Facing the KID (2)

This is the second encounter of GM Andrey Sumets against the KID in which he chose a rare line to fight the defense.

Sumets,A (2618) - Naroditsky,D (2486)
Montreal 2012 (9)
[Sumets A]

[That game was played in the last round of Montreal open. After 8 rounds I had 5,5 points.L. Bruzon and W. So had 6,5 points and there were several players who had 5 points. So I understood well that if I had made draw I would have had an excelent chance at least to share 3–rd place. I didn't want to play strictly for draw but I wanted to play solid.]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0–0 5.0–0 d6 6.Nc3 [Last round was played in the morning so I hadn't have much time to prepare well against my opponent. I saw my young opponent usualy plays Kings Indian Defense so I assumed that he should be a tactical player and it might be difficult for him to play such type of positions. So I was a little surprised when I was informed he wrote a book "Mastering Positional Chess".]

[6.a4!? It looks unusual so might be interesting]


[6...d5 I consider this move as the strongest one. I played this position several times and I can't say that I've got an opening advantage. 7.Re1 Bf5 I consider this move more logical than 7...c6 because white have to play Nh4 to push e4 then knight should go back. However, according to chessbase and my own experience black seems to be OK after 7..c6 as well. (7...c6 8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Rxe4 Bf5 11.Re1 Nd7 12.Bg5 perhaps not the best move (12.c3!? Nb6? (12...Re8 13.Bf4) 13.Qb3 Qd7 14.Ne5 Qc8 15.a4± Romanishin O - Stefansson H 1992 1–0 (42)) 12...Re8 13.c3 Qb6 14.Qb3 Be6?! Perhaps Bartosz wanted to play for winning but his decision was at least dubious. After 14...e5 it's hard to imagine white's or black's victory (14...e5! 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Bxe5=) 15.Qa3 Qd8?! (15...Bf6 16.Bf4 and White was slightly better (16.Rxe6!? fxe6 17.Bh3 Nf8 18.Bf4 is also interesting with ample compensation.) ) 16.b3? (16.Rxe6! fxe6 17.Qb3 Nf8 18.Qxb7 Rb8 19.Qxa7 Rxb2 20.Nd2 (20.a4 Qb8 21.Qxb8 Rexb8 22.Bf1©) 20...Qa8 21.Qxa8 Rxa8 22.a4) 16...a5 17.c4 a4 18.Qb4 c5 19.Qxb7 cxd4 20.Rad1 Rb8 21.Qa7 Ra8 1/2 Sumets A - Socko 2004 0.00/0) 8.Nh4 Be6 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 c6 (11...Bd5!? 12.Bxd5 Qxd5 13.Rxe7 Bxd4 14.Be3 Nc6 15.Rxc7 Rad8 16.Nf3 Qa5 17.Rxc6 Bxe3 18.Rd6 Bb6) 12.c3 Nd7 13.Bg5 Nf6 14.Bg2 Bd5 15.Nf3 Re8 16.Qc2 Qb6 17.Re2 c5 (17...h6! 18.Be3 Rad8) 18.Rd1 cxd4?! 19.Rxd4 Rad8 20.c4 Bc6 21.Rxd8 Qxd8 22.b4 b6?! (22...Qc7) 23.b5 Bb7 24.Ne5± Sumets A - Fernandez Siles, L 2011, 1–0 (34)]

7.e4 [7.a4!? a5 8.e4 (8.b3!?) ]

7...e5 [7...c5 A rare move. White could play an expedient line of Dragon variation of Sicilian defense or try to give the game an unusual direction 8.e5 Ne8 9.exd6 Nxd6 10.Re1 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Re8 12.Ndb5 Ne5 13.h3 Nxb5 14.Nxb5 Bd7= Landa K - Varavin V 1996 1–0 (55)]

8.h3 Re8 9.Re1 c6 10.a4 a5 [10...Qc7 11.Be3 b6 12.Nh2!? (12.Qd2 Bb7 13.Rad1 Rad8 14.Bh6 a6) 12...Bb7 13.f4 a6 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.f5 b5 16.g4 Rad8 17.Qc1 Nb6 18.b3 b4 19.Ne2 c5 20.Ng3 Rd4 21.a5 Nc8 22.Bxd4 exd4 23.e5 Nd5 24.f6 Bf8 25.Bxd5 Bxd5 26.Qf4 Na7 Landa K - Sokolov A 1991 1/2 the game is a good reason for Sofia's rule supporters to talk about the necessity of this rule. It's hard hard to believe that the continuation of the game would have been dull for chess fans]

11.Be3 exd4 12.Bxd4 Rb8!?

