In my opinion, the recent Dortmund tournament cannot boast about any global theoretical revelations. Crammers of the whole world can relax. Nevertheless, almost any game of the elite brings up a small opening finesse, and it is quite interesting to observe top grandmasters creating problems to each other outside the main theoretical roads. This article should be considered as a modest addition to my previously published article about the Dortmund.

The A index was used just once.

B.Jobava (2651) – L.Aronian (2761) (A29)

1.c4 ¤f6 2.¤c3 e5 3.¤f3 ¤c6 4.g3 ¤d4 5.Ґg2 ¤xf3+ 6.Ґxf3 Ґb4 7.d4.A rare variation, 7.Јb3 is the normal move. Aronian turns out well-prepared for such course of events.

7...Ґxc3+.Black can postpone this exchange, although the point of it is not exactly clear: 7...e4 8.Ґg2 0-0 9.0-0 (Black does not prevent the pin 9.Ґg5, and White does not rush pinning) 9...Ґxc3 10.bxc3 ¦e8 11.Ґg5 (finally; had Black prevented this pin, White could try trapping him in the following way: 11.Јc2 h6 12.f3 exf3 13.¦xf3 d6 14.Ґxh6 gxh6 15.¦af1± with powerful attack, which became decisive after15...¤e4 16.¦xf7 Јg5 17.Јxe4! Conquest-Smith, Hamilton 1999) 11...h6 12.Ґxf6 Јxf6 13.f3 exf3 (13...e3І) 14.Ґxf3 Јg5 15.Ґd5 ¦e7 16.Јd3 c6 17.¦f5 with clear initiative for White, Kamsky-Campora, Buenos Aires 1993).

8.bxc3 e4 9.Ґg2 h6 10.Јc2

10...0-0. After a natural 10...Јe7 White should reject creative 11.g4?! d6 12.g5 hxg5 13.Ґxg5 Ґf5 14.¦b1 b6„ Makarychev-Vyzhmanavin, Moscow 1987, in favor of purely positional 11.a4 d6 12.Ґa3.

11.Ґxe4 ¤xe4 12.Јxe4 ¦e8 13.Јf3 Јe7. Aronian convincingly improves the Black`s play in Korchnoi-Bareev, Tilburg 1991, which continued 13...¦b8 14.0-0 b6 15.¦e1 Ґa6 16.Јg4± with clear advantage for White.

14.Ґe3

Bareev assesses this position in the Informant as ±. However, Levon`s opinion is different...

14...¦b8 15.a4. The pawn could be kept by 15.0-0 b6 16.¦ab1 followed by c4-c5 somewhere.

15...b6 16.a5 Ґa6 17.axb6 ¦xb6 18.0-0 Ґxc4 19.¦xa7 ¦f6 20.Јg4 ¦g6 21.Јf3. White takes the move repetition. There is no point in keeping the pawn by 21.Јf4 d6 22.¦e1 Јe6 – Black has decent compensation. 21.Јh5 Јe4 22.¦xc7 Ґd5 23.Јf3 Јe6 24.Јh5 Јe4= also leads to a draw.

21...¦f6 1/2-1/2

 

B00-B99

M.Adams (2732) – B.Jobava (2651) (B14)

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 e6 6.¤f3 Ґb4 7.cxd5 ¤xd5 8.Јc2 ¤c6 9.Ґe2 ¤ce7. This plan of radical strengthening of the d5-square apepars to me the strongest reply to 8.Јc2 in the Panov Attack.

10.0-0. Adams already faced this plan:10.a3 Ґd6 11.¤e4 (11.Ґg5 0-0 12.0-0 h6 13.Ґh4 Јc7 14.Ґd3 ¤xc3 15.bxc3 ¤f5 16.Ґg3 ¤xg3 17.hxg3 b6 Adams-Riazantsev, Bastia2005 m4) 11...0-0 12.Ґd3 h6 13.0-0 b6 14.Ґe3 Ґb7 15.Јd2 ¤f5 (Adams-Riazantsev, Bastia 2005 m1). In both games it was White who had problems.

10...Ґd7! An important nuance – the bishop comes to c6 before castling!

11.¤xd5. Adams tests a new approach. Earlier White started with11.¤e5 0-0 (Ovechkin rightly consider 11...¦c8 12.Ґd2 0-0 equalizing) 12.Јb3 Ґc6 13.Ґg5 (Ulybin-Ovechkin, Krasnoyarsk 2003). Acorrect 13...Јb6 equalizeseasily. The following game is considered the most advantageous for White (but it nevertheless ended in a draw): 11.¤e4 Ґc6 12.¤e5 Ґd6 13.Ґd2 Јc7 14.¤xd6+ Јxd6 15.Јc5 Јxc5 16.dxc5І, A.Sokolov-Izoria, Greece 2005. Jobava had good memories of 11.a3 Ґd6 12.¤e4 Ґc6 13.¤xd6+ (13.¤e5 h6 14.b4 a6 15.¤xc6 ¤xc6 16.Ґb2 ¦c8, and Black is fine, Kobalia-Ovechkin, Moscow 1999) 13...Јxd6 14.¤e5 0-0 15.Ґd3 ¤f6 16.Ґe3 ¦ac8 17.Јc5 Јd5 18.f3 ¤g6, Nisipeanu-Jobava, Scanderborg 2005.

11...¤xd5 12.¤e5 Ґd6. After an immediate 12...0-0 White starts bothering Black on the kingside: 13.Ґd3 h6 14.Јe2.

13.Јb3 Јb6 14.Јf3 Ґxe5 15.dxe5 0-0 16.Јg4 ¤e7

White`s two bishop advantage is compensated by more convenient deployment of Black`s pieces. Forcing the game leads nowhere:

17.Ґe3 Јxb2 18.¦ab1 Јxa2 19.¦xb7. The pin fails to scare Black:19.Ґc5 ¦fe8 20.Ґxe7 ¦xe7 21.¦xb7 (21.Ґd3 ¦ae8 22.Јe4 (22.Јh4 g6 23.¦xb7 Јd5 xe5) 22...g6 23.¦xb7 Ґc8=) 21...¦ae8 22.¦c1 Јa4 (22...Ґa4 23.¦xe7 ¦xe7 24.Јb4ќ) 23.h3 Јxg4 24.hxg4 Ґa4 25.¦b4 Ґd7, and there is no way to exploit Black`s rather hampered position: 26.Ґa6 f6=.

19...¤g6 20.¦xd7 ¤xe5 21.¦d2 Јxd2 22.Ґxd2 ¤xg4 23.Ґxg4 a5. A draw is agreed. Black does not lose the a-pawn quickly, but he cannot make any progress either, for instance, 24.Ґf3 ¦a6 (24...¦a7 25.Ґe3) 25.Ґe2 ¦a7 26.Ґe3 ¦b7 27.¦a1 ¦b2 28.ўf1 ¦fb8 29.Ґd3 etc. 1/2-1/2

P.Leko (2738) – B.Gelfand (2729) (B80)

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.f3 e6 7.Ґe3 b5 8.Јd2 b4 9.¤a4 ¤bd7 10.Ґc4!? ‘Almost a novelty` in the Najdorf on the move 10!

10...Јc7. The database gives just one reference: 10...Јa5 11.b3 Ґb7 12.a3 d5 (Evaldt-Ftacnik, Hamburg 2005). The position is unclear and should be analyzed. It is a pity it wasn`t Leko who played White.

11.Ґb3 Ґb7 12.c3 One cannot do without this move any longer: 12.0-0 d5.

12...bxc3. A computer-style optimistic 12...d5 does not look right: 13.cxb4 dxe4 14.¦c1 Јb8 15.¤c5 with the initiative.

13.¤xc3 Ґe7

14.0-0. I cannot believe it is not tempting to get three pawns for a piece, leaving the enemy king in the center! One should have done it at once: 14.Ґxe6!? fxe6 15.¤xe6 Јc4 16.¤xg7+ ўf7 17.¤f5 d5 (after 17...¤e5 18.Јxd6 Ґxd6 19.¤xd6+ ўe6 20.¤xc4 ¤xc4 21.Ґd4!± White should be better; after 17...Јe6 18.0-0 a tense position arises, but I rate the White`s chances higher) 18.¦c1 with a good game. The sacrifice also looks good after 14.¦c1 ¦c8, which can favor White in some lines: 15.Ґxe6 fxe6 16.¤xe6, etc.

14...0-0 15.¦ac1 Јb8 16.¦c2. A logical plan. One can also try an immediate 16.a3.

16...¦c8 17.¦fc1 Ґd8 17...¤e5 is refuted tactically: 18.¤xe6 fxe6 19.Ґxe6+ ўf8 20.Ґxc8 Ґxc8 21.¤d5ќ … ¤b6.

18.ўh1 Ґa5. Once again 18...¤e5 is not good: 19.¤xe6 fxe6 20.Ґxe6+ ўh8 21.Ґxc8 Ґxc8 22.¤b5±, but Black has no intention of playing ¤e5. Gelfand finds a direct way to simplifications.

19.Јe2 ¦c7 (19...Ґxc3 is possible here, too) 20.a3

20...Ґxc3! 21.¦xc3 ¦xc3 22.¦xc3 d5=. Black has solved all the problems.

23.exd5 ¤xd5 24.Ґxd5 1/2-1/2

A theoretically important game Naiditsch-Gelfand is commented in my main Dortmund article.

 

С00-С99

There is only one more or less interesting game – Svidler-Kramnik. Of course, another annihilation of life in the Petroff is not very exciting, but it is notable how confidently Black drove his ship to the peaceful harbor.

P.Svidler (2742) – V.Kramnik (2743) (C42)

1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.¤xe5 d6 4.¤f3 ¤xe4 5.d4 d5 6.Ґd3 ¤c6 7.0-0 Ґe7 8.c4 ¤b4 9.Ґe2 0-0 10.¤c3 Ґf5 11.a3 ¤xc3 12.bxc3 ¤c6 13.¦e1 ¦e8 14.cxd5 Јxd5 15.Ґf4 ¦ac8 16.Ґd3 Јd7 17.¦b1 Ґxd3 18.Јxd3 b6 19.d5 Ґf6 20.c4

This is all book. After 20...h6 21.h3 ¤e7 22.¤e5 Ґxe5 23.¦xe5 ¤g6 24.¦xe8+ ¦xe8 25.Ґg3 Јe7 26.ўh1 White has a minimal pressure. An attempt of 23.Ґxe5 was unsuccessful: 23...¤f5 24.Ґb2 f6 25.Ґc3 ¤d6 (Leko-Bacrot, Linares 2006), and Black easily held the position.

20...¤e7 – it is not a novelty, but a clear indication that Kramnik considers including h3 and h6 favoring White. Now weakness of the back rank is disturbing for White.

21.¤e5. Previously played 21.Ґe5 Ґxe5 (less convincing is 21...Јf5 22.Јxf5 ¤xf5 23.Ґxc7 Ґe7 24.Ґg3 f6 Sebag-Roussel Roozmon, 2004) 22.¤xe5 Јd6 23.Јf3 f6 24.¤g4 ¤g6 25.a4 Јf4 lead to a peaceful conclusion in Jurkovic-Jovanovic, Rieka 2005.

21...Ґxe5 22.Ґxe5 f6 23.Ґf4 ¤f5 24.c5 bxc5 25.Јc4 g5!?

The White`s king has no luft, unlike his counterpart. It is difficult to avoid the forced line that followed in the game.

26.Ґd2 ¤d6 27.Јxc5 ¤e4 28.Јa5 c6 29.Ґe3 cxd5 30.Јxa7 Јxa7 31.Ґxa7 ¤c3 32.¦xe8+ ¦xe8 33.¦b8 ¦xb8 34.Ґxb8 d4 35.ўf1 ўf7 36.Ґa7 (36.ўe1 ўe6) 36...d3 37.ўe1 d2+ 38.ўxd2 ¤b1+ 39.ўd3 1/2-1/2

 

D00-D99

The games played under this index were intriguing. Recently we witnessed Svidler`s accident in the Grünfeld, after which he had to change ‘cars`, shifting to other openings. Now it seems Peter made all necessary body works, although he still had to suffer some unpleasant minutes in the pet opening.

L.Aronian (2761) – P.Svidler (2742) (D80)

1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.Ґg5 ¤e4 5.Ґh4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3

7...Ґe6. Svidler continued 7...Јd5 against Jobava in the Round 1, but after 8.Ґe2! (an important move, preventing b7-b5) 8...Ґg7 (8...Јa5 9.Јc1 Ґe6 10.¤f3 ¤d7 11.0-0 ¤b6 12.e4 f6 led to a sharp game in Gostisa-Kozul, Portoroz 1994) 9.¤f3 ¤d7 10.0-0 ¤b6 11.a4 a5 12.¤d2 White has the initiative.

Now Peter selects a standard move, but after 8.Јb1 goes off the track again: 8...Јd5 9.¤f3 ¤d7. Curiously, Kozul`s setup was effectively used in Atalik-Predojevic, Sarajevo 2004: 9...Јa5 10.Јb2 ¤d7 11.Ґe2 ¤b6 12.0-0 ¤a4 13.Јxb7 Ґd5 14.Јb1 ¤xc3 15.Јe1 Ґg7 16.e4 ¤xe2+ 17.Јxe2 Ґe6 with better chances for Black, who used the Јb1-b2 maneuver to his favor. Svidler, however, looks unimpressed by this scenario, and he probably has a good reason. Nevertheless, he fails to solve the opening problems completely.

10.Ґe2 Ґf5 11.Јb2 Ґg7 12.0-0 e5 13.Јb4 (on 13.¤d2 the most solid reaction is 13...Ґd3) 13...c5 14.Јxc4 Јxc4 15.Ґxc4

Black had a fine way of obtaining an adequate counterplay, showed by Shipov:15...exd4 16.exd4 0-0 17.Ґd5 ¦ab8 18.Ґg3 ¤b6 19.Ґxb8 ¦xb8 20.Ґb3 (20.c4 cxd4) 20...c4 21.Ґd1 ¤d5. After 15...¦c8 16.Ґd5 White has a certain advantage. Both games are annotated in my Dortmund article.

Svidler successfully defended in his favorite variation with b7-b6:

B.Gelfand (2729) – P.Svidler (2742) (D85)

1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 Ґg7 7.¤f3 c5 8.¦b1 0-0 9.Ґe2 b6. A less popular move than 9...cxd4, but it seems solid enough at present.

10.0-0 Ґb7 11.Јd3

11...e6. Another game of the same players continued 11...Ґa6 12.Јe3 Јd7 13.d5!? Ґxe2 14.Јxe2 Ґxc3 (Gelfand-Svidler, Monte Carlo 2005), and Peter proved that the White`s attack is not deadly. Peter also played 11...Јc7 12.d5 (12.Ґg5 may lead to the examined game: 12...¤d7 13.Јe3 e6) 12...¤d7 13.Јc2 ¦ad8 14.Ґg5 Ґf6 15.Ґh6 Ґg7 16.Ґxg7 ўxg7 17.a4 e6! 18.dxe6 ¤f6 19.¤g5 h6, and tactical complications lead to simplifications and draw, Bacrot-Svidler, Sofia 2006. It is difficult for me to explain the choice in the text.

12.Ґg5. Peter suffered after 12.h4 ¤d7 13.Ґg5 Јc7 14.h5, Agrest-Svidler, France 2005. Is there an improvement? No doubt!

12...Јc7 13.Јe3 ¤d7 14.e5 ¦ae8. Of course, Black prepares the f7-f6 break, opening his dark-squared bishop and brining the knight closer to a blockade square d5. The weakness on e6 will be compensated by active pieces. After 15.Ґb5 Ґc6 16.Ґxc6 Јxc6 17.h4 f6 18.exf6 ¤xf6 19.¤e5 Јc7 20.¦be1 ¤d5 21.Јg3 ¦f5, Black has no grounds for anxiety, Halkias-Eljanov, Ohrid 2001.

The move 15.¤d2 is given in Krasenkow`s comments to Moiseenko-Eljanov, Kharkov 2001.

Naturally, Black does not allow the knight to d6: 15...f6! Anaccuratemoveorder! After 15...cxd4 16.cxd4 f6 17.¦bc1 Јd8 the Black`s queen is forced to stay on d8, and the f6-knight is pinned.

16.exf6 cxd4! 17.cxd4 ¤xf6 18.¦bc1 Јd7 19.¤c4 ¤d5 20.Јd2 h6! Another important move!

21.Ґe3?! White should have played 21.Ґxh6 Ґxh6 22.Јxh6 ¤f4 23.Ґg4 (23.¦fe1 is also interesting) 23...Јxd4 (bad is 23...Ґxg2? 24.¤e5±) 24.¤e3, although poor location of the White`s queen and Black`s active pieces provide adequate compensation for Black`s damaged pawn structure.

Black got an upper hand after 21...¤xe3 22.fxe3 e5і.

 

The most interesting games of E00-E99 are Leko-Naiditsch, Kramnik-Naiditsch, Aronian-Naiditsch and Gelfand-Aronian. They are examined in my Dortmund article.