Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Catalan - Raetsky & Chetverik
The Catalan - Raetsky & Chetverik
catalan
www.everymanchess.com
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic
tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.
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
email: [email protected]
website:
www.everymanchess.com
Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and i used in this
work under license from Random House Inc.
CONTENTS
Bibliography
Introduction
d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tiJf3 tiJf6 4 93
2 4 ... c6 5 g2 d6
38
44
58
5 4 ... dxc4 5 g2 a6
96
124
151
165
172
176
181
185
190
BIBLIOGRA PHY
Books
Katalonskoe Nachalo, J.Neistadt (Moscow, 1986)
Beating the Flank Openings, v'Kotronias (Batsford, London 1996)
Winning with the Catalan, A.Dunnington (Batsford, London 1997)
The Queen's Gambit and Catalan for Black, L.Janjgava (Gambit, London 2000)
Die Katalanische Eroeffnung, A.Raetsky, M. Chetverik (Kania, Germany 2001)
Periodicals:
New In Chess Yearbook 1-67
Chess Informant 1-86
Shakhmatny bulletin, USSR/Russia.
Shakhma!J v SSSR
Database:
Chess Assistant: Huge base 2003
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Esben Lund and Jacob Aagaard for moral and technical support dur
ing our work with this book, as well as our families for their forgiveness for our not so secret
Catalan lover.
This book is dedicated to the Catalan bishop. Thank you for everything!
INTRODUCTION
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 93
Between the authors there exists almost a
lifetime of dedication to the Catalan Open
ing. This positionally oriented opening fits
our classical style perfectly and has brought
us much pleasure in our chess careers. There
fore it is quite natural for us to write a book
about this opening, and we have already
done so in German. We should point out
here that, rather than a translation, this is
aimed at being a complementary work, with
slightly different points of gravity. In some
positions, where style is the main factor, we
have chosen slightly different recommenda
tions compared to the earlier book. Addi
tionally, this edition is more up-to-date.
We have decided to use the move order 1
d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 4J O 4Jf6 4 g3 as a Catalan
standard in these pages because in our ex
perience this is more likely to be seen in prac
tice than 1 d4 4Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 dS 4 4J O,
both leading to the same position:
I
found in this book. After 3...cS White has a
choice between 4 4J O, going into the Eng
lish Opening, or 4 dS, transposing to the
Modern Benoni. After 3 .....t b4+ the game
will almost always transpose to the Bogo
Indian Defence, where White would have
played 3 4J O instead of 3 g3.
Th e Catalan
Winning a piece.
28 . . .txa8
.
29 Wila7 + c8 30 Wilxa8+
d7 31 'iVxh8 c5 32 'iVd8 + c6 33
Wilxd6 + xd6 34 f 1 d5 35 e2 g5
36 h3 g4 37 h4 1 -0
The Catalan is a dangerous weapon for
the positional player, and often we find our
selves enjoying a lasting advantage in the
rniddlegame and endgame due to the
strength of the Catalan bishop, or the weak
ness of c6 or c5 and so on. We hope you will
enjoy many such advantages, and that you
find this book useful.
Th e C a t a l a n
C lo s e d C a t a la n : 4
Game 1
iL e 7 5 iL g 2 0 - 0
H . Olafsson-E . Gelier
Reyifyavik 1986
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lL'lf3 lL'lf6 4 g3 iLe7 5
iLg2 0-0 6 c2
The downside to this is Black's reply.
6 . . . c5!
After 6 ... dxc4 7 'it'xc4 a6 there is a major
difference between this and the Semi-Open
variation in that White is not forced to castle
yet, and can achieve a slight advantage with 8
iLf4!, e.g. 8 ... ttJdS 9 ttJc3 bS 10 "iVd3 iLb7 11
ttJxdS iLxdS 12 0-0 ttJd7 13 l:tfdl cS 14 e4
iLb7 15 dS exdS 16 exdS iLf6 17 'it'c2 .l:!.e8
18 h4 h6 19 ttJd2 'i!i'b6 20 ttJe4, when White
was a shade better in Dorfman-Bansch,
Lvov 1984.
7 0-0
White needs to be careful even here. He
could easily get himself into trouble:
K.Grigorian-Vyzhmanavin, Pinsk 1986 con
tinued 7 cxdS?! cxd4 8 ttJxd4 ttJxdS 9 'iVb3
ttJc6 10 ttJxc6 bxc6 11 e4 ttJb4 12 0-0 cS!,
when White was behind in development and
was therefore not suited by the open charac
ter of the position. After 13 ttJa3 ttJc6 14
iLe3 l:!.b8 15 "iVc3 ttJd4 16 'lithl iLa6 17
fdl eS 18 b3 'it'c8 19 "iVaS .l:!.b4 Black had a
slight edge.
There is also 7 dxcS 'it'aS+ 8 ttJc3 dxc4 9
ttJd2 'it'xcs 10 ttJa4 "iVaS 11 "iVxc4 iLd7, e.g.
12 iLxb7 iLbS! (an important zwischenzug as
after 12 ... iLxa4? 13 iLxa8 ttJbd7 14 iLg2
8 . lL'lc6
Interesting is 8 ... e5!? 9 ttJfS d4 10 ttJxe7+
'iixe7 11 iLgs ttJc6 12 ttJd2 h6 13 i.xf6
'it'xf6 14 c5 iLfS 15 'it'a4 as in Zilberstein
A.Geller, Belgorod 1989. Now it is possible
for Black to continue I s .. :iVg6 16 ttJc4 i.e4
17 ttJd6 iLxg2 18 'litxg2 'iVe6 with reasonable
chances. It is not clear that the d6-knight is
well placed.
9 lL'lxc6 bxc6 1 0 b3
White has also tried 10 l:td l 'iib 6 11 ttJc3
iLa6 12 iLe3 'i!Vb7 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 iLd4 but
without much success. After 14.J:tac8 15
'i!Vb3 iLc5 16 'ili'xb 7 iLxb 7 17 e3 iLxd4 18
.uxd4 .l:!.cs 19 ltad1 as 20 iLfl iLc6 21 h3
l:tb8 a draw was agreed in Gulko-Khalifman,
Lucerne 1997.
1 0 . . a5
This looks like a luxury that offers Black
nothing in terms of development. Serious
. .
Th e C a t a l a n
1 5 . . :ii'e 7
White is already a little better. After
1 5 ... iLxb2 1 6 'ti'xb2 'iib 6 1 7 e4 ttJc5 1 8 iVd4!
dxc4 1 9 ttJe5.l::!. fd8 20 ttJxc4.l::!.xd4 21 ttJxb6
l:.cd8 22.l::!.xd4.l::!.xd4 23 fl i.xfl 24 'itxfl
ttJxe4 25 l':txc6 the endgame was slightly
10
C lo s e d C a t a la n : 4
Game 2
Pigusov-Goldin
Irkutsk 1986
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 iLe7 5
iLg2 0-0 6 0-0 c6
Black has some inventive alternatives:
6 ...ltJa6 7 ltJc3 c5 8 cxd5 exd5 is a Tar
rasch with the knight on a6 instead of c6, a
feature that sees Black without any hold on
d4. Rausis-Ponomariov, Enghien les Bains
1 999 went 9 dxc5 ltJxc5 1 0 i.e3 i.g4 1 1 h3
.Jte6 12 ltJd4 J:tc8 1 3 nc1 a6 14 l:tc2 b5 1 5
a3 'ii'd 7 1 6 'it>h2 lIfd8 1 7 lId2 'iib 7 1 8 'ilVb1
ltJce4 1 9 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 20 lld3 .Jtd7 21 l:tfd 1
with a slight edge for White.
6 ... ltJc6 7 'ic2 ltJb4 8 'ib3 dxc4 9 'ifxc4
b5!? is ambitious but weakening. Then 1 0
3 a s 1 1 ltJc3 J:tb8 1 2 .Jtf4 a4 1 3 'ifd1
.Jtb7 1 4 nc1 ltJbd5 1 5 ltJxd5 ltJxd5 was an
edge for White in Kengis-Hertneck, Ger
many 2000. Here 9 ... b6 looks solid but is not
too exciting for Black: 10 ltJc3 i.a6 1 1 'tIYb3
c5 1 2 dxc5 .Jtxc5 1 3 ltJe5 l:.c8 1 4 .Jtg5 'ilVd4
1 5 i.f4 ltJbd5 1 6 e3 'iVb4 17 l:tfd1 ltJxf4 1 8
gxf4 l:tc7 1 9 ltJc6 'iYc4 20 'ifc2 .Jtxe3?!
(20 ... ltJg4!? with an unclear game is better,
with the following tactical justification: 2 1
b3?! ltJxe3 2 2 fxe3 'ixf4 and Black has good
counterplay; 21 ltJd4 improves) 21 fxe3.l!Ixc6
22 l:td4 'ilVc5 23 SLxc6 'ifxc6 24 'ifg2 'ifc7 25
lIad1 .Jtb7 26 ltJb5 'iVb8 27 'iVd2 and White
was on his way to winning in Rausis-Kulaots,
Sweden 2000.
7 ttJc3
iL e 7 5 iL g 2 0 - 0
Th e C a t a l a n
9 e4! dxc4
Black loses a pawn after 9 ... ttJbd7? 1 0
ttJxc6! .i.xc6 1 1 exd5 exd5 1 2 cxd5 .i.b7,
when White has 13 d6! .i.xg2 14 dxe7 'it'xe7
1 5 'it>xg2 l:tfd8 1 6 'it'f3 l:tac8 1 7 .l:tdl 'it'b4 1 8
.l:tb 1 h 6 1 9 .i.f4 'iia5 20 d5, which was close
to winning in Poluliahov-Dragomaretsky,
Sochi 1 996. Black was also rather quickly in a
bad way in Korchnoi-Yusupov, Rotterdam
1 988, finding himself clearly worse after
9 ... ttJa6 1 0 .i.f4 dxc4 1 1 ttJxc4 b5 1 2 ttJe3
ttJd7 13 ttJg4 b4 14 ttJa4 ttJb6 1 5 ..te3 ttJc4
1 6 .l:tel ttJxe3 1 7 ttJxe3 .l:tc8 1 8 e5! etc.
1 0 ttJxc4 i.a6
The weakening of the queenside with
1 0 ... b5 seems risky. For example 1 1 ttJe3 b4
12 e5 bxc3 1 3 exf6 .i.xf6 1 4 bxc3 ttJd7 1 5
i.. a3 .l:te8 1 6 .l:tbl ttJb6 1 7 ];tel 'YWc7 1 8 ttJg4
i.e7 1 9 .i.xe 7 .uxe 7 20 ttJe5 led to a clear
12
20 . . . ttJd5 ! ?
Black has t o try something. 2 0. . .bxa3 2 1
.i.xa3 c5 2 2 d 5 gives White a clear lead.
21 axb4!
r------_
Game 3
Topalov-Kramnik
Unares 1997
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lbf3 lbf6 4 g3 .Jte7 5
.Jtg2 0-0 6 0-0 ttJbd7 7 ttJc3 ! ?
This gambit line i s n o longer s o 'hot' thanks in part to what now develops.
7 . . . dxc4!
ture.
8 . ..lt:Jb6 9 'ili'e2 cS 10 dxcS .JtxcS 1 1 ttJeS
.Jtd7 1 2 .l:.dl 'iVe7 1 3 .JtgS gives White a
slight edge, this being transfonned to a dan
gerous attack in Gretarsson-Bjornsson, Reyk
javik 1 999 after 1 3. .. h6 1 4 .Jtxf6 gxf6 I S ttJg4
cj;;g7 1 6 eS! f5 1 7 ttJf6 .Jtc6 1 8 g4 .l:.fd8 1 9
.Jtxc6 bxc6 2 0 cj;; h 1 .
8. . .c S 9 d S exdS 1 0 exdS ttJb6 1 1 ttJeS
.Jtd6 12 f4 l:te8 13 a4 as (13. .. .JtxeS 14 fxeS
nxeS I S .Jtf4 gives White a strong attack for
the pawns; the lead in development is the
most important factor here) 1 4 ttJbS .Jtf5 I S
J:[e1 ttJg4 1 6 ttJxg4 J:[xe 1 + 1 7 'iVx e 1 .Jtxg4 1 8
.Jtd2 'ili'e7 1 9 'ili'xe7 .Jtxe7 20 d6 .Jtf6 21
.Jtxb7 .l:.b8 22 .Jtc6 .Jtxb2 23 l:tel was an
edge for White in Petursson-Dutreeuw, San
Bernadino 1 989 .
8 ... a6!? is an interesting option, Black try
ing to hang on to the pawn. 9 a4 J:[b8 1 0 as
bS 1 1 axb6 cxb6 1 2 .Jtf4 lIa8 1 3 ttJd2 bS 1 4
ttJxbS ttJb6 IS .Jtc7 'ili'd7 16 .Jtxb6 'ixbS 17
.JtaS is good for White according to Volzhin,
so Kramnik-Lputian, Wijk aan Zee 2000
went l 1 ...ttJxb6 1 2 'iVe2 .Jtb7 1 3 .l:!.dl .Jtb4
14 ttJeS as! (making way for ... .Jta6 in case of
ttJxc4 and improving on 14 ...'ie7, which
gives White the chance to win a tempo and
claim an advantage with I S .JtgS! h6 1 6 .Jtxf6
'iWxf6 1 7 ttJxc4 ttJxc4 1 8 'ii'x c4 'ili'e7 1 9 eS
.Jtxg2 20 cj;;xg2, as in Volzhin-Neverov, Du
bai 2001) I S ttJa2 na8 1 6 .JtgS?! (1 6 .Jtf4!?
looks like an improvement) 16 ... .Jte7 and
now 1 7 ttJxc4? .Jta6 1 8 b3 a4 1 9 .Jtxf6 axb3
20 'ili'g4 .Jtxf6 21 ttJxb6 cxb6 22 eS .Jte7
resulted in a clear advantage for Black.
Kramnik gives the lesser evil 1 7 ttJc3, when
the strongest is 1 7 ... ttJfd7! 1 8 ttJxd7 'ii'xd7 1 9
.Jte3 a4 with the better game for Black.
9 a4 e 5 ! ?
A n interesting, fresh try. Older games
contribute the following knowledge:
9 ... aS 1 0 'ili'e2 ttJb6 1 1 J:[dl .Jtb4 1 2 ttJeS
'ili'e7 1 3 .Jte3 .Jtd7 14 ttJxc4 ttJxc4 I S 'ili'xc4
and now Black went wrong in Botvinnik
Em.Lasker, Moscow 1 936 with I S ... bS?! 1 6
13
Th e C a t a l a n
A key tactic.
24 ttJxg4
24 'iid2 .l:txh3+! 25 i.xh3 ttJf3+ wins for
Black, while 24 f3 loses to 24 ... ttJxf3+! 25
i.xf3 i.xh3 with a deadly attack after 26
ttJg2 'ifc3! etc.
24 . . . ttJxg4+ 25 'iWxg4 'iWxc2 26 'iWg5
26 f4 runs into 26 ... ttJf2! 27 'iff3 l:Ixh3+
28 .i.xh3 ttJg4+ 29 hl 'iWh2 mate.
26 . . . ttJxf2! 27 %:txf2
27 'it'xcs again meets with 27 ... .l:!.xh3+!,
now with a twist after 28 'it>g1 Uh1+! 29
C lo s e d C a t a la n : 4
Game 4
Romanishin-Ribli
8 . . . b6
Black has two main alternatives:
8 ...'iVb6 appears inadequate. White was a
litde better in Korchnoi-S.Polgar, Munich
2000 after 9 .l:.d 1 'it'xb3 10 axb3 b6 1 1 e4
i.b 7 1 2 e5 ttJe8 1 3 .tg5 .txg5 1 4 ttJxg5 h6
1 5 ttJh3 ttJc 7 1 6 ttJf4 a5 1 7 h4 i.a6 1 8 l:tac1
.l:.ac8 1 9 cxd5 cxd5 20 J:td2.
But 8 ... ttJb6!? looks sound. Then 9 c5
ttJbd7 10 c2 b6 1 1 b4 a5 12 b5 i.b7 1 3
cxb6 cxb5 1 4 ttJxb5 xb6 1 5 .l:.bl .l:.fc8 1 6
d3 i.a6 1 7 a4 i.b4 1 8 ..td2 ..txb5 1 9 axb5
:c4 gave Black the initiative in Martynov
Sherbakov, Taby 1 99 1 . This leaves 9 cxd5
cxd5, when an interesting idea is 10 l:tdl !?
with the point that after 1 0 ... .td7 1 1 ttJe5
.l:.c8 12 i.f4 White is a lime better. Instead
Chetverik-o.Kozlov, Pecs 1 996 went 1 0
ttJe5 ttJfd7! (the knight o n b 6 i s the better
placed of the two) 1 1 e4 ttJxe5 12 dxe5 d4 1 3
.I:tdl i.c5 1 4 ttJb5 .id7 1 5 a4 a6 and now
White should have played 1 6 ttJd6 ..txd6 1 7
ii.. e 7 5 ii.. g 2 0 - 0
Th e C a t a l a n
1 3 .ltc7 ! ?
16
C lo s e d C a t a la n : 4 .
. .
i. e 7 5 i.g2 0 - 0
24 tt:lxg6!
17
Th e Ca t a l a n
1 4 . . Jbc5? !
Preferable IS 1 4...tLlxc5 1 5 'ii'f l 'iVeS
(1 5 ...tLlfd7!?) 1 6 tLlb5 tLlce4 1 7 tLlfd4 i.c5 I S
iLb2, when I S ...l:tdS should limit White to a
slight advantage. Worse is I S ...'iVe5?! 1 9 'ii'e2
iLxb5 20 cxb5 l:tcdS 21 tLlc6 l:txd1+ 22
l:txdl 'iVf5 23 i.d4, when Black was strug
gling a little in Gleizerov-Perez, Malaga 2001 .
1 5 ltJb5 xb5 1 6 cxb5 d5 1 7 ltJd4 ltJe5
After 17 ... tLlc5 IS 'iVc4 tLlfe4 1 9 i.e3 i.f6
20 iLO! White stands clearly better according
to Gleizerov. The main idea behind iLo is,
of course, to protect the rook. Now tLlf5 and
tLlc6 are threats, and Black will probably have
to give up his second bishop.
1 8 'ific3
IS 'iVe2? would be a slip as after IS ... i.c5! !
Black assumes the initiative.
1 8 . . . c5 1 9 b2!
Forced. 19 i.e3? tLlfg4! 20 i.xd5 'ii'x d5
21 'irb3 'iVe4 22 'irbl 'iNaS gives Black a
sensational attack, and 1 9 i.xd5? 'iVxd5 20
iLe3 iLxd4 21 iLxd4 tLlf3+ 22 Wfl tLlxh2+
23 Wg 1 tLlf3+ 24 Wfl tLlxd4 25 'iVxd4 'ifh 1+
26 e2 l:teS+ looks deadly.
1 9 . . . d6 20 d2 'ifid7
18
2 1 . . . 'ilfg4
2 1 ...tLld5? 22 .txd5! l:txd5 23 tLlb3 and
White wins material. 21 ...l:tdS 22 tLlb3! is also
very uncomfortable.
22 h3!
This leads by force to a highly favourable
ending.
22 . . . xd4 23 hxg4 xc3 24 xc3 xd2
25 xd2 ltJexg4 26 c6 h5 27 f3 ltJe3
28 xf6 gxf6 29 d7
White has all the chances.
29 . . . 'it>g7 30 xa7 d8 31 d7 !
The minor piece endgame i s winning, and
the attack on f7 cannot be allowed.
3 1 . . . xd7 32 xd7 ltJc4 33 'it>f2 'it>f8 34
h3!
The h5-pawn is the target of this bishop
manoeuvre.
34 . . . 'it>e7 35 f1 ltJa3 36 f4 'it>d6 37
e2 'it>c5 38 xh5 ltJxb5 39 xf7 'it>d4
40 'it>f3 ltJd6 4 1 b3 f5 42 g4
White does not hesitate in creating a deci
sive passed pawn. An important point to
notice here is that as is a light square, so
White does not risk having a pawn + bishop
versus king scenario in which he cannot win.
42 .. .fxg4+ 43 'it>xg4 b5 44 'it>g5 b4 45
'it>g6 ltJe4
Clo s e d C a t a la n : 4
ii.. e 7 5 ii..g2 0 - 0
Th e Ca t a la n
1 9 c 1 lLlc6
Forced. After 19 ... d6 20 .if3 l:txc1 21
.ixe2 l:txb 1 22 l:txb 1 ltJc6 23 l:ta4 White is
close to winning.
20 xc6 l:txc6 21 l:txe7 l:tfc8 22 lLlb3 h5
23 l:ta7? !
White should play 2 3 e3!? ltJd5 2 4 l:ta7
J:k2 25 l:tel "it'd3 26 ltJal ltJxe3 27 ltJxc2
ltJxc2 28 .l:i.c1 l:!.c3 29 .l:.b7 with decent
chances of success.
23 . . . h4
Black needs to create some insecurity
around his opponent's king, but this is not
the only way. After 23 ... .l:!.c2 24 ..ia3 ltJg4 25
'iVel (25 'it'dl 'iVxdl 26 lhdl lhf2 27 l:td2
l:tf3! and Black is still fighting) 25 ... "it'xel 26
l:txe 1 J::tx f2 27 J::tc 1 J::tc c2! 28 .l:!.xc2 llxc2
there are still some drawing chances.
24 f4 lLld5 25 .!:te 1 'tWg4 26 'tWd 1 'tWxd 1
27 l:txd 1 l:tc3 28 l:tb 1 l:td3
28 ... ltJxf4 29 gxf4 l:tf3 30 l:tb7 .l:!.c6 31
llc1 l:td6 also offered stubborn resistance.
29 l:ta2 l:tcc3 30 l:tab2 h3? !
30 ... ltJxf4 31 gxf4 l:!.f3 was necessary ac
cording to Nogueiras.
31 f 1 lLlxf4 32 gxf4 l:tf3?
A blunder. After 32 ... 'lith7 33 'litel 'it>g6
White still needs to solve some technical
problems before he can write 1 -0 on the
score sheet.
33 lLlc 1 ! 1 -0
Game l
Chiburdanidze-Vaganian
Biel 1994
1 8 . . . 'tWxe2! ?
Essentially a piece sacrifice. 1 8 ... .id6 1 9
e3 ltJc6 20 l:ta2 gives White a modest but
enduring advantage. The passed pawn IS
more a weakness than a strength.
20
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 g3 e7 5
g2 0-0 6 0-0 lLlbd7 7 'ii'c 2 c6
This slow build-up is the main line, and
the way the position should be played. How
ever, there are two notable alternatives.
7 ... c5 8 cxd5 ltJxd5 9 ltJc3 ltJxc3 (9 ...liJb4
10 iVb3 b6 1 1 lldl ltJc6 12 d5! favours
White, and in Adianto-Dao Thien Hai, Is
tanbul 2000 the subsequent continuation
1 2 ... ltJa5 1 3 c2 exd5 1 4 ltJxd5 ..ib7 15
C lo s e d C a t a l a n : 4
e 7 5 g2 0 - 0
21
Th e C a t a l a n
1 3 . . . b7
The strange looking 1 3. .. lLlb8 14 .1i.f4
.1i.d6 was played in Korchnoi-Spraggett, Wijk
aan Zee 1 985. Now White could try 15 b4!?
.1i.xf4 16 bxc5 'iic 7 17 gxf4 .1i.xc4 18 'it'd2
when the control over e5 and the weak a
pawn, together with his own protected
passed pawn, secure a lead.
1 4 a3 tLie4
Also possible is 14 ... l:tfe8 1 5 lLlbd2 cxd4
1 6 .1i.xe7 lIxe7 17 'iixa7 e5, as in Tratar
Atalik, Nova Gorica 1 999. Black should
never get into trouble here, and Atalik earned
approximate equality after 1 8 'ii'x b6 lLlxb6 1 9
lIa7 lIcc7 2 0 c5!? lIxc5 21 lLlxe5 lLlc8 22
lLld3 lIc3 23 lIa4 lIxe2 24 ltxd4 g5 25 lLlb4
lLle7 26 i.f1 .t!.e6 27 lId3 lIc5.
1 5 e3 f6 1 6 b2 dxc4 1 7 bxc4 z:.b8
1 8 tLic3
22
C lo s e d C a t a la n : 4
Game 8
Kengis-M . G u revich
Jurmala 1985
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tLif3 tLif6 4 g3 iLe7 5
iLg2 0-0 6 0-0 tLibd7 7 ifc2 c6 8 iLf4 ! ?
iL e 7 5 iL g 2 0 - 0
1 0 . . . !!.c8
The immediate to ... c5!? is possible, e.g. 1 1
exd5 exd5 1 2 l:tfe 1 l:tc8 1 3 'ii'fS !? dxc4 1 4
l2Jxc4 g6 1 5 h3, which was seen in
D.Gurevich-Browne, Key West 1 994. Now
Black should have played 1 5 ... cxd4 1 6 l2Jd6
xd6 17 xd6 l:te8 1 8 l2Jxd4 ..ixg2 1 9
"it'xg2 l2Jc5 with equality (Browne) .
1 1 lXad 1
White also achieves very little from closing
the position. After 1 1 e5 l2Je8 12 h4 h6 1 3
cxd5 cxd5 1 4 d3 c7 1 5 e3 .ta6 1 6
l:t fb l 'iVc2!? 1 7 l2Jel "ij' fS 1 8 l2Jdf3 l2Jc7 1 9
l:tc1 l:tfd8 20 l:tc2 l2Je8 2 1 .l:tac1 l2J rn the
position was complicated but no worse for
23
Th e C a t a l a n
Game 9
Dautov-Tiviakov
Venlo 2000
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tZlf3 tZlf6 4 g3 e7 5
g2 0-0 6 0-0 tZlbd7 7 'i!t'c2 c6 8 f4 b6
9 l:td 1
9 . . . b7
Here this is sounder than 9 ... i.a6, as now
White would have different options:
10 b3 l:!.c8 1 1 ttJc3 dxc4 12 ttJd2 b5!? 1 3
bxc4 bxc4 1 4 'iVa4 i.b5 1 5 ttJxb5 cxb5 1 6
'iVxb5 'itb6 1 7 'ir'xb6 ttJxb6 presented Black
with interesting counterplay in Delchev
Beliavsky, Moscow 200 1 .
1 0 ttJe5! uses the posting o f the bishop on
f4 creatively. After 1O .. .'c8 1 1 ttJc3 Black
has tried a couple of moves. 1 1 ...7 12 b3
l:.ac8 1 3 e4 h6 14 ttJxd7 'ir'xd7 1 5 e5 ttJe8 1 6
1i.f1 ttJc7 1 7 a4 1i.b7 1 8 'ilVe2 favoured White
in Burmakin-Graf, Ohrid 2001 . It is not clear
where Black will find genuine counterplay; a
lack of breathing space is a problem.
Wojtkiewicz-Zubarev, Moscow 2002 went
1 1 ....l1.xc4 12 ttJxc4 dxc4 1 3 ttJe4 h5 14 ttJd6
i.xd6 1 5 i.xd6 l::.d 8 1 6 a4 with an advantage
for White. The two bishops are clearly
stronger than the knights.
C lo s e d Ca t a la n : 4
1 0 4:le3 dxe4
Also possible is lO ... .l:!.c8. Then after 1 1
ttJeS ttJhS 1 2 3l.d2 ttJhf6 1 3 e4 cS Black has
good counterplay. In Fridman-Yusupov,
Essen 2002 a draw was agreed after 1 4 exdS
cxd4 1 5 ttJc6 3l.xc6 1 6 dxc6 ttJeS 1 7 ttJbS
ttJxc6 1 8 f4 'iVd7 19 J:tac1 3l.cS 20 xc6
lhc6 21 3l.eS 'iVe7 22 3l.xd4.
Now the strongest approach appears to be
the slow 1 1 b3, e.g. l 1 ...ttJhS 12 3l.c1 f5 1 3
b2 3l.d6 1 4 e 3 ttJhf6 1 5 ttJe2 ttJe4 1 6 ttJf4
'iWe7 1 7 ttJeS! ttJxeS 1 8 dxeS b8 1 9 a4 with
a pleasant game for White in Marin
Pogorelov, Andorra 1 994.
1 1 4:ld2 4:lh5 1 2 4:lxe4 4:lxf4 1 3 gxf4
"fie 7 1 4 e3 J:.aeS 1 5 J:.ab 1
In Lautier-Tiviakov, Mondariz 2000 White
played 1 5 l:tac1 ttJf6 1 6 a3 ttJdS 1 7 ttJeS d6
1 8 'iVa4 ttJxc3 1 9 l::tx c3 xeS 20 fxeS f6 21
f4 a8 22 b4 'iVf7 23 'iVc2 'iVhs 24 l:td2 fxeS
25 dxeS and achieved lasting pressure.
1 5 . . . 4:lf6 1 6 b4 4:ld5 1 7 a3 f5! ?
1 7 . . .ttJxc3 1 8 'it'xc3 c S 1 9 dxcS xg2 20
'it'xg2 bxcS 21 bS gives White a long lasting
advantage due to the strong knight and the
potential passed pawn, which will soon come
to b6.
1 S 4:le5 ii.. d 6 1 9 l:tbe 1 "ile7 20 "ila4 a6
21 "ilb3
2 1 . . . g5!
Black needs to create counterplay, other
wise White will have all the fun.
22 fxg5
ii.. e 7 5 ii.. g 2 0 - 0
Game 1 0
Kozul -lputian
Lucerne 1997
1 d4 d 5 2 e4 e6 3 4:lf3 4:lf6 4 g3 ii.. e 7 5
ii.. g 2 0-0 6 0-0 4:lbd7 7 "ile2 e6 S b3
Th e Ca t a l a n
. . .
26
1 1 lLlc3 ? !
The stronger 1 1 ttJbd2 leads t o play along
the lines of Game 1 4.
1 1 . . . "fic7
An alternative is l 1 ...dxc4!? 12 ttJe5 cxb3
1 3 axb3 ttJb8, when Lputian prefers Black.
Perhaps this is a bit optimistic, but Black is
clearly okay.
1 2 e4
It might be time for 12 cxd5 cxd5 1 3 l:f.ac1
C lo s e d C a t a la n : 4 . . e 7 5 g 2 0 - 0
.
Game 1 1
Beliavsky-M itkov
Panormo 200 1
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 ii.e7 5
ii.g2 0-0 6 0-0 ttJbd7 7 'iWe2 e6 8 b3 b6
9 J:rd 1 ii.b 7 1 0 ttJe3
1 0 . . .J:re8
Also possible is 1O ... c5!?, e.g. 1 1 cxd5 exd5
27
Th e C a t a la n
1 S cS!
A thematic solution. The d5-square is not
so important. Instead White has control over
d6 and Black's queenside is under a bind.
Less troubling for Black is 1 5 e3 l:!.c7 1 6
IId2 lld7 1 7 tiJxf6+ xf6 1 8 :adl it'e7 1 9
c 5 l:tfd8 20 a4 e 5 2 1 dxe5 l:txd2 22 l:txd2
'iVxe5 23 h4 l:[xd2 24 it'xd2 bxc5 25 'ifa5,
Sulava-Inkiov, Nice 200 1 , with the smallest
of edges for White - if anything.
1 S " .lZJdS
1 5".tiJxe4 16 .ltxe4 bxc5 17 dxc5 'ifc7 1 8
b2 .l:!.cd8 1 9 a3 gives White a slight but
enduring advantage in view of the c6-pawn
and, in tum, the bishop on b 7.
1 6 a3 as 1 7 i.f1 1kc7 1 8 i.d2 J:!.fd8 1 9
b4 axb4 20 i.xb4 J:!.a8?!
20".tiJxb4!? is necessary, when 21 axb4
l:ta8 lirnits White's lead.
21 cxb6!
Now White occupies the c5-square and
starts pushing his a-pawn - a perfect reward
for his game-plan.
2 1 " .'ii'x b6 22 i.xe7 lZJxe7 23 lZJcs i.c8
C lo s e d C a t a la n : 4
iL e 7 5 iL g 2 0 - 0
24 a4
White is close to being strategically win
rung.
24 . . .11a5
24 ... ttJdS 25 l:tdbl 'it'c7 26 ttJb3 i.a6 27
i.xa6 l:!.xa6 28 ttJcS l:!.a7 29 as! and the a
pawn makes progress. The main point is that
29 .. .l:has 30 l::tx aS 'ii'x aS 31 ttJb7 'iVc7 32
ttJxd8 'ii'x d8 33 it'xc6 is decisive.
25 ttJb3 l::ta d5 26 a5 fia7 27 a6 iLd7 2S
iLe4
As we can see, Black should still have tried
to get rid of the bishops.
2S . . . l::td 6 29 ttJe5 iLeS 30 fib2 ttJd5
Beliavsky gives 30 ... ttJf5 3 1 ttJb7! il.. x b7
32 axb 7 'it'bs 33 l:taS and White wins.
31 l::td b1 !
This time White should refrain from 3 1
ttJb7? a s 3 1 ...il..x b7 3 2 axb7 'it'b6 3 3 .l:tdbl
'ili'xb2 34 .l:txb2 l:!.b8 is less clear.
31 . . . ttJe7 32 fibS !
The blockade of the pawn is removed,
and with it the last line of defence.
32 . . . fixbS 33 l::t x bS l::tx d4 34 a7 l::tx e4 35
ttJa6! ttJxa6 36 l::t x a6 l::te 1 + 37 'it>g2 1 -0
29
Th e Ca t a l a n
Game 13
Raetsky-Landenbergue
Scuol 200 1
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 g3 ..te7 S
..tg2 0-0 6 0-0 lLlbd7 7 'ii'c 2 c6 8 lLlbd2
C lo s e d C a t a la n : 4
b6 9 b3 iLb 7 1 0 e4
White needs to get going. After 10 i.b2
c5 l 1 l:1ael l:tc8 12 'iVbl dxc4 1 3 ttJxc4 cxd4
14 ttJxd4 ii.xg2 1 5 'it>xg2 a6 16 ttJe3 l:txel 1 7
l:txel 'ifa8+ 1 8 f3 .l:tc8 Black had solved all
his problems in Chiburdanidze-P.Nicolic,
Linares 1 988.
10 .. J:tc8 1 1 iLb2 "*c7
l 1 ...dxe4 1 2 ttJxe4 transposes to 8 b3 b6 9
i.b2 i.b7 1 0 ttJc3 lIc8 1 1 e4 dxe4 1 2 ttJxe4,
covered in Game 1 0, note to Black's 9th
move.
l 1 ...c5 1 2 exd5 exd5 1 3 dxc5 dxc4 1 4 b4!?
was the interesting course of Lindgren
Rasmussen, Budapest 2000, when Black went
astray with 1 4 ... i.a6?! 1 5 c6! c3 (1 5 ... 1:txc6 1 6
ttJd4 I:!.c7 1 7 b5! i s the problem) 1 6 'ifxc3
ttJb8 17 ttJd4! i.xfl 1 8 ttJxfl and White had
more than enough compensation for the
exchange - 1 8 ...l:te8 1 9 ttJe3 ttJa6? 20 lId I !
i.xb4 2 1 c4 b 5 22 ttJxb5 'iVb6 2 3 i.xf6
gxf6 24 ttJd5 proved decisive. Black should
play 1 4 ... bxc5 1 5 b5 'it'c7 1 6 ttJxc4, although
White has a very pleasant structural advan
tage. The alternative 1 3 ... ttJxc5 1 4 ttJg5 g6 1 5
'i'c3!? h6 1 6 ttJh3 seems to help White. In
deed in Wilhelmi-Lau, Germany 2000 White
emerged from 13 ... i.xc5 14 l:tadl J:te8 1 5
'iffS 'iIi'c7 1 6 ttJd4 a6 1 7 cxd5 g6 1 8 'iVbl
ttJxd5 1 9 ttJe4 ii.f8 20 lHe 1 b5 21 a3 b4 22
ttel with the better game.
Instead of the trade on c5 White has an
interesting idea in 1 3 l:tfdl dxc4 1 4 ttJxc4 b5
1 5 d5!?, when Wojtkiewicz-Shabalov, USA
2000 continued with multiple exchanges:
1 5 ...ttJxd5 1 6 ttJce5 ttJ7f6 1 7 ttJg5 h6 1 8
ttJexf7 l:1xf7 1 9 ttJxf7 xf7 20 ii.xf6 i.xf6
21 l:txd5 ii.xd5 22 l:1dl ii.d4 23 'it'fS+ g8
24 i.xd5+ and a draw was agreed as White
had failed to prove an advantage.
1 2 l::ta d 1 l::tf d8 1 3 l::tfe 1 "*b8 1 4 "*b 1
An interesting alternative was the ambi
tious 14 h4 h6 1 5 e5 ttJe8 1 6 c5!? bxc5 1 7
i.a3 ttJc7 1 8 dxc5 as 1 9 g4 'it'a7 20 g5 ttJb5
21 i.b2 'it'xc5 22 'ti'd3 ..ta6 23 gxh6 ttJc7 24
'iVb 1 gxh6 25 ttJd4 where White has com-
iL e 7 5 iLg2 0 - 0
21 l::t x e7 ! ?
Entertaining stuff. The idea i s to enhance
the power of the dark-squared bishop. With
21 'ikfS ..tf6 22 .l:txe8+ .l:txe8 23 i.el White
guarantees a modest plus.
21 . . . l::tx e7 22 tL\h4 l::te 2!
Black has to be very careful here. The fol
lowing variations help demonstrate what
lurks in the shadows. 22 ...l:tee8?! 23 ttJfS f6
(23 ... ttJe5 24 f4 looks dangerous) 24 ttJxh6+!
gxh6 25 1Wg6+ f8 (25 ... h8 26 'it'xh6+
g8 27 'it'g6+ h8 28 ..th3! 'it'd6 29 ii.xd7
and White wins) 26 d6! i.xg2 27 ..tel ! and
Black is savagely mated.
22 .. . f6!? is preferable, when 23 ttJfS .l::[ f7
offers Black solid defensive prospects on the
kingside. An interesting approach is 24 "iVe4!?
ttJf8 25 'ii'g4 h7 26 'ifh5 'ii'c 7 27 i.e4 with
a strong attack, while there is also 24 llel ,
e.g. 24 ...ttJ f8 2 5 ttJe7+ h8 (25 ...l:1xe7? loses
instantly to 26 .l:txe7 i.xd5 27 i.xf6! gxf6 28
'ii' fS and Black is soon mated) 26 ttJg6+
ttJxg6 (after 26 ...g8 White is not obliged to
go for the repetition) 27 'ili'xg6 I:!.e8 (27 ...'it>g8
28 i.e4 looks dangerous, although after
28 ... f8 29 'iih7 .l:!.e7 30 i.xf6 gxf6 3 1
'ifh8+ f7 3 2 'i!Vh7+ White has only a draw)
28 .l:1e6!?
31
Th e C a t a l a n
Game 14
28 ... l'.:tfe7 ? ? loses t o 2 9 1t.e4 'it>g8 3 0 l:txf6!
in view of 30 ....:.xe4 31 l:tfB+ 'it>xfB 32 'ii'xg7
mate, which leaves 28 .. .lhe6 (28 ... :ee7!?) 29
dxe6 lIe7 30 1t.xf6! 'iVd6! (30 ...gxf6? 3 1
'ikxf6+ l:tg7 3 2 e 7 and White wins) 3 1 1t.xb7
(31 1t.xe7?? 'ii'd H 32 1t.fl 'itf3 and suddenly
it is Black who wins) 3 1 ...ltxb7 32 e7 'it'dH
33 'it>g2 'iVd5+ 34 f3 'iVd2+ 35 'it>h3 l:he7 36
1t.xe7 11i'd7+ with a drawn ending.
23 lLlfS lLlf6?
This allows a combination that is not too
difficult to find. Consequently Black should
play 23 .. .l::txb 2 24 'iVxb2 'it'e5 25 'ii'x e5 tLlxe5
26 l:el or 23 ... tLle5!? 24 f4 l:Ixg2+! 25 'it>xg2
tLlg6 26 'ii'e 4!? (26 1t.xg7? l:!.xd5 27 llxd5
'ii'd 8! and Black wins) 26 ... 'ii'a 8 27 tLle3, in
both cases with a slightl edge for White.
24 lLlxh6 + ! gxh6 2S xf6 l:tde8 26 'iiVf S
l:re 1 +
27 f 1 ! !
32
Marin-Berescu
Iasi 1999
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 g3 e7 S
g2 0-0 6 0-0 lLlbd7 7 't!Vc2 c6 8 lLlbd2
b6 9 b3 a6 1 0 l:td 1
1 0 e4 .l:!.c8 1 1 l:te1 is a different approach,
against which Black should have sufficient
resources. 1 1 ...c5 1 2 exd5 exd5 1 3 1t.a3 l:te8
1 4 cxd5 tLlxd5 1 5 'iff5 tLl7 f6 1 6 dxc5 1t.xc5
17 1t.xc5 l:txc5 simply equalised in Tosic
Kosic, Trebinje 2001 , but 1 6 ... g6!? 1 7 'ii'h 3
1t.xc5 1 8 1t.xc5 l:txc5 19 .l::tx e8+ 'ii'x e8 20
]:tel 'ii'd 8 21 'ii'h4 tLlc3!? is unclear according
to Kosic. Black seems fme in this position.
Also possible is 14 ... cxd4!? 1 5 1t.xe7 lIxc2 1 6
1t.xd8 I:txd8 1 7 :ec1 l:tdc8 when Black,
again, looks no worse. Perhaps White could
consider 1 8 tLlc4!? .l:txcH 1 9 .l:!.xc 1 b5 20
tLlxd4 bxc4 21 tLlc6 'it>fB 22 bxc4 with a
complex struggle ahead.
1 0 . . . l:tc8
10 ... b5 led to a slight advantage for White
in Filippovliang Chong, Shenjang 1 999
after 1 1 c5 b4 12 e4!? tLlxe4 1 3 tLlxe4 dxe4
1 4 'iVxe4 tLlxc5 1 5 'ii'c 2 tLld7 1 6 tLle5 tLlxe5
1 7 dxe5 'ii'c 7 1 8 'ii'x c6 'ii'x c6 1 9 1t.xc6 .l:!.ac8
20 1t.e4 1t.b5 21 1t.e3.
1O ... c5 1 1 e4 dxc4 12 tLlxc4 cxd4 13 tLlxd4
.l:!.c8 1 4 e5 tLld5 1 5 'ii'b 2! secures White a
small plus. Black, as always, has problems
with the light squares. Poluljahov-Feigin,
Kakhovka 1 997 went 1 5 ... 1t.xc4 1 6 bxc4
C lo s e d C a t a la n : 4
iL e 7 5 iL g 2 0 - 0
33
Th e C a t a l a n
I
1 6 . . . g6!
An important move. Black has been
through a lot of suffering in this position.
1 6 ... 'iVb6?! 1 7 .l:!.ab 1 dxc4 1 8 ttJe4! g6 1 9
ttJxf6+ ttJxf6 2 0 'i!t'f3 lUe 8 2 1 ttJc6 'iYxc6 22
'iYxc6 l:txc6 23 .txc6 l:tc8 24 .Jtxf6 .Jtxf6 25
.Jte4 offers White good winning chances.
16 ... .Jtxc4?! 17 ttJxc4 .l:!.xc4 18 .txd5 g6 1 9
'iVg5 ttJxd5 20 'ii'x d5 ttJb6 21 ttJf5! gx f5 22
'it'e5 .Jtf6 23 'ii'xf6 'iVxf6 24 .Jtxf6 was seen
in Nielsen-Danielsen, Randers 1 996, White
eventually converting this favourable ending.
1 6 ... ttJb6?! 1 7 cxd5 ttJa4 (1 7 ... ttJbxd5 is
met with 1 8 ttJe6! fxe6 19 'iVxe6+ 'it>h8 20
'iNxa6 and White is a pawn up for nothing)
1 8 l:Iab1 ttJxb2 1 9 l:txb2 .tc5 20 ttJc6 't'kd6
21 ttJe4 ttJxe4 22 .Jtxe4 g6 23 'ii f3 f5 24
.td3 .txd3 25 l:txd3 f4 26 g4 ::tce8 27 .l:!.e2
and White was on his way to the full point in
Sorokin-Hoffman, Villa Martelli 1 997.
1 7 if'g5?!
TIlls proves to be too risky as Black easily
obtains compensation for the exchange. Su
lava proposes the following line as a possible
improvement: 1 7 'ii'h 3 dxc4 1 8 .Jtc3 ttJc5 1 9
ttJc6 l:txc6! 2 0 1i.xc6 ttJd3 21 ttJe4 'itb6! 22
'iYg2! ttJg4! 23 .l:!.ab 1 'ii'x c6 24 ttJf6+ 'it'xf6 25
34
.Jtxf6 .Jtxf6 with an assessment of 'unclear' as usual, further tests are required.
1 7 . . . dxc4 1 8 lZJc6 l:txc6 1 9 xc6 'iYb6
20 xd7 if'xb2 21 l:tab 1 'ifa3
21 ...'iVd4 is even stronger according to
Marin. After 22 ttJf3 'iVxf2+ 23 'it>xf2 ttJe4+
24 'it>g2 ttJxg5 25 ttJxg5 .txg5 26 l:td6 .tc8
Black has all the chances, while 22 'iVa5 .Jtc5
23 'ii'xa6 'iVxf2+ 24 'it>h 1 ttJe4! leaves White's
king in serious trouble.
22 b5 lZJe4?
A tactical error. Black would have been
fine after 22 ... c3! 23 ttJc4 'iic 5 24 'iWxc5
.txc5 25 l:tdc1 .Jtxb5 26 l:txb5 ttJe4 27 ttJe3
l:td8, retaining the passed pawn and with
excellent compensation for the exchange.
23 lZJxc4 'iYf3 24 'iYe3 ii'xe3 25 lZJxe3
xb5 26 lZJd5! c5 27 l:txb5 xf2+
27 ...ttJxf2 28 l:tc1 .Jtd4 29 l:tc4 and wins.
28 Wg2 f5?
After the more precise 28 ... h5 White still
remains well on top after 29 ::tb7 .Jtc5 30
ttJe7+ Wg7 31 ttJc6.
29 l:tb7 l:tf7 30 lZJe7 + Wg7 31 .l:!.dd7 l:tf8
32 1ZJg8 + ! 1 -0
Game 15
Raetsky-Gattenloehner
Winterthur 2002
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lZJf3 lZJf6 4 g3 e7 5
g2 0-0 6 0-0 lZJbd7 7 if'c2 c6 8 lZJbd2
b6 9 b3 a6 1 0 b2 l:tc8 1 1 e4 c5
Clo s e d C a t a la n : 4
1 4 . . . cxd4
Black plans a knight manoeuvre. 14 ... h5
15 l:tfe1 cxd4 1 6 ltJxd4 ltJc5 was played in
Raetsky-D.Frolov, Smolensk 2000, but this
looks rather risky for Black. There followed
1 7 ltJf5! gxf5 1 8 .l:!.xe 7! 'fixe 7 1 9 'iVh4! Itc6
(19 ... ltJcd7 20 'fig5+ 'it>h7 21 xf5+ 'it>h6 22
'fif4+ 'it>g6 23 ltJf3 ltJe4 24 l:tel f5 25 .i.h3
and Black is in for a rough ride) 20 g5+
'it>h7 21 'iVxf5+ 'it>g8 22 'i'g5+ 'it>h7 and a
draw was agreed, but 23 cxd5 l:td6 24 b4!
gives White a strong attack.
In Rustemov-Nikolenko, Moscow 1 999
Black followed 14 ... l:tc7 1 5 dxc5 with the
ii.. e 7 5 ii..g2 0 - 0
1 8 ii.. x d5 ! !
A surprising move. Usually White does
not surrender this bishop if he can help it, yet
here he does not even bother to recapture on
d5. In fact this was home preparation. In a
previous game 1 8 f4? was played, but with
little success. After 1 8 ... dxc4! 1 9 ltJc6 l:txc6!
35
Th e C a t a l a n
22 . . .l::t h S
Only move. After 22.. .fxe6 23 'iVxe6+
<j;g7 24 lId7+ White wins.
36
2 3 'ii'g 4
Also strong is 23 tbxfB!? l:[xh3 24 i.xf6
it'c6 25 l:td8 'it'xf6 26 tbe6+ 'iVxd8 27 tbxd8,
with good winning chances in the endgame.
23 . . . .i.c8 24 .i.xf6 fxe6
24... i.xe6 25 it'f3 it'xf3 26 .uxf3 gives
White excellent winning chances in the shape
of a pawn and a powerfully posted bishop.
2S 'ii'd 4 eS
26 'ii'd 6!
Not 26 i.xe5? i.h3, when White is close
to being worse.
26 . . . .i.h3 27 f3! e4 28 l:td4
28 . . . e3?
A blunder. I f 28 ... :f7 Black is struggling,
but while 29 g4 l:lc5 30 lIfd1 exf3 31 "i'e6
1+ 32 'it>x1 .l:!.c8 33 'it>g3 'iVg2+ 34 'iith4
favours White, there remains work to do.
29 'ii'e 7 1 -0
Clo s e d C a t a la n : 4 . . . iL e 7 5 iLg2 0 - 0
Summary
The evaluation of the gambit continuation 6 . ..lbbd7 7 ttJc3 dxc4 8 e4 (Game 3) has changed
during the last decade. Earlier Black defended with 8 ... ttJb6, 8 ... c6 9 a4 as or 9 ... b6, but White
has a strong initiative in the centre in all of these lines. Now Black has discovered 8 ... c6 9 a4
e5!? 1 0 dxe5 ttJg4 1 1 i.f4 'ifa5. Another modern idea is action on the queenside with 8 ... a6 9
a4 l:[b8 1 0 as b5, but this variation needs more practice before a safe conclusion can be made.
After 7 ttJc3 c6 White seldom develops his queen on b3, often being forced to exchange on
d5, when Black usually equalises quite comfortably. It seems to us that 8 'iVd3 has more going
for it than 8 'ifb3. However, after 8 ... b6 White should not hurry with 9 e4 because 9 ... i.a6 1 0
b3 dxc4 1 1 bxc4 e 5 i s nice for Black. O n the other hand, recent victories b y G M Gleizerov
have shown that after 9 .l:!.d1 i.a6 10 b3 1:[c8 1 1 e4 Black has problems.
In the case of the move order 7 ttJc3 c6 8 b3 b6 9 i.b2 i.a6 (Game 6), then 10 ttJd2, with
the standard idea of e2-e4, deserves attention. Indeed White's chances look preferable. An
other interesting idea is 10 a4, although with 10 ... dxc4 1 1 bxc4 i.xc4 12 ttJd2 i.a6 13 i.xc6
Black can equalise with accurate defence.
After 7 'ifc2 c6 8 i.f4 b6 the standard plan 9 ttJbd2 i.b7 10 e4 (Game 8) does not give
White any advantage as the bishop is not well placed on f4 after ... c6-c5. Perhaps White should
play 9 l:td1 i.a6 10 ttJe5, or 9 ... i.b7 1 0 ttJc3 dxc4 1 1 ttJd2 (Game 9) .
In the event of e2-e4 the reply ... d5xe4 is unpopular. If Black is late with the freeing advance
... c6-c5 White can himself push with c4-c5 (Game 1 1), which is in fact quite effective.
The advance e4-e5 is still relevant (Game 1 2). After 7 'iVc2 c6 8 ttJbd2 b6 9 e4 i.a6 this
plan promises White the better chances, although in the case of 9 ... i.b 7 1 0 e5 ttJe8 1 1 b3 ttJc7
12 i.b2 c5 the bishop is well placed on b7 and the position is about equal. After 1 1 cxd5 cxd5
White is slighdy better but instead of 1 1 ... cxd5 the alternative 1 1 ... exd5 looks more promising
for Black, whose intention is to play ...ttJe8-c7-e6 and prepare counterplay involving ... c6-c5.
In the CC the most popular position arises after 7 'ifc2 c6 8 ttJbd2 b6 9 b3 i.a6:
Recent practice has demonstrated that 10 lId1 does not lead to an advantage for White. In
the complex struggle Black has sufficient resources with which to oppose White's activity in
the centre and on the kingside (Game 1 4) . On the other hand, after 10 i.b2 ltc8 1 1 e4 c5 1 2
exd5 exd5 1 3 'iWf5!? White has a genuine initiative, and we d o not see how Black can equalise.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tiJf3 lbf6 4 g3 iLe7 5 iLg2 0-0 6 0-0
6 'ilVc2 c5 - Game 1
6 . . . lbbd7
6 ... c6 7 ttJc3 b6 8 ttJe5 - Game 2
7 'ifc2
7 ttJc3
7 ... dxc4 - Game 3
7 ... c6: 8 'iWb3 - Game 4; 8 'iVd3 - Game 5; 8 b3 - Game 6
7 . . . c6 S lbbd2
8 .l:[d 1 b6 9 a4 - Game 7
8 i.f4 b6: 9 ttJbd2 Game 8; 9 lId1 - Game 9
8 b3 b6: 9 i.b2 i.a6 1 0 l:td1l::tc 8 1 1 ttJc3 Game 10; 9 l:td 1 i.b7 1 0 ttJc3
S . . . b6
9 e4 - Game 12
9 b3 iLa6
9 ... i.b7 - Game 13
1 0 l:td 1 - Game 14
10 i.b2 - Game 15
-
Game 1 1
c6 5 i.,g2 i.,d6
1 d 4 d 5 2 c 4 e 6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g 3 c 6 5
g2 d6
This system resembles the Closed Catalan
(4 ... e7 5 g2 0-0 6 0-0 ltJbd7). However,
in contrast to the positions with ... i.. e 7, Black
can concentrate his efforts on the major plan
of expansion with ... e6-e5. This approach
enjoyed some popularity in the 1 920s, when
Catalan theory was in its infancy. Particularly
noteworthy is the encounter Reti-Bogoljubov
(Game 1 6) when, after transposition, a key
position was reached in which Black at
tempted in vain to steer the game to Dutch
Stonewall territory. After a correct move
order such a transposition is indeed possible,
but the Dutch Defence is outside the scope
of this book.
_After 6 0-0 ltJbd7 Wh.ite occasionally sac
nes the c4-pawn with 7 ltJc3, when his
initi more or less compensates the mod
est inveent. However, most of the time
Wh.ite prefe avoid this possibility, opting
instead to contiritJJ b3, 7 'iVc2 or 7 ltJbd2.
The 'tabia' occur5'a.(ter 6 0-0 ltJbd7 7 'iVc2
0-0 8 ll'lbd2, and sint<:, Bogoljubov-Joss,
.
Zurich 1 934 it has been kndwn that the im
mediate advance 8 ... e5 is premature here.
After 9 cxd5 ltJxd5?! 10 ltJc4 Black h.as seri
ous problems (panov-Makogonov - see the
notes to Game 1 7), while after the stronger
38
Game 1 6
Reti-Bogoljubov
7 b3
The alternative is 7 ltJc3 dxc4 8 'iWc2 (du
bious is 8 e4?! e5 9 dxe5 ltJxe5 10 ltJxe5
.1Lxe5 1 1 'iVxd8+ 'it>xd8 12 .l:!.d H c7 Chet-
8 . . . .l:!.e8
Black can transpose to the Dutch Defence
with 8 ...ttJe4 9 ttJbd2 fS.
9 ct:Jbd2
White can prevent ... e6-e5 with 9 ttJe5
'iVc7 to f4 b6 1 1 ttJd2 .ib7 12 e4, as in
Euwe-Davidson, Amsterdam 1 924, when
White took action in the centre and was re
warded with a pull after 1 2 ... dxe4 1 3 ttJxe4
ttJxe4 1 4 .ixe4 ttJf6 1 5 i.g2 c5 1 6 d5 exd5
17 cxd5.
9 . . . tUe4? !
Lokvenc-Stolz, Haque 1 928 went 9 ... e5 to
cxd5 cxd5 1 1 dxe5 ttJxe5 1 2 ttJxe5 i.xe5 1 3
c 6 5 il.. g 2 il.. d 6
Th e C a t a l a n
Game 1 7
Panov-M . M a kogonov
Kiev 1938
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 c6 S
i.g2 -td6 6 0-0 ttJbd7 7 'ii'c 2 0-0 8 ttJbd2
eS?!
Too early. Another try is 8 ... b6 9 e4 (after
the greedy 9 cxd5?! cxd5 1 0 'iVc6 'iVc7 1 1
'ii'x a8 .i.a6 1 2 'iVxfB+ liJxfB White has two
rooks for the queen but is behind in devel
opment) 9 ... dxe4 10 liJxe4 liJxe4 1 1 'iVxe4.
Raetsky-J . Gunnarsson, Hafnarfjordur 1 996
continued 1 1 ....i.b7 12 .i.f4 liJf6 13 'ii'e 3 c5
14 lladl .i.xf4 15 'ii'xf4 'iVe7 16 .l:!.fel cxd4
1 7 1:txd4 lIac8 1 8 liJe5 .i.xg2 1 9 xg2 .l:!.fd8
20 .l:!.edl l:i.xd4 21 'iVxd4, White possessing
the d-flle and a queenside pawn majority.
Black's prospects failed to improve after
2 1 . ..h6 22 a3 'iVb7+ 23 f3 b5 24 c5 liJd5 25
b4 f6 26 liJd3 'ii'a6 27 liJf4.
8 ...'iVe7 presents White with a few choices:
9 !:tel b6 10 e4 liJxe4 1 1 liJxe4 dxe4 1 2
Ihe4 .i.b7?! 1 3 .i.g5 'ii'e 8 1 4 lIael 'iVc8 1 5
l:th4! g6 was seen in A.Petrosian-Skembris,
Dortmund 1 992. Petrosian then recom
mends 1 6 .i.h6! .l:te8 17 liJg5 with a menac
ing attack for White.
Perhaps 9 e4 is premature compared with
40
Game 1 8
Orsag-Haba
Tumov 1996
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 4Jf3 4Jf6 4 g3 c6 5
i.g2 i.d6 6 0-0 4Jbd7 7 'iWc2 0-0 8 4Jbd2
l:te8
9 b3
c 6 5 i. g 2 i. d 6
Th e C a t a l a n
4 . . . c 6 5 iL g 2 iL d 6
Summary
These examples indicate that in the ... .td6 system it is not necessary for White to hurry with
e2-e4 as this serves only to justify Black's own advance of the e-pawn, which appears to prom
ise excellent equalising chances (for example 6 0-0 tiJbd7 7 'iic 2 0-0 8 tiJbd2 .l:te8 9 e4 dxe4 1 0
tiJxe4 tiJxe4 1 1 'iie 4 e 5 with further simplifications that cancel out any White edge). A more
promising strategy for White is to complete queenside development with b2-b3 and .tb2.
After 9 b3 e5 10 cxd5 cxd5 1 1 dxe5 tiJxe5 1 2 .tb2 we again have a position with an isolated
pawn, albeit an acceptable version for Black, who enjoys the better development and, in prac
tice, tends to achieve equality.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lLIf3 lLIf6 4 g3 c6 5 iLg2 iLd6 (D) 6 0-0 lLIbd7 7 'ifc2
7 b3 (D) - Game 16
7 0-0 8 lLIbd2 (D)
8 ... e5 - Game 1 7; 8 ... .l:te8 - Game 18
...
5 . iLd6
. .
7 b3
8 1L1bd2
43
4 . . . dxc4 5 'iVa4 +
4 . . . dx c 4 5 'il a 4 +
Black plays 5 . . . c6
r---------------..
Game 19
Mednis-Prie
Cannes 2000
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
'i'a4+ c6
5 ...'iir'd7 6 'ii'x c4 'iVc6 7 lLlbd2 'it'xc4 8 lLlxc4
i..b4+ 9 .id2 .ixd2+ 1 0 lLlfxd2! lLlc6 1 1 e3
lLlb4 12 'It>e2 .id7 13 g2 .ic6 14 f3 lef
White in control of the centre in Botvinnik
Vidmar, Groningen 1 946. There followed
14 ... lLld7 1 5 a3 lLld5 1 6 e4 lLl5b6 1 7 lLla5
i..b5+ 1 8 'It>e3 0-0-0 1 9 l:thc1 lLlb8 20 b3
i..d7 21 .if1 lLlc6 22 lLlxc6 iLxc6 23 a4 iLe8
24 as lLla8 25 a6 b6 26 b4 with a big edge.
After 5 ... lLlc6 White should avoid 6 lLle5?
"i'd5 7 l:tgl b5, when he stands clearly worse.
Meanwhile, 6 iLg2 transposes to 5 g2 lLlc6
6 'ii'a4. This leaves 6 'iWxc4 'iVd5 7 'iWd3, e.g.
7 ... lLlb4 8 'it'dl 'iWe4!? 9 lLla3 iLd7 1 0 .ig2
i..c 6 1 1 0-0 h6 1 2 f4 lLlbd5 1 3 .id2 xa3
14 bxa3 0-0 1 5 e3 l:tfd8 as in Kobalija
Dokuchaev, Majkop 1 998, when White's
weakened queenside pawns and Black's activ
ity contributed to a balanced game. Another
sensible line is 7 ... 'iWfS 8 'iVxfS exfS 9 a3 e6
10 e3 lLla5 1 1 lLlbd2 lLlb3 1 2 lLlxb3 xb3 1 3
i.d3 g6 and Black was doing fine i n Kura
jica-Zvjaginsev, Pula 1 997. This status quo
continued after the subsequent 14 .id2 as 1 5
<t>e2 d6 1 6 %:thc1 d5 1 7 lLle5 c 6 1 8 lLlc4
9 0-0
9 a4 c5!? 10 axb5 cxd4 1 1 0-0 c5 1 2
g5 .l:tc8 1 3 lLlbd2 0-0 1 4 'iWd3 h 6 1 5 .ixf6
'iWxf6 1 6 lLlg5 'iVxg5 1 7 xb7 l:tc7 was
Timman-Lautier, Malmo 1 999, with chances
even after 1 8 lLlf3 lLle5 19 lLlxe5 'it'xe5.
After 9 lLlc3 c5 White must avoid 10
lLlxb5? 'iVa5+ 1 1 lLlc3 cxd4, when Black is
winning. White fared better in Zagorskis
Vaisser, Lyon 1 994: 1 0 0-0 b4 1 1 lLla4 l:tc8
1 2 lLlxc5 lLlxc5 1 3 dxc5 .ixc5 14 'it'a4+ c6
1 5 'it'a6 0-0 1 6 g5 i.d5 1 7 l:tac1 'iVb6 1 8
45
Th e Ca t a l a n
46
25 . . . lLixf2! ?
An interesting piece sacrifice.
26 'it>xf2 lLie4+ 27 'it>g 1 'ii'x e3 + 28 'it>h2
l::t c 2 29 'ii'a 8+ 'it>h7 30 l::tf 1 l::t x g2+
Black forces the draw.
3 1 'it>xg2 'iVe2 + 32 'it>g 1 'iVe3 + 33 'it>g2
'ife2 + Y. - Y2
Came 20
Raetsky-Sveshni kov
Kolontaevo 1994
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lLif3 lLif6 4 g3 dxc4 5
'i'a4+ c6 6 'iVxc4 b5 7 'iVc2 b7 8 g2
lLibd7 9 lLie5
9 . . . 'ii'b 6
Another option is 9 ... 4JxeS 10 dxeS 4JdS!
1 1 0-0 ..Ite7 12 l:.dl 8 13 4Jc3 0-0 14
4JxdS cxdS 1 5 e4 l:.c8 16 'ife2 dxe4 17 ..Itxe4
..Itxe4 1 8 xe4 l:.c4! with a good game for
Black in Volzhin-Ibragimov, Elista 2001,
although 19 f3 e8 20 ..Ite3 .u.c7 was
agreed drawn. Note that it is important for
Black to find (or be prepared with) 1 O ... 4JdS!
as this is superior to 10 ... 4Jd7 1 1 0-0 'ifb6 1 2
a4, which featured i n two Raetsky games.
After 1 2 ... a6 1 3 axbS axbS 14 ..Ite3 'irc7 1 5
l:.xa8+ ..Itxa8 1 6 4Jc3 White had the initiative
in Raetsky-Klingelhoefer, Giessen 1 994, and
the further 1 6 ... 8 1 7 l:.al ..Ite7 1 8 l:.a7
..Itd8? 1 9 4JxbS 0-0 20 l:.xd7 cxbS? 21 iLa7
saw White win . Raetsky-Volzhin, Hastings
1 992/93 also favoured White after 1 2 ... c5 1 3
4 . . . dx c 4 5 'iW a 4 +
1 3 . . . cxd4? !
1 3 ... 1:tc8 has also been played. Raetsky
Rausch, Biel 1 997 continued 14 l:[c1 iJ.. e 7 1 5
dxc5 ttJxc5 1 6 b4 iJ.. f6 1 7 ttJc3 ttJd7 1 8 'iVe4
'i'a6 1 9 i.d4 0-0 with equality, while
17 ... ttJa4 1 8 'it'e4 'ifa8! (1 8 .. .'ika6? 19 ttJxb5!
.l:!.xc1+ 20 .l:!.xc1 'ii'x b5 21 .l:!.c8+ iJ.. d 8 22
.l:!.xd8+!) 19 ttJxb5! leads to a forced draw
after 1 9 .. .'it'xe4 20 l:txc8+ 'it>e7 21 l:tc7+ 'it>ffi.
Here 14 ...c4?! risks giving White a free hand
in the centre. Raetsky-Tregubov, Krasnodar
1 995 went 1 5 a4 a6 1 6 axb5 axb5 1 7 ttJc3
.ib4 1 8 d5 exd5?! (1 8 ... i.xc3 19 dxe6 fxe6
20 'iVxc3 0-0 and White has only a small
advantage) 1 9 .l:ta7 c6 and White now
changed gear and emerged with a clear ad
vantage after 20 .l:!.ca1 ! iJ.. c 5 21 l:t l a6 ttJb6 22
.ixc5 'iix c5 23 1:tb7.
14 i.xd4 .l:!.c8
After 14 ... e5 1 5 iJ.. e 3 i.e7 16 l:tdl 0-0 1 7
'it' fS White has an action position.
1 5 Q\c3! b4
Again the push in the centre with 1 5 ... e5 is
insufficient for equality - 16 i.e3 i.b4 1 7
Th e C a t a la n
Game 2!
Vila-Spassky
Castrop-Rauxel !990
1 d4 d5 2 c4 eS 3 ttJf3 ttJfS 4 g3 dxc4 5
a4+ iLd7 S xc4
s . . . iLcs
6 ... c5 7 dxc5 i.c6 transposes to 5 i.g2 c5
6 'ii'a4+ i.d7 7 xc4 i.c6 8 dxc5 (see the
notes to Game 76).
7 iLg2 ttJbd7
Gleizerov-Akhmadeev, Kstovo 1 997 went
7 ... i.e7 8 ttJc3 0-0 9 0-0 a6 1 0 d3 b5 1 1
i.g5 ttJbd7 1 2 a3 i.b7 1 3 b4 h6 1 4 i.xf6
ttJxf6 1 5 ttJe5 i.xg2 1 6 xg2 with the finn
grip on c5 earning White the pleasant pros
pects.
8 ttJc3 ttJbS
Also possible is 8 ... i.e7 9 0-0 0-0 10 'iVd3
ttJd5 1 1 e4 ttJxc3 1 2 bxc3 fS (12 ... ttJc5 1 3
ir"e3 ttJxe4 i s best avoided i n view o f 1 4
ttJe5!, regaining the pawn and keeping a plus)
1 3 exfS exfS 14 ttJel i.xg2 1 5 ttJxg2 ttJb6 1 6
a4 a s 1 7 l:te 1 tt f7 with approximate equality
in Zaichik-Shabalov, Philadelphia 2000.
9 d3 iLb4 1 0 iLg5
Petrov-Alekhine, Buenos Aires 1 939 saw
considerable trading during the next dozen
or so moves: 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 l:tdl h6 12 ttJe5
i.xg2 1 3 xg2 'it'e7 14 ttJe4 l:tad8 1 5 ttJxf6+
'it'xf6 1 6 'it'f3 'it'xf3+ 1 7 ttJxf3 ttJc4 1 8 b3
48
1 1 . . . d5?!
1 1 ...h6 is once again a sensible option,
with 1 2 i.xf6 'it'xf6 1 3 0-0 ttJxc3 1 4 bxc3
i.a5 giving White central control, while the
bishop pair helps Black's
. quest for equality.
1 2 iLxfS iLb5
The recapture 1 2 ...gxf6 invites White to
generate an initiative after 1 3 0-0 i.xc3 14
bxc3 ir"a5 15 c4, although this might be pref
erable to the text.
1 3 c2 xa2 1 4 0-0 ttJxc3 1 5 iLxg7
g8
1 5 ... ttJxbl 1 6 'it'xc7! .l:!.g8 1 7 ttJe5! l:txg7
1 8 xb7 a6 1 9 'it'xa8+ e7 20 i.c6 and
White's attack against the bare king is very
dangerous.
1 S J:ta 1 ttJxe2+ 1 7 'it>h 1 d5 1 8 xh7
O-O-O?
1 8 ... l:txg7 19 "iixg7 i.c6 20 h4 is clearly
4 . . . dx c 4 5 "ii a 4 +
Game 22
Alekhine-Rabar
Munich 1942
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
"iia4+ i.d7 6 "iix c4 i.c6 7 i.g2 i.d5
S "iid 3
Other queen moves have been tried here.
After 8 'fia4+ .i.c6 9 'fidl e5!? 10 0-0 exd4
1 1 'iixd4 'iixd4 12 ttJxd4 .i.xg2 1 3 'it>xg2
.i.c5 the smoke begins to clear and Black
faces no problems, e.g. 14 ttJb3 ttJa6 1 5 ttJc3
Th e Ca t a l a n
6 . . . a6
Not the only possibility. After 6 ... c6 7
'it'xc4 ..td6 8 0-0 e5 the break in the centre is
not entirely satisfying for Black, e.g. 9 ltJc3
0-0 1 0 .l:td1 'ike7 1 1 'ikb3 exd4 1 2 ltJxd4 i.c5
13 h3 ltJe5 14 ..tg5 h6 15 ..txf6 'iIxf6 1 6
ltJe4 'it'e7 1 7 ltJxc5 'iix c5 1 8 .l:tac1 and White
has a small advantage due to his lead in de
velopment. 6 ... ..te7 7 'it'xc4 0-0 8 0-0 a6 9
c2 c5 1 0 .l:td1 .l:ta7 1 1 e4 b6 1 2 ltJc3 .tb7
1 9 lDxg7!
A nice, traditional wrecking of the king
1 3 d5 exd5 1 4 e5 ltJe8 1 5 ltJxd5 saw White
seize the initiative in Lautier-Pinter, France
side from one of histoty's greatest attacking
players.
1 993, when Black had to surrender his light
1 9 . . .'xg7
squared bishop - 1 5 ... ..txd5 1 6 .l:txd5 ltJc7 1 7
.l:td3 ltJe6 1 8 b 3 'ilb8 1 9 i.b 2 .l:td8 2 0 .l:tad 1
19 ... ltJce4 20 b4! 'iie 5 21 ..tf4 'itb5 22 a4
(White really wants his bishop on the a1-h8
b5 21 h4 etc.
7 lDc3 !ii.. e 7
diagonal!) 22 .. .'ihb4 23 i.e5 is nice for
White.
Again Black has other options:
20 !ii.. d 4! lDce4 21 'ilixe4 'tiffS 22 'ilixfS
7 ... c5 8 0-0 .l:tb8 9 i.f4 b5 10 'ild1 .l:tb6 1 1
d5 (Black keeps his pawn but now White
exfS 23 ':!:!'ac 1 ':!:!'fe8 24 .:!:!.c7 ! ':!:!'xe2 2S
attacks in the centre) 1 1 ...exd5 1 2 ltJxd5
':!:!'xb7 'itig6 26 .bf6 'itixf6 27 .:!:!.d6 + ! 1 -0
In view of the continuation 27 ...g7 28
ltJxd5 1 3 xd5 ..tb7 1 4 d2 ii.e7 1 5 a4
with compensation for the pawn in Speel
.l:tdd7 .l:!.f8 29 '>itG .l:tc2 30 .l:tdc7 .l:td2 3 1
'it>e3.
man-Andersson, Hastings 1 980/8 1 . There
followed 1 5 ... ltJf6 1 6 'ilxd8+ i.xd8 1 7 .l:tfd1
ltJd5 1 8 axb5 ltJxf4 1 9 gxf4 .l:txb5 20 ltJe5
Black plays S . . . lDbd7
....-------------.
--. i.xg2 21 '>itxg2 i.c7 (21 ...l1xb2? is poor in
Game 23
view of 22 .uxd8+!) 22 ltJxc4 .txf4 23 .l:txa6
0-0 and Black had finally castled. White won
Andersson -A . Sokolov
the
pawn back but the game was equal. Also
Bar 1997
'-------... possible here is 8 ... cxd4 9 ltJxd4 'iWb6 10
ltJc2 i.e7 1 1 'it'xc4 0-0, when Black ad
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 lDf3 lDf6 4 g3 dxc4 S
dressed development and achieved a good
'ilia4+ lDbd7 6 !ii.. g 2
50
4 . . . dx c 4 5 'W a 4 +
8 . . . 0-0
Another Andersson game went 8 .. J::tb 8 9
ltJxd7 (or 9 'iYxc4 c5 1 0 ltJxd7 'iYxd7 1 1 .i.f4
b5 1 2 'iVd3 c4 1 3 'iYc2 .i:tb6 with counterplay
for Black) 9 ...'iVxd7 10 'iYxc4 b5 1 1 'iVd3
1Lb7 1 2 .i.xb7 ':'xb7 1 3 Wio .l:i.b6 1 4 0-0
'it'c6 1 5 'ii'xc6+ l::txc 6 and Black was well
developed in Andersson-Hubner, Tilburg
1 98 1 , with White getting no chance to ex-
ploit the c-file or the often weakened c5square. Consequently 16 .i.g5 l:Ic4! 17 e3 c5
1 8 1Lxf6 gxf6 19 dxc5 0-0 20 l:tac1 l:!.d8 21
ltJb 1 .l:i.xc5 22 .l:i.xc5 .i.xc5 23 .l:i.c1 .i.b4 left
Black with the superior ending .
9 lLlxd7
9 ltJxc4 has also been played. Black was
never in danger in the opening in Poluljahov
Zakharevich, St. Petersburg 200 1 , which
went 9 ... c5 10 dxc5 1Lxc5 1 1 0-0 .l:i.b8 1 2
'it'dl 'ii'c 7 1 3 1Lf4 e5 1 4 .i.e3 b5 1 5 .i.xc5
ltJxc5 1 6 ltJe3 .i.b7 1 7 1Lxb7 .l:i.xb7 1 8 .l:i.c1
'ii'd 8 etc.
9 . . . .i.xd7 1 0 'Wxc4 b5 1 1 'Wb3 b4 1 2
lLle4 .i.b5 1 3 lLlxf6 + .i.xf6 1 4 .i.e3
Also possible is the greedy 14 .i.xa8 'ifxa8
1 5 0, although in the following lines Black
obtains healthy compensation: 1 5 ... 1Lxd4 1 6
.i.e3 (1 6 'ii'xb4 c 5 1 7 'iVb3 e 5 1 8 a4 .i.d7 is
fine for Black as White still needs to com
plete development) 1 6 ... e5! 1 7 .l:i.c1 (White
must be careful here, e.g. 1 7 .i.xd4 exd4 1 8
'ii'xb4? .l:i.e8 1 9 0-0-0 c5! with the better
chances for Black thanks to his busier pieces
and White's insecure king) 1 7 ... c5 18 .i.xd4
exd4 1 9 .i:txc5 .l:i.e8 20 .l:i.xb5 (White returns
the exchange and secures equality) 20 ... axb5
21 'it'f2 'iVa7! 22 .i:te1 c5 etc. (A.Sokolov)
1 4 . . J:tb8 1 5 l:td 1 c5!
Th e Ca t a l a n
Game 24
H Gbner-Smyslov
TilbufJ!, 1982
1 d4 d 5 2 e4 e6 3 liJf3 liJf6 4 g3 dxe4 5
'tia4+ liJbd7 6 it'xe4
6 . . . a6
The immediate break in the centre with
6 ... c5 is also possible, bringing the game to a
new junction. For example in Karpov52
4 . . . dx c 4 5 'Wi a 4 +
1 6 e6?!
White goes for the direct attack in the cen
tre. Other tries don't promise an advantage,
e.g. 1 6 'iVd3 'iVc7 1 7 xd5 xd5 1 8 'it'xd5
l:!.d8 1 9 'iib 3 l:txd 1+ 20 'it'xd 1 'iVxe5 with an
equal game, or Smyslov's 1 6 e3 g6 1 7 'iVf4 f6
1 8 e6 'it'c8, when Black frees himself success
fully.
1 6 . . . d4 1 7 !il.. x b7 J:txb7 1 8 e3 !il.. f 6 1 9
exd4 e7 ! 20 !il.. e 3
20 exf7+ l:1fxf7 21 ..wd3 'it'xd4! 22 'iVb3 c4
hands over the initiative to Black.
20 . . .fxe6 21 'Wig4 h5! 22 'Wixh5
This is better than 22 'iVe4 cxd4 23 xd4
l:!.d7 24 'it'xe6+ 'it>h8 25 'ii'xd7 'ii'x d7 26
.i.xf6 'it'e6 27 .td4 when White suffers on
the light squares.
22 . . .cxd4 23 'Wie2 'ii"d 5!
The centralization of the queen and
Black's centre are more important features
here than the a-pawn.
24 'ii"x a6 b5 25 'Wia5 e5 26 !il.. d 2 J:ta8 27
'Wib4 J:tea7 28 !il.. e 1
White should prefer the more adventur
ous 28 l:1ac1 l:txa2 29 l:!.c5 'iWf3 30 l:!.dc1
..wd3! 31 l:!.xb5 h7, although Black retains
the initiative.
Game 25
Alekhine-Junge
Prague 1942
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 e6 3 liJf3 liJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
'ii"a 4+ liJbd7 6 'ii"x c4 a6 7 !il.. g 2
7 . . . b5
Also possible is 7 ... c5 8 dxc5 .txc5 9 'it'd3
b5!?, as played in Nogueiras-Marjanovic,
Sarajevo 1 985, which continued 10 4Je5 4Jd5
1 1 4Jxd7 xd7 12 4Jc3 4Jb4 13 'ii'b l c6
53
Th e Ca t a l a n
1 1 a4
1 1 c3 I:tc8 transposes to 8 'iWc2 c5 9 0-0
Jib 7 1 0 c3 l:tc8.
1 1 . . . ii.xf3?!
The decision to grab material is risky, lead
ing Keres to suggest 1 1 ...l:tc8 1 2 'ib3 'iVb6
1 3 a3 Jic6 1 4 e5 xe5 1 5 dxe5 4Jd5
with counterplay.
1 2 ii.xf3 cxd4 1 3 axb5 axb5 1 4 .l:!.d 1
1 4 . . . 'iWb6
Other continuations are good for White,
e.g. 1 4 ... Jic5 1 5 i.f4 e5 16 Jixe5 4Jxe5 1 7
'ii'x c5, o r 1 4. . .e 5 1 5 e3! when the opening of
the position is to White's benefit.
1 5 ttJd2 e5
In the event of 1 5 ... 4Je5 1 6 b3 4Jxf3+
1 7 exf3 White is in the driving seat. If Black
tries to hold on to the d4-pawn he can get
4 . . . dx c 4 5 'iVa 4 +
Game 26
Cu . H ansen-Van Wely
Istanbul 2000
1 0 . . . Jte7
Again 1O ... i.b4+?! is possible. After 1 1
tDbd2 4Je7 1 2 .ltxe7 .ltxe7 1 3 l:tc1 White
controls the c-file and has the better chances,
but this is a lesser evil for Black than the
eccentric
12 .. .'itxe7?!, when Smyslov
S.Polgar, London 1 996 left White better after
55
Th e C a t a l a n
1 5 l:tc 1
1 5 0-0 gives Black the opportunity to
launch the c-pawn. Wojtkiewicz-Kaidanov,
New York 1 993 is a good example, when
56
4 . . . dx c 4 5 a 4 +
Summary
After 5 ... c6 6 'it'xc4 b5 7 i*'c2 b7 8 g2 lLibd7 the continuation 9 lLie5 is the most interest
ing available to White, albeit one that offers nothing more than equality. Black has 9 ... lLixe5 1 0
dxe5 lLid5!, closing the dangerous h l -a8 diagonal, but perhaps 9 ...'iVb6 i s even more precise,
attacking the d4-pawn and renewing the threat of ... c6-c5.
There is also another defence that confl11TI s 5 'ifa4+ lacks punch. After 5 ... d7 6 'iVxc4
.ic6 7 g2 the game Andersson-Illescas is perhaps the most exact advertisement: 7 ... d5 8
'l'd3 e4 9 'iVdl c5 1 0 lLic3 c6 etc.
Black can, step by step, equalize in the 5 ... lLibd7 variation. As is demonstrated in Game 24,
Black should not fear 6 'iVxc4 a6 7 'iVc2 c5 8 g2. Actually this is the position from the variation 5 ... c6 6 'it'xc4 b5 7 'iVc2 b7 8 g2 lLibd7 with the extra tempo ... a7-a6 (as Black will
play ... c6-c5 later in that line, but here do it in one go with ... c7-c5), which is therefore a definite improvement on a position considered fine for Black. It is interesting that the same posi
tion can occur after the main continuation 8 'i'c6 :tb8 (after 9 0-0 b7 10 'iVc2 c5) . For Black
it is enough to play ... :b8-c8, which guarantees him an equal game. Therefore White most
often aims to use the position of the queen on c6 for an attack on the weakened c7-square
with 9 f4.
Black can sacrifice a pawn in order to activate his pieces with 9 ... b4 (Morozevich). In
Game 26, Hansen-Van Wely, we see that in the main line after 9 ...lLid5 10 iLg5 e7 1 1 xe7
'i'xe7 the chances are approximately even.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 eS 3 liJf3 liJfS 4 g3 dxc4 5 a4+ liJbd7
5 ... c6 6 'it'xc4 b5 7 'iVc2 b7 8 g2 lLibd7 (DJ
9 0-0 - Game 19; 9 lLie5 - Game 20
5 ... d7 6 'i'xc4
6 ... c5 7 dxc5 c6 8 g2 - see Game 76 (Chapter 7)
6...c6 7 g2 (DJ
7 ... lLibd7 - Game 2 1 ; 7...d5 - Game 22
S xc4
6 g2 a6 7 lLic3 - Game 23
S . . . aS 7 .i.g2
7 'iVc2 - Game 24
7 . . . b5 8 cS b8 (DJ
9 0-0 - Game 25; 9 f4 - Game 26
8. . . liJbd7
7 .i.g2
8. . . b8
57
Th e S e m i- Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 g 2 e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
Game 27
Wojtkiewicz-Dzhandzhgava
Hastings 1989/90
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 liJf3 liJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
g2 e7 6 0-0
Another move is 6 4Jc3, one sample game
going 6...0-0 7 4Je5 c5 8 dxc5 'tic7 9 4Jxc4
'ii'x c5 1 0 3 4Jc6 1 1 jLe3 4Jd4 1 2 i.xd4
'ii'xd4 1 3 0-0 l:tb8, when White had some
pressure on the queenside in Gelfand
Speelman, linares 1 99 1 , although Black
managed to free himself in the event of 1 4
l:tfd1 c5 1 5 l;Iac1 jLd7 1 6 4Je4 'iib5 1 7
'ii'd 3 l:tfd8 1 8 4Jed6 'iVa6 1 9 4Je3 b 5 20 'iVa3
'ii'b 6, with an equal middlegame position.
6 . . . 0-0
59
Th e C a t a la n
7 tDc3
Also possible is 7 ttJbd2 bs S a4 c6 9 ttJes
ttJds 10 e4 ttJf6 1 1 ds with a typical break in
the centre in Kostic-Cvetkovic, Yugoslavia
1 993. There followed 1 1 ...iVc7! 1 2 ttJxc6
ttJxc6 1 3 dxc6 iVxc6 1 4 axbs iVxbs 1 5 es
ttJds 1 6 iVg4 i.a6 1 7 ttJe4 'it>hS 1 S ttJc3,
when Black sacrificed the exchange and had
a good position after 1 S ... ttJxc3!? 19 i.xaS
l:txaS 20 bxc3 i.b7.
The advance 7 a4 ttJc6 S as looks hann
less and Black shouldn't experience any
problems. S ....l:!.bS 9 'iVc2 ttJxd4 (9 ... bs!? is
interesting, , 1 0 axb6 axb6 1 1 iVxc4 i.b7 1 2
ttJc3 ttJas evaluated as equal b y Kozul) 1 0
ttJxd4 iVxd4 1 1 i.e3 'iVd6! 1 2 i.xa7 .t!.aS 1 3
i.e3 ttJds i s pleasant for Black according to
Kotronias. Nor does 1 2 'iVxc4 promise
White more than equality after 12 ...ttJds 1 3
i.xa7 :taS 1 4 i.d4 c s 1 5 i.c3 bs!? 1 6 iVxbs
i.a6, when the situation is unclear.
7 . . . tDc6
7 ... cs S dxcs ttJc6 9 'iVa4 'iVas 1 0 'iWxc4
es!? (10 ...iVxcs 1 1 'iVxcs i.xcs 1 2 i.gs
slightly favours White) 1 1 i.e3 i.e6 1 2 iVa4
'iVxa4 1 3 ttJxa4 ttJds 1 4 i.d2 f5 was
Scheeren-O.Rodriquez, Eindhoven 1 9S6. It
looks as if Black has compensation for the
pawn, but with active play White managed to
drum up an initiative with 1 5 e4! fxe4 1 6
ttJgs i.xgs 1 7 i.xgs h 6 1 S i.e3 ttJxe3 1 9
fxe3 .u.xf1+ 20 ':xfl i.xa2 2 1 ttJc3 i.c4 22
l:td1 1IdS 23 IIxdS+ ttJxdS 24 ttJxe4, with the
superior ending (his knight is very good).
7 ... ttJbd7 transposes to 4 ... i.e7 5 i.g2 0-0
6 0-0 ttJbd7 7 ttJc3 dxc4.
8 e3
Also possible is S e4 :tbS 9 i.e3 (9 es
ttJds 10 ttJe4 gives White a space advantage
and control of the important cs-square, invit
ing an assessment of unclear) 9 ... bs 1 0 a3
ttJas 1 1 'iVc2 i.b7 1 2 l:!.ad 1 , when White is
well developed and will soon be ready for
action in the centre. Filippov-Kiriakov, Mos
cow 1 995 continued 1 2 ... a6 1 3 ds exds 1 4
exds ttJb3 1 5 ttJes l:!.eS 1 6 ttJc6 i.xc6 1 7
60
Th e S e m i- Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 i. g 2 i. e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
1 2 i.e3
12 f4!? is worth a try.
1 2 . . . i.fS 1 3 h4
White uses his space advantage to engi
neer an attack.
1 3 . . . 'i'eS 1 4 i.f4 a6 1 S hS h6 1 6 a3 f6
Black has no time to push the c-pawn
immediately as 1 6 ...ttJa5 1 7 ttJe5! c5 1 8 dxc5
xc5 1 9 g4! (Wojtkiewicz) is very promis
ing for White.
1 7 eS fS 1 S 4Jh4 4Je7 1 9 g4! 4JbdS 20
i.d2 i.e6
After 20 ... ttJxc3 21 bxc3 fxg4 22 'i!Vxg4
White still has a dangerous attack, although
this looks better than what happens in the
game.
21 gxfS exfS 22 'ii'x e4
White has won back the pawn and Black
still hasn't completed development.
22 . . . %:tdS 23 4JxdS! i.xdS
23 ...ttJxd5?! 24 i.h3 loses .the pawn on fS.
24 i.xdS + 4JxdS 2S 'i'd3 f4 26 'iWfS!
In the ending White keeps the advantage.
26 . . . 'ii'x fS 27 4JxfS <l;f7 2S 4Jh4 i.e7
Another line goes 28 ... c5 29 dxc5 xc5 30
J::!ac1 i.b6 31 ttJg6 'iit e 6 32 'it'g2 with advan
tage to White, the f4-pawn being vulnerable.
Nevertheless, Black should go for this break
at some point in order to undermine the
support of the e5-pawn.
Game 28
Poluljahov-Nikolaev
Belorechensk 1988
1 d4 dS 2 e4 e6 3 4Jf3 4Jf6 4 g3 dxe4 S
i.g2 i.e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 4Ja3
7 . . . i.xa3
Also possible is 7 ... c3 8 bxc3 c5, although
this seems to help White consolide the cen
tre. Grabuzov-Vavra, Pardubice 1 993 con
tinued 9 ttJe5 ttJbd7 (9 ... ttJd5 10 'iib 3 cxd4
1 1 cxd4 ttJc6 12 ttJxc6 bxc6 1 3 e4 ttJb6 1 4
e3 i s a shade preferable for White) 1 0
ttJac4 ttJxe5 1 1 ttJxe5 'fIc7 1 2 'iVb3 l:td8 1 3
61
Th e C a t a la n
1 2 ttJb6
In the event of 12 . ..ttJ f6 White can sacri
fice a piece with 1 3 lLlxf7!? 'it>xf7 1 4 eS lLldS
1 S 'ii'hS+ 'it>g8 1 6 .i.e4 g6, when Krasenkow
Arbakov, Moscow 1 989 witnessed 1 7 iLxg6!
hxg6 1 8 'iWxg6+ 'it>h8 1 9 i:tfe 1 lLlc3 (White's
threat was l:te4) 20 .l:te3 .i.b 7 (20 ... 'it'd7 21
"iVhS+ 'it>g7 22 :0 lLldS 23 g4! - Krasenkow
- wins for White) 21 I!.xc3 lLld7?! 22 'iYh6+
'it>g8 23 g4 lie7 24 l:th3 with a dangerous
attack. Black can improve with 2 1 ...lLlc6!,
forcing the draw: 22 'iVh6+ 'it>g8 23 "iVg6+
'it>h8 etc. (Mitenkov) . Note that Black must
accept the second sacrifice, e.g. 1 7 ...l:te 7?! 1 8
iLxe7 'ii'x e7 1 9 .i.e4 (also strong i s 1 9
iLxh7+!? "iVxh7 2 0 'iiVe8+ 'it>g7 21 'iVxc8 and
Black's forces lack co-ordination) 1 9 ...lLlc6
20 f4 'iif7 , Kuzmin-Anand, Frunze 1 988.
Then Anand gives 21 .i.xh7+! 'iYxh7 22
'iVe8+ 'it>g7 23 f5! iLb7 24 f6+ 'it>h6 2S f7
with a near decisive lead.
If this is not your style, then there is the
quieter 1 3 l:[b1 iLb7 1 4 :e1 , after which
Black must play precisely to maintain the
balance. Gleizerov-Zhukhovitsky, USSR
1 986 continued 14 ... lLlc6 1 S lLlxc4 'iVxd4 1 6
'it'c2 "iVxc4 (16...'iWa7 1 7 lLld2 i s interesting)
1 7 'it'xc4 bxc4 1 8 .l:txb7 and now instead of
1 8 ... lLleS?! 1 9 .l:tc1 .l:tec8 20 f4 lLlc6 21 .l:tbb1
as 22 l:txc4 lLlb4 23 iLxb4 axb4 24 l:tbxb4,
. . .
Th e S e m i- Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 SL g 2 SL e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
1 5 . . . g6
15 ...ttJxe5 16 fxe5 'iVxd4+ 17 'it>hl wins a
pawn for Black but the f-file is opened for
attack.
1 6 'ifh6?
A poor move. White finds himself with
the initiative after 1 6 'it'h3 ttJxe5 1 7 dxe5
'i'd4+ 1 8 'it>hl jLxe4 1 9 .l:tadl 'iVe3 20 l:tfel
'i'xa3 21 jLxe4.
1 6 . . . 4Jf6?
16 ... ttJxe5 1 7 dxe5 'iVd4+ 1 8 'itth l jLxe4
19 lladl jLxg2+ 20 'itt xg2 'iVe4+ 21 'it>h3
ltJc6 wins for Black.
1 7 d5 c3
The capture 17 ... exd5 18 exd5 Jtxd5 1 9
l:tadl c 6 20 Jtb2 simply creates attacking
chances for White.
27 . . . 4Jd7??
The oruy route is 27 ...'iVe8 28 l:txh5 'iVe3+
29 ..wxe3 l:txe3, when White keeps an advan
tage in the endgame due to his more active
forces after 30 l:tc5 ttJd7 31 l:I.c7 ltJe5 32
jLxe5 l:txe5 33 l:tm l:tc8 34 l:txh7 l:txc7 35
l:txc7 b4 36 l:tc6 l:txa5 37 l:txg6+ 'it>f7 38 l:tg4
l:txa2 39 l:txb4 as.
28 l:txh5! 'ife7 29 'iVxg6 + ! 1 -0
Game 29
Khalifman-Portisch
Rqkjavik 199 1
1 d 4 d 5 2 c4 e 6 3 4Jf3 4Jf6 4 g 3 dxc4 5
SLg2 SLe7 6 0-0 0-0 7 4Ja3 SLxa3 8 bxa3
SLd7
After 8 ... ttJc6 9 jLb2 Y.Mikhalevsky
Pigusov, Ubeda 1 997 went 9 ... ttJd5 10 l:I.cl
ttJb6 1 1 e4 i.. d7 1 2 l:te l , when White's cen
tral control served as sufficient compensation
for the pawn. There followed 12 ...ttJe7 1 3
ttJe5 i..b 5 1 4 'iVh5 'iVe8 1 5 Jth3 f5 1 6 'iVg5
h6 1 7 'iNh4 l:tf6 (17 ... ttJg6 1 8 ttJxg6 'iVxg6 1 9
63
Th e Ca t a l a n
9 lLle5
Zaichik-Soffer, Rishon Ie Zion 1 998 went
9 'ii'c 2 c6, Black surrendering the c4-pawn
to complete development. This policy
proved successfill after 10 1fxc4 ttJbd7 1 1
gS dS 1 2 'ii'b4 b6 1 3 !tfd1 h6 1 4 xf6
'ii'xf6 1 5 !iac 1 llfc8 1 6 'ii'b 1 b7 1 7 e4 'ilie7
1 8 'iiid3 ttJf8 1 9 dS l:td8 20 'ii'b 3 .l:tac8, when
Black had a solid position.
1 2 l:1.b 1
Glek-Klovans, Frunze 1 988 went 1 2 l::tc 1
ttJb6 13 e3 'ilid7 14 1fc2 ltab8 1 S l:tfd1 l:iJe7
16 f1 'ii'a4 17 'iit'b 1 , White uninterested in
the exchange of queens as this would relieve
some of the pressure. After 1 7 .. .l::tfd 8 1 8 e4
lld6 1 9 'ii'a 1 f6 20 J:te1 ttJc6 21 h3 .l:!.f8 22
eS!? fxeS 23 dxeS %:td2 24 xe6+ 'It>h8 25
f1 'ii'b s 26 c3 l:td3 the situation remained
unclear.
1 2 . . . lLlb6
1 1 . . .lLld5
1 1 . ..'ilid7?!
looks
wrong.
KozulKir.Georgiev, Sarajevo 2002 went 1 2 'ilVa4
ttJxd4 1 3 'ilixc4 l:.ad8, when Georgiev pro
poses 14 l:tfd 1 eS 1 5 e3 'iiie6 1 6 'ii' xe6 ttJxe6
64
Th e S e m i- Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 iL e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
20 a4 'ii'c 5
20... cxd5 2 1 exd5 g6 22 as ifc5 23 'iWc3
tZlxd5 24 ifxc4 ifxc4 25 l:txc4 was seen in
Krasenkow-Flear, Paris 1 990, the Catalan
bishop affording White the lead.
Came 30
Psa khis-Stefansson
21 'ii'c 3 cxd5
2 1 . . .ttJxa4 22 'iVxc4 'iVxc4 23 l:Ixc4 ttJb6
24 dxc6 ttJxc4 25 c7 .l:!.dc8 26 cxb8'ii l:txb8
(Korpics-Gyimesi, Balatonbereny 1 992) leads
to a similar minor piece endgame, with the
better prospects for White.
Winnipeg 1997
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
iLg2 iLe7 6 0-0 0-0 7 ttJe5
7 . . . c5
23 . . . 'ii'e 7? !
23. . .ttJxa4 2 4 l:Ixc5 ttJxc3 2 5 lldxc4 nxc5
26 l:txc5 ttJxa2 and a draw was agreed in
Nesis-Andonov, Correspondence 1 997.
2B . . . ttJe3 ! ?
Black has to try something. The straight
forward 28 . . .l:Ixc4 29 xc4 'ili'xa5 30 a6
leads to a very difficult ending.
8 dxc5 iLxc5
It appears that Black's queen is awk-wardly
placed after 8 . . .c7 9 ttJxc4 ifxc5, as was
demonstrated in Pinter-Kallai, Hungary 1 988:
10 b3 l:td8 1 1 ttJbd2 ttJc6 12 .ltb2 l:Ib8 1 3
l:tc1 with a definite lead for White. This in
creased after 13 . . .ifb5 14 a3 .ltd7 1 5 b4 .lte8
16 e4 h5?! 17 h3 ifg5 1 8 e5 ttJh7 19 'iVe2 h4
65
Th e C a t a la n
9 lLle3 'fIe7
Vaulin-Feoktistov, Moscow 1 998 took a
more sober course after 9 ... 'iVd4 to 'iWxd4
.i.xd4 1 1 liJxc4 liJc6 1 2 liJb5 e5 1 3 e3 i.c5
14 b3 liJe8 (14 ... i.e6 allows White to put a
knight on d6: 1 5 liJbd6 l:tab8 1 6 i.b2 etc.)
1 5 .i.a3 .i.xa3 1 6 liJbxa3 f6 17 .i.d5+ h8
1 8 .i.xc6 bxc6 and White 'sacrificed' the
Catalan bishop in order to inflict upon his
opponent a weakened queenside. This pro
vided a target in the corning ending after 1 9
liJa5 i.d7 2 0 l:tfdl l:t f7 2 1 l:tac 1 l:.c8 22 g2
etc.
9 ... 'iVe7 allows the pin on the knight with
to i.g5, when Ribli-Gopal, Calcutta 1 992
continued 10 ... h6 1 1 .ixf6 'iVxf6 12 liJxc4
liJc6 1 3 .ixc6! bxc6 1 4 liJe4 'iie 7?! 1 5 liJe5
'iic7 1 6 liJxc5 'iVxe5 1 7 'iVc2 l:tb8 1 8 b3 'iVh5
1 9 l:tfdl Itb5 20 .l:i.ac 1 as 21 ':'d6 and Black's
weaknesses on the queenside were more
important features in the position than the
weakened light squares around White's king.
Black can restrict his opponent to a slight
edge with 1 4 ...'iVf5 1 5 liJxc5 'iWxc5 1 6 'iWa4.
1 4 lLle4
1 0 lLlxe4
1 0 . . . xf2 +
Black should avoid following to . . . l:td8 1 1
.if4 with l 1 . . .e5? 1 2 .i.xe5! .i.xf2+ 1 3 l:txf2
.uxd1 + 14 .l:!.xdl 'iVe7 1 5 .ixf6 gxf6 16 liJd5
with a decisive lead for White. This leaves
1 1 . ..e7 1 2 'iVc2 liJc6 1 3 .i.xc6 bxc6 14 i.g5
66
1 4 . . . 'fIb4!
1 4. . .l:td8? runs into 1 5 liJxf6+ 'iit h8 1 6 e3
and Black loses the f6-pawn for nothing:
1 6 . . . e5 1 7 h5! 'iie6 ( 1 7 ... liJxf6? 1 8 'i'g5
Th e S e m i- Op e n Ca t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 g 2 e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
1 5 c 1 f5
Black defends well. Again 1 5 . . . .l:!.d8? is
punished after 16 ttJxf6+ 'It>h8 17 'it'd3!
'iVb6+ 1 8 e3 ttJxf6 19 'ti'c3! 'i&'d6 20 'iix f6+
'it>g8 21 l:Ifl ! l:Id7 22 l:tf4 'It>fS 23 J:f.g4 and
White wins.
1 6 ltJd6
White should force matters with 1 6 .lrLxfS!,
e.g. 16 ... ttJxfS (1 6 ... 'litxfS?! 17 'iVd6+ 'iVxd6 1 8
ttJxd6 ttJb6 1 9 J::t c 7 .lrLd7 20 lhb7 clearly
favours White, while 1 6 . . .'iVxfS 1 7 ttJd6 'ikd8
18 e4 is also nice) 17 ttJf6+ 'litg7 (1 7 . . . 'lith8 1 8
'iVd8 is worse) 1 8 'iVd8 'iib6+ 1 9 'iixb6 axb6
20 ttJe8+ 'it>g6 21 ttJd6 1i.d7 22 a3 and White
wins back the pawn with interest in this end
game thanks to the queenside majority and
active pieces.
Yo - Yo
Game 3 1
G elfand-Aseev
Kla;peda 1988
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
g2 e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 ltJe5 ltJc6 S xc6
bxc6
9 . . . eS 1 0 ltJxe 7 +
1 0 . . . 't'ixe7 1 1 't'ia4
Also possible is 1 1 b3 cxb3 1 2 1i.a3 b2 1 3
xb2 l:Id8 1 4 'ilVc2 l:tb8 with an equal posi
tion. White has the better pawn structure but
Black is active.
1 1 . . . c5
67
Th e C a t a l a n
1 2 'ii'x c4
1 2 'it'a3 .Jtb7 1 3 ltJc3 ltfc8 is equal.
1 2 . . . cxd4 1 3 'ii'x d4 e5
After 1 3 ... ,Ud8!? 1 4 'iVh4 J::tb 8 1 5 b3 .Jta6
1 6 ltJc3 'iVc5 1 7 ltJe4 ltJxe4 1 8 'iixe4 the
exchange of knights should guarantee Black
good counterplay due to the presence of
opposite coloured bishops. The subsequent
1 8.J:tb4 1 9 1Ve3 1Vc2 20 .Jta3 l:te4 21 ltfel
ii'xe2 resulted in a draw in Krasenkow-Ribli,
Germany 1 998.
1 4 'ii'h 4
1 4 . . . 'ii'e 6
Hiibner-Handke, Germany 2001 contin
ued 14 ...ltb8 1 5 b3 ltd8 16 .Jtb2 h6 17 ltJa3
.Jtg4 1 8 ltJc4 .Jtxe2 1 9 1tfe 1 .Jtxc4 20 'it'xc4
ltd5 21 J:tad l and White's forces had finally
Th e S e m i- Op e n Ca t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 iL e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
31 . . . 'iiVd 6 32 iLg5?!
Preferable is 32 l:tf1 .ia6.
37 'iiVf 6??
37 . . . .i.g4! 0-1
1 7 f3 'iiVb 6 + 1 8 l:tf2
The continuation 1 8 'it>g2 h6 19 g4 .ta6
20 l:td1 l:td8 21 'iV1 gives White a small
advantage.
Game 32
Pi ket-Adams
23 . . . l:te8
27 'iiVh 5 l:txg2
Less forcing is 27 ... 'iVf6 28 l:tg3 .l:txg3 29
69
Th e C a t a l a n
9 . . . ttJd5
9 ...SLa6 1 0 SLxc6 c3 (1 O ...l:tb8 1 1 'ii'a4
.l:tb6 1 2 Itdl favours White) 1 1 SLxa8 cxb2
12 SLxb2 SLxfl 1 3 SLf3 and White's superior
pawn structure is the main difference.
1 0 'ilVa4
1 1 . . .J:f.b8
After 1 1 ...'iVd7 12 tiJd2 i.a6 1 3 .l:td1 l:tfd8
1 4 b3 Black should prefer the lesser evil
1 4... 11ab8 1 5 tiJxc4 tiJxc4 1 6 bxc4 c5 1 7 SLa3
cxd4 1 8 :xd4 'iWe8 (Ribli) 1 9 SLxe7 'iNxe7 20
'ia4, when White has something to bite on
on the queenside, to 14 ... cxb3 1 5 'iVxc6
'ii'xc6 16 SLxc6 I1ab8 17 axb3 SL b 7 1 8 SLxb7
l:txb 7 1 9 SLa3 SLxa3 20 l:txa3 e5!?, when a
draw was agreed in Cs.Horvath-Yu Shaoteng,
Gyula 2000, but where White could have had
the slightly better prospects with 21 tiJf3
exd4 22 lhd4 l:txd4 23 tiJxd4 (due to the
weaknesses on a7 and c7) .
1 2 J:f.d 1
1 0 . . . ttJb6
10 ... a5 1 1 l:td l 'ii'd 6 12 'it'xc4 SLa6 1 3
'iNc2 tiJb4 1 4 'it'd2 e 5 1 5 a3 tiJd3 1 6 SLe4
tiJxc1 1 7 l:txc 1 exd4 1 8 exd4 SLf6 1 9 l:txc6
'iNxd4 20 'it'xd4 SLxd4 21 tiJc3 and here a
draw was agreed in Ippolito-Gormally, Lon
don 1 999. The ending is equal; Black has the
bishop pair while White has the better pawn
structure.
1 1 'ilVc2
1 1 xc6 l:tb8 1 2 'iib 5 SLb7 1 3 SLxb7
i:txb 7 with play for both sides. Meins
Chandler, Germany 2000 saw the alternative
1 1 'ifa5 SLd7 1 2 tiJa3 SLd6 1 3 SLd2 'ife7 1 4
.u.fc1 l:[fb8 1 5 l:tab 1 e 5 1 6 tiJxc4 exd4 1 7
exd4 tiJd5!? 1 8 tiJe3 (1 8 SLxd5 cxd5 1 9 'iWxd5
SLe6 20 'iVc6 SLf5 21 nel 'ii'f6 is unclear)
1 8 ... l:tb5 1 9 'iWa4 h6 20 'ii'c 2?! tiJxe3 21 SLxe3
SLf5 22 'iVxc6 l:!.ab8 23 l:tal l:!.xb2 with ad
vantage to Black. Also possible is 1 1 ...i:tb8 1 2
tiJa3 SLd7 1 3 SLd2 i.d6 1 4 l:tfc 1 'iVe7 1 5
ab 1 c5 1 6 dxc5 SLxc5 1 7 b4 SLd6 with
equality in Wells-Arlandi, Escaldes 1 998.
70
1 2 . . :iVe8
Markowski-J aracz, Warsaw 2001 went
1 2 ... a5?! 1 3 tiJd2 SLa6 1 4 b3 cxb3 1 5 tiJxb3
SLb5 1 6 a4! SLxa4 1 7 xa4 tiJxa4 1 8 tiJxa5
tiJb6 1 9 tiJxc6 'ii'd7 20 tiJxb8 l:txb8 21 i.d2
SLd6 22 l:[al h5 23 h4 'iNe7 24 'iVc6, White's
bishop pair and pawn structure contributing
to his lead .
1 3 ttJd2 c5
Kotronias gives 13 ...SLa6 14 b3 c5 1 5 i.b2
cxd4 1 6 SLxd4 f6!?, planning ... e6-e5.
14 dxc5
14 tiJxc4 leads only to a level game after
1 4 ... cxd4 1 5 exd4 (1 5 llxd4 SLf6 is also
equal) 1 5 ... tiJxc4 1 6 'ifxc4 i.d6.
Th e S e m i - Op e n Ca t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 ii g 2 ii e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
1 0 bxa3 iia6
. . . .l::. b 6 22 e4 f6
23 iid4
23 f4!? is an interesting try.
23 .. J;:ta6 24 l:.c2 .l:!.b8 25 Wf 1 .l:!.b5 26
'it'e2 Wf7 27 .l:!.d3 We8 28 a4 .l:!.b7 29 .l:!.c4
iie7
29 ...'it>d7 30 e5 fxe5 31 lLxe5 g6 32 .l:.h4
h5 33 .l:.f4 We7 34 .i.f6+ 'it>e8 35 l:te4 helps
White a little as it results in the further weak
ening of Black's pawns.
30 e5
%-%
Game 33
Ribli-Bonsch
Thessaloniki 1988
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
iig2 iie7 6 0-0 0-0 7 ttJe5 ttJc6 8 ttJxc6
bxc6 9 ttJa3
11
iixc6
9 . iixa3
. .
1 3 iig2
13 lLf3 is a Raetsky speciality. Then
13 ... lbd5 14 'iVa5 brings us to a crossroads:
14 . . .'f6?! . 1 5 a4 .i.b7 (1 5 ... 'it'xd4 16 .i.a3
71
Th e C a t a l a n
1 3 . . :c8 1 4 d2 .l:!.d8 1 5 b4
1 5 1Ifc1 lIxd4 1 6 e3 c5 1 7 xd4 cxd4 is
given by Ribli. Black has clear compensation
for the exchange due to the strong centre
pawns.
1 5 . . . c3!
33 . . J:tc2 34 a4 'i'f3
34 . . . .:.xa2?? loses to 35 'iVb8+ 'it>h7 36
'iib 1+.
38 'i'b2 e5
16 .l:!.fc 1 xe2 1 7 c5 .l:!.a6 1 8 'i'c2 b5
The redeployment of the bishop with
1 8 ... c4 1 9 'iVxc3 d5, with equality, is a
good idea.
20 . . . 'ii'd 7 2 1 .l:!.ab 1 c6 22 h4
White seizes space on the kingside.
39 .l:!.e 1 'ii'c 6? !
A clear path t o equality i s 3 9 . . . e4 40 'iVe2
(40 l:he4?? 'fid1+ 41 'it>g2 l:tc1 and Black has
a decisive attack) 40 ... 'ilfxe2 41 l:txe2 11c4,
when the rook ending is completely drawn.
40 'ii'b 5! 'i'c7?
Th e S e m i- Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 ii.. g 2 ii.. e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
43 l:td5 l:te 1
44
l:td7 c 1 45 d5 1 -0
Game 34
Manor-Anand
London 1987
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
.1g2 ii.. e 7 6 0-0 0-0 7 ttJe5 ttJc6 8 ttJxc6
bxc6 9 ttJa3 ii.. x a3 1 0 bxa3 ttJd5 1 1 a4
1 2 xc6 l:tb8
1 3 c5 ii.. b 7
Posting the bishop more actively with
1 3 . . . .ia6 seems to work out well for Black
here, e.g. 14 e4!? c3!? (14 .. .'it'd7?! 1 5 .if4
l:tfc8 1 6 :fd1 4Ja4 1 7 'iVg5 l:tb2 1 8 d5 h6 1 9
'iVg4 h 5 20 'iVxh5 4Jc3 2 1 .ie5 4Jxd1 22
.uxd 1 was difficult for Black in Sorg-Oettel,
Schwabisch Gmuend 1 996, but 17 ... 4Jb2 1 8
l:td2 c 3 1 9 .l:tc2 .l:tb5 20 d5!? i s interesting) 1 5
.l:!.e1 4Ja4 1 6 'WaS .ib5 1 7 l:tb1 c 6 and Black
is very solid. Also possible is 14 .if4 4Jd5 1 5
.ixd5 'iVxd5 1 6 'Wxa7 l:tb6 1 7 .ixc7 .ib7 1 8
f3 a6 (1 8 ... l:tb2? 1 9 :tab 1 lIa8 20 e4 'iVb5
21 'iVb6 'iVxb6 22 .ixb6 l:!.xb1 23 l:txb1 f5 24
.ic5 and White had good chances thanks to
his two extra pawns in Palatnik-Razuvaev,
Thilisi 1 973) 1 9 'iVc5 1:[c8 20 'iVxd5 .ixd5 21
.if4 when a draw was agreed in Ftacnik
Kurajica, Dortmund 1 98 1 . However, the
following line is slightly better for White:
21 .. .c3! 22 e4 .ic4 23 l:tf2 1:txa3 24 .id6 :ta6
25 .ic5 e5 26 l:tc1 exd4 27 .ixd4 .l:txa2 etc.
1 4 e4
1 1 . . . ttJb6
Preferable to 1 1 ...4Jc3?! 1 2 'iVc2 (1 2
'iVxc4? 'iVxd4! and Black wins material)
12 ... 4Jb5 1 3 e3 4Jd6 1 4 a4 as 1 5 .ia3 'iVd7
16 .ixd6 cxd6 1 7 'iVxc4 .ib7 1 8 l:1fc1 lUc8
19 :tab 1 l:ta7 20 l:tb3, when Black's extra
pawn was less important than his develop
ment problems in Vera-Moran, Alcobendas
1994. In fact he was under considerable pres
sure after 20 ... c5 21 'iVb5 .ixg2 22 'it>xg2 g6
23 dxc5 dxc5 24 Ihc5 etc.
1 1 ...a5 12 'iVxc6 .ia6 13 'iVc5 was played
in Alburt-Browne, Philadelphia 1 989. After
1 3. .. 'iVd6 1 4 'iVxa5 c3 1 5 .ixd5 'ii'x d5 1 6
'i'xc3 .ixe2 chances were even - once again
1 4 . . . d6
Another option is 14 ... f5 15 f3 fxe4 1 6
73
Th e C a t a l a n
Game 35
Filippov-Sulskis
Poland 1999
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 e6 3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
i.g2 i.e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 'ii'c 2
20 i.e3!
8 a4
7 . . . a6
Th e S e m i- Op e n Ca t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 g 2 e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
S c5
. . .
9 ltJbd2
After 9 dxc5 ..txc5 10 ltJbd2 ltJc6 1 1
tDxc4 'iJle7 it seems that 1 2 ..tg5 is good
enough only for equality, e.g. 1 2 ... h6 1 3 ..txf6
'i'xf6 1 4 l:!.fdl e5 1 5 e3 ..tfS 1 6 iVb3 e4 1 7
tDfd2 'ii'e 7 1 8 ltJb6 l:!.ad8 1 9 ltJd5 'ife6 20
tLlf4 'iVxb3 21 ltJxb3 and the game is level, or
18 'ifc2?! ltJb4 1 9 'iVc3 l:!.ac8, when Black
enjoyed more space in Anastasian-Asrian,
. . .
Th e Ca t a l a n
20 . . . ttJxb5
20 ... ttJxe2+?! takes the wrong pawn.
Black's majority on the kingside will not be
very dangerous compared to White's a- and
b-pawns. After 21 'iitg2 l:!.ad8 22 .Jtb6 White
has the better chances.
52
55
58
61
64
67
70
73
76
79
Game 36
Ftacnik -Dutreeuw
Batumi 1999
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxe4 5
iLg2 iLe7 6 0-0 0-0 7 'ilVe2 a6 8 a4 iLd7
9 J:td 1
Th e S e m i- Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 iL e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
10 ttJe3
10 'iWxc4 i.dS 1 1 'iVc2 lbc6 12 lbbd2 lbb4
13 'itOl cS 14 e4 i.c6 I S eS lbd7! 1 6 lbe4 h6
17 dxcS .i.xe4 IS 'ii'x e4 lbxcs 19 l:txdS
liJxe4 20 l:txaS l:txaS is level according to
Ribli. White's Catalan bishop is good but
Black's knights are well posted and White's
queenside might prove vulnerable. However,
Black would prefer to see 17 b3?! .i.dS I S
liJc3 .i.xf3 1 9 .i.xf3 cxd4 20 l1xd4 'iWc7 a s in
Donguines-Villamayor, Calcutta 2001 , when
the weakness on eS tipped the scales in
Black's favour. Indeed after 21 l::t c 4 'ilVaS! 22
i.xb 7 l:tabS 23 .i.g2 lbxeS 24 .i.f4 liJxc4 2S
i.xbS liJd2! Black collected a pawn.
1 0 . . . ttJbd7
1O ... .i.xf3 is dealt with in the next main
game. Another possibility is 1O ...liJdS 1 1 e4
liJxc3 1 2 bxc3 bS 1 3 lbeS i.b7 14 irb l - a
typical manoeuvre for White. After 1 4 ... lbc6
IS liJxc4 eS 16 .i.e3 exd4 17 cxd4 bxc4 1 8
'iWxb7 lbaS 1 9 'iYb2 ltbS 20 'iVc2 .l:tb3 21
i.f1 i.b4 22 ltac1 ltc3 Black does have
some compensation for his weaknesses, but
perhaps not enough.
1 1 e4 b5
Dizdar-Sadler
Game 37
Pula 1997
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxe4 5
iLg2 iLe7 6 0-0 0-0 7 'ii'e 2 a6 S a4 iLd7
9 J:td 1 iLe6 1 0 ttJe3
Th e Ca t a l a n
78
Th e S e m i- Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 ii.. g 2 ii.. e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
No exchange of queens!
30 nf 1 e5 31 'iWc3 f6 32 Wg2 'iWg4 33
'i'c4 a5 34 h3 'iWd7 35 'iWc2 'ilVc6 36 nd 1 .
J:!.b4 37 nd8 nxa4 38 nc8 nb4! 0- 1
Game 38
Lputian-J . Polgar
10 ii.. g 5
In the event of 1 0 lZ'lc3?! b 5 ! 1 1 'iVd3 b4
Th e C a t a l a n
23 ltJc6!
With this move White gets rid of Black's
light-squared bishop and thus strengthens his
Th e S e m i- Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 !il.. g 2 !il.. e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
49 !il..f 7+
49 gxh5!? Ihe8 50 h6 .ie7 (forced) 5 1
tL\xe7+ l::r x e7 5 2 l:!.xe7 a 3 and Black's ad
vanced pawns give her adequate counterplay.
After 53 l:ta7 a2 54 'It>f3 b5 55 'It>f4 llJa4 56
.l:tg7+ Wh8 57 .l:tgl b4 58 'itg5 b3 59 nel b2
White has to force the draw: 60 l:te8+ 'It>h7
61 l::re 7+ 'It>h8 etc.
Game 39
Karpov-Milos
1 0 . . . !il.. d 5 1 1 'i'd3 e5
1 1 ...e4 1 2 'iVe3 llJbd7 13 llJc3 c6 1 4
'iVd3 .ib4 1 5 .l:tfe1 xf3!? 1 6 xf3 c 6 1 7
.l:tedl 'iiVa 5 1 8 h 4 h6 1 9 d2 e 5 2 0 el .l:tfe8
21 e3 .l:tad8 was equal in Beliavsky-Z.Almasi,
Ubeda 1 997, Black being ultra-solid. This
worked out better for Black than 1 4 ....l:tb8 1 5
'it'c2 b 5 1 6 axb5 axb5, which was the course
of Akopian-Ghaem Maghami, Yerevan 200 1 .
After 1 7 llJe5 xg2 1 8 'It>xg2 llJxe5 1 9 dxe5
llJd5 20 xe7 't!Vxe7 21 llJe4 b4 22 l::r fel b3
23 'iic 5 iYd7 24 'iic 6 'ilie7 25 h4 h6 26 .l:ta7
White's activity gave him the better chances.
1 2 dxe5
12 llJc3 .ic6 13 l::r fd 1 cxd4 14 llJxd4
81
Th e C a t a la n
1 4 . . . a5
82
21 tDd2!
After the knight exchange it might seem
difficult for White to generate an initiative
Th e S e m i- Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 iL e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
will
Game 40
Kramnik -Gelfand
Astana 200 1
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 tt'lf3 tt'lf6 4 g3 dxe4 5
.ig2 iLe7 6 0-0 0-0 7 'iWe2 a6 8 a4 iLd7
9 xe4 iLe6 1 0 iLg5 .id5 1 1 e2 .ie4
1 2 d 1
The alternative is 1 2 'iYc1 with a wide
range of possibilities.
12 ... lbbd7 13 lbc3 .ic6 14 'iVc2 .i.b4 1 5
fe1 .ixf3 1 6 .ixf3 c6 and Black had a solid
Th e C a t a l a n
2S . . . 'it'fS?
28 ... lZ'le4 29 l:tdl f6 is better, when 30
d7+ 'it>e8 31 l:.d4 lZ'lc3 32 lZ'ld6+ 'it>e 7! 33
lZ'lxc8+ l:txc8 34 l:tc4 .l:l.xc4 35 lZ'lxc4 lZ'lxb5
36 axb5 slightly favours White as the b6pawn needs protection. The bishop is passive
and it is not easy to drive the knight away
from c4. Nevertheless, Black has good
chances of saving the game.
29 4Jxb6 ! J:txc 1
Or 29 ... .i.xb6 30 l:txb6 .l:txb6 31 l:txc8+
'it>e7 32 l:!a8 when, with accurate play, White
should win.
30 4Jbd 7 + 4Jxd7 3 1 4Jxd 7 + 'it'eS 32
4JxbS J:tcS 33 4Ja6 l:!.c2 34 e3 J:ta2 35
4Jc5 i.c7 36 J:!.b7 'it'dS 37 l:!.b4 'it'e7
37 ... .i.d6 is another option. After 38
lZ'lb7+ 'it>c7 39 lZ'lxd6 'it>xd6 40 l:tb7 l:ha4 41
l:txf7 J:tg4 42 f4 White has a decisive advan
tage.
3S 4Je4 f5 39 J:tb7 J:tc2
39 ... fxe4 40 l:hc7+ 'it>f6 41 l:tc4 'it>f5 42 h3
and Black's pawns are very weak.
40 4Jg5 h6 41 4Jf3 'it'f6 42 4Jd4 J:tc4 43
Th e S e m i- Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 ii.. g 2 ii.. e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
Game 4 1
Jo . H orvath-Welis
10 ii..f4
1 0 i.g5 ttJbd7 1 1 ttJbd2 l:tc8 (1 1 ...c5!? 1 2
i.xf6 gxf6! i s interesting) and White must
address Black's desire to push the c-pawn. 1 2
ttJb3!? i.e4 1 3 'it'c1 c 5 1 4 ttJxc5! ttJxc5 1 5
dxc5 l:!.xc5 1 6 'iWe3 'it'a8 1 7 i.xf6 gxf6 was
seen in Larsen-Ribli, Amsterdam 1 980, when
1 8 .l:tad1 should secure a slight edge. White
can also throw in 1 2 i.xf6 ttJxf6 in order to
reduce his opponent's influence on c5. Kas
parov-Karpov, World Championship (game
20), Leningrad 1 986 went 1 3 ttJb3 c5 14 dxc5
i.d5 (1 4 ... i.e4 1 5 'iic 3 i.d5 16 lIac1 i.xb3
17 'iix b3 i.xc5 1 8 e3 'iib 6 19 l:tc2 .l:tc7 20
Th e C a t a l a n
1 2 ff'c 1
1 2 xc7? xc7 1 3 xc7 ttJc2 1 4 ttJe1
ttJxa1 15 xb7 l::t a7 and Black emerges the
exchange up.
1 2 . . .l1c8
Also possible is 12 ... 'it'c8 13 g5 c5 1 4
xf6 xf6 1 5 dxc5 a s with play for the
pawn in Sploshnov-Berzins, Trinec 1 998.
There followed 16 ttJa3 1l.c6 17 ttJc2 l:!.a7! 1 8
ttJcd4 l::t c7 1 9 a3 ttJa6 20 'ife3 xf3 2 1 i.xf3
l::t x c5 when Black won back the pawn with
equal chances after 22 ttJb3 l::t c2 23 ttJxa5
'ii'c 7.
1 3 4:Jc3 4:JbdS 1 4 .lteS ! ?
After 1 4 ttJxd5 i.xd5 1 5 e3 c 6 1 6 ttJ e 1
'ib6! 1 7 ttJd3 xg2 1 8 xg2 ttJd5 1 9 f3 c5
the thrust helped free Black in Khalifman
Lutz, Wijk aan Zee 1 995, 20 dxc5 ttJxe3+ 21
'it'xe3 xc5 22 ttJxc5 'ii'x c5 23 'iVxc5 .l:!.xc5
24 l::t a c1 l:tcc8 25 b4 g6 steering the game to
an equal ending. This is certainly preferable
(for Black) to 1 4 ... ttJxd5 1 5 e4 ttJf6 1 6 e5
ttJd5 1 7 g5. Black should keep an eye on
e4.
86
Game 42
Kramnik -Svidler
Linares 1998
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 tDf3 tDf6 4 g3 dxc4 S
Th e S e m i - Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 JL g 2 JL e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
1 2 . . . ttJd7
Stangl-Ruf,
Kecskemet
1 990
went
12 ...ttJc6 1 3 l:tfdl ttJb4 14 'iWc1 'ifbs 1 5 a3
ttJd5 1 6 ttJe5 ttJxc3 1 7 'i'xc3 xg2 I S 'litxg2
and White had a finn grip on the dark
squares which soon translated to an advan
tage after I S ... d6 1 9 l:tac1 'i'b7+ 20 ttJc6
hS (20 ... .ixf4? 21 'i!Vf3) 21 'i!Vf3. The
knight on c6 is very annoying for Black.
1 3 l:!.fd 1
1 3 ttJg5?! is best avoided, as demonstrated
in Gutman-Kochiev, Ashkhabad 1 975:
13 ... xg5 14 .ixb7 .i.xf4! 15 xaS 'iVh4 1 6
l:tfd 1 l:txaS and Black had a pawn and an
attack brewing. The further 1 7 'i!Ve4 'i!Vxh2+
I S 'litft l:teS 1 9 it'f3 .i.d6 20 e3 f5 left both
sides with something to bite on. Stangl
Blauert, Dortmund 1 992 continued 1 3 ttJe4
Th e Ca t a la n
23 lLld4!
White wins material.
23 . . :ii'xf4 24 lLlc6
1 0 . . . lLlc6
1O ... i.d6 1 1 i.g5 tbbd7 is a different set
up. Ricardi-Soppe, San Fernando 1 993 went
1 2 tbbd2 h6 1 3 i.xf6 tbxf6 1 4 l:Hdl l:tc8 1 5
tbb3 i.e4 1 6 'iVc3 'ii'e 7 1 7 J::tac1 and White
had a finn grip on c5, securing an advantage
after 1 7 ... i.d5 1 8 tbe5 i.xg2 1 9 'it'xg2 i.xe5
20 dxe5 tbd5 21 'iic 5 'iVg5 22 'iVd4 tbb6 23
tbc5. Nor did Black have any joy in Hlibner
Eng, Gennany 1 985 after 1 2 ... c5 1 3 i.xf6
'ii'xf6?! 1 4 tbe5! i.xg2 1 5 tbxd7 'ii'd 8 1 6
tbxfB i.xfl 1 7 'iix h7+ 'it>xfB 1 8 l:!.xfl cxd4
1 9 'iib 8+ 'it'e7 20 'ii'xg7, when White won a
pawn, 20 ... 1i'h8 21 'iig5+ 'ii'f6 22 'ii'xf6+
'it'xf6 23 l:!.c1 adding the only open file to his
collection. Black has an improvement in
24 . . . .lth4
1 3 ... gxf6 1 4 tbe4, although White is still bet
After 24 ... i.g5 25 IIcd 1 b6 26 l:t5d4 the
ter.
queen is in trouble - 26 ... J::tx c6 27 'ii'x c6 'irfS
After 10 ... tbbd7 White sends his bishop
28 J::td 8! and White wins (Marciano) .
elsewhere - 1 1 i.a5. Chetverik-Ortmann,
Gyula 2000 continued l 1 ...tbb6 1 2 tbbd2
25 l:tcd 1 l:tb6 26 l:t5d4 l:txc6
Both 26 ... 'ii'h 6 27 'ii' f5 and 26 ...'iVg5 27
l::t c 8 1 3 i.xb6 cxb6 14 'ii'd 3 'ii'c 7 1 5 l:tfdl
'it'e4 win for White.
.l:f.fd8, White's majority in the centre counting
27 .ltxc6 xe5 28 .ltd7 l:td8 29 l:txh4
for more than Black's on the queenside. With
1 -0
1 6 a3 'ii'c2 1 7 'iVxc2 k[xc2 1 8 tbel ttc7 1 9
i.xb7 l:!.xb7 2 0 e 3 White's chances would
Game 43
have been better.
Kobalija-Kiriakov
1 1 ...l:tc8 12 tbbd2 l2Jb8 13 a3 l2Jc6 14
i.c3
b4?! 15 axb4 l2Jxb4 1 6 'iib 3 i.d5 1 7
Dubai 2002
'--------------... 'ii'a4 i.c6 1 8 'iVa5 i:tb8 1 9 l2Je5 i.xg2 20
'it>xg2 l:tb5 21 'iVa4 c 5 2 2 dxc5 i.xc5 23
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
l2Jdf3 saw Black's attempt to steal the advan
.ltg2 .lte7 6 0-0 0-0 7 c2 a6 8 xc4 b5
tage leave him only with a weak a-pawn in
9 c2 .ltb 7 1 0 .ltd2
I.Almasi-Lauber, Gyula 1 997. I.Almasi gives
1 4 ... l2Jd5 1 5 b4 l2Jxc3 1 6 'iVxc3 l:ta8 1 7 l2Jb3
when White is better, again due to control of
c5 and the c-ftle.
1 1 ...l:!.a7 looks artificial, e.g. 1 2 l2Jbd2 'ii'a8
1 3 b4 l2Jb8 1 4 a3 l2Jc6 1 5 l2Jb3 l2Jxa5 1 6
l2Jxa5, Chetverik-B.Funnan, Karvina 1 998. I f
Black cannot move the c-pawn then the rook
looks a bit silly on a7. There followed
1 6 ... i.e4 1 7 l2Jel ! (White goes for an advan
tage in the ending) 1 7 ... i.xc2 1 8 i.xa8 l:taxa8
1 9 l2Jxc2 i.d6 20 f4 with total control of the
dark squares. After 1 3 ... e5 1 4 dxe5 l2Jxe5 1 5
88
Th e S e m i - Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 g 2 e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
1 4 b4
14 e4!? invites the liberating 14 ... c5 1 5 i.f4
'i'a7 1 6 dxc5 i.xc5 1 7 e5 ttJd7 1 8 l:tadl
(Short), with only an edge for White.
1 4 . . . a5 1 5 bxa 5 ! ?
1 5 .l:!.abl axb4 1 6 axb4 ttJc6 1 7 ttJa2 lIa6
1 8 ttJc1 a8 1 9 'i'dl .u.a3 20 ttJel e5! saw
Black free himself and equalize in Karpov
Short, Tilburg 1 988, but 1 5 'iWb2!? axb4 1 6
axb4 ttJe4 1 7 ttJe5! i s interesting. Black can
then sacrifice the queen with 17 ...ttJxd2 1 8
ttJd7 ttJxfl 1 9 ttJxb8 i.xg2 20 '>t>xg2 ttJxe3+
21 fxe3 .l:taxb8 22 .l:ta6 but White emerges in
front as the rook and bishop are no match
for the queen in this position, where Black is
quite passive. In Chetverik-M.Ponomariov,
Briansk 1 995 Black chose 1 7 ... ttJxc3 1 8 'i'xc3
i.xg2 19 '>t>xg2 i.d6 20 ttJd3 but after
20 ...'it'b7+ 21 f3 lIxal 22 l:hal :ta8 23 e4
.l:!.xal 24 'it'xal 'it'c6 25 '>t>f2 f5 26 '>t>e3 White
again stood better.
1 5 . . . J:txa5
15 ... c5 16 dxc5 l:!.xc5 17 'iWbl favours
White, Kobalija offering the subsequent
1 7 ... l:!.xa5? 1 8 ttJd5! etc.
1 6 J:tfb 1 !
1 6 ttJd5? runs into 1 6 ... i.xd5 1 7 .ltxa5
'it'a8 1 8 e4 i.xe4 19 'i'c3 ttJd5 20 'iWd2 ttJc6
21 i.b4 ttJcxb4 22 axb4 'iWb7 when White
loses the b-pawn. Black has obvious com
pensation for the exchange and the semi
closed nature of the position is to his benefit.
1 6 . . :i'a8 1 7 'it'd 1 c6
89
Th e Ca t a l a n
24 'iWa 1 !
24 ttJe5 offers no advantage for White af
ter 24 ... cxd4 25 exd4 'iVb5 26 l:!.a7 .td6 27
'fWal ttJd5 and the position is equal.
24 . . . cxd4
Better is 24 ... ttJc6 25 dxc5 .txc5 26 .tc3
ttJb4 27 .l:!.a4.
25 tDxd4 '<t>f8?!
A strange decision. The lesser evil is
25 ...fNc7 26 .tf3 with the more pleasant po
sition for White.
2S i.f3
26 .ta5! ttJd5 27 .txd8 .txd8 28 .txd5
exd5 29 ttJf5 secures a definite edge.
2s . . :i'c7 27 '<t>g2 'ikc5 28 i.a5 'ikc4 29
i.xd8! i.xd8 30 .!:!.cS .l:!.xcS 31 tDxcS
'<t>e8? 32 'i'a8 'ikd3 33 tDd4 'ikc4
Or 33 ... fNc3 34 .tc6+ We7 35 .ta4 .tb6
36 ttJc6+ and White wins.
34 i.cS + 1 -0
Game 44
Gelfand-Lutz
Dortmund 2002
1 d4 d5 2 c4 eS 3 tDf3 tDfS 4 g3 dxc4 5
i.g2 i.e7 S 0-0 0-0 7 'ikc2 as 8 'ikxc4 b5
9 'ikc2 i.b7 10 i.d2 i.e4
90
1 1 'ii'c 1 tDbd7
Black has a range of options.
1 1 ....l:!.a7 (again!) was played in Nielsen
Krivonosov, Panormo 200 1 . After 1 2 iLe3
ttJd5 1 3 ttJc3 ttJxc3 1 4 'i*'xc3 .l:!.b 7 1 5 .l:!.fd 1
c6 1 6 ttJe5 iLxg2 1 7 c,t>xg2 d5+ 1 8 f3 b4 1 9
'iib 3 ttJd7 2 0 ttJd3 'iib 5 21 :ac 1 Black was a
little worse.
l 1 ...c6 12 ttJc3!? .txf3 13 .txf3 'ii'xd4 14
.te3 'iVd8 15 a4 and Black had won a pawn
but White had sufficient play in Nielsen
Rozentalis, Esbjerg 200 1 . There followed
1 5 ... b4 1 6 ttJe4 ttJd5 1 7 .td4 'iVc7 1 8 ttJc5
.l:!.d8 19 ir'c4 ttJd7 20 ttJxd7 lIxd7 21 .tc5 as
22 .l:!.ac1 .txc5 23 'i*'xc5 .l:!.d6 24 .l:!.c2 .l:!.ad8
25 .l:!.fc1 and White had compensation for the
pawn.
Chetverik-Namyslo, Budapest 2002 con
tinued 1 1 ...b4 1 2 .tg5 ttJbd7 1 3 ttJbd2 .tb7?!
14 ttJb3 c5? 1 5 .txf6 gxf6 1 6 dxc5 .l:!.c8 17
.l:!.dl fNc7 18 'i*'h6! and the weakness of
Black's kingside was cause for concern, the
further 1 8 ... ttJxc5 1 9 ttJxc5 'i*'xc5? 20 lId4!
increasing White's lead to decisive propor
tions: 20 ... iLxf3 21 lIh4 .th5 22 l:.xh5 'fWc2
23 e4 etc. Black is advised to follow the ex
ample set in Sigurjonsson-Gruenfeld, Rand
ers 1 982 after 1 3 ... .td5, although 1 4 'iVc2 c5
1 5 e4 .tb7 16 e5 ttJd5 17 iLxe7 xe7 1 8
ttJe4 cxd4 1 9 .l:!.ad 1 .l:!.fc8 2 0 'iVb 1 proved
good for 'hite thanks to the great outpost
on d6.
Finally, Black has tried 1 1 ...ttJc6, e.g. 1 2
Th e S e m i- Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 iL e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
1 6 a3 f5 1 7 l:lae 1 ! ?
1 7 l:!.ac1 'ii'h S 1 8 lUe 1 lbSf6 1 9 lbeS
lbxeS 20 dxeS lbg4 21 h3 .i.xg2 22 'li;>xg2
lbxeS 23 'it'a2 'ii' f7 was equal in Andersson
Lutz, Pamplona 1 998. Black has chances on
the kingside to make up for the weaknesses
on the other flank.
1 7 . . :ii'g 6
Another possibility is 17 ...'i'hS 18 e4 fxe4
19 l:!.xe4 'iVf5 20 'iVb3 and White is slightly
better.
1 S e4 fxe4 1 9 'iiVx e4 l:lf6 20 'iiVx g6 l:lxg6
21 ttJe4
This queenless middlegame favours
White. Black has many weaknesses .