During the game I considered this move as the dubious one. Somebody told me that my opponent will take a GM norm if he beats me. So I guessed that Daniel wants to complicate position in the risky way. However when I checked the game with chessbase I found 2 games of B. Gelfand.]

[12...Qc7 13.Nh2!?; 12...Nf8]

13.Qd2N [As I said before the draw was an acceptable result for me but I found it too cynical to repeat position by this way.]

[13.Ba7 Ra8 14.Bd4 Rb8 15.Ba7 1/2 Malaniuk V - Gelfand 1997 0.00/0; 13.Re2 Qc7 14.Qe1 Ne5 15.Nd2 b5 16.axb5 cxb5 17.f4 Nc6 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Nd5 Qa7+ 20.Kh2 Bg7= black is O K Lobron E - Gelfand B 1993 1/2 (30). You can see this game commented in the inf 58; 13.e5 dxe5 14.Nxe5]

13...b5?! [if somebody played 13...Ne5!? I would think that he is a very interesting positional player who appreciates so much black squared bishop but... a computer recommends it! It seems that black has a good contreplay everywhere. For exemple 14.Bxe5 dxe5 15.Qxd8 Rxd8 16.Nxe5 Be6! (16...Nd7 17.Nc4 Ne5 18.Nxa5 Rd2 (18...Ra8 19.Nb3 Nc4 20.Bf1 Nxb2 21.e5±) ) 17.Rad1 Rxd1 18.Nxd1 (18.Rxd1? Nxe4! 19.Nxe4 Bxe5) 18...Nd7 19.Nxd7 Bxd7 20.f4 Bd4+ 21.Kh1 Be6 with compensation; 13...Qc7 14.Rad1 Ne5 15.Qe3 b6 (15...Nc4 16.Qg5 h6 17.Qc1) 16.Nd2 Rd8 (16...c5? 17.Bxe5 dxe5 (17...Rxe5 18.Nc4 Re6 19.Nb5) 18.Nb5 Qe7 19.Nc4) 17.b3]

14.axb5 cxb5 15.Nd5

During the game I was happy with my position]

[15.Bxf6 I can't recommend it 15...Nxf6 16.e5 dxe5 17.Qxd8 Rxd8 18.Nxe5 b4 19.Nd1 Re8 20.Rxa5 Nd7 where Black has good compensation.]

15...a4! [15...Nxe4? 16.Rxe4! (16.Qxa5!?) 16...Rxe4 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Nd4 Rxd4 (18...Re5 19.Nc6 Qg5 20.Qd4 Rb7 white has many ways to win. I would prefer 21.Nxa5 Rb8 22.Nc6 Rb7 23.h4 Qf5 24.f4; 18...Re8?? 19.Nc6; 18...Re5 19.Nc6 Qe8 20.Nxb8 Nxb8 21.f4 Re2 22.Qc3+ Kh6 23.g4+–) 19.Qxd4+ Nf6 20.Nxf6 Qxf6 21.Qa7 Qxb2 22.Re1 Qc3 23.Re8+–; 15...b4 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Bxf6 Nxf6 18.e5 dxe5 19.Qxd8 Rxd8 20.Nxe5±; 15...Bb7 16.Qxa5 Qxa5 17.Rxa5 Nxd5 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.exd5 Rxe1+ (19...Bxd5 20.Rxe8 Rxe8 21.Rxb5±) 20.Nxe1±]

16.Qb4 [16.Rad1 Bb7! (16...Nxe4 17.Rxe4! (17.Qf4 f5) 17...Rxe4 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Nd4 Rxd4 (19...Re5 20.Nc6 Qf8 21.Nxb8 Nxb8 22.f4 Re6 23.Nc7 Re7 24.Nxb5+–) 20.Qxd4+ f6 (20...Nf6 21.Nxf6 Qxf6 22.Qa7+–; 20...Kh6 21.Qf4+ Kg7 22.Qxd6+–) 21.Nf4 Qb6 22.Qb4!±) 17.Nxf6+ Nxf6 18.e5 Bxf3! 19.Bxf3 dxe5 20.Bxe5 Qxd2 21.Rxd2 Nd7 22.Rxd7 Rxe5=]

16...Bb7 17.Nxf6+ [17.Nc3!? maybe it is stronger than 17.Nf6. I didn't see this retreat because several moves ago I was so happy with my knight on d5. 17...Nc5!?

a) 17...Bf8?! 18.Qxb5 Bxe4 19.Qxa4;

b) 17...Ba8 18.Nxb5 Nc5 19.e5 Bxf3 20.Bxf3 Nfd7 21.Bg2 Nxe5 22.Red1!

(22.Rad1? Qd7 23.c4 Ncd3+–) 22...Qd7 23.c4 Ned3 (23...Nxc4 24.Qxc4 Rxb5 (24...Qxb5 25.Qxb5 Rxb5 26.Bc6) 25.Bf1 Bxd4 (25...Rbb8?? 26.Bxc5) 26.Qxb5±) 24.Qc3 Bxd4 25.Nxd4 Nxb2 (25...Ne5 26.f4 Ned3 27.Rxd3 Nxd3 28.Qxd3 Rxb2 29.Qa3 Reb8 (29...Rd2? 30.Qc3+–) 30.Qxa4 Qxa4 31.Rxa4 Rd2 32.Nb5 Re8 33.Bf1 Re3 34.Ra3±) 26.Rd2 a3 27.Bc6 Qxh3 28.Bxe8 Rxe8 29.Re2; 18.Nh2

a) 18.e5?! Nfd7! 19.exd6 Na6 20.Rxe8+ Qxe8 21.Qa5 (21.Qxb5?! Bxf3 22.Qxa4 Bxg2 23.Kxg2 Rb4 24.Qxa6 Bxd4 25.Qa8 Rb8 with large advantage for Black.) 21...Bxf3 22.Bxg7 Bxg2 23.Kxg2 Kxg7 24.Qxa6 Rb6 25.Qa5 b4 26.Nxa4 Qe4+ 27.Kg1 Rxd6‚;

b) 18.Ng5?! h6 19.e5 Nfd7 20.e6 fxe6 21.Bxb7 Rxb7 22.Nge4 Bf8; 18...Re6 19.Rad1 Qc8 20.Nf1 Ba8 21.f3 Bf8 22.Qa5]

17...Bxf6 18.Qxb5 Rxe4?? [a huge blunder]

[18...Bxd4! 19.Nxd4 Nc5 20.Qc4 Rc8 21.Rad1 Qf6 22.Qb4 Bxe4 with complicate position where white's chances seems to be a little better.; 18...Bxe4?! 19.Qxa4 d5 20.Bxf6 Nxf6 21.b4; 18...Nc5 19.Bxc5 (19.Qc4 Bxd4 20.Nxd4 the transposition to 18...Bd4 (20.Qxd4 Rxe4=) ) 19...dxc5 20.Qxa4 Bxb2 21.Rab1І I don't believe that black's enough compensation for a pawn]


19...Rxe1+ 20.Rxe1 Bxf3 21.Bxb8 Bxg2 22.Kxg2 Bxb2 23.Qxb2 Nxb8 24.Qb5 Nd7 25.Qxa4 h5 26.Qd4 Nc5 27.Rd1 Qe7 28.c3 Qb7+ 29.Qd5 Qb2 30.c4 Qe2 31.Rd2 Qe1 32.Ra2 Ne6 33.h4 g5 34.hxg5 h4 35.Qf5


No comments: