The first time that the move 7.g4 appeared was in the correspondence game Hellstrom-Belis, ICCF Cup 1982, as follows:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4 Nxg4 8.Rg1 Qf6 9.Rxg4 Qxf3 10.Rxg7 Nf6 11.Rg1 Bxh2 12.Be2 Qh3 13.Rf1 e5 14.cxd5 cxd5 15.Qb3 Qe6 16.Rh1 exd4 17.Nb5 Be5 18.f4 Bd6 19.Nxd4 Qe7 20.Bd2 a6 21.O-O-O h5 22.Rdg1 b5 23.Bf3 Bd7 24.Bxd5 Nxd5 25.Qxd5 Rc8+ 26.Kb1 Rc5 27.Qa8+ Bc8 28.Nf5 Qd8 29.Qe4+ Be7 30.Qxe7+ Qxe7 31.Nxe7, 1-0.

In this inaugural game Black bravely accepted the challenge, entering into a line that still has its followers nowadays, but White’s idea was immediately successful. The variation waited for nine years until its next appearance in a minor game at the German’s Overliga. I will include the game just for the record, in this occasion Black declined the gift, but also lost.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4 dxc4 8.Bxc4 b5 9.Be2 Nd5 10.Ne4 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Bxd2+ 12.Nfxd2 Qb6 13.Rc1 Ne7 14.Nd6+ Kf8 15.Qe4 Nd5 16.Qf3 f6 17.O-O Ke7 18.Qg3 Rd8 19.N2e4 Nf8 20.Nxc8+ Raxc8 21.Rc5 Qc7 22.Qh4 Qd7 23.Rfc1 Kf7 24.Bd3 Kg8 25.Nc3 Nxc3 26.R5xc3 Ng6 27.Qh5 Nf8 28.Qc5 a6 29.Qb6 Ng6 30.Bxg6 hxg6 31.Rxc6 e5 32.h3 exd4 33.Rxc8 Rxc8 34.Rxc8+ Qxc8 35.Qxd4 Qc1+ 36.Kg2 Qc6+ 37.e4 Kf7 38.Qd5+ Qxd5 39.exd5 Ke7 40.Kf3 Kd6 41.Ke4 a5 42.Kd4 g5 43.a3 g6 44.b3 f5 45.gxf5 gxf5 46.f3, 1-0.

During 1992, we may say that the variation finally acquired full respectability when Shabalov, Shirov, Krasenkow and even Kasparov -- albeit in a simul game at Argentina -- used the move with good effect. Since then, the theory of the variation has grown, of course, although it still has a lot of obscure spots.

Yours truly has used the Shabalov’s variation with White on four occasions, winning all the games. In this article I will show you one main game, around which I will show the others played by me, and I will try to disclose some little secrets that I have learned about this tricky line (including my only game with Black against it).

To successfully resist Shabalov’s onslaught, Black must clearly understand what is really happening in terms of the dynamics of the position, not an easy task as you shall see.

My main game began with a slight transposition:

Manuel Monasterio-Enrique Nava (Spain)

IECG-CP 2002

1.Nf3 

I often play this move “a la Kramnik,” just to avoid some variations. Afterwards, you can enter into a regular Queen’s Gambit where you have already committed your Knight at f3, or perhaps enter into an English when Black does not have 1…e5. Transpositions are, of course, plentiful when 1.Nf3 appears on the board.

Just for the record, in the common move order: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Black has, among others, the possibility of 3…e6 4.Nf3 dxc4 (instead of 4…Nf6) which gives rise to the double-edge Noteboom-Abraham Variation, one of my favorite lines with Black (albeit, one that lately has become rather risky for the second player).

1…e6 2.c4 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7

Being myself a Semi-Slav player, I rarely allow the Meran, which appears after 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3. I rather prefer the following move, which is Karpov’s favorite. But this, of course, is a matter of taste.

6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4 Bb4

This is a solid move. It was my first choice as Black when I began studying the position, but as you will see, I later changed my mind and chose instead 7…dxc4, as  Argentinean Fide Master Marcelo Ibar did  against me at the following rather short and bloody debacle at an IECG 2003 Master Tournament:

7…dxc4 8.Bxc4 e5 9.g5 Nd5 10.Bd2 exd4 11.Nxd4 Nxc3
12.Bxc3 Ne5 13.Be2 Qxg5 14.O-O-O Qe7 15.Rhg1 f6 16.f4 Ng6
17.Kb1 O-O 18.Bc4+ Kh8 19.Bd3 Re8 20.Rg3 Nf8 21.Rdg1 g6
22.h4 c5 23.Nb5 c4 24.Bxc4 Bb4 25.h5 Bxc3 26.hxg6 Nxg6
27.Nxc3, 1-0. After this game, Marcelo and I became quite good friends. Now that I have moved again after fifteen years of absence from my mother city, Buenos Aires, we are just on the verge of meeting personally.

In my own game with Black, I managed to avoid such a dreadful fate as follows:

7…dxc4 8.Bxc4 e5 9.g5 Nd5 10.Ne4 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Qe7 12.Rg1 (A new move, which is nothing special but it is solid and obliges Black to think on his own. As you can see, I tried to fight for the full point,  complicating matters in a rather tricky middlegame, but my opponent played coolly and I had to accept a draw in order to save myself.)  12…exd4 13.Nxd4 N7b6 14.Be2 Bxd2+ 15.Nxd2 Bd7 16.a3 O-O-O 17.O-O-O Kb8 18.Kb1 c5 19.N4b3 Ba4 20.Rc1 Rc8 21.Qf5 Rhd8 22.e4 Bxb3 23.Nxb3 c4 24.Nd4 g6 25.Qf3 Qe5 26.exd5 Qxd4 27.Rgd1 Qe5 28.Qg3 Qxg3 29.hxg3 c3 30.Rxc3 Rxc3 31.bxc3 Rxd5 32.Rxd5, 1/2-1/2,  Madweke-Monasterio, IECG Cup 2004.

Another main line appeared in my following game against the Hungarian player Zolst Szabo at an IECG Master Tournament in 2003:

7…Nxg4 8.Rg1 Nxh2 (here I prefer 8…Qf6 with a double-edge game) 9.Nxh2 Bxh2 10.Rxg7 Nf8 11.Rg2 Bc7 12.e4 Ng6 13.Bg5 f6 14.Bh6 Nh4 15.O-O-O Nxg2 16.Bxg2 dxc4 17.Bf3 Bd6 18.e5 Bf8 19.Bf4 f5 20.Bh5+ Kd7 21.d5 Qh4 22.dxc6+ Kxc6 23.Be8+ Kb6 24.Be3+ Kc7 25.Rd4 Qe7 26.Rxc4+ Kb8 27.Rxc8+ Kxc8 28.Nd5+ Kd8 29.Nxe7 Bxe7 30.Bc6 bxc6 31.Qb3 Kc7 32.Qxe6 Rae8 33.Qxf5, 1-0.

8.Bd2 Qe7 9.Bd3 

One of the main specialists in this position with White is GM Kempinsky. Of course, it is well known that Kasparov has a liking for the Shabalov Variation, as he has shown in his games against Deep Junior in 2003. But let me share my first tip with you: study carefully the games of the late Russian Grandmaster Vladimir Bagirov. In fact, I would humbly recommend all Bagirov’s games with White for fans of 1.d4. He had a lot of interesting and well thought out ideas in the Queen’s Pawn game.

9…h6

Here Black has many choices -- he has at least six possible moves. 9…b6 may possible, or 9…Nxg4. My personal choice would be 9…Bxc3, which I consider the most solid move here. Black has a reasonable game after 10.Bxc3 dxc4 11.Bxc4 b5. I won’t give more here, because I will give some analysis on my preferred line for Black later on.

10.cxd5

I consider this immediate clearing of the central tension the best for prospective attacking purposes.

10…exd5 11.Rg1 Nb6

And here Black diverges from the rather unappealing source game: 11…Bxc3 12.Bxc3 Ne4 13.O-O-O O-O 14.h4 Re8 15.g5 h5 16.Kb1 a5 17.Be1 Qe6 18.Nd2 Nd6 19.f3 b5 20.e4 Nc4 21.Bf2 Ndb6 22.Nb3 Na4 23.Nc5 Nxc5 24.dxc5 Bd7 25.Bd4 Qh3 26.Qg2 Qxg2 27.Rxg2 Rad8 28.b3 Ne5 29.Bxe5 Rxe5 30.Rgd2 Rde8 31.Bc2 g6 32.exd5 cxd5 33.f4 Re3 34.Rxd5 Bg4 35.R1d2 Kg7 36.Bd3 Rh3 37.Bxb5 Re1+ 38.Kb2 Rxh4 39.c6 Rhh1 40.c7 Rb1+ 41.Ka3 Rbc1 42.Bc4 h4 43.Rd7, 1-0, Gelfand-Piket, Amber Rapid 2002.

12.h3 Bd7 13.Ne5 O-O?

A rather incomprehensible move which is begging for trouble. The normal approach would have been 13...O-O-O with a fight, although I feel that White has somewhat the better chances.

14.O-O-O Bxc3

The beginning of a plan that turns out to be suicidal.

15.Bxc3 Ne4 16.Bxe4 dxe4

Now we have a very interesting situation that will delight the machine loving players ... The available engines at the time (early 2002) did not grasp the correct plan here. But analyzing this game with the help of Fritz 9, the devious mechanical little freak recommends you immediately make the move that any good “B” rated human player would do.

17.g5!

After this obvious and very strong move -- a move that could be played without any serious analysis -- the position can already be assessed as +-. My only guess as to why Black allowed this, however ugly as it may sound, is that my opponent was following older engines advices at that time. Otherwise he would not have entered this line.

17…hxg5 18.h4 gxh4 19.d5!

Sometimes it is joy to play chess, as the correct plan (as if it’s a gift from the heavens) comes in a complete unfolding package with all the moves included...

19…f6 20.d6 Qe8 21.Ng6 Nd5 22.Rxd5 cxd5 23.Qd1 Kf7 24.Qh5 Rg8 25.Bxf6!, 1-0.

From the 17th move on, chess ended and plain butchery began. The last moves look just like a Jack the Ripper job.

But let me fulfill my duties and promises by giving you some tips for handling the variation from Black’s side. I believe  that White has more subtle ways to try for a positional plus against the Semi-Slav, therefore, I am no longer playing Shabalov’s variation from the White side.

I believe that after 7.g4, as I said earlier, 7…dxc4 is solid, although by no means easy to play. The straight forward 7…Nxg4, although perhaps more risky, also seems to hold; and 7…Bb4 is often chosen by Semi-Slav experts like GM Beliavsky. But, of these interesting choices, let’s take a look at 7…dxc4 8.Bxc4

MY RECOMMENDED LINE

Now we have two main possibilities (8…b5 is not as reliable from my point of view. 8…Qe7 may be viable but experience with it is still very scarce). The sideline 8…b6 is extremely messy but maybe legal, taking into account Onischuk-Becerra, USA Ch. San Diego, 2004, a game between a top gun on the White side and a great Semi-Slav expert with the Black pieces. I will give the game without notes, as this variation merits an article by itself. 8...b6 9.e4 Bb7 10.e5 c5 11.exf6 Bxf3 12.fxg7 Rg8 13.Qxh7 Nf6 14.Bb5+ Ke7 15.Bg5 Bf4 16.Qh3 Bxh1 17.Bxf4 Qxd4 18.Qg3 Ne4 19.Qh4+ Qf6 20.g5 Qxg7 21.O-O-O Rad8 22.g6+ f6 23.Rxh1 Rh8 24.Qg4 Nxf2 25.Qf3 Nxh1 26.Bd6+ Kxd6 27.Qc6+ Ke5 28.Qe4+, 1/2-1/2.

1) 8…e5!?

My old choice, quite reliable, but perhaps more complex than 8…Nd5 (which we’ll explore in my next article). By the way, this is what Shirov plays.

Now White has two moves. 1.a) 9.Bd2  and 1.b) 9.g5.

1.a) 9.Bd2 exd4 10.Nxd4 Nb6!

Here Black could also play 10…Ne5 as in Gelfand-Dominguez, Calvia Ol. 2004, among other games. But I believe that 10…Nb6 is a bit more solid.

If Black trusts in his defensive skills and is not afraid of a murky position, he can still confidently play 10…Ne5 when after 11.Be2 Nfg4! 12.Ne4 Be7 13.O-O-O  O-O 14.Bc3 (14.f4!? and now Black must avoid 14…Ng6 as in Aleksandrov-Sandipan, Calcuta 2004 which ended disastrously for Black. Instead he should try 14…c5!? with a very double-edge position) 14…Qc7 15.Rdg1 f5 16.h3 Nxe3 17.fxe3 fxe4 18.Bc4 Kh8 19.Rxg7! Kxg7 20.Rg1+ and now instead of  20…Kh8? as in Gelfand-Dominguez, Black must try 20…Kh6! 21.Qe4 Ng6! 22.h4 Bf6 23.h5 Nh4 24.Be6! Bxe6 25.Nxe6 Qe7 26.Rg7 Qxg7 27.Nxg7 Bxc3 28.bxc3 Kxg7 29.Qxh4 with a balanced position as pointed out by Gelfand.

After 10…Nb6 we will be following the high class encounter Harikrishna-Dreev.

11.Be2 0-0

12.0-0-0

12.Nf5 was unsuccessful for White after 12…Bxf5 13.Qxf5 Qe7 14.g5 Nfd5 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.0-0-0 g6 17.Qg4 Be5 18.h4 Rad8 19.h5 Bg7 20.hxg6 fxg6 21.Qh4 Qe5 22.Qd4 Qxd4 23.exd4 Rxf2 24.Bg4 Bxd4 25.Rde1 Bxb2+ 26.Kxb2 Rxd2+ 27.Kb3 Rd3+ 28.Kb2 Re3 29.Be6+ Kg7 30.Bxd5 Rxe1 31.Rxe1 Rxd5 32.Re7+ Kg8 33.Rxb7 Rb5+, 0-1, Bareev-Ovetchkin, chessassistantclub.com INT 2004, where we see the super-Grand Master going down against his much lower rated opponent, although I believe it was a somewhat casual game with a fast time control.

12...Nbd5

Astute Ovetchkin got a draw against dangerous Aleksandrov by playing 12…Qe7!?13.Rdg1 Nfd5 14.Nf5 Bxf5 15.gxf5 Be5 16.Rg4 Rad8 17.Rhg1 Kh8 18.a3 Rd7 19.e4 Nxc3 20.Bxc3 Rg8 21.f4 Bxc3 22.Qxc3 f6 23.Bf3 Na4 24.Qc2 Nc5 25.Kb1 b6 26.h4 Qd8 27.R1g2 Rd3 28.R4g3 Qd4 29.Ka2 a5 30.Be2 Rxg3 31.Rxg3 Qxe4 32.Qxe4 Nxe4 33.Rd3 Re8 34.Bh5 Rc8 35.Bf3 Nc5 36.Rd6 Kg8 37.Bxc6 Kf8 38.b4 axb4 39.axb4 Nd3 40.Rxd3 Rxc6 41.Rd8+ Ke7 42.Rb8 Rc4 43.Rxb6 Rxf4 44.Rb7+ Kd6 45.Rxg7 Rxb4 46.Rxh7 Ke5 47.Rh5 Rf4 48.Kb3 Rxf5 49.Rh8, draw in 79 moves, Russian Federation Internet Cup,  rapid game 2004

13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Nf5 Bxf5 15.gxf5 Qh4 16.Qc4 Qf6

16…Qxf2 was also interesting, for example, 17.Rdf1 Qg2 18.Rfg1 Qh3 19.e4 Nf4, ∞.

17.Rhg1 Rad8 18.Kb1 Bxh2 19.Rg4 Rfe8 

19…Qe7!? was probably better.

20.Qc2?!

White falters, he had a much better choice in 20.e4 Nb6 and only now 21.Qc2 Qe7 22.Bh6 Rxd1+ 23.Bxd1 Be5 24.f4 with an attack.

20…Qe7 21.e4 Nf6 22.Rh4 Nxe4 23.f6 Nxf6 24.Bd3 Rxd3 25.Qxd3 Rd8 26.Qc2 Qd6?

Now it was Black’s turn to go wrong, instead he should have played 26…Be5 with a slight advantage.

27.f4?

The last blunder, which fully justifies witty Savielly Tartakower’s phrase, “Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake.” Here White could have punished Black’s play by means of the rather simple 27.Rxh2! Qxh2 28.Bf4 winning. These kind of oversights give us lesser mortals a lot of breathing space!

The rest of the game is given without comment.

27…Bg1 28.Rh1 Bd4 29.Rh3 c5 30.Be3 Qe6 31.f5 Qe5 32.Bg5 Re8 33.Rdh1 h6 34.Bc1 Qe4 35.Qxe4 Rxe4 36.a4 Nd5 37.a5 Kf8 38.Rb3 b6 39.axb6 axb6 40.Ra3 Ke7 41.Ra7+ Kf6 42.Rd7 Ne3 43.Rd6+ Kxf5 44.Rxb6 f6 45.Rb7 Kg6 46.Rh3 Ng4 47.b4 cxb4 48.Rxb4 f5 49.Ra3 Be5 50.Ra6+ Nf6 51.Rb7 h5 52.Raa7 Ng4 53.Ra6+ Bf6 54.Ba3 Re8 55.Be7 h4 56.Bxf6 Nxf6 57.Raa7 Nh5 58.Kc2 h3 59.Rb3 Re2+ 60.Kd1 h2 61.Rh3 Rg2, 0-1, Harikrishna-Dreev, Calvia Olimpiad 2004.

Therefore, 10…Nb6 against 9.Bd2 seems good enough for a game with chances for both sides.

Now let’s go to White’s other choice versus 8…e5:

1b) 9.g5 Nd5

Black’s most natural and promising move.

As I told you, I consider 7…dxc4 to be the safest way to play against Shabalov’s Variation. It was only at the time of writing this article that I joyfully found the game Browne-Shabalov, Stratton ICC, 2004, where we see the “father” himself playing precisely the line that I am recommending! The game in itself is lacking in theoretical interest as the great America-Australian GM immediately chose a inferior continuation (10.Bxd5?!).

Following Bagirov, I have played here 10.Bd2. But 10.Ne4 also has its followers lately.

10.Bd2

10…exd4

For the sake of completeness we may propose  here an untried move suggested by Steffen Pedersen in his book THE MERAN SYSTEM. Pedersen suggested 10…N7b6 as probably a more accurate move order, as White seems to have nothing better than to transpose with 11.Be2 exd4 12.Nxd4. Because 11.Bxd5 cxd5 12.dxe5 Bg4 looks unclear and the endgame after 11.Nxd5 cxd5 12.Bb5+ Bd7 13.Bxd7+Nxd7 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Bxe5 16.f4 Bc7 17.Qa4 Qd7 18.Qxd7+ Kxd7 seems fine for Black (Pedersen). At this point, I fully agree with Pedersen’s analysis.

11.Nxd4

Supporting Pedersen’s assessment, it seems that White can interpose the zwischenzug 11.Qe4!?+ here, which according to him (and to several played games!) may give White a slight advantage.

But now I have to disagree as I really don’t believe that Black is worse in this line. In order to prove this, of course, he must know what is doing! Here, both natural looking moves (11…Ne7 and 11…Qe7) seem playable:

11…Ne7 (by far the safer move here) 12.Qxd4 Nf5 13.Qe4+Ne7 (“draw?”) 14.Qc2 (“not yet”) 14…b6 15.Be2 Bf5 16.Ne4 Bc7 17.Nd4 Bg6 18.h4 h5 19.Bd3 “slightly better for White, Malaniuk-Ivanovic, Yugoslav Ch. 1993” according to Pedersen. But I just cannot thing “slightly” anything after the very same move of the quoted game 19…Qd5. In fact, White blundered immediately here with 20.O-O-O? (better 20.Bb4, after which I still do not see any real danger for Black) 20…Qxa2 and Black was clearly better.

11…Qe7 More complex  and risky than 11…Ne7, but perfectly playable. German GM Lutz gives 11…Qe7 a “?” in his notes to Krasenkow-Volkmann, Calvia Ol. 2004. But after the long and seemingly more or less forced line: 12.Qxd4 Ne5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.Bb5 Kf8 16.Qxd5 Bxb2 17.Rb1 Be6 18.Qe4 Ba3 19.Bc4 Bxc4 20.Qxc4 b6! (a new move found by Spanish GM Vallejo Pons in his game against Bareev at the Monaco Rapid 2005.) 21.Rg1 Re8 22.Rg4 and now instead of 22…h5? -- after which Vallejo still got a draw, but only because Bareev blundered in a completely won position -- Vallejo suggested the strong 22…Qb7! 23.Bb4+ Bxb4 24.Qxb4+ Kg8 25.Qa4 Rc8 26.Rd1 with a complex and very unclear position.

So far so good. Now back to the game.

11…O-O!?

Here, if Black plays 11…N7b6!?, 12.Be2 takes us into the aforementioned transposition that Pedersen suggested in his analysis. This line is completely playable, as far as you do not go 12…Nxc3? as in Bagirov-Kleeschaetszky, Giessen 1993, which ended horribly for Black. Instead, you must play as Pedersen himself suggests 12…Nb4 and if 13.Qe4+ Qe7 chances look equal. And if you like a calm game, I would suggest this line.

The main line move, 11…O-O, is Shirov’s speciality in this position. Accordingly with the wild Latvian’s style, he ignores White’s threats fighting boldly for the initiative.

12.Nxd5

12.Ne4 was fine for Black after 12…Ne5 in the game Gelfand-Shirov, Montecarlo 2004, and 12.Bxd5 cxd5 13.O-O-O Ne5 was also good for the second player in Aronian-Smirnov,World Ch. Blitz phase, Tripoli 2004.

12…cxd5 13.Bd3 g6 14.h4 Nc5!?

We are following Radjavov-Shirov, Leon rapid 2004. In his other blitz game against the same opponent, Shirov chose 14…Ne5 15.Bc3 Bg4 16.Be2 with a slightly better game for White, which ended in a draw.

15.f4?!

It seems that the gods favor the brave. Radjavov could have secured a small and safe advantage after the solid (and better) 15.Bc3.

15…Bg4 16.Bc3?!

Faltering once more, as he had the straightforward 16.h5!? Nxd3+ (16.Bxh5 Nf5!? with a strong initiative) 17.Qxd3 Qe7 with an unclear and razor-sharp position.

16…Re8 17.Kf2 Qd7

The simpler 17…Ne4+ 18.Bxe4 Rxe4 seems safer, leading to a preferable game for Black. But the move chosen by Shirov also has its points, as the Bishop will be protected (just in case).

18.h5 Nxd3+ 19.Qxd3 Re4 20.hxg6 fxg6 21.Rh4 Rf8 22.Ne2?

22.Rha1 Rf7 23.Kg2 was mandatory.

22…Bc5?

Shirov’s turn to go wrong. 22…Qf5! was curtains for White, as Black’s numerous threats are unanswerable.

I will leave this interesting game here, as you may find how Shirov at last managed to win this game in any database. I think I have made my point up to this point: Black has fair chances.

In my next installment we will look at the other move at Black’s disposal: instead of 8…e5, the strange 8…Nd5 will come under our spotlight. Why should Black want to move his Knight before Black kicks it with g5? If you want to find out about this little mystery, follow me on my next article!