From the review:
"It is simultaneously an opening manual and a game collection which shows one grandmaster's practice in a particular opening; not well-known "good games" or brilliancies, but real, typical, and often quite ugly struggles in the opening which give the student a sense of what actually happens in average King's Indian Games".
http://chess-news.ru/sites/default/files/u5/Games/Obzory/kramniknakag0.htm ("Informator style")
http://www.chess-news.ru/node/3344 (+ text in Russian)
"Attacking Chess. The King's Indian Volume 1" by David Vigorito, Everyman Chess 2010. (REVIEW by GM Mikhail Golubev).
This fresh book by David Vigorito, who is now responsible for the King's Indian section at the ChessPublishing website, must be a pleasant surprise for the true King's Indian fans. Essentially, it is a very detailed repertoire book for Black which deals with always the most popular system for White, The Classical, and with another very important White's system against the King's Indian, The Saemish. The Bibliography section provides a long list of sources, which occupies more than one page, and he indeed used them as it is clear from the book's content. (Alas, Chess Today is not in his list, which is maybe the most important omission).
Below I will provide some lines, in order to show Vigorito's basic recommendations for Black and will also show a couple of curious long variations. Before that I shall underline that the overall amount of the author's work impresses, and the book must be extremely useful for the Black players who are interested fully or partially in the proposed repertoire by Vigorito. The main drawback of the book is what also its strongest point - it is very detailed! In comparison to a book by Panczyk & Ilczuk "The classical King's Indian uncovered" (Everyman, 2009), which is also very detailed, the presentation of the material in Vigorito's book is more reader-friendly, as I believe.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3
On pages 264-363 the author deals with the Saemisch System 5.f3 against which he suggests the Panno Variation 5...0-0 6.Be3 Nc6. After 7.Qd2 a6 8.Nge2 both 8...Rb8 (historically the main move) and 8...Re8 are examined, but I think it could have been useful to add also 8...Bd7!? which was recently played by Fedorov and Smirin. The Panno is a strategically risky system for Black, it makes sense to show one more option for him. By the way, one possible line 9.g4 Re8!? transposes to Van Beers-Golubev, Leuven 1994 which followed 10.h4 h5 - after that game I had a feeling that 11.g5!? Nh7 and now 12.f4 might be worse for Black, but this position is still to be tested. White always played 11.gxh5 so far.
Another Saemisch remark is about the subline 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Qd2 a6 8.Nge2 Rb8 9.h4 h5 10.Bh6 Bxh6 (the main move, 10...b5 'is the simplest' - Vigorito) 11.Qxh6 e5 12.d5 Nd4 13.0-0-0 c5 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.Nxd4 exd4 16.Rxd4 Rxb2 (as in Khomyakov-Golubev, Ostrava 1992). Vigorito follows analysis from my 2006 book: 17.c5 Rb8 18.Rxd6 Qa5 19.Kc2 Be6 20.Rxe6 Qa3 21.Rd6 Rb2+ 22.Kd3 Qxc5 and now he gives preference to 23.Qf4 ... Last year, in CT-3581, I returned to this old game of mine: 23...Ne8! (planning ...Ng7-e6) and White cannot convert his extra piece easily, some massive research is needed.
5...0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0
The Classical system is examined on Pages 10-263. Vigorito tends to give clear suggestions for Black what to play at all the basic crossroads. The main exception is the Exchange Variation 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bg5 (Pages 238-263) - here he considers many various lines for Black. By the way, not long ago I was interested in the line 9...Na6 (usually considered to be dubious) 10.Nd5 Rd6 11.Nxf6+ Bxf6 12.Bxf6 Rxf6 13.Nxe5 Re6 14.f4 and now 14...Re7!? which is not in Vigorito's book. In other systems, Black is advised to play 7.Be3 Ng4, etc. (Pages 168-201) and 7.d5 a5!, etc. (Pages 202-237).
Vigorito suggests for Black to play this main move, which is discussed on Pages 10-166! There are tons of theoretically important variations; I will limit myself with some remarks about the following line:
8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Be3 f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bf2 g5 13.a4 a5 14.Nd3 b6 15.b4 axb4
This position is examined on Pages 69-75.
After 16.Nb5 Nf6! 17.Be1 g4! 18.Bxb4 g3 (18...Ng6!?) 19.h3 Bxh3 20.gxh3 Qd7 21.Qc2 Vigorito correctly points that the 2003 analysis by Matamoros Franco in New in Chess with 21...Ng6! (Instead of 21...Qxh3 22.Bd1 Ng6 23.Qg2) 22.Rfb1 Qxh3! (etc) was somehow missed by many authors.
Note that another way to the same is 17.Be1 h5 18.Nd3 g4 19.Nb5 Ng6 20.a5 bxa5.
17...h5 18.Nb5 Ng6 19.a5 bxa5 20.Be1 g4
Vigorito mentions also 20...a4.
This is an almost untested, but sensitive position.
This is most likely wrong. Vigorito proposes 21...Bd7 instead, as an improvement. Frankly, I am still curious about the assessment of 21...Rxa5 22.Bxa5 Rf7 23.c5 g3! (briefly analysed by Ponomariov and I in 2000, and later given in my 2006 book) with ideas like 24.Nxd6 Nxd5 or 24.cxd6 Nxe4!?.
22.Nb4 Rb7 23.Nc6 Qe8 24.Ra8 +/- (Kozul-Rogic, Bled open 1997).
Those who wish to know more about the Vigorito book are advised to visit the Everymanchess website (where sample pages from the book are available) and the ChessPublishing forum, where the book is discussed.
Chess Today is copyright 2000-2011 by Alexander Baburin. Posting CT articles on the Web is strictly prohibited without express written permission.
Esen-Golubev, Moscow (Aeroflot Open A2) 2006
Bunzmann-Golubev, Bethune Open 2002
Piket-Golubev, Baden-Baden (Bundesliga) 2002
Golubev-Kochetkov, Nikolaev (Zonal) 1995
Adorjan-Golubev, Alushta (Cat XIV) 1994
Borovikov-Golubev, Nikolaev (Zonal) 1993
Khomyakov-Golubev, Ostrava Open 1992
D.Gurevich-Golubev, Biel Open 1992
Bogdanovski-Golubev, Skopje GM 1991
Podgaets Memorial Odessa UKR (10), 29.11.2010
Mikhail Golubev (www.chesstoday.net)
Never say never - but already in 2009 I decided that 2010 will probably be the last year that I'll play in the classical/long tournaments. Additionally since I'm still in the top 1,000 players it is a good time to go. I'm glad then, that there were a couple of well played King's Indians in the November Odessa event.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Nd3 f5 11.Bd2 Nf6
Calmer is 11...Kh8 and, especially, 11...fxe4. There is also 11...f4 which is usually considered to be dubious but maybe things are not that clear.
12.f3 f4 13.c5 g5 14.cxd6
Topical here is 14.Rc1 Ng6 and now 15.Nb5!?. The old main line is 15.cxd6 cxd6 16.Nb5 Rf7 17.Qc2 Ne8 18.a4 h5 19.Nf2 where dubious for Black is 19...a6?! 20.Na3! as in Ivanchuk-Golubev, Armiansk ch-Ukr jr 1983, this game, which is not yet in databases, opened my 2006 book on the K.I.D.
14...cxd6 15.Nf2 Ng6
The alternative 15...h5 invites White to insert h3 or to switch to positions with an early Ra1-c1, because 16.Qc2? is answered by 16...g4!. After the text White possibly has a larger choice, which is not necessarily good in a practical game.
After 16...h5 17.Nb5!? (usual is 17.h3) it can be dubious for Black to go for 17...g4 18.Nc7 g3 19.Nxa8 Nh7 though it deserves to be checked.
After 17...Ne8 18.a4 h5 the unusual 19.Ncd1!? led to a long manoeuvring fight in Aronian-Nakamura, Bursa 2010. Eventually, White won that complex game.
18.h3 leads to the main position of the Rfc1 set-up. (It occurred, as I remember, in my 1982 Ukrainian junior championship game against M.Gluzman, now an IM and chess coach in Australia ... During the last few years, I've been collecting all my preserved games at my web page. Alas, the majority of games from the junior tournaments have been lost). After the text, Nc7 must be prevented.
Not 19.Nxa7?! Bd7! (much stronger than 19...Rc7? 20.Ba5) 20.Nb5 g4! with Black attacking (as in B.Maksimovic-J.Todorovic, Yugoslavia 1991).
A move, which can be useful in attack and defence (still, in some lines Black may regret that the bishop interferes in the development of the queen to h4 or g5). Premature is 19...a6?! 20.Na3!; 19...Bf8 is, generally, more typical than the text; 19...Nh4?! is also a typical move, but here it allows 20.Nxa7! Rc7 21.Ba5 Rxc2 22.Bxd8 +/-. After 19...Bd7 there was a recent game, as the database shows: 20.h3 N (I was not sure about 20.Ra3 a6 21.Nc7 but 21...Bxa4 is maybe OK for Black) 20...Bf6 21.Ra3 Qb8 22.a5 Bd8 23.Nc3 Matlakov-Baryshpolets, Chotowa Wjun 2010: it looks playable for Black who could have tried 23...Nf6!?.
A tempting move. White correctly avoided the line 20.Nxa7 Rc7 21.Ba5 (a better chance is 21.Nc6! bxc6 22.dxc6 which is quite unclear at first glance) 21...Rxc2 22.Bxd8 Rxe2 (it is good for Black to have a bishop on f6 here!) 23.Bxf6 Bd7-/+ where Black wins a piece. Other options were 20.a5 and 20.h3 and a shift to a position from Matlakov-Baryshpolets is not improbable.
20...a6 21.Rc3 Bd7
Not 21...axb5? 22.Rxc8 +-.
In the variation 22.Nc7 Nxc7 23.Rxc7 Bxa4! Black should be OK.
The start of the attack which at least gives Black serious practical chances. The line 22...Qb8 23.a5 Qa7 24.Nc4 Bd8 did not attract me (but maybe was playable?). There were 'short' moves like 22...Rb8 where White cannot play 23.Nc4? (23.h3!? is normal) because of 23...b5 -/+.
A curious idea was 23.Rc6 - sometimes White can play like this.
Already here White had a complex choice.
After 24.Nxb5!? g4 25.fxg4 Black can consider 25...Bh4 (after the obvious 25...hxg4 26.Nxg4! Black cannot win a piece without losing an exchange. For example, 26...Bxb5 27.Bxb5 Qb6+ 28.Kh1 Qxb5 29.Nh6+ Kg7 30.Nxf7 Kxf7 and White can be somewhat better here) where 26.g3 can be checked (Avoiding 26.gxh5 Bxf2+ 27.Kxf2 Qb6+ 28.Kf1 f3!). If 24.Bxb5 Black plays 24...Rxa3! and should be OK as I thought. Again possible was 24.Rc6!?.
I also examined 24...b4 25.Rxb4 g4 26.fxg4 Bh4 but was afraid that it can be too much. In particular, I was far from sure whether Black has enough after 27.Be1 Bxf2+ 28.Bxf2 hxg4.
Also a serious move is 25.Bxb5 where I intended to continue 25...Bh4!?.
Critical was 26.g3! where after 26...b4!? (I disliked 26...hxg4 27.Nxg4!?; after 26...fxg3 27.hxg3 which was what I intended to check first, maybe Black can even try something like 27...Nf4) 27.Nc4 (avoiding 27.gxh5 fxg3 28.hxg3 Nf4!) 27...fxg3 28.hxg3 Ba4 29.Qd3! is engine's suggestion for White. All this is very compex.
26...Bxf2+ 27.Kxf2 Nh4
Probably correctly abstaining from 27...Qb6+ 28.Kf1 Nh4.
It is tempting to involve the rook in the defence, but after this move the white pieces lose co-ordination and things are getting even more dangerous for White. 28.Kg1!? could have been preferable, after which Black has a number attractive options.
Again abstaing from the check 28...Qb6+ 29.Kf1 Kh8 (or 29...Ng7).
29...Qb6 ('very strong' - Bogdanovich) was not clear to me, so I activated one more piece. 30.Bd1!? is a suggestion by 'Fritz' then (30.Bf3? Nxf3 31.Rxf3 b4 -/+; 30.Be1 f3 31.Bxf3 Nxf3 32.Rxf3 Rxf3+ 33.gxf3 Bh3+ 34.Rg2 Qe3! =/+) and if 30...f3 31.g4.
It is at least logical to exchange rooks before pushing ...f3.
31.Rc3 Rxc3 32.bxc3 f3!
32...Nxd5? 33.exd5 Nf5 34.Bf2 Ne3+ 35.Bxe3 fxe3+ was considered by me as an alternative, but I could not see the full compensation there. In fact, even 36.Bf3 (36.Ke1! Qh4+ 37.Kd1 +/- was the main reason why I did not go for that line) 36...Qh4 37.Qe2! turns out possible, because 37...e4?! (37...Qa4!?) fails to 38.Qxe3 with the idea of 38...exf3 39.Qh6+ +-.
Not 33.gxf3?? Bh3+. After 33.Bxf3 Nxh5!? Black has a strong attack for not so much sacrificed material.
33...Ng4?? is nice, indeed, but it does not work at all: 34.Bxd8 Nxh2+ 35.Kf2 Ng4+ 36.Kg3 +-
34.Kxe2 b4! -/+
Sacrificing one more pawn (in order to have access to the d4 square) is the key move, otherwise Black might have had problems. For example, 34...Qb6? 35.Rf1 Bg4+ 36.Kd2 Nxd5 37.exd5 Rxf1 38.Qg6 where Black should fight for a draw by 38...Rf2+! 39.Bxf2 Qxf2+ 40.Kc1 b4!. Or 34...Bg4+? 35.Kd3!.
After 35.Qd2 bxa3 36.Qh6+ Kg8 37.Qg6+ Kf8 38.Qh6+ Black, importantly, has 38...Ke8 -/+. My main intention after 35.Nc4 Bb5 36.cxb4 was 36...Qc8 (36...Rc7! -/+ and if 37.Rf1?! Qc8!! 38.Bxf6+ Kh7) 37.Bxf6+ Rxf6 but here it is not clear whether Black can win after 38.Rc1! (my idea was 38.Kd3? Rf2!! -+).
Stronger than 35...Bg4+?! 36.Kd3 Qb6. After the text it is hard to suggest anything for White.
The Engine at least for a while prefers other moves, but the text is certainly good enough.
37.Qd3? loses instantly to 37...Bg4+! 38.Kd2 Nxe4+!; After 37.Nc4 my main idea was to continue 37...Nxe4!? 38.Qxe4 Rf4 39.Qxf4 exf4 40.Bd4+ Kh7 41.Rc1 Bb5 42.Kd3 and here White is firmly lost: for example, 42...Qa2 should win a piece for Black (42...Qa3+!? can be even stronger).
Or 38.Kd2 Qa5+ (for example) and wins.
38...Qxa3+ 39.Qc3 Qxc3+
I did not expect that White would try to resist, being two pieces down. After 39...Be2+ 40.Kc2 Qa2+ 41.Kc1 it is not hard to see that 41...Nxe4! decides, so it could have been a shorter win under the circumstances.
