DANGEROUS WERPONS: ks RICHARD PALLISER COLIN McNAB JAMES: VIGUS EVERYMAN CHESSRICHARD PALLISER COLIN McNRB JAMES VIGUS EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester Publishers ple www.everymanchess.comFirst published in 2009 by Gloucester Publishers plc (formerly Everyman Publishers plc), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V 0AT Copyright © 2009 Richard Palliser, Colin McNab and James Vigus The right of Richard Palliser, Colin McNab and James Vigus to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Allrights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a re- trieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 978 1 85744 594 7 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT tel: 020 7253 7887; fax: 020 7490 3708 email: info@everymanchess.com website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under licence from Random House Inc. EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief Advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms_ Assistant Editor: Richard Palliser Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Printed and bound in the US by Versa Press.Contents Preface Series Introduction 1 Castling into the Argentinean Attack (1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 6 0-0-0) 2 Castling into the 150 Attack (1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 6 others) 3 ANeglected Approach in the Classical (1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Be2 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 Bf4) 4 Benjamin’s Flexible 6..e6 (1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Be2 0-0 6 0-0 e6) 5 ACunning Sidestep (1 €4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 f4 Bg7 5 Nf3 c5 6 Bb5+ Bd7 7 e5 Ng4 8 e6 Bxb5 9 exf7+ Kf8) ora 51 63 8610 11 oP The Delayed Spike 100 (1 4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be2 Bg7 5 Be3 0-0 6 g4) Not the 150 Attack! 127 (1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 96 4 Be2 Bg7 5 Be3 c6 6 Qd2) Spicing up the Fianchetto Variation 145 (1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 g3 Bg7 5 Bg2 0-0 6 Nge2 e5 7 h3 a6) Meeting 4 Bg5 in Dragon Style 161 (1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 d6 4 Bg5 Nd7) Blunting White's Bishop on c4. 173 (1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nf3 d6 4 Bc4 e6) An Early Lunge 188 (1 e4 g6 2 ha) Trumping a Tricky Transposition 200 (1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 f3 c5) Index of Variations 221 Index of Games 224Preface The Pirc and the Modern are two of Black’s more dynamic defences to 1 e4. Both openings are also enjoying something of a renaissance of late. Indeed, over the past couple of years they have been employed quite often by such players as Ivan- chuk, Mamedyarov, Morozevich and Svidler. Thus it made good sense to intro- duce the Pire and the Modern into the Dangerous Weapons series. 1am delighted to say that much of this book is by two leading Pirc and Modern exponents, Colin McNab and James Vigus. They are, of course, also noted theore- ticians: Colin co-authored the authoritative The Ultimate Pirc with John Nunn back in 1998, while more recently James has won over many to the black cause with his The Pire in Black and White. For this project, James contributed chapters 1, 2,5 and 12; Colin was responsible for chapters 3, 9, 10 and 11; and I wrote the rest: chap- ters 4, 6, 7 and 8. Thope that the existing Pirc/Modern player will find much of interest in this work, as well as those yet to take up either opening. Your authors have aimed to pro- duce a mini-repertoire for Black against most of White’s main tries, while also covering a few dangerous and quite complex ideas for White. As usual this work wouldn’t have come about without the help of various people, and we would like to especially acknowledge the assistance of Mark Nieuweboer and Jos Woolley. Richard Palliser, York & Norton-sub-Hamdon, March 2009Series Introduction The original concept behind Dangerous Weapons was to take a major chess opening and to approach it in a completely different way: to concentrate on variations that are ambitious, sharp, innovative, disruptive, tricky, enjoyable to analyse; ones not already weighed down by mountains of theory, and ones unfairly ignored or dis- credited. To me this seemed like an author's paradise, which I’m sure contributed somewhat towards the inspiration behind this series! The main motivation behind studying major openings in such a way is to be able to present the reader (not forgetting the author!) with a considerable number of fresh, hard-hitting opening weapons for both White and Black; in some cases to create repertoires and in others to enhance and rejuvenate existing ones. What is a Dangerous Weapon? For the purpose of choosing opening variations for this series, usually a Dangerous Weapon fits into one or more of these overlapping categories: 1) Moves that create complex, original positions full of razor-sharp tactics and rich positional ideas where creative, attacking play is rewarded; moves which are new, rare or very fresh, leaving plenty of scope for research. It should be pointed out that even though mainline theory produces a vast num- ber of wonderfully complicated positions, these opening variations lose out heav- ily in the ‘danger’ stakes. No matter how sharp and difficult the position, the opening phase is nowhere near as hazardous for your opponent if he is able to fall back on that comfort blanket known as theory. I’ve played plenty of incredibly sharp lines without any real fear simply because of reasonable book knowledge and some solid home preparation. Thus in Dangerous Weapons the emphasis has mainly been on non-theoretical lines, where your opponent is left to his own de- vices at a very early stage.Series Introduction 2) Moves that are highly ambitious; ones which aim for total domination. Perfect for those not satisfied with a quiet theoretical edge as White and eager to search for a big advantage or even a direct refutation, albeit at some risk; or for those as Black who prefer to strive for the initiative at any cost, preferring this over a manageable disadvantage or sterile equality. 3) Moves that have been previously ignored, discarded or discredited by theory, perhaps unfairly so or maybe for the wrong reasons. Discredited lines can be especially dangerous ~ the psychological element cannot be ignored. Facing an opening like this, I find myself asking the question, ‘Why is he playing this variation if it is meant to be bad?’ Often there is a very good reason (a logical improvement, perhaps, which overturns a previous assessment), and in any case how are you supposed to remember a hypothetical 15-move refutation when you only browsed it in a book once, and that was a few years ago? 4) Moves that are visually shocking; moves which seem to contradict the laws of the game. Disregarding the question of objective merit for the moment, there’s no doubt that a crazy-looking move has at the very least some psychological value. Unleashed on an opponent, it can produce a range of emotions: uncontrolled laughter, per- haps followed by over-confidence; anger (at being insulted by such a move) fol- lowed by over-aggression; or perhaps discomfort, followed by timidity. Of course you may instead encounter understanding followed by objectivity - you have to pick and choose your opponents. Dangerous for Whom? It would be difficult, probably impossible, to guarantee that every single variation in this book is 100% sound. You have to understand that in some cases ‘danger- ous’ can mean ‘dangerous for both sides’. What I do expect, however, is that your opponent's ride throughout the opening should be far bumpier than yours! Guiding You Through Throughout the book there are various icons together with explanatory notes to emphasize significant points. They should be fairly self-explanatory, but here’s a brief summary:Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern s wh ee Cano: WEAPON! This signifies a game, variation, sub- ‘ion or position where the Dangerous Weapon has obviously produced the desired effect. BEWARE! Pointing out immediate danger for the player using the Dangerous Weapon. ROLL THE DICE! Signifying a variation or sub-variation which is perhaps more suited for games with short time-limits or for players who enjoy taking risks. TRICKY TRANSPOSITION: This indicates a transposition to a different opening variation. Using different move orders to reach a desirable position or to trick your opponent into something with which he is unfamiliar is becoming a weapon of increasing value. As the title suggests, Dangerous Weapons may not be for the faint-hearted! More than anything, it is aimed at players of all levels who like to be entertained, those who are happy to try out fun-to-play openings at their local chess club, on the Internet, in tournaments, wherever they choose to play. Good luck studying and playing, your Dangerous Weapons! John Emms Everyman ChessChapter One Castling into the Argentinean Attack James Vigus 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 (Diagram 1) in ae Y wy Y Eid “og iy 2 UG; Diagram 4 (W) The toughest decision a Pirc player has to make these days is how to combat the flexible 4 Be3. Most grandmasters prefer 4...c6, reckoning that after 5 Qd2 thereDangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern might be a more useful move than 5...Bg7 (5..-b5 or 5...Nbd7!). However, this move order has its downside. It delays Black’s development, enabling White to expand ina leisurely way with 5 h3 and 6 f4 or even 6 g4 (the Archbishop Attack). So we shouldn't reject the natural 4...Bg7 too easily, and I for one have always stuck to this immediate fianchetto. The reader might object that the line 5 Qd2 c6 6 Bh6é Bxhé 7 Qxh6 Qa5 8.Bd3 c5 9 d5 has emerged as dangerous for Black. And as for 5...0-0 - well, that’s just asking for a routine attack with Bh6, £3, g4, and h4-h5, isn’t it? Here and in the following chapter I am going to suggest that Black can indeed get away with this outrageously ‘naive’ approach. This chapter considers the critical 6 0-0-0 (preventing Black’s possible breaks 6...e5 and 6...c5), followed by £2-f3. For this set-up with f3, Mark Nieuweboer ~ a partisan of the white side who has con- tributed a great deal of research and analysis to this chapter ~ suggests the name “the Argentinean Attack’. Its first prominent exponents back in the 1930s, 40s and 50s were Argentinean players — most notably grandmasters Herman Pilnik and Hector Rossetto — and as we'll see, these older games are often still instructive to- day. (The next chapter will analyse the ‘150 Attack’ approach 6 Nf3, together with 6 Bhé6, 6 h3 and 6 £3 e5 — which all lead to quite different positions from those in the present chapter). The Argentinean Attack is obviously dangerous, but what ‘theory’ has tended to forget is that Black has a sound structure, rapid development, and a simple-but- effective method of queenside counterattack, which we see in action in the first illustrative game. OL.Yudasin ll V.Anand Munich 1991 14 d6 2 da Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 6 0-0-0 Critical, as just mentioned: White prevents the two central breaks that are effective against other moves (see the next chapter). The obvious objection to 5...0-0 is that White will now enjoy an attack in the style of the Yugoslav Attack in the Dragon, whereas Black has no way to open the c-file quickly, so will remain several tempi behind... 6...c6 7 £3 b5 (Diagram 2) However, Black also has certain advantages compared with the Yugoslav Dragon. First, he has achieved ...b5 immediately here, something that often takes time in the Dragon (think of Magnus Carlsen’s favourite ‘Chinese Dragon’ in which Black calmly plays ...Rb8 and ...b5). Second, Black controls the d5-square. Not only does this mean that White won't have the option later of Nc3-d5 (Bf1-c4 is also prevented for the time being), but also it allows Black to get his bishop to e6. And this is the basic point of ‘castling into it’: it induces White to castle too, 10Castling into the Argentinean Attack and thus provides Black with a target on a2. How White deals with the threat to his a2-pawn is the key question over the next couple of moves, although many white players won't actually realize this. 8 ga?! @ DANGEROUS WEAPON! White faces a critical choice on his 8th Ss move, and this, the most natural move to judge by its 3 popularity, is already an inaccuracy. Here's a quick sketch of the alternatives: 7x: y ahem i oie Dee be POR oR Yj WY N PE] ee EN CN Z Diagram 2 (W) Diagram 3 (W) ee B a) 8 Bh6 Qa! (8...b4 9 Nce2 Qa5 10 Kb1 Ba6 11 Bxg7 Kxg7 12 h4 h5 13 a3 c5 14 &5 Nfd7 was unclear in M.Szczepinski-D.Shkuran, Warsaw (rapid) 2007, but 13 Qg5! would have given White the edge, and earlier, 9 NbI! is more accurate) 9 Kb1?! (we'll plunge into 9 h4! in the Looking a Little Deeper section; timing is everything and as we'll see shortly, in some lines the prophylactic Kb1 benefits White, but here it allows Black to force queenside weaknesses with Sano’s accurate reply) 9...Bxh6 10 Qxhé Be6! (10...b4 first would be premature, allowing White to con- solidate with 11 Nce2 Be6 12 Ncl) 11 e5 (11 a3 was played in P.Mola-.Sarno, Ital- ian Championship, Arvier 2003, and now 11...b4 12 axb4 Qxb4 is promising for Black) 11...dxe5 12 dxe5 (R.Fernandez Murga-A.Giaccio, Buenos Aires 1992) 12...b4! (Diagram 3) 13 exf6 exf6 14 Nge2 bxc3 15 Nxc3 Nd7 and Black is ready to exploit the b-file. .@ DANGEROUS WEAPON! A bonus of our system is that this eT inaccurate move order with 8 Bhé has actually been 11Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern recommended for White in two highly reputable repertoire works by Emms and Kaufman. Thus there is a good chance of getting to play this line! b) 8 Kb1 intends 8...Qa5?! 9 Nd5!, but better is 8...Nbd7, as we'll see later. c) 8h4 is clearly a dangerous move: see Line D, below. 8...Qa5! 9 Kb1 Instead 9 h4 h5 10 e5? transposes to I.Efimov-S.Sarno, Saint Vincent 2000, and af- ter 10...dxe5 11 dxe5 b4! 12 exf6 bxc3 13 fxg7 cxd2+ 14 Bxd2 Qxa2 15 gxf8Q+ KxfS Black was already winning. IM Spartaco Sarno, by the way, isa tireless and crea- tive devotee of 5...0-0: when updating your repertoire after reading this chapter, if possible I recommend a search for his games. 9...Be6! Logically provoking a weakness, but other moves have been instructively success- ful too, and are worth considering if you want to rule out the move 10 Nd5 in the next note: a) 9...b4!? worked spectacularly in A.Horvath-K.Chernyshov, Zalakaros 2005, though I’m not keen on allowing White's knight to defend from cl - that way White doesn’t have to weaken his queenside pawn formation. In the game, after 10 Nce2 Nbd7 (10...Be6 11 Nel Nbd7 is Anand’s suggestion) 11 h4 c5 12 h5 Nb6 13 hxg6? (13 Nel! is correct) 13...Nc4! (Diagram 4) 14 gxf7+ Rxf7 15 Qcl Be6 16 b3 (or 16 d5 Nxd5! 17 exd5 Bxb2) 16...Na3+ 17 Kal Re8 the 2555-rated player with White resigned. oe g atm 4 os tasy Ye WOGHM@Oor Diagram 4 (W) Diagram 5 (W) alate RY RY b) 9...Re8!? 10 h4 h5 11 gxh5 (alternatively, 11 e5 b4! 12 exf6 bxc3 13 Qxc3 Qxc3 14 EPsCastling into the Argentinean Attack bxc3 exfé! 15 BF hxg4 16 Bxdé is unclear according to Agnos, while 11 g5 Nfd7 12 f4 Nb6 13 Qf2 Bg4 14 Rel N8d7 15 Nf3 Nad led to another miniature win for Black in An.Green-SSarno, Turin 2008 - 16 Nxa4 Bxf3! favours Black) 11...Nxh5 12 Bh3 Nd7 13 Qg2 Nbé 14 Bg4 Ne4 15 Bcl b4 16 Nee? Rb8 (now 17...Na3+ is a deadly threat) 17 Rd3 Rb6 18 Bxh5 Ra6! 19 a3 bxa3 20 b3 occurred in D.Anagnostopoulos- Sarno, Montecatini Terme 1997, and now 20...Nb2! 21 Rc3 Qxh5!, intending 22 Bg5 e5 23 Ng3 Qh/, is the way to cement Black’s advantage. 10 b3 Undesirable, but White’s choice wasn’t easy: a) 10 a3 b4 11 Nce2 (11 Na2 Bxa2+ 12 Kxa2 c5 13 dxc5 Ne6 14 cxd6 Rfd8 looks much more fun for Black than White) 11...c5! (Anand) 12 d5 Bd7 is quite promis- ing for Black. b) 10 Nd5! is best, as we'll see in Line A, below. 10...b4 BEWARE! Black must make sure that he doesn’t fall for the old trick 10...Nbd7? 11 Nd5. 14 Na4 c5! (Diagram 5) 12 g5 Anand notes the juicy lines 12 dxc5 Nc6 13 g5 Nd7 and 12 d5 Bd7! 13 Nb2 Bxg4! 14 Ne4 Qd8 15 e5 dxe5 16 fxg4 Ne4 17 Qe1 Nc3+ 18 Kb2 e4. 12...Nh5!? Anand thought that 12...cxd4 13 Bxd4 Nh5 14 Bxg7 Nxg7 was good for White, but ..Re8 and ...Nd7-c5 may be a promising way forward for Black. 13 dxc5 Nc6 14 Bh3 Again 14 cxd6 Qe5 15 c3 Rfd8! sees Black dominate. 14...Rad8 15 Bxe6 fxe6 16 Qc1 dxc5?! Instead 16...d5! would have consolidated Black’s advantage: how will White’s kingside pieces emerge? 17 Rxd& After 17 Nxc5! (now Nb7 is sometimes a threat) 17...Nf! 18 Rxd8 Qxd8!? Black’s initiative has dissipated somewhat. 17...Qxd8 18 Nxc5 Qd6 19 Nd3 Ne5 20 Bc5 Qc7 21 Ne2 a5! (Diagram 6) In what follows Anand outplays the punch-drunk Yudasin all over again, but we can skip through this relatively quickly. 22 Bd4 Rxf3 23 Nc5 Qc8 24 Rd Ng4 25 Qd2 Nxh2! 26 Bxg7 Nxg7 27 Ndq? The decisive error: 27 Qd8+ Qxd8 28 Rxd8+ Rf8 29 Rxf8+ Kxf8 would have pro- duced a very complex endgame. eeDangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern 27...Rf1! 28 Nad e5 29 Nb5 Nf3 30 Od5+ e6 31 Qd3 Rxd1+ 32 Oxd41 Nxg5 33 Nd6 Qd8 34 Od3 h5 35 Nc5 h4 36 Ncb7 Qb6 37 Nc4 Qgi+ 38 Kb2 Qd4+ 39 Qxd4 exd4 40 Nd2 Nh§ 41 Nf1 Nf3 0-1 y \ Ae bbe ww WY \\Fek ~ a, \ VE Diagram 6 (W) Diagram 7 (B) So in general terms, White’s most obvious response to the attack on the a2-pawn - allowing it to happen and then defending with b2-b3 ~ is not really adequate. He has two other responses, however, which are more dangerous. One of these is simply to get on with the attack and sacrifice the a2-pawn. For instance, one of those early games by an Argentinean player, H.Rossetto-A.Matanovic, Amster- dam 1954, went 5 £3 0-0 6 Qd2 c6 7 Nge2 e5 8 0-0-0 Qa5 9 h4 b5 10 g4 Na6 (the knight is misplaced here) 11 Bh6é b4 12 Nb1 Be6 13 h5 (Diagram 7) 13...Bxa2 14 Bxg7 Kxg7 15 hxg6 fxg6 16 Qh6+ Kg8 17 g5 Nh5 18 Ng3 BE7 19 Nxh5 gxh5 and White had sacrificed only a measly a-pawn to generate winning threats, as 20 g6! Bxg6 21 Bed+ d5 22 Rdgl! would have exploited. This attacking mechanism, with the knight on b1 holding together the whole queenside, is potent ~ but Black can do a lot better, as we'll now see. OW.Pietzsch ll W.Balcerowski Bad Liebenstein 1963 1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 d6 4 Bf4 Nf6 5 Qd2 0-0 6 0-0-0 c6 7 Bh6 Despite the peculiar move order we have reached one of our key positions. 7..b5 8 Bxg7 White frequently hurries to make this exchange, but as we'll see in a moment, it actually enhances Black’s defensive possibilities. I suggested the unclear line 8 Bd3 14Castling into the Argentinean Attack Qa5 9 h4 b4 10 Nb1 Bxh6 11 Qxh6 Qxa2 12 h5 Ng4 13 Qd2 c5 in The Pire in Black and White (hereafter referred to as TPIBAW), while the critical continuation 8 £3! Qa5! 9 hd! is a major topic of the Looking a Little Deeper section. 8...Kxg7 9 f3 Alternatives for White have been unsuccessful: a) 9 Qel!? b4 10 e5 bxc3 11 exf6+ exf6 12 Qxc3 Be6 13 Bed Bxc4 14 Qxed Qa5 15 Kb1 d5 16 Qd3 Nd7 17 h4 hS left Black’s king well protected and he enjoyed good queenside chances in M.Damjanovic-Z.Djukic, Pula 1998. b) 9&5 dxe5 10 dxe5 Qxd2+ 11 Rxd2 Nfd7 (11...Ng4 12 f4 Nd7 13 Nf3 Nc5 14 Nd4 b4 15 Nd1 Ne4 16 Re2 Bb7 17 Nb3 c5 also suited Black in Zhao Zong Yuan- A Kakageldyev, Dresden Olympiad 2008) 12 f4 Nc5 (Diagram 8) 13 g3?! b4 14 Nd1 Be6 15 Bg2 was D.Campora-A.Strikovic, Cordoba 1991, and now Black could have snatched the a2-pawn, since 16 b3? meets with 16...Bxb3. Diagram 8 (W) Diagram 9 (B) 9...Qa5! 10 h4 Once again the natural prophylactic move 10 Kb1 actually gives Black a move with which to force a weakening of the white queenside. The game G.Tringov- A Saidy, Reykjavik 1957, continued 10 Kb1 Be6! 11 a3 (11 d5 b4 12 dxe6 bxc3 13 Qxc3 Qxe3 14 bxc3 fxe6 15 Ne2 e5 favoured Black in L.Galego-S.Sarno, Lido Estensi 2002, but perhaps this is what White must resort to) 11...Na6!? 12 d5 cxd5 13 exd5 Bd7 14 Nxb5? (greedy, but 14 g4 Rfb8 intending ...b4 is also promising for Black) 14...Qb6 15 Qd4 Nc5 16 Nc3 Rfc8 17 Ne4 Bf5 18 Bd3 Nxd3 19 Rxd3, and now 19...Qa6 intending ...Re4 is very strong. 10...Nbd7 Although 10...h5 (G.Villartoel-T.Bjornsson, Tel Aviv 1964) is a playable alterna- 15Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern tive, I feel we shouldn’t invite 11 e5!. 11 h5 b4 12 Nb1 (Diagram 9) 12...g5! This lateral defence throws a spanner in White’s works. Black is taking a slight risk with his king, but White experiences some congestion on his back rank and has development problems. I can’t emphasize strongly enough how crucial this 185 defence can be. BEWARE! 12...Qxa2? is too greedy. The black queen performs a useful defensive role on a5, and the White a2-pawn isn’t likely to go anywhere - so don’t be in too much of a hurry to grab it. In case you're not convinced, take a look at the game G.Lane-T.Reilly, Melbourne 1999, which concluded 13 hxg6 fxg6 14 Qh6+ Kg8 15 Nh3 Nb6? (a bad plan, but 15..RI7 16 e5! Nh5 17 Ng5 Rg7 18 exdé exd6 19 Nxh7 is grim too) 16 Ng5 Na4 17 Be4+! Qxc4 18 b3 and Black resigned 13e5 The grandmaster playing White is perhaps startled by his opponent's cheek, and attempts a direct refutation. @ DANGEROUS WEAPON! It’s easy for White to overrate the m4 chances that an early advance of the h-pawn gives him. A correspondence game I played recently as Black continued 13 hé+ Kh8 14 Bed (I was concerned about 14 Rel threatening e4-e5, but 14...Qxa2 15 Qxb4 c5 gives Black sufficient play; 14 a3!? Rb8 15 Nh3 c5!? or 15...g4 is another plausible con- tinuation) 14...Nb6 15 Bb3 c5 16 e5? (essential was 16 dxc5 Qxc5 17 e5 Qxe5 18 Rel Qf4 19 Rxe7 Qxd2+ 20 Nxd2 d5 when the complications are still unresolved in the queenless middlegame) 16...c4! (Diagram 10) 17 exf6 exf6 18 g4? Be 19 a3 cxb3 20 axb4 Qal 21 c3 a5 22 bxa5 Rxa5 23 Ne2 Qxb1+ with mate in two to follow. 13...dxe5 14 Oxg5+ Kh8 15 Bcq A cute alternative is 15 dxe5 Rg8 16 Qf4 Nxe5 17 Rel Rg5!?, again emphasizing the virtue of fourth-rank control. 15...Rg8 16 Qd2 exd4 17 Bxf7 17 Qxd4 allows Black to activate his rook with 17...Rxg2, and after, say, 18 Bxf7 Ba6 Black enjoys very active play 17...Rf8 18 Bb3 e5 It’s curious that although White seems to have been coming forward, Black’s pawns now occupy the centre. White must now hurry one of his stabled horses into the action before it is too late. 16Castling into the Argentinean Attack 19 Qh6 Ba6é 20 Nh3 Nc5 21 Ng5 (Diagram 11) 21...Nxb3+ nae B DoEe B® Diagram 10 (W) Diagram 11 (B) Tantamount to a draw offer, whereas 21...Qc7!?, with ideas of ...Qg7 or ...Nd5, would have kept things tense. 22 axb3 d3 Inviting White's next, but not even 22...Rae8 could have prevented it. Now with his king under threat, Pietzsch bales out for a draw. 23 Ne6 Rf7 24 Ng Rff8 25 Ne6 2-2 White has a third way to deal with the attack on the a2-pawn. This is to play Kel- b1 quickly so that, as mentioned in the notes to Yudasin-Anand, ...Qd8-a5 is basi- cally prevented due to a Nc3-d5 tactic. On the face of it this approach nips Black’s whole counterplay in the bud, since everything we've seen so far has focused on that queen on a5. However, the following important game, oddly forgotten by Pirc theory, shows a reliable set-up for Black in this case: the queen comes to e7, and White's supposedly irresistible attack amounts to no more than mild pres- sure. OH.Ree Mi J-H.Donner Dutch Championship, Zierikzee 1967 14 d6 2 d4 Nfé 3 Nc3 g6 4 f3 Once upon a time this was the usual way into the Argentinean Attack before white players realized that ...Ng4 isn’t really a problem. 17Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern 4...Bg7 5 Be3 0-0 6 Qd2 e5 There have been a couple of moder adaptations of Donner's formation in the present game: 6...c6 7 Bhé b5 (7...Nbd7 8 0-0-0 transposes to A.Beliavsky- K.Kulaots, Berlin 1996, in which Black was doing fine after 8...e5 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 h4 Qe7 11 g4 b5 12 h5 Nb6 13 Bxg7 Kxg7 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 Qh2 Kg8 16 Nh3 a5 17 Ni2 a4) 8 h4 (8 0-0-0 would transpose to Pietzsch-Balcerowski) 8...Bxh6 9 Qxh6 e5 10 0-0-0 Qe7 11 h5 Nbd7 12 Nh3 Rd8 13 dxe5 dxed 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 Qg5 (Diagram 12) 15...REB 16 Qd2 NcS 17 Qd6 Qxdé6 18 Rxd6 Bxh3 19 Rxh3 Rac8 with equality, S.Brunello-S.Sarno, Cremona 2006. qe Diagram 12 (B) Diagram 13 (W) 7 Nge2 c6!? In the next chapter I’m going to recommend the more dynamic 7...exd4 in this po- sition. However, I’m not interested so much in the concrete theory here as in the defensive formation Donner is planning. 8 0-0-0 Nbd7 9 Bhé b5 10 h4 Re8 Black wants to ‘threaten’ 11...Bh8, but this is arguably slow; compare Brunello- Sarno, where the rook went directly to d8. A later game continued 10...Qe7 11 Bxg7 (11 g4 Bxh6!? 12 Qxh6 b4 13 Nb1 Nb6 14 h5 Bxg4! 15 fxg4 Nxg4 16 Qd2 Nf2 with good chances, shows one of Black’s hidden tactical possibilities) 11...Kxg7 12 h5 Nb6 13 hxg6 fxg6 14 g4 b4?! 