petroff defence
by A. Raetsky & M. Chetverik EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com
First published in 2005 by Gloucester Publishers pic (formerly Everyman Publishers plc), Northburgh House. 10 Northburgh Street. London EC1 V OAT Copyright © 2005 Alexander Raetsky and Maxim Chetvcrik The right of Alexander Raetsky and Maxim Chetverik to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Pat ents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85744 378 0
Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.
AU other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London ECtV OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: [emailprotected]
website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under license from Random House Inc.
EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs General editor: John Emms Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Production by Navigator Guides. Printed and bound in the US by Versa Press.
CONTENTS
I
Bibliography
4
lntnxluction
5
1 e4 e5 2 lLif3 lLif6
1
3l£Jxe5: The Main Line with 8 c4
7
2
3l£Jxe5: The Main Line with 8 :.c1
34
3
3l£Jxe5: Black Plays 6.. ..id6
47
4
3l£Jxe5: Deviations from the Main Line
69
5
3l£Jxe5: Fourth and Fifth Move Alternatives for White
80
6
3 d4: The Main Line
104
7
3 d4: S .i.d6 and 5th Move Alternatives for Black
143
...
8
3 d4: Fourth Move Alternatives
158
9
3 d4: Black Plays 3...exd4
168
Third Move Alternatives for White
178
Index of Complete Games
189
I0
The Petroff Defen ce
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I
Books
Ji'a.rhionable Varia/ion in tbe PetrrJ.ffDye11ce, IUctsky and Chetvcrik (Voronczh 1992) Modi!Ji 1•aritmt msskoi parlii, IUetsky and Chctvcrik (Voronezh 1990) Rltssisci.Je Ptlflie, Schwarz (Hamburg 19H6) JI.Jtssischc f.'erfridigNI'!,. Konikowski and Sicbenhaar (Germany 1992) The Cochrtmc G01nbil, Matsukevich (Moscow 1994) TIJc PeiiT!ff,Janjgava (Gambit 2001) The J>etrq!J Defence, l'orintos and Haag (Batsford 1991) 17:Je PetroffDefence, Yusupov (Oirns 1999) Periodicals
Cl.�ess 11ifo1711ttnl 1-90 Nen' i11 Chess YeariJOok. 1-72 Software
Chess Assistant 7.1
4
INTRODUCTION
I
'1'/Je e111irr lheol)• �/chm opmi11gs is diiJided i11/o lbe Pellf!lf D�Je11ce tmd the �jerted J>rllf!UDtjellce (1 d4, 1 t4 tllld other li11ts). Alexander Ractsky -
TI1e Petroff Defence has been one of the most fashionable 'open games' in the last decade, but it also has a long history. After 1 c4 e5 2 ltlf3, instead of defending his e5-pawn, Black prepares a counterattack on White's e4-pawn with 2...ltlf6. J .ucena mentioned this idea as far back as 1479, while in 1512 Damiano analysed 3 ltlxe5 ll'lxe4 and, of course, after 4 tfe2 reached conclusions that were discourah>i.ng for Black. No wonder the symmetrical opening was forgotten for many centuries after that! However, in I H24 Russian maestro, Alexander Petroff, found out that 3 ltlxcS could be met by 3 ...d6!, and only after that should Black cap ture the e4-pawn. In 1842 another Russian expert, Jaenisch, published valuable analysis in l'ttltlfllede. The opening was given a name of the Petroff or the Russian Defence Qn Russia, Germany and Scandinavia). It is quite narural that two Russian masters write about the Petroff Defence for the pub lisher Everyman Chess. Just like ballet, the Russian Defence could be labelled as property of the Russians. Grandmaster Arrur Yusupov is an outstanding thl:orctical expert of this opening, while Russian champions Smyslov, Karpov and Kramnik often usc it in practice. Raetsky and ( :hctverik have not made a substantial contribution to the theory of the Petroff Defence so far. However, it's worth pointing out that our first published articles and booklets were de vntL'l.l to this opening in the early 1990s. Alexander Raetsky has considered the Petroff De fence to be his f.1vourite opening for more than twenty years and can be proud, at least, of the l(uantity of his b>amt."S played in the Petroff Defence (about 200, including 60 correspondence 1-�amcs), if not the quality. Emotional players arc scared off by the S)•mmetrical trend in the Petroff Defence; they arc afraid of the drawish aspirations of weaker opponents who play White. But what can be more symmetrical than the initial position in chess, which has not yet been ruined by the notorious 'draw death' despite Capablanca's indications? A more skilful strategic player triumphs in the Petroff Defence regardless of the colour of his pieces and the position's symmetry. The healthy strategical foundation of this opening allows Black to defend a lot of systems in the Petroff Defence even while playing against stronger opponents. Even the lines declared 'doubtful' by theory are normally better than their reputation.
5
The Petroff Defence Apart from minor alternatives (see Chapter
10), White
has to choose between 3 d4 and 3
'Oxe5. The authors believe that after 3 d4, the move 3.../0xe4 is stronger than 3...exd4. Here the sharp variations like 4 dxe5 .i.c5!? and 4 .i.d3 d5 5 'Oxe5ltld7 6'0xd7 ..i.xd7 7
0-0 �4!?
can replace the popular, solid, but uninteresting alternatives (4 dxe5 d5 and 4 .i.d3 d5 5/0xe5
/Od7 6 'Oxd7 .i.xd7 7 0-0 .i.d6 respectively). After 3 'Oxe5 it is more difficult for Black to initiate an open battle and the positional niceties of the fight come to the fore.
One final advantage for the fans of the Petroff Defence: you don't have to study numerous complicated openings like the Ruy Lopez, Two Knights Defence, Italian Game and Scotch Gamel After 2'0f3'0f6 you are home and dry!
Finally, some acknowledgements. Special thanks go to the founder of the Petroff Defence,
Mr Petroff, and many thanks to our Danish/Scottish friend Jacob Aagaard for his technical
help. Also thanks go to Zoya Nayshtut for her excellent translation into English and also to Mr Yusupov for his great book on the Petroff Defence- the real bible for people from our 'cast' (Petroff Defence players). Play the Petroff Defence and be happy! Alexander Raetsky & Maxim Chetverik, Voronezh, January 2005
6
CHAPTER ONE
I
3ltJxe5: The Main Line with 8 c4
1 e4 e5 2 �f3 l!Jf6 3 l!Jxe5 d6 4 l0f3 li)xe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 .i.e7 7 0-0 �c6 8 c4
i\Jter 1 e4 e5 2 tL'lf:\ tL'lf6 3 tL'lxe5 d6 4 li'!fJ tL'lxe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 Carl Jaenisch sug )l;ested the system 6....i.e7 7 0-0 tL'lc6 as far back as the 19th century. This line is still very popular today, especially with regard to the immediate attack on the centre with 8 c4, the Kubject of this chapter. Let's see how this line has developed over the years. The oldest reply, 8....i.e6, is not very good in view of 9 cxd5 .i.xd5 10 tL'lc3 (hy the way, the li)wenthai-Morphy game ran be considered a model - sec the notes to ( lame 1l) or 9 l:te I l'Llf6 10 c5. After the more agJ,rressive development of the bishop with R ...i.g4, Whitc should prefer 9l'Llc3 to Kimplifying the play in the ccntre with 9 cxd5 ..xd5 to l'Llc3 tL'lxc3 11 bxc3 (again sec the notes to Game 11). With 8...tL'lf6 I31ack protects the d5-square and strengthens his kingside at the same time. In the case of 9 tL'lc3 .i.e6 (Game 1 1), White has a pleasant choice between 10 cxd5 nnd to c5, so Black should refrain from the development of the cH-bishop. If 9...0-0 10 h1 Black appears to equalise by means of IO dxc4 11 .i.xc4l'Lla5 12 .i.d3 .i.c6. If we start with 9 h3 (Game 12), castling is again .•.
effective, but White maintains an trutJaove after 9...tL'lb4, hassling the d3-bishop. The ...l'Llc6-b4 raid is more appropriate when the other knight is still placed on c4, i.e. 8...tL'lb4 (Games 1-10). One option for White is simply to ignore this attack: 8...tL'lb4 9 cxJ5 tL'lxd3 10 'ii'xd3 1i'xd5 II l:.c l .i.f5 (Games 9-10). In these games White tries to take advantage of the hanging position of the black pieces with tL'lb1-c3 �mmt:diately or after 12 g4 .i.g6) or 12 tL'le5. Instead of 9 cxd5 White more often rc trl..-ats his bishop to a safe place with 9 .i.e2 (Games 1-8), a lint: that has bccome fashion able owing to Karpov. The line 9...dxc4 10 .i.xc4 0-0 (Game 8) leads to a standard posi tion witl1 an isolated pawn on d4. Instead Black usually prefers to maintain pressure in the centre by means of with ...0-0 and ....i.e6 or ....i.f5. However, the order of the moves is important here. After 9....i.e6 the queen exchange 10 ..a4+ 'ilt'd7 11 'ilt'xd7+ �xd7 12 l'Llc3 is interesting, and 10 c5!? followed by an attack on the quccnside is even more so (sec the notes to Game 6). 9 ...0-0 is preferable to 9....i.e6 because af ter 10 l'Llc3 Black has several possible ways to develop his light-squared bishop. In Game 7 Black plays 10 ...b6 followed by ....i.b7. One of the main lines is 10 ....i.c6, against which 7
The Petroff Defence White can play 1 1 !.DeS (Games 3-4) and 1 1 .l.e3 (Games S-6). The most fashionable line at the moment is 10....i.f5, which was utilised by Kramnik in his 2004 World Championship match with Leko. lbis move is discussed in Games 1 -2.
Pava.'IOvic, Istanbul Oly mpia d 2000
Q)xe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 &6 7 0-0 J.e7 8 c4�9 J.e2
1 1 ...�c3 1 2 bxc3 &6
-
and
here Pavasovic claims an edge for Black after 16...exd3 17 Wb3 'ifd7) 1 S...d3 1 6 �3 dxc2 1 7 1i'xe2 .l.e6 1 8 llcl1 1Wc7, which Pavasovic regards as unclear. b) 1 1 �3 leads fairly dirccdy to a draw: 1 1 ...dxc4 12 .l.xc4/.Df6 1 3/.Des 'ifxd4 (BoloGame 1 gan pointed out the error 13 ...1.Dc2? 14/.Dxf7 Leko-Kramnik llxf7 IS .i.xf7+ �f8 1 6 .l.e3 when White is much better) 14 .i.xf7+ Wh8 1 S I.Lif3 •d7 16 World Ch. (Game 1), Brissago 2004 '------• /.Des ..d4 17 I.Lif3 'Wd7 was agreed drawn in Bologan-Zamicki, Buenos Aires 2000. 1 e4 e5 2 �f3 �f6 3 �xe5 d6 4 �f3
Of course saving the bishop is the most popular option. Alternatives arc studied in Games 9-1 0.
9 0-0 10 �c3 J.t5 .•.
1 3 lZ.e1
1 1 a3 This is the natural move but we should
also consider two others: a) 1 1 �5 cS and now: a 1) 1 2 dxcS is not a dear error but it does allow pressure on f2: 12..ixcS 13 I.DxciS (White must be careful: if 1 3 a.1? then 1 3...1.L!xf2! 1 4 llxf2/.Dc2 1 5 lla2 llc8 1 6/.Dd3 .l.xf2+ 17 I.Lixf2 dxc4 and Black has a clear advantage) 13...lDxdS 14 ..xd5 'irxdS 1 5 cxdSlLd8 16 i.c4 llfc8 t7/.Df3 h6 1 8 i..d2 I.Lixcl2 1 9 I.Lixd2 i.cl4 with an unclear posi tion. a2) 12 a3 cxd4 13 I.Lixc4 dxe4 14 axb4 f6 1 5 I.Dg4 (15 �t3?1 d3 1 6 .i.xd3 - J.Polgar-
8
After 13 cxdS .xdS White has a few choices: a) 14 lle 1 llfe8 transposes to the main game. b) 14 .i.e3 l'lfd8 1S :e1 &s 1 6/.Des f6! (16.....b3? is just a blunder: 1 7 .l.c41 .xd 1 1 8 .i.xf7+ � fB 19l:taxdt /.Dc6 20 .l.ct i.LixeS 21 AxeS .i.g4 22 llde1 .i.f6 23 ll5e4 and White has won a clear pawn, Movsesian-1 P.Nielsen, Blmdesliga 1 999) 1 71.Dd3 i..d6 1 81 I.Db4 •n is unclear. c) 14 c4 1i'd6 IS dSI.DeS t6/.Dd4 .i.d7 1 7 a 4 c6!? 1 8 l:tb t (perhaps White shoula prefer 1 8 'ifb3 cxdS 1 9 cxdS 1Wb4 20 'ifxb4 .l.xb4, when his d-pawn is marginal!)' more of a strength than a weakness) 18 ...cxdS 19 cxd5 ..xdS 20 I.Lif5 .c6 21 I.Lixe7+ ..xc7 22 llxb7 1We6 was level in Van Den Doei Schandorff, Esbjerg 200 1.
3 liJxe5: The Main Line with 8 c4 tl) 14 .if4lfr.ts 15 .i.xc7 b6 16 .i.f4 Lc8 17 .i.t.12 .i.d6 18 llc1 h6 19 a4 :C7 20 h3 Wh3 21 .i.b5 (Krakops-Ulescas, Leon 2001). Now Black cook! have played 2t ...'exdl 22 l:lcxd1 �b3 23 L2 �xd2 24 �xd2 llxc3 with equality. 13 .. .1Z.e8 I\ simple, sensible developing move but 131ack has other options. 13....i.f6 is probably not qui te good enough to cyualise: 14 .i.f4 �aS 1 5 cxdS WxdS 16 Wa4 (if 16 .i.xc7 :lacS 17 .i.xa5 Wxa5 18 c4 llfd8 Black has pleasant com pensation) 16...b6 t7lDd2 .i.d7 18 'irt.11 and \Vhitc had an cdbJC in Short-Bologan, Skan tlcnborg 2003. This advantage grew after IK.J:ac8 19 i.d3 .i.f5 20 �4 .i.e7 21 'irh5 i.xc4 22 1txd5 .i.xdS 2.l llxe7 llfe8 24 Jl:ac I �f8 25 llxe8+ llxe8 26 llxe8+ Wxc8 27 .i.xc7 . 13...dxc4 14 .i.xc4 has been well tested:
a) 14....i.f6 IS ..tf4 'ird7 16 ..ta2 llfe8 17 li.\g5!? (this is Ftacnik's suggestion; 17 'irt.12 bS 18 .i.gS .i.g6 19 .i.xf6 gxf6 20 �h4 Wg7 21 f4 toe7 22 ...f2 �f5 23 g4 �xh4 24 'l'xh4 f5 was unclear in Adams-Karpov, Dortmund 1999) 17...llxet+ 181fxcl .i.xg5 IIJ i.xgS llc8 20 'ird2 h6 21 i.f4 tlX!s 22 d5 b5 and White has a nagging t:dge. h) 14. ..i.d6 1 S i.gS 'ird7 16 �h4 �a5 1 7 .l.a2 with a further branch: b l ) Black should avoid 17... b5?1 18 a4! a6 19 ••xb5 axb5 20 �f5 1fxf5 21 i.e7 llfb8
22 g41 1Wf4 (even worse is 22. ..1!rd7?! 23 .i.xf7+! Wh8 - the point is 23...Wxf7 24 llxa51 llxa5? 25 1i'b3+ Wg6 26 llc6+ when Black will soon have to give up his queen 24 ..ixd6 1i'xf7 25 ..tc5 and White was close to victory in Karpov-Portisch, Torino 1982) 23 .ixd6 'irxd6 24 'ifo •d7 25 :C2lDc4 26 llacl and White has a strong initiative, espe cially since 26...1le8?? loses to 27 lle7!. b2) 17...i.e6 18 .i.xdi fxe6 19 �0 :aes 20 .ih4 1t'c6 21 1tc2 h6 and Black is just active enough to hold et:juality: 22 .i.g3 1i'd5 23 a4 �4 24 lle4 a6 25 1i'e2 1i'c6 26 lle1 .i.xg3 27 hxg3 tLki6 28 llxe6 1i'xc3 29 lieS 1i'b3 was now agreed drawn in 1\.dams Anand, FlOE World Championship, New Dell1i 2000. 14 cxd5 14 .i.f4 is discussed in Game 2 14 ....xd5 1 6 ..tf4 White has a minor alternative in 1S �e3 .i.f6 (:tlso fine is IS...�aS!? 16 �d2 'ird7 17 .to .i.d6 18 c4 c6 19 'lfa4 .i.e? with an un clear position) 16lDd2 .l:lad8 17 .i.c4 11d7 1 8 �b3 .i.e7 19 a4 .i.d6 20 'lfd2 (Bologan Degrnevc, Belfort 2002) ands here Bologa.n gives 20...�7! 21 .i.f4 b6 as equal. 1 5.. .1Z.ac8
1 8 h3 16 .i.d3 is a serious alternative. 16...1Wd7 17 llbl .i.xd3 1 8 'irxd3 b6 19 d5 .i.f6 2 0 c4 h6 21 h3 lle7 22 llbd 1 lids (if 22...:Ce8 23 llxc7 �xe7 24 l:te1 lidS 25 .icS White has 9
The Petro ff Defence the more comfortable game) 23 l:lxe7 lbxc7 24 lbes .i.xe5 25 .i.xe5 l:le8 26 .i.g3 lbf5 27 .i.xc7! ..xc7 28 .xf5 'lrxc4 29 d6 and White's strong passed pawn gave him the edge in Leko-Anand, Unares 2003. A few days after this main game Lcko tried 16 c4 'lre4 1 7 .i.e3 and now: a) 1 7...'ifc2!? (Kramnik's novelty) 1 8 d5 lbas 19 lbd4 •xdt 20 l:lcxdt (if 20 l:laxdt Parkin analysed 20....i.d7 21 lbb5 b6!? 22 lbxa7 l:la8 2' lbb5 .i.xb5 24 cxb5 .i.xa3 as equal) 20....i.d7 21 .i.d2 .i.f6 22 .i.xa5 .i.xd4 23 l:lxd4 l:lxe2 Vz-112 Leko-Kramnik, World Championship (Game 3), Brissago 2004. b) Also reasonable is 17 ....i.f6 18 l:la2 b6 1 9 h3lba5 with a further split b1) 20 .i.d2 lbb7!? (20...�1?1 leads to a very unpleasant ending: 21 'ifxb1 Lb1 22 l:lxb1 l:lxe2 23 'itft l:lce8 24lbg1 ll2e4 25 .i.xa5 bxa5 26 lle2, Kotronias-Marjanovic, Kallithea 2003) 21 'ifa4 .i.e6 22 d5 lbc5 23 1i'xa7 .i.d7 when White's awkwardly placed queen provides Black with compensation for the pawn. b2) 20 g4 .i.g6 21 g5 .i.c7 22 lbe5 .i.d6 23 lbxg6 hxg6 24 c5 .i.ffi (Kasparov analysed 24...bxc5 25 dxc5 .i.f4 26 .i.g4 llcd8 27 l:ld2 .i.xg5 28 .i.d7 lieS 29 l:ld4 as slighdy better for White) 25 .i.g4 l:lcd8 26 l:lae2 1i'c6! 27 1i'c2 (27 cxb6 was immediately abandoned as a draw in Anand-Adams, Unares 2002) 27...bxc5 28 dxc5 •d5 29 1lrc3 lbc6 is equal according to Dokhoian. Brissago (3) 2004. 1 6....i.e41? Previously 1 6..if6 had been played: 1 7 lbh2!? 'ifa5 1 8 .i.d2 lbc7 (or 1 8. ..l:lcd8 1 9 .i. f3 h6 20 lbg4 .i.xg4 21 hxg4 .i.g5 22 .i.xg5 hxgS - Kramnik-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2003 and here Hu?.man gives 23 .cl! l:txet+ 24 'IVxel 'itffi 25 l:tbt lle8 26 .cl as clearly better for White) 1 9 lbg4 .i.xg4 20 Lg4 ltcd8 when Anand bclit.-ves White is slighdy better. 1 7 .i.e3 c!lla 5 Another try is 17 ...l:lcd8 18 lbd2 ..tg6 19 -
10
.to •d7 20 1i'a4 lbe5 21 '1Vxd7 lbxf3+ 22 lbxf3 ltxd7 23 lbe5 l:ld5 as in Leko Bologan, Dortmund (rapid) 2004. Igor Zait sev now suggests 24 c4 l:ldd8 25 lbxg6 fxg6 26 d5 �fl 27 �ft l:ld7 28 l:lab 1 b6 29 ltb3 as a way for White to gain an edge.
1 8 c4?! This allows Black the chance to give up his queen for a definite equality. A better try for the advantage is 1 8 lbdz!? .i.f5 (1 R.ixg2? may look worrying for White, but I. Zaitsev provided the clever refutation: 19 c4 .c6 20 d5 .g6 21 .i.hS .i.f3+ 22 Lg6 .i.xdt 23 .i.f5) 1 9 .t.n 'lid7 20 lbb3 lbxb3 21 1i'xb3 c6 when White has the mer� est of edge£. 1 8...li»lc41 1 9 .i.xc4 1i'xc4 20 �d2 'ttd5 21 li»le4 ••e4 22 i.g5 1i'xe1 + 23 1i'xe1 .i.xg5 24 ••5 i.f& 25 •••7 c5 26 •xb7 i.xd4 27 :S2 Belov gives 27 l:tdt llb8 28 .d7 l:le2 29 ltxd4 cxd4 30 11Vxc.J4 as equal. 27 ...c4 Black must avoid the back rank tric�1 27.. 1J..c7? 281le2!. 28 Jle2 lled8 29 e4?! White should have played 29 l:ld2 .i.e5 30 £4! .i.f6 (not 30 ...i.xf4?! 31 llxd8+ llxd8 32 'ifc6 hS 33 'ifxc4 .i.g3 34 �ft :Cs 35 1rc3 h4 36 a4 when White has some winning chances) 31 ltxd8+ l:lxd8 32 .c7 c3 33 a4 g6 34 aS l:ld2 35 a6 lta2 36 �h2 c2 37 a7 after which the game would have been drawn. .
3 li)xe5: The Main Line with 8 c4
46 .D.5a6 47 'tlt'c3 l:la4 48 •ce .D.8a6 49 WeB+ Wg7 50 'tlt'b5 A4a5 51 1rb4 l:ld5 52 'tlt'b3 l:lad6 53 1i'c4 l:ld3 54 Wf2 l:la3 55 Wc5 l:la2+ 56 Wg3 Af6 57 Wb4 l:laa6 58 Wg2 l:lf4 59 Wb2 + l:laf6 60 'tlt'e5 Axf3 61 1i'a1 l:lf1 62 •ca A1f2+ 63 Wg3 l:l2f3+ 64 'tlt'xf3 Axf3+ 65 Wxf3 Wf6 0-1 •••
Game 2 Grischuk-Adams
Halkidiki 2002 29 . ..c3
30
We4 ..i.b6!
Now Black can think about trying to win.
31 1t'c2 White has to blockade: 31 Wb4?! .i.xf2+ 12 'i&i>xf2 c2. 31 ...g6 32 11'b3 l:ld6 ·n1e careless 32 ... fld2? would spoil cvcry lhin�-f. 33 llc7 llxf2 34 11'xb6 c2 35 llc71 and White wins. 33 .D.c2 .ia5 34 g4 .D.d2 35 Wg2 .D.cdB 36 J:l.xc3! .ixc3 37 �i'xc3 .D.2d5 38 'tlt'c6 l:la5 39 'iii>g3 llda8 40 h4 ll5a6 41 Wc1 l:la5 42 ft6 .D.xa4 43 h5 .D.4a5 44 Wf47 A disastrous slip. Instead 44 hxj.,>6 hxj.,>6 45 11 g5 46 'ird6 and White hollis the draw. 44 .g51 45 'tlt'f6 h61
1 e4 e5 2 l£lf3 ll'lf6 3 ll'lxe5 d6 4 ll'lf3 ll'lxe4 5 d4 d5 6 ..td3 li)c6 7 0-0 ..i.e7 8 c4 ll'lb4 9 .te2 0-0 1 0 ll'lc3 .tf5 1 1 a3 ll'lxc3 1 2 bxc3 li)c6 13 l:le1 l:leB 14 .i.f4 The main altemative to 14 cxd5.
..
14 ...dxc4 1 5 ..i.xc4 ..i.d6 1 6 AxeS+ 'tlt'xe8 1 7 li)g5 .i.g6 18 .ixd6 cxd6 19 h4 •e7 Anand demonstrnteJ the following clever variation: 19...M?I 20 h5 .i.xhS 21 'ti'xh5 hxg5 22 'iii'h21 llcB 23 lletlli:Je7 24 .i.d3 g6 25 WxgS llc7 26 llc3 and White is obviously bener.
20 'tlt'g4 h6 21 ll'lh3
Now the win is just a matter of rime.
46 f3 The point is that 46 .xh6? ll8a6 traps the L lucen.
21 h5 has also been tried, but led only to a draw in Movscsian-Gelfand, Bled Olympiad 2002 after 2t....i.xh5 22 WxhS hxg5 23 lldt J:lfB 24 .zld3 'ire 1+ 25 �h2 'lt'xf2 26 J:lh3 Wf4+ 27 �g1 Wet+ 28 �h2 'iff4+.
21
1t'e4
•••
This is okay, but an interesting possibility
11
The Petroff Defence
is 2t...1i'f6 22 l:tet �5 23 1Wf3 «i>ffl24 �f4 (Anand-Karpov, Prngue 2002). Anand now gives 24...1Wxh4!? 25 .i.xf7 1i'g4 26 'ifxg4 .i.xg4 27 .i.d.5 �e7 28 .i.xb7 l:b8 as offering Black enough compensation. 2211'g3 Black can also defend against 22 �f4 �eS 23 dxeS 1i'xc4 24 exd6 1i'xc3 25 l:tf1 .i.e4! (not 25...D.d8? 26 �xg6 fxg6 27 d7 1i'c6 28 l:tdl bS 29 hS! gxhS 30 .xhS when White has a huge advantage, Mortensen M.Andersson, Sweden 2003) 26 �6 i.d3 27 'ilfOI fxe6 28l:td1 1i'xa3 29l:txd3 Wet+ 30 'it>h2 1i'c6 31 1i'xc6 bxc6 32 l:l.c3- the ruok ending is drawn. 22 ll:!a5 23 .ia2 ...d3 24 llf1 •xg3 25 fxg3 lieS 26 hS! .id3 Black avoids the obvious double attack: 26...i.xh5? 27 :5 b6 28 l:.xhS :Xd 29 l:lf5 when White should win. 27 .txf7 + ¢>f8 27...'it>h7?! is too passive: 28 l:.f3 ..ie4 29 l:.e3 d5 30 �f4 �4 31 l:.e2 �xa3 32 .ixd5 i.xdS 33 �d5 and White has good winning chances. 28 llf2 •••
28 . . .oh7? A fatal slip. After 28...l:.xc3 29 ..ig(rr �g8 White has no more than a draw. 29 .td5 llf8 The problem with 29...:Xd is 30 l:.f31 J:ct+ 31 Wh2 i.c4 32 2:f7+ Wd8 33 .i.xc4 %lxc4 34 :Xg7 :Xd4 35 g4, when White's 12
kingside pawns decide the game. 30 ll:!f4 .i.h7 31 .ta2 �7 32 ll:!e6 llxf2 33 �xf2 .igS 34 �f8+ �es 35 .bg8 �xf8 36 .idS! White has kept the extra pawn and now dominates the kniJ.,rht: Black's position is hopeless. 36...�e7 37 �e3 ¢>f6 38 ¢>f4ll:lc6 39 .i.xc6 bxc6 40 c4 �e6 41 g4 ¢>f6 42 g5+ hxg5+ 43 Wg4 1 -0
Game 3 Anand-Shirov
Moscow2001 1 e4 e5 2 ll:!f3 ll:!f6 3 ll:!xe5 d6 4 ll:!f3 ll:!xe4 5 d4 d5 6 .id3 ll:!c6 7 0-0 .ie7 8 c4ll:lb4 9 .te2 0-0 1 0 �c3 .i.e&
1 1ll:le5 Apart from 11 .i.e3, which is studied in Games 5-6, there arc two alternatives to note: a) 11 .if4 cS 12 l:lc1 .i.f6 13 �bS? (this expedition fails to some brilliant resources; White should prefer 13 11'a4 �xc3 14 bxc3 �c6 15l:tab1 'ilfd7 with an unclear position) 13 ...dxc4 14 �7 �5! 15 �xc6 fxc6 16 .i.g3 (Adams-Shirov, Dortmund 1998). Shi rov now analysed 16...�xg3 17 hxg3 bS! HI a4 cxd4 19 �xd4 'tWb6! 20 �f3 (the lx:autiful point is 20 �xbS? ..xf2+! 21 �xf2 .i.d4 mate!) 20... .i.xb2 21 l:.bt �d! 22 ..c2 �xa4 23 l:.xb2 �xb2 24 '1Vxb21lac8 when Black's excellent pawns promise a clear advantage.
3 fDxe5: Th e Main Line with 8 c4 b) 11 a3 is safe but unthreatening. For ex nrnplc, 1 t...lL'lxc3 12 bxc3 tL'lc6 13 cxd5 .lxd5 14 c!Od2 tL'la5 15 .i.d3 b6 16 •c2 h6 17 .i.b2 .i.b7 18 lbe4 b5! 19 a4 (tf 19 .i.xb5 t'5 20 "Wa4 c6 21 .i.c4+ lL'lxc4 22 •xc4+ •d5 2.3 llk12 .i.g5 24 'lfd3 c5 Black's active bish ops provide ample compensation) 19...a6 20 uxb5 axb5 21 .i.xb5 fS 22 tL'lc5 .i.xcS 23 (lxcS •d5 24 c6 lL'lxc6 25 •d3 ll:le5 26 Vxd5+ .i.xd5 with an equal position, Lcko Krnmnik, Dortmund 1999. 1 1 ... c5 This early break gives White the chance to ntlvance in the centre. The alternative 11...f6 is the subject of Game 4.
1 2 l0xa4 If 12 .i.e3 cxd4 13 .i.xd4 lL'lxc3 14 bxc3 li:k6 15 lL'lxc6 bxc6 16 .a4 cS 17 ..ie3 rl4 Ulack equali.8 16 b3 l:te8! 17lDe5 -if 17 Lc7 'itb7 18 .i.e5 .idS 19 1i'a3 'i'b5 White's awkward development �vcs Black enough compensation -17...11'b7 1 8 f3 lbg5 19 .i.xg5 .ixg5 20 f4 J..f6 21lDc3
lle7 and ilie position is finely balanced) 15.. ll.b8 16 .xa7 (defending ilie b-pawn wiili 16 llab1 has other drawbacks: 16. ..if5 17 llbc1 gS!? 18 .ig3 g4 19 tDes llxb2 20 lDxe4 .i.xe4 21 lDxg4 .i.g7 with an unclear game) 16 ...1lxb2 17 lDa4 (or 17 ltlxe4 dxe4 18 Wa3 llc2 19 lDe5 .ixe5 20 .ixe5 f6 21 .if4 .ig4 wiili a messy position) 17...1lb4 18 a3 (White must be careful wiili his a4-knight; instead 18 llab1 ? 'i'bsl 19 Wxb8 llfxb8 and White was losing in Al-Modiahki lordachescu, Dubai 2004) 18.. ll.c4 19 ltlb2 llxd4 20 .i.e3 llc4 21 lDxc4 .ixa1 22 llxa1 dxc4 with an 'unclear' verdict from Ior dachescu. 10 0-0 1 1 .te3 .tf5 1 2 llc1 dxc4 1 3 .txc4 .
.•.
1 3 ...c6 Preparing a retreat to d5 for the b4-knight. White can achic..-ve an edge after 13...lDxc3: 14 bxcJ lDc6 15 .idJ .i.xd3 16 9xd3 11'd7 171lb1 (instead 17 c4 J..f6 181lfd1 llfe8 19 'lfbt b6 20 h3 lDc7 was only equal in G.Kuzmin-Hu7man, Rcthymnon 2003) 17...b6 181lfe1 llfe8 19 .if4. 14 lC.e5 lC.xc3 1 5 bxc3 te.d5 1 6 1ff3 Also interesting is 16 1ib3 f6 17 ltlf3 b5 (Ivanchuk suggests that 17 ...1rd7!? leads to an unclear position after 18 l:lfet �h8 19 .id2 .id6 20 .in lDf4) 18 �e2 �hs 19 .id2lDb6 20 life I 9d7 21 c4 bxc4 22 .i.xc4 lDxc4 23 9xc4 l:fc8 24lDh4 i.f8 and White has a very faint edge, Kir.Georgiev-lvanchuk, 19
Th e Petroff Defence
Dcbrecen 1992 1 6 .i.e& 1 7 .i.d2 The other way to play is 17 .i.d3 when Black has three main replies: b) 17 ....i.f6 18 .i.d2 .d6 19 llfet lladS 20 c4!? is Nijboer's suggestion (20 h4 c5 21 h5 cxd4 22 cxd4 &i:k7 21 h6 lDg6 24 hxg7 .i.xg7 led to a messy position in Nijboer foressinet. Leon 2001). After 20. .�7 21 .i.a5 lieS 22 .i.c3Q)g6 White's space advan rnge makes his position preferable. b) 17...ltlxe3 1S fxe3 .i.d619lL!c4 .i.c7 20 e4 f6 is unclear - Black's bishop pair com pensates for White's centre. c) 17... .i.d6 tS .i.d2 'lh14 19llfet ltlf6 20 a4ltlg4 21 .i.f4 .i.dS 22 .i.g3 lLixeS 23 clxe5 e'h6 (Hubner pointed out the blunder 23...'itxa4? 24 .i.xh7+1 *xh7 25 'lh15+ WgS 26 exd6) 24 .i.e4 .i.xe4 25 "ifxe4 .i.c7 is equal, Klimov-Smikovski, Toljatti 2003. .••
.