40.Kxc3 Nxe4+ 41.Kd3 Nxf2+ 42.Ke3 Nd1+ 43.Kd3 Nb2+ 44.Kc2 Na4 45.Ra1 Rf2+ 46.Kb3 Nc5+ 47.Kc3 Bf5 48.Ra8+ Kg7 49.Rd8 Rc2+ 50.Kb4 Rb2+ 51.Kc4 Bd3+ 52.Kc3 Rb3+ 53.Kd2 Bxb5 54.g4 e4 0-1
Khomyakov,Vladimir (2345) - Golubev,Mikhail (2490) [E84]
Ostrava Open Ostrava CZE (4), 08.09.1992
Mikhail Golubev (www.chesstoday.net)]
This game was annotated in my book "Understanding the King's Indian" (2006). The reason to show it now, rather briefly (as I did earlier this year on the ICC, and recalled when I watched Alex Baburin's interview), is to share doubts regarding the interesting deviation on the 17th move.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Bg5 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 9.h4 h5 10.Bh6 e5!? 11.d5
This is not a popular line but, incidentally, several days later the solid 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.d5 was played in Spassky-Fischer, St Stefan/Belgrade 1992 (Game 8).
11...Bxh6 12.Qxh6 Nd4 13.0-0-0 c5 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.Nxd4 exd4 16.Rxd4 Rxb2 17.Kxb2
After 17.e5!? Bf5! Black is, most likely, OK in the complications. Quite important is 17.c5 Rb8 (or 17...Rb7 Bjerke-Westerinen, Gausdal 1987 18.Rxd6) 18.Rxd6 Qa5 19.Kc2 Be6 (19...Qa3 20.Qc1!) 20.Rxe6 Qa3 (20...fxe6? 21.Bc4!) 21.Rd6 Rb2+ 22.Kd3 Qxc5. With a position that puzzles me now. In the book I assessed it in White's favour, but, possibly, Black can go for it? After 23.Rd4 (The alternative is 23.Qf4 Ne8) the move 23...Qa7!?, preparing ...Nd7 can make sense. At least, it is a clear attacking plan (the absence of which worried me in 2006 more than the engine's predictable +- assessment). And if 24.e5 (here, an alternative is 24.Qc1 Rfb8) then 24...Nd5!? ...As often happens, engines are underestimating the long-term dangers for the white king. But to prove Black's chances, stronger engines than I use may be needed.
Safer is 18.Kc2 Qxd4 19.Qd2.
With excellent compensation for the exchange.
After 19.Rxd6 bxc4+ 20.Ka1, 20...Qb4! is dangerous for White.
19...bxc4+ 20.Ka1 d5
Black has consolidated and is threatening, by the way, ...c5.
Or 21.exd5 cxd5 22.Be2 (Debnar-Berek, Slovakia 2008) 22...Re8!? and Black is better.
21...Be6 22.Rd2 Nd7 23.Be2
Black's attack appears to be faster after 23.g4 Ra8!? 24.gxh5 Nc5 25.Rb2 Nb3+ 26.Kb1 d4 27.Qc2 c3 28.Rxb3 Bxb3 29.Qxb3 Qa7.
23...Ra8 24.Rb1 Qa7 25.exd5 cxd5 26.Bd1 Nc5 27.Qd4 Bf5! 28.Rb5 Bc2!-+
A memorable move for me, surely.
Otherwise: 29.Bxc2 Qxa2#; 29.Rxc2 Nb3+.
29...Nb3+ 30.Rxb3 cxb3 31.Bxc2 Qxa2+ 32.Qxa2 Rxa2+ 33.Kb1 bxc2+
White resigned because of 33...bxc2+ 34.Kc1 Ra1+! 35.Kxc2 Ra2+, etc.
The game at ChessGames.com:
IM Vigorito is curerently doing a great job there: http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/9/index.htm
So probably I will begin to post some games here from time to time.