kylemeister wrote on 12/13/09 at 21:40:31:


You are right, these "$" and so on is horrible to read, but just copy and pase the whole stuff and it should be perfectly readable in chessbase programms.
I´m really very interessted in this line with white, because my next opponent plays this line with black.
Actually...what is the conclusion/main line of the whole stuff so far, it´s quite difficult no to lose the  overview?!

Another last word of the theory:
[Event "Sofia MTel Masters 4th"]
[Site "Sofia"]
[Date "2008.05.11"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
[Black "Cheparinov, Ivan"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E99"]
[WhiteElo "2740"]
[BlackElo "2696"]
[Annotator "Krasenkow"]
[PlyCount "79"]
[EventDate "2008.05.08"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "10"]
[EventCountry "BUL"]
[EventCategory "20"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2008.05.28"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5
Ne7 9. Ne1 Nd7 10. Nd3 f5 11. Bd2 Nf6 12. f3 f4 13. c5 g5 14. Rc1 Ng6 15. cxd6
cxd6 16. Nb5 Rf7 17. Qc2 Ne8 18. Nf2 h5 19. a4 Bf8 20. h3 Rg7 21. Qb3 Nh4 22.
Rc2 g4 {This position is well-known in opening theory.} (22... Nf6 {and}) (
22... a6 {are the most common moves.}) {The text move (an attempt of an
immediate attack) is probably premature.} 23. fxg4 Nf6 24. Be1 $1 hxg4 (24...
Kh8 25. g3 $1 (25. Qc4 hxg4 26. Nxg4 Nxg4 27. Bxg4 Bxg4 28. hxg4 Rxg4 29. Qd3
Qg5 $44 {1/2-1/2 Ftacnik,L-Pribyl,J/Bratislava 1983/MCD (57)}) 25... hxg4 26.
Nxg4 Nxg4 27. hxg4 Bxg4 28. Bxg4 Rxg4 29. Nc7 Rb8 30. Ne6 Qb6+ 31. Qxb6 axb6
32. Kh2 $16) 25. hxg4 (25. Nxg4 Nxg4 (25... Nxe4 26. Qc4 Nc5 27. Bf2) 26. Bxg4
Bxg4 27. hxg4 Rxg4 28. Qh3 Qg5 29. Nc7 (29. Bxh4 $6 Rxh4 30. Qe6+ Kh8 31. Rf3
Be7 32. Rfc3 Rg8 $132 {0-1 Sanchis,A-Roger,M/France 2003/EXT 2004 (42)}) 29...
Rb8 (29... Rc8 30. Ne6 Rxc2 31. Nxg5 Rgxg2+ 32. Kh1 $18) 30. Ne6 Qh5 31. Kh1
$16) 25... Nh5 {Black tries to avoid the above variation, which would arise
after} (25... Nxg4 26. Nxg4 Bxg4 27. Bxg4 Rxg4) 26. Nh1 $6 (26. Nd1 $142 $1
Bxg4 27. Bxg4 Rxg4 28. Qh3 Qg5 29. Nc7 Rc8 $1 (29... f3 30. Bxh4 Rxh4 31. Qe6+
Kh8 32. Rxf3) 30. Kh1 $1 Rxc7 (30... Ng3+ 31. Bxg3 Rxg3 32. Qxc8 Qh5 33. Qe6+
Kh8 34. Qe8 Qh6 35. Kg1 $18) 31. Rxc7 Ng3+ 32. Bxg3 Rxg3 33. Rg1 $3 Qh5 34. Qh2
Rg6 35. Rxb7 Rh6 36. Rb3 $16) 26... f3 $6 (26... Bxg4 $142 27. Bxg4 Rxg4 28.
Qh3 Qg5 29. Nc7 Rc8 $1 30. Bxh4 Qxh4 31. Qxh4 Rxh4 32. Rfc1 Ng7 33. Nf2 Rh6 {
and the endgame far from clear.}) 27. Bxf3 (27. gxf3 $1 Nf4 28. Ng3 Qb6+ 29.
Bf2 Nh3+ 30. Kh2 Nxf2 31. a5 Qxa5 32. Rxf2 Qb6 33. Bc4 Bd7 34. Na3 Rh7 35. Nh5
Be7 36. Qxb6 axb6 37. Bb5 $1 $16 Rxa3 $140 38. bxa3 Bxb5 39. Rc8+ Kf7 40. f4
$18) 27... Nf4 {Looks formidable but White successfully defends.} 28. Ng3 (28.
Bxh4 {was safer but after} Qxh4 29. g3 (29. Rc7 Rg6) 29... Nh3+ 30. Kg2 Nf4+ $1
(30... Qh7 31. Nf2) 31. Kf2 Nh3+ 32. Ke1 Qd8 33. Nf2 Ng5 34. Be2 Rf7 {Black
has a kind of fortress.}) 28... Bxg4 (28... Nxf3+ 29. gxf3 Qb6+ 30. Bf2 Nh3+
31. Kg2 Nf4+ (31... Nxf2 32. a5 $1 Qxa5 33. Rfxf2) 32. Kh1 Rh7+ (32... Qd8 33.
Bg1) 33. Nh5 Qd8 34. Bg3 Nxh5 35. gxh5 Rxh5+ 36. Bh2 $16) 29. Bxg4 Rxg4 30. Nc7
(30. Rff2 Qg5 31. Rfd2 Qf6 32. Rc3 Qg6 $44) 30... Rc8 $1 31. Ne6 Rxc2 $1 32.
Qxc2 (32. Nxd8 $4 Rxg2+ 33. Kh1 Nf3 $1 $19) 32... Qb6+ $2 {This move misses
the target.} (32... Qe8 $1 $44 {lead to an unclear position.}) 33. Kh1 Nhxg2 (
33... Nf3 $5 {was, alas, unsatisfactory:} 34. Nxf4 Nxe1 35. Qc8 $1 Rxf4 36.
Rxf4 exf4 37. Nf5 Qf2 38. Ne7+ $1 {and White mates}) (33... Nhg6 $142 {but
after} 34. Bf2 (34. Nf5 $5 Rxg2 35. Bf2 Qb4 36. Ne3 $16) 34... Qb4 35. Kg1 {
White starts converting his material advantage.}) 34. Nf5 $1 Qa6 (34... Nxe6
35. dxe6 Nxe1 36. Qe2 $1 Rg5 37. e7 $18) 35. Rg1 Qd3 36. Qxd3 Nxd3 37. Bh4 Rxe4
38. Rxg2+ Kf7 39. Nxd6+ Bxd6 40. Ng5+ {Quite a typical KI game: Black's attack
looked very strong but White defended in a tense tactical fight.} 1-0

Especially annotation on move 26. Nd1 is very impressive. It seems otb the line is playable for black, in cor. games probably not.

Alright, I've been toying with this some more.

Instead of 20. Be1, I prefer 20. a4 intending Na3-c4 with better piece coordination after black plays ...a6 at some point. Be1 can always be played later as necessary, or perhaps not at all.

Yeah. I don't think I'd play this line against a KID expert or in CC chess, but a quick look at all of the analysis in this thread shows how difficult in can be for Black if White know what he's doing, and will give you a pretty solid overview of theory and beyond if you wanted a new surprise variation. 

Fissore-Petrillo continued with 20...Qg6 21. Be1, Berkes-Pavlovic with 20...Kh8 21. Ne6.

In your last line P&I think the position after 28...Rd8 is unclear.

TN wrote on 09/26/09 at 08:07:38:


In that last line 20. fg (as in Fissore-Petrillo, corr. 1984 and Berkes-Pavlovic, played in the Serbian team championship three weeks ago) is reputed to be clearly better for White.  Panczyk and Ilczuk think 18...Qd7 is better than 18...Qe8, and that Black should deviate from Biriukov-Soloviov with 20...Bxe6.  They give a couple of lines (one of them attributed to Soloviov) which are said to be unclear.

Templare2 wrote on 09/26/09 at 06:10:28:


I am not sure whether you mean 14...a6 or 15...a6, so I will address both options.

a) 14...a6 does not seem at all convincing to me after 15.a4! (with the idea of playing a4-a5 before cd6 to control the key b6-square) 15...Rf7 (15...h5 16.a5 g4 17.cd6 cd6 18.Na4 and in Clavijo-Nunez, 2000, Black's attack never got off the ground) 16.a5 Bf8 17.cd6 cd6 18.Na4 g4 19.Nb6 Rb8 and in Schorr-Quelle, 1981, White should have played the simple 20.Nc8 Rc8 21.Qb3 with a clear advantage. Black's attack is not achieving anything.

b) 15...a6 is an important option, though, since it essentially forces White to sacrifice a piece. However, White achieves tremendous compensation: 16.cd6 (16.Na3 g4 17.Be1 g3! was already promising for Black in Pachman-Padevsky, 1957) 16...ab5 17.dc7 Qe8!? (17...Qd7 is more common but inferior after 18.Qb3 Ne8 19.Nc5 Qd6 20.Ne6! Qb6 21.Kh1 Be6 22.de6 and White had a tremendous advantage in Biriukov-Solovjov, soon agreeing a draw in a winning position) 18.Qb3 g4 (played in Novik-Ezat, blitz 2003) 19.Nc5 Nh4 and now instead of 20.Kh1, 20.d6 Kh8 21.fg4 Qg6 22.Qh3 would have been clearly better and probably winning for White. 

In conclusion, White achieves clearly better chances in both the 14...a6 and 15...a6 variations.

I've read some (to me at least) amusing stuff about this variation in the last few days, e.g. at Chessdom, concerning the very recent game Giri-Nijboer.  There the amazing claim is made that the whole piece-sac line by White is the "latest of the latest," and that until very recently White always played cd before Nb5.  Well, for one thing, the piece-sac was already given as a main line in the first (1978) edition of ECO.  17...Qd7 (as played by Nijboer) is labelled a novelty at Chessdom, but was given in the 31-year-old book, as was the idea (mentioned earlier in this thread, but ignored at Chessdom) of meeting 18. Bb4 (as played by Giri) by 18...Ne8.  Then there is the comment "Who knows Black can go for the early deviation 11...fe!?".  But 11...fe has been a book move for decades.  I have the impression that it used to be considered an equalizer, then maybe the pendulum swung toward +=; the recent Panczyk/Ilczuk book gives a number of lines and thinks it should be equal or unclear.