2 n d edition с.

the
tro m p o w sky

VERYMAN CHESS
Hello everybody!!
H o la a t o d o s ! !

"We are a group o f chess fans who are producing chess material. We have several projects and ideas. We have members
from all around the world, belonging to different cultures and speaking different languages, all o f us joined by our
common love for chess!." We hope you will enjoy our work!

" S o m o s u n g r u p o d e f a n a tic o s d e l a je d r e z , q u e e s ta m o s t r a t a n d o d e p r o d u c ir m a te r ia l d e a je d r e z , d e s a r r o lla n d o

d ife r e n te s p ro y e c tn s e id e a s . T e n e m o s m ie m b rn s d e d ife re n te s p a r te s d e l m u n d o , p rn v e n ie n te s d e d ife re n te s
c u ltu r a s , h a b la n d o d if e r e n te s le n g u a s , u n id o s p o r n u e s tr a p a s io n p o r el a je d r e z ! ." E s p e ra m o s q u e d is f r u te n d e
e s ta m u e s tr a d e n u e s tr o tr a b a jo ! .

I f you are interested in joining us, or send any comments drop us an email at: [email protected]
Si alguien estuviese interesado en unirse al grupo nos pueden escribir a: [email protected]

Best regards!!
S alu d o s!

" Caissa Lovers"

First published in 2005 by Gloucester Publishers pic (formerly Everyman Publishers
pic), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT

C opyright © 2005 N igel Davies

T h e right o f N igel D avies to be identified as the author o f this w o rk has been as­
serted in accordance with the C opyrights, D esigns and Patents A ct 1988.

All rights reserved. N o part o f this publication m ay be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system or transm itted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic
tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior perm ission o f the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1 85744 376 4

D istributed in N orth A m erica by The G lobe Pequot Press, P.O B ox 480,

246 G oose Lane, G uilford, CT 06437-0480.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House,
10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT
tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708
em ail: info@ everym anchess.com
w ebsite: w w w .everym anchess.com

E verym an is the registered trade m ark o f R andom H ouse Inc. and is used in this
w o rk under license from Random H ouse Inc. j

To Louise & Sam

Everyman Chess S eries (form erly Cadogan Chess)

C h ief advisor: G arry K asparov
C om m issioning editor: Byron Jacobs
G eneral editor: J ohn Emms

T ypeset and edited b y First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Cover design by H oratio M onteverde.
Production b y N avigator Guides.
Printed and bound in the US by V ersa Press.
 CONTENTS |

Bibliography 4
Introduction 5

1 d 4 £>f6 2 &.g5

1 2...<&e4 3 l . f 4 c5 4 В 9
2 2...^3e4 3 JLf4 c5 4 d5 26
3 2...^3e4 3 JLf4 d5 and 3..,Others 40
4 2...^3e4 3 JLh4 c5 and 3...g5 56
5 2...53e4 3 i .h 4 and 3 Others 72
6 2...c5 83
7 2...e6 /02
8 2...d5 118
9 Other Second Moves for Black 130

Index o f Complete Games 143

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
Winning with the Vrompowsky, Peter Wells (Batsford 2003)
HI Alaque Trompowsky, Jesus Dc la Villa (Evajedrcz 2001)
The Trompowsky, J oe Gallagher (Chess Press 1998)
Secrets o f the Trompowsky, Julian Hodgson (Hodgson Enterprises 1997)
Trompowski Opening and Torre Slttack, Robert Beilin (Batsford 1983)
Der 1rompowsky-Лngriff im Damenbauemspiel, Wolfgang Gerstner (Schach-Profi-Verlag 1995)
How to Open a Chess Game, Evans et al (R.H.M. Press, 1974)
The Soviet Chess Conveyor, Shcreshevsky (Semico, 1994)
Chess Injormators 1-90

C h e s s D atabases
Mega Database 2004, TW1C

Internet S o u rce s
ChessPubtishing.com, Jeremy SOman's website, Tigerchess Yahoo Group

C h e s s Engines
Extensive use was made of Shredder 8 in my analysis of this opening. This has helped me
find some tactical errors in existing literature and has —hopefully —minimised the number
of errors I have made.

A c k n o w le d g e m e n ts
1 would like to thank everyone who helped me with this book, notably Phil Adams for the
loan of several books, Nigel Colter for some ancient material, Byron Jacobs for suggesting
the project and most of all my wife Louise for her understanding during the weekends I had
to work. Let me also wish you luck with your future Trompowsky games. 1 hope you enjoy
playing this opening as much as I’ve enjoyed researching and writing about it.

4
 INTRODUCTION

Named after the Brazilian player, Octavio Figueira Trompowsky de Almeida, the Trom­
powsky Attack (1 d4 4tlf6 2 .&g5) has enjoyed unprecedented popularity in recent years.
British players in particular have taken a shine to it, perhaps largely due to the presence on
these shores of arch-guru Julian Hodgson. Under his influence Michael Adams was to adopt
the opening with success, the ranks being further swelled by Stuart Conquest, John Emms,
Luke McShane, Tony Miles, James Plaskett, Jonathan Speelman, Chris Ward, Peter Wells
and others.
The other main Tromp school is based in Armenia, where long-time Tromp aficionado
Rafael Vaganian spread the word to his countrymen, notably Smbat Lputian and Artashes
Minasian. And in Spain it has been played extensively by Jesus De la Villa and Alfonso Ro­
mero Holmes.
Why has the Tromp become so popular? Because it creates complex and original posi­
tions from the outset which are ideally suited to aggressive and inventive competitors. White
isn’t looking for an objective ‘advantage’ as much as a way of messing Black up. A comment
I once heard Julian Hodgson make seems apt: his only claim was that White wasn’t worse
and that the Tromp led to interesting positions.
What’s the idea behind this opening? As early as the second move White prepares to un­
balance the game by exchanging bishop for knight and doubling Black’s f-pawns. Is this a
serious weakness? Well, not as such as it is unlikely these pawns can be attacked and cap­
tured direedy. But they make Black’s pawn structure far less flexible and mobile because
further pawn advances will tend to create weaknesses.
Is the Trompowsky the opening for you? It certainly seems to appeal to more aggressive
players (Hodgson and Vaganian are prime examples) but you can also find some positional
smoothies on White’s side. Besides Adams and Lputian there’s the example of former world
number three, Vlastimil Hort. The former Czech Grandmaster has played the opening on
and off since the early 1970s, and with excellent results.
If you definitely want to play the Tromp, another factor to consider is whether you want
to play it full-time or keep it as a surprise weapon. Mikhail Shereshevsky in the Soviet Chess
Conveyor has his Tromp analysis listed in a section on ‘One Game Openings’, making it very
clear what his advice is on this matter. Many Tromp players do in fact employ the opening

5
The Tro m p o w sk y

as a surprise weapon, wheeling it out on selected occasions and against particular opposi­
tion. But it seems that there is no need to be so frugal with its use.
It is clear from Hodgson’s example that you can play die Tromp in every game. Checking
the statistics on Mega Database 2003, Hodgson returns a career performance of 2619 (74%)
from 225 Tromp games, his own rating being an average of 2569 during this period. That
someone can turn in results like these leads one to the conclusion that the Tromp is a rather
serious opening that can be used against the very best opposition. Indeed Gary Kasparov
himself has been spotted on the white side, and lost one game to Adams as Black.
My own Tromp career has been on both sides of the position. I have used it as Whitg, on
and off since the mid 1970s and have had to face it in a number of games widi Black. Be­
cause of this background I’m just as interested in finding good ideas for Black as for White;
there have been occasions on which I’ve met 1 d4 with l...d6 or l...e6 in order to avoid the
Tromp but I doubt very much that 1 will be doing this in future. If Black has things well
worked out there should be no reason for him to succumb to one of those whirlwind at­
tacks which Hodgson and others have pulled off so many times; Black should get his share
of the chances in an interesting game. But the problem for Black is that there have been
relatively few authors willing to point him in the right direction. I hope to address that issue
throughout this book. Meanwhile, here are some repertoire suggestions for both sides:

A tta ck in g Repertoire for W h ite I

• Meet 2...?3e4 with 3 -fi-h4, and after 3,..c5 4 f3 g5 5 fxe4 gxh4 6 e3 -fi-h6 consider
Bellon’s idea of 7 d5.
• After 2...c5 play 3 -$.xf6 gxf6 4 d5 Wb6 5 53d2!?.
• After 2...e6 play 3 e4 h6 4 -£.xf6 ШхГб 5 5ic3 -fi-b4 6 Wd2.
• After 2...d5 play 3 ?3d2.

(more experimental)
A tta ck in g Repertoire fo r W h ite II
• Meet 2...?Ie4 with 3 -$.f4, and after 3...c5 (3...d5 4 f3 4?3f6 5 e41?) play 4 d5 1ЙЪб 5
?3d2 as in Chapter Two, with 5 W cl as a reserve choice. This line is also a good
way to meet 2...c5 because after 3 d5 5ie4 4 -$.f4 ШЪб you get a transposition.
• After 2...e6 play 3 e4 h6 4 jfe.xf6 Wxffi 5 4?3c3 -£fb4 6 'ЙМЗ.
• After 2...d5 play 3 ?3d2.

Positional Repertoire fo r W h ite

• Meet 2...?Ie4 with 3 -$.f4, and after 3...c5 (3...d5 4 e3 or 4 ?3d2) play 4 f3 Ша5+ 5
c3 53f6 6 ?3d2 and go into the endgame covered in Chapter One.
• After 2...c5 use the 3 Д х f6 gxf6 4 d5 ШЪб 5 Шс1 variation.
• After 2...e6 play 3 e4 h6 4 -&-xf6 Wxffi 5 c3.
• After 2...d5 play 3 -$.xf6 exf6 4 e3 followed by 5 g3.

A g g re ssiv e Repertoire fo r Black

(suitable for King’s Indian, Benoni or Benko Gambit players)
Play 2...c5, after which 3 d5 £le4 4 &f4 'ЙЪ6 5 Дс1 еб 6 f3 £)f6 7 c4 transposes to Buckley-
Gormally in Chapter One. In the event of 3 -fi.xf6 gxf6 4 d5 'ЙЪб the game Buckley-Lalic is
a good model for Black, whilst 3 £lc3 cxd4 inevitably leads to a sharp game.

6
 Introduction

A c tiv e Positional Repertoire for Black

(suitable for Griinfeld Players)
Play 2...?3e4 3 J<Lf4 (3 -fi.h4 c5 is covered in Chapter Four) 3...d5 and meet 4 e3 with 4...c5 5
A d3 53f6 (McShane-Sutovsky). I’ve suggested improvements for Black on this game.

Positional Repertoire for Black

(suitable for Nimzo/Queen’s Indian Players)
Play 2...e6 and go for the bishop pair. Black is okay in Chapter Seven.

Nigel Davies,
Southport,
January 2005.

7
 CHAPTER ONE

2 ...^ e 4 3 & f4 c5 4 f3

I d 4 £sf6 2 ± g 5 £ le 4 3 ± f 4 c 5 4 f3 structure is a wreck. Instead it looks to me

This has developed into one of the most as if Hebden’s pawn sac with ll...dxc6
popular lines of the Trompowsky, with both (Karttunen-Volokitin) is Black’s best try,
sides playing sharp and logical moves. After and it has been holding up well tbeoreti-
the further 4...1Kfa5+ 5 c3 53f6 White has a cally. But one should note possible im­
major decision to make in whether to take provements for White, such as 14 e3.
space with 6 d5 or to try’ for a slighdy fa­ Both sides have ways of avoiding this
vourable endgame with 6 ?3d2. variation. In my opinion Black should seri­
My personal preference has been for . ously consider modelling his play on that of
space with 6 d5, but after 6~.1ШГЬ6 White Jan Timman in Ilall-Timman (8...1iiirxd4 9
currendy faces a crisis in the 7 -&-cl line exd4 еб!?) in which the endgame has been
thanks to the game Buckley-Gormally and dismissed as being better for White without
Black’s brilliant innovation (16...b5!). This Black’s manifold resources being fully con­
position appears to offer Black a very dan­ sidered. As far as White is concerned I don’t
gerous initiative for his pawn, so perhaps recommend the 10 -$.e3 of Wirig-
White should take another look at the 7 b3 Kazhglaeyev as this seems excellent for
of Hodgson-Shaked. White is usually the Black after 10...b5 or 10...d5!? but, on the
one who sacs a pawn in this line and his other hand, Torre’s 10 i.g 5 (Torre-Paragua)
possibilities are far from exhausted. In par­ looks interesting and deserves further atten­
ticular I think that Gallagher’s suggestion of tion.
II 53a3 is worth another look. Neither
6.. .e6 (Hodgson-Wells & Davies-Lilley) nor G ame 1
6.. .d6 (Davies-De Weerd) are very critical, S .B u ck le y -G o rm a lly
and seem to offer White good chances. Portsmouth Open 2003
After 6 ?3d2 the game usually heads to­
wards an endgame, with 6...cxd4 7 53b3 1 d 4 £>f6 2 £>e4 3 j t f 4 c 5 4 f3
ШЪв 8 1S rxd4 5lc6 9 ШхЬб ахЬб when 10 W a5+ 5 c 3 £sf6 6 d5
5ld4 e5 11 53xc6 as the main line. Black For 6 ?3d2 see Games 6-10.
hasn’t been doing well after ll...exf4 12 6 ...W b 6
£ld4 (Aleksandrov-Kotronias) and his pawn The most critical response. 6...c6 is cov-

9
The T ro m p o w sk y

ercd in Games 3 and 4, while 6...d6 features e4 Wb4! is much less convincing) 9...Wxb2
in Game 5. (9...Wxc4 10 e4 Wd4 11 “53c3 exd5 12 ?3ge2
We5 13 -ЙТ4 Web 14 exd5 Wb6 15 d6! 53c6
16 Wd2 £k!8 17 0-0-0 led to a quick win for
White in Pixton-Efimenko, World U16
Championship, 2001) 10 4t)c3 Wb6 11 e4 d6
12 f4 4t)bd7 13 £3f3 e5 and now 14 f51? g6
15 -S.d.3 Wd8 16 0-0 left Black horribly
cramped and under terrible pressure in
Vyzmanavin-Ehlvcst, USSR Championship,
Lvov 1984.
9 c x d 5 c4!
This advance is most definitely the criti­
cal move, and one which poses White seri­
ous concerns. 9...d6 10 e4 g6 11 5}e2! -$-g7
7 jS.c 1 12 53ec3 0-0 13 Д е2 £lbd7 14 0-0 a6 15 a4
This has been White’s main choice in this Sb 8 was McShane-Wojtaszek, World Junior
line, but in view of this game there’s an ar­ Championship, Goa 2002 and now
gument for 7 b3 as in Hodgson-Shakcd McShane suggests 16 *5V.i3 Wd8 17 Jv.e.l
(Game 2). 7 Wd2? would be a blunder in S e8 18 Wd2 intending S a b i followed by
view of 7...?3xd5 8 Wxd5 Wxb2 etc. Ь2-Ь4, with a rather grotty looking Benoni
7 ...e 6 8 c4 for Black.
Smelling a rat, I played 8 c4 against Be-
lotti in Bratto 2000, but after 8...exd5 9 cxd5
d6 (9..--&-d6!?) 10 ?3e2 (10 c4 may be better,
intending Ad3 and ?3e2) 10...-$.e7 11 g4?l
(11 £\g3) 11 ...53fd7 12 53g3 £le5 13 -fi-e2 f5
14 gxf5 0-0 Black already had an excellent
and active position.

TO e3
10 e4 J i c 5 should appeal only to White
players with suicidal tendencies.
1 0 ...ic 5
In Hodgson-Stohl, Isle of Man 1995
Black played 10...Wa5+ and after 11 $3c3 b5
12 Wd4 ДЬ4 13 We5+ * f 8 14 a3 should
8 . . .exd5 have continued 1 4 ...ic 5 . This is all very
Wells makes a convincing case that complex and far from clear, but we won’t
8.. .Wb4+ leaves Black with all sorts of prob­ delve into the complications because they
lems to solve after 9 -&_d2! (9 ‘VV:3 Wxc4 10 also aren’t relevant. Black should play

Ю
 2...& е4 3 Af4 c 5 4 f3

10.. .Ac5, and White should avoid this line. A e 3 £>xe4+l?

11 * f 2 0-0 12 & .xc4 d6
In my one outing in this variation my .
opponent played 12...Se8, and after 13 ^ЬЗ
£>a6 14 £)e2 ШхЬЗ?! 15 АхЬЗ ?ЗЬ4 16 S d l
d6 17 аЗ 53a6 18 53bc3 I had successfully
consolidated the extra pawn (Davies-
Rajlich, Toronto 1998). Here 13,..Wd8 14
5)e2 d6 and now 15 5lbc3 is suggested by
Wells, when Black still has it all to prove.
13 £ le 2 £>bd7 14 £>bc3 £>e5 15 £>a4
* Ъ 4 16 ЬЗ
This is all given as good for White by
Wells, but he reckons without Black’s next
move. Perhaps this is not strictly necessary, but
1 6 .. .Ь5! it is promising for Black nonetheless.
25 fx e 4 * f 6 + 2 6 Ф д1 2 x e 4 27 A x c 5
Sae8 28 A d 4
28 5)d4 might be a better try, but then
28.. .£lf4 continues the attack.
2 8 . . .* g 5 2 9 W c l * d 8 3 0 W f l?
This loses. 30 A d i would have kept
White on the board, although Black is still
doing well after 30...Sxe2 31 Axe2 Hxe2,
with more than enough for the exchange.
3 0 . . .2 x e 2 31 d 6 £>h8! 3 2 W f3 2 d 2 3 3
W f4
33 Xtdl ExdH- 34 Wxdl Wg5 is also
good for Black.
A very important new move which 3 3 . . .2 e e 2 3 4 2 h 2 W e8 3 5 2 f1 A c 6 3 6
changes the assessment of this line. A f 2 £>g6 37 A xf7+ Wxf7 3 8 Wxf7+
16.. .$)xc4 17 bxc4 1S rxc4 18 £lxc5 Wxc5 19 &xf7 3 9 А е З + Ф е б 4 0 A x d 2 2 x d 2 41
?3f4 gives White a solid advantage because дЗ B x h 2 4 2 Фх1п2 £>e5 4 3 д 4 Ф х а б 4 4
after 19...g5 20 £id3 Wxd5 21 e4 * a 5 22 2 f 8 а 5 4 5 2 д 8 д б 4 6 2 h 8 £>с4 4 7
A d2 Wb5 23 W e2 White had more than 2 x h 7 £>хаЗ 4 8 2 а 7 £>с4 4 9 h4 Ь4 50
enough for the pawn in Hodgson-Tumer, И5 дхИ5 51 дхЬ5 ЬЗ 5 2 Ь6 Ь 2 0-1
British Championship, Scarborough 2001. A superb example of restless dynamism,
17 a3 Wa5 18 b4 which has serious implications for the
One of the points of Black’s 16th move Tromp.
is that 18 -$.d2 can be answered by
18.. .Axe3+1 19 АхеЗ bxc4 with ferocious G ame 2
counterplay. H o d g s o n -S h a k e d
1 8 .. .W xa4 19 A b 3 Wa6 2 0 b x c 5 d x c5 L as Vegas 1998
Black’s active pieces arc quite a handful,
not to mention the mobile b- and c-pawns. 1 d 4 £ lf6 2 A g 5 t>e4 3 A f 4 c 5 4 f3
21 e4 Ad7 22 A f4 B fe 8 2 3 h 3 53g6 24 Шабн- 5 c 3 £>f6 6 d5 1 Ъ 6 7 ЬЗ!?

11
The T rom p ow sk y

An alternative approach to 7 Дс1 of Castling is natural enough, but now

Game 1. And in the light of what happened White cements his space advantage. Against
there it may become White’s standard way 11.. .Wd61? Hodgson intended 12 £)a31?
of playing this line. S№xd5 13 Wi-dS (13 J ix f6 Wxdl+ 14 Oxdl
7 . . .e6 8 e4 jLxf6 15 4£ib5 ' i ’de leaves White with some
8 c4 is poor here due to 8...exd5 9 cxd5 compensation, but Black is hardly getting
c4 10 £lc3 (or 10 e3 Wa5+) 10..JLc5 11 mated here) 13...4£lxd5 14 JLxe7 *?3xc7 15
£lh3 d6 12 £la4 Wa5+ 13 ± d2 ДЬ4 14 0-0-0 with some compensation for the
JLxb4 Wxb4+ 15 Wd2 Wxd2+ 16 l4 ’xd2 pawn.
■i£.xh3 17 gxh3 cxb3 which left White with a 12 c 4 E e 8 13 £)bc3 d6 14 W d2!
very ugly pawn structure in Dunworth- 14 g4? runs into 14...^3xg4! 15 Дхе7
G.Buckley, British Ixtague 2001. 4£le3 etc.
8 . . .exd5 9 exd5 ± d 6 10 £.g51? 1 4 .. .a6 15 £ .e3 £ lb d 7 16 £}g3 W b 4 17
This is the most testing move available to A e 2 b5 18 0-0! b x c 4 19 b x c 4 £ le 5 20
White. 10 £lh3 0-0 11 Wd2 Де8+ 12 Д с2 a3!
c4! 13 Ji.xd6 Wxdti 14 bxc4 b5 15 cxb5 a6
16 c4 axb5 17 cxb5 We5 18 £lc3 4£ixd5 19
Wxd5 Wxc3+ 20 * f 2 ДЬ7! gave Black ac­
tive counterplay in l.Sokolov-Smirin, Wijk
aan Zee 1993.
1 0 .. .£.e7

By forcing the retreat of Black’s queen

and therefore nipping in the bud any coun­
terplay White secures an advantage.
2 0 .. .W a5 21 W c 2 £ .f8 2 2 3Ld2 W c7 23
h3
Covering the g4-square in preparation for
11 £ »21? White’s next.
One of several moves. The slow 11 c4?l 2 3 . . .E b 8 2 4 f 4 £>g6 2 5 £ .d 3 £ .d7 2 6
does not work out well for White after £.xg6!
11.. .t d 6 ! 12 * e 2 0-0 (or 12...£lc6), but This non-standard capture is an excellent
Gallagher’s suggestion of 11 4£la3 looks move. White wants to launch the f-pawn
interesting after lb.-WaS 12 £lc4 Wxc3+ 13 without Black’s knight hopping onto the e5-
l4 ’f2!? (Wells mentions only 13 -&.d2) square.
13.. .0-0 (13...£ie4+ 14 fxe4 i x g 5 15 4£if3 2 6 . . .hxg6 2 7 f5 g x f5 2 8 £>xf5 £ .x f5
looks promising for White) 14 £3e2 Wb4 15 After 28...4£ih5 White could press on
' i ’g l, threatening to encircle Black’s queen with 29 g4! etc.
with 16 a4. 2 9 B x f5 £id 7 30 B a fl £ ie 5 31 £ ie 4
1 1 .. .0-0 ШЬ7 3 2 E h 5 ?

12
 2 . . . & е 4 3 $L f 4 с б 4 f 3

E b 8 4 6 5 le 4 П Ь З 4 7 Ф д 2 * g 6 4 8 S f 3
Eb2+ 4 9 E f 2 П Ь З 5 0 £ ix c 5 П х аЗ 51
£ ie 6 ± e3 ?
51 ...<
&’f5! was the last chance of survival.
5 2 E f 3 ! e 4 5 3 Пхе31 П х е З 5 4 d6 П е2+
5 5 * f 1 E d 2 5 6 d 7 1-0
If Black takes the d-pawn he loses his
rook.

Game 3
H o d g s o n -W e lls
Vikings GM, York 2000
Missing Black’s inspired reply. In his I d 4 £ if6 2 £ .g 5 £ ie 4 3 £ .f4 c 5 4 f3
notes to the game Hodgson preferred 32 W a5+ 5 c 3 <Slf6 6 d 5 e6 7 e 4 exd5
W dl, giving the line 32...'Brb3 (32...f6 might 7...d6 is inaccurate in view of 8 dxe6!
hang on for a bit longer) 33 ШЪ5 Д е 7 34 Jixc6 9 £la3 £lc6 10 £lc4 Дхс4 11 Дхс4
Exe5! dxe5 35 Wxf7+ ФЬ7, when 36 Sf5! when White’s bishop pair and control of the
looks like the best. d5-square gave him a clear advantage in
3 2 . . .f5 !l Wells-Hamdouchi, Pulvermuehle 2000. For
After 32...£3g6?! 33 4£lg5! it would be all the belated 7...Wb6 see Davies-Lilley, Game
over bar the shouting. 4.
33 5 lg 3 8 exd5
33 Bhxf5 Wb.3! sees Black hit both c4 The fearsome looking 8 e5 actually seems
and a3, with counterplay in the endgame. rather harmless after 8...4£sh5 9 Дс1 Wd8!
3 3 . . .g 6 3 4 E g 5 W b2? 10 4£le2 (10 g3 d6 11 f4 g6 and 10 ДеЗ 4£lc6
Black loses his way. 34...Ф1171? 35 £lxf5 II g4 d4 12 cxd4 cxd4 13 -&.xd4 £lf4 also
Wb3 looks better for Black because c4 is give Black excellent counterplay) 10...d4 11
dropping off. cxd4 cxd4 12 'Iifxd4 4£lc6 13 Wd5 ДЬ4+
35 W x b2 E x b 2 3 6 £ c 3 I S b 3 with good play for Black.
Not 36...Де7? 37 Дхе5 etc. 8 ...d 6
3 7 i . x e 5 dxe5?
This recapture leaves White with a deci­
sive lead. Black had to try 37...Дхе5, after
which 38 £lxf5! (38 Exg6+? Ф117 39 Bg5
ДЬ6) 38...ФЬ7 39 Sg3 Exg3 40 £3xg3 is
good for White but the game is far from
over.
38 £ lx f5 * h 7 3 9 £ lh 4 i h 6 4 0 Д хд б
i e 3 + 41 Ф М ?
41 <
&’h2I is more accurate.
4 1 . . .£.f4! 4 2 дЗ! Д хдЗ!
42...±xg3? 43 Ef7-H ФЬ8 44 Ef5 Де7 45
Дхаб ДхЬ4 46 E h 5+ gives White two
pawns more in the rook endgame. 9 W d2!
43 П х д З _Й.хдЗ 4 4 £ Т 5 £.14 4 5 <5ld6! An important new move from Hodgson

13
The T ro m p o w sk y

which makes this line rather unpalatable for (16...£3xc4+ 17 bxc4 -&а6 18 l4 >d3 lends
Black. The point is that White can now play solid protection- to c4) 17 '53e4 £lxe4+ (the
c3-c4 in order to support the d 5-pawn. alternative 1 7 ...ix d 5 18 -&.xd5 ‘SifxdS 19
Others: xd6 leaves Black with a weak c5-pawn) 18
a) White had previously played 9 4£la3, fxe4 f5 19 exf5 (19 h4!? fxe4 20 4£lc3 is also
when 9...Де7 10 £lc4 Wc7 11 a4 0-0 12 worth thinking about) 19...£lxd5 20 fflifl
£le2 Де8 13 Wd2 £lbd7 14 * f 2 £lf8 gave with a slight preference for White. I agree
both sides chances in Manievich- that the move ll...b 5 seems like Black’s best
P.Cramling, Bern Open 1995. try.
b) Another possibility is 9 £3e2 when 12 £.e3 f5 13 £ ic 3
9.. .£lbd7 10 £ld2 £lb6 11 b4 cxb4 12 c4
± e7 13 £ld4 £.d7 14 £l2b3 * a 4 15 Ji.d3
S c8 16 0-0 0-0 17 S c l gave White compen­
sation for his pawn in Gulko-Browne, USA
Championship 1992.
The problem with both these lines is that
White’s d5-pawn can easily come under
attack.
9 . . .J&.e7 10 c4!

13...0-0
Black subsequendy tried a couple of im­
provements in this position:
a) 13...f4 14 $Lf2 4£ld7 aimed to establish
an outpost on e5 in KLBerg-Tischbierek,
Bundesliga II 2002. But after 15 S e l 'A’de
16 g4 £lhf6 White could have shown up the
dark side of Black’s plan with Wells’ sugges­
tion of 17 £lce2 (17 £lh3 £le5 18 &e2 h5!
This is the point behind White’s previous was fine for Black in the game) 17...g5 18 h4
move. Now White’s space advantage gives ■53e5 19 4£Sc3, when Black’s kingside is disin­
him the better endgame. tegrating.
1 0 .. .W xd2+ 11 * x d 2 ! b) 13...£ld7 was played in Hodgson-
Because queens are off the board the loss Schandorff, Bundesliga 2001 but after 14
of castling rights is not that important. S e l Ф£7 15 4£lh3 £3c5 I think Wells’ sug­
1 1 .. .£ih5?! gested 16 Д е 2! is realty rather good for
Black tries to gain some space on the White after 16...Sf8 17 f4 £3g4 18 4£lg5-H
kingside but this is probably not the best •&.xg5 19 fxg5 as the knight on h5 is badly
approach. Wells later regretted not playing out of play.
11.. .b5!? in this position, offering the sequel 14 j t d 3 £ id 7 15 f4 £>df6 16 £>ge2
12 £lc3 bxc4 13 Hel Ф<1% (13...SfrfB 14 д5?!
Д х c4 also looks slightly better for White) Wells admitted in his notes that he was
14 Дхс4 £lbd7 15 ЬЗ £lb6 16 *hgc2 ДЬ7 becoming somewhat desperate at this time.

14
 2...G ±e4 3 ± f 4 c 5 4 f3
r>—-------------------------------------------------------
1Tsesarsky, in his notes to the game, sug­
gested 16...‘S ig4 and gave the line 17 i g l аб G ame 4
18 h3 £lgf6 19 jk.e3 as just slightly favour­ D a vies-Lilley
able for White. However, this assessment Preston 2003
hardly describes the miserable future Black
would have to face here. 1 d4 S lf6 2 £ .g5 £ le 4 3 £ .f4 c 5 4 f3
W aS+ 5 c 3 £ if6 6 d 5 e6 7 e 4 * Ь 6 ? !
It is very dangerous for Black to switch
back to this idea. 7...exd5 was covered in the
last game, while 7...d6 is seen in the next.
8 £>a3

17 h3!
Simply and calmly prevendng 17...‘S ig4
and leaving Black to think about his weak­
nesses.
1 7 ...g x f4 18 £>xf4 £ .d 7 19 Ф е б ! it x e 6
2 0 d xe6 £ .d 8 ? l 21 £.h6! H e 8 2 2 g4! 8 . . .Д в 7
After due consideration Black decides
against taking the b2-pawn, but this lands
him with an inferior game without any
compensating material or complexity. For
better or worse Black had to play 8...1Bfxb2,
after which 9 ?3b5! (9 £lc4 ЧЙхсЗ+ 10 $Ld2
Wd4 11 Wcl allows Black to escape with
11.. .§3xe4 12 fxe4 1Hrxe4+ 13 53e3 exd5 etc.)
9.. .£la6 10 ЯМ Шха2 11 Яа1 ШЪ2 12
Яхаб! is strong.
8...exd5 9 exd5 Wxb2 10 £lb5 £la6
(10...£lxd5 11 Wxd5 # xal+ 12 *£2 £3a6 13
4E)d6+ jLxd6 14 .&xd6 is crushing) 11 ЯЫ
This advance opens up Black’s king posi­ (11 Д с4 Wxg2) ll...W xa2 12 Яа1 Wxd5
tion and effectively terminates his resis­ (12...'ИЪ2 13 d6 divides Black’s position in
tance. half) 13 We2+ Де7 14 Яхаб 0-0 15 Яха7
2 2 ...fx g 4 2 3 h x g 4 £sg7 2 4 £.xg7 * x g 7 Яха7 16 £3ха7 £.d6 17 c4 Wd4 18 ДеЗ
25 g 5 £>g4 2 6 H x h 7 + <4>g8 27 H h 5 ! leaves Black with inadequate compensation
£ le 5 2 8 IXahl £>xd3 2 9 * x d 3 Д х е б 3 0 for the piece. But at least this way there
E h 8 + <4>g7 31 Д 1И 7+ * g 6 3 2 ttd7 were some practical chances. ,
H e3 + 3 3 * c 2 ! 1-0 9 £>c4 Wde 10 d6 3L.18 11 £>h3 b5 12

15
The T ro m p o w s k y

£>еЗ * Ъ 6 be 21 Wxf4 Jix Ы 22 4£lg5 -&.xd6 23 cxd6

S f8 24 53f6+ etc.
21 h 6 ± x e 5 2 2 <53xe5 0 -0 2 3 ± д 2 ± Ь 7
2 4 a5 W a6 25 0-0 f3
2S...Hf5 can be answered by 26 Wd4
Jixg2 27 S x f4! with devastating conse­
quences.
26 Ш дб W xd6 27 £ lx g 6 H f5 2 8 £ le 7 +
* f 7 2 9 £ lx f5 W c5+ 3 0 $3d4 1-0

Game 5
D a v ie s -D e W eerd
Vlissingen Open 1998
13 a4 1 d 4 £ lf6 2 Д д 5 £>e4 3 £ .f4 c5 4 f3
Aiming to secure the c4-square in addi­ W a5+ 5 с З ЗД 6 6 d 5 d6
tion to the otiier advantages. Another
strong move was the immediate 13 e5, for
example 1.3...£3h5 14 J&.g5 f6 15 f4 g6 16
cxf6 j2l.xd6 17 Д е2 c4 18 f5! with a winning
attack.
1 3 .. .Д а 6 14 e5 £ lh 5 15 £ .g5 f6 16 f4
д б 17 д4
Shredder prefers the more brutal 17 exf6,
but I wanted to keep my d6-pawn well pro­
tected.
1 7 .. .C4 18 W d2 fxg 5 19 gxh5 g x f4 20
£)g4

7 e 4 e5
Black could also play 7...e6, after which
White should play 8 dxe6! JLxe6 9 £ЗаЗ
£lc6 10 £lc4 Дхс4 11 Дхс4 Jk.e7 as in
Wells-Hamdouchi, Pulvermuehle 2000, and
now I would have favoured 12 ?3e2 with
two bishops and nice control of the d5-
square (Wells played the sharp 12 ИВЪЗ!?,
which also seems good).
8 ±e3
8 dxe6 transposes to Wells-Hamdouchi,
given in the previous note. I liked the idea
Shredder considers this only slightly bet­ of keeping the position closed along King’s
ter for White, perhaps weighing Black’s Indian lines, but with White having the 04-
extra pawn rather too heavily. square.
2 0 ..J L g 7 8 ...£ .e 7 9 £ .d 3 0-0 10 £ le 2 £>h5
After 20...Jk.b7 one way for White would 10...?3bd7 looks more solid, keeping op-

76
 2 . . . Q\e4 3 J L f 4 c 5 4 f 3

tions open. Putting the knight on h5 invites After 22...ф£7 White can make it a whole
g2-g4. rook with 23 Hxg5 Jkxg5 24 Wxg5 etc.
11 W d 2 g6?l 23 £.xg5 2 4 £>g3 Ь5 2 5 & e 3 W c7
And this invites a kingside attack based 2 6 W h 2 H e 7 27 £ ix b 5 W b8 2 8 W h7 +
on an advance of White’s h-pawn. <4>f7 2 9 « д б и - * g 8 3 0 £>xd6
12 £ .h 6 £sg7 13 h4! f5 1 4 h5 f 4 15 The main benefit of taking this pawn is
h xg 6 h xg6 16 g3! that the knight covers the Г7 escape square.
Prising the position right open. With 3 0 ...S M 6 31 W x f6 lt d 7 3 2 H h 8+ 1-0
Black lagging behind in development he is
in terrible trouble. G ame 6
1 6 . „ c 4 17 £ .x c 4 W eb A le k s a n d ro v -K o tro n ia s
4th ШСС, Istanbul 2003
1 d 4 £ if6 2 £ .g5 £ le 4 3 £ .f4 c 5 4 f3
W a5+ 5 c3 £ if6 6 £sd2

18 g xf4!
The sacrifice is not Shredder’s first
choice but the attack is overwhelming.
1 8 ...Ш х с4 19 £>a3 Ш с5
After 19...1l?a4 White could, for example, This usually leads to a double-edged end­
continue with 20 f5 £.£6 21 fxg6 4£)d7 22 game in which Black has the two bishops
£ig3, intending 23 1iih2. and White the better pawns.
20 0 -0-0 g5 21 f5 £>d7 2 2 Hdg1 6 . . .c x d 4 7 £sb3 W b6 8 W x d 4 £ ic 6
8...«xd 4 features in Game 10.
9 W xb6 axb6 10 3}d4
This is the critical move. Alternatives will
be examined in Games 8 and 9.
1 0 .. .e5!
And this, in turn, is the critical response.
Others:
a) Black has tried to prepare the text with
the ugly 10...2Xa5 but then comes 11 b4l
(White can also repeat the position with 11
£3b3 S a8 12 £M4 etc.), e.g. ll...H a4
(ll...£ lxd4 12 cxd4 forces 12...Ha8 because
of the precarious position of Black’s bishpp
2 2 ...E f 7 on c8, but then 13 e4 looks nice for White

17
The T ro m p o w sk y

thanks to his territorial lead) 12 £lb5 g6 13 than his 17...£.£6) 16 £lf4 0-0 17 0-0-0 Ъ5
e4 J&.g7 14 £lc7+ ФАЗ (14...Фа8 15 £lb5 is 18 £lxb5 £lxb5 19 ±хЬ5 Sxa2 20 ФЬ1 Да7
also nice for White) 15 ДЬ5 ДаЗ 16 4£le2 21 £.xd7 Ь5 22 £ .х с в Яхс8 23 Sd5 and
£lh5 17 Д с1 ДхсЗ 18 ± b2 S c 2 19 ±xg7+ White was clearly better because of the
'ifcxg? 20 4£ld5 and White was weaving a net weak pawns on e3 and b5 in Hodgson-
around Black’s rook in Torre-Svidlcr, Bad Sutovsky, Vikings GM, York 1999.
Horn burg 1998. b) 12...SM5 13 g3 £ . c 5 (13...g5 14 e4
b) 10...£M5 is strongly met by 11 £3b5! £le3 15 ДЬ5 £.g7 16 £3ge2 Ф й 17 Ф а2
S a4 12 £ .6 2 £la5 13 0-0-0 d6 (13...aXa2 14 left Black with litde activity to compensate
ФЫ S a4 15 e4 is very strong) 14 e4 £3f6 15 for his horrific pawns in Soffer-
ФЫ £lc4 16 Дс1 фе5 17 ДеЗ, when V.Mikhalevsky, Israeli Championship, Tel
White had a tremendous position in Rausis- Aviv 1994) 14 gxf4 5le3 15 ФЬ2 £3xfl+ 16
I.Ivanov, Riga 1993. S x fl Дха2 17 Ф с2 d6 18 e3 ±d7 19 £lge2
c) The obvious 10...‘S3xd4 11 cxd4 leaves Фе7 20 S a l produced a tough fight in
Black with no compensation for his dou­ which White was slighdy better in Berkes-
bled b-pawns —after ll...d 5 12 e3 i d 7 13 Sevo, Paks 1998.
•&d3 JLc6 14 £le2 еб 15 ФЬ2 Фс17 16 аЗ c) 12...d5 seems like the most sensible of
.&d6 17 Ь4 ДхГ4 18 exf4! ФЬб 19 £кЗ Black’s 12th move options, after which 13
Shc8 20 а4 Black was under heavy pressure e3 fxe3 14 Фе2 £ .c 5 (14...J&.d6 15 ФхеЗ 0-0
in Timman-Rochev, Kilkenny 1999. is probably best met by 16 ДЬ5) 15 ФхеЗ
11 £ lx c 6 e x f4 ± d7 (15...0-0 16 £.d3 ±d7 17 &d2 is less
accurate as Black is unable to advance his fa-
pawn) 16 £.63 b5 17 ?Ige2 b4 18 cxb4
ДхЬ4 19 S h c l 0-0 20 Sc7 Sfe8+ 21 ф£2
was just slighdy better for White in Chakov-
Kir.Georgiev, Bulgarian Championship
1995. 13 g3 is worth considering here but
doesn’t look that dangerous for Black after
13...£.d6 14 ф£2 0-0.

Further uglifying Black’s pawn structure

but getting the two bishops and creating a
‘hole’ on e3. For ll...dxc6 see the next
game.
12 £>d4 ^ d 6 l?
A new move from Kotronias which
doesn’t have a happy outcome in this game.
There are three major alternatives:
а) 12...Дс5 13 £3h3 £ld5 14 e4 fxe3 15 13 e 4 fx e3 14 £>f5 £ .c B 15 £)xg7+ * f 8
■&c4 &Sc7 (Wells also analyses 15...‘S3b4 16 Thus far Shredder likes Black, but after
cxb4 i x d 4 17 0-0-0 as being good for White’s next it changes its mind. This makes
White but 17—IhLcS!- seems more testing me wonder if Kotronias had prepared his

18
 2 . . . & е 4 3 $Lf4 с 5 4 f3

novelty with the aid of a computet without Suddenly it is White who has the initia­
probing quite far enough. tive. One of White’s threats is 29 Sc2, and
16 £ if5 this prompts a rather desperate response.
2 8 . . .5 x b 3 ?t 2 9 ахЬ З d 5 3 0 S e 3 ! £ .x b 4
Winning back the exchange with
30.. ..6d4 leaves Black with a hopeless rook
endgame after 31 2d 3 JLxf2+ 32 <
4 >xf2 2g8
33 Sxd5 etc.
31 2 c 2 <4>g7 3 2 B d 3 S d 8 3 3 S d 4 _Й.а5
3 4 Ф Н i f 6 3 5 2 c 5 * e 5 3 6 2 h 4 b 6 37
2 x b 5 2 c 8 3 8 S h 5 + f5 3 9 g 4 1-0

G ame 7
K a rttu n en -V o lo kitin
E uropean Club Cup, H alkidiki 2002
1 6 . ..d 6 1 d 4 £)f6 2 £ .g 5 <S3e4 3 £ .f4 c 5 4 f3
Black can try to improve his play with W a5+ 5 c 3 £ if6 6 £sd2 c x d 4 7 £ lb 3
16.. .d5 but after 17 £3d4 (17 i d 3 -&.xf5 18 W b6 8 W xd4 £>c6 9 * х Ь 6 axb6 10 £>d4
JLxf5 b5 19 Ь4 Jk.d6 offers counterplay) e5 11 й х с б dxc6!7
17.. .'&>g7 18 _S.b5 White is clearly better.
17 £ .d 3 b 5 18 Ь 4 A .b6 19 £se2 & e 6
After this White enjoys a clear advantage.
It is better to go for opposite coloured
bishops with 19...jLxf5 20 Д х f5 Фе7, in­
tending 21...Sa3 and 22...Sha8.
20 0-0 & x f 5
Admitting his mistake on the previous
move. But the lost tempo has serious impli­
cations.
21 £ x f5 2a3 22 ± c2 £ ld 5 23 ДЬЗ
Ф хсЗ 2 4 £)xc3 e2+ 25 S f2 £ .d 4 26
S c 1 e lW + 27 ttx e l £ .x c 3 2 8 S e 4
Hebden’s idea, which he used to great ef­
fect in a game against Tony Miles.
12 £ x e 5 £.e6
Hitting a2 immediately is probably
Black’s best. After 12..,b5 White has the
option of sacrificing the a-pawn for devel­
opment. Collier-Ahn, European Club Cup,
Halkidiki 2002 continued 13 e4 JLe6 14
± d3 £ld7 15 ± d4 Sxa2 16 Sxa2 Д ха2 17
Ф£2 ± c4 18 Д с2 -&c5 19 ЬЗ Деб 20 £le2,
intending S a l with a small but clear advan­
tage.
13 a3

19
The Tro m p o w sk y

Elguezabal Varela-Fcrnandez Garcia fol­ Bringing the king over to the queensidc
lowed one of De la Villa’s ideas with 13 is quite an interesting concept.
•&.d4, and after 13...b5 14 аЗ b4 15 cxb4 1 9 ...£ ld 7
JLxb4+ 16 &{2 0-0 17 e4 Hfd8 White’s best Black should probably play 19...Hfd8+ 20
was probably 18 4£le2 (18 ДеЗ Jk.d2 19 Де2 Ф с2 ДеЗ as 21 Hdl is refuted by 21...ДЬЗ+
S d 3 20 -&.xd2 Sxd2 21 Ь4 Д с4 gave Black etc.
strong counterplay in the game). 2 0 £>e2 B fd 8 21 Ф с 2 ± e 3 2 2 B d1 £ lc 5
1 3 .. .b 5 14 e4 2 3 £>d4 £>a4 2 4 ± e 2 £ lx c 3 2 5 Ф х с З
In this position De la Villa suggested 14
e3, but after 14...£3d7 it is irritating for
White that he doesn’t have d4 available for
the bishop. Nevertheless, this represents an
interesting way for White to treat the posi-
don.
1 4 .. .b 4 15 c x b 4 _Й.хЬ4+ 16 Ф е 2

2 5 . . .Д д 5
Black should probably keep this bishop
on with 2 5 ...id 7 as now he is clearly worse.
However, it isn’t easy for White to win.
2 6 £ lx e 6 fx e 6 27 .Й .С 4 ^ f6 + 2 8 <4>c2
ФТ7 2 9 f4 b5 3 0 ± e 2 £ .d 4 31 e5 Ф е7
3 2 B d 3 B a b 8 3 3 B h d1 c 5 3 4 ВИ З b 4 35
The alternative king move 16 ^?f2 Дс5+ a 4 h6 3 6 £ .c 4 B f 8 37 B f1 B f7 3 8 д4?!
17 * e l (17 Ф ё 3 ?3h5+ 18 * h 4 Де7+ 19 I’m not sure this is the best as White is
9l«’xh5 Ba5 20 f4 Sxe5+ 21 fxe5 h6 0-1 was now obliged to defend the f4-pawn. The
the dramatic end to the game Coleman- move 38 b3 seems interesting to me, with
Boyce, England 2004) 17...ДЬ4+ would the idea of bringing the king to e4 in some
repeat the position. lines.
1 6 ...0 -0 3 8 . . .B ff8 3 9 b 3 B a 8 4 0 B h 5 B a d 8 41
This natural move looks like a novelty. B h 3 Д с З 4 2 B d 3 ? ! B x d 3 4 3 £ .x d 3 g5!
Miles-Hebden, British Championship, Mill- Undermining White’s kingside pawns
field 2000 varied with 16...Да5 17 £3h3 and essentially forcing a draw.
(White probably intended to ‘improve’ with 44 fx g 5 B x f1 4 5 j k x fl h xg5 4 6 a 5 i d ?
17 B e l, after which 17...0-0-0 might be an­ 4 7 ± g 2 Ф с 7 4 8 * d 3 ± x e S 4 9 h 4 g x h4
swered by 18 b4!?; Black’s compensation 50 g 5 Ф Ь 8 51 * e 4 ± c 3 52 <4>f4 Ф а7
seems rather nebulous here, although it is 5 3 £.f1 JL62+ 5 4 Ф д 4 h 3 55 Д х И З c 4
still quite irritating) 17.—&.b3 18 5lf4 0-0-0 5 6 дб Д с З 57 b x c 4 b3 5 8 .fi.fi b2 5 9
19 ДсЗ Jk.b6 when Black had compensation .fi.d3 Ф а 6 6 0 c5 + Ф х а 5 61 Ф43 b l W 6 2
for his pawn. 5 .x M Ф Ь 5 6 3 Ф е 4 Ф>хс5 6 4 g7 _fi.xg7
17 Дс1 Д а 5 18 ± c 3 i b 6 19 * d 2 6 5 .fi.a2 & d 6 'A-'A

20
 2 . . . Ч\е4 3 $Lf4 с б 4 f 3

Game 8
A .W irig -K a z h g a le y e v
. French Team Ch., M ontpellier 2004
Ц ■ I— , „■ — M— '
1 d 4 £>f6 2 _Й.д5 £le4 3 £ .f4 c 5 4 f3
,„ » a 5 + 5 c 3 t h f 6 6 £>d2 c xd 4 7 £>b3
V b 6 8 W xd4 £>c6 9 W xb6 axb 6 1 0 -Й.еЗ

Black is doing well here, notwithstanding

the result of the game.
16 c x b 4 dxe4
1б...ДхЬ4 is an improvement, giving
Black at least an equal game. Now he has to
struggle.
17 Д с1 e x f3 18 £}gxf3 C ld 7 19 £ .c 4
Д х с 4 2 0 £ lx c 4 f6 21 £ .e 3 * e 7
Hitting the Ьб-pawn like this is probably Not a bad idea, intending to bring his
White’s most serious alternative to 10 £)d4. king to e6.
1 0 .. .b5 2 2 Ь5
It is interesting to sacrifice the b6-pawn
with 10...d5!? 11 ДхЬб e5, when White
should probably return the pawn with 12
e41? (12 J i(2 d4 13 e4 ± e6 14 Дс5 15
a4 0-0-0 16 ,Sic4 Д а7 gave Black good
counterplay in E.Lawson-Gormally, Hast­
ings Challengers 2003) 12...Деб (White’s
idea is to meet 12...dxe4 with 13 Дс4, but
this seems far from convincing) 13 Ji.b5 (13
exd5 4£lxd5 14 Д с 5 4£lxc3 15 Д х й Фхй! 16
ЬхсЗ ДхЬЗ is fine for Black) 13...dxe4 14
£3c5 Д хс5 15 Д хс5 Sxa2 16 Sxa2 Дха2
and Black was fine in Bcrend-Polzhin,
European Club Cup, Panoroma 2001. 2 2 .. .£la5?
11 JLd2 e5 12 a3 22...£)a7 improves, after which 23 4£la5
12 e4 b4 sees Black try to liquidate his ■53xb5 24 4£lxb7 Феб is far from clear.
weak pawn but 13 c4 maintains a bind (13 23 £>b6 £>xb6 24 £.xb6 Феб
A b5 ЬхсЗ 14 Jk.xc3 Jib 4 15 4£ie2 was also This leads to the knight getting trapped.
slightly better for White in Nguyen Ngoc 24.. .£3b3 was mandatory, although White is
Truongson-Predojevic, Budapest 2004). doing well after 25 ПсЗ.
1 2 .. .d6 13 Д д 5 i e 6 14 £ld2 d5 15 e4 25 £>d2
b4 Closing the gate.

21
Th eTrom p о wsk у

2 5 ...Д е 7 2 6 Ь 4 Д а в 2 7 Ьха5 ДхЬб 2 8 1 0 ...d 5 1 1 <&d4£lxd4

ахЬб Hhd8 2 9 £se4 ПхаЗ 3 0 £ic5+ Ф е7 After this trade White is slightly better,
3 1 ФхЬ7 Па5 3 2 Ф с5 Па8 3 3 0 -0 ПЬ8 but what else can Black play? Il...e6, for
3 4 Ь7 Ф ав 3 5 4к»4+ Ф а7 3 6 H fdl 1-0 example, is well met by 12 33b5.
1 2 c x d 4 Д а 7 1 3 e 3 e 6 1 4 Д аЗ Ь5
G ame 9 14...ДЬ4+ doesn’t inconvenience White
To rre-P aragu a after 15 * f 2 .
Н о C hi M inh City 7.onal, 2003 1 5 £ le2 Д а в 1 6 ^ f 4 ^ x f 4 1 7 e x f4

1 d 4 £sf6 2 Д д 5 £se4 3 ^ f 4 c 5 4 f3
Ша5+ 5 c 3 ® f6 6 £>d2 c xd 4 7 ФЬЗ
W b6 8 1» x d 4 £sc6 9 W xb6 axb6 1 0
Д д 5 1?

17 53xf4 may be better, avoiding any

weakening of White’s pawn structure.
1 7 . ,.Ь4 1 8 Ф а2 Ф е7 1 9 Hhc1 Ф аб 2 0
ЬЗ £le8 '21 Пс2 Ф с7 2 2 Пв1 4}Ь5 2 3
Д хЬ5 ДхЬб 2 4 £sc1 f 6 2 5 $3d3 Д хаЗ
As far as I can tell 10 -fi.g5 hadn’t been 2 6 Ф хаз
played before this game. It is certainly a
natural move which doesn’t interfere with
White’s development. Alternatives:
a) White has also tried 10 e4 but this left
Black better after 10...d5 11 exd5 4?)xd5 12
-fi.d2 e5 13 аЗ Деб 14 c4 £lf6 15 ДеЗ £kl7
16 Hcl “S3c5 17 З3хс5 Д хс5 18 Д хс5 bxc5
in Rausis Muhutdinov, Moscow 1992.
b) Another possibility is 10 a3, when
10.. .e5 11 Д еЗ d5!? 12 ДхЬб d4 13 cxd4
Д еб 14 d5 £lxd5 15 Д с5 was played in
Lesiege-Shaked, Bermuda 1997, and now
15.. .33a5! 16 З3ха5 Дхс5 17 “S3xb7 ДеЗ 18
53d6+ Ф?е7 19 33c4 Shb8 would have give This rook endgame looks rather drawish.
Black a terrific position according to Hodg­ 26...H h c8 2 7 П хс8 H xc8 2 8 Ф а2 Па8
son. Here 14 33c5 33d5 15 ЗЗхеб fxc6 16 2 9 H al h 6 3 0 h 4 g 5 3 1 hxg5 hxg5 3 2
Д с5 “S3xd4 17 ДхЬ4 exd4 was much better fxg 5 fx g 5 3 3 ФеЗ b 6 3 4 Ф аз ПИ8 3 5
for Black in V.Kovacevic-Smirin, Zagreb Пв1 ПИ2 3 6 Hgl Ф е7 3 7 ФеЗ ф»6 3 8
Zonal 1999. Ф12 ПИ4 3 9 Hdl Ф е7 4 0 ФеЗ ПИ2 4 1

22
 2 . . . Z h e 4 3 &.f4 c 5 4 f 3

3 d 2 U h l 4 2 f 4 W f6 4 3 fx g 5 + * x g 5 4 4 Black.
* f 3 Ш 1 + 4 5 Ф е З ’Л - ’Л b) 9...d6 also left Black seriously short of
space after 10 e4 £ кб 11 d5 £3e5 12 ДЬ5+
G ame 10 Wd8 (1 2 ...id 7 ) 13 J id 2 ± d7 14 ,&xd7
H a ll-T im m a n £lfxd7 in Degraeve-Lane, Cappelle La
Sigemart & Co, M alm o 1999 Grande 1994.
10 e4
I d 4 £>f6 2 Д д 5 £)e4 3 £ .f4 c 5 4 f3 10 Hcl £ic6 11 e4 d5 12 e5 £id7 13 &Ъ5
W a5+ 5 c3 4 if6 6 £sd2 c x d 4 7 £>ЬЗa5 14 a4 4£ia7 15 £bca5 4£ixb5 16 axb5 was
«Ь6 8 Vxd4 played in Lputian-Shirov, Belgrade 1999,
8 cxd4 has been quite disreputable since and now 16...53c5!? 17 dxc5 Hxa5 18 b4
Hodgson-Gelfand, Groningen 1996, when Hxb5 19 -fi-d2 b6 20 cxb6 Jfe.a6 would have
8.. .5k6! 9 e4 (9 d5 e5!) 9...e5 10 dxe5 ДЬ4+ given Black good counterplay. -
II Фе21? <S3xe5! 12 Wd4 £3g6 13 ДеЗ d5 14 10...£sci6
cxd5 0-0 saw White’s king most uncom­ Another possibility is 10...d5 11 ДхЬ8
fortably placed. Sx b 8 12 e5 wW l 13 f4 with double-edged
8 . . .1» x d 4 play.
1 must admit to having some sympathy 11 a3
for this move as Black avoids those weak 11 H cl d5 12 e5 £3d7 13 ДЬ5 a5 trans­
pawns on b6. poses to Lputian-Shirov, given above.
9 cx d 4 11 ...d 5 1 2 e 5 £ l d 7 13 Д е З £sb6 14 Hc1
9 53xd4 a6 looks very reasonable for £.d7 15 A d 3 £ » 4 16 S c 2 H b 8 17 £ le 2
Black. b 5 18 «id 2
9 .. .e61?

1 8 .. .£sa5
This is far and away Black’s most inter­ This leads to some heavy manoeuvring.
esting move, aiming for a kind of reversed Perhaps 18...b4 is stronger, e.g. 19 ЬЗ ЬхаЗ
l'rench. Others: 20 bxa4 <S3b4 which looks good for Black.
a) After the natural 9...d5 White gained a 19 ЬЗ <&Ь6 20 Я а 2 ± в 7 21 0-0 0 -0 2 2
serious space advantage with 10 еЗ еб 11 g4! f 4 S f c 8 2 3 д 4 Ь4 2 4 axb 4
in Lputian-Mirumian, Ankara Zonal 1995. After 24 а4 Black could seize the initia­
The game continued 11...ДЬ4+ 12 Wf2 We 7 tive with 24...‘S3bc4! 25 bxc4 dxc4 etc.
13 Hcl A d6 14 Axd6+Wxd6 15 53e2 b6 16 2 4 .. .Д х Ь 4 25 £sf3 £ lx b 3 2 6 H xa7
g5 “S3fd7 17 “53c3 with serious problems for 26 Даб is preferable, when Black might

23
The T ro m p o w sk y

try sacrificing the exchange with 26...£3c4 35 -Ф.а6 Па8 also leaves White struggling.
(26...Дс7 27 ДЫ -S.a4 28 Дха4 <S6xa4 29 3 5 ...jL x d 4 3 6 S x c 8 + Д х с 8 3 7 Hc1
ПхЬЗ looks good for White) 27 JLxc8 4 lx f5 + 3 8 Ф д2 4 ie 7 3 9 H el Д сЗ 4 0
Дхс8, not that there seems to be enough Я е 2 ФЬ7 4 1 ДЬ5 д 5 4 2 £id3 4}д6 4 3
compensation after 28 ВЫ . ФдЗ d4 4 4 Ф с5 £.d5
2 6 ...Ф а 5 2 7 f 5 ® c 6 2 8 H aal £sc4 2 9
Ф с1 A e 7 3 0 & f4 ПЬЗ 3 1 Д а2?!
Probably missing the reply. 31 Паб is
better.
3 1 ...£sxd4! 3 2 4 lx d 4 Ф с5 3 3 A e 3

45 ® d7?
45 £kl.3 is imperative. Now White is los­
ing.
4 5 . . .Ф д7! 4 6 4 if6 d3! 4 7 £th5+ ФЬ6 4 8
£.xd3 £ixe5 4 9 ДЬ5
ЗЗ...ДаЗ! Or 49 i b l f5 etc.
Not 33...53xe5 34 fxe6 ii.xe6 35 53fxe6 4 9 . . .41.3! 5 0 £.d3
fxe6 36 -fi.a6 etc. Or 50 ДеЗ -SLe5+ 51 Пхе5 ?3xc5 etc.
3 4 ЯхаЗ ФхеЗ 3 5 S c 3 5 0 . . .Д в5+ 5 1 S x e 5 £}хе5 5 2 Д с 2 0-1

24
 2 . . . f o e 4 3 $Lf4 с 5 4 f 3

S u m m a ry
Both sides have chances in this complex variation. Buckley-Gonnally is critical for 6 d5 and
7 -fi.cl, which leaves 7 b3 together with Gallagher’s 11 <5la3. If you want to play the black
side of these lines I would suggest reviewing l lall-Timman rather than take on the doubled
b-pawns. I think this method of play has been unfairly neglected.

1 d4 £sf6 2 Д д 5 £ le 4 3 c 5 4 f3 Ша5+- 5 c 3 ® f6 (D) 6 £ ld 2

6d5
6.. .Wb6
7 Дс1 —Game 1
7 b3 —Game 2
6.. .e6 7 e4
7.. .exd5 —Game 3
7.. .* b 6 —Game 4
6.. .d6 —Game 5
6 .. .£}d2 c x d 4 7 £>b3 W b6 8 W xd4 (D) $ )c6
8.. .151xd4 —Game 10
9 W x b 6 axb6 (D) 10 S ld 4
10 J i e3 —Game 8
10 -&g5 —Game 9
1 0 .. .e5! 11 £}xc6 ex 1 4 —G ame6
11.. .dxc6 —Game 7

25
 CHAPTER TWO |

2...£te4 3 ± f4 c5 4 d5

1 d 4 £>f6 2 Д д 5 53e4 3 A f 4 c 5 4 d5 should play 5...e6.

This line has drifted out of fashion since Instead of 4...Wb6 Black can certainly
A f3 became all the rage, but it is still very consider 4...c6, as in Golod-Adamson
interesting. Besides being less fashionable it (Game 16). But 4...1Sfa5+ looks like a rather
also has the advantage that it can also be dubious proposition on the basis of Rad-
used against 2...c5 (3 d5 53e4 4 J if4 trans­ jabov-Romero Holmes (Game 17).
poses).
Black’s most popular choice is 4...'Sib6, G ame 11
when 5 Дс1 can transpose to Buckley- M c S h a n e -K o tro n ia s
Gormally after 5...e6 6 f3 5if6. Right now G ibraltar M asters 2003
this seems critical for White, but that’s not
to say he doesn’t have other choices. 5...g6, 1 d 4 53f6 2 Д д 5 53e4 3 £ .f4 c 5 4 d5
5...e5 and 5...f5 are covered in McShane- *b6
Kotronias (Game 11), Golod-Tyomkin 4...e6 features in Game 16, while
(Game 12) and Stefanova-Jaksland (Game 4...«a5+ is dealt with in Game 17.
13) respectively. 5 Д с1
Belgian GM Luc Winants has been ex­
perimenting with Hodgson’s old 5 53d2,
although when I examined Winants-
Schebler (Game 14) it wasn’t clear to me
how he intended to meet 8...e5. On the
other hand I think that 8 53f3 improves for
White and could put this line back in busi­
ness.
It is always worth noting what strong and
experienced GMs play, so when Vlastimil
Hort can be seen using 5 W cl (see the notes
within Game 15) it clearly deserves atten­
tion. The theoretically approved 5...c4 looks
better for White to me and I think Black For Trompowsky aficionados this move

26
 2 . . . *h e4 3 &.f4 c 5 4 d 5

will come as little surprise. Retreating the lowing continuations:

bishop is an efficient way to defend the b2- a) In Ward-Chandler, Southend 2002
pawn, after which White hopes his central there followed 9...‘Slab!? (setting out to sur­
space will count for something. round White’s d-pawn) 10 $Le2 c4 11 &f2
5 . . .g6 W c5 12 a4 Ьб 13 Wd2 ДЬ7 14 Hdl <&Ь4 15
Besides the moves examined in this * f l S a d 8 16 <S3f2 f5 17 e4 a5! 18 S a3 ficc4
chapter Black can also play 5...e6, when 6 f3 19 £lfxe4 5lxe4 20 £lxe4 Wxd5 and White
Wa5+ (6...£3f6 7 c4 transposes to Buckley- didn’t have much for his pawn.
Gormally, Game 1) 7 c3 53f6 8 e4 d6 b) 9...53f5, threatening 10...£lxe3, should
(8...exd5?l 9 e5 <£sg8 10 #xd5 £le7 11 # e4 be met by 10 e4 “2M4 11 %3a4 but this
is nice for White) 9 J*Ld21? exd5 10 c4 (10 doesn’t look very clear after ll.-W aSt- 12 c3
exd5 5lxd5 11 c4 4tib4 isn’t clear) 10,..'Sfb6 d6 13 J id 2 ^3x&H 14 gxf3 b5 15 £lxc5
11 cxd5 'Sfxb21? 12 53c3 transposes to dxc5 etc.
' Vyzmanavin-Ehlvest, given in the note to c) 9...c4 10 ф£2 еб 11 ± e2 -S3f5 12 # d2
Black’s 8th move in Buckley-Gormally. 53xe3 13 ШхсЗ £Ld4 was played in Rowson-
. 6 f3 ®d61? Lalic, Glasgow Open 1999, and now 14
A highly original knight retreat which “?3a4! Jix e3 15 <?3xb6 ДхЬб 16 ДЬб Sd 8 17
aims to play a later ...f7-f5 in response to .fe.xc4 looks better for White.
White’s e2-e4. If Black plays 6...^3f6 a fairly d) 9...Шс7 10 a4 Ьб 11 <£sf2 f5 12 JLc2 c5
standard Benoni can arise after 7 e4 d6 8 c4 13 e4 f4 14 a5 Даб was OK for Black in
J ig 7 9 G3c3 0-0, for example 10 .&d3 еб 11 Hodgson-Turner, Oxford 1998.
<S3ge2 exd5 12 exd5 £ibd7 13 f4 £le8 14 0-0 7 ...Д д 7 8 4 lc 3 f5 9 e x f5 £sxf5 10 g4!7
f5 15 * h l £ldf6 16 £ igl ,&d7 17 33f3 £lc7
and, although White has a space advantage,
it was difficult to do much with it in Rad-
jabov-Grischuk, Basria 2003. Playing along
the lines of a Modem Benoni with 10 ^3ge2
еб 11 <S3g3 exd5 12 cxd5 h5 13 Д е2 £ibd7
14 0-0 is another plan which would meet
14.. .h4 with 15 4ilh1, intending 16 $3f2.

A vet)' aggressive move. White can also

play more quiedy than this, for example:
a) 10 53h3 0-0 11 <S3e4!P 53a6 (11...ДхЬ2
12 S b l Ша5+ 13 ,&d2 # xa2 14 c3 would
trap Black’s bishop) 12 c3 4ilc7 13 a4 ^3e8
14 -&e2 <S3f6 15 0-0 was better for White in
Stefanova-Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee 2004.
b) 10 £<33 0-0 11 £ x f5 JXxf5 12 £ige2 c4
7 e4 13 4£ig3 SfB 14 We2 ^3a6 15 a4 £ib4 16 a5
The more modest 7 5lc3 -SLg7 8 e31? 0-0 Wd4 17 Да4 ^3xd5 18 53xd5 Wxd5 19
9 ?3h3 has also been played, with the fol­ Wxc4 Wxc4 20 Пхс4 S f6 was fairly even in

27
The T ro m p o w sk y

Adams-Gelfand, Cap D’Agde 2003.

1 0 .. .£ih 6
There are two alternative knight moves,
neither of which seem quite as good:
a) 10...£kl4 11 ‘Sde4 and White threatens
c2-c3. After ll...e6 12 Д с4 White meets
12.. .15 .b4+ with 13 сЗ Шхс4 14 53d6+ etc.
b) 10...5Ш 11 b4!? £>f7 (11...0-0 12 h5
g5 13 h6 .&e5 14 We2 ±g3+ 15 & d l) 12
5)e4 d6 13 c3 53a6 and now Wells’ sugges­
tion of 14 h5!? looks rather promising.
11 d6! e6
Black could also consider ll...53f7, after
which 12 dxe7 ДхсЗ+ 13 bxc.3 Wf6 doesn’t Once again 18...g5 is better.
look very clear. It is very difficult to reach a 19 h xg6 h 6 20 g7 Ф х д 7 21 W d2 & f 4
clear-cut assessment of such a sharp posi­ 22 * с З + Ф д8
tion. 22...e5 23 £lh3 is also good for White.
12 £ ib 5 £ « 6 13 jLf4 2 3 a 3 Ф а б 2 4 t f d 3 <Фд7 2 5 4 lh 3 Д в 5
Preparation or perspiration? I suspect the 26 Д д 2
latter. Wells proposes the interesting 13 Another way is 26 £lg5 3Xh8 27 5)e4 etc.
h4!?, when Karhanek-Schwarz, Frydek 2 6 ...b 6 27 Bhg1 £ .f4 2 8 * с З + Ф д б 29
Mistek 2004 went 13...Wc6 14 h5 < S3xg4 15 ® x f4 + H x f4 З О Ф е З !
hxg6, which put Black in serious trouble. Tn
the case of 13...c4 Wells suggests 14 ДхЬб
(14 Д хс4 <Sixg4 isn’t clear) 14....&xh6 15
#d4, which looks better for White after
15.. Jlrxd4 16 <S3xd4 &e3 17 сЗ ,&xd4 18
cxd4 5)b4 19 Bh2 b5 20 a4 etc. 13 &.e.3
isn’t too good because after 13...0-0 Black is
threatening 14...^3xg4.
1 3 .. . * c 6
Another interesting possibility is 13...0-0,
after which 14 * d 2 can be met by
14.. .?3xg4 15 fxg4 W c6 16 0-0-0 g5!
(16...Hxf4 17 1Hrxf4 Wxh 1 18 <5)0 leaves
Black’s queen trapped) 17 ,&g3 ILxfl 18 3 0 ... e5
S x fl Wxb5, threatening fl and b2. It looks 30...Bf8 31 f4 wins Black’s queen.
like a draw by repetition after 19 Ш{2 31 V x e 5 B x c 4 3 2 Hh1 1-0
ШхЪ2+ 20 * d l * h 8 21 Wf7 #d4+ 22 Фе2
Ше4+ 23 * d l Wd4+ etc. Game 12
14 £ x h 6 Д х Ь б 15 c 4 0-0 16 h 4 i l f 4 17 G o lo d -T y o m k in
h5 Д д З + B eer Sheva Tkapidplay 2004
17...g5 looks better, keeping the kingside
closed. 1 d 4 £ lf6 2 Д д 5 £ ie 4 3 £ .f4 c 5 4 d5
18 Ф е2 &Ь4 Ш Ь6 5 ± c1 e5 6 f3 £>d6!?

28
 2...$2е4 3 ± f 4 c 5 4 d5

5 lh 3 0 -0 1 2 53f2 f5 13 e x f5 gxf5
13...5lxf5 14 Д g5 leaves White with a
great outpost on e4.
14 f 4 e x f4 15 A x f 4 XLe8+ 16 i>d1

A very interesting idea. The knight is very

well placed here, but what about the devel­
opment of Black’s queen’s bishop? In earlier
games Black had played a kind of Czech
Benoni with 6...53f6, for example 7 e4 d6 8 Despite White’s loss of castling rights he
5V3 (8 a4 Д с7 9 53c3 0-0 10 g3 53bd7 11 is better here. White has only one badly
ДЬЗ 53c8 12 Wd3 * d 8 13 ДсЗ Д й5 was placed piece which is his king; Black has
okay for Black in Van der Wiel-Nunn, I^ei- several plus the weak pawn on f5.
den 1982) 8...Де7 9 5lc4 # d8 10 a4 0-0 11 1 6 .. .Ш 6
^ d 3 53e8 12 53e2 -&g5 and now 13 f4 (13 In the event of 16...53f7 White has the
0-0 Дхс1 14 Wxcl b6 wasn’t much for strong 17 Ad3.
White in Lima-Delgado, Osasco 2004) * 1 7 £ x d 6
13...exf4 14 53xf4 53d7 15 0-0 53c5 16 Д е2 17 g41? was interesting, playing for the at­
53 xc4 17 Д хс4 # e7 18 W e2 h6 19 53d3 tack. The text seems to win material but
Дхс1 20 S ax cl 53f6 21 e5 gave White a matters are not that simple.
strong initiative in Stefanova-Manca, Saint 1 7 . . .W xd6 1 8 £lb5 # e 5 ?
Vincent 2000. Black had to try 18...Wg6, when 19 5lc7
7 e4 g 6 ДЬ6 20 W c3 ЯеЗ is messy. Now he’s lost.
A couple of alternatives have been tried 1 9 53d3 W xd5 2 0 £sc7 W f 7 2 1 5 lx e 8
in this relatively unexplored position: tf x e 8 2 2 53f4
a) 7...f5 8 c4 fxe4 9 &e4 53f7 10 53c3
A c7 11 53B 'tfgfi was played in Karttunen-
S.Movsesian, Rethymnon 2003, and now 12
Де2! (12 ДеЗ d6 13 Wd2 0-0 was less clear
in the game) 12...d6 (12...Wxg2 13 flg l Wh3
14 Oxg7 is good for White) 13 0-0 would
have been the simplest with a nice space
advantage for White.
b) 7...Де7 8 53c3 0-0 9 53h3 53e8 10 53f2
d6 11 ^ d 3 # d8 12 g3 53a6 13 ДеЗ ЯЬ8 14
Wd2 was better for White at this stage in
Golod-Ma.Tseitlin, Beer Sheva 2004.
8 & c 3 W d 8 9 Д е З Ь6 10 W d2 Д д 7 11

29
The T ro m p o w sk y

It is not just the exchange, White has

very active pieces as well.
2 2 ...£ .b 7 2 3 £ .c 4 + * h 8 2 4 £ d 5 i u d 5
2 5 W xd5 Ф е б 2 6 c 3 * e 3 27 g 3 Д е 8 2 8
Ф с 2 £sd4+ 29 c x d 4 * f 2 + 3 0 * d 1 H e4
31 Ш а8+ 1-0

G ame 13
S te fa n o v a -J a k s la n d
D os H ermanas Open, 2002
1 d 4 £ lf6 2 Д д 5 Ф е 4 3 £ f 4 c 5 4 d5
W b6 5 Д с 1 f5 l?
20 e5 W e7 21 exd6 Ф х б б 2 2 Ф д 5 e5
22...Фхс4 23 Wxc4 also leaves Black in a
very unpleasant situation.
23 Ф х е 5 Д х е 5 2 4 fx e 5 * x e 5 2 5 £ f 4
W f6 26 Ф е б c 4 2 7 W d l Д х е б 28 £ .x d 6
2 b d 8 29 dxe6 Ф с 7
Or 29...axe6 30 ,&d5 Bdxd6 31 B el etc.
3 0 A x c 7 H x d l 31 S a x d l <±g7 3 2 H d 7 +
* h 6 3 3 h 4 1 -0

G ame 14
W in a n ts -S ch e b le r
Belgian Team Championship 2002
An interesting if somewhat exotic look­
ing attempt to restrain White in the centre. 1 d 4 £sf6 2 Д д 5 Ф в 4 3 £ .f4 c 5 4 d 5
6 f3 & d 6 * b 6 5 £ ld 2 !?
Another Stefanova game, Stefanova-
Panchenko, Barbero Open 1999, Varied
with 6...£3f6 7 ФсЗ еб 8 e4 fxe4 9 fxe4 exd5
10 $3xd5 <?)xd5 11 #xd5 * е б 12 Д с4 (12
Ji{4 also looks quite good for White)
12...Wxd5 13 ,&xd5 53c6 14 c3 Фе5 15 ДеЗ
16 Ji{4 '('If6 17 ,&ЬЗ ‘? lxe4 and now
18 £lf3 (rather than the speculative 18 0-0-0
«К 2, as played in the game) looks very
promising for White after 18...Де7 19 0-0
ДАВ 20 Д е5 53f6 21 B adl d5 22 B fel etc.
7 a 4 д б 8 a 5 * b 4 + 9 c 3 W h4+ 10 дЗ
* f 6 11 $3h3 Ф а б 1 2 Д д 2 Д д 7 13 0-0
4 lf7 14 e 4 d 6 15 f4 £ .d 7 16 Д в З 0-0 An old favourite of Hodgson, sacrificing
17 & d 2 S f e 8 18 W b3 H a b8 19 Ф с 4 вб a pawn. The Belgian Grandmaster Luc Wi-
If 19...fxe4 then the reply 20 £jg5 is very nants has been its main exponent in recent
strong. years.

30
 2 . . . 5 3 е 4 3 $Lf4 c 5 4 d S
r------------ ----------------------------------------------
8-..W xb 2 Hertneck, Tilburg 1993.
This is the reason Wells doesn’t like 5 a5) 7...g6 8 S b l W e 5 9 -fi-d3 ,fi.g7 was
4?3d2. Less good is 5...?3xd2 6 .&xd2: Hodgson-Jonsson, Reykjavik 1989, and now
a) 6...Wxb2 7 e4 Hodgson thought he should have tried 10
h4!? here.
b) 6...e6 7 $Lc3 exd5 8 Wxd5 Wc6 9 e4
Wxd5 10 exd5 d6 11 0-0-0 f6 12 23e2 gave
White a clear advantage in J.Pikct-J.Polgar,
Melody Amber 1995.
c) 6...e5 7 3 ic3 d6 8 e4 Д е7 9 Д е2 0-0
10 23B “23d7 11 23d2 Wd8 12 a4 S b 8 13
0-0 £3f6 14 a5 fi.d7 15 Sa3! аб 16 f4! also
gave White a good game in J.Piket-
P.Cramling, Spijkenisse 1989.
6 <йхе4 W b4+

and now:
al) 7...We5 gains time on the e4-pawn so
as to safely retreat the queen. 8 -fi.d3 Wc7 9
c4 (better than the 9 f4 of Hodgson-Lanka,
Cappelle 1992, in which Black was better
after 9...c4 10 Д е2 еб 11 e5 cxd5 12 $Lc3 Ь5
13 Wxd5 ДЬ7 14 Wxb5 ,&xg2 15 .fi.fi
.fi.xhl 16 jfi.xhl 53c6 etc.) 9...e5 (it might be '
better to play 9...d6, when I like the flexible
10 Фе2) 10 f4! exf4 11 £>B d6 12 ,fi.xf4
-fi.e7 13 0-0 0-0?! (13....fi.g4 14 W ei is also
very promising for White) 14 e5! gave White 7 Wd2
a strong attack in Heissel-Kummerov, Dort­ 7 сЗ?! Wxe4 8 еЗ еб 9 dxe6 Wxc6! was
mund 1993. better for Black in Djurhuus-Tisdall, Nor­
a2) 7...Wb6 8 f4 d6 leaves Black with wegian Championship 1995.
some difficulty in getting his pieces out after 7 ...W x e 4 8 e3
Hodgson’s 9 -fi.c3, for example 9...?3d7 10 8 В is dubious as 8...Wd4! sees Black get
£ lB <S3f6 11 S b l Wc7 12 ДЬ5+ ,fi.d7 13 the queens off the board with a nice end­
Wd3 a6 14 -fi.xd7+ Wxd7 15 0-0 b5 16 S f e l game. Meanwhile, 8 2 )fi!? is given as dubi­
with strong pressure. ous by Hodgson but I think it is White’s
a3) 7...e6 8 £ lB exd5 9 exd5 Д е7 10 S b l best move. Then 8...g6 9 J ie S f6 10 ,fi.b2
Wf6 11 ,fi.d3 d6 12 0-0 h6 13 Se1 0-0 14 -fi.g7 11 e3 c4 was seen in Mardcr-Harstad,
Sb3, threatening 15 ,fi.c3, gave White pow­ Copenhagen 2003, when 12 Wd4 Wxd4 13
erful compensation for the pawn in Plask- ?3xd4 wins back the pawn with the better
ett-Hebden, Lloyds Bank 1987. endgame. After 8...d6 9 e3 g6 10 c4 Wf5 11
a4) 7...d6 8 S b l Wf6 9 f4 e5 10 ДЬ5+ -fi.d3 Wg4 (Polaczek-Socko, Internet 2004)
£k!7 11 S iB exf4 12 0-0 Д е7 13 e5 dxe5 14 White has 12 h3! Wd7 (12...Wxg2 13 <4?e2
-fi.c3 0-0 15 ,fi.xd7 Jix d7 16 Sxb7 gave wins the queen) 13 e4 (or 13 Wb2) 13...fi.g7
White a potent initiative in J.Piket- 14 e5! with a strong initiative.

31
The T r o m p o w s k y

The critical move is 8...e6, e.g. 9 dxc6! (9 pawn in Klinger-Akopian, Palma de Mal­
d6 4£ic6 10 c3 33b4 11 i-d 3 “23x03+ 12 cxd3 lorca 1989.
Wc6- 13 * c 3 f6! and White was losing the 9 c 3 W a5
d6-pawn too in Gilles-Golubev, Biel 1995) 9...'®Ъб 10 J.d 3 d6 11 e4 e5 12 dxe6
9.. .dxe6 (9...1И,хе6 10 e4!? Wxc4+ 11 JicZ -&.xe6 13 S b l W c7 14 .fi.g3 “23c6 15 f4! gave
£Lc7 12 0-0 0-0 13 S f e l gives White a huge White compensation for the pawn in
lead in development for the sacrificed Wcindl-Leutwyler, Zurich 1992.
pawns) 10 e3 Wg6 11 £.d3 Wf6 12 0-0 “23c6
13 4t3g5 and White had compensation for
the pawn in Kerkmeester-J ollcs, Dieren
1988.
8 . . .W b4

10 d6 l 23c6 11 £>f3 exd6

ll...g 6 12 S c l $Lg7 13 dxe7 d5 14 e4
“23xe7 (14...dxe4 15 “23g5 <S3xe7 16 Д с4 0-0
17 .fi.d6 Wd8 18 Wf4I — menacing the f7
pawn and 19 ШЬ4 — leaves Black in dire
Others: straits) 15 exd5 0-0 was played in Beilon-
a) The wild 8...g5!? accelerates Black’s Dorfman, Logrono 1991, and now just 16
development but leaves him with long-term c4! Wxd2+ 17 < S?xd2 would have given
weaknesses around his king. After 9 f3 (9 White the better endgame.
£.xg5? W e5) 9..3iif5 10 ± g3 d6 11 ± d3 12 A c4 Ae7
Wf6 12 E b l b6 13 “S3e2 ДЬ7 14 0-0 &g7
15 f4 White took the initiative in Vandc-
voort-Vachier Lagrave, Paris 2003.
b) It would be interesting to know what
Winants and Vandevoort had in mind after
Hodgson’s recommendation of 8...e5 as 9
dxe6 (9 -fi-g3 d6 leaves White with nothing
for the pawn) 9...Wxc6! 10 “S3e2 b6 11 “23c3
ДЬ7 12 S d l J i e 7 13 “S3b5 0-0 14 “S3c7
Wxa2 gave Black more than enough for the
exchange in Klinger-Dimitrov, Velden
1993.
c) 8...e6 is not quite as good because
White can try 9 33e2!P, when after 9...Wxd5 13 h4
10 Wxd5 exd5 11 £>c3 d6 12 £>xd5 * d 8 13 Another possibility is the simple 13 0-0,
0-0-0 he had good compensation for the when 13...0-0 14 -&.xd6 leaves White with

32
 2 . . . f o e 4 3 ± .f4 c 5 4 d 5

compensation for the single pawn he is S g 8 5 6 W e2 S f 7 5 7 W f3 S f 6 5 8 Ф а 4

down. 2 b 8 5 9 Ф Ь З 2 g 8 6 0 W f2 2 f 7
1 3 ...& e 5 14 & d 5 £>xf3+
14...Wa6 15 S ell 0-0 16 £lg5 leads to G ame 15
intricate play. B ro n ste in -"V irtu a l C h e s s "
15 g x f3 A f 6 -16 S c 1 ± e 5 17 Дд1 дб The H ague 1995
After 17...Axf4 18 exf4 0-0 19 f5 White
has strong threats on the kingside. 1 d 4 £>f6 2 it g 5 c 5 3 d 5 £>e4 4 & f 4
18 J .h 6 W d8 19 f4 ± f 6 2 0 f5 W e 7 21 W b6 5 W c 1 !?
2 g4 Sb8?

This move had been roundly condemned

21...gxf5 was better, but 22 S f4 would by the books until Wells queried the rea­
still keep Black under serious pressure. sons. And with Vlastimil Hort having used
2 2 Ф е2?! it in a recent game it clearly deserves a
Missing an immediate win with 22 Йс4! closer look.
J i e 5 23 ±xf7+ <2?xf7 (23...Wxf7 24 Wxd6) 5 ...c 4
24 Wd5+ Фе8 25 -fi.g5 etc. Commended by theory, this move looks
2 2 . . . Ь5 2 3 S e 4 A e 5 2 4 Ji.g7 4i.xg7 25 rather dubious to me. Black has several al­
Д х е7 + Ф хе 7 ternatives:
This position must be lost for Black, al­ a) Black’s best might well be 5...e6, when
though he hangs on with a combination of White should play 6 c4 (6 f3 33f6 7 e4 exd5
tenacity plus control of the dark squares. 8 c5 33h5 9 33e2 d6 10 ЗЗЬсЗ Деб 11 g4
White must be winning it somewhere, but at dxe5 12 jLxc5 33f6 was rather good for
which point exaedy? Black in Hodgson-B.Talic, St Helliers Open
26 W d3 b 4 27 W e4+ & d 8 2 8 c 4 a5 29 1997) 6...Де7 7 (7 В.&.Щ 7...<S3xd2 8
W f4 jL e 5 3 0 W g5+ Ф с 7 31 f 4 Д Ь 2 3 2 .&xd2 exd5 9 cxd5 jLf6 10 ± c3 0-0 11 e3
ВЫ Д с З 3 3 Ji.xf7 g x f5 3 4 W x f5 a 4 3 5 ДхсЗ+- 12 Wxc3 d6 which was quite play­
W c 2 a 3 3 6 W d 3 2 b 6 3 7 JLd5 & Ь 7 3 8 able for Black in Casagrandc-Titz, Moer-
£ x b 7 Ф хЬ 7 3 9 2 b 3 Ji.b2 4 0 Ф d1 Ф с 7 bisch 2001.
41 W d5 ± c3 42 Ф с2 Sbb8 43 2b1 b) 5...d6 6 f3 4t)f6 7 e4 e5 8 ДеЗ Д е7 9
S h e 8 4 4 2 d 1 S b 6 4 5 W f3 S g 8 4 6 h5 J»l.d3 0-0 10 &)c2 gave White a useful space
h6 4 7 Ф Ь З 2 g 7 4 8 W a8 2 c 6 4 9 2 d 5 advantage in Trombik-Vysoglad, Ostrava
S f 7 5 0 W e8 B f6 51 W g8 2 b 6 5 2 W g3 2002 .
B f 7 5 3 2 d 1 Д Ь 8 5 4 W g6 B f 6 55 W d3 c) 5...g6 6 c3!? d6 7 £3a3 33f6 8 e4! A g7

33
The T ro m p o w sk y

(8...4£lxe4 9 4£lc4 Wd8 10 We3 looks good Wells that after 9 £lxe4 Wxe4 10 <£lB d6 11
for White) 9 -&d3 *У 8 10 <S3e2 0-0 11 0-0 Ad3 W c6 12 Wb2 <S3d7 13 0-0 White has
<£la6 12 h3 JidT 13 £lg3 Ш>8 14 <S3c2 b5 15 enough compensation.
b4 “$le8 16 ШаЗ gave White a pull in Tim- 9 d6!
man-Torre, IBM Amsterdam 1977. This advance is an important move. Af­
d) 5...g5!? б Де5?! f6 7 ДхЬ8 (7 £.c3 is ter 9 33gB 33xd5 White doesn’t have much
better, although after 7...e6 8 f3 “йхсЗ 9 for his pawn.
ЗЗхсЗ Black’s two bishops are more than 9 . . .£>d5
enough compensation for his exposed look­ As Well's points out, 9...‘Sie4 10 33gD
ing pawns) 7...Sxb8 8 f3 “Sid6 gave Black a 4£lxd6 11 .&.xd6 exd6 12 ШЬ2 also gives
nice two bishop game in Gohil-Solonar, White excellent compensation. In Hort-
Griesheim 2003. Instead 6 ДеЗ! J i g ! 7 c3 is Goldstern, Davos Open 2002 Black played
much better, when Black may live to regret 9.. .cxd6 but after 10 4h>gf3 d5 11 a3! (pre­
the early advance of his g-pawn. venting 11...ДаЗ) 11...<53сб 12 <S3b3 Wb6 13
6 e3 « 3 5 + 7 & d 2 ! 'ШЛ2 <£le4 14 #xd5 £>f6 15 # d3 d5 16 J ic 2
J i e l 17 0-0 0-0 18 £>bd4 <S3xd4 19 <S3xd4
Jid 6 20 ЖаЫ W c5 21 Jix d6 Wxd6 22 i B
White had a nice edge in the shape of
Black’s isolated d-pawn. Perhaps Black
should play 13...d4, although after 14 4£ifxd4
33xd4 15 Wxd4 1Hrxd4 16 £ixd4 White has
the better endgame due to his active pieces
and Blacks’ isolated d-pawn.
1 0 £ g 3 e x d 6 11 £ )g f3 £>c6 1 2 i d 3
® c b 4 1 3 0 -0 ® x d 3 1 4 c x d 3 & c 3 1 5
& d4

This looks like White’s best and in fact

appears to be rather troublesome for Black.
After 7 “ЗЗсЗ Black may be able to improve
on existing theory with 7...d6l? (7...4t3xc3 8
Wd2 еб 9 ЬхсЗ exd5 doesn’t look bad, ei­
ther) 8 4t3ge2 g5 9 JLg3 J i g ! 10 f3 “йхсЗ 11
ЗЗхсЗ ДхсЗ+ 12 ЬхсЗ ШхсЗ+ 13 < 3?f2 “Slafi
when I don’t see much for the pawn White
has lost. Neither is 7 c3 a problem for Black
after 7...1i rxd5 8 В <S3c5 9 e4 Шсб (9...£>d3+
10 .fi.xd3 ШхдЪ 11 £3h3! —threatening 12
£>f2 — is very unpleasant), which has the White is clearly better here thanks to his
point that 10 Дхс4 is well met by more compact pawn structure and lead in
10.. .4£ixe4! 11 Jix fl+ <4>xf7 12 fxe4 1Hrxe4-t- development. Of course it is never easy
13 33e2 d6, once again leaving White with when playing against the machine.
insufficient compensation for the pawn. 1 5 .. .Ь5 16 a 3 h5 17 h 4 £ a 6 1 8 £ l 2 f 3
7 . . .c 3 8 Ь хсЗ й х с З 18 ?12b3 Wc7 19 Wd2 looks stronger.
Hodgson gives e.-WxdS but I agree with 1 8 .. .6 c 8 19 W d2 d5 2 0 » b 2 £ ia 4 21

34
 2 ...* h e 4 3 S .f4 c 5 4 d 5

Wa2 £ic3 22 «Ъ З Ji.b7 23 Hfc1 ДИ6 24 winning attack.

Д с2 b4 25 Wb2 Паб 26 Дсс1 Wb6 27 50...Ш в7 51 ШдЗ Шеб 52 £rt5 £>e4 53
axb4 JLxb4 « х е 5 dxe5 54 ПЬ6 ii.xd2 55 ПЬ7+ A f7
56 д4 Фдб 57 Ф д2 Пс2 58 ^>f3 аЗ 59
ПЬ6+ Фд5 60 & hg7 Ji.e1 61 £>е6+
.&хе6 6 2 ДЬ2 ахЬ2 63 i£ id4 Ш2 mate
(0-1)

G ame 16
G o lo d -A d a m s o n
Gas IVegas 2004
1 d4 £if6 2 A g5 £ie4 3 & f4 c5 4 d5
e6 !?

Having been clearly better for White the

position is now very messy.
28 ФИ2 d6 29 £>g5 f6 30 £ige6 Фf7 31
f4 S x a l 3 2 Дха1 a5 33 f5 Д аб 3 4 £)f4
Фд8 35 &е1 ШЬ7 36 Wt2 Wf7 37 Wf3
Пе8 38 ± d 2 ii.c8 39 £sxh5 &Ь7 40 & f4
Д аб 41 * f 2 ?
An oversight. 41 1Hrg4 is stronger with a
bind on the position.
41 ...JLxd3! 4 2 Wf3 & e4 4 3 Wf1 Дс8 44
We1 Д с4 4 5 h5 a4?l
45...'il'd7 is better. "Virtual Chess" seems 5 f3
unaware of the danger to its king. 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 e3 is harmless after 6...d5 7
4 6 « ^ 4 ФИ7 4 7 h6 gxh6 4 8 £>h5 l.x f5 -&d3 <S3f6 8 £>B <S3c6 9 0-0 ± d6 10 ^ xd 6
49 Hf1 A g6 1B,xd6 11 c4 0-0, as in Schwarz-Mi.Tseitlin,
Werther Schloss Open 2001.
5...<&f6
Black’s most solid move, but by no
means the only one. Three alternatives have
been tried:
a) 5...1Hrf6 is dubiods in view of б ДхЬ8!
Wxb2 7 fxe4 Wxal 8 .fi.g3 Шхя2 9 еЗ b5 10
£>B £.Ь7 11 Д е2 Шя5+ 12 £)bd2 exd5 13
0-0 f6 14 exd5 * b 6 , Nikolaev-Kopasov, St
Petersburg 2002, and now Wells’ suggestion
of 15 c4 looks strong rather than the game’s
15 e4 c4+, which was unclear.
b) б.-.Шаб-Ь 6 c3 (6 t5V12 £}f6 7 dxe6 fxe6
50 Hxf6? 8 e4 d5 is excellent for Black) 6...“S3f6 7 e#
Missing 50 £lxf6+! Ф^7 51 e4! with a transposes to Hodgson-Wells in Chapter

35

■A
The T ro m p o w sk y

One. edged here, and Wells suggests 10 g4 with

c) 5_&.d61? looks like Black’s best alter­ the idea of gaining space on the kingside
native, when Wells gives 6 -fi.xd6 £lxd6 7 and possibly putting the king on e2. It does,
Hird2!? £lc4!? (the immediate 7...'ИГЬ4+ in fact, look like a pretty good idea.
seems to leave White with the better end­ b) 6 <£lc3 £>h5 (6...exd5 7 £)xd5 £ixd5 8
game after 8 g3 'Brd4 9 1Hrxd4 cxd4 10 c3! WxdS Wf6 9 Д е5 W e6 10 0-0-0 is better for
4lla6 11 * f 2 exd5 12 cxd4, while the obvi­ White due to the pressure on the d-file) 7
ous 7...0-0 leaves Black struggling after 8 e4 ДеЗ d6 8 t d 2 J i e 7 9 ± f2 0-0 was J.Piket-
cxd5 9 * x d 5 ШЪ6 10 ШЪЗ, for example Shaked, Merrillville 1997, and now Shaked
Ю-.ШхЬЗ И ахЬЗ f5 12 £lc3 £>c6 13 0-0-0 recommended 10 e4, after which 10...jiLg5
and White was much better in Stefanova- 11 J i.c3 ДхеЗ 12 Wxc3 c5 13 £lge2 (intend-
Hagarova, European Team Championship, ing 14 g4) would be quite promising for
Batumi 1999) 8 W c3 Wh4+ 9 g3 # d4 10 e4 White. In the game 10 еЗ?! 4L>f6 11 Ji.c4
£ie3 11 i.d 3 cxd5 12 1Hrxd4 cxd4 13 exd5 3la6. 12 4£lge2 3lc7 13 c4 exd5 14 exd5 a6
£lxd5 14 ЗЗаЗ 33c6 15 £lb5 a6 16 4t3d6+ 15 a4 b6 (intending 16,..Hb8) gave White
Фе7 17 £lf5+ ‘АТб 18 £le2 4£klb4 with a fair problems defending his d-pawn. 10 0-0-0!?
assessment that Black holds the balance. seems worth a try.
Instead after 7 e4 the reply 7...'ЙЪ6! is irri­ 6...£>h5
tating as 8 4tlc3 Wxb2 9 &)gc2 @)b5! leaves 6...exd5 7 cxd5 d6 8 ^lc:3 brings about a
White without much compensation for his kind of Modem Bcnoni with an extra JLcl-
pawn. Note that 7 dxe6 dxe6 might even be f4 for White.
better for Black. 7 Ji.e3 d6
After 7...WM+ 8 &£2 Wxc4 9 £lc3
White has compensation for the pawn.
8 £ic3 e 5 9 J i f 2 jL e 7 1 0 e 4 0 -0 1 1
£3ge2

6 c4
Angling for a type of Modem Bcnorti.
There are two other moves:
a) 6 e4 exd5 7 exd5 d6 (7...3lh5 is mean­
ingless in this position because of 8 Wc2+ White has emerged with quite a nice po­
We7 9 ii-g5) 8 <£lc3 ± c7 9 Wd2 0-0 10 sition from the opening. Black’s Czech Be-
0-0-01? a6 11 £>ge2 b5 12 <£lg3 c4 13 J ic 2 noni formation suffers here from a lack of
£lbd7 14 <S3f5 <S3c5 15 <23xe7+ Wxe7 16 space.
JXhel W c7 17 .fi.g5 led to very sharp play in 1 1 ...g 6 1 2 g 4 5 lg 7
Savchenko-Golubev, Lucerne Open 1994. 12...£)f4 is unwise because of 13 3lxf4
Of course White’s approach was double- exf4 14 Wd2 g5 15 h4 etc.

36
 2 . . . lh e 4 3 k . f 4 c 5 4 d S

13 h 4 £sa6 1 4 W d2 £>c7 1 5 h 5 Д д 5 1 6
А в З А х в З 1 7 W xe3 g 5 G ame 17
Closing the kingside but leaving White R ad ja b ov-R om ero H o lm e s
with a free hand on the other flank. Black Benidorm 2003.
could suffer for a long time from here, as
indeed happens. 1 d 4 £if6 2 Ji.g5 ® e 4 3 Ji.f4 c 5 4 d5
1 8 a 3 h 6 1 9 Ь4 b 6 2 0 ® g 3 & d7 2 1 W a5+ 5 c3
ДЫ W e7 2 2 fih 2 fifb 8 2 3 S h b 2 £)a6 2 4 5 £>d2 is also interesting, when 5...еб 6
_4.d3 Ф*8 c3 exd5 7 <
Sixe4 dxc4 8 Wd5 Wb6 9 Wxc4+
I’m not sure it was a good idea for Black We6 10 Wxc6+ followed by 11 e4 gives
to march his king across. But this is a nasty White the better endgame.
position in any case. 5 . . .Wb6
2 5 £rf1 W d8 2 6 Ji.c2 Ф е7 2 7 W e2 B c8 This is very strange. Romero Holmes is a
2 8 Ji.a4 JLxa4 2 9 £>xa4 W d7 3 0 £ic3 Tromp expert in his own right, but this
B ab8 3 1 ® вЗ Bb7 3 2 W d3 ЯсЬ8 3 3 doesn’t make any sense.'The critical move is
£>Ь5 & f8 3 4 W d l Ф е7 3 5 W c2 f6 3 6 5.. .e6 6 f3 £lf6 7 e4 with a transposition to
^ d 1 * d 8 3 7 Ф с1 Ф е7 3 8 W b3 B c 8 3 9 Davies-Lilley (Game 4) in Chapter One.
B c2 * d 8 4 0 ФЬ2 Ф е7 4 1 Ф а2 * d 8 4 2 6 ® d 2!
& d1 & e 8 4 3 Ф а1 £iac7 4 4 ® b c 3 £ia6
4 5 f o e 3 4bg7 4 6 B cb 2 B cb 8 4 7 B a2
B c 8 4 8 W d l B bb8 4 9 W d3 B b 7 5 0 £ie2
Ф с7 5 1 ® дЗ ФЬ8 5 2 W e2 Ф а8 5 3 & М
B bc7 5 4 £>f2 ДЬ7 5 5 £id3 Hbc7 5 6
W d l B b 7 5 7 W d2 Bbc7 5 8 b5!

6 . . .£ixd2 7 W xd2
Covering the b2-pawn without any in­
convenience. White’s extra space and lead in
development secure the much better game.
7 . . .d6 8 e 4 e5
Had Black been 'pinning his hopes on
Something happens! Here Black is not this Czech Benoni structure, but with less
well placed to deal with the opening of the cramp because a piece has been exchanged?
a-file. Possibly. But White’s next move keeps the
58...£>b8 5 9 a 4 W d8 6 0 a 5 ® d 7 6 1 game open.
axb 6 & xb 6 6 2 B a6 B b 7 6 3 ЯсЬ8 9 d xe6 JL x e6 1 0 £>f3 £)c6
6 4 &ЬЗ ® x c 4 Perhaps 10..~fi.e7 improves, when 11
The proverbial desperation. £lg5 ilx g S 12 ±xg5 0-0 13 J i c 2 <S3c6 14
6 5 £ixc4 B xb5 6 6 Пха7+ Ф ха7 6 7 0-0 f6 15 jLf4 Bad8 seems just about play­
W a2+ Ф ь7 6 8 Ф хс5+ 1-0 able. The light-squared bishop is much

37
The T r o m p o w s k y

more important, and that’s the one that is The e4-pawn is poisoned. After the cap­
about to disappear. ture 16...# xe4 17 ДЬ5+ 18 S h e l * f 5
11 £>g5! £h»5 19 We2 White would be threatening both
the e6 pawn and 20 Jk.d3.
17 f5 ii.g 5 18 I .f 4 A x f 4 19 W x f4 e5 20
W d2 S d 8 21 g 4 0 -0 2 2 g5

The retreat 1l...jLd7 runs into 12 Д с4

etc.
12 £)xe6 fx e 6 13 0-0-0 Д е 7 14 & g 3 !
W c6 15 f4 <£lf7 16 Д с 4 ! 2 2 ...Ф И 8 2 3 S h g l b 5 2 4 Д е б W e7 25
Sharp and strong. 3 .d 5 5 b 8 2 6 S g 3 £>d8 2 7 H h 3 £>f7 28
1 6 ...W d 7 S g 1 1-0

38
 2...<&е4 3 ± .f4 с 5 4 d 5

S u m m a ry
As 5 -&-cl e6 transposes to the dangerous Buckley-Gormally I think that White should seri­
ously consider the alternatives —the sharp 5 4£)d2!? and the underestimated 5 W cl. If Black
is worried about these lines he seems to be safe enough after 4...e6 5 f3 -fi-d6!?.

1 d 4 £ lf6 2 Д д 5 <&e4 3 -£ f4 c 5 4 d5 W b6 (D)

4.. .e6!? —Game 16
4.. .Wa5+ —Game 17
5 £ c 1 (D)
5 £\d2!? - Game 14
c5 W ell? —Game IS
5 ...g 6 (D) —Game 11
5.. .e5 —Game 12
5.. .f5!? —Game 13

4...W b6 5 j Lc 1 S ...g 6
 CHAPTER T H R E E ]

2...£te4 3 A f 4 d5
and 3 ...Others

1 d 4 £rt6 2 Д д 5 & e 4 3 i f 4 not fond of 5...e6, which on the basis of

3...d5 is the most solid way for Black to Benjamin-Popovic (Game 24) looks better
meet 3 ДТ4. The main problem has been 4 for White.
e3, but I don’t think this is pardcularly dan­ 4 4£sd2 has been dismissed as innocuous
gerous. White managed to win in McShane- but 1 think it contains more venom than
Sutovsky (Game 18: 4...c5 5 .fi.d3 4t)f6 6 many people believe. Although Miladinovic-
dxc5 4t3c6) but I think that Black can im­ Davies (Game 25) was eventually drawn I
prove (with 10...Да6!Р, for example). And stood worse in the early middlegame. I
this is not the line which looks eminendy think that Teske played it better than I did
playable for Black. (see the note to Black’s 11 th) and he
While I’m suspicious of Black’s position seemed to secure reasonable chances.
in Radjabov-Polgar (Game 19) it seems that
Black was doing well in McShane-Jansa G ame 18
(Game 20) until Jansa’s habitual time- M c S h a n e -S u to v s k y
trouble intervened. And the 4...e6 of Wi- Pamplona 2003
nants-Marcelin (Game 21) also looks play­
able for Black, all the more so because of 1 d 4 £ 46 2 Д д 5 £>e4 3 _&f4 d5
my 11...Wd7 improvement on Wells’ analy­ Black’s alternatives are discussed in
sis within the notes to Whites 7th move. In Game 25.
my view this all leaves the merits of 4 e3 4 e3
very much in doubt. This quiet move contains more poison
I believe 4 f3 to be a far more consistent than it would appear at first sight. White
and dangerous move, even if the final analy­ wants to attack the knight on e4 with pieces,
sis shows that Black is fine here, too. After possibly dislocating Black’s pawn structure
4...®f6 5 e4 dxe4 6 4t)c3 White gets danger­ with Д А -d3xe4. For 4 f3 see Games 22-24,
ous attacking chances if Black keeps the while 4 4£kl2 is the subject of Game 25.
pawn, as shown in Hodgson-Panchcnko 4 ...C 5
(Game 22). Declining is more circumspect, This, in turn, is the most critical re­
although it is better to do this w'th 6...e3 sponse. Black puts pressure on the centre
rather than 6...e6 (sec Game 23). I’m also and makes room for his queen to come out

40
 2 ... £ ) е 4 3 £ .f4 d 5 a n d 3 . . . O th e rs

to b6 Of a5. 4...&.E5 features in Game 20 the next main game.

and 4...e6 in Games 21. .6 d x c5 !
This capture is the critical move, al­
though it has found only a limited following
in practice. Sutovsky’s next move appears to
be new, although it was mentioned by Wells
as a possible problem.
6...£>c6!?

5 4i.d3 £rf6
One of several moves. Wells is of the
opinion that 5...cxd4 is Black’s best, and
certainly it doesn’t seem bad: 6 .&.xe4!? (6
exd4 £lc6 7 Дхе4 dxe4 transposes) 6...dxc4
(after 6...'Sfa5+ Wells tries to make some­
thing of the position for White with 7 c3 In Summerscale-FIermansson, Oxford
dxc3 8 b4! Wxb4 9 Д c2 #Ь2 10 S3c2 # xal 1998 Black tried 6...1iira5+ but after 7 £lc3
11 0-0 with obscure complications) 7 exd4 c6 8 аЗ! ШхсБ 9 <S3b5! £>a6 10 Ь4 «Ъ б 11
U b6 (there are a couple of interesting alter­ 3)f3 -fi-d7 12 1Hre2 Д е 7 13 Дс5! saw White’s
natives here —7...g6 8 £lc3 jL gl 9 <
?lge2 0-0 pieces become very active.
10 0-0 £3c6 11 d5 £la5, and 7...£>c6 8 £>e2 7 ДЬ5
e51? 9 JLxe5 £lxc5 10 dxe5 1Ulfxdl+ 11 Sifc’xdl Wells analyses the alternative 7 4£lf3,
•&.g4 with compensation for the pawn in the pointing out that Black gets good compen­
shape of the two bishops) 8 ФЗсЗ 4tlc6 (after sation in the line 7...jLg4 8 ДЬ5 1Й’а5+ 9
8...'ИгхЬ2 White can play 9 < Slge2 ,fi.g4 10 <S)c3 e6 10 1Hrd4 (or 10 a3 “S3e4 11 Дхсб+
0-0, when 10...Wxc3 11 4ilxc3 i.x d l 12 Ьхсб 12 b4 4£lxc3 13 WdS ШЬб 14 Wxc3
flfxd l 4£ld7 13 ЯаЫ b6 14 “Slxe4 Яс8 15 c4 .fi.xf3 15 gxf3 a5 etc.) 10..~&.xf3 11 gxf3
S xc4 16 O d d Яхс1+ 17 S x ct leaves White <S3d7 12 Дхсб Ьхсб 13 Ь4 ШяЗ 14 0-0 Де7,
better in the endgame due to his superior threatening 15..JLf6.
development) 9 3)ge2 .fi.g4 10 0-0 Sd8 7 ...е 6
(10...0-0-0 11 ДеЗ leaves Black’s king look­ A new move, not mentioned by Wells.
ing vulnerable) 11 Jke3 and now l l...1Hrxb2 The two lines he gives are 7...1Hra5+ 8 4?3c3
12 ЯЫ ШаЗ 13 3)xe4 seems better for a6 9 Дхсб+ Ьхсб 10 Wd4 Д15 11 £>f3
White. White also has 7 1Ulfxd4!? 4tlc6 8 JL xc2 1 2 0 - 0 with a bind on the dark
Wxd8+ (8 Wxc4 1Hra5+ gives Black excellent squares, and 7...a6 8 Дхсб+ Ьхсб 9 Ь4 a5 10
compensation for the pawn) 8...‘4 >xd8 9 c3 4£ld7 with compensation for the pawn.
^ c 3 e5 10 0-0-0+ Ф е8 11 £.g3 Д й 12 Sutovsky’s choice looks like a superior ver­
£>Ь5 Д с8, Gilles-Landenbcrgue, Bern Open sion of this second line as McShane feels
2000, which was very' comfortable for obliged to capture on c6 anyway.
Black. For 5...<S)c6, 5...ttl>6 and 5...e6 see 8 Д х с 6 + Ь хсб 9 Ь4 a5 10 сЗ

41
The Trom p ow sky

I’m going to chicken out with a comment

that this ‘deserves further tests’...
12 £ lx c 3 axb 4 13 £ la 4 Д а б 14 £>b6
Sa7 15 Wd4 f6 16 * x b 4 e5 17 Д д З
ДЬ5

1 0 ...£ le 4
The following piece sacrifice appears to
fall short so perhaps Black should consider
other options here. One variation which
comes to mind is Ю.-.Даб!? 11 £lc2 4Jid7
(1 l...£ih5!?) 12 0-0 axb4 13 cxb4 g5 14 -&d6 Threatening le.-.Wxbh, but White can
Jlxe2 15 Wxe2 JLg7 16 4ild2 jLxal 17 S x al handle this.
when White has compensation for the ex­ 18 & f 2 П а б 19 W c 3 d 4 2 0 e x d 4 ex d 4
change. But this entire variation (7...e6) 21 He1 + <4>f7 2 2 Ш ЬЗ+ <4>д6 2 3 a 4
looks very rich and interesting and will Besides the extra piece White is now the
doubdess be the battieground for future proud possessor of the initiative.
Trompowsky games. 2 3 . ..d 3 2 4 ахЬБ Д х с 5 + 2 5 * f 1 П а З 2 6
11 f3 « с 4 d 2 27 Hd1 П е8
Or 27...'ЙгхЬ6 28 W e4+ * f 7 29 Wxc6 etc.
2 8 ЧГс2+ * f 7 2 9 £ lc 4 H d 3 3 0 £>d6+
A .xd6 31 * x d 3 Д х д З 3 2 * c 4 + П е б 3 3
Ь хдЗ c x b 5 1-0

G ame 19
R a d ja b o v -J.P o lg a r
H otel B ali Stars, Benidorm 2003
1 d 4 £>f6 2 Д д 5 £ le 4 3 A .f4 d5 4 e3 c 5
5 A .d3 *hc6
In view of White’s reply this looks im­
precise. Besides the moves examined in
1 1 .. .£ lx c3 ?! McShane-Sutovsky there are a couple of
Very creative, but it doesn’t quite seem to other alternatives for Black:
work. An interesting possibility here is a) 5...Wb6 6 JLxe4 dxe4 7 £lc3 Wxb2
11.. .e5l? 12 Дхе51? (12 £xe4 exf4) 12... » g 5 ! (7...cxd4 8 Wxd4! Wxd4 9 exd4 f5?l 10 f3
13 fxe4 Wxg2 14 WO Wb2 winning the was great for White in Hodgson-A.Jackson,
rook on a l, although this may not be the Southend 1998) 8 £3ge2 JLg4 9 *S2xe4! $Lxe2
end of the story after 15 £le2 Wxal 16 0-0. 10 Фхе2 cxd4?! 11 Wd3! f5?! 12 <&g5 <5ic6

42
 2 . . . & i e 4 3 $Lf4 d 5 a n d 3 . . . O t h e r s

13 4f3e6 Hc8 14 Hhbl Wc3 15 ШхсЗ dxc3 4£lxf3 W c7 and now both Wells and Shred­
16 Hxb7 * f 7 17 £ld4 * f 6 18 ±c7! and der like 14 Hhfl, which leaves Black facing
White won in Adams-Xic Jun, Hastings unpleasant threats, for example 14...Wd7 15
1996/97. JLxe5! wins a pawn.
b) 5...e6 6 JLxe4 dxe4 7 <S3c3 cxd4 8 10 h 4
Wxd4 Wxd4 9 exd4 ± b4 10 £lge2 f5 11 One wonders what Black had in mind in
0-0-0 4f3c6 was played in K.Berg-Prusikin, the event of 10 *Ъ 5, for example 10...JLe7
Morso 2002, and now 12 d5 would have (10...f6 transposes to Berg-Navara, above)
been quite strong. 11 Д xe5 0-0 12 -&g3 does not leave enough
6 Д х в 4 d xe4 for the pawn.
10. ..h 5 11 f3
11 £lxe4 Wb6 gives Black some play for
the pawn, but is it enough?
11. . .Д е 7 1 2'£>xe4 f5 13 £>c3 £ .x h4
Both 13...0-0 and 13../*Ъ6 look like bet­
ter tries.
14 £.x h 4 £>xh4 15 Wd2 W g5

7 d 5 e5
7,..<
S3b4 8 <S3c3 e6 9 d6 *53c6 10 <53хе4 is
good for White.
8 Д д З £>e7 9 £ lc 3 £sg6

16 £>h3 ШдЗ+
16.. .#xg2 17 Wxg2 <£ixg2+ 18 Ф{2 <Slh4
19 Hagl would give White more than
enough for the pawn.
17 W f2 f4
17.. .63xg2+ 18 * f l Wxf2+ 19 * x f 2 63h4
20 Hagl transposes to the previous note.
18 £>xf4 <$3xf3+
This isn’t good, but what else? 18...exf4
19 Wxg3 fxg3 20 Bxh4 also leaves White
This is an attempted improvement over with a huge plus in the endgame.
9...f6, when K-Berg-Navara, Morso 2002 19 g x f3 e x f4 2 0 Ш хдЗ fx g 3 21 £ le 4 h 4
continued 10 1i rh5+ <&g6 (10...g6 11 Wh4 22 £>xg3 0-0 2 3 B x h 4 B x f3 2 4 £>e4
^ f 5 12 Wxe4 ^3d6 might be worth another 25 * e 2 ± xe4 2 6 H x e4 H a f8 27
look as Black gets some compensation for * d 3 b5 2 8 B e 7 B 8 f 7 2 9 Я е 8 + B f 8 30
* e pawn) 11 0-0-0 Wa5 12 f4! exf3 13 H x f8 + * x f 8 31 a 4 b 4 3 2 Ф с 4 Я х е З 3 3

43
The T ro m p o w s k y

Ф х с 5 B e 2 3 4 c 4 S x b 2 3 5 Ф е б ЬЗ 3 6 bishop on g6 became quite a problem.

d6 &d2 37 d7 b2 38 Я П + Ф е7 39 6 c4
He1 + <i?f7 4 0 Ф с 7 1-0
An efficiently played game by Radjabov.

G ame 20
M c S h a n e -J a n s a
BundesUga 2002-3
1 d 4 £>f6 2 Д д 5 £>e4 3 iL f4 d5 4 e3
A.f5

6 ...e 6
I think this is the best, and in fact Black
may have more resources than is generally
believed.
a) Black often plays 6...c6, for example 7
£lc3 e6 8 Wb3 Wd7 (8...Wb6 9 c5 Wxb3 10
axb3, intending Ь3-Ь4-Ь5, looks good for
White, while 8...b6 is another possibility) 9
g4 iLg6 10 h4 h6 11 c5 ± e7 12 £lb5! cxb5
A sensible looking developing move. The 13 ДхЬ8 аб (13...ЯхЬ8 14 ДхЬ5 wins
bishop can be a target on f5 but T am not Black’s queen) 14 jLg3 0-0 15 £lh3 Шсб 16
impressed with the current theoretical £>f4 ± h7 17 ± d3 -&xd3 18 £lxd3 and
evaluation. White had a nice space advantage and at­
5 f3 tacking chances <yi the kingside in Miles-
White should avoid 5 c4? e5! 6 dxe5 S.Kovacevic, Ber^Aque Open 1997.
JLb4+, forcing 7 Фе2. b) The sharp 6...c5 runs into 7 cxd5
5...£>f6 £>xd5 8 -&xb8 Hxb8 (8...^3xe3 9 ±b5+
Black has also played 5...£ld6, when 6 ± d7 10 ±xd7+ Wxd7 11 W e2 <Slxg2+ 12
£k!2 is probably the most unpleasant move Wxg2 Hxb8 13 dxc5 left White a piece up in
for Black to face (White has also tried vio­ Adams-van Wely, Tilburg 1996) 9 e4 43e3
lent approaches based on 6 £3c3 e6 7 g4 or 10 exf5 W aSh11 # d2 £lc2+ 12 *£2 #xd2+
7 # e 2 followed by castling long). Hodgson- 13 63xd2 <£ка1 14 ±b5+ * d 8 15 -$.d3,
Hertneck, Bundesliga 2000 continued б...еб trapping the knight on a l and leaving
7 c4 dxc4 (7,..< S3xc4 8 £3xc4 dxc4 9 e4 Black’s position totally disorganised.
ДЬ4+ 10 ± d2 ±xd2+ 11 # xd2 12 c) 6...ДхМ is solid but dull, White’s bish­
± x c4 0-0 13 W e 1 14 0-0 G\dl 15 H ad ops and space advantage giving him the
was unpleasant for Black in Lputian- better game after 7 Hxbl c6 8 .SLd3 e6 9
Z.Ilincic, Yerevan Zonal 2000) 8 £lxc4 £ld7 ^3e2 JLb4+ 10 -SLe7 11 g4 in Adams-
9 Hcl <53xc4 10 ±xc4 &d6 11 5le2 0-0 12 Emms, British Championship, Hove 1997.
e4 -kg6 13 0-0 e5 14 dxe5 Дхе5 15 #ЬЗ 7 W b3
.SLxf4 16 £3xf4 <53b6 17 ШеЗ and Black’s Wells claims that 7 £}c3 will transpose to

44
 2 . . . £ l e 4 3 S L f4 d 5 a n d 3 . . . O t h e r s

the 6...c6 line (after 7...c6 8 Wb3) but Black 1996/97.

сяп do better here with 7...4?3h5!, securing 1 1 g 5 £>g8 1 2 cxd 5 exd 5 1 3 e 4
che two bishops. With Black behind in development White
—logically —tries to open things up.
13 ...A .d 6 1 4 £ih3 £ie7 1 5 0 -0 -0 0 -0 1 6
£.d3

7 ...b 6
An interesting possibility is 7...£lbd7!?,
:ifter which 8 £3c3 5lh5!? 9 cxd5 £lxf4 10
exf4 exd5 11 £3xd5 ikd6 gives Black com­ 1 6 . ..a 5
pensation for the pawn. Note that 8 Wxb7 Black, in turn, is keeping the position
Hb8 9 Wxc7 Wxc7 10 -&xc7 Hxb2 11 5ld2 closed. After 16...dxe4 17 fxe4 JLxf4+ 18
,ilb4 puts White in all sorts of trouble. £3xf4 Wxd4 19 £lxg6 £ixg6 20 -&c4 Black
8 £>сЗ c 6 9 g 4 Д д б 1 0 h 4 h5 faces horrible threats.
1 7 S h e 1 £ia6 1 8 аЗ Ь5 1 9 exd5 Ь4 2 0
£.xd6 W xd6 2 1 £ie4 £.xe4 2 2 fx e 4 a 4
2 3 e5

Blocking the kingside. The older move is

10...h6. Then in Winants-Wiedenkeller,
European Club Cup, Neum 2000 White
stood well after 11 4£)h3 -SLe7 12 0-0-0 a5 13 2 3 ...a x b 3 ?
cxd5 exd5 14 jLd3 (14 33f2!?) 14..JLxd3 15 Was Jansa short of time already? The
J2xd3 £lbd7 16 Oddi, while ll...dxc4 12 Czech Grandmaster has a deep understand­
±xc4 £>d5 13 0-0-0 A.d6 14 -&xd6 Wxd6 ing of chess but sometimes lus clock ticks
15 e4 £3xc3 16 W xc3 gave White a strong far too quickly. 23...Wb8 leaves Black with
initiative in Conquest-Xie Jun, Hastings serious threats on the queenside. Now the

45
The T ro m p o w sk y

tables are turned. ±xg7 £lxd2 15 Wxd2 Hg8 16 ± e5 gave

2 4 exd 6 £lxd5 2 5 a 4 g 6 ?! White a clear advantage in Hodgson-
A further error. The immediate Hjartarsson, Politiken Cup, Copenhagen
looks better, hitting the a4-pawn and moni­ 1996.
toring White’s d-pawn. 5 A d 3 b61?
2 6 £ lf2 £ib8 2 7 £.c4 S x a 4 2 8 ДхЬЗ Playing for exchanges with 5..JLd6
Па5 2 9 <4>d2 <£ld7 3 0 На1 Пха1 3 1 leaves White slighdy better after 6 £le2
fix a l f6 3 2 £ le4 fx g 5 3 3 <£lxg5 Hf6 3 4 £3d7 7 Дхе4 dxe4 8 *S3d2 f5 9 i53c4 We7 10
Па8+ 1-0 Wd2 JLxf4 11 <S3xf4 thanks to his superior
pawn structure and the fact that so many of
G ame 21 Black’s pawns are now fixed on the colour
W in a n ts-M a rc e lin of his bishop.
Belgian Team Championship 2002 6 .&.xe4 d xe4 7 c 4
This gives White more ‘width’ than 7
1 d 4 £sf6 2 Д д 5 £ie4 3 A .f4 d 5 4 e 3 e6 £)c3, after which 7...ДЬ4!? 8 % 4 0-0 was
Hodgson-Yermolinsky, Hastings 1995. Ac­
cording to Wells White should now have
tried 9 $Le5 (in the game 9 Wg3? ДхсЗ+ 10
ЬхсЗ £lc6 gave Black terrific play on the
light squares) 9...f6 10 Wxe4, but I think
Yermo would have answered 10...ДхсЗ+
(Wells analysed the wild 10...fxe5 11 Wxa8
exd4 12 0-0-0) 11 ЬхсЗ Wd7! when 12 Wxa8
(12 JLg3 JLa6) 12...53сб traps White’s
queen. Another possibility is 7...Ab7 8 Wg4
Wd7 9 0-0-0 £3a6 as in Hauchard-
A.Sokolov, French League 1988.
7...Д Ь 4+ 8 £>d2
This quiet move appears somewhat pas­
sive but it might not be too bad. Others:
a) 4...g6 5 A.d3 6M6 (5...±g7 6 -&xe4
dxe4 7 £lc3 favours White due to Black’s
dislocated pawn structure) 6 h4!? ^_g7 7
*53сЗ сб 8 h5 «Ъ б 9 Д с5 JLxe5 (9...ШхЬ2 is
good for White after 10 £3a4 Wa3 11 -&xg7
fig8 12 hxg6 hxg6 13 c3 Hxg7 14 Wb3!
ШхЬЗ 15 ахЬЗ 63d7 16 Bh8+ 63f8 17 £lb6
Sb 8 18 Пха7 etc.) 10 dxe5 £lc4 11 hxg6
fxg6 12 JLxg6+ <&>d8 13 Wd4! and White
had a clear advantage in Lputian-Ashlej',
Las Vegas Open 2001.
b) After 4...c6 White should play in gam­ 8 £3c3 JLxc3+ 9 ЬхсЗ 0-0 leaves White
bit style with 5 ,SLd3 Wb6 6 JLxe4, when with a weak c4-pawn.
6...ШхЬ2 7 ёИ 2 dxe4 8 63e2 <&d7 9 0-0!? (9 8 ...Д Ь 7 9 <5}e2 0 -0 1 0 0 -0 £>d7 1 1 a 3
53xe4 is also quite good) 9...^3f6 10 c4! Wa3 iLd6 1 2 £.xd6 cxd6 1 3 £tc3 f 5
11 5lg3 g6 12 $Le5 ,fi.g7 13 5lgxe4 ?3xe4 14 White might be slightly better here be-

46
 2 . . .G \ e 4 3 §Lf4 d 5 a n d 3 . . . O t h e r s

cause of the usual problem of Black’s pawn Diemer Gambit ... with an extra tempo.
structure being somewhat discombobulated.
But there’s not much in it.
14 a 4 d 5 15 cx d 5 £ .x d 5 16 £ ix d 5 exd5
17 W b3 £ lf6 18 S fc 1

4...£>f6 5 e4l?
After 5 £ic3 Black can angle for a good
version of the French with 5...e6 6 e4 JLe7.
Lputian-Gufeld, Los Angeles 1998 contin­
1 8 .. .6 C 8 1 9 S c 3 S f 7 ued 7 # d2 0-0 8 0-0-0 a6 9 g4 Ь5 10 g5
lO.-.Wde looks better to me. <S)e8 11 h4 b4 12 £la4 £ld7 13 ЬЗ ±Ь7 14
2 0 S a c 1 Hfc7 2 1 ЙЫ * f 7 2 2 * b 5 W d6 3kd3 Дсб 15 53b2 a5 with excellent coun­
2 3 Hxc7+ fix c 7 2 4 U xc7+ W x c7 2 5 terplay.
£ic3 f 4 2 6 h 3 fx e 3 2 7 fx e 3 Феб 2 8
W e2 g5
And here I prefer 28...'ilrg3 . Black’s posi­
tion is now just slightly uncomfortable and
he loses his way as the time control ap­
proaches.
2 9 W f2 W d6 3 0 g 4 Ф47 3 1 Ф д2 a 5 ? l 3 2
W f5
Missing 32 h4!
3 2 . . .* b 4 ?
32...h6 seems okay.
3 3 W xf6+ ! * x f 6 3 4 £>xd5+ Ф еб 3 5
й х Ь 4 axb 4 3 6 h 4 h 6 3 7 h xg5 hxg5 3 8
Ф12 Ф 65 3 9 Ф е2 Ф с4 4 0 Ф б2 1 -0 1 5 ...d x e 4
In this position 5...e6 6 e5 £lfd7 7 JLe3
G ame 22 gives White a nice space advantage, the
H o d g s o n -A .P a n c h e n k o point being that by not playing his knight to
Bern 1994 c3 White can protect d4 with a pawn (see
Game 24).
1 d 4 £ if6 2 A g 5 £>e4 3 A .f4 d 5 4 f3 6 £ lc 3 exf3
I must say that, personally, I prefer this This is the most straightforward way to
aggressive approach to the quiet (and in my accept the gambit. 6...e6 is examined in
view innocuous) 4 e3. White uses the posi­ Game 23.
tion of Black’s knight to get a Blackmar- Others:

47
The T r o m p o w s k y

a) Black can also try to hold the pawn 7 . . .96

with after which Wells analyses 7 Alternatively:
fxe4 (?)xe4 8 ШВ (simply 8 A d3 *53xc3 9 a) 7...e6 and now White should again play
ЬхсЗ seems to offer good compensation to 8 Д с4 сб 9 1Йге2!, intending to castle long.
me) 8...(£\xc3 9 ЬхсЗ Wee 10 J*Lс13!? (after Jansa-Sosonko, Amsterdam 1975 continued
Hodgson’s suggested 10 Hbl Wells men­ 9...63bd7 (9...±e7 10 0-0-0 0-0 11 Де5
tions 10...We6t-, intending ll...JLe4, which £>bd7 12 h4 Wa5 13 ФЫ 63d5 14 £)е4
does indeed seem quite interesting) gave White dangerous attacking chances in
10...ji(.xd3 11 cxd3 with compensation for Kuhn-Callenberg, Recklinghausen 1999) 10
the pawn. 1 tend to agree with this assess­ 0-0-0 <&Ь6 (10...JLb4 11 d5! £lxd5 12 ± xd5
ment and would prefer to play White. Jix c3 13 Jix e6 is also better for White) 11
b) 6...£ld5!? tries to use the fact that d5! (rlbxd5 12 3kxd5 (rlxd5 13 Sxd5 cxd5
White’s bishop is on f4. I then like the line 7 14 (rlb5 f6 15 (rlc7+ ФГ7 and now 16 H fl!
£lxd5 #xd5 8 ±xc7 (8 c4 Ша5+ 9 ± d2 (16 (rlxa8 -&d6 allowed Black to escape in
# f5 10 We2 <53c6! gives Black good coun­ the game) 16...lkd6 17 (£)g5+ ' i ’gS 18
terplay after 11 -&c3 e5!) 8...(r3c6 9 c3 -&f5 £lgxe6 lkxf4+ (18...We7 19 $Lxd6 Wxd6 20
(9,..exf3?l 10 (rlxB -SLg4 11 $Le2 gave White £if4 Hb8 21 63fkd5) 19 £ixf4! Hb8 20
a pleasant edge in Berkes-Buzas, Skekszard <S3fxd5 would have been correct when it is
Open 1998) 10 #ЬЗ!? Wd7 11 ± f4 сб 12 difficult to see a defence against White’s
$Le2 £i.c7 13 fxe4 Дхе4 (or 13...JLh4+ 14 many threats.
g3 -&xe4 15 ± B i x B 16 63xB -&f6 17 b) Black can also play 7...$Lg4 before set­
0-0) 14 £3B which looks better for White in ting up his pawns on light squares, for ex­
my opinion. ample 8 h3 i x B (8...lkh5 9 g4 -SLg6 10
c) Black has also played 6...c5 7 d5 (7 ±.g2 сб 11 5)e5 S)bd7 12 # e2 £lxe5?! 13
dxc51?) 7...exB but then comes 8 £3xB g6 dxe5 £3d7 14 сб fxc6 15 0-0-0 put Black in
(Wells mentions 8...a6 but after 9 1Sre2 g6 10 major trouble in G.Meszaros-F.Lengyel,
0-0-0 ± g7 11 d6 it is not easy for Black) 9 Hungarian Team Championship 1998) 9
(rib5 £3a6 10 -&c4 $Lg7 (thus far Hertneck- ШхВ сб 10 0-0-0 еб 11 -&c4 ± e7 12 ФЫ
Gavrikov, Bundesliga 1994), and now 11 0-0?! (12...£3bd7 improves) 13 h4 £ld5 14
0-0 (the best side for Black’s king with the £le4 b5 15 lkd3 ?3d7?! (15...(r3xf4 is a bet­
bishop on g7) 11...0-0 12 d6 looks quite ter defence) 16 (r3g5 (?37f6 17 $Le5 a5 18
unpleasant. Hdfl a4 19 ±xh7+ £txh7 20 Wh5 1-0 was
7 £>xf3 the conclusion of S.B.Hansen-H.Olafsson,

48
 2...<53е4 3 SLf4 d 5 a n d 3 . . . O t h e r s

Reykjavik Zonal 1995. alternatives will also offer White compensa­

8 j l c 4 £ .g7 tion here, for example 11 Hhel еб 12 £le4
£lbd7 13 JLg5 must be interesting.
11 ...c x d 5
Hodgson analysed ll...W b6 12 d6 after
which Wells gives Hodgson’s recommenda­
tion of 12...exd6 (12...e6l? may also be play­
able, but White’s d6-pawn would surely
prove to be a bone in Black’s throat) 13
JLxd6 (13 Hxd6 may well be better, when
White’s lead in development offers posi­
tional compensation) 13...He8 14 -&xf7+
'A’xf7 15 £)g5+ i ’ge 16 1йгс4+, apparently
missing 16...JLe6! 17 £)хеб ШеЗ+ etc.
1 2 £sxd5 £>xd5 1 3 B xd5l W b6
ЭШ е2! Not 13...Ше8? 14 ± xb8! S x b 8 15 ±Ь5
This is White’s most dangerous plan, in­ etc. Wells suggests 13...£)d7 14 S h d l еб
tending to casde long and break through (rather than Hodgson’s 14...1®b6 15 c.3 £3f6
with d4-d5, but it isn’t the only way to treat 16 S b 5 Wc6 17 ^3e5 We8 18 g4) when 15
the position. In T.Sokolov-Hellcrs, Malmo Sd6 16 S 6 d 4 '№(18 17 S d 6 could lead
1997 White played 9 0-0 and after 9...0-0 10 to a draw by repetition!
tfd 2 c5 11 d5 £)bd7 should have tried 12 1 4 B b5 W c6 1 5 £le5 W e8 1 6 h4!
d61? (in the game he played 12 Oael but
after 12...(tlb6 his compensation for the
pawn was unconvincing).
9 ...0 - 0 1 0 0 -0 -0 c 6
Stohl has suggested 10...jkg4 but after 11
d51 Black’s c7-pawn is marked down as a
target and gives White good compensation
for the pawn.
1 1 d5!7

With Black so passive he’s hard pressed

to defend himself.
16 ...£ lc 6 1 7 h5! g5?
This loses by force, but even after the
more stubborn 17...e6 Black is in trouble
after 18 4£lxc6 Wxc6 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 Cg5,
intending 21 Де5.
1 8 £ixc6 W xc6
Or 18...gxf4 19 £lxe7+ * h 8 20 We4 with
Played before Black can consolidate the various threats.
d5-square with ...e7-e6. But I do think that 1 9 B xg5 t f 6 2 0 W e5!

49
The T r o m p o w s k y

This method of declining the gambit

seems unlikely to catch on. In fact the way
the game goes this does appear to be a case
of perspiration rather than inspiration. If
Black doesn’t want to take then 6...e3l?
looks best. Then 7 ДхеЗ transposes to a
‘standard’ Blackmar-Diemer Gambit de­
clined, with White having lost back the
Trompowsky tempo he gained by having
his bishop on f4. After 7...e6 8 Wd2 Д е 7 9
0-0-0 0-0 10 g4 Black should play 10...сб
when both sides have chances in a classic
opposite side castling situation. This leaves
2 0 . ..h6 7 #d31? e6 8 ШхсЗ Д е 7 9 0-0-0 0-0 10
Hodgson gives a nice line after 20...<
4 ’h8: ФЫ £3сб 11 g4 £3b4 12 Ag3 Ьб with
21 h6! Wxc5 22 hxg7+ Wxg7 23 Sxg7 Фхg7 chances for both sides in Benjamin-
24 ±h6+ * g 8 25 Jlh5! Hd8 26 Bg5+ * b 8 Yermolinsky, USA Championship 1995.
27 JLxf7 followed by mate. 7 fx e 4 ДЬ4 8 lTd3 £>c6 9 £>f3 0 -0 1 0
21 S g 6 ! W xg6 2 2 h xg6 Д х е 5 2 3 £ x e 5 аЗ Д е 7
Де6 It is now quite clear that the opening
Or if 23...еб White replies 24 g7! fol­ hasn’t been a success for Black.
lowed by Cxh6. 11 Д е2
2 4 S x h 6 f 6 2 5 Д хе6 + <4>g7 2 6 A .f4 Eh8 I would probably have preferred the less
2 7 S x h 8 S x h 8 2 8 c 4 * x g6 2 9 g 4 S h 3 modest 11 0-0-0, but this is largely a ques­
3 0 <4>d2 a 5 3 1 c 5 a 4 3 2 Ь4 axb 3 3 3 tion of taste.
axb 3 1 -0 1 1 ...a 6 1 2 0 -0 b 5 1 3 b 4 ДЬ7 1 4 Had1
£ia7 1 5 Д с1 a 5 1 6 e 5 £>d5
G ame 23
V y s o c h in -S h k u ra n
Independence Cup, Ukraine 2003
1 d 4 <$3f6 2 Д д 5 Cie4 3 A .f4 d 5 4 f3
£>f6 5 e 4 d xe4 6 £ lc3 e 6

1 7 £>e4
The threat to plant a knight on g5 leaves
Black no time to capture on b4.
1 7 ...h 6 1 8 c 3 £ib6 1 9 &de1 £>c4 2 0
^ d l Wd5 2 1 Д с 2 дб 2 2 A x h 6 £>хаЗ 2 3
Д д 5 Wd8 2 4 £if6+ Ф д7

50
 2 . . . t h e 4 3 $L f 4 d 5 a n d 3 . . . O t h e r s

25 bxa5 7 . . .c 5 8 c 3 £>c6
This move doesn’t spoil anything but 25 Black has also tried exchanging light-
JLh6+! ФЬ8 26 £ig5 deserves more points squared bishops with 8...b6 9 f4 JLa6 but
for style. after 10 ±xa6 £>xa6 11 £3f3 &e7 12 0-0 0 0
2 5 ...S h 8 2 6 £>h4 ® x c 2 27 £>h5+ 1-0 13 f5! exf5 14 t d 3 £lc7 15 Wxf5 White
27.. .Hxh5 28 Sxf7+ * xf7 29 Wxg6+ iswas much better in Hodgson-Benjamin, Las
devastating.1*56 Vegas Open 1995. After 12...'Brc8 Wells
points out that 13 f5! cxf5 14 -&g5! is very
G ame 24 dangerous.
B e n ja m in -P o p o vic 9 f4 c x d 4
M oscow O lympiad 1994 De la Villa suggests that 9...ШЬ6 is better,
quoting a game Moreno Ruiz-Mitkov,
1 d 4 $ lf6 2 Д 95 £ ie 4 3 A .f4 d 5 4 f3 Mondariz 1999, which went 10 1Brd2 a5 11
£ lf6 £lf3 a4 12 JLd3 cxd4 13 cxd4 ДЬ4 14 £3c3
It is worth mentioning that 4...£3d6l? is a3 15 ЬЗ # a5 16 Hcl <&f8 17 0-0 ±d7. But
possible here. After 5 РЗсЪ e6 6 e4 c6I Black I agree" with Wells that the pin on c3 is
has the d5-pawn nicely reinforced and can nothing to be scared of and his suggested
meet a subsequent e4-e5 with ...‘S3d6-f5 or 18 Йс2 Йс8 19 S f c l looks quite good.
even ...<
Sdd6-c4. Wells gives the continuation 10 cx d 4 £>b6
7 jLd3 й.е.7 8 £lge2 0-0 9 0-0 Ь5!? 10 e5 In Benjamin-Malisauskas, Moscow
^3c4 11 W cl, intending 12'a4, although this Olympiad 1994 Black tried to throw a span­
position is a complex one with chances for ner in the works with 10...#a5+, when 11
both sides. &f2! £>Ь6 12 ЬЗ! ± d7 13 £lf3 Дс8 14 a3
5 e 4 e6 63a8 15 Яа2 &c7 1’6 A d2 ШЬб 17 £lc3
Black aims for a kind of French Defence 18 b4! Wd8 (18...£lxd4 19 Ae3) 19 g4
position. But White is quite well placed after £3h4 20 ^3xh4 Wxh4+ 21 &g2 left White
this, the main point being that he can de­ with a huge space advantage and f4-f5
fend the d4-pawn with c2-c3. looming.
6 e 5 £ ifd 7 7 £.e3! 11 £>d2
Starting to reinforce the d4- and e5- Another possibility is 11 b31? a5 12 a4
squares. The bishop no longer makes sense when the b4-square is not enough to give
on the f4-square, and neither does the pawn Black serious counterplay.
on f3. 1 1 . . .a5 12 a 3 a 4 13 & d 3 A.d7 14 £ ie 2

51
The Trom pow sky

£>a5 15 0-0 Not 39 Ахеб Sxe6 40 Вхсб Wxe6 41

Bxd3 Bf7 when Black suddenly generates
some play.
3 9 ...B c c 7 4 0 B xd7 B xd7 4 1 A b 4 l A f5

Already threatening f4-f5.

1 5 ...g 6 1 6 g 4 A c 6 1 7 £lg3 £lbc4
After 17...£\ac4 Benjamin intended 18
Wf3 (18 *21хс4 dxc4 gives Black d5 for the 4 2 A x a 5 ! W xa5
other knight) 18...£lxb2 19 f5 with a strong Or 42...Axh3 43 Wf8 etc.
attack. 4 3 B c 5 W d8
1 8 4£sxc4 41x04 Both 43...Wb6 and 43...Wa6 are an­
Or 18...dxc4 19 JLc4 *53ЬЗ 20 Axc6+ swered by 44 A fl. •
Ьхсб 21 Wf3 with a large advantage. 4 4 W d2 B c7 4 5 A x f 5 gxf 5
1 9 W e2 b 5 2 0 f 5 A e 7 2 1 B f3 A h 4 ? l After 45...Bxc5 46 Wb4+ Фа8 47 dxc5
21...Ag5 is slightly better, although in WxgSt- 48 A g4 h5 (48...Wxe5+ 49 ФЬЗ
any case this is not a nice position for Black. We3ri 50 Ф^2 escapes the checks with a win
22 fx e 6 fx e 6 2 3 A h 6 W b6 2 4 W f2 in sight) 49 Wxa4+ ФЬ7 50 Wd7+ ФЬ8 51
0-0-0 We8+ Фс7 52 Wf7+ ФЬ8 53 Wf4 White
gets the queen round for defence and wins.
4 6 W b4+ Ф с8 4 7 h4 ,We8
47...Bxc5 48 WxcS АфЬ7 49 WbSh picks
up Black’s queenside pawns, while 47...f4+
48 * f2 ! escapes further checks.
4 8 W a5! B x c 5 4 9 W a8+ Фй7 5 0 W xe8+
Ф хе8 5 1 d xc5 1-0

G ame 25
M ila d in o v ic-D a v ie s
Valle d ’s io s ta 2000
1 d 4 £>f6 2 A g 5 £>e4 3 A f 4 d5
2 5 S f 1 S d 7 2 6 Ф д2 Bhd8 2 7 ФЬЗ Let’s take a quick look at the rarely
А х д З 2 8 ФхдЗ Ь4 2 9 A f8 ЬЗ! 3 0 Д с 5 played alternatives:
W a5 3 1 А Ь 4 W b6 3 2 B f6 ДЬ5 3 3 Д с 5 a) After 3...£\c6 White gets the better
W a6 3 4 B e l ФЬ7 3 5 A f1 S c 8 3 6 g5 game with 4 f3 e5 5 dxc5, for example
S c 6 3 7 A h 3 £la5 3 8 S c 3 A d 3 3 9 B f7! 5...<S3g5 (5...g5 6 A c t) 6 e4 Ab4+ 7 c3 A c5

52
 2 . . . lh e 4 3 M.f-4 d 5 a n d 3 . . . O t h e r s

я ilx 4 b6 9 £\e2 ДЬ7 10 £k!2 *he6 11 Ag3 a rather disdainful attitude towards it but it
and Black was struggling in Walton-Norris, is not that easy to equalise for Black. Cer­
[British League 2000. tainly Miladinovic seemed enthusiastic
b) After one visitor to his website sug­ about his chances.
gested 3...g5, Jeremy Silman offered the line 4 ...^ f 5
4 jlc 5 f6 5 e3 ± g7 6 A g3 d5 7 A d3 A f5.8 After Wells’ recommendation of 4...c5 I
4V3 h5 9 Д хе4 dxe4 10 h4, which would think that 5 ?3xe4 dxe4 6 e3 gives White
certainly be enough to put me off this line chances for an edge, for example 6...ШЪ6 7
har Black. There is also 4...Ilg8 5 Wd3 d5 6 Ilb l! (better than 7 dxc5 Wxb2 8 Wd4 ШаЗ
П £3f6 7 £.xf6 exf6 8 Wxh7 Hg6 9 £3c3 9 JLxb8 Ша5+ 10 c3 Ilxb8) 7...cxd4 (or
foc.6 10 0-0-0 *hc7 11 g4 f5 12 ШЪЗ f4 13 l.A \ cb 8 d5 е5 9 Ag3) 8 1Hrxd4 Wxd4 9
f5 14 h4, which rather looks like chess exd4 with the better endgame according to
from Mars to me. my analysis. Instead 6 dxc5 Ша5+ 7 c3
c) Julian Hodgson mentioned 3...e6 4 f3 Шхс5 8 Wd4 Wxd4 9 cxd4 “S lc6 10 0-0-0 e5
Jld6 5 .&xd6 ^ x d e as a possibility but I 11 dxe5 Д еб gave Black dangerous play in
agree with Wells’ assessment that this must V.Mikhalevsky-Ma.Tseitlin, Beersheba 1996.
be more comfortable for White after 6 £)c3 5 £lxe4 jL x e4
followed by 7 e4. In Piket-Van der Stcrren, Rotterdam
d) 3...d6 4 £3d2 (White can also play 4 f3 1990, Black voluntarily damaged his pawn
with a slight edge in the endgame after structure with 5...dxe4, after which 6 еЗ еб 7
4...£lf6 5 e4 e5 6 dxe5 “S lh5 7 JLe3 dxe5 8 Ф е2 £\d7 8 c4 -&d6 9 Axd6 cxd6 10 £\c3
Wxd&+- <&xd8 9 JLc4) 4...£>f6 (4...Af5 5 0-0 11 JLe2 gave White a slight edge.
&)xc4 Jt.xe4 6 f3 jL c6 1 e4 also favours 6 еЗ еб 7 f 3 & g6 8 h4
White) 5 e4 g6 6 e5 £>d5 7 -&g3 &g7 8
£}gf3 0-0 9 A c4 £\b6 10 A b3 £\c6 11 0-0
ji.g4 12 h3 Д х В 13 £lxf3 £la5 14 W ell?
£lxb3 15 ахЬЗ Ш 7 16 Ше4 d5 17 Wh4 and
White’s nice central pawn wedge gave him
the advantage in Hodgson-Vescovi, Ber­
muda 1997.
4 5 ld 2 !?

8 ...h 6
Perhaps 8...h5 would be better, prevent­
ing White from gaining space on the king-
side. But I was afraid of the possibility of a
white knight coming to f4 at some stage.
9 h 5 & h7 1 0 ^ d 3 £.xd3 1 1 W xd3 £ic6
Miladinovic-Teske, Bad Worishofen 2003
varied with ll...c 5 12 c3 *Slc6 13 *Slc2 cxd4
I think that this unpretentious looking 14 exd4 jLd6 15 ДеЗ Wc7 16 g4 Ь5 17 Ф{2
move deserves serious attention. Wells took ЯЬ8 with some queenside counterplay for

S3
The Trom pow sky

Black in view of his minority attack. This is but this position isn’t pleasant for Black.
probably a better way to play than my own 16 ...Ф а 5 1 7 e 4 d x e4 1 8 fx e 4 d 5 1 9
treatment of the position. exd5 B xd5 2 0 b 4 £>c6 2 1 W f3 B hd8 2 2
1 2 £ le2 4 .d 6 1 3 c3 b 5 £ia5 2 3 ЗД4 B g 5 2 4 £)h3 B gd5 2 5
Miladinovic subsequently played the £rf4
more direct and poisonous 13 0-0-0, after
which 13...JLxf4 14 £lxf4 Wg5 15 ФЫ
0-0-0 16 g4 аб 17 53h3 We7 18 f4 left Black
short of space in the game Miladinovic-
Papadopoulou, Kavala 2001.
1 3 ...W e 7 1 4 g 4 0 -0 -0 1 5 A x d 6 cxd6

2 5 ... B 5d 7
25...Bg5 repeats the position but I was
optimistic about my chances because pawns
cannot move backwards. But probably this
position is about equal.
2 6 0 -0 £>c4 2 7 W e2 B c 7 2 8 a 5 W h4 2 9
16 a4 £>g2 W g3 3 0 b 6 axb 6 3 1 axb6 £lxb6 3 2
Afterwards we looked at 16 53f4 which W b5 W d6 3 3 B ab1 £td5 3 4 B a1 £>b6 3 5
cuts out Black’s pawn levers and allows ВаЫ £>d5
White to improve his position at leisure. It Neither side could see a mearjpgful way
is not clear how much White can achieve, forward.

54
 2 . . . ? h e 4 3 $L f 4 d 5 a n d 3 . . . O t h e r s

Sum m ary
]’m not at all convinced about the merits of 4 e3 and 1 think that Black has no less than 3
excellent antidotes (4...c5 5 -fi-d3 <£lf6, 4...Ji.f5 and 4...c6). My personal view is that 4 f3 is
altogether more vigorous and interesting with the safest line for Black being 4...<53f6 5 e4
dxe4 6 “Slc3 e3. It also seems that 4 £3d2 is less innocuous than it is thought to be which
makes it a good choice for players who prefer to keep all their pawns.

1 d 4 £)f6 2 Д д 5 £>e4 3 £ f 4 d 5 4 f3
4 ®d2!P - Game 25
4e3
4.. .Ji.f5 —Game 20
4.. .e6 —Game 21
4.. .c5 5 A d 3 (D)
5.. .£3f6 - Game 18
5.. .£\c.6 —Game 19
4 ...£ 4 6 5 e 4 l? (D) d x e4
5.. .e6 —Game 24
6 —Game 22
£ c 3 (D) ex f3
6.. .e6 —Game 23
 CHAPTER FOUR

2 ...G e 4 3 i.h 4 c5
and 3...g5

1 d 4 £>f6 2 Д д 5 £te4 3 i h 4 kaitis-Klimov (Game 30) is something of a

.3 ^Lh4 has been out o f fashion for some th eoretica l duel, with Black’s ll...h.3!? look­
time but this could be about to change. It ing new at that particular moment.
used to be thought that after 3...c5 4 f3 g5 5 MIhalik-Konopka (Game 31) and
fxe4 gxh4 6 e4 -fiLh6 White was more or less Zlochevskij-Horvath (Game 32) explore the
forced to play 7 Ф й but this no longer joys of 7 -&.c4!?, a move which has been
seems to be the case. The Spanish GM Juan castigated by ‘theory’ but looks complex
Manuel Bellon Lopez has been experiment­ and dangerous enough to be worth a second
ing with 7 $3d2 and 7 d5. And with great look. The reasons for its earlier dismissal
success... look controversial to say the least and it
In Bellon Lopcz-Gallagher (Game 26) could be that Black’s best is 7...d5!? here. I
Black logically tries to accelerate his devel­ gave a sample line which ends in a draw by
opment with 7...d5 but Bellon improved on repetition — does either side have an im­
one of his earlier games with 10 “S lc4. In­ provement on this?
stead of 9...£)d7 Black might have tried 6...#b6 and 6...C6 are explored within
9...cxd4 but White can also vary with 8 Bellon Lopez-Olsen (Game 33) whilst 3...g5
Wf3!? or 9 0-0-0!?. 4 f3 gxh4 5 fxe4 e5!? is examined in Bellon
Bellon Lopez-Schaffer (Game 27) fea- . Lopez-Mompo Ballester (Game 34). None
tures the acceptance of White’s e3-pawn of these appears to present a particular chal­
with 7...JLxc3i but then 8 d5 d6 9 Й с4 of­ lenge to White but could be subject to fur­
fers long-term positional compensation, ther analysis if Bellon’s 7 £M2 (and 7 JLc4!?
largely because Black’s kingside has been for that matter) continue to cause problems.
rendered quite uninhabitable. 1 don’t like
the 7...c6 of Bellon Ixipez-Peredun (Game G ame 26
28) and Bellon lx>pez-Eriksson (Game 29) Bellon L o p e z-G alla g h er
provides the likely reason why our hero G ibraltar M asters 2004
decided to ‘refine’ his original idea of 7 d5.
I must admit that I do not like having my 1 d 4 £rf6 2 iLg5 £>e4 3 ,S.h4 c 5
king as the best developed of my pieces but For (the independent) 3...g5 see Game
7 &f2 seems playable nonetheless. Chcpu- 34.

56
 2 . . .4 d e 4 3 &.h4 a n d 3 O t h e r s

with in Game 29, 7 Ф£2 in Game 30 and 7

Jk.c4 in Games 31-32.
7 . . .d5
This looks like the critical reply, trying to
accelerate development before capturing the
pawn on e3. 7...JLxe3 is the subject of
Game 27 and 7...e6 is covered in Game 28.
8 W h5
This natural move is the only one to have
been played here, but there is an alternative.
1 think that 8 Wf3 is interesting because it
protects the еЗ-pawn, after which a sample
line is 8...'ШГЬ6 (8...cxd4 9 exd4 Ji.xd2+ 10
4 f3 &xd2 ШЬб 11 Wc3 leaves Black’s pawn
After 4 £id2 Black can equalise: 4...Ша5 structure in tatters while White’s king is
(4...Aixd2 5 Wxd2 cxd4 6 £3f3 (Ac6 7 £3xd4 safer than it looks) 9 0-0-0 cxd4 10 exd4
'й’Ьб 8 0-0-0 4tlxd4 9 1lrxd4 1Brxd4 10 Hxd4, ®xd4 11 'tfho Wg7 12 Ja.b5-t- (i\:6 13 exd5
as in Shcreshevsky-Mordasov, Rostov on A g4 14 dxc6 0-0 15 1lrxh4 JLxdl 16 *^?xd1.
Don 1977, gives White more chance for an Tests required!
advantage) 5 c3 ‘v'ixd2 6 1Brxd2 cxd4 7 cxd4 8 . . .£ х е З
Wxd2+ 8 &xd2 d5 9 еЗ еб, Rausis-
T.llorvath, Interlaken 2001. In this particu­
lar position 4 d5 is poor in view of 4...1ШЪ6
5 f c l g5 6 ± g3 A g7 7 c3 £lf6! 8 # d2
$3xd5! 9 ?3a3 £3f6 10 £3c4 Шеб 11 "Wxg5
0-0, when Black had a nice lead in devel­
opment in Wal ter-Movsziszian, Hamburg
1993.
4 ...g 5 5 fx e 4 g x h 4 6 e3 _&.h6
Game 33 features 6... «Ь б .
7 P)d2

9 exd5
Once again this is not the only move. 9
0-0-0!? deserves attention, when 9...cxd4 10
£3gf3!? dxe4 11 Д с4 (11 £3e5 0-0 12 £3ec4
isn’t out of the question) ll...exf3 12 WfxF7+
&d7 13 B h el, intending 14 Bxe3, gives
White a dangerous attack for the sacrificed
material.
9...£>d7
Another critical move is 9...cxd4 when it
remains to be seen what Bellon had in
Bellon’s patented move, which seems to mind. Romero Holmes-Sutovsky, Vcndrell
offer quite interesting play. 7 d5 is dealt 1996 continued 10 <£lc4 £3d7 11 ?3xe3 (11

57
The T ro m p o w sk y

Wxh4 may be better, for example 11 ...40f6 he has fewer pawn islands.
12 £>xe3 dxe3 13 0-0-0 Wa5 14 Ф М with 1 7 . . Jk b 7 1 8 £ .e 4 e 6 19 0-0 15 2 0 A f 3
interesting play in prospect) 11 ,.,'Wa5+ 12 c3 Ф е 7 21 B a e l
dxe3 13 4i3f3 £3f6 14 Wxh4 Bg8 and now I prefer 21 S f c l so as to put the queen’s
15 d6 (rather than 15 Sdl) 15...jLg4 16 rook on d l.
dxe7 Фхе7 17 0-0-0 is critical. 2 1 . . .П а е в 2 2 c 3 B c 7 2 3 £>d3 B d 8 2 4
Be5
And this doesn’t look like the right spot
for a rook because of its serious lack of
mobility.
2 4 . . .B d 6 2 5 S f e l Ф16 2 6 <&f2 £ lb 6 27
-&xb7 B x b 7

10 £>c4
Improving on 10 Wxb4 £3f6 11 4?3gf3
cxd4 12 &c4 Ag8, whiGh was good" for
Black in Bellon Lopez-Arizrnendi Martinez,
Lanzarote 2003.
1 0 ...^ x d 4 11 £ if3 £)f6 12 W x h 4 b S 13
<33ce5 a 6 28 Bxe6+ ??
After 13...^.xb2 14 -&xb5+ .fcd7 15 A serious error in judgement as the re­
Jmlx<V7+ £txd7 16 £3c6 Ji-f6 17 Ше4 White’s sulting endgame is completely- lost for
nicely centralised army gives him the advan­ White. White should play 28 Й5еЗ with a
tage. likely draw.
14 £1x114 c x d 4 15 Wxd4 W xd5 16 W xd5 2 8 .. .B x e 6 2 9 B x e 6 + Ф х е б 30 £>c5+
£ ix d 5 17 & d 3 * d 5 31 £>xb7 £ta4 3 2 Ф е З
32 ЬЗ £lxc3 33 a3 Фd4 is also bad.
3 2 . . .£ixb2 3 3 Ф14 £td1 3 4 Фх15 £>xc3
3 5 g 4 £sxa2 3 6 g 5 Ь 4 3 7 £ la 5 £)c1 38
h 4 b3 3 9 £ ix b 3 £>xb3 4 0 h 5 £)d4+ 41
Ф16 £)в6 4 2 g6 h6 4 3 g7 £txg7 44
Ф хд 7 a 5 4 5 Ф хИ б a 4 4 6 Ф д 7 a3 4 7 h6
a 2 0-1

Game 27.
Bellon L o p e z -S c h a ffe r
M islata Open 2003
1 d4 £rf6 2 Jtg 5 £ te4 3 & h 4 c 5 4 f 3 g5
This endgame is better for White because 5 fxe4 g x h 4 6 еЗ Д Ь 6 7 £\d2 it x e 3

58
 2 . . . lh e 4 3 § L h 4 a n d 3 O t h e r s

This seems too passive, though it could

well be an attempted improvement on an
earlier Bcllon game. Bellon Lopez-Alquist,
Stockholm 2002 had gone 11...h3 12 g3 h5
13 ДхЬЗ h4 14 -fi.xc8 Wxc8 15 g4 h3 16
WO Oh4 17 Wxf6?l (spectacular, but simply
17 £3c3 looks like a stronger move, with an
edge for White) 17...Wxg4I 18 £3xd6+ exd6
19 “53e2 £3d7 20 Wxd6 and now 20...0-0-0
would have left White in a most precarious
position (rather than 20...Wxe4 as played in
the game). Perhaps Black should play
ll...IIg 8 , when 12 Wh5? (12 £ 30 is correct,
8 d5 d 6 with complex play) is bad due to 12...jLg4
After 8...jLd4 White obtains a dangerous 13 Wxh7?? (13 Wh6 is mandatory, but none
initiative with 9 c3 Ji.f6 10 Wh5 d6 11 £3gf3 too pleasant for White after 13...Sg6 14
Kg8 (1 l...£3d7 is better but after 12 J i e 2 Wxh7 £3d7 etc.) 13...Hh8 and the queen is
followed by 13 0-0 1 still like White) 12 e5 trapped.
dxc5 13 0-0-0, as in Bcllon Lopez- 1 2 W h5 £3d7 1 3 £>f3 W c7 1 4 & e2 £3f8
Dworakowska, Stockholm 1999. 1 5 0 -0 <$3g6 1 6 <53g5 ,&xg5 1 7 Wxg5
9 £3c 4
Improving on one of his earlier games.
Bcllon Topez-Palac, Catalan Bay 2003 had
gone 9 Wh5 &xd2+ 10 * x d 2 Wb6 11 <S?cl
c4 12 <530 c3 13 bxc3 We3+ 14 ФЬ2 Wb6+
15 Фс1 #63+ 16 Ф>Ь2 Wb6+ 'A-Vi
9....& d4 1 0 сЗ £Л6 1 1 а 4

Black’s position has considerably wors­

ened with the departure of his dark-squared
bishop. He’s still a pawn up but his pieces
don’t work together.
1 7 . . .fig 8 1 8 <$3e3 f6 ?
Further weakening his position with his
king far from safety. Л better defence is
Very calm play. White turns out to have 18.. .h3 19 g3 jLd7, although this is still
compensation for his pawn thanks to his clearly better for White after 20 Wh6.
extra space, the weaknesses in Black’s camp 1 9 Wh6 ,S.d7 2 0 Д д 4 Ф хд4 2 1 £3хд4
and the difficulty Black has in finding a safe W c87
spot for his king. 21 ...Sh8 improves.
1 1 ...b 6 2 2 Wh5

59
The Trom pow sky

Missing the chance to put Black out of £lf3.

his misery with the devastating 22 ИРхЮ
Фк17 23 £ixf6+ etc.
2 2 . . . * f 8 2 3 £>h6 B g7 2 4 B f3 Ф е8 2 5
b 3 sfed7 2 6 ФИ1 Ф с7 2 7 £>f5 B f7 2 8
£>xh4 £ixh4 2 9 W xf7 <S3xf3 3 0 W xe7 +
« ^ 7 3 1 W xd7+ * x d 7 3 2 g x f3 Ф е7 3 3
Ф д2 a 5 3 4 Ф12 B c8 3 5 ВЫ f 5 3 6 e xf5
c 4 3 7 Ь4 ф {6 3 8 bxa5 bxa5 3 9 Bb5
B a 8 4 0 ФеЗ Ф е5 4 1 f6 B a7 4 2 f4+
* x f 6 4 3 Bb6 Bd7 4 4 Ф d4 1-0

G ame 28
Bellon Lo pez-P eredu n
Toronto 2003 1 0 exd5
It doesn’t seem right to exchange here as
1 d 4 £ lf6 2 & g5 £ le4 3 ДИ4 c 5 4 f3 g5 it helps Black develop. It seems better to
5 fx e 4 gxh 4 6 e3 J«.h6 7 <S3d2 e6 play 10 £le5 0-0 11 0-0-0 with dangerous
attacking chances.
1 0 ...e x d 5 1 1 £le5 We 7 1 2 £>gf3 a 6 1 3
0 -0 -0 <Elc6

Weakening the dark squares like this

doesn’t look like a good idea. Another
dodgy move is ~7...ШЪ6, due to 8 £3c4 Wg6
9 dxc5 53a6 (9...1^X64 is better but leaves 1 4 £lxh4
White with a nice endgame after 10 Wd4 Around here White seems to lose control
Wxd4 И exd4) 10 £if3 Ag7 11 # d5 Wc6 of the position. 14 $Le2 looks preferable.
12 £)xh4 “SlxcS (12...£3b4 13 Wytc6 dxc6 14 1 4 . . .£lxe5 1 5 dxe5 .Ske6 1 6 $Le2. 0 -0 -0
JLd3 and Black has insufficient compensa­ 1 7 ,S.f3 ФЬ8 1 8 B d2 W c7 1 9 Bhd1
tion for the pawns) 13 £3f5 3L{6 14 0-0-0 W xe5?
Wxd5 15 exd5 d6 16 £3g3 Ji.d7 17 Ji.e2 and After this White’s advantage crystallises
White’s extra pawn eventually decided mat­ into a better endgame. A much better try is
ters in Bellon Lopcz-Wang, Toronto 2003. 19.. .d4, when 20 exd4 cxd4 21 Bxd4 Bxd4
8 £>c4 d 5 9 Wh5 Д д 7 22 Bxd4 JLxe5 is fine for Black.
Perhaps 9...Wg5 is better but this is 2 0 W xe5+ & xe5 2 1 ^ x d 5 & xh 2 2 2
hardly pleasant after 10 Wxg5 £.xg5 11 5 if3 Д с7 2 3 Д хеб fx e 6 2 4 £ig5

60
 2 ...5 3 е 4 3 Suh4 a n d 3 O t h e r s

2 4 . . .Bde8 This was Bellon’s pet move prior to dis­

It doesn’t look right to go passive here. covering the joys of 7 ^5d2, and it can in
24.. .Bxd2 25 J3.xd2 c4, intending 26...Ab6, fact transpose. It looks like strategic insanity
might have been a better chance. to give Black the c5-square, but White gains
2 5 B d7 S h g 8 2 6 <S3e4 B xg2 2 7 Bxh7 space and stabilises the centre.
Ш 8 2 8 B e7 B h 8 2 9 Д хеб B hh2 3 0 £ld2 7...W b 6
b6 3 1 c 3 ФЬ7 3 2 Ф с2 c 4 3 3 b 3 b5 3 4 This seems like one of the reasons for
bxc4 bxc4 3 5 S e 4 A b 6 3 6 Фс1 B e2 3 7 the switch. The other is 7...d6, when 8 £kl2
£ixc4 B c2+ 3 8 ФЫ ДхсЗ 3 9 Д е7+ “S id7 9 Wh5 (more incisive than 9 *S5gf3
Д с 7 4 0 £>d6+ Ф еб 4 1 £lf5 АхеЗ) 9...Axe3 10 £\gf3 £if6 11 Wxh4
White has managed to keep an edge £\g4?! (ll...W a5) 12 A 1)5+ ФГО 13 B fl h5
through thick and thin. Winning? Probably 14 A d3 Ah6 15 <S3g5 was good for White
not. But Black certainly has practical diffi­ in Bellon Lopez-Sandstrom, Stockholm
culties. 1999. 7...Axe3 8 £3d2 transposes to Bellon
4 1 . . . 2 . 4 4 2 £ld4+ ФЬ6 4 3 B d3 Bb4+ Lopez-Schaffer.
4 4 £lb3 B c 4 4 5 £id2 B e 5 4 6 B b 3+ B b5 8 W c l d 6 9 £>f3 33d7 1 0 g41? W b4+ 1 1
4 7 Ф с2 ВхЬЗ 4 8 axb 3 A d 6 4 9 Веб & bd2 A x e3 1 2 c3
Ф с7 5 0 Ф 83 A b 4 5 1 £ic4 а 5 5 2 £lb6
B d2+ 5 3 Ф с4 В с2+ 5 4 ФЬ5 ВЬ2 5 5
В с6+ Ф ав 5 6 Ф с4 Ф е8 5 7 е 4 Ф17 5 8
£sd5 А е 1 5 9 B f6+ Ф е8 6 0 B fl А д З 6 1
B f3 A d 6 6 2 ФЬ5 Да2 6 3 е 5 А е 7 6 4 еб
B d2 6 5 Й хв7 Ф хе7 6 6 Ф ха5 Фхеб 6 7
Ь4 Ф а7 6 8 ВсЗ В а2+ 6 9 ФЬ6 В а1 7 0
Ь5 В а 2 7 1 ФЬ7 В а1 7 2 B d3+ Ф е7 7 3
Ь6 1-0 1

G ame 29
Bellon L o p e z -E rik sso n
Stockholm 1999
12 ...W b 6
1 d 4 <£sf6 2 А д 5 £>е4 3 A h 4 с5 4 f 3 дБ 12...#a4 looks better, when Whitens
5 fx e 4 gxh4 6 еЗ A h 6 7 d5 ‘compensation’ is not convincing. Now he

61
The T rom p ow sk y

manages to get castled on the qucensidc the fact that his queen isn’t on d l, while 8
with a free-flowing game. 4E)f3 Wb6 9 £3c3 cxd4 10 exd4 £lc6 trans­
1 3 W c2 W c7 1 4 0 -0 -0 £ib6 1 5 A b 5 + poses to the main line, below.
± d 7 1 6 W d3 ^ f 4 1 7 £lxh4 0 -0 -0 1 8 b) 7...Wb6 8 £3c3 Wxb2 (8...cxd4 9 Wxd4
^.xd7+ Wxd7 1 9 W e2 Bhg8 2 0 h 3 e 6 Wxd4 10 exd4 gave White the better end­
2 1 ФЫ exd 5 2 2 exd 5 B g e8 2 3 W d3 game in Hodgson-Howell, British Champi­
-fcxd2 2 4 B xd2 B e 5 2 5 c 4 B d e 8 2 6 b3 onship 1985) 9 £3d5 Фч18 (9...cxd4 10 exd4
Black is struggling. transposes to 7...cxd4 8 exd4 Wb6) 10 B bl
2 6 ...B e 1 + 2 7 Bd1 B xh1 2 8 B x h l W e7 Wa3 (De la Villa analyses 10...Wxa2 11 S a l
2 9 W xh7 £ld7 3 0 £>f3 W f6 3 1 W f5 W h8 Wb2 12 JLc4 cxd4 13 exd4 ?3c6 14 ?3e2
3 2 W d3 S e 7 3 3 B e l B xe1 + 3 4 ®>xe1 ?3b4 but misses 15 jLb3! ?3xd5 16 exd5,
W h4 3 5 W e3 £ie5 3 6 Ф с2 Ф с7 3 7 £>d3 threatening to trap Black’s queen with 17
W h7 3 8 Ф 62 £lxd3 3 9 W xd3 W g7 4 0 Ha2) 11 Wh5! Wxa2 12 We5 and White
W c3 W g6 4 1 ФеЗ W h6+ 4 2 Ф е4 W g6+ wins.
4 3 Ф44 Wb1 4 4 W f6 W f1 + 4 5 Ф д5 c) After 7...0-0 White gets the better
W xh3 4 6 W e7+ Ф с8 4 7 W xf7 W e3+ 4 8 game with 8 Wh5 Wb6 9 Wxc5! Wxb2 (or
Ф дб W g3 4 9 g 5 1 -0 9...Wxc5 10 dxc5) 10 ШсЗ Wb6 11 £3f3
when his strong centre will make life diffi­
G ame 30 cult for Black.
C h e p u k a itis -K lim o v 8 exd4
S t Petersburg Championship 2004
1 d 4 £>f6 2 Ф д5 £ le4 3 ДИ4 c 5 4 f3 g5
5 fx e 4 gxh 4 6 e 3 i .h 6 7 Ф42I

8...W b 6
Again there are alternatives:
a) After 8...e5 Dc la Villa recommends 9
Wh5 (9 53c3 seems better, when 9...£3c6
I cannot say that I’m very fond of this leads to 8...53c6, below) 9...Wf6+ 10 53f3
move, despite the fact that most sources but doesn’t mention 10...exd4!?, which
consider it to be White’s best. White pro­ seems vety reasonable for Black, for exam­
tects the еЗ-pawn but at the heavy cost of ple 11 JLc4 Ae3+ 12 ФП ‘й сб keeps good
misplacing his king. dark square control.
7 ...c x d 4 b) In Kireev-Vorobiov, St Petersburg
Others: 1999 Black played 8...<$3c6 9 <$3c3 e5 10
a) 7...e6, and now 8 Wh5 WfbP 9 £lf3 Wh5 jLe3+ (Black can also play 10...exd4 11
cxd4 10 exd4 £3c6! leaves White regretting Wxh6 dxc3 12 bxc3 WbfrH 13 We3 Wb2 14

62
 2...£>е4 3 $Lh4 a n d 3 O t h e r s

J5d1 Wxa2 15 £3f3 with a messy position) ^.c4 (threatening 14 S b l) 13-.'.ШМ 14 53d6
11 ’Й’хеЗ exd4+ 12 < &>d2 dxc3+ 13 ЬхсЗ d6 S f8 15 S b l etc.
14 £ТЗ А сб 15 Wxh4 Wa5 (15...1S ,xh4 16 11 ДЬ5!?
s'jxh4 gives White the better endgame) 16
Ш 6 S g 8 17 ЙЫ Ь6?! (17...Sb8) and now
]}e la Villa recommends 18 Д Ь5 (18 g3 Bc8
was fine for Black in the game) 18...Bxg2+
19 B c8 20 £3d4 -&.d7 21 Wxd6 as giv­
ing White an edge.
c) Another interesting possibility for
Black is 8...d5!?, e.g. 9 cxd5 WxdS 10 £3f3
0-0!? (De !a Villa gives only 10...53c6 11
£lc3 Ша5 12 ДЬ5 ^ d 7 13 Шс2 0-0-0 14
53d 5 which was better for White in Hass-
C.Carlson, correspondence 1990) 11 53c3
Wd6 and Black appears to have very rea­
sonable chances. This seems to be White’s best, continu­
9 S lc 3 ing the fight for d4 by preparing to ex­
change the knight on сб. 11 53b5 is well met
by 11...0-0 according to analysis by Vujacic,
e.g. 12 c4 d6 13 b4 (13 53xd6 e5! 14 # b3
exd4 15 Wxb6 ДеЗ+ 16 ФЫ axb6 and
Black achieved a very comfortable position
in Aleksandrov-Loginov, Kstovo 1994)
13.. .53xb4! 14 ВЫ аб.
11 ...h 3 !?
Black often plays this move at some
point but it seems to be new right here.
Here are the others:
a) The most usual move is ll...d 6 , but
then White gets the better game with 12
9 ...e 6 Дхс6+! Ьхсб 13 53a4 14 ЬЗ h3 15 gxh3
After 9...10 ,xb2 White can play 10 ('VIS (improving on 15 g3, when 15...0-0 16 We1
&d8 11 S b l Wa3 12 «Ъ 5 but then De la Wh5 17 g4 Wg6 18 g5 Jig 7 19 e5 c5 saw
Villa pointed out that Black has 12...Wa4 White’s centre disintegrate in Chepukaitis-
(12 ...ig7 13 53£3 is bad for Black). His Loginov, St Petersburg 2000) lS —WhS 16
main line ends in a draw by repetition after S g l Wxh3 17 Ш З £ b 7 18 Bg3 Wh5 19
13 Wxh6 WxcV.-t 14 53e2 W xbl 15 53xe7 B agl 0-0-0 20 Bg4 # a5 21 Bh4
* x e 7 (15...Wxe4 16 Wf6 is better for Chepukaitis-Sivokho, St Petersburg 2000,
White) 16 Wg5+ * f 8 17 Ш 8+ * g 7 18 and now 22 S f4 would have been best (22
'Wrg5+ etc. I think that 13 c41? looks very Sg5 Wc7 23 Bhh5 h6 24 S g 3 <4>b8 25 c4 c5
dangerous as 13...'0,c2+ 14 Jt-c2 W xbl? 15 saw Black get some initiative in the game) —
^<-'5 leads to mate. 22.. .jLh6 23 Bh4 (23 Exf7 Wh5 is danger­
10 53f3 53c6 ous for White) 23..JiLf8 24 Bf4 repeats the
De la Villa points out that 10...1H,xb2 is position.
poor due to 11 53b5! i^de 12 e5 53c6 13 b) Another alternative is ll..JL g 7 12

63
The T ro m p o w s k y

Дхсб Ьхсб, e.g. 13 £)a4 (13 e5 f6 14 exf6 of 20 5)f5, but he gets a pawn for the f5-
-&xf6 15 S)e4 JLg7 16 £>d6+ Фе7 17 S)c4 square after 20...Sxc2+ 21 ФР! Sxh2 22
Wb4 saw Black’s bishops become active in £xd7+ <&>xd7 23 S h i S x h l 24 S x h l ДЖ
Hodgson-Hjartarsson, Moscow 1987) Now he’s just worse.
13.. ЛЪ5 14 ЬЗ Tib5 15 S e l 0-0 16 h3 d6 20 £.xd7+ * x d 7 21 <i>f3 S h g8 22 S x g8
17 c5?l (17 c4) 17...c5 and the pawn struc­ S x g8 23 Sd1 Ф е7 24 h4 S c 8 25 c3
ture opened up for Black’s bishops in Eliet- Д д7 26 ФеЗ S c 4 27 a5 S c 5 28 Sa1
P.Cramling, Clichy 1997. Д е5 29 <4>d3 £ xh 2 30 Ь4 Я с8 31 £>f3
c) 11...0-0 looks sensible: 12 S e l (12 ДЬ8 32 S g l Sd8+ 33 Ф с2 Д а 7 34 S g 7
Дхсб is possible here, too) 12.. .J i g ! 13 *f6
Дхсб Ьхсб 14 £)a4 Wa5 15 c3 d6 16 b4 (16
e5 c5 17 dxc5 was Rogozenko-Charbon-
neau, Internet 2001, and now 17... Ad7!
would have been a strong zwischenzug)
16.. .«Ъ 5 17 e5 c5 18 dxc5 -&d7 19 £>Ь2
dxc5 20 a4 Wb7 21 Ь5 Wc7 22 $lc4 and
White had the position under control in
Dumitrescu-So.Polgar, Pardubice 1995.
12 gxh3
12 g3 d6 might very well transpose to
Chepukaitis-Iauginov in the note to Black’s
11 th move, above.
1 2 .. .d6 1 3 a 4
And 13 Дхс6+ Ьхсб 14 £)a4 15 b3 35 Sg5
Wh5 leads us to Chepukaitis-Sivokho (note White might be able to grab the pawn on
‘a’ to Black’s 11th move, above). h7 since after 35 Sxh7 *ig(> 36 £)g5 SfB
1 3 .. ..fi.d7 14 Wd3 (not 36>...ДеЗ 37 Sxf7 JLxg5 38 Sxb7,
when White has ail the chances) 37 lfed3
Д.Е2 38 Фе2 JLg3 39 £)xe6 fxe6 40 Sxb7 he
has decent prospects thanks to the passed
pawns on the qucenside.
3 5 . . .Д еЗ 3 6 e 5+ Ф е7 3 7 Пд7 h6 3 8
Я д 4 h 5 3 9 Я е 4 Д а 7 4 0 £lg5 S f 8 4 1
ФdЗ f6 4 2 e x f6 + & xf6 4 3 c 4 ДЬ8 4 4
c 5 Д дЗ 4 5 S c 4 Фd7 4 6 £le4 ШЗ+ 4 7
Ф е2 S f 4 4 8 ФеЗ
After this White has to play accurately to
draw. A simpler way might have been 48
c6+ Ьхсб 49 5)c5+ Ф с8 50 Sxf4 ДхР4 51
ФРЗ Д-d2 52 $lxa6 when it is getting very
1 4 ...S c 8 drawish.
14...a6 looks better, both here and on the 4 8 . . .e 5 4 9 Я с1 Д хЬ4 5 0 E d 1+ Ф с7 51
next move. &d5 Д е1 5 2 & xe5 Ш 8 5 3 S e 7 + Феб
15 E hgl £le5 16 £>xe5 dxe5 17 £le2?l 5 4 Ф d4 Д хЬ4 5 5 Я е6+ Фс7 5 6 Д е7 +
exd4 18 Wxd4 #xd4+ 19 £>xd4 a6 Фсб 5 7 Я е6+ Ф с7 5 8 S e 7 + Феб 5 9
Black evidently didn’t like 19...e5 in view Пв6+ У2 -У2

64
 2...Ф>е4 3 $Lh4 a n d 3 O t h e r s

less than three pawns up but, once again,

G ame 31 White has a serious initiative after 13 e5,
M ih a lik -K o n o p k a intending 14 £le4.
Slovakian Championship 1994 1 2 £>c3!? cxd 4 1 3 £>b5

1 d 4 £>f6 2 Д д 5 £le4 3 £.h4 c 5 4 f 3 g5

5 fx e 4 gxh4 6 e 3 ФИ6 7 Ф с4

1 3 . . .a 6 1 4 £lbxd4 £>c6 1 5 £>xc6 « х с б

1 6 W d3 ДИ6 1 7 S a d i Ь5 1 8 & e5!
1 don’t know what White was eating be­
Although this has been tarely played it fore this game, but it seems like good stuff.
certainly has its points. White is homing in 1 8 . . .b xc4 1 9 * ff3 » c 7 2 0 £>xf7 S f 8 2 1
on f7 and developing quickly. £3xd6+ W xd6 2 2 *fh 5+ Фе7 2 3 W h4+
7 . . .e6 Ф е8 2 4 S x f8 + W xf8
Perhaps Black should opt for rapid de­ After 24...A.xf8 25 Sxd6 ii.xd6 26 Wxh7
velopment with 7...d5!?, when 8 jLxd5 e6 9 Black doesn’t have enough for the queen.
Wh5 jLxc3 10 might even end in 2 5 W d8+
perpetual after 10...exd5 11 We5+ ’l&dl 12 25 Sd8+ Ф>Г7 26 й х f8+ -fcxf8 27 Wxh7+
Wxd5+ Фе7 13 We5+ * d 7 14 Ш 5+ etc. J i g7 allows Black to get his pieces working,
For 7...1Brb6 see the next main game. though he doesn’t have very many pawns
8 £sf31? left.
8 Wg5 9 £>c3 £>c6 10 d5 £le5 11 2 5 . . . 4 . 7 2 6 S f1 + Ф д8 2 7 S x f8 + ^ x f 8
&)f3 £)xf3+ 12 gxf3 ШхеЪ 13 Wxc3 ДхеЗ
14 Фе2 ± f4 15 S a g l a6 16 a4 h5 17 a5
iLc7 18 2g5 jLxa5 19 d6 -&.<d8 gave Black a
winning game in Szabo-Florian, Hungary
1971. Florian would later suggest 8 but
then Black can play 8...'lirg5 (8...Wb6 and
8.. .£lc6 are also interesting). Hodgson men­
tions only 8 1Brh5, when 8...’iirg5 is quite
good for Black.
8 . . .W b6
After 8..~Stxe3 9 d5 White has a danger­
ous initiative.
9 0-0 Д х е З + 10 * h 1 h 3 11 дЗ d6
ll...« x b 2 12 5lbd2 cxd4 leaves Black no 2 8 Шс7 c 3 2 9 bxc3 a 5 3 0 a 4 e 5 ? ?

65
The Tro m p o w sk y

A blunder. 30..,JLg7 is necessary, al­

though die position is still very good for
White.
31 * c 6 ! fib8 32 Wd5 + 1-0
Quite an exhilarating performance from
White.'

G ame 32
Z lo c h e v s k y - T .H o rvath
Bo%en Open 1998
1 d4 £lf6 2 Д д 5 £>e4 3 ДИ4 c 5 4 f3 g5
5 fxe4 gxh4 6 e3 ± h6 7 c4
It is interesting to see a- strong player like 11 ...£lxb4 12 £>xe3 cxd4?
Zlochcvsky use this line —and successfully At the critical moment Black loses his
as well. nerve. For better or.worse he had to try
7...W b6 12...5lxc2+, when 13 &f2 53xal 14 Wxal
1 think this is inappropriate here. Bg8 looks playable.
8 53c3 53c6 13 0-0 dxe3 14 ^ xf7 + 1i>d8 15 Wd4

In the event of there is 9 £3d5 15 ...fif8

гФс18 10 S b l ШяЗ 11 Wf3 with strong pres­ Giving up the exchange, for which Black
sure, while 8..~SLxe3 is met by 9 £k!5 WaSh doesn’t get any compensation. By now there
10 Ь4 Wa3 11 bxc5 ■with a powerful central was hardly any alternative since after 15...e5
pawn wedge. 16 Wd6 Wb6 17 Wxtt5 S f8 18 S a d i Black’s
9 £>ge2 position is a wreck. The game continued:
A natural developing move, but is it the 16 W g7 Bxf7 17 Bxf7 £lc6 18 £>сЗ еб
best? White has a strong alternative in 9 19 * f6 + Ф с7 20 Wf4+ * e 5 21 Wxe5+
£3d5, when 9...Wxb2 (9...'Шга5+ 10 c3 nicely £lxe5 22 Bxh7 b6 23 Bxh4 & a6 24 Bh3
reinforces White’s centre) 10 a3 followed by £ ic 4 25 B e l Bf8 26 Bf3 B g8 27 Bf4
10 S a2 traps Black’s queen. Bg5 28 £ld1 Ba5 29 £lxe3 Bxa2 30 h4
9 ...Д х еЗ ?! ■i>d6 31 h5 £>xe3 32 Bxe3 Bxc2 33 h6
9...e6 is preferable. Bc8 34 h7 Bh8 35 Bf7 &Ь7 36 g4 Ф с7
10 £ld5 WaS+ 11 b4! 1-0

66
 2 . . . l h e 4 3 $Lh4 a n d 3 O t h e r s

Black has recovered his equanimity move, offering the b2-pawn while develop­
enough to do what he should have done ing at top speed.
long ago.
Game 33
Bellon L o p e z -P .O ls e n
M alaga Open 2003
1 d 4 £>f6 2 & g 5 Ф е 4 3 Д И 4 g 5 4 f3
g xh4 5 fx e 4 c 5 6 e3 W b6

7 ...e 6
There axe several alternatives for Black,
although none of them seems to be entirely
satisfactory:
a) After 7...cxd4 White’s most solid con­
tinuation is 8 Wxd4. Instead Bellon l.opez-
Winsnes, Malmo 2003 featured the wild 8
S3d51? Wa5+ 9 b4 Wd8 10 Wh5?l §Lgl 11
Forcing White to play in gambit style. 53f3 еб 12 ^3g5 fif8 13 Д с 4 exd5 14 0-0
Here arc a couple of other 6th moves for when, although White won, I think he was
Black: getting somewhat carried away.
a) (i...e6 is the best of the bunch and b) 7...ИгхЬ2 8 S3d5
should probably be met by 7 53c3 (7 £3d2
-&.h6 8 ?3c4 d5 9 WhS Wg5 10 Wxg5 JLxg5
11 £3f3 J ic 7 is given as better for White by
many sources but looks rather equal to me)
7 ..Д 116 8 # h5 A x el 9 Wxc5 d6 10 ±Ь5+

Ф£8 11 Wh5 Hg8 (1 l..JU d 4 12 53ge2 and

White threatens to both capture on d4 and
play 13 S f l) when 12 ‘$3ge2 (rather than 12
■53f3 Sxg2 13 S f l , which Black should meet
with 13...^ g e with messy play) 12...'iirg5 13
®xg5 Sxg5 14 g3, earning White the supe­
rior endgame.
b) 6 ...ig 7 7 £ЗсЗ 53сб 8 £lf3 (or 6...£3c6
7 <$3c3 -&g7 8 <$3f3) doesn’t make much of and now 8... #a3?l was played in Nc-
an impression on White’s centre. The big fediev-Chepukaitis, St Petersburg 2002, and
question in these lines is how Black will one has to wonder what Black had in mind
disturb White’s central fortifications. after 9 S3c7+ (9 2 Шя5 10 &c4 led to
7 £}c3 obscure positions in the game) 9...Ф08 10
This looks like White’s most promising £3xa8, for example lO.-.VxeTt (or

67
The T ro m p o w sk y

Ю...#сЗ+ И *fi2 -&h6 12 £ d3) 11 t h e 2 b6 leaves White’s queen looking stronger than
12 # d3 #xd3 13 cxd3 leaves him strug­ the three minor pieces.
gling to find sufficient compensation. This 9 d 5 £le7
leaves 8...^?d8 9 S b l # a3 and now there 9...exd5 10 exd5 ®e7 11 d6 looks even
seems to be a strong argument for simple worse for Black.
development with 10 53f3 (10 # h5 seems 1 0 d 6 £lg6 1 1 £>Ь5 B b8 1 2 £lg51?
unconvincing after 10...#xa2, for example
11 Sd1 cxd4! 12 £>f3 #a5+ 13 Фе2 d6 14
Wx П $lc6 with counterplay), for example
10...C6 11 2b 3 #35+ 12 £lc3 Hg8 13 #d2,
intending to complete development with 15
jfiLd3 followed by 16 0 0.
c) 7...£>c6 8 £ld5 #a5+ 9 сЗ сб 10 £lf6+
r^?e7 seems well met by"11 $lh5!, for exam­
ple ll...cxd 4 12 exd4 # g5 13 £lh3 #e3+ 14
# e2 with the better endgame.
d) 7...#h6 fails to make any impression
on White’s centre after 8 £ld5 ФОв 9
c6 10 4t)e5 # g7 11 ©И with a clear advan­
tage for White. Bellon is never backward at coming for­
e) 7...Ag7 8 £>d5 # d6 (8,..#a5+ 9 c3 se­ ward. I would have preferred the dull 12
cures White’s centre) 9 # g4 4^18 10 £3f3 e6 #d2, aiming to displace Black’s king with
11 #xh4! £lc6 12 e5! led to a quick win for ®c7+ and secure the d6-pawn by castling
White in Bellon 1xjpez-Martin del Campo, long.
Guillermo Garcia Memorial, Cuba 1998. 1 2 . . .£ie5?
8 £>f3 The losing move. 12...Jig7 seems play­
able, for example 13 # d2 (13 $lc7+ <
Sff8 14
ДЬ5 ±{6) 13...0-0 14 c4 аб 15 £>c3.
13 # h 5 & xd 6 1 4 0 -0 -0 & c7 1 5 Д е 2
15 £lxc7+ ffx c7 16 -&.b5, threatening 17
£lxe6, is also very strong.
1 5 . . .£lg6 1 6 B h fl J&.e5 1 7 £lxf7 c 4 1 8
Wg5 1 -0

G ame 34
Bellon L o p e z -M o m p o B allester
M islata 2000
1 d 4 £lf6 2 Д д 5 £le4 3 J&.h4 g 5 4 f3
8...£>c6?l Others:
This gives White the initiative without a) De la Villa gives 4 i g 3 as his main
any risk. The critical move is 8...#xb2, line but doesn’t consider 4...h5!? here. After
when 9 £lb5 Wb4+ 10 c3 # a5 11 £le5 аб 5 #d3 (5 $ld2? 5lxd2 6 #xd2 h4 7 J ic 5 f6
(ll...d 6 12 £lc4 # d8 13 dxc5 is very strong 8 # d3 Sh6 nets Black a piece) 5...d5 6 f3
for White) 12 £1c4 ШхЬ5 13 53d6+ jilxd6 45xg3 7 hxg3 # d6 Black had a good game
14 ДхЬ5 axb5 15 # h5 followed by 16 0-0 in Asonja-Radic, Neum 2003.

68
 2 . . . l h e 4 3 $Lh4 a n d 3 O t h e r s

b) White’s other move is 4 Wd3 but then 7.. .-S.h6 8 $3c3 (8 <£>f3 Wxe3+ 9 Wxe3 ± xc3
4 <J5 5 f3 gxh4 6 fxe4 dxe4l 7 Wxe4 c5! 8 10 £lc3 сб leads to the same thing whilst
<Jxc5 £3c6 9 c3 JLh6 10 £3f3 h3 gave Black giving Black extra 10th move options) 8...c6
active play in Joksic-Gallagher, Ticino 1990. 9 £3f3 Wxe3+ 10 Wxc3 iLxe3 11 dxe5 b5 12
4 ...g x h 4 5 fx e 4 e 5 $3xh4 JLf4 13 £3f3 4?3a6 14 £3e2 JLh6 15
£3ed4 and White was clearly better in Tri-
funovic-Tsvetkov, Novi Sad 1945.
6 . . .Д д7?1
Once the bishop has gone to this rela­
tively passive square White can reinforce the
centre. The critical line is 6...exd4 7 Wxd4
Sg8 8 We5+ We7 (8...Jie7 9 $3c3 £lc6 10
WhS is simply good for White) 9 Wxc7 5ia6
10 Wc4 b5 11 Wd5 £>c7 12 Ш З Jlb 7
(12...Wb4+ 13 5lc3 Wxb2 14 S b l Wa3
should be considered) 13 4?ЗсЗ JLh6 14 4tkl4
Sg5 with sharp and unclear play in
Keitlinghaus-Knaak, Bundesliga 1991.
A different way of trying to hit the cen­ White has also tried 8 53c3 £ic6 9 Wd2 d6
tral dark squares. 5...c5 transposes to 3...c5 10 #3d5 -S.g7, as in Reichcnbach-Sosonko,
lines. Mannheim 1975, and now 11 0-0-0 would
6 £>f3 have been best. I don’t like 8 e5!P £3c6 9
Keeping the initiative at the cost of struc­ We4 because of 9...d5! 10 exd6+ J i c 6 when
tural damage. White can also play 6 e3 im­ Black develops very quickly and opens the
mediately, for example 6...Wg5 (6...Ah6 7 game for his bishops.
Wh5 Wf6 8 £>сЗ A xe3 9 £>f3 c6 10 Wxe5+ 7 e 3 d5
Wxc5 11 dxe5 transposes back to my rec­
ommendation against 6... % 5 )

After 7...?3c6 8 c3 (16 9 jLd3 0-0 10

^3bd2 We7 11 We2, intending 12 0-0-0,
7 Wd2 (7 Ф£2 .£h6 8 Wd3 cxd4 9 exd4 White seems to be doing well.
Wcl 10 Wc3 0-0 11 £>f3 d5 12 e5 c5 13 8 exd57!
dxc5 53c6 left White’s position in tatters in I don’t think this is White’s best. The
Agababcan-Lupu, Romania 1993, while 7 critical line appears to be 8 ®xe5, aftqr
Wf3 runs into 7...exd4 8 exd4 Wcl+ etc.) which 8...Wgb 9 ^<32 ^.xc5 10 dxe5 dxc4

69
The Tro m p o w sk y

11 £ЗсЗ Шхс5 12 0-0-0 0-0 13 «£ 2 gives 1 3 . . .0 -0 -0 1 4 Ф хсб?

White a clear advantage. i4 W n a is better, but no longer so
8...W xd 5 promising for White after 14...-&-xe5 15
Perhaps 8...exd4 is preferable, when the 0-0-0 £3xd4 16 cxd4 -£Lxd4 .
position after 9 exd4 (9 £3xd4 0-0) 9...0-0 10 1 4 . . .Ф хс6 1 5 * x f 7 * x b 2 1 6 * d 2 Ф е4
jk.e2 looks fairly even. 1 7 Wb3 W xb3 1 8 ахЬЗ Ф хд2 1 9 Hhgl
9 £lc3 * 8 5 1 0 d xe5 £lc6 1 1 A b 5 ^ d 7 ИЗ 2 0 Ф е2 Ф хе5 2 1 Пха7 ii.xh2 2 2
1 2 W d5 Wb6 S d l ^ d 6 2 3 $3f3 &de8
23...Sdf8 is much simpler.
2 4 £ le4 &hf8 2 5 £ncd6+ cxd 6 2 6 £>h2
& e6?? 1 -0

1 3 £id4?
Things start to go horribly wrong for
White after this. 13 0-0-0 looks more natu­
ral, with White’s prospects the more pleas­ - Capping the game with the blunder of a
ant after 13...'Йгхе3+ 14 ФЫ 0-0-0 15 Wxf7 rook. 26...Фб7 would still be good for
etc. Black.

70
 2 ...5 3 е 4 3 $Lh4 a n d 3 O t h e r s

Sum m ary
BeUon’s discovery of 7 £ld2!? (not to mention 7 JLc4) could have serious implications for
Tromp theory in that 3 ^-h4 may be about to make a full scale comeback. This possibility
may be even more likely because 3 ^-f4 has come under pressure from several directions. In
the search for an antidote Black should probably focus his attention on the 7...d5 of Bellon
r.opcz-Gallagher and check White’s possible improvements, too. In . this kind of double-
edged game there are likely to be some unpleasant surprises.

1 d 4 £ if6 2 J&.g5 $3e4 3 ^ h 4 c5

3.. .g5 —Came 34
4 f3 g 5 (D) 5 fx e 4 g x h 4 6 еЗ Д И 6 (D)
6.. .«Ъ 6 - Game 33
7 * f 2 (D) - Game 30
7 d5 —Game 29
l
7.. .d5 —Game 26
7.. .ДхсЗ —Game 27
7.. .c6 —Game 28
1 .Stc4
7.. .c6 -- Game 31
7.. .'ШГЬ6 - Game 32

71
 CHAPTER FIVE 1
1

2...£ie4 3 A h 4
and 3 Others

1 d4 2 Jig 5 £ ie 4
One of the most interesting features of 3 G ame 35
jk.h4 is that it is- difficult to find a way for C e rtic-D a m lja n o v ic
Black to avoid hand-to-hand combat. In N is 1993
reply to 3 Jk.f4, 3...d5 is a solid option, but
here it is far more dangerous. After 4 f3 1 d 4 <S3f6 2 Д д 5 £>e4 3 A h 4
neither 4...<S3f6 (Certic-Damljanovic, Game For 3 h4 see Games 39-40.
35) nor 4...£V16 (Iuldachev-Zagrcbelny, 3 . . .d5
Game 36) give Black an easy life. White’s _ 3...c6 is dealt with in Game 38.
piece sacrifice in this latter game may be 4*f3
somewhat controversial but he can also Game 37 features 4 ^3d2.
consider 11 -Ф.Ь5+. 4 . . .<£M6
1 don’t particularly like 4 4£k32, which Reaching a kind of Veresov position in
achieved no more than stone cold equality which White has gained a useful tempo in
in Rausis-Baklan (Game 37). Black’s 4...c5 is f2-f3 and where the bishop stands on h4
far more effective than in the 3 5i-f4 d5 4 rather than g5. For 4...<
S3d6 see Iuldachev-
£ld2 line because White’s dark-squared Zagrebelny (Game 36).
bishop is so far from the queenside. 5 <S3c3 c5
3...c6 has often been touted as a safe line After 5...jLf5 White can play 6 Wd2 c6 7
for Black but Vaganian-Moreno Carnero 0-0-0 £lbd7 8 # e l # c7 9 Jkg3 (9 e4 dxe4
(Game 38) looks very dangerous to me. 10 fxe4 1ilrf4+) 9...ШЪ6 10 e4 dxe4 11 fxe4
Vaganian’s 6 f31? brought about a kind of ■SLg4 12 J ic 2 Jix c2 13 ?3gxe2 which gave
souped-up Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. him a very promising position in Romero-
I’ve included Julian Hodgson’s games Damljanovic, La Coruna 1995. Black’s most
with 3 h4 for the benefit of those who want solid move might be 5...e6, when 6 e4 J tic l
to play Black. The line used in Hodgson- 1 Wd3 8 0-0-0 leads to a sharp game
Gufeld (Game 39) wasn’t nearly as convinc­ with chances for both sides and 7 e5 ^3fd7
ing as Black’s treatment in Hodgson-Nunn 8 JLxcI W x el 9 f4 transposes to a French
(Game 40), and 5...1Ига5+ would also have Defence.
been possible. 6 e 4 dxe4

72
 2...Zhe4 3 Jih 4 and 3 Others

After 16...'Шл5 White intended to play 17

£>fd+ Фе7 18 Wf2l, when 18...#ха2 19 c3
J i g ! 20 £3h5 leaves Black’s king in trouble.
1 7 £>g3 JL e7 1 8 £>h5 W h6
18.. .« g 6 looks somewhat better.
1 9 JL e2 0 -0 20 £>h3 B d 8 2 1 *c3
Bxd1 +
21.. ..fi.d7 is also very dangerous for Black
after 22 Bd3.
2 2 B x d l e 5 2 3 ФЫ e 4 2 4 a3
24 £3g5! is probably better, with the idea
that 24...ДЬ4 can be answered by 25 ШЪ8-Н
ФхЬ8 26 ^3xf7+ i ’ge 27 £lxh6+ etc.
7 dxc5 ,2 4 ...Д е 6
I tend to agree with De la Villa that 7
(15!? is a promising move here as White’s d-
pawn can be an effective unwelcome guest.
Of course the text is fine.
7 .. .Wa5 8 W d2?l
In his notes Certic opined that he should
have played 8 аЗ! Шхс5 (8...exf3 9 b4 fxg2
10 -£txg2) 9 fxe4 with a promising initiative.
Another interesting possibility is 8 1Иге2!?,
when S.-.WxcS 9 0-0-0 exf3 10 1'3 pre­
sents White with a huge lead in develop­
ment.
8 . . .e3 9 W d3 £>c6 1 0 0 -0 -0 e 6 1 1 ,fi.xf6
gxf6 1 2 W x e3 Шхс5 1 3 W d2 a 6 1 4 £>e4 2 5 £>g5 B d8 2 6 B xd8+ ikxd8 2 7 £>xe6
» e 5 1 5 ^ d 3 f 5 ?! fx e 6 2 8 g 4 fx g 4 2 9 A x g 4 Ф18 3 0 h3
15...Дс7 is more solid. Black’s king will Wg6 3 1 ШеЗ ± c 7 3 2 Шс5+ Ф е8?
later come under fire on the al-h8 diagonal. 32...Ф17 is more tenacious but still bad
16 f4 for Black after 33 f5 exf5 34 Jk.xf5 Wd6 35
WcAh < i ’f8 36 W fll, threatening a discovery
with the bishop.
3 3 £.xe6 1-0

G ame 36
lu ld a ch e v-Z a g re b e ln y
Uzbekistan 1993
1 d 4 £>f6 2 Д д 5 £>e4 3 _fi.h4 d 5 4 f3
£>d6
This is, probably, simply a better move
than 4...<
S3f6. Black’s knight can come to f5
to harass White’s bishop. There is also 4...g5
16 ...W g 7 5 fxe4 gxh4 6 exd5 Шх<15 7 £lc3 Wa.S, e.g. 8

73
The Tro m p o w sk y

еЗ (8 e4 ДЬб!? 9 £lO h3 10 g3 i.g 4 11 ±.c2 good for White.

*hc6 12 cl5 0-0-0 13 £lcl2! Дхе2 14 * x e 2 7 d x c 5 d 4 8 e4!?
<S3d4 15 Wd3 favoured White in Mechitov- Prior to this game White had played 8
.Kalinichenko, USSR 1988) 8...ДЬб 9 Дс4! tS3c4 in this position, when 8...^3c6 9 g4
£ld7 (9...Wb4 also leaves Black worse after Wa5+ 10 c.3 £le3 11 ДхеЗ dxe3 12 # d3 g6
10 ДЬЗ £}d7 11 # e2, and 9...ДхеЗ? runs 13 ИЙОсеЗ ,SLg7 14 <5Мб+Ф£8 15 £lxc8 Sxc8
into 10 t B ) 10 # f3 0-0 11 0-0-0 and 1 helped generate compensation for Black’s
agree with De la Villa’s assessment that pawns in Hodgson-Sturua, Tilburg 1993.
White stands well here. 9...£>e3 is also interesting, a s ^ in
5 £}c3 £}f5 Shereshcvsky-Tukmakov, USSR 1981, but
5...<
S3c4 is too artificial to be good. White why does Black need to exchange queens?
can play 6 e4, when 6...£le3 (6...< S3xb2 7 The only other possibility is 8 g4 but then
W bl ^3c4 8 £3xd5 4£ld6 9 i.d 3 is also very Black gets a good game with 8...dxc3! 9
promising for White) 7 Лк.Ь5+ сб 8 We2 1Brxd8+ '&’xd8.
£3xg2+ 9 Wxg2 cxb5 10 < S3ge2 dxe4 11 fxc4 8 . . .d xc3
gives White a huge lead in development and Black can also play 8...dxe3, but this stall
open files for the pawn. One other move seems to leave White on top after 9 Wxd8+
for Black is 5...c5 but then 6 e4 cxd4 7 * x d 8 10 0-0-0+ &d7 (10...£ld7 11 Де1 e5
« x d 4 dxe4 8 0-0-0 looks very promising for 12 &c4 f6 13 < S3e4 Фс7 14 ДЬ4 and White
White. keeps the c5-pawn without compromising
6 .&.f2 c5 the queenside) 11 Д е1, e.g. Il...e5 (U...£lc6
12 ^Зе4 Ф ев was played in a rapidplay game
between Romero and Salov in Suances
1996, and now 13 g4 *vMc!4 14 Sd 3 would
have recovered the еЗ-pawn with a clear
advantage) 12 *vle4 f6 13 jmlc:4 Фс7 14 *vlc:2
Дсб 15 Ь4 Д е7 16 Ь5 Д хе4 17 fxe4 £lh6
18 Да5+ with a clear advantage for White in
De la Villa-Gil Reguera, Calella 1983.
9 '» xd8+ ■ ±>xd8 10 0 -0 -0 +

Black has also tried 6...e5!?, although

White can then try De la Villa’s suggestion
of 7 dxe5 d4 8 ^3b5 (neither 8 e4 dxc3 9
1iirxd8+ <
4 ’xd8 10 0-0-0+ Фе8 11 ex£5 cxb2+
12 ФхЬ2 Jk.xf5 nor 8 ^3e4 £lc6 9 сЗ Деб
offers White anything worthwhile), for ex­
ample 8...Дс5 9 сЗ ^ЗеЗ 10 ДхеЗ dxe3 11
#xd8+ * x d 8 12 0-0-0+ ild 7 13 g3 intend­
ing 14 i.h 3 with serious problems for
Black. Note that 8...c5 9 e4 dxe3 10 1Brxd8+ 1 0 ...Ф е 8
* x d 8 11 0-0-0+ £ld7 12 Де1 and 8...£lc6 9 After 10...^3d7 11 exf5 cxb2+ 12 ФхЬ2
c3 dxc3 10 1Игхс18+ ifcxd8 11 0-0-0+ are also White is better, not so much because of the

74
 2 ...£ s e 4 3 Jih4 and 3 Others

extra pawn but rather the trouble Black will 16...£ sxf5 1 7 A .c4 Ф д5+ 1 8 ФЫ ФеЗ
have completing development. Another 1 9 i e 1 ! i f 4 2 0 &Л2 £>c7 2 1 дЗ аб 2 2
possibility is 10...Фс7, when White can sac­ £>d6+ Jkxd6 2 3 cxd 6 £>b5 2 4 ФЬ2
rifice a piece with 11 b4!, a sample variation
being 1l...£ih6 12 i.g3+ Феб 13 Д с4 £ld7
1 4 £)e2 e5 15 £lxc3 Фс7 16 £ld5+ with

more than enough compensation thanks to

White’s powerful bind on the position.
11 b4!?

2 4 .. .£ ifxd 6
24.. .<
Slbxd6 25 ДЬЗ and White threatens
26 g4.
25 Д Ь З £sf7 2 6 a4 £>a7 2 7 Hhe1 Ф е 7
2 8 jL c 5 + Ф46 2 9 Я е 4 e5 30 f4 l H e 8 31
fxe5+ Ф д б 3 2 Д М <&g5 3 3 Ф е З ! & f5 ?
The piece sac is interesting but is it A serious mistake. Black should play
sound? 11 exf5?! is nothing for White after 33.. .1Lh3! when the outcome is far from
11.. .cxb2+ 12 ФхЬ2 jLxf5, but 11 ДЬ5+ is clear.
very reasonable, e.g. Il....fi.d7 12 -&.xd7+ 3 4 B e f 4 A h 3 3 5 c 3 ! h5
<5ixd7 13 exf5 cxb2+ 14 ФхЬ2 S c8 15 ^Зе2 35.. ..fi.xfl is answered by 36 Дс2+ etc.
and White’s edge in development continues 36 Ф с2+ Ф Ь6
to make life difficult for Black. Here
11.. .<Sic6 12 exf5 cxb2+ 13 ФхЬ2 jk.xf5 14
£se2, intending 15 < Sid4, also seems to give
White a slight initiative.
1 1 . . .£sh6
ll...a5?! 12 b5 fails to ease Black’s posi­
tion.
1 2 S le 2 еб 1 3 £sxc3 Ф е7
Black might well have considered
13.. .Ad7 here in order to meet 14 ^3b5 with
14.. .ДхЬ5 15 ДхЬ5+ £lc6.
1 4 £sb5 £sa6 1 5 a 3 f 51 1 6 e xf5
Missing the powerful 16 £ld6-H, for ex­
ample 16...i.xd6 17 ДЬ5+ ± d7 18 ±xd7+ 37 B f7 !
®xd7 19 Sxd6+ Фс8 (neither 19...Фс7 20 Threatening mate via 38 S i f6+ gxf6 39
nor 19...Фе7 20 ДЬ4+ is satisfactory) Sh7 mate.
20 Йхеб fxe4 21 Sxe4 with more than 3 7 ...В И 8
enough for the piece. 37..JLxfl is answered by 38 h4, and

75
The T ro m p o w sk y

37...Неб by 38 Hlf6+ Hxf6 39 exf6 g6 40 hang on to the bishops with 6 .&.g5, when
Hg7 etc. 6.. .c5 (6...h6 7 £.f4 еб 8 jLd3 c5 9 сЗ £>c6
38 J&.xg5 + 1 -0 10 £}gf3 g5 11 $Lc5 ^3xe5 12 £lxe5 jk.g7 13
Black is mated after 38 -£i-xg5+ SfcxgS 39 1Ига4+ deprived Black of castling rights in
Hxg7+ ФЬ6 40 Hg6+ ФЬ7 41 Hf7. Torre-Sharavdorj, Vung Tau 2000) 7 c3
£lc6 8 g4!P h6 9 ,&f4 g5 10 gxf5 gxf4 11
G ame 37 WhS Шс7 12 JLg2 fxe3 13 fxe3 cxd4 14
R au sis-B a k la n exd4 # f4 15 £ xd5 * x f 5 16 * x f 5 i.x f5
French League 2003 fizzled out to equality in the game
Zlochevskij-Sax, Porto San Giorgio 1995.
1 d 4 £ if6 2 Д д 5 ® e 4 3 £ .h 4 d5 4 £>d2 linterprising stuff, but 8 £lgf3 is the move
for the rest of us.
5 dxc5
After 5 ^3xe4 dxe4 6 dxc5 WaS-t- 7 c3
'tt’xc.5 8 Wa4+ xti c6 9 1Brxe4 Black has com­
pensation, e.g. 9...g5 10 A g3 -&-g7 11 Hdl
ДхсЗ+ 12 ЬхсЗ 'Шхс?>+ 13 Hd2 Wcl-t- 14
Hd1 #c3+ with a draw by perpetual check
5 . . .33xc5
This seems to bring about stone cold
equality. The more elaborate S—WaS led to
White gaining a slight advantage in Hodg-
son-McKay, London 1985: 6 £3gf3 £lc6 7
еЗ еб 8 J ic 2 A x c 5 9 0-0 < S3xd2 10 <
S3xd2
Angling for a slight lead in development, &e7 11 Дхе7 £lxe7 12 c4 0-0 13 i . B Hd8
but it doesn’t look like much. 14 cxd5 4£lxd5 15 £lc4 1ЙЪ5 16 1Brd4 and
4 ...c 5 Black trailed slightly in development.
An energetic reply, but not Black’s only 6 £lgf3 £>c6 7 еЗ дб 8 £3b3 i g 7 9
move. Here are the alternatives: £>xc5 * 3 5 + 10 c 3 W xc5 11 ± e 2 0-0
a) 4..JLf5 looks rather solid here, for ex­ 12 0-0 Д д4
ample 5 £}xe4 Д хе4 6 сЗ c6 7 f3 JLg6 8
£>h3 £ld7 9 # d2 £>f6 10 еЗ еб 11 i.d 3
Д е7 12 £>f4 <S3d7 13 Дхе7 #xe7 14 0-0-0
and a draw was agreed in Makarychev-
Bronstein, Moscow 1981.
b) 4...g6 5 e3 JLg7 leaves Black’s pawns
slightly mangled after 6 £lxe4 dxe4. For
example Rausis-J.Fries Nielsen, Gausdal
1989 continued 7 £ie2 0-0 8 f d 2 c5 9 0-0-0
Wc7 10 “йсЗ cxd4, and now 11 £ld5! (rather
than the 11 £lb5 «Ъ б 12 Дхе7 He8 13
ДаЗ of the game, which should have been
answered by 13...i.g4!) 11 ...Wd6 12 £lxe7+
ФЬ8 13 ^3xc8 Hxc8 14 exd4 seems better 13 h 3 A x f 3 14 ^ x f3 e6 15 J&.e2 H ac8
for White. 16 * a 4 a6 17 H fd1 h 6 18 H a d Д е 5 19
c) After 4...<$3d6 5 e3 G)f5 White should Ш д4 ФИ 7 2 0 e 4 h 5 Vb-%

76
 2...£>е4 3 &.h4 a n d 3 O t h e r s

A very ambitious treatment. In Aleksan-

G ame 38 drov-Fcdorov, Minsk 1996 White played
V a g a n ia n -M o re n o C a rn e ro the much quieter 6 f3 and obtained the
Bundes/iga 2003 better endgame after 6...Д£5 7 еЗ 'ЙЪб 8 c4
а5?! (8...e6 seems sounder) 9 JlLc2 dxc4 10
1 d4 £sf6 2 Д д 5 £se4 3 Д И 4 c 6 4 £>d2! .&xc4 Wb4 11 Ocl £k!7 12 0-0 Wxd2 13
*Vixd2.
6 ...jk f5 7 0-0-0 £>d7 8 e4!

While this was rather innocuous against

3.. .d5, here it is White’s best move. One of
the points of Black’s last move is that 4 f3 Gambit play! And given the speed with
can be answered by 4...1Ига5+ 5 £jd2 Wh5! 6 which White is developing it looks very
^ х е4 1S rxh4-b, snatching the bishop pair in good.
broad daylight. 4 c3 is rather too passive, 8 ...d x e 4
Black getting a good game with 4...d5 5 f3 Declining the pawn with 8..Jk.g6 gives
‘S'ldti 6 <53d2 Jk.f5 7 g4 iLg6 8 4£lh3 1ЙЪ6 in White a good game after 9 i d 3 followed by
F.lier-Uebden, Sautron 2003. 10£le2.
4 . . .‘53xd2 9 & C 4 £ lb 6 10 Д Ь З
Others:
a) Tn this position 4...1Йга5 5 c3 Wh5 is
much less effective because White hasn’t
played the weakening f2-f3. G.Buckley-
V.Milov, Isle of Mann 1995 continued 6
£lxe4 Wxh4 7 £lg3 cL5 8 £lf3 # f6 9 e4
dxc4 10 £)xe4 Wf4 and now the natural 11
•&d3 looks best as ll...i.g 4 can be an­
swered by 12 #ЪЗ! Д х В ? 13 ШхЫ etc.
b) 4...d5 has the usual problem that
Black’s pawn structure gets damaged after 5
£be4 dxe4. D.Bronstein-Bilek, Odessa
1976 continued 6 e3 Jk.f5 7 сЗ ШЬб 8 W c2
e(i 9 ЬЗ c5 10 g4 A.g6 11 £>e2 £>c6 12 ,&g2 ю ...Ш а7
cxd4 13 exd4 S c 8 14 Д хе4 and White won Perhaps 10...1iird6 is a slight improve­
a pawn for insufficient compensation. ment, but White still obtains good compen­
5 'S'xd2 d 5 6 f 3!? sation after 11 Hel exf3 12 £}xf3„ for ex-

77
The T ro m p o w sk y

ample 12...e6 13 Hhfl jlLc7 14 A xe7 Wxe7 good answer to the threat of 26 Sd8+.
15 £lg5 Wfe 16 £lxe6 fxe6 17 A xe6 and 2 5 Фа1 A f 8 2 6 W xe8! 1-0
White has a decisive attack.
1 1 fx e 4 A x e 4 1 2 W e2 A d 5 Game 39
After 12...Af5 White continues with 13 H o d g s o n -G u fe ld
4£lf3 £ld5 14 ^3e5 with a strong initiative. H astings 1986
1 3 c 4 A e 6 1 4 £>f3 f6
1 d4 £ lf6 2 A g 5 £ le 4 3 h 4

A really ugly looking move, but after

14.. .0-0-0 White has 15 £>e5 We8. 16 d5! After some early experiments with this
cxd5 17 cxd5 A xd5 18 A xd5 £lxd5 19 exotic move, Hodgson would later switch to
Bxd5 S x d 5 20 Wc4+ etc. 3 A f4. From a strategic point of view the
15 Ф М g5 16 A f 2 A g 7 17 d5! c x d 5 18 idea is that if Black captures the bishop he
c x d 5 A f 7 19 Bhe1 0-0 20 A x b 6 axb6 brings the rook on h i into play. But a
21 £)d4 B a 5 bishop is always a bishop!
Black has to defend the e-pawn with 3 ...d 5
21.. .Bfe8 but after, for example, 22 h4 his For 3...c5 see Game 40.
position remains deeply unpleasant. 4 £sd2 £sxg5 5 h xg5
22 W xe7 W g 4 2 3 £ le 6 B e 8 2 4 d6!

5 . . .A f 5
2 4 ...1Ш 5 + There are a number of alternatives to this
After 24,..Bxe7 25 dxe7 Black has no sensible looking move:

78
 2...£>е4 3 7&.h4 a n d 3 O t h e r s

a) 5...e5 6 dxe5 Wxg5 7 4£lgf3 'ЙМв 8 e4 17 £>e2.

^ c6 9 exd5 Wxd5 10 ± c4 « с б 11 We2 9...£>c6 10 c 3 W b6
_&f5 12 £>ЬЗ We7 13 0-0-0 ± d7 14 еб! бссб
15 Sxd7! '&’xd7 16 ДЬ5! set a fierce attack
jn motion in Hodgson-Hebden, London
(f.loyds Bank) 1986.
b) 5...c5 6 dxc5 e5 7 e4 4£lc6 8 £lgf3
,&xc5 was played in Miladinovjc-P.Cram-
ling, Heraklio 1993, and now 9 exd5 1l?xd5
U) ikc4 Wd8 11 < S5c4 would have given
White an edge due to the strong position o f
his knight on e4.
c) 5...g6 6 e3 e5?l (6...Jig7 is better, and ‘
fine for Black) 7 dxe5 #xg5 8 £>gf3 Wd8 9
c4 сб 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 Wa4+ £lc6 12 ДЬ5
,&<J7 13 сб! Дхеб (13...fxe6 14 Дхсб Дхсб 11 £ih 4?!
15 '$7)4! is horrible for Black) was Hodg- White should probably settle for the
son-Z.aichik, Manila Olympiad 1992, and modest 11 * ъ з .
now 14 £3c5! would have been very strong. 1 Л...Ш хЬ2 12 £1хд6
6 еЗ еб 12 f5 is answered by 12...1Й,хсЗ 13 fxg6
After 6...с5?! Hodgson gives 7 g4! Jk.d7 8 '&xe3+ 14 Шс2 1Йгхе2+ 15 Дхе2 hxg6 with
g6! fxg6 9 ± d3 ШЬ6 10 dxc5 Wf6 11 W fi! an army of pawns for the piece.
with a strong initiative. 1 2 ...fx g 6 13 & Ы Ш хсЗ 14 Д ЬЗ « а 5 15
7 g 4 Д д б 8 f4 c5 ДхЬ7 с 4 ! 16 * f 2 0 -0-0!?

9 «figf3 Spectacular and good. But Black could

Hodgson later took a fancy to 9 WlB!? also play 16...Sb8 or even 1б...'й,ха2.
(threatening 10 f5), after which 9...Wd7 10 1 7 & Ы ДЬ4?
e3 t h e 6 11 £le2 £.d3 12 £lg3 i x f l 13 But here 17...Фс7! was better with the
^ x fl gives White good play on the kingside idea that 18 £lxc4 dxc4 19 Дхс4 could be
according to Hodgson. 9...$Lxc2 leads to a answered by 19...e5! etc. Now White gets an
slight edge for White after 10 Jk.b5+ ^3d7 11 opportunity to mix things up.
^ e l ,&.e4 12 £lxe4 dxe4 13 Jk.xd7+ Wxd7 18 £sxc4! d x c4 19 Д х с 4 Ф с 7 2 0 J&.xef>
14 ®xe4 cxd4 15 exd4 S c 8 16 Дхс8+ Wxc8 B h e 8 21 ШЬЗ B d 6 22 d5 Д в хеб ! 23

79
The Tro m p o w sk y

d x e6 H d 2 + 2 4 Ф д З ШЬ5 2 5 f l h c l a5?
Black had to try 25...'Шс2, when Gufeld
gave the variation 26 Пхс6+ Фхсб 27 Wa4+
Ф а 5 28 Wd7+ £.d6 29 Sb5+ Фе4 30 #сб+-
ФхеЗ 31 ЯЬЗЕ Ud3 32 Wxdti! and the best
that Black has is a draw by repetition. After
the text it all goes horribly wrong.
26 W c4!

5 W d3
5 S3d2 ^3xg5 6 hxg5 _SLg7 7 c3 d6 8 e4
<
£>d7 was fipe for Black in Condic-
Henderson, Scottish Championship 1995.
5 ...£ lx g 5
Hodgson pointed out that 5...'Sra5+ is
quite good here as it cuts out White’s idea
of 6 Wc3. 'Ihe game Hodgson-Emms, Brit­
26 e7 W e2 27 Пхс6+ ФЬ7 28 Wxb4+l ish Championship 1992 continued 6 <S3d2
axb4 29 ДхЬ4+ Фа7 30 Па4+ ФЬ7 31 Hb4+- £}xg5 7 hxg5 A g l 8 c3 d6 9 e4 Q sdl 10 a4
eams nothing more than perpetual check. ПЬ8 and Black obtained excellent counter­
2 6 ...W x c 4 27 H x c 4 A e 7 2 8 Bh1 * d 6 play with ...a7-a6 and ...Ь7-Ь5.
2 9 H x h 7 * d 5 3 0 H c l А а З 31 Я Ы £b2 6 W c3 f 6!
3 2 H h2! Я х Ь 2 3 3 Ф хИ 2 А а З 3 4 f5 g x f5
3 5 g x f5 А е 7 1 -О1
4
*

G ame 40
H o d g s o n -N u n n
Bundesliga 1999-2000
1 d 4 £>f6 2 Ф д 5 £>е4 3 h 4 с5
An altogether more dynamic treatment,
which Gufeld also switched to in his second
game with Hodgson.
4 d5
A simple answer to 4 dxc5 is 4...h6 5
ДеЗ еб 6 ^3d2 ^Зхс5 7 £}gf3 d5 8 сЗ Ьб 9 Stronger than 6...Hg8 7 hxg5 $Lg7 8 ШлЪ
g3 ДЬ7, when White’s h4-pawn was left £3a6 (Hodgson-Smirin, Munich 1993) when
looking rather silly in Miladinovic-Svidler, the simple 9 e4! would make the knight on
Tivat 1995. a6 look silly.
4 ...g 6 7 h xg5 d6
Very sensible indeed, posting the bishop 7...$Lg7 might be even better —8 <2М2 d6
on the newly opened long diagonal. 9 gxf6 exf6! 10 Wg3 0-0 11 Wh4 h6 12 Wg3

80
 2...*he4 3 Jih4 and 3 Others

ф was good for Black in Hodgson-Oufeld, J ie 5 + 28 g3 * h 8 2 9 c3

London (rapidplay) 1995 because of his The attractive-looking 29 4£lxb6 isn’t that
powerful dark-squared bishop. clear after 29...axb6 (29...Sad8 30 S x a7 etc.)
8 gxf6 e x f6 9 £>h3 jt h 6 10 W g3 ШЬ6 30 S x a8 S x a8 31 fxe6 h6 as Black’s bishop
Black stands well here thanks to the play is strong and the knight on h3 is out of play.
on the dark squares. Certainly this is not 2 9 ...£ lg 7 30 Ф д 2 fix f5 31 fix f5 £>xf5
very palatable for White and a good expla­ 3 2 £)xg5 ilx g 3 3 3 Ф Ь З
nation as to why 3 h4 disappeared from
I lodgson’s repertoire.
II ЬЗ 0-0
There’s an argument for delaying castling
with 1l...£k!7. Now White gets good play.
1 2 e3 <£td7 13 W h 4 * Ь 4 +
Bailing out to an inferior endgame.
14 «xb4 cxb4 15 a3 £sb6 16 axb 4
£txd5 17 Д с4 Деб 18 Д а 5 £>c7 19
.Схебн- £>xe6 2 0 £>сЗ f5 21 £ id 5

Here, too, it seems that 33 £lxb6 allows

Black some counterplay after 33...Sg8 34
4£jf7+ i>g7 35 Sxa7 <4 ’f6 36 *rVl5 ‘‘ Феб etc.
But now it fizzles out into a drawn rook and
pawn endgame.
3 3 ...h 6 3 4 £se4 i e 5 3 5 f if2 £ lg 7 3 6
f if7 Ф е б 37 £>df6 J&.xf6 3 8 H x f6 Ф д 5 +
3 9 Ф х д 5 h xg5 4 0 fix d 6 b 5 41 Ф д 4 Д с 8
4 2 fid 3 Ф д7 4 3 Ф хд 5 Ф47 4 4 Д е З ДИ8
4 5 с 4 Ь хс4 4 6 Ь хс4 Д с 8 4 7 Д е 4 Д Ь8
2 1 ...f4 22 e x f4 jk x f4 2 3 0-0 i e 5 2 4 f4 4 8 с 5 Д Ь5 4 9 Ф45 а5 5 0 Ьха5 Д х с5 +
£d4+ 25 Ф И 2 g5 2 6 f5 Ь6 27 Д а2 51 Д а 5 Д с 4 52 Д Ь 5 Ф е7 5 3 Ф е б %-%

81
The T ro m p o w sk y

S um m ary
There are no safe options against 3 Ah4, which is one of the attractive features of this
bishop move for White, if Black doesn’t want to play 3...c5 (Chapter Four) I’d recommend
that he looks for improvements within Iuldachev-Zagrebelny. But this is pretty scary too.
I don’t recommend that you play 3 h4?! under any circumstances. Black gets an excellent
game with just a little know-how.

1 d 4 ® f6 2 Д д 5 £se4 3 Д И 4
3 h4 (D)
3.. .d5 —Game 39
3.. .c5 —Game 40
3 .. .d5 (D)
3.. .c6 —Game 38
4 f3
4 £>d2 —Game 37
4 .. .£sf6—Game 35
4.. .®d6 (D) —Game 36

3 h4

82
 CHAPTER SIX

2...c5

1 d4 2 1kg 5 c 5 delaying the development of his king’s

2...c5 is one of Black’s most challenging bishop and bringing his knight to e5, Black
and aggressive answers to the Tromp. Black set me the problem as to how I could com­
hits the central dark squares immediately plete my development. Jn retrospect I
and makes room for the queen to come to should probably have played 6 c4.
b6. White is also invited to carry out the After 3 d51? Black can transpose to
threat to inflict doubled f-pawns on Black, Chapter Two by playing 3...^3c4, but there
assuming White is willing to give up the is another possibility in 3...'ИТэ6. This more
dark-squared bishop. or less forces White to offer the Waganian
3 .&.xf6 does in fact lead to complex po­ Gambit’ with 4 £)c3 Wxb2 5 Ad2, which is
sitional games in which White’s superior covered in Mamedyarov-Aroshidze (Game
structure and space advantage is balanced 44). Black’s best may be 7...Wc7!?, which
by the lack of the dark-squared bishop. Af­ Tromp expert Peter Wells has been spotted
ter 3...gxf6 4 d5 ШЬ6 5 W cl a recent and playing with Black. But I think that White
important game is Buckley-Lalic (Game 41). can improve.
Black’s treatment of the opening in this The sharp 3 £)c3 is covered in Games 45-
encounter was rather nice — by delaying 47. After 3...cxd4 4 Wxd4 £)c6 5 ШЬ4 Black
...d7-d6 he kept open the possibility of played 5...e6 in Miladinovic-Gustafsson
swinging his queen over to the kingside (Game 45), which led to a razor-sharp game.
along the third rank. Hodgson-Van der Wiel 5...b5 seems less good on the basis of Nei-
(Game 42) is also quite critical because Diesen (Game 46) but 3...Wa5 is interesting.
Black liquidates his doubled f-pawns. It can Nei-Ebeling (Game 47) led to positions akin
be tempting to dismiss this line on the basis to the Veresov Opening and I think White
of Hodgson’s brilliant victory here, but could improve with 7 Wf3.
Black has a clear improvement in ll...d 6.
These two games make me wonder if Game 41
^ hitc should reconsider 5 £)d2!?. Black’s S . B u ckley-Lalic
play in Davies-Homstcn (Game 43) was less British League 2004
dynamic than in either of these two games
hut it nevertheless made a lot of sense. By 1 d4 2 jLg S c 5 3 ^ x f6
The Trom pow sk у

Ad6 14 £>xe6 fxe6 15 ДЬ5 Sd8 1.6 Дхс6+ ,

Ьхсб 17 ®h5+ Wg6 18 Wf3 0-0 was none 1
too promising either in Hodgson-Conquest, ;
Hastings 1986.
• d) Worth considering, though, is Jansa’s
idea of 7 £>h3 ± g7 8 Hbl «Т б 9 £>f4, j
when White has a promising game accord- ".
ing to Hort.

Inflicting some damage on Black’s pawn

structure at the cost of the two bishops. 3
d5 features in Game 44, while 3 £lc3 is the
subject of Games 45-47.
3 . . .gxf6 4 d 5 Ш 6 5 t c 1
Sacrificing a pawn with 5 £ld2 has not
been played much lately, but not because it
has been refuted. After 5...Wxb2 6 e3 f5 we
have the following possibilities: 5 . . .f5
a) 7 ВЫ and now Hort-Hartston, Hast­ This seems to be Black’s most flexible
ings 1972 went 7...'Brf6 8 A d3 ДЬ6 (8...d6 move, keeping options open as to whether
is met by 9 Wf3 according to Hort) 9 lS3e2 the bishop will go to g7 or h6. 5...ДЬ6 is
d6 10 £>g3 f4 11 £>h5 Wh4 12 £>xf4 ± xf4 examined in Game 42, 5...d6 in Game 43.
13 exf4 Wxf4 14 0-0 il?d8 15 Se1 and 6 g3
White had the initiative for his pawn. Criti­ White has a large number of different
cal is 7... 'Йгха21, e.g. 8 Д с4!? (8 £lc4 -*Lg7 9 set-ups in this position, the most popular
Sb 3 * a 4 10 W bl 0-0 failed to trap Black’s amongst Tromp experts involving g2-g3,
queen and left White’s pieces misplaced in c2-c3, £)d2 and £)h3. To add to the confu­
McDonald Ross-Povah, Portsmouth 1976) sion these moves can be played in various
8...Wa5 9 followed by 10 £lgf3, when orders. There’s also a case for the immedi­
White has the initiative for his double pawn ate 6 c4, for example 6 ...ig 7 (б.-.ДЬб 7 e3
sac. f4?! transposes to Hodgson-van der Wiel) 7
b) Hort didn’t like 7 Д с4 after the game £>c3 d6 8 e3 £id7 9 Wc2 Wa5 (9...£>e5!?) 10
l lort-Ribli, Las Palmas 1973, in which Black £>f3 Ь5 И схЬ5 £>Ь6 12 £>d2 ДЬ7 13 £>ЬЗ
obtained a winning position after 7...JLg7 8 Wb4 14 аЗ ДхсЗ+ 15 bxc.3 Wa4 16 с4 аб 17
ПЫ Wf6 9 £>e2 d6 10 £>g3 £ld7 11 ДЬ5 #сЗ was good for White in McShane-
ЖЬ8 12 Wh5 f4 13 ^ f5 a6 14 £>e4 Wg6 15 Sutovsky, Rethymnon 2003.
A d3 £)c5 16 4fxg6 £)xd3+- 17 cxd3 hxg6 18 6 . . .Д д7 7 c 3 £}a6!?
£)xg7+ 'A’fS 19 exf4 b5. But he did suggest An interesting idea from Lalic. Black in­
that 13 £)de4 would have been an im­ tends to attack White’s d5-pawn with
provement. ...£)a6-c7 and ...'B,b6-d6 or perhaps swing
c) 7 Ad3 Wf6 8 53e2 e5 9 dxe6 dxe6 10 the queen across to the kingside. Delat ing
e4 £lc6 11 exf5 exf5 12 0-0 Деб 13 £)f4 ...d7-d6 can also have its advantages in that

84
 2 ...с5

after a subsequent ...c7-e6 and a capture endgame. But his dark-squared bishop is
from White, Black can recapture with the d- starting to look strong.
pawn. Wells gives 7...d6 8 -SLg2 £)d7 9 £lh3
10 £>d2 Ad7!? (10...0-0 11 0-0 c6 12
53f4 A.h6 13 e3 A d7 14 S d l e5 15 £)e2
Kae8 1б 'Йгс2 produced a tough positional
battle which was slightly in White’s favour
in Adams-Lautier, РСЛ/Intel Rapidplay,
Paris 1995) 11 Wc2 Wa6 12 0-0!? 0-0 (after
12.. .Wxe2 Wells gives 13 S f e l Wa6 14
.Й.П!? Wb6 15 £)c4 W c7 16 £3e3 0-0.17
6dxf5 <S3xd5 18 £>xe7+ ®xe7 19 Sxe7 Sfe8
20 Kae1, intending 21 lSdf4, with a very
promising position for White) 13 e4!? (a
slower treatment with 13 53f4 is also possi­
ble here) 13...fxe4 14 £lxe4 £)xd5! 15 £)hg5 14 £>f4 Д Ь 8 15 0-0 Ь6 16 £>h5 A h 6 17
jj, f5 16 S a d i with complex play in £>e3
Akopian-G.I lemandez, Merida 2000. 17 S c d l can be met by 17...Sd8.
9.. .h5!? is interesting, for example 10 “Sdd2 1 7 ...b 5
Ii4 11 4t1c4 Wa6 12 £le3 £)f6 13 Wc2 e6 14 And Black had an interesting alternative
dxe6 fxe6 15 g4!? and White had an initia­ here in 17...ДхеЗ!? 18 fxe.3 ДЬ7 19 c4 b5,
tive in Sargissian-Frohlich, Linares Open with active play.
2001, although the situation is quite tense. 18 f4 П д 8 19 A h 2 5 ie 8 !?

8 A g2 20 A h 3 ?
8 еЗ?! helps only Black after 8...£)c7 9 20 S c d l improves, keeping a firm grip
-»-g2 Wd6!, intending ...Ь7-Ь5. on d5.
8 .. . ^ c7 9 £}d2 2 0 ...Ф д 7 21 <&хд7 А х д 7 2 2 S fd 1 Я Ь 6 ?
After 9 £)h3 Lalic was ready with 9...0-0 Much better is 22...b4 as 23 cxb4 S x b 4
10 Wc2 ^Sfb6 11 (*1f4 e5! 12 dxe6 fxe6 with 24 b3? loses to 24...Se4! etc.
a very dynamic position for Black. 2 3 B d 2 B a 6 2 4 a 3 A d 7 25 B c d l B b 8
9 .. .«Th6 10 h 4 d 6 11 £ ih 3 e6 12 £>c4 2 6 Ф д1 Ь 4 2 7 a xb 4 c x b 4 2 8 c 4 B c 8 29
® xc1+ 13 S x c 1 Ф а 7 g 4 l? fx g 4 3 0 A x g 4 A h 6 31 dxe6 fx«6
Шаек still has weaknesses going into the 3 2 B d 4 B f8 3 3 B e 4 A d 8 3 4 £>g2 A g 7

85
The Trom pow sky

« Ъ 6 5 Wc1 ± h 6

35 c 5 ?l
In time trouble White mistakenly tries to This dynamic looking move may in fact
take the initiative. 35 Дхеб favours Black be an error. White cannot accept the ‘offer’
after 35..,Дхе6 36 Нхеб Фк17 37 Se4 Axb2 because b2 would then hang, but once
and so on, but 35 b3 is only slightly better White blockades the f4-squarc the bishop is
for Black. better on g7.
3 5 . . .d x c5 36 ± x e 6 jfi.d4+ 3 7 еЗ Д х еб 6 e3 f5 7 c4!?
38 Д х е б ± x e 6 3 9 ex d 4 & b 3 4 0 fie 1 ! Allowing Black to play 7...f4 because
c 4 41 fie 5 c 3 4 2 Ь хсЗ b x c 3 4 3 f ic 5 c 2 White has an exchange sacrifice in mind. It
4 4 5 le 3 f ix f4 4 5 £>xc2 J ix c Z 4 6 f ix c 2 is also good to prevent ...f5-f4, for example
fix d 4 4 7 fia 2 fid 7 with 7 Q\c2. Vigus-De Vreugt, Glorney Cup
This endgame should be a draw, but 1996 continued 7...d6 8 c4 £)d7 9 4£lbc3
there are still some practical difficulties, £>e5 10 £>f4 ± d7 11 Wc2 a6 12 £)h5 Wa5
especially in time-trouble. 13 f4 £lg6 14 .&.d3 with a clear advantage.
4 8 Ф42 Ф с 8 4 9 fia1 Ф Ь 7 5 0 fib 1+ Ф а 8 Another possibility is 7 g3!?, although after
51 f i g l a5 5 2 fig 5 a 4 5 3 Ф е З a 3 5 4 7..~SLg7 8 c3 £la6 9 £>d2 £>c7 10 ± g2 Wd6
fig1 Ф Ь 8! 5 5 fia1 П а 7 56 Ф d З Ф с 7 57 11 £)c4 Wa6 there finally seems to be some
Ф с З Ф а б 5 8 Ф Ь З Ф е б 59 И57? point in Black getting White to play 6 e3 in
59 Hel-H is correct, for example 59...ФТ4 that a knight can no longer go there.
60 Фа2 * g 4 61 Де4+ <£>g3 62 h5 with а
draw in sight.
5 9 . . ^ f 5 60 И6 Ф д 5 61 Ф а 2 Ф х б б 6 2
fih1 + Ф д7 6 3 f i g l + Ф б 8 6 4 fih1 fia 5 !
6 5 fih 3 h 5 6 6 f ic 3 Ф д 7 6 7 f ic 4 Ф д б 6 8
ДЬ4 Ф д5 69 Д с4 h 4 7 0 Я с З f if5 71
Д х а З Ф д 4 7 2 Д а 4 + f if 4 7 3 fia 3 h 3 74
Д а 8 h 2 0-1

G ame 42
H o d g s o n -V a n der W ie l
A m sterdam Open 19941
1 d 4 £}f6 2 £ g 5 c 5 3 ^ x f 6 g x f6 4 d5 7 ...f4 l?

86
 2 ...с5

With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to ing powerful threats.

suggest that Black play 7...d6 in this posi­ 13 ± d 3 exd6 14 0-0 £>e5 15 W16 0-0
tion. But the liquidation of Black’s doubled Or 15...Hg8 16 £ld5 etc.
f pawn is critical, and may not be bad for 16 £>d5 H e 8 17 Ш д5+
Black despite the result of this game.
8 e x f4 £ x f4 9 '» x f4 ! Ш хЬ2 10 £ ie 2
Ч*?ха1 11 £}ec3

17...£>д6
17.. .ФЬ8 is not much better — White
wins with 18 £)f6 X'ixd3 19 Wh6 Wx 16 20
11 ...W b2? Wxf6+ Sfeg8 21 f41, preventing Black’s
ll...d 6 is forced, e.g. 12 %<12 Eg8 knight from using e5 before bringing up
(12...i.f5 13 Ae21 A xb l 14 0-0 will win the reinforcements.
queen) 13 A e2 Oxg2 14 Af3 Hg6 15 Фе2 18 £>f6+ * f 8 19 Ш Ь6+ Ф е 7 20 £id 5+
icg4 (15...b5 16 схЬ5 a6 17 Ьб £ki7 18 ZIcl * d 8 21 Д х д б h xg6 2 2 £ ib c 3 1-0
“?lxb6 19 £la3 wins Black’s queen for inade­
quate compensation) 16 Hcl <53c6 17 dxc6 Game 43
3c6+ 18 * f l Д х В 19 cxb7 Hb8 20 £la3 D a v ies-H o lm ste n
uLe2+ 21 &g2 Hg6+ 22 ФЬЗ and the result­ Eikrem M emorial, G ausdal 2000
ing material balance slighdy favours White.
12 d6! I d 4 £ if6 2 Д д 5 c 5 3 ^ x f 6 gxf6
3.. .exf6 is very anti-positional, but it does
give Black some temporary activity. A good
way for White to meet it is with 4 £)c3 cxd4
(4...d5 transposes to a Veresov Opening,
when 5 e3 followed by 6 53ge2, 7 g3 and 8
i g 2 puts unpleasant pressure on Black’s
d5-pawn) 5 Wxd4 leaves Black with serious
pawn weaknesses.
4 d 5 W b6
A few players have shown a preference
for 4...Ag7, although this seems to be rather
less disruptive. After 5 c3 (5 c4 is also pos­
sible here) 5...d6 (5...Wb6 6 Wc2) 6 e3 f5 7
1 2 ...^ c 6 t h e 2 £>d7 8 £>f4 £>f6 9 Д с4 0-0 10 a4 \>6
After 12..3ВЪ6 13 <S3b5! Black is left fac­ II *hd2 a6 12 £sfll? i d 7 13 £}g3 White

87
The T r o m p o w s k y

had some kingside pressure in Hodgson- Black played 6...£)d7, and after 7 £)f3 (7 c4
Kotronias, Belgrade 1993. £)e5 —intending 8....S-f5 —gives Black some
5 W c l d6 counterplay) 7...f5 8 c4 J ig 7 9 £)c3 £)Гб 10
£k!2 £)e4 11 ?3dxe4 fxe4 12 d i e 2 Hg8 13
g3 ДЬЗ 14 W c2 Wa5 15 a4 0-0-0 had pretty
good counterplay.
7 £>e2 S ld 7 8 £tg3 f5

A solid move which has not received

much theoretical attention. Black makes
room for the knight on d7 while keeping
options open with regard to the develop­
ment of the king’s bishop. White might be 9 id 3
caused some embarrassment later with If 1 had this position again today I’d be
...£k!7-e5 and ...,&.f5. tempted by 9 c4, solidly protecting the d5-
6 e3 pawn. Over the next few moves my posi­
White can also play 6 c4 in this posidon, tion becomes somewhat disjointed.
for example 6..~feh6 7 c3 Af5 8 53c3 £)d7 9 9 . . .Д д 7 1 0 £юЗ e 6 1 1 0 -0 Д е 5 1 2 f 4
f4 'Sfb4 10 <S3f3 <S3b6 11 £id2 with firm ± h 8 1 3 ФИ1 £sf6 1 4 a 4
control over the position. I considered playing 14 e4 fxe4 15
6 ...S g 8 <S3gxe4> but this serves to make Black’s
bishops more active.
1 4 . . .^ d 7 1 5 a 5 W b4 1 6 ПаЗ c 4 1 7 J i e 2
exd 5 1 8 ± f 3 jL e 6 1 9 Ф де2 £>e4 2 0
,&.xe4 d xe4

Occupying the open file and making

White shield the g2-pawn, but this is cer­
tainly not the only move. In Waid-Knott,
British Championship, Scarborough 2004

88
 2...с5

Black is a good pawn up in this position, We2 fld6 43 ДЬ7 h6 4 4 Фд1 Ф д8 45

But it is highly unsuited to the bishop pair. Wf2 Wxf2+ 46 * x f 2 а5 47 Дс7 а4 48
Ilis light-squared bishop in particular is a ДхсЗ Даб 49 ДаЗ * f 8 50 с4 Фе7 51 с5
poor piece. sfrd8 52 Ф е2 Ф с7 53 Фб2 Ддб 54 ФсЗ
21 2d1 Hd8 22 £id4 d5 23 a6 A xd4 Дхд2 55 сб А хсб 56 £3хс6 Фхсб 57
A clear sign that all is not well with Дха4 ДЬ2 58 Да6+ Фd5 59 Af6 ПхЬЗ
Black’s position —he must have been loathe 60 flxf5+ Феб 61 Дв5+ 14-14
to part with his better bishop. Even so, it Л hard-fought struggle.
isn’t going to be easy for White to break
through. Game 44
24 .Txd4 b6 25 Да4 We7 26 !№ 2 ШЬ4 M a m e d y a ro v -A ro s h id z e
27 Яа1 Ддб 28 2d1 ДЬб 29 h3 ШдЗ 30 European Ju n ior Ch 'ship, Baku 2002
®e2 b5l?
With both players running short of time 1 d4 £>f6 2 A g5 c5 3 d5
Black stirs things up. This is really an excel­
lent practical try, aiming to get a second
rook over to the kingsidc.
31 5 ix b 5 Ф е7

A very sharp move which involves the

sacrifice of a pawn.
3...W b6
Black takes up the challenge. Others:
32 2 4 d 2 ? a) Black can steer the game towards a
The critical line is 32 <Sixa7, after which Schmid Benoni with 3...g6 4 <Sic3 Ag7 5 e4
32.. .Hd6 (32...Xtg8 33 £>c6+ <&>d6 34 £>e5 d6 6 5)f3 0-0, for example 7 £)d2 h6
covers everything and also creates threats) (7...£>bd7 8 A c2 a6 9 a4 ДЬ8 10 0-0 £se8
33 “Sib-S Дхаб 34 £lc3 il?f8 leaves White 11 £sc4 £>e5 12 Wd2 £sxc4 13 Axc4 £>c7
awkwardly placed to deal with the threats 14 a5 b5 15 ахЬб НхЬб 16 'Sldl was shghtly
on the kingside. For example 35 W ei? is better for White in Agrest-Mjnasian, Lenin­
met by 35...Hxh3+-l 36 gxh3 Wxh3+ 37 * g l grad 1990) 8 Ah4 e6 (8...£>h5!? 9 A e2 £>f4
-“-c8 and Black threatens 38...flg6+. 10 0-0 £>d7 11 Де1 £>e5 12 A g3 g5 13 £sc4
3 2 .. .йд8 33 ®d4 A d7 34 Да1 Дддб 35 f5 14 exf5 Axf5 15 £)xe5 A xe5 16 Axf4
/•&dd1 Дхаб gxf4 was quite playable for Black in Vera-
Missing 35..JXxh3h 36 gxh3 XLh6 37 Wh2 Minasian, Elista 1998) 9 A e2 exd5 10 exd5
Sxh3 with a decisive lead. £ 1аб (10...£>bd7 11 0-0 £>Ь6 12 f4 Де8 13
36 Wd2 <4>f8 37 Дхаб Дхаб 38 ЬЗ Ддб A f3 Wc7 14 a4 and White kept an edge an
39 Да1 аб 40 Ьхс4 dxc4 41 ДЫ сЗ 42 Kasimdzhanov-Gershon, Zagan 1997) 11

89
The T rom p ow sk y

0-0 £ sc7 12 f4 Ь5 13 ДхЬ5 £>xb5 14 £>хЬ5 e4 d6 7 £lge2 a6 8 a4 Wc7 9 a5 £>bd7 10

W d l 15 .S.xf6 i x f 6 16 a4 ДхЬ2 17 S b l £lg3 g6 И Д е2 h5 12 £sfl ДЬ6 13 ДхЬб
Д g7 18 ?3c4 and White was doing well in Hxh6 14 Wd2 S h 8 15 £>e3 * f 8 16 0-0 * g 7
Ivanchuk-Velimirovic, Lucerne 1989. 17 £)c4 b5 18 axb6 £lxb6 19 £)a5 and, with
b) 3...d6 can have some independent sig­ 20 f4 coming, White had a powerful initia­
nificance, for example after 4 £)c3 h6!? tive.
(4...g6 should transpose to the 3...g6 lines, b) 4...d6 5 e4 g6 (5...a6 reintroduces the
above). But in Gallagher-Knott, British possibility of ...1Brxb2, so White should
Championship, Scarborough 2001 White probably defend the b2-pawn with 6 S h i) 6
kept an edge after 5 Axf6 exf6 6 e4 g6 7 ДЬ5+ A.d7 7 a4 i g 7 8 0-0 9 £>d2 h6
± d3 JLg7 8 £>f3 0-0 9 0-0 £>d7 10 £>d2 a6 10 ± h4 a6 11 a5 t d 8 12 Д е2 ДЬ5 13 0-0
(the immediate 10...£)e5 should be consid­ £>e8 14 S e l £lc7 15 f4 £>d7 16 ± g4 £>f6
ered) 11 a4 £)e5 12-Д е2 f5 13 exf5 gxf5 17 Д О and White was threatening the
(13...±xf5 14 f4 £sd7 15 g4) 14 a5! b5 15 powerful 18 e5 in Kashtanov-Bratchenko,
axb6 Wxb6 16 Ha2 Hc8 17 ФЬ1 Wd8 18 f4 St Petersburg 1999.
19 i x g 4 fxg4 20 £)ce4, with White’s
5 £ d 2 ШЬ6 6 e 4
knights being far superior to Black’s bish­
ops.
c) 3...£>e4 4 i f 4 transposes to Chapter
Two.

6 ...d 6
The most common move, but there are a
couple of alternatives:
a) 6...e5 aims for a Czech Benoni struc­
4 £>c3! ture. White does best to respond with 7 f4!
The only consistent move. 4 Дс1 e6 d6 8 £5! £sbd7 9 g4 h6 10 h4 a6 11 t f 3
brings about positions akin to Chapter One, Wc7 12 a4 S b 8 13 Д с4 £>b6 14 Д е 2 Д е7
but with White missing the important extra 15 g5 £)g8 16 £)h3 which gave White a
move f2-f3. terrific position in Emms-Franklin, British
4 ...W x b 2 Championship, Swansea 1987. I don’t find 8
This is critical. Alternatives: <ЙО £>bd7 9 ДЬ51? . very convincing after,
a) After 4...h6 White’s best is probably 5 for example, 9,..a6 10 Axd7+ £)xd7 11 0-0
JLd2!, when Hodgson-Paehtz, Bundesliga Д е 7 12 fxe5 dxe5 13 Wei 0-0 etc.
2002 continued 5...e5 (5...d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 b) After 6...e61? I like the simple 7 £)f3!?,
£)bd7 8 £>f3 ± g7 9 ± d3 0-0 10 £>a4! Wc7 opting for rapid development (Wells and
11 c4 gave White a strong bind in Chepu- De la Villa go to great lengths to get 7 f4 to
kaitis-Ignatiev, St Petersburg Open 1998) 6 work). Play might continue 7...d6 (7...exd5 8

90
 2...С 5

e5 We6 9 -£Lf4 Д е7 10 Д е2 £>e4 11 £>xd5 went 8 £>B ± g4 9 ДЬ5+ £)bd7 10 0-0 a6

js good for White because of the awkward 11 Jixd7+ £lxd7 12 W ei (12 a4 g6 13 h3
placement of Black’s knight on e4) 8 &Ы Д х f3 14 ШхО -S-g7 left White with inade­
•$’c7 9 ДЬ5+ (another possibility is 9 dxe6 quate compensation in Termentzoglou-
$.xe6 10 £)g5 £)c6 11 ?3xe6 fxe6 12 Д с4 Banikas, Kavala 1995) 1 2 ...Д хВ 13 SLxB g6
^?d7 13 0-0, intending 14 f4, with good play 14 £>e2 ±g7 15 Д сЗ £>f6 and White was
for the pawn) 9 ...id 7 10 dxe6 fxe6 11 struggling to find adequate compensation. 9
£.xd7+ Wxd7 (11 ...£lbxd7? 12 £lg5) 12 e5 h3 Д х В 10 W xB a6 11 a4 g6 12 Д с4
(IxeS 13 ?3xe5 with good play for the pawn. £>bd7 was not impressive for White in So-
7 f4 lak-Romcovici, Calimancsti 1999, but I
quite like the idea of 9 Д е 2 —intending 10
£)g5. A sample variation is 9...g6 10 0-0
£>bd7 11 £>g5 Д х е2 12 Wxe2 Д ё7 13 IXael
£lb6 14 £)b5 Wd7 15 c4 аб 16 £lc3 Wg4 17
« У З with White maintaining a bind and
having a lot of space. In his book Wells
recommends De la Villa’s idea of 8 Д с 4 but
after 8...a6 9 a4 g6 10 We2 £)fd7 11 ?3 B
Дц7 12 0-0 0-0 doesn’t find the position
very clear. Meanwhile after 8 ДЬ5+ he gives
8...£>bd7 9 £>B аб 10 ±xd7+ £>xd7 11 0-0
g61? 12 4i3e2 $Lg7 13 Д сЗ, suggesting that
White has practical chances whilst express­
7 .. .e6 ing doubts about his compensation.
Current thinking is that this is one of d) 7...1Hrd8 holds up e4-e5 by targeting
Black’s better moves. Among the alterna­ White’s d-pawn: 8 Дс41? (I think that: 8 Hbl
tives it is ‘c’ that seems to pose the most has much to be said for it) 8...a6 (8...£lbd7 9
problems for White: a41? £)b6 10 ДЬ5+ Д 07 11 Шс2 is given by
a) Black’s other e-pawn advance with Wells as good for White, and I tend to
7.. .e5 transposes to 6...e5 (and Emms- agree) 9 a4 g6 (9...Д ё4 10 W bl! - De la
Franklin) after 8 f5 and after 8 dxe6 into the Villa) 10 e5 £>fd7 11 We2 dxe5 (11...£>Ь6
note to White’s 8th move. 12 Да2 threatens 13 a5) 12 fxe5 J i.g l 13
b) 7 ...ig 4 8 Д е2 (8 Wcl'P and 8 * Ы !? £>B 0-0 14 0-0 £>Ь6 15 Д а2 Д ё4 was all
are interesting) 8...Дхе2 9 Wxe2 a6 10 e5! (a played in Fink-Formanek, Philadelphia
more destructive move order than 10 XLbl Open 2000, and now 16 ДЕ4!? is Wells’
as Black then has the admittedly unattrac­ suggestion, and I quite like 16 'We4!?.
tive option of playing lO-.Wde) 10...dxe5 11 e) 7...g6? 8 e5 dxe5 (8...£lfd7 9 £>B ± g l
fxe5 £>fd7 12 £>B еб 13 &Ы Wc7 14 0-0 10 ПЫ f d 8 11 еб fxe6 12 £>g5! £>f8 13
exd5?! 15 еб fxe6 16 1в гхе6+ Д е7 17 £lxd5 ДЬ5+ Ji.d7 14 dxe6 ДхЬ5 15 £)xb5 Wc8 16
Wd6 18 £)g5 £lc6 19 £>c7+ Wxc7 20 Wf7+ 0-0 аб 17 Д сЗ! put Black in desperate trou­
t^d8 21 £)e6+ and White won in Hodgson- ble in Vaganian-Jansa, Kragujevac 1974) 9
R-Pcrt, British Rapidplay Championship, fxc5 £sfd7 10 £>B Д ё7 И ЯЫ Wd8 12 еб
Bradford 2001. fxc6 13 5)g5 £)f6 14 ДЬ5+ ФЯЗ 15 dxe6 аб
c) Wells has given 7...Wc7!? his personal 16 ДеЗ! Wa5 17 0-0 h6 (17...axb5 18 ЯхЬ5
seal of approval by using it in one of his Wc7 19 £>d5 We5 20 Д хс5 is devastating)
own games. Povah-Wells, Portsmouth 2003 18 Hiifd3 S^?g8 (or 18...hxg5 19 Hfrxgti Д хсб

91
The T ro m p o w s k y

20 W e8 mate) 19 'tfxgti Лхеб 20 ФЗхеб Sh7 j&.d7 13 £ )fi *51хсЗ 14 ДхсЗ, when White
21 S x f6 4£ld7 22 & xd7 1-0, Vaganian- had a dangerous initiative in Arduman-
Kupreichik, USSR Championship 1974. Combac, Nova Gorica Open 2001) 9 Ф.7В
f) 7...a6 8 e5 dxe5 9 fxc5 4£lg4?! (9...4£lfd7 &e7! (9...£lc6 10 S b l « 4 7 И В ±d7 12
may be slightly better, but is hardly attrac­ Д с4 gives White some pressure, a sample
tive for Black after 10 53fi) 10 e6! 4£lf6 variadon running 12...a6 13 0-0 b5 14 4£kl5
(10...£)e5 11 Wh5!) 11 exf7+ <&>xf7 12 £>B £>xd5 15 ±xd5 ± c7 16 £)g5 ±xg5 17
g6 13 3 i c 4 # d 6 14 0-0 b5 15 £)c4! £>xe4 -&xg5 0-0 18 «Ъ 5 with a raging attack) 10
(after 15...«Ч 8 there might follow 16 £3fg5+ S b l « 4 7 11 f5 &d7 12 ± c4 ± c6! 13 0-0
^ g S 17 S x f6 exf6 18 d6+ bxc4 19 Д а5 £>bd7 14 &.Ы a6 15 a4 0-0 16 W c2 Sae8
Wxa5 20 «715+) 16 ‘$3g5+ 4$?g8 17 £)xe4 and White had only nebulous compensation
# e5 18 # B i 6 19 ± d 3 c4 20 ± c 3 W c7 for his pawn in M.Pikct-Blees, Dutch Team
21 g4! cxd3 22 g x B ® d7 23 fxg6 1-0, Va- Championship 1996.
ganian-Passerotd, Rome 1977.

8 ...W c7
8 Sbl After 8 ...«d 8 White can strike immedi­
Others: ately with 9 dxe6 fxe6 (9...Дхе6 leaves the
a) In McShane-Ni Hua, Bled Olympiad b7-pawn hanging) 10 e5! dxe5 (10...£)d5 11
2002, the young British GM tried 8 “S lB ±d3 <5lxc3 12 ±xc3 d5 13 «115+ <&d7 14
exd5 9 e5 dxe5 10 fxe5 4£le4 11 4£lxd5 « 4 8 f5 gave White a strong attack in
12 c4 ± g4 13 «Ъ11? (13 .&e2 is worth con­ Golubenko-Sepp, Eesti 1996) 11 fxc5 *5ld5
sidering) 13...£)xd2 14 « x b 7 ‘$3xB+ 15 gxB 12 .&d3 *5lxc3 13 ДхсЗ « g 5 (after 13...g6 I
i x f l 16 £lc7+ Фе7 17 £ 45+ Ф е8 18 £>c7+ like 14 « fg4 with very strong pressure) 14
Фе7 with a draw by repetition. Wells « e 2 ^V:6 15 53B « h 5, a line that was ana­
doesn’t see much compensation for White lysed by Golubenko. Then 16 h3 J ic 7 17 g4
after 12...‘$3xd2 13 Wxd2 *5lc6 here, but I Wf7 (17...«h6 18 ± d2 g5 19 h4) 18 « 4 4 g6
quite like his position after 14 .&d3 Д е 7 15 19 0-0 gives White excellent compensation
0-0 0-0 16 S a d i, intending 17 Д е 4 or per­ for the pawn. White can also play 9 ДЬ5+
haps 17 «Т4. White’s pieces are very active jLd7 10 dxc6 fxe6 11 65 dxe5 12 fxe5 4£)d5
and he has a bind. 13 % 4 *5lxc3, as in Kolev-Dochev, Bulgar­
b) Another option is 8 dxe6, for example ian Championship 1994, when simply 14
8...Дхе6 (8...fxe6 might transpose back to ДхсЗ! would have left Black in serious
the game after 9 S b l , but there is also 9 trouble.
e5!? dxe5 10 fxe5 4£ld5 11 .&d3 g6 12 1H,g4 9 Д.Ь5+

92
 2...С5

9 dxe6 Дхеб transposes to Piket-Blees in Wg7 Wd4+ 22 ФЬ1 £>xc4 23 Wf7+ <&>d8 24
the note to White’s 8th move, in which E dl ‘recoups most of his material and
White’s compensation did not seem very keeps a dangerous initiative’ according to
convincing. Wells, which seems fair enough) 17 *5lh4 g6
(or 17...b5 18 Wh5+ * d 8 19 ±d3) 18 ±g5!
with ‘a serious defensive task’ for Black. It is
very difficult to be sure about such lines,
though it does look as if White has good
value for the exchange.
15 ex f6 gxf6
15...dxc4 is well met by 16 ^3c5! g6 17 f51,
threatening 18 f7+ followed by 19 -&g5+.
16 £ .x d5?l
After this White struggles to get enough
compensation. But Wells pointed out the
brilliant 16 4£le5!!, after which 16...fxe5 17
Wh5+ * d 7 18 Wxe5 Eg8 19 £>xd5 exd5 20
9 ...£ ib d 7 Wxd5+ ±d6 (20...Фс7 21 Wxg8 is no bet­
After 9....fi.d7 Wells suggests 10 We2!?, ter) 21 Wxg8 Wbl+ 22 ф£2 Wxhl 23 We6+
when 10...a6 11 ±xd7+ Wxd7 (ll...$3bxd7 Ф еб (23...Фс7 24 Д а 5+ Ь6 25 ДхЬ6+) 24
12 dxe6 fxe6 13 *5lf3 threatens 14 £lg5 and ±d5+ Ф с7 25 Да5+ Ь6 26 ДхЬ6+ ФхЬб 27
14 c5) 12 dxe6 fxe6 13 c5 dxe5 14 fxe5 ^VIS Wxd6+ gives White a winning attack.
15 4?)h3!? 4£ic6 16 0-0 gives White good play 1 6 ...e x d 5 17 £ ix d 5 W e6+ 18 Д е З W d6
for the pawn. 10...Де7 11 dxe6 fxc6 12 e5 19 0-0 Д д 4 2 0 c 4 0-0-0
dxe5 13 fxc5 4£kl5 14 .&d3 also looks dan­
gerous for Black, and 10...exd5 11 e5 posi­
tively suicidal.
10 dxe6 fx e 6 11 £ if3 a 6 12 J . c 4 £ib 6
13 E x b 6 l? W xb6 14 e5 d5?

With Black’s king reaching relative safety

this really doesn’t look like enough for
White.
21 W b3 £ x f 3 2 2 S x f 3 f5 2 3 S f1 S g 8
2 4 S b 1 W c 6 2 5 дЗ Ф Ь 8 26 W c 2 W e 6
Wells believes that 14...dxe5 15 fxc5 4£ld7 27 Af 2 П д 7 2 8 E e l W d7 2 9 W b2 S f 7
is critical (15...^3g4!?) and analyses the varia­ 3 0 W b6 W d6 31 W a5 S c 8 3 2 Е Ы Sc6
tion 16 0-0 Wc6 (16...Де7 17 Д ё5 ilx g 5 18 33 Sd1 E d 7 34 E e l S d 8 35 Be5 Д д 7
^ x g5 53xe5 19 Wh5+ g6 20 Wh6 Wd6 21 3 6 S x f 5 S f 8 37 S g 5 i . d 4 3 8 W d2 h6

93
The T ro m p o w s k y

39 B g 4 Ш еб 4 0 S h 4 Ш е4 41 £>e3 B b 6
4 2 f 5 & Ы + 4 3 £>f 1 W xh4 0-1

G ame 45
M ila d in o v ic -G u s ta fs s o n
G ermanj-G reece, Fuerth 2002
1 d 4 £>f6 2 Д д 5 c S 3 £>c3

6 e4
The immediate 6 0-0-0 should transpose
when White plays 7 e4.
6 ...± e 7
After 6...h6 White should probably play 7
0-0-0 with similar play to the main line (af­
ter 7 f4 Black has 7...®Ъ6, when 8 0-0-0?
walks into 8,..£3h71).
3 . . .c x d 4 7 f4
One other possibility for Black is
3.. 3.Ъ6, when 4 d5 Wxb2 5 -&d2 transposes
to Game 44. White has an interesting alter­
native in 4 £30, when Nataf-Levacic,
Cannes 1996 continued 4...cxd4 (after
4.. .'ИгхЬ2 White can play 5 £3a4 1ИЪ4+ 6 c3
7 £3xc5 d6 8 £3b3 ISxc 3+ 9 £3fd2 £3c6
10 .&xf6 gxf6 11 e3 with compensation for
the pawn) 5 Wxd4 1Brxd4 6 £3xd4 £3c6 7
£3db5 S b 8 8 0-0-0 a6 9 £3c7+ * d 8 10
£37d5 and White had strong pressure. 4
JLxf6 gxf6 5 £3d5 is also worth considering.
4 W x d 4 £>c6 5 W h4
A very sharp position. White wants to Others:
castle long and then push e2-e4 and f2-f4. a) 7 0-0-0 might be a more accurate
5 . . .e6 move order, and it can also lead to the posi­
The most common move, but not the tion after White’s 9th move but with differ­
only one. In De la Villa-Miezis, EJgoibar ent divergences being possible en route. For
1995 Black played 5...d6, after which White example:
developed a promising position with 6 e4 a l) 7...0-0 8 f4 h6 9 £3f3 hxg5 10 £3xg5
-&e6 7 S c8 8 £3ge2 £3e5 9 f4 £3xd.3+- #07! 11 c5! £3xe5 12 £3d5! exd5 13 fxe5
10 cxd3 *Ъ 6 11 f5 (extra space, develop­ # xe5 14 S e l # f5! 15 Hxe7 % 4 ! 16 # xg4
ment lead and active pieces). For 5...b5 see £3xg4 17 ДЬ5! gave White the better end­
Nei-Diesen (Game 46). game in Krasenkow-Degraeve, Cappelle la

94
 2...с5

fjrande 1990. 13 Axf6 4£)xh4 14 AxdK Wxdh 15 (he2

a2) 7...аб 8 f4 Ь5 9 e5 b4 10 cxf6 gxf6 11 ДЬ7 16 2 g l f61? gave Black the better end­
£}c4 fxg5 12 fxg5 Wa5 13 Ф Ы ЬЗ 14 ахЬЗ game because of his pressure against
^ Ь 4 15 £)f6+ *d81? 16 Wd4 Wa2+ 17 Фс1 White’s kingside).
18 <&d2 produced a wild game in Another attempt to reveal the dark side
Vaganian-Knaak, Tallinn 1979, which White o f 7 f4 is with 7...Wb6, when Ochoa-
went on ro win. Browne, New York 1989 went 8 0-0-0
a3) 7—h6 8 f4 Hg8 9 A.xf6 A xf6 10 Wg3 We.31 9 Wb 1 (hxe4 10 (hxe4 Wxe4 11 Дс13
Axc3 11 Wxc3 Wa5 12 Wxa5 (hxa5 13 e5 A xg5 12 Wxg5 Wd4 13 £>f3 Wf6 14 Wh5
g5! gave Black quite a good endgame in W xf4 15 £)g5 <53e5 16 S h f l W g4 17 Wxg4
Porfanis-Atalik, Katarini 1993. Note here 4 lx g 4 18 £>xf7 2 f8 (18...0-0 19 £>g5 g6 20
that 9 (?3f3 hxg5 10 fxg5 leaves Black’s 2xf8+ * x f 8 21 <S3xh7+ & g7 22 S3g5 is also
knight on f6 without a move, and 1 wonder better for White) 19 (hd6+ Ф е7 20 2 x f8
if White can use this to develop his initia­ ФхАЗ 21 Jix h 7 Ф е7 22 h3 £le3 23 Ed2
tive. *53d5 24 (hxc8+ 2 xc8 25 Д е 4 and White
b) Besides castling long, White can also had the better endgame.
put his king on the other flank. Conqucst-
S.Garcia, Havana 1996 went 7 (Elf3 Wa5 8
Ab5 d6 9 0-0 A d7 10 S f e l a6?l (simply
10.. .0 0 is probably better) 11 £ixсб Д хсб
12 c5 dxe5 13 £>xe5 2 c 8 14 H adl 0-0?!
(!4...Wb4) 15 Hd3! when, suddenly, White
had a very strong attack. The game con­
cluded 15...tBfb4 16 f4 Wb6+ 17 * h l Wxb2
18 2 g 3 ФЬ8 19 A h 6 g6 (19...gxh6? 20
Wxh6 (he8 allows 21 Wxf8+ JLxfB 22 (hxf7
mate) 20 A g5 Ф ё 7 21 Wh6+ Ф ё 8 22 A xf6
1-0, as after 22...Ji.xf6 White has 23 2 h 3 ,
forcing mate.
7 .. .d6 8 0 -0 -0 V a 5 9 £>f3 h6
The main argument against 7 f4 is that This has been applauded as being Black’s
Black can use the fact that White hasn’t best option, although it seems that he has
castled to play an immediate 7...b5!?. Then other possibilities:
Nei-Taimanov, USSR 1981 went 8 e5 (8 a) 9...Ad7 looks like a natural developing
£lxb5 Wa5+ 9 £lc3 (J3xe4 is just bad for move but 10 (hd2 —intending 11 (hc4 —is
White, and 8 Axb5 Wb6 gives Black com­ problematic for Black (10 W ei, 10 ДЬ5 and
pensation for the pawn) 8...b41? 9 (hb5 (9 10 -&d3 all seem reasonable for Black after
exf6 gxf6 is better for Black) 9...a6 10 (hd(H- 10...h6). Sell-Berger, Germany 1999 contin­
(10 cxf6 gxf6 11 £)d6+ Axd6 12 Axf6 Д е 7 ued 10...Hc8 11 $')c4 Шc:5 12 (h a4 W b4 and
13 -fi.xc7 Wxe7 also leaves Black with the now 13 аЗ Wxa4 14 b3 Wa6 15 (hxd6+ wins
more compact structure) 10...Axd6 11 exd6 Black’s queen for what seems like inade­
^ld4!?, and now according to Taimanov quate compensation.
White should play 12 A d3, when 12...ДЬ7 b) 9...a6 protects b5 but Black needs a
13 Wf2 h6 14 ДЬ4 £lb5 15 ДхЬ5 axb5 16 good answer to 10 W ei (10 (hd2 can be
^ f3 leads to a complex game (in the game met by 10...b5) as 10...b5 11 e5 b4 12 exft)
White played 12 0-0-0, after which 12...53f5 gxf6 13 Axf6 Axf6 14 < Sle4 was good for

95
The Tro m p o w sk y

White in Mcnsch-Nicoara, Fiance 1999. White played 12 ДЬ5+ ± d7 13 £)xe5 ДхЬ5

c) 9...0-0 seems to ‘castle into it’ but 1 14 £3xf7!? but after 14...Фх£7 15 .&xf6
don’t see any concrete objection. il.xf6 16 'ИГЬ5+ Ф й8 17 #xb5 ДхсЗ 18
10 e5 Wxb7 ДхЬ2+! 19 Wxh2 (19 ФхЬ2? W e5-H)
19.. .ФЬ7 White’s king was the more ex­
posed.
1 2 .. .« x e 5 13 ДЬ5+ 3>f8 14 ^ f 4

This seems to be most in the spirit of the

opening, but White has also played a pre­
liminary 10 Jkh5. Rabinovich-Gcrshon,
Israel 1996 went 1 0 ..,id 7 11 e5 dxc5 12 This position is very complicated and
4£lxe5 £lxe5 13 fxc5 ДхЬ5 14 £lxb5 (14 thus difficult to assess. White clearly has
exf6 Дсб was good for Black in Sjodahl- compensation for the pawn thanks to his
Akesson, Sundsvall 1989) 14...1li,xb5 15 cxf6 superior development and Black’s loss of
*xg5+ and Black had a large advantage in " castling rights. But is it enough?
the endgame. According to Serper White 1 4 .. .Шс5 15 We1 a6 16 ± d3
should play 12 Дхсб! Дхсб 13 £3xe5, when Probably the best square for the bishop
13.. .Ec8 is equal in his view but nice for since after 16 Д а4 b5 17 ДЬЗ ДЬ7 Black
Black in mine. White should avoid 12 fxe5? gains time for developmeht.
in view of 12...£3xe5 etc. 1 6 .. .A.d7 17 Sf1
1 0 .. .dxe5 11 fxe5 £ixe5 A logical move, eyeing Black’s king on
the f-file. In San Emeterio-Lalic, Madrid
2001 White allowed exchanges before play­
ing this move with 17 ?3e4 *5ixe4 18 Д хе4
Дсб 19 f if l, but after 19...Пс8 20 Ag6 Д е8
21 ± d6 *g5+ 22 ФЫ #xg6 23 Дхе7+
Фg8 his compensation disappeared. Ka-
linitschew-Gustafsson, Dresden 2002 varied
with 17 S g l Дсб 18 g4 Ed8 19 h4, but
after 19...ДО 20 g5 hxg5 21 hxg5 £ld5 22
£3xd5 WxdS he saw nothing better than
going into an endgame a pawn down after
23 Д е2 'Brxdl+ 24 ДхсП Hxdl+ etc.
1 7 .. .Д с6 18 g4 S d 8
12 £ixe5 18...^3xg4!? might be possible here but it
In luldachev-Serper, Tashkent 1993 is certainly not for the faint-hearted.

96
 2 ...с5

19 А еЗ W e5 2 0 W f 2 ДЬ41? 2 1 £ie2
G ame 46
N ei-D iesen
H elsinki 1990
1 d 4 G f 6 2 Ф д5 c 5 3 G c 3 c x d 4 4 V x d 4
£>c6 5 W h4 b51?

2 2 h3 Ф е8 2 3 ^.d4 W d5
23...Щ5+ 24 ФЫ £>e4 25 ±xe4 ±xe4
26 £if4 look s promising for White. He is
threatening 27 4£lh5, and 26...e5 can be am
swered by 27 УШс2.
2 4 ,&xf6 g x f6 2 5 ФМ 6 e4
Snatching back the pawn with 25 Wx(6? Not 6 £ixb5? in view of б-.'ИЪб!, when
leaves black with much the better endgame the b2-pawn falls. White has an alternative
after 25...Wg5+ 26 4 b l Шх{6 27 22xf6 -&e7 in 6 0-0-0, e.g. 6...b4 (6...e6 7 -&xf6 gxf6 8
and 28...h5. “Sie4 Де7 9 'Sid6+ jk.xd6 10 31xd6 Фе7 11
25...iL e7 2 6 £ if4 W c5! S d l was quite good for White in Puranen-
Shishkov, Paide 1999) 7 £id5 Ша.5 8 e4
#xa2 9 5ic7+ * d 8 10 £>xa8 # al+ 11 * d 2
#xb2 with a wild position.
6 . . .a6 7 0 -0 -0
This seems like the critical line. 7 £if3?!
lacks punch, for example 7...d6 8 Де2?!
(here, too, 1 prefer 8 0-0-0 —White’s king
seems safe enough on the queenside) 8...e6
9 ±xf6?l Wxf6 10 #xf6 gxf6 11 0-0-0 ДЬ7
12 £id4 Пс8 with the better endgame for
Black in the form of the two bishops,
Grimm-Mi.Tseitlin, Dreiflucsse 1998.
7 . . .h6
Offering back the pawn in order to ex­ 7...#a5 8 ФЫ d6 9 £>ge2 ± e6 (9...b4 10
change queens. Stubbornly hanging on to ,SLxf6 gxf6 11 S id 5 looks better for White)
the boon,' with 26...1H,g5 leaves Black under 10 £)cl (10 jLxf6 gxf6 11 “Sif4 also favours
considerable pressure after 27 Odel (or White) 10...Sc8 11 <Sib3 ±xb3 12 cxb3
maybe 27 5ih5!?). 5id7 was played in A.Jackson-Gladyszev,
27 W xc5 Ф хс5 2 8 £>h5 Д е 7 2 9 £ixf6+ Isle of Man 2000, and now 13 J ie 2 (rather
■*xf6 3 0 S x f6 * f 8 '/2-% than 13 Ad2 b4 14 £id5 e6, as played in the

97
The Tro m p o w sk y

game). Black’s dark-squared bishop and king’s rook J

8 £id5 out of tire game. -i
1 7 . . .f5 ! 1 8 e x f5 i
After 18 A d3 there follows 18...JLxd5 19 :
exd5 b4. !
1 8 . . .B d6 19 £>e3 B x d l + 2 0 £>xd1 ■
& g7?
Missing his chance. The critical move is
20.. .Де4, when 21 £>e3 Wh6 22 ± d3 4.xd3'
23 cxd3 ШкН gives Black counterplay. Now
White regains control over the position.
21 Jkd3 b 4 2 2 W e1 W d5?
Losing without a fight. 22...JLd4 is a bet­
ter chance, meeting 23 axb4 with 23...1И,а4.
2 3 ШхЬ4 V x g 2 2 4 J Z e 1 Jkf6 2 5 G e 3
White can also play a preliminary 8 4£lf3, * f 3 2 6 Bg1 * f 8 2 7 £ig4 & g5 2 8 fx g 5
when 8...Sg8 9 .&xf6 gxf6 10 £3d5 was less h 5 2 9 f 6!
than comfortable for Black in Bcrkcs- Setting up an attractive finale.
Tolstikh, Zalakaros 1999. On balance I pre­ 2 9 . . .hxg4 3 0 Шхе7 + Ф д8 3 1 £ h 7 +
fer Nei’s move as White’s king’s knight can * x h 7 3 2 » x f 7 + * h 8 3 3 W g7 m ate
be developed effectively via e2.
8 . . .ДЬ7 9 £.xf6 gxf6 1 0 f o e 2 W a 5 11 G ame 47
* Ы S g 8 1 2 f3 N ei-Ebelin g
Preparing a cubby hole for White’s queen H elsinki 1990
on f2. Meanwhile the position of White’s
knight on d5 prevents Black from complet­ 1 d 4 £if6 2 Д д 5 c 5 3 £>c3 * a 5
ing his development.
1 2 . . .£sb4 1 3 ФесЗ B c 8 1 4 a 3 £>xd5 1 5
£>xd5 S g 5 !? 1 6 f 4 B g6

4 ^ x f 6 gxf6 5 e3
White has also played 5 d5, althoug
5...f5 opens a nice diagonal for Black’s dar
17 Wf2 squared bishop. Plachetka-Ftacnik, Frenst
Hereabouts White allows Black some 1982 continued 6 e3 .&g7 7 Wd2 d6 8
counterplay. It seems to me that there’s a £ld7 9 £lf4 £>Ь6 10 ДЬ5+ * f 8 11 ±
case for 17 f5!? B g5 18 Wf2, keeping Hb4 12 <S3d3 # a3 13 £)f4 ± d l and Bla

98
 2...с5

(i;lS strong pressure against White’s queen- £lxa5 9 0-0-0 also looks more comfortable
side. for White) 8 0-0-0 d6 9 'ИЪб Деб 10 £)h3
with good play for White in Drill-Weng,
Hofheim 1995.

5 .. .cxd 4
Black has tried several other moves in
;his position, but it does seem that White is 6 . . .e6
rather better: Alternatively:
a) 5...f5 has nothing like the same effect a) 6...d6 7 ДЬ5+ Дd7 8 Дxd7+ £)xd7 9
here as the al-h8 diagonal is blocked by the WfB еб 10 ‘55ge2 d5 11 0-0 was good for
pawn on d4. Shercshevsky-Veremeichik, White in De la Villa-Glavina Rossi, Aceimar
Minsk 1978 continued 6 * h 5 cxd4 7 exd4 1995.
V#b6 8 0-0-0 Wh6+ 9 'И’хЬб ДхЬ6+ 10 Ф М b) 6...d5 7 ' t B Деб 8 ДЬ5+ £)сб 9
<16 11 g3 Д d7 12 Д ё2 Дсб 13 d5 J i d l 14 Gdge.2 Д g7 was Meszaros-Dusper, Harkany
fl and White had a space advantage and 1997, and now 10 ?3f4 0-0 11 0-0-0 would
potential pressure on the c-file. have been White’s most forthright
b) 5...e6 and now White played б ШЪб in continuation.
Llobcl Cortell-Zapata, Andorra 2002. After c) 6...h5 7 Д с4 Og8 was played in Sali-
6.. .<15 7 0-0-0 cxd4 8 exd4 4£ic6 9 ^d7 maki-Kiltri, Helsinki 1999, and now instead
10 £)ge2 Пс8 he should have played 11 f4 of the artificial looking 8 Ad5 White should
with the idea of pushing again, whereas in have played 8 *5ige2 as 8...Hxg2 leaves
the game his 11 Wi?> was rather pointless. Black’s rook trapped after 9 £3g3.
c) 5...d6?l 6 #h5 £>c6 7 Д с 4 еб (7...£)d8 d) 6...jL gl may be Black’s soundest
8 ДЬ5+) 8 d5! £3e5 (8...exd5 9 .&xd5 is hor­ move, although I still prefer White after 7
rible for Black because of his pawn weak­ g3 В 8 £>ge2 £)c6 9 Wd2 d6 10 Д ё2 Ad7
nesses) 9 dxe6 i ’de 10 e7+ Д хе7 11 Д е 2 11 0-0, as in Ibanez Terradellas-Picanol
Ь5 12 £>f3 ДЬ7 13 £)xe5 fxe5 14 0-0-0 left Alamany, Spain 2000.
black in dire straits in De la Villa Garcia- 7 ДОЗ
( davina Rossi, Zaragoza Open 1995. 7 d5 ДаЗ 8 # c l Wb4 9 S b l Wxc^f 10
d) 5...h5 prevents White’s queen from ЬхсЗ Дхс1 11 Пхс1 b6 was fine for Black
going to h5 but looks like a waste of rime in Mi.Tseitlin-Pokojowczyk, Slupsk 1978.
ahet the simple 6 £3f3. On the other hand I think White can do
6 exd4 better with 7 W(3l, when 7...f5 8 0-0-0 looks
Another possibility is 6 1Hrxd4, for exam­ very promising.
ple б...53сб 7 ШУб 'ИЪб (7...e6 8 Шхаб 7 . . .ДаЗ

99
The T rom p ow sk y

up bis b-pawn here. Simply 14....&f8 looks

better as Black is only slightly uncomfort­
able after 15 Wh5.
1 5 Wg7 B f8 1 6 V x h 7 S c 8
16...Wc7 followed by castling queenside
looks like a better shot.
1 7 £ e 2 a6 1 8 h 4 e 5 ?!

At first sight this looks strong, but a

closer inspection shows it to be a loss of
time. In T.Taylor-Grefe, Lone Pine 1976
Black played 7...55c6 and had good pros­
pects after 8 <Slge2 d5 9 0-0 j£.d7 10 аЗ аб
1 1 Ь4 Шс7 12 Ь5 £la5 13 Ьхаб Ьхаб.
8 Ш Ы * Ъ 4 9 <£41! « а 5
Both 9...ШхЪ2 and 9..,.&xb2 ate. strongly Already this has a desperate air. Black
met by 10 £Ь5! etc. gives away the f5-square.
10 £43 ±e7 11 Шс1 d 5 12 а З £ c 6 19 & f 5 e 4 2 0 £ e 1 £ a 7 21 <4>g1 H c 4 2 2
12...h5 makes sense, denying White’s E h 3 £ b 5 2 3 c 3 W c 8 2 4 & x d 7 + <4>xd7
queen access to h6. Arrival there in the ' 25 Wf5+ 4>d6 2 6 Wf4+ Феб 2 7 W d2
game signals the start of some problems for _£_d6 2 8 £ c 2 f5 29 a 4 £ a 7 3 0 h 5 f6 31
Black. h 6 f 4 3 2 £ x f 4 + ik x f4 3 3 Wx14 Д х с З 34
13 b 4 V d 8 14 W h6 itd 7 7 £еЗ П с1+ 35 Sxc1 Ш хс1+ 3 6 £>h2
I don’t really understand why Black gives H d 8 37 h7 1-0

100
 2...с5

S u m m a ry
The positions which arise from 2...c5 offer both sides chances in a complex and difficult
struggle. In many respects it is easier to play this for White —he has a choice of three quite
distinct approaches (3 3 d5 and 3 £3c3) whereas Black must be ready for all of them.
(~crtainJy not a line for the faint of heart or ill-prepared.

1 d4 £rf6 2 ± g5 c5 3 Jbcf 6
3 d5 Wb6 4 £>c3! (D) - Game 44
3 4£lc3
3.. .cxd4 4 1Hrxd4 £3c6 5 Wh4
5.. .e6 —Game 45
5.. .b5!? - Game 46
3.. .#a5 —Game 47
3 ,..gxf 6 4 d5 * b 6 (D) 5 * c 1 f5 (D) —Game 41

5.. .ДЬб —Game 42

5.. .d6 —Game 43

4 G3c3 4 ..M b 6 5 ..J 5

101
 CHAPTER S E V E N ]

2...e6

1 d 4 £if5 2 Д д 5 еб which 9...ДЬ4 is ne'Cv and rather good.

2...сб is one (if Black’s most solid options One of the most interesting recent de­
and the move of choice for many top play­ velopments from White’s point of view is
ers. Black avoids doubled pawns but wants the discovery that 5 c3 (preparing a set-up
the two bishops anyway. Meanwhile he with i d 3 , C c2 and a later f2-f4) is quite
hopes that White’s advantage in develop­ venomous. You’ll find my coverage in
ment will be relatively meaningless as long Game 53, Hodgson-Rowson (whete Black
as the position remains closed. adopts the ‘French-style’ 5...d5) and Game
After 3 e4 h6 4 Д х f6 Wxf6 White usually 54^ Rogers-Arakhamia (Black plays a more
chooses to play 5 £3c3, when 5...ДЬ4 is restrained set-up with ...d7-d6, ...iSid7, ...g7-
Black’s most popular choice. My corre­ g6 etc).
spondence game as Black against Gutsche 5 £3f3 transposes to a Torre Attack,
(Game 48) is of some theoretical impor­ which is not covered here. My personal
tance for 6 Wd2 c5 as it features Wells’ 7 e5 view is that it is less dangerous for Black
Wf5 and shows that White probably gets than the lines in this chapter because it ob­
enough for his pawn after all. Andrew Mar­ structs White’s f-pawn. Finally White can
tin’s recommendation of 6...d5 also seems consider 3 e3 (see the notes to White’s 3rd
quite playable and is examined in Hodgson- move within Gutsche-Davies), which can
Grant (Game 49). White can vary with 6 transpose to a Torre Attack but has inde­
Wd3, when the Martin formula (6...d5) pendent significance if White can arrange
seems even better (Eames-Emms, Game f2-f4.
50). My only idea for White is 7 0-0-0!?,
although I don’t see any advantage for G ame 48
White here. G u ts c h e -D a v ie s
Karpov prefers to meet 5 C c3 with CFG Championship 2003
5...d6, although subsequently meeting 6
Wd2 with 6...g5 (Anand-Karpov, Game 51) 1 d 4 £lf6 2 Д д 5 еб 3 e 4
is clearly a double-edged undertaking. For This is White’s most obvious and aggres­
solidity Black could do much worse than sive move, but not the only one. I think it is
repeat Stefansson’s formula of Game 52 in well worth considering the quiet 3 e3, an-

102
 2 ...е6

ding for a Stonewall formation but with the 9 £3d2I? (9 «Ъ З d5 10 exd6 i x d 6 is less
dark-squared bishop outside the pawn than nothing for White) 9...Wxb2 10 Uhl
chain. Wd4 does not seem like enough for the
pawn. De la Villa recommended 6...Wh4!?
but after 7 We4+ 8 Д е2 cxd4 9 0-0
£lc6 10 Д 03 Wg4 (Condie-Grant, Scottish
Championship 1995) White can obtain
good play with Wells’ suggestion of 11 c3
dxc3 12 £3xc3. Also interesting is 6...Wf5!?,
for example 7 c3 £3c6 8 £3G.

After 3...c5 4 c3 play might develop as

follows:
a) 4...d5 5 Де7 6 ДйЗ £)М7 7 f41?
Ь6 8 ДЬ4 Шс7 9 £ lgB c4 10 Д с 2 Ь5 И 0-0
ДЬ7 12 £)e5 i d 6 13 t f 3 XifB 14 Wg3 g5
15 fxg5 *Sixe5 16 dxe5 Дхе5 17 Wh3 hxg5
18 ix g 5 *Sie4 19 £)xe4 dxe4 was about
equal in Miladinovic-Graf, Fuerth 2002, but 5 . . .Д Ь 4
this whole idea deserves further exploration. 5...d6 is dealt with in Games 51-52.
b) 4...cxd4 5 exd4 Д е7 6 ixf61? i x f 6 7 6 W d2
<5ld2 0-0 8 £)gf3 £lc6 9 i d 3 g6 10 We2 For 6 Wd31? see Game 50.
Wc7 11 h4!? d5 12 ДЬ5 e5 13 Дхсб Ьхсб 6 .. .C5
14 £)xe5 S e8 15 0-0 Дхе5 16 dxe5 Sxe5 17 This is the sharpest challenge to White’s
W o was slightly better for White in Miladi- centre and should be considered the main
novic-Pavlovic, Saint Vincent 2003. line. For 6...d5 see Hodgson-Grant (Game
c) 4...Де7 5 <2)d2 b6 6 <SigG transposed 49).
to a Torre Attack in Miladinovic-Erdogan, 7 e51?
Istanbul 2001.
3 ...h 6 4- i x f 6 W x fe 5 £ ic 3
For 5 c3 see Games 53-54. White has
also tried a preliminary 5 Wd2 to prevent
the pin, although this artificial looking move
allows Black to hit back immediately in the
centre. Black gets good counterplay with
o.-.c5 (5...e5 6 dxe5 Wxe5 7 £)c3 ДЬ4 8
^ ge2 d6! is not bad, either, for example
Wells gives the line 9 f4 Wf6 10 0-0-0 0-0
11 * b l <S)d7 12 аЗ Да5 13 Wd3, which
looks —as he claims —fairly balanced) 6 e5
Wd8, after which 7 d5 exd5 8 Wxd5 Wb6!P

103
The T ro m p o w sk y

This is certainly White’s most natural b) After 7...#e7 White can play 8 a3
move, but can he get away with it? Others: ДхсЗ (8...cxd4 9 axb4 dxc3 10 #xc3 0-0
a) White’s most common plan has been 7 was Ubezio-Mazzatiol, Novara 2002, and
аЗ ДхсЗ 8 bxc3 d6 with a further branch: now 11 #05 seems to make life uncomfort­
al) 9 f4!? e5!? (taking some dark squares able for Black) 9 #xc3 b6, De Blecourt-
before White gets in 10 e5; in Hodgson- Soraas, Copenhagen 2002, and now 10 dxc5
Yudasin, New York 1994 White stood bet­ # xc5 11 # xc5 bxc5 12 0-0-0 gives White
ter after 9...0-0 10 £30 £3c6 11 ДЬ5 £3a5 the better endgame because of the hole on
12 ДОЗ Ь6 13 0-0 Д Ь7 14 S a e l Hac8 15 e5 d6.
# e7 16 f5 etc.) 10 ДЬ5+ i d 7 11 Hbl!
(maintaining the pressure rather than 11
ix d 7 + £3xd7, which leaves Black excel­
lently placed) and now.l 1...cxd4 (ll...exf4?
12 £3e2 g5 13 ix d 7 + £3xd7 14 Sxb7 was
unpleasant for Black in Hall-De Pirmian,
Malmo 1999) 12 cxd4 exd4 13 £30 (13
Дх07+ £3xd7 14 Hxb7 can be answered by
14.. .£3c5) 13...£3 c6 14 0-0 0-0 15 £3xd4
5fe8 is roughly level.
a2) Hodgson-Rowson, York 2000, went
9 £30 0-0 10 Д е2 £3c6 11 0-0 e5 12 dxc5
dxc5 13 # e3 i g 4 (13.,.b6 14 Д с4 i g 4 was
equal in Hodgson-P)e Pirmian, Amsterdam 8 a3
1996) 14 Wxc5 flfc8 15 ШеЗ W f4 16 Wxf4 The critical move, after which White
exf4 17 Habl ДхО 18 g^-O b6 when seems to get just about enough for his
White’s extra pawn had litde relevance. pawn. 8 £3f3 cxd4 9 # xd4 £3c6 10 # d3
b) Wells opines that 7 dxc5 might be #xd3 11 Axd3 ДхсЗ+ 12 ЬхсЗ f6 gives
White’s best move, but Black seems to be Black a slight plus, while 8 Ad3 # g4 and 8
fine after 7...0-0 (7...£3c6 8 f4 g5 9 £3ge2 f4 cxd4 9 # xd4 £3c6 10 # d2 d6 11 exd6
gxf4 10 £3xf4 Дхс5 11 Д е2 led to complex 0-0 are probably even worse.
play in Kurajica-Razuvaev, /Zaragoza Open 8 ...c x d 4 9 ax b 4 d xc3 1 0 ШхсЗ £3c6 1 1
1996) 8 f4 ДхсЗ 9 ЬхсЗ b61? (9...e5!? is also £3f3 W e4+ 1 2 Д е 2 ШхЬ4 1 3 ШхЬ4
worth considering) 10 cxb6 axb6 11 £30 £3xb4
(11 Ad3 ДЬ7 12 £3e2 is suggested by Wells
but Black seems to stand -well here after
12.. .1. rh4+ 13 £3g3 £3a6 14 0-0 £3c5)
11 ...ДЬ7 12 A d 3 S a 4 13 0-0 Д х е 4 14 £3e5
# e7 and Black was doing well in
Schlindwein-Lutz, Bundesliga2000.
7 .. .Ш15!
Wells’ suggestion, which I am the first to
have used in a game. Also played are the
following:
a) Walton-Horner, Blackpool 2003 went
7.. . 'i rd8 8 dxc5 Wc7 9 f4 0-0 10 £3ge2 b6
and 11 0-0-0 seems best with a sharp game.

104
 2...е6

This is all Wells’ analysis which he con­ W xf6 5 £ ic 3 Д Ь 4 6 Wd2 d5

cludes with the view that White has inade­
quate compensation for his pawn. At the
time of the game I felt this was correct, but
I was surprised at how difficult it was to
prove. White has quite a strong initiative for
the pawn, despite the simplifications.
14 0-0 -0 * e 7 15 £)d4 £ lc 6 16 f4 £ ix d 4
17 S x d 4 H b 8
l spent some time considering 17...f6 but
after 18 S h d l Hf8 19 JLb5 fxe5 20 fxe5
Sf5 21 ix d 7 Hxe5 22 ± xc8 Hxc8 23 Hd7+
White wins back the pawn and can even
claim an edge.
18 * d 2 f6 As recommended by Andrew Martin in
After 18...b5 White can play 19 Hal a6 an article entided Trashing the Tromp, the idea
20 Hd6 ДЬ7 21 i . B , recovering his pawn. is to get a solid French Defence type posi­
19 Ha1 a6 2 0 Н а З Ь5 21 Н д З Н д 8 tion but with the two bishops. Moving the
21...g5 is strongly met by 22 h4. d pawn one square with 6...d6 also has its
22 ex f6 + * x f 6 23 £ d 3 дб 2 4 f5! points. An economical way to play this for
White is with 7 аЗ Да5 and now simply 8
<h£3, as in Soffer-Rapoport, Rishon Le Zion
1997, which continued 8...£3d7 9 ji.e.2 0-0
10 0-0 сб 11 Ь4 Д с7 (11...ДЬ6 12 <S)a4 Дс7
13 c4 is nice for White) 12 Hfel e5 13 d5 c5
14 £)a4 g5 15 'ЙМЗ £3b6 16 £)b2 with the
better game for White. Instead 8 f4?l ДхсЗ
9 ЬхсЗ e5! gives Black excellent counterplay.
8 ®ge2 is okay, although 1 can’t say I’m too
impressed after 8...c6 9 Ь4 ДЬб.
7 e5 W d8

2 4 ...e x f5 25 H d6+ * f 7 2 6 Н еЗ Н д 7 27
д4! fx g 4
Or 27..Т4 28 He4 g5 29 He5 etc.
28 c4 ± Ь7
After 28...ДЬ7 29 Hxd7+ * f 8 30 Hxg7
& xg7 31 cxb5 axb5 32 Неб i B 33 Hxg6+
’&F7 the position is equal.

G ame 49
H o d g s o n -A . G ra n t
Turnkey 19981
8 a3
1 d 4 £ lf6 2 ± g 5 e6 3 e4 h6 4 ,&xf6 It seems advisable to eliminate this

105
The Tro m p o w sk y

bishop as soon as possible. After 8 f4 c5 9 sharply against feared attackers such as

£3f3 Wa5 10 dxc5 Шхс5 (10...0-0!?) 11 £3d4 llodgson.
a6 12 аЗ ДхсЗ 13 ШхсЗ ШхсЗ-Ь 14 ЬхсЗ
White had nothing in J.Adamski-Norton,
Copenhagen 2002.
8 ...Д е 7 9 f 4 c 5 10 d x c 5 & x c 5 11 £>f3
й сб

16 S e l fo e7 1 7 -£ .d 3 &.d7 18 O h f l S f 8
19 W g4 0-0 -0 2 0 £>d1
20 Wxg7 is risky in view of 20...b4 21
axb4 ДхЬ4. Hodgson is now threatening to
trap the bishop on. c5, something that Black
12 0 - 0-0 overlooks.
This looks like White’s most natural 2 0 ...g 5 ? 21 Ь4! B f 4 2 2 « Ъ 5 £ lg 8 23 g3
move. Martin gives only the wild 12 h4?l Д е 8 24 & g 6 Д х д б 25 « х д б S c 4 26
which was pretty good for Black in Ь хс5 W x cS 27 W d3 1-0
Kazhgaleyev-Akopian, Atibervilliers 2002:
12.. .a6 13 S d l? ! (making a nonsense out of G ame 50
White’s previous move —where is his king E a m e s -E m m s
going?) 13...b5 14 Ь4 Д е7 15 A d3 ШЪ6 16 British L eague 2004
fo c 2 jLd7 and Black was doing well. Worth
considering is 12 b4!?, when 12...Де7 13 1 d 4 £ if6 2 Д д 5 е б 3 e 4 h 6 4 A x f 6
•&d3 Ad7 14 0-0 S c8 15 f o e 2 Wc7 16 Ф М W xf6 5 fo c 3 Д Ь 4 6 W d3!7
g6 17 S a c l saw White regroup quite nicely
in Gerstner-G.Schmidt, Germany 1999.
12 . . .a6
After 12...0-0 White can play 13 f5! (as in
the main game), for example 13...exf5 14
£lxd5 Деб 15 #сЗ! Axd5 16 Wxc5 f o e 7 17
■&.d.3 looks quite nice for White.
13 f5 ! b5 14 fx e 6 fx e 6 15 Ш 4
Preventing Black from castling.
1 5 .. .W b6
Perhaps Black can play 15...g5!?, intend­
ing to meet 16 Wg4 with 16...h51? 17
WxgS?? (17 'Brg3! g4 18 £)e4 Д е7 is critical)
17.. .Hfxg5+ 18 ^ixg5 Д еЯ - etc. But people Placing the queen on a more active pos
are understandably reluctant to play so than d2, but there are also drawbacks. Fo

106
 2...е6

0лс White’s queen doesn’t support f2-f4, other hand, 7...0-0 looks playable after 8 e5
svhilc the bishop has been denied its best Wg5+ 9 ФЫ c5.
square. 7 . . .W d8 8 0 -0 -0 ? !
6 .. d5 An improvement is 8 a3I, e.g. 8...Де7 9
The Andrew Martin formula makes a lot f4 c5 10 dxc5 with play along the lines of
of sense here. One good thing about having Hodgson-Grant, albeit with White’s queen
the queen on d3 is that 6...c5 is less good being unusually posted on d3.
here: 7 e5 We7 (in the event of 7...Wd8 8 . . .C5 9 dxc5 0 -0 1 0 f 4 £ld7 1 1 £\ce2
Wells analyses 8 dxc5 Wa5 9 23ge2 “2lc6 10 a5
f4 St~xc5 11 0-0-0, when 11 ...23b4 is simply
met by 12 Wc4) 8 a3 (8 0-0-0 ДхсЗ 9 Wxc3
£lc6 10 dxc5 Wg5+ It * Ы Wxe5 12 £>e2
gave White only a minimal endgame advan­
tage in Wells-Seel, Hastings Challengers
2003) 8...Да5 (8...ДхсЗ+ 9 Wxc3 b6 10
dxc5 is better for White) 9 0-0-0 cxd4
(9...ДхсЗ 10 Wxc3 £3c6 11 d5! is another
line stemming from Wells) 10 £3e4 0-0 11
Wg3 £3c6 12 £)f3 3i.b6 13 J id 3 and accord­
ing to Wells’ analysis White has a promising
game, an assessment with which 1 whole­
heartedly agree. One other possibility is
6.. .$3c6, although it is difficult for Black to This is already looking quite ominous.
challenge White’s centre after this move. Black’s queenside manoeuvres are well un­
l.egky-Spiridonov, Sautron 2002 continued der way whereas White is still trying to get
■7 0-0-0 ДхсЗ 8 Wxc3 d6 (8...Wxf2? 9 d5!) 9 his pieces out.
ФЫ J id 7 10 We3 e5 11 d5 £le7 12 g3 with 1 2 £>g3 a 4 1 3 a 3 i .x c 5 1 4 £>f3 Ь6 1 5
a useful space advantage. f5 W c7 1 6 f6 ?
7 e 5 ?! Surrendering the important e5-pawn. 16
Besides this Martin mentions only 7 a3 fxe6 fxe6 17 Wc3 is better, although I prefer
■fexc3+ 8 Wxc3 dxe4 9 Wxc7 0-0 and 7 exd5 Black thanks to the pressure on the e5-
exd5, both of which are fine for Black. pawn.
White can play more interestingly with 7 1 6...33xe5 1 7 W e2 £>g4 1 8 fx g 7 S d 8
0-0-01? but this doesn’t look like enough for
an edge after 7...ДхсЗ 8 Wxc3 dxe4 9 Wxc7
0-0 (Black can also play 9...£)c6, when 10 f3
“21x04 11 fxe4 0-0 12 £}f3 £3xf3 13 gxf3 e5
looks fine) 10 £lh3 (another interesting try
for White is 10 f3!? but then Black can play
10.. .£3c6 11 fxe4 £)xd4 12 £3f3 53xf3 13
gxf3 e5! with a good game) 10...£)c6 11 Wf4
Wg6 12 c3 S d 8 with approximate equality.
It seems too risky to play 7...Wxf2 because 8
ФЮ c5 9 exd5 cxd4 10 4£lb5 4£la6 11
“2)bxd4 0-0 12 Wb3 (threatening 13 Дхаб)
leaves Black in all sorts of trouble. On the

107
The T ro m p o w s k y

Black doesn’t even bother to recapture as weakening but Black prevents White’s de­
the g7-pa\vn protects the king. White’s posi­ sired f2-f4 expansion. For 6...c6 see Game
tion is a wreck. 52.
19 £>d 2 £ le 3 20 #h5 £d4 21 ,£d3
-&xg7
There’s nothing wrong with 21...£lxdl as
22 Wxh6 ДхЬ2+ 23 S&xdl Jb.xg7 leaves
Wliite without any serious attacking
chances. But Emms wants to play it safe.
22 S d e l d 4 23 Ф Ы Д а б 2 4 S c 1 W e5
25 Wf3 & x d 3 26 cxd 3 B a c8 27 W b7
S x c l + 28 S x c l W b5 29 £ n 4 W b3 30
W e4 B c 8 31 £ lh 5 ?! £ lx c 4 3 2 d x c 4 d3
33 £>xg7 d 2 0-1

G ame 51
A n a n d -K a rp o v 7 JLc4!?
FIDE W orld Ch. K 0 , l^ausanne 1998 An interesting and quite dangerous idea.
White intends to put his knight on e2, castle
1 d 4 © f6 2 Д д 5 е б 3 e4 h 6 4 £ .x f6 kingside and then possibly open up the f-file
W xf6 5 £ ic 3 d 6 with f2-f4. Another idea is to bring his
knight to h5 via g3. Several other moves
have been tried, for example:
a) 7 0-0-0 ± g7 8 g3 (8 e5 dxe5 9 dxe5
We7 10 f4 £)c6 11 £ )B 3.d7 12 h4 gxf4'13
1Hrxf4 0-0-0 14 £)e4 ?3b8! — intending
..~&.c6 and ...£)d7 —gave Black a good posi­
tion in Adams-Karpov, Las Palmas 1994,
while 8 S&bl 6 9 ДЬ5 j Ll\7 10 e5?l dxe5
11 d5 exd5 12 £)xd5 Wde left White with
inadequate compensation for his pawn in
Gunter-Britton, Hastings 1995) 8...£lc6 9
±Ь5 (9 £)Ь5 *У 8 10 £>e2 аб 11 £)ЬсЗ b51?
led to Black getting some counterplay in
Black has another move here in 5...g6, al­ Adams-Topalov, Madrid 1996) 9...Ad7 10
though this gives up the idea of inhibiting lS lge2 a6 11 Дхсб Дхсб 12 f4 0-0-0 13
White’s space-gaining f2-f4 idea. 6 Wd2 Bhft gave both sides chances in Hodgson-
Ag7 7 0-0-0 0-0 8 f4 d6 9 £ )B b6 10 h4 h5 Gabriel, Horgen 1995.
11 e5 W c7 12 Ad3 ДЬ7 13 £>e4 *hd7 14 b) 7 h4!P 7 (7...g4!P 8 f4 gxB 9 gxfi
£)fg5 dxe5 15 fxe5 c5 16 c3 cxd4 17 cxd4 h5 10 f4 ДЬ6 11 <£ige2 £k:6 12 0-0-0 -&d7
Bad8 18 * b l gave White a promising at­ 13 * b 1 0-0-0 14 ШеЗ e5 earned Black
tacking position in Gelfand-Rozentalis, Til­ counterplay on the dark squares in For-
burg (rapid) 1992. chert-Brenke, Bundesliga, Germany 1996) 8
6 W d2 g5 hxg5 hxg5 9 Hxh8+ ДхЬ8 10 0-0-0 $1сб 11
From a strategic point of view this is a £)B Wf4 (Tsesarsky assessed 1l...g4 as
most interesting move. The thrust looks good for White after 12 £)Ь5 Ф<18 13 e5!

108
 2...е6

14 £3gl) 12 Wxf4 gxf4 13 ±Ь5 ±d7the game.

14 <$3e2! e5 15 S h i and White had the bet­ 15 c 3 h 5 16 S d f1 S d f 8 17 b 4 Ф а 7 18
ter endgame in Tyomkin-Tsesarsky, Ramat $ lc 2 ic h 6 19 W e i Ф Ь 8 2 0 £ .d 3 Д с б ! 21
Aviv 2000. £ if4 S fg 8 2 2 d5
7 ...£ lc 6 8 © g e 2 &g7 9 S d 1 £.d7 10 0-0
0-0-0

Not 22 £3xh5?l f5! with veiy strong

counterplay.
Anand intended to meet 10...0-0 with 11 2 2 . . .6 e 8
V$c3 followed by f2-f4. After 22,..jii.xf4 White can break up
11 S lb 5 ! Black’s king position with 23 dxc6! e5 24
11 b4 g4 12 Ь5 Ф|а5 is not a very effec­ cxb7 etc.
tive way to play for White as Black’s knight 2 3 W f2
will do a good job in holding up White’s 23 £lxh5? is still dubious, this time due
attack on the queenside. to 23...Wg5! 24 53f4 ± g7 and 25...±e5.
1 1 ...a 6 12 £la3 2 3 . . .Д д 7 2 4 £ id 4 l & d 7
Threatening a queenside pawn storm 24...Sh6 might have been a better way to
with 13 c3 and 14 b4. Black needs some defend the еб-pawn as it also prevents any
counterplay, and fast. forks on g6. Now White gains the upper
hand.
25 dxe6 ilx d 4 26 c x d 4 fx e6 2 7 e5 Д с б
28 Ф дб

12 ...g 4 ! 13 f4 g x f3 14 S x f3 We7
Black could also consider 14...Wg6, when
15 Sg3 Wh7 16 c3 leads to similar play to

109
The Trom pow sky

2 8 ...W d 8 ?7 4 0 W f6
A tactical error which loses Black the With his king now safe the еб-pawn is
game. He should have played 28...Hxg6 29 fair game.
Axg6 (29 SftH? Sxf8 30 Wxf8+ £lc8 31 4 0 ...33d4 41 £ id 8 +
Jkxg6 Wg5 wins for Black) 29...Jkxf3 30 White can also win with 41 £3d(rl- cxd6
Wxf3 dxe5 31 dxe5 ^ic6 (or 31...'ИгхЬ4 32 42 We7+ Ч^Ьв 43 Hxc8+ ^ x cS 44 exd6 Wc6
#f6) 32 # f6 when White gets the better 45 Wf8+ (45 Дха6+ is also good) 45...ФВ7
endgame but nothing more. 46 Wg7+ i&xd6 47 1Brxd4 etc. But Anand’s
29 £>xh8 £ .x f3 3 0 £ lf7 move makes it easy.
41 ...Ф Ь 8 4 2 £ lx e 6 Ш аЗ 4 3 O d l 1-0~
Black has nothing to show for the lost
piece.

G ame 52
T h o rh a lls s o n -S te fa n s s o n
Icelandic Championship, Reykjavik 2004
1 d 4 £ if6 2 Jkg5 e6 3 £ ic 3 h 6 4 Jkxf6
W x f6 5 e 4 d 6 6 W d2 c 6

3 0 ...W h 4
Black is trying to bamboozle his oppo­
nent. After 30....&.xg2 White wins rather
simply with 31 £3xd8 Де4+ 32 Hxg3+
33 hxg3 ДхВЗ 34 Hf8! etc.
31 W xf3
And not 31 Wxh4?? Kxg2+ 32 S&hl Hf2+
with a draw.
31 ,..'*rxd4+ 3 2 * h 1 d5 3 3 S d 1 ! Ш хЬ4
3 4 S b 1 W a4 3 5 Ш хЬ5 £)c6 3 6 W e2 * a 7
This is a very solid move, covering the
d5-square in preparation for ...e6-e5. A simi­
lar type of move is 6...a6, although then the
lack of an immediate threat (,..еб-е5) gives
White time to play 7 0-0-0 before launching
the f-pawn. Play can continue 7...Wc7 8 f4
g6 9 £.g7 10 A d3 £>d7 11 f51? (Dc la
Villa has suggested 11 e5 d5 12 h4 when
Black should play 12...h5, but I think there’s
a case for the immediate 11 h4!?, when
1 l...h5 can be met with 12 ФЫ followed by
13 f5) 11...0-0 (ll...e5 12 £>d5 Wd8 13 dxe5
S3xe5 14 S h fl c6 15 £le3 0-0 16 ^ x e5
37 W f2 + Ь6 3 8 S e l l Ф Ь7 3 9 h3! O c 8 Дхе5 17 S3g4 1-0 was the brutal conclusion

110
 2 ...е6

of Benjamin-Ycrmolinsky, US Champion­ 0-0-0 0-0 10 g3 Jig 4 11 &g2 exd4 12 Wxd4

ship Playoff 1994) 12 g4!? (12 S d fl) 12...b5 Wxd4 13 Hxd4 produces an interesting
1 3 h4 c5 14 g5 cxd4 15 £3e2 exf5 16 exf5 endgame in which White’s space is balanced
ДЬ7 (Pomes Marcet-B.Lalic, Manresa 1995) by Black’s pair of bishops, and 8...JLg4 9
and now instead of the double-edged 17 f6 0-0-0 exd4 10 'Brxd4 1Brxd4 11 Hxd4 Д хе2
53xf6 18 gxf6 Wxf6, White has 17 Sh3 with 12 Дхе2 gives White slightly the better end­
rhe idea of 18 f6, which looks unpleasant game.
for Black. 8 . . .dxe5 9 f5
7 f4! The point behind White’s play, trying to
This seems like White’s most testing con­ keep Black’s queen’s bishop out of the
tinuation. After 7 0-0-0 e5! Black stakes a game. On the other hand the feet that his
claim to tire central dark squares. Then after pawns are moving to light squares gives
8 do?! Black just has to be careful to avoid Black’s dark-squared bishop much more
8.. .Де7 9 dxc6 Ьхсб 10 £>d5, but he can do scope,
this easily enough with 8...£3d7. Instead 9 . . .ДЬ4
White has 8 £3f3, when 8...Де7 9 h3 £3d7
10 <&>M 0-0 11 We3 He8 12 d5 Ad8 was
verv solid for Black in Hall-Glek,
Bundcsliga II 1997.
7 .. .e5
7,..g5?! seems dubious now due to 8 f5!
exf5 9 0-0-0 when Gallagher gives 9..Т4
(9...fxe4 10 S3xe4 Wg6 11 j£.d3 f5 12 S e l!
fxe4 13 JLxe4 Wf6 14 Дхс6+ it ’d8 15 Wafrh
Ь6 16 Wc3 gave White a winning attack in
David-Daly, Linares Zonal 1995) 10 e5!
Wde 11 exd6 followed by 12 Д с4 with a
kind of turbo King’s Gambit.
Stefansson has played this a couple of
times and it seems to give Black an easy
game. The alternatives lead to more intense
play:
a) 9...g6 10 JLd3 h5!? (after the quiet
10.. .®d7 White can play 11 0-0-0 followed
by 12 S&bl, which 10...h5 clearly prevents,
while 10...gxf5? 11 exf5 jkxf5?? runs into 12
Wf2, winning a piece) 11 Wf2 <S3d7 12 0-0-0
Д с5 13 Wd2 g5 14 * Ы b5 15 h3 £3b6 16
£3f3 Д е 7 and Black had a good game in
Kraemer-Glek, Essen 1997.
b) 9..M d6 10 i d 3 (10 Wxdh ix d 6
8 dxe5 promises nothing for White at this stage)
Despite the fact that this move has the 10.. .Де7 (10...b5I? is an interesting move
support of Tromp experts, I’m really not that was tried in Engqvist-Hedman, Stock­
convinced that White should release the holm 1996 when, after 11 a4 b4 12 £3dl
tension. I prefer 8 l$3ge2) when 8...Де7 9 £3d7 13 £3e3, Black threw a spanner in the

111
The T ro m p o w sk y

works with 13...b31? 14 cxb3 2b 8 15 Фс2 й.е.2 0-0 16 g4 Шс5 17 Шхс5 Фхс5 18 h4
and now 15...1®xd2+ 16 < J?xd2 Ф.Ь4+ 17 феЗ 19 Sh3 ф+4 left Black slighdy better in
Фс2 Фа6+ 18 Ф В f6 followed by 19...£lc5 the endgame in Anguix Garrido-
would have given Black compensation for Villavicencio, Las Palmas 1993.
the pawn) 11 £3f3 £3d7 12 a4 a5 13 g4 W c5 1 2 .. .Ф а 5 13 Ф Ы £ if6 14 ± d 3
14 Wf2 #xf2+ (14..ЛЪ4 15 0-0-0 Фс5 is 14 5)d5 is possible here but gives White
better, with chances for both sides in a nothing after 14....Sk.xd2 15 £3xe7 Ф хе7 16
complex middlegame) 15 Ф х В Ф+6 16 £lxd2 fid8.
Ф с4 and Black was cramped in Hodgson- 1 4 .. .± d 7 15 f ih e l b5 16 g 4 Д Ь 6 17 h3
Magem Badals, Linares Zonal 1995. 0-0-0 18 £sa2 Ф Ь 8 19 W c1 c 5 2 0 64 b4
c) Hedman’s suggestion of 9...1iirg5 is well
met by 10 Шх^5 hxg5 11 £3B f6 12 0-0-0
with Black suffering from cramp plus
weaknesses on the light squares.
d) 9...Wd8 10 Wxd8+ * x d 8 11 Фс4 Фе8
(11...f6 12 <53B ФЬ4 13 0-0-0+ Фс7 14
£3e2, intending £3e2-g3-h5, favours White)
12 <53B £kl7 13 0-0-0 .&c5 14 ФЬ1 b5 15
ФЬЗ Фе7 16 g4 was better for White in
Rabinovich-Belichev, Tallinn 1997.
c) 9...£ld7 10 <53fi £&>6 11 0-0-0 JLd7 12
h4 looked rather poindess in Povah-Ansell,
England 1997 (I’m not impressed.by Wells’
suggestion of 12 £3a4 after 12...Sd8) as Black stands well because of the miser­
after 12...0-0-0 13 g4 Ф-Ь4 there’s not much able position of White’s a2-knight. White
happening for White on the kingside. soon decides to try and change the course
10 £ lf3 £id 7 11 0-0-0 W e7 of the game with an exchange sacrifice.
21 ФМ Ф е б 2 2 fid 5 !? Jbcd5 2 3 cx d 5
ЬхаЗ 2 4 Ь хаЗ £ ie 8 2 5 W b2 f6 2 6 a4
W b7 27 Ф а1 Ф а5 28 Я Ы W x b2+ 29
fix b 2 + Ф с 7 3 0 f ib 5 Ф Ь 4 31 £ ix b 4 c x b 4
3 2 Я с 5 + Ф Ь 7 3 3 £>d2 £ id 6 3 4 f ic 6 h5
3 5 gxh5

12 a3
New in this position, but hardly earth
shattering. 12 g4 £3f6 13 Фл13 i d 7 14 h3
0-0-0 gave Black a very comfortable game in
M.Carlsen-Stefansson, Reykjavik 2004, and
12 ШеЗ <53f6 13 £ld2 i d 7 14 Фс4 b5 15

112
 2 ...е6

3 5 .. .а5 The obvious move, but there’s quite a

1 can’t see much wrong with 35...<ttxh5 strong argument for maintaining the tension
followed by 36... Sg5. Time trouble? with 6 6Y12, e.g. 6...c5 7 4Elgf3 (7 exd5 exd5
36 ^>ЬЗ £ ix e 4 3 7 £)xa5+ Ф Ь 8 3 8 2 b 6 + 8 -&Ь5+ -&d7 9 -&xd7+ £lxd7 10 *hc2 0-0-0
ф с 7 3 9 2 c 6 + Ф а 7 4 0 2 e 6 £)c3 41 & Ь З 11 £ ifl cxd4 12 ^ x d 4 i c 5 13 £le3 i x d 4
O x d 5 4 2 £ ic 5 + Ф с 7 4 3 £ ia 6 + Ф Ь 7 4 4 14 cxd4 W’a6 15 b4 £if6 16 We2 V2 -V2 was
ЗУс5+ Ф с7 45 £la6+ Ф Ь7 46 & с5 + Wells-Ward, Southend 2002) 7...£3c6 (or
Ф с7? 7.. .cxd4 8 cxd4! dxe4 9 £3e51?) 8 -&.b5 cxd4
Yes, time trouble. Otherwise Black (Black played the dubious 8....Sk.d7 9 exd5
would surely have played 46...ФЬ8 47 4Eia6+ exd5 10 0-0 0-0-0 in Moreno Ruiz-Garcia
Фа7, escaping the checks... Serrano, San Sebastian 2000 and stood
47 ДЬ5 much worse after 11 £3b3) 9 cxd4 (in
...And White would not have been playr McDonald-S.Buckley, Torquay 2002 White
ing ‘for the win’ here. played 9 £lxd4 but after 9....Sk.d7 10 0-0
4 7 .. .£ ic3 4 8 2 c 6 + Ф Ь 8 4 9 £>a6+ Ф Ь7 ± c l 11 B el 0-0 12 <5Mf3 аб 13 -&fl Bfd8
50 £ lc 5 + Ф Ь 8 51 П Ь 6+ Ф с 7 5 2 П с 6 + 14 e5 Wg& 15<53b3 f6 16 exf6 Шхf6 Black
* Ь 8 5 3 Ш>6+ Ф с 7 5 4 2 с 6 + Ф Ь 8 55 was very solidly placed) 9...dxe4 (9....Sk.b4 10
б}а6+ ? e5 W gb 11 0-0 -&d7 12 ШЬЗ -&xd2 13
55 2Ь6+ simply repeats the position. £3xd2 0-0 14 <53f3 £la5 15 ix b 5 16
5 5 .. .Ф Ь7? Wxb5 Ьб 17 S fc l is good for White) 10
And 55...Фа8 escapes the checks. £3c5 -&d7 (10...Wg5 11 0-0 leaves Black way
56 £ lc 5 + У2 -У2 behind in development and facing serious
threats) 11 £3xd7 < i ’xd7 12 0-0 Wxd4 13
G ame 53 * ъ з and White has a strong attack.
H o d g s o n -R o w s o n 6 . . .W d8
Southend (Redbus) 2001
1 d 4 £ if6 2 £ .g5 e 6 3 a 4 h 6 4 ± x f6
W xf6 5 c 3

7 £if3
The most natural move. Others: ■
a) Andrew Martin gives the dubious 7
b4?l, when 7...a5 8 b5 a41? (8...c5 gives Black
5 .. .d5 an excellent game) 9 .Sk.d3 c5 gave Black
Opting for a French formation. For excellent counterplay in Kosten-Garcia
5.. .d6 see Game 54. llundain, Escaldes 1998.
6 e5 b) Kosten subsequently tried 7 a3 against

113
The T ro m p o w s k y

Могу in Toulon 1999, but after 7...c5 8 b4 rial in Rogers-Epishin, Castrop Rauxel 2001.
cxd4 9 cxd4 a5 10 Ь5 a4 И £>c3 Wa5 12 9 -&.d3 Wb6 10 W e2 &С6 11 0-0 jLd7
Wd2 A e7 13 A d3 <53d7 14 <53gc2 £3b6 15 12 b4 JLe7 13 £ibd2 Hc8 14 аЗ g5! 15
0-0 i d 7 16 f4 g6 Black stood quite well. £3b3 a5 16 Kac1 a4
c) 7 4?3d2 c5 8 dxc5 i x c 5 9 £3b3 Ji.b6 10
<53f3 <53c6 11 -&d3 -&d7 12 We2 W c7 was
equal in Ward-Marusenko, Port Erin 2000.
7...C 5 8 dxc5

1 7 £)a1?!
This looks odd, but Hodgson was pro­
bably worried about 17 £3bd2 g4, although
18 £3d4 is fine (18 4t3el J ig 5 is awkward for
White can consider 8 a.3!?, when Martin White). After 18...£\xd4 19 cxd4 Wxd4 20
mentions 8...£3 c6 9 b4 cxd4 10 cxd4 .Sk.e7, Sxc8+ &xc8 21 &Ь5+ -&d7 22 -&xd7+
but 11 .Sk.e2 —rather than 11 i d 3 —seems <4?xd7 23 Wb5+ Фс8 24 Ocl+ ФЬ8 25 Wd7
to keep White’s space advantage nicely in­ " Wxd2 26 Wc7+ White has perpetual.
tact. Black also has 8...c41? 9 £3bd2 £3c6 10 1 7 .. .g4 18 £3d2 ± д5 19 Дс2 Hg8 20 *h 1
b3 (10 g31 makes more sense, leaving the Hodgson was no doubt leaving his e5-
queenside alone for the moment) 10...cxb3 pawn as bait in order to open lines in the
11 ШхЬЗ -&e7 12 -&d3 £3a5 13 Wa2 i d 7 event of its capture. However, objectively
14 0-0 S c8, which gave Black a good posi­ speaking, it is probably better to safeguard
tion in Mukic-Rogulj, Kastav 2000. the pawn with 20 b5 followed by 21 c4.
8 .. .Д хс5 2 0 .. .1 f 4 21 дЗ £ x d 2 22 Hxd2 Дд5 23
Epishin likes to sacrifice a pawn in this h4 gxh3 2 4 £)c2 Дхе5? 25 Wg4 Hg5
position: 8...?3d7 9 b4 g6 10 lS3bd2 i g 7 11
ДЬ5 0-0 12 £ xd 7 -&xd7 13 0-0 Wc7 14
S e l b6 15 £3b3 -&a4 16 1i rd4 Sfc8 17 S a c l
Wb7 18 £>fd2 S c7 19 c4 -&xb3 20 <S3xb3
bxc5 21 bxc5 Hd8 22 h3 (22 Wh4 g5 23
Wg3 Wa6 24 cxd5 Sxd5 25 W c3 Wa4)
22.. .Hcc8 was V.Milov-Epishin, Amsterdam
2000, and now 23 Wc3\ leaves Black with
inadequate compensation for the pawn.
Meanwhile, 9..~Sk.e7 10 -&-d3 Wc7 11 We2 a5
12 0-0 0-0 13 £3bd2 b6 14 схЬб £\xb6 15
S f c l i d 7 16 c4 dxc4 17 £3xc4 £3xc4 18
Дхс4 also saw White consolidate the mate­

114
 2 ...е6

26 1di,h4?I 6 £d3
White should play 26 Wxh3 immediately Intending to develop with £3e2 and 0-0
as two moves later he changes his mind. whilst leaving the f-pawn free to advance.
26.. .Я д 8 2 7 Яе1 W d8 2 8 ШхЬЗ W f6 2 9 6 . . .£id7
C4 £ie5 3 0 £ie3 d 4 This, togethet with 6...g6, aims for a slow
This looks like time-trouble. Simply plan of development with Black’s bishop on
30.. .£lxd3 31 Oxd3 Wxf2 32 S f l 'Vxgi g7 and knight on d7. The problem is that it
wins for Black. allows White to gain space unchallenged, so
3 1 £if5 ± c 6 + 3 2 ± e 4 e x f5 3 3 Д хс6+ there is an argument in favour of a more
* f8 ? direct approach.
Playing it safe but missing a likely win. a) Black’s main alternative in this posi­
33.. .Wxc6+ 34 ‘i ’g ! We6 (or 34...f6 35 H?d4 tion is the immediate 6...e5, for example 7
Hd8) 35 Sde2 f6 36 f4 Пхс4 37 fxe5 ЯсЗ £3e2 g6 8 0-0 -&.g7 9 f4 exd4 (9...Wc7 might
looks winning for Black, although it is not be better, as in Summerscale-Levitt,
easy to play it like this in time trouble. Southend [Redbus] 2001, when White
34 £ х Ь 7 ’Л-М. should probably play 10 £3d2 followed by
34 -&.xb7 Sxc4 leaves a very' complex po­ 11 to intensify pressure in the centre)
sition, albeit one that still seems to favour 10 cxd4 <bc6 (l0..JLg4 11 Wa4+ *hd7 12
Black. £ibc3 0-0 13 c5 dxe5 14 fxe5 was Wells-
Fish, Bundesliga II 2002, and now Black
G ame 54 should have put his queen on d8 rather than
I.R o gers-A ra kh a m ia g5, with a complex and difficult position) 11
Wijk aart Zee 2002 e5 Wd8 12 4Elbc3 0-0 13 Stcl dxe5 14 dxe5
g5?! (14...Де6 looks more sensible, but
1 d 4 £lf6 2 ± g 5 e 6 3 e 4 h 6 4 £ x f6 White controls useful territory) 15 ^3d5
W xf6 5 c3 d6 gxf4 16 £3exf4 £3xe5 17 Sxc7 .Sk.g4 18 i e 2
* g 5 19 .Sk.xg4 lS3xg4 20 h3 £3e5 21 £3h5
and the weaknesses in Black’s kingside
caused him problems in Hodgson-Ward,
British Championship, Millfield 2000.
b) Another possibility is 6...Wg5!?, throw­
ing a spanner in the works. Then 7 g3 e5 8
£3d2 £ k6 9 S3e2 g6 10 f4 Ше7 11 -&b5
■Sk.d7 was Torre-Kotsur, Asian Champion­
ship, Doha 2003, and now 12 fxe5 dxe5 13
d5 looks like a slight edge for White. I must
admit to having great sympathy for Wells’
attempts to make 7 £3f3 work, for example
7.. .Wxg2 8 flg l ШЬЗ 9 £3bd2 <53c6 (Wells
Along with 5...d5 this is Black’s most gives the line 9...1ИЪ5 10 £3fl Wa5 11 £3e3
popular move. With White having just forti­ when I agree with his view that White has
fied his centre 5...c5 doesn’t make much of compensation) 10 £3c4 e5 (10...-&.d7 fol­
an impression. After 6 £3f3 £3c6 I like 7 lowed by 11...0-0-0 is worth considering) 11
-Й-Ь5!?, for example, 7... # g6 8 0-0 # xe4 9 Hg3 #h5 12 d5 £M8 13 ± c2 ± g4 14 #a4+
fiel gives White a dangerous initiative for c6 15 ШаЗ left Black in trouble in Gupta-
the pawn. Filippov, Tehran 2004.

115
The T ro m p o w s k y

7 £>e2 g 6 8 0 -0 £.g7 9 f 4 W e 7 1 0 £ id 2 1 2 W ei Ь6 1 3 W g3 £.a6 1 4 Д х аб Пхаб

0 -0 1 1 e5 1 5 h 4 h 5 1 6 £ie4 S a a 8 1 7 S a e l d 5 1 8
£lg5 ДИ6 1 9 f5 !

Ruling out ...e6-e5 by Black. White has

also continued to build with 11 « e l , when This powerful pawn sacrifice puts Black
ll...b 6 (1l...e5 is certainly possible here, in all sorts of trouble.
when 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 f5 does not look 19 ...£ .x g 5 2 0 hxg5 ex f5
overly scary for Black given his control of 20...gxf5 21 4Elf4 is not an improvement.
the dark squares) 12 Wg3 -&.b7 13 e5-Sad8 2 1 £3f4 c 6 2 2 e 6! S fe 8
14 £)e4 b5 15 S a e l b4 16 h4! gave White a There’s not much choice but to give up a
good attacking position in Hodgson- piece. After 22...4Elb8 23 exf7+ « x f 7 24 S c6
Rowson, Oxford 1998. Black’s position disintegrates.
1 1 ...a 5 2'3 exd7 W xd7 2 4 S e 5 S x e 5 2 5 dxe5
Aiming to exchange light-squared bish­ S e 8 2 6 e 6 W d6 2 7 W f2 c5 2 8 W f3 d 4
ops, although this uses a lot of time. 11 ...b6 2 9 ex f7+ * x f 7 3 0 W d3 ЯвЗ 3 1 W c4+
seems better, when 12 « e l v/Шthen trans­ * g 7 3 2 cxd 4 c x d 4 3 3 & d 5 S e 4 3 4 £if6
pose to Hodgson-RoWson, above. S e 6 3 5 W c8 1-0

116
 2 ...е6

Sum m ary
2...е6 is a good way to meet the Tromp, with Black having found some new ideas to support
his case. Andrew Martin’s idea of playing along French lines (...d7-d5) is a sound one and
Stcfansson’s 9...ДЬ4 is also good. If White wants a pull rather than an ‘interesting game’ he
would do well to investigate the quiet 5 c3, and 3 e3 is there for those who want to leave the
beaten track.

1 d 4 £lf6 2 Д д 5 еб 3 e 4 h 6 4 £.xf6 ff x fe 5 £>c3 (D)

5 c3 (D)
5.. .d5 —Came 53
' 5...d6 —Game 54
5 .. .6 b 4
5.. .d6 6 'Brd2
6.. .g5 —Game 51
6.. .c6 —Game 52
6 Wd2 (D)
6 Wd3l? - Game 50
6 .. .C5 —Game 48
6.. .d5 —Game 49

117
 CHAPTER EIGHT

2...d5

1 d 4 £if6 2 £.g5 d5 though Black is ‘capturing, towards the cen­

The classical 2...d5 is one of Black’s most tre’ this move does nothing for develop­
solid lines and has a great deal of support ment and makes the kingside a much more
from GMs who want an economical answer dangerous home for the king. Palliser-
to this opening. Black invites White to carry McPhillips (Game 58) with 4 c4 is White’s
out the ‘threat’ to exchange on f6 in the most common treatment. 4 e3 c5 (Plaskett-
belief that the two bishops will provide Jonkman, Game 59) is thought to be very
enough compensation. Black can choose comfortable for Black but White can do
between two recaptures —3...exf6, allowing better by transposing to a Veresov with 5
him free development, and 3...gxf6, aimed £3c3.
at building a pawn centre. Players who want to leave the beaten
3.. .exf6 has been the more popular of dietrack might wish to consider 3 e3 or even 3
two thus far and is illustrated in Games 55- 4t3d2, which are examined in Games 60-61.
57. One of Black’s main plans is the transfer The positions arising from these moves
of the b8-knight to e4 via d7 and (after ...f6- have been little explored by theory and con­
f5) f6. White, on the other hand, has moved tain many interesting nuances.
on from the old set-ups involving an early
c2-c4 or -&.d3 and 4t3e2. These days we usu­ G ame 55
ally see a fianchetto and subsequent support H o d g s o n -T a im a n o v
of an eventual c2-c4 (ideally preparing it Yerevan 1986
with b2-b3 in order to recapture on c4 with
a pawn). 1 d 4 £if6 2 £ g 5 d 5 3 £.xf6 e x f6
Hodgson-Taimanov (Game 55) and Ad- For 3...gxf6 see Games 58-59.
ams-Almasi (Game 56) feature 4 e3 J&.d6, 4 03 £ d 6
which should be met by Adams’ 5 g3 rather 4....Sk.e6 features in Game 57. 4...c6 tends
than Hodgson’s 5 i d 3 . Hodgson uses the to lead to the same thing as the main game
right plan in his game against Tiviakov because Black will probably follow up with
(Game 57), which also features 4...Деб to ...Ad6 on his next move. Although it has
prevent an early c2-c4 by White. been played quite frequently I don’t under­
3.. .gxf6 is much more controversial. Al­ stand the point behind 4..~&.e7 —the bishop

118
 2...d 5
seems more passively placed here and is
unable to eliminate any white knights that
land on f4. Shereshevsky-Uinsky, Moscow
1979 continued in model fashion: 5 g3 0-0 6
,§.g2 c6 7 £ld2 Деб 8 *he2 &Sd7 9 0-0 Йе8
(9...f5 10 c4 £lf6 11 £sf4 Wd7 12 Яс1 g5 13
$)d3 £3e4 14 £le5 Wd6 15 G ^ x d 2 16
'$fxd2 Д f6 17 f4 was also excellent for
White in Hodgson-Upton, Moscow Olym­
piad 1994) 10 ЬЗ G 11 c4 £3f6 12 a3 dxc4
13 bxc4 Wa5 14 W c2 Sad8 15 » f b l Д с8 16
c5! W c7 17 £lc4 g6 18 Wa41 a6 19 Sb2
£ld5 20 S a b i J tg 5 21 A xd5 cxd5 22 £ld6
with a winning position for White which 8 a3
was duly converted. This game is a nice 8 -Й-хаб?! Ьхаб 9 £le2 S b 8 gives Black’
illustration of why White plays Ь2-Ь3 in counterplay on the b-file to compensate for
order to recapture on c4 with a pawn. the weak pawns.
8 . . .£ic7 9 £>e2
In the case of 9 0-0-0?! b5 Black has the
makings of a dangerous queenside attack.
Hodgson keeps his king in the middle for
the time being, keeping Black guessing as to
his intentions.
9 . . .£le6 1 0 c 4

5 iLd3
5 g3 is examined in Game 56. At one
time 5 c4 was thought to be the way to play
for White but 5...dxc4 6 JLxc4 0-0 is noth­
ing. A recent example was Hamdouchi-
Kudrin, Tripoli 2004 which went 7 £)c3 G
8 £ld7 9 0-0 c6 10 W c2 £lf6 11 a3
We7 12 d5 c5 13 ^.d3 g6 14 S fe l -&d7 15 1 0 . . .£)g5 1 1 « h 5 g 6 1 2 W h4 2 e 8 1 3
h3 У2 -У2 . cxd5 cxd5 1 4 £ hc3 ± b 7 1 5 f4 !? f5 !? 1 6
5 ...0 -0 6 Ш13 сб W f2
Another good plan is 6..J&.e6 7 £3e2 c5, After 16 fxg5? -&xg5 17 W{2 ДхеЗ 18
for example 8 c3 £lc6 9 l53d2 Wd7 10 h3 c4 t B -&.xd4+ Black collects three pawns plus
11 i c 2 b5 12 e4 53e7 13 £3f4 -&.xf4 14 a powerful initiative for the piece.
Wxf4 G was about equal in Bellon Topez- 1 6 . . .£ie4 1 7 £idxe4 fx e 4 1 8 ± Ь 5 Ш8
Mikhalchishin, Hastings 1985/86. 1 9 0 -0 i e 6
7 £>d2 Ф аб!? From an openings point of view things

119
The T ro m p o w sk y

have gone well for Black and he can claim 38...Wg4? allows White to turn the tables
full equality. He no longer has doubled f- with 39 Sc7+l -&.xc7 40 Wxc7+ S f7 41
pawns whilst his bishop pair is still intact — We5+ etc. After 38... Wh3 Taimanov gave 39
of course the bishops would be stronger in Wh2 but then 39... Wg4 seems to pose
a more open position, but that is coming... White serious problems. This may in fact be
20 Sac1 S c8 better than the game.
The immediate 20...a6 might be more 3 9 W h2 B f3
precise. Now White gets a chance to com­
plicate matters.
2 1 ± a 4 a 6 2 2 ±ЬЗ Ь5 2 3 f51?

4 0 £if4!
A brilliant defensive move from Hodg­
son. After 40 g4 Sg3+ White would have to
Typical Hodgson, livening tilings up with give up his queen with 41 &{2 (41 ФхП
a pawn sacrifice. Sf3+ 42 'A’g l Sf1+ 43 Wg2 St'2-f wins the
2 3 . . .£.xf5 queen anyway, but under better conditions)
After 23...gxf5P! White has 24 £fxd5! 41.. .fig2+ with Black having whatever
S x c l 25 Wg3+ <&h8 26 S x c l (not 26 We5+? chances are going after 42 Wxg2 -&xg2 43
-&f6 27 £lxf6 S xfl+ 28 * x f l Wb8!, pretty l^?xg2 We6.
well forcing the exchange of queens with a 4 0 . . .g x f4 4 1 W h5! S x g 3 + 4 2 фхМ W g6
won endgame) 2 6 ...ix d 5 27 We5+ j$.f6 28 4 3 W e5+
Wxd5 Wxd5 29 -&.xd5 with a small but clear 43 Wxg6+ hxg6 gives Black the better
endgame advantage. endgame.
2 4 £ixd5 S x c l 2 5 S x c l Д Ь 4!? 2 6 g3 4 3 . . .Ш 6 4 4 W h5!
Д еб 2 7 S c 5 Д д 5 2 8 Ф д2 Ф д7 2 9 Шс2 Here, too, 44 Wxf6+ ,&.xf6 gives Black
W d7 3 0 h41? the better of the endgame because of the
30 Wxe4?l -&h3+ 31 * f 2 Se8 gives Blackvulnerability of White’s pawns.
a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn. 4 4 . . .« д б 4 5 * 6 5 + W f6 4 6 W h5 V4-V4
3 0 . . .± d 8 3 1 W xe4 S e 8 3 2 W e5+ ?! A fascinating game.
32 Wf4 is better. 32...f6 proves to be a
useful tempo for Black. G ame 56
3 2 . . .f 6 3 3 W f4 дБ! 3 4 hxg5 A d a m s -Z .A I m a s i
Or 34 Wf2 gxh4 35 gxh4 ФЬ8 with play M oscow O lympiad 1994
on the g-file.
3 4 . . .^ h 3 + 3 5 * h 2 fx g 5 3 6 W f2 S f 8 3 7 1 d 4 £ lf6 2 ± g 5 d 5 3 £.xf6 e x f6 4 e3
W c2 £ .f1l? 3 8 Ф д1 W d6 ± d 6 5 g3

120
 2...d5

5 . . .c6 1 0 . . .dxc4!
White can meet the immediate 5...h5 with Probably the right decision. The blocked
6 h4. Nataf-Rigo, Paris Open 1995 went positions arising from 10 ...ie 6 11 c5 are
6.. .c6 7 <SM2 Wh6 8 ЙЫ ±f5 9 ДЬЗ -&g6 not very comfortable for Black, who needs
10 h c 2 Wa6 11 £3f4 h d l 12 a3 £3f8 13 to find some counterplay on the kingside. A
,53xg6 fxg6 and now it was White who took good example was Rustemov-Rashkovsky,
the initiative with 14 c4! dxc4 15 W c2 b5 16 Elista 1995 which went ll...jfi.c7 (ll..JL e7
0-0 {5 17 e4! etc. 12 b4 a5 13 a3 axb4 14 axb4 b5 15 ШЬЗ
6 hd2 Wc7 16 ЯаЗ Sa7 17 B fal flfa8 18 Дха7
Adams cunningly delays putting his Йха7 19 ДаЗ Wb7 20 Ша2 ДхаЗ 21 # ха3
bishop on g2 as he might still want it on d3. was better for White in Ward-Akesson, Port
After the automatic. 6 -fi.g2 f5 7 Chc2 £3d7 8 Erin 2000) 12 b4 g5 13 £>f3 £le4 14 *heS
0-0 (8 b3 4Elf6 9 c4 .Sk.e6 10 £3d2 transposes h5 15 ЯЫ аб 16 a4 * g 7 17 £3 £)f6 18 5)d3
to Hodgson-Tiviakov, Game 57) Black can ЙЬ8 19 b5 axb5 20 axb5 cxb5 21 ДхЬ5 >&.c8
sharpen the struggle with 8...h5!?, Karrunen- 22 ШЪЗ h4 with chances for both sides.
Sammalvuo, Helsinki 2002 continuing 9 c4!P 1 1 £)xc4 Д с 7 1 2 ФсЗ
dxc4 10 £3d2 £ЗЬ6 И *hc3 ДЬ4 12 B el In Hort-Kveinys, Bundeshga 2000 White
Ф£8 13 аЗ &е7 14 Дс1 h4 15 £3e2 hxg3 16 varied with 12 « c 2 , after which 12...» e 7
hxg3 -&.e6 and White didn’t really have (12...±e6 13 Che5 £)d5P! 14 £sd3 g6 15 $3c5
enough for the pawn. -&.c8 16 5)c3 £3f6 17 b4! set in motion a
6 .. .0.0 strong minority attack in McDonald-Lukacs,
After this White doesn’t have to worry Budapest 1995) 13 a3 -&.e6 (perhaps 13...g6
about ...h7-h5 ideas any more. After 6...£5 I is a good idea to prevent 14 4Ele5) 14 B a d
think Adams might have played 7 i d 3 , (14 £>e5!?) 14...Had8 15 £3d2 g6 16 Hfdl
preventing 7...?3d7. He did in fact adopt a Bfe8 17 5)b3 h5 18 S3c5 ± c8 19 b4 h4 20
similar idea against Tiviakov in one game — ?3d3 hxg3 21 hxg3 -&.d6 produced a posi­
see the note to White’s 6th move within tion with chances for both sides.
Hodgson-Tiviakov. 1 2 . . .£ s 6 1 3 W e2 W e7 1 4 a 3 Had8 1 5
7 ± g2 f5 8 £ ie 2 <hd7 Ь4 a6! 1 6 ДаМ S fe 8
The knight is on its way to the outpost The immediate 16...h5!P is worth consid­
on e4. ering.
9 0 -0 £if6 1 0 c 4 1 7 ttfc l h5!

121
The T ro m p o w sk y

1 8 £>d2 h 4 1 9 £>f3 hxg3 2 0 hxg3 £>d5! Switching plans. After the alternative 5
2 1 B b 2 a5 ! 2 2 £>xd5 £ x d 5 2 3 W d2 Ad3 f5 6 <53e2 A d6 7 £ld2 £ld7 8 0-0 <53f6
axb 4 2 4 ax b 4 g 6 9 £lf4 Axf4 10 exf4 # d6 11 g3 0-0 Black
In his notes Almasi expressed a prefer­ had an equal game in Yegiazarian-Tiviakov,
ence for 24... Де4. linares 1998. In A.Fernandez-Lazarev, Rl-
2 5 £>e1 _&.xg2 2 6 <5lxg2 B d 5 2 7 Жс5 goibar 1999, White tried playing 5 c4 any­
W e6 2 8 B xd5 W xd5 2 9 b 5 cxb 5 3 0 W e2 way, but after 5...dxc4 6 £le2 _4.d6 7 4i3d2
B a 8 3 1 B xb5 B a 1+ 3 2 i?h 2 Ше4 3 3 сб 8 <$3c3 b5 9 a4 Wh6 10 0-0 he dis­
* Ь 2 B f l 3 4 W eZ covered that 11 axb5 cxb5 12 Wxa8 isn’t
34 Hxb7 is bad because of 34...# g4!, good due to 12...£>c6 13 WxfB-t- A xfS (14
threatening 35...Wh3+!! etc. d5 £>Ь4).
3 4 ...B c 1 3 5 B c5 Д хс5 3 6 d xc5 £ e 5 3 7 5 .. .f5 6 Д д 2
£>f4 i x f 4 %-Vi In Adams-Tiviakov, New York 1994
The queen endgame is completely drawn.1 White played 6 i d 3 , which looks slightly
strange after 5 g3. In any case the position
G ame 5 7 was quite equal after 6...c6 7 £>d2 £>d7 8
H o d g s o n -T iv ia k o v <$3e2 ±d6 9 0-0 0-0 10 c3 <53f6 11 W c2 <&e4
Groningen 1994 12 <2if4 i x f 4 13 exf4 and the players in fact
agreed a draw.
1 d 4 £>f6 2 £ g 5 d 5 3 £ x f6 e x f6 4 e 3 6 . . .c6 7 £id2 £>d7 8 £>e2 4.d 6
A e6
Holding up White’s plan of c2-c4, al­
though whether that’s necessary is a moot
poine in itself. The other move of Black’s
queen’s bishop is 4-.-4.f5, when White has a
good reply in 5 .4.d3!, Shereshevsky-
Barkovsky, Minsk 1981 continuing 5.—4.g6
6 <53e2 .4.d6 7 0-0 4lc6?l 8 ДЬ5 0-0 9 Дхсб
Ьхсб 10 £>ЬсЗ Hb8 11 ЬЗ # с8 12 £lf4 Hd8
13 €la4 Wf5 14 53xg6 hxg6 15 Wd3 with a
clear advantage in the shape of Black’s dou­
bled and blockaded c-pawns.
5 дЗ

122
 2 ...d 5

9 ЬЗ
Preparing to play c2-c4 in a position in
which White can recapture on c4 with the
b-pawn. It seems less accurate to play 9 0-0
in view of 9...£>f6 10 b3 ?3e4, when 11 c4
(11 f3 £>f6 12 c4 h5!? gave Black the initia­
tive in Lagumina-Tiviakov, Castellaneta
1998) loses a pawn after ll...?3xd2 12 Wxd2
dxc4 13 bxc4 Дхс4.
9 . . .£>f6 1 0 c 4 £ b 4
Tiviakov seeks to embarrass White for
having played c2-c4, but Hodgson merrily
sacs a pawn for the initiative. Black has a
couple of very reasonable alternatives here: 33 W a5
10.. .?3e4 11 cxd5 cxd5 is given as unclear by Rejecting the tacit offer of a draw.
Tiviakov, and 10...h5!? 11 h4 £>e4 12 c5 3 3 . ..W b7 3 4 W ei £>f6 3 5 ЯЬс2 W d7 3 6
,§.c7 13 b4 g6 14 a4 * f 8 15 Wc2 * g 7 16 Wh1 a 5 3 7 W h4 h 6 3 8 W f4 a 4 3 9 W e5
Wb2 i d 7 brought about a difficult game Даб 4 0 Дс1 ДЬ6 4 1 Д 5 с 2 ■Sid5 4 2 Дс5
for both sides in Wclls-Parker, British ■Slf6 4 3 Д 1с 2 £id5 V4-V4
I.eague 2003. There’s no way through Black’s rock-like
I I 0 -0 £ x d 2 1 2 W xd2 d xc4 1 3 £>f4 defence.
cxb 3 1 4 £>xe6 fx e 6 1 5 Hfb1 0 -0 1 6
ЯхЬЗ Game 58
Palliser-M cP hillips
MiUfield 2004
1 d 4 £>f6 2 A g 5 d 5 3 £ x f6 gxf6I?

