Ill

Mí* WÍ

H si

11

mm

UPÁIS

i¡®H

ÄBÄ

m s

a ras

Here Black faces a crucial choice:

a) ll...^c6 12^xc6®xc6 13-SM5 (13 Sfel Ab7 14 a3 transposes to note 'ell' to White's 11th move in Line Bl) 13...exd5 14 &xf6 dxe4 15 ®e2 &xf6 16 Ad5 ¿g4 17 ®xg4 ®c8 18 Wxe4 Sa7 (Ryvlin-Ar.Karpov, corr. 1991) 19 c3 with a minimal advantage for White.

b) ll...b4 12 £la4 ®b7 and now: bl) 13 Sfel Se8 (13...^bd7 transposes to Line All) 14 c3 a5 15 jLc2 £ibd7 16 «g3 &f8 17 f4 e5 18 fxe5 dxe5 19 *5)f5 ± Reinderman-Bosboom, Hoogeveen 1999.

b2) 13 c3 a5 14 c4 £lbd7 15 ®b8 16 ®e2 Ab7 17 f3 ±c6 18 <£d4 Sc8 19 Sd2 h6 20 ¿h4 <&e5 21 <£ixc6 Sxc6 (21 ...£>xc6!?) 22 f4 £ig6 23 i.g3 Wc7 24 f5 ± Emms-Van den Doel, Isle of Man 1997.

Two other moves can be linked to one and the same development pattern:

cl) 120h3!?&h813Sd3(13Efel looks more natural) 13...£lbd7 14 Sfdl b4 15 ®a5 16 f4 17 £\xc5 Wxc5 18 Se3 ±d8! with counterplay, del Rio-Gallagher, Lugano 1999.

c2) After 12 ®g3!?, 12...£>bd7?! is dubious in view of 13 iLe3!. Gallagher analysed 12...b4 13 ®a4 ®a5 (13...®c7 14 ÍLh6 £>e8 15 i.xe6!) 14 Í.xf6 Axf6 15 ®xd6 Sd8 16 ®c5!, and recommended 12...£te6.

c3) 12Sfel^bd7(12...b413^a4 ©a5 14 i.d2! £\bd7 15 a3 Wd8 16 .&xb4 £ie5 17 We3 £)xe4 18 f3 is better for White, Alvim-Ma.Adams, corr. 1999) 13 Wg3 (13 Wh3!? is possible) 13...£sc5! (after 13...b4 14^a4 ®c7, 15 i.h6 £ie8 16 &xe6 fxe6 17 £ixe6 is suspicious due to 17...WXC2! 18 £ixg7 Sf6 19 £>f5+ 4>f7; however,

15 c3 {Alvim} is not bad) 14 JLh6 £le8 15 <S?hl <&h8 16 ¿Lg5 ¿.xg5 17 ®xg5 £tf6 = M.Sorin-Lefebvre, French Cht 1999.

d) ll...£lbd7 and now: dl) 12 Wg3 ¿hc5 (12...&h8) and then:

dl 1) 13 fifel (13...±b7! transposes to line 'c3') 14 ®h4 &xg5 15 ®xg5 &f6 16 Se3 h6 17 Wh4 l.b7 18 a3 ± del Rio-Gyimesi, Siofok jr Ech 1996.

dl2) 13Ah6!?^e814i.d5!?exd5 15 <£xd5 Wd8 (15...®b7!? 16 £>c6 &h8 17 £kxe7 gxh6 18 Wf4 Van der Weide) 16 £>c6 £h4! 17 £sde7+! ®xe7 18 £ixe7+ Axel (Brooks-Browne, USA 1982) 19 Sfel d2) 12 Sfel and here: d21) 12...£>e5 13 ®g3 (Robovic-Danner, Oberwart 1996) and now both 13...&h8!? and 13...£ig6!? are possible.

d22) 12...Wb7 transposes to the note to Black's 12th move in Line All.

d24) 12...£k:5 13^h3!?lb7 14 a3 (14Se3b4!)14...®c7 15®h4Sfe816 Se3 offers White the better chances, del Rio-R.Fernandez, Leon 1997.

Summary: Apart from 10...0-0 11 Sadl £k;6, Black's possibilities may be subdivided into:

1) Variations with ...Wb7 (here White has had some success).

2) The arrangement ...±b7, ...£lbd7, ...0-0. In this case there exist three ways to proceed: 10...£ibd7 11 Sadl &b7!?, 10...0-0 11 Sadl J.b7 and 10...0-0 11 Sadl <£bd7/10...£)bd7 11 Sad 1 0-0. It is not yet clear which is best.

Other moves are quite harmless; e.g., 11 a3 0-012 Sfel £ibd7 and now:

a) 13 £.g5 £>c5 14 Aa2 #c7 15 Sadl Ab7 16 b4 ®cd7 17 Wh3 £)e5 18 f4 £)c4 with counterplay, Mowszi-szian-Gelfand, Minsk 1986.

b) 13 Wg3 £ic5 (13...<&h8 =) 14 &h6 ^e8 15 <^d5 (15 £>f5?! can be met by 15...i.f6 16 Sadl {Gobet-Ftacnik, Biel 1984} 16...Ae5! or even 15...exf5!?) 15...£kb3 = G.Kuzmin-Perun, Ukrainian Ch (Alushta) 1997.

We shall consider:

Other moves:

b) H...±d7?12^f5!exf5(12...b4 13®xg7Sg8 14®xf6!) 13lfxg7Sf8 14 lg5! ± Ivanchuk-Shakhvorostov, USSR jr Ch (Jurmala) 1985.

c) 1 l...g6 12 f3!? £sbd7 13 Sadl with a slight advantage for White, Zaid-Anikaev, Lvov 1978.

A21)

This move is inconsequential - if Black wants to play this way, then why not 9..Mc7 10 yHg3 ¿hc6, when the white bishop is still on cl? Now:

b) 12 Sad 1 0-0 13 £>xc6 Wxc6 14 iLh6 ®e8 and now there are various transpositions to Line B2:

bl) 15 £id5?! &d8 16 Sfel -9..Mc7 10 Wg3 ¿hc6 11 thxc6 Wxc6 12 fie/ 0-0 13 M6! ¿he8 ¡4 ¡hd5 &d8 15 'Kadi!?.

b2) 15 fifel - 9..Mc710 Wg3 &c6 11 ¿bxc6 Wxc6 12 fie 7 0-0 13 Ah6! ¿he8 14 %adl!?.

b3) 15 a3- 9..Mc710Wg3 0-011 M6 £>e8 12 a3 £>c6 13 ¿hxc6 Wxc6 14 Kadi.

c) 12 fifel Ad7 (12...0-0 13 £>xc6 ®xc6 14 &h6 - 9..Mc7 10 Wg3

11 ¿hxc6 Wxc612 fie/ 0-013 kh6) 13 fiadl (13 a3 0-0 gives Black satisfactory play, while after 13 f4 b4!, the sacrifice 14 £sd5 exd5 15 e5 is very inconclusive) 13...b4 (Black can consider 13...£la5!?, but he should avoid 13...0-0? 14 Ah6 £>e8, transposing to note 'b' to Black's 14th move in Line A22) 14 £)ce2 0-0 15 ±h6 with a defensible position, Bouaziz-Marin, Szirak IZ 1987.

d) 12 fiael!? i.d7 (12...0-0 13 £>xc6 Wxc6 14 £h6 <£e8 15 £sd5 ±dS deserves attention) 13 f4 b4?! (13...g6!? Beliavsky/Mikhalchishin) 14 £id5! exd5 15 e5!, and, with the rooks on el and fl, White's initiative is very dangerous, A.Sokolov-Armas, Wijk aan Zee 1993.

el) 13 fifel is inaccurate in view of 13...Ab7! (13...0-0 14 Ah6 - 9...Wc7 10 Wg3 *hc6 11 Chxc6 Wxc6 12 fie 7 0-0 13 M6!) 14 fiadl (14 f3!?) 14...£>xe4! 15^xe4Wxe416Af4(16 Wxg7 Wg6!) 16.-i.h4!? (16...Wg6 17 ®h3!?) 17 ®g4 h5 18 2xe4 hxg4 19 fieel = (Armas).

e2) White should prefer 13 f3! 0-0 14 with some advantage, Hiibner-Armas, Bundesliga 1989/90.

f) 12f4!?0-0(12...£sxd4 13&xd4 b4 14 e5!, Anand-Badea, Manchester 1990, and 12...&a5 13e5£>h5 14Wh3 <^xb3 15^xb3 g6 16 fiadl!? are both dangerous for Black) 13 a3 (13 e5! is critical) 13...£}a5 14 e5 £>e4 15 <^xe4 ®xe4 16 f5 (Mirumian-Movsesian, Tbilisi 1993) 16...Wxe5! with good play (Mirumian/Nadanian).

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment