Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Semi-Slav
1 90 1259 05 6
1 90 1259 06 4
1 901259 03 X
1 901259 10 2
1 90 1 259 02 1
1 90 1 259 0 1 3
1 901259 00 5
1 90 1 259 04 8
1 90 1259 09 9
Caro-Kann Advance
Closed Sicilian
Dutch Leningrad
French Advance
Scandinavian
Sicilian T aimanov
Slav
Spanish Exchange
Trompowsky
Byron Jacobs
Daniel King
Neil McDonald
Tony Kosten
John Emms
James Plaskett
Matthew Sadler
Andrew Kinsman
Joe Gallagher
For further details of Chess Press titles, please write to The Chess Press
c/o Cadogan Books pIc, 27-29 Berwick Street, London W 1 V 3RF.
The Semi-Slav
Matthew Sadler
ir
rnm
First published 1998 by The Chess Press, an imprint of First Rank Publishing,
23 Ditchling Rise, Brighton, East Sussex, BN 1 4QL, in association with
Cadogan Books pIc
Copyright 1998 Matthew Sadler
Distributed by Cadogan Books pIc, 27-29 Berwick Street, London WIV 3RF
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 1 90 1 259 08 0
CONTENTS
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c 6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6
4ctJc3 e 6
Bibliography
Introduction
8
9
5 .1l.g5
Botvinnik Variation: Main Line with 15 . . . b4
1
(5 ... dxc4 6 e4 bS 7 eS h6 8 .1l.h4 gS 9 ttJxgS hxgS 10 .1l.xg5 ttJbd7
1 1 exf6 i.b7 12 g3 cS 13 dS 'iib 6 14 .1l.g2 0-0-0 15 0-0 b4)
2 Botvinnik Variation: Black's 13th Move Alternatives
(S ... dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .1l.h4 g5 9 ttJxgS hxgS 10 .i.xgS ttJbd7
1 1 exf6 .1l.b7 12 g3 cS 1 3 d5)
3 Botvinnik Variation with 1 1 g3
(5 ... dxc4 6 e4 bS 7 eS h6 8 .i.h4 g5 9 ttJxgS hxg5 10 .1l.xgS ttJbd7
1 1 g3)
4 Botvinnik Variation: Early Deviations after 5 .i.gS dxc4
5 Moscow Variation with 7 e3 (5 . . . h6 6 i.xf6 xf6 7 e3)
6 Moscow Variation: White's 6th and 7th Move
Alternatives (5 . . . h6)
12
31
41
54
64
77
110
123
131
140
145
154
158
81
97
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
In/ormator
ChessBase MegaBase CD-R OM
New In Chess Yearbook
British Chess Magazine
Chess Monthly
INTRODUCTION
------9
Th e S e m i- Sla v
In tro duc t i o n
11
CHAPTER ONE
Botvin nik Variation :
Main Line with 1 5 b4
. . .
8 i.h4
again threatening to wm a piece
with 9 exf6.
Black's reply is forced:
8 g5
attacks the bishop again so that 9
exf6 can be met by 9 . . . gxh4, regaining
the piece. This move also blocks the
h4-dS diagonal so that a retreat of the
bishop with 9 .ll g3 can be met by
9 . ttJdS, leaving Black a pawn up.
Therefore White strikes with
9 ttJxg5 hxg5 1 0 i.xg5
. . .
..
. . .
b4
...
Th e S e m i- Sla v
. . .
b4
Th e S e m i- S la v
. . .
16
B o t v in n ik Va ria tio n : M a in L in e w i t h 15
20 . . J:td7
After this move the rook on d7 is
pinned to the king by the queen on
g4. White will look to exploit this ei
ther by playing .th3 or by opening up
the position to make this tactical detail
count for more. However, Black's
rook is a strong defensive piece, cover
ing Black's seventh rank.
21 'it'g7! !
I told you that White had an out
post on g7!
21 . . . .i.xg7 22 fxg7 :g8 23 lLlxc5
'
Black has a queen for knight and
bishop. However, the a7-pawn is
likely to fall, while the rook on d7 can
be attacked further by a bishop on h3,
so White will gain further material for
the queen. Several positional factors
are important:
1) White has a passed h-pawn.
2) White's king is very safe whereas
Black's is not.
3) White can blockade the d-pawn
with .td4, which stops Black from
activating his queenside majority and
leaves him with a passive bishop on
b7.
Question 4: What should Black do?
Answer: Black wants to play . . . dS-d4
. . .
b4
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 2
lalic-J. Wilson
London 1 996
1 d4 d 5 2 e4 e6 3 lU13 lU16 4 lUe3
e6 5 g5 dxe4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
h4 g 5 9 lUxg5 hxg5 1 0 xg5
lUbd7 1 1 g3 b7 1 2 g2 b6 1 3
exf6 0-0-0 1 4 0-0 e5 1 5 d 5 b4 1 6
lUa4 b5 1 7 a3 exd5 1 8 axb4 exb4
1 9 e3 lUe5 20 g4+! l:td7 2 1
g7 ! ! xg7 2 2 1xg7 l:tg8 2 3 lUxe5
26 .. Jtgf7 'retaining definite counter
chances'. I think it is clear that White
has lost control of this position.
The text is the right idea, stopping
any tricks with . . . d5-d4 and threaten
ing to win material with ttJxb7 and
then xg7.
24 . . .1 5 25 h3?
The bishop on d4 is White's most
important piece; and removing the
bishop from the h 1-a8 diagonal allows
Black to dislodge it by playing a major
piece to e4. 25 ttJxd7 l::txd7 26 xa7
was better, with a mess, although it
may be a little easier for White to play
this position than Black.
The game illustrates what I mean by
this. Although Black gets a good ver
sion of this line, he still has to be accu
rate or his weak king and vulnerable
pawns will lose him the game. As we
shall see, the pressure very quickly
became too much for Black.
23 . . . l:txg7 24 d4
In the notes to his game against Shi
rov, Ivanchuk mentioned 24 l:txa7,
but now Lalic's 24 . . . d4!! seems good.
For example:
a) 25 xb7 'iNxc5!
b) 25 xb7+ litxb7! 26 ttJxb7
(threatening to fork king and queen
with ttJd6+) 26 .. :iVb6!! Now after 27
.1t.xd4 'iixd4 28 fa1 g6! the white
knight on b7 is very short of squares.
c) 25 ttJxd7 .txg2 26 .txd4!? just
leads to a draw after 26 ... .1t.xfl! (greedy
18
. . .
b4
1 9 l:te1
With this move White takes control
of the e-file and dreams of playing
lIe7.
1 9 . . . h6
I was suspicious when I first saw
19 . . . h6: Black allows his opponent
access to e7 and the seventh rank
without even having to sacrifice the
exchange! This is, however, a typical
idea in the Botvinnik variation: by
exchanging off the dark-squared
bishop, Black undermines the defence
of the f6-pawn and virtually assures
himself of winning it. He also removes
one of the best pieces for blockading
on d4 and attacking a7, the queen be
ing the other.
The alternative 19 . . . d4!? 20 'iVxd4
xg2 2 1 Wxg2 'iWxgS 22 'ii'xc4+ Wb8
23 l:ted 1! gave White a huge attack in
Van Wely-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1994.
20 xh6 l:txh6 21 d4 l:.xf6
Black deals with the threat to his a
t>awn tactically: 22 li'xa7 is met by
22 .. Jh6, winning the knight on a4.
22 h3!
Game 3
Stean-Rivas
Marbella 1982
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 lbf3 lbf6 4 lbc3
e6 5 g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
i.h4 g5 9 lbxg5 hxg5 1 0 xg5
lZ:lbd7 1 1 exf6 b7 1 2 g3 c5 1 3 d5
'i'b6 14 g2 0-0-0 1 5 0-0 b4 1 6
tLla4 b5 1 7 a3 exd5 1 8 axb4 cxb4
Th e S e m i - Sla v
B o t v in n ik Va ria tio n : M a in L in e w i t h 15
. . .
b4
19 . . . tDc6.
20 dxc6! ! l:txd4 21 cxb7+
White's compensation for the queen
is 'two pieces, a passed pawn on the
seventh and a host of tricks', to quote
Peter Wells.
2 1 . . . c7 22 i.e3 e5 23 lLlc3 ! ! bxc3
24 bxc3 i.c5 ! ?
This was Kramnik's attempt t o re
habilitate this line after the crushing
White win in Salov-Illescas, Madrid
1993, which continued 24 . . . .:d6 25
llab 1 ! a6 26 k!xb5 axb5 27 !:tal nd8 28
.ie4 .ih6 29 .ic5 .if8 30 .ia7 with an
overwhelming position for White.
25 cxd4 i.xd4
25 . . .exd4 loses to 26 .if4+ .id6 27
.ixd6+ xd6 and 28 l:tfb 1 followed
by 29 b81'i + .
26 l:tfb 1 !
The stan of a magnificent series of
moves.
26 . . .... c5 27 l:ta6! 1:b8
27 . . . .ixe3 28 c6+ 'i'xc6 29 .ixc6 is
clearly better for White according to
Kramnik.
28 i.c 1 ! !
Game 4
Kamsky-Kramnik
New York (Candidates match) 1994
21
Th e S e m i - Sla v
3 1 c6+! !
3 1 . . . e6
3 1 . . .'i.t>xd6 loses the queen to 32
i.bs+.
32 i.b5! xf2+ 33 'it'xf2 d4+ 34
'it'f1 e4 3 5 Ue 1 'ii'h 1 + 36 'it'f2
xh2+ 37 'it'f3 l:txb7 38 i.xe5+ l:tb6
39 c4+ 'it'd7 40 l:txa7+ 'it'c8 41
l:tc7+ 1 -0
A magical performance that de
stroyed two lines - 17 .. .'JeS and
17 ... liJb8 - in one game!
Game 5
Nikolic-Shirov
. . .
b4
Th e S e m i- S la v
Game 6
Ivanchuk-Shirov
Novgorod 1 994
26 l:ta5
The right idea but not the best exe
cution. White's idea is to challenge the
knight on d3 by undermining its sup
port with b2-b3, attacking the pawn
on c4. After Black has taken on b3 or
played . . . c4-c3, White has two ways to
put pressure on the black position:
1) a:fd l , attacking the knight on d3
which is pinned to the queen on dS.
2) lIaS, attacking the bishop on cS
which is pinned to the queen on dS.
In a later game Kharitonov
Sabanov, Moscow 1995, White played
the immediate 26 b3! , which seems to
give Black a lot of problems. In the
game, Black chose 26 . . . c3 27 l:tfdl d8
28 aS! (threatening 29 xcS 'iVxcs 30
xd3, winning a piece) 28 .. st>b6 and
now instead of the violent 29 lIxcS,
Kharitonov claims an initiative with
29 'ifia2!, and this does indeed seem
very strong for White. If Black wishes
to try this line, he therefore must find
an improvement on this game - which
is beyond me for the moment!
26 . . :d4 27 b3 b6!
In comparison with 26 b3, Black
. . .
b4
Gamel
Topalov-Kramnik
Dortmund 1996
Th e S e m i - Sla v
23 f4!? b6!
Avoiding the discovered check.
24 ltJxc4+ b5 25 ltJd6+ b6 26
exd8! ? l:txd8 27 ltJc4+ b5 28
ltJd6+ b6
Neither side can avoid the draw by
. . .
b4
repetition!
29 ltJc4+ b5 % - %
Game 8
Kasparov-Kramnik
New
22 l:txf 1 ? !
Natural, but as Kasparov shows, he
missed an opportunity to win bril
liantly here: 22 'iWaS+ lbbS 23 .l::lx fl ,
when 23 . . :iVc6 24 dl ! ! 'iVxaS 25
:dS+ c7 (25 . . . \t>b7 26 lihhS .l::le 6 27
lbxc5+ followed by lbxe6 and e7-eS'iY
27
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 9
K ramnik-Shirov
B o t v in n ik Va ria tio n : M a in L in e w i t h 1 5
Game 10
Kamsky-Kramnik
l)os}{ennanas 1 996
. . .
b4
e6 5 .i.g5 dxe4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
.i.h4 g5 9 lLlxg5 hxg5 1 0 .i.xg5
lLlbd7 1 1 exf6 .i.b 7 1 2 g3 e5 1 3 d 5
b6 1 4 .i.g2 0-0-0 1 5 0-0 b 4 1 6
l:tb1 a6 1 7 dxe6 .i.xg2 1 8 e7 .txf1
1 9 'it>xf 1 .i.xe 7 20 fxe 7 l:tdg8
Kramnik had already tried this sort
of idea against Kasparov after 19 'iVdS
(Game 8) . In annotating the present
game, he described it as dubious.
21 lLle4! e6 22 lLld6+ 'it>b8 23 .tf4
l:txh2 24 'it>e2! 'it>a8 25 e2 lLlb6 26
'ii'f 5 lLle8 27 e8'ii' l:txe8+ 28 lLlxe8
'i'xe8+ 29 .i.e3
29
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Summary
1 7 a3
30
23 lLlxc5
CHAPTER TWO
Botvi nnik Va riation : Black's
1 3th Move Alternatives
Game 11
Van Wely-Dreev
e6 5 jLg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
h4 g5 9 liJxg5 hxg5 1 0 xg5
liJbd7 1 1 exf6 b7 1 2 g3 c5 1 3 d5
liJxf6
Th e S e m i- Sla v
32
Game 12
Van Wely-Kramnik
Biel lnterzonal 1993
Game l3
Kasparov-Ivanchuk
Linares 1 994
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 14
Bareev-Filippov
Russia 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 lLlc3
5 g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
h4 g5 9 lLlxg5 hxg5 1 0 xg5
lLlbd7 1 1 exf6 b7 1 2 g3 c5 1 3 d5
h6
e6
1 4 xh6 %:txh6
By forcing the exchange of the dark
squared bishops, Black removes
White's protection of f6. He intends
to capture on f6 with the knight,
without allowing the pin that arises in
the 13 ...lDxf6 line. Moreover, Black
frees fS for his king, which allows him
to consider . . . e6xdS since a check on
the e-file is no longer devastating.
However, the exchange of the dark
squared bishops costs Black some con
trol over the central dark squares; d6
in particular is a tempting target for
White's queen's knight, either via e4
or via the unprotected pawn on bS.
Finally, 14 i.. xh6 l:Ixh6 draws Black's
king's rook to an exposed position and
White can use this to gain tempi for
his development.
1 5 d2
This move attacks the exposed rook
on h6 and achieves several positional
ideas with tempo. First, it tempts
Black to recapture the sacrificed pawn
on f6 with the queen or with the
rook, thus depriving the knight on d7
of its ideal square. Second, it covers
the e I-aS diagonal and enables lDxbS
without fear of . . . 'iWaS+. Finally, it
35
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 15
Razuvaev-Filippov
Game 16
lonov-Popov
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 17
Polugayevsky-Torre
Moscow 1981
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 lDf3 lDf6 4 lDe3
e6 5 i.g5 dxe4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 S
i.h4 g5 9 lDxg5 hxgS 1 0 i.xg5
lDbd7 1 1 exf6 i.b7 1 2 g3 eS 1 3 d5
lDb6
1 9 d6+ eS 20 :g 1 e3! ?
Ionov mentions 2 0 . . . l:te5+ 2 1 i.e2
'iix b7 22 0-0-0 and 20 . . .:xh2 21 'i'f4!
'iWxb7 22 0-0-0 as unclear.
21 bxe3 l::t e S+ 22 i.e2 l::tx e2+ 23
xe2 1t'xe3+ 24 f1 xa 1 + 25 c.t>g2
d4? ! 26 :td 1 a4 27 f3?
27 'ii h 5! would have been good for
White according to Ionov.
27 . . . :teS 2S 'iVh5 !
White gets a second chance!
2S . . . e4+ 29 c.t>g 1 'ifxb7 30 hS+
lDfS 31 d7+ xd7 32 l:lxd7 c.t>xd7 33
f1 a5 34 h4 b4 35 c.t>e2 a4 36 hS
c.t>e7 37 h6 :tdS 3S 'WWe S :teS 39 e4
A bad mistake. 39 'ikg5+ '.t>d6 40
'iWf6 would have kept White's advan38
1 4 dxe6! 'iix d 1 +
Lukacs's 1 4 . . . St.xh l 1 5 e7! 'ii'd7
(15 . . . 'ii'xdl+ 16 xdl transposes to the
main game) does not seem good after
16 'ikxd7+ (16 exf8'ii + 'ittxf8 17 'iWxd7
lUxd7 1 8 0-0-0 i.c6 19 h4 lUe5 20 i.e3!
is also good for White according to
Wells) 16 . . . 'ittxd7 {16 . . . lUxd7 17 lUxb5
i.xe7 18 fxe7 f6 19 i.e3 'ittxe7 20 h4
i.f3 21 i.xc4 hc8 22 c 1 lUe5 and
Game 18
Beliavsky-lIIescas
Linares 1994
1 d4 dS 2 c4 c6 3 lbf3 lbf6 4 lbc3
e6 S .ligS dxc4 6 e4 bS 7 eS h6 8
.ih4 gS 9 lbxgS hxgS 1 0 .lixgS
lbbd7 1 1 exf6 .ib7 1 2 g3 c5 1 3 d5
lbeS ! ?
13 . . .b 4 loses t o 14 ..txc4 bxc3 15
dxe6. The text aims for d3 but releases
pressure on the f6-pawn.
Th e S e m i - Sla v
S u mmary
All these systems are worth a go on an occasional basis, but as main defences
they seem a little too risky to place too much reliance on. 13 . . . tDxf6 14 .ig2
.th6!? looks interesting, while 13 ... .th6 continues to survive. However,
13 . . . tDb6 seems to be pretty much busted and 13 .. .'Je5 devotees need an answer
to 16 'iff3 .
15
40
..
.'flxf6
1 5 0-0
1 8 lLla 3
CHAPTER THREE
Botvin nik Variation
with 1 1 9 3
Game 19
Timman-Tal
Th e S e m i - Sla v
counter-thrust.
1 8 h4
Not the best. Tal's suggestion of 18
xh6 l;Ixh6 19 'W f3 sets interesting
problems: 19 . . . a6! is the best reply, to
follow up with . . . 'iib 7 to challenge for
the as-h 1 diagonal.
1 8 . . . .txgS 1 9 hxgS 'iVc6+! 20 f3
Forced.
20 . . J:thS !
Now that f2-f3 has closed the d1-h5
diagonal to the white queen, Black can
play this sneaky move, attacking the
pawn on g5 and threatening on occa
sion to double on the h-file.
21 a4
This move, undermining the black
queenside, is White's only hope for
counterplay.
21 . . . b4 22 lLlbS
fxg6 3 9 l:td 1 1 -0
White has too many pawns for the
exchange.
This game is all that the main line
Black player needs to know in order
to meet 1 1 g3 with confidence.
Game 20
Yermolinsky-Kaidanov
USA Championship 1993
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 2 1
Shirov-Morovic
e6 5 g5 dxe4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
h4 g5 9 ltJxg5 hxg5 1 0 .ltxg5
ltJbd7 1 1 g3 l::t g 8
With 1 1 ...11g8, Black seeks to ex
ploit directly White's move order with
1 1 g3 . Since White has deferred the
'execution' of the knight on f6, it is
still alive Gust!) . If Black can break the
pin on the knight then he can move
the knight on d5 away and remain
material up.
1 2 h4 :xg5 1 3 hxg5 ltJd5 1 4 g6!
Using the doubled g-pawn to prise
open the black kingside.
1 4 . . .fxg6
B o t v in n ik Va ria tio n w i t h 1 1 9 3
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Kalantarian-Yegiazarian
A rmenian
Championship 1 994
1 8 . . . lLlb6! 1 9 We2!
Freeing the path for the queen's
rook to come into the action with
l:Iah 1-h7.
1 9 . . . b4?
This seems to be a mistake. Ak
opian suggests 19 . . . d7 20 a4 b4 2 1 as
CDbd5 (2 1 . ..bxc3 22 axb6 cxb2 23 l:Ixa7
l:Ib8 24 b7 d8 25 'iVg5! is unpleasant
for Black) 22 CDa4 with an unclear po
sition.
20 l:tah 1 Wd7
Akopian suggests instead that
20 . . . bxc3 2 1 :lh7 'iVxh7 22 :xh7 cxb2
23 'iVf3 b7 24 xg6+ d7 25 'iVa3 is
unclear, but the threat of 'iVd6+ looks
unpleasant for Black.
21 l:t8h7! 'iVg8
1 8 . . . d8 1 9 d 1
Very sharp. Khalifman gives 19 c2
lbb6 20 c 1 <it>c7 as unclear.
1 9 . . :xc3+ 20 '&te2 'ii' b 2+! 21 l:td2
'ii'b4 22 'ii'x e6 c3 23 a3!
Game 23
23 . . . xa3?
The decisive mistake according to
Khalifman. 23 . . . 1i'b 1 would have been
better, when 24 d6 e4+ 25 d1
'i'g4+!? (25 . . . b 1+ secures a perpetual)
26 l':te2 g7 27 xc6 is unclear!
24 c2 c7 25 h7 ! b4 26 a2
b3! ? 27 xa3 c2 28 a4 c 1 29
c4 1 -0
The threat against c6 forces Black to
give up his queen (again) and
29 . . . 'i'xc4+ 30 'ti'xc4 b2 3 1 a2 :b8
32 'i'b 1 a6+ 33 <it>d2 xf1 34 e6 b3
35 .l::[xd7+ <it>b6 36 e7 xe7 37 l:txe7
.1l.d3 38 Ite3 wins (Khalifman) .
Khalifman-Shirov
Pardubice 1994_
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 lbf3 lbf6 4 lbc3
e6 5 -tg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
h4 g 5 9 lbxg5 hxg5 1 0 xg5
lbbd7 1 1 g3 g8 1 2 h4 l:txg5 1 3
hxg5 lbd5 1 4 g6 fxg6 1 5 'ii'g4 'ii'e 7
16 l:th8 ? !
Game 24
Mecking-San Segundo
Th e S e m i - Sla v
e6 5 g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
h4 g 5 9 tZJxg5 hxg 5 1 0 .lixg5
tZJbd7 1 1 g3 g8 1 2 h4 xg5 1 3
hxg5 tZJd5 1 4 g6 fxg6 1 5 'iVg4 'iVe7
1 6 'iVxg6+ 'iVf7 1 7 'iVxf7+ \t>xf7 1 8
g2
If White tries to avoid the exchange
on c3 with 1 8 ttJe4, then Black has
1 8 . . . i.b4+ followed by . . . c4-c3 with a
messy game.
1 8 . . . tZJxc3 1 9 bxc3 b8 20 f4
20 xc6 b7 occurred in the game
Shirov-Stisis, London (Lloyds Bank
Masters) 1990, which continued 2 1
h7+ g6 2 2 .l:lxd7 i.xc6 2 3 xa7,
and now 23 . . . b4 would have given
Black a good game according to Wells.
The text supports the white eS-pawn
in anticipation of the pressure that
Black is going to exert on d4 and c3 .
20 . . . b4 2 1 \t>d2 c5!
Lugano 1989
22 d 5 tZJb6! 23 dxe6+
23 d6 is critical, when Black can try
23 . . . ltJds or 23 . . . ttJa4, putting pressure
on the c3-pawn.
23 . . . xe6 24 e4 d8+ 25 \t>e3
tZJd5+ 26 xd5 xd5 27 hd 1 xd 1
28 ttxd 1 f5 29 \t>d2 e7 30 a3
bxc3+ 31 \t>xc3 d3 32 xd3 cxd3
33 \t>xd3
48
Game 26
Oll-Kaidanov
Kuibysev 1986
30 . . . b4 3 1 axb4 a6 32 "eS+ d6
33 h3 1 -0
A very impressive game by the
German grandmaster.
Th e S e m i- Sla v
Game 27
Mecking-Matsuu ra
1 4 . . . 0-0-0 1 S b3
Rather risky; this gives Black an ex
tra means of opening up the queens ide
while White's king is in the centre.
15 iLe3 is the most dangerous move,
when Hertneck-Mueller, German
Bundesliga 1989, continued lS . . . 'iVdS
16 Ae2 i.b7 17 ltJgS! cS 18 'iVxds
.i.xdS, and now 19 0-0 eS 20 dxcS
would have given White the advan
tage, according to Hertneck.
1 S . . . l2Jb6!
The text hits the d4-pawn, by un
masking the attack of the rook on d8 .
1 6 l2JeS?
16 i.e3 .i.b7 17 i.g2 (17 bxc4 b3+!)
17 . . . cxb3 1 8 'iVe2 (18 0-0 bxa2) looks
very dodgy for White.
1 6 . . . bS!
Protecting the pawn on c6.
1 7 e3 l:tdS ! 1 8 a4 bxa3+! 1 9 iLd2
xd2+! ! 20 xd2 iLxeS 21 bxe4
l:txd4+
The rest must have been very pain
ful for White.
22 e3 l2Jxe4 23 xe4 l:txe4+ 24
'1t>b3 l:tb4+ 2S e3 l:tb2 26 l:tab 1
iLb4+ 27 d4 eS+ 28 eS l:te2+ 0-1
29 d6 ':d2+ 30 eS ':dS+ 31 e4
i.c6 wins according to Kaidanov.
50
1 4 . . . l2Jb6
14 . . . 0-0-0 is considered stronger, as
15 'iVc2 ltJb6 16 .i.e3 eS! 17 dxeS 'iVxeS
gave Black good play in Khenkin
Feher, Cappelle la Grande 1992.
1 S bxe4 l2Jxe4 1 6 b3 dS 1 7 f3
iLbS 1 8 l:te 1 l2Ja3 1 9 xdS exdS 20
l2Jd2 iLd6 21 f2
White is slightly better.
21 . . . xf1 22 l2Jxf1 l2JbS 23 '1t>e3
'1t>d7 24 h4 l:tae8 2S l:txe8 l:txe8 26
hS l:te3+ 27 '1t>f2 l2Jxd4 28 h6 l:te8
29 l2Je3 as 30 iLf4 a4 31 iLxd6
xd6 32 f4 b3 33 axb3 axb3 34 g4
b2 3S l:tb1 l:tb8 36 l2Jd 1 eS 37 l:txb2
l:th8 38 gS exf4 39 l2Je3 l2Je6 40
l:tbS d4 41 l2Je4+ e6 42 l:teS d3 43
l:txe6+ fxe6 44 g6 l:txh6 4S g7 1 -0
We shall now consider less precise
c3
Game 28
e 6 5 g5 dxc4 6 e4 b 5 7 e 5 h 6 8
h4 g5 9 ttJxg5 hxg5 1 0 xg5
ttJbd7 1 1 g3 a5 1 2 exf6 a6
Khalifman-Piket
A msterdam 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 ttJf3
e6 5 g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8
.th4 g5 9 ttJxg 5 hxg5 1 0 xg5
ttJbd7 1 1 g3 'it'a5 1 2 exf6 b4 1 3
ttJe4 c3 1 4 bxc3 bxc3 1 5 'it'd3! b 7
1 6 .te2 c5 1 7 O-O! c4 1 8 e3 ttJb6?
Game 29
K ramnik-Ehlvest
Riga 1995
1 ttJf3 d5 2 d4 ttJf6 3 c4 c6 4 ttJc3
1 3 f3
This move attacks the point most
weakened by the light-squared
bishop's unusual development on a6
rather than b7 - the pawn on c6 - and
also prevents Black from castling
queenside immediately. By moving
the queen off the d-file White also
prevents his opponent from using a
pin on the d-file to transfer the knight
to d3 via e5 or c5. Moreover, the
queen supports the knight if it goes to
e4, protecting the bishop on g5 after
. . . b5-b4.
The alternative 13 a3 is sometimes
seen, but Black can then use the pin
on the d-file with 13 . . . 0-0-0 14 ..1g2
lDc5 15 0-0 lDb3 with an acceptable
game.
1 3 . . . l:tc8
Black's only reasonable choice here
is to transpose the line 12 . . . b4 13 lDe4
a6 14 f3 (Game 26) with 13 . . . b4 14
lDe4. White cannot play 14 'ili'xc6 as
both 14 . . . ItcS 15 'iWa4 'iWxa4 16 lDxa4
b7 17 gl hh2 and 14 . . . b7!? 15
'tixb7 ItbS! 16 ii'xbS+ {the only move:
51
Th e S e m i- Sla v
..
Linar;s 1 994
lLlbd7 1 1 g3 b4
Euwe's analysis of 1 1 . . .lbxe5 seems
convincing: 12 dxe5 'i'xd1+ 13 :xd1
lbd5 14 lbe4 i.b4+ 15 'it>e2 when
Black suffers from severe weaknesses
on the dark squares. The text gains
three pieces for the queen, but the
looseness of Black's structure and the
weakness of his king conspire against
Black.
1 2 lLle4 lLlxe4 1 3 .i.xd8 xd8 1 4
xc4 lLlb6 1 5 d3 f5 1 6 .i.xe4 fxe4
1 7 g4
Summary
1 5 'fIg4
1 2 exf6
1 4 0-0
53
Gausdal 1990
Game 32
Stefansson-I nkiov
see
Game 33
Alvarez-Antunes
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 1 a4
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 35
Pogorelov-Korneev
Th e S e m i- Sla v
Game 40
Yermolinsky-Atal i k
Hastings
1995
Th e S e m i- Sla v
Game 41
Cebalo-Palac
Summary
6 a4 and 6
e4 b5 7 a4 are quite worth a try in the odd game, as they are quite
tricky in places. However, none of the other lines here really inspire much con
fidence.
1 d4 d5
6 e4
6 a4 ..tb4 7 e4
7 . . . c5 8 xc4 cxd4 (D)
9 .ib5+ ttJc6 10 ttJxd4
10 . . . 0-0 Game 38
10 . . . ..td7 Game 39
9 ttJxd4 Game 40
7 . . . ..txc3+ Game 41
6 b5 7 e5
7 a4
7 . . . ..tb7 (D)
8 axb5 Game 34
8 e5 Game 35
7 . . . b4 Game 36
7 . . . 'i'b6 Game 37
7 hS 8 h4 g5 9 tDxg5 (D)
9 exf6 Game 33
9 hxg5
9 . . . ttJd5 Game 32
1 0 xg5 e7 Game 31
-
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
cxd4
tDxg5
63
following diagram
M o s c o w Va ria tio n w i t h 7 e 3
Game 42
Khalifman-Akopian
Yerevan 1996
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 liJf3
e6 5 g5 h6 6 xf6 "it'xf6 7 e3 liJd7
8 d3 dxc4
Black usually elects to capture on c4
either here or on the next move, since
after 8 . . . g6 9 0-0 g7?! he has to
reckon with 10 e4 dxc4 1 1 eS! 'ii'e7 12
xc4, when White has achieved his
desired advance in the centre and
Black is somewhat passively placed.
9 xc4 g6 1 0 0-0 g7 1 1 e4 e5
This is almost a reflex response to
65
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 43
Pi ket-Kramnik
Linares 1997
M o s c o w Va ria tio n w i t h 7 e 3
Game 44
Lalic-Arduman
Game 45
Ivanchuk-Kramnik
Novgorod 1996
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 lLlf3
e6 5 g5 h6 6 xf6 'iVxf6 7 e3 lLld7
8 d3 dxc4 9 xc4 g6 1 0 0-0 g7
1 1 l:tc 1
This is White's most non-committal
move. After 1 1 . . .0-0 he retains the op
tion of playing in the centre (Games
45-48) , manoeuvring with ttJe4 and
.i.b3 (Game 50) or playing b2-b4
(Games 53-54) .
1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 l:te 1 'iVe7
A typical move, pulling the queen
back to a 'holding position' on e7
where it supports either . . . c6-c5 or
. . . e6-e5. However, as we shall see in
Game 47, 12 . . . !td8 is more accurate.
1 3 e4 l:[d8
13 . . . e5 is seen in the next game.
67
Th e S e m i- Sla v
1 4 e5!
M o s c o w Va ria tio n w i t h 7 e 3
Th e S e m i- Sla v
at a later stage.
27 l:txe5 .Jtxa3 2S l:txe6 fxe6 29 l:te2
.JtfS 30 e5 l:tdS 31 e4 l:td5 32 g4
f7 33 l:txe6 l:td 1 + 34 'it>h2 xf2 35
l:teS b6 36 h4 b 7 37 l:txfS+
'it>xfS 3S xh6+ 'it>e7 39 h4+ 'it>fS
40 lDg5 gS 41 f4+ 'it>g7 42 f6+
'it>h6 43 .JteS g7 44 lDf7+ 1 -0
How should Black counter the plan
of :rc 1 , :re I and e3-e4 in this varia
tion? The answer is to keep the black
queen on f6 for as long as possible.
1 6 lDe3 b 7 Y2 - Y2
Game 48
Van Wely-Dreev
Game 47
Timman-Gelfand
Yerevan
Olympiad 1 96
1 3 'iVe2 e 7 1 4 lDe4 a5 1 5 b3 b6
70
M o s c o w Va ria t i o n with 7 e 3
l:tc6 g5 42 c4 f6 43 a6 .ltb4 44
f4+ xf4 45 xf6+ g5 46 a6 h5
47 e2 e8+ 48 d3 e7 49 d4
h4 50 d3 d7+ 5 1 e3 l:txd3+ 52
xd3 h3 53 .l:!.a8 g4 54 e2 h2 55
.l:!.h8 g3 56 f1 e7 0-1
Game 49
Ehlvest-Kharlov
Novosibirsk 1995
1 c4 c6 2 liJf3 d5 3 d4 liJf6 4 liJc3
e6 5 g5 h6 6 xf6 xf6 7 e3 liJd7
8 d3 dxc4 9 xc4 g6 1 0 0-0 g7
1 1 h3!?
I am surprised that this has not been
tried more often. White calmly pre
pares to play e3-e4, but with the g4square under control. In the game
Black played along standard lines and
did not enjoy himself, so perhaps he
should adopt a different treatment.
1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 e4 e5
Here 12 . . :i'e7 makes sense, as 13 e5
is much less dangerous now that
White has spent a tempo on h2-h3 .
1 3 d 5 liJb6 1 4 b3!
White reaches the desired forma
tion.
1 4 . . J:td8 1 5 e2 f8 1 6 .l:!.ac 1 d7
1 7 .l:!.fd 1 e8 1 8 a3 g7 1 9 a2
.l:!.ac8 20 e3 c5 21 e2 c4? 22
liJd2 c5 23 .l:!.f1 .l:!.c7 24 liJxc4
liJxc4 25 xc4 .l:!.dc8 26 b5 xb5
27 xb5 f4 28 e2 d4 29 .l:!.c2
c5 30 d 1 a6 31 l:td3 h5 32 g3
f6 33 h4 d6 34 f3 .l:!.8c7 35
g2 .l:!.c4 36 d 1 b5 37 f3 c5 38
d 1 d6 39 f3 c5 40 g4 hxg4
41 xg4 d6 42 g3 b4 43 axb4
.l:!.xb4 44 .l:!.e2 .l:!.cc4 45 f1 b8 46
h 5 .l:!.xb2 47 hxg6 fxg6 48 xb2
"iVxb2 49 liJe2 xf2 50 xf2 .l:!.xe4
5 1 .l:!.e3 b6 52 liJc3 .l:!.f4+ 53 g2
b4 54 e 1 :g4+ 55 h3 'ii'f4 56
liJe4 f5 57 h2 g5 58 liJg3 .l:!.h4+
59 g 1 c2 60 e2 c5+ 6 1 .l:!.f2
U4 62 liJh5+ 1 -0
M anoeuvring systems
Game 50
Dautov-Dreev
Th e S e m i - Sla v
M o s c o w Va ria tio n w i t h 7 e 3
Game 52
Bareev-Dreev
Game 53
Beliavsky-Dreev
Novosibirsk 1995
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 lLle3
e6 5 .Jtg5 h6 6 .Jtxf6 xf6 7 e3 lLld7
8 .Jtd3 dxc4 9 .Jtxe4 g6 1 0 0-0 .Jtg7
1 1 b4
73
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 54
Nikolic-Kramnik
Yerevan Olympiad 1996
M o s c o w Va ria tio n w i t h 7 e 3
8 a3 g6 9 b4 g7
Black waits for White to commIt
his bishop before taking on c4.
1 0 cxd5 exd5
White's aim is to provoke this re
capture. Although the c8-h3 diagonal
is now opened for the light-squared
bishop, Black's . . . e6-e5 recapture is
taken away and this makes it harder
for Black to activate his bishop on g7.
White has the simple plan of the mi
nority attack whereby White will iso
late Black's c-pawn and leave it back
ward on the half-open c-file by playing
b4-b5xc6. These positions are not ob
jectively in White's favour, but since
they restrict Black's activity, they are
perhaps easier for White to play.
Now we can understand why
White doesn't play c4xd5 earlier: 9
cxd5 exd5 10 b4 is met by 10 . . . .id6!,
as in Van Wely-M.Gurevich, Ger
many 1996, when 1 1 i.d3 iVe7 12 0-0
lDf6 allowed Black his ideal set-up in
these positions.
For 10 ... cxd5! see the next game.
1 1 d3 0-0 1 2 0-0 lLlb6! 1 3 'ii' b 3
'i'd6! 1 4 .l::[ f c 1 e6 1 5 lLld2 .l::[f b8 1 6
.l::[ a b1 a5!
Game 56
Van Wely-Gelfand
Tilburg 1996
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 lLlf3
e6 5 g5 h6 6 xf6 'ii'x f6 7 e3 lLld7
8 a3 g6 9 b4 g7 1 0 cxd5 cxd5!
This is an even safer way for Black
to play. By keeping the pawn struc
ture fairly symmetrical, Black restricts
his opponent's active chances.
1 1 d3 0-0 1 2 0-0 'i'e7 1 3 'ii' b 3
White's only superiority is a tempo
advantage on the queenside: he has
advanced his pawns to a3 and b4,
while Black's pawns are on a7 and b7.
1 3 . . . lLlb6 1 4 a4 d7 1 5 lLld2 lLlc8
1 6 IUc 1 lLld6!
The knight is well-placed on d6,
eyeing c4 while defending b7.
1 7 b5 fc8 1 8 a5 'ii'd 8 1 9 'ii' b 2 e5
20 lLlb3 exd4 2 1 lLlxd4 lLlc4 22
xc4 dxc4 23 'ii'e 2 a6 24 b6 c6
25 d 1 'ii'e 7 26 d2 e4 27 l:tac 1
Uc5 28 lLla4 xd4 29 exd4 .l::[ g 5 30
g3 f3 3 1 .l::[ e 1 'iVd7 Yz - V2
75
Th e S e m i - Sla v
S um mary
The central lines considered in Games 41-49 offer White quite good chances of a
small structural edge in positions where e3-e4 . . . e6-e5, d4-d5 and then d5xc6 oc
curs. White can also play in manoeuvring style {Games 50-52} but he must be
careful that he does not allow a quick . . . e6-e5 by Black; 1 1 l:!c1 0-0 12 ttJe4 'i'e7
13 i.b3 {Game 50} seems the best try. If White plays on the queenside with 1 1
c1 0-0 1 2 b4, then Black should be fine as long as he adopts the . . . a7-a5 plan of
Games 53-54. 8 a3 {Games 55-56} does not seem dangerous with careful play.
1 1 . . . 0-0
76
1 3 b3
1 2 . . . lLlb 6
Game 57
Timman-Gelfand
Belgrade 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lDc3 lDf6 4 lDf3
e6 5 .Jig5 h6 6 xf6 xf6 7 b3
With this move White protects c4
and covers the b4-square in order to
allow a quick e2-e4 without a disrup
tive check on b4.
The immediate 7 e4 dxe4 8 4Jxe4
does not pose any problems due to
8 . . . .lib4+ 9 e2 'iWf4 10 'i'ic2 .lie7. In
Lautier-Kramnik, Paris (rapidplay)
1995, White now suffered from an
attack of misguided inspiration with
1 1 4Je5?!, a pawn sacrifice which pro-
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Olympiad 1996
Atalik-Bacrot
1 5 f4 d7 ! 1 6 l:tad 1 c6!
This plan really hits the spot! Black
intends . . . tDd7, solidly blocking the
white d-pawn and preventing tDe5.
1 7 e4? lLlxc4 1 8 xc6 lLlxb2 1 9
xb7 l:tb8
It is always a horrid moment when
you realise that too many of your
78
f3 g4 23 .i.g2 .i.h3 24 f3
% -%
Game 60
T opalov-Gelfand
Dortmund 1996
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 lLlc3
e6 5 g5 h6 6 h4 dxc4 7 e4 g5 8
g3 b5
Frustrated by the Black's solidity in
the 6 i.xf6 lines, White players have
recently turned back to this venerable
gambit, the only way for him to ob
tain sharp play against S . . . h6.
As compensation for the pawn,
White has a strong pawn centre and
chances against the enemy king
(Black's . . . g7-gS has weakened f6 and
makes kingside castling a fraught af
fair) . If Black develops his dark
squared bishop to g7, then the d6square is extremely weak.
9 e2 b7
9 ... b4 is rather loosening but breaks
up the white centre: 10 tDa4 tDxe4 1 1
.txc4!? (1 1 i.eS tDf6 1 2 i.xc4 tDbd7
13 0-0 i.g7 14 'i'e2 tDb6 IS i.b3 0-0 16
tDcs gave White good compensation
in Relange-Giorgadze, Ubeda Open
1997) 1 1 .. .tDxg3 12 hxg3 tDd7 13 0-0
g7 14 lie l 0-0 IS 1Ic1 , and now
Korchnoi's Is . . . tDb6! would have
equalised in Korchnoi-Timman, Wijk
aan Zee 1997.
1 0 0-0 lLlbd7 1 1 a4! ?
Also possible is 1 1 ds cxdS 12 exdS
tDxds 13 tDxbS, opening the centre.
1 1 . . . b4
Mikhail Gurevich preferred 1 1 .. .a6,
keeping the queenside solid, and ask
ing White to make further efforts to
find some compensation, against Sher-
Th e S e m i - Sla v
S u m mary
It seems that Black has few problems in the offbeat lines after 6 xf6. Only
Yermolinsky's 7 'iVc2 looks like it is worth further analysis. However, if you
like gambits and fancy having a go at Black's position, then the 6 h4 line may
be for you, as it drags Black out of the solidity of the main line Moscow lines.
. . .
5 . . h6
.
80
6. . . 'iixf6
'iVb3
CHAPTER SEVEN
Meran Va riation : Main Line
Th e S e m i- Sla v
. . .
82
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
Game 61
Lautier-Gelfand
Amsterdam 1996
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3
83
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 5 e3 !
This move completes White's set-up
by supporting the knight on d4. After
Black brings a rook to d8 , White can
move his queen to e2 or f3, side
stepping the pin along the d-file. Black
will then be vulnerable to b2-b4, at
tacking the knight on cS, the sole pro
tector of the e6-pawn. Sooner or later,
Black will have to force the knight
from d4 and the only way to do so is
via the committal . . . e6-eS.
Question 5: But ... e6-eS just looks
good to me.
Answer: This move does indeed
have many positive points: Black
chases the white knight from d4 and
prevents the push e4-eS by occupying
the eS-square with a pawn himself;
removes the barrier on the d-file,
thereby making it possible to support
a knight on the d3-outpost with a
rook on d8; and creates a strong out
post on d4 which the black knight on
cS can reach via e6. The negative side
to . . . e6-eS is that it weakens the light
squares, particularly fs and ds. After
. . . e6-eS, White can also envisage a2-a4
(softening up the black queenside)
. . . bS-b4, tZJdS - even as a pawn sacri
fice. After Black captures on dS,
White can recapture with e4xdS, acti
vating White's light-squared bishop by
opening the b I-h7 diagonal and open
ing up the e-file for his major pieces.
1 5 0-0-0
Black gets his king out of the centre
and his rook to the d-file in one move,
and threatens to win a piece with . . . e6eS due to the pin on the d4-knight.
The drawback is that the black king is
not safe on the queenside. As we shall
. . .
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
tunately it is insufficient.
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 e3 e6
5 liJf3 liJbd7 6 d3 dxc4 7 i.xc4 b5
8 d3 b 7 9 0-0 a6 1 0 e4 c5 1 1 d5
c4 1 2 c2 'i'c7 1 3 dxe6 fxe6 1 4
liJd4 liJc5 1 5 e3! 0-0-0 1 6 'i'e2 e5
1 7 liJf3! liJe6
Gelfand was obviously impressed
with the previous game since he soon
decided to give it an outing from the
other side of the board! Black's 17th
move is a definite improvement, as
White must react to the threat of
... lbd4.
1 8 l:[ad 1 ! ?
Since White is planning to attack on
the queenside, it would seem more
natural to keep the rook on al and
play the rook on f1 to the d-file.
85
Th e S e m i - Sla v
e6
b5
d5
14
e5
Thematic.
1 8 . . . lLlxd 5 1 9 exd5 .lixd5 20 a4! b4
21 l:tad 1 g6
Stopping the bishop on c2 from ac-
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
Game 64
Krasenkov-Oll
e6
b5
d5
14
Th e S e m i- Sla v
Linares 1 994
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
22 . . . .if8? !
Although the text is solid, it does
nothing to interfere with White's
plan. 22 ... 1:abS is considered in Games
66-6S.
23 g4! h6 24 f4!
Reinforcing the threat of g4-gS.
24 . . . .if3 25 l:td2 .ie6
To give the knight a square on d7
after White attacks it with g4-gS.
89
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Biel 1995
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
Game 67
G reenfeld-Av. Bykhovsky
Beersheva
1996
1 d4 d 5 2 e4 e6 3 lLle3 lLlf6 4 e3 e6
5 lLlf3 lLlbd7 6 .Jtd3 dxe4 7 xe4 b5
8 d3 .Jtb7 9 0-0 a6 1 0 e4 e5 1 1 d5
c4 1 2 dxe6 fxe6 1 3 .Jte2 'fie7 1 4
lLlg5 lLle5 1 5 e 5 'ii'x e5 1 6 l:te1 d6
1 7 'fixd6 xd6 1 8 .Jte3 0-0 1 9 %:tad 1
e7 20 xe5 xe5 2 1 lLlxe6 %:tfe8
22 h3! ! %:tab8! 23 g4
23 . . . f3
This annoying intermediate move
Th e S e m i - Sla v
yerevn
Olympiad 1 996
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 e3 e6
5 liJf3 liJbd7 6 d3 dxc4 7 xc4 b5
8 d3 .lib7 9 0-0 a6 1 0 e4 c5 1 1 d5
c4 1 2 c2 VJkc7 1 3 dxe6 fxe6 1 4
liJg5 liJc5 1 5 e 5 VJkxe5 1 6 l:le 1 'i'd6
1 7 'iVxd6 xd6 1 8 .lie3 0-0 1 9 l:lad 1
e7 20 xc5 xc5 2 1 liJxe6 l:lfc8
22 h3 ! ! l:lab8! 23 a3
Madrid 1994
M e r a n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
1 6 f3 lLlfd7 1 7 lLlxh 7
17 ";!Ve2 was played in I.Sokolov
Shirov, Leon 1995. White claims that
achieving e4-e5 is more than enough
for an advantage and avoids risk with
l2Jxh7. However, 17 . . . lbd3!? (17 . . . e7
18 h 1 lbd3 19 xd3 cxd3 20 'i'xd3
l2Jxe5 2 1 'i'd4 'iVc4 22 iYxc4 lbxc4 23
l2Jxe6 'it>f7 gave Black good compensa
tion for the pawn in Krasenkov
Luther, Tilburg 1994) 18 xd3 cxd3
19 'ii'xd3 lbxe5 20 'iVe2 h6! 21 'iVxe5
'l'c5+ 22 'i'xc5 xc5+ 23 'it>h l hxg5
24 xg5 d4! was only minutely bet
ter for White.
1 7 . . . lLlxe5 1 8 lLlxf8 l:txf8 1 9 li'd4
lLlcd3!
Black is now threatening 20 . . Jhf3!
21 gxf3 lbxf3+ 22 lixf3 'ifxf3 followed
by mate!
20 xd3 lLlxd3 21 lLle4 e5?!
A slight inaccuracy. In a later round
of the same tournament against Illes
cas, Shirov played 2 1 . . Jd8 ! 22 'iVxg7
'i'b6+! 23 lbf2 lbxf2 24 fig6+ 1:17 25
'i'g8+ l:tf8 26 'i6g6+ !!f7 with a draw,
as 27 1:txf2 allows 27 . . . lId1+ mate.
22 .e3 0-0-0 23 b3 c3 24 a3 b4
25 l:[fd 1 'ii' b 5 26 lLlxc3 llxf3 27 gxf3
bxc3 28 l:tac 1 lLlxc 1 29 "xc3+ c6
30 'ii'x c6+ xc6 31 l:txd8+ xd8
YZ - YZ
Tilburg 1993
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 lLlf3
e6 5 e3 lLlbd7 6 d3 dxc4 7 xc4
b5 8 i.d3 i.b7 9 0-0 a6 1 0 e4 c5 1 1
d5 c4 1 2 c2 'ii'c 7 1 3 lLld4
Th e S e m i - Sla v
ltJf6 24 iLh5+
h 6
lIg8
28
f3
b4
29
ltJe2
1 9 il.f4! ! il.c5
Game 71
Sadler-Madwek w e
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 e3 ltJf6 4 ltJc3 e6
22 e6! c6 23 Jid6 1 -0
Game 72
Kasparov-Kramnik
1 4 b4
1 6 ltJa4 ltJxa4?
1 7 il.xe4 ! ?
M e ra n Va ria tio n : M a in L in e
19
:xf7 !
This is best and almost forced, as
19 ... 'it>xf7 is unpleasantly met by 20
'iYh5+ g6 2 1 h3 !
20 f3! h5! 2 1 g3
. .
A magical game!
Game l3
Tkachiev-Handoko
21 . . . 0-0!
Kramnik states that 2 1 . . .lbxg3!! 22
hxg3 (22 e 1+ lbe4 23 .ua2 0-0 gives a
virulent attack) 22 . . . 0-0! 23 kla2 .ixg3
24 ltg2 e5 25 lbc5 ad8 26 .ie3 .ic8
was Black's best chance, when White
can only save himself with 27 f4!
'iYxdl 28 xdl .ixf4 29 .ixf4 xf4 30
gd2 with reasonable drawing
chances. The rest of the game is thus
not theoretically imponant, but play
through it - it has to be enjoyed!
22 fxe4 h3! 23 lLJf3? .i.xg3 24
lLJc5 l:txf3 25 l:txf3 xh2+ 26 f 1
c6!
This is what Kasparov had missed
when calculating his 23rd move.
27 g5 .i.b5+ 28 lLJd3 l:te8 29 l:ta2
'i'h 1 +
Winning, but as Kramnik shows,
29 . . . it.xd3+ 30 xd3 "i'h 1 + 3 1 'it>e2
xg2+ 32 e3 lixe4 was checkmate!
30 e2 l:txe4+ 31 d2 'i'g2+ 32
c 1 'i'xa2 33 l:txg3 a 1 + 34 c2
'ii'c 3+ 35 b1 l:td4 0-1
Th e S e m i - Sla v
S u m mary
I would recommend the 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 liJd4 line to White players since it com
bines solidity and aggression and does not require the refined endgame skills de
manded by Karpov's 14 liJg5 'i'xe5 15 e5. Tkachiev's 13 liJd4 liJc5 14 'i'f3 is also
worth a try. For Black players, I would suggest that 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 liJd4 is best
met by 14 . . . liJc5 1 5 iLe3 e5 .
13
96
. . .
lOc5
22 h3
1 7 1Of3
CHAPTER EIGH T
Meran Variation :
Move Orders and Sidelines
...
Th e S e m i- Sla v
Bareev-Dreev
Russian
8 d3 b7 9 0-0 a6 1 0 e4 c5 1 1 d5
c7 12 c2 e7
Black makes the most of White's
unforced retreat with 12 c2 by opt
ing for a developing move rather than
playing the routine 12 . . . c4, transpos
ing to the previous chapter.
1 3 dxe6 fxe6 1 4 liJg5 'ii' c 6
The queen is well placed here, de
fending e6 and preventing a e4-e5 due
to . . . xg2 checkmate!
1 5 f3! ?
White reasons that without . . . c5-c4,
Black cannot deal comfortably with
two attacks on e6. 15 f3 aims for the
h3-square, where it will combine with
the knight against the e6-pawn. From
h3, the white queen also protects g2
and allows White to consider the e4-e5
push; for example 15 . . . c4 16 'i'h3 lLlc5
is met by 17 e5! However, Black's idea
is much more daring! (See Game 77
for 15 f4.)
1 5 . . . h6!? 1 6 h3 hxg5 1 7 'ii'x h8+
""f7 1 8 h3 g4
Game 75
Lautier-Dreev
Linares 1995
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 e3 e6
5 liJf3 liJbd7 6 d3 dxc4 7 xc4 b5
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Olympiad 1924 @
20 . . . d6 21 e3? !
Illescas recommends instead 2 1 f4
liJg6 22 xd6 liJxh4 23 xc6 .txc6,
giving back the material for a slight
endgame edge. This seems a reasonable
enough strategy, although in Jelen
Pavasovic, Vienna 1996, the game
ended in a draw after 24 e 1 d8 25
Biel 1995
1 5 . . . h6
lS ... 0-0!? is interesting, as 16 eS fails
to 16 . . . 'i1Vxg2+ mate!
1 6 ttJf3 0-0-0 1 7 'ii'e 2 l:[hf8
Dreev suggests 17 . . . wb8 here.
17 . . . b4 18 eS bxc3 19 exf6 xf6 20
bxc3 ttJb6 21 d2 ttJdS 22 'ii'e l is then
slightly better for White according to
Gelfand.
1 8 e5 ttJd5 1 9 ttJxd5 "Vixd5 20 a4 b4
21 e3?!
2 1 l:td I ! 'Wc6 22 as! gS 23 fxgS hxgS
24 xgS xf3 (24 . . . xgS 25 ttJxgS
ttJxeS 26 e4) 25 xe7 11g8 26 d6
'iWc7 27 e4 ttJxeS 28 l:[xe6 is given by
Gelfand as clearly better for White.
21 . . . ttJb6 22 ttJd2 'i'c6 23 ttJb3?
ttJc4 Y2 - Y2
A strange draw offer as Black has a
wonderful position!
Aah!!
23 'iix h8 ttJg6!
Suddenly the queen is trapped and
White is in trouble!
24 'ii'd 8 xd8 25 l:[xd8 b4 26 ttJe2
liJxe4 27 l:tcd 1 ttJe5 28 l:[b8 ttJf6 29
liJf4 g5 30 l:[xb7+ 'ikxb7 31 ttJd3
liJxd3 32 xd3 ttJe4 33 l:tc 1 a5 34
g3 'i'd5 35 xe4 xe4 36 l:txc5
'i'b1 + 37 g2 a4 38 l:txg5 'ike4+ 39
'Otg 1 e5 40 l:th5 'ii' b 1 + 41 g2 xb2
42 l:[h7+ <;t>e6 43 c5 c2 44 l:th6+
<j;f7 45 d6 c6+ 0-1
Game ll
Gelfand-Dreev
101
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 78
Kozul-Beliavsky
Slovenia 1995
1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 c6 3 liJc3 d5 4 e3 e6
5 liJf3 liJbd7 6 d3 dxc4 7 xc4 b5
8 1i.d3 a6 9 e4 c5 1 0 d5 c7 1 1 0-0
iLb7 1 2 b3
1 2 . . . 1i.e7
Kozul-Lalic, Croatia 1995, saw the
risky 12 . . . c4 13 bxc4 bxc4 14 dxe6 fxe6
15 .tc2 i.b4, which seemed okay for
Black after 16 i.d2 (16 ctJa4!?)
16 . . . i.d6 17 ctJd4 ctJc5 18 f4 e5 19 ctJf5
0-0 20 'i'e2 ctJd3 2 1 i.xd3 cxd3 22
'i'xd3 .tb4.
1 3 g5
The more testing 13 a4!? was played
in Krasenkov-Timman, European
Team Championship, Pula 1997. Af
ter 13 . . . exd5 (13 . . . c4!? 14 bxc4 bxc4 15
.tc2 0-0 16 ctJd4 lUe8 17 dxe6 fxe6 18
ctJxe6 'i'e5! was unfathomable in Kra
senkov-Se.Ivanov, Augustow 1996) 14
ctJxd5 ctJxd5 15 exd5 0-0 16 axb5 axb5
17 l::tx a8 i.xa8 18 xb5 ctJf6 19 .tb2
ctJxd5 20 l::te 1 White was a little better.
1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 1:1c1 1:1ad8! 1 5 xb5! ?
A very clever spot as 15 . . . axb5 16
ctJxb5 'i'b8 17 d6! nets a pawn
(Beliavsky) . However, by eating up
White's centre, Black finds his way to
achieve even a slight edge.
1 5 . . . exd5 1 6 iLd3 dxe4 1 7 liJxe4
xe4 1 8 xe4 liJe5 1 9 e2 liJxe4
20 iLxe7 liJxf3+ 2 1 gxf3 xe7 22
xe4 g5+ 23 g4 d2 24 1:1xc5
xa2 25 a4 e2 26 e4 d2 27
1:1 a 1 1:1fe8 28 1:1e5 1:1xe5 29 xe5
d3 30 e4 b5 3 1 a4 g5+ 32
g4 f6 33 1:1c 1 h5 34 xh5 g6 35
g4 1:1d4 36 c8+ h7 37 h3+
g7 38 1:1c8 g5+ 39 g3 f5 40
1:1e8 1:1f4 41 g2 g5 42 1:1e3 g6 43
1:1e8 % - %
Black avoids o r delays
. . .
i. b 7
Game 79
Lautier-Piket
Th e S e m i - Sla v
. e6-e5
. .
Game 80
Kharitonov-Ivanchuk
USSR 1 988
c6
Game 81
Podgaets-Muhametov
Moscow 1995
1 05
Th e S e m i - Sla v
2 1 . . .'e7?
A bad mistake according to Pod
gaets who recommends instead
2 1 . . .tbe8 22 ..td1 ! (to activate the
bishop via g4!) 22 . . Jixc1 23 xc1
tbd6, though he still considers this to
be clearly better for White. This is a
typical example of what can happen in
1 06
31 . . . h8 32 h6 lbh5 33 l:td7 ! f6
34 lbd6 g8 35 lbxb 7 l:tde8 36 lbg4
"c6 37 lbc5 a5 38 e5 axb4 39 lbe4
l:te6 40 lbg5 1 -0
Essentially, as we have seen, the
plan of blocking the centre with . . . e6e5 is most successful when Black has
not yet committed his light-squared
bishop to b7, since then it guards f5
Game 82
Cu . Hansen-Chernin
Taastrup 1992
1 c4 c6 2 lbc3 d5 3 d4 lbf6 4 e3 e6
5 lbf3 lbbd7 6 .Ji.d3 dxc4 7 .Ji.xc4 b5
8 .Ji.d3 a6 9 e4 c5 1 0 d5 c4 1 1 dxe6
cxd3
A key resource if Black was hoping
to meet 1 1 c2 with the blockading
1 1 . . .e5 rather than the main line
1 1 . . .i.b7 12 0-0 'ilVc7.
1 2 exd7+ xd7 1 3 0-0 .Ji.b7
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 08
Summary
Dreev's queenside castling plans (Games 75 and 77) are particularly worthy of
attention, while 8 . . . a6 9 e4 c5 10 d5 c4 1 1 .i.c2 e5!? may also be worth a try if
Black wishes to establish a blockade in the centre.
1 d4 d5
d3
8 .i.b7
8 ... a6 9 e4 c5 10 d5 (D)
10 . . . 'i'c7 1 1 0-0 c4 12 .i.c2 .i.c5
13 dxe6 - Game 79; 13 'ii'e2 - Game 80
10 . . . c4 1 1 dxe6 cxd3 12 exd7+ 'i'xd7 13 0-0 .i.b7 - Games 82 and 83
(by transposition)
9 0-0 a6 1 0 e4 c5 1 1 d5 'iic 7
1 1 . . .c4 (D)
12 .tc2 e5 - Game 81
12 dxe6 cxd3 13 exd7+ 'ifxd7 14 e 1 .i.e7 15 e5 ttJd5
16 ttJe4 0-0 17 'i'xd3 'i'g4
1 8 ttJg3 - Game 82; 18 ttJfg5 - Game 83
1 2 dxe6
12 .i.c2 .i.e7 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 ttJg5 'i'c6 (D)
15 'ii f3 h6 16 'i'h3 hxg5 17 'i'xh8+ 'itt f7 1 8 'i'h3 g4 19 'i'h4 ttJe5
20 f4 - Game 75; 20 .l:td1 - Game 76
15 f4 - Game 77
12 b3 - Game 78
1 2 fxe6 - Game 74
. . .
. . .
1 0 d5
1 1 . . . c4
1 4 . . 'ii c 6
.
1 09
, CHAPTER NINE
. . .
1 10
M e r a n Va ria tio n w i t h 8
. . .
i. b 7 : Wh i t e A l t e rn a t i v e s
Game 84
Yakovich-Giorgadze
Th e S e m i- Sla v
'"., Piket-Kraf!lnik
:,:/'Amst'erdam 1 993
1 4 g5
14 .td2!? is seen in the next game.
1 4 . . :ii'a5 1 5 ttJxd4 a6 ! !
Despite their active pOSItiOnS,
White's pieces are not coordinating to
create one big threat, but rather a se
ries of 'mini-threats' . For example,
lS . . . .tg7 would have been awkwardly
met by 16 .tbS! The calm lS . . . a6 pre
vents .tbS and asks White to find an
other idea.
1 6 l::t c 1 g7 1 7 ttJc6 xc6 1 8 l::t x c6
0-0 1 9 .1i.c4!?
White attacks the knight on ds now
that it has lost the support of the
bishop on b7. Now 19 . . . lbxeS loses
the queen to 20 l:tcS! (that knight on
a4 comes in useful at last!) and
19 . . . .txeS 20 lbcS! lbxcs 2 1 l:txes lbd7
22 l:te 1 l:tfc8 23 .txdS 'i'xdS 24 'ii'xds
exdS 2S l:td6 lbcs 26 ':'xdS lbe6 27
.tf6 was pleasant for White in Piket
M.Gurevich, Belgium 1993. However,
Black has another resource.
1 9 . . . h6! 20 xd5!
The sharpest attempt. 20 ii.h4
lbSb6 is about equal according to
Piket, while 20 .td2 lbxeS! 21 licS
'ii'xcs 22 lbxcs lbxc4 is a good version
M e ra n Va ria tio n w i t h 8
of
22 . . . lLlxe5! !
Quite amazing! After 23 ':xe5,
Black stresses the weakness of White's
back rank with 23 .. JacS!! 24 i.xg7
':xc6 25 i.xh6! (stopping . . Jc1+)
25 . . . g5! 26 i.xg5 f6! 27 llxd5 fxg5 2S
l1xg5+ '\th7 29 f3 dS, when despite
White's temporary material edge,
Black has the better prospects due to
White's rather sad knight on a4. All
this analysis is by Piket.
23 i.xe5 l:tae8! 24 f4 f6 25 lLlb6
fxe5 26 lLlxd5 exf4 27 l:txe8 l:txe8
28 J:[xg6 h7 29 l:txa6 l:te2 30 'it>f1
l:txb2 3 1 lLlxf4 Y2 - Y2
Game 86
Alterman-Dreev
Manila Olympiad 1992
. . .
iL b 7 : Wh i t e A l t e rn a t i v e s
1 4 . . . i.g7 1 5 .ib5!
This move marks the start of a very
sharp tactical plan which pushes
Black's position to the limit. Again,
White uses the fact that Black's dark
squared bishop is not covering the fs
a3 diagonal any more: by pinning the
knight on d7 to the king on eS, White
threatens to dramatically activate his
knight on a4 with ltJc5!
1 5 . . . a6! 1 6 lLlc5! axb5 1 7 lLlxb7
-.b6 1 8 lLld6+ e 7 !
The best choice, as I s . . . 'iit fs 19 ltJg5!
ltJxe5 20 l:txe5 i.xe5 (20 .. :i'xd6 2 1
'i'f3! i.f6 22 xd5 exd5 2 3 i.b4! wins)
2 1 ltJdxf7 is rather grim for Black, as
Stohl points out.
Question 6: I'm sorry, but even after
IS . . . 'iite 7 this position looks losing!
A nswer: Stay calm! The knight on
d6 is a dangerous piece, but it is not
secure - Black is threatening to de
stroy its support with . . . ltJxe5. White
also has few pieces in this attack - lit
tle else apart from the knight and the
pawn on e5 - and not much time to
1 13
Th e S e m i - Sla v
21 h4
21 . . . 'it>gS?
Now was the time for 2 1 . . .lbxe5.
The difference is that after 22 lbxe5
'i'xd6 23 !lc6, the queen sacrifice
23 . . . 'i'xe5 24 ltxe5 iLxe5 was quite
promising for Black in Hjartarson
Akopian, World Team Champion
ship, Lucern 1993 . Without the threat
of iLh6, Black's king is perfectly safe.
Instead of 23 !lc6 Alterman suggests
23 i.g3 'i'e7 24 h4 to soften up the
black kingside, but after 24 . . . h5! 25
'i'f3 \t>gS Black has very good pros
pects as 26 lbxg6 fxg6 27 'i'xd5 exd5
2S !lxe7 d3 29 d7 iLxb2 30 !lc6 d2 is
by no means worse for Black.
The text is a bad mistake since it
gives White a crucial opportunity to
reinforce the pride of his position: the
knight on d6.
22 g3 'it>h7 23 lbxf7 l:thfS 24 lbd6
lbf4 25 'iVd2? !
25 e4! was cleaner and would have
given White a decisive advantage.
25 . . . lbh5 26 lbxd4 lbxg3 27 hxg3
xe5 2S lbxe6 .lixd6 29 lbxfS+
l:txfS 30 l:te6 l:tf6 31 l:tee 1 'tWe5 32
l:t 1 e3 h5 33 l:te2 'it>g7 34 l:te 1 'it>f7
35 e2 lbe5 36 l:txd6 l:txd6 37
M e ra n Va ria tio n w i t h 8
Game 87
I . Sokolov-Chernin
. . .
1J.. b 7 : Wh i t e A l t e rn a t i v e s
Th e S e m i- Sla v
Game 88
Wells-Kaidanov
Dublin 1991
2 1 a5
21 'iVb7 l:tbS 22 xdS l::tx b7 23
xc7 .llxc7 24 ctJb5 .llc2 was very
pleasant for Black in Vyzmanavin
Novikov, Moscow 1990, while the
violent 2 1 ctJxe6 fxe6 22 .llxe6+ wf71
23 .i.xdS ctJxa6 24 e7+ wf6 25 .llxd7
hxdS just wins for Black according
to Chernin.
2 1 . . J:ta8!
White cannot play 22 'ilxb4 as then
Black wins a piece with the tactic
22 . . . 'ilxg5.
22 xd8 .l:txa5 23 xc7 .l:txa4 24
.l:ted 1 liJf6 25 e5 0-0 26 a3 liJd5
27 .i.xg7 'it'xg7 28 liJc2 bxa3 29
.l:txa3 .l:tc4 30 liJe3 liJxe3 3 1 .l:txe3
.l:tc2 32 b3 .l:td8 33 l:ta 1 .l:ta8 34 .l:tee1
l:txa 1 3 5 .l:txa 1 .l:tb2 36 h4 .l:txb3 37
g3 h6 38 .l:ta5 'it'f6 39 'it'g2 .l:td3 40
.l:ta7 l:td6 41 'it'f3 e5 42 .l:ta8 .l:td3+
43 'iPe4 .l:td4+ 44 e3 f5 45 .l:ta7
f6 46 .l:th7 h5 47 llg7 1:[g4 48 llh7
.l:tb4 49 'it'f3 e4+ 50 'it'e2 .l:tb2+ 5 1
'it'e3 llb3+ 5 2 'it'e2 l:tb2+ 5 3 'it'e3
.l:tb3+ 54 'it'e2 'it'g4 55 .l:th6 'it'h3 56
.l:txg6 .l:tf3 57 .l:th6 'iPg2 58 .l:txh5
.l:txf2+ 59 e3 f5 60 .l:tg5 'it'f1 6 1 g4
.l:tf3+ 62 d4 e3 63 .l:txf5 .l:txf5 64
<ot>xe3 llf8 0-1
1 16
M e r a n Va ria tio n w i t h 8
Game 89
Bareev-Kramnik
Dortmund 1 995
1 d4 d S 2 c4 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 e3 e6
S lLlf3 lLlbd7 6 d3 dxc4 7 xc4 bS
8 d3 b7 9 e4 b4 1 0 lLla4 cS 1 1
eS lLldS 1 2 lLlxcS
With this capture White rids his po
sition of the offside knight in a4, while
clearing away some of the defences
around the black king. However,
these exchanges free Black's position.
1 2 . . . lLlxcs 1 3 dxcS xcS 1 4 0-0
Question 8: Wait! Are you crazy?
White can play 14 .ibS+ here!!
A nswer: Aha, and now 14 .. .'e7.
see
. . .
iL b 7 : Wh i t e A l t e rn a t i v e s
Th e S e m i - Sla v
;H6rgenJ995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tbe3 tbf6 4 e3 e6
5 tbf3 tbbd7 6 d3 dxc4 7 .ltxe4 b5
8 d3 b 7 9 e4 b4 1 0 tba4 c5 1 1
e5 tbd5 1 2 dxc5
no difference!
1 2 . . . tbxc5! 1 3 i.b5+
13 liJxcs i.. xcs transposes to Game
89 above.
1 3 . . . tbd7 1 4 i.g5 a5!
14 . . . .te7 loses, as Wells points out,
to 15 liJcS! ..txgS 16 i.xd7+ \t>f8 17
i.xe6!
1 5 i.xd7+
15 liJd4 .i.a6! 16 i.. c6 lIc8 17 1Ic1
b3+! was horrific for White in C.Han
sen-Shirov, Biel I992.
1 5 . . . xd7
This position was originally assessed
as better for White, but as Kramnik
shows, Black can consolidate, as White
has no way to get at the black king.
1 6 0-0 .te7 1 7 b3 h6! 1 8 xe7
xe7 1 9 tbd2 tbf4 20 tbe4 'iVd5 2 1
xd5 xd5 2 2 tbe3 l:the8 2 3 l:tfe1
e4 24 f3 g6 25 tbc4 tbd3 26
l:ted 1 l:td8 27 a3 bxa3 Y2 -
We shall now turn our attention to
the quieter 9 a3.
Game,91
Karpov-Kramnik
Dortmund 1995
1 d4 d5 2 e4 c6 3 tbe3 tbf6 4 e3 e6
5 tbf3 tbbd7 6 .ltd3 dxe4 7 .ltxe4 b5
8 i.d3 i.b7 9 a3
As we know, Black ideally wants to
play . . . c6-cS, but first he has to protect
bS with . . . a7-a6 or try . . . bS-b4. 9 a3 is
directed against both of these two
ideas. White will meet 9 . . . a6 with 10
b4, clamping down on cS; while by
attacking b4, he also hopes to make
. . . bS-b4 a little less tempting, since by
delaying e3-e4, he reserves the e4square for his queen's knight.
M e r a n Va ria tio n w i t h 8
. . .
iL b 7 : Wh i t e A l t e rn a t i v e s
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 93
Karpov-Shirov
Linares 1 994 .
M e ra n Va ria tio n w i t h 8
l:tb6 .::t d 4 53 f2 h 5 54 e3 g4 55
f6 d7 56 1:U5 xb7 57 l:txh5
l:tb3+ 58 'it>f2 gxf3 59 gxf3 f6 60 h4
<l;c7 6 1 l:th6 l:tb6 62 h5 d7 63 J:tg6
<l;e6 64 h6 l:tb7 65 'it>g3 l:tb1 66 'it>h2
.::t b 7 67 h3 l:tb1 Yz - Yz
Game 94
Bareev-Dreev
Russia 1996
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3
e6 5 e3 ttJbd7 6 .Jtd3 dxc4 7 i.. xc4
b5 8 .i.d3 .i.b7 9 a3 b4! 1 0 ttJe4 a5
1 1 ttJxf6+ ttJxf6 1 2 e4 .i.e 7 1 3 e2!
b6 ! ? 1 4 0-0 c5 1 5 axb4! cxb4
lS . . . axb4 16 lIxaS+ ..txaS 17 ..tbS+
<;t>fs IS dS exdS 19 exdS ..txdS 20 l:te 1
'i'b7 2 1 liJeS is clearly better for White
according to Bareev.
1 6 d5 exd5 1 7 .Jte3 i.. c 5 1 8 .i.xc5
xc5 1 9 l:tac 1 b6 20 i.. b 5+ f8
21 e5 ttJe8 22 l:tfe 1 ttJc7? 23 e6!
ttJxe6 24 ttJe5
With the threat of liJd7+, forking
king and queen.
24 . . . g8 25 ttJxf7 xf7 26 l:tc6!
26 . . . d8 27 xe6+ f8 28 d6 1 -0
The other plan with 0-0 and e4-eS
also looks very promising here!
. . .
Jt.. b 7 : Wh i t e A l t e rn a t i v e s
Game 95
Gavrilov-Novikov
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Summary
At the moment Black seems to be holding his own quite comfortably after both
9 e4 b4 10 lDa4 c5 and 9 a3 b4! 10 lDe4 lDxe4. One thing, however: don't touch 9
a3 b4 10 lDe4 a5 .
e4
9 a3 b4 10 lDe4
10 . . . lDxe4 Game 91
10 . . . a5
I 1 lDxf6 lDxf6 12 e4 i.e7 13 'iYe2 (D)
13 . . . lDd7 Game 92
13 . . . c5 Game 93
1 3 . . . 'iYb6 Game 94
1 1 0-0 Game 95
9 . b4 1 0 liJa4 c5 1 1 e5 liJd5 (D) 1 2 0-0
12 lDxc5 Game 89; 12 dxc5 Game 90
1 2 . . cxd4
12 . . . a6 Game 84
1 3 ];tel
1 3 lDxd4 lDxe5 14 i.b5+ lDd7 15 lIe 1 c8 16 'iYh5 g6
17 'iYe2 Game 87; 17 'iYe5 Game 88
1 3 . . . g6 (D) 1 4 g5
14 iLd2 Game 86
1 4 . . :a5 Game 85
-
. .
1 3 'ike2
1 22
11
. . .
liJd5
13
. . .
g6
10
cxd4
Black counters the threat against his
knight on f6 attacking White's knight
on c3. 1 1 exf6 bxc3 gives Black a good
game. Usually, White replies with
1 1 lZJxb5
. . .
Question 2: Why?
A nswer: Rather than allow Black
just to take White's knight on c3 ,
White makes a 'desperado' sacrifice to
get as much as he can for the knight
before it succumbs to the inevitable.
Now things can get a little confus
ing. The main line here has histori
cally been 1 1 . . .ttJxeS, while both
1 23
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 96
Altermari:' Chernin
M e r a n Va ria t i o n w i t h 8 .
. .
a 6 : O ld M a in L in e
9 e4 c 5 1 0 e 5
Game 97
Gelfand-Shirov
Linares 1997
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 4Je3 4Jf6 4 e3 e6
5 4Jf3 4Jbd7 6 d3 dxe4 7 .ltxe4 b5
8 .lid3 a6 9 e4 e5 1 0 e5 exd4 1 1
4Jxb5 axb5 1 2 exf6 gxf6 1 3 0-0
'iVb6 1 4 e2! b4!
M e r a n Va ria tio n w i t h 8
. . .
Game 99
Csiszar-Sploshrov
a 6 : O l d M a in L in e
9 e4 c5 1 0 e 5
1 S . . . tLlcS ! ?
15 . . . 'iVb6 16 e 1 .1i.d5 17 h4!, in
tending h4-h5-h6, was dangerous for
Black in Shabalov-Kishnev, USSR
1988. The text is often dismissed as
bad, but it is not quite clear.
1 6 xh7+! Wxh7 1 7 tLlg5+ Wg8! ?
This is the point! 1 7 . . .';t.tg6 1 8 'iNg4
f5 19 'iWg3! wf6 20 'i'e5+ Wg6 2 1 xc5
is very unpleasant for Black.
1 8 'iVh5 l:te8 1 9 'iVxf7+ h8 20 l:te5?
This is not the best. Unfortunately
for Black, White seems to be able to
obtian an advantage with 20 b4! 'iVd5
21 f3, when 2 1 . . .d3 22 bxc5 d2 23
xd2 'iYxd2 24 'iVh5+ g8 25 :tad1
'i'c2 26 d7! "iixc5+ 27 'iti>h 1 is very
dangerous for Black.
20 . . . e7 21 'ii'h S+ g8 22 'iVh7+
Wf8 23 tLlxe6+ xe6 24 l:tfS+ ji'xfS
2S xf5+ Wg8 26 .i.f4 l:tac8 27 h4
d3 28 h5 .i.e4 29 'ii'g 4 Wh7 30 f3
1:[g8 31 h3 .i.xf3 32 g4 .i.xb2 33
l:tf1 'h - 'h
On move 41 after a time scramble
that left both score-sheets illegible!
127
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 d4 d 5 2 e4 e6 3 lDe3 lDf6 4 e3 e6
5 lDf3 lDbd7 6 i.d3 dxe4 7 i.xe4 b5
8 d3 a6 9 e4 e5 1 0 e5 exd4 1 1
lDxb5 lDxe5
By eliminating White's pawn on e5,
Black makes sure that he keeps his
kingside pawn structure intact.
1 1 . . .ctJg4 12 ctJd6+! i.xd6 13 exd6
'i'a5+ 14 iYd2! iYd5 15 iYg5! 'i'xg5 16
.txg5 ctJc5 17 e2 f6 18 d2 e5 19 0-0
was good for White in Greenfeld
D.Gurevich, Beersheva 1994.
1 2 lDxe5 axb5 1 3 i.xb5+ i.d7 1 4
lDxd7 'iVa5+ 1 5 Si.d2 'iVxb5 1 6 lDxf8
xf8
M e ra n Va ria t i o n w i t h 8
. . .
Game 101
San Segundo-Vera
A lcobendas 1 994
1 d4 lDf6 2 c4 e6 3 lDf3 d5 4 lDc3
c6 5 e3 lDbd7 6 d3 dxc4 7 xc4
b5 8 d3 a6 9 e4 c5 1 0 e5 cxd4 1 1
lLle4
1 1 . . . lDd5
This seems like Black's best reply.
1 1 ...ttJxe4 12 i.xe4 i.b4+ 13 i.d2
i.xd2+ 14 'iWxd2 b8 15 'ilixd4 gives
White a small plus.
1 2 0-0 c7 ! ?
This is the most logical way to meet
this line. Black makes use of the fact
that the knight on e4 blocks the e-file
to nip off White's e-pawn and go two
pawns up. But it's very risky! 12 . . . h6
13 a4 b4 14 i.. c4 (14 i.. c2!?, intending
xd4) 14 . . . i.b7 15 'iYxd4 'ilfb6 16 l:tdl
l1c8 17 as 'i'xd4 1 8 l:txd4 ttJc5 19
ttJd6+ i.. xd6 20 exd6 0-0 21 .id2 was a
touch better for White in Korchnoi
Gelfand, Madrid 1996.
1 3 g5 lDxe5 14 lDxe5 'iix e5 1 5 tte 1
Vera suggests that 15 f4 'ii'b 8 16 f5
would have been dangerous.
1 5 . . ... b8
a 6 : O ld M a in L in e - 9 e 4 c 5 1 0 e 5
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Sum mary
If you don't mind unbalanced pawn structures then this chapter is for you!
Black is not doing badly at all in general, but it obviously takes a special type of
player Oike Shirov!} to thrive in this sort of situation. The older lines with
1 1 . . .liJxeS are theoretically healthy, although it can be a little daunting in a prac
tical game to face two connected passed pawns!
1 d4 d 5
.ltd3 a6
. . .
1 2 exf6
1 30
1 4 e2
131
Th e S e m i- Sla v
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 e3 e6
5 lLlf3 lLlbd7 6 !iLd3 dxc4 7 !iLxc4 b5
8 !1J.. d 3 b4 9 lLle4 lLlxe4
9 . . . .i.b7 10 tLlxf6+ gxf6!? 1 1 e4 cS 12
i.e3 'iVb6 13 c 1 O-O-O!? 14 0-0 bS
was the rather outrageous attempt in
Yakovich-Filippov, Perm 1997. After
15 'iVe2 gS 16 fdl fS!? 17 il.f4+ i.d6
lS i.xd6+ 'iVxd6 19 dxcS tLlxcs 20
il.b l Black's position was very loose.
Black's other alternatives, 9 ... cS and
9 . . . it.. e 7, are considered in Games 104105 and 106-109 respectively.
1 0 !1J.. xe4 b6!?
. . .
b 5-b4
Game 104
Ivanchuk-Oll
10 lbxf6+
After 10 0-0, Piket's 10 .. :iWb6! is
best. By putting pressure on d4, Black
stops White from setting up his attack
ing structure after e3-e4 . . . cSxd4, liJxd4
as the queen on b6 defends the pawn
on d4. After 1 1 liJxf6+ gxf6 12 b3
cxd4! (the right time, as 12 . . . .ih7 13
iLh2 cxd4 14 .ixd4 is annoying for
Black) 13 exd4!? (13 liJxd4 .ics is fine
for Black) 13 ... .ib7 14 e 1 iLd6 15
.ie4 .ixe4 16 lhe4 'i'b7 Black had
equalised in Bareev-Piket, Dortmund
1995.
1 0 . . . gxf6
10 . . . liJxf6 1 1 liJeS!, with ideas of
.ibS+ and 'i'f3, is difficult for Black.
1 1 .i.e4!?
11 0-0 ifb6! transposes to the note
to White's 10th move and 1 1 e4!? is
considered in the next game.
1 1 . . J:tb8 1 2 0-0 f5 1 3 .i.c6 ikc7
1 33
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 6 . . . 0-0
White threatened 17 xc5 xc5 18
ctJc6! c4 19 ctJxd8 0-0 20 g4+ \t>h8
21 iLh6! g8 22 ctJxf7+ mate. 16 . . . b3!?
(intending . . . b4+) is tempting, to
meet 17 l:lxc5, not with 17 ...xc5
. . .
b 5-b4
Game 106
Lautier-Piket
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 36
Game 107
Levin-Antunes
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLic3 e6 4 lLif3
lLif6 5 e3 lLibd7 6 d3 dxc4 7 xc4
b5 S i.d3 b4 9 lLie4 e7 1 0 lLixf6+
lLixf6 1 1 e4 iob7 1 2 'i'e2! lLid7 1 3
0-0 0-0
Game 108
Lautier-Piket
. . .
b 5-b4
14 dxe5!
This is inconvenient for Black, as
14 . . . .txcS? 15 eS! .txf3 (IS . . . 4:JdS 16
.txh7+!) 16 'i'xf3 4:JdS 17 'i'e4 g6 18
.th6 lIe8 19 .tbS :e7 20 .tgS! wins
the exchange.
1 4 . . . l:te8 ! ?
14 . . . 4:Jd7!?, t o recapture o n c S with
the knight, was slightly better for
White in Stohl-Novikov, Ostrava
1995, after 15 c6! .txc6 16 .te3 .tb7
17 l1ac 1 'iiaS 18 .tbS (18 4:Jd4!?)
18 . . . l:tad8 19 4:Jd4! (19 . . . .txe4 with 20
.tc6!) . This is nothing huge for White
but he is just a touch better.
1 5 SiLd2!?
This was improvised at the board
and is quite sneaky. Serper's sugges
tion of 15 :dl !txcS 16 .te3 l:taS 17
4:Jd2! looks good, so I would love to
know what Piket had in mind!
1 5 . . . SiLxe5?
This falls into the same trap that
Black had previously avoided! IS . . . aS
16 a3 (16 !tac1!?) 16 . . . bxa3 17 :xa3
xcS is suggested as unclear by Piket.
1 6 e5 SiLxf3 1 7 'it'xf3 lLld5 1 8 'it'e4
g6 1 9 SiLh6 l:te8 20 SiLb5 l:te7 2 1 SiLg5
b6 22 .i.xe7 lLlxe7
Despite White's extra exchange, it is
137
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Beliavsky-Anand
\
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 ttJe3 ttJf6 4 e3 e6
5 ttJf3 ttJbd7 6 .td3 dxe4 7 xe4 b5
S i.d3 .tb 7 9 0-0 b4 1 0 ttJe4 .te 7
1 1 ttJxf6+ ttJxf6 1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 e5
ttJd7 14 i.e4
Preventing . . . c6-cS by pinning the
pawn to the bishop on b7.
1 4 . . . .!:tbS
1 38
M e r a n Va ria tio n : S ys t e m s w i t h a n E a r l y
. . .
b 5-b4
Summary
These systems are still quite fresh and unexplored and they could well prove to
be a nasty surprise for an unprepared White player.
1
d4 d5
d3
8 b7
8 . . . b4 9 ltJe4
9 . . . ltJxe4 Game 103
9 . . . c5 10 ltJxf6+ gxf6 (D)
1 1 i.. e4 Game 104
1 1 e4 Game 105
9 . . . i.. e 7 10 ltJxf6+ ltJxf6 1 1 e4 i.. b 7 12 'i'e2 ltJd7 (D)
13 e5 Game 106
13 0-0 Game 107
9 0-0 b4 1 0 lbe4 lbxe4
10 . . . i.e7 1 1 ltJxf6+ ltJxf6 12 e4 0-0 (D)
1 3 'ii'e2 Game 108
13 e5 Game 109
1 1 xe4 Game 102
. . .
1 0. . . gxf6
1 2 . . lbd7
.
12 . . . 0-0
139
Aleksandrov-Yagupov
.
'Russia 1996
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 e3 e6
5 liJf3 liJbd7 6 d3 dxc4 7 i.xc4 b5
8 e2 a6 9 e4! ?
Piket's 9 0-0 worked successfully
against Kaidanov in Groningen 1993
after 9 ... cS 10 ds exdS 1 1 ltJxds ..ib7
12 ltJxf6+ 'iVxf6 13 a4 b4 14 e4 h6 15
.ic4 ltJb6 16 eS 'iVg6 17 d3 with a
slight initiative for White. The idea of
9 0-0 is to avoid the lines in the game,
meeting 9 . . . ..tb7 with 10 e4 and 1 1 eS.
9 . . . b4 1 0 e5 bxc3 1 1 exf6 liJxf6!
1 40
Game 1 12
I I incic-Kosic
Belgrade 1996
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 f3 f6 4 c3
e6 5 e3 bd7 6 .i.d3 dxc4 7 xc4
b5 8 .i.b3
Game 1 1 1
Gabriel-Slobodjan
1 3 . . :i'c7 !
The most accurate, side-stepping the
pin with g5 and preparing . . . c6-c5 as
quickly as possible.
14 1
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 d4 d 5 2 e4 e6 3 lLle3 e6 4 e3 lLlf6
5 lLlf3 lLlbd7 6 i.d3 i.d6
7 e4! ?
Critical. A n early e3-e4 forces Black
to play lines involving the capture on
e4 and denies him the variations aris
ing from 7 0-0 0-0 8 e4 dxc4 9 .i.xc4 e5
(Game 1 16) , as 7 e4 dxc4 8 .i.xc4 e5 9
dxe5 lbxe5 10 lbxe5 .i.xe5 1 1 'ixd8
'it>xd8 12 .i.xf7 is good for White.
7 . . . dxe4 8 lLlxe4 lLlxe4 9 xe4 e5!?
1 42
"
1 7 . . . g4 1 8 f3 h5 1 9 g4 g6 20
xg6 hxg6 2 1 g 5 tbd7 22 tbc4 a6
23 b3 tbb6 24 'it'a5 l:Ud8 25 'iYxa6
bxa6 26 d6 f8 27 tbe5 .:tac8 28
.:te4 tbd7 29 .:th4 'it>g8 30 f4 tbf8 3 1
d 7 .:tc7 32 l:d6 tbxd7 3 3 l:th3 f 6 34
gxf6 gxf6 35 tbxg6 g7 36 tbe7
.:te8 37 tbd5 .:tb7 38 l:te3 .:txe3 39
tbxe3 tbb6 40 d2 g6 41 'it>e2 .:th 7
42 tbf1 l:th3 43 f2 a5 44 l:tc6 a4
45 bxa4 .:ta3 46 .:txc5 tbxa4 -
Game 115
Game 1 16
Lautier-Anand
1 d4 tbf6 2 c4 c6 3 tbc3 d5 4 e3 e6
5 tbf3 tbbd7 6 d3 d6 7 0-0 0-0 8
e4 dxc4 9 xc4 e5
S herbakov-Shabanov
A key position. Black will play . . . e6eS to liquidate White's d4-pawn. The
prophylactic . . . h7-h6 was necessary as
9 . . . 0-0 10 0-0 eS? would have lost a
pawn to 1 1 dxeS liJxeS 12 liJxeS .txeS
13 .txh7+ Wxh7 14 li'hS+.
1 1 c2 e5 1 2 .:te l b4 1 3 d2
xd2 1 4 xd2 exd4 1 5 -.xd4 'it'b6
1 6 c3 a5 1 7 l:ad l tbf6 1 8 .:td6
'iYb4 1 9 'ii'e 5! 'iYxc4 20 d3 "g4 21
h3 ""'h5 22 ""'g3! !
10 g5 e7 1 1 l:tel ! ?
1 1 dS is also possible, meetmg
1 1 . . .liJb6 with 12 .tb3.
1 1 . . . exd4 1 2 tbxd4?
This leads to disaster. White must
play 12 eS! liJxeS 13 liJe4. For the two
pawns, White has pins on the e-file
and the h4-d8 diagonal. Natural moves
all fail: 13 . . . .te6 loses to 14 liJxeS
.txeS 15 f4!; while 13 . . . .tfS 14 liJxd6!
liJxf3+ 15 'i'xf3 'i'xd6 16 'i'xfs and
13 . . . .tg4 14 'ii'xd4! liJxf3+ 15 gxf3 .teS
16 liJxf6+ gxf6 17 l:[xeS! fare no better.
1 2 . . . tbe5 1 3 f1 c5!
Suddenly f2 is looking really weak.
1 4 tba4 g4 1 5 'it'd2 b4 1 6 tbc3
l:ad8! 1 7 e3 c5 1 8 tbf5 xf5 1 9
""'c2 g6 0-1
143
Th e S e m i- Sla v
Sum mary
S .te2 may be worth an occasional try as a surprise weapon, while Black players
in a solid mood may wish to give 6 ... d6 a whirl.
. .
9 xe4
1 44
. . .
b5
Game 1 1 7
J o . Horvath-Bareev
d4 d 5 2 c4 eS 3 tiJc3 cS 4 e3 tiJd7
1 45
Th e S e m i - Sla v
6 'W c 2 iL d 6 : 7 iL e 2 a n d 7 iL d 3
0-0 8 0-0 e7
The first point of 7 i.d3 is that the
fianchetto of the light-squared bishop
is not easy to achieve as 8 ... b6 9 e4
dxe4 10 ltJxe4 ltJxe4? loses a pawn to
1 1 i.xe4, forking the h7- and c6pawns. The text aims for a similar
build-up to the previous game.
However, 8 . . . h6!? is interesting,
simply removing the h-pawn from the
attack of the queen and bishop. In the
game 5praggett-Bacrot, Enghien 1997,
Black already stood well after 9 :dl
'iYe7 10 c5!? i.b8!? 1 1 e4 e5 12 cxd5
ltJxd5 13 iL.fl ltJxc3 14 bxc3 e4. An
other try is 8 ... e8 to meet 9 e4 with
9 ... dxc4 10 i.xc4 e5!? as 1 1 ltJg5 lU8
does not seem to lead anywhere.
Black's other major choices in this
position, 8 . . . e5 and 8 . . . dxc4, are con
sidered in Games 1 19-124.
9 c5!
Th e S e m i- Sla v
e6 5 e3 lbbd7 6 c2 d6 7 oltd3
0-0 8 0-0 e5
6 W c 2 iL d 6 : 7 iL e 2 a n d 7 iL d 3
g3 d6+ 37 f2 d2+ 38 g3
d6+ 39 f2 Yz - Yz
We now turn our attention to the
lines after 8 . . . dxc4 9 i.xc4. The fol
lowing game is a classic for this line
and shows the dangers that Black can
face.
Game 120
Karpov-Shirov
Biel 1992
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 e3 e6
5 lLlf3 lLlbd7 6 c2 -td6 7 i.e2 0-0
8 0-0 dxc4 9 i.xc4 b5
With this move Black frees b7 for
the light-squared bishop with gain of
tempo. In typical Meran fashion he
will play his bishop to the long a8-h 1
diagonal and seek to quickly achieve
. . . c6-cS to activate it fully. This is the
most aggressive system against the 6
"iVc2 i.d6 7 i.d3 systems. The main
drawback of 9 . . . bS is that Black weak
ens his queenside squares - cS in par
ticular - a couple of moves before he
is ready to repair the damage with
. . . c6-cS. White's general strategical aim
must be to prevent . . . c6-cS in order to
keep the light-squared bishop passive
behind the c6-pawn. White has five
basic ways of achieving this:
1) To establish a knight on e4 via
lLlgS-e4, attacking cS.
2) To clamp down on cS by playing
b2-b4.
3) To keep attacking the bS-pawn,
meeting ... a7-a6 with a2-a4 so that
. . . c6-cS loses the bS-pawn.
4) To play b2-b3 and .1b2 so that
after . . . c6-cS, White can activate his
dark-squared bishop against the black
1 49
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Gelfand-Kramnik
Dos Hermanas 1997
6 'fi c 2 i. d 6 : 7 i. e 2 a n d 7 i. d 3
Game 122
Karpov-Gelfand
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJc3 ttJf6 4 e3 e6
5 ttJf3 ttJbd7 6 'iVc2 .)td6 7 d3 0-0
8 0-0 dxc4 9 xc4 b5 1 0 e2 b7
1 1 d2 ! ?
A n unusual move order.
1 1 . . Jc8! ? 1 2 Itfd 1 b4 1 3 ttJe4
ttJxe4 1 4 'ii'x e4 'fie7 1 5 a3 bxa3 1 6
bxa3 ttJf6 1 7 'iVh4 c5
h7 57 e4 d7 5 8 h6 Ite2 59 ttJd6
g6 60 'it>g3 Ite3+ 61 Itf3 Ite 1 62
g2 Itd 1 63 h7 xh7 Y2 - Y2
Enough of all this subtlety; here is
one of my games!
Game 123
Grivas-Sadler
Th e S e m i - Sla v
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 c6 3 tbc3 tbf6 4 e3 e6
5 tbf3 tbbd7 6 'iVc2 .i.d6 7 i.e2 0-0
8 0-0 dxc4 9 iLxc4 e7
6 c 2 iL d 6 : 7 iL e 2 a n d 7 iL d 3
Sum mary
7 .i.d3 0-0 8 0-0 is the most critical test for Black after 6 c2 .td6. If Bacrot's
8 . . . h6 does not fulfil its early promise then 8 . . .d.xc4 9 .i.xc4 bs is looking very
sound at the moment.
8 0-0
i.xc4
10
. . .
i.b 7
1 53
Gelfand-Kramnik
1 54
O dds a n d En ds
28 .. :jja2+ 0-1
A very powerful game from Kram
nik.
Game 126
Legky-M . Gurevich
Bruges 1995
1 d4 d S 2 e4 e6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 lLle3
e6 S e3 lLlbd7 6 ft'e2 d6 7 b3 0-0
8 d3! ?
If White simply develops with 8
.i.e2, then after 8 . . . 'ife7 9 0-0 b6, we
are back into similar lines to the pre
vious chapter where White has played
the passive b2-b3. The text is an at
tempt to do something original.
8 . . . a6!
Preparing ... e6-eS by preventing
lbbS, which would be annoying after
8 . . . eS 9 cxdS cxdS.
9 0-0 eS! 1 0 eS!?
A risky attempt that turns out well
for Black. 10 cxdS cxds 1 1 dxeS lbxeS
was unclear according to Gurevich.
Game 127
T opalov-Kramnik
Linares 1997
1 d4 dS 2 e4 e6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 lLle3
e6 S g3!?
This leads the game into the realms
of the Catalan. Kramnik states that
Black must capture on c4, otherwise
he will just stand worse.
S . . . lLlbd7 6 g2 dxe4! 7 a4
Preventing . . . b7-bS.
7 . . . e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 e4 eS! 1 0 dxeS
1 55
Th e S e m i - Sla v
Game 128
Karpov-Kasparov
Las Palmas
199
8 a3
8 il.g5 4Jbd7 9 e3 a6! 10 il.e2 c5 1 1
0-0 il.e7 was just equal in Karpov
Timman, World Championship, Ja
karta 1993.
8 . . . a6! 9 e3
After this, Black has no problems. 9
e4 c5 10 e5 is clearly better for White
according to Karpov, but I see no
problems for Black after 10 . . . cxd4 1 1
4Jxb5 4Jfd7!? 1 2 4Jbxd4 4Jxe5! 13
4Jxe5 'iYa5+.
9 . . . cS 1 0 dxcS SLXCS 1 1 xd8+
xd8 1 2 SLd2 e 7 1 3 SLd3 tiJbd7 1 4
e2 iLd6 1 S l:thd 1 l:tac8 1 6 l:tac 1
tiJb6 1 7 e 1 tiJc4 1 8 l:tc2 xf3+ 1 9
gxf3 tiJeS 20 h3 tiJxd3 2 1 l:txd3
l:thd8 22 l:tcd2 SLc7 23 l:tc2 SLb6 24
l:txd8 xd8 2S l:td2+ e7 26 l:td 1 g6
27 f4 l:tc4 28 f3 tiJd7 29 b3 l:tc6 30
tiJe4 l:tc2+ 31 l:td2 l:txd2+ 32 .i.xd2
cS 33 tiJxcS tiJxcs 34 iLb4 d6 3S
d2 as 36 .txcS+ XCS 37 d3 f6
38 h4 dS 39 b4 axb4 40 axb4 h6
41 e4+ d6 42 e3 eS 43 fxeS+
fxeS 44 f2 e6 4S g2 Yz Yz
-
O dds a n d En ds
Sum mary
All these systems are in need of new ideas for White. For the moment, Black is
happy to face them!
. . .
e6
. . .
b4
157
1 58
In d e x o f C o mp le t e G a m e s
159
In d e x o f C o mp le t e G a m e s
1 60