 'it>g2 l:nl2+ 1 8 'it>gl gxf2+ 1 9 ':xf2 'ifg3+ 20 'it>fl .!:thl mate) 1 5 . . . hxg3+ 1 6 'it>g2 .!:th2+ 1 7 'it>gl i.h3 winning.
9 ... lZ:le5 10 i.e2
Scotch Four Knights
The bishop drops back with the aim of playing lba4 to capture the bishop, followed by f2-f4 dislodging the knight from its central square. 1 0 lba4, intending to exchange the dark-squared bishop as soon as possible, is also a sound option: 1 0 . . . b6 1 1 lbxb6 axb6 12 f4 ( 1 2 d2 0-0 l 3 c3 lbxd3 14 'it'xd3 'iWh4 1 5 1:.fe l with a level position, Volzhin-Hebden, Hastings 1 993) 1 2 . . . lbxd3 l 3 'it'xd3 a6 14 c4 led to roughly equal chances in Seger-Pirrot, Saarbruecken 2002 .
10 ••• g5? !
An understandable reaction to White's plan but it does voluntarily concede a long-term weakness on the kingside. 1 0 . . . a6, to give the bishop a chance to avoid exchange, is reasonable when 1 1 'it'h2 aiming to play f2-f4 maintains the tension.
11 lba4 b6 12 lbxb6 axb6 13 f4
Senff keeps faith with his opening plan in the knowledge that the semi­ open Hile will present him with attacking chances.
13 ••• gxf4 14 xf4 e6 15 'ii'd2 1:.g8 16 'it'c3
40
The queen defends against the threat of . . . xh3 and also puts pressure on the c6 pawn.
16 ••• c5 17 b5+ c6
Or 1 7 . . . d7 1 8 xd7+ lbxd7 1 9 'it'f3 (threatening xd6 followed by 'ii'xf7+) 1 9 . . . :g7 20 1:.adl when the plan of e4-e5 gives White the better chances.
18 xe5 cxb5 19 f6
The good thing for White is that Black will have problems creating harmony for his pieces because . . . 'it'd7 is needed to connect his rooks.
19 ••• 'ii'd7 20 1:.0 b4 21 'ii'e3 :g6 22 :dl
22 ••• 'it'c6
Although 22 . . . 1:.xa2 has the merit of winning a pawn, with the rook away from defensive duties White can crank up the pressure by 23 'it'f4! when 23 . . . xh3 is well met by 24 :fd3 ! :xg2+ 25 'it'hl with a clear advantage.
23 'ii'f4 c4
If Black counters the threat with 23 . . . d5 then 24 exd5 helps to open the central lines and promote the onslaught after 24 . . . xd5 25 'ilVe5+ e6 26 g5 after which 'iVh8+ is a worry for Black and 26 . . J:tg8 27 l::tfd3 wins.
24 l::tg3
The d-pawn can be taken at White 's leisure so he endeavours to increase his advantage by exchanging another defender. Instead 24 l::txd6 l::txf6 25 l::txc6 l::txf4 26 l::txf4 l::txa2 27 l::txb6 100ks like a good endgame but White prefers to keep his attacking options open by preserving his queen.
24 ... l::txg3 25 'ilVxg3 'ifi1d7
Reeh hopes to walk the king to safety but it is too late.
26 e5 'ilVc5+ 27 'ifi1h2 'ifi1c6
Of course 27 . . . 'ii'xe5 hardly helps due to 28 'ii'xe5 when the d-pawn is pinned.
28 l::txd6+ 'ifi1b5 29 d4 'ii'h5 30 l::txb6+ 1-0
41
Scotch Four Knights
The next twist in the opening is a surprise weapon for Black because if White is not prepared it can consume a lot of time trying to work out the best response . Therefore the following game should make things clearer:
Goldgewicht - Daces Orange 1 994
1 e4 e5 2 liJt3 liJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 liJxe4 !?
The first time you see this at the board there is the inclination to ask your opponent if he wants to take the move back and play something else. In fact Black can win his piece back at once - admittedly at the cost of weakening his queenside.
6 liJxe4 'ii'e7 7 t3
A precise way of handling the position which has taken some of the excitement out of the variation for Black. In the game Baum­ Kotan, Bad Ragaz 1 993, White tried 7 'ii'd3 but could not secure an advantage after 7 . . . d5 8 liJxc6 bxc6 9 g5 f6 10 0-0-0 ( 1 0 e3 dxe4 1 1 Wc4 'ifb4+ is equal) 1 0 . . . fxg5
Scotch Four Knights
1 1 It:lg3 fl 1 2 i.e2 g6 1 3 l:thel 'iff6 14 'Wb3 i.g7 I S c3 'iff4+ when it was Black who had the better prospects.
7 ••• d5 8 i.b5
The pin allows White to castle quickly after doubling the c-pawns.
8 ••• i.d7 9 i.xc6 bxc6
If 9 . . . i.xc6 then 1 0 It:lxc6 bxc6 1 1 0-0 dxe4 1 2 fxe4 is greatly inferior to the main game because Black can't castle queenside.
10 0-0 dxe4
11 fxe4
I quite like this old line because White restores the material balance and is happy to see White 's queenside looking rather vulner­ able. It also has a certain amount of surprise value because 1 1 :el has been heavily analysed:
For example:
a) 1 1 . . .fS? ! 12 fxe4 fxe4 13 c3 ! cS? and now instead of 1 4 lt:lfS? ! as
42
played in Dzindzichashvili­ Leveille, New York 1 994, White can win easily with 14 'ii'hS+! 'ii'fl ( 1 4 . . . g6 is met by I S 'ii'dS hitting the rook on a8 and the pawn on e4) I S l:txe4+ i.e7 1 6 :xe7+ ! xe7 1 7 i.gS+ f8 1 8 :fl and Black can go home.
b) 1 1 . . .0-0-0 ! ? 1 2 :xe4 'ii'f6 1 3 'ife2
The position looks great for White but Black does have compensation in the form of a decent pair of bishops:
b l ) 13 . . . i.cS 14 i.e3 ':he8 (this idea was once touted as giving Black the initiative but it is in fact harmless) I S It:lb3 i.b6? 1 6 It:lcs i.xcs 17 'ii'a6+ b8 1 8 i.xcs 1 -0 Lengyel-Menyhart, Nyiregyhaza 1 994.
b2) 13 . . . cS 1 4 lt:lb3 'ii'b6 I S i.e3 i.d6 16 'ii'f2 fS 17 l:tc4 'ii'bs 1 8 ':c3 c4 1 9 i.cs i.c6 20 a4 'ifa6 (20 . . . i.xcs 2 1 'ii'xcs 'ii'xcS+ 22 It:lxcs :d4 23 :e l gives White an edge in the ending due to the superior pawn structure) 2 1 i.xd6 :xd6 22 It:lcs with a slight plus, Sutovsky-Mikhalevski, Tel Aviv 1 994.
11 ••• 0-0-0
Black whisks the king away from the centre. The alternatives have given White good practical results :
a) 1 1 . . . cS ! ? 1 2 lbfS ! 'iWe6 ( 1 2 . . . .i.xfS? 13 exfS 'ilif6 14 'ilif3 is good for White for especially after 14 . . J:ldS? I S .i.gS ! 'iWxgS 1 6 'iWc6+ l:d7 1 7 l:fe1+ e7 I S :ad l 'iWxfS 1 9 'iWaS+ :dS 20 'ilixdS mate) 1 3 .i.f4 0-0-0 14 'ilif3 .i.c6 I S lbg3 with a slight plus, Carlsson­ Johansson, Hallsberg 1 999.
b) l 1 . . .g6 :
b l ) 1 2 .i.e3 ! ? .i.g7 and now 1 3 lbb3 ! ? threatening .i.cs is worth considering. For example: 13 . . . .i.xb2 14 .i.cs 'iWh4!? IS :xf7! .i.g4! (or I S . . . 'iti>xf7 1 6 'ilixd7+ 'iti>gS 1 7 :n wins) 1 6 'iWn .i.xal 1 7 :e7+ 'ilixe7 I S .i.xe7 .i.eS 1 9 .i.h4 l:f8 20 'ilic4 .i.d7 21 .i.f2 gives White the winning chances due to the exposed black king.
b2) 1 2 .i.f4 .i.g7 1 3 c3 0-0 14 'ilid3 cS IS lbb3 .i.c6 16 l:ae l :abS 1 7 :f2 :feS I S 'iii c4 (White continues to harass the weakened c-pawn) l S . . . .i.bS? ! ( I S . . . .i.f8 is met by 1 9 lbaS with an edge)
43
Scotch Four Knights
1 9 'ilixcs when the extra pawn gave White all the chances, Rausis­ Payen, Enghien les Bains 1 995 .
12 'ilie2
The straightforward threat is 'iW a6+ to create havoc on the queenside.
12 ••• 'ilieS
In the game Afek-Van der Marel, Haarlem 200 1 , Black tried to be clever with 12 . . . :eS, encouraging an exchange of pawns, but it was misjudged. Play continued 13 'iWa6+ 'iti>dS 14 :d l ! and the threat of lbxc6 mate crushes Black ( 1 4 lbxc6+? .i.xc6 I S 'ilixc6 'ilicS+ 16 'ilixcs .i.xcS+ 17 'iti>h 1 l:xe4 with equal chances was the original idea behind the rook move) 14 . . . 'iWcS I S .i.e3 (renewing the threat of lbxc6+) l S . . . .i.d6 1 6 lbe6+ :xe6 1 7 .i.xcs with a win in sight.
13 lbb3 'iibs 14 'iWfl
The Frenchman is obviously keen to avoid exchanging queens when there is ample opportunity to create attacking chances against the vulnerable queenside.
Scotch Four Knights
14 ••• e6 15 hl
Goldgewicht tucks his king out of the way to avoid any annoying checks on the g l -a7 diagonal. 1 5 'ikxa7? xb3 intending . . . c5+ is awful for White.
15 ••• d6 16 f4
It makes sense to stop any threats associated with . . . 'ike5 targeting the h2 pawn. Now 1 6 'fixa7?? really would be embarrassing after 1 6 . . . 'ikxfl +.
16 • • • xf4 17 'ikxf4 :ld7 18 'ike3
White is still probing for weaknesses but the main thing is that the doubled c-pawns are still a worry.
18 ••• 6 19 'fie3
As usual in this line White avoids an exchange of queens and now targets the g7 pawn while securing the c5 square for his knight.
19 ••• f6 20 lbe5 :ld6 21 e5!
A neat way of opening lines of attack.
2t. •• fxe5 22 'fixe5 e4?
This ends up losing due to a nice tactic although 22 . . . :le8 leaves White on top after 23 lbxe6 :ldxe6 24 'fixg7 :le2 25 :ladl .
23 'fif5+ d8
23 . . . b8 allows 24 'fifS+! :ld8 25 lbd7+ b7 26 lbxb6 :hxfS 27 lbxc4 winning.
24 'fig5+ e8 25 'ikg4+ 1-0
44
The centre of attention has always revolved around 5 . . . b4 which leads to a middlegame battle with potential for a kingside attack:
Berg - I. Sokolov Malmo 2001
1 e4 e5 2 lbo lbe6 3 d4 exd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbe3 b4
The pin prepares . . . lbxe4 and is fIrmly established as the main line .
6 lbxe6 bxe6 7 d3 0-0
This is the usual move but it is worth knowing what to do if Black wants to avoid the main line :
a) If 7 . . . h6? ! to prevent g5 then the slowing down of Black's development is a cause for concern: 8 0-0 and now:
a l ) 8 . . . 0-0? 9 e5 xc3 (9 . . . lbd5 1 0 lbxd5 cxd5 1 1 'fig4 threatening 'fixb4 and xh6 is winning) 1 0 bxc3 lbe8 1 1 'ikg4 d5 12 'fig3 h8 1 3 a3 :lg8 14 f4 a5 1 5 f5 with a terrifIc attack, S .Lalic­ Schlander, Battle Abbey 200 1 .
a2) 8 . . . d6 then 9 liJe2 0-0 1 0 liJd4 'ii'e8 1 1 'ii'f3 (the threat is xh6) 1 1 . . .c5 12 c3 xd4? ! 1 3 cxd4 g4 14 'ii'g3 h5 1 5 e5 ! liJdS 1 6 xh6 with a winning advantage, Afek-Keely, Lisbon 200 1 .
b) 7 . . . d6 8 0-0 g4 9 f3 h5 l O liJe2 ( l O liJa4 looks good, planning c2-c3 so that White can exchange the bishop) 1 0 . . . liJd7 1 1 c;i;>h1 0-0 1 2 liJg3 g6 1 3 f4 with the initiative, Heidenfeld-Xie, Canberra 2000.
c) 7 . . . dS 8 exdS liJxd5 (8 . . . cxdS 9 0-0 transposes to the main game) 9 0-0 liJxc3 (9 . . . xc3 1 0 bxc3 liJxc3? 1 1 'ii'e 1 + picks up a piece) 1 0 'ii'e 1 + 'ii'e7 1 1 bxc3 'ii'xe1 1 2 lhe1+ e7 1 3 e4 gives White excellent play because 1 3 . . . d7?! runs into 14 a3 ! winning.
8 0-0 d5
It is usual for Black to contest the centre. A relatively rare move is 8 . . . l:.e8 and after 9 g5 play might continue:
a) 9 . . . d5 1 0 exd5 xc3 1 1 bxc3 cxdS 12 'ii'f3 c6 1 3 c4 with a slight edge, K.Martin-Nytrova, Aberdeen 2004.
b) 9 . . . h6 lO h4 d5 1 1 exd5 xc3 12 bxc3 cxd5 13 l:.e 1 l:.xe 1+ 14 'ii'xe1 e6 with a roughly equal position where the plan for White might be l:.d1 aiming for c3-c4, as in the game Golubev-Fedorchuk, Ordzhonikidze 200 1 .
9 exd5 cxd5
Scotch Four Knights
At this point both players are close to completing their piece development without any difficulties. White has the superior pawn structure but Black's mobile pawns in the centre cover important squares. A typical idea for White is to challenge Black's central pawns while manoeuvring his pieces to try and create a kingside attack. If 9 . . . liJxd5 then 1 0 lLle4 1eaves Black with weak doubled c-pawns.
10 g5 c6
The major alternative lO . . . e6 is featured later in the chapter. The reason why lO . . . e7 has a poor record is due to a crafty trick: 1 1 xf6 xf6 12 'ii'h5 and the threat of mate means White must win at least a pawn. For instance : 1 2 . . . g6 1 3 'it'xd5 'ii'xd5 14 liJxd5 xb2 1 5 l:.abl e5 16 l:.fe l d6 ( 1 6 . . . f6 17 l:.xe5 fxe5 1 8 liJxc7 with the advantage) 1 7 liJf6+ c;i;>g7 1 8 liJe8+ gave White an excellent ending, Mazziotti Irigoyen-Goiriz, Posadas 2005 .
11 'ii'13
A sharp continuation that puts pressure on the f6 knight. The alternatives 1 1 liJe2 and 1 1 liJa4 are
Scotch Four Knights
11 ••• e7
The grandmaster is wary of allowing the f-pawns to be doubled because that would make it very difficult to avoid a draw in a dull ending.
Also possible:
a) 1 1 . . . d6 and now:
a l ) 1 2 ttJe2 h6 (or 1 2 . . . g4 1 3 xf6 xf3 14 xd8 xe2 1 5 xe2 l:.fxd8 1 6 l:.adl when the position is level, Skripchenko­ Gustafsson, Pulvermuehle 2004) 1 3 xf6 'iWxf6 14 'iWxf6 gxf6 1 5 c4 (White jumps at the chance to undermine the central pawns) 1 5 . . . a6 (or 1 5 . . . dxc4 1 6 xc4 e5 1 7 l:.ab l f5 1 8 l:.bdl xb2 1 9 l:.d6 l:.ac8 20 ttJg3 g6 2 1 l:.d7 l:.fd8 22 ':'xa7 with a level position, E.Berg-Najer, internet 2004) 1 6 l:.fdl dxc4 (or 1 6 .. xc4? allows 1 7 xc4 dxc4 1 8 l:.xd6 winning) 1 7 h7+ xh7 1 8 lhd6 l:.ab8 1 9 l:.xc6 l:.xb2 20 ttJc3 b7 21 lhc4 l:.g8 22 ttJe4 he4 23
46
l:.xe4 l:.gb8 24 g3 lh- lh Egin-Van den Doel, Mallorca Olympiad 2004.
a2) 1 2 xf6 'ii'xf6 1 3 'ii'xf6 gxffi 14 ttJe2 l:.b8 1 5 b3 with equality, Ardeleanu-Kizov, Subotica 2004.
b) l l . . .h6 12 xf6 'ii'xf6 1 3 'ii'xf6 gxf6 14 ttJe2 l:.e8 1 5 ttJg3 e6 1 6 ttJh5 e7 1 7 l:.fel l:.ab8 1 8 b3 f8 19 h3 and a draw was soon agreed in Maharjan-Elarbi, Mallorca Olympiad 2004.
12 l:.fel
The rook applies pressure to the e-file but is also well placed to take part in an attack - which soon becomes apparent. If you want to follow in the mega byte steps of a computer then you would do well to follow Deep Blue-Kasparov, Philadelphia 1 996, where the human world champion could not break down the opening. That game went 1 2 l:.ae 1 l:.e8 1 3 ttJe2 h6 14 f4 d6 1 5 ttJd4 g4 1 6 'iWg3 xf4 1 7 'iWxf4 'iWb6 1 8 c4 !? d7 ( l 8 . . . 'iWxb2 1 9 ttJxc6 'ii'xa2 20 ttJe7+ f8 2 1 ttJxd5 ttJxd5 22 cxd5 is better for White) 19 cxd5 cxd5 20 l:.xe8+ l:.xe8 21 'ii'd2 ttJe4
22 .i.xe4 dxe4 23 b3 l:.d8 when Kasparov offered a draw but famously it was declined!
12 ••• h6!?
A risky continuation because it allows White to create tremendous attacking chances. Therefore it is worth checking the alternative 12 . . . .:te8 when play might continue:
13 lLle2
a) 1 3 h3 h6 14 .i.f4 .i.e6 ( 1 4 . . . .i.d6 1 5 .i.xd6 'iF xd6 1 6 ':xe8+ lLlxe8 1 7 b3 In- In E.Berg-Wedberg, Umea 2003) 15 lLle2 (or 1 5 ':ad1 lLld7 1 6 'iVh5 lLlf6 1 7 'i'n lLld7 1 8 lLla4 lLlb6 1 9 lLlxb6 axb6 2 0 a3 .i.d6 In-Ih Mueller-Socko, Hamburg 1 996) 1 5 . . . c5 16 .i.b5 .i.d7 1 7 .i.xd7 'iFxd7 1 8 lLlg3 .!Llh7 19 ':ad1 ':ad8 20 ':e5 d4 2 1 b3 In-In E.Berg­ Johannessen, Gothenburg 2004.
b) 1 3 lLle2 h6 14 .i.f4 .i.d6 1 5 lLld4 .i.g4 1 6 'iFg3 .i.xf4 1 7 'iFxf4 c 5 1 8 ttJc6 'ii'd7 19 lLle5 'ii'd6 20 c4 led to equal chances in Afek­ Schoorl, Amsterdam 2004.
13 .i.xh6!
Scotch Four Knights
The start of a sharp attack but if Black is ready and waiting the outcome should be a draw.
13 . . . gxh6
If 1 3 . . . d4 14 lLle4 gxh6 then 1 5 lLlxf6+ .i.xf6 1 6 'ii'e4 wins.
14 'iFe3
This is the key point because the attack against the bishop means that White will pick up another pawn.
14 . . . .i.d6!
There are plenty of opportunities for Black to go wrong:
a) 1 4 . . . ':e8 1 5 'ii'xh6 'ii'd6 ( 1 5 . . . .i.f8 1 6 ':xe8 'ii'xe8 [ 1 6 . . . lLlxe8?? allows 17 'iVh7 mate] 1 7 'ii'xf6 with a winning advantage) 1 6 'ii'g5+ and in the game Vargic­ Jukic, Medulin 1 997 White was content with the perpetual check but missed the star move 1 6 ':e3 ! preparing to swing the rook across to g3 or h3 . For instance: l 6 . . . .i.g4 1 7 h3 .i.f8 1 8 'iF.g5+ .i.g7 19 ':xe8+ ':xe8 20 hxg4 'ifb4 2 1 ':b 1 lLlxg4 22 a3 'ii'd4 23 ':fl when White is better.
Scotch Four Knights
b) 1 4 . . . d4 1 5 'iWxh6 dxc3 ( 1 5 . . . d6 16 l:e4 ! threatening :h4 and contemplating winning the brilliancy prize: then if 1 6 . . . liJxe4 1 7 liJxe4 e7 [ 1 7 . . . f6 1 8 'ilVg6+ h8 1 9 liJxf6 is deadly] 1 8 liJf6+ xf6 1 9 'iVh7 mate) 1 6 :e5 ! (as usual in this line the rook needs to aim for the g or h-files) 1 6 . . . f5 1 7 :xf5 liJg4 ( 1 7 . . . liJh7 i s met b y 1 8 :h5) 1 8 l:g5+! xg5 1 9 'iVh7 mate, Rasmussen-Jessen, Copenhagen 2002.
15 'iWxh6
15 •.• :b8?
Now at fIrst sight it might seem that Sokolov is ignoring his exposed king but the crafty defensive idea is to play l:b4 and defend across the fourth rank. The only snag is that it is too fancy and simply loses to some powerful