2 1 . . . l:lfS
Black can put a knight on c4 with
2 1 ...lbSb6 22 lbcs lbxcs 23 dxcS lbc4 24
lbeS lbxeS 25 l:txeS .i.xg2 26 'it'xg2 but this
ending also favours White.
22 h4 iLd6? !
22 ...lbsb6 23 lbfd2 doesn't allow ... lbc4.
23 h 5 ! l:lh6 24 ttJc5 ttJ5b6 25 ttJg5
Now e6 is doomed.
25 . . . iLxg2 26 'iit x g2 l:lxh5 27 ttJgxe6 l:lcS
2S ttJxd7 ttJxd7 29 l:lc 1 c6 30 l:lfe 1 l:ld5
31 ttJdS!
Th e C a t a la n
Game 45
Pigusov-Aseev
Sevastopol 1986
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 tUf3 tUf6 4 g3 dxe4 5
i.g2 i.e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 'We2 a6 8 'Wxe4 b5
9 'We2 i.b7 1 0 i.d2 i.e4 1 1 'We 1 i.b7
1 2 1:td 1
1 2 f4 d6 1 3 ttJbd2 ttJbd7 1 4 ttJb3 and
now Kasparov-Kramnik, World Champion
ship (game 1 5), London 2000 went 14 ... d5
1 5 i:tdl 'ii'e 7 (1 5 ... 'ito8 1 6 ttJe5 xg2 1 7
<t>xg2 xe5 1 8 dxe5 'ito7+ 1 9 f3 ttJd5 20 e4
92
Th e S e m i- Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 i. g 2 i. e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
35 nxc2
White forces an equal queen ending. More
ambitious is 35 'it'g2 l:te6 36 'it'xc7 'it'd5+ 37
e4! 'i*'xe4+ 38 'it'gl l:tc6 39 'ii'd8+ cJ;;g7 40
'it'xg5+ 'it'f8, although the c2-pawn remains
dangerous.
35 . . . 'ilxc2 36 'ilc8 + ! % - %
21 'ilb3
93
Th e C a t a l a n
Summary
One of the main positions in the 7 ttJa3 line arises after the natural moves 7 ... xa3 8 bxa3 bS
9 a4 a6 10 a3 l:te8 1 1 ttJeS ttJdS 12 e4. White has the very interesting sacrifice 13 ttJxt7!?
after 12 ... ttJf6, and to us it seems that this is enough only for a draw. The jump to the other
wing, 12 ... ttJb6 (Game 28) leads to very complex play too, and requires more practical tests.
Another popular system in this line is 8 ... d7, when after 9 ttJeS c6 10 ttJxc6 ttJxc6 1 1 iLb2
White prepares e2-e4 and has genuine compensation for the pawn (Game 29) .
Practice has shown that against 7 ttJeS the best continuation is Robatsch's surgical decision
7 ... ttJc6!? In the case of 8 xc6 bxc6 9 ttJxc6 'iVe8 10 ttJxe7+ 'iVxe7 1 1 'iVa4 Black can
achieve a good game in more than one fashion.
For instance Black can choose to exchange queens with 1 1 ...'iVd6 12 lIdl 'iVa6 or prepare
the development of the bishop to a6 with l 1 ...aS. Black also has good prospects if he chal
lenges the d4-pawn with 1 1 ... cS or 1 1 ... eS, thereby facilitating development. In the variation
l 1 ...cS 1 2 'iVxc4 cxd4 1 3 'ifxd4 Black has two reliable possibilities, 1 3 ... :d8 and 1 3 ... eS 1 4 'iVh4
'iVe6 I S ttJc3 b7 (Game 3 1 ) . In the complicated variation l 1 ...eS 1 2 dxeS 'iVxeS 1 3 'iVxc4
e6 1 4 'ir'd3 l:[ad8 I S 'iVe3 'iVhS 1 6 f3 c4 (Kotronias) looks quite convincing.
After 8 ttJxc6 bxc6 9 ttJa3!? (Kuzmin) 9 ... xa3 1 0 bxa3 White accepts the doubled a
pawns, the resulting situation appearing rather exotic. Then 1O .. JIb8 1 1 'iVa4 'iVxd4 1 2 e3
'iVeS 1 3 'iVxa7 deserves more practice, while in the case of 1 0 ... a6!? 1 1 xc6 nb8 1 2 'iVa4
lIb6 there is not much difference between 1 3 g2 and 1 3 f3. In both cases Black tends to
equalize by playing ... c4-c3 at the right moment. In order to assess the variations with 1 O ...ttJdS
it is important to evaluate the endgame after 1 1 'iVa4 ttJb6 12 'iVxc6 Itb8 1 3 'iVcs b7 14 e4
'iVd6 1 S f4 'iYxcs 1 6 dxcS ttJa4 1 7 .l:tfc 1 a6 1 8 f1 ttJxcS 1 9 xc4 (Game 34) . Black must
strive for a rook ending similar to Hjartarsson-Schussler. It does not seem likely that anything
can be made of the extra, doubled pawn.
As Black very often reaches a good position in the 9 ttJa3 line, White has tried the solid 9 e3
during recent years (Game 32). White has a normal queenside structure but also an obvious
problem with the development of the dark-squared bishop. Black has counter-chances after
something like 9 ...ttJdS 1 0 'iVa4 ttJb6 1 1 'iVc2 .l:Ib8 1 2 l:tdl 'iVe8 followed by... c6-cS.
In the modern line with 7 'iVc2 a6 8 a4 iLd7 Black solves his opening problems quite suc
cessfully. After 9 lIdl iLc6 10 ttJc3 ttJbd7 1 1 e4 bS 12 dS exdS 1 3 eS White has a dangerous
initiative, although in the event of 1 O ... xf3 1 1 xf3 ttJc6 1 2 xc6 bxc6 the b-ftle means that
Black's chances are not worse. After 9 'iYxc4 c6 the natural 1 0 ttJc3 allows Black to play
1 O ... bS with a good game, while in reply to 1 0 iLf4 Black attains equal prospects with 1 0 ... aS 1 1
ttJc3 ttJa6. Black should not develop in the same way against 1 0 gS, where White can grab
the centre with 1 1 xf6 xf6 1 2 e4. Instead of 1 0 ... aS it is better to continue 1 O ... ttJbd7 1 1
ttJc3 h6 or to follow the main line with 1 O ... dS. After 1 1 'iVd3 Black can continue to chase
the enemy queen with 1 1 ...e4 or immediately play l 1 ...cS with equality. The advance ... c7-cS
is also strong in the case of 1 1 'it'c2 e4 12 'iVdl and deserves further testing after 1 1 'iVc2
iLe4 12 'iVc1 . Also quite acceptable for Black here are 1 2 ... ttJbd7 and 12 ... h6, and a later
... xf3 and ... c7-c6 with a solid set-up.
Black obtains the bishop pair and destroys White's pawn chain after 8 'iVxc4 bS 9 'iVc2 b7
10 f4 with 1 0 ... ttJdS 1 1 ttJc3 ttJxf4 12 gxf4. However, the pawn formation is quite typical for
the Catalan. The pawns on d4, e3, f4 and f2 provide White with something to bite on because
they offer good control over key squares in the centre.
But we believe that White does not have an advantage after 10 ... ttJc6 1 1 tIdl ttJb4 1 2
94
Th e S e m i - Op e n C a t a la n : 4 . . . dx c 4 5 il. g 2 il. e 7 6 0 - 0 0 - 0
'it'c 1 'ii'c 8!? 1 3 gS cS!? etc. Note, however, that . . .c7-cS does not promise full equality in
the case of 1 2 . . . l::t c 8 1 3 ttJc3 ttJbdS 14 eS. The deeper idea behind the quite passive look
ing 10 i.. d2 is to pin the c7-pawn with i.. d 2-aS, and this comes into play after 1 0 ... ttJbd7.
Another central idea in this line is to address the queenside with b2-b4.
It is probably better for Black to continue 10 ... ttJc6 1 1 e3 ttJb4 12 xb4 i.. xb4 1 3 a3 i..d 6
14 ttJbd2 l::t c 8 1 5 b4 as! with good prospects of equality, as in the other lines White has a mini
mal edge, for example 1 0 ... e4 1 1 'ii'c 1 b4 1 2 i..gS!? followed by ttJbd2. The problem with the
subtle manoeuvre 1 O ... e4 1 1 c1 b7 is the possibility of 1 2 'ii'c2 with a repetition, which
might occasionally be an attractive option for White. Moreover White has something after 1 2
.tf4 ttJdS 1 3 ttJc3 ttJxf4 1 4 'it'xf4 o r after 1 2 l::t d l 'ikc8 1 3 a4!?
. . .
. . .
8 . bxc6
. .
. . .
i.d7
1 1 ii'c 1
95
4 . . . dxc4 5 jLg2 a 6
the queen.
More attractive is 6 ttJeS, opening the h 1 a 8 diagonal and simultaneously attacking the
c4-pawn. Then only vigorous measures allow
Black to keep his material advantage.
6 ... b4+ (Game 47) is related to the varia
tion beginning S ... c6 6 ttJeS b4, but there
are also some differences. White does not
have to enter the line with 7 d2?! 'ii'xd4 8
xb4 'ii'x eS because, compared with S ... c6,
the d6-square is not weak here. But after 7
ttJc3 ttJdS 8 d2 bS White generates an en
during and satisfying initiative for the sacri
ficed pawn.
The logical reaction to 6 ttJeS is 6 ... cS
(Games 48-S0), since White has surrendered
some control of d4. Defending with 7 e3
closes in the d-bishop and, after the strong
est reply, 7 ... .J:!.a7! (followed by ... b7-bS), it is
White who has difficult issues to address.
Practical experience also offers little value to
7 .Jl.e3 (Game 48) as after 7 ...ttJdS! Black will
find the most appropriate moment to ex
change on e3, thus damaging White's struc
ture.
7 ttJa3 is the most promising continuation.
White sacrifices the d4-pawn in return for
rapid development, in the case of 7 .. .'it'xd4
responding with the strong 8 'ii'a 4+ !? (Game
49), when Black's 'centralized' queen will not
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i. g 2 a 6
following possibilities:
a) 8 ... .te7 9 d5 exd5 10 exd5 ttJb4 1 1 ttJe5
.tfS 12 a3 ttJd3 13 ttJxc4 ttJxc1 14 l:txc 1 .
This has been played often. Some commen
tators evaluate it as even, while others believe
White's greater share of territory is enough
for an edge. The latter assessment seems
more accurate.
b) 8 ... .te7 9 'iVe2 b5 (9 ... ttJxd4 is not so
clear and obviously need more tests) 10 :dl
and then d4-d5 with boundless complica
tions (Game 54) .
c) 8 ... b5 9 'iVe2 ttJxd4 1 0 ttJxd4 'iixd4
(Game 55), which is closely related to 8 ... .te7
9 'iVe2 ttJxd4.
d) 8 ... b5 9 d5 (Game 56) .
The system with 5 ... a6 6 0-0 b5 (Games
57 -60) resembles 5 ... b5, occasionally with
possible transpositions between the two
lines. However, 5 ... a6 is different in that
Black has a wider variety of possibilities. In
reply to 7 ttJe5 Black has to choose between
7 ... c6 and 7 ...ttJd5. After 7 ... c6 (Game 57)
play used to continue 8 ttJxc6 'iVb6 9 ttJe5
.tb7, after which the exchange of bishops
and a strong central pawn formation af
forded White a modest but enduring advan
tage - all the way to the ending. The confi
dence in 7 ... c6 was challenged by Razuvaev,
who came up with 8 b3!, the point being that
after 8 ... cxb3 the knight receives an alternate
route in ttJc6-a5-b3. Here the pawn forma
tion in the centre clearly favours White, thus
leaving 7 ... c6 out in the cold.
After 7 ttJe5 ttJd5 White should play 8 a4
as 8 ttJc3 (Game 58) is probably less accu
rate. First there is 8 ... c6 9 ttJxd5 exd5 10 e4
.te6 1 1 a4, which was considered dangerous
for Black since the game Sosonko-Hiibner.
In light of 1 1 ...11a7!? it seems that White's
initiative has been overestimated. Addition
ally, Black also has 8 ... .tb7 9 ttJxd5 exd5.
Here White can win the exchange with 10 e4
dxe4 1 1 'iVh5 g6 12 ttJxg6 fxg6 13 'iVe5 'iie 7
14 'iix h8 but Black should receive more than
sufficient counterplay.
97
Th e Ca t a l a n
Game 46
Rashkovsky-K . G rigorian
Kishinev 1975
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
i.. g 2 a6 6 a4
6 . . . c5
6 ... ltJc6 7 0-0 ltJa5 (7 .. J::tb 8 transposes to
6 0-0 ltJc6 7 a4 l:!.b8) 8 ltJbd2 c5 9 dxc5
.ixc5 10 ltJe5 c3! was Gulko-Bronstein, Vil
nus 1 975, Black inducing a weakness in the
enemy structure and in so doing obtaining
equal chances. After 1 1 bxc3 0-0 1 2 ltJec4
.ie7 1 3 ltJxa5 'iVxa5 14 '3 e5 1 5 ltJc4 'iVc7
1 6 ltJb6 l:!.b8 1 7 c4 .ig4 Black solved his
queenside problems.
7 0-0 ttJc6
7 ... cxd4!? 8 'iVxd4 (White can try 8 ltJxd4
e5 9 ltJc2 'iVxd l 10 l:!.xd l but should expect
no more than equality after 1 0 ... ltJc6)
8 ... 'iVxd4 9 ltJxd4 e5 10 ltJc2 ltJc6 1 1 .1i.xc6+
bxc6 12 ltJe3 .ie6 13 ltJd2 and now in
Rashkovsky-Sveshnikov,
Moscow
1 976
Black employed the same idea as in Gulko98
1 0 . . . ttJd5
Black can also play 1O ... ltJd7 1 1 ltJxd7
.ixd7 1 2 .id2 ltJb3 1 3 .ixb 7 .ixc5!
(1 3 ... l:!.d8?! 14 c6!) 14 .txa8 ltJxa 1 1 5 ltJc3
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 a 6
1 9 ttJa5
1 9 ttJe5!? is an interesting option.
1 9 . . . iLb6
19 ... i.e7 20 ttJxb7! helps te.
20 ttJxc6 ttJxc6 21 l:td7 l:tabS 22 e5 l:tfeS
Game 47
Fominyh -Sveshnikov
Elista 1995
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
iLg2 a6 6 ttJe5
6 . . . iLb4+
Also possible is 6 ...l:ta7 7 0-0 b6 (7 ... b5?! is
dubious in view of 8 a4) 8 ttJc3 i.b 7 (Be
liavsky gives 8 ... b5 9 a4 b4 10 ttJa2 c5 1 1
ttJxc4 cxd4 1 2 as with compensation for the
pawn) 9 'iVa4+ ttJfd7 and now Beliavsky
Portish, Hungary 1 999 went 1 0 i.xb 7?!
l:txb7 1 1 ttJc6 'iVc8! 12 ttJxb8 b5! with good
counterplay for Black. Instead after 1 0 l:tdl
99
Th e C a t a la n
1 00
1 0 . . . f6
Black has also resisted the urge to hit the
knight. 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 a4 c6 1 2 e4 lbe7 1 3 iLc1
lbd7 14 lbxd7 (14 f4!? is worth a try)
1 4 ... iLxd7 1 5 iLa3 l:1e8 1 6 l:tel lbc8 1 7 'ili'h5
lbb6 1 8 as lba4 1 9 l:te3 favoured White in
Razuvaev-Sveshnikov, Tbilisi 1 978. Black's
queenside pawn majority lacks mobility.
White, on the other hand, has a good dark
squared bishop and possibilities of a kingside
attack.
In Sulava-Sveshnikov, Pula 2000 Black
chose 1 2 ... lbb6 1 3 as lb6d7. Then 1 4 lbxd7
lbxd7 1 5 e5 (with compensation) is playable,
while the game continued 1 4 lbg4 f5 1 5 lbe5
lbf6 1 6 iLg5 h6 1 7 i.xf6 'iixf6 1 8 ':e 1 1:ta7
1 9 l:ta2 with compensation for the pawn due
to the presence in the centre. However,
White can win back the pawn with 1 6 exfS
exfS 1 7 iLxc6 and emerge with an advantage.
1 1 e4 ltJe7
l 1 ...fxe5 12 exd5 0-0 13 dxe5 favours
White. Black shouldn't open up the centre
too early.
1 2 ltJg4 c6
Another possibility is 1 2 ... e5 1 3 dxe5!
iLxg4 14 'iVxg4 xd2 1 5 exf6 gxf6 16 e5,
when Black wins a piece but White's attack
looks rather menacing. 1 2 ... iLb7 1 3 a4 0-0 14
'iWe2 is sensible as Black's bishop is not ob
structed.
1 3 a4 0-0
Also interesting is 1 3 ... e5!? with variations
similar to those in the previous note. After 14
dxe5 iLxg4 15 xg4 xd2 16 exf6 gxf6 17
axb5 xc3 18 e5! there is compensation for
the piece.
1 4 axb5 cxb5 1 5 e5 ltJd5 1 6 exf6 gxf6
1 7 ltJe3 ltJc6
17 ... i.b7 18 g4+ 'it>f7 19 i.e4 leaves
White with a promising attacking stance,
while 1 7 ... lbxe3 1 8 iLxe3 .l:i.a7 1 9 .l:i.e 1 also
looks dangerous.
1 8 ltJxd5 exd5 1 9 .l:l.e 1 .l:l.f7
Another try is 1 9 ... i.fS 20 f3 i.e4, but
White sacrifices and gets the better chances
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL. g 2 8 6
Game 48
Ivanchuk - K uporosov
Tallinn 1986
1 d4 dS 2 c4 eS 3 ttJf3 ttJfS 4 g3 dxc4 S
iL.g2 as S ttJeS cS
101
Th e C a t a l a n
Game 49
Raetsky-Naiditsch
1 0 . . . f6
10 ... i.xc5!? is a sharp but apparently per
fectly sound opportunity. White will get no
where unless he accepts the challenge: 1 1
i.xg7 .l:Ig8:
1 2 i.d4?? lbf4! 1 3 'iHa4+ i..d 7 1 4 xc4
lbxg2+ 0- 1 is the miniature Verat-Antunes,
Royan 1 989, while 12 i.. e 5 "iVg5 13 f4 'iid 8
14 i.xd5 "iVxd5 15 'iit'x d5 exd5 was also very
short but agreed drawn In Tratar
A.Petrosian, Ljubljana 1 995, where White
could have tried 1 4 lbc3!?, e.g. 1 4 ... lbe3 1 5
'iixd8+ 'it'xd8 1 6 i.. f6+ 'lite8 1 7 i.e4 with a
murky situation.
Salov-Portish, Brussels 1 988 continued 1 2
i.c3 b 5 1 3 i.d4 'iVb6 1 4 i.. x c5 'iVxc5 1 5
lbc3 i..b 7 1 6 lbxd5 i.xd5 1 7 .Jl.xd5 l:.d8 1 8
0-0 .l:!.xd5 1 9 c2 h 5 with sufficient counter
play.
1 1 d4 xc5
A common trick in these positions.
1 2 xc5 'ii'a 5 + 1 3 ttJd2
13 lbc3 lbxc3 14 "iVd6 lbd5+ 1 5 'it'f1 'iVd8
is unclear according to Ruban.
1 3 . . . 'ii'x c5 1 4 c 1 b5 1 5 b3 b7 1 6 0-0
ttJe3 !
An important improvement. Earlier in the
same tournament Black played 1 6 ... c3?! 1 7
1 02
Dortmund 2000
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
g2 a6 6 ttJe5 c5 7 ttJa3
7 . . . 'ii'x d4? !
Black has problems with his queen after
this capture. More natural is 7 ... cxd4, as in
the next main game. After 7 ... .l:.a7 8 dxc5
'iixd 1+ 9 'it>xd 1 .Jl.xc5 10 tt:iaxc4 b5 1 1 lbd3!
White has the advantage. In Rashkovsky
Beliavsky, Baku 1 977 the subsequent
1 1 ....l:!.d7 1 2 lbce5 .l:!.d8 1 3 i.d2 i.b6 1 4 a4
left Black's queenside under terrible pressure.
8 'ii'a4+ ! ?
Although this check i s not necessarily the
strongest move, in practical terms it is the
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i.. g 2 a 6
1 0 . . . bxc4
Black has a difficult choice, one pitfall be
ing 1O ... .l:la7? 1 1 e3! and the queen is trapped.
After to ... lbxe5 1 1 lbxe5 .ll a7 1 2 'iVb6 lbd7
1 3 'i'xa7 'iVxe5 1 4 .i.f4 'iVxb2 1 5 t[dl Black
will not survive for long, but perhaps
1 2 ... .i.d6!? is worth a look.
1 1 lLlxd7 'iYxd7 1 2 i.. x a8 lLlc6 1 3 'iYb6
lLld4 1 4 i.. e 3!
White exploits his lead in development. 14
0-0 'it'd6 15 a5 lbxe2+ 16 hl is only
slighdy favourable.
1 4 . . . 'iYb5
Black gains litde from 1 4 ... lbc2+ 1 5 'it'f1
lbxe3+ 1 6 fxe3 iVd6 1 7 .i.c6+ e7 1 8 'iVa7+
f6 1 9 .i.f3, when his chances for survival
are slim.
1 5 'iYc7 'iYd7
After 1 5 ... .i.d7 White wins with 16 0-0
lbxe2+ 17 'it'g2 lbd4 1 8 a4 iVb4 19 l:!.fd 1 ,
leaving Black's kind with inadequate defence.
1 6 'iYxd 7 + i.. x d7 1 7 J:tc 1 i.. d 6 1 8 i.. b 7?!
18 .i.xd4 cxd4 1 9 l:!.xc4 e5 20 .i.c6 is sim
pler because Black has no counterplay. White
WIns .
1 8 . . . <;t>e7 1 9 i.. x a6 l:tb8 20 i.. xc4 l:txb2
21 i.. x d4 cxd4 22 0-0
Th e C a t a l a n
Came 50
G irnza-Linder
Cerma'!Y 1998
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
8 . . . a7
lbis developing move has been consid
ered the most natural for some time, Black in
danger of running into trouble if he is not
sufficiently acquainted with certain factors.
For example the ostensibly natural 8 ... e7 is
typical of what might happen if Black be
lieves the position is harmless. I.Almasi
Vadasz, Budapest 1 997 went 9 d2 as 1 0
'iVb3 tLlbd7 1 1 xb7 a4! (1 1 ...l:tb8? 1 2 xa5
xb7 1 3 xd8 xhl 14 b6 and Black
doesn't have enough for the queen - the a
pawn is strong and f2-f3 is coming) 1 2 'it'f3
xb7 13 'it'xb7 tLlxe5 14 tLlxe5 'it'd5 1 5
'iVc6+ 'it'xc6 1 6 tLlxc6 with a more pleasant
1 04
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 a 6
1 3 0-0
White achieves nothing from 1 3 ttJac6.
Kopylov-Yakovich, Hamburg 1 999 contin
ued 1 3. .. ttJxc6 1 4 ttJxc6 'Was! 1 5 Itel c7 1 6
'i'xb6 ttJd5 1 7 'iib8+ 'Wxb8 1 8 ttJxb8 l:!.xc1+
19 i.xel i.d6 20 ttJc6 e5 21 ttJa5 'i;e 7 and
Black was better thanks to his development
lead.
1 3 . . . tLle4
13 ... bxa5? does not work in view of 1 4
'i'a4+ ttJbd7 1 5 i.xa5 'iib 8 1 6 l:tae l , when
White's attack is decisive.
14 'i'a4+ b5 1 5 'i'c2 tLlxd2 1 6 'i'xd2
Game 5 1
G leizerov-S . Ivanov
Poland 1992
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
iLg2 a6 6 0-0
This simple move is more dangerous for
Black.
6 . . . tLlc6
1 6 . . J:tc7
16 ... 'Wd5?! 17 'iYel ! exposes Black's vul
nerable back rank.
1 7 J::ta c 1 i.c5 1 8 'i'f4
Perhaps White should put the brakes on
here. 1 8 .l:f.xc5 leads to equality after
1 8 . ..l:txc5 1 9 ttJb7 'ifc7 20 ttJxc5 xe5 21
ttJb3 0-0 22 ttJxd4 tId8 23 tIel , when a draw
is on the cards.
1 8 . . . 0-0
Also possible is 18 ... f6 19 ttJec6 ttJxc6 20
l:txc5 ttJe5 21 l:txc7 xc7 22 ttJb3 and Black
IS no worse.
19 llxc5 J::t x c5 20 tLlb7 'i'c7 21 tLlxc5
it'xc5 22 J::t c 1 'i'd6 23 'i'e4? !
White could also try 23 ttJc6 xf4 24
ttJe7+ 'i;h8 25 gxf4 g6 26 'i;g2 with play for
the pawn, although Black still looks better.
23 . . . g6 24 tLlc6
After 24 ttJf3?! tIdR 25 "it'xd4 'iYxd4 26
7 a4
Relatively harmless. 7 e3 and 7 ttJc3 are
considered below. Also lacking punch is 7
ttJa3 .i.xa3 8 bxa3, e.g. R ... O-O 9 i.b2 tIbR 1 0
c2 b 5 1 1 tIad l , when Shipov-S.Ivanov, St.
Petersburg 1 996 went l 1 ...tIb6!? 12 e4 .i.b7
13 ttJg5, the main idea behind this question
able knight manoeuvre perhaps being 13 ... a6
1 4 d5!? Instead there followed 1 3 ... ttJd7 1 4
1 05
Th e C a t a l a n
4 . . . dx c 4 5 ii. g 2 a 6
1 S l:!.d 1
Accepting the pawn with 1 5 xd5 exd5
16 'i'xd5 leads to equality after 1 6...b5 1 7
'i'xds IibxdS I S lbc3.
1S . . . cS!? 1 6 e4
Or 16 dxc5 i.b5 17 c2 e7 and Black
is doing fine - Gleizerov.
16 . . . lLlb6 1 7 'ii'b 3 'Wie7
The pawn sacrifice 17 ... a5 I S dxc5 i.xc5
19 .l:Ixa5 lbd5! is interesting, 20 'ifa2 lbb4 21
'i'a3 producing a messy position.
1S ii.f4 J:!.aS 1 9 dS
Game 52
Wells-Barsov
York 2000
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 g3 dxc4 S
ii.g2 a6 6 0-0 lLlc6 7 e3
19 . . . c4?
A horrible blunder, after which White
wins by force. 19 ... exd5 is necessary, when 20
exd5 g4 21 d6 (21 Iiel !?) 21 ...xdl 22
'i'xdl .l:IadS 23 Iixa6 .l:IfeS is balanced.
20 d6!
Perhaps Black forgot about this move.
20 . . . cxb3
20 ... xd6 21 xd6 'iVxd6 22 .l:Ixd6 cxb3
does not work in view of 23 .l:Ixb6, when
White emerges with an extra piece.
21 dxe7 l:rfcS
21 ...i.xe7 22 e3.
22 ii.e3 ii.cs 23 ii.xcs l:!.xcS
White is less well developed but has the
significant advantage of a pawn on the 7th
rank, so now he decides the game.
24 J:!.xa6! J:!.xa6
24 ....l:IbS 25 .l:Ixb6! is no improvement.
2S J:!.xd7 J:!.c 1 + 26 ii.f 1 lLlxd7 27 eS'Wi +
lLlfS 2S lLld2
7 . . . ii.d7
The logical, calm approach. Black has no
problem parting with the exchange on as as can be seen in the notes to White's 9th
move in the next main game. 7 ... l:!.bS is less
accurate, White achieving a slight advantage
after S lbfd2!, e.g. S ... e5 9 xc6+ bxc6 1 0
dxe5 lbg4 1 1 lbxc4 i.e6 1 2 c2 h5! 1 3 .l:Idl
c8 14 e4! d5 15 .l:Ixd5 cxd5 16 'it'xd5
iLe7, Tukmakov-V.Mikhalevski, Biel 1 998.
Now after 17 e6! xe6 IS xe6 fxe6 19 h3
White is a little better according to Tukma
kov. White's knights got busy in Lputian
Y.Milov, Istanbul 2000: S ... d7 9 lbxc4 b5
10 lbcd2 b7 1 1 lbc3 lbdS 1 2 lbf3 c5 1 3 e4
107
Th e Ca t a l a n
1 1 . . . l:!.b8 1 2 e4
White can also try 1 2 iVg4 g6 1 3 axb5
axb5 14 'iVe2 ttJe7 1 5 e4 g7 1 6 e5 ttJd5 1 7
ttJe4 with good play for the pawn. The weak
ness of the dark squares in Black's camp is
significant.
1 2 . . . e5
The open position after 1 2 ... b4 1 3 ttJxc4
bxc3 14 d5 is not in Black's interest.
1 3 axb5 axb5 1 4 d5 ttJe 7 1 5 a3 ttJg6
1 6 xf8 ttJxf8
1 7 f4
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 a 6
Game 53
H a ba-Gorin
Pardubice 1999
1 d4 d5 2 e4 eS 3 tUf3 tUfS 4 g3 dxe4 5
iLg2 as S 0-0 tUeS 7 e3 iLd7 8 e2 b5
9 J:td 1
Th e Ca t a l a n
1 7 e5?
An unsound pawn sacrifice which Black
should exploit. 17 h4 f6 1 8 e5 is complex.
1 10
1 7 . . . c6? !
Black should accept the invitation and
play 1 7 ... .ll xg5! ! 1 8 .ll x a8 .ll x c1 1 9 kIxc1 c6!,
trapping the bishop. Then 20 tiJe4 (20 'iVe4
d8! and ... g5+) 20 ... c8 21 .ll x c6?! (21
b3!? and White is not so much worse)
21 ...'iNxc6 22 b3 d5! favours Black.
1 8 ttJe4 f5
1 8 ... tiJc7 19 tiJf6+ .ll xf6 20 gxf6 looks
very dangerous.
1 9 exf6 gxf6 20 ttJc5 xc5 21 dxc5
'ilie7 ? !
The queen is i n the way o n this rank, and
the c-pawn is hanging. After the superior
21 ...c8 22 gxf6 kIxf6 23 kIc3 kIa7! the bat
tle rolls on.
22 xc6 c8 23 d7 'llVx c5 24 'llVx e6 +
'it>h8 25 d5 ttJg7
26 g6 ! !
A fantastic move that opens up the king
side.
26 . . . fd8? !
26 ... tiJxe6 is better. After 27 kIxh7+ g8
28 .ll xe6+ kIf7 29 kIc3! White wins. One line
goes 29 ... .l:i.cc7 30 kIxf7 kIxf7 31 gxf7+ 'it>fB
32 kIg3 and it is all over. 26 ... .l:Ic7 was the
best try. Now after 27 h3 h5 28 kIxc7
xc7 29 'iNe3 tiJf5 30 f3 tiJg7 31 kIel
White has a fantastic position, probably win
ning, but there is still some work to do.
27 'llVh 3 1 -0
Black resii-,'11ed because 27 ... h5 is met by
28 'iNxh5+ tiJxh5 29 kIh7 mate.
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 a 6
Game 54
Raetsky-Ekstrom
Ziirich 1998
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
iLg2 a6 6 0-0 ttJc6 7 ttJc3
7 J:!.bS
Experience has made this the main line.
7 ... fi.e7 allows S 'ilVa4 0-0 9 'iYxc4 when
Black has no natural plan of development.
7 ... fi.b4 also looks too optimistic. S 'ikc2 0-0
9 J::!.d l 'ii'e 7 10 i.g5 h6 1 1 i.xf6 'it'xf6 12 e4
nbS 1 3 e5 'it'e7 14 d5 tZJa5 1 5 tZJd4 i.d7 1 6
f4 J::!. fdS 1 7 'it>h 1 i.eS I S rs saw White gener
ate a promising kingside attack in Shipov
Bashkov, Cheliabinsk 1 9 9 1 . Note that the
two bishops are of little importance here as
the position is still somewhat closed. Another
strong option is S i.g5 0-0 9 J::!.c 1 i.e7 10 e3,
when Bronstein-Kholmov, Moscow 1 957
continued 1O ... tZJd5 1 1 i.xe7 tZJcxe7 12 tZJe4
b5 13 b3 cxb3 14 xb3 as 15 tZJe5 b4 1 6
tZJc5 and White had good play o n the c-file
and in the centre.
S e4 iLe7
S ... b5 is considered in the next game.
S ... i.b4 can be met with 9 d5!? i.xc3 1 0
bxc3 tZJe7 (1 0. . . exd5 1 1 exd5 tZJxd5 1 2 tZJg5
i.e6 looks risky but is not necessarily un
sound) 1 1 l:te1 0-0 12 i.a3, when Petursson
Lechtynsky, Smederevska Palanka 1 9S4 was
rather unpleasant for Black after 12 ... exd5?
. . .
Th e C a t a la n
1 2 . . . d4! ?
Black has to give up the knight one way or
the other. 1 2 ...liJd7?! 1 3 e6?! liJb6! benefits
only Black, so White should play 13 liJxd5.
Then 1 3. ..liJb4 14 e6 liJxd5 15 exd7 ..tb7 1 6
liJe5 c 6 1 7 liJxc6?! (1 7 .tf4, with a mess, is
better) 17 ...i.xc6 18 ..txd5 .txd7 19 ..tc6
..txc6 20 l:txd8 tIbxd8 gives Black all the
chances, which leaves 14 liJd4! liJxd5
(14 ... i.b 7?! 1 5 liJxb4! ..txg2 1 6 xg2 .txb4
17 liJc6 and White wins a piece) 1 5 liJc6 'it'e8
16 .ll. x d5 liJb6 1 7 i.e4! tIa8 18 'iVh5 g6 19
1 12
20 ttJf4?!
White continues down the wrong path.
4 . . . dx c 4 5 it.. g 2 8 6
Game 55
K halifman-Ivanchuk
Minsk 1986
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 t"t::lf 3 t"t::lf 6 4 g3 dxc4 S
it.. g 2 a6 6 0-0 t"t::l c 6 7 t"t::l c 3 .l:!.b8 8 e4 bS!?
Th e C a t a l a n
IS.
Game 56
Tukmakov-Hulak
Croatia 1999
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i. g 2 8 6
1 1 'iWxb3
White also has a very interesting option in
the sharp 1 1 ttJd4!?, e.g. 1 1 ...c5 (1 1 ...e5 1 2
ttJxb3 c 5 1 3 a 3 ttJd3 1 4 1't'xd3 c4 1 5 1't'd1
cxb3 1 6 'iVxb3 and White has a structural
advantage) 1 2 dxc6 e5 1 3 ttJd5. In Cvitan
Luther, Germany 1 998 White emerged from
13 ... iLd6 14 c7 iLxc7 1 5 ttJxb4 'iVxd4 1 6
'i'xd4 exd4 1 7 axb3 in front. 1 3. . .ttJbxd5!? is
an interesting alternative, e.g. 14 exd5 exd4
1 5 l:!.e1+ iLe7 16 d6! (1 6 iLf4? ttJxd5! 1 7
i.xd5 1't'xd5 1 8 iLxb8 b2 1 9 .l:1b 1 'iVxc6 and
Black has healthy counterplay) 1 6 .. .'iVxd6 1 7
iLf4 'iVb4! 1 8 a 3 'i'a4 1 9 iLxb8 iLe6 2 0 iLe5
and White stands better, albeit in a tricky
position.
1 1 c5
Greed is dangerous - 1 1 ...exd5 12 exd5
ttJbxd5 13 l:!.e1+ iLe7 14 ttJd4 iLb7 1 5 tt'lrs
. . .
1 3 . . . 'iWb6
Black is in a difficult situation here. For
example 1 3 ... 'ii'c 7 14 iLf4 e5 1 5 tt'ld5 tt'lxd5
1 6 exd5 exf4 1 7 'i'c3! is excellent for White
according
to
Tukmakov.
However,
1 3 ...tt'ld7!? might be an improvement. After
1 4 i.f4 l:!.b 7 1 5 l:!.ac1 tt'la5 1 6 'iVc2 iLa3
White went for it in Raetsky-Barsov, Abu
Dhabi 2001 with 1 7 tt'lxb5!? axb5 1 8 'ii'x c8
iLxc1 19 "it'xc 1 0-0 20 iLd6 lle8 21 e5 tt'lb6
22 tt'lg5 (22 tt'ld4!? tt'ld5 23 iLxd5 exd5 24
tt'lf5 looks very dangerous for Black)
22 ... tt'ld5 23 l:!.xd5!? exd5 24 iLxd5 h6 25
tt'le4 with compensation for the two ex
changes. If Black survives he is doing well,
but it is not clear that he will.
1 4 i.f4 nb7 1 5 e5 tDd7
After 15 ... tt'lg4 16 tt'le4 White has a very
promising position, a sample line being
1 6 ...tt'la5 1 7 'iYc2 .:!.c7 1 8 'iYe2 tt'lc4 (1 8 ... i.b7
19 tt'lfg5! h5 20 h3 iLxe4 21 tt'lxe4 tt'lh6 22
tt'ld6+ and White wins) 1 9 h3 tt'lh6 20 iLxh6
gxh6 21 tt'lf6+ We7 22 'iVe4 and there is no
adequate defence against 23 'iih 4.
1 6 tDe4 tDc5 1 7 'iWe3 ! tDxe4 1 8 'iWxe4
1 15
Th e Ca t a l a n
l:tc7
1 8 ... i.c5 19 :ac 1 !? offers White good
compensation.
1 9 l:tac 1 ..tb7 ? !
1 9 ....Jl. c 5 2 0 .Jl.e3! .Jl.xe3 21 'iWxe3 'it'xe3
22 fxe3 :d7 (directed against lbd4) 23 lld6
lbe7 24 lbd4 and White seems to have more
than enough compensation for the missing
exchange.
20 ..te3 if'aS 21 ltJd4 ltJdS
21 ...lbe7 walks into 22 'iVxb7!! lhb7 23
.Jl.xb7 when White is winning, e.g. 23 ...'tia4
24 lId2 f6 25 lbxe6 rt;; f7 26 lbd8+ rt;;g8 27
.Jl.c5 and Black's king will never be safe.
22 if'd3 l:txc 1
22 ... .Jl.xg2 23 lbb3 and Black must resign.
23 ..txc 1 ..tdS 24 ..tgS!
24 . . . h6
In reply to 24 ... i.e7 White wins with 25
i.xe7 rt;;x e7 26 i.xd5 exd5 27 lbf5+ and
Black is about to be destroyed.
2S ltJxe6! fxe6 26 if'g6 + ltJf7 27 ..txdS
27 'iVxe6+! i.xe6 28 i.c6+ .Jl.d7 29 i.xd7
mate.
27 . . . ..te7 2S ..tc6 + 'ilo>fS 29 ..txe 7 + 1 -0
Black meets 6 0-0 with 6 . . . bS
Game 57
llincic-Djuric
S ltJxc6
Razuvaev's brilliant idea was 8 b3! cxb3 9
lbxc6 'it'b6 l O lba5 l:ta7 (lO ... bxa2 1 1 'ii'c2
axbl 'ili' 1 2 'ili'xc8+ 'iVd8 1 3 'iVxd8+ rt;;x d8 1 4
.l:!.xb 1 lbd5 1 5 1i.d2 with compensation for
the pawn) 1 1 lbxb3, when Razuvaev
M.Gurevich, Riga 1 985 continued 1 1 ....i.e 7
1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 i.e3 J::.d7 1 4 lb l d2 'iVd8 1 5 a4!
bxa4 1 6 ':xa4 1i.b7 1 7 lba5! .Jl.c6 1 8 lbxc6
lbxc6 19 lbb3 6 20 l:tal ! 5 21 lIbl
with an advantage to White thanks to the
bishop pair and the centre. Another possibil
ity is l 1 ...lId7 1 2 e4! i.b7 1 3 llel ! i.e7 1 4 e5
tbd5 1 5 'ii'g4 rt;; f8 16 .Jl.g5 h5 17 'iWh4 when
the plight of Black's king promises White the
more pleasant prospects, although this is an
improvement for Black on the dubious
1 5 ...g6?!, when Krasenkow-Kohlweyer, Os
tend 1 990 continued 16 i.h6 lbb4 17 i.xb7
'iVxb7 1 8 'iVe2 lb8c6 1 9 lbc3 and, once
again, Black's poor king was a significant
factor.
S . . . if'b6 9 ltJeS
9 lbxb8 lIxb8 lO b3 cxb3 1 1 axb3 .Jl.b7
1 2 i.xb7 xb7 1 3 i.f4 l:tc8 with equality.
9 . . . ..tb7 1 0 ..txb7
White can also try lO e4?! lbxe4 1 1 "iVh5
lbd6 1 2 d5 g6 (the immediate capture
1 2 ... .Jl.xd5 1 3 .Jl.xd5 exd5 1 4 lbc3 'iib7 1 5
lIdl i.e7 1 6 lbxd5 i s nice for White) 1 3 e2
i.g7 and now 1 4 i.e3?! was tried in Aseev
Novikov, Lvov 1 984, which went 14 .. .'ikc7
4 . . . dx c 4 5 g 2 a 6
1 4 . . .b7
Another try is 14 ... b4 15 ttJxc6 'tWxc6 1 6
a4 1Vxa4 1 7 ttJxa4 .Jid6 1 8 .Jie3 <j;e7 1 9
.l:!.el c 3 2 0 bxc3 b 3 21 ttbl .l:!.b8 2 2 g5 h6
23 xf6+ <j;xf6 24 <j;f1 and White is slightly
better in the ending. His pawns are on dark
squares and thus dominate the bishop, while
the far advanced b3-pawn might prove vul
nerable.
1 5 ttJxc6 xc6 1 6 e4! b4
Or 1 6 ... ttJxe4 1 7 'it'D f5 1 8 .l:!.dl ! .Jie7 1 9
d 5 exd5 2 0 ttJxd5 and White's activity i s suf
ficient to keep the fire burning.
1 7 d5 'iWa6
27 . . . h6
No better is 27 ... h5 28 it'f5 .l:!.h6 29 .l:!.al .
28 ttJf3 e6 29 e4 l:td8 30 h5 ttJf8 3 1
ttJxe5 l:td5 3 2 'it'h4+ 1 -0
Game 58
Vajnerman-Novikov
Lvov 1984
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
1 1 7
Th e Ca t a l a n
8 lLlc3 b7
Black can also play 8 ... c6 but, after 9
lLlxd5 should avoid 9 ... cxd5 1 0 e4, when
disaster can soon strike, e.g. 1O ... i.e7? 1 1
exd5 exd5 1 2 lLlxf7! 'it>xf7 1 3 'iVh5+ g6 1 4
i.xd5+ etc. Best i s 9 . . .exd5 1 0 e 4 iLe6 1 1 a4,
when an interesting option is 1 1 ...1:.a7!? 1 2
axb5 cxb5 1 3 exd5 i.xd5 with unclear play.
Sosonko-Hiibner, Tilburg
1 979
went
l 1 ...b4?! 12 exd5 i.xd5?! 1 3 'iVg4! h5 (or
1 3 ... iLxg2 1 4 l:tel !) 14 iLxd5! cxd5 1 5 'iVrs
Ita7 16 l:tel Ite7 17 i.g5 g6 1 8 iLxe7! and
White won.
9 lLlxd5
After 9 e4 lLlf6 10 d5 lLlbd7 the sacrifice
1 1 lLlxf7 'it>xf7 12 dxe6+ 'it>xe6 1 3 e5 is not
good enough in view of 1 3 ... i.xg2 14 exf6
lLle5 with an advantage to Black. Speelman
Van Der Sterren, Baku 1 983 continued 1 1
lLlc6 iLxc6 1 2 dxc6 lLle5 1 3 iLf4, when Black
could have secured an edge after 1 3 ... lLld3 1 4
e 5 lLld5 according to Speelman.
9 . . . exd5
Not 9 ... iLxd5? 10 e4 i.b7 1 1 h5! g6 1 2
lLlxg6! fxg6 1 3 1Ve5 lLld7 1 4 'iVxh8 'ii'e7 1 5
h4! 0-0-0 1 6 iLg5 'iVf7 1 7 d5! 1:.e8 1 8 dxe6
Itxe6 19 Itadl i.c6 20 iLh6 'it'b7 21 Itxd7
and Black resigned in Sosonko-Scheider,
Buenos Aires 1 978.
1 0 b3
10 e4 dxe4 1 1 'iVh5 g6 12 lLlxg6 fxg6 1 3
e5+ 'iVe7 1 4 'ii'x h8 lLld7 needs investigat1 18
4 . . . dx c 4 5 Ji.. g 2 a 6
20 Ji.. g 5?!
Again White has a better move at his dis
posal in 20 iLa3, although 20 ... 4Jxe4 21 .l:!.xe4
i.f6 still leaves Black holding his own thanks
to the far advanced c-pawn.
20 . . . h6 21 Ji.. f4 ltJxe4 22 xe4 Ji.. x d5 23
ee 1 c5
Black's dangerous queenside pawns tip tlle
scales in his favour.
24 Ji.. e 5 Ji.. x e5 25 xe5 d8 26 f4 b4! 27
<.t>f2
After 27 l':.d 1 c2 28 l':.c1 Black has
28 ... iLxb3!! (very nice!) 29 axb3 .l:!.d1+ 30 lIel
':xe1+ 31 .l:!.xel c4 and wins.
27 ... c4 28 bxc4 Ji.. x c4 29 b 1 d2 + 30
<.t>e3
30 el l':.b2 31 l':.dl iLb5 doesn't help
White.
30 . . . b2 31 e 1 Ji.. x a2 32 <.t>d4 d2 + 33
<.t>c5 c2! 34 e7 + <.t>f6 0 - 1
Game 59
Rogers-Chandler
Wellington 1986
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
Ji.. g 2 a6 6 0-0 b5 7 ltJe5 ltJd5 8 a4
8 . . . Ji.. b 7
Another form of support is offered by
8 ... c6. Then White can try 9 axb5 cxb5 1 0
4Jc3 iLb7 (l 0. . .4Jxc3?! 1 1 bxc3 l':.a7 1 2 iLc6+
and 'W'hite picks up the b5-pawn with a supe
riour position) 1 1 4Jxd5 exd5 12 e4, when
12 ... dxe4 1 3 'iVh5 'iVf6 14 iLg5 'iVe6 remains
complicated. Black fared worse in Heck
Zude, Hessen 1 994, which continued
12 ... iLd6?! 1 3 exd5 0-0 14 i.d2 f6 1 5 4Jc6
c7 1 6 f3 'iVf7 17 l':.ae 1 . White's doubled
pawns in the centre are vulnerable but this
7 79
Th e Ca t a l a n
1 6 'ii'c 2
16 'i*'d3 f6 17 ttJc4 0-0 favours Black.
White's knight should retreat to d3.
1 6 " .iLf6 1 7 4Jxc3
17 ttJd3 ttJc6 18 ttJf4 'i*'d7! is not to be
recommended for White (Rogers believes
Black is clearly better) . The knight is not
better on f4.
1 7 . . . bxc3 1 8 'ii'x c3 iLxe5
Or 1 8 ... c5 19 J:tc1 0-0 20 'iix c5 'iixb3
with equality.
1 9 dxe5 4Jc6 20 f4 0-0 21 l:tc 1 4Je 7
4 . . . dx c 4 5 ii.. g 2 a 6
22 ii.. c 5
White should be careful here. 22 'it'xc7
'it'xb3 23 i.c5 liJd5 24 'it'a7 and, due to his
exposed king, White cannot take on 8. Black
keeps his knight on the board and White's
king is more insecure - Black is better.
22 . . . .l:.eS 23 ii.. x e7 .l:!.xe7 24 'ii'c 5 'ii'd S 25
.l:!.a 1
Black gets no opportunity to exploit the
enemy king position.
25 . . . h5 2S .l:!.aS 'ii'x aS 27 'ii'x e7 'ii'c s 2S
'ii'd S+ 'iit h 7 29 'ii'd 3+ gS 30 h4 % - %
Game 60
Romero-Antu nes
Havana 199 1
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 eS 3 4Jf3 4JfS 4 g 3 dxc4 5
ii..g 2 as S 0-0 b5 7 4Je5 4Jd5 S a4 ii.. b 7 9
e4
9 . . . 4JfS
Khalifman-Ruban, USSR 1 985 went
9 ... liJb6? 10 axb5 axb5 1 1 Iha8 i.xa8 1 2
'iVh5 g6 1 3 liJxg6! fxg6 1 4 'it'e5 with a deci
sive lead for White.
1 0 axb5 axb5 1 1 .l:!.xaS ii.. x aS 1 2 4Jc3 cS
White is well on top after 12 ... b4 13 'it'a4+
liJbd7 1 4 liJb5!, e.g. 1 4 ... i.xe4? 1 5 i.xe4
liJxe4 1 6 liJc6 'it'c8 17 iVa8! etc.
1 3 d5
Also possible is 1 3 i.g5 i.b7. Then a pa
tient continuation is 14 d5 i.e7 1 5 dxe6 fxe6
16 iVe2 0-0 17 h4 'it'e8 1 8 h5 liJbd7 1 9
liJxd7 liJxd7 2 0 i.xe7 'it'xe7 21 e5 liJc5 a s in
Smejkal-Chandler, Germany 1 985, when 22
f4 would have provided compensation for
the pawn. More adventurous is 1 4 liJx7!?
'it'x7 15 e5 h6, with a choice for the bishop.
The faulty 1 6 i.h4?! was seen in Khalifman
Novikov, Lvov 1 985, when Black should
have continued 1 6 ...g5! 1 7 exf6 'it'xf6 1 8 liJe4
iVg6 19 iVaI liJa6. Later, in Nesis-Block,
Correspondence 1 987, White sacrificed a
piece for an initiative after 1 6 .ixf6 gxf6 1 7
'iVh5+ 'it'g7 1 8 l:tal , the subsequent 1 8 .. .f5!
1 9 liJe2 l:tg8 20 liJf4 'it'd7 21 oUa7 'it'h8 22
liJxe6 'it'xe6 23 l:txb7 maintaining the dy
namic balance.
Black can play the immediate 13 ... i.e7,
when after 14 'iVaI i.b7 15 iVa7 'iVc8 Flear
gives 1 6 liJf3 h6 1 7 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 8 e5 i.e 7
1 9 liJd2 0-0 20 liJxb5 cxb5 21 iVxb 7 i.b4! as
equal. Stajcic-Hoelzl, Austria 1 997 went 1 6
d 5 0-0 1 7 dxe6 fxe6 1 8 i.h3 liJa6 1 9 i.e3
i.d6 20 liJf3 .l:.e8 21 e5 i.b8 22 'iVd4 liJd7
23 l:1dl liJ8 with chances for both sides Black has a pawn, but White is active.
1 3 . . . ii.. d S
Another option is 13 ...cxd5 14 exd5 i.xd5
15 liJxd5 exd5 16 liJg4 i.e 7 17 liJxf6+ i.xf6
1 8 l:1e 1+ 'it'8 1 9 i.xd5 h5 20 'iVf3 g6 21 b3
'it'g7 22 bxc4 bxc4 23 i.xc4 'iVc7 24 i.d5
with the more harmonious force for White in
Cvitan-Ekstroem, Dresden 1 998. 1 3 ... i.e7 1 4
dxe6 fxe6 1 5 'iVe2 0-0 1 6 i.h3 'iVc8 1 7 liJf3
liJa6 18 liJg5 liJc7 19 i.f4 was the course of
12 1
Th e Ca t a la n
1 7 . . . bxc3
Or 17 ... .i.xe5 18 dxc6 0-0 19 cxb 7 bxc3
20 .i.h6 and the bishop pair and passed pawn
1 22
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i.. g 2 a 6
Summary
Let us compare the two S ... a6 main lines after 6 ttJeS and 6 0-0.
If 6 ttJeS practice has demonstrated that after 6 ... cS 7 ttJa3 cxd4 8 ttJaxc4 J:Ia7 White has
difficulties achieving an advantage.
The variation with 6 0-0 features more variations and promises much more interesting play.
After 6 ... ttJc6 White can choose between 7 e3 and 7 ttJc3 and, in the case of the former, with 7
e3 i.d7 8 'iVe2 bS 9 l:!.d1 , there is no reason to write off the older continuation 9 ... i.d6. Cer
tainly after 10 e4 the departure 1O ... i.e7?! is simply a loss of time, but the break in the centre
with 10 ... eS seems to be reasonable. Meanwhile, after 9 ... i.e7 10 ttJc3 a useful manoeuvre was
seen in the game Haba-Gorin, where Black found ...ttJb4-d3, exploiting the weakness of d3.
The position arising after 7 ttJc3 l:tb8 8 e4 i.e7 9 'iVe2 bS 10 J:f.d1 is critical. The impression
today is that after 10 ... 0-0 1 1 dS exdS 12 eS a sharp, open struggle occurs where White's
chances are preferable. As for Black, he should be looking out for the aforementioned ma
noeuvre ...ttJb4-d3. After 8 ... bS 9 'iVe2 ttJxd4 White's initiative and Black's material superiority
more or less cancel each other out, while 8 ... bS 9 dS ttJb4 1 0 b3!? seems to give White the bet
ter chances. Black should be cautious, perhaps avoiding this line altogether.
After S ... a6 6 0-0 bS 7 ttJeS ttJdS 8 a4 i.b 7 the challenge with 9 b3 allows Black to try a very
interesting piece sacrifice in 9 ... c3!? 1 0 e4 b4 or 10 axbS axbS 1 1 l:txa8 i.xa8 1 2 e4 b4!?, for
ever leaving the knight entombed on b 1 . Of course White can always return the piece with
tiJxc3, but it seems that he can expect little in terms of an advantage.
A kind of tabia occurs after 9 e4 ttJf6 1 0 axbS axbS 1 1 l:ha8 i.xa8 1 2 ttJc3 c6. Previously
13 i.gS was often played here, but it is not clear whether the bishop belongs here. Perhaps this
decision should be delayed. After 13 dS i.d6 14 ttJg4!? White has a strong initiative, and al
though this is not cut and dried, Black should probably resort to 13 ... i.e7, after which a degree
of accuracy is required to hold the balance.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lZlf3 lZlf6 4 g3 dxc4 5 i.. g 2 a6 6 0-0
6 a4: 6 ... cS Game 46; 6 ...ttJc6 7 0-0 l:tb8 - 6 0-0
6 ttJeS
6 ... i.b4+ - Game 47
6 ... cS (D)
7 i.e3 Game 48
7 ttJa3: 7 ... 'ifxd4 - Game 49; 7 ... cxd4 - Game 50
6 lZlc6
6 ... bS 7 ttJeS
7 ... c6 - Game 57
7 ... ttJdS
8 ttJc3 Game 58
8 a4 i.b7 (D)
9 e4 - Game 60
9 b3: 9 ... c3 Game 59; 9 ... cxb3 1 0 'iVxb3 c6 Game 85 (Chapter 8)
7 lZlc3
7 a4 - Game 5 1
7 e 3 i.d7: 8 ttJc3 Game 52; 8 'iVc2 Game 53
7 ..l:lbS S e4
8 ... i.e 7 - Game 54
S b5 (D)
9 'iVe2 Game 55; 9 dS - Game 56
-
. . .
. .
. . .
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i. g 2 ltJ c 6
Th e C a t a l a n
Game 6 1
Rustemov-Sax
Germatry 2000
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tZJf3 tZJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
g2 tZJc6 6 0-0 l:tb8
7 e3
A major alternative is 7 .ig5 .ie7 8 e3 0-0
9 lbfd2 (9 lbbd2 b5 and Black holds on to
the pawn) 9 ... e5! 10 iLxf6 (10 iLxc6 bxc6 1 1
dxe5 lbg4 1 2 .ixe7 'iVxe7 1 3 lbxc4 lbxe5
and White's weak squares leave him worse)
1 0 ... iLxf6 1 1 d5 e4!, which was the course of
D.Gurevich-Adams, Biel 1 993. There fol
lowed 1 2 lbxc4 b5 1 3 lbc3 bxc4 1 4 dxc6
l:lxb2 1 5 'iVc1 l:tb8, when Black had the
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL. g 2 ljj c 6
20 'it'g4! ! f5
20 ... hxg5 21 hxg5 lIVc6 (21 ...g6 22 4Jf6+
1I.. xf6 23 gxf6 4Jc2 24 iVh4 and Black is
about to be mated) 22 l::t ac1 (22 4Jf6+? 4Jxf6
leaves Black a piece up) 22 ... lib6 23 4Jf6+
i.xf6 24 gxf6 g6 25 'it'g5 and (again) the
weak dark squares around Black's king will
prove decisive. Nor does 20 ...iVc6 21 l::t ac1
'iVb6 22 4Jf6+ xf6 23 exf6 g6 24 i.d4 help
Black - a knight sacrifice on e6 is corning
next.
21 exfS lDxfS 22 iL.xfS iL.xfS 23 lDxfS +
127
Th e Ca t a la n
l:txf6 24 xb 7 l:txb 7
24 ... hxg5 25 hxg5 l:tf8 26 g6 Will S for
White.
25 ttJe4
Or 25 'iVe4 hxg5 26 'ii'xb7 gxh4 27 'iVe4
with a huge advantage.
25 . . . l:tg6 26 'i'e2
Game 62
Sandner-Luther
7 . . . b6
7 ... a6 transposes to 5 ... a6 6 0-0 ttJc6 7 a4
l:lb8 (Game 5 1 in Chapter 5) . After 7 ... i.b4
1 28
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 tD c 6
1 3 . . . tDe8
The direct approach 13 ... c5!? 14 dxc5
'i'd5+ 1 5 Wgl 'ixc5 gives Black more
breathing space and better chances due to
the extra pawn.
14 e4 tDd6 1 5 iLc3 tDb3
Also possible is the more forcing 15 ... f6
16 xa5 fxe5 1 7 dxe5 bxa5 1 8 exd6 cxd6 1 9
'i'xc4 with chances for both sides.
16 l:tab 1 'ii'e 8 1 7 tDxc4 tDxc4 1 8 'ii'x b3
ltJd6 1 9 f3 'ilt'd7 20 l:tfd 1 c6
Game 63
Ricardi-Smyslov
8 e3
Three other important continuations have
been tried here. 8 ttJe5 simplifies too much:
R ... ttJxe5 9 dxe5 'it'xd l 10 l:!.xd l .1i.xc3 1 1
bxc3 ttJd5 with equal chances. 8 l:tel ttJd5 9
1 29
Th e Ca ta la n
30 'i'xe4?
White can force a draw with 30 lI l a7!
4 . . . dx c 4 5 $i.. g 2 Ci'J c 6
Game 64
G leizerov-Raetsky
Riazan 199 1
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e 6 3 Ci'Jf3 Ci'Jf6 4 g 3 dxc4 5
i.g2 Ci'Jc6 6 0-0 bS 7 Ci'Jc3 i.b4 S "c2
0-0 9 d 1
9 . . :!Ve7
In the event of 9 ... .i.e7 10 e4 b5 1 1 e2
l:te8 1 2 .i.e3 .i.d7 the course of Summermat
ter-Sosonko, San Bernardino 1 99 1 is not to
be recommended for White because after 1 3
ttJg5?! e 5 1 4 dxe5 ttJxe5 1 5 .i.xa7 l::!. a8 1 6
d4 ttJd3 White had won back the pawn but
the outpost on d3 gave Black the advantage.
After 1 3 ttJe5!? b4 1 4 ttJa4 ttJa5 1 5 ttJc5, on
the other hand, White is very active.
Also possible is 9 ... b5 10 d5!? exd5 1 1
ttJxd5 h6 as in Sorokin-Kacheishvili, New
York 1 999, when 1 2 ttJe5!? ttJxe5 1 3 ttJxb4
'iVe7 1 4 .i.f4 would leave White well devel
oped and ready for action, although Black is
Th e C a t a la n
27 . . . xe4 28 fxe5 f5
29 xf5!
White crashes through!
29 . . . gxf5 30 4:)xf5+ xf5 3 1 l:txf5 4:)c6
No better is 3 1 ...ttJe6 32 i::t f7+! 'iVxf7 33
i::tx f7+ Wxf7 34 'it'xh6 and White is winning.
32 l:txf8 1 -0
Game 65
Yevseev-Goldin
22 . . . 4:)d7
22 ... exf4 23 eS ttJdS 24 'iVc1 puts h6 in
White's sights and is awk-ward for Black.
23 h3 f6 24 l:tf2 <tJg7 25 'ilVd2 h6
Black has no time to return the knight to
the fold: 2S ... ttJb7 26 .ltxd7 Itxd7 27 fxeS
fxeS 28 'iigs with a superior position for
White.
26 4:)h4 4:)f8 27 l:tef 1 !
W'hite is now ready to change gear . . . the
knight is still on as!
1 32
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 CO c 6
Game 66
Raetsky-Kelecevic
Silvaplana 1997
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 e6 3 tLif3 tLif6 4 g3 dxc4 5
iLg2 tLic6 6 0-0 b8 7 tLic3 b5 8 tLie5
tLixe5 9 dxe5
9 . . . tLid7
1 33
Th e C a t a l a n
1 2 . . . 'iVc8
12 ... c5 is also possible but it is IOglcal to
keep this square free for a piece. After the
further 1 3 'iVe4 'iVc7 1 4 a4! the opening of
the a-file helps only White.
1 3 a4 a6 1 4 axb5 axb5 1 5 f3 e7
1 5 ... 1i.c5 16 g4 g6 17 1i.h6 lbxe5 1 8
e4 lbd7 1 9 'iVc6 and Black i s struggling
against the tide .
1 6 l:ta5 b4
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i. g 2 CU c 6
Game 67
Tkachiev-Solozhenkin
France 2000
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 CUf3 CUf6 4 g3 dxe4 5
i.g2 CUe6 6 '/Wa4 i.d7 7 'iWxe4
7 . . . CUa5
7 ... i.d6 8 ttJc3 0-0 9 0-0 h6 to .i.f4 .i.xf4
1 1 gxf4 gives rise to White's typical grip on
the dark squares in the centre. Consequently
Black tried to ... lIb8?! in Tukmakov-Barle,
Bled 1 996, but 1 1 lLle5! b5 1 2 d3 ttJb4 1 3
'ii'd2 ttJbd5 1 4 lIac1 ttJxf4 1 5 iVxf4 nb6 1 6
ttJe4 ttJxe4 1 7 'iVxe4 lIa6 1 8 a3 lIa4 1 9 e3
Th e Ca t a la n
1 6 ii.f4! .l:!.c8
The tempting 16 ... eS? loses material due to
17 lDf5 exf4 18 lDxg7+ WfS 19 'iiVx d7.
1 7 ttJf3 ttJc4 1 8 ttJa4 b5 1 9 b3! ttJcb6 20
ttJxb6 ttJxb6 21 'ifxd8+ ii.xd8?!
21 ...lIxd8 22 l:txd8+ .J1i.xd8 23 .l:!.c1 is the
lesser evil.
22 e4
The b6-knight is deprived of the last good
square. White has a clear advantage.
22 . . .16
22 ... lDd7 23 l:tac1 l:txc1 24 Ihc1 lDf6 2S
eS lDdS 26 :c8 and Black is trailing. After
the text the queenside pawns come under
attack.
23 .l:!.d6 c,t>e7 24 ttJd4 e5 25 ttJf5 + c,t>f7
26 ii.e3 g6 27 ttJh6 + c,t>g7 28 .l:!.ad 1
Suddenly White is very active.
28 . . . .l:!.b8 29 .l:!.d7 + !
A nice exchange sacrifice.
29 . . . ttJxd7 30 .l:!.xd 7 + c,t>f8 31 ttJf7 .l:!.g8
32 ttJd6!
Mate cannot be avoided without heavy
loss of material.
32 . . . g5 33 .l:!.f7 mate!
1 36
Game 68
Raetsky-S . Ivanov
Simferopo! 1989
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
ii.g2 ttJc6 6 'it'a4 ttJd7
6 ... lDdS 7 'iiVxc4 lDb6 transposes to
6 ... lDd7 7 'iic4 lDb6.
7 'it'x c4 ttJb6
8 'ifd3 e5
Another idea is 8 ... lDb4, e.g. 9 'iiVb 3 eS 1 0
lDgs "iIIe7 1 1 a 3 lDc6 1 2 .J1i.xc6+ bxc6 1 3
dxeS h 6 1 4 lDf3 .J1i.h3 with unclear play ac
cording to Shipov, or 9 'iiVc 3 eS 1 0 dxeS i.f5
1 1 0-0 ii.xb 1 1 2 ltxb 1 lDxa2 1 3 'iiVb 3 lDxc1
1 4 l::tb xc 1 , Shipov-Gofstein, Paris 1 995,
when White had a lead in development.
9 ii.e3! ?
A home-made idea from one of your au
thors! In Gasimov-Zvjagintsev, Yurmala
1 992 a draw was agreed in the equal position
that resulted from 9 dxeS "iIIx d3 1 0 exd3
lDb4 1 1 'it>d2 ii.f5 1 2 a3 lDxd3 1 3 lDh4
lDxc1 1 4 Wxc1 .J1i.xb 1 I S l:txb 1 . Meanwhile,
in Poluljakhov-Brodsky, Krasnodar 1 999 the
continuation 9 ii.gS ii.e 7 1 0 ii.xe 7 'iVxe7 1 1
lDxeS lDxeS 1 2 dxeS 'iiVx eS 1 3 lDc3 0-0 14
0-0 c6 I S l::tfd l .J1i.e6 16 'iVd4 'iIIc 7 saw Black
entering the rniddlegame phase with no
problems.
9 . . . ttJb4
9 ... exd4 10 lDxd4 lDb4?! 1 1 "iIIe4+ i.e7 12
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 l"iJ c 6
1 0 . . . l"iJd7
1O ... .Jtd7!? is a clever move with which
Black sacrifices a pawn in order to seek to
exploit the insecure position of White's
queen. In J.Horvath-Rabiega, Austria 1 996
this did not work out for Black after 1 1
xe5+ .Jte7 1 2 ttJa3 0-0 1 3 0-0 ttJ6d5 1 4
.i.d2 .u.e8 1 5 .i.xb4 ttJxb4 1 6 'iVf4 .Jte6 1 7
ttJb5! ttJd5 1 8 'iVd2 .Jtb4 1 9 'iVc2 c 6 20 ttJc3.
However, there is an improvement in
1 4 ... .Jtf6 1 5 'iVh5 g6 16 'ikh6 .Jtg7 17 'ikh4
'ikxh4 1 8 gxh4 nfe8, when White's kingside
structure is compromised and Black has
some compensation for the pawn deficit.
1 1 'iWa4 exd4
1 1 ...b5?! 12 'iVb3 .Jtb7 13 ttJxe5! is bad for
Black, and after 1 1 ...e4 1 2 ttJg5 ttJd5 1 3 'iVb3
White has numerous threats (e4 is weak and
Black is behind in development) .
1 2 l"iJxd4 cS 1 3 l"iJc3 l"iJbS 1 4 'iWb3 c5
Perhaps this is too ambitious as it helps
Game 69
Polovodin -Zviagintsev
137
Th e C a t a l a n
9 . . . ttJb4
After 9 ... ttJxd4 10 e3 ttJe6 1 1 'iVxd8+
ttJxd8 the game is equal, while 1 0 .i.e3 .i.c5
1 1 ttJc3 .i.f5 12 .i.e4 .i.xe4 13 'iWxe4 f5 1 4
'it'd3 'iWd6 i s unclear. White's best i s 1 0 0-0 f6
1 1 ttJf3 ttJxf3+ 1 2 xf3 .i.d6 1 3 ttJc3 with a
slight edge.
1 0 b3
In the event of 1 0 dl 'iWxd4 1 1 'it'xd4
ttJc2+ 1 2 'it'd 1 ttJxd4 1 3 e3 ttJe6 Black
shouldn't experience any problems. Gelfand
Ivanchuk, Sochi 1 986 continued 14 ttJc3 f6
1 5 ttJd3 ttJc5 1 6 ttJxc5 .i.xc5 1 7 'it'c2 .i.f5+
1 8 e4 .i.e6 1 9 f4 0-0-0 20 b3 h5 with equal
chances.