15 Nb1 a5 16 Ng3 Be6 17 dxe5 dxe5 18 Qg5 (R.Porter-M.Klein, USA 1994), and now 18...Kg8 19 Nf5 Qc7 is reasonably resilient for Black, but earlier 14...Ng8! gives him equal chances. 11 Bxg7 Kxg7 12 h5 Qe7! (Diagram 13) The queen needs to move in order to free the knight on d7. Moreover, on e7 the queen defends neatly along her second rank. Meanwhile the b5-pawn keeps 18Castling into the Argentinean Attack White's bishop out of c4, and White doesn’t manage to find a target. Note that we are going to get such positions with an extra tempo, because we'll adopt the Don- ner formation only after White has spent a move on Kcl-b1. that offered h-pawn. Here, for instance, 12...Nxh5? 13 g4 Nhf6 14 Qh6+ Kg8 15 Ng3 Nf8 16 dxe5 Rxe5 17 g5 Ne8 18 fq is bad news for him. Hk BEWARE! Black must always be rather wary about grabbing 13 g4 Nf8 14 Ng3 Kh8 15 Be2 Fritz evaluates this as almost winning for White, but it’s hardly so simple, since no breakthrough is possible without quite a major sacrifice. 15 dxe5 dxe5 16 g5 N6d7 17 N£5!? gxf5 18 exf5 Nbé6 19 f6 is one direct attempt, but 19...Qb4 20 g6 Ne6! holds for Black, Another plausible try is 15 g5 N6d7 16 d5 b4 17 Nad, though Black has good counterplay after 17...Nb6!. 15...Bb7 16 Rdg1 Ne6 17 dxe5 dxe5 18 hxg6 fxg6 19 Qh6 Qg7 20 Oh4 Nd4 (Dia- gram 14) Diagram 14 (W) Diagram 15 (W) 21 Bd1 Nd7 22 Nb1 Qe7 23 Qh6 Nf8 24 NFS! Qc7! At last Ree punts the piece sacrifice, but there is no need for Black to gamble on the continuation 24...¢xf5?! 25 gxf5 Nd7 26 c3 c5 27 exd4 cxd4 28 Nd2. 253 White could have gained a passed pawn with 25 Nxd4 exd4, but he’s justifiably intent on reviving, his minor pieces. 25...Nde6 26 Bb3 Nf4 27 Rh2 c5 28 Qh4 Qd8 29 Oh6 Oc7 30 Oh4 Od8 ¥2-Y2 19Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern Interesting, isn’t it? White was no patzer, but a strong grandmaster, and Black al- lowed the routine attack — but with his queen planted firmly on e7, never seemed to stand worse. The Donner formation is going to come in handy when we take a Deeper Look. Looking a Little Deeper 1 e4 dé 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 6 0-0-0 6 7 f3 TRICKY TRANSPOSITION: | take 7 f3 as the main move here, since White usually plays this (to protect e4) on the next move or two, even if he begins with 7 Kb1, 7 h4 or 7 Bh6 ~ to each of which we'll also reply 7...b5. Some independent possibilities stemming from that last-named move were covered above in the notes to Pietzsch-Balcerowski, while 7 Nf3 b5 8 Bd3 Nbd7 transposes to Chapter Two. 7...b5 (Diagram 15) We now examine: A: 8 g4 B: 8 Bh6 C: 8 Kb1 D:8h4 A) 1e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 6 0-0-0 c6 7 f3 b5 8 g4?! a5 9 Kb1 Be6 (Diagram 16) 10 Nd5! For the alternatives here, as well as alternatives for Black on the previous move, see the notes to Yudasin-Anand. 10...Qxd2 Here White faces a major choice: a) 11 Nxf6+ exf6!? (11...Bxf6 12 Rxd2 Bc4!? 13 Bg2 b4 14 £4 gave White a modest spatial plus in E.Sveshnikov-V.Savicevic, Herceg Novi 1999) 12 Rxd2 d5 13 exd5?! (this can’t be right, but White's centre is under a certain amount of pressure) 13...Bxd5 14 Bg2 Nd7 15 Ne2 Rfe8 16 Bf4 Bf8 17 Bg3 Bho 18 Nf4 Nb6 19 Nxd5 Nxd5 20 Rdd1 Ne3 21 Rdg] Rad8 22 c3 b4 23 f4 bxc3 24 bxc3 Rb8+ 25 Kel Nxg4 26 Bxc6 Re3 27 Kc2 Re2+ 28 Kd3 Rbb2 29 a4? Rbd2+ and 0-1 was the fine game M.De Souza-A.Giaccio, Buenos Aires 1995. b) 11 Nxe7+!? Kh8 12 Bxd2 (or 12 Rxd2 Re8 13 g5 Rxe7 14 gxf6 Bxf6 with equality) 20Castling into the Argentinean Attack 12...Re8 13 d5 Nxe4 14 Bel Rxe7 15 dxe6 Nc5 16 exf7 d5 (Diagram 17) sees Black recapture the pawn with a balanced game. Ww oe Lad Diagram 16 (W) Diagram 17 (W) B) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Od2 0-0 6 0-0-0 c6 7 f3 b5 8 Bh6 Qas 9 ha! Maintaining the tension and getting on with the attack. The immediate exchange on g7 was seen above in Pietzsch-Balcerowski, where I suggested that White should maintain his bishop on hé for the time being in order to prevent Black’s defensive resource with ...g5. On the other hand, we looked at the common but mistaken 9 Kb1 in note ‘a’ to White's 8th in the illustrative game Yudasin-Anand. 9...b4, Best. Instead 9...Nbd7 10 h5! b4 11 Nb1! Qxa2 (11...Nxh5 12 g4 Nhf6 13 Bxg7 Kxg7 14 Qh6+ Kg8 15 Ne? intending Ng3 and g5 is crushing) is the unpleasant game Lane-Reilly, given in the notes to Pietzsch-Balcerowski. Otherwise in TPIBAW I suggested 9...Be6 10 h5 b4, but now I feel that 11 Nb1 Nbd7 (not 11...Bxa2 12 b3) 12 Bxg7 Kxg7 13 hxgé fxg6 14 Qh6+ Kg8 15 e5! dxe5 16 Nh3 is unpleasant. 10 Nb1 Ba6!? (Diagram 18) This both furthers Black’s development and aims to exchange a piece that might otherwise play a dangerous role on d3 or c4. Compare a cruder approach such as 10...Bxh6 11 Qxh6 Rd8!? (to obstruct e4-e5) 12 h5 Qxa2 13 Bd3 (13 Ne2 a5 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 Nf4 a4 16 Nxg6 a3 17 Nxe7+ Kf7 18 bxa3 bxa3 is not so clear) 13...Nbd7 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 f4 when Black is vulnerable on the light squares. Instead 10...Qxa2 11 h5 transposes to the game Corte-Wexler, given below. After the text, we have reached an unexplored but very rich position in which Black must defend for a while, but then has the prospect of snaffling a tasty mor- 21Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern sel on a2. The following variations are just provisional thoughts, but certainly in- dicate some interesting paths: Diagram 18 (W) Diagram 19 (B) Ba: 11 Nez B2:11h5 Ishould also mention the possibility 11 Bxa6 Nxa6 12 h5 Nc7 13 Bxg7 Kxg7 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 Qh6+ Kg8 16 Nh3 Rf7 17 Ng5 (or 17 Nf Rg7) 17...Rg7, which looks as though it might be ‘plus-equals’, but the knight on c7 usefully covers e6, the a2- pawn remains under greedy surveillance, and ...Rb8-b5 may be a productive ma- noeuvre. At any rate, immediate action with 18 e5 dxe5 19 dxe5 Qxe5 20 Nd2 a5!? is none too clear. B1) 1 e4 dé 2 d4 Nf 6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 6 0-0-0 c6 7 f3 b5 8 Bh6 Qa5 9 h4 b4 10 Nb1 Ba6 11 Ne2 Nbd7 12 Bxg7 The alternative line 12 h5 Nxh5! 13 g4 Bxe2! 14 Bxe2 Ng3 reveals another point behind Black’s 10th: a) 15 Bxg7 Nxe2+ 16 Qxe2 Kxg7 17 Qh2 Rh8 18 Qh6+ Kg8 is unclear. b) 15 Rh2 Nxe2+ 16 Rxe2 (not 16 Qxe2? Bxh6+ 17 Rxh6 Qg5+) 16...Rfd8 17 Bxg7 Kxg7 18 Rh1 Rh8 19 Qh6+ (19 e5 looks desirable but gives Black time for 19... h6, intending 20 e6 Nb6 21 exf7 Ne4 22 Qel Qxa2 with advantage) 19...Kg8 20 e5 (or 20 f4 Qxa2 21 £5 Qc4) 20...dxe5 21 dxe5 Qxa2 remains rather a minefield for both sides. 22Castling into the Argentinean Attack 12...Kxg7 13 h5 (Diagram 19) 13...0xa2 At this stage a pawn in the bag is handy, as is control of the a2-g8 diagonal. In- stead 13...gxh5 is not so easy to crack, but 14 Ng3 Bxfl 15 Nf5+ Kh8 16 Rdxfl Qxa2 17 g4 looks hair-raising. 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 Oh6+ 15 Qxb4 Rab8 16 Qa3 Qxa3 17 Nxa3 Nh5 is only a fraction better for White. 15..KF7! The king guards g6, since 15...Kg8 16 Nf4 Bxfl 17 Nxg6 R7 18 Rdxfl is promising for White. After 15...K{7!, play could go on 16 g4 (16 Qg5 Kg8 17 Nf4 R&7 18 Bxa6 Qxaé 19 e5 QaS is unclear) 16...Ke8 17 Nf4 (17 g5 Nh5 18 Qxh7 Qf7 is about equal) 17...Bxf1 18 Rdxfl (Diagram 20) 18...Qf7 (safest, but 18...c5!? also comes into con- sideration), and in my opinion White has at best adequate compensation for the pawn. With each free move, Black will advance that a7-pawn a step further. Tay a TE ea Diagram 20 (B) Diagram 21 (W) B2) 1 e4 dé 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 6 0-0-0 c6 7 £3 b5 8 Bh6 Qa5 9 h4 b4 10 Nb1 Ba6 11 h5 Bxf1 Alternatively, 11...Bxh6 looks premature: for instance, 12 Qxh6 Bxf1 13 Rxfl Nbd7 14 g4 Qxa? (14...g5 15 Nh3 Kh8 16 Nxg5) 15 Nh3 Nb6 with a playable but perilous game for Black. 12 Rxf1 Nbd7 (Diagram 21) The most flexible. Otherwise 12...e5?! was played in N.Davies-L.Tegzes, Vancou- ver 2006, when 13 Bxg7 Kxg7 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 dxe5 dxe5 16 Qh6+ Kg8 17 Nh3 Qc7 looks rickety in the face of White's possible plan of Ng5, g3 and {4, while the knight on b1 is now released for active duty. 23Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern 13 Bxg7 13 g4 prepares NgI-h3, but Black now has a breathing space to strike back with 13...Qxa2: for example, 14 hxg6 (14 Nh3 Nb6 15 b3 c5 16 Bxg7 Kxg7 17 hxg6 c4 gives Black a very fast attack) 14...fxg6 15 Bxg7 Kxg7 16 Qh6+ Kh8! 17 Qxg6 (alter- natively, 17 Ne2 Qf7 18 g5 Nh5 19 f4 a5 is unclear, while after 17 g5 Nh5 18 Ne2 Qg8 — 18...Nb6!? 19 b3 Ned leads to wild complications but I don’t think it’s wholly sufficient ~ 19 f4 a5 20 f5 a4 21 Rxh5 gxh5 22 Nf4 Qg7 23 Qxh5 a3 Black seems to be reaching his goal first) 17...Qg8 18 Qxg8+ Rxg8 is unclear: White has the centre, Black a fast-looking a-pawn, 13...Kxg7 14 hxgé6 fxg6 15 Qh6+ Kg8 16 Nh3 Rf7 17 Ng5 Rg7 (Diagram 22) tm eae Diagram 22 (W) Diagram 23 (W) 18 £4 Spurning the repetition. Otherwise, 18 Rel e5 19 dxe5 dxe5 is okay for Black, and if White aims for e4-e5 with 18 Ne6 Rf7 19 Rel, then 19...Nf8! 20 Ng5 Rg7 21 5 dxe5 22 dxe5 Nd5 22 e6 Qxa2 sees Black’s counterplay kick in with the threat of ~-Nd5-c3. After 18 £4, the continuation 18...Qxa2 19 e5 Ng4 20 Qh3 h5 produces a double-edged game: for example, 21 £5 Nb6 22 £6 exf6 23 exf6 Qd5 24 Qh4 RE7 25 Nxf7 Kxf7 26 Nd2 Qxd4 and with two pawns for the exchange, Black is in decent shape. & . ROLL THE DICE! All this is untested analysis, and | can’t promise e that White won’t find an improvement somewhere. But even if your opponent does hit on this precise but rarely played move order (8 Bh6 Qa5 9 h4), you can be confident that having exchanged light-squared bishops, the black structure is sound. Then get ready for the game to descend into tactical chaos! 24Castling into the Argentinean Attack C) 1.e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 6 0-0-0 6 7 f3 b5 8 Kb1 A supporter of Line B might consider this a tempo wasted on defence that could be better used for attack. However, this prophylactic move has the useful point that 8...Qa5?! is hit by 9 Nd5!. ROLL THE DICE! In TP/BAW | gave a win by the buccaneering et Sarno after 9...Nxd5?! 10 Qxa5 Nxe3 ~ but | don’t recommend this for your repertoire! 8...Be6 also deserves further investigation; but here I concentrate on Black’s most thematic approach. 8...Nbd7 (Diagram 23) 9 ha! Once again an early advance of the h-pawn constitutes a rather critical move or- der. Compare: a) The hasty 9 e5? b4 10 exf6 bxc3 11 Qxc3?! Nxf6 12 Qxc6 Be6é gave Black a fantas- tic initiative already in MParligras-B.Jobava, European Championship, Antalya 2004 (I’ve annotated this stirring game in TPIBAW). b) 9 Bhé e5!? resembles the illustrative game Ree-Donner, but White has spent a tempo on Kb1. c) 9 g4 Nb6 10 g5 Nh5 11 b3 a5 12 Nce? £5 13 gxf6 Nxf6 14 Ng3 a4 15 h4 axb3 16 cxb3 Be6 17 Bh3 BE7 18 Nle2 Qb8 19 h5 Qa7 20 Nel Rfb8 21 hxg6 hxg6 22 NfS Ne4 23 Qg2 Nxe3 24 Nxe3 Kf8 was the unclear struggle D.Barria-D.Campora, Seville 2008. 9...e51? This is where the tough Donner formation comes into its own: Black contests the centre and keeps the queen in touch with the kingside. This seems to me prefer- able to the following: a) 9...Qa5? 10 Nd5. b) White was too fast after 9...Nb6 10 Bhé Be6 11 Bxg7 Kxg7 12 h5 in J.Hall- A.Giaccio, La Coruna 1993. c) 9...h5 10 Bh6 b4 (10...Nb6!?) 11 Nce2 a5 12 Nh3 Qb6 13 g4 just seems too risky. Admittedly here 10...e5!? intending ...Qe7 is an improvement, and after 11 g4 Qe7 12 Bxg7 Kxg7 13 g5 Nh7 White is restricted to a slight edge. 10 Bhé Instead 10 h5 (which is almost the game E.Sveshnikov-L.Van Wely, Biel 1993, ex- cept that there White had been able to play g2-g4 instead of Kcl-b1 due to Black’s inaccurate move order — a considerable difference) is now met by 1 xh5; 10 Nge2? (Ree’s placement of this piece) is now unwise due to 10...b4; and if White plays quietly, for instance with 10 Nce2, then Donner’s plan of ...Qe7 and possibly 25Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern .-Re8 and ...Nf8 comes into play. Otherwise: a) White could switch focus to the centre, but 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 Qd6 Bb7 12 g4 Nb6 13 Qa3 Qc7 14 h5 Rfd8 is okay for Black. b) 10 g4 sets up the positional threat of smothering the bishop on g7 with h4-h5- h6, but may be parried by 10...h5!?, or even better, 10...exd4! 11 Bxd4 b4 12 Nce2 c5 13 Be3 Nb6 (13...Ne5!?) and now: (Diagram 24) E AW # a wae Diagram 24 (W) Diagram 25 (W) b1) 14 Bxc5? Ne4 15 Qel dxc5! 16 Rxd8 Rxd8 17 Ng3 Nd2+ 18 Kal c4 19 h5 c3 20 b3 a5 and Black’s queenside expansion is very promising. 2) 14 Bh6 Ne4 15 Qf4 Bxh6 16 Qxh6 Bxp4 17 fxg Nxgd 18 Qf4 Nge3 19 Ng3 (19 Rd3?! £5!) Na3+! 20 Kel Nxd1 21 Kxd1 d5 is pretty unfathomable. Instead 10...Qe7 11 h5 Nb6 would not be a good version of the Donner formation, because Black’s bishop is bad and White can switch effectively to positional means, such as with 12 h6 Bh8 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 Qd6 Qxd6 15 Rxd6 Bb7 16 g5, etc. Returning to 10 Bh6: 10...Bxh6! The text makes sense because the queen on e7 will prevent any mating threats, and White no longer has the smothering option seen in the note above. d ROLL THE DICE! 10...exd4!? 11 Bxg7 dxc3 (Diagram 25) is ) almost too complicated for tournament chess, but given the right situation it could be worth a try. Here are the main lines of my analysis so far: 12 Qh6 (12 Bxf6 cxd2 13 Bxd8 Rxd8 14 Rxd2 Nb6 is equal) 12...Re8 13 Rxd6 Qa5 14 Rxf6! (better than both 14 Rxc6 cxb2 26Castling into the Argentinean Attack 15 Ne2 Rd8 and 14 Bxf6 Nxf6 15 Rxf6 cxb2 16 Qe3 Re6!) 14...Qb4 15 b3 Qa3 16 Qcl Qc5 (16...Qxcl+ 17 Kxel Kxg7 18 Rxe6 b4 leaves White a pawn up) 17 Rxc6! (17 Rxf7 Kxf7 18 Bhé a5 is not so clear) 17...Qxc6 18 Bd4 Ne5 19 h5 Baé!? (hurrying the queen's rook into play) 20 hxg6 fxg6 21 Qh6 Qd7 22 Bxc3 Rac8 23 Bb2 Qd1+ 24 Qcl Qxcl+ 25 Kxcl Nc6 with a slight edge for White in the ending. If you search, you might find improvements for both sides. 11 Qxh6 Qe7 12 h5 Nb6 13 hxg6 Play is complex too after 13 Nce2 c5!? 14 dxc5 dxc5. After the text, 13...fxg6 14 dxe5 dxe5 15 Nh3 (Diagram 26) 15...Bxh3!? 16 Rxh3 b4 17 Ne2 c5 with equality is a typical unfolding of the Donner formation. Diagram 26 (B) Diagram 27 (B) D) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Od2 0-0 6 0-0-0 c6 7 f3 b5 8h4 hs! When we get the chance, it’s worth holding White’s advance up. Instead 8...Qa5?! gives White a pleasant choice: a) 9 Kb1 Re8 (9...Be6 10 Nd5! is much stronger than in the same position with a white pawn on g4 rather than hd, since Black doesn’t have a ...Bxg4 resource; i.e. the line 10...Qxd2 11 Nxe7+ Kh8 12 Bxd2 Re8 13 d5 Nxe4 14 fxe4 Bg4 15 Nxg6+ £xg6 16 Rel leaves White a pawn up) 10 Bhé Bh8 (10...e5 is probably better, but Watson’s 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 g4 still looks good for White) 11 g4! b4 12 Nce2 leaves Black cramped. b) 9 h5 may be even stronger: b1) 9...Nxh5?! 10 Bh6! (Diagram 27) and now 10...Ng3? loses material to 11 Bxg7 Nxh1 12 Bxf8 Kxf8 13 Qh6+, but 10...b4 11 Nb1 leaves White menacing g4 and Ne2-g3. b2) 9...b4 10 Nb1 Qxa2 11 Bhé Rd8!? (a cunning idea to hold up e4-e5, but ulti- reiDangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern mately unconvincing) 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 Bxg7 Kxg7 14 Bd3!? Q£7 15 Nh3 Bxh3 16 Rxh3 Nbd7 17 f4 e5 18 Qxb4 c5 19 dxc5 dxc5 20 Qc3 favoured White in C.Corte- B.Wexler, Buenos Aires 1955, and a preliminary 14 Qh6+ might have been even stronger. 9 Bh6 White is trying to get a better version of Line C, i.e. trying to prove that it’s unnec- essary to spend a tempo tucking the king away to b1. The alternatives are not scary: a) 9 Kb] Re8!? (9...Qa5 would run into 10 Nd5! and 9...Nbd7 would transpose to Line C, but why shouldn’t Black meet one slow move with another?) 10 Bg5 Qa5 11 a3 Nbd7 12 g4 was played in Q.Bao-S.Sarno, Calvia Olympiad 2004, when 12...b4 13 Na2 hxg4 seems at least equal for Black. b) 9 Bd3 (Watson) 9...Nbd7 10 Bhé6 e5 seems fine for Black. c) 9 Nh3 Nbd/7 (it’s hard to decide whether to eliminate this piece before it reaches the handy g5-square: the evaluation of a line like 9...Bxh3 10 Rxh3 Qa5 11 Kb1 b4 12 Ne2 Nbd7 13 g4 c5 14 Ng3 depends on a lot of concrete tactics) 10 Ng5 Nb6 11 Bd3 Qe7 (11...Nc4 12 Bxc4 bxc4 13 e5 NdS is fine for Black) 12 Rdg! e5 (Diagram 28) 13 Ne2 exd4 14 Nxd4 a6?! (14...Nc4!) 15 g4 5 16 Nf5 gxf5 17 gxf5 cd 18 Bd4 Nbd7 19 Nh7 was Kr.Georgiev-J.Grigorov, Bulgaria 1984, and now 19...Kxh7 20 Rxg7+ Kxg7 21 Qg5+ Kh7 22 Be3 Kh8 is a draw. Diagram 29 (B) 9...b4! At the beginning of this chapter I argued for the move ...Qa5 in a similar position, but I think that the addition of h4 and ...h5 makes some difference. Take a look — 9...Qa5 and now: 28Castling into the Argentinean Attack a) 10 Kb] Bxhé! (not 10...Be6 11 Nd5!) 11 Qxh6 Be6 produces a position we consid- ered in the note to White’s 8th move in Yudasin-Anand, except with the h-pawns on h4 and h5. This difference helps White, though not decisively so: for example, 12 e5! (both 12 a3 b4 13 axb4 Qxb4 and 12 Qg5 Nh7 are okay for Black) 12...dxe3 13 dxe5 b4! 14 exf6 exf6 15 Ne4 Qxa2+ 16 Kel Qal+ 17 Kd2 Qxb2 18 Bd3 Rd8 with material equality but baffling complications. b) 10 e5 dxe5 11 Bxg7 Kxg7 12 dxe5 Ng8! 13 g4 b4 14 Nb] (or 14 Ne4 Qxa2 15 Qxb4 Na6) 14...Qxe5 is likewise unclear, with both sides’ armies languishing punch- drunk in their barracks. c) 10 Bxg7! Kxg7 11 Qg5! (Diagram 29) is a common theme in these positions with pawns on hé and h5, and Black must contort himself to root out the queen: 11...Re8! 12 g4 Nh7 13 Qe3 b4 14 Nb1 hxg4 15 h5 g5 with a rather precarious de- fence. 10 Nb1! More testing than 10 Nce2 Qa5 11 Kb1 and now: a) 11...Be6 12 Nel (a very snug place for the knight, and when White can defend like this it’s already a sign that things have gone wrong for Black) 12...c5?! (12...Nbd7 13 Bd3 is just slightly better for White) 13 Nge2 Be4 14 e5! dxe5 15 dxe5 Nd5 16 Bxg7 (Watson’s 16 Qg5! is even stronger) 16...Kxg7 17 Qg5 gave White a strong attack with the black queen cut off in J.Lopez Martinez-M.Gurevich, Euro- pean Championship, Dresden 2007. b) 11...c5! disrupts White’s development. Now 12 Bxg7 (12 g4!? is possible, while 12 d5 Nbd7 13 g4 Ne5 14 gxh5 Nxh5 15 Bxg7 Kxg7 16 f4 Nc4 17 Qd3 Ba6 is un- clear) 12...Kxg7 13 e5 dxe5 14 dxe5 Nfd7 15 e6 Ne5 16 Nf4 Nbc6 (Diagram 30) is a critical line, where Black seems to be okay, such as after 17 exf7 Bf5. i Diagram 30 (W) Diagram 31 (W) 29Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern 10...0a5 Idon’t quite trust 10...Be6!?, but haven’t managed to refute it either. Black reasons that taking on a2 with the bishop avoids diverting the queen for this duty, while it might be handy to capture the knight on b1 in some cases. Play could continue: 11 g4 (Black's point is that 11 Bxg7 Kxg7 12 Qxb4?! Bxa2 13 Nc3 Be6 14 Nge2 Qb6 15 Qa3 Bed 16 Nf4 Bxfl 17 Rhxfl Nbd7 is not dangerous) 11...Bxa2 12 Ne2 hxg4 (oth- erwise White's knight comes to g3, protecting the e4-pawn and thus allowing White to recapture on g4 with his £3-pawn) 13 h5 gxt3 14 Ng3 which looks promis- ing for White but still very tricky to negotiate: for instance, 14...Nbd7 15 Bxg7 Kxg7 16 Qg5 Rh8 17 Bd3 e6 18 hxg6 Nxed 19 Nxed Qxg5+ 20 Nxg5 fxg6 with an edge for White. 11 Nez Every case is so concrete that it’s hard to offer general rules for the timing of White’s attack. Here the black queen’s useful control of h5 seems to mean that 11 4 is premature in view of 11...hxg4 12 Ne2 gxf3 13 Ng3 Nh5 14 Bxg7 Kxg7. White could instead switch to an attack on the b4-pawn, but after 11 Bxg7 Kxg7 12 a3 c5! (there is also the pawn sacrifice 12...Na6 13 Bxa6 Qxa6 14 Qxb4) 13 e5! dxe5 14 dxe5 Nfd7 15 e6 Ne5 16 f4 Ng4 17 exf7 Nc6 Black's activity compensates for his aesthetically troubling pawn structure. 11...c5! (Diagram 31) It would take a lot of effort to prove it, but I feel that counterattack in the centre is more promising than grabbing pawns with something like 11...Nbd7 12 g4 hxg4 13 Ng3 Qxa2 14 h5. After 11...c5 both sides face another series of difficult choices over the next few moves: 12 g4 Nc6! (the move ...c5 doesn’t combine well with the double-edged pawn-grab on g4 - in this case 12...hxg4 13 e5! is unpleasant) 13 Bxg7 (at some point White needs to do this to free his queen; otherwise it’s possi- ble for him to go astray very quickly, as in the line 13 dxc52! Qxc5 14 Ng3? hxg4 15, h5 b3! 16 axb3 Nd4) 13...Kxg7 and I feel that Black is beginning to get the upper hand. White could utilize the g5-square with 14 gxh5 Nxh5 15 Qg5, but Black can safely capture on d4 now, or play more ambitiously with 15...Ba6. Conclusion You will have noticed that much of the material in this chapter has come either from my own explorations, or games from the 1960s or even earlier: that’s because modern theory has always assumed that 5...0-0 is simply a naive mistake that walks into an irresistible attack. However, if my analysis is correct (and that’s a big if, I know, because this is unexplored and fantastically complicated territory), Black’s theoretical standing is at least as good here as in the conventional 4...c6 lines. There is also the practical advantage that opponents are unlikely to have prepared for this beyond licking their lips and thinking ‘sac...sac...mate’. They are in for a nasty shock. 30Castling into the Argentinean Attack So where do you go from here? Experiment with 5...0-0 in your own games, and if you like, immerse yourself in the analysis of this fascinating variation. Note that computers (I’ve used Fritz supplemented by Rybka) are very useful for analysing the tactics, but peculiarly helpless in evaluating early decisions (whether White should play Kb1 or h4 or g4, whether Black should play ...Qa5, etc) with long-term reverberations. In some cases, computer assessments prove quite misleading. Let's try to sum up some provisional conclusions: i. Bhé is an indispensable part of White's plans to rip open the kingside. ti, There is no hard and fast rule about whether to allow Bxg7, or to lure White’s queen potentially offside with ...Bxh6. iii, If White plays the popular 8 g4, then ...b5, ...Qa5 and ...Be6 forces a weakness in his queenside pawns; don’t rush ...b5-b4, though, as the knight might recycle sol- idly to cl via e2. iv. An early h2-h4 is dangerous, and it pays to spend a tempo on ...h7-h5 if White has not prevented this. v. White's first critical move order is 7 Bh6 b5 8 £3! Qa5 9 h4!, when I have sug- gested 9...b4 10 Nb1 Ba6 as a way to neutralize his light-squared initiative. The a2- pawn can wait to be snaffled, and from a5 the queen performs the key task of con- trolling her fourth rank. vi. White’s other critical move order involves Kb1 to meet ...Qa5 with Nc3-d5, i.e. 7 £3 bS 8 Kb1 Nbd7 9 h4. This is formidable, hence my solid suggestion of 9...e5 — borrowing Donner’s defensive formation but alert to the sharp possibility of exd4., . Castling into it kills two sizeable birds with one stone. Not only does it combat the Argentinean Attack, but it also nullifies the 150 Attack, much of whose sting is based on Black’s traditional nervousness about early castling. More on this in the next chapter. a7Chapter Two Castling into the 150 Attack James Vigus 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Od2 0-0 (Diagram 1) Diagram 1 (W) In my games with 5...0-0 so far all my opponents have hesitated over their sixth move. If White wants to ‘refute’ Black's ‘mistake’, there is little doubt that he 32Castling into the 150 Attack should go for the 6 0-0-0 of our last chapter, preventing Black from breaking out immediately in the centre. But some players don’t want to commit the king so early — and maybe they’re right! They either try 6 Bh6 at once, aim for an Argen- tinean Attack with 6 £3, or prefer a ‘pure’ 150 Attack with 6 Nf3 or even 6 h3. (Transpositions are so rife that I can’t draw a very firm line between the 150 At- tack and the Argentinean Attack, but roughly I treat the latter as involving 0-0-0 and £3, and the former as practically everything else after 4 Be3.) This chapter con- siders these various possibilities, and the emphasis is on disruption: with well- timed strikes — whether ...c5, ...e5 or ...b5 - we'll prevent White from settling. Once again there is very little established theory here, and plenty of scope for interest- ing experiments. OM.Calzetta lf D.Fridman Liverpool 2008 1.4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 6 Bhé This move is an essential element in White's plans to soften up the black kingside, so why not play it at once? It’s recommended, for instance, in Neil McDonald’s repertoire book Starting Out: 1 e4. Yet it is probably less accurate than 6 0-0-0, be- cause it temporarily relinquishes control of the squares e5 and c5. Black can thus utilize his slight lead in development to strike back in the centre at once. 6...Bxh6!? This aggressive move deflects the white queen, aiming to detonate the centre with maximum force. We'll consider the alternatives 6...c5 and 6...e5 in the Looking a Little Deeper section. These are all quite attractive alternatives to the modest 6...c6, which might well transpose to Chapter One if White quickly castles. On the other hand, however, White could then experiment with a kingside attack without committing his king. 7 Qxh6 c5 (Diagram 2) 8 0-0-0?! White doesn’t have any easy options here. The critical 8 dxc5! requires some calcu- lation of 8...Qa5!? (see Line A, below, where 8 d5 is analysed too), while 8 Nf3 exd4 9 Nxd4 might look a more natural way to get a Dragon structure than the game move, but 9...Qb6! then sets up a trap (10 Nb3? Qxf2+), and 10 0-0-0 Nc6 forces the meek 11 Qd2 since exchanging on c6 would open the b-file to Black’s glee. 8...Ng4! The obvious 8...cxd4 9 Rxd4 Nc6 10 Rd2 Be6 is okay too, but does allow White’s queen to linger in the vicinity of the black kingside. 