The Complete Bogo-Indian Defense

Maxim Chetverik The Complete Bogo-Indian Defense Author: Maxim Chetverik Translated from the Russian by Ilan Rubin Typesetting by Andrei Elkov (www.elkov.ru) © LLC Elk and Ruby Publishing House, 2020. All rights reserved Follow us on Twitter: @ilan_ruby www.elkandruby.com ISBN 978-5-6041769-7-9 About the author

Maxim Chetverik, born in Voronezh in 1963, is one of Russia’s biggest opening experts. He has written books published in Russian, English, French and German on the ’s Indian Defense, , , Benoni System, Queen’s Accepted, Sicilian Defense, Petroff Defense, Dutch Defense, Alekhine Defense and Albin Counter Gambit, as well as more general opening books, a book on middle- game strategy, and books on the games of Alekhine, Tal and Spassky.

He became an International Master in 2003 and is a regular tournament player to this day, as well as being a coach in his native Voronezh. His best tournament results include Budapest Open, 1st place, 1996, Open championship of Slovan Club, Bratislava, 1st place, 1998, Prague Open, 2nd equal, 2002, Kecskemet (Hungary) round robin tournament, 1st place, 2003, Stuttgart Open, 2nd place, 2009, Yaroslavl Open, 3rd place, 2015, Olomouc (Czech Republic), 2nd place, 2017, and Heraklion (Greece), 2nd place, 2019. 4

CONTENTS

Historical Introduction ...... 5

PART I. System with 3.g3 Eb4+ ...... 18 Introduction ...... 18 Chapter 1. 4.Cd2 variation ...... 19 Chapter 2. 4.Ed2 variation ...... 26

PART II. System with 3.Cf3 Eb4+ 4.Cbd2 ...... 39 Introduction ...... 39 Chapter 3. Miscellaneous black replies ...... 40 Chapter 4. 4…d5 variation ...... 51 Chapter 5. 4…0-0 variation ...... 65 Chapter 6. 4…b6 variation ...... 99

PART III. System with 3.Cf3 Eb4+ 4.Ed2 ...... 116 Introduction ...... 116 Chapter 7. 4…Exd2+ 5.Cbxd2 variation ...... 117 Chapter 8. 4…Exd2+ 5.Ixd2 variation ...... 123 Chapter 9. Various after 4…c5 ...... 134 Chapter 10. Various after 4…c5 5.Exb4 cxb4 ...... 139 Chapter 11. 4…c5 5.Exb4 cxb4 6.g3 variation ...... 147 Chapter 12. Various after 4…a5 ...... 162 Chapter 13. 4…a5 5.g3 d6 variation ...... 172 Chapter 14. 4…a5 5.g3 d5 variation ...... 181 Chapter 15. 4…a5 5.g3 b6 variation ...... 188 Chapter 16. Various after 4…Ie7 ...... 197 Chapter 17. Various after 4…Ie7 5.g3 ...... 212 Chapter 18. 4…Ie7 5.g3 b6 variation ...... 221 Chapter 19. 4…Ie7 5.g3 Cc6 6.Eg2 variation ...... 228 Chapter 20. 4…Ie7 5.g3 Cc6 6.Cc3 variation ...... 237 Conclusions ...... 250

Players’ index ...... 251 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

The Bogo-Indian Defense is a relatively young opening. The first game to be found in the database is that of Mackenzie – Noa (London 1883). By an odd coincidence, Hungarian player Josef Noa also defended the honor of the black pieces in the earliest-known Queen’s Indian Defense (Blackburne – Noa, Frankfurt 1887). Unfortunately, the chess content of both games was somewhat lackluster and so we are better off taking a time machine to the 20th century. The 10th game of the Rubinstein – Bogoljubov match (Gothenburg 1920) began with the following opening moves: 1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Eb4+ 4.Ed2 Exd2+ 5.Ixd2 b6 6.Cc3 Eb7 7.g3 0-0 8.Eg2 d6 9.0-0 Cbd7 10.Ic2 Ge8. This was a hybrid set-up that I review in chapter 12 of my book The Queen’s Indian Defense: Main Line 4.g3 System (published in 2018 by Elk and Ruby Publishing House) in the move order 1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 b6 4.g3 Eb7 5.Eg2 Eb4+ 6.Ed2 Exd2+ 7.Ixd2. A fragment from this Rubinstein versus Bogoljubov game is included in game 2 of that same book. However, count of games in the Bogo-Indian proper in the last century should really start from the later (tournament) game Bogoljubov – Seleznev (Gothenburg 1920). It began 1.d4 Cf6 2.Cf3 e6 3.c4 Eb4+ 4.Ed2 Exd2+ 5.Cbxd2 c5 6.dxc5 Ia5 7.g3 Ixc5 8.Eg2 Cc6 9.a3 Ie7 10.0-0 0-0 11.e4 d6 12.Ge1 Ed7 13.b4 Gfd8 14.Ib3 Ee8, where black’s sole weakness was d6 and he had a solid position. White eventually won a long-drawn game. These Russian emigre masters Efim Bogoljubov and Alexei Seleznev were friends and most probably discussed their game after it ended. We begin our analysis of historical games with a well-known battle won in brilliant style by the future world champion.

6 Historical Introduction

No. 1 A. Alekhine – E. Bogoljubov white, though one should not forget Budapest 1921 the advantageous role played by simplifications in cramped positions. 1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Eb4+ 7...Cbd7 4.Ed2 The setup 7...Ie7 and Gf8-d8 is XIIIIIIIIY considered in chapter 8 (games 56 and 57). 9rslwk+-t0 8.Ed3 9zpzp+pzp0 The 8.cxd5 exd5 is 9-+-+ps-+0 structurally close to game 56. 9+-+-+-+-0 8...c6 9.0-0 9-vPZ-+-+0 Alekhine believed that this 9+-+-+N+-0 standard enabled black to gain equal play by opening the 9PZ-VPZPZ0 center and hence recommended 9TN+QML+R0 the prophylactic 9.Gd1 (which has xiiiiiiiiy not been tested). The continuation 4...Exd2+ 5.Ixd2 0-0 9.0-0-0 Ie7 10.e4 dxe4 11.Cxe4 Bogoljubov is no longer thinking c5 12.Ghe1 cxd4 13.Cxd4 Cxe4 here of playing a Queen’s Indian 14.Exe4 Cf6 15.Ec2 was met in the Defense – after 5...b6 apart from game A. Grigoryan – Tomov (Bansko 6.g3 black has to contend with 2010). Now 15...Ic5!? supports the 6.Cc3 (game 53) with the idea of the completion of development after 16... advances e2-e4 and d4-d5. b6 or an attack against the white 6.Cc3 d5 7.e3 with a7-a6 and b7-b5. XIIIIIIIIY 9...dxc4 10.Exc4 9rslw-tk+0 XIIIIIIIIY 9zpz-+pzp0 9r+lw-tk+0 9-+-+ps-+0 9zp+n+pzp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+p+ps-+0 9-+PZ-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9+-S-ZN+-0 9-+LZ-+-+0 9PZ-W-ZPZ0 9+-S-ZN+-0 9T-+-ML+R0 9PZ-W-ZPZ0 xiiiiiiiiy 9T-+-+RM-0 The structure is mostly xiiiiiiiiy settled, and is the same as that seen 10...e5! in the orthodox Queen’s Gambit. This break is possible due to the of the dark-squared interim exchange with – 11.dxe5 bishops should in theory favor Cxe5! 12.Ixd8 Cxf3+ 13.gxf3 Gxd8. Historical Introduction 7

