Pert Richard - Play the Trompowsky (2013).pdf

Playing the Trompowsky By

Richard Pert

Quality Chess www.qualitych ess.co. uk

First edition 20 1 3 by Quality Chess UK Ltd Copyright© 20 1 3 Richard Pert

Playing the Trompowsky 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, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. Paperback ISBN 978- 1 -907982-75-0 Hardcover ISBN 978- 1 -907982-76-7 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 ?TA, United Kingdom Phone +44 1 4 1 333 9 5 8 8 e-mail: [email protected] website: www. qualitychess.co. uk Distributed in North America by Globe Pequot Press, P.O. Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480, US www.globepequot.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through Sunrise Handicrafts, ul. Skromna 3, 20-704 Lublin, Poland Typeset by Jacob Aagaard Proofreading by Andrew Greet & John Shaw Edited by Colin McNab Cover design by Barry Adamson Cover photo by capture36 5 . com Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutri.ikikoja LLC

Contents Key to Symbols used & Bibliography

4

Preface

5

Introduction

7

2...e6 3.e4

11

2

2...e6 3.tlld2!?

47

3

2...c5 3.tllc3!?

61

4

2...c5 3.d5

79

1

5

2... tlle4 3.if4 c5 4.d5

6

2...tlle4 3.if4 c5 4.f3

7

2...d5 3.ixf6

141

2...d5 3.e3

157

9 10

2...tlle4 3.if4 d5 4.e3

171

Rare 3rd Moves

193

11

Rare 2nd Moves

201

12

2.ig5 against the Dutch

211

8

13

l .d4 d5 2.ig5

Variation Index

93 107

233 263

;!; + ± + +-+

�

00

00

Key to Symbols used White is slightly better Black is slightly better White is better Black is better White has a decisive advantage Black has a decisive advantage equality with compensation with counterplay unclear

?? !!

!?

?! #

t N -+

Bibliography

a weak move a blunder a good move an excellent move a move worth considering a move of doubtful value mate with an attack with an initiative new move

Alburc, Dzindzichashvili & Perelshceyn: Chess Openingsfor Black Explained (2nd Edition), CIRC 2009 . Alterman: The Alterman Gambit Guide - Black Gambits 2, Quality Chess 20 1 2 . Avrukh: Grandmaster Repertoire 11 Beating l . d4 Sidelines, Quality Chess 20 1 2 . Cox: Dealing with d4 Deviations, Everyman Chess 200 5 . Davies: Th e Trompowsky (2nd Edition) , Everyman Chess 200 5 . D e l a Villa: El Ataque Trompowsky, Evajedrez 200 1 . Dembo: Fighting the Anti-King's Indians, Everyman Chess 2008. Gallagher: Th e Trompowsky, The Chess Press 1 99 8 . Hodgson: Secrets o fthe Trompowsky, Hodgson Enterprises 1 997. Lakdawala: A Ferocious Opening Repertoire, Everyman Chess 20 1 0 . Palliser: Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack, Everyman Chess 2009. Schandorff: Playing l.d4 - The Indian Defences, Quality Chess 20 1 2 . Wells: Winning with the Trompowsky, Batsford 2003. Williams: Play the Classical Dutch, Gambit 2003. -

Periodicals

New In Chess Yearbooks ChessBase Magazine

Electronic/Internet resources

ChessPublishing.com Martin: The Trompowsky: The Easy Wtzy, ChessBase 2006. Williams: Killer Dutch, Ginger GM 20 1 0 .

Preface As this is my first book, I really want to cake chis opportunity to thank the people who have supported and helped me in chess, both on and off the board. Firscly I would like co start by thanking the Quality Chess team, particularly Andrew Greet who has made it so easy for me to write chis book. Lee me now tell you a quick story. When I was five years old I went on a family skiing holiday to Sweden . As it turned out there was no snow that year, so my dad took the opportunity to teach my twin brother and me how to play chess. The pair of us were hooked, and my brother, GM Nick Pert, has proved a worthy (sometimes too worthy) opponent for me ever since. My parents contributed significancly to my chess career by giving up much of their free time driving Nick and me to many chess events when we were youngsters . I know my dad would much rather have spent that time sailing! One other person I want to mention from my childhood is FM Kevin O'Connell, who lived on the same road as us. He gave up a lot of his time to coach both Nick and me, and it is unquestionable in my mind chat without his support we would never have reached the standard that we did. Kevin is still very active in FIDE, although recencly he has relocated to France. My wife definitely deserves praise, as she has had to put up with my chess bug which I can't seem to shift (I'm sure some of you will know what I 'm talking about) . She actually didn't know I played chess when we first started dating, but despite this she has been very patient with me over the years when on occasion I have left her to handle the kids whilst I have gone off to play. My kids, Nina (aged five) and Max (aged three) are fantastic and they are my biggest supporters. I 'd also like to mention Brian Smith, who has supported me through his Wood Green team for many years now. I 've lost count of how many London League, 4NCL and National Club tides we have now picked up, but no doubt Brian will be able to tell you! Away from the chess board, another person that I want to mention is IM Ali Mortazavi, who despite his arrogant and cavalier appearance had enough heart to take me from working in a burger bar and sit me down at a city trading desk! He still reminds me of that from time to time! It still surprises me even today how many people from the chess circuit are willing to go out of their way to use their time and contacts to try to help me out in my career path away from the chess board. Without naming them all, a few examples from j ust this year alone are Paul Littlewood, Ian Reynolds and Dilys Tan. I 've made many other friends through chess and it is impossible to mention chem all, ranging from the guys who used to support myself and Nick when we started out playing in Ipswich as kids, through to the Essex contingent nowadays. I do however want to quickly mention a couple of ocher guys, firstly GM Danny Gormally who along with his parents gave me a place to stay when I first came to London looking for work as a 2 1 -year-old lad. Actually the plan was chat

6

Richard Pert - Playing the Tro m powsky

I was going to get a flat share with Danny, but he dropped all his money on a tennis bet and so we ended up staying at his parents' house for a while instead! I also want to mention GM Simon Williams - along with my brother I have probably been to more tournaments with him than anybody else. We've had some good times and near scrapes over the years, including a manic trip to Budapest, several visits to the South of France, a fun holiday/tournament in Norway (with Mark Hebden and Adam Hunt) , and a dodgy week in Sheffield amongst many other trips. Simon is a real enthusiast for the game and it rubs off. One final guy I want to mention away from the chess board is my mate Dan Gray, who has always looked out for me over the last fifteen years, and now looks out for my kids as well. Dan j ust got engaged to his girlfriend Rhiann in March this year, and I want to wish them all the best in the future.

That's enough of me boring you with my life story - now you'd better go and learn how to play this opening! Richard Pert Billericay, June 20 1 3

Introduction If like most players you have a limited amount of time that you can spend studying chess openings, but still want to push for an advantage with White, then the Trompowsky is a great choice. Despite the opening not being as well investigated as a lot of the main lines, it is still a very attacking opening that is tricky for Black to face. I have no doubt that when I made this opening my main choice some fifteen years ago, it significantly improved my performance with White. In this opening White stamps his mark on the position from the second move with 2.ig5 . I have focused on providing an in-depth White repertoire in the Trompowsky, l .d4 lll f6 2.ig5 , with a couple of choices for White against several of Black's key options. On top of that I have also taken the time to give a repertoire versus the Dutch Defence, l .d4 f5 2.ig5 , which seems to me to be very strong, and had a look at the Pseudo-Tromp, l . d4 d5 2.ig5 , which leads to interesting positions. This is my first book and I really haven't held anything back in my quest to make it as good as possible. The book is packed with novelties and new ideas, whilst also taking into account previous work. I am confident that this book will contribute significantly to the future theory of the Trompowsky. It's my belief that this book is suitable for players ranging from club players all the way up co top grandmasters. With firsthand experience of playing this opening against several of the world's top players, and having studied it over such a long period, I believe that puts me in a strong position to know which paths White should choose. The Trompowsky really took off in England in the 1 990s, during which time GM Julian Hodgson used it as his main weapon and GM Mickey Adams added it to his repertoire. I remember watching Hodgson win British Championship after British Championship using this opening. It got to the point where everyone knew what was coming, but no one knew what to do about it. This popularity continued into the early 2000s with excellent books on the opening from GMs Joe Gallagher and Pete Wells. By chis stage I would say that the majority of leading English players had at least taken the opening out for a test run at some point. The popularity may have dwindled slightly over the last decade, but I very much hope this book will help return it to the forefront again. I have been fortunate enough to get the chance to play this opening against four of the five leading English GMs in FIDE-rated games in recent years, Mickey Adams, Luke McShane, David Howell and Gawain Jones. Despite English players being the leading experts on the Trompowsky, it is interesting to note that all four of them chose relatively quiet lines against me, even though they must have expected the opening. That certainly gives backing to my belief that White is doing quite well in the main lines. Incidentally, I would just mention that this opening can be particularly effective against players from outside Britain, many of whom have not studied this opening in much depth. Let me briefly tell you about the layout of the book. It is a White repertoire book, yet despite this I have tried to give the reader a choice of lines against many of Black's main continuations in the

8

Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky

Trompowsky. For example, in the main line which continues l .d4 lll f6 2.ig5 lll e4 3.if4 c5, I have actually given the reader three choices - sacrificing two pawns for a massive attack, sacrificing one pawn for some initiative, or sacrificing no pawns but instead looking to obtain a small but solid edge. Often I think it is useful to have a second choice in your back pocket for surprise value. I haven't offered as much choice against l . . . f5 and l . . .d5, focusing more on providing one good repertoire. I'm particularly pleased with my work against the Dutch and it looks to me that after l .d4 f5 2.ig5 Black is struggling to hold the balance. I've also given a repertoire against l .. . d5, and whilst I think that White may not be able to prove an advantage here against accurate play from Black, the positions look interesting and fully playable.

Book Structure Personally I read a lot of chess books on the train, as I have commuted on virtually a daily basis over the past ten years. As a result I have a good knowledge of the books I find easy to read, and the ones I struggle to find my way around. I have tried in this book to lay everything out as logically as possible. I have taken time at the start of each chapter to give an overview of Black's possibilities, showing clearly all his options and highlighting any transpositions, and also showing where a second option is offered for White. One further thing I've done is to make it clear which move I think should be played in each position. I have seen several previous authors take the approach of putting a collection of model games together, but have then found that I ended up not knowing what the right move was in each position. To help you find your way around the material, let me tell you some more about the chapters.

Chapter 1 : 1 .d4 �f6 2.igS e6 3.e4 2 . . . e6 is one of Black's most solid choices and has risen in popularity in recent years to the point that it is now Black's second most popular response to the Trompowsky. Black's idea is to prevent his pawns being doubled by taking the time to protect the f6-knight with his queen . That said, the move is slightly passive and gives us the chance to grab the initiative. Here I have given two choices for White. The main move which I focus on in this chapter is 3 . e4, grabbing space in the middle of the board. My idea is to follow 3 . . . h6 4.ixf6 Wxf6 with the modern 5 . c3 , where I have extensive personal experience. Although Black is quite solid, I believe that White has good chances of an advantage. The chapter also features new ideas against 3 . . . c5 , where I have a very powerful idea in the main line.

Chapter 2: 1 .d4 �f6 2.igS e6 3.�d2 The second option against 2 . . . e6 that I cover is the flexible 3 .tll d2! ? . This approach has become popular amongst the world's elite in recent years, particularly in blitz and rapid games.

Chapter 3: 1 .d4 �f6 2.igS cS 3.�c3 With 2 . . . c5 Black indicates he is ready to do battle! This uncompromising move was suggested by Dembo in her highly-rated book, Fighting the Anti-King's Indians, which came out in 2008 . In this chapter I take a look at a repertoire involving the quirky 3 .tll c3 !? which I have played on a

Introductio n

9

number of occasions myself. I have found a major improvement in the main line which makes this whole variation playable, where previously it was considered doubtful. Black must walk a tightrope to make it out of the opening, and even if he does then White's chances look reasonable.

Chapter 4: 1 .d4 c!ll f6 2.igS c5 3.d5 My main recommendation against 2 . . . c5 is to play 3.d5, taking control of the centre of the board. In this chapter I have a couple of seriously good novelties, particularly in the Vaganian Gambit which arises after 3 . . . '\Wb6 4. lll c3 . I think these improvements will send shivers up Black's spine! Note that it is important when reading this chapter to check out the introduction, as transpositions to variations elsewhere in the book are rife.

Chapter 5: 1 .d4 c!ll f6 2.igS c!ll e4 3.if4 c5 4.dS 2 . . . lll e4 3 .if4 c5 is the main line and is considered by many as the best way to handle the Trompowsky. I give three distinct ways of tackling this opening. In this chapter I look at 4.d5. Then after 4 . . . %%6 White may sacrifice the b2-pawn in return for the initiative with 5 .lll d2! ? . It i s also possible to defend the pawn with 5 .ic l , and this variation i s closely related t o one of lines examined in Chapter 6 (with 7.ic l ) .

Chapter 6 : 1 .d4 c!ll f6 2.igS c!ll e4 3.if4 c5 4.f3 White may also meet 2 . . . lll e4 3 .if4 c5 with 4.f3, and after 4 . . . Wa5 t 5 . c3 lll f6 6.d5 Wb6 I offer another choice. Firstly, 7.ic l seems quite solid for White and gives a reasonable chance of sneaking an advantage. Finally I've extensively analysed the fascinating double pawn sacrifice which occurs after 7.e4 Wfxb2 8 .lll d2 '1Wxc3 9 .ic7!?. My analysis on this line is much deeper than has previously been published, and I think it looks really interesting for White.

Chapter 7: 1 .d4 c!ll f6 2.igS d5 3.ixf6

2 . . . d5 is another solid option for Black. It is his third most popular move against the Trompowsky and it was the choice of both Michael Adams and David Howell against me in 20 1 0 . I offer White two full repertoires against this line, covering 3 .ixf6 in this chapter. After 3 . . . gxf6!? I have some exciting unplayed analysis which looks good for White. Against the rock-solid 3 . . . exf6 I suggest a repertoire that involves playing g2-g3 and building queenside pressure.

Chapter 8: 1 .d4 c!ll f6 2.igS d5 3.e3 The second option which I cover against 2 . . . d5 is the flexible move 3 .e3 . This was a regular choice ofTrompowsky expert Hodgson (in fact he played it against me once!) . Transpositions are possible to a Veresov o r to lines elsewhere i n the book (for example, 3 . . . lll e4 4.if4 transposes directly to Chapter 9), so the introduction to the chapter should be read closely if this is to be your main choice.

Chapter 9: 1 .d4 c!ll f6 2.igS c!ll e4 3.if4 d5 This variation combining . . . lll e4 with . . . d5 is becoming increasingly popular. This set-up is not as aggressive as those involving . . . c5, and not as solid as those with 2 . . e6 or 2 . . . d5 - it is somewhere in the middle. Unlike the other main variations where I have given White a second choice, here I

10


have chosen to look deeply at just one line involving 3 . e3 followed by a plan of id3 and ixe4, as I feel happy about White's chances of gaining an advantage in these positions and it seems to me to be the best line. Actually it was a game in this variation which was probably my main inspiration for taking up the Trompowsky when I witnessed Mickey Adams wipe out Xie Jun in the 1 996 Hastings Premier.

Chapter 10: Rare 3rd Moves Black has tried many other moves after 2 . . . llie4 3 .if4, from the provocative 3 . . . g5 through to the ridiculously new 3 . . . e5. Generally in these lines White's chances look preferable, nevertheless it is worth looking at the sidelines in this chapter - even strong players will sometimes resort to them, for example Luke McShane tried 3 . . . d6 against me in an important last round clash in a tournament in Denmark.

Chapter 1 1 : Rare 2nd Moves We finish up our round-up of Trompowsky odds and ends by looking at various 2nd move options, the old-fashioned 2 . . . g6 being the most common of these.

Chapter 12: 2.igS against the Dutch 2.ig5 against the Dutch Defence has gone from once being a sideline to now being one of the most dangerous moves for Black to face. I think White's prospects in this line are excellent and I have used this move on a number of occasions myself with great results. I feel confident offering just one repertoire against this variation as it seems to me that Black is really struggling to hold the balance. So much so that a good friend of mine, Simon Williams, who is well known for his Dutch exploits, now regularly plays I . . . e6, looking to transpose into the classical Dutch via a different move order specifically aimed at avoiding this line.

Chapter 13: 1 .d4 dS 2.igS

In our final chapter we look at 2.ig5 against I. .. d5 - known as the Pseudo-Tromp. I don't believe that 2.ig5 is as accurate here as it is against I . . . lli f6 or I .. .f5 , and with correct play I think that Black can reach a balanced position. That said, it can be a good practical choice as it is low in theory and the positions are interesting and imbalanced. This line was particularly popular with top English GMs Mickey Adams, Julian Hodgson and Tony Miles during the 1 990s. I do not offer White as many choices in this line as I do in the Trompowsky, but instead focus on picking out my favourite variations for White. After studying this variation in detail I have come to the conclusion that 2 . . . h6 and 2 .. .f6! are the two choices for Black which are most difficult to prove an advantage against. I feel quite happy with White's prospects of gaining an advantage against Black's numerous other second moves. After the main move 2 . . . h6 I suggest a variation which was a firm favourite of Hodgson's. White sacrifices a pawn in the centre of the board but gets a huge amount of play for it, and from a practical viewpoint I really like it for White. I have come round to the view that the rarely played 2 .. .f6! (only the fifth most popular choice) may actually be Black's best. Because it seems the critical move, I have spent quite a lot of time on it. I look at the three responses 3 .ih4, 3 .if4 and 3.id2, all of which are playable for White, though being honest I would have to say that in each line the chances look balanced.

Chapter 1 2 ... e6 3.e4 1 .d4 � f6 2.i.g5 e6 3.e4 A) 3 ... c5!? 4.d5 Al) 4 ... d6 A2) 4 ... h6 B) 3 ... h6 4.i.xffi �xf6 5.c3!? Bl) 5 ... � c6 B2) 5 ... c5 B3) 5 ... d5 6.�d2 c5 7.� gf3 B3 1) 7 ... cxd4 8.ll:)xd4 i.c5 9,ll:)2b3!? B3 1 1) 9 ... i.xd4 B3 12) 9 ... i.b6 B32) 7 ...ll:)c6 8.i.b5 cxd4 9,ll:)xd4 i.d7 1 0.0-0!? B32 1) 1 0 ...i.e7 B322) 1 0 ...�d8 B4) 5 ... d6 6.i.d3 B41) 6 ... e5 B42) 6...g6 7,ll:)e2 i.g7 8.0-0 e5 9.f4 B42 1) 9 ... exd4 B422) 9 ... �e7 B422 1) lO.ll:)d2 B4222) 1 0.fS!

13 14 16 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 34 36 37 40 41 44

12


1.d4 tll f6 2.i.g5 e6

have noticed this line is becoming increasingly popular amongst the world's elite in blitz and rapid games, and perhaps it will become a line for the future.

3 ... h6

This rock-solid positional choice is one of Black's most popular responses. It seems strange for Black to self-pin his f6-knight, but his motivation is to prevent White doubling his pawns, as he will be able to meet a future ixf6 with . . . \Wxf6. It is no surprise to notice that this move has been the first choice of Karpov, who is renowned for never allowing pawn weaknesses if he can help it. That said though, Black does hand us the short-term initiative with this approach, allowing us to gain a lead in development and more space - it is up to us to try to take maximum advantage of that.

3.e4 This direct and logical move is the main line and is my personal preference. I am going to focus on it in this chapter. In choosing this approach we allow Black to take the bishop pair away from us, but in return we get quick and easy development and that should be enough for us to claim a small advantage. 3 .lll d2! ? is another option for White, which I shall look at in the next chapter. This flexible move looks to take advantage of Black's passive response to the Trompowsky, eyeing up a future e2-e4 without yielding the bishop pair. I

This is Black's main move, looking to win the bishop pair. John Cox also gives this as his recommendation in his 2005 book, Dealing with d4 Deviations. Rather complimentary to me in his introduction, John says his inspiration for writing the book was "being utterly slaughtered by Richard Pert in a London League match" . Well John picked a solid system for Black, but nevertheless we will try to put it under pressure. The interesting sideline 3 . . . c5 ! ? is growing in popularity, having been recommended by De Dovitiis in his articles in New in Chess Yearbooks 92 and 93. It has also been recommended in the Alterman Gambit Guide - Black Gambits 1. However I have a seriously strong idea in the main variation which may force Black to have a rethink here.

4.Lf6 4.ih4? is not possible as Black simply wins a pawn with 4 . . . g5 5 .ig3 lLi xe4 .

4 ...�xf6 The main position of this variation.

13

Chapter I - 2 . . . e6 3 . e4

5.c3!? I plan to base our repertoire on this pawn move. It is not as common as 5 .tll c3 or 5 .tll f3 , but it is my favourite. White sets about a simple plan of playing id3 , tll e2, 0-0 and f2f4 , grabbing space on the kingside. Black often finds his queen misplaced in these variations as it is a target for White's advancing pawns, and so he has to rake yet more rime out to move the queen back to d8, giving us an even bigger lead in development. I was amazed to find that I have played this position in excess of 1 5 0 times (including blitz and rapid games) . In fact my games alone make up one sixth of the total number of games featuring this position in my database. Hopefully this experience should mean that I am well placed to discuss the position, and at points I go into quite a bit of detail (perhaps even more than is needed) about how I feel White should play this position. I have laid it all out very logically so that everything is easy to reference, and there are plenty of new ideas in there which should leave you well equipped to play this position.

1 .d4 tlif6 2 ..igS e6 3.e4

I would like to j ust briefly mention 3 . . . ie7. Although quite often played, it looks way too passive to me. White has a pleasant choice: a) 4.tll d2! ? transposes into a favourable version of the 3 . tll d2-variation, which is covered on page 48 of the next chapter. b) The alternative is to take on the challenge with 4.e5 ! ? immediately: 4 . . . tll d5 5 .ixe7 Wfxe7 6.c4 tll b6 7.tll c3 d6 8 . tll f3 tll c6 9 . exd6 (or 9 .id3 !?) 9 . . . cxd6 1 0 .id3N;!; With 0-0 followed by l:!e l coming soon, this looks to favour White.

A) 3 ... cS!? This is an ambitious attempt to attack the centre. It has gained in popularity over the last decade as Black looks to soften up White's dark squares before going about netting his dark-squared bishop. However, I have a new idea in the main line which should send Black back to the drawing board.

4.dS

14


s

'a' �� A :\tit�·�� .a. r.�i�JS� � M

z,!a'( ��

7 %lfi"� ,,7,� -.�--. " '•��!af·'a �� ,,,,,;m.-� 5 ��-0 W 8m � � , ,,,x� c� ,;,,,Y,� 3 �� . �.

1 l .ixe4 d6 1 2 .l'!e l ie6 1 3 .tlJ g5 tlJ c6 1 4 .id5 ixd5 1 5 .l'!xe7t ixe7 1 6.ic3 ic4 1 7.Wg4 b5 1 8 .l'!e l tlJ e 5 1 9 .ixe5 dxe5 20.'1We4 0-0 2 1 .'1Wxh7# Gonzalez de la Nava - Hens bergen, Lisbon 200 1 . 7 . f4 d6 Play has transposed into line A 1 2 of Chapter 4 (see page 82) .

f•lt)� 1mJl��

4 . . . exd 5 ? ! 5 . e 5 ! 5 . exd5 '1W b 6 6 . tlJ c3 '1Wxb2 7 . tlJ ge2 i s also possible, with good compensation for the pawn.

6

4 2

1

�

' ·

WM � ��0 ��-� or@o�[j[j�[!j b

a

c

d

f

e

g

h

It's probably j ust a matter of taste, but personally I really like this move as White keeps control of the important d5-square. 4.e5 is the major alternative, but it looks a bit ugly to me.

..

We shall now examine Al) 4 d6 and A2) 4 h6, after a quick look at a couple of other options.

...

4 . . . \Wb6 This is liable to reach a line of the Vaganian Gambit that is favourable to White. 5 . tlJ c3 Wxb2 6.id2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

6 . . . \Wb6 6 . . . ttJ xe4? is possible as Black will regain the piece, but he is left so far behind in development that it is not advisable: 7.tlJxe4 '1We5 8 .id3 exd5 9 . tlJ f3 '1We7 1 0 . 0-0 dxe4

5 . . . We7 5 . . . h6? doesn't work here: 6.exf6 hxg5 7.We2t+6.'1We2 h6 7.if4 Here we see one of the Trompowsky's leading experts at the wheel. 7.ixf6 is given by Alej o de Dovitiis in New in Chess Yearbook 93 as another way to gain the advantage. His analysis runs: 7 . . . gxf6 8 . tlJ c3 fxe5 9 . tlJ xd5 Wd6 1 0 .0-0-0t 7 . . . tlJ e4 8 . f3 tlJg5 9 . tlJc3 d4 1 O.tlJd5 Wd8 1 1 .e6 Direct chess from Hodgson. 1 1 . . .d6 1 2.ixg5 hxg5 1 3.exf7t 'i!lxf7 14. 0-0-0t White's safer king position gave him an edge in Hodgson - Belkhodja, France 1 999.

..

Al) 4 d6

15

Chapter 1 - 2 . . . e6 3 . e4

8.e5! White blasts open the position at the expense of a pawn. 8 . a4 has also been played, but I do not find it convincing: 8 . . . 0-0 9 . lll f3 ixb5 1 0 .axb5°" Miladinovic - Aleksic, Cutro 200 I.

8 ... dxe5 9.Lf6 Lf6 9 . . . gxf6? looks somewhat shaky: 1 0 .Wfh 5 t 'i!lf8 1 1 .0-0-0

5.tll c3 i.e7! 5 . . . e5 looks a little slow to me as Black has spent two tempos advancing his e-pawn. 6.ib 5 t id7 7.a4 ie7 8 .lll B 0-0 9 .h3 ic8 I O.ie3 White had a clear lead in development and stood better in R. Pert - S. Berry, Liverpool 2008.

6.i.b5t i.d7 6 . . . lll bd7? is not advisable: 7. dxe6 fxe6 8 .ixf6 gxf6 (8 . . . ixf6 9 .Wfxd6±) 9 .Wfh5t± White forces the black king to move, and is ahead in development as well.

7.dxe6 fxe6

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 I. . . Wfe8 1 2 .Wfh6t @f7 ( 1 2 . . . 'i!lg8 ? 1 3 .�d3 + and here come the troops) 1 3 .ie2;!; White keeps ongoing pressure.

16

Richard Pert - Playing the Trom powsky

1 O.ixd7t has been tried before but White's advantage is minimal: 1 0 . . . Wxd7 ( l O . . . tlJ xd7 1 1 .Wh5t g6 1 2 .Wg4 We7 1 3 . lLi f3�) 1 1 .tlJ e4 0-0 1 2.Wxd7 tLi xd7 1 3 . 0-0-0 �ad8 1 4 . tlJ f3 White has a tiny advantage, though a draw looks the most likely result with accurate play.

1 0 ... g6 1 1 .Wlg4 tlJ c6 12.0-0-0

1 2.ixc6? does not work out: 1 2 . . . ixc6 1 3 .Wxe6t We?+

1 5 .tll f3!N 1 5 . h400 was played in Aronian/Gaerths/ Zeitz - Nisipeanu/Figura/Mattick, Berlin 2009, and White went on to lose the game.

1 5 a6 1 6 .ia4 ghf8 •.•

•

1 6 . . . ih6t 1 7.@b l �hf8 1 8 .Wh3±

17.WlgS Wlxg5t 18.tll fxgS h6

l 2 . tlJ e4 This is playable immediately and is likely to transpose, but it does give Black an additional option. 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 2 . . . Wa5 t ? is not a good idea: 1 3 . b4! Wxb4? 1 3 .c3+1 2 . . . We7 1 3 .0-0-0 transposes to the main game. 1 3 . 0-0-0 tLi d4 ! ? 1 4.ixd7 Wxd7 1 5 . c3 Wd5 1 6 . cxd4 cxd4 1 7.@b l ig7 The threat of . . . �f4 offers Black some compensation for the piece, though probably not quite enough.

A2) 4 h6 5 .ixf6 Wlxf6 6.tll c3

12 Wf e7 13.�e4 0-0-0 14.c3 .ig7 .•.

.•.

So far we have been following what appears to be a consultation game between teams of three, and here I would like to suggest an improvement.

•

6 a6 .•.

A blitz game of mine highlights the danger if Black fails to cover the b5 -square: 6 . . . d6

17

Chapter 1 - 2 . . e6 3 . e4 .

7.i.b 5 t ctJ d7 8 .dxe6 fXe6 9 . ctJ f3 a6 1 0 .e5 Wi'g6 ( 1 0 . . . W/f4 l l .g3 Wi'f7 1 2.i.xd7t i.xd7 1 3 .exd6 i.xd6 1 4.Wi'xd6 Wi'xf3 1 5 .l:%fl and White's better pawn structure gives him an edge) l l .i.d3 Wi'xg2 1 2 .l:%gl Wi'h3 1 3 .i.g6t c;f?ds 1 4.l:%g3 1 -0 Antidrome - CofC-SCal, Internet 2009. By the end of this book you will be used to my Internet Chess Club handle of''.Antidrome" , as I have often called upon my vast number of blitz games to fill gaps where ideas have not yet been played in FIDE-rated games.

7.ctJf3 d6 This line has been played against me by two Australian players, GM Ian Rogers and IM Alex Wohl. It is obvious that they believed it to be a reasonable way of handling this position, but after the shock Alex received against me in the opening, I fancy they may turn to different ideas in the future. This line is also the recommendation of De Dovitiis in New in Chess Yearbook 93, but he did not pay sufficient attention to my next move. 7 . . . e5 is a commitment Black does not want to make yet. He would rather stay flexible with his pawn on e6 where he can make the choice between opening or closing the e-file at any given moment. White can continue with 8 . a4 d6 9 .i.e2;!; with ctJ d2-c4 on the cards.

This new idea is seriously powerful. I remember when this position appeared on the board in my game against Alex Wohl in Hastings 20 1 0, I was very excited by the prospect of playing this move. This position can very quickly become winning for White. Sadly I cannot claim the move as my novelty; I have discovered that I was only the second to play it. But the first time it was played, White immediately followed up incorrectly and so its strength was not apparent - see the note to White's 1 0th move below.

8 ... dxe5 9.�e2 I believe that White should aim for a standard plan here of playing 0-0-0, g2-g3 (preventing . . . W/f4t) , i.h3 and l:%he l ; I will call this Plan A. Going for an early ctJ e4 may look tempting but is often a mistake, as White should stay flexible and try to keep all his options open. It's uncomfortable for Black to know that he could be hit by ctJ e4 at any moment.

9 ... tli d7 This looks to be critical, though Black has several other options. 9 . . . i.d6 1 0 . 0-0-0! 0-0 l l .g3 l:%d8 1 2 .i.h3 b5 1 3 .l:%he l s

7

8.e5!!

.1att• ••�

.. l' � . . :� ��-····%· Y,� �-. x�r� �

:,,.,�- -·�-��· �� ..... r.� ..... r.�

4

��:"'/� �w; ��n� � ,�: � Q:J � .t 2 88"/i"� ld··· r.� 1 ��· · · ··x� -· ···x···· · 3

�

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

b

c

r d

e

f

g

h

White's Plan A worked well in this example, quickly leading to a winning position: 1 3 . . . b4 1 4. llJ e4 Wi'e7 1 5 .ctJxd6 l:%xd6 1 6.ctJxe5+ Antidrome - sovaco, Internet 2009.

18


9 . . . b5 10. 0-0-0 .ib7 I O . . . b4 I 1.lll e4

I 1 . lll xb5 ! Showing a benefit of n o t playing lll e4 too early. l l . . . e4 l l . . .'Wf4t?! 12.'ll d2 axb 5 1 3 .°Wxb5 t 'll d7 14.dxe6 0-0-0 1 5 . exd7t �xd7 16.g3 Wf5 1 7. f3± 1 2 . liJ d2 axb5 1 2 . . . exd5 13 .lll c7t �e7 1 4.lll xa8 .ixa8 1 5 . f3+12 . . . °We5 13.lll xe4 .ie7 14.lll c7t Wxc7 1 5 . d6 'Wc6 16.dxe7+13 .°Wxb 5t lll d7 1 4.dxe6 fxe6 I 5 .°Wxb7 �b8 16.'Wxd7t �xd7 17.lll xe4t 'Wd4 18.�xd4t cxd4 1 9 . .id3;!; White's passed pawns on the queenside are more than enough for the exchange. 9 . . . e4

This was the move my opponent chose the first time I played this line in a tournament. As you will see I was winning shortly after the opening, and it's absolutely criminal that I failed to win the game - but that's chess! I O .'Wxe4 .id6 1 l .dxe6 'Wxe6 1 2. 0-0-0 'Wxe4 1 3 .lll xe4 .if4t 14.@b l lll d7 1 5 .g3 .ic7 1 6 . .ih3 lll e5 1 7 . .ixc8 �xc8 1 8 . lll x e5 .ixe5 1 9 .�d5!

::: � r j �6 �r�r1�-0 ��a �. 0 �-��

�"a � lti� �� " -� ••� � 3 ·· · -�� 2 8� 8- �o 1 -�� -- -·�-: r�.: ··· · " •

s

4

a

b

c

d

e

n

f

g

.•..•

h

Black is about to lose two pawns. 19 . . . .ib8 20.lll xc5 0-0 2 1 .�e l ? Although White is still winning after this, 21. lll xb7+- is simple and strong. 21. . ..ia7 22. 'll d3 �c7 23.c3 g6 24.�c2 �g7 2 5 .�de5 h5 26.�e7 �fc8 27.lll f4 �xe7 2 8 . �xe7 .ixf2 29.'ll h3 � f6 30.�xb7 .ie3 31.�d3 �e8 32.�b4 �f5 3 3 . lll fL. .ih6 34. lll e4 �d8t 3 5 .�d4 �xd4t 36.�xd4 �g4 37.c4 f5 3 8 .c5 fxe4 39.c6 e3 40.c7 e2 41. c8=°Wt

Chapter 1 - 2 . . . e6 3 . e4 Somehow, despite being a queen down, Black manages to wriggle away with a draw. That Mr. Wohl is a slippery character - I really thought I had him in this game! 41. . .c;!/f3 42.°1Wc6t c;!/f2 43.Wf6t
i.-.t••� �� 7� r. : ••.• � �� -Z �r� � 65 £. �t�-�-�-%-% �8 tj;��...J��' �� • 3n�m �•�• 8

�----%

4

��-�------� ��-%�� -� 8 •1W 8 r� �(b:·r,(r� ·---%� ----Z ;·Z· �8 ---·efr� lf� - � � mn

2

a

10.0-0-0

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

It is inaccurate to play: 10 .lll e4?! '1We7 11.0-0-0 f5 ?! This is too weakening. 1 l . . . b 5 ! ?N followed by . . . ib7 seems fine for Black; the threat to the d5-pawn will divert White from Plan A. 12.d6 Wd8 ? 12 . . . Wf7 was necessary to defend the light squares.

19

This was Paci - F. Berend, Nancy 2008. White now missed a chance to gain a decisive advantage: 14.d7t!N ixd7 1 5 . lll xe6+-

1 0 ...J.e7 Against the alternatives the treatment yet again does the job:

standard

10 . . . exd5 11. lll xd5 °1Wd6 12.g3 ie7 13 .ih3 0-0 14.Elhel;!; 10 . . . b5 1 Lg3! ib7 12.ih3 Eld8 13.lll e4 Wg6 14. lll h4 °1Wh7 15.dxe6+-

1 1 .g3 White sticks with Plan A - I've included a couple of my blitz games as there have been no tournament games in this variation to show how effective this line is.

1 1 0-0 ..•

l 1 . . . h 5 12.ih3 0-0 13 .Elhe l b5 14.c;!/b l c4 15.lll e4 Wg6 16.dxe6 fxe6

12.ih3 ges 12 . . . exd5 13. lll xd5 Wd6 14.Elhel;!;

1 3.ghel J.f8 1 4.dxe6 fxe6 15.tlie4 Wg6 1 6.t/Jh4 Wf7

20

Richard Perr - Playing the Trompowsky

B) 3 ... h6 4.i.xf6 Vfxf6 5.c3!?

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

17.i.g4! tli f6 18.tlixf6t Vfxf6 19.i.hS gds 20.gxdS Yfxd8 2 1 .VfxeS As is typical in these lines, White regains the e5-pawn at his convenience and still holds all the other advantages of the position, including a better structure with fewer pawn islands, and the more active pieces as Black's bishops are hampered by his pawns.

As I mentioned in the introduction, my preference is to support the cl-pawn with this move, planning to continue with id3 , tLl e2, 0-0 and then f2-f4 . Black now has several reasonable alternatives and we shall investigate B l ) 5 ... tli c6, B2) 5 ... c5 and B3) 5 ... d5, before coming to Black's most popular choice of B4) 5 ... d6. We first take a quick look at a couple of rarer moves: 5 . . . b6 6 .id3 ib7 7 . lLi e2

7 . . . c5 I 've included one of my blitz games to show what can happen if Black opts to play slowly here: 7 . . . d6 8 . 0-0 Wi'd8 9 . tLl d2 ie7 10 . f4 tlJ d7 11. f5 exf5 12.l'!xf5 lLi f6 13 . tLl g3

21

Chapter 1 - 2 . . . e6 3 . e4 White's kingside pressure gives him good prospects. 1 3 . . . Wd7 1 4 .ib5 c6 1 5 .ic4 d5 1 6.exd5 ll'l xd5 1 7 .ixd5 cxd5 1 8 . ll'l f3 0-0 1 9 . ll'l e5 We6 20.Wfl id6 2 1 .i'!e l i'!ae8 22 .i'!e3 ib8 23.i'!ff3 ixe5 24.i'!xe5 Wd7 2 5 . ll'l f5 i'!e6 26.i'!g3 i'!g6 27.ll'l e7t 1 -0 Antidrome - GreenSkull, Internet 20 1 2. 8 . 0-0 ll'l c6 9.e5 We7 1 0 . ll'l d2 d6 l l .f4 dxe5 1 2. fxe5 Wd7 1 3 . ll'l f3 i'!d8 1 4.We l cxd4 1 5 . ll'l exd4 ll'l xd4 16. ll'lxd4 ic5 1 7.@h l 0-0 1 8 .i'!f4 We7 1 9 .Wg3 Yi-Yi R. Pere - Flumborc, Patras 200 1 . Looking back, I chink setding for a draw was premature - the position remains finely balanced bur certainly looks easier for White to play with ongoing kingside pressure.

7.cxd4 ib4t 8 . ll'l c3 0-0 9.e5 Wg6 1 0.id3 Wxg2 1 1 .i'!g l Wh3 1 2 .i'!g3 ixc3t 1 3 .bxc3 Wh5 1 4.Wb3 White clearly has great play for the sacrificed pawn. l 4 . . . d6? l 5 .ig6 1 -0 Argandona Riveiro - Argaya Urdaniz, Amorebieta 2006.

Bl) 5 ... � c6

5 . . . e5 6 . ll'l f3 White can also claim a slight plus with: 6.dxe5 Wxe5 7. ll'l d2 ic5 8 . ll'l gf3 We7 9.id3;!;

6.eS This must be the right way co cry to cake advantage of Black's previous move.

6 ...fle7 6 . . . exd4 6 . . . d6 7.ll'lbd2 g6 8 .ib5 t c6 9 .ie2 ig7 1 0 .dxe5 dxe5 l 1 . ll'l c4 0-0 1 2 .Wd6 Wf4 1 3 .0-0 Wxe4 1 4 .id3 Wd5 1 5 .Wxd5 cxd5 1 6 . ll'l cxe5 tll c6 1 7.i'!fel;!; Duong The Anh Eperjesi, Budapest 2008. 6 ... ll'l c6 7.ib5 (7.d5 ll'l e7 8 . ll'l bd2 ll'l g6 9 . g3;!; preventing . . . tll f4) 7 . . . exd4 8 . cxd4 a6 9.ia4 ib4t 10 . ll'l c3 0-0 1 1 . 0-0 ixc3 1 2 .bxc3 was pleasant for White in Kaufeld Cekro, Belgium 20 1 2.

Black has also tried: 6 . . . Wg6 7 . ll'l d2 This was White's most recent choice. An alternative of roughly equal value is 7 . ll'l f3 ! ? d6 and now: a) 8 . ll'l bd2 transposes to 7 . ll'l d2 d6 8 . ll'l gf3 as considered below. b) 8 .id3 Wxg2 9 .i'!g l Wh3 1 0 . ll'l bd2 must offer White some compensation. c) 8.h3!? looks strange, but there is a reason behind it: 8 . . . id7 9 .id3 Wxg2 ? ? 1 0 .i'!h2 picks up the queen .

22


7 . . . d6 8 . f4 White may also consider 8 . tll gf3 id7 9 . tll c4 ie7 10.id3 Wxg2 1 1.:B:g l , followed by taking on g7 with the initiative. 8 . . . id7 9.Wf3 0-0-0

l 1 . tll gf3 f6 12 .b4 ie8 13 .b5 tll b8 14.Wa4 Wa3 I 5 .Wb3 tll d7 16. tll c4 We7 I 7.a4 fxe5 l 8 . tll cxe5 tll x e5 19 .tll xe5 g5 (19 . . . Wf600 intending . . . id6 would have been stronger) 20.ic4!;!; White seized the initiative and went on to win in Hodgson - Rowson, Birmingham 200 I .

7 ... d6 8.ib5 .id7 9.exd6 cxd6

b

a

c

d

e

f

9 . . . Wxd6 was played against me in a blitz game, but Black's queen finds itself awkwardly placed in the middle of the board: 10. 0-0 ie7 1 I . tll bd2 Wd5 12.ic4N (12.c4 Wf5 13 .:B:e l was also slightly better for White in Antidrome - Guineo, Internet 2011) 12 . . . Wh5 13.ie2 Wf5 14.tll c4;!; and the black queen remains a target.

h

g

10 .id3 f5 l 1.exf6N This looks tempting to me as now Black's plan of putting his bishop on c6 can be met by blocking with a piece on e4. 1 I .tll e2 tll e7 12 .0-0 ic6 was unclear in Gogolis - Drenchev, Neos Marmaras 2012 . 11. . .Wxf6 12. 0-0-0 tll e7 13 .tll e2 ic6 14.ie4 White's lead in development gives him an edge.

1 0.0-0 a6 1 1 ..ia4 tl)a7

8

1 6

:

.1• �-�� . %'• "0,,;/». � ;! . , , , , , , , , Y, � r�, ..,. .t. • ..�tJiiLt. �,,%-w.,.�..%�

�� 7:....%

%

� 3-

2

�,..,%

� � !��o�� % · � ��r� �� · r� ltwri

��

,,..%

mct:Jm - �� ftwtj

1�d�-'·'=··-a

1 2.dSN

a

7.tl)f3

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Julian Hodgson went his own way here and grabbed some space on the kingside: 7.h4!? d6 8.f4 dxe5 9.fxe5 id7 10. tll d2 0-0-0

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This looks the right idea, aiming to limit Black's dark-squared bishop. 12 . tll bd2 ixa4 13.Wxa4t Wd7 14.Wb3 ie7 15.tll c4 tll c8 16. tll e3 (16.d5N may still be the way to go: 16 . . . e5 17.a4;!;) 16 . . . 0-0 I 7.c4 b5 18.d5 bxc4 19.Wxc4 tll b6 20.Wg4 if6 21.:B:ad l a5 22.dxe600 Rowson - Cherniaev, London 199 9 .

1 2 ...eS 13.tl) bd2 .ixa4 1 4.�xa4t �d7 1 5.�xd7t @xd7 16.tl)c4 @c7 1 7.a4�

23

Chapter 1 - 2 . . . e6 3 . e4

B2) 5 ... cS

8

.i-.i.� ·- ��

7-· " x ��'··· '"S'·"�1"

�

: �� ,��' ,!��·"

��Jo!� � "� !JI 3� � d ----�� r� ,, ,, � � 2 4

1

�O" �� tt:J�V�.i. J:. �JfJ� Uwrf!J\�Jl m� a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This was tried against me at the end of 20 1 2 by Arianne Caoili who at the time was playing for an IM norm. She is the girlfriend of Lev Aronian and so I am not sure if he had any influence in her opening choice in what must have been an important game for her,

6.tlia tli c6 7.J.hS!? White has a major alternative here in the more commonly played 7,d5 which is the first choice of English GM Mark Hebden, I know Mark quite well and can confirm that he knows his systems very well, so for him to use this move on several occasions means it has to be taken seriously. Here are a couple of examples from him, including the ultimate test as he faced England's number one Mickey Adams.

a) 7 . . . exd5 8 . exd5 tll e5 9 . tll x e5 Wfxe5t 1 0 .ie2 id6 l 1 .tll a3 ! Making short work of Black's plan to block the position up. 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 .tll c4 Wff6 1 3 . 0-0 b5 1 4. tll xd6 Wfxd6 1 5 .ixb 5 :!::1b 8 1 6.Wfd3 a6 1 7 .ic4 :!::1x b2 l 8 .:!::1a b 1 :!::1x b 1 l 9 .E1xb 1 E1e8 2 0 . g3 g6 2 1 .a4 @g7 22.h4 h 5 23.a5 Wc7 24.d6 Wi'xa5 2 5 .Wff3 f5 26.Wf d5 :!::1f8 27.Wi'e 5 t @h6 28 .Wff4t 1 -0 Hebden - A. Grant, Isle of Man 2002. b) 7 ... tll e5 8 .ie2 tll xf3 t 9 .ixf3 exd5 1 0 .Wfxd5 We6 1 l .Wi'd3 ie7 1 2 . 0-0 0-0 1 3 . tll d2 b5 1 4 .:!::1 fe l :!::1 b 8 1 5 .e5 c4 1 6 .Wfd4 Wb6 1 7.Wi'xb6 :!::1x b6 1 8 .a4 a6 19 .axb5 axb5 20.E1a7 :!::1e 8 2 l .id5 ic5 2 2 .:!::1a 8;!; Mark came through with flying colours and notched up an impressive victory in Hebden - Adams, Kilkenny 2006.

7 ...a6 8.Lc6 bxc6 Black nets the bishop pair against White's knights, bur I still had a lead in development and so looked to make that count.

.i � .i.�·- ��

��,�··· 76 � ]----��/,��'// �� 8

A� U�-AUAE � �� ---J� �� ,�, � �� 8 '� �!� 3 ��rd----�� -,,,, ��r� � r[j m �� r� ,,.

, �'.,, �

5

4 2

1

jJiill

�� ;=----%-� m, ,_ _ _ _ Y,

a

b

�d c

,

,.,

e _ _

%

f

g

h

9.0-0 cxd4 1 0.cxd4 cS 1 1 .eS Wff5 12.tli bd2 ih7 13Jkl Black sank into thought here as it became obvious that untangling her position was going to be trickier than she originally expected.

1 3 ...ie7

24


Eventually Black decided to j ust give me a pawn and accept a worse position. 1 3 . . . cxd4 1 4.E:c7! was my intention with the idea: 1 4 . . . ic6?! ( 1 4 . . . id5 1 5 .Wa4;!;)

B3) 5 ... d5 This is probably Black's most critical move as he looks to stake a claim over the centre rather than let White have it all his own way.

6.�d2 Hodgson's regular choice was to advance in the centre: 6.e5 I prefer to delay this move; we can always close the centre later. But it can be particularly useful to have the option of opening the position, especially since we are likely to castle first while Black's king may be left in the middle. 6 . . . Wd8 7 . � f3 c5 8 . dxc5

� . , Y. ., . . . . 7. ,, · � � � - ..... 3 6 '- · � ---�� T� ··· � � �7.'0 ��·· s• �i� � �·�� . .0J� ��-�- ·�� 3 2 � efrg, � efrg, � efrg, 1 ,.:: ftl)-.lr� ·1tR1 8 .1 •.t�--�·�

v.

7

14.dxc5 0-0 1 5 J°fol f6

4

•�-P�·��-� a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 6.c6! J.xc6 17.� d4 Wfd3 1 8.�xc6 dxc6 1 9.exf6 !xf6 20.�e4 Wfxdl 2 1 .�xf6t E:xf6 22.E:exdU In R. Pert - Caoili, London 20 1 2, Whi te had achieved a comfortable advantage and virtually no losing chances.

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

8 . . . lll d7! ? 8 . . . ixc5 9 .id3 lll c6 1 0 . 0-0 id7 l 1 . tll b d2 Wc7 1 2.We2 ie7 1 3 .E:fe l a6 1 4.E:ac l E:c8 1 5 .lll b3 Wb6 1 6 .ib l lll a5 1 7 . lll x a5 Wxa5 1 8 . lll d4 ig5 1 9 .E:cd l ia4 20. lll b 3 Wb6 2 1 .E:d4 ixb3 22.axb3 ie7 23 .ic2;!; with ongoing kingside pressure, Hodgson - Tan, Scarborough 200 1 . 9 .b4 ie7 9 . . . g6 1 0 .tll bd2 ig7 1 l .ib5 0-0 1 2 .ixd7 ixd7 1 3 . 0-0 Wc7 1 4.E:e l ;l; Milov - Epishin, Amsterdam 2000. I O .id3 Wc7 1 1 .We2 a5 1 2. 0-0 0-0 1 3 . lll bd2 b600 Rogers - Epishin, Castrop Rauxel 200 1 .

6 ... c5 7.�gf3

Chapter 1 - 2 . . . e6 3 . e4

25

9 . . . ib4 1 0 .ib5t 1 0 .Wa4t? is well met by 10 ... tDc6+. 1 0 . . .id7 1 1 . ltJ xd7 ixd2t 1 2.Wxd2 lD xd7 1 3 .ixd7t 1 3 . 0-0?! �d8 1 4. f3 Wg5 ! 1 5 .Wb4 exf3 I 6 .�xf3 We7+ 1 3 . . . 'it?xd7 This is the line given by Palliser. I had a quick look at this position and think that Black can follow up . . . �hd8 and . . . c;!,ie8 against most White plans and be absolutely fine.

7 . . . a6 looks a bit slow. White can choose between 8 .id3 cxd4 9 . cxd4 dxe4 1 0 .ixe4!;!; as given by Tzermiadianos, and 8 . dxc5 ixc5 9 .id3 lD c6 1 0 . 0-0 0-0 1 1 .We2 ia7 1 2.�fe l id7 1 3 .�ad l �ad8 1 4 . ttJ fl with an initiative for White, Karttunen - Hellsten, Plovdiv 2003 .

B3 1 ) 7 ... cxd4 8.�xd4 8 . cxd4 dxe4 9 . lD e 5 ! ?

8 . . . tDc6 9.ib5 transposes to variation B32 below.

9.� 2b3!? This is my computer's choice and was also suggested as worthy of further investigation by Andrew Greet.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is an interesting idea suggested by Nigel Davies and supported by Tzermiadianos. But to be honest, it's not quite good enough and both Cox and Palliser show support for Black's position.

9 . ltJ 4f3 A solid alternative. 9 . . . lD c6 Play has transposed into a game in which the young Magnus Carlsen was Black. We shall have a quick look at the opening in which White managed to get an edge.

26


I O .id3

1 0 . . . 0-0 This was Carlsen's choice. 1 o . . . d4 is my computer's suggestion, when White has various options: a) 1 1 .�c l is solid: 1 1 . . .dxc3 1 2.�xc3 ib4 1 3 .�c2 0-0 1 4. 0-0 id7 1 5 .°1We2 and the position looks balanced, although White's play may be slightly easier. b) l 1 .e5 is playable: 1 1 . . . tll x e5 1 2 .ib5t id7 1 3 .ixd7t tll xd7 1 4 .cxd4 ib6 ( 1 4 . . . ixd4? l 5 .tll e4+-) 1 5 . 0-0 0-000 c) 1 l . tll c4 is my personal preference, preparing the advance of the e-pawn: 1 1 . . . dxc3 (Black can't stop White's plans with 1 l . . .e 5 ? 1 2 . b4 ie7 1 3 .b5 tll d8 1 4 . 0-0 [or 1 4. tt:l cxe5 !?] 1 4 . . . dxc3 1 5 .°1Wb3;!; and Black is struggling to hold the e5-pawn) 1 2 .e5 We7 1 3 . bxc3 0-0 1 4. 0-0 White is well placed for a kingside attack with °1We2e4 on the cards. 1 1 . 0-0 ib6 1 2 .We2 Wf4 1 3 .�ad l id7 1 4.ic2 �fd8 1 5 .exd5 exd5 1 6.°1Wd3 ie6 1 7.Wh7t
The other bishop retreat of 9 . . . id6 ?! does not really make sense. For example: I O .ib 5 t id7 1 1 . exd5 We5 t 1 2 .We2 Wxe2t 1 3 .ixe2 exd5 1 4.if3;!; with a clear advantage for White who can heap pressure on the d-pawn .

B3 1 1) 9 .ixd4 ...

Black may have thought that White's last move was not possible as this reply appears to win a pawn, but White can create counter-threats to win the pawn back.

10.tlixd4 1 0 .Wxd4 Wxd4 1 1 .tll xd4 dxe4 1 2. tll b5 lll a6 1 3 . tll d6t <;tie? 1 4 . lll xe4 is playable for White, but it looks very drawish.

1 0 ... dxe4 1 0 . . . °1We5 1 1 .id3 ! This clever move prepares to hit the queen with tll f3 which would leave White with better pieces and more space. 1 l . . . dxe4 1 2.°1We2 f5 1 3 .f3 e3 1 4 . 0-0-0 0-0 1 5 .�he l f4 1 6.g3 lll c6 1 7.tll xc6;!; White is going to win back his pawn and will have greater piece activity and a clear advantage.

27

Chapter 1 - 2 . . . e6 3 . e4

B3 1 2) 9 ...J.b6

1 1 .tll b5 This knight lunge looks prom1smg for White, threatening both lll c7t and lll d6t .

This tricky computer-favoured move looks to use tactics to avoid having to clarify things in the centre.

10.J.h5t!? Black's clever idea comes into play if White takes the cl-pawn: 1 0 . exd5

l I . . .ll:la6 allows White a choice of invasions on the d6-square: a) 1 2 . lll d6t rJJ e 7 1 3 .tll xe4 We5 ! ( 1 3 . . . Wf4? 1 4.Wa4 �d8 1 5 .Wa3t rJJ e 8 1 6 .ib 5 t id7 l 7.lll d6t+-) 1 4.We2 f5 l 5 .lll d2 Wxe2t 16.ixe2 lll c5 1 7. 0-0-0 with a balanced endgame. b) 1 2.Wd6 ! ? We7 13 .�d l id7 1 4 .Wd4!;t

12.tll d6t
14 ... tll c6 After 1 4 . . . f5 1 5 .�d l Wc5 1 6. b4 Wc7 1 7.ie2 followed 0-0 and f2-f3, White clearly has good compensation.

1 5 J:�dl Wlf5 1 6.Wi'a4 White threatens Wa3t and looks to have more than enough compensation for the pawn.

16 ...Wlc5? 17.b4 Wlg5 1 8.b5 tll e5 19.Wlb4t+-

10 . . . 0-0! After 1 0 . . . exd5 l l .i b 5 t lli c6 1 2 .We2t;!; White's advantage is clear, with future pressure to come against the d5-pawn. l l .dxe6 White may be able to claim a tiny edge with l l .Wi'f3 Wi'xf3 1 2 .lll xf3 exd 5 , though Black can achieve quite active development. l l .ie2 allows Black to avoid being saddled with the isolated queen's pawn: 1 1 . . . eS 1 2 .lll f3 e4 1 3 . lll fd4 Wg5 and Black regains the pawn with an edge. l I . . .ixe6 1 2 .Wi'f3 Wi'xf3 1 2 . . . We5t 1 3 .Wi'e2 Wi'f6 1 4. lll xe6 �e8 1 5 . 0-0-0 �xe6 1 6.Wi'c2 lll c6 1 7 . f3 a5 with unclear play. 1 3 . gxf3 lll c6 1 4. lll xe6 fxe6 Black should be able to win his pawn back as the doubled f-pawns are weak; a draw seems the most likely result here.

1 0 ... J.d?

28


i.- - ��-7 wi{t- �--,�wr L.7-w� �� . . .� � ��-�----7,w.....� 8

6

:

�� . �� --��

�

�•"%

�•· /,, , ,,;

w•

��wv-0 �� 3" w�!� 7, � � 2 .8Jll�B"

·

.... J�i�!� � 1�� - � � a

b

c

d

e

f

g

-�

h

I definitely prefer White here. Black is facing a long and uncomfortable task of trying to hold his weak d5-pawn, while White has the d4-square totally covered and can bide his time.

1 1 ... tll xd7 1 2.exd5 We5t 1 2 . . . exd5 1 3 .We2t We5 1 4.Wxe5t lli xe5 1 5 . 0-0-0;!; Trying to avoid an isolated pawn with 1 2 . . . e5 is dangerous here as Black can 6ncl himself too far behind in development: l 3 . lli f3 ( 1 3 .We2 0-0 1 4. lli c2;!; also looks better for White) 1 3 . . . e4 1 4 . tli fd4 We5 1 5 .Wg4! Wxd5 1 6 . 0-0-0 Black is rather underdeveloped and so really has to get the queens off to avoid further problems. 1 6 . . . Wg5 t 1 7.Wxg5 hxg5 1 8 . f3!;!; Even with the queens gone, Black's king in the middle causes him some difficulties.

B32) 7 ... tll c6 8.J.h5 cxd4 8 . . . a6 9 . .lxc6t bxc6 1 0 .Wa4 .ld7 l 1 . lli e5;!; 8 ... J.d7 9 . 0-0 transposition.

cxd4

1 0.llixd4

is j ust a

9.tll xd4 J.d7 1 0.0-0!?

1 3.&ile2 I like this move which forces Black to accept an isolated queen's pawn. 1 3 .We2 Wxd5 1 4. 0-0 0-0 1 5 .!!ad l llif6 1 6. lli b 5 We4 1 7.Wxe4 lli xe4 1 8 .!!d7 leads to an unclear endgame.

13 ... exd5 14.0-0 0-0 1 5 .tll ed4 tll f6 16.�el Wf4 17.Wf3t

have considerable experience of this position, both over the board and in internet games. B32 1 ) 10 ... J.e7 has been the choice

Chapter 1 - 2 . . . e6 3 . e4 of my highest-rated opponents, while B322) 10 ... YNdS is the move I faced most recently. There are also a few other options to be considered briefly. 1 0 . . . id6?! ( l O . . . ic5 ?! receives the same treatment) l 1 .exd5 exd5 1 2 .l:'!:e l t ie7 ( 1 2 . . . ©f8 1 3 .Wb3;!; R. Pert - Eames, London 2008) 1 3 .Wb3;!; Antidrome - AndrewMartinIM, Internet 20 1 2. 1 0 . . . a6?! This move has now been played against me by three grandmasters in blitz games and I hold a 1 00% record, so the signs are good. 1 1 . exd5 axb5

Z B � · - i- ' Z 7 .r.ra•�- - . . ,,. .. . . r.. 6 �.;. � � 8

-- · ·"� · · · · ·" �� : �� -�� - · · · '� � 3� ��if/j-� � � �"' ref ·\. , . ,, · � if � if � � 2 8 ·· 8 · 1 �m· · · r.&ii•,r::�·· · �

�

a

b

c

·

d

e

f

g

h

1 2 . lll x b5 ! White already has a n advantage. 1 2 . . . 0-0-0 1 2 . . . l:'!:c8 1 3 . lll e4 We5 1 4.dxc6 l:'!:xc6 1 5 .Wd3 l:l:b6 1 6.a4 ie7 1 7.l:'!:fe l ± Antidrome Molton, Internet 20 1 1 . 1 3 . dxc6 bxc6 1 4. ll:\ e4 Wg6 1 4 . . . We5 1 5 .lll ed6t ii b8 1 6.ll:\xf7 Wxb5 1 7.lll xd8 ii c7 1 8 . lll f7 l:'!:g8 1 9 .l:'!:el Wf5 20.lll e5 ic8 2 1 .Wa4 1 -0 Antidrome shade, Internet 20 1 2. 1 5 .lll bd6t ©c7 1 6.Wd4 l:'!:a8 1 7.l:'!:fd l + R. Pert - Rowson, Internet 200 1 . 1 0 . . . ll:\ xd4 This may objectively be a reasonable move, but from a practical viewpoint it looks very

29

dangerous for Black as his king gets stranded in the middle of the board whilst White's king is safe as houses. 1 1 .ixd7t ii xd7 1 2 .cxd4 Wxd4 1 3 .exd5 Wxd5 1 3 . . . exd 5 ? 1 4.Wb3± and with a rook quickly coming to d 1 , Black will do well to make it out of the opening. 1 4 .Wa4t

8

�� •� � �� z��

� · · · · ·z

7 t. , • • • , �if•-JI �� 6 . . . . r.� �� . . .. r.f·� �� 54 �� 1 � � � � � 31 � �" � � " ' " ", . , � " � � 2 !::i f� � 8 �� 1 1g{ '· · · · ·· ··"�· • · ··· ·· -. ,:= ·· · · h a

b

c

d

e

f

g

z,. . •

7.

1 4 . . . Wc6 After 1 4 . . . b5 White has a whole host of options, such as l 5 .Wa6, 1 5 .Wf4 or 1 5 .Wa5 , all of which give promising play against the black king. However, my preference is for 1 5 .Wg4, eyeing g7 should Black move his f8-bishop. For example: a) 1 5 . . . Wf5 1 6.We2 id6 1 7. lll e4 l:l:hd8 1 8 .l:'!:fd l ©e7 1 9 . lll xd6 l:l:xd6 20.l:'!:xd6
30


2 1 .Wf4!+lhe white queen penetrates to c7 or b 8 .

B32 1) 1 0 ...i.e7

1 2 .Wi'b3 I have also played 1 2 .lll 2b3 0-0 1 3 .�e l and now: a) 1 3 . . . id6 1 4.Wh5 a6 1 5 .ifl lll e5 1 6.h3 �fe8 1 7.�ad l �e7 1 8 . lll c2 Wf4 1 9 .g3 Wf6 20 .ig2;!; Antidrome - Pinkalmykia (GM) , Internet 2009. b) 1 3 . . . a6 1 4.id3 id6 1 5 .ic2 �fe8 1 6.Wi'd3 lll e5 1 7.Wi'h7t;!; Antidrome - Adaptation (Caruana) , Internet 20 1 0 . 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 2 . . . Wd6 1 3 . lll 2f3t 1 3 .lll 2f3 �ad8 1 4.Wxd5 ie6 1 5 .Wi'e4 id5 1 6 .Wi'f5 Wi'xf5 1 7.lll xf5;!; R. Pert - Adair, Sheffield 20 1 1 .

1 1 ... eS 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 . lll xc6;!; bxc6 1 3 .ixc6 ixc6 1 4.Wxc6 d4 1 5 .lll f3 dxc3 1 6 .e5 '1Wg6 1 7.Wi'xc3 leaves White a pawn up.

1 1 .'1Wa4!? I think this is the critical option. 1 l . exd5 This is certainly playable and I have even managed to get an advantage on three occasions in this line. That said, having looked at the position more deeply I now slightly prefer the queen move. 1 1 . . . exd5

1 l . . .�c8 1 2 .ixc6 ixc6 1 3 . lll xc6 bxc6 1 4 .'1Wxa7 0-0 1 5 .a4 and White is a pawn up here too.

12.exd5 exd4

1 5.dxc6 bxc6

31

Chapter I - 2 . . . e6 3 . e4 1 5 . . . ixc6 1 6.ixc6 Wxc6 1 7.Wxc6 bxc6 1 8 .cxd4 1:%fd8 1 9 .1:%ad l ±

I6.�xd4 �UdS 1 7.J.fl ± The smoke has cleared and White is a pawn up, Antidrome - arrowshot, Internet 20 1 1 .

B322) 1 0 ...�dS This move was sprung on me by the talented Chinese IM Gao Rui in a British league game at the start of 20 1 3.

l 1 .Wb3 Permitting the minor piece exchanges looks to be heading pretty quickly to a dead drawn position. l 1 . . .lLixd4 1 2 . cxd4 ixb 5 1 3 .Wxb 5 t Wd7 1 4.Wb3 ie7 1 5 .1:%ac l dxe4 1 6 .lLixe4 0-0 1 6 . . . b6 1 7.1:%fd l 0-0 1 8 .d5 exd5 1 9 .1:%xd5 and a draw looks likely. l 7.lLi c5 ixc5 1 7 . . . Wxd4 1 8 .1:%fd l Wf4 1 9 .g3 Wg4 20.1:%d7 ixc5 2 l .1:%xc5 b6 22.1:%cc7 and White will regain the pawn. 1 8 .dxc5 Wc6 1 9 .1:%fd l Again i t looks pretty even, although White may be a smidgen better.

1 1 .lLi4b3!?N

.i U.

�·w.r � � ---- · · :r · · � .· � 76 - z. . .�- - �" "' . � 1 � � � �� 5�� 8

�

: f 4 ·�-" •j•. 3� z....

• llx� ,.,,,,R�." ·�"� ��-J �� 2 8�f1 z � t�� A t�z

1

�:

�:

�oz 0 7-0''

��-----"•v•!=--- · �

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Another way to keep the pieces on. The idea is that if Black avoids an isolated d-pawn by taking on e4, then White can try and land a knight on c5. l l ... dxe4 The immediate 1 1 . . .a6 might be more accurate, attacking the bishop when retreating to a4 is not an option. 1 2 .ie2 ie7 ( 1 2 . . . dxe4 1 3 .lLi xe4 We? 1 4.Wd3 ie7 1 5 .1:%ad l 1:%d8 1 6. llJ d6t ixd6 1 7.Wxd6 Wxd6 1 8 .1:%xd6 looks marginally favourable for White) 1 3 . exd5 exd5 1 4. lLi f3 Although my computer thinks this is equal I prefer White, who has lasting pressure against the isolated d-pawn. 1 2 . lLi xe4 We? 1 2 . . . Wb6 1 3 .We2 a6 1 4.ia4 ie7 ( 1 4 . . . Wc? 1 5 .1:%ad l b5 is well met by 1 6. lLi bc5 ixc5 1 7. lLi xc5±) 1 5 .1:%ad 1 seems slightly more pleasant for White. 1 3 . lLi bc5 ixc5 1 4.lLixc5 1:%d8 1 5 .We2 0-0 1 6.1:%ad l;l;

l l ... dxe4 1 2.tlixe4 �c7 13.�d2N I believe this would have been stronger than what I played, as it makes it more difficult for Black to castle kingside whilst targeting the d6-square. 1 3 .We2 ie7 1 4 .1:%ad l 0-0 1 5 .1:%fe l 1:%fd8= led to a draw in R. Pert - Gao Rui, Daventry 20 1 3 .

32


1 3 ...i.e7 1 4Jffd l 0-0-0 1 4 . . . i:!d8 1 5 .lll d6t ixd6 1 6.Wxd6 Wxd6 l 7.l'!xd6 rJJ e 7 1 8 .i:!ad l;!; The queenside majority and slightly better coordination give White some advantage, although it's not a lot.

1 5.�e3 @bs 1 6.b4!;!; Again this looks slightly preferable for White.

6 . . . g5 It is not uncommon for Black to play this move along with . . . e5 in order to stop White's plan of advancing his f-pawn. This may seem like a sensible approach, but when you look more deeply at the position it becomes obvious that the weakness on f5 is a big problem for Black. 7.lll e2 lll c6 8 . 0-0 e5

B4) 5 ... d6

.i �.i.-·- �� . .. 7 w6i' ; , Y. , _ , . _ , . _ . � �� . . .. ,%� , .. . ,%� , .... % �� -� �� .. . %�8 � �• �� -%"� 3 �wP •'lir% �?i� . f)jl!r�� w,-�J�%�J� 8

6

%..

%

....

%

....

%

,

.

5

4 2

.

��tt:J�if m J.. m .: a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

So we reach Black's most popular choice in this variation of the Trompowsky. Often Black is looking to set up flexibly, fianchettoing his kingside bishop and supporting the move . . . e 5 . Our standard plan here is to play id3 , lll e2, 0-0, f2-f4 and if Black lets us then e4e 5 . Usually Black will rake steps to address this plan by trying to play . . . e5 himself, although he will have to worry about his queen on f6 which will be lined up with our fl -rook. I have tried to go into quite a lot of derail in a few of Black's specific set-ups, so by the end of this chapter you should have a good idea of how to handle White's position.

6.i.d3 The main moves now are B41) 6 ... e5 and B42) 6 ... g6 , although in practice they both

often lead to the same position. We first take a look at Black's various alternatives.

9 .ib5 ! A n important move t o remember in this type of position. White turns his attention to the queenside, looking to force an exchange of light-squared bishops and make f5 a gaping hole for one of the white knights. 9 . . . id7 1 0 .d5 lll e7 1 0 . . . lll b8 is possible, so as to avoid moving his king, but it leaves Black underdeveloped and with no cover of the important f5square. White replies l 1 .Wb3;!; and will then explore lll g3-f5 ideas. 1 1 .ixd?t rJJ x d7 1 2.Wa4t rJJ d 8 1 3 . lll a3 Black's king is misplaced and the f5-square is still a problem. White's plan is to play his knights to e3 and g3 and then land one on f5 . 1 3 . . . h5 1 4.lll c4 g4 Black does everything in his power to stop the knights from landing on f5. He aims to hit the g3-knight with . . . h4 and the e3knight with . . . ih6 before they both settle. Unfortunately for Black he has been so

33

Chapter 1 - 2 . . . e6 3 . e4 focused on countering White's plan that he has failed to develop any pieces and has left his king stranded in the centre.

l l .e5 0-0-0 1 2.lll c4 g5 1 3 .exd6 cxd6 1 4 . fxg5 White can safely grab a pawn. 1 4 . . . ®b8 14 ... hxg5 ? ? 1 5 .gxf7! wins inscancly. 1 5 .g6± R. Pere - Pokorna, Hinckley Island 2009. 6 ... lll d7 7. lll e2 g6 8 . 0-0 ig7 9 . f4 0-0 1 0 .lll d2 We7 Here we see Black once again delay . . . e5, chis time heading kingside. Two top players have notched up victories as White by playing a structure with e4-e5, and I have included both games for you to have a look.

1 5 . f4! Blasting open the position. 1 5 . . .Wg6 1 6. fxe5 Wxe4 1 7.exd6 cxd6 1 8 . lll g3 Wxd5 1 9 .gad l Wc5 t 20.®h l lll c8 2 1 .gxf7 Black's king is helpless against the coming attack. 2 1 . . .Wc6 22.Wa5t ®e8 23.Wf5 ie7 24.Wg6 Wd8 2 5 . gxe7 Wxc4 26.gxb7 1 -0 R. Pere - D. Ledger, London 2009. 6 ... lll c6 7. lll e2 g6 8 . 0-0 ig7 9 . f4 id7 1 0.lll d2 We7 When Black opts for the common plan of playing . . . g6 and . . . ig7, he should usually aim to play an early . . . e 5 . If he (or she, in this case!) decides not to play ... e5, then we should cake the opportunity to advance our own e-pawn.

�

w�$!� '• t� ' r�'S)�gi 1s J�� 6 ,,. , .,,,� ..... ,,.,., ,,� ··"� � 7: ..Y. 7: z � ,, . 5 �� . -� ��,, u.• �� 8 � %� � . 3 ®1wJ :r,,, � ,,. . �,, � .

.

4

2

l

..

.•

..Y.,, ...

.

: ....� . . ,,••• ,= . . . 8 r�

..

.

.

a

b

c

d

·�

ltJ• 8 � e

f

g

h

a) 1 1 .We l b6 1 2.Wg3 ib7 1 3 .e5 gad8 1 4.lll e4 b5 1 5 .gae l b4 1 6 .h4 bxc3 l 7.bxc3 Wh8 1 8 .h5 gxh5 1 9 .Wh3 h4 20.exd6 cxd6 2 l .f5 d5 22.f6 lll xf6 23.lll xf6 ixf6 24.lll f4 gd6 25 .ic2 gg8 26.lll h5 ig5 27.Wd3 f6 28. tll xf6 ixf6 29.gxf6 Wg7 30.Wf3 gc6 3 1 .gf7 gxc3 32.gxg7 gxf3 33 .gh?# Hodgson - Rowson, Oxford 1 998. b) 1 l .e5 b6 1 2 .ie4 gb8 1 3 .Wa4 a6 1 4 .gae l b5 1 5 .Wc2 c5 1 6. W h l d5 1 7.if3 b4 1 8 .c4 ib7 1 9 .cxd5 ixd5 20.ixd5 exd5 2 1 .f5 gxf5 22.lll g3 cxd4 23.lll xf5 Wg5 24.lll f3 Wd8 2 5 .lll 3xd4 gb6 26.e6 fxe6 27.lll xe6 gxe6 28.gxe6 Wh8 29 .gfe l if6 30.lll h4 :ggs 3 1 .lll g6t ©g7 32.lll e7 lll f8 33.lll f5t ©hs 34.gd6 1 -0 Laznicka - Moiseenko, San Sebastian 20 1 2 . 6 . . . Wg5 This move is played every now and then. Personally it never worries me when my

34

Richard Pert - Playing the Trom powsky

opponent wants to grant me a massive lead in development in return for a pawn. 7 . tlJ f3 7.g3 has been White's most popular response, but it really isn't in the right spirit. 7 . . .'Wxg2 8.:!'!gl °Wh3 9 . tiJ bd2

J..� �� ·� � �- · z · 7 w&ri -,�m· ·· . , . , ;<. . , . , ;<� '• . , . , , ;< � �� , . , ?.� �@i . , . , � ��"..: ��- ,�·� � ��rd'� �� · � - ?.� 3 ��-J�z! �� ! 2 8 ef!J � tfj t� 1 �d· - -· ?.Mvr:-f- - - - 9," 8

'!!I' A

6

a

�ml·.JL·l51'�

�

·

b

c

d

e

f

0:

g

h

____

In return for a pawn White has a huge lead in development. Black hasn't got any weaknesses but nevertheless he is totally undeveloped. I've included a blitz game of mine against a talented IM as an example of what may happen. 9 . . . tlJ d7 1 0 .'We2 g6 1 1 . 0-0-0 ig7 1 2 .'We3 e5 1 3 .:!'!g3 Wh5 1 4.ie2 exd4 1 5 . tlJ xd4 Wa5 1 6. tlJ f5 if8 1 7 . tlJ c4 Wi'xa2 1 8 .e5 dxe5 1 9 . tlJ xe5 'We6 20 .ic4 Wi'xe5 2 1 .ixf7t @xf7 22.:!'!xd?t ixd7 23 .'Wxe5 1 -0 Antidrome - MegaZZ, Internet 20 1 0 .

B41) 6 ... eS

This is a common choice, although it is likely to transpose into other variations. Let's have a quick look to see what else may come of this move order.

7.�e2 t£ic6 7 . . . g6 is most popular, when 8 . 0-0 ig7 takes us directly into line B42 below. 7 . . . Wi°d8 Black has also tried dropping his queen back followed by . . . ie7 and castling, but White's standard approach will allow him to take a lead in development. 8 . 0-0 ie7 9 . f4 0-0 1 0 . tiJ d2 if6 1 0 . . . exd4?! l l . cxd4 tlJ c6 1 2 .a3 ig4 1 3 . tiJ f3
35

Chapter 1 - 2 . . . e6 3 . e4 1 6 .a3 tll a6 1 7.e5i Tugui - Van Wely, Germany 20 1 1 , is murkier, but still seems to favour White. 1 3 . . .J.g7 1 4.l'!ae U

8.0-0 J.d7 Black creates a threat to the d4-pawn as we shall no longer have J.b5t at the end of the sequence to pick up the queen. 8 . . . g5 is also common, taking us directly into the note on 6 . . . g5 on page 32.

9.J.b5 This looks right to me. My computer suggests 9 . d 5 , which is certainly playable, but I do not find it convincing: 9.d5 tll e7 1 0 . f4 tll g6 l l . fxe5 Wlxe5 1 2 .tll d2 ie7 1 3 .tll g300 Rodi - Shumyatsky, Brasilia 20 1 1 .

9 ... a6 10.J.a4 V9g6 This was tried in a recent game. 1 0 . . . g5 This advance is again similar to 6 . . . g5 (see page 32) , but I would j ust like to include a blitz game I played against a strong grandmaster in this line. l l .d5 tll b8

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 2.J.xd7t Surprisingly, l 2 .Wlb3! ? may be White's best as 1 2 . . . b 5 ? ! doesn't work: 1 3 .c4 bxa4 1 4 .W/b7± 1 2 . . . tll xd7 1 3 . tll g3 h5 1 4 . tll a3 g4 1 5 . f3 Wfg6 l 6. tll c4 J.h6 l 7. fxg4 hxg4 l 8 . tll f5 tll c5 l 9 .W/e2 ig5 20 .W/xg4 b5 2 l .tll a5 if4 22.l'!xf4 exf4 23.W/xf4;!; 0-0-0 ? It was a blitz game! 24. tll e7t 1 -0 Antidrome - D-Ruzele, Internet Chess Club 20 1 0 . I n fact, Darius Ruzele was the first grandmaster I ever scored a draw against in FIDE-rated play, when I played a tournament in Germany as a young child. 1 0 . . . b5 It seems logical to force the white bishop back. l l .ic2 g5 1 2.a4 l'!b8 1 3 .axb5 axb5 1 4.d5 tll e7 l 5 .l'!a7 d8 l 6.tll a3 This looks to be slightly better for White, although it is a bit murky. 1 6 . . . h5

36

Richard Pert - Play ing the Trom p owsky

1 7.f3!N This is a good practical choice as Black is now struggling co gee in his plan of . . . h4 followed by . . . g4. l 7 .id3 h4 l 8 . f3 g4 l 9 . fxg4 Wfg5 20. lll c2 h3 2 l .g3 :!'!h7 22.:!'!a5 ih6 was unclear in Papa - Pelletier, Zurich 2004. 1 7 . . . h4 17 . . . g4 1 8 .Wfd3 Wfg6 ( 1 8 . . . gxf3 1 9 .:!'!xf3 Wfg6 20.:!'!a5 b4 2 1 .lll b5;J;) 1 9 . f4t 1 8 .h3;!; Black's kingside play has been halted.

1 6.�dS i.dS After 1 6 . . . !!c8 1 7. lll f3;!; White has a comfortable space advantage and a lead in development.

l l .� d2 White protects the e4-pawn whilst keeping f2-f4 on the cards. I l .d5 also looks fairly sensible: I 1 . . . lll b8 1 2 . lll g3t with lll f5 to come.

1 1 ...VNhs 1 2.f4 exf4

a

17.:Sxf7!

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This tactic secures a plus for White.

17 ... ©xf7 1 8.�xc7t ©g6 19.�xaS i.aS 1 9 . . .ig4 20.:!'!fl ig5 2 1 .lll c4 :!'!xa8 22.lll xd6;!; looks promising for White with his mobile central pawn mass.

20.�c4 :Sxa8 2 1 .dS± B42) 6 ...g6 7.�e2 i.g7 8.0-0 e5 9.f4

13 ...YAlxdl 14.:Saxdl i.e7 15.i.b3! 1 5 . lll d5 id8 1 6 .:!'!f2 0-0 1 7.:!'!dfl also gives White a little edge to play with.

1 5 ...i.gS 1 5 . . . 0-0 ? 1 6. lll g6+- is the point.

We are at a crossroads. We shall first look at B42 1) 9 exd4, before turning to B422) 9 V!! e7, which Pete Wells himself- the author of the excellent Winning with the Trompowsky in 2003 - chose against me in 20 1 1 . ...

...

B42 1) 9 exd4 10.cxd4 .•.

1 5 . lli d 5 gxf4 1 6. lli exf4 lli xe5 1 7.�xc7 i.g4 1 8 .i.e2 V!! g 5 1 9 .i.xg4 lli xg4 20.h3 llie5 2 1 . lli h 5 +- Hodgson - Ward, Millfield 2000. 10 . . . 0-0 l 1 .lli bc3 i.g4 1 2 .e5 dxe5 1 3 . fxe5 V!! d B (The queen must choose a passive square because 1 3 . . . V!! b 6 1 4 . lli d 5 ! is good for White - see the note to Black's 1 3th move below. ) 1 4 .�f4 i.xe2 1 5 .V!!xe2 lli c6 1 6.V!! e4 �e8 1 7.�afl and White had a strong attack in Antidrome - A- 1 , Internet 2009.

1 0 i.g4

1 1 .e5!

1 O . . . lli c6?! simply doesn't work as Black can no longer swing his queen over to b6 after he takes on e5 . From here Trompowsky expert Julian Hodgson won an important game in the British Championships: 1 l .e5 V!! d 8 1 2 . lli bc3 0-0 1 3 .�cl dxe5 1 4.dxe5 g5

I hope to breathe life into this rarely-played move with which White takes up the challenge. Previous authors have written off this move, but I believe it has been underestimated because White has never followed it up correctly in tournament play. I intend to show you how to do this.

.••

The main move (and the choice of Tromp owsky expert Pete Wells) has been 1 l .V!! a4t . The idea is t o provoke . . . lli c6 s o that Black can no longer swing his queen to b6 after he exchanges on e 5 . That said, it is a bit of a concession to place our queen out on the edge of the board. Play may continue: a) l I . . .lli d7 1 2. lli bc3 0-0 1 3 .e5 dxe5 1 4 . fxe5 V!! g 5 1 5 . lli f4 lli b6 1 6.V!ib3 i.f5 l 7.i.xf5;l; Wells - Fish, Germany 2002.

38


b) l I . . .lll c6 1 2.lll bc3 0-0 1 3 .e5 dxe5 1 4.dxe5 Vfie700 Cebalo - Almasi, Reggio Emilia 2008. It is perhaps worth pomtmg out that the natural developing move l I . lll bc3 ? allows l I . . .V!ixd4t.

1 1 ... dxe5 1 2.fxe5 Wb6 13.lll bc3! White focuses on developing and doesn't take time out to protect his centre. This approach is likely to be particularly effective against a player who has his king in the middle of the board and is unlikely to have spent much time studying the position.

.i • a • � ?it .. .. . . . 7 . J,�m/. J� �� -� s

��r¥'1·•r • r.t.t

� .�.. . . %� �� . : � �n• fm 6

,,

�g�

.

Y.

��-0

.

...

/.

.. � �-� 3 ��m� .. . .. · :·�-�� 21 !�· . { 3•1•lri"" b

a

c

d

e

f

h

g

1 4 .lll d 5 ! Vfixd4t Black might think that this clever move, forcing an exchange of queens, would leave him in pole position with a two pawn advantage - but he is wrong. White's lead in development still takes its toll even with the queens off. 1 4 . . . ixd4t?! 1 5 .@h l Vfic5 1 6.ib5t+1 5 . lll xd4 ixd4t 1 6.@h l ixd l 1 7.:!:%axd l ib6 l 8.:!:%de 1 t 'itid8 1 9 .:!:%xf7 White is winning back his pawns while retaining a huge initiative. l 3 . . . lll c6

a

13 ...he2

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is the right move for Black, though probably not easy to work out over the board. With 1 3 . . . 0-0 ? Black admits defeat and doesn't try to take advantage of his queen's positioning: 1 4 .lll d5! Vfia5 1 5 .Wb3 lll c6 1 6. lll f6t ixf6 l 7.:!:%xf6 and Black is in trouble. 1 3 . . . ixe 5 ? Th i s i s a natural response, hoping t o show that White should have taken time to stop the queen going to b6. However, Black is about to find himself in some trouble.

B .i ��-JY• �·%'•" " " ,,7 J�-�i f� �• �• ••�• �� -,��. . "· · · ,, s . . . ••� 5 �� . � 6

.

..

z

..

..

4 -. �- 3.!. 3 � ��-�m:r•�• �· · · ' -� ��-w.�

�

� f�� 1i�r� •••••

a

Y.

b

c

d

� e

f

g

'· · "

h

Black tries to strike in the centre with his knight, but the tempo allows us to cause some havoc. 1 4.lll d 5 ! Wa5 1 5 .ic4 0-0-0 1 5 . . . 0-0?! looks wrong: 1 6.b4 lll xb4 1 7.lll e?t @h7 1 8 .ixf7;!; 1 6 . b4 lll xb4

Chapter 1 Black should take on the challenge - if he tries to ignore this move he will find his queen misplaced: 1 6 . . . Wa3 ?! 1 7.�b l �hf8 1 8 .�f4;!; l 7.lll e7t �b8 l 8 .a3 8

61 5

4

3

2 l

�� -r,1�·····- , "···"�·ef� '''''"%'"/� � ·-1f• m.. • � 1�. % • 1..... � ""'"� -� � �%� ��rn ��1.i � B.\� . ,,. �w.-J.�� ..t.. � aY:j_f� .... .. .. %.� �. �. �-�� 0"�. . � � f'"� � ?%' � � °ii � � � h %...

L

20.lll c7t �e7 2 1 .lll xa8 �xa8 Black has decent compensation for the exchange.

1 5 ...VNxd4 It's amazing that the seemingly prudent l 5 . . . ig7? gets totally wiped out!

• •� · �� ft-""''�"ai•�� ef""' • 1i1 � •�• • r� 1 .. %. � .. % . · · 6 .. . ..% % % "� .. � � � � : �� . . .. 7.� �� 3 � ?� . .. : � � 2 8 �� ·j,· 8� f"{ �ii� .;:o( � � els 8

%.

..

L . 7.

.

b

c

d

e

f

g

.

%

The knight has effectively been trapped on b4. 1 8 . . . Wb6 ! ? 1 8 . . . ll:\ c6? 1 9 . lll xc6t bxc6 20.�b l t 'it?a8 2 1 .Wc2 gives White a winning attack. 1 8 . . . ll:\ a6? 1 9 .�b l is also crushing. 1 8 . . .ixe2 1 9 .Wxe2 �xd4 20.axb4;!; 1 8 . . . ixe5 1 9 .axb4 Wb6 20.ll:\d5;!; l 9 . axb4 ixe2 20.Wxe2 �he8 2 1 . lll d5 Things are complicated round here, but essentially White holds the advantage with his extra well-placed minor piece counting for more than the black pawns. 2 1 . . .Wxd4t 22.'it?h l ixe5 23.�ad l Wh4 24.g3 ixg3 2 5 . ll:\ f6! �h8 26.lll d7t �a8 27.ia6! 27.id 5 ! is also possible; with either move White holds some advantage.

14.ixe2N 1 4 .Wxe2! ? is also interesting. After 1 4 . . . ll:\ c6 1 5 .'it?h l 0-0 1 6 .e6! lll xd4 1 7.exf7t �xf7 1 8 .Wg4 White had good play for the pawn in Reich - M. Bauer, email 2007.

1 4 ... ixe5 1 5.@hl After 1 5 .lll d5 Wxd4t 1 6.Wxd4 ixd4t 1 7 .'it?h l ie5 1 8 .ib5t lll d7 1 9 .�ae l c6

.

..

.

..

.

39

2 . . . e6 3 . e4

/, . . .

.

a

-

1

/. . . . .

�

a

.

b

.

.

.

.

%

.

d

c

e

f

h

g

1 6.ib 5 t and Black is going to find his king helpless in the middle of the board: 1 6 . . . c6 1 7.We l t 'it?f8 ( 1 7 . . . �d8 1 8 .�xf7 �e8 l 9.Wg3+-) l 8 .We6 Wc7 l 9 .ic4 f5 20.Wxg6+-

I6.Wb3 o-o

m

s .i. �

7 6

� ��• � Y. -. � ; •. �ii % . � � �� ·.

.%

�

.

�. . . . %

�� -0 �� ....

':

u. - m �- �-.....��

sm

,u •u• 1�rN·'·'� 3 rw!� rt/ Jn� �.,� ��j

4 2 I

.

. . . .� a

b

c

d

�

e

f

g

17.gxf7! gxf7 1 8.gfl if6 19.ic4

h

l 9 .Wxb7 c6 20.Wxa8 Wb4 is unclear; White has regained the sacrificed material, but at the cost of misplacing his queen.

1 9 ... @g7 20.ixf7

40

Richard Pert - Playing the Trom p owsky

B422) 9 ...We7

With Black playing all the right moves, the position is starting to look more balanced.

8

20 ... tli d7 Black still has to play actively to stay on terms.

2 1 .gdl 2 1 .Wxb7 :gfg 22 .i.b3 Wd3 23.Wb5 is level.

2 1 . .. tlic5 22.'Wc2 'Wg4

s �-,i� m�-P. m� � � ��-�m

1 6

��,·%-

w%,,,, �% l. f,,,,, �%

�� ---· ' 5 �� 4 ., . . . � � � � � � � � 3 �® -�,_,,,;� �� % Bw t!J � 2 8 f�ii• -----% � � � �n� � -@ 1

1

�

a

b

23.tli ds gds

c

d

-�

�

e

f

----

g

h

23 . . . ©xf7 24.lli xf6 i>xf6 looks dangerous, but Black seems able to survive: 2 5 .:gfl t \t>g7 26.Wxc5 Wd7 and White should probably settle for 27.Wc3t @h7 28 .Wc4 ©g7 29 .Wc3t forcing a draw.

24.!�fl tli e4 25.tlie3 gd2 25 . . . Wh4?! 26.i.xg6! lli g3 t 27.@gl Wg5 28.:gf3 is promising for White.

26.Wxc7 Wd7 27.Wf4 Wxf7 2s.Wxe4 h5 29.h3 Finally things have settled down and a fight can ensue from here.

.i �..t-•• �� Wi{' i��lt{----�ei� ,,,,,% � ,,Y,_Y. %,,,, % & ,;W,,,,,%

7 �-� • �-� 6

•

�� '-'•� �� ' ' 5 �� ®-�----�®-� �� f� t!J f,,,,, �% � 4 •�:£ � 3� �� "' � wii' ' � 2 �

1

�

11

�{)'�� -�!� �mltJ_V_ n � a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Here White has two main plans. The first is to run the b I -knight to f3 , move the queen up to d2 or c2 and then play the a l -rook somewhere central, usually e 1 . If Black does not meet this plan accurately then White can have a great game, and I have included my game against Dave Ledger from Southend as an example. However, things can be a bit trickier if Black employs a plan involving . . . ll'l d7 and . . . c5. This is exactly what GM Pete Wells did against me in 20 1 1 . I switched my play to the queenside as recommended by Richard Palliser in his book Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack, but got absolutely nowhere. Admittedly I might have misplayed it - the game see-sawed back and forth and eventually ended in a draw. The second plan is the one I am going to recommend as my main choice - to advance on the kingside with f4-f5 . This looks a little anti positional, but can be tricky for Black to face. In fact after my game with Pete Wells we had a chat about this line and came to the conclusion that f4-f5 is probably the way to go for White. We shall start by looking at B422 1) IO.tlid2, which keeps White's options open and can lead to either plan, before going on to the more accurate B4222) 10.f5!.

Chapter 1

B422 1) 10.tLl d2

1 O . . . ig4 is possible, thanks to White's choice of 1 0th move, although White's chances look preferable: l 1 .Wb3! ixe2 1 2 .ixe2;!; 1 o . . tll d7 1 1 .tll f3 ! ? White's obvious choice, b u t not m y first choice . . . at least, not anymore! I believe White should play 1 l . f5 tll f6 1 2 . fxg6! fxg6 1 3 .Wb3, when we have transposed to the position after 1 0 . f5 tll d7 1 l . fxg6 fxg6 1 2 .Wb3 tll f6 1 3 .tll d2 in line B4222 - see page 45 for the continuation. 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 .Wd2 c5 1 3 .E:ae l a6 .

-

41

2 . . . e6 3 . e4

Richard Palliser came to the same conclusion in his book as I did over the board, that this was the right way for White to go. But I made no progress in this game. Perhaps it's still not too late to switch to the plan of advancing the f-pawn: 1 4. f5 b5 1 5 . dxe5 lll xe5 ( 1 5 . . . dxe5 1 6. fxg6 fxg6 1 7.ixb5t) 1 6. tll f4 lll xd3 1 7.Wxd3 c4 1 8 .Wd2 gxf5 1 9 . exf5 Wa7t 20.'itih l t 1 4 . . . cxb4 1 5 .cxb4 b 5 1 6.E!:c l E:b8 1 7.E:c7 Wd8 White is going nowhere, though the position is probably still equal . 1 8 .E:fc l ?! 1 8 .E!:c6 would have been safer. 1 8 . . . exd4 Now I have to watch out for tactics involving . . . tll c5 . 1 9 .E:7c6 Black now takes over the initiative. 1 9 . . . tll b6 20. tll exd4 ib7 2 1 .E:6c2 tll c4 22.Wf2 E:e8 Suddenly things are starting to feel a bit uncomfortable. 8

i

�E1

-�

;. ,1

Y. '> �� -� 76 ... ... � ��-� �� ·�-� � W.�· rw �· 5 ,I. � U � � ,,,,,/, w.·"' I. �W..t 4

�,

...•

t�ei� � t� � �� -r� .<.. �- � i.m1� rw�.z.I.

��- - -� �w��i· · j��·rJ�· · ,, �

3 2 ��:� .

1 � ta � � a

1 4. b4

b

c

d

e

f

g

·

h

23.E:e l E:c8 24.E:ce2 tll a3 2 5 . E:e3 Wb6 26.e5 dxe5 27.fxe5 tll c4 28 .E:3e2 E:cd8 29.ixc4 bxc4 30. tll c2 Wxf2t 3 1 .'it>xf2 E:d3 32. tll e3 E:c8 33. tll g4 c3 34.tll f6t 'it>f8 3 5 .E: c l h5 36. tll g5 h4 37. tll g4 E:c4 3 8 . h3 E!:xg4 3 9 . hxg4 ih6 40. tll h7t! Perhaps my opponent had missed this move as the balance of power now starts to shift in White's favour.

42


40 . . . 'it>g7 4 l .g5 'it>xh7 42.gxh6 gg3 43. 'it>fl ©xh6 44.gec2 gg5 45 .gf2 gg3 46.gxf7 Avoiding the repetition. 46 ... i.xg2t 47.'it>f2 id5 48 .gd7 gd3 49.'it>e2 gd2t 50.'it>e l gd3 �-Y2 R. Pert - Wells, Hinckley Island 20 1 1 . I no longer saw any good way to avoid a repetition of moves, missing 5 l .e6! with excellent winning chances for White.

1 1 .fS I now think this is the right way to go. l 1 . lD f3 This is the start of my game against Dave Ledger which I would really recommend playing through if you have time. l 1 . . . lD c6 1 1 . . . i.g4 has also been tried: a) 1 2 .Wfd2 tlJ d7 1 3 .h3 i.xf3 1 4 .gxf3 c5 1 5 .dxe5 dxe5 1 6.f500 Nakamura - Anand, Monaco (blindfold) 20 1 1 . b) 1 2.h3! ixf3 1 3 .gxf3;!; Doric - Meszaros, Austria 2008. However, I think l 1 . . .tlJ d7 is Black's best choice here, transposing to the Pert - Wells game given above.

1 2 .Wc2! I came up with this clever move at the board. It aims to play d4-d5 followed by f4-f5; then Black can no longer exchange on f5 and then play . . . e4, as we have that square guarded with our bishop and queen .

1 4 . . . gxf5 1 4 . . . tlJ d7 1 5 .tlJ g3 i.xf3 1 6.gxf3 a5 1 7.gafl tlJ f6 1 8 . c4 b6 1 9 .b3 tlJ d7 20.Wf2 g5 2 1 . f6 tlJ xf6 22.tlJf5 Wi'd8 2 3 . lD xg7 lD g4 24.Wf g3 1 -0 Antidrome - niccroad, Internet Chess Club 20 1 1 . 1 5 .exf5 c6 1 6.i.e4 1 6.Wi'a4?! would work well after 1 6 . . . i.xf3 1 7 .gxf3 cxd5 1 8 . f6 i.xf6 1 9 .Wfg4t i.g7 20.gg3 -+ , but is not so clear if Black responds 1 6 . . . h5! 1 7.We4 cxd5 1 8 .Wfxd5 tlJ d700• l 6 . . . cxd5 l 7.i.xd5 tlJ d7 l 8 . lD g3 lD f6 l 9 .Wi'd3

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White's grip on the light squares ensures an edge. 1 9 . . . gad8 20 .gae l 20.lDd2! Wc7 2 1 .lD de4± may be more accurate.

Chapter 1 20 . . .Wc? 2 1 .�h l Wa5 22.ib3 :B:fe8 23.tll h4 d5 24.h3 ih5 2 5 .tll xh5 Things are about to hot up as White's attack starts to flow. 25 . . . tll xh5 26.f6! e4 27.We3 ixf6 2 8 .E:xf6! tll xf6 29 .Wxh6 :B:e6 30.tll f5 tll e8 3 1 .Wg5 t �f8 32.Wh4! :B:g6

� �'I)-

� • • • .. . . 1 �A Y. , 7, . � 8

.

. . ?.� � �� l� s s �� T� �� .� ��T� . . .�� .� �� ,�., . � 3 �_,t� • ��· · · 7.� � 2 Wj � ..� %� /f-· ·.7.� � � � 1 �. B 6

<

4 �,

.

,

..

.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

A good training exercise is to spot White's move here! 3 3 .:B:xe4 We? 34.Wh8t :B:g8 3 5 .:B:xe8t �xe8 35 . . . :B:xe8 36 .Wh6t E:g7 37.Wxg?# 36.WxgB t 36.ia4t �f8 37.Wh6t E:g7 3 8 .Wxg?# 36 . . . �d? 37.Wxf7t 1 -0 R. Pert - D. Ledger, Southend 20 1 0 .

-

43

2 . . . e6 3 . e4

the move order involving an early f4-f5 to combat Black's plan involving . . . c5 . 1 3 . . . ie6 1 4.ic4 ixc4 1 5 . tll xc4 :B:xfl t 1 6.E:xfl �h7 l 7. tll e3 White's advantage is obvious, with a lead in development and a knight ready to j ump in. 1 7 . . . exd4 1 8 . tll d5 Wd7 1 9 .E:f8 h5 20.tll f6t ixf6 2 1 .E:f7t+- Pixton - Barbosa, Chalkidiki 2003.

12.Wb3!? 1 2 . fxg6 fxg6 1 3 .Wb3t �h7 1 4 .:B:xf8 tll xf8 1 5 .E:fl Wg500

12 ... gxf5

I very recently faced: 1 2 . . . �h?! ? 1 3 .E:ae l c6 1 4. tt:l c4 tll f6

s ,1 ·.i.· � U,

7

6

wif �.r•Y.�• ·· · · ��t• r•· · . �.1..,;.

5 � �� .... . 7..8· ·� . . . . .

�-��87.. �� WW/f:f� m� 3 �� ·� � ¥· ..7. � · · 2 �Jfl��Jt3 �� 4

1 • a

b

• r� � � c

d

e

f

g

h

1 5 .Wa3 !N This is the right way to go. My approach in the game was too slow: 1 5 . tll g3 ?! b5 1 6.tll e3 id? 1 7.d5 c5 and Black was absolutely fine in R. Pert H . Hunt, Daventry 2 1 03 . 1 5 . . . c 5 1 6.tll b6 axb6 1 7. fxg6t fxg6 1 8 .Wxa8 cxd4 1 9 .cxd4 exd4 20.Wa3 tll g4 2 1 .E:xfB Wxf8 22.E:fl;l; Black has some compensation for the exchange, but White's chances look preferable.

1 3.exf5 exd4 1 4.� e4 White musters up an attack.

14 ... dxc3

44


1 4 . . . tll c5 1 5 . f6 Wxe4 1 6.ixe4 tll xb3 1 7.axb3 �e8 1 8 .tll g3 ih8 1 9 . cxd4 �e6 20.d5 �xf6 2 1 .�fc l;!;

I O . . . gxf5 1 l . exf5 e4?! 1 2 .tll f4± I O . . . exd4?! 1 l .cxd4 tll c6 1 2 . tll bc3 tll xd4 1 3 . f6 tll xe2t 1 4.ixe2 ixf6 I 5 .tll d 5 +-

15. h l c6 1 7.�ae l White has ample play for a pawn.

1 6.�ael �h4 17.f6 White has a strong initiative.

B4222) 1 0.f5!

s �-1.�-.t-•� ''''' Y. , , , , , ;�-�� -- -,-·�-rd�s

- - - - %�i • ,,Y,_ - -B � '• !� 5� ····· �� -d ----�%- �� 4� -JrJ� � .i.3 �� -%'f� ��-� "" -� _:w.� � ��lilriF' � '"" '

1 6

�,� . , , % i r,� _, ,%

,

a • • • Y.

b

� c

d

e

f

g

h

Advancing the f-pawn immediately is the most accurate move order. However, I think it is particularly important for readers to check out the comments on line B422 1 ) I O . tll d2 to realize why I have come to this conclusion, and to fully understand the resulting positions.

1 0 ... tll d7 Playing Harriet Hunt in a recent Sunday morning 4NCL march (see page 43) , I casually played I O . tll d2 instead of I O . f5 . She told me after the game she intended to meet I O . f5 with I O . . . tll d7, which frustrated me as it could well have taken us into the main line given below. I expect she wouldn't have been alone in her choice as many Black players would find it daunting to castle here, though that may be Black's best chance.

1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .Wb3 l l . fxg6 ! ? is an additional possibility gained via this move order, bur Black may be able to hold the balance: l l . . . fxg6 1 2 .�xf8t Wxf8 1 3 .Wb3t 'tt> h 7 1 4. tll a3 We7 1 5 .�fl if6 ( 1 5 . . . tll d7?! 1 6.Wf7 Wxf7 I 7.�xf7 a6 l 8 .ic4 h5 l 9 .id5 �b8 20. tll c4 'tt> h 6 [20 . . . c6 2 1 .tll xd6±] 2 1 . h3;!;) 1 6.tll c4 tll d7 1 7.tll e3 c6 1 8 .@h l tll f8 1 9 .Wc2 h5 20.a4 'tt> g7 Yi-Yi Doric - Nikolov, Zadar 200 5 . 8

.1 •.t•· ��·�ml J� ... i � .....-� -,�. %.,,�m� . ... i �

·¥'. % · · · %

% · ·"�r� �� ".. . %�f%�� ".. . % � �� J�1 �� 3 �,��-�� · 7

6

%

�

!�" j·�-�� '%·� · . .

2 z · · · >1:· ,.%� · 1 . 'ICZJ� a

b

c

d

�� e

f

g

h

%

l l . . . Wg5 This does not turn our well, so Black may want to look to the alternatives here, though White still seems able to keep an edge. 1 1 . . . 'tt> h 7 l 2 . fxg6t fxg6 l 3 . �xf8 and Black suffers from not having his knight on d7 ready to recapture: I 3 . . . ixf8 I 4. tll a3 tll d7 1 5 .�fl t I l . . .gxf5 1 2. exf5 exd4 1 3 .cxd4 tll c6 1 4.Wh l tll xd4 1 5 . tll xd4 ixd4 1 6.tll c3 Wh4 1 7.�f3--+ 1 2 .�f3 'tt> h 7 1 3 .tll a3 tll d7 1 4.�afl tll f6 1 5 . tll g3 h5 1 6.ic4 d5 Desperation, bur Black has no good way to defend against l 7.ixf7, which is even the reply to l 6 . . . h4 . l 7.ixd5± Kanep - A. Smirnov, Tallinn (rapid) 200 5 .

Chapter I - 2 . e6 3 . e4 . .

1 1 .fxg6! The idea of taking on g6 and then going Wlb3 to stop Black from castling isn't obvious, but it seems effective as it suddenly becomes very awkward for Black to complete his development.

1 1 . .. fxg6 12.°Wb3 tll f6 1 2 . . . tt:l b6 does not really work: 1 3 .a4 a5 1 4 . tt:l a3 ie6 1 5 .ib5t c6 1 6.ixc6t±

45

surprised if Black actually chose this move in tournament play, as he has nothing else that looks reasonable and so could play this move without much thought. 14 . . . b5 is my computer's recommendation, but it hardly looks convincing: 1 5 .tt:\a5 id? l 6.a4 a6 l 7.axb5 cxb5 ( l 7 . . . axb 5 ? l 8 . tt:l xc6+-) 1 8 .c4!±

13.tll d2 This position can also arise from line B422 l after 1 0 . tt:l d2 tt:l d7 l l . f5 tt:\ f6 1 2. fxg6 fxg6 1 3 .Wfb3, but with the current move order we have cut out a lot of Black's options.

1 3 ... c6 1 3 . . . b6 1 4 .ib5t;I;

Conclusion: We started by looking at the interesting A) 3 . . . c5 ! ? which has grown in popularity in recent years . After 4.d5 Black may choose the solid A l ) 4 . . . d6, though in the main line White has 8.e5! weakening the black pawn structure and securing an edge. Against Black's other main option of A2) 4 . . . h6, White can again land 8.e5!! in the main line, with even greater effect; Black does well to avoid being blown away. 1 4 . a4 ie6 1 5 .ic4 ixc4 was not so clear in Rusev - Cebalo, Zadar 2007.

14 ... i.e6? This obvious developing move for Black has a massive pitfall. However, I would not be

Turning to the standard 3 . . . h6, after 4 .ixf6 W/xf6 5 .c3 !? Black has a wide choice of 5 th moves, but White seems able to claim a comfortable plus against the minor options. With the critical B3) 5 . . . d5 Black is looking to equalize, in contrast to some of the other

46


. lines where he is looking to counterattack. I like the approach with 6 .ltJd2 c5 7.ltJ gf3, keeping the centre fluid and using our lead in development and stronger king position to create problems from as early a stage as possible. Finally we looked at Black's most common option of B4) 5 . . . d6. White's standard plan of playing i.d3 , ltJ e2, 0-0 , f2-f4 seems promising, especially if Black then allows e4e 5 . The critical set-up by which Black prevents this advance is B42) 6 . . . g6 7 . ltJ e2 i.g7 8 . 0-0 e5 (which can also be reached by a 6 . . . e5 move order) . We examined this in detail, and I believe that the accurate 9 . f4 Wf e7 1 0 . f5 ! offers White a significant advantage.

Chapter 2 2 ... e6 3.� d2!? 1 .d4 � f6 2 . .tg5 e6 3.�d2!? A) 3 ... c5 4.e3

Al} 4 ... cxd4 A2) 4 ... b6!? B) 3 ... d5 C) 3 ... h6 4 . .th4 Cl} 4 ... d5 C2} 4 ... c5

49 49 50 52 54 54 56

48


1 .d4 lll f6 2 ..ig5 e6 3.lll d2!?

4 . . . h6

Having looked at my main recommendation of 3 . e4 in the previous chapter, we move on to offer players a second option with this flexible move. In the last year alone, this move has been played by Morozevich, Nakamura and Vitiugov, to name j ust a few. They have mainly used this line in blitz and rapid games, but nevertheless the fact they are using it makes me stand up and take note. Whilst 3.e4 remains my main choice, I certainly think this move looks interesting.

s .1 -.•x, · �·� � .,. ;_,%� ,,�--, . . . . . � � � � /. ....., 5 �

7 6

-

,

-

-

·n •• �A %� %?,� �W,•• ., � '"'/,,• '� W�i*l 3• � � A0 %'0% A A �� ; 0 i0% %'0% :� . .. . %-�=��j

4 2

1

•. •n ••

0

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Unlike the previous chapter where I went into very specific detail in many of the lines, in this variation you are far more likely to enter unchartered positional territory at an early stage, and so I have tried to explain ideas instead of showing exact moves. That said, we are still going to cover Black's three major options of A) 3 ... c5 B) 3 ... d5 and C) 3 ... h6, after a brief look at a fourth option. 3 . . .ie7 This move looks a bit passive to me, but it was the choice of Kramnik as recently as 20 1 2, so we had better check it out. 4.e4 4 . e3 is also possible, but it seems rude not to take the centre when our opponent is offering.

5 .ixf6 Nakamura opts for the direct approach, taking on f6 in order to avoid spending a move retreating his bishop. Bjorn Thorfinnsson, who is a keen Trompowsky player (in fact he played it against me some years ago) , preferred to keep his bishop with 5 .ih4 and obtained a perfectly playable position: 5 . . . b6 6 . lll gf3 ib7 7.id3 d6 8 .°We2 lll c6 9 . c3 a6 1 0 . 0-0 e5 1 1 .dxe5 lll xe5 1 2.lll xe5 dxe5 1 3 .:gfd l;!; Bj . Thorfinnsson - Butt Khalil, Beij ing 2008. 5 . . . ixf6 6.c3 I half expected Nakamura to follow up with an immediate 6.e5 ie7 7.Wi'g4t, which would have been in keeping with his aggressive character, but he had different ideas. 6 . . . d6 7.f4 e5 8 . lll gf3 lll c6 9 .ib5 0-0

49

Chapter 2 - 2 . . . e6 3 . llJ d2!? I O .ixc6 bxc6 I l .dxe5 dxe5 1 2 .fxe5 ih4t 1 3 .g3 ig5 1 4. llJ b3 Wi'e7 1 5 .Wi'd4 ig4 1 6 . llJ xg5 WI'xg5 I 7. 0-0 1'%fe8 1 8 .1'%f4;!; White had managed to obtain an advantage and went on to win in Nakamura - Kramnik, Moscow (blitz) 20 1 2.

A) 3 ... c5 4.e3

bishops followed by landing the knight on f4, which can make White's life awkward. There are two sensible ways of dealing with this plan which I want to touch on. In our main line White will exchange his g5bishop for the f6-knight; this may be followed by castling either side. A rarer option is to develop with lLi e2, keeping an eye on the f4-square. This is not really a position for exact moves, but more for understanding ideas and choosing a route that you like. I have offered you different ways of playing, so take your pick!

6.tll gf3 White goes into a line that may also come about from the Torre Attack.

Black's

most

common

move

here

is

6 .id3 ! ? seems an interesting way to avoid Torre theory: 6 . . . b6 7 . lLi e2 As mentioned above, Vitiugov's idea is to keep the f4-square is under control.

Al) 4 ... cxd4, but sometimes he forgoes the exchange with A2) 4 b6!?.

. .� �i(•� .1 •..t• ��p{"'�ii" Y.

8 �-�·. 7 J� .

• t� • - ·z�A] z.�� .. .. �

. % . . %� �� . s �� w -��

..•

6

Al) 4 ... cxd4 5.exd4 fi.e7

.

...

... . .

.

. . . . . :m

',

4

. .

• � • � � •

:r� � � �� w�W"' �% . . �Jfi. J.,, �W"' 2 � f[j � t� tfJt[j . 1 :� %�vm . . %•�r 3�

.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

7 . . . ib7 8 . 0-0 lLi c6 9 . c3 lLi d 5 I O .ie3 0-0 1 1 . lLi f4 lLixf4 1 2 .ixf4 d6 1 3 . lLi c4 e5 1 4. dxe5 dxe5 1 5 .ig3 g6 1 6.ie4 f6 1 7.Wi'c2 'kt>g7 1 8 .1'%ad l Wi'c8 1 9 .1'%fe l 1'%d8 20.lLie3 id6 2 1 .1'%d2 lLi e7 22.1'%ed l White's advantage was obvious in Vitiugov - Kulaots, Aix-les-Bains 20 1 1 .

6 b6 7.fi.d3 fi.b7 8.ixf6 !i.xf6 ..•

50


1 5.g4!?N 1 5 .tt'l eg5 h6 1 6.ie4 Wd7 1 7.ixb? Wxb7 1 8 . tt'l e4 tt'l d5 was comfortable for Black in Ivanisevic - Gashimov, Internet 2006.

1 5 ... �c7 1 6.g5 White has the initiative.

A2) 4... b6!?

s.i.Bti� .i � ,,7,� -.�--�� -- - ---� .'

7

9.�e2 9 . c3 d6 1 0 .We2 tt'l d7 1 l .ie4 White goes for a positional approach which will involve castling kingside. l l . . .ixe4 1 2 .tt'lxe4 ie7 l 3 . a4;l; Gormally - Palliser, Isle of Man 2000.

9 a6 10.c3 d6 1 1 .0-0-0 •.•

Castling chis side is more aggressive.

1 1 b5 12.�b l tll d7 13.tll e4 ie7 14.h4 c!LJ b6 •.•

1 4 . . . ixe4 1 5 .ixe4 d5 1 6.id3 b4 l 7.c4 dxc4 1 8 .ixc4 tt'l b6, and now 1 9 .ib3 gave White an edge in Mamedov - Hammer, Lubbock 2009, but I prefer the more direct: 1 9 .d 5 ! ?N exd5 20 .ixd5 tt'l xd5 2 1 .We4 0-0 22.:gxd5;!;

�- - -- %�p �

�% .,,,J -- --%� � £ ��W/ ��{0 � s m%� �-if� %%� � ,;, ,�� - --%�•

�

6 1

4

�.�% , ,. �ll � ·0 ,0 � ��ll w-,, /----7.�w� 0� A�� 3. A A � fl if ��: r.Oz 0 iOz O � % 2 0 iOz -1

�� - - � i'=�� /, , , , , v.

a

b

c

d

/,, , , , 7,

e

f

g

0. . ,, . .

h

Black aims to do without exchanging on d4. Whilst it is impossible for me to cover every eventuality, I shall show you one idea which you can use against this set-up.

5.tll gf3 ib7 6.J.d3 ie7 7.c3 0-0 8.0-0

Chapter 2 - 2 . . . e6 3 . tlJ d2!? As I write this, I am actually watching a live game between lvanchuk and Aronian in this line in the Candidates Tournament in London. It seems to me that the attacking approach by lvanchuk is rather optimistic, and that he hasn't followed up correctly. I shall be seriously surprised if lvanchuk goes on to win the game. (Should that happen, then I hope that the Quality Chess team will edit out these comments!) 8 .ixf6 ixf6 9 . h4 tll c6 1 0 . tll g5 g6

s .1 • B �· � 1� . � ··"� ··v,� ·

f� 1.�.f�r.� �.. . %. • 5 . . . %� . . .� 4 -��:f � • ..... 3 . � '�f· "��: �'- · · %w.� �� o �a�W"·� 6

2

1

�. .

51

posmon looks balanced, although White may hope to be able to muster up some kingside play in the future. 1 2 . . . 'it>xh7 1 3 .h5 'it>g7 1 4.hxg6 l:!h8 1 5 .gxf7t Wxf7 1 6 .Wi'g6t We7 1 7.l:'!:h7t l:!xh7 1 8 .Wi'xh7t 'it>d6 1 9 .Wi'h2t We7 20 .Wi'h7t Wf8 2 1 . tlJ e4 The game looks likely to end in a perpetual check at some point.

8 ... tli c6 8 . . . cxd4 9 .ixf6 ! ? (9.exd4 tll d5 1 0 .ixe7 Wi'xe7 1 1 .l:'!:e l with balanced play) 9 . . . ixf6 I O . exd4t takes us to a position similar to those in line A l , with Wi'e2, a2-a4 and tll e4 all on the cards .

.

�

.

�

.

.....

�

,.

.

.

_ i.0%

o

f

g

�--· .. ·n•=····· ·n :a:· a

b

c

d

e

h

I l .Wi'g4!N This would have been a much better follow up to the knight lunge. The game continued: I l . f4? tll e7 1 2 .Wi'g4 h5 ( 1 2 . . . tll f5 !+ looks strong) 1 3 .Wi'h3 cxd4 1 4. exd4 b5 1 5 .a3 ?! Too slow. 1 5 . . . Wi'b6 1 6 .l:!g I ? White denies himself the option of castling. 1 6 . . . tll d5 1 7.tll ge4 ig7+ lvanchuk - Aronian, London 20 1 3 . I 1 . . .l:!c8 I I . . . tll e7?! looks to get another piece to the kingside as Aronian did in the game, but it is a bit clumsy here as Black temporarily loses control of the g5 -square, allowing the pawn advance: 1 2.h5 ixg5 1 3 .Wi'xg5 tll f5 1 4.W/g4;!; and White has ongoing kingside pressure. 1 2 .tll xh7 White can play a normal move like 1 2.tll df3 threatening h4-h 5 , against which Black should probably play 1 2 . . . h5 himself. The

9.a3!? This is an interesting idea, looking to take advantage of Black not having clarified the centre. White prepares expansion plans on the queenside with b2-b4.

9 ... cxd4 10.cxd4 White can now switch plans and take with the c-pawn.

10 ... tli d5 1 I ..ixe7 flxe7 12.ic4 tli f6 13.e4 d6 14.�kU Hebden - Grooten, Cappelle la Grande 2006. White's chances are preferable, with more space and slightly better development.

52


B) 3 ... d5

6 . . . h6 7.ih4 ie7 transposes to variation C l .

i. -.i.B9� s� , ·- --, - - -%� , _�

7 6

f

Y.

,

.

y,

"� "�"� �"� � • ';-, , , , , ;,,_,..<: .0

s m �· � · - �, � �-� �� %� � .. ,, Y.m � � 3� w-� "" ' " UW' "" w,, ,, � � � �� fl � � ff%_ A �fl� A A A O ;.� : 0 iOz 0 r.Oz 2 0 iOz. %� �--- � �ml:m! � .% 4

1

,,,,.

.

,, , , . , y,

a

b

c

d

z ..

.

e

f

g

7'-. . . . .

h

This line has the ability to transpose to line Cl at any point if Black flicks in . . . h6, but I wanted to look at it independently because White has a fantastic trap he can set if Black chooses not to play . . . h6 at all.

4.e3 c5 5.c3 tll c6 5 . . . lLi bd7 6 . f4 (6.id3 ie7 7.lLi gf3 reaches a position played many times, usually arising from a Torre move order. One possible continuation is: 7 . . . b6 8 . 0-0 ib7 9 . lLi e5 lLixe5 I O .dxe5 lLi d7 1 l .ixe7 W/xe7 1 2 . f4 0-0-0 1 3 .Wie2 f6 1 4.exf6 gxf6 1 5 .e4t) 6 . . . ie7 7.id3 b6 8.lLi gf3 ib7 9 . lLi e5 0-0 1 0 .W/f3 h6 I 1 .h4 lLie8 1 2 .ixh6 gxh6 1 3 .W/h5 f5 1 4 .g4-+ G. Mohr - Anand, Belgrade 1 9 8 8 .

6.tll gf3 I have decided to stick with this solid option. As in the previous note, switching to a Stonewall set-up with 6.f4!? is a major alternative, one example being: 6 ... h6 7 .ixf6 W/xf6 8 . lLi gf3 id7 9.ib5 id6 1 0 . 0-0 Wid8 1 1 .ixc6 bxc6 1 2 . lLi b3 c4 1 3 . lLic5 0-0 1 4. lLi b7 W/b8 1 5 . lLi xd6 Wxd6 1 6.b3 cxb3 1 7. axb3;!; White's knight dominated the black bishop in Granda Zuniga - Miguel Aparicio, Peru 1 99 5 .

6 ...i.e7

6 . . . id6 7.id3 0-0 8 . 0-0 e5 Black plays ambitiously in the centre, but White can counter effectively. 9 . dxe5 lLi xe5 1 0 .lLi xe5 ixe5

,�

E r� �

f �•. . %� L. %� ��- -�atl 6� H•�-�· · · '� �....·%� � ��p 5• r•·" • � �� ·· . 4

� � ·· � � � � �W-% �W-% � � �

3

2

� wJ �" ! J�w " � . m -t� �wt::i -t��% t::i. -t�

· 1 r . {' .. %.vw:rd � 1 -. , . .. . . . . . . . Y. a

b

c

d

e

f

z

g

z

h

I I . f4 ! ? id6 I 2 . e4 c4 1 2 . . . dxe4 1 3 .ixf6 gxf6 1 4.lll xe4;!; Dobrov Toufighi, Abu Dhabi 2005. 1 3 .ic2N 1 3 .ixf6 Wxf6 1 4.e5 ic5 t 1 5 .\t>h l W/b6 was fine for Black in Samoilov - Beresrnev, Kolomna 20 1 0 . 1 3 . . . ig4 1 3 . . . W/b6t 1 4.lifh l Wffx b2? 1 5 .ixf6 gxf6 1 6.exd5 Wxc3 1 7. lLi e4 Wb4 1 8 . lll x f6t+1 4.W/e l ! W/b6t 1 5 .\t>h l Wxb2 1 6.:B:cl White has good attacking chances.

7.i.d3

53

Chapter 2 - 2 . . e6 3 . tll d2! ? .

7 ... 0-0 Black can play about with his move order, but more often than not we end up at the same thing: 7 . . . b6 8 . 0-0 ib7 8 . . . 0-0 transposes to the main line.

9 .Wi'a4 ! ? White has a few interesting choices here, all of about equal value, but I can't cover everything so I will j ust mention the other ideas and you can investigate them further on your own if you wish to take that route. 9 . lLl e5 ll\ xe5 transposes to the position reached in the note to Black's 5 th move above by the move order 5 . . . ll\ bd7 6.id3 ie7 7.ll\ gf3 b6 8 . 0-0 ib7 9.lLle5 lLl xe5 . 9 .Wi'b l ! ? was recommended b y D e Dovitiis in New in Chess Yearbook 97. White's idea is to stay flexible, intending to expand with b2-b4 on the queenside. Another point is that White may later play lLl e 5 , and if Black exchanges on e5 then the f6-knight would be driven away from the defence of the h7pawn . 9.a3!? also intends queenside expansion with b2-b4. 9 . . . 0-0 9 . . . Wi'd7 1 0.dxc5 bxc5 1 1 .gad l 0-0 1 2 . ll\ b3 Wi'd6 1 3 .ixf6 ixf6 1 4 .Wi'b5t and White wins a pawn . 9 . . . a6 1 0 .ll\e5 b5 1 1 .Wi'd l ll\ xe5 1 2 .dxe5 ll\ d7 1 3 .ixe7 Wi'xe7 1 4. f4 and now 1 4 . . . 0-0-0 ?

1 5 .a4± looks too dangerous for Black, so he should settle for 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 .Wi'h 5 , though White keeps attacking chances. 9 . . . c4 1 0 .ie2 0-0 1 l . b3 gives White an initiative. 1 o. tll e5

8.0-0 b6 9.lLie5 �h7 9 . . . ll\ xe5 1 0 . dxe5 lLl d7

�·va .tX.....]z�Y.Fi��·� �� .. . . v.� .� i t.� i W.···"� .. . . z� 67 t�. . . z.U.'Slll) 0 ��f� . . . zt��·0 •�m· 5� t..� �� z� �� ..... .. 4 �w-0 � . z�� m·0 �� 3 �m J8l!J.�m ·0 �m·0 . � if!j !::::, i� !::::, if!j .... .. . . . 1 { �RtiiRi� s

� z

.

.

.

�

2

.

�

.

a

.

b

.

c

d

e

f

g

h

z

1 1 .if4 Kasparov himself shows the way. ( 1 l .ixe7 Wi'xe7 l 2 . f4 f5 1 3 . exf6 ll\xf6 1 4. ll\ f3 ib7 1 5 .Wi'e l tll d7 1 6.Wi'g3 gfe8 1 7.Wi'h3t also looks playable, Hoang Thanh Trang - Daulyte, Tbilisi 20 1 1 ) 1 1 . . . f6 1 2 . lLl f3 fxe5 1 3 . ll\ xe5 lLl xe5 1 4 .ixe5 if6 1 5 .Wi'h5 g6 1 6.ixg6 hxg6 1 7.Wi'xg6t
54


29.l:'l:h8t 1 -0 Kasparov - Maiques, Cordoba (simul) 1 992.

4 ..ih4 Black now must choose between the solid Cl) 4 ... d5 and the more complex C2) 4 c5 . .•.

I O.%Ya4! Cl) 4 d5 5.e3

This seemingly innocent move has a hidden sting in the tail. s

1 6

..•

m s ��•R � �,Jx�.i.. �� /,� .t.v.r��.t. � f� J

�

%,,,,,,_ ,_,,�.,, .. /,,, . , ,

,,,,,

,

5 �·�--�-.. ,��""' ,�� , �,, ��

4

�iii J ·'iii'% �� 3 ��,,, ,J�%�J�% '0 ��/,'0 � P,,�J

� 0% 2 0A ��Fi'

W�

A

��

f

g

h

�0% 0 �0%

�� ,, %•• ,,,, ;•t�·· , ,/, a

10 �xe5?

b

••

c

d

e

5 c5 ..•

Black should prefer: I O . . . Wc7 I I . f4 (or 1 1 .tLl df3 !?) l l . .. a6 1 2 .l:'l:ae l b5 1 3 .°IWd l This certainly looks pleasant enough for White, although a hard-fought game may lie ahead. •.•

Black usually carries out this advance at an early stage, but he can try to do without it: 5 . . . ltJ bd7 6.lLi gf3 ie7 7.id3 0-0 8 . 0-0 b6

1 1 .dxe5 tll d7?

Black can set a counter-trap with I 1 . . . lLi h 5 ! ? 1 2.ixe7 Wxe7. Then 1 3 .g4? f5 ! 1 4.gxh5 °1Wg5t 1 5 .
12.%Yh4! Threatening mate on h7.

12 ... h6 13 . .ixe7 %Yc7 14.ixf8+ White is a full rook up.

C) 3 ... h6 This looks critical, immediately.

hitting

the

bishop

9 . lLi e5 Here Vitiugov carries on as normal with our standard plan. 9 . c4!? was Hodgson's choice, which is generally a good recommendation: 9 . . . ib7 1 0 .cxd5 lLi xd5 I l .ig3 c5 1 2 .a3 cxd4 1 3 .exd4 a6 1 4.l:'l:e l (Ir looks interesting to play 1 4. lLi c4!?N before Black gets a chance to stop it with . . . b 5 . ) 1 4 . . . b5 1 5 .°1We2

55

Chapter 2 - 2 . . . e6 3 . tiJ d2!? �b6 1 6 .E:ad l E:fd8 1 7.ib l E:ac8 1 8 . lli e5 tll f8 1 9 .Wh5 f5 20.Wf7t mh8 2 1 . lli df3± Hodgson - Larsen, London 1 990. 9 . . llixe5 1 0 .dxe5 lli d7 1 1 .ixe? Here 1 l .ig3 is not as effective as in the main line, as Black has the option of playing . . . lli c 5 . 1 1 . . .Wxe? 1 2 . f4 Wb4 1 3 .E:b l Wa4 .

9 . lli gf3 I 'm not sure about this move. 9 .We2 would at least slow down Black's plans: 9 . . . cxd4 1 0 . exd4 a6 1 1 .lli gf3 ib5 Zaichik - A. Ivanov, Kostroma 1 9 8 5 , and now I propose 1 2 . 0-0N lli c6 1 3 . lli e5 ixd3 1 4.Wxd3 with a good fight to come. 9 . . . cxd4 1 0. exd4 ib5 1 l .ic2 a5 1 2 .a4 ia6 1 3 .ixf6 gxf6 1 4 . lli fl Morozevich finds his own way to arrange to castle. 14 . . . lli d? l 5 . lli g3 h 5 l 6 . lli e2 h4 1 7. 0-0 White went on to win in Morozevich Bologan, Beij ing (blindfold) 20 1 2 .

7.tll gf3 J.e7

1 4. c4!N 1 4. b4? a5 1 5 . b 5 lli c5+ Vitiugov - Savchenko, Serpukhov 2008. 14 . . . Wxd l 1 4 . . . Wxa2 ? 1 5 .Wc2 looks seriously risky for Black. 1 5 .E:bxd l White has the initiative.

On to another Morozevich game: 7 . . . id6 Black chooses to aim for . . . e5 without taking any time out to block the bishop pin. 8 .id3 0-0 9 . 0-0 e5 1 0. dxe5 lli xe5 1 1 . lli xe5 ixe5 1 2 . f4 id6 1 3 . e4 Morozevich plays directly and gets an edge; we saw a similar approach in the note to Black's 6th move in line B .

6.c3 tll c6 Bologan has tried delaying the development of this knight and playing a French-like plan of exchanging light-squared bishops on the b5square: 6 . . . ie7 7 .id3 Wb6 8 .E:b l id?

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 3 . . . c4 1 4.ie2 Wb6t 1 5 .if2 ic5 1 6.e5 1 6. exd5 ! ? ixf2t 17 .E:xf2;!; is also promising. 1 6 . . . lli e4 1 7. lli xe4 dxe4 1 8 .ixc5 Wxc5t 1 9 .Wd4 Wxd4t 20.cxd4 ie6 2 1 .f5;!; Here too, White went on to win m Morozevich - Alekseev, Moscow 2008.

56


s.i.d3 0-0 9.0-0 b6 10.tlies White seems to score amazingly well in these positions.

White has a strong attack in this position. I shall j ust briefly give a couple of examples of how che attack may develop.

1 3 ... c4 1 3 . . . ©h8 1 4.�ad l We? 1 5 .Wh5 c4 1 6 .ic2 lll c5 1 7. lll f3 Wc8 1 8 .ih4 We8 ? 1 9 .if6! ixf6 20. exf6 lll d7 2 1 . fxg?t c;i> xg7 22.Wg4t c;i> h8 23 .Wih3 c;i> g? 24.Wg3 t c;i> h8 2 5 .�d4 Wd8 26. lll e5 lll f6 27.�h4 lll g8 28.�g4 f5 29.�g? 1 -0 Aleksandrov - Rakhmanov, Zvenigorod 200 8 .

14.i.c2 tll c5 1 5 .gadl V9c8 1 6.i.f4 Wh8 17.VNhS tll d3 1 8.hh6! gxh6 19.'9xh6t @gs 20.i.xd3 cxd3 2 1 .f4 1 -0 Andres Gonzalez - Nunez Munoz, Collado Villalba 2002.

C2) 4 ... cS 1 1 .dxeS tll d7 1 2.i.g3 1 2 .ixe? Wxe7 1 3 . f4 is another good way to play: 1 2 . . . ib7 1 4.Wh5 �fd8 1 5 .�f3 f5 1 6 .�g3 d4? l 7. cxd4 cxd4 1 8 .e4 with a winning attack, Mehmeti - Boshku, Bar 2008.

1 2 ...i.b? 1 2 . . .f5 1 3 .exf6 lll xf6 1 4. e4t

1 3.V9g4 a

5.e4!

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This advance, aiming to generate a quick attack, has recently become popular. I really like this idea for White as he can put immediate pressure on his opponent. 5 .e3 is also possible, after which 5 . . . cxd4 6. exd4 ie7 7. lll gf3 b6 is similar to line Al (see page 49) . But I think this version is slightly preferable for Black because he has managed to

57

Chapter 2 - 2 . . . e6 3 . ltJ d2!? get . . . h 6 in. In l i n e A l if Black follows u p . . . c5 with . . . h6 we would simply take on f6, which is one of White's main plans anyway.

; ... cxd4

5 . . g5 6.ig3 cxd4 7.e5 is j ust a transposition ro the main line. .

5 . . . d5 This has rarely been played, but it was Caruana's choice on two occasions so should be taken seriously.

1 0.ib5 1 0 . li:) e2 li:) c6 l l . li:) f4 li:) dxe5 1 2. li:) b3 id7 1 3 .c3 Wf6 1 4.ib5 a6 1 5 .ia4 ih6 1 6. li:) d3 li:) xd3t 1 7.Wxd3 0-0 1 8 . 0-0 if4 1 9.l:%ad l l:%ad8 20 .We2 li:)e5 2 1 .ixd7;!; Nakamura Caruana, Moscow (blitz) 20 1 2. The moves look far from forced, but Black's weakened king is always likely ro offer White a small advanrage. 1 0 . . . li:) c6 l l .li:) e2 li:)xc5 1 2. 0-0 a6 1 3 .ixc6t bxc6 1 4.c4 a5 1 5 . li:) d4 Wb6 1 6.Wc2 li:) d7

a

6.e5 6.exd5 ! ? can lead ro a French Tarrasch-rype position: 6 . . . Wxd5 7.li:) gf3 cxd4 8 .ic4 Wc5 !?N (8 . . . Wa5 9 . 0-0 li:) c6 l O. li:) b3 Wb4 l 1 .We2 ie7 1 2 . li:) bxd4 li:)xd4 1 3 . li:)xd4 0-0 1 4. c3t Yemelin - Neverov, St Petersburg 20 1 1 ) 9 .ixf6 gxf6 1 0.We2 li:) c6 1 1 . 0-0 ie7 1 2 . li:) b3 Wb6 1 3 .l:%ad l e5 1 4.c3 dxc3 1 5 . bxc3 l:%g8 1 6.@h l ig4 1 7.h3 ih5 1 8 .We4oo 6 . . . g5 7.ig3 li:) fd7 8 . h4 g4 9 . dxc5 h5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I 7.Wd3 Vitiugov must have been tempted by l 7.li:)xe6! ? immediately: l 7 . . . fxe6 l 8 .Wg6t cjfds l 9 .Wxe6� 1 7 . . . ia6 1 8 . li:) xe6 Given a second chance, he now goes for the sacrifice. 1 8 . . . fxe6 1 9 .Wg6t @d8 20.Wxe6 ie7 2 1 .l:%fd l d4

58

Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky

Now instead of 22.c5 ?! Vitiugov Caruana, Reggio Emilia 20 1 1 , White should play 22.Wf5N intending e5-e6 with good compensation.

6.e5 g5 7.i.g3 c!ti dS 8.h4 s 7

i. - ..t. Se� ,,, , , � �� /, , , , , " 6• � � � � ,

�.. 6 ' '� �-f� � � � .J. . � � � s � � fi� -� ..... % .... % � � .� � '� � 3 �w-0 � "'"//, �"�.J-w�� 8m 8;./ m 2 8 r�w � �

�

4

1

1 1 .Wf3 ! ? 1 1 .g6! ?N fxg6 1 2.Wg4 :B:g8 1 3 .id3 gives White good attacking chances. 1 1 . . .Wxf3 After 1 L. . ei c3 ! ? 1 2 . ei c4 Wxa2 1 3 .:B:cl ib4 1 4.:B:xh6 it's not easy for Black to take advantage of his discovered check.

.z

'0

7,

%••••

- · - - - ·�·ef · · · - %% .,,,

.z - - - - %

'

t� 1�fif�� n a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

8 ... gxh4 It is interesting if Black opts to grab the b2pawn. 8 . . . Wb6 ! ? 9 . hxg5 ! ? This was tried recently in a clash between two high-rated players and looks extremely murky. 9 .ic4!? was another high-profile clash: 9 . . .Wxb2 1 0 .ixd5 exd5 1 1 . hxg5 ei c6 1 2.:B:b l Wxa2 1 3 .ei gf3 b6 1 4. 0-0 Wa3 1 5 . ei b3 was very unclear in Morozevich Ponomariov, Moscow (blitz) 2007. 9 . . .Wxb2 1 0 .:B:b l Wa3 1 0 . . . Wxa2 1 l .ic4�

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 4 . . . ei b 5 t ( 1 4 . . . ei e4t? 1 5 . � d l ei c3t 1 6.Wxc3 dxc3 1 7.:B:xh8t rll e 7 1 8 . ei d6+-) 1 5 .rll d l :B:g8 1 6.id3 ei c3 t 1 7.rll e l ei e4t 1 8 .rll fl ei xg5 1 9 .Wf4 and White has a huge initiative. 1 2. ei gxf3 ei c6 1 3 . ei e4 ei c3 1 4.eixc3 dxc3 The situation remained unclear in Ivanisevic - Jobava, Plovdiv 20 1 2 .

9Jlm4 c!ti c6 10.lDgf3 d6 This looks natural but I believe White's chances are still preferable. 1 0 . . . ie7 This was tried against me by Gawain Jones in 20 1 1 , but it is not convincing as the move holds an empty threat.

Chapter 2 - 2 . . . e6 3 . 4J d2!? l 1 .lll c4!N Very strong, as Black can't take that rook without some serious suffering. l 1 .:B:h5 ?! Wa5 1 2.id3 b5 1 3 .ie4 lll e3 1 4 . fxe3 dxe3 1 5 .if400 R. Pert - G. Jones, London 20 1 1 . 1 1 . . .ixh4?! 1 2 .ixh4 Wc7 1 3 .lll xd4 lll xe5 1 3 . . . lll xd4 1 4. lll d6t c;t> fg l 5 .Wxd4± 1 4 . lll b5 Wc5 14 . . . Wb8 ? 1 5 .ig3 f6 1 6.Wh5t c;t>e7 l 7. lll xe5 fxe5 1 8 .ixe5+1 5 .lll bd6t 1 5 . lll xe5 is less accurate as 1 5 . . . Wb4t picks up the bishop on h4. 1 5 . . . c;t> fg 1 6 . lll e4 Wc7 1 7.ig3 White pushes Black around with his powerful knights. l 7 . . . d6 l 8 .lll cxd6+-

59

1 1 . . .id7 1 2 . exd6 a6 1 3 .ixc6 ixc6 1 4.lll c4 ib5 1 5 .Wxd4± leaves White a pawn up, Vitiugov - Maslak, Moscow 20 1 1 .

1 2.�xeS J.d7 1 3.J.xc6 hc6 14.VlYhS gh7 1 5 .gxd4 VlYaS?! 1 5 . . . Wb6 1 6. lll b3±

1 6.c3 J.e7 17.� dc4 With a winning position for White who has all sorts of threats, including lll xf7.

1 7 ...VlYbS

1 0 . . . :B:g8 looks interesting, eyeing up a potential exchange sac for the g3-bishop : l 1 .:B:h3 ie7N ( l 1 . . .d6 l 2.ib5 id7 l 3 . exd6 e 5 ? was too loosening in Girya - Bodnaruk, Tyumen 20 1 2; 1 4.'1We2!N would have been very strong, as 14 . . . ixh3 l 5 .lll xe5 gives White a winning attack.) 1 2 .a3 Wa5 1 3 .id3 b6 1 4.We2 and White has an initiative.

H .J.hs

18 ... 0-0-0 19.he7 llixe7 20,gxdSt @xd8 2 1 .0-0-0t +-

Vitiugov - Wang Hao, Ningbo (rapid) 20 1 0 . Black's king is helpless against the oncoming attack.

Conclusion: The lines in this chapter are relatively undiscovered bur that said, the resulting positions seem quite promising for White, and the endorsement of so many strong players in recent years in blitz and rapid games indicates this may well be a line of the future!

Chapter 3 2 ... c5 3.� c3!? 1 .d4 � f6 2.i.g5 c5 3.� c3!? A) 3 ... cxd4 4.¥Nxd4 � c6 5.¥Nh4 Al) 5 ... bS!? A2) s ... d6 A3) 5 ... e6 6.e4 i.e7 7.0-0-0 A3 1) 7 ... 0-0? A32) 7 ... d6 B) 3 ... d5 4.i.xf6 gxf6 5.e4!? dxe4 6.dxc5 Bl) 6 ... YNaS B2) 6 ... f5 C) 3 ... YNaS D) 3 ... ¥Nb6

63 64 65 68 68 69 72 73 74 76 76

62


1 .d4 tlif6 2 . .ig5 c5

�.��..t �• W� �� ,. .� �15l� 'ili' W !VB , 7 " " � ,/._. � �·0 � '� ,....�:,Y. ��'"af . � , w � s em�� ....Y._ .... ��-�� 8

6

4

3

2 1

'l!i' a. �mi:

�

�

�

�

.

��L. J� �

� 'Wff�W� 'wffH��

z · · · · .Z · · · · "

O :?.'O::< O

"� ·0[ · · . . xz .,,,;,z · · · · "

O :?.'O::< O :?.'O::<

��et:J � v m �� .: a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is Black's most aggressive response, immediately challenging the white centre. It is his fourth most popular answer to the Trompowsky (after 2 . . . lLi e4, 2 . . . e6 and 2 . . . d5) and has been growing in popularity recently, perhaps in part due to being Dembo's recommendation in her excellent book on Fighting the Anti-King's Indians.

Transpositions are rife in this variation to chapters elsewhere in the book, so make sure you take the time to read this introduction to ensure that you are fully covered.

3.tlic3!? I am going to recommend White's most direct move 3.d5 as our main choice, and I shall cover it in the following chapter.

This quirky little sideline is a personal favourite of mine. It is relatively unexplored and I have come up with some new ideas to breathe life into this variation. I hope that the new analysis included in this book will give you plenty of opportunities to catch your opponents out. a) 3 cxd4 is Black's main response and will make up a large part of this chapter. It is Black's most direct move and Dembo's recommendation. Play typically continues 4.Wlxd4 lLi c6 5 .Wh4 and we will cover an assortment of 5th moves for Black. •••

b) 3 ... d5 is met by 4.ixf6 and now 4 . . . exf6?! 5 .e3 and 4 . . . gxf6 5 . e3 are both covered in line B of Chapter 8 (see page 1 62) . Answering 4 . . . gxf6 with 5 .e4! ? is an interesting alternative which I will touch upon in this chapter. c) 3 %Va5 is examined towards the end of this chapter. .•.

d) 3 %Vb6 can be met with the Vaganian Gambit, 4.d5 Wlxb2 5 .id2 , which is starting to look quite promising for White according to my analysis - this is covered in the next chapter. For those who want an alternative approach, I have mentioned an unexplored idea involving 4.ixf6 at the end of this chapter. .••

Chapter 3

-

1 .d4 llif6 2.J.g5 c5 3.t'ii c3!?

a

b

c

d

e

63

because White's 3rd move is relatively rare. The line has several pitfalls for Black to avoid and even if he steers his way through the mines then White still has a chance to claim a very small advantage; from a practical point of view it seems a decent choice for White. The first two times I played this line in tournament play I was winning straight out of the opening and won easily. It was only on the third occasion that my opponent had a clue what he was doing; even then I got a tiny advantage due to an important novelty which I played in the main line. f

g

h

We shall look at A) 3 cxd4, B) 3 ... d5, C) 3 ... �a5 and D) 3 ...�b6, bearing in mind that •••

lines B and D will often transpose into other chapters. 3 . . . e6 is another move that will usually transpose elsewhere: 4.d5 (4.tll e4! ? is interesting alternative if you want to avoid the transposition) 4 . . . d6 5 . e4 Play has transposed into line Al of Chapter I.

A) 3 ... cxd4

2 . . . c5 3 . lli c3 ! ?

4.�xd4 t'ii c6 Black can try to play without this, but it doesn't seem advisable. One example in which I myself showed the way was: 4 . . . Wa5 5 .Wh4 Intending e2-e4 with easy play. 5 . . . tll d5 6 ..id2! tll b4?! Black tries to upset White's plans, but he is too underdeveloped and pays the price. 7.E:cl tll x a2 8 .Wc4! tll x c l 9 .Wxc8 t Wd8 I O.Wxd8t @xd8 1 1 ..ixc l tll c 6 1 2.e4± White was already close to winning in R. Pert - Jaunooby, Canterbury 20 1 0.

s.�h4

64


5 . . . h6 was the choice of Sakaev, a strong grandmaster, and so should be looked at, but this game is typical of this variation - if White plays simple moves he will stand better.

Al) 5 ... b5!? This has been recommended by some authors.

z •..t� • I] · · ,v. , , ��

%· · -. . %. ·z.· �3� � ,· •.. � � �., :4 � % �� • �,,,,�� . s

7

.,,.,%

a

.

......

�F'"� ��

.

..

� . ,�

� %Q.;Q�� '�K(8· ·�� !�!� %�Jiefifi!r . .

1 � a

b

� c

d

.

�di.kl � e

f

g

h

6. 0-0-0 W'a5 7. lli f3 lli h7 8 .id2 g5 9 .W'c4 W'b4 1 0 .W'xb4 lli xb4 l l . lli b 5 lli a6 1 2 .ic3 i:%g8 l 3 . e4 (White should probably take time out for 1 3 .h3!;!; to stop the g-pawn, but either way he is doing well) 13 . . . g4 1 4.llih4 lli g5 l 5 .id3 lli e6 1 6.b4 lli ac7 l 7 . lli f5 lli xb5 1 8 .ixb5 a6 1 9 .ic4 b5 20 .id5t Moiseenko Sakaev, Moscow 2003 . 5 . . . W'a5 is reasonably common and has been awarded an exclamation mark in Chess Openings for Black Explained by the American grandmasters Alburt, Dzindzichashvili and Perelshteyn, but after 6. 0-0-0 d6 7.e4 it is nothing more than a transposition to line A2 below. Black does not benefit from avoiding the transposition: 6 . . . b5 7.@b l i:%b8 (7 . . . b4 is met by 8 .ixf6 followed by lli d5) 8 .ixf6! gxf6 and now 9 . e4 is possible with advantage, thought personally I prefer 9 . e3t, which can be seen as giving fewer targets for counterplay. White has the better pawn structure and thus the better position. Black has no real attack, while on the other hand Black's king must choose between staying in the centre and going to the kingside, and neither of those options offer him a problem-free future!

6 . . . b4!? This looks more to the point. 7.llid5 W'a5 8 .ic4 This makes sense, covering the a2-pawn. 8 . 0-0-0 is possible, and now: a) 8 . . . b3 9 . cxb3 ! ? (9.axb3 makes the possibility of . . . W'a l t a constant worry: 9 . . . lli xd 5 1 0 . exd5 lli b4 l l .W°d4 ib700) 9 . . . tli xd5 1 0 . exd5 lli b4 l l .id2 i:%b8 1 2 . a3 W'c7t 1 3 .ic4 lli xd 5 1 4 .@b a White's lead in development gives him an edge. b) 8 . . . W'xa2 9 . lli c7t @d8 1 0 . lli xa8 W'a l t l l .@d2 W'xb2 1 2.id3 ib7 1 3 . lli e2 ixa8t The position is messy, but here too I slightly prefer White due to his lead in development. c) 8 . . . ib7 9 . @ b l (White could consider 9 .ixf6 ! ?N gxf6 1 0 .@b l ) 9 . . . b3 1 0 . cxb3 lli xd5 l l . exd5 lli b4 1 2 .a3 lli xd5 1 3 . lli f3 e6 1 4 .ic4 f6 1 5 .ic l ie700 Solaesa Navalpotro - Morales Rivera, Madrid 2002. 8 . . . W'c5 8 . . . b 3 t ? 9 .id2t

Chapter 3

-

8 . . . ttJ xd5 was played in Lindam - Evertsso n , Internet 2 0 0 3 , a n d n o w 9 . exd5N tlJ e 5 1 0 .ib3 would give White a n edge. 9 .ib3 ! ? Th i s leads t o a position where White gives up a pawn but has a lead in development. 9 . b 3 ! ? also looks playable: 9 . . . lll e5 1 0 .ie3 Wi'a5 ( 1 0 . . . Wc6 l I .lll f3 lll xc4 1 2.lll d4 Wi'b7 1 3 . bxc4±) l I .if4 lll xc4 1 2.lll c7t @d8 1 3 . lll xa800 9 . . . lll xd5 1 O.exd5 lll d4 s

.i B .i. � ·� �-

-,v. 6 �r.��r., , , %. , , , %�.�.

1 %,,,,%� � � � � � �:ef 5� 8&m� •7,.�ill -----�� 7.-� ,,,,,%Ji.

3 £�''l, , ,;�� ,. - � �� ! ��-r1'�""%��!"'{��""% � �! ""{"'%� 1

4

�

2

� " ·

�

a

b

� � c

d

:%,.

..

.

. .� .%

e

.0. . . . . :.

f

g

h

1 I . lll f3 lll xc2t 1 2 .ixc2 Wxc2 1 3 . 0-0 f6 1 3 . . . ib7 1 4.l:'!fd l Wi'f5 1 5 .ixe7 ixe7 1 6.l:'!e 1 is unclear. 1 4.ie3 White has decent compensation for the pawn.

65

2 . . c5 3 . tlJ c3 ! ? .

7.lll f3 is a common alternative, but I believe that White should keep the option of playing f2-f4.

7 ... h6 7 . . . d6 8 . f4 Wa5 9.@b l ie6 (9 . . . b4 1 0 .ixf6 gxf6 1 I . lll d5±) 1 0. f5 ic4 1 I .lll f3± White's lead in development and additional space ensure a small advantage.

s.tilf3 g8s 9 ..bf
A2) s ...d6 6.e4 s

1 6

�

1. m ..t.� • -

l{t� �-- -�--.�--. �

:

--� �-,�'� ¥/:ii--� ·, f � �

5 �R� �R� �8 R��'-'�" '"�

4

� �� --- %

3� m �w%" · ·'� �H�W" � �

r• r11m. a

6 ... Wa5

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black's plan here is to encourage White to castle queenside and then to play . . . ie6, . . . l:'!c8 and . . . lll b4 with an attack. Although it looks slightly awkward for Black to ignore the development of his f8-bishop, we cannot afford to be careless. 6 . . . ie6 7. 0-0-0 l:'!c8 8 . f4 Wi'a5 9 . a3 transposes to our main line. a

7.0-0-0!

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

7.0-0-0 �e6 Black can also seek to clarify matters on the kingside:

66


7 . . . h6 8 .ixf6 gxf6 9.@b l N Sidestepping . . . \Wg5 t . 9 . f4 ie6 1 0 .a3 transpose t o the note to Black's 8th move in the main line. 9 . . . �g8 9 . . . ie6 1 0 .lll h3!? White uses his crafty 9th move to switch plans and send his knight to the f4-square. 1 0 . . . �g8 l l .ie2! 0-0-0 ( l l . . .�xg2 1 2. lll f4 �g7 1 3 .lll xe6 fxe6 1 4.ic4 looks very unpleasant for Black) 1 2.lll f4;!; 1 0 . f4 id? l 1 . lll f3 0-0-0 1 2 .f5 @b8 1 3 .'1Wh5 ie8 1 4.g3 To allow the development of the fl -bishop. 14 . . . �c8 1 5 .ib5 a6 1 6.ixc6 �xc6 1 7.lll d5;!;

Trompowsky bishop before Black invests time with . . . h6. 8 . . . gxf6 9.'it>b l f5 This leads to a slight advantage for Black according to analysis in the aforementioned book.

s .. Jks Black may also try: 8 . . . h6 The idea is to force White to capture on f6 so that Black has time to get the . . . f5 pawn break in before White clamps down with f4-f5 . 9 .ixf6 9 . f4? lll h7! 1 O .lll f3 f6 was the embarrassing finish of Krgovic - Pantelic, Obrenovac 20 1 1 ; White's once-proud bishop is trapped! 9 . . . gxf6 1 0 . f4 1 0 .lll h3!?N seems an interesting way to try and take advantage of our lead in development: 1 0 . . . �g8 l l . f3 �c8 1 2 .lll f4 and the position looks slightly more pleasant for White. 1 0 .. . f5 Although Black gets this move in, White still has ways to obtain good play.

8.a3! This seems to be strongest, although it is not mentioned in Chess Openings for Black Explained. An important point is that it covers the b4-square, countering Black's plan of playing . . . lll b4 followed by . . . �xc3 . 8 . @b l ?! can be met by 8 . . . lll xe4 ! ? 9 .lll xe4 '1Wxa2t 1 0 .'it>c l \Wa l t l 1 .@d2 Wxb2. The engines prefer White's position, but in a practical game I can imagine that Black would be happy as he has already three pawns for the piece and the white king is exposed. 8 .ixf6?! There is no need for us to give up our

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

l l .ib5 ! ?N Putting the pressure on immediately. l l .exf5 looks reasonable too: l I . . .Wxf5 1 2.id3 Wg4 ( l 2 . . . Wc5 and l 2 . . . Wa5 are both playable and may be slight improvements; in both cases the position look more or less balanced, though White may hold a

67

Chapter 3 - 2 . . c5 3 . 4J c3 ! ? .

tiny pull due to his lead in development.) 1 3 .Wif2 .ig7 1 4.c!Oge2 .if5 1 5 .c!Od5;!; Sanchez Enriquez - Ossa, San Jose 2009. I I . .id3!?N is also interesting, and after I l . . .�g8 1 2 .4Jge2 White's superior structure gives him a slight edge. Grabbing the g-pawn can lead to some strange tactics: 1 2 . . . �xg2?! 1 3 .'1Nh3 �g5 ! ? This wacky move is the only way to defend the f5-pawn . ( 1 3 . . . �g8 1 4.exf5 allows White a clear advantage.) 1 4.fxg5 fxe4 1 5 .'1Nh4 exd3 1 6.gxh6;!; The position remains complicated, but White's h-pawn looks dangerous. I I . . . fxe4 I l . . .a6 1 2 .exf5 .ixf5 1 3 .ixc6t bxc6 1 4 . 4J f3 �b8 ( 1 4 . . . .ig7 1 5 .�he l .ie6 1 6 . c!O d4;!;) 1 5 .c!O d4 .id7 1 6.�he l;!; I l . . . .ig7 1 2 .exf5 .ixc3 ( 1 2 . . . .ixf5 ? 1 3 .�d5±) 13 . .ixc6t bxc6 1 4. fxe6t 1 2. f5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

a

9 ... h6

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

9 . . . c!O b4? doesn't work: I O .axb4 Wfa l t I l .@d2 Wxb2 1 2 . .ixf6 gxf6 1 3 .ib5t @d8 1 4. ltJ ge2+- and Black runs out of steam.

1 0.i.xf<> The immediate I O . f5 ! ? is interesting, but risks losing control: I O . . . .id7 ( 1 0 . . . c!O xe4 ?! doesn't work: I l .'1Nxe4 .ixf5 1 2.'1Ne3 hxg5 [ 1 2 . . . .ixc2 1 3 .�d5 '1Nd8 1 4 . c!O b 5 +-J 1 3 .�d5±) I l . c!O f3 ( I 1 ..ixf6 returns to the main line) I 1 . . .hxg5 ! ? 1 2 .'1Nxh8 g4 followed by 1 3 . . . lll e 5 , a n d Black obtains good activity in return fo r the exchange.

h

1 2 . . . .id7 After 1 2 . . . .ixf5 ? 1 3 .�d5! the double threat of �xf5 and .ixc6t wins material. 1 3 .'1Nxe4 White holds the initiative.

9.f4! This covers some key central squares. I also like the idea of delaying the development of the g l -knight as in some cases it can be useful on the el-square to defend against . . . �xc3 sacrifices.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

68


1 1 .fSN I recommend limiting Black's activity in this way. 1 1 .lll f3 was played in Meszaros - Dory, Hungary 1 99 8 , allowing Black to play 1 1 . . . fS , although the idea we saw in the note to Black's 8th move, 1 2 .ib 5 ! ? may then give White chances for an advantage.

1 1 ... id7 12.CLJf3 lll e5 13.CLJxe5 fxe5 14J;d5 We can't allow the exchange sacrifice on c3 .

14 ...�b6 1 5.�d3;!; White has a pleasant position.

White can maintain his The point momentum without taking time out to move his bishop. I have had this position numerous times in blitz and have included some of those games as examples.

A3) 5 ...e6 6.e4 ie7 7.0-0-0

9 ... hxg5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

We shall now look at A3 1) 7 ... 0-0? and

A32) 7 ... d6. 7 . . . Wa5 is quite often played, but then 8 . f4 d6 is j ust a transposition to line A32.

A31) 7 ... 0-0? This is a common and serious mistake, castling into the attack. In fact it happens nearly 2 5 % of the time according t o m y database, so it is a chance to gain some quick wins!

8.f4 h6 9.tDf3!!

9 . . . lll h7 I O .ixe7 Wxe7 I I .Wxe7 lll xe7 1 2.e5 f6 ( 1 2 . . . f5 1 3 . lll b5 b6 1 4 . lll d6 a5 I 5 .ib5 lll d5 1 6.lll xc8+- Antidrome - CofC Bercys, Internet 20 1 0) 1 3 .lll e4 fxe5 1 4. fXe5 E:b8 I 5 .ib5 E:d8 1 6. lll c5 lll f8 I 7.lll d4 a6 I 8 . lll dxe6 dxe6 I 9 .E:xd8 axb5 20.E:fl lll eg6 2 1 . lll xe6 ixe6 22.E:xb8+- Antidrome rpenquin, Internet 20 I 0 . 9 . . . d 6 I O.e5 lll d5 1 1 .lll xd5 exd5 1 2 .ixe7 lll xe7 1 3 .id3;!; 9 . . . Wb6 I O .e5 We3t 1 1 .
10.CLJxgS The important thing to remember in this line is to meet . . . g6 with Wh6. By keeping the possibility of Wh7t available, this avoids the threatened . . . lll h 5 . White may then continue with E!:d3-h3 followed by mate.

A32) 7 ...d6 8.f4 'Wa5 Black sensibly delays castling i nto the line of fire and keeps his options open.

9.�f3

9 ... h6 This leads to the critical line.

l l .e5 �xe5

After 9 . . . a6 White should take the chance to vacate the h4-square for the bishop: I O JWe l ! h6 1 I .i.h4 g5 1 2 .fxg5 hxg5 1 3 .ixg5 id7 1 4.@b l E:c8 1 5 .Wd2 E:c7 1 6.i.d3 CLJ b4 1 7.a3 CLJxd3 1 8 .cxd3 b6 1 9 .E:hfl E:g8 20.h4 ic8 2 1 .E:cl ib7 22.c;t>a2 1 -0 Miladinovic Dragojlovic, Kragujevac 2009; Black has no good answer to the threat of 23.b4. 9 ... i.d7 1 0 . CLJ d2! This move has rarely been played but the knight will be strong on the c4square. 1 0 . . . E:c8 1 l .CLJ c4 Wc5 White can now embarrass the black queen:

12 ... exd5 13.fxe5 'Wxe5 14,gel 'Wf5 1 5.gxe7± White had a huge advantage in Krasenkow Degraeve, Cappelle la Grande 1 990.

70


1 2.a3!N ( 1 2 . ll'l a4?! Wb4 was unclear in Sell S . Berger, Germany 1 999) 1 2 . . . 0-0 ( 1 2 . . . b S ? 1 3 .ll'lxb S ! +-) 1 3 .eS! dxeS 1 4. b4 ll'l xb4 l S . fxeS ll'l fdS 1 6.ixe7 ll'lxe7 l 7 . axb4 Wxb4 l 8 . ll'l a2+-

1 0.e5! White sacrifices a central pawn but in return the black king will be nudged over to f8 where it sits uncomfortably.

1 0 ... dxe5 l 1 .fxe5 .!ll xe5 12.ll'lxe5 '1Wxe5 13.!b5t

1 6 .�xd6 gS 1 7.We l g4? This game highlights the dangers for Black if he plays one wrong move. Black should have tried l 7 . . . Wg7, although White is still doing well after 1 8 .�fl '\W cS 1 9 .�d2. 1 8 .l'!fl WgSt 1 9 .Wb l a6 20 .id3 ll'l e8 2 1 .�d4 f5 22. lll a4 With a huge lead in development and the black king stranded in the middle of the board, White's advantage is totally overwhelming. 22 . . .Wg7 23 .Wb4t We7 24.Wc3 eS 1 -0 R. Pert - Perez, London 20 1 1 .

a

I 5.Wg3!

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This move keeps the whole variation alive for White - so far I am the only person to have played this move. The reason it is so strong is that it keeps the eS- and c7-squares covered so that White can play ie3 , leaving Black with no decent square for his queen. Previous games had seen only l S .We l , which is at best unclear for White, but may even be slightly worse. One example continued: 1 S . . . a6 1 6.id3 id7 1 7.�fl ic6 1 8 .g4 �d8 1 9 .ie3 Wes 20.Wf2 ib4 2 1 . lll e2 �d7 22.h3 We8 23 .id4 'IWdS 24.ixf6 gxf6 2 S .Wb l ie7 26.lll f4 WcS 27.WxcS + Yi-Yi Miladinovic Gustafsson, Fuerth 2002.

1 5 ... �h5 The reason why everyone presumed White could not play 1 5 .Wi'g3 .

22.ie2) 2 1 . .. b5 22 . .if3;!; White stands better as Black is struggling to hold everything together.

If Black does not force the exchange of queens he will pay the price: 1 5 . . . g5 ? 1 6.ie3 Wfb4 1 7. h4 and White is winning already!

16.YNe3! YMxe3t 1 6 . . . lt:lxf4? allows White to demonstrate the point:

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 8J�hfl !?N

17.i.xe3 A pawn up with the queens off, Black might think he is safe, but actually his complete lack of development and precariously placed king provide sufficient compensation for White. My computer slightly prefers White in this position.

17 ... �f6! 17 . . . g6? 1 8 .E:hfl @g7 1 9 .id4t 20.E:xf6+- j ust doesn't work for Black.

if6

17 . . . g5 1 8 .ie2 lt:l f6 ( 1 8 . . . lt:l f4 1 9 .if3 'itig7 20.lt:lb5;!;) 1 9 .id4;!; 1 7 . . . @g8 is a plausible attempt by Black to untangle himself: 1 8 .E:hfl a6 l 9 .ie2 lt:l f6 20 .id4 @h7 2 1 . lt:l a4 (if he wishes White can make a draw here with 2 1 .id3t @g8

1 8 .id4 was my choice when I reached this position in tournament play: 1 8 . . . lt:l d 5 ( 1 8 . . . a 6 l 9 . .ie2 @g8 2 0 .E:hfl transposes to the line after 1 7 . . . @g8 i n the previous note) 1 9 . lt:l xd 5 N ( 1 9 . lt:l e4 ? ! a6 20 .ie2 id? allowed Black to untangle i n R. Pert - Ziska, Sunningdale 20 1 2) 1 9 . . . exd5 20.E:hfl ie6 My computer prefers White here, though I would consider a draw the most likely result.

1 8 ... e5! Black has to play this as he has no other reasonable plan of development available. Driving White's bishop away does not help matters as it can redeploy to the f3-square: 1 8 . . . a6 1 9 .ie2 e5 20.if3;!;

19.�d5 j,g4 1 9 . . . lt:l xd 5 2 0 . E:xd5 if6 2 1 .id?!;!;

20.tll xe7 hdl 20 . . . @xe?? ? 2 1 .ic5 t leads to mate.

2 l .j,c5

72

Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky s

1 6

5

4

B � ·- �� ·,i0 �� %.,,,J��.J,, . . "' :� • • �. • r� . %_ .. -��

�.£-�.. . � %,,

%

/, , , , , ,

�

�

,,,,,

�

Y,

,, .

� �� ,,,,

,,,,,%

,, , , . %

�� 3 � �� J[!J 8� 8 �J[!J% 2 � 8 �, r� • ,� . . ·�. . . . ..�%%= 1

. %

a

2 1 . ..J.h5

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

2 1 . . . a6 22.id3 ig4 23.tll d5t 'tt> g 8 24.gxf6 gxf6 2 5 . lll xf6t 'tt> g7 26.tll xg4 gae8 27.ie4 reaches an unusual type of ending with three minor pieces for two rooks which looks to be slightly in White's favour.

a

24.tll g6t

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

24 .id3 tll d7 2 5 .tll g6t 'tt> g 8 2 5 . lll e?t also leads to a perpetual.

24 ... <±>gs 25.tll e7t f8 With a perpetual - avoiding it with 2 5 . . . h? is dangerous for Black: 26 .id3t g6 27. lll xg6;!;

2 L .ig4 22. tll d5t (22.ge l e4 2 3 . tll g6t 'tt> g8 24.tll xh8 'tt> x h8 25 .id4 if5 26.ic4 ig6 is roughly balanced) 22 . . . 'it>g8 23.gxf6 gxf6 24. tll xf6t 'tt> g7 2 5 .tll xg4 reaches a similar ending in which I would rather be White.

B) 3 ... d5

22.gfS 22.tll d 5 t ! ? leads to another version of the above ending: 22 . . . 'tt> g 8 23.gxf6 gxf6 24. lll xf6t 'it>g7 2 5 . lll xh5 t 'tt> g6 26.g4 f5 27.id3 e4 28 .ie2 fxg4 29 .ixg4 ghe8 30 .ie3 Here too, my preference would be for White.

22 ...J.g4 22 . . . a6 23 .ia4 b5 24.ib3 'tt> e 8 25 .id5 lll xd5 26. lll x d5 d7 27.gxh5 'tt> c6 2 8 . tll b6 'it>xc5 29. lll xa8 gxa8 30.gxe5 t 'tt> d 6 results in a drawn rook ending.

23.gxe5 After this a perpetual becomes inevitable. 23. tll d5t g8 24.gxf6 is the last chance to head for the unbalanced ending.

23 ... a6

4.Lf6 gxf6 4 . . . exf6? is a structural mistake. White replies 5 .e3, transposing to line B (note to Black's 4th move) of Chapter 8 on page 1 62 .

73

Chapter 3 - 2 . . . c5 3 .tiJc3!?

5.e4!? I would like to take a quick look at this aggressive option which is available to White after this particular move order. 5 .e3! ? is a reasonable alternative which is again a transposition to line B of Chapter 8 .

5 . . . dxe4

1 3 .lll xc3 We5t 1 4 .We3 Wxe3 t 1 5 .fxe3 ie6 1 6. 0-0;!; White's lead in development gives him an advantage.

6.dxc5 Black now chooses between Bl) 6 ...Wa5 and B2) 6 ... f5.

5 . . . cxd4 6.Wxd4 dxe4 7.ib 5 t ! ? Th i s looks a n interesting option for White. 7.Wxd8t mxd8 8 . 0-0-0t gives White a safe but small advantage: 8 . . . lll d7 9 .lll xe4 me? 1 0 .lll f3 e6 1 1 . lll d4 a6 1 2 .ie2 b6 1 3 .ih5;!; Ibragimov - Sirigos, Peristeri 1 99 3 . 7 . . . lll c6 7 . . . id7 8 . 0-0-0 lll c6 9 .Wxe4 f5 1 0 .Wc4 e6 1 l .ixc6 bxc6 1 2 .lll f3;!; looks very pleasant for White. 8 .Wxe4 Wd6 8 . . . id7 9 . 0-0-0 e6 1 O.ixc6 bxc6 1 1 . lll f3;!; 9 .lll ge2 f5 1 0 .Wf3 ig7 1 1 .l:"!:d l Wc5

Bl) 6 ...Wa5

�£•i•� -J.: :z J 7 f%� · -,,�. · . , . % · -...f�. %.... 8

�

� � -- � 6 ��1� : , �. . J� �� 1 3� � �� -�� -��.: �� -t�. . ". � �"'�" ·-ctJf �'= � 1

2

� a

.

. %

b

� c

d

,.

...%

z

e

f

�' g

h

1 2 .b4!?N This daring move looks promising. 1 2.l:"!:d5 Wb4 1 3 .a3 Wxb2 1 4.0-0 0-0 1 5 .l:"!:b l Wxa3 1 6 .l:"!:b3 Wa l t 1 7.l:"!:b l Wa3 1 8 .l:"!:b3 Wa l t 1 9 .l:"!:b l Y2-Y2 Miroshnichenko - Parligras, Kon ya 20 1 1 . 1 2 . . . ixc3 t The b4-pawn is untouchable: 1 2 . . . Wxb4? 1 3 .ixc6t+1 2 . . . Wb6? also loses: 1 3 . lll d5! Wd8 1 4 . lll f6t ! +-

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

8 . . . id7 After 8 . . . lll c6 9 .lll ge2 f5 1 0 . 0-0-0 ie6 1 l .g4 fxg4 1 2 .l:"!:hg l White has a strong initiative for the pawn: 1 2 . . . Wc? ( 1 2 . . . 0-0 walks into 1 3 .ic4 ixc4? ? 1 4.Wxg4+-)


74

1 3 .llixe4 1We5 1 4.1Wxe5 ixe5 1 5 .lli g5 if5 1 6. f4t 9 .ic4N This very tricky 9.1Wg4 should be reserved for blitz games, as it doesn't quite cut it: 9 . . . �g8 1 0 .�d l ( 1 0 .0-0-0? ih6t-+)

8.0-0-0!� White sets a trap.

s �,i-�·•· · · · ;� ••• �%!. '" ��-.i�� ..t f� i -• iW 1 t� .. . .� i .... . .. � . � .. �. . . . . . • • s SJ' � . 6

%

{@.

%

%

%

1� . .�� . . �.r � � � �� 3 �� 8·; ·��-� �� ,d' .... .. . . f" { 1 � � � : � �: :h

4 �2

�

%

%

a

b

c

d

e

f

'

""

g

1 O . . . f5 !+ Black's only move, but it does the job as the weakness of the c3-knight comes i nto play. (Clearly Black cannot play 1 0 . . . .ixb 5 ? ? 1 l .1Wc8t 1Wd8 1 2.1Wxd8# nor 1 0 . . . Wc?? 1 1 .lli d 5 1Wxc5 1 2 .1Wf5 '1Mfxc2 1 3 .llixe?+-.)

8 . . . f5 avoids the trap, but 9 . lli h3 heading for the g5-square looks better for White.

9.clll xe4! 1Wxh5 I O.tLJxf6t ©e7 1 I .ttlxh5+ Ibragimov - Schut, Rochester 200 1 .

B2) 6 . .. f5 This looks critical and was Avrukh's recommendation in Grandmaster Repertoire 11.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

9 . . . 0-0 1 0 .0-0-0 Black struggles to complete his development as the b8-knight is temporarily tied to the defence of the d7-bishop. 1 0 .. .f5 1 1 .lli h3! Here comes the attack. I l . . . h6 1 2 .g4 fxg4 1 3 . lli f4 1Wc7 1 4. lli g6 Black is in big trouble.

7.�xdSt c.tlxd8 8.0-0-0t i.d7 9.g4!? I think this is White's most interesting option. 9 . f3 has been the most common move, but Black has more than one playable response: a) After 9 . . . e3! ? White struggles to prove an advantage and a draw looks the most likely result, for example: 1 0 .ib 5N ( 1 0 . f4? e6 l l . ll:i f3 ixc5 1 2 .ib5 @e7+ Saptarshi Iuldachev, Mumbai 2009) 1 0 . . . e6 ( 1 O . . . E:g8 l 1 . ll:i ge2 E:xg2 ? 1 2 .E:d3! @c7 1 3 . ll:i d 5 t @c8 1 4.ixd?t ll:i xd7 1 5 . ll:i df4 E:f2 1 6.:B:hd l +-) l I . ll:i ge2 @c7 ( l L .ixc5 1 2 .:B:xd?t ll:i xd7 1 3 .:B:d l a6 1 4.:B:xd?t @c8 1 5 .ia4 b5 1 6.E:xf7� is given by Avrukh) 1 2 .E:d3 ixc5 1 3 .ixd7 ll:i xd7 1 4. ll:i b 5 t 'itic6 1 5 . ll:i bd4t @c7 1 6. ll:i b 5 t with a repetition of moves. b) 9 . . . ig7! is the main line given by Avrukh, and his analysis runs: 1 0 . ll:i ge2 exf3 l l .gxf3 e6 1 2 . f4 if8 1 3 .ig2 'itic7 1 4 . b4 a5t and Black is doing well.

1 6.hxg4 ixg4 1 7.ih3 ixh3 1 8 .E:xh3 h6 From here, 1 9 .a3 E:d8 20.:B:gl E:xd5 2 1 .:B:xg? E:f5 led eventually to a win for Black in Wielecki Sherbakov, Polanica Zdroj 1 99 8 , but instead 1 9 .E:g3 ! ?N would have kept a small advantage for White.

1 0.gxf5 i.xc3 1 1 .bxc3 c.tlc7 12.ll:ie2 i.xf5 13.tll d4 i.g6 14.h4 h5 1 5J�gl ll:id7

1 6.c6!? Setting a trap.

1 6 ... tll e5 1 6 . . . bxc6?

9 . . . fxg4 1 0 .h3!N gives White a good initiative. 9 . . . ih6t looks an important alternative: 1 0 .@b l ig7 l 1 .ll:i ge2 fxg4 1 2. ll:i xe4 ll:i c6 1 3 .h3 @c7 1 4 . ll:i f4 E:ae8 1 5 . ll:i d 5 t @c8

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 7.�xg6! fxg6 1 8 .lll e6t i>c8 1 9 .i.a6t+-

1 7.cxb7 i>xb7 1 8.�fol White's ideas of i.g2 and f2-f3 or f2-f4 may give him a tiny edge.

C) 3 ... Y!las

1 8 .�a l is also good) . . .i.f5 1 8 .i.d5 Wd8 l 9 . h4;!; De la Villa Garcia - Wiersma, Berlin 1 997. After 5 . . . d5 White can choose between the greedy 6.dxc5 e6 7.1Mf d4 �g8 8 .Wfh4 lll c6 9.1Mfxh7;!;, and the sensible 6 .lll ge2 followed by g2-g3 , i.g2 and 0-0 with an edge.

6.exd4 d6 7.i.bSt i.d7 8.i.xd7t lll xd7 9.Y!la e6 10.lll ge2

.1 m - · � �� 7 .,_, _ , , �-Y, , .. ..% �-·-�,E5 �� 7: ... . %� 7: .. . . %� ��r� �� f� ;� m 3 �,,,.. ,%�n�� .. .. %� m . . .� ��,� �� ,� � W� .. 2 8 f� 8 -ltlf� 8 � �af ... . %m �=% .... %.lt . 8

6

�

4

.

I

4.i.xf6 gxf6 5.e3 cxd4 5 . . . e6 6 . d 5 ! ? Switching back to the central advance is a clever way to exploit Black's last move.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White stands slightly better with superior coordination and more space. I 've left the rest of the game in as White played the whole game well, and playing through it should give you a good understanding of the position.

10 dS 1 1 .0-0 i.b4 12.lll dl Y!lc7 13.tll e3 i.d6 14.h3 f5 1 5.c4 f4 1 6.cS fxe3 17.cxd6 Yllxd6 1 8.fxe3 0-0 1 9.�facl f5 20.Y!/f4 Y!lxf4 2 1 .tll xf4 @f7 22Jk7 i>e7 23.gxb7 gab8 24.gc7 gxb2 25.tll d3 gb6 26.tll eS gd6 27.gb l c.i>d8 28.gbb7 tll xe5 29.dxeS gb6 30.gd7t i>c8 3 1 .gbc7t 1-0 .•.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

6 . . . i.g7 (6 . . . f5 7 .1Mff3;!;) 7.lll ge2 lll a6 8 .g3 lll c7 9 .i.g2 lll b5 1 0 . 0-0 lll xc3 l 1 . lll xc3 f5 1 2 . e4 fxe4 1 3 .lll xe4 0-0 1 4 . c3 1Mfb6 1 5 .�b l d6 1 6.dxe6 i.xe6 l 7 . lll g5 ( l 7.1Mf xd6 i.xa2

De la Villa Garcia - Glavina Rossi, Mondariz 1 997.

D) 3 ...Y!lb6

In this position my main recommendation is 4.d5 going into the Vaganian Gambit - see the next chapter. The position after 4.d5 can also be reached via the more common move order l .d4 ttJ f6 2.ig5 c5 3.d5 Wb6 4.ttJc3 , and so forms a key part of your repertoire whether you choose 3 . ttJ c3 or 3 . d 5 . Th a t said, I would like t o touch upon the following line which is made available to us by the uncommon move order with 3 . tlJ c3 . In my opinion it is not as good as the Vaganian Gambit, but those looking to take play off the beaten track may be attracted by the scarcity of games played in this area.

4.Lf6 gxf6 4 . . . Wxf6 5 . e3 cxd4 6.Wxd4 Wxd4 7.exd4 leaves White ahead in development: 7 . . . e6 8 . ttJ f3 ib4 9 .i.d3 ttJ c6 1 0 . 0-0 ixc3 1 l . bxc3 0-0 1 2 .l'!ab l;:!;

s.l2Jd5 Wds 5 . . . Wa5t 6.Wd2 Wxd2t 7 . �xd2 ttJ a6 8 . e3 l'!b8 9 . tlJ e2;!; This knight is heading to f4, while the d5-knight makes it tricky for Black to complete his development.

8 ... l2J a6 8 . . . ie7 9 . ttJ d6t ixd6 1 1 .Wd2 ttJ c6 1 2. e4;!;

I O .Wxd6

We7

9.l2Jxc5 l2Jxc5 10.Wd4 b6 l l .e3;!; This is all unexplored. My gut feeling is Black should be able to equalize, but if you fancy entering new territory then it is worth investigating further.

Conclusion: After the quirky 3 . ttJ c3 ! ? the main line of A) 3 . . . cxd4 4.Wxd4 ttJ c6 5 .Wh4 often gives Whi te a dangerous kingside attack, especially if Black castles too early. Black avoids this pitfall in the critical line A32, but still has to plot a fine line through the complications in order to make it out of the opening. Even if he does White often retains a tiny advantage due to the important 1 5 .Wg3 , with which I improved on previous practice. So from a practical viewpoint, this is a useful tool to have in your armoury. Black's other options against 3 . ttJ c3 ! ? tend to transpose to other chapters, but I have pointed out some unexplored possibilities such as B) 3 . . . d5 4.ixf6 gxf6 5 . e4!? which may catch out an unprepared opponent.

Chapter 4 2 ... cS 3.dS 1 .d4 � f6 2.�g5 c5 3.d5 A) 3 ... �b6 4.� c3 �xb2 5.�d2 �b6 6.e4 Al) 6 ... d6 7.f4 Al l) 7 ... �c7 A12) 7 ... e6 A2) 6 ... e5 7.f4! d6 8.�f3 A2 1) 8 ... exf4 A22) 8 ... � bd7 9.fxe5 dxe5 10.!�bl A22 1) 1 0 ... �d8 A222) 1 0 ...�c7 B) 3 ... d6

80 81 82 82 84 85 86 87 88 90

80


1 .d4 tll f6 2.J.g5 c5 3.d5

1 .d4 tll f6 2.J.g5 c5 3.d5 We shall examine Black's most popular choice of A) 3 ... �b6 before taking a quick look at B) 3 d6. The other main option of 3 . . . lll e4 4.J.f4 is covered in the next chapter. .•.

A) 3 ...�b6 4.tll c3

3 ...�b6 This is Black's most popular response and Dembo's recommendation in Fighting the Anti-King's Indians - I've got some really good ideas in this line so it's one to look forward to playing. 3 . . . lll e4 4.J.f4 transposes into Chapter 5 . 3 . . . e 6 4.e4 transposes to line A o f Chapter 1 see page 1 3 . 3 . . . d 6 doesn't look particularly scary; I 'll touch upon this line at the end this chapter.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The Vaganian Gambit, which can also be reached via the move order l .d4 lll f6 2 .J.g5 c5 3 . lll c3 '1Wb6 4 . d 5 , and so is a key part of your repertoire whether you choose 3 . lll c3 or 3 . d 5 .

4 �xb2 •..

Taking the pawn is the only critical way to play, as otherwise White obtains an easy advantage: 4 . . . d6 5 . e4 lll bd7 6.�b l g6 7. lll f3 J.g7 8 .J.e2;!; with lll d2-c4 to come later.

4.tll c3 The Vaganian Gambit.

4 �xb2 5.J.d2 •.•

This brief introduction should help you successfully navigate your way around this chapter and its transpositional possibilities. We are now going to start looking at some lines - so enjoy!

5.J.d2 I experienced firsthand what it was like to play the black side of this line against possibly the best ever Trompowsky player, Julian Hodgson - I didn't last long! White's lead in development and additional space gives him a huge initiative, and I for one feel much more comfortable playing the white side. Some of the lines of theory are quite long, but the key thing to remember is to keep developing; if you stay ahead in development then Black will struggle to live with you.

Chapter 4

s ...Wb6 6.e4 Black now chooses between the old main line of Al) 6 ... d6 and the modern A2) 6 ... e5 .

Al) 6 ... d6 7.f4

- .

81

2 . . c5 3 . d 5

7 . . . ig4?! I personally suffered retribution for this incorrect move: 8.ie2 ixe2 9.Wfxe2 a6 1 0 .:!'!b l Wi'c7 I l . e5 dxe5 1 2.fxe5 ll'lfd7 1 3 .ll'lf3 e6 1 4 . 0-0 exd5 1 5 .e6 fxe6 1 6.Wfxe6t ie7 l 7.ll'lxd5 Wi'd6 8

7

6

�.1 • • • • � �'1··�rw.r --,v.

,.. �.,.... . . ��

%.

5 � w.-�-�-

- - - "� �� 3 �(% �� 8 �r� 8 �� £!§" 8 �� · 1 � r-�.rm h

4 2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

....

1 8 . ll'l g 5 ! ll'l c6 I 9 . ll'l c7t V!fxc7 20.Wf7t ct?d8 2 1 . ll'l e6t ct?c8 22.ll'lxc7 �xc7 23 .if4t 1 -0 Hodgson - R. Pert, Bradford 200 1 .

7 . . . e5 gives White a choice of transpositions into various lines:

7 . . . g6 ?! Talk about asking for it - Black makes no attempt to address the situation in the centre of the board: 8 . e 5 ! dxe5 9 . fxe5 lli fd7 I O . ll'l f3 ig7 1 1 .:!'!b I V!id8

.1 •.t.� · �-� • 7 &6i"� i)··-·· · "··· · "� �- - - - - "� . . . �� W"� �£ � 5 u. ��•.�� . . �..8 �£!§..•�.. 8

6

4 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

a) 8 . ll'l f3 reaches line A2 on page 8 5 . b ) 8 . dxe6 fxe6 9.l:!b l Wc7 1 0 . ll'l f3 a6 transposes to line A l 2 on page 83. c) 8.fxe5 is also liable to result in a transposition: 8 . . . dxe5 9 . ll'l f3 id6 (9 . . . lli bd7 1 0 .l:!b l V!fc7 transposes to line A222 on page 88) 1 0 .ic4 ll'l bd7 1 1 .:!'!b l Wi'd8 transposes to line A22 1 on page 87.

3

2

�

�-- -�

� � � ltj � �� ;� �• � �?J� 8 -''·8· · ··'�� 8 1r�

, �ra1�r•1: a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 2.e6 fxe6 1 3 . ll'l g5 ll'l f6 1 4.ib 5 t ct?f8 1 5 .dxe6 a6 1 6.ie3 W!a5 1 7. 0-0 h6 1 8 .Wd3 White keeps the pressure up and Black simply crumbles without ever getting into the game.

82


1 8 . . . <.:!?g8 1 9 .V!fxg6 ixe6 20.llixe6 Elh7 2 1 .Elxf6! lli d7 22 .ixd7 1 -0 Vaganian - Kupreichik, Leningrad 1 974.

9 dxe5 .••

9 . . . lli fd7?! looks far too passive: 1 0 .ie2!? dxe5 ( 1 O ... ixf3 1 l .exd6 exd6 1 2.ixf3 ie? 1 3 .V!fe2 lli f6 1 4.g4!-t) l 1 . lli b 5 V!fd8 1 2. lli xe5 ixe2 1 3 .V!fxe2 lli xe5 1 4 . fxe 5 ±

Al l) 7 ...V!f c7

8

. �;��!•ifJ-l�,J-

10.fxe5 .ixf3 l I .Vffxf3 V!fxe5t 12 ..ie2

7 :,� •� • r� • ,,.,,%.r� , . ,. %� ,,,. %. . , . , %-

6

,, � � 5 � �-�� ,., . %� ��rn �� 4 � �iftJ , . ,. %� m ��m � �� *' " �� ¥11 ."'

3

� r& �ilmfiR ,,

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This was discussed by Vilela in New in Chess Yearbook 86, but it hasn't caught on. Black's

plan is to delay committing his minor pieces, with the idea of meeting lli f3 with . . . ig4.

s.llif3

13.gbl g4 14.V!fd3 .ig7 15J�xb7 0-0 1 6.h3

8 .ib 5 t ? ! was Vilela's own choice in practice, but it looks wrong to give up your light squared bishop so cheaply: 8 . . . lli bd7 9 . lli f3 a6 1 0 .ixd7t lli xd7 1 1 . 0-0 g6 1 2 .e5 ig7 1 3 .e6 fxe6 1 4.dxe6 lli f6 l 5 .We2 b5+ Vilela de Acuna - Gonzalez Vidal, Barcelona 2007.

The simple 1 6. 0-0! ?N;t should perhaps be preferred.

16 ... hS 1 7.hxg4 hxg4 1 8.g3 lli bd7 1 9 ..if4 White may still have an edge, though Ehlvest - Kudrin, Reno 200 5 , soon finished in a draw.

8 ... .ig4 9.e5 I like this ambitious advance. 9.h3!? also provides reasonable compensation, netting the bishop pair along with more space and a lead in development: 9 . . . ixf3 1 0 .V!fxf3 a6 l l . a4 g6 1 2 .ic4 lli bd7 1 3 .a5 ig7 1 4 . 0-0 0-0 1 5 . lli a4 !!ae8 1 6 .!!ab l e6 1 7.dxe6 fxe6 1 8 .e5 dxe5 1 9 .Elxb7 V!f d6 20.V!f d3 V!f c6 2 l .ixa6 exf4 22. lli b6;t Solak - Romcovici, Calimanesti 1 999.

A1 2) 7 ... e6 8.gbl V!fc7 9.�f3 a6 Black has also tried: 9 . . . exd5 1 0 .ib 5 t ! ? 1 0 .e5!?N may b e even better: 1 0 . . . dxe5 l l . fxe5 lli e4 1 2 .lli xd5 Wd8 1 3 .if4 lli c6 1 4 .ic4± and White's centralized pieces give him more than enough compensation for the pawn. 1 o . . . lli c6!?

.

83

Chapter 4 - 2 . . c5 3 . d 5 Th i s unlikely-looking move i s probably Black's best try. 1 0 . . . .id? l I .e5 dxe5 1 2. fxe5 tll e4 1 3 .tll xd5;!; and Black is way behind in development.

1 1 .eS dxe5 1 2.fxeS �g4 13.id3 White is ready to sacrifice a second pawn, confident that his huge lead in development will be sufficient for an advantage. 8

1

6

�!a'! � A. �a , , Ui"B , , , , , % .i · . Y,m' · ,,, , ,/, �m 'SI �jjW tk.W� .a. �•� i • v�

� � � � ��r% lf� �� lf� ��r% m .. � . Ji� 7:----�� r� �� 3 �� m.... ;�'-�•��r��

s •

%

4

8m 8� �. 8 r8%. % 2 � � 0-< W Y, , , , �... 1 U M miV� �� M '�

l I . tll xd5 l l .exd5 a6 1 2.�e2t ie7 1 3 .ia4 b5 1 4.ixb5 axb5 1 5 .tll xb 5 �d7 1 6 .dxc6 �xc6 1 7 . 0-0 tll e4 1 8 .gfe l f5 1 9 .�c4= l I . . .tll xd5 1 2. exd5 a6 1 3 . .id3 til e? 1 3 . . . tll b4 1 4.ixb4 cxb4 1 5 . 0-0 .ie7 1 6.�e2 0-0 1 7.�e4 g6 1 8 .�xb4t 1 4.c4;!; White's lead in development is well worth a pawn.

a

1 3 ... �xeS

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 3 . . . c4 1 4.ie4 tll d7 ( 1 4 . . . ic5 1 5 . tll g5 .if2t 1 6.'it>fl lll xe5 l 7.'kt>xfL. 0-0t 1 8 .'it>e l +- and the white king is quite safe) 1 5 . 0-0 ic5 t 1 6.'it>h l tll fL.t 1 7.gxfL. ixf2 l 8 .tll g5 tll xe5 1 9 .ixh? id4 20. tll ce4 White's attack is overwhelming and even returning the exchange will not save Black. 20 . . . gxh? 2 1 . tll xh? tll f7 22.�h 5 +1 3 . . . tll d? 1 4 .�e2 tll dxe5 1 5 .tll xe5 tll xe5 1 6. 0-0 tll x d3 1 7. tll d5 �e5 1 8 .Wxe5 tll xe5 1 9 . tll c?t 'kt>e7 20. tll xa8;!;

14.ie4 tli bd7 Black is also in serious danger after: 1 4 . . . id6

84

Richard Pert - Playin g the Trom powsky

1 5 . 0-0 0-0 a) 1 5 . . . lll g4?! 1 6.lll g5!� b) 1 5 . . . lll xf3t ? ! 1 6.Wxf3 �f8 ( 1 6 ... !i.xh2t? Black hasn't got time for all this. 1 7. ii h 1 !i.e5 1 8 .ixb7 �a7 1 9.!i.xc8 Wxc8 20.Wh5t +-) 1 7 .Wh5 t g6 1 8 .!i.xg6t!

1 5.0-0 tlif7

•� .1 •.t• .. ..: . . ,v, � �� 7 �� ... � 6 , . �� · �..t� 8

J�·0

�@.i'%""'" � � � � � : � �� 1� �m. . ,:�·�0 � �� -"' �� 3R - � �� 2 8D 8� 8� � . . . � . Y.� �%-� . . % 1 �g· �g� h �

>,

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

1 8 . . . hxg6 1 9 .Wxg6t ii d7 20.�xf8 ixf8 2 1 .Wf7t+c) 1 5 . . . g6 1 6. lll x e5 fi.xe5 1 6.Wf3! and White has a huge initiative. 1 6 . lll xe5 �xfl t 1 7.iixfl ixe5 1 8 .ixh?t! iixh7 1 9 .Wh 5 t ii g8 20 .We8t iih7 2 1 .lll e4! 2 I .Wh 5 t is a draw by perpetual check, but White has much better. 2 l . . . !i.f4 22.�b3 Threatening �h3t. 22 ... e5 2 3 .ixf4 exf4 24.lll g5t @h6 2 5 . lll e6! ixe6 26.l.Wxe6t g6

1 9.llixf7 iixf7 20.he5 !i.e7 2 1 .YNhSt @gs 22.!i.xf6 gxf6 23J�xf6 1-0 Moskalenko - Erdogdu, Ankara 20 I 0 .

A2) 6 ... e5

A u% � §i;�� ,y, ··- -� ' � ., --� '!S �m �W '� � ,.,.,, 7:. .. � � .� � 5 ., � � � � � � :� m. i � � � � �r� � �r"" 2 8 a 8 � r[j 8 r[j �� , �Vm£�! � 'l!i' �w� 8 B. �� : .JL� ·

7

6

,%

... .

1

27.Wf6!+And 28.�h3t will win.

'y

,, , , , Y,

a

b

c

7: . . . . %

;m.·� d

,,, , , %

e

f

g

% ..

h

This move has been recommended for Black by several authors, most recently Dembo in Fighting the anti-King's Indians. Dembo's idea is at a later point to drop her queen back to c7 and place her bishop on e7, with the idea of transferring her knight to d6 to create a

blockade. However, we intend to scupper those plans well before she gets a chance to do all of that.

.

7 . . d6 s.tlia

7.f4! I believe that this is objectively White's best choice, although you might feel a bit spoilt for choice here as White has another way to act against Black's plans involving . . . Wlc7. 7.Ei:b 1 ! ? Wlc7 Black can only choose this if he is happy to draw, although White does not have to take the draw but can instead claim a small advantage. 7 . . . Wld8 8 . f4 d6 9 . lD f3 lD bd7 1 0 . fxe5 dxe5 would transpose to line A22 1 below.

z •tt�•� . :st. -.�--•. • • 6 � .....7.. . . . . .. s

7

�

z,,,,%

��-i.i%ef"""�•� � i�-.i%� lS � �� %,,, - �� "----�� mlS �i� ��lS � 3 lS � �8 �� f if!1

5

4 2

w �

�

�-�

',, , , , , :�f"'x

.

A2 1 ) 8 . . exf4

%

A useful tip for White in this line is that before recapturing on f4 he should first play Ei:b 1 while the d2-bishop is dissuading . . . Wla5 .

�-%

1 nra1mtn� a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

8 . lD b 5 ! Wlb6 Playing for the draw is the best option, but it hardly going to appeal to Black if he is the stronger player. With 8 . . . Wld8 ? Black tries to play for the win but it is about to go all wrong: 9 . d6! lD a6 1 0.ic4 g6 1 1 . lD f3 and Black is already in serious trouble. 9 . f4!? Of course taking the repetition with 9 . lD c3 Wlc7 1 0. lD b 5 is possible. 9 . . . d6 1 0 . lD f3 lD bd7 1 0 . . . a6? 1 1 . lD xd6t Wlxd6 1 2 . fxe5+1 1 . fxe5 dxe5 1 2 . lD a3 Wlc7 1 3 .id3 ie7 1 4. lD c4;!; White has a comfortable plus.

9.eS!? White can also nudge the queen immediately: 9.Ei:b l ! ? Wld8 9 . . . Wlc7?! 1 0 .ixf4 ig4 l 1 . lD b 5 ! (stronger than 1 1 .h3 ixf3 1 2 .Wlxf3 a6 1 3 .ie2 lD bd7 1 4.0-0, although this also gives White

86

Richard Pert - Playing the Tro m powsky

reasonable compensation) l l . . . �a5t 1 2.�d2 �xd2t 1 3 . tll x d2 d7 1 4.tll c4± and Black was struggling to keep all the threats under control in Pankov - Frolochkin, St Petersburg 2009. 1 0 .ixf4 ie7

l

I .ib5 t White has more than o n e way t o demonstrate compensation for the pawn : l I .id3 0-0 1 2 .0-0 tll bd7 1 3 .h3 tll e8 1 4.e5 dxe5 l 5 .tll x e5 tll x e5 l 6.ixe5 id6 l 7.�e2� Nguyen - Karatorossian, Budapest 2004. l 1 . e5!?N dxe5 1 2.tll x e5 0-0 1 3 .ie2 offers good compensation as Black has to keep an eye out for d5-d6 at any moment, making it hard for him to develop with . . . tll bd7. 1 1 . . .tll fd? 1 1 . . . tll bd? 1 2 . 0-0 0-0 1 3 .e5? This is the wrong moment as Black can now take with his knight, easing the pressure on his position by an exchange of pieces . ( 1 3 .a4 would offer White reasonable compensation.) 13 ... tll x e5+ De Prado Rodriguez - Milchev, Arteixo 2007. 1 2. 0-0 0-0 1 3 .e5 dxe5 1 4.tll x e5;!; White held a slight advantage in Antidrome - Tripy, Internet 20 1 2.

9 ... �g4 After 9 . . . dxe5 1 0 .tll x e5 White keeps good pressure, for example: 1 0 . . . id6 l I . tll c4 �d8 1 2 .tll b 5 ±

1 0.ixf4 dxe5 l I .tll x e5 tll x e5 l 2.ixe5 f6 1 3 .ig3 (The immediate 1 3 .ib 5tN is also interesting: 1 3 . . . id? 1 4.�h 5 t ©d8! [ 1 4 . . . g6 1 5 .�e2±] 1 5 .ixb8 ixb 5 1 6.ig3;!;) 1 3 . . . id6 l 4.ib5t± Perunovic - Ostoj ic, Kragujevac 2009.

1 0 Y«ds

Both 1 0 . . . �c? l I .tll b5 and 1 I .tll b5 are clearly good for White. •..

1 0 . . . �a5

l l .ib5t J.d7 1 2ixf4± Black is already struggling to contain White.

A22) 8 ... � bd7 9.fxe5 dxe5 lOJ�bl

87

Chapter 4 - 2 . . . c5 3 . d 5 Black now withdraws the queen with A22 1 )

1 0 ...Wff d8 or A222) 1 0 ...Wff c7.

This used to be considered Black's main choice, but it fell a bit out of favour after the strong grandmaster Nij boer lost twice at the hands of up-and-coming youngsters.

1 1 .i.c4 i.d6 When the queen is on d8 , the bishop belongs on d6 to blockade the d-pawn . 1 1 . . . i.e7?! Black is mixing his systems here. 1 2 .ig5 h6? Black should probably admit his mistake and play 1 2 . . . id6, accepting the loss of a tempo. 1 3 .d6! Suddenly White breaks through with a decisive attack.

-� ��•£tJj!.,, � ·· · -�n,,.,, ... . 7 .... . �·Y.. 8

. .. ... . .- .

%

%

%

.

�

� -- ·;· % � ""'" : � ��i!-� � !., �- -��-�01.!� �� w----� � l .: �if� 8- .l: � %

.

.

%

,

,.,,,

,.,

.

%

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

7

g

h

1 3 . . . hxg5 1 4.lll xg5 0-0 1 5 . 0-0 lll b6 1 6.dxe7 Wxe7 l 7.�xb6 axb6 1 8 . lll d5 lll xd5 1 9 .Wh5 Wxg5 20.Wxg5 lll f4 2 1 .Wxe5 ie6 22.�xf4 ixc4 23 .Wh5 �xa2 24.�h4 �a l t 2 5 .@f2 f5 26.Wh7t @f7 27.exf5 1 -0 Bruzon - Nij boer, Wijk aan Zee 2004.

1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.i.gS h6 14.i.h4

1.

�..ts v. •,, ,, ,, , ;/, �� -� , , , , , �,� �14� ��ll�� -� [��

l,W �

- � �-: Ii% 5 � m''8"."""-""'% �� :i� /i � � % �%'"//, �� -�- , ,�

6

A22 1) 10 ...Wff d8

6 5

s

4

3 - �, mtt:Jm 2 �� /8 ,� ��

:� ph;'' :m � �� 1� �� 1:: M1W �� a

1 4 ... a6

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I also looked at: 1 4 . . . lll b6 Black tries to untangle himself at the expense of weakening his protection of f6. 1 5 .Wd3! I like the idea of not allowing Black to exchange his bishop via . . . i.g4 . 1 5 . . . lll xc4 After 1 5 . . . ig4 1 6.lll d2 g5 1 7.if2 ih5 1 8 .a4t Black's position is littered with weaknesses for White to attack. 1 6.Wxc4 b6 1 6 . . . a6 1 7.a4 �b8 1 8 .Wd3t with lll d2-c4 to come. 1 7.a4 i.b7 1 8 . lll b5 We? 1 9 . lll d2 g5 20 .ig3 lll h5 2 1 .Wb3 lll f4 22.lll c4t

1 5.a4 Wffa5 1 5 . . . Wc? 1 6. lll d2 lll h7 was played in Avila Jimenez - Movsziszian, Tarragona 2007, and now 1 7.ie2!Nt intending lll c4 looks good.

1 6.i.el Wffd8 17.tll h4 White can of course repeat the position with 1 7.i.h4, but Nakamura has more ambitious ideas in mind.

1 7 ... tli e8 1 8.tll fS

88


8

7

.i �jj · ,,,,,/,]'!ll ��-v, � � � , � . � �£�� ·£ - �! ,, m ,, . ,,,,.

%

� F

�- �� 5 - �--8 �� 4 8�t� �8�� 3 � ��,, � �� W/'"'1 2 � �� % ., �. �.flj� 6

- .a: �"if� .a: = a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White's passed d-pawn, his lead in development and greater space offer good compensation for the pawn. Obviously there is plenty of play left here, but I favour White. In the rest of the game White failed to keep control and Black gained a decisive advantage, before he in turn went astray. I have given the remaining moves so you can see how Nakamura triumphed in the end - it's worth playing through if you have the time.

38.ge4!! gf5 39.WxfS !xf5 40.gxc4 tlif4 41.�e4 !£8 42.�xg3 !d7 43.tlih5 1-0 Nakamura - Nijboer, Wij k aan Zee 2004.

A222) 10 ...Wc? Dembo's recommendation, but Black is about to come under some serious pressure.

1 1 .� h5 Wbs In Fighting the Anti-King's Indians, Dembo says "Note that 1 1 . tll b5 is met, as explained above by 1 1 . . . Wb8" and ends her analysis there. But anyone blindly following her book, which on the whole is very good, is about to get a shock! Black's best is probably 1 1 . . .Wb6, begging for a quick draw, but White should turn down the repetition. We reached this position by a different move order in the note to White's 7th move on page 8 5 , and pointed out that 1 2 . tll a3 Wc7 1 3 .id3 ie7 1 4 . ll:i c4;!; gives White a comfortable plus.

18 ... � df6 1 9.�e3 !e7 20.!g3 � d6 2 1 .Wd3 tli d7 22.�f5 i>h7 23J�f3 g6 24.�xd6 !xd6 25.!fl �f6 26.h3 �h5 27.!e3 gbs 2s.gbfl f6 29.Wd2 g5 30.h4 g4 3 1 .g3f2 f5 32.exfS g3 33J'!f3 Wxh4 34.gel Wxc4 35.!xh6 !xf5 36.!xfS gxrs 37.Wg5 !g6

12 . . . tll xe4 1 3 . tll c7t �d8 1 4 .llixa8 Wxa8 ( 1 4 . . . ixd6 1 5 . tll g5 tll xg5 1 6 .ixg5t f6

Chapter 4 - 2 . . . c5 3 . d 5

89

1 7.ie3 ie3 1 8 .Wg4±) 1 5 .ic4 lli xd6 1 6.id5;!; Although Black has three pawns for the exchange, White's huge lead in development gives him the advantage.

1 3 ..ia5 White hits the d6-bishop, which cannot move due to the need to keep the c7-square under control.

13 ... rtle7 The other way of defending the bishop looks very risky: 1 3 . . . ctJ xe4 I think it unlikely that Black would play this in tournament play.

14 .. �f8 J

1 4 . . . ctJe8 1 5 .ic4+1 4 . . . b6 1 5 . llixf7
a

b

c

d

e

f

g

1 6.llixd6t
h

1 4. lli g5 ! White aims t o deflect the e4-knight so that he can pick off the d6-bishop. 1 4 . . . tt::l xg5 After 1 4 . . . lli df6 1 5 . lli xe4 lli xe4 1 6.Wd5 Black can save his piece with 1 6 . . . a6! but then l 7 . ctJ xd6t llixd6 l 8 .Wxc5 lli f5 l 9 .ic7 Wa7 20.:B:b6;!; leaves the black queen shut out. l 5 . lli xd6t e8 2 1 .ic4;!; 1 6. lli f5 t
1 5 .. �xf7?! J

Black should return material with 1 5 . . . 'it>xf7, though 1 6. lli xd6t is clearly good for White.

90


1 6.c!lixd6 Wxd6?! Letting White demonstrate the point of his combination, though by now Black's position is beyond saving: 1 6 . . tli b6 1 7. tll xf7 +-

.

ixb2 1 3 . tll xd6t @e7 1 4.�b l ( 1 4. tll ge4!? is interesting, as 1 4 ... ixa l ?! 1 5 .W/xa l leaves the black king very exposed) 1 4 . . . lilxd6 l 5 . tll e4t @c7

�

s x� B �-� . � � . , /· · ·· · _]': . . . A• :.A •.tU. -- . ..%.� iw..% .... %� 61 U.

17.i.dst This picks up the black queen.

5

17 ... ©xdS 1 8.Wxd6+-

4

B) 3 ... d6 4.c!lic3

3 2 1

� �-! � !� · · · " �-�- - �.!. ��

u. . . . WA iw.WM �WM;, n � o�� ??� o � �ii= � · { · · · "m � � "lt m':f�

ru?. o ru,,

b

a

r

d

c

f

e

h

g

Gormally now went for the throat with a risky piece sacrifice. 1 6 .d6t (the sensible l 6.�xb2 should suffice for an advantage) 1 6 . . . ltic8 1 7. 0-0 id4 1 8 .c3 ic6 1 9 .Wid3 White went on to win in Gormally - Mason, Canterbury 20 1 0, but at this stage it was not at all clear. 7.id3 ig7 8 .tll f3 0-0 9 . 0-0 tll d7 1 0 .tll d2 a6 l l . a4 tll e5 1 2 .ie2 f5

4 ... g6 Black has also tried: 4 . . . h6?! To be honest, I am amazed how often this move has been played - it looks all wrong to me as Black takes time to force us to play a move that we want to play anyway! Funnily enough, the two games I have chosen to illustrate this line, Gallagher Knott and Gormally - Mason, both won prizes (for White!) as "Game of the Day" in the British Championships, in 200 1 and 20 1 0 respectively. 5 .ixf6 exf6 6.e4 g6 With 6 . . . f5 Black sacrifices a pawn, and whilst the bishop pair does give him some compensation, I have to favour White. 7.ib 5 t tll d7 8 . exf5 ie7 9 . tll ge2 a6 1 0 .ixd7t ixd7 l 1 .tll g3 if6 1 2. tll ce4

s i. U..t�% � ·�

------ • .,v,, 6� l• �- �•.

r

7

,�.

s L�-�"·f· · · · �� "" ' "� '· - - · ·� �� : i �m �i �� · · · 'm.iJ ,, .,,,/, �W-"�'' � 2 �efw.-��8 8 efw.-�� 1

�,�- - · ?.• ·3 -v-:m· � . a

b

c

d

e

f

g

,,. . . /,

h

1 3 . exf5 gxf5 Black can't recapture his pawn with l 3 . . . ixf5 as his pieces gets in a tangle: l 4 . f4 tll d7 l 5 . g4 and the bishop drops. 1 4 .a5 b5 1 5 . axb6 Wlxb6 1 6.�a2 �e8 1 7.@h l Wd8 1 8 . f4 tll g4 1 9 .ixg4 fxg4 20.tll ce4 f5 2 1 .tll g3 �a7 22. tll c4t

91

Chapter 4 - 2 . . . c5 3 . d 5 Gallagher - Knott, Scarborough 200 1 ; White's position is preferable as he has the better pawn structure.

5.e4 White intends to take a very direct approach against Black's fianchetto.

s ....ig7 6.VNd2

6 ... 0-0 Although this is natural, Black may prefer not to submit to a kingside attack and instead search for an alternative: 6 . . . Wb6!? 7.ib 5 t 7.id3!?N may be appropriate for the more attack-minded player: 7 . . . Wxb2 8 .Elb l Wa3 9 .tll f3� 7 . . . id7 8 . a4 ixb 5 9 . axb5 lll bd7

White may also look to expand on the kingside: 6 . f4 ! ?

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

6 . . . h6!? Immediately putting the question to the white bishop seems a critical option for Black. 6 . . . 0-0 7. tll f3 a6 (7 . . . b5 8 .ixb 5 tll xe4 9 . tll xe4 Wa5t 1 0 .@fl;j; Bosiocic - Rezan, Sibenik 2008) 8 . a4 tll h5 9 . f5 tll d7 1 0 .ie2 Elb8 1 1 . 0-0 lll hf6 1 2 .We l Ele8 1 3 .Wh4;!; With ih6 and tll g5 on the cards, White has attacking chances, Hodgson - Hjarrarson, Bermuda 1 997. 7.ih4 Wa5 7 . . . Wb6 8 .ib5t id7 9 . a4 a6 1 0.a5t 8 .Wd2 lll h5 9 .ib5 t id7 1 0 .ixd7t tll xd7 l l . tll ge2 tll xf4! l 2.Wxf4 1 2.tll xf4 g5 1 3 . tll h5 ixc3 1 4. bxc3 gxh4 l 5 .tll g7t is also unclear. 1 2 . . . g500 Gelashvili - Kourkounakis, Leros 2009.

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 0 .lll f3N 1 O .ih6? is too direct and doesn't fir in with White's previous three moves in which she was playing positionally on the queenside: 1 0 . . . 0-0 l 1 . lll ge2 ixh6 1 2 .Wxh6 a6 1 3 .bxa6 Wxb2! 1 4. 0-0 Elxa6+ Stefanova Vallejo Pons, Gibraltar 20 1 1 . 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 . 0-0 a6 1 2. bxa6 Elxa6 1 3 .Elxa6 Wxa6 1 4.h3 Ela8 1 5 .b3 White has a slight initiative.

92


7.ih6! hh6 8.%Vxh6 a6 9.tlif3 tli bd7 10.tligS ges 1 1 .ie2 tlif8 12.h4 White's Route One tactics will prove difficult for Black to stop.

Conclusion: It has to be said that White gets excellent play for the pawn in the various lines of the Vaganian Gambit. So much so that I imagine even the more risk-averse of you might be willing to give it a go! The key thing to remember when investing material for an attack is always look to develop; if you apply that principle then White will have ample compensation. I would draw your attention once again to the strength of the novelty l 2.d6!N in line A222 I reckon that readers of Dembo's book will have to go back to the drawing board on this one. By contrast, B) 3 . . d6 is a much more solid approach, but I hope that our quick look has given you some ideas on how to play for the attack against it. -

.

Chapter 5 2 ... � e4 3.if4 c5 4.d5 1 .d4 � f6 2.i.g5 � e4 3.i.£4 c5 4.d5 A) 4 ... e6 5.f3 Al) 5 ... �f6 A2) 5 ... i.d6 B) 4 ... 11Mb6 Bl) 5.�d2!? B l l) 5 ... �xd2 B l 2) 5 ... 11Mxb2 B2) 5.i.cl B2 1) 5 ... g6 B22) 5 ... e6

95 95 96 98 98 98 1 00 1 03 1 03 1 04

94


1 .d4 tll f6 2.i.g5 tll e4 3.i.f4 c5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White now has an important choice to make: So we move on to the main line. Black first hits our bishop with his knight and then attacks our centre with . . . c5, at the same time creating a route for his queen to join the party. I have covered several choices for White from here, some sacrificial and some more solid, so you can choose whichever you feel best suits your playing style.

4.d5 If you choose to meet 2 . . . c5 with 3.d5 then you should make sure you have this line in your repertoire, as you can then get this position by a direct transposition after 3 . . . tli e4 4.if4. If you are looking to cut down on the number of lines you have to learn, then opting for the current line along with 2 . . . c5 3 . d5 should save you some studying time. 4.f3 will be covered in the next chapter. It can also lead to a choice between sacrificial and solid lines.

4 ...§°b6 4 . . . e6 is a key alternative which we will examine. I have a couple of major improvements for White in this line.

a) s.tll d2!? sacrifices the b2-pawn for an initiative. It is very much in the spirit of the Trompowsky and I will focus on this line. b) 5.i.cl provides a more solid, though slightly bizarre-looking option, which seems to offer White good prospects of an advantage. Note that this line should be looked at together with line B3 l in the next chapter, which arises after 4.f3 '1Wa5 t 5 . c3 tli f6 6.d5 '1Wb6 7.ic l ; often the only difference between the lines is whether the white pawn is on c2 or c3 .

1 .d4 tll f6 2.J.gS tll e4 I would remind you chat 2 . . . c5 3.d5 llJ e4 4.if4 transposes co our main line.

3.J.£4 c5 4.d5

1 2 . lD bc3 lD d7 1 3 .0-0-0 llJ f6 1 4 .h4 Wh8 1 5 .h5 lD fxh5 1 6.g4 llJ f6 1 7 . lD g3t White built up the pressure co boiling point and won a good game in Summerscale - B. Lalic, Coulsdon 1 999.

A) 4 ...e6 5.f'3

We shall examine A) 4 e6 and B) 4 'Wb6, after first looking at a few minor alcernatives. ..•

•.•

4 . . . Wa5t 5 . c3 ( 5 . lD d2 is also possible: 5 . . . d6 6.c3 lDxd2 7.Wxd2 llJ d7 8 . e4 g6 9 . llJ f3 ig7 1 0 .ih6 0-0 l l .id3 llJ f6 1 2 .ixg7 c;!
.i llY..tN!z ��·.iv.lf ., _ i .... •• • •• 67 � �. . 8

Wi--� � ��n� �� '· · · ·� . �!� .�,!� � � � � �� 3 � ... ,, . . . . %

%

%

2 l

_ . z.,_ , .z�.:�1

!n�-,� .!� a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

5 ... Wa5t 6 . c3 lD f6 7.e4 transposes to line B l in the next chapter (see page 1 1 3) . 5 . . . Wf6 is rather messy, but i t should end up in White's favour: 6.ixb8 Wxb2 7 . fxe4 Wxa l 8 .ig3 Wxa2 9 . e3 b5 1 0 . llJ f3 ib7 l l .ie2 Wa5t 1 2 . llJ bd2 exd5 1 3 . 0-0 f6 1 4. exd5 and White's advantage was clear in Nikolaev Kopasov, Sc Petersburg 2002.

AI) 5 tll f6 6.e4 exd5 7.exd5 d6 ..•

8 . . . d6 9 .ih6 ixh6 1 0 .Wxh6 e6 l l . O-O-O exd5 1 2. exd5 a6 1 3 . llJ ge2 b5 1 4. llJ g3 :i'!e8 1 5 . llJ ce4 lDxe4 1 6 . llJxe4 f5 1 7.llJg5 We? 1 8 .ixb 5 ! We3t 1 9 .Wb l :i'!e7 20.ie8 1 -0 Adams - Ki . Georgiev, Burgas 1 993. 4 ... d6 5 . f3 llJ f6 6.e4 e5 (6 ... g6 7.lDc3 ig7 8.Wd2 0-0 9 .ih6 transposes co the above Adams game) 7.ie3 ie7 8 . lD e2 0-0 9.c4 The game has taken on the contours of a Czech Benoni. 9 . . . llJ e8 1 0 .Wd2 g6 1 1 .ih6 lDg7 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

96


s.ib5t!? 8 . tLl c3 is of course possible coo: 8 . . . ie7 9 . lli ge2 0-0 1 0. tLl g3 ge8 l l .ie2 a6 1 2 .a4 lli bd7 1 3 . 0-0 if8 1 4.Wi'd2;!; Stefanova Areshchenko, Gibralcar 2006.

Black, but chat was a lacer stage of the game and it was his opponent who missed the first chance.

8 ... lli bd7 9.Y«e2t Wi'e7 1 0.tlic3 a6 1 1 .!xd?t @xd7 l l . . .ixd7 1 2 . 0-0-0 Wi'xe2 1 3 . tLl gxe2 0-0-0 1 4.g4 White has a small bur clear advantage in the endgame and she steadily builds up her position.

••• � � l•t·· ·�-., , 67 � ��.� �c,J. . . J� �� £•�· 2•t�• 8w � •�� 4� .r.� . . .� . z. 8

s

� ·�� 3 �w·�� ..... :� �� W"{i 2 8 �� 8 • ttJ • � . . . � � . r. i � .. F 0� � .. . r. � �� z

a

b

c

d

e

�

f

-� g

h

1 4 . . . h6 1 5 . h4 b5 1 6 . lli g3 b4 1 7. lli b l ie7 1 8 . c4 lli h7 1 9 .gde l if8 20.llid2 g6 2 1 . tLl de4 ie8 22.ge2 White's advantage was already of decisive proportions in Scefanova T. Kosintseva, Krasnocurinsk 2006.

12.0-0-0 Wi'xe2 13.tligxe2 b5 14.g4 The immediate 1 4. lli g3 ! ? also looks strong.

14 ... !b7 1 5.tlig3 h6 1 6.tlige4 tli eS 17J�hel gds We have been following a game by Wesley So, and I remember chatting with him on the internee about chis game. He had been watching me play blitz - it seemed odd co me chat he spent his morning preparation watching ochers play blitz, but I remember he went out and thrashed Ray Robson in the afternoon, so it seemed co work. In chis game he felc he was doing well with

1 8 .gS ie7 1 9 .gxh6 gxh6 20.ge2 f5 2 1 . tLl g3 lli g7 22.gg2 was unclear in Rodriguez Vila So, Khancy-Mansiysk (ol) 20 1 0 .

1 8 ... tli c7 1 9.b4 c4 20.h4 !e7 2 1 .ge2 ghe8 22.@b2;!; White has control of the board and a potential a3-a4 break on the cards.

A2) 5 ... !d6

This move has been seen as quite a tricky move for White to face, and in their books Joe Gallagher, Richard Palliser and Pete Wells all highlighted it as a potential problem for White. Hopefully my new analysis presented here will offer White prospects of an advantage.

6.i.xd6 lll xd6 7.e4 White's choice of move order is important, as can be appreciated by looking at the inaccurate alternative: 7 . lli c3 ? ! 8

7

6

·�w• ; ...e..., � � �,�� !aa •/..,.• ··-� -��-.•%•� �� A .a. ;� .JL � �

! --%

·

%

,, �Q, ��-t��· · · '�• �� @. % �� : � �m �� !� � 2 !�8· '· !· !� 1 �· · ·ef . . %� 1�!�i 5

%

•••

this opening to great effect on the club scene when I was growing up as a kid. 8 . . . 0-0 9 .Wi'd2 Wa5 1 0. lli h3 White comes up with the clever idea of developing his knight to f2, so that his bishop can keep an eye on the c4-square to stop the d6-knight getting into the game. 10 .. . f6 l l . l'll f2 a6 1 2.i.e2 lll f7 1 3 . 0-0 d6 1 4.a3 l'll d7 1 5 .i'l:fb l b5 1 6. b4 cxb4? ( 1 6 . . . Wc? l 7.a4±) l 7.axb4 We? l 8 . lli xb 5 +- Munson Jo. Hodgson, England 20 1 0 .

8.b3 f5 9.lll c3 fxe4 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 .Wd2 e5 ( 1 0 . . . fxe4 l 1 .fxe4 Wb4 1 2 .a3 Wd4 1 3 . tll f3 Wi'xd2t 1 4. @xd2±) l l .i.d3 f4 ( l l . . . fxe4 1 2. fxe4 lll f7 1 3 .l'll f3 d6 1 4. a4±) 1 2 .lll ge2±

•••••

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

7 . . . W/h4t!N I found this seriously strong new move a long time ago, but it has yet to appear in a serious game. 8 . g3 Wi'b4 I remember beating Nakamura as Black in a blitz game in this variation in Gibraltar 2005 - something which doesn't happen very often! 9 .i'l:b l 9 . dxe6 dxe6 l l .Wfxd6 Wi'xb2 favours Black. 9 . . . lli b 5 9 . . . lli c4 1 0 .e4 lli a3 ! also looks interesting. 1 0 .dxe6 dxe6 l l .Wi'd2 lli xc3 1 2 .Wi'xc3 Wxc3 t 1 3 . bxc3 b6 1 4. e4 e7+ 7 Wb6 ••• 7 . . . e 5?! 8 . tll c3 transposes into a game played by Shaun Munson, a former clubmate of mine in Ipswich. I remember Shaun using 1 0 ... exf3?! This natural-looking move runs into trouble as Black falls behind White in the race to develop. 1 0 . . . Wi'b4 l l .a3 Wd4 1 2 . fxe4 is better for White as . . . lli xe4 is not possible here. 1 1 .lll xf3 0-0 1 2.0-0-0 lll f5 1 3.i.c4 lll a6 98 Richard Pert - Playing the Tro m powsky exchange knights with BU) 5 ... lLlxd2 or take the proffered pawn immediately by 1 4J�hfl ± Bl2) 5 ... VNxb2. B U ) 5 ... tLlxd2 This is most common but I am not sure if it's best. 6.i.xd2 B) 4 ...VNb6 6 ...VNxb2 Black really has to take the pawn here; otherwise he will find himself worse off as White has more space. The critical move, giving White a decision to make about the b2-pawn; he may sacrifice it by Bl) 5.tLld2!? or defend it with B2) 5.i.cl . Bl) 5.llid2!? I like chis move with which White takes the fight to his opponent. Black can now first 6 . . . e5 7.e4 Plaskett simply develops, ignoring the b2-pawn, confident chat White will gain compensation should Black cake the pawn at any point. Jim Plaskett was present at the Pere - Hunt game given below, and at the post-match evening meal he assured me chat chis is right way to play. 7 .i.c3 was played in a recent game and is a solid alternative: 7 . . . d6 8 . e4 i.e7 9 . lLi f3 0-0 I O .i.d3 Gareev - Mikhalevski, Las Vegas 20 1 2; if anyone is better it must be White, but it's not a lot. 7 e6 ••. White also has good chances if Black opts to fianchetto : 7 . . . g6 8 .gb l W/f6 8 . . . Wi'xa2 ? ? 9 .i.c3 +8 . . . W/e5 9 .id3 c4 1 0. tt:\ f3 Wi'c7 l l .i.e2 ig7 1 2 . 0-0 d6 1 3 .gb4 ig4 1 4 .gxc4± S. Ernst Scholz, Germany 2007 9 . tt:\ f3 d6 a b c d e f g s ,i •.t. �•� & . h -�"'-�.-,Y.� �, "· · · "· �•.... 7.B ' � 5 • �-� �� · · · · %� -�'>�....�.�� 7 7 . . . d6 7 . . . Wi'xb2? 8 . tt:\ f3 d6 9.gb l +- and the black queen is in trouble. 8 .i.d3 tt:\ d7 9 . tt:\ e2 g6 1 0 . c4 i.g7 1 l .Wi'c2 a6 1 2 .gb l 0-0 1 3 . 0-0 �h8 1 4.a3 White had a clear advantage and went on to win a good game, Plaskett - Hjartarson, Reykj avik 1 992. 6 ... d6 7.e4 e5 8 . dxe6 (8 .i.d3 is Plaskett's approach and probably right, nevertheless my method proved sufficient for an edge) 8 . . . ixe6 9 .ic3 tt:\ c6 1 0 . tt:\ e2 0-0-0 l 1 . tt:\ f4 tt:\e5 1 2.ie2 g5 1 3 . tt:\ xe6 fxe6 1 4 .ig4 ge8 1 5 .ixe5 dxe5 1 6. 0-0± R. Pert - A. Hunt, West Bromwich 200 5 . 7.e4 White has fantastic compensation for the pawn and stands better in my view. 6 43 � �� '�'�· o • o i�r��'�Af �o� 1 •imlmt_, 7. 2 a b c d e f g h l O .gb3 When I played this line it became apparent to me how much pressure White can apply with simple development. 1 0 . . .ig7 l l .i.b5t tt:\ d7 1 2. 0-0 h6 1 3 .i.c3 Wxc3 1 4.gxc3 i.xc3 1 5 .e5± R. Pert - Jaunooby, Hastings 20 1 1 . White has netted the black queen and continues to build pressure on the undeveloped black position. 8.l£if3 exd5 9.exd5 i.e7 9 . . . d6? 1 0 .gb 1 Wf6 l Li.b 5 t tt:\d7 1 2 . 0-0 i.e7 1 3 .ge l h6 1 4.We2 and the king is in a mess: 1 4 . . . @d8 1 5 .ixd7 @xd7 1 6.ic3 Wxc3 1 7.Wi'xe7# 10.gbl Once again we see Jim Plaskett play this line with real aggression. 1 0 .�£6 1 0 . . . Wxa2 l l .ic3 Threatening ga l . l 1 . . .Wa4 1 2 .id3 0-0 1 3 . 0-0 d6 1 4 .ge l .. 1 00 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky White's compensation is massive. 1 4 . . . id8 1 5 .Wi'd2 Wl'g4 1 6 .h3 Wi'h5 1 7.Wi'f4 Wi'h6 1 8 .Wi'xh6 gxh6 1 9 .id2 l!.ig7 20 .if4 ic7 2 1 .E'!:e7 lll d7 22.ll\ h4;!; and White is cranking up the pressure. This option is slightly less common, but may be Black's best. 6.t!Jxe4 Wl'b4t 7.c3 This rare line is a speciality of Teimour Radjabov. I prefer it to the main alternative of 7.Wl'd2 because it allows White to keep an eye on both the b4- and a4-squares. No matter how unlikely it seems at the moment, having control of those additional squares may mean that White can trap the black queen in the middle of the board at a future point in the game. 7 ... Wl'xe4 8.e3 g5 This is widely regarded as strongest, though Black has tried various other moves: 8 . . . b 5 ? ! was the choice of Areshchenko, a strong grandmaster, but it seems too slow: 9 . lll f3 c4 14 ...Ag4 1 5.Ac3 J.xf3 16.Axf6 J.xd1 17.J.xe7 ge8 1 8.gxb7 Ag4 19.AbS t!Ja6 20.J.xa6 Ac8 2 1 .@fl 1-0 Plaskett - Hebden, London 1 987. Bl2) 5 ...Wi'xb2 s ,i·j_� • ·� ., Y.•� , . , ,. . . %.�. .. . , . ,� % .... %. ..... %. 67 . 5 � ,� �� r� 1� �� 3 . �'t%''�"% �'t%J•7:,�. ,':f. %� �� '�"-�� 2 8�7: � . . �� -J- --· %�L .. . 4 1 � ': �� •V�lt� � >" " ' a b c d e f g h I O .ie2 ( I O .Wi'd4!?N looks interesting as after 1 0 . . . Wi'xd4 1 1 .lll xd4 a6 1 2 .a4 Black's queenside falls: 1 2 . . . ib7 1 3 .e4 e6 1 4.axb 5;!;) 1 0 . . . d6 1 1 . 0-0 ib7 1 2. lll d2 Wi'f5 1 3 .E'!:b l Wi'd7 1 4 .ig4 Wl'c7 1 5 .E'!:xb5 a6 1 6 .E'!:b4 ixd5 1 7.if3;!; Radj abov - Areshchenko, Moscow 200 5 . 8 . . . d 6 9 . lll f3 Wi'f5 1 0 .a4 ( I O .id3 Wi'f6 l 1 .Wi'b3 h6 1 2 . 0-0 g5 1 3 .ig3 ig7 1 4 .E'!:ac l �) 1 0 . . . g6 1 I .id3 Wi'f6 1 2 .Wi'b3 lll d7 1 3 .lll d2 ig7 1 4. ll\ e4;!; M. Popovic - Bojovic, Senta 2009. 8 . . . e6 This move is reasonably common, but it doesn't look good to me. 9 . c4 exd5 a b c d e f g h 1 O . tll f3! I came up with this very strong idea; White ignores pawns and goes for development. 1 0 . . . dxc4 1 O . . . d4 is also met by simple development: l I .id3 Wfe6 1 2 . 0-0 dxe3 1 3 .�e l Wb6 1 4 .�xe3t+- and even at this early stage in the game, White's lead in development is decisive. l I . tll g5 Wff5 1 2.ixc4 d5 1 3 .ixd5 f6 1 4.if7t @e7 l 5 .Wd6# Antidrome - Nazari, Internet 2009. 8 . . . e5 This is a critical alternative and was the choice of GM Mark Hebden against me. 9 .ig3 The untested 9 . f3 ! ? may also lead to an interesting game: 9 . . . Wf5 I O.id3 Wf6 l l .ig3 d6 ( l I . . . e4 1 2 .ixe4 Wfxc3 t 1 3 . @f2;j;) l 2 .lll e2 ie7 1 3 . 0-0 0-0 l 4.f4 t and White has active play for the pawn. 9 . dxe6 was my choice against Hebden, and whilst it offers some compensation for the pawn, White cannot really claim any advantage: 9 . . . Wxe6 I O . lll f3 ie7 l I .id3 tll c6 1 2 . 0-0 d6 1 3 .ic2 id7 1 4.�b l 00 R. Pere - Hebden, Hastings 2006. 9 ... d6 1 0 .tll f3 tll d7 I also analysed: a) 1 0 . . .Wg6 l l .id3 f5 1 2.Wfa4t id7 ( 1 2 . . . tll d7? 1 3 .tll h4 Wf6 1 4. lll xf5;!;) and now: a l ) 1 3 .Wib3 b6 1 4 .tll d2 ie7 1 5 . 0-0 intending 1 5 . . . e4 1 6.ib5;!; or 1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6.ixe5 dxe5 1 7.d6tt. a2) 1 3 .ib5 ie7 1 4.�b l � b ) I O . . . ie7 l I .id3 Wg4 1 2 .h3 Wf d7 1 3 .Wib l ! ? Threatening ib5 and keeping an eye on the h7-pawn and the f5-square. 1 3 . . . Wd8 1 4. 0-0� ' ��£·-· � %, 6 , ..% �- � ". , , %� � 0. � � 5 � �• 8 • �. ��-- - - "��-W0 � �W$B -� 0 3 . t� � et)� 8� - - - "� "Oi��wt! 1 g .1k ·it•� · i 1 (V• i • 'll • i W�� 8 ·ef"3�-0 0. 4 � 2 ----- a a b c d e f g h b c d e f g h l I . tll g5N After l l .c4 Wg6 1 2.id3 Wh6 1 3 . tll d2 ie7 1 4 . 0-0 0-0 1 5 . f4 f5 White did not have enough for the pawn in Kiik - Sepp, Tallinn 1 997. l 1 . . .Wg6 1 2. h4 ie7 1 3 .id3 Wh6 1 4. f4 g6 1 4 . . . 0-0 ?! l 5 .ixh7tt 1 02 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 1 4 . . . lll f6? 1 S . fxeS dxeS 1 6.d6± l S .l:!b l White has good compensation for the pawn . b a 9.ig3 d c f e g h 9 .ixgS ?! WeS favours Black. 9 ... ig7 lOJkl d6 1 0 . . . e6 l l . c4! exdS 1 2 .tll f3 d4 1 3 .id3 We7 1 4. 0-0 looked very strong for White in Antidrome - pisher, Internet 2009. 10 ... bS 1 I . lll f3 g4 1 2. lll d2 WxdS 1 3 .Wxg4 0-0 E•.i.� � �--� ··y,m 7 �6""" �-�� · i 7. � · · · � 6 � · �� • � -�%· · �ii'�,� � 5� · t·� � 4 � �l"· · "� 0 ��-� � � 3 � �t� �w· s z.... " @. � F,{ ····"�fA'��t*' ,f-� 2 �� ·····"��J: 1 0 a ��'· · · ·=:r•� iCiz 0 iQ b c d e f g h 1 4.ixbS ! N ( 1 4.e4 Wxa2 l S .ixbS� was less clear in Fontaine - Gladyszev, Val Thorens 2006) 1 4 . . . Wxg2 1 S .�e2 dS 1 6.WhS lll d7 1 7 .l:!hg l lll f6 1 8 .WgS Wh3 1 9 .ieS Black is facing problems on the g-file. 1 4 .ibSt 1 4.c4N looks interesting, aiming to keep the black queen stuck in the middle of the board: 1 4 . . . WeS (normal developing moves such as 14 . . . id??! run into trouble: 1 S .id3 "Mies 1 6.lll e6±) 1 S .lll e6 Wb2 1 6.lll xg?t ( 1 6.lll c?t ?! �d8 1 7.lll xa8 ic3t 1 8 .l:!xc3 Wxc3t 1 9 .Wd2 "Mla l t isn't what we want) 1 6 . . . Wxg? 1 7.Wc2 id? 1 8 .id3 White has good compensation for the pawn. 1 4 . . . id? 1 S .ixd?t lll xd7 1 6 ."Mfxg4 l:!g8 l 7.We2 ieS 1 8 . f300 Radj abov - Vachier-Lagrave, Moscow 20 1 0 . 1 1 . . .Wg6 l l . . .g4 1 2 .id3 ixc3 t 1 3 .l:!xc3 "Mlb4 Chapter 5 - 1 03 2 . . . ltJ e4 3 .if4 c5 4 . dS 1 4.Wc2 gxf3 1 5 .gxf3 offers White sufficient compensation. 12.h4 White can also consider: 1 2 .id3 fS ( 1 2 . . . ifS ? 1 3 .e4 ixe4? 1 4.Wa4t+-) 1 3 . h4 h6 1 4 .Wc2t if White plays his pawn c4 at a later stage there can be a direct transposition between the two lines. Black now chooses between B2 1) 5 g6 and ..• B22) 5 ... e6. B2 1 ) 5 ... g6 6.f3 1 2 ... gxh4 l 2 . . . h6 will transpose to the previous note: 1 3 .id3 fS 1 4.Wc2t 13.id3 f5 6 . . . ltJ f6 7.e4 d6 8 . c4 transposes to line B3 1 1 of the next chapter on page 1 22. 7.e4 ig7 s.ltJc3 1 4 ...�f7 1 5.�a4t id7 1 6.�b3 b6 17.if4� I prefer White here as it looks awkward for Black to develop any of his pieces. B2) 5.icl White decides to hold on to the b2-pawn. As I mentioned at the start of this chapter, this line should be studied in conj unction with line B3 1 in the next chapter, which arises after 4.f3 Wa5 t 5 .c3 lLi f6 6.dS Wb6 7.ic l . In particular, 8 . ltJ d2 looks a little strange, but it was clearly prepared by Bauer against an opponent who had previously played this exact line: 8 . . . 0-0 9 . f4 e6 1 0.eS ltJ fS 1 1 . ltJ c4 Wd8 l 2.dxe6 dxe6 1 3 .Wxd8 :gxd8 1 4. c3 b6 1 5 . lLi f3 ib7 1 6.ie2 ltJ d7 1 7. 0-0 f6 1 8 .g4;t; Bauer - Vachier Lagrave, Pau 20 1 2. 8 ... 0-0 Black may also attack the centre immediately: 8 . . . fS 9 .exfS 9 .We2 has also been tried: 9 . . . fXe4 1 0 . fXe4 Wb4 1 1 .eS ltJ fS 1 2.id2 ltJ d4 1 3 .We4 Wxb2 1 4.:gb 100 J. Gomez - Sadorra, Manila 2008. 9 . . . ltJxfS 1 04 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky l l ... � a6 1 l . . .ixb2 1 2 .Elb l WaS t 1 3 .id2 Wxa2 1 4.c3;l; leaves the black bishop in trouble. 1 2.c3 t[) c7 13.a4 t[) es 1 4.i.e2 t[)f6 1 5.0-0 d6 1 6.i.c4 i.d7 17.'ife2 �fae8 18.t[)eg5� White has taken a very sensible approach and stands better, Stefanova - Stellwagen, Wij k aan Zee 2004. b a c d e f h g B22) 5 ... e6 6.f3 1 0 .g4! ? 1 0 .lll e4 0-0 1 I .lll h3 makes some sense, transposing to the main line. 1 0 .id3 0-0 1 1 .ixfS lhf5 1 2.lll ge2 c4 1 3 .lll g3 and now: a) 1 3 . . . ixc3t 1 4.bxc3 i'!eSt I S .lll e4 WaS Mensch - Beck, Germany 2008; here 1 6.d6N;l; gives White an edge. b) 1 3 . . . i'!f8 is safer, and 1 4.We2 was level in Adams - Gelfand, Cap D' Agde (rapid) 2003. I O . . . lll h6 1 0 . . . lll d6!? 1 I .h4 c4 1 2.lll ge2 lll a6 1 3 .hS Elf8 1 4 .ig2 looks messy! 1 I .d6 e6 1 2.lll bS lll a6 1 3 .h4! ?--+ 1 3 .if4 Wc6 1 4.ixh6 ixh6 1 S .c4 0-0 1 6. h4 if4 1 7.hS ig3t00 McShane - Kotronias, Gibraltar 2003. 1 3 . . . Wc6?! 1 4.hS± Karhanek - D . Schwarz, Frydek Mistek 2004. a 6 ...Wa5t!? b d c f e g h This was the choice of Kasparov himself, so it needs to be taken seriously. 6 . . . lll f6 7.e4 exdS 8.exdS 9.t[)h3 f5 1 0.exfS t[)xfS n . t[) e4 a b c d e f g h 8 . . . d6 8 . . . id6 9 .lll a3 ! ? leads to an interesting pawn sacrifice: 9 . . . Wb4t 1 0 .Wd2 Wxd2t l I .ixd2 a b c d e f g h tlJxd5 1 2. lll b5 ie7 1 3 . ttJ e2 lll a6 1 4 .lll ec3 lll xc3 1 5 .fi.xc3 0-0 1 6.fi.c4 d5 1 7 .ixd5 lll b4 1 8 .ixb4 cxb4 1 9 . 0-0-0t Yemelin Chytilek, Czech Republic 20 1 2 . 9 . lll c3 This is an additional option open to White with this move order. 9 . c4 offers a direct transposition to line B3 1 24 of the next chapter on page 1 27. 9 ... g6 1 0 .ib 5 t id7 1 1 .We2t �d8 1 2 .a4 ig7 1 3 .Wi'f2 The immediate 1 3 .a5!?N is worth considering. 1 3 . . . lll a6 1 4 .a5t Stefanova - Makropoulou, Chalkida 2009. 10.dxe6 This is White's latest attempt, and in this recent game White eventually managed to get an advantage. 10 ... i.xe6 1 1 .tlia3 tli c6 12.tlic4 Yffc7 1 2 . . .ixc4 l 5 .lll h3t 1 3 .ixc4 lll e5 1 4 .ie2 0-0 13.hffi gxf6 14.tlie3 0-0-0 15.tlid5 Yff d7 1 6.i.b5 ghg8 17.©fl f5 1 8.exf5 i.xf5 19.tfie2 gde8 20.tC!g3 i.ds 21 .tC!xf5 �xf5 22.g3 h5 23.�d3 Yffg5 24.£4 �g4 25.tll e3 Yff e6 26J�hel;!; Yemelin - Hartikainen, Finland 20 1 2 . 7.c3 tli f6 8.e4 d6 9.i.g5!? Conclusion: After 4 . . . e 6 5 . f3 the tricky A2) 9 . ttJ a3 ? ! exd5 1 0 . exd5 ie7 1 l .ttJ c4 Wd8 1 2. ttJ e3 0-0 1 3 . ttJ e2 �e8 1 4 .g4 lll fd7 1 5 .lll g3 ig5 1 6.ltif2 lll e5 1 7.ib5 id7 1 8 .ixd7 lll bxd7 1 9 .lll ef5 c4+ left White in trouble in Van der Wiel - Kasparov, Moscow 1 9 82. 5 . . . id6 has previously been regarded as a problem for White, but I believe that my analysis, and in particular the improvement 1 0.Wi'd2!N, should allow White to face this line with confidence. 9 .fi.d2!? seems playable: 9 . . .ie7 (9 ... Wi'b6 1 0 . c4 Wxb2 1 l . ttJ c3 Wb6 1 2 .�b l Wc7 1 3 . f4 offers good compensation, similar to the Vaganian Gambit but with a pawn on c4. ) 1 0 . c4 Wc7 1 l . ttJ c3 0-0 1 2 .id3 exd5 1 3 . exd5 lll bd7 1 4 .lll ge2t Mehmeti - Sutovsky, Istanbul (ol) 20 1 2 . Against 4 . . . Wi'b6 my personal preference is for sacrificing a pawn with B l ) 5 . ttJ d2 ! ?; a lot of the resulting lines are untested, but they seem to offer White interesting play. For those less inclined to give away material, B2) 5 .ic l is also playable and may secure White an edge. 9 ... i.e7 Chapter 6 2 ... �e4 3.if4 c5 4.f3 I .d4 tll f6 2.�g5 tll e4 3.�f4 c5 4.f3 A) 4 ... tll f6 5.dxc5!? Al) 5 ... tll a6?! A2) 5 ... 'i'a5t A3) 5 ... b6! 6.e4 bxc5 7.tll c3 tll c6 8.�c4 A3 1 ) 8 ... d6 A32) 8 ... g6 B) 4 ... 'i'a5t 5.c3 tll f6 6.d5 Bl) 6 ... e6!? 7.e4 exd5 8.exd5 d6 9.'i'd2 �e7 10.c4 'i'xd2t 1 1 .@xd2 B l l) l 1 . .. b5 B l 2) 1 1 . .. tll h5 12.�e3 f5 13.tll c3 B l 2 1) 1 3 ... tll d7 B l 22) 1 3 ... 0-0 B2) 6 ... d6 B3) 6 ... 'i'b6 B3 1) 7.�cl B3 1 1) 7 ... g6 B3 12) 7 ... e6 8.e4! exd5 9.exd5 B3 1 2 1 ) 9 �d6 B3 1 22) 9 ... 'i'c7!? B3 1 23) 9 ... c4 B3 124) 9 ... d6 B32) 7.e4!? 'i'xb2 8.tll d2 'i'xc3 9.�c7! B32 1) 9 ... b6?! B322) 9 ... e6 B323) 9 ... d6 •.• 1 09 1 09 1 10 111 111 1 12 1 13 1 13 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 121 121 121 1 22 1 23 1 24 1 26 1 27 1 28 1 30 1 32 1 35 1 08 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 1 .d4 �f6 2 .ig5 �e4 3 .if4 c5 4.f3 • • Having looked at 4.d5 in the previous chapter, we shall now examine attacking the knight straight away. .i -.i.�- � �� ··--� 'i"m''l�--.v. � �� ,� � � ��,� � � w • � s • m � � � r�� :�� -• 7.!��&� �� !n!.!j ,,,/,/' - - r.� �� -0 �,,.!n ��ttJ�7.v�.t.m : 8 7 ··· ·· 6 4 1 ' � -� As in the previous chapter, I shall offer you an alternative approach with 7.ic l . Moving the bishop for the third time in seven moves is the solid option, believe it or not! White takes time out to defend the b2-pawn and goes in search of a small advantage. This line should be studied together with line B2 with 5 .ic l in the previous chapter on page 1 03 . 7 ...'Wxb2 8.�d2 'Wxc3 9 ..ic7!? . % .... ,,,. . r. - - - - z - a 4 'WaSt .. b c d 7. "'"� /: e f g h ••. Simply retreating with 4 . . . � f6 is of course a possibility. I then recommend the direct 5 . dxc5 ! ? looking to develop quickly with e2e4, tll c3 and 1Mfd2 while Black spends time rounding up the c5-pawn. 5.c3 �f6 6.d5 'Wb6 6 . . . e6! ? is a less popular choice for Black, but interesting nevertheless - we'll check it out. 6 . . . d6 is the other main alternative, with which Black aims to complete his development before challenging White in the centre. 7.e4!? Hold on to your hat! Those looking to make their opponent j ump out of their chair should take a look at this highly aggressive double pawn sacrifice. a b c d e f g h White has given up two pawns but trapped the opposing queen in his own territory! A personal favourite of mine, this is the first time this line has been investigated in depth. I have spent a lot of time coming up with new analysis, and I believe this line should be taken seriously as an attempt to obtain an advantage. I .d4 tlif6 2.i.g5 tli e4 3.i.f4 c5 4.f3 This very much forces the pace. Black now chooses between A) 4 � f6 and B) 4 ...%Ya5t. •.• A) 4 ... tlif6 .i -.i.B• � .,v. % .,Y,_'�� _ , , ·· � • - ';&( • 5 � ��-�-� ,,,,,,;� � -� �'-��if[!f p -�0 -� fi � , ; , ,%� • ��- - - - %� � • 3 .1,4%• �, �0fj 2 ' f)jll. 8 • �r'� �%�Jl:% ��lLluvm�� : s 7 6 '' 4 I � a b c d e f g h Black usually inserts the intermediate check . . . Wa5 t in order to force White to block the c3-square with a pawn . When Black chooses not to do that, the c3-square can prove very useful for the b I -knight. 6 . . . e5 7.i.e3 i.e7 8 .Wi'd2 (8.c4 ! ? 0-0 9 . tli c3t) 8 ... 0-0 9 . tli c3 tli bd7 1 0 .g4!?--+ 7.tlic3 i.g7 8 .Wi'd2t White intends standard play with i.h6 etc. Black may aim to regain the pawn with Al) 5 ... tli a6?!, A2) 5 ...%Ya5t or A3) 5 ... b6!. 5 . . . g6 6 . tli c3 i.g7 7.Wi'd2 0-0 8 .i.h6 d5 9 . cxd6 i.xh6 1 0.Wxh6 Wxd6 l l .e4 did not give Black enough for the pawn in Hall - Hardarson, Hafnarfjordur 1 997, which concluded: l 1 . . . tli c6 1 2 .i.d3 i.e6 1 3 . tli ge2 tlie5 1 4.Wi'e3 i.c4 1 5 .�d l Wi'b4?? 1 6 .Wi'd4 1 -0 Al) 5 ... tli a6?! Although quite common, this move is probably inaccurate. When faced with it myself, I made short work of scoring a full point. 6.e4 tlixc5 7.tlic3 7.e5 ? is too early; after 7 . . . tli e6 8.i.e3 the e5pawn drops to 8 ... Wi'a5 t . 5.dxc5!? I think this is a good enough choice, so I don't plan to cover the alternative of advancing the d-pawn. I will j ust mention how play may develop in case you wish to investigate it further: 5 . d 5 ! ? d6 a) 5 . . . Wb6 6 . tli c3 Wi'xb2 7.i.d2 Wi'b6 8 . e4 d6 9.f4 takes us into a Vaganian Gambit, covered as line A l of Chapter 4 on page 8 1 . b) 5 . . . tli h 5 ! ? 6.i.e3 (6.i.c l and 6.i.g5 are also possible) 6 . . . e5 (6 . . . d6 7.g4 tli f6 8 . c4 e6 9 . tli c3 exd5 1 O . cxd5t Stefanova - Raj lich, Ekaterinburg 2006) 7 . tli h3 ! ?N This looks an interesting novelty to me, intending g2-g4 without letting the black knight settle on the f4-square. 7 . . . Wb6 (7 . . . d6 8.g4 tli f6 9 . tli c3t) 8 . tli c3 Wxb2 9 .i.d2t 6.e4 g6 a 7 ... g6?! b c d e f g h This is inadvisable, though White is doing quite well in any case: 7 . . . d6 8.e5 This looks very much to the point. 8 .Wi'd2 is also possible and looks slightly preferable for White: 1 10 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 7.e4 g6 8 . lLi c3 may be slightly more accurate as it cuts out Black's option of playing . . . e6 and . . . tLi d 5 , but I do not think that White needs to be worried by that. a) 8 . . . °!Wa5 9 . 0-0-0 id? 1 0 .@b l �d8? l I .iLi d5 +b) 8 . . . ie6 9 . lLi ge2 a6 1 0. lLi d4 id? l I .lLi b3 tLi a4 1 2. tLi xa4 ixa4 1 3 .ie2t Hauchard Bacrot, France 1 99 8 . c ) 8 . . . e5 9 .ib5t tLi cd7 1 0.ig5 a 6 l I .ixf6 '1Wxf6 1 2. lLi d S °1Wd8 1 3 .°1Wc3 �b8 1 4. lLi c?tt Hodgson - Reinderman, Leeuwarden 1 993. 8 ... tLi e6 9 .exf6 tLi xf4 1 0 .°1Wd2 tLi e6 l I .ib5t id? 1 2.ixd?t Wxd7 1 3 . fxe? ixe7 1 4 . tLi ge2 0-0 1 5 .lLidS lLi c7 1 6 .tLixe?t '1Wxe7 1 7. 0-0-0 d5 1 8 .E:de l �ad8 1 9 . lLi d4t It is clear that White holds some advantage, although in Ki. Georgiev - Relange, Montpellier 2006, he failed to convert it. 7 . . . d6 8 .°1Wd2 a6 9 .0-0-0 e5 (9 . . . g6) 1 0.ie3 We? l I .g4± 8.°1Wd2 ig7? 9.e5! tLlh5 8.Wfd2 d6 6 Wfxc5 .•• 6 . . . e6 7 .id6 lLi d 5 is unclear according to Wells, but to me it still looks preferable for White: 8 .°1Wd2 tLi xc3 9 . e3 !Nt White takes measures against . . . tLi a6 before recapturing the knight. 7.e4 g6 8 . . . ig7 9 .�e3 Wc6 1 0 .e5 lLig8 l l . f4 b6 1 2 .�b5 Wb7 1 3 . iLi f3 tLi h6 1 4.�d3t Wang Yue - Dao Thien Hai, Calcutta 200 1 . 9 . . . tLig8 1 0 .0-0-0± 10.i.e3! Winning a piece. 9.0-0-0 i.g7 IO.i.h6 10 ... � e6 l l .g4 i.xe5 1 2.gxh5 b6 1 3.0-0-0 i.b7 14.i.b5! i.c8?! 1 5.Wfd5 1-0 Mickey Adams takes a Route One approach against Leko and wipes him out! R. Pen - O'Shaughnessy, London 20 1 0. 10 0-0 1 1 .h4 i.e6 1 2.h5 tLlxh5 13.i.xg7 @xg7 14.g4 tlJf6 15.Wfh6t @gs 16.tLlge2 Wlfl .•. A2) 5 ...Wfa5t a 6.�c3 b c d e f g h In Winning with the Tromp owsky, Wells suggested that the move order 6.Wd2 Wxc5 1 8.exf6 exf6 19.tlid5 i.xd5 20.V:Vxh7t i>f8 2 1 .V:Vhst i>e7 22.VHxcS V:Vxf3 23J�h8 V:Ve3t 24.i>b l 1-0 Adams - Leko, Cap d'Agde (rapid) 1 996. A3) 5 ... b6! s 1 6 �- ..i.. �· ,�� .,w. �w � �� E""" � '&/.m,&�m''i " ' � "� :. .. ��'Wf � � , , ,,,,,, W' d,,,,/. � r� m !�% m m ,a � ,mi, �.a � ,� ,, �� 8·.� � "!n!• . .· .��'tJ . 0· · · "��V�J,, �nm!.!n mn s � � 4 1 b a ,,,,, /. d c f e "'"""'? g 9 . . . a6! Black's most recent idea. 9 . . . c!Li xe5 1 0.ixe5 dxe5 1 1 .§°xdSt ltixd8 1 2. 0-0-0t c!Li d7 1 3 . c!Li h3 g6 1 4.ic4 offered White good positional compensation for the pawn in I . Schneider - Stocek, Pardubice 2008. 9 ... dxe5 1 0.VHxdSt ltixd8 1 1 . 0-0-0t id? 1 2 .ig3 e6 1 3 . lLi h3 h6 1 4. c!Li a3 and again White has good compensation, Akopian B . Socko, Cappelle la Grande 1 999. 1 O.exf6 axb5 White seems to be struggling to gain any advantage. l l .§°d2 §°b6 1 2 . lLi e2 ie6 1 2 . . . gxf6 1 3 . lLi c3 c!Li d4+ 1 3 .c!Li c3 b4 1 4 . fxe? ixe700 Rensch - Molner, Internet 2009. .. h Black's only real test of the white set-up; as we have seen above, the other options leave White with a clear positional advantage. Despite this being Black's best, it has surprisingly not been very popular. 6.e4 6 . cxb6 V:Vxb6 gives compensation for the pawn. Black decent 6 ... bxc5 7.tli c3 tli c6 8.i.c4 Pete Wells advocated a different plan m Winning with the Trompowsky back in 2003 : 8 . lLi b 5 ! ? d6 9 . e5 A31) 8 ...d6 9.e5 dxe5 1 0.VHxdSt i>xd8 1 1 .0-0-0t i.d7 Other moves do not solve all Black's problems either: 1 1 . . . c!Li d? 1 2 .ig3 ( 1 2.id5 ®c7) 1 2 .. .f6 ( 1 2 . . . e6 1 3 . c!Li h3 ie7 1 4. c!Li b 5 ) 1 3 . c!Li ge2 ®c7 1 4 .if2 lLi b6 1 5 .id3 e6 1 6. c!Li e4 c4 1 7.ixb6t axb6 1 8 .ixc4;!; a b c d e f g h 1 12 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky 1 5.�h3 ©es 1 6.�xf4 g6 17.bl .ig7 1 8.�e41; 1 1 . . . <;tic? Kasparov - Reinderman, Wijk aan Zee 1 999. A32) 8 ... g6 9.tiJb5 d6 1 0.e5 dxe5 1 1 .'!WxdSt ©xd8 1 2 ..ig5! b a c d e f This is the most accurate move order. Black's f7-pawn remains weak, and it should be noted that White threatens lli d6 with devastating impact in various lines. h g 1 2.ig3N l 2.ie3 looks wrong to me - the bishop should remain on the h2-b8 diagonal, hitting the e5-pawn and potentially also the king. 1 2 . . . e6 1 3 . lli b 5 t <;t>b6 1 4. lli c300 lotov - Babula, Kallithea 2008. 1 2 . . . e6 1 3 .lli h3 Threatening llig 5 . 1 3 ... h6 1 4.ghe l lli d7 1 5 . lli b 5 t White's advantage seems clear in all variations, for example: 1 5 . . . @b6 1 6. lli f2 lli d4 1 7. lli a3 gbs 1 8 . lli d3 lli c6 l 9 .ib5;!; a b c d e f g An important game continued: 1 2. 0-0-0t lli d7 1 3 .ie3 (with this move order 1 3 .ig5 can be met by 1 3 .. . f6 1 4.ie300) 1 3 . . . a6 1 4 . lli c3 e6 1 5 .lli e4 <;tic? 1 6.llig5?! h6 1 7. lli e4 f5 1 8 . lli d2 lLi b6+ Hodgson - Shirov, Groningen 1 996. 12 ... h6 1 2 . . . ib??? 1 3 .gd l t (better than 1 3 .0-0-0t which could allow a later . . . ih6t! to rescue the h8-rook) 1 3 . . . rJ;; c s 1 4. lli d6t! exd6 1 5 .ixf6+1 2 . . . lli d4 can be met by 1 3 .gd };!; and again White's threats include lli d6. h 12 . .ib5 Kasparov shows the way! 12 ... exf4 1 3.hc6 gc8 14 ..ixd7 �xd7 Also possible is: 1 3 .ixf6 exf6 1 4 .0-0-0t 1 4.ixf7 gbs 1 5 . 0-0-0t lli d4 1 6.ic4 id? l 7 . lli a3 h5 l 8 . c3 lli f5 l 9 .ie6 gh7 was fine for Black in Thomsen - Kristjansson, corr. 1 999. 14 ... tt:l d4!? 1 5 . c3 id7 1 6.cxd4 cxd4 1 7.cJ;lb l;!; White will likely give back the piece with lll xd4 to get rid of the black central pawns, keeping a small plus. 1 3 ... i.d7 The other ways of blocking the check also concede an edge: 1 3 . . . lll d4 1 4 .ih4t 1 3 . . . tll d7 1 4.id5 hxg5 ( 1 4 . . . ib7 1 5 . tll d6 �c7 1 6. tt:l xb7 hxg5 1 7. tll a5t) 1 5 .ixc6 Elb8 1 6. tt:l xa7 Elb6 1 7.tll h3 ih6 1 8 .�b l t 14.i.xf6 exf6 1 5 .hf'lt The black king still looks awkward, and White's chances seem preferable. B) 4 ... V9a5t 5.c3 tll f6 6.d5 B l ) 6 ... e6!? I find it surprising that this interesting move is not played more often. 7.e4 a b c d e f g h 7 ... exd5 White can try to take advantage if Black delays this exchange: 7 . . . d6 8 . dxe6! 8 .Wi'd2 looks likely to transpose to the main line, but I prefer to challenge Black's last move. 8 . . . ixe6 9 . tLl a3 9 . . . tt:l c6 9 . . . d5 1 0 .ixb8 Elxb8 l l .ib 5t cJ;le7 1 2 .e5 tll d7 1 3 .f4 g6 1 4 .tll e2 ig7 l 5 .ixd7 �xd7 1 6. 0-0 :gbd8 l 7.lll c2 cJ;lc8 l 8.b4t White secures the d4-square for his knight, with a small but clear advantage, Fressinet Dominguez, Wijk aan Zee 2004. 1 0 .lll c4 Wi'd8 I O ixc4 l l .ixc4 ie7 1 2 . lZl e2 0-0 1 3 .0-0 :gad8 14.lZlg3 b5 1 5 .id5 ll\xd5 1 6.V9xd5 '1Wb6 1 7. ll\ f5t Ancidrome - Skat, Internet 20 1 2. . . . 1 14 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 1 1 .lll xd6t ixd6 1 2 .ixd6 1 2.11Mxd6!? Wb6 1 3 .b3 Wa5 1 4 . lll e 2 ixb3 1 5 .1/Mc7 Wxc7 1 6 .ixc7 ie6 1 7. lll f4;!; looks slightly better for White with the bishop pair. 1 2 . . . Wb6 8 .1. • U.• � �� to recommend chis line - no doubt I will try again in the future, bur for now it's back co the simple recapture. 8 ... d6 . ·¥7'�� g{"" .��m�.��.JLm: i!�'�·� '�if.�£� 5 ,., ,,7,.�� ".. , ?.� !� �� : � �� !� ��-d · · ?.� �� 76 ,, , , . , , � .�.Yll��v��-0 �_t� %�1:� 2 � I a � b c d � e r� f h g 1 3 .Wc2!?N 1 3 .Wc l 0-0-0 1 4.ig3 l'!d7 1 5 .ie2 l'!hd8 1 6.if4 lll h5 1 7.ig5 f6 1 8 .ie300 Miladinovic - Pavlovic, Subotica 2008. 13 ... 0-0-0 1 4 .if4 l'!d7 1 5 .ie2 l'!hd8 1 6.ie3 Wa5 1 7.�f2 c4 1 8 . h4;!; 9.�d2 Hodgson's move, which is considered to be the main line nowadays. 9 .We2t At first sight this check looks awkward for Black to deal with. Rather annoyingly though, Black has a good answer up his sleeve. 9 . . . ie7 1 0 .ixd6 a 8.exd5 b c d e f g h I spent a long time trying to make 8 . e 5 ! ? work, and I d i d come u p with some promising new ideas for White. However, looking at this line again recently I discovered an improvement for Black at an early stage in one of the variations. This makes it difficult for me . a b c d e f g h 1 O . . lll xd5 ! 1 1 .Wb 5 t The point i s that I 1 .ixb8 ? doesn't work out too well after 1 l . . .l'!xb8 1 2.We5 , as Black can sacrifice: 1 2 . . . Wb6 ! ? 1 3 .Wxb8 0-0 Threatening . . . id6 to pick up the white queen. 1 4.We5 ge8 1 5 .g3 ( 1 5 .Wxd5 ih4t 1 6. m d l Wxb2 1 7. lLi e2 gd8-+) 1 5 . . . Wxb2 1 6.Wxd5 if6t 1 7. lLi e2 Wxa l 1 8 .Wd l Wxa2+ White cannot easily untangle. 1 1 . .. Wxb 5 1 2 .ixb 5t id7 1 3 .ixe7 rtdxe7 1 4. lLi a3 ixb5 1 5 .lLixb5 a6 This endgame promises White absolutely nothing. l l . . .b5 1 2. lLi e2 (or 1 2 .mf2!? threatening ge l t) 1 2 . . . lLi b6 1 3 .lLi c3 bxc4 1 4.lLixc4;!; 1 2 .g4 0-0 1 3 . 0-0-0 b5 1 4. lLi e2;!; White has an edge. 1 0.c4 %Yxd2t 1 1 . i>xd2 9 ...�e7 White should be aware what to do against the rare: 9 . . . lLi bd7 This hasn't been mentioned by previous authors, but is potentially critical as the standard response for White doesn't work in this case. 1 0. c4 Wxd2t 8 1 ��-*- • • • � • .t. B'AI U .t. • .t. '� •% - � �� ref . . ��''l. . , �� : � ��f1 � ' � " � 3 ��'� � �i\ill�� '� 6 2 8 f[j l • 8 t� tm� �ttS•. - · - "=.lmi ' " "' a ' b c d ,,, , . , /. e f g �" " " h 1 l . lLi xd2!N This looks like the right approach. The standard l 1 . mxd2 looks a bit suspect here: l 1 . . .b5 1 2 . lLi c3 bxc4 1 3 .ge l t rtdd8 1 4. lLi h3 h 6 1 5 . lLi b 5 gb8!N ( a big improvement over 1 5 . . . ia6 1 6 . lLi xd6;!; Gasanov - Sutovsky, Zurich 2009) 1 6. lLi xd6 ( 1 6.ixc4 ia6 1 7.lLixd6 ixd6 1 8 .ixd6 ixc4+) 1 6 . . . ixd6 1 7 .ixd6 gxb2t 1 8 .@c3 gxa2+ White has some compensation, but it doesn't look enough to me. l l . . . ie7 B l l) 1 1 . .. b5 12.tll c3 bxc4 1 2 . . . lLi h S was the choice in a blitz game of a strong grandmaster who has experience in this line: 1 3 .ie3 b4 1 4 . lLi e4 ( 1 4 . lLi b S !N rtdd7 1 5 .g4 lLi f6 l 6 . a3 b3;!; also looks good for White) 14 . . . f5 1 5 .lLi g3 lLi xg3 1 6. hxg3 if6 1 7.ge l @d8 1 8 .@c2;!; Antidrome - }-Becerra, Internet 20 1 0 . 1 16 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky I 3.Lc4 White has a reasonable alternative in: 1 3 .E:e l 'it>d8 1 4.ixc4 1 4. lli e4 hitting the d6-pawn has also been tried, and offers reasonable prospects: 1 4 . . . lli xe4t 1 5 .fxe4 ia6 1 6. lli f3 lli d7 l 7.e5t Pixton - Browne, Seattle 2002. 1 4 . . . lli bd7 1 4 . . . ia6 has been played against me: 1 5 . b3! ixc4 1 6 . bxc4 lli bd7 1 7. lli h3;!; with lli b 5 and lli g5 on the cards, Antidrome - marcol, Internee 20 1 0 . l 5 . b3 lli b6 7s 6 5 4 3 2 1 ·..t·i!. • • � m1·�. ...%.� � %. Jr1�A Wi1.. ·.;. %.·1: · �...... -� . .. . � ,,,,, . .� . ., . • 8% � " . .;·%� ��;� �� %� �� 8m 8• . .. ;�• �. . � �� . ��J'"""· . . ... �" .. .. . . • � �� m � �, % -« % A � % ,�z a b c d e f g z h 1 6 . lli h3 ! ?N After 1 6 . lli e4? lli xc4t 1 7.bxc4 'ktid7 1 8 . lli h3 ia6+ Black's developing queenside play gave him the better chances in Salimaki Schandorff, Saint Vincent 200 5 . 1 6 . . . ixh3 1 7 .gxh3t White obtains play on the g-file. 1 3 ... tLJbd7 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4.E:e 1 lli h 5 l 5 .E:xe7 lli xf4 1 6 . lli ge2! seems more pleasant for White, Antidrome - weicp, Internet 20 1 0 . 14.i>c2 tLJ b6 15.ib5t i>d8 1 6J�dl ib7 17.tLJh3 tLJ bxd5 1 8,ghe l tLJxf4 1 9.tLJxf4 g5 20.tLJ d3 gcs 2 I .tLJe5 gfg 22.ic4t Viciugov - Pap, Budva 2009. B 1 2) 1 I . .. tLJ h5 1 2.ie3 f5 •m s s �J.1-�m J.. ·a ·:•� ®.w K��......-�%� -& 7 �. ...�%� - w ·----Y6 % � �.-w �- � � � �� •8 U. .t. U,'fl) �ll Kll �ll a sm : �ll·ll·' · � � n��-JL-�� 2 1 )ii w� 8 r� ��.. � 8��q �lfesn-- ·"m�� a b c d e f g h 13.tLJc3 This is the obvious choice for White, but I have come up with an interesting novelty here: 1 3 .id3 ! ?N The point behind this move is linked to two Hodgson games. In the first game Pete Wells playing Black cascled before playing . . . lli d7, and Hodgson got a big advantage and won. The second time around Lars Schandorff played a quick . . . lli d7-e5 before cascling, and managed to neutralize White's play for a quick draw. By switching our move order we are cutting out Black's option of going for the immediate . . . lli d7 as we can meet that with ixf5 winning a pawn. That said, I have now found a major improvement in the Schandorff game (see line B l 2 1 below) , so it is not clear chat we would want to avoid that variation anymore. l 3 . . .f4!? 13 ... id7?! prepares an early ... b 5 , but chat seems the wrong plan: 1 4 . lli c3 lli a6 l 5 . lli ge2 E:b8 1 6.E:hg l b5 l 7.cxb5 lli c7 l 8.a4 lli f6 l 9 . lli f4 g5 20.llie6 ixe6 2 l .dxe6 f4 22 .if2 lli xe6 23.E:ge l lli d4 24.ixd4 cxd4 2 5 . lli e4+ Antidrome - Aclus, Internet 2009. 13 ... 0-0 lli d7 1 4 . lli c3 transposes into Hodgson - Wells; see the note to White's 1 4th in line B l 22 below. 1 4.if2 lli d7 With . . . llie5 co follow, the position is unclear. As mentioned above, Black chooses between B 1 2 1 ) 13 .. tll d7 and Bl22) 13 ... 0-0. . B I 2 1 ) 1 3 ... tll d7 SchandorfFs choice. I 4J�el f7 1 5 .'Llh3 This was the direction taken by all the old analysis by Wells, Davies and Palliser, but it doesn't look very convincing. 1 5 . . . 'Ll e S 1 6.ie2 Wells gives this as an improvement over 1 6.'LlgSt ixg5 1 7.ixgS h6 1 8 .ie3 id7 1 9 .ie2 g5 20.g3 f4 Y2-Y2 Hodgson Schandorff, Germany 200 1 . 1 6 . . . h6 Palliser suggests that this is Black's best try, and he may well be right. 1 6 . . . Ei:f8 ? ! 1 7. f4 'Ll g4 1 8 .'LlgSt ixg5 1 9 . fxg5;!; 1 7. f4 'Ll g4 1 8 . 'Ll f2 'Llhf6 1 9 . 'Ll xg4 'Ll xg4 20 .ig l Palliser prefers White, but I would evaluate this position as equal (and so would my computer) . 1 5 ... lli hf6 1 5 . . . fxg4? 1 6. fxg4± and the black king is in for it in my opinion. 1 5 .. . f4 Inviting complications, but White can easily avoid them and claim an edge. 1 6.if2 'Ll hf6 1 7.h4!? Making the f4-pawn a target for a future 'Llh3 or 'Ll e2. 1 7.�c l ! ?;!; also looks interesting. One of Black's plans is ro play . . . 'Lle5, and after ixc5 there may be the possibility of the knight raking the f3- or c4-pawn with check before Black captures the bishop. By stepping out of the way of any future knight check, White cuts out that option. 1 7 . . . a6 This may be Black's best, preventing 'Ll b5 and preparing . . . Ei:e8. 1 7 . . . Ei:e8 1 8 . 'Ll b S ± 1 7 . . . 'Ll e S 1 8 .ixc5;!; 1 8 .@c l 1 8 . 'Ll ce2 b5 creates complications although White's chances look preferable. But we might as well get the king safe first. 1 8 . . . Ei:e8 1 9 . 'Ll ce2!?;!; White wins the f4-pawn while Black lacks sufficient compensation. 16.gxfS 118 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky It will not be a simple task for Black to regain his material. and then a player with the handle "DarcyLima" played the same line against me on the internet in 20 1 2. If I were a betting man then I would say that it was the same person! His play seems to be a lot more accurate than previous attempts with Black. 14,gel!? This move is slightly awkward to face. believe that if White follows up as I suggest then he should have good prospects. a 1 6 J.H8 b c d e f g h .. 1 4.id3 This was Hodgson's choice. 1 4 . . . lll d7 1 5 . f4 Denying . . . tll e5 possibilities. 1 5 . . . lll df6 1 6.tll ge2 This may be Black's best. None of 1 6 . . . tll e5 1 7.ixc5± or 16 ... lll b6 1 7.id3± or 1 6 ... lll h5 1 7 . f4 lll df6 1 8 .ih3 ± offer him much encouragement. 17.tiJh3;!; It is going to take Black a while to recover that pawn - if he manages to at all . B l 22) 13 0-0 ... 1 6 . . . lll g4! Lima's idea and he showed his hand in an internet game with me. 1 6 . . . g5 ? looks a terrible move and Hodgson quickly built a winning position: 1 7.h3 (or 1 7. fxg5 !?) 1 7 . . . gxf4 1 8 .tll xf4 id7 1 9 . tll e6 ixe6 20.dxe6 ids 2 1 .ih6 !!e8 22.g4+ Hodgson - Wells, York 2000. 1 7.ig l id7 1 8 .h3 tll h6 1 9 .!!e l !!ae8 20 .if2 ids 2 Lg3 Antidrome - DarcyLima, Internet 20 1 2; White may have a tiny pull, but it's not a lot. 14 . i.ds .. 1 4 . . . tll d7 isn't possible: 1 5 .ixc5± 1 4 . . . if6 1 5 .lll b 5 ! is also problematic for Black. 1 4 . . . �f7 1 5 .lll h3 lll d7 1 6. lll f4;!; b a a b c d e f g h 1 5 .tll ge2!N I'm not sure about I 5 .id3 in chis position, as the bishop will become a target for . . . lll e5 and meanwhile the f5-pawn is securely defended: 1 5 . . . lll d7 1 6 . lll ge2 f4 1 7.if2 lll e5 and Black gets his knight lodged on e5 and equalizes, Rodi - Lima, Guarapari 2006. I 5 .lll h3!N;!; also looks good, with the same plan of playing lll f4. 1 5 ... tll d7 1 5 . . . f4 1 6.if2 a6 ( 1 6 . . . lll d7? is not possible here: I 7. lll b5 +-) 1 7. lll e4;!; 1 6.tlif4! tlixf4 I 6 . . . lll hf6? 1 7.lll e6+1 6 . . . lll df6 1 7.id3± looks much better for White, with the black knights awkwardly placed and lll e6 on the cards. 17.Lf4± Black is struggling co hold his d6-pawn. B2) 6 ... d6 c d f e g h This is a common choice, with which Black neither contests the centre immediately nor challenges the vulnerable b2-pawn, but instead focuses on development. Note chat chis position can also be reached via the move order from the previous chapter of 2 . . . lll e4 3 .if4 c5 4.d5 Was t 5 . c3 d6 6 . f3 lll f6 . 7.e4 g6 Black quite often prefaces the fianchecco with: 7 . . . lll bd7?! � z •t•lm ·&�.,.. · "�, �... . . %.r 6 . . .. &..� �-�"� '"""� �. . � � 8 7 5 i. •.t. � •... . . L �:� � � !� 4 � �r� � � � 3 �w -J� � � j � �w -� 2 �J�� -0 �"�J� , ��V�tt� � a b c d e f g h This is slighcly inaccurate in my view as it blocks the c8-bishop, giving White the additional option of using the h3-square for his knight. White can drop his knight from h3 back co f2 at an appropriate moment, or occasionally it may j ump forward with lll f4 or lll g5. 1 20 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 8 . lD h3 ! ? 8 . lD d2 ! ? g 6 9 . lD h 3 White can play about with the move order, but putting the knight here still looks like the right plan to me. 9 . . . ltJ h S 1 0 . .ie3 lDe5 1 l .g4 lD f6 1 2 . lD f2 h6 1 3 .h4 .ig7 14 . .ie2 Wc7 1 5 . f4 ± and it was starting to look very promising for White in Moskalenko - Mateos Rozas, Sieges 2007. 8 . lD a3 g6 9 . lD c4 Wc7 1 0 .a4 .ig7 1 1 .lD e2 White of course does not have to put his g l -knight on h3, but can aim fo r lD e2g3 . That said, it seems a shame not to take advantage of Black's move order. l 1 . . . lD b6 1 2 . lD g3 Similar positions can arise in the main line; White had an edge in Rahman Shen, Kuala Lumpur 2007. 8 . . . g6 9 ..ie2 .ig7 1 0 . 0-0 1 0 .a4 Wc7 l l . c4 lD h S 1 2 . .ic l Wa5 t 1 3 . .id2 Wb6 1 4 .!!a2 0-0 1 5 .g4 ltJ hf6 1 6. ltJ f4;!; Agdestein - Scubberud, Calvi 2005. 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .Wc2 b5 1 2 . a4 b4 1 3 .lD d2 bxc3 1 4. ltJ c4 Wc7 1 5 . bxc3 lD h S 1 6 . .ig5;!; M. Gurevich - Niemela, Helsinki 1 99 2 . 8.tll d2 i.g7 9.tll c4 9 . .id3 is also a sensible way to develop, allowing the knight to settle on the el-square: 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 . lD e2 Wd8 1 1 .Wc2 e6 1 2 .c4 lD a6 1 3 . a3 lD h S 1 4 . .ie3t Movsesian - Dyachkov, Moscow 2007. 1 1 .Wi'd2 This is the main choice, keeping the door open for a future 4Jh3. 1 1 . lD e2!? Nakamura's choice - in fact he has played it three times according to my database. His plan is to combine pushing his kingside pawns with the knight coming to g3 to support them. 9 ... Wi'ds 9 . . . Wc7 1 0 .a4 0-0 1 I .Wd2 lD bd7 1 2 . g4!? ( 1 2 . lD h 3 lD b6 1 3 . lD f2 is of course also possible) 1 2 . . . lD e S 1 3 . lD xeS dxe5 1 4 . .ie3t Hall - Van den Doel, Germany 1 99 6 . 1 0.a4 0-0 It looks right to meet 1 0 . . . 4J bd7 with l 1 .lD h 3 , with similar ideas to those we saw after 7 . . . 4J bd7 above. 1 l . . . b6 1 1 . . . lD h S ? ! 12 ..ie3 b6 1 3 .g4;!; Nakamura Laxman, Internet 2006. 1 1 . . . lD a6 1 2 .g4 lDc7 1 3 . lD g3 b6 1 4 .Wd2 .ia6?! 1 5 . h4 lD d7 1 6.hS .ixc4 17 . .ixc4± looks very promising for White who can muster up an attack, Nakamura - Daskevics, Oslo 20 1 0 . 1 2. lli g3 ia6 1 3 . h4 h5 1 4 .Wifd2 lli bd7 1 5 .ih6 I 5 .id3N;!; may be better, when White holds a small edge. 1 5 . . . ixc4 1 6.ixc4 llie5 1 7.ie2 e6 1 8 .c4 Nakamura - Lie, Oslo 2009; White holds the initiative, alchough it is not clear if he has any real advantage if Black plays accurately. 1 1 Jfos •• Teeing up . . . e6 whilst keeping an eye on the h3-square. 1 9.tl)xe6 fxe6 20.0-0 a6 20 . . . dxe4 2 l .Wifxd8 �xd8 22.fxe4 llixe4 23 .ic4± 2 1 .�ad l ± Miladinovic - Milanovic, Bar 2008. B3) 6 Wifb6 •.• Attacking the b2-pawn is by far Black's most popular option. White now has a choice between defending the pawn with B3 1) 7 ..icl or offering a double pawn sacrifice with B32) 7.e4!?. I 1 . . . lli bd7 1 2. lli h3 lli b6 1 3 . lli f2;!; B3 1 ) 7 . .icl 1 2 ..ie2 White intends co play llih3 even if he has co prepare it by playing g2-g4 first. 12 tl) bd? 1 3.g4 tl)b6 14.llie3 .id? 15.aS tlJ cS 16.tl)h3 e6 1 7.dxe6 J.xe6 ••• This odd-looking move is actually a very sensible way co protect the b2-pawn; the bishop steps out of the way so chat White can focus on playing e2-e4 and developing his ocher pieces. Now Black can simply develop with B3 1 1) 7 .. g6 or go for the more critical . B3 12) 7 ... e6. B3 1 1) 7 ... g6 1 8 dS .•• Practically forced, as otherwise Black will find himself squeezed out of space. 1 22 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 8.e4 d6 9.c4 i.g7 10.ltie2! This is an interesting idea to remember. Rather than developing the b l -knight to c3 and getting his knights tangled up aiming for the same squares, White sends the g l -knight to c3 ; later the b l -knight may head to c4 after a likely cxd 5 . 1 0 ... e6 Black can also go for an idea involving . . . e5 and .. .f5 , bur once he has got these moves in it is not clear what he can do, and his g7-bishop will be blocked in. As White I'd be tempted to hold off castling until it becomes obvious which way you should go. An example of how play may develop is: 1 0 . . . 0-0 l 1 . tll ec3 e5 l 2 .ie2 tll h5 i b 7 20.fxg6 hxg6 2 1 .Wd3 tll f8 22.if4;!; Rowson - Ziegler, Porto Mannu 2007. 1 2.cxd5 0-0 13.i.e2 a6 1 3 . . . tll bd7 1 4. 0-0 a6 1 5 .a4 White aims straight for the standard plan of playing a2a4, tll a3 , ie3 , �b l , and later b2-b4. l 5 . . . �b8 1 6.'tt> h l Wd8 1 7.ie3 �e8 1 8 .tll a3 h6 1 9 .Wd2 'tt> h 7 20.�ab 1 tll h5 2 l .g4 tll hf6 22.h3;!; McShane - Woj taszek, Goa 2002. j_ • s ,i.�•;� �i'� �� Y.l?·u 76 "�it)! -t�"'� B--r£ �er� l. � 5 %.8%� �%· •r£ ..... . . .. . . � �.87.� .87.� �� 3 �w· � � . . . . . . . . a b .. . c d e f g h 1 3 .g3 ( 1 3 .tll a3 ! ? also looks sensible: 1 3 . . . tll f4 [ 1 3 . . .f5 1 4.exf5;!;] 1 4.g3 tll xe2 1 5 .Wxe2 f5 l 6.ie3 tll a6 1 7. tll ab5;!;) 1 3 . . . f5 1 4. exf5 gxf5 1 5 .f4 tll f6 1 6. fxe5 dxe5 1 7. 0-0 tll a6 1 8 . tll d2;!; Richter - Elsness, Norway 2008. 1 1 .tLlec3 exd5 Black may try to do without this exchange: 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2.ie2 tll bd7 ( 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 . 0-0 Wc7 1 4.a4 tll bd7 1 5 .ie3 �b8 1 6 .tll a3 exd5 1 7. cxd5 is similar to our main line: 1 7 . . . �e8 1 8 .Wd2 tll f8 1 9 .�ab l id7 20.b4± cxb4 2 1 .�xb4 Wa5 ? 22.�fb 1 +- Laznicka - Solodovnichenko, Internet 2006) 1 3 . 0-0 �e8 1 4.'tt> h l a6 1 5 . tll d2 Wd8 1 6 .dxe6 fxe6 l 7.f4 b6 l 8 . tll f3 Wc7 l 9 . f5 From here we once again see White execute the standard plan mentioned in the previous note. 14.a4 tll bd7 15.tll a3 Wds 16.0-0 gbs 17.i.e3 tll e8 18.Wd2 lti c7 1 9.gab l We7 20.b4 White has executed his plan and stands better. 20 .. ,ges 2 1 .i.fl b6 22.lti c4 b5 23.axb5 axb5 24.lti a5 Wf6 25,gfcl gas 26.tll xb5 tll xb5 27.i.xb5 cxb4 28.Wxb4 gds 29.tll c6 gf8 30.i.d4 Wg5 3 I .i.xg7 @xg7 32.Wxd6+White has won a second pawn and Black soon called it a day in Nakamura - Lie, Gj ovik (rapid) 2009. B3 12) 7 ... e6 White's main plan here is to develop along the lines of c3-c4 , llJ c3 , id3 , llJ ge2 and 0-0 , and then to aim for kingside play. In Laznicka - Zubarev (line B 3 1 24) , we shall see a great example of how effective this plan can be. Black can try to disrupt this idea at an early stage, and we'll have a look at the options B3 1 2 1 ) 9 ... J.d6, B3 1 22) 9 ... �c7!?, B3 1 23) 9 c4 and B3 1 24) 9 d6. ••• •.• B3 1 2 1 ) 9 ...J.d6 a 8.e4! b c d e f g h Surprisingly this move is a relatively new idea. Previously 8 . c4 was often played here, though that move looks a little awkward to me, and the modern consensus is for White to aim for quick development with the text move. 8 ... exd5 8 . . . d6 looks a little wet in combination with . . . e6, and Kasparov soon took over the initiative in one of his exhibition games: 9 . c4 ie7 1 0 . llJ c3 e5 l l .id3 0-0 1 2 . llJ ge2 llJ bd7 1 3 .Wc2 a6 1 4 .ie3 We? 1 5 .g4 b5 1 6 .b3 bxc4 l 7.bxc4 l:!b8 l 8 . llJ g3;!; Kasparov - Grup Equs, Madrid (simul) 1 997. 9.exd5 a 10.�a3 b c d e f g h This move looks t o take advantage of Black's awkwardly-placed bishop and queen . The standard move 1 O . c4 ? ! is a bit clumsy here: 1 0 . . . 0-0 l l .id3 ie5 1 2 .Wc2 llJ a6 1 3 .a3 Wa5t and Black will play . . . llJ b4 next. We really do not need to be getting involved in all this. 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 .J.d3! White has scored well with this move, setting up llJ e2 to block a check on the e-file. l l .ie2 also looks playable: l l . . . a6 1 2 . llJ c4 We? 1 3 . a4 b6 1 4 .i.g5;!; Tu Hoang Thong Sadorra, Singapore 2002. 1 1 ..J::i e St 1 24 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky It's important to note that l 1 . . . tll xd5 ? isn't playable: 1 2 .tll c4 Wfc6 1 3 . tll x d6 Wfxd6 1 4.i.e4+1 1 . . .a6 1 2. tll c4 Wf c7 1 3 .a4 b6 1 4.i.g5 tll h5 1 5 .tll e2 h6 1 6.i.e3 �e8 1 7.@f2 i.b7 ( 1 7 . . . i.xh2 ? is well met by 1 8 .d6! +-) 1 8 . tll xd6 Wfxd6 1 9 .c4 Wff6 20.g4 Wfh4t 2 1 . tll g3 tll f6 22.Wf d2;!; Ivanisevic - Solak, Vrnj acka Banja 200 5 . Again Smirnov plays this move with good effect. 1 6.a4 looks good too: 1 6 . . . i.h6 1 7.tll c4 i.xc l 1 8 .�xc l b6 1 9 .tll g3;!; Ivanisevic - Kotronias, Kavala 2007. 1 6 ... hS 1 7.a4 h4 1 8.tll e4 tll h7 1 9.f4� A. Smirnov - Gajewski, Plovdiv 2008. B3 122) 9 ...W/c7!? I l . . .h6 1 2 .tll e2 a6 1 3 . tll c4 Wfc7 and White has a pleasant choice between 1 4.a4;!; A. Smirnov - Dinev, Plovdiv 2008, and 1 4. tll xd6N Wfxd6 1 5 . c4;!;. 12.tll e2 i.f'8 13.tll c4 White switches the knight to the centre. 13 ... W/ds 1 4.tll e3 d6 1 5.0-0 a a 1 5 ... g6 b c d e f g h b c d e f g h This is Black's latest move-order refinement. He wants to play a plan involving . . . i.d6 but he is electing to wait for White to play c3-c4 so that he won't get hit with tll a3-c4. Okay, chis plan is very sophisticated, but it is far from clear that Black really wants his queen on c7. Personally I think here we can j ust get on with our standard plan and have good chances of an advantage. 10.c4 i.d6 1 1 .i.d3 0-0 1 5 . . . tll bd7 1 6. tll g3 ! ? ( 1 6.a4 tll e5 1 7.i.c2 b6 1 8 .c4 a6 1 9 .h3 �a7 2 0 . f4 tll g6 2 1 . tll g3;!; Damljanovic - Vuckovic, Subotica 2008) I 6 ... tll e5 I 7.i.c2 b5 1 8 .a4 i.d7 1 9 .h3 c4 20.f4 tll g6 2 l . axb5 Wfb6 22 .Wff3 i.xb5 23. tll gf5 tll e7 24. tll d4 a6 2 5 . g4t A. Smirnov - Givon, Plovdiv 20 1 2 . 1 1 . . . b5 tries to mix it up, but again Black finds that his queen and bishop are targets: 1 2 .tll c3 bxc4 1 3 .i.xc4 0-0 I 4. tll b5 Wfb6 1 5 .tll e2 i.a6 l 6.a4 i.xb5 1 7.axb5;!; White's bishop pair and greater space ensure an advantage, Moskalenko - Llaneza Vega, Barcelona 2008 . 1 6.tll g3 Despite Black placing his bishop and queen on the b8-h2 diagonal it is dangerous for him to grab the pawn with l l . . .ixh2, as he falls way behind in space and development. No Black player has risked this, so let me j ust give you an example of how play could develop: 1 2 . lll e2 ig3t 1 3 . lll xg3 Wxg3 t 1 4.c;t>fl d6 1 5 . lll c3 lll a6 1 6 .id2--+ lll b4 1 7.We l t Wxe l t 1 8 .�xe l t c;t>f8 1 9 .ib 1 id? 20.a3 lll a6 2 1 .if4 lll e8 22. lll e4+- 1 7 . . . Wxf4 1 8 .Wd2± This looks highly prom1smg for White. Black will surely be in for a miserable time if he exchanges queens as it will be very difficult for him to develop his queenside. 12.c!Lic3 a6 13.c!Lige2 ges Black has also tried: 1 3 . . . b5 1 4.ig5 ! Taking the b5-pawn is possible, but would give Black some queenside play. It all seems a bit unnecessary when simple development favours White. l 4 . . . lll h5 l 5 .lll e4 lll f4? This move is too ambitious. Black should play a normal move like l 5 . . . ie5 and settle for a slightly worse position: 1 6.Wd2 f5 l 7. lll 4g3 lll xg3 1 8 .hxg3;!; White has a lead in development, more space and good prospects of a future kingside attack. --- - -�- -.v,� s .i •A• �·� 6 ,%. ..... z� "·· · · · "· � �� -%'"' " � �� 5� ��i ,,ef.li��l?i"� �--�;, - ,,<� 7 �� ,� ,�, ;� � �� z �· �� -0 ��p-tl)� � effj.. . C"{"· �� ·0� �. 1 ;� � ·�---� - � � 4 3 � 2 ·0 a b c d � e f g h l 6 . lll xf4!N l 6 . lll x d6 lll xd3 t l 7.Wxd3 was only slightly better for White in Rahman - Konguvel, Kolkata 2008. 1 6 . . . ixf4 1 7 .ixf4 l 7 . d6 doesn't win a piece as Black has 1 7 . . . Wa5 t . a 14.%Vc2 b c d e f g h 1 4.a4 aims to stop Black expanding with . . . b 5 , and has also been played with success: 14 . . . ie5 (Black might consider 14 . . .ixh2 so as to at least have something for his cramped position, though 1 5 .c;t>f2t looks promising for White) 1 5 .Wc2 b6 1 6.id2 ib7 1 7.'it>f2 d6 1 8 .h3 lll bd7 1 9.ie3 lll f8 20.f4 ixc3 2 1 . lll xc3 ic8 22 .id2t White's additional space provides an advantage, Martinovic - Vorobiov, Rijeka 20 1 0 . 14 ... bS!?N This must be critical, hoping to show that White should have taken the time to play 1 4.a4. 14 ... ie5 1 5 .ig5 h6 1 6.ixf6 ixf6 1 7. lll e4 ie7 1 8 . 0-0 d6 1 9 . lll 2g3 lll d7 20.�ae l b5 2 1 . b3;!; led to a small but safe edge for White in Moskalenko - Alsina Leal, Barcelona 20 1 1 . 1 5.i.gS bxc4 16.i.xc4 i.eS 17.0-0!;t This clever move secures an edge for White, based on the variation: 1 7 . . . ixh2t ? ! 1 8 .c;t>h l 1 26 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky ie5 1 9 . f4 id4 20.�ae l !± With lll xd4 on the cards, this is very strong for White. I O.ixc4 l 1 . . . lll x d5 Black could consider 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 . lll xc4 �e8t 1 3 .ie2 Wa6 1 4. lll d2 and now: a) 14 . . . W/b6 1 5 .b4;!; b) 1 4 . . . d6 1 5 .b4!? Probably strongest, though a bit murky. ( 1 5 . lll g5 followed by lll ge4 is a safe route to an edge for White.} 1 5 . . .ixh3 1 6.gxh3 ib6 1 7.@fl ( 1 7. lll e4 lll xe4 1 8 . fxe4 �xe4 1 9 .@fl �xe2 20.Wfxe2 Wla4 2 l .if4;!;) 1 7 . . . �xe2 l 8 .Wfxe2 W/a4;!; c) l 4 . . . lll xd5 l 5 .lll e4;!; 1 2 .lll xc4 Wfe6t 1 3 .ie2 h6 1 4.lll f4 White has achieved a comfortable lead in development. 14 . . . lll x f4 1 5 .ixf4 d5 1 6. b4! ixb4 1 7.cxb4 dxc4 1 8 .id6 This stops Black from castling, and it begins to look really promising for White. l 8 . . . lll c6 1 9 . 0-0 id? 20.�c l 0-0-0 2 1 .ixc4+Efimov - Kotronias, Heraklio 2007; Black's position has suddenly collapsed, his weak king giving White a decisive advantage. Taking the pawn is most common, and White's chances look preferable. 1 0 ...ic5 B3 1 23) 9 c4 •.. a b c d e f g h An important move to take into consideration. Black is willing to sacrifice a pawn for immediate activity. 1 o .lll h3!? I like this rarely played idea too. This move pre-empts . . . ic5 and has the idea of taking the c4-pawn with the queen's knight. 1 0 . . . ic5 l 1 . lll d2 l l .Wfe2t @d8 1 2 .Wfxc4 �e8t 1 3 .ie2 d6 1 4.lll g5 ie3 offers Black decent compensation. a I I .lll e2 b c d e f g h Developing in this way seems most sensible. l l .Wfe2t @d8 1 2 .@fl looks rather risky: 1 2 . . . �e8 1 3 .Wfc2 ( 1 3 .Wfd3 ?! was played in Rojas Keim - Gomez Jurado, Sabadell 2009, and now 13 . . . d6N intending . . . tll bd7-e5 would have offered Black ample compensation.) 13 ... d6 1 4 .tll e2 tll bd7 Here too, Black intends . . . tll e5 with decent compensation. 15.\Wb3!N 1 5 .1%xh2 Wc7 1 6.d6 Wxc4 1 7.ig500 Gomez Ledo - Pena Gomez, Sanxenxo 2009. 15 ...\Wd6 1 5 . . . Wc7? 1 6.d6 Wxd6 1 7.ixf7t+- 1 1 ... 0-0 1 1 . . .d6 1 2 . tll d4 0-0 1 3 . 0-0 (or 1 3 .b4!? Ele8t 1 4 .�f2 ixd4t 1 5 .Wxd4;!;) 13 ... tll bd7 1 4 .ib3 1%e8 1 5 .lifh l h6 1 6 . tll d2 a6 1 7 . tll e4;!; Gruenenwald - Georges, Switzerland 2007. 1 5 . . .ic7 1 6.'1Wxb6 (or 1 6 . d6!?) 1 6 . . . ixb6 1 7.ig5 ± and White has a huge lead in development. l 1 . . .a5?! 1 2 .Wb3 Wa7 1 3 .ig5 d6 1 4.ixf6 if2t 1 5 .� d l gxf6 1 6. tll d2 f5 l 7.ib5t liff8 1 8 .Wa4± Stamenkovic - Sega, Santos 2006. 16.tlib5 \Wc5 17.@fl a6 White is also doing well after 1 7 . . . ie5 1 8 .d6+- or 1 7 . . . id6 1 8 .tll xd6 Wxd6 1 9 .if4±. 1 8.d6!? 12.t[)d2 White can also aim for an edge with: 1 2 .Wb3 Wd8 1 3 .ig5 h6 1 4 .ih4;!; Duijker - Dij khuis, Hoogeveen 20 1 1 . The simpler l 8.1%xh2;!; is promising too. 18 .. ,gxe2 1 9.Lflt @f8 20.lll d4! lll c6 21 .tlixe2± 12 ... ges 1 2 . . . d6 1 5 .ib3;!; 1 3 .tll b3 tll bd7 1 4. tll xc5 B3 1 24) 9 ... d6 1 0.c4! Wxc5 13.lll b3 .igl 1 3 . . . if2t 1 4 . �fl Wc7 1 5 . �xf2 Wxc4 1 6 .1%e l tll xd5 1 7.Wd4;!; Peelen - Trygstad, Copenhagen 1 999. 14.lll bd4 .ixh2!? Black has regained the pawn, but now his lagging development will come into play. 10 ... .ie7 a b c d e f g h 1 O . . . g6! ? aims for optimal bishop development on the long diagonal, but to achieve this Black must allow his king to be 1 28 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky displaced: l l .'1We2t! @d8 1 2 .'1Wc2 ig7 l 3 .id3 lll a6 1 4. a3 !!e8t 1 5 . lll e2 @e7 1 6. lll bc3 lt>f8 1 7.0-0 lll b4 1 8 .axb4 cxb4t 1 9 .@h l bxc3 20.lll x c3± Movsesian - Kotronias, Moscow 2007. 1 O . . . if5 is met by White's standard plan: l I .lll c3 lll bd7 1 2. lll ge2 h6 1 3 . lll g3 ig6 1 4.id3± 1 8.£4 a6 1 9.a4 White has positioned all of his minor pieces optimally and now needs to focus on the major pieces. 19 ... �f8 20.ga b6 2 1 .V;Yc2 h6 22.gafi ga7 23.g4 gae7 24.�g3 White has the advantage with more space and prospects of play on the kingside. 1 1 .�c3 0-0 1 1 . . . tll bd? 1 2 . f4 lll f8 1 3 .id3 lll g6 1 4 .tll f3 ig4 1 5 . 0-0 lll h4 1 6 .'\Wa4t id? ( 1 6 . . . lll d?? 1 7. lll x h4 ixh4 1 8 .h3+- Stamenkovic Bortoloso, Vitoria 2007) l 7.'1Wc2± 1 2.id3 ges 1 2 . . . lll e8 1 3 .lll ge2 lll d7 1 4. b3± Barsov Grigore, Sitges 2007. 1 3.�ge2 � bd7 25.hxg4 .L:g4 26.fS! A direct and effective move. 26 ... .id4t 27.@g2 hat 28.gxf3 @h7 29.� ce4 .ie5 30.'IWcl 1-0 Laznicka - Zubarev, Polanica Zdroj 2006. 14.b3 Preparing to meet . . . lll e5 with the retreat ic2 to keep the bishop. 1 4. f4 is of course also possible: 14 . . . '1Wd8 1 5 . 0-0 a6 1 6. a4 b6 1 7.h3 tll f8 1 8 . g4± Madakov - Yumakhuzhin, Rybinsk 2008. B32) 7.e4!? As I mentioned at the start of the chapter, this is a personal favourite of mine - White sacrifices two pawns to draw the black queen into his territory. 7 ...V;Yxb2 1 4 ...if8 1 s.o-o g6 1 6.h3 .ig7 1? ..id2 V;Yds It is awkward for Black to decline the gambit as White has played very directly: 7 . . . e6 ?! 8 . tll a3 exd5 9 . exd5 9 . . . �xb2 9 . . . d6 looks too passive, and this is highlighted by a blitz game of mine. Whilst these moves are not forced, it is totally clear White has a huge advantage; compared to some of the variations with ic 1 in line B3 1 he is effectively two tempos ahead. 1 0.ib 5 t id7 1 1 .�e2t @d8 1 2 .ixd7 lll bxd7 1 3 .tll h3 lll xd5 1 4 . 0-0-0 �c6 1 5 .ig3 ie7 1 6.1::1 h e l 1::1 e 8 1 7.l!.ib l lll 7f6 1 8 .c4 lll c7 1 9 . tll g5 @d7 20.tll xf7 1 -0 Antidrome - spark, Internet 20 1 1 . 1 0 .tll b5 tll xd5 1 1 .�xd5 �xa l t 1 2 .@f2 1 3 .@g3 ie7 1 4. tll d6t ixd6 1 5 .ixd6 tll c6 1 6. tll h3 �b l 1 7. tll g5 lll d8 1 8 .ib5 �xb5 After this relatively forced sequence, White now missed a forced mate and went on to draw the game. This is surprising for such a highly-rated grandmaster, but it happens to everyone! s.c!Lid2 Wxc3 9.J.c7! a b c d e f g h If your opponent hasn't seen this before he might get a shock at this point! This is the starting position of this double pawn sacrifice variation. I have done some serious analysis in this line, greatly exceeding any previous work on this variation. Whilst the bizarre nature 1 30 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky of the resulting positions makes them quite hard to accurately evaluate, on the whole the positions do seem to favour White. Certainly from a practical viewpoint I would consider White favourite, especially if he is familiar with the following extensive analysis. Black's main choices are now B32 1) 9 b6?!, B322) 9 e6 and B323) 9 d6. ... ... ... 9 . . . g6?! was played in the first game in this line, bur it doesn't seem to work and it has rarely been tried since: I O.l:'lcl We3t l l .ctJ e2 ctJ a6 1 2. ctJ c4 Wh6 1 3 .if4 Wg7 1 4 .Wa4 g5 1 5 .ie5 g4 1 6. f4 Wg6 1 7. ctJ g3± Chernyshov - Grischuk, Dagomys 200 5 ; Black is totally passive and White's advantage is significant. B32 1) 9 b6?! ... l l . . . b5 l l . . .d6 1 2 .ic3 Wa3 1 3 . ctJ c4 Wa6 1 4 . ctJ g300 1 2 .a4 b4 1 3 . ctJ c4 Wd8 1 4 .d6 e6 I 4 . . . ct:J c6 l 5 . dxe7 ixe7 l 6 . ct:J d6t00 1 5 . ct:J f4 ct:J c6 1 6.ib2 With e4-e5 on the cards. 1 6 . . . g5 1 7. ctJ d3 ig7 1 8 . ctJ xc5 0-0 1 9 .Wd2 ctJ h 5 20.e5 Black seems to be struggling in this line. l OJ'k l ! This move i s White's best; the reason is that if Black retreats with . . . Wa5 , he cannot subsequently play . . . b5 as the c5-pawn would drop to Elxc5. I 0 . ctJ e2 I played this move in a London League game against Bob Eames, who kindly told me after the game that 1 0 .l:'lc l is White's best. The reason I say "kindly told me" is because the next year he advised his good friend Dave Ledger to try this line against me in Hastings, and I got a chance to try out the improvement - I am not quite sure what Bob's logic was there, but thanks anyway! Despite the substandard knight move the position remains interesting, so I have included the game. 1 0 . . . °'1Wa5 10 . . . °'1Wa3 l l .l:'lb l ia6! 1 2 .l:'lb3 Wa5 1 3 .Wc 1 00 l l .ie5 20 . . . ct:J f4? This allows White to break open the h-file. 20 .. . f6! 2 l .id3t 2 1 .h4 f6 22.hxg5 fxg5 22 . . . fxe5 23 .id3t 23 .id3 ctJ xd3t 24.Wxd3 h6 2 5 .Wg6 Elf4? 25 . . . °'1We8 26.Elxh6 Wxg6 27.Elxg6 Elf4 (27 . . . Elf5 2 8 . ctJ e3±) 28 .l:'lc l iif7 29.Elxg5 ± 26 .Elxh6 ct:J d4 ? 2 6 . . . Elh4 27.Wh7t +27.ixd4 Elxd4 28 .Wh7t iif8 29 .Elg6! 1 -0 R. Pert - Eames, London 2009 . 8 1 6 .i -.t�-� " " Y. - · - - ·� ·0 �%j'ef""' Y.%j'ef'�� %1'�.t. r�. .. %_ ��. %-_,�,%_ .t. r.� .t. . . %.. .--- - -%-. 8% . ', , , ; � � ·� L'� �� %,, 5 4 � ��B�, �� , �, J�,�%,� '" %�. )!. . . . . : J m ��ii=�� :s a I O f;Ye3t b d c 0 f e g h •.. If the black queen stays on the queenside it will soon be in danger again: 1 0 . . . Wi'aS I Lies ia6 I Ld6? 1 2 . .ic3 Wi'xa2 ( 1 2 . . . Wi'a3 1 3 .ll:J c4 Wi'xa2 1 4.:ga l +-) 1 3 .ic4 Wa3 1 4 . ll:J b l +1 2 . .ic3 Wa3 1 2 . . .ixfl doesn't really work: 1 3 .ixaS ixg2 I 4.ic3+- and Black will not be able to keep enough material for the queen, Bhat Panchanathan, Internet 2006. 1 3 . ll:J c4 ixc4 1 4 .ixc4 White's chances are clearly preferable. I S . . . Wb2 is no improvement for Black: 1 6. ll:J e2 Wes 1 7.ibSt �d8 1 8 .0-0 g6 1 9 .if4 WhS 20.ll:Jg3 Wh4 2 1 .Wd2 h6 22.eS !+- Pavlovic - Aleksandrov, Vrnjacka Banj a 200 S . 1 6.:gc3 White plays a great game and never lets his opponent get round to solving his problems with the queen. I 've included the rest of the game as it is well worth playing through. 1 6 . . . Wb2 1 7. lLi e2 bS 1 8 .ib3 Wa3 1 9 . ll:J d4 g6 20.eS dxeS 2 I .d6 Wb4 22.l'k4 Wxc4 23 .ixc4 exd4 24.Wb3 e6 2 S .ixe6 E!:a7 26 .ixf7t :gxf7 27.We6t ie7 2 8 . 0-0 0-0 29.dxe7 :ge8 30 .Wd6 ll:J bd7 3 1 .:ge l c4 32.ib4 d3 33.Wxa6 l':lb8 34 .Wd6 E!:c8 3 S .ic3 1 -0 Trent - Hebden, Southend 2006. 1 1 .ll:i e2 d6 12.ll:ic4 f;Yh6 13.f;Ya4t! And the b6-pawn will drop. 13 ... id7 I 3 . . . ll:J bd7? I 4.ll:J xb6+- 14.f;Ya3 a6 15.tlixb6 ga7 16 ..ixb8 gb7 -·· �� 1 81 �% "/ � .i.e 1 . "'. . ., ..' . /,. ;.lj',.8%. .;/·�· · \',,.,,.,;J, ;�;::;(S . 5 -� L'� �� : ii�� ,�,� � !o 2 ':ii;" �� . . �! =,.,, � . �, 1 6 a b c d e f g h 1 4 . . . d6 1 4 . . . e6 I S . ll:J e2! exdS 1 6.ixf6 dxc4 1 7.Wd S ! also looks much better for White: l 7 . . . ll:J c6 1 8 .:gd l ± 1 4 . . . e S I S .Wd2 d6 1 6.:gb a I S .id2 a6 � � � -:'0. & ?� • ;� .J �,:� �- ?� ,�··•r � -� 8 a 17.tlia8!! b ai . � c d Y. · L � e f ;:: " " % ... g Y. · � . /.:::: / ; h This is one of the favourite moves I have ever played. The idea is to follow up with lLi c7t driving out the black king for White to attack. I remember when I spotted it at the board 1 32 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky - I couldn't believe my eyes that playing my knight into the corner could be such a strong move. 17 ... e6 l 7 . . . Ei:xb8 1 8 . tll c7t @d8 1 9 .Wi'aS +- 1 8.c!£ic7t @ds 19.c!£ixa6 exd5 20.e5 dxe5 2 1 .Wi'aSt @cs 22.he5 ga7 23.�f4 Wi'g5 24.Wi'c3 �c6 25.�b4 d4 26.�xd4 Wi'xf4 27.c!£ixc6 gxa2 28.�e5 'i!Ya4 29.c!£i b4 ga3 30.�a6t @d7 3 1 .'i!Yd2t @e6 32.�cSt @xe5 33.f4t @e4 34.gc4# R. Pert - D . Ledger, Hastings 20 1 0. B322) 9 e6 .•• a b c d e f g h I consider this as an important option for Black and one we should be ready for. There are very few games in this line so much of the analysis below has not been tested in practice, but I have spent a lot of time on this variation to ensure that the analysis can be trusted. I O.c!£ie2 'i!Yd3 . Swinging the queen over to the kingside with 1 O . . We3 ?! seems wrong when the white bishop can come back to the f4-square: l 1 .tll c4 Wi'h6 1 2 .if4 g5 1 3 .tll d6t ixd6 1 4.ixd6;!; 1 0 . . . Wi'a3 .-, 8 �-j_� . ' ·� . . � � . . . . %�• . . . -� �,.• .. . .%. 6 �if . ��-� �� ',. , . , ;� �� 5 ��1u. � : a ��%""-�i��!��-�� ttJ• t!J t!J rl!1.. �...... .. . .�• �. 1 ,B Bii°W:J.B � 7 2 7. ,,. , . , P, � � a b c d :%'0� e .. f g h % 1 1 .l"i:b l !N This move is far stronger than 1 1 .El:c 1 ? because the rook is going to the 3 rd rank and on the c3-square it can be attacked by . . . tll xd5 , whereas that is not the case on the b3-square: 1 1 . . . exdS 1 2 .Ei:c3 Wa6 1 3 .Ei:e3 ( 1 3 .exdS lll xd5-+) 1 3 . . . ie7+ Walton G . Buckley, Coventry 2007. 1 1 . . . exd S ? ! Black should probably prefer l 1 . . . c 4 1 2 .dxe6 and: a) 1 2 . . . fxe6 1 3 . tll xc4 Wc5 1 4. tll d6t;!; b) 1 2 . . . WfcS 1 3 . exf7t @xf7 1 4.if4 c3 ? 1 5 . tll xc3 Wfxc3 1 6 .Ei:cl Wf d4 l 7.El:xc8+c) 12 . . . dxe6 1 3 . c!£i xc4 ib4t 1 4.@f2 ic5t l 5 . tll d4 Wf c3 1 6. tll d6t @e7 1 7 . tll 6b5 ixd4t 1 8 .Wi'xd4 Wfxd4t 1 9 .tll xd4 tll bd7 20 .ie2;!; 1 2 .Ei:b3 Wa6 this is not just possible but very strong perhaps even winning. 1 3 . . . l'll xd5 Virtually forced as l'll c3 threatens to win the queen. 1 4 . l'll f4 l!Mc6 1 5 .ib5 Wxc7 1 6. t'li xd5 l!Md6 1 7.l'll c4+White will quickly develop his rooks to the e-file and mate looks likely. I U�b l ! 1 2 .ie5 ! ? This was the first idea I looked at, preparing l'll c3 . 1 2 . . . exd5 1 3 .l'll xc4 Wxd l t ( 1 3 . . . Wxc4 1 2 . . . ic5 1 4 .l'll c3±) 1 4.E:xd l and White has compensation for the pawn. 1 3 .l'll c3 We3t 1 4.We2 Wxe2t 1 5 .ixe2 dxe4 At chis exact moment White may be four pawns down, but the compensation is obvious. As against 1 0 . . . Wa3 , White threatens E:b3 which would be close to winning. 1 1 . .. c4! It may not be obvious to the unprepared player, but this move is close to being forced. 1 1 . . .exd5 1 2.E:b3 l!Ma6 1 3 .exd 5 ! transposes to the note to Black's 1 0th move above. 8 7 6 % '""-0 ,� z · · · · ·..-:: i. •J.. �-� �� IY-m .:1fm' r.- - %�-1 · %� -m� %.... % • Y, 11$11$ !�1 11$ ( : 11$11$ f11$ !11$ 11$11$ ·'!1$��'·�w.-�� 11$ 3 11$ �� 8 m mtt:Jm 8 eftJ ,,,,, � � 2 � �% '"//, ��- - - ��-��- - j m a �rilfm �. a a 12.i.f4! b c d e f g h This move looks totally bizarre and I had been aware of this position for some months before I realized it may well be the way to go. The idea is to follow up with E:c l and either E:c3 or l'll c3 , while l'll g3 is also on the cards. White's plan seems slow, but it is effective and it puts the onus on Black to come up with something. 1 6 . t'li b 5 ! ? 1 6.ixf6 ! ? exf3 ( 1 6 . . . gxf6 1 7. l'll dxe4 f5 1 8 .l'll f6t @d8 1 9 .ixc4�) 1 7.ixf3 gxf6 1 8 . t'li b 5 ( 1 8 .l'll xc4 t'li c6 1 9 .l'll b5 @d8 20.t'li bd6�) 1 8 . . . t'li a6 1 9 .l'll xc4� 1 6 . . . l'll a6 l 6 . . . exf3 1 7.l'll c7t @d8 1 8 .l'll xf3 t'li c6 1 9 . l'll xa8 ic5 20 .ic7t rJle7 2 I .ixc4 d5 22.ie2;:l; 1 6 . . . t'li c6 1 7.ixf6 gxf6 1 8 . l'll c7t @d8 l 9 .l'll xa8;:l; I 7. l'll xc4 d5 1 8 . t'li cd6t ixd6 I 9 . l'll xd6t @e7 20.t'lixb700 Although White has compensation in all these lines, it is not clear chat he has any advantage. 12 ... exdS I have looked at various ocher possibilities: 12 . . . c3 ? 1 3 .l'll xc3 Wxc3 1 4 .E:c l +- 1 34 Richard Pert - Playing the Trom p owsky 1 2 . . . icS ? ! 1 3 .E:c l ;!; and White threatens E:c3 . 1 2 . . . ia3 ?! 1 3 .lll g3 Wc3 1 4.ixc4;!; 1 2 . . . lll h S ? ! 1 3 . lll g3 lll xf4 1 S . lll c4 lll xg2t 1 6.@fl ;!; 1 4.ixd3 cxd3 1 2 . . . lll a6 1 3 .E:c l lll h S ( 1 3 . . . ib4 1 4.lll c3 Wd4 l S . lll b S Wb6 1 6.E:xc4 0-0 1 7.E:xb4 lll xb4 l 8 . lll c7 lll h S ? l 9 .lll c4+-) 1 4.lll c3 (or 1 4 . lll g3 !?) 1 4 . . . Wd4 ( 1 4 . . . lll x f4 1 S .ixd3;!;) l S .lll bS Wes ( 1 S . . . Wb6 1 6.lll xc4±) 1 6.E:xc4 Wb6 1 7.ieS± position remains somewhat murky: l S . E:xc3 ixc3 1 6.Wc l ixd2t 1 7.Wxd2 0-0 1 8 .ieS d6 1 9 .ixf6 gxf6 20.Wf4± l S .lll bS Wes l S . . . Wb6 1 6.lll c7t @f8 l 7.lll xa8+- picks up the a8-rook with tempo. 1 6 . lll d6t lt> f8 1 6 . . . @e7 1 7.ixc4;!; 1 3.�kl 1 7.a3 White can also consider I 7.ixc4 ! ? with the idea: I 7 . . . dxc4? I 8 .E:xc4+1 7 . . . ixd2t I 7 . . . ixa3 I 8 .lll 6xc4;!; 1 8 .Wxd2 lll c6 1 9 .lll fS lll e8 20.WxdS WxdS 2 1 .exdS;!; 14.lll c3 13 . . . dxe4? 1 4.E:xc4 lll c6 l S .lll c3 lll eS 1 6.ixd3 lll xd3 t 1 7.lt>fl +1 3 . . . lll h S 1 4. lll c3 lll xf4 1 6.@fl lll a6 17 .E:b l;!; 1 S .ixd3 lll xd3t 1 3 . . . ib4 Black looks for quick development. 1 4. lll c3 Wd4 Black can give up his queen with 1 4 . . . Wxc3 but White should be better, although the the 1 8 . . . c3 1 9 . 0-0 ic5 t 20.Wh l cxd2 2 1 .ixd2 Wa3 22.gxc5 Wxc5 23 .if4 d5 24.ixb8 id? 2 5 . ll'l c7 d4 26.Wd2± 1 4 . . . ll'l a6 1 5 . exd5 ib4 1 6. ll'l b 5 Wa5 1 7.ixc4;!; 14 . . . lll h5 l 5 .ie3;!; 19J'hc4 d5 20,gc2 dxe4 2 1 .0-0 exf3 22.lLixB 14 . . . Wa5 1 5 . exd5 1 7.Wxc4;!; With two pawns for the exchange, material is roughly level, but the misplaced black king offers some encouragement to White. White keeps alternatives: an edge ib4 against 1 6 .We2t all Wd8 B323) 9 ... d6 15.lLibS Wa5 16.lLic7t @£8 16 . . . ©e7 1 7. exd5 c3 1 8 .We2t Wd8 1 9 . ll'l b3 c2t 20.Wf2 Wb6t 2 1 .We3 Wxe3 t 22.Wxe3 d6 23.gxc2;!; a 1 0.gb l ! b c d e f g h I believe this i s strongest. It was only after carrying out the above analysis that I discovered that there had been an email game which followed this route: 1 7.ll'l xa8 ! ? c3 1 8 .©f2 1 8 .gc200 1 8 . . . ic5 t 1 9 . ©e2 1 9 .W e l ib4! is a repetition of moves. 1 9 . . . cxd2 20 .Wxd2 Wxd2t 2 1 .Wxd2 ib4t 22.©d3 dxe4t 23.fxe4 ll'l c6 24. ll'l c? ia3 25 .gc3 ib4 26.gc l ia3 27.gc3 Yi-Yi Klausen - Serradimigni, email 2007. 17 ... dxc4 18.lLixa8 lL! c6 1 o . ll'l e2!? This move works well against ... We3 , but the problem is that it gives Black an additional option: 1 0 . . . Wd3 ! Black should take this option although the position remains murky. 1 0 . . . We3 1 1 .gb l transposes into a very favourable line for White - see 1 0 . . . We3 t in the following note. 1 1 .gb l 1 1 .g c l ll'l bd7 1 2 .gc3 Wa6 1 3 . ll'l d4!? cxd4 1 4.ixa6 dxc3 gives Black enough material for the queen. l 1 .ll'l g3 We3t l 2.ie2 ll'l a6+ l l . . .b6 1 36 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky White's compensation was eventually enough for a draw in Stavrianakis - Tukhaev, Chalkida 2009. 10 l'ilfd7 ... This is now considered the main move, as Black frees the f6-square for his queen to drop back to. 1 2 .gb3 1 2 . lli g3 We3t 1 3 .ie2 id? ( 1 3 . . . lli a6 1 4.Wa4t lli d7 1 5 . lli f5�) 1 4. lli c4! ( 1 4.Wc2? g6 1 5 .lli c4 Wf4 1 6.id3 ig7 1 7. lli e2 Wh4t 1 8 .g3 Wh6-+ and White was running out of ideas in A. Smirnov - Maslak, St Petersburg 2007.) 1 4 . . . Wc3t ( 1 4 . . . Wh6 1 5 . 0-0t) 1 5 .'it?f2 b5 1 6.gc l Wd4t 1 7.Wxd4 cxd4 l 8 . lli a3 a6 l 9 . lli c2 White is regaining one pawn and will have decent compensation for the remaining pawn deficit. 1 2 . . . Wa6 1 3 .ixb8 gxb8 1 4. lli c3 1 4. lli d4!? Wb7 1 5 .ib 5 t ( 1 5 . lli c6 gas 1 6. lli c4 We?) 1 5 . . . id? 1 6.ic6 ixc6 1 7.llixc6 offers White some compensation, but maybe not enough. 1 4 . . . Wb? 1 5 . lli c4 1 5 .ga3 is well met by 1 5 . . . a5+. 1 5 . . .id? 1 6.eS dxe5 1 7. lli xe5 g6 l 7 . . . a6! ? is also interesting. 1 0 . . . lli bd? 1 1 .lli e2 We3 1 2. lli c4 Wh6 1 3 .Wa4 g6 1 4. h4! (Black is able to allow 1 4 . lli b6 as the time spent pocketing the rook gives him enough time to complete his development: 1 4 . . .ig? l 5 . lli xa8 0-0 1 6.Wc2 lli e5 l 7 . lli c3 id? 1 8 .Wd2 Wh4t 1 9 .Wf2 Wh6 20 .Wd2 with a repetition of moves) 14 . . . ig? l 5 .ia5 g5 1 6.id2 Wg6 1 7.hxg5t 1 0 . . . We3t l 1 . lli e2 lli a6 1 2 . lli c4 Wh6 1 3 .ia5 g5 1 4. lli g3 g4 ( 1 4 . . . Wg6 1 5 .eS!t; 1 4 . . . ig? l 5 . lli e3t) a b c d e f g h 1 5 .gxb?! ixb7 ? 1 6. lli f5 1 -0 Miladinovic - Gozzoli, Nancy 2008; a very impressive victory. The reason for Black's resignation is lines such as 1 6 . . . Wg5 1 7. lli cxd6t exd6 l 8.ib5t lli d7 1 9 .ixd?t 'it?xd7 20 .Wa4t 'it?c8 2 1 .We8t with mate next move. 1 8 . lli e4! 1 0 . . . b6?! l I .i b 5 t id? 1 2 .Wa4 Wa5 ? 1 3 .Wxa5 bxa5 1 4.ic4+- and White picks up the b 8-knight, Trent - Kotronias, Liverpool 2008. I O . . . tt.J a6 I l .ixa6 ( I l .ib5 t ! ? id? 1 2 . tD e2 '1¥fe3 1 3 . tt.J c4 Wg5 1 4 .ixa6 bxa6 1 5 . 0-0 is another way to obtain good compensation for the pawns) 1 l . . . bxa6 1 2 . tD e2 ! ? ( 1 2 .Wa4t may lead to a draw, but White should not be satisfied with that: 1 2 . . . id? 1 3 .Wxa6 g6 1 4. tt.J e2 Wc2! 1 5 .Wb7 gc8 1 6.gb2 Wa4 1 7. tD c3 Wd4 I 8 . tt.J e2 Wa4 I 9 . tD c3 with a repetition of moves) 1 2 . . . Wa3 1 3 .Wc2 id? 1 4.gb3! ia4 ( 1 4 . . . Wa4 1 5 . tt.J c3 Wd4 1 6.Wb l ±) 1 5 .gxa3 ixc2 1 6. ©f2 The misplaced bishop on c2 gives White the advantage. 1 1 .J.hs This keeps the d3-square covered and intends tD e2 hitting the queen. 1 2 . . . Wf6 1 2 . . . We3 1 3 . f4!? is an enterprising idea aiming to trap the queen: 1 3 . . . axb5 ( 1 3 ... Wa3 1 4.ic4 b6 [ 1 4 ... b5 1 5 .gb3 Wxa2 1 6. tD c3 nets the queen] 1 5 .gb3 Wa5 1 6.e5;!;) 1 4.gb3 Wxb3 1 5 .axb3 tD a6 1 6.ia5 b4 I 7 . tt.Jc4t 1 3 .Wa4 g6 1 3 . . . e6 1 4. 0-0 ie7 1 5 .f4 0-0 1 6.ic4� and White threatens e4-e5 . 1 4. 0-0 1 4. tt.J c4?! axb5 1 5 .Wxa8 bxc4 1 6.ixb8 ih6 1 7 .ixd6 0-0+ 1 4 . . . ih6 1 4 . . . ig? 1 5 .f4 0-0 1 6.id3 ga7 ( 1 6 . . . e5 1 7. f5t) 1 7. tD f3 b5 1 8 .Wa5 ih6 1 9 .e5 dxe5 20.fxe5 Wg7 2 1 .@h l � 1 5 .f4 0-0 1 6.id3 1 6 .e5 ? is too early: 1 6 . . . dxe5 l 7 . tt.J e4 Wh4+ 1 6 . . . ga? This move looks a bit clumsy, but it may be Black's best choice as he has to try to get organized somehow. The immediate e-pawn breaks don't seem to work out too well for him: a) 16 . . . e5 1 7 . fxe5 Wg5 ( 1 7 . . . Wxe5 1 8 .tt.J c4 Wg5 1 9 .Wc2 b5 20.tDxd6 c4 2 1 .ixc4 bxc4 22.tDxc4 a5 23.gb3 ig7 24.gg3�) 1 8 .ixd6 '1¥fe3t 1 9 .©h l Wxd3 20.ixf8 ixd2 2 1 . e6� b) 1 6 . . . e6? l 7.ixd6+l 7.e5 dxe5 1 8 .tt.J e4 Wh4 1 l . . .a6! ?N 1 2 . tD e2 1 9 .g3 ! 1 38 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trom p owsky l 9.fxe 5 ? b5 20 .Wa5 c4 2 l .ic2 �xc7 22.Wxc7 ie3t 23.@h l ib6-+ This time it is White's queen which gets caught out! I'm starting to lose count of how many times someone loses their queen in this variation! 1 9 . . . WhS l 9 . . . Wh3 20 .Wc2 (not 20.fxe5 ? ie3t 2 1 .@h l b5-+ nor 20.ixb8 ?! lli xb8 2 1 .fxe5 ie3t 22.@h l lli d7 23 . lli f4 ixf4+) 20 . . . exf4 2 1 .lli xf4 ixf4 22.ixf4� 20 .ixb8 lli xb8 20 ... b S 2 1 .Wc2 lli xb8 22 .Wxc5� 2 1 .d6 b 5 ? ! 22.�xb 5 ± . � � -� .. . ... . 7 �. . � .- �r� l 6 -.,Y.. �n··--�. � . 5 . • ... %.�•• 4 ,.�... 3.lhD �� 3 � � � .i. � � wr . . • 2 8 � •� tt:J. � 1 � . � � 1.m· · · , 8 - r , � 3 % � a b � c d e f % g • • % h 1 3.0-0!N Amazingly this obvious move is a novelty. l 3 . f4 has been tried, but it looks premature: 1 3 . . . ig7 ( 1 3 . . . Wh4t! ? N 1 5 .g3 Wh5 may be slightly more accurate) 1 4 . e S ? ! White really needs to play a couple of developing moves before this expansion . ( 1 4. 0-0! returns to our main line.) 14 . . . Wi'h4t 1 5 .g3 Wh5 1 6. lli e4 0-0 1 7. exd6 exd6 1 8 . lli xd6 lli f6+ and it was clear that White had overextended in Miladinovic - Volokitin , Murska S obota 2008. 1 3 . lli c4 ! ? Th i s has been a popular choice in the few games which have reached this position. Despite White winning a couple of nice games, I am slightly wary of this idea. Although White still has excellent practical chances, the knight on c4 provides a target for Black's queenside pawns and the position can become murky. This wacky position is typical of this variation. Obviously a lot of this is not forced but it does give a flavour of what might happen and some of the ideas which White should try to implement. 12.llie2 Y:Vf6 a b c d e f g h 1 3 . . . ig7 l 3 . . . a6!N looks like a good move to me, calling White's bluff and saying that if you want to win some material you are going to have to misplace all your minor pieces to do so. 1 4. lli b6 axb5 1 5 .llixa8 and: a) 1 5 . . . lli a6 ! ? 1 6.�xb5 Wh4t ( 1 6 . . . ih6 1 7.0-0 0-0 1 8 .ia5t followed by ic3) 1 7.g3 Wh5 1 8 . lli f4t b) 1 5 . . . b4? 1 6 . .ixb8 llixb8 1 7.Wa4t± c) 1 5 . . . .ih6 1 6 . .ixb8 lli xb8 1 7 . lli c7t;!; d) 1 5 . . . Wg5 1 6 . 0-0 We3 t 1 7.@h l Wa3 1 8 .ixd6 exd6 1 9 . lli c7t @d8 20.llixb500 1 4 .e5 14 . .ia5 ? 0-0 1 5 ..ic3 Wh4t 1 6.g3 .ixc3t+ 1 4 . 0-0!? Now ia5-c3 really will be an option with no annoying . . . Wh4t to worry about. 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 .ia5 a6 1 6 . .ic3 Wg5 1 7.id2 Wh5 1 8 . .ixd7-+ 1 4 . . . dxe 5! ? 1 4 ... Wg5 1 5 . 0-0 dxe5 1 6.f4 W h 5 1 7.�b3-+ Bosiocic - Fercec, Sibenik 2008. 1 5 . .ixe5 Wh4t 1 6 . .ig3! 1 6.g3 Wh6 1 7.d6 e6 1 8 ..ixg7 Wxg7 1 9 . 0-0 0-0+ 1 6 . . . Wh5 After 16 . . . Wg5 1 7.h4 Wf5 1 8 . lli e3 Wf6 l 9 . lli g4 Wf5 20 . .ia4! the black queen is in trouble. 1 7.h4 a6N 1 7 . . . 0-0 1 8 . .if4 Wf5 l 9 . g4 ic3 t 20.@f2 .id4t 2 1 .Wg2 Wxd5 22.llic3 We6 23.�e l was excellent for White in Alf - Gorokhov, email 2007. 1 8 .ixb8 axb5 1 9 .g4 Wh6 20.g5 Wh5 2 1 . lli g3 bxc4 22 . .if4;!; And the black queen is trapped; but despite this there is still plenty of play left in the position as Black has a whole host of minor pieces and pawns to pay for his queen . 1 5 . . . e 5 1 6.dxe6 Wxe6 1 7 . .ixd6;!; 1 6.e5 W/f5 17.id3 W/h5 1 8.c!lig3 Wlg4 1 9.exd6 e6 20.dxe6 Wfxe6 2U�el Wfxa2 13 ... ig7 1 3 . . . a6 1 4.Wa4 transposes to the note to Black's 1 1 th move above. 14.£4 1 4 . .ia5 is perhaps premature: 1 5 .ic3 Wh4+ 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 4 ... 0-0 15.c!lif3 Now all of White's pieces are well positioned and he is ready to bring his bishop from c7 to c3, or to play e4-e5 . 22 ... c!li c6 23.ic4 25.ixf7t Wla4 24.ib3 Wlb5 1 40 Richard Pert - Playing the Trom powsky White has the option of a repetition of moves with 2 5 .�c4. 25 ... gxfl 26.gxb5 axb5 27.f5 gal 28.�e3 gxel t 29.�xel t£i de5 30.l£ig5;!; Conclusion: This chapter featured various contrasting lines. In line A) 4 . . . lt:l f6 5 . dxc5 ! ? White obtains comfortable development and good control of the centre, and is slightly better. Turning to the more critical 4 . . . °1Wa5 t 5 . c3 lt:l f6 6.d5 °1Wb6, I offered you a choice. After defending the b2-pawn with the solid B3 1 ) 7.�c l , White has a simple plan o f development and good chances for a small advantage. But if you fancy ruffling your opponent's feathers then sacrificing two pawns with B32) 7.e4! ? looks interesting. A lot of the analysis of this line is my own work, due to the lack of games in this variation. This analysis has been built up over several months and years and so hopefully will add significantly to the theory of this line. Whilst it is impossible to analyse everything, this provides a good start and in my opinion should be more than enough to tempt you to give this line a whirl. Chapter ? a b c d e f g 2 ... d5 3.ixf6 1 .d4 � f6 2.J.g5 d5 3.J.xf6 A) 3 ... gxf6!? B) 3 ... exf6 4.e3 J.d6 5.g3 c6 6.J.g2 Bl) 6 ... 0-0 7.� e2 B 1 1) 7 ...�b6 B 1 2) 7 ...J,f5 B13) 7 ... � d7 B2) 6 ... f5! 7.� e2 B2 1) 7 ... J.e6 B22) 7 ... � d7 143 147 148 149 149 1 50 151 151 1 52 h 1 42 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky I .d4 c!ll f6 2 ..ig5 d5 This move is a solid option for Black, who is just looking to get himself into the game without anything going wrong. It can be a frustrating move for a Trompowsky player to face, as it is more difficult to create a free flowing initiative against this move than it is against many of Black's other options. In fact, I would estimate that in recent years I have devoted more time to the analysis of 2 . . . d5 than to any of Black's other options on the second move. It was the choice of Michael Adams, David Howell, and Pavel Tregubov against me, just to name a few, so it is clear that it is highly respected. I am going to look at two key ways of tackling this move, the first based on taking the f6-knight. 3 . .ixf6!? The more positional system involving 3 . e3 will be covered in the next chapter. Exchanging the f6-knight is White's most popular choice in this position and there is a case for saying it is White's strongest move although personally I feel like that the decision comes down to taste. It is important that we have a look at this line and so I have attempted to build on previous authors' analysis in this variation. a) 3 .. gxf6!? is an ambitious approach. I have some exciting new ideas here, having prepared against this move for a league game early in 20 1 3 . . b) 3 . exf6 is the more popular recapture, and we will have a look at plans involving g2-g3 . This system was championed by both Pete Wells and Richard Palliser in their respective books, but we will have a look to see what's new since then. .. a b c d e f g h Chapter 7 - I.d4 tll f6 2.J.gS d5 3.Lf6 Black has A) 3 ... gxf6!? and B) 3 ... exf6 . 1 43 2 . . d5 3 .ixf6 . so it is always worth keeping an eye out for her games. A) 3 .. gxf6!? . a b c d e f g h 7 . tt:l ge2! ? White aims t o use her knight on g3 . 7 . . . �b6 8 .�d2 dxc4 9 .lll g3 id3 1 0 .ixd3 cxd3 l 1 . lll h5 lll d7 1 2 .g4 0-0-0 1 3 . 0-0-0 �a5 1 4.c.tib l �g8 1 5 . h3 f5 1 6. f3 e5 1 7.�xd3;1; White's chances are preferable, Stefanova Kovalevskaya, Sochi 2006. 4.c4 I think this is the logical follow-up to the exchange on f6 . 4.e3 is also playable and is likely to transpose to line B of the next chapter after 4 . . . c5. 4 ... dxc4 This has to be considered the main line, though Black has tried various other moves. 4 . . . c6 This is quite commonly played, but it is a bit wet and White should have no problems securing a small advantage. 5 .e3 if5 5 . . . e6?! looks too passive: 6 . tt:l c3 f5 7. lll f3 ig7 8 .�c2 tt:l d7 9.h3 dxc4 1 0 .ixc4 �c7 1 1 . 0-0-0 b5 1 2 .ib3 ia6 1 3 .g4;1; Hodgson - A. Martin, Plymouth 1 992. 6. lll c3 e6 We are following one of Stefanova's games; she is a leading expert on the Trompowsky 4. . .c5!? Th i s alternative looks a b i t more like i t to me. ,�� '·· ��% · · ·"�r� � • • ?I s .l •J.. ,, •• -,--�• 7 6 . %� · · (·� "fi Wfj. . % �� •. � ��-� 3 ��-� �� % 2 z�J& �(/�J&/;�J/J 1 g � � °ti\ : � � m .a: � z ... ... · 5 �� "� ". % •"� · �� 4 a b c d .. e f g h 5 . cxd5 �xd5 6 . tt:l f3 cxd4 7.lll c3 �a5 8 . tt:l xd4 id? 8 . . . ig7 9 . e3 0-0 l O .id3 ( 1 0 .ic4!?_. looks to me like a better square, though it is probably j ust a matter of taste) 1 0 . . . �d8 1 1 . 0-0 f5 1 2.�h5 e6 1 3 .�ad l �e5 1 4 .lll f3 �f6 1 5 . e4 tt:l c6 1 6 .�fel ( 1 6.ic2! keeps some advantage: 1 6 . . . �g6 l 7.�xd8 t tt:l xd8 1 44 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 1 8 .Wfh4;!; and in contrast to the game . . . Wfg4 is not possible as the knight is hanging on d8.) 1 6 . . . Wfg6 1 7.Wi'h4 Wi'g4 1 8 .exfS Wfxh4 1 9 . llJ xh4 if6 20.g3 1h-1h Wells - Sulskis, Isle of Man 2003; even in the final position I still prefer White. 9.g3 ! ? I like this way of developing, although 9.e3!? is also possible, as is 9 .Wfb3 . 9 . . . llJ c6 1 0 . liJ b3 WfeS 1 0 . . . WfhS 1 1 .Wi'dS WfxdS 1 2 .llJ xdS 0-0-0 1 3 .ig2 @b8 1 4. 0-0 ig7 1 5 .l:!ac l e6 1 6. llJ f4 fS 1 7.lD cS;!; Martinovic - B. Lalic, Zadar 2008. 1 l .ig2 l:!d8 1 2 .Wfc l e6 1 3 . 0-0 h S 1 4. f4 Wfc7 1 5 . llJ e4 Wi'b6t 1 6.@h l ie7 I 7.Wfc3 l:!h6 1 8 .llJ ecS ic8 This was Cebalo - Cvitan, Stari Mikanovci 2009. Here White should play: 1 1 . . .lD aS 1 2 . lD b S;t . 6.cxdS WfxdS 7.Wi'a4t lD c6 8.Wi'xb4 lD xb4 9 . liJ xdS lD xdS a b c d e f g h I O .e4!N White should take the opportunity to get this move in while he has the chance! 1 0 . 0-0-0 is well met by: I O . . .ifS ( I O . . . e4 1 l . e3 l:!g8 1 2.g3 ig4 1 3 .l:!d2 @d7 1 4.ic4 c6 1 5 .h3 ie6 1 6.ixdS ixdS 1 7. b3 fS 1 8 . lD e2;!; Nikolov - Vuj ovic, Budva 2009) l l . e3 0-0-0 1 2 .ic4 ie400 Polaczek - Van den Doel, Germany 2006. 1 0 . . . llJ b4 White also keeps an edge after 1 0 . . . llJ e7 1 1 . 0-0-0;!; or 1 0 . . . llJ f4 1 1 .dS;!;. 1 1 .l:!c I;!; White's better pawn structure ensures an advantage. 5.e3 4 . . . eS This is also playable, though very rare. 5 . llJ c3 ib4 5 . . . dxc4 6 . llJ f3 exd4 7.llJxd4 cS 8 . lD c2 ( 8 . lD db S a6 9 .Wfxd8t 'itixd8 1 0 . 0-0-0t lD d7 l 1 . liJ d6 ixd6 1 2.l:!xd6�) 8 . . . Wfxd l t (8 . . . Wf aS 9 . e4 ie6 1 0 . lD e3;!; gives White plenty of activity) 9 . l:!xd l ie6 1 0 . e4 llJ c6 1 1 .lD e3 and White wins back the pawn in view of 1 1 . . . lD e S ? ! 1 2. f4 ih6 1 3 . llJ ed S ± or 5 . e4 is also possible, but after looking at it some depth I have concluded that it is too loose. 5 ... c5 5 . . . ie6 6 . llJ e2 cS 7 . lD bc3 (7. llJ f4 WfaSt 8 . lD c3 is j ust a transposition) 7 . . . Wf aS 8 . lD f4 cxd4 9 .exd4 id7 1 0 .ixc4 White has a lead in development and stands better, Hoang Thanh Trang - Szeberenyi, Budapest 2004, 6 ..ixc4 cxd4 Chapter 7 8 7 - � ,� ?""/� :/·" L�; .1 � • �..t.�•� �� ··--� ,,..,%--,�� , , , ,� L'• � L' � , 6 � � � • " ' � � � � �� : � ��-� �� -j,, J J � � m � � rt� �' """�'>rt� 3 •ll? �m""' 2 J)�J�� y� -r1�/d:/J.fj 1 ��tIJ-il� m� , · a 7.exd4 b c d e f g h I have discovered a particularly interesting unplayed idea here: 7. lll c3 !?N White can get away with delaying the capture of the d4-pawn on tactical grounds, with the idea of taking it under more preferable circumstances at a later stage. This was my intended novelty when I recently prepared this line for a game, but the position never came about. 7 . . . lt:l c6 7 . . . dxc3 ? is certainly not advisable: 8 .ixf7t \t>xf7 9 .Wfxd8+8 .Wh5 8 . exd4 ig? transposes into the main line. 8 . . . e6 9 . 0-0-0 2 . . . d5 3 .ixf6 14 5 9 . . . Wf a5 It looks natural for Black to try to exchange queens to neutralize White's pressure, but it proves difficult for him to do this effectively. 9 . . . Wc7 1 0 .exd4;!; I O .Wxa5 I O .ib5 also looks interesting: 1 0 . . . id? (not 1 0 . . . dxc3? I I .ixc6t bxc6 1 2 .Wxa5) l l .�xd4oo 1 0 . . . lt:lxa5 I I .ib5t lll c6 1 1 . . . .id? 1 2.ixd?t \t>xd7 1 3 .�xd4t @c7 1 4. lt:l ge2 lll c6 1 5 .�c4;!; with lt:l d4 to come. 1 2. exd4 id? 1 3 .d5 ih6t 1 4.@b l lll e5 1 5 .ixd?t lll xd7 l 6. lll f3 lll c5 l 7.dxe6 fxe6 1 8 .b4!± White plays �he l next and Black will struggle to hold his central pawns together. 7 ...ig7 8.�c3 0-0 8 . . . f5 9 .lll ge2 lt:l c6 1 0.d5 lll e5 1 I .ib3 id? ( 1 1 . . . 0-0 would transpose to the main line after 1 2. 0-0 and is perhaps the option Black should have taken) 1 2. 0-0 Wb6 1 3 .�c l Wh6 1 4.ia4!;!; Povah - D. Ledger, Birmingham 200 1 . 9.�ge2 t£i c6 1 0.0-0 I O .Wfd2 has been played on a few occasions and mentioned by previous authors, White wants to play �d l to support the pawn on d4, but it all looks a bit slow and clumsy to me. 1 0 ... fS 146 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trom powsky 1 1 .d5 White nearly always goes for this plan. He gains space, but yields the e5-square to the black knight. 1 1 .E:e l ! ? I'm not sure why this move hasn't been repeated since Georgiev played it in 2007. White keeps his pawn on d4 to cover the e5square. 1 1 . . . tt:\xd4 Black has to really take this pawn if he hopes to prove that 1 1 .E:e 1 is incorrect. 1 2 .tt:\xd4 ixd4 1 3 .�d2 a b c d e f g l 9 . E:xf7!! and Black loses after all of 19 . . . E:xf7 20.�xb8t or 19 . . .�xf7 20 .ixe6 or 1 9 . . . @xf7 20.E:xe6. 1 9 .E:d6 ib7 1 9 . . . E:ac8 ? 20 .ia6 E:c7 2 1 .�c l +20 .E:d? ic6 2 1 .E:c7 White decides he can do better than force a draw. 2 1 . . . id5 22 .ixd5 exd5 23 .E:ce?;!; Ki. Georgiev - Ruck, Sibenik 2007. 1 1 . .. tll e5 12.ib3 %Vd6 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 .�d2 �d6 1 4 .�f4 �h8 1 5 .E:fe l �f6 Black doesn't seem to come up with a plan and shuffles his pieces around. 1 6.E:ad l E:g8 l 7 . tt:\ d4;!; White has developed wisely and can claim an advantage, Palliser - McPhillips, Millfield 2004. h 1 3 . . . if6 1 3 . . . ig? 1 4.�xd8 E:xd8 1 5 .E:xe?;!; looks better for White. 1 4 .tt:\ d5 e6 1 5 . tt:\ xf6t �xf6 1 6.E:ad l b6 This is almost an only move as Black must try to catch up in development. 1 7.�f4 ib7 1 8 .E:d? ic6 1 8 . . . E:ab8? cannot be recommended. 13.h3 1 3 . tt:\ d4 ! ? id? ( 1 3 . . . tt:\ g4?! 1 4. tt:\ f3 @h8 1 5 .h3 tt:\e5 1 6.E:e l was a fraction better for White in Bui Vinh - Wittmann, Budapest 2007) 1 4.E:e l E:fe8 1 5 .h3 �b600 Muukkonen - Borisovs, corr. 20 1 0 . 13 ... id7 I 4.J.a4 A common plan for White, which we also saw in Povah - Ledger above. 14 ... tlic4 15.i.xd7 %Vxd7 16.b3 tll b6 17.%Vd3 Chapter 7 - 2 . . . d5 3 .ixf6 l:fac8 1 8J�adl gc5 19.Yllif3 �ffc8 20.gd3 @hS 1/2-1/i The position is balanced and the players agreed a draw in Miladinovic - Ki. Georgiev, Bar 2008. 1 47 our c2-c4 pawn thrust. 7 . . . a5 8 . tli e2 a4 9 . tli d2 if5 B) 3 ... exf6 4.e3 id6 Black has numerous moves here but a lot of them will transpose. Often he goes for plans involving . . . f5 and transferring the b8-knight to f6 in order to have a bit more influence on the kingside. 4 . . . ie6 This will often transpose but I will j ust mention a couple of ways Black can deviate at an early stage. 5 . g3 c6 5 . . . c5?! doesn't look right to me as Black saddles himself with a weak isolated d5pawn: 6 . tli e2 tli c6 7.i.g2 Wi'b6 8.tli bc3 cxd4 9.exd4 Wi'xb2 1 0 .!!b U Ki . Georgiev Moreno Ruiz, Leon 20 1 0 . 6.ig2 Wi'b6 6 . . . id6 7 . tli e2 f5 transposes to line B2 I . 7.b3 Black has spent time forcing this move, but we often want to play it anyway to support 1 0 .e4 Stefanova switches plans and gains an edge, but it seems more natural to me to continue with queenside play. However, the immediate 1 O.c4 is a bit awkward for White after: I O . . . axb3 I I .axb3 !!xa l 1 2.Wi'xa l i.b4 1 3 .cxd5 0-000 1 O .bxa4!?N may be a better solution: 10 ... !!xa4 1 1 . 0-0;!; White tucks the king away safely before continuing with c2-c4. 10 ... dxe4 1 1 . 0-0 ie7 1 2 . tli c4 Wi'd8 1 3 . tli c3 0-0 1 4.tlixe4t Stefanova - Romanishin, Solin 2006. 4 . . . c6! ? This can be played with an interesting idea for countering White's anticipated fianchetto. 5 . tli e2 This rare move order may avoid Black's idea. 5 . g3 h 5 ! ? 1 48 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky Only played once, but it looks interesting to me. Black aims to force White to clarify his kingside straight away. 6 . h4 .ig4N 7.V*'d200 It all looks a bit awkward for White. 5 .. . f5 6.g3 lll d7 7 . .ig2 lll f6 8 .V*'d3 g6 9 . b3 .ig7 1 0 .c4 0-0 l 1 . lll bc3 .ie6 1 2 . 0-0 lll e4 1 3 . cxd5 cxd5 1 4.�fc l;!; Stefanova - N. Kosintseva, Moscow 20 1 0 . 5.g3 8 7 % '''/0. './·'" '"· � % ' ' ' ' '/. i. al..iJ�· -,- - -%� � ·-·�� ·Y. .,- .-� �- �� - - , . 6 ,, {@j , � , � , , %� �� r� �m �� - w� � , 3 � �-- , , %� �wr 2 8� 8-�""%� , , , %� 1 ��-v��m! � ,,, , . , % 5 4 ,, , , , Y, a b c d e f g './,-, , , , , ; Black's most common move, but not his best. White can transpose into line B2, but there is a more promising option involving the idea of an early b2-b3 and c2-c4, when the b I -knight may then j ump to c3 . White does not want to play this plan with his king uncastled, as b2-b3 and c2-c4 weakens the a5-e 1 diagonal to his king, but an important point is that since Black has castled, White can in turn castle without worrying about the possibility of . . . h 5 . 7.lll e2 h This is the line which Wells recommended, and he has backed up his belief in this line by playing it on several occasions. Palliser too followed in his footsteps. The only thing which slightly disappointed me about their books was they did not try to find White's most precise move order - instead they focused on model games, although to be fair to them transpositions are likely via many different routes. I am going to further explain the ideas of these two players, and in addition I shall aim to give you an exact move order for White to cause Black the most problems. We shall also have a look at some important recent games. s ... c6 6.J.g2 Black now chooses between Bl) 6 ... 0-0 and B2) 6 ... fS!. Bl) 6 ... 0-0 7 . . . .ig4 was played recently against Georgiev, who has considerable experience in these lines: 8 .V*'d3 .ixe2 9.V*'xe2 V*'b6 1 0 .b3 Again the standard move when the b-pawn is attacked. 1 0 . . . V*'a6 l l .c4 .ib4t 1 2.'kt>fl dxc4 1 3 .V*'xc4 V*'a5 1 4.a3 .ie7 1 5 .b4 V*'h5 1 6 . lll c3 lll d7 l 7.V*'e2 V*'xe2t 1 8 .'kt>xe2;!; White's better pawn structure and more active bishop give him a clear advantage in the endgame, Ki . Georgiev - Codenotti, Arvier 20 1 2 . Chapter 7 - 2 . . . d5 3 .ixf6 1 49 7 . . . ie6 8 . 0-0 ll\ d7 9 .iWd3 f5 1 0 . ll\ d2 ( 1 0.b3! seems more consistent with White's plans, and after 1 o . . . ll\ f6 l l .c4 play has transposed into line 8 1 3 below) 1 0 . . . ll\ f6 l l . c4 ffe7 1 2 .E:fc l g6 1 3 .a3 E:fd8 1 4 .b4 ll\ e4 1 5 . c5 ic7 1 6 .a4t Andreikin - Tomashevsky, Khanty-Mansiysk 20 1 1 . B l l ) 7 ...°Wb6 l 3 ... tl)d7 Black backtracks, vacating the b6-square for his queen. 14.c4 dxc4 1 5.�xc4 if8 1 6.V:'fc2 b5 17,tl)d2 °Wb6 1 8.ig2 gac8 19.b4± 8.b3 As previously mentioned, this is the logical response to . . . Wfb6, looking to set up a future c2-c4 . 8 ... ges 9.0-0 ig4!? Craftily threatening to take on e2 and then play . . . 'Wxd4, when my e3-pawn would be pinned. IO.gel! Avoiding the trap; now the black pieces are asking to be hit by c4-c5 . I O ... tl) d7 1 1 .a3 'Wa6 12.�d2 tl) b6 White's advantage is totally clear, with the backward c6-pawn firmly in my sights, R. Pert - Povah, Hinckley Island 20 1 1 . B 1 2) 7 ... if5 1 50 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky This was tried against me in a London League match, but Black soon finds his bishop misplaced and has to take time to move it again. 8.�d2 � d7 9.0-0 ges 10.c4 dxc4 1 1 .�xc4 !J.c7 12. lil c3 /J.e6 1 3.d5 cxd5 14.�xd5 �e5 15.gcl �xc4 16.gxc4 /J.d6 17.'iMd2 gcs 18Jhc8 !J.xc8 29 .id3;!; White may still be better, but Black's counterplay is quite scary. 23.YMxa7 YMxd4?? 24.exd4 gel t 25.!J.fl !J.h3 26.�e3 1 -0 R. Pert - Coles, London 20 1 1 . B 1 3) 7 ... �d7 8.0-0 f5 9.b3! Having castled, White can execute his plan of b2-b3 and c2-c4 without worrying about possibilities such as . . . ib4t. 9 ... �f6 1 0.c4 !J.e6 1 9 ... /J.fS 1 9 . . . ig4 is perhaps an improvement: 20.f3 ie6 2 1 . � xf6t '1Wxf6 22.'1Wxd6 ixa2 23.'1Wxf6 gxf6 24. @f2;j; 20.'iMc3 20 .'1Wc2 ! ? Wa5 2 1 .:gd4 '\We i t (2 1 . . .'1Wxa2 ? 22 .ie4+-) 22 .ifl h5 23.'1Wa4 a6 24.llib6 ig4 (24 . . . ih3 2 5 . :g d l +-) 2 5 .:gxg4;!; 20 ...YMd6 2 1 .gd4 YMe5 22.'iMa5 b6? 22 . . . ie6! is the move that I was worried about: 23.'1Wxa7 :gc8 24.if3 :ge l t 2 5 .'tt> g2 '1Wf5 26. lli f4 'IWb l 27.ie4 (27.llixe6? :ggl t 2 8 . 'it>h3 Wfl t 29.'tt> g4 fxe6 30 .'1Wxb7 h5t 3 1 .'tt> f4 '1Wh3-+) 27 ... :gg l t 2 8 .'tt> f3 We l 1 O dxc4?! does not work out well for Black: l l . bxc4 '1We7 1 2 . lli bc3 :ge8 1 3 .:gb l lli e4 1 4 .c5 • . . Chapter 7 - l 5 . lli xe4 fxe4 1 6. tli c3 f5 l 7 .Wa4 gd8 l 8 .gb2 h5 1 9 .gfb l h4 20.gxb7 ixb7 2 1 .gxb7 Wd7 22.ih3 hxg3 2 3 .hxg3 gdb8 24.ixf5 Wxf5 2 5 . gxc7 gf8 26.Wc2± Wells - Howell, Halifax (rapid) 2004. 151 2 . . . d5 3 .ixf6 1 3.cS ic7 I4.b4 hS 1 5 .h4 gfeg 1 6.tll f4 ixf4 17.exf4 tll e4 18.tll e2 bS 1 9.a4 a6 20.f3 tll f6 2 1 .ga3 �b7 22.�d2 gas 23.gfal geb8 24.ifl tll e8 25.tll cl tll c7 26.lLJd3;!; Ki. Georgiev - A. Horvath, Fuegen 2006. 1 1 .�d3 l I . . .Wa5 1 2 .c5 ie7 1 3 .a3 b5 1 4 . b4 Wc7 1 5 .a4 bxa4 1 6. tli bc3 a5 1 7. b 5 cxb 5 1 8 . tLl xb5;!; Sedlak - Vukic, Subotica 2008. l l . . . a6 1 2.c5 ic7 1 3 . b4 b5 1 4.cxb6 id6 1 5 . b7 ga7 1 6.a3 Wb6 1 7. tli bc3 gxb7 1 8 .gfc l gc8 l 9 . tli a4 Wa7 20.tlic5 ixc5 2 1 .gxc5 tli d7 22 .gc3;!; Stefanova - Peptan, Dresden 2004. l I . . .g6 1 2 . tli bc3 ic7 1 3 .gfc l ge8 1 4 .cxd5 lli xd5 l 5.llixd5 ixd5 l 6.ixd5 Wxd5 l 7.tlic3 Wf3 1 8 .We2 Wxe2 1 9 . lli xe2 id6 20.gab l 'it>g7 2 1 . b4 gac8 22.tlic3;!; Mensch - Boursier, France 2009. 12.tll bc3 gac8 1 2 . . . gad8 1 3 . gfc l gfe8 1 4. lli f4;!; Gonzalez Rodriguez - Pujol Clua, Barcelona 2003 . B2) 6 .. fS! . 7.tll e2 Black now decides which of his queenside minor pieces to develop first: B2 1) 7 ... ie6 and B22) 7 ... tll d7. B2 1) 7 ...ie6 Flicking in this move before developing the b8-knight to f6 has the bonus of making c2-c4 a more difficult task for White. 8.tll d2 tll d7 9.b3 It is still important as an incoming . . . h5 The ideal situation is the option of castling to us. 9 ... lLJf6 10.c4 ib4 not to castle too early, can be a big problem. if Black castles, when then becomes available 1 52 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 1 0 . . . h5 l 1 .h4 occurred in a game by Pete Wells which he discussed in derail in his book. Again you should note chat White delays castling until Black commits his king, first carrying out an advance on the queenside. 8 7 1 1 .0-0 .txd2 1 2.YHxd2 dxc4 �' ' " Z � •-�- � � !"��- �� -; . ' � 6 @. . . . -� '" ""� 5 �� • �A�£•A 8 if� .. t�% � 3 -��- .... �w-% �w -l- .... z , ,J�@-P. 4 2 r..£•�-0 �z�J... . . . ... . • � .. � . . " 8• � ��t� �� -i( -- %� 1 ,_9.� �r-----� ii� � :@ . ... a b c d .. e f g h l I . . . ltJ e4 1 2 .c5 ic7 1 3 . b4 g6 1 4.a4 'itif8 1 5 .Wc2 'tt> g7 1 6 .Wb2 id7 1 7. ltJ f4 gb8 1 8 .E:a3 Wells - Parker, West Bromwich 2003. We have a strategical manoeuvring game where White's chances are slightly preferable due to an eventual b4-b5 break being on the cards. 1 O . . . ltJ e4 l l . c 5 ! ? This move was recommended by Wells. 1 1 . . . ic? 1 2 . b4 g6 1 3 .Wb3 'tt> f8 1 4 .a4 Walton - Schaefer, Bad Woerishofen 2003; the position is similar to Wells - Parker above. 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 . 0-0 g6 1 2 .cxd5 ixd5 1 3 ... cxb3 14.tll xe6 fxe6 1 5 .l:Ub l 0-0 1 6.gxb3 Wd7 17.Wb4 �Ub8 1 8.gab l ii; White had good compensation for the pawn in Hodgson - Tiviakov, Groningen 1 994. B22) 7 ... tll d7 Chapter 7 - still in the middle: 8 . . . lll f6 9 . c4 (9.lll d2?! lll e4! looks uncomfortable for White) 9 . . . ib4t! The point - Black can cause problems with this check. 1 0 .'>tifl 0-0 I l .c5 ia5 1 2.a3 ic7 1 3 . lll bc3 b600 Laznicka - Howell, Liverpool 2008. 8 ... tlJf6 After 8 . . . 0-0 it is a bit frustrating that White cannot play the standard plan that we saw in line B 1 3 , as his knight is already on the d2-square: 9 . 0-0 ll\ f6 I O . c4 The correct approach here is to leave out b2b3 altogether. 1 0 . . . ie6 1 0 . . . dxc4 1 1 .lll xc4 ic7 1 2 .Wb3 transposes to our main line. I 1 .c5 ie7 1 2 . b4 a5 1 3 . a3 axb4 1 4. axb4 b5 1 5 .Wb3 Wc7 1 6.ga3 ga7 1 7.gfa l;!; Ward - Akesson, Isle of Man 2000. The position is slightly better for White, who will gain control of the a-file and still has knights which can j ump in. 9.c4 9 . 0-0 ?! h5� is still a problem. 9 ... dxc4 9 . . . ie6 1 0 .b3 transposes to line B2 1 . 1 53 2 . . . d5 3 .ixf6 9 . . . ll\ e4 1 0 . 0-0 lll xd2 I 1 .Wxd2 dxc4 8 � JI . . .�s� � ·� ��J.% B i• i ••��• ••••• � �iB 1 f..... 6 % r. . . . . ., . % - -- -��,�-�: ��,� � •.... r.WK�WM 3 ��r�•iJ��-Pz � , 2 � iffj� �@11r. � 1� .i. � · � .. 1 �-·· -.f- · · - • w··-- • wnL.m� % '· · · · · a "' b c d e f g . h . 1 2.gfd l ! ?N 1 2 .d5 c5 1 3 .Wc3 0-0 1 4.Wxc4 b5 1 5 .Wxb5N ( 1 5 .Wc200 Rewitz - J . Nielsen, Copenhagen 1 987) 1 5 . . . gbs 1 6.Wc4 gxb2 1 7.gab l;!; White's passed d-pawn should secure a small advantage. 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 2 . . . ie6?! 1 3 .d5 cxd5 1 4.ixd5 ie5 ( 1 4 . . . ic7? 1 5 .Wc3 ixd5 1 6 .Wxg7 ms 1 7. lll c3 +-) 1 5 .Wb4 ixd5 1 6.Wb 5 t Wd7 1 7.gxd5 and White regains the pawn with advantage. 1 3 .gac l ie6 1 4.d5;!; 9 ... h5N can be met by 1 0 .h4 and the white king is still not under threat, or by 1 0 .Wb3 ! ? with active play for White. 10.tlJxc4 !J..c7 If Black instead gives a check, then White has to play accurately to gain an advantage: 1 0 . . . ib4t 1 1 . lll c3 ie6 I 1 . . . lll d5 can be met by an interesting pawn sacrifice: 1 2. 0-0! ?N ( 1 2 .Wc2 is also quite possible: 1 2 . . . ie6 1 3 .0-0 lll xc3 1 4. bxc3 ixc4 1 5 .cxb4 ixfl 1 6.gxfl 0-0 1 7.Wxf5� Ponomarev - Gabrielian , St Petersburg 2009) 1 2 . . . ixc3 1 3 .bxc3 lll xc3 1 4 .Wd3 lll d5 1 5 .gab l ( 1 5 .Wa3 We700) 1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6 .Wa3t 1 2.Wd3 lll e4 1 2 . . . id5 1 3 .ixd5 Wxd5 ( 1 3 . . . lll xd5 1 54 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 1 4.Wxf5 ! lll xc3 1 5 .a3 Wd5 1 6.Wxd5 tll xd5t 1 7.axb4t) 1 4. 0-0;!; and d3 . The other option is to expand on the queenside with b2-b4. 12 Y;ie?! .•. Probably Black's most accurate - preventing both b2-b4 and lll e5 and waiting to see what else White has in mind. 12 . . . h5 1 3 . b4 White goes for the second plan I mentioned. 1 3 . . . a6 1 4.a4 h4 1 5 .�fd l hxg3 1 6.hxg3 ie6 1 7.lll e5 We7 1 8 .lll f4;!; Schneider - Dautov, Halle 20 1 0 . 1 3 . 0-0!N 1 3 .tll d2 lll xd2 1 4 .Wxd2 ic4 did not give White any advantage in Gustafsson Burnett, New York 1 999. 13 ... ixc3 1 4. bxc3 ixc4 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 .lll d2;!; l 5 .Wxc4 lll d2 Winning an exchange, but the black b-pawn drops, leaving White with a very powerful g2-bishop. l 6.Wb4 lll xfl l 7.Wxb7 0-0 1 8 .�xfl Wa5 1 9 . c4;!; l l .Y;ic2 0-0 1 2.0-0 1 2 . . . ie6 1 3 .lll e5 lll d5 ( 1 3 . . . g6 1 4 .lll d3 id5 l 5 .ixd5 cxd5 1 6.�ac l �c8 1 7 .Wb3;!; Galyas - Dencsi, Budapest 2004) 1 4. lll d3 g6 1 5 . lll c5 ic8 1 6.lll c3 lll f6 1 7.b4 a6 1 8 .a4 id6 s .i B..t• �� --- .. z� ��·� .... . v.� � � �£ ��-0 �%lB£ �0""' 1 6 .\ � i �-� '· · �" ,,.;� 5 � 4 .�::.n!..•� fl'%, ,�: 'effl'%. 'i, %'0% iQ� . ..�. � .. . 2 ,/, �if. �• % � 1 ,f"� � . . .:;..·if% . . .. 3 �'lt:: a 1 %,,'i.f'. %�iW 1·-.f -.��"n �-- - "� �� , - � : �� s 6 .1. m ..t.. B ��-� . � !fil �-- ,� �� 32 -l�-l·��t� 1 �� ---- -� �-!�""" a b c d e f g h White has two main plans here. One is to transfer the c4-knight to c5 - if possible via e5 b c d -�:i-� , e f z g h 1 9 . b 5 axb5 20.axb5 �xa l 2 1 .�xa l Wc7 22.bxc6;!; White has the advantage with a weak queenside pawn to attack, McDonald Lukacs, Budapest 1 99 5 . Incidentally, a great game from Neil McDonald that is still of theoretical relevance eighteen years on. 13.�d2 This looks best to me, seeking out an alternative route to the c5-square. 1 3 . lll f4?! ixf4 1 4 . exf400 1 3 .a3 ! ? is interesting, with the point that if Black prevents b2-b4 with l 3 . . . a5 then l 4. lll f4 Chapter 7 - 2 . . . d5 3 .ixf6 is more effective: 1 4 . . . .ixf4 1 5 .exf4;!; and this time the b6-square is vulnerable. 13 ... hS I 4J�acl id6 14 . . . .ie6 1 5 . ttJ b3 g6 1 6. ttJ c5 .id6 1 7.lll f4 ixf4 1 8 .exf4 id5 1 9 .l'!fe l Vfic7 20 .ixd5 lll x d5 2 1 .Vfib3 1'!ab8 22.h4 1'!fd8 23 .1'!e2;!; a 15.ttJb3N b c d e f g h Heading to the c5-square. 1 5 . lll c4 can lead to a repetition of moves: 1 5 . . . .ic? l 6 . ttJ d2 .id6 l 7.lll c4 ic7 l 8 . ttJ d2 Y2-Y2 lotov - Kolev Sunny Beach 2009. 1 5 ...1'!e8 16.�cS � e4 17.b4 h4 1 8.a4 This position is quite finely balanced, but I slightly prefer White who has simpler play with a queenside minority attack on the cards. 1 55 Conclusion: In line A) 3 . . . gxf6!?, the main line with 1 l .d5 has been quite well worked out and it is hard for White to gain an advantage. However, I have highlighted a couple of interesting moves for White, my new idea of 7. ttJc3 ! ?N and the rare 1 1 .l'!e l ! ? - these ideas look promising to me and I would be happy to test out one or both of them in tournament play. Turning to B) 3 . . . exf6, it has to be said that meeting this with 4.e3 and 5 . g3 is a very solid positional approach, but nevertheless a serious one in which White looks for queenside pressure and more often than not obtains a small but lasting advantage. I would again remind you of the importance of both players' choice of move orders in this line. Chapter 8 2 ... d5 3.e3 I .d4 tli f6 2.i.g5 d5 3.e3 A) 3 ... tli bd7 B) 3 ... c5 4.i.xf6 gxf6 5.tlic3 tli c6 Bl) 6.dxc5!? B2) 6.YNh5 B2 1) 6 ... e6 B22) 6 ... cxd4 C) 3 ... c6 159 162 1 64 1 65 1 66 167 1 69 1 58 Richard Pert - Playing the Trom powsky I .d4 � f6 2.J.g5 d5 3.e3 This Torre-like move has been included in the repertoires of virtually all the serious Trompowsky players of the last decade; for example it was the choice of Hodgson when playing White against me. Although this move is becoming increasingly popular, it hasn't been written about by any authors in recent years. All the Trompowsky books in the last decade have prioritized 3 .J.xf6 as their main line, and so this will be the first book for a while to have an in-depth look at this option. � .a. �- A \ntJ:•W� ��: .JL �m�m-m ,,Y,_,,v. , , ,_, , %_ ,, � � . � �� ' ;-, , , ;m �;� •m s �% -�� , , , ,Y, � � � � � � � W'J, �L ' � 3 -�n: �� f��r��n� 2 8 rtl 8 - rtl 8 rtl �� vra-r{:f�ti s 7 6 /, , , , , % , , , , , /, ,,,,,% ��;§ �� ,,,,% � 4 �- , , � a b c d L� e f �, , , , , ; g h Black has many options here and there are several transpositional possibilities, so the following summary should let you know where to look. a) 3 � bd7 was the choice of Michael Adams against me in 20 1 0 . However, I have some new ideas in this line included in this chapter. ••• b) 3 c5 is a very direct answer and is the move which seems to have scared Richard Palliser the most in his Starting Out: !he ••• Trompowsky Attack. The resulting posmon is also endorsed from Black's side by Boris Avrukh in Grandmaster Repertoire 11, where it is reached via a Veresov move order. This is of course a worry from White's point of view as Boris tends to be very much on the money with his evaluations. I agree with these authors that this move is hard to answer. Nevertheless we will have a look at some ideas which can at least get White into some interesting positions where we can fight for an advantage. c) 3 tli e4 4.J.f4 transposes directly into the variation 2 . . . ltJ e4 3 .J.f4 d5 4.e3 c5, which is covered as line D in the next chapter on page 1 79 . ••• d ) 3 e6 i s the most common choice for Black, but White has a good chance of obtaining a small advantage with 4 . ltJ d2, which transposes into line B of Chapter 2 - see page 5 2 . ••• e ) 3 c6 i s a solid choice and was the move David Howell picked against me in 20 1 0 . Although Black's position is very solid, White should be able to get a small edge. We look at this line at the end of this chapter. ••• f) 3 g6 4.J.xf6 transposes to a favourable version of line B of the previous chapter, where Black has mixed his systems - he wants his f8bishop to be placed on d6 but has invested time playing . . . g6 already. ••• g) 3 J.f5 4.J.xf6 exf6 also gives White a favourable version of line B of the previous chapter, where the bishop on f5 is blocking Black's natural plan of playing .. . f5 to free the f6-square for his queen's knight. ••• Chapter 8 1 .d4 �f6 2 ..igS dS 3.e3 - 2 . . . d 5 3 . e3 1 59 4... h6 The choice of Adams - he said to me after the game that if he can have chis move for free then he'll cake it. There are not many stronger players than him in the world, so who am I to disagree? 4 . . . e6 5 . � bd2 will transpose to Chapter 2 . For example 5 . . . c5 is line B on page 52, while 5 . . . h6 6.ih4 is the note to Black's 5 th move of line C l on page 54. Of course S . c4 is also possible if you have knowledge of the Queen's Gambit Declined. 4 . . . cS S . dxcS A) 3 .. �bd7 . This important variation was the choice of England's top player Michael Adams against me in the top board clash at the British Championships in 20 1 0 . Mickey is a former Trompowsky player himself, so the fact chat he chose chis line is significant. 4.�f3 I chink White really has to play this move otherwise Black will play . . . e 5 . S . . . lll xcS With this move order Black cannot use the plan which Adams used against me, as S . . . h6 is met by: 6.ixf6! (6.ih4 gS transposes to the Pert - Adams game given in the note to White's 6th move) 6 . . . ll:\xf6 7.c4;l; S . . . 'WaS t 6. lll bd2 'WxcS (6 . . . e6 7.a3 'WxcS 8 . c4 ie7 9 , gc l 'WaS 1 0 .cxd5 'WxdS I l .ic4 'Was 1 2. 0-0 0-0 1 3 .h3 bS 1 4.id3;!; Antidrome - maradona, Internet 20 I O) 7.c4 e6 8.gcl 'IWaS 9 . cxdS lll xd5 1 0 .a3 ie7 I l .ixe7 lll xe7 1 2 .ie2 ll:\ c6 1 3 . 0-0 0-0 1 4 . ll:\ c4;l; Antidrome - notsogood, Internee 2009. 6.ixf6 gxf6 7.ib S t 7.c4 dxc4 8 .'Wxd8t cj{xd8 9 .ixc4 ie6 I O .ixe6 fxe6 1 1 .lll c3 gc8 1 2 . iie2 ig7 1 60 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 1 3 .E1hd l t @e8 1 4 .E1ac U Antidrome maradona, Internet 20 1 0 . 7 . . . .id7 8 .Wxd5;t; Adams suggested that exchanging the bishop could be considered, and I tried this in a later game in the same tournament: 5 .ixf6!? lll xf6 4 . . . g6 This doesn't look critical . 5 . c4 .ig7 6.lll c3 6 . . . c6 I faced this in a London League match in April this year and it is my computer's preference, but it's hardly convincing. 6 . . . h6 7 . .ih4 c6 8 . cxd5 lll x d5 9 . .id3 lll b4 1 0 . .ie2 c5 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.d5 lll b6 1 3 .e4 g5 14 . .ig3 e6 1 5 .a3;!; Antidrome - Yardbird, Internet 20 1 1 . My opponent in this blitz game was GM Lobron, and this game allowed me to notch up my second of three wins against him in quick succession in this line as he struggled to find a suitable way to combat these ideas. 7.cxd5 cxd5 8 .'1Wb3 '1Wa5 White has a pleasant choice here. 9 . .ib5 9 . .ixf6 ! ? lll xf6 1 0 . .ib5t and Black has no suitable way to meet this check: 1 0 . . . @f8 1 1 . 0-0± 9 . . . e6 1 0 .lll e5 0-0 I l ..ixd7 lll xd7 1 2.lll xd7 ixd7 1 3 .Wxb7 h6?! 1 4.ie7+Already a pawn up, White now wins more material, R. Pert - Bowmer, London 20 1 3 . s.i.h4 6.c4 6. lll e5 ! ? followed by going for a Stonewall set-up was Adams' suggestion. 6 . . . e6 7.lll c3 ie7 8 . cxd5 exd5 8 . . . lll xd5 9 .ie2 0-0 1 0 . 0-0 b6 ( 1 0 . . . lll xc3 l l . bxc3 b6 1 2.lll e5 ib7 1 3 . f4) l 1 . lll xd5 Wxd5 1 2 .lll e5 promises White a small edge. 9 .id3 0-0 9 . . . ig4 1 0 .Wa4t!? ( 1 0.Wb3 ! ? ixf3 l l .gxf3 0-0 1 2 . 0-0-0--+) 1 0 . . . c6 1 1 . lll e5;!; 1 0 .lll e5 id6 1 0 . . . c5 1 1 . 0-0 '1Wb6 1 2 .E1b l id6 1 3 .lll a4 Wc7 1 4. f4;t; l L f4 c5 1 2 .Wf3 1 2 .0-0 cxd4 I 3.exd4 Wb6= 1 2 . . . \Wb6 1 3 . 0-0-0 cxd4 1 4.exd400 R. Pert - Ynojosa, Canterbury 20 1 0 . Black has responded accurately to my plan, and White's advantage is minimal if at all. On reflection I came to the conclusion that 5 .ih4 is the right approach but that I needed to follow up in a different way to my game against Adams. 5 .. cS . Black's plan is to combine . . . Wb6 with the idea of . . . g5-g4 pressuring both b2 and d4 . Chapter 8 - 2 . . d5 3 . e3 . 161 board, though arguably it's Black's best: 8 .Wd2! (8.tlJxe5 ? Wa5 t! 9 . tlJ c3 ic5 1 0 .Wf4 id6-+ and the white knight is trapped) 8 . . . Wb6 (8 . . . Wc7 9.cxd5 ttJ e4 1 0 .Wd l Wa5 t l 1 . tlJ fd2 ib4 1 2.a3 ttJ df6 1 3 .id3±) 9 . cxd5 ttJ e4 1 0 .Wc2± 8.ig3 J.g7 9.cxd5 White can also consider: 9 . tlJ c3!? dxc4 1 0 .0-0-0 0-0 l l .h4 g4 1 2 .tlJe5t 9 ... tlih5 6.c4!? This rare move looks interesting with . . . h6 thrown in, as Black now doesn't have the option of . . . tlJ e4 hitting a bishop on g5 . 6 . dxc5 was my choice against Michael Adams, and whilst there is nothing wrong with it, the resulting positions look balanced: 6 . . . g5 7.ig3 ig7 8 . ttJ bd2 ttJ h 5 9.c4 tlJ xg3 I O .hxg3 tlJ xc5 I I . b4 ttJ e6 1 2 . cxd5 Wxd5 1 3 .ic4 Wd6 1 4.El:b l Here 1 4 . . . 0-0 was played in R. Pert - Adams, Canterbury 20 1 0 , and now Adams suggested that 1 5 .Wc2 with the threat of tlJ e4xg5 would have given White some initiative. So he reckoned that delaying castling for the moment with 14 . . . id7!?N00 would be more accurate. 9 . . . 0-0 1 0. tlJ c3 ttJ b6 was tried against me in a blitz game, but Black quickly got into a mess: I l . d6 ttJ fd5?! 1 2 .dxe7 Wxe7 1 3 .ttJxd5 ttJxd 5 ? ( 1 3 . . . We6 1 4.ie5±) 1 4.Wxd5 ixb2 1 5 .El:d l ie6 1 6.Wd2 Wa3 1 7.id6 Wxa2 1 8 .ixfB 1 -0 Antidrome - Yardbird, Internet 20 1 1 . 10.'1Vd2 0-0 1 1 .tli c3 tlixg3 12.hxg3 tlic5 6 ... cxd4 White seems to be able to claim an edge against the alternatives: 6 . . . g5 7.ig3 ttJ e4 8 . tlJ c3 Wa5 9 .Wc2± 6 . . . llJ e4 7 . tlJ c3± 6 . . . Wb6 7.tlJc3 Wxb2 (7 . . . cxd4 8.Wxd4±) 8 . tlJ b 5 cxd4 9.El:b l Wxa2 1 0 . ttJ c?H 7.'1Vxd4 g5 7 . . . e5N might be hard to spot over the 1 3 .ic4? if5 1 4 . ttJ d4 ig6 was unclear in Shuvatkin - Kuznetsov, Kazan 2009. 13 ...'1Vb6! If Black is careless he can lose very quickly: 1 3 . . . ig4 1 4. ttJ xg5 +- or 1 3 . . . ixc3t 1 4.Wxc3 ttJ e4 1 5 .Wd4 Wa5 t 1 6.b4+-. 1 62 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky 1 4.ie2 The clever point of Black's previous move is that 1 4 .lll xg5 :B:d8! gives him strong counterplay. . 14 . JMS 1 5J�dl 1 7.Wfxe2 e6 ig4 1 6.�d4 ixe2 So we move on to what is arguably Black's most critical response. If you are going to choose 3 . e3 against 2 . . . d5 then you certainly need to be ready for this. I admit that it is hard to force an advantage against this move, but the positions remain interesting and White has a lot of choice - there are several ideas in this chapter so hopefully you can find a route that appeals to you. 4.Lf6 gxf6 4 . . . exf6?! looks wrong as Black leaves his d-pawn vulnerable to attack: 5 . lll c3 ie6 6. dxc5 ixc5 7.Wlh5 ib4 8 .ib5 t lll c6 9 .lll ge2 0-0 1 0. 0-0-0 lll e5 l 1 . h3 Wb6 1 2 .ia4 :B:fd8 1 3 .ib3 The pressure is mounting on the d5pawn and Black feels obliged to give up the bishop pair in order to save it. ,i U �.� �·r• . .. . % r .. . .% . � . V,. 61 �.rr r-/,� . . ./,. fl 5 .., /.� . � � ��-� �''l. .. . :� � 4 -�l . .,/, ./, '0 ·� . 3 � �..tm ... � • �8 2� t, �. 8 al2JD� � ,- 8 a 1 : s ... z . . .. .. . 1 9.0-0;!; If Black wishes to recapture his pawn then he is going to end up with weaknesses round his king, in particular the f5-square. B) 3 ... c5 . .. � .. a b .....% ..: c d e f g h 1 3 . . . ixc3 1 4.lll xc3 d4 1 5 .exd4 :B:xd4 1 6.:B:xd4 Wxd4 1 7.We2 ixb3 1 8 .axb3t R. Pert Giffard, Montpellier 2002. White's advantage is clear, because all king and pawn endgames will be winning. Furthermore, White's queenside majority means that knight and pawn endgames are likely to be winning too, and that is in fact what happened in the game! 5.�c3 This brings us into a line of the Veresov. Note that this position can also arise after 2 . . . c5 3 . lll c3 d5 4.ixf6 gxf6 5 . e3 , although in Chapter 8 - 2 . . . d5 3 . e3 Chapter 3 my recommendation was the more aggressive 5 .e4! ? in that move order. If you fancy quieter waters then you can choose: 5 . c4 cxd4 (5 . . . dxc4 6.ixc4 transposes into line A of the previous chapter) 6.Wfxd4 dxc4 7.Wfxd8t @xd8 8 .ixc4 e6 9 . ltl c3 a6 1 0 . ltl f3 Although my computer prefers White, the position looks drawish with the queens off. 5 . dxc5 This was the regular choice of Hodgson, who once played it against me in a rapid game. 5 . . . e6 5 . . . Wfa5t leads to positions which slightly favour White who usually picks up a pawn, though Black obtains some compensation: 6 . ltl c3 e6 7.Wfd4 lt:l c6 8 .ib5 (8.Wfxf6 1'!g8 9 . ltl ge2 ixc5 1 0 .0-0-0;!;) 8 . . . 1'!g8 9 . ltl ge2 id? 1 0 .Wfxf6;!; 6 . ltl c3 6.c4 leads to a drawish endgame: 6 . . . dxc4 7.Wfxd8t @xd8 8 .ixc4 ixc5 9 . ltl c3 @e7 1 0.a3 a6 I I .ltl f3 lt:l c6 Y2-Yi Miladinovic Popovic, Vrnjacka Banja 20 1 2. 6 . . . ixc5 7.Wfh5 repetition: 8 . lt:l f3 Wff6 9 . 0-0-0 ltl c6 I O. ltl b 5 0-0 I I .1'!g l Wfg 6 1 2 .Wfh3 Wfg 4 1 3 .Wfh6 Wfg6 1 4.Wfh3 Wfg4 Yi-Yi R. Perr - Crouch, Birmingham 2002. 8 .ib5 id? 9 . ltl ge2 a6 I O.ia4 Wf a5 1 0 . . . Wfe? 1 1 .0-0-0 b5 1 2.ib3 b4 1 3 .1'!xd5 !;!; 1 1 . 0-0-0 b5 1 2.ib3 b4? 1 3 . ltl xd 5 ± Th i s i s a typical example of Hodgson's plan, with the switch of the bishop to b3 being followed by a knight sacrifice on d 5 . There is more analysis on these types of position in line BI below. 5 � c6 ... After 5 . . . Wf a5 White can play 6.dxc5 , transposing to the previous note (after 5 . dxc5 Wfa5 t 6 . ltl c3 ) , though 6.ib 5 t ! ? id? 7.ixd7t lt:l xd7 8 .Wfh5;!; looks interesting too. 5 . . . cxd4 6. exd4 h5 This is quite a common plan; this strange looking move has the idea of stopping White from landing his queen on its optimal h5square. a 7 . . . lt:l c6 7 . . . f5 ! ? is slightly annoying, intending to use the f6-square either for the knight or the queen . In the following game Black used this square to transfer his queen to g6, and I could find no good way to avoid a 1 63 b c d e f g h 7.Wff3 This makes a lot of sense to me - this square is also decent for the white queen, as it eyes up h 5 , d5 and f5, as well as providing cover along the third rank. 7 . . . e6 8 .0-0-0 lt:l c6 9 . ltl ge2 f5 1 0 .'itib l ig7 l I .h4 I l .Wfg3 ih6 1 2. h4 a6 1 3 . ltl f4;!; 1 64 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky l l . . .'Wb6 Preventing lt'i b 5 . l l . . .id7 looks a b i t sloppy: 1 2.'Wg3 if6 1 3 .ll'ib5;!; 1 2 .°We3 ii f8 1 3 . ll'i c3 t ie7 1 4. tt'i xd5-+ Hall - Salmensuu, Panormo 200 1 . 8 .ig2 b6 9 . 0-0 ia6 1 0 .l:'!e l ie7 l 1 . ll'i f4 l:'!c8 1 2.Wh5 'Wd7 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 . ll'i cxd5 exd5 1 4.Wxf5;!; 1 3 .dxc5 ixc5 1 4.l:'!ad U Dromedar - Antidrome, Internet 2007. a l 7 . . . dxc4? l 8.d5+1 8 .c5± b c d e f g h Here I have decided to cover two approaches for White, B l ) 6.dxc5!? and B2) 6.'@h5. Bl) 6.dxc5!? a 7 . . .f5 7 . . . cxd4 8 . exd4 Wb6 9 .ig2 Wxb2 1 0. 0-0 Wb6 1 1 .l:'!e l ib4 1 2.ll'ixd5 exd5 b c d e f g h This is an interesting idea, aiming for Hodgson's set-up mentioned above after 5 . dxc5 , but not allowing Black as many options as capturing on the 5 th move. Chapter 8 - 1 65 2 . . . d5 3 . e3 6 e6 7.'!Wh5 i.xc5 8.0-0-0 '!We7 9.i.b5 i.d7 10.ti:)ge2 0-0-0 •.• 1 O . . . a6 1 l .i.a4 b5 l 2.i.b3 b4 1 3 .�xd 5 !;!; was mentioned in the note to White's 5th move on page 1 63 . 1 6.a3 ci>a7 1 6 . . . �b6 1 7. ©a2 ie7 1 8 . f3 ib5 1 9 .'ll xb5 �xb5 20.�d2 �c4t (20 . . . �c6? 2 1 . 'll d4+-) 2 1 .©b l �b5 22. 'll d4 �b6 23.�d3;!; 17.tli d4 i.d7 1 8J�d3 1 l .e4 is perhaps too ambitious: 1 1 . . .d4 1 2 .'ll a4 id6N This novelty is given by Avrukh . ( 1 2 . . . e5 1 3 .'ll g3 ib4 1 4.©b l was unclear in Breder Ciron, Internet 200 5 , though White's position is simpler to play.) 1 3 .©b l ( 1 3 . c3 ! ? could be worth a try, when 1 3 . . . dxc3 1 4. 'll axc3 leads to a balanced position, but 1 3 . . . e 5 ! ? might keep an edge for Black) 1 3 . . . eS 1 4 .'ll g3 ic?+ White gradually prepares e3-e4. 18 i.e7 1 9.f3 '!Wb6 20.ti:)b3 '!Wc7 2 1 .�edl ci>a8 .•. It is difficult to suggest any ideas for Black. 22.ti:) d4 '!Wb6 23.ci>al ci>a7 24.e4;!; B2) 6.'!Wh5 1 1 . .. ci>bs 12.ci>bl a6 1 3.i.xc6 1 3 .ia4 ! ? is of course playable too. 1 3 ...i.xc6 14J'.!:hel :!ks 1 5 .'!Wh6 Objectively the position may be equal, but it is not so easy for Black to come up with a plan, whereas White can gradually improve his position and may look to prepare an e3-e4 break further down the line. The following is a plausible continuation: a b c d e f g h 1 66 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky Black now chooses between B2 1) 6 ... e6 and B22) 6 ... cxd4. B2 1) 6 ... e6 White has three reasonable ways to meet this move, all of similar worth. 8 . . . cxd4 9 . exd4 a6 9 . . . '\M!b6 1 0. 0-0 a6 looks less accurate: 1 1 .ixc6 bxc6 l 2 . lLi a4 'lM!bS 1 3 .b3 ie7 1 4 .l'!fe l t 1 0.ixc6! ? ixc6 1 1 . 0-0 ie7 1 2 .l'!ae l '\M!d7 1 3 .l'!e3t 7 ... id7 8.lDge2 7.0-0-0!? This is covered in Avrukh's Grandmaster Repertoire 1 1 , and I have decided to take it as the main line. 8 . f4 cxd4 9 . exd4 ib4 1 0. lLi ge2 f500 leads to a solid position for Black. 8 ... f5 7.dxc5 ! ? transposes to line B 1 above. 7 . lLi f3 ! ? This was Hector's choice; White keeps open the option of kingside castling. 7 . . . id7 7 . . . cxd4 8.exd4 transposes to line B22. s � � B•• � -� � 'i 1 St :iB'i 'B � 6� � � � : , , , /. ��1-� � L.. 7.� � �� 1 � � : �r,J�. . 7.�-r�� 3 • >�' t� ltJ2 �08". ""' 7,� �� 1 � . , /.. �=:r•� � . a b c d e f g h 8 .ib S ! ?N With 8 . dxc5 ixc5 9 .id3 White is aiming to go kingside. Black may respond: a) 9 . . . '\M!b6 holds an empty threat. 1 0. 0-0 'lM!xb2? 1 1 . lLi b S ! ± leaves the black queen vulnerable. b) 9 . . . '\M!e7 1 0 . 0-0 f5 1 1 .ixfS ! exf5 1 2. lLi xd S --+ looks promising for White. c) 9 . . . lLi b4 1 0 . 0-0 lLi xd3 1 1 .cxd3 and White has the initiative. d) 9 . . . f500 is perhaps Black's best, intending '\Mf f6. • • . 9 . g4 was played in Van der Werf - Jakovenko, Saint Vincent 200 5 , and here Avrukh gives: 9 . . . fxg4N 1 0 .'\M!xg4 '\M!f600 9 ... cxd4 9 . . . ig7?! is met by 1 0 .g4 with the initiative. 1 0.exd4 '?Nf6 1 1 .ih5 This looks most sensible to me. 1 1 .'lMle2 was Avrukh's main focus: 1 1 . . . 0-0-0 1 2.'lM!e3 id6 1 3 .g3 a6 1 4 .ie200 and it looks pretty balanced. 1 1 ... id6 Chapter 8 - 2 . . . d5 3 . e3 � - -·- �� 7 .:rr- :-, % � % .... - ;� r- 5 � r� .,Y.� 'l" l m � �� m -- - � � ��r�- - ---;� ��-�� -�% 8 rf!j 2_ .. . %(b'.8'0 • rf!j � % 8 r� . 1 67 8 6 4 3 1 ill , � - - m . �nm mn a b 12.c!Licxd5!? c d e f g .... h a 7 e6 b c d e f g h •.. This idea ofmine looks seriously tempting and White seems to obtain decent compensation. Certainly in a blitz game I would struggle to stop myself playing this move immediately! 1 2 .g3 (Avrukh) and 1 2 . lll ce2 are both unclear. 1 2 ... exd5 13.c!Lixd5 �g6 1 3 . . .'�g7 1 4 .ghe l t ! ? ( 1 4.Wh4 is similar to our main line) 14 . . . s!if8 (not 14 . . . ie6? ? 1 5 .gxe6t+-) 1 5 .Wh4 and again White has play similar to the main line. 14.�h4 Threatening lll f6t . 14 .. �fS . Black cannot stop the threat with 1 4 . . . ie7?? in view of: 1 5 .ghe l ie6 1 6.Wxe7# 15.c!Lif6 White can also try l 5 .lll f4! ? ixf4t 1 6.Wxf4t with d4-d5 on the cards. 1 5 .ie6 1 6.d5 ••. White has the initiative. B22) 6 cxd4 7.exd4 ••. 7 . . . gg8 has the idea 8.Wxh7 gg600 Shrentzel - Hodgson, Tel Aviv 1 98 8 , bur instead 8 .Wxd5!N give White an edge. 7 . . . lll xd4 ? 8 . 0-0-0 e5 9 .lll f3 ic5 (9 . . . lll xf3 1 0 .ib 5 t id7 1 1 .gxd5 +-) 1 0 . lll xe5 +7 . . . Wb6 8 . lll x d5 Wxb2 9.gd l gb8 (9 . . . e6 1 0 .lll xf6t md8 1 1 .id3 ib4t 1 2.mfl ie7 1 3 .Wf3 id7 1 4 .lll e2±) 1 0 . lll f.3± s.tlia White has a major alternative in: 8 . 0-0-0! ? ib4 8 . . . id7 9 .lll ge2 f5 1 0 .mb 1 �f6 l 1 .Wf3 Threatening g3-g4. l 1 . . .ie7 1 2.Wf4 Wh4 1 3 .We3 0-0-0 1 4.g3± 9 . lll ge2 9 . lll ce2! ? is also possible: 9 . . . id7 1 0 .c3 id6 l 1 .lll f3 We7 ( l I . . .Wa5 1 2. s!i b l lll e7 1 3 .ll\ c l ;!; Scho - ltter, email 2000) 1 2. lll g3 0-0-0 1 3 .id3 With ghe l to come, chis looks reasonable for White. 9 . . .id7 1 0.h4 ! ? A n interesting way t o develop the h l -rook. 1 0 . . . We7 l 1 .gh3 0-0-0 1 2 .ge3 Wf8 1 3 .g3 '.!?b8 1 4.Wf3! Improving on an earlier game. Although 1 4 .lll f4?! lll e7?! turned our fine for White in G . Mohr - Farago, Bled 200 1 , instead 1 68 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 14 . . . e5 !+ would have been problematic. 14 .. . f5 1 5 .a3 ie7 1 6.'it>b l lll a5 1 7.lll f4 8 7 �� : � w: � ,%� :f-'i"� 'i �� 6 ,,, , , � . . 3� � � � . � 5. � T T � �w-� � � 0 .. : " . ""' ' /, W' . 4 . .��J8l��\WI� ;� �� I§ �� 8 � �n WA'0 !1Jr �� "····" � 3 ,.,. . %'"' -�-· ' 2 w,d': · · · · " �, . . . . . Y. ····" ·· ·'· · ; � .. · ��- � -..t• 1 �� b a c d e f h g 1 7 . . . !!c8 ?! After 17 ... id6!N the resulting position looks fairly balanced, though I slightly prefer White. 1 8 . lll cxd5 exd5 1 9 .Wi'xd 5 ± Black had two minor pieces hanging in Jugelt - Farago, Deizisau 2008. a b c d e f 8 ...ih4 Black has various other moves: g h 8 . . . id7 ! ? 9 .id3 f5 1 0 . 0-0 Wi'f6 1 1 .!!fe l 0-0-0 1 2 .ib5 Wg6 1 3 .Wi'h3 f6 1 4.ixc6 bxc6 1 5 .g3 Wg4 ( 1 5 .. . f4 is mentioned by Lakdawala with the following analysis: 1 6.Wi'fl 'it>b7 1 7.E:ad l h5 [ 1 7 . . . Wxc2? 1 8 .E:d3 'it>a8 1 9 .E:b l ! !!b8 20.lll e l ! +- traps the queen] 1 8 . lll h4 Wg4 1 9 .lll a4 !!g8 20.'it>h l 00) 1 6.Wi'fl Suddenly Black has to worry about an attack on his king. 1 6 . . . 'it>b? 1 7.lll a4 f4 1 8 .E:ad l � Bosch - F tacnik, Hamburg 2009; White intends to continue with E:d3-b3. 8 . . . f5 9 .ib5 ig7 1 0 . 0-0 id? I l .ixc6 ixc6 ? Arutinian - Kashlinskaya, Olomouc 2009, and White now missed a great chance: 1 2.lll g5!N Wi'd7 1 3 . lll xe6 Wi'xe6 1 4.E:ae l +8 . . . Wi'b6!? Making White decide on his king position. 9 . 0-0-0! ? 9.ib 5 ! ? a6 1 0 .ixc6t bxc6 1 1 .!!b l c5 1 2 .dxc5 ixc5 1 3 . 0-0 id? 1 4 .Wi'h600 9 . . . id7 9 . . . ib4 1 0 .Wh6± I O .ib 5N 1 0.id3 E:c8 1 1 .E:he I ie7 I 2.E:e3 lll b4 gave Black good play in Atanasiu - Zozulia, Antwerp 20 1 1 . 1 0 .a3 E:c8 1 l .ib5 a6 1 2.ixc6 bxc6 1 3 .Wi'h4 ie7 1 4.lll a4 Wb5 1 5 . lll c3 Wi'b7 1 6. lll a4 could lead to a draw by repetition. 10 ... ib4 I l .ixc6 bxc6 1 2 .Wi'h6 ixc3 1 3 .bxc3t 9.id3 id7 9 . . . f5 1 0 . 0-0 Wf6 1 1 .E:fe l 0-0 1 2 .E:e3 Wi'g6 1 3 .Wi'h3 Wg4 1 4 .Wh6 Wg6 1 5 .Wf4± Hector Heinemann, Nuremberg 2008. Chapter 8 - 2 d5 3 . e3 . . . 1 0.0-0 i.xc3 1 1 .bxc3 lll aS?! 1 69 out how White should handle this position in order to gain an advantage. 1 1 . . .Wi'e? 1 2 .�ab l 0-0-0 1 3 .�fe l;!; 1 2.�fel Vffe7 4.Ad3 Ag4 s.f3 5 . lll e2 lll bd7 6.c4?? Amazingly a player of Aronian's standard allows the most basic trick in the Trompowsky. 6 . . . dxc4 7.ixc4 W/a5 t-+ Aronian - Radj abov, Monte Carlo (rapid) 2007. s ... Ahs 6.lll e2 Here too, 6.c4? falls for the same trick. 6 ... lll bd7 C) 3 ... c6 � � ... -·v, ,�� , , · /, , , , · 7· � ,� !. '(4f "• 5 � �� T� , ·� 8 6 ,, 4 3 �- ��-9 3.W1i . . ,. � �. � . "ir;r�"m-� � �il�iR � w'm.% /, , , , , v, a b c d ;.',, , , , /, e f g 0, , , , , ; h This move was played against me by David Howell in 20 1 0 . He is an occasional Trompowsky player himself, so it is worth checking out this rare line. That game was not particularly interesting, ending in a stale draw, but it inspired me to have a look in more detail at this variation. I think I have now worked 7.0-0 Removing any possibility of the . . . Wi'a5t trick. If White can now get c2-c4 in unchallenged and develop with lll bc3 , he will certainly hold an advantage with better queenside and central prospects than Black, as well as more space. 7 ... es This has to be critical. 7 . . . ig6 This has been the usual move here, perhaps indicating that the Black players don't trust the advance of the e-pawn. However, the compliant bishop move hands White a small but risk-free advantage. 1 70 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky .i � B •� -� • s 76 � •·�1 ' . z� ·4) . . z-� � •' · �� f� ''l ;�� 5 �� . �� •. j� 4 �� . . ��8 - � 3 . -�� 2 c .1 �. 8��ttS��- �8� ·rJ. . . z. � � .. ii %� %�/� ..... ; � �ltJ�ii'· � � z .... a . b . c d e f g h 8 . c4 i.xd3 8 . . . e6 9 . lll bc3 i.e7 1 0 . cxd5 cxd5 1 Uk l 0-0 1 2.lll f4 �c8 1 3 .lll xg6 hxg6 1 4.Wb3;!; White stands better with the bishop pair and queenside pressure, Iotov - Gopal, Enschede 2009. 9 .Wxd3 dxc4 9 . . . e6 I O . lll bc3 i.e7 1 1 .�ad l 0-0 1 2.e4 �c8 1 3 . b3 b6 1 4.@h l;!; White's additional space ensures an advantage, Stefanova - N. Kosintseva, Dresden 2008. 1 0.Wxc4 e6 l 1 .lll bc3 i.e7 1 2.e4 0-0 1 3 .i.e3 �c8 1 4 .�fd l;!; Again White's space advantage ensures an edge, Lputian - Vescovi , Moscow (ol) 1 994. 8 ...i.e7 9.i.xf6 Lf6 1 0.c:x:d5 c:x:d5 1 1 .tll bc3 tlJ b6 12.i.b5t @m 1 3.dxe5 i.xe5 14.VNb3� White's advantage is dear, with the black king misplaced in the centre of the board. Conclusion: Both A) 3 . . . lll bd7 and C) 3 . . . c6 are quite sensible though slightly passive moves. I believe that White can expect to achieve an edge against both of them. Line B) 3 . . . c5 is a more serious challenge, highly regarded by many authors . In some of the variations it is difficult for White to prove an advantage. That said, I have given a few ideas of how White can try and cause Black problems, and I hope there are enough ideas and options here to give you at least one line which you would be happy to play. Chapter 9 2 ... � e4 3.if4 d5 4.e3 1 .d4 �f6 2.i.g5 � e4 3.i.f4 d5 4.e3 A) 4 ... e6 5.i.d3 i.d6 6.� e2 Al) 6 ... � f6 A2) 6 ... 0-0 B) 4 ... i.f5 5.f3 Bl) 5 ... � d6 B2) 5 ... � f6 C) 4 ... c6 D) 4 ... c5 5.i.d3 D l ) 5 ... �b6 D2) 5 ... cxd4 D3) 5 ... � c6?! D4) 5 ... �f6 D41) 6.�f3!? D42) 6.c3 173 173 174 175 175 176 177 179 179 181 1 83 1 85 1 86 1 87 1 72 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 1 .d4 tlJf6 2.J.g5 tll e4 3.i.f4 d5 This solid move is not as popular as 3 . . . c5, but nevertheless it is an important option as it has been backed by many experts in this variation. Boris Avrukh recommends this line in his recent book Grandmaster Repertoire 11. It was also the choice of Trompowsky expert Pete Wells when playing me in 20 1 2, and I noticed that it has slipped into the repertoire of Mark Hebden, who is known for his excellent opening preparation. Despite the backing of these players I still feel happy with White's chances of an advantage here. This is Black's best, although we will check out his other moves. 4 . . . e6 and 4 . . . c6 both get the standard treatment of 5 .id3 intending ixe4 . 4 . . . if5 is met by 5 . f3 , after which White is then able to grab space with either c2-c4 or g2-g4. s.i.d3! As mentioned already, White intends ixe4. 4.e3 Unlike with 3 . . . c5 where I gave several options for White, against 3 . . . d5 I am only offering this single recommendation, for the simple reason that I believe it is clearly the best choice for White. For those who intend to meet 2 . . . d5 with 3 . e3, you need to be aware of this line as Black can transpose into it with 3 . . . tlJ e4 4.J.f4. White's plan is to play id3 and ixe4. Although Black may know what White's plan is, it is nevertheless difficult for him to find an effective way to deal with it. The latest try is to spend time dropping the e4-knight back to f6 when it is attacked. 4 ... c5 5 . . . tlJ c6 6.ixe4 dxe4 7.d5 looks promising for White. 5 . . . Wi'b6 6.ixe4 dxe4 7 . tlJ c3 and I prefer White here. 5 . . . cxd4 6.exd4 and once again I like White. 6.c3 This seems to give White a small but comfortable edge according to my detailed analysis. I .d4 �f6 2.i.g5 �e4 3.i.f4 d5 4.e3 6.ixe4 ixf4 7. exf4 dxe4 8 . lll c3 is the alternative, with a small edge for White. Black usually chooses between Al) 6 ... �f6 and A2) 6 ... 0-0. 6 . . . f5 ? looks like a mistake, as Black leaves himself with a weak square on e5, whereas White is able to control the e4-square: 7 . f3 ! lll f6 8 . c4 0-0 9 .lll bc3;!; Yemelin - Sgnaolin, Rijeka 20 1 0 . a b c d e f g h We shall take a look at A) 4 ... e6, B) 4 ... i.f5 and C) 4 ... c6, before examining the main line of D) 4 ... c5 . 6 . . . lll d7 7.ixe4 dxe4 8 .lll d2 f5 9 . lll c4 \We? 1 0 .°1Wd2 ixf4 l 1 . lll x f4 0-0 1 2.0-0-0 lll f6 1 3 .h4 b5 1 4.lll e5;!; Akopian - Mohandesi, Elista (ol) 1 99 8 ; White has a comfortable advantage with the better pawn structure and strong knights dominating Black's light squared bishop. 4 . . . g6 receives the standard treatment: 5 .id3 ig7 6.ixe4 dxe4 7. lll c3 f5 8 . f3 exf3 9 . lll xf3 lll a6 1 0 . 0-0 c6 l l .°1We2 ie6 1 2 .l:!ad l lll c7 1 3 . lll g5 ig8 1 4 . e4;!; Bui Vinh - Bubalovic, Harkany 2009. Al) 6 ... tli f6 A) 4 ... e6 5.i.d3 i.d6 7.0-0 7.ig5 was tried recently: 7 . . . e5 (7 . . . c5!?N may be the way to go for Black) 8 . dxe5 ixe5 9 . lll bc3 c6 1 0.°1Wd2 h6 l l .ih4 lll bd7 1 2 . f4 ixc3 1 3 .lll xc3 °1Wa5 1 4 . 0-0-0;!; Bosiocic Rogulj , Sibenik 2009. 1 74 Richard Pert - Playing the Trom p owsky 7 liJ c6 s.J.xd6 Vflxd6 7.c4!? dxc4 8.ixc4 •.• 8 . . . ixf4 8 . . . ltJ c6 9 .ib5 id? 1 0 . lD bc3 a6 1 l .ia4 b5 1 2 .ic2 ixf4 1 3 . lD xf4 e5 1 4.dxe5 lDxe5 1 5 .Wd4;!; Gallagher - Vogt, Lenk 200 5 . 9 . liJ xf4 e5 1 0 .dxe5 'Wxd l t 1 1 .@xd l lD g4 1 2 .liJd3 1 2 .@e2N lDxe5 1 3 . lD d5 @dB slightly favours White. 1 2 . . . if5 1 3 .@e2 8 7 • • fl .1 • U. �D � ,'----"� -�� --.i(W� f' fm0.....1·��-� --& �%� • • �� 9 . f4 liJ b4 1 0 .liJ bc3 0-0 1 1 . lD g3 c5 1 2 . lD b 5 Vfle7 1 3 . dxc5 Wxc5 1 4 . liJ d4 Fridman - Arnold, Helsingor 20 1 1 ; perhaps White has a tiny edge but it's not a lot. 9 ... dxc4 1 0.J.xc4 0-0 1 1 .tlibc3� ..... ��,. � : �� ,. . : . � . 3 @ �, .., ��ltj�-- - �- "�r0 •��r� 8 � • @�� 8 � 4 2 1 A2) 6 ... 0-0 .... �g(�- �-- - - "�]1 a b c d e f g h 1 3 . . . liJ d?!N 13 ... ixd3t 1 4 .ixd3 lD xe5 1 5 .ie4;!; White's good bishop versus knight gave him the advantage in Wang Yue - Macak, Istanbul 200 5 . 1 4 .�d l 1 4. f4 liJ b6 1 5 .�cl 0-0-0 1 6. liJ fL. lDxc4 l 7 .�xc4 lD xf2 gives Black good compensation for the pawn. 1 4 . . . lD gxe5 1 5 .lDxe5 lD xe5 1 6.ib3 0-000 7. c4 This looks a logical follow-up. 7 . ..hf4 7 . . . b6 doesn't get Black anywhere: 8 .Wc2 ixf4 (8 . . . ib7 9 . cxd5 exd5 1 0. tll bc3 f5 1 1 . 0-0 We7 1 2 .:gae l tll d7 1 3 . f3 tll xc3 1 4 . bxc3;!;) 9.ixe4 ih6 1 0 .ixh7t;!; Hodgson Thiruchelvam, Bradford 200 1 . The knight may now B l ) 5 lll d6 or B2) 5 ltlf6. •.• retreat with .•• B l ) 5 lll d6 ••. 8.tll xf4 lll f6 9.lll c3 dxc4 1 0.ixc4 lll c6 1 1 .lll d3! Targeting Black's only real idea, that of playing . . . e 5 . l l . .. e5 � �jj . � ��-7< t•,Y.m t ----%� �%� 'fa)�- -�-s jJjJ jj!Jjj!J jj!Jm" R jJjJ jj!J jj!J !o" 0jj!J �W-'1'j"jj!J %"" �� / m �ttJef� m 8d2 c'i} '- ----%�- - �� -JD�fj � ----%�_z ----% �a �if� • n 8 6 %.... 4 3 � .. 1 a 1 2.dxe5 b c d e f g h This is enough for an edge, but 1 2 . tll xe5!N looks even stronger: 12 ... tll xe5 1 3 .dxe5 tll g4 1 4.Wxd8 ( 1 4 .Wd4;!; is also quite good) 14 . . . :gxd8 1 5 . tll b5 tll x e5 ( 1 5 . . . c6 1 6. tll c7 :gb8 1 7. e6±) 1 6. tll xc7 :gb8 1 7.ie2;!; 12 lll g4 13.id5 lll cxe5 14.lll xe5 lll xe5 1 5.0-0;!; .•. Shimanov - Jerez Perez, Leon 20 1 2. B) 4 ifS .•. This move provides a target for White's pawns, with f2-f3 and later g2-g4 gaining space on the kingside. 6 e6 7.c4 dxc4 ••. 7 . . . tll xc4 8 .tll xc4 dxc4 9 . e4 ib4t 1 0 .id2 ixd2t 1 1 .Wxd2 ig6 1 2 .ixc4 0-0 1 3 .tll e2 We7 1 4. 0-0;!; Lputian - Ilincic, Yerevan 2000. 8.lll xc4 lll xc4 8 . . . tll d7 leaves White with slight but lasting pressure: 9.:gcl tll xc4 1 0 .ixc4 id6 1 l . tll e2 0-0 1 2 .e4 ig6 1 3 . 0-0 e5 1 4.dxe5 ixe5 1 5 .Wb3 ixf4 1 6. tll xf4 lll b6 l 7.We3 tll xc4 l 8 .:gxc4 c6 l 9 .:gd4 Wb6 20.Wf2 f6 2 1 .:gd7;!; Hodgson - Hertneck, Germany 2000. 9.ixc4 ih4t 1 0.@fl id6 1 1 .lll e2 0-0 l 1 . . .h6 1 2 .Wb3 ( 1 2 . e4! ?;!;) 1 2 . . . ixf4 1 3 . tll x f4 tll d7 Winants - Van Haastert, Netherlands 200 1 , and now 1 4. e4!N ih7 1 5 .:gad l , with d4-d5 on the cards, gives White a clear advantage. 12.g4 i:xf4 13.lll xf4 '?Nh4t 5.B 1 76 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 6.g4 also looks promising: 6 . . . ig6 7.h4 h5 8 . g5 tll fd7 9 . c4 e6 1 0 . cxd5 exd5 1 1 . tll c3 c6 1 2.id3 ixd3 1 3 .Wfxd3 ie7 1 4 . 0-0-0 tll f8 1 5 .tll ge2 White has a rather pleasant position with more space and a lead in development, Yemelin - Laurusas, Warsaw 2009. 6 ... c6 6 . . . c5 ?! lets White grab material: 7.cxd5 tll x d5 8 .ixb8 tll xe3 (8 . . . �xb8 9. e4±) 9.ib5t id7 1 0 .ixd7t Wfxd7 l l .Wfe2 tll xg2t 1 2.Wfxg2 �xb8 1 3 .dxc5;!; Black did not have quite enough compensation in Adams - Van Wely, Tilburg 1 996. 6 ... ixb l hands White a small but safe advantage: 7.�xb l c6 8 .id3 e6 9 . tll e2 and White has more space, Adams - Emms, Hove 1 997. I4 ...Ag6 1 5,gc1 If Black plays passively then White has a comfortable advantage, but active play from Black may make matters worse, for instance: 6 . . . e6 15 ... tll c6 1 6.AbS e5 17.tll xg6 fxg6 1 8.bc6 White has a serious advantage. B2) 5 ... tll f6 a a 6.c4 b c d e f g h b c d e f g h 7.tll c3 I prefer 7.Wb3! to cut out Black's option of playing . . . ib4. Then after 7 . . . b6 8 . tll c3 c6 play transposes into the main line. 7 . . . ib4 8 .Wb3 tll c6 9 .a3 9 . g4 ig6 1 0 . h4 h5 1 l .g5 dxc4 1 2 .ixc4 tll d5 1 3 .ixd5 Wfxd5 1 4.Wxd5 exd500 9 . . . ixc3t 1 0 .Wfxc3 0-0 1 1 . tll e2 ig6 1 2 .h4 �e8 1 3 .g4 dxc4 1 4. e4 tll xe400 This led to unclear complications in Carlsen - J. Polgar, Rishon Le Zion 2006. 7.� c3 e6 8.�b3 b6 I 've faced 5 . . . if5 ? ? on several occasions in internet games. 8 . . . Wi'b6 9 .c5 Wi'xb3 1 0 . axb3:t 9.g4 .ig6 1 0.h4 h6 l I . tll h3 ie7 1 2. 0-0-0 a5 1 3 . cxd5 and now instead of 1 3 . . . exd5 1 4.id3:t Winants Wiedenkeller, Neum 2000, Black should play 1 3 . . . tll xd5 !N00 which hits h4 and has the point that 1 4 . tll xd5 cxd5 leaves the white king looking vulnerable. 5 . . . tll d7 6 .tll e2 g6 7.ixe4 dxe4 8 . tll bc3 f5 9 . d 5 ! ? (9.h4t secures a safe edge) 9 . . . ig7 1 0. dxc6 bxc6 l I .tll d4 tll c 5 ? ( l I . . .Wi'b6! 1 2 . tll e6 Wi'xb2 offers Black counterplay) 1 2.tll xc6 Wi'b6 1 3 .ie5! ixe5 1 4. tll xe5 Wi'xb2 1 5 . 0-0! 0-0? ( 1 5 . . . Wi'xc3 1 6.Wi'd5±) 1 6 .Wi'd5t ie6 1 7.Wi'xc5 gac8 1 8 . tll c6 1 -0 Fier - Zwahr, Zurich 20 1 2 . 6.Le4 �xb2 7.� d2 dxe4 1 1 ... �xd5 l l . . . exd5 1 2. tll h3 ie7 1 3 . 0-0-0:t 1 2.�xd5 exd5 1 2 . . . cxd5?! 1 3 .Wi'a4t! tll d7 1 4. h 5 l 5 .ia6± and the a8-rook is in trouble. ih7 1 3.0-0-0;!; White has a pleasant position. C) 4 ... c6 5 . .id3 a The standard response, looking to take on e4. 5 ...�b6 s.lll e2 b c d e f g h 1 78 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky White should prioritize development here and look to keep the momentum on his side. 8 . tt:l xe4 Wb4t 9.c3 WaS 1 0 . tt:l f3 tt:l d7 1 1 .0-0 g6oo 8 ... tli d7 After 8 . . . fS 9 . 0-0 tt:l d7 1 0 .a4 Wb6 1 1 . f3 exf3 1 2.tt:lxf3 White has excellent compensation for the pawn . 8 . . . ig4 9 . 0-0 White continues to develop, even at the cost of a second pawn. 9 . . . ixe2 1 0.Wxe2 Wxc2 1 1 .B:fc l Wd3 1 2.Wg4 tt:l d7 1 3 .tt:l c4 g6 1 4.B:ab l ig7 1 S .B:xb7 tt:l f6 1 6.WgS 0-0 1 7.B:b2 tt:l d S 1 8 .B:d2 Picking up the queen. 1 8 . . . h6 1 9 .Wg4 1 -0 Yemelin Trofimov, St Petersburg 20 1 0. 1 2.ic7 White aims to make his opponent's queen a little uncomfortable. 1 2 . . . b6 1 3 .B:ab l Was 1 4. tt:l d6t? Too aggressive. 1 4.c4;!; is simple and keeps an edge. 1 4 . . . exd6 l S .We4t tt:l e S ! 1 6 .ixd6 ifS 1 7.Wh4 gS 1 8 .WxgS tt:l g6+ White found himself a piece down for insufficient compensation in Popovic Solomunovic, Valjevo 20 1 1 . 1 2.a4 0-0 1 3.a5 Y«ds 9.tlixe4 White can further delay the recapture of the pawn: 9 . 0-0 tt:l f6 1 0 . c4 Wa3 1 1 . tt:l g3 g6 1 2 .ieS ig7 1 3 . tt:l gxe4 tt:l xe4 1 4.ixg7 tt:lxd2 1 S .Wxd2;!; Black is unable to castle kingside and short of space, Hodgson - Hjartarson, Copenhagen 1 996. 9 g6 ..• 9 . . . tt:l f6 1 0 . tt:l xf6t exf6 1 1 . 0-0 ie7 1 2.Wd3 0-0 1 3 . c4 Wb6 1 4. e4 and White's strong central pawns gave him the advantage m Gorovykh - Trofimov, St Petersburg 20 1 0 . 1 0.0-0 J.g7 1 1 .Wd3 Wb6 1 1 . . .Wb4 14 ... a6 1 4 . . . B:e8 l S .B:fd l cS 1 6 . tt:l xcS tt:lxcS 1 7.WxcS ig4 1 8 . f3 ifS 1 9 .c3 b6 20.axb6 axb6 2 l .Wc7 B:c8 22.Wxd8+- left White a pawn up for absolutely nothing in D. Pavlovic - Solomunovic, Kraljevo 20 1 1 . 1 5J�fdl h6 1 6.B:ab l tli f6 17.tlixf6t exf6 18.�a3 White's advantage is totally clear. He has the superior pawn structure and his ongoing pressure against the b7-pawn keeps Black's queenside bishop and rook out of the game. Black has a variety of options here: D l ) 5 . . .Wb6, D2) 5 . . .cxd4, D3) 5 . . . c!Li c6?! o r D4) 5 ... c!Lif6. 5 . . . ifS ? ? i s a version of a blunder w e have already seen: 6 . f3 ! ll'i d6 ? (6 . . . WaS t! is the only way to save the piece, but White has various routes to a clear plus, for example: 7.c3 ll'i d6 8 .ixd6 ixd3 9.Wxd3 exd6 1 0 . ll'i e2±) 7.ixd6 ixd3 8 .ixb8! 1 -0 White wins a piece, Antidrome - Jaskier, Internet 20 1 0 . D l ) 5 ...Wb6 28 .. J:!:b8 29.c!Lixc8 gxc8 30.Wb2t .if6 3 1 .gxc8 Wxc8 32.Wxb7 Another masterclass from Hodgson. 32 ...We6 33.Wxa6 Wa2 34.Wd3 1-0 Hodgson - Smejkal, Germany 1 996. D) 4 ... c5 5 ..id3 This was previously seen as the main line, but now that role has very much been taken over by 5 . . . lll f6. I think the main game which I have chosen here, Mickey Adams against Xie Jun, is a major reason for the switch away from this move. I was playing in the Hastings Challengers at the time and I remember the news spreading around the playing hall that Adams had crushed his opponent in the Premier tournament in ultra-quick time. 6 ..ixe4 dxe4 6 . . . Wxb2?! 7.ixd5 gives White huge amounts of play for the exchange: 7 . . . Wxa l 8 . ll'i f3 e6 9 .ib3 cxd4 1 0 .0-0 lll c6 l l . exd4 ie7 1 2 .id2 ib4 1 3 .c3 ie7 1 4. c4 ib4 1 5 .ixb4 ll'i xb4 1 6.Wd2 Black needs to sacrifice material 1 80 Richard Pert - Play ing the Trom p owsky to save her queen. 1 6 . . . lll d3 1 7.°1Wxd3+ Stefanova - Grobelsek, Rabac 2003. 7.c!lic3 1 0 .d6 f5 l l .g4 id? 1 2 .gxf5 exf5 1 3 .a3 tli c6 1 4. tli d5 +- Antidrome - StepByStep, Internet 20 1 2 . 9 . 0-0 tli d7 1 0 . a4! I like this move, grabbing some space on the queenside. 1 0 . . . a6 1 l . a5 °l&d8 1 2 .ig3 1 2 .dxc5 !?N ixc5 1 3 .id6;!; l 2 . . . tli f6 .� . . 6 ,� �� !•·· · ·�� • . . -.�)�% �r�-�%� �· J�t·•. . . • � 54 � .. � � � · % . . l< � 0 . �� . 3 R m r� �· ��8· '�ft'8��. . . -· · '·'= · · % 1 •� � s i. U ..t B � :� , . . ,7.� ••,Y. 7 • a 7 ...'Wxb2 b c d e f g h 7 . . . cxd4 8 .Wxd4 Wxd4 9 . exd4 f5 1 0 . f3 tli c6 1 1 . 0-0-0 exf3 1 2 .tlixf3 id? 1 3 .d5 tli d8 1 4.�he l with a big lead in development, Hodgson - Jackson, London 1 99 8 . 7 . . . if5 ? loses material : 8 . tli d5 Wa5 t 9 . b4 cxb4 1 O.lll c?t +- Woj taszek - Gajdzica, Koszalin 200 5 . 7 . . . e6 8 . tli ge2 2 :� • ,J � % a b c d e f g h 1 3 .dxc5 !?N Again this move looks interesting. 1 3 .°l&b l ?! seems the wrong plan: 1 3 . . . id? 1 4.�d l cxd4 1 5 . tli xd4 We? 1 6.tlia4 e5 !00 Moskalenko - Cabrera, Salou 20 1 2 . 1 3 . . . ixc5 1 4 .'l&xd8t 'kt>xd8 1 5 .�fd l t @e? 1 6 . tli a4 ia7 1 7.id6t;!; 8.c!lige2 i.g4?! 8 . . . tli a6?! hardly looks a problem: 9 . 0-0 g6 1 0 .�b l °l&a3 l l .d5 ig7 1 2 .d6 ie6 1 3 . lll b5 'l&xa2 1 4 .dxe? Wd5 1 5 .tli d6t 'kt>xe7 1 6.�xb?t 'kt>f8 1 7.Wb I +- Winants - Harovelo, France 2004. Perhaps Black should try 8 . . . cxd4, though after 9.�b l Wa3 1 0 . exd4;!; White is obviously doing well. 9.c!lixe4! i.xe2 10.'kt>xe2! 8 .. . f5 8 . . . tli c6?! is provocative and I showed how to handle it in a blitz game: 9 . d 5 ! tli b4 White does not fear moving his king as his clear lead in development means it is the black monarch which is more vulnerable. Chapter 9 - 2 . . ttJ e4 3 .if4 d5 4.e3 181 . 6 ... tli c6 1 0 ... cxd4 6 . . . if5 ? ? is a third version of this blunder, in j ust slightly different circumstances: 7.f3 ttJ d6 (Black also loses a piece after 7 . . ."l&a5 t 7 . tli d2 ttJxd2 8 .ixd2+-) 8.ixd6 ixd3 9 .ixb8+6 . . . Wb6 7 .tli c3! This rarely played move looks really interesting to me. 7.ixe4 is the alternative, but I do not think that White should rush to give up his bishop now that Black has clarified the centre. 7 . . . ttJxc3 8 . bxc3 lli c6 8 7 .i � .i.. ��·� · �zl3. � -��f··�·%'"%�·"""� •• ··· · · �.. ·'?j. %� .%. -� � .� �� a,. :4 �L�� , �- 14 ...Wc3 1 5.Wxc3 dxc3 1 6Jhb7 @f7 17.tlid4 'it>f6 18.ic7 tlixd4t 1 9.exd4 a6 20.ga7 e6 2 1 .gbl ie7 22.ieSt 1-0 White wins the bishop to wrap up a great game, Adams - Xie Jun, Hastings 1 996. D2) 5 ... cxd4 6.exd4! I prefer this to the commonly played 6.ixe4 . My view is that we can always take the knight later, so why cut down our options? 3 2 � ��:f-"'"" � • - �� - l•�·2r-. �- l� 1 ,� �lm·· · Zmj�f .•..• a v. b c d %- . • • • e % f g 0 . . h 9 . tli f3 ! ?N 9 . lli e2 g6 1 0 .Wd2 ig7 1 1 .ih6 0-0 1 2.h4 tli a5 1 3 .h5� Neiman - Trassaerc, France 200 1 9 . . . g6 9 . . . ig4 1 0 . 0-0;!; and the upcoming l:l:b l looks a major problem for Black to deal with. 1 0 . 0-0 ig7 1 1 . h3 0-0 1 2 .Wd2 Wa5 1 3 .l:l:ab l a6 1 4.a4;!; Black has serious problems completing his development, whereas White's play is relatively simple with l:l:fe l to come. 7.ixe4 Transposing back into the main line which arises from 6 .ixe4, having cut out some of Black's options along the way. If you would prefer to delay the exchange even longer, you could consider 7 . tli e2 ! ? . 1 82 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky 7.. dxe4 s.tll e2 9 ... e6 I had hoped to make 8. d5 work, but found a massive improvement for Black which makes this line inadvisable for White: 8 . . . e5 9 .ig3 Wa5 t!N 1 0 . lli c3 The main alternative is: 9 . . . Wa5 1 0 .h3 ih5 1 1 . 0-0 0-0-0 . a a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . ia3! ! 1 1 .Wc l ib4 1 2 .dxc6 ixc3t 1 3 .bxc3 Wxc3t 1 4.@fl bxc6 1 5 .We l ia6t 1 6. lli e2 ixe2t 1 7.@xe2 Wc4t+ 8 ...i.g4 8 . . . e5?! loses a pawn for insufficient compensation. A game by Pete Wells shows the way here: 9.dxe5 Wxd l t 1 0 .©xd l ig4 l l .lli bc3 0-0-0t ( l 1 . . .llid4 1 2.h3 llixe2 1 3 .llixe2 0-0-0t 1 4.©e l t) 1 2.©cl h6 1 3 .gel g5 1 4.id2 ig7 1 5 .llixe4 llixe5 1 6.ic3 ghe8 1 7. lli 2g3 h5 1 8 .h3 h4 1 9 .hxg4 hxg3 20 .f3 ©c7 2 1 .a4 f5 22.gxf5+ Wells - Visser, London/Crowthorne 2006. 9.tll bc3 b c d e f g h 1 2 .We l N I think this solid approach should secure White a small plus. l 2.d5 was played by Joe Gallagher and endorsed by Pete Wells, but it looks a little risky to me: 1 2 . . . e6 1 3 . dxc6 gxd l 1 4. cxb7t @xb7 1 5 .gfxd l ixe2!N Wells points out that this move may be an improvement, and I would agree. ( 1 5 . . . ib4? 1 6.g4 ig6 1 7.gd7t @a8 1 8 .ie3 ic5 1 9 . lli d4t Gallagher - Rytshagov, Elista [ol] 1 998) 1 6. lli xe2 ic5 ! This is my improvement on previous analysis; by covering the a7-pawn (against gd7 followed by ie3) Black ensures that his king will be safe. 1 7 .gd7t @a8+ The situation remains murky, but the material advantage of queen for rook and knight should give Black an edge. 1 2 . . . llixd4 1 2 . . . e6 1 3 .a3 ( 1 3 .lli xe4 Wxe l 1 4.gfxe l ixe2 1 5 .gxe2 gxd400) 1 3 . . . lli xd4 1 4.llixd4 gxd4 l 5 . b4 Wa6 l 6.We3 l'!c4 l 7 . lli xe4t 1 3 .llixd4 l'!xd4 1 4.ie3 l'!d8 1 5 . lli xe4 l 5 . a4!? is another idea, aiming for queenside play. 1 5 . . . Wxe l 1 6.l'!fxe l t I slightly favour White, who has some prospects on the queenside. Chapter 9 - 1 83 2 tt:J e4 3 .if4 d5 4.e3 . . . 1 0.h3 ih5 1 0 . . . i.xe2 I l .'Wxe2! lll xd4 1 2.'Wxe4;!:; 2 1 .b4! ixb4 22.ih4t rtle8 23.gc?;!; White has a dominant position . D3) 5 ... �c6?! 1 1 .tlixe4 ixe2 1 2.'Wxe2 tlixd4 13.'Wd3 tli c6 1 4.o-o-o Wxd3 I 5J'hd3 tli b4 I 6J�b3 � ds 17.ig3 b6 Although this move is reasonably common, after studying this position I have come to the conclusion that the whole line is really j ust dubious. 6.ixe4 dxe4 7.d5 � b4 1 8.�c3!N This looks to be a strong novelty. 1 8 .�d l �c8 1 9 .@b l 00 Hodgson - Wells, Oxford 1 99 8 . 1 8 ... �xc3 19J�xc3 ic5 20,gdl rtle7 This may be the consistent follow-up to Black's 5 th move, but in practice White has a huge score against it. 7 . . . e5 Black should probably resort to this, but White's chances are still preferable. 8 .i.g3 lll e7 9 . tLl c3 a b c d e f g h 1 84 Richard Pert - Playing the Trom p owsky 9 . . . f6 9 . . . tli g6 1 0 .h4 h5 1 1 . 8 ( 1 1 . tli xe4 is playable: 1 1 . . . f5 1 2. tli g5 f4 1 3 .' 8.c\i) c3 a 8 ... e6 b c d e f g h The alternative allows Black's knight to be driven back to the a6-square: 8 . . . i.f5 9 .a3 tli a6 1 0. tli ge2 g6 1 0 . . . 1Mfb6 was one of my blitz games in which you can see how easily White's play flows: I U�b l 0-0-0 1 2. tli g3 e6 1 3 . tli xf5 exf5 1 4. 0-0 id6 1 5 . tli a4 Wa5 1 6.ixd6 gxd6 1 7.c4 gg6 1 8 . b4 cxb4 1 9 .axb4 lll x b4 20.' players. Again you can see that White has a clear initiative. l 1 . . . f6 1 2.ig3 ' 9.d6 c\i) c6 9 . . . Wa5 1 0. tli ge2 1 0 .' Ivanchuk won a famous game in this line with an alternative approach: 1 0 .lll ge2 f5 ? ! 1 0 . . . e 5 ! ? 1 1 . lll b5 exf4 1 2.lll c7t ®d7 1 3 .Wd5 Wf6 1 4. 0-0-0 ( 1 4. lll xa8 ixd6;!;) 1 4 . . . :gb8 1 5 .Wxe4;!; 1 1 . lll b5 @f7 1 2. lll c7 :gb8 1 3 .g4! Ivanchuk opens up lines against his opponent's king. 1 3 . . . fxg4 1 4 . lll g3 lll b4?! Jobava plays this move for the second time in the game, and neither time is it inspiring. 14 . . . g5 was the critical move, though Ivanchuk was ready with an impressive piece sacrifice: •••·• •Y,m, · ·�"•� :-· . . �.AX 6 %� �i'·f/� :� �� · %� ��-� l•�� 54 ��•.�. . % · %• • • � ft rJj % 3 � 2 ,�. % ,• . . . %�% · · · '� 1 rs{ �1� ·vf· · -111 s 7 . .. .. a b . c d e f g 13 ... gxf6 14.Wfh5t @g7 1 5.dxcSW gxc8 16.J.h6t @gs 1 7.0-0-0± The black king is a target for White's ongoing attack. D4) 5 ... tll f6 h 1 5 . lll xe4 gxf4 1 6.Wxg4 ixd6 1 7.Wh 5 t ®e7 1 8 . 0-0-0 Wxc7 1 9 .Wg5 t ®f8 20.Wf6t and White wins. 1 5 .a3 lll d5 1 6. lll xe4 lll x f4 1 7.exf4 �g8 1 8 .Wxg4+Ivanchuk - Jobava, Havana 200 5 . 1 0 ... 6 1 0 . . . e 5 ? 1 1 .ig5 Wa5t 1 2.c3 ie6 1 3 . lll f3 f6 1 4.ixf6! gxf6 1 5 .lll x f6t @f7 1 6. lt:\ e4 (or 1 6. lll xh7+-) 1 6 . . . h6 1 7.lll h4 ig7 1 8 .Wh5t+ Stohl - Kreisl, Austria 2008. 1 1 .J.g5 Wb6?! Black should have considered 1 1 . . .Wa5t 1 2 . lt:\ c3 Wb6! with some counterplay, though White's chances are still preferable. So we move on to the main move, which has been the recent choice of GMs Boris Avrukh, Mark Hebden and Pete Wells. Trompowsky expert Wells played this line against me in 20 1 2; as you shall see below I got an advantage 1 86 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky against him, but let him off with too easy a draw when I should have made him work a bit more for it. Boris Avrukh improved on Wells' play in his excellent Grandmaster Repertoire 11, and whilst his analysis is hard to break, I disagree with the final evaluation he has given in the main line - I believe that White's chances look slightly preferable. 6 . . . ig4 is best met by 7 .c3 when Black can transpose to the main line by 7 . . . tlJ c6 . If Black instead tries to be creative and take advantage of White's unusual move order with 7 . . . 'Wb6 then he can find himself in trouble: 8 . dxc5 ! 'Wxb2 9 .°Wb3!;!; 'Wxa l ? ? 1 0 .'Wxb7 e5 l l . tlJxe5 ie7 1 2 . tlJ xg4 tlJxg4 1 3 .ib 5 t 'it>f8 1 4 .'Wc8t with mate to follow. We shall take a quick look at the rare D4 1 ) 6.�f3!? before concentrating on m y main recommendation of D42) 6.c3. 6 . . . tlJ c6 7.h3 e6 This passive approach is not uncommon and so having a look how this game proceeds could be beneficial . 7 . . . 'Wb6 8.b3 transposes to our main line. 8 . 0-0 id6 6.dxc5?! has been reasonably popular, bur it looks dubious to me as White gives up his centre and makes his d3-bishop look awkward. Ir may be an interesting option against an unprepared opponent, but I think I will save this one for another time! D41 ) 6.�f3!? 6 . . . cxd4 7.exd4 ig4 8 . c3 ixf3 9 .°Wxf3 � c6 1 0 .g4 e6 l l .g5 tlJ d7 1 2.h4 ie7 1 3 . tlJ d2 tlJ b6 1 4.0-0-0 id6 1 5 .'it>b l ixf4 1 6.'Wxf4 and White was clearly better in Zhang Pengxiang - Li Haoyu, Hefei 20 1 0 . 9 . dxc5 ! A n important idea t o remember. 9 . . . ixc5 1 0 . tlJ bd2 tlJ b4 l 1 .ie2 0-0 1 2.a3 tlJ c6 1 3 .c4 a5 1 4.�c l 'We7 1 5 .cxd5 exd5 1 6. tlJ b3 It's amazing how quickly Black can come under pressure in this line. 1 6 . . . ib6 1 7. tlJ bd4 id7 1 8 . tlJ b 5 Ir is clear that White holds the advantage here and can have a risk-free attempt at exploiting Black's weaknesses. 1 8 . . . �fc8 1 9 . tlJ d6 �cb8 20.tlJb5 �c8 2 1 .id6 'We8 22 .ic5 ixc5 23.�xc5 'We7 24.�c l ie6 2 5 .'Wa4 tlJ e4 26.tlJ bd4 id7 27.�fd l h 6 28 .°Wb3 ie6 29 .°Wb6 �ab8 30 .id3 tlJ f6 3 l .�c3 tlJ xd4 32 .'Wxd4 �xc3 33.'Wxc3 b6 34.'Wc6 'Wd8 3 5 . tlJ d4 id7 36.'Wd6 'Wf8 43 . i.xg6! . 1 -0 R. per t - Britton, Sheffield 20 1 1 . IO.t/:)c3! N This is more am bitious than 1 0 . c300 Torre . Duini, 01 0 ngapo C1ty 20 1 0 . � e1 � 4 VNa5 1 3 .!::!. 1 0 ... c:xd4 1 1 .exd4 i.g7 12."Lla 0-0 14.c3 gac8 1 � . g c 1 ± • White may con tmue wit -: h lt::i c5 and b3-b4. D42) 6.c3 '*� a . • xg 5 lt::i e4 1 0 .i.f4 8 . . . g 5 .1 �. 1s a c I ever idea: 9 . i. J":\ ( I O . liJ bd2 "l..J C 3 � ) 1 0 . . . .::. i:oi g 8 1 1 .g3 cxd4 1 2 � fil 2!;!; ° ' 1 1 . . . i.g7 1 2 . C3 i.f5 (I I 14 . ll.xe4� ) I o 4 %\' b4t 1 3 . c3 1 3. ; fl t Wo h lt::i xc3 1 4 . � xc3 %\' xc3t 8 ... g6 iii :'.'.i id; ;; m . : reac h ed an interes ting posmon who « Whire �� " z 1 88 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky 1 3. . .e5!? 6 ... tli c6 Returning the pawn seems t o be the way to Black has also tried: go. 6 . . . Wlb6 This is quite rare, but it looks interesting to hit the b2-pawn when �b 1 is not an option. 1 3 . . . ig4 ? ! 1 4 . f3 id? 1 5 .a6 b6 1 6 . it:) xc6 ixc6 1 7 . it:) d4 id? 1 8 . it:) b 5 gives White an overwhelming amount of play! 1 4 . it:) xc6 bxc6 1 5 .ixe5 .id6 1 6 .ixd6 Wxd6 1 7 .h3 0-0 1 8 . 0-0 c5 1 9 . c4 White keeps a slight initiative . 7.tlid2 a ? . it:) d2!?N b c d e f g h An interesting sacrifice. 7.Wi'c l and 7.b3 are both possible, with normal development to follow. 7.Wi'b3 c4 8 . Wi'xb6 axb6 9 . .ic2 is very similar to a position from the London system with White having a tiny advantage, but it's a nothing to shout about. 7 . . . Wxb2 7 . . . c4 8 . .ic2 Wi'xb2 9 . it:) e2 Wb6 1 0 . 0-0-t and e3-e4 will give White excellent play. 8 . it:) e2 it:) c6 9 . a4 Wi'b6 Black evacuates his queen before White starts targeting it. I O . dxc5 Wxc5 1 3 . it:) ed4 I l . it:) b3 Wb6 1 2 .a5 Wd8 White's lead in development offers good compensation. 7 . ig4 b c d e f g h .. 7 . . . e6 seems too passive and White has a good chance to get an advantage: 8 . it:) gf3 ie7 (8 . . . id6 9 . dxc5± is similar to Pert - Britton given in the note to Black's 6th move in line 04 1 ) 9.h3 Wb6 1 0 .Wc2 id? 1 1 . 0-0 �c8 I 2.a3 0-0 I 3 . dxc5 Wi'xc5 I 4.b4 Wi'b6 I 5 . c4 a6 1 6 .�ac l Wi'a7 1 7.Wb a White had a pleasant edge in Laznicka - Werle, Germany 2008. 7 . . . g6 8 . it:) gf3 ig7 9 . h 3 0-0 1 0 . 0-0 it:) d? 1 l .ib5 a6 1 2 .ixc6 bxc6 1 3 . b4 c4 1 4. e4± Anastasian - Ghaem Maghami, Stepanakert 2004. 7 . . . Wlb6 With this move order White can defend the b-pawn naturally. 8 . l:'!: b l Sacrificing the pawn with 8 . lLi e2!?N interesting and now: is 9.0-0 a) 8 . . . Wxb2 transposes into the previous note on 6 . . . Wb6. b) 8 . . . ig4 9 . dxc5 Wxc5 1 0 . b4 ixe2 l l .°Wb3! Wb6 l 2.ixe2;!; c) 8 . . . g6 9 . 0-0 ig7 1 0 . dxc5 Wxc5 l l . b4 Wb6 1 2 . b 5 lLi d 8 1 3 .ie5 lLi e6 1 4 . lLi b3;!; d) 8 . . . c4 9 .ic2 Wxb2 1 0 . a4 e6 1 1 . 0-0 Wb6 1 2 . e4 ie7 1 3 .l:'!:b 1 Wd8 l 4 . lLi g3 0-0 l 5 . e5 lLi d7 1 6 .Wf3t and White's compensation is obvious. 8 . . . ig4 9 . lLi gf3 e6 1 0 .h3 ih5 1 1 . 0-0 cxd4 1 1 . . .ie? 1 2 . dxc5 ! Wxc5 1 3 . b4 Wb6 1 4 . c4;!; 1 2 .cxd4 ie7 1 3 . b4 0-0 1 4 . a3;!; White holds an edge with more space on the queenside, Cao Sang - Gupta, Kuala Lumpur 20 1 0 . 8.�gf3 e6 It seems a bit premature for Black to exchange pawns: 9 . . . ie7 This looks natural and was the choice of Pete Wells against me in 20 1 2 . 1 0 .h3 It is a tricky debate as to whether White 8 . . . cxd4 9 . exd4 e6 1 0 .°Wb3 should insert this move or not, but it 1 0 .Wa4 lLi d7 1 1 . 0-0 ie7 1 2 .h3;!; probably leads co much the same thing. 1 0 .°Wb3 Wc8 l l . dxc5 lLi d7 1 2 .id6 lLi xc5 1 3 .ixc5 ixc5 8 :::., ��'�!�--�r). • r• & • . . �� ;� ·�� ... . .7.� 5 � �-� r� � �� ,� 4 �� r� ��r� �� 3 �JJ8l!J��·w·� 2 f:j f�.� � f:j f� 16 .�7. • • a 1 0 . . . Wb6 b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . Wc8 l 1 . lLi e5;!; 10 ... lLiaS? l l .°Wb5t lLi d7 1 2 . b4 and White wins the b7-pawn. 1 0 . . . id6 l 1 .°Wxb7 0-0 1 2 .ig3;!; l 1 . h3 ih5 1 4 . lLi e5;!; 1 2 .Wxb6 axb6 1 3 .ib5 lLi d7 1 � . . D . a 1 4 . c4!N � 7. b � c Black ·�� '· · · · · · d �, e has f L.� g problems ···· h handling this move and White already has a plus. ( 1 4.l:'!:ac l ?00 Le Quang - Pruijssers, Gaziantep 2008, missed this opportunity) 1 4 . . . dxc4 ?! 1 5 .Wxc4 ixf3 1 6 .Wxc5 'Wd7 1 90 Richard Pert - Playing the Trom p owsky ( 1 6 . . . id5 1 7 . e4+-) 1 7 . tll xf3 Wxd3 1 8 .gfd l and Black i s i n serious trouble. 1 0 . . . ihS 1 1 .Wb3 Wc8 1 2 . dxcS ! lll d7 1 2 . . . ixcS is again met by the simple 1 3 . c4 dxc4 1 4 .Wxc4;!; ·� .i·¥'ii'� ��·J�····· � � � , �. 7 :� • ·•• • t� .t. � ;� ·�r� � w- �� 5 ·W.�;'�•..t. . . . .. z� �� 4 .z� � 8 6 '- · · · ' · � l � 1 �· · · , � ·0�� t · · · '· .. · · · · ·· -. .: · · · · '�. ..... a � . · b c d f e g h a l ) I 1 . . . exf2t 1 2 .gxf2 Wc8 1 3 .ia6+- a2) I l . . .gc8 1 2 . fxe3± with ia6 to come. a3) 1 1 . . . eS 1 2 .ixeS exf2t 1 3 .gxf2 id7 a4) I 1 . . .Wc8 1 2 .Wxc8 t gxc8 1 3 . fxe3 ie7 1 4 .ia6 gd8 1 5 .ib5 gc8 1 6 . tll e5 g5 1 7 .ig3+- �� "� 3a � n�'. zW�B 8 · '� � ff f.'% . . · · · 2 0 �� /�..J:. �O'l. 0 � a) I O . . . dxe3 ?! I 1 .Wxb7 and now: 1 4 .ixf6+- · ·· · · ' 0 cannot afford to let White take the b7-pawn : . 1 3 .id6 ixd6 1 4 . cxd6 tll c5 1 5 .WbS tll xd3 1 6 .Wxd3 Wd7 1 7. c4 Wxd6 1 8 . cxdS Wxd 5 1 9 .WxdS exd5 20.gac l ;!; Yi-Yi R . Pert - Wells, Daventry 20 1 1 . Really I should be playing on this position. b) I O . . . dxc3 I 1 .Wxb7 Wc8 1 2 .Wxc8t gxc8 1 3 . bxc3 ia3 ( 1 3 . . . tll aS 1 4 .ib S t±) 1 4 .ia6± c) I O . . . Wc8 I l . cxd4;!; White will continue with gac l , building up serious pressure on Black's queenside. 1 0.'?;Va4 tll d7N 1 1 .tll e5 tl:Jdxe5 1 2.ixe5 '?;Vd7 1 3.ig3 ih5 1 3 . . . c4 1 4 .ic2 ie7 1 5 . b3 cxb3 1 6 .axb3 gives White good pressure down the a-file: 16 . . . 0-0 I 7 . b4 b6 So that b4-b5 can be met by . . . tll a5 . ( I 7 . . . a6 1 8 . b S axb 5 1 9 .WxbS looks 9 . . .id6 I O .%Vb3!N;!; looks difficult for Black promising for White, with ongoing queenside White a pawn up) I 1 .Wxb7 and White wins Wxd6 2 1 .gfc l gc7 22.ibS gfc8 23.ixc6;!; to meet: I O . . . ixf4 ( 1 O . . . gb8 1 1 . dxcS leaves a pawn . pressure) I 8 . h 3 ih5 I 9 .id3 id6 20 .ixd6 9 . . . cxd4 s .i � B•�� ·-·· t � . %... �� ;� ••. . . �� ',.... . :� � 5 . �� ·0 ��.% �� 4 �� • � ..t.� 3 ��·ef��n �� · · · ,.,,,;,(- · · · �r0 ��·� 7 6 2 1 - - - · · ·, · r � · ':-?� : A ii"� O r.0% ··· · ' � · 'ii"� A �!"0 r.Oz O � ··.. -. m � �v•1� .j � J . a b c d , e f � g h I O .Wb3 !!N This powerful novelty is given in Avrukh's book, though I was already aware of the idea. The following lines show that Black Avrukh gives this position as unclear, but I marginally prefer White. 14.gfern Chap ter 9 - 191 2 . . . ttJ e4 3 .i.f4 d5 4.e3 This multipurpose move seems like a good starting point. Either Black is going to open up the e-file for our rook by taking on d4 1 4 i.e7 ... 1 4 . . . cxd4 looks a solid option: 1 5 . exd4 id6 1 6.ixd6 ( 1 6 . tll b3 is also possible, for example: when we shall recapture with the e-pawn , or 1 6 . . . ixg3 l 7 . hxg3 b6 1 8 .Wa3i) 1 6 . . . Wxd6 break at some point in the future to unleash who has the more active pieces and perhaps alternatively we shall aim to play an e3-e4 this rook. 1 4 . dxc5 ! ? Clarifying 1 7 .l:!e3 0-0 1 8 .l:!ae l ;!; I slightly prefer White, some prospects of an attack on his opponent's king. the centre immediately thereby cutting down Black's options. and 1 4 . . . ixc5 14 . . . c4 1 5 .ic2 ie7 1 6. e4 ! ? Th i s opens u p the e-file for o u r rook, though in this position it has the downside of giving Black the option of .. . f5 at a later stage to harass our g3-bishop. The otherwise desirable 1 6.b3 runs into a tactic: 1 6 . . . cxb3 l 7.axb3 tll b4! and Black is doing well . 1 6 . . . 0-0 1 7. exd5 l 7.b3 cxb3 l 8 . axb3 f5 leads to the same thing. 1 7 . . . exdS 1 8 . b3 cxb3 1 9 . axb3 f5 20 . f3 It is also possible to play: 20.f4 a6! (20 . . . l:!fe8 2 1 . tll fl ;!; favours White, who can attack the 1 5 .Wh4 1 5 . tll b3 ! ? 1 5 . . . ib6 weak pawns on a7, d5 and f5) also looks ( 1 5 . . . ie7 quite 1 6 . f3 interesting: 0-0 1 7 .l:!ad l Intending e3-e4. 1 7 . . . fS 1 8 . c4;!;) 1 6 .Wa3 White's idea is to stop Black from castling. 1 6 .. . f6 1 7 .l:!ae l t 1 5 . . . g6 This makes the bishop on h5 look a bit funny, but the alternative is hardly appealing. 1 5 . . .ig6 1 6 .ixg6 fXg6 1 7 . tll f3 0-0 1 8 . e4;!; definitely looks better for White, who will continue with l:!ad l and Wg4 to pressure Black's weak central pawns . 1 6 . tll b3 ie7 1 6 . . . ib6 1 7 .if4;!; l 7.Wa4 0-0 l 8 . f3 8 u.U. .i ,_ . Y.., � ��·� •• 6 '• "• .;. , . '..7: �� r 5 .��.,.r ��·� ��·� �� 7 . ... .... 4 !•�.J��% � 3 � 8 lf� � � 2 �-J: W@•�= .8��· · " . . .� m �.� . � a b c d e f g h Black is aiming for a quick . . . b 5 -b4. We have the possibilities: a) 2 1 . tll fl ? b5 22.Wa2 b4+ With the black bishop shut out on h 5 , I b) 2 1 .id l leads to an in teresting position with chances for both sides: 2 l . . . b5 22 .Wxa6 1 8 . . . a6 1 9 .l:!ad l l:!fd8 2 0 . e4 d4 2 1 .ib l e5 26. tll f3 l:!a8 27.Wb6 l:!fb8 28 .Wc5 tll xb3 slightly prefer White. 22 .if2;!; ixd l 23.l:!axd l b4 24 . c4 tll xd4 2 5 .if2 if6 29 .We3 ic3 3 0 . l:!xd500 1 92 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky c) 2 I .!d3 b5 22 .Wxa6 b4 2 3 . c4 lll xd4 results in a complex position with balanced chances . 20 . . . a6 Again I like this idea for Black, keeping a quick . . . b5 -b4 on the cards. 2 1 .id3 f4 2 1 . . . b S 22.Wxa6 b4 2 3 . c4 lll xd4 24.cxdS;!; seems slightly better for White, who benefits from having his pawn on f3 rather than f4 . 1 6 . . . !e7 l 7 . e4 ( I 7.f3 also looks interesting: 1 7 . . . 0-0 1 8 .�ad l;!;) 1 7 . . . 0-0 1 8 . exdS Wxd5 1 9 .ie4;!; 1 6 . . . !d6 is similarly met by: 1 7 . e4;!; 17.�h4!? White swings his queen over to advantage of the tempo on the h5 -bishop. take 22 .!£2 �f6 2 3 . b4 !g6 24 .!fa 17 ... !g6 break with b4-b5 at some point. bit awkward after I 8 .!f4 . White threatens White has a tiny pull and may be able to m�.1 � wm �� % � % � 7 /�_, · �� · -"if� · ,s 6 ·ef" "'Y. � % ....% ��,-.!��, �� 43 1�%/.�.JwPw0 �w� �%!J8l/. .J�% 5 0 . � -----% '!» % 2 �:ef--. . � ... �:ef . %� . . 1 A W� 0 iO� � % ,, , . . Y. a 1 5.dxc5! b �/� m J: c Wf\'� A W� iU� 0 z-O� -- . ------ d e /, , , , , f ;-; -� .. % g . . . .% h Releasing the tension in the middle now that Black has spent a move with his bishop. This makes way for a future e3-e4 from White. 1 5 ...i.xc5 1 6.lll b3 The immediate 1 6 .Wh4 ! ? also looks strong: 1 6 . . . g6 ( 1 6 . . . !g6 again leads to a clear advantage for White: 1 7 .ixg6 fxg6 1 8 . lll f3;!; with �ad l , e3-e4 and Wg4 to come, pressuring In this particular variation I 7 . . . g6 looks a g2-g4 and so 1 8 .. . fS may be necessary, but then White clearly holds the advantage. 1 8.J.xg6 fxg6 1 9.lll d4 My preference is to bring the knight across to the kingside, though the immediate I 9 . e4 is also possible: 1 9 . . . 0-0 20 . �ad l t 1 9 ... 0-0 20.�g4 �ke8 2 1 .lll f3 White's knight is very well placed on this square, providing additional cover to the f2- pawn and hitting the important e5 -square. 2 1 . ..J.c7 22.e4! I prefer White, who has good central pressure with �ad l to come. Conclusion: 2 . . . ll:\ e4 3 .!f4 d5 is a solid option for Black, but I have endeavoured to show that 4.e3, intending to follow up with id3 and at the right time !xe4, offers Wh ite an edge against various Black options. The critical battleground occurs in line 04 after 4 . . . c5 Avrukh was the majority of what Avrukh says, my maj or 1 6 ... !b6 the position after 1 3 . . . ihS on page 1 9 0 - I his bishop actively placed in anticipation of a chances should be considered preferable in this future e3-e4 push . by which stuck out on h 5 . This looks Black's most ambitious, keeping Black ll:\ f6, recommended This slightly favours White with the bishop for 5 .id3 the centre) 1 7. lll b3 !e7 1 8 .Wa4 0-0 1 9 .f3 in Grandmaster Repertoire 11. While I agree with point of divergence is in the evaluation of hope that I have demonstrated that White's position. Chapter 10 Rare 3rd Moves I .d4 � f6 2.i.g5 � e4 3.i.f4 A) 3 ... g5?! B) 3 d6 C) 3 g6?! D) 3 e6!? E) 3 e5?! ••• .•• ••• .•. 1 95 1 96 1 96 1 97 1 97 1 94 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky 1 .d4 Cll f6 2.i.g5 lti e4 3.i.£4 8 76 5 4 32 1 To make sure chat we have the Trompowsky totally covered we must deal with various odds and ends, and in chis chapter we are a) 3 ... g5?! This provocative move looks misplaced to me and we'll have a look at the correct antidote. It seems to be a common choice of aggressive blitz players, but it doesn't cut it in long play. b) 3 d6 .•• was the choice of Luke McShane against me. I managed to take an advantage out of the opening in that game, as we shall see. c) 3 ... g6?! seems a little strange inviting f2-f3 and e2-e4 with easy play for White; nevertheless it is surprisingly common so we had better take a look. d) 3 e6!? is an interesting idea recommended by Andrew Martin in an article some years •.. ago. Black aims for an early . . . id6 to offer an going to cover Black's rare 3 rd move options. exchange of bishops. lines ranging from the out-of-date to the ridiculously new! e) 3 e5?! Unbelievable - it is amazing that chess has got to a point where we need to look These variations include an assortment of ••. at moves like chis! This pawn sacrifice was recently suggested in an article in New in Chess Yearbook 1 03 . 1 .d4 tll f6 2.i.g5 tll e4 3.i.f4 '=' �� A :\\it/: •W� �� 8 .a. �� .JL �E��W �Bf r� & . %' & �� !"%. %. & �!'�, �rlf"""�r '%, .&. x��-%, 7 J.11 . ""' -� , , ,%� "" ' -� 6 �""' -�� . . .� �-m �m�� -�, , 0,% 41)� 4� � � � 32 �8 �-wfj0 �8 � �8 �-wfj0 �8 �wt!J� m � •ltS �"if=JZm� .. i•x A i•x A i•% A i•x A . .. ?,ii 5 1 ·. ----- · . a /, . , . v. b d c /, e . � • f % g %-. . . . . . 7 . c3 ? ! Perhaps White could try 7 . dxc5 ! ?N , though t o be honest I don't really feel that comfortable White. playing 7 . . . cxd4 8 . cxd4 Wlb6 Although this gives these positions Black good as play, 8 . . . tli c6!N� may be even stronger. 9 . tli c3 ixd4 1 0 .e3 ixc3 t l l . bxc3 f6 1 2 .if4 e5 1 3 .ig3 Wxe3 t 1 4 . tli e2 Wc500 Talbot - Gormally, Leeds (rapid) 20 1 2 . 4 ... £6 5.e3 h5 h So what else can Black do here other than the standard moves 3 . . . c5 and 3 . . . d5 that we have already exam ined? We shall look at A) 3 ... g5?!, B) 3 ... d6, C) 3 ... g6?!, D) 3 ... e6!? and E) 3 ... e5?!. A) 3 ... g5?! Aggressive but too loose. 4.i.e5 The main alternative is the retreat: 4.ic l Palliser gives this move an exclamation mark, and although White may be better, it seems to me that it is far from clear. In this game Danny Gormally, who knows the Trompowsky well , comes up with some interesting counterattacking ideas for Black. 4 . . . ig7! 5 . f3 lll d6 6 .ixg5 c 5 ! 6.i.d3 I think that this relatively rare move is the best way to exploit Black's weakness on the e8-h5 diagonal. I 've included a couple of blitz games of mine due to the lack of "real" games in this line. 6 ... d5 7.f3 fxe5 8.fxe4 exd4 9.exd4 i.g7 9 . . . dxe4 1 0 .ixe4 Wd6 l I . tli c3 a6 1 2 . tli f3 lll c6 1 3 .Wd3 tli b4 1 4 .ig6t+- Antidrome - Abul l 1 48 , Internet 20 1 1 . 1 0.eS!?N! The threat of ig6t gives White a small plus. The more fluid 1 0 . tli c3;l; also sufficed for an edge in Antidrome - baza, Internet a b c d e f g h 20 1 1 . 1 96 Richard Per t - Playing the Trompowsky 5.e3 �xd.2 6.YMxd.2 tD d7 7.�6 e6 8.id3 ixd3 9.'iMxd3 ie7 10.0-0 B) 3 ... d6 White's additional space gives him an advantage. I 've included the rest of the game to show how White's position is easier to play than Black's. Luke McShane's choice against me in an important last-round game in the Politiken Cup. 4.� d2 if5 4 . . . � f6 5 . e4 g6 6 . � gf3 ig7 7 .ic4!? � bd7?! (7 . . . 0-0 8 . 0-0 � bd7 9 .We2 c6 1 0 . h3;!; White has more space) 8 7 � -Ji' J . '�tt� J��J;J: .t. •'Jl)• i� i 6 ···· ·"� ··· ··"·····"lifi"� � � ·····"0 � 54 @�� -�r �� -'····0· ·� . �jJ� �� · 8 �� 3 � � -0 ·· ··"� � �'0 � ,� 2 l �% '"'/, 8 �r� 8 m �r� 8 �rt!f · ·· ·· ·%·v,{'· · ·· "W �-?.� .... . �iim · ·t· ·"r �: a b c d e f g h 8 .ixf7t!? ( 8 . 0-0 0-0 9 . c3;!;) 8 . . . 'iti xf7 9 . � g5t 'iti g8 1 0 . � e6 We8 1 1 . � xc? Wd8 1 2 . � xa8 � f8 1 3 .e5 � d5 1 4 .ig3;!; Richter - Albinus, Berlin 2007. 4 . . . � xd2 5 .Wxd2 � d7 6 . 0-0-0 c5 7.e3 a6 8 . � f3 h6 9 .ig3 We? 1 0 . e4;!; Miladinovic Damljanovic, Vrsac 2007. 36.YMest @h7 37.YMg6t @gs 38.YMest 11z_11z R. Pert - McShane, Copenhagen 2002. C) 3 ... g6?! This doesn't look like a good move to me. White is invited to play f2-f3 and e2-e4, and has the future idea of Wd2 and ih6. I 've included a typical game to show what can happen . 4.6 �f6 5.e4 d6 6.� c3 ig7 7.Wd.2 o-o 8.0-0-0 �bd7 9.ih6 c5 10.d5 a6 1 1 .h4 b5 1 97 Chapter 1 0 - Rare 3 rd Moves 12.i.xg7 ®xg7 13.h5 tlig8 14.g4 �a5 1 5.®bl tlib6 16.e5 tlic4 17.i.xc4 bxc4 18.hxg6 fxg6 19.exd6 exd6 20.�h2 h6 21 .�xd6 �b4 22.�e5t ®h7 23.tlie4 tlif6 24.tlixf6t 1-0 Lin Weiguo - Mai Dongqi, Jinan 200 5 . D) 3 ... e6!? 8 . . . 0-0 8 . . . d5 9 . tt'l f3 0-0 1 0 .id3 b6 1 l . c3 ia6 1 2 .ic2 g5 1 3 . g4 fxg4 1 5 .Wi'xg4 ®h8 1 4 . tt'l xgS tt'l xg5 1 6. fxgS We7 1 7 . tt'l d2 c5 1 8 . 0-0-0;l; Vitiugov - Deszczynski, Warsaw 2008. 9 . tt'l c3 d 6 I remember the article saying that Black should look to play . . . b6 at some point, so let's take a look it here: 9 . . . b6 1 0 .Wd2 ib7 1 1 . 0-0-0 tt'l c6 1 2 . tt'l f3 tt'l e7 1 3 .ie2 a5 1 4 J�hgU with g2-g4 on the cards . 1 0 . tt'l f3 c5 1 1 .dxcS dxe5 1 2 .Wi'xd8 �xd8 1 3 . tt'l xeS tt'l xe5 1 4 .fxeS tt'l c6 l 5.ic4 tli xe5 1 6 .ib3 Wh8 1 7. 0-0 g6 1 8 . tt'l b S t Kamunen - Nevanlinna, Finland 2007. 4 ... tlixd2 5.�xd2 d5 6.e3 i.d6 7.tlif3 0-0 8.i.d3� White's slight lead in development gives him an edge. I remember Andrew Martin recommending this move in an article some years ago. It looks E) 3 ... e5?! an interesting idea, although I slightly prefer White. 4.tli d2!? I find it difficult to pick between this and the more complex: 4 . f3 ! ? id6 Black's idea. 5 .ixd6 tli xd6 6 . e4 f5 7.e5 tlif7 8 . f4 GM Rusev wrote an article about this move in New in Chess Yearbook 1 03 , claiming that it could become one of the future main lines against the Trompowsky. But the truth is that it is rather dubious as Black struggles to prove that he has compensation for the pawn . 1 98 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 4.dxe5 4 .ixe 5 ? ! looks all wrong: 4 . . . lll c6 5 . lll f3 d5 6.h3 lll xe5 7 . dxe5 c6 8 . e3 Wb600 Nuding - I. Schneider, Frankfurt 2 0 1 1 . 4 ... d5 This is Black's idea, trying to grab some space i n the centre. 5 . exd6 ? Wf6! plays into Black's hands . 5 ... We7 7 6 .1�at.tm•�� %ef� �� ff -� & iai,, i•/, . . ,,� ." . . . � �& .. .. ,,�& , . . . , , , , , ;�r • '%" " ' '/. �g� • :%'./, • :<,N 'V.(' ""Y,� � , , , , , ,, , ,, . "'01 0 �� 5 �� £��·� �� .. .. ,Y.� � 43 - -� w-0 �%'"//, �% ,, �% '0 � 8 ID 8 � 8 � 2 %8 r�. %•vm�� ,� � 1 � 1 .. . a 6.tll xe4 b 8 . lll d4 lll xd4 9 . cxd4 (9. lll xe4!? lll e6 1 0 .Wa4t Wd7 1 1 .Wxd?t 'kt>xd7 I 2 . lll g3 lll xf4 I 3 . lll xf5 'kt>e6 I 4 . tli g3 'kt>xe5 1 5 . 0-0-0t) 9 . . . Wb4 1 0 . f3 lll c5 l 1 . e3 lll e6 1 2 . g4 ig6 1 3 .Wb3 h5 1 4 .g5t 8 . lll xe4 The more complicated 8 . h3!? should also secure a plus: 8 . . . ixf3 (8 . . . ih5 9 . lll xe4 dxe4 1 0 . lll g5t) 9 . exf3 (9. gxf3 lll c5 1 0 . lll b3 5.tll d2 s 7 . . . if5 c d ,.,, , , % e f g %-. . . . . . h 6 . lll gf3 ? ! resulted in an advantage for White after: 6 . . . lll c6 ? ! 7 . e3 ig4 8 .ie2 0-0-0 9 . lll d4 id? 1 0 . lll xc6 ixc6 1 1 . c3 g5 1 2 .ig3t I . 0-0-0 l I . lll xc5t) 9 . . . lll xd2 (9 . . . lll c5 1 0 .ib5t) 1 0 .Wxd2 lll xe5 1 1 . 0-0-0 0-0-0 1 2 .We3 lll c6 1 3 .id3t 8 . . . dxe4 9 . lll g5 f6 1 0 . lll xe4 lll xe5 l l . f3 if5 1 2 .Wa4t id? 1 3 .Wb3 0-0-0 1 4 . 0-0-0t White is a pawn up for not a lot. 6 ... dxe4 s 7 .i -..tU•m �� .. . %� .. . . . %� .. .. . %� ,,.,,%� .. . �� *� �� .0 �� 5� �� t�� ·� � •� -� .... ,Y.� • 3 �®" �� ®" �®" 2 "�!l� �*�P,/2,P: �� ii�J.. m : h 6 %. .. . .. . . 4 1 a b c d e f g Schneider - Dausch, Deizisau 20 1 1 . But as 7.c3!N instead lead to a murky position. - White prevents . . . Wb4, at the same time Rusev points out, replying 6 . . . Wb4!00 would 6 . c3 ! ?N This stops Black's queen from swooping to the b4-square, where it would hit the b2- pawn , pin the d2-knight and also attack sideways. 6 . . . lll c6 7. lll gf3 Now Black is struggling to claim full compensation. 7 . . . ig4 Again this important move holds the key preparing to develop his own queen. 7 .Wd4 ?! if5 8 . e3 g5 was unclear in Duckworth - Casella, Los Angeles 20 1 2 . 7 ... tll c6 8.�a4 g5 8 . . .if5 9 . 0-0-0 Wc5 1 0 . e3 ie7 l l .ib5 0-0 1 2 . lll e2 !!ad8 1 3 . lll g3 ig6 1 4 .ie2 lll xe5 1 5 . lll xe4+- Chap ter I 0 - Rare 3rd Moves 9.i.e3 i.£5 1 0.0-0-0 Again White finds himself a pawn up for minimal compensation. 10 ... i.g7 l 1 .g4 i.g6 12.i.g2 1 3.h4 h6 This attempt to shore up the g5-pawn does not really work, so Black would do better to try 1 3 . . . gxh4, although 1 4 . �xh4 followed by tll h3-f4 gives White a comfortable plus. 14.hxg5 hxg5 1 5Jlxh8t i.xhS 16.tLJh3 i.f6 17.i.d4 Black can't hold everything together. 1 7 ...YMe7 1 8.Lf Conclusion: 1 99 It has to be said that some of the lines in this chapter are quite tricky and it is important to be ready for them . But if he is ready, then White's chances are preferable. Chapter 1 1 a b c d e f g Rare 2nd Moves 1 .d4 lLi f6 2 . .ig5 A) 2 b6 B) 2 ... g6 3 ..ixf6 exf6 4.e3 .ig7 5. g3 d6 6 . .ig2 f5 7.lLi e2 0-0 Bl) 8.c4 B2) 8.0-0 C) 2 ... lLi c6 D) 2 ... c6 ••. 203 205 206 206 208 209 h 202 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky 1 .d4 lll f6 2.J.g5 b) 2 ... g6 has totally fallen our of fashion as players are no longer keen to hand White more space and easy development. Black's most dangerous idea involves trying to play an early . . . c 5 , but I have a new idea against that. c) 2 ... t£i c6 goes for a Two Knights Tango approach co the Trompowsky. This move is a speciality of Ipswich player Steve Gregory, but he has had a bit of a hard time in this line, so we'll have a look at some of the ideas his opponents came up with . d) 2 . c6 .. has been played against me on a few occasions - hoping for 3 . e 3 ? ? Wa5 t picking up the g5-bishop. However, it looks a bit slow to me. e) a) 2 .. b6 . This quirky move is the suggestion of GM Nigel Davies, who wrote an article on this line. He backed his belief in this line by playing it against me in 2009, but I think that White stands better here with accurate play. 2 .. d6 . is reasonably common, but does not have much independent significance as Black usually follows up with a quick . . . g6. I .d4 �f6 2.ig5 3 . . . gxf6 does not look right: 4 . e3 e5 5 . lll c3;!; and it's not clear what Black's plan for completing his development should be. 4 . e3 g6 5 .g3 ig7 Play has transposed into line B below. A) 2 b6 ... s %1'�' ' ' ' ' '%1 '�-- - - - %%1''1{'" ' ':>:%1 ''1/' ''''Y. � -.tB•� �� 7 �1�;.:.�1��& �1�. & �1� & � ..... �� ·· � � 6 z A ?.I, , , , , /,z A ?.I, _ , , /,z A :%1 , , , , /, 7. % , , , , ;.: �� 8 � 4 � �� ,�,��· · '�� !n!n � w·!n! .,;.c· · '-,. . ·��Ztt:J· '-� ,,,,��m� � 5 2 . . . d6 This has the idea of playing . . . lll bd7 to support the f6-knight, and so encourages White to make a decision about taking on f6 straight away. 1 ,;z. · · · '- a b c d e f g h When Nigel Davies played this line against me in 2009, having previously endorsed it in an article, I did not choose the critical line and the game fizzled out to a relatively quick draw. H aving now spent more time on the position, I believe that White can cause Black problems. 3.�d2 I like this move. White keeps everything tight and flexible and waits for Black to show his hand. Black's natural set-up involves . . . e6, and White can meet this with e2-e4 and gai n some space. 3 .ixf6 3 . lll c3 is a possibility if you fancy taking on your opponent in a set-up likely to arise from a Philidor, for example 3 . . . lll bd7 4 . e4 e5 5 . lll f3 . Having knowledge of your opponent's openings may help you to decide whether to go along this route. 3 . . . exf6 There is one other important move which I would consider in certain situations: 3 . c4 ! ? I f you believe you have greater knowledge of the Queen's Indian than your opponent, then this is an option, as it is awkward for Black to avoid transposing. 3 . . . ib7 4 . lll c3 204 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky 4 . . . g6 ? ! Here m y opponent didn't feel comfortable transposing into a main line Queen's I ndian 4 e6 is bad. 4 . . . e6 5 . lll f3 would transpose into a main on the other hand it blocks in the b7-bishop and so doesn't really look right in my opinion. and so played an alternative move, but it ..• 4 . . . d5 stops White from playing e2-e4, but line Queen's Indian. 5 . f3 J.g7 6 . e4 d6 7 .J.d3 lll bd7 8 . lll ge2 c5 White can aim for a set-up involving lll e5 R. Pert - Graham, Birmingham 2 0 0 6 . are a couple of examples: 5 . e3 e6 6 .J.b 5 t (the 9.d5t Black's light-squared bishop is doing nothing and . . . b 6 looks like a waste of a move. I went o n to win in 2 8 moves. 3 ....ib7 3 . . . e6 4 . e4 h6 leaves Wh i te with a pleasant choice as both options followed by simple development appear to leave him with an advantage: 5 .J.h4 ( 5 .J.xf6 Wxf6 6 . lll gf3 J.b7 7 .J.d3 Wd8 8 .We2 J.e7 9 . 0-0-0 d6 1 0 .h4 a6 l 1 . lll c4 lll d7 1 2 . lll e3 Lerner - Yudasin, Nikolaev 1 9 8 3 , is given by Palliser as better for White) 5 ... g5 6 .J.g3 d6?! 7 . h4 J.g7? 8 . hxg5 hxg5 9 . �xh8t J.xh8 1 0 .e5 dxe5 l l . dxe5 lll d5 1 2 .Wh5 J.g7 1 3 . lll gf3+- Adhiban - Kaushik, Chennai 2 0 1 1 . Black's play could certainly be improved, but i t still looks good for White. 4.c!Li gf3 followed by f2-f4 and should stand better. Here immediate 6 . lll e5 looks like a decent attempt too : 6 . . . J.e7 7 .J.d3 0-0 8 . 0-0 lll e4 9 .J.f4 f6 1 0 . lll ef3 g5 l l .J.g3 h 5 1 2 .h3 lll xg3 1 3 . fxg3 J.d6 ? ? [ 1 3 . . . We8t] 1 4 . lll xg5 +- Murshed - Ahmed, Dhaka 2003) 6 . . . c6 7 .J.d3 J.e7 8 . lll e5 lll bd7 9 . f4 a6 1 0 . 0-0 c5 l 1 .Wf3 We? 1 2 . c3 h6 1 3 .Wh3 lll e4 1 4 .J.xe4 dxe4 1 5 .J.xe? rtlxe7 1 6 . lll xd? Wxd7 1 7. f5t Madeja - Munizaba, Vrsac 2006. 5.e4 h6 6.J.xf6 °Wxf6 7.J.d3 d6 8.°We2 °Wd8 9.a4 a6 1 0.0-0 J.e7 205 Chapter 1 1 - Rare 2 n d Moves 1 1 .dS! Kengis, Yaroslavl 1 9 82, and even ended up This clever move takes advantage of White's lead in development. losing the game. 1 1 ... exdS 1 6 . . . lll d?? l 7 . lll c4 lll f6 l 8 . lll xd6t ! �xd6 1 9 .'1Wc8 t +- 1 1 . . . lll d??! 1 2 . dxe6 1 4 .\Wh 5 t lff d7 1 5 .ic4;!; fxe6 1 3 . lll d4 lll c5 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 . dxe6 fxe6 1 3 .e5 '1Wd7 1 4 . exd6 cxd6 1 5 .�fe l e5 1 6 . lll c4 '1Wc6 l 7.a5 b5 1 8 . lll b6 �a7 1 9 . c4;!; 1 6 ...Wd7 17.�c4 Wx5 1 8.�x5 The position is very comfortable for White - perhaps even close to winning. B) 2 ... g6 1 2.exdS ixdS 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 .'1We4 (or 1 3 . c4;!;) 1 3 . . . g6 ( 1 3 . . . f5 ? 1 4 .\We6t � h 8 1 5 .ixf5 ic8 1 6 .\Wxc8 +-) l 4. lll d4;!; and White threatens the nasty lll e6!. 1 3J3fel In return for the pawn White has tied the black king to the defence of the e7-bishop, thereby preventing Black from castling. 13 ... cS 14.�h4 �a7 15.Whs ic6 This old-fashioned line used to be popular back in the 1 9 80s when the Trompowsky was in its infancy. It is still used from time to time, often with the idea of striking early in the centre with . . . c5 . However, delaying c2- c4 seems quite an effective antidote to this plan . This pretty much leaves Black with the main line as his only way to play. Let's have a look. 3.ixf6 exf6 4.e3 ig7 S.g3 d6 5 . . . 0-0 6 .ig2 transposition. d6 7 . lll e2 6.ig2 5 7.lLJ e2 0-0 a 1 6.W5!N b c d e f g h This means that . . . lff f8 can be met by lll g6t , a n d . . . 0-0 can be met b y '1Wh7#, leaving the black king stranded in the centre. After playing so well until here, White went wrong with 1 6 . lll c4 � f800 in Vaganian - f5 is j ust a 206 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky Bl) 8.c4 This does have the benefit of delaying castling, which can be useful if Black goes for a direct 12.0-0 id7 13,gab l gcs 1 4.gfdl b6 1 5.b3 a6 1 6.c5 dxc5 17.dxc5 tll bs 1 8.cxb6 YNxb6m I. Sokolov - Spasov, Elenite 1 992. hit on the kingside. However, it allows Black B2) 8.0-0 to play this . . . c5 plan that I have mentioned. I've not gone into great detail here, but will j ust point out some of the pros and cons of playing in this way. 8 ... c5 8 . . . lD d7 9 . lD bc3 lD f6 1 0 .Wd3 �e8 l l . b4 h5 1 2 .b5 i.h6 1 3 . a4 h4 1 4 . lD d 5 lD e4 1 5 . 0-0 Hodgson castles only now chat his opponent has committed to playing . . . lD e4 instead of . . . lD g4, where the knight would attack the h2-square. 1 5 . . . id? 1 6 .a5 c6 l 7 . lD dc3 We? l 8 . a6;l; Hodgson - Howell, London 2000. a b White waits c for d e f g h Black to play . . . lD d7 before playing c2-c4, as then Black won't be in a position to play . . . c5 followed by . . . lD c6 hitting our centre. 8 ... tll d7 Advancing the c-pawn does not achieve much here: 8 . . . c5 9 . c3 ! Black's plan t o undermine o u r centre i s nipped in t h e b u d . We have a free hand to try and expand on the queenside with b2-b4, and have an absolute monster of a bishop on g2 hitting down the diagonal. Black certainly can't say the same about his bishop. I really like White here. 9 . . . lD c6 1 0 . lD d2 id? l l . a3 Wc7 l l . . . a5 1 2 . a4t and Black has lost control of yet more squares. 1 2 . b4 �ad8 1 3 .Wb3 b5 1 4 . lD f4 c4 1 5 .Wb2 1 0.exd4 tll c6 I I .'iNd2 ges l l . . . f4 1 2 . gxf4 Wh4 1 3 .d5 lD e7 1 4 . 0-0 lD f5 ( 1 4 . . . ih3 !�) 1 5 . lD g3 lD h6 1 6 . lD ce4 lD g4 l 7 . h3t I . Sokolov - Har Zvi, Wij k aan Zee 1 99 3 . lD e7 1 6 .a4 a6 1 7 .axb5 axb 5 1 8 .�a5 ± Antidrome - Raspj eRuignek, Internet 20 1 0 . White's advantage is clear, with total control of the board. Chapter 1 1 - 9.c4 tlif6 10.lli bc3 Rare 2nd Moves 207 1 5 . ©g2;!; with l:'l:h l to come. 14 . . . Wg5 1 5 .l:'l:e l Wh6 1 5 . . . Wh5 1 6 . lli f4 Wh2t 1 7 . ©fl i.h6 l 8 .Wf3;1; 1 6 .Wd3 c6 1 7 .b5 l:'l:e8 1 8 .a6 Wh2t 1 9 . ©fl ih6 20 . lt'i g l l:'l:b8 2 1 .l:'l:e2 2 1 .l:'l:a2!;!; looks more natural to me, making use of the second rook. 2 1 . . . cxb5 22 . ll'i xb5 bxa6 23.ll'if3 23 . ll'i xd6 l:'l:xe3 24. l:'l:xe3 ll'i xe3t 2 5 . fxe3 Wxg3 26.llixc8 i.xe3 27.llie?t ©f8 2 8 . l:'l:a2;!; 23 . . . Wh 5 ? 2 3 . . . lt'ixe3t 24 .l:'l:xe3 l:'l:xe3 2 5 . fxe3 Wxg3;!; makes more sense. 24 . lt'i xd6+- Buhmann - Poldauf, Nuremberg 2006. 1 0 . . . l:'l:e8 1 1 .Wd3 1 1 .b4!? h5 1 2 .b5 h4 1 3 .gxh4 ih6 1 4 .llig3 lt'i g4 1 5 . h3 ll'i xf2 1 6 .l:'l:xf2 ixe3 1 7.�f3 ixd4 1 0 . . . h5 This direct move from Black looks scarier than it is. 1 1 . b4 h4 1 2 . a4 hxg3 1 3 .hxg3 lt'i g4 1 8 .l:'l:d l t Ivanisevic - Indj ic, Vrnjacka Banj a 20 1 2 . 1 l . . . h5 l 1 . . . c6 1 2 . b4 transposes to the main line. 1 2 .b4 h4 1 3 .b5 hxg3 1 4 .hxg3 lt'i g4 Play is similar to that after 1 0 . . . h5 above. 1 5 .if3 Wg5 1 6.©g2 1 4.a5 White can get away with ignoring Black's plan, and it seems strong to do so. Bur for those lacking the composure for such an approach, I can suggest 1 4 .i.f3 ! ? as an interesting defensive move to bear in mind. White frees the g2-square for his king so that he can swing his rook to the h-file. 14 . . . Wg5 1 6 . . . a6 It's worth noting that 1 6 . . . lt'i xe3 t ? doesn't work: 1 7 . fxe3 l:'l:xe3 1 8 .Wd2+1 6 . . . Wh6? 1 7.l:'l:h U 1 6 . . . l:'l:b8 is a bit passive but may be Black's best. White secures his kingside with 20 8 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 1 7.!!h l;!; and may then go back to playing on the queenside. 1 7.l:!h l N 1 7 .a4?! axb5 1 8 . lLi xb 5 ? ! We7+ Polaczek - Schweda, Internet 2004 1 7 . . . axb 5 1 8 . cxb5± White has play on both flanks . l l .b4 !!e8 12.�d3 �e7 1 3.b5 tt'l e4 1 4.l:!ab l ie6 1 4 . . . id7 1 5 . bxc6 bxc6 1 6 .!!b7± 1 5.bxc6 bxc6 1 6.tt'lxe4 fxe4 17.ixe4 d5 1 8.cxd5 cxd5 1 9.if3 if5 Black wins the exchange, but White clearly stands better as he picks up a second pawn after which his protected passed d-pawn is a great strength . � m.i.B•- �� 7 if.I/, I. f'ii � .t. f� .t. f.l i � � . . . /,. . -� �� s � � � m . . , ¥,_ �� -��,,,,,/,�@_, � ' 3 :IJ>r :IJ:IJ :110 " � :110 " 2 ,$.D' il1m4P��P ��t2J �li� � w � s 6 %1'0 m%1_&', ... ,/.%1 ,�.. , , , Y,%1,%''''''v. ,,,,, ,, 4 1 b a c d ' �" " "®. '0 .,, f e g h Steve Gregory - who was a clubmate of mine when I was growing up in Ipswich - has a passion for quirky little openings and he has made 2 . . . lLi c6 his choice . That said, he seems to have run into problems in this line on a regular basis, so let's see how his opponents handled this position. 3.tDc3 This seems logical . 3 ... e5 4.d5 tt'l e7 5.d6! tt'lf5 5 . . . cxd6 6.e4 lLi c6 � .1 •AB • • � s ,z 7 efT t� ... . %� �w.-··�"� �,,.,., ,;.]�.,. 6 . . . . %� •'fA) • �� r..•. . z� d'• . . . · 'wr� � '% 5 � � . i.· % . � 4 �� 8� ,;. . , ;,.. ��m'%� �7:� � � 3 - · �w • • � . .... : ��r��rn �� 2 /�J�� .Jl!J�/dft!3% 1 �. � � · � � �:t� 7. � @ 20 .Wd2 ixb l 2 1 .l:!xb l also gave White an edge in Aleksandrov - Janev, Sas van Gent 1 9 92. a 7 . lLi f3!N 20 ...hb l 2 1 .l:!xb l !!ac8 22.ixd5 !!ed8 23.if3 h5 24.tt'l f4;!; C) 2 ... tt'l c6 b c d e (7.ixf6 Wxf6 f g 8 .ic4 h is slightly less accurate, though White still has ample compensation for the pawn : 8 . . . Wg6 9 . lLi f3 ie7 1 0 .'!We2t Trent - Gregory, Torquay 2002) 7 . . .ie7 8 .ixf6 Inflicting further damage on the black pawn structure . 8 . . . gxf6 9 .ic4± Chapter 1 1 - 6.dxc7 'ffxc7 This leads to problems for Black, but 6 . . . 'ff e7 is even worse: 7 . e4 llJ d4 8 . llJ ge2 '!Mfb4 9 .ixf6 209 Rare 2nd Moves 3 . . . exf6 4.c4 (White may also choose 4.e3, when 4 . . . d5 5 . g3 id6 transposes to line B of Chapter 7 on page 1 48) 4 . . . d5 5 . cxd5 Wxd5 gxf6 I O . llJ xd4 exd4 1 1 . a3 '1Mfa5 1 2 .'1Mfxd4 ig7 6 . llJ c3 ib4 7 . e3 ixc3 t 8 . bxc3 0-0 9 .'1Mfb3;!; think about resigning, Coleman - Gregory, 4.e3 d6 5.�c3 'ffb 6 6J�bl ll:i a6 7.a3 � c7 8.'ffh 5 �d5 9.�ge2 i.e6 1 0.�xdS i.xd5 1 1 .�c3 e5 1 3 .Wb4 We5 1 4 . 0-0-0 +- Black could already Hinckley Island 20 1 2 . 7.i.xf6 gxf6 In these structures with . . . d6 and . . . gxf6 you will often see Black aim for . . . e 5 . However, as long as White doesn't exchange this pawn, Black's doubled f-pawns will look weak. 8.�d5 This is sufficient for an advantage, though White has a tempting alternative in: 8 . '1Mf d3!?N 8 . . . llJ d4 (8 ... llJ e7 is no longer possible: 9 . llJ b 5 '!Mfa5 t 1 0 . b4 '1Mfxb4t 1 1 . c3 and llJ d6 t is coming) 9 . e3 llJ c6 1 0 . 0-0-0 ± White has the pleasant choice of llJ d 5 or ttJ b5 to come. 8 ... 'ffc6 9.e4 � e7 10.i.bS;!; Walton - Grego ry, Scarborough 2004. D) 2 ...c6 3.i.xf6 gxf6 Conclusion: There is not too much to trouble White in this chapter. By far the most common of these lines is B) 2 . . . g6, but as I pointed out, by employing an accurate move order in the main line (delaying c2-c4 until Black plays . . . llJ d7) , White should gain an edge. Chapter 12 2.igS against the Dutch l .d4 f5 2.i.g5 A) 2 ... h6 3.i.h4 Al) 3 ... c5?! Al l) 4.e3 Al 2) 4.e4! A2) 3 ... g5 4.e4 A2 1) 4 ... i.g7?! A22) 4 ... �h7!? A22 1) 5.�h5t A222) 5.i.g3!N A23) 4 ... �f6 B) 2 g6 Bl) 3.�d2!? B2) 3.�c3!? B2 1) 3 ... �h6 B22) 3 ... i.g7 4.h4!? h6 5.i.f4 B22 1) 5 ... � f6 B222) 5 ... d6 C) 2 ... � f6?! D) 2 ... d5?! ••. 215 215 215 217 217 218 218 218 220 22 1 222 222 223 223 225 226 227 228 230 212 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 2 ... h6 1 .d4 f5 2.�g5 This critical move aims at trapping our bishop, but it looks decidedly risky for Black, who opens up the e8-h5 diagonal. 2 . . . g6 is Black's most popular move and probably also his strongest. 3 . tll c3 is the line I will focus on. ( 3 . tll d2! ? is another interesting possibiliry, used by my brother on a number of occasions, and I will touch upon this line.) 3 . . .ig7 4.h4!? This aggressive move leads to a promising position for White. a b c d e f g h 2 .ig5 is not only an effective move against 1 . . . tll f6 ; it can also work well against other 2 . . . tll f6 ?! is a common choice for Black but it looks strategically wrong to allow the f-pawns to be doubled: 3 .ixf6 exf6 (3 . . . gxf6? 4 . e4±) 4 . e3 We shall explore how White should go openings. In this chapter we shall see it being about targeting Black's weak f-pawns. once j ust a sideline but is now considered to 2 . . . d5?! and various other rare moves will be to face. I think that White's prospects in this line are excellent despite the relative lack of White repertoire. Wh ite's chances preferable in all of these rare variations. of occasions myself with great results . A good 3.�h4 used against the Dutch Defence, where it was be one of the most dangerous moves for Black theory, and I have used this move on a number investigated so as to provide a comprehensive look friend of mine, Simon Williams, who is well known for his Dutch exploits, now regularly plays 1 . . .e6, looking to transpose into the classical Dutch via a different move order specifically aimed at avoiding this line. There have been three authors of note who have written about this line in the past decade - the first being my twin brother GM Nick Pert several years ago. More recently GM Moskalenko did an excellent pair of articles in New in Chess Yearbooks 94 & 9 5 , and finally GM Schandorff annotated some games in his book Playing l . d4 - The Indian Defences. I have cherry-picked the best bits from these three, then added in my own analysis where 3 ... g5 Hopefully this should leave us with an excellent blitz chess . It aims to move the black queen I believed that improvement was possible. repertoire with this opening, so let's take a look at what might happen. The ultra-aggressive 3 . . . c 5 ? ! is a regular in and free the d8-square for the king, so it can run away from a future Wh 5 t ; then Black can Chap ter 1 2 - 2 . ig5 against the Dutch 213 proceed with . . . g 5 and . . . f4 . To b e honest, this plan sounds better than it is. In reality, moving your king and queen around so early in the game whilst delaying development can hardly be right. I have come up with a couple of recommendations for White which may force Black to have a rethink here. 4.e4! Threatening mate in one. 4 ... �f6 Th e main move. 4 . . . ig7 ? ! is the old main line, but frankly it should be placed on the scrapheap. 5 .ig3 f4 6 .ixf4 gxf4 7.°1Wh 5 t 'i!lf8 8 .Wf5 t Black is already facing difficulties as 8 . . . c;tie8 hoping for a perpetual is well met by 9 .ie2 with ih5 mate on the cards, and 8 . . . tLl f6 9.e5 is also clearly better for White. 4 . . . !l:h7!? This wacky move aims to meet °1Wh5t with . . . sf7. Simon Williams played this move against a former housemate of his, Danny Gormally, in a crucial game in 2006. But being such an enthusiast about the Dutch, Simon had let this idea out the bag before this game, so Danny knew what was coming and went on to win an excellent attacking game. That said, there were ways that Simon could have improved on his play, so we have to take this move seriously and I have had a good look at this line. 5.eS e6 So we see Black's plan . His aim is to meet exf6 with . . . Wxf6 and then go about picking up the h4-bishop. 6.ig3 6 . exf6 is more common: 6 . . . Wxf6 7.ig3 f400 6 ... £4 7 ... fxg3?! This natural-looking response can run into trouble. 8.hxg3 It may appear that Black can keep his extra piece here, but White has a much bigger target i n mind! 8 ... � dS? 9.ig6t @e7 1 0.W6!+Black can only stop Wf7 mate by giving up material . We'll have a look at this line in more detail to see what other ideas Black can try, and how White can counter them. 214 Richard Pert - Playing the Trom p owsky Cordova - Roj as Barrero , Bogota 20 1 2 . 1 .d4 f5 2 . .ig5 2 . . . d6?! I feel that this is asking for it. �:;,;"'•..tr � � i•�A)) � � �r·� s . . %� " .. . %.". . %� �7:. . %� �· � - -� � . � � -�---� 45 �� "� . ..%� � � �� W" ��-� 32 ,�J�-l]" t!J � ��4Jlll�f..t} 1 �. JttJ·V�.t� ,: 7 6 ······ - if· � . · ..3 · -- - - - z '- %' " ' " ' � if. -···· if. , · - � a 3 . e4! fxe4 b c d e f g h 3 . . . ltJ c6 4 . ltJ c3 liJ f6 5 . d 5 ltJ e5 6 . liJ f3 fxe4 7 . ltJ xe5 dxe5 8 .ib5t id7 9 .We2;!; Bareev - Gunnarsson, Gothenburg 200 5 . 2 . . . c5?! 3 . d 5 ! ? 4 . ltJ c3 ltJ f6 Th i s advance looks tempting. 3 . dxc5 is a solid choice: 3 . . . ltJ a6 4 . e4 fxe4 5 . ltJ c3 ltJ xc5 6 .ie3 ltJ e6 7 . ltJ xe4 ltJ f6 8 .id3;!; Miles - Meulders, Amsterdam 1 97 8 . 3 . . . Wb6 4 . . . if5 ? ! 5 . f3 exf3 6 . ltJ xf3 '&d7 7.ic4 c6 8 . 0-0 d 5 ? 9 . ltJ e 5 We6 1 0 . ltJ xd5 cxd5 1 1 .ib 5 t ltJ c6 1 2 .Wf3 0-0-0 1 3 .ixc6 ie4 1 4 .Wxf8 +- Moskalenko - Palatnik, Kiev 1 9 84. 3 . . . h6 4.id2!?;!; 4 . ltJ c3 Wxb2 5 .id2 Wb6 6.1:%b l Wd8 7 . e4! 5.f3 e3 5 ... exf3 6 . ltJ xf3 c6 (6 . . . e6 is the main move acco rding to Schandorff, and he mentions 7.ib 5tN c6 8 .id3 ie7 9 . 0-0 0-0 I O .We a) 7.id3--+ 6 .ixe3 c6 7 . ltJ ge2 Wc7 8 . liJ g3 ltJ bd7 9 .id3;!; The position looks very comfortable for White, Atalik - Bogdan, Romania 1 994. 2 . . . c6 a b c d e f g h 3 . e3 ( 3 . liJ d2 Wb6 4 . liJ b3 with a positional game is the solid choice given by Schandorff) 3 . . . Wb6 4 . ltJ d2 White will have great compensation for the pawn and This compares favourably with the Vaganian shouldn't be scared co sacrifice it. 4 . . . Wxb2 7 . . . e6 8 .id3 g6 9 . exf5 exf5 1 0 . liJ f3 We7t 9 .id3 Wxa2 1 0 . c4! White cuts off the black queen and has a great attack, Vaisser - Narciso Gambit and offers White more than enough compensation for the pawn . l l .ie2 d6 1 2 . 0-0 h6 1 3 .1:%e l Wf7 1 4 .ic4+- 5 .1:%b l Wa3 6 . g4 fxg4 7.Wxg4 ltJ f6 8 .ixf6 gxf6 Dublan, Benasque 1 9 97. Chap ter 1 2 - 2 . ig5 against the Dutch 2 . . . lD c6 3 . e3 g6 4 . llJ d2 ig7 5 . c3 lD f6 6 . h4 d6 Al l) 4.e3 7.Wfb3 a6 8 .id3 e5 9 . h 5 h6?? a b c d e f g 215 h Here both players, and even a subsequent annotator of the game, missed the instantly winning 1 O . hxg6 ! . Perhaps the tension got to my brother as he was playing for a GM norm in this game. Fortunately after 1 O .ixf6?;!; N . Pert - Cherniaev, Hastings 2000, he went on to win the game anyway - well played! A) 2 ... h6 So let's take a look at this critical choice. Black goes straight for the white bishop, with no thought for the safety of his own king. Black is looking to use tricks to try to catch his opponent out and this move is regularly 4 ... Wfb6 s.tlic3 cxd4 6.exd4 g5 A critical option, but it may not be best. 6 . . . Wfe6t!? It seems odd to keep moving the queen, but I believe this move is underrated. 7.ie2 g5 8 . lD f3 gxh4 9 . lD e 5 White undoubtedly has some compensation for the piece, but the position remains very murky and hard to evaluate. seen on the blitz circuit, but I don't think it is entirely sound. The analysis that I give here shows White to be doing very well, and hopefully will really turn the pressure on the Black tricksters . 3.ih4 Black sometimes attacks the centre with but usually he continues chasing the bishop with A2) 3 ... g5 . Al) 3 ... c5?! Al) 3 ... c5?! White has two interesting choices here. I have played Al l ) 4.e3 myself, but I would 4.e4! as being stronger. recommend A12) 9 . . . lD f6 9 . . . d6? 1 0 .ic4 +1 0 . 0-0 h5 1 o . :B:h7!? 1 l .ih 5 t iid8 may make it harder . . 216 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky for White to show that his compensation is sufficient. 1 1 .�e l '&b6 1 2 . ltl dS ltl xd5 1 3 .ixh S t @d8 1 4 . ltl f7t � Gormally - Zeidler, Dyfed 1 99 9 . Although Danny went on to win this game quickly, he told me that he was concerned about his position at some points in the game. Personally 8 . . . gxh4 9.�b l '&a2 1 0 .�b3+- followed by ltl c3 winning the queen . 9.�b l Wxb l 9 . . . Wa2 1 0 . ltl c7t+- 1 0 . ltl c7t @d8 l 1 .'&xb l t 7.Y«hst @ds I would be happy p laying White, but it is a matter of taste. 6 . . . Wxb2! ? This leads to a draw according to Moskalenko, but I am not convinced. 7 . ltl b 5 ! ? Avoiding the repetition which features i n Moskalenko's analysis: 7 . ltl ge2 g5 8 . � b l '&a3 9 .ig3 f4 1 0 .�b3 Wa5 1 1 .�bS Wa3 = 7 . . . g5 7 . . . ltl a6 8 . ltl d6t! 'iti d8 (8 . . . exd6? ? 9 .'&h5t with mate to follow) 9 . ltl f7t (9.�b l ! ? also looks good : 9 . . . '&c3t 1 0 .'&d2;!;) 9 . . . @c7 1 0 . ltl xh8 '&c3 t 1 1 . @e2 g5 1 2 . ltl g6 ig7 1 3 .ig3 t f4 1 4 . ltl xf4;!; 8 7 6 5 3 2 8 . a3!?N I ntending to trap the black queen with �b l b3. a b c d e f This leads to wild complications which favour White. 8 . 0-0-0 ? is not the right move because, to use a poker term, we are already pot-committed. After 8 . . . ltl f6 Black's chances are preferable as he will pick up the dark-squared bishop, Bauer - E. Berg, Internet 2004. 8 ...Y«xb2 9.@d2 Y«xal?! 9 . . . W b 6 is relatively best, b u t simply 1 0 . ltl f3 is most promising for White. 10.'Wf7! Y«xfl This almost looks like a game of Pac-Man, where both sides' queens are going around gobbling up the opposing pieces! This is probably Black's best, accepting that 1 0 . . . hxgS 1 3 .'&d8t he is going to lose his queen and trying to get as much as he can for it. h s.i.xgS! 8 . � b l '&xa2 9 . ltl c7t @d8 was unclear i n Dornieden - Borngaesser, Germany 1 9 84. 8 . . . a6! g 1 1 .'&xf8t @c7 1 2 . ltl b S t @b6 @ a6 1 4 .id3+- Lindberg Agdestein, Kiel 2000. 217 Chapter 1 2 - 2 .ig5 against the Dutch 15.�f4t @xd4 16.%Yc3t 1-0 R. Pert - Pelling, England 2008. A12) 4.e4! 1 3.%Yxc8t @xd5 14.ll\h3!? White can also win with : 1 4 . lll e2! Wfxf2 1 5 .Wic5 t � e6 1 6 .d5 t+- 5.exf5 %Yxb2 6.ll\ d2 %Yxd4 6 . . . ll\ c6 7 .i':� b l Wfxd4 8 . lll gf3 Wfg4 9 .id3 lll b4 Hodgson - White, Monmouth 2004; here 1 0 . lll c4N is given as better for White by Moskalenko, and I would agree. 7.ll\ gf3 %Yc3 8.gbl �c6 9.gb3 �a5 10.i.c4 White had a huge amount of play for the pawn in J. Cobb - Zeidler, Cardiff 1 99 8 . A2) 3 ... g5 4.e4 4.e3 lll f6 5 .ig3 is legal, but hardly in the spirit of the position. Given how positive 4.e4 looks, it would seem a shame not to play it. Black defends against the threatened mate with A21) 4 ... i.g7?!, A22) 4 ... gh7!? 4 ... ll\f6. or A23) 218 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky A22) 4 .. J�h7!? A21) 4 ig7?! .•• So we move on to this wacky recommenda tion of Simon Williams. Black's plan is to meet Wh5t with . . . ;gf7. The move doesn't look 5.ig3 f4 With 5 . . . fxe4 Black gives up trying to win the dark-squared bishop. It doesn't look very threatening to me, for example: 6 . h4 c5 7.ie5 Wa5 t 8 . .!D c3N ( 8 . b4t Boyd - Barber, Adelaide 2004) 8 . . . .!D f6 9 . hxg5 hxg5 1 0 .ixf6! ;gxh 1 l l .ixg7 and White is better. Note that 1 1 . . .:gxg l ? is not possible as White picks up the rook: I 2 .Wh 5 t md8 1 3 .WhBt rti c7 I 4 .Wh2t+- 8 . . . rtfe8 9 .ie2 Once more mate on h5 is threatened. 9 . . . .!D f6 1 0 .e5 d6 1 1 .Wxf4 dxe5 I 2 . dxe5 .!D d 5 I 3 .ih5t md7 1 4 .Wg4t mc6 1 9 97. it is a legitimate attempt from Black. One thing in its favour is the shock factor, but I believe that accurate play leaves White with an advantage. White usually continues with the obvious A22 1) 5.ti'h5t, though worthy alternative. A222) 5.ig3!N A22 1) 5.ti'h5t gf7 6.Lf4 gxf4 7.Whst c.t>m s.Wf5t tll f6 I 5 .Wxg7 +- serious at first sight, but on closer inspection Mah - Siebrecht, Highgate 9.e5 d6 10.ti'xf4 dxe5 1 1 .dxe5 tl'l c6 12.tlif'3 ti'd5 13.exf6 ti'e6t 14.ie2 ixf6 1 5.tl'lc3± White is a pawn up for no compensation, Ward - A. Rasmussen, Copenhagen 2000. is a 219 Chapter 1 2 - 2 .ig5 against the Dutch 6.tll f3 6 .ixg5 is also possible: 6 . . . hxg5 7 . lli f3 lli f6 8 . Wf g6 Alzate - Rodi, B uenos Aires 200 5 , and now 8 . . . e6N 9 . lli xg5 Wfe7 is unclear according to Moskalenko. 6.Wfg6 lli f6 (6 ... lli c6 7.Wfxg8 lli xd4 8 . lli a3;!; Moskalenko) 7.ixg5 hxg5 8.llif3 transposes the line above with 6 .ixg 5 . 6 ... tll f6 7.�g6 tll c6 9 . . . gxh4 9 . . . e6 1 0 .ie2;!; is given by Schandorff. 9 . . . lli xe4 should probably also be met by 1 O .�e2, when White's chances are preferable. 9 . . . lli g4 looks interesting, although 1 0 .�g3 slightly favours White after 1 0 . . . f4 1 0 .�xf4 or 1 0 . . . c6 l 1 . lli d2 . 1 0 . exf6 fxe4 >% � 8 !. �.i.J �·- � 7 7. � 7. 6 7.� � ".� � � ". .... � .... �� 45 � � � � -···· �� 3 ��-x �� .�••. . •7.m-ra 1 , ' ••••• . x ••••• 2 � 1� � I �� , ··:·�tt)- �k-,�-11 a b c l l .�e2N d5 l 2 . c4 d e f g This leads to an advantage h for White according to Schandorff, though the position remains highly murky. His experimental analysis runs: 1 2 . . . Wfd6 1 3 .�h5 �e6 1 4 . cxd5 0-0-0 1 5 . dxe6 �xf6 1 6 .Wfxe4 Wfc5 1 7 . 0-0 Wfxh 5 8 . lli e 5 ! ? This i s recommended b y Schandorff. 8 . . . llixe5 9 . dxe5 l 8 . lli c3 This perhaps favours White, but in my opinion Black is still well in the game. 220 Richard Pert - Playing the Trom p owsky 8 ... fxe4 9.tlJe5 tlJxe5 1 0.dxe5 hxg5 1 1 .exf6 exf6? Black starts to go wrong. l l . . . e6! 1 2 . lll d2 Wxf6 was unclear Kharitonov - Gajewski, Aviles 2003. in Gormally - Williams, Liverpool 2006 . A great attacki ng game from White, and I know that Simon Williams had a hard time dealing with it. A222) 5.ig3!N 12.t2Jc3 ib4? 1 3.0-0-0 ixc3 14.ic4! Great attacking play from White. 5 ... f4 6.ie2 gf7 6 . . @f7 7.ixf4 gxf4 8 . lll h3 � . 1 4 ...!xb2t 1 5.xb2 fie7 1 6.h4 d5 1 7.hd5 fie5t 1 8.c3 !e6 1 9.!xe6 6 . . e6 7.ih 5 t main line) 8 .ixf4 gxf4 9 .Wg4 lll f6 1 0 .Wh4 ig7 l l . e5;!; 7.ih5 22 1 Chapter 1 2 - 2 .ig5 against the Dutch 7 ... e6 7 . . . fxg3 ?! 8 .Wf3 lt:l f6 9 .ixf7t ©xf7 1 0 .e5 gxf2t l 1 .Wxf2 c5 1 2 .exf6t 8.tlif3 tlif6 9.ixflt @xf7 I O.ixf4 gxf4 1 1 .tll c3 ib4 12.�d2;t This is given by Moskalenko as better for White, and I agree. A23) 4 ... tli f6 This has now replaced 4 . . . ig7?! as the main line. a 8 . exf6 b d c e f g h 8 .ig6t!? gave me a quick victory in a blitz 5.eS e6 6.ig3 f4 game: 8 . . . keeping the queen free to take on f6: 9 .ixf4 gxf4 1 0 . lt:l h 3 � ) 9 . exf6t 1 2 . fxg3 1 3 . 0-0 �f8 1 4 . lt:l c3 lt:l d7 1 5 .if7 1 -0 Antidrome - gsvc, Internet 20 1 2 . 8 . . . Wxf6 9.Wh 5 t Displacing the black king gives White an edge. 9 . . . 1 3 . hxg5 gxf2t 1 4 . 1 6 . �ae l hxg5 1 7.Wxh8 t ixh8 1 8 . �xh8 t ± Hoang Thanh Trang - Bellin, Budapest 200 5 . 8.exf6 I have also tried out: 8 . lt:l c3 ! ? fxg3 8 . . . lt:l c6 9 . lt:l ge2 fxg3 1 0 . hxg3± Antidrome 7 .. � g8 J 7 . . . fxg3 ?! 8 . hxg3 lt:l d 5 ? (after 8 . . . �g8 White can choose between 9 . lt:l c3 ! ?t transposing to the following note, or 9 . exf6t with a lead in development and a safer king) 9 .ig6t 1 0 .Wf3!+- with mate threatened on 7 . . . ig7 8 .ixf4 gxf4 9 . exf6 Wxf6 1 0 .Wh5tt 7 . . . d5 fcorodent, Internet 2007. 9 . hxg3 d6 9 . . . lt:l d5 tries to save the knight, but i t's not going to be fun for Black: 1 o .Wh 5 t 1 3 .Wxh6+-) exd5 1 2 .ih7 ig7 ( 1 2 . . . �g7 1 3 . lt:l f3 (or 1 3 .ixg8 Wxg8 1 4 .Wg6t) 1 3 . . . �f8 ( 1 3 . . . �h8 1 4 . lt:l xg5 � ) 1 4 . lt:l xg5 d6 1 5 .Wg6± 1 0 . exf6 Wxf6 1 1 . lt:l e4± Antidrome - Raspj eRuignek, Internet 200 8 . 8 ...�xf6 Richard Pert _ Playing the Trompowsky 222 This has been heavily investigated by my brother Nick, who sent me some analysis on it. The following should give you a flavour of _ the line; I shall leave you to decide if you wish to investigate it further. 3 ...i.g7 4.e3 til f6?! The standard move, but my personal opinion is that it is too early. Perhaps 4 . . . d6 should be played first, when 5 . f4 ! ? lll f6 6 . .id3 c6 7. lll gf3 was j ust slightly in Whi te's favour in Andersson - Yusupov, Ubeda 1 997. 4 ... lll h6 5 . .ixh6! ? This seems logical, since the knight would be well-placed on the f7�square. 5 . . . .ixh6 6 . h4 Black is close to equality, but White's position looks easier to play, Gormally Rendle, West Bromwich 2004. 10.�f3 fxg3 1 1 .hxg3� _ 5.h4!? B) 2 g6 ••• s 7 5 . c3 is the solid alternative. �� A ml1 • �� · �'S'� i. :mt i %m�u-� ....w� wi/·a- ·'w.W·a��-,,,,�• ."&Y. . �- - �-� - i-� �� ., /,,,, , /,� ·� �� "�� 5 ��-" • �o� .�"". � � � "'"" � � 3 ��8 ' ��m8 �P � �cj Wc'W 8 ��2 �""ifr.;: �� \WJ. 6 '"" "'" ' 4 - 1 � �r.:f� �l'.2.Jq '§' �diib �. � ,,�, b d f g h c e a b c d e f g h It is important to be ready for this move, because it is Black's most common choice. We s ... h6?! turning to my main recommendation of mistake being made against him twice within shall take a quick look at B l ) 3.tll d2!? 3.�c3!?. Bl) 3.�d2!? before B2) Nick couldn't believe his eyes, the same a fortnight. 6.i.xf6 i.xf6 7.i.d3 d6 The earlier game continued: 223 Chapter 1 2 - 2 .ig5 against the Dutch 7 . . . d5 8 . g4 e6 9 . lLi e2 lLi d??! I believe . . . lLi c6-e7 is the most solid defence, though of course White anyway. 1 0 .gxf5 1 0.h5 e5! l l . gxf5 c6 1 3 .ia4 fxg400) stands ( l l . hxg6 e4 better 1 2 .ib 5 l I . . . e4 1 2 .ixe4 dxe4 1 3 .hxg6 Vfie? 1 4 . lLi g3 b6;!; 1 0 . . . gxf5 1 0 . . . exf5 ? 1 1 . h 5 + l I . lLi f4 lLi f8 3. . .d5?! Th i s looks a bit suspect, leaving t h e e5 -square vulnerable. Schandorff covers this well in Playing J . d4 - The Indian Defences, and we shall follow a game that he annotated. 4.Vfid2 ig7 5 . f3 c6 5 . . . ltJ c6 6.e3 a6 7. 0-0-0 h6 8 .if4 lLi f6 9 . h3 ie6 I O . g4;!; Shishkin - Lannaioli, email 2006. 5 . . . lLi f6 6 . lLi h3 ie6 7. 0-0-0 lLi bd7 8 .ih6 0-0 9.ixg7 rilxg7 1 0 . lLi f4 if7 I 1 . h4;!; Kempinski - Krasenkow, Warsaw 1 9 97. 6 . 0-0-0 h6 7 .if4 ltJ f6 1 2 . c4! After 1 2 .Vfih 5 t rile? Black would soon kick the white queen away with . . . Vfie8 or . . . id7- e8. l I . . . @f7 8.g4 e6 9.�e2 fle7 9 . . . ixh4 I O . ltJ f4 ggs ( l O . . . @f7 l I . gxf5 exf5 1 2 .ic4t i;t>g? 1 3 .gg l ig5 1 4 . lLi xg6!! i;t>xg6 l 5 .Vfih 5 t ! rilxh5 I 6 .if7t @ h4 I 7 . liJ f3 t rilh3 1 8 .gg3#) I 1 . lLi g2 ig5 1 2 . f4 ie7 1 3 .gxh6;!; 1 0.�f4;t N. Pert - G. Buckley, Coulsdon 2003. Black now has an interesting option in although the natural I I . . . ltJ b6 I 2 . lLi f4 @ f7 I 3 .h5 g5 1 4 . lLi g6 ges I 5 . lLi e5 t +- Schandorff. 1 2 . lLi f2 ges 1 3 . g4! e5 1 4 . gxf5 gxf5 1 5 .ih3 exd4 1 6 . exd4 liJ b6 1 7 . lLi d3 ± With lLi e 5 t t o come, White's advantage i s obvious, Douglas - Krzyzanowski, email 2 0 0 9 . B2 1 ) 3 ... tli h6 This move is a favourite of IM Gavin Wall; B2) 3.� c3!? is the main line. Preventing Black from expanding with . . . g 5 . 8 . . . liJ bd7 9 . e3 b 5 I O . liJ h 3 a5 I 1 .ih2 Intending lLi f4 . 1 2 . . . c 6 1 3 .gc l ;!; N . Pert - Koch, France 2003 . 3 . . . �h6, 8 . h4! B2 1 ) B22) 3 . . .ig7 he has scored well with this line, but it hasn't really caught on. I got the chance to play him earlier this year and thought I would test the line. Let's see what happened. 224 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 1 2 . c4 e6 1 3 .Wd2 lll f6 1 4 .ih6;!; Arkell - Talsma, Hastings 2009. 4 lbf7 5 ..if4 .ig7 •.. 5 . . . c6 6 . lll f3 Wb6 7.�b l ig7 8 . e3 d6 9 .ic4 d5 1 0 .ib3 lll d7 l 1 . h5;!; Gordon - Narciso Dublan, Oslo 20 1 2 . 6.e3 d6 7.tLl f3 s 1 4.h4!? This is relatively untested, but it looks better for White. 4 . e4!? This is more common, and may also offer Whi te chances for an edge. 4 . . . lll f7 5 .ie3 fxe4 6 . lll xe4 6 5 4 3 2 �� .i -..tB•��r�----r� • r� r�� • � , . , , ,/'.., , . , , /'.� -,�/'. , . , . /'.�� 0 �� -� • r� m rtJ %1 -�------�r�,----/'.��Jr · w -��- - - /'.nttS•- - - % !ft'8• 'nf. �gt - - %��I=�� 1t 1 �-- � a 7 ... tli c6 b c d LJ e f g h Black would like to fight for the centre with . . . e 5 , but it can be difficult to get this move in. It doesn't work here: 7 . . . e 5 ? 8 . dxe5 dxe5 9.Wxd8t �xd8 1 0 .igS t ! lll xg5 1 1 . lll xgS and Black can't hold everything since l l . . . �e8 ? loses to 1 2 . lll d S . a b c d e f g h 8 ..ic4 h6 6 . . . d5 6 . . .ig7 allows White to support the knight coming to g5 with his other knight: 7 . lll f3 ! d5 8 . lll eg5 lll d6 9 .id3 lll f5 Antidrome - QvC, Internet 2009. 1 0 .We2;l; 7 . lll g5 lll xg5 8 .ixg5 ig7 9 . lll f3 0-0 1 0 .ie2 lll d7 1 0 . . . c S ! ? could be tried. 1 1 . 0-0 We8 ?! After l 1 ... lll f6! White's advantage is very small. 8 . . . e5 still fails to solve Black's problems: 9.dxe5 dxe5 1 0 .ig3 Wxd l t 1 1 . �xd l lll d6 l 2 .ib3 id7 1 3 .hS gxh5 Otherwise h5 -h6 followed by lll d5 will be difficult for Black to meet. 1 4 . lll dS 0-0-0 1 5 .ih4 �de8 1 6 . lll f6± 9.Wie2 e6 Rather than aiming for . . . e 5 , Black switches to a solid plan with . . . e6 and . . . d 5 . 9. . .e5?! 1 1 . �d l 1 0 . dxe S ! ? lll d6 (or 1 2 .ig3 1 0 .ig3 ±) e4 1 O . . . dxe5 1 3 . lll d4 lll xd4 Chapter 1 2 - 2 .ig5 against the Dutch 1 4 . exd4 c6 ( 1 4 . . . Wi'e? 1 5 . llJ d5 � ) 1 5 . 0-0 llJ xc4 1 6 . Wi'xc4 Wi'e7 1 7. d 5 ± l I .id3 id? 1 2 . a3t l 7.ie5 ! is a bit trickier for Black to face . I considered this move during the game and am ( 1 7 . . . llJ xe5 1 8 . llJ xe5 g4 [ 1 8 . . . ixe5 1 9 . dxe5 �f7 20.e4!±] l 9 . E:xh8t ixh8 20.E:h l ixe5 l l ... i.d7 1 2J�hgl 1 2 .a3 a6 1 3 . � b l b5?! 1 4 . llJ e l ± 1 2 .E:dg l ! ? may have been more accurate: 1 4 . . . ixh8 1 7.E:xhst disappointed that I didn't play it . 1 7 . . . E:xh 1 10.0-0-0 dS l l .i.b3 l 2 . . . g5 1 3 . hxg5 hxg5 225 l 4.E:xh8 t ( l 4.ig3 ±) � , . ;· · · ;. � � 0. J��· i ·J� � $,I. : 1.��,_ ,_ ra. �� : � �� -�•jJ�� 45 �ef� � 3 - � r�·· �· ·· ··' · · %n�.� % � 8 2 1 . dxe5 Wf7 22.e4 dxe4 23 . Wi'd2+-) 1 8 .E:xh l if8! Black must find this manoeuvre in order to limit his disadvantage. 1 9 . ig3;!; 17 ... i.xh8 1 8.liJbS g4 19.liJeS heS 20.heS cxd4 2 1 .exd4 hbS 22.Y«xbSt Y«d7 23.Y«e2 aS! 24.i.£4 E:a6 25.E:d3?! 2 5 .E:e l a4 26.b4 �f8 27 . Wi'd3;!; would keep an edge. 25 ... V«bS 26.E:e3 Y«xe2 27.E:xe2= R. Pert - G. Wall, Surrey 20 1 3 . B22) 3 ...i.g7 � 2 8 � 8 ·ii'� 8 ••••• W 1 � a b � W � ,• • • c % d e f '· g · . h l 5 . llJ xg5 llJ xg5 1 6 .W/h 5 t llJ f7 l 7 . llJ xd 5 ! exd5 1 8 . ixd 5 Wi'e7 1 9 . ixf7t Wi'xf7 20 .Wi'xh8t Wf8 2 1 .Wi'xf8t �xf8 22 . ixc?;!; With four pawns for the piece, the endgame should be enj oyable for White. 12 ... gS 13.i.g3 � aS 1 4.hxgS hxgS l SJ�hl �xb3t 16.axb3 cS 4.h4!? 4 . e3 is also playable and may be similar if White follows up with h2-h4 . An example which continued i n the fashion of line B2 l above is: 4 . . . llJ h6 5 . llJ f3 llJ f7 6.if4 c6 7.h4 d5 8 .Wi'd2 ie6 9 . 0-0-0 liJ d? 1 0 . h 5 llJ f6 l l . hxg6 hxg6 1 2 . E:xh8t ixh8 1 3 . llJ e5 llJ xe5 1 4 .ixe5 � f7 1 5 . f3;!; N. Pert - Grafl, England 20 1 0 . 4 ... h6 4 . . . llJ f6 ? ! is asking for it! 226 Ri chard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky •JjJ.BJi�>f. ;)• .JZ " JJ , 1�% r·�" • r�·• •. · • 6 . � ··� 8 1 .. . . .� 5 � �� ' i ' I(� 4 �� i�� il}� � �� . . �� " . . z. . 1 . " " · '¥. . . . 3 2 ····· �n�-��!• 7•'=�� r �z•• .. '· a .. b c d '· · · " e f g ••• Black chooses between B22 1 ) 5 ... tll f6 B222) 5 ... d6. and B22 1 ) 5 ... tll f6 6.e3 d6 7.'i:Vf3 Another approach is 7. tll h3 ! ? intending ih2 followed by tll f4 , which should also give White good chances of an edge. h 5 . h 5 ! d6 (5 . . . tll xh5 6 . E:xh 5 ! gxh5 7 . e3 [or 7 . e4 ! ? with '!Wxh 5 to follow] 7 . . . 0-0 8 .ic4t c;f;>h8 9.'!Wxh 5 ± The black king is in the firing line of White's attack. ) 6.h6 if8 7 . e4 fxe4 8 . f3 exf3 9 . � xf3t Dziuba - Gergel, Pardubice 2003. 4 ... tll h6?! I f Black is going to play the knight to this square, I think that the previous move is a better time. 5 .'!Wd2 tll f7 6 . tll f3 d6 (6 . . . tll xg5 7 . hxg5;!;) 7 . 0-0-0 h6 8 .if4 tll c6 9 . e4 0-0 1 0 .id3;t Moiseenko - Abeln, Ohrid 2009. 4 ... d 5 ? ! concedes the e5-square to White: 5 . e3 ( 5 . tll h3 is also possible) 5 . . . c6 6 . tll f3 (or 6.id3 '!Wb6 7.E:b U) 6 . . . tll d7 7 .id3 tll gf6 8 . h 5 ! ? lll xh5 9 . E:xh5-+ s.if4 7 . . . tll bd7 8 . 0-0-0 c6 9 .ih2N ( 9 . e4 fxe4 1 0 . tll xe4 0-000 Prie - Santo Roman, Rochefort 2005) 9 . . . 0-0 (9 . . . Wa5 1 0 . tll h3 e5 l l .Wi'g3 @ f7 1 2 .ie2 E: e 8 1 3 . a3 tll b6 1 4 . h 5 g5 1 5 . tll xg5 t-+) 1 0 . tll ge2 '!We8 1 1 . tll g3 e5 1 2 . h 5 tll b6 1 3 . dxe5 dxe5 1 4 . hxg6t 7 . . . c6 a b c d e f g h 227 Chapter 1 2 - 2 .ig5 against the Dutch 8 .Wi'g3 !N I was ready to claim this as my novelty, but then found that Schandorff had beaten me to it and included it in his book. ( 8 . 0-0-0 ie6 9 .id300 Prie - Philippe, Aj accio 2007) 8 . . . @f7 9 .ic4t d5 1 0 .ie2;!; 7 . . . e6 8 . 0-0-0 lli c6 9 .Wi'g3 lli e7 1 0 .ie2 id? 1 l .if3 ic6 1 2 .ixc6t bxc6 1 3 . lli ge2 0-0 l 4 . f3;!; Stefanova - Zysk, Peristeri 20 1 O; White 1 1 ..ig5! �e8 1 2 .bfci .bf6 1 3.0-0-0 e5 1 4.� d5 ± • Th i s was seen in Fressinet - Kindermann, Germany 2002. The position looks very pleasant l 1 . lli ge2 id? l 2.g4 lll f6 l 3 . gxf5 ixf5 1 4 .Wi'g2 lli b4 1 5 . ib3;!; Bauer - Haub, Cappelle la Grande 20 1 2 . 8.i.c4t 8 . 0-0-0 was the choice of a grandmaster who has written a lot on this line: 8 . . . Wi'e8 9 .ic4t e6 Moskalenko - Bonafede, Hoogeveen 20 1 0 , and now I like 1 O . lli ge2N;i; intending ih2 followed by lli f4 . 8 e6 9.tlJge2 tlJ c6 10.a3 'i!?h7?! 10 . . . Wi'e8 l l .ih2 a6 1 2 . lli f4 Wi'f7 1 3 . 0-0-0 •.. llig4 l 4.ig3;!; 1 0 . . . a6 l 1 .ih2 Wi'e8 1 2 . lli f4 b5 ( 1 2 . . . id? 1 3 .ia2 @h7 1 4 . 0-0-0 b5 1 5 .ixe6 ixe6 1 6 . lli xe6 Wi'xe6 l 7.Wi'xc6;!;) 1 4 . lli xe6 Wxe6 1 5 .Wi'xc6;!; 1 3 .ixe6t ixe6 White, who has attacking p ieces in the centre. B222) 5 d6 6.e4! � c6 •.• will continue with e3-e4. 7 . . . llih5 8 . 0-0-0 c6 9 .ic4 Wi'a5 1 0 .ih2 lli a6 for potential o n the kingside and well-placed 8 7 J�j;}illxj�!)'li f� � � 'i•"" �. . /, � .,�"��,,Y,_ c., 5 �� · � m ��.r�� 8� �m . . ,,� - - -Y-� . . /, 3� � wi' � �/[rJW"-'�zfd. � 2 /)J�� -V� j,, m n 6 f� i f� � . 4 . 1 a b c d e f g h This position occurred in the game Jones - Rendle in the 2 0 1 1 British Championship. I n a later round of the same tournament I was paired against Rendle, and I planned to play the following novelty against him. But uncharacteristically for him, Rendle avoided the Dutch in that game! 7.exf5!N The point of this move is that neither recapture is particularly good fo r Black. 7 . lli f3 ! ? Th i s was Whi te's aforementioned game. choice in the 7. . .e5?! Th i s looks wrong. I am n o t certain about the most precise way fo r Black to play, but I am sure he can do better than this. 7 . . . tlJ f6 8 . e 5 lli g4 doesn't seem too bad for Black. 22 8 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky 7 . . . fxe4 ! ? would probably be my choice: 8 . tll xe4 .if5 9 . tll g3 e 5 ! ? (9 . . . Wf d7 may also be playable for Black) 1 0 . dxe5 (or 1 0 . .ie300) 1 0 . . . dxe500 Compared with the game, Black will be able to recapture on d8 with his rook rather than his king. 8 . dxe5 dxe 5 ? 8 . . . fxe4 ! looks more like i t : 9 . tll xe4 .if5 1 0 . tll c3;!; 9 .Wfxd8t mxd8 1 0 . 0-0-0t .id? I I ..ih2 tll ge7 1 2 . .ic4 mes 1 3 . exf5 gxf5 1 4 . �d2 f4 1 5 . tll e4 .ig4 1 6 . tll c5 tll d8 1 7 .�hd l +- G . Jones - Rendle, Sheffield 20 1 1 . 7 . c!lixd4 .. Recapturing on f5 gives White easy play and a safe advantage, so Black really wants to make the text move work, but it doesn't quite seem good enough . 1 1 ..id3 .ie6 12.c!lie4 Wi'b6 13.c3! With the black knight kicked out of the 7 . . . gxf5 8 .Wfh5 t @f8 9 . d5;!; middle of the board, White will be a pawn up for very little. 7 . . . .ixf5 ? ! is worse: 13 ... llixBt 14.WfxB 0-0-0 1 5.0-0-0;t C) 2 ... tlif6?! This move looks slightly suspect, allowing White to double the black pawns, but despite this it is quite a popular choice. 3 .ixf6 exf6 . a b c d e f g h 8 . g4! .id? (8 . . . e5 9 . gxf5 exf4 1 0 .We2t tll ge7 [ 1 0 . . . Wfe7 1 I . tll d5 Wfxe2t 1 2 . tll x e2 f3 1 3 . tll ef4 0-0-0 1 4 . fxg6+-J 1 I . tll f3 gxf5 1 2 . 0-0-0 Wd7 1 3 .�g l �g8 1 4 . tll d5 0-0-0 1 5 .�xg? �xg7 1 6 . tll f6+- with "smothered mate" on the black queen) 9 . .id3 ! The g6-pawn is a massive target and White stands much better. 9 . . . mf7 1 0.h5± After 3 . . . gxf6? 4 . e4! the threat of mate in one is a problem for Black. 4.e3 The immediate 4.c4 ! ? is also possible. 4 ... d5 Black occasionally tries: 4 . . . g6 Usually Black waits for White to attack the f5 -pawn with .id3 and Wf f3 before playing this move. 229 Chapter 1 2 - 2 .ig5 against the Dutch 5 . h4 Immediately looking to target the g-pawn . 5 . . . d5 6 . c4 ie6 7 . cxd5 ixd 5 8 . lli c3 lli c6 9 . lli ge2 if7 up with lli e2-f4 and h4-h5 attacking the g6- pawn . That said, White has another move which promises an advantage, and I have included some analysis: 5 . c4 1 0 .d5!N I prefer this to 1 O . g3;!; Grischuk - Moiseenko, Sochi 200 5 . 1 0 . . . lli e 5 1 l . h5 g 5 1 2 . lli d4 Now White targets the f5 -pawn . 1 2 . . . ixd5 1 3 .Wa4t c6 1 4 . 0-0-0 Black is going to lose the pawn back while White maintains his initiative. 1 4 . . . Wd? 1 4 . . . ie7 1 5 . lli xf5 +- 1 5 . lli xd5 Wi'xd5 1 6 . lli xf5 +- b a 5 . . . ib4t d c f e g h 5 . . . c6 ? ! looks too passive to me: 6 . lli c3 ie6 7 . cxd5 cxd5 8 .Wb3 Wd7 9 . tt'l ge2 g5 1 0 . g3 lli c6 1 I .ig2 l"!d8 1 2 .l"!c l ie7 1 3 .a3 \!?fl 1 4 . h4;1; Ricardi - Rodriguez Vila, Villa Martelli 1 997. 6 . lli c3 0-0 7 .Wb3 ixc3 t 8 . bxc3 lli c6 ! ? 8 . . . f4 doesn't quite work o u t : 9 . cxd5 l"!e8 1 0 .ib5 id? 1 I .ie2 fxe3 1 2 .Wxb? exf2t 1 3 .\!.ixf2 We? 1 4 .Wxa8 We3t 1 5 .\!.ifl Wxc3 Moiseenko - 1 6 .l"!e l lli c6 Melnikov, St 1 7 .Wxe8t;1; Petersburg 2000. 8 . . . dxc4 helps White's development, at the same time undoubling his pawns : 9 . ixc4t \!.ih8 1 0 . lli e2 c5 1 1 . h4 cxd4 l 2 . cxd4 g6 1 3 . lli f4 lli c6 1 4 .l"!c l ;i; Moskalenko Karlsson , Sitges 2 0 0 9 . 9 . cxd5 lli a5 1 0 .Wb 5 There is a safe alternative in 1 0 .Wb4 b6 1 1 . lli h3 , giving back the pawn but stopping any . . . f4 ideas: 1 1 . . .Wxd5 1 2 . lli f4 Wf7 1 3 .ie2;!; White has a fractio nal edge with the better pawn structure. 1 0 . . . b6 230 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky the advantage of the bishop pair, whereas White still has all the advantages of the better pawn structure. 6.'Wf3 'Wd7 7.tLJ e2 tLJ c6 8.a3 0-0-0 b a 1 1 .ie2 c d e f h g 1 1 . lll e2N is given as an improvement by Schandorff: 1 1 . . . a6 1 2 .Wi'b4 Wi'xd5 1 3 . lll f4 Wf f7 1 4 .id3;!; 1 1 . . .ib? 1 2 .if3 a6 1 3 .Wi'd3 Wi'd7 1 4 . c4 b5 1 5 . cxb5 axb 5 1 6 . lll e2 ixd5 1 7 .ixd 5 t Wi'xd 5 1 8 . 0-0;!; Fominyh - Guliev, Kazan 1 99 5 . Although it's not a lot for him to shout about, White has a small edge. r .,� 'm1 . s %1-�- - - - - -�r�·- - - -/: % � -,� � - - -� .i �• .t�m�ff� ·'11�� - - . , , '/. 7 r,,�, , ,%� • r,� , ,,%� m ----%�· � � � ��, ,� � 5 "'�� £-� 3 --%-� :l[j� -% -% � - -% m � 2 � 8 -- - �8� 6 ,,,,. Y.� D) 2 ... d5?! 4 , if�alm -m� a 5 ... .ie6 b c d e f g h Black's most stubborn defence is to go for . . . ie6, . . . Wi'd7 and . . . lll c6-e7, trying to delay . . . g6 for as long as possible. Nevertheless White stands slightly better with normal development. 5 . . . id6 6 .Wi'f3 g6 7 . lll e2 ie6 8 . lll bc3 lll c6 (8 . . . c 6 9 . h4!t) 9 . lll f4 ixf4 1 0 .Wi'xf4;!; Kharlov - Perukhov, Sochi 200 5 . Black no longer has a b c d e f g h This solid move looks a bit ugly, but it is not uncommon . 3.e3 c6 3 . . . lll f6 4 .ixf6 transposes into line C above. Chapter 1 2 - 2 .ig5 against the Dutch 23 1 4.c4 \Wast 1 8.f3! but White is ahead in development and has White decides to open up the centre. 4 . . . '\Mfb6 is similar: 5.'\Mf c2 e6 6 . lll c3 lll d7 18 ... hS 1 9.e4 ih6 20.�kdl dxe4 2 1 .fxe4 ie3t 22.©hl igS 23.YMh3 ixe4 24.tlixe4 fxe4 25.d5! Black unpins his e-pawn so he can play . . . e6, good pieces. 7 .i.d3 lll gf6 8 . lll ge2;!; Benj amin - De Fotis, USA 1 990. With the black king stuck in the middle, White's strategy of smashing open the centre has succeeded. s.tlic3 e6 6.tl)f3 tl)f6 25 ...YNb6 26.d6t! ©d7 27 ..ic4 f5 28.he6t! Finishing off a game that has pretty much been one-way traffic. 28 ... ©xe6 29.YMxfS# R. Pert - 0 . Ledger, London 2004. Conclusion: Chasing the bishop with A2) 2 . . . h6 3 .i.h4 g5 is clearly a critical line, though I like White's prospects after 4 . e4. Since White has then done well against the "normal" moves 4 . . . i.g7 and 4 . . . lll f6 , attention has turned to the bizarre 4 . . . l:!h7! ? but here Moskalenko's recommendation of 5 .i.g3 !N seems to promise White an advantage. B) 2 . . . g6 is a much more solid approach. Here I recommend 3 . lll c3 (usually followed 9 ....ib4 10.YNhSt ©e7 l Ukl .id7 12.YMh6 ©f7 13 ..ie2 .if8 14.YNhSt ©e7 l S.tl)b3 \Wb4 1 6.0-0 ieS 17.\Wh4 ic6 a b c d e f g h by 4.h4) as a route to an edge for White. Black has tried various other 2nd moves, but I believe that White should be happy against all of them. Chapter 13 1 .d4 d5 2.ig5 l .d4 d5 2 ..ig5 A) 2 ... h6 3 . .ih4 Al) 3 ... c5!? A2) 3 ... c6 4.�f3!? YNb6 5.YNcl A2 1 ) 5 ... .if5 A22) 5 ... g5 B) 2 ... f6! Bl) 3 . .if4 � c6 4. �f3 B l l) 4....ig4 B l 2) 4 ... 1f5 B 1 3) 4 ... g5! B2) 3 ..id2!? B3) 3.1h4 � h6! 4.e3 � f5 5.1g3 h5! 6 ..ie2 h4 7 ..ih5t ©d7 8.1£4 g5 9.e4 dxe4 B3 1) 1 0 ..icl B32) 1 0.d5!?N B32 1) 1 0 ... � g7!? B322) 1 0 ... gxf4 B33) l 0.1g4!?N C) 2 ... g6 D) 2 ... c5 237 237 240 241 242 246 246 247 248 248 250 252 254 255 255 256 257 259 260 234 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky point, although I will look at a couple of 1 .d4 d5 2 . .ig5 � % � ; � · �--8 �-�-----�z :�-%,_, � ,,%�-%''""%�"'� � 'fi!!' � W tr � 0. '".• -� ? .i ll .i. 1. W�� w�� ¥�� l. W�� I. z : � �� ¥,I;� �� , �� 3 �� ,,� �� WI'" �� Jtl"�Jl! �%-" �W"'1� /�Yfl� � M �� aVmJl� ,,,,, % ,,,,, % ,,,,, % ,, , , , % 4 2 1 a b c d independent possibilities . , , e f g h In this chapter we move on to the next logical step of using 2 ,i.g5 against 1 . . .d5 - known as the Pseudo-Tromp. I don't believe this move is as accurate here as it is against 1 . . . lli f6 or 2 . . . lli d7 aims to play . . . lll gf6 without having to worry about being given doubled f-pawns . I recommend that w e play 3.e3, when 3 . . . lll gf6 transposes into line A of Chapter 8 on page 1 5 9 . 2 . . . f6! i s a relatively rare choice for Black, but I find this surprising as it seems difficult for White to gain an advantage against this move. This has resulted in my spending more time than I had originally intended on this line. The positions look balanced and interesting for both sides, and we will look at 3 .i.h4 , 3 .i.f4 and 3 .i.d2 . 2 . . . c5 and a few other rare options will be l . . . f5 , and with correct play I think that Black covered in this chapter. can be a good practical choice as it is low in 3 ..ih4 c6 is backed up by the fact that in my database been used by Shirov, and we will have a look at can reach a balanced position. That said, it theory and the positions are interesting - this 3 . . . c5 is an aggressive alternative which has White scores 5 8 % with this move, which is the it in this chapter. line was particularly popular with top English 3 . . . lll f6 is possible, but I would be tempted going to offer as many choices in this line as position is analogous to those we looked at in Chapter 7, and Black can hardly profit from same percentage as the "main line" 2 . c4 . This grandmasters Mickey Adams, Julian Hodgson and Tony Miles during the 1 9 90s, I 'm not I have done in the Trompowsky, but instead will focus on giving one repertoire for White, . picking out my favourite variations. 2 . h6 The main line - Black immediately attacks the bishop, encouraging White to make a decision about its future path . 2 . . . ll\ f6 is Black's second most popular choice, transposing to a line of the Trompowsky that is covered in Chapters 7 and 8 . 2 . . . c 6 i s likely t o transpose into the main line as Black probably should play . . . h6 at some to whip the knight off. After 4 .i.xf6 exf6 the having a pawn on h6. Chapter 1 3 - 4.llJf3 4 . c3 i s a solid alternative with which White 23 5 l .d4 d5 2.ig5 1 .d4 d5 2.ig5 has scored well . He opens the door to play either W/c2 or Wlb3 to neutralize . . . W/b6 - I'll touch upon this line. 4 . e3 is White's most common option, but I am not going to recommend it. After 4 . . . Wb6 5 .W/c l e5! I find White's position rather uninspiring; unfortunately 6 . dxe5 ? ? is not possible because it drops the h4-bishop to 6 . . . W/b4 t . 4 ...Wb6 s.Wcl g5 a This is critical, though I shall also look at 5 . . . �f5 . c d f e g Black has a wide range of moves . 6.ig3 g4 7.llJ e5 Wxd4 8.c4!?-+ Wh i te loses b a pawn but gets a tremendous amount of play for it. It will be no surprise for you to learn that this was one of Hodgson's favourite weapons! together with B) 2 ... f6! h A) 2 ... h6 look like the most critical options . We shall also examine C) and D) 2 c5, hut fi rst ... we will rake look at four other possibilities: a 2 ... g6 quick 2 . . . lll c6 is of little independent significance as Black will usually follow up with a quick . . . f6 . For example, 3 . e3 f6 4.�h4 transposes to the note to Black's 3 rd move in line B 3 on page 2 5 2 . 2 . . . �g4 Black has learnt something from us! 3 . c4 It seems a sensible idea to strike in the centre to try and benefit from our extra move. 236 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 3 . . . c6 3 . . . dxc4 4 . lt:l c3 h6 5 .if4 lt:l f6 6.f3 ih5 7 . e4 e6 8.ixc4;!; Meduna - Euler, Passau 1 9 96. 4.'Wb3 'Wd7 5 . e3 e6 6 . lt:l d2 ie7 7.h4!? Setting a sneaky trap. 7 . . . lt:\ f6? 8 . f3 if5 9 .ixf6 ixf6 1 0 .g4+ White cleverly wins Wolfangel, Bethune 1 997. a piece, Bauer - 1 2 .'Wxc4 0-0 1 3 . l:!fd l l:!fd8 1 4 .l:!ac l ;!; Miladinovic - Giretti, Salsomaggiore Terme 2004. 2 . . . c6 In the majority of cases Black will soon play . . . h6 and transpose into line A2 - let's see what happens if he tries to avoid this. 2 . . . if5 3 . e3 a a b c d e f g h 3 . lt:l f3 b c d e f g h 3 . c3 is a solid possibility, preparing to meet . . . 'Wb6 with 'Wc2 or 'Wb3, though I find it 3 . . . lt:l f6 3 . . . lt:l d7 4 . c4 h6 5 .ih4 c6 6 . lt:l c3 lt:l gf6 a little unambitious. 3 . . . if5 4 . lt:l f3 lt:l d7 White has a risk-free advantage, M iles - the fact that our bishop has not been driven 3 . . . c6 4 . lt:l f3 'Wb6 5 .'Wc l lt:l d7 6 . c4 h6 7.if4 dxc4 8 . lt:l bd2 lt:l gf6 9 . lt:l xc4;!; M iles Murshed, Sakthi 1 9 96. lt:l xf6 9 . e3 This fractionally favours White, 7 . lt:l f3 e6 8 .°Wb3 'Wb6 9 . c5 'Wxb3 1 0 . axb3;!; Lovlu, Sakthi 1 99 6 . 4 .ixf6 exf6 We have reached a position that can arise from the Trompowsky, except that Black has p layed the inaccurate . . . if5 , when he 5 . lt:l bd2 lt:l gf6 6 . lt:l h4! Taking advantage of back to this square. 6 . . . ie6 7.°Wc2 h6 8 .ixf6 who will complete his development with id3 and 0-0 , and then follow up either with f2-f4, or with f2-f3 and e3-e4. 3 . . . Wb6 4.Wc l ig4 4 . . .if5 5 . e3 lt:l d7 (5 . . . h6 6 .ih4 transposes to line A2 1 on page 24 1 ) 6 . c4 e6 7 . lt:l c3 would prefer to put his pawn there followed lt:l gf6 8 .ie2 dxc4 9 . lt:l d2 id3 1 O . lt:l xc4 ixc4 square. 1 4 .ixd5 Wa5 t 1 5 .°Wc3 'Wxc3t 1 6 . bxc3 f6 by bringing his queen's knight to the f6- 4 . . . gxf6 5 . lt:l e2 e5 6 . lt:l g3 ie6 7 . c3 c6 8 . lll d2 lll d7 9 .°Wh5 'Wb6 1 0 .l:!b l c5 l 1 .ie2 cxd4 1 2 . exd4 0-0-0 1 3 . 0-0 l:!g8 1 4 . a4;!; Miladinovic - Terme 2004. Gromovs, Salsomaggio re 5 .id3 'Wd7 6 . lt:l f3 id6 7 .ixf5 'Wxf5 8 . 0-0 c6 9 .°We2 lt:l d7 1 0 . c4 'Wh5 l 1 . lll c3 dxc4 l l .ixc4 c5 1 2 .d5 exd 5 1 3 . lt:l xd5 lt:l xd5 1 7 .if4 0-0-0 1 8 . l:!d l;!; 5 . lt:l bd2 lt:l d7 6.e3 e6 7 .id3 ie7 8 .if4 lt:l gf6 9.h3 ih5 1 0 . 0-0 1 0 . c3 looks too insipid: 1 0 . . . 0-0 l l . b4 a5 1 2 .a3 ig6 1 3 .ixg6 hxg6 1 4 . 0-0= Povah - Law, Birmingham 200 1 . 1 0 . . . 0-0 3 . . . lll d7 4. lll f3 lll gf6 5 . e3 transposes to line A of Chapter 8 on page 1 60 . 3 . . . if5 4 . e3 c 6 5 . c4 looks a b i t better for White with normal development. One example was : 5 . . . %li'b6 6 .%li'd2 dxc4 7.ixc4 e5 8 . lll c3 lll d7 9 . lll ge2 lll gf6 1 0 . lll g3 ig6 l 1 .ixf6 lll xf6? ( l l . . .gxf6;!;) 1 2 . dxe5 lll g4 1 3 . e6+- Gallagher - Mitkov, Lisbon 2000. Al) 3 ... cS!? � .a. 6 A) 2 ... h6 This is an important choice for Black and is regarded as the main line. 3.i.h4 �- A mli ta0a.�J.@ Jk.. %.�� ,, Y, m1i�g��M.�� ··-� _ , "jjjj jjjj. "& ··· · % 'S 5 � �-.T� � · · �� r� �� :� � ... . %�!·l5% ···· " - � � �� , , , � %"!�!�!�!� · ./···· " ��-¥ ····",,., ,,/,(···· � s 7 ,, _ , , . ,,,,. " � 4 . ��lt:J� vm ..t m : " a , b c d e ,x This aggressive approach f g �- - , , h is often used by attacking players . Black wants to take advantage of White not having played c2-c4 , and stake a claim over the centre himself. Avrukh recommends this move in his recent book Grandmaster Repertoire 11. The positions look roughly balanced, and I have i ncluded Avrukh's analysis where appropriate. 4.dxc5!? Well, if you're offering! White grabs the pawn in the hope that during the time it takes Black to recapture it, White can seize the initiative. 3 . . . lll f6 4.ixf6 exf6 is similar to Chapter 7; 4 . lll c3 This was an interesting try by Hodgson in advantage for Black. 4 . . . lll c6 5 . lll f3 having ... h6 thrown in should not be any 1 990, but it hasn't really caught on. 238 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky After 14 . . . E:c?! White might struggle to find enough compensation. 1 5 .'1Wa3 lll xa6 1 6 . lll c3 Wxfl t 1 7.®xfl;!; Hodgson - Engqvist, Gausdal 1 99 0 . � �..t�-�'11) ·- �� , ,. ,%--,�-�-----�Y. · � ' · '� '' '� �-mew�� · · · · � : �� O.Ji �� 8 7 6 5 . . . ig4 It is important that 5 . . . g5?! doesn't win a pawn : 6 .ig3 g4 7 . lll e5 lll xd4? 8 . e3 lll c6 9 .Wxd 5 +- 5 . . . lll f6 6 .ixf6 gxf6 (6 . . . exf6 looks wrong: 7.e3 cxd4 8 . lll xd4;!; and simple development %, 3 � � �� L! 2 I will lead to pressure against the d5-pawn) � � � '·'� 'fi '•tE•'�jl�I{ a b c d e 7 . e4!? This looks the way to go. (7.e3 ig4 4 g5 (7 . . . dxe4 8 . d 5 exf3 9 . dxc6 fXg2 ?! 1 0 .ixg2±) edge after the more popular: 8 . dxc5 e6 9 .ib5 ixc5 1 0 . h300) 7 . . . cxd4 8 . lll xd4 dxe4 9 . lll xc6 bxc6 1 0 .WxdSt 'ltixd8 1 1 . 0-0-0t 'ltic7 1 2 . lll xe4 f5 1 3 . lll d2 E:b8 1 4. lll b3 It looks fairly drawish but White can play on. 6 . lll e5 cxd4 7 . lll xc6 bxc6 8 .Wxd4 Wb6 9.Wxg4 This leads to typical Hodgsonesque play perhaps not entirely sound, but he came out on top. The more solid 9 . e3 is unclear. f g h ... White seems to be able claim a comfortable 4 . . . Wa5t 5 . lll c3 e6 6.e4 ie7 6 . . . g5 7.ig3 (or 7.Wd4 ! ? E:h7 8 .ib 5 t id? 9 . b4t Drazic - Kadimova, Formia 1 99 5 ) 7 . . . ig7 8 . lll ge2!N (8 .e500 Yedidia - Macintyre, Boston 1 996) 8 . . . lll f6 (8 . . . dxe4 ? is not possible: 9 .ixb8 E:xb8 1 0 .Wd6 gas 1 1 . 0-0-0 +-) 9 . exd5 lll xd5 1 0 .'1Wd2;!; 7.ixe7 lll xe7 8 .'1Wd2 9 . . . Wxb2 1 0 . lll d l Wxa l l l .'Wa4 E:c8 8 . . . Wxc5 8 . . . 0-0 9 . exd5 exd5 1 0 . lll b5 Wxd2t l l . 'ltixd2 lll a6 1 2 . lll e2 lll xc5 1 3 . f3 id? Chapter 1 3 - l .d4 d5 2 .ig5 1 4 . lLi bd4 lLi e6 1 5 .E:d l lLi xd4 1 6 . lLi xd4 lLi c6 1 7 . 'iti c3;!; Drazic - Mariano, Milan 2004. 239 continuation : 1 1 . h4 g4 1 2 .e3 lLi h6 1 3 .id3 lLi f5 1 4 . lLi e2 lLi xg3 1 5 . lLi xg3 lLi c7 1 6 . 0-0-0 9 . exd5 exd5 I O .id3 0-0 1 1 . lLi ge2 lLi bc6 1 2 . 0-0 d4 1 3 . lLi e4;!; lLi e7 1 2 . lLi gf3 f6 1 3 . exd5 ixd5 1 4 .ib 5 t The 1 992. Moscow 2007. Moskalenko - Magem Badals, San Sebastian e600 I reckon play is balanced here.) l 1 . e4 situation was murky in Kamsky - Shirov, 5.ig3 ig7 6.c3 tli a6 6 . . . lLi f6 7 . lLi d2 a5 8 .1 •.t.�·� . . . :.,. ...z�.��·ef�·· · · · z • : �, �� 1,�,-� �� r� ''·····'�t.�·.ef% ·· ·.� ��n� 1�� 1. a . � . � 4 � � s z z � 3 � �t�;�rn� �� !w.m·� ·· · · ""°"f� m�fl·��- o· ..·"efm·�� ,-m·aef,,�J'/. �OJU� A ef/fl� 2 o 1 .. .....z A A �u ·· •=�·m ·: ;� ·· ·· -'·� � '· · . "°· · ···· h '· a b c d e f g 8 . h4!N ( 8 . e3 0-0 9 . h4 g4 I O .a4!?N [ 1 0 . lLi e2 lLi a600 Hodgson - Rahman, London 1 9 9 1 ] I O . . . lLi a6 1 l .ixa6 E:xa6 1 2 . lLi e2 lLi h 5 1 3 .'.Wb3 lLi xg3 1 4 . lLi xg3;!;) 8 . . . g4 9 . e4 ! ? dxe4 1 0 . lLi c4 and White has the initiative. 7 . . . lLi xc5 ! ?N was suggested as interesting by Avrukh. 8 .Wxd5 Wxd5 9 . exd5 lLi a4 I O .ib 5 t id? Now instead of I I .ixa4 ixa4� a s given by Avrukh, perhaps White could try 1 1 .ixd?t c;!;>xd7 1 2 . lLi e2 lLi xb2 1 3 . lLi a3 b6 1 4 . 0-0 E:c8 1 5 . d6 exd6 1 6 . lLi b 5 with a murky position. 7 ... dxe4 8 .'.Wxd8t 'iti xd8 9 .ixa6 bxa6 1 0 . £3 e3 1 1 . lLi a3 f5 N (Avrukh's improvement over I l . . .ie6? 1 2 . lLi c2 ± Rojas Keim - Peralta, Sabadell 2009) 1 2 . 0-0-0 t c;!;>e8 1 3 . f4 e5 1 4 . fxe5 f4 1 5 .ie l ixe5 1 6 . lLi c4 ic7 1 7 . lLi f3 ib7 Avrukh slightly prefers Black here, b u t I chink it is quite unclear. 7.e4 8.ixa6!?N 8 .'.Wa3 '.Wc8 9 . c6 ixc600 1 0 . lLi d2 e5 ( 1 0 . . . h 5 ! ?N 9 .ixa6 bxa6 I O . exd5;!; and White can make it 7 .�a4t is a playable alternative: 7 . . . id7 is given by Avrukh, with the following 8 .ib 5 t also looks interesting: 8 . . . id7 difficult for Black to regain his material . 240 Richard Pert - Playing the Trom p owsky 8 . exd5 ?! tll xc5+ went well for Black in PhilHellmuth - Antidrome, Internet 2009. 8 bxa6 9.exd5 '1Wxd5 1 1 .tlif'3 g4 12.tlih4 ..• 10.'1Wxd5 tll xd5 b a 5 .Wlb3 c d e f g h 5 .Wlc2 ! ? is possible as the attempt co deflect the queen from the defence of the b2-pawn with 5 . . . .if5 ? ? 7 .Wlc8# 1. m.t.B•�'!li�I 7 rifi"� ,,,,,%--,�-"'" "��'"•' � � " "• ' � � � 5 ��w. �A �� 7� I,,�,,, �% �� '"" ' 6 liJI 4 3 ��If!" �� '0" ��Wi"' 2 '�j[j� �J[j%(dj[j ��.i.� � ��ct:JmV a 4.ti:)f'3!? b c d e f g h This is my first choice, though I j ust want co mention a solid alternative for chose looking for a quieter life: 4 . c3 l 7 . .ig3 lll e4 1 8 . tll xe4 .ixe4 l 9 . tll e5 lll xe5 20 . .ixe5 s .I B � � B �� -��-· -----Y.� �� .. .. 5: � f� · � •• � ,,.,, . %n:ra-----%� 4 .. . �n . , �. % . 3 � . . %� �� •.t. . �� 2 1 ��P' ��-0 ��-J f� � z � %�r' ��r� %, :��-�-�rli"" ' a b c d e f g h So White has managed to sneak an extra move or two on the queenside and he makes his slight initiative count. I 've included the whole game for chose who want co have a look, but as this is not my main White and Black effectively mirror each other's play, Wlxb2 lll bd7 1 4 . b4 axb3 1 5 . axb3 0-0 1 6 . b4 g5 ••• 1 6.W/xf5 5 .. ,.if5 6 . lll d2 tll d7 7 . tll gf3 e6 8 . e3 .ie7 9 . .ie2 a5 1 0 . 0-0 a4 1 I .Wlxb6 tll xb6 1 2 . c4 lll f6 1 3 .c5 A2) 3 c6 s backfires : and White's hope is chat recommendation I don't want co spend coo long on it. Chapter 1 3 - 20 . . . 1'!fc8 2 1 . b 5 f6 22. bxc6 bxc6 23.ig3 @ f7 l .d4 d5 2 .ig5 think it is worth seeing how he handles the 24.:!'!fc l e5 2 5 .ig4 :!'!xa l 26.:!'!xa l f5 27.ih 5 t position. 3 I . c;t> f2 1'!b2t 32.e l 1'!xg2 3 3 .i.dG i.xd6 34.iflt @ f6 3 5 . cxd6 f4 3 6 . exf4 gxf4 37.1'!a8 6 e6 7.c4 ie7 e 6 2 8 . f3 i.d3 29.1'!a7 1'!b8 3 0 .i.xe5 :!'!b l t .•• 7 . . . i.xb l 8 . :!'!xb l Wa5 t doesn't win a pawn : if5 3 8 .1'!f8 ie6 3 9 .ih 5 t @g7 40.1'!e8 @ f6 9 . lll d2 %Vxa2 ? ? 1 0 .:!'!a l +- i.d7 45 .1'!e7 i.g4 46. 1'!h7 8.ig3 4 I .i.g4 1'!xg4 42. fXg4 i.xg4 43.@f2 h5 44.h4 1 -0 Rodriguez Vila - Cubas, Asuncion 2009. 4 YMb6 5.VMcl Keeping the pieces on seems the right way to go - it is rather early to go for exchanges and a draw. •.• Sacrificing the b-pawn with 5 . lll bd2 ! ? has occasionally been played. In some ways it appeals to me, although maybe it should only be used in blitz, as obj ectively White may not obtain quite enough compensation. 5 . . . YMxb2 looks critical, with the possible continuation: 6 . e4 dxe4 7 . lll xe4 lll f6 8 .:!'!b l Wxa2 9 .id3� A2 1 ) 5 ... if5 6.e3 This is a common position which can arise from a number of different move orders , and so is important to understand how to play it. Miladinovic has played this position at least twenty times over the last two decades, so I 24 1 8 ... tll f6 9.tll c3 242 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky Here l 5 . f3 !N;!; would be my choice, with a pleasant plus for White. 9 . . . lli bd7 1 0 .cS 1 0 .ie2 may be the best way to go, when 1 o . . . dxc4 1 1 . ll'l d2;!; is similar the above game, while 1 0 . . . 0-0 returns to our main line. 1 O . . . Wi'd8 1 1 . b4 lli h 5 1 1 .0-0 This seems most natural, although Miladinovic has also tried: 1 1 . c S ! ? Wi'd8 1 2 . b4 lli e4 1 3 . ll'l xe4 ixe4 1 4. 0-0 ixf3 ( 1 4 . . . a6 1 5 . ll'l d2;!; with queenside play for White, Miladinovic 1 5 .ixf3 ih4 Pavlovic, Podgorica 1 6 .if4 ig5 2008) 1 7 .Wi'c3 ixf4 1 8 . exf4 Miladinovic - Jankovic, Sibenik 20 1 0 . This looks pretty drawish to me, although White can play on. 1 1 . .. dxc4 1 1 . . . cS!?N is another way to try and suggest that White ought to have played c4-c5 to fix the pawn structure. 1 2 . cxdS lli xd5 1 3 . ll'l xdS exd5 1 4 . dxcS ll'l xc5 1 5 .Wi'd2 :B:fd8 1 6 .Wi'd4 :B:ac8 1 7 .:B:fd l White has long-term play b a 1 2 .ieS c d e f against the d5 -pawn. h g 12.tll d2 a6 13.tll xc4;1; It seems a bit strange to spend two moves provoking . . . f6 , though White did end up Miladinovic - Ki. Georgiev, Niksic 2008. A22) 5 ... g5 6 ..ig3 g4 7.tll e5 �xd4 with a small edge. Another approach is 1 2 .ie2 ll'l xg3 1 3 .hxg3 0-0 1 4 . 0-0 with queenside play to come, Mehmeti - Abramovic, Obrenovac 200 5 . 1 2 . . . f6 1 3 .ig3 ll'l xg3 1 4 . hxg3 e 5 1 5 . lli h4 ih7 1 6.g4 ll'l f8 1 7 . lli 5;!; Miladinovic - Pikula, Tivat 20 1 1 . I O ..ie2 til bd7 8.c4 a b c d e f g h 8 . e3 is likely to lead to the same thing after Chapter 1 3 - 243 I . d4 d5 2 .ig5 8 . . . Wc5 9 . c4 ig7 . 8 ...ig7 9.e3 YNc5 9 . . . Wb6 1 0 . cxd5 lll d7 1 1 . lll c4 Wb4t 1 2 . lll c3 cxd5 1 3 . lll d2 lll gf6 1 4 . lll b 5 0-0 1 5 . a3 Wc5 1 6 .Wxc5 lll xc5 1 7 . lll c7 �b8 1 8 . lll xd 5 (White can force a repetition with 1 8 . lll b 5 �a8 1 9 . lll c7) 1 8 . . . lll xd5 l 9 .ixb8 ixb2 20.E:a2 ic3 2 1 .ixa?t Stefanova - Chiburdanidze, Elista 2004. 8 1 6 ;�,� , , , , , ,� .i -.i. -·" *""' �� '0 ��'�� w� . . %_• -,_,-, , %�· �,,,,,�- �� "'s.a.m �� , , ,� � � £� �, , � � 7�� 3 m m"� i�� 2 �J..!l�, .,,. ��-J!l� jll 5 4 I /, , � "�r% , , , , . ,,�r�,,,,,%w,� , �_,t- � ?� ttJ� a 10.tll d2 b c d e f g h This was Hodgson's choice, bur Miladinovic had a different idea: 1 0 . lll c3 ?! dxc4! ( 1 0 . . . d4 ? 1 l . exd4 Wxd4 1 2 .Wc2 lll a6 1 3 .�d l Wc5 1 4 .ic7! Targeting the a5 -pawn. 1 4 . h 3 ! ? is an interesting alternative, looking to open a file for the king's rook: 14 . . . gxh3 1 5 . gxh3 lll gf6 1 6 .ic?t with �g l on the cards . 1 4 . . . Wa7 1 4 . . . Wg6 ?! provides a target for White: 1 5 . lll f4 Wg5 1 6 . h4 gxh3 1 7 . �xh3 ± 1 4 . . . Wc6 1 5 .Wxc6 (or 1 5 . lll b3 Wxc l t 1 6 . �xc l b 6 1 7 . lll d4�) 1 5 . . . bxc6 1 6 .�c l c5 l 7.b3t and White will regain the pawn . 1 5 . h3! After 1 5 . lll b3 b6 1 6 . lll d4 ia6 White's compensation seems limited. 1 5 . . . gxh3 1 6. �xh3 lll gf6 1 7 .�g3 l 4.a3;1:; Miladinovic - Godena, Bratto 2004) In return for the pawn, White has the initiative on both flanks . lll e5 1 5 .ie2 �d8 1 6 .Wc2 lll d5 Miladinovic 1 3.cx:d5 tll xd3t 14.ixd3 l 1 . lll xc4 ie6 l 2 . lll d2 lll f6 1 3 .id3 lll bd7 1 4 . a3 - Bruno, Frascati 200 5 . White doesn't really seem to have enough compensation . 1 0 ... tll d7 1 1 .tll d3 VNb6 1 2.a4!? Intending a4-a5 . 12 ... tll c5 It makes some sense to block White's plans of advancing o n the queenside: 1 2 . . . a5N 1 3 . cxd5 1 3 .ie2 also looks quite playable, though less critical . 1 3 . . . cxd 5 244 Richard Pert - Playing the Trom p owsky 14 ... c:x:d5 1 6.0-0 1 4 . . . .txb2 1 5 . a5! and looks quite interesting. 1 6 . . . a 6 can then be met by 1 7 .:gc l � with complicated play. Taking the b-pawn looks risky: 1 6 .Wc2!?N has the idea of preven ting . . . if5 , This zwischenzug assures White of good attacking chances . 1 5 . . . %%4 1 6 .Wb l lli f6 1 6 ... J.f5!? Black has also played: 1 6 . . . a6! ? 1 7 . e4 ie6 1 8 . exd5 ixd 5 1 9 .ic4 :gc8 l 7 . :ga4!? Typical Hodgson. 1 7. dxc6 bxc6 1 8 . 0-0! also offers White decent compensation . 1 7 . . . Wxa4 1 8 .Wxb2 Wxa5 1 9 . d6 Wd5 l 9 . . . if5 ? 2 0 . e4 ixe4 2 l .ixe4 lli xe4 22.0-0! was really promising for White in Hodgson - B. Lalic, Scarborough 1 99 9 . 20. <;t>e2 :g g 8 2 1 . dxe7 lli h 5 2 2 . lli e4 White's dangerous attack provides ample compensation for the exchange. b 20 .ixd 5 ? was an adventurous idea o f Hodgson's which didn't work o u t : 20 . . . :gxc l 2 1 .:gaxc l ixb2 22.:gcst <;t>g7 23 . lli c4 Wb4 24.:gb l lli f6 2 5 .:gxh8 <;t>xh8 26 .ixf7 <;t>g7+ Hodgson - Schandorff, Germany 200 1 . 20 . . . Wg6!?N 20 . . .Wb4 2 1 .Wd l 2 1 .Wd l ic6 c d e f g h ixc4 22 .:ga4 Wb5 2 3 . lli xc4 lli f6 24.lli b6 gave White excellent play for the pawn in Lawson - Lesiege, Montreal 2003. 1 5 .J.h5t @f8 a 20.a5! Chapter 1 3 - l . d4 d5 2 .ig5 22.Wi'b3 White has reasonable compensation for the pawn. 17.ic7 Y«g6 18.V«c5 ti) f6 245 with 20 . . . tli d7!? 2 1 .ixg7t cJ;ixg7 22 .Wi'xd5 Wfe6 23.Wi'a5, when White only has a slight edge. 2 1 .Wi'b4 tli d7 22.ixg7t <;tixg7 23 .Wi'xb7 Wi'd6 24.Wi'xa6 The passed queenside pawns make it look quite promising for White. b a 24 . . . Wi'b4 24 . . . Wi'xa6 c d e 2 5 .ixa6 f �c2 g h 26.tlib3 2 7 . tli d4 ih7 28 .ib5;!; 2 5 . e4 dxe4 26.Wi'b5 Wxd2 27 .Wx5 1 9 .a5 a 6 20 .ia4 tli e8 2 1 .if4 ixb2 22. �ab l �c8 23 .Wi'xd5 ixb l 24.Wi'xb7 � c l 2 5 . �xc l ixc l 26.tlixb 1 cJ;ig7 27.ie5 t tli f6 28.ixg4 �c2 29.�ae l e6 3 0 .Wi'e5 �xb2 tli f6 Wi'g5 3 1 .Wi'xg5 t hxg5 3 2 .�e2 �c4 3 3 . b 3 �b4 34.h3 �xb3 3 5 .� a l �a8 36.a5 �a7 37.a6 �b6 3 8 . �ea2 tlid5 3 9 .�a5 <;tif6 40 .ie2 tli f4 4 1 .ifl tli d5 42.�e l Yi-Yi Povah - Shaw, West Bromwich 2003. Even in the final position, White may still have an edge. 1 9 .ie 5 ! ? a6 20 .ie2 �c8 Black could consider returning the pawn 246 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 1 9 ... a6 20.j,e2 :gcs 2 I .'i;Yb4� Attacking the b7-pawn - I rather like the look of White's position. •.• 'l!i' �� A .\(tt/.; · rf'� 1'1-. �.�t 1: ·;�i.z �,,, %� f "''��·· 1: 76 %�i(· •" A z-•z i.z A � �� 5 � �;'/,� '� �� 3 � � •� � � 2 �Ill" �,,§Jw.)j;i" J/JJ::/J0"' l] 1 �� --��w : a mf: i �m�W�.-.i�a, . %_ . . . %�� - - - %-. . . %_ %�7*.i . �� - - �� 4 & � �J[j�� .... . . .... ' . a b c d e f g h This move is relatively rarely played, but it looks in teresting - Wh ite may struggle to prove an advantage here. Because this line seems critical I have gone into it in considerable detail, and I have given three choices for White. We shall look at the natural Bl) 3.j,f4 a couple of drawbacks. Firstly Black has the opportunity to transpose into a playable line of the Blackmar-Diemer with colours reversed. B) 2 f6! s My initial intention was to recommend this move, but on closer inspection I found and the odd-looking Secondly it seems that White may struggle against an accurate but rarely-played plan from Black involving . . . g5 and . . . h 5 . 3 ... lll c6 3 . . . c5 is also playable: 4.ixb8 (4.e3 lll c6 5 .ib5 cxd4 6 . exd4 e6?! [6 . . . a6! ?00] 7 . c4 dxc4 8 . lll c3 id6 9.�h5t 'i!tf8 1 0 . lll ge2 a6 l l .ixd6t �xd6 1 2 .ixc4t Drazic - Kreis!, Zadar 2009) 4 . . . E1xb8 5 . e3 a6 6 . c4 e6 7 . cxd5 cxd4 8 .�xd4 �xd5 9.�xd5 exd5 I O .lll c3 White may have a fraction of an advantage, Miladinovic - Buhmann, Heraklio 2007. 4.lll f3 White should not allow Black to play . . . e5 too easily: 4.e3? e5 5 .ig3 exd4 6 . exd4 if5 7.c3 id6 8 .ib5 lll ge7+ and White's position wasn't exactly inspiring in Miladinovic - Prie, Asnieres 2006. B2) 3.j,d2!? before going on to my main recommendation of B3) 3.j,h4. B l ) 3.j,f4 4 . . . e 5 ! ? 5 . dxe5 Chapter 1 3 - l . d4 d5 2 .ig5 8 7 6 � B m� � · �1.%1�J;; 1. �� . �-�!Jm 3� � •W@_��3�· . .. �� fo · · · %� � � 4 � �� . . 3� �� 3 �� l5'� � � 2 :-�� 1 ,dlt5u.l�·1�� ·: 5 . .. a ... b c d e f g h We have reached a line of the Blackmar Diemer with colours reversed. This usually arises from 1 . d4 d5 2 . e4 dxe4 3 . CLJ c3 tlJ f6 4 . f3 .�J5 , and is known as the Vienna Defence. I do not think that this is an appropriate place for an in-depth investigation of Blackmar Diemer theory (and as I have mentioned, this 247 5.ttl bd2 This was H odgson's choice. 5 . c4 is a very aggressive alternative: 5 . . . dxc4 6 . d 5 e5 7.ic l tlJ b4 8 . e4 c6 9 . a3 lli d3 t I O .ixd3 cxd3 1 1 . dxc6 bxc6 1 2 . 0-0 ic5 1 3 .h3 ih5 1 4 .b4 ib6 1 5 . a4� Morozevich - Van Wely, Monte Carlo 2 00 5 . White has some compensation for the pawn , but not enough for an advantage. 5 . c3 is rather solid: 5 . . . e6 6 .Wlb3 �b8 7 . CLJ bd2 id6 8 .ig3 CLJ ge7 9 . e3 0-000 Agdestein Shen Yang, Gibraltar 2 0 0 8 . 5 ... e6 Th e main alternative is: 5 ... CLJ xd4 6 . tlJ xd4 e5 7.h3 ih5 is not my main recommendation) , so I shall j ust say that I believe the position is roughly balanced. Black may continue 5 . . . fXe5 6 . CLJ xe5 Wlf6 7 . CLJ d3 if5 8 . e3 0-0-0 , when he has decent play for the pawn , or may go for the aggressive 5 . . . g5 ! ? 6 .ig3 h 5 in similar fashion to line B 1 3 below. BU) 4 ...ig4 a 8 . tlJ 2b3!?N b c d e This is my preference. 8 . c4 may also suffice f g for h an edge: 8 . . . exd4 9 .Wb3 g5 (9 . . . id6? 1 0 .ixd6 Wfxd6 1 1 .Wlxb?± Hodgson - Yeo , Southampton 1 9 86) I O .ih2 dxc4 l l . CLJ xc4 �b8 1 2 . e3 CLJ e7 1 3 .id3t 8 . . . exd4 8 . . . exf4 9 . CLJ e6 Wld6 1 0 .Wlxd5:t 9.Wfxd4:t Black's most common option, but White's chances look preferable. 6.J.g3 J.d6 7.c3 f5 8.c!£ie5 ixe5 9.dxe5 t£ige7 10.ttlb3 0-0 1 1 .f4 Richard Pm 248 - . Play mg t he Trompowsky Toking time out to avoid any pro blem• with . sueh as we saw m the pn,vio>B note. . . . ltJ b4, 6 id6 7.s.g "' 3 etJge7 8.c4 0-0 9.etJ c3 ig6 1 b4 a6 U .!fb3 0: • �� m -s � n � �W� . _,��-� A 7 �• : . 8 m 6 b • 1 1 ... gS.". 5 c ® d2 a5 1 3 . e3 a4 1 4 . lil d4 lil xd4 · • 1 5 . exd4 c5 1 6 . id3 c4 1 7 . .i. c2 + 1 1 . . . b6 1 2 " = � � 1 1'l' d2 gd'4 12. '<> c5 1'l' c8 13. lil d3 " xf4 xf4 ,. 15. lil xf.. 1 6.1'!' s e8 1 .Ah4 1'l'g6 1 8.0-0-0= " ;' . Hodg•on - DIB hman, Birmingham 200 1 . B 1 2) 4 ...if5 8 1 6 ·z ��. � %��,ii � ······ � .I. 1K 8 !W,@j .J··--'j··"J!I� 'iE· • · · · ' aef., ·· · · jij"' .. lial!, � 0·� ··· w D .l)\ wm � m � . � %B ��W/.I.'0 m.W � � � � �§ M � �!W% ,0, . ,0, , • 4 �� 8"•j·��" . .� �5 3 2 1 5· � � b c ,.J ;. ,,�. .,,, --- -Y.w� & �� : �L. �A% A %� ' '. .. . 7�0% O_ /. , 3 2 1 � �a � 1 1 ...J.£7 " b c d e g d . e ?! f g h • • 1 1 . . . a 5N '""" more like '" 1 2 . b5 a4 1 3 .Y!! b 2 . lt:i a5 1 4 .c5 ixg3 1 � .hxg3 w ith inte,.,tmg p I ay. I wou Id be quite happy with White's extra •pace on the queens1'd e, but 0 bJ' ectively the po•ition may be bolance d H� 12 • on Sh �w, Aberdeen 1 9 96 . • - h : � ;� f; r too loose: c4 ?! i• adventuro>B 8 .1'l'a4t c6 5 . . . � 5 6 . cxd5 ?! lt:i b e 9 . dxe5 ixb l 1 0 . x i Y!!x d5+ Adams . Morozev1ch Tilburg 1 9 9 3 . ' s ... e6 6.a3 a · .i.c4 B h 4 e5 14 hl'7 t � c zo, f �o� Thi, look. too P "' ive . ,!r" if:f.,.l:i �7.1� � - 'l§ z . . a & · ·�'M"i ll.t. � ·• • . fl�" • . 4 W��l'W'1XX!.. .. %1im:z.AJ4f.b....%%rfWA��'0.��: W�M...h'�m..� '; ill • �WM LS u %g . . . . ••� rll� J: ' � � � !Wi,1, '" db. B'.l:i -, - b c 249 Chapter 1 3 - 1 . d4 d 5 2 .i.g5 After analysing this line I have come to the conclusion that this rarely-played move is the most awkward for White to face. 5.i.g3 h5! This seems the right way to go. 5 . . . g4 This is more co mmon, but White's chances look preferable. 6 . lLi h4 e5 6 .. . f5 7 . c4N e6 8 . lLi c3 f4 9 .i.xf4 Wfxh4 1 0 . cxd5 exd5 1 1 . lLi xd5 Wfd8 1 2 . e4t 7 . e3 i.e6 8 . . . g4 ? 9 . hxg4N hxg4 1 0 .ixc? Wfxc7 1 1 .l:!xh8 gxf3 1 2 .Wfxf3 and White's threat of 1 2 .Wfh5 t is awkward for Black. 8 . . . ig7 9 . c4 e6 (9 . . . g4 1 0 . cxd5 Wfxd 5 1 1 . lLi c3 Wfd7 1 2 . lLi d2 g3 1 3 .ixg3 lLi xg3 1 4 . fxg3;!; looks better for White.) ;· � 8 i. �:�.r ..tif� ·�� ----� ��-J� � 7 t� · � •...... �%� 6 . . z 6)� . .�� • • ---3.�-� � 'A)l 5 � • i� i 4 �. ff�z®�� . . .z�. � �� ..... .0 �� 3 ---- - '- 6.h3 I prefer moving the h-pawn only one square, as then Black cannot easily play . . . g4 to hit the f3-knight. 6.h4?! g4 7 . lLi g l e5!N 8 . e3 exd4 (or 8 . . . i.f5 9 .i.b5 Wf d6t) 9 .i.d3 Wf e7 (9 . . . lLi ge7 is a solid choice: 1 0 . exd4 ie6 1 1 . lLi c3 a6+) 1 0 .ig6t 'it>d8 1 1 . lLi e2� 6 ... tll h6 7.e3 tll 5 8.i.h2 2 I �®· 0•��.� � �·� � ��0·� <--(�� lr:1�-�a b c d e f g h From here 1 O . lLi c3 g4 l 1 . cxd5 exd5 1 2 . lLi d2 g3 1 3 .ixg3 lLi xg3 1 4 .fxg3 Wfd6 gave Black compensation in Povah - Lock, Hinckley Island 2009. I would prefer l O . lLi fd2!N;!; to sidestep Black's . . . g4-g3 plan. 250 Richard Pert - Playing the Tromp owsky 9.dxe5 g4 The point of Black's move order is that now White doesn't have the option of taking on g4 followed by ixc7. ixf5 1 3 .ie2 lll xe5 1 4 .ixh 5 t lll f7�) 1 2 . lll h4 lll xe5 l 3.B:xh2 id6� l l .exd4 g3 12 ..L::g3 llixg3 13.fxg3 fxe5 14.dxe5!? 1 4. lll c3 e4 � 1 4 ...'?NgS 15.J.hSt c6 1 6.0-0! 1 0 . lli c3 ! ? could be worth a punt, aiming for a murky position: 1 0 . . . gxf3 l l .Wi'xd5 fxe5 1 2 .Wi'xf3 Wi'g5 1 3 . lli e4 Wi'g7 1 4. 0-0-0 White has some play for the knight, though Black is probably doing fine. a b c d White's idea is that looks better for him. However 1 6 ...J.e6! e f is more of a problem. Black has full compensation for the two pawns, and given the choice I would prefer to B2) 3.J.d2!? Black has an h 1 6 ... cxbS?! l 7 .Wi'xd5;!; play Black. 1 0 ... llicxd4!? g interesting alternative: 1 0 . . . g3 ! ? l 1 . lll xf5 gxh2 ( l l . . .gxf2t 1 2 . @xf2 Okay, this move may appear totally 0-0-0 1 2 . tll bd2 '&h6 1 3 . tll xe5 id6 1 4 .'&g4t l 5 .'&f4 l 7 .'&c4 ridiculous, but given that we are struggling to prove an advantage with other moves, it could id? pretty balanced, and at least we're into a game 1 O.ixc600 Torre - Sasikiran, Doha 2 0 0 3 . be worth a try. The resulting positions look where our opponent cannot blindly follow g5 1 6 .'&d4 c5 ie6 1 8 .'&a4;!; Torre - Claesen, Leuven 2003) 6 . exd4 ie6 7 . tll e2 id6 8 . tll f4 if7 9.'&g4 'it>f8 theory. 3 ... cSN This move looks most natural so I have concentrated my analysis on it. 3 . . . e5N 4.e4 4.dxc5 4 . e4! ? could transpose to our man line after 4 . . . dxe4 5 . dxc5 e 5 . a b c d e f g h 4... e5 4 . . . dxe4 (4 . . . exd4 5 .'&h5t g6 6.'&xd5 '&xd 5 7 . exd5i) 5 . dxe5 i Black can also develop with: 4 . . . tll c6 3 . . . tll c6 has been Black's most common reply: 4 . e3 e5 5 .ib5 5 . b4!? a b c d e f g An interesting way to make use of the bishop h development. 5 . . . exd4 (5 . . . id7 6.ixc6 ixc6 7.dxe5 d4 8 . tll f3 dxe3 9 . fxe3 fxe5 1 0 . 0-0 '&d6 l l .ic3 5 . e4 is also possible: 5 . . . dxe4 6 . tll c3 f5 7.'&h 5 t (7.ic4!? tll f6 8 . tll h300) 7 . . . g6 8 .'&h4 ig7 9 . 0-0-0 Wa5 1 O . tll h3 tll f6 l l .a3 '&xc5 252 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky 1 2 .ie3 We5 1 3 .if4 Wc5 1 4 .ie3 This looks about equal, although both sides could find reasons to play on. 5 ... e5 6 . e3 a5 7.b5 lD b8 8 . c4 d4 9 .id3 ixc5 7 lli c6 8.i.c4 �ks 9.tll ge2;1; .•• White has a comfortable lead in development. B3) 3.J.h4 1 0 . lli e2 1 0 .Wh 5 t ! ? c;t.[8 1 0 .We2 also looks slightly better for White. 1 0 . . . dxe3 l l .ixe3 ixe3 1 2 . fxe3 lli d7 1 3 . lli bc3 lli c 5 1 4 . l2J d 5 --+ This is my main recommendation against this difficult line. 3 ... lli h6! The critical choice. 3 . . . c5 4 . dxc5 transposes to line D at the end of this chapter. 3 . . . lli c6 This looks a bit slow. 4 . e3 l2J h6 5 . c4 lli f5 5 . . . e6 6 . lD c3 ib4 7 .id3 0-0 8 . lD ge2 dxc4 9.ixc4;l; Meduna - Dobrovolsky, Smokovec 1 9 82. Stary 6 . cxd5 Wxd5 7 . lD c3 Wf7 8 . d 5 lli e 5 9.ig3 lD xg3 1 0 .hxg3 e6 l l . f4 lD g6 a b c d e f g h Chapter 1 3 - l . d4 d5 2.ig5 1 2 .ib StN 1 2 .ic4 id6 1 3 .Wfa4t ©e7 1 4 . tlJ f3;!; Berkovich - Grushevsky, Podolsk 1 993. 12 . . . id7 1 3 .dxe6 Wfxe6 1 4.ixd7t Wi'xd7 I 5 .Wfxd7t ©xd7 1 6 . 0-0-0t id6 l 7 . tlJ ge2 gae8 1 8 .e4;!; (6.ig3 ? 7 . h3 e6 l 1 .tlJ f3 1 4. exd4 1 997. 253 transposes to the next note) 6 . . . ixf5 8 .ig3 h4 9 .ih2 c5 I O.ixb8 gxb8 ©fl 1 2 . tlJ bd2 ig6 1 3 .0-0 cxd4 Wc7+ Rogers - Bosch, Wij k aan Zee 5 . tlJ f3 g5! 4.e3 White quite often clears the f2-square as a retreat for the bishop, but I am not too impressed by that idea: 4.f3?! c5! 5 . dxc5 Black now has a pleasant choice between two moves. a a b c d e f g h 5 . . . tlJ f5 5 . . . e5 6.if2 ie6 (6 . . . d4 7.e3 ixc500 Chepukaitis - Milov, Internet 2002) 7.c3 a5 8.e4 dxe4 9.Wfa4t tlJ c6 I O.Wfxe4 f500 R. Bagirov - Andriasian, Aix-les-Bains 20 1 1 . 6.if2 d4 7.g4 tlJ e3 8.ixe3 dxe3 9 .Wfxd8t 'tt> x d8 1 0 . tlJ c3 e5 1 1 .0-0-0t id7 1 2 . tlJ e4 1 2 .g5 f5 1 3 .gd5 tlJ c6 1 4 .ih3 g6 1 5 . f4 exf400 Ilhomzoda - I . Sokolov, Dubai 20 1 2 . 1 2 . . . tlJ a6 1 3 .g5 f5 1 4. tlJ d6 ixd6 1 5 . cxd6N I 5 . gxd6 'tt> c 7 I 6.gd3 f4+ Mohrlok - Ter Minasj an, Germany 1 99 9 . 1 5 . . . gc8� c d e f g h 6 .tlJxg5 6.ig3 h5 gave Black the initiative in Kravtsova - Yul. Yakovich, Samara 2003. 6.ixg5 fxg5 7.tlJxg5 Wd6!+ prepares to meet 8 .Wh5t with 8 . . . Wg6. 6 . . . fxg5 7.Wfh S t 'tt> d 7 8 .ixg5 Wi'e8 White does not seem to have quite enough for the piece. s ... hsi 4 ... ttJ f5 s ..ig3 5 .id3 is White's most common move, but it doesn't inspire me: 5 . . . h5! (5 . . . tlJ xh4 6.Wh5t g6 7.Wxh4 looks about equal) 6.ixf5 b 6 ..ie2 254 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky As pointed out by Eric Prie, 6.id3? fails to work: 6 . . . h4 7.Wg4 ltJ d6! 8 .Wg6t ll:i f7 9 .if4 e5 1 O.dxe5 fxe5 l l .ixe5 l'!h6-+ and Black wins material. 6 ... h4 7.J.h5t @d7 s.J.f4 g5 9.e4 9 .ixg5 ?!N doesn't quite work: 9 . . . fxg5 1 0 . ll:i f3 .ig7 l 1 .ll:i xg5 c6 1 2. ltJ f7 Wa5t 1 3 . ll:i c3 l'!f8 1 4.Wg4 me? White holds some compensation, but it does not seem to be enough. a 9 ... dxe4 9 . . . gxf4 1 0 . exf5 looks pretty reasonable for White as the king is misplaced and the f4- and h4-pawns look weak. 1 0 . . . c6 1 1 . ll:i d2 mc7 1 2 .Wg4 ih6 1 3 . 0-0-0 ll:i a6 ( 1 3 . . . Wg8 1 4 .l'!e l Wxg4 1 5 .ixg4 l'!h7 1 6 . ll:i df3 ll:i d7 1 7. b l ig5 1 8 . ll:i h3t) 1 4.ll:i gf3 l'!g8 1 5 .Wh3t s 1 6 i. -..i.. B -, �� 11.fi"E•m--, • "• •,Y, •• - - - - - Y. s• •• •n4l m! � �� w0 �&" r� � r,� ,,,,,Y, · - - 7.�rJ� 43 • , . , ,% • � � � � "m· • •. •w·0 •w,, " " , � ,,,,, 7, � INJ81Jli!i a b c d e f g h We shall examine B3 1) 1 0.J.c l , B32) 1 0.dS!?N and B33) 1 0.J.g4!?N, after quickly disposing of a couple of the other bishop retreats. 1 0 .ie3 ll:i xe3 1 l . fxe3 c6 1 2. ll:i c3 f5+ 1 0 .id2 c6 l 1 . ll:i c3 me?+ B3 1) 10.J.cl b c d e f g h This has been considered the main move, but I think White's compensation for the pawn looks a bit speculative. 10 ... c6 1 1 .� c3 l 1 .ig4?! c7 1 2 . ll:i e2 ll:i d6 1 3 .ixc8 Wxc8 1 4 . ltJ bc3 h3 1 5 .g3 Wg4+ Adams - Van Wely, Wij k aan Zee 1 99 8 . 11 ... @c7 12.d5 e6 13.dxc6 Wi'xdl t 14.J.xdl i. -..i.. � - �� 7 .. .. . .% ,, %. J� �ti�� l- � ·· ··-·· 5· •n fn" '• 43 •n•m•n •n" .'m,,.J' u .'m11 'm • 2 [)J[j� �w•�J�0%�jl$ 8 6 1 . , , · �� ..t � m .: a 14 ... �xc6! b c d e f g h 14 . . . e3 1 5 . fxe3 ll:ixc6 ( 1 5 . . . bxc6? 1 6.e4;t Galyas - I. Almasi, Budapest 2000) 1 6.e4 ll:i d600 1 4 . . . ib4 1 5 .id2 ixc3 1 6.ixc3 e5 1 7.cxb7 x b7 1 8 . f300 Mikhalevski - L. Milov, Dieren 1 997. Chapter 1 3 - 15.lll xe4 ie7 1 6.c3 l 6.id2 b6+ is also pleasant for Black. 1 6 b6N:j: ••. I prefer this to I 6 . . . lll d6, as played in Matozo - Kaufmann, email 2002, though that may also be a touch better for Black. l . d4 d5 2 .ig5 255 I I .ig4 t was my first thought, but White struggles to demonstrate sufficient compensation: I l . . . f5 1 2 .ixg5 fxg4 1 3 .Wlxg4t 'tt> e 8 1 4.W/xe4 Although the position remains murky, objectively Black's chances are preferable. 1 1 . gxf4 12.lll c3 •. B32) 10.d5!?N We shall see in the following analysis that if Black defends accurately, then White will be obliged to deliver perpetual check. If you are determined to avoid a draw (I guess it could depend who your opponent is) , then you should investigate line B33 with I O .ig4 instead. Black now chooses between B32 1) 1 0 lll g7!? and B322) 1 0 gxf4. •.• There is no easy way for Black to safely create breathing space for his king, and he has to be careful not to get into deep trouble. .•. B32 1) 10 lll g7!? ..• Initially I thought this move would cause White problems. Black steps his knight out of the way of a future pin by ig4, whilst attacking both white bishops. a 12 £5 b c d e f g h ... 1 2 . . . c6? 1 3 .dxc6t 'tt> c7 1 4 . lll b 5 t wins the black queen . 1 2 . . . e6? 1 3 . dxe6t 'tt> e 7 1 4 . lll d 5 t+- 256 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky Note that White is now threatening l 5 .ie6t tll x e6 1 6. dxe6t! �c6 1 7.!!d l ! trapping the black queen. 1 4 . . . ia6! 1 4 . . . ib7? 1 5 .ie6t tll xe6 1 6 .dxe6t! ( 1 6.Wfxe6t ©e8 1 7.Wfg6t is a perpetual) 1 6 . . . �c8 ( 1 6 . . . �c6 l 7.Wfxf5 +-) 1 7.!!d l ± and the black queen is trapped. 1 5 .ie6t tll xe6 1 6.Wfxe6t After 1 6.dxe6t �c6 the black queen and king both escape: 1 7.E:d l Wf c8 l 8 .Wfxf5 �b7-+ 1 6 . . . �e8 1 7.Wfg6t ©d7 1 8 .Wfxf5 t �e8 1 5 . . . tll xe6 1 6. dxe6t ©e8 l 7.Wfxd8t �xd8 1 8 .tll f7t �e8 1 9 .tll x h8 ic8 20.tll d5± 1 6 ... tll xe6 17.dxe6 l 7. tll xd8 tll x d8 l 8 .Wf d4 tll f700 a b c d e f g h 1 9 .tll h3!? White does not need to take the perpetual that is on offer by 1 9 .Wfg6t. 19 ... Wfd6 20.tll xf4 ig7 2 1 . tll e6-+ White has great compensation for the piece. 13.tll h 3! b6! This is j ust about Black's only move, looking to move the c8-bishop and create an escape square for the king. l 3 . . . tll a6? I 4. tll x f4 tll c5 l 5 .tll e6+- 14.tll gS! 1 4. tll xf4 ib7 1 5 . tll e6 tll xe6 1 6.ixe6t ©e8 l 7.Wfd4 also gives White reasonable play, bur is less clear. 14 ...ib7 15.ie6t eS 17 ...Ylfxdl t 1 8J�xdl tll c6 1 9.tll xhS tll d8 20.tll g6 tll xe6 2 1 .tll xh4;t B322) 10 ... gxf4 1 1 .ig4 257 Chapter 1 3 - 1 . d4 dS 2 . i g S l l ... e6 This clever move uses a trick to exchange queens. 1 2 .dxe6t Wxe6 1 3 .Wxd8 ib4t 1 4.Wd2 ixd2t l 5 . lt:l xd2 The position looks balanced, with the e-pawn likely to drop at some point. This is my computer's suggestion, but it would take a brave (or foolhardy) man to play like this. 1 2 . . . c6? tries to free c7 for the king: 1 3 .dxc6t mc7 1 4. lt:l b S t mxc6 1 5 .Wxd8+1 2 . . . e6 tries to free e7 for the king: 1 3 .dxe6t me7 1 4.Wxd8t 'itixd8 1 5 .ixfS ± 1 3 . b4t � � �·� 8 �if i, �;!'al' &D�•••••• •� j_ �\lf •..• . a b c d e f g h 1 5 . . . �g8 1 5 . . . e3 1 6. fxe3 fxe3 1 7. lt:l fl mf7 1 8 .ixfS ixf5 l 9 . lt:l xe3= l 6.h3 e3 17 . fxe3 fxe3 1 7 . . . mf7 1 8 .ixfS ( 1 8 . exf4 lt:l g3�) 1 8 . . . ixfS l 9.e4 ie6 2 0 . lt:l e2= 1 8 . lt:l fl Wf7 1 9 .ixfS ixf5 20.lt:lxe3= l L .md6? This avoids the repetition but, frankly, walking your king into the middle of the board is asking for it. { z � 6 ·· · ··"� ···· · 7,� ·····" �� 54 � ��-!�•� ·ef" · . ��·0 �� ·� t� • .t. t.EJ.. ti 3 •. . . 7,� �� · ·· · · "� ·· · · · � 2 !.' '8· '� · ···"z. ,,z// ···· ···· · �� z0 ·;v,d'�!� 7 ,. .� a b � ••••• . . . 7. "� · · = � li c d e f g h This clearly must be good for White. I 'll leave it for you to enj oy working out how you would finish off the black king from here! 1 1 . . . c6 is playable, returning the extra material: 1 2 .dxc6t mc7 1 3 .Wxd8t 'itixd8 1 4.ixf5 lt:l xc6 1 4.ixe4 with a balanced position. 1 2.ih5t c!>d7 258 Richard Pert - Playin g the Trompowsky 1 3 .ig6?! avoids the repetition, but I really cannot recommend it. Black may choose the safe 1 3 . . . e6, with play similar to 1 1 . . . e6 in the previous note; or the more ambitious 1 3 . . . tlih6 1 4. tli c3 ig7, and although the position is a litcle murky, it must surely favour Black. 13.�h3 @c7 1 3 . . . ih6 1 4.0-0 f5 1 5 .ie2 ©c7 1 6. tli a4--+ with c2-c4 to follow. 1 3 ... @es With a repetition of moves. B33) I O.ig4!? ; ·v; �� - - · ·� s .! ;f�li/.�ti.E � � . · , ·" · ""9""'"'� � .. .. . 6 �61· L. J�:,.�. � � .. �.. . . . :� wc@ � �w-it�. 0. % �I. �•. ��4 �� iY•� • � � 3 �. . � �l& �w 0 � w� � · · · ' � 2 8 i�Z. 8 �ii'i� 8 iw-j;! �� = z . rf. . 7 1 0 ... e6 1 I .J.d2N Earlier we noted chat 1 0 .id2 was not promising for White, but now with 1 0 .ig4 e6 thrown in, the f6-pawn is softened up and provides a target after tli c3xe4. s 0 1 a 1 1 ... c6 1 1 . . . tli c6 1 2. tli c3 ©e8 1 3 . tli xe4 Wi'xd4 ( 1 3 . . . tli cxd4 1 4.c3 tli c6 1 5 .Wi'e2;!;) 1 4.Wi'e2 Wi'xb2 1 5 .ih 5t ©d8 ( 1 5 . . . ©e?? 1 6.ic3 +-) 1 6.ic3 ib4 1 7.Wi'd2t and White has an initiative. 12.�c3 � d6 1 2 . . . ©c7 1 3 .tlixe4t b c . . ,f d . -. e f g h 1 5 . . . ie?!? This looks a good practical choice to me. 1 5 ... Wi'e8 1 6.if6 E:h6 ( 1 6 ... E:g8 ? 1 7.ih5 WT d7 1 8 . f3;!;) 17 .ie5 offers White some compensation. 1 6.ixe7 Wi'xe7 1 7.ih5 Whilst we have regained our material it has been at a cost, with our bishop being awkwardly placed. 25 9 Chapter 1 3 - l .d4 dS 2 i g S . 1 7 . . . lli d?+ The knight is heading for the f6-square. 14 ... ie7 Supporting the g5-pawn so that . . . f5 can be played. 15.ie2 f5 3.c4 This looks very much to the point, immediately pressuring the d5-pawn with c2c4 and lli c3 . 3 ... dxc4 3 . . . c6 4.cxd5 '1Wxd5 (4 . . . cxd5 5 . lli c3 lli c6 6.e3 '1Wb6 7.a3 ig7 8 . lli f3 lli f6 9 .ixf6 ixf6 1 0 . lli xd5 \Wa5t 1 1 .lli c3 0-0 1 2.b4 \Wd8 1 3 ,:gcl if5 1 4.id3;t Knezevic - Gonsior, H radec Kralove 1 977) 5 . lli f3 ig7 6 . lli c3 \Wa5 7.e3 lli f6 8 .ie2 0-0 9 . 0-0;t Hasangatin Volodin, Canak 2003. 3 . . . ig7 4. lli c3 and now: a 1 6 lli d7 1 7.c4 .•• White has good attacking chances in return for the pawn. C) 2 ... g6 b c d e f g h a) 4 . . . h6 5 .if4 lli f6 6.e3 0-0 7.\Wb3 c6 8 . lli f3 \Wa5 9 . lli e5 e 6 1 0 .ie2 g 5 1 1 .ig3 lli e4 1 2.:gd l lli d7 1 3 . llixd7 ixd7 1 4 . 0-0 lli xg3 1 5 . hxg3;t Bui Vinh - Novita, Kolkata 2009. b) 4 ... lli f6!?N is possible, sacrificing the d5pawn. Although this move has never been played here, it reaches a position from the Griinfeld Defence after l . d4 lli f6 2 . c4 g6 3 . lli c3 d5 4 .ig5 ig7 ! ? that has been the focus of much recent attention. I would advise you to check up on Griinfeld theory if you want to learn about this variation. 4.e4!?N The lines after this are not totally clear, but it certainly seems to be the way for White to keep up the momentum. 260 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 4.e3 is a solid alternative: 4 . . . c5 (4 . . . c6 5 . lli f3 ie6 6.lli bd2 b5 7.b3 cxb3 8 . axb3 ig7 9 .ie2 looks like good compensation for White) 5 .ixc4 ig7 6 .Wl'b3 Wl'a5 t 7.llic3 e6 8. d5 Wl' b 6 9 . 0-0-0 Th i s seemed very promising for White in Meduna - Oizdar, Trencianske Teplice 1 98 5 . .i -J. �% · - 41)�� .• . , ; � 7 �1·· y, _. ,,, , 6 , ,� , 8 3.dxc5!? This seems an interesting option, though 3.e3, 3 .e4 and 3 . lli c3 all look quite playable. 3 . .. f6 3 . . . h6 4.ih4 transposes to line A l on page 237. 3 ... lli c6 4.e4 h6 5 .ih4 dxe4 "� � '· � 5 � �� 4 , �� I! � �� 3 � ��,� 2 �� !�!� ·' '11 �,� �8 �r� m r� � r� �� 8 r� 1 �� 1=�m1 % a /, , , , y, b c 4 . . .i.g7 5.tlia c5 d ,,, e • f g � '"" h 5 . . . lli c6 6.ixc4 (or 6.Wl'a4 ig4 7 .ixc4 ixf3 8 .gxf3 Wfxd4 9 . lli c3�) 6 . . . lli xd4 7. 0-0 ig4 8 . lli bd2 Wl'd7 (8 . . . lli xf3 t 9 .gxf3 ih3 1 0 .Wl'b3;!;) 9 .Wl'c l llixf3 t I O . lli xf3 1 0 . . . ixf3 l l .gxf3 lli f6 1 2.E:d l and White has excellent compensation. 6.hc4 cxd4 7.'§b3;t The f7-pawn is vulnerable. D) 2 ... c5 a b c d e f g h 6.Wl'xd8 tN 6 . lli c3 g5 7.ig3 Wl'a5 8 .ib5 ig700 Hodgson - Hillarp Persson, York 2000. 6 . . . lli xd8 7 .lli c3 f5 Threatening to trap the h4-bishop. 8.f3 g5 8 . . . e3 ? 9 . lli d 5 g5 I O . lli c7t 'it> f7 I 1 . lli xa8 gxh4 ( l I . . . lli e6 1 2.ic4 gxh4 1 3 . lli c7 ig7 1 4 . 0-0-0+-) 1 2 .E:d l lli c6 1 3 . c3 lli f6 1 4. lli c7± 9 .if2 ig7 I O. fxe4;t; a b c d e f g h Chapter 1 3 - l . d4 d 5 2 .i.g5 3 . . . lll f6 4.ixf6 4. lll d2 !? lll a6 5 . e4 lll xc5 6.exd5 lll x d5 7.Wf3 f6 8 .�b5 t 'it>f7 9 . 0-0-0 e6 1 0 .ic4;l; Miladinovic - Blagoj evic, Curro 200 5 . 4 . . . gxf6 s .! 11r..tS9� � . , . ,,.•.,Y.• ., �"·· �/,, . 6 ... /?Ji:: �R •.... %�" �� 5 � �·· • � • • • 3 R %1 8 8 2 8 f.�U� 8 8 0 8 � 7 z �"'" ····· 4 1 ��if=�� a b c d e f g h 5 . e4!?N 5 .e3 transposes to Chapter 8 - see the note on 5 . dxc5 on page 1 63 . 5 . . . dxe4 5 . . . d4 6.�h5 lll c6 7 . ttJ d2 Wa5 8 . lll gf3 e6 9 . 0-0-0 �xc5 1 0 .Wxc5;l; 6.Wxd8t cJ;; x d8 7 . ttJ c3 f5 8 . f3 White has the initiative. 4.i.h4 e5 4 . . . e6 ? ! 5 .e4 �xc5 6 . ttJ c3 ttJ e7 7.Wh 5 t g6 8 .Wh6 d4 9 . 0-0-0t Hodgson - Strij bos, Netherlands 1 996; it already looks really promising for White who has lots ofweaknesses to attack. 26 1 5.e4! dxe4 5 . . . ie6 6.exd5 Wxd5 7 .Wxd5 ixd5 8 . ttJ c3 ie6 9 . ttJ b 5 lll a6 1 0 .f4 (or 1 0 .lll d6t ixd6 l l .cxd6;!;) 1 0 . . . ixc5 1 l . fxe5 fxe5 1 2. 0-0-0 lll f6 1 3 . ttJ f3 0-0 1 4.lll x e5;l; Hodgson I . Sokolov, Groningen 1 996. 5 ... d4 6.ic4 ixc5 7 . ttJ e2 (or 7 . ttJ f3 ! ? lll e7 8 . c3 lll bc6 9 . 0-0 ig4 1 0 . lll bd2;l; with pressure on the light squares) 7 . . . Wb6 8 . ttJ d2 ie6 .! • �-�'!i) �� 6•..• �. �.,., 6 .�E�ar•· ... . %. "· · · · · "· · · - �� 5 �.i:.'98"• �� 3 � �-- - - - �� .. . ·�·�" "// ' � �·�f{�%· � A � �ff� A -�"'� A � �ff..-� 8 7 %•••• 4 2 1 rr· · · "•i'm· · · "•� ��: � iQz Q 7.Q .� 0 r.Oz a b c d e f g Y. h 9 . 0-0! ? N (9.ixe6 Wxe6 1 0 . ttJ b300 Mohrlok - Beikert, Germany 1 993) 9 . . . lll e7 1 0 . c3 dxc3 1 l .tlJ xc3 ttJ d7 1 2.l:!c l l:!c8 1 3 .lll a4 Wd6 1 4.Wh5 t;t 6.�xd8t c.f:?xd8 7.tll c3 Les 8.0-0-0t tll d7 9.tll xe4 i.e7 1 0.f4 exf4 262 Richard Pert - Playing the Trompowsky 1 I .tll f3 ©c7 1 2.tll c3 tll b6 1 3 .a4 .ib4 1 4.a5! ixa5 1 5 .tll b 5 t @b8 1 6.!!d4 was slightly better for White in Hodgson - Van Wely, Horgen 1 99 5 . 1 1 . .. g5 1 2 ..ifl White will attack the black pawn structure with h2-h4. 12 ... �h6 l3.h4 � g4 14.J.d4± White has strong pressure. Conclusion: A large portion of this chapter is dedicated to the relatively rare B) 2 .. .f6 ! . I fi n d this l i n e t o be quite playable, and I would even go so far as to recommend it for Black! However, I have suggested various possibilities for White, and I hope you can find something that appeals to you. I would again stress that I do not fully trust B 1 ) 3 . .if4, but would recommend B3) 3 ..ih4 as leading to interesting and unclear play. Against the various other (more common) 2nd moves, I feel that White has decent chances of demonstrating an edge. So to sum up, whilst I do not believe that the Pseudo-Tromp is as accurate as the Trompowsky, it is still a dangerous weapon and a non-critical response from Black can leave him struggling. Variation Index Chapter 1 - 1 .d4 liJf6 2 .lg5 e6 3.e4 Chapter 4 - 1 .d4 ctl f6 2 . .lg5 c5 3.d5 A) 3 . . . c 5 ! ? 4.d5 13 A l ) 4 . . . d6 1 4 A2) 4 . . . h6 1 6 B ) 3 . . . h6 4.�xf6 %l/xf6 5 .c3 ! ? 20 B l ) 5 . . . liJ c6 21 B 2 ) 5 . . . c5 23 B3) 5 . . . d5 6 . li:l d2 c5 7.li:\gf3 24 B3 l ) 7 . . cxd4 8 . li:\ xd4 .lc5 9.li:\2b3!? 25 B3 1 l ) 9 . . . �xd4 26 B3 1 2) 9 . . . ib6 27 B32) 7 . . . tD c6 8 . .lb5 cxd4 9 . li:l xd4 id? 1 0. 0-0!? 28 B32 1 ) 1 0 . . . �e? 30 B322) 1 0 . . . %lfd8 3 1 B 4 ) 5 . . . d6 6.�d3 32 B4 1 ) 6 . . . e5 34 B42) 6 . . . g6 7 . li:\ e2 ig7 8.0-0 e5 9 . f4 36 B42 1 ) 9 . . . exd4 37 B422) 9 . . . '!fle7 40 B422 1 ) 1 0 . li:l d2 41 B4222) 1 0 . f5 ! 44 A) 3 . . . '!flb6 4 . li:\ c3 '!flxb2 5 .id2 'iflb6 6 . e4 80 A l ) 6 . . . d6 7.f4 Bl Al I) 7 . . . '!flc7 82 A 1 2) 7 . . . e6 82 A2) 6 . . . e5 7.f4! d6 8 . li:\ f3 84 A2 1 ) 8 . . . exf4 85 A22) 8 . . . li:\ bd7 9 . fxe5 dxe5 1 0.l:'lb l 86 A22 1 ) 1 0 . . . %lfd8 87 A222) 1 0 . . . '!flc? 88 B) 3 . . . d6 90 • . Chapter 2 - 1 .d4 liJf6 2 . .lg5 e6 3.liJd2!? A) 3 ... c 5 4.e3 49 A l ) 4 . . . cxd4 49 A2) 4 . . . b6!? 50 B) 3 . . . d5 52 CJ 3 . . . h6 4 .�h4 54 C l ) 4 . . . d5 54 C2) 4 . . . c5 56 Chapter 3 - I .d4 ctlf6 2 ..lg5 c5 3.ctlc3!? A) 3 . . . cxd4 4 .'iflxd4 li:\ c6 5 .%l/h4 63 A I ) 5 . . . b 5 ! ? 64 A2) 5 . . . d6 65 A3) 5 . . . e6 6 . e4 1J.e7 7. 0-0-0 68 A3 1 ) 7 . . . 0-0 ? 68 A32) 7 . . . d6 69 B ) 3 . . . dS 4 .�xf6 gxf6 5 .e4! ? dxe4 6.dxc5 72 B l ) 6 . . . '!fla5 73 B2) 6 . . . f5 74 C) 3 . . . 'iflaS 76 0) 3 . . . '!flb6 76 Chapter 5 - 1 .d4 liJf6 2 . .lg5 ctl e4 3 .lf4 c5 4.d5 • A) 4 . . . e6 5 . f3 95 A l ) 5 . . . li:\ f6 95 A2) 5 . . . id6 96 B) 4 . . . '!flb6 98 B l ) 5 . li:l d2!? 98 B l I ) 5 . . . li:l xd2 98 B l 2) 5 . . . '1Wxb2 J OO B2) 5 .ic l 1 03 B2 1 ) 5 . . . g6 1 03 B22) 5 . . . e6 1 04 Chapter 6 - 1 .d4 liJf6 2 . .lg5 liJ e4 3 ..lf4 c5 4.f3 A) 4 . . . li:\ f6 5 . dxc5 ! ? 1 09 A l ) 5 . . . ctla6?! 1 09 A2) 5 . . . '1Wa5t 1 1 0 A3) 5 . . . b6! 6 . e4 bxc5 7 . li:\ c3 li:\ c6 8 . .lc4 1 1 1 A3 1 ) 8 . . . d 6 1 1 1 A32) 8 . . . g6 1 12 B) 4 . . . '!fla5t 5 .c3 li::i f6 6.d5 1 13 B 1 ) 6 . . . e6!? 7.e4 exd5 8 . exd 5 d6 9 .'1Wd2 ie7 1 0 . c4 'iflxd2t l J .@xd2 1 13 B l I ) 1 l . . .b5 1 15 B 1 2) 1 1 . .. li:\ h 5 1 2 .ie3 f5 1 3 .lt'l c3 1 1 6 B l 2 1 ) 1 3 . . . li:l d? 1 1 7 B l 22) 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 1 8 B2) 6 . . . d 6 1 19 B3) 6 . . . '!flb6 121 B3 1 ) 7.ic l 121 B3 1 l) 7 . . . g6 121 B3 1 2) 7 . . . e6 8 . e4 ! exd 5 9.exd5 122 B3 1 2 1 ) 9 . . . id6 123 B3 1 22) 9 . . . 'iflc7!? 124 B3 1 23) 9 . . . c4 126 264 Richard Pert - Playing the Trom p owsky B3 1 24) 9 . . . d6 127 B32) 7.e4!? %'i'xb2 8 .lll d2 %'i'xc3 9 .ic7! 128 B32 1 ) 9 . . . b6?! 130 B322) 9 . . . e6 132 B323) 9 . . . d6 135 Chapter 7 - 1 .d4 tt:lf6 2.ig5 d5 3.Lf6 A) 3 ... gxf6!? 143 B) 3 . . . exf6 4.e3 id6 5 .g3 c6 6.ig2 1 47 B l ) 6 . . . 0-0 7.lll e2 1 48 B l I ) 7 . . . %'i'b6 149 B 1 2) 7 . . . if5 1 49 B 1 3) 7 . . . lll d7 150 B2) 6 . . . f5! 7.lll e2 151 B2 1 ) 7 ... ie6 151 B22) 7 ... lll d7 152 Chapter 8 - 1 .d4 ttlf6 2 . .ig5 d5 3.e3 A) 3 . . . lll bd7 159 B) 3 . . . c5 4.ixf6 gxf6 5 .lll c3 lll c6 1 62 B l ) 6.dxc 5 ! ? 1 64 B2) 6.%'i'h5 1 65 B2 1 ) 6 . . . e6 1 66 B22) 6 . . . cxd4 167 C) 3 . . . c6 1 69 Chapter 9 - 1 .d4 tt:lf6 2.1g5 tt:l e4 3.1£4 d5 4.e3 A) 4 . . . e6 5 .id3 id6 6.lll e2 1 73 A l ) 6 . . . lll f6 1 73 A2) 6 . . . 0-0 1 74 B) 4 . . . if5 5 .8 1 75 B I ) 5 . . . lll d6 1 75 B2) 5 . . . lll f6 1 76 C) 4 . . . c6 1 77 D) 4 . . . c5 5 .id3 1 79 D I ) 5 . . . %'i'b6 1 79 02) 5 . . . cxd4 1 8 1 0 3 ) 5 . . . lll c6?! 1 83 04) 5 . . . lll f6 1 85 04 1 ) 6.lll f3 ! ? 1 86 042) 6.c3 1 87 Chapter 10 - 1 .d4 ttlf6 2.1g5 tt:l e4 3.1£4 A) 3 . . . g5?! 195 B) 3 . . . d6 196 C) 3 . . . g6?! 196 D) 3 . . . e6!? 197 E) 3 . . . e5?! 197 Chapter 1 1 - 1 .d4 tt:lf6 2.ig5 A) 2 . . . b6 203 B) 2 . . . g6 3 .ixf6 exf6 4.e3 ig7 5 . g3 d6 6.i.g2 f5 7.lll e2 0-0 205 B l ) 8 .c4 206 B2) 8 . 0-0 206 C) 2 . . . lll c6 208 D) 2 . . . c6 209 Chapter 1 2 - 1 .d4 f5 2.1g5 A) 2 . . . h6 3 .i.h4 215 A l ) 3 ... c5?! 215 A l I) 4.e3 215 A l 2) 4.e4! 2 1 7 A2) 3 . . . g5 4 .e4 217 A2 1 ) 4 ... ig??! 218 A22) 4 . . Jih7!? 218 A22 1 ) 5 .%'fh5t 218 A222) 5 .ig3!N 220 A23) 4 . . . lll f6 221 B) 2 . . . g6 222 B l ) 3 .lll d2!? 222 B2) 3 .lll c3!? 223 B2 1 ) 3 . . . lll h6 223 B22) 3 . . . i.g7 4.h4!? h6 5 .if4 225 B22 1 ) 5 . . . lll f6 226 B222) 5 . . . d6 227 C) 2 . . . lll f6?! 228 D) 2 . . . d5?! 230 Chapter 1 3 - l .d4 d5 2.1g5 A) 2 . . . h6 3 .ih4 237 A l ) 3 . . . c5!? 237 A2) 3 . . . c6 4.lll f3 ! ? %'i'b6 5 .Wfc l 240 A2 I ) s . . . if5 211 A22) 5 . . . g5 242 B) 2 . . . f6! 246 B l ) 3 .if4 lll c6 4.lll f3 246 B l 1 ) 4 . . . .ig4 247 B l 2) 4 . . . .if5 248 B l 3) 4 . . . g5! 248 B2) 3 .id2! ? 250 B3) 3 .ih4 lll h6! 4.e3 lll f5 5 .ig3 h 5 ! 6 . .ie2 h4 7.ih5 t ©d7 8 .if4 g5 9 . e4 dxe4 252 B3 1 ) 1 0 .ic l 254 B32) 1 0.d5!?N 255 B32 1 ) 1 0 . . . lll g?! ? 255 B322) 1 0 . . . gxf4 256 B33) 1 0 .i.g4!?N 257 C) 2 . . . g6 259 D) 2 . . . c5 260

Pert Richard - Play the Trompowsky (2013).pdf

Recommend Documents