[Event "French Defence"]
[Site "ChessPub Guide"]
[Date "2002.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "King's Indian Attack"]
[Black "Na3"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A08"]
[Annotator "Neil McDonald"]
[PlyCount "31"]
[EventDate "2005.12.10"]
[Source "ChessPublishing.com"]

1. e4 e6 {This section of the King's Indian Attack demonstrates the value of
White delaying the development of his queen's knight in order to hit Black
with an unpleasant Na3! at a key moment.} 2. d3 ({
White has also tried to profit through avoiding an immediate d2-d3 or Nf3:} 2.
Qe2 c5 3. g3 $5 Nc6 {Hagarova responds with the most solid system versus
the KIA, though she might have tried the more active} (3... d5 $5) 4. c3 Nge7
5. Bg2 g6 6. f4 Bg7 7. Nf3 O-O 8. O-O d6 9. Na3 $1 Rb8 {
With the white pawn already on f4 the standard idea of gaining space with} (
9... e5 {is less attractive.}) 10. Kh1 a6 {Whilst there is nothing wrong with
this move I find it annoying that Black has to spend time in this way
preparing b7-b5: if she had a decent waiting move then White might have played
11.d2-d3 when she could play b7-b5 'in one go'. Arakhamia,K-Hagarova,Z/Leon
ESP 2001.}) 2... c5 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 g6 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. O-O Nge7 7. c3 ({Or} 
7. Re1 d6 ({After} 7... d5 8. e5 {the rook on e1 performs a useful function in
defending the pawn on e5. Therefore Gurevich heads for a different pawn
structure with the aim of making 7.Re1 an irrelevant move.}) 8. c3 e5 9. Na3
O-O {with a solid game for Black.  Van Mil,J-Gurevich,M/Heiligenhaus GER 2001.
}) 7... d5 ({Two completely different treatments of the centre were possible:} 
7... O-O 8. d4 cxd4 ({Interesting is Ivanchuk's idea} 8... d5 {
By delaying the exchange on d4 he doesn't give White the chance to go Nc3.} 9.
e5 Qb6 10. Na3 cxd4 $1 {Only now when White's knight cannot go to c3.} 11. cxd4
f6 {etc.}) 9. cxd4 d5 10. e5 Nf5 11. Nc3 f6 (11... Qb6 $5) 12. Re1 fxe5 $6 (
12... Kh8 $5) 13. dxe5 h6 14. h4 $1 {An important move to prevent Black from
gaining counterplay with g6-g5. White therefore safely maintains the pawn on
e5. Black is solid and has no real weaknesses and can develop all his pieces,
but he remains somewhat boxed in. Morozevich,A-McDonald,N/Birmingham ENG 2002.
}) ({An alternative method was to prevent d3-d4 with} 7... e5 {when if} 8. Be3
d6 9. d4 $6 exd4 $1 10. cxd4 Bg4 {is awkward for White.}) 8. Qe2 b6 {
There is a big cloud over this set up for Black thanks to White's next move.}
9. Na3 $1 {This move undoubtedly sets the most problems for Black. White has
avoided a routine Nbd2 development and instead found a far more promising
square for the knight. Sometimes Nb5, in combination with e4-e5 will be strong,
threatening to invade on d6, or perhaps, after ...0-0-0, the alternative Nc2
and b2-b4 will begin an attack on Black's king. And as the d2 square isn't
blocked by the knight, the bishop on c1 has an easy development. 
Via a slight transposition, Black's most solid piece deployment is perhaps} ( 9.
e5 h6 10. h4 Bb7 11. Na3 Qd7 12. Nc2 d4 13. c4 O-O-O {
Leko,P-Timman,J/Corus Wