The Ruy Lopez Main Line Book

the | ruy lopez , main latsthe ruy lopez main line by Glenn Flear EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester Publishers plc www.everymanchess.comFirst published in 2004 by Gloucester Publishers ple (formerly Everyman Publishers plo), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT Copyright © 2004 Glenn Flear The right of Glenn Flear to be identified as the author of this work has been as- serted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All tights 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 3519 Distributed in Notth America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London ECIV OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: info@everymanchess.com website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under license from Random House Inc. EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs ‘Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton, Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Production by Navigator Guides. Printed and bound in United States by Versa Press Inc.CONTENTS Bibliography Introduction Chigorin Defence with 12..cxd4 13 exd4 Chigorin Defence: 12th Move Alternatives Black’s 11th Move Alternatives ‘The Breyer System ‘The Zaitsev Variation ‘The Karpov Variation ‘The Smyslov Variation Black’s 9th Move Alternatives White Plays 9 d4 White’s 9th Move Alternatives Index of Complete Games 28 44 87 eae 128 139 154 166BIBLIOGRAPHY Y sf Books: Enoelopaedia of Chess Openings C, 4th edition (Sahovski Informator 2000) Nunn’s Chess Openings Nunn /Burgess/Emms/Gallagher (Gambit 1999) The Complete Spanish Mlexei Suetin Batsford 1991) ‘The Closed Spanish Karpov] Zaitsev Systems Anatoly Bikhovsky (Batsford 1993) Spanish Chigorin Anatoly Bikhovsky (Batsford 1983) The Reg Lopex for the Tournament Player Gary Lane (Batsford 1991) Manoeures in Moscow Raymond Keene & David Goodman (Batsford 1985) Kasparov- Karpov: Battle of the Titans New Yark/ Lyon Raymond Keene (Batsford 1991) My Games Gary Kasparov (Batsford 1983) Periodicals, Websites, Softwar Naw in Chess 1-68 Informator 1-87 Exurope Echecs Chesshase 8.0 Frit 5.32 This Week in Chess 1470 InfoXadrez, 1-236 Megabase 2003INTRODUCTION 1 e4 05 2 D3 Ac6 3 Abs a6 4 a4 SVG 5 0-0 207 6 Hel bS 7 2b3 dé 8 c3 0-0 ‘The Ruy Lopez (or Spanish) has featured regularly in the games of most leading players throughout the last century. A high proportion reaching the diagram position. ‘This is where I begin. The Reg Lopez Main Line is a coverage of the principal continuations that have the above fabjya in common. These resulting variations are the benchmark for all 1 ¢4 ¢5 openings and players. So the book is not called the Ruy Lopez ‘Main Line’ for nothing! The first chess book I ever owned, Bobby Fischer's 60 Memorable Games, featured introduc- tions written by Larry Evans, and one of the Spanish games he entitled ‘Meat and Potatoes’. It's standard fare and one of she fundamental openings, ‘The variations are named after leading classical players Chigorin, Keres, Smyslov and Kar- pov. There are games by Fischer, Spassky, Gligoric, Tal, Bronstein and others of their ilk, ‘There is just so much history in the Spanish! Most opening books however are read by players seeking moder and up-to-date interpreta- tions, and so games by Kasparov, Anand, Shirov, Ivanchuk, Grischuk, Svidler and Leko also feature widely throughout these pages. I have game references up to November 2003, but at times T have chosen a rather older one, as it may illustrate an idea in a certain way. So overall I have tried to strike a balance between the fashionable and the forgotten, with a slight but inevitable stress on the latest trends. “The book then is a selection of 77 complete games that illustrate how the state of theory is at present, but not forgetting the lessons that history has taught us. In the diagram above, we can see that the kings are safely castled, the respective armies are still out of firing range and the centre has yet to reach a crisis. So rapid development is less important than an efficient deployment of one’s forces. ‘Therefore the main feature of all the variations is the emphasis on seeking harmonious development. One aspect of these lines is that 10-15 book moves are played rapidly and only when the middlegame approaches do the players start to add their own individual touch. Another is that there are few exchanges early on, so games can be complex and multi-faceted and rarely fizzle out quickly. ‘The centre does sometimes become closed, when a period of manoeuvring is required, but 5The Ruy Lopez Main Line can also suddenly open up leading to sharp piece play. ‘The reason for the continued popularity is perhaps that there is plenty of scope for original thought but based on the knowledge that the opening is fundamentally sound. White carefully prepares to take the initiative in the centre with d2-<4, and Black has various ways to react accordingly. The first eight chapters show the different methods that Black has at his disposal to meet White’s main idea of playing first h2-h3 and only then d2-d4. The last two chapters show White cither playing d2-4 immediately (Chapter 9), or delaying (or not even bothering) with d4 (Chapter 10). Thave not covered the Marshall Gambit (7..0-0 intending 8...45, rather than 7...d6) and only limited myself to a brief look at how to handle Anti-Masshall Systems in Chapter 10. I make no excuse; these are covered in other works, and an author has to draw the line somewhere! In the first nine chapters I have covered all the main variations, past and present, and have examined them with objectivity in mind, There is no intended bias to either colour. In Chapter 10, I have limited myself to just picking out a selection of lines that show how players of the Black pieces can get a satisfactory or dynamic game. Some variations (¢g, certain lines of the Chigorin) seem to involve long-term manoeuvring, whete T have tried to give precedence to explaining the key manocuvres and ideas as well as general pointers to why certain variations have superseded others. In others the tactical play requires precise analysis and naturally the character of my annotations is radically different. ‘The Ruy Lopez Main Line is an ideal opening to understand the importance of the centre, of qualitative development and flexibility towards a changing environment. One needs to handle one’s pieces as if conducting an orchestra, keeping in rune with the ebbs and flow of the music. If one piece is badly placed then the repercussions are felt by the whole ensemble, ‘The main point of all this is that the reader can develop these ideas in his own games. So please turn the page and start to delve into the tich tapestry that is the Ruy Lopez Main line, Glenn Flear, Baillargues, France March 2004CHAPTER ONE Chigorin Defence with 12...cxd4 13 cxd4 1 e4 e5 2 Dt3 DAc6 3 2b5 a6 4 Bad O46 5 0-0 2e7 6 Hel b5 7 &b3 dé 8 3 0-0 9 h3 AaB 10 &e2 5 11 da We7 12 Dbd2 exd4 13 cxd4 The position after 10...c5 has been known, for many years as the Chigorin Defence. One of the main themes of play in this line is whether Black’s queen’s knight can find a satisfactory role or just be locked out of play. Indeed Black has to decide how he would like to arrange his pieces in the case of d4-d5 by White. By opening the c-file Black hopes for a more lively game than those similar lines in Chapters 2 and 3 where White plays d4-d5 and blocks the centre, Furthermore, with an open line on the cfile White rarely has the time to slowly organise a kingside assault. ‘The early middlegame sees most of the ac: tion on the queenside or in the centre. After the traditional 13..c6 (Games 4- 5), Black puts pressure on d4 and White has to choose whether or not t© keep the tension. The knight coming to 6 afer the exchange of pawns allows this piece to come to bd in the case of the White advance d4-d5. ‘The space-gaining 14 d5 is however worthy of respect and has the advantage of avoiding, any complications associated with ..d5. ‘The principal alternative 14 Db3, defend- ing the d4-point, has been frequently played over the last 60 years and is still one of the cctitical lines. Black’s most active idea, playing for counterplay with ..d5, used to be associated with Panov’s variation 13..b7 (Games 8-9). Nowadays 13..2d8 (Games 1-3, or the earlier 12..8d8 see Chapter 2) is often em- ployed with the same pawn-break in mind. ‘The aggressive 13..0d8 is popular as the plan with ...d5 contains some sting as we can see in Game 2, The quieter 13...8d7 (Games 6-7) combines sensible development with play on the e-file. One of the reasons that Panov’s 13...8.b7 is out of favour is that the bishop is better phced on d7 in the case of a closed centre. So 13...Ed8 and 13...£.d7 have the advantage of not sending the bishop the ‘wrong’ way. Fashions come and go but 13.2208 is popular at present. It's perhaps Black’s most dynamic choice here, but positional players may be attracted to the cautious manoeuvring typical of 13..Dc6 and 13...8d7. Game 1 P.Svidler-R.Kasimdzhanov Yerevan 2001 1 e4 05 2 4f3 Dc6 3 2b5 a6 4 LadThe Ruy Lopez Main Line D6 5 0-0 &e7 6 Mel b5 7 &b3 dé 8 63 0-0 9 h3 AaS 10 2c2 c5 11 d4 We7 12 Dbd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 Ed8 14 or Closing the centre at this point is com- monplace but doesn’t inconvenience the second player that much in the following variations: 14 d5 &d7 In this position White has nwo main tries: a) 15 Del Hde8 16 2d3 Ab7 (or alternatively 16..8d8 17 b3 Db7 18 Le3 b4 19 D3d2 BS, J.Van Barle-H.Westerinen, Lon- don 1979) 17 Ag3 (Not 17 g47! Ac5 18 Abt h5! D.Campora-J.Estrada Nieto, Andorra 2001 when Black was doing well after 19 3h2 hxg4 20 bxgd Ah7. Instead after 17 b4.a5 18 Bd2 axb4 19 Lxb4 Ac, A.Abreu- AHauchard, Havana 2001, a draw was agreed) 17....\c5 18 QFt (ECO prefers White because of the continuation 18 2b1 g6 19 Bg5 Was 20 Wa2 Be8 21 Lc2 a5 22 Bact b4 23 Be3 Ob5 24 Wh2 Mad 25 &d3 as in BPerenyi-L-Lengyel, Hungarian Champion- ship 1977 but in this Lukacs and Hazai suggest the time-saving 20..a5 and judge the position as equal) 18..Aa4 19 He2 b4 20 23 Wh7 21 Bel Bd8 22 Hec2 Hxc2 23 Bxc2 Qb6 with a satisfactory game, D.Campora-J.Fernandez Garcia, Dos Het- manas 2000, b) 15 243 Ab7 16 Ab3 (After 16 b4 the immediate 16..a5! is important as Black obtains access to the c5-square for his knight) 16..Hdc8 (16..a5 17 @e3 a4 18 Ket Whs is simpler) 17 We2 a5I? 18 Se3 (White could consider the pawn grab 18 &xb5 when Black still has to prove that he has compensation after 18...2xb5 19 Wxb5 a4 20 Dbd2 Bes 21 He3) 18.Wb8 19 Bect a4 20 Hxc8+ Wexe8 21 Bet We8 22 Dbd2 LdB Black switches his bishop to the queenside but is at present denied the standard b6-square) 23 Dh2 h6 24 Dhfl Las 25 Abt Lb4 26 Be3 Ha5 27 &b6 with a draw as in G.Milos- V.Bologan, Buenos Aires 2000. Black cannot avoid the draw: 27..Ha6 28 23 Ha5 29 Lb6 etc. However if White plays for more with 29 a3 &c5 30 22 then Black has little to fear after 30...2.b6. 14...exd4 14...d52! has been played a few times but is now considered dubious, eg. 15 Dxe5 dxe4 16 Dg3 Bd6 17 BE4 Acd 18 Axc4 Bxe5 19 DsfG+ gxf6 20 Wd3 with essentially a winning position for White, D-Barbelescu- M.Chiburdanidze, Polanica Zdroj 1984. 15 &t4 7 Continuing development whilst restraining the freeing advance ...d5. White hopes to recuperate the pawn at some point once he is good and ready. Instead 15 Axd4 is examined in Game 2. 15...Dc6 Following 15..Ac4 16 b3, Black could settle for 16..Ae5 17 @xd4 with a typical slight pull for White. However in O.Kor- &Chigorin Defence with 12...cxd4 13 cxd4 neev-J.Fernandez Garcia, Zaragoza 1996 Black tried unsuccessfully to mix it with 16..Da3!? 17 a3 Wh6 18 Dg b4 19 Wa2 52! (perhaps his play can be justified with 19...e6 when play is far from clear) 20 act! with advantage to White. 16 Dg3 2e6 17 Ee Whe 18 AIS Similarly 18 Wa2 Hac8 19 D5 &xf5 20 exf of R-Antoniewski-J.Pinski, Poland 1988 should be met in the same vein with 20..d5(). In BSocko-P.Stempin, Suwalki 1999 White lost the thread with 18 2b1?! Bac8 19 De2 d3t 20 Wxd3 De5 and was already on the defensive. 18...2xf5 19 ext 19...d5! ‘A clear improvement on 19.,.3a7?! from AGalkin-V.Bologan, Russian Team Cham- pionship 2001 which continued in White's favour with 20 @b1 Had7 21 a3 h6 22 2p3 BAB 23 a2 He8 24 b4 with pressure. The text move is an attempt to be mote active. 20 a3 After 20 &b1 He8 White doesn’t have anything better than 21 S2c7 Wxe7 22 Axd4 (Luikacs/Hazai) with equality 20...Bac8 21 &b1?! Kasimdzhanov suggests 21 2.431? 2.£8 22 gd as a better try for complications. 21.,.218 22 2a2 hé 23 Wd3 Dad 24 Dxda White regains his pawn but Black’s pieces are all well placed and his structure is prefer able in the long run, so he’s a shade better. 24,..Ac4 25 We2 eB 26 N6e8 H6e8 27 Df3 ab?! This leads to a loosening of Black’s grip. Svidier was more worried about 27...£2c5! 28 @y3 (28 ba?! WB just leaves White with a weakness on a3) 28..e4 29 S&h4 Was when Black can boast excellent centralisation, 28 a4! Hed 29 &c1 bxad 30 Sxcd dxc4 31 Exed Hxed Black can grab a pawn with 31..WWb5 32 Ed4 WxfS 33 Has but the pin on the 8th is worth the half-pawn deficit, 32 Wxcd Wb4 33 Wc2 2c5 34 2d2 Wb5 35 e1 a3 Exchanging immediately leaves Black with a strong passed pawn but White seems to have enough resources. Possibly the alterna tive try 35.2b4! 36 Ads Wa7 37 Bc3 a3 gives better winning chances. 36 bxa3 &xa3 37 Ad4 Wed 38 AZ Wal? Blundering the a-pawn and thus having to defend the ending a pawn down, Here 38...Wd5 is met by 39 Wad, but 38.,.Wb5! 39 Ada Was! 39...d7 is insufficient due to 40 De, as is 39.We5 40 Wxc5 Mxc5 41 Db3 Sb4 42 Qxb4 axb4 and now White’s king gets there first: 43 Sefl 208 44 dre? dee7 45 <2d3 with a probable draw) 40 Wad @c5 retains some advantage. 39 Wad Wet 40 WxaS 2c5 41 Wa8+ &h7 42 Wad Wh1 43 Wea Wxts 44 Wxf7 Wd3 45 Wee Wb1 46 93 Was 47 seg2 Wes 48 Wxea+ Axed 49 Ded ad4 50 Act Sg6 51 f4 hS 52 2t3 DP 53 2a5 OS 54 Ads wes 55 e3?! Here 55 &xf6, playing with knight versus bishop on the same wing, would keep some winning chances alive. 55...2xe3 56 bxe3 If 56 &xf6 then 56...xf4! 57 Bxe7 Bd6 is drawn, 56...0d5+ 57 hd4 g6 58 wed Ac3+ 59 &f3 Abs 4-%The Ruy Lopez Main Line Game 2 A.Grischuk-V.Bologan Enghien-les-Bains 2001 1 e4 05 2 Of3 De6 3 2bS a6 4 Lad 246 5 0-0 Ze7 6 Hel b5 7 &b3 dé 8 ¢3 0-0 9 h3 DaS 10 &c2 cS 11 d4 We7 12 Dbd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 Das 14 ME exd4 15 Dxd4 dB! ‘The strongest at this point, whereas the inferior 15.6 16 Be3 Axd4 17 Bxd4 Be6 18 De3 Hac8 19 £4 G-Timoshenko- RKholmov, Vosktesensk 1992) gives White a good vetsion of a position analogous to play in Game 3. 16 05 Ded 17 ata Supporting the e-pawn, Alternatives have been investigated but found wanting: a) 17 £32! Bc5 18 feed (if 18 eI, as in MToux-M.Pytel, La Fére 2002, then 18..Dc4! would probably transpose to Hel- lers-Polgar) 18..dxe4 19 &e3 (19 Bxed?! Deb 20 Ke3 Axd4 21 Bh4 £5 lef Black on top in Gildardo Garcia-M.Wahls, Cuba 1996) 19.Ac4 20 Bxed Dued 21 Dred Exd4 22 WA Hb8 and White was the one fighting for equality in F.Hellers-Zsu.Polgar, Adelaide 1988, b) 17 Dd2 Bc5 18 A23 Lb7 19 Kes Eac8 20 Bet Wh6 and Black had powerful development in R.Kasimdzhanov-Peng Xiaomin, Genting Highlands 1998. ¢) 17 De3 (immediately) then following 17nkic5 18 b3 (18 QF4 transposes to the main game) 18..Wxe5 19 &b2 Qb7? (it could be that after 19..WWf4!, avoiding White's tactical idea, Black is just a pawn up) 20 @c6t tured out better for White in M.Brodsky-A.Aleksandrov, USSR Champi- onship Moscow 1991 but hasa’t been re- peated since. 17...¢5 18 De3 Wh6 19 Db3 Axb3 20 Oxb3 Here 20 axb3?! seems wrong, The a-file doesn’t help White so this is just weakening: 20..2b7 21 BAI Bd4 22 We? £6 23 Bxed dxe4 24 @y4 £5 25 De3 Web and as both b3 and ¢5 are en prise White is clearly worse, A.Colovic-V Dimitrov, Lazarevac 1999, 20...2e6 After 20...2b7, which seems to be a playable alternative, the continuation 21 Wd3 Qxe3 22 Bxe3 d4 23 Bf4 Ac5 led to a black initiative in the game N.Motin-A.Gutow, Russia 2001. White should instead play 21 Wed when Lukacs and Hazai suggest 21...We6! (as an improvement over Zaw Win Lay-T-Matsuo, Yangon Zonal 1998 which favoured White after 21...2xe3 22 Exe} dd 23 BB Ac5 24 He3) when Black seems to be OK, 21 Wa3 The best option but Black is already better as we can see from the alternatives: 10Chigorin Defence with 12...cxd4 13 cxd4 a) 21 Oc2 Dx 22 Gx d4 23 WH dxe3+ 24 @xe3 Hac8 with a clear advantage for Black, D.Saulin-M.Notkin, Moscow 1996. b) 21 Be2 Dxéf2 (or more simply Wed- berg’s 21..d4 22 De4 8.5 with a Black initiative) 22 Sxf2 d4 23 Dl d3+ 24 Be3 Bac8 and Black had excellent play in D.De Vreugt- F.Levin, Lvov 2001. 21...a5! 22 £3 a4 23 &c2 g5! Aggressively played. White’s pieces are coming under pressure on all fronts. 24 &h2 25 25 We2? The lesser evil is 25 fxe4, but Bologan offers the following continuation as proof that Black is still better: 25..@xe4 26 Wad2 @xc2 27 Bhi Les 28 Ags Ve7 29 Hel We6 30 Déo+ eB 31 Bact Bas. 25...4? Here Black misses 25...8.xe3 26 Wxe3 d4 27 Wa3 Des 28 Wa2 d3+ 29 Wea Wxf2+ 30 exf2 d2! winning, as pointed out by Bolo- gan, 26 xed? White's turn to miss his chance: 26 fxe4! Bg6 27 Dds! Exd5 (or here 27...d3+ 28 Gh dxe2 29 Axb6 &xb6 30 Hxe2 2d4 31 Abi) 28 0.43 with equal chances as analysed by Lukaes and Hazai. 26...dxe3 27 &h1 No better are 27 @&xf5 Bd2, or 27 @xaB Rd. 27,..Ad2 28 2xa8 Exe2 29 Bxe2 £d3 30 Zee1 &b4 31 ect e2 32 93 2d2 33 Hg1 ba White's rooks are totally dominated. 34 a3 b3 35 fel Giving the exchange in a desperate attempt to obtain a blockade. 35...2e3 36 2c3 &xgl 37 Hxgi Wi2 38 Het h5 Now however White is helpless whilst Black improves. 39 2d5 WeS 40 2b7 Wb5 41 £08 Wed 42 &b7 Gh7 43 a8 Sg6 44 2b7 WS 45 2a8 Wed 46 &h2 wh7 47 &h1 bg8 48 th2 18 49 wh1 be7 50 Sh2 wes 51 g3 Wa6 0-1 Something like 52 Se4 Qxe4 53 fxet Wa is too depressing to continue. Game 3 A.Grischuk-R.Kasimdzhanov Wijk aan Zee 2002 1 e4 e5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 2b5 a6 4 Bad D6 5 0-0 2e7 6 Hel b5 7 2b3 dé 8B c3 0-0 9 h3 Dad 10 2c2 c5 11 d4 We7 12 Dbd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 dB 14 b3. It’s worth comparing play with Chapter 2, Game 14 where White plays b2-b3 in the analogous position where the c-pawns are still on the board. 14... De6 Note that 14..exd4 15 &b2 Ac6 16 Axd4 11The Ruy Lopez Main Line transposes back to the game. 15 &b2 exd4 Otherwise 15...d5? is met by the unpleasant 16 Hel!, when 16..Wb6 17 exd5 Dxd5 18 @xe5 is just good for White, J-R.Koch- ZsuPolgar, Tunja 1989. 16 Dxd4 Dxd4 17 &xd4 Le6 Experience has shown that the bishop helps defend the king better on ¢6, so 17...8b7 is inferior, e.g. 18 Het Wa5 19 Afi! Ghirov doesn’t bother with the niceties, he just goes straight for the throat! Even so, 19 &b1 Hac8 20 Bxc8 Hxc8 21 Afl Hes 22 Re3 Wa8 23 g3 also gave White an edge in S.Dolmatov-Zsu.Polgar, New York 1989.) 19..Bac8 20 @c3 96 21 WE Ad7 22 Apa Bg5 23 hdl! Sxcl 24 Excl £5 25 Nh6ot VB 26 Witt Dc5 27 exfS Splat! 1-0 A.Shirov- J.Fernandez Garcia, Ayamonte 2002. 18 Bet ‘The immediate 18 Dfl can be simply met by 18..d5(). 18...Wa5 194A ‘The modest 19 &b1 is well met by the liberating 19..d5!, when after 20 5 De4 21 Del Bac8 22 Wd3, in K.Asrian-D.Pedzich, Ubeda 1999 Black could have tried 22....8a3, as well as the game continuation of 22.26 23 We3 Wa3, to achieve interesting and unclear play. Black had good compensation after 21 @Dxe4?! (instead of 21 Afl) dxe4 22 Hxet B03 23 Be2 Ma? (23...L2651?) 24 He6 g6 in Z.Almasi-Je.Piket, Monaco (rapid) 2002. If 19 @f3, again the required move is 19...d5! e.g. 20 exd5 Exd5 21 Hxe6!? fe6 22 We2 Wa3 23 Bb2 Gf 23 Wrest G8 24 Het ‘Wado Black defends and retains the exchange) 23. Wid6 24 Qxf6 Bxf6 25 Les Has 26 Bxd5 exd5 with equal chances as in A.Grischuk-S.Yuldashev, Yerevan 2001. 19...De8 Here again 19..d5!? comes into consideration. Then 20 e5 ed (Lukacs and Hazai suggest 20,.2d7 21 £4 g6 as worth investi- gating if the text proves to be inadequate) 21 £3 Bac8 _. B \ Fy Ss 5 Be “. So ww Pe igen WN N 2 ee ale x \ A Y, a) 22 Wd3 96 ( tried 22.2651? in S.Midoux-G.Flear, StAffrique 2003: 23 We3 [23 feed? dxe4 24 We3 is bad in view of 24..0Rxd4!] 23..8g5 24 £4, when 24...2h4! would have been fine for Black) 23 &bt Qb4 (1 quite like g5! when after 24 Eecd1 for 24 Hxc8 Exc8 25 He2 Ac3) 24...c3 Black is doing well) 24 Hed! Ac3, and here White invoked favourable complications with 25 a3! 2f5 26 axb4 &xd3 27 bxa5 WDe2+ 28 2 Hxct 29 Pxd3 Bxdt 30 Bxe2 and retained an advantage in C.Lutz- S.Yuldashev, Yerevan 2001, b) Grischuk analyses 22 fxe4! dxe4 (following 22...@a3 23 exd5 Exd5 24 &xh7+ Gxh7 25 Hxc8 Axc8 26 We2 96 27 RD Black has fair compensation for the pawn, but in Informator 87 White is judged to be 12Chigorin Defence with 12... exd4 13 cxd4 slightly better, P.Svidler-A.Shabalov, Ber- muda 2003) 23 Bxe4 a3 (after 23..Wxa2 24 We3 Bg5 then 25 Sh2 intending Bat is strong, There was a recent attempt to revive Black’s fortunes with 23...g5, but after 24 De3 Wa3 25 Wel Wxa2 26 Lb6 Hes 27 Sbi Wxb3 28 Bdi Heo 29 Bb4, RAntoniewski-P.Stempin, Lubniewice 2003, White was better) 24 b4! as good for White, cg, 24..Wxb4 (24..We7 25 De3 Bxcl 26 Weel, or 24..Axb4 25 Qb3) 25 Bb1 We7 26 De3 &c5 27 Wa3. All this suggests that the best chance to make 19..d5 work is to meet 20 €5 with 20...d7, as in the notes above. What else can Black try? After 19..Hac8 20 4e3, Black has unsuccessfully tried 20...Hc7 21 b4 Wxb4 22 2b6, E.Van Haaster-MSolleveld, Nova College 2002 and 20..g6 21 AfS!, E.Dervishi- J.Estrada Nieto, St.Vincent 2002, but neither could be described as appealing! Skembris however recently tried 20...d5!2, A.S SSkembris, Cappelle-la-Grande 2003 then continued 21 &xf6 (stronger than 21 @xd5 Qxd5 22 exdS Dxd5 23 Qxh7+ Lxh7 24 Exc8 Exc8 25 He5 Has 26 Wh5+ dg8 27 Bxd5 Bxd5 28 Wad5 Wxa2, which is equal according to Skembris, e.g. 29 Wa8+ 2.68! 30 23 Wa3!; otherwise there is 21 €52! ed after which Black isn’t worse) 21..2xf6 22 exd5 (22 Bxd5 is best met by the immediate 22..Wxa2) 22...Sd7 (according to Skembris Black has enough compensation, but I have a feeling that White is still somewhat better) 23 RAS? (critical is 23 Wd3 go 24 Sb1) 23..Bxcl 24 Wxel QxfS 25 AxfS Wra2 with unclear play. 20 Wa3 Now 20 De3 can be met with 20.26. 20...Bac8 21 &b1 21 De3 is more ambitious, but after QASR£6 22 €5 dxe5 23 Wxh7+ Bf8 Black’s king is not really in danger nor ate his pieces badly placed either. 21...Bxe1 22 Hxe1 e8 23 id Was After 23...22g5 the thrust 24 eS! is dangerous. Throughout this game it’s noteworthy that Black resists the temptation to play ..g6 which blocks the bI-h7 diagonal at the cost of problems with the dark-squares ey ae ig wae erm can a sie “iE mca “ Ye 24 Wd2 The dynamic potential of Black’s game has gradually evaporated and now he’s left with his backward d-pawn. White is clearly better as Grischuk now shows. 24...2d8 25 De3 Wad Black may have intended 25...£a5 26 Wa3 Hct, but his queen is then trapped by 27 Dc2. 26 Wd3 ba?! Creating a further weakness, but Black is short of ideas. 27 141 $18 28 15 2d7 29 Ded Ws 30 Wo3 216 Following this move White should be able to win positionally; however after 30...7 31 Wh4 &g8 Black's ill-defended king becomes further exposed with 32 f6! etc. 31 Qxf6 gxfé 32 thi WeS 33 Wa RbS 34 De3 Wed 35 Wh6+ &g8 36 Dd5 &c6 37 D6 BdB 38 Aca? ‘A time trouble error. Instead 38 Bl! followed by Ef4 would have been immediately decisive. 38...Wg3 39 Wh5 d5! Breaking out and giving hope. 40 &c2 We3 41 We2 of8 42 Had3 Wa1+ 43 2d1 2b5?The Ruy Lopez Main Line According to Grischuk, Black could have put up more resistance with 43..Wel 44 Wel Wes 45 Wab4+ G7, but nevertheless White has an extra pawn and is well in control after 46 Wet, 44 Wd2 d4 45 Wxb4+ Ad6 46 Wc Sxc4 47 bxc4 Wxa2 48 Wc7 eB 49 Bg3 1-0 Game 4 N.Short-P.Svidier Dubai rapid 2002 1 ef e5 2 D3 Dc6 3 2b5 a6 4 Bad @'6 5 0-0 2e7 6 Hei b5 7 2b3 dé B 3 0-0 9 h3 a5 10 &c2 c5 11 d4 We7 12 Dbd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 Acé6 14 a5 Alternatives are dealt with in Game 5. 14...Db4 15 &b1 a5 16 a3 Less worrying for Black is 16 @fl as Black has a good game, eg. 16...£847 (or here 16..Da6l? 17 D3h2 Ac5 18 D3 [18 p47! proved to be self-weakening in M.Adams- S.Agdestein, Hastings 1991/2 after 18.6 19 Dg3 Dh7 20 DE3 DoS etc] 18..He8 19 WE a4 20 Qd2 Wo7 21 DS Oxf 22 Wis 2d8, K.Le Quang-S.Conquest, Cappelle la Grande 1991) 17 d2 (17 B3n2 Bées 18 Dc3 96 19 Bd2 Das 20 Wes Was 21 b3 slg? 22 Ail h5, L.Stein-S.Reshevsky, Mar del Plata 1966) 17..Hfc8 18 De3 (18 Rxb4 axb4 19 @d3_ Bd8, D-Yanovsky- M.Botvinnik, Groningen 1946) 18.26 19 Dh2 Ded 20 WE3 Wa8 21 h4 6, M.Adams- V.Ivanchuk, Lucerne 1989, The point of the text move is that because of the coming pin on the a-file, Black is denied the cS-square for his knight, unlike in these examples emanating from 16 Df1. 16...2)a6 17 b4 axb4 ‘There’s not much point in maintaining the tension, for instance 17...d7 18 bxa5 Des 19 Db3 Axb3 20 Wrxb3 HxaS 21 2d2 Hat 22 &b4 with a pleasant edge, V-Kotronias- S.Skembris, Athens 1996, It’s not necessary for White to capture on a5 eg. 18 Wb3 (rather than 18 bxa5) 18..h5 19 Ba2 Ded 20 He2 Wa8 21 Atl Sh8 22 Axl exf4 23 Hce2 with an edge to White, M-Yudovich- G.Levenfish, USSR Championship 1939. 18 axb4 2d7 ‘The risky pawn grab 18..Wc3 19 @b3 Webs 20 &d3 Dc7? loses to 21 Bxa8 Axa8 22 Wc2 Wad 23 Qe WaG 24 Hat Wh7 25 Ha7, T.Luther-A Rossmanith, Bad Wiessee 1998. In this Karolyi suggests instead 20...\We3 (rather than the lemon 20...c7) 21 Bxb5 ADc7 22 Hxa8 Dxa8 23 Od2 We? with only a small edge to White. He has the more active pieces and some space but queenside simplification limits the pressure 19 Wb3 7 gett: \ WW Mints J of an aa Wis Ba DS Till ia © tw 19...Wb7 Black can again play with fire by risking 14Chigorin Defence with 12...cxd4 13 cxd4 19... De5#! going for the win of the exchange, as in T.Luther-P.Lukacs, Budapest 1992. However following 20 bxc5 Exal 21 06 &c8 22 G23 WaT and now 23 He3! (instead of Luther's inferior 23 Sb4?!) 23..2¢4 (both 23...Dh5 24 Wh2 and 23..b4 24 Wab4 &xh3 25 Wh2 clearly favour White) 24 Wb2 Exb1+ 25 Wb! left Black with a very poor game in ‘M.Chan.W.Kobese, Elista Olympiad 1998. 20 £43 248 Karolyi gives the cautious alternative 20... AcT7 21 &b2 Exat 22 Bxal a8 23 Bad Hxa5 24 bxaS DaG 25 2.03 LB as satisfactory. 21 D1 2b6 22 295 Black’s next move leads to sharp complications but White is objectively better. So Black should have preferred 22...%h8! 23 S2xf6 (otherwise Black can come back un- scathed to ¢8) 23..exf6 24 e3 (or 24 Dh4 Bd4 25 Bact gS 26 @e2 Hy7) 24..Be8 25 #h2 Dc7 and Black has active piece play in return for his damaged pawn structure. 22...Ah5? 23 Be7 Efe8 24 2xd6 &xh3 25 Stxe5? After 25 gxh3! Black shouldn't have enough for the piece in the complications following 25..Wd7 26 Sc5, or 25..D#4 26 Sixes, 25...Wd7 26 Dih2 &xg2 27 dxg2 Exe5 28 DxeS D14+ 29 vh1 Wh3 30 Hg1 2d4 31 Sc2 Karolyi points out 31 2g3! Wh5 32 Hagl Sxe5 33 By5 Wh3 34 1g3 as winning. 31,..axe5 32 Wxh3 Axh3 33 Dg Sixal 34 Bxal De7 35 Exa8+ ADxa8 36 weg2 So after all that White has to make do with ‘only’ a positional advantage. Even so Black’s defence isn’t easy, especially in a rapid game, 36...f4+ 37 2f3 g5 38 dé Ab6 39 |MG+ 2g7 40 e5 h6 41 25 dB Karolyi suggests 41...Ac4 42 Ded f8 as a better defence, but after the calm 43 #e4 hS 44 £6 Black is still in trouble, eg. 44... Dd2+ 45 Be3 Dct+ 46 Bd 4 47 Bd7 and Black’s pawns ate ready to drop. 42 ded hS 43 Dh7+ eB 44 Axgs Did5 45 d7+ Ge7 46 Axf7 1-0 Game 5 J.Rowson-M.Pein British League, Birmingham 2001 1 e4 e5 2 Df3 Acé 3 Lb5 a6 4 Lad 26 5 0-0 2e7 6 Hel b5 7 2b3 dé 8 ¢3 0-0 9 h3 Aad 10 &c2 5 11 d4 We7 12 Dbd2 cxd4 13 exd4 Acé Y Yi BR DF Ope y, ag 14 Qb3 ‘The slower 14 a3 allows 14..exd4 under satisfactory circumstances: 15 b3 &b7 16 Doxdd Dxd4 17 Dxd4 Bfes 18 gS ho 19 844 28 20 Bet Who with approximate equality, J.Polgar-G.Kamsky, Dos Hermanas 1996.The Ruy Lopez Main Line Tastead 14...2d7 can also be played, and is appropriate for those seeking a manoeuvring game: 15 Ab3 a5 16 d5 DbB 17 Bd? a4 18 Act Bc8 19 Bc3 Da6, J.Timman-E, Torre, Tilburg 1982, or 15 b4 Hfc8 16 2b3 a5 17 d5 Abs 18 Lb2, J.Polgar-O.Kim, Yerevan Women’s Olympiad 1996, and White has development but nothing concrete. 14...a5 The logical counter to the knight on b3. Keres experimented with two alternatives here, both shown to be inferior: 14. QbTH 15 dS Da5 16 Dxa5 Wrad 17 a4 Réc8 18 2d3 Dd7 19 He5, B.Larsen-P.Keres, Zutich 1959, and 14.,.28d8?! 15 242 Wb8 16 5, V.Smyslov-P. Keres, USSR Match 1941, 15 fe3 a4 16 Dbd2 16...266 Black has tried several other moves, the first of which is the most significant, a) The sensible 16...2d7 is also popular. In the following play the move order for both players is fairly flexible leading to numerous transpositional possibilities: 17 Ect (17 a3 Hac8 18 2d3 Aas 19 We2 Ws 20 Beb1 [White intends to open the flank with b2-b4 when he is good and ready, but Black has good hatmony in his position} 20..Eife8 21 d5 Bd8 22 b4 axb3 23 Axb3 Dcd 24 &g5 Gb8 [a cool preparation to unpin] 25 Wal Dgs 26 Bcl and the knight on cd is particularly noticeable but Black’s pieces ate in general ready to parry any White activity, O.Korneev-V.Tkachiev, Bastia 2003) M7 (a recent high-level encounter varied with 17..Bac8 18 Al Wb7 19 Dg3 He7 20 &b1 Bfc8 21 e&h1 [avoiding any tricks involving ..Axd4 followed by ...xf3+] 21..h6 22 Wd2 2f8 23 a3 and offered a tense game in LSmirin-LSokolov, Sarajevo 2002 where White retains a small pull) 18 We2 (if instead 18 @b1, then 18..Hfc8 19 el Ee7 20 d5 Dad 21 b3 Uxcl 22 &xcl axb3 23 axb3 Bd8, V.AnandJePiket, Li- nares 1997, seems fine for Black) 18..Efe8 19 243 (an interesting manoeuvre was em- ployed in L.Dominguez-L.Bruzon, Havana 2003 after 19 a3 Kab8 20 &b1 2d8!? when White is restrained from 2a2 because of the pressure on e4, The further continuation 21 dxe5 Axe5 22 Axe5 dxe5 23 c5 He8 24 2d3 didn’t offer White anything, and at this point a draw was agreed) 19..Bab8 (a reasonable attempt to improve was 19...exd4! 20 Dxd4 Db4 21 Vbt a3! 22 b3 Ld8 with a fine game for Black, L.Dominguez-L.Bruzon, Cuban Championship 2002) 20 a3 exd4 (the only other setious try is 20..£2d8 21 dxeS Dyxe5! 22 Dxe5 dxeS when chances are equal, rather than 21...dxe5?! 22 Bc5 &b6 23 Bxb5 Ad4 24 Qxd4 exd4 25 HeS as played in Bllvanovic-M.Lazic, Yugoslav Champion- ship 1993 where White had won a pawn, and after the further 25..2e6 26 Ags We7 27 Hxe6! fxe6 28 5 h6 29 exf6 hxg5 30 Ded he had a winning attack) 21 @xd4 @e5 22 2b1 16Chigorin Defence with 12. 22.udhd8 Shirov recently introduced the line opening 22..b4 in A.Goloschapov- Shirov, Rethymnon 2003 which continued favourably for Black: 23 axb42! Wxb4 24 Be2 5! 25 £4 Dg6 26 e5 AxfA!; this looks like an atea for future research) 23 D4! Ba5 (23...Dg6I? is a suggestion of Wedberg’s just keeping an eye on some central squares, or 23...A\xf3+ is also possible but after 24 Wxf3 Qa5 25 Wy3 Wedberg prefers White slightly) 24 Dred ded 25 edi &c6 26 bd! (MRytshagov-E.Gausel, Gothenburg 1998) where White retains a nagging edge due to a slightly superior pawn structure. In particular White may be able to use the c5-square. b) Karolyi rejects the immediate 16...d5? because of 17 exd5 @xd5 18 Bel with advantage to White. Black is just too loose in the centre and along the e-file. ©) 16..a3 17 bxa3 Bxa3 18 Wet Was 19 Sb3 &b7 20 Wh2 exd4 21 Axd4 BDxd4 22 Rxd4 Wa8 23 5 favoured White in L.Aronin-G Lisitsin, Leningrad 1947, d) 16...Sa6?! (the bishop is ugly hete) 17 Ect Wh7 of LBoleslavsky-S.Reshevsky, Zu- rich Candidates Tournament 1953 can be met by Keres’s idea 18 &b1 2d8 19 b4. Here Black cannot capture the b-pawn with his knight as it will be lost eg. 19..Axb4 20 5 Bc8 21 a3 and after 21...A\bxd5 22 exd5 Bxcl 23 Wxcl Axd5 24 We2 White has the attack as well as an extra piece. Neither is 19..exd4 20 Dxd4 Axb4 21 a3 that inspir- ing, so Black should instead play 19...axb3! when after 20 @xb3 White has slightly the more comfortable game. ©) In P.Leko-M.Adams, Tilburg 1998 16..\b4?! was played but as a result of the game continuation 17 &b1 2d7 18 a3 Ac6 19 Bd3 Da5 20 We2 Wh8 21 Bect Bes 22 Habl exd4 23 Dxd4 b4 24 &b5! where White was better, it seems that 16..Db4 is not Black's best. Allin-all continuation ‘a’ promising alternative. 17 a3 is the most oxd4 13 cxd4 White can revert to 17 d5, although 17..b4 18 Qb1 Ld7 19 Dsl Bees 20 Wa2 Dae 21 Dg3 a3 22 b3 Bd8 23 Bd3 We3 was fine for Black in E.Geller-B.Ivkov, Havana 1965. White recently tried to spice things up with 18 dxe6l? (instead of 18 &b1) 18..Wxc2 19 exf?+ Bixf? 20 Dgs Wadl 21 Hexdt Bes but this was only equal in V.Rajlich-P.Lukacs, Budapest 2002) 17...d5?! A novelty of Tibor Karolyi who prepared Malcolm Pein for this game. Despite the critical nature of the move 1 was at first sur- prised that no one else has tried it. However after taking a closer look I now suspect that it isn’t quite sound, something that probably hasn’t escaped Chigorin spe- cialists and may well explain the world’s lack of enthusiasm! A couple of moves are standard: a) 17..Na5 18 Bd (less precise is 18 Ect eg. 18.Wb8 19 Bd3 b4 20 d5 &d7, S.Gligoric-P-Keres, Hastings 1964/5; and despite ECO’s enthusiasm for 18 ®g5, after 18.4 19 £4 Dd7 20 Dees Bfo 21 Bet Efc8, W.Wittmann-C.Chellsdorp, Teesside 1974 Black had no particular problems) 18..Wb8 19 We2 b4 20 axb4 Wxb4 21 Heb1 (Black can’t retain the tension) 21..exd4 22 Bxd4 Db3 23 &c3 Wh6 24 Axb3 Bxb3 25 Ad4 (Wang Pin-Wang Yuemin, China 1997) and White has the superior structure and obtains the bishop pair thus guaranteeing the feeThe Ruy Lopez Main Line better chances. b) The best hope for Black is probably 17...28fc8 which has been played successfully on many occasions by Galdunts. Experience suggests that White can probably squeeze out a shade of an edge: 18 2d3 2d7 19 We2 Wb8 20 Kebt!? (here 20 ect b4!? 21 Ded exd4 22 @xd4 BDe5, PHerb-S.Galdunts, Bischwiller 1998, seems adequate for Black) 20..Ba5 21 d5 2d8 (or 21..Ae4 22 Bes 23 b4 axb3 24 @xb3 Hc7 25 Dxad BxaS 26 Qd2 Ba8 27 Bb4 as in RKuczynski-S.Galdunts, Schoeneck 1996) 22 hi Bb6 23 Bg5 Qd8 24 b4 axb3 25 Axb3 Dc4 26 a4, Z.Lanka-J.Smejkal, Bun- desliga 1996, 18 Ec1 Not a bad continuation but there is a bet: ter one, After 18 exd5! Axd5 19 Het! (instead after 19 dxe5 @xe5 20 Dd4 La7 21 Ect Wao 22 Whs Ags 23 Ded We5 Black wriggles out) if we compare with the note to Black’s 16th move (where Black plays the immediate 16...45) Black has the extra move +&e6 and White 2-23. This may enable Black to be more competitive in the centre, but he still has problems in my opinion: 19..Wd6 20 dxe5 Dxe5 21 Bc5! Dx fH 22 Dsf3 or 19..Wb6 20 dxeS Axe3 21 Hxe3 and Black has no real compensation for the pawn, noting that 21..2c5 is met by 22 Rxh74. 18...exd4 19 Axd4 Axd4 20 exd5 Otherwise 20 Sxd4 Wed 21 Bxfo Mxt6 22 exd5 &xd5 23 Whs Who 24 Wxd5 Bads 25 Waxb5 Exd2 is just about okay for Black according to Karolyi. 20...Wb7 Tf 20,..WeS 21 dxe6 Axe6 22 Kb1 Ercs 23 D3 Wh5, White retains an edge due to the bishop pair, but Karolyi feels that Black is fine due to the constant threat to exchange off all the queenside pawns. 21 dxe6 Axe6 22 215 Haé 23 WIS Wxf3 24 Dxf3 Ad5 25 Qxeb! If White tries to maintain the bishop pair with 25 @d2 then 25.86 is sufficiently active for Black. 25...2xe6 26 Dd4 Bed 27 Axb5 Hbs 28 Ac3 Axc3 29 Hxe3 Because of back rank problems Black cannot tecuperate the pawn. Instead, however, he has active pieces pressing on White’s majority. 29...f5 30 Hc2 2f6 31 Zee2 &t7 32 Sf Bb3 33 &c1 deb 34 Hxed+ fxed 35 Hed bd5 36 Kxad Sxb2 37 Sxb2 8xb2 38 Ha7 g5! An excellent move covering the f4-square, Now the obvious capture on h7 leads no- whete, e.g. 39 Exh? Hb1+ 40 He2 Bb2+ 41 Bel Kbit 42 &d2 Bb2+ 43 dec3 (if 43 ke3 then 43..2b3+) 43..Exf2 44 4 He3+ 45 shb4 3 and Black achieves a comfortable draw. 39 gi h6 40 Ha6 Ab1+ 41 wh2 BAM 42 sbg3 h5 43 Hab+ ddd 44 EES Winning a farther pawn with 44 Bxg5 leads to 44..h4+ 45 Sxh4 Bxf2 46 Mp8 3 and the advanced e-pawn saves the day for Black. 44...6d3 45 Md5+ de2 46 Edd Bxf2 47 Hxe4+ &f1 48 Hb4 ixg2+ 49 &f3 H12+ 50 &g3 Hg2+ 51 243 Sg1 52 4 94+ 53 &f4 bh2 54 &g5 g3 55 &xhS Be2 56 &g6 g2 57 bi Bc6+ 58 hg7 Be5 59 dg6 Uc6+ 60 &g7 Be7+ 61 B96 h-%Chigorin Defence with 12...cxd4 13 cxd4 Game 6 A.Grischuk-A.Zakharov Ubeda 2000 1 e4 e5 2 D3 Acé 3 &b5 a6 4 Lag 246 5 0-0 27 6 Ke b5 7 2b3 0-08 63 dé 9h3 DaS 10 &c2 cB 11 d4 We7 12 Dbd2 exd4 13 cxd4 &d7 Freeing the c8-square for a rook in order to logically press on the c-file, 14 DF Btcs ‘The text move suggests that Black will concentrate his attention to the queenside. In Game 7 Black ptefets the alternative idea of posting the queen's rook on this square. 15 De3 Aiming for d5 or £5 but also covering the c4-square. ‘The rarer move 15 S2d3 has historical significance: 15..c6 16 23 Wh7 Black could consider 16..exd4l? 17 Axd4 De5 or 17..\b4) 17 g3 He? (more ambitious is 17..Rd8!? 18 a3 Bb6 19 ds aS 20 ps De8 21 b3 Wal, G.Timoshenko-S.Brenjo, Belgrade 1995) 18 Bel Hac8 19 &bi De8 (another plan involves 19..Axd4 20 Dxd4 Excl 21 Bxcl exd4 22 Wad4 Be6 23 b3 and now 23..d5!2) 20 Wd2 g6 21 Hedi £62! 22 De2 BEB (G.Maroczy-R.Reti, New York 1924) and now 23 Del retains an edge ac cording to Alekhine 15...Ac6 16 2b3 a5 After 16..a3 White can keep a pull with 17 Dds Dxd5 18 Vxd5 Lc 19 bil, E.Anka-O Fismont, Harkany 1993. Instead 16..Wd8!? 17 23 (17 dxe5 Axe5 18 Adé is recommended by ECO) 17...Rab8 18 d5 Da 19 &c2 Det was prematurely agreed drawn in J.Van der WielJePiket, Dutch Championship 1999. White retains his space edge but Black is solid and rated higher! 17 dxeS Dxe5 If 17..dxe5# Black is pushed onto the back foot after 18 Ad5 Wd8 19 Ap5 Le8 20 Asf6+ 2xf6 21 Whs Sxg5 22 2x5. 18 Ada 18 a3 is suggested by Dolmatov. That would allow White to keep the bishop on the 22-g8 diagonal without having to exchange a pair of knights. 18...a4 19 Ad AxdS 20 &xd5 Babs 21 Sf4 216 22 Whs White’s better pawn structure and active pieces yield attacking chances, but Black's defensive chances in such positions shoulda’t be underestimated. 22...g6 23 We2 If Black doesn’t undertake anything active then Grischuk’s intention was to follow-up with Hadi, @h1, Bf, &h2 and 4-5. 23...De4 24 Hadt 24...2e5 If 24..WWa7 then White can continue 25 DEB Axb2 26 €5! when the complications aoeThe Ruy Lopez Main Line favour White, e.g. 26..2xd1 27 exfo Wxt2+ 28 Wxf2 Dxf2 29 He7! as pointed out by Grischuk. 25 &h6 Wa7 26 Af3 &xb2 27 e5! Cutting Black’s dark-squared bishop off from his king, 27...He8 Black has several alternatives: 27...2xe5? loses to 28 Bxc4 Hxct 29 @xe5 and 27.82.0321 leaves Black’s king in trouble after 28 Ags! xel 29 Qxf7+ Wh8 30 Weel. However 27...dxe5! is less clear as after 28 DgS eB 29 Ded We7 30 WE Bbo White has compensation for his pawns with ideas such as 31 h4 or 31 &g5 but Black is still in the game. 28 Dg5 Hxe5 29 &xf7+ Lh8 30 WI Bf5 31 Wg3 For his pawn White has an impressive ar- tay of pieces in the vicinity of Black’s king; however Dolmatov believe that Black can defend with 31..Ae5! 32 He2 Qd4. White can win back his pawn with the continuation 33 Re6 Lxe6 34 Dxe6 Rcd 35 Be7+ ps 36 Bxe5 dxe5 37 Bd5 with about equality, but I'm not sure that he can do any better. 31...806 32 &xc4 bxc4 33 Bxd6 Ze8 34 Exe8+ 2xe8 35 He6 2b5 36 &h2 1-0 Black Jost on time but after each of 36..Exf2 37 Wado Wa8 38 AS, 36.26 37 Bxfo Bxfo 38 We5 and 36...2g7 37 Bxg7+ Bxg7 38 Wd6 Sho 39 He7 Wxt2 40 Bxh7+ SSxg5 41 h4+ Weh4t 42 Bxh4 Gxhd 43 Wad+ deg5 44 d2g3 White wins, as pointed out by Grischuk, Game 7 V.Bologan-Peng Xiaomin Shanghai 2001 1 e4 e5 2 D3 Dc6 3 2bS a6 4 Gad }f6 5 0-0 2e7 6 Hel b5 7 2b3 dé 8 ¢3 0-0 9 h3 Da5 10 &c2 5 11 d4 We7 12 Abd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 2d7 14 DH Bac8 Choosing the queen’s rook. Its colleague will hope to find a role on the e-file or remain where it is to await events, 15 De3 ‘The advantage of 15 He2 is that the c2- square is securely defended. The bishop may at some point be able to come to b3 and bear down on the a2-g8 diagonal, whereas from 3 this is less likely. a) So after 15 He2: al) The immediate 15...c6 eases White's task to develop smoothly: 16 £e3 (or 16 gS Hfe8 17 Bet Wh7 18 ds Abs [clumsy but not serious] 19 b4 Bc3 20 2d3 Hec8 21 Bxc3 Exc3 22 Wh1 £8, L-Psakhis-D.Rogic, Ohrid 2001, and Black was able to reorganise) 16..exd4 17 Axd4 Bfe8 18 Ag3 26 19 2b3!? (a negative consequence of 15..Dc6) 19..a5 20 &g5 Dxb3 21 axb3 Wh7 22 Wa2, L.Bruzon-P.Acs, Cuba 2000, and despite the exchange of one of his bishops White retained some pressure. 22) Mote precise seems to be 15,..Etfe8 16 b3 4c6, played only now that White is committed to b2-b3. Then after 17 &b2 28 18 Hct Wb7 19 Bbl, the best way forward is 19..exd4! (a shade too passive is 19...g6 20 dxe5 dxe5 21 De3 Be7 22 Rd2 Le 23 @d5, M.Chandler-P.Thipsay, London 1989) 20 Axd4 eS 21 Bxc8 Axc8 22 Ags Dgo 23 Hel d5!, which was equal in R.Farakhov- A.Obukhov, Orsk 2001 b) The other method for White, 15 £d3 20Chigorin Defence with 12...cxd4 13 cxd4 ADc6 16 &e3, can be compared with Game 1, note to White’s 15th, where White employs the same development against ...kfc8. Then 16..exd4 17 Axd4 AeS 18 Ags (18 Bet Wb7 19 Bxc8 Exc8 [this could presumably transpose to Game 1, note to White’s 15th] 20 Bb1 Ac4 21 Bcl b4! [a noteworthy idea] 22 Bg} g6 23 b3 Da3 24 Ld3 AbS equal, GSax-]strada Nieto, Hungary 1999 and after 18 Bb1 Bes 19 Ags g6 20 4 Dc4 21 Qct ADbo the game DJakovenko- A.Obukhov, Russia 2001 remained tense) 18..@)xd3 (Obukhov now considers 18...26 19 2h6 Bfes 20 Het Wh7 21 Lb1 d5! with equality as better) 19 Wxd3 g6 20 2h6 Hes 21 Dee! with attacking chances, Ma.Tseitlin- A.Obukhov, St.Petersburg 1998. 15...De6 Possible is 15..Hkfe8!? 16 b3 Dc6 (16..exd4!? 17 Dxd4 Deb 18 Lb2 Axd4 19 Wxd4 &e6 20 Bad1 was prematurely drawn in B,Kutuzovic-D.Rogic, Bosnjaci 2002 but opening the centre looks a plausible alternative) 17 2b2, and now H.Westerinen- GRajna, Roskilde 1978 continued 17...2.d82! (Popovic points out 17.218 with the intention of playing ..exd4. This is in fact analogous to play following 15 He2 above, see note to White’s 15th, except White has economised a tempo here having done without Hel-e2) 18 Bet Wa7 19 dxe5 dxeS 20 Dad5 with a clear advantage for White, 16 d5 This is the main move here although White has experimented with various other ways to handle the central tension; perhaps of these 16 2b3 is the most dangerous alternative. a) 16 dxe5 DxeS 17 Add Bes (N.De Firmian-Pr.Nikolic, Reykjavik 1986) and now 18 2d2 suggested by Nikolic is unclear, In- stead White erred with 18 3? allowing 18...2xh3! as 19 gxh3 We3, threatens the rook as well as ...Wxd4 followed by ..Dxf3+, b) After the slow 16 a3?! Black should be tempted by 16...2xd4! 17 Axd4 exd4 18 Wxd4 d5! exploiting the loose nature of White's pieces. bl) 19 b4 dxe4 20 Bxe4 Bfd8 and Black was already better in V.Gavrikov-V.Hort, Tunis Interzonal 1985. b2) 19 e5 Bc5 20 Wes Bre8 21 AG Dns 22 WE &xf2+ 23 Wrf2 Wxc2, C.Hartman- LB.Hansen, Copenhagen 1996, also left White with problems, b3) 19 exd5 &c5 20 We3 Sxe3 21 Bxe3 Wsc3 22 Bxc3 Bxc3 23 bxc3 Dxd5 if anything favours Black. White’s compromised structure is not fully balanced by the bishop pair, Z,Siklosi-D.Rogic, Championship 2000. ©) 16 Bbt Axd4 (after 16..Bfe8 17 d5 Black no longer wins a tempo against the white bishop and the knight must therefore go to a less active square) 17 Dxd4 exd4 18 Wad4 Be6 19 Wal Dd7 20 &c2 BF6 and Black was sufficiently active in G.Sax J.Hjartarsson, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1984, d) The cheeky 16 2b3 can be met by 16..2a5 17 Bc2 Dc6 repeating, but this won't suit everyone! Black can instead play 16..exd4 17 Dxd4 Bfe8 to keep things going, but White will be pleased to have activated his bishop. In E.Bacrot-V.Korchnoi, Biel 2003, Black instead tried 16..xd4 17 Qxd4 exd4 18 Wadd Wes 19 Wd3 Bfes 20 DS Lxf5 21 exfS d5 22 @e3 Wh4 23 a3 Wed, but this gave White a small endgame advantage due Austrian Team meeThe Ruy Lopez Main Line to his bishop pair. If White, on the other hand, wants more than a repetition (apart from tying a 16th move alternative) then after 16 &b3 Da5 there are a couple of ideas: 1) 17 &d5!? but this led only to equality in Pe.Popovic-A.Savanovic, Budva 2003 after 17..Ac4 18 Bxct bxcd 19 We2 exd4 20 Dsd4 Bfe8 21 Def d5. 2) 17 Ads Dxd5 18 Bxd5 Dect 19 Qxc4 (the unusual idea 19 Sg5!? led after 19...xe5 20 AxgeS h6 21 Axt7? Bxt7 22 Act Whs? 23 b3 Abo 24 Exc8+ Lxc8 25 2xf7+ Sexf7 26 dxe5 to some advantage for White in J.Polgar-P.Acs, Essent 2002, but in this I suggest 22...@.c6! 23 b3 &xd5 24 exd5 Wh6 with equality as a plausible improvement) 19...bxc4 20 &d2 exd4 21 Axd4 Bf 22 2c3 Bfes 23 WO We5 24 Bad is a rea sonable try, G.Sax-D.Rogic, Pula 2001. 16...Db4 17 2b1 a5 18 a3 Da6 19 b4 White plays to restrict the black knight. 19...96 Switching attention to the kingside. a) Here 19...a8 intends to bring the other took into play on the c-file and prepares to compete for the afile after an eventual -axb4. One could argue that Black thus changes his mind about which rook to put on c8! True, but the queenside structure has changed since Black’s 14th. 20 2d2 Hfc8 21 B.d3 (21 bxa5?! frees the Black queenside and can be met by ..2c5, ..Wb7 and ...@d8 to win back the pawn) 21..axb4 (In both G Kasparov-JePiket, Internet 2000, 21..Wb7 22 g4 g6 23 AFI axb4 24 axb4 2d8 25 p3 cT, and LYagupov-A.Obukhov, Alushta 2002, 22 De? axb4 23 axb4 De8 24 Dh2 Rds 25 WE Dac? 26 ANe3 Bxal 27 Brat Ha8, White wasn’t able to obtain much pressure) 22 axb4 Wb7 23 Dh2 Ac7 24 Ahfi2) (a slack move that hands the initiative to his opponent; instead better is 24 We2 but 24..fixal 25 Hixal Ha8 is very solid for Black) 24...6al! (deflecting the queen) 25 Weal Db5! 26 Hc2 65! with good play for Black, V.Anand-JePiket, Amsterdam 199 b) Clarifying the queenside with the immediate 19..axb4 has its supporters, but it does open the a-file for White's rook: 20 axb4 Wb7 (20...2\6b42? just loses a piece after 21 2d2 WeS 22 Wh3) 21 Bd2 2d8 (or 21...96 22 &d3 Dh5 23 Fl Dg7 24 Wo3 Dc? 25 Adi £5 (a dynamic plan as White doesn’t seem to be going very far) 26 2d3 £4, A.Brkic-D.Rogic, Bosnjaci 2003) 22 &d3 Rb6 23 Abd (or 23 We2 Dc7 24 Adi Has 25 @c3 with modest pressure for White, F.Hellers-J.Howell, Reykjavik 1990) 23.06 24 WE 2d8 25 93 Hh8 26 Sh2 Aes 27 Dhg?2 Dc7 28 g4, as in GSax-P.Cladouras, Bundesliga 1992, and Black’s defence was solid after 28...e8 29 We2 Mp7. 20 242 Dhs Again Black can play 20...axb4 21 axb4 Wh7. ECO quotes 22 243 Ae? 23 Dc2 2Vh5 24 Be3 Has 25 Wa2 Bxal 26 Dxal 5 27 Bho Ag? 28 Db3 f4 29 Dad Who, M.Tal-J.Hjartarsson, Reykjavik 1986, when ‘Tal suggests 30 Dh2 intending 2d3-e2-p4 with an edge. It’s interesting to note however that ‘Tal played this line with the black pieces (up to move 21 when his opponent varied) against Michael Adams two years later. An indication that the former world champion believed in Black’s game, 21 £43 Bb7!7 ‘The most aggressive continuation for Black would be 21.4 22 @F1 £5, but after aeChigorin Defence with 12... exd4 13 cxd4 the further moves 23 exf5 gxfS 24 Sct Wb7 25 Exc8 Wxc8 26 bxa5 Ac5 27 Bb4 ef 28 Dd, as in P.Leko-P.Lukacs, Budapest 1993, White seemed to have the better of it. 22 De2 &dB 23 hE 23 bxa5 is possible but after 23..De5 24 Sib4 D4 25 RAL £5 things start to get murky. 23...0g7 24 Wd2 axb4 25 axb4 2b6 Black reorganises his pieces first before hitting out with ...65. 26 Hab1 Ac7 27 Dat £5 28 Db3 fxed If 28.867 then 29 Dad Bxa5 30 bxad should favour White slightly. 29 Sxe4 215 30 Oxf5 Exts According to Bologan after 30..gxf5 31 Ebdi £4 32 Da5 Qxa5 33 bxad b4 34 Ded White is clearly better. Instead 31... Nee’ 32 Da5 Bxa5 33 bxaS b4 may be more solid but one still has to prefer White. 31 bet Bxf3!? ‘Trying to activate at the cost of the exchange. Again the looseness of Black's structure enables White to get the better chances after 31..Be8 32 Da5 Bxa5 33 bxaS Dxd5 34 a6 Wa8 35 Bedi e4 36 Add Hfes 37 Wa2. 32 gxf3 DS 33 Bc6 Axh6 34 Wxhe Dxd5 35 Bxde 4 Black has lively pieces for his sacrifice but after White’s next move it doesn’t look enough. 36 Dd2 Ht8 37 Dea The imprecise 37 Bxe5 is met by 37...Wa7! with strong counterplay. 37...2d8 38 Ked1 De2+ 39 wkg2 Ada On 39..2f4t White simply plays 40 &h2 ete. 40 H1xd4! ‘The clearest way forward is to return the exchange; this climinates Black’s annoying knight and with it hopes of serious counterplay. 40...exd4 41 Hxd4 WE7 42 Hd3 White only has one (rather ugly) extra pawn but his king is significantly safer and this makes Black’s defence vety unpleasant. 42...207 43 Wd2 Wt4 44 We3 WH 45 Wa2 Wa 46 Wai 2t6 Certainly not 46...Sxb4?? 47 Wh3+. 47 Rd5 bs 48 Wd3 £e5 49 Dg3 WIE 50 Exb5 2xg3 51 &xg3 dB 52 Wea+ Gh8 53 Ed5 fe 54 Wes kg7 55 bs 1-0 Game 8 Y.Griinfeld-J.Pinter Manila Obympiad 1992 1 e4 e5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 Lb5 a6 4 Bad 26 5 0-0 2e7 6 Ze1 b5S 7 2b3 dé 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 Da 10 2c2 cB 11 d4 We7 12 Abd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 2b7 ‘This move, commonly known as Panov’s variation, has fallen out of fashion, 144 Closing the centre with 14 d5 is examined in the next game. The text continues the standard knight manoeuvre. 14,..acB 2 are 2 ee i ie a White has three moves to parry Black’s threat and against each of them he must be aware of the possibility of ...d5 blasting open the centre 15 Ee2 This slightly artificial-looking move is probably White’s best here. Both bishop moves have their negative side: 23The Ruy Lopez Main Line a) 15 Bd3 d5 16 dxe5 (16 @xe5 is less ef- fective here as 16..dxe4 is played with a gain of time and 16 exd5 e4 17 Bxet Axed 18 Exe4 Qxd5 19 Bet Wh7 20 Re4 Beas 21 Did2 Gb4 gave adequate counterplay for Black in B.Verlinsky-V.Panov, Moscow 1945) 16..xe4 17 Dg3 £5 18 exf> Bxf6 19 Dset dxe4 20 Bxe4, This is analogous to the variation in the note to White's 16th move starting with 16 dxe5, but here the rook is on e1 rather than e2. Now 20...2fd8 21 We2 He8 is somewhat annoying for White and thus Black has sufficient play, for example 22 Wd3 Qxe4 23 Bxed Hed8 24 Wr We2 in the game P-Ellrich- P.Ostermeyer, Helmbrechts 1963. b) 15 Bbt exd4! (trying to take advantage of the bishop on bl and rook on al which can be considered out of play with an open centre; however 15...d5?! is considered infe- tior in view of 16 exd5 exd4 17 2.25! when 17...n6 is met by 18 &xh6 gxh6 19 Wa2 with a strong attack) 16 @xd4 Kfe8 17 Dg3 d5! (the sharpest) 18 €5 (18 exd5 @b4 19 Bel We5 is fine for Black, M.Kozakov-A.Sulypa, Lvov 2000) 18..&b4 19 25 Hed8! (with 19...Qxe1? Black gets into trouble after 20 exf6) 20 295 Hxe5 21 Bxe5 Wxe5 22 DhS Dsh5 23 Bxd8 Df4 and ECO considers that Black has enough compensation for the pawn 15...d51? Instead 15...2h5 can be met with 16 d5, whereupon play would be similar to the next game, 16 Dxe5! White's two alternative captures don’t lead to any advantage. a) 16 dxe5 Axe4 17 Ag3 Beds! (better than 17.65 18 exf6 Bxf6 19 Axes dxe4 20 Bxet Bxe4 21 Bxed which doesn’t quite give enough play for the pawn, A.Gipslis- GBorisenko, USSR 1960) 18 AGB Lc5 19 2c3 Bxe3 20 Dxe3 Act, A-Tzoumbas- V.Kotronias, Peristeri 1994. b) 16 exd5 exd4 17 Dxd4 Axd5 18 Ret Bfd8 19 £5 a8, V.Hresc-7 trian Team Championship 1999. 16...Dxed In later games Joszef Pinter has tried 16..dxe4 17 Qg5 (similar is 17 Dgs Beds 18 DS 2d6 19 Axd6 Wxd6 20 Be3, H/Stefansson-}.Pinter, Lyon 1994) 17...Efd8 18 Dg3 h6 19 Bh4 Deb 20 Axe6 Lxcé 21 DS Wa7 22 Axe7+ Wxe7 23 Wa? (j.Murey- J.Pinter, French ‘Team Championship 1994) and White retains a small pull. 17 #3 Dae Siklosi, Aus- 18 b3 White also obtained the smallest of edges in G.Milos-R.Monier, Argentina 1998 with 18 &f4 Was 19 Wa3 96 20 Hael AS 21 Bhi Ld6 22 Wal Ag7 23 Dc3. 18...Rfe8 19 2f4 Wd8 20 Wd2 Although White only has a small advantage, Black has the problem that it’s much easier for White to improve and thus increase the pressure. 20...848 21 Hae1 Acé The knight secks a superior emplacement toad. 22 De3 De7 23 ha White presses and Black is without counterplay; clearly White has won the opening phase. 23...Ag6 24 295 We7 After 24...8e7, Griinfeld gives 25 &xe7 Fxe7 26 Wd3 with a clear advantage, but this looks too optimistic, e.g. 26..HecT intending 24Chigorin Defence with 12. cxd4 13 cxd4 to come to c3. Instead, White should probably prefer 25 A3g4 S.xg5 26 hxgs AFB 27 93 with attacking chances. 25 Da3 The cS5-square is another problem for Black. 25...2e7 26 &xe7 Dxe7 Griinfeld thinks that Black should prefer 26...2ixe7, but even then after 27 hS DfB 28 2c5 Hce8 29 h6 he has problems. 27 Dc5 Dgé 28 Wd3 He7 29 hd AS 30 5 DxfS 31 Wxt5 BceB 32 Bxe7 Exe7 33 Hxe7 Wxe7 34 WeS Simple exchanges expose the fact that Black has been playing most of the game with a bad light-squared bishop. 34.,.Wxe5 35 dxe5 £c8 36 wf2 d4 Otherwise White’s king comes to this square. For instance after say 36..De6 37 Dxeb fxe6 38 He3 h6 39 Bad LA7 40 kec5 sBe7 41 6 the win is only a matter of time. 37 Ge2 h6 38 2e4 a5 39 td3 Deb 40 Dxe6 Sxe6 41 wexd4 a4 42 2c2 axb3 43 axb3 1-0 Game 9 A.Shirov-J.Timman Belgrade 1995 1 e4 05 2 D3 Dc6 3 Abs a6 4 Lad 246 5 0-0 2e7 6 Hel b5 7 2b3 dé 8 63 0-0 9 h3 Ma5 10 2c2 cB 11 d4 We7 12 Abd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 2b7 1445 A logical move when the bishop is on b7 and the knight on a5, getting in each other's way. 14...Rac8 ‘The immediate 14...&c8 is sometimes played, the idea being that the bishop heads for a better diagonal at the cost of a tempo or two: a) 15 Afl Vd7 16 Dg3 Bécs 17 Ld3 Wh7 18 We2 2d8 (.Donner-M.Buwe, Beverwijk 1952) illustrates a typical rede- ployment, b) 15 &d3 d7 16 Hb1 Byes 17 b3 g6 18 |) Db7 19 b4 a5 20 a3 left the knight on b7 badly-placed, Z.Hracek-}.Radulski, Buda- pest Zonal 2000 ©) 15 b3 Bd7 16 &b2 Ah5?! (Matanovie instead suggests 16..Wa7 with ...2d8-b6 in mind) 17 Ar Des 18 Wa2 Wkes 19 Ded Was 20 Gh2 £8 21 Agi Db7 22 g3 was much better for White, A.Kapengut- V.Dydyshko, USSR 1976. 15 2b1 ‘The other option is 15 2d3 Ad? (in a similar vein to the main game Black could ty 15.5! 16 DEl Ae4 when after 17 Bxf4 exf4 Black has a tempo less than in Shirov- ‘Timman but this may not be significant: 18 Wa2 266 19 Hact W6 20 Hxc8 Hxc8 21 Wats Rxb2 22 Dgs Bf6 23 e5 Bxpd 24 Wxg5, P.Enders-R.Bernard, Rostock 1985, yields nothing for White after 24..\Wd8!) 16 DEB (16..Dc5 17 Ded Dxd3 18 Wed3 We2 19 Wac2 Bxc2 20 AES Be8 21 b3 also turned out favourable for White in K.Aseev- ZSturua, Lvov 1985) 17 Ags 4 18 DESI? 2d8 (18..Ex65 is a shade too courageous: 19 exfS Ac5 20 b3 £6 21 Bb Axd3 22 Wad3 We2 23 Wrxc2 Bxc2 24 Hb2 gave Black insufficient compensation in P.Leko-M.Gomez Estaban, Pamplona 1993/4) 19 b3 (19 @a2 Dc4 20 Ect g6 21 Ah6+ Bp7 22 b3 AcS with interesting complications, Pe.Popovic- J:Tompa, Yugoslavia 1991) 19...¢6 20 Dho+ deg7 21 Ags h5 22 Dgh2 as given by Leko is 25The Ruy Lopez Main Line clearly better for White as Black is still tan- gled up on the queenside. 15...h5 16 Df 16 @xe5? can be strongly met by 16..Mixcl! 17 Weel Hxel 18 Bxcl dees. 16.284 17 Bxta At the time a new and double-edged move. White gives the bishop and hopes for easy development, but the dark-squares are weakened. ‘The other principal line continues 17 Gh2 Wa7! 18 Ae3 (White could also try 18 Agt intending g2-¢3) 18...2d8 19 b3 g6 20 223 a8, where Black has ideas of ..Ab7 followed by ...2b6. Play is not clear especially as White's pieces don’t seem that harmonious, LSmirin-VLLitvinov, Minsk 1985, Note however that 17 e3? is bad because of 17..Wxel, as in J.Grana- S.Fetnandez, Spain 1999, 17...exf4 18 2d3 2f6 19 We2 In his notes, Shirov shows a preference for 19 bl, and if 19..Ac4 then 20 &xe4. This was tried out in Dm-Schneider- P.Mahesh Chandran, Nakhchivan 2003 when after 20..Wxc4 21 Wa2 ¢5 22 D1h2 White went on to win the game, but things weren’t at all clear. 19...We5 Wedberg suggests 19..A\c4!2, Now if 20 Bact Wb6 21 b3 then 21...De5 is fine. 20 Hact tba 20..Wscl? is bad because of 21 Exel Axct 22 Wa2 with a nasty fork. 21 b3 Lifes Black has enough activity on the dark- squates to compensate for his clumsy queenside pieces. 22 Exc8 &xcB!? 23 We2! \ WN Ww" une SW we NS LI lisgit=> ‘Timman is made to regret not having tried 23..\b7! 24 We6 Hd8 25 Wrab DcS 26 Wexb5 Wc3 with adequate compensation eg. 27 Be? Dred, 27 Qb1 Lxh3 or 27 Lc4 Bab, 24 Hct Wxe2 25 Bxc2 In the simplified position the problem of the knight on the edge becomes more significant. 25...b4 26 Bc7 2b7 27 D1d2 #18 28 &f1 He7 29 Bxe7 cxe7 30 he2 2c3 31 Db1 4a1 32 Det Heading for the loose pawn on b4... 32...f5 33 Dc2 fred 34 fixed 216 35 Axb4a ..and now the a6-pawn becomes a target. 35...h6 36 2d3 2d4 37 Ac2 2a7 38 De3 1-0 If now 38...&c8, then 39 b4 Ab7 40 Bxa6 etc. Note how Black’s queenside pieces were helpless even in an ending. 26Chigorin Defence with 12...cxd4 13 cxd4 Summary The fashionable move 13..4d8 is a critical area particularly when the centre opens with ...d5. Further developments in the sharp tactical lines of Game 3 ate to be expected over the coming years. ‘The slower manoeuvring of the traditional 13...\c6 and the solid 13...2d7 may better suit positional players but precise handling by White may yield a small pull into the middlegame. Panov’s variation 13...2b7 is out of sorts as both 14 d5 (gumming up Black’s queenside minot pieces) and 14 Fl (not minding any opening of the centre) 14..Hac8 15 Be2 d5 are generally accepted as favourable for White. 1 e4 e5 2 AF3 Ac6 3 2b5 a6 4 Lad AG 5 0-0 Se7 6 Eel b5 7 2b3 dé 8 c3 0-0 9h3 a5 10 Bc2 c5 11 d4 We7 12 Abd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 ds 13..Ae6 14.45 — Game 4 14 Db3 — Game 5 14.23 — Game 5 notes 13...b7 (Panov’s Variation) 14.45 (D) = Game 9 14 DEl — Game 8 13...d7 14 DEL 14...Elfe8 (D) — Game 6 14,.Hac8 — Game 7 14O4n 14.b3 — Game 3 14 d5—Game I notes 14...exd4 14..d5 — Game 1 notes 15 Oxd4 - Game 2 15 BE4— Game 1 14 d5 14... Afc& 18...05 aesCHAPTER TWO Chigorin Defence: 12th Move Alternatives 1 ed 05 2 AF3 Dc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Lad 26 5 0-0 £e7 6 Bei bS 7 &b3 dé 8 63 0-0 9 h3 DaS 10 Bc2 cB 11 a4 We7 This is the starting point of what has been called the Classical Chigorin, In Chapter One, White continued with 12 @bd2 and then Black with 12..cxd4. Here wwe look at various 12th move alternatives. An important consideration in the gorin is the possibility of White playing d4- at some point closing the centre. The immediate 12 d5 is featured in Game 10 whereas in Games 13 and 17 White also opts for d4- d5 but one move later. With the centre blocked for the moment, play switches to the wings and a period of heavy manoeuvring is in prospect. This popular method avoids tactical surprises, but with no action in the centre Black may well have sufficient time to reorganise his pieces for the defence. The most logical moment is in Game 17 where d4-d5 is played with a gain of time. After the popular 12 Abd2 Black has several reasonable moves apart from 12..cxd4. In Game 12 Smyslov’s 12...2d7 continues natural development by linking rooks but puts no immediate pressure on the centre. Another cautious plan involves 12...2e8 with ...g6, and ...2.e7-£8-g6 to follow as in Game 11, It’s popular these days to bring the rook to d8, with plans of arranging a timely ..d5, either on move 12 (Games 13 and 14) ot after the exchange of pawns on the c-file (see Games 1-3 in Chapter 1), Those who generally prefer having some open lines in a position may prefer 12..cxd4 13 cxd4 Hd8 whereas those not unduly worried by the blocked centre will find the material in this chapter satisfactory. Tsanspositions between the two related systems are on the cards if Black soon plays ...cxd4 anyway. The traditional 12...Dc6 invites White to release the tension in the centre. In reply the once popular 13 dxc5 is largely ignored at the highest level these days as it’s considered to lack bite. I have included two model Fischer games to illustrate how play may develop, one win by him and one by his opponent! ‘The natural 13 d5 hitting the knight is considered a better way of achieving an opening advantage as illustrated by Svidler’s win over Piket in Game 17. Game 10 N.Short-E.Bareev Dortmund 1995 1 e4 e5 2 3 Ac6 3 AbS a6 4 Lad 28Chigorin Defence: 12th Move Alternatives 6 5 0-0 £e7 6 Hel b5 7 2b3 0-08 63 d6 9h3 a5 10 &c2 cB 11 d4 Wc7 1245 Closing the centre at this point is not considered to be especially dangerous for Black. Black is able to place his bishop at will on d7 (its best square) and he can immediately redeploy his sidelined knight. If we compare an carly d4-d5 from Chapter 3 (see Games 20- 23) here White has clearly chosen a less critical moment. 12...0¢4 Black prepares to bring the knight back to the more-in-touch b6-square. As a general rule, counterchances often involve an eventual ...f7-f5 and ...c5-c4. The former gaining space on the kingside, the latter on the other wing. These moves can be used to try and undermine the White centre. For instance, in certain cases the d5-pawn becomes dislocated from its colleagues as ..£7-f3 may remove the White e-pawn and .c5-c4 denies support from the white c- pawn. The knight on b6 may help in this process with its influence on e4 and d5. Black should remain flexible but at the same time be focused on his aims and ready to react on either wing. White’s space advantage can turn into something more concrete if Black plays planlessly. ‘The alternatives suggest that the text is not the only path to a satisfactory game: a) 12..c4? 13 b4 (or 13 Dbd2 Ab7 14 AFI Ac {the knight is well-placed here] 15 24 [avoiding any ideas of ...f 5] 15.8 16 Dg3 b8 17 h2 a5 [expanding on the queenside to seek counterplay] 18 Kgl b4 19 Qe3 Bab 20 Dd2 Habs 21 Hbt Hb7 with an unclear position, A.Antunes-MSisniega, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990) 13...cxb3 (13...Db7 leaves the knight badly placed) 14 axb3 (White obtains some pressure on the a file) 14..De8 15 2d3 g6 16 Bho Ag? 17 Be2 £5 18 Hea? fxe4 19 Bxe4 Ab7 20 b4 a5 and Black held firm, J-Becerro Rivera- A Shabalov, Virginia Beach 2002. b) 12..De8 13 b3 Db7 14 Aba? go 15 a4 Hb8 16 axb5 axbS 17 DFl Dg? 18 Vh6 (18 g4 is critical) 18..d8 19 b4 f6 20 Had DE7 (this knight's manoeuvre is typical of such positions) 21 Sxg7 Sixg7 22 Ag3 dB! 23 We2 cA! and Black has the better prospects as his bishop is heading for b6 to dominate the a7-gl diagonal, MSion Castro- A.Beliavsky, Leon 1994. © 12.2d7 13 b3 Db7 14 cf Gin ZHracek-PrNikolic, Selfoss 2002 Black’s king’s knight again headed for £7: 14 a4 Bibs 15 a3 De8 16 We2 Dd’ 17 Ld2 g6 18 Dh2 {6 19 c4 bxad 20 bxat AL 21 Ags 8.8 and Black is ready for anything) 14...b4 15 Abd2 De8 16 ALl go 17 Kho Ag7 18 gt £6 19 Bg3 and as everything has become rather blocked a draw was agreed in G.Kaspatov-A Matanovic, Banjaluka 1979. 13 a4 If 13 b3 Abo 14 Be3 Dc8 15 Abd2, Black should get his kingside counterplay going eg. 15..g6 16 &h6 Ag 17 Dfl £5 18 Bh2 266 19 We2 c4 offers Black adequate counterchances, I.Boleslavsky-A.Tarnowski, Krynica 1956, 13...2d7 Otherwise 13...b6 is possible. White has tried the following: a) 14 b3 (trying to transpose back to the main game could be met with...) 14..bxa4l? 15 bxad a5 16 @a3 @a6 17 2d3 c4, MSion Castro-].Campos Moreno, Palma de Mallorca 29The Ruy Lopez Main Line 1991, and Black follows up with ..d7-c5, b) 14 a5 Dc4 15 b4 cxb4 16 exb4 Bd7 should be OK for Black. ©) 14 axb5 axb5 15 Bxa8 Dxa8 16 Abd2 Db6 17 DEL c4 18 D3h2 g6 19 g4 h5 (fighting for control of key squares) 20 g3 h4 21 De2 Dh7 22 Bh6 He 23 £4 y5 24 fees (A.Kosteniuk-P.Acs, Wijk aan Zee 2003) was comfortable for Black who should now capture with the bishop and achieve a fine game. 14 b3 be ‘The significant alternative 14..Da5 is also respectable: 15 axb5 (only equal was 15 b4 Det 16 Dbd2 cabs 17 cxb4 Bkev, Niloseliani-Liu Shilan, Velden 1983) 15..axb5 16 Dbd2 (or 16 Re3 Ab7 17 @Dbd2 Ha 18 Whi Has 19 Wh2 Aes 20 2d3 g6 with equality, MKuijéP.Van der Sterren, Budel Zonal 1987) 16...b7 17 &b2 Ba5! (17.26 18 c4 DhS 19 cxb5 Sxb5 20 Bcd £6 21 Wd2, G.Kasparov-G.Kuzmin, Thilisi 1978, is an example from the world No.1’s youth; here he can claim an edge) 18 fl BfaB 19 Bxas Wxa5 20 Wd2 Who and Black has no problems on the queenside, D.Gross-A.Elmady, Egypt 2002. 15 a5 Gaining time and space but leaving the a- pawa potentially exposed. 15...Dc8 16 Abd2 Instructive was the continuation of G.Kasparov-V.Ivanchuk, Prague rapid 2003: 16 b4 c4 17 Abd2 g6 18 Afl Dh5! 19 Vh6 He8 20 Wa2 2£8 21 Dg3 Dxo3 22 fxg3 De? 23 Hel {6 24 We2 GhS 25 Be3 Bp7 26 g4 2B and White was unable to make any headway. 16...g6 17 Df1 De8 18 Zhe A typical move, but Bareev considers 18 g4 Dg7 19 Dg3 to be more precise. 18...0\g7 19 g4 At various stages White can consider b3- b4, consolidating the advanced a-pawn. He also has available an active plan based on @3-h2, preparing a quick £2-F4, as Black is not yet well organised for an opening of the position. 19...2d8 20 Dg3 De7 Heading for g8. 21 4?! This turns out poorly as Black is able to obtain breathing space on the queenside. Wedberg prefers 21 b4 to defend the a-pawn. If instead 21 Ad2 Sh8 22 £4 then 22..Dg8! competes for the dark-squares. 21...@h8 22 &h2 DgB 23 fe3 bxcd 24 bxc4 15 aq ‘An interesting moment. Black sharpens the struggle with ...£ now that his king is snugly hidden away. 25 exf5 gxfS 26 gxf5 xf5 With the benefit of hindsight Bareev now prefers 26...\xf5! as 27 Wd3 can be met by 27 .&c8! freeing the pin as h7 is now defended. 27 Qd2! Hoping to get a grip on the e4-square whereas after 27 xf Dxf5 Black’s counterplay on the Ffile gives him the initiative, ie. 28 xf BxfS 29 Ad? B95 30 &xe5 Exg5 31 Ded HES as pointed out by Bareev. 27.,.208 Bareev criticises this plan (to grab the h- pawn) without offering an alternative, but retaining his best bishop isn’t such a bad idea anyway. 28 gi! Wd7 29 Xg2! De7 Grabbing a hot pawn with 29..Wsh3+ is dangerous as after 30 gi D6 31 Hth2 Wa? 30Chigorin Defence: 12th Move Alternatives 32 Dded Black will have problems to defend hy. 30 gi DefS 31 AxtS Axis 32 Wg4? A poor move. Instead critical is 32 &xf5! WxfS 33 Wh6 Bg8 34 HxgSt+ Gxg8 35 Bad Sh4! 36 Wri Wy6+ 37 Wy2 LFS 38 Hb3 when White obtains the b-file (and thus an edge) but nothing concrete. 32...Wf7 33 We2 Zbs Black’s pieces spring to life. 34 &e4 Eb2 36 Wd3 Axe3 36 Wxe3 If 36 fxe3 then 36....S&xh3 37 Bh2 Wh5 38 We2 Wh4 leaves White with litte hope. 36...Wi4 37 OF1 Hf7 38 a3 oa 39 Wxta exfa ‘The exchange of queens accentuates the problems in White’s position, 40 h2 Be7 41 £3 Alternatively 41 283 loses to 41..Bxe4 42 Dxh4 Bett 43 &h2 Ebb 44 Hes Bhit 45 S&g2 Bhgl+ winning a rook. 41...2g7! 0-1 Exchanging White’s best defender leaves his king in a hopeless mess (42 Hixg? Yxg7 as ..£2xh3 is coming) and no better is 42 Dod Expat 43 dexg? hi. Game 11 C.Lutz-J.Pinter French Team Ch., Bischwiller 2003 1 e4 e5 2 Of3 Dc6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Bad D6 5 0-0 &e7 6 He1 b5 7 2b3 0-08 h3 d6 9 c3 DaS 10 Lc2 c5 11 d4 Wc7 12 Abd2 ‘The aggressive 12 b4 has been rather forgotten, but contains some sting: 12..cxb4 13, cxb4 and now: a) 13..Ac6 14 &b2!? (an interesting gambit whereas 14 a3 Dxd4 15 Axd4 exd4 16 Qb2 Le6 17 Qxd4 Dd7 18 Dc3 L6, 1.Bondarevsky-S.Gligoric, Hastings 1961/2 was about equal) 14...A\xb4 15 &b3 Ac6 16 Dc3 Bb7 17 Hct Was 18 Dds Da5 (1 suggest 18..Axd4! 19 Dxd4 DxdS 20 Qxd5 Qxd5 21 exd5 exd4 when White’s compensation doesn’t imptess) 19 Dxe7+ (19 dxe5 dxe5 20 Qxe5, K.Klundt-CRenner, Augs- burg 1987, may offer White an edge) 19...iixe7 is given as equal by ECO, but after the further moves 20 a3 Axb3 21 axb3 Dsxe4 22 dxe5 Hfd8 23 exd6 (E.Vasiukov- R.Kholmov, USSR Championship 1966) I prefer White, b) 13...Ac4l (the safest way to equality) 14 Dbd2 27 15 Axed bxc4 16 d5 a5 17 b5 a4 18 Bxat WaS 19 Bc2 Wxb5 (MTal- RSanguinetti, Munich Olympiad 1958) and Black had successfully navigated the opening to equalise 12...He8 13 Df1 g6 Less precise is 13...£28 in view of 14 &g5 (a nuisance of a move, but perhaps not the only way to obtain an edge) 14,.d7 15 b3 Db6 16 Eel (practical, just completing development and waiting to see Black's intentions; instead 16 2d2#1 De6 17 dxc5 dxe5 18 2)e3 Be6 was more comfortable for Black in M.Matulovic-B.lvkov, Belgrade 1964) 16..2e6 (16..b7 is suggested as an improvement in Informator 4) 17 &.d2 £6 18 c4 Nb7 19 dxe5 dxe5 20 2d3 Wa7 21 We2, as in E.Geller-B.Ivkov, Budva 1967. Here ECO claims an edge for White who can quickly get a knight to d5 whereas Black cannot. 14 b3 218 25 B97 16 Wad2, V.Korchnoi- V.Smyslov, USSR Championship 1973, Black 31The Ruy Lopez Main Line decided to open the centre with 16..cxd4, but after 17 cxd4 exd4 18 Dxd4 Ac6 19 Dxc6 Wrc6 20 Dg &b7 21 Kact Hack 22 &b1 Wb6 23 Bc3! White retained an edge. Delaying matters by one move with 16...2b7 17 ADg3 exd4, also led after 18 exd4 exd4 19 Dxd4 Deb 20 Deb &xe6 21 Bad He6 22 b4 to a slightly preferable game for White in E.Geller-B.Ivkov, Skopje 1969. In L.Guliev-.Pinter, Condom 2003 the players indulged in some heavy manoeuvring: 16..Ac6l? 17 Kacl &b7 18 bi Das 19 Dg3 c4 20 b4 Ac 21 d5 AbS 22 Ah4 and White retained a pull but Black was rock- solid. 15...8g97 16 d5 2d7 17 &g5 DAb7 Pinter attempted to improve in a later game with 17...c4 in M.Kazhgaleyev-].Pinter, French Team Championship Besangon 2003, but after the continuation 18 b4 Db7 19 a4 a5 20 axbS Rxb5 21 Bad Sxa4 22 Wrad Rec8 23 Ad2 Ad7 24 Le3 h5 25 Wh5 axb4 26 Wexb4 he had difficulties. 18 Wd2 Gh 19 Dh2 Hg8 20 Ef 16 White is preparing to expand on the kingside, whereas Black pushes back the bishop and in the meantime generates the useful defensive square £7 for his queen’s knight. 21 Be3 DdB 22 ha! 22...087 Stopping White's h-pawn with 22..h5 is not without tisk, White would prepare an eventual sacrifice to prise open Black’s king. 23 h5 g5 Something of a concession. Instead exchanging dark-squared bishops with 23...§2h6!? comes into consideration, Elimi- nating one’s bad bishop is a positive step, but leaving the dark-squares exposed to attack isn’t, so 24 &xh6 Agxh6 25 £4 still yields a White initiative, 24 a4 bxa4? This leads to a loss of grip on the light squares. I suggest instead 24..eb8, as then 25 b4 can be met with 25...cxb4 26 exb4 He8 when the queenside structure remains intact. 25 ba! Leading to the exchange of light-squared bishops, a positional catastrophe for Black. 25...2b5 26 2xad cxb4 27 cxb4 Zeb8 Here 27...2xf1 28 &xe8 Hxe8 29 Exfl is no improvement. 28 Sxb5 Bxb5 29 Efcl Wb7 30 2c4 Be8 31 Hact Hxc4 32 Exc4 Ath6 33 Wes White calmly takes possession of the c- file, 33..,Wa8 34 Hc8 Wb7 35 Kc7 Ws 36 Uc8 Wb7 37 Hc7 Wb8 38 2a7 We 39 Hc8 Wt7 40 Ec7 Wt8 41 Dnf1 £5 ‘The only hope. Otherwise De3 followed by its implantation on f5 will be too strong. 42 exf5 Dxf5 43 Wed hé After 43..@\fe7, White keeps the pressure on with 44 Ded! (not 44 Dc3?! Wd8 45 Def5 L£6 which doesn’t get far, especially as Black threatens ...Exb4) 44.06 45 Dxd6 Dfxd5 46 &c5! with a very strong attack, or in the case of ixd5, then 45 Axg5. 44 De3 Dxg3 45 fxg3 De7 46 Wo4 ter! Cracking under the strain of such an on- erous defensive task. Instead 46..WWE7 requires White to be precise. The most incisive is then 47 &c5! (47 Wa7? can be countered by the cheeky 47...Exb4!) 47..dxe5 48 d6 Exb4 49 Hxe7 when the d-pawn should seal the day. 47 We6 Exb4 48 f5 1-0 32Chigorin Defence: 12th Move Alternatives Game 12 E.Ermenkov-I.lbragimov Dubai 2000 1 e4 e5 2 D3 Dcé 3 2b5 a6 4 Sad D6 5 0-0 2e7 6 Hel b5 7 2b3 dé 8 ¢3 0-0 9 h3 Dab 10 &e2 cB 11 44 We7 12 Dbd2 2d7 Developing the last minor piece in this modest way was an idea developed by Smys- lov and others half-a-century ago. 13 D1 a) 13 b4!? is a rather direct way to seck space on the queenside. Then 13..cxb4 14 exb4 Acé (14..Acd4?! is considered more risky for Black eg. 15 Axed bxc4 16 Be3 Bfe8 17 Bb2 LB 18 Bet, V.Korchnoi- Blvkov, USSR-Yugoslavia 1958) 15 a3 Bfc8 16 23 a5 17 d5 Ad’ 18 &b2 a4 19 Bet W7 20 Sc2 De8 21 Afi g6 22 Dg3 Ag? 23 We2 f6 24 2d3 447, and Black had no problems, L.Ljubojevic-R-Hernandez, Bue- nos Aires Olympiad 1978, b) Closing the centre with 13 d5 when Black’s pieces have room to manocuvre shouldn’t be too dangerous. Indeed this position sometimes occurs with White having an extra tempo, eg. D.Jakovenko-Y Balashov, Russian Championship Krasnodar 2002 went 12..Qe6!? (instead of 12...2d7) positively provoking 13 d5 Sd7, but then White’s 14 b3 made sense, keeping an eye over events on the queenside. Coming back to 12...S2d7 13 d5, legendary Ruy Lopez specialist Paul Keres had this position with both colours: 13..2\b7 14 DEt c4 15 g4 h5 16 D3h2 hxg4 17 hxed We8 (or even 17...Ah7!2) 18 De3 6 19 #g2 &g7 20 Hh8 (P-Keres-GFriedemann, ‘Tallinn 1935) and 13...c4 14 DEL Db7 15 3 Ded 16 D3d2 g6 17 £4 exf4 18 Bxf4 DhS 19 Bho Dg7 20 Ae3 Bf 21 Be Was 22 WB 2g5 (V.Mikenas-P.Keres, ‘Tallinn 1937) and in both cases Black can look forward to a satisfactory middlegame. ©) Over the years 13 dxeS has been played on many occasions, but it seems to me that modern White players recognise that this simplified approach doesn’t push Black as much as keeping the tension, Here are some sample lines, which are by and large reasonable for Black. Note that, as a mule, Black should cover the target squares 5 and f whereas the manoeuvre ...c5-c4, followed by ...2a5-b7-c5 should offer chances of counterplay: 13..dxe5 cl) 14 We2 c4 15 Dfl Hads 16 De3 Be6 17 DPS QxfS 18 exfS Bfe8, A.Onischuk- JePiket, Biel Blitz 1999, 2) 14 DEL Ac4 15 b3 Ab6 16 a4 cA! 17 a5 cxb31, LBoleslavsky-V.Smyslov, 1946. 3) 14 Db? Bads 15 WH Hfes 16 Dnet Be6 17 De3 c4 (17...96 is simpler) 18 AB £8 (Ftacnik recommends 18..b7 19 Dfl cS, bringing the queen’s knight to bear down on d3) 19 Dfl Ad7 20 Die3 Dcd 21 Dd5 Bxd5 22 exd5 Wb7, E.Mortensen- PH.Nielsen, Danish Championship 1994. 13...2¢4 With the bishop on d7 there is a double reason for White to think about bringing his knight to €3: ‘There is less pressure on the e4- pawn and Black is not covering the d5-square that well. ‘The reasoning behind 13...Dc4 is to firstly watch ¢3 and if the knight is booted back, then from b6 it helps to protect d5. The non-committal move 13...Kfe8 has 33The Ruy Lopez Main Line been played occasionally: a) 14 De3 g6 15 Qd2 2 16 Bel Acé 17 d5 De7 18 c4 gives White an edge due to a space advantage allied to well-organised pieces, F.Olafsson-B.Sliwa, Marianske Lazne 1961, b) 14 d5 c4 15 g4 hS! (with the thematic kingside counter) 16 A3h2 hxg4 17 Axed Qxgt 18 bxg4 Dh7, J.Suuk-LIbragimov, Fuerth 2001, c) 14.b3 g6 (for 14..cxd4 15 cxd4 Bac8 see Chapter 1) 15 @g5 Dh5 16 Bxe7 Bxe7 17 De3 DLS 18 Hel (or 18 Wd2 Hack 19 Hadi @b7, M.-Tal-W.Unzicker, Moscow 1982) 18...b7 19 b4 c4 20 a4, yields some pressure for White, LStein-A Matanovic, Tel Aviv Olympiad 1964. Finally, 13..cxd4 14 exd4 followed by either rook to c8 is known from Chapter 1 14 Dg3 White has several alternatives of which the Jatter is perhaps best: a) ECO considers 14 We2 as favourable, but is rather optimistic about White's chances: 14..4fe8 15 b3 Zb6 16 dxeS don’t rate this idea unless White can organise dS early, which is not the case here) 16..dxe5 17 c4 DhS 18 Bd2 Habs 19 a4 bxad 20 bxad Gd6 21 a5 Dc8 22 Bad Bxat 23 Hxad a7 24 g3 6 25 Had Dc and Black was slightly better in V-Topalov- A Frolov, Biel Interzonal 1993, b) After 14 24, Keres suggests 14...cxd4 15 cxd4 Bac8 although in practice placing the other rook on c8 has been more popular. ¢) 14 d5 is analogous to a number of other lines covered both here and in other games. Here is another example: 14..g6 (Hibner likes this plan, see another game between the same opponents in the note to Black’s 14th) 15 2d3 Ab6 16 Bho HAb8 17 v4 c4 18 Bc 2.18 19 Bg5 (the exchange of these bishops is generally fine for Black if White can’t exploit the kingside dark squares) 19...2¢7 20 Dg3 Dad 21 Abi Dc5, with an interesting game in prospect. White will hope to achieve something on the kingside whereas Black intends a5 and ..b4, $.Dolmatov- R.Hiibner, Bundesliga 1992. d) Exchanging a pair of knights with 14 De3 cases Black's space problems, eg, 14..Axe3 15 Qxe3 Bfc8 (15.26 intending .“Dn5 is recommended by Hiibner) 16 Het Bc6 17 Da2 cxd4! (17..Wb7 18 d5 7 19 4 is less promising for Black) 18 exd4 Wb7 19 dS Se8 20 We2 Md8! (A.Karpov- ‘T.Petrosian, Milan Match 1975) and with the bishop coming to b6 Black has equalised. ©) 14 b3! Db6 15 De3 Aooks critical) 15...c4 (Ibragimov, who is a leading expert in this line, avoided the standard ...c4 move in a recent encounter: 15..Efe8 16 dxc5 dxc5 17 c4 B£8 18 Qb2 96 19 a4 bxa4 20 bxad a5 21 Bbt HaG 22 Bc3 Bho 23 Dds Afeds 24 cxd5 £6, R.Paramos Dominguez-LIbragimov, Ubeda 2001 with reasonable chances for Black) and now there are two noteworthy moves: €1) 16 bxc4 has been played many times: 16..\xc4 17 Dxcd bxc4 18 @a3 (here 18 a4 Hfe8 19 Be3 Was 20 Wd2 Habs of V.Korchnoi-T.Petrosian, Candidates Tour- nament 1962 was only equal) 18..2fe8 (the threat was 19 Axe5) 19 We2 (or 19 Eb1 g6 20 Bh2 26 with a satisfactory game for Black, M.Wahls-R-Hiibner, Munich 1992) 19.88 20 d2 Kec8 (surely 20..exd4!? 21 cxd4 c3 22 4b3 a5 is more combative) 21 Beb1 WaS 22 Qb4 We7 23 dxe5 dxe5 24 Axf8 BxfB 25 Eb4 kept the pressure on in J.Nunn-W.Unzicker, Bundesliga 1989, but Black played too passively. €2) 16 Sa3l? Hfes 17 Wd2 a5 (criticised by Ernst but 17..Hac8 18 &b4 2£8 19 Ead1, B.Simonovic-$.Vukovic, Yugoslav Championship 1946, left White in control) 18 bxc4! (now Shirov is ready to simplify, as a3 has taken away the a Black’s queen and weakened the b5-square) 18..Axc4 19 Axc4 bxc4 20 d5 (Shirov later proposed 20 Had as preferable) 20.28 21 We2 g6 22 Dd2 Beck 23 Bh2 Babs 24 juare from 34Chigorin Defence: 12th Move Alternatives Babi Eb5 25 BxbS &xb5 26 bl with white pressure, AShirovJePiket, Wijk aan Zee 1998, 14,..2fe8 Otherwise the alternative plan starting with 14..g6 led to a satisfactory game for Black in S.Dolmatov-R.Hiibner, Manila Tn- terzonal 1990: 15 d5 De8 16 a4 Ag7 17 b3 Da5 18 axbS axb5 19 Sho Db7 20 Wa2 EBfb8 21 b4 £6 22 Ah2 Aas. 15 d5 Ab6 16 Dh2 c4 Gaining space on the queenside and access to the c5-square. However White has designs on the central d4-square, an influential square for a knight. Alternatively 16..b4 has been played but in the following example Black suffered for having ceded the c4- square to his opponent: 17 cxb4 cxb4 18 b3 WH7 19 2d2 Ac8 20 Bd3 B48 21 We2 a5 22 Dhfl Da7 23 De3 Db 24 Apts Ws 25 WH Dd4 26 Dxd4 exdd 27 Acd Le7 28 4 Had8 29 €5, Y.Kruppa-AFrolov, Po- dolsk 1989. 17 4! In general, the disadvantage of an early £2- f4 is the risk of losing control of the dark squares, but here Black's pieces are not well placed to compete actively in the centre. 17...exf4 18 &xf4 Had 19 Bb1 Ac5 20 Df3 Wh6 21 Ad4 b4 22 wh2 ab Although Black has made some progress, White’s piece disposition is by far the most menacing, 23 WH3 b3 24 axb3 cxb3 25 &d3 a4 After 25..Axd3 26 Wxd3 Ermenkov intended Agf5 and Wg3 with an attack. 26 DdfS 248 27 Lg5 Axt5 28 Dxts td7 29 21 De5 30 Wg3 Acd7 Black organises his central defences, but White now presses on the light squares, 31 Daa! Intending &b5 and so forcing a clumsy reply. 31,..8a5 32 h4 Anticipating ...26. 32...96?! Ermenkov points out Black’s best defence: 32..h51, as 33 e2 g6 34 &xh5? fails to 34..gxh5 35 £d8+ Dpd+ with check! 33 h5 297 34 hxg6 hxg6 35 He3 With two of Black’s major pieces out of touch on the queenside White just probes away on the other wing, Tbragimoy must have been alarmed by the prospect of facing Wh4 and Bh3 so he tries to fight back. 35...f67! ‘A panicky move that weakens the e6- square. Black can instead delay this move, eg, 35..Ac5 (intending ..a3 with counterplay) 36 £2 (36 Wh42! is premature due to 36...£6!) 36...a3 37 bxa3 Bxa3 38 Wh4 £6! (38..Ded7? is too slow after 39 £h3) 39 Bxf6 &xf6 40 Wst6 Wd8 with chances to hold the ending. 36 24 &t7 37 Be2! ‘This bishop is heading for g4 and then 6. 36The Ruy Lopez Main Line 37.,.Bh8+ 38 &g1 Ah6 39 Lg4 Lxfa 40 Wxf4 Ac5 41 Hi Wd8 42 26+ Se8 43 Hh3! 43. Wxf6? would be naive as after 43..Wxf6 44 Hxf6 a3 Black’s counterplay would be very dangerous on the queenside. 43...Exh3 44 &xh3 We7 45 Wh4 a3 46 bxa3 Hxa3 47 b5! In Informator 78 Ermenkov gives 47 Bxf6 AFT 48 Be6 as winning, but this seems too optimistic as after 48..Halt+ 49 @h2 b2 50 Dc6 b1Q 51 Wxf7+ Ld7 Black is ready to give perpetual. 47...1a5 48 Wh8+ 2t7? Here 48. WB! resists, eg, 49 DxdGt de7 50 Ac8+ G8 with a repetition for White but can he play for more? Exmenkov intended 51 Wh? but was aware of the resource 51...Axe4. However this isn’t the end of the story as 52 d6! (but not 52 Wc7? We5+) 52...65 (52...Dxd6? fails to 53 Bcf! Wf 54 Wet) 53 Hdl b2 54 W7 still yields winning chances for White. 49 24 We8 50 Wh7+ 1-0 Game 13 P.Leko-R.Kasimdzhanov Yerevan 2001 1 e4 05 2 Df3 Dc6 3 2b5 a6 4 Bad 6 5 0-0 £e7 6 Hel bS 7 2b3 dé 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 aS 10 &c2 cB 11 d4 We7 12 Abd2 Kas This is similar, and can transpose, to the popular 12...cxd4 13 cxd4 Ed8 of Chapter 1, Games 1-3. White now has a wide choice but must be aware that Black may at some point be ready for 13 d5 Closing the centre is far from the only way to handle the position: a) 13 dxe5?! is not really appropriate as this opens the d-file for Black’s rook, e.g. 13..dxe5 14 We2 Qb7 15 DEl c4. 16 Dg3 g6 17 &g5 2c6 (D.Isonzo-S.Skembris, Bratto 2002) and Black has good play with ..4Yb7- 5 to follow. b) 13 a4 2d7 (linking rooks) 14 AFL cxd4 15 cxd4 @Ac6, eyeing the weakened b4 and giving Black an easy game in L.Dominguez- RKasimdzhanov, Yerevan 2001. ) 13 Dfl cxd4 (13...d52!, as played in the original game I.Boleslavsky-P.Keres, Zurich Candidates Tournament 1953, unfortunately fails to 14 dxe5! ded 15 @1d2! exf3 16 exf6 Qxfo 17 Wsf3 Be6 18 Det Le7 19 Whs with a white initiative according to Vasiukov, although 19 @g5 looks even simpler to me) 14 exd4 transposes to Chapter 1, see Games 12, d) For 13 b3 see the next game. 13...04 14 He3 ‘This defends the ¢3-pawn and thus pre- pates White for b2-b4. If instead 14 AF Bb7 15 g4 (or 15 Ags Qd7 16 Dh2 Dc 17 £4 a5 18 Whi b4 19 DEB 96 20 Hel &b5 21 &e3 b3, P.Murdzia- PiStaniszewski, Polish Championship 2003 with excellent counterplay for Black), Black counters with 15,..h5! 16 @3h2 (16 gxh5!? is the latest try as in D.Arutunian-V.Golod, Pardubice 2002 where after 16..&xh3 17 D3h2 We8 18 De3 [Golod suggests the immediate 18 WE3 as a possible improvement for White] 18..Ac5 19 WAS @h7 20 fht Bh8 21 Bgl des chances were balanced) 16..axg4 17 Axel? (or here 17 hxg+ Dh7 18 g2 Bg5 19 Bxgs Axgs 20 Wd2 We7 21 Dg3 6 22 Bhi y7 with equality, 36Chigorin Defence: 12th Move Alternatives M.Rytshagov-M.Voiska, Cappelle-la-Grande 1993) 17...S2xe4 18 hxg4 Dh7 19 He3 Lo5 20 Bh3 Sxct 21 Wxcl We7 22 Ags Wes again with equality, as in T.Bakre- E,Viadimirov, Calcutta 2001, 14...2d7 ‘The game P.Enders-A.Delchev, Budapest 1995 varied with 14...Ab7 15 b4 cxb3 (instead 15,..8d7 transposes back to the main game) 16 axb3 &2d7 (Kasimdzhanov instead prefers 16...a5!2) 17 Ba3 Ac5 18 b4, but was somewhat preferable for White. 15 b4 15...0b7 Lukacs and Hazai suggest 15..cxb3_fol- lowed by activating the king’s bishop with 16 axb3 Bdc8 17 £23 &d8 18 Ket Ws 19 23 &b6 with equality. 16 a4 a5! Fighting for influence on the queenside. 17 axb5 &xb5 ‘The attempted improvement 17...axb4 of ‘TLuther-C.Arduman, Istanbul 2003 was unsuccessful eg. 18 Exa8 Bxa8 19 exb4 Qxb5 20 Abt! Le8 21 Ba3 and White was in control. 18 Db1 eB 19 Het Ad7 20 Le3 bE 21 bxas? Better is 21 We2! leaving the knight on b7 distinctly restricted. Then if 21..axb4 22 Bxa8 Bxa8 23 cxb4 (5, White can simply take a pawn with 24 @xb6 Wxb6 25 Wxc4. Instead Black should try 21..2dc8! 22 Bet £5! 23 Dbd2 axb4 when matters are far from, clear. 21...2xa5 22 Da3 KdbB 23 Ad2 Ab3! Simplifying to equality. 24 Dxb3 exb3 25 2xb3 Wxc3 26 2d2 Wd4 27 Ba2 Da4 28 Dc2 Wed 29 WIS Wb5 30 Db4 Dc5 31 ExaB Bxa8 32 &c2 h6 33 Hb1 Wed %-% Game 14 T.Luther-A.Graf Obrid 2001 1 e4 e5 2 Df3 Dc6 3 2b5 a6 4 had DI6 5 0-0 2e7 6 Ze1 b5 7 2b3 dé 8 ©3 0-0 9 h3 Aa5 10 Sc2 cB 11 d4 We7 12 Dbd2 Bd8 13 b3 Keeping Black’s knight from the c4- square and retaining the tension, at least for ‘one more move. 13...d7 Here 15...cxd4 14 exd4 exd4 15 2b2 Deb 16 @xd4 Dxd4 17 Axd4 transposes to Game 3 in Chapter 1. 14.45 14 Ql turns out to be very similar to 12...cxd4 lines that are covered in Chapter 1. ‘The principal difference is that here White spends a couple of tempi manoeuvring with his knight and consequently Black has time to fully develop in peace: 14..cxd4 15 cxd4 Bac8 16 De3 De 17 Kb2 exdd 18 Dxd4 Dxd4 19 Sxd4 Be 20 WH (or 20 Hel Wo7 21 WE Da7 with either 266 or 5 in the ait) 20,.2d7 21 Badt £.£6 was about equal in O.Korneev-].Baron Rodri- gue, Cocello de Ortigueira 2002. ‘The text move closes the centre only now that the knight on a5 hasn’t access to ¢4. Black therefore intends to reroute his sidelined steed via b7 and d8 (and ultimately £7) which, at some point, requires moving the rook which no longer has a role to play on 8, hence Black’s next move. 14...Bde8!? There are a couple of alternatives worth 37The Ruy Lopez Main Line looking at a) 14.96 15 DEL c4 16 b4 Db7 17 Bp5 (otherwise 17 2e3 a5 18 a3 Hao, O.Korneev-J.Estrada Nieto, Dos Hermanas 2002, is similar but 17 a4!? may be the most testing, see 14..c4 below) 17..a5 18 a3 Bab 19 Dg3 Kda8 20 Hct axb4 21 axb4 Was 22 Lc3 De8 23 Rb1 Dg7 with a comfortable game as in M.Brodsky-Je.Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1995. b) 14.04 15 b4 Db7 16 a4 a5 17 Bad (with an edge according to Piket; this has since been tested in practice...) 17..axb4 18 Bxb4 Ac5 19 axb5 Rxb5 20 Bxcd Weed 21 a4 Dd7 22 Sxb5 Wxb5s 23 Bb1 Wes 24 Hb4 (M.Adams-E.Torre, Bled Olympiad 2002) and one has the impression that Piket was right! 15 &b2?7! 15 AFI is preferred by Lukacs and Hazai, with the intention of retaining the bishop on the c1-h6 diagonal. 15...g6 16 243 DhS 17 21 Db7 After 17.4, the temporary outpost cannot be maintained due to 18 @h2 followed by g3. 18 a3 Dds From here the knight is aiming for the f7- square, It gets out of the way and becomes a useful defensive piece covering some important squares around its king, 19 c4 Wb6 20 &c3 b4 21 Sb2 £6 22 &d3 a5 23 a4 D7 24 D1 With the queenside seemingly blocked for the duration it makes sense to displace the Black king away from the future atea of ac tion, 24...818!? 25 Dg3 Aa Instead 25..Dxg3 26 fxg3 would give White some potential play on the Ffile. 26 Ae2 Dxd3 27 Wxd3 eB 28 Ah2 bd8 29 £4 Le7 30 Hf B98 31 Aga Raf8 32 Hf2 bb7 Chances are balanced. White has some space on the kingside, but Black’s king is very well placed and his position remains rock- solid. 33 Haf1 Wd8 34 DAg3 2xg4 35 hxg4 Wd7 36 g5?! Lukacs and Hazai consider this to be inferior to either 36 fxe5 Axe5 37 Bxe5 fxe5, or 36 £5. I don’t like the former but the latter just looks equal 36...exf4 37 Bxf4 Axg5 38 2x6 2x6 39 Zxf6 Exf6 40 Xxf6 We7?! Better is 40..He8! 41 We3 He5 with an edge to Black. 41 Wl Hg7 42 Wa B17 Instead 42..£721 gives White a strong initiative with 43 He Wa8 44 5! Axe5 45 Det 43 5! A fine positional sacrifice sealing the e5- square and weakening the ¢5-pawn. 43...dxe5 44 Ixf7 Dxf7 45 Wes &b6 46 Dea Dds White’s next move is coming anyway. 47 d6 WaT 48 AxcS Alternatively 48 Wxc5+ &b7 49 Wra7+ Bxa7 50 HA2 Gb 51 c5+ kec6 52 We} Deo is also equal as neither side can make pro- Bre: 48.206 49 Wi3+ ed! OF course not 49..s#xc5?? 50 We3+, but 49...42xd6? is also bad after 50 WFG+. 50 Wxed+ dxd6 51 Wd4+ te7 52 ont 52 We7+ gets nowhere after 52...D£7. 52...llic7 53 Wed+ of7 54 Wd5+ dg7 38Chigorin Defence: 12th Move Alternatives 55 Wd4+ dg8 56 Wd5+ wg7 57 Wd4+ seg8 58 Wd5+ %-% Game 15 R.Fischer-M.Filip Curagao Candidates 1962 1 e4 05 2 Df3 Dc6 3 2b5 a6 4 Lad 246 5 0-0 fe7 6 Bel b5 7 2b3 dé 8 3 0-0 9 h3 Bad 10 &c2 cB 11 d4 We7 12 Abd2 Acé ‘The traditional approach putting pressure on the d4-square, “Yay 13 dxe5 With the d-pawn under pressure White usually resolves the tension now with 13 d5 or the text (named after Rauzer) move. However some rarer alternatives ate worth mentioning: a) 13 a3 @d7 14 b4 cxd4 15 exd4 Heed. with a position typical of Chapter 1, eg. 16 &b3 a5 17 Bb2 axb4 18 axb4 Hxal 19 Bxal exd4 20 Axd4 Axd4 21 Qxd4 Leo with near equality, E,Gufeld-A.Karpov, USSR 1971. b) 13 Dfl exd4 14 cxd4 takes us back to Chapter 1. ©) 13 Db3 2b7 (again Black can play 13..cxd4 with transposition to Chapter 1 or 13.251? 14 d5 Ad8 [the knight is heading for 5] 15 Abd2 c4 16 Afl Db7 17 p4 Acd 18 Dg3 He 19 Re3 LAB with a tense struggle, E.Alekseev-A-Lugovoi, St.Petersburg 2002) 14 d5 Dbs8 15 c4 Abd? (better than 15...bxe4 16 @bd2) 16 &d2 b4 17 Dct De8 18 Ad3 g6 19 Bh6 Dg? 20 g4 and a draw was agreed, D.Velimirovic-A.Karpov, Buda- pest 1973, 13...dxe5 14 Of1 2d6 15 Dh4 De7 Otherwise 15..26 16 2h6 Hd8 17 WB DeB 18 De3 £6 19 Dd5 WE is somewhat preferable for White, who simply took the bishop pair with 20 b6, V.Smyslov- M.Botvinnik, Moscow Match 1957. 16 Wi3 248 An attempt to vary from 16.26 17 Ag3 We 18 Dh As65 19 Axi x65 20 Wri when White had a persistent edge, M.Tal- MLFilip, Reykjavik 1957. 17 De3 Wb7 18 Ag4 Axg4 19 hxg4 Being able to capture with the h-pawn re- inforces White’s nagging bind and he may even have ideas of using the h-file. 19...296 If 19.,.Wd7!? then 20 g5! rather than 20 DES Ds 21 exf§ Qb7 looks the most troublesome for Black. 20 M5 fe6 21 g5 c7 22 2e3 White retains an edge due essentially to the relative activity of the knights. 22...04 23 Ked1 Bxd1+ 24 Bxd1 Zd8. 25 93 Bxd1+ 26 Wxd1 We6 27 a4 Mh, Up et b> « ke x FY sy i Zk WY \ N 1S aoe a 8 i me 27...8f8? A setious error. Better is 27..Wd7 when White would probably try and invade on the queenside with 28 Wal. 39The Ruy Lopez Main Line 28 Wat? Continuing with his plan but missing 28 Wh5! Bisguier) when 28..92g8 loses to 29 Wrg6! hago 30 De7+, 28...808 29 Wa3+ dg8 30 axb5 axbS 31 Wa7 2b7 32 Sh2 Wab 33 Wcd We6 34 Wha The exchange of queens would ease Black's defensive task, 34...2¢8 35 2c5 2d8 36 2e3 2c7 37 g1 206 38 Wa3 2c8 39 kh2 Leb 40 Wal 2c8 41 Wb1 As he’s not getting anywhere Fischer decides to change tack. 41...2e6 42 Sg1 &cB 43 b3 Leb 44 bxc4 fixed Here 44...bxc4 also comes into consideration, In either case pressure on the queenside is light, but the cramping effect of the knight on f3 isa nuisance for Black. 45 2d3 Axd3 46 Wxd3 et8 If 46...$2a5 then 47 &.d2 threatens Wd6 to exchange into a winning ending. 47 Wb1 Wc4 48 Wal Wc6 49 Hb3 eg8 50 Wb4 Wd7 51 eh2 This is nearly zugewang, eg, 51...8.d8 52 Wad6; 51..2b8 52 c4; and 51..We6 can be met by the flashy 52 We7! 205 53 8. 51...We8 52 We5 Wd7 53 &g2 2b8 54 Wb6 2c7 55 WS 2b8 56 Wh6 2c7 57 ‘Wb7 AB 58 Lb6! &xb6 59 Wxb6 Black still can’t shift the White knight as 59...26 goes down to 60 Dh6+ Bhs 61 Wie mate. 59...De6 So Black loses a pawn and the game. 60 Wb8+ Wd8 61 Wxb5 Axg5 62 Wxe5 De6 63 Ada AB 64 c4 Ags 65 Was We8 66 ATS 1-0 Game 16 R.Fischer-R.Kholmov Havana 1965 A famous tournament where Fischer played by telex due to political problems between the US government and Cuba. 1 e4 05 2 Af3 Dc6 3 2b5 a6 4 Bad 16 5 0-0 £e7 6 Hel b5 7 2b3 0-08 ©3 d6 9 h3 AaB 10 &c2 c5 11 d4 We7 12 Dbd2 Ac6 13 dxeS dxcS 14 Df heb ‘This is nowadays considered to be Black’s best way of handling Rauzer’s 13 dxc5. 15 De3 HadB 16 We2 c4 Best. The older 16...g6 doesn’t fully equalise, eg. 17 ApS Bc8 18 a4 Wh7 19 axbdS axb5 20 hd @d6 21 Ads Dh5 22 A £6 23 &h6 E47 24 Bed, V.Smyslov-M.Botvinnik, World Championship, Moscow 1957. 17 gs After 17 265, Black does best to continue with 17...Efe8! when he has no problems, for instance 18 2g5 Dd7 19 Rxe7 Axe? 20 Des DB 21 Hadi £6 22 Axcé Axes 23 Wet AxfS 24 exfS Ac3, G.Andersson- LASchneider, Eksjo 1976, or 18 A3h4 &h8 19 Dxe7 Wre7 20 WE Dd7 21 Des Wee 22 &c3 Ac5, L.Kavalek-A.Karpov, Caracas 1970. 17...h6! ‘An interesting positional decision, White is invited to take the bishop pair and double Black’s pawns and yet this constitutes an cffective defence, or rather preparation for a counterattack on the ‘d and Files. 18 Dxe6 fxe6 19 b4? A poor move as soon becomes clear. White has other options: 40Chigorin Defence: 12th Move Alternatives a) 19b3 &c5 and here: al) 20 Bf Bc8 21 a4 WE7 22 axb5 axbS 23 bxc4 b4 with active piece play for the pawn, L.Kavalek-M.Cuellar, Sousse Inter- zonal 1967. 22) 20 bxc4 b4 (obtaining dark-squared play in compensation for the pawn) 21 &b2 bxc3 22 &xc3 Ad4 23 Qxd4 exd4 24 Adt d3!? 25 Bxd3 Wed 26 Ae3 Dh5 27 Aga? (27 We2 is unclear) 27..Exf2! 28 Dxe5 Rfl+ and mates, T.Mull-B.Lengyel, Dortmund 1988. a3) 20 Bdl Ad4! 21 cxd4 exd4 with good compensation, A.Suetin-Nei, USSR 1966, b) Suetin quotes the following curious ref erence; 19 a4 &.c5 20 axb5 axb5 21 Ht Who 22 #h1 De7 23 g3 with a complex game between the readers of Zarya Vostok and the readers of Pravda Ukraina 1969(!). 19...Ad4! This is even stronger than in the note above as the b4-pawn is loose and there is no pressure on Black’s c-pawn, 20 cxd4 exd4 21 a3 d3 22 oxd3 Exd3 Matetial equality is re-established and Black has the more active pieces as well as a protected passed pawn. 23 Dg4 Gh7 24 5 Axg4 25 Hed+ g6 26 Wxg4 HI5 27 We4 Wd7 28 2e3 Was Black’s major pieces are dominant, 29 Wxd5 Bxd5 30 14 g5! This devalues White's majority. 31 g3 gxf4 32 gxf4 Bf8 33 &g2 dg6! The king heads for £5. 34 8g1 Hd3 35 f3+ “5 36 Bg7 Hoping to ease his pains through activating the took to harass from behind. 36...2d8 37 Xb7 Hg8 38 Zbs If 38 Hf7+ then 38.96 39 Bb7 Lh5, whereupon 40 a4 is met by 40...S&h4 etc. 38...897 39 a4 h5 But not 39...2h4?! which is met by 40 Epet. 40 axb5 axb5 With Black threatening ..h4 and ..g3+ thete is no hope left. 41 ExbS 2h4 42 we2 Bg2+ 43 &f1 Eh2 44 &g1 Ze2 45 &b6 c3 46 S11 Bh2 0-1 Game 17 P.Svidler-Je.Piket Tilburg 1998 1 04 e5 2 AI3 Dc6 3 2b5 a6 4 Bad 26 5 0-0 £e7 6 Ke1 bS 7 2b3 dé 8 ©3 0-0 9 h3 Dad 10 Bc2 c5 11 d4 We7 12 Abd2 Ac613 d5 Ads After 13.5 14 b3 (if 14 @fl then 14..Adc4 etc, makes sense comparing with analogous variations in Chapters 2 and 3) 14..8d7 Black has two tempi less than the variation starting 12...d7 13 d3, and even with a closed centre this can be significant!) 15 @F1 Db7 (a position played by Hungarian GM Bela Lengyel on countless occasions) 16 D5h2 c4 17 b4 a5 18 Ag’ 6 19 We Bab 20 Bg5 Wds 21 h6 Be8 22 a3 with some pressure for White, P.Lcko-B.Lengyel, Buda- pest 1993, 14 a4 Wb7 Not ceding the a-file lightly and covering b5. If instead 14..2b8 15 axbS axb5 16 b4, and then: a) 16..b7?! (holding onto ¢5 but otherwise passive) 17 fl Ld7 18 @e3 Ha8 19 Wa2 Hic8 20 2d3 96 21 Ds BB 22 Ha2 41The Ruy Lopez Main Line and White retained some _ pressure, A Karpov-W.Unzicker, Nice Olympiad 1974. b) The ‘bad’ knight on b7 really should be heading for £7. Even so in the game L.Dominguez-RomHernandez, Santa Clara 2000 White obtained an attack after 16...c4 17 DEL DeB 18 Dgs g6 19 Dh2 Dg7 20 LAL £6 21 £4 DET 22 5 g5 23 A ©) 16...De8 17 DL g6 18 g4 £6 19 Dg3 DET Black digs in around his king so White switches to the a-file) 20 &e3 &d7 21 We2 ADg7 22 Ba3 (H.Pinson-P-Palmo, corr 1980) and White retains a nagging initiative d) 16...Dd7!? hasn’t been tested at a high level. The c5-square is secure but Black is rather gummed up. 15 OF Here Svidler points out that the line 15 b4 4.16 DFl Ae8 17 D3h2 allows play with 17...£5(). 15...eB 16 D3h2 16 Although there is nothing dramatically wrong with 16...6, after 17 exfS QxfS 18 2xf5 Bxt5, White can try 19 b3 with an edge according to Svidler as the option of playing c3-c4 will enable White to consolidate his d- pawn, 17 b3 Not altogether necessary but trying to keep his options open on this wing before pressing on the other, Alternatively 17 Ag 96 18 £4 exft 19 &xf4 De? 20 DB 2a7 yields a typical position. White has the more active game and retains a small edge but Black has managed to find good defensive squares for his knights, V.Jansa-Z.Nikolic, Vinjacka Banja 1982. 17.247 18 4 exf4 19 &xf4 Des 20 De3 g6 21 Deg4 2xg4?! Svidler criticises this move, but still prefers White after both 21..Ag7 22 Dh6+ Bhs 23 463, and 21...h5 (a bit loosening in the long term) 22 Bxe5 fxe5 23 S23. Perhaps 21..b4 is the most accurate. 22 Axg4 its aa i; My Le 2 22...2x94?! 22.ub4 is suggested by Svidler, forcing White to make a decision. If he blocks the wing, he may not be able to break through on the kingside, However if he opens lines with 23 exb4 Black may obtain counterplay. 23 hxga! At first sight a surprising choice, but this enables White to use the h-file and the forward g-pawn helps cramp the black game, 23...c7 24 Eft Bf7 25 Wi3 b4 26 d2 a5 27 cxb4 cxb4 28 Hac Haf8 Wedberg suggests 28.6, intending to come to ¢5, but Svidler shows why this is in fact unsatisfactory: 29 &d3 Ac5 30 Exes! dxe5 31 €5 with serious problems for Black. 29 2d3 Dab 30 Axa6 Exchanging off the knight and thus leaving Black helpless on the e-file, 30...Wxa6 31 Hc6 Wa7+ 32 23 Wa7 33 Bfct Ha8 34 fc7 We8 35 Ad4 248 36 R7c6 &e7 37 Hc7 LdB 38 B7c6 Re7 39 Hic4 h6 40 Ke7 2d8 41 £7c6 Se7 42 Be7 2dB 43 Ext? Wxt7 44 wia Wa7 Neither 44.48 (because of 45 Hc6 Be7 46 Hc7 Wa8 47 Eb7 Wi 48 83) nor 44..We7 (45 Ec6 95 46 WES Yy7 47 eS!) defend for long either. 45 Bc6 &e7 46 Wxh6 Wxg4 47 Hc7 1.0 Amongst others, White plans 48 &xf6(). 42Chigorin Defence: 12th Move Alternatives Summary T consider the modern 12...d8 and the traditional 12...2c6 to be the most trustworthy. Both of them provoke White to release the tension early when Black is able to react accordingly. In each of these systems White’s dxe5 shouldn't be too worrying, ‘The problem with d4-d5 in general is that Black has less space and it’s often just a shade easier for White to switch from one wing to another and back again 1 e4 05 2 Df3 Ac6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Lad AFG 5 0-0 207 6 Hel b5 7 &b3 dé 8 c3 0-0 9h3 AaS 10 Bc2 c5 11 d4 We7 12 Dbd2 12 d5 (D)- Game 10 12 b4 — Game 11 notes 12...D06 12...Ebe8 ~ Game 11 12...8d7 (Smyslov’s System) — Game 12 12.48 13b3 (D) — Game 14 13 d5 ~ Game 13 Others — Game 13 notes 13 dxc5 (Rauzer) 13 d5 — Game 17 13 a3 — Game 15 notes 13...dx05 14 D1 Bd6 ~ Game 15 14.,.2e6 (D) — Game 16 A < SS \re N - re 43CHAPTER THREE Black’s 11th move Alternatives 1 04 e5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 &b5 a6 4 Lad 2f6 5 0-0 £e7 6 Hel b5 7 2b3 dé 8 63 0-0 9 h3 Da5 10 &c2 c5 1144 The traditional Chigorin inaugurated by 11...We7 is the best-known of Black’s 11th move options. In this chapter we notice that alternatives lead to varied types of position and naturally the choice for players of the black pieces should be aimed at finding the variation that best suits one’s individual style. The second most common move (after 11..We7) is Keres’s 11...d7 (Games 24-27) which keeps the tension allowing White a say in the future shape of the centre. Hebden’s provocative gambit variation (Game 19) leads to smooth development for Black at the cost of a pawn. Liquidation by Black of two pairs of central pawns, as in Game 22, allows Black to have free piece play at the cost of a slightly inferior structure. In total conteast, the utterly closed centre of Games 20, 21 and 23 leads to manoeuvring on both flanks before the two sides make further contact. White’s space advantage makes it easier for him to prepare for line-opening, but Black is not without chances to obtain counterplay, as well illustrated in Game 21. If White wishes to play d4-d5, the best moment is when it immediately gains time (by hitting Black’s knight) or when Black's light-squared bishop is on b7 where it is less influential (with a blocked centre) than on d7. ‘The plan of opening the ¢-file for Black is normally associated with Chaptet One, but in Game 18 Ponomatiov tries it immediately before White’s knight has committed itself to a2, One of the most dynamic options is for Black to time the exchange of his e-pawn for White’s c-pawn as in Game 25. Game 18 A.Morozevich-R.Ponomariov Moscow 2001 1 ef 05 2 D3 Dc6 3 2b5 a6 4 Lad 2F6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Het b5 7 2b3 dé 8 63 0-0 9 h3 a5 10 &c2 cB 11 a4 oxd4!? ‘A surprising choice. Until recently this was considered premature as White has the option of using the c3-square to develop his knight. ‘The modern interpretation is that this really isn’t such a problem. In Chapter 1 we examined Panov’s Attack 11..We7 12 Abd? exd4 13 cxd4 &b7 which is mote popular. There White has already ‘committed? his knight to d2. 4412 cxd4 2b7 A later game saw Morozevich (as Black!) adding his own interpretation to this line: 12..exd4?? 13 Dxd4 He8 (the d-pawn being isolated is a negative factor in the black camp in such positions, but he is generally able to keep the balance by creating sufficient play against the exposed e4-pawn) 14 £95 h6 15 Sh4 Dds! 16 Bxe7 Dxe7 17 Ad2 (60 the knight prefers d2 after alll) 17..b7 18 a4 Ws 19 D4b3 Dacé 20 axb5 axb5 21 Bra’ Bxa8 22 DF1 Dc, when a draw was agreed in the game P.Leko-A-Morozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2002. 13 d5! Closing the centre could well be White’s best chance to obtain something out the opening. Instead 13 Abd2 exd4l? 14 Dxdd transposes to Game 22, 13...2¢8 Alternatives haven't been very successful: a) 13..c4 14 a4 bxa4 15 2d3 Abo 16 Dc3 Déd7 17 &e3 Bh 18 Dxat Dead 19 Wxa4, MSion Castro-V.Smyslov, Oviedo 1992, where White has a promising queenside initiative. b) 13...2c8 and then bl) 14 &d3 Qd7 15 Be3 g6 16 b4 Db7 17 Dc3 He8 18 Wd2 and White has harmonious pieces and the better options, P.Leko- LB.Hansen, Copenhagen 1995. Note in particular how the knight on b7 is likely to be a long-term headache for Black. Black's 11th Move Alternatives b2) 14 Dc3 Ld7 15 De2 Bc8 16 Dg3 ‘We7 transposes to a position that could arise from Chapter 1. A typical continuation could then be 17 243 Hfe8 18 Bb1 £d8 19 b3 as in V.Ciocaltea-MJohansson, Havana 196, Black’s pressure on the c-file is not really hampering White’s organisation and White has the more promising piece disposition and thus can claim an edge. 14 b3 Instead 14 @bd2 We? should be compared to play from Chapter 1. 14...We7 15 2d3 allows the tactical shot as immediately capturing on e4 loses back a bishop in return, This isn’t the end of the matter however as after 16 bd! AFG Gf 16.0321 17 Dxc3 Wxc3 18 Bbt Ded, then 19 BE threatens 20 Be2 as well as 20 &xc8) 17 bxa5 &xd5, Black has a piece less but has adequate compensation (good active development, two central pawns and a thitd ready to drop) in Morozevich’s opinion. 15...xed ‘The best try here could be 15...Ad7, eg. 16 g4 (possible is 16 &a3!? but not 16 Dbd2?? in view of 16...Mc3) 16..Ac5 17 c2 Da7 18 Be2 with a small edge for w Otherwise 15...&xd5? is just bad: 16 exd5 e4, and now 17 £d2! put Black in trouble in A.Kapengut-A Hennings, 1970. 16 Gixed {5 17 fid3 e4 18 95 45The Ruy Lopez Main Line 18.216 Morozevich criticises this move but be- lieves that White is clearly better anyway, eg. 18..Bfc8 19 xe7 Bxe7 20 b4 Ded 21 Bxc4 Wxe4 22 a4, or 18..2xp5 19 Axed exd3 20 Deo WET 21 Wxd3! Bfes 22 a2. 19 Qxf6 Exf6 20 Le2 exf3 21 Axt3 White has emerged with much the better game despite his lack of development! Black’s minor pieces are kept out of the game by White’s pawns, and once White does get his knight and queen’s rook into play then Black’s lack of cohesion will begin to tell. 21,..b4 Too passive is 21...2a8 22 Ad2 Ab7 23 b4 Hef 24 Ab3, when White has everything under control. 22 Dd2 Or even 22 a3, when the combative 22..Milc2 23 Ad2 Wxd1 24 Hexdl He2 25 axb4 Bxd2 is coolly met by 26 Hxa5 winning a pawn. 22...0418 Instead after 22..We5!2, then 23 Het Weel 24 Weel Hxct 25 Excl BT 26 a3 bxa3 27 b4 22 28 bxaS e729 Hal Bc2 is less clear. White should prefer 23 We2 keeping control, 23 a3! Putting the poorly placed black knight in mortal danger. 23.,.Wb6 24 axb4 Wxb4 25 Kad We3 26 He3 Wh2 27 1 2c5 Neither alternative is much of an improvement: 27...f4 28 Bet We3 29 Ad2, with Ded to follow, and 27..He1 28 Wd3 £4 29 Be7 Wee 30 We2 Axb3 31 Hxb7 Dc5 32 Bbb4 Dxad 33 Kxad etc. 28 Wet An illustration of the dangers of neglect- ing the a5-knight in the Main line Lopez! 28...He1 28...2)xb3 still loses a piece to 29 Kb4. 29 Wxa5 Wb1 30 Se2 £4 31 Hf3 gb 32 2d3 Wb2 33 Bea 1-0 Game 19 D.Gormally-M.Hebden Hastings 2002/3 1 e4 e5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 2b5 a6 4 Bad }f6 5 0-0 2e7 6 Kel b5 7 2b3 0-0 8 3 d6 9 h3 Dab 10 &c2 c5 11 d4 esi? Because of his devotion to this speculative pawn sacrifice I have called this the Hebden Variation, after my fellow Leicester GM. 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 “\xe5 2b7 Otherwise 13...2d6 14 Dxf7 Bxf7 15 €5 We7 16 Q£4! Rc?! (16.8! where it is defended by the rook, looks like a possible improvement) 17 He3 Wa7 18 e6+ Hxe6 19 Wrd7+ @xd7 20 Bxc7, GSax-M.Hebden, London 1993, is only slightly better for White if followed up by 20..xe3 21 fxe3 Dc4 22 Bb3 Reb 23 Oxed Kxcd 24 a2 DAS 25 By3 Dxe3 26 22. 14 WHS NCO gives 14 Ad2 Bd6 15 Aef3 (Ko- tronias gained a plus with 15 Dgd Axed 16 Axe4 Bxet 17 g5 in V.Kottonias- M.Hebden, Hastings 2003/04) 15..We7 16 b3 Bad8 17 2b2 with an ‘edge for White’ After 17..c4 18 We2 4 19 Bad1, TEmst- M.Hebden, Malmo 1987/8, White is clearly better according to ECO. After the more recent try 18... &c5 19 Bact (if 19 bd?! then 19.,.Sxb4 20 exb4 c3) 19... Ah5? 20 b4 Agd 46Black’s 11th Move Alternatives 21 Wal, J. Howell-M.Hebden, British Cham- pionship 1991, White wins further material. Te’s clear that 19...Q6! (instead of 19..h5) is superior, with reasonable practical chances. 14.,.818 This is preferred by Hebden over 14...8d6 which didn’t turn out well in the following encounter: 15 DAg4 Axes 16 Wrpt Ded 17 £4 2B 18 €5 g6 19 Wy3 Bp7 20 b3 Db6 21 Ba2 £6 22 Be!, and White was well on top in LSmirin-L.Gofshtein, Israel 1991 15 ofa Although Hebden assures me that his variation is sound there are some unan- swered questions. Here for instance Paul Motwani suggests 15 gt, when 15..Axed? fails to 16 Exe4 &xe4 17 Qxed Bxed 18 Wret Walt 19 Bh2 Wect 20 Wrxa8 Wxb2 21 DeS!. Because of this line he instead suggests 15..Axe4 16 Wxp4 He6, but it doesn’t feel like adequate compensation to me. 15...2e6 16 Dg4 am rae ath a ang i HEV) El 16...Dxe4! Now this works and represents a clear improvement over the previously known 16..Ac4. Then after 17 @xf6+ (Rowson recommends 17 b3, eg. 17..Axe4 18 Waxed De5 19 Wy3) 17..Hxf6 (17...Whf6 also led to problems after 18 Ad2 Ae5 19 Wy3 Was 20 Hadi Ago 21 Acti, in M.Chandler- M.Hebden, British Championship 2000 and 18..@xb2 wouldn’t help much according to Bogdan Lalic who gives 19 Hab1 g5 20 2¢3 2 8 with advantage) 18 Qg5 Bx 19 Bxd8 Hxd8 20 gxf3 Axb2 21 a4 b4 22 Ha2 Act 23 Hadi He8 24 cxb4 cxb4, NShort- M.Hebden, Port Erin 1999, White should have continued with Short’s 25 &b3! Des 26 &g2, when Black would have insufficient compensation for the exchange. 17 Bxe4 Here 17 Exed is also met by 17...f5. 17.15 18 Dd2 ‘Trying for more than the stem game in which the point was shared after 18 We3 Exe4 19 @h6+ (or 19 Hxe4, but after 19.,.Md1+ 20 Eh2 fed 21 -b3 c4 it looks like a draw) 19..2h8 20 Dt7+ dg8 21 Ah6+ (21 @Dsxd8? Hxelt+ 22 &h2 Hxd8 favours Black) 21...22h8 22 DE7+ Se8 23 Db6+ and drawn, A.Naumann-M,Hebden, Paignton 2000. 18...fxe4 19 Wg3 Or if 19 Axed then 19.. We. 19...We7 20 He2 h5 21 Dn6+ Lh7 22 DES WHE 23 De3 Black’s wayward knight on a5 will need recycling and he has the slightly worse pawn. structure. However he has a space advantage, so he shouldn’t be worse. 23...206 24 2g5 Wg6 25 Kael Db7 26 24 Wt7 27 Defi Hae8 28 Wha With visions of Af1-g3 hitting e4 and hi. 28...2e7! 29 2g5 &xg5 30 Wxgs Bed 31 Wh4 g5! Taking the initiative. 32 Wg3 h4 33 Wh2 B5e6 34 £3 exf3 Possible is 34...“Ad6!2, but after mass simplification on e4 chances are equal 35 Dxf3 %4-% A_ plausible continuation would be 35...8x63 36 Bxe6 Bxe6 37 Exes Wxeb 38 WeI+ Sy8 39 ext} Wd, and with both kings exposed a draw is very likely. Game 20 V.Bologan-S.Sulskis Obrid 2001 1 e4 e& 2 Af3 Ac6 3 &b5 a6 4 Lad 47The Ruy Lopez Main Line 2f6 5 0-0 Se7 6 Ze1 b5 7 &b3 dé 8 ¢3 0-0 9 h3 Dab 10 2c2 cB 11 d4 Dc6 Borisenko’s Variation. 1245 A convenient moment to close the centre as White gains time. It seems less logical to play 12 Abd2, as after 12..cxd4 13 exd4 exd4 14 @b3 Ab4 15 Qb1 d3, Black has sufficient play eg. 16 Dbd4 Bb7 17 a3 De2 18 Axc2 duc 19 Bxc2 He8 20 Ad4 268 21 8 g6 with equal chances, G.Sax- B.Abtamovic, Skopje 1996. 12...Qa7 a te Za ‘The knight can also return to a5 as in the next game, but from the odd-looking a7- square this piece can eventually go to b6 or €7 via cB. 13 Dbd2 I quite like the idea of playing the immediate 13 a4, for instance: a) 13..Dd7 14 @e3 We7 15 Dbd2 Ador! 16 a5 (denying Black use of the b6-square) 16..Ad7 17 b4 He8 18 AFL Bb7, as in JNunn-J.Van der Wiel, Amsterdam 1988. ‘The best way to take advantage of White’s significant space advantage would be 19 Wd2 cB 20 23, intending c3-c4, If Black were to close the queenside with ...c4 then White’s pieces would be better placed to exploit the Kingside without the risk of being distracted elsewhere. b) 13..De8!? 14 a5 £51? 15 exf Bxf5 16 Oxf ExfS5, A Vitolinsh-A.Kakagaldiev, USSR 1979. Suetin claims the position to be about equal but I still prefer White who has a bind on the e4-square. His space advantage means that Black’s knight on a7 is short of ideas and will take a while to be redeployed toe7. ©) After 13..Qd71? 14 @xe5 due5 15 do White obtains the bishop pair, A.Kuzmin- R Ziatdinov, Tashkent 1987. 13...2d7 Here 13...c4 14 Afl a5?! (a rather optimistic plan) 15 De3 We7 16 We2 @h5 17 a4 4\f4 18 WEL yields a clear advantage to White as Black’s c4-pawn is undermined, M.Adams- HWesterinen, London 1988. 14.04 In the following sequence Black is able to show the positive side to his set-up: 14 fl Ac8 15 g4?! h5! (@ fine counter hitting at White's kingside before he has time to control that front) 16 3h2 hxg4 17 hxgd Qh? 18 Dg3 By5 19 dy2 e7 20 Bhi Dg6 (this knight now comes into its own eyeing f4 and hd) 21 e2 WEG with a model position for Black whose manoeuvres were most instructive, P.Korzubov-}.Klovans, Minsk 1983. 14.,.We7 15 21 Bae8 16 £e3 cB 17 ®1d2! With Black having put his rooks on the kingside Bologan decides to switch back to the other wing! 48Black’s 11th Move Alternatives 18...Wb7 In order not to play too passively, Black could consider 18..Ah5!? intending counterplay with ...g6 and ...£5. 19 Ma2 Alternatively 19 axb5 axb5 20 b4 c4 21 Ha2 can be met by 21..Mh5, as 22 Axed Bixc5 23 £4 Dxf4 24 Qxf4 Bee8 intending ...f5 is fine for Black. 19...h6 20 Zeal Ab6 21 axb5 axb5 Dy ou & & 22 b3?! ‘The most precise is 22 Ha6! De7 23 £43, as 23..Aexd5 24 exd5 e4 is unsatisfactory after 25 xed Ded 26 &xb5(). 22...Be7! 23 b4 c4? A better defence is to open the c-file with 23...cxb4 24 cxb4 Dg6, as after say 25 &xb6 Wsxb6 26 Ha6 We? Black is the most likely to be able to use the open line. 24 Axb6 Hxb6 25 Ha6 Wb8 26 Wes DcB 27 Dh4 He7 28 Df DeB 29 Dg3 De7 30 B6a2 wh7 31 Ags With the queenside covered, Bologan switches back to the other front. He could also have played with the other knight, eg. 31 Dh Rx 32 DsfS Ha7 33 Ladi, or 31..Hee8 32 Dxg7 Sxg7 33 Dhs+. 31.,.Hee8 32 94 g5 33 Ag2 axis Removing one attacking piece but the weakened kingside is still lacking defenders. 34 gxf5 Wb6 35 W13 De7 36 16 Ags 37 Wis ZaB If 37...28a8, then 38 Ha5 keeps Black under pressure on both wings. 38 &d1! Hh 39 Lh5 Bg8 40 wf Sats 41 Ba7 Hd8 42 Wg4 Edf8 43 Wd7 43 Sxg6? is bad because of 43...£xg6 44 Wa7 Xxf6 threatening mate. 43...De8 44 B1a6 This does win but simpler is 44 2b7! Dsxi6 45 Exb6 Bxd7 46 Hxd6 Ba8 47 Ha? 44...Wb8 45 Ha8 Oxt6 46 WHS Dxhs 47 Exb8 Bxb8 48 Zxd6 Ha 49 Bd7 Eg7 50 wg1 wg8 51 %h2 Dhfa 52 @Axt4 gxf4 53 Ext7 Sxf7 54 Wxg6+ Eg7 55 We6+ 2h7 56 Wi5+ wg8 57 Wxe5 1f8 58 h4 f3 59 &h3 HHf7 60 dé gi 61 Wd5 28 62 d7 1-0 Game 21 A.Galliamova-Xie Jun Kazan] Shenyang Match 1999 1 e4 e5 2 Af3 Dc6 3 Lb5 a6 4 Lad 26 5 0-0 &e7 6 Eel b5 7 &b3 dé 8 63 0-0 9 h3 DaS 10 fc2 cB 11 a4 Ac6 12 d5 Das On this squate the knight keeps an eye on the queenside but is in danger of becoming sidelined 13 Abd2 Afier 13 b3, we have the following: Yi Vi), S Now Black has 13..2\e8!, (a manoeuvre typical of such blocked positions; Black intends ...g6, ..Dg7 and ... to obtain counterplay) 14 a4 2d7 15 axb5 axb5, and now: 49The Ruy Lopez Main Line 2) 16 Be3 96 17 Abd2 Dg? 18 b4 exb4 19 exb4 Ded! (placing the knight on the prospectless b7-square would be too passive) 20 Dxc4 bxed 21 Wd2 6, L-Psakhis- O.Romanishin, Moscow 1986. b) K.Asrian-SSulskis, Ohrid 2001 instead continued 16 Dbd2 g6 17 We2 Ag? 18 Ba2 Who 19 At Db7 20 dd Bxa2 21 Wra2 Was 22 Whi Ha8 23 2b2 £6 (and the knight will head for £7) 24 Ae3 Dds 25 We2 We? 26 We2 Ha2 27 2bi and a draw was agreed. I prefer this to 13...6 14 &h6 Bes 15 Dbd2 Rd7 16 a4 We7 17 We2 Rf 18 Le3 (irs not in White’s interest to exchange the dark- squared bishops as he is not in a position to exploit any holes on Black's kingside) 18..)h5 19 axb5 &xb5!? 20 23, M.Wahls- ORomanishin, Taastrup 1992. 13...g6 14 b3 2d7 15 Df1 DhS 16 &e3 Alternatively 16 &h6 He8 17 Wd2 2£6 18 Bact Sp7 19 Bg5 £62 (19.266 is less committal) 20 Se3 £5 21 exf5 gxfS 22 Wal DEG 23 &g5, with a type of King’s Indian where there is a danger that the knight on a5 will be poorly placed, J.Timman-T.Wedberg, Swedish Team Championship 2003. 16...216 Not rushing to expand with .... Xie Jun first hopes to improve her bishop's diagonal and bolster het king. 17 &h2 Ab7 18 g3 Wc7 19 Wd2 g7 20 We2 Waiting is a feature of such positions. Black again delays ...£5 as White is then ready to exploit the loosening of Black’s kingside, eg. 20...152% (premature) 21 exfS Oxf5 (21..gsf5 is answered by 22 Dhd) 22 Dgs B.d7? 23 Axh7! etc. 20...We8! 21 Dg1 Wes Just as in the King’s Indian, the queen indirectly defends the knight on b5, so that ...£5 is now a positional threat. 22 &d2 5 23 exf5 23 3 would is less ambitious offering no hope of an advantage. 23...gxf5 24 D3 c4!? Stopping White supporting the d-pawn with c3-c4 and trying to open lines on the queenside when the knight could hop to 5 with lively play. Also interesting is 24..e4!? 25 Dh4 B16 (25..b4 would also provoke White to sacti- fice the exchange) 26 Ag? (compared to analogous positions in the King’s Indian the knight on b7 is passively placed) 26..b4 (or pethaps 26..Wg6 27 Hadi Hae8, with ..Dd8 to follow) 27 cxb4 &xal 28 Exat with unclear play. 25 b4 a5 26 a3 D6 Hitting the weakened d5-pawn. 27 e3 axb4 28 axb4 Bxal 29 Kxat £4 30 DF5 Whd 31 DSh4 e4! 32 xed 32 Ddé allows 32...fxg3+ 33 fxg Wxe2+ 34 Dxe2 €3! when Black is clearly on top. 32.,.HeB 33 g4 Li AS b> hit < SN Bea SY he PRC SKS <2 CS Ay fe, Y Ny AR N SS \ [ree “ yuan mam ke Bt i ti oS 50Up to here Black has played a logical game but now she cracks. 33...W172? Why not 33...8xg4! 34 hxgd Dugd+ 35 s&g1 Af6 winning back the piece with plenty of interest. 34 Ags We7 35 a8! 35 Bua7 is also good. 35...218 If 35...Sxa8, then 36 &xh7+ ef8 37 Deo+. 36 Exe8 2xe8 37 At Wes 38 WIS Dxed 39 Axed Lh8 40 Dg5 1-0 Game 22 P.Svidler-L.B.Hansen Esbjerg 2000 1 e4 e5 2 AB Acé 3 Lb5 a6 4 Lad 16 5 0-0 Re7 6 Kel bS 7 2b3 dé B 3 0-0 9 h3 Dab 10 2c2 5 11 d4 &b7 12 Abd2 It’s a question of taste, but White can play 5 closing the centre when the knight on a5 and bishop on b7 ate not ideally placed (see the next game). The text is for those who prefer a more open struggle. 12...cxd4 13 cxd4 exd4 14 Dxd4 Bes Y y Y 15 b3 ‘A typical pawn structure has arisen, The opening of the centre gives Black pressure on the lines leading to the e4-pawn, but there is Black’s 11th Move Alternatives often a downside to giving up the 5-pawn, Here it’s in the form of an isolated d-pawn and the decentralised knight on a5. Nevertheless, experience suggests that careful defence should yield full equality: a) 15 Dfl QB 16 Dg3 Bc8 (or 16...6 17 b3 @d7 [a similar plan to the game} 18 &b2 Hc8 19 Wd2 g7 20 a4 b4 21 Hab1 Who, BBrinck-Clausen-LB.Hansen, Copenhagen 1994; in this earlier example Hansen achieved a comfortable game) 17 b3 d5 18 e5 Ae4 19 Qb2 (19 Axed dred 20 Bxe4 Rxet 21 Bxed Dc6 22 Bb2 Bxe5 was dead equal in D.Agnos-V.Dydyshko, Pula 1997) 19,..Exe5 (Adams gives 19...Axp3 20 fxg3 Ac6 as unclear) 20 Daf He6 21 xed dxed 22 Wet Bg6 23 Wet Wes 24 Wxe5 Exes 25 Hadi He8 26 Dd6 Has! (an improvement on 26... x06 27 Bxd6 Bd521 28 Bxd5 Bxd5 29 ®Dh5, with advantage to White, M.Adams- O.Romanishin, Groningen 1993) 27 Axb7 Axb7 28 Hxd8 Axd8 29 Hdl Ac6 30 Axes Heo with — equality, _—_-V.Kotronias- O.Romanishin, Tilburg 1994. b) 15 b4!? Ac6 16 Axc6 Lxc6 17 2b2, and here Black has a couple of tries: b1) 17..2d7 (perhaps the safest way to a satisfactory game) 18 Ab3 (or 18 Bb3 216 19 Sxt6 Dxf6 20 Bet Hes 21 WH Ab7 22 Bxc8 Wxc8 23 WH We7, J.Polgar- A.Grischuk, Linares 2001) 18.216 19 &xf6 Wsxfo 20 Dd4 Ded 21 Axe6 Dxc6 22 Wa2 Bac8 23 &b3 Ad4, —Pe.Popovie- ORomanishin, Novy Smokovec 1992. b2) 17.868 18 Wi3 Be8 19 &b3 We7 20 Hadi 2b7 21 WES d5 22 65 Ad7 23 Ac, Xie Jun-M.Chibusdanidze, Manila Match 1991, and now according to Peters Black should continue with 23...We6! 24 Wxe6 Bxe6 25 a3 Abo. 15...96 The most solid is pethaps 15.28 16 Qb2 96 17 WE fg7, eg 18 Hadi Bc8 19 Rb1 Acé 20 Afl Ded 21 We Aed7 22 Wea d5 23 Dg3 We7 with full equality, J Polgar-G.Milos, Buenos Aires 2000. aeThe Ruy Lopez Main Line 16 2b2 Dd7 16...8.£8 transposes to the previous note. 17 Df1 B16 18 De3!? ‘The mote routine 18 Ag3 would probably transpose to positions resulting from 15 Afi above. Instead Svidler has visions of this knight having a more active role hopping to ef or d5, 18...Dc6 Taking the opportunity to exchange off his problem knight. If Black instead grabs the e-pawn with 18... 2xe4, then 19 Ags Sxc2 (19...d5 20 £3 doesn’t help matters) 20 Exe8+ Wxe8 21 DyxfG+ Dxf6 22 Dxe2 yields dangerous play on the dark-squares, 19 Axc6 2xc6 20 &xf6 Dxt6 21 Hdd 21,..806? ‘The rook is not happy here as it will provoke White into getting his light-squared bishop to the a2-g8 diagonal. But 21....8.xe4? is again unsatisfactory, e.g. 22 Ag+ Axe 23 Bixe4 d5 24 Wrd5 Wrxd5 25 Sxd5 Bxel+ 26 Exel Hd8 27 &b7 and Black loses a pawn. Black should prefer 21..We7, with only a small edge to White according to Svidler. 22 {3 a5 23 b4 a4 For the moment the bishop is denied access, but Svidler doesn’t give up that easily! 24 Zact We8 25 Zed1 Hd8 26 2b1 a8 27 a3! With @a2 now looming Black tries to make a counterattack in the centre. 27...d5 28 Zic7! 28 $02? is countered tactically with 28..\xe4! 29 gt Ag3 when White has some tempting checks but no win, 28...Rdd6 29 £a2 dxe4 A lesser evil was 29..Wd8, but White keeps a big advantage with 30 We5 2c6 31 exd5 Bxe3 32 Hxc6 Bxcé 33 Wxe3, 30 Wxd6 Bxd6 31 Bxd6 We5 32 Hus+ bg7 33 Bxf7+ &h6 34 Bxi6! Walt 35 Bh2 exf3 36 Dg4+ kg5 37 Ld5! fxg2 More robust is 37...n5, but Svidler intended 38 Bxf3! G8 Hy8 fxe2 39 Boxeo+ Eh is less clear) 38...hxg4 39 Bg3 Qxd5 40 Bxd5+ £6 41 h4 and White mops up with Bxb5 and or Bg5. 38 &xg2 &xg2 39 dxg2 h5 40 Bd5+ ha 41 HA 1-0 Game 23 A.Shirov-A.Grischuk New Delhi 2000 1 e4 e5 2 D3 Dc6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Lad 26 5 0-0 2e7 6 Hel b5 7 2b3 dé 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 AaB 10 Bc2 cB 11 d4 &b7 12 5 Black has extra time compared to other games with d4-d5, but this is not so important. Indeed Black often takes time to redeploy the bishop from b7 to the more influential d7 as is evident in the following lines. 12.004 52Black’s 11th Move Alternatives Black hastens to redeploy this knight to b6 before White plays b2-b3 when the queenside minor pieces would be stepping on each others toes. For the record, the negative-looking 12,,.,c8 transposes to Game 21. 13 a4 ‘The main alternative is 13 b3, with which there is much experience, e.g, 13...0b6 14 a4 (following 14 Abd? g6 15 Afl AhS 16 Lo eS 17 Wa2 2f6 18 Ag3, Black can ty 18..Df4l?, an idea borrowed from the King’s Indian. If White ever captures on f4 then the long diagonal opens up to become the do- main of Black’s dark-squared bishop. Even if this costs a pawn Black will obtain great dark-squared compensation: 19 Bacl d7 20 Mbt a5 21 a3 c4 22 bxed bxe4 23 Lxft [finally taking the plunge!] 23..exf4 24 Wf Dc5, with sufficient counterplay, A-Kunte- G.Milos, New Delhi 2000) and now there are three ideas: a) 14..c4 is an active try but after 15 bxe4 Dxc4 16 Da3 We7 17 Dxcd Wred 18 Was, Black came under pressure in the endgame in A Khalifman-A Beliavsky, Reykjavik 1991. b) also insufficient is 14...bxa4 15 bxad a5 16 a3! (clearly heading for b5) 16...£2a6 17 Re3 Dfd7 18 Hb We7 19 Ad2 Bes 20 ®Db5 with a comfortable edge for White, B.Gelfand-Pr.Nikolic, Sarajevo Match 1991. ©) 14...&c8, when we have the following position: This retrograde step is considered best as Black keeps options open concerning his queenside structure, cl) 15 &e3 bxad! 16 bxat Dc4 17 Sct a5 (the knight vacates the open b-file and from here eyes b3 and ¢4) 18 Wbd2 We? 19 c4 Hb8 20 Ha2 g6 21 &b2 Dh5 was fine for Black in V-Anand-O.Romanishin, New York Match 1994, 2) 15 Da3 bd! (again Black reacts with a gain of time) 16 cxb4 exb4 17 Db a5 18 2d3 h6 19 Dbd2 Dh7 20 Dc4 Axc4 21 Axct Dgs 22 Rds Rd? 3 23 (LYagupov-A.Bezgodov, Aars 1999) and now Fedorov suggests 23..Dxf3+ 24 Wht3 2g5 25 Bact Ws. 3) 15 Abd2 96 16 2d3 Bd7 17 25 Ac8 18 DEL DhS 19 Lh6 Hes 20 Wa2 246 21 b4 c4, with a typical position played several times by Romanishin, c.g. 22 &c2 Af4 23 a3 95, M.Wahls-O.Romanishin, Biel 1995, with chances for both sides. 13...0b6 14 We2! The favoured move at present. Black is invited to make a decision concerning b5. Romanishin has had this position on numerous occasions and faced a variety of moves, a) Of these 14 a5 clearly gains space but doesn’t seem to worry Black eg. 14..2\bd7 15 b4 We7 (or 15..2c8 16 Dbd2 96 17 Del Dh5 18 Lh6 Be8 [Black is ready for anything with this set-up] 19 2d2 2£6 20 De3 We7 21 c4l?, E.Mortensen-LB.Hansen, Co- penhagen 1995) 16 a3 Dh5 17 Bd2 Dra 18 Hcl c4 (.Gdanski-O.Romanishin, Po- lanica Zdroj 1991) and Black eventually won on the kingside. b) Kasparov avoided the defence chosen by Grischuk in this game by playing b2-b3 first and then We2. He managed to gain some advantage as follows: 14 b3!? &c8 15 We2 &d7 16 c4 b4 17 Abd2 o6 18 AFL Db5 19 94 Af4 20 Bxfd cxf 21 Wd2 266 22 €5, G.Kasparov-A.Grischuk, Cannes rapid 2001. 53The Ruy Lopez Main Line 14...2xad ‘A consequence of 14...Wd7 15 a5 is that Black is denied the preferred d7-square for his knight. Even so, the game A.Grischuk- ABezgodov, Russia 1999 was only equal after 15..c8 16 b4 c4 17 Abd? g6 18 Aft Dh5 19 Bh6 He8 20 Ag3 Axg3 21 fxgd 248. Faced with the same position as Black Grischuk prefers to release the tension on the queenside, the significance of which is open to speculation. 15 Gxa4 bxad 16 c4 Od7 17 Zxad Db6 18 Ha3 a5 19 Dc3 By wansposition, the moves 19 Abd2 cB lead to the game I.Gazik- O.Romanishin, Stary Smokovec 1992 after which 20 fl a4 21 2d2 2d7 22 Het We7 23 Bg3 was slightly more promising for White. 19...a4 20 203 2c8 21 b3 A new move, but the plan is similar to that of V-Topalov-JePiket, Groningen Match 1997 which continued 21 Ad2 &g5 22 Hb1 Bxc3 23 Wxe3 Bd7 24 b4 axb3 25 Haxb3 with slight pressure for White, Shirov aims for the same pawn structure (with consequent space advantage and more active pieces) but with extra chances due to the ptesence of dark-squared bishops. 21...axb3 22 2xb3 a6 23 Heb1 £5?! ‘Trying for some action, but this proves to fail tactically. Instead 23...Ad7 is passive but solid. 24 &xc5! A surptise. Shirov gives up a piece for two big central pawns and lively pieces. 24...dxc5 25 DxeS Dad Shirov considers White to be clearly better in the case of 25...£b7 26 exf5, but after 26.846 I can’t see anything obvious for White. However with three pawns and well- placed pieces he clearly has full compensation for the piece. 26 Dxa4 Exad 27 Ac6 We7 28 e5 Ha6 29 Wt Shirov considers a better choice to be 29 Dxe7+ WxeT 30 e6 with an edge. It’s only two pawns but it’s clear that Black will be the ‘one in danger with such an ineffective bishop. 29.14! Fighting for breathing space. 30 He1 £f5 31 Bb5 2c2! Aimed against the intended b3. 32 Hb2 Ag6 33 Hd2 Le8 34 Dxe7+ Wxe7 35 d6 We6 36 Wb7 Black appears to be on the ropes with Wsa6 and d6-d7 both threatened. However Grischuk finds a remarkable resource. 36...2c6! 37 Wxa6 £xg2! 38 £3 38 xg? allows dangerous counterplay with 38..+ 39 &h2 Who. 38...2xf3 39 Lh2 Lg4! Yet another amazing bishop move! After 39.5 40 Hd3 g4 (following 40..Ha8?, White wins with 41 Wxa8H! xa8 42 d7, or if 40...a8, White consolidates starting with 41 Wa2) 41 Bxf3 gxf3 42 Wb7 £2.43 Wy2+ Sans 44 Wxf2 3, White is better but Black is stil fighting. 40 Wb7 Capturing the bishop leads to the following forcing line: 40 hxe¢ Wxe4 41 Bel £3 42 ‘Wa2 Wh4t 43 deg We3+ 44 Hp2 Wxe2t 45, Weg? fxg2 46 HxfB+ QxfB 47 6 g5 48 Sx¢2 h5 which is only drawn! 40...Wh6 41 Wd5+ Bt7 42 &g1 Wxh3 43 Wy2 Wha 44 He 13? ‘After all that fine work Black finally goes 54Black’s 11th Move Alternatives astray. Here Shirov points out that 44,,.h3] 45 Was+ Es 46 Wad5+ hs 47 WB Wyst+ 48 ht Wh4 would hold. 45 e6! This works as capturing the queen allows mate in two; Black's defence crumbles. 45...018 46 e7 Ke8 47 d7 Sxd7 48 Wxt3 Wg5+ 49 F1 1-0 Game 24 N.Short-A.Nenashev Calcutta 1998 1 e4 e5 2 AF3 Ac6 3 2b5 a6 4 Lad 26 5 0-0 &e7 6 Hel b5 7 Ab3 dé 8 ¢3 0-0 9 h3 Dad5 10 Bc2 cS 11 d4 2d7 The Keres system, a speciality of A.Graf (formerly known as A.Nenashev) 12 dxeS ‘The most popular move 12 bd? is covered in Games 25-27. Other ideas are less critical: a) 12 d5 Db6 13 b3 (13 gd?! hs! [a noteworthy counter] 14 Ah2 hxg4 15 hxg4 295 16 @d2 g6 and Black had the better chances in RWFischer-P.Keres, Curacao Candidates ‘Tournament 1962) 13..f5 14 exfS QxfS 15 a3 (K.Hulak-P.Ostojic, Yugoslav Champi- onship 1978) and now Matanovie proposes 5..c4 as unclear, ‘The double-edged ...£5-break is justified by the weakness of White’s advanced d-pawn. b) 12 a4 &b7 is analogous to positions studied in Chapters 4 and 5 arising from 9.867 and 9...Dd7. ¢) 12 b3 exd4! (especially suitable now that the long diagonal has been weakened) 13 cxd4 Ac6 14 Ac3 (or 14 dS Ab 15 De3 B£6 16 Bb2 Dxc2 17 Wxc2 DcS with ‘equality, L.Stein-M.Tal, USSR 1964) 14.2266 15 Be3 cxd4 16 xd4 Dxd4 17 Lxd4 Lb7 18 b4 Bc 19 De2 He8 20 Axto Wats 21 Dg3 d5 with comfortable equality, G.Milos- Da.Lima, Sa Paolo Zonal 2003. d) 12 Bhi! (@ surprising waiting move. If Black now releases the tension in the centre White’s knight can come to the more active c3-square, so Black decides to develop something...) 12...8b7 (otherwise 12..2b8 13 d5 Dc4 14 gt He8 15 Bgl [another way of justi- fying his twelfth!] 15.Af8 16 b3 Dbo 17 Dbd2 Dg6 18 Af Af4!, and Black was fine in BBratovic-RLoncar, Pula 2003) 13. d3 (only now that the bishop is committed to b7) 13...f5 (trying to gain from the placing of the bishop on b7 by undermining d5) 14 ext Ac4 (Kramnik hints at how he would have played against 14..f6, ic. 15 Ags Qxd5 16 @Qd2 Wa7 17 Dded Bxed 18 xed d5 19 Bes Dc6 20 Be6 with the initiative) 15 @Dbd2_ (V.Kramnik-R.Ponomariov, Linares 2003) and now instead of capturing on d2 Black should have played 15...Dcb6! 16 Ded Qxd5 17 Degs (better than 17 Dfgs?! x65 18 Axh7 6 19 Dg’ Exf2) 17.6 with unclear play. The game continuation 15...Dxd21 16 Waxd2 D6 17 DgS Bxd5 18 £4 favoured White. €) 12 dxe5 comes to the same thing as the main game, This was recommended by Fischer and is still Nigel Short’s preference, but Black doesn’t seem to be unduly worried by this idea as we'll see below. 12...dxe5 13 \bd2 2b7! This seems to be the generally accepted foute to eventual equality. Of the three alternatives, the first two are now considered 55The Ruy Lopez Main Line inferior, the latter is new: a) 13...f6 allows White to install a knight on f5 and create some pressure: 14 Dh4 Db (or 14.267 15 AS 8 16 Att We7 17 Dies Abo 18 Ags Leo 19 WH, J.Bchavartia-O.Castro, Pensilvania 1998) 15 ©S HAT 16 Wet Shs 17 h4 We8 18 h5 Be6 19 DB 28 20 Ash4 with white pressure in J.Klovans-A.Nenashev, Minsk 1986. b) 13.We7t is known from a classic game: 14 Dl Dbo 15 De3 Bd8 16 We2 Be6 17 Dd5! Dxd5 18 exd5 Lxd5 19 Dxe5 Baz 20 &f4 Wh6 21 Bad and White’s superior pieces create strong pressure, R.Fischer- P.Keres, Curagao Candidates Tournament 1962 ©) Graf's latest try is 13..Be8 14 DF Dc4 15 A3h2 2g5 16 b3 Lxcl 17 Exel Acb6 18 Dg4 WeS with an unclear game, A.Khalifman-A.Graf, Spain 2003. 14 We2 After 14 fl Ded, Black will soon have to decide whether or not to touch his kingside pawns: a) After 15 g3 g6 16 b3 Dd6 (M.Tal- O.Romanishin, Jurmala 1983) K.Pytel analyses 17 2h6 He8 18 h4 (6 as being unclear. b) An example of the problems that Black can face if he doesn’t defend precisely: 15 D3n2 We7 16 Dgd Hfes 17 WS BiB 18 Do3 Ado 19 Lp5 Heb 20 Hadt c4 21 Ae3 Ac5 22 Dd5 Bxd5 23 exdS Hee8 24 Bh5 4 25 Wy3 @h8 (and now a neat combination that won a pawn) 26 Df6! He? 27 Se Hd8 28 @xed!, AShirov-M.Khazhgaleyev, Bastia 2002. If Black doesn’t want to play a defence based on ...¢6 then he could do worse than follow the following example (after 15 A3h2): 15..D£6 16 We2 We7 17 Ags Dde 18 &g5 @h8 19 Hadi Bad8 20 b3 Ags 21 cl cd 22 b4 a5 23 a3 axb4 24 axb4 Dto with no particular problems for Black, S.Ganguly-P.Thipsay, Jodhpor 2003. 14...e8 ‘The continuation 14...We7 15 Dfl Dc 16 b3 Dd6 17 4, NShort-L.Portisch, Til- burg 1988 is given as an edge to White in some sources, but this is débateable as the game soon transposed to the diagram after Black’s 20th move. Al Modiahki-N.Davies, Port Erin 2003 saw 17..0Afe8 18 2b2 £6 19 Ae3 Aw 20 a5 Wa8 21 cxb5 axb5, and just when it was getting interesting the players agreed a draw. 15 b3 A prophylactic move stopping the black knight using the c4-square. ‘The more compliant 15 @fl is met with 15...Dcd: a) 16 b3 Ado 17 c4 Who 18 2d3 £5 19 D3d2 D6 20 Dg3 £4 21 Dh5 b4 22 Bb2 ®F7, and Black went on to win in R Ziatdinov-A.Nenashev, Tashkent 1989. b) 16 di We7 17 b3 Dd6 18 4 AB 19 2b2 26 20 Ac3 Deo 21 Ags Dd4 22 ®xd4 cxd4 23 cxb5 axb5 24 AxfG+ ext 25 Qd3 @h8, was unclear in AShirov- M.Kazhgaleyev, Bastia 2002, 15...2c6! Black was recently successful with an al ternative: £81? 16 Hdt We8 17 Dl c4 18 BDe3 Df6 19 b4 Deb 20 Dds Axd5 21 exd5 @d4!, with adequate counterplay, V.Kramnik-V.Ivanchuk, Monaco rapid 2003. 16 Af1 Ab7! So the knight heads for d6 anyway. 17 &b2 Dd6 18 Radi 2f8 19 De3 Wb8 20 c4 b7 56Black's 11th Move Alternatives We have transposed to Short’s earlier game against Portisch which continued 21 al Axes 22 Ags Def6 23 DfreS Axed (but not 23...xp2? due to 24 Exd7 Dxd7 25 Wad g6 26 Wxd7 Wxd7 27 Ds6+ deg7 28 @fxd7 with a clear advantage) 24 Sxe5 Dsxg4 25 Wag4, when Black should have played 25..He6! as later suggested by Por- tisch, rather than 25...96? 26 hd! etc. 21 Ad2 BadB 22 £3 g6 23 2c3 b4 24 b2 2g7 25 Wi2 Di8 26 Dds White is finally ready to occupy the d5- square, but to balance things up, Black has access to d4, 26...De6 27 Af1 Dd4 28 Dfe3 ab 29 a3 BiB According to Nenashey, 29...e6 30 Wh4 EB (intending ...£5) is even better for Black. 30 Wh4 16 31 £4 exfa 32 Wxt4 2hs 33 &xd4 cxd4 34 Ac2 £5 35 e5 AbS! 36 exb5 In Nenashev’s opinion 36 Adxb4 @c3 37 Dxc6 Wxc6 is also equal. 36...axd5 37 Bd2 HfeS 38 Axd4 %-% Game 25 V.Anand-R.Ponomariov Mainz rapid 2002 1 e4 05 2 Af3 Dcé 3 Lbs a6 4 Lad D6 5 0-0 £e7 6 Hel b5 7 £b3 dé 8 63 0-0 9 h3 a5 10 &c2 cB 11 d4 Ad7 12 Dbd2 exda! Black’s most dynamic choice. After 12...2.£6 13 @Fl exd4 14 cxdd Deb, White has various tries but the latter is the biggest test: a) 15 d5, here or over the next few moves, gives Black a pleasant choice as he then has a firm hold on the central dark-squares. b) Keeping the tension with 15 &e3 2b7! leads to a tense game: 16 Wd2 He8 17 Hact He8 18 ADg3 96 19 Bb1 We7, D.Agnos- SSkembris, Karditsa 1996, ©) 15 Bf cxd4 16 Bxd6 HeB 17 Dth2 Be5 18 Qxe5 Ddxe5 19 Axe5 Axed 20 DEB Dxt3+ 21 Wxf3 B06 22 Bed Who was about equal in L.Guidarelli-$.Skembris, Cap @PAgde 1998 d) 15 €51 is critical: 15..dxe5 16 2e4 Bb7 17 dxe5 Ddxe5 18 Dxe5 Wxdt 19 Hxdt Bxe5 20 Hd7 Hab8 21 Hxb7 Exb7 22 &xc6, V.Akopian-Y.Kosashvili, Santiago 1990 with an edge to White (2 pieces are a shade preferable here to rook and pawn) according to ECO. The move 12...2b7 results in a position that can occur from various move-orders, with the three Black themes being inter- changeable, ic. ..2b7, ..Dd7 and ...2a5, compare with Chapter 5 for 9....8b7 and also with Chapter 6 for 9..d7. Z.Lanka- TSteinermayr, Donau 1996 proved to be preferable for White after 12...2b7 13 Dl cxd4 14 exd4 He8 15 d5 Acd 16 b3 Ach6 17 Dg3 g6 18 Ld2 We7 19 Bet. 13 cxd4 Dc6 14.45 T believe that White’s best try for an edge could be 14 dxc5l, eg, 14..dxe5 (otherwise 14..Dxc5 15 AF Le6 16 De3 BEG 17 Das Bxd5 18 exd5 De5 19 Dd4, should be preferable for White due to his impending control of the c6-square, O.Renet-M.Hebden, Clichy 2001) 15 5 c4 16 b3 Dc5 (after 16..c3 17 De4 Adxe5 18 Axed Wadi 19 Bxd1 Dxe5 20 Axc3 &6, HStefansson- A.Graf, Komatini 1993 White retained an edge with 21 @e4 Bb8 22 Ad5) 17 bxc4 57The Ruy Lopez Main Line Leb (best could be the 17..Ab4!? 18 a3 Dsc2_ 19 Wxe2 b4 20 Bb2 Wd3 of RB.Ramesh-S.Yuldash, Udaipur 2000 which may give reasonable compensation) 18 cxb5 (or 18 a3 bxe4 19 He3 Bb8 20 We2, V.Kotronias-A.Graf, Karditsa 1996 and again White was for preference) 18..axb5 19 a3 b+ 20 He3 Wa7 21 &b2, D.Ariel-A-Nenashev, New York 1998 with an edge to White. ‘The continuation 14 Al exd4! is covered in the notes to Game 27. 14.,.2ce5 Awttt ihe - A sharp struggle centred on the control of some key squares follows 15 h2: a) 15...g59? (a risky idea to support the e5- knight that is borrowed from the Modern Benoni) 16 Adfl &£6 17 Wh5 Shs 18 Ag3 Bg8 19 Dgt Hy6 20 Be3 c4, and although White eventually won I feel that Black was doing OK at this stage, R-Ponomariov- A.Graf, Plovdiv 2003. b) 15..Ag6 16 Ddfl (16 g3!? is a new idea to prepare an early h-pawn advance: 16..\%6 17 h4 De5 18 Ddfl h5 19 Se Afes 20 Qxe5 dxeS 21 Wd2 4, R-Ponomariov- M.Adams, Cap d’Agde rapid 2003 and Black had equalised) 16..2g5 17 De3 Ades 18 DS scl 19 Wxct De7 20 4 DxfS 21 fred Dad4 22 exd6 Wxd6 (a possible improvement is a line given by Lukacs & Hazai: 22...f6! 23 @\f3 [the Hungarian analysts give this an‘ but I think it's dubious; I prefer 23 Wal Wsd6 24 D3 with about equal chances) 23...Dxf3+ 24 gxf Waxd6 25 f4 £5 and Black is getting on top) 23 e5 Wb6 24 Bed, D.Agnos-S.Skembris, Greek Championship 1996, and now (rather than 24...f5?! 25 2£3. etc) a possible improvement is 24...f6!? 25 exf6 (2! perhaps, as according to Lukacs & Hazai 25 W4! retains the better of a compli- cated struggle) 25..Bxf6 26 Wd2 265, given by Agnos as unclear. Another idea is the immediate 15 a4, e.g: 15..b4!? 16 a5 a7 17 Dxe5 Axed 18 £4 DeG 19 Ac (so White has a great square for his knight, but things are still not clear...) 19.,.$.d7 20 Re3 Bb5 21 d3 Bh4 22 Be Be8, with a double-edged struggle ahead, A-Timofeev-A.Graf, Dubai 2002. 15...Dxe5 If 15..dxe5, ECO recommends 16 b3 retaining a small pull, as in S.Zjukin- AMorozevich, Eesti 1995. Instead 16 Aft cA! 17 Be3 Lb4 18 He2 Bb7 19 Dg3 g6 20 a3 Bch 21 Wd2 Qxe3 22 Bxe3 Acs, ‘T.Luther-SSkembris, Turin 1996 was about equal. Ys Y iat a 16 a4 ‘The ctitical moment for this move. Instead 16 4 has been played a few times, but Black has been doing well. Play is double-edged after 16.Ag6 17 DB (17...S2h4!? was introduced by Ponomariov this time playing as Black: 18 Axh4 Wxh4 19 £5 De5 20 BE Qd7 21 4 We7 22 Wel £6, 58B.Damljanovic-R Ponomariov, Plovdiv 2003) and now: a) 18 We2 fred 19 Bxe4 Ha7 20 Wer &h4 21 Be2 Maf7!, T-Enders-A.Graf, Ger- man Championship 2000, Black temporarily sacrificing a pawn for the initiative. b) 18 a4 b4 19 e5 Qh4 20 Bfl So3 21 Dg5 h6 (White is over-extended) 22 Deb Bxe6 23 dxe6 dxe5 and Black was better in V.Nedela-V.Talla, Czech Junior Champion- ship 1990. ©) 18 €5 dxe5 19 fxe5 @b7 20 dé Mh4 21 He2! (critical is 21 Hel! Bg3 22 ApS! Dns with an unclear struggle in O,Komeev- A.Graf, Jakarta 1997) 21...2g3 22 b4 c4 23 Wa4 Wd7 24 Sd2 Bae8 favoured Black, who has little to fear from the advanced but blockaded pawns, R-Ponomariov- A.Beliavsky, Moscow Match 2002. 16...2b8 ‘The continuation 16..2d7 17 f4 Dg6 18 2) bxad?! 19 Rxat Rxat 20 Bxat Wad7 21 £5 De5 22 DxeS due5 23 Md? left White on top in AVolokitin-L.Gofshtein, Halkidiki 2002. However in this Volokitin gives 18...&h4! (instead of 18..bxa4) 19 Dxh4 Weh4 20 HA (20 HP De5 21 Be3 keeps the game alive) 20...2xh3 leading to a draw. Finally, 16..b4 comes into consideration as played in the analogous position (without the knight exchange on e5), see ‘Timofeev- Graf in the note to 15 a4, 17 axb6 axbS 18 4 Dg6 19 AZ : . a. Black's 11th Move Alternatives 19...Gh4! Instead 19...£52 is shasp but bad: 20 ¢5 dxe5 21 fxe5 Bb7 22 dé Qh4 23 Dxh4 Wsh4 24 e6 Wy3 25 Be2 Dh4 26 Ha3! (this possibility prepared by 16 a4 is decisive) 26..M3+ 27 Hxf3 &xf3 28 Wa3, and wins (Ponomarioy and Komarov). 20 Axh4 After 20 Hfl, the ...f5-break is still too dangerous but 20...2g3! gives Black an interesting game, eg. 21 £5 Des 22 Ags Dar {also possible is 22..h6, when both 23 {6 gxt6 24 DB t7, and 23 Ha3 Bh4 24 DB, and now simply 24...0.6 are rather unclear) 23 Had Be5 24 h4 c4 25 Bh3 bd proved to be very sharp in A.Zhigalko-M.Acher, Heraklion 2003. White’s attack was later worth a draw but he tried for more and lost. Ponomariov and Komarov consider 21 Des h6 22 £5 hxgS 23 fxg6 fxg6, when Black’s unique pawn structure doesn’t seem that easy to attack. 20...Wxh4 21 45 DeS 22 Eft 2d7 23 &f4 Has 24 Wd2 24 Bxe5 dxe5 yields White a protected passed pawn, but on the negative side he is left with a poor minor piece. 24...We7 Black’s firm grip on the centre ensures a comfortable game. 25 b4 cd 26 We3 cxb4 27 Wxb4 WE 28 We1 Wb2 29 c1 Mfe8 30 W2 Ha3 Black could then certainly start thinking more ambitiously with 30...£6, a suggestion of Ponomarioy and Komarov 31 &b1 Wxf2+ 32 Exf2 #6 33 Ef3 Rea8 34 2d3 AeS 35 Axe5 dxe5 ‘This recapture prepares a route for the king to come to the blockading d6-square. 36 Bf %-% Game 26 V.Anand-Je.Piket Wijk aan Zee 1999 1 e4 e5 2 D3 Ac6 3 Lb5 a6 4 Lad 59The Ruy Lopez Main Line D6 5 0-0 e7 6 Hel b5 7 Ab3 dé 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 4a5 10 2c2 c5 11 d4 @d7 12 Abd2 exd4 13 cxd4 Ac6 14 Db3 ab 15 &d3! aha a eet Y a More testing than the older 15 2e3 of Game 27. 15...£a6 ‘The problem with 15..a4 is that White can capture the pawn (16 &xb5! Wb6 17 2xc6 Wac6 18 Dbd2) and claim that the onus is on Black to prove that he has anything in return. Anand prefers White slightly. 16 d5 Db4 17 2f1 ad 7...2c8? the Indian tactician had sty trap: 18 Dxa5! Wra5 19 2d2 and the threat of 20 a3 wins back the piece with interest. 18 Dbda! This temporary piece sacrifice is stronger than 18 a3 Dxd5 19 Wxd5 Dbo 20 Wal axb3 21 Wxb3, which nevertheless is a shade better for White who has obtained the better pawn structure, FHellersJ.Timman, Am- sterdam 1986. 18...exd4 19 a3 Axd5 The older game LShamkovich- J.Benjamin, USA 1976 also proved promising for White after 19...2.£6 20 axb4 Wb6 21 b3 (opening the a-file for the rook and allowing the bishop to come to b2 hitting the loose d- pawn) 21.axb3 22 Wxb3 De5 23 AxeS dxe5 24 Ba5. 20 exd5 2f6 21 Dxd4 ‘The smoke cleats and it becomes apparent that despite retaining material equality Black has an array of weaknesses on b5, c6 and d6. 21...De5 Tf 21..b6 22 Acé (or 22 Be3 Wh? 23 cl, and White retains the initiative) 22...De5 23 Be3 Wh7 24 Db4 Hfes 25 Hel Ach 26 Lxcd bxed 27 Wa2 (D.Necloptal- P.Thipsay, Indian Championship 2003) White has slightly the better prospects. 22 De6! White could nip off a pawn with 22 ADxbs, but after 22...&xb5 23 Axb5 Ab3 24 bi Dxct 25 Wxct Wh6, or perhaps 23.288 (instead of 23..@b3) 24 Bxa4 Qxb2 Black would have some practical drawing chances, True to his style Anand plays for the initiative. 22...Wb6 23 2f4 Efes Otherwise 23...Qxb2 is met by 24 Ha2 Bc3 25 Be3 BF6 26 Lxd6 giving White a clear advantage as he dominates the centre and his d-pawn is far superior to Black's queenside majority. 24 We2! After 24 &xd621, then 24...Ded hits both the bishop and the £2-square, whereupon the exchange ‘sac’ 25 Hixed Hxet 26 &d3 is double-edged. 24...0b3 25 Bad1 White's pieces operate harmoniously, bearing down on key central squares. In comparison Black’s lack scope and co- 60Black’s 11th Move Alternatives ordination, 25...We7 Piket was probably counting on 25...Dd4, but after 26 Exe8+ Hxe8 27 Dxd4 Qxd4 White has the strong continuation 28 Exd4! Wadd 29 Web, Then Black can save the exchange but not the game after the further 29.,.Wed 30 Sxd6 Bc8 31 BxbS Hus 32 We7 Be8 33 B93! LE5 34 dé as pointed out by Anand. 26 Hed Bxe4 27 Wxed 2xb2 28 Het Apart from mate there is the threat of Wb4 followed by 2xd6. 28...Wd7 29 Wb4 2f6 30 &xd6 h6 31 £d3 Ee8 32 Exe8+ Strong but 32 Abs! was simpler. 32...WxeB 33 2e7 White now threatens Wed, 33...2b2 34 Wed g6 35 ibd Wxed 36 Bxed The advanced passed d-pawn gives Black no hope. 36...216 37 dé 2cB 38 Ld3 2d7 39 DbB Se6 40 SxbS Ada 41 2xad 1-0 Game 27 Ye Jiangchuan-J.Dorfman Elista Olympiad 1998 1 e4 e5 2 Df3 Acé 3 &b5 a6 4 Lad 26 5 0-0 £e7 6 Hel bS 7 2b3 dé 8 3 0-0 9 h3 Aad 10 Sc2 cB 11 d4 @d7 12 Abd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 Ac6 14 bs White can also move his knight to the kingside or close the centre: a) 14 Ql leads to equal chances after the most precise 14...exd4}, see ‘a3: al) 14...8.£6 15 23 exd4 (15...AAb6 16 b3 5 17 dxe5 Dxe5 18 Bd4 was unpleasant for Black in Y.Sakharov-A.Zwaig, 1963) 16 Dxd4 Dde5 17 Dg3 g6 18 a4 gave a small edge to White in D.Minic-V.Ciocaltea, Reg- gio Emilia 1968. a2) 14...b6 15 b3 26 of M.Tal-P.Keres, USSR 1963 is best met with 16 &¢3!, when the knight on b6 is misplaced. a3) 14exd4 15 Dxd4 DAxd4 16 Wxd4 (the centrally placed queen allows Black to gain time and thus obtain sufficient counterplay) 16..De5: a31) 17 Qe3? is rather slack due to 17..8xh3!, J.Michielsen-A-Barbitskij, Salek- hard 2003. 32) 17 Rd 2.b7 (17...8.xh3?l is now met by 18 Wxe5! dxe5 19 Hxd8 Héxd8 20 gxh3 Hac8 21 &b3) 18 Dg3 (or 18 Ae3 Ec8 19 2b3 26 20 Wxd6 Wade 21 Bxd6 Bxet with equality V.Jansa-P.Thipsay, Calcutta 1986) 18..Hc8 19 &b3 £6 20 Wado Wrdo 21 Bxd6 Ac4, with adequate compensation as in P.Bauer-L.Pachman, Sindelfingen 1984, 33) 17 Wal 26 18 De3, and now it’s a question of taste. Black can try the solid 18.6 19 a4 Deb 20 Dds Qxd5 21 exd5 Db4 22 Bb1 bxad 23 Bxat a5 (AShirov- JePiket, Tilburg 1997) or the dynamic 18..Ac4? (instead of 18...2e6) 19 Hbt Leb 20 &b3 Was 21 Ke2 Hack 22 Dd5 Lxd5 23 Wxd5 Ec5 24 Wat Efc8, N.Firman- R Ziatdinov, Philadelphia 2003. b) After 14 d5 Black obtains adequate play as follows: 14...b4 15 Qb1 a5 16 We2 (or if 16 a3 Ba6 17 b4, then advisable is 17..Ab6! 18 Wb3 2d7 19 B43 Ac? 20 Abi hs 21 2b2 (5 and Black took the initiative, ASuetin-M-Tal, USSR Championship 1964/5) 16..b8 17 a3 Aa 18 2d3 Dacd! 19 b4 (19 Qxb5? BxbS! 20 WxbS 226 21 61The Ruy Lopez Main Line Wc6 Wb8 [trapping the queen] 22 b4 &b5 and White doesn’t really have enough compensation: 23 bxc5 Sxc6 24 cxd6 Wxd6 25 BDc4 We? 26 dxc6 Wxc6) 19..Axd3 20 Waxd3 a4, R-Tischbierek-GSiegel, Baden- weiler 1995, 14...a5 15 2e3 For 15 &d3 see Game 26. 15...a4 16 Abd2 Alternatively 16 Bel exd4 17 Axd4 Axd4 18 Qxd4 De5 19 Da3 LE6 20 Db4 Le6 21 Bb Wc8 22 &c3 Dg6 was comfortable for Black in —_V.'seshkovsky- O.Romanishin, Sochi 1983. 16...2°6 Also possible is the opening of the game with 16..exd4 17 Dxd4 Dxd4 18 @xd4 Des 19 a3 (PePopovie-D.Blagojevic, Becici 1994) and now 19...8.£6 20 DF Be6 21 De3 Det should be about equal. 17 d5 Db4 18 Lb1 Ach 19 Aft Abas White has a small but persistent space su- periority, and this gives him objectively more options. However Black’s centre and firmly entrenched knights create a barrier that White is unable to breach 20 &c2 Db4 21 &b1 Abas 22 Wd2 Ad7 23 &c2 Wb8 24 Kaci 2dB Seeking a more active diagonal. This theme reoccurs throughout this book where the centre is closed and the bishop isn’t re- quited for a defensive role on the kingside. 25 b4 axb3 26 axb3 2b6 27 Hal 27 bd isn’t that worrisome for Black after 27...2)ad as Black’s minor pieces shouldn’t be inconvenienced for long, 27...Sb7 28 Dg3 Dc7 29 DS Bxat 30 Bxa1 Des Keeping a careful watch over the king's safety. 31 Ha3 £6 32 Dh4 Bt7 33 Ags g6 White’s aggressive intentions are neutral- ised by Black’s careful defensive play. 34 Gh2 Da 35 b4 Axe3 36 Lxe3 Whe 37 Ha3 Dac7 38 £d1 &f8 39 294 Exchanging light-squared bishops weakens Black’s grip on the c6-square. 39...e7 40 2xd7 dxd7 41 He3 Dab 42 %c6 Wb7 43 De2 Abs 44 Hei kas ‘The centralised king is perfectly safe behind Black's watertight defensive line, 45 a1 Wb6 46 Sc3 Hav 47 Hxa7 Wxa7 48 We2 %-% 48 @xb5 is countered by the reply 48... Wad. In the final position Black would play 48...Wd4, when after 49 Wxb5 (or 49 Axb5 Wxb4 with equality) 49...Ad7 50 WaS+ ee7 Black will regain his material with sufficient activity. 62Black’s 11th Move Alternatives Summary Of the rarer tries, the revitalised 11...cxd4l? is a promising area for future research whereas I’m suspicious about the soundness of Hebden’s 11...2e8, Borisenko’s 11..\c6 loses time after 12 d4-d5, as does 11...2b7, again due to 12 d5 as the queenside pieces will need remixing. Neither of these look fully equal but are fine for those wanting a peaceful manoeuvring game with no unpleasant surprises. ‘The older way of handling Keres’s 11..2d7 with 12...cxd4 is under something of a cloud due to Anand’s play in Game 26, but the newer 12..exd4 of Game 25 is holding up but is very theoretical. 1 e4 e5 2 Df3 Ac6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Bad AVE 5 0-0 Le7 6 Hel bS 7 2b3 dé 8 c3 0-0 93 DaB 10 &e2 c5 11 d4 Ad7 (Keres’s Defence) 11..c6 Borisenko’s Defence) 12 d5 12...DaT — Game 20 12...Da5 (D) ~ Game 21 11.267 12 d5 — Game 23 12 @bd2 — Game 22 11...Be8 (Hebden’s Variation) — Game 19 M.exd4 — Game 18 12 Dbd2 12 dxc5 dxc5 13 Bbd2 &b7 (D) - Game 24 12...0xd4 12...exd4 13 cxd4 Ae6 — Game 25 13 cxd4 D6 14 Db3 Others — Game 27 notes 14...a5 15 &d3 (D)— Game 26 15 Be3 — Game 27 63CHAPTER FOUR The Breyer System 1 04 e5 2 Af3 Ac 3 &b5 a6 4 Bad 216 5 0-0 207 6 Hel b5 7 2b3 dé 8 3 0-0 9 h3 Abs ‘The Breyer Variation is characterised by the manoeuvre 9..c6-b8 followed by .d7. Black intends ...&b7 with harmonious development, and only then will he decide when to advance his c-pawn or reorganise his kingside pieces He hopes to thus avoid the problems in- herent in the Chigorin, where the queen's knight and queen’s bishop are often stepping ‘on each others toes. Whilst Black carries out a general rede- ployment, White has the time to place his pieces ready for the middlegame to follow. A popular line over the years as it seems positionally very sound. White’s extra space gives him chances for a pull, but faced with well placed pieces and no obvious weaknesses he finds it tough to find a chink in Black’s armour. Game 28 E.Bacrot-S.Gligoric Cannes 1998 1 e4 e5 2 AF3 Ac6 3 2b5 a6 4 Lad D6 5 0-0 Se7 6 He1 bS 7 2b3 dé 8 3 0-0 9 h3 Abs 10 44 10 d3 is hardly critical. Play can be compared to some lines from Chapter 10, various Anti-Marshall systems and even the Italian with 4 d3. White doesn’t want to expand his centre early, he prefers to bring his queen’s knight to g3 before committing himself. Despite the fact that the plan is slow Black should take cate not to be lulled into a false sense of equality! 10..\bd7 (10..c5 11 Dbd2 eb is another idea) 11 Dbd2 &b7 12 AFL Dc5 13 Bc2 He8 14 Ag3 (or here 14 Ae3 268 15 b4 Dcd7 16 &b3 h6 17 c4 c5 18 a3 exb4 19 axb4 bxc4 20 Qxc4 d5, with equal chances, A.Matanovic-A.Hennings, Helsinki 1972) 14. 2.8 64a) 15 @h2 is best met by central action with 5, when 16 WE Deb 17 Ass Shs 18 @g4 doesn’t lead to an advantage, e.g, 18...Dxgt 19 Wxgt We 20 Wy3 dxe4 21 dxed c5 22 @c3 c4 23 Badl Hads, G.Tringov-E.Geller, Amsterdam 1970, Nor for that matter does 18 exd5 (instead of 18 Wed) 18..2xd5 19 We3 Dns 20 Wea 20 fxe521 Wd7 21 De7 Ate 22 Dxds Dad! favours Black slightly, G.Tringov-M.Filip, Siegen Olympiad 1970) 20.66 21 We3 with a repetition, b) 15 b4 Dcd?7 (instead 15...e6 16 d4 a5 17 bxaS Eixa5 18 £2 Was 19 Wbi Des 20 c4 Ha3, was very double-edged in O.Renet- J.Van der Wiel, Lyon 1990) and now: b1) Black has no problems after 16 2.b3 d5! 17 a3 c5 18 exd5 Qxd5 19 Bg5 We7, ‘T.Petrosian-L.Portisch, Hamburg 1965. b2) Equally benign is 16 &d2 d5 17 exd5 Bxd5 18 2b3 c5, PJaracz-A.Beliavsky, Bled 2002. b3) Normal is 16 d4 g6, when compared to Game 30 (see 13 b4 there) White has spent an extra tempo with d3-d4, but Black has spent two, @d7-c5-d7. This doesn’t seem to be a major issue as Black has good chances to equalise with two of the three alternatives available after 17 a4: b31) 17...6 however is unnecessarily passive, eg. 18 @e3 We? 19 Bd2 &g7 20 Het Had8 21 £4, and White had a promising position, DJakovenko-D.Khismullin, Halkidiki 2001; b32) After 17...2b6, in Xie Jun-N.Short, Ji Nan 2003, White tried to play safely with 18 dxe5 dxe5 19 Wxd8 Haxd8 20 @g5 dg? 21 axb5 axb5 22 Ha7 Bb8 23 2d3 c6 24 Dd2 Dad, but Black was able to generate enough play to win. 33) 17...&g7 18 &d3 bxa4! (rather than 18...c6 19 2g5 h6 20 83 We7 21 Act Hads 22 Wad2 @h7 23 Wa2 Be7 24 c4, with a clear advantage to White, A.Karpov-B.Lengyel, Budapest 1973) 19 dxe5 @xe5 (19...dxe5 20 Hxad 5, P.Keres-A.Matanovic, Winnipeg The Breyer System 1967, wasn’t that bad either but White kept a nominal pull) 20 Axe5 Hxe5 with equality, according to Matanovic. 10...2bd7 11 04 Instead of 11 c4, the odd-looking 11 ®h4l? has been played by a number of top players including Fischer and Tal. a) First of all accepting the gambit with 11...Axe4 is possible: 12 AB Adt 13 WE Qb7 14 Bc2 Ac5 15 Wy3 Deb 16 Lo De8 (here Black can improve with 16..h5 17 Wg4 Ato 18 We3 DhS when a draw looks like best play) 17 dxe5 dxe5 18 Bxe5 .2f6 19 Ket and White retained an edge, E.Vasiukov-R.Kholmov, USSR 1964, b) 11...2b6 12 Ad2 c5 13 dxc5 (13 AL is a mistake according to Romanishin and An.Bykhovsky because of 13..2xf5 14 exf5 exd4 15 cxd4 c4 with the better game for Black) 13..dxc5 14 65 c4.15 &c2 &xf5 and White obtains the bishop pair, a pivot-point on e4 and play against e§. Black in return has a solid position. After the further moves 16 exfS We7 17 WE Had8 18 Ded, as in Ma.Tscitlin-V.Liberzon, USSR Champion- ship 1970, most players would take the white pieces if given a choice. ¢) Stepping out of the way with 11..Be8 12 65 28 is playable but White can create sharp complications with 13 Dd2 &b7 14 ABP exd4 (14..Axe4 15 Bxet Bxe4 16 gS Qxf5 17 Dxf7 leads to a draw with DET-h6-£7 ete.) 15 Ags d5 16 cxd4 Dxed 17 65The Ruy Lopez Main Line Whs AxpS 18 Rxe5 (6 19 Bd? and White has practical chances for the pawn, J.Dueball-V.Tukmakov, USSR 1970. d) Opening the centre is simplest: I..exd4 12 exd4 Db6 13 Dd? 5 14 Lc2 cxd4 15 Dhf3 (if this is the best they can do to follow up on White's 11th, then it’s not that surprising that the line is out of sorts!) 15,.Be8 16 Axd4 28 17 b3 Bb7 18 Lb2 Dbd7 19 We He8 with comfortable equality, R.Byrne-B Spassky, Moscow 1971. 11...06 ‘The standard reply. Other moves have been tried, the best of which appears to be 11...Ab7, but after 12 @c3, he should really play 12..c6 anyway. Another encounter between Robert Byrne and Boris Spassky (this one from Baden 1980) led to a draw after the following moves: 13 a3 exd4 14 Axd4 We5 15 @a2 bxc4 16 Bxc4 d5 17 exd5 cxd5 18 Ba2 Afed 19 DES Dxc3 20 Dxc7+ Were? 21 bxc3 De6. White has a nominal edge after 2e3-d4, whereas the game continuation 22 Sixdd Brads 23 c4 Qxd5 24 exdS Wes 25 23 Wsd5 gave nothing, and indeed at this point a draw was agreed. iF “Metis Meal aga a cnn “s woke a 12 Dbd2 White has tried a number of alternatives but without great success. The three lines that follow all equalise for Black: a) 12 a3 bxe4 13 Bxe4 d5 14 exd5 cxd5 15 Ba2 e4 16 We5 BG 17 Axd7 Bxd7, enst-A.Omstein, Swedish Championship ak b) 12 cxb5 axbS 13 Dc3 Bb7 14 Bg5 b4 15 Abi h6 16 Bh4 cS 17 dred Dxed 18 Qxe7 WxeT 19 BAS (worse is the move 19 exd6? WGl, RFischer-BSpassky, Sveti Stefan/Belgrade Match 1992) 19...xd5 20 Wxd5 Dgd 21 Abd? dxedt?. ©) 12 cS We7 13 cxd6 Bxd6 14 B95 exd4l? 15 &xf6 gxf6 16 Axd4 Dc5 17 He2 Hd8 18 Hdl (18 Axc6 Axb3 19 axb3 &b7 20 Dd4 Wxe2 21 Axc2 Me5 gave Black excellent compensation in Jan.Gombac- J.Borisek, Slovenian Championship 2003) 18..xb3. 19 @xb3_ (R.Calvo-L-Portisch, Palma de Mallorca 1967) and now Portisch recommends 19...2h2+ 20 hi Hxd1+ 21 Wad! with equality. 12...We7 ECO recommends 12...5!, based solely on a correspondence game Poleshchuk- Umansky from 1979 which continued 13 d5 Abo 14 We2 Ad 15 Lc2 Des 16 We3 &d7 (16...bxc4 looks better as White is disorganised) 17 b3 and considers the position to be unclear. More common is 12...b7 13 a4!? (this idea is akin to that of Bacrot-Gligoric) 13..Wc7 14 We2 Hab8, G.Sax-H.Stevic, Pula 1999, and now 15 axb5 axbS 16 cxb5 cxb5 17 Wxb5 Bxe4 18 Wed is given by ECO as slightly better for White, but P’d be happy with Black after 18..Wxc4 19 &xc4 Bxf3 20 Dsf3 4. 13 a4 ‘A better try than 13 Sc2 WaT 14 exb5 axbS 15 fl c5 16 dxe5 dxe5 17 a4 2b7 18 g3 c4, where Black had already equalised, RByrne-B.Abramovic, Reykjavik 1982. 13...8b8 I'm persuaded that 13...b7 is better, see the note to Black’s 12th. 14 cxb5 cxbS 15 axbS axb5 16 Af1 pe 17 Wa3 Istill prefer White after the text move, but Bacrot prefers 17 @.d2! Ac4 (or 17..exd4 18 Dxd4 Act 19 Hel) 18 Lxct bxcd 66(18... Wed is worse because of 19 dxe5 Axed 20 Hel Wa5 21 &b4 with a big advantage) 19 2c3, 17...De4 18 Ke2 d5!? The veteran shows that he’s not happy to settle for a passive game with 18...2d7 19 c2 Wb7 20 d5 Abo 21 Be3, when White would retain a safe edge. 19 Dxed Dxe4 20 Lf4 Ld6 21 Dg3 21...Dxg3 This move has been criticised but I don’t think that Black can equalise here, for instance if 21..4f6, then 22 Bael with continuing pressure, Wedberg describes 21...f61? as ‘the crucial move’ and after 22 Axet dxed 23 Dxcé! (23 Bxe4?! fxe5 24 dxe5 2e7 doesn’t yield enough compensation) 23..exd3 24 Axd6+ Bh8 25 Be (not 25 De7+? Wet7!) 25.265 26 DeT+ Bxf7 27 &xc7 Bxc7 concludes that chances are equal, but here by continuing with 28 g4! 2.96 29 £4 White is still better. 22 Wxg3 215 23 Ha6 Hb6 24 Exb6 Dxb6 25 Dg6! &xt4 Possible is 25..2xg6, as after 26 Bxd6 Welt 27 Gh2 Has 28 WR Wes 29 Bc5 Dc4 30 Be7 White has nothing concrete. 26 Wxt4 Wxf4 27 Oxfa Bd8 28 Bed ‘The d-pawn comes under siege and must inevitably fall. Black then wriggles but the odds are against him. 28...2d7 29 &xd5 Hf8 30 2f3 2e8 31 d5 204 32 He2 Ha8 33 g4 Hal+ 34 The Breyer System eg2 Bb1 35 Ad3 16 36 Le4 017 37 13 96 38 Sf2 Ade 39 Af4 Bat 40 Be2 15 41 gxf5 gxf5 42 2d3 we7 43 we2 Hat 44 he3 S16 45 Ec6 weS ‘There follows a neat combination to win a farther pawn. 46 Qxb5! Hb1 ‘The point is that 46...2xb5 allows mate in three: 47 Ad3+ Brxd5 48 Db4+ deeS 49 £4 mate. 47 Se2 Bal 48 Ec7 Ha8 49 fid1 Hes 50 2a4 Bb8 51 b3 Bb6 52 Ad3+ ote 53 Ec6 1-0 Game 29 A.Shirov-I.Sokolov Sarajevo 2003 1 e4 e5 2 D3 Ac6 3 Lb5 a6 4 Lad DTG 5 0-0 &e7 6 Kel bB 7 &b3 dé 8 ¢3 0-0 9 h3 Abs 10 d4 Abd7 11 Dbd2 2b7 12 c2 cS Ya KR 7 J AR Ky, A Be Provoking action immediately in the centre rather than settling for the more cautious 12..8e8, which features in the following eight games. Worth mentioning (and avoiding!) is 12..d521 13 dxeS Axed 14 Axed deed 15 Bxed Bxe4 16 Hxed Dxe5 17 Bd4 with a strong initiative for White despite all the simplification, __J.Hjartarson-S.Reshevsky Reykjavik 1984. 13 1 67The Ruy Lopez Main Line Closing the centre with d4-d5 isn’t too frightening for Black as his pieces are well- placed to reorganise, but White’s space advantage is pethaps worth a small pull: a) 13 d5 g6 (13..c42) 14 Del Dhs 15 Bho Dp7 16 De3 DG 17 a4 Wh8 18 b3 Hb8 19 We2 cB 20 axbS axb5 21 Ha7 Ags, was more-or-less OK for Black despite ces ing the a-file in the famous game A.Karpov- S.Gligoric, Leningrad Interzonal 1973. b) 13 b3 He8 (preparing to open the centre) 14 d5 g6 (the more recent 14..Ab6 15 a4 WaT 16 a5 Dc8 17 b4 cxb4 18 cxb4 L683 19 ®DFl DS, Y.Zinchenko-E.Romanov, Budva 2003 leaves Black somewhat disorganised) 15 ad (for the position after 15 AFI see the note to White’s 14th move) 15..8b8 16 b4, gave White a nagging edge in L.Kavalek- S.Gligoric, Nice Olympiad 1974 eg. 16..c4 17 DF BAB 18 Bg5 Vg7 19 Wd2 Db 20 a5 Dbd7 21 4. 13...8e8 If Black changes the move-order of his next two moves with 13..cxd4 14 cxd4 He8, White could try 15 d5. Nevertheless after 15..a5! (to keep control of the c5-square for the knight) 16 De3 AcS 17 DG 268 18 Dh2 &c8 19 WE VxfS 20 WxfS Bed, Black’s pieces are solidly placed and the bishop pair isn’t a major factor. Chances are equal, Y.Balashov-D.Bronstein, USSR Championship 1975, 14 Ags Another recent Sokolov game was instructive: 14 d5 g6 15 b3, (preparing a2-a4 but note that after the immediate 15 a4, then 15..c4 is similar to Game 35 and known to be reasonable for Black) 15..b6 (15..Ah5 16 a4 c4 17 b4 denies Black the use of c5 for his knight) 16 De3 Sc8 17 a4 Rd7 18 a5 Ac8 19 b4 c4 20 gt (as the queenside is under control it’s time to make advances on the other wing) 20...h5 21 Db2 hxg4 22 hxg4 Dh7 23 ke? Be5 24 Bhi, with White retaining some pressure in a complex game, PSvidler-I Sokolov, Germany 2003. 14...0xd4 ‘The traditional line starting 14.28, played on numerous occasions by the Yugo- slav Grandmaster Svetozar Gligoric, leads to closed manoeuvring, There has been re- newed interest here of late in that position via the move order 12...e8 13 Dfl O18 14 Dg3 c5 15 d5 cA. ‘After the moves 14...2.8 15 d5 (15 dxe5 didn’t give anything following 15..dxe5 16 DES We7 17 Dh2 BeG 18 WE acs 19 Det c4 20 Dig3 Acs, B.Parma-S.Gligoric, Por- toroz/Ljubljana 1975) 15..c4 (Gligotic used to play with 15..6 with play akin to other lines of the Breyer, e.g. 16 b3 “b6 17 a4 for 17 Bg5 h6 18 Bc3 y7 19 Wel h5 20 Les Wes 21 Bd3 WA 22 a4 bxa4 23 bxad Hebs, V.Ciocaltea-S.Gligoric, Portoroz/Ljubljana 1973] 17..bxa4 18 bxa4 a5 19 &g5 297 20 @Dd2 Ba6, E.Gufeld-S.Gligoric, Odessa 1975) we reach the following position. ‘The modern interpretation involves ma- nocuvting ithort touching the kingside pawns. Black hopes that by giving no clear targets he will make his king quasi- impregnable whilst he gets going on the other wing, Practice suggests however that White keeps an initiative and eventually generates an attack before Black’s queenside efforts can make an impression: 16 @g5 (or even more aggressively 16 5 We7 17 e4 Beb8 18 g5, A.Grischuk- S.Azarov, Rethymnon 2003) 16..WWc7 17 68The Breyer System M5 (Svidler often likes playing for £2-£4 e.g. 17 Wd2 Rebs 18 Dh2 Ae8 19 Ags Bc8 20 Bel a5 21 Bh AWe5 22 £4, P.Svidler- ADelchev, French ‘Team Championship 2003) 17..2h8 18 g4 Ags 19 Wd2 Ac5 20 LQe3 VcB 21 Dgs Mhs 22 hy? a5 23 ad De7 24 Hh1 ADgé 25 g5, and things are starting to get going on the kingside, V.Anand- V.Bologan, New Delhi 2000. 15 cxd4 exd4 16 Dxd4 16...d5! A freeing move introduced in this game and reminiscent of analogous positions from the Chigorin where Black’s queen’s knight is on a5. Here the knight is more flexibly placed as from d7 it can go to 5, €5 or B. White retained the initiative after the previously known 16..8f8 17 Sf Ded 18 DdfS d5 19 Bxe5 Bxe5 20 4, J.Egger-J.De ‘Toledo, Sao Paolo Zonal 1993. 17 exd5 The over-enthusiastic 17 17..2b4. 17...2xd5 18 Adf5 2f8 19 Le3 Black hasn’t any particular problems or For instance after 19 £4 Hxel+ 1 He8, Black has equalised. 19...We7 ‘The more forcing 19...2b4 20 He2 &c4 21 Bd3 De5 is also equal 20 Wd2 Wb7 21 Adal? Most players would have played the unin- spiring 21 £3 but Shirov loves complications! 5? fails to 21.,,xg2 22 Wg5 g6 Sokolov now thinks that Black should either have played 22...@xh3, or 22...d5. The second of which leading to a draw with 23 Des Axed 24 xed Qxed 25 Ah6+ hs 26 Dxf7+ keg8 27 AbG+. The test is risky. 23 Dh6+ Axh6 24 Wxh6 Bxe1+ 25 Exe He8 26 Hxe8+ “xe8 27 We3 A better try seems to be 27 DFS gxf 28 We5+ 8 29 Wxg2 when the ending with two powerful bishops in an open position favours White, despite him being ‘half a pawn’ down, and if then 29..Wc7 30 2c3 ‘Wes 31 Was Welt 32 Qdl, White might be able to keep some pressure according to Sokolov. 27...D97 28 &xg7 &xg7 29 Wg5 2xh3 30 DhS+ kg8 31 Wd8+ D8 32 204? A. time-trouble Instead White should simply take the draw with 32 DfG+ Bg7 33 Dest digs 34 DlG+ etc 32...Wc8 33 D16+ &hB Now Black has this move available (as the knight is indirectly defended) and he is two pawns up! 34 We7 2e6 35 hg2 Dd7 Giving back a pawn for an easy life. If 35...8xa2, White can create sufficient prob- Jems with 36 We5 Wes 37 Wad g7 38 De8+ &h6 39 Af6! to hold the draw. I prefer instead 35..h6! freeing the h7- square for either king or knight. 36 Dxd7 Lxd7 Certainly not 36...Wsd7?2, as 37 WH is mate, 37 Wxt7 2e6 38 WiG+ dg8 39 a3 217 40 £3 Wd7 41 b4 a5 42 bxaS Wd2+ 43 Gh3 Wxa 44 Wd6 Wa7 45 dg2 acd 46 &d5+ 2xd5 47 Wxd5+ 2f8 48 Wxb5 Wxa3 49 Wb8+ &g7 %-% error, Game 30 ‘ov-P.Leko Ljubljana 1995 1 e4 e5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 &b5 a6 4 Bad 69The Ruy Lopez Main Line D6 5 0-0 &e7 6 Hel bS 7 2b3 db 8 63 0-0 9 h3 AbB 10 d4 Abd7 11 Abd2 b7 12 Bc2 HeB 13 a4 tm” Y Playing b2-b4 without a2-a4 is another idea against which Black has a number of plans. Perhaps the simplest way to equalise is as follows: 13 b4 28 14 Bb2 Doo 15 a3 Dtd7 16 We2 He8 17 Bact exd4 18 cxd4 5, Y.Griinfeld-L.Portisch, Budapest 1983. After the standard plan with 14...96 (rather then 14,.2b6) 15 a3 &g7, Black has to take into account 16 c4!? (however 16 Ket is no problem due to 16..d5! 17 exd5 exd4 18 Bxc8+ Wxe8 19 cxd4 Dxd5, with a comfort able game for Black, O.Miillet-T.Briickner, Bundesliga 1992) 16...exd4 17 exb5 axb5 18 Dxd4 Dh5 (or 18..c6 19 D4b3 Be8 20 a4, B.vkov-M Filip, Vrsac 1971 and now simply 20...bxa4 21 Eixad We7 is equal) 19 &c3 6 20 23, BParma-lzJelen, — Ljubl- jana/Portoroz 1977. Here ECO claims an edge for White but Black’s position looks totally acceptable to me, The game continued 20..Wb6 21 Ae2 c5 22 Bxg7 Bxg7 23 bxcd DxeS 24 Wad+ Al 25 Dc3 Hack, and Black had plenty of activity to compensate for his slightly worse structure. 13.818 A more radical approach is 13...c51? 14 b3 (14 d5 c4 can be seen in Game 35, This structure is considered acceptable for Black) 14..cxd4 15 exd4 exd4 16 axb5 axb5 17 Bxa8 Qxa8 18 Dxd4 Wh6 19 Bb2 &£8 20 &.d3 b4, when Black was fine in V.Akopian- L.Psakhis, Haifa 1995. 14 ba If White simply hits the b-pawn with 14 243, then Black has two replies: a) 14...b4 which is best met, not by capturing the pawn, but by 15 a5}, just playing for a slightly superior queenside structure (15 cxb4 exd4 16 Axd4 c5 offers Black lively counterplay) 15..d5 (trying to justify the previous move but after...) 16 exd5 exd4 17 Hxe8 Wxe8 18 c4 Ac5 19 A, ...Black’s structure is ugly, A.Khalifman-A.Beliavsky, USSR Championship 1990. b) Black’s best is considered to be the modest 14...c6, when Black hopes to equalise by timing his ...d5 counter: bl) 15 Al d5 16 Bg dxed 17 Bxet Be7 18 Her! (18 Bel exd4 19 Dxd4 £8 20 BS h6 21 Be3 Ac5, is just equal, RHitbner-P.Van der Sterren, Munich 1990) 18..cxd4 19 Dxd4 2B Glso 19..g6!?, intending ...c5, comes into consideration and could simplify Black’s task: 20 axb5 exb5 21 Bc2 Dd5 22 Wa2 Bxg5 23 Hxes+ Wre8 24 Wrxgs Wed 25 Wxe5 AxeS 26 Dd2 Rds 27 Be4 b4 28 exb4, P.Svilder-E.Bacrot, New Delhi 2000 and in this equal-looking position a draw was agreed) 20 Bd2 (keeping the rooks maintains some pressure) 20..Wc7 (20...c5? is a blunder because of 21 Axb5!, J.Van der Wiel-P.Van der Sterren, Dutch Championship 1990, as the pins following 21..axb5 22 &xb5 regain the piece with con- siderable interest) 21 2.£5 5 22 #3 De5 23 @xe5 (V.Anand-A.Beliavsky, Linares 1992) and now 23..Wxe5 24 Ag3 h6! as suggested by Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin, should equalise. b2) 15 b3 g6 16 We2 Black successfully equalised in j.Magem Badals-E.Vladimirov, Leon 1991 with 16 203 We7 17 We2 Bad8 18 Bab &g7 19 SFI d5) 16..Wb6 (a good model for Black is something like 16...%e8 17 &b2 Dh5 18 BEI exd4 19 exd4 d5 20 5 b4 7021 Db2 5, obtaining active _ play, A Bezgodov-Y.Balashov, Perm 1997) 17 &.f1 (best avoided is 17 22 exd4 18 cxd4 d52 - premature — 19 ¢5 Ah5 20 e6! Bxe6 21 Exe6 fxe6 22 Oxg6, M.Krakops-BSocko, Cala Galdana 1996, where Black’s kingside becomes seriously weakened) 17..exd4 18 cxd4 5 19 exd5 cxd5, as in a couple of Spassky games including P.Leko-BSpassky, Linz 1995, ie ag : at o ila £ 14...Db6 Here 14...a5 is considered to give White a tiny pull, eg. 15 bxa5 Exa5 16 bt £a6 17 axb5 Eixb5 18 Bal Kb6 19 &b3 h6 20 223 5 21 dxe5 Dxe5 22 Bxe5 (to retain the superior minor pieces) 22...dxe5 23 Bc4 £&b7 24 We2, M.Tal-V.Tukmakov, USSR Cham- pionship 1973, and now Geller suggests 24.8 keeping White’s advantage to a minimum. 15 a5 bd7 16 &b2 ZbB Here 16..Wb8 is not so good as after 17 cA! bxc4 18 a4! Has 19 d5, White has a positional bind. He will regain the loose pawn and consolidate his space advantage whereas Black has a problem with his knight on d7, JS. Morgado-Muhana, corr 1979. Another idea, 16..g6, is reasonable enough, Then 17 Bb1 Db5 (17..Eb8!?) 18 c4 bxc4 19 dxe5 Axe 20 Axe5 dxe5 21 Deed Wi6 (or 21...Lxb4 22 Axed 2xel 23 Wret Wado 24 We3 £6, when White has enough compensation for the exchange but The Breyer System no more, A.Schachter-I.Pantaleoni, corr 1989/90) 22 Bad Heo 23 Wb3 Hbs (23..Hd8! as suggested by Nunn) 24 247 Be7 25 Sg4 turned out well for White in J.Nunn-A Beliavsky, Brussels 1988, but Black has potential improvements along the way. 17 bt 17...h6 Most often seen, and incidentally Kar- pov's choice is 17...fa8, eg, 18 Bat g6 19 dxe5 (19 c4 will probably transpose) 19..Axe5 20 Axe5 dxe5 21 c4 bxc4 22 Bc3 Sc6! (Otherwise 22..c5 23 bxc5# Hxbl 24 Webi Bxc5 25 Dxcd We7 was at least equal for Black in K-Thorsteins-J.Hjartarson, Wesumann Islands 1985. However much stronger is Grinfeld’s idea of 23 @xc4! {rather than 23 bxc5], the point being that following 23..Wxd1 24 Ebxdl cxb4 25 Rxe5 Kbc8 26 &xf6 Exc4 27 &b3, White has the initiative and then after the forcing line 27...2hc7 28 e5 Eic3 29 e6 Eixb3 30 ext7+ Sxf7 31 Hd7+ Gxi6 32 Hxe8 he wins the exchange) 23 We2 2b5 24 xc c5 25 bxc5 Hc8 26 Bb3 BxcS 27 Lb4 Heo with equality, W.Browne-A.Karpov, Amsterdam 1976. 18 a1 2a8 19 He3 A better try than releasing the tension with 19 dxe5, as 19...dxe5 20 c4 c5! was equal in J Hjartarson-A.Beliavsky, Belfort 1988. 19...g6 20 We2 c6 21 c4 ig7? ‘Too passive. Black should play 21...exd4! 22 Bxdd bxct 23 Ded d5, or 23..c5 with 71

The Ruy Lopez Main Line Book

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Ruy Lopez Main Line Book

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Potrebbero piacerti anche