Professional Documents
Culture Documents
All rights reserved. N o part o f this publicadon may be rcproduccd, stored in a rctricval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnctic
tape, photocopying, recording or othcrwise, without prior permission o f thc publishcr.
IS B N 1 85744 361 6
Iw erym an is thc registered trade mark o f Random House Inc. and is used in this
work under license from Random House Inc.
1 5 $ige2 7
2 5 Ad3
3 M akogonov System : 5 h3 70
4 A verb akli System w ithout ...c7-c5: 5 JLe 2 ()-() 6 ÍLg 5 103
5 A verbakh System w ith ...c7-c5: 5 0-0 6 ÍLg 5 146
Books
lincydopaedia ofChess Openings vohmie B , 3rd Kdition (Sahovski Informator 1998)
S^üchy odA do X, W . Litmanowicx, J. (íi/ycki (Warsaw 1987)
.Stamindiyskaya ^asbcbita, K. G cllcr (Moscow 1980)
Staroiudiyskaya dlinoyn v %bi'%i, K. Gufcld (Moscow 1980)
The move l...£w *6 after 1 c!4 was mentioned as ilie crcation o f new systcms, carne with
by K . Jaenisch in his A New A na/ysis as far analysis and tournament practicc o f the out-
back as 1842/43. In 1848 a Germán chess standing Soviets grandmasters Boleslavsky,
magazine, Deutsche Schach^eitun^ publishcd a Konstaniinopolsky, Bronstein, Geller, Yudo-
game startingwith 1 d4 and in 1875 pub vich and otliers, all achieving veiy gocxl results
lishcd a game beginning in this way which liad as Black. 'Ilie n Fischer made a further contri-
been played by two Bralitnins (Sauncheri- bution, playing the defence dynamically (for
Moonshander). Menee the ñame o f the de- example in his candidates matches against Tai-
fence, which was invented by Saviely Tarta- nianov and Larsen in 1971) and earning vicio-
kower in the 1920s. rics againsi a number o f the world's top play
In 1880 in an International tournament in ers.
Wiesbaden the game A.Schwarz-L. Paulsen Toward the end o f the twentieth centur)'
went 1 d4 ¿hfd) 2 c4 g6 3 Í^c3 iÜLg7 4 g3 d6 5 the King’s Indian enjoyed more p<^pularity
A g2 0-0 6 ^ f3 & lx !7 7 0-0 e5 (pubüshcd by llianks to Garry Kasparov’s use o f the defence
I Deutsche.Schach^eitnng in 1881) against Kaq>ov, although Kasparov was later
This is the fírst rime that this posilion, now lo unexpectedly pul one o f his main weapons
a common sight at all levcls, was seen. on hold, perliaps influenced by his two defeats
The King’s Indian was used first by one o f to Kram nik (Novgortxl 1997 and ihe Moscow
the best players o f this era in Leipzig in 1879 blitz in 1998, both in the Classical System with
when the Germán player and theoretician 9 b4!). N ot surprisingly this led to the King's
Ij Ouís Paulsen faced A d olf Schwarz in a Indian losing some o f its followers.
match. Towards the end o f the nincteenth Opening trends in the míxlem game can be
century Mikhail Chigorin ¡oined Paulsen in influenced as much by fashion as hard evi-
employing the defence and, as the years dence, and the King’s Indian continúes to Ix: a
passed in ihe twenticth century, a number o f faiihful friend to a liost o f toda/s successful
the so-called hypcnruxlern school continued players, among them Radjalx>v, Bologan and
the trend, w itli Tartakowcr, Nimxowitsch, Ye Jiangchuan, while Svidler, J.Polgar, Sliirov
Réti, Grünfeld and Euw e among the recruits. and Movsesian (and - occasionally - Topalov
An important turning point in the devel- and Ivanchuk) are strong players for whom
opment and assessment o f new ideas, as well the King's Indian fonns part o f their reper-
5
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
6
CHAPTER ONE |
5 4£sge2
1 d4 '-if6 2 c4 96 3 C'lc3 ¿ g 7 4 e4 d 6 5
í^ge 2 Game 1
'fhis move has lx‘cn playcd sincc as carly as Serper-Dzindzichashvili
thc beginning o f thc 20 th ccntury, whcn I la- C m New York 1996
kansson-Sjobcrg, Gothenburg 1919 and
Samisch-Schocnman, Berlín 1920 saw 5 #igc2. 1 c4 g6 2 d4 & g7 3 e4 d6 4 <hc3 <hf6 5
I lowevcr, for a long time this developinent o f í^ge2 c5
the knight liad littlc independent significancc, 'filis tlirust is more usual after ...0-0 Ix:-
lx*ing used only as an introducrion to other cause now Black must be prepared for a
systcms, mainly thc Samisch or thosc systcms cjucenless middlcgamc in which his king will
involving a kingside fianchctto. ( )nly in the be deprived o f castling rights.
1950s did a new idea conncctcd with the 6 dxc5
transfer o f the knight to g3 appcar (Stciner- 6 d5 b5 lcads to non-standard positions o f
Pcdcrsen, 1950 Dubrovnik Olympiad). Subsc- thc Bcnko Gam bit - 7 cxb5 and now:
cjucntly the variadon was analysed and popu- a) 7...0-0 8 Í^g3 aó 9 .&c2 (9 a4 axb5 10
lariscd by I fungarían players at thc beginning J&.xb5 jka6 11 0-0 was an edge for W hite in
o f the 1960s. Gralx>wski-Doda, Jachranka 1987) 9...axb5 10
Nowadays it is not unusual for White to & x b 5 <SV-8 (10...^a6 11 0-0 £ki7 12 H b l
throw in an carly h2-li4 in order to genérate a ÍV 7 13 # V 3 slighdy favoured W hite in Ador-
kingside offensive. O f coursc thc knight’s jan-D(xla, Polanica Zdroj 1970 but was agreed
journey from gl to g3 takes time, and the new drawn) 11 0-0 £k:7 1 2 & c3 .& a6 13&g5<5\17
post might even appcar a littlc unnatural. 14 W d2 H c8 15 H ab í W b8 16 E f c l and
Moreover, W hite also has to deal with the W hite retained a pulí in Kíüdanov-Gufeld, I-is
sometimes annoying ...h7-h5-h4. Vegas 2001.
Apart from the I lungarian veterans I;orin- b) 7...a6 8 ftg 3 h5 9 h4 (9 & e 2 h4 10 £>fl
tos and Kapos/tas tcxlay’s most notable fol- was sccn in Poluljahov-Strclnikov, KrasiKxlar
lowers o f 5 £}ge2 are Scrpcr, Novikov and Ja- 2(K) 1, and now Christiansen’s 10...h3 is un-
kab, whilc wcll-known CiMs who occasionally clcar) 9 ...& lxl7 10 a4 0-0 11 & f4 (11 Ha3
inelude the variation in their armoury are Í^g4 12 ÍLc2 axb5 13 í^xl>5, or 11 W c2 or 11
I lort, I.Sokolov, Korchnoi and M.Gurevich. ÍLc2 and in all variations Black must prove
7
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
that he has compensaron For the pawn) tíiough White is unable to maintain his centre
1 L .W a S 12 Ba3 ^ 4 13 ÍLc2 Wh4 14 S i >3 his position nevertheless deserves prefcrence.
Wd4 15 J&xg4 hxg4, Xueger-Christianscn, The most importan! factor here is that there is
Lúceme 1989. N ow 16 b6 woulcl have been no convenient home for Black’s king; the
excellent for White. point is not that it might come under attack,
6...dxc5 7 Wxd8+ &xd8 8 e5 rather it hampers development.
A g(xxl altemative is 8 .&c3!?, with the fol- 10 exf6 ftx f6
lowing possibilities: N obetteris I 0...exf6 ll .&d2&c6 120-0-0
a) 8...&lxl7 9 B b6 10 0-0-0 #W8 11 g3 e6 f5 13 £k!5 with the better prosjxcts for
12 £ h 3 !? <¿>e7 13 IX h fl $Lbl 14 f4 £>d6 15 f5 White.
í^xc4 16 fxeó 4?\lc5? (16...fxe6 17 .&g5+ 4^f6 11 g3 ¿Ld7 12 £ e 3 i¿.c6 13 0-0-0+ £>bd7
18 4 is verv poor for Black) was the course 14 £g1 <&e8
o f Bcckwith-Nakamura, Southampton (U SA ) Black plans to evacúate the king to f7. An-
2003, when 17 Hxf7-H ^ x f7 1 8 H d 7 + & ft 19 other option is 14...d?c7, although this is no
Hxf7+ provecí tlecisive. better than the text.
b) 8...£>fd7 9 0-0-0 1>6 10 h4 & a6 11 b3 h5 15 g4
12 g3 £ k 6 13 ÍLh3 e6 14 Í4 A lió 15 Bd 3 sfce7 Another way o f developing an initiadve is
16 Sh ell Sad8 17 a3 and W hite liad an edge 15 Ah3!? h5 (I5...b6 16 £k!5 £>xd5 17 cxd5
in Lonm nek-Fedorowicz, Philadelphia 1992. &a4 18b3ÍLb5 19 Ege 1 favours White, while
Ilow ever, this edge is rather symbolic as the 15...6.7 walks into 16 4£kl5) 16 Ugel b6 17
extra space and temporary control o f the d-file ÍV I5 and White has the upper hand.
are hardly significant. After 17...4hde5 18 15...<&f7?!
Hxd8 Sxd8 19 Sxd8 sfcxc^ Black could have 15..jffd8, deserves attention, defending the
been cióse to cc|uality. d7-knight and preparing to meet 16 g5 with
8...£>fd7 16...ÍV4. After 16 h3 £k:4 17 £ixc4 ¿x c4 18
'llie pseudo-active 8...íhg4 9 14 4?\i6 10 h3 .&g2 ^.xg2 19 Hxg2 White has a small advan-
& h 6 11 A e3 A d 1 12 0-0-0 & c8 13 & e4 b6 tage.
14 g4 A có 15 #>2c3 in D<x:hev-Spassov, 16 g5 £te8
Bankia 1991 lecl to a clear advantage for W hite 16...6h5 17 Ah3 Hhd8 18 &g4 might Ix- a
due to the two misplaccd knights and W hite’s lesser evil.
considerable extra space. 17 Ah3
9 f4 f6 Black must lose the c5-pawn.
17...£kJ6 18 ÍLxd7 &xd7 19 &xc5 £ac8
20 &xd6 exd6 21 <^e4
The sensible 21 b3 l<x>ks preferable in this
position.
21...5.c4+ 22 £>2c3 fíc7 23 &xd6+ & f8
24 Sd3?!
Again White can improve with the more
precise 24 & b l &xc3 (24...&e6 25 £k!5) 25
bxc3 h6 (25..Jttxc3 26 &xb7 ftc7 27 <?YI6) 26
c4 etc.
24...h6 25 fíg2?!
25 Sf1 hxg5 26 fxg5+ & g 8 27 keeps
White ahead.
\jct us assess the diagram posidon. Al- 25...hxg5 26 fxg5 &h3
8
5 Chge2
26...&c5!? Icads to a draw after 27 Hc2 (27 8 A h4 (8 S ic 3 m ee» with 8...#\i»4) 8...b5 9 f3
Hf2+ &g7) 27...&f4+ 28 <&bl &xh2 29 H O 0-0 (9...bxc4!?) 10 g4 e5 11 & f2 as in Con-
flxe2 30 #W*2 SÍ?e7 31 # W 4 <¿>xd6 32 Hd3+ quest-Ilebden, Clichy 2001, when ll...b4!
sfee5 33 £ k g 6+ <&Í5 34 & f 8 & c 8 35 Sd5+ would have favoured Black. Nolice liere that
S¿>g4 etc. 7...h6 was rnade |x>ssible by Black’s avoiding
27 Sf2+ <&g8 28 fíxh3 ilx h 3 29 £>e8 aulornatic castling.
Üc5 30 <hxg7 <&xg7 6...<^bd7 7 ¿Le2 h5
W hite has no way to make the extra pawn 'Iliis tlirusi is a kev feature o f Black’s coun-
lell. terplay.
31 S f3 $Le6 32 h4 & xa2 33 b4 Hc8 34 8 J0Lg5 a6
sfcd2 & c4 35 S f4 &d8+ 36 <¿>c2 & e6 37 8...h4!? 9 Wa5 is interesting, when *un-
<^b5 a6 38 $M4 ilf7 39 5M3 He8 40 & c3 clear’ is a fair assessment.
b6 41 & d4 Bd8+ 42 <&c3 Sc8+ 43 <¿>d3 9 Wd2 b5 10 f3 0-0 11 Hd1 e5 12 dxe5
Vi-Vz After 12 ilS l>4 Black intends to trade on d5
with equality (Miles).
Game 2 12...dxe5 13 0-0 He8 14 a3
Miles-Romanishin l4c5W a5! (Miles).
Tilburg 1985 14...W c7 15 E c 1 ?
Better is 15 b4 16 W d 6 (16 Ad3!?)
1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 <5^3 ilg 7 4 e4 d6 5 16...Wa74 17 JSf2 (17 sfchl # k *6 is an edge for
<^ge2 c6 6 £^g3 Black) 17...£k6 18 A x f 6 Axfó 19 cxb5 cxl>5
20 <5VI5 J&g7 with the better prospecis for
Black, while 15 We3 16 ^ lil ÍV -6 17
^V2ÍV14 looks unpleasant for White.
15...£>c5
9
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
10
5 foge2
was ccjual iti Nikolaidis-Grivas, Acgina 1996) U ..JU Ü (11..A.H6 12 Axh 6 Sxhó 13 £ k !2
13...We7 14 & b t A d 7 15 f3 0 -0 -0 ?! (15...a4!? £tti5 makes more sense) 12 W c2 (12 ÍLg4
is unclcar) 16 ^ f l £}gS 17 b6 18 4he3 looks a shade better for W hite) 12...&Í8 (there
\S?b7 19 JÉLd3 Vz-Vz, although White has an is no other way to unpin, keeping the h4-
allx-it modest lead here. 8 Á c2 h5!? 9 Ag5 pawn) 13 #Mi2 JÍLc7 14 Jic 3 and W hite en-
Ü.I16 10 A x h 6 Hxh 6 11 4hfl! h4! 12 #Y12 was joyed the superior prospeets in Kovacevic-
Se rper-Bologan, Philadclphia 1999, when I lulak, Pula 2000.
12...6.5!? merits attention. l>2) IO...-ÍLI16 again comes into considera-
8& e2 tion. Prevenios-Bergami11i, Ivm ail 2000 led to
8 h4 can Ix: niel with 8...4hh7 when White chances for botli sides after 11 A x h 6 fixh 6 12
has to withdraw his knight in view o f the $\\2 a5 (12...£Mi5 13 b4 ÍV17 14 &xh5 Hxh5
threat to pick up thc h-pawn with ...A f6. After 15 0-0, Novikov-Gelfand, Uzhgorod 1987, is
9 £>gc2 a5 10 g3 ÍY 5 11 A e3 0-0 12 Ag2 given as slightly better for White by Novikov
ÍM '6 both sides liad chances in Mukhcrjce- in HCCf) 13 W c2g5 14 Ii3 flg 6 15 Sel Su\7.
Guizar, E-mail 1999. 9 iLg5 ¿Lh6 10 ¿Lxh6 Hxh6 11 h4 Bh 8 12
8...We7 £tf1
A new idea. 8...h4 is more popular, e.g. 9
ÍV I #V5 wirh the following position:
11
O ff b e a t K in g 's Iridian
Game 4
Bertok-Tatai
Reggio I imilia 1967 / 8
1 6 ...6 .7 ?!
Milov’s recommcnded improvement looks
preferable: 16...c6 17 4hb3 £W>! 18 #Wa5 (18
S¿?bl cxd5 19 cxd5 a4! with initiative) 18...cxd5
19 cxd5 ®fo4 20 \% 3 £>xa2+! 21 Wxa2 Wc7
with play for Black, although 17 Bd g l!? Jid 7
18 g4 a4 19 & b l Z?hc8 is complicatcd.
17 foi1 c6
One tempo too late! Now White's knights
will he on the right sejuares just in time.
18£>e3 cxd5?l Closing the centre. In this game we are go-
Black should have maintained the tensión ing to investigate themes for Black which are
in the centre. based on cither delaying castling, or not cas-
19 £texd5 £bcd5 20 ®xd5 Md8 21 f4 tling at all. O f course diere is nothing to pre-
White might consider 21 £k3 with a view vent Black from entering more usual lines by
to attacking the weak dó-pawn, e.g. 21..JBa6 simply castling at some point.
22 S&bl Aeó 23 Wd2 Wc7 24 &b5 B d 8 25 White has a numlxr of alternatives to 6 c!5:
We3 and the prospect of pushing the g-pawn a) Nothing special is achieved by 6 &g5 h6
offers White the better chances. 7 .&h4. Apart from 7...exd4 8 í?ixd4 0-0 9
2 1 ...6 .4 22 b3 ÍLc6 23 Shf1? ÍLc 2 4^1x17 10 0-0 c6 11Sfelil W b 6 which was
'I his time Milov proposes 23 fxe5 dxe5 24 fine for Black in Ciarcia-Corradine, Bogotá
® c3 W d 6 25 We3 #W 6 (‘unclear’), or 23 Í5 1990, there is also a different course in 7...g5 8
.&xd5 24 Hxd5 Wb 6 with countcrplay. ilLg3 £Mi5, e.g. 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 Wxd8+ <*¿«18
23...Wxh4 24 Wb2? 11 0-0-0 + £k!7 12 £k!5 c6 13 ®e3 &c7 14
24 2 h l Wg3 is strong (Milov). &f5. We are following Botvinnik-Smyslov,
24...ftxe4 25 &b1?! Leningrad/Moscow 1941. Now 14...£Y\g3!?
25 fxe*5 Wg5+ etc. 15 ÍY*xg3 ÍLfH has Ixen suggested. Instead
25...Hae8? the game continued 14....&fó 15 JIxd7+! &xd7
Milov gives 25...&xd5 26 Sxd5 ®g3 27 16 Axe5 f6 17 Ac3 * c 6 18 g4 £>f4
H ft £>xe2 28 Wxe2 exf4 29 Wl>2+ (29 Sxd6 (18...£>g7!?) 19 &xf4+ gxf4 20 A d 3, with
She*8) 29...Wf6. sufficient compensation according to liC O .
26 f5? b) Ilie trade 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 Wxd8+ s£i>xd8 is
12
5 foge2
harmless for Black, e.g. 8 Ü.g5 có 9 f3 (9 b4 7...a6 8 jslc2 h5 9 A g5 cxd5 10 exd5! gives
ÍL c 6 10 £ k;l h 6 11 & d 2 #Mxl7 was cqual in W hite an edge (EC O ), as in Miles-Johansen,
I \dery-Molinsky, Correspondence 1990) lídinburgh 1985.
9...<á?c7 10 £lg3 £>1x17 11 A e3 h5 12 h4 fofo 8 cxd5 a6 9 a4 h5 10 i ie2
13 A d3 & e 6 with a ver)* good ending for
Black, I x>makina-Kadar, Zalakaros 1995.
6...c6
Altematively:
a) 6...£Mi5?! 7 h3 and W hite wants to play
g2-g4. Since 7...f5 runs into 8 exf5 gxf5 9 ÍV14
tfy¡() 10 £ie 6 Black has an unpleasant choice
10 make between losing two tempi or sacrific-
ing a pawn. 7...0-0 8 g4 í^f4 9 4hxf4 exf4 10
ÍLxf4 We7 11 W e 2 S e 8 12 S e l Axc3+ 13
fixc3 Wxc4 14 Wxe4 Sxe4+ 15 A c3, as in
I.Polgar-Portisch, Budapest 1965, is given as
an edge for W hite in HCO. The same evalua-
lion can be made o f 7...We7 8 g4 íhf4 9 4^xf4 10... a5
exf4 10 & xf4 Axc3+ 11 bxc3 Wxe4+ 12 We2 I0...h4!? 11 £\fl & h 5 12 £xh5 2Sxh5 is in
Wxe2 <
* 13 $Lxc2y which was the course taken teresting but we prefer W hite in this uncom
in Kfimov-Pcdersen, Saint Vincent 2(KK). mon situation.
b) 6...^bd7!? 7 .&g5 (7 4^g3 transposes to 11 £>f1 foa6 12 A g 5 & h6 13 &b5+
Cíame 3) 7...h6 8 ÍLh4 0-0 9 f3 a6 10 g4 £>b6 Black is going to play anyway, so
II Wl>3 c6 12 & Í2 ¿h fd l was unclear in more logical is 13 .&xh6 Kxh 6 14 J&.xa6!? (this
S/.abo-Ciligoric, Buesum 1969. move is also good in the main line) 14...fixa6
c) 6...c5 7 h3 a6 (7...h5 8 a3, Bertok-Minie, 15 £k*3 with a couple o f cxldly postee! rooks
l.jubljana 1960, and now Minev - in liC X ) - and the more pleasant prospeets for White.
proposes 8...®h7, intending ...A f6, with an 13...<&f8 14 £xh6+ Hxh6 15 ¿Ae3 ^ c 5
assessmeni o f an edge for W hite) 8 a4 h5 9 g3! 16 W c2 17 £>c4 f5 18 f3 £tf6 19
A h 6 10 ÍLxh 6 S x h 6 I I Wd2 S h 8 12 a5 0 0-0
-
£Mxl7 13 .&g2 h4 14 g4, Korchnoi-Gheor- W hite mighi consider castling short, which
ghiu, Badén-Badén 1981. Now 14...ÍMV7!?, appears 10 offer chances of an advantage.
heading forg5, limits W hite to a modest lead. 19...<&g7 20 b3 Hh8 21 <¿>b2 Hf8 22 Hdf1
ti) 6...í^a6 7 £}g3 h5 8 h4!? # k5 (Forintos- W c7 23 We2 fxe4 24 fxe4 £ g 4 25 We3
Vigh, I Iungary 1995, went 8...£Mi7 9 ®\ge2 á d 7 ?l 26 iLxd7 £rfxd7 27 & b 5 <^xa4+
A f 6 10 g3 Ag7, when 11 Ag2!? should offer 28 & a3 Wc5+ 29 Wxc5 <ftaxc5 30 focxó6
W hite something) 9 &g5 Ü.h 6 10 -&xh6 2xh6 Sxf1 31 Bxf1 S f8 32 2xf8 * x f8 33 b4
11 W d 2 (also promising is 11 l>4!?) 1l...S h 8 12 axb4+ 34<&xb4<^d3+?! V2 -V2
0-0-0 (12...®e7 followed by ...JÍLd7 and 34 ...<¿?e7 is more precise, but the game
...0-0-0 is unclear) 13 O a6 14 b4 £kxl7 15 anyway ends peacefully.
^ b 2 á?g7 16 a3 a5 17 SÍrM axb4 18 axb4,
Krmenkov-Spasov, Sofía 1991. In l¿C O Spa- Game 5
sov gives 18...^b6!? 19 J&e2 JÍLcl7 20 S a l as a Korchnoi-Gallagher
shade preferable for W hite thanks to the terri- Z onal I 'oumament, I)resden / 998
torial advantage.
7 ?Ag3 cxd5 1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g6 3 fac3 & g7 4 e4 d6 5
13
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
14
5 foge2
Carne 6
Freise-Wiege
Correspondence 1998
15
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
Game 7
Novikov-Van W ely
I le lsin k i 1992
16
5 fa g el
ÍL I7 15 # Y l SacB 16 <5VI2 W l,4 I7<5>a2 S b 8 13 Wd2 e5 14 d5, when the position after
W l>6 was balanccd in Ionov-Bologan, Mos I4...cxd5 15 cxd5 h4!? 16 5 }fl f5 is far from
cow 1991. 9 0-0 c5 10 A e3 (10 cl5 & a 6 II clear according to Cíurevich (I i(.O ).
£ e3 £k:5 12 S e l h5 13 f3 Ii4 14 ®Mil ®»i5 9 e5 dxe5 10 dxe5 Wxd1 11 £xd1 <^g4
15 4ftf2, Verdikhanov-Kruppa, Nikolaev 1993, 12 f4
and now 15..JuLf6! continúes the fight for the
dark stjuares on the kingside - 16 $VI3 4^xd3
17 Wxd3 % 5 18 Á fl Axc3+ 19 Wxe3 with
an unclear position according tí) Verdikhanov
and Diafarov in HCO) 10...$W> 11 W d 2 (11
dxe5 dxe5 12 Wxd 8 BxdH 13 Had 1 Hxdl 14
) (xdl 6 with ctjuality in Amlerscn-Jaksland,
(iopenhagen 2004) 1L..$\g4 12 &xg4 -&xg4
13 B exd4 14 Axd4 J¡Lc() 15 H adl £V5 16
.£Lxg7 SÍ?xg7 17 á?h l f6 and Black was okay in
(íulko-Benjamín, Los Angeles 1991.
7...h5
Not surprisingly Black is free to adopt an-
other strategy: A kev position. II Black fails to contest
a) 7...£Mxl7 8 ÍLc3 h5 9 B 1)5 10 c5 dxc5 W hite’s strong grip on the centre he will be
11 dxc5 Wc7 (1 l...h4!? 12 $ \fl transposes to doomed to passivity.
(jam e 6) 12 0-0 h4 13 £ tfil ®Mi5 14 «Td2 c5 12...g5!
15 was the continuation o f Serper- Now or never. Black exploits the fací that
Nikolaidis, St Pctershurg 1993, the position ihe capture on f4 comes with lempo, ensuring
after the subseejuent I5...$_Y4 16 #YI3 ÍLU6 17 sufficient c<umterplay.
a l assessed as slighlly better for White by Ser- 13 h3 gxf4 14 A x f4 ÍLxe5?!
per in I iCO. W ith the active I4...h4 15 .&xg4 Axg4 16
b) 7...1)5!? and now: Iixg4 lixg3 17 Axg3 (Novikov) I7...#\17 I 8 e6
b l) 8 cxb5 axb5 9 l>4 1)5 10 3 $\g4 11 fxe6 Black would secure tleceni chances in ilie
.&xg4 .áLxg4 12 B .¿Le6 13 íT\ge2 J&c4 was ending.
quite pleasant for Black in I lanks-L'ullcr, Ade- 15 £>xh5 ilx f4 16 <hxf4 foe3 17 Kdc1
laide 1990. 17 Sd 2 e5 18 & h5 £>xc4 19 £}f6+ &e7 20
l>2) 8 0-0 bxc4 (8...h5!? 9 e5 dxe5 10 dxe5 JÍLxc4 I>xc4 (I lunne-Nouro, linland 1993)
W xdl 11 S x d l leads to the main game, but 9 with compensaron according lo Novikov.
a3 is interesting here) 9 J&.xc4 d5 10 ¿Lb3 dxe*4 17...£>xc4 18 Jkxc4 bxc4 19 £ ^ 4 í^d7 20
I I £igxe4 (Novikov-Kruppa, Moscow 1991) Sx c4
I I ...&xe41? 12 £>xe4 W xcI4 13 W B and White I’lie transilion to an ending lias favoured
has definite comjx-nsation for the pawn. White. Black lias the weaker, vulnerable
b3) 8 e5 dxe5 9 dxe5 W xdl+ 10 foxdl pawns, while W hite’s are cjuite safe. Mean-
<SVd7 11 f4 (I l...f6!?) 12 ®k?3 A e6 13 wliile, W hite also has the more active forces.
&d2 ^8d7 14 S e l JÍ.h6 left much lo play for Nevertheless, such eiulings temí to reejuire
in ( íoormachtigh Watson, Brussels 1986. accurate play from the attacker, who must
8 0-0 b5 consider the possibiliiy of allowing his oppo-
Also good is 8...4hlxl7, monitoring e5. nent some kind o f counterplay as a result of
M.Ciurevich-Van W ely, Tastrup 1992 con tin- targeting and winninga pawn.
ued 9 S e l b5 10 a3 0-0 11 &g5 & li7 12 Ü.c3 20...<5^5 21 Hc5 f6 22 fob6 Sb 8 23
17
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
£>xc8 Sxc8 24 2a5 Sa8 25 £d1 Chernin-Lautier, Paris 1989, both 9...a5 and
The apparently active 25 4üe6 <¿¿f7 26 ?V 5 9...e5!? 10d5®lc5 appearing fine for Black.
is premature, and Black has no problems after I x:t us return to 6...I16.
the simple 2(y..foc4 27 Sxa 6 Sxa 6 28 foxa6
£kb2, 26...Sag8!? 27 sfehl (27 & f l? foc4 28
Sxa 6 4^e3+ 29 sfefé ííxg2+ 30 á?xe3 Kxh3-t*
31 <á?c!4 e5+ 32 <¿>c4 Sc2+ 33 &b4 Hh4+ 34
&a5 fixc5+ 35 S^bó Ec2 and Black has seri-
ous winning chances) 27...#Y*4 28 Hxa6 fo e l
29 &gl Sg3 30 <&h2 Shg 8 31 b4 f5 or
26...Hh5 27 Sxa 6 Hg8 (Maki Duro-Salo, lel- I
sinki 1993).
25...sfcf7 26 b3 Shb 8
26...Hhd8!? (Novikov).
27 &d4 Hd8
27..JSb5 28 3da4 improves, with an edge
for White. llie bishop’s arrival on g5 is not unusual
28 2xd8 )lxd8 29 Sxa6 Sd2 30 &h2?! for this and Samisch lines, but here the text
Novikov’s 30 a4!r>Sb2 31 S l >6 Sa2, with puts an awkward question to White in terms
compensaron, or 30 sS/fl offers superior of where to put the piece next.
chances, although it is not easy to nvake the 7 ¿f4
extra pawn tell. Alternad ves:
30...£tf3+ 31 * g 3 foel a) 7 ¿.h4 tloes not íit well with any system,
Black has counterplay based on the weak e.g. 7...c5 8 f3 focG 9 dxc5 dxc5 10 Wxd8
g2 pawn. Sxd 8 with good play for Black in Ivdery-
32 Sa7 f5 33 h4 & f6 34 foh5+ <Á>f7 35 Demarre, Paris 1993.
fof4 <A>f6 36 foh5+ *Á>f7 37 foto %-% b) After 7 ¿e 3 White invites 7...#\g4, e.g. 8
¿ e l e5 9 h3 (9 d5 f5 10 f3 fofa is a ver)- good
Gante H Samisch for Black) 9...#M’6 10 d5 4^1x17 11g4
Yusupov-Shaked with mutual chances in Breder-
I Jnares Open 1997 KíxMterheinrich, 1996 Gemían LH 8 Champi-
onship, or 8...c5 9 d5 e6 10 h3 foc5 (I ,arsen-
I d4 fo16 2 c4 g6 3 focZ ¿g 7 4 e4 d6 5 Cíligoric, l^eningrad 1973) 11 í^lg3, given as
foge2 0-0 unclear by ( íligoric in liCX).
While delaying castling is quite reasonable it 7...foc6
is nonetheless the most popular continuation. 7...c5!? is an interesting option.
6 Ü.g5 h6 8Wd2
Black can also play 6...a6 7 Wd2 £Mxl7 8 8 d5!? e5 (also good is 8...í\.*5 9 $\g3 c6
£>g3 c6, e.g. 9 ¿ c 2 (I i<>rvath-Wang Rui, Bu with chances for lK>th sides - liCX)) 9 ¿ c 3
dapest 2000) 9...b5! 10 0-0 (10 l>3 b4 11 fo.\4 fo e l 10 f3 c6 11 W d2 h5 (11...cxd5 12 cxd5
c5! with counterplay) H)...l>4 11 fo-.i4 c5 with Ii5 and 12...SÍ/I17 are safer) and now White can
chances for both sides. 9 ¿ h 6 e5 10 d5 cxd5 trv 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 S d l d5 14 cxd5 cxd5 15
I I cxd5 ¿ x h 6 12 Wxh6 £\g4 13 Wd2 Wh4 14 exd5 when Black iloes not have full compen-
h3 4hgf6 15 ¿d 3 ÍV 5 16 ¿ c 2 a5 was also sation for the pawn. Instead Kohlweyer-
unclear in Kogan-Drozdov, Groningcn 1994, Scalcione, Ijd o lístensi 2(K)3 went 12 0-0-0
while 9 a4 weakened the dark squares in cxd5 13 cxd5 ÍU Ü 14 * b l 1>5 15 foc\ b4 16
18
5 Zhge2
Game 9
Kakageldyev-Smirin
2002 B/ed O (y///piad
1 d4 <hf6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c 3 ¿ g 7 4 e4 d6 5
Now Black has a very solid position wilh a í^ge20-06^g3
great outpost for the knight on d4. I he main choice. Ilie knight might appcar
12 ^ g 3 a6 13 ¿ d 3 awkwardly placed on g3, bul it has its uses -
Shaked recommends 13 h4í? ^£7 14 h5 both offensive and defensive. Apart from the
Hh 8 with an unclear game. obvious support o f the advance o f the h-pawn
13...b5 14 h4?! the knight also monitors O, facilitating an
( )ne tempo too late! 14 0-0 ÍLcG 15 1)3, in- attack on that jx>int should Black seek to gen
teiuling Í2~f4, is proposed by Shaked. érate aciivity with ...f7-f5, as well as introduc
14...1.e6 15 0-0-0? ing ihe possibiliiy o f using h5 for lile knight in
The wrong decisión. 15 b3!? maintains the ihe event o f ...f7-f5>e*4xÍ5, g6xf5 etc. ( )n the
balance. downside, of course, White needs to keep in
15...bxc4 16 iL b l <fth7 17 <hf1?! mind the implications o f the advance ...Ii7-h5
Again White has better, with 17 K d l 1 Wf6, h4.
19
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
20
5 G\ge2
interior versión for Black, and instead recom- ^Age2 0-0 6 <5^g3 c6 7 A e 2 a6
mend 7...c5 or 8...e5 (above). Both 9...Wa5!?
and 9...5M x 17!? lead to positions that are a
louch preferable for White.
21
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
22
5 $\ge2
23
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
provement is 9...a6 followed by ...b7-l>5. jfi.c3 b6 14 Wd2 was awful for Black.
b) 8 Ag5 h6 9 &c3 af> 10 #,12 li5 11 ÍL I 16 10...&h8
h4 12 &xj>7 13 £ ifl, I.Sokolov-Van l 0...^V*8 11 Ü.g4 $ il)6 12 ¿ x c 8 Hxc8 was
Wely, Akureyri 1994, is an edge for White sccn in Bakros-I lailorn, Vannclo 1988, and
according to liC X). now 13 1)3 is cnough to sccurc a small advan-
c) Cornil Blanco-Illescas Cordoba, Cala tage.
Cfalilana 1999 went 8 ¿ c 3 a6 9 Wd2 b5 10 11 iLe3 Í^g8 12 Wd2 h5 13 fia b l sfch7
Ü.I16 (10 f3 and 10 0-0 ljoth favour White)
and now 10...¿xh6!? 11 ® x h 6 1>4 12£\11 c5 hp
is unclear.
8...e5
8...a6 transposes to Cíame 10, note lo
m
White’s 8th move (‘d’). YAK
9d 5 m a im
Also good is 9 jfi.e3, e.g. 9...ÍV8 10 Wd2
Wc7 11 2ad 1 12 exft gxf5 13 dxc5 dxe5
Nickel I lueneburg, M V P 1996, when 14 f4 is
very good for White. Black should play 9...a6
m
m
la1aIs' &
.......
W
O í? ops, after which White - who will be left with
p
wTw±s
his lesser hishop - will not l>e so comfortable
on the dark separes. 'Hiere is also another
fcasible plan available in 13...h4 14 #Mil #Y7
m&m •
.
15 13 17), when Black should be cióse to eejual
ity.
14 b4 Ah6 15 ^b 5 h4 16 <hh1 We7 17
m>e1 a6 18 ftc3 a5 19 bxa5
19 b5 is an option.
19...5.a5 20 Íhb5 fía6 21 Sb1 ^b 6 22
Sb3 iu e 3 23 ^xe3 ^h6 24 f4
'I bis thrust is connected with some kind of
'Iliis cannot be recommentled. Although strategic risk, which is why some players might
Black has closed the position and has no prefer the sater 24 O followcd by 4hí2.
weaknesses, in doing so he has also deprived 24...exf4 25 Wxf4 <5W 26 & f2 fte 5 27
himself of any counterplay. Consccjuently ^ h 3 ¿x h 3 28 Exh3 g5 29 « f6 ?
White Ivas a modest but long-term advantage Under no circumstances should White ex-
on both llanks. With this in mind Black has change tjueens, and now White’s future begins
9...cxd5, transposing to Cíame 15. to look rather bleak. lnstead 29 wf2 keeps the
10 a3 game well balanced.
In the event of 10 H bl Black should play 29...Wxf6 30 2xf6 2d8 31 g3 <Á>g7 32
10 ...í^e8!?, intending ...f7-f5 and limiting &f1 hxg3 33 Sxg3 <Á>g6 34 ¿>f2 Sd7 35
White to an edge. 'Iliis is certainly an im Sfg1 f6 36 &e1 &g7 37 h4 g4 38 h5
provement on Kapos/tas-Kanya, Salgotarjan *&h7 39 m 1 Sf7 40 Sg2 Í^g8??
1979, wlicre 10...a6 11 a3 S b 8 12 b4 Wc7 13 It is difftcult lo understand how Black ar-
24
5 foge2
rivcd at this blundcr. After the simple 40...(5 £ k 6 11 ¿Le2 g5 or 10 £<15 £k *6 11 f4 g5 with
II exf5 (41 2Zgf2 fxc*4 42 Hxf7+ #Mixf7 43 excellent c<ninterplay.
¿xg 4 ®g5) 41 .JSx f5 White would Ix* scri- 7...e6
ously regretting his 29th move. 'I he standard plan, after which positions of
41 Ix g 4 ^ x c 4 42 <A>e2? ten arisc that are similar to some lines o f the
W hy not 42 ¿ e 6, winning material? Averbakh or the 5 h3 systems. After cxchange
42...Ha5 43 ÍLÍ5+ *H 8 44 Sb1 Íhh6 45 on dS White can play the Modcrn Benoni or
¿ e 6 2e7? exd5. In the latter case White usuallv j has a
45...fig7 puts up more resistance. small space advantage but Black’s position is
46 fíg6 £>f7 47 Sbg1 ^ ce5 48 Sg8+ solid cnough. In comparison with the systcm
hhl 49 ¿f5 + &h6 50 S lg 7 &xh5 51 with h2-h3 White cannot advance his kingside
fíg l 1-0 pawns as his knight stands on g3.
7...a6 8 ¿Le2 Wc7 9 0-0 h5 10 a4 b6 11 S e l
Garué 12 £>1x17 12 h3 Se8 13 ¿LÍA £ h 7 14 W d 2 Sb8
Poluljahov-Sale 15 £ f l was an edge for White in Kapos/tas-
A i X A ; Masters, A ba I V)ab¡ 2002 Nowik, Budapest 1998. Takcuchi-Clavton,
Corrcspondence 2001 went 7...e5 8 ¿Le2 #Y *8
1 e4 g6 2 d4 ¿ g 7 3 c4 d6 4 £>c3 ¿hi6 5 9 h4 f5 10 cxf5 gxf5, when 11 #Mi5! would
ñge2 0-0 6 4hg3 c5 have sccurcd White a lead. White could also
have emerged with the Ixttcr game after
7...£lxl7 8 ¿Le2 a6 9 h4 h5 10 J¿g5 Sb8 11
Wd2 ^V-5 in Behcshtacin-Ciulicv, Fajr 2(K)1
with 12 0 -0.
'I bis lcavcs 7... 8 ÍLc2:
25
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
26
5 Q\ge2
27
O f f b e a t K i n g 's Iridian
Black simply continúes in traditional King’s Ad3 £k!7 12 £ige2 &c5 13 &c2 a5 14 0-0-0
Indian style, cffectively forcing White to cióse in Remlinger-Belakovskaia, Philadelphia 1991)
the centre. 'I he point is that after d4-d5 Black 9...ÍVI7 (9...ÍLf6 10 & h 6 5)g7 11 Wd2 Axh4
can employ the thetnatic thnist of the f-pawn 12 0-0-0 ±e7 13 <&bl $\I7 14 Axh5! is a
or place a knight on c*5. Another plan is to typical sacrifice in this system, and one worth
cxchange pawns on d5 followcd by queenside remembering 14...^xh5 I5í^xh5gxh5 16
expansión. O f course these themes are not Sxh5 and the clouds were gathering around
exclusive to just one strategy. Black’s kingside in Kovacs-Haik, Reggio
7 d5 £>fd7 lunilia 1977) 10 A g 5 Í.f6 11 Wd2a5 12 0-0-0
We should also consider the following, less with a nice position for White, De Wachter-
popular Black’s continuations, nonc of which Vinucrhocts, I luv 1992.
is enough for etjuality: 8 ¿Le2
a) 7...h5 8 ÍLg5 W c8 9 ÍL \3 £ lh l 10 &e3 Also gotxl is 8 h4, when 8...Í5? (IJngcr-
Ii4 11£>fl ?^a6 12 $\\2 15 13 f3 with an edge Kugelmann, Bayern 1997) nins into 9 exf5!
for White in I lort-lJhlmann, Batí Neuenahr gxB 10 £>h5 ÍLh 8 11 & h 6 S e 8 12 g4 with a
1991. strong attack. Instead Burgcrhoff-Bakkcr,
b) 7...^g4 8 &e2 (8 B £fo 6 9 h4 f5 10 hS!? Vlissingen 2000 continued 8...h5 9 .&g5 $V 6
f4 11 hxgíj hxgf) 12 4?}ge2 gS 13 4^gl g4 was 10 $Lc2 We8 11 Wd 2 &h7 12 ÍLh 6, when
S/ekeres-Varga, llungary 1992, and now 14 Black is still struggling to eejualise.
g3! is strong) 8...Wh4 9 ®ib5! í^a6 10 Ad2 c6 I x:t us return to 8 & c 2:
( 10...&h 6 II Axhó &xh 6 12 0-0 favours
White according to NCO) 11 W cl! (11 dxeó
I>xc6 12 &xd 6 13 * x f 2 W f6+)
II.JM U 8 12 #Y*3 (1‘brintos-Sinkovics, Mun-
gary 1986) is given as slightly better for White
in neo.
c) 7...£>lxl7 8 h4 (8 a6 9 h4 h5 10 ÍLg5
• c -8 11 Wd2 fo h l 12 & I 16 £W > 13 Axg7
<
á?xg7 14 0-0-0 ÍLd7 15 Hdgl b5 is evaluated
as even in /iCO) 8...h5 9 &g5 W c 8 (9...2c8 10
$U2 11 Wd 2 £»h7 12 with a mod-
est plus for White in Scrpcr-Wallach, Oak-
brook 1996) 10 &c2 #W5 (10...a5 11 ®b5
W d 8 12 Wc2 leaves Black slightly worse) 11 8...a5
1>4 £W> 12 a3 and Black was stmggling in Black has also tried:
Mitchell-Komhauser, l^ansing 1988. a) 8...£>a6 9 0-0 (9 h4!?) 9...h5 10 Ae3 h4
ti) 7...£W8 11 4 ih l f5 12 exf5 gxf5 13 f4 and White stcxxl
til) 8 A iI3 R (8...a5 9 0-0 £\a6 10 a3 Ad7 better in Divc-Britton, lx>ndon 1994.
II á.c-3 £í(> 12 W(I2 kccps While ahcail) 9 b) 8...Í5 9 exf5 gxf5 (Mourot-I luisman,
exR gxfi 10 W c2 # f 6 11 0-0 6 was the France 1999) and now Seqxr gives 10 f4 as
course of Krantz-Br/ozka, Correspondence favouring White.
1972/81, when White’s Ijcst is 12 ¿Le2 & f 6 9 h4 f5 10 exf5 gxf5 11 &g5 £>f6
(12...F4 13 ±d3 # li 6 14 13 Í4 with a 11.jKfc8?? 12 Ah5 (Seqxír) is final, but
definíte plus. 11...ü.f6 12 Wd 2 is cjuite playable, with an
d2) 8 h4 h5 9 &c2 (W liite enjoyed the eas- edge for White according to Seqxrr.
ier game after 9 -&g5 .&f6 10 Wd2 £)g7 11 12 fohS & h 8
28
5 foge2
Gante ¡4
Lutz-Gelfand
Hoi'gen 1994
13...Wd7
I3...fxg4? loses due to 14 #Y-4 #Mxl7 15
Ü.xg4 etc. (Serper), while I3...f4 14 & h 6 S c 8
15 g5 £^xh5 16 j^xh5 appears hopeless for
Black.
14 H g l! f4
No better is 14...^xh5 15 gxh5 *17 16 h6!
S g 8 17 ±h5+ *1 8 18 Wc2 £ h 6 19 0-0-0
(Serper), when Black is doomed to waiting for 'fhis themaric advance prepares lo rcin-
his cxecution. force Black’s control o f the c5-squarc\ which
15 &xf6 &xf6 16 g5 & g 7 17 &g4 is lx-ing prepared as an outpost for a knight.
White should avoid 17 ^ f 6+? & x f6 18 8 ie 2
gxf6 t * h 8 19 Sg7 Wh3, which Serper judges White continúes with standard dcvclop-
lo be unclear. Howcver, 17 j»Ld3 * h 8 18 ment. By now it should also be natural for us
ilxh7 *x h 7 19 #W>+ is nice. to consider starting immediate aggression 011
17...Wd8 18<5te4<&h8 the kingside with 8 h4 followcd by h4-h5 etc.
( )r I8...&xg4 19 Wxg4 W c 8 20 W tt etc. Black must decide what to do i11 responsc to
19 ^xg7 *x g 7 20 £tf6 foa6? this ‘threat* - ignore it or preven t it:
A blunder in a lost position. Better was a) 8...<5Va6 9 h5 c 6 was Black’s rcply in Ser-
20...Axg4. pcr-Watzka, I tupen 1994, when 10 hxg6 fxg6
21 &xc8 Wxc8 22 Wb1 Hh8 23 & h 5+ 11 B &Sc5 12 ÍLe3 favoured White. 'lilis ccr-
* f8 24 g6 Sg8 25 g7+ sfce7 26 Wxh7 tainly looks better than 9...í'Y5 10 $Lc2 Í Y 8
Wh3 27 0-0-0 11 ¿ c 3 f5 12 hxg6 hxg6 13 exf5 gxf5 14 #Mi5,
27 Wg 6! (Seqx-r). which saw Black in trouble in M.Ivanov-Chr/,
27.„5\c5 28 Wg6 a4 29 Wf6+ & e8 30 Schwabisch Gmund 1999.
<ftxf4 Wf3 31 Wg6+ * e 7 32 «g5+ * d 7 b) 8...c6 9 h5! cxd5 (Bctancli-Van Delft,
33 Wf5+ Philadelphia 2(K)1) 10 hxg6! is an idea to keep
33 £Mi 5 is simple and effcctive. in mind, e.g. 10...fxg6 ( I 0...hxg6 11 cxd5 4ha6
33...<¿>e8 34 Wh5+ «x h 5 35 <?ixh5 <¿>f7 12 % 5 W b 6 13 &l>5, 10...dxe4? 11 gxf7+
29
O ff b e a t K in g 's Iridian
30
5 foge2
JÍ.xc3+ 18 Wxc3 # W 3 19 &xd3 also retaincd 12 ÍLc3 £k:5 13 Wd2 a4 14 & h 6. This leaves
ihe first playcr’s edge in Dcrjabin-Shulga, Sim 11 ...JuLcl7, when 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 J¡Lc\ as in
feropol 2(M)3. Klciscr-Müllcr, Vienna 2002 limits White to a
I lowevcr, Black should be consisten! and iiKHlest lead and looks likc the best that Black
hop inro c5. ( ¡iorgad/.e-Akopian, 'Ibilisi 1989 can achievc. Noticc here that thc automatic
condnucil as follows: 9...4hc5 10 !>3 Ü.d7 11 12...hxg6?! is dangerous due to 13 Üg5.
H bl h5 12 & g 5 W e8 13 «U 2 Íhh7 14 & h 6, 11...^c5
when W hite’s decisión to trade these bishops ll...& d 7 12 ÜLc3 S c 8 13 B left Black
doesn’t look appropriate (14 A c3 is worth slightly worse in Arkhipov-Círoszpcter, Kcc-
considcring). White should not cxchange his skemet 1992.
dark-sejuared bishop unlcss he has attacking
chances, as his piccc is clearly superior to its
oppositc number. After thc subsccjucnt I4...h4
15 £xg7 <&xg7 16 £ih I We7 17 fibe I Wg5 18
WxgS í^xgS 19 B f5 Black had assumcd the
advantage.
9...c6
Black should play 9...h5, when 10 -&g5
transposes to 8 h4.
10 h5 cxd5
Naturally Black can opt for thc immediate
10...#W5, but after 11 Ae3 he will have to take
on d5 sooner or later, transposing to the main
game. Chilingirova-G rabies, Timisoara 1993 White has a number o f ways/ to mcct thc
went 11...*fb6 12 Wd2 a4 13 B b l cxd5 14 arrival of the knight 011 c5.
cxd5 with an edge for White, while Black 12 iLe3
should avoid 11__¿Ld7 12 dxeó ÜLxc6 13 B Moni torilig thc knight with a view to rc-
etc. moving it under favourable circumstances
11 cxd5 should the opportunity present itself. Alterna-
'Ib is is thc most usual rccapturc, White in tivclv:
tending to complete developmcnt and then a) 12 hxg6 fxg6 ! 13 .ÍLc3 ^Ld7 14 B W b 6
combine play in the centre with an attack on 15 Wd2 S fc 8 was handlcd well by Black in
thc kingside. Nevcrtheless, 11 cxd5¡? is ccr- Klciser-Raggcr, Staatsliga ‘B ’ 2(KK)/1.
tainly worth our attention. 'lilis approach is b) 12 Ág5 a4 13 Wd2 Wa5 14 B (14 0-0
known from previous games, but here White ÍLd7 is balanccd) 14...£d7 15 <Á>f2 (15 I16!?
has not yet castled, a differcncc that could Ik* .& I18 16 0 0 - intending B-f4 - is interesting,
significan! in that Black’s kingside is more 16...b5 providing Black with counterplay)
likcly to come under attack. In fact Black must 15...b5 16 l>4 axb3 17 axb3 Wb 6 18 ÍLc3 M
l>e carcful lierc. ll...W l)6 12 £ta4! Wc7 13 with cxccllent play for Black, Novikov-
.&e3 ÍY I7 14 hxgó hxg6 15 Wd2 f5 16 A h 6 J.Polgar, Pamplona 1990.
(I la/ai) is what White is l(K)king for, while c) 12 h6 JwLh8 13 ÍLg5 with a further
11...£k-8 (intending ...f7-f5) meets with 12 branch:
Iixg6 hxg6 13 J-LI16 etc. Mcanwhilc 11...íhc5 e l) 1.3....&d7 14 0-0 (White wants to play
12 ÍLe3 JwLd7 13 hxg6 fxg6 14 £xc5 dxc5 15 S&hl followcd by launching the f pawn in
Wb3, with thc idea o f answcring 15...a4 with order to organisc a kingside offensive)
16 Wa3, also favours White, as docs 11...Wc7 14...Wl>6 15 H b l a4 (15..JSfc8!? !6sS?hl £Y*8,
31
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
32
5 foge2
16...hxg6
I 6...fxg6 also looks pleasant for Black.
17 f3
(¡elfand’s proposed 17 * l 'l is better, or 17
#Y*4.
17...b5 18a3<5Mi5!
Black is gradually taking over the initiative.
19 g4?
(¿clfand offers 19 *£> 20 g3 5^fd3+
(wrong knight - after 20...$Yc!3+ White is
torced to capture with 21 .&.xd3 as 21 V&fl?
loses to 21 Jfoxb2 22 Wc2 H fc 8) 21 ÍLxd3
(missing 21 * g 2, e.g. 21../ftxb2 22 W c 2,
which is no problem for White, or 21...Í5 22 Concentra ting on the c|ucens¡clc. The main
f t f l with an cxccllent position for White) alternative is 8...a6, and now:
21 ...í^xd3» 22 *g 2 ((¡clfand gives 22 SÍ/e2 a) 9 a4H a5! is a tcxtbook positional theme.
^ x l>2 23 W c 2 h4 24 axb4 W a 6 ») 22..JSfc 8 23 llien play can continué 10 h4 h5 11 .&g5 (11
Wc2 1>4and White is in dire straits. ÍLe3 #Ya6 12 W d 2 Wc7 was dynamically
y j
bal
19...ÍM 4 20 ¿>f2 ÍLf6 anced in Storhaug-Wuerth, Norway Switzer
Black wants control o f the h-flle. Another land ( lorrespondence Match 1994) ll...W l>6
plan is 20...ÍYd3M ? (after 20...#Vcl3+ 21 *g 2 12 Sa3 (12 ® c 2 £W>, )ac<>b-Sikiric, I lidden-
the position is far from clear) 21 -ÍLxd3 £\xd3+ hausen 1996, and now 13 0-0!? - intending
22 S¿> e2 #V41* 23 * Í2 S fc 8, intending ...1)5- S a d l - is interesting, with chances for both
l>4, or at once 23... 1)4. sides, while 12 dxc6 also desenes attention,
21 % 1 ¿ g 5 e.g. 12...íhxc6 13 4?lb5 or 12...bxc6 l3Ü8rxd6
Obviously not 2 l...*g 7 ?? 22 g5 Ü.e7 23 Wxb2 14 0-0) I2...£Mx17 (lonov-Bologan,
ÜLxf4 exf4 24 Sh7+! (Gelfand) 24...&g8 25 Moscow 1991) 13 0-0!? (Black cannot take the
Wh2 &xg5 26 e5 dxe5 27 £kx*4 £>xe4+ 28 b2-pawn anyway) I3 ...ÍY 5 14 ÍLe3 with an
#W*4 with mate to follow. interesting micldlegame in pros|x*ct.
22 Wh2 dfcg7 23 Wh7 + ? b) 9 ¿g 5 !? h6 10 £ e 3 cxd5 11 cxd5 h5
23 i¿xf4 &xf4 24 Wh7t- SÉ?f6 is a lesser ( II ...b5 12 Wd2 & h7 13 h4 h5 14 B & g 8 was
evil, with a very big advantage for Black. Plachetka I Iausner, Marianske Lixne 1978,
23... A>f6 24 Í^a2? with 15 1>4 securing White an edge) 12 -&g5
24 * f l |x>slp<)>ic-s thc cih I, Icaving Black W c 8 13 W d 2 <hlxl7 14 a4 (14 S e l!?) I4...£>h7
with a strong cnough initiative. 15 ÍLh 6 & xh 6 16 Wxh 6 W d 8 17 h4 with a
24...<hfd3+ 25 ¿x d 3 ^xd3+ 26 s!e2 slight plus for White, (Ponías 1‘ábrego-XieJun.
¿x e3 27 &xe3 £if4 28 Wh4+ g5 29 Pamplona 1999.
Wh6+ sfce7 30 Wxg5+ f6 31 Sh7+ Sf7 c) 9 h4, and now 9...b5 10 h5! cxd5 I I cxd5
32 Sxf7+ '¿’x f? 0-1 £>1x17 12 A e 3 £ ll>6 13 b3 (Krmenkov-
Topalov, Sumen 1991) is given as slightly bet
Game 15 ter for White in fiC O , and 9...h5 10 Ág5 Wc7
Munschi-S.Farago (Tuchenhagen-Kitel, Germany 1995) also
Budapest ¡994 leaves White with an edge in the case of 11
Wd2.
1 d4 & f6 2 c4 g6 3 £>c3 A g í 4 e4 d6 5 9 cxd5
$\ge2 0-0 6 Í^g3 e5 7 d5 c6 8 ÍLe2 cxd5 9 exd5 provecí cjuite harmless for Black in
33
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
34
5 Q\ge2
Pushing the a-|>awn rules out ...b7-b5 hut spondence 1996, when 17...^g7 18 a4 bxa4
the main purpose is to gain space on the 19 #ixa4 a5 20 b5 A b7 21 Wc3 would liave
ijueensiclc. 10...^1x17 11 h4 (only Black’s h- left both sides with chances according to
pawn saw Service in 1narkiev-Agopov, lílista Bellmann.
1998, which went 11 ()-() # V 8 12 ÜLe3 h5 13 10...a6 11 0-0
W d 2 h4 14 4bhl 15 15 exí5 gxf5 16 % 5 SLÍ6
17 J¡Lxi6 W xf6 18 f4 with the better game for
White) 1l...h5 (l I...a5 weakens the b5-scjuare
and after 12 h5 £ k5 13 & c3 «fb 6 14 £>b5
&d7 15 S e l Sac8 16 Sc3 White had a secure
lead in Remlinger-Dannevig, Cíausdal 1992)
12 Ag5 atul then:
d21) 12...Wl>6 13 a5 Wc7 (13..Sxb2 14
A d 2 j&.h6 15 JwLxh6 Wxc3+ 16 A d2 Wc7 17
0-0 and White had more tlvan enough conv
pensation for the pawn in Robbiani-Bigini, c
mail 1998) 14 Wd2 b6 (Black must be careful
here - I4...&h7 15 0-0 ® c5 16 Ba3 b6 17 1>4
€icd7 18 S e l, Gradl-Kiimek, Augsburg 1995, Castling is the most accurate continuación.
and 14...£k\5 15 Ha3 b6 16 1>4, l'orintos- 11 l)4, on the other hand, is premature, l l...h5
Udovcic, U/ice 1966, are both to Ix* avoided) 12 0-0 (12 Ag5!?) 12...h4 13 £ fo l ® h 7 14 f3
15 axl>6 Wxb6 16 0-0 with an edge for White, A f 6 (Forintos-Sznapik, Ljubljana 1981) given
Muno/ Sotomayor-C¿arda, HCU 1999. as preferable for Black in HCO. Ñ or does 11
d22) 12...We8!? (intending ...&h7, ...We7 a4 furnish White an advantage, I l...h5 12íhf l
atul ..JL(6) 13 W d 2 (13 Ha3 ® h 7 14 A e 3 £V5 13 ¿)\\2 % 4 14 ÍLx c5 dxc5 15 £k4 b6
í>Ylf6 15 Wb3 Wc7, Forintos-Borocz, I lun- giving Black as mucli to smile about as White
gary 1993, and 16 a5 keeps W liite just in front) in Rodríguez-Vogt, ’Fhessaloniki 1988. 11
I3...®Mi7 14 ÍLxh5 (14 ÍLe3!?) 14...gxh5 Wd2 b5 12 Í3 transposes to the Samisch Sys
(I4...&xg5 15 Wxg5 ÍL f 6 16 W h 6 Ag7 17 tem.
Wg5 ÍL f 6 forces a draw and is therefore an 11...b5
improvement) 15 5^xh5 and White had a 'lilis thrust looks natural but is not without
strong attack for the piece in Soman- a downside. Consecjucntly Black sliould con-
Saravanan, India 1994. sider 11...h5, e.g.
10A e3 a) 12 Ag5 W e 8 13 Wd2 (13 a4 & h7 14
An alternative is 10 Ag5 h6 11 J&c3 (note $Lc?> h4 15 #Mil f5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 f4 and
that if Black decides to push to h5 the game White had a mcxlest advantage in Poluljahov-
will transpose to l l...h5 in the note to Black’s Cíasanov, Krasn<xlar 2002) 13...^h7 14 .ÍLI16
11th move) l l...a6 12 0-0 1)5 13 l>4 ^ b 6 14 a4 h4 15 .&xg7 (15 £>hl Wfc7 16 &xg7 *xg 7
<5^xa4 15 í^xa4 bxa4 16 Sxa4 h5!, Szabo- was unclear in Z.Polgar-Brustman, 'Iliessalo-
Yanofsky, Winnipeg 1967, and now 17 Ag5 niki 1988) 15...&xg7 16 & h l f5 (16JÉfe7!?)
seems to lx*nefit White. 12 Wd2 h5 13 Ag5 17 ex<5 gxf5 18 f4 and the trade on f5 fol
b5 14 0-0 W e 8 15 S fc l 4&h7 16 A c3 favoured lowed by pushing the f-pawn again afforded
White in Cavril Renaud, Correspondence White a definite plus, this time in Shemeakin-
1996, while 12 h4 £>e8 13 W d 2 h5 14 S e l Gaponenko, Alushta 1998.
A f 6 15 Ü.g5 Axg5 16 hxg5 l>5 17 1)4 was b) 12 S e l allows 12...h4, when 13 4^tl
another postal game, l;rcisc-Bellmann, Corrc- 5Mi7 14 Wd2 Í5 15 exf5 gxf5 16 14 saw
35
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
W hite’s now familiar better game in Avrukh- 17 Sxa 6 h4 18 £>hl £>xe4 19 W c 2 f5 with
Van den Doel, Duisburg 1992. Black has also chances for both sides in Hansson-Modig,
playee! the deliberare but lengthy I2...shh7 13 Corresjxjndence 1988/90. Iliis leaves 16
£üfl & f 6 14 a4! .&g5, when in ( Ihekhov-Ye ÍLg5, and now:
Jiangchuan, Beijing 1991 White pressed on a) 16..JSb8?! 17 ÍLxh5 (17 &xa 6 & d7 18
with 15 a5 h4 16 b4!? f5. 'Ilie n Ye Jiangchuan b5 Sxb5 19 Ji.xb5 Ü.xb5 should end in a
gives 17 exf5 gxf5 as unclear in liC O but, in draw) I7...j£.d7 (after 17...gxh5 18Í^xh5 Black
our opinion, White has an advantage. has no good defence against Wf3 and í2-f4)
12b4£fo6 13a4 18 Sa3 Sxb4 19 A e 2 a5 20 W el W b 6
The point. Rather than allow Black free- (20...Wl>8!? 21 & x f6 & x f6 22 Sxa5 and Black
dom oti the queenside White has takcn ag- has some compensation for the pawn) 21 Ü.e3
gressive action of his own there, blockading W b 8, Derjabin-Maximov, Dnepropetrovsk
and then challenging the enemy dúo. 2002, and now White could have won a pawn
13...^xa4! with 22 Sxa5! as after 22...^xe4 23 J&.a7 Wl>7
Not 13...£>c4?! 14 axb5 £tee3 15 fxe3 W b 6 24 ÉLíí6 Wxa7 25 Wxb4 he wins.
16 Wd3 (Sxabo-Byrne, I lavana Olympiad b) 16...Wb6 17 l>5 was Kber-Polster, Corre -
1966) with a clear lead for White according to spondence 1989. Then 17...ÍY17!? is interest-
liC O . ing, e.g. 18 ,ÍLe3 $Y5 19 j2Lxc5!? dxc5
14 £ixa4 bxa4 (19...#xc5 20 W d 2 a5 21 S e l W b 6 22 S c 6
W d 8 23 b6 is awful for Black) 20 Ji.c4 h4 21
&Y*2 Sa7 22 bxa6 ÍLxa6 and Black is only
slightly worse.
c) 16_¿Lc!7 17 Ha3 (after 17 Sxa 6 Sxa 6 18
&xa 6 W l>6 19 *U 3 Wxb4 20 H bl #a5 Black
exchanges queenside pawns) l7...Wb6 ! 8 W d 2
with somefhing for White in Derjabin-
Kgorov, Dkraine 2002.
1 5 ...6 .7
Suba, in /iCO, prefers I5...h5!, with an as-
sessment o f unclear, e.g. 16 f3 JuLd7 17 Wc2
h4 18 & h l a5 19 bxa5 (19 1)5 ^ h 5 ) 19...Sxa5
20 W d 2 Sx al 21 Sx al with only a symbolic
Black’s position appears fairly solid (the advantage for White.
two potential weaknesses on a6 and d6 are 16 ^ a5
quite easy to defend) but as far as the future is 16 W c 2!? deserves a look.
concemed there is nothing positivo to look 16...Wxa5 17 Sxa5 Sfb8 18 Exa6?!
forward to. If White plays correctly there 'Iliis leads to an immediate draw. Obvi-
should be no counterplay. I lowever, it is not ously White can liang onto 1)4 and a6, and
easy to actually engineer a decisive advantage after 18 S b l _&c8 remains with some extra
from White’s pluses. space and the better dark-squared bishop.
15 Wxa4 Nevertheless, it is very difftcult to make pro
15 Sxa4 is similar: I5...h5! and now 16 b5 gress in this position.
lets Black achicve counterplay, e.g. 16....&d7 18...fíxa6 19 ¿Lxa6 &xb4 20 f3 'A-'A
36
5 *hge2
Summary
Black has a few intercsting ideas in this variación but, in our opinion, two in particular merit spe
cial attention. 'The first is ...c7-c5 followed by cxchanging on <15 with ...t^-eóxdS, leading to a
middlegame in which Black’s chanccs are certainly not worse (Cíame 12). The second concerns
developmcnt with ...e7*e5, ...a7-a5>...#Ya6-c5 and ...c7-c6xtl5. Note that if White begins active
play on the kingside with Ii4 Black should take measures to block with ...h7-h5. The besr cxamplc
o f this is Cíame 14.
5 §\ge2 5...a6 7 d5
37
CHAPTER TWO ]
5 A d3
38
5 ild 3
39
O ff b e a t K in g 's Iridian
gxf4 cxf4 22 A x í4 W x fH 23 &g2 Wxc3 24 25 Wxh 6 Wxh6) White enjoys similar play to
Wxc3 ÍLxc3 25 Hacl etc. Note here that after the main game.
I9...4bh5 20 c5! we can sec a scrious drawback 23 h3 & f5 24 <^e4 Sc8 ?
to 18....&d7 - although it defends the c6- The only wav to put up some sort of resis-
sejuare the bishop now fmds itself unpro- tance is with 24....&f8, although after 25 Habí
teeted! HcS 26 Hb7 White should win.
19 b5 f4 20 &.12 25 £ab1
Why not 25 í^x <!6 Hxd6 26 Wxd6 with a
winning jx>sition?
25....6xe4
25...&fó 26 Sl>7 leacIs us back to the note
to Black’s 24th move.
26 fxe4 We7 27 Sb7 We8 28 ^d5+ <A>h8
29 c5 A f8 30 c7
30 Sd7 S d 8 31 Hxa7 is more accurate.
30...Wd7 31 &b5 ^ e7 32 £f1 Sf6 33
Sxf6 Mxf6 34 ¿Lc4 Wg5 35 Wd1 We7 36
Wg4 1-0
G<w/c 17
20...£>g3+ I.Sokolov-Smirin
Onward. Black eould keep the ‘seore’ level Pos I ¡entum as 2001
with 20...cxl>5 but after the simple 21 exl>5
* h 8 22 4üe4 23 &c4 We7 24 JL I5 &b7 1 d4 <^f6 2 c4 g6 3 <^c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
25 S a cl White has a clear advantage. iLd3 <hc6 6 <hge2 0-0 7 0-0 &d7
White can also takc control o f the light
squares after 20....&b7 (or 20....&d7), e.g. 21
Ad3 (21 ÍV-4 Wc7 22 £<13 <hf6 23 ÍLc2
4hxe4 24 .&xe4 Sf6 25 Wd3 cxb5 26 cxb5 is
also g<K>d) 2 I..JSh 6 22 bxc6 Ü.xc6 23 ü e 4
$}g3+ 24 iiLxg3 fxg3 25 h3 W<17 26 Hac 1etc.
An attempt to actívate Black’s dark-sejuared
bishop with 2()...e4 works only after 21 fxe4 in
view o f a well timed ...jS.eS, e.g. 2l...#\g3+ 22
-&xg3 fxg3 23 bxc6 Wh4 24 h3 Ü.xh3 25 gxh3
g2+ 26 -&xg2 Wg3 and Black is having all the
fun. I lowever, White has a strong response to
20...c4 in 21 £lxc4! .&xal 22 Hxa 1 J^.e6 23
bxc6 with a bie advan taire. A ven- interesting position, Black electing
21 &x g3 to makc a flexible move before embarking on
21 hxg3!? fxg3 22 jiLxg3 Hxg3 23 Wxd6 anv adventure in the centre. White musí now
é
Wh4+ 24 á?gl and White wins with ease. decide on action of his own after taking into
21...fxg3 22 bxc6 « h 4 consideration that Black, after 8...e5 9 <15, has
Perhaps 22...&c6, hoping for 23 Wxd6?? a lew possihtlitics - namely 9...í^l)4, 9...íhe7
Wh4 24 h3 £xh3 25 gxh3 Sxd 6 26 fixd 6 e4, and 9...ÍY14 (although we must remember
but after 23 £Y*4 Wh4 24 h3! (24 4^xg3?? S h 6 here that on <17 the bishop occupies a poten-
40
5 Ad3
41
O f l b e a t K i n g 's i n día n
£ l2 1,6 17 K tll % S IH a3 £to 6 19 ÍLc2 , play a position with a stable centre when the
evaluating the position as slightly lx.*tter for opponent has no counterplay.
W hite. In general Black should avoid exclvaiig- 18.. Jía e 8 19&xd7
ing tjueens in this kind o f position hecause the Black would have had serious problems af-
strength o f his |x>tential counterplay decreases. ter 19 a3 20 # c l ¿ I >5 21 a4 Axc2 22
W hite has a veiy clear atul effective plan in Wxc2 #Y 6 23 £V4.
Ü.a4 (assutning control o f key light sejuares), 19...Wxd7 20 a3 4^6 21 We1! Wd8 22
H ab í and 1)21)4, preparing c*4-c5. Indeed í^c3 ^ f6 23 3d1 <Ad7?!
Black has nothing constnictive in reply. W ith According to I lazai this move is weak and
this in niim l we prefer to choose from one o f allows White to exploit the light squares. I le
the following, although none guáranteos Black rccommends 23...¿ k 5 24 AxcS dxcS 25 d6
ec|uality: 13...Í5 14 c5, I3...b6 14 a3 #Va6 IS W l>6 26 We2, although White slill retains an
A c 2 and 13 ...ÍW ) 14 ¿Lc2. edge.
13....6h6 14 &A2 We7 15 cxd6 cxd6 16 24 ÍLd3
Ste4 f 5 17 fAb6 White has a big lead.
2 4 ...^ c 5 25 ÍLb5 Se7 26 b4 axb4 27
axb4 <^b3
After 27...4ha6 White has a clear advantage
after both 28 J&xa6 bxa6 29 S a l and 28 #Y4
29 jSLxa6 bxa6 30 &h4 Wl>6+ 31 & h l
-&g7 32 JuLxf6. 'llie texl simply aims for d4,
which Black is interested in oven at llie price
of pawn, lioping for drawing chances in view
of the ending with opposite-coloured bishops.
28 ^ e4
Not had, bul two other continuations are
betier - 28 ÍV* 2!? (in order to take a pawn
wliile avoiding opposiie-coloured bishops)
17...fxe4!? 28...£g7 29 ilxd7 Wxd7 30 Wc3 £kl4 31
White has a clear advantage, and after í^xd4 exd4 32 jalxd4 Axd4+ 33 Wxd4t w iili
'nornial’ moves Black’s weakened cjueenside a puré extra pawn, or 28 j2.xd7!?, securing the
anyway confers White a clear lead (the aS e*4-scjuare for the knight - 28...Hxd7 29 ÍV 4
pawn and the b6 -sc]uare are the most obvious, and Black has problems.
but White’s ‘control’ of c8 is ecjually annoying 28...5.6
for Black). l7urthermore the lioped for coun- Black should have decided on 28...£kl4!?
tcrplay with the f-pawn might result in a new 29 ÍLxd7 Hxd7 30 ÍLxd4 exd4 31 Hxd4 W b 6
weak fS-pawn, e.g. l7...Hae8 (or l7...Had8) 18 32 Wf2 Hc7 with some compensation for the
a3 £Va6 19 exfS gxf5 20 ELcI 4hf6 21 £kl4. pawn.
Consec|uently Black decides to sacrifico an 29 ¿^xf6 Sxf6 30 Wc3 ^d 4 31 Sxd4!
exchange. exd4 32 .&xd4 Ke5 33 ¿ x e 5 dxe5 34
42
5 Ad3
43
O ffb e a t K in g 's /ndian
44
5 Ad3
ÍW 6 I Sxe6 40 Hxb2 and White should draw S e 8 12 Wd2 with an edge for White) 11 exdS
che ending. Ilowever, in our opinion b5? (according to lia/ai 11...0-0 has to be
V5...ü.xd l !? 36 Sx d l Sc7 deserves attention played) 12 Wd2! and Black has serious prob
as ii seems to present Black with winning lems wilh his king. I ’or example 12...bxc4 13
chances, e.g. 37 í?V*4 d5 38 #YI2 (38 £\x!6 &xc4 g5 (I3 ...& Í8 14 0-0 SÍ?g8 15 H fel &h7
S&XÍ6 39 Sxd4 S^xe‘6 40 Hd3 Sd7 41 SÍi> g3 d4 limits White to an allxit comfortable advan
42 & B <&d5) 38...<&fK 39 £kb3 &e7 40 tage) 14 h4! g4 I5 £ lg l £k!7 16íhge2£V*5 17
í^xd4 fic4 41 #Y*2 sfcxe6. b3 f il )8 18 &g3 M>?\ (after I8...<hxc4 19
33 g4 hxg4 34 &g3 ÍLc4 bxc4 Sb4 20 0 -0! Ha/ai gives only 20..JHxc4
34...Í¡La6! is the last chance to press for 21 We2! antl White wins, but 20...S&Í8 - de
more than a draw. spite White’s obvious superiority - at least
35 &xg4 Sa8 36 foi7 %ae8 37 Stá6 Sh8 keeps Black in the game) 19 S e l J&xh4 20
38 <^xc4 dxc4 39 &xc4 £xh4+ 40 ¿tf3 £\ce4 ÍLxg.3? (20...¿e7 21 Sxh 6 Sxh 6 22
Kh3+ 41 & e4 b5 42 &d5 fíe3+ 43 fíxe3 Axltó) 21 Ág5! 1-0, Azmaiparashvili-llhlvest,
dxe3 44 &xe3 Axb2 45 &xb3 'h-'h Pula 1997.
6 d5 a5 7 foge2
Game 19 In Panczyk-Nowak, Po/.nan 1985 White
Kasimdzhanov-Kozul tried 7 h3, securing in some variations the e3-
IHed Olympiad 2002 stjuare for his bishop. 7...ÍYi6 8 £\ge2 £k:5 9
¿Le2 c6 10 Ag5 h6 II & e3 (ll...cxd5
1 d4 ftf6 2 c4 g6 3 £>c3 iLg7 4 e4 d6 5 improves) and now White should have played
iúd3 e5 12 dxc6 .&xc6 13 B with better chances in
view o f the weak d6-pawn.
7..//>a6
45
O f f b o a t K i n g ' s I r i di an
Cierne 20
Sturua-Gutman
5/h Wichent Open 1999
14...^cd7
Black should trv for counterplay with
14...f4!? 15 .&xc5 dxc5 16 f3 Sf6 and ...Sh6.
15 f4
15 © g3 e4 16 & b 5 a4 17 £Mi5 axl>3 18
.Ílxb3 ü.e.5 19 _&h6 B f7 20 f4 with a mcxlest
plus for White.
15...a4 16 fxe5 axb3 17 &xb3 Axe5 18
<hb5 £>c5 19 £tf4 Jíd7 20 m 3
20 ÍLxc5 dxc5 21 Í\ I3 also l<K>ks awkward
for Black.
46
5 &c/3
An interesting idea. Black wants to play sities conduct the next pilase o f the game ac-
...c7-c5, the point being that after a subsccjucnt curatcly in order to maximisc their poten tial
c!4-cl5 there is ...£kr5, forcing the cxchange o f advantages, and our analysis shows that White
W hite’s bishop, while thc text also serves to is, in fact, in the driving seat.
gcncrally increase thc scopc o f the g7-bishop.
C)thcrs:
a) 6...c6 7 0-0 (W hite can also steer the
game into Samisch waters with 7 13, e.g. 7...a6
8 0-0 1)5 9 a3 £MxI7 10 & h l e5 11 cxb5 axb5
12 iLe3 Sb 8 13 1)4 & b7 and W hite liad thc
easicr o f it in líslon-Mednis, Amsterdam
1986) 7...a6?í (7...#Ya6!?) 8 f4! b5 9 e5! £lg4?
(9...£kr8!?) 10 h3 í^ h 6 11 g4 bxc4 12 ¿LxcA
sS?h8 13 4hg3 fó 14 _&.c3 and Black was alrcady
in trouble in Krasenkow-Kaminski, Poland
1996.
b) 6...a6 7 0-0 (7 Í3!? transposes to a versión
o f thc Samisch that is to W hite’s l>cncíit) 13 ÍLc2 £>bxc4
7...£>lxl7 (7...SVd7 8 A c2 c5 9 & c3 £k :6 10 I3...gxf5 14 4hf4 W xdl (I4...£ k6 15 Wh5
h3 n i)8 11 a4 Wa5 was nuclear in l.l'arago- ÍV14 16 ¿Ld3 £W > 17 j2Lxf5 ^ 5 18 JÍLc2) 15
Lanka, Rcgensburg 1996) 8 f3 c6 9 Üg5 (9 S x ill í^k:6 16 £kd5 íhxilS 17 Hxd5 iÜLh6 18
.&e3!?) 9 .J)5 10 & h l (10 a3) lo J& b 6 J2LxI"5 with an advantage for White.
(I0...b4!? 11 £\i4 c5 is ecjual) 11 l>3 bxc4 12 1 4 íh f4 b 6
bxc4 Q Sí(\l 13 f4 c5 14 d5 with an edge lor Trading cjucens docs not help Black, e.g.
White, Christiansen-Babula, ( ¡ermany 1995. 14...Wxill 15 S x d l £ k 6 16 £>cd5 gxf5
7 0-0 c5 8 dxc5 dxc5 (!6...íV le5 17 ÍLc3 1)6 18 ÍLa4 ¿Lh 6 19 lxi>6
After 8...#\xc5!r>Black has a pcrfcctly play- Ü.xf4 20 4bxf4) 17 ÍLa4 £>4c5 18 ÍL-3 1)6 19
ablc Marócxy position. 1)4 A lió 20 I>xc5 iÍLxf4 21 £ W 4 and White
9 f4 £>c6 10 e5 f6 tnaintaitis a lead.
Black must do something about W hite’s 15 We2 g5
centre before thc space advantage is converted Now Black has absolutely no counter-
into something concrete after J-Le3, wd2, j2Lc4 chances, although after I5...gxf5 16 S il 1 ÍV I 6
and Had l etc. 17 .&xf5 White nevertheless has a strong ini-
11 e6 tiative on the kingsiile.
11 cxf6 #ixf6 is nicc for Black, while l I 16 Sd1 Í^d6 17 ?Ac6 18 & e 3 W e8
ftg3 fxe5 12 f5 ® f 6 13 fxg6 Wd4+ 14 * h l 19 ^Ad5 2b8 20 a4
hxg6 15 Üxg 6 JÍLc6 and 11 A e 3 fxc5 12 (5 Attacking with 20 h4 looks interesting.
gxf5 13 -&xf5 #YI4 fail to cause Black any 2 0 ...¿>h8 21 Wg4 Íhe5 22 Wh3 h6 23
inconvenience. Üxg5 fxg5 24 S'ixg? si>xg7 25 W c3 ^ d c4
11...£\b6 12 f5 26 b3 ¿>g8 27 bxc4 ® c 6 28 Wh3 1-0
W hitc’s advanced pawns Ick >k verv strong
and scriously cramp Black, whose king is in Game 21
danger o f coming under fire, too. ( )n the Seirawan-lvanchuk
other hand W hite’s pawns might prove vul World Cnf>, Reykjavik 199/
nerable should Black succccd in altacking
tliem. Consccjucntly it is imperative that both 1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c 3 ¿Lg7 4 e4 d6 5
47
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
48
5 &d3
mtm
ü m &m
* 1 a ¡
An interesting idea. Black refrains from an
immediate 7...eS, opting instead to exert fur-
tlier pressure on d4. White has tliree methods
ofdefetice but each h;is its disadvantages. First
m ■ there is 8 d5, allowing the exchange ol his
light-sejuared bishop after 8...vVe5. Secondly,
after 8 .&e3 eS 9 dS 4?YI4 White cannot takc
m ___ wm . on d4 with his e2 knight in view ol the fork.
I'inally, dropping the bishop back to c2
14...1.d7 doesn’t look appropriate in some variations.
14...b6! is given as eijual by Ivanchuk in 8 ¿Le3
neo. ( )thers:
1 5 ^ x a5 !? a) 8 dS #VeS 9 f4 í^xd3 10 Wxd3 and
15 1)3 1)6 is level. Black’s price for climinating the bishop is in
15...£ixe4 16 We1 4üf6 the form o f W hite’s extra spacc and presence
Seirawan gives ! 6...^gS?! 17 h4 (17 Wd2! in the centre, which makes counterplay awk-
£Y*c5!?) ¿?\f3+ 18 gxf3 Wxh4 with compensa ward to enginecr. Unfoitunatcly this position
tion. In our opinion I7...#Mi3!+ is an im- is very rare in tournament practice, but play
provement. can continué as follows: l()...®k:S (Kleissl-
17 b4 <5^5 18 f3 f5 19 Sb1 b6 20 £lac3 Neumeier, Austrian llague I999 saw Black
¿Lf6 21 Wd2 & h 4 ?! 22 f4 J&f6 23 fxe5 fail to e<.|ualise after I0...c6 II ÜLc3 Wa5 12
49
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
50
5 jk d 3
Black to exchange his well placed knight. vantage in the diagram position but in our
10...£ixe2+ 11 Wxc2 f5 (1 l...a5 12 £Lq2 4tk5 opinion Black is not doing t<x>badly.
13 a.3 f5 14 exf5 gxf5 15 f4 c4 with chances 1 7 ...6 .8 18 ^ g 3
for both sities in Arbakov-Belov, Katowice Attacking the isolated pawn on f5. Accord
1990) 12 exf5 gxfS 13 B & h 8 14 & c2 £ Y 6 15 ing to Agdestein (l:C (J) after 18 23f3 White
cS $Mi5 16 cxd6 cxd6 17 Wc4 I5g8 18 <¿?hl has a clear advantage duc to two threats: JiLbl
Jim 19 f4 Wh4 20 f iG Wg4 21 « T i e4 22 followed by í^xd4, and Hfl-0-g3-g5. Never
V?.-V¿y I ¿tstin-C ¡alkin, Volgcxlonsk 1993. theless, I8...a5 l<K>ks effective, and earns Black
10...C5 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 b4 f5 counterplay, e.g. 19 a3 (19 cxd6 axl>4 20
Another idea is 12.JÜV7 13 J&bl c5 14 JIx c 6? A h í) I9...axb4 20 axl>4 ÍLa 6 etc. 18
bxc5 dxc*5 15 #YI5, when both sities have cxd6 is worth testing.
outstanding outposts for their knights. In Pin- 18...#>f6 19 Wf3
ter-Sepp, Yerevan 1996 Black played 19 cxd6l? #VI5 20 Wd2 Wxd6 21 Hc5, in
15...#M>6. Ilere MC.O gives 16 f4!? (instead of tending £ih5, S fc l (Agdestein).
16 Ad3, as played by Sepp) I6...exf4 17 2xf4!? 19...d5 20 £fe1 ¿Ld7 21 ÍIe7 £ae8 22
as favouring White. W e suggest that Black Ece1 h5
should play I6...®lxd5!? 17 cxd5 (17 exd5 Agdestein gives 22..J3xe7 23 Hxe7 S e 8 24
Wc7) 17...exf4 18 Í^xf4 W e7 with sufftcient W e 2 as unclear lx.it we like 23...?Id8 w illi llie
counterplay. Also interesting is the immediate ¡dea o f following ti|> wiíh 24...‘5V4.
15...Í5, e.g. 16 f3 (16 ex 15 gxf5 is etjual) I6...F4 23 Hxe8 Sxe8 24 Exe8+ «x e 8 25 We2
17 £\xd4 cxd4 18 &<\2 flf7 19 & d 3 $V5 20 Wb8
ÍLb4 jwLfK with ccjuality, or 16 f4 -ílxdS 17 25...#gr»!? 26 We5!? 27 W l>81 <&h7 28
exd5 S e 8 with good play for Black. 0\c2 (Agdestein) is nuclear.
13 exf5 gxf5 14 &xd4 26 <^ixh5 Wxb4 27 <^xg7
In our opinion after 14 14!?, combining
threats o f b4-b5, c4-c5 atul in some variations
fxe5 to hit the 15 pawn, White has the advan
tage, e.g. 14...Hb8 (14...ÍV‘6 151>5) 15 Wd2 (or
15 a3 a5 16 l>5) 15...SxIvl (15...a5 16 b5) 16
^b 5 £>c5 17 £>bxd4 exd4 18 ÍLxd4 Ub7 19
H b l with the better game.
14...exd4 15 ^8 4 Wg5 16 f4 Wg6 17 c5
2 7 ...*x g 7 ??
’l'he only move is 27...í'Y:4ü witli a ilraw in
all variations - 28 4^xí5 (28 4^h5 Wxa4 29
£ ¥ 6 ^ x f 6 30 We7 W dl t 31 ii.fl ? V 8 32
Wxil7 tl.3 33 W xl5 J2 34 We.S-t-, or 28 A xe4
fxe4 29 WhS-t) 28....&xB 29 s4 (29 ÍLxc4
ilxe4 30 Wh5+ &h7 31 WeS+J 29...ÍLxK4 30
Wxj>4 W e I + etc.
According to Belov White has a clear ad- 28 \We7+ s¿-g6 29 h4M
51
O ffb e a t K ing 's Indian
52
5 ÍLd3
53
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
thc same players a ycar carlicr (USSR): 13...a6 after !7...Axf6 18 #}g3 White continúes to toy
14 1>5 Í.S b3 B l >8 16 Hacl W l,6 17 J& M with e4 t-5, although we Ixlieve that after
and Black was in troublc. 18...Hb8 Black has sufficient defensive re-
14 f4 b5 sources tlianks to the hishop pair, the facility
to defend with ...Sl>6 and the general activity
on the queenside.
17 <^g3 Sb4
I7...^f6 once again deserves attention.
18 e5 dxe5 19 f5 Wb6 20 £>e4?!
Although ihe attraction of l9...Wb6 is iliat
it defends along the rank while simultaneously
intrcxlucing the possibility of ...Si>2 White
might he ahle to exploit the former factor with
20 Habí!?, taking charge of the b-file atul pre-
paring for aggressivc action 011 either side of
lile board. I ’or example c5 is a target, while
after the trade 011 l>4 White’s centre pawns
Tcmpting White, who tends to politclv re grow in strength, e.g. 20...f6 21 & I 16! í'Y tt 22
fuse the offer with the next rruxlest iiudge of Sxb4 Wxb4 23 Wxh4 cxb4 24 J&d2 etc.
thc h-pawn. 20...Í6 21 d6
15 b3 21 fxg6? hxg6 and White will regret releas
After takingon l>5 White merely invites his ing Black’s f pawn. After 21A li 6 Black enjoys
opponcnt to utulcrmine the support of the e4- an edge.
pawn with, for example, a well time<l ...c5-c4. 21...kb2 22 Wc1
There is no need to entertain such possil>ilities
when White is ahle to maintain his presente in
the centre.
15...bxc4 16 bxc4 Hb8
Black’s pieces have found decent posts in
relation to the pawn con figuradon. I he d7-
knight proteets c5 (guarding against e4-c5) and
the hH-rook is playing a part. Note that the
light-scjuared hishop must he ready to go to
a6. 'Iliis is another reason whv Black should
push the h-pawn without preparation (in other
words leaving out ...a7-a6), thus keeping the
a6-scjuare free, as well as saving a tempo.
'Hiere is also an argument for executing the 22...&b7
same tjueenside stnitegy with the rook still 011 O f course the game is becoming rather
ÍH rather than tnoving it to e8. I liis is hecause complex and, with it, the decisión making
White’s thetnatic e4 e5 tlóxcS, f4-f5 plan is less process. I lowever, with 22...gxf5! Black can
of a prohlem for Black lxcause the 17 pawn find a route 10 a considerable advantage: 23
would tlien Ix* more secure. Sxf5 fxg5 24 Wxg5 Wd 8 25 Wh5 iü>7 and
Yermolinsky and Uvshitz give I 6...$!H‘6 the onus is 011 White 10 demónstrate compen
wilh the idea of sending the knight into c3 via sation for ihe losi piece.
g4. ( !onsct|ucndy 17 A x f6! is necessary, when 23 fxg6?
54
5 ¿Ld3
The lesser evil is 23 A d 2!? gxf5 24 Sxf5 S e l. On the downside, if White fails to
ÍLxe4 25 ,&xe4 S b 8 with a messy situation achieve his ohjective the knight will be forced
ihai holds more worries For White tlvan Black. to retreat to the poor post on a3.
23...hxg6 24 ilx f6 £lxf6 10...Se8
W hy not 24...J&xe4! 25 &xc4 5üxf6 with a
J
( )thers:
big advantage? a) I0...«e7 11 S e l <^g4 12 h3 and Black
25 fíxf6 &xf6 was aiready in trouble in Seirawan-C ¡clfand,
25..JSLxe4! is again strong. W ijk aan /ce 1992.
26 Wh6 Sf8 b) II & c2 £k.*5 12 Í^xd4 (12
Yet again 26...Axe4! should net Black the Ab.3 c5 13 dxc6 bxc6 14 #W I4 ÍLa 6 trans
flull point - 27 JbLxc4 « x d 6 28 Ad5+ He 6 29 poses to I lort-Xic jun - sce Game 22, note to
S fl e.g. 30 g4 S^e7 31 g5 JÜ.xg5 32 W hite’s 8th move, ‘1)22’) 12...íhxc4 13 S b l
«g7+ (32 Wxg5+ S f 6) 32...*d8 33 Axe 6 &d7 14 b3 ®fo 6 15 ÍLc3 Sc8 (15...c5!? 16
¿.14 34 « g 8+ S¿>c7 and the king easily finds dxc6 bxc6 17 « d 2 d5 gains a tempo) 16 Wd2
sanctuary on the queenside, leaving Black to c5 17 dxc6 bxc6 18 S fd l d5 19 <5V2!?, Wu
push his centre pawns or even construct an Shaobin -Wang Pin, Beijing 2001, with an edge
attack against the enemy king. Note that the for White.
opposite-coloured bishops only help the ag c) 10...£k*8 has not been sufficiently tested
gressor in this kind o f scenario. in tournament practice but is undoubtcdly
27 Wxg6+ Ag7 28 We6 + & h8 29 Wh3 + worth a lex>k. White has a few continuations.
A>g8 30 We6+ 1-0 e l) 11 1)4 a5 (I l...c6!? 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 ÍY i3
15 gives Black counterplay) 12 bxa5 c6 13 4?\a3
Game 24 Sxa5 14 «1>3 (I la/ai prefers 14 # V 2 #V7 15
Krasenkow-Kempinski a4 Sa7) I4...SV7 15 A d 2 S a 8 16 <?V2 & a 6
Polish I ¿agite, I jibniemce 1995 and Black emerged from thc run-around with
a slight advantage in Barccv-Tkachicv, Cap
1 d4 ÍM 6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c 3 iig 7 4 e4 d6 5 d’Agde 2002.
£d3 0-0 6 í^ge2 foc6 7 0-0 e5 8 d5 ftd4 c2 II J0Lbl « f 6 12 a4 a6 13 £>a3 « h 4 14
9 £*xd4 exd4 10 ftb5 ttd3 Íh f 6 15 « g 3 «xg3 16 hxg3 S e 8 17 13
#VI7 18 b4 £ib 6 19 a5 £to4 20 ÍLd3 15 led to
a level game in Knaak, Arkhipov-Yurtaev,
<)berwart 1991.
c3) II ¿L c2 W f6 12 f4 a6 13 e5 dxe5 14
fxe5 W b 6 15 ^xd4 Axe5 with chances for
both sides, (¡ofshtcin-Ballmann, Zurich 2000.
11 £e1 a6
I l..Jfc.g4?! 12 B ÍLil7 13 % 5 W b 8 14 ÜLfI
c5 15 a4 a6 16 Íia 3 h6 17 A d2 and, according
to HCX\ White has a big advantage. I lowever,
Marín-Raúl Cíarcia, Andorra 1992 went 17...b6
18 b4 Sa7 19 a5, when Black could have
played 19...bxa5!? 20 bxa5 Wc7 21 « e l &h7
This move is much more forcing (and with an ecjual |x>sition. But there is an interest-
risky) tiran 10 sMc2. White threaiens to win the ing altcrnative for White in 15 dxeó!? bxc6 16
114 pawn without obstructing the e-ftle, thus ÍW I4 «x b 2 17 íhb3, when Black has prob-
enahling him to protect the e4-pawn with lems with the d6-pawn.
55
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
56
5 $Ld3
Gawe 25
Korchnoi-Radjabov
Najdorf Memorial, Hítenos Aires 200!
1 c4 g6 2 e4 ¿g 7 3 d4 d6 4 ^ c 3 4tf6 5
id 3 0-0 6 í^ge2 & c6 7 0-0 &h5
57
O f f b e a i K in g 's Iridian
58
5 iL d 3
14 £\g6 13 fxc5 dxe5 14 c5 <&h8 (14...Í4 15 outpost. I lowever, perhaps I5...e4!? is the best
$V4! QSf(> 16 ®2c3) 15 1)4 f4 16 <&e4 &g4 o f the available options.
(Pclciar-Gallagher, Pula 2(MX>), when 17 h3 16 &xf4
ÍLt5 18 c!6 ® if 6 19 4ft2c3 favours White ac C'hatalbashev-Isonzo, Cutro 2(K)2 demon-
cording to Haxai. strated White’s most promising course: 16
10. ..f5 £>e2!? &d7 17 Ha3 &e5 (17...Wf6!? should be
Black wastes no time. tried, restricting White to a slight advantage)
a) I0...&H8 ll a5 ( ll fia3 15 12 exf5 gxí5 18 £>xf4 & xf4 19 &xf4 W f6 20 Axc5 Wxe5
13 í^g3 í^xg3 14 fxg3 4?\g6 15 4fte2 A<.I7 16 (20...dxe5 21 Hb3 is a lesser evil) 21 Hh3 etc.
11.c3 looked better for White in I.Sokolov- 16...Wf6 17 Sad1 & xf4 18 Sxf4 « h 6 19
Daviil, Bordeaux 2003) 11...15 12 exf5gxf5 13 Eh 4 Wxh5 20 £xh5 ÍLxc3 21 bxc3 ÍLd7
<?.)g3 & f4 (13...&xg3 14 fxg3!) 14 £fo5 &xh5 Black’s weak l5-pawn is easy to defend. A
15 Wxh5 and White was already fully in chargc means o f making progress for White is prob-
in Piket-Fcdorov, W ijk aan /.ce 2001. lematic indeed, particularly in view o f the fací
h) 10...a5 11 Ha3 15 12 exl5 <ftxf5 13 £k-4 that White’s bishop longs for better times and
£W> 14 ÍLg5 WcH 15 £>2c3 <Üxc4 16 &xe4 the c4-pawn could be a juicy target for Black
íL f 6 17 A c l Wc7 18 £}1>5 (Bareev-Dolmatov, to aim at.
I'.lista 1997) with thc better chances for White 22 <&f2 Sae8 23 a5 He5 24 fíb l b6 25
according to liCX). axb6 axb6 26 S a l ÍLe8 27 &g5+ Ag6 28
11 exf5 gxf5 12 fog3 &a7 Se7 29 sbf3 & g7 30 <&f4 h6 31 Hg3
& f6 32 iLd3 Sfe8 33 Sf3 <¿>g7 34 Sh3
£f7 35 Eg3 & f6 36 ¡113 Riel 37 &g3 Ef7
38 sfch4 &g7 39 S a l f4 40 Saf1 Ü.e4 41
He1 Sfe7 42 ££xe4 Hxe4 43 ii.xe4 Ilxe4
44 sfcg4 Sxc4 45 4 *5 b5 46 Sd3 Sa4 47
£d2 fíc4 48 Sd3 fía4 49 Sd2 S c4 % -%
Game 26
Sagalchík-Graf
Kemerovo 1995
1 d4 fo16 2 c4 g6 3 foc3 A g í 4 e4 d6 5
A ó 3 0-0 6 ¿)^ge2 e5 7 d5 c6
12...5M4
!2...&xg3 13 fxg3 W e 8 14 £>b5 Wd7 15
ÍLc3 a6 16 5V:3 W c 8 17 c5 J&d7 was unclear
in Palliser-Nunn, Knglaiul 2001. White might
try 16 # W !? here instead of retreating to c3.
13íhh5!?
13 Ha3 $\eg6 14 ÍV e 2 was Pinter-Nataf,
Batumi 1999, and now 14...5ixe2+ 15 Wxc2
maintains the balance.
13...6xh5 14 Wxh5 <^g6 15 f4 exf4
Black can also permit the trade on e*5, the
point being to generate piece play (dark
sejuares) and use the e5-sijuare as a knight
59
O f f b e a t K i n g ' s Iridian
Black decides to rnake an early challenge on Now White is able to occupy d5 with a
White’s centre, the point l>eing to open the c- piece rather than a pawn.
file, facilítate counterplay involving ...b7-b5 9...cxd5
and then secure a stable knight outpost on c5 Black can also defend the d6-pawn with
by placing the a-pawn on a5. O f course open- 9...We7, although in Matamoros Franco-
ing the c-file is a double-edged strategy as Perdomo Abad, Las Palmas 1995 White engi-
White might seek to control it. Mcanwhile, neered an advantage after 10 B a5 11 Ae3
with in the air, White’s light-squared -SY*8 12 Wd 2 15 13 exf5gxí5 14 f4.
bishop might come to life. 10 £>xd5
8 0-0 10 cxd5 a5 ll B tends to lead to similar
W hite can also siake a claim for queenside positions to those after 8...cxd5 9 cxd5 #Mxi7
territoiy immediately with 8 f ib l. 'Ilie n 8...a5 K) B , but White can leave his f-pawn alone
9 a3 cxd5 10 cxdS £>h5 11 0-0 #kl7 12 & e3 and instead try 11 #\g3, e.g. I l...#V:5 12 a3 (12
f5 13 ex 15 gxf5 14 #\g3! ^ x g 3 15 fxg3 e4 16 H bl 3Lí\7 13 Wc2 Wb 6 14 júLg5 Hfc8 15 #d2
A e 2 (Piskov-I lennesmann, Dortm und 1992) £\i>4 16 ÍU\\ f6 17 &xg4 ÉLxg4 18 ÍU 16 Ad7
favours W hite according to Piskov in IiCX), as 19 .&xg7 sfexg7 led to a level game in Illescas
ilitl 8...cxtl5 9 cxd5 ^1x17 10 £»g3 h5 11 &g5 Cordoba-Matamoros l;ranco, Lanzarote 2003)
£ k 5 12 ÍLc2 a5 13 a3 Ag4 14 13 A iI7 15 Í>4 12...üld7 13 ite3 £>g4 14 &xc5 dxc5 15 &a4
axb4 16 axlvt £W> 17 ^ 1 2 ¡n Pintcr-Kozul, 15 16 Ü.xd7 Wxd7 (Meleghegyi-Redolí!, Cor
Pula 1996. Black’s lx-st sccms 8...£ilxl7 9 1>4 respondence 1995) 17 #Ya4!? with an edge for
(I ledman-Shtyrenkov, Pardnbice 2(XK)) 9...a5!? White.
with chances for both sides. 10...^xd5 11 Wxd5
8...£fod7
Retaining the tensión in the centre has its
advantages for Black, but by not trading im
mediately lie must take into account the pos-
sibility that White might recapture on d5 with
the knight, or alter the flavour of the game by
throwing in d5xc6.
a) 8...cxd5 9 cxd5 &bd7 (9...£th5 10 &e3
f5 11 exf5 gxf5,Franz-Boca, Bayem 1998 and
now 12 í^g3!? seems to keep White slightly
ahead) 10 B £\c5 11 &c2 a5 12 &e3 ÍLd7 13
a3 $Mi5 14 iLxc5 dxc5 15 ÜLa4 (Rozentalis-
Yrloja, Voronez 1987) and, according lo
Rozentalis, White has an advantage due to 11...£*c5
weakness of the b5-square. A surprising idea is l l...4hb6 12 Wd3 Wc7
b) 8...a5 9 a3 (9 B !? is interesting, while 9 13 b3 d5, when 14 cxd5 ^xd5 15 jSbti Hd8
&g5 h6 10 &d2 #Va6 II a3 Ad7 12 dxc6 16 Had 1 &g4 17 exd5 ± 6 18 #c3 Wxc2
bxc6 13 íha4 d5 was unclear in Skembris- secured White a minimal edge in Akhmadeev-
Collutiis, Cesenatíco 2(KH)) 9...^h5 10 J&.c3 15 Chuprov, Novgorod 1999, but 15...He8!? 16
11 exf5 gxf5 12 B (12 %3!> ) 12...c5 13 & h l fiad l O lí6 17 ¿b 1 .&g4 appears to solve all
#Ya6 (Hhlvest-Cvitan, Biel Open 1997) 14 Black’s problems. White can avoid this with
Wc2! with an advantage to White according to 13 #Y\3, which is certainly worthy of further
I íhlvest. tests as 13...Wxc4 14 Wxd6 ^Le6 15 &b3 Wd4
9 A c2 16 ÍM>5 Wxd6 17 #W16 &xb3 18 axb3 looks
60
5 $Ld3
61
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
-------------------------------------------------------------- i
62
5 $Ld3
4 1 í ^ c 4 S e 6 4 2 4 h fe 5 h 6 4 3 & e 3 & g 7 4 4
<& d3 4 M 5 4 5 <Á>e4 £ \ e 7 46 Rc7 £ ig 6 4 7
& xc5 ^xe5 48 í^ x e 5 Sxe5+ 49 22xe5
& x e 5 V2 -V 2
Carne 28
Panczyk-Kempys
Pohsh Championsbip, Cetniem 1991
63
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
64
¡e- :$ =- 2_
11 hxg4 &xg4
5 X
» fr
r* ^
~ 5
w 1 5 ?
w rw
.{í w : ^ ¿ S Í J ■>%
~ _ fcs> r, r -
n ,3
= - ^ vl s C; V *;
5i s % — •—
™• Ei —
12 Wc2 h6 13 ¿e3
* '/C
§ f 3- s & - • •k% i ^
*« m
mm
I * p 2 w ~ ^ &
“ =
^
= 5
= fO —r -£. T-
* --- 1% w ? f %
5* 8§* oo ¡v ^ C I ^
* & ^ 5 5 "' £
“S? " J 7
*7T lc> 75
= ^
r L DI,
•1 &. ÍL ^© 3 i. X
• *« O -n f •' nr- C r
oc 7T
| - 00 3 • s ^ íl "* r-
to X r. ^*
to */5 m
—* -
o cc .^n x X M•
7" o to c J2
f* + to g:
+ fo 7T_ -• ^ ^ 53*
•> %
=l. — — v» <} -• ?f 75 — 75 C *
are
r.
3 o -
•
• to
rÍT —i tO ->
U1 rSg- JLcs>
T*
0>c1 íi.d4
p •
» %
b3 ’&gS 35 £\f5 Hg2 36 £\g3 1-0
Jf Ss w) to ~* iXo ^
Q. O & vi -0 7 Oí m
• f
Q.
—»
CD 00 •Oj •
•
í: <5 1 = ^ r: o
N> 00 */ •
to
ro 05 NJ + |C* . •
> »
2 6
3“ • s^
^ oo ISJ to •y c 75
••
•
•
#
§■ &=' ó
1C^D a e -
0
2t
+ -Or í; c —
-rCL
£
O- X —
w
r -
fí 5: to X _ J
32 <^g3 ÍLg7
ro O- X fr
•
•
w . — g.
Q. =r Cv •o óc
3C 1X3 oc Oí
2$ s>
w CO W H ^
•
&* to r.
x s CD
í "3
Ir 75_ P x en
Q. ro <* X 00
•
> »
X L--
CO ^ N) (O ¡G* oc -j 75 2 ™ ^
4* v. X •w •-J
—
m & *j^J — 7T -7‘ c * 2 í ¿ s
00 =■ le ro C O w 3
c ^ =
1 x
-* O ) ■M• ■>* ■
y*. r.
O en £ 2t - ^* V.
33 <A>d2 £ e 8 34
v. X ~ r, 7 to ^*
1^ £ °> lo (ü Q.í '^n _
y. ñ‘ w 5.
* o n vi to -i
c —• --J id ^
P?
CO C J
1 C
O
<jy
'w
<“
<
** ^ -í^
00 ñ • r.
•>»
ro CS 9 y. s. —-** g - Jt3>
& “ ro -J
-t- % •—• r 3 Í.
rC*J M
W
X--a w
•
01 £ * ■
CO -S» <D <Q (O í 1^
—
A
^
7? v:«
« ro —
-* co ¿ CO 4^ ' j 7J i to c -4
x
V-
■w ®
(2 X
sS* — r~ - fc> ^
? 71 u ? X <D
oc o X*
•3 i
= = :u üi
lo ~ to I©*
*
-n
s 3-5.
x '^rí s7r-T
í i=^
L^ ^
LH O _ ” '/
7T
É w ü^s.
' S 5! R» * '
J?5»~* *3s •7
5
*“ X
O — - ,
U Vi
a - !? I
’^í -fc.
52 w 0. s
qf to ~ c•n —• —
o
•
j
CO
^ -O» q — •
g. to ^ ’_2 r- iS?
m *
=. N> sC
w
Bs ^ £. 3 ~ s
- S s
•
• v
ñ ^ * X
£_ tO ^ E
” -
v. t'-í' S * rO» Zi ri
■■• •
m d
=: jt3> ~ B c
c
c ¿ jo
s — -A
C' to £
n
— Oí X w
m J
*^ *MM «
^ Xrj r--r a £>O t f q * *
v :
c ’ ’-h &
- £ ^ §■iS- X10-S-J c
n
•-«
~ -j
'r to r .
■■» • £
2
* /c
¿ ¡o 6: to W & g Oí
2É r* to ^ to
* ¡O |e>
^ 9£ c */C ^ r. Z < a
to ?C 3 'Oí “.^ n^ X * — Co
’-n OC ■ -r ri
W- 7.
r>
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
66
5 $Ld3
tx d 5 23 ¿hc3? 8...exd5
23 Sb5 W f7 24 S fb l and W hite is winning. ( )thers:
23...iLxc3 24 W xc3 Hac8 25 Wd4 W b7? a) 8..JSe8!? 9 h3 exdS 10 exd5 £>fd7 11 f4
Missing the much less obliging 25...Wxd4 £Va6 12 f5 í^e5 13 fxgó hxg6 14 ^ g 3 (()ster-
.'(> ÍLxd4 £\c6 27 A c3 S&>f7 (not 27..Hc3? 28 gaard-Christensen, Festuge 1991) and now
B le I Hxd3 29 b7 $Y6 30 Sc8 £k!7 31 Sxe84- 14...15 gives Black a good game.
»t’í7 32 Sxe6 *x e6 33 1)8® £kb8 34 Sxb8 b) 8...£k6 9 13 £k7 10 .&g5 exd5 11 exd5
(*n.) 28 J jÜxS Se7 29 J&a6 Sb8 when White h6 (Arlamowski-Plater, Wroclaw 1955) 12
lias good compensation for the pawn but ÍLf4!? Sb8 13 Wd2 & h7 14 % 3 b5 15 Hael
lioihing like the fun he has in the game. favours White.
20 ¿c 4 + <5te6 27 & d5 Wf7 28 iLxe6 c) 8...£\g4 9 & c2 Wh4 (9...SY5 10 l>3 exd5
Uxo6 29 b7 Sb 8 30 Efc1 See8 31 W c4 11 exd5 was seen in Seirawan-Dimirrov, Mos
tlb 32 W c7 £tf6 33 Wxf7+ s£>xf7 34 & a7 cow 1994, when 11...F5 12 f4 would have re-
5\d7 35 £xb8 Sxb8 36 S c8 a4 37 Sxb8 stricted White to a slight edge) 10 h3 $V:5 11
4\xb8 38 S a l & e6 39 Sxa4 skd6 40 <&f2 dxe6 (11 1.1)3!?) Il...& xe6 (ll...fxe6l? 12 f4
ic 7 41 Sd 4 <¿?c6 42 <¿>f3 &xb7 43 Sxd5 í^i7 13 & c3 £W6 is interesting, although per-
Ac6 44 Sd 8 1-0 haps not enough todeny White a modest lead)
12 f4 # W 4 , Knaak-Marin, Drcsden 1988.
Game 30 Knaak evaluates the position after 13 J&b3 as
Haik-Gheorghiu clearly better for W hite but after l3...We7 14
I hessaloniki O (y///piad 1984 15 gxl5 15 ex15 4hc3 16 J&xe3 ÜLxb3 17 Wd2
Ü.c4 the position is unclear. In our opinion
1 d4 fo16 2 c4 c5 3 d5 d6 4 foc3 g 6 5 e4 after the best 13 15! and Wxd6 W hite has a
i g7 6 iLd3 0-0 7 fr\ge2 e 6 clear advantage.
Note ihat Black can transpose to the Oíd 9 exd5 4^g4
Benoni with 7...e5, e.g. 8 a3 # W ) 9 0-0 í?Y7 10 ( )thcrs:
Ubi <S\17 11 Wc2 b6 12 ÍLe3 ÍLa6 13 £>b5 a) In the case o f 9...ÍV-8 White achieved
^xb.S 14 cxl>5 and W hite had a definiré pulí in nothing special with 10 .&c3 #\17 11 $\g3
B.Kovacevic-Kuljasevic, Zadar 2000. #Y5 12 ÍLe2 15 13 Wd2 $Y6 14 h3 )3e8 15
8 0-0 U fe I in Yoffic-Matulovic, Skopje 1969, while
Compared with the previous game White 10 h3 £wl7 11 f4 f5 12 A d2 ®klf 6 13 W c2
lias saved time in not playing 112-113, bul this $\:7 was ecjual in Forintos-Matulovic, Sochi
ineans that Black’s knight can jump in to g4. 1964.
b) 9...£>a6 10 h3 ® c7 seems to favour
W hile, e.g. 11 5 #d 7 12 a4 Hc8 13 # il2
‘á'hS (Willcnlx)ig-Unrath, Baunatal 19%) 14
£>g3, or 11 _&f'4 a6 12 S b l ShK 13 &g.3 b5
14 Wc2 bxc4 15 jixc4 , Marconiles <losar-
Baicxclli, Sao Paulo 1997.
c) 9...£>Ix I7 10 b3 £>e.S II ÍLc2 Sc8 12
H b l af> 13 Ag5 h6 14 ÍLh4 (Betkc-Illgcn,
Rostock 2(K)2) I4...b5! gives Black counter
play, and 10 h3 ®ke5 11 &e3?! £Mi 5 was excel-
lent for Black in Staeblein-Karcevski, Bayern
1995. Perhaps White should consider 10 1*4!?
here.
67
O f f b e a t K i n g ' s Iri di an
Now back to the position after 9...íüg4: thanks lo the weak jx>ints on e3 and c*4, White
should have played 14 B h6 15 Jie3 Ad7
with chances for both sides (14 £V4 h6 IS
ÍLxf6 Wxf6 is excellent for Black).
d) 10 &c2 is another way to avoid parting
with ihc light-sejuared bishop. 10...£W> 11 a3
(11 Af4!? V>b4 12 Áb\ Se8 13 Wd2 is less
clear) 1l...£V7 12Ubi a5?! (I la/ai gives 12...f5
13 f4 He8 with counterplay) 13 h3 £\e5 14 b3
15 (I .arsen-l loffman, Pinamar 2(K) 1) 15 f4!!>
wiíh a minimal advantage for White.
10...<he5 11 <^g3
11 f4 <Sxd3 12 Wxd3 £>a6 13 a3 15 14 Hbl
(14 l>3!? &d7 15 Í¡L1>2) 14...He8 left both play*
Sending the* knight forward exploits the ers with decent pros|xcts in Karaftdis-
fact that after 10 f4 Black will he ahle to focus Tringov, Ano I josia 1997.
on the e3-square. 11...15
10 h3 Or ll...£MxI7 12 (4 £lxd3 13 #xd3 a6 as
( )thers: in Plachetka Abramovic, Champigny sur
a) 10 f4 is clearly the most principled re- Mame 1984, with ecjuality according to NCO.
sponse but, unfortunately for White, lie is not 12 f4 13 Wxd3 &e8
able to keep control over e3. I;or cxamplc Another attractive plan is 13...í\a6!? intend
after 10...He8 White cannot Ixr t<K>stubborn, ing ...j(.d7, ...tfoel and ...b7-b5, with gocxl play
e.g. 11 H(3? Wh4 12 h3 &d4» 13 &xd4 and for Black.
While has to lose material, 13...SeH 14 Wxel 14 &d2 ^ a 6 15 a3 &d7 16 &h2 Wf6 17
WxeH- 15 H fl We7 16 #V:2 £tfi6 spelling &e 3
doom for White in S.Kasparov-Berger, Par- White must play 17 4^ce2 in order to neu-
dubice 2(X)0 (White has little to show for the tralise Black’s strong dark-st|iiared bishop.
lost material, although it is not a trivial win). Black should then avoid 17.jWfxb2? 18 Habí
Instead II h3 ÍV 3 12 ÜLxe3 Hxc3 13 Wd2 Wf6 19 Ac3 in favour of the sounil 17...Hc7
He8, as in Seirawan-Wojtkiewic/, Tilburg 18 J$.c3 Wf7 19 Hael with a level game.
1992, has Ixxrn assessed as a little better for 17.J&C7 18& f2 b5
Black by Seirawan. Black’s play, in the spirit of the Benko
b) 10 b3!? is given as inaccurate in liC O - Gambit, is fully justified as he must win back
10...í\17 11 h3 #Mi6 (t 1...®ge5!? is unclear) the pawn s<x»ner or later.
12 Ac3 £k-5 13 Wd2 £ f5 and HCO prefers 19 cxb5 Heb8 20 a4 a6 21 fogel axb5
Black. I lowever, 14 Ae*4!? ,&xc4 15 4^xc4 22 axb5 Hxa1 23 Sx al <hxb5 24 £a5
16 -ÍLg5 seems to leave White with <^c7a 25 2ta7 ^ d 8 26 Wb1 Wc8 27 Wa2
small advantage, while 14 .&g5 Wa5 (Borges Sb7 28 Ah4 & f 8 29 S\g1 Wb8 30 Sxb7
Mateos-Wojtkiewicz, Polanica VA roj 1988) 15 Wxb7 31 £tf3 h6 32 &d 8 £>b5 33 Wb3
Ac4!? also apjxrars favourable. Wb8 34 A f 6 We8 35 ^xb5 &xb5 36 J¡Lc3
c) 10 Af4 <?Y-5 11 Wd2 4^1x17 12 l>3 1*5(in We2 37 ^h4?!
tending ...í^f7, ...$\le*5, ...g6-g5 - Tal) 13 Ag5 37 #Vl2 is better.
and now instead of 14 f4?! £\xd3 15 37...¿>f7 38 Wa3 Ac4?
Wxd3 .&d7 with advantage to Black in Wie- 38...We4! wraps up the game.
dcnkcller-Tal, Rockaden-Trud 1986, tlvanks to 39 Wa7+ We7 40 Wa4 ix d 5 0-1
68
5 Ad3
ttummary
hlm k can try to play ...c7-c5 followcd by ...c*7-c6 and ...cxd5, thc bcst cxampics being Cíamcs 29
¿C 10. I lowcvcr, a simplcr and more original method involves counterplay with ...vV6, ...c7-c5
•Huí, after closing thc centre, ...#VI4 in order to exploit thc weakncss o f the d4-scjuarc. This plan
mn be used both with (Cíamcs 23, & 24 are pariicularly good cxampics) or without (carlicr) cas
lllng.
5 Ad3 9...exd4 7 d5
69
CHAPTER THREE ]
The Makogonov System:
5 h3
1 d4 ^ f 6 2 c4 g6 3 Íhc3 iLg7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 Game 31
Dcspitc its rather ‘inactive’ appcaranee this Nikolaidis-Kotronias
system is very flexible. 5 h3 was proposed by Peristeri 1996
Réti and analysed by IIG M V.Makogonov, the
first known game being Tartakower- 1 d4 <SM6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5
Tcichmann, Ostend 1907. 'lTie system was h3 0-0
also tried by Samisch and Tarrasch. 'Ilie most natural move. Black must castle
White prepares to secure the e3-stjuarc as anyway, so it makes sense to tío so immedi-
an outpost for his bishop by ruling out the ately and await ilevelopments befóte decid ing
potentiallv annoying ...4^g4. 'Hiere is also thc on the next step. I lowcvcr, there are alterna-
honus of facilitating active operations 011 the tives. 5...c5 6 d5 c5 7 ÍL I3 ®Ui5 8 <^ge2
kingside involving g2-g4. Ironically, White (Zsu.Polgar-Ulilmann, Aruba 1992) 8...#W>!?
very often develops his dark-sejuared bishop is a shade better for White, and 6 dxc.S Wa5 7
011 g5, tempting Black into the automatic hit Ad3 <?Yd7 8 £\gc2 £>xc5 9 0-0 (Dzind/i-
with ...h7-h6, after which the bishop drops chashvili-Byrnc, Bcrkclcy 1984) 9...í^xd3 l()
back to c3, when Black can consecjucndy pay Wxd3 is given by Suba in liC O as favouring
thc price for slightly compromising his king White.
side because White is ablc to further dcvclop- 5...c5 can have indc|x.*ndcnt significance,
ment with Wd2, simultaneously hitting the h6- Black being willing to see his king displaced, as
pawn. Not surprisingly, then, Black should in ‘a’, bclow.
resist the urge to chase the enemy bishop away a) 6 dxe5 dxc.S 7 Wxd8+ <¿^18 8 í^f3
from g5. £>1x17 9 ÜLc3! có 10 c\5!? ÍV-8 11 0-0-0 left
Adherents of the Makogonov system in re White with a nagging edge in Costa-llug,
cent years include Suba, I ^izarev, P.Varga, Swit'/erland 1992. In fací this position looks
Ksieski, Avrukh atul (lliernin. 'Pop players better for White iban a typical ending in thc
who have included it in their opening rejxr- King’s Indian, with more tlian his usual (carly)
toire are Bareev and Beliavsky, while it has sharc of thc cjuccnsidc and an exccllent |x>st
also lx*en tried by I.Sokolov, Dreev and even for thc bishop in thc sliape of thc c4-scjuare.
Kasparov... Black is also a littlc passive and rather
70
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
rnimpcd, unablc to jump into c!4 with his aware - for cxamplc White could try 10 g3!?
kniglu or exchange dark-st|uarcd bishops. and .&g2 here, with decent chances o f finding
Nevcrthclcss, the svmmetrical pawn structure an advantage) 10...h5 11 Wd2 h4 12 A g S (12
*11uI lack of wcakncsses in Black’s camp, com- 0-0-0!? ^ g 8 13 * b l A bó is ecjual) 12...Sh 5
hmed with the elosed character o f the posi 13 4?Y*1 (13 ¿¡Lc?> £\g8 followed by ...JS.I16),
lion, ai least makc W hite’s task o f finding Slvabalov-Kveinys, U SSR 1987, and now
«ometliing tangible somcwhat problematic. 13...£tfxc4! I4¿.xd8<hxd2 IS ÍL x c 7 ^ x fI 16
b) 6 cIS ^1x17 (6...a5 7 jSLd3 S\a6 8 £lge2 & x fl!& c 7 1 7 ^ b 3 S c 8 i s given by Shabalov,
0 0 9 ÍLg 5 !? J&.d7 10 0-0 and now W h ite with the better game for Black in all variations,
emerges w ith a plus after 10...We8 11 H d e.g. 18 £fcc5 (18 ±1)6 S\!3! 19 &xa5 £>xl>2
ÍV 5 12 jfc b l, C hernin-Brunncr, Buenos Aires 20 c5 c4; 18 Axa.S £kl3 19 £kl2 .&h6 20
1992 or 10...&c5!? 11 & c 2 ). In Suba-Zapata, Í\ lc 4 (5 21 g4 lixg3 22 £>xg3 S¿>5 ctc.)
N ew Y o rk 1988 W h ite ’s 7 A g S h6 8 ÍL e 3 18...5.c7 19 £ W I7 vixc!7 20 £>a4 c4! ctc.
Worked out w ell after 8 ...£ k 5 9 O a5 10 $\gc2 b2) 8...0-0 is the riskier option, and now:
<?M.7 11 W d 2 A f6 12 g3! w ith a defm ite ad- b2l) 9 g4 c6 10 £igc2 cxd5 11 cxd5 Ad7
vuniage, but here 9 H d<x*s not fit w ell w ith 12 í^g3 (12 b4!? might well favour White)
112 h3, and Black seems lo have improve- 12..JRc8 13 g5 #Mi5 (fhere is no rcason to
ments in 10...^fd71? and I0...0-0!?. voluntarily damage the kingsiile stmeture, atul
7 Ji.d3 transposes lo the 5 ÜÉ.d3 system, h2- after the simple I3 ...ÍV 8 !? 14 Wd2 f5 15 gxf6
113 here looking a little premature as well as í^xf6 Black could genérate good counterplay
inflexible (it is not aKvays neccssary in this without any risk, although the move chosen is,
system). Suba in I :('() evalúales the position neveriheless, probably the corred otie) 14
iifler 7...£V:5 8 ¿¡Le2 as slightly better for ftxh5 gxh5 15 Wd2 (15 ÍLe2 f5 16 gxf6 Wxf6
White, but Black’s situation is, in fact, not that with good countcrplay for Black as 17 i5.xh5
lu.l, e.g. 8...a5 (8...0-0!?) 9 ¿ftgc2 0-0 10 Ag5 Wh4 18 ÉLe2 b5 offers sufficient compcnsa-
lif, 11 ÍLe3 -S¥tl7 12 Wd2 * h 7 13 g4 & b6 tion) l5...Wa5! 16 H b l \% 4 17 a3 # b 3 18
with g<xxl play for Black, Moranda- $Lc2 f5 19 gxfó JSxf6 20 Jixh5 , ( irivas-Nunn,
1Aibczynski, Zagan 2002. Athens 1991, and now 20...Wc4! 21 J&.e2 (21
The main move is 7 A e3 $V5 8 W c2 with J&xc5 Wxc5 22 -$.g4 A h6 gives Black enough
llie followingposition: play) 21...&xe4 22 Wc2 Wa2 23 Wfxe4 Hxc3
24 bxc3 ¿¡L(5 25 Wb4 Wxbl+ 26 W xbl JoLxbl
27 c4 b6 is etjual (Grivas & Nunn).
b22) 9 1)4 is awarded a T in /i(X ). Retreat-
ing llie knight loses Black two lempi, but the
tempüng - and typically King’s Indian -
9...#W*4? is definitely incorrect, e.g. 10 4^xc4
<hxc4 11 Wxc4 f5 12 Wc2 e4 13 0-0-0! f4 14
&d4 Axd4 15 Sxd4 ¿¡LÍ5 16 Wc3 (Bagirov-
Casper, Berlín 1979) is ver)' good, whereas
after 9...ÍVd7 the situation is by no means
simple. Black wants lo play ...a7 a5 atul tegain
the outposi on c5 for the tl7-knighl. More-
over, W hite’s forces are not well developed,
b l) 8...a5 ‘sccures* the post o f the c5- and he is not guaranteed to maintain his space
kniglit. 9 <5\gc2 & d7 10 f3 (notice the transpo- advantage on the cjueenside, with a concession
siiional possibilities o f which White should be such as the c5-scjuare or the a-file likely.
71
Offbeat King's Indian
White’s most amhitious continuaiion is 10 a3 reaction in the centre (the thcmatic responso
(10 c5 a5 11 c6 (loes not look dangerous for in such a situation) but here White’s iníluence
Black, e.g. I l...l>xc6 12 dxc6 íhb6 13 b5 d5 14 over the e4 sejuare (Ag2!) makes the text
juLxl>6 cxb6 15 cxd5 í^xd5 16 Hdl í^ M ) rather doubtful. Worse still is 7...b5? 8 cxb5
10...a5, and now 11 Sel 1 axb4 12 axl»4 4^h5 cxb5 9 c5 because the threat to cjuickly cxploit
13 &c2 £>f4 and 11 Hbl c5 (1 l...£\h5!?) 12 the freshly opened long diagonal with Ag2 is
dxc*6 bxc6 13 1>5 cxb5 are unclear. If White decisive, e.g. 9...dxe5 10dxc5 Wxdl + 11 sfcxdl
wants to liang on to the a-file he must return Hd8f 12 * c 2 Ab7 13 exfó A xhl 14 fxg7 l>4
the two tempi with 11W dl or 11 W cl. 15 ^)g3, with íV e4 coming. I lowcvcr, Black
6 ¿)\ge2 (.loes have a worthy possibility in 7...£u*d7!?
6 A il3 c5 7 d5 e6 8 £>gc2 £>1x17 9 f4 exd5 followcd by ...c7-c5 or perhaps ...c6-c5 with
10 cxd5 ÍV 8 11 0-0 f5 was the interesting chances of generating counterplay.
course of Matisons-Kuwe, Karlsbad 1929, 8 cxd5 cxd5 9 e5 £\e4 10 £>xe4 dxe4 11
while 8 &g5 exd5 exil5 Ii6 10 Ah4 Se8 < - 11 £g2 & e 6 12 Jixe4 &d5 13 ÍLxd5 Wxd5
£\»e2 ÍM h17 was also unclear in Martins- 14 0-0 $\c6 15 Wb3 We4 16 We3 Wc2
(íuinvaraes, Bello I lorixonte 1997. 'I he aggres- l6...Wd5!? - Kotronias.
sive 8 g4 was tried in Milov-C ílicorghiu, Swit- 17 £ d 2 ?l
zerland 1999, when after 8...exd5 9 cxd5 5^fd7 Kotronias recommciuls 17 Í0c3! JXad8 18
10 f4 Black could Ivave secured an carly lead S d l (threatening to capture the cjueen after 19
wilh 10...#W>!? 11í^í3lXc8+. Kd2) 18...g5 19 l>3! f6 20 d5! (20 ¿La3 fxe5 21
6 ...c6 Sa cl Wg6 22 d5 £kl4 23 Axc7 H B 24 Axd8
6...c5!r' 7 d5 e6 8 £>g3 cxd5 9 cxd5 leads to Hxe3 25 fxc*3 í^f3+ 26 *¿^2 í^h4+ with coun-
the Modcrn Benoni, and 6...e5 usuallv steers tcrplay) 20...í'W 5 21 .&a3 and W hite has an
us to |x>sitions that will be discusscd later, e.g. initiative.
7 d5 c6 8 &c3 cxd5 9 cxd5 £*1x17 10 g4 &c5 17...Wxb2 18 Sfb1 Wc2 19 £xb7 Sab 8
11 íhg3 with a transposition to Cíame 33 20 Sxb 8
(7...c6 8 g4). 20 Bc7!? TLb2 21 Ac3 #xe2 22 Wxe2
7 g4 d5?! Xtxc2 23 B xc6 S c2 24 f4 f6!? with counterplay
—Kotronias.
2 0 ...5 .b 8 21 Hc1 Eb 1 22 & g 2 B x c l 23
í"ixc1 e6
Black has com|x:nsation for thc pawn due
lo thc wcakncsscs 011 a2 and (.14, as well as the
light sigilares.
2 4 W d3 W xd3 25 Íhxd3 ^ x d 4 26 A e 3
<ftc6 27 f4 f6 28 exf6 ii.x f6 29 ¿4 3 ¿4 7
30 A e 4 h5 31 gxh5 gxh5 32 f5 exf5+ 33
¿/xf5 ¿ d 8 34 <5te5+
After thc superior .VI l5'W'4 h4 Black still has
problcms to solve.
34...<i'»(e5 35 sí;xe5 a6 36 ¿ 4 5 i¡.h 4 37
Yet another in thc incrcasing number of ,¿g 5 Ü.e1 3 8 iL f6 iLd 2 39 iL h 4 Ü.e3 40
Black’s unorthodox treatments ol the King’s a4 .ú.d2 41 '¿ e 5 -Á>g6 4 2 Á d 5 d?f5 4 3
Indian. Is this a hypcrmcxlcrn mixture of thc & c 6 ¿4 4 4 4 sJvb6 <¿43 4 5 ii.d 8 ¿vg2 4 6 h4
King's Indian and thc (írünfekl? It is truc that a5 4 7 ¿>a6 & e1 4 8 * b 5 \S43 4 9 ii.x a5
White’s two flank moves could provokc a ¿ x h 4 50 iL c 7 V i- / t
72
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
73
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
ferent move order) 13 fxe*5 .¿Ü5 14 0-0 ÍLxd3? It is natural to want to find a liaven for the
74
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
king, but White might consider leaving his W cl t 42 S*?c2 Wf2+ 43 -á>l>3 Wf3+ 44 &a4
king in the centre a little while longer in order Wxf41- 45 Wb4 White has a passed a-pawn.
lo castle short after cvicting the cncmy cjueen. 37...Wxh3
Ilierefore 16 H d ll? comes lo mind, with the A more stubborn defence rcsults from
following position: 37...W cl +!? 38 <&c2 W l2t 39 *1)3 lTc3+ 40
<&M W d 2 t, trying to take the a2-pawn.
38 Wb 8 + ¿Al 39 Wxa7+ & e 6 40 W a 6 +
&d5 41 Wb5+ <&d4 42 Wb4+ <&d5 43 g5
Wd3+ 44 &c1 Wf1 + 45 & c2 & c 6 46
We4+ & b 6 47 a3 Wf2+ 48 <A>b3 Wg3+
49 <Á>b4 W f2 50 H e 6 + <&b7 51 Wd5+
¿>b8 52 Wg8 + & b7 53 Wxh7+ & b 8 54
Wg 8 + &b7 55 Wd5+ & b 3 56 Wb5+ & a 8
57 « c 6 + & b 8 58 Wd 6 + &b7 59 & c4 1-0
G am 3 i
Knaak-Piket
SK A I hiwburg 1991
16.Jk.h6 (l6 .Ji.e 6 !?) 17 g3 (after 17 #W15
J5xd5! 18 cxd5 Axf4 HIack is doing fine) 1 d4 2 c4 g6 3 £ic3 ÍLg7 4 e4 d6 5
17....6e6 18 b3 a6 19 & e4? (19 <5>a4! Wc7 20 h3 0-0 6 ile 3 e5
We3 1)5 21 £k*5 and Black does not have N .B. Tlie actual move order was 6... #Ya6 7
cnough for the pawn, while 19 £Y4 and 19 jyLd3 e5 8 d5 but we have made alterations in
W f2 are also possible) 19..JSxdl+ 20 4£ixdl order to accommodatc the examination of
JTd8 21 * f l h5 22 £k:3 bxc4 23 bxc4 Jld4 24 ndditional variations.
.&d5 &xd5 25 cxd5 Wc3 26 flh2? (26 W c l) 7 d5 £ia 6
26..X(<13 27 Í\g4? W ell* 0-1, Uznanski-
Szczcsniak, (.<irrespondcncc 1995.
16...1¿e6 17 &b1 Hd4
Attacking two pawns, lint l7..JXac8, simply
introducing another piccc, also looks good.
18 Shf1 Hxd3 19 Sxd3 Jix c 4 20 Sfd1
ií.xd3+ 21 Wxd3
Black has regained thc pawn but White
Controls thc d-ftlc and has - for thc niomcnt,
at Icast - thc superior minor piccc. Morcovcr,
he now threatens to take the 7th rank. Consc-
t|ucnily White’s chances are better.
2 1 ..J¿f8 22 g4 S c 8 23 We4 b5 24 e 6
fxe6 25 Wxe6 + <Á>h8 26 Hd5 Wc4 27 'lilis flexible fiank developmcnl has be
We5+ &g7 28 Wxe7 i¡.xc3 29 Kd 8 + come parí o f numerous systems in ihe mod
Sxd 8 30 » x d 8 + sfcg7 31 We7+ & g 8 32 ern treatment of the King’s Indian. I*rom a6
We 8 + & g7 33 » e 7 + & g 8 34 We 8 + 0-g7 the knight is ready to go to c5 but - as op-
35 Wd7 + & g 8 36 bxc3 Wxc3 37 Wxb5 posed to d7 - does not obstruct the other
After the stronger 37 W dSt & ÍX 38 Wa8+ pieces. Apart from the obvious improvement
* c 7 39 Wxa7 t <&f6 40 Wb6 l <Á>g7 41 Wxb5 of the c8-bishop we should also note that with
75
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
the knight on a6 Black can play ...c7-c6 be- d i) With 8 g4 White wants to restrict
cause the i!6-pa\vn is protcctcd by the cjueen. Black’s countcrplay on both sides of the
I jct’s takc a look at the alternatives: board. 8...#W) (8...c6 9 a4 &a6 10 í^gc2 h5 11
a) 7...®e8 8 g4 c6 9 £\gc2 cxd5 10 cxd5 f3, Shabalov-I ¿tnka, Riga 1988 and I l...£k51?
£kl7 ll% 3 a 5 1 2 lU 2 £ k:5 13 le 2 Ad7 14 securcs Black a level playing ficld) 9 £\gc2 h5
h4, as in Sokolsky-Cicller, USSR 1949, is given (Black won't be dictated to, avoiding, for in-
as slightly better for White in liC O . stance, 9...&Y5 10 £\g3 #Y-8 11 Wc2, when
b) 7...4^1x17 is obviously similar to main line Dinstuhl I loffmann, Oastrop-Rauxel 1990
but without the flexibility✓ of 7...4?to6. Plav* saw 1l...lf6 !? 12 Wd2 lh 4 13 H gl <?\g7 14
might continué 8 ld 3 (8 Wc2 4&c5 9 ÍLe2 a5 0-0-0 f6 15 A c2 £UÜ with a somewhat pas-
10 g4 c6 11g5 #W8 12 0-0-0 with an edge for sive but s<>lid position) 10 f3#Mi7 (Black must
White in Vorontscvich (írokhotov, Orel hurrv with this plan - 10...ÍY5 11 Wd2 í>Mi7
1974) 8...&c8 9 g4 £k5 10 lc 2 f5 (I()...a5!? 12 0-0-0 h4 13 Hgl a4 14& bl ld 7 I5 # k l
11 £\ge2 ld 7 12 4&g3, Bcnesch-I ladorn, &((> I6g5 lc 7 I7#kl3£\xd3 18 lx d 3 c5 19
World Team Championship 1994, and now f4 exf4 20 ÍLxf4 with a plus for White in Slva-
12...1f6 maintains the balance) 11 gxf5 gxfS balov-Ko'/.ul, Belgrade 1988) 11 Wd2 Wh4+
12 Wf6 13 h4 h6 14 Wc2 is given in I iCX) 12 & Í2 Wf6 13 Ag2 h4 14 0-0 with a slight
as favouring White, I4...a6 15 0-0-0 l>5 16 advantage lo White in Alcksandrov-lü Taller,
cxb5 axb5 17 lx c 5 dxc5 18 Wxl>5 etuling in a New Dclhi/Tchran 2000.
draw in C¡rivas-Nunn, Novi Sad 1990. d2) 8 ±(13 £W> 9 #Vc2 £>c5 (9...c6 10 a3
c) 7...c6 8 g4 (8 ld 3 cxd5 9 cxd5 & h5 10 ±17 11 ±c2! cxd5 12 cxc!5 l>5!? 13 0-0 Wc7
£\>c2 f5 11 cxf5 Ix f5 12 g3 $VI7 with 14 Wd2 fifcK 15 fifc l, Oicmin-Bcliavsky,
chances for both sides, Gemscl-Schubcrt, Portoroz 1997, is given as better for White in
Germany 1982) 8...cxd5 9 cxd5 £W> liC O ) 10 A c2 c6 (10...4hfd7!?, intending
(9...®>bd7 10 ld 3 ®k:5!? 11lc 2 a5 is fine for ...£}b6 with countcrplay) 11 a3 cxd5 12 cxil5
Black) 10 Í\ge2 5ic5 11 £\g3 Wa5 12 JÜLd2 ld 7 13 l>4 <5Ya6 (I3...axb4 14 axb4 fixal 15
ld 7 13 a3 «Te» 14 b4 £to6 15 le 13 Wc7 16 Wxal Íia 6 16 Wa3, Todorovic-Antic, Tivat
Wc2 Sfc8, Brinck Qaussen Tukmakov, Ybbs 1995 is assessed by l.Sokolov in íiC O as
1968, and now 17 g5 5Y*8 18 h4 puts Black in slightly better for White) 14 H bl axl>4 15 axl>4
scrious troublc. íhh5 16 £ia4! (Whitc’s knight is going to b6, a
d) 7...a5 is standard, preparing to place the more cffective continuation than 16 Wd2 5Xc8
knight on a6 now that 1>2 1>4 has been pre- 17 0-0 £>f4 18 B fc l #h4 19 I d l &xg2 20
vented. <&xg2 Wxh3+ 21 & g l f5 22 f4?, when
P.Cramling-Kindcrmann, Dorimuntl 1986
went 22...g5! 23 fxg5 f4 24 í^xf4 exf4 25 .&d4
% 3 + 26 <¿>hl ¿Lxd4 27 Wxil4 B 0-1, while
16 0-0 & f4 17 &a4 Ab5 18 ®iac3 ld 7 19
#\i4 lb 5 20 # W 3 was agreed drawn in Ku-
prijanov-'/huravlcv, Chercpovcts 2002)
16...4hf4!? (16...f5 17 cxf5, l.Sokolov-'Iliipsay,
Moscow 1994 and here 17...gxf5!? is unclear)
17 <5W4 exf4 18 Jlx f4 ll> 5 with compensa
tion, B.Kovacevic-Zullc, Nova Gorica 2001.
8 ld 3 ^h5
Meading for f4. Othcrs:
a) 8...-SY5 9 lc 2 a5 10 Wd2 ld 7
76
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
(lO...Wc8!?, intending 11#V3$Yxc4 I24ftxc4 l;orcing the knight’s retreat, and more logi-
ÍW 4 13 Ü.xe4 15 14 4ftg5 f4 with chances for cal than 10 & c2 a5 11 We2 (11 £jf3 &d7 12
Ix iih sides) 11 <5V8 12 g4 Wb8 13 a4 1)6 a3 W c 8 13 £\h4 4hf6 14 g4 c6 was fine for
was unclear in Pribula-I lelbich, Slovakia 1997. Black in Cirishchenko-AIcksecv, Korolev
I>) 8...ÍY17!? 9 g4 (9 f5 10 0-0 f4 11 2(KK)) I \..Ai\7 12 0-0-0 a4 13 W c 8 14
ÍLd2 £>ac5 12 ÍLc2 £M)6 with counterplay) Sd g l a3 15 1)3 £la 6, Wade CXafsson, f lastings
9,..£klc5 10 ilb l c6 11 a3 cxd5 12cxd5 f5 13 1953, when White was not better.
1)4 4?}xc4 14 £\xc4 fxe4 15 j&xc4 £k*7 atul 10...£*6
Black was fine in I lirt-Schenk, Rhein 1998. Black lost two tempi but White made two
c) 8...c6 9 £>ge2 cxd5 10 cxd5 £Y5 11 ¿Lc2 moves with his light-scjuared bishop and
a5 (ll...#M i5 12 0-0 h6, 1jpnitsky-Cicller, placed his pawn 011 g3. I lowever, W hite’s
Moscow 1950 and now 13 Wd2 is very strong) game is the easier to play.
12 a3 ÍLd7 13 0-0 Sc8 14 Wd2 £lh5, Romero 11 M c2 a5 12 0-0-0 a4 13 g4 foe8
I lolmes -Stcllwagcn, (¿roningen 2002, when 13...£tfd7!? 14 *b 1 a3 15 b3 with a slight
15 l»4 sccurcs White a lead. advantage to White, or 13_¿Lcl7 14 g5 £V *8 15
9g3 h4 with initiative.
14 h4
'The prophylactic 14 S&bl a3 15 b3 isgood,
when W hile lollows up wilh Ii3-h4.
14...15 15 gxf5 gxf5 16 £tf3 a3
16...fxe4 17 £>g5 ÍY13+ 18 ÍLxd3 exd3 19
Wxd3 ÍU 5 20 £>ge4 with the more pleasani
game for While.
17 b4
17 b3!? looks more solid, wilh a slight ad
vantage to White.
17...fxe4
17.JSW 4 18 £ke4 fxe4 19 <?VI2 ( 19 £>g5?!
ÍM ó 20 S h g l & I 18 21 li5 & I 16 wilh a good
( )r 9 £}gc2 #Y\5 10 ¿Lc2 f5 11 ex 15 gxí> 12 1)4 game for Black) I9...c6 (I9 ...ÍW ) 20 Sd g l
5W i 13H bl Wh4 I4 g 3 # e7 15 W d3ÍLd7 16 ¿ I 18 21 Ii5 with a plus for White) 20 íhxc4
g4 #\f4 l7 Í¿.xf4 ex(4 with chances for both cxd5 21 Sxd5 with a pulí for While.
sides, Rivas Pastor X.Polgar, Salamanca 1989. 18$^
9...^c5
9...c5 is less active and sccms inconsistent
wilh Black’s play thus far. Play can develop as
lollows: 10 & c2 £V7 (10...<5V6!? 11 Wd2 with
a sliglit advantage to White) 11 .&xh5gxh5 12
Wxli5 f5 13 9if3 is poor for Black, but inter
esting is 9...We8 10 & c2 «MS 11 (1 1 h4!?)
I L .¿d 7 I2 £ kl2 c6 I3 * f l (13 g4!?) 13...We7
14 g4 <SY7 15 Sfcg2 c5! 16 S b l £>fe8 17 b4 l>6
18 bxc5 dxc5 19 a4 £kl6 20 a5 Sfl)8!, Vilcla-
Morcno, I lavana 1997 - both players give this
position as unclear in liCX).
10 i¿.e2
77
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
78
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
79
O ffb e a t King's Indian
80
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
81
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
(I ame i6
Suba-Nunn
Dnbai O¡ympuul 1986
82
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
83
O f f b e a t K i n g 's Iridian
84
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
85
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
8...ÍV8 (8..x6 < >Wd2 cxc!5 I» cxd5 *h 7 of place here), or 10 4^ge2 <5Y5 and White has
was Laxarcv-Kuntzig, I lamburg 1993» and to block his g-pawn with 11 í^g3, or again
now 11 g4 favours White according lo N C O ) play 11 f3.
9 Wd2 <&h7 10 ld 3 a5 (10...Í5 11 exñ 1x1*5 10 g4
12 $\>c2 #V17 13 4hg3 lx d 3 14 Wxd3 with Por K) I d 3 $\\(> see 6...#W>.
the more plcasant game for White in Sulyok- 10 ...^g 8
Meier, Vienna 2003) 11 íhge2 #W ) 12 g4 5V5 Vermolinsky gives the dcadlv variation
13 lc 2 b6 14 0-0-0 (14 4hg3 la 6 15 1x3lc 8 10...£\a6 11 g5! Í\r8 12ÍM3 (6 I3gxh6 lx h 6
16 I d l ld 7 17 h4 Wc8 18 B Wd8 19 h5 g5 14 h4 lg 4 15 4?ig5+, but Black has l l...hxg5
20 0-0 We7 21 le 2 with a pulí for White, 12 4hB Hh8 13 *4?\xg5+ < á> g8 which restriets
Prasxak-Dick, Prague 1990) 14...Wd7 White to a more modest lead.
(14...Wh4!?) 15 g5 h5 16 ^l>5 la 6 17 £V-c3 11 ÍLd3 ^ a 6
and Black was in troublc in Minogina-
Malashenko, Klista 1997.
9 Wd2
'llie most logical, although White has also
played 9 c5 #W> 10 cxd6 cxd6 11 lx a 6 Sxa6
12 Wd2 1)5 (unclear), Gochler-Kucypcra,
Gcrmanv *
1997 and 9 ld 3 . ’llien 9...4hfd7!?
10 4hge2 £W5 11 lc 2 ^1x17 (intending
...4hh6) provides countcrplay, while 9...íhh5 10
4^ge2 f5 (Dyhowski Pcdzich, Bydgoszcz
1990) 11 exf5! gxf5 12 g4 f4 13 l e í $Y6 14
B is slightly Ixiter for White. 'lilis leaves
9...^a6 10 <S)gc2 #\I7!? II Wd2 £klc5 12
I h l SÍ?h7 13 g4 Wh4 with ec|ual chances in Black has a very passive position.
Kachur-Dobrowolski, Krakow 1998. 12 0-0-0
9...6H7 12 Í V ‘2 #V7 13 Hgl (13 <^g3 c6 14 B
( )ihers: ld 7 15 h4 wilh advantage, Mikhalevski-
a) 9...h5?! 10 B (10 c5!?) 10...£>a6 11 ld 3 lonica, Biel 2001) I3...í^l>4 14 I b l c6 15 a3
ÍY17 12 g4 <5\lcS 13 0-0-0 (Ksieski gives 13 4ha6 16 íha4 with advantage to White in Po-
lc 2 !? 14 0-0-0 f5 15 gxf5 gxB 16 #\ge2 tapov-Stoumbos, Agios Kyrikos 2000.
wiíh a slight advantage to White, but 14...h4 1 2 ...b6?!
deserves attention) 13...Í5 (13...h4!?) 14 exf5 12...ÍV5 13 lc 2 ld 7 14 lx c5 ?l dxc5 15
í^xd3+ 15 Wxd3 gxf5 16 í^ge2 (Ksieski í I6 c6 16 Wc3 1)6 is unclear according to Ver
Zesch, I xripzig 1998) 16...®c5!? 17 Wd2e4 18 molinsky but While should play 14 £\ge2.
fxe4 fxg4 19 í¥ 4 We8 20 hxg4 lx g 4 21 13 f3 ¿d 7 14 h4 ^ c5 15 &c2 ^e7 16
Hdgl is unclear according lo Ksieski, but ?Age2 a4 17 g5
White’s play can l>e improved here, e.g. I7 White wants toget lo work on the kingside.
lx c 5 dxc5 18 gxh5 followed by H gl, when Another option is 17 h5 g5 18 vig3 when
Black has problems. White has an advantage across the whole
b) Black can iry 9...#W>1? with the idea 10 lx>ard, the logical follow-up lieing to regroup
lx h 6 £ke4 11 4^xe4 Wh4 with chances for and gradually prepare action on the «.jueenside.
lx>th sides. After other rcplics Black plays 17...h5 18 f4 exf4 19 ^xf4 ¿í.e5 20 &d4
...#V5 and wins a tempo, e.g. 10 Í3 ÍV 5 with <^c8 21 Hdf1 We8 22 Sf2 b5?!
the same idea! 11 0-0-0 S&h7 (12-B looks out After 22...1xd4 23 Wxd4 Wc5 24 Wxe5
86
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
Game 3K
Chernin-Cebalo
Sloveniau I ¿eitgue, liled 1999
1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g 6 3 foc3 ¿ g 7 4 e4 d6 5
h3 0-0 6 ¿ g 5 W e 8
87
Offbeat King's Indian
runs into 15 lh7+ AhS 16 lg 6 ctc. Thus 'llie standard push o f the a-pawn in sucli
Black must seltic for 14...5V4, when 15 0-0-0 positions, preparing to senil a knight to c5. A j í
£>xd3+ 16 Wxd3 c4 17 Wd2 h5 18 ld 4 ! alternat ive is 8...ÍVa6 9 g4 atul now:
IxcM 19 4^xcl4 gives While a ilangcrous at- a) 9...wh8!? is interesting, makitig way for
tack atul 15...ÍLB 16 Hh2 £k6 (16...£>xd3+ 17 ...Í_\g8 followed by ...f7-í5.
Wxd3 c*4 18 Wd2 l<K>ks promising for White) b) 9...ÍV5 10 We2 c6 (I0...a5!?) 11 l>4
17 ÍLxf4 Sxf4 18 &xf4 _&xdl 19 Wxdl exf4 12 a3 cxd5 (I2...c5!? is unclear) 13 cxd5 ld 7
20 Wg4 is prctiy awful. 14 ftf3 Sc8 15 4^12 with advantage to White,
a3) After \2.JAH we can again compare Poluljahov-'/ulfugatii, Swidnica 1999.
with the aforcmentioncd game. Hiere are two c) 9...1cl7 10 c 6 (10...4?V5!? 11 Wc2
differences - White’s bishop stands on e3 a5) 11 Wd2 cxd5 12 cxd5 (12 ÍLxf6!? ¿Lxf6 13
(instead of e l) and Black’s cjuccn is on e*8 (in 4^xd5) 12...£k:5 with ccjuality, Agrest-
stead of (.18) - which are tí) White’s advantage, Arizmendi Martínez, Reykjavik 2(KH).
and after 13 lx f5 Axf5 14 gxf5 Sxf5 15 9 & f3
Wc2! White had already built up a hig lead in 9 Ii4 might seem like an odd choice as
Tyomkin Sasikiran, Biel 1999. White has made a point of intnxlucing a line
h) 'llie best, and rather cunning continua- that partly revolves around placing the pawn
tion is 9...5\ i6!?, devcloping the knight. Now on h3.1 lowever, it is not clear whether Black’s
White gets less than nothing after 10 g4?! 4 cjueen stands better 011 e8 or c!8. Morcover,
11 4^xf4 cxf4 12 Ix f4 f5 when Black’s cjueen the 8...a5 might prove irrelevant. Ix-t’s take a
comes to life. Instead 10 0-0 f5 11 exf5gxf5 is look at how the game might continué -
interesting, when Black had his play on the 9...#W> 10 Ii5 #V5 and now opening the h file
kingside in Concjucst-Moreno ('amero, Pam is premature due to 11hxg6 fxg6 12 Wc2 Wf7
plona 2002. with countcrplay 011 the f-file. White’s cjueen
7...e5 8 d5 should also keej> an eye 011 Ii5 as Black miglu
8 dxe*5 dxe*5 9 í^f3 poses Black no prob otherwise jtist take the pawn, 11 Wc2 4ftxh5!
lems, e.g. 9...c6 10 Wd6 4^1x17 11 0-0 h6 12 12 Jk.xh5 gxh5 (intending ...I7 f5) 13 ÜLc3
&h4 *h 7 13 fiad 1 Sg8 14 8d2 Í^h5 15 14 Í\i»e2 Í5 being a g( xk I cxamplc, wh
S fd l í^f4 l6We7 Vi-Vz, Dydyshko-Shulman, Black has countcrplay.
Ostrava 1998, or 9...5^1x17 10 0-0 ®k*5 II 'llie ap|>ropriatc follow-up is 11 iHf3, e.g.
Wc2 #W6 12 le 3 £}h5 with chances for both a) Il...c6 12 ^ge2!? (12 Iixg6 fxg6 13
sides, Cramling-Jonsson, Sweden 1994. $\gc2, Kozul-Stevic, Solin/Split 2(K)1, and
8...a5 now 13...l>5! 14 dxc6 bxc4 15 Wxd6 £kl34- 16
Sfcfl Ba6 with healtlnf compcnsation)
12...cxd5 (I2...b5!? with similar ideas) 13 Ü.xf6
&xf6 14 #W I5 Wd8 and the character of the
position is similar to that of l;arago-Rotstein
(Chapter l;our. Cíame 62), although this sce-
nario might be easier for White. Black is not
yet without prospeets of countcrplay as Ulere
are chances on the dark sejuares, and the 0-
bisliop is prettv |x>or.
b) More tiniid but |>erhaj>s playablc is
11...£.<17, e.g. 12 &ge2 (12 .&e3!?) 12...£>xli5!
13 ¿Lxh5 gxliS 14 ¿.e3 (14 <5\i> 3 15 15 ex15 e4!
with countcrplay according to I lazai) 14...I5
88
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
I'. ÍLxc5 dxc.S 16 with thc casicr game b) Better is 23...b5 24 We2 (24 cxb5 4^l>4
(or White. 25 Wc3 Hc5 with initiative) 24...#ib4 (plan-
0../^a6 10 ®g©2 &h8 ning ...£k!3+) 25 0 0-0 (25 fid l? Hxe3ü 26
Black prepares ...4hg8 atul ...f7-f5 or ..JÍU 16, fxe3 Wh4+ 27 <&d2 Tl\2 is decisive)
cxchanging dark-stjuarcd bishops. Another 25...^xa2+ 26 sfcbl £M>4 with ct|ual chances.
plan involves 23...5xe3! 24 fxe3 Wf2+ 25 <¿d1 Wxe3
11 g4 /^g8 12 ite 3 26 Wc2 Wf3+ 27 <Á>d2 Wg2+ 0-1
Again White might consider 12 h4!? despitc
ihe lost tempo. Game 39
12...Í5 13 gxf5 gxf5 14 exf5 ?Ae7 Gy imesi-l. Bot vinnik
l e/ A viv 2001
89
O ffbe a t King's Indian
Game 40
Suba-Motylev
9...exd5 [Kumaman I ¿agite, I iforic Non/ 2000
Also good are:
a) 9...^l>4!? 10 ! e 2 (10 I b l cxd5 11 cxd.S 1 d4 <?>f6 2 c4 g6 3 ?te 3 Ü.g7 4 e4 d6 5
He8+ 12 £ige2 with an excellent position for h3 0-0 6 ií.g 5 ^ a 6 7 ^ g e 2 !?
Black) I0...cxd5 11 cxd.S W e8 12 B & d 7 13 a3
£W> 14 l f 4 W c7 with chances for hoth sities,
Suba-Kindl, I lospitalet 1994.
b) 9...£k:7 10 a4 h6 11 l e 3 exdS 12 cxd.S
13 He 1 íhb4 14 I b l 2 c8 with g<xxl play
for Black, (iyim esi-M .lvanov, Cíermany 1999.
10 exd5
'lilis position is similar to those discussed
earlier but instead o f 4^gc2 W hite has weak-
ened his kingside by pushing the g-pawn. A f
ter 10 í^xdS le*6 Black is slightly Ixrtter.
10 ...We8 + 11 We2
After 11 $\ge2 Black has the manoeuvre
90
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
91
O ffbe a t K ing's Indian
92
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
White must Ik* careful as far as the dark An carly trade on d5 affords White more
stjuares are con cerned. 14 J¡Lv2 Wc7 15 Wd2 possibilities,e.g. I0...cxd5 ll cxd5
S-^7 16 0-0-0 j&.d7 17 Sd g l 4hf7 was unclear a) Now after 11...5V5 White has 12 _5Í.b5!?
in Avrukh-Mohr, Pula 2000, while 14 Wd2 (12 A c2 a5 transposes to thc main linc), when
^ 8 15 4hb5 # c7 16 13 c6 17 <SV3 & b4 18 12...W c7!?, rc-entcring ihe pin is probablv thc
& b l cxd5 19 cxd5 a5 20 h4 Wd8 21 h5 g5 22 most circumspeci reply. Instcad 12...j2.d7 13
0-0 5V7 was ccjually interesting in Potapov- &xd7 was the course o f Solnikov-Gclman,
Isupov, Russian Ijeaguc,Orcl 1996. Russian júnior Championship, Moscow 1995,
I>) 9...5VI7 10 £>Í3 Í5! 11 gxf5 gxf5 12 fig l when recapturing with the cjueen looks thc
SÍ?h8 13 5Mi4 £VIc5 was fine for Black in most promising, e.g. 13...^xd7!? 14 f3 (14
Paunovic-Kuprcichik, Cctinje 1992, while 10 #\g.3 a5 is fine for Black) 14...Sac8 15 Wd2
a3 #klc5 11 ÍLc2 15 12 1)4 4£ixc4 13 4&xc4 Wc7 (followcd by ...Wa5) 16 b4 #Vd7 and thc
Ixc4 14 &xc4 5}b8!, as in Shaw-Cherrington, knight is coming to b6.
K-mail 1998 is unclear according lo N (70. b) 1 12 <S\g3 (12 .&xa6!?) 12...^c5
White should play 10 £ige2, when 10..¿?Vlc5 13 Ítc 2 a5 14 a4 Wd8 15 S b l Sc8 was un
gives rise to ihe following oplions: clear in Cramling-Gallaglier, Biel 1994.
h l) 11 &g3 f5 12 gxf5 gxf5 13 &h\ (13 11 iLc2 cxd5 12 cxd5 a5 13 fog3
ex15 c4! or 13 # W 5 &xf5 14 ex15 e4, Kusla- An alternalive is 13 a3 Jkd7 14 1)4 axb4 15
novich-Moskovic, Witley 1999, wilh an initia- axb4 £to6 16 S b l Sc8 17 0-0 (17 &d3!?)
livc for Black in eilher case) 13...Wg6 14 ÍLc7 17...h6 18 JÍc 3 Sc4 with chances for both
Sf7 15 exf5 Wh6 16 f6 &xf6 17 Áxf6 fixf6, sides, Soln-Bratovic, Blcd 2(K)2.
( ihcrnin-Tratar, Feldbach 1997, with chances 13...b5
for both sides. I3...h6 is safer, and after 14 je.c3 (Sotnikov-
b2) 11& c2 f5 12gxf5gxf5 l .3Sgl <&h8 14 Provkin, Voronczh 1997) Black can then push
ÍLc3 W l7 with chances for both sides, Shcp- 14...b5!?, with counterplay and similar play lo
herd-Stubberud, Port Hrin 2(K)3. thc main linc.
b.3) I lazai’s rccommcndation o f 11 j¿.b l!? 14 Wf3!
looks gcxKl, when W hite’s plan is lo follow up
with a2-a3 and l>2-b4 etc. After II...15 12
cxí5!? gxf5 13 H gl W fl an interesting middle-
gamc is developing.
10 foge2
93
O ffb e a t K in g 's ¡ndian
don for the pawn, e.g. l6.JKft>5 17 ,&xg7 a) White should emerge with an edge after
&xg7 18 H bl Wc4 19 &b3 Wa6 20 Wc2 Hb8 7...h6 8 Ae3 c5 9 d5 £k5 10 A c2 a5 i 1 Wcl2
21 Wxa6 J&xa6. st?h7 12 g4 c6 13 £>G £>g8 14 S g l <&e7 15
16...cxb2 17 Hb 1 £>e6 ? h4, Averbakh -Bondarevsky, USSR Champi
A misiake in a complex position in which onship 1951.
Black should he doingokay. b) Again the M<xlem Benoni approach is
a) 17—¿Lh6, and now 18 g5 (18 Hxb2 ÍLa6 also possiblc, e.g. 7...c5 8 d5 e6 9 4ftG h6 10
19 % 3 We8 20 g5 &g7 21 &xg7 *xg7) JÜ.e3 #Y7 11 a4 Sc8, which was unclear in
I8 .J% 5 19gxh6Wl>4f 20 sfcf1(20<&dl J¿a6 Chernin-Barbero, San Bemardino 1994.
with an initiative for Black) 20...Wc4+ 21 We2 8 d5 Me8 9 Wd2
JbLa6 22 Wxc4 .ÍLxc4+ 23 ^g2 Hfb8 provides N.B. The actual ordcr of moves was 9 g4
cnough compensation. £k:5 10 Ac2 a5 11 Wd2 Ü.d7 12 4^ge2 but we
h) 17...Wb5 is also effective, e.g. 18 -&xg7 have made alterations in ordcr to accommo-
Wl>4+ 19 * d l (19 St?f1 Wc4+ 20 &g2 Wxc2 date analysis of variations.
21 .ÍLxí8 &xf8 and the investment is justified) 9 a3 is too slow, 9...5ih5 10 4hgc2 15 11
19...Wd4+ 20 & c l Ü.a6 21 Axfó H>4+ 22 exf5 gxf5 12 00 < ár>
h8 sccing Black achieve
4?d I Wd4+ etc. cijuality in Rapoport-Sollevcld, Apcldoorn
18¿Lxg7 1999.
18 dxc6! fxe*6 19 4^xg7 is simple and Instead White has 9 ^ge2, when Black has
strong. thrcc knight moves.
18...gxh5 19 & h 6 a) 9...£k5 10 &c2 a5 II g4 ( II Wd2!i>)
White has a very strong altcmativc in 19 11 ...£ttcl7 12 <&g3 &b6 13 We2 £d7 was
&xf8 ÍV I4 20 W ft &xc2+ 21 &d2 *x fó 22 unclear in AgrestM il ov, l;rankfurt 20(K).
Wh8+ &e7 23 Wxc8+ *xe8 24 &xc2 etc. b) 9...#Mi5 and now instead of 10 g3 .&d7
19...£tf4 20 gxh5 <&h8 21 Sg1 &g8 22 II a3 f5 12 exf5 gxf5 (unclear), Potapov-
<&d2 & a 6 23 £xg8 + ^xg 8 24 &xf4 exf4 Stoumlxjs, Korinthos 2001 and 10 g4
25 Mc3+ % 7 26 h6 Wxc3+ 27 *x c3 (with compensation) White played 10 Wd2 in
S c 8 + 28 < &xb2 fíb 8 + 29 &c3 lxb1 30 Kozul Tratar, Portoro/ 1997. 'Hiere followed
&xb1 ií.b5 31 e5 dxe5 32 Af5 & g 8 33 10—f5 II exf5 (11 G Aú7 12 0-0-0 £>c5 13
d6 s*/f8 34 h4 & c 6 35 & c4 e4 36 &xh7 $Lc2 f4 with mutual chances, Turna-Maslik,
e3 37 fxe3 f3 38 ild 3 f2 39 <Á>d4 f5 40 Slovakia 1999) 11...ÍLxI5 I2ü-0®c5 13 A b l
<&e5 &a4 41 sW6 1-0 a5 14 JjLc3 b6 15 g4 -ÍLxb 1 16 XXaxbl 5if4 17
£ixf4 cxf4 18 ÜLxf4 Jk.xc3 19 bxc3 í^e4 20
Can/e 42 We3 &xf4 21 ttxf4 4ÉW3 22 We3 £>xbl 23
Yermolinsky-Radjabov Hxbl Wxc3 24 fxc3 and the ending should
h’ID B World Cup, / ¡yderabad 2002 llave led to a draw.
c) 9...£wl7
1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 Sta3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5 e l) 10 0-0 is inaccurate, e.g. 10...1*5 11 exf5
h3 0-0 6 A g S £>a6 7 ¿Ld3 e5 gxf5 12 f4 e4 13 &c2 #h5! and White had
Normal and popular. By now it is clear that problems with the bishop and Black homed in
the challenge to the d4 pawn is dcsigncd to on d3 in Cramling-Gallagher, Bern 1992, 14
gain control of the c5-sc¡uare for the knight, £k!4 Wxdl 15 fiaxdl $M>4 16 ü.bl £k5 leav-
while the possibility of secking activity on the ing Black with an excellent position. Perhaps
other flank with ...f7-f5 is another ingredient 14 Wd2 h6 15 £)g3 ®g6 16 ,&h4 is lxrtter.
to add to the mix. c2) 10 a3 15 11 l>4 ( II G &ac5 12 ilc2
( )ther continuations are: fxe4 13 fxc4 a5 14 b4 axl>4 15 axb4 Sxal 16
94
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
Wx:il #Yi6 with chances for both sides, A theme that is charactcristic o f this set-up
Kazhgalcycv-Sandc Ivdreira, üsbon 2000) with ...We8 and ...&tl7. After I2 ...*h 8 13 O
Il...f4 (I1...4hf6 12 W c2 c5 13 S b l, Ivanis- #\g8 14 ^ g 3 #V7 15 0-0-0 l>5 16 cxb5 f6 17
cvic-Xic Jun, Belgradc 2(KK), and now 13...h6!? A e3 &xb5 18 h4 #>a4 19 ^xa4 &xa4 20 h5
14 j¿L12 f4 is unclear; 12 c5 mcrits attention) &xc2 21 Wxc2 W hite achicvcd a slight etlgc in
12 O & f6 13 A xf6 & x f6 14 Wd2 » c 7 Stcinbachcr-Piket, ( )stentl 1990.
(I4...#A>8!?) 15 S e l (15 0-0-0, Ungurcanu- 13 cxb5 iLxb5 14<5^g3
Nevednichy, Curten tic Argcs 2002, should ( )thcrs:
luivc inet with 15...4£S>8 intending ...4ülxl7 antl a) 14 A c3 JLaú 15 ÍLxc5 tlxc5 16 & a4 We7
...a7-a5 with active play ilvat guaran tees at Icast (I lazai) is unclear.
ct|uality) 15....&d7 16 #M)5 (16 íf\U followcd b) 14 íhxb5 Wxb5 15 $V3 Wxb2 16 S b l
by c4-c5 looks better) 16...ÍV8 17 Sc2 c5 Wa3 17 A e3 Sab8 antl again I lazai Ixlicvcs
(I7...c6 might be preferable) 18 tlxc6?í bxc6 19 both sities are tloing okay.
)c3 Wh4+ 20 Sfcfl $Vac7 with an etlgc for 1 4 ..Jta 6 !?
Black, Kazhgalcycv-Saravanan, Linares 1999.
I -ct’s rcturn to 9 Wd2
15 0-0-0 £ifd7
Now W hite must address ...4hb6-c4.
9...6d7 16 iLh 6 f 6
9...£kl7 is also tjuite playablc. Ilien 10 I lazai pointsout that l6../ftb6? is a bluntler
0 0 0 #\lc5 11#\gc*2 f5 was unclear in Casclas tluc to 17 ÍLxg7 sfcxg7 18 4hh5H etc.
Cañabas-Del Rey, Corunha 2<HX). This leaves 17 & x g 7 &xg7 18 h4 *hb6 19 g5 fxg5 20
10 g4 ®klc5 11 & b\ ÍLtl7 12 &gc2 b5 13 Wxg5 Wd 8
cxl>5 .&xb5 14 ^xb5 Wxb5 15 £¿*3 with an 20..JSxf2 2l h5 is dangerous for Black.
etlgc for Black in I jchmann-Nowicki, Ruhrge- 21 Sh 2
biet 1998/99. Note that 12...B 13exf5gxf5 14 I lazai rccommcntls 21 ^f5+!, activating
Í\g3 here is tlubious for Black but I2...v^b4 thc passive g3-knight - 2l../á?h8 22 ^V*7 Sf7
followcd by ...a7-a5 with a further ...f7-f5 23 £k:6.
could be thc way to go as thc knight would be 21...Wxg5+ 2 2 hxg5 S f3 23 S d h 1 h5
difficult to tlrive away from l>4. Black parts with a pawn but all his pieces
10 $\ge2 foc5 11 i ic2 a5 12 g4 will be veryy active antl his rooks will exert a
I bis position can also arisc after 9 g4, thc pressure <»n thc f-filc.
difference being that Black must also consider 24 gxh6 + sí?h7 25 Hg1 S a f 8 26 4hd1
W fí instead ofW d2. ¿ b 5 27 £)f1 S 3 f4 28 <^d2 <5lc4 29 £fo1
12...b5 Í^b 6 30 fAd2 Íie2 31 Hgg2 £ta4 32 Q\c3
95
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
*
96
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
97
O ffbeat King's indian
b) 14 <Á>h2 Sfc8 15 Wd2 ttdS 16 a3 a4 17 N.B. 'Pie actual move order was 8...£k:5 9
0 W ffi 18 g4 £ *8 19 &g3 #Y7 20 S g l &b5 ±c2 a5 K)Wd2 c6 ll ^ge2.
with exccllent play for Black, Parkcr- 9 ÍAqe2 ¿Ac5 10 ilc 2 a5
Timoscenko, Werfen 1995.
c) 14 1)3 Sfc8 15 a3 Wd8 16 l>4 axM 17
axl>4 £\i 6 18 ÍÍ..<I3 W<-8 19 Wd2 £Mi 5 2(1 H fcl
15 21 13 f4 22 ÍLh4 s5 23 Ü.I2 'A-Vz, Flcar-
Apicc-lla, Clichy 1995.
d) 14 ÍLc3 Sfc8 15 Í3 Wd8 16 a4 (16 a3
a4!? kecps White on his toes) 16...We8 17 j»4
l>5 18 axb5 ÍLxh5 19 Ht2 &.I7 20 4^3 Wd8
with j»<xxl play for Black, l> ctursson-Zuej>cr,
1lorien 1994.
14...s:fc8 15&h1 Wd8
Black wants to push thc h-pawn. Othcrs:
a) 15...A c8!? 16 f4?! cxf4 17 $3xf4 #tfd7
with advantage to Black (Kasparov), hut 16 f3 Black rcinforccs the position of the c5-
l<K>ks safer, with a level game. knight, rctaining the tensión in the centre.
h) 15...a4!? is interesting, when Black stands 11 Wó2
no worse. O r ll a3!? cxd5 12 cxd5 (this time 12
16 a3 a4 17 fíb el na 6 18 £>c1 Wa5 19 5ixd5 is harmless, e.g. 12...ÍY-6 13 .&e3 ®xd5
&b1 14 cxd5 í^f4 15 5ixf4 ex14 16 Jwlxf4 Axb2 as
19 £Wa2 Bb6! 20 ^l>4 Sxb4 21 axl>4 in Neff-Secman, Tallinn 1997, when 17 Sa2
Wxl>4 with compcnsation according to Ras would have maintained the balance) I2...a4 13
parov. ÍLxf6?! (13 0-0 transposes to the next main
19...^h5 game) 13...ttxf6 14 #\xa4 4^xa4 15 £ixa4
!9...ÍLb5 20 &xb5 (20 £kl3!?) 20...Wxl>5 (Mikhalevski-Gulko, Beersheba 1993)
21 ÍLd3 £kd3 22 í^xd3 Baa8 is assessed as 15...%5 16 g3 f5 17 <5Y3 fxe4! 18 &xc4
unclear by Kasparov. *M8! 19 ±c2 «b6! 20 Hbl 21 #e2
20 Qiá3®b3 21 ^ e3 f6 22 &h 6 g5 23 Bac8! 22 Ad3 Wd4 23 0-0 Axh3 24 B fd l
ÍLxg7 <Á>xg7 24 <Á>h2 ® f4 25 h4 h6 26 Wl>6 25 í^g5 with chances for both sides ac
£>b4 Saa 8 27 g3 <^g6 28 f4 Wc5 29 f5 cording to Mikhalcvski in liCO . I lowcvcr,
V2 -V2 22...Wa5+!? wins a pawn and looks lxMtcr.
White could also try 29 We2!?, when Kas 11...cxd5
parov gives the position after 29...exf4 30 gxf4 ( )ther lines are also okay for Black.
&xf4! 31 Sxf4 gxf4 32 Bg1+ 33 «h 5 a) I1...tfb6 12 0-0 Ad7 13 &c3 cxd5 14
<5Yl2 34 Wxh6+ *e 7 35 Sg7+ *d 8 36 «xf6+ cxd5 a4 15 Habí Bfc8 16 B ®fo5 17 *h 2
<á?c7 as unclear, while he considere 29 f5 Wxe3 Wd8 18 a3 A fó 19 g4 £>g7 20 g5 Ae7 21
30 Bxc3 í^e7 to be level. í^g3 V2-V2, johanscn-l -mka, Adelaidc 1990.
b) ll.Jk .d 7 12®g3cxd5 I3&xd5£lc6 14
Game 44 4ftxf6+ jixf6 15 JLxf6 Wxf6 16 Wxd6 Hfd8
Bazhin-Fedorov 17 Wl)6 Wc7 18 Wb3 b5 with more than suf-
Kstovo 1994 ftcicnt compcnsation for the pawn, Gcldyeva-
Kachiani Cíersinska, Istanbul 2000.
1 d4 ¿A16 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5 12 exd5!?
h3 0-0 6 &g5 £>a6 7 &d3 e5 8 d5 c 6 'I bis decisión to avoid symmedy is certainly
98
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
15...W a6?!
l5...Wl>4 16 1)3 f5 deserves a try, with an
excellent position for Black.
16 b3?!
W hite misses his chance, which comes in
Note that 12 cxd.S j&d7 13 0 0 transposes the form o f 16 Axc5! dxcS 17 JÜLa4 with a
i<> the next main game, Kasparov-Kramnik, plcasant position, e.g. !7..JÍ¡Lxa4 18 í^xa4
uml 12 -&xf6 jlxf'6 13 & xd5 á.g5 14 W c3 Hac8 19 H adl with advantage to White.
ÍLc6 causes Black no problems. 12 íhx<l5 is 16...Í5 17 f3 H ac 8 18 a4
simply wronj» in view o f 12...£u'xc4 13 Axc4 18 g4 is preferable (on the next move, too),
#W 4 14 i.x d 8 ^ xd 2 15 & x il2 (15 & c7 e.g. 18...^f6 19 gxf5 gxfS 20 14 and the batdc
$ W 4 16 ib c íS * x ffi with attractivc compen continúes with approximately ccjual prospccis.
sation) l5..JSxd8 16 S h e l Í5 with an edge for 18...b6
Black. Right sejuare, wrong piece — l8...Wb6 is
12...1.d7 13 0-0 Wb 6 14<¿>h1 corrcct.
W hite can also try: 19 H ab í H ce 8
a) 14 &g3?! Hfc8 15 A c3 Wa6 (l 5...a4!?) 16 Perhaps 19...f4 is an improvement, when
Wc2 £Y*8 17 f4 fS 18 5üb5 (Bareev-Gelfand, Black’s game looks the more comfortable.
Linares 1994) and now 18...c4! 19 #YI4 $WI3! 20 g4 Ctf6 21 gxf5 gxf5 22 f4 ttc 8 23
20 1>3 (20 iLxd3 cxd3 21 Wxd3 Wxc4 favours H g 1 & H 8 24 Hg 2 £tfe4 25 £íxe4 £\xe4?
Black) 20...#M)4I? with the idea o f 21 ...£\d5! 22 Melping only W hite. Black should play
cxd.S Ü.d4 or 21 ...a4, Gelfand preferring Black. 25...fxc4 26 Hxg7 á?xg7 27 fice5 Hxe.S (not
b) 14 H abí Wa6 followed by ...b7-b5. 27...dxc5 28 Ah6+ * h 8 29 % S Hf7 30 H gl
c) Gelfand gives 14 -&e3 Wa6 15 b3 Hfc8 &15 3t &g7+ <¿>g8 32 H i6 ) 28 & d4, limiting
and the b-pawn is again ready for action. W hite to a mcxlest but dcñnitc Icad.
1 4 ...^h 5 26 & xe4
Black wants to play ...f7-f5 with a strong 'ITic exchange o f the passive light-squared
centre. Obviously he cannot take on b2 as bishop for the c5-knight is advantageous to
14...Wxb2?? loses to 15 H abí Wa3 16 W el W hite. Moreover the c5-knight defended the
$W> 17 A xfó A xfó 18 Hb3 » c 5 19 £>e4. d7-bishop, which is important in some varia
15 & e3 tions.
15 g4 £>f4 gave Black countcrplay in 26...fxe4 27 Hbg1?
Parker- Bjornsson, London 1994. After 27 Hxg7! < ¿?xg7 28 fxe5 fixc5
99
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
(28...dxc5 29 &h6+ ¿h 8 30 % 5 2f7 31 S g l) threc quite different ways from the diagram.
29 j¿d4 White regains the exchange and keeps 12 cxd5
ihe initiative. 'I he most popular and principlcd response,
27...£g8 28 f5?! the cliief aitu Ixring to retain what stability
White is in danger of paying the pnce for there is in the centre by kccping the symmetri-
his numerous inaccuracies. 'Iliis time hoth 28 cal structurc, ihus denying Black unnecessary
Sg3 and 28 .ÍLxl>6 retain the dynamic ecjuilih- counterplay. White maintains his territorial
rium. advantage and» by kccping his pawn 011 c4,
28 ...6 .f5 29 &xb 6 &xh3 30 Hg3 £ef8 makes Black’s often dcsirablc ...f7-f5 difficult
31 £}c3 Hf4 32 Ü.e3? to succcssfully achieve. O 11 the other hand,
After 32 í^l>5 Black cannot play 32...Sh4 Black has no weak poinis and can now look to
hecause 33 Wg5 Sh6 34 Wxh6 Axhó 35 llic queenside for ideas.
Sxg8+ Wxg8 36 Sxg8l SÍ^xgS 37 Axa5 is a) After 12 £\xd5 4fic6 Black secks to un-
terrible, bul 32...Wd7 is a big improvement, pin and tí» gain immediate counterplay. Win
when White still has work to do. ning the d6-pawn promises W liiic nothing,
32...fíh4- + 33 A g S £h5 34 &1g2?? e.g. 13 4£lxf6+ iix fó 14 -&xf6 Wxf6 15 Wxdó
I lastening the end, although 34 Wh2 e3 Ua6 16 Wa3 Í^f4!? 17 ?W 4 cxf4 with com
followcd by ...e3-e2 should be cnougli lo de pcnsation according to I lazai. Instead White
cide in Black’s favour. should drop back to e*3: 13 Ac3 £\xd5 and
34.. JLxg2+ 35 &xg2 WV5 36 We3 &h 6 now 14 cxd5 ^V5 15 ?Y 3 b6 16 S e l J&d7 17
0-1 S e l 15 was unclear in Socha-Novacek, K-mail
1999, while 14 exd5 ftc5 15 Wd2 f5 16 Í3 b6
Game 4 5 17 £k\3 f4 was good for Black in Cíaselas (Ca
Kasparov-Kramnik banas-Barón Rodríguez, l¿t Coruna 1996.
L as Palmas 1996 b) 12 cxd5 &d7 13 % 3 Wb6 14 b3 (14
S b l Sfc8 15 W tt #W8 is aboui even)
I d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c3 & g 7 4 e4 d6 5 14...5fc8 15 S b l ÍV 8 16 Wd2 í5 17 &h(>
h3 0-0 6 &g5 foaS 7 &d3 e5 8 d5 c 6 9 #V6 18 -&xg7 S&xg7 with exccllent play for
^ge2 $\c5 10 $Lc2 a5 Black, Secl-Djukic, ( )ropesa del Mar 2001.
N.B. 'Flie game actually went K)...cxd5 11 12...1Ld7
cxd5 a5 12 0-0. Black is looking to step up thc pace on ihe
I I 0-0 cxd5 tjuecnsidc with ...b5-b4. Other continuations:
a) 12...W1j6 l3 ± c3 (l3 Sb 1 - or 14 Sl>l -
leads us back to Ivanchuk-Kasparov, Cíame
43, above) 13_¿Lcl7 (not 13...Wxb2?? 1 4 ÍL xc5
dxc5 15 S b l Wa3 16Sb3) 14 a3 Sfc8 ((iraig-
Raijmaekers, Correspontlencc 1994/98) 15
S b l!? W i 18 16 b4 axb4 17 axl>4 £>a6 18 & d 3
We8 19 Wd2 ^ih5 20 H fcl f5 and Black has
counterplay. 'Iliis is the same idea as in I;lear-
Apicella in Ivanchuk-Kasparov (Cíame 43),
note V to White’s I4th move, but White’s
dark sejuared bishop stands on e*3, not the g5-
stjuarc.
b) I2...b5!? 13 &xb5 (13 a3 a4 14 Wd2
RemeirilxT that White can rccapture in j¡Ltl7 with chances for both sides) 13...h6 14
100
The M a k o g o n o v S y s t e m : 5 h 3
\ (14 Axf6 Wxf6 with compensation) 20 &xd3 fxg5 21 Wf7> <&h8 22 Wxd7 £>f6 23
I'!...í^fxe4 15 O Wb6 16 fxe4 Wxb5 and Wb5 « d 4 giving Black excellent countcq)lay
Black has earned ecjuality. due to the threat o f ...#Mi5 and the weak dark
13 a3 sejuares on the kingside.
In thcevent o f l3SÍ?hl Black has 13...b5 14 c2) 15../&h8 16 ^Íg3 &g8 17 ÍLe3 Wa5 18
I \ We8 15 a.3 b4* or 13...h6!? 14 A e3 1)5, with « i 12 (Psakhis-Movsziszian, Balaguer 1998)
hk\ play in either case. 13 a4 seriously com- 18...b5 and 16 g4 £\g8 17 <S\g3 Wa6 18 h4
ptotnises the cjneenside dark scjuares* e.g. Wc4, Drcev-l;edorov, Maikop 1998 are lx>th
K..W b6 14 *h 1 & h 5 15 g4 (Pyda-Socko, well balanced.
Krvnica 1998) 15...h6! with an edge for Black. d) 14 f3 Wa5 15 g4 Ii6 16 &d2, Motoc-
15 H bl improves, with a level game. Costantini, Plovdiv 2003 and now l6...Hfc8
13...a4 with good play for Black.
Directed against 14 l>4. Also possible is 1 4 ...«b 6 15 S a b 1 S fc 8
I L.h6 14 & e3 a4 (I4...b5?! 15 M ) 15 Wd2
'M \l with chances for hoth sides.
14 Wd2
White has a wide rangc o f continuations:
a) 14 Í mc 1?! looks passive and therefore
gives Black nothing to solve, e.g. 14...h6 15
ÍLe3 Wa5 (15...1)5!? 16 Wd2 is interesting) 16
Ubi Kfc8 was Yennolinsky-Manion, Chicago
1995, given as unclear by Yennolinsky in
í .(.O. Black was also doing okay after
14...We8 15 #M c21)5 16&g3h6 17ÍLe3W b8
18 ^ a2 in Drecv-Kazhgaleyev, Lúceme 1997.
I)) 11 g4 is - for a change - unjustified here.
Potapov-Neumann, Pardubice 2002, contin- 16 fAg3
ucd I4...H>6 15 Á e3 (15 * g 2 h6 16 Ae3 In reply to 16 SÍ/hl Black plays l6...Ae8 to
Wa6 with advantage to Black) 15...Wa6 16 facilítate ...^fd7/l1ien 17£h6<5Vd7 18^g3
í\g.3 JIfc8 with an edge for Black, while Wd8 (18...ü.xh6 19 Wxh6 Wd8 is also okay)
14...h6!? 15 juLc3, RooboM^ane, Netherlands 19 &xg7 <&xg7 as in Mititclu-Planinec, Bath
.!(>1XI should also have favoured Black after 1973 is given as ccjual in l:CX\ while 19 JÍLg5
I r>...^h7. «1)6 20 ÍU i6 ?! Wd8 21 % 5 A f6 ! 22 & c3
c) 14 sfchl prepares a kingside attack. I lien í^l)6 23 « e 2 -&g5! favoured Black in Yer-
14...We8 15 Wd2 (Bareev-Arduman, I leraklio molinsky-Kasimdzhanov, W ijk aan /ee 1999.
1997) I5...^h5!? and l4...We7 15 Wd2 Hfc8 16...ttd8
16 )3abl 1)5, Ivanisevic-Tratar, Istanbul 2003 16...H c7 17 Ae3 and the pin is unplcasant
are unclear, while 14...1)5!? 15 $\g3 h6 16 Ji.e 3 (Kram nik).
(Roos-Kilgus, Ansfelden 2003) 16...#Mi7 fol 17 ÍLh 6 & xh 6 18 Wxh 6 « f 8 19 We3 iLe 8
ieiwcd bv ...Wh4 looks nice for Black. V2 -V2
I lowever, the most popular choice is Black has a good position with no weak
14...«1)6 15 H b l and: points, and an attempt by W hite to genérate
e l) l5..JSfc8!? 16 f4 exf4 17 í^xt'4 ÍV-8 and activity with (244 runs the risk o f neglccting
now instead o f 18 #Y13 with an advantage lo the dark sejuares after ...exf4. In fact this as-
W hite, Psakhis-Kuznctsov, St Pctcrsburg2(M)2 sessment refers to all positions after W hite’s
saw 18 « Í3 ?! f6!?, the forcing 19 #V13 í^xd3 I6th move.
101
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
Summary
The Makogonov System should not cause Black any serious problems. Indeed Black has severa!
interesting plans available that can lead to complex play with mutual chances. In the case of ó
Jic 3 Black is able to drum up good counterplay wilh ...c7-c5 (Cíame 32). Meanwhile ...e7-e5
(Game 33) also merits further srudy. After 6 JÍ.gS both 6...#Mxl7 (Game 34) and the variations
involving ...c7-c5 followcd by ...c7-e6 and ...exdS (Cíame 36) are fine for Black, 'Flie most popular
plan is si ¡II ...£k6 followcd by ...c7-e5, which is discussed in Games 39-45.
5 h3 7 ...e 5 1 0 ...$ l c 2
102
CHA PTER FOUR \
103
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
104
A verbakh S ystem : 5 iie 2 0-0 6 iig 5 w ith o u t ...c 7 -c 5
1 07
A verbakh S ystem : 5 & e 2 0 - 0 6 SLg5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
against £>c3) 23 ÍU>4 Ka4 24 a3 A f 6 25 Bc2 side, most notably the fací that after a retreat
Bxc2+ 26 A x c 2 B a 8 27 ÍLd3 & e7 28 <&c3 on the cl-h 6 diagonal W hite w ill doublc his
í V7 29 H c l S a 7 30 S b l a draw was agreed in influcncc there with Wd2, attacking the I16-
\Vagncr-Britton, I/m don 1994. pawn and causing a ccrtain amount oí poten-
23 gxf5 gxf5 24 S g 1 <¿X7 25 <ftc3 £>f6 26 tial inconvenience for Black in the proccss.
¿x b 5 H cb 8 27 h 6 i l f 8 28 Sgb1 fxe4 29 Additionally, the pawn cover in front o f
fxe4 ÜLxb5+ 30 Hxb5 fíxb5 31 Sxb 5 & g 6 Black’s king has also been irrevocably - albcit
32 Hb 6 S a 3 33 E c 6 ?! only slightly - damaged.
A loss o f a tempo. W hite should play 33 7 A e 3 fabó7
&d3. Altcrnativcs other than 7...c5?! and 7„.c5,
33.. J¿.x h 6 34 &xd 6 sfcf7 35 S c 6 which are dealt with in the following main
35 S c6 meeis w ilh 35... ^Lf4 and Black has games, are:
counterplay, and 35 üLxhó Sx c3 36 Se6 E h 3 a) 7...£>a6 8 W d2 <&h7 and now 9 h4!> is
17 ¿U I2 £ixe4 ¡s unclear. rather blunt but quite interesting. A feasible
3 5 ...6 .d 2 36 & x d 2 h5 37 Sc7 + & f 8 38 continuation is 9...c5 10 d5 íhg4 11 j$.xg4
ie 3 ? ! h4 39 <¿>f3 h3 40 d 6 ? ÍLxg4 12 O & d7 13 h5 g5 14 & g c2 £ k 7
Missinj- 40 Ec8+ & e7 41 Hc7+ <¿*8 42 (Moskalcnko-Volke, Círoningen 1990) when
Hc6 í'ih.S 43 <
¿>’I2 £if4 with an cd¿»c for Black. 15 Wd.3!? favours W hite, e.g. !5...Sb8 16 f4 g4
4 0 ...6 .8 41 He7+ (16...gxf4 17 & x f4 & I 18 18 «fe3 <&>h7 19 c5)
II il7+ <&d8 42 S c 6 & h 5 ctc. 17 0-0 b5 18 e5+ S&gS 19 l>3 bxc4 20 bxc4.
4 1 ...M 8 ?? After ihe more consentí ive, unambitious 9 Ii3
So ncar and yet so far! 4 l...‘á?d8 42 Í5c7 Black should seek to exploil the disharmony
í'V-X ¡s decisivo. o f W hitc’s forces wilh 9...e5 10 d5 ^ c5 !?, e.g.
42 S c 7 V2 -V2 II R as in Sanjuan Morigosa-Mozo Díaz,
113
A v e rb a k h S y s te m : 5 A e 2 0 -0 6 iLg 5 w ith o u t ...c 7 - c 5
lie for a slight disadvantage in thc case o f Sc3 + 49 ^ Hb3+ 50 si>c7 Sc3 + 51
I l...*h 7 14 0-0 ¿Lb7 15 h3 &ge5 16 £>xc5 <¿>d8 Sd3+ 52 * e 8 Hb3 53 h7 e 1 « + 54
$W\5 17 A c3 S c 8 18 h3 b5 19 f4 or jump Hxe1 ¿>g7 55 Se7 + <&h8 56 * d 8 f4 57
ímo thc complex ilies o f 13...£ic5 14 c5 ÍL h l * c 8 f3 58 b8W 1-0
ele.
I>) 13 A d4 and now 13...£\gf6!?, inducing Gawe 52
c4 c5 (scc thc notes lo W hitc’s 12th move, Keene-Sigurjonsson
nl)ovc), or 13...c5 14 J&c3 J&b7 15 0-0 £klfó líaslings 1975176
16 <5}cl £ ke3 17 Wxe3 with chances for lx>th
sides (Black has thc bishop pair in rcturn for 1 d4 £if6 2 c4 g6 3 foc3 k.%1 4 e4 d6 5
«lie wcakncss on d5). & e 2 0-0 6 ¿ g 5 h6 7 ií.e3 c5 ?!
13 & xh 6 £>c5
After both 13...#W 4 14 í^xc4 Axc4 15 h4
^16 16 h5 and 13..JLxe4 14 h4 S c 8 (14...&V5
15 Ii5 gxhS 16 g4) 15 h5 W hite has strong
ihrcatson thc kingside.
14 ií.xg7 <
¿>xg7 15 í^g5! <^cxe4 16
^cxe4 Axe4 17 $)xe4 ^ x e 4 18 Wd4+
Ít f 6 19 g 4 e 5
Black sacrifices a pawn in thc hope o f
diumming up an initiative in the ending. After
19...<á?g8 20 h4 W<I7 21 Ii5 W h ite has a clear
advantage.
20 Wxd 6 W xd 6 21 S x d 6 b5 22 h3 Hfd 8
22...Sfc8!r' 23 l>3 ^ e 4 looks preferable. In reply to the pusli o f the c pawn d4-d5 is
23 Hxd 8 Sx d 8 24 cxb5 axb5 25 Axb5 a standard response, but the insertion o f 6 ...I16
4ttJ5 26 a4 S b 8 27 <&d2 fac7 28 <¿>c3 and 7 ÍLe3 gives W hile two logical and strong
4\xb5+ 29 axb5 Sxb5 30 b4 f5 31 H g 1 continuations in 8 dxc5 and 8 c5!, which is
31 <
Á>c4 Sl>8 32 gxf5 gxf5 33 b5 is the sim dealt with in ihe nexi main game, Onischuk-
ples! roulc to thc full point. Forstcr.
31...5Ü6 32 <Á>c4 Hb 8 33 b5 e4 34 gxf5 8 dxc5 Wa5
gxf5 35 f4 ?! 8...dxc5 and now 9 e5 W xdl H (9...£tfd7!?)
Again missing thc casicsi continuation - 10 S x d l íhg4 11 j£.xc5 # W 5 12 £kl5 ^ lx :6
iliis lime 35 S b l stteS 36 l>6 wins very easily. 13 f4 &g4 14 h3 S¥ 6 15 & G & f5 16 £V2,
35...5c8-f ?! Kachiani Gersinska-l’eng, Azov 1990, and 9
Black must try/ 35...cxf3,9 when some accu- Wxd8 Sxd8 10 &xc5 £fc6 11 b6 12 A a3
raey is rccjuired o f W hite in order lo carn thc a5 (Yakovich Blccs, Ostend 1993) 13 c5! 4^g4
win: 36 H fl & e 5 37 S x B & e 4 38 51I I f4 39 I4 ^ d 5 are gcx>d for White.
JLvS f3 40 b6 &e.3 41 <á?c6 Sc8+ 42 <¿?d6 9Ad2
H .IH i 43 *á?c7 S d 2 44 S b l Sc2 + 45 <&>d7 9 Wd2 dxc5 10 .&xh6 leads to sharp play
H .I2 I 46 * c 7 12 47 b7 f lW 48 H x fl S l.2 49 10...Sd8 11
with chances o f lx>th sides, e.g.
1)4 Hxl>7+ 50 ele. W c3 .&xh6 12 Wxh6 # W 4 13 Sel £k:6 14
36 Ú¿d5 S c 2 37 b6 Hd2+ 38 * c 6 Hc2+ ^ f3 #VI4 15 h4, Scirawan-Timman, Tilburg
39 Ad7 Hd2+ 40 * c 7 Hc2+ 41 ¿*b8 e3 1990, which HCX) gives as unclear.
42 h4 S c 4 43 b7 S x f4 44 h5 e2 45 * c 7 9...W xc5
Ilc4 + 46 * d 6 S b 4 47 * c 6 Sb 3 48 h6 Better than 9...dxc5 10 e5, and now:
115
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 $ L g 5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
Bl.u k should have played 23....&xc3! 24 Sxc3 .&xc4 Sxc4 18 S a e 1 ÜLxh6 19 Wxh6 Sac8
flxc3 25 bxc3 Wxa3 26 Sxb6 W al+ 27 H fcl with chances for both sides. W hile should
Wxel + 28 ¿hxc\ $ic6 29 Sxb7 Ha3 with a definitely prefer this lo 15 gxf3 W h5 16 ÍLf4
ph »bable draw. £\:5 with compensaron, or I5..j£.xh6 16
1 1 ...<5^6 Wxh6 4^V14 17 S f c l We5 with an initiative for
O r 1 L ..& X B (llJ£ flx l7 12 A e3 Wa5, Black.
l Ihlinann-Boudy, Cien fuegos 1973, and now 1 4 ...6 .f3
I t h3!? ilx B 14 JÜLxB with advantage to 14...&IV7 15 fía e l a6 16 h3 ÜbcB 17 & x B
White) 12 ü .x B 4&có (I2 ...W xc4? 13 e5) and b5 18 e*5 dxe*5 19 $\\5 #xd2 20 £>xfó+ & xf6
n<»w: 21 Axd2 b4 Vi-lAy Rcxlriguez (Jarcia-M oreno
;.) 13 A c2 W a 5 14 *|,1 (|4 £k!5!? Wd8 15 (harnero, Navalmoral de la Mata 2000.
$W 6+ exfó 16 JÍLc3 looks strong) 14...n;ic8 15 & x f3 í^g4
15 fib1 (Petursson-Markzon, Linares 1994) HCO gives this position as ecjual bul mat-
wilh a pulí for W hite - Gulko. ters are not so simple. Por example I5...4hh7!
b) 13 b3 #M 4 (13...®Bi7 14 S e l with ad deserves attention, e.g. ló H a c l (16 S f c l £\g5
van iage to W hile) 14 Hcl £ ix B+ 15 W x G 17 &xg5 Wxg5 18 Wxg5 hxg5 19 S a b l £¿14
Hle8 16 We2 (16 £kl5!? is good for W hite) with advantage to Black ) 16...$lg5! 17 ÍLg4
16...s&h7 (Petursson-L'edorowic/, New York (17 Ü.xg5 J&.xc3 18 Hxc3 Wxg5 19 Ífxg 5 hxg5
1992) 17 ¿k.15 with an edge for White. w ilh a level game, or 17...hxg5 18 S f d l ü e S
12 ¿Le3 W a5 13 Wd2 w ilh chances for both sides) 17...SfH (intend
ing ...!7-f5) 18 B (18 &xg5 Wxg5 19 Wxg5
hxg5 wilh ec|uality) I8...Í5 19 exf5 gxf5.
16 & xg4 ÍLxc3 17 W c2?!
17 V d 5 l is awkward for Black, as was
demonstrated in (Jarcia Vicente-Kouvatsou,
Istanbul 2(H)0: 17.jft.xal (17..JSc7 18 ®xa5
íhxa5 19 S a d l) 18 J¡Lxc8 Sxc8 19 Wxa5
&xa5 20 S x a l £Y*6 (20...a6 21 J&.xh6 b5 22
cxb5 axb5 hardly helps the defender) 21 & xh6
and Black was in dire straits.
1 7 ..Jb ca1 18 A x c 8 S x c 8 19 S x a l $\e5
20 W e2 h5 21 h3
21 S d l !? a6 22 W b2 wilh a slight edge.
13 #V I2 A x e2 14 V x e 2 S fc 8 15 S f d 2 1 ...a 6 22 8d1 Wb4 23 iLd4 £>c6 24
(Tukmakov-Dam, Lugano 1989) 15...Wh5! Aa1 b5 25 Wb2 f 6 26 a3 W a5 27 cxb5
and Black does not have any problems. axb5 28 W e2 W xa3 29 Wxb5 W c5 30
13...5fc8 W xc5 V2 -V2
13...&1V7!? is obvious bul interesting, e.g. 14
HacI Sac8 15 b3 a6 16 h3 A x B 17 A x B b5, Game 53
oí 14 h3 A x B 15 & x B Hfc8 16 & e2 ®k?5 17 Onischuk-Forster
1)3 b5 as in Gmcnberg-Vogt, I jcipxig 1973, World U16 Champiomhipy Mama/a 1991
with counterplay in both cases.
14 b3 1 d4 £rf6 2 c4 g 6 3 £ic3 A g 7 4 e4 d6 5
After 14 JSi.xh6 Black easily regains the & e 2 0-0 6 A g 5 h6 7 Ü.e3 c5 8 e5
pawn and obtains an excellent position, e.g. W hite steers the game to an ending in
14...6x B 15 A x B £ V 5 16 ÍLe2 €\xc4 17 which he hopes to secure and improve an
117
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 & g 5 w ith o u t ...c 7 -c 5
1 19
Offbeat King's indian
pricc of giving White the tempo-gaining Wd2 pawn structure. I;or example 15 H cl ii.e6 16
sooner or later. In the meantime a standard b3 a5 17 Sxc6 a4 was eejual in Cíarda-Barbera
King’s Indian central pawn confignration has Kstelles, Spain 1992, and I5í^f3.&c6 16#kl2
lieen crcated, and with the bishop no longer a5 17 <&e2 Sdl>8 18 b3 a4 19 Hhcl axb3 20
011 gS Black can entertain the often thetnatic axb3 Sxal 21 Hxal ii.xb3 22 í^xb3 Kxb3 23
...c7-c6 followed by the trade on d5 without S e l was agreed drawn in Dokhoian-
having to wcigh up the implications of White Seredenko, Aktjubinsk 1985.
recapturing with the knight.
For 8...c6 see Campbell-Roach, Cíame 56.
9^d2
120
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 Sle2 0 - 0 6 & g 5 w ith o u t ...c7 -c5
W hiic. l ;or example l2 .J* e 7 13 fie l a5 (Ubi- <^xc7 & f7 30 ¿>d2 f5 31 £*>5 & e7 32
liiva-Yermolinsky, Tela vi 1982) 14 J&xc5! is a ?Ac3 * f 6 33 <&e3 Sh 4 34 Sh1 Sxh1 35
rharactcristic o f this kind o f position, afford- í^xhl b6 36 £tf2 * g 5 37 Íhb7 38
Ing W hite an advantage in the centre after * f3 1-0
14...dxc5 15 f4! @Sf(> 16 ^ f3 . 'Iliis theme also
emps up after 12...We8 13 S e l J&.d7 (Stuart- Game 55
(iollogly, New Zealand 1984) 14 Axc5! (14 Yakovich-Sm irin
¿.d i with advantage to W hite in Gaprindash- 1sí I [¡tropean Ch., Saint Vincent 2000
vili-l jcvitina, Lvov 1983) 14...dxc5 15 f4 £kf6
|6 í^ B and 12...a6 13 A xc5 dxcS 14 f4 €if6 1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ c 3 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5
15 # IB , which was very poor for Black in ¿Le2 0-0 6 i¿.g5 h6
Liikin-Ignatiev, St Pctersburg 2<K)0. Linally N .B. The actual move order was 6...#Ya6 7
12...a5 (Ubilava-Tseidin, Telavi 1982) 13 f4 Ii4 e5 8 d5 Ii6 9 & e3.
wilh an initiative for W hite. 7 A e3 e5 8 d5 9 h4
11 0-0-0
11 «4!? Ii5 12 Ii3 £>Ii 7 13 h4 hxg4 14 fxg4
15 A g S 4£k:xe4 16 £ixc4 ^xc4 17 Ü.xd8
18 A xc7 £k-4 19 & G was bad news
Ibr Black in Serper-Novik, Si Petersburg 1993.
White can also play 11 Ii4, e.g. 1L..h5 12 #Mi3
#Mi7 (12..J&.xh3 13 Sxh3 with a slight advan-
lage to W hite in Seirawan-Balashov, Toluca
1982) 13 th(2 f5 14 exí5 gxf5 15 g4 e4 16
ffxhS 14 17 ÍLxc5 dxc5 18 £fcxe4 A d4, Seira-
wan-Kinley, Ijondon 1981 is given as unclear
In liC O , but in our opinion Black does not
have sufficient compcnsation for the pawns.
11...6.7 12 g4 Ii5 13 ()-()-() S h 8 (Benjamin- N ot too subtJe, perhaps, bul this sitnplistic
KrXíeorgiev, Saint Jo h n Open II 1988) and show o f aggression should by no means be
now 14 g5 Í^g8 15 £\1i 3 with advantage to underestimated. W ith the centre closed and
White. In S.Ivanov-Zakharevich, Kazan 1995 stable W hite can lurn to the kingside, concen
Black didn’t have a pawn’s worth o f compen- tra ting on opening the li-file and trading dark-
naiion after I l...£ «i5 1 2 A x h 6 ^ g 3 L3Sh2. síjuared bishops in order to elimínate a key
1 1 ...*h 7 12 g4 Sh 8 defender. Mowever - perhaps not surprisingly
Or l2...Ad7 (Popov-Bobotsov, Varna given that Black has thus far played only de
I968) 13 h4 and W hite is in control. cent King’s Indian moves - Black lias suffi-
13 h4 h5 14 ¿Lg5 hxg4 15 h5 & g8 cient resources with which lo counteract
15...g3!? is interesting. W hite’s offensive. In fací Black’s treatment o f
16 fxg4 A d 7 17 A f3 W c8 ? the situation in this game suggests that this
I liis is an obvious blunder but there is no move order is inaccurate, so 9 W d2 looks
olear way for Black to emerge from the pres- preferable..
Htire intact. 9 ...ftc5
18 h6 ^ixg4 19 hxg7 Hxh1 20 iL x h l f6 9...c6 10 g4 Wa5 11 B h5 12 g5 £>e8 13
21 A e 3 £>xe3 22 ® x e 3 <¿>xg7 23 A g 2 ^h.3 A d7 14 W d 2 ^ V 5 15 S b l with an edge
th 8 24 & h 3 & xh3 25 £ixh3 W h4 26 £tf2 for W hite in Babu-C íallagher, Kuala Lum pur
Qh8 27 » h 6 28 Wxh6+ Hxh6 29 1992, while the immediate 9...h5 10 B c6 11
121
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
#}h3 cxcI5 12 cxd5 .&d7 13 0±(2 also Favoured getting on with his own aggressive strategy.
White in Alburi-I lort, \á\ Valetta 1980. Instead after I I...g5 12 B a5 13 g4 the king-
10 W c2 side takes on a different simpe, when play
White finds himself posting the cjueen on continúes as follows: l3..J«Ld7 14 4?Mi3 a4
c2 rather than the usual cl2-scjuare because (14...cxd5 15 cxd5 £>e8 16 ÍU>5 Ac8 17 0-0
now after l() B would have ...ínhS. Unfortu- § \ ! with ecjuality in (jervasio-V.Cíurevich, Vjh.
nately the c2-scjuare is not ideal. Apart from Toucjuet 1996) 15 lfd 2 (15 ® f2 cxd5 16cxd5
not enabling White to exert pressure on Wa5 and Black prepares to pusli the b-pawn,
Black’s kingside (as is the case after Wd2), the Bareev assessing the situation as level, Stettler-
cjueen might also reejuire attention should I labermehl, Correspondence 1999) 15...cxd5
Black begin proceedings on the c-file. 16 cxc!5 and While has bacl some kind of suc-
1 0 ...c6 cess but without achieving too much. Then
The logical response. In Layare! Pour Rali- !6...Wa5 17 <^bl Wxd2+ 18 ^xd2 b5 is eejual
ñama, l;rance 1994 Black tried I0...#\g4 but according to Bareev, 19 H cl 53fe8 20 S&f2
was punished after 11 ii.xg4 Ítxg4 12 f3 .¿U17 A fó 21 <&>g2 #W8 22 $Lcl 23 H lidl Sc7
13 g4 a5 14 4?\gc2 1*5 15 gxf5 gxf5 16 ()-()-() f4 24 Hc2 agreed drawn in De Boni-Bcrdichesky,
17 Á.Í2 with a big lead fot White. 10...H5 11 B Corrcspondcnce 1994. Much less clear is
is playablc but not as accuratc as the text, e.g. 17...^fxe4 18 fxc4 ^xe*4 19 Wxa5 Tlxa5 with
11...a5!? 12 &h3 Í^h7 13 <5^2, Dzuban- compensaron, as in Bareev -Kasjwov, Linares
M ajorovas, Moscow 1983, or 11...c6 12 b4 1992, but if somebody wants to play this j^osi-
£to6 13 a.3 cxd5 14 cxd5 &d7 15 £fo3, Po- tion, he must Ix* Kasparov!
lugaevsky-Donner, Amslerdam 1970, with a 12 cxd5 ^a5!
pkis for White in both cases. Others:
11 h5 a) 12...JjLcI7?! 13 b4! £W> 14 a3 leaves the
aó*knight out of play. Now Black has tried
!4...Hc8 (I4...g5 15 B gives White, wlio j^lans
to jxish the g-pawn, a commaiuling advantage
across the board, I4...í^xli5? 15 Axh5 gxh5
16 Hxh5 Hc8 17 &xh6 Axh6 18 Hxli6 <&g7
19 Wd2 |19..JRxc3?? 20 S h 11 is excellent for
White and 14...gxh5 |unclear according to
S.Ivanov in l i d ) | 15 Wd2 *h 7 16 B - in-
tending g2-g4 or Áxa6 (JÉLd3), #V2-g3 and so
011 - also looks very poor for Black) 15 Wd2
gxh.5 (15...Hxc3 16 Üíxc3 4hxe4 17 ® c4 and
15...g5 16 B are awful) 16 ^Lxh6! í^h7 17
JIxli5 Wf6 18 g4 Wg6 19 ÍL\g7 *xg7 20 B-
White continúes the march of the h-pawn, with a big advantage in Lugovoi-Degraeve,
which is particularly important now that Black Paris 1996. I
is seeking to generate activity elsewhere. In- b) In the event of 12...g5 13 b4?! Black can
deed the advance serves to keep Black on his get away with I3...£\cxe4 14 < 5 W 4 íhxd5 15
toes and tests out the waters in terms of how Wd2 «&.e6 16 g4 a5 17 1>5 (Bonsch-Bielicki,
Black responds to the challenge to the defen- Ciennany 1993) 17...í^xe3 18 fxe.3 Wb6 with
sive wall. compensation. 'Ilierefore White should play
11...cxd5 13 B , e.g. 13...a5!? 14 g4 fíc8 15
Black is not j^hased by the intruder, calmly Wd2 Wa5 16 H bl with a slight advantage to
122
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 i i e 2 0 - 0 6 ¿Lg5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
White in Shercshcvsky-Gufeld, 1*bilisi 1974) b5 is nice for Black, so preference has been
tiik I now instead o f 14 Ab5 as in Bellmann- for 15 Axh6, and now:
<»\vo/clz, Ivm ail 2(KK)>when 14...£V8!? fol a) 15...itxh6 16 Sxh6 <¿?g7 17 Sh 4 (17
lowcd hv ...£V7 would have left Black doing S li l b5 18 -&B 1>4 19 ftcc2 Ü¡Lb5 is great for
linc, White has 14 $}b5, with an edge, or 14 Black) 17...b5 18 b4 (18 « fc l S h 8 19 Sxh8
f»4 wilh ihe following position: Sx ii8 20 B SfH lookctl very gloomy for White
in Gyurkovics-Khamatgaleev, Gyongyos
1999) I8...#xl>4 19 S b l # a5 20 &xb5, Raet-
sky-Cíolubev, Lúceme 1994, and now 20...g5!
puts White in troublc.
b) 15...b5 leads to more complicated posi-
tions, e.g. 16 Wc1 (16 a3 1>4, or 16 ¿g 5 b4 17
^Lxfó Sx f6 18 £VU S f4 with serious prob-
lems for W hite) 16...b4 17 &xg7 SÍ?xg7 and
Black had the upper hand in M .I lansen-
( ícenen, ( ]orresp( mdence 1998.
13...£d7!
123
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
a3 Wb6 16 hxg6 fxgó 17 Ü.c3 (not 17 b4? or I5...g5 White unlcashcs a trick on the other
£kxc4 18 ®xc4 Sac8! ctc.) 17...Wc7 18 S e l flank with 16 l>4! Wxb4 17 ftl>5 Wa4 18 Wxa4
Bac8 19 W dl Wd8 20 B (20 J&.Í3 lias the í?ixa4 19 4^xd6 £k5 20 ÜLc3 1)6 21 S b l í?if4
advantage of not compromising thc dark 22 Jk.fl and the eiuling is cjuite unpleasant for
sejuares - 20...a5 21 b4 axb4 22 axl>4 4?W> and Black, Yakovich-Bekkcr Jcnsen, Gothenburg
White’s chances are a littlc better) 20...£Mi5 21 2(HK). I lowcvcr, 15...Wl>6!? is worth a try as
b4 ¿h(4\\ 22 * f2 (22 bxcS?! &xg2+ 23 *12 long as Black is aware of 16 b4 Wxl>4? 17
4hxc3 24 &xc3 Sxc5 and now thc best con- 4^1)5 etc. Instead after 16 1)4 there is 16...£ta4!
tinuation is given by I lazai - 22 ÍLx i4 exf4 23 17 £>xa4 .&xa4 18 Wxa4 &xc4! 19 fxe4 Wf2+
bxcS Sxc5 24 ®d2 ®a5 25 4?kll Wxa3 with 20 Vbdl Wxg2 and White would rather start
compcnsation for thc sacrificcd piccc) again. Consecjucntly White has to play 16 W cl
22...JÍLa4! 23 £lxa4 £lxc4+! 24 fxc4 Hxcl 25 £Mi 5 17 á.xh6 íhf4 18 Axf4 exf4 when Black
A xcl £kl3+ 26 <¿>g3 27 * c l <&xhl+ 28 has compcnsation for thc pawn.
&h2 29 & B was Buhmann-Vouldis,
1•ucrtli 2002. 'flicn I lazai gives 29...í'\xc4 30
j&d3 í i f 6 31 ÍV 3 Wc8 with compcnsation.
Ovcrall wc suggest 14...Wb6l?, wlicn 15 1)4?
€k\xe4 16 í^xc4 Í^xc4 17 J¡Lc3 Wd8 18 hxg6
15 is an edge for Black, and 15 hxg6 fxgó will
transpose to thc main linc.
14...fxg6 15 f3
White lias two other logical continuations.
15 S b l Wb6 16 ÍLc3 a5 17 £ili.3 Sac8 18
Wd2 a4, I lauchard-l lebden, Cappcllc la
Grande 1998 is given as unclear in liCX). Thcn
there is 15 a3:
a) I5...tfb6 16 b4 £>a4 (I6...£Yxc4!? 17 16 Sb 1
^xc4 Wd4 18 <SY3 $}g4 19 0-0-0 ÜLB and a) 'This time after 16 1>4 Wxb4 17
Black gets enougli play for his investment) 17 Black has a plcasant choice betwcen the posi-
£ka4 JHxa4! 18 Wxa4 £ig4 19 0-0-0!? (19 tional cjuecii sacrificc 17...^xb5! 18 .&xb5
#Mi3 foxí2 20 &xf2 Wxf2+ 21 * d l #xg2 22 Üxb5 19 W bl & d 3! 20 Wb4 (20 V d l £>fxe4)
S e l Wxc4 23 Wc2 is unclear) 19...í^xf2 20 20...Aa6 21 * d l í\13 with a great game or
£u*3 ftxc*4 21 Sí?bl!? í_\\d2H? (mucli better thc simple I7...#Y*xc4 18Wxc4 Wxc4 19 fxe4
than 21...%3 22 ÍLxh6 £kc2 23 Wc2 & Í4 24 íhxc4 20 J2lxli6 4^g3 21 í^xd6 í^xhl 22
ÍLxf4 Sxf4 25 Wxg6 ctc.) 22 £ixd2 S l2 23 4^xc8 JÍLxli6 with a clcar advantage in the
Bhel Wd4 24 Wc2 e4 25 <&a2 and Whitc’s ending.
chances are preferable. b) 16 Axh6 &xh6 17 Sxh6 <&g7 is Black’s
b) 15...Wc7!? was Coathup-J^inc, Port Krin main ¡dea, after which he can cxploit thc fac-
2003. 'llicn 16 JÍLB *117 17 1>4 fta4 is un tors mentioned in the note to Black’s 13th
clear, while 16...a5!? is interesting, with the idea move, e.g. 18 S h l (18 # tl2 ? £>j>8 19 S h l
of continuing 17 j$.xh6 j&xh6 18 Sxh6 ‘á > g7 £Mx3 and 18 W cl &a4 19 S h l £>xb2 20
19 S h l Sh8 with more than ciiough compcn Wxl)2 Sxc3 21 Wd2 fth.S are c|uitc |x>or for
sation for thc pawn. White) l8...^hS! 19 iL fl ^ 3 20 Sh4 (20
15...)lac8! Sh2? ^cxe4!) 2<I...WdK 21 Sl,2 etc.
Black cannot afford to waste time defctul- c) 16 g4!? is cunning, when 16...g5 17 Ílh 3
ing thc h6-pawn. For example after 15...£\h5 followcd bv ^12 favours White. Instead there
s
124
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 $ Lg 5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
125
O ffbeat King's indian .i
126
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 í i g 5 w ith o u t ...c 7 -c 5
IK 4ftg5 a5 19 bS a4 20 W l)4 was agreed Black does not have compensation for the
drawn in Kallai-Gr<>s/peter, 1lungary 1992 sacrificed pawn. I jess accurate but still leaving
bul, in our opinion, W hite has a clear advan- W hite with an advantage is 19 ftxa7r>
!, when
tage. Note that 10...b5?! 11 cxb5 cxc!5 I2exd5 Uhlmann-Gligoric, Vrbas 1977 continued
is not enough for the pawn, Gaprindashvili- 19...H c4 20 & c3 .&xa4 21 £ k 8! ftxc 8 22
loseliani, Georgia 1990, and 10...a6 should Í^xa4.
have been punished in Mohr-Uhlmann, De 19...5c4 2 0 í^ c 3 _&xb5
bí ecen 1989 by 11dxc*6 1 2 ^ B .&c6 13 20...£k;5!? might put up more o f a fight.
0(1 cic. 21 axb5 ¿hc5 22 A xc5 Sx c5 23 0-0 S c8
10 0X05 ^ 7 11 h4 24 2 a 1 Md8 25 Sa 7 «Íb6 26 We3 W c7 27
b6 Wd7 28 W e2 S c 5 29 W a6 Wg4 30
Sxb7 tf/f4 31 Rcl Wc1 + 32 » f 1 Wxb2
33 Sx c5 dxc5 34 Wb1 Wxb1 + 35 ftx b l
&1Q 36 ?Aa3 1-0
Game 57
Onischuk-Wegener
Botín 1993
1 d4 2 c4 g6 3 <ftc3 ÍLg7 4 e4 d6 5
& e 2 0-0 6 iLg5 £>a6
'The popular, modern approach.
7 h4
11... ^ g 4 'llie direct approach, and one that - not
l l...h5 12 £ iG (12 B a6 13 ® h 3 , Meins- surprisingly - attracts those adventurous play-
I «auzcnini>ks, Germany 2001 and 12 <5^h3!? ers not satislled with the standard strategy
both seem to favour W hite) 12....&d7 13 beginning 7 Wd2 (see (¡am es 60-64). l;or 7
0\i*5+ SÍ?g8 14 f3#Va6 15 0-0 was excellent for Wc2 see Bonsch-Gallagher, next, while 7 f4 is
White in Milov-Damaso, Mulhouse 1997. the subject o f Sorin-boisor, Cíame 59.
12 &xg4 &xg4 13 h5 g5 14 Sc1 7...c5
Black’s bishop must relocate s<x>n s o there
is no need to drive it away, e.g. 14 B JÜLd7 15
g4?! (15 &ge2!?) l5...Wf6 16 & e2 (16 £k:e2
Hc8 17 Í^g3 a5 18 <S}f5 is unclear) 16...Sc8
with a gtxxl game for Black, Alburt-Gligoric,
( >dessa 1975.
14...íha6
As ...#\I7 tlenies the bishop a retreat stjuare
Black must use a6.
15 <ftb5!
lnHicting upon Black long-term problems
tlue to his vulnerable tjueenside.
15...W e7 16 <5te2 £ d 7 17 a4 Hac8
I7...£V*5!? 18 .£Lxc5 dxc5 19 dó with advan- Following the recommended reci|>e o f an-
tage to White. swering aggression on the flank with aggres-
18 Hxc8 Hxc8 1 9 ilx a 7 ! sion in the centre. O f course the text both hits
127
O ffbeat K in g 's indian
d4 (aiul henee the dark squares) and fits in hxg6 fxg6 15 íhxe6 Sxe 6 16 f3 £Mi5 17 Sh3
with fnturc play on the queenside, thus in- ¿Le5 18 ÍV I5 with an edge) 14 ¿L\í(y ^Lxf6 15
creasing the pressure on both sides. Conse- í^fd5 with advantage to White. I lazai points
qucntly Black’s approach, while logical, is also out that Black is in big troublc after 12...Ja.xh3
a littlc risky in view of the complications that 13Sxh3Sae8 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 f3 etc.
can follow. Additionally, counterplay somc- c2) Also ver)* gcxxl is 9 Wd2, e.g. 9...cxd5
times comes at thc pricc of a pawn, and it is 10 exd5 (10 cxd5 leads to an unusual and in-
not clear that White can be denied an advan teresting Modern Benoni set-up, e.g. I0...Wb6
tage. Thcrcforc, although 7...c5 might ap|xral 11 h5 S e 8 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 f3 with advantage
to aggressive players - provided that im- to White, Pietrasanta-Sorin, I ‘ranee 1998)
provements are found - we recomtncnd 7...e5 10...We8!? (IO...Se 8 11 h5 ÍU 5 12 sfcfl gxh5
or 7...h6 8 JÉLe3 c5. After 7...e5 8 d5 c6 9 h5 13 #Mi3 Wd7 14 í?if4 wilh a slight advantage
cxd.S 10 cxd.S <5Y\S 11 b4 ®k:d7 12 I16 A h 8 13 to White, S.lvanov-IJkavsky, Cappellc la
«1)6 14 a3 #\g4 15 0-0, Onischuk- Grande 2000) 11 & fl (11 h5!?) llJ? Y 4 12
Dydyshko, Krfurt 1993, 9...Wl>6 (Obodchuk- í^xe4 Wxc4 13 S d l ¿ f5 with chances for
Broiv/nik, Bratislava 1992) 10 S b l!? and both sides, Lcrncr-GoI<xl,Tcl Aviv 2002.
9...Wa5 (A.Petrosian-Xie (un, Shcnzhcn 1992) 9 Wd2
10 & xf6!? JuL\f6 11 a.3 White manages to stay White can consider simply marching for-
ahead, but 9...h6 l<x>ks okay for Black, e.g. 10 ward: 9 h5 a6 (9...h6 10 ÍL c.3 g5 11 f4 gxf4 12
£ e 3 g5 11 g4 (11 Wd2!?) \ 12 O W h 8 JuLxf4 with a plus for White) 10 hxg6 l’xgó
(I2...C.S!? is unclear) 13 #Mi3 S c 8 with cqual (10...hxg6 11 Wd2 and Black’s king was in fot
chances in I lorvath-Scres, Budapest 1996. a rough ride in Stassen-Vollmar, Wallertheim
8d5 1992) I I a4 (11 14 l>5! eamed Black counter
Now Black must decide whether to con play in Shainswit-I learst, New York 1956,
tinué with thc plan ¡11 thc centre or to take while 11 í^f3!? is an edge for White) 1l...Sb8
time out to address the threatcncd h4-h5 etc. (Vonk-Alxrls, Corrcspondcnce 1991) 12 a5
8 ...^ c7 with advantage to White.
Supporting both the desired ...l>7-b5 and 9...e6
thc thematic ...e*7-e6, after which the subsc-
quent dxe6 can be met with ...®xe*6, attacking
the g5-bishop and monitoring the d4-sc|uarc.
Ncithcr move with the h-pawn is go<xl for
Black: 8...h6 9 _ÍLe3 e5 10 dxe6 -ÍLxe6 11 Wd2
h5 12 ¿ h 6 was an edge for White in Alter-
man-Xie Jianjun, Beijing 1997, and 8...h5 9
Wd2 He8 10 f3 Wa5 11&h3 Ad7 12 fa(2 lefi
White with an initiative in Bacr-Timpcl, Gcr-
many 2000.
Instead Black has 8...e6, when it is Whitc’s
turn to make a decisión:
a) 9 dxc6 is aimed at proving the now inap
propriate postingof the knight on a6. 9...&xc6 In Salus-Daly, Clichy 1997 Black didn’t
10 Wd2 ^l>4 11 h5 Wa5 12 £>h3 (12 S d l bother with thc c-pawn and instead spent the
secures White the advantage without risk) tempo on preparing the launch o f the b-pawn
12...Wa6 (Yakovich-Voitsekhovsky, Nizhnij — after 9...a6 10 h5 b5 11 & I 16 best scems
Novgorod 1998) 1.34hf4!? &xc4 (13...Sae8 14 11...l>4!?, when 12 .&xg7 *xg7 13 íha4 íhxe4
128
A v e rb a k h S y s te m : 5 & e 2 0 -0 6 ÍLg5 w ith o u t . .. c 7 - c 5
14 Wc3 4^16 15 hxgó Ixgó 16 g4 gives White .áxaó 16 iix aó ííxaó 17 £ige2 left Black with
an initiative for the rnodest investment. t(X)little for the pawn in Levin-Mellem, I lam-
10 h5 burg 1999.
White has two alternatives. 1 3 & f3
a) 10 e5dxe5 11 d ó & ce 8 1 2 Bd l (12 0-0-0 13 0-0-0! appears to 1x* strong, although
«fil7 13 h5 l>5! 14 cxb5 ÍLb7 15 hxgó fxgó White continúes to prefer alternatives.
was unclear in Aiureasyan-Andersen, Cojx*n- 13...Wd7 14 foge2 faxb5 15 W f4 ^ x c3
hagen 1994) 12...1U7 13 h5 l>5 (13...e4!? is 16 & xc3 &fe8+ 17 sfcfl Wf5
unclear) 14 cxb5 .£.1)7 (Zakharevich- I7...4bxh5!? 18 .&xh5 gxh5 is unclear.
Dolmatov, Kazan 1995) and now 15 hxgó 18 Wxf5 gxf5 19 h6 .¿h8 20 Sh 4
fxgó 16 is given by Xakharevich in liC X)
¡is unclear, but perhaps 15 4bf3 is stronger.
I>) 10 dxe6 is believed to be incorrcct due to
10...4bxeó with an advantage for Black. Never-
iheless, this is rather difftcult to prove, e.g. I I
(i 0-0!?He 8 (11..Jía 5 12 A lió ÍLxh 6 13 Wxh 6
<?VI4 14 W f4 5 k 2 + 15 $igxc2, 11J& d 4 12
h5 A có 13 4&xe2+ 14 Wxe2 lió 15 & f4
¿?Ydi5 16 & xd 6 and I I...4£\xg5 12 hxg5 4^g4
13 4?lh3 Wa5 14 B ®kr5 15 ¿Y 4 ÍLe 6 16 W el
are all dismal for Black) 12 & d3 (12 J&.I16 4^.14
13 hS JÉLxhó 14 W xh 6 ÍL e 6 15 hxg6 fxgó 16
&d3 with a considerable advantage for White)
12...6b8 13 f3 a6 14 4bge2 &d7 15 ÍLc2 & có I laving had some fun on the kingside
16 w b l and White is well in control. White now switches his sights to the other
10...exd5 11 exd5 b5 flank, the point being to swing the rook over
Not Black’s only option. to a4 to draw attention to the a7 pawn.
a) lL.JScH 12 hxgó hxgó 13 0-0-0 b5 14 20...5ab8
cxl>5 a6 15 A lió üLh8 16 bxa6 Axaó 17 &g5 ( )thers:
Íí.g7 18 jjlxaó Sxa6 19 W f4 with a big advan- a) 20...J&.aó+ 21 & g l 4hd7 22 Sa4 ÍLd3 is
iai»e for White in Bcrdichcsky-Pvrich, Iv-mail
* * / •
okay for Black.
1997. b) 20...£kl7!? 21 & c2 (21 flf4 &aó+ 22
b) I l...Wd7 12 & hó Se8 13 &xg7 <&xg7 & g l Ad4 with an excellent position) 21...4hbó
14 4&« l>5 15 cxb5 & b l 16 0-0-0 We7 22 S d l ÜLxc3 23 bxc3 i£.xd5 24 g4 and White
(I6...4?k;xd5 17 hxgó <5\xc3 18 Wxc3 fxgó was has considerable activity for the pawn.
played in Yakovich-Dolmatov, 1{.lista 1996, 21 Sa 4 <fte4 22 ^ x e4 ?l
I >ut 19 Sxh7 H is final) 17 hxgó fxgó 18 4^g5! The superior 22 j¡Lxe4 fxe4 23 Ífc.f4 favours
looked very gcxxl in Alterman-Kindermann, White, but Black now latches on to the wrong
Bad I lomburg 1997. plan and even contrives to create gtxxl losing
c) 11...aó!? 12 W í4 4^ce8 13 hxgó (13 chances.
J&d3?!, as in Kekki-Yrjola, Finland 1994, walks 22...fxe4 23 J&xe4 ilx b 2
into 13...4^xh5! and White lacks sufficient 23...a5! is equal.
compensation) 13...fxgó 14 Wh4 Wbó 15 24 Hb1 c4 ??
0-0-0 tta5 followed by ...b5 with countcrplay. 24...a5!? 25 ÍLd2 with a slight edge.
12 cxb5 &b7 25 Sx b 2 Sx e4 26 &d2
I 2...aó 13 hxgó fxgó 14 bxaó He8 15 sfcfl 26 H b l ! is more to the point.
129
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
130
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 ¿¡Le2 0 - 0 6 $ Lg 5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
131
O ffb e a t K ing's Indian
7...c5?! does not fit in well with ...ftió after Now 8...c5 9 fxc5 dxc5 10 dxc51? £\g4 11
8 d5, e.g. 8...Wa5 9 Wd2 e6 10 dxc6 .&xc6 11 £kl5 £>xe5 12 & f6!? c*6 13 £V7+ * h 8 14
ÜLg4 12 0-0 and Black was aiready in Wd6, I loang Thanh Trang-Szuk, I lungary
serious difficulties in Tu kmakov-Barbero, 1998 is well worth remembering (and, for
Wijk aan /ce 1991. Black, avoiding). Instead Black can preface thc
7...Wc8 is a very logical move which Black push o f the e-pawn with 8...116!?, when 9 JuLh4
plans to follow up with ...c7-c5. After subsc- e5 10 dxc5!? dxe5 11 &xc5 $Y5 12 £k!5!?
cjuent exchangcs in the centre the c5-st|irarc £lxd5 13 exd5 is a plus for White. A different
can lx- prepared for the knight. Meanwhile structurc results from 10 fxc5dxe5 11 d5í^g4
White can suffer on the dark separes in some 12 Wd2 15, e.g. 13 Ii3 <&f6 14 exí5 (14 0-0,
variations, and Black can also look to ...f7-f5 Yakovich-Van den Doel, Ijccuwardcn 1997,
to help the cause. I lere are some sample lines: and now 14...£W*4!? I5íhxc4 fxe4 I6 íh h 2 is
a) 8 Wd2 h6 (8...c5 9 fxc5 dxc5 10 d5 #Y5 complicated) I4...e4 15 £id4 gxf5!? (I5...c3 16
11 ¿ B ! ? a5 12 #\gc2 #Yd7 13 ÍU )5 was very Wc2 g5 17 A g 3 #U>4 18 Wb3 <?Y4 19 £ke4
poor for Black in Altcrman-Polgar, daifa Wxc4, Sorin-Xarnicki, Buenos Aires 2000,
1998) 9 .&h4 e5 10 fxe5 dxe5 11 d5 £V17 12 when 20 0-0! would have kept White slightly
g4 15 13 gxf5 gxf5 14 0-0-0 was unclear in ahead according to 1laxai) 16 S f l (16 0-0-0!?)
Mohr-Panzer, Gcrmany 1991. 16...c3 17 W cl &xd5 I8&xd5.&xd4 19Ae7
b) 8 c5!? spoils Black’s plans. After 8...ÍV17 c6 20 AxfK WxíH with compcnsation (I lazai).
White is unable to maintain the formidable 8 <^c7
look ing centre because ...c7-c5 is coming, but Suddenly the knight looks useful, thc tlireat
Black’s picccs occupv awkward positions and Ixáng to jump across to e6 with a doublc at
this important factor contributes to White’s tack on thc bishop and the f4-pawn. Addi-
ultimate advantage, e.g. 9 # IB c5 10 0-0 (10 tionally the knight supports ...1)71)5 or ...d6-
$\15!? l<H>ks good) I0...5ib6 (I0...cxd4 11 d5.1 lowcvcr, two other continuations are also
£kl5 f6 12 exf6 £>xf6 13 &xf6 &xf6 14 worth investigating.
í^\xfó+ Hxf6 15 #\xd4 with a pulí for White, a) 8...ÍLg4!? 9 0-0 4£k7 10 c5 (Bagirov -Salc,
Yakovich-Trygstad, Bergen 2000) 11 d5 ( II Abu Dhabi 2002) 10...4?Mi5! with chances for
£kl5!?) 11_f6 12 &h4 fxe5 13 fxe5 dxc5 14 both sides.
ÍLg3 e4 15 í^xc4 .&xl>2, Grabuzova- b) 8...b5!? (Korchnoi’s idea) 9 cxb5 cxb5 10
Umanskaya, Moscow 1992, and 16 S b l gives Axb5 Sb8 11 Wc2 12 &c4 d5 13 exd5
White casily enough play. (13 &xf6!? exfó! 14 £>xd5 £>xd5 15 ÍLxd5 f5
c) 8 £>6 16 ® c5 fxc4 17 £k6 Wd6 is unclear)
13...£k:xd5 14 Axf6 &xf6 15 0-0 £>h5 16
Sad l ^xf4 (16..J&.g4 17 g3 e6 with compen
saron according to Cíulko in /¿CX)) 17 We4
&h5! 18 #W5 & f6 19 Wc2 £b7, Gulko-
Barsov, Montrcal 1992 (with an assessmcnt of
unclear from Cíulko in HCO).
9&h4
I .et’s see other continuations:
a) 9 d5 £>h5 10 Wd2 f6 11.&h4 &h6 12 g
e5 was the course of Chjunvachenko-Nady-
rhanov, Novorossijsk 1997, when 13 dxc6!?
bxc6 14 c5 cxf4 15 cxd6 £\e8 is unclear ac
cording to I i(X ). I lowcvcr, after 16 S d l (pre-
132
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 ¡ L e 2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
133
O ffbeat King's Indian
9...ÍY6 is again duhious: 10 Wd2 íhh5 11 g3 15 Hxc3 <5Vó with chances for both sities.
.ÍLh6 ( 1 1 2 c5 with advantage to White) 13...b6
12 #lg5 <?Yg7 13 0-0-0 fó 14 * b l Wc7 15 d5 I3...J&.H3!? is also possihle.
was crushing in Yakovich-Cílavina Rossi, 14 0-0 &b7 15 £ad1 ^e6 16 $Ae1 <^xc3
Oviedo 1991. But Black can try 9...b5 10 e5 17 Wxc3 f6 18 Wd7 19 i¿.g4 Aa6 20
í^gl! thanks to weakness of the c3-S(|uare &fe1 f5 21 &f3 g5 22 fxg5 &xg5 23
(Black wins a tempo), e.g. 11 Wd2 dxe5!? 12 ÍLxg5 ^xg5 24 e6
®xc5 (12 dxe5 ÍY 6 13 h3 Wxd2+ 14 *xd2 24 4Y4!? is another option.
1)4 15 ?Y4 Hd8+ 16 sfecl ÍV 3 17 Axc7 ?Y2+ 24...Wd6
18 *12 Bd7 19 Hacl Sxc7 with c<.|uality; 12 More accurate is 24...íhh3+ 25 * h l 4^12+
fxe5 f6 gives Black counterplay) 12...£)xc5 13 2 6 * g l £lh3+ with a perpetual check.
dxe*5 Wxd2+ 14 *xd2 l>4 15 Óc4 16 16 exfó 25 fíe 5?
exfó and the game looks level. Indeed Sal- Missing 25 í^f4! *5Y 4 26 Wl>3 with an edge
ceanu-Jorgcnscn, R-mail 2(HX) continued 17 for W hite.
Hadl <5Yó 18 Hhfl <S\I4 19 ÍLd3 &g4 20 25...fth3+ 26 <Á>h1 ftf2+ 27 sfcgl £\xd1
Hdel 1)3 21 h3 22 & (2 Hfd8 13 axl>3 28 &xd1 Sac8 29 Wd2 Wc7 30 Wg5+
^xb.3+ 24 *c2 Sab8 25 #Y5 Vi-'/a. *h 8 31 <hf4? ^c1 32 He1 Sf6 33 h4
10 cxd5 Wxb2 34 £>xd5 Wxd4+ 35 C\e:3 fíg8 36
Alternativos achieve nothing. Wh5 Sxg3+ 37 &h2 Wf4 38 ^g2 Sxg2+
a) 10 Axfó cxf6! 11 cxd5 (11 0-0 dxe4 12 39 &xg2 Hg6 + 40 &h1 $Lb7+ 0-1
ÍW-4 ÍLg4 followcd by ...f6-f5 with advantage
to Black, or 11 extl5 cxd5 12 c5 Jig4 with Gawe 60
chances for both sides) I l...cxd5 12 e5 ÍL\\6 Kachiani Gersinska-Kovalev
and Black is holding his ground well. I le/sinki 1996
b) 10 e5 5ie4 (10...£>Ii5 11 g3 dxc4 12
$Lxc4 with a plus for White) 11?W 4 (110-0 1 d4 <?^f6 2 c4 g6 3 ^tc3 ÍLg7 4 e4 d6 5
f6 12 £W 4 dxe4 13 ÍY*1 ÍY 6 14 í?Y2 g5 15 £e2 0-0 6 ¿g5 ^a6 7 Wd2
fxg5 fxc5 16 Hxf8+ was seen in Illescas-
( lomas, Spain 2002, and now I6...&XÍB!? is
unclear) ll...dxe4 12 Í^g5 f6! 13 $^xe4 5Y*ó
14 d5 (14 exfó!? exfó 15 0-0 #}xd4 with a level
game) 14...cxd.S (14...^xf4!? 15 0-0 fxcS se
cures an edge for Black) 15 exfó (15 cxd.S
Í^xf4 16 0-0 fxc5!? 17 <16 jiLfó! is given by
Cíolubev as unclear) I5...exfó 16 cxd.S (16
Wxd5 Wxd.S with an edge for Black) 16...5W4
17 0-0 g5 (17...£\xc2+ 18 Wxe2 WxdS 19
®\xf6+ '/a-'/j?, Cs.l lorvath Poldauf, Austria
1999) 18 Ac4 (18 Sxf4 gxf'4 19 dó sfchH with
compcnsation - Cíolubev in liCXJ) 18...Wc7
with much to play for in Wang Ixn-Yc Jiang- The most logical and flexible move, dcvcl-
chuan, Shanghai 2(KK). oping thc ejueen actively by tcaming up with
10...cxd5 11 e5 ¿Ae4\ 12 Wb3 &h6 13 g3 the bishop.
13 Ag5!? &g7 (!3...ü.xg5 14 Clxg5 &xc3 7...e5
15 Wxc3 fó 16 S e l fxg5 17 Wxc7 gxt'4 18 Black, too, responds in standard fashion,
Hc3 ii.fS is a decent altcrnaüvc) 14 S e l 4hxc3 staking a claim in the centre. O f course there
134
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 ¡L e 2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
ure o ilier movcs available bul, unlcss Black is gxli5 £ « i 7 15 #\xg6 4hxg5, Tisdall W atsoti,
Inicni on doing without ...c7-c5, lie might as O slo 1991, and now 16 Íi4!? £ih7 17
well play ii now. 4&xf8 18 0-0-0 W xh5 19 fid g l keeps the fire
a) 7...Wc8!? teruls to trans|X)se to lines cov- burning) 1l...gxf5 12 A lió f4 13 jiLxg7 4hxg7
uicd below after 8 Ii4 c5 9 c!5 or 8 f3 e5 etc. with cc|uality, Gulko-Djurhuus, Manila 1992.
b) 7...c5?! 8 c!5 e6 9 #M3 (9 dxc6!? -&xc6, c) 91x13
Solmajcr-Brcznik, Slovenia 1993 and 10 <£U3
liivours W hite) 9...excl5 10 cxd5 K c8 (10...JÍg4
11 W f4 with advantage to W hite) 11 0-0 W b6
12 J&d3 (12 Hac l is also good cnongh for a
plus) I2..j&.d7 (I2....&g4 13 Wí4) 1 3 h 3 ^ b 4
14 ¿ b l hS 15 a3 4ha6 16 A d 3 and Black was
Mmgglingin Barecv-I.Sokolov, Biel 1993.
c) 7...c6 8 13!? <5V7 9 0-0-0 (9 S d l!? )
9...1)5!? (9...£ic6 10 .¿Lc3 W a5 11 *1)1 is Ix'tter
for W hile) 10 cxb5 cxb5 11 .&xb5 (11 ^ x b 5
v^\b5 12 .&xb5 W\y(> with compcnsation)
11...#Y\I)5 12 $}xb5 ÉLeG with cnougli activity
lor ihe pawn. Black can also try 8...fib8!?, e.g.
9 g4 W a5 10 Ii4 (Sakaev-Motylev, Moscow e l) 9...£>h5 10 £\ge2 15 11 13 ( I I exl5
1998) 10_c5!? I I 4VI5 Wxd2+ 12 & xd2 .£txf5 12 .&xf5 gxf5 failed lo troublc Black in
$\xd5 13 cxd.S f6 with an interesiing position. Baragar-Yoos, W innipeg 1997) ll...#k*5
8 d5 W e8 (I I...P4 12 A h 4 g5 13 & i2 g4 14 0-0-0 * h 8
Black wanis lo unpin iinmediaielv. 15 * b 1 ÍL f6 16 £ \cl gxf3 17 gxf3 W e7 18
9h4 #M>5 c5 19 dxeó bxc6 20 #Y*3 4?\g7!, as in Dao
Iliis thmst is certainly a key theme in this 'lliie n 11ai-David, W ijk aan /ce 1997, is un
sysieni! 9 A d l is covcred in thc next main clear according to I lazai) 12 A c 2 a5 13 cxf5
game, while otliers are discussed below. gxf5 14 0-0 (14 0-0-0 & d 7 15 Ii3 f4 16 & h 4
a) 9 (>-()-() £ k S (9...iLcl7 10 13 11g3 15 a4 17 & (2 1)6 with chances for both sides,
12 ÍLc3 13 ex 15 gxl5 was unclear in I ler- Bekkcr Jcnscn-I lunt, W itley 1999) 14..J&.d7
liando Rodrigo- Barrero (jarcia, Barcelona (14...I4!?) 15 H a c l f4 I6 g4 fxg3 17 Iixg3 £>f6
2000) 10 13 ^ h 5 11 b4 4Ya6 12 a3 $SÍ4 13 with a balanccd middlcgamc, I lorvath-
.¿.í I (13 g.3 # W 2 + 14 <?\gxc2 f5 with chances Kindem iann, Austria 1997.
lor both sides according to G o Iu Ik v in l i ( 'O) c2) 9../?\17 also releases thc f-pawn. In
13...f6 14 ÍLh4 & H 6 15 * b 2 f5 16 \fc2 fxe4 I loang Thanh Trang-('olem an, Amsterdam
17 #W *4 A f5 18 .&12 $M)8 and both sides 1996 Black should have met 10 #\ge2 with the
could be reasonably contení in Ractsky- immediate 10...Í5!? 11 cxf5 gxf5 with healihy
( iolubev, Biel 1994. counterplay. After 10 S d l £klc5 11 ÜLbl fó
b) 9 ¿h(?> £>h5!? 10 g3 (10 0-0-0 11 12 ÍLe3 f5 13 13 .&d7 the tensión builds, while
Ü.xf4 cxf4 12 H d el £ k 5 13 iL d l a6 14 & c2 10... 15 was the more direct course taken in
b5 15 W xf4 b4! was fine for Black in D ao Najcr-Umanskaya, M oscow 1996, which went
'I’liien I lai-Paragua, Manila 2001, while Black I I £>ge2 f4 12 13 ÍL f6 (I2...li6 13 j2Lh4 £klc5
generated good play after 10 0-0 f5 11 £Y*1 f4 14 ü .b l A d 7 with chances for lx>th sides) 13
12 13 h6 13 $LM g5 14 ÍL f2 W g6 15 <5V I3 g4 J&.xf6 Sx f6 , and now in l i ( X ) Umanskaya
in Pisulinski-Toc/ck, I Aibniewice 2002) 10...f5 gives 14 a3 c5! 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 b4 $ \'7 with
11 exf5 ( I I ^ h 4 f4 12 g4 £tf6 13 f3 h5 14 chances for both sides.
135
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
Ix t’s rctiirn to 9 h4, with the following po 17 Wd2 fxe4 18 <^xe4 cxd5 19 cxd5 &d7
sition: 20 <teg3 &ac8 21 a3 £c4?!
21...£k5!? looks better.
22 b3 &xe4?! 23 £>xe4 £ f5 24 Sh4 &xe4
25 Sxe4 foc7 26 Sc1 Wf7 27 Ed1 $\eS
28 &g5 % 6 29 Sc1 &16 30 ile 3 &d8
31 Sec4 Pif6 32 Sc8 ?! e4 33 & h6?! exf3
34 % 5 ? ?
A serious mistake. Instead the cold-
blooded 34 gxf3 WgH- 35 s£?e2 He8+ 36 st?d3
Wg6+ 37 sfcc'4 is brutal.
34...f2+ ?
One mistake often scems to prompt an
other in reply. 'lilis time therc is the simpler
34...fxg2 (or, with different move ordcr,
9 ...^ c5 !? 34...Wxg5 35 Axg5 fxg2) 35 &e2 Wxg5 36
Black has also tried 9...4?Mi 5 10 J&.xh5 (10 &xg5 ¿l>6 37 HxfH+ 38 &xf6 g ÍW 39
£>h3 f6 II Ah6 &xh6 12 Wxh6 &xh3 13 Hxgl A xgl with which Black steers the game
.ÍLxh.S with a level game in SorinNadyrhanov, to a winning ending!
Moscow 1994) 10...gxhS II 4hge2 f5 12 cxf5 35 <&e2 Wxg5?
& x 6 13 &g3 Wg6 14 <^xf5 W xft 15 0-0 I.uck goes in eyeles, and here ir smiles on
#Y\5 16 13 and White stcxxl slightly Ixrtter in White, who woulcl only be ablc to claim a
l:it/.patrick-Cjuizar, ( >>rrcspondencc 1999. modest plus after 35...Se8*í 36 < á?fl sfef7 37
10 Wc2 Wxg6 J &xg6 38 A14 fte4 39 H 1c2.
10 f3?! unnccessarily weakens the dark 36 ¿x g 5 ^ e4 37 Sxd8 £lg3+ 38 &d3
squares - K)...^h5 ll g4 (l l b4 4?k6 12 a3 15 flW + 39 TLxf1 £>xf1 40 Sxf8+ &xf8 41
and Black is doing fine) ll...£\g3 12 5h3 & f4 h4 42 itxd6+ &e8 43 a4 * d 7 44
$ixc2 13 4ftgxc2 (13 Wxe2 f5 with the usual & f4 &g3 45 *¿>c4 £le4 46 <Á>d4 £tf2 47
activity for Black in Borbjcrggaard-Sosnicki, &e3 h3 48 gxh3 ^xh3 49 & c5 h6
Koszalin 1997) I3...f5 aixl Black has no com- 49...h5 50 *l>5 *d 6 51 *xa5 *xd 5 52
plairus, Petran-Tratar, Austria 1996. tí?b6 is decisive.
10...a5 50 &xh6 fo12 51 &b6 <5te4 52 *x a 5 £>f6
I0...h6 II A c3 £>g4 12 &xg4 &xg4 53 &b6 <¿>c8 54 d6 £>d7+ 55 <&b5 <Á>b8
(Tjiam-Pikct, I lolland 1996) is a trade that 56 & g 7 & c 3 57 b4 &b8 58 a5 & c8 59
deserves further tests. <&c4 ftb8 60 b5 <&d7 61 <&d5 <&e8 62
11 h5 &d4 &d7 1-0
White presses on rather than take time out
to castle, which resulted in a complex position Cuw/e 61
in Niclsen-I.ambcrt, Correspondencc 1998 Leitao-Gormally
after 11 <)-<>-<>ÍLd7 12 £ih3 £>a4!? 13 Bd3 (13 Memiüid lieach 1998
I3...£>xc3 14 2xc3.
11...ftxh5 12 Axh5 gxh5 13 iLe3 Íha6 1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 g6 3 ^ic3 iLg7 4 e4 d6 5
14 ^ge2 f5 15 f3 Wg6 16 Sh2 c6 & e 2 0-0 6 &g5 fta6 7 ^d2 e5 8 d5 We8
Black should not open up the position. The 9 ÍLd1
flexible l6...Ad7!? is preferable, with dynamic Ai first glance a little strange, dropping the
cquality. bishop back to el l is in fact quite logical - and
136
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 & g 5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
very popular in modern practico. White wanrs c) 9..JÜ.d7 is probably best. Tlien 10 Ii3
lo (I c I c ik I the c4-pawn with £ic2, while the ®k:5 11 $Lc2 a5 12 g4 b5 13 cxb5 ÍLxl>5 14
mifii tnanocuvre also frees c2 for the king’s £\gc*2 Hb8 was good for Black in Cran-
knight. Note the connection with positions in bournc-Buraschi, Correspondence 1999, so
the 5 ÍLci3 system (with Black’s cjueen on c*8 White should play 12 4üge2!? with chances for
instead oi c!8). both sides. Instead 10 £\gc2 #Mi5 11 £\g3
4bf4 12 0-0 £ic5 13 J¡Lc2 a5, when Yusupov
gives the following: 14 a4 Wb8 15 Habí
(Black is fine after either 15 J¡Lxf4 cxf4 16
# x f4 Wa7 or I6...c6) 15...Wa7 16 £igc2
$ixc2+ 17 Wxc2 Wb8 with ccjuality, Yusupov-
Nikolaidis, Ycrcvan 1996.
10 &xh5!
'lilis principled capture appcars cffective
but it is not W hite’s only promising continua-
tion.
a) 10 ®gc2 f5 11 exf5 gxf5 12 Í\g3 QSf(>
13 & c2 Wg6 14 O Ad7 15 0-0 Hae8 with
mutual chances, Ixitao-Marques, Sao Paulo
9...SU15 1997.
Black’s justification for this radical response b) 10 &a4!? £d7 11 &xd7 Wxd7 12 ^gc2
is the ’gain’ o f a tempo and the fact that the f5 13 (3 & c5 (13...#lf6 14 £ icl £k:5 15 ®kl3
ijueen will offer protcction on the Ii5-c8 di 4&xd3+ 16 Wxd3 fxe4 17 ®xc4 $}xe4 was
agonal after the planned ...f7-f5 etc. I lowever, agreed drawn in Sapis-Umansky, Ixgnica
this strategy is not without some positional 1996, although White has the advantage here)
nsk and, consecjuently, is probahly not the 14 1>4 £to4 15 0-0 a5 16 a3 & f6 17 Habí
IK*st o f Black’s options, which we can take a 18 S W 3 with an edge for White,
4&xc3
look at bclow. I leinig-Schenk, Bad Wocrishofen 2001.
a) 9...c6 10 í^gc2 cxd.S 11 Axf6 J&xf6 12 c) 10 Í3 f5 11 &gc2 Ad7 (I l...fxc4 12
GWI5 Á M 13 0-0 A có 14 Wd8 15 g3 5üxc4 ^ Í4 13 0-0, Ivanov-Sokolin, Russia
ÍLg5 16 f4 exf4 17 gxf4 with advantage to 1992, and now !3 JW f7 14 & c2 h6 15 Ah4
White, Mascarenhas-Barkwcll, K-mail 1997. g5 16 .&g3 favours White; 1I„.4ic5 12 1>4 fxc4
I>) 9...£k:5 10 A c2 a5 I I &gc2 Ad7 13 bxc5 cxf3 14 gxf3 Hxf3 would have led to
(I I...£>h5?! 12 £lb5 Wd7 13 0-0-0 b6 14 Í3 a4 troublc for Black in Krizsany-Czcbe, Budapest
was tried in Seirawan-Pikct, W ijk aan Zec 1993 had White found 15 #k:4!, clamping
1991, when Pikct suggests 15 j2.e3! followed down on Black’s King’s Indian bishop, so
by #Y*c3 with a very big lead) 12 Í3 b5 Black should play 12...¿W> 13 Aa4 W f7 14 a3
(I2...<¿?h8 13 0-0 £>g8 14 Hael f6 15 Ae3 í5 with advantage to White) 12 a3 f4 13 ÍLh4
16 ex(5 gxf5, Tisdall-Manninen, Gausdal 1991, J&f6 1 4 A í2 *fe7 15J&.c2(15&a4!?) I5...iüi4
and now 17 c5!? dxc*5 18 £\cl b6 19 ®kl3 16 g3 A g 5 17 g4 £)g3 (Yakovich-
looks strong; 12...h5 13 Ae3 4hh7 14 0-0-0 Nadyrhanov, Smolensk 1997) 18 H gl ®üxe2
|Pctursson-Djurhuus, Gausdal 1995) 14...a4!? (18...Axg4 19 Ii4!) 19 Wxe2 & h4 with a bal
15 S&bl a3 16 b3 with a plus) 13 cxb5 Axl>5 ancee! game according to Nadyrhanov in
14 ®xb5 Wxb5 (Valeriani-Stilling, Corrc- liC O .
spondence 1991) and now 15 H b l followed Returning to the |X )S Ítio n after 10 Axh5,
bv 0-0, gives White an edge according to Pikct. below, the recapture is not torced.
137
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
19 d6?!
Tcmpting, but more promising winning
prosjxcts are offered hy 19 ÍV 4 or 19 Wc2,
although after 19...h3 20 g3 Whitc’s potcnrial
prohlcms on thc light stjuares present him
with technical tlifficultics as far as convcrring
thc advantage is concernetl.
19...cxd6 20 Wd5+ &h8 21 Wxd6 Wxd6?
Missing 2l...c4! 22 í^xc4 JÍxb2 23 Wxg6
hxg6 with ctjuality.
22 £xd6 &14 23 fíd7?!
Preferable is 23 b3 e*4 24 #VI5 with a plus.
23.. .b6
10...gxh5 After 23...Sxc4 24 Iíxb7 c4 25 Sxa7 Axc3
Rather than the automatic recapture Black 26 bxc3 Sxc3 Black should tlraw thc ending.
can hopc for more with I0...f6, e.g. 11 .¿Üi6 24 b3 e4 25 g3 hxg3 26 hxg3 Hg4 27
Ü.xh6 12 HÍfxh6 gxh5 13 5\gc2 ®g6 14 Wd2 $\e2 a5 28 Sfd1 1-0
15 15 f3 1)6 16 exf5 .¿Lxf5, which is given as ( )bviously White has a clcar advantage -
ecjnal in I iCO. I lowcvcr after 17 Í\g3 j&.d7, as his active pieccs combinetl with the weakness
in Pctursson-Grivas, Katcrini 1993, White of Black’s pawn structurc will s<K>ncr or later
should play 18 0-0-0 with an edge. rcsult in the win of a pawn. I lowcvcr, Black
11 £>f3!? could still have put up a bit more resistance.
11 Í\ge2 15!? 12 cxf5 ÜLxtt 13 ©g3 e4 14
0-0 Wg6 15Ae3Sac8 (Pctursson-Glek, Bcl- GíW/e 62
grade 1988) 16 &xf5 Sxf5 17*h1 with ¡2-tt I.Farago-Rotstein
to follow, and White should he Ijcttcr here. M aribor 1994
11 ...f5 12 exf5 &xf5 13 ^h4 ftc5 14
^ x f5 Hxf5 15 0-0 Wg6 16 & e 3 fíaf8 17 1 d4 #if6 2 c4 g6 3 <¡te3 A g í 4 e4 d6 5
Sad1 XLe2 0-0 6 .¿Lg5 ¿fta6 7 Wd2 e5 8 d5 c6
Stronger is 17 ji.xc5 dxc5 18 £w*4, e.g.
!8...Kf4 19 4?\xc5 JXxc4 20 4he6 Sf7 21 Wc3
with an etlgc (I xñtao), or 18...h6 19 Wc2 ctc.
17...h4 18 i¿.xc5 dxc5
138
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 & e 2 0 - 0 6 $ Lg 5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
139
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
iu ('Virago-'Wells, I lungary 1995, when While 'The diagram position is what White was
had achieved his aim of reaching an ending looking for when he embarked on this line -
with the backward pawn) 11 cxdS! and Black Black’s d6-pawn is backward and the d5-
must justify sending the queen to a5. After square is a potential problem. But the price is
11...ÍV*5 12 H bl Black loses rime thanks to vulnerability on the dark squares and a passive
his awkward pieces, e.g. 12...01)4 13 0-0 Ad7 bishop, which now looks fairly lacking on B.
14 a3 Wl)3 15 íbel Wl>6 16 1>4with advantage Moreover, as for the d5-square, this feature is
to White. 'Iliis leaves I l...l>5 12 a3 Hb8 13 0-0 less worrying for Black than ii might first
b4 14 #1)6 15 £kl>4 £>xl>4 16 Ae3 Kb7 seem, for as soon White sentís the knight
17 axl>4 Wxl>4 18 #k*3 Wxb2 19 Wxb2 Hxl>2 therc Black will be reatlv J to remove it with
20 Hxa7 with advantage ro White. We can also ...Bxd5, leaving Black with the superior minor
consider 11 í^xdS Wxd2+ 12 Axd2 ®xd5 13 piece. Meanwhilc the t!6-pawn is easy it) de-
cxdS 14 0-0 Ad7 15 b4 ÍLbS 16 Hfel Sac8 fend. Consequen ily the game is well balanced.
17 ftc3 Acl3 18 a.3 fie 7, which was seen in 13...iLe6
I lort-Xie )un, London 1996, when the c-file Wasting no time in monitoring tl5. ( )thers:
played a parí: 19 Hael Bfc8 20 -&c2 Axc2 21 a) I3J5V-6 14 H cl Htl8 15 0-0 £>g5 16
íhxe2 Sc2 22 #\g3 fi8c7 23 b5 Hxc 124 fixc 1 He3 with the lxítter prospeets for White,
Hxcl+ 25 JjLxc 1£.V7 aiul a draw was agreed. I Virago-Deak, Mungary 1993.
10£>xd5 b) !3...Wh4 14 g3 We7 15 0-0 ilh 3 16
10 cxd5 is harmless: l()...Ad7 11 Hbl We8 Hfdl Satl8 17 £k:3 f6 18 We3 a6 19 Hd2
12 £\gc2 h5 13 0-0 fth7 14 Ah6 Axh6 15 £k*6 20 .&g2 .ÍLxg2 21 S¿> xg2 and Black has
Wxh6 We7 16 g3 Wg5 with equality, 13c- matle the mistake of trading bishops in Be-
liavsky, Bónsch-Maiwald, Dresden 2000. liavsky, 1*arago-( iroszpeter, /alakaros 1994,
10...^c5 being suitably punishetl with a disadvantage
I ( ) . . . . ll £le2 Stc8 12 £>xf6+ (12 b3 following the subsequent 21...Í5 22 exf5 gxf5
ÍL x iIS 13 ÍLxt'6 iLx ft 14 WxdS Sc5 15 Wd2 23 f4 Wc7 24 b3 Wc5 25 fie l Wxc3 26 Kxe3
bS with countcrplay in Rezsek-Grabies, I lun- e4 27 #YI5 etc.
gary 1995) 12...Axf6 13 &xf6 Wxf6 14 1>3 c) 13...b6 14 0-0 (14 b3 <¡Lbl 15 &c3
We7 15 0-0^1)8 16 H fdl Hfd8 17 Hael £ícó 16 0-0 £kl4 17 Wh4 '/2-Víí, IVirago-
with chances for both sides, 1Virago-Paehtx, Círos/peter, Budapest 1993) l4...Ab7 15®e3
Budaj>esi 1991 (this is similar to the main line, (l ;arago-Scres, Mungary 1994) 15...Hatl8 16
below). H fdl #b4 17 g3 (17 £k3 f5) 17...We7 and
I I &xf6 & X f6 12^xf6+ Wxf6 13 ®e2 Black has countcrplay in the form of ...f7-f5.
Another 1Virago game, Farago-Szuk, Mungary
1995, went instead 15 #k\3, when Black
should have continuetl 15..JSad8!? 16 Hadl
4hc6 with chances for both sities.
14 Sc1 Wh4!? 15 g3 We7 16 0-0 a5 17
b3 a4
Black has succeedetl in geñerating a level of
countcrplay to affortl him a level game.
18 Sb1 f5 19 exf5 &xf5 20 Hbd1 axb3
21 axb3 & e6 22 &d5 ^>xb3 23 &xe6+
^xe6 24 Wxd6 Wxc4 25 ^xe5 Hae8 26
^ c3 b5 27 Sd7 Sf7 28 Hxf7 <&xf7 29
^xc4+ bxc4 30 ?Ac3 Hd8 31 He1 Sd3 32
140
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h o u t . . . c 7 - c 5
Qe3 Sxe3 33 fxe3 * 6 6 34 & f2 & e5 35 another possibility, and one which l<x>ks quite
JLe2 ^ c 5 36 <¿>f3 h5 37 h4 ^ e 6 38 g4 dangerous) 12...h5 13 &xf6!? Axf6 14 gxh5
0\c5 39 gxh5 gxh5 40 ,¿ ’e2 (Á>
g7, Gaprindashvili-Makropoulou, Kuala
40 £k-2 £>c4 41 £tf4 #W> 42 £k-2 ¡s cc|iial. Lumpur 1990. I1k* evaluation o f this position
40...í ^ 6 41 W f3 ^ g 7 42 4?te8 43 in NCX) is that there is compcnsation, bul
^g3 £tf6 44 * e 2 * d 5 45 <¿>d2 ¿ c 5 46 after 15 juLxa6!? I>xa6 16 hxg6 fxg6 17 Wg2 the
Ac2 'h-'h bishop pair is not enough for the pawn.
c) 10...ÍV5!? 11 B (11 h5 ftcxe4 12 £ke4
Gante 6 3 &xe4 13 &xd8 &xd2 14 & c l Se8 15 ÍLxd6
Yakovich-Beckhuis #V4 16 & a3 & d7 with a level game, De
I laro-Giaccio, Montevideo 2000) ll...W b6 !?
12 g4 h5 (12...ild7 13 h5 a5 14 S e l a4, Mike-
1 d4 £>í6 2 c4 g6 3 4>c3 iLg7 4 e4 d6 5 ivas Mickicwicz, Bydgos/cz 2001, and now 15
¿ e 2 0-0 6 iLg5 4\a6 7 Wd2 e5 8 d5 c6 9 A e3 leaves bolh sides with something to aim
h4 at) 13 A x fó i.x f6 14 gxh5 gxh5 15 íhh3
(Berkley-Garnett, ( !orrcspondcnce 2(KH))
15...ü.xh31? 16 Sxh3 S¿?h7 with equal chances.
I I f3
11 ÍLxa6!? might not be to cveryone’s taste,
bul perhaps parting with the bishop is the best
option. Ironically, presenting Black with the b-
file looks like the best chance for W hite to
undermine Black’s counterplay on the queen
side because much o f ibis lies in the pieces*
harmony and dynamism. Additioivally, W hite
can also bring his knight to e2. After l l...bxa6
W hite has tried a couple o f moves.
a) 12 B and now I2...0b6 13 £ige2 Hal>8
(N .B. 9 Í3 cxd.S 10 cxd5 á.d7 11 h4 was thc 14 H b l a5 gives Black something but proba-
game’s actual move order) bly not enough, e.g. 15 g4 h5 16 Jlx fó JwLxfó
I lere we go again! Kxpect to see W hitc’s g- 17 gxh5 with an advantage to White. Glek’s
pawn play a parí in this flank offensive sooner assessment o f unclear after I2...Wa5 13 g4 h5
•>r later. might need another look, as 14 & xf6 Axf6 15
9...cxd5 10 cxd5 &d7 gxh5 leaves Black with serious problems, e.g.
O f course ihis is nol the only way to get 15...Wd8 16 hxg6 Ü.xh4+ 17 sfed! etc. Mean
Black’s queenside counterplay rolling: while I2...h5!? ¡3 ^ g e 2 W a 5 14 fie l £>h7 15
a) lO.-.WaS ll 6 ( II a3!?) Il...£ ih5 .&c3 is an edge for White.
(I l...ÍLd7 - K)...^.d7) 12 «4 13 b) 12 hS Wa5 13 #\gc2 (W hite should prc-
is Serpcr-Yc (iangehuan, fer 13 hxg6!? fxg6 14 B , as is the case on the
Jakarta 1994, when 14...£k5!? nvaintains the next two moves) 13...Sab8 14 B Wb6 15
balance. Ae3?! (it makes no sense lo give up ihe pawn
l>) 10...We8 11 B A d7 1 2 g 4 (l2 ^ h 3 ^ c 5 - after 15 hxg6!? fxg6 16 b3 a5 Black is not
I3g4 h5 14 í^f2, Ivanchuk-Topalov, Yerevan deprived o f counterplay but W hite’s chances
1996, with a slight advantage to W hite accord are better) l5...Wxb2 16 Wxb2 Sxb2 with a
ing to NCX); 12 h5!? í^xh5 13 &xa6 bxa6 14 complicaied, balaneed game in Moskalenko-
g4 fo(4 15 Wh2 h5 16 & xf4 exf4 17 gxh5 is Glek, Odessa 1989.
141
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
GV////1 64
Kachiani Gersinska-Wang Pin
Si(botica Interina! (Wornen) 1991
142
A verbakh System : 5 & e 2 0-0 6 íig 5 w ith o u t ...c 7 -c 5
143
O ffbe a t K in g 's Indian
15 l>4!? £\i4 16 £}xa4 &xa4 17 H cl with an 17 exf5 gxf5 18 Ag5 Afó, Scheffner-
wlgc for White) 13 g5 4bh7 14 h4 (14 £il>5 Moigaclo, IKCG R-mail 2000 and 15 )lc l a6
Wc7 15 h4 tr> 16 n i,2 fx¿;5, I leilman- 16 £>xa4 ÍLxa4 17 &d3 Wd7 18 <5Y-2 ÍLb5 19
(¡oiv/alez, Budapest 1995, aiul here 17 hxg5 S a l (agreed drawn in Dao Thien I lai-Ye Ji
Ht'4! 18 &xf4 exf4 19 £fo3 &xh3 20 Hxh3 angchuan, jodhpur 2003) are both interesting.
£\xg5 with an initiative - Cu.l lansen) 14...16 12^ih3 ^c5!?
15 *5Mi 3 (15 gxf6l? with a plus for White, e.g. Better than I2...h5?! 13 5^12 hxg4 14 fxg4
l5...ÍLxf6 !6Axa6bxa6 17 Wf2, or I5...#xf6 ftc5 15 &c3 a5 16 g5 Íbh7 17 h4 f5 18 gxf6
16 í^b5) I5..»&xh3 16 Kxh3 fxg5 17 hxg5 Sxf6 19 0-0-0 with a great |x>sition for White
(Váleles-Pu jío , Pinar del Rio 1997) 17...Bf4!? in Gaprindashvili-Wang Pin, Subotica 1991.
18 itxf4 ex1*4 19 Wxf4 Ac5 20 ®d2 £>xg5 21 13 a5 14 ite3
Hhl Wf6 with compensatiem (Cu.l lansen). 14 h4 h5 15 jü.e.3 Sfc8 was balancee! in Ko-
e) 13 h3 rotylev-Sotnikov, Moscow 1995, but White
has lx*tter with 15 Axf6 Ü.xf6 16 gxh5 etc.
14...a4 15 0-0^a5 16 ^b1
16 Í?Y13 #W I3 17 ÍLxd3 fifc8, Korotylev-
Beckhuis, Berlín 1995, and now 18 #Y*2 keeps
White just ahead.
16...Wd8 17 Sc1 h5 18 h3 £\h7 19 £ta3
f5
The situation is tense. Black is beginning to
look menacing on the kingside but White is
looking to the c4-scjuare for a source of influ-
enee, as well as pressure on the cjueenside.
20 gxf5 gxf5 21 exf5 .&xf5 22 b6
23 &h2 <&h8 24 £g1 &g8 25 £g2 ^e7 26
Now !3...Wb8 14 Ab5 «e8 15 &xd7 Eag1 &f6 27 £fc3 &h4 28 Ad1 Wd7 29
Wxd7 (Wagner-Xie Jun, Catines 1997) 16 Sxg8+ Kxg8 30 &xg8+ skxgS 31 .kxc5
4^ge2!? favours White, while l3...Wa5 14 a3 bxc5 32 ilxa4 We7 33 ftfe4 ^g5 34
Sfc8 15 S b l Wd8 16 1)4 ®c7 17 ÍLd3 &h7 £>xg5 SLxg5 35 % 2 &h8 36 ¿Lb5 &f4+
18 gxh5 Wh4l 19 Wf2 »xh5 20 h4 f5 21 exf5 37 &g1 Wh4 38 &f1 We1 39 £te4 iLe3+
gxí5 was unclear in Kaidanov-Fedorowicz, 40 <&h1 &xe4?!
Stratton tMountain 1999. Instead I3...£k5 40..JiLf4!? with ecjuality.
looks logical, with the following possibilities: 41 fxe4 h4 42 b3 &H7 43 We2 ^g3 44
el) 14 00-0 has met with three cjueen m s + <&g7 45 Wg4+ Wxg4 46 hxg4 &g6
moves. 14...WcH!? 15 *1)1 a5 16 Hcl was 47 &g2 &g5 48 <&f3 &d2 49 a4 &a5 50
played in I lauchard-Ye Jiangchuan, Belfort &h3 ilb 6 51 &e2 s&f4 52 vi>d3 iLd8 53
1999, and now 16...Hc 8 is dynamically bal g5 &xg5 54 <^c4 ^ 4 55 &f5 h3 56
ancee!. l4...Wa5 15 sf?bl a6 16 Hcl b5 pro ií.xh3 ^xe4 57 iLg2+ ^/e3 58 ^b5 e4??
vided Black with enough play in Schutt- After 58...^Al4! Black can easily draw, e.g.
Uirsson, Correspondence 1999, and l4...Wb8 59 SÍ?c6 (59 a5 A xa5 60 &xa5 e4 61 ^/l/)
15 SÍ/b 1(Alterman-Xu Jun, Cap d*Agele 1994) &xd5 62 Vt>c7 c4) 59...*c3 60 <¿/xd6 *xb3 61
15_b5! is given as level by Altcrman (NC’O). S^xc5 SÍ?xa4.
c2) 14 b4 £Yi4 15 í^xa4 Axa4 (S/eberenyi- 59 &c6 ^d4 60 ¿/xd6 ^c3 61 si/xc5
Kiss, Budapest 1997) 16S e l is (again) an edge ^xb3 62 \^b5 e3 63 il f l ^c3 64 a5 ilc7
for White. Meanwhile 15 Í^b5 ¿Y tt 16 S e l f5 65 a6 ÍLb8 66 d6 1-0
144
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 & g 5 w ith o u t ...c 7 -c 5
Summary
lllack’s best plan is definitely 6../£W> without ...h7-h6, dealt with in derail in (Jam es 57-64. Play
hccomes ver)* complicated and there are enough opportunities for both sides to creare interesting
scenarios. Not surprisingly this approach is becoming increasingly popular nowadays.
9 h4 (Game 6 5)
9 f3 (Carne 64)
145
CHAPTER ElVE |
Averbakh System: 5 Jle2 0-0
6 Jtg5 with ...c7-c5
1 d4 V\16 2 c4 g6 3 V\c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5 tage. Black, for his part, might well be expect-
Ü.e2 0-0 6 &g5 ing some kind of counterplay on the dark
l;or many years this treatmcnt was thc main stjuares. 'Ilie rest of the games in this chapter
linc of thc Averbakh System, attracting atten are devoted to 7 d5.
tion amongst analysts and - pariicularly in the 7...Wa5
1970s and carly 1980s - frcquently scen in After the simple 7...dxc5!? it is difftcult to
international tournaments. As a result many find anything concrete for White. índeed
lines have hccn so thoroughly investigated that White must be carcful if he is to avoitl being
some fbreing variations Tinish’ after the thirty worse. After 8 WxtlH Sxd8 9 e5 4^fd7 White
move mark, in thc endgame phasc! has a number of continuations but none offers
With a cjuick advance of the c-pawn Black an advantage, e.g. 10 f4 í^có II í^ B fó 12
forces White to make a decisión about the exfó, Savchenko-Paasikangas Telia, Jyvaskyla
centre, and the only chance of obtaining an 1991, when 12...£Wó!? is good for Black, 10
advantage is by closing the position, after £kl5 <SVó 11 f4 fó 12 exfó exfó 13 ÜLh4 <5\14
which Black usually plays 7...h6 followcd by with chances for both sides in Djurovic-
8...eó. *rhen White can rctreat the bishop to c3 lmbert, Meudon 1992 or 10 ÜL\e7 ££e8 11
with more peaceful play, or to f4, hoping to #\15 ÍLxe5 (I xívin-Beniard, I x*Toucjuet 2000)
exploit the potential wcakncss of the back- 12 íhf3 Üg7, again with no problems for
wartl dó-pawn. Black. Uhlmann evaluares the position after 10
®kó 11 0-0-0 as being slightly better for
Gawe 65 White but in our opinion the position is un
Schmidt-Sznapik clear, e.g. 11...lió (Preinfalk-C íorsek, Corre
7 im avia 7 rnava 1984 spondence 1978) 12 j£.e3!? eó 13 £k*4 bó etc.
White can also try 10 eó. 'ITien 10...®fó 11
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g6 3 £to3 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5 exf7+ ^ x f? 12 Ae3 í'.'kó 13 ÍLxcS bó 14 ii.a3
£ie2 0-0 6 &g5 c5 7 dxc5 £\14 15 A d l &aó ló fo B £>xB+ 17 ÍLx B
'Iliis cjuiet continuation usually steers thc Sac8 (Olafsson-Istratescu, Kuropcan Team
game into Mará/.y territory. Although Black’s Championship, Debrecen 1992) 18 0-0 .&xc4
position is solid White has more space and can is given as ecjual by I lazai. In the case of
therefore hope to sccurc a long-tcrm advan 10...^.xc3+!? the doubled pawns and Black’s
146
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 & e 2 0 - 0 6 ¿Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
KU|x*rior devclopmcnt will be at least sufficient 1996, and now 13...exf6 is level) 10...£kó 11
Compcnsation for thc bishop pair — 11 bxc3 ^ B fó 12 0-0 (12 $\\5 W d8) 12...fxe5 13
f/W, 12 exf7+ (12 ÍU 3 fxc6 13 Á c3 , Poschcl- £k!5 W d8 14 fxe5 £>xe5 15 £>xe5 S x f H 16
Miomas, M onroc 1986, and now 13...c5 14 * x f l $Lxc5 17 ÍLg5 Wd7 18 &xe7+ <&g7 19
ÍLxc5 c4 with a good game for Black) A B & xh2 20 & xc8 W f5 (2í)...Wxc8 21 # c 2
12...6.f7 13 A c3 (13 ¿ h fi £>c4, or 13 £ B with advantage to W hite) 21 W d8 (21 W d5
Hd6 |l xrvin-Scheblcr, Recklinghausen 2002] Sxc8 22 S e l and W hite has an initiative)
M í^h3 £ Y ó with a complex position) 21...5xc8 22 ®c7+ & h 8 23 S d l ÍLe5 24 Sd 5
13...£kó!? 14 £ k ó 15 0-0 ^ g 7 with good W b l+ 25 S d l $?(5 26 Sd 5 and a draw was
play for Black in I lorvath-Mrva, Krynica agreed in Mortensen-Jakobsen, Aarhus 1976,
1998. although W hite could have played for a win
8 ¿d 2 after 26 Sd7. Perhaps 25 Sá?f2 is stronger.
Preferable to 8 W d2?! dxc5, e.g. 9 í^ B £k:ó 9 £ tf3
10 0-0 (I Icidrich-Bisco, Ci crinan Correspon- 9 h3 bó 10 £>B A b 7 11 A d 3 ^1x17 12 0-0
dencc ChampúMiship 1993/95) 10...Sd8! and looks less natural and soon led to a draw in
Black can be quite content with lite, or 9 e5 Murshed-OII, IT mIísí 1983 after l2...Sad8 13
Kd8 10 W c3 & g4 11 ÍLxg4 &xg4 12 h3 A có b4 Wxb4 14 £>a4 «/a-1
/*, while 9 l>4 ^ c7 10
I ^ .&xe7 Sc8 14 Wxc5 W xc5 15 Ü.xc5 #VI7 S e 1 #Y*6 11 4hd5 Wd8 12 & d 3 £k.*5 was
wilh an initiative o f sorts for Black in Prins- go<xl for Black in Clarke-Battsctscg, N ovi Sad
( ¡cllcr, Amstcrdam 1954. 1990.
8...Wxc5 9...1Lg4
Again Black can consider taking with the Also possible is 9...£kó 10 h3 (10 jie 3
pawn - 8...dxc5 - with thc following position: # a 5 11 0-0 £>g4 12 ÍLd2 £>ge5 13 £k!5 |Pa-
lus-Dawidow, Polanica Zdroj 1999| 13...Wd8!?
14 £W\5 .&xe5 15 ,áLc3 eó and 10 0-0 A g4 11
b3 4Tkl7 12 S e l W a5, Riemclmoser-Dcmuth,
Austria 1999, are both cqual) 10...#W5 11 S e l
£ ix B+ 12 A x B ®xc4 13 í'Y IS atul now
Olafsson-Po|x>vic, Groningcn 1976 went
13...#d3 14 &xe7+ <
¿>h8 15 A c3 # x d l+ 16
*x d 1 A c ó 17 £Yi5, given in H CO as a slight
advantage to W hite. O f course Black can try
his luck with 13...Wxa2!? 14 £ixe7-f ^ h 8 15
0-0 W eó (if you want to suffer, at Icast do so
for a pawn!), when W hite has obvious com-
pensation, but not more...
'líie n 9 £>B £ k ó 10 0-0 ÍLg4 11 S e l <S\I7 10& e3
12 h3 ü .x B 13 & x B £kle5 14 & e2 # d 8 15 O ther cxampics demónstrate typical ‘dark-
üx*3 £V14 16 f4 $Wc6 lett both sides with square* strategies.
something upon which to build in Uhlmann- a) 10 0-0 ÍL x B 11 & x B £ k ó 12 A c2
( ílek, Bad Zwesten 2(K)0. 9 e5 is more dircct, ® d 4 !? 13 A e3 ttfxdl 14 S fx d l <S\I7 15 S a c l
e.g. 9...£W8 (9...£>fd7 10 f4 W d8 11 & c3 f6 12 £\c5 16 B Sfc8 17 b3 18 ÍL ñ & c ó 19
c6 #M>6 13 ^Íxd8 Sxd8 14 A xc5 ÍL xcó was s£?f2 ÍLd4 with equality (l la/ai) in Pctursson
unclear in 1>ukin-Tseitlin, Daugavpils 1978) 10 W ojtkicwicz, Kom otini 1993.
14 (10 £kl5 W d8 11 ÍLg5 fó i 2 £>xfó+ £>xfó b) 10 h3 A x B 11 A x R £>c6 12 ÍLc2 W c5
13 exfó, Szczechowicz-Nurkiewic/., Krakow 13 W c2 <5V14 14 Wcl3 ÍV I7 15 S e l ^ c 5 16
147
O ff b e a t K in g 's Indian
We3 #W 2 17 Wxe2 f5 and Black was very 2000 are both unclear, and l3...Hac8 14 a3
happy in Jelic-X.Nikolic, Belgrado 1989 Wh5 15 B ÍV17 16 Hael 1)6 17 sfchl &e5 18
10...Wa5 11 0-0 g4 Wh3 was agreed drawn in Cíaprindashvili-
Macek, |ajee 1984) 14 í^b3 Wa6 15 Sacl
Hac8 16 a3 (16 f4, Petursson-I lazai, Valby
1994, and now 16...F5 l<K)ks fine) 16...b6 with
ec|uality« PoIovodin-( >11,Tallinn 1983.
12...¿fc8 13 b4
O r 13 ÍV I2 Wh5 (13...ÍLxe2 14 Wxc2 Wh5
with ei|ualily) 14 B _&e6 15 S e l Ah6 16 f4
í\g4 17 iLxg4 ÍLxg4 wiíh still much to play
for in Moskalenko Roos, Orange 1990.
13...Wd8
11.J&C6
Black has also played 11....&xB 12 ilx B
£k:6 13 S e l £kI7 14 a3 Wd8 15 Ac2 with an
edge for White, Aliñada Roselli, IJmgiiay
1988, while 1l...#M>d7 should leatl to the same
assessmeni, e.g. 12 a3 Sfc8 13 1)4 Wd8 14
Wl>3 a5 15 Hael axl>4 16 axl)4 Wf8 17 h3
jjLxf3 18.&XB, Bagirov Damljanovic, Batumi
1999, or I2...a6 13 1)4 Wc7 (Xcihscr-Van
Meggelen, ( a>rresp<>ndence 1984) 14S e 1.
12 a3 More risky is l3...Wh5 14 S e l &h6 15
( )ther cominuations are: Wd2 J&.xc3 16 Wxc3 a5 as in Rausis-Pedzich,
a) 12 £k14 &xc2 13 Wxc2 (13 £klxc2 Sfc8 I xiewcnstcin 1997, when 17 l>5!? í&c5 18
14 Wd2 a6 15 B 1)5 16 cxl)5 axbS with ecjual- ^xe5 Wxe5 19 f4 would have secured White
ity, Karason-Wessman, Reykjavik 1990) an advantage.
13...Hfc8 14 Hael #K*5 (14...£kl7!? with 14 Wb3
chances for both sides) 15 b3 #Y*g4 16 A d 2 14 H cl deserves attention. 'Hien 14—aS?!
Wc5 17 e*6 18 Hfdl with a pulí for White 15 b5 .ÍLxB 16 gxB $V5 17 5Yi4 $Vd7 18 c5
in King-Berthelsen, Ivmail 1998. dxc*5 19 4hxc5 ®xc5 20 Wxd8+ Hxd8 21
b) 12 H cl £\I7 (12...Sfc8 13 1)3 $Y17 14 Hxc5 leads to a clear advantage for While in
Ad2 #Y5 with a good game for Black, Wein- the ending, and 14...WÍ8?! 15 Wd2 ü.xB 16
stein-De birmian, I />ne Pine 1976) 13 #V12 gxB! is ecjually poor for Black. When Black’s
$L\e*2 14 Wxe2 íbc5 15 a3 í^a4 16 í'Ylbl cjueen is not on h5 White can take with his g-
<5\14 17 Axd4 Axd4 18 Hfdl ÍLg7 19 &xa4 pawn, 14...üxB 15 gxB £k*5 16 £kl5 £W15
Wxa4 20 í^c3 Wl>3 and Black was fine in (L.Bronstein CJarcia, Mar del Plata 1976) 17
Moskalenko-I lazai, Budapest 1991. Wxd5!?, with a slight advantage to White.
c) 12 £kl2 &xc2 13 Wxc2 $\\7\? (13..Hfc8 Black’s lx*st is 14...£kl7 15 Í\ I2 Axe2 16
14 Hael Wh5 15 B <5\17 16 £ll>3 a5, Ubilava- Wxe2 (Poschcl-Bailey, Monroe 1986) 16...a5!?
Petrushin, Barnaul 1984, and 13...Wh5!? 14 B 17 b5 ÍV14 with chances for both sides.
£k!7 15 Hael f5, Milov-Solak, Saint Vincent 14...Wf8
148
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 $ L g 5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
In some variations Black Ivas ...i¿.h 6 (which Most games in this variation go down this
cannot Ix- parried by W d 2) bul the main pur- route, W hite simply claiming an advantage by
pose o f the lext will be rcvcalcd later... viriue o f his extra space. Thercforc Black must
( )thers: look for something on the queenside.
a) I4 ...ÍV I7 15 H ad l $\ce5 1 6 ^ x e5 ^ x c5 7...W a5
17 B & eó 18 £kl5 Üxd5 19 Hxd5! W e 8 20 ( )ne o f five options discussed in this chap-
S fd l was awful for Black in l^ilic-Krakops, ter.
Linares 1997. 16...^Lxe2 17 4?W 2#W *5 18c5 8 i¿.d2
is a lesser evil, with an edge for White. W hite has also addressed the new arrival on
b) l4...Wd7 15 H acl & x B 16 iL x B & c5 the el-a5 diagonal with 8 Wd2, when play
17 ÍL e 2 V e 6 18 £«>5 £k:ó 19 B £kJ7 20 might continué as follows: 8...eó (the prepara-
K fd l with advantage to White» Adamski- tory 8...He8 was seen in Berriot-Menetrier,
Pokojowczyk, Polanica Zdroj 1979. Correspondence 1991, when Black’s experi-
15 h3 ment failed miscrably after 9 í^ B eó 10 0-0 aó
15 S a d l A lió (Sorin-Cativclli, Buenos A i 11 dxeó fixeó 12 j&xfó ü.xfó 13 í^WlS W d8 14
res 1999) 16 $ \I5 is a plus for W hite, but W f4 etc.) 9 í^ B cxd5 10 exd5 -&g4 (10...Se8
15...a5!? is less clcar. 11 0-0 Wb6 12 A d 3 , Castillo-Njirjak, Brati-
15..Jbcf3 1 6 & x f3 &d7 slava 1993, and now I2 ...£Mx 17 is just a slight
'I’his is better tlvan I 6 ...JLI16 17 £VI5, e.g. edge for W hite) 11 0-0 4^1x17 (Black should
17...4.xd5 (Braschi Vclasquez-Moreno, Lima avoid 1l...aó 12 W f4 _$.xB 13 jSlx B with a
2000) 18 exdS #k*5 19 .&c2, or 17..«áxe3 18 poor position indeed in Vlaic-Babic, Kastela
# W 6+ exfó 19 Wxe3, Jelic-Arsovic, Belgrado 2002) 12 h3 .& x B 13 ÍL x B and W hite enjoyed
2003, with an edge to W hite in both cases. a plus in Abramov-C ílyanets, Podolsk 1993.
17 Hfd1 <&ce5 18 i¿.e2 £lxc4 19 &xc4 8...e6
£le5 20 &xf7+ Wxf7 21 Wxf7+ &xf7 22 In the event o f 8...Wl>6 9 h3 Black cannot
£te2 V2 -V2 play 9...Wxl>2?? as 10 S b l Wa3 11 £lb5 is
final, which leaves 9...eó 1 0 ^ iBex d 5 11 exd5
Game 66 A f5 12 £Mi4 ÍLd7 13 0-0 with an edge for
Kunsztowicz-Raupp W hite (H CO ) in Lputian-Savon, Ycrcvan 1982.
ftnndes/iga 1982/3 9 ^ if3
9 h3 keeps the g4-square out o f bounds for
1 d4 Q m 2 c4 g6 3 £>c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5 Black’s pieces but spends a tempo in doing so,
ií.e2 0-0 6 ¿Lg5 c5 7 d5 and after 9...exd5 10 cxd5 Wd8 11 £ iB ^ a ó
Black was doing fine in Krizsany-Cxcbe, Bu
dapest 1994, which went 12 0-0 £k*7 13 Ü.f4
Sl>8 14 a4 ^ a ó 15 A d 3 £M>4 16 & b l bó 17
H a3 '/2-'/2>while I2 ...Ü B !? 13 £Mi4 & d7 also
l<K>ks pcrfectly reasonablc.
9...exd5
Others:
a) 9...lTd8 10 0-0 exd5 11 exd5 (11 cxd5
with a plus for W hite) 1L.JiLg4 12 h3 ü x B 13
J ix B with the more pleasant game for W hite
in Uhlmann-Camara, Siegen 1970.
b) 9...Sc8 10 0-0 Wd8 11 W c2 exd5 12
cxd.S £W> 13 H fc l, Rubinetti-( /ampos I¿>pc%,
149
O ffbe a t K in g 's Indian
150
A ve rba kh S yste m : 5 & e 2 0-0 6 í l g5 w ith ...c 7 -c 5
Gawe 67
Portisch-Skem bris
7 'ilburg 1994
151
O ffbe a t K in g 's Indian
152
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
12...v\lxl7 keeps thc game well balanced) í5 18 f4 & Í7 19 g4 & i\4+ 20 * g 2 &g7 21
11....6g4 (after 11...Wc7 or ll...fie 8 Black A B with advantage to White, Horvath-Rohl
must play ...Ag4 anyway, with positions simi Montes, Budapest 1996) 17 ÉLc2 ^ig7 I8g4 15
lar to thc msün linc) 12 0-0^11x17 13 fie 1 # c7 19 f4 ¿(.14+ 20 & g2 fxg4 21 hxg4 with a plus
14 h3 ÍL x B 15 Ü.xf3 with play along the lines for W hite (HCO ) in Ag'/amov-Szekely, l;runzc
ol thc main linc. 1986.
11 0-0 b) I5...fiac8 16 fia d h5 17 b3 fix c l 18
O r 11 a5 cxd.S 12 exd5 <^1x17 1.3 0-0 Hb8 fix e l Se8 19 Sxe8+ Í^xe8 20 ÍV-4 #\e5 21
14 h3 He8 with etjuality in Litinskaya- J3Lc2 and Black was worse, Zucchelli-Rgger,
( hiburdanidze,'11)ilisi 1979. Arco 2(MK).
11 ...exd5 12 exd5 ií.g4 13 h3 £ x f3 14 16 Sfe1
¿x f3 ftbd7 16 fiael leads to similar play.
16...£\e5 17 &e2 %e7 18 f4 <5ted7 19
A f3
Also effcctivc is 19 Ü.d3 fiae8 20 Hxc7
Hxc7 21 S e l S x e l I 22 ÜLxcl with a pulí for
White, Nuncs-Scliipmann, Ivm ail 2000.
19...5ae8 20 Sxe7 Hxe7 21 S e l Sxe1 +
22 Axe1 Wb6 23 iLd2 £te8
153
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
Gci///e 68
I.Farago-Zaitsev
8 ib Montccatim I crwe 1999
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 g6 3 c3 ií.g7 4 e4 d6 5
iLe2 0-0 6 j^.g5 c5 7 d5 b5
Saving time by sitnply investing the pawn,
Black adopts the Benko treatment.
8 cxb5 a6
154
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
155
O ffbeat King's indian
ITic most principled responsc, leading to Yerevan 1996 is very good for White.
cxtrcmcly complex positions. Black’s t|ueen 11 &d3!?
attacks white pawns but in some variations White has numerous ways to defend c4.
might ron into serious troublc. Unfortunately a) ll W b l!? proteets the target pawns,
for Black, accuratc play from the opponent when play can continué as follows: ll...axl>5
leatls to a clear advantage for White. Black can ( II. ..£>1x17 12 a5 axb5 13 B ) 12 a5! c4? 13
find consolation only in the fact that alterna £>a4! c3 14 £>xc3 £>a6 15 B Wc5 16 £ixb5
tives also fail to ct|ualisc, e.g. l()...axbS £>1)4 (Malkias-Vajda, Varna 1994) 17 Sa4!
(10...£>bd7 11 íía 3! &l>7 12 £>B axb5 13 £>c2 H 18 & fl £>e3+ 19 &xe3 Wxe3 20 Ha3
.¿Lxb5 ®c7 14 0-0, Kasparov-Spasskv, Tilburg and although White has some tcchnical prob
1981 is great for White) and now 11 £>xb5 lems he should win. Perhaps the only soluüon
Wb6 12 W bl e6 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 £>B tl5 15 for Black is 12...Sxa5 13 £>a2 Wa4 14 b3
exd5 exd5 16 0-0 £>c4 was unclear in Uhl- Wxe4 15 ÍLxa5 iTxg2 16 & B #g5 17 Ac3
mann-Sxell, Halle 1982, so much stronger is £>xd5 18 Axg7 <&xg7 with a craxy position
11 ¿Lxl)5, with the following position: wliere Black has four pawns for the rook.
b) 11 B £>fd7 (I I...Wxb2?> 12 H bl £>xd5
13 exd5 ÍLxc3 14 Hxb2 is a disaster, 11...c4?,
as in Moskalenko-Pixa Cortixo, La Corona
1993, walks into 12 a5! and I 1...£Mx I7 12 a.5!
c4 13 1)6 was an unlucky thirtcen for Black in
Budnikov-KPortisch, Neuwied 1993) 12 We I!
c4 13 £kll (13 a5 axb5 14 £>a4 Wl>3! 15 S a l
bxa4 16 Sxh3 cxb3 17 j&c3 ÍLxc3+ 18 Wxc3
&a6, and B1ack was alrcady in hot water in
Sorin-Panno, Acasusso 1991) 13...Wc5 14 l>6
(the untcstcd 14 Axc4! seems to be trouble-
sotne for Black, e.g. 14_¿Lb7 15 ÉLc2 axb5 16
Wxc5 £>xc5 17 ¿x l)5 £a6 18 Ha3 Axb2 19
a) 11...ÍLa6 12 £>ge2 £>1*17 (Black £>xb2 ÍLxb5 20 a5 etc.) I4...a5 15 Wxc4 with
shouldn’t repeat the ultimatcly very unpleíisant chances for both sities in Uhlmann-Cíeorgiev,
12...Axb5 13 £>xb5 Wb6 14 £>cc3 £>aó 15 Warsaw 1983. Kvcn here 15 Axc4!? merits
0-0 £tt>4 16 ÍLg5 Sfc8 17 #e2 Sa6 18 Sadl attention.
Wl>7 19 l>3 etc., Seirawan-Youngworth, Pasa- c) 11Wc2 axb5 12 Axb5 ÍLa6 13 B
dena 1983) 13 0-0 Wb6 14 Wc2 £ k 5 15 b3
Sfc8 (15...£\c8 16 juLxa6 Sxa6 17 £M>5, Bagi-
rov-Jojua, Batumi 2002) 16 fiabl -&xb5 17
£>xí)5 c4 18 b4 £\d3 19 Ae3 Wa6 20 £iec3,
Damljanovic-Damaso, I jcoii 1997, with all
these lines simply horrible for Black.
b) 1l...£>a6 12 £\ge2 (12 £>B £>1)4 13 0-0
&a6 14 Ag5 h6 15 ÍÜ i4 Axb5 16 axb5 Wc7
17 Wd2 Hxa 1 18 Sxa I Sb8 19 h3 with advan
tage to White (/ iCX)) in Yusupov-Vogt, Alten-
steig 1993) 12...£>b4 130-0ÍLa6 14 BW b ó 15
Ae3 £>c8 16 lTb3 Wl>7 17 Axa6 flxa6 18
£>a2!?, l)ao Thicn I lai-Morovic Fernandez,
156
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 XLe2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
Game 69
Pocero-Minguez Guinda
Correspondence 1992
1 d4 ^ f6 2 c4 g6 3 ±g7 4 e4 d6 5
157
O ffbeat King's indian
158
Averbakh System : 5 i le 2 0-0 6 iÍg 5 w ith ...c 7 -c 5
159
O ffbeat King's indian
#\c6) 14...Sí?g8 15 ¿x b 8 Saxb8 16 Qsft ¿g 4 Black) I9...¿xe2 20 gxl7+ <¿?x!7 21 S li3 Sh8
17 Ó\\2 ¿x c2 18 SÍ?xc2 #\g4 (unclear in (21...¿g4!?) 22 £>xe2 Sxh3 23 0-0-0 Wa6 with
HCO) 19 B &c5 20 £wl5 Wa6! 21 a4 £k6 22 equal chances in Ix:limaiin-Kckennann, ftast
£ib3 Hxcl5! 23 cxd5 Se8+ with compcnsation Cíerman Correspondence Cup 1985.
in Uhlmann-S'/napik, Zakopane 1980. Perhaps b) 18 ¿e 3 earns White nothing, e.g.
19 £k!5 is an improvement. 18...5W2 (18...¿xe2 19 ¿xd4) 19 #>xe2 fxgó
12...£ta6 20 £k3 Wa5 and Black was okay in lerch-
w
The move that Black would like to play, but Van Willigen, Correspondence 1986.
he mns the risk of coming under attack. ln- 18...£tf3+ 19 &e2
steatl: 19 & d l!? is 110 worse than the text, e.g.
a) 12...®eB 13 0-0 £\c6 14 Sab l £tt'6 15 19...6xd2 20 ¿x d 2 d5 (20...Sfd8 21 ¿xf7+
£V15 ¿x d 5 16 exd5 £kl4 17 &xd4 cxd4 18 22 ¿d 5 Se8 23 f4 Wb4 24 Sh7 Sac8 25
¿d 3 a5 19 b4 a4 (19...fifd8 20 bxa5 »xa5 21 fó Sc7 26 f6 is very good for White) 21 £ixd5
Wxa5 Sxa5 22 Sxl>7 with a technically won W d6 22 <¿?c2 Sfe8 23 &iV> 24 ¿ c 3 etc.
position in Tukmakov-Gufeld, USSR 1981) 20 19...^xd2 20 ¿xd2 £fd8 21 £>d5!
S fc l Wd8 21 ¿g 3 with a clcar advantage to
White in Jedrxejowski-Marcinkicwicz, Polish
(Correspondence Championship 1996/8.
b) 12j&h5 13 ¿x d 6 Sd8 14 e*5 ¿x c5
(14...£>c6 15 £kl5!) 15 ®>xc5 Sxd6 16 £k!5!
¿x d 5 17 cxd5 clcarly favours White, who
plans <5^x17 or £k4 (Uhlmann).
13^g5+ ! hxg5
Otherwise Black loses thc pawn: I3...< ¿?g8
14 4?W*6 fxe*6 15 ¿x h 6 ¿x h ó 16 Wxh6 Wxb2
17 Wxg6+ & I 18 18 W h 6+ <&>g8 19 S e l (or 19
W cl).
14 hxg5+ ^h5!
After l4...SÍ?g8 15 gxf6 ¿ x f 6 16 0-0-0 íhd4 White has only a bishop and a knight for
17 JÍUÍ3 S fe 8 18 Sh2 in Uhlmann-Petrushin, the queen, vet with amazing calni he is niobi-
ljeipzig 1980, White liad an attack 011 the lising his pieces for an attack against Black’s
kingside without any counterplay from Black. king. 'I he text is preferable to 21 gxi7-l 22
15 g4 <5^d4! 16 gxh5 ¿x c4 ! <5V15 Wxl>2, when 23 Sab l W<:2 saw Black
An uncxpected tactical trick! After other firmly in the driving seat in Necesany-Dotlacil,
moves White should casily win, e.g. l6../?W 2 (Correspondence 1983, while 23 íhf4 d5! 24
17 Wxe2 ¿xc3+? (l7...Sh8!? 18 0-0-0) 18 Sab l (24 ¿x d 5 Sxd5 25 #W15 Wc2 does not
bxc3 S h 8 19 0-0-0 Wa5 20 W c 2 ¿x c4 21 save White) 24...#c2 25 ¿xd5 Sxd5 26 exd5
hxg6+ &g7 22 S h 7+ Sxli7 23 gxh7 ¿x a 2 <
A> xf7 27 Hxb7+ £^8 28 Se7 Wxa2 is also
(23...<¿> xh7 24 e5+) 24 ¿x d 6! 1-0, iliomas- poor. 1lowever, after 23 13! White has still
Bart sch, ( a >rresp(mdcncc 1990. attacking chances.
17 hxg6+ <&g8 18 ¿x c 4 21 ¿xl7+ sfefH 22 ¿d 5 looks very good,
( )t liers: when White should win, e.g. 22...Wa6+ 23
a) Premature is 18 gxf7+ Sxf7 19 g6 (19 & d 1 b5 24 f4 1)4 25 #Y2 c4 26 15 etc.
¿ d i Sxf4 20 Wxf4 Wxb2 21 H cl & 0 + 22 21...Wxb2 22 ^f6+! &i8 23 £ab1 Wd4
W xH W xcl and 19 ¿e 3 ¿xe2 20 ¿xd4 24 ¿d 5 ! Sab8 25 fíb3! ¿x f6
¿xd4 21 í\xe2 Sxf2 are both very good for This loses immediatelv
0
but there are no
160
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 !¡Le2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
useful moves, e.g. 25...Wa4 26 Hh7 or 25...c4 I•llricli, Bad Pynnont 1963) I5..JX c8! 16 Hael
26 H O ctc. 4üd7 with ecjuality.
26 gxf6 Wxf6 27 g7+ •¿¿el 28 Sf3 9...^.xe6 10 ilx d 6
28 H gl We5 29 Hf3 is more to the point. An alternative is 10 Wd2:
28...Wxg7 29 ií.g5+ Ú¿e8 a) IO...Wa5 II ( I I Axh6 ,ÍLxh6 12
29...<
á?d7 30 Hxf7+ Wxt7 31 ¿x f7 Hh8 is Wxh6 *$3xe4 13 H cl í^xc3! 14 Hxc3! Wxa2 15
unplcasant bul ihe lesserevil. W cl Wa5 was unclear in Sprenger-Halle A l
30 &f6 Wg4 31 Hh4 Wg8 32 Sh8 Wxh8 lende, Correspondence 1975) 11. . . £ ) c 6 12 0-0
33 &xh8 Hd7 34 &f6 Sc8 35 & c4 a6 36 g5 (12...*li7 13 a3 <£kl4 14 £>xd4 Vz-'A, Klu-
a4 Sdc7 37 Hd3 Sc6 38 Sf3 S6c7 39 ger-G.Andersson, liksjo 1977) 13 á_g3 HailH
¿Ve3 <¿¿07 40 & c3 Á’e8 41 Hf6 Sd7 42 f4 14 h3 <?V14 15 £kd4 cxd4 16 4^bl # a6 17
Kdc7 43 f5 b5 44 axb5 axb5 45 iLxb5+ W c2 Hc8 18^12 d5 19 exdS £>xd5 20 H fel
■¿¿e7 46 Sh6 Hg8 47 ilf6 + ¿¿i8 48 Sh1 HfdS 21 W e4 <?Y6 22 W d3 £\I7 'A-Yz,Jedr/e-
Hb7 49 2a 1 1-0 jowski-Butzc, Correspondence 1995 (White
has a definite edge here).
Gam e 70 b) !0...Wb6 11 &xh6 (11 £>f3 £ k6 12 0-0
Nesis-Metz #YI4! 13 !>3 £>xe2+ 14 Wxc2 & h 5 15 .&d2
Correspondence 19HH/ 95 Bfc8 16 Wd3 Had8 17 H fe l, l;arago-Mcnoni,
Bratto 1998, and now I7...<5V6 is eejual, or 1I
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 g6 3 £\c3 &g7 4 e4 d6 5 0-0-0 * h 7 12 h4 £ic6 13 <5\g4! 14 h5 g5
Ae2 0-0 6 Ü.g5 c5 7 d5 h6 8 ¿Lf4 e6 15 Jlg 3 , Rost-Iíberl, Correspondence 1998,
when 15...Wa5 is fine for Black) 11....&xh6 12
Wxh6 Wxb2 13 S e l íhc6 14 h4 with the fol
lowing position:
161
O ffbeat King's indian
162
A verbakh S ystem : 5 & e 2 0-0 6 & g 5 w ith ...c 7 -c 5
which Black is a pawn down. Although Black 'íTie most popular continuation in the dia-
should draw thcrc are no winning chanccs. gram position involves an activation o f Black’s
I I...Wb6 features in the next main game. forces at the cost o f surrendering the bishop
12 0-0 £\d4 13 e5 pair. If White fails to find gcxxl moves Black
Not 13 J&xc5? íhxc2+ 14 Wxc2 Wc8 with a can expeet to regain the pawn but, generally,
grcat position for Black. Black has enough play without a pawn to suc-
13...£\d7 14£xd4 cced in reducing material, and most games end
( )thcrs: in a draw. If Kasparov decidcd to play rhis
a) 14 H cl ÍL Í5 15 #W14 cxd4 16 Wxd4 ending, then it must be drawn!
£ixc5 with cquality in Uhlmann-Biclcxyk, 19...6xc3
I)lan ica Zdrc)j 1975. Another strategy begins I9....&c5, Black
b) 14 & b5 & x B + 15 A x B &xe5 16 ÍLxb7 secking to cxploit his bishops. White should
Hb8 17 &xb8 Wxb8 18 A d5 £lxc4 (l • ’arago- ccrtainly avoid 20 H fd l? .&xc3 2l Hxc3
Van I.aatum, Dieren 1990) 19 J§.xc6!? with HxdH 22 >§.xdl ÍLxc4! (Uhlmann), so play
chanccs for lx>th sides. can continué 20 A G b6 (20...Hd3!? 21 ¿hbV.
14...cxd4 15 Wxd4 1>622 Hfd 1Hcd8 23 &d5! Hxd l f 24 Hxd 1 b5
Much weaker is 15 £\b5 in view o f 15... 25 £Y12 bxc4 26 bxc4 &fH 27 €M>3 <&c*7 28
£\xc5 16 c5 d3!, e.g. 17 JlLxd3 Hc8 18 ÍLc2 £\a5 - Uhlmann) 21 -ÍLc6 Hc7 22 £k!5 á.xd5
$V4 19 b3 £lb2 20 Wd2? (20 W cl offers 23 JÜ.xd5 (after 23 cxd51? White could have
some compensation) 20...Hxc5 21 Wb4 Hc2 tried to play for a win) 23...üLd6 24 H cdl Hc2
(White is in troublc) 22 ild l ®k!3 23 Wa4 25 a4 <¿?g7 Vz-Viy Gralka-l7lis, Bydgoszcz 1978.
Hxf2 24 Hxf2 £\xf2 25 H cl Ík l3 0-1, 20 Sxc3 Hd2 21 & f3 Sxa2 22 &xb7 Sb8
Uhlmann-Schmidt, Bmcnn 1975. 23 & f3 !?
1 5 ...6 .e5 16 &xe5 Wxd4 17 &xd4 &xd4 a) 23 Ac6?! Ba3 24 &b5 a6 25 ÍLa4 Hl>4
18 Sac1 and the wcakncss o f the first rank plays a parí,
White has secured a comfortablc advan- e.g. 26 H fel Jix cA 27 Hxc4 Hxc4 28 bxc4
tage. Hxa4 29 c5 Hd4 V?.-V?.y Nvcman-I loffmann,
18...fiad8 Drcsdcn 20(K) and 26 H ccl .&xc4 T I bxc4
18...A xc3 19 Hxc3 Had8 20 H fel & f5 2\ Haxa4 28 c5 Hb7, which was cqual in Uhl
&C3 $Lc4 22 &xc4 Hxe4 23 H3c2 with a slight mann-W.Schmidt, Polanica Xdroj 1975.
advantage to White, l'arago-Uhlmann, Austria b) 23 &e4 Ha3 24 A c2 a5 25 f4 (25 He3
1998. fía2 26 Ü.xg6 a4! 27 bxa4 Axc4 28 A b l Hal>2
19 b3 29 jSLcl3 &xd.3 30 Hxd3 Ha2 31 h.3 Hxa4 with
an eventual draw [66th movc| in Uhlmann
Schmidt, Warsaw 1980) 25...a4 26 f5 Ü.xf5! 27
i¿Lxf5 gxf5 28 Hg3+ shf8 29 bxa4 Hxa4 30
Hc3 Hl>2 3 1Hxf5 Haa2 32 Hg3 Hc2 33 h3 (33
Hg4 h5!) 33...Hxc4 34 Hf6 h5 35 Sh 6 h4 36
Sg4 with a level game in Uhlmann-Schmidt,
I vast Ciermany- P<)land 1981.
23...Ha3 24 iL d l a5 25 2e3
( )r 25 H cl H c8 26 H c l a4 27 bxa4 Hxc4
28 Hxc4 ÍL\c4 29 ÍLc2 Ad5 30 h4 jfix6 31
Hd l Ha2 32 ÍLb3 Ha3 33 Hd6 Hxb3 34 Hxc6
Hbl+ 35 * 1 1 2 Sl>4 Vi-V?., Polugacvsky-
Kasparov, Bugojno 1982.
163
O ffbeat King's indian
164
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 i i g 5 w ith ...c 7 -c 5
G am 72
Alterman-Shirov
I ¿lisia O/y///piad 1998
165
O ffb e a t Kin g 's Indian
8 ji.f4. While does not attack the d6-pawn and (I6...b6 17 axb6 Wxb6 18 £ia4 Wc7 19 Wc2
ihercforc allows Black to open the c-file. Hfc8 20 Hfel K x c H 21 Hxcl Hb8 22 j£td1
I lowever, the situation can he tricky. White with advantage to White, Uhlmann-Vogt,
still can press on the kingside and, after the Zinnowitz 1971) 17 Wa4£ie5 18 &e2 He7 19
trade ...c6xd5, e4xd5 and a possible ...£W4 Hfel fiac8 20 ÍLÜ1 <&h7 21 He2 £\ed7 22
Black’s r<K>k does not attack the bishop (as Hael (Uhlmann-Andcrsson, Skopje 1972)
woukl happcn after jlf4 ). with a plus for White in l iCO.
8...£ibd7 b2) After IO...Wc7 White can hardly
Alternatively: achieve even a minimal advantage, e.g. 11 £*B
a) 8...b5 9 cxb5 a6 10 a4 and the position (11 # d *h 7 12 h4 Ii5 13 B £>1x17 14 £ih3
rcscmbles I;arago-Zaitscv but with the pawn £\e5 15 0-0 ÍLxh3 16 gxh3 £k:8 17 *h 2 ÍLf6
on h6 instead of h7. l0...Wa5 (10...axb5 11 18 jSLg5 £kl7 19 .&xf6 V?,V?.y Sapi-Dely, Bu
axb5 Hxal 12 Wxal e6 13 dxe6 .&xc6 14 £m3 dapest 1970; 11 Be6 12 W cl <&h7 13 g4 exd5
He8 15 0-0 ^Ll>3 16 W cl with a clear advan 14 cxd5 He8 with chances for both sides,
tage to White, Kollbcrg-1 vspig, I;rank- Prieto-Bibiloni, Buenos Aires 2(K)2) ll...ÜLg4
furt/Oder 1977) II $L<\2 axi>5 12 ÍLxb5 £>a6 12 0-0 £Mx I7 13 Wc2 (13 a5, Reithcl-
(l2...Wb4 13 f3 is clearly better for White but Campbcll, ( Correspondence 1978, and now
13...ÍU6?? 14 £ce2 Wxb2 15 Ac3 1-0 was all l3...Hfe8 followed by ...e7-e6 guarantees coun
over in Wagncr-Kunsztowicz, Corrcspon- tcrplay) 13...Hfe8 14 h3 ÍL xB 15 & x B e6 16
dence 1973) 13 £ B £ M 14 0-0&af> 15 H cl ÍLc2 exd5 17 exd5 He7 18 f4 Hae8 19 ÍLd3
(15 Axa6!? Hxa6 16 Wc2 with an edge for £>m 20 Hael Hxel 21 &xel £lh5 22 £kr2 f5
White) 15...Wb6 (Deze-Benko, Novi Sad 23 Jltf2 '/2-'/>, Sanguinetti-Jones, Nice 1974.
1972) 16 Hc2 ün>8 17 Ha3 with the more 'llie immediate 8...e6 is Black s choice in
pleasant game for White. the next inain game.
b) 8...a6 9 a4 (9 Wd2 l>5 10 f3 b4 11 £kll 9 Wd2 SjWJ
e*6 12 £lf2 exd5 13 cxd5 h5 14 £\gh3 a5 15 Not 9..Jto5? 10 &xh6! ÍLxh6 11 Wxh6
£\g5 16 .&xa6 £W 6, Maga-Wojtkiewicz, £ixe4 12 H cl £klf6 13 h4! Wl>4 (13...£W\3 14
Manila 1991 with cquality according to Byrne I>xc3 £W4 15 h5 was decisive in Petursson-
& Mednis in ii(X \ but 10 cxb5 improves) Demirel, Katerini 1993) 14 ÍL B iSlf5
9...Wa5 10 .&d2 and we have a position that (14...£\xc3 15 hxc3 Wxc4 16 h5 with a clear
can arise after 8 $L(4. Instead after 10 Wd2 advantage to While) 15 £gc2 Wxb2 16 h5
<*li7 11 £>B Black has 11...b5 12 cxb5 axb5 and While was well in control in I lorvath-
13 ÍLxb5 as in Morchat-Dykacz, Mikolajki I lassan, Cairo 1997.
1991, when 13...£W*4! 14 £\xe4 Wxb5 15
axl>5 Hxal + is very good for Black. Retuming
to 10&d2, Black has a couple of options:
b l) 10...c6 11 £ *B (11 dxe6 fxe6 12 £ iB
Wc7 13 £>Ii 4 Wf7 14 Ae3 g5 15 e5 dxe5 16
£\B £*1x17 17 0-0 with a slight advantage to
White in Bellmann-1 laag, Correspondence
|Gemían y| 1995) Il...exd5 12 exc!5 &g4
(I2...«c7!> 13 0-0 He8 14 W cl &h7 15 Ad3
£Ux17 16 h3 £\e5 17®>xc5dxe5 18Wc2£ih5
19 Hfel .&d7 20 a5 £if4 was unclear in Twar-
don-Pojcdzinicc, Lubniewice 1981) 13 0-0
Wc7 14 a5 £1x17 15 h3 A x B 16 A x B Hfc8
166
A verbakh S ystem : 5 ¿ e 2 0-0 6 iÍg 5 w ith ...c 7 -c 5
167
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
The most typical reaction. Black wants to with an attack) 15 h5 with an initiative in
open the e-filc. Cirechkin-Seger, Correspondence 1970/73.
9h3 1>2) 10.„*h7 II h 3 ík 6 1 2 ^ W a 5 a n d :
Sccuring the e3-stjuarc for the bishop. 1>21) 13 0-0!? (Saxs recommcndation)
( )ther eontinuations are: 13...ÍY14!? (neither l3...Sad8 14 H fdl a6 15
a) 9 Wtl2 cxd.S 10 cxd5 atul now 10...£}g4 Wc2 #V8 16 £k!5, as in Portisch-Sax, Hun-
11 ¿.xg4 j$-xg4 12 .&xh6 He8+ 13 sl?fl .&xh6 gary 1984 ñor 13...Hfd8 14 H fdl a6 15 Wc2
14 Wxh6 £k!7 15 Wd2 Wf6 16 1>3 1)5 17 cxb5 Hac8 16 a3 Hd7 17 Htl2 4üe5 18 Hadl # W 4
c4 18 h3 JLf5 19 í^ B cxb3 20 axb.3 Hac8 21 19 £ xc4 & xc4 20 e5 Íhe8 21 Wa4 Wxa4 22
#Y14 ÍV S V?.-V¿y Sorin-Barria, Cascavel 1996, 4hxa4 -&b3 23 £M)6 A xtll 24 Hxtll Hctl8 25
but 15 h3!? $L(5 16 í^ B is interesting, e.g. #W17 Hxtl7 26 .&xc5, Uhlmann-Schmidt,
16...&d3+ 17 sfcgl Axc4 18 h4 Wf6 19 h5 Warsaw 1983 is enough togive Black etjuality)
with an attack. Instead of ...í^g4 Black has 14 #W14 cxtl4 15 Wxtl4 £YI5 and accortling
played 10...< áí>
h7. After 11 0-0-0 (Frcderiks to Sax the position is level. Nevcrthelcss after
Fay, Corr. 1992) ll...b5! 12 ^xb5 <^e4 13 ihe forcing variation 16 Wtl3 4bxc3 17 bxc3
Wc2 a6 14 #Va3 Wa5 Black has enough activ- Wxc3 18 Wxc3 i.xc.3 19 Hael &g7 20 H fdl
ity. O r 11 h3 £>a6 (1 l...fic8 12 £>B ÍL B 13 Hfd8 21 g4 White has the superior prosj>ects.
.¿(13 ÍV*4 14 .&xc4 jS.xe4 15 £\xc4 Hxe4 with b22) 13 H tll #YI7 (13...a6 is perhaj)s the best
etjuality in Bronstein Quinteros, Corrientes plan, e.g. 14 0-0 Hftl8 followetl by ...Hab8,
1985) 1 2 & B A fS!? 13 A d 3 # d 7 14 0 ()2 fe8 ...b7-l)5 etc.) 14 Wxd6 Had8 15 0-0 Wb4 16
15 H fel #M>4! 16 ÍLxf5 W x B 17 a3 £k2 18 H bl Hfe8 with compensation in Portisch-
ÍM i4 Wh5 19 Wxc2 Wxh4 20 í^b5 (|ohanscn- Nunn, Brussels 1988. !3...Hatl8!? 14 0-()Hfe8
I laugseth, Correspondence 1990) 20...Sed8 15 A f4 £V5 16 b3 a6 (Ditt-Kotka, ( a >rrc-
with etjuality, or 20 b3 with etjuality in Uhl spontlence 1972/81) 17 Wc2 $Vg4!, intending
mann-1 ’ischer, Siegen 1970. 18 hxg4 <hxB i 19 & x B itxc3.
b) 9 tlxe6 £xc6 10 Wtl2 1)3) IO...Wa5!?
b l) IO...Wb6 II 0-0-0! Wl>4 (otherwise Now II &xh6 ÍLxh6 12 Wxh6 was cov-
Black loses a pawn without any compensation ered in our annoiations lo Nesis-Metz, Cíame
- I I...SÍÍh7 12 Wxdf>, or Il...£sg4 12 -&xS4 70 after 10 Wtl2 Wa5. Castling ‘into it' is not
£ x g4 13 O ÜLc6 14 Axhó) 12 £xh6 ÍLxc4 13 the best ¡tica - 11 0 0-0 (Bukhman-I ,ukin,
1)4 (13 &xg7!? sí?x¿>7 14 a3 «1)3 15 Wxd6 aiul USSR 1973) II. ..1)5! 12 ÍLxh6 b4 13 &xg7
While lias ihc iipjx-r liand) !3...¿Lxc2 14 *xg7 14 íhb5 Wxa2 15 4hxd6 4?Y*6 with a
£ltpíc2 ÍV 6 (I4...í}xc4 15 Í?>xc4 Wxc4 16 Ii5 tlangerous initiative, or 12 cxb5 Axa2 13 e5
168
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $ i e 2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
dxc.S 14 1)4! cxb4 15 #Yxa2 4&a6! with ce>m- a) 14 E g l A x B (I4...b5!? 15 cxb5 #>l>6
pensation. 11 íh B # k6 12 0-0 #\g4 13 Jif4 with an edge for Black) 15 ¿ x B bS
g5 (13...£kl4!> 14 £kd4 cxd4 15 £k!5 Wxd2 (15...®\b6!? 16 b3 #\h7 17 ¿g 2 W f6 18 S e l
16 Axd2 #ie5 is unclear) 14 &g3 ®¡gc5 15 4hg5 was unclear in lx>rin-Cavril, Correspon-
í^xe5 dxcS was unelear in Rcjfir-Bobotsov, dence 1995) 16 cxb5 (16 í^xbS #k*5 17 ÍL v 2
Sarajevo l% 2 . #V*4 is okav for Black) I6...a6 (16...#M)6!? with
9...exd5 10 exd5 Se8 chances for both sides) 17 bxa6 Sxa6 18 SÍ?fl
I0 ...¿f5 is provocative, e.g. 11 g4 ÍLc8 12 £V*S and Black had healthy compcnsation in
Wd2 hS!? 13 ¿x h 6 (13 cxbS!?) 13...l>4 14 Mikenas-Plachctka, Lublin 1972.
ÍLxg7 *xg7 15 ÍV l 1#W4 16 flff4 S e 8 ,1lort- b) In the event o f 14 0-0 g5!? Black clears
Polgar, Munich 1991. In HCO I lort gives the way for ...JwLg6, 15 #lxc4 #W*4 16 Wd3
Black compcnsation, but thus far no repeat (16 Wc2 &g3) 16...Wf'6 sccuring equality.
has been made o f this experiment. 14...¿xf3 15 ü .x B hS 16 g5 #lh7 was interest
11 ilf5 12 g4 ing in Lputian-Gufcld, Moscow 1983.
( )thers: 14...#e5?!
a) I2 Ad3 <S\*4 13 #>xc4 &xc4 14 0-0 Black wins the exchange but finds himself
#V17 15 ¿xe*4 Exc4 16 Wc2 Ke8 with eejual* under considerable pressure. i here are two
ity, Wunsch-Ix*gahn, Gcrmany 1990. ver)' promising alternatives:
b) 1 2 # d 2 & c4 ! 13^xe4Áxe4 14 ¿xh 6 ?! a) 14...1)5! 15 ¿x h 6 (15 cxbS a6 16 bxa6
¿x h 6 15 Wxh6 ¿ x B favours Black according Sb8 17 a7 Sb4 18 &xh6 &xh6 19 Wxh6
to Gufeld. Wb6 looks go<k I for Black, while after 15
12...1.e4 &xl>5?! #11)6 White has no good way to de-
Black also has good countcrchances after fentl the c4-pawn, e.g. 16 ?\a3 #\xg4 17 hxg4
12...ÍLcl7 13 W (I2 <&h7 14 ÍLd3 b5, e.g. 15 #a4 or 16 g5 ¿ x B 17 gxf6 j&xc2 18 Wxe2
cxb5 a6 16 bxa6 £taa6 17 ‘A’11 £)b4 18 ¿ id Wxf6 etc.) I5...b4 16 ¿xg 7 SÍ/xg7 17 #>xc4
& c8 19 &g2 &b7 20 _ÍLc4 0k:4 21 &xc4 # W 4 18 W cl # a5 1 9 * b l Hab8 and ...Sb6
Sxc4, Afanasicv-Korotylcv, Moscow 1998. a6 is the plan.
13 Wd2 b) 14...#lb6 15 b3 #Mxd5! 16 #lxc4 (16
13 0-0 Axf3 14 A x B ^1x17 w í is eejual in exdS?? W f6 and 16 #W15?? £lxd5 17 cxd5
Avcrbakh-Gellcr, USSR 1974. Wf6 are disastrous) 16...#\xc3 17 Wxc3 dS 18
13...£fod7 exdS &xd5 19 ¿l>5 (19 Hxd5 Wxd5 20 ¿ d 3
Wc6 with an edge for Black, and 19 4fd3?
runs into 19...Wa5) 19...#\\e3 20 ÍXxd8 £íaxd8
21 -&xc8 Sxc8 22 #kl6 Hc6 23 #\xb7 with an
exccllent position for Black.
15 £>xe5 £xh1 16 #>xf7 ¿>xf7 17 fixh l
JSh8?
If yon play the King's Indian you must
avoid takingeven one step back! Black should
opt for the aggressivc I7...b5 18 cxbS #Y4 19
#Wc4 Uxc4 20 a3 c4! with a veiy complex
position.
18 ¿d 3
Now White stands clcarly better.
14 0 0-0
- 18...#d7 19 f4 We7 20 #>e2
G M Gufeld’s idea. ( )ther moves are: i bis time White should be more active, 20
169
O ffbeat King's indian
170
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 $Le2 0 - 0 6 i i g 5 w ith ...c 7 -c 5
171
O ffbeat King's indian
Black has also tried: I;ernantlez, Decin 1977) !6...Sac8!? looks fine.
a) 10...Wb6 II 0-0 £ g 4 12 h3 13 14...We7
&xí3 £*1x17 14 S fc l a6 15 Eah l 2 x eI+ 16 Black has also tried:
Sxel S<-8 17fixc8+£ixe8 I8-5\I1 and White a) I4...#íe5 15 ¿e 2 Wa5 16 Wc2 h6 17
was lxrttcr in Olivera-Donoso Velasco, Bue ¿d 2 Wc7 18 f4 #etl7 19 Sael with a slight
nos Aires 1978. advantage to White, CJuIko-Radjabov, Wijk
h) H)...We7 11O-Offó 121i3#a6 13 ¿t!3 aan /ce 2001.
¿<.17 14 a3 h6 15 ¿ f 4 and Black’s pieees oc- b) !4...Wa5 15 Wc2 Se7 (15...Sab8 16
cupied unnatural posts in Bareev-Dyachkov, ¿tl2 Wc7 17 a5 Se7 18 H fcl Sbe8 19 Hxe7
Azov 1996. Sxc7 20 #>a4 #e8 21 S b l ¿d 4 22 Iv4 with
11 0-0 £^bd7 12 h3 the more pleasant game for White in
( )ther moves do not alter the character of Olafsson-Peralta, Bletl 2lK)2) 16 ¿d 2 Wc7 17
the position, e.g. 12 fiael a6 13 h3 ¿x f3 14 Sael Sae8 18 Sxc7 Sxe7 19 S e l #Y*5
¿x f3 Sxel 15 Sx el Wf8 16 ¿ f4 with an (19...SxeH 20 ¿x e l favours White) 20 ¿c*2
edge for White, kozma-Stulik, Podebrady 4he8 21 g3 15 22 14 with a slight etlgc to White
1956, or 12 UfeI a6 1 3 h 3 ¿x B !4 ¿ x G Wc7 (HCO) in Mochalov-Vaganian, USSR 1973.
15 ¿ f4 h5 16 a3 4hli7 17 <?Y4 18 ¿c 2 c) 14...Wc7 15 a5 (15 Wc2 Se7 16 Sael
Se7 19 ¿ f l Sae8 with a niggling pulí for Bae8 17 Sxc7 Sxe7 18 ¿c 2 h6 19 ¿d 2 #k*8
White, (fuellar Cíacharna-Reshevsky, Sousse 20 g4!, Polugaevsky-Cíufeld, Íl)ilis i 1966 and
1967. 15 Sael hS 16 Wc2 Sxel 17 Sxel £W*5 18
12...¿xf3 1 3 ¿x f3 a6 ¿e 2 #h7 19 ¿d 2 followcd by launcliing thc
f-pawn, I lorvath-Ttxlorov, Val Thorens 1995
are both pleasant for White) I5...h5 16 Wc2
#Mi7 (l6...Sab8!? followcd by ...b7-b6 looks
okay) !7 ¿d 2 S e 7 (17...Wd8 18Sfel £\e5 19
¿e 2 f5, Lukacs-Velickovic, Belgratle 1984,
antl now20 ¿11 favours White) 18 ¿ t il Sae8
19 f4 ¿d4+ 20*111 witli a slight advantage to
White in HabermehI-Kratochvil, 0>rrespon-
tlence 1999.
d) !4...Wb6 15 Wc2
172
A v e r b a k h S y s t e m : 5 & e 2 0 - 0 6 $Lg5 w i t h . . . c 7 - c 5
enough ro secute White an advantage accord John 1988) 19 a5 1>6 20 Hxe8 Hxe8 21
ing to Polugacvsky in /iCX), while 15..Jfie5 16 axl)6...^xb 6 22 1)3 and White stood better in
¿Lf4 Se7 17 A d 2 fíae 8 18 Hael h5 19 Hxc7 Bellmann-Da Silva Lilho, IC (!I; K-mail 1999.
Hxe7 20 A d l was also a plus for White in 17 Uxe1 Se8 18Sxe8
Pogorelov-Paunovic, Zaragoza 2<M) 1. 'Filis 18 & f4 H xeH 19 W xel We8 20 ÍLd 2 * IH
leaves 1S...h5, e.g. 16 ÜLd2 (16 ¿Lc2 íhh7 17 21 WxcSt- # W ’8 with the well-know 11 Ixtler
& d 2 W d 8 18 Hael Wh4 19 Ad3 f5, Baga- ending for White in Chcrnin-Mohr, Portoroz
turov-Velickovic, Kavala 1998, atul now 20 f4! 1997.
looks good for White) 16...ÍMi7 17 Hael 18...Wxe8 19& c2
&d4 (17...h4 18 Áx\\ £klfK 19 b3 with a pulí 19 ÍL(4 Wc7 20 Wc2 21 Wxc7+ *xe7
for White, Alcksandrov-Damljanovic, I lerceg 22 a5! ÍV-8 23 ,&il2 Ii5 24 *11 Ad4 25 1>3
Novi 2tX)1) 18 l>3 W d 8 19 Hxc8+ Wxe8 20 g3 and again Black is not t|uitc comfortablc
(20 H cl!?) 20...Wfó 21 <Á>g2 He 8 22 & d l He7 enough, Uhlmann-Cíligoric, I lastings 1971.
23 H el Hxel 24 A xel and White had suc- 19...£\b6
eeeded in hangingon to the lead in Petursson- ( )t lier moves fall sliori o f etjuality.
Vragoteris, Katerini 1993. a) I9...l>5 20 Ü.f4 (20 14!?) 20...®c5 21 Wc2
15 Sae1 * h 7 22 ÍLd2 SY-d7 23 t'4 (23 Wxc8!> ÍW K
15 H fel (15 a5 Hfffi 16 Habí 4üe5 17 A e 2 24 a5) 23...Wxc2 24 < 5'\xc2 w illi advantage lo
£kxl7 18 Ae3 ÍV 4 19 <5W4 Hxe4 20 Ad3 W liite, Doroshkicvich-Lilxrrzon, Riga 1970.
He7 21 1)4 with a slight edge lo White, Kin- 1>) 1 9 ...^ c5 2 0 W c2 ‘5V-i I7 2 I W xc8+ £> xc8
dermann-Karl, Zuricli 1984) 15...Wlft I 6 Hxc8 22 A d 2 Í V 5 23 1.3 £ \ I 7 24 g4 25 * j - 2
Hxe8 17 H el h6 18 Hxe8 £ixe8 19 &e3 (19 * c 7 26 f"4 J¡Ld4 27 *5Y4 l>5 and Black was still
A f4!?) I9...f5 20 A c2 with the more pleasant worse in M olir Cíheorghiu, Switzerland 2000.
game for White, Kaidanov-I'cdorowicz, lx;x- 20 b3 Íhbd7 21 ilf4 ! We7 22 We2 «Á>f8
ington 1995. 23 Wxe7+ ¿>xe7 24 a5 h5 25 iLd2 8
1 5 ...W 8 16 iL d l 26 g3 ÍLd4 27 st/g2 £ig7 28 f4 to 5 29
'llie bishop is going to the b 1-Ii7 diagonal. £\d1 £ih6 30 si>f3 f5
White can play along the lines of Although ibis move crcatcs a new weak-
Kunsziowicz-Raupp (Cíame 66) or try to gen ness on g6 it is Black’s best try. Orherwisc
érate an initiative on the kingside, retaining at White simply gains space, e.g. 30...®g8 31 g4
least one pair of rooks and gaining space hxg4+ 32 hxg4 Ag7 33 g5 etc. (Belov).
through g2 g4 and f2-f4 etc. White often plays 31 Ad3 *d 8 32 £e3 <&e7 33 t)\c2 iib2
16 a5 in order lo increase his stock on the 34 <A>e3 to 6 35 £>e1 ild4+ 36 M 3 ÍLb2
t|ueenside, e.g. I6...H xc 1 (I6...h5 17 A d l 37 £ig2 Q W 38 ?AM <£>f6 39 <*e3 ¿AH
Hxel 18 Hxel fle 8 19 Hxe8 Wxc8 20 & c2 40 & c 2 Aa1?
with advantage to White in Damljanovic- Now or 011 the next two moves Black
Popovic, Belgrado 1997) 17 Hxel He8 18 should have played 40...#Mi6 to addrcss the
&<!! Hxel+ 19 W xel W d 8 (I9...<?V5 20 W c 2 advance o f White’s g-pawn.
W d 8 21 ¿?Y*4 with a small plus for White, 41 &e2 $Lb2 42 ¿e1
Pein-Paavilaincn, Helsinki 1990) 20 4ha4 and Missing 42 g4! hxg4 43 Iixg4 fxg4 44 ^xg 6
White had something in Korchnoi Karl, 4^h6 45 £Mi4 AcH 46 * f l w iili a decisive
Lugano 1985. advantage (Belov).
16..J5xe1 42...ÍLa1? 43 g4 hxg4 44 hxg4 fxg4 45
I 6...I16 17 & f4 fo h l 18 &c2 ftxg6 &g7 46 ^^h4 * f8 47 &f5 £ f6 48
(18...#Y*5 19 b3 15 20 Ag3 W f6 21 #W2 with ilc 8 £d8 49 to S £íh5 50 Ad2 iLd4 51
advantage to White, Yusupov-Zapata, Saint ftx d4 1-0
173
O ffbeat K ing's indian
Summary
The most interesting variations arisc after 7...h6 8 ¿ f4 (or 8 Ü.c3) 8...c6, with Black reacting
quickly in tlie centre. 8 .&f4 is the most demanding move because Black has to sacrifice the d(>-
pawn (otherwise he is too passive), leading to complicated situations that offer ilecent compensa-
tion for the pawn. ilie sc are encountered in ( íamcs 70 & 71, the latter being Black’s best. I low
ever, it is important in these lines that both sides are well aequainted with the (very) long varia
tions, and not cvcrybody likes starting the game around the thirtieth move! lilis is why numerous
other moves are played. 8 ¿e 3 shouldn’t be a problem for Black, as is demonstrated in Cíame 73.
r w m m m
ü ±
....., Ü J J i l É !
• * W
w .......................
r ¿ J .......
174
INDEX 0F_COMPLETE GAMES |
175
O ffb e a t K in g 's Indian
176
offbeat
king's
Indian
The King’s Indian is one of the most exciting and com plex
d efences that Black can em ploy against the queen's pawn
opening. The main lines of the King’s Indian are very sharp
and tactical but they are also incredibly theoretical in nature
- it can be a full time job simply keeping up with the latest
developm ents and fashion. So it is unsurprising that m any
playing W hite choose to look elsew here for something
to counter this popular opening. In O ffb e a t King's Iridian
distinguished openings expert Krzysztof Panczyk studies
unusual and less theoretical system s for White, ones
that are tricky and are likely to throw the King’s Indian
player off his or her stride early on in the gam e. Variations
investigated include lines with an early Bd3, ones with
Nge2, and ones involving a swift Bg5. B y studying this
book, W hite players can arm them selves with a whole
new w eaponry of lines against the King’s Indian, while
those playing Black can look closely for the recom m ended
antidotes!
EVERYMAN CHESS
www.everym anchess.com
published ¡n the UK by Gloucester Publishers pie
distnbuted m the US by the Globe Pequot Press
JI9.9S