10 'iWc3 'it'xd4 needs investigating. After
1 1 'i*'xc7!? .i.e7 1 2 ttJf3 c4 1 3 'i*'xc4 ttJxc4
14 ttJd4 .i.f6 1 5 a3 .i.xd4!? 1 6 axb4 ttJxb2 1 7
.l::ta2 Black wins the pawn back but White
keeps an edge, while Haba-Klovans, Leinfel
den 2001 saw instead 1 5 ... ttJxa3 1 6 ttJxa3
.i.xd4 17 0-0 0-0 1 8 :d 1 .i.f6 1 9 ttJb5. Again
Black managed to collect the invested pawn,
but White's pressure on the queenside se
cured an advantage. The earlier encounter
Beliavsky-Adams, Madrid 1 998 went 1 1 0-0
'iVxc3 12 ttJxc3 .i.d6 1 3 ttJf3 c6 14 lIdl .i.e7
1 5 ttJd4 0-0 16 a3 ttJ4d5 17 ttJxd5 ttJxd5
with a level game, but 1 5 e4!? is interesting
and seems to give White some advantage
after 1 5 ... 0-0 1 6 a3 ttJa6 1 7 .i.f4.
1 0 . . . e6 1 1 d 1 xd4 1 2 xd4 ttJc2 +
1 3 'it'd 1 ttJxd4 1 4 xb7 .l:!.d8
1 5 d2
In Kaidanov-Shariyazdanov, Elista 1 998
White preferred 1 5 ttJd2, and after the fur
ther 1 5 ... f6 1 6 ttJc6 ttJxc6 1 7 .i.xc6+ f7 1 8
'it'c2 .i.c5 1 9 ttJb3 .i.xf2 2 0 : f1 .i.d4 21 .tf4
Black returned the material with equality after
21 ....i.xb3+ 22 xb3 ttJd5.
1 5 . . . f6 1 6 ttJc6 ttJxc6 1 7 xc6 + 'it'f7 1 8
'it'c2 c5
Black's activity compensates for the pawn
deficit.
1 9 f3 ttJc4 20 e4 .l:!.d6 21 d3 .l:!.b8
Now all of Black's pieces are in play.
22 c 1
22 b3 ttJe5 23 .i.e4 f5 24 .i.c3 fxe4 25
.i.xe5 l:td5 26 f4 e3 is to Black's benefit.
White has problems mobilising his forces
and his light-squared bishop has a bright
future.
22 . . . d4 23 ttJc3 .l:!.c6 24 e4 .l:!.c5 25
.l:!.d 1
Another move is 25 e3 but Black has a
strong reply - 25 ... ttJa3+! 26 'it'd2 .i.xc3+ 27
bxc3 l::t d8+ 28 'it'e2 ttJb5 and Black both
regains the pawn and maintains the offen
sive.
2S . . ..bs 26 f4 ttJxb2!
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i. g 2 0, c 6
Game 70
Zsu . Polgar-Benjamin
Dortmund 1985
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 0,f3 0,f6 4 g3 dxe4 5
i.g2 0,e6 6 'i'a4 i.d6
7 0-0
In the event of 7 ttJbd2 (note that with the
moves ... i.b4+ and i.d2 inserted this is not
possible) 7 ... 0-0 8 ttJxc4 Black must not allow
the exchange of his potentially useful dark
squared bishop for White's knight. Therefore
in this position practice has seen the forcing
8 ... b5!? 9 "iVxb5 b8 1 0 'iVxc6 i.d7 1 1 'iVa6
i.b5 1 2 "iVa5 .i.xc4 1 3 a3. Then 1 3. .. ttJe4!? is
worth a try, with compensation after 14 ttJe5
.i.d5 1 5 0-0 c5. Instead Jo.Horvath-Van Der
Werf, Haarlem 1 995 continued 1 3 ... c5 1 4
'iVxd8 fxd8 1 5 dxc5 .ltxc5 1 6 b 4 .tb6 1 7
.i.b2, when 1 7 . . .ttJe4 1 8 e 3 ttJc5! 1 9 ttJe5
ttJd3+ 20 ttJxd3 .i.xd3 21 c1 as gives Black
slightly less than a pawn's worth of compen
sation.
7 . . . 0-0 8 l:td 1
I f White is not prepared to forget about
the c4-pawn he should play 8 'iixc4 e5 9
ttJc3 exd4 1 0 ttJxd4 ttJe5 1 1 'iVa4 .td7
(1 1 ...c6!? is interesting) 1 2 b3 c5 1 3 ttJdb5
c4 14 'iVc2 .i.c5 1 5 .i.f4 'iVe7 1 6 ad l , when
1 39
Th e C a t a l a n
1 0 . . . tDa6
Black can also head directly for the end
game with 1O ... b5!? 1 1 li:'lxc6 bxa4 12 li:'lxd8
li:'lc2 1 3 .l:!.a2 li:'ld5 14 li:'lc6. White's rook
looks a bit silly at the moment but he has
made progress in the centre and Black's
queenside has seen better days. Not surpris
ingly this is a difficult position to assess. We
should not forget that Black has two other
possibilities after 1 1 li:'lxc6, the most obvious
being 1 1 ...li:'lxc6 1 2 'ii'x b5 i.d7 1 3 i.xc6 ttb8
14 'iVa4 'iVc7 1 5 i.xd7 li:'lxd7 with a lead in
development and pressure on the b-ftle pro-
Yo - Yo
1 40
Game 71
Bauer-I ppolito
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i. g 2 l"jj c 6
8 . i.xe5 9 i.xc6 +
9 dxe5 ltJd5 1 0 f4 ltJb6 1 1 .i.xc6+ bxc6 1 2
'it'xc6+ 'it'd7 i s unclear because, while Black's
pawns look fragile they are not easy to attack
and, in the meantime, he has the b-fue.
9 . . bxc6 1 0 dxe5 'ii'd 5
Also possible is 1 O ...ltJd7 1 1 .i.c3 ltJb6 1 2
'fixc6+ 'ii'd 7 1 3 'ii'xd7+ xd7 1 4 ltJa3 .i.a6
1 5 0-0-0+ c6 1 6 lld4 (Ilincic) . Compared
with the previous note featuring 9 dxe5,
White has clearly improved and his forces are
much better placed.
1 1 f3 l"jjd 7
1 1 ...'it'xe5? 12 'iWxc6+ d8 13 'it'xa8
'ii'xb2 1 4 0-0 'iix al 1 5 'it'xa7 nets a pawn for
Black but he will soon feel the power of his
opponent's pieces.
1 2 l"jjc 3 'ii'c 5
12 ...'it'xe5 13 'it'xc6 l%.b8 1 4 .i.f4 'it'd4 was
tested in Ilincic-Marjanovic, Yugoslavia 1 998.
After 15 'ii'x c7 0-0 16 l:i.dl 'it'b6 17 'it'xb6
1:txb6 1 8 .i.d6! :e8 1 9 .i.a3 f5 20 l:td2 ltJf6
21 f2 e5 22 l::t h dl White's control of the d
fue and more sound structure secured the
better prospects. Perhaps Black should look
to 14 ... 'iVf5!? 1 5 .i.xc7 .l:txb2 1 6 .i.d6 .i.b7 1 7
'iVxc4 'iVa5! with good counterplay. I n return
for leaving his king in the centre Black can
generate pressure of his own.
1 3 f4
. .
1 3 . . . 0-0
The situation after 1 3 ... ltJb6!? 14 'it'c2
.i.b7 1 5 0-0-0 0-0-0 16 ltJe4 'it'e7 17 .i.e3
14 1
Th e C a t a l a n
26 . . . .l:!.bdS
Even the exchange of queens doesn't help
Black: 26 ... 'ii'x e4 27 ttJxe4 gxf5 28 gxfS c8
29 .l:Ixc7 .t!.b7 30 .l:Ixc6 with a huge advantage
to 'W'hite.
27 fxe6 .l:!.xd7
'W'hite's win is practically forced.
142
Game 72
G rabliauskas-Benjamin
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 l2l c 6
1 8 bxa5 iLh3!
Th e Ca t a l a n
Game 73
Ivanch u k - Korchnoi
TilbufJ!, 1989
1 d4 d5 2 c4 eS 3 tDf3 tDfS 4 g3 dxc4 5
i.g2 tDcs S 'ii'a 4 i.b4+ 7 i.d2 tDd5 8
i.xb4 tDxb4 9 a3
9 . . . b5!
Simagin.
1 0 'ilfxb5 tDc2+ 1 1 Wd2
This is better than 1 1 f1 d7 12 .l:.a2
ttJ2xd4 1 3 ttJxd4 ttJxd4 14 'it'c5 ttJb3 1 5
'iVxc4 l:tb8 1 6 f3 0-0 1 7 g2 e 5 1 8 ttJc3 c6
19 .l:.dl 'iNe7 20 g4 xg4 21 'iNxg4 nfd8
with an advantage to Black in Bogdanovsky1 44
1 3 . . . c5!?
The main alternative is 1 3 ... .l:.b8, e.g. 1 4 b4
c5! 1 5 ttJc3?! cxd4 1 6 ttJe4 .ltb5 1 7 'iVa2 d3
with considerable counterplay for Black in
Zilberstein-Raetsky, Voronezh 1 988. After
1 8 l:txa 1 .l:.c8! 1 9 ttJc5 I1xc5! 20 bxc5 'iNa5+
21 e3 'iVc3 22 exd3 'iVxd3+ 23 f4 g5+ 24
ttJxg5 'iVf5+ Black's attack is indeed very
dangerous.
White should go for the knight immedi
ately, Kozlov-Chernikov, Vladivostok 1 978
being a good example of model play after 1 5
'iNc3! cxb4 1 6 axb4 as 1 7 'iVxal axb4 1 8 ttJe5
0-0 1 9 .l:.dl ! b3 20 e1 b2 21 'it'a7 .ltb5 22
ttJc3 'iVd6 23 'iVa5 nfd8 24 e4 (24 ttJxb5?
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 ltJ c 6
22 . . . it'g5 +
2 2... .ltxd3! 2 3 exd3 'ii'g5+ wins o n the
spot.
23 ltJf4 e5 24 ltJxc4 exf4+ 25 gxf4 'it'f5
26 ltJd6
26 i.e4 .u.c3+ 27 i.d3 (27 'iVxc3 "iVh3+)
27 ... J::te8+ 28 'it>d2 "iVxf4+ 29 'it>dl "iVxd4 and
Black has a decisive advantage.
26 . . . it'e6 + 0-1
Game 74
Vakhidov-Ziatdinov
Tashkent 1987
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
iLg2 ltJc6 6 'ili'a4 iLb4+ 7 iLd2 ltJd5 8
iLxb4 ltJxb4 9 ltJe5
145
Th e Ca t a l a n
9 . . . .ltd7
9 ... 0-0 invites White to contemplate the
captures on c6. White can cause considerable
structural damage with 10 xc6?! ttJxc6 1 1
ttJxc6 bxc6 1 2 'iVxc4 but this leaves him
open to trouble on the b-ftle, e.g. 1 2 .. J:tb8 1 3
0-0 (1 3 b 3 ..ta6!) 1 3. . .l:txb2 1 4 ttJc3 'iVd6 1 5
l:tabl l:tb6 1 6 l:.fc 1 l:td8 1 7 e 3 e 5 1 8 dxe5
'iWxe5 and the light-squared bishop gave
Black a plus in Stajcic-Luther, Kecskemet
1 993. Note that 10 ttJxc6 ttJxc6 1 1 xc6 is
quite different in that it allows the interesting
1 1 ...'it'xd4!?, which leaves 1 1 e3, when Mo
chalov-Korneev, Minsk 1 995 went 1 1 ...e5 1 2
d 5 ttJe7 1 3 'ii'x c4 ttJ f5 1 4 0-0 ttJd6 1 5 'ii'c 3
l:te8 16 ttJd2 f5 17 l:tac1 l:tc8 1 8 l:tfd 1
'it'd7 with a very solid set-up for Black.
1 0 12Ja3?!
Not the most accurate of the available op
tions. 10 ttJxd7 'it'xd7 1 1 a3?! b5 12 'it'xb5
ttJc2+ 1 3 ..t>f1 ttJ6xd4 1 4 'it'xc4 l:td8! 1 5 l:ta2
0-0 1 6 ..te4 (1 6 b4 ttJf5 and mate on d 1 is
threatened) 1 6 ... f5 1 7 d3 f4! leaves Black
with the initiative. Instead Gulko assesses 1 1
ttJc3 'iVxd4 1 2 a3 ttJd5 1 3 l:tdl 'iVe5 as un
clear.
10 0-0 appears best, when the following
line is given as slightly better for White by
V.Mikhaievsky: 1 O ... ttJd5 1 1 'ifxc4 ttJxe5 1 2
dxe5 c6 1 3 ttJc3 0-0 1 4 l:tfdl ttJb6 1 5 'it'c5
ttJd7 1 6 'it'd4 ..txg2 1 7 'it>xg2 ttJb6 1 8 'ife4 again White enjoys a space advantage. 1 0 ... a5
1 1 ttJxd7 'iYxd7 12 ttJc3 J:td8 1 3 l:tfdl 0-0 1 4
a 3 was the course o f Y.Mikhalevsky
Beshukov, Saint Vincent 2000, 14 ...ttJd5 1 5
'iix c4 ttJb6 1 6 iYc5 ttJxd4 1 7 l:!.ab l providing
White with compensation thanks to Black's
loose pawns. Kobylkin-Nadyrhanov, Kras
nodar 2002 continued 10 ... 0-0 1 1 ttJxc6
ttJxc6 12 'it'xc4 e5 1 3 dxe5 ttJxe5 14 d5
(more promising than 14 f4 'ilVe7 1 5 ttJc3
c6 16 .l:.fd 1 f6 17 l:td4 l:tfd8 1 8 l:tad 1 ..te6
with equal chances in O'Cinneide-Adams,
Kilkenny 1 999) 14 ... 'iVf6 1 5 xb7 ..tc6 1 6
..txc6 ttJxc6 1 7 ttJc3 l:tab8 1 8 'iVxc7 l:tfc8 1 9
'ilVd7 l:td8 20 'ilVg4 l:tb4 2 1 'ilVh5 l:txb2 and
146
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i.. g 2 tLl c 6
Game 75
Filippov-Rausis
Dubai 1999
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
i.. g 2 tLlc6 6 "iVa4 i.. b4+ 7 i.. d 2 tLld5 8
i.. x b4 tLlxb4 9 0-0
9 .l:!.b8 1 0 tLlc3
10 ttJeS?! is a dubious idea, for after
lO ... 'iVxd4 1 1 ttJxc6 ttJxc6 1 2 .i.xc6+ bxc6 1 3
xc6+ iLd7 1 4 xc7 0-0 - a s in the previ
ous game - the light-squared bishop gives
Black the better chances.
After l O ttJa3 .i.d7 1 1 "itbs White collects
the pawn with the usual Catalan space advan
tage, while Wojtkiewicz-Krasenkow, Manila
1 998 went 1 1 ttJeS 0-0 12 ttJxc6 ttJxc6 1 3
xc4!, the subsequent 1 3 .. .'iVxd4 1 4 .i.xc6
xc4 IS ttJxc4 bxc6 16 b3 .l:td8 17 .l:tfdl
iLd7 1 8 .l:td2 leading to a pleasant ending for
White in view of Black's poor pawns. How
ever, in Wojtkiewicz-Yuneev, Yerevan 1 996
Black fared better, the simple and sensible
10 ... 0-0 1 1 'iVb5 b6, with the idea of ... .i.a6,
being a common theme in the Catalan. There
followed 1 2 'flVxc4 .i.a6 1 3 ttJbS 'ir'dS 1 4
'i'xdS ttJxdS I S a4 ttJaS 1 6 ttJeS .l:tbd8 1 7
. . .
147
Th e Ca t a la n
1 S . . . J:!.bS
148
Y2 - Y2
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 tD c 6
Summary
After 6 0-0 l:[b8 White's strongest seems to be 7 lbc3. Then after 7 ... i.b4 White can claim a
slight advantage after both 8 i.gs and 8 'ii'c 2. In reply to 7 ... bS, reacting with 8 e4 is not in
White's interest, but Black should probably avoid the unclear 8 ... b4 and develop naturally with
8 ... i.e7. It is interesting that the game can transpose to the 'normal' variation S ... i.e7 6 0-0 0-0
7 lbc3 lbc6 8 e4 .l:tb8 followed by 9 ... bS, as seen in the notes to Game 27 in Chapter 4. Instead
the best way to meet the early push of the b-pawn is undoubtedly 8 lbeS. Sufficient research
has been carried out on the line 8 ...lbxeS 9 dxeS lbd7 10 i.xc6 a6 1 1 'ir'xd4 i.b7 12 i.xb7
l:txb7 1 3 l:[dl . Here it is not so easy for White to demonstrate compensation for the pawn, so
it is necessary to pay attention to 10 iVd4!? (Game 66) .
Now w e turn t o 6 'ii'a4. The strategy beginning with 6 ... i.d7 appears not t o offer Black
equality. In the main variation 7 'ii'x c4 lbaS 8 'ii'd 3 cS 9 0-0 i.c6 1 0 lbc3 Black can choose
between the plan with ... cS-c4 (immediately or - as is seen more often - after 10 .. .11c8 I I l:tdl )
o r the less ambitious exchange o n d4. In the former case White i s given the pawn majority in
the centre and often develops an initiative through the positional breakthrough d4-dS (see, for
example, Ftacnik-Lechtinsky in Game 67, note to Black's 1 0th move). After 1 0 ... cxd4 the game
tends to be simplified and it is not so easy for Black to neutralise the slight but often enduring
superiority enjoyed by White.
After 6 ... lbd7 7 'it'xc4 lbb6 8 'ii'd 3 eS 9 i.e3 White cannot realistically claim a genuine ad
vantage, but Black must be careful to avoid quickly running into trouble (see Raetsky-S.Ivanov,
Game 68 - including Filippov- Short) . In the case of 9 lbxeS lbb4 the queen moves to dl and
b3 fail to furnish White with anything positive, and nor does 1 0 'it'c3 if Black plays 1O ...'ir'xd4
1 1 0-0 'ii'x c3 1 2 lbxc3.
As a whole the variation starting with 6 ... lbd7 contains numerous areas for new discoveries.
For example 9 ...lbd4 has never been tested despite the fact that we do not see how White
should achieve any appreciable advantage.
Another deviation from the main line (which, of course, is 6 ...i.b4+), namely 6 ... i.d6, is
quite playable. After 7 0-0 0-0 8 lldl Black can exploit the absence of White's bishop from d2
(as opposed to the modern line 6 ... i.b4+ 7 i.d2 i.d6 8 0-0 0-0) by playing 8 ...lbb4, illustrating
the downside to the posting of White's queen on a4 (polgar-Benjamin, Game 70). If White is
not suited to these complex positions it is better to allow ... e6-eS with 8 'ii'xc4, or to play an
other line starting with 7 lbbd2.
The theory of the line with 6 ... i.b4+ 7 i.d2 i.d6 has only just begun to develop. It is
particularly difficult to evaluate how the chances are divided after 8 lbeS. A fter 8 'ir'xc4 0-0 9
0-0 eS 1 0 dxeS almost all games have ended in a draw, and White, if he is looking to achieve
something in the opening, should go for 1 0 dS lbe7 I l lbc3.
After 6 'ii'a4 i.b4+ 7 2 lbdS the manoeuvre 8 'ii'b s loses time and is not dangerous for
Black, who should simply continue with 8 ... 0-0. For example in Grabliauskas-Benjamin (Game
72) an important feature is the potentially precarious situation of White's king, which is stuck
in the centre.
In the very sharp line 8 i.xb4 lbxb4 9 a3 bS 1 0 'ii'x bS lbc2 1 1 'itd2 several recommenda
tions can be made for Black. First there is 1 1 ...i.d7!? 1 2 'itxc2 lbxd4+ 1 3 lbxd4 i.xbS 1 4
lbxbS .l:tb8 (Chetverik-Grabliauskas in Game 73, note t o Black's 1 1 t h move), which i s not
often quoted, although Black's queen does not seem to be inferior to White's three pieces.
Secondly, Black no longer plays l 1 ...lbxal 12 'ii'x c6+ i.d7 13 'it'xc4 1Ib8 14 b4 cS!, but all the
possibilities have not been refuted here. Finally, the modern line 1 3 ... cS 14 'ii'a2 'ii'a S 1 s lbc3
1 49
Th e Ca t a l a n
cxd4 1 6 ttJxd4 l:td8 also gives Black sufficient counterplay (according t o analysis b y Timo
schenko) due to White's vulnerable king.
In the solid variation with 9 0-0 we have seen considerable changes in recent fashion. The
position after 9 ... l:tb8 1 0 ttJc3 a6 1 1 ttJe5 0-0 1 2 i.. x c6 ttJxc6 1 3 ttJxc6 i.. x c6 1 4. 'ii'xc4 'ii'd 6!?
has become critical:
Black prevents the enemy queen from taking up a dominating position on c5. If White does
give up the b2-pawn Black's rook will have other qualities than those of a savage killer on the
b-file (1 5 b3 i:tb4 and 1 5 ttJe4 'iVd5 1 6 'iVc2 "it'xd4 17 b3 i:tb5 should be noted) . We do not see
anything special for White here. More attention might be given to Wojtkiewicz' 10 ttJa3, which
sees the knight monitor both c4 and b5. If Black doesn't play 1 0 ... a6 White regains his pawn
with the familiar manoeuvre 'itb5-c4.
6. . 1:.bB
.
1 50
B . e5
.
B. . . lLJdxb4
4 . . . dxc4 5 .192 c 5
Th e C a t a l a n
Game 76
I n kiov-Pinter
Zagreb 1987
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
g2 c5 6 'i'a4+
6 . . . d7
Of independent relevance is 6 . ..tLlc6. Then
7 0-0 i.d7 transposes to 6 0-0 ltJc6 7 'ii'a4
i.d7 below (Game 82) . 7 dxcS i.xcs 8 0-0
0-0 9 'ii'x c4 'ii'dS to ltJfd2 xc4 1 1 ltJxc4
ltJd4 12 ltJc3 i.b4 1 3 e3 i.xc3 14 bxc3
ltJe2+ 1 5 h 1 ltJxc1 1 6 .l:i.fxc 1 .l:!.b8 17 e4
ltJd7 1 8 f4 b6 1 9 ltJd6 i.b7 20 .l:i.dl ltJcs
achieved nothing for White in Balashov
Beliavsky, Vilnius 1 980.
This leaves 7 ltJeS ltJdS (7 ... i.d7 8 ltJxc6
i.xc6 9 i.xc6+ bxc6 to 0-0 transposes to 6
0-0 ltJc6 7 ltJeS i.d7 8 ltJxc6 i.xc6 9 i.xc6+
bxc6 10 'iWa4, dealt with in Game 79) 8 ltJxc6
bxc6 (8 ... d7 9 'ii'xc4 'iVxc6 10 ltJc3 cxd4 1 1
'ii'xd4 'itb6 1 2 'iVxb6 ltJxb6 1 3 0-0 favours
White because Black is behind in develop
ment and is under pressure on the long di
agonal) 9 dxcS i.b7 to 'iVxc4 'iY'aS+ 1 1 i.d2
'iVxcs 12 'iVxcs i.xcs 1 3 ltJc3 and White has
a slight but enduring edge.
7 'i'xc4 c6 S 0-0
Another possibility is 8 dxcS, when
8 ...'iVdS 9 'iVxdS ltJxdS to ltJeS should fa
vour White. Indeed 1 O ... ltJb4 1 1 ltJxc6
1 52
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i.. g 2 c 5
1 0 . . . gxf6!
Perhaps too inventive for some, but Black
does not want to recapture with a piece. In
fact after 10 . ..tbxf6 White is guaranteed a
slight edge with 1 1 dxc5 iLxf3 1 2 iLxf3
iLxc5 13 'ifb5+ (1 3 e3!?), when Kasparov
Korchnoi, World Championship Candidates
Match (game 7), London 1 983 went 1 3. .. 'it'd7
14 tiJc3 'it'xb5 1 5 tiJxb5 e7 1 6 b4 iLxb4 1 7
tiJxa7. Then Black's best i s to keep his disad
vantage to a minimum with 1 7 ...l:!.a8 1 8 tiJb5
.l:'ta5.
1O ...'ii'xf6 looks the safest. Korchnoi gives
1 1 tiJc3 iLe7 1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 d5 tiJb6 1 4 'ii'd 3
exd5 1 5 exd5 ':'fd8 16 tiJd2 c4 17 tiJxc4
tiJxc4 1 8 'ii'x c4 iLxd5 1 9 tiJxd5 .l:'txc4 20
tiJxf6+ iLxf6 when the draw is imminent.
1 1 lLlc3
1 1 dxc5?! iLxc5 12 'it'g4 'ii'b 6 is awkward
for White as the b2-pawn is under fIre.
1 1 . . . b5 1 2 'ifd3 c4 1 3 'ifc2 b4 1 4 lLle4
lLlb6 1 5 g4? !
This move is hard t o justify and should
land White in trouble if Black were to react
accurately. 1 5 e3 f5 1 6 tiJed2 c3 also gives
Black a good game.
1 5 . . . h5?!
Overlooking 15 ...l:.g8! 1 6 h3 (1 6 g5 fxg5
1 7 tiJe5 iLa4! and White is in a very bad way)
1 6 ... h5 1 7 gxh5 f5 with a decisive attack.
1 6 g5 fxg5?!
16 ... iLxe4 1 7 'ii'x e4 fxg5 18 tiJe5 iLg7! is
preferable, after which the situation is far
from clear.
1 7 lLlexg5 .tg7
17 ... iLe7? runs into 18 tiJxf7! xf7 1 9
tiJe5+ etc.
1 8 h4 i..f6
1 8 ... iLxd4? 1 9 l:tadl iLa4 20 b3 cxb3 21
'it'e4! gives White a strong attack (Inkiov) .
1 9 e4 i.. x g5
19 ... c3!? is a sound alternative, 20 bxc3
bxc3 21 a4 leaving both sides with much to
play for.
20 hxg5 .l:!.g8 21 .l:!.fe 1 i.. a4 22 'ifd2 c3
23 bxc3 bxc3 24 'iff4 'ifc7
27 dxe6? !
27 e5! exd5 28 tiJd4! is stronger. After
28 ... iLe6 (28 ...'ii'c 5 29 e6! puts Black's king in
danger) 29 'ii'x h5 'iWb6 30 tiJxe6 'iWxe6 3 1
iLh3 'it'e7 32 h l White has a wonderful
attack.
27 . . . i.. x e6 28 lLld4 i.. g 4 29 lLlf5 lLle5 30
'ti'g3 .l:!.d8?!
Black's play seems to be a little planless,
an appropriate course being 30 ... iLf3! 3 1 l:te3
c2 32 .i:!.c1 in order to generate counterplay.
The most obvious move is then 32 ... iLd 1 ,
when the c-pawn is certainly a factor, but
after 33 .l:tb3! with the idea of 34 :b7! the
situation remains a complete mess. A possi
ble conclusion to the game is 33 ... l:tg6 (pro
tecting d6) 34 .l:'tb7 'ii'x b7 35 'ii'x e5+ d8 36
'ii'h8+ c7 37 'ii'e5+ with a draw by perpet
ual check.
31 .l:tac 1 .l:!.d3
31 ... c2? 32 Itxc2! is simply a terrible blun
der, while after 3 1 ...h4 32 'iWxh4 l:td2 33
tiJh6! l:th8 34 'iWg3 Black is also in dire
straits. Perhaps it is already too late to save
the game.
1 53
Th e C a t a l a n
32 l:te3 i.e2?!
32 ...l:!.xe3 33 'iVxe3 c2 34 f3! .ixfS 35 exfS
'it>f8 36 f6 wins for White.
33 l:txd3 i.xd3 34 f4 h4
34 ... 'iflb6+ 35 'iKe3 lLlg4 36 'iflxb6 axb6 37
l:!.xc3 and White wins.
35 'ii'e 3 lLlg4 36 'ii'x d3 1 -0
1 54
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i.. g 2 c 5
Game 78
Ksieski-Enders
7 ttJe5
This is probably the most ambitious
choice. Indeed 7 dxcS 'iWxd1 8 lIxd1 xcS
appears insufficient for an advantage, e.g. 9
tDbd2 c3 1 0 bxc3 0-0 1 1 tDb3 i.e7 1 2 tDfd4
d7 1 3 gS .l::!. a c8 1 4 i.xf6 .l1.xf6 1 5 tDcs
tDxd4 1 6 cxd4 bS with equality in Speel
man-Van der Sterren, Yerevan 1 996. 7 a4
features in Games 81 -83 below.
7 " 'ttJxe5
This is, of course, not forced. 7 ... i.d7,
which is considered in the next two main
games, should be the strongest alternative.
7 . . . tDxd4??, on the other hand, spells disaster
for Black due to 8 e3 tDf5 9 'iNxd8+ 'it>xd8 10
tDxf7+ and White wins. 7 ...tDdS 8 tDxc6 bxc6
9 dxcS xcS 10 ifa4 'iVb6 1 1 tDd2 favours
White, e.g. 1 1 ...a6 1 2 tDxc4 'iVbs 1 3 xbS
cxbS 1 4 tDeS b4 l s lId1 b7 1 6 d2 i..e7
1 7 lIac 1 as 1 8 e4 tDf6 1 9 gS i.d8 20 tDc4
()-() 21 tDd6 with a pleasant game for \x'hite
in Savchenko-Galliamova, Rostoy 1 996.
S dxe5 ttJd5
Black cannot equalise here. 8 . . .tDd7 9 f4
l:tb8 1 0 a4 i.e7 1 1 tiJa3 b6 1 2 tiJxc4 i.b7 1 3
1 55
Th e C a t a la n
1 1 e4!
1 56
Game 79
Shipov-Volzhin
Hastings 1997/98
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxe4 5
i.g2 e5 6 0-0 ttJe6 7 ttJe5 i.d7 8 ttJa3 !
This has become the modem way t o han
dle the position, taking over from continua
tions such as 8 ttJxc6 .Jtxc6 9 .i.xc6+ bxc6 10
'it'a4, e.g. 1 O ... cxd4 (1O ... 'iib 6 1 1 dxc5 .Jtxc5
12 'i'xc4 l:td8 1 3 ttJd2 'iVb5 14 'i'xb5 cxb5
1 5 ttJb3 .Jtb6 was even in Belichev
Mukhametov, Yalta 1 995) 1 1 'iVxc6+ ttJd7 12
'i'xc4 .Jtc5. Then 13 ttJd2 0-0 1 4 ttJe4 .Jtb6
1 5 .Jtg5 ttJe5 1 6 'i'b5 might look like Black is
under pressure but after 1 6 ... 'iYd5! 1 7 'it'xd5
exd5 1 8 ttJd2 f6 1 9 .Jtf4 ttJc4 20 a4 l:He8 it
was actually the other way around in Pav
lovic-Byrne, New York 1 997. Salov
A.Sokolov, Sochi 1 982 went 1 3 b4 .i.b6 14
.Jtb2 l:tc8 15 'iVb3 0-0 1 6 ttJd2 ttJe5 17 .l:lad 1
'i'f6 1 8 a4 a6 and Black was no worse.
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 c 5
. . .
. . .
1 1 i.f4
Not surprisingly this is not White's only
opportunity. In the event of 1 1 ttJxd7 ttJxd7
1 2 it'a4 Black should avoid the risky
1 2 ... 0-0-0?! 1 3 .l:.d1 .i.e7 1 4 .l:.xd4 .i.c5 1 5
l:!.c4 b8 1 6 '.t> f1 e5, which was seen in To
palov-Morozevich, Madrid 1 996. Now White
could have played 1 7 .i.e3! f5 (17 ... .i.xe3 1 8
157
Th e Ca t a l a n
14 .. :iVb5!
After 1 4 ... 'iii'c 5 15 .i.xb7! .i.xb7 1 6 'it'a4+
'it'ffi 1 7 l:tab 1 White is given some attacking
possibilities.
1 5 'it'b3 0-0
1 5 ... .i.c3 1 6 'it'xb5+ .i.xb5 17 .i.xb 7 l:tb8
1 8 .i.c6+ .i.xc6 19 ttJxc6 l:tc8 20 l:tab I ! and
White has good compensation for the pawn.
1 6 l:tab 1 g5 1 7 'it'xb4
In the case of 1 7 ttJd3 gxf4 1 8 ttJxb4
l:tab8 White cannot fully justify the sacrifice
of a pawn.
1 7 . . . 'it'xb4 1 8 l:txb4 gxf4 1 9 il.xb 7 il.xe2
Also fine is 19 ... .l:!.ab8 20 l:tfb 1 .i.xe2 21
l:txd4 with equality.
20 il.xa8 il.xf 1 21 il.b 7
White should not lose his sense of reality.
For example 21 'it'xfl lIxa8 22 gxf4 lld8
even allows Black to play for the win.
21 . . . il.e2 22 l:txd4 fxg3 23 hxg3 il.b5 24
l:tb4 a6
A last try?
25 l:txb5! ? axb5 26 a6 lLld5 27 a7 lLlb6
28 lLlc6 f6 29 lLle 7 + f7 30 lLlc8 l:txc8
31 il.xc8 b4 32 f1 b3 33 il.a6 Y:z - Y:z
Game 80
Piket-Van Wely
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 c 5
Game 8 1
H . Olafsson-Hjartarsson
Reykjavik 1984
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 l2lf3 l2lf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
iLg2 c5 6 0-0 l2lc6 7 a4
7 . . . cxd4
The modern 7 ... iLd7 is considered in the
next two games.
8 l2lxd4 xd4 9 iLxc6 + iLd7
9 ... bxc6?! is best avoided, 10 'ii'xc6+ 'i'd7
1 1 'i'xa8 iLcs 1 2 4Jc3 0-0 1 3 l:tdl c7 1 4
'iY f3 leaving Black with insufficient compen
sation for the exchange in Christiansen
Lhagva, Lucerne 1 982. Indeed after 14 ... iLb7
1 5 .if4 'iYb6 1 6 e4 4Jxe4 1 7 4Jxe4 fS 1 8 b4!
iLd4 1 9 iLc7 'iYxc7 20 l:txd4 fxe4 21 'iVe2
White was in the driving seat.