White has good compensation here be­

cause of his powerful bishop on g2 and the
open b- and c-files. It is a bit like a Benko
Gambit with colours reversed.
16 ...W d 7 1 7 W b4 B fb 8 1 8 ДаЬ1 £>d5 A principled move, capturing towards
1 9 W a4 b 5 2 0 W a5 B b 6 2 1 B c1 W c7 2 2 the centre. The drawback is that Black
аЗ Паб 2 3 W e1 W d7 2 4 Д с5 ДЬ8 2 5 h 4 weakens the kingside, and it might be diffi­
ДаЬб 2 6 h 5 W f7 2 7 £ f 3 Hd8 2 8 ДЬ2 cult to develop. The advantage of 3...exf6
Hd6 2 9 * g 2 £>f6 3 0 W b4 £>d5 3 1 We1 was that it opened up the king’s bishop.
£>f6 3 2 W b4 £id5 4 c4

123
The T ro m p o w s k y

4 e3 is the subject of Game 59. keep it on d4 now is the time to indulge in

4 . . .d xc4 protective measures. One possibility is 10
Probably Black’s best. After 4...c5 White ШЬЗ £ЗЬ4 (Ю...Ша5 should be considered
should play 5 cxd5 (5 e3 transposes to here) 11 W d2 i f 5 12 0-0 S c8 13 i b 3 еб
Plaskctt-J onkman, Game 59) 5..Wxd5 6 14 S fd l W e7 15 a3 £3c6 16 d5 cxd5 17
£30. Hodgson-Lukacs, Kcsckemet 1988 £3xd5 which favoured White in Romero
condnued 6...cxd4 7 £3c3 W'dS 8 £3xd4 еб 9 Ilolmes-Sunye Neto, Benasque 1985. An­
e.3 аб 10 ШМ i b 4 И S c l # а5 and now other way is 10 Wd2, with Galyas-Naiditsch,
just 12 Шха5 i x a 5 13 £3b3 would have Budapest 2000 continuing 10...f5 11 S d l a6
been nice for White. 4...c6 is solid but rather 12 0-0 # d6 13 d5 £3e5 14 i b 3 £3g4‘ l5
passive: after 5 e3 i f 5 б £ЗсЗ еб 7 S c l £3g3 i d 7 16 h3 i h 6 17 W c2 t h e 3 18 fixe3
Wh6 8 # d 2 dxc4 9 c4 i g 6 10 i x c 4 White #xg.3 19 S O ^ еб , when 20 d61? would
was slightly better in the game Stefanova- have been interesting, for example 20...еб
Kovalevskaya, Krasnoturinsk 2004. 21 e4 i c 6 22 exf5 Wc5+ (22...Wxe2 23
5 e 3 c5 Sg3h) 23 Wf2 Wxf2+ 24 * x f 2 i x O 25
Trying to maintain the pawn with 5 ...ie 6 ФхО exf5 26 d7“with compensation for the
is well met by 6 £3d2, intending 7 ix c 4 , sacrificed exchange.
while if Black attacks the g2-pawn with 1 0 . ..f5 1 1 d 5 £>e5 1 2 i b 3 a 6
5.. .5g8 White can switch plans and play 6 Preparing to bring the queen to d6, but
g3 followed by 7 i g 2 . The position resem­ this is not strictly necessary. The immediate
bles a strange kind o f, Catalan in which ^...Wdfi can be played, when 13 Wd2 i d 7
Black’s king will have trouble finding a good 14 £lg3 Hac8 15 Wg5 Wg6 16 We3 Hfe8 17
home. <5lcc2 £3c4 18 Wxa7 Wa6 19 Wxa6 Ьхаб 20
6 i x c 4 c xd 4 7 e xd 4 £)c6 S fe l £)xb2 was fine for Black at this stage
Black has also played 7 ...ig 7 , when 8 in Trent-I.Farago, Porto San Giorgo 2003.
£3e2 0-0 9 £3bc3 ‘S ic6 transposes back to Another possibility is 12...'ЙЪ6, when 13
the main game. After Wells’ suggestion of 8 Wd2 i d 7 14 WgS Sfe8 15 £3g3 Wg6 16
Wlfil Black can play 8...0-0 9 Slc2 Slc6 10 Wf4 Sac8 17 S a d i b5 was okay for Black in
£3bc3 Wa5 with a good game. A.Fernandes-Rodriguez Cespedes, Bucara-
8 £>e2 i g 7 9 £)bc3 0 -0 manga 1992.
1 3 W d2 W d6 1 4 W f4

10 0-0
After Black’s reply White will be forced 14...Ф И 8
to advance his d-pawn, so if he wants to The start of some funny-looking ma-

124
 2 ...d 5

noeuvres with which Black seems to want .S.g4) 7...dxc4 8 d5 “5 le5 9 Дхс4 i d 7
to attack on the kingside. Black should be (9...£>xc4 10 Шя4+ $Ld7 11 Wxc4 S c8 was
looking to connect rooks and play on the c- Bigg-Summerscale, Coulsdon 2002, and
ftle, perhaps with 14 ...id 7 followed by now 12 Wb3 might have held the balance)
!5...Sac8. 10 Д е2 Hg8 11 g3 ШЪ6 12 ШЬЗ Sc8 13
1 5 Hfe1 W f6 1 6 U adi Д д8 1 7 £>d4 ^ д б £lf3 ЖхЬЗ 14 ахЬЗ аб 15 0-0 Ag7 16 Hfe1
18 « с 7 * h 4 ? was fairly even at this stage in Cebalo-
The right move was 18...'Brd6, after Tkachiev, Rabac 2004. Best, in my opinion,
which 19 Wxdti exd6 produces a complex is 5 ®c3, transposing to the 3...c5 variation
endgame. of the Veresov Opening. After 5...£)c6
1 9 « if3 Шд4 2 0 h3 W f4 there is 6 Wh5 cxd4 7 exd4 £lxd4? 8 0-0-0!
Tins loses a pawn, but 20...Wh5 21 d6 is etc.
not pleasant, either. 5...<йс6
21 & xe7! £ f 8 2 2 Hxf7 W xc7 2 3 Яхс7
A d 6 2 4 fif7 £ if4 2 5 дЗ <£xh3+ 2 6 ФП
f4 2 7 J lc2
Black isn’t the only one who can make
threats.
2 7 ...Я д7 2 8 Нхд7 Ф хд7 2 9 £>e4 jS.f8
3 0 Ф д2 h6 3 1 Hh1 fx g 3 3 2 ФхдЗ £ e 7
3 3 d 6 i f 6 3 4 £>xf6 Фх16 3 5 £>d2 jS.d7
3 6 ЯхИЗ £ x h 3 3 7 ФхИЗ Ф е5 3 8 £sc4+
* d 4 3 9 £>еЗ Ф е5 4 0 d 7 Ф14 4 1 £ f5
Я д8 4 2 ФИ4 Ф*3 4 3 £>d5 & xf2 4 4 £>f4
1-0 1
8
*5

Game 59 The simplest approach is 5...e6, after

P la sk e tt-Jo n k m a n which 6 c4 dxc4! 7 Wxd8+ Ф ^ 8 8 JLxc4
M ondari%Z onal 2000 Jix c 5 9 £)сЗ Фе7 arrived at a very comfort­
able endgame for Black in Lombardy-lvkov,
1 d 4 d 5 2 A g 5 £>f6 3 A x f6 gxf6 4 e3 Amsterdam 1974. This is enough to consign
c5! 5 dxc5 to the bin, at least as far as a winning
This is seen as an argument against 4 e3, attempt is concerned.
although the position just seems very com­ 6 £>c3 e 6 7 * h 5 i d 7 8 0 -0 -0 b 6 !?
plex to me. Trying to prise open lines on the queen-
5 dxc5 side. Black had a good alternative in 8...f5,
An insipid move according to Wells and, when 9 ®f3 Д хс5 is safe enough. The
actually, I tend to agree. He suggests that 5 immediate 8.. JLxc5 is strongly met by 9 e41,
c4 is White’s best shot although I don’t when 9...d4? leaves the bishop on c5 hang­
think he has great prospects here, either: ing.
5...cxd4 6 exd4 £)c6 (б...'ШЪб 7 ?3c3 Wxb2 9 cxb6
8 4tlxd5 Af5 9 # c l Whccl-l- 10 Пхс1 £)аб In this position 9 e4 is well met by 9...d4!
И c5 ДЬб 12 ®e3 £>с7 13 -kc4 -Й.е4 14 etc.
<53е2 еб 15 0-0 0-0-0 16 Hcdl Shg8 was 9 ...ttx b 6 1 0 £ b 5 ЯЬ8 1 1 £>де2 £>е5?!
slightly better for Black in Anastasian-Leko, И...аб is better. After 12 jLxc6 Дхсб
Moscow 2001) 7 £lc3 (7 cxd5 Wxd5 8 ®f3 (12...'Brxb2+?? loses to 13 ■S?d2 Дхсб 'l4

125
The T ro m p o w s k y

S b l) 13 b3 a position is reached which is Д е 7 2 3 f l 1 d 4 Д с7 2 4 e 4 £)b6 2 5 Де5

very similar to the main line of the Chigorin S ic8 2 6 а 4 Д дсб 2 7 c 4 f 6 2 8 fled 5
Defence, but with colours reversed. -аьб ?!
12 £ x d 7 + S ixd 7 1 3 ЬЗ Ша5 1 4 ФМ Without the bishop Black’s game is
f5? hopeless. 28...Дс5 is a better chance, albeit
probably a somewhat forlorn one.
2 9 £sxe7 flx e 7 3 0 fld 8+ * f 7 3 1 a 5
£)c8 3 2 Ф с2 ДЬ7 3 3 ФсЗ £)e7 3 4 fl4 d 6
flx d 6 3 5 flx d 6 S ic 8 3 6 Даб Ф е7 3 7 c5
The advance of White’s queenside pawns
decides matters.
3 7 . . . * f 7 3 8 Ь4 £ie7 3 9 fld 6 £)c8 4 0
Даб 7 4 1 Ф с4 h 5 4 2 b 5 fld 7 4 3 fld 6
ДЬ7 4 4 сб S ic 8 4 5 fld 7+ flx d 7 4 6 cxd7
£)d6+ 4 7 Ф d5 £sb7 4 8 a 6 £)d8 4 9 Фd6
S le 6 5 0 b 6 axb 6 5 1 a 7 1 -0

G ame 60
Overlooking the following sacrifice. Cor­ H o d g s o n -D a v ie s
rect is 14...Sc8 when 15 £>xd5 cxd5 16 Soulhend (Redbus) 2001
Hxd5 Дс5 is much better for Black than the
game. 1 d 4 £)f6 2 Д д 5 d 5 3 e 3 !7
1 5 £ixd5! exd 5 1 6 W xf5 W a6
In the event of 16...S b 5 White can play
17 c4 S c5 18 Sif4 with 19 <Slxd5 coming.
1 7 flx d 5 W e6
Very much an only move.
1 8 £ sd 41ttrxf5 1 9 S ix f5

3...£)bd7
For 3...c6 see Davies-Van der Weide,
Game 61. The text was designed to get
Hodgson out of the book while keeping
Black’s position fire-proof. There are a cou­
ple more alternatives here:
With four pawns for the piece this end­ a) 3...e6 4 -&.d3 (4 c4 transposes to a
game is hugely advantageous for White. Queen’s Gambit Declined, and 4 is a
Black’s knight is a particularly miserable Torre Attack) 4...Де7 5 f41? b6 6 £3f3 0-0 7
piece because it is unable to find an outpost. £le5 c5 8 £ld2 a5 9 Axf6 ^.xf6 10 0-0 Даб
1 9 ...S g 8 2 0 S h d 1 ДЬ7 2 1 g 3 flg 6 2 2 f 4 11 £ldf3 i x d 3 12 « х а з was somewhat

12 6
 2...d 5
better for White in Karttunen-Keskisarja, 1 2 « х с З ttx c 3 + 13 ЬхсЗ d x c4 14
Finland 2003. i x c 4 A-Vi
b) 3...c5 4 .4.xf6 gxf6 (or 4...exf6 5 £lc3) 14...^3b6 15 Jl.b3 exd4 16 cxd4 Jie 6 is
5 £}c3 transposes to a Veresov Opening equal due to Black’s blockade of the d5-
with 3...c5. pawn.
4 c4
This is asking a lot of the position. White Game 61
delays development by yet another tempo. 4 D a v ie s -V a n der W e id e
£}d2 addresses this but Black could then Reykjavik Open 1998
consider 4...c5!? 5 dxe5 £lxe5 which looks
equal to me. Another move which makes 1 d 4 £>f6 2 £ g 5 d5 3 e 3
sense is 4 £>f3, which will probably become 3 £ld2 seems to be quite well met by
a Torre Attack after 4...e6 or 4...g6‘. 3.. .c5, when 4 еЗ 'ВЪб practically forces
4 . . .£>e4! 5 JLh4 c 5 ? l White to sac a pawn with 5 £>gf3. The posi­
I no longer like this move. Black should tions that arise from 5...ШхЪ2 are similar to
seriously consider 5...g5 6 -&.g3 e6, threaten­ some lines of the Torre Attack, except that
ing 7...ДЬ4+ and developing rather quicker Black hasn’t played ...e7-e6. After 6 B b l (6
than in the game. Axf6!?) 6...Wc3 (6...Wxa2 7 ib 5 + &d7 8
6 £lc3 0-0 is another possibility) 7 JLb5+ £lbd7 8
White could also consider 6 ?3d2, when 0-0 White has a lead in development for the
6.. .cxd4 7 exd4 # a5 can be simply met by 8 pawn, though tests are required to deter­
5igf3. I prefer White. mine the extent of the compensation.
6 . . .tta 5 7 W b3 cxd4 8 3 . . .c6
3...?3e4 4 -&-f4 transposes to Chapter
Three in which the e2-e3 lines are the ones
preferred by many Tromp aficionados. Tf
these aren’t to White’s taste then 4 ДЬ4 can
also be considered.
4 £>d2 <£bd7 5 f4 l?

8 exd 4?l
White should probably have played 8
m .5!?, when 8...'Brxb5 (8...Wb6 9 £lxd5 is
quite strong) 9 £lxb5 ^ d S 10 <2ixd4 leaves
Black’s king awkwardly placed.
8 .. .e5l 9 £>ge2
After 9 0-0-0 £>xc3 10 bxc3 (10 Wxc3 Setting up a Stonewall formation hut
Wxa2) 10...ДаЗ+ 11 * Ы 0-0 White’s king with White’s dark-squared bishop outside
is horribly exposed. the pawn chain.
9 .. 5...£ le4 6 £)xe4 d x e4 7 W d2 h 6 8 ’i h 4
.JLb4 1 0 аЗ Д хсЗ+ 1 1 £>xc3 £>xc3

127
The T ro m p o w sk y

g5 ing alternatives, for example 10 0-0-0 hxg5

Perhaps Black could consider 8...£3b6 11 Ag3. It is not quite clear where Black’s
first, but 9 th c2 is a useful move for White. king is going.
I don’t believe 9...g5 is a great idea, if only 1 0 ...h x g 5 11 Д д З £)f6 12 jL g 2 £ d 6 13
because of 10 Af2. £xd6 *bcd6 14 h3 W g3+ 15 W f2
9 fx g 5 e6 W xf2+ 16 * x f 2

10 g4 1 6 .. .b6 17 £ le 2 c 5 18 d x c5
This seemed like a good idea at die time, 18 S a d i is worth considering.
the point being to try and attack Black’s 1 8 .. .b x c5 1 9 £ ) c 3 У2 - 'h
pawn on e4. There were plenty of interest­ 19 £>сЗ ДЬ7 is fairly even.

128
 2...d 5

Sum m ary
After 3 JLxf6 both 3...exf6 and 3...gxf6 are quite playable, the latter leads to far more diffi­
cult and complex positions. Against 3...exf6 the plan of g2-g3 has become standard, while
against 3...gxf6 it is worth considering 4 e3 c5 5 “£lc3 rather than the 4 c4 fare which has
been popular thus far.
As the theory of 3 Axf6 is getting quite well mapped out, White might also want to con­
sider 3 e3 or 3 ‘Sid2. There arc signs that many Tromp players are now leaning that way,
tempted by the uncharted territory and the opportunity this presents for improvisation.

1 d 4 £>f6 2 Д д 5 dS 3 Дх16
3 e3l? (D)
3.. .?3bd7 —Game 60
3.. .сб —Game 61
3 ...e x f6
3.. .gxf6 (D)
4 c4 —Game 58
4 c3 —Game 59
4 e3 (D) & d 6
4.. .Деб —Crame 57
5 дЗ —Game 56
5 ± d3 - Game 55

4 e3

129
 CHAPTER N IN E

Other Second Moves

For Black

1 d 4 £>f6 2 £ g 5
After my game against Hodgson in Lon­ G ame 62 -
don 1991 I can’t say I’m a huge fan of 2...d6 A d a m s -K a s p a ro v
or 2..g6. Adams-Kasparov (Game 62) tends K ^pidpl^^jatch^^am eJ^L ^ttdonJ^93\^
to reinforce my concerns about the viability
of Black’s structure but it might not be as 1 d 4 £>f6 2 & g 5 d6
bad as all that. Skembris-Nikolaidis (Game 2...g6 (which can transpose) is seen in :
63) showed that Black can do better with an Game 64. 2...c6, 2...b6 and 2,..53c6 are exam- ■
early ...h7-h5 and posting the bishop on h6. ■ined in Games 65, 66 and 67 respectively.
But I still have my doubts about whether 3 £ x f6
Black can equalise. 3 £3c3 is quite possible here, leading to •
I’m pretty sure that the plans based on positions to those considered in my
g2-g3 are White’s best but Vaganian- Veresov book. The text is the Trompowsky;
Botterill (Game 64) features an alternative style move, slighdy weakening Black’s pawn
treatment with 4 e3, 5 £>e2 and an early structure in a way that also hinders active ■
advance of White’s h-pawn. It is interesting development. i
that Kasparov himself has played something 3 ...e x f6 4 e 3 f5 5 g3
similar, but this was in a simultaneous dis-
play.
2...c6 (Hodgson-Lisanti, Game 65) is an
interesting move which makes room for
Black’s queen to come out to b6 but with­
out conceding space in the centre. 2...b6
(Beshukov-Djurhuus, Game 66) looks play­
able for Black even after the nice 3 c4, but I
don’t especially like 2...£3c6 (Trent-Gregory,
Game 67). It is always questionable for
Black to obstruct the c-pawn like this in d-
pawn openings, and even the weird and
wonderful Tromp is not an exception.

130
 O ther S e c o n d M o v e s for Black

This set-up makes perfect sense in this 11 t t c 2 c 6 12 Ь 4 £ e 6 13 W d3 £>e4 14

position. The bishop on g2 provides excel­ £>f4
lent support, for an advance of White’s Not 14 £>xe4 in view of 14...fxe4 15
queenside pawns. For 5 c4 see Game 63. Д хе4 Дхс4. Black’s play looks dynamic but
5 .. .g6 6 £ g 2 £ g 7 7 £>e2 £>d7 8 c 4 £>f6 the lack of flexibility in the pawn structure
9 £ ib c 3 0-0 10 0-0 is a-continually relevant factor.
White can also delay castling and play 10 1 4 ...d5 15 cx d 5 c x d 5 16 H fc1 ttd 7 17
b4, for example Hodgson-Davics, London S c 2 & h 6 18 £>ce2 A f 8 19 a3
1991 went 10...йе8 11 b5 h5 12 a4 ДЬ8 13
a5 ji.h6 14 £3d5 4?3xd5 15 cxd5 Ad7 16
т Л h4 17 0-0 g5 18 # d3 ФЬ8 19 f4 # e7
20 йаЗ and my chest beating on the king-
side proved ineffective. As a result of this
name I became deeply distrustful of Black’s
entire set-up, anti that in spite of the fact
that opening connoisseurs such as Kasparov
and Gligoric have adopted it. The problem
is that the doubled f-pawns hobble Black’s
position by denying him any easy pawn lev­
ers.
1 0 .. .5 e 8
1 9 ...a 5 2 0 Ь5 a4?!
A v e r y aggressive move, artificially ‘iso­
lating’ White’s a3-pawn. But if you see the
cup as being half empty rather than half full,
it can also be argued that the a4-pawn is
weak. 20...Sac8 is safer, with a view to a
mass exchange of rooks on the c-file. With­
out further queenside weaknesses Black can
probably grovel a draw.
21 h 4 & e c8 2 2 H a d ^ d 6 2 3 Ф с З

After 10...c6 White should play 11 b4 and

meet 11 ...$Le6 with the logical 12 Wd3 (12
d5?| cxd5 13 cxd5 JLd7 14 Wb3 Wb6 saw
Black’s dark-squared bishop come to life in
the game Rogers-Azmaiparashvili, Euxope-
Asia Rapid, Batumi 2001), when 12...d5 can
even be met by 13 c5!?, Kozul-Bukic,
Slovenian Team Championship, Bled 2000
continuing 13...53e4 14 b5 g5 15 Habl h5
16 Eb3 h4 17 f3 £>xc3 18 £lxc3 hxg3 19
hxg3 Wf6 20 f4 with White enjoying the 2 3 ...ix f 4 ? !
better game. This doesn’t seem to be consistent with

131
The T rom p ow sk y

20...a4. Perhaps Black should keep his dark- 4 9 JLxa4 Ф ^8 5 0 ± c 6 Ф с 7 51 a 4 W d8

squared bishop on the board with 23...AfB, 5 2 д 4 Ф с 7 5 3 g 5 1 -0
in doing so continuing to monitor White’s White’s king is gaining decisive access to
a-pawn. Now his position becomes very the c5-square.
passive.
24 e x f4 S c 4 2 5 Jtf1 W d6 2 6 W e3 S c c 8 G ame 63
27 £ ia 2 S x c 2 2 8 S x c 2 S c 8 S ke m b ris-N ik o la id is
28....&d7 might be a better try, when G reece 1997
Black can at least entertain the prospect of
some counterplay against White’s b-pawn. 1 d 4 £ 4 6 2 Ф.д5 d 6 3 Jtx f6 ex f6 4 ' e3
29 H x c8 + 3 ix c 8 3 0 Ф>д2 Д е б 31 f3 f5 5 c 4 £ d 7 6 £ с З д б 7 дЗ h 5 !?
£>f6 3 2 W c 3 ± d 7 3 3 £>Ь4 W e7 3 4 W d2
Ф д 7 3 5 W e2 W xe2+
Otherwise White’s queen is going to land
on c5.
36 ± x e 2 Ф48 3 7 ® a 2 £>e8 3 8 £ ic 3 £>d6
3 9 * f 2 Ф>е7 4 0 £>xd5+

. 1 played around with such ideas after my 1

loss to Hodgson in this line in 1991. Black '
tries to induce weaknesses on the kingside
rather than drift into passivity. i
8 h 4 £ f 6 9 j t g 2 jth 6 !?

Despite the win of this pawn the conver­

sion to a full point is still not easy. The
problem is that White’s d-pawn can be
blockaded.
4 0 . . .* d 8 41 £ ic 3 Ф с 7 4 2 Ф>еЗ h 6 4 3
Ф ^2 b6 4 4 Ф>еЗ Ф Ь 7 4 5 d5 Ф с 7 4 6
Ф>d4 f6 4 7 4 ixa4?
As this was a rapidplay game it is likely
that the final moves were marred by time
pressure. The correct plan is 47 g4, followed
by addressing Black’s defence of the e5-
square with g4-g5. Adams finds this plan a
litde later. The point behind an early ...h7-h5.'
4 7 . . .Д х Ь 5 4 8 jtd 1 Д х а 4 Black’s bishop is much better here than on
48...®c4! wins the a3-pawn and looks g7 as it eyes the еЗ-pawn, prepares to ex­
like a draw. Now Black is lost. change any white knight that lands on f4

132
 O ther S e c o n d M o v e s for Black

яПС), in some cases, will support a pawn A very original move but one which
lever involving ...g6-g5. meets the demands of the position. 15 0-0
10 £>ge2 £>g4 11 W d3 c 6 12 Ь 4 a 6 13 g5!? is still a risky proposition.
£rf4?l 1 5 ...W e 7
13 0-0?! is premature in view of 13...g5!, 15...Jk.xf4 16 exf4 is nice for White
but White’s most flexible move is the im­ thanks to the aforementioned reorganisa­
mediate 13 a4, effectively ruling out the tion with Jk.f3 and <
S?g2.
,.&xf4 ideas which appear over the next 16 ^ f 3 £>e51?
few moves.
13..0-0

17 W e2!
17 dxe5 dxe5 sees Black recover the
14 a 4 piece due to the threats of ...exf4 and ...e5-
Once again 14 0-0 g5! is dangerous for e4.
White. ■ 1 7 .. .£ ix f3 18 W xf3 Д е б 19 £>xe6
1 4 ...E e 8 The weakening d4-d5 is rarely good in
Threatening 15...Jk.xf4, when 16 gxf4 these positions and here is no exception, as
leaves White’s h4-pawn weak. The immedi­ 19 d5?! Jk.d7 allows Black’s bishops too
ate 14...itxf4?! 15 exf4! Де8+ 16 * f l will much scope.
soon favour White after he tidies up with 1 9 .. .W xe6 2 0 d5l?
i . B and <S?g2. But here Skembris breaks the rule! Tn his
1 5 * f1 !? notes to the game it was clear that the
Greek GM liked this move. I am not so
sure it was advisable.
2 0 . . .cxd5
20..M e5 looks like a better option to me,
keeping the knight out of d5. After the sub­
sequent continuation 21 E el Eec8 22 < S?g2
c5 23 b5 axb5 24 axb5 Ea3 Black has active
counterplay.
21 £sxd5 H a c 8 2 2 £>b6 H c 6 2 3 a5 Д д 7 !
2 4 S b l Jkf6 25 Ф д 2 £ .d8 2 6 b5 axb 5
27 cxb51?
Here and over the next few moves Skem­
bris displays great creativity.

133
The T ro m p o w sk y

G ame 64
V a g a n ia n -B o tterill
H astings 1974
1 d 4 £>f6 2 Jtg 5 g 6 3 £ .x f6 e x f6 4 e3
Д д 7 5 £>e21?

2 7 . . .H c 2 2 8 £>d51?
Sacrificing the a-pawn. An alternative
way to play is 28 Hbcl S x c l 29 S x c l Jk.xb6
30 axb6 which also steers the game to
equality.
2 8 . . .Д х а 5

An interesting approach which maintains

the option of a kingside fianchetto but also
introduces a much more aggressive plan:
White wants to play h2-h4. When I scoured
my database 1 came across a couple of
games by Kasparov in which he played the
immediate 5 h41? —admittedly, they were in
simultaneous displays rather than against
Kramnik, but the idea deserves noting nev­
ertheless: 5...d6 (5...h5 makes sense) 6 h5 f5
(6...Де6 7 5)e2 c6 8 5)f4 g5 9 5)xe6 fxe6 10
h6 -fi.f8 11 1S ,h5+ soon led to Black’s demise
29 Shd1?l in Kasparov-Chatte, Colmar 1998) 7 5)e2
Running short of time, White misses the 0-0 8 £id2 £id7 9 ®f4 53f6 10 g3 Be8 11
best continuation. 29 Ьб is the correct way iLg2 was Kasparov-Salzberg, New York
to play, leaving Black with a weak pawn on 2000, and now ll...g 5 12 5)d3 h6 would
b7 and a poorly-placed bishop on the a5- have made sense. Dare I claim that Black is
square. better here in view of the weakness of
2 9 . . .b6 3 0 H b c l H e c 8 31 S x c 2 S x c 2 White’s h5-pawn? The old-fashioned
3 2 £>f4 W e7 3 3 S d 4 S c 5 3 4 S d 5 H c 2 Tromp set-up with 5 Jk.d3 f5 6 5)e2 is not
35 H d 4 Ф д 7 3 6 £sd5 W e5 3 7 Wd1 S b 2 very effective here. Emms-Vareille, Paris
3 8 Wa1 S x b 5 ? 7 1994 went 6...d6 7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 c5 9 5)bc3
The clock takes its toll on Black as well. 5)c6 10 dxc5 dxc5 11 5)f4 Д еб 12 #ЬЗ
38.. .5d2! 39 'Bra4 Bxd4 40 'Brxd4 is drawish, 53a5 13 Wa4 Jk.xc3 14 ЬхсЗ Ьб 15 5)хеб
but now the party is over. fxe6 16 Sad 1 # f6 17 W c2 Bad8 18 Д е2
3 9 f4! 1-0 * f 7 19 A d3 * g 7 Vx-Vx.

134
 O th e r S e c o n d M o v e s for Black

5 ...Ь 6 ? ! This loses in dramatic fashion. 10...®c6

British players were very partial to fi- is mandatory.
;Inchettoed bishops in the 70s, but this 11 £ .x f7 + ! * x f 7 12 *ЬЗ+ Ф ев 13
doesn’t fit in with Black’s set-up. The con­ £>xg6 V d 7
sistent move is 5...f5!P, when Black seems to What else? 13...Kh7 14 Wg8+ loses the
be okay. Alburt-Savon, USSR Champion­ rook anyway.
ship, Leningrad 1974 saw 6 £lf4 d6 7 £ld2 14 £ lx h 8 Ш д7 15 * 6 6 + * f8 16 £3d5
£k!7 8 h4 (8 JLc4 £lf6 9 h4 J i d l 10 сЗ c6 & d 7 17 £se7 1-0
was also solid for Black in Christiansen- After 17 £)e7 Wxg2 White delivers mate
( hekhov, Tjentiste 1975) 8...£lf6 9 сЗ c6 10 via 18 £leg6+ * g 7 19 W(7 mate.
£ d3 W e7 11 W c2 £ .d l 12 g3 d5 13 c4 dxc4
J 4 $3xc4 c5 with approximate equality. C am e 65
6 £>f4 d5 H o d g s o n -U s a n ti
Bundesliga 2001
1 d 4 £sf6 2 Д д 5 с б !?

7 h4! h 5 8 c 4 d x c 4
Necessary. 8...c6 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 *ЬЗ
causes acute embarrassment with regard to
the protection of Black’s d-pawn. 3 £>d2
9 Д хс4 ДЬ7 After 3 &.x{6 Black’s idea is to play
Not 9...0-0? 10 £\xg6 etc. 3...gxf6!? (3...exf6 4 c4!? JLb4+ 5 62d2 d5 6
10 £sc3 jth 6 ? еЗ Jk.e6 7 cxd5 Jk.xd5 8 a3 JLd6 9 e4 Jk.c6
10 Д с4 Дхс4 11 £lxc4 0-0 12 ®e2 S e8 13
W c2 was slightly better for White in Hodg-
son-SIobodjan, Germany 1999) with an
‘improved’ version of the 2...d5 3 Jk.xf6 gxf6
lines. However, I’m not sure it is that much
better: 4 c4 (4 e4 d5 5 exd5 cxd5 6 c4 was
played in Morel-Nevednichy, Creon 2002
and now 6...£lc6 seems best with a good
game for Black, while 4 еЗ *Ъб 5 ЬЗ d5
probably gives Black an improved version
of the 2...d5 3 £.xf6 lines) 4...d5 (4...Hlft>6
can be met by the calm 5 Wd2) 5 e3 A f5 6
6dc3 e6 7 &-d3 Jt.g6 was Bellon J^opez-

136
The T ro m p o w sk y

Metz, Richmond 2004, and now simply 8 After 7 Jk.xf6 exf6 it would not be easy
cxd5 cxd5 9 £3ge2 looks natural with the for White to find a way through Black’s
more comfortable game for White. defences, one of the main problems being
3 ...* Ь 6 the f6-pawn.
Black goes on a pawn hunting expedi­ 7...£ sa6 8 0-0 £sb4 9 £ lc 4
tion. 3...d5 has also been played, e.g. 4 e3 (4
,&.xf6 gxf6 5 e4 Wb6! 6 “53gf3 .fi.h6 was
quite awkward for White in Rusev-
L.Spassov, Borovec 2002) 4_5 $Ld3
Ag6 6 £>gf3 ®bd7 7 0-0 £3e4, as in Fer­
nandez Romero-Suba, Seville 2002, and
now instead of 8 JLf4 e6 9 £3c5 £}xc5 10
Дхе5 f6, when White had nothing in the
game, 8 Jk.xc4 improves'. 9...dxc4 (8...Jk.xe4
9 £\xe4 dxe4 10, ?3d2 is also better for
White) 9 £\h4 f6 10 £lxg6 hxg6 11 Ji-{4 and
White has the lead thanks to Black’s man­
gled pawns.
9 ...£ )x d 3
After 9...£3xe4 10 a3 Black’s finds him­
self in serious trouble, for example 10...£3а6
11 £ife5! d6 (ll...£ )f6 12 Obi and 13 Ob3
is deadly) 12 Jk.xe4 dxe5 13 £3хе5 and it is
very difficult to see how Black will survive
W hite’s initiative when ideas like Wf3, 'Bfh5
and S b l are in the air.
10 cx d 3

4 £>gf3!?
Offering a pawn sacrifice. White can also
play 4 £3b3, although the knight isn’t that
well placed on this square. Chemyshov-
Kustar, Budapest 2004 went 4...d5 5 Дх£б
exf6 6 e3 a5 7 a4 £3a6 8 £3f3 Jk.d6 with
rather more than equality.
4 ...W x b 2 5 e 4 W c3
5...d5 is probably best met by 6 .&d3,
continuing to develop as quickly as possible. 1 0 ...b5
After 6...dxe4 7 £ixe4 £3xe4 8 Дхе4 £3d7 9 There’s not a moment to lose. 10...e6 11
0-0 e6 10 c4 White has ideas of d4-d5 or ВЫ followed by 12 Bb3 would trap Black’s
Wd3, with excellent compensation for the queen.
pawn. 11 Scl Vb4 12 Sbl W a4 13 W xa4
6 JLd3 h 6 7 Д в З bx a 4 14 B b 2

136
 O th e r S e c o n d M o v e s for Black

Black has just about survived the open­

ing and even managed to exchange queens,
but he is still way behind in development
and White is threatening to invade down the
b- file.
1 4 ...d 5

2 8 .. J t d 5 2 9 Д а5 Д Ь 7?!
29.. .<
S?d6 looks stronger but takes a lot of
nerve.
3 0 Да7 £sd6 3 1 f h c6+ * d 7 ?
31.. .Фе8 is imperative. Now Black finds
himself in trouble again.
Black might also have considered 3 2 £sa5 Ф с8 3 3 £>хЬ7 £)xb7 3 4 £sd4
14.. .Да6 but then 15 S fb l d6 (15...ДЬ5 16 £>d8?I 3 5 £>f5
d5 with the threat of 17 £id4 is strong) 16
lib 8+ ЯхЬ8 17 ЯхЬ8+ * d 7 18 Да8 Дхс4
19 Hxa7+ Феб 20 dxc4 £ixe4 21 Пха4 sets
Lip a menacing passed a-pawn.
1 5 £>a5?!
Missing something brilliant. White can
play 15 £)ce5 with the point that 15...dxe4 is
met by 16 S fb l!!, threatening 17 Sb8. After
16.. .g5 (probably best) 17 Sb 8 Sxb8 18
ЯхЬ8 ФВ8 19 dxe4 Фс7 20 ПЬ4 Black has a
lot of weak pawns.
1 5 . . .d xe4 1 6 d xe4 £lxe4 1 7 ШЫ f6 1 8
ЙЬ8 ДхЬ8 1 9 ДхЬ8 * d 7 ? !
19...Ф38 looks better, when 20 Да8 аб This is nasty. Black is tied up now and
21 Ha7 is not check. finds himself obliged to jettison the h-pawn.
20 Д а 8 аб 3 5 .. .ФЬ4 3 6 ФЬб Де8 3 7 ЬЗ Де1 + 3 8
And here 20...Фс7 seems more accurate, ФЬ2 £)еб 3 9 £sxh6 jkd6+ 4 0 дЗ ДЫ 4 1
when 21 Дха7+ ФЬ6 22 Sa8 £ld6 is still ФеЗ Д с7 4 2 Даб * d 7 4 3 £lf5 fld l 4 4
not clear. Ф д2 fid 5 4 5 д 4
21 Д а7+ Фв8 2 2 £lxc6 g 5 2 3 d5 e 5 2 4 Supporting the knight. Black might have
dxe6 Фхаб 2 5 Д а8+ * d 7 2 6 £sb8+ felt he could still hold the draw here, but
Фе7 2 7 Дхаб Д ха 2 2 8 Д ха4 the practical difficulties are immense.
Can White win with all the pawns on one 4 5 . . .A d3 4 6 <4>f3 j t e 5 4 7 Д а7+ £sc7 4 8
side? Well, he still has the initiative, and it is Ф е4 ДЬЗ 4 9 £>d4 ДЬ4 5 0 * d 3 ДЫ 51.
not easy to defend as Black. £>f3 jt d 6 5 2 Ф е4 ДЫ 5 3 £>d4 ДЫ

137
The T ro m p o w sk y

I like this move. White exploits the fact

that Black cannot bring the queen out to b6
or a5 by gaining space. Normally the ad­
vance of White’s c-pawn would be quite
risky. After 3 Axf6 exf6 White’s plans
based on a kingside fianchetto arc unavail­
able because Black’s bishop reaches b7 first.
For example 4 e3 Jk.b7 5 £3d2 g6 6 £3gf3 f5
7 c3 Jk.g7 8 £.d3 0-0 9 0-0 d6 10 a4 £}d7 11
a5 £3f6 was about equal in Jansa-Keene,
Amsterdam 1973, and 4 c4 Ab7 5 £3c3 f5 6
e3 g6 7 £3ge2 Jk.g7 8 d5 0-0 9 g3 c5 10 dxc6
dxc6 11 Jk.g2 Wc7 was unimpressive for
After 53...Sxh3 54 £ЗЬ5 Феб 55 £3хс7 White in Stefanova-Wippermann, Catalan
JLxc7 56 Ha6+ White wins the f6 pawn and Bay 2004.
soon g5 will fall. But the arrival of White’s 4 £ > c3h6
king on f5 anyway signals the beginning of 4...e6 5 e4 h6 6 .&,xf6 1S rxf6 1 £3f3 g6 8
the end. iLd3 ±g7 9 h41? £lc6 10 e5 # c7 wasn’t
5 4 & f 5 Д е 7 5 5 Ф д б J>.d8 5 6 & f 7 S b 6 clear in Gutman-Bewersdorff, Frankfurt
57 £)f5 Н ЬЗ 58 £}дЗ Я Ь 5 5 9 ± d 4 Я Ь З 1990, but White has the simple 5 c3, e.g.
6 0 ± е З Ф с З 61 £ le 4 Ф Ь 8 6 2 Ф с 5 Б Ы 5...ДЬ4 6 Hcl h6 7 £.xf6 Wxf6 8 ^3f3 0-0 9
63 £sd7+ Ф с 8 6 4 £>xf6 ЯИ1 65 Д х д 5 J ic 2 d6 10 0-0 ДхсЗ 11 ПхсЗ with what
Я х Ь З 6 6 Н а 4 J tx f6 6 7 Jtx f6 H f3 6 8 д5 looks like an edge. Essentially this is a .fi.g5
£)d5 6 9 H d 4 £sf4 7 0 f id 2 £)h3 71 д б line of the Queen’s Indian but with White
<53д5+ 7 2 Ф е 7 £>e4 7 3 Я с 2 + Ф Ь 7 7 4 not having committed his knight to f3.
Ф И 4 H f4 7 5 f3 H x h 4 7 6 fx e 4 Я х е 4 + 77 5 £ x f 6 exf6
* f 6 H f4 + 7 8 Ф д 5 Я М 7 9 H g 2 1-0

G ame 66
B e sh u k o v-D ju rh u u s
G ausdal International 1994
1 d 4 £)f6 2 Д д 5 Ь6 3 c4!

6 e41?
Cutting across Black’s plan of ...f7-f5, al­
though it turns out that Djurhuus is not
easily discouraged.
6 ...Д Ь 4 7 f3 ? l
This looks rock solid but Black can mix it
up. It is certainly worth considering 7 # g4

138
 O ther S e c o n d M o v e s for Black

0-0 8 Ji-d3 followed by 9 £lge2. 16 Hel c6 17 £}h5! W xfS 18 £>xg7

7 ...f5 !? 8 e x f5 W x d3 19 £ .x d 3 S g 8 2 0 £sh5
Now White is just a pawn up in the end­
game. Some nice technique finishes the job
efficiently.
2 0 ...d 5 21 £>f6 H f8 22 П еЗ dxc4 23
j t c 2 £>d5 2 4 £>xd5 c x d 5 2 5 Я е 5 Д Ь 7
2 6 ЯИе1 ± c 6 27 S h 5 H h 8 2 8 H f5 H f8
2 9 H f6 Jtd 7 3 0 H d 6 Ф с 7 31 & x d 5 Д е б
32 Hh5 Hh8 33 .S.f5 & ae8 34 Jtx e6
fx e 6 3 5 H h e5 * d 7 3 6 f 4 a 6 3 7 a 4 H h f8
3 8 H 1 e 4 H f5 3 9 S x f 5 ex f5 4 0 H x e8
Ф х в 8 41 Ф в З 1-0

G ame 67
8.. .Ш 14+?! T re n t-G re g o ry
I think Black should have preferred the British Championship, Torquay 2002
flexible 8...0-0!? with all sorts of interesting
possibilities available, including ...d7-d5, 1 d 4 £sf6 2 Jtg 5 £ ic 6 !?
...Йе8+ and a combination of ...c7-c5 and
...b6-b5. In the game he loses his castling
rights, which I don’t think is a good way to
follow up a gambit.
9 g 3 W f6 10 W e2+ * d 8 11 W d3 Я е 8 +
12 * f 2
Black is now struggling to find enough
compensation. He tries to attack the 04-
pawn but White has it covered.
1 2 .. .Д х с З 13 Ь х сЗ £sc6 14 <he2 ± a 6
15 <bf4

An unusual and provocative move, but

probably not a very good one. The game is
now in quite unknown territory, but we
should note that what little is known looks
very promising for White.
3 £ lc 3
A solid way to approach this situation is'
with 3 £lf3, when I do wonder about the
merits of Black having his knight on c6.
Bigg-Gregory, Torquay 2002 continued
3...£le4 4 d5l? (4 ДЬ4 looks like a good
1 5 ...£ ,e 7 move to me) 4...£lxg5 5 £lxg5 e6 6 h4 £le5
After 15...£la5 there is 16 £ld5 Wd6 17 7 £)c3 X c l 8 Wd2 h6 9 £sf3 £lxf3+ 10 exB
'йеЗ etc. ^.xh4 11 £>Ь5 0-0 12 0-0-0 сб 13 £>c7

139
The T ro m p o w sk y

W x cl 14 Sxh4 cxd5 15 Jk.d3 and White had tion. After 5 Jk.xf6 gxf6 6 e4 Black would
attacking chances for the two pawns. This is probably play 6...d6, trying for ...f6-f5.
v e r y entertaining, but we’re a long way from 5 .. .cxd6 6 e4 !?
measuring the true strength of 2...£)c6. Another avenue available to White is 6
3 JLxf61? gxf6 is double-edged because it -&.xf61? gxf6 7 £le4 £lc6 8 e3, when White
gives Black the two bishops' and a strong is going to get that d6-pawn anyway.
pawn centre. Hodgson-Havenaar, Guernsey 6 .. .£>c6 7 jtx f6 Wxf6 8 & c4 Wg6 9 £>f3
1991 continued 4 g3 d5 5 .fi.g2 Jk.f5 6 c3 Д е7
Wd? 7 £)d2 0-0-0 8 £igf3 e5 with a com­ 9..WxgZ? could only be recommended to
plex game. the suicidal. After 10 U gl ШЬЗ 11 JLxf7+
the bishop can’t be taken due to the knight
fork on g5.
10 W e2 0-0 11 0-0-0 a6 12 £id5 b5 13
£ d 3 ,Й.Ь7 14 h4 &d8 1 5 Ф Ы

З ...е 5 ?!
In his notes to this game Rabinovich sug­
gests that 3...e6 4 e4 Jk.b4 gives Black a
good game, but White can play 5 e5 h6 6
■&d2 Jk.xc3 (or 6...£ld5 7 1Brg4) 7 bxc3 £le4 15...£>d4
(7...£sd5 8 #g4) 8 # g4 £lxd2 9 Wxg7 Sf8 After 15...£le7l? Rabinovich claims that
10 < S?xd2 with a good extra pawn. 16 h5 ШЬ6 17 £le3 is strong, but Black
4 d5 £>e7 5 d6! seems to be okay after 17...f5! 18 £lxf5
£lxf5 19 exf5 Hff4 with complex play.
16 $3xd4 exd4

A nice positional pawn sacrifice for

which White gets pretty good compensa­

140
 O ther S e c o n d M o v e s for Black

17 f4 (гв-.Л'хГ/’ 29 Sgl+ * f 8 30 П1-18+ * e 7 31

17 <5364 looks better, meeting 17...'Brf6 Sel+) 29 JXh7+ * f 8 (29...*g8 30 Sgl+ * f 8
with 18 'Wg4. 31 Sh8+ < S?e7 32 We4+) 30 Hh8+ * g 7
1 7 .. .П е 8 18 f5 « д З 19 ПИЗ « е б 20 (30...*f7 31 WhSh Wg6 32 Sh7+) 31 Sgl+
® f3 iix d 5 21 exd5 £ .f 6 ? # g5 (31 ...*xh8 32 Wh5+) 32 S h h l! etc.
| don’t like this move, which invites 27 gx f7 -H * f 8
W’hite to advance his kingside pawns with Or 27...<
S?xf7 28 Sxh7+ <&>f8 29 # h l etc.
o f time. 21...Sc8 is better, or even 28 W h l !
21.. .Wei with the idea o f 22...Sc3.
22 д 4 H a c 8 23 g5 jkd 8

28...H xh3 2 9 Wxh3 £.xf6

Or 29...<
S?xf7 30 Wxd7+ etc.
24 f 61 g 6 3 0 S e l l 2 d 8 31 Wxh7 Wg7 3 2 Wh5
After 24...gxf6 White has 25 Hhhl and Wxf7 3 3 ± g 6 Wg7 3 4 t f 5 Фд 8 3 5 Hg1
26 S h f l . sfefe 3 6 ДП Фе7 3 7 We4+ * f 8 3 8 ИЫ
25 h 5 W xg5 26 Ьхдб П еЗ * е 7 3 9 t f 5 Фд 8 4 0 jth 7 + * f 8 4 1 ЯП
Black’s king is becoming fatally exposed. Фд7 4 2 Wg4+ Фд5 4 3 WhS Д08 4 4 a3!
After 26...hxg6 White could blow Black’s ± вЗ 4 5 Jtd 3 1-0
kingside apart with 27 Axg6! with a decisive A stirring attacking game with which to
lead after 27...Wxf6 28 Jk.xf7+! ФхО finish the book.

141
The T ro m p o w s k y

S u m m a ry >
The most respectable of Black’s unusual 2nd moves are 2...d6 and 2...g6, which usually lead
to the same thing within a few moves. However, I have serious reservations about Black’s
chances in these lines because Black’s long-term structural problems make it difficult to
formulate a plan.
Both 2...c6 and 2...b6 are reasonable but have been played only infrequently. My impres­
sion is that White will have a pull, but further practical tests are needed to fill in the details.

1 d 4 £>f6 2 Д д 5 d 6
2.. .g6 —Game 64
2.. .C61? (D) - Game 65
2.. .b6 —Game 66
2.. .£lc6!? —Game 67)
3 & x f 6 e x f6 (D) 4 e3 f5 (D) 5 дЗ - Game 62
5 c4 —Game 63

4 ...f5

142
 INDEX OF COM PLETE GAM ES

A d am s-A lm asi.Z , Moscow Olympiad 1994................................................................... 120

A d am s-K asp aro v , Rapidplay Match (Game 1), London 1993................................. 130
A lek san d ro v -K o tro n ias, 4th ШСС, Istanbul2003 ....................................................17
A nand-K arpov, FIDE World Ch. КО, Lausanne 1998........................................... 108
B ello n L o p e z -E rik sso n , Stockholm 1999 ..................................................................... 61
B ello n L o p e z -G allag h e r, Gibraltar Masters 2004 ...................................................... 56
B ello n L o p ez-M o m p o B a lle ste r, Mislata 2000 ....................................................... 68
B ello n L o p e z -O lse n .P , Malaga Open 2003 ....... ;........................................................ 67
B ello n L o p e z -P e re d u n , Toronto 2003 ........................................................................... 60
B ello n L opez-SchafF er, Mislata Open 2003 ........................................ 58
B e n ja m in -P o p o v ic , Moscow Olympiad 1994..................................................................51
B esh u k o v -D ju rh u u s, Gausdal International 1994..................................................... 138
B ro n ste in -<rV irtu al C h e ss” , The Hague 1995............................................................. 33
B u ck ley.S -G o rm ally, Portsmouth Open 2003 ................................................................... 9
B u c k le y .S -L a lic , British League 2004 ............................................................................... 83
C ertie-D am ljan o v ic , Nis 1993 ......................................................................................... 72
C h ep u k aitis-K lim o v , St Petersburg Championship 2004............................................ 62
D av ies-D e W eerd , Vlissingen Open 1998 ....................................................................... 16
D a v ie s-H o lm ste n , Eikrem Memorial, Gausdal 2000 ................................................. 87
D a v ie s-L ille y , Preston 2003 .................................................................................................. 15
D av ies-V an d e r W e id e , Reyk/avik Open 1998 .......................................................... 127
E a m e s-E m m s, British League 2004 ................................................................................ 106
G o lo d -A d am so n , Las Vegas 2004 ................................................................................... 35
G o lo d -T yo m ld n , Beer Sheva Rapidplay 2004 ................................................................ 28
G u tsch e-D av ies, CFG Championship 2003 .................................................................. 102
H aU -T im m an , Sigeman & Co, Malmo 1999 ..................................................................23
H o d g so n -D av ies, Southend (Redbus) 2001 .................................................................. 126
H o d gso n -G ran t.A , Turnkey 1998...................................................................................105

14 3
The T ro m p o w sk y

H o d g so n -G u feld , Hastings 1986........................................................................................78

H o d g s o n -U s a n ti, Bundestiga 2001 ................................................................................. 135
H o d g s o n -N u n n , Bundestiga 1999-2000...........................................................................80
H o d g so n -F a n c h e n k o .A , Bern 1994...................................... 47
H o d g so n -R o w so n , Southend (Redbus) 2001 ................................................................ 113
H o d g s o n -S h a k e d , Has Vegas 1998 .................................................................................. 11
H o d g s o n -T a im a n o v , Yerevan 1986 ...............................................................................118
H o d g so n -T iv ia k o v , Groningen 1994 ............................................................................. 122
H o d g so n -V a n d e r W iel, Amsterdam Open 1994.........................................................86
H o d g so n -W e lls, Vikings GM, York 2000 ..................................................................... 13
Iu ld a c h e v -Z a g re b e ln y , Uzbekistan 1993 ...................................................................... 73
K arttu n en -V o lo k itin , Uuropean C.lub Cup, llalkidiki 2002 ...................................... 19
M a m c d y a ro v -A ro sh id z e , Uuropean Junior Ch’ship, Baku 2002 ............................. 89
M c S h a n e -Ja n s a , Bundestiga 2002-3 ................................................................................... 44
M c S h a n e-K o tro n ias, Gibraltar Masters 2003............................................................... 26
M c S h a n e -S u to v sk y , Pamplona 2003 ............. 40
M ih alik -K o n o p k a , Slovakian Championship 1994........................................................ 65
M ila d in o v ic -D a v ie s, Valle d ’A osta 2000 ....................................................................... 52
M ila d in o v ic -G u sta fsso n , Germanj-Greece, Huerth 2002 ........................................... 94
N e i-D ie se n , Helsinki 1990................................................................................................... 97
N e i-E b e lin g , Helsinki 1990 ................................................................................................. 98
P a llis e r-M c P h illip s , Milljield 2004 ................................................................................. 123
P la sk e tt-Jo n k m a n , Mondariz Z.onal 2000 ........................................................... 125
R a d ja b o v -P o lg a r.J, Hotel Bali Stars, Benidorm 2003 ................................................. 42
R ad ja b o v -R o m e ro H o lm e s, Benidorm 2003 ............................................................... 37
R a u s is -B a k la n , French League 2003 .................................................................................. 76
R o g e rs .I-A ra k h a m ia , Wi/'k aan Zee 2002 .................................................................... 115
S k e m b ris-N ik o la id is, Greece 1997................................................................................. 132
S te fa n o v a -Ja k sla n d , Dos Hermanas Open, 2002 .......................................................... 30
T h o rh a llsso n -S te fa n sso n , Icelandic Championship, Reykjavik 2004 .................... 110
T o rre -P a ra g u a , Ho Chi Minh City Zonal, 2003 ............................................................ 22
T ren t-G reg o ry , British Championship, Torquay 2002 ................................................. 139
V a g a n ia n -B o tte rill, Hastings 1974.................................................................................. 134
V a g a n ia n -M o re n o C a m e ro , Bundestiga 2003 ............................................................. 77
V y so c h in -S h k u ra n , Independence Cup, Ukraine 2003.................................................. 50
W in a n ts-M a rc e lin , Belgian Team Championship 2002 ................................................. 46
W in a n ts-S c h e b le r, Belgian Team Championship 2002.................................................. 30
W irig .A -K a z h g a le y e v , Trench Team Ch., Montpellier 2004 ..................................... 21t
Z lo c h e v sk y -H o rv ath .T , Bozen Open 1998 ....................................................................66

14 4
 2nd edition

the
trom pow sky
From relative obscurity to one of White’s favourite queen’s
pawn openings, the rise in popularity of the Trompowsky
Attack over the last decade or so has been quite staggering.
Largely inspired by a group of English players headed by
Julian Hodgson and Michael Adams, the ‘Tromp’ has been
enthusiastically taken up by club players and Grandmasters
alike. Even the World number one Garry Kasparov has tried his
hand at this dynamic opening.
The Trompowsky is an ideal weapon for club and tournament
players. From as early as move two White stamps his authority
on the game and gives Black oifficult problems to solve. While
it’s true that the opening has now built up a reasonable amount
of theory, there is relatively little to learn compared to more
mainstream openings and still much scope for original play.
In this book Grandmaster Nigel Davies presents the reader
with up-to-date coverage of this ever-expanding opening.
Using model games for both White and Black, he studies the
key strategies and tactics associated with the Trompowsky.
Written by an expert on the Trompowsky
Ideal for club and tournament players
All main lines are covered
Provides everything you need to know
to play the opening with confidence
Nigel Davies is both an experienced Grandmaster and chess
trainer. A former British Open Quickplay Champion, Davies
is the author of several successful chess books and is highly
experienced in chess publishing. Previous works for Everyman
include A lekhine's D efence and The G runfeld Defence.

EVERYMAN CHESS
www.everymanchess.com
published in the UK by Gloucester Publishers pic
distributed in the US by the Globe Pequot Press