22. My Line against the King’s Indian Attack – Part 3

 

[Event "Sochi"] [Site "?"] [Date "2006.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Gabrielian"] [Black "Nipomniachtchi"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A07"] [WhiteElo "2520"] [BlackElo "2506"] [PlyCount "71"] [EventDate "2011.01.29"] [EventType "swiss"] [EventRounds "9"] [EventCountry "RUS"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "2011.03.01"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O 5. d3 d5 6. Nbd2 d4 7. Nc4 {Diagram
[#] Before moving his e-pawn, White plays his knight to this active square.
Because of the reasons which became clear from studying the previous games,
White would like to be in a situation to recapture with his bishop after 6..c5
7.e4 dxe3.} Nc6 {As we will see, this removes the sting from White's idea.
Another way to put White off the bishop-recapture is} (7... Nd5 $5 8. Rb1 (8.
e4 dxe3 9. fxe3 (9. Nxe3 Nxe3 10. fxe3 c5 11. e4 Nc6 {with well-known
structures and a good position for Black} (11... e5 $6 {Fischer,D-Diekers,M
(2085) Germany 1996})) (9. Bxe3 $2 Nxe3) 9... c5 10. e4 {This is an inferior
version of the lines of the previous games, since Black loses two tempi with
his knight. However, the structure remains the same and Black has no problems
with achieving equality.} Nc7 (10... Nb6 $5 11. Ne3 Nc6 12. a4 Nd7 $11 {[%cal
Gd7e5]}) 11. a4 Nc6 12. c3 b6 $11 {Seeman,T (2441)-Sakalauskas,V (2424)
Helsinki 2002}) (8. a4 c5 (8... a5 $6 9. e4 dxe3 10. fxe3 Nc6 11. d4 $14 {
Meyer,P (2345)-Balster,S (2300) Germany 1998}) 9. a5 Nc6 10. e3 (10. e4 Ndb4 $1
11. Nfd2 (11. Ng5 h6 12. Nh3 Be6 {[%csl Ya5]}) 11... Rb8 {[%cal Gb7b5]}) 10...
dxe3 11. fxe3 Ndb4 12. Bd2 Bg4 $1 (12... Be6 13. Ng5) 13. Bc3 (13. h3 Be6 14.
Ng5 Bxc4 15. dxc4 Qc7 {[%csl Ra5,Rg3]}) 13... e5 (13... f6 14. d4) 14. h3 Be6
15. a6 (15. Nfxe5 $2 Nxe5 16. Nxe5 Qg5) 15... Nxa6 16. Ncxe5 Nxe5 17. Bxe5 Bxe5
18. Nxe5 Qg5 19. Ng4 {and White is able to keep the balance.}) 8... c5 9. e4
Nb4 $1 10. a3 N4c6 11. a4 {was Thiede,L (2446)-Schreiner,P (2432) Austria 2015.
And now, instead of 11..a6 12.Ra1 b6 which would have allowed 13.a5 b5 14.Nb6,
11...Na6 followed by Nab4 or the profane 11...e5 would have given Black a very
good game.}) (7... c5 {I played this ambitious move twice, hoping to achieve
the same structure from the previous two games. In this position, however, it
gives White the chance to grab the initiative:} 8. e4 $1 {Diagram [#]} (8. Bd2
{White prepares 9.c3, which was not possible right now (9.c3? dxc3 10.bxc3 Nd5)
.} Nd5 9. Qc1 Nc6 10. Bh6 {With the queen being on c1 instead of a rook and no access
to b3 for the queen anymore, 10.c3 wouldn't make much sense. However, the
standard idea of the queen move is now executed.} f6 {With his knight's bishop
about to be exchanged, Black now puts his pawns on black with a good
conscience.} 11. Bxg7 Kxg7 12. e4 {In Seeman,T (2421)-Sermek,D (2547) Mallorca
2004 the game now continued with 12..dxe3. Even though this is playable, a
better approach would have been} Nb6 $1 13. Nfd2 e5 14. f4 exf4 15. gxf4 (15.
Rxf4 $2 {would surrender the square e5 to Black and turn the Bg2 into a
problem piece.}) 15... Be6 16. Nxb6 Qxb6 17. Kh1 Rae8 {with a good game for
Black due to his advantage on the queenside. On the kingside he might play
f6-f5 at some stage. This will activate the Bg2 though, but fix the pawn f4
which might become weak. Should White decide to advance his pawn to f5, the
square e5 will fall to Black's knight.}) (8. a4 $6 {By securing his knight on
c4 White gived Black the chance to render e2-e4 harmless again, by preventing
the recapture with the bishop.} Nd5 $1 9. Nfd2 (9. e4 dxe3 10. Bxe3 $2 Nxe3 $15
{Of course, White cannot afford to abondon his bishop pair just like that.})
9... Nc6 10. e4 dxe3 11. fxe3 b6 (11... Ne5 $5 12. Qe2 (12. Nxe5 $2 Nxe3 13.
Qe2 Nxc2 $17) 12... Bg4 13. Qf2 Nxc4 14. Nxc4 Qd7 {with a good game}) (11...
Be6 $2 12. Ne4 b6 13. Ng5) 12. Qf3 Be6 $15 13. Ne4 h6 $6 (13... Ndb4 $1 14. Qe2
Qd7 15. Ng5 Bxc4 16. dxc4 Rad8 {with a structural advantage}) 14. Nf2 Qd7 15.
c3 Rac8 16. Qe2 Nf6 17. e4 Rfd8 {It was also possible to play the knight
immediately to g4, in order to achieve a different setup.} (17... Ng4 18. Nxg4
Bxg4 19. Bf3 Be6 20. Bf4 g5 21. Be3 Bxc4 22. dxc4 Ne5 23. Rfd1 (23. a5 Qe6)
23... Qc6 24. Bg2 Rcd8 $15) 18. Bf4 Ng4 19. Nxg4 Bxg4 20. Bf3 Be6 $6 (20...
Bxf3 21. Rxf3 g5 22. Bd2 Ne5 23. Nxe5 Bxe5 $15 {The weak pawn d3 serves as a
nice target for Black, who can improve his position by playing his rook to d6
via c6, thus also securing his kingside.}) 21. Rad1 Qe8 ({The setup as in 17..
Ng4 is not possible anymore, since Black is a tempo down here.} 21... g5 $2 22.
Be3 Bxc4 23. dxc4 Qe6 $2 24. Bg4) 22. Bg4 Qd7 ({A move which is easily
overlooked is} 22... Bxg4 23. Qxg4 Na5 $1 {Human perception normally filters
this out due to its ugliness. However, it is tactically justified since now
the pawn a4 cannot be defended anymore.} 24. Nxa5 bxa5 25. Bc1 e5 (25... Qxa4
26. Qh4) 26. Qe2 (26. b3 $2 Rb8) 26... Qxa4 $15) 23. Bxe6 Qxe6 24. Rf3 Rd7 25.
Rdf1 Rf8 $2 {Unnecessary passivity.} (25... Rcd8 26. Bc1 Ne5 27. Nxe5 Qxe5 $15
28. Rxf7 $2 Bf6) 26. Bc1 Rb7 $2 {I played pretty uninspired throughout the
whole tournament, because I had other things in my head than chess. The next
planless moves were symptomatic for that.} (26... Rfd8 27. Rxf7 $2 Rxd3 28. Ne3
Bf6 $17) 27. R3f2 Qd7 28. Qc2 Rbb8 29. Bf4 Rbd8 30. Rf3 {1/2-1/2 (30) Hug,W
(2445)-Wahls,M (2565) Bern 1990}) 8... b5 {I chose this logical move in the
second game ever played with this variation.} (8... dxe3 $6 9. Bxe3 Na6 (9...
b6 $6 10. d4 $36) (9... Nbd7 $6 10. Nfd2 {and Black has problems developing
his queenside}) 10. Qd2 $14 {Whites pieces are clearly more active.} Be6 11.
Nce5 $2 {The following simplifications only help Black. Much better was} (11.
Rae1 {with the idea of either 12.a3 and 13.b4 or 12.Nce5 Nd7 13.Bh6. Now, the
exchange} Bxc4 12. dxc4 Qxd2 $2 13. Nxd2 {backfires, since the pawn b7 cannot
be defended anymore:} Rab8 14. Bf4) 11... Nd7 12. Nxd7 Qxd7 {and Black was
Okay in Haselbeck,F (1827)-Hartl,A (2095) Bayern 2013}) (8... Nc6 9. a4 {White
could bring his pawn to e4 unharmed and fortify his knight on c4. He should
enjoy a slight advantage.}) 9. Ncd2 Bb7 {The threat was to disrupt Black's
structure with a4, so the rook a8 had to be defended.} 10. a4 $1 {The critical
move for the line 7..c5.} (10. Qe2 Nc6 11. e5 Nd5 12. Ne4 (12. e6 f6 13. h4 h6
$13) 12... Qb6 $11 {was equal in Speckner,R (2205)-Wahls,M (2440) Germany 1987.
I could win this game after my opponent made an unsound sacrifice.}) 10... a6
11. e5 $1 {Diagram [#] This strong novelty gives White an annoying initiative.
It might be playable for Black in the end, but this is not the kind of
position I had in mind when conceiving 6..d4. The following lines are not
exhaustive, but give an idea of White's dynamic potential:} (11. axb5 axb5 12.
Rxa8 Bxa8 $11 13. Nh4 $2 {Secula,V-Mueller,G Germany 1996} e5 $1 14. f4 exf4
15. gxf4 Na6 $1 $15 16. f5 (16. Ndf3 Ng4) 16... Nb4) 11... Nd5 (11... Ne8 12.
e6 f6 13. h4 (13. Nb3 Qb6 14. c3 $14) 13... Nc6 14. Ne4 Qb6 15. h5 g5 16. Nfd2
$14 {[%cal Rd2b3,Rb3c5]}) 12. e6 f6 13. h4 Qb6 14. Nb3 Nc7 (14... h5 15. Nh2 f5
16. Bd2 $14) 15. a5 Qa7 (15... Qd6 16. Bf4) 16. Re1 Nc6 (16... Bd5 $2 17. h5 g5
(17... Nxe6 $2 18. Nfxd4 Bxg2 19. Nxe6) (17... Bxe6 18. hxg6 hxg6 19. Nh4 Bf7
20. Rxe7 $18) 18. c4 bxc4 (18... dxc3 19. bxc3 Rd8 20. Ba3 $16) 19. dxc4 Bxe6
20. Nfd2 Nd7 (20... Rd8 21. Bxa8 Qxa8 22. Nxc5) 21. Rxe6 Nxe6 22. Bd5 $18) 17.
h5 g5 18. c3 (18. h6 $5 Bxh6 19. Nh4 Bg7 20. Nf5 $36) 18... dxc3 19. bxc3 Rad8
(19... Nd8 $2 20. d4 $16) 20. Qc2 $14) 8. e4 (8. Bd2 Be6 9. c3 (9. b3 $6 {
Glatt,G (2271)-Szabo,Z (2342) Hungary 2008} Nd5) 9... Bxc4 10. dxc4 Ne4 11.
Nxd4 Nxd2 12. Qxd2 Nxd4 13. cxd4 Qxd4 14. Qxd4 Bxd4 $11) (8. a4 Nd5 $11 {
Niermann,M (2237)-Schreck,R (2125) Germany 2007}) (8. Bg5 h6 (8... Nd5 9. Qd2
f6 10. Bh6 Bxh6 11. Qxh6 e5 $11) 9. Bd2 Be6 $6 (9... Nd5 10. Qc1 Kh7 $11) 10.
Qc1 Kh7 11. c3 Bd5 (11... Bxc4 12. dxc4 Ne4 13. Nxd4 Nxd4 14. cxd4 Nxd2 15. Rd1
$1 $14 (15. Qxd2 Qxd4 16. Qxd4 Bxd4 $11)) 12. cxd4 $2 ({White should have
prepared this capture by overprotecting e2.} 12. Re1 $14) 12... Bxf3 13. exf3
Nxd4 $11 {Schenk,M (2055)-Niebaum,K (1693) Bad Bevensen 2003}) 8... dxe3 9.
Nxe3 (9. Bxe3 Nd5 10. Bd2 Nb6 $1 11. Nxb6 axb6 12. Qc1 e5 (12... Be6 $5 13. Bh6
Bd5 14. Bxg7 Kxg7 15. Re1 Qd6 16. Qe3 e5 17. a3 Rfe8 18. Nd2 Nd4 $15) 13. Re1
Re8 14. Bc3 Bf5 15. Nd2 Qd7 16. a3 Bh3 17. Bh1 Be6 18. Qd1 Rad8 19. Bg2 {½-½
(19) Movsesian,S (2637)-Schlosser,P (2554) Fuegen 2006 Not only the elo-difference
between the players indicates, that Black had a very comfortable position.})
9... e5 10. Nc4 Nd5 11. Re1 Re8 {Diagram [#] Obviously, Black can be
satisfied with the result of the opening.} 12. Bd2 (12. Nfd2 $5) 12... h6 (
12... f6 {, followed by 13..Be6 is a solid alternative.}) 13. Qc1 Kh7 14. a3 $6
({Better was} 14. Na5 {, giving the Black the chance to commit an inaccuracy by
} Nxa5 $6 (14... Nde7 $11) 15. Bxa5 $36 {with the idea of 16.c4 and 17.Bc3
with initiative.}) 14... a5 15. Rb1 $6 a4 $1 16. b4 axb3 17. Rxb3 {Diagram [#] Now White has three pawn islands versus two on Black's side, but White has
some dynamic compensation.} f5 18. c3 Ra4 19. Nb2 $2 (19. Qd1 Ra6 20. Qc2 $11)
19... Ra6 20. Nc4 Ra4 $2 (20... e4) 21. Nb2 Ra6 22. Nc4 e4 {Finally!} 23. dxe4
fxe4 {Diagram [#]} 24. Nd4 $2 {This must be the result of a miscalculation.} (
24. Nh4 Nf6 25. Bf1 Qd5 26. Qb1 Ra4 27. Ne3 Qf7 $15) 24... Bxd4 $1 25. cxd4
Nxd4 $19 {Diagram [#]} 26. Qb2 (26. Rb1 $2 Rc6 $19) 26... Nxb3 27. Qxb3 Rae6
28. Bc1 Qe7 29. Bb2 e3 30. f4 e2 31. Qd3 Rd8 32. Bd4 Nxf4 33. gxf4 c5 34. Ne5
Rxd4 35. Qf3 Rxf4 36. Ra1 0-1

Recommended Posts