1 0 l::td 1
After 1 0 iLxd7+ 'iVxd7 1 1 'irYxc4 l:tc8 1 2
"iVb3 iLcs Black i s doing fine, but 1 0 .ie3!?
looks good. In Gulko-Zsu.Polgar, Bid 1 987
Black failed to solve her opening problems
after 10 ... iLxc6 1 1 'iixc6+ 'iYd7 12 'it'xc4
iLe7 1 3 4Jc3 0-0 1 4 l:tfdl 'iVc8 1 5 'iYbs a6 1 6
it'b6 iLd8 1 7 'ilVb4. Also possible is
1O ... 'iYxb2 1 1 iLxd7+ 4Jxd7 12 l:tdl bS 1 3
'iYa6 when White has a strong initiative.
However, Black also has two pawns, and
after 1 3 . ..l:!.d8 the situation is far from clear.
1 0 . . . 'iiVx d 1 +
1 59
Th e C a t a la n
1 2 liJd2
White has two important alternatives. 1 2
gS seems only to give Black a tempo, but
in fact White gets in f2-f3 for free. Neverthe
less, there is no advantage: 12 ... ttJe4 1 3 e3
hS 1 4 f3 ttJf6 1 5 ttJd2 l:td8 1 6 c1 h4 1 7
ttJxc4 hxg3 1 8 hxg3 lIdS! and Black was no
worse in Mochalov-Sturua, Moscow 1 979.
The game continued 19 g4 e7 20 xa7
ttJxg4! 21 fxg4 .l:th1+! 22 'it>xh1 l:thS+ 23
'it>g 1 !Ih 1+ 24 'it>f2 h4+ 25 'it>e3 gS+ 26
'it>d3 Ihc1 27 ':xc1 xc1 and a draw was
agreed.
1 2 'iVc2 demonstrates that Black cannot
really hold on to the pawn. Polugaevsky
Andersson, Moscow 1 98 1 went 1 2 ... e7 1 3
'ilVxc4 0-0 1 4 ttJc3 l:tfd8 1 5 e3 ttJdS 1 6
ttJxdS xdS 1 7 g4 J::td c8 1 8 d4 ffi 1 9
e4 c6 20 h 4 !Id8 21 c3 ':d3 2 2 h S h 6 23
ne1 .l:tad8 24 'it>h2 a6 with a slight plus for
White. But Andersson has some affection for
these passive positions, so he was probably
not too uncomfortable here.
1 2 . . . e3?!
This helps only White because it wastes a
tempo and opens the b-ftle. However, Black
anyway has difficulties equalising. In Kas1 60
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 c 5
Game 82
Portisch-Radulov
Th e Ca t a l a n
Game 83
Korchnoi-Ivanchuk
Istanbul 2000
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tDf3 tDf6 4 93 dxc4 5
i.g2 c5 6 0-0 tDc6 7 'ii'a4 i.d7 8 'iYxc4
b5!?
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 c 5
44 . . . Wg6!
44 ... 'It>xh8? 45 c8+ allows White to es
cape with a draw.
45 'iWc6 + ttJf6 46 J:te8 Wh7 0-1
1 63
Th e Ca t a l a n
Summary
The position after S ... cS 6 0-0 ttJc6 7 'it'a4 cxd4 8 ttJxd4 'it'xd4 9 .i.xc6+ .i.d7 10 l:txdl
'it'xdl + 1 1 'it'xdl .i.xc6 remains very important for the overall evaluation of the S ... cS system.
It used to be thought that Black has two plans of approximately equal value - to play for sim
plification in the hope of achieving a draw or to strive for an initiative on the kingside by ad
vancing the h-pawn. Now it has been established that the aggressive approach fails. However,
the 'drawing' fortress seems quite feasible, which partly undermines the reputation of 7 'it'a4.
The positive contribution 7 'ii'a4 received from Portisch-Radulov (Game 82) was only tempo
rary as after 7 ... .i.d7 8 'it'xc4 cxd4 9 ttJxd4 J:Ic8 10 ttJc3 ttJxd4 1 1 'ii'xd4 .i.cs 12 'ii'h4 .i.c6 1 3
l:tdl Black made a n error with 1 3. . .'iVb6?; 1 3 . . .'iIi'aS steers the game towards equality.
In the 1 990's the following variation became fashionable for Black: 8 ... bS 9 'iVd3 l:tc8, when
Korchnoi-Ivanchuk (Game 83) illustrates that 1 0 ttJc3 is hannless for Black. After 1 0 dxcS
.i.xcs 1 1 ttJc3 both 1 1 ...0-0 and 1 1 ...ttJb4 are not quite satisfactorily for Black, but 1 1 ...b4 se
cures a level game after 12 ttJbS and 12 ttJe4. Consequently 7 'ili'a4 is no longer considered
dangerous for Black. Therefore White's attention has turned to 7 ttJeS. Now on 7 ... .i.d7 White
should not hurry with 8 ttJxc6 .i.xc6 9 .i.xc6 bxc6 1 0 'iVa4 because Black has time to get his
game going despite the ruined pawn structure. Also not so popular these days is the complex
continuation 8 ttJxc4 cxd4 9 .i.f4 ttJdS 10 ttJxd6 .i.xd6 1 1 .i.xd6. The main line is 8 ttJa3 cxd4
9 ttJaxc4, when White has achieved a lead in development. Nevertheless the (extra) d4-pawn
restricts White a little. In the modern line 9 ... ttJxeS 1 0 ttJxeS 'iVb6 White must consider 1 1 .i.f4
.JibS 1 2 b4 (fukmakov) and 1 1 b4 (Brodsky), and in the case of 9 ... .i.cS 1 0 'iVb3 0-0 he can
probably grab the b7-pawn. Thus it is preferable for Black to play 1 0 ...'iIi'c8 with chances of
gradually equalising, as is demonstrated in Piket-Van Wely (Game 80).
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 e6 3 t'Llf3 t'Llf6 4 g3 dxc4 5 iLg2 c5 (D) 6 0-0
6 'iVa4+ .i.d7 7 'ili'xc4 i.c6 - Game 76
6 . . . t'Llc6
6 ... cxd4 - Game 77
7 t'Lle5
7 'iVa4
7 ... cxd4 - Game 8 1
7 . . ..i.d7 8 'iVxc4 (D): 8. . .cxd4 - Game 82; 8. . .b S - Game 83
7 . . . iLd7
7 ... ttJxeS - Game 78
8 t'Lla3 cxd4 9 t'Llaxc4 (D): 9 ... ttJxeS - Game 79; 9 ... i..e 7 - Game 80
S. . . cS
1 64
8 'iix c4
9 t'Llaxc4
4 . . . dxc4 5 .,tg2 b 5
Game 84
Balashov -Beliavsky
Kiev 1986
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
g2 b5 6 a4 c6 7 axb5 cxb5 8 ttJe5 ttJd5
9 ttJc3
1 65
Th e Ca t a l a n
9 . . i.b4
.
1 3 . . . a5
13 ... exd5?! is dangerous in view of 1 4
'iWh5, e.g. 1 4. . .g6 (1 4. . ...ie6 i s punished by
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 b 5
White is winning.
27 . . . c3 28 iLh3 b7 29 'iVd5 + a7
Or 29 ... liJc6 30 1Lg2 l:tc8 3 1 l:txc6 xc6
32 'iVbS+ and White wins.
30 iLg2 ttJa6 31 .l:!.c6 ! 1 -0
Game 85
Mochalov-Spirin
Correspondence 1986
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
iLg2 b5 6 a4 c6 7 0-0 iLb7 8 ttJe5
After 8 liJc3 b4 9 liJb 1 cS 10 liJbd2 c3 1 1
bxc3 bxc3 1 2 liJc4 cxd4 1 3 xd4 lixd4 1 4
liJxd4 .ixg2 1 5 'it>xg2 1Lb4 Black had no
problems in Grinshpun-Rabinovich, Tel
Aviv 1 997. Moiseenko-Kharlov, St. Peters
burg 1 998 took a different course: 8 ... a6 9 e4
liJbd7 10 e5 liJd5 1 1 liJgs liJ7b6 1 2 h5
167
Th e Ca t a l a n
1 0 'i'xb3
Also possible is 10 axbS cxbS 1 1 'ii'x b3 a6
12 e4 4Jf6 13 dS!, e.g. 13 ... exdS 14 exdS
xdS 1 5 e3 e7 1 6 jixdS 4JxdS 1 7 'iVe4
'ii'e 6 1 8 l:tdl with comfortably enough for
the two pawns. 1 3 ... cS!? is interesting but
appears inadequate in view of Agzamov's 14
dxe6 fxe6 15 'iixe6+ e7 16 xe7+ xe7
1 7 4Jc3 0-0, when White is slightly better
because the centre pawns are more mobile
than Black's a- and b-pawns.
1 0 . . . a6 1 1 ltJc3 ltJd7 1 2 axb5
12 4JxdS exdS 13 e4 4JxeS 14 exdS!?
cxdS! 1 5 dxeS cS 16 axbS 0-0 17 b6!? with
a slight advantage for White.
1 2 . . . axb5 1 3 J:txaS .ixaS 1 4 ltJxd5 exd5
1 5 e4 ltJxe5 1 6 dxe5 d4? !
1 6 ... dxe4 1 7 xe4 e 7 1 8 d 1 gives
White compensation by way of the usual
development lead.
1 7 e6 f6
Mochalov gives 1 7 .. .fxe6 1 8 'it'xe6+ 'ii'e7
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL. g 2 b 5
Game 86
Filippov-Pridorozhni
Ekaten'nburg 1997
1 8 . . . fxe5
18 ... i.e 7 19 exf6 .1xf6 20 .1a3 .1e7? 21
'it'f3 l::t f8 22 'it'xc6+! is a nice little trick.
1 9 iL.e4! iL.e7
1 9 ...'it'd6 20 .1g5 .1e7 21 l::t a 1 gives White
the initiative as Black has no time to castle:
2l ...i.b7 22 l:ta7 .1xg5 23 .l:!.xb7 etc.
20 'iff3 'ifd6
20 ... .1f6 21 .1xc6+ <3;e7 22 .1a3+ <3;xe6
23 l::t c 1 and White is better. Black's king has
seen better days.
2 1 'iff7 + Wd8 22 iL.g5! iL.b7 23 l:ta 1 iL.c8
23 ... l::te 8 24 l:ta7 'it'c7 25 .1xe7+ l:txe7 26
llxb7! l::tx f7 27 exf7 'iVd6 28 .1xc6 and
White wins.
24 J:ta8 iL.xg5 25 'ifxg7
Th e C a t a l a n
1 0 e4
White concentrates on the centre. 1 0 ltJe4
ltJd7 1 1 i.g5 f6 12 ltJxd7 'iVxd7 1 3 i.d2
i.e7 1 4 ltJc5 i.xc5 1 5 dxc5 "fie7 16 e4 ltJc7
17 i.a5 e5 1 8 "fid6 resulted in the usual dark
square theme in Szabo-Shamkovich, Con
stanza 1 969. 10 axb5 must also be investi
gated. Then 10 ... cxb5 transposes to 5 ... a6 6
0-0 b5 7 ltJe5 ltJd5 8 a4 c6 9 axb5 cxb5 1 0
ltJc3 i.b7 (Chapter 5), which leaves 1 O . . . axb5
1 1 xa8 i.xa8 12 i.xd5 cxd5 1 3 ltJxb5 as in
Piket-Lputian, Montecatini Terme 2000.
White wins back the pawn but now Black is
able to smoothly bring his forces into the
game, and Lputian secured equal chances:
1 3. . .'it'a5 1 4 ltJc3 ltJc6 15 i.f4 i.b4 16 e4 0-0
17 'iVg4 h5 18 ltJxc6 i.xc6 19 xh5 i.xc3
20 bxc3 'iYxc3 21 i.e5 "fid2 22 nd1 'iYh6 23
'iVxh6 gxh6.
1 0 . . . tDxc3 1 1 bxc3 tDd7 1 2 f4 tDf6?!
1 2 ...i.e7 is appropriate, when 1 3 ltJxf7?! is
dubious in view of 13 ...'it>xf7 1 4 f5 e5! and
Black keeps the position closed. G.Gross
M.Gurevich, Germany 1 998 is a more useful
model for White: 13 'i!Vg4 0-0 14 f5 ltJf6 1 5
'i!Ve2 exfS 1 6 nxfS ltJd7 1 7 ltJg4 ltJb6
A brilliant sacrifice!
1 8 . . . gxf5 1 9 'iiVx f5 'it>h8 20 .l:!.f 1 !
White allows his forces full participation.
Black is helpless.
20 .. :e8
After 20 ... 'i!Vd6 21 "figS ltJe8 22 i.xfS
i.xg5 23 ltJxf7+ Black avoids mate but not
defeat.
21 d6 i.d8 22 d7 'iVe7
23 'iiVg 5 tDh5
23 ... ng8 doesn't help Black 24 'i!Vxf6+
'i!Vxf6 25 nxf6 ng6 26 ltJxg6+ hxg6 27 nxf7.
24 'iiVx h5 f6 25 i.xf8 'ii'x e5 26 'iiVe 8! i.c6
27 i.e7 + 1 -0
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 b 5
Summary
After 6 a4 c6 7 axb5 cxb5 8 ttJe5 ttJd5 9 ttJc3 b4 1 0 0-0 xc3 1 1 e4 it is difficult for White
to achieve an advantage as Black is provided good counterplay by his queenside pawns. Con
seljuently the line with 6 a4 c6 7 0-0 b 7 8 ttJe5 holds more potential for White. The prob
lems with 8 ... 'ifb6 (such as reducing Black's influence over d5) were pointed out in Khalifman
Sveshnikov, while after 8 .. ttJd5 White can successfully generate an with either 9 e4 or 9 b3.
Perhaps Black should play 8 a6, when White has control over the centre, while 9 b3 is less
effective - prompting the conclusion that there is no guarantee of an advantage.
.
...
6. . . c6
7 . . . cxb5
8 ttJe5
171
Game 87
Chetverik -Burma kin
Nagykanizsa 1993
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
g2 c6 6 ttJe5 b4+ 7 d2
Let us look at 7 ttJc3 ttJdS. Then 8 'il'c2?
ttJxc3! 9 bxc3 'it'xd4! 10 ii.b2 ..ItaS 1 1 ttJf]
'it'f6 12 ttJd2 0-0 13 ttJxc4 ..Itc7 1 4 0-0 ttJd7
1 72
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i. g 2 c 6
1 5 . . . h5?!
Black should prefer 15 ...tLlc6 16 i.c3 tLlg4
1 7 'iWd6 tLle3 1 8 l:I.f3 (not 1 8 .l::t fdl ?? 'iVb7,
when White resigned in Pasman-Stean, Beer
Sheva 1 978) 1 8 ... tLlf5 1 9 'iVd2 b4 20 i.e5 0-0
and White found his bishop stuck on e5 and
his centre weakened, leaving the situation
unclear.
1 6 J:l.f3 ttJe4
1 73
Th e Ca t a l a n
3 4 d8 + ?
3 4 c5 minimises Black's lead to a slight
advantage.
34 . . .'.i.>h7 35 'ii'f8 .:te1 36 'ii'c 5 f3 37
z:tf4 'iVd 1 38 g4?
This loses, but 38 ttgl Uxgl 39 xgl
d2+ 40 f2 xb4 does not help White.
38 . . . l:!.h 1 + 39 'it.'g3 d3 + 0-1
Game 88
Stefanova-Ku rajica
Benasque 1997
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 4Jf3 4Jf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
i.g2 c6 6 4Je5 i.b4+ 7 i.d2 i.e7
8 i.c3
\,('hite can also play 8 e3, when 8 ... c5!? 9
'ii'a4+ .ltd7 1 0 'ii'x c4 ttJc6 1 1 ttJxc6 .ltxc6 1 2
.ltxc6+ bxc6 1 3 dxc5 d5 1 4 xd5 cxd5 1 5
.lt d .ltxc5 1 6 i.. xf6 gxf6 brings about an
approximately level ending and 1 1 0-0 offers
White an edge.
After the text Black has tried 8 ... ttJd5 9
ttJxc4 b5?!, but this proved good for White in
Chetverik-Matras, Prague 2002 when the
bishop landed on as: 10 i.. a 5 i..b4+ 1 1 i.. xb4
ttJxb4 12 ttJe3 (1 2 ttJe5?! runs into
1 2...xd4! 13 xd4 ttJc2+ 14 'it>d2 ttJxd4 note that from e3 the knight protects c2)
12 ... i..b 7 1 3 0-0 and White was in control of
the vital c5-square. In order to avoid this
1 74
4 . . . dx c 4 5 Ji. g 2 c 6
Summary
This line is a bit too obscure and lacks something in flexibility for today's top players. If White
wants he can transpose to the sharp S ... bS line with 6 0-0 bS 7 a4, while another option is a
guaranteed advantage after 6 ttJeS .i.b4+ 7 .i.d2. It is then very dangerous for Black to take the
pawns in the centre, and White enjoys an enduring lead after 7 ... .i.e7 8 .i.c3 followed by ttJxc4.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 g3 dxc4 5 Ji.g2 c6 (D) 6 tLle5 Ji.b4+ 7 Ji.d2
7...'ii'xd4 (D) Game 87; 7 ... .i.e7 (D) Game 88
-
5 . c6
. .
7 . . flixd4
.
7 . . Ji.e 7
.
1 75
Game 89
Kozul-Lju bojevic
Belgrade 1989
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 4:Jf3 4:Jf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
i.. g 2 i.b4+ 6 4:Jbd2
1 76
0-0
After 6 ... c3 7 bxc3 xc3 Black wins a
pawn. Then 8 b 1 ttJe4 9 0-0 xd2 1 0
i.xd2 ttJxd2 1 1 'Yiixd2 ttJd7 1 2 fc1 left
. . .
4 . . . dx c 4 5 iL g 2 iL b 4 +
9 fid3
Quite different is 9 b3, White hoping to
win the c3-pawn. Haba-Ostrowski, Czehia
1 999 developed as follows: 9 ....l:tb8 10 a3
i.e7 1 1 'iVc2 b5 1 2 ltJce5 i.b7 1 3 ltJxc6
i.xc6 1 4 'iVxc3 i.e4 1 5 i.b2 ltJd5 1 6 'iVc1
'iVc8 1 7 ltJe5 and White was ready to ad1 77
Th e Ca t a l a n
3 1 .ll. d 1
Perhaps White might try 31 e5!? c6 32
ii.d 1 , thus avoiding Black's next, which
opens up the centre.
31 . . . f5! 32 exf5 exf5 33 ttJe5 ttJe4 34
1 78
c2 'ilVd4 35 .ll. f 3?
35 xh5 xh5 36 'iVxb5 'il'd 1 IS the
lesser evil.
35 . . . b4
Black has a decisive lead.
36 'ii'b 3+ Wh7 37 .ll. xe4 'it'xe4 38 c7
.ll. b 5 39 ttJe3 ttJxf4 40 c5
40 l:te 7 .i.a4! etc.
40 . . . d8! 4 1 gxf4 'ii'xf4+ 42 Wh3 .ll. f 1 + !
0-1
Game 90
Karpov-Piket
Monaco 1999
1 d4 d 5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
.ll. g 2 .ll. b4+ 6 .ll. d 2
6 . . . a5
Of course Black has other options. After
6 ... .i.xd2+ 7 'iVxd2 a mistake is 7 ... b5?! in
view of 8 'iVg5 with simultaneous threats
against b5 and g7. Instead 7...0-0 8 tt:Ja3 ii.d7
9 tt:Jxc4 c6 1 0 0-0 tt:Jbd7 1 1 l:tfc1 d5 1 2
b 4 left White i n charge o n the queenside in
Portisch-P.Nikolic, Ijnares 1 988.
6 ... ii.e7 7 0-0 leads only to equality after
7 ... 1Ld7! 8 'il'c2 ii.c6 9 'iVxc4. Unander-Plato,
Sweden 1 995 saw the more combative 7 'iVc2
.i.d7 8 tt:Je5!? tt:Jc6 9 'iVxc4 tt:Jxe5 10 dxe5
tt:Jd5 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 tt:Jc3 c6 1 3 a4 'tIVb8 14 f4
as 1 5 'YWd3 'iVc7 1 6 l:tac 1 and White enjoyed
more space.
An interesting situation arises after 6 ... c5 7
4 . . . dx c 4 5 s... g 2 s... b 4 +
9 . . . bxa4 1 0 .l:!.xa4
White has an interesting idea in picking up
the a4-pawn with the knight, an approach
1 79
Th e Ca t a la n
Summary
In the variation with 6 lbbd2 lbc6 Black usually exchanges on d2 and holds on to the gambit
pawn. In return White enjoys better development and has definite compensation. After 6 ... 0-0
White has a choice between taking direct aim at c4 with 7 'ifc2, with a slight edge, or seeking
an initiative with 7 0-0, allowing Black to hang on to the material (after 7 ... bS or 7 ... c3) .
In reply t o 6 .Jtd2 a ll of 6 ... .Jte7, 6 ... cS and 6 ...a S are reasonable for Black. Note than after
6 ... iJ... e7 7 0-0 Black can bring his other bishop (via d7) to c6 because 7 ... .Jtd7 S lbeS?! lbc6
makes the bishop look misplaced on d2. White has a modest space advantage after 7 'iVc2 .Jtd7
S lbeS.
In the variation with 6 ... cS 7 .Jtxb4 cxb4 S lbeS 0-0 9 lbxc4 lbc6 10 e3 it was thought that
1 0 ... eS was dubious due to 1 1 .Jtxc6 bxc6 1 2 dxeS 'ii'x d1 1 3 'iit x d1 lbg4 1 4 'iit e 1 (Bareev), but
Black can certainly improve on 1 3 ... lbg4? with 1 3 ... lbe4, guaranteeing compensation for the
pawn. Perhaps White should prefer 7 dxcS, with a slight lead in a standard Catalan position,
rather than 7 .Jtxb4.
After 6 ... aS 7 0-0 0-0 8 'iVc2 lbc6 9 'ir'xc4 iLd6 we have a position which belongs in the line
starting with S ... lbc6 6 'it'a4 iJ... b4+ 7 .Jtd2 .Jtd6 S lfxc4 0-0 9 0-0 but with the additional ... a7as. The continuation 9 'iVxc4 'iVdS differs from the well known variation in the Bogo-Indian
Defence - namely 1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 e6 3 lbf3 .Jtb4+ 4 .Jtd2 as S g3 dS 6 'iVc2 lbc6 7 .Jtg2 dxc4 S
'iVxc4 'it'dS - in that neither player has castled in the Bogo. Here, apart from 1 0 'iVxdS and 1 0
'iVd3, White has the additional possibility o f 1 0 l:!.c1 with a small but steady advantage.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 f3 f6 4 g3 dxc4 5 .i.g2 .i.b4+ (D)
6 lbc3 0-0 7 0-0 lbc6
S e3 .l:!.bS - Game 63 (Chapter 6) ; S 'iVc2 l:tbS - Game 64 (Chapter 6)
6 lbbd2 0-0 7 0-0 c3 (D) - Game 89
6 .Jtd2 as (D) - Game 90
1 80
. . .
.i.b4 +
. . .
c3
. . .
a5
4 . . . dxc4 5 g2 et:Jbd 7
Game 9 1
Vasilchenko-Meszaros
Kecskemet 199 1
1 d 4 d5 2 c4 e 6 3 4:lf3 4:lf6 4 g 3 dxc4 5
i.g2 4:lbd7 6 0-0 c5
Immediately contesting the centre.
6 ... ttJb6 7 ttJbd2 c5 8 ttJxc4 transposes to
6 ... c5 7 ttJa3 ttJb6 8 ttJxc4 in the note to
Black's 7th move below, but an alternative is
6 ... e7. Then 7 c2 0-0 8 'YWxc4 transposes
Th e Ca t a l a n
1 5 lLlg5! f5
15 ... tD7f6 16 tDg4! and White wins at least
a piece. 1 5 ...g6 is more stubborn, although
White wins after 1 6 tDexf7! .l:i.xf7 1 7 tDxf7
Wxf7 1 8 .if4 c5 19 xc5 tDxc5 20 .l:i.xd5!
etc.
1 6 lLlxe6! lLlxe3 1 7 fxe3 'iWxe5 1 8 lLlxf8
'iWxe3+ 1 9 h 1 1 -0
Game 92
Kasparov-Korchnoi
4 . . . dx c 4 5 i.g 2 0, b d 7
Th e Ca t a l a n
Summary
Practice shows that the S ... ttJbd7 system is difficult for Black, which is why it is seldom seen
on the tournament circuit these days. After 6 ... cS 7 ttJa3 (Game 91) 7 ... ttJb6 our attention is
drawn to the standard collection of the pawn with 8 ttJxc4! ttJxc4 9 'ifa4+ .i.d7 10 'ifxc4 (note
that this is possible after 6 ...ttJb6 7 ttJbd2 cS 8 ttJxc4) . After 6 ....l:tb8 7 a4 b6 (Game 92) Black's
defensive task seems sufficiently difficult to prefer 7 ... a6 8 as ttJe4.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 liJf3 liJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5 i.g2 liJbd7 (D)
6 'iVa4 a6 7 'iVxc4 Games 25 & 26 (Chapter 3)
6 0-0
6 ... cS (D) Game 9 1 ; 6 ... l:tb8 (D) Game 92
-
5. . . liJbd7
1 84
6. . . c5
6. . . 'D.b8
Game 93
Kozul-H . Olafsson
Th e Ca t a l a n
Game 94
Sulava-Farago
Vinkovci 1993
9 0-0
\,{'hite achieves an advantage after 9 axbS
i.xbS 10 0-0 ttJc6 1 1 ttJxc4 in view of
Black's somewhat weakened queenside.
9 . . . c6 1 0 ttJe4 ttJxe4 1 1 'ii'xe4 bxa4 1 2
ttJg5 g6? !
Black can try 1 2".f5 1 3 'iYc2 iLe7 1 4 ttJf3
ttJa6 although it leaves White with a clear
lead after I S 'iYxc4 ttJc 7 1 6 ttJeS.
1 3 'iWh4 h5 1 4 g4! f6 1 5 gxh5! fxg5 1 6
1 86
dx c 4 5 ii.. g 2 ii.. d 7
20 ii.. x d5
After 20 ttJxd5 exd5 21 l:txd5 f6 Black
again has the better prospects. The c-pawn is
more dangerous than the a-pawn and it is
easier for Black to create threats against his
opponent's dark squares.
20 . . . ii.. e 5! 2 1 .l:!.dd 1 ii.. x c3 22 ii.. x c4 'ilif6
Black has sacrifIced his c-pawn but the at
tack is very strong.
23 .l:!.a2?
No better is 23 l:tab 1 ? i.d4!, but White
could try 23 l:tac1 .i.a5 24 'iVd4 'iVxd4 25
l:txd4 ..tb6 (25 ... l:txf2+ 26 'iit x f2 .i.b6 27
We3 e5 28 We4 ..txd4 29 l:tb 1 is less con
vincing - Black should keep as many pieces
on the board as possible) 26 l:tf4 g5 27 l:tf3
l:tc8, when White's co-ordination is very
poor but at least he can still fIght.
23 . . . 'i!Vf3 0-1
187
Th e Ca t a la n
Game 95
Beliavsky-Karpov
Moscow 1988
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5
.ltg2 .ltd7 6 ttJe5 .ltc6 7 ttJxc6 ttJxc6 8
0-0 'i!Vd7 9 e3
9 . . . b8
Black can try to hold on to the c4-pawn
with 9...ltJdS 10 'iVe2 ltJb6 1 1 ltJd2 ltJaS.
Slipak-Adla, Buenos Aires, 1 990 continued
12 ltJf3 i.d6 1 3 i.d2 ltJc6 14 i.c3 ltJe7 1 5
e4 c6 1 6 a4 0-0 1 7 as ltJbc8 1 8 xc4 and
White regained the pawn with a much better
game thanks to his space advantage - 1 8 ... a6
19 ltJd2 ltJa7 20 b4 ltJbS 21 i.b2 l:tad8 22
ltJb3 l:tfe8 23 i.h3 ltJg6 24 f4 etc.
9 ... eS 10 'iVe2 and now Hjartasson-Piket,
Tilburg 1 989 went 10 ... 0-0-0 1 1 'iYxc4 exd4
12 exd4 ltJxd4 1 3 ltJc3 (1 3 i.f4!? ltJe6 1 4
i.e3 i s interesting, with good play) 1 3. ..e6
14 'iVa4 'iVa6 1 5 'iVxa6 bxa6 1 6 i.gs i.e7 1 7
l:tac 1 with White's compensation for the
pawn coming in the shape of Black's dam
aged structure. The queens stayed on in
Glavina-Toth, Mar del Plata 1 990: 1O ... exd4
1 1 exd4+ i.e7 12 'iixc4 ltJxd4 1 3 i.xb7 l:td8
14 i.g2 cS 1 5 ltJd2 0-0 1 6 ltJf3 'iVrs 1 7
ltJxd4 cxd4 1 8 i.f4 i.cs 1 9 l:tae 1 l:tfe8 20
l:txe8+ l:txe8 21 b4 i.b6 22 a4 and the
queenside majority and bishop pair secured
White an advantage.
1 88
4 . . . dx c 4 5 g 2 d 7
Summary
In reply to S ... .td7 the continuation beginning with 6 ttJbd2 has been played by Catalan ex
perts grandmasters Sosonko and Kozul. Nevertheless White fails to achieve an advantage here
- with 6 ... .tb4 7 'iic 2 .tbS! (as in Sosonko-Korchnoi) Black managed to retain the extra pawn,
while it seems White is struggling to fmd sufficient compensation. Consequently ttJbd2 has left
tournament practice at the highest level.
After 6 ttJeS .tc6 7 ttJxc6 ttJxc6 White achieves nothing from 8 'iia4. Black can aim for
simplifications and equal chances with 8 ... .tb4+ or play the more complex positions that oc
cur after 8 ... 'iid 7. The positions after 8 e3 and 8 0-0 will often simply transpose but, after 8 e3,
Black's 8 ... eS is not bad, either. In the event of 8 0-0 .te7 the reputation of 9 'iia4 was harmed
by the game Sulava-Farago. However, after 9 'ii'a4 0-0 White is not obliged to play 10 l::td 1 ?!
(there is 1 0 e3!?, for example) which, incidentally, was partly rehabilitated in Raetsky-Sax.
Finally, after the important 8 0-0 'it'd7 9 e3 l::tb 8 10 'iVe2 bS it would appear that White's ini
tiative more than compensates the absence of a pawn.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5 g2 d7 (D) 6 ltJe5
6 'iic 2
6 ... cS 7 0-0 .tc6 8 'iixc4 - Game 76 (Chapter 7)
6 ... .tc6 7 'ii'xc4 (D) - Games 21 & 22 (Chapter 3)
6 ttJbd2 - Game 93
6 . . . c6 7 ltJxc6 ltJxc6 8 0-0 (D)
8 ... .te7 - Game 94; 8 ... 'ii'd7 - Game 95
7 flxc4
8 0-0
1 89
.......................................................
.. . . .
.
..
..
.......
..................
50
2000
. .
.........
.............................
.....
. . . . .
.. .
.
.......
..
............
. . . . . .
140
... ..
Chetverik-Bunnakin, Na!!),kanizra 1 99 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 72
Chetverik-Ivan, Harkany 1 996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 54
Chiburdanidze-Vaganian, Hie/ 1 994
...............
. . .. . ...........................................................
..
. 20
2000 .
....
......
...
. .
. .
.....
.....
.........
. .
..
...........
...........
......
..............
......
..........................................................................................................
24
77
2002
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........
...................
........................
17
2000 .
.
.........
.......
. .
..
.........
..........
..............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
142
...............
........
..................
.......................
..
....
........
..
55
1 90
Index o f Comple te G a m e s
Hiibner-Smyslov,
Ilincic-Djuric,
Inkiov-Pinter,
Ivanchuk-Korchnoi,
Ivanchuk-Kuporosov,
Karpov-Milos,
Karpov-Piket,
Kasparov-Korchnoi,
Kengis-Gurevich.M, Jurmala
Khalifman-Ivanchuk,
Khalifman-Portisch,
1985 ......................................................................................... 23
Kobalij a-Kiriakov,
Korchnoi-Ivanchuk,
Korchnoi-Nogueiras,
Kozul-Ljubojevic,
Kozul-Lputian,
Kozul-Olafsson.H,
Ksieski-Enders,
Lputian-Polgar.J,
Manor-Anand,
Marin-Berescu,
Mednis-Prie,
Iasi 1999
.................................................................................. .......................
Olafsson.H-Geller.E,
Reykjavik 1986...................................................................................... 9
Olafsson.H-Hjartarsson,
Panov-Makogonov.M,
Pigusov-Aseev,
Kiev 1 938........................................................................................... 40
SevastopoI 1986
Pigusov-Goldin,
Piket-Adams,
32
Mochalov-Spirin,
Orsag- Haba,
83
Kramnik-Svidler,
................................
..............
.....
.........
.....
.......
..........
. .
..
....
92
Piket-Van Wely,
Polgar.Zsu-Benjamin,
Polovodin-Zviagintsev,
Poluljahov-Nikolaev,
Portisch-Radulov,
Psakhis-Stefansson,
Raetsky-Ekstrom,
Raetsky-Gattenloehner,
Raetsky-Ivanov.S,
Raetsky-Kelecevic,
19 1
Th e Ca t a la n
Raetsky-Landenbergue,
Raetsky-Naiditsch,
Raetsky-Sveshnikov,
Rashkovsky-Grigorian.K,
Reti-Bogoljubov,
Ribli-Bonsch,
Kishinev 1975............................................................................... 98
Ricardi-Smyslov,
Rogers-Chandler,
Romanishin-Ribli,
Romero-Antunes,
Rustemov-Sax,
Sandner-Luther,
Shipov-Volzhin,
Stefanova-Kurajica,
Sulava-Farago,
Benasque 1997....................................................................................... 1 74
Tkachiev-Solozhenkin,
Topalov-Kramnik,
Tukmakov-Hulak,
Croatia 1999........................................................................................... 1 14
Vajnerman-Novikov,
Vakhidov-Ziatdinov,
Vasilchenko-Meszaros,
Vila-Spassky,
Wells-Barsov,
York 2000
........................................................................................................
Wojtkiewicz-Dzhandzhgava,
Yevseev-Goldin,
1 92
107
.... .
..
ISBN 1 -85744-346-2
9
1 4.99
$ 1 9.95