11.Eb3 . The position after 20... The evades the attack Ch5 21.e5 c5 22.Gxd8+ Gxd8 23.f4 Cd7-b6 and protects against e5-e4 (as g6 is defendable. black loses the pawn after Cf3-g5 and 20...c5?! 21.G4d2 Gxd2 22.Ixd2 Eb3-c2). The 11.Exf7+!? c4? is only enough to (as correctly Here the pawn is vulnerable, pointed out by Alekhine): 11...Gxf7 whereas the white queen gains an (11...Kxf7 12.dxe5 Cg4 13.Gad1 excellent square in the center from Ie7 14.e6+! Kxe6 15.Id4 Cge5 where it can support the pawn bind. 16.Cxe5 Cxe5 17.f4 places the black Alekhine suggested the best defensive king in danger) 12.dxe5 Cg4 13.e6 approach – 22...Ce8 and f7-f6 with Gxf3! 14.exd7 Exd7 15.gxf3 Cxh2! chances of saving the game. 16.Kxh2 Ih4+. 23.f4 g6 24.Id4 Gc8 25.g4 Exg4 11...Ie7?! 26.hxg4 Cxg4 27.Kg2 h5 28.Cd5 Thus far, Alekhine’s annotations Ih4 29.Gh1 Id8 30.Ed1 to the game are comprehensive and Black resigned. objective. He compares the potential of the opposing pawn groups and major Bogoljubov began to actively pieces on the . Each side’s promote the opening named after potential proved to be equal in the later him, and with both colors. In the game Johner – Gruenfeld (Piestany game Bogoljubov – Walter (Ostrava 1922): 11...exd4 12.Ixd4 Ib6 13.If4 1923) white introduced the move Cc5 14.Ca4 Cxa4 15.Ixa4 Ef5. 4.Cbd2. That game wasn’t of interest, 12.e4 exd4 13.Cxd4 Cc5 however, and I prefer a slightly later 14.Ec2 Gd8 15.Gad1 Eg4 16.f3 example from Bogoljubov’s career. Ce6 17.If2 Cxd4 18.Gxd4 Ee6 19.Gfd1 b6 20.h3 No. 2 E. Bogoljubov – W. Winter XIIIIIIIIY London 1927 9r+-t-+k+0 9z-+-wpzp0 1.d4 Cf6 2.Cf3 e6 3.c4 Eb4+ 9-zp+ls-+0 4.Cbd2 9+-+-+-+-0 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-TP+-+0 9rslwk+-t0 9+-S-+P+P0 9zpzp+pzp0 9PZL+-WP+0 9-+-+ps-+0 9+-+R+-M-0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy 9-vPZ-+-+0 “The game is practically over” 9+-+-+N+-0 (Alekhine). A premature verdict, as black is ready both to fight for the 9PZ-SPZPZ0 open file and cope with the enemy 9T-VQML+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 242 PART III. System with 3.Cf3 Eb4+ 4.Ed2 XIIIIIIIIY The computer recommends 9r+l+-tk+0 21...fxe4 22.Cd2 e3 23.Ixe3 Ed7 9zpzpwpzp0 24.Ce4 b5, and white’s activity is not worth more than the sacrificed pawn. 9-+n+p+-+0 22.Eh3 Gc8 23.Exf5 Exf5 9+-+-+-+-0 24.exf5 Gxc7 25.Gxc7 Gc8 26.Gxb7 9-+PZn+-+0 Ixb6 27.Gxb6 Kf8 28.Gb5 9+-V-+NZ-0 Gc5 9PZ-+PZLZ0 XIIIIIIIIY 9+-TQM-+R0 9-+-+-m-+0 xiiiiiiiiy 9+-+-+nzp0 In this and the following games 9-+-z-+-+0 white protects his bishop with his 9zRtPzP+-0 (usually on move 8, without the 9-+-+-+-+0 additional moves 6...0-0 7.Eg2). In 9+-+-+NZ-0 this example, black rejected Ce4xc3. 9...d6 9-Z-+-Z-Z0 If 9...a5 10.0-0 d6 it makes sense 9+-+-+-M-0 to avoid exchanging the bishop via xiiiiiiiiy 11.Ee1. Further, the game Postny – 29.Gb8+ Schmitz (Bad Wiessee 2013) continued White’s pawns are too weak 11...f5 12.d5 Cb8 13.dxe6 Exe6 to give him real winning chances. 14.Cd2 Cc5 15.Cb3 Cxb3 16.Ixb3 Nevertheless, he should have tested c6 17.Ie3 Cd7 18.Ec3 with a tangible the endgame after 29.Gxc5 advantage thanks to the bishop pair. dxc5 30.Cd2. 10.d5 Cd8 29...Ke7 30.Gb7+ Ke8 31.Gb6 If black waits to exchange with Ke7 32.Gb7+ Ke8 33.h4 Gxd5 10...Cb8 11.dxe6 then he has the 34.Cg5 Cxg5 35.hxg5 g6 36.fxg6 option of 11...Exe6 12.Cd4 Ed7 (but hxg6 37.Gg7 Gb5 38.Gxg6 Ke7 not 12...Exc4? 13.Cf5). If 13.0-0 39.Gg7+ Ke6 40.Ga7 Kf5 41.Ga6 black can count on equality via 13... Gd5 42.Gb6 Kxg5 43.b4 axb4 GXIIIIIIIIYe8 14.Cb5 Ec6. 44.Gxb4 Draw agreed. 9r+ls-tk+0 9zpz-wpzp0 No. 111 A. Delchev – 9-+-zp+-+0 J. Campos Moreno 9+-+P+-+-0 Barcelona 2019 9-+P+n+-+0 1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Eb4+ 9+-V-+NZ-0 4.Ed2 Ie7 5.g3 Cc6 6.Cc3 0-0 9PZ-+PZLZ0 7.Eg2 Exc3 8.Exc3 Ce4 9.Gc1 9+-TQM-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy Chapter 20. 4...Ie7 5.g3 Cc6 6.Cc3 variation 243 XIIIIIIIIY 11.0-0 9r+ls-tk+0 Let’s see what happens if white 9zp+-w-zp0 evades the exchange with 11.Eb4. The game Rombaldoni – Caruana 9-+-z-+-+0 (Bratto 2006) continued 11...a5 9+-+Pzp+-0 12.Ea3 e5 13.Cd2 Cxd2 14.Ixd2 9-+-+-+-+0 b6 15.0-0 Cb7 16.b3 Cc5 (the 9+-+-+-Z-0 knight has reached a nice 9PZ-VPZLZ0 via a slightly unusual route) 17.Eb2 Ef5 18.h3 Eg6 19.Kh2 9+-TQ+RM-0 f5. The bishops haven’t achieved xiiiiiiiiy anything and the game should end 15...f4 in a draw. If 15...b6 16.Gc3 Eb7 17.Ib3 The continuation 11.dxe6 Cxe6 e4 18.f3 the vulnerability of the d5 12.Eb4 was introduced by a young pawn cannot be exploited. Any black Kramnik in 1992, but black soon activity on the kingside promises found strong counter arguments. As nothing either. an example see the game Chetverik 16.gxf4 exf4 17.Gc4 Ig5 – Loginov (Zalakaros 1994): 12... 18.Kh1?! a5 13.Ea3 f5 14.0-0 Kh8 15.b3 b6 He should have taken control of 16.Eb2 Eb7 17.Cd4 Cxd4 18.Ixd4 the third rank via 18.Ib3 thanks Gf6 19.Gcd1 Ge6 20.Gfe1?! (here to the nice tactic 18...Eg4 19.Gxf4! and earlier the e2-e3 Gxf4 20.Ig3. Now it’s black who has is useful) 20...Gf8 21.Ef3 (21.e3 a tactical opportunity. c5! 22.Id3 Cg5) 21...f4 with an 18...Eh3! 19.Exh3 Ixd5+ for black. 20.Eg2 f3 11...e5 12.c5 f5 13.cxd6 cxd6 This is to capture the rook after 14.Cd2 21.Exf3 (lengthening the operating Let’s try 14.Eb4 in the changed reach along the file of the f8 rook). structure: 14...Cf7 15.a4 b6 16.a5 The variation 20...Ixc4 21.Ec3 Gf5 Cc5 17.Ea3 Ed7 18.Cd2 Gfc8 22.Ixd6 f3 23.exf3 If4 leads to 19.b4 Ea4 20.Ie1 Cd7 21.Cb1 Cf6 unclear consequences. 22.Id2 Eb5 23.Eb2 bxa5 24.bxa5 21.Gg4!? fxg2+ 22.Gxg2 Ce6 Gab8 25.Ca3 Ea6 26.Gxc8+ Gxc8 23.Eb4 Ixa2 24.Ixd6 Gf7 27.Cc2, and a draw (Korchnoi 25.Ec3 Gd8 26.Ib4 Id5 27.f3 – Loginov, Moscow 1994). Gdd7 28.Gg4 b6 29.Gfg1 h6 30.Ge4 Loginov, a known Cf8 expert in this variation, extinguished Instead of the knight’s unjustified his opponent’s ambitions on the retreat 30...Gf5 was better, in order to queenside in exemplary fashion. neutralize the dangerous rook on g1 14...Cxd2 15.Exd2 from the g5 square. 31.Ge5 Id6 32.Ic4 Gc7?? 244 PART III. System with 3.Cf3 Eb4+ 4.Ed2

It’s not easy for white to extend b6? 27.Cd6. Black of course played his advantage once black moves weakly, but the reputation of the out of the with 32...Kh7. This maneuver Cc6-b4-a6 is generally big was likely due to time pretty poor. trouble. 10.Gxc3 d6 XIIIIIIIIY XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-sk+0 9r+l+-tk+0 9z-t-+rz-0 9zpz-wpzp0 9-z-w-+-z0 9-+nzp+-+0 9+-+-T-+-0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+Q+-+-+0 9-+PZ-+-+0 9+-V-+P+-0 9+-T-+NZ-0 9-Z-+P+-Z0 9PZ-+PZLZ0 9+-+-+-TK0 9+-+QM-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy xiiiiiiiiy 33.Gxg7+! Kxg7 34.Ge7+ 11.d5 Black resigned. Here we view the plan to capture d5xe6. No. 112 R. Markus – E. Toth 11...Cb8 Hungary 2014 After 11...Cd8 12.dxe6 fxe6 13.0-0 e5 14.c5 black’s camp lacks 1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 Eb4+ coordination, whereas 12...Cxe6 4.Ed2 Ie7 5.g3 Cc6 6.Cc3 0-0 looks solid. Even a worse endgame 7.Eg2 Exc3 8.Exc3 Ce4 9.Gc1 after 13.0-0 Ed7 (13...If6!? not Cxc3 allowing white’s knight to get to the Black occasionally continues center) 14.Cd4 Cxd4 15.Ixd4 Ixe2 9...a5, which supports the sortie (not forced and 15...Ec6 was solid) Cc6-b4. However, the knight gets 16.Ge3 Ig4 17.Ixg4 Exg4 18.Ge7 chased from b4 to a6, and in the game Gab8 19.Gxc7 Gfc8 20.Gxc8+ Gxc8 Prohaszka – Tratar (Sarajevo 2010) 21.b3 b6 and black defends easily it was stuck there until the end: (Arkell – Vlassov, Marianske Lazne 10.0-0 Cxc3 11.Gxc3 d6 12.d5 Cb4 2016). 13.a3 Ca6 14.dxe6 fxe6 15.Cd4 c6 12.dxe6 fxe6 13.Cd4 16.Ge3 Ed7 17.f4 Gae8 18.Cf3 This prevents 13...Cd7 in view of Ec8 19.Ic2 Ic7 (if 19...Id8 the 14.Cxe6! In the later game Markus variation from this game wouldn’t – S. Popov (Kragujevac 2016) have worked due to the hanging white allowed the enemy knight to knight on g5) 20.Cg5 g6 21.Ic3 travel to f6 and he retained a small e5 22.fxe5 Gxf1+ 23.Exf1 Gxe5 advantage after 13.0-0 Cd7 14.Cd4 24.Gxe5 dxe5 25.c5 Kg7? 26.Ce4 Cf6 15.Id2 e5 16.Cc2 Ee6 17.Ce3 248 PART III. System with 3.Cf3 Eb4+ 4.Ed2 f3 54.Ke6+ Kg8 55.Ke5+ Kh8 Amin, Dubai 2012) 22...Gd8 23.c5 b6 56.Gf7 Ge8+ 57.Ee6 the initiative gained at the cost of the Black resigned. exchange is only sufficient to draw. 13...Eg4 No. 114 M. Lagarde – S. Schneider If 13...a5 then the pin 14.Ga3!? Rhodes 2013 has proved a good answer. In the game Chetverik – Passchyn 1.d4 e6 2.Cf3 Cf6 3.c4 Eb4+ (Geraardsbergen 2019) after 14... 4.Ed2 Ie7 5.g3 Cc6 6.Cc3 Exc3 b6 15.Cd2 Ca6?! 16.bxa5 Cc5 7.Exc3 Ce4 8.Gc1 0-0 9.Eg2 d6 17.Cb3 Cxb3 18.axb3 bxa5 19.Id2 10.0-0 Cxc3 11.Gxc3 e5 12.d5 Cb8 white won a pawn without any clear XIIIIIIIIY for black. After the better 15...Cd7 white still retains 9rsl+-tk+0 some initiative on the queenside. 9zpz-wpzp0 14.Ic2 9-+-z-+-+0 The standard break c4-c5 has 9+-+Pz-+-0 been carried out several times with 9-+P+-+-+0 support from a knight via 14.Cd2 9+-T-+NZ-0 Cd7 15.Cb3 b6. After 16.c5 a5 17.Gc4 Cf6 18.h3 Eh5 19.cxd6 cxd6 9PZ-+PZLZ0 20.b5 Cd7 (Fridman – Timoshenko, 9+-+Q+RM-0 Eforie Nord 2009) the rook’s invasion xiiiiiiiiy is harmless, and the players soon 13.b4 exhausted their fighting resources. White aims to break with c4-c5 14...a5 15.a3 axb4 16.axb4 Exf3 supported by his b-pawn, as after 17.Exf3 13.c5 Ca6 14.cxd6 cxd6 15.Cd2 XIIIIIIIIY Ed7 the c-file is opened too early, and black will not concede it. The 9rs-+-tk+0 same has happened in practice after 9+pz-wpzp0 13.Ic2 a5 14.c5 Ca6 15.cxd6 cxd6 9-+-z-+-+0 16.Cd2 b5 17.Gc1 Ed7. 9+-+Pz-+-0 The more flexible continuation 9-ZP+-+-+0 13.Cd2 after 13...a5 offers white the 9+-T-+LZ-0 opportunity to play 14.f4!?, while if 14.c5 Ca6 15.cxd6 cxd6 it’s useful 9-+Q+PZ-Z0 to bring the knight into play, instead 9+-+-+RM-0 of building a harmless with xiiiiiiiiy major pieces. After the complicated 17...Id7 continuation 16.Cc4 Id8 17.Ib3 Cc5 An unexpected and rather 18.Ib6 Ca4 19.Ixd6 Cxc3 20.bxc3 questionable decision by black. If Ixd6 21.Cxd6 f6 22.c4 (Gupta – 17...b6 18.e4 c5 19.b5 Ia7 white’s Chapter 20. 4...Ie7 5.g3 Cc6 6.Cc3 variation 249 spatial advantage didn’t promise him in order to exchange one rook pair anything real. and thereby neutralize his opponent’s 18.Gb1 Ia4 19.Ic1 counterplay on the kingside. The principled continuation was 35...Kg7 36.Eh1 Gh8 19.c5 Ixc2 20.Gxc2 f5. Black has XIIIIIIIIY freed the f7 square for his rook in the event the c-file is immediately opened, 9-+-+-+-t0 but white can gradually improve his 9+Rz-+pm-0 position with 21.e3 Ga3 22.Ee2. 9-+-z-s-+0 19...Cd7 20.e4 Cf6 21.g4 Id7 9+-ZP+-z-0 22.h3 h6 23.c5 Id8 9-Z-+Pz-+0 XIIIIIIIIY 9+-+-+R+P0 9r+-w-tk+0 9-+-+-Z-M0 9+pz-+pz-0 9+-+-t-+L0 9-+-z-s-z0 xiiiiiiiiy 9+-ZPz-+-0 37.Kg2 9-Z-+P+P+0 Now compared with the variation 9+-T-+L+P0 37.Gxc7 Cg4+ 38.Kg2 Ce5 the 9-+-+-Z-+0 knight alters its victory march. 9+RW-+-M-0 KEY TIP. TThehe kknight’snight’s triumptriumphh xiiiiiiiiy ooverver the fianchettoed bishobishopp is 24.g5 notable, and this is frequently found The young French grandmaster in the BoBogo-Indiango-Indian Defense. White playing white tries to outplay his sshouldhould weiweighgh up carefullcarefullyy whether weaker opponent in a sharp struggle, he wants to create a strong pawn given that quiet continuations (such cchainhain with d5-e4, onlonlyy to suffer for as 24.Ga3) promise nothing more his efforts with his bishop. than equality. 24...hxg5 25.Ixg5 Id7 37...Cxe4 38.Gxc7 Cd2 39.Gd3 26.Eg2 Ch7 27.Id2 Id8 28.Gg3 f3+ 40.Kg3 Gxh1 41.Gxd2 G1xh3+ If6 29.Gbb3 Ga1+ 30.Kh2 If4 White resigned. 31.Ixf4 exf4 32.Ggf3 32.Ggc3 Ga2 33.b5 dxc5 34.Gxc5 This final chapter contained what Gxf2 35.Gxc7 Ga8 leads to a draw, and is considered to be the main line of the Lagarde attempts a rook adventure Bogo-Indian Defense. On the whole, from the edge of the board. white’s position is preferable, but the 32...g5 33.Ga3 Ge1 34.Ga7 Cf6 variety of possible structures and plans 35.Gxb7? that arise promises further deepening White has crossed a bridge too far. of the 6.Cc3 system and, hence, The right continuation was 35.Gfa3, potential changes to evaluations. 251

Players’ index (the number refers to the game number; games in white are highlighted in bold)

Adianto – 106 Fedorchuk – 56, 85 Akopian – 65 Fernandez – 94 Alekhine – 1, 3 Ftacnik – 42 Alekseev – 30 Gaehwiler – 51 Al Sayed – 64 Ganguly – 27 Amin – 40, 64 Gareev – 36, 49 Andreikin – 55 Gelfand – 37 Antipov – 34 Georgiev – 109 Anton – 75 Gerasimov – 41 Babula – 65, 79 Ghaem Maghami – 53 Bachmann – 69 Gheorghiu – 77 Balleisen – 72 Gipslis – 88 Banikas – 16, 76 Gleizerov – 9 Banusz – 59 Gmeiner – 84 Basso – 61 Golubka – 96 Bocharov – 37 Gonda – 60 Boensch – 42 Gonzalez Zamora – 67 Bogdanovich – 12, 24 Gunina – 11 Bogoljubov – 1, 2 Haba – 45 Borsuk – 12 Halkias – 95 Brown – 71 Harsha – 46 Campos Moreno – 111 Hartl – 63 Caruana – 26 Hernandez Carmenates – 101 Chadaev – 41 Hertneck – 107, 108 Chetverik – 86 Hess – 17 Cori – 97 Hillarp Persson – 99 Delchev – 111 Hjartarson – 44, 47 Ding Liren – 40 Holzhaeuer – 90 Dobrov – 83 Hutois – 100 Donchenko – 7 Illner – 60 Druska – 58 Ionov – 54 Drygalov – 24 Iordachescu – 19 Duda – 43 Jakovenko – 29, 87 El Debs – 105 Jankovic – 110 Eljanov – 8, 74, 113 Janssen – 6 Enchev – 100 Jaracz – 10 Eriksson – 99 Jobava – 28, 48, 89 Esipenko – 49 Jones – 113 Farago – 82, 103 Kasparov – 18 252

Kazakovskiy – 98 Nikolenko – 83 Kelires – 95 Nisipeanu – 23, 68 Kerek – 103 Paichadze – 73 Keymer – 74 Piorun – 33 Khalifman – 96 Postny – 56, 66, 71, 91 Khenkin – 75 Potkin – 19, 110 Kiriakov – 46, 93 Prohaszka – 98 Kogan – 50 Prusikin – 77 Kramnik – 31, 55 Quezada – 67 Krasenkow – 14, 43, 50, 90 Ramirez – 72 Krogius – 4 Rapport – 87, 104 Kunin – 51 Rasmussen – 68 Lagarde – 114 Repka – 58 Laustsen – 102 Riff – 14 Lautier – 106 Rocius – 88 Laza – 59 Roeberg – 107 Laznicka – 10 Rogozenco – 20, 23 Lei Tingjie – 11 Rombaldoni – 44 Lenderman – 39 Rozum – 30, 36, 54, 91 Likavsky – 28 Samant – 61 Liu Yan – 13 Sandipan – 21 Lysyj – 70 Sanikidze – 73 Malakhatko – 102 Sarana – 13 Maletin – 80 Schiendorfer – 38 Mamedyarov – 104 Schneider – 114 Manea – 20 Sengupta – 38 Markus – 112 Sergienko – 105 Marshall – 52 Shinkar – 93 Martinez Alcantara – 31 Shinkevich – 22 Matsenko – 101 Short – 18, 21 Maze – 66 Shulman – 39 Meier – 7 Siebrecht – 63 Meijers – 86 Sjoberg – 9 Michalik – 45 Smyslov – 4 Miezis – 25 Socko – 25, 33 Mikhalevski – 6 Sokolov – 35 Moiseenko – 15, 32 Solozhenkin – 92 Naiditsch – 26 Stocek – 92 Najer – 22 Svidler – 32 Nakamura – 8, 78 Teske – 84 Naumkin – 85 Thybo – 81 Nezar – 57 Timman – 35, 108 253

Tisdall – 62 Vidit – 97 Tomashevsky – 81 Vidmar – 3, 52 Toth – 112 Vitiugov – 29 Toufighi – 53 Vitolins – 5 Tratar – 82 Vlassis – 16 Tregubov – 57 Wang Hao – 34 Tukmakov – 5 Williams – 94 Tunik – 80 Winter – 2 Turov – 15, 76 Wojtaszek – 48 Urkedal – 62 Yilmaz – 47 Valiente – 69 Yordanov – 109 Van Overdam – 89 Yu Yangyi – 27 Van Wely – 17, 78, 79 Zhumabaev – 70