9Qd2 Avoiding a trap: 9 Qh4? e5! 10 Qxd8 Rxd8 and White faces material loss. 33Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern 9...cxd4 10 Qxd4 Nc6 11 Qd2 Be6 12 h3 More logical is 12 £3 Nf6 13 Nge2 Qa5 with balanced play. 12...Nf6 13 Nf3 Oa5 14 a3 @ DANGEROUS WEAPON! This weakens the queenside horribly, Zs but Black was really threatening to capture on a2, and 14 9 Kb1?? Nxe4 would not have improved White’s situation. 14...Rab8 (Diagram 3) 15 Oh6? a. z - Diagram 2 (W) Diagram 3 (W) The threatened advance of Black’s b-pawn causes Calzetta to panic, swinging her queen back and forth on a futile pendulum. 15 Ng5! was better, not so much to threaten an exchange on e6 as to defend the e4-pawn, freeing the other knight to leap forward. The further 15...b5 16 Nd5 b4! (16...Bxd5 17 exd5 Qxd2+ 18 Rxd2 Ne& is only about equal) 17 Nxf6+ exf6 18 Nxe6 fxe6 19 Qxd6 (not 19 Bcd? d5! 20 exd5 bxa3 with a strong attack) 19...bxa3 20 Qxa3 Qg5+! 21 Kb1 Qe5 nevertheless leaves Black with a handy initiative: for instance, 22 £3 Rxb2+ 23 Qxb2 Rb8 24 c3. Rxb2+ 25 Kxb2 Qc5 and the a-pawn is on its way. 15...b5 16 Ng5?! b4 17 Nd5 Perhaps White had missed that 17 e5 Nxe5 18 Nce4 Ned7 neatly defends. 17...Bxd5 18 Rxd5 Qa4 19 b3 (Diagram 4) 19...bxa3! 20 bxa4 a2 21 Kd2 Rb1 0-1 There was no reason not to promote at once, but this flourish was also enough to induce resignation. Admittedly Fridman outrated his opponent by nearly 400 points in this game, but the execution could hardly have been more efficient. 34Castling into the 150 Attack Diagram 4 (B) Diagram 5 (W) OV.Nevednichy ll A.Delchev Nice 2002 1.4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-06 f3 Now 6...c6 is quite likely to transpose to our last chapter, but White would then have the dangerous option of delaying queenside castling and starting the king- side charge at once. However, 6 £3 gives Black the opportunity to strike back in the centre — an opportunity he should seize! 6...e5 745 White pretends it’s a Samisch King's Indian. However, without a pawn on cd it’s harder for him to maintain this central bridgehead. For the alternatives, see Line C, below. 7...c6! (Diagram 5) There's no time to lose: otherwise a white rook on d1 will hinder this break. 80-0-0 This appears critical, but unless someone finds a major improvement on the pre- sent game, White must look to the alternatives: a) The game N.Murshed-D.Hossain, Dhaka 2006, continued 8 Bc4 b5 9 Bb3 b4 10 Nee2 (if 10 Na4 c5) and now 10...a5 is fine for Black. b) 8 dxc6 Nxc6 9 0-0-0 Be6 10 Qxdé6 (10 Nge2 was tried in C.Voicu-R.Kozel, Il- lichevsk 2006, and now I would play 10...Qa5 intending ...b5) 10...Qc8!? (10...Qa5 11 Qc! is irritating) 11 Qd2 Rd8 12 Bd3?! (12 Qe] Rxd1+ 13 Qxd1 Qc7 gives Black aoDangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern good compensation) 12...b5 13 Kb1 Nb4 14 Nge?2 (G.Letay-S.Farago, Budapest 2007) 14...Nxd3 15 cxd3 Qb7 is pleasant for Black. 8...cxd5 9 Nxd5 There has been very little experience with 9 exd5. After 9...a6 10 h4 b5 (W.Rosen- M.Dornieden, Grieskirchen 1998), the move ...Bb7 should give White a headache regarding his d5-pawn. g...Nxd5 10 Qxd5 (Diagram 6) i, wy E® £27 east V3 ns ah yy & VY, mois Zi a2. WORD OD en EN/, aia 2 ie; ZZ a ay ta tole Diagram 6 (B) Diagram 7 (W) 10...Be6!? This forcing method seems even more promising than 10...Nc6 11 Qxd6 Qa5 12 Qd5 (12 Bed Rd8 13 Qc5 Rxd1+ 14 Kxd1 Qd8+ 15 Kel BE8 16 Qd5 Qc7 17 Qd2 Nb4 gave Black reasonable compensation in L. Yudasin-G.Zaichik, Kostroma 1985 - TPIBAW gives the rest of this brilliant win for Black) 12...Qc7 13 Qc5 Be6 14 Nh3 Rfd8 15 Rxd8+ Rxd8 16 a3 Bxh3!? 17 gxh3 Qd7 with at least equality for Black, H Kallio-L., Vadasz, Budapest 2000. 14. Qxd6 Rb8 13 Qa6 Qc7 14 Oxd6 Oa5) 12...0e7 (not 12...0a5? 13 Bd2 Qxa2 14 Qa6) 13 Qa6 Rfc8 White scoops two pawns, but Black has dream development and open lines on the queenside. Grandmasters rarely go in for such pawn raids, but our oppo- nents might! @ DANGEROUS WEAPON! With 11 Qxb7 Nd7 12 Rxd6 (or 12 Ne2 11...Qa5 12 a3 Rc& 36Castling into the 150 Attack Of course the rook is powerful here, but its immediate purpose is to prevent White from simplifying with 13 Qc5. 13 Qd2 Qc7 14 Bd3?! True, this gives White peace of mind regarding the c2-pawn, but the bishop is a bit clumsy here, so Black’s ...b5 comes with all the more force. Instead 14 Ne2 Nc6 15 Nc3 Nd4 again limbering up for ...b5, is satisfactory for Black, but not nearly as good as the game. 14...Nc6 15 Ne2 b5! (Diagram 7) @ DANGEROUS WEAPON! Whether or not he captures this pawn, Se White can’t prevent lines opening on the queenside. 16 Bxb5?! 16 Kb1 may be more stubborn, but Black has time to support his advance with 16...Rab8. 16...Qb7! 17 Bxc6 Rxc6 18 Nc3 After this White is forced into a fatal weakening of his queenside, but even 18 Qa5! Bf6 19 c3 is unlikely to save him after 19...Rb8 20 Rd2 Ra6! 21 Qb4 Qc8 22 Qc5 Re6 23 Qa5 a6; the queen is almost out of squares. 18...Rb8 19 b4 BF8! 20 Nd5 a5 21 Qd3 axb4 22 axb4 Bxb4 23 Bh6 Bxd5 24 Oxd5 Ba3+0-1 OD.Collutiis M@ F.Peralta Turin Olympiad 2006 14 dé 2 d4.Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 Handily, the ...a6 idea employed by Peralta in this game is also playable against the immediate 5 Nf3. The game L.Van Wely-R.Ponomariov, Spanish Team Cham- pionship 2008, continued 5...a6 6 h3 0-0 7 a4 Nc6 8 Bed e6 9 0-0 d5! 10 Bd3 dxe4 11 Nxe4 Nd5 12 Bg5 6 13 Bh4 with a good game for Black. Indeed, here the com- puter points out 13...g5! 14 Bg3 f5!, intending 15 Nexg5 hé trapping the knight. 5...0-0 6 Nf3 (Diagram 8) 6 There's nothing wrong with the routine 6...c6, which can lead after, say, 7 a4.a58 Be2 Na6 to a Classical (Game 50 for those who have TPIBAW), or 7 h3 b5 8 Bd3 to a standard 150 Attack (Game 70 in TPIBAW). However, the fact that White has committed his knight to f3 reduces his attacking speed on the kingside somewhat, giving Black other options. Since there is now less urgency about getting the queen to a5 ready for a counterattack, Black can expand more flexibly, reserving the c6-square for his knight. Note that yet further options, such as 6...Bg4 and 6...e5, are discussed in detail in TPIBAW. 37Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern 7 Bh6 b5 8 Bd3 I've changed the game's actual move order, which was 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Be3 a6 6 Qd2 b5 7 Bd3 0-0 8 Bho. 8... Nc6 Control of e5 is vital: 8...Bb7 would run into 9 e5 when it’s not so clear how this impertinent pawn is going to be dislodged. 9a4q The Italian IM heads straight for one of two critical lines (the other involves cas- tling queenside, as we'll see in Line B): he exchanges Black's strong bishop, un- dermines the queenside, and then bursts through in the centre. But all that turns out to be easier said than done... Instead 9 Bxg7 Kxg7 10 h3 transposes to the game I.Dmitriev-I.Shkuro, Yuzhny 2008, in which following 10...e5 11 dxe5 Nxe5 12 Nxe5 dxe5 13 0-0-0 Bb7 14 Qe3 Qe7 15 Ne? ¢5 Black had already begun to seize the initiative on the queenside. 9...Bg4! (Diagram 9) . ae ee WW SC Pres Diagram 8 (B) Diagram 9 (W) Counterattacking against the d4-pawn, and at the same time continuing the fight for control of e5. 10 Bxg7 Kxg7 11 e5! The tactical point of Black’s play is that after 11 axb5 axb5 12 Rxa8 Qxa8 13 Bxb5 White can’t hang on to the extra pawn: even better than 13...Qal+ 14 NdI Nxe4 is 13...Rb8, threatening 14...Nxe4 and X-raying the b2-pawn. 11...dxe5!? Opening the centre looks risky, but with his king still uncastled it’s going to be 38Castling into the 150 Attack very hard for White to keep the game under control. Instead 11...Ng8 was the solid option, when 12 Bed (12 axb3 axb5 13 Rxa8 Qxa8 14 Bed b4 15 Nd1 e6 is fine for Black) 12...Qd7 13 Qf4 (13 exd6 may keep an edge, although neither 13...xd6 14 h3 Bxf3 15 Bxf3 Nf6 nor 13...exd6 14 h3 BES look too worrying) 13...b4 14 Ne2 £51? leads to a rather obscure position; after 15 e6 Qe8 16 Bd3 Nf it’s hard to say whether White’s advanced e-pawn will prove a strength or a weakness. 12 dxe5 Nd5! (Diagram 10) € < “ bab WX ie “ wn 5 LO, \NY Vi NS \ NY oS AN Re WY WS \ Cae [oe Diagram 10 (W) Diagram 11 (W) Consistent: it wasn’t too late to retreat the knight, but Peralta puts his trust in his advantage in development. 12...Ng8 13 Qe3 Bxf3 14 gxf3 was slightly better for White in V.Malyshev-V.lotov, correspondence 2004, as I noted in TPIBAW, while Black should definitely avoid 12...Nd7? 13 Be4 Bxf3 14 gxf3 Ndxe5 15 Qxd8 Raxd8 16 f4 £5 17 Bg2 Nd4 18 fxe5 Nxc2+ 19 Ke2 Nxal 20 Rxal. 13 Beq Collutiis no doubt thought long and hard about the alternative 13 axb5, and even now I can’t say for certain which move is better. Here Black has a choice: a) 13...axb5 14 Rxa8 Qxa8 15 Nxd5 Bxf3 (15...Nxe5 16 Be4 works out well for White) 16 gxf3 Rd8 17 Ne3 Nd4 18 Kfl Nxf3 19 Qel Nd2+ (or 19...Nxe5!? 20 Rgl Nxd3 21 cxd3 Rxd3 with three pawns for the piece) 20 Ke2 Nf3 and now 21 Rg1 avoids the threatened draw by repetition (21...Nd4+) with some advantage, though by no means full control. b) 13...Bxf3! 14 gxf3 (14 bxc6 Bxg2 15 Rgl Nxc3 16 Rxg2 Qd5 17 Kfl Ne4 18 Qe3 £5 19 exf6+ Nxf6 20 Qxe7+ RE7 21 Qb4 Qxcé6 is again tricky and unresolved) 14...Nxe5 (14...axb5 transposes to variation ‘a’) 15 Bed Nb4 (15...e6?! 16 f4 Ng4 17 bxa6 Qh4 is a fiercely complicated roll of the dice) 16 Qe2 (16 Qxd8 Raxd8 17 bxa6 f5 18 Bb7 39Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern Nxc2+ 19 Ke2 Ne4! 20 Rad1 Nd6 21 Rd2 Nxb7 22 Rxc2 NcS 23 a7 Ne6 keeps the balance; 16 f4 £5!? is another possibility) 16...c6 17 £4 Nd7 (Diagram 11) 18 bxc6 (18 Ra4 a5 19 Bxc6 Nxc6 20 bxcé Nb6 21 Ral Qc7 is fine for Black) 18...Nf6 19 c7 Qxc7 20 Bxa8 Rxa8 21 £5 (21 0-0-0 Qxf4+ 22 Qe3? Qf5 23 Rd2 Qa5 24 Kb1 Rc8 is one illus- tration of Black’s counterplay) 21...Rd8 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 0-0 Nc6 and the knight heads for d4, while its mate eyes the g4-square, with a dangerous attack for Black. ROLL THE DICE! It may be that somewhere in this jungle, White has a path to a firm theoretical advantage, but | have included so many variations in order to show that Peralta’s imaginative opening can’t be easily refuted. Moreover, computer engines often wander into lines where White is in trouble - and no wonder, since Black has energetic knights and White an unsafe king. Just a rough familiarity with these lines will be enough for you to feel confident when luring an opponent into the swamp! 13...Ndb4 14 Nd5 It would take strong nerves to try 14 Qe3!?, but Black has no way to deflect the bishop on e4 from defence of c2, and the messy continuation 14...Bxf3 15 gxf3 (15 Qxf3 Qa! seems to work out okay for Black) 15...Qd7 may be most logical. 14...Nxd5 Better than the fancy 14...Bf5 15 Bxf5 Qxd5 16 Qxd5 Nxd5 17 Be4 Rad8 when White's bishop could remain a strong piece for some time to come. 15 Bxd5 This was White’s one and only chance to play it safe: 15 Qxd5 Qxd5 16 Bxd5 Bd7 (keeping some life in the game, whereas the simplifying 16...Nb4 17 Bxa8 Nxc2+ 18 Ke2 Nxal 19 Rxai Rxa8 20 axb5 a5 makes a draw quite likely). 15...Bxf3 16 gxf3 16 Bxf3? loses a pawn: 16...Qxd2+ 17 Kxd2 Rad8+ 18 Ke3 Nxe5. 16...Nxe5 (Diagram 12) DANGEROUS WEAPON! With his pawns shattered and his Ze uncastled king facing a centralized knight, White is treading a ce narrow path. Surely such danger was not what he’d bargained for when opting for the 150 Attack? 17 Bxa8? White has kept his head during the passage of forcing play, but he now rushes to clarify the position, giving up his hardest-working piece for one slumbering ina 40Castling into the 150 Attack corner. Much more promising is 17 axb5! c6 18 bxc6 (18 Bxe6?! Nxc6 19 bxc6 Qb6 looks attractive for Black): for example, 18...e6 (otherwise White can exploit the black king’s presence on a dark square, such as with 18...Qb6 19 Qc3! or 18...Qd6 19 £4 Rad8 20 Qc3) 19 £4 (or 19 Bed Qxd2+ 20 Kxd2 £5 21 Bd3 a5 22 Bb5 Rfc8 23 c3 Kf6 and Black recaptures on c6 with approximate equality) 19...Qf6 20 Bg2 Nc4 21 Qc3 Qxe3+ 22 bxc3 and I wouldn’t like to judge this position without extensive analysis. It’s hard to imagine White having a worse pawn structure, but the fur- thest advanced of his three passed c-pawns remains a menace. Diagram 12 (W) Diagram 13 (B) 17...Qxa8 18 Qc3 White logically enough assumes that a queen exchange favours him, since the black queen combines well with the knight and the closer White gets to an end- game of rook versus knight the better. Yet having seen how easily the knight ce- ments itself on e5 in the game, I wonder whether White should have taken his chances with 18 0-0-0 Qxf3 19 Qd4 f6, hoping somehow to get f2-f4 in. 18...Oxf3 19 Oxf3 Nxf3+ 20 Ke2 With hindsight 20 Kf1 would not have given Black so many tempi and so would buy White time to counterattack on the a-file. Black could, though, quickly bring his e-pawn up to e4 to cement the knight on 3. 20...Nd4+ 21 Kd3 Rd8 22 Rad1 (Diagram 13) 22...Rd6! I'm tempted to risk a notorious piece of annotator’s hyperbole (if you recall Réti’s comments on a famous rook sortie by Lasker) by calling this the decisive manoeu- vre. On the third rank the rook can hassle both the white monarch — who doesn’t know whether to go backwards and hamper his own rooks’ co-ordination, or stay in front of his pawns and run into checks - and the weakling on f2. Anxiety about 4aDangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern the f2-pawn is the reason why White doesn’t bring his king to a safer haven on c2, but perhaps this was best. 23 axb5 axb5 24 c3 Nc6+ 25 Ke2? This was White's chance for 25 Ke2 Rf6 26 Rd2, intending a later Kb3-b4. Now Peralta’s plan in the game is very instructive: the king marches forward first, mak- ing sure that White is stuck with those two weak kingside pawns rather than be- ing able to exchange them; pawn advances then create further outposts for the knight, which finds its ultimate vocation on f4. 25...Re6+ 26 Kf3 Ne5+ 27 Kg2 Kfé 28 Rhe1 Kf5 29 Rd5 c6 30 Rd4 g5 31 Re3 h5 32 b3 h4 33 Rd8 Rh6 34 h3 Rh7! 35 Re8 6 36 Rei e6 37 Rd1 Ra7 38 Rd6 Ng6 39 Rxc6 Nf4+ 40 Kh2 Ra2 41 Re5+ Keq 0-1 Looking a Little Deeper 1.e4 d6 2 d4 Nfé 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 (Diagram 14) Diagram 14 (W) Diagram 15 (B) We will now examine: A: 6 Bhé B: 6 h3 C: 6 f3 D: 6 NF3. 42Castling into the 150 Attack Note that White might also develop whilst not fully committing himself with 6 Be2, which takes play into Line B of Chapter Seven. That is a tricky choice, but those who have studied this chapter should be happy enough there after 6...e5. A) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Od2 0-0 6 Bhé Bxh6!? The ‘dangerous’ choice, but here is some further food for thought: a) In TPIBAW I recommended 6...e5 without further analysis. This later served me well: D.Wanzek-J.Vigus, Jena 2008, continued 7 Nf3 exd4 8 Nxd4 Nxed! 9 Nxe4 Qh4!? 10 Bf4 Re8 11 Qe3 (Diagram 15) and now improving on my provocative 11...Bd7!? 12 0-0-0 g5 13 Bxg5 Qxe4, 11...Qe7! 12 Bd3 d5 13 Bg5 Qf8 14 0-0-0 dxe4 15 Bxe4 Nd7 is at least equal. However, I now feel that Black has a rather rigid version of Larsen’s line in the Philidor (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 g6) after simply 7 Bxg7 Kxg7 8 Nf3 (8 Nge2 and 8 0-0-0 have also been played successfully) 8...exd4 9 Nxd4 Ne6 10 0-0-0 Qe7 11 £3 Nxd4 12 Qxd4 Qe5 (J.Sikora-R.Lobejko, Trinec 2001) 13 Qd2 Be6 14 g4 Qa5 15 Kb1 — White can take his time to build up the attack. b) 6...c5 is a solid and reliable continuation: 7 Bxg7 (7 d5 Bxh6 8 Qxh6 transposes to note ‘b’ to White's 8th move, below) 7...Kxg7 8 dxc5 (both 8 Nf3 cxd4 9 Nxd4 Nc6 10 Be4 Qb6 and 8 d5 Qa5 are plausible alternatives, while I encountered 8 Nge2 Nc6!? 9 0-0-0 cxd4 10 Nxd4 Qa5 11 £3 in F.Holzke-J.Vigus, Internet blitz 2008, and now 11...Nxd4 12 Qxd4 Be6 is balanced) 8...dxc5 9 0-0-0 (another intrigu- ing possibility is 9 Qg5!? Qd6!? 10 e5 Qe6 11 Nf3 Nc6 12 0-0-0 Ng4 13 Qh4 f6 with unclear play) 9...Qxd2+ 10 Rxd2 Nc6 11 Be4 Nd4 12 Nge? e5 13 Ng3 h5 14 h4 Beé 15 Bd5 Rab8 was comfortable for Black in F.Berend-T.Markowski, Metz 1997. 7 Qxh6 c5 (Diagram 16) e : oo a cane ODE Diagram 16 (W) Diagram 17 (W) 43Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern Once again I consider this preferable to 7...e5 when White could either reply 8 Nf3 or swap on e5, play h3 and develop quietly, while 8 0-0-0 exd4 9 Rxd4 Ned 10 Qf4 Ne6 11 Rd2 was also a little better for him in the game D Johansen-C.Depasquale, Canberra 2000. 8 dxc5! Alternatively: a) We saw 8 0-0-0?! in the illustrative game Calzetta-Fridman. b) 8 d5 Qa5 (8...a6 is another possibility, but the 8...Bd7?! of J.Salac-R.Grill, Czech League 1999, deprived the queen's knight of its natural square) and now: b1) 9 £3 Nbd7 intending ...b5 gives Black good play. b2) 9 0-0-0 a6 (9...Nbd7!? followed by sacrificing with ...b5 is again a promising alternative) 10 h4 (10 Nf3 b5 11 e5 Ng4!? 12 Qh4 b4 13 Nb1 Nxe5 14 Nxe5 dxe5 15 Qxe7 Qxa2 16 Qxc5 a5 is another unclear possibility where Black has good poten- tial on the queenside) 10...b5 11 h5 Ngd! (stronger than 11...b4 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 Nb1 Qxa2) 12 Qf4 b4 13 Nb1 Qxa2 14 Be2 Nf6 15 g4 c4! 16 g5 Nxed! 17 Qxe4 BES 18 Qd4 Rc8 is by no means a forced variation, but neatly illustrates the attacking possibili- ties afforded by Black's c-pawn. b3) 9 ha! Ned! (otherwise 9...b5 is possible, but 9...Nxe4 10 h5 forces 10...Bf5 11 hxg6 Bxg6 12 Bd3 when Black’s defences look fragile) 10 Qd2 h5 11 £3 Nf6 12 g4 Nbd7 13 0-0-0 Rb8 sets up a typically unbalanced scenario with castling on oppo- site sides. 8...Qa5!? (Diagram 17) Definitely in the spirit of a Dangerous Weapon, whereas 8...dxc5 9 Nf3 Nc6 10 h3 is solid but concedes White a slight edge. 9 cxd6 Instead 9 h4!? Qxc5 (there’s no need to get involved in 9...Nxe4?! 10 h5 BfS 11 hxg6 Bxg6 12 Bd3) 10 Be2 (10 h5 Qxf2+! highlights White’s usual Achilles heel, and comes out about equal after 11 Kxf2 Ng4+ 12 Kg3 Nxh6 13 hxg6 Kg7 14 gxh7 Rh8 15 Nf3 Nc6 16 Nd5 Rxh7) 10...Be6 11 h5 Nbd7?! 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 N£3 Qb6 14 0-0-0 gave White a dangerous initiative in E.Moser-S.Sarno, Leipzig 2002, but 10...Nc6 11 hS5 g5!? is an enterprising defence that gives White certain problems extricating his queen (note that 12 Nf3 would allow 12...Qxf2+ again). After 9 cxd6, a logical sequence runs 9...Nxe4 10 dxe7 Re8 11 Nge2 Nxc3! (1L...Rxe7 12 0-0-0! sets Black unpleasant problems; one striking variation gener- ated by Fritz is 12...Nxf2 13 Nd5! Re6 14 Nef4 Qd8 15 Nxe6 Bxe6 16 Be4 Nxh1 17 Nf4 Qxd1+ 18 Kxd1 Bxc4 19 Nh5 gxh5 20 Qg5+ Kh8 21 Qd8+ Kg7 22 Qd4+ £6 23 Qxc4) 12 Nxc3 Rxe7+ 13 Be2 Bg4 14 £3 (Diagram 18), reaching a highly complex position which will need to be tested before an evaluation can become clear. Here Black has two plausible moves: 44Castling into the 150 Attack Dae} ~\ .. \Y N a a t 7 dh N \ ~\ W \ 2 SN yt Y . bb S \ .. YW Y Y AOR DT) RR Ho 7s Diagram 18 (B) Diagram 19 (W) a) 14...Ne6!? 15 0-0-0! (15 fxg4 Nd4 16 Kfl Nxe2 17 Rel!? Nxc3! 18 Rxe7 Qb4 19 Rel Qxb2 gives Black decent counterplay) 15...Rxe2! 16 fxg4 (Black's tactical justifica- tion is 16 Nxe2?! Qxa2 17 fxg4?! Qal+ 18 Kd2 Rd8+ 19 Ke3 Rxd1 20 Rxdl Qxd1 with the initiative) 16...Rxg2 is playable for Black, but his kingside remains a little draughty: for example, 17 Nd5 Kh8 18 Qh3! (18 Nf6 Rxc2#! seems to give Black sufficient checks) 18...Re2 19 Qf3 and the h2-pawn might roll forward. b) 14...Be6 and now: bl) The purpose of Black’s bishop sortie was to meet 15 0-0 with 15...Qb6+ 16 Kh1 Qxb2, and now if 17 Ned the black queen nimbly defends the kingside. b2) 15 0-0-0 Bxa2 seems to me to give Black sufficient play. The rook on e7 defends prophylactically against an h-pawn thrust, while White’s most direct try, 16 Ned, leads toa mess after 16...Rxe4! 17 fxe4 Be (Diagram 49). Black is likely to snaffle the b2-pawn as compensation for the exchange, and will then pin his hopes on his passed a-pawn and the ability of his queen and knight to hassle the drifting white monarch. b3) The materialistic 15 a3!? may be White's best try for an edge. Certainly after 15...Bc4 16 0-0-0 Bxe2 17 Rdel White has achieved a favourable simplification. I prefer 15...Nd7 16 0-0-0 Re8 17 Qd2 Nfé when it’s hard to say whether Black’s ac- tivity fully compensates the pawn deficit, but the practical chances are good. B) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 6 h3 This is neither a waiting move (Black has already disclosed the key information about his development by castling), nor primarily a decision to keep Black’s minor pieces out of g4: rather White hopes to set up an Archbishop Attack by playing g2- g4 himself. An example is 6...c6 (not bad, but not the most energetic in my view) 7 45Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern Nge2!? Nbd7 8 g4 e5 9 Bg2 Nb6 10 g5?! Nfd7?! (Black should have thrown in 10...Ne4) 11 b3 d5 12 dxe5 Nxe5 13 Ral Be6 14 f4 Ned7 15 Nd4 with perhaps an edge for White in Y.Rantanen-J.Lechtynsky, Namestovo 1987. There is plenty of room for experiment here, as the 6...Nbd7!? 7 Nf3 c5 8 dxe5 Nxc5 9 e5 Nfed 10 Nxe4 Nxe4 11 Qd5 (or 11 Qb4! £512) 11...Nc5 of J. Houska- W.Hendriks, Hastings 2006/07 shows. This was already more comfortable for Black, since 12 Bxc5 Be6! forces the queen away before recapturing on c5. However, one of the reasons for playing 5...0-0 rather than an early ...c6 is to ren- der h3 less effective, and my repertoire recommendation is the rapid central strike: 6...e5 (Diagram 20) G ¥ oe at a ental £0 @ Bs Diagram 20 (W) Diagram 21 (W) 7 dxe5 Otherwise 7 d5 c6 8 dxc6 Nxc6 9 0-0-0 Qa5 10 Bc4 Rd8 11 Nf3 Be6 12 Bxe6 fxe6 13 Kb1 Rd7 14 Bh6 Bxh6 15 Qxh6 Qbé6 16 Qh4 Rf8 17 Rd3 d5 was more than satisfac- tory for Black in the game A.Rodriguez Vila-M.Narciso Dublan, Sants 2006. 7..dxe5 8 0-0-0 After 8 Qxd8 Rxd8 9 Bcd Nc6 10 Nf3 Ne8!? (securing d4) 11 Bg5 Rd6 12 Nb5 Rd7 I had no complaints in M.Recknagel-J.Vigus, Jena 2008. Following 8 0-0-0 Black can choose safety or provocation: a) 8...Nbd7!? 9 g4! c6 10 Nge2 Qe7 11 Ng3 Nc5 (Diagram 21) 12 Rgi Kh8 13 Bh6 Bxh6 14 Qxh6 b5 was fine for Black in S.Collas-M.Marin, Andorra 2001, although 12 g5 Ne8 13 h4, aiming to smother the bishop on g7 rather than deliver immedi- ate mate, is more testing. b) 8...Qxd2+ 9 Rxd2 a6!? 10 g4 b5 11 Bg2 Bb7 is solid 46Castling into the 150 Attack C) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 6 f3 e5 7 Nge2 We saw how 7 d5 got White into trouble surprisingly quickly in the illustrative game Nevednichy-Delchev. Otherwise 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 0-0-0 Qxd2+ 9 Rxd2 Nc6 10 BbS5?! (alternatively: 10 Nb5 Ne8 and ...a6 is about equal; 10 4 Rd8 11 Rxd8+ Nxd8 12 g5 Ne8 and the knights can leap forward to e6 and d6) 10...Nd4! 11 Bxd4 exd4 12 Rxd4 c6 13 Bfl Nd5 14 Rxd5 cxd5 15 Nxd5 £5 favoured Black in W.Hartston- LZaitsev, Sochi 1979. 7..exd4 For the cagey 7...c6, see Ree-Donner in Chapter One. 8Nxd4 Also possible is 8 Bxd4 Ncé (8...Be6 9 Nf4 Nc6 10 Be3 Qd7 11 0-0-0 Ne5 12 Nxe6 Qxe6 13 Kb! a6 14 Bhé b5 15 Bxg7 Kxg7 is also nothing special for White, B.Socko- R.Lobejko, Glogow 2001) 9 Be3, but this doesn’t trouble Black’s development: 9...a6 10 0-0-0 Be6 11 Bh6 b5 12 Bxg7 Kxg7 13 Nf4 Ne5 14 Kb1 Qd7 15 Ned5 Bxd5. 16 Nxd5 Nxd5 17 Qxd5 Qe6 18 Be2 Qxd5 19 Rxd5 Nd7 with equality, F.Anderson- L.Evans, Montreal 1956. 8...d5! (Diagram 22) Diagram 22 (W) Diagram 23 (W) Variation of the Philidor Defence, and to a position which more normally arises after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 da exd4 4 Nxd4 g6 5 Nc3 Bg7 6 Be3 Nf6 7 f3 0-0 8 Qd2 d5. I discussed this briefly in TPIBAW, and Christian Bauer did so in greater depth in The Philidor Files (Everyman Chess 2006). Here's a summary plus some fresh mate- rial: LO TRICKY TRANSPOSITION: We have transposed to Larsen’s 47Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern a) A key point is that Black is doing fine after 9 e5 Nfd7 (threatening ...c5 and ...d4) 10 e6 NeS or 10 Nxd5 Nxe5. b) One continuation neither Bauer nor I considered is 9 Bg5!? dxe4 10 fxe4 (DJameson-J.Littlewood, Liverpool 2007) 10...h6! to meet 11 Bh4?? with 11...Nxed!. c) Critical is 9 0-0-0 and now: cl) 9...c5!? 10 Nb3 d4 11 Bg5 Nc6 12 Nd5 b6 13 h4 Be6 14 Nxf6+ Bxf6 15 Bb5 Nb4 16 a3 a6 17 Bad!? Bxg5 18 hxgS Nxc2 19 Kxc2 Re8 20 Rh6 was dodgy for Black in E.Sveshnikov-G.Zaichik, Volgodonsk 1983. ROLL THE DICE! However, Black may be able to get away with @ 11...0d6!? (Diagram 23), intending 12 f4 Qc6 13 Bxf6 Bxf6 14 Nd5 Bd8, maintaining the large centre and sharp play. 2) 9...dxe4 (solid and sensible) 10 fxe4 (10 Bh6 Ne6 11 Bxg7 Kxg7 12 Nxc6 Qxd2+ 13 Rxd2 bxe6 14 Nxed Nxed 15 fxe4 Re8 is equal, S.Arkhipov-A.Berelovich, Sochi 1993) 10...c6 (10...Re8 11 Bed Nbd7 12 Nf3 Qe7 13 Rhel Nb6 14 Bb3 Be6 15 Nd5 Bxd5 16 exd5 Ne4 17 Qa5 maintained a slight edge for White, C.Hansen-J.Fries Nielsen, Vejle 1982) 11 Bhé! (more aggressive than the 11 h3 Nbd7 of O.Renet- A.David, Clichy 1995) 11...Qe7 12 Bxg7 (12 Nf5 Bxf5 13 Bxg7 Kxg7 14 exf5 looks a better try for White) 12...Kxg7 13 Qg5 h6 14 Qg3 Re8 15 Bd3 Qe5 16 Nf5+ Bxf5 17 Qxe5 Rxe5 18 extS Nbd7 19 fxg6 fxg6 was agreed drawn in D.Rotman-H.Volman, Jerusalem 1996. D) 1 e4 d6 2 dq Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Od2 0-0 6 Nf3 a6 (Diagram 24) Diagram 24 (W) Diagram 25 (W) 48Castling into the 150 Attack Now the quiet 7 a4 is likely to transpose to a line I dubbed the ‘Accelerated Classi- cal’ in TPIBAW; 7...66 is a possible reply, while 7...Nc6 8 h3 would reach Game 59 in that book. 7 0-0-0 There are two important alternatives: a) 7 Bh6 b5 produces a further split: al) 8 Bd3 Ne6 9 Bxg7 Kxg7 and now the critical 10 a4 transposes to our main game Collutiis-Peralta, while TPIBAW covers alternatives, including the 10 e52! dxe5 11 dxe5 Ng4 (Diagram 25) 12 0-0-0 (12 QF4? Nexe5! 13 Nxe5 Qd6) 12...b4! 13 Nb1 Qd5 14 Qf4 Nxf2! of J.Emms-M.Pein, Southend 1999. Instead, 10 h3 e5 11 d5 Ne7 12 0-0 Bb7 13 a4 06 14 dxc6 Bxc6 15 axb5 axb5 16 Rxa8 Qxa8 17 Bxb5 Bxb5 18 Nxb5 Nxe4 19 Qd3 Qe6 20 Rd1 Rb8 21 c4, though a fraction better for White, led to a solid draw in V.Anand-A.Chernin, Corsica (rapid) 2001. a2) 8 Bxg7 Kxg7 9 Qf4!? aimed to force through e4-e5 under favourable circum- stances in A.Cherniaev-M.Pavlovic, Hastings 2006/07, but 9...b4 10 Ne2 c5!? (10... Nbd7 is solid) 11 dxe5 dxc5 12 Ng3 Ne6 13 Bed (13 e5 Nd5 14 Qe4 looks more ambitious) 13...e5! 14 Qe3 Ndé left Black fairly happy. b) 7 Bd3 (Diagram 26) is a non-committal developing move, played in the hope of undermining Black's b-pawn if and when it comes forward: Diagram 26 (B) Diagram 27 (B) bl) Ilike 7...Ne6 when 8 h3 e5 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 Rd1 Qe7 11 0-0 Rd8 was equal in J.Riff-L.Thiede, Fuegen 2006. b2) 7...b5 8 a4 Bb7!? (8...b4 9 Ne2 a5 10 Bh6 c5?! 11 e5!? dxeS 12 dxe5 Ng4 13 Bxg7 Kxg7 14 h3 Nh6 failed to equalize for Black in A.Bigg-P.Levermore, British League 2006, while my suggestion of 10...Nc6 remains untested) 9 axb5 axb5 10 Rxa8 Bxa8 49Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern 11 Nxb5 (11 b4!?) 11...Nxe4?! 12 Qa5! Nc6 13 Qxc7 didn’t quite give Black full compensation in P.Jaracz-A.Czerwonski, Cappelle la Grande 2008, but 11...Bxe4 12 Bxe4 Nxe4 13 Qd3 d5 isn’t bad. 7...b5 8 e5 Owing to the pressure on e4, White doesn’t have a great deal of choice about this committal move. He can delay it for a move, but 8 Bd3 Bb7 9 e5 Ngé (9...dxe5?! 10 dxe5 Ng4 was played in W.Geiger-R Subramanian, correspondence 2003, and now 11 e6! fxe6 12 Qe2 would exploit Black’s premature opening of the d-file) is one of those continuations that show why strong players so often insert h2-h3 at an early stage. Here Black meets 10 Bg5 with 10...dxe5 11 dxe5 Bxf3 12 gxf3 Nxe5. 8...dxe5 9 Nxe5 Bb7 10 Bh6 (Diagram 27) Against the direct 10 h4 Black must strike back fast: 10...c5! 11 dxc5 Qc7 12 Nd3 Rd8 with good activity for the pawn. League 2008, Black now went off the rails with 10...Bxh6? 14 Qxh6 Nc6 12 h4! Nxd4 13 Bd3 b4 14 h5 g5 15 Oxg5+ Kh8 16 Bc4 e6 17 Rxd4 1-0. Given the support of the knight on e5, this is not one of those occasions when we can invite the white queen into hé. a3 BEWARE! After 10 Bh6, in J.Richardson-C.Beaumont, British Instead 10...Nc6 is called for to challenge that dangerous piece, and a continuation like 11 Bxg7 Kxg7 12 Qe3 Nb4 (or 12...e6 13 h4 Ne7 to mect 14 h5 with 14...Nf5 15 Qd2 Nxh5) 13 h4 h6 14 h5 g5 then keeps the kingside blocked while preparing to utilize the d5-square. Conclusion We now have an unorthodox and combative repertoire against the most fashion- able anti-Pirc line with 4 Be3 Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0. The key points to remember are: i. To meet 6 Bhé with ...c5, whether immediately (the solid option) or after captur- ing on hé (the dangerous weapon). ii. 6 £3 e5 is very satisfactory for Black, mainly because of his lead in development in the line 7 d5 c6. iii. 6 Nf3 is a standard 150 Attack, and now 6...e5 is a rather controversial possibil- ity. Ihave suggested that the absence of a lightening kingside attack from White enables Black to expand on the queenside with 6...a6, keeping the c6-square for the knight on b8, and aiming to pressurize the e4-pawn. It’s then very hard for White to keep the game under control, as Fernando Peralta — the leading contem- porary Pirc devotee — has demonstrated in virtuoso fashion. 50Chapter Three A Neglected Approach in the Classical Colin McNab 1.4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Be2 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 Bf4 (Diagram 1) Diagram 1 (B) With this direct move White hinders ...e5 by Black, at the same time preparing to advance his own e-pawn. Continuing with 7...Nbd7 8 Qd2 has been a pet line of 51Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern the Australian grandmaster Ian Rogers, and as long ago as 1995 he recommended it in New In Chess Yearbook 38. Despite this, the line has not attracted a huge num- ber of adherents. However, I do not believe that this is a reflection of the merits of this set-up, but rather an accident of history. The related variation with 7 Rel and 8 Bf4 has grabbed more than its fair share of attention, but it seems to me that in several lines Qd2 turns out to be a more useful move than Rel. The following games illustrate some of the problems that may confront Black. C1 LRogers Ml G.Seul Agios Nikolaos 1995 1.e4 d6 2 d4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 Be2 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 Bf4 Nbd7 We shall look at Black’s other 7th and 8th moves later. 8 Qd2 Qc7 9 e5 (Diagram 2) This is the critical choice; 9 a4 e5 10 Bhé is playable, but gives Black good chances to equalize. VES Lt Waly ao ee TER SY OR ROK WY Ye Le tt¥ad pnt t nS Ae WY NY; \ N WY ABN \ ~ \\ NX WY le \ i> e ie \ Br i. Ww bat Diagram 2 (B) Diagram 3 (B) 9...Nh5 The alternatives are quite solid, but do not offer full equality: a) 9...Ne8 10 Qe3! Nbé 11 Rfel BfS 12 Racl Rd8 13 a4 and White’s advantage in space gives him an edge, D.King-D.Norwood, London 1988. b) 9...dxe5 10 Nxe5 Qd8 11 Bf3 Nxe5 12 Bxe5 Be6 13 Rad] Qd7 14 Rfel is also a little better for White, Z.Bratanov-B.Badea, St Affrique 2001. 10 Bgs, 52A Neglected Approach in the Classical The direct attempt to win Black’s dé-pawn by 10 exd6 exd6 11 Ne4 can be met by the liquidating 11...Ndf6! 12 Bxd6 Nxe4 13 Bxc7 Nxd2 14 Nxd2 Bxd4 15 c3 Bg7 with equality. The game L-Keitlinghaus-R.Lau, Dortmund 1991, continued 16 Bxh5?! gxh5 17 Rfel Be6 18 Nf3 Rfe8 19 Be5 Bd5 20 Bxg7 Kxg7 and Black’s power- ful bishop proved more important than the weakening of his pawns. 10...dxe5 10...f6 11 exd6 exd6 12 Be3 £5 13 d5 Ndf6 14 Nd4 Kh8 15 Bh6 Bd7 16 Bxg7+ Nxg7 17 dxc6 bxc6 18 Rad1 gave White a plus in L.Brunner-S.Mohr, Berlin 1989. 11 Bxe7 (Diagram 3) 11...exd4?! Black is tempted into an unsound exchange sacrifice. The natural 11...Re8 will be studied in detail later in the chapter. 12 Bxf8 dxc3 (Diagram 4) Esk 3 frwalizes Diagram 4 (W) Diagram 5 (B) 13 Bdé! Perhaps Black had only considered 13 Qd6 Qxd6 14 Bxd6 cxb2 15 Rab1 Nb6 when it is not easy for White to deal with the strong passed pawn. 13...cxd2 13...Qa5 is well met by 14 Qel! Qd5 (not 14...cxb2? 15 Qxa5 bxalQ 16 Qd8+) 15 Rd1 Qxa2 16 bxc3 and White has a clear advantage, since 16...Qxc2? allows 17 Be4 with an overwhelming attack. 14 Bxc7 Bxb2 15 Rab1 Bg7 16 Nxd2 (Diagram 5) 7 DANGEROUS WEAPON! With only one pawn for the exchange, eZ Black faces a long, arduous defence. 53Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern 16...Nc5 17 Bd6é Ne6 18 Bxh5 gxh5 19 Nf3 b6 20 Be5 f6 21 Bg3 Nc5 22 Nd4 Bd7 23 Rfe1 Bf8 24 Rbd1 Kf7 25 h3 Nb7 26 Ne2 Bf5 27 c3 Nc5 28 Nd4 Be4 29 c4 Rc8 30 a3?! Bg6 31 Bh4 Rc7 32 Nf3 Neq? White has drifted a bit over the last few moves and here 32...Bd3 33 Rel Bh6 34 Rc3 Be4 would have made it very difficult for him to make progress. 33 Rd4 Nc3 34 Rf4 Be7 35 Bxfé! Bxfé 36 Ng5+ Kg8 37 Rxf6é Rd7 38 Rxc6 1-0 OD.King Ml C.McNab Blackpool Zonal 1990 1 e4 g6 2 dq dé 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 Bg7 5 Be2 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 BF4 Nbd7 8 Qd2 e5 (Dia- gram 6) ruAW_¥o ere) i mre aim ma" ‘< "ani ee a Diagram 6 (W) Diagram 7 (W) Black’s intention is to equalize by exchanging off all the centre pawns. However, matters are not quite that simple. 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 Nxe5 Nxe4 11 Nxe4 Nxe5 (Diagram 7) 12 Qxd8 Not so good is 12 Nd6 Be6 13 Rad (13 Nxb7?! Qxd2 14 Bxd2 Rfb8 15 Nc5 Rxb2 16 Nxe6 Rxc2! 17 Nxg7 Rxd2 would leave Black a pawn up in the ending) 13...Qe7 14 4 Rfd8 and Black was fine in R.Cvek-D.Navara, Czech Championship, Karlovy Vary 2005. 12...Rxd8 13 BgS This irritating move keeps an initiative for White. 13...Rf8 Attempting to activate this rook also leaves Black worse after 13...Rd4 14 Nf6+ Kh8 54A Neglected Approach in the Classical 15 c3 Ra4 16 Rfd1. 14 Radi hé After 14...Bf5 15 Nf6+ Black would have to concede the two bishops, since 15...Kh8? runs into 16 f4. 15 Bf6! (Diagram 8) Diagram 8 (B) Diagram 9 (B) @ DANGEROUS WEAPON! White’s lead in development is enough x to cause Black serious problems. 15...Bxf6 15...Bf5 16 Bxg7 Kxg7 17 Nd6 reaches the same position as in the game. 16 Nxf6+ Kg7 17 Ne4 Bf5 18 Nd6! White converts his development advantage into the superior pawn structure. 18...Bxc2 19 Rd2 Bf5 20 Nxb7 Be6 21 Rc1 g5 Black can’t take the a-pawn: 21...Bxa2? 22 f4 rather amusingly traps the knight in the middle of the board. 22 Rc5 Bd5 23 f3 f5 24 b3 Rab8 25 Na5 (Diagram 9) The weakness of the c-pawn is a permanent concern for Black. I would hesitate to say that Black is already lost, but on the other hand it is not easy to suggest how the defence should be improved. 25...Rfe8 26 Kf2 Re6 27 a3 Rbe8 28 b4 Nd7 29 Rcc2 Nb6 30 Ba6 Re3 31 Re2 Rxe2+ 32 Rxe2 Rxe2+ 33 Kxe2 Nd7 34 Bb7 Ne5 35 b5 Nc4 36 Bxc6 Nxa5 36...Bxf3+ avoids going a pawn down, but after 37 Bxf3 Nxa5 38 Kd3 (threatening, Kc3-b4) 38...Nb3 39 Bd5 Nc5+ 40 Kd4 White's queenside majority, supported by 55Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern the king and bishop, ensure a simple win. 37 Bxd5 Kf6 38 Kd3 Ke5 39 Bg8 h5 40 Kc3 h4 41 Kb4 Nb7 42 a4 Kd4 43 a5 Nc5 44 Bcd f4 45 h3 Nd7 46 b6 axb6 47 a6 Nb8 48 Bb 1-0 Looking a Little Deeper 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Be2 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 Bf4 Black now has two major options: A: 7...Nh5 B: 7...Nbd7 As well as these two moves, Black has a selection of minor alternatives: a) 7...b5 8 e5 Ne8 9 Ned Bf5 10 Ng3 Be6 11 Qd2 dxe5 12 Nxe5 Nd6 13 a4 (it is diffi- cult for Black to avoid being left with queenside pawn weaknesses) 13...f6 14 Nf3 Nc4 15 Qcl bxa4 16 Rxa4 Nb6 17 Ral Qe8 18 Rel Q£7 19 Ne4 Bd5 20 Nc5 N8d7 21 Nxd7 Nxd7 22 c4 Be6 23 h3 Nb6 24 b3 and White had a clear advantage in B.Itkis- M.Manolache, Romanian Championship, Targoviste 2001. b) 7...Qb6 8 Rbi Bg4 9 h3 Bxf3 10 Bxf3 Nfd7 11 Be3 Qc7 12 Qd2 Nbé6 13 b3 N8d7 14 g3 Rad8 15 Bg2 e5 16 Rbd1 Rfe8 17 f4 gave White a promising position in E.Solozhenkin-V.Anceschi, Reggio Emilia 1999. ¢) 7...Qc7 8 Qd2 b5 (usual is 8...Nbd7, transposing to Line B2, below) 9 a3 a6 10 e5 Ne8 11 Rfel Nd7 12 Bfl Nb6 13 Bg5 Be6 14 b3 Qd7 15 Ne4 £6?! (15...Bg4 16 exd6 exd6 17 Be2 £5 18 Ng3 Nc7 19 h3 Bxf3 20 Bxf3 Rae8 would limit White’s advan- tage) 16 exd6 exd6 17 Bf4 Bd5 18 Qa5! f5 19 Ned2 Qb7 20 c4 Bf7 21 Re3 hé 22 h4 Nc8 23 Rael and White was in control in T.Bakre-G.Lorscheid, Budapest 2002. d) 7...Bg4 8 Qd2 (this seems to me more dangerous than the common 8 h3) 8...Nbd7 9 Rad1 Bxf3 (9...Q¢7 10 e5 Ne8 11 exd6 exd6 was S,Shilov-R.Grubiak, Po- lanica Zdroj 1996, and now 12 h3 Bxf3 13 Bxf3 would have given White a plus) 10 Bxf3 e5 11 Be3 Qa5 12 Rfel Rfe8 13 a3 Qc7 14 h3 Rad8 15 g3 a6 16 Bg2 b5 17 Qel Nf8 18 Nb1 exd4 19 Bxd4 d5 20 exd5 Rxel+ 21 Rxel Nxd5 22 Bxg7 Kxg7 23 c4 and White was doing well in D.King-U.Dresen, Wuppertal 1986. A) 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Be2 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 Bf4 Nh5 (Diagram 10) Although this removes White's threat of playing e4-e5, the knight is not well placed on hs. 8 Be3 White also has good chances of achieving an advantage with 8 Bg5 h6 9 Be3 e5 56A Neglected Approach in the Classical (9..Nd7 10 Nd2 Nhf6 11 a4 leads to play similar to lines ‘b’ or ‘c’ in the following note) 10 Qd2 Kh7 11 dxe5! dxe5 12 Oxd8 Rxd8 13 Bed Kg8 (it is rather entertaining the way the black king is dragged back and forth to defend his kingside pawns) 14 Rfd1 Re8 15 Rd6! (and now the g6-pawn is attacked) 15...Kf8 (Arizmendi points out that 15...Bf8 16 Rxg6+ Kh7 17 Bxf7 Re7 18 Rxc6 Nxc6 19 Bxh5 gives White an excellent position with three pawns for the exchange) 16 Bc5 Kg8 17 Be3 (steering clear of 17 Rxg6? Nf4 18 Rd6 Bf8) 17...Kf8 18 Rad1. This was J.Arizmendi Marti- nez-A Safranska, Albacete 2001, in which White had an overwhelming position — his threats include the spectacular 19 Rxg6 fxg6 20 Bc5+ Re7 21 Rd8 mate. rey at Diagram 10 (W) Diagram 11 (B) 8...e5 Black has also tried: a) 8...b5 9 a3 a6 10 Nel Nf6 11 f4 Nbd7 12 e5 with a plus for White, K Hemid- N.Murshed, Penang 1991. b) 8...Qc7 9 Nd2 Nf6 10 a4 e5 11 Nc4 Rd8 12 a5 Nbd7 13 d5 Nf8 14 4 Qe7 15 fxe5 dxe5 16 d6 Qe8 17 Bg5 N8d7 18 Qd2 and White’s passed d-pawn was very strong in V.Yemelin-V.Nikolaev, St Petersburg 1998. c) 8..Nd7 9 Nd2 Nhf6 10 a4 d5?! 11 e5 Ne8 12 f4 £5 13 a5 Nc7 14 b4 g5 (this doesn’t turn out well, but otherwise the black position remains very passive) 15 fxg5 Nxe5 16 dxe5 d4 17 Bc4+ Be6 18 Qe2 dxe3 19 Bxe6+ Nxe6 20 Nf3! Qe8 (20...f4? loses a piece to 21 Qc4) 21 Qxe3 Qg6 22 KhI £4 23 Qe4 Qxed 24 Nxe4 and White was a good pawn up in R.Bertholee-A.Dgebuadze, Wijk aan Zee 1999. 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 Qxd8 Rxd8 11 Rfd1 (Diagram 11) White is doing well, whether or not Black exchanges rooks: a) 11...Rxd1+ 12 Rxdi Nd7 13 Ng5 h6 14 Bxh5 gxh5 15 Nf3 and control of the d-file 57Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern combined with the weak black pawns gives White a clear advantage. M.Illescas Cordoba-D.Hergott, Linares 1994, continued 15...Kh7 16 a4 Nf8 17 Nh4 Ng6 18 NfS Bxf5 19 exf5 Nh4 20 RA7 Nxf5 21 Rxf7 Nxe3 22 fxe3 b6 23 Rd7 Kg6 24 Ned ht 25 Kf2 Rf8+ 26 Ke2 RE7 27 Rd6+ and White was winning. b) 11...Re8 12 g3 Nf6 13 a4 a5 14 Nd2 Be6 15 Ned Nbd7 16 Nd6 Reb$ 17 f4 Ng 18 Bel exf4 19 gxfd Ndf6 20 £5 gxf5 21 exf5 Bd7 22 Bf and White was in complete command in J.Rowson-N. Alfred, British Championship, Torquay 1998. B) 1 e4 dé 2 d4 Nf6é 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Be2 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 Bf4 Nbd7 8 Qd2 (Dia- gram 12) Diagram 12 (B) Diagram 13 (B) We will now look in depth at Black’s two most popular moves: As well as 8...e5, which we saw roughly dealt with in King-McNab, Black has sev- eral other quite rare options: a) 8...Re8 9 Rfel b5 10 e5 dxe5 11 Nxe5 Nxe5 12 Bxe5 Be6 13 Bf3 and the weakness of Black’s queenside pawns gave White the advantage in R.Berzinsh- T.Yastrebova, Barcelona 2000. b) 8...Qb6 9 a4 (White could also consider 9 Rab1) 9...e5 (stopping White’s a-pawn by 9...a5 is more advisable) 10 dxe5 (White should prefer 10 a5! Qc7 11 Bh6 with 58A Neglected Approach in the Classical good prospects of an advantage) 10...dxe5 11 Nxe5? Nxe5 12 Bxe5 Nxe4 13 Qfd Bxe5 14 Qxe5 Qxb2! and White had dropped a pawn in J.Fletcher-G.Sigurjonsson, Reykjavik 1999. ©) 8...Qa5 9 Bhé (offering a repetition with 9 Nd5 Qd8 10 Nc3 falls short of being a dangerous weapon, but it might persuade some opponents to try something other than 10...Qa5) 9...e5 10 Bxg7 Kxg7 11 Rfel Re8 12 Bfl Nf8 was seen in LRogers- T.Markowski, Polanica Zdroj 1996, and now Lugovoi recommends 13 h3 Ne6 14 Rad1 Nf4 15 a3 with an edge for White. d) 8...Nh5 9 Bg5 £6 10 Bh6 e5 11 Bxg7 Nxg7 12 Rad] Qe7 13 a4 a5 14 Rfel Nb6 15 Qe3 Qc7 16 h3 Be6 17 b3 BE7 18 Rd2 Ne6 19 Red1 was pleasant for White in J.Arizmendi Martinez-T.Bosboom Lanchava, Benasque 1999. B1) 1 e4 dé 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Be2 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 Bf4 Nbd7 8 Qd2 b5 9 e5 (Diagram 13) The standard way for White to attempt to punish ...b5. 9...dxe5 10 dxe5 Nh5 Perhaps Black should try 10...Ng4!?. After 11 Rad1 Qb6 12 e6 fxe6 13 Bg5 White has good compensation for the pawn, but the black position may be playable. 11 Bh6! Nxe5 On 11...Nb6 Rogers recommends 12 Bxg7 Qxd2 13 Nxd2 Nxg7 14 Bf3 with a small advantage for White. 12 Qxd8 Rxd8 13 Bxg7 Nxf3+ 14 Bxf3 Kxg7 15 Bxc6 Rb8 16 Bxb5 BFS (Diagram 14) « IS, VA oe ae 5 mam Diagram 14 (W) Diagram 15 (B) 59Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern .@ DANGEROUS WEAPON! A more or less forced sequence of moves has resulted in a position where White is a pawn ahead. 3 Although Black has obvious compensation in the form of pres- sure against the white queenside pawns, it is not enough for full equality. White now has two promising continuations. I would recommend the first one, not because it is objectively stronger, but rather because it quickly leads to a posi- tion where Black has no prospects other than a long and difficult defence: a) 17 Ba4 Rxb2 (17...Rd2? 18 Rfd1 Rxd1+ 19 Nxd1 Nf4 20 Bb3 Ne2+ 21 Kfl Nd4 22 Ne3 just left Black a pawn down in J.Rowson-C.MeNab, Scottish Championship 1994) 18 Bb3 Bxc2 19 Na4 Rxb3 20 axb3 Bxb3 21 Nc5 Bd5 22 Rxa7 and this end- game is not easy for Black to hold, although in G.Hertneck-M. Belli, Moscow Olympiad 1994, the point was shared after a further 50 moves. b) 17 Rfel Kf8 (17...Rdc8 18 Rxe7 Rxc3 19 bxc3 Rxb5 20 Rxa7 Nf4 was played in R.Kuczynski-A.Maciejewski, Polish Ch. 1992, and now 21 a4 Rb2 22 a5 would have given White every chance to win the endgame) 18 Racl Nf4 19 Ba4 Rxb2 20 Bb3 Rd2 21 Red1 Rxd1?! (21...Rdxc2! 22 Bxc2 Rxc2 23 Rel Rb2 gives Black decent compensation for the exchange, although White is still slightly to be preferred; he can start to untangle his pieces with 24 Re3 followed by h2-h3) 22 Rxd1 Ne6 23 Nad! Rxc2 24 g4! Be4 25 £3 Re2 26 fxe4 Rxe4 27 h3 Nf4 28 Nc3 Re5 29 h4 Re3 30 Nd5 Rg3+ 31 Kf2 Rxg4 32 Nxf4 Rxf4+ 33 Kg3 Re4 34 Rd8+ Kg7 35 Ra8 and White went on to win in IL Rogers-Z. Azmaiparashwili, Groningen 1989. B2) 1 4 dé 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Be2 0-0 6 0-0 c6 7 BF4 Nbd7 8 Qd2 Qc79 e5.Nh5 Black’s alternatives at this point were covered in our first annotated game, Rogers- Seul. 10 Bg5 dxe5 11 Bxe7 Re8 12 d5 (Diagram 15) With this move White indirectly defends his bishop. 12...Nf4 At the start of the chapter I mentioned the related line with 7 Rel and 8 Bf4. In the similar position in that line 12...Qb6 gives Black strong counterplay, but here with the queen on d2, simply 13 Na4 forces the black queen back to c7. The interesting possibility 12...04!? 13 d6 exf3 14 dxc7 fxe2 15 Qxe2 BIB was sug- gested by lan Rogers back in 1995, but no one has been tempted to try it. Although Black will obtain reasonable material for the queen, he still has to develop his queenside and take care of White’s advanced passed pawn. 13 d6 (Diagram 16) 60A Neglected Approach in the Classical E SUE Diagram 16 (B) Diagram 17 (W) @ DANGEROUS WEAPON! The passed pawn in the middle of x“ Black’s position is very disruptive and has led to some quick 3 wins for White. 13...Nxe2+ It can be dangerous for Black to leave White's light-squared bishop on the board: a) 13...Qb6 14 Be4 Qb4 15 Bb3 Bf8 16 a3 Qa5 17 Bxf7+! Kxf7 18 b4 Nh3+? (this is not good, but even the better 18...Qb6 19 Nxe5+ Nxe5 20 Qxf4+ Bf5 21 Qxe5 Bxe7 22 dxe7 Rxe7 23 Qf4 Kg7 24 Rael Rae8 25 Rxe7+ Rxe7 26 Qd2 sees White consolidat- ing his extra pawn) 19 gxh3 Qb6 20 Ng5+ Kg8 21 Nd5! Qd4 22 Qxd4 exd4 23 Nc7 Bxe7 24 dxe7 and 1-0 was the course of E.Solozhenkin-A.Gaspar, Algarve 1999. b) 13...Qb8 (this looks an odd square for the queen, but Black’s idea is to leave b6 free for his knight) 14 Ng5 Nb6 15 Nge4 Bf5 16 Rfel Nbd5 17 Bh4 Nxc3 18 Nxc3 £6 19 Be4+ Kh8 20 Radi Rd8 21 Ned g5 22 Bg3 bé6 23 Bxf4 gxf4 24 Qe? Qc8? (Black can capture the passed pawn by 24...Bxe4 25 Qxe4 Rxd6 but after 26 Rxd6 Qxd6 27 Bd3 £5 28 Qxf5 Qhé his queen is tied to the defence of h7, and White has good chances) 25 d7! Rxd7 26 Nd6 Rxd6 27 Rxd6 and White won in J.Arizmendi Marti- nez-M. Diez Fraile, Barcelona 2000. 14 Qxe2 Qb6 15 Ng5 Bfé This is a tougher defence than 15...Nc5? 16 Rad1 Bd7 17 Qc4! Ne6 18 Nxe6 Bxe6 19 Qh4 BES (19...Bd7 20 Ne4 {5 21 Ng5 h6 22 Qc4+ Kh8 23 Ne6 is also winning for White) 20 d7 Red8 21 Bxd8 Qxd8 22 Qb4 and White went on to win in V.Malakhov-B.Badea, Porto San Giorgio 1997. 16 Bxf6 Nxf6 17 Nce4 Nxe4 18 Nxe4 Kg7 (Diagram 17) 61Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern We have reached a critical moment. The game V.Okhotnik-A.Mista, Rowy 2000, continued 19 Rad1 BES 20 Ng3 Bd7 21 c4 £5 22 Qd2 Qc5 23 Qg5 KE7 24 Qh4 Kg7 25 Rd3 Re6 26 Rfd1 Rac8 27 Qg5 e4 28 b4 Qe 29 Rd4 h6 30 Qcl e3 and Black ob- tained sufficient counterplay. However, I think that White does better to play 19 c4!? BfS 20 Ng3 Bd7 21 Racl. Now allowing White to play c4-c5 looks uninviting for Black, but stopping it with 21...c5 can be met by 22 Rfd1 £5 23 Ra5 Re6 24 Red when Black is not achieving the sort of counterplay that he did in Okhotnik-Mista. Indeed White stands very well here. Conclusion This direct approach with the Classical has been unfairly neglected and remains a danger to Black. In particular, the main lines where White meets 8...b5 or 8...Qc7 with the central advance 9 e5 have scored very well. Black should probably look to his 7th or 8th move alternatives, but he has yet to demonstrate a clear route to equality. 62Chapter Four Benjamin’s Flexible 6...e6 Richard Palliser 1e4 dé 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Be2 0-0 6 0-0 e6!? (Diagram 1) Diagram 1 (W) Black’s main defences to the Classical, 6...Bg4 and 6...c6, are rather well known, something which even nowadays 6...06 isn’t. This slightly mysterious move is theDangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern brainchild of Joel Benjamin who introduced it in 1998. Mysterious it might be at first glance, but Black’s semi-prophylactic sixth move actually has a lot going for it: i. Ideas of e4-e5 are rendered less effective; Black will be able to retreat with .-Nfd7 safe in the knowledge that White can’t press ahead with e5-e6. ii. Black will be able to develop his knight safely on c6. Should White kick the knight with d4-d5, it can simply retreat to a fine square on e7. iii, An unsuspecting white player might try to punish Black’s slow play with an early e4-e5 or d4-d5 advance, but both can easily lead to long-term positional weaknesses. iv. Prudent white players will develop more classically, such as with Rel, h3, Bf4 and Qd2. However, here we see another advantage of Black’s set-up: it contains no weaknesses. v. Black will often continue his development with ...Nc6, ...b6, ...Bb7, ...h6 (to pre- vent Bhé from White), ...Ne7 and ...Nd7, thereby setting up a Hippo formation. In response White can find himself a little planless while Black takes over the initia- tive with a well-timed ...g5 and ...f5 offensive or the ...c5 break. Benjamin’s slightly provocative idea is definitely a good choice against a weaker opponent. Indeed, it has been employed on occasion by no lesser players than Ruslan Ponomariov, Jonathan Rowson and Tiger Hillarp Persson when out for the full point. Let’s begin by seeing why Black should be pleased to see some early aggression from White. OR.Ziatdinov Mf J.Benjamin World Open, Philadelphia 1999 1 e4 g6 2 da Bg7 3 NF3 d6 4 Be2 Nf6 5 Nc3 0-0 6 0-0 e6!? 7 BgS White develops his bishop as actively as possible, but this simply allows Black to play ...h6, a move he generally wants to make in any case, with gain of tempo. Surprised by 6...e6, one can also easily imagine a Classical player deciding to ‘punish’ Black with 7 e5. emerge with a pleasant advantage after 8...6 9 exf6 Nxf6 10 a3 BEWARE! Black should avoid 7...Nfd7?! 8 Bg5 when White will Ret. Black does much better with 7...dxe5 when White finds himself at a crossroads: a) 8 dxe5 Qxd1 (Black does best to exchange before taking aim at e5; 8...Ng49 Nb51 is a little awkward) 9 Rxd1 Nfd7 10 Bf4! a6! (wisely ruling out Nb5 ideas, since 10...Nc6?! 11 NbS is strong because 11...a6?! 12 Nxc7 Ra7 13 a4! b6 14 Nxa6! 64