27 llxc5 ltlf6 and despite White's creative efforts the position was stiU level in Topalov lvanchuk, Novgorod 1996. 18 11'd7 1 9 h3lQf4 Exploiting the loose bishop on c4. Black could also play the simple 19... b5 2U .i.d3 llfcS 21 life1 .i.d6 22 lL!e3 ltlxe3 23 .i.xe3 .i.d5 24 .e2 'itf7 with equality . 20 .i.b3 White ambitiously keeps the tension. The quiet 20 .i.xe6+ ltlxe6 21 lL!e3llfeS 22 ltlf5 .i.fB is level. ..•
20 .i.xb3 21 axb3 lDg& 22 llfe1 .i.d& 23lQe31lae8 24lQf5lQe7 A sharp try is 24....i.f4!? 25 'W'g4 .i.xd2 26 lLlh6+ gxh6 27 11'xd7 .i.xe1 28 'trxb7 lle2 with an interesting and unbalanced position. 25lQxd6 ••d6 26 c4lQg6 The greedy 26...1Vxd4?! allows a deadly pin: 27 .i.b4llf7 28lle6. 27 .,5 ••d4 28 .i.b4 l0114 Black has to play creatively to survive. If 2S..Jlxcl+? 29llxe1 lidS 30 ..e6+ Wh8 31 .eS+ .!DEB 32 "fif7 Black's weak back rank costs him the game. 29 'lrh5 g& 30 1ra5 Motylev points out that 30 .c5 'trxc5 31 .i.xc5 llxet+ 32lLet lids 33 .i.xa7 Wf7 is equal. 30 Jle51 Once again 30....1Let+ leads to back rank problems: 31 llxe1 llf7 32 .i.c5 'lrh2 33 .d8+ Wg7 34 Wh2 (one clever preparatory' .••
1 7 16 Less accurate is 17 ... .i.gS 1S .i.xg5 'itxgS 19 llfel llaeS 20 g3 "iff5 21 "ifdt ltlb6 (White has a promising initiative after 2t..lle7 . 22 .i.d3 1i'f6 23 c4 ltlb6 24lle4Topalov) 22 .i.d3 "iff6 23 1i'c21!f> 24 llbt .i.cS 25 lle2 lie7 26 llbe1 and White had some prcsswe in Topalov-Akopian. Linares 1995. 1 8� Or tSlLld3 1i'd7 19llfe1 .i.d6 20 h3 .i.f7 21 .i.b3llae8 22 "ifg4llxet+ 23llxc1 lids 24 Wxd7 llxd7 25 lL!es Le5 26 dxe5 fxe5 •••
20
••
3 �xe5: Th e Main L ine with 8 c4 is required; instead 34 l:le8?1 allows Black to escape with a draw with 34...'iVct+ JS 'it>h2 �f3+! 36 gxf3 'iVf4+- the king must !(II to hl and allow a perpetual because mov in� to the g-file allows ...'iVgS+ and 1fxc5) _\4...�£5 35 lleH and White has a dangerous 111tack (Motylev). move
31 llcd 1 ! Now White has t o be careful. I f 31 l:lxeS?! 34 �e2 'i'c4+ 35 Wd2 �f3+ 36 �c3 'iVd4+ 37 'iPb4 '.f.>xffi Black's position is preferable: two pawns and White's exposed king provide more than enough compensation for the l'XChangc.
rxeS 32 �xfB 'iVe4 33 �ft 'iVxg2+
41 b4 llf3 42 lld7 + �f7 ¢>16 45 hb6
44 :Xa7
.i.e3 Jlxh3
After the alternative 4S l:la6 �S 46 l:lxb6 �e6 47 bS llh4 48 gS �£5 49 bxc6 �f3+ Black's countcrplay arrives just in time to save the draw.
45...�5 46 .i.dB+ ¢>e6 47 ¢>g2 llb3 48 lle7+ ¢>d6 49 :Xh7 I.Oxc4 50 .i.g5 1.0&5 51 llg7 ¢>d5 52 .i.f4 lbxg4 53 :Xg6 lbxf2 54 lld6+ ¢>c4 55 ¢>xf2 llf3+ 56 ¢>e2 llxf4 57 We3 llh4 58 llxc6+ Wxb4 59 lle6 Wc4 60 :Xe4+ llxe4+ 61 Wxe4 Y.z-%
Gamel
31 ...1rxd1 32 •xeS fxe5 After 32 ...1Vxb3 Black's exposed king al lows White to draw with 33 'iVd6 l:lf7 34 l:tc!t+ en too early Instead 1 8 ltleSI? may be the best choice Kasparov-H.Olafsson, Kopavogur (rapid) 2000 continuing 1 8...i.f6 1 9 .i.b2 g6 (or 1 9...c6 20 d6 g6 21 cS and White's pawns are very strong) 20 'ifd2 ti)d7 21 �xd7 i.xb2 22 �xffi .i.xal 23 ltlxg6 l:r.xel+ 24 'ifxe1 hxgt) 25 .xa1 c6 26 dxc6 i.xc6 27 1i'c3 and Kas parov was dearly better. After 1 8 ... i.d6 1 9 i.b2 9£6 20 l:r.e3 White is building a strong attack, the tactical justification being 20...lLe5?! 21 i.xeS i.xeS 22 'ifhs :CS 23 l:r.aet gS 24 h4 when White is already dose to victory.
1 8...g6 1 9 �5 .i.f& 20 .i.b2 �7 21 f4 If 21 lDg4 then 2t..ixb2 22 Wxb2 hS 23 �3 �cS 24 i.c2 c6 is just unclear. 21 ...i.g7 22 .,2 lL!c5 This is fine but 22... c6!? 23 d6 ltXs 24 llad 1 lle6 with a hard fight ahead wa.o; also reasonable. 23 .i.c2 •d& 24 1le3 f6 25 � llxe3 26
1txe3 ..i.c8 27 f5 ..i.xf5 28 hf5 gxf5 29 l0f2
The alternative 29 �h6+ also leads tO equality after 29 .ixh6 30 11fxh6 ltle4. 29 ..� 30 lrure4 % -% Here the players agreed a draw. Kasparov .
.
3 liJxe5: The Main L ine with 8 c4 wves the variation 30...fxe4 31 1Wc4 f5 31 Wc2 1Wc5+ 33 Wh 1 .i.xb2 34 ...xb2 1fxc4 3S
We5.
�------.,
Game S
Grischuk-Pavasovic
Istanbu/2003
-------•
1 e4 e5 2 .!Of3 .!Of& 3 .!Oxe5 d& 4 .!Of3 lf)xe4 5 d4 d5 6 ..id3 .!Oc& 7 0-0 i.e7 8 c4 l0b4 9 ..te2 dxc4 Immediately clarifying the siruation in the c.:cntre to give White an IQP. 10 .bc4 0-0 1 1 l0c3 Also possible is the straightforward I I li)cS. For example, 1 1 ...c6 12 �3 lbxc3 1 3 hKc3 �5 1 4 1i'b3 (14 1id3 .td6 1 S �b3 WVf6 16 ...g3 .i.�.-6 is also murky) 1 4......c7 I S .i.xd5 cxd5 1 6 .i.£4 (Sax-Pavasovic, Baden I 'JIJ9). Now 1 6...'iraS 1 7 llfe1 .1£6 leads to unck-ar play.
1 1 . . ..!0xc3 Exchanging is narural but retreating is also pc 1ssible: a) 1 t ...lbf6 is rather passive. After t2 ltleS r6 1 3 .i.gS lbfdS 1 4 .i.xe7 Wxe7 1 5 lle1 .iw 1 6 .i.xdS lbxd5 1 7 lbxdS cxdS 1 8 '1Vb3 White's superior minor piece is enough for n n edge. b) More active is 1 1 ...�6 12 .i.b3 �f6 and now: bl) 1 3 h3 (simply preventing ... .1g4) 1 3. . ..i.f5 1 4 .tc3 l:le8 I S a3 lbd3 (1 5...�6!?
is also fine: after 1 6 dS ltleS 17 �xeS �xeS Black has strong, active piece play) 1 6 llb1 cS 17 dxcS ltle4 (the tricky 1 7...�xb2?! back ftres after 18 1lxb2 �xc3 1 9 cxd6 �xb2 20 .i.xf7+! e2 'it>e5 31 'it>d3 .l:ldc6 ..•
49 'it>e3 .l:lb3+ 50 �4 .l:lb4+ 51 'it>g3 White prefers to avoid the pawn ending 51 WgS ltbS+ 52 �h6 1lxh5+ 53 WxhS even !hough he wins neatly after 53 ... b5 54 f4 b4 ss 5 b3 56 f6 b2 57 fl b1W ss f89+ Wa2 59 Wa8+. 51 b5 52 h4 .l:lb1 53 .l:lxh7 b4 54 .l:la7 + �b2 55 �4 .l:lh1 56 'it>g5 b3 57 h5 'it>c3 58 .l:lc7 + �d4 59 .l:lb7 Wc3 60 h6 b2 61 g4 b11i' 62 .l:lxb1 .l:lxb1 63 h7 .l:lb8 64 �6 .l:lb6+ 65 �g7 .l:lb7+ 66 ¢>h6 .l:lb6+ 67 Wh5 .l:lb8 68 g5 1 -0 .••
.••
•..
Game 1 7 lvanchuk-Shlrov
Dortmund 1998 1 e4 e5 2 ltlf3 .!Lif6 3 d4 ltlxe4 4 .!Lixe5 d6 5 .!Lif3 d5 6 ..td3 &6 7 0-0 .i.e7 8 .l:le1 .i.g4 9 c3 f5 1 0 'iJbd2 0-0 1 1 'irb3
11
32 �3 Or 32 :lel+ �d6 33 l:le8 :lcS 34 l:lxcS l:.xcS 35 l:lb8 and White's advantage is t:vi tlcnt. 32 .l:lc5 33 .l:lxc5 .l:lxc5 34 'it>d3 .l:lc4 35 lle1 + Wd6 36 .l:le8 .l:lf4 37 f3 .l:lh4 38 h3 b6 39 .l:lb8 'it>c5 40 .l:lc8+ 'it>d6 41 .l:lf8 g5 42 .l:lf6+ 'it>c5 43 b4+ 'it>b5 44 .l:lf5 �a4 45 .l:lxg5 'it>xa3 46 .l:lxd5 46 bS �b4 47 l:lxdS is even more straight forward. 46 .Axb4 47 .l:lh5 llb3+ 48 �e4 .l:lb4+ ..•
••
Wh8 Sacrificing a pawn. 1 1 ...�5 will be stud ied in the next game. 12 ..xb7 White can opt to include 12 h3 .i.hS be fore playing 13 Wxb7. For example, 13 ...l:lf6 1 4 9b3 l:lg6 (or 14 ...g51? 1 5 .!?lfl l:lbB 1 6 Wc2 with a murky position) 15 .i.e2 .i.d6 (1 5 ... .i.h4?! is the wrong way to build up the attack: 1 6 l:ln .i.xf3 1 7 o!?lxf3 and White is a safe pawn up because 17....i.xf2+?! fails to 1 8 llxf2 .!?lxf2 1 9 � f2 Wd6 20 o!?lgS! l:lf8 21 9a3 Wd8 22 .i.f4 h6 23 o!?lf3 lle8 24 .i.d3, •.•
41
Th e Petroff Defence Katpov-Korchnoi, 6th matchgame, Moscow 1 974) 1 6 ltk5 I!Dxe5 17 .i.xh5 ltxg2+! 1 8 �xg2 .gS+ 19 �ft 1Wh4 20 I!Dxe4 (not 20 ltxe4? 11'xh.J+ 21 Wg1 �! and Black wins) 20...1i'xh}t 21 �g1 I!Df3+ 22 Lf3 .i.h.2+ and Black has a perpetual check (O'Kelly). 1 2...1lf6
1 3 ...,5 The other retreat 1 3 'tl'b3 also allows Black counterplay: 1 3 ...ltg6 (1 3...ltb8 14 .a4 simply transposes to the game) and now: a) 1 4 .ib5 I!Dxd2 1 5 I!Dxd2 .i.d6 1 6 g3 (or 1 6 .ixc6 Lh.2+1 17 Wxh.2 1Wh4+ 1 8 �gl lth6 1 9 f3 •xel+ 20 .!Dn lthl+l 21 �ht .xft+ 22 Wh2 .i.xf3 and now White should accept that Black has a perpetual check be cause if 23 'ii'c2? .ie4 24 .d2 :ciS Black has a deadly attack) 1 6 ...ltk7 1 7 .i.d3 h5 1 8 .!Dfl h4 and Black has a dangerous initiative, Peshkov-Raetsky, correspondence 1985. b) 14 g3!? 1:lb8?! 1 5 .c2 .i.d6 1 6 b41 (Movsesian pointed out that the imprecise 16 .ift ..f6 17 .i.g2 ltfB would allow Black un deserved compensation) 16.JWf6 17 b5 ltk7 18 � .ixeS 19 dxeS and White was clearly better in Movsesian-Kroeze, Nethedands 2001 . More accurate is 1 4...•d6 1 5 .ib5 ltb8, when Black has some compensation. 1 3 1lb8 1 4 1ra4 i.d6 1 5 h3 Or 1 5 .ibS I!Dxd2 1 6 .i.xd2 .ixf3 (1 6...ltk7?! is too passive: 17 �5 a6 18 .if1 :xb2 1 9 .tgs .i.h5 20 .ixf6 gxf6 21 •d7 is much better for White, Gagunashvili•..
42
Bayramov, Batumi 2001) 1 7 .ixc6 tlg6 1 8 g3 .i.e4 and Black's kingside play provides ob vious play for the pawn. 1 5....th5 1 6 .i.e2 llg6
1 7 Wf 1 17 Trying to escape the pressure along the g file. In this complex position White has two other main options: a) 1 7 I!Dxe4 leads to very unclear play after 1 7 ... fxe4 1 8 li)gs :Xgs 1 9 .ixgs •xgs 20 .i.xhS lik71 21 .d 1 g6 22 .i.g4 h5 23 .i.d7 lids 24 .i.b5 I!D5. b) Curiously, 1 7 lbcs allows Black a choice of forced draws: 17 ...�e5 1 8 dxe5 .ixe2 19 exd6 ltxg2+! 20 Wxg2 .gS+ 21 �h 1 I!Dxf2+ 22 Wh2 f4! 23 lOft � 24 hxg4 1Wh4+ 25 Wg2 1i'xg4+ with a perpetual check, or 1 8...•g5 1 9 .if1 I!Dxf2! 20 exd6 .!l)xh.}t 21 Wh1 I!Df2+ (lvanchuk). 1 7 -*.14 1 8 �3 .i.xc1 1 9 llaxc1 •d6 20 1lc2 The ambitious 20 .ib5?1 backfires after 20.. .:Xg2! 21 Wxg2 ..g6+ 22 Wh2 .ixf3 23 ltgt 1i'd6+ 24 .l:[g3 �7 25 :n hS, after which Black's attack is very strong. lvanchuk analysed 20 I!Dh4 as leading to a draw: 20...•f4 21 I!Dxg6+ hxg6 22 f3 l0c5! 23 1i'xa7! I!Dxf3! 24 1i'xb8+ Wh7 25 .ixf3 .ixf3 26 :Xe4 .ixe4+ 27 �e2 .g3 28 .l:[g1 .d3+29 Wf2 f4 when to avoid mate White must play 30 .!DeS and allow perpetual check. 20 11ff4 21 ,j_d1 1le8 22 libl2 It is vital to support f3. If 22 �5?! then .•.
.••
3 liJxe5: The Main L ine with 8 lle 1 22... ..i.xf3 23 ..i.xf3 'Wh2 24 g3 .1Lg31 25 .lxe4 'ti'xh3+ 26 We2 .J:g6 and Black's attack i� venomous.
41 'it'e8+ �h7 42 'it'xc6 'ti'd2+ 43 'iVg2 e2 44 liJgS+ 'it'xg5 45 'it'xg5 e11i' 46 'it'hS+, with White having reasonable winning chances.
33 hxg4 After 33 fxg4? Black can draw with 33...Wfe4+ 34 tll f3 l:txg4+! 35 hxg4 'ifxg4+ 36 'ith l 1i'xf3+ 37 .llg2 c2 38 �gl .e3+ 39 'itht •n.
33 ...llh6 34 1txd5 /:i)e7 35 •e5 White had a faster win with 35 'ild7! l:tb8 36 'ifxe7 llxb2 37 l:lxb2 llh2+ 38 Wfl l:txb2 39 l:lxe3.
22 1lge6 23 liJxe4 fxe4 24 g3! 1tf5 25 t;)g1 .i.xd1 26 llxd1 e3?1 •..
This is the wrong approach. 26...h5 leads an unclear position after 27 c4 e3 28 cxd5 1i'xd5 29 'it'c4 liJe7. However, the best line is 1hc simple 26...l:tf6 27 l:te2 l:tcf8 when Black has a definite edge. In
27 �2 1We4+?! One slip follows another... After 27 ...l:tffi f3 fi:k7 29 l:te2 White would have b�o.-cn only slightly better. 2fl
28 f3 1Wf5 29 h2 1lg6 30 llde1 1Wf4 31 g4 h5 32 'lrb51 hxg4
A better try is 32 ... l:tcd)!? when lvanchuk analysed 33 'lrxd5 hxg4 34 hxg4 l:tx�:,t4+ 35 fKg4 'ifxg4+ 36 �h 1 l:th6+ 37 l:th2 llxh2+ 38 Wxh2 'irh4+ 39 liJh3 'it'xe1 40 'it'hS+! Wg8
35 ....-xe5 36 dxe5 /:i)d5 37 �g3 lie& 38 /:i)h3 llxe5 39 /:i)f4 /:i)xf4 40 �xf4 lla5 41 a3 llb5 42 �xe3 llcb6 43 b4 liaS 44 Jla1 c5 45 llb2 cxb4 46 llxb4 llba5 47 a4 llc5 48 Jla3 1-0
Game 18 Anand-Gelfand
Moscmv 2004 1 e4 e5 2 .!Llf3 .!tlf& 3 c!Dxe5 d6 4 .!tlf3 o!Llxe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 .i.e7 7 0-0 lbc& 8 l:te 1 .i.g4 9 c3 f5 1 0 'lrb3 0-0 A major alternative here is lO...'ifd6 with the idea of ca!ltling lJUeenside. White has three main answers:
a) Taking the pawn with 1 1 'lrxb7 should certainly be analysed, but Black has good play after 1 1 ...l:tb8 1 2 'ifa6 ..i.xf3 1 3 gxf3 0-01? 1 4 fxe4 (not 1 4 ..i.bS?! l:tb6 1 5 'lra4 .i.h4 with a dan�rous initiative; for example, 1 6 fxe4?
43
The Petroff Defence allows a winning attack after 1 6....txf2+! 17 �£2 9xh2+) t 4...fxe4 1 s .tn .th4. b) 1 1 .!Dfd2!? is interesting but also poten tiaUy risky: 1 1 ...0-0-0 1 2 f3 i.h4 (the tricky 12 ....!De5?! fails to 13 i.xe4 dxe4 1 4 fxg4 .!Dxg4 1 5 .!Df1 and White is clearly better Timman) I 3 :n and now: bl) The creative 1 3...i.h3?! is refuted by accurate defence: 1 4 ..c2 11'g6 1 5 .!Db3 :h£8 16 .!Da3 llde8 17 i.f4! {but not 17 Wht?? .!D£2+! t 8 llxf2 i.xg2+! 0-1 Ivanchuk-Anand, Reggio Emilia 1 989) 17 . .:e6 18 .!DbS and White has a clear advantage. b2) 1 3 ...i.f2+!? 1 4 :xf2 lOx£2 1 5 Wx£2 ..xh2 1 6 .!Dn 11'h1 1? 1 7 fxg4 fxg4 and the situation is impossible to assess with any confidence: White has a large material advan tage but a dangerously exposed king. c) 1 1 .!Dbd2 is the safest option. 1 1 ... 0-0-0 12 ..c2 (12 .lb5is less clear, for example 12..if6 13 1i'a4 :he81? I 4 i.xc6 bxc6 I 5 l0xe4 :xe4 16 :xe4 fxe4 17 .!Des i.xeS 1 8 dxeS ..cS 1 9 i.e3 'irbs with an unbalanced position) 12..Wb8 13 b4 i.f6 1 4 bS .!De7 1 S .!Des i.xeS 1 6 dxeS 1Wg6 1 7 .!Db3 lbgs 1 8 f4 .!De4 19 i.e3 and White had an edge in S7.e lag-Naumann, Rostock 2002.
.!DeS i.xf2+ (White is also clearly better after the alternatives 17...f4 1 8 :e6 9d8 19 l0d3 f3 20 g3 and 17 ...lbd8 18 .tn b6 19 .!Ddl .!De6 20 1tb4! - Anand) 1 8 Wxf2 ....2 19 i.xc6 bxc6 20 11'xc6 f4 21 ..xdS+ Wh8 22 1WxhS f3 23 11'xf3! :Xf3+ 24 Wxf3 and White. has cleverly consolidated his advantage, An· and-Kramnik, Tilburg 1998. b) 1 3 ...i.h4! with a further branch:
.
1 1 lbbd2 lba5
1 2 Wc2 12 1Wa4 is a very important alternative. Play continues 12....!Dc6 1 3 i.bS and now: a) White has an easy time after 13 ....!Dxd2?! 14 .!Dxd2 '1Fd6 I S h3 i.hS 16 .!Db3 i.h4 17 44
.I
bl) 14 g3 (this is usual) 14 ... i.f6 t S Let bxc6 1 6 1i'xc6 :es 17 .!Des i.xeS 18 dxe5': lbgs 19 f4 (Kramnik mentions 1 9 c4!? d41� 20 WdS+ 1WxdS 21 cxd5 llad8 as still giving compensation) 1 9....!Dh3+! (White has edge after 1 9...:C6?!, for example 20....!De4?1; 21 l0xe4 dxe4 22 .i.e.� a6 - Shirov-Kramnik.j Belgrade 1 999 - and now 23 :OCt i.f3 24J :c2 would have clarified White's advantage).; 20 Wg2 :b8 21 c4 (21 .!Db3!? :b6 22 -� d4! 23 c41 •c8 is messy) 2t ...dxc4 22 lbxc4 1t"d3 23 tbe3 (White has to watch out fen' mating trick.o;: 23 i.d2? :eds 24 .tc3 •cZ+ 25 Whl ..a4!) 23 .. 1E.xb2+! 24 .i.xb2 ..dz..+; 25 Wht l0f2+ 26 Wg1 .!Dh3+ 112-lfz Anand� Kramnik, Wijk aan Zec 1999. 1 b2) 1 4 :n !? is also worth considering; 14....!Dxd2 1 S .!Dxd2 f4 1 6 i.xc6 bxc6 11, .xc6 .gS 18 c4 (18 g3 allows Black to fore a draw with 18...fxg3 19 hxg3 .txg3! 20 fxg� 1i'e3+ 21 Wg2 9e2+) 18...1lad8 19 cxdS :d� 20 1Wc3 llg6 21 .!Df3 Whs 22 .!Des f3 lbxg6 hxg6 24 .i.e3 .i.c8! is totally unclear� Koziak-Motylcv, Lvov 1999.
an;
�
� j
3 lbxe5: The Main Line with 8 lle 1
keeps an edge after 15 g3 �g3 1 6 hxg3 i.xg3 1 7 lle2, whereas 1 5 fxe4 i.xel 1 6 cxfS c4 17 i.fl .i.xd2 18 .i.xd2 �c6, Moro zevich-Adams, Dorttnund 2002, is rather unclear. 1 3 b4 This is reasonable but perhaps White should prefer 1 3 �5!? .i.xeS 1 4 dxe5 11Vh4 1 5 llfl with a pleasant edge. 1 3... ..i.xf31 14 l'Oxf3 l'Oc4 1 5 ..i.xc4 Or 1 5 a4 c6 1 6 11Vb3 b5 17 axb5 cxbS 1 8 lla6 llf6 with unclear play. 1 5 dxc4 16 ..i.e3 J:leB 1 7 J:lad1 •te 1 8 lbe5 ..i.xe5 This is the obvious choice but 1 8.. .Axe51? is also interesting, 1 9 dxe5 '1Vxe5 20 g3 1ixc3 leading to a messy position. 1 9 dxe5 •xe5 20 .i.d4 'MI5 21 a4 •d7 White also has compensation for the pawn after Black's two other options: 21 ...1i'a6 22 f3 �6 23 .i.c5 and 21 ...11Vc6 22 f3 �6 23 b5 'W'd7 24 .i.eS llad8 25 11Vf2. 22 ..i.xa7 rod& 23 J:lxe8+ •xeS 24 .i.c5 •xa4 25 •xa4 J:lxa4 26 .i.xd& cxd6 27 Wf1 .IZa& 28 J:ld4 b5 29 J:ld5 J:la3 30 J:lxd& J:lxc3 Y.z Y.z •••
1 2....i.d6 This is sttongcr than 1 2...c5 1 3 llk:S .i.hS (not 1 3 ...cxd4?1 14 �xg4 dxc3 1 5 bxc3 fxg4 1 6 ti)xe4 dxe4 17 .i.xe4 i.c5 1 8 i.xh7+ �h8 1 9 .ic3 when White defends easily) 1 4 t3 cxd4 1 5 fxc4 fxamc Williams-Staunton, London 1851 is certainly possible (see the notes to Grune 19), but these days most Black players prcfer Krau7.e's su&�,rcstcd pawn sacrifice 9 ...lDa6!?. 'I hen to .i.xe4 dxe4 11 'iVxe4 (Game 19) gives Black active play as compcm;ation for the pawn after either 1 1.. .lle8 or 11...lDb4!? (Raet sky's b'llmes are important here). Nowadays, j.,>randmasters, including the elite, prefer to prcvent the possibility of ...lDa6-b4 with 10 a3, ;�ftcr which Black continues with 1O...lle8,
IU ....i.g4
(Game 20) or to... fS (Game 21). Attacking the e4-knight with 9 lle I was unpopular for many years, but it has become quite fashionable rccendy. Defending the knight with 9....i.f5 and the !,>ambit continua tion 9....i.�4 arc discussed in Game 22, while 9. .:es is the subject of Game 23. Despite the obvious transposition after 9 lDc3 lDxc3 10 bxc3 .i.g4 1 1 cxdS cxdS and 9 cxdS cxdS I0 lDc3 lDxc3 11 bxc3 .i.g4, this docs not mean that there arc no signitlcant differences berween 9 lDc3 and 9 cxdS. After 9 lDcJ (Games 24-25) Black can proceed with 9...lDxc3 10 bxc3 dxc4 1 1 .i.xc4 .i.J..,r4, when the sharpest line is 12 'ii'd3 lDd7 13 lDf6 1 4 h3 i.hS 1 5 f4 h6 1 6 g4 as played by Capablanca (Game 25). The theory is very far advanced in the line of 9 cxdS cxdS 10 lDc3 lDxc3 11 bxc3 .i.g4, and here White manages to develop a strong initiative on the kingsidc. After 12 llb1 the game branches: 12 ...b6 is studied in Game 26, while 12 ...c!'Dd7 is the subject of Games 27-28. .
lbgs
Gamc 19 Burkov-Raetsky
Correspondence 1985 1 e4 eS 2 c!Llf3 I.Llf& 3 c!Llxe5 d6 4 c!Llf3 47
The Petroff Defence
l'Dxe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 .*.d6 7 0-0 White has a couple of minor alternatives: a) 7 lbbd2 f5 8 �5 0-0 9 0-0 c5 to c4!? (the passive 1 0 c3 allows Black to create strong counterplay after 1 o...cxd4 1 1 cxd4 ..i.xeS!? 1 2 dxeS llk6 1 3 lbf3 f4, for example 14 .txe4?! dxe4 1 5 ..xd8 l:lxd8 16 tbgs ..i.f5 17 ..i.xf4 h6 18 lbh3 - Shafranska-Raetsky, Budapest 1 991 - and here 1 8...g5 gives Black an edge) to...cxd4 1 1 tben (not 1 1 tbdf3? 1fc7 1 2 .if4 g5!, when Black is a1ready al most winning) 1 1...dxc4 1 2 lbxe4 fxe4 1 3 .1xe4 d 3 and the position i s complex. b) Playing 7 c4 before castling allows Black an additional option: 7 ....tb4+ 8 lbbd2 0-0 9 0-0 .txd2 1 0 tbxd2 (also possible is 1 0 .i.xd2 .1g4 1 1 .te3 li)c6 1 2 h3 .thS t 3 llc1 l:le8 14 a3 dxc4 15 .txc4 'irf6 16 .1e2 Short-Adam.-;, Wijk aan Zee 2000 - and here Adams suggests 1 6 ...lbg3! 17 fxg3 l:lxc3 1 8 g4 .tg6 1 9 ..d2 lte4! leading to an unclear position) to._li)xd2 1 1 .i.xd2 dxc4 12 .txc4 .i.e6 (1 2...Wxd4 t 3 .tb4 ..xdt 14 ltaxd 1 l:le8 15 l:lft:1 l:lxet+ 16 l:lxel .te6 17 .i.xe6 fxe6 18 l:lxe6 li)c6 is also equal) t3 .1xe6 fxe6 1 4 .g4 1Wd7 1 5 l:lfe 1 l:lf6 1 6 .tg5 l:lf5 17 d5! l:lxd5 1 8 llad1 tbc6 is level. Tiulin Raetsky, correspondence 1985. 7 0-0 •••
li)xd5 17 'tth5 li)f6 18 1Wh4 White is much better - Cordel) 1 6 .tgS .te7 17 .i.xe7 li)xe7 1 8 .i.e4 .i.xf3 19 .1xf3 li)f5 20 11fxb7 l:lb8 21 ..xa7 lbxd4 22 .lg4 l:lxb2 23 l:lad1 l:lb6 24 1Va4 and White has small advant!lh>c, Bernstein-Marshall, San Sebastian 1 91 1 . b) 1 5 g41 (this is even stronger) 1 5...lbxd5 1 6 .1e61 .tfl 1 7 lbg5 .txL-6 18 lbxe6 ..f6 1 9 li)xfB ltxf8 20 11fd3 and White is much bet ter, Gipslis-Christiansen, Gausdal 1 992 8 c4 This is the critical try, but 8 l:lc1 is also reasonable. Now 8... .tf5 9 c4 c6 transposes to 8 c4 c6 9 l:le 1 .if5, while 8...l:lc8 9 c4 c6 transposes to 8 c4 c6 9 :C l l:le8. This leaves 8....tg41? as the independent try: 9 .i.xc4 dxe4 10 l:lxc4 f5 1 1 l:le1 llk6 1 2 c.1 'iii'hH 1 3 lbbd2 11'£6 14 h3 .ths 1 5 ltlc4 l:lae8 1 6 :n (Black also has compensation after 16 ltxe8 l:lxe8 1 7 ltlxd6 ..xd6 18 .td2 f4) 1 6... £4 1 7 lbxd6 cxd6 (White was a bit better after 17 .....xd6 1 8 b3 b5 1 9 .tb2 •ds 20 a4 a6 21 axb5 axb5 22 .ta3 l:l£6 23 .1c5 in Kulaots Rozentalis, Cappelle Ia Grande 2004) 18 b3 g5! 1 9 .1b2 l:lg8 20 g4 (not 20 d5?! .ixf3 21 'lrxO g4! 22 hxg4 ltle5 23 "irh3 ltxg4, when White is in serious trouble) 20 ... fxg3 21 fxg3 l:le3 22 g4 ..£41 23 lbe 1 l:lxh31? 24 l:lx£4 gxf4 25 Wg2 l:lh4 26 �f2 l:lgxg4 27 ltlo l:lh3 with an unclear position (Kulaots). 8 c6 9 1tc2 tl)a& 9 ... f5 is a major alternative here. Play continues 1 0 lbc3 ..•
7....tg4?! is premature after 8 c4 0-0 9 cxd5 f5 10 h3 .th5 1 1 tbc3 tbd7 12 lbxe4 fxe4 1 3 .i.xe4 li)f6 1 4 .1f5 Wh8 and now: a) 1 5 Wb3 tbxd5 Qf 1 5....txf3 1 6 ..x£3 48
3 ltl xe5: Black Pla ys 6 . . . .i.d6
and now: a) lO. ..lba6 1 1 -.,3 �h8 12 cxd5 cxd5 1 3 lbb5 (13 .i.xa6 can lead to a dmw after 1 3...bxa6 14 1i'xd5 l:lb8 1 5 �5 .i.b7!? 1 6 lbt7+ l:lxf7 1 7 1i'xf7 lbxc3 1 8 bxc3 .i.xh2+! 1 9 �2 Wh4+ 20 Wgt ..txg2! 21 Wxg2 1Wg4+) 13....i.b8 14 lle1 ..te6 15 a3 .i.gs 1 6 lbc3 ..Ll6 17 ..t ft g5!? 18 1Wxb7 g4 is un ck."llr, Volchok-Borisov, correspondence 1 984. b) JO ...Wh8 1 1 cxd5 cxd5 12 ltlxd5 .ixh2+ 13 �xh2 1Wxd5 1 4 .i.c4 ..d6+ 1 5 tbcs lbc6 16 .i.f4 1Wf6 (not 16...lbxd4? 1 7 1Wd3 and White i s winning, but perhaps Black shoukJ tty 16 ...ltlxe5 17 .i.xeS Wh6+ 1 8 Wg1 .i.e6 1 9 dS i.g8 with unclear play) 17 ltlxc6 bxc6 1 8 i.eS Wh6+ 19 Wg1 ltld2 (19...lbg5?! allows White a strong advantage after 20 f4 ltle4 21 i.d3, Macieja-Meijers, Istanbul Olympiad 2000) 20 l:lfel (Macieja pointed out 20 1Wc1 ?! ltlf3+1 21 gxf3 f4 22 ltc1 .i.h3, when White is in trouble) 20...ltlxc4 21 'ilxc4 and White has an edge.
1 5... £5 1 6 ltlb3 .i.xf3 1 7 gxf3 1Wf7 18 f4 ltlb4 19 'ilc3 Whs with a dangerous attack, Kruppa-Rozentalis, Lvov 1985. 1 2 /l\g5
White's two other possible options also al low Black good counte�play: 12 ltlc3 l:le8 1 3 'libt 'lfJ 1 4 tlk4 .i.g4, or 12 .lle1 l!fl 13 .ih6 .if5 14 ..e2 l:le8 1 5 1Wxe8+ 1fxe8 16 llxe8+ llxe8 1 7 lbc3 ltld3. 1 2 ... f5 1 3 ••2 f4 14 lD84
White wants to avoid the nasty pin that arises after 14 ltlf3 ..tg4. For example, 15 a3 Lf3 16 gxf3 Wh4 17 'A'eM �h8 18 1Wg4 (other tries lose by force: 1 8 ..xd6 lbc2 19 lla2 'irh31 20 .ixf4 llad8, and 18 axb4 l:lf6 19 1Wd7 llg6+ 20 Wh1 :cis 21 1Wf5 llg5 22 1ic6 �1.51 23 lla3 llffJ 24 1We4 .g5) 18...1Wxg4+ 1 9 fxg4 ltlc2 20 lla2 lbxd4 and Black was slightly better in Kuznetsov Raetsky, correspondence 1 985; or 1 5 ltla3 1if6 16 c5 .i.c7 17 1ic4+ ltlds and Black's position is preferable. 14 f31 1 5 gxf3 J.h3 1 6 lle1 •c7 ..•
1 0 J.xe4
1 0 a3 is studied in Game 20. 10 dxe4 1 1 •xe4 lilli4 ..•
1 7 a3
This is strong but Black has a good alter native in 1 t ...l:le8 12 1Wd3 (or 1 2 1Wc2 lbb4 1 3 -.o3 .i.f5 14 lba3 aS and Black has excel lent compensation) 12....i.g4 1 3 .i.gS 1Wd7 14 ltlbd2 h6 1 5 i.e3 (White should probably prefer 15 .i.h4, but Black stiU has good play after 1 5...lbc5 1 6 1Wc2 ..tf5 1 7 'l'c3 ltld3)
Black is also much better after other tries: a) 17 lbxd6 1fxd6 18 �hl 1Wxd4. b) 17 ltlg3 llae8 1 8 .ie3 (Black has as strong attack after 1 8 1Wxe8 llxe8 19 llxe8+ ..tf8 20 lba3 1Wf7 21 lle3 hS) 1 8...1Wt71 19 l0a3 lbd31 20 lleb1 lbf4 21 ...6+ - 1-Jaba) 20...f6 21 ti)f3 'iVh5 22 g3 llaeS 23 Wg2 g5 was unclear in Lanka Haba, Hamburg 2003. 1 1 c5 J..c7 1 2 l0c3
1 2 l0f6 Alternatives are not so good: a) 12...tnxc3 13 bxc3 tnd7 14 �xg6 hxhr6 15 �g5 lDf6 16 &5 and White has a pleas ant initiative - Pikct. b) 12...f5 13 'lfb3!? and now 13...:tt7 al lows a trick: 14 ti)g5! b6 (the point is 14...tnxg5? 15 �xg5 Wxg5 16 :teS+ J:tf8 17 l:lxfB+ �xf8 18 'ifxb7 and White wins) 15 �xe4 fxe4 16 lDxt7 �xt7 17 cxb6 axb6 18 lDe2 .f6 19 �e3 tnd7 20 llac I with a clear advanmge, Anand-Morozevich, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 2003. Instead, 13... b6 14 cxb6 axb6 15 tnxe4 fxe4 16 �xe4 �xc4 17 :Xe4 gives White a small advantage. 1 3 J..g5 lbbd7 1 4 r!Lle5 .bd3 15 1txd3 1tc8 1 6 f4 If 16 b4 lDxe5 17 dxe5 tnd7 18 f4 f6 19 exf6 tnxf6 20 g3 �dB Black's stands well. 1 6 .. .i.a5! 1 7 1tg3 �8 18 e.4 .i.xc3 Preparing ...tne4 The immediate 18...lDe4!? is also possible: 19 lle3 tnxe5 20 fxe5 ..i.xc3 21 bxc3 f6 22 exf6 gxf6 23 �h6 llt7 24 c4 1Ve6 25 cxd5 cxd5 26 :lfl l:g8 27 h3 with an unbalanced position - Piker. 1 9 bxc3 �e4 20 l:le3 White couJd try 20 �c7 tnxc5 21 fxc5
lies 22 �d6 tnxc3 23 llc3 lDe4 24 :th3 h6 25 :tft with reasonable play for the pawn. 20. . .�xg5 21 •xg5 h6
Trying to win a piece with 2t...f6? loses to 22lDg6+! hxg6 23 1Wxg6lDxc5 24 :te7. 22 -.,5 �f6 23 �xf7+ �h7 24 �g5+ Wg8 25 •s6 hxg5 26 l:le7!
•••
.
56
Black defends easily after 26 fxg5? lbe4 27 :th3.f5. 26 ...�8 27 l:lae1 1tg4 Black would be mated after 27.-gxf4? 28 llxg7+! tnxg7 29 l:te7. 28 fxg51th4 The safest line is 28. .1Wf4! 29 h3 'ifg3 30 �h1 'ifxc3 31 :XeS Lc8 321lxc8 'ifct+ 33 Wh2 1Wf4+ with a draw (Piket). 29 g3 .3 30 llxb7 .,5 31 ••6+ 1 11rxe6 32 l:lxe6 l:ln?! 32...J:tf31? 33 llxc6 J:txc3 is still unclear. Now Black is in trouble. 33 llxn �xn 34 llxc6 l:lb8 35 l:la6 l:lb7 36 h4 fi:jc7 37 l:ld6 �5 38 g6+ h7 39 llxd5 �c3 40l:le5+ � 41 c61 l:lb1 + There is no way to save the game: 41.. llc7 42 h5 l:lxc6 43 g4 llc6 44 gS+! �c7 45 h6 gxh6 (45...lbe2+ 46 :txe2 :txe2 47 hxg7 is a beautiful finish) 46 g7 l:lxc5 47 dxe5 �t7 48 e6+ Wxg7 49 !,rxh6+ and a pawn will queen (Piket). 42 �g2 l:lb2+ 42...tnb5 doesn't help: 43 J:ld5 :tb4 44 a3 :tb2+ 45 �h3 4+ Wd7 27 llcbl and the attack breaks through) 21 9f5 g6 22 9a5 �d7 23 9c3 1fdS 24 .LfB �xfB 2S llet and \Vh.ite had an edge in Yandar biev-Skatchkov, St Petersburg 2001. 18 a4
. • .
�d6
with unclear play) 25 9f3 � 26 L3 �b4 27 h5 �3 28 hxg6 hxg6 (Ponomariov-Safin, Yerevan 2001) and here White should force a draw with 29 'Wf6! .i.xa3 30 llhSI gxhS 31 'Wg5+. 1 9 �e3 Once again there is a choice: a) 19 .i.b2 should be equal after 19..ic7 20 J:lcS l:fd8? (this is a fatal slip; 20....i.d6 2 1 l:b5 .i.c7 is level) 21 llh5 g6 22 d511fd6 23 g3 gxh5 (If 23...f6 then 24 llxh71 and the attack crashes through) 24 9xh5 and White was winning in Zagrebelny-Chctverik, Gyula 1992. b) 19 .i.g5!? is a promising alternative to 19 i.e3. For example, 19.. .1lfc8 20 l:lfbt g6 21 .i.e3 Wc6 22 a5 'lfxf3 23 gxf3 �8 24 l:xb7 l:lxb7 25 l:xb7 lle7 26 l:b1 with an edge for \Vh.ite, De Firmian-Kosebay, Co penhagen 1996. 1 9 /i)cS 20 llfb1 b6 ...
18 llab8 Supporting the b-pawn, but this is not the only move: a) 18...g6 is an important option - sec the next game. b) Black should avoid 1B ...i.c7?! 19 g3 a6 20llhS g6 21 lies .i.ds 22 aS 9xd4, as in D. Kaiumov-Chetvcrik, Harkany 1992. Now White could have built a powerful attack with 23 .i.e3! 1ic3 241lk l llcB (not 24...�7? 2S .ixg6 1i'xcl + 26 .i.xcl �xeS 27 .i.f5 and White wins) 2S llhS. c) Worth considering, however, is 18...llfe8!?, for example 19 .i.fS ti'c7! 20 i.e4 a6 21 llg5 llxe41 (the careless 21 h6?? is refuted by 22 llxg7+! Wxg7 23 .i.xh6+!) 22 'lfxe4 �a4 23 lle l g6 24 h4 li'lc3 (also possible is 24...lld81? 25 h5 b5 •..
.
...
21 llh51? nus is not \Vh.ite's only attacking method. 21 h4 liJc7 22 h5 h6 23 g4 .i.c7 24 gS a6 (if 24...hxg5 25 l:xg5 f6 26llg2 Wh8 27 1fe4 f5 28 1fh4 White has a promising attack) 25 l:l5b4 bS 26 gxh6 f5 27 axbS axb5 28 1fg2 llf7 with a complex position, Shilov-Ractsky, Lugansk 1989. 21 ...g6 22 .i.h6 lld8 23 .f6 �fS 24 .i.xfB •xd4 The only move. 24...llxfB? loses to the clever 2Sllxh71 Wxh7 26llb5. For example, 65
The Petroff Defen ce
26...Wh6 27 llhS+I Wxh5 28 'iff41 and mate is unavoidable. 25 •xd4 After 25 Jl..g7 'ifxf6 26 .i.xf6 ltd6 27 ::lh4 llxf6 28 ltxc4 �6 Black has won back the piece and keeps a clear extta pawn. 25 ...:txd4 26 .i.c5 ltd2 27 :te5 :txc2 28 :tea+ �7 29 .i.d4+ 29 .i.fB+ is le::;s clear: 29. ..'itf6 30 :dt c3 3t:dd8 with an ob::;cure position. 29 f6 30 .i.e37 This spoils White's advantage. 30 ltdt c3 3t Jl..e3 Wf7 32 ::ldd8 lta2 33 ltxc8:Xc8 34 llxcS :Xa4 35 llxc3 promises some winning chances. 30 . :tc3 31 ltd1 ltd3 32 :C1 ltd7 33 ¢1 1 7 Instead 3 3 Jl..f4 :laS 34 llxc4 tbd6 35 :c7! holds on to equality. 33...g5 34 �e2 ¢17 35 llh8 Wg7 36 lte8 lte7 37 :td8 :C7 38 h4 h6 39 f47 The final mistake. 39 :d4 :bb7 40 hxgS hxgS 41 ltcxc4 liJe7 still leaves White some hopes of saving the draw. 39 ...gxh4 40 f5 :tbb7 41 .i.f4 ltc6 42 ltcd1 a6 43 lt1d4 h5 44 .i.c1 fi::Je7 45 :t8d7 ltcc7 46 :Xc7 :Xc7 47 .i.f4il)xf5 48 .i.xc7 il)xd4+ 49 �e3 lLlf5+ 50 ¢14 il)e7 5 1 We4 b5 52 a5 b4 53 � b3 0-1
which gave White an edge in Svidler Akopian, Yerevan 1996) 23 axb6 .i.e7! 24 bxa7 b6 25 i.e4! 11'xa7 26 i.dS i.d6 27 :Xb6 :bSI 28 :Xb8 llxb8 29 llxb8+ i.xb8 30 Jl..xc4 tli'at+ 31 .tn tli'xd4 with a drawn position (Svidler). b) 19 i.d2 c3 20 i.xc3 :ac8 21 i.e4 :c4 22 :bb1 :xa4 (Black has a promising alter native in 22...:fc81? 2'\ .tat :xa4 24 i.xb7 :c7 25 i.e4 :a3 with counterplay - Barlov) 23 i.xb7 :V 24 :ret (or 24 i.c6 11fc7 25 :at :b3 26 :fb1 :xbt+ 27 :xb1 rlcs 28 dS liJxd5 29 :b7 1Wxb7 30 i.xb7 :Xc3 31 'IVdt i.f4! heading for a drawn opposite coloured bishop ending - Kaspamv) 24...tli'c7! 25 ltat %lb8 26 i.e4 ltb3 was equal in Kasparov-Shirov, .Iinares 2000. 1 9...:ac8
Game 28 Anand-Shirov Unarr:s 2000
20 ltfb1 After 20 i.h6 :res White has an unusual, way to force a draw: 21 i.fS! gxfS 22 '1Vg4+11 fxg4 23 ltgS+ Wh8 Va-lfz Zaw Win Lay Pacicncia, Surabaya 2002. 20 c3 21 a5il)c4 22 :txb7 This is promising but 22 .i.h6!? is also in teresting: 22.. %lfe8 23 :xb7 'ifc6 (not 23 ..11t'xb7? 24 '1Vxb7 %lb8 25 a6! and White has a clear advantage) 24 :lfl! lte7 25 ::lxe7 i.xc7 26 ltdt (Greenfeld mentioned the· unclear line 26 d51? 'ife5 27 .i.f4 'iff6 28 1llg4:cs 29 .i.h6) 26...�2 27 'ild3 .i.d6 28 a6! 'ifc4! and White was a bit better in terman-Greenfcld, Haifa 2002.
••.
..
1 e4 e5 2 il)f3 il)f6 3 lLlxe5 d6 4 il)f3 il)xe4 5 d4 d5 6 .i.d3 .i.d6 7 0.0 0-0 8 c4 c6 9 cxd5 cxd5 1 0 il)c3 fi::Jxc3 1 1 bxc3 .i.g4 1 2 :tb1 il)d7 1 3 h3 .i.h5 1 4 ltb5 fi::Jb6 1 5 c4 .i.xf3 1 6 •xf3 dxc4 1 7 .i.c2 •d7 1 8 a4 g 6 1 9 .i.e3 White's two other options are less threat ening: a) 19 Jl..h6 :res 20 :fbt :ladS 21 i.gS Jl..e 7 22 aS Jl..xgS! (this i::; more accurate than 22...�5 23:Xb7 'ife6 24 Jl..d2 .i.f6 25 ltet, 66
'
.••
.
.
AI-11
3 f.i)xe5: Bla ck Plays 6... J.. d6 22.......6 More solid than 22...:C7 23 .ih6lle8 24 Axc7 'flxc7 25 'flxc3 when White has a dan gerous initiative. For example, 25...loa3? 26 llet! llb8 27 'flxc7 .i.xc7 281le7 ltlxc2 29 :Xc7 ltlxd4 30 llxa7 gave White a winning ending in Motylev-Ristic, Novi Sad 2000. 23 1la1 Less threatening is 23 .ib3 'fit'S 24 11fxf5 gxfS 25 llal (Grischuk-Shirov, FIDE World Championship, New Delhi 2000 ) and here Grischuk suggested the equalising 25...ltld2!? 26 g3ltlxb3 27 :Xb3 c2 281lct llc4. 23...J..b8?1 Now Black is in real trouble. 23...Ac7 24 a6 lDxe3 25 fxe3 'fle7 26 l:.abt is only mar ginally better for White. 24 i.b3 .d6 If 24 ... c2 25 Act Wd6 26 :Xc2 9hz+ 27 Wft ltlxe3+ 28 fxe3 lLc2 29 .i.xc2 White is clearly better (Shirov). 25 g3 f.i)xe3 26 J..xf7 + �h8 27 •xe3 .,6 Pushing the pawn again achieves nothing: 27...c2 28 llct llc7 29 llxc7 .ixc7 30 .ic6 i.xa5 31 d5 (Shirov). 28 .i.e& llceB 29 d5 .ie5
30 lla2? Now White loses control of the position. Even worse is 30 'ifxa7? llxe6 31 dxe6 .i.d4 32 l:xh7+ WgS 33 'flb7 Wxf2+ 34 Wht c2! 35 :t? .i.xal 361lxf2 ct'fl+ 37 Wg2 :xl2+ 38 Wxl2 .td4+ when Black has decem win ning chances. White could have maintained an edge with 30 :b4!? llb8 31 :c4 c2 32 llct llbl 33 ll4xc2 .td4 34 Wf41lxc1+ 35 llxct .i.xf2+ 36 Wg2 (Rogers). However, the best option is Shirov's later suggestion: 30 lla41 c2 31 llc4 .td4 32 1i'f4 Wxf4 33 gxf4 .i.xf2+ 34 Wg2 with good winning chances. 30....id4 31 ..., 31 1td3!? .txf2+ 32 Wg2 .i.d4 33 llc2 with an unclear position is better. 31 .....f3 32 Wh2 •xd5 33 .ixd5 llxe1
34 �2? Now White is lost. 34 f4 :res 35 .to llct still leaves White with good drawing chances. 34 ...i.xf21 35 llf7 The point is 35 llxf2 llxf2+ 36 Wxf2 c2 and the pawn queens. 35 1lxf7 36 .ixf7 .ic5 37 .ib3 ¢>g7 38 :C2 .id4 39 a6 ¢>16 40 lla2 'ite5 41 h4 �e4 0-1 •..
67
The Petroff Defence Summary
The variation 6...J.d6 7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 c6 has become fashionable and is likely to remain popular because of the huge number of complicated, untypical and insufficiently studied positions. After 9 .c2, defending the knight with 9... f5, as in the historic Wtll.iams-Staunton game (London 1 851) isn't had because it's not that easy for White to take advantage of the weakened a2-g8 diagonal. After 9 .c2 �a6 10 a3 Black has a few effective responses: 1 O J:e8 1 1 llk3 J.f5; t t ...J.g4; or the immediate 1 0....i.g4, responding to 1 1 lDe5 with 1 1 .....tf5, 1 t ..J.hS or •.
1 1 .....txe5 12 dxe5 �c5. The fashionable 1 o...f5 appc..-ars to give White the better chances after an accurate attack on the queenside with 1 1 �c3 �c7 1 2 lDe2 � 1 3 b4. In the event of 9 1let. the pawn sacrifice 9.....tg41? deserves careful consideration. After 10 Le4 dxe4 1 1 llxe4 f5 1 2 lle6 1id7 Black has full compensation, while he has prospects of equalising after 12 1let ..txf3 13 Lf3 1t'h4. In the case of 9 ... J.f5 White can claim an advan tage with 1 0 llk3 �xc3 1 1 bxc3 ..txd3 1 2 Wxd3 dxc4 1 3 11'xc4 �7 14 ..tgS!?, while after 9...1le8 10 ru �xc3 1 1 bxc3 the position appears to be favourable for White. To us, the move 9 �c3 seems less accurate than 9 cxd5 cxd5 1 0 llk3 because Black can proceed with 9...�xc3 10 bxc3 dxc4 1 1 Lc4 ..tg4. We can't find any white's advantage in either the calm variations or the sharp 1 2 1id3 �7 1 3 clOgs �f6 1 4 h3 .i.h5 1 5 f4 h6 1 6 g4. Recently 9 cxd5 cxd5 1 0 ru �c3 1 1 bxc3 .i.g4 has not been so popular. White's position seems to be more promising after 1 2 1lb1 b6 but. if Black defends accurately. White will not gain an advantage after 12 ..�7. Nowadays there are fewer fans of this complex line, which requires knowledge of variations developed earlier and where t.-very moment is critical.
1 e4 e5 2 �f3 �f6 3 lnxe5 d6 4 �f3 lnxe4 5 d4 d5 6 ..i.d3 .i.d6 7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 c6
(D) 9 cxd5
9 1fc2 �a6 10 .ixe4 Ga111t 19; 1 0 a3 .i.g4 - GtUJJe 20; 1 O... f5 - Game 21 9 1le l 9....if5 - Game 22; 9...1le8 - Gan1e 23 9 llk3 �xc3 1 0 bxc3 dxc4 1 1 .lxc4 .i.g4 (D): 12 h3 - GttnJe 24; 1 2 .d3 - G011Je 2; -
9 cxd5 10 �c3 lnxc3 1 1 bxc3 .i.g4 1 2 .Rb1 (D) �7 12 ...b6 - Gm11e 26 1 3 h3 .i.h5 14 .Rb5 �6 1 5 c4 .i.xf3 1 6 11xf3 dxc4 1 7 .i.c2 ...d7 1 8 a4 1 8. 1lab8 Game 27; 18...g6 - Gm11e 28 ••.
..
-
B. . . c6
68
1 1 ... i.g4
12 fl.b 1
CHAPTER FOUR
I
3 ltJxe5: Deviations from the Main Line
1 e4 e5 2 t0f3 �f& 3 o!bxe5 d& 4 �f3 o!bxe4 5 d4 A fter 1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 lL!f6 3 lLlxeS d6 4 ll:)f3 lLlxe4 5 d4 we've already identified two principal trends: S...dS 6 �d3 �e7 7 0-0 c!bc6 (< :hapters 1 -2) and 6 ....i.d6 (Chapter 3). It is reasonable to devote a separate chapter to deviations from these �nes. Black rarely dc c�nes to play the main continuation S...dS in favour of the passive s...i.e7 (Game 32). After 6 �d3 the knight retreats to f6 rather than to gS (in view of 7 li:)xgS ..ixg5 8 'ii'c2+). l11en White normaUy proceeds with 7 h3 in order to restrict the c8-bishop. After 5 d4 dS 6 ..td3 Marshall suggested 6 .....tg4, which failed the test of time in view of 7 "iVe2+1 'fle7 8 0-0 li:)c6 9 �bS, when it is difficult for Black to complete his develop ment. In Game 31 we discuss MarshaU's idea of an early .....tg4 improved by the insertion of the moves 6 ...li:)c6 7 0-0. The two critical lines arc 6 ...c!bc6 7 IJ-0 ..ig4 8 c4 lLlf6 9 cxdS ..txf3 10 'tixf3 'it'xdS 1 1 'it'xdS (or 11 "iVe2+; I I l:cl+ �c7 reaches a tabiya from Chapter 2) and 9 li:)c3 i.xf3 10 "iVxf3 li:)xd4 1 1 'it'c3+ (or 1 1 'it'h3; again 1 1 l:e l + ..ic7 rt-aches Chapter 2). l r should be said, however, that in modem practice Black usually avoids giv ing his opponent a variety of possibilities and often develops his bishop to e7 early on.
After S ... dS 6 ..id3 i.e7 7 0-0 the idea 7 ...ll:)d6 is played very seldom, with Bilguer declaring this move a 'motiveless retreat'. In fact, there arc some motives, i.e. a counter measure to c2-c4 and a preparation of .....i£5. However, a fter 8 i. f4! Black fails to develop his bishop to f5 and is forced into passive defence. If Blacks wishes to move his bishop to f5, he should do so immediately after 5 ... d5 6 �d3 i.e7 7 0-0 �f5. Then 8 c4 can be met by 8...dxc4 since the rook is not yet attacking the knight on c4, and the arising position with an isolated pawn gives approximately equal chances. 8 :Ct lL!c6 (Games 29-30) is more common, after which the position branches. Game 29 reviews the fashionable 9 lbbd2 as weU as 9 lbc3 and the pin 9 i.bS, taking control of the eS-squarc; Game 30 is devoted to the more fundamcnral 9 c4.
Game 29 Kasparov-Karpov Mo.rco»' 1981 1 e4 e5 2 t0f3 �f& 3 lDxe5 d& 4 �f3 �xe4 5 d4 JJ..e7 6 .i.d3 d5 7 0-0 JJ..f5 Retreating voluntarily with 7...li:)d6 makes White's task easier: 8 i. f4 0-0 9 :let ..ie6 (or 9.....ig4 10 h3 ..ihS I I l:leS!? i.xf3 12 1i'xf3
69
Th e Petroff Defence c6 1 3 c3 �7 14 Ae2 ltlf6 1 5 � with a clear advantage, Lau-Mathe, Munich 1992) t o c3 �7 1 1 1Vc2 h6 (this is forced as 1 1 ...g6?! allows the standard tactic 1 2 i.h6 lle8 1 3 lLe6! fxe6 1 4 i.xg6, when White is much better) 12 ltlbd2 :e8 1 3 ltlft ltl£8 14 ltlg3 i.g5 15 1Vd2 f6 16 h4!? Lf4 1 7 1fxf4 'ird7 1 8 ltlh2!? 1ff7 1 9 ltlg4 and White had a promising initiative in Timman-Skembris, Corfu 1 993.
edge, Zhang Pengxiang-Delchev, Unares 2002). b2) 1 1 lle1 �6 1 2 i.d3 i.f6 1 3 dS i.xd3 14 1Wxd3 ltlb4 1 5 1i'd1 aS (a sharper option is 1 5...ltlf5 1 6 g4 �6 1 7 a� ltla6 1 8 i.f4 1Vd7 19 h3 with an unclear position according to Tal) 16 a3 t'ba6 17 .i:e3 :Cs 1 8 'iVa4 �b8!? 1 9 i.d4 (Komeev-Ro.Perez, Collado Villalba 2000) and here Perc?. now suggests the correct route to equality is 1 9...ltld7!? 20 :xeS+ �xeS. 8 &6 9 �bd2 This is the best of White's alternatives (the main move 9 c4 is discussed in the next game). Other options include: a) 9 i.bS i.f6 t O �bd2 0-0 1 1 �f1 �e7 1 2 c3 ltlg6 1 3 i.d3 �6 14 i.xf5 ltlxf5 1 5 'iVb3 b6 16 1rbs a6 1 7 'iVd3 1Wd7 1 8 ltlg3 �xg3 1 9 hxg.� aS 20 i.g5 i.xg5 21 ltlxg5 :reB and Black has easy equality, Karpov Korchnoi, World Championship (Game 4), Merano 1 981 . b) 9 ltlc3 ltlxc3 10 bxc3 i.xd3 1 1 cxd3 (1 1 'irxd3 also gives nothlng after 1 1 ...0-0 1 2 c4 dxc4 13 1rxc4 i.f6 1 4 c3 :eS) 1 1 ...0-0 1 2 1i'b3 llbs 1 3 :e2 bs 1 4 i.d2 1Wd7 1 s :net :res and Black had equalised in A.lvanov Pierrot, Buenos Aires 2003. 9 .c!Dxd2 1 0 'irxd2 .i.xd3 1 1 'irxd3 0-0 ...
8 �1 This is more promising than the alterna tives: a) 8 ltles ltld7 9 1ff3 ltlxe5 10 dxe5 'ird7 1 1 ltlc3 i.g4 1 2 e61 (a neat trick but Black has a defence) 1 2...i.xe6 (not 12 ...'irxe6?! 1 3 ltlxd5! 1Wxd5 14 1Vxg4 ltlf6 1 5 Wa4+ 1Wd7 16 1Vxd7+ �xd7 1 7 :e1 - Ro. Perez - when the bishop pair and especially the nasty pin give White a clear advantage) 1 3 ltlxe4 dxe4 14 i.xe4 c6 1 5 :d1 1Wc8 1 6 :ct 0-0 1 7 Whs f5! 1 8 i.d3 i.f6 19 c3 :Cs and Black had equalised in Sutovsky-Ro.Pcrcz, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. b) 8 c4 has the obvious drawback of los ing time with White's Icing's bishop. 8...dxc4 9 i.xc4 0-0 10 �c3 lL!c6 and now: b1) I f t 1 i.d3 rhe correct answer is 1 1 ...�c3 12 bxc3 'iVd7 13 :e1 i.d6 14 :b1 b6 1 5 :bs i.xd3 1 6 'irxd3 :res, when Black has no problems (but not 1 1 ...�d6 12 i.xfS ltlxf5 13 d5 ltlb4 1 4 a3 lba6 1 5 1rc2 �h4 1 6 �xh4 i.xh4 17 :ld 1 , when White has an
70
••
1 2 c3 Kasparov quietly defends d4 before start ing active play. 12 i.f4 is also possible: 12 ... i.d6 13 ll)g5 g6 1 4 Wh3 h5 1 5 i.xd6 (1 51
3 li:lxe5: D e viations from the Msin L ine i.e3 illustrates the potential weakness of d4: 1 5...lnxd41 1 6 ttlxf7 ttlf3+! 1 7 Wxf3 lLf7 1 8 'lfh3 llf5 and BL1ck has equalised) 1 5...cxd6 1 6 ttlf3 1Vb6 1 7 l:tab 1 ttlxd4 1 8 ttlxd4 Wxd4 1 9 Wd7 and White's activity certainly com pensates for the missing pawn but is proba bly not enough to force an advantage. 1 2...1t'd7 1 3 .i.f4 a& 1 4 J:le3 J:lae8 1 5 J:lae1 White is more active but Black is very solid and simplifying exchanges seem likely. 1 5.....td8 1 6 h3 Safeguanling the back rank and keeping the tension. 1 6 �5 eases Black's task after 1 6...ttlxe5 17 dxe5 'Wbs 1 8 b3 Wxd3 1 9 l:lxd3 c6 20 c4 i.a5 2 1 llbt dxc4 22 bxc4 lld8 23 lla3 (Kavalck-Smyslov, Amsterdam 1 981) and here the simplest path to equality is 23. ..i.d2 24 i.xd2 llxd2. 1 6 J:lxe3 1 7 llxe3
Playing directly for exchanges with 1 9...l:te7 leads to some difficulty: 20 tL\b3 llxe2 21 Wxe2 i.e? 22 'l'g41 Wxg4 23 hxg4 i..d6 24 i..xd6 cxd6 25 f4 and Black's dou bled d-pawns ensure White of a slight edge in the ending. 20 ltlf1 .i.f8 21 1t'f3 J:le7 22 ltle3 The assessment is typical of this variation: White has a nagging pull. 22...�8 23 .i.xc71? An interesting way to unbalance the play. 23 ...1t'xc7 24 ltlxd5
.
••.
24 1t'd6?1 Black should prefer 24...:Xe21? 25 ttlxc7 l:tet+ 26 ..t>h2 i.d6+ 27 g3 .ixc7 28 ...d5+ �f8 29 Wg2 with unclear play: Black has plenty of material for the queen but regaining coonlination without losing more pawns will be very difficult. 25 li:lxe7+ .be7 26 1t'e4 .i.f8 27 1t'e8 Kasparov su�>ested that 27 c4 b6 28 d5 gains a clear advantage. 27 g6 28 a4 Now Black manages to untangle. 28 h4!? Wg7 29 h5 keeps an edge. 28 ...Wg7 29 b4 1t'c7 30 J:le3 li:lf7 3 1 1t'e& •d8 32 a5 h5 33 ee4 ed7 34 ••6 1t'd8 35 �1 li:lh6 36 g4 hxg4 37 hxg4 li:lf7 38 We2 Or 38 f4 'ire? 39 llf3 i..d6 40 1i'e4 Wc8 and Black still holds on to CI.Juality. a8 ltlg5 39 as •d7 40 Wc�3 ..td& 41 �2 % -% •.•
1 7 f6 Avoiding a nasty back rank trick: 1 7...lte8?! 18 Wf5! l:te6 1 9 h4 g6 20 'irh3 1i'c8 21 ltxe6 'l'xe6 22 'irxd) fxe6 23 tl\g5! and White has a clear advantage (Kasparov). 18 J:le2 This simply improves coordination while awaiting developments. In a later game 1 8 ll:\12 was tried and following 1 8...ttle7 1 9 tL'lbJ 'irf5! 20 'l'xf5 ttlxf5 2 1 l:tc2 b6 22 tl\c1 4 ttle7 a draw was a�-,rreed in Leko-Kramnik, Dorunund 1 999. 18 Af7 1 9 li:ld2 .i.e7 .•.
•..
•..
.••
71
The Petroff Defence
Came JO Herrera-Ro .Perez Varadero 2000 1 e4 e5 2 �f3 �f6 3 �es d6 4 �f3 �e4 5 d4 d5 6 .id3 .te7 7 0-0 .tf5 8 lle1 �c6 9 c4
9 o!Ob4 Provoking a tactical sequence while fight ing for control of d5. Instead 9 ...0-0 makes it much easier for White to fight fur the advantage: a) 1 0 cxd5 ..xd5 1 1 llk3 (the tactics fa vour Black, who is clearly better after 1 1 ..c2? li)b4 12 .Le4 li)xc2 13 .i.xd5 .llaeB! 14 .i.xb7 .i.b4 15 :XeS llxe8 16 .i.c6 l:b8, Shirov-Ivanchuk. Monaco (rapid) 2002) 1 t ...li)xc3 12 bxc3 llfe8 (Black can try to blockade with 1 2... b5 but after 13 L5 •x5 t4 li)e5 li)a5 1 5 a4 b4 16 .td2 White has a strong initiative) 13 .i.f4 .i.xd3 1 4 ..xd3 ..d7 1 5 :C3 .i.f6 16 llae1 lle7 1 7 .i.g5 :Xe3 1 8 fxe3 .i.xg5 1 9 li)xg5 J!f1 20 e4 and White's impres.'iive centre gave him good chances in Yagupuv-Sorokin, St Petersburg 2001 . b) Also good is 1 0 llk3 lbxc3 1 1 bxc3 .i.xd3 1 2 ..xd3 dxc4 1 3 ..xc4 with a further branch: b1) 13.....d7 1 4 llb1 b6 15 d5 � 1 6 1Wd3 llfe8 (or 1 6...c 6 1 7 c4 cxd5 1 8 cxd5 llad8 19 .i.gS! and White keeps the initiative) •••
72
17 .tf4 l:ad8 18 llbd1 and White has a slight edge. Now the game Bruzon-Ro.Perez, Santa Clara 2000 continued 18 ... .i.f6 19 h3 :Xe1+ 20 llxet b5?! 21 .i.g5 llk4 (Nogueiras gives 2t ....i.xg5 22 li)xg5 5 23 d61 1Wxd6 24 Wx5 with a winning advantage for White) 22 .i.xf6 gxf6 23 llc..--41 and White has a clear plus. b2) 1 3....td6 14 �5 ..f6 15 llbt (1 5 ..xb7?1 grabs a poisoned pawn and Black has tricks based on a later ....txh2+, i.e. 1 5.. .1lab8 1 6 ..a6 li)xd41 17 ..d3 li)xf3+ 1 8 WxO 1rxt3 19 gxO a6 and Black's stronger pawn structure gives him an edge) 15 ... a6 16 1Wd3 b5 17 a41? ...g6 (or 17 ...bxa4 1 8 1la1 l:lfe8 19 l:lxe8+ llxe8 20 llxa4 aS 21 .i.d2 llb8 22 l%a 1 and White is a bit better) 1 8 1Wxg6 hxg6 19 axb5 llfb8 20 c4 axb5 21 c5 .i.f8 22 .i.f4 lla4! and despite Black's enterprising play White still has an edge, Abreu-Ro.Percz, Cuba 2003. 1 0 cxd517 Now the play becomes very complicated. The simple 1 0 .i.ft also allows White to try for an edge, for example: a) 1 o... dxc4 leads to very sharp play after 1 1 li)c3 (or 1 1 .1xc4?1 0-0 12 a3 ll)d6! 13 .txf7+!? :Xf7 14 axb4 .i.g4 1 5 li)bd2 .i.g51? and Black has superb compensation for the pawn) 1 1 ...lbf6 1 2 .i.xc4 0-0 1 3 a3 llk6 (try ing to win material with 13 ...lbc2?! fails to 14 lilh4 .i.e4 1 5 lllxe4 lllxa1 16 lilts, when White has a large advantage - the knight on at has no chance of escaping) 14 d5 ll)a5 15 .i.a2 c5 16 .i.g5 :Cs 17 1Wa41 .i.d7 18 1Wc2 h6 19 .i.h4 and White had a strong initiative in Karpov-Portisch, Tilburg 1982. b) 10 ...0-0 1 1 a3 llk6 12 cxd5 (1 2 ltlc:J ltlxc3 13 bxc3 dxc4 14 .i.xc4 rransposes to 7...liJc6 8 c4 ltlb4 9 .i.e2 0-0 10 li)c3 .i-5 I 1 a3 lilxc3 1 2 bxc3 liJc6 13 lle1 dxc4 14 .i.xc4 - see Game 2) 12...1l'xd5 13 ltlcJ lllxc3 14 bxc3 .i.f6 1 5 .i.f4 ..d7 16 lla21? llac8 17 l:ae2 :Xe2 18 1fxe2 li)a5 19 lbe5 1Wa4 20 g4!? (White's advantage is his activity rather than his structure, so it is vital to continue
3 li:Jxe5: Deviations from the Main L ine aggressively) 20....i.e6 (or 20....i.xe5 21 .i.xe5 .i.d7 22 .i.xc7 lieS 23 'ifd2 'ifxa3 24 .:.xeS+ .i.xe8 25 •g5! and White keeps an edge) 21 g5 .i.d8 and White was a bit better in Korn ec.'V-Ro.Percz, Albacete 2000. 1 0 ...lnxf217 This is the critical try. 10...�xd3 1 1 '1Vxd3 'ifxd5 transposes to 7...�6 8 c4 �b4 9 cxdS �d3 10 9xd3 'IVxdS 1 1 .:.e1 .i.t5 (sec Games 9-1 0). 1 1 .84+ The only good move. If 1 1 .tb5+?! c6 1 2 .a4 0-0 1 3 dxc6 bxc6 14 Lc6 �fd3 Black has a clear advantage. 1 2 dxc6? is even worse: 1 2...�xd1 13 c7+ '1Vd7 14 .i.xd7+ .i.xd7 1 5 �a3 �f2! and Black i s winning. 1 1 ....id7
1 2 i.b5 Again White has no choice. After 12 1i'xb4? �xd3 1 3 .:.xc7+ '1Vxe7 14 '1Vxb7 0-0 1 5 .i.d2 Wc2 Black wins easily. 1 2.../l)fd3 Advancing further into White's position with 1 2...�bd3?! leads only to trouble: 1 3 .:.e2 a6 (or 1 3...�xc1 14 .:.x.£2 �3 1 5 .:.d2 �f4 16 �5 .i.xb5 1 7 9xb5+ 6 1 4 dS li)b4 15 c4 and White has a pleasant space advantage) 13 11fxf3 li)xd4 14 11fxb7 �8 15 ll)f5 li)x5 16 .i.x£5 .i.fB 17 l:lxe8 'ifxe8 18 .i.d2 J!ll 1 9 .i.d3 d5 20 c4 and White has a strong initia tive, Ljubojevic-Smyslov, London 1984. 7 0-0 8 0-0 lieS Black has alternatives but no path to l.'tJUaJity: a) 8...c5 9 llk3 li)c6 10 J:le1 a6 (to.. lbh4 doesn't solve Black's problems: White has an edge following 11 .i.f4 d5 12 dxcS Lc5 13 .i.eS) 1 1 d5 li)a7 (after 11...li)b4 Karpov suggt.-sts 12 .i.e4!? as a way to keep the initia tive) 12 a4 .i.d7 13 aS l:lc8 14 .i.f1 h6 15 .i.f4 .i.f8 16 J:lxe8 •xeS 17 .i.h2 •ds 1 8 li)d2 'flc7 19 �c4 li)xc4 20 li)xe4 and White was a bit better in Karpov-Smyslov, Moscow 1972. b) 8...llk6 9 c3 J:le8 10 J:le I .i.d7 11 lLibd2 .i.ffi 12 llk4 d5 (exchanging with 1 2...li)xe4 still leaves White with an edge :1fter 13 .i.xc4 h6 14 .c2 'flf6 1 5 .i.e3) 13 ltig3 .i.d6 14 l:lxe8+ 'iVxeS 1 5 'ifc2 h6 16 .i.d2 .f8 17 ltif5 .i.xf5 18 ..i.xf5 l:le8 19 i.d3 li)dg 20 c4 and White had an initiative in Bnmstein-SmysJov, Leningrad 1971. 9 c4 c6 The alternative is 9..,li)bd7 10 li)c3 and:
a) to. .ll)fB 11 :C1 ll)g6 (White has a clear plus after 11...d5 1 2 �5 c6 13 cxdS li)xdS 14 li)xd5 cxdS 15 .i.b5) 12 11fc2 .i.d7 13 .i.g5 .i.c6 14 d5 i.d7 15 l:lad1 a6 16 �2 li)hS 17 .tel •cs 18 �d4 cS 19 dxc6 bxc6 20 li)5 .i.x£5 21 .i.x5 11fc7 22 1Wa4 li)f6 23 l2XI4 c5 24 li)c6 and White was much better in Luther-Bellin, Catalan Bay 2003. b) 10. c6 11 J:le1 ll)f8 12 .i.f4 a6 13 'flb3?! (this allows cnunterplay; 13 d5!? li)g6 14 .i.h2 cS 15 'li'd2, with a slight edge, is better, while also promising is 13 b41? �6 14 .i.h2 a5 15 b5) l 3H,�6 14 .i.h2 .i.f8 (Fischer assessed 14... b5!? 15 a4 bxc4 16 .i..xc4 d5 17 ..i.ft c5 as unclear) 1 5 :C2 b5 16 1ic2 ..i.b7 17 J:lae1 g6 with a complex posi tion, Fischer-Petrosian, 5th matchgame, Buenos Aires 1971. 1 0 l:iJc3 e6 1 1 b4 l:iJbd7 1 2 .i.e3 t'iJf8 1 3 e4 .
..
...
.
1 3...85 White's initiative continues after 13 ...d5 14 cS li)e6 15 'ilc2 ..i.f8 16 bS. 14 b6 t'iJg6 1 5 lle1 t'iJh5 16 •d2 .i.d7 1 7 lZab1 ecs 1 8 .i.f1 18 dS!? cS 19 �4 with promising play is also interesting. 1 8....i.f5 1 9 l:lb3 1 9 g4? wouW be a naive blunder: 19 ...i.xg41 20 hxg4 1ixg4+ and Black has a clear plus, 1 9 h6 20 �2 t'iJf6 21 .-r,2 d5 22 bxc6 bxc6 23 cxd5 .i.b4 .
••.
77
The Petroff Defence lf23...cxd5 then 24 l:c1 ..d8 25 �b5 and White keeps an edge. 24 llc1 cxd5 25 tDb6 WbB+ 26 Wg1 lle7?!
This aUows White's advantage to grow. Black can limit the damage with 26 ..ltc8 27 lDc1 .:Xct 28 1Wxct 'lrd8 29 l2X!3, when White is only A bit better. 27 tDe5! i.d7
The tactical justification is seen after 27...I.Oxe5 28 dxe5 '1Vxe5 29 i.d4 'lre4 30 �d3 Wf4 3 1 i.xfS 'lrxfS 32 .J:f3 •e6 33 �xf6 gxf6 34 llg3+ �£8 35 1Wc2, when Black's weakened kingside causes terrible trouble. 28
tDd3 ..txb5 29 axb5 ..td& 30 �5!
This is a good move but White could also cash in immediately with 38 I.Oa6 I.Oe4 39 I.Oxb8 'l'xb8 40 i.d3. 38 . . .'iFd6
39 e5?1
This allows Black to complicate. 39 I.Ob7?1 J:lxb7 40 .:Xb7 I.Oxc4 with unclear play is also unconvincing, but the simple solution is to prepare e4-e5 by supporting the knight with 39 'l'c3 - White wins easily after 39 ...i.h2+ 40 �ht 1Wf4 41 e5. 39....be5 40dxe5 'iFxc5+ 41 Wh1?!
Now White's advantage disappears en tirely. 41 Wh2 I.Oe4 42 l:c7 'iraS 43 i.b5 maintains a slight edge. 41
ltla4 42 Wh2 1le6 43 1lc7 'iFa5
...
43..ltc6 44 .:Xc6 ...xc6 45 �d3 1Wg6 is also good enough for equality. 44
..i.d3
After 30 b6 a4 31 llbS a3 32 •a2 l:b7 33 l:cbt White's advantage, if any, is' very small indeed.
44 . . .llg6
30...1rb6 31 li:la4 'iFdB 32 b6 llb8 33 �5 Ilea 34 11a1 tDh4 35 llxa5 tDt5 36 lla7 36 �2!? I.Oe4 37 I.Oxe4 l:xe4 38 �c3
The b-pawn is poisoned due to a back rank trick: If 44...:Cxb6? then 45 l:xb6 l:xb6 46 'l'f2! wins, while after 44.. ltbxb6? 45 1i'f2! White has a clear advantage.
with a clear advantage is a good alternative.
45 i.xe4 dxe4 46 •d4 e3 47 llxe3 'iFxb6 48 'iFxb6 llbxb6 %-%
36...tDxe3 37 fxe3 i.g3 38 a4
78
3 li:lxe5: De via tions from the Main L ine Summary Firsdy, the passive continuations covered in this chapter (5 ... .i.e7 and a quick ...l0d6 after 5... d5) are not of great interest. The key position of the chapter is the one arising after S...dS 6 .Ll3 .i.e7 7 0-0 .i.fS 8 %let lesc6 9 c4. In response to 9...0-0, White successfuUy develops his knight to c3 either immediately or after 10 cxdS ..xdS. In the case of 9...lesb4 White maintains 110 opening initiative by retreating with 10 .i.fl, but 1 0 cxdS also appears to be a good response - the tactical blow 10 ..lC!xf21? is not a refutation. Probably Black should transpose to the line 6.. .i.e7 7 0-0 �6 8 c4 l0b4 9 cxdS lC!xd3 10 ..xd3 'tixdS 1 1 :C t -*..fS (see Chapter 2) by means of to lC!xd3 1 1 'tixd3 'il'xd5. .
.
...
1 e4 e5 2 li:lf3 li:lf6 3 lbxe5 d6 4 �f3 .!Llxe4 5 d4 (D) d5 S....i.e7 Gm11e J2 6 .i.d3 (D) i.e7 6 .i.g4 Game J 1 7 0-0 .i.f5 8 .:e1 lOc6 (D) 9 c4 Gmne 30 9 lesbd2 Ga111t 29 -
...
-
-
-
5 d4
6 .i.d3
B. . . lilc6
79
I
CHAPTER FIVE
3 ltJxe5: Fourth and Fifth Move Alternatives
1 e4 e5 2 .!Llf3 �f6 3 �xe5 d6 4 �f3 .!Llxe4 After
1
e4 eS 2 �0 �f6 3 �xeS d6 4
idea. In the event of 5 ... �5 White retreats his bishop to e2 and makes up for lost time by attacking the knight with d2-d4. After
�0 �xe4 White sometimes declines to play
S. . dS
5 d4 in favour of the other continuations,
knight with 6 1i'e2, while if S...�f6 White
White continues the attack on the t..-4-
.
and these fifth move alternatives are the sub
clears the way for the d-pawn by means of
ject of the fll'St part of this chapter.
c2-c3 and .ld3-c2.
5 �c3 (Games 33-34)
was
played as fur
5 d3 (Game 39) is the most modest of
back as thc 1 9th century, while later on
White's 5th
Nimzowitsch focused on it.
Black the opportunity to transpose to the
move options. White offers
5 1i'c2 (Games 35-36) was introduced by a
Exchange Variation of the French Defence
1 3-ycar old Paul Morphy against LOwenthal
after S.)t�f6 6 d4 dS where, as it is known,
(Nt:w Orleans, 1 850), and the line found
an extra
worthy adherents in the form of Emanuel
promises White just a microscopic advan
L'lsker and Jose Raul Capablanca. Owing to the success of such celebrities (sec, for
ex
ample, Game 35) 5 'i6'e2 was considered to
tage.
tempo in
this symmetrical
However,. Black
can
equalise
line after
6....le7 foUowed up by ...c7-c5. Moving onto 4th move alternatives,
be nearly a refutation of the Petroff Defence,
sides 4
but now we know sevcral ways for Black to
tions.
lDO
be
White has two interesting op
The fmt major game to witness 4 �c4
equalise. Kaufmann, a chess player from Vienna,
was
l hPaulscn-Schallopp,
Frankfurt
1 887.
suggested 5 c4 (Game 37) as a way to pre
The idea to transfer the knight to c3 is not
vent Black from supporting the e4-knight
particularly impressive. In particular, Black's
f2 after 4...lbe4 5 d4 dS 6 lDe3 1i'f6
with ... d6-d5. In principle it's still possible to
attack on
play S ... dS, but an attack on Black's central-
(Game 40) deserves serious consideration for
ist.-d forces with 6 �c3 gives White the better
Black.
chances. Instead Black should continue his
The Cochranc Gambit 4
lbxf7!? (Games
s ...�c6 or s ...i.e7
41 -42), originated by John Cochrane in the
5 .i.d3 (Game 38) is a comparatively new
lines in the Petroff Defence. Staunton also
development with either
.
to avoid any problems.
80
1 840s, stands in rotal contrast to the other
3 li::J x e5: Fo urth and Fifth Mo ve A lterna tives
analys1..-d this knigh1-for-two-pawns sacrifice in his Chess Praxi.r (1 860). Curiously enough, both Cochrane and the famous maestro con centrated on 4...�f7 5 .i.c4+?1, which is poor in view of 5...d5!. It nlight be appropri ate to rename the Cochrane Gambit to the Bronstein Gambit (he was the one who bn:athed nc.:w life into the sacrifice by indicat ing the possibility of 5 d4!) or the Vitolinsh Gambit (the Latvian 1 M played a number of brilliant attacks with 4 lllxf7). After the piece sacrifice Black's king gets sruck in the centre and White's initiative can be lasting and dan gerous. Finally, Game 43 srudies a couple of rare 3rd move options for Black. Strictly speak ing, 3...l!lxe4 was the move srudied at tl1e very beginning of the Petroff Defence the ory, Danliano considering it as far back as 1 51 2! After 4 We2 'ife7 Black gives up his knight but immediately wins it back due to the pin on the e-flle, and he is left a pawn down with the hope of active play for his pieces. Black's only other option is 3...'ife7, but hereWhite has more than one way to obtain a clear plus. ,...--.----------.. Game JJ Alekhine-A.Rabinovich Moscow 1918 1 e4 e5 2 lL!f3 li::Jf& 3 truces d& 4 li::Jf3 li::Jxe4 5 li::Jc3
5 ...d5?!
11us is not a particularly good pawn sacri fice, but the alternatives covered here are also not great. The best move, 5...l!lxc3, is con sidered in the next game. a) 5...i.f5?? 6 lllxe4?? .ixe4 7 d3 i.g6 8 i.g5 i.e? 9 i.xc7 Wxe7+ 10 i.e2 lllc6 1 1 0-0 0 was a comedy of error.; that led to C(jUal chances in Miles-Christianscn, San Prancisco 1987. After the infinitely stronger 6 We21 Black immediately resigned in Zapata Anand, Bid 1987. b) 5...lllf6 doesn't promise full equality: 6 d4 i.e7 7 i.d3 0-0 and now: b1) 8 ltle2 with a further branch: b1 1) 8 ...1le8 9 0-0 lllc6 10 c3 i.f8 1 1 llJg3 d5 12 Wc2 h6 13 lllh4 �h8 1 4 b4 l!lg8 1 5 l!lhf5 lllce7 16 l!le3 l!lf6 17 a4 l!leg8 1 8 b5 lllg4 19 lllxg4 (1 9 c4 aUows 19 ...:xe3! 20 fxc3 'irh4 21 h3 "irxg3 22 hxg4 i.d6 23 i.a3 -.nz+ 24 �f2 "irg3+ with a draw, Ulibin Akopian, Thilisi 1 989) 1 9...i.xg4 20 l!lf5 and White has a bit of pressure. b12) 8...c5 9 h3 lllc6 10 c3 l:te8 I 1 ()..() b6 12 'Wc2 i.b7 13 dxc5 bxc5 (probably 1 3...ltle5!? is stronger: 14 lllxe5 dxe5 1 5 :d1 'flc7 1 6 cxb6 'lt'c6 17 £3 Wxb6+ 1 8 �h1 :adS gives Black play for the pawn, while 1 5 cxb6 .ic5 16 �h2 'lt'xb6 also seems to give BL1ck decent counterplay) 14 lllg51 g6 (1 4...h6? lead to a fabulous end in the follow ing game: 15 i.h7+ Wf8 16 lllxf7! �f7 17 'flg6+ �f8 18 i.xh6! gxh6 19 lll f4 '1t'd7 20 ..xh6+ Wf7 21 ...g6+ �f8 22 l!lh5 :ebB 23 :act lllxh7 24 •xh7 l!le5 25 f4 i.£6 26 Wh6+ i.g7 27 fxe5+ �g8 28 lll f6+ 1-0 L.Dominguez-Ro.Perez, Cuba 2003) 15 'lt'b3 llle5 16 lllxf7! ..i.d5 17 l!lxd8 ..i.xbJ 18 axb3 lllxd3 1 9 l!lc6 ..i.d8 20 lll6f4 lllxct 21 lllxct g5 22 l!lfd3 and White retains some advan tage (L.Dominguez). b2) 8 h3 is also good, fur example 8...l!lc6 9 a] lieS 10 0-0 h6 1 1 llet ..i.f8 1 2 llxe8 1Wxe8 1 3 l!lb5 ...d8 14 c4 a6 1 5 lllc3 l!le7 (1 5 ...d5 16 c5 .i.e6 17 b4 also looks better for White) 1 6 d5 i.f5 1 7 .te2 i.h7 18 b3 'ifd7 81
Th e Petroff De fen ce
1 9 .i.b2 and White's chances were preferable in Acs-Haba, Bled 2002. 6 ..e2 �e7 7 lillle4 dxe4 8 •xe4 0-0 9 �c4 Black obtains good play after 9 .i.d3 g6 1 0 0-0 lbc:6 1 1 .tbS .tf5 1 2 •e2 :Cs 13 .txc6 bxc6 1 4 d4 l:b8, when the bishops and the development compensate for the pawn defi cit.
9 ...�d6 10 0..() White is aiming for rapid development. Alekhine gave the following line: 1 0 d4 l:e8 1 1 liJcS .i.xeS 12 dxeS l'Dc6 1 3 .i.f4 �4 14 0-0-0 l:xeS 1S l:d8+! 'ifxd8 1 6 .i.xeS ..e7 17 l:ct �xeS 1 8 "ffxeS ..xeS 1 9 llxeS �fB, when the draw is nt:ar. 1 0...lle8 1 1 •d3 1Llc6 1 2 b3! White needs to get his dark-S(]Uarcd bishop into play. After something like 12 ..c3 .i.g4 1 3 .i.dS .i.xf3 14 .i.xf3 �d41 Black would have good play for the pawn. 1 2...•f6 13 �b211
The master of attack strikes again! Instead of clinging onto his pawn, White launches a strong counterattack. 1 3 ...•xb2 1 4 �5 .te6 Mter 14 ..g6 White has 1 S .i.x£7+ ..tg7 1 6 .i.xe8 11'eS 1 7 ..c3 � 4 1 8 f4 and a very nice position (Aickhine); 1 4...�8 1 S 1Wxh7+ �fB 1 6 llaet .i.e6 17 c3 also looks very promising for White. 1 5 �xe& fxe6 1 6 •xh7+ � 1 7 llae1 ?1 This natural looking move allows Black to .
82
bring the queen home. 17 c3! is stronger. 1 7...'ifxd2 1 8 'iih8+ �e7 1 9 1Wxg7+ �d8 20 l:adt 1Wf4 21 g3 ..f8 22 �xe6+ ami White wins (Aiekhine); or 1 7....i.e5 1 8 Wh5 �g8 1 9 Wf7+ �hs 20 1Wg6! �gS 2 1 d4 .i.f6 22 'ifb7+ �f8 23 �xc6+ and White has a very large plus. 1 7 ......f6 1 8 �5 1 8 'ifh8+?1 is weaker. after 18...�e7 1 9 l:xe6+ Wd7 20 l:xf6 l:txh8 2 1 l:£7+ �7 22 h3 g6 Black's chances in the endgame are preferable. 1 8 ...�8 1 9 lle3 �f4? Now I know we should not talk badly of the dead, and Rabinovich was truly one of the great fathers of Russian Chess, but here his defence was not particularly good. White is also very happy after 1 9 �4?! 20 llh3 g6 21 Wh7+ WfB 22 11i'd7 :e7 (22...�g8? 23 l:h8+1 would be an unpleasant surprise) 23 �h7+ �g7 24 l'Dxf6 llxd7 25 �xd7 l:d8 26 %ld3 l'De2+ 27 �h1 l:lxd7 28 g3 (AJekhine). However, Black can play 1 9 ...�eSI 20 'ifb7+ WfB 21 f4 �£7 22 'ifhs �g8. probably keep ing the position level. 20 Wh7+ Wf8 21 Wh8+ h7 ...
22 llxe6+1 This is probably what Rabinovich missed. 22......xe6 Or 22.. .'�d7 23 l:txf6 :xh8 24 llxf4 with a winning endgame. 23 •xg7+ �d6 24 �xe6 llxe6 25 d4 llee8 26 c4 ll8e7 27 •f8 lle4 28 •f51
3 liJxe5: Fourth snd Fifth Move A lterna tives llxd4 28..lt7e6 29 1Wc5+ �d7 30 dS also wins for White. 29 c5 mate ( 1 -01 r-------.
Game 34 Khalifman-Atalik Halkidiki 2002
._______________..
1 e4 e5 2 ctlf3 l0f6 3 �xeS d6 4 ctlf3 ctlxe4 5 �c3 lLlxc3 The best move. 6 dxc3 Also possible is 6 bxc3, when the game could continue 6 ... .i.e7 7 d4 0-0 8 ..id3 .i.g4 9 0-0 lbc:l7 to lZ.b1 �b6 1 1 c4 .i.f6 (or 1 1 ...c5 1 2 h3 .i.hS 1 3 dxcS dxcS 14 a4 1Wc7 with an unclear position) 1 2 .i.e3 llb8 13 c3 'ii'd7 1 4 .l:lbS a6 1 5 llaS dS 16 cxdS lLlxdS 1 7 .i.d2 c6 1 8 h3 .i.e6 and Black is okay, Up ton-Dutreeuw, Batumi 1999. 6 -*.e7 .••
-*.f4 White has tried two other means of devel opment a) 7 .i.d3 � 8 .i.e3 .i.g4 9 ..ie4 doesn't Ig7 27 llb3 'tWxd4 28 llbe3 (Baklan) is an interesting possibility for White, who has some countcrplay of his own. 23 ... b6 A weaker option is 23...exf3?1 24 'it>f2 b6 25 lZ.e3 .i.f5 26 l:te5 Wa3 27 'iVxf4 'ilfxa2+, when Black has not completely e'lualised. 24 lle31Vf6 25 Af17 25 l:lb2 'irfB 26 llf2 1Wh6 is equal accord ing to Golubev. 25 . . ..tg4! This 'sacrifice' destroys White's position. 261Vxg4 26 h3 .i.xf3 27 �h2 llf5 28 a4 llgs 29 1i'h8+ Wg7 30 l:tf2 Wh6 is also discouraging for White. 26...1lxg4+ 27 fxg4 1Vg5 28 llg3 b5 29 Af2 Wg7 30 Wg2 a5 31 llb2 b4 32 cxb4 axb4 33 h3 1Vc1 34 1lgb3 �h& 35 1lxb4 1Vd1 36 Wf2?1
36 l:l.4b3 'iVxu4 37 Jle2 WgS is probably better, though Black has all the chances. 36 ...Wg5 37 lle2 Wf4 38 llb31Vxd4+ 39 Wg2 1l'c4 40 llf2+ Or 40 llbe3 'iVct 4 1 Wf2 1Wht and Black wins. 40 �g5 41 llf7 d4 42 h4+ Wxh4 43 llxh7+ Wxg4 441lg3+ Wf5 0-1 •••
Game 45 Rublevsky-Vallejo
Ohrid 2001
1 e4 e5 2 ll'lf3 ll'!f& 3 d4 ll'lxe4 4 .td3 d5 5 ll'lxe5 ll'ld7 6 ll'lxd7 .i.xd7 7 0-0 .td& 8 c4 c& 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 ll'lc3 lL!xc3 1 1 bxc3 0-0 1 21Vh5 g6!7 13 Wxd51Vc7
141Vf3 It seems that the text move is the most dangerous for Black, although it's not the
107
The Petroff Defence
only attractive option. In fact, White ha.., tried a few other moves here: a) 14 h3 does not appear to be dangerous for Black: 14..ie6 1S Wf3 ...xc3 16 ll.bt (after 16 .i.h6 Black plays 16..llfd8 17 .i.gs ll.e8 18 .i.f6 .i.fS 19 .i.xfS ..xf3 20 gxf3 gxfS with equal chances) 16.....xd4 (16....i.xa2 17 llxb7 ..xd4 18 .i.b2 ..f4 19 •xf4 .i.xf4 20 ll.a1 .l:lfd8 21 .i.ft .i.e6 22 ll.axa7 lL'lc8 is level according to Belikov) 17 .i.e4 We5 18 g3 .i.xh3 19 .i.b2 'fle7 20 ll.fe11lae8 21 .i.c2 (or 21 bb7 1ixet+ 221lxe1l:l.xet+ 23 ..th2 .i.fS 24 •c3 :Cs 25 f4 ll.e2+ 26 .i.g2 .i.eS 27 fxeS .i.e4 28 e6 ll.xg2+ 29 Wh3 llxb2 30 exf7+ ll.xf7 31 ..xb2 with a draw- Belikov) 21.....gS 22 J..b3 (G.Guseinov-Belikov, Alushta 2001). Now Bclikov gives the following line as the most natural way to end the game: 22...• 51 23 1t'c3 .i.cS 24 :XeS ..xbt+ 2s Wh2 W'fl 26 Lf7+1 Wxf7 27 :fS+! �e611 28 ll.e5+ Wf71 29 .l:lfS+! with perpetual check - a very attractive variation. b) 14 h4 .i.e6 1S 9f3 ..xc3 16 .i.h6 ll.fd8!? 17 .i.gS (17 9f6?! .i.fB 18 .i.xfB ..xd4! and Black is better) 17...:d7 18 .l:lfd1 .i.f8 (18.....xd4 19 .i.e4 •es 20 g3 ll.c8 also seems line) 19 ll.act •as 20 .i.f6 a6 21 .i.e4 .i.d5 22 "lfg4 .i.e6 23 •f4 J..d5 24 ll.c5 Wxa2 25 .i.eS with compensation for the pawn, Nedev-Urban, Elista 1998. c) 14 .i.h6 ll.fe8
with a further branch: c1) 15 llact .i.xh2+ 16 Wh1 and now 108
strongest is 16....i.eS! 17 f4 (17 dxc5? %lxc5 18 .i.f4l:l.xd5 19 .i.xc7 ll.xd3 favours Black slighdy) 17....i.c6 18 ..c4 b5 19 Wb3 ..d71? 20 51? .i.g3 21 Wg1 with complex play, LepeUetier-Marciano, Auxcrre 1996. c2) 15 h4 .i.e6 16 •o •xc3 17 •f6 .i.f8 18 .i.xfB llxfB with a fmal split: c21) 19 .i.e4 19....1:lad8 20 %lfd1 ..td5 21 ll.act 1fa3 22 hS ..d6 23 ..xd6 %lxd6 24 .i.xd5 llxd5 25 ll.c7 ll.xh5 26 d5 ILls 27 ll.xb7 llhxd5 with a draw in Sutovsky foridman, Medellin 1996. c22) 19 llfdt WaS (19..llad8!? should be fine; maybe White continues with 20 .i.e4, as 20 .i.xg6!? hxg6 21 hS leads to a draw after 21...gxh5 22 'lfg5+ �h7 23 ..xh5+ Wg7 24 1t'g5+ Wh7 25 ll.act �) 20 .i.e4 Wds 21 ..xd8 ll.axd8 22 d5 (White should have a puU here) 22....i.f5 23 .i.xfS gxfS 24 d6 ll.d7 zs Ads ll.rds 26 :tad1 Wg7 21 ll1d3 f6 2s %lg3+ 1/z-1/z liviakov-Yusupov, Groningcn 1994. 14 . .ixh2+ 14.....xc3 15 .i.h6 ll.fe8 16 .f6 J..fB 17 .i.xf8 %lxf8 18 .i.e4 is preferable for White as Black cannor free himself easily. Black has compensation for the exchange after l5...•xd41? 16 J..xfB .i.c6 17 'ffh3 .l:lxf8 but he still has much to prove. ..
1 5 Wh1 .*. d& 16 c4
16 .i.h6 Wd8!? 17 g3l:l.e8 18 %lfe1 :c8 is less dangerous for Black. 1 6 .Afe8 ••
3 d4: The Main L ine Maybe 16.....d81? 17 g3 .i.c6 18 d5 .i.d7 19 .i.b2 .l:lc8 is better. Most players would prefer White, but is there reaDy an advantage? 17 c5 .i.fB 1 8 .i.e4 .i.e& 19 d5 .*.b5 20 d6! 'irxc5 21 .*.d5 .*.g7 22 .i.a3 1rc3 After 22.....d4 23 .i.xf7+ Wh8 24 .i.xe8 .l:lxeB 25 .l:lad1 �4+ 26 Wgl .i.xfl 27 l:lxft White's strong passed pawn promises him w-cat prospects. 23 .i.xf7 + �hB 24 'irxc3 .i.xc3 2& .i.xeB .i.xf1 26 llc1 llxeB 27 llxc3
stiU give real chances of winning. 59 ... llh5 60 d7 .i.xd7 61 llxd7 h2 62 lldB+ ¢>b7 63 a6+ ci>xa6 64 llaB+ ¢>b7 65 lla1 h 1 'ir 66llxh1 llxh1 %-%
GanJe46 Svidler-Yusupov
Bad Hombutg1998 1 e4 e5 2 tl:lf3 lbf6 3 d4 lbxe4 4 .*.d3 d5 5 lbxe5 lbd7 6 lbxd7 .bd7 7 0-0 .i.d6 8 c4 c6 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 'irh5 This alternative to 10 li:)c3 is perhaps more dangerous for Black. 1 0...0-0 Black has alternatives, but they aU appear to give White the edge. a) 10...lbf6 11 l:lci+ �f8 (11....ie6? 12 l:lxe6+ Wf8 13 l:lxf6 and White wins) 12 �4 gives White a slight pull. Now a fantasy line runs 12. � 13 lbc3 lbg4 14 .i.f4!? .i.xf4 15 "ire?+ Wg8 16 ..xd7 .i.xh2+ 17 �h1 lDf6 18 lbxd5!lbxd7 19 lbxb6 lbxb6 20 Wxh2 and the endgame is wonderful for White. b) 10.....f6 was suggt:sted by Igor Zaitscv. ..
This endgame is deeply unpleasant for Black. 27 ...lldB 28 llc7 �gB 29 llxb7 .*.c4 30 lte7 a6 30....i.xa2? 31 d7 .i.f7 32 .i.b4 wins in an instant. 31 .i.b4 .i.b5 32 �2 lld7 33 lle5 �7 34 �3 .i.c4 35 a3 llb7 36 �4 .i.e& 37 J:la5 ll.b6 38 ¢>e4 llc6 39 .i.c5 �eB 40 'it'e5 ¢>d7 41 �6 .i.f5 42 f3 h5 43 .i.b4 J:lc2 44 llxa6 llxg2 45 lla7+ ¢>c8 46 J:lc7+ ¢>b8 47 .*.c5 llg3 48 f4 llf3 49 �e5 lld3 50 a4 h4 51 aS h3 52 llh7 .i.cB 53 .i.e7 + 53 l:lh8 h2 54 a6 is a simple win. 53 ...�a8 54 .i.d4 lla3 55 .i.b6 lld3 56 �c5? 56 a6, intending 56 ...ixa6 57 d7, would have won. 56 ...llc3 57 .i.b4 llc4 58 .i.d2 llc5+ 59 ot>f&?l 59 We4 .l:lhS 60 l:lxh5 gxh5 61 Wf3 would .
Now White has the following options: b1) 11 1i'xd5 .i.c6 12 .ibS 0-0-0 13 �3 (13 ..c4? .ixh2+! 14 Wxh2llkt6 gives Black the advantage) t3 .Lb5 14 'li'xb5 'li'xd4 and it is White who has to prove C(JUality. b2) 11 .i.e3 ..g6 12 'li'xd5 .ic6 looks like enough compensation for the pawn to us. ..
109
The Petroff Defence After 13 11t'a5 b6 14 'lra6 Black is of course fine, but now the simplest solution is 14 ...llk51 15 .ixg6 hxg6 16 .if4!? (otherwise it's perpetual check) 16...t'tlxa6 17 i.xd6 0-0-0 18 .tg3 ltxd4. c) 11 ltlc3 (the most challenging) t t ...11t'xd4 12 1Wxd5 ..xdS 13 lll xdS ltlcs (after 13... 5 14 .lf4 .lxf4 15 t'tlxf4 0-0-0 16 ltfe1 .lc6 17 lladl g6 18 f3 1l!f6 Black was close to being level in Konguvel-Barua, San gli 2000) 14 :C1+ llle6 15 .tgS 0-0 (Black is not much worse after 15 ...h6 16 i.e3 .i.c6 17 lllf4 We7) 16 i.e7 .i.xe7 171llxe7+ Wh8 18 llad1 lL.dS 19 .le4 with a plus for White, Svcshnikov-1. Zaitsev, Moscow 1991.
..i.c4 �6 17llxt2ibxc4 18 �xc4 •c8 with some compensation) 16 ..f3 ..i.c6 17 .i.c4 (here White should consider 17 i.xe4!? ll'te4 18 ..d1 .i.d6 19 lbc3 Wh4 20 h3 ltxe3 21 fxc3 .i.xg21 22 ..g4 1Wxg4 23 hxg4 .t.xft 24 Jlxfl with an edge - Y.Gonza.lez) 17...�6 18 .tdS .txdS 19 'ifxdS � 20 �2 'irxb2 21 llab1 11t'c2 22 llfct 1Wd3 23 ll!f3 ltac8 and a draw was agreed in De Ia Paz-Y. Gon zalez, Santa Clara 2004.
1 3...J.b4
1 1-.xdS
11 W k-ads to a draw after 11...g6 12 'irxdS .i.c6 13 �3 �xc3 14 bxc3 Lh2+ 15 Wxh2 1Wh4+ 16 Wg1 .i.xg2 (lvanchuk). 11
-*.c& 1 2 �5 g6
•••
12.-1if6?1 13 llk3 ..xd4 14 .i.xe4 .t.xe4 15 Ad1 .td3 16 'tth3 :t'd8 17 ltxd3 1Wxd3 18 'lfxd3 .i.xh2+ 19 Wxh2 llxd3 20 i.e3 gives White good winning chances, while 13...g6 141th6 ltfe8 I S dS! (Yusupov) is also good for White. However, 12. ..i.b4 is play able, 13 .te3 :CS 14 a3 g6 t 51th3 transpos ing to the main game. 1 3 trh3 This move reaches the most critical posi
tion in the 7 ....td6 1ine. t 31th6 Des 14 .i.e3 .tfB is an improve ment for Black: 15 1th3 .i.d7 (1 S...h5!? 16
1 10
Apart from 13...lbg5 (see the next game) Black has a couple of enticing alternatives: a) 13...ltc8?! is punished by 14 .txe41 Qess strong is 14 ..i.M :Cs 15 li:kl2 .td7 16 1i'f3 1i'h4 17 g3 ibxd2 18 .i.xd2 'lrxd4 19 i.c3 .g4 20 .xg4?1 120 1Wf6 ltxc3 21 .xc3 .i.c6 22 f31 could give White a slight L-g1 ..g4+ 16 W£2 d4 17 'lfg3 dxc3 18 bxc3 i.e6 is equal according to Yusupov and lliibner, but to f4 may be better for White. c) 9....!Dxc3 (the easiest) to bxc3 dxc4 1 1 �xc4 i.d6 12 f4 f 6 13 .i.dS c6 14 g3 Wg415 .if3 ..g61? (but not 15...'iVe6 16 'iVa4 a6 17 J:tbt hS 18 .i.d2 1t'f5 19 l:lb2 and White had
the attack i n Rublcvsky-Ngucn Anh Dung, Moscow 2001) 16 l:l£2 hS 17 l:lb2 h4 with reasonable countcrplay. 9...g5 10�3 Other options will be discussed in Games 51-52. 1 0....ig7
The best reply. The alternatives have not been successful: a) 10....!Df6?1 11 g3!? 'iVh3 (1t ...'iVxd4?1 12 c61 is a well-known trick) 12 'ilf3 ltlg4 13 Wg2 'i'xg2+ 14 Wxg2 h6 15 f41 .i.g7 (or 15...l:e8 '1 6 fxg5 hxg5 17 h3 o!De3+ 18 .i.xe3 :Xe3 19 i.f5 with a clear edge) 16 h3 .!Df6 17 fxg5 hxgS 18 g4 and White has a cll:ar advantage, Tseshkovsky-Gagloshvili, Kras nodar 1997. b) 10...f5?! 11 .!Dxd5 and now: b1) 11....!Dxf2l? 12 l:lx£2 'lfxd4 13 .i.xg5 (we think that White should play 13 c6!? ..xdS 14 cxd7+ l:lxd7 15 l:ld2 .i.b4 16 .i.c4 ..c5+ 17 Wh1 i.xd2 18 i.e6 with a clear edge) 13 ...i.xc5 14 �3 (14 WOI? i.c6 15 i.xd8 l:lxd8 16 i.xfS+ Wb8 17 lltll 'it'x£2+ 18 'ifx£2 i.x£2+ 19 Wx£2 i.xdS 20 .i.xh7 looks great for White) 14...f4 15 i.xf4 l:lhf8 16 Wft ..xe3 17 i.xc3 .i.xe3 18 ..e2 i.x£2+ 19 �ht ltde8 20 ..c2 and White had decent chances to win the endgame, Wetlberg Schneider, Torshavn, 1987. Even so, White should punish Black further with deviations on move 13 or 14. b2) tt...i.c6 also does not work after 12
117
The Petro ff Defence ltk3l:lxd4 (or 12...i.g7 13 g31i'h6 14 olllxe4 fxe4 15 .i.xe4 l:lxd4 16 1i'f.3 and Black is in trouble) 13 .i.c3l:ld8 14 'Vc2 olllxcS 15 Lf5 .i.d6 16 g3 1fc4 17 .i.xgS l:ldfB 18 .i.xe6+ o!ilxe6 19 .i.c3 and Black is simply a pawn down, Glck-Raetsky, ZeD am Ziller 1993. 1 1 g3
This is the most critical line for Black. Other options arc featured in the next game.
unclear) 20 1ib6 9e7 21 -'.&6+ Wa8 22' 9xc6+ Wb8 23 'ifh6+ Wa8 and now taking; the draw by perpetual check with 24 1i'c6+ might make sense as after 24 Lc4 24...-.,7 the game could go either way. b) 13... 15 14 ..tg2 with a further branch: b1) 14....i.c6 15 .i.xc6 (15 d5 .i.xd5 16 ..txdS c6 17 'ifa4l:lxdS 18 11xa7 f4 is unclear according to Vladimirov - White has probterns developing) 15...1i'xc6 16 .i.xgS l:lxd4 • 17 •c2 l:ld5 18 .ie3 gave White some ad vantage in Macieja-Stefanova, Krynica 1998. b2) 14...f4 15 d5 (after 15 gxf4 gxf4 16, •o ..tc6 17 1fg4+ �b8 18 dS- 18 ..txf4? l:lxd4! would be a nasty surprise- 18....i.xd5i 19 .i.xf4 9f6 Black has exceUent compensa tion for the pawn) IS ...llhfB 16 l:le1 �b8 17 d6 cxd6 (Arencibia-Vladimirov, Leon 1991) and now after 18 11fxd6+ •xd6 19 cxd6 .i.d4 20 gxf4 gxf4 21 .lle4 l:lde8 Black can be· happy with his counterplay. ·
1 2 �xe4 11
1rh3
.•.
Another possibility is 11...'ifh6!? 12 olllxe4 (12 o!ilxd5?! .llhc8 13 o!ilc3 o!ilxf21 14 l:lxf2 .i.xd4 with a clear edge for Black- Yusupov) 12...dxc4 13 .i.xe4
and here Black has two choices: a) 13.....th3 14 'iff.3!? .i.xfl 15 ..txb7+ �b8 16 .i.xgS!? (16 Wxft -'.xd4 17 h4 'ife6 18 .i.xgS f6 19 .i.f4 is very messy) 16 ...Wxg5 17 Wb3 .i.c4 18 Wb4 aS 19 'ifxaS c6 (19...�b7 20 c6+ �b8 21 1lxg5 .i.xd4 also
1 18
The older line is 12 olllxdS l:lhe8 (12....i.g4? 13 .ixe41 .i.xd1 14 .i.f5+! and White wins- 1-J.Olafsson) 13 Wf3 (13 .i.xe4?. l:lxc4 14 .i.xgS ..tc61 1 5 .ixd8 .i.xdS 16 f3 l:lxd4 17 'lfct l:ld3 gives Black a decisive attack) 13.....tl5 14 �3 (14 o!ilc3?! l:lxd4 15 lle1 -or 15 .ixe4?Il:ldxc4 16 ..txgS ..txc3 17 bxc3 l:le2 and Black has aU the threats15....i.g4! 16 11fxt7 l:lffi 17 WxfB+ .i.xffi 18 ..tn 11'hs 19 olllxe4 .i.l5 and Black's material, gains give him the advantage) 14....i.g6
3 d4: The Main L in e and now: a) 1 5 c6 is risky: 1 5 .. .:xd4 1 6 .i.c2 hS 1 7 c:xh7+ 'itlb8 1 8 Act '1Vd7 1 9 lLlfl g4 20 1i'g2 ilkS 21 i.e3 .i.t.-4 22 f3 .i.xb7 and it was Ulack who had the attack, Smagin H.Oiafsson, Sochi 1988. b) 15 d5 lLld2 (also good is 15...lLlxc51? 16 .i.fS+ .i.xf5 17 lL!xf5 .i.f6, witl1 chances for both sides) 16 .i.xd2 .i.xd3 17 '1Vxf7 .i.xb2 (17 ... i.xf1 ? 18 ..xg7 Axc3 19 :Xfl Ad3 20 .i.xg5 is better for White) 1 8 d6 1i'd7 1 9 1Wb3 'ilbs with unclear play, Joscliani l lowell, Spijknisse 1989. 12 ...dxe4 13 .ixe4 .ib5 14 .ig2!
Anand's improvement over a previous ).,'llme against lvanchuk, albeit with colours n:versetl. With 1 4 .i.g2 White obvious does not worry about losing the exchange; the attack is much more important, and Black hsls no way to force exchanges. The alternative is 1 4 .i.xg5 :Xd4 and now: a) 1 5 'Wb3 Axc4 1 6 1i'xb5 h6 17 .i.e3 l:h4! 18 Afd1 1txh2+ 19 'itlfl 'irh3+ 20 �el l:e4 (20...l:th5 21 1Wa4 a6 22 c6 Wb8 is un clear) 21 c6 Axe3+ 22 fxe3 'irxg3+ 23 �e2 'irg2+ 24 We I ...g3+ 1/z-'12 Dolmatov Akopian 1988. b) 1 5 i.g2 'irf5 (or 15 ...'irc6 16 1Wf3 .i.c6 1 7 1Wb3 .i.xg2 18 Wxg2 ...dS+ 1 9 1Wxd5 l:xd5 20 .i.d .i.xb2 21 Aab1 .i.g7 and Black i� only very slightly worse) 1 6 1i'b3 c6 1 7 i.c3 .i.xf1 1 8 llxfl (1 8 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 1 9 Lfl
LcS i s equal - Howell) and here Black must make a choice: b 1) The dubious 1 8 ...Ad7?1 is met by 1 9 •a4:
bt l) 19 ...'itlb8 20 b4 W'd3 21 ..tf4+ WaS 22 .i.d6 (this looks great for White so Black's reaction Lo; understandable) 22....ZZ.xd6 23 cxd6 1i'xd6 24 bS cxbS? (24... c5 25 ...c4 flc7 26 Act with a clear edge - Howell) 25 '8'xb5 llb8 26 ltb1 'irc7 27 a4 i.c3 28 ltct flc5 29 1ib3 .i.d4 30 .i.xb7+! 1 -0 Gcller-J.Howcll, Reykjavik 1 990. b12) 19 ... a6 20 .i.xc61 bxc6 2 1 1Wxc6+ wds (21 ...�8?! 22 Wb6+ l:tb7 23 1i'd6+ �c8 24 1i'xa6 �b8 25 c6 and White wins; 21 ...ltc7?! 22 1i'xa6+ �b8 23 c6 ltc8 24 ltd1 1ic2 25 lld3 ltxc6 26 'iVa7+ �c8 27 1i'd7+ 1-0 Hracek-Haba, Czech Republic 1998) 22 lte 1 'irf6 23 'ira4 1i'xb2 24 c6 .i.c3 25 cxd7 .i.xe1 26 1Wc6 .i.xf2+ 27 .i.xf2 W'b1+ 28 Wg2 'Wb2 29 �f3 with a clear plus for White - Hracek. b2) 18 ...:hd81 1 9 h4 (or 19 'ira3 Ddt 20 1ixa7 ltxft+ 21 .i.xfl .i.c5 22 1i'a8+ �c7 23 1Wa5+ with a draw - Yusupov) 1 9... .i.e5 20 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 21 �h2 �c7 22 flc4 .i.xcS 23 b4 .i.b6 24 b5 ltd4 25 Wb3 ltd3 26 'iVc4 lld4 and Black escaped with a draw, lvan chuk-Anand, Roquebrune 1992. 14 ...1rf5 1 5 .ie3 1 5 'irb3 c6 1 6 ltd l l:txd4 17 ltxd4 .i.xd4 18 .i.c3 is equal - Akopian. 1 5 ....ixf1 1 6 .ixf1 Zlhe8
1 19
The Petroff Defence 1 6...c6 1 7 Wa4 looks good for White: 1 7... h5?! 1 8 1i'xa7 llxd4 19 llel l lld7 (19...1ldd8 20 .i.a6! and winsQ 20 b4 1Wg4 21 b5 and White has a very strong attack. 1 7 1ra4 ¢'b8 18 l:ld1 c6 1 8. .1lc6 19 d5!? llxd5 20 .i.h3! 1i'e4 21 :Xd5 1i'xd5 22 .i.xe6 1Wxe6 23 c6 also a..__ surcs White of an edge. 1 9 l:ld3 1re4 20 l:la3 a6 21 .i.d3 .
game via 22...1lxJ4! 23 .i.xd4 1Wxd4 24 Wb3 :C7 25 .i.fl 1i'xc5, with chances fur both sides. 22 .hd4? More resilient is 22...1le7 23 llb4!? f5 24 d5 f4 25 d6 lled7 26 .i.xa6, when Black is still just about breathing. 23 l:lxb7+1 �xb7 24 •xa6+ �8 25· 1tb6+ �8 26 •xc6+ �b8 27 'Wb6+ �a8 28 .i.b5 1 -0 ...
Game 50 J.Howeii-Makarychev
Fnmze 1989 1 e4 e5 2 li)f3 ll:)f6 3 d4 .!Oxe4 4 .i.d3 d5 5 .!Oxe5 .!Od7 6 li)xd7 .txd7 7 0-0 1ih4 8 c4 0-0-0 9 c5 g5 10 lilc3 .i.g7 1 1 .!082
21 ...1rg4?1 Soon after this game Black's play was re paired to some extent with 21 ...1Wd5 22 .i.xa6 .i.xd4 23 .i.xb7 .i.xc5! 24 .i.xc6 .dl + 25 Wg2 Wxa4 26 llxa4 llxe3 27 fxe3 lld2+ 28 �f3 llxb2 (Hemandez-J.HoweU, Matan· zas 1 993). This position should lx: within the 'drawing range', although it will take Black some time and technique. 22 l:lb3!
1 1 �xd5 .i.xd4 12 i.e3 .i.xc3 1 3 fxe3 docs not seem frightening for Black after 1 3 ..ie6 (but not 1 3...�xc5?! 1 4 .c2 .i.e6 1 5 �xc7 Wxc7 1 6 11Vxc5+ �b8 17 llac1 with attacking chances for White) 1 4 �7+ �b8 1 5 �f5 .i.xf5 16 llxf5 llhc8 when Black has good counterplay. 1 1 i..c3 allows the trick 1 1 ...�xc5!?, when 12 �xd5 �xd3 1 3 1i'xd3 Wb8 looks equal. 1 1 1lhe8 1 1 ... f5 is an attractive alternative. Follow ing 1 2 f3 Black has a choice: a) 12...�f6 1 3 i.e3 f4 14 i.. f2 11Vh6 1 5 1rd2 l:lhe8 1 6 llacl �>8?! 17 b4 �7 1 8 b5 (Black has clearly wasted his chance for an ...
22 i..xa6?! aUows Black back into the
120
3 d4; Th e Main L ine 1111�\ck) 18 ...�b8 19 ru ll!f5 20 c6 .i.c8 21 cxh7 �xb7 22 .i.xf5 .i.xf5 23 lba4 with a clc:tr plus, Tiviakov-Raetsky, Makhachkala IIJK7. Instead of 16 ...lbg8?!, Black needs to RCI quickly with 1 6 ...g41? 17 1rxf4 gxf3 1 8 gx £3 .i.h3 1 9 l:lfd1 lbh5 20 1rxh6 .i.xh6, IIKsuring him of reasonable counterplay. b) 1 2...l:lhf8
13 'ii'e t 'ii'xet 14 l:lxe1 h6 1 5 .i.d2 lllg8 is equal. Now after 16 l:ladt ?l liJc7 17 .i.e3 lbf5 18 ..tf2 �3 1 9 l:lct l:te7 20 b4 l%de8 Black was already better in Vidarsson Ractsky, l-lafnarfjonlur 19%.
1 3 .llxe21 •.
An idea of Akopian's. 14 'it'xe2
and now it's White who has to make a de ci:;ion: b1) 1 3 fxe4?! (this reckless move hasn't been tried) 13 ... fxe4 14 l:lxf8 (not 14 .i.c2? J:lxfl+ 1 5 1rxf1 l:tf8 and the game is already over) 1 4 ...l:txf8 1 5 .i.e3 exd3 16 1Vxd3 l:tf6 and Black has the advantage. b2) After 1 3 'ii'e 1 Black should exchange with 1 3 ...1Vxet. Instead 13 ...'ii'h5?1 proved futile after 14 fxe4 dxe4 1 5 .i.c4 f4 1 6 d5 'it>b8 17 c6 .i.c8 1 8 cxb7 .i.g4 t 9 lbxf4!? gxf4 20 .i.xf4 and White was virtually winning, Mannion-Kobese, Yerevan Olympiad 1996. b3) 1 3 a4 l:tde8 with a final split: b31) 14 g3 lllxg31? 1 5 hxg3 (15 lbxg3 ..ixd4+ 16 �h 1 f4 1 7 lbe2 .i.h3 gives Black a good attack) 1 5...'ii'h3 1 6 c6! (16 l:lf2?! .i.xd4! 17 lllxd4 1Vxg3+ 18 Wfl f4 is very bad for White) 16....i.xc6 17 l:tf2 .i.xd4 1 8 lbxd4 'irxg3+ 19 �fl 'ii'h3+ with a draw. b32) 1 4 .et 'ii'xet 1 5 Axel f41 16 fxe4 tlxc4 1 7 .i.c4 f3 18 .i.e3 fxe2 1 9 l:lxe2 c6 20 dS cxd5 21 .i.xd5 h6 22 l:td2 l:td8 with an level ending, Sax-Salov, Brussels 1 988. 1 2 f3 li)f6 1 3 .td2
14 .i.xe2 is strongly met by 14...�g41
and now: a) 1 5 fxg4? ..i.xd4+ 1 6 �hl .i.e5 17 .i.f4 (even worse is 1 7 h3? 1lg3 18 �g1 'ifh2+ 1 9 � f2 .i.g3+! 20 �e3 - 2 0 W f3 .i.h4! 20...1le8+ 21 �d3 .i.bS+ and Black wins) 1 7 ....i.xf4 1 8 l:lxf4 gxf4 19 1rxd5 l:lcHI 20 •d 1 .i.c6 21 1i'f1 :C3 22 :C1 1re7 23 .to .i.xf3 24 gx£3 lle2 and Black had an edge in Sherzer-Halasz, Budapest 1990. b) 15 .i.f4 lbf2!? 16 .i.g3?! (16 J..xg5 lbh3+! 1 7 gxh3 1Vxg5+ 18 �h1 1Vf4 with
121
The Petroff Defence unclear play is stronger) 16...llhd1 17 ..i.xh4 ..i.xd4+ 18 �ht lt)e3 (we prefer Black's posi tion after the stronger 18...lbxb2!? 1 9 ..i.xgS l:le8) 19 ..i.xgS l:le8 20 ..i.xc:3 llxe3 21 l:lfe1 .i.xb2 22 ..i.fl .id4 with an unclear endgame, Movsesian-Raetsky, Pardubicc; 1 992.
lle8. Although Black is better, the game is still open. 21 .. Jlf8 22 ..txh7?1 Now it is all over. 22 c6 bxc6 23 llee1
.ie6 was the last chance. 22.....te6 23 Ae1 ..te3 24 g4 AhB 25 .i.f5 �dB 26 Le6 fxe& 27 ..txe6 Lh2 28 Ad1 Ah1 + 0-1 White resigned because of 29 �e2 l:lxd1 30 Wxd1
c6 31 gS ..i.xc5.
Game 51 Kasparov-lvanchuk
Debrecen 1992 1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lbf6 3 d4 lbxe4 4 ..td3 d5 5 lbxe5 lbd7 6 lbxd7 .i.xd7 7 0-0 Wh4 8 c4 0-0-0 9 c5 g5 1 4...c!bh51?
14...Wxd4+ 1 5 .te3 WeS 16 Wd2 is !>imply great for White. 1 5 1if2 •xf2+ 1 6 �xf2
1 6 :Xt2 ltlf4 17 .i.xf4 gxf4 1 8 c6 .i.c6 1 9 cxb7+ Wb8 with unclear play (Yusupov) is probably a better option. 1 6. . .1i�f4 1 7 ..txf4 gxf4 18 Afe1 .txd4+ 1 9 �1 ..txb2
19 ... ..i.xc5 20 J:leS ..i.e6 21 J:lhS allows counterplay. 20 Aab1 ..td4 1 0 ..te3
21 Ae7?!
More resilient is 2 1 l:lect .ic3 22 l:lc2 122
White has a couple of alternatives here: a) 10 g3 Wh3 11 lbc3 t5!? 12 .ie2 l:Zg8 13 ..i.f3 .ie8 14 a4 �6 15 lla3 1i'f6 16 b4 ..i.g7 17 lbe2 hS with chances to both sides, Pilipovic-Nikcevic, Tivat 1995. b) 10 lbd2 lbxd2 (also possible is lO ... i.g7 11 ltlf3 �5 12 lbcs Wxd1 13 l:lxdt .i.e6 14 i.c2 f6 1S ltl.n t5 16 lbe5 f4 when Black is no worse) 11 i.xd2 llg8 12 .i.c3 (or 12 l:lct !? Wxd4 13 ..i.c3 1i'h4 14 ..tf6 l:le8 15 f4 i.e7 16 c6!? with unclear play, Pinkas-Kuczynski, Wroclaw 1987; one continuation is 16...i.xc6 17 .it5+ Wb8 18 llxc6! bxc6 19 1ib3+ �a8 20 i.d7 .icS+ 21
3 d4: The Main L in e "'h I .i.b6 22 .i.xc6+ 'iPb8 23 .i.xe8 llxcB wilh a messy position) 1 2...g4 1 3 b4 Wb8 1 4 b 5 1ff6 1 S .i.d2!? ..i f5 (1 S...1i'xd4 1 6 .i.c3 l'c5 17 1fa4 gives White good compensa tlon) 1 6 .i.xfS 11fxf5 17 a4 11fd3 1 8 .i.f4 I'Kd1 1 9 llfxd1 llg6 20 aS WeB with an c;umplicated struggle, Komeev-Raetsky, Cannes 1 994.
and now:
ct) n...Whs t4 lbbs Wb8 1 s 11'et !? g4 1 6
10 Ae8 Black should probably look carefuUy at rhc alternatives to this: a) 10....i.g7 1 1 f3 lbf6 transposes to 10 f3, while I t ...lbxcS?! 1 2 dxcS .i.xb2 1 3 lbd2 .1Ka1 14 'lrxa1 is fantastic for White. b) 10...lbf6 is certainly a playable altcma rive: 1 1 lbd2 J:lgs (the main point) 1 2 lbf3 WhS 13 lDeS 11fxd1 1 4 :axd1 .i.e6 l S f4 gxf4 16 .i.xf4 (1 6 :xf4 .i.h6 1 7 :o .i.xe3+ i H :xe3 lbe4 1 9 :n with a slight edge, �hould be considered) 1 6 ...lDe4 17 c6 f6 1 8 cxb7+ 'iPxb7 1 9 lbc4 f5 (l.Gurevich-Barua, Hastings 1 993/94). Now White could probably have been slighdy better after 20 li)e3 .i.g7 21 .i.eS .i.xcS 22 dxeS .rigS 23 J:lr4. c) lO .. f5 is also enticing - we see no fault with this move. For example, 1 1 f3 lbf6 (not l l ...f4?! 12 fxe4 fxe3 1 3 g3 Wh3 1 4 cSI hS?I 1 5 c6! and Black was in deep trouble, Emcste-Goldmane, Riga 1 989) 1 2 lDcJ (1 2 c6 .i.xc6 13 ..ixf5+ i.d7 1 4 g3 'lfhs 1 S i.xd7+ :xd7 1 6 lbc3 .i.g7 gives both sides chances) 12 ... f4 1 3 .i.f2 ...
,
.
'ireS 'irxeS (Black should play 1 6....i.xbS 1 7 1i'xhS lbxhS 1 8 .i.xbS gx f3 1 9 gx f3 .i.e7 20 :ret ..if6 with a slighdy worse position) 1 7 dxeS lbhS 1 8 fxg4 .i.xg4 (Khait-Raetsky, Upetsk 1 993) and now after 19 c61? bxc6 20 lbd4 Wb7 21 lbb3 Black's position looks uncomfortable. c2) 1 3...'1'h61? is stronger: 14 l:tet?! g4 (Black now has the initiative) 1 5 c6 .i.xc6 1 6 .i. f5+ Wb8 1 7 fxg4 .i.d6 1 8 •o 1i'g7 1 9 l:te2?1 ( 19 .i.h4 is better, although Black's position remains preferable after 1 9 .:d£B 20 gS lbd7) 1 9 ... hS 20 gxhS J:lxhS 21 .i.h3 l:tdh8 22 Wf1 &4 and Black was close to winning in Werner-Raetsky, Cappelle Ia Grande 1 999. Instead of 14 l:te1?1, White shouW play 14 lbbS Wb8 1 S 11'd2 g4 16 11'aS .i.xbS 17 'iVxbS (but not 1 7 .i.xbS?? gxf3 and Black has a winning attack) 17 ...c6 1 8 11'a5 .tg7 with chances for both sides. 1 1 .!i)d2 .i.g7 1 2 �ta -.s 1 3 lt)xg5 This leads to a slighdy dull position, but one that is preferable for Black. 1 3 .i.xe4 :Xe4 (13 ...dxe4 1 4 lbxgS irg6 1 S dS h6 16 c6 is also reaUy messy) 1 4 lbxgS l:lg4 1 S f4 (IS lbm llxg2+1 16 Wxg2 .i.h3+ 1 7 Wh 1 .i.g4 and Black wins) 1 S...h6 1 6 lbf3 J:lg8 is certainly very unclear. 13 •xd1 1 3....i.g4?! is strongly met by 1 4 f3 lbxgS 1 S fxg4 1Wh6 1 6 .i.f5+ Wb8 1 7 .i.f4 and ..
•••
123
The Petroff Defence White is dominating the board. 1 4 llfxd1 lDxg5 1 5 .i.xg5
27 ....i.e& 28 b4 d4 29 a4 a5 30 b5 .i.b3 31 lla1 �c8 32 �2 h6 32 ...h51? is probably stronger: 33 lit>e2 Wd8 34 c;t>dz c;t>e7 35 .i.c2 .ixc2 36 c;t>xc2 llg6 37 c;t>d3 llxg3 38 lla2 c;t>d6 39 c;t>xd4
.J:lgS and Black should be okay. 33 We2 � 34 �2 �e7 35 .i.c2 .i.c4. 36 llh1 d371
In time trouble lvanchuk pushes his pawn, but he only succeeds in weakening it . 36. .1le6 37 .i.d3 .i.b3 38 llh4 lld6 39 .i.c2 i.c4 40 lle4+ c;t>f8 41 g4 is slightly better for White (Kasparov). .
37 .i.d1 �8 38 llh4 .i.a2 39 lle4 llg6 g4 h5 Or 40 ..:d6 41 llc3 .i.b I 42 c;t>c3 and
40
1 5....i.g4
1 5 ....i.xd4 1 6 c6 .i.c6 1 7 cxb7+ Wxb7 1 8 i.bS Aeg8 19 Axd4 AxgS 20 llct i s a bit unpleasant for Black.
.
White has a great advantage. 41 f41? hxg4 42 f5 lld6 43 llxg4 .i.d5 44 llh4 �g7 45 g3
1 6 lld2 .i.xd4 1 7 c6 .i.e5 18 .i.b5 b6 1 9 .i.h4 llhg8 The alternative 1 9 ...d4 20 Lg3 .i.g7 2 1
.i.a6+ WbB 22 a4 would be dangerous for Black (Kasparov). 20 .i.a6+ � 21 .i.g3 .i.xg3 22 hxg3 lidS 23 lld4 lld6 24 llc1 .i.c8 25 .i.d371
25 .ixc8 is a better move: 25...'�xc8 26 b4 a6 27 a4 h5 28 bS and White has some pressure. 25 ...llg41? 26 llxg4 .i.xg4 27 f3
45 ...�6?1
This loses and should be avoided, though 4S....ia2 46 llc4 Cit>f8 47 lle3 is also nice for White. 46 llh8 'ite5 47 .Z:c8 �d4 llh6 49 l:ld7 llh2+ 50 �1 1 -0
48
llxc7
Game 52 Lastin-Najer
Elista 2000 27 .i.xh7 d4 28 .i.d3 .i.c6 29 b3 .i.dS gives Black sufficient countcrplay (Kas
pamv). 124
1 e4 e5 2 ltlf3 ltlf6 3 d4 ltlxe4 4 .i.d3 d5 5 ltlxe5 ltld7 6 ltlxd7 hd7 7 0-0 'ifh4 8 c4 0-0-0 9 c5 g5 1 0 f3 ltlf6 1 1 .i.e3
3 d4: The Main L in e hxg3 1l'h3 17 l:td1 .i.g7 1 8 .i.ft 1-0, Tomashevic-Kondali, correspondence 1 991) 13 .i.f2 'lfh6 14 'l'a5 Wb8 1 5 lLlcl l:te6 1 6 a4 (or 16 ltlb5 .i.xbS 1 7 1i'xb5 ll'lb5 18 g3 '..f6 19 Jlae1 c6 20 'ifa5 l:the8 and Black has de cent counterplay) 1 6...:C8 17 Jla3 g4 1 8 ll'lb5 l:ta6 19 Wb4 brxf3 20 ll'lxc7!? :Xc7 21 .i.xa6 fxg2 22 Wxg2 lllh5 with a real mess, Mor gado-Gottardi, correspondence 1 997. 1 2 l003
11
.tg7
.•.
In this rabiya Black has many interesting c
'PPrtunities: :•) 1 1 ...g4 12 g3 Wlh5 13 f4 :Cs 14 Jlet
.i.g7 1 5 �3 Jle7 1 6 Wd2 Jlhe8 17 b4 .i.f5 ( 1 7...tDc4 1 8 .i.xe4 dxe4 19 b5 Jld8 20 Wb2 looks very dangerous for Black) 1 8 c6!? bxc6 I IJ ll'la4 .i.xd3 20 Wxd3 ltle4 21 Jlact with compensation, M:usuura-Kapelari, Sao Paulo 1 997. b) I t ...llg8 1 2 ll'lc3 g4 looks very att:rac livc:
b1) 13 Wet ?! is strongly met by t3 ...g31 1 4 hxg] l:txg3 1 5 lLlez (even worse is 15 Wd2? .ixcS 16 dxc5 :dgS 17 l:tfd1 d4 1 8 c6 dxe.3 1 9 cxd7+ Wd8 0-1 Dolmatov-Makarychev, Palma de MaUorca 1 989) 1 5....i.d61 1 6 'l'f2 ( 1 6 cxd6? l:txg2+! and it is all over) 1 6 ....i.h3 1 7 ll'lxg.3 .i.xg3 18 'l'c2 l%g8 with a fantastic nrtuck. b2) 1 3 g.3 Wh3 14 f4 lllh5 1 5 Wet (weaker is 1 5 .i.f2? ll'lx£41 16 gxf4 g3 1 7 .i.xg3 l:txg3+ 1 8 hxg3 ..xg3+ 19 Wh1 'ifh4+ 20 Wg1 .i.g7 nnd Ulack wins, despite being a rook down) I S .. .lle8 1 6 'l'f2 ltlf6 1 7 Jlae 1 hS with an unclear game. c) 1 t...l:te8 12 'lfd2 (12 .i.f2 1Wh6 1 3 ll'lc3 g4 1 4 f4 - 14 l:tct c6 1 5 b4 gxt1 16 Wxt1 lL'l,.,r4 also gives Black considerable counter play - 14 ...11'xf4 1 5 .i.h4 .xd4+ 16 Wh1 .ig7 with unclear play - Makarychev) 12 ....i.g7 (12...:Xc3? is too optimistic: 13 Wxd lllhS 14 g3! ll'lxg3 1 5 'IreS l:tg8 16
1 2 g3 is worth considering: 12...'1Fh5 1 3 ll'lc3 D.he8 14 l:te 1 g4 1 5 f4 ll'lc4!? 1 6 li)xe4 {16 1Vc2 ll'lxc5! 17 dxc5 d4 1 8 .i.f2 dxc.3 19 bxc3 .i.c6 gives Black a fine game) 1 6...dxe4 1 7 .i.e2 1Vg6 1 8 Wb3 (1 8 dS .i.c6 19 .i.xg4+ �b8 20 f5 1Wf6 21 d6 cxd6 22 cxd6 1Wxb2 isn't clear ac aU) 1 8....i.c6 1 9 .l\.c4 'if£5 20 :Cd1 (20 .i.xfl l:te7 21 dS .i.xd5 22 .i.xdS 'l'xdS 23 'l'a4 a6 shouldn't be worse for Black) 20....i.d5 21 c6 bxc6 22 lLct llc6 2.3 1Wa3 .i.xc4 24 :Xc4 Wbs 25 l:tdct and White had fantastic play for the pawn in Tiviakov Rozentalis, Groningen 1997. 1 2 ...Dhe8 1 3 .i.f2 1ih6 14 irb3
Another try is 1 4 ll'lb5 Wb8 1 5 a4 ll'lh5 1 6 Wd2 a6 1 7 l:tfcl!? li)f4 (not 17...axb5? 1 8 axbS b6 1 9 1Wb4 with a winning attack) 1 8 .i.fl l:le6 1 9 'I'aS l:tc6 20 lL3 .i.c8 21 lle 1 ..tf6 22 1Vd2 'ifg7 with chances for both sides, Zulfurgarli-Bayramov, Baku 1 998. 14 ...g4 1 5 �b5 �8 1 6 1lfe1?1
White should have played 1 6 .l\.g3 lieS 17 .i.eS; after l 7...g.3!? 1 8 .l\.xg3 ll'lhS 1 9 .i.f2
125
The Petroff Defence /l)f4 Black has brood play for his pawn. 1 6 ...gxf3 1 7 ltld61? White is trying to complicate matters; after 1 7 gxO /l)h5 18 �hl 1i'd2 Black is in con trol. 1 7 . . .cxd6 18 J..a& b6?!
This makes no sense - Black probably overlooked the note to White's 20th move. After 18 ....i.c6 1 9 .i.xb7 .i.a4 (even 1 9....ixb7 20 c6 Axel+ 21 llxel l:ld7 22 cxd7 �xd7 23 1Wc3 a6 is comfortable for Black) 20 1i'b4 (20 ..xa4? /l)g4 and Black wins) 20 ..a5 21 'irb6 li)d7 22 1Wxa5 llxel+ 23 l:txe1 Wxb7 24 11fxd8 dxc5 Black has the advantage. 1 9 cxb& i.e& .
20 bxa7+ Much stronger is 20 1Wc3t lbg4 21 h4 tbe5 22 dxe5 dxe5 23 llact and Black is under attack.
126
20...�xa7 After 20 ..�a8? 21 1i'b6! Black cannot de fend himself. 21 1ta3 .
21 .. .i.b7 21 ...1la8? would be met by 22 1Wa51 .i.b7 23 llact!! l:lxct+ 24 ..i.fl+ 'it>b8 25 'ii'c7+ al 2001) I O .le7 11 .le3 0-0 with chances for both sides. b) 8 ...�xd3 9 .xd3 c6 10 �2 f!fJ 1 1 Wg3 .i.g7 1 2 �f4 0-0 (12....lxe5?! looks risky: 13 J%c 1 f6 1 4 lDd3 0-0 1 5 �xeS fxe5 1 6 l:xe5 "nd Black is weak on the dark squan.-s) 1 3 lbh5!? gxh5 1 4 .lh6 .lg4 1 5 .lxg7 �xg7 1 6 h3 •gs 1 7 f3 f5 18 exf6+ l:xf6 1 9 fxg4 l:affi 20 :Xf6 l:xf6 21 :Ct hxg4 22 hxg4 :n with level prospects, Tiviakov-Van Wely, Leeu wardcn 2002. 6 lllxc3 Black has a couple of valid alternatives ttl 1his natural move: a) 6 ... .tb4 wins a pawn, but is quite dan gerous: 7 0-0 �xc3 8 bxd .lxc3 and now: at) 9 .la3?! is too optimistic: 9...�xc5 �Jut not 9 ... .lxa1?1 10 �c6!? bxc6 1 l Wc2+ lbc::S 1 2 .xeS+ .lc6 1 3 l:xa1 with an attack) I U dxcS .lxa 1 1 1 •xa1 and we feel that
White hasn't quite got the most from his position. a2) 9 llb1 .lxd4?! (9. ..c!Dxe5, transposing to 6...�xe5, is better) 1 0 �xd7 J.xd7! 1 1 :Xb7 0-0 ( 1 1 ....lc6? loses to 1 2 .la31 .lxb7 13 llel+ �d7 1 4 .lf5+ �c6 1 5 Wxd4 and mate is imminent) 1 2 .lxh7+ �xh7 1 3 Wxd4 and White has a dear edge. b) 6...�xe5 7 dxeS .lb4 (7...�4?! 8 .lxe4 dxe4 9 �5 'ild8 10 .lgS 'ilc.l7 1 1 e6 fxe6 12 �5+ g6 1 3 lbf6+ �f7 14 �4 gives Black serious problems, while 7...lbc5?1 R �xd5! �xd3+ 9 1i'xd3 J.e6 10 �f4 obvi ously favours White) 8 0-0
-
•••
...
and now: b1) 8 ... .lxc3 9 bxc3 .lc6 with a funher branch: bt l) 1 0 ...el!? �c5 (1 0...f5 1 1 exf6 ...xf6 1 2 .lxe4 dxe4 1 3 •xe4 0-0 14 .ta3 l:fe8 1 5 Wxb7 1Wxc3 1 6 .lb2 1t'c4 and White is only slightly better) 1 1 .lbS+ c6 1 2 .la3 �d7 1 3 J.d3 c5 14 f4 g6 15 c4 1Wc7 16 cxd5 J.xd5 17 c4 R.e6 1 8 l:b1 with the initiative for White, Reefat-1-lossain, Dhaka 2003. bt2) to f4 f5 1 1 exf6 Wxf6 1 2 f5!? (12 R.xe4 dxe4 1 3 �5+ 9f7 14 'iWbS+ c6 1 5 Wb4 J.dS 16 a4 b6 was equal in Palac Arkhipov, Belgrade 1 988) 1 2 ... .tf7 (not 12 ...lxf5?1 1 3 J.bS+ c6 1 4 1t'xd5 l:ffi 1 5 .la3 lld8 16 9c4 and Black is under serious attack) 1 3 J.xe4 dxe4 14 J.e3 0-0 and Black is probably not worse in this complex posi tion.
137
The Petroff Defence b2) 8...lt�xc3 9 bxc3 .i.xc3 10 llb1 0-0 (1 0...1t'e7 1 1 llb3 .i.xe5? - Sax gives 1 t ....i.b4 12 f4 with unclear play - 1 2 lle1 leaves Black in trouble; Sax-Nunn, Brussels 1985 concluded 12 ..0-0? 13 1rh5 f5 14 .i.f4 t -O) I t .i.xh7+ Wxh7 12 .d3+ Wg8 1 3 'lfxc.l d4 1 4 'iWg3 ..d7!? 1 5 c3 d3 16 lld1 11'g4 17 ..xg4 (17 llxd3 .xg3 18 llxg3 .i.fS 19 lla 1 llfd8 gives Black enough play for the pawn) 1 7 ....i.xg4 1 8 f3 .i.c8 19 llb3 cS is level, Roiz-D.Fridman, Pardubice 2002. 7 bxc3 c!bxe5 7 ... .i.d6 transposes to 5....i.d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 llk3 lbxc3 8 bxc3 lbd7. 8 dxe5 J.e7
Other moves: a) 8....i.e6 9 ltb1 1l'c8 10 .i.gS h6 1 1 .i.h4 .i.cS 1 2 0-0 c6 13 Wht gS 14 .i.g3 11'd7 1 5 f4 gxf4 1 6 .i.h4 .i.e7 1 7 :Xf4 0-0-0? (Movse sian-Wc:.:glarz, litomysl 1995) and now 18 .i.a61 would have won after 1 8...bxa6 19 11'fl ..c7 20 1Wxa6+ 'it'd? 21 llb7. Instead Black should play 17 ..ixh4 1 8 1lxh4 11'e7 with an unclear position. b) 8....i.c5 9 0-0 .i.e6 (9...1ih4?! loses a pawn to 10 .i.bS+ c6 11 1Wxd5) 10 D.bt .i.b6 1 1 Whs h6 12 Wh1 •e7 1 3 f4 J!fl 14 1t'e2 0-0-0 1 5 a4 •cs 16 llbS 11t'c6 (or 16. ..xd 17 .i.d2 •c6 1 8 a5 .i.cS 19 l:lfb1 with an attack) 1 7 aS!? a6 18 axb6 axbS 1 9 bxc7 with compensation for the exchange, Reefat Vakhidov, Dhaka 2003. 9 'Wh5 .i.e& 1 0 f4 ..
138
Or 10 llb1 ..d7 1 1 .i.gS 0-0-0 12 0-0 h6 1 3 Le7 11'xe7 1 4 11'e2 (14 l:lb3 cS 1 5 l:lbS c4 16 .i.fS llhe8 with equal) 1 4...1ic5 1 5 1id2 d4 1 6 cxd4 llxd4 17 .e3 llhd8 and Black was no worse in Kremcnietsky-Pripis, Moscow 1 977. 10 g6 1 1 •t3 f5 1 2 exf6 1 2 llbt 'ireS 1 3 .i.e3 0-0 14 0-0 cS also gives Black decent counterplay. 1 2 -*.xf& 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 J.a3 1 4 l:lb1 c5 1 5 llxb7 1ic8 16 llb1 .i.xc3 offers chances to both sides. 1 4 .i.xc3 1 5 JZad1 .i.d4+ 1 6 c;th1 c5 1 7 c3 ...a5 •..
.•.
•.•
After 17 ....i.xc3 18 .i.xc5 l:lf6 19 .i.c4 1ia5 20 llxd5 .i.xd5 21 1ixd5+ 'it'h8 22 .i.d4 ..xd5 23 .i.xf6+ .i.xf6 24 .i.xd5 the game would end in a draw (but not 18..1tf7 19 .i.xg6 hxg6 20 11'xc3 when Black has vulner able dark squares). 1 8 cxd4 •••3 1 9 .i.f5! ••6 20 .i.xe&+ ••e6 21 dxc5 JZad8 22 l:lfe1 •c6 23 l:le7 l:ld7 23 ..1lde8 24 l:lxc8 llxe8 25 f5 'IVxcS 26 fxg6 hxg6 with unclear play was a more chal lenging try. 24 l:lxd7 •xd7 25 l:lxd5 •a4 26 f5 •••2 27 h3 l:lxf5 28 l:ld8+ Wg7 29 •xb7+ Wh& 30 •e4 ••1 + Or 30...1lxc5 31 •f4+ llg5 32 •f8+ 'it'hS 33 ..f3+ with perpetual check. 31 Wh2 ••5 + 32 1rxe5 :XeS 33 l:lc8 a5 34 Wg3 a4 35 Wt4 l:le1 36 :as l:lc1 %-% .
3 d4: The Msin Line
Game 58 Timofeev-Raetsky
Correspondence 1982
•------• 1 15
e4 e5 2 Q)f3 Q)f& 3 d4 Q)xe4 4 .i.d3 d5 ttlxe5 Q)d7 6 it:lxf7
This sacrifice is an attempt to achieve a draw directly from the opening, but Black has enough resources to play on.
e �xf7 ...
15...'ifxh8 1 6 .i.xe6+ �d6 17 .i.xtiS (or 17 :CB 1 8 .i.f4 gS 19 .if5 gxf4 20 J:lxe8 'ifxd4 21 .txe4 fxg3 and Black wins) 17...'ifxh2 1 8 .1xe4 'ifgt+ 1 9 We2 'lfxct when White's position is critical. b2) 1 2 .ig8! 'ffh4 (or 12...lDe4+!? 1 3 �d1 .ixg8 14 lDg6 'ifxeS 1 5 lDxe5 .id6 and Black has some compensation for his pawn) 1 3 .if7+1 �dB 14 :Xe6 'i!fgS+ 1 5 �c2 'lfxg2 and the position is completely unclear. c) 7 'lfe2 h3
Also to be considered is 6 ...'1fe7!?, which bit risky but playable. Now we have a many of variations to look atl is
a
and now: ct) 7...�f7?! 8 'lfhS+ �f6 (after B �e6 9 .ltxc4 dxe4 1 0 dS+ �d6 1 1 .tf4+ lDe5 12 llk3 the attack also seems to be very danger ous) 9 0-0 'iff7 1 0 Wh4+ g5 1 1 .ltxg5+1 lDxgS 1 2 f4 We6 (1 2...'1fe7 1 3 fxg5+ �g7 14 lDc3 also gives White a winning attack) 13 fxg5 'lfg7 14 lDc3 lDb6 15 J:lf6+ 'iPcl7 16 11af1 �e8 1 7 J:lf7 Wxf7 1 8 J:lxf7 �f7 19 g6+ �c6 20 'ifet+ 1 -0 Gurgenid7.e-Bcllin, Thilisi/Sukhumi 1977. c2) 7...'1fxf7 8 f3 lDl'lf6 9 lDd2! Qcss ener getic is 9 fxe4 .i.g4 1 0 'ife3 dxe4 1 1 .i.xe4 0-0-0 12 0-0 11fcl7!? 13 .i.d3 - but not 13 c3? :Cs 14 �12 lDxc4 1 5 lDxe4 .tf5 16 .l%f4 gS and White is on the ropes - 1 3.. Wxd4 14 'ifxd4 J:lxd4 1 5 .i.e3 .i.c5 with level chances) 9 ...'1fh5 10 fxe4 ..tg4 1 1 'ife3 dxe4 t 2 lDxe4 0-0-0 with a further split: c21) 13 lDxf6 gxf6 1 4 0-0 .i.d6 1 5 g.� (or 15 h3 llhg8!? 16 'lfh6 - but not 1 6 hxg4 Wh2+ 17 �f2 'lfh4+ 1 8 �e2 J:lde8 1 9 h4 ..•
a) 7 lDcs is good for Black: 7 ...lDxe5 8 dxe5 •xeS 9 'lfc2 .td6 I 0 llx12 llk5 1 1 ..xeS+ .i.xeS 1 2 lD£3 lDxd3+ 1 3 cxd3 .i.f6 with a better endgame due to the two bish c ops ami the stronger pawn structure. b) 7 lDxh8 lDc3+ 8 �d2 lDxdl 9 J:le1 liJxf2 10 .ltxh7 (but not to :Xe7+? .ixe7 1 1 lLic3 lDf6 and Black wins) tO...lDc5!? (IO...lDc4+ 1 1 J:lxe4 dxe4 12 .ig6+ �dK 13 liJf7+ �e8 1 4 lDd6+ 'h-'12, I.Zailliev-Karpov, L eningrad 1966, is safer) 1 1 J:lxeS .ie6 and now: b1) 12 .i.g6+?! �d7 1 3 .tf7 (1 3 .i.f5? loses to 13...'1fg5+ 14 �e2 'ifxct 15 .ixe6+ Wc6 16 .i.xcl5+ �b6 - Yusupov) 13 ...lDc4+ 1 4 �e1 (14 �d3 is met by 1 4...llk5+1! 15 clxc5 .i.f5+! 16 :Xf5 'lfe4+ and 81ack wins) 1 4...'ifh4+ 1 5 g3 (Smerclon-Solomon, Gold < :oast 1999) and now Black can play
.
139
The Petroff Defence :lxg4 20 J.£5+ �d8 21 .Lg4 Wxg4+ 22 �d3 :xe}t 23 J.xc3 f5 and White has a lot of defending to do - 1 6..ixh3! 17 Wxh5 :Xg2+ 1 8 �h 1 l:th2+ with a draw) 15 ....ZZ.he8 (15...Ade8 16 '1Vh6 would benefit White). After 1 5 ...:he8 Black has enough play, for example 1 6 Wh6 J.c5! 17 dxc5 (17 'Wxh5 .i.xd4+ 1 8 �g2 hh5 is equaQ 17 ...Wxc5+ 1 8 �h 1 •d5+ and Black delivers perpetual check. c22) 1 3 0-0 is stronger: 1 3...lnd5 (after 13...tbxe4?! 14 .i.xe4 .i.d6 1 5 h3 l:[hf8 16 J.d2 White is simply a pawn ahead) 14 9g5 li)b4 1 5 h3 (15 tb£2 tbxd3 1 6 tbxd3 D.xd4 W"dS played in Zhao Zhong Yuan-Solomon, Gold Coast 1 999; following 1 7 1i'xh5 J.xh5 18 .i.e3 lle4 1 9 l:tact the position looks even) 1 5.....te2 1 6 .i.xe2 .xe2 1 7 'Wf5+ �b8 1 8 .i.f4 and we slightly prefer White.
.13+ Wc6 could still transpose to the game, though it looks risky with the king on f6) 9 Wh5+ with a repetition.
8 1i'e2 8 .i.xe4?1 is less reliable: 8 ...dxe4 9 d5+ �e7 10 ..tgS+ tbf6 1 1 tbc3 .irs 1 2 0-0-0 �d7 1 3 Wh4 J.d6 and Black is a piece up. A more serious option is 8 .g4+ �d6 (8...Wf7 draws) and now: a) 9 .if4+? Wc6 lO .e6+ (on t o .i.xe4 luckily for Black he has 1 O li)f61 1 1 'il'g5 h6, winning) 1 o....i.d6 1 1 .ixe4 tbf6 and White's queen is trapped. b) 9 ..txe4?l dxl.-4 10 1i'xe4 (10 .if4+ We7 1 1 1i'g3 .!£Jf6 and Black is close to winning) 10....!£Jf6 1 1 .i.f4+ Wd7 12 1i'e2 .i.b4+ 1 3 c3 lle8 1 4 ..te5 .i.d6 and Black is certainly better. c) 9 'il'e2 11h4 10 g3 'il'e7 1 1 c4 when White has compensation, but is it enough? 8 .i.d6 9 f3 1i'h4+ •.•
7 'tih5+ We61? The adventurous approach. Also possible is 7 ...rile7 and now: a) 8 1i'xd5?l is known to be bad after 8 ...tbdf6 9 1ib3 (9 'ilfc5+? �fl 1 0 .i.xe4 .i.b4+ 1 1 c3 J:lcs and Black wins) 9 ... .i.e6 1 0 Wxb7 �f7!? (Yusupov) 1 1 0-0 (11 .i.xe4 l:tb8 12 •c6 l:lb6 1 3 •as 1i'xd4 and Black wins) 1 t ..id6l 1 2 f3 .ixh2+! 1 3 �h2 •d6+ 1 4 �g1 'ilfxd4+ 1 5 Wh2 •e5+ 1 6 �gl tbg3 and Black has the advantage. b) 8 .e2 �fl (8...C�d6? 9 .i.f4+ Wc6 10 .Lc4 dxe4 11 tbc3 a6 12 1i'c4+ �b6 13 .i.xc7+! and White wins - Olthof; 8...Wf6 9
140
.••
3 d4: The Msin L ine 10 g3? This is already the losing mistake - White must move his king: a) 1 0 �ft .i.xh2 1 1 c4 c6 12 ltkl2 .i.e5 1 3 :xh4 li)g3+ 1 4 �f2 l£ixe2 1 5 �xe2 .i.f6 1 6 :xh7 l:txh7 1 7 .i.xh7 .i.xd4 would probably lead to a draw. b) 10 �d1 �fl (or to...lC!c5 1 1 fxe4 lbxd3 12 exdS+ l12 cxd3 %lf8 is a mess] 1 2 ... �d7 1 3 1fxd3 1Wg4+ 14 'lrt1 'ifxd4+ 15 ..td2 with chances for both sides) 1 1 fxe4 ll'lf6 (after 1 l.. .dxe4?! 12 l:tft+ l£if6 1 3 J..c4+ rize7 14 h3 White is better) 1 2 .!0d2 dxe4 13 lC!xe4 i..,_t4 14 lCigS+ �fB 15 l£lt1 1Wh5 and Black has good play for the pawn. 10 ...i.xg3+ 1 1 �d1 After 1 1 �ft .i.f4 White is dojng very badly. 1 1 ...lDdf6 1 2 fxe4 �7 1 3 •g2 i.g4+ 1 4 i.e2 14 �d2 .i.f4+ 1 5 �c3 .i.h3 1 6 '1Vf3 .i.xct 1 7 l::txct dxc4 18 i.c4+ �fB 1 9 'lrg3 11rxg3+ 20 hxg3 l:te8 also gives Black a material edge. 14 ...i.xe2+ 1 5 �xe2 11rxe4+ Or 1 5... lC!xc4 1 6 l:tfl+ �8 1 7 ltkl2 .xh2 I R 1Vxh2 i.xh2 1 9 lClxe4 l:te8 and Black should win, though it will take some work. 1 6 11rxe4 �xe4 1 7 c4 llae8 1 8 i.e3 'Df2
Another option is 1 8....td61? 19 cxd5 l£if6. 1 9 llf1 i.f4 20 llxf2 llxe3+ 21 Wf1 g5
The endgame is horrible for White and, in correspondence chess. almost impossible to hold. 22 'Dc3 dxc4 23 'De2 lle4 24 llc1 llhe8 25 'Dxf4 gxf4 26 llxc4 c6 27 J:lc5 llxd4 28 llf5+ �g6 29 ll5xf4 llxf4 30 llxf4 lle5 31 llg4+ Wf6 32 l:tg2 a5 33 b3 l:tc5 34 �1 llg5 35 J:lf2+ �6 36 �d2 J:lh5 37 �3 b5 38 J:ld2 c5 39 llg2 J:lh3+ 40 �c2 �5 41 lla2 b4 42 �2 �c& 43 a3 a41 44 axb4 llxb3+ 45 Wa2 cxb4 46 J:le4 �c5 47 J:le5+ �4 48 lla5 J:lh3 49 llxa4 Wc3 0-1
141
The Petroff Defence Summary In the main line Black has very much switched to 7 ....i.d6 recendy. However, the annotated games prove that 7 ..11rh4 remains interesting and gives Black excellent counterplay after 8 c4 0-0-0 9 c5 g6, and especially after 9...g5. Nevertheless, the truth is that 7 ...'1fh4 leads to ex tremely sharp positions that are not to everyone's taste. As Game 54 shows, 6 ltlxd7 .i.xd7 7 0-0 ..f6 allows White to win a pawn after 8 .i.xe4 dxe4 9 llk3 1i'g6 10 ltlxe4; Black has some compen.ution, but no more than that. However, if we insert the moves 7...'1fh4 8 g3 and now 8...'1rf61 9 .i.xe4 dxe4 1 0 ltlc3 'lrg6 t 1 lLlxe4 0-0-0, Black has a full compensation due to the weakened light squares on the kingside. The brave 6 ltlxf7 (Game 58) has not been played much rccendy. Black should accept the 'gift' with 6...'1Pxf7 and following 7 'lfhS+ he should move forward with 7 ...We6! - Black•s chances arc preferable in the arising complications. On the other hand, White has a plus aftet 6.....e7 7 'lrc2! 'lrxf7 8 f3 ltlf6 9 lLld2 1i'h5 1 0 fxe4 .i.g4 1 1 ..e3. The assessment of the Zait sev-Karpov game has changed and become more precise. At present the best line is considered to be 6 ...'1rc7 7 ltlxh8 lLlc3+ 8 Wd2 ltlxd1 9 l:te1 ltlxf2 10 .i.xh7 ltle5 1 1 1lxc5 J.c6 1 2 .i.gS 1i'h4 l3 .i.f7+ �d8 14 :xe6 'lrg5+ 1 5 �e2 'lrxg2, which is 'a hell of a mess'. .
1 e4 e5 2 lilf3 lilf6 3 d4 lilxe4 4 .tell d5 5 lilxe5 lild7 (D) 6 lilxd7 6 'lre2 - Game56; 6 lLlc3 - Game 57; 6 lLlxf7 Game 58 6 . . . .i.xd7 7 0-0 .td6 7...'1rf6 - Game54; 7 .ie7 - Game55 7...1i'h4 8 c4 0-0-0 9 c5 (D) 9...g6 - Gt1111e5J 9. .g5 10 J.d - Ga1nt 51 10 f3 - Game52 1 0 lLlc3 .i.g7: 1 1 g3 - Gt111e1 49; 1 1 lLle2 - Game50 B c4 8 lLlc3 Game 48 B ..c6 9 cxd5 cxd5 (D) 10 lDc3 10 Wbs 0--0 1 1 1i'xd5 .i.c6 12 1ih5 g6 1 3 11'h3: 1 3....tb4 - Gt����t 46; 1 3. lbg5 - Game47 10 ...lilxc3 1 1 bxc3 0-0 1 2 1rh5 f5 - GanH 44 12 ...g6 - Gt111e1 45 -
.
.
-
.
..
5 .ltid7 ..
142
9 c5
9... cxd5
CHAPTER SEVEN
I
3 d4: 5 .i.d6 and Fifth Move Alternatives . . .
1 e4 e5 2 �f3 tl)f6 3 d4 ltlxe4 4 i.d3 d5 5 �xe5 In the previous chapter we looked at the main line with 1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4 lbxc4 4 .id3 d5 5 lbxe5 lbd7. Now it is time to :;rudy other 5th move options for Black. Until quite recently the symmetrical re sponse 5...�d6 (Games 59-62) was as popu lar as 5 ..lLld7. After mutual castling White :macks the centre, but this can be done in more than one way. If White develops his lJUeen's knight for this purpose, he should prefer 7 lbd2 (Game 61) to 7 lbc3 (Game 62) because it avoids doubled pawns. However, the main way of attacking the centre is with 7 c4 (Games 59-60). Black has numerous responses against this. Strengthen ing the d5-pawn with 7 ...c6 is a bit passive, while the counterattack on the d4-pawn with 7...l'lk6 (Game 60) isn't sufficient to equalise in view of 8 lbxc6 bxc6 9 c5 �e7 I 0 �12 or 1 0 lbc3 - the pawn doubling is unfavourable ti1r Black. A sharp and critical position (de spite a queen exchange) is reached after 7...�xc5 8 dxc5 lbc6 (!L�e6 docs not ClJUalise) 9 cxd5 (the only try for an advan tage) 9 ...'iWxd5 10 'iWc2 lbb4 1 1 �xe4 lbxc2 1 2 �xd5, and this has been considered a tabiya of the whole 5...�d6 system for many years. The fate of Black's knight driven into .
the comer is the main question of this key position, one which is studied in Game 59. 5 ...lbc6 attacks both White's centralised knight and the d4-pawn. l lowever, this is not tJ1c best idea as White can simply swap tl1c knights to inflict doubled pawns on his op ponent. Now 6 lbxc6 bxc6 7 0-0 �e7 trans poses to 5 ....i.e7 6 0-0 lbc6 7 lbxc6 bxc6 (sec Game 63), while 6 li)xc6 bxc6 7 0-0 .i.d6 transposes to 5...�d6 6 0-0 lbc6 7 lbxc6 bxc6 (sec Game 61). However, Bil!,ruer demonstrated that White docs not have to castle; 7 'iWe2 creates problems for Black along the e-file, and that's why 5 ..lbc6 is almost out of usc. The continuation S...�c7 (Game 63) docs not challenge the c5-knight and is dictated by the wish to complete dL-vclopmcnt as soon as possible. A bit passive, 5 ... �e7 has never drawn much attention. However, even after tl1e most natural 6 0-0 0-0 7 c4 c6 it is un clear how White can 1-,rain a visible advantage. Probably White should consider Stcinitz's recommendation of7 ltcl !?. .
Gaf!Je 59 Van Der Wiei-Mellado
Elgoibar 1998
1 e4 e5 2 tl)f3 tl)f6 3 d4 �e4 4 i.d3 d5
143
The Petroff Defence 5 .lt»te5 .i.d6
i.xd3 12 Wxd3 dxc4 1 3 Wxc4 ltla5 14 We4 ...e7 and Black is okay (Kapengut). c) 9 .i.f4 lllb4 to cxd5 (or 10 ll:la3 lllc5 1 1 i.bt dxc4 1 2 lllxc4 i.c6 1 3 b3 ..xd1 1 4 :xdt :adS with equality - Yusupov) lO.. :tl'xdS t 1 .i.c2 .i.f5 t 2 llla3 l:tad8 1 3 .i.c4 1i'c6 1 4 -.,3 aS 1 5 Ldt 1Wg6 1 6 :xd8 ll.xdS 17 lld 1 ltf8 18 We3 h6 19 ll:lb5 ltlc2 20 We2 c6 21 lild6 lllc5 with an unclear game, Raetsky-rilatov, cortespondcncc t 982. 9 11'xd5 1 0 .c2 .•.
Other options are considered in Game 63. 6 0-0 0-0 Sixth move alternatives for both sides are studied in Game 61. 7 c4 .i.xe5 8 dxe5 lbc& 8... .i.e6 is less reliable. White can put Black under immediate pressure with 9 cxdS 1i'xd5 1 0 1i'c2 f5 1 1 exf6 lihf6 1 2 liX.1 1i'e5 (1 2...9c6 1 3 b3 lilbd7 1 4 .i.a3 ltlc5 15 .i.bS 1IVb6 1 6 Let also looks promising for White) 1 3 lllc4 ll:lg4 1 4 lllg3 hS (14 ...h6? 1 5 .i.xh61 lilxh6 1 6 llae1 9f6 17 :xe61 would t."'ld the show) 1 5 .LIZ .i.dS (1 5...h4? 1 6 :net and White takes on e6 again) t 6 .i.c3 1i'g5 1 7 .i.h7+ �h8 1 8 ...g6 1i'xg6 19 .i.xg6 with a clear plus for White, Liberzon1-lcnnings, Debreccn 1 968. 9 cxd5 White needs to try to refute Black's set-up altogether in order to play for an advantage. Other moves are less critical: a) 9 f3 lllcS 1 0 cxdS lllxd3 1 t 1i'xd3 ltlb4 (1 1 ...lllxe5 1 2 Wd4 :Cs 1 3 lilc3 .i.f5 1 4 .i.e3 fie7 also looks okay for Black) 12 -.,3 lllxdS 1 3 lldt c6 1 4 lllc3 1l'b6+ 1 5 ..xb6 lllxb6 1 6 b3 Ji.e6 17 �f2 .rl.fd8 1 S :xd8+ ltxdS is drawish, Raetsky-Kuznctsov, corre spondence t 9S3, b) 9 f4 .i.f5 (maybe an ht �xf7 24 fxg7 *xg7 25 .i.e3 b6 26 �12 �xd2 27 .i.xd2 aS 28 f3 a4 29 ¢>g1 .i.t.-6 30 a3 '12-1/z Tai-Karpov, Milan 1 975 Black will place his king on f7 and White can never make any progress) 22 �h1 �xd2 23 llxg7+ c;i;>h8 24 lbgs .i.f51 (the most precise; 24.. .:Xf6 25 IZ.xh7+ Wg8 26 1Z.xh3 IZ.xf2 still gives White chances - Gipslis) 25 �f7+ llxf7 26 llxf7 .i.e4+ 27 f3 .lxf3+ 28 c;i;>gt Wg8 29 lld7 lDc4 30 Wf2 .i.c6 3t llg7+ wm 32 llxh7 li)d6 33 We3 �e8 and the endgame is drawn, Raetsky-Bclomestnykh, correspon dence 1 982
t2...lt�xa1 gives White a slight advantage after 1 3 i.e4 (13 c6 lbc2 1 4 exf7+ llxf7 1 5 lldl .t f5 1 6 .i.xf7+ *xf7 17 ltk3 c6 1eads to immediate equality) 1 3..l[c8 14 l&3 llxc5 1 5 .i.d2 llxe4 1 6 �xe4 �c2 1 7 llct i.f5 1 8 f3 li)d4 1 9 llxc7 .lxe4 20 fxe4 b6 21 *f2. The endgame is uncomfortable for Black, lhough not necessarily impossible to defend. Note that after 21 ...�6 White retains the pressure with 22 lle7! *£8 23 .i.b4, when 23 ...�5 loses to 24 llc7.
13 g41
14 i.f4
14 ...�xa1 1 5 .i.e4
1 3 . i.xg4 ..
Or 1 3....i.g6 14 f4 and now: a) 1 4....td3? 1 5 .Ddt i.a6 16 .le4! (16 e6 �xa 1 17 exf7+ Wh8 1 8 .le3 :ads 19 lbc3 also looks very promising for White) 1 6...�xa1 1 7 .le3 .i.e2 1 8 :Ct .i.xg4 1 9 �3 and White has good winning chances. b) 14 ... c6 1 5 .i.c4 bS with a further split: b1) 1 6 .le21? hS 1 7 f5 .th7 1 8 gS �xal 19 c6 fxe6 20 b>6 .i.xg6 21 fxg6 llxfl+ 22 �fl probably leads to a draw, but this line is by no means forced and Black needs to do defend accurately. b2) 1 6 f5 �xal?, as in Ginda-Witt, Galati 1 973, should have lost quickly to 17 ..i.d3 l:lad8 1 8 .i.e4 lld4 19 �2 when Black will end up with material losses. Instead Black
1 5 llct has also been tried a few times, but it is less dangerous for Black: 1 5 ...c6 1 6 .le4 (or 1 6 .i.g2 f6!? 1 7 exf6 IZ.xf6 1 8 .i.e3 llg6 19 *h 1 .tch7 27 �h2 �hS 28 .i.cS b6 29 .i.e? l:td4 30 lbcl6 l:tc:12 31 �xc6 l:tb8 32 Wg3 f4+ 33 Wxf4 llxf2+ 34 �g3 ltxb2 with n:asonable drawing chances even though it is stiU a tough defence, Bucher-Girtz, Biel 1998. 25 f41 .i.f3 25 ...:C4 26 .i.d3 l:tac8 looks tticky, but af lCr 27 �f2! l:t4e6 28 �5 White has the ad vantage. 26 c!Lie5 .i.d5 26...�h7 27 Wf2 .i.hS 28 l:tc1 also fa vours White. -
.
27 h5 :.aea 28 .i.d3 �f3 Also possible is 28...b6 29 i.f2! (29 .i.xf5?? l:txeS! wins for Black). Now White has the edge after 29....i.c4 30 �c4 .i.dS 31 .i.xdS cxdS 32 l:tdt . 29 �2 .i.xh5 30 :.h1 .i.g4 3 1 .i.xa7 :.Xe57 This is simply a blunder. Black needs to play 31 ...lla8 32 i.d4 l:ta4 33 �c3 :xf4+ 34 �g3 l:ta4 35 �c2 liaS 36 .i.b3 when after 36...llxe5 37 i.xeS White has some chances to win the game, though nothing is clear. 32 fxe5 :.Xe5 33 lbh6+ ! �g8 34 .i.c4+ �8 35 :.h8+ r/;e7 36 lZ.b8 b5 37 :r.b7+ wdB 37...�f6 38 .i.ft l:td5 39 :C7 also wins for White. 38 .i.b6+ �c8 39 :.c7+ Wb8 40 :.Xg7 1 -0
Game 60 Shirov-Vusupov TerApe/ 1997 1 e4 e5 2 �f3 c!Lif6 3 d4 o!bxe4 4 .i.d3 d5 5 �xe5 .i.d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 c4 �c6
This particular variation, like so many in the Petroff, is a speciality of Yusupov's. 7...c6 is also possible, after which White has a wide range of choices: a) 8 1i'c2 1Wh4 9 li.)f3 1i'hs 1 0 cxdS cxdS 1 1 ..ixe4 dxc4 1 2 'ifxc4 li.)c6 and Black has compensation (Yusupov).
147
The Petroff Defence b) 8 cxdS cxdS 9 'irc2 .IL:8 10 f3 (10 R.xe4 dxc4 1 1 .xe4 .f6 1 2 .i.£4 �c6 looks fine for Black) to ...�f6 1 1 .i.gS h6 1 2 .i.h4 �a6 1 3 a3 -*.xeS 14 dxeS lr.xeS t S R.f2 and White has compensation for his pawn, although it is difficult to see how Black should ever end up being worse. c) 8 llXJI seems to give White the edge af ter 8 ...�xc3 9 bxc3 and now: c1) 9 ... R.e6 10 £4 .i.xeS 1 1 fxeS dxc4 1 2 -*.xh7+!? Wxh7 1 3 1Wh5+ �g8 t4 R.gs •as 1 5 .J:r.£3 �7 1 6 lr.g3 looks very dangerous for Black. c2) 9...lbd7 1 0 £4!? (tO �xd7 R.xd7 trans poses to S...llkl7 6 �xd7 R.xd7 7 0-0 .i.d6 8 c4 c6 9 W �xc3 10 bxc3 0-0) 10 ...�f6 1 1 cS J..e7 t 2 5 J..d7 1 3 g4 gave White an at tack in Korneev-Y.Hernandez, Mondariz 1 997. c3) 9....i.xe5 10 dxeS dxc4 l t R.xc4 fle7 (1 t ...'Wxd1 1 2 lr.xd1 J.. 5 1 3 .L3 lr.eB 1 4 f4 is clearly better for White; it gets even better after 14 ...�7? 1 5 e6! when White was win ning in Maroczy-Marshall, Paris 1900) 1 2 a4 lr.d8 1 3 1Wh5 l:te8?! (13...g6 was sadly neces sary although after 14 J..gS gxhS 1 5 .lxe7 :CB 1 6 J..d6 Black is in a bad state) 14 J..a3 'l'd7 1 5 l:adt '1'5 16 W'h4 .xeS 17 f4 'Wf6 (17 ...1i'e3+ 1 8 �h1 .i.e6 1 9 .i.d3 h6 20 aS! and Black's queen is trapped) 18 .x£6 gxf6 t9 .J:r.£3 J..e6 20 lr.g3+ �h8 21 J..e7! hS 22 J..x f6+ t -0 Chigorin-Lebedev, Moscow 1900. S lOxc& This is the right path to an opening advan tage. Mter 8 cxdS �xd4 9 .i.xc4 (9 �c4 1Wh4 1 0 �xd6 t'Oxd6 t 1 �c3 .i.5 and Black has equalised - Euwe) 9 ....ixe5 1 0 �3 .IL:8 1 1 lr.e1 eo5 12 •n g6 1 3 -*.£4 ..i.x£4 1 4 'ffx f4 �6 1 5 :C3 J..d7 1 6 lr.act 5 1 7 .LI3 ..f6 t8 a4 lr.xe3 1 9 lr.xe3 lr.e8 Black is very close to equality, Zelcic-Pavasovic, Nova Gorica t 997. s. . .bxc& 9 c5 j.e7 1 0 &3 This seems to be the soundest way of playing for White, but it is not the only way: a) After tO f3 �gS t t �c3 :Cs t 2 •a4
148
R.d7 13 .i.d2 lr.b8 14 l:tab1 .i.£6 15 �h1 h5 t6 �2 h4 17 h3 'l'c8 18 J..a6 'Wd8 t9 .i.d3 ..c8 20 .i.a6 the game finished with a draw in Kaspamv-Yusupov, Horgen 1995. 1 8 �f41? � 19 lr.fet is interesting, but we believe that Black is okay after the foUowing line: 19...-*.gS!? 20 .i.a6 ..dB 21 �xe6 lr.xe6 22 :Xe6 R.xe6 23 .i.xgS ..xgS 24 ..xc6 .i.xh3! 25 R.n ! .i.xg2+! 26 .i.xg2 ..5 27 l:lg1 h3 - the game will end in a draw. b) 10 l0d2!? looks stronger: 1 0.. ..i.f6 1 1 �xc4 dxe4 1 2 .i.xe4 .i.a6 (t2....i.xd4 1 3 .d3 �h8 14 .i.g51? .i.xf2+ 1 5 lr.xf2 .xgS 16 Lh7 looks slightly better for White) 1 3 :C 1 .i.xd4 1 4 1i'c2 lr.eR 1 5 .i.e3 .i.xb2 1 6 .i.xh7+ �h8 (Sanche-.r.-Morgado, correspon dence 1 978) and now after 1 7 •xb2 �xh7 1 8 l:ad1 .e7 19 1i'c3 we think White has some pressure.
1 0. . .f5 Black seems to be unable to equalise here, and it's not due to a lack of trying: a) 10....i.5 1 1 f3 �xc3 1 2 bxc3 .i.xd3 13 'l'xd3 aS (13....i.g5?! 14 ..a6! .i.xct 1 5 Let .d7 16 lr.fel lr.fe8 17 lr.xc8+ l:r.xe8 18 h3 h5 19 .xa7 and Black did not have enough for the pawn Shirov-Hiibner, Frnnk· furt [rapid[ 1996) 1 4 l:tb1 lr.e8 1 5 .i.d2 and White is a bit better. b) to....i.f6 1 1 .c2 (1 1 �xe41? dxe4 1 2 .i.xe4 transposes to 10 �d2 .i. f6 l 1 �xe4 dxc4 1 2 .i.xe4) t l ....i.xd4 1 2 �c4 dxe4 13 R.xe4 W'h4 (1 3...R.a6?! 14 .J:r.dt with a plus;
3 d4: 5 . �d6 and Fifth Mo ve A lternatives . .
14....i.xf2+? 15 Wxf2 'i'h4+ 16 g31 - 16 �g) ?l llae8! is Black's point - 16. ..xh2+ 17 .tg2 and White is winning - Kasparov) 14 g3 ..f6 1 5 .i.e3! .ixe3 (1 5 ....i.xb2 1 6 llab1 .i.eS 1 7 .i.xh7+ Wh8 18 .i.e4 should also favour White) 16 fxe3 1i'h6 1 7 llf4 g5 1 M llf2 .ih3 1 9 .if5 and in this position White is some what better, lvanchuk-Yusupov, Hoq,�n I IJ95. 1 1 f3 tDg5 1 2 1Wa4 �d7 13 .i.f4 ..
1 7 o!Llxf4 1 8 g3 o!Llh3+ 19 �g2 1Wh6 20 �d5 f4? Black should play 20 .:ae8 21 �7+ �h8 22 ..i.xf5! llxe7 23 .i.xd7! (but not 23 llxc7?! 9d2+ 24 Wxh3 llxf5 25 llxf5 .ixf5+ 26 g4 Lg4+ 27 Wg3 .ih51 28 lle5 ..d3+ and Black attains a draw) 23. .ltxft 24 Wxft llf7+ 25 llfS llx5+ 26 .ixf5 and White is only slightly better (Shirov). 21 �e7+ �h8 22 ltlf5! It is important that it's the knight that goes to 5: after 22 .i.f5? fxg3 23 hxg3 g6 24 .ixd7 ..d2+ 25 �xh3 l:lxft White is missing his bishop in defence. 22...1i'g5 22. .ixf5 23 llxf5 1lae8 24 ..d t l wins for White according to Shirov - the knight is simply ttapped. 23 o!Llh4 1Wh6 24 �f51 ..•
..
.
Or 1 3 llk2 .if6 1 4 ti)f4 'lfe7 1 5 .i.d2 g6 1 6 lLe1 ..g7 17 .i.c3 hS 18 ..i.a6 llab8 1 9 ti)cB h4 20 ti)e5 with a slight advantagt:, Timman-Yusupov, Bth matchgume, Linares 1 992. 13 �f6 14 llae1 lDe6 14 ..ll:lf7 is punished by 1 5 ti)e2 g6 1 6 'liaS, when Black cannot defend himself properly. 1 5 �e5 .be5 1 6 :Xes -...4 16. . ti)f4 1 7 .ib1 tl)g6 1 8 lleet Ae8 was an alternative, although White's position still looks more promising. 17 f41? Shirov, the great calculator of complicated lines, naturaUy takes the chance to enter this wildly complex position. He suggests that after 17 .i.xf5 llxf5! (17 ...ti)xc5? 18 ..i.xh7+ Wxh7 1 9 dxc5 is good for White) 1 8 llxf5 lt:lxcS t 9 dxcS ..xa4 20 �a4 .ixf5 White has a slight edge. After 17 f4 Black has little choice but to take the challenge. ••.
.
..
.
24. . .fxg3
149
The Petroff Defence
The last chance was probably 24....i.xf5 25 lbxf5 wrg6 26 'itc2 'iig4 27 'ii'd1, when White retains a large advantage but Black can struggle still. 25 hxg3 g6 26 i.xd7 1rd2+ 27 �h3 l:lxf1 28 i.xc6 l:laf8 29 i.g2 Also winning is 29 .lie7 l:te1 30 Axe 1 'itxe1 31 'itb3 Wg7 32 g4, but the game con tinuation looks safer despite the complex lines. 29.. Jl1 f2 Black also loses after 29...l:t1 fl 30 l:le8 gS 31 .i.d5 llf6 32l:.xf8+ llx£8 33lbf3, but not 32 lbm g4+ 33 Wxg4 l:lg6+ 34 Wh3 :h6+ 35 lbh4 l:lxh4+! 36 gxh4 'itd3+ whc::n Black escapes with a draw. 30 1rd7 g5 31 l:le7 1rc2 32 ..i..e4 l:lh2+ 33 �Lh4+ Black's attack also runs out of steam after 33...'fle2+ 34lbf3 34...h5+ 35 Wxg5 We3+ 36 Wg6 ltg8+ 37 ll.g7 1fxe4+ 38 Wh6 'ife3+ 39 lDgs, when despite his extra exchange Black is 'out of bullets'. 34 gxh4 'ife2+ 35 �g5 l:lg8+ 36 �6 1-0
cS with a very complex position in which White might have an edge) 9 wrxd3 c6 10 0-0 .i.g4 11 lbg5 (the less obvious 11 .i.d2 llXI7 12lbd4 � 13 h3 .i.e6 14lbxe6 fxe6 is not easy to evaluate) 11...h6 12 'itd4 .i.e6 13lLlxe6 fxe6 14 c4 1fe7 15 .i.d2 c5 16 Wg4 d4 and Black has no obvious worries in this unclear position, Raetsky-Y.Aleksandrov, correspondence 1983. d) 6 c4 0-0-0
This allows Black to act quickly with 6 ....i.xe5 7 dxeS lbc6 8 0-0 lbcS 9 cxdS r------. 'itxdS 10 .i.bS 'ifxdl (weaker is 10....i.e6 11 Game6 1 li'xdS .i.xdS 12 lbc3 0-0-0 13 .i.e3 lbe4 14 lbxcl5l:.xd5 15 .i.xc6 bxc6, when White had Timoscenko-Yusupov an endgame edge in Lindoerfcr-Meijers, F'mn� 1979 Schwabisch Gmund 1998) 11 llxd1 .i.d7 12 1 e4 e5 2 ll:!f3 lDf6 3 d4 lbxe4 4 i.d3 d5 lbc3 lbc6 13 f4lbcd4 14 .i.a4 0-0-0 and here we can see no argument supporting a white 5 llJxe5 i.d6 6 0-0 edge. White has a extensive list of alternatives: 6 ...0-0 a) 6 lbc3 lbxc3 7 bxc3 0-0 8 0-0 ll:X17 Or: transposes to Game 62. a) 6 ....i.xe5 7 dxcS lbc5 is a slightly dubib) 6 'irf3 0-0 7 0-0 cS!? 8 .i.xe4 dxe4 9 ous favourite of the solid GM from UthuaWxe4 'fle7 10 lle1 lle8 11 lbd2 cxd4 12 nia, F�uardas Rozentalis. Now 8 .i.e2! is lbet1 (12lbec4i.b4 13 'iixe71lxe7 14 :xe7 probably the right path for White here, for .i.xe7 1Slbc4lbc6 would give Black a prefexample 8.. 0-0 9 b31? lbc6 (9...c6 10 .i.a3 crable endgame) 12 ...lbc6 13 1fxe7 llxe7 14 'iie7 11 f4 aS 12 lbc3 lblxl7 13 wrd4 gives lbe4 .i.c7 15i.d2 .i.b>416lbc5 .i.d6 17lbe4 White a powerful initiative) 10 L3 b6 11 f4 .i.c7 with a draw, Raetsky-Mironov, correlte8 t2lbc3 d4 13i.f3 .i.b7 14 .i.xcS bxcS spondencc 1985. 15 lba4 wrc7 16 We2 ll:XI8 17 'ifb5 and c) 6lbd2 .i.xeS 7 dxe5lbcs 8lbf3lbxd3+ White has strong prt:ssure, C.l-lanscn(or 8....i.g4!? 9 h3 lbxd3+ 10 Wxd3 .i.xf3 11 Ro:r.entalis, Malmo 1997. 'irxf3 0-0 12 'irg3 Wh8 13 i.gS 'ii'd7 14 .
150
3 d4: 5 .. . �d6 and Fifth Move Alternatives
b) 6 ...Qk6 7 lfu.c6 bxc6 8 c4 Wlt4?! (fL0-0, transposing to 6...0-0, is preferable) 9 g.� 1i'h3 (9 ...'ii'f6 is refutoo by to i..xe4 dxe4
l tltlc3 i..f5 12 f31 ..g6 13 fxe4 i..h3 14 e51 i..xft 15 exd6 i..h3 16 'ii'e2+ 'l'e6 17 'ii'xe6+ i..xe6 18 dxc7 i..xc4 19 i..f4 with a clear advantage for White - analysed by the very reliable duo Yusupov and Dvoretsky) to c5 i..g4 11 i..e2 i..xe2 12 1i'xe2 i..e7 13 f3ltlf6 14 i..f4 and Black has achieved little witlt his kingside actions - White has a slight advan laJ.,>e. c) 6...c51? allows White to gain an edge with 7 i..bS+ltld7 8 dxc5 i..xeS 9 9xd5 0-0! (9...1i'e7?1 10 c6! would be an unpleasant surprise) to ..xe4 'ii'c7 11 i..d3 g6 12 'ii'h4 ltlxc5 13 i..e 2 i..f5 when Black has some compensation for the pawn, but hardly enough. White could even consider 14 Qk3!? here. 7 lDd2
7 ltc 1 is a respectable alternative, after which we have the foUowing possibilities:
a) 7...i..xe5 8 dxe5 Qk6 9 i..£4 f5 to f3 ltlc5 11 i..b5 ltle6 with unclear play (Yusu JX>v). b) 7 ... c5 8 c4!? cxd4 9 cxd5 i..xe5 (9 ltlc5 . 10 i..c4 :C8 11 i..f4 i..f5 12 llXl2 looks hrood for White, as after 12 ... £6 13 ltlc6! Ulack is under attack) 10 i..xe4 f5 11 i..O 1i'd6 12 h3 giving a position balanced on the edge between a slight white plus and �-quality. In other words, something along the lines of ..
equality but Black needs to prove it! In Slo bodjan-Forintos, Germany 1992, Black failed to do so and foUowing 12...ltld7 13ltla3 i..£6 14llk2ltle5 15ltlxd4ltlxf3+ 16ltlxf3 b6 17 i..g5 i..b7 18 i..xf6 .llx£6 19 :C5 White held a clear advantage. c) Lltld7 8 Le4 (8 ltlxd7 leads to an immediate draw after 8...i..xh2+ 9 Wxh2 1i'h4+ 10 �g1 1i'xf2+) 8...dxe4 9 ltlc4 ltlb6 10 ltlxd6 1i'xd6 11 llxe4 i..f5 12 l:leS Wg6 and Black has good counterplay for the pawn. 7 �xeS 8 dxe5 �c5 9 l0b3 ••.
9 'ii'h5 does not look dangerous here, 9...ltlxd3 10 cxd3 c5 being the must natural reaction. Now 1 1 b4?! looks unjustified: 11...cxb4 12 a3 bxa3 13 i..xa3 l:le8 14 i..d6 ltlc6 15 l:la4 'ii'd7 16 l:lf4 1Ve6 17 d4 'ii'g6 18 1i'f3 i..c6 with a clear edge for Black, J. Pol gar-Kamsky, Groningen 1993. After the more sensible 11 ltlb3 'ii'c7 12 i..f 4 i..e6 Black shouldn't be worse. 9 l0xd3 1 0 '1Fxd3 tOe& •.•
1 1 �f4
11 f4 should probably be met by 11...f6 1 2 ex£6 1Vxf6!? (12.. .l:lxf6 13 f51? ltle5 14 'ii'h3 .ffi 15 g4ltlc4 16ltld4 is very complex and difficult to evaluate) 13 .xdS+ i..c6 14 'ii'c5 llad8 15 i..d21? 1i'xb2 16 i..c3 •xc2 17 i..xg7! 1i'xc5+ 18ltlxc5 l:lfe8 19 i..c3 (Ljubo jevic-Razuvaev, Amsterdam 1975), and now 19...i..c4! 20 ltlxb7 i..xft 21 ltlxd8 i..xg2 22 �xg2 .:.Xd8 leads to an endgame that Black 757
The Petroff Defence
will have to defend, but curate play. 11
rtln
defcm.l with ac
23 :ata 24 .i..e3 1tg6 25 �2 lL!f5 26 i.f47 ...
1id7 1 2l:tad1
••.
12 .i.g3 leads to a hannless position after 12...b6 13 :ret �b4 14 'ifd2 c5 15 �4 'it"g4 16 c3 cxd4 17 cxb4 d3 18 'it"xd3 Wxb4 19 a3 1t"c4 20 ..d2 (1/2-1/2 Griinfeld Yusupov, Amsterdam 1982). 1 2...1fg4 1 3 1i'e3 liJe7 14 h3
14 'ifc5 �fS 15 g."\ c6 docs not cause any real problems for Black. 14 1tg6 1 5 c3 ..•
15 1t"c5 invites Black to play a pleasing piece sacrifice with 15....ixh3!? 16 .ig3 �f5! 17 gxh3 �xg3 18 fxg3 'ii'xg3+ 19 'it'h1 1t"xh3+ 20 Wgl 'it"g3+ 21 �h1 l:lae8!? (of course a draw was available) 22 :d3 Wh4+ 23 �g2 :e6, when we fear for the safety of the white king. 15
b6
...
1 6 e6?!
Tougher resistance was possible with 26 l:lft, though after 26 ....ia4 27 llc I Wc6 28
�2 .ibS 29 c4 .ia6 Black is very close to a winning position. 26 lL!h4 0-1 ...
Game62 Anand-Mishra
India 1988 1 e4 e5 2 lLJf3 lL!f6 3 d4 �xe4 4 i.d3 d5 5 lL!xe5 i.d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 lL!c3 lL!xc3 The colourful 7...f5!? 8 f3 .ixeS 9 dxcS
�xc3 10 bxc3 11c7 1 I .D.ct .ic6 12 a4 cS lead to unclear play in Geller-Yusupov, Vil nius 1980. 8 bxc3 &iJJJ7 I\ poor strategic mistake. Black will enjoy the open f-filc and develop very l]uickly. 16 �d4 cS 17 �f3 .i.b7 18 �h4 We6 would give Black plenty of counterplay, but this was stiU the best option.
1 6 c5 1 7 exf7 + l:txf7 1 8 l:tfe1 i.d7 1 9 1fg3 1fc6 20 i.g5 lLJf5 2 1 1ff3 h6 22 i.c1 lLle7 23 1fe271 •••
Here the queen is not very weU placed. 23 Wg3 is stronger; foUowing 23 ...1%af8 White has 24 .if4 �f5 25 'ilfh2 gS 26 .ie5 with some counterplay, even though Black is bet ter after 26...'ilfa4. .
152
ll..c5!? has also been suggested: 9 ..h5 g6
3 d4: 5 ... �d6 and Fifth Move Alternatives 10 'lt'h6llk61? 11 .i.gS .i.e? (1 l...f6 12 .i.xg6 - 12 o!ilig6? llt71 - 12.....c7 13 .i.xf6 llxf6 14 .ixh7+ ..xh7 15 ..xf6 might favour White slightly) 12 .i.xe7 ..xe7 l 3 llae1 1ff6 14 �xc6 bxc6 1S dxcS ..xc3 16 f4 ..xc5+ 17 �h1 f5 with unclear play (Yusupov). However both 14 f4!? and even 14 .i.bS!? look like reasonable improvements for White.
91le1
Or: a) 9 li:)xd7 .ixd7 transposes to 5...�d7 6
�d7 J.xd7 7 0-0 J.d6 8 etk3 �xc3 9 bxc3 IJ-0. b) 9 f4 cS 10 c4!? cxd4 11 �xd7 (1 1 cxdS?I �f6 12 .tc4 .i.cS 13 1rf.3?!- 13lbd3 'ikc7 only leaves Black slightly better 13....tf5 14 lle1 WaS! 1S .i.b2 d3+ 16 �h1 d2 and White is in deep trouble, Kupreichik Dvoretsky, Leningrad 1974) 1 L..i.xd7 12 cxdS Was 13 1Whs f5 14 •a .i.bS and Black should not be worse.
ised, A. Sokolov-Schandorff, Bundesliga 2001. b) 11 .tfl :C8 t21Whs 1i'd7 13 J.e3 1i'c6 14 llab1 a6 1S llb4 b6 (1S...�e4 16 c4 .i.e6 17 cxdS .i.xdS 18 c4 .i.e6 19 .i.d3 would give White real threats) 16 llh4 h6?! (Chibur danidze-Schussler, Haninge 1988), and now White had the chance to play 17 c4! dxc4 18 .i.xc4 .i.e6 19 .i.xh6! .i.xc4 20 .i.e3 with a close-to-winning position - 20... £6 21 cxf6 .xf6 22 1lxc4, if forced, simply leaves White a piece up. Instead of 16...h6, Black should play 16...11t'g6 17 1i'xg6 hxg6 when maybe White has a small plus. 1 0 dxe5 .ic5 1 1 1ih6 g6 1 2 1ih6 lieS 1 3 �g5 .if8 14 ....4 1rd7
14 ... .te7 1S .tf6 eSt? 16 c4 d4 does not look clear at all. All these positions are really difficult to evaluate, as time after time every thing hangs on one move. 1 5 .lab1 1lb8 1 6
c4 d4
1 7 f4
9 . .li�xe5
9....txeS I 0 dxeS llks ternative,
is
a respectable al
1 7 •c6? ...
after which White can play: a) 11 llbl �xd3 12 cxd3 b6 looks very sc 11id for Black. I r is unlikely that White can slrueeze an advantage out of the position, for example 13 :b4 f5 14 cxf6 (14 d4 .i.e6 15 .lla3 f4 16 llb2 llf7 with chances for both sides) 14.....xf6 1S l:lf4 .i.fS 16 .i.d2 Wd6 17 1i'f3 .id7 18 1Whs c6 and Black had equal-
First of at� it is not obvious what the queen is doing here. Secondly, Black should not give White a free hand to continue his attack on the kingsidc. After 17...'iVg4 18 •f2 cS Black would at worst only be slightly worse. 1 8 �f6 �g7?
Black should not voluntarily part with his only defensive piece. After 18...h6 19 1Vg3 Wh7 20 :n .tfS 21 .i.xfS gxfS 22 'llh3 •d7 23 llf3 things look bk"llk for Black, but this is 1 53
The Petroff Defence
still favourable to the game. 1 9 f5 11t'c5 Or 19....txf6 20 exf6 .i.d7 21 l:tftl and
the double threat of fxg6 followed by .i.xg6 combined with 'ti'h6 ends aU speculation about the result. 20 -*.xg7 'it>xg7 21 •f6+ �g8 22 e6 1 -0
Game63 Aagaard-Legky
Budapest 1996 1 e4 e5 2 �f3 �f6 3 d4 �e4 4 .i.d3 d5 5 �xeS -*.e7
6 lbd2 might be a good way to tight for advant:tf.,re. Now Black has two main ways togo: a) 6...lbd6 7 'iff3 (l 111h5 g6 8 .i.xg6?1 does not work on account of 8 ... fxg6 9lbxg6· .i.g4! to 'ifxg4 l:tg8 II 'ilh5 Axg6 1 2 ltl£3 lbd7, when White doesn't have enough for the piece) 7 ...c6 8 ltlftl? (Kapcngut) 8... 0-0 9 lbg3 lbd7 10 ltlxd7 'ifxd7 1 1 0-0 1tg4 1 2 'ifxbr4 .i.xg4 1 3 .i.f4 and White might have a very tiny edge. b) 6... ltlxd2 7 .i.xd2 ltlc6 (1...0-0 8 'ifh5 g6 9 1i'h6 ltlc6 1 0 lfuc6 bxc6 1 1 0-0-0 l:te8 1 2l%dc1 :bs 13 :CS looks better for White) 8 lbxc6 bxc6 9 0-0 0-0 10 'iVhs g6 1 1 'ti'h6 llb8 1 2 b3 .i.f6 1 3 c3:c8 t 4:fe1 :xe l+ 1 5 :xe1 .i.e6 1 6 ..f 4 .i.e7 1 7 'ii'gJ .i.d6 1 8 .i.f4 .i.xf4 19 1txf4 'ifd6 20 1if6 and White had a bit of pressure in Hort-Spassky, Reykjavik 1 977. an
6 ...0-0 The saf est choice. Others include:
a) 6...lLld7 7 .i.f4 (l c4 is less dangerous: 7...lbxc5 8 dxcS c6 9 cxd5 1txd5 10 Wn .i.fS! 1 1 ltlc3 t£lxc3 12 'ifxf5 br6 1 3 'iVh3 :d8 with unclear play- Yusupov; 7lbxd7 .i.xd7 ttansposes to s. .ltld7 6 t£lxd7 .i.xd7 7 0-0 .i.e7) 7 ...t£lxe5 8 .i.xeS 0-0 9 c4 c6 10 1tc2 and White has an edge according to Euwc. b) 6...t£!c6 also doesn't fully equalise: 7 ltlxc6 bxc6 8 c4 0-0 9 t£lc3 ltlxc3 10 bxc3 dxc4 1 1 .i.xc4 .
This is a bit passive and Black can easily end up in a slightly worse position. Another sideline that is no longer popular is 5 ...ltlc6 6 ltlxc6 bxc6 7 'ife2!? (l 0-0 .i.d6 ttansposes to 5....i.d6 6 0-0 ltlc6 7 ltlxc6 bxc6, and 7 0-0 JJ..e7 transposes to 5....i.e7 6 0-0 ltlc6 7 lbxc6 bxc6) 7...'ife7 8 0-0 g6 (8...lLld6 may be safer though after 9 :c 1 1txe2 1 0 ltxe2+ .i.e6 1 1 ltld2 �d7 1 2 ltlf3 f6 1 3 c3 .ifS 14 ltlc1 g5 1 5 .i.xfS+ lDxfS 16 lLld3 White retains a very slight edge) 9 .i.xe4 ..xc4 1 0 1td2!? (this looks more logical than lO 1txt:4+ dxc4 1 1 :e1 f5 1 2 f3 .i.g7 1 3 c3 0-0 1 4 .i.f4 c51? 1 5 dxc5 :b8, which gave Black considerable compensation in PiUs bury-Schlechter, Munich 1900) IO....tc7 1 1 :e1 1tf5 12 'iff4 and White has St.-vera1 threats. 6 0-0 154
and now:
3 d4: 5
bt) 11....LI6 12 1fd3 lZ.b8 13 h3 gives White a s(jght edge. Holzke-Yusupov, Hundesliga 2000 continued 13...c5?! 14 dxc5 .lxc5, an(l here White can play 15 .ixt7+! ct lladB 18 .!lkl4 .i.c8 19 llhe1 1 73
The Petroff Defence
� was level in Konstantinopolsky Smyslov, SvenUovsk 1 993. b2) Black should seriously consider the di rect 7 ... f6. For example, 8 .i.f4 c!lk6 9 11t"d2 �fS 10 .i.e2 11t"e7 1 1 0-0 0-0-0 1 2 lte1 lfr4 1 3 11t"ct gS 14 .i.d3 �h6!? 1 5 llk3 (the wild t S li)h4!? leads to unclear play after 1 5...gxh4 16 �xh6 llhg8; note that White must avoid 1 7 1i'f4? ltxg2+! 1 8 Wxg2 :gS+ 1 9 �1 /bg3+) 15 ...gxf4 16 .i.xc4 .i.xe4 17 l:lxc4 flg7 1 8 11'f1 .l:thg8 1 9 .1Le1 1i'g4 20 �h1 �f8 was unclear in Stcinitz-PiUsbury, St Pe tersburg 1895. However, after 12 ..'iWf7!? 1 3 .i.d3 .i.g4 Black has a slight plus.
7
fke7+ interesting is 7 ...c!lk6 8 11'f4 f!!> 9 0-0 �7 and now: a) 10 llc!t+ leads nowhere after 1 0....i.e6 1 1 c!bgS 0-0 1 2 c!bxe6 fxe6 1 3 .g3 (Hiibncr Scgal, Dresden 1969 continued 1 3 11t"g4?! •f6 14 11Vg3?! c!bb4 1 5 ltfl c!bfS 16 11'xc7? .1Lc8 1 7 1i'xb7 c!bxd3 1 8 cxd3 c!bg3! 1 9 hxg3 ltxcl! 20 ltxct 11'xf2+ 21 �h1 .xg3 22 1l'e7 1i'c3! and Black won) 1 3....i.d4 14 :C2 (not 1 4 ltfl? c!be4! 1 5 .i.xc4 .i.xf2+! and Black wins immediately) 14 ...c!bf5 1 5 flh3 c!bcs and Black has excellent counterplay. b) This sacrificial to .i.d2!? is the only war to cause Black trouble: 10...11'f6 (White has good compnsation if Black tries 1 0....i.xb2 1 1 .i.c3 .i.xa 1 , for example 1 2 .i.xa I O-Il 1 3 .i. f6 'iWd7 14 1ih6 c!bes 1 5 .i.g7! c!bxg7 16 c!bgs :es 1 7 1Wxh7+ �f8 18 flhs+ �e7 19
..xg7 1i'd5 20 .i.xg6 and the king is in real danger) 1 1 11xf6 .i.xf6 12 .i.c3 �xc3 1 3 c!bxc3 and White may have a tiny advantage. 8 i..e3 .ltlf5?1 1bis wastes too much time - instead Black should develop with 8.. ..i.f5. For ex ample, 9 ill c!bc6 1 0 11'f4 .i.xd3 1 1 cxd3 'iWe6 12 0-0-0 .i.e7?1 (instead 12 ...1fg6 1 3 lthe 1 0-0-0 is unclear) 1 3 d4 11'f5 14 d 5 c!bb8 1 5 Wxf5 c!bxf5 16 .i.f4 c!ba6 1 7 g4! c!bh4 18 c!bxh4 Lh4 1 9 d6! 0-0-0 20 c!bbs c6 21 d7+! :Xd7 22 c!bd6+ l:lxd6 23 .i.xd6 and White was much better in Spassky-Kholmov, Rostov on Don 1 960. 9 i..xf517 .i.xf5 1 0&3 Wb4 White's lead in development is significant whichever way Black plays: a) 10....i.xc2 1 1 :ct llk6 1 2 'ff£4 c!bb4 13 0-0 and the initiative continues. For example, 1 3...c!bd3?! 14 'ti'c4 c!bxct 1 5 Let and, with c!bd5 also threatened, White is winning. b) 1 0...c!bc6 1 1 .f4 1lt"b4 1 2 0-0-0 and c7 is again impossible to defend. 1 1 fke5+ i..e6 1 2 0-0-0 cltlc6 1 3 fkxc7 Ac8 1 4 fkf4 1ra5
•••
Also
1 74
14 ...•xf4 is met by 15 ..i.x£4 .i.b4 1 6 c!bc4 and White is a pawn up. 1 5 ..g5 Simple is best. Instead 1 5 lOgS .i.xa2 1 6 c!bxh7?1 leads to trouble after 1 6. ..1Lh71 1 7 We4+ .i.e6 1 8 Wxh7 1Wat+ 1 9 c!bbt c!bb4 when Black's attack is very dangt:rous. 1 5 11ra6 1 6 .l:he1 10b47 •••
3 d4: Black Pla ys 3 . . . exd4
Now Black is losing. 1 6...h6 1 7 1Ph5 i.e7 1 8 i.gS! 0-0 1 9 i.xe7 lhxc7 20 lhd4 is un pleasant but at least Bl.1ck can play on. 1 7 c!i)d4 Zlxc3
5 tDc5 This simple move is more reliable th:m 5...j.b4+ .•.
and now: a) Steinitz suggested the strange 6 Wd1, for example 6...d5 7 exd6 f5 8 tbgs (after 8 dxc7 11'xc7 9 lhxd4 lhc6 10 c3 lhxd4 1 1 cxd4 i.d7 Black has a tremendous initiative) 8. . .0-0 9 lhxe4 fxe4 10 11'c4+ Wh8 1 1 dxc7 (Lipschutz-Showalter, USA 1 896 continued 1 1 11'xb4 .i.g4+ 1 2 i.e2 i.xe2+ 1 3 'itxc2 lhc6 14 ..el?! Wfxd6 1 5 �d1 L8 1 6 b3 c3 1 7 .ta3 'lrf4 and Black had a wonderful position) 1 1 ...'ifc7 1 2 cxb811' .l:txb8 and Black .------., obviously has a powerful initiative - Porreca. Game 70 b) 6 lhlx12 lhxd2 7 i.xd2 'il'e7 8 0-0-0 lhc6 9 i.xb4 Wxb4 10 11'c4 b6 11 lhxd4 Tal-Kholmov i.b7 1 2 i.bS 0-0-0 1 .3 a3 lhxd4 (or 1 3 .. ."ti'c5 AlmaAla 1968 1 4 lhxc6 i.xc6 1 5 i.xc6 dxc6 1 6 f4 and White has a defmite cdbrc) 1 4 axb4 lhb3+ 1 5 1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDf& 3 d4 exd4 4 e5 tDe4 cxb3 i.xc4 1 6 .l:td4 i. £5 1 7 f4 and despite his 5 1i'e2 bi?.arrc quecnside structure White was a litde A rare alternative to 5 ..xd4. White has better in Rodrique?. Andrcs-Ginzburg, San another unusual try in 5 .tbS c6 (5...lhc6 Martin 1 995. transposes to the Ruy l .opez: 1 e4 c5 2 lht'3 6 c!i)xd4 lDc6 7 �e3 �c6 3 i.b5 lhf6 4 d4 ed4 5 e5 lhc4) 6 'ifxd4 This is more testing than 7 lbxc6 dxc6 (the 'ifa5+ Qess active is 6...lhc5 7 i.c4 lhe6 8 com.'Ct recapture; instead 7 ... bxc6 8 .i.c3 'irh4 '1Ve4 dS 9 exd6 i.xd6 1 0 0-0 when White has 9 1i'c4 'lrxc4 1 0 i.xc4 lha4 1 1 i.b3 lhb6 12 a tiny edge) 7 c3 lhxf2!? 8 0-0 (White should lhd2 aS 1.3 a3 a4 1 4 .ta2 i.n6 15 .txb6 cxb6 consider 8 'ifxf2 1fxb5 9 a4 11'd5 1 0 i.e3 1 6 llk4 left White a touch better in Spassky .te7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 lt:la3 with good play Vistiniet7.ki, Tallinn 1 959) 8 lhc3 i.£5 9 i.e3 Yusupov) 8...lhh3+! 9 b'Xh3 'lrxb5 10 11'f4 h51? 1 0 f4 l&.:4 1 1 lhxe4 i.xe4 1 2 1if2 ..d5 11'd3 t l lhd4 'ifg6+ 12 �hl d5 with a com and Black has good counterplay. plex posicion, Zapata-Castro, Colombia 1 999. Allowing a beautiful finish. 17 ...f6 1 8 'irh5+ f!!l 19 11b5+ 11'xb5 20 �lxbS would have lost slowly and painfully. 1 8 1Vd8+1! A mating combination d1at exploits the power of discovered checks. 1 8 Wxd8 1 9 lDxe6+ We7 Or 1 9 ...We8 20 lhxg7+! i.xg7 21 i.g5+ �fB 22 :ld8 mate. 20 �g5+ f6 21 lDd8+1 1 -0 ..•
1 75
The Petroff Defence
7 �xd4 .•.
Safer than 7...l£lxeS?I 8 f4 � 9 l£JbS l£la6 to .i.d4+ 'ile7 1 1 f5 1i'xc2+ 12 .i.xc2 l£lh4 13 f6 g6 14 0-0 when, despite the exchange of queens, White has a dangerous initiative.
Instead the slow 1 7...0-0 is marginaUy in White's favour after 18 .i.d3 .i.g4 1 9 .:dfl h4 20 l£ld2. 1 8 ..td3
8 hd4 1ih4 A more active approach than 8...l£le6 9
.i.c3 dS 10 exd6 'Wxd6 1 1 l£ld2 .i.d? 1 2 l£lc4 'ife7 (or 12 ...Wcs 1 3 l£les with a promising attack, e.g. t3..J:d8? 1 4 1i'f3 'We? 1 S 0-0-0 c6 1 6 .i.c4 hS 1 7 l:the1 l:th6 1 8 ..i.b4 was already winning for White in Rac::tsky-Varlamov, correspondence 1 983) 1 3 l£leS 0-0-0 1 4 W'e3 and White has a pleasant edge. 9 ..te3 itb4+ 1 0 c3
1 8 ...f6?!
Black should continue the qucensidc pawn storm with 1 8...a61? 1 9 l:tdf1 c5 when he has a strong attack. 1 9 exf6 ..txf6 20 ..tc5
20 l£ld41? .i.d7 21 f5 with the initiative is also good. 20-....tf5 21 llge1 t7 22 �2
And here the simple 22 l:lc3 aS 23 l:ldc1 is promising. 22
1 0...1re4
Not 1 0 ...l£ld3+? 1 1 1i'xd3 1Wxb2 1 2 WbSI 9xa1 1 3 .i.c4 L7 14 0-0 0-0 1 5 'ifb3 when the queen is trapped. 1 1 f4 d5 1 2 �d2
Or 1 2 exd6 Ld6 13 l'Od2 We6 1 4 f5 1i'e7 1 5 f6 gxf6 with an unbalanced position. 1 2...1Vg6 1 3 lDf3 c6 1 4 0-0-0 ..te7 1 5 llg1 h5 1 6 1rf2 �e4 Black can also consider 1 6 . b6, for exam . .
ple t 7 llXI4 � 1 8 1i'c2 0-0 19 .i.d3 cS 20 l£1£3 .i.f5 21 llXI2 l:tfd8 22 c4 d4 23 l£lxe4 (not 23 .i.xe4?1 d31 24 1i'c3? .i.xe4 25 l£lxe4 1i'xe4 26 lldel b5! when Black was much lx:tter in Ractsky-Matsukcvich, correspon dence 198S) 23... dxc3 24 l£lf6+ gxf6 25 .LfS 1i'h6 with a murJ..l' position. 1 7 1rc2 b5!? 1 76
.
. �xc5 .
Black had to be very careful: 22 .. l[hc8?1 allows a nasty trick after 23 l£lxc4 .i.xc4 (not 23 ...dxe4? 24 .i.xe4 ..Le4 25 Wb3+ .i-dS 26 l:txd5 l:txet+ 27 .lld t+ l:lc6 28 l:td7+ and White wins) 24 l:lxe4 and White has an edge because 24... dxe4? loses to 25 Wb3+ l:te6 26 .i.xb5 .i.e5 27 l:tft !. 23 ..txf5 1rxg2 24 b4
TI1e aggressive 24 l:lg1 allows Black to es cape with a safe edge after 24...'Wxh2 25 .i.g6+ We7 26 l:tdet+ �dB 27 11f5 Wc7 the king is no longer in danger. 24 ...lDb7 25 1i'd3 llae8 26 llg1 1te2 27 ..tg6+ t8 28 llge1 •xe1 29 llxe1 llxe1 + 30 Wc2 �6 31 lDf3 lle7 32 � llh6 %-%
Tal gave the explanatory variation 33 l£lc6 l:lg6 34 'ifg6 :CZ 35 Wd3 l:th2.
3 d4 : Bla ck Pla ys 3 . . . exd4
Summary
Statistically 3...l0xe4 has not scored overwhelmingly better than 3 ... cxd4. However, the �"Xam ples shown here after 3...cxd4 were mainly played more than a decade ago. The continuations 4 e5 lbe4 5 .ib5 and 5 '1Ve2 do not worry Black any longer, but with 5 11xd4 the situation is more serious. It appears that after 5 ...d5 6 exd6 l0xd6 7 c!lk3 c!lk6 8 1i'f4 itlf5!? Black maintains equilibrium. However, with the symmetrical pawn structure and easier development, White has many aggressive possibilities that Black needs to be ready for. Conse quently, the general interest in 3 ...cxd4 has dropped, but Morozevich's experiment with 5 ..f5 is interesting. .
1 e4 e5 2 l0f3 l0f6 3 d4 exd4 4 e5 l0e4 (D) 5 •xd4
5 1i'e2 - Ca1ne 70 5 ...d5 6 exd6 l0xd6 (D) 7 l0c3
7 .id3 Game 69 7 lOc& 8 ..f4 (D) l0f5 8.. g6 Ca1ne 68 -
...
.
-
Ca/lle 67
-
4. . . l0e4
6. . . l0xd6
1 77
CHAPTER TEN
I
Third Move Alternatives For White
1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 l0f6 After 2. ..lt)f6 White has two equally im ponant continuations: 3 d4 and 3 lbxe5. Theory pays much less attention to other white possibilities, but statistics prove that White often chooses 3 .t.c4, 3 d3 and espe cially 3 lbc3. In this case the positions reached are not always in the domain of the Petroff Defence, as other openings can also arise. After 3 lbc3 (Games 71 -72) Black is of course able to transpose into me Four Knighrs (with 3...lbc6). However, Pillsbury employed the move 3....i.b4, Alekhine calling this continuation the 'Ruy Lopez for Black'. The extra tempo lbgt-f3 plays a significant role here, but it has to be used properly. 4 .i.c4 (Game 7Z) is best met by 4....i.xc3 5 dxc3 d6 with comfortable development for Black's pieces. More promising is 4 lbxe5 (Game 71), after which it is easy for Black to win his pawn back but it is more difficult to achieve an equal position. After 4...0-0 5 lt:k-13 .t.xc3 6 dxc3 lbxe4 7 .i.e2 the modest 7...d6 can put Black under long-term posi tional pressure. Black should play 7...d5 and ... c7-c6 with 1,•ood prospects of equalising. The continuation 3 .i.c4 (Game 73) offers Black the interesting opportunity to play 3 ... lbf6 with the transposition into the Two 1 78
Knights Defence, but 3...lbxc4 seems to be strongest move. A fter 4 lbc3 Black can re turn to the Two Knights again with 4...lbc6 (by the way, this variation is favourable for Black). However, it is even more promising to hold onto the extra pawn with 4 ...lbxc3 5 dxc3 f6. After this Black's pawn chain be comes a formidable force. I t is especially useful to activate the pawn chain with ...c7-c6 and ...d7-d5, neutralising the bishop on c4. White should aim to undermine the chain tactically by taking advantagt: of the insecure position of Black's king (especially with the push f2-f4). Objectively speaking, Black's chances are preferable in these sharp posi tions. However, he must be very careful: there are numerous examples of Black facing mpid defeats in this line. After the modest 3 d3 (Game 74) we have a position that also arises from the Alekhine Defence (1 e4 lbf6 2 d3 e5 3 lbf3) - in effect White is playing the Philidor Defence with an extra tempo. In this manoeuvring battle White is rarely able to gain an advantage. Black can maintain the symmetry with 3...d6, but 3...lbc6 followed by ...d7-d5 is more promising. Black can develop the dark squared bishop to c5, e7 or g7, although he normally delays the choice until move six (after 4 c3 d5 5 lbixl2 aS 6 .i.e2). ln brcneral
Third Mo ve A lterna tives for White
Black docs not have any difficulties and often maintains a small space advantage. Game 71
Svidler-Akopian World Team
Ch., Lucerne 1997
and Black is fmc) 1 0...a6 1 1 .i.e2 b5 12 1if4 .i.b7 1 3 .i.f3 lLldf6 14 tlJcs lLlxcS I S .i.xcS .i.xf3 16 9xf3 lL!e4 1 7 .i.e3 lle6 1 8 9f5 lieS 1 9 .g4 'it'cS 20 .i.d4 'lfxg4 21 hxg4 lle6 and a draw was agreed. [f anyone should feel relieved in tlte final position, it is White.
1 e4 e5 2 ll:lf3 ll:lf& 3 ll:lc3
White is trying to escape to the l'our
Knights, but Black will not allow it! 3 ....tb4
7
4 ll:lxe5
The critical move. 4 .i.c4 is discussed in the next b>ame, while in Ragozin-Kan, Lenin grad 1 936 White: played 4 �S lllids S exdS e4 6 tlJd4 0-0 7 c3 .i.cS 8 d3 .i.xd4 9 cxd4 1Vc7 10 .i.e3. Now after 10...d6!? 1 1 .i.e2 .i.f5 1 2 llct c6 Black should be okay. 4 0-0 ...
Also possible is 4...'tle7 S �3 (S tlJg4!?) S ... .i.xc3 6 dxc3 tlJxe4 7 .i.e2 dS 8 0-0 0-0 9 lLlf4 c6 (but not 9...lld8? 10 lLlxdS 'it'es 1 1 c4 c6 1 2 .i.f4 1i'e6 1 3 .i.g4! f5 14 .i.xf5 and White wins - Alckhine) 1 0 c4 dxc4 1 1 .i.xc4 .i.f5 1 2 'it'e2 1le8 1 3 llet 1i'd7 14 .i.c3 and White was slightly berter in Alapin-Aiekhinc, Carlsbad 191 1 . 5 ll:ld3 .txc3 6 dxc3 ll:lxe4 7 .te2
This is the critical line (although there is a limit to how critical such a position can be). Instead Galdunts-Ractsky, Aachen 1994 con tinued 7 .i.c3 lieS 8 1Wf3 d6 9 0-0-0 lLld7 1 0 h3 (or 1 0 lLlf4 lL!df6 I t h3 .i.d7 1 2 .i.c4 .i.c6
d5
...
Very natural. Black has also played 7...l:.eS 8 0-0 d6 and now: a) 9 llcl lL!c6 to .i.fl .i.f5 1 1 f3 lLlf6 1 2 ..t.gs lL!c:s 13 'iVdz h6 t4 .i.h4 b..s 1 5 .tf2 lLldS?! (1 S ...lL!c4 16 .c l l:xc1 17 lLlxe1 lL!b6 1 8 a4 would have left White only slightly better) 16 lL!xeS dxeS 17 .l:lad 1 tlJf4 1 8 l%xc:SI 'iVxd2 1 9 llxe8+ l%xe8 20 .llxd2 and Black didn't have any compensation for dte pawn deficit, Lau-Ractsky, Bad Ragaz, 1 994. b) 9 lLlf4 tiJc6 (or 9 ...lL!d7 1 U c4 lL!ffi 1 1 a4 aS 1 2 .i.e3 .i.d7 1 3 lL!ds .i.c6 1 4 l%e 1 lLlg6 1 5 .i.ft h6 16 f3 lL!f6 11 Wd2 b6 1 s b3 and White has an edge in SoUeveld-Pikct, Bundcsliga 2002) 1U c4 ..tf5 1 1 lL!ds h6 12 b3 lL!e7 1 3 .i.b2 lL!xd5 1 4 1i'xdS 'ifg5 lS .i.d3 (1 S f4 1Vg6 16 'iVxb7 lL!cS 1 7 'iVf3 .i.xc2 leaves Black in a solid condition) 1 5...c6 1 6 Wd4 l%e6 17 h4 'ifg6 1 8 l:ae1 llaeS 1 9 lle3 and White is slightly better, Chudinovskikh-Raetsky, Orel 1 992. ·
8 0-0 c& 9 ll:lf4 Ae8
Black is also doing okay after 9 ... .i.f5, for example l 0 c4 d4 1 1 .i.d3 lieS 1 2 f3 lL!d6 1 3 c 5 i.xd3 1 4 Wxd3 tiJbs 1 5 a4 lL!c7 1 6 c 3 (1 6 b4 aS 17 bS cxbS 1 8 axbS lL!ct7 gives Black 179
The Petroff D e fence
l."XccUcnt countcrplay) 16... dxc3 17 'irxc3 a5 18 �h5 f6 19 i.h6 liXI5 20 'irc4 g6 21 �3 �7 22 J:tfet f5 23 .i.d2 :Xet+ 24 :Xel ..fB and Black has equalised, AJams Rozentalis, Copenhagen 1997.
i.xg4 16 'irxg4 c5 17 i.h6 rfl 1 8 Wft may be slightly better for White) 14 i.xe6 i.xe6 15 �xe6 llxc6 16 Axe6 fxc6 17 i.d2 'irf6 the game is level, Adams-Hubner, Dortmund 1996. 1 1 . ..1tla6 12 c3
12 0 �c5 13 lle l li)xd3 14 cxd3 i.fS might even preferable for Black. 1 2....if5!?
1 0 c4
to i.c3 is best met by 10...�16 (10...�d7 11 c4 dxc4 12 i.xc4 �5 13 'irxd8 :Xd8 1 4 .i.c2 i.fS 15 g4 i.d7 1 6 f3 �6 17 l:tad1 li:XIc4 18 i.c1 i.e8 19 b3 �b6 20 .lb2 gave White a bit of pressure in Biro-Chetvt:rik, Nagykanizsa 1 995) 1 1 i.d3 i.fS 12 'ifh5 g6 13 'ifh6 .lxd3 14 cxd3 �fS 15 'iFh3 � 16 :ae1 'irf6 17 .i.d2 �5 18 d4 llk4 19 Act Ae4 with level chances, Benjamin-Yusupov, Munich, 1994. 10
d4
.••
An interesting pawn sacrifice. After 12..c5 13 ..c2 �f6 14 i.d2 White has a pull. 1 3 g4 .tg& 14 f3 �5 1 5 .txg& hxg& 1 6 cxd4
Black can answer the alternative capture 16 ..xJ4 with 16...'irc71?. 1 6... b5
The alternative 16...1if6!? 17 d5 llad8 18 h4 �h7 19 g5 1ie5, with play for the pawn, is also strong. 1 7 cxb5
17 ..d3 is powerfully met by 17...'1fd6 18 cxb5 �b4 19 1Wb3 'ifxd# 20 Wht cxb5 21 a3 �a6 22 1ixb5 llk5 when Black is very active. 1 7...cxb5 1 8 d5
Or 18 h4 �6 19 �xe6 Axe6 20 i.g5 1id6 21 ..d2 llaeB 22 i.f4 1id5 with suffi cient play for the pawn. 1 8 llc8 1 9 d& .•.
1 1 .id3
After 11 i.f3 li)g5 12 i.g4 �6 13 Ac t �6 (13...li)xf4 14 llxe8+ 1i'xc8 1 5 i.xf4 180
19 i.d2 :C4 20 �g2 �c7 gives Black good play, while after 19 h4 �h7 20 g5 �b4 Black's active pieces also promise him a pleasant game.
Third Mo ve A lterna tives for White
with 23...1lc21 24 i.e3 (24 .xbS lOx£3+1 25 J:lx£3 lldt+ and Black wins) 24 .. .lldd21 25 l:lf2 1ldt+ 26 Wg2 llxf2+ 27 .Lf2 llxa1 and Black has all the chances. 24 llxf3 l:ld1 + 25 �g2 11h4. 26 .!i)e2 llc2 27 llf2 •xg4+ 28 /t)g3 l:lxf2+ 29 �xf2 •d4+ 30 �2 %-%
Game 72
Lev-Alterman Ramal-Can 1992 1 e4 e5 2 /t)f3 ll)f6 3 lbc3 .ib4!? 4 .ic4 1 9 .Ac6 20 d7 lle7 21 •d5 llc5! .•
This is stronger than 21 ......xd7?1 22 ...xg5 ...d4+ 23 Wh1 lles 24 Wh4 g5 25 Wg3 gxf4 26 i.xf4, after which Black looks a bit worse. 22 ..d6?
22 'il'b3 llxd7 23 i.e3 lle5, with a com plex position, was the right path. 22 ...llxd7
Black misses a direct win with 22...1lc2! 23 1Wd3 (23 Wxa6 l0xf3+! 24 llxf3 l:let+ 25 J:lft Wxd7! and Black wins; or 23 h4 l:lxd7 24 1We5 l0xf3+1 25 llx£3 llc7 26 lt.I3 Wc7 and White )uses his queen) 23...l0b4 24 Wxb5 llxd71 25 i.c3 (25 Wxb4 lld l ! and White has no defence) 25...1ldd2!!
(maybe it was this brilliant move the play overlooked) 26 Wxb4 l0h3+ 27 l0xh3 J:lg2+ 28 Wh t llxh2+ 29 �gl llcg2 mare. ct"S
23 •xa6 �xf3 + ?
Black could stiU have gained the advantage
4 . 0-0 .
.
Black has reasonable alternatives here: a) 4..ixc3 5 dxc3 d6 6 ...c2 l0bd7 7 h3 lOcS 8 i.d3 0-0 9 0-0 lle8 10 c4 i.d7 1 t b4 l0c6 12 llet aS 13 bS c6 14 c3 1Vc7 with e'Jual prospects, Gaponenko-R.1etsl-y, Kras nodar 1995. b) 4...d6 5 0-0 i.g4 6 h3 i.hS 7 g4 i.g6 8 d3 c6 (safer is 8.,.i.xc3 9 bxc3 l0c6 10 a4 0-0 1 1 l:lbt l:lb8 when Black is close to equality) 9 l0c2 l0bd7 10 c3 .ia5 1 1 b4 i.c7 12 i.b3 lOfB 1 3 ltlg3 l0c6 14 g5 lOhS 1 5 i.xe6 fxe6 1 6 l0xe5 dxeS 1 7 lLlxhS 0-0 and Black had good compensation in Chemyshov Yusupov, Ohrid 2001 . 5 0-0
5 tOds is rather unexciting: 5 ...t0xd5 6 .i.xdS c6 7 i.b3 dS 8 0-0 ..i.g4 (or 8...dxe4 9 lOxeS tlX17 10 d4 lOxeS 1 1 dxeS Wxd1 1 2 l:r.xdt .i.g4 13 l:ld4 llfd8 14 l:lxd8+ l:[xd8 15 181
The Petroff Defence
.i.e3 with level chances) 9 h3 .i.hS 10 d3 dxe4 11 dxe4 .!LXI7 12 We2 'flc7 with an equal position, Spiclm:mn-Marshall, Buda pest 1 928.
One line continues 7...c6 8 llc 1 dS 9 l:lxe4! dxc4 (9...dxe4? to J..xf7+ �h8 1 1 "ifhs J.. f5 1 2 lL\g6+! J..xg6 1 3 J..xg6 leads to mate) 10 :04 1ie7 t 1 lDxc4 and White was a pawn up in LGuliev-Smougalev, Moscow 199S. 7 i.g5
Practice has also seen 7 1ie2 lDbd7 8 .i.gS h6 9 J..h4 lDcs to l:ad1 We7 I 1 lbd2 gS 12 J..g3 Wh8 13 h4 (dlis docs not seem logical) 1 3...J..d7 1 4 hxgS lucgS I S f3 Wg7 16 Wf2 llh8 1 7 l:l.h1 lDhS 1 8 �fl 1if6 and Black had the initiative in Kofidis-Alterm:m, Ko motini 1992. 7 . . . h6 8 i.h4 i.g4
5 ....i.xc3
Black usually uses this chance to inflict double pawns on White, but he can also try s ... d6!?, for example 6 d3 .i.g4 7 h3 .i.e6 8 lbc!S .i.xdS 9 exdS h6 10 c3 .i.aS 1 1 d4 exd4 (our improvement over 1 1 ...e4 1 2 �h4 c6 1 3 dxc6 �xc6 1 4 � f5 d S 1 S .i.b3 .i.c7 1 6 f3 when we prefer White, Priehoda-Chetvcrik, Martin 1 996) 12 �xd4 �bd7 1 3 �f5 �S 14 .i.b3 J..b6 with more or less level chances.
8. ..g5 c:m be met by 9 �xgS!? hxgS 10 .i.xgS with the idea of meeting 10 ... J..e6 with 1 1 .i.d3 �bd7 12 f4!, after which White has a very strong attack - the absence of Black's dark-squared bishop is really felt. 9 h3 .i.h5 1 0 'ird3 �7 1 1 b4 'ireS
6 dxc3
Also interesting is 1 l ...gS 1 2 J..g3 �b6 1 3 .i.b3 .i.g6 1 4 :re 1 aS when Black has good counterplay. 1 2 'ire3 i.g6 1 3 lL\d2 lbh5
Black has nothing to fear after 6 bxc3 lDxe4 7 �xeS dS R .i.b3 aS 9 a4 l:leR 1 0 .!LXIJ lDc6. 6 ...d6
6...�xc4?! 7 �xeS 182
L-.
better for White.
Or 1 3...c6 1 4 l:tfc1 dS 1 S exdS �xdS (tS...cxdS 16 .i.bS a6 1 7 .i.xf6 axbS 18 .i.xeS �xeS 1 9 1WxeS 1ixcS 20 l:txeS would leave Black with a tedious endgame in which he is slightly worse) 16 .i.xdS cxdS 1 7 c4 d4 1 8 1W f3 and the position i s rather unclear. 14 a4 Wtl8 1 5 a5 f5 1 6 exf5 i.xf5 1 7 a6 b6 1 8 g4 •us 1 9 i.d5 lbf4 20 .i.xa8 llxa8 21 Wh2 i.xc2
Third Mo ve A l ternatives for White
Black has escaped from the opening with adequate play for the exchange. 22 c4 l:lf8 23 .ig3 h5 24 f3 Wh7 25 .i.xf4 llxf4 26 �3 1ih6 27 Aae1 c5 28 b5 ltlf8?1 28...lbf6!?, with good play, would have been better. 29 ltle4 .ixe4 30 fxe4 ltle6 31 gxh5 'lrxh5 32 Wg2 'lrf7 33 1i'd3 'lrg6+ 34 'lrg3 1i'h6 35 llxf4 exf4 36 1i'g4 t£!d4 37 h4?!
a) S...d6? loses to 6 lbgS .i.e6 7 .i.xc6 fxc6 8 11ff3 (Bilgucr). b) S ....i.e7 is met strongly by 6 lbxe5 0-0 7 •n i.. f6 8 tDg-4 i..e7 9 lbh6+l? gxh6 10 .i.xh6 with a powerful attack. c) S ...c6!? leads to equality after 6 lbxeS dS 7 Wc2 i..e6 8 .i.d3 llkl7 9 f4 lbxeS 10 ..xeS 'ild6 1 1 1Wc2 .i.c7 1 2 0-0, as in San Claudio Bonari, Mislata 2001 .
6 0-0 6 lbh4 g6 7 f4 is probably less dangerous 37 �h2! would have kept an edge for (I 0-0 transposes to 6 0-0 g6 7 lbh4). Play White. continues 7 ... c6! 8 f5 dS 9 fxg6 (9 .i.b3 �f7 37 . . .f3+? to c4 d4 is better for Black) 9 . ..dxc4 1 0 'ifhs Black misses his chance. After 37...lbc2! Wd7 1 1 g7 .i.xg7 12 ..g4+ Wd6! (12...Wc7?! the game would most likely have ended in a 1 3 11'xg7+ lbd7 1 4 .i.h6 'iVe8! I S 0-0-0 l:r.g8 draw. 1 6 ...xh7 %lh8 is 'only' equal) 1 3 'iVxg7 ...f8 38 Wh3 Wh7 39 llg1 f2 40 llf1 1i'e3+ 14 ...g3 (or 1 4 ..xfB+ :Xf8 1 S .i.e3 .i.c6 1 6 41 Wg2 l002 42 llxf2 ltle1 + 43 Wt1 0-0-0+ .i.dS and Black dominates th e board) ltld3 44 llf7 1i'e1 + 45 Wg2 ...d2+ 46 14....i.e6 1 S .i.c3 lbd7 16 0-0-0+ Wc7 17 Wg1 •c1 + 47 Wh2 'lrb2+ 48 1tg2 llhfl llg8 1 8 •rz b6 t 9 lbf5 J:ld8 and Black •e5+ 49 1tg3 1tb2+ 50 Wh3 Wg8 51 has a small plus, Tribushevsky-Raetsky, cor 1tf3 1 -0 respondence 1982. ,.-------------.. 6 . . .l006 GaHJe 73 Or: Morphy-Barnes a) 6...c6? is now strongly met by 7 lbxeSI d5 8 'ifhs+ We7 9 .i.d3 with a winning atumdon 1858 _______________. tack. b) 6...g6 7 lbh4 ..e7 8 �h I c6 9 f4 dS 1 0 1 e4 e5 2 ltlf3 ltlf6 3 .ic4!? .i.b3 e4 i s worth thinking about - we prefer A romantic gambit. BL1ck here. 3 ...ltlxe4 4 t£Jc3 ltlxc3 5 dxc3 f61 c) 6 ...'ile7 7 lle1 d6! (l...c6?! is met by 8 This should lead to an advanta�;,>e for lbxcS!? fxcS 9 'fibS+ g6 10 .xeS dS I 1 Black. Altc�tivcly: 183
Th e Petroff Defence
1txe7+ .i.xe7 12 .i.gS 0-0 13 il..xe7 dxc4 14 .i.xf8 �fB t 5 llad1 and the endbrame looks good for White) 8 �4 c6 9 f4 g6 1 0 P.i dS 1 1 .i.d3 'ilg7 also looks better for Black. d) 6...d6 7 l0h4 g6 8 f4 'ile7 9 f5 'flg7 should be better for Black. Now 10 .i.e3 c6 1 1 1te2 dS 12 .i.b3 gS 13 c4!? gxh4?1 14 cxdS cS 1 5 d6! .i.xd6?! 1 6 lladt gave White tre mendous compensation in Crepan-Rezonja, Bled 2000. However, stronger is 1 3...d4! 1 4 �xd4 gx.h4 when Black has a ck"al' plus.
1 1 ... .i.e6 1 2 11h5+ g&
12 ...i.f7 13 'li'g4 g6, with a slight edge, also poNSible.
was
7 � '11fe7
Or: a) 7.../8:7?! is very weU met by 8 .i.d3 g6 9 f4, when White has a powerful initiative. One game continued 9._.i.g7 10 fxeS fxcS 1 1 �gS c6? 1 2 lLlf5! gxf5 1 3 1Whs+ WfB 1 4 :X f5+ 1 -0 Saburov-Lutze, correspondence 1 906. b) 7...g6 8 f4 f5 9 l0f.3 e4 10 lOgs .i.cS+ 1 1 Wh1 'ti'f6 12 'ti'dS (12 .i.£7+ We7 13 .i.ds d6 14 :C1 WEB 1 5 g4 lDe71? 1 6 gxf5 lLlxdS 17 1txd5 gxf5 is l.'VCO worse, Black having a clear plus in Schlcchter-Marco, Berlin 1 897) 12...d6 13 lLlxh7 1te7 1 4 ltlg5 lDds and we prefer Black even if it is not entirely clear.
8 �f5?!
1 3 ltlxg6?!
Risky. After 13 'ile2 0-0-0 14 f4 .i.cS 1 5 1tf2 .i.xe3 1 6 'li'xe3 White i s maybe only slighdy worse. 1 3. . ..i.f7 1 4 11h4 hg& 1 5 •xf& llgB 1 6 %lad 1 .i.e7
Not 1 6...l0e7? 17 l:lxdS! lLlxdS?l 1 8 1txe5+ .i.e7 1 9 .i.xdS when White wins be cause of the threat of .i.£7+. 1 7 .e6 .i.f7 1 8 11h3 �
8 lthS+ Wd8 9 lLlf5 (9 c!l\g6? 1te8 and Black wins) 9...g6 10 l0xe7 hrxhS 1 1 lLlxc8 l:lxc8 1 2 .i.e3 is better, giving White good compensation fi>r the pawn.
1 8...l:td8!? 19 'ilxh7 D.d6 looks good, White not having sclovsky Scrgeev, Ceske Bude�>Vice 1997. 9 �xd5 1 0 lDe4 to tl'lc4 .i.f5 1 1 "irh3 "ird7 12 tngs llab8 also gives a fair share of chances to both players. 1 0...i.f8 Or 1 O....i.b6!? 1 1 tl'lfd2 f5 t 2 l;jg3 .i.e6 1 3 c!ik4 .i.cS with unclear play. 1 1 lle1 h& 1 2 1ib3?! This is the path to destruction. White was better off playing 1 2 liJfd2 liJf4 1 3 tl'lc4 ltJxe2+ 14 'irxe2 .i.f5, though Black has easy equality. 1 2 . ...te6! 1 3 1i'xb7?! 13 'iVbS was better, though after 13 ...'iVc8 14 .i.ft lla6 White is still struggling. •.•
8. . .1le8 8...h6 9 "irc2 .i.c6 is also a very sensible way to play. The following continuation looks promising for Black: 1 0 exd5 liJxd5 1 1 lle1 1Wd7 12 .i.fl f6 1 3 lbc4 .i.a7 14 b3 .i.g4 (14 ... 1lad8 1 5 .i.a3 llfe8 is a sound alterna tive; we prefer Black) 1 5 .i.e2 f5 1 6 ltJg3 186
.
Third Move A lternatives for Wh ite 29
1 3...li)b6!? Maybe even stronger is 1 3. ..d71? 14 �5 :Cb8 1 5 li)c5 1t'e8 1 6 li)xe6 l:txb5 17 axb5 llkb4! (the hidden point) 18 cxb4 ..txb4 with a clear plus for Black. 1 4 1Wxc6 Forced. After 1 4 ..ie3? ..id71 1 5 ..ixb6 cxb6 followed by Jla7 Black wins the queen for a rook. 1 4... -*.d5 1 5 'ttxeS The queen is trapped, and after 1 5 'irb5 c6 it would be sold more cheaply. 1 5 1Wxe8;1'6 .i.d1 c5 1 7 c4 1 7 d4 also leads to a black edge after 1 7... cxd4 1 8 cxd4 ..tb4 19 ..id2 Ld2 20 �xd2 e4. 1 7 ...-*.c6 1 S lDc3 f6 1 9 b3 'tfdS 20 .*.e2 g5!? 21 lDd2 lDcS 22 .i.b2 lDe7 23 I.Ode4 ll'if5 24 lDd5 .*.e7 After the inferior 24... ..ixd5?! 25 cxd5 lDd4 26 ..txd4 cxd4 27 ..tg4 White has excel lent countcrplay on the light squares. 25 .*.g4 lDg7 26 .*.f3 g4 27 tl'ixe7+ 1txe7 2S .*.e2 h5 It is safe to say dmt White is far from hav ing sufficient compensation. ..
..
.i.d1 tne6 30 g3 lidS
3 1 f4?1 The only chance was 31 l:te3 f5 32 llk3 �5 although Black still has all the fun. 31 ...1lxd3 Simpler was 3t .....txc4! 32 l:txe4 l:txd3 33 fxe5 li)g5 34 :C1 Wb7 and Black wins. 32 lDf2 lidS 33 fxe5 f5! 34 .*.c1 .*.aS! After this there is no defence. 35 lla2 1Wb7 36 Wf1 1fg2+ 37 ¢>e2 .i.f3+ 3S �3 .*.xd1 0-1
.••
187
The Petroff D e fence
Summary In practice White's deviations from the main continuations on move three quite often trans pose to other openings. The least justifiable is 3 d3, since White gives away his advantage of the first move. Those who enjoy attacking the king should study 3 .i.c4 l£lxe4 4 l£lc3 l£lxc3
5
dxc3, which is especially recommendable fi>r rapid and blitz tournaments. Unfortunately, 4...l£lf6 cools down White's ardour. 3 l£lc3 .i.b4 leads to l)uite another
type of position with a slow, manoeuvring fight and in the endgame). Like in many other basic
White having the advantage of two bishops (often
variations of the Petroff Defence, Black has to neutralise White's pressure with careful play.
1 e4 e5 2 .!Df3 .!Llf6 3 l003 3 .i.c4 (D)
-
Game 73
3 d3 - Gm11t 74
3
.••
.i.b4 4 c!Dxe5 (D) 4 .i.c4 (D)
-
3 -*.c4
188
-
Game 71
Game 72
4 c!Dxe5
4 .i.c4
I
I
INDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES
Aagaard-I..egky, RHdapest 1996 ................................................................................ 1 54 Alekhine-Rabinovich.A, Moscow 1918..................................................................... 81 Anand-Gelfand, Mo.rcoll' 2004..................................................................................... 4 3 Anand-Hiibner, Dortn11111d 1992 .............................................................................. 126 Anand-Ivanchuk, UtJttrrs 1993 ................................................................................ 1 16 Anand-Mishra, Itulia 1988
........................................................................................
1 52
Anand-Shirov, U11arr.r 2000 ........................................................................................ 66 Anand-Shirov, 1\tfoscoliJ'-200 1 ....................................................................................... 12 Anand-Sokolov.1, J)orlnllmd 1999 ............................................................................. 24 Areshchenko-Mista, Ctrppelle Ia Gra11de 200 3 .......................................................... 88 Aronian-Akopian, Ohrid 2001 .................................................................................... 86 Bonch-Osmolovsky - Baranov, Moscon' 1954 ..................................................... 1 73 Burkov-Raetsky, Con"Cspo11dmce 1985........................................................................ 4 7 Cabrera-Collas, Malaga 2003.................................................................................... 169 Dolrnatov-Mamedyarov, MoscoJI' 2002.................................................................. 1 36 Dolrnatov-Raetsky, Podolsk VoroneifJ 1992............................................................. 92 Elizarov-Raetsky, Relorrcbmsk 1989........................................................................ 128 Firman-Bick, .flmllo/1 M01mtaifl 2003 ........................................................................ 59 Grischuk-Adarns, Halkidikj 2002............................................................................ 1 1 Grischuk-Gelfand,
Wyk atlfl 'Lee 2002 ..................................................................... 52
Grischuk-Pavasovic, lstaii!JIII 2003 ........................................................................... 23 Gurevich.V-Meijers, GerffiCI'!)' 1999
......
.
................
. . . . .� ...
..
.
...
..........
. . . ...
..
..............
. . 62 .
Hamdouchi-l.e Roux, Be!Jort 2003 .......................................................................... 60 Herrera- Perez.Ro, f/aradero 2000............................................................................ 72 Howell.J-Makarychev, Fnmze 1989....................................................................... 120 lvanchuk-Shirov, DorlnJIIfld 1998 .............................................................................. 4 1 1 89
The Pet roff Defence Kasparov-Anand, I i11ares 2000 .................................................................................. 21 Kasparov-Ivanchuk,
Debrece11 1992 ........................................................................ 122 1981 ................................................................................. 69 Kasparov-Shirov, Wyk aa11 Zee 2001 ........................................................................ 50 Khalifman-Atalik, Ha/kidiki 2002............................................................................. 83 Kholmov-Belousov, Gorf?y 1974 ............................................................................. 101 Kotronias-Motylev, Moscow 2004 ............................................................................. 18 Kovalev-Rozentalis, G/o._�OJI' 200 / .. . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Kupreichik-Yusupov, Mi11sk 1987 . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... 74 Lasker.Em-Marshall, 51 Petersbu'l!, 1912.................................................................. 85 Lastin-Najer, Elisltt 2000 124 Leko-Grischuk, Wijk aa11 Zee 2002 .......................................................................... 14 Leko-Kramnik, World Ch. (GatHe 1), Brissago 2004 .................................................. 8 Leko-Yusupov, JJortflll/1/d 1998.................................................................................. 39 Lev-Alterman, H.atnai-Gan 1992............................................................................... 181 Macieja-Rozentalis, Re11o 1999 ............................................................................... 1 12 Morphy-Barnes, Londo11 1858 .................................................................................. 183 Naiditsch-Timman, Dortt111111d 2002 ........................................................................ 90 Nevednichy-Collas, Montpellier 2003...................................................................... 161 Novozhilov-Raetsky, Comsponde��ce 1983 ............................................................... 98 Nyysti-Rychagov.M, Gothenburg 2003 ..................................................................... 26 Pavlovic-Raetsky, Bie/ 1999 ....................................................................................... 63 Psakhis-Cooper, Port Erin 2003 ................................................................................ 38 Rublevsky-Vallejo, Ohrid 2001 ................................................................................ 107 Sax-Yusupov, Tbessaloniki Ofympiad 1984 ................................................................. 37 Shirov-Gelfand, Aslalla 200 1 ...................................................................................... 28 Shirov-Gelfand, Leon 2001 ........................................................................................ 1 7 Shirov-Kramnik, Belgrade 1997................................................................................. 1 14 Shirov-Piket, Wijk aa11 Zee 2001 ................................................................................. 54 Shirov-Yusupov, Fiuropea11 Tetllll Ch., Bat11mi 1999 ................................................. 35 Shirov-Yusupov, Ter Ape/ 1997 ............................................................................... 147 Smagin-Makarychev, Moscmv 1987 .......................................................................... 94 Srnirin-Alterman, Haija 1995................................................................................... 164 Sorokin-Raetsky, K.ra.r11odar 1984 ............................................................................ 13 3 Stefansson-Yusupov, Eupe11 1994 .......................................................................... 172 Svetushkin-Miles, Alushta 1999 .............................................................................. 185 Svidler-Akopian, IPorld Tet1111 Ch., l_J1ceme 1997 ................................................... 179 Svidler-Ponomariov, Mosco/1' 2001 .......................................................................... 105 Svidler-Yusupov, Bad HonJbHIJ!. 1998 ...................................................................... 109 Kasparov-Karpov, Moscm11
. . . . . .. . . .
..
.
........
......
....
......
.....
....
.
....
......
......
.......
...
.........
...
...
...
....
.............
..
....
..
.....
..
................. . . . . . . . . . . ............................. . . . . . . ............................
190
.
Index o f Complete Games Tal-Kholrnov,Abna Ata
1968 1 75 Timofeev-Raetsky, Correspondence 1982 ................................................................. 139 Timoscenko-Yusupov, F"rnn� 1979...................................................................... 150 Tiviakov-Forintos, Porto San Giorgio 1994 ............................................................. 158 Tiviakov-Miles, Unaros 1998 ................................................................................... 131 Topalov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2003 .......................................................................... 30 Tukmakov-Bronstein, Mosmw 1971 ........................................................................ 76 Van Der Wiel-MeUado, E/goibar 1998 ................................................................... 14 3 Vitolinsh-Anikaev, Riga 1982 96 ..........................................•.......................................
....................................................................................
,
19 1