I couldn't find the relevant Korneev games, but Anand--Radjabov might be a blow to Black? There's also 7 ...Be7 8 Nc4 Nf6!?, of course, delaying or omitting ...b5, but there doesn't seem to be much experience with this. Any further comments anyone? I hope Tony is reading this thread.

It's probably I who am uninformed here! -- I just did a quick database check and didn't look at playing strengths particularly. But in the 7 ...Be7 lines, at what point are you suggesting White play g3? -- if it comes before Black has castled he may have ...h5!? -- ? Maybe you could cite a game or two illustrating White's best plan? -- I'm wondering what factors there are in the position to render the white-square control more dangerous than in similar positions in the Sveshnikov.

Radjabov is very certainly still playing the Kalashnikov move order. He made a quick draw with Carlsen at Corus using 8 ...Nge7 9 c4 Nd4 10 cb Nd5 11 cd Be7!?, a move P&A say is bad because of 12 Bc4. Presumably he's got something worked out ... (P&A give as their main line here 11 ...Bd7 12 Be3 Be7 13 Bd3 ab 14 0-0 Rb8 15 Bd4 ed 16 Nc2 0-0 17 Nd4 Qb6 18 Rc1 Rfc8!, unclear.)

Against 8 ...Nf6 9 c4, P&A give 9 ...Nd4 10 Bg5 (or 10 cb Nd5 transposing to 8 ...Nge7) Qa5 11 Bd2 Qd8 12 Bd3!? (12 cb Nd5 13 ed Qb6!; 12 Nf6 unclear) Nd5 13 cd g6!?, which is sort-of a tempo down on 8 ...Nge7 9 c4 Nd4 10 Be3 Nd5 11 cd g6 12 Bd3(?!) (12 Bd4!) Bg7. Whatever the truth about this line, I doubt if it'll put Radjabov off playing the Kalashnikov: against 6 N1c3 a6 7 Na3 he's also played 7 ...Be7, a very popular line which has scored very well so far this century, and has even tried to 'rescue' 7 ...Be6, with 8 Nc4 Rb8!?. In general both theory and praxis in the 6 N1c3 variation seem to be moving very fast and it looks a fertile field for new discoveries.

lnn2 wrote on 02/03/07 at 12:09:29:


It starts out as rook sac even and then Nataf just sacs almost everything. I have missed the refutation, but I think the initial pawn sac might still be playable for black. An improvement might be on blacks 13th move. Instead of Natafs Ng4, I started looking at Qa5, with the idea of winning the bishop pair and plant a bishop on h3 if whites plays the natural 14. 0-0. For example 14...Nh5 15. Nd5 Nxg3 16. fxg3 Bh3. Havn't had time to analyze it very much, just wanted to spring the idea for discussion. Of course white can opt for something like 14. Nc2 14. Qd2 but not 14. Bc2? because of blacks nice reply 14...d5! Which should grant black a clear advantage.

Re Lutz-Kaeser, my feeling is that playing in "Najdorf style" (ie. ...Nf6 before ...f5) in these 6. c4 lines should be slightly better for White, though i haven't really looked at these positions closely.
Hence you can see above my preference for an earlier f5...

Stimulated by Radjabov’s adoption of it, I’ve been taking a look at the Kalashnikov lately, and in particular trying to get my head round the complex move-order issues in the 6 c4 Be7 line, which no book on the opening really addresses. This led me to wonder if there have been any interesting theoretical developments lately -- anyone know about this, or have a view on which White tries are the most dangerous?

Related to this, I’ve a specific question, which concerns the position reached in the game Lutz--Kaeser (see ChessPub) after White’s twelfth move. This, which might represent one of White’s best anti-Kalashnikov lines, can be reached in various ways. Here are some examples, with Black alternatives in brackets:

(1) 7 Bd3 Be6 8 0-0 Rc8 9 b3 Nf6 10 N1c3 a6 11 Na3 0-0 12 Nc2 (Lutz--Kaeser)
(2) 7 Bd3 Nf6 8 0-0 0-0 9 N1c3 a6 10 Na3 Be6 [10 …Bg4] 11 Nc2 Rc8 12 b3
(3) 7 b3 Nf6 8 Bd3 0-0 [8 …Bg4] 9 0-0 Be6 [9 …Bg4] 10 N1c3 a6 11 Na3 Rc8 12 Nc2
(4) 7 N1c3 a6 8 Na3 Be6 9 Bd3 Nf6 [9 ...Bg5] 10 0-0 Rc8 [10 …0-0 11 b3/Nc2 Nd7!?] 11 b3 0-0 12 Nc2
(5) 7 N1c3 a6 8 Na3 Be6 9 Bd3 Nf6 [9 ...Bg5] 10 0-0 Rc8 [10 …0-0] 11 Nc2!? 0-0 [11 …Na5!?] 12 b3
(6) 7 N1c3 a6 8 Na3 Be6 9 Nc2 Rc8 [9 …Bg5] 10 b3 Nf6 11 Bd3 0-0 12 0-0

My question is, should Black be OK in this position, or should he (in every case or in some) choose the alternatives? And if the former, what’s the best continuation? Here are the moves that have been seen, along with my thinking on them (I’ll refer to McDonald 1995 as ‘M’ and Pinski & Aagaard 2001 as ‘P’, followed by the page):

(A) 12 …Nd7 (?!). This looks wrong since after 13 Bb2 Black presumably has nothing better than 13 …Nc5 transposing to Ivanchuk--Kramnik which P (17) says is good for White. (P is citing line (6) above, but with 12 Bb2 instead of 12 0-0, which it commends in a note -- after 12 Bb2 it gives 12 …Qa5, instead of 12 …Nc5?!, as equal.) 

(B) 12 …Ne8. This might be sounder since now 13 Bb2 Bg5 14 Nd5 Ne7! would transpose to Tiviakov--Sveshnikov, which M (74) thinks is fine for Black. Can White usefully avoid the transposition, e.g. with 13/14 Ne3 (or 14 Re1 idea 15 Ne3), or not?

(C) 12 …b5!?. This was Kaeser’s choice. Play continued 13 cb Na7 (had White’s KB been on e2, 13 …ab would have been strong; is the …b5 idea just as good after Bd3, or is it suspect?) 14 Bb2 Nb5 15 Nb5 ab 16 Qe2. Fed, on ChessPub, in line with his general hostility towards the opening implies Black was suffering throughout this game, but is this a fair summation? He looked to be holding until a blunder on move 37 and had choices prior to that.

Lines (2) and (4) above suggest a couple of additional questions. Though it mentions 11 …Rc8, P (98) gives as its main line 11 …Nd7 12 b3 Nc5 13 Be2 f5 14 ef Bf5 16 Nd5 (Milos--Hernandez), which it calls unclear. (It’s to this that 10 ...0-0 in line (4) above leads.) What do you think? In the game Hernandez found inspired counterplay, but engines don’t like this line and neither did Fed. A lot of Fed’s anti-Kalashnikov comments seem rather superficial, but Black has actually made a poor score here (including after 13 Bb2, letting the KB go, though 13 …f5 should be OK?). That said, McDonald and others have tried 12 …Bg5!? here with success -- is this unmentioned by P because it’s seen as less reliable/accurate, or just because 12 …Nc5 is good/best?

I’m sure that, in some of the above lines, the bracketed alternatives offer more dynamic play, but it seems that with line (4), except for the (inferior?) 9 ...Bg5 White can force either Lutz--Kaeser or (excepting 12 ...Bg5) Milos--Hernandez, so Black must be prepared. One thing I’ve learnt is that after 7 Bd3 as well as 7 b3, delaying …Be6 gives Black more flexible choices. It’s curious, though, that after 7 b3, P doesn’t mention 7 …Be6 at all! (M (72) does, giving 8 Bd3 a6 9 N5c3 as unclear, but 8 …Nf6 here as best.)