CVO_149.pdf

openings

149 | November 9 n 2011

what’s hot and what’s not?

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+L+K+-TR0

9ZPP+N+PZPP0

9-+-+-SN-+0

9WQ-ZPP+-VL-0

9-VL-+-+-+0

9+-SN-ZPN+-0

9PZP-+-ZPPZP0

9+-TRQMKL+R0

XIIIIIIIIY

Bulgarian opening

specialities

By IM Merijn van Delft and IM Robert Ris

In this issue of CVO we take a look at the irst ive rounds

of the European Team Championship that's currently

taking place in Greece. At this point the tournament sees

Bulgaria, headed by Topalov, as the sole leaders.

Frequency

what’s hot?

Score

Topalov beat Svidler in the 8.h3 Anti-Marshall. Sune Berg Hansen

managed to outplay Aronian in the Italian Game, but instead of delivering

mate, he was suddenly checkmated himself in time trouble. Sulskis'

5.g4!? against the French Rubinstein isn't new, but does deserve

attention. Shirov is making a living out of winning with the Caro-Kann

Advance Variation in as many different ways as possible.

Morozevich's 7...g5!? in the 3.¥b5+ Sicilian backfired completely

against Delchev. Naiditsch is doing a good job with his Najdorf: check

out his wins against Djukic and Ponomariov. Below we take a look at the

Najdorf mysteries Karjakin-Cheparinov (English Attack) and Solak-Van

Wely (Polugaevsky).

In the top rated game Aronian-Radjabov Black equalized with the QGD.

Ragger won a good game with Black against Nyback's Slow Slav. In our

Game of the Week , Gustafsson-Efimenko, Black was checkmated in

the Ragozin Variation. In the diagram position Black went for 9...¥xc3+.

The Bulgarians made the 5.e4 gambit against the Vienna Variation their

speciality (see below). Black scored 50% from the Grünfeld top level

encounters Navara-Svidler, Wojtaszek-Nyback and Vachier Lagrave-

Sutovsky. Banikas-Radjabov was a relevant King's Indian main line.

Source: Megabase + TWIC, 2500+ only

Black was under pressure in the 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤c3 dxc4 Slav this week, as can be seen from the games Gustafsson-Balogh

and Mamedyarov-Brunello, which we'll discuss below. This is potentially bad news for Slav practitioners, as after the main alternative

3...¤f6 4.e3 they don't reach their opening. 4...¥f5 is not good in that case and moves like 4...a6 and 4...

g6 lead to a different kind of Slav, which may not be to the liking of proper Slav players.

what’s not?

1 of 4

openings what’s hot and what’s not?

149 | November 9 n 2011

Beating the Ragozin

The Ragozin Variation seems to be in theoretically ine shape, but holding in a practical

game can be an entirely different story. When Gustafsson started a ierce attack, Eimenko

soon missed the best defence and was checkmated.

game of the week

Gustafsson-Eimenko

Gustafsson,J (2633) - Eimenko,Z (2702)

European Team Ch (Halkidiki), 06.11.2011

D37 Ragozin

18.£e1 h6 19.¥f4 £e7 20.£h4 ¤c4

Black had better refrain from the tempting 20...

g5?! because after 21.¥xg5 hxg5 22.£xg5+

¢h8 23.£h6+ ¢g8 24.¦fe1! he fails to get rid

of the pressure.

21.e4 ¤b2

In case of 21...¤e5?! 22.¥xe5 £xe5 23.f4 £e7

24.e5 ¤e4 25.£e1! White ' s position remains

preferable.

22.¥c2 dxe4 23.fxe4 ¤c4

23...¤xe4?! 24.£xe7 ¦xe7 25.¦b1 ¤a4

26.¦xb7 ¤ac5 (26...¤axc3? fails to 27.¤f5!)

27.¦c7 and White retains the better chances

due to his pair of ¥s and his passed pawn.

24.¥xh6

A spectacular blow, which only leads to a

draw with correct play. However, nothing could

have been gained by a preparatory move like

24.¦ce1 when Black can neutralize White ' s

initiative with 24...¤d5!.

24...¤xe4

24...gxh6? is bad because of the simple 25.¦xf6

and White retains a devastating attack without

investing any material.

25.£h5

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+-+R+K+0

9ZPP+LWQPZP-0

9-+-+-+-VL0

9+-+-+-+Q0

9-+NSNN+-+0

9+-ZP-+-+-0

9P+L+-+PZP0

9+-TR-+RMK-0

XIIIIIIIIY

25...¤f6?

This move allows White to finish the game in

style. Black should instead have played 25...

gxh6! when there ' s apparently no win for White:

26.¥xe4 (26.¦ce1 ¤cd6 27.¥xe4 (27.£xh6?

£g5!–+) 27...¤xe4 28.¦xe4 £xe4 29.£xf7+

¢h8 30.£f6+ and White has to repeat moves.)

26...¤d2 (26...£xe4?! 27.£xf7+ ¢h8 28.£xd7

and White is a healthy pawn up, but not 28.¦f6?

£e3+! and Black even wins.) 27.¥d5 (After

27.¥h7+ ¢g7 28.¥f5 ¤xf1 29.¦xf1 £e3+

30.¢h1 £f4 31.¢g1 £e3+ White also has

to accept a draw.) 27...£e3+ 28.¢h1 ¤xf1

29.£xf7+ ¢h8 30.£f6+ with a draw.

26.¦xf6! £xf6

26...gxf6 27.¥h7+! ¢h8 (27...¢xh7 28.¥f8+

wins the £.) 28.¥f5 and soon mate will follow.

27.¥h7+!

This pretty move might have been overlooked

by Efimenko in his calculations. Inferior is

27.¥g5? g6! and Black stays alive.

27...¢f8

Other ¢ moves wouldn ' t have saved Black

either: 27...¢xh7 28.¥g5++–; 27...¢h8 28.¥g5

¦e5 (28...£xg5 29.£xg5 ¢xh7 30.£d5+–)

29.¥g6+ and White wins.

28.¥g5 ¦e5

28...£e5 is strongly met by 29.¥d3! f6 30.¥xc4

¢e7 31.¦d1! and White wins.

29.¥f5!

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+-+-MK-+0

9ZPP+L+PZP-0

9-+-+-WQ-+0

9+-+-TRLVLQ0

9-+NSN-+-+0

9+-ZP-+-+-0

9P+-+-+PZP0

9+-TR-+-MK-0

XIIIIIIIIY

29...g6

29...¦xf5 doesn ' t help, in view of 30.¤xf5

(30.£h8+ also wins.) 30...£xf5 31.£h8#

30.£h4

Less accurate is 30.£h6+?! £g7 and despite

his position remaining lost, Black is still able to

put up some resistance.

30...£xg5

30...£g7 31.¥h6 drops the £.

31.£xg5 ¥xf5 32.£h4

and Black resigned, as further loss of material

is inevitable due to the threats of 33.£h8 and

33.¤xf5. 1–0

1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 d5 4.¤c3 ¤bd7 5.cxd5

exd5 6.¥g5 ¥b4 7.e3 c5 8.dxc5 £a5 9.¦c1

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+L+K+-TR0

9ZPP+N+PZPP0

9-+-+-SN-+0

9WQ-ZPP+-VL-0

9-VL-+-+-+0

9+-SN-ZPN+-0

9PZP-+-ZPPZP0

9+-TRQMKL+R0

XIIIIIIIIY

9...¥xc3+

The most fashionable continuation. The

alternative is 9...¤e4 which was played in

Kramnik-Ponomariov amongst others and has

been covered in CVO 46, 82 and 84.

10.bxc3 0–0 11.¤d4 ¤e4 12.¥f4 ¦e8

a) 12...£xa2 13.¦c2 £a5 was recently played

in Eljanov-Moiseenko, Saratov 2011 and now

instead of 14.¤b5? our improvement is 14.c6!

which was suggested in CVO 146. 12...¤dxc5

13.f3 ¤f6 14.£d2 ¥d7 15.c4 favored White in

Le Quang Liem-Peralta, Mulhouse 2011. A

game quiz was produced around this model

game for CVT 8.

13.¥e2

The immediate 13.¥d3 is less precise, since

after 13...¤dxc5 White has to make another

move with his ¥.

13...£xc5

A novelty. In an earlier game Black failed to

reach equality after 13...¤dxc5 14.f3 ¤f6

15.¤b5 ¤e6 16.¥e5 ¤d7 17.¥g3 ¤b6 18.0–0²

Cmilyte-Koneru, Moscow rapid 2011.

14.0–0 ¤b6 15.¥d3 ¥d7 16.f3 ¤f6 17.¥g5

£d6

Another option is 17...£e7 when White keeps

an edge after 18.¦e1! (but not 18.£e1?! h6! and

the weakness of the pawn on e3 can be felt.)

2 of 4

openings what’s hot and what’s not?

149 | November 9 n 2011

this week’s harvest

Sicilian, English Attack

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+L+K+-TR0

9+-WQ-+PVL-0

9PSN-+P+P+0

9+-+-+-ZP-0

9-ZP-SNP+-+0

9+P+-WQ-+L0

9P+P+N+-+0

9+K+R+-+R0

XIIIIIIIIY

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥e3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.£d2 ¤bd7 9.g4 h6 10.0–0–0 b4 11.¤ce2

£c7 12.h4 d5 13.¥h3 ¤b6 14.b3 dxe4 15.g5 ¤fd5 16.fxe4 ¤xe3 17.£xe3 hxg5 18.hxg5 g6 19.¢b1 ¥g7

The diagram position was reached in one of the most important games at the European Team Championship,

Karjakin-Cheparinov, which helped the Bulgarians beat the Russians 3–1. 19.¢b1 was the first new move and

Black replied with the logical 19...¥g7. Without knowing any details, one wonders why White would ever want to

play a position like this, with a powerful unopposed ¥ on g7 and the long diagonal opened by b3. Black's ¢ on e8

is also much safer than usual in the Sicilian. When the queens came off Black had a very good endgame which

he indeed went on to win. Just like Solak-Van Wely, which you can also find on this page, we have another

theoretical mystery. Karjakin belongs to the absolute elite and plays the Najdorf with both colours, but here even

a player of his class got lost in a swamp of information. Hopefully we'll soon get to see this line again at the

highest level, and see what's really going on here.

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 e6 7.f4 b5 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 £c7 10.exf6 £e5+

11.¥e2 £xg5 12.0–0 ¦a7 13.£d3 ¦d7 14.¤e4 £e5 15.¤f3 £xb2 16.£e3 ¥b7 17.¦ab1 £xc2 18.¤fg5 £c7

In the pre-computer era the famous grandmaster Polugaevsky spent months repairing his variation against

assaults by players like Tal. It's had a reputation of being 'basically refuted' for decades, but with every new

generation of engines everything has to be checked again. In Solak-Van Wely the diagram position was reached

and here White went for 19.fxg7, a move that is known to lead to a rook ending (!) which Black can draw without

too many problems. It has also been known for a few years now that 19.a4! b4 20.¦xb4! transposes back to the

important game Leko-Ghaem Maghami, Yerevan 2001, which is very good for White. Note that 17.¦ab1! is in

fact the most accurate move order, since it prevents the black £ from escaping via b4. Last year I (MvD) used

this line to score a quick win against Rietveld. Did Van Wely know about these problems and did he use the

Polugaevsky as a surprise weapon? Or does he have an improvement somewhere? I couldn't find a defence

for Black so far. Time will tell.

Najdorf, Polugaevsky

XIIIIIIIIY

9-SN-+KVL-TR0

9+LWQR+PZPP0

9P+-+PZP-+0

9+P+-+-SN-0

9-+-+N+-+0

9+-+-WQ-+-0

9P+-+L+PZP0

9+R+-+RMK-0

XIIIIIIIIY

Slav, 3...dxc4

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+-+-TRK+0

9ZP-ZPN+QVLP0

9L+Q+-+P+0

9+-+-ZPP+-0

9PZPP+-SN-+0

9+-+-+-SN-0

9-ZP-+-ZPPZP0

9TR-VLR+-MK-0

XIIIIIIIIY

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤c3 dxc4 4.e3 b5 5.a4 b4 6.¤e4 £d5 7.¤g3 ¤f6 8.¥e2 ¥a6 9.e4 ¤xe4 10.¥f3 f5

11.¤1e2 g6 12.¤f4 £f7 13.0–0! ¤g5 14.d5 ¥g7 15.dxc6 ¤xf3+ 16.£xf3 0–0 17.c7 ¤d7 18.£c6 e5 19.¦d1

The Slav with 3...dxc4 has been serving Black quite well in the last couple of months. Despite Vallejo's

painful loss against Aronian (CVO 143), Black seems to be doing fine in the complications arising from 4.e4

b5 5.a4 b4 6.¤b1 ¥a6 7.£c2, while the alternative 6.¤a2 also hasn't brought White any successes lately

(CVO 134). Therefore new ideas have to be explored and recently White scored two important victories with

4.e3. Mamedyarov completely crushed the Italian Brunello with the novelty 11.¤d2! improving upon the game

Avrukh-Guramishvili. The PGN-file shows that 8...e5 is currently in a critical state. Hence, the Hungarian expert

Balogh prefers 8...¥a6 which he successfully employed earlier this year against Yu Yangyi. The Chinese GM

avoided a repetition of moves and eventually lost that game. This time Gustafsson attempted to improve with

13.0–0 and quickly seized the initiative. In the diagram position Black committed a serious error with 19...exf4?,

after which he gradually went down. Instead, 19...¤c5! would have led to unclear complications.

1.d4 e6 2.c4 ¤f6 3.¤f3 d5 4.¤c3 dxc4 5.e4 ¥b4 6.¥xc4 ¤xe4 7.0–0 ¤xc3 8.bxc3 ¥e7 9.¤e5 0–0 10.£g4 ¤c6

11.¥h6 ¥f6 12.¦ae1 ¢h8 13.¥f4 ¥xe5 14.dxe5 f5 15.£h5 £e8 16.£h4 ¤e7 17.¥g5 ¤g8 18.¦e3 b6 19.¦d1

Since the game Aronian-Anand, Bilbao 2011, where the Armenian crushed the current World Champion in

25 moves, the Vienna with 6.¥xc4 has also drawn interest from other top players. This week three important

theoretical encounters were played in the variation 6...¤xe4 7.0–0 ¤xc3 (Anand's choice of 7...¤f6 is less

appealing) 8.bxc3 when the most common retreat is 8...¥e7. In Sulskis-Lupulescu, Black went for 8...¥d6 which

is pretty dangerous because of 9.¤g5! when White seizes the initiative on the kingside. In several earlier games

an immediate repetition of moves had been forced, though Sulskis' novelty 11.¦e1! seems more challenging.

After 8...¥e7, Topalov introduced the new idea 9.¦e1 0–0 10.h4, but Pelletier didn't crack under the pressure and

in fact managed to hold a convincing draw. In Cheparinov-Meier, another of the Bulgarian's ideas was revealed

with 12.¦ae1 after which his opponent faced a strong attack on his ¢. Something has probably gone wrong

with the notation, as the game abruptly finished on move 27 in a position where Black could still have fought on.

Vienna

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+L+QTRNMK0

9ZP-ZP-+-ZPP0

9-ZP-+P+-+0

9+-+-ZPPVL-0

9-+L+-+-WQ0

9+-ZP-TR-+-0

9P+-+-ZPPZP0

9+-+R+-MK-0

XIIIIIIIIY

3 of 4

openings what’s hot and what’s not?

149 | November 9 n 2011

it’s your move

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+Q+K+-TR0

9ZPP+-ZPPVL-0

9-+P+-SNP+0

9+-+NSN-+P0

9-+LZP-+LZP0

9+-+Q+-SN-0

9PZPP+-ZPP+0

9TR-VL-TR-MK-0

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+-WQK+-TR0

9ZPP+NSNPZPP0

9-+P+P+-+0

9+-VLP+-+-0

9-+-+P+-+0

9+-SNP+Q+P0

9PZPPVL-ZPP+0

9+-MKR+L+R0

XIIIIIIIIY

last week’s solutions

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+-TR-+K+0

9+LWQ-VLP+-0

9P+-ZPPSNP+0

9+-+-+-+P0

9-+N+PZP-+0

9+NSN-+L+P0

9RZPP+-+P+0

9+-VLQTR-+K0

XIIIIIIIIY

Baron-Mamedov, Corsica Masters, 2011

A fairly normal Sicilian structure where Black has managed to activate his ¤ to c4 and White has failed to generate

active play on the kingside. The following idea is a typical idea to make progress in this kind of structure. 21...d5!

22.e5 After 22.exd5 ¤xd5 23.¤xd5 ¥xd5 24.¥xd5 ¦xd5 Black retains a stable advantage thanks to his better

structure and superior minor pieces. 22...¤e4 23.¥xe4 The ¥ has to be eliminated due to the threat of ...¤f2. 23...

dxe4 24.£e2 ¥b4?! A more challenging continuation might have been 24...e3!? with the idea of meeting 25.¥xe3

with 25...¤xb2! when Black ’ s advantage is indisputable. 25.¦a4 a5 26.¦d1? The decisive mistake. White should

have tried 26.¤xa5 ¥xa5 27.¦xc4 £e7 when Black has sufficient compensation, but probably no more than that.

26...¦xd1+ 27.¤xd1 ¥a6 28.£xe4 ¦d8 29.¤f2 ¥b7 30.£e2 £c6 and Black won.

XIIIIIIIIY

9-+-+-TRK+0

9+R+LWQ-VLP0

9R+-ZP-+P+0

9+-+PZP-+N0

9PZP-+P+-+0

9+-+LVL-+P0

9PZP-WQN+P+0

9+KTR-+-+-0

XIIIIIIIIY

Wang Hao-Ding Liren, Chinese League (Qingdao), 2011

In this typical King's Indian position White played an even more typical exchange sacrifice: 25.¦cc6! a3

Accepting the sacrifice also gives White a clear edge: 25...¥xc6 26.dxc6 ¦c7 (26...¦bb8 27.¦xa4±) 27.£xb4±.

26.¦xd6 ¤f4 27.¦db6 ¦xb6 28.¦xb6 ¤xg2 29.¥g5 £c5 30.£xb4 £f2 31.¦b7 £f3 32.£xa3 £xh3 33.¤c1!

After some accurate moves White was in complete control and went on to win a fine game: 33...¤e1 34.£e7 ¦f7

35.¦b8+ ¥f8 36.¦xf8+ ¦xf8 37.¥c4 ¥e8 38.d6+ ¥f7 39.d7 ¥xc4 40.£xf8+ ¢xf8 41.d8£+ ¢g7 42.¥f6+ 1–0

openings

ChessVibes Openings is a weekly PDF magazine that covers the latest news on chess openings. Which openings are hot in

top level chess? Which are not? Editors IM Merijn van Delft & IM Robert Ris keep you updated once a week! Why not subscribe

for € 28 a year (that’s less than € 0.60 per issue!). More info can be found at ChessVibes.com/openings .

electronic format, or in any form whatsoever), as well as posting on the web, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission.

4 of 4

4 of 3

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: