CVO_124.PDF

No. 124, May 18, 2011

OPENINGS

WHAT’S HOT AND WHAT’S NOT?

XIIIIIIIIY

9RSNLWQK+-TR0

9+P+-VLPZPP0

9P+-ZP-SN-+0

9+-+-ZP-+-0

9-+-+P+-+0

9+NSN-VL-+-0

9PZPP+-ZPPZP0

9TR-+QMKL+R0

XIIIIIIIIY

Tense opening

affairs

By IM Merijn van Delft & IM Robert Ris

Frequency

The semi-inals of the FIDE Candidates Matches in

Kazan, Russia were a very tense affair. Both Kramnik-

Grischuk and Gelfand-Kamsky were only decided

after four regular games, four rapid games and two

blitz games. The surprise inal is Grischuk-Gelfand,

but irst... this week's openings!

WHAT’S HOT?

Score

As the match progressed Grischuk stopped even trying to beat the QGD

anymore (compare CVO 123) and the draws became shorter and shorter.

With Black, Grischuk had some very tough defending to do (again in the

Symmetrical English), but he held on and managed to beat Kramnik in the

blitz section (see PGN).

Below we check out how Gelfand achieved a large advantage against

Kamsky's Grünfeld using the 4.¥g5 variation. When Kamsky neutralised

this line in the next game, Gelfand started playing the Anti-Grünfeld, but

without success. In the Game of the Week you can see how Kamsky initially

did quite a good job with White, but on p.3 we see how he started drifting

as the match went on. In the diagram position 8.h3!? was a novelty at

grandmaster level. Gelfand came out on top in the blitz section.

Wang Yue-Zhou Jianchao (Najdorf 6.¥g5 ¤bd7) and Negi-So (French

Burn variation) provide sharp 1.e4 study material. In Grandelius-Perunovic

our logical novelty 10.¤e5 from CVO 119 was tested successfully. On p.4

you can try to find the winning move.

Source: Megabase + TWIC, 2500+ only

The system with only four regular games turned out to be an unfortunate one, since losing a game basically meant losing the match,

and therefore the players avoided all risk. Only Kramnik consistently managed to increase the pressure with White, while the other three

players were soon out of ammunition when playing with White. Kasparov was among the

critics, but he himself played a few very short draw with White against Kramnik's Berlin Wall

in London 2000.

WHAT’S NOT?

1 of 4

ChessVibes OPENINGS what’s hot and what’s not?

No. 124, May 18, 2011

An intriguing attacking concept

With 8.h3 followed by 9.£f3 Kamsky quickly got the game away from well-trodden paths,

and then with his subsequent pawn sacriice he had as experienced a Najdorf player as

Gelfand on the verge of defeat. More on this concept can be found on page 3.

GAME OF THE WEEK

would have been 32.¤d2 b5 33.¤e4 which still

seems to be better for White.

32...e4 33.¤xc4 £xf3 34.£h2 ¤g4 35.£c7 ¥f2

36.¦f1?!

The human solution. Engines point out White

can force a draw with 36.¦g1! ¥xg1 37.¦xg1

e3 38.¥xe3! ¤xe3 39.£d6+ ¦e7 40.£d8+ ¦e8

41.£d6+.

36...e3 37.¥xe3?

The losing mistake. White should have tried to

stop the e-pawn with 37.£d6+ ¢g8 38.£d3

though Black ’ s position remains preferable after

38...£g3.

37...¤xe3 38.¤e5

XIIIIIIIIY

9-+-+RMK-TR0

9+PWQ-+P+-0

9P+-+-+-ZP0

9+-+-SN-+-0

9-+-+-+-ZP0

9+-ZP-SNQ+-0

9PZP-+-VL-+0

9MK-+R+R+-0

XIIIIIIIIY

38...£f5?

Gelfand doesn ’ t grab his chance! He could have

won with 38...£h5!.

39.£c5+ ¢g7 40.£xe3! ¦xe5

40...¥xe3 can be met with 41.¦xf5 which

wouldn ’ t have been the case had Black played

38...£h5!.

41.£xf2?!

After the text move the position remains

balanced. Though White could have tried

41.£d2! and he regains the piece with £s still

on the board.

41...£xf2 42.¦xf2 ¦he8 43.¦g1+ ¢f8 44.¢b1

¦e2 45.¦f4 ¦8e4 46.¦gf1 ¦e1+ 47.¢c2 ¦4e2+

48.¢b3 ¦xf1 49.¦xf1 ¢g7 50.¦f4 ¦e6 51.a4

¢g6 52.¢c4 f5 53.a5 ¢f6

Nothing can be changed by 53...¦e4+ 54.¦xe4

fxe4 55.¢d4 ¢h5 56.¢xe4 ¢xh4 57.¢f4 with

a draw.

54.¢d3 ¦e7 ½–½

Kamsky, G (2732) - Gelfand, B (2733)

Candidates sf, game 3 (Kazan), 14.05.2011

B90, Sicilian, Najdorf

Dangerous is 17...hxg5 18.hxg5 ¦xh1 19.£xh1

¤fd7 20.¥g2 and White retains strong pressure

on the light squares.

18.gxh6 gxh6 19.¢b1 £c6 20.£h3

Having kept his opponent ’ s ¢ in the centre for a

pawn, White isn ’ t interested in trading £s.

20...d5 21.¥e2 ¤c4 22.¥c1 ¤f6 23.¦he1

Things are looking more ugly now for Black, as

his ¢ on e8 will be in serious danger within a

couple of moves.

23...£e6 24.£h2 £f5+ 25.¢a1 ¢f8 26.f3 ¥d6

27.£g1 ¥b8?

XIIIIIIIIY

9-VLR+-MK-TR0

9+P+-+P+-0

9P+-+-SN-ZP0

9+-+PZPQ+-0

9-+N+-+-ZP0

9+NZP-+P+-0

9PZP-+L+-+0

9MK-VLRTR-WQ-0

XIIIIIIIIY

Allowing White to seize the initiative. Better

would have been 27...£d7 with unclear

consequences.

28.¥d3?

White misses a good opportunity to eliminate

Black ’ s strongest piece with 28.¥xc4! ¦xc4

followed by 29.£b6! and Black ’ s queenside

collapses.

28...£h5?

A serious blunder. Black should have kept his £

centralized with 28...£d7!.

29.£h1?

Again, White fails to penetrate with 29.¥xc4!

¦xc4 (29...dxc4 30.£b6 £xf3 31.£b4+ ¢e8

32.¤d4 £g4 33.£xb7 with a devastating

attack.) 30.£b6! £f5 31.¤c5 and Black has

problems covering his weaknesses.

29...¥a7 30.£h3 ¦e8 31.¥xc4 dxc4 32.¤a5?!

A very risky decision by Kamsky. Much safer

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3

Interestingly, Gelfand has abandoned the

solid Petroff for the Candidates matches and

successfully returned to his beloved Sicilian

Najdorf.

6.¥e3 e5 7.¤b3 ¥e7 8.h3!?

A rare continuation. The most common move

is 8.f3 while the classical 8.¥e2 was covered in

Carlsen-Nakamura (CVO 108).

8...¥e6 9.£f3

The immediate 9.g4?! is premature, because of

the typical counterstrike 9...d5!.

9...¤bd7

Let's look at the alternatives:

a) 9...d5?! is no longer advisable, in view of

10.exd5 ¥xd5 (10...¤xd5? 11.0–0–0 drops a

piece.) 11.£g3! and Black loses a pawn.

b) A recent example went 9...0–0 10.0–0–0 £c7

11.g4 ¦c8 12.g5 ¤e8 13.¢b1 a5 14.a4 ¤a6

15.h4 ¤b4 16.h5 ¦ab8 17.¦d2 £d8 18.g6! and

White obtained a powerful attack in Fedorchuk-

Bajarani, Nakhchivan 2011.

c) 9...b5 10.0–0–0 0–0 11.g4 b4 12.¤d5 ¤xd5

13.exd5 ¥d7 14.¥d3 ¥b5 15.¢b1 ¥xd3

16.cxd3 ¤d7 17.¤d2 ¥g5 18.¤c4 ¥xe3 19.fxe3

and Black didn ’ t fully equalize here either in

Bologan-Sakaev, Elista 1998.

10.g4 h6 11.0–0–0 ¦c8

As in the decisive game with Mamedyarov,

Gelfand aims to sacrifice on c3.

12.¤d5 ¥xd5 13.exd5 ¤b6

Perhaps a wiser decision would have been

13...£c7!? 14.c3 b5 with mutual chances.

14.h4 £c7 15.c3 ¤bxd5 16.¥d2!

It seems as though White has just lost a pawn.

However, the ¢ on e8 in fact has no safe

residence and the light squares are vulnerable

due to the absence of Black ’ s ¥. 16.¦xd5?

doesn ’ t work, in view of 16...£c6 17.¥g2 e4

18.£f5 g6! and Black remains an exchange up.

16...¤b6 17.g5 ¤fd7

KAMSKY - GELFAND

2 of 4

ChessVibes OPENINGS what’s hot and what’s not?

No. 124, May 18, 2011

THIS WEEK’S HARVEST

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥e3 e5 7.¤b3 ¥e6 8.£d2 ¤bd7 9.f3

h5 10.0–0–0 ¥e7 11.h3 b5 12.¢b1 £c7 13.¥d3 b4 14.¤d5 ¤xd5 15.exd5 ¥xd5 16.¥g5

Not to get lost in a forest of variations, for instance in the Najdorf, one has to keep thinking on a conceptual

level. It's very dangerous just to memorize variations without having a clear idea of what you're doing. A nice

universal weapon against the Sicilian is the English Attack with ¥e3, f3, £d2, 0–0–0 and the pawn storm g4–g5,

h4–h5, g5-g6 opening files against the Black king. A modern counter-concept is Black's ...h5 to stop the English

Attack dead in its tracks. This can be very tough to deal with as White, since you're easily stuck without a plan.

This week we have two fantastic examples of a White counter-counter-concept: playing ¤d5 and subsequently

sacrificing the pawn on d5 to open lines against the black ¢ in the centre. White actually seems to have missed

a win in both Kamsky-Gelfand (our Game of the Week ) and Navara-Le Quang Liem (see diagram position),

but these games still clearly show the potential of the concept. The concrete positions need to be analysed to

be able to draw definite conclusions, but the idea can readily be tried in your own games. DO try this at home!

Najdorf, English Attack

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+-+K+-TR0

9+-WQNVLPZP-0

9P+-ZP-+-+0

9+-+LZP-VLP0

9-ZP-+-+-+0

9+N+L+P+P0

9PZPPWQ-+P+0

9+K+R+-+R0

XIIIIIIIIY

Najdorf, 6.¥e3/7.¤f3

XIIIIIIIIY

9-+-+R+K+0

9+P+-+PZPP0

9P+-ZPL+-+0

9TR-+-+-+-0

9-+-SNP+-+0

9+PTR-+P+-0

9-+P+-+PZP0

9+-+R+-MK-0

XIIIIIIIIY

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥e3 e5 7.¤f3 ¥e7 8.¥c4 0–0

9.0–0 ¥e6 10.¥b3 ¤c6 11.£e2 ¤a5 12.¦fd1 ¤xb3 13.axb3 £c7 14.¥g5 ¤h5 15.¤xe5 ¥xg5

16.£xh5 ¥f6 17.¤f3 ¥xc3 18.bxc3 £xc3 19.¤d4 ¦fe8 20.£a5 ¦ac8 21.f3 £xa5 22.¦xa5 ¦c3

Match play is completely different from tournament play and has its own laws. As Artur Jussupow once explained

in a lecture, it's very important to keep the initiative, not just from move to move, but from game to game. This

was nicely illustrated by the series of games with Kamsky as White and Gelfand as Black. In the diagram position

from the first game of the match, Kamsky got off to a solid start with the safe positional 7.¤f3 variation, pushing

a bit before the draw was agreed. Then in the third game Kamsky upped the pressure well by using the sharp

7.¤b3 variation (see p.2), creating fantastic winning chances. His return to 7.¤f3 in the rapid section can be

seen as a mistake from this perspective, since it didn't test Gelfand at all and let the match initiative slip. When

Gelfand switched to the risky Grivas variation in a must-win situation, Kamsky was more or less bluffed out of

a win (White could have decided the match with 25.¥xf7!). In the blitz section Kamsky fell back into old patterns

with his use of the London system (compare CVO 41) and duly lost.

Grünfeld, 4.¥g5

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+-+-TRK+0

9ZPP+NZPP+P0

9-+-+Q+P+0

9+-+-+-+-0

9-+PZP-+-VL0

9+-+-ZPP+-0

9P+Q+-ZP-ZP0

9+R+R+-MK-0

XIIIIIIIIY

1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¥g5 ¤e4 5.¥h4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 ¥e6 8.¤f3 c5 9.¥e2 ¥g7 10.0–0

0–0 11.¦b1 cxd4 12.¤xd4 ¥d5 13.£c2 £d7 14.¦fd1 ¥xd4 15.cxd4 £e6 16.¥f3 ¥xf3 17.gxf3 ¤d7

In the semi-finals Kamsky stayed faithful to his Grünfeld, which had suffered some dents in the previous round

due to Topalov's efforts. Gelfand opted for the quite popular 4.¥g5 and again got Kamsky into trouble. His

11...¥d5?! won't be seen again often, as White simply regains his pawn while leaving Black in a passive position

due to the pressure on the c-file. These are in fact the kind of positions White's striving for, because his central

majority can easily march forward. Note how difficult it is for Black to create counterplay with his queenside

majority, because of the misplacement of the ¤ on a5. Not surprisingly, Kamsky came up with an improvement

in his second black game by immediately clarifying the situation in the centre with 11...cxd4! In CVO 101 you can

see how terribly wrong it can go for Black, but this time Kamsky anticipated the novelty 14.¦fd1 and reacted well

by eliminating White's powerful ¤ on d4. In the diagram position Black's passed c-pawn turned out to give him

sufficient counterplay.

Nimzo-Indian, 4.£ c2

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+-+-TRK+0

9ZPP+-+P+-0

9-+N+-+-ZP0

9WQ-SNP+NZP-0

9-+-+-+-ZP0

9+-+-ZP-+-0

9PZPQ+-ZPP+0

9TR-+K+L+R0

XIIIIIIIIY

1.d4 e6 2.c4 ¤f6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.£c2 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.¥g5 c5 7.dxc5 h6 8.¥h4 g5 9.¥g3 ¤e4 10.e3 £a5

11.¤ge2 ¥f5 12.¥e5 0–0 13.¤d4 ¤xc3 14.¤xf5 ¤e4+ 15.¢d1 ¤c6 16.¥d6 ¥xc5 17.¥xc5 ¤xc5 18.h4

In CVO 42 we analysed a razor-sharp Nimzo-Indian with 4.£c2 between Klimov and Harikrishna, where one

mistake was fatal for Black. In Yu Yangyi-Hou Yifan, Black didn't go astray with 16...¦fe8? and correctly played

16...¥xc5. After 17.¥xc5 ¤xc5 White unleashed the novelty 18.h4 (which we suggested in the issue mentioned),

whereas 18.¤xh6 quickly led to a draw in Bareev-Carlsen. We then pointed out the two possibilities 18...g4 and

18...¤e4!? Hou Yifan went for the former option, but the latter still leaves a good impression, as I (RR) have failed

to find an advantage for White, even after the possible improvement 19.hxg5. With 22...¤xe4? Black committed

the decisive mistake, whereas 22...¤d4 would still have given Black some chances of survival. It's remarkable

how one side can easily delay (or even completely refrain from!) castling. Usually fixed pawn structures make

that possible, but in this particular case White also gets away with a mobile pawn centre. To profit from the

uncastled ¢, therefore, I prefer 18...¤e4 followed by the push ...d5–d4.

3 of 4

ChessVibes OPENINGS what’s hot and what’s not?

No. 124, May 18, 2011

IT'S YOUR MOVE

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+-TR-VL-MK0

9ZPP+-+PZP-0

9NWQL+P+-ZP0

9+-+-ZP-+N0

9-+L+-+-+0

9ZP-+-+NTR-0

9-ZP-+QZPPZP0

9+-+-+RMK-0

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+-WQKVL-TR0

9ZPP+-+PZPP0

9-SNP+PSN-+0

9+-+-SN-SNL0

9-+-+-+-+0

9+-+-+-ZP-0

9PZPQZP-ZPLZP0

9TR-VL-TR-MK-0

XIIIIIIIIY

LAST WEEK'S SOLUTIONS

XIIIIIIIIY

9R+-VL-+K+0

9+Q+N+PZPP0

9-ZPP+PSN-+0

9+-ZPP+-+-0

9-ZP-ZP-VL-+0

9TR-SNNZP-+P0

9-+Q+-ZPP+0

9+R+-+RMK-0

XIIIIIIIIY

Grischuk-Aronian, Candidates qf (rapid game 4), Kazan 2011

In this type of position, Black has to decide whether to close the queenside or not with ...b5. Now he gets

punished for refraining from doing so. 18.b5! Threatening to take on c6 followed by ¤b4. 18...bxc5 18...cxb5? is

met by 19.¤xb5 ¦a2 20.c6!. 19.dxc5 ¥e7 20.¦fc1 g5 21.¥g3 ¦8a5 22.£d1 ¥f8 23.bxc6 £xc6 24.¤b4 £xc5?

More resistance could have been offered with 24...£a8 25.¤cxd5 ¤xd5 26.¦xc5 ¦xc5 27.¤xd5 ¦xd5 and

White has a technically winning position. 28.£c2 ¦c5 29.£b2 ¦d3 30.¦a1 ¥g7 31.¦a8+ ¤f8 32.£b8 ¦cd5

33.£e8 h6 34.¢h2 ¦d2 35.£e7 ¦d7 36.£e8 ¢h7 37.£b8 ¦b2 38.£c8 ¢g6 39.£c1 ¦db7 40.¦d8 ¤h7 41.£d1

¦2b3 42.£c2+ f5 43.£c6 ¤f8 44.¥d6 ¦3b6 45.£e8+ ¦f7 46.¥xf8 ¥e5+ 47.g3 f4 48.¦d7 fxg3+ 49.¢g2 1–0

XIIIIIIIIY

9RSNLWQK+-TR0

9ZPP+-ZPPVL-0

9-+-ZP-+PZP0

9+-ZPP+-+-0

9-+P+P+N+0

9+-SN-+-+-0

9PZP-+-ZPPZP0

9TR-VLQMKLSNR0

XIIIIIIIIY

Dao Thien Hai-Wen Yang,Asian Championship 2011

Don't move the same piece twice in the opening and don't start cheap attacks against f7 (f2) is not exactly always

true. Here it works nicely: 8...¥d4! 9.¤h3 e5 10.dxe6 ¥xe6 11.¥e2 £h4 12.0–0 ¤c6 13.¤d5 0–0–0 14.¤df4

¤ge5 15.g3 £f6 16.¤d5 £g7 17.¤hf4 g5 18.¤d3 h5 And Black eventually won this attacking position: 19.¤xe5

¤xe5 20.¦b1 ¥xd5 21.cxd5 f5 22.exf5 £f6 23.£c2 ¦df8 24.b4 £xf5 25.£xf5+ ¦xf5 26.¢g2 g4 27.bxc5 ¦hf8

28.¥e3 dxc5 29.¥f4 ¦xf4 30.gxf4 ¤g6 0–1

ChessVibes.com/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 .

as well as posting on the web, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission.

4 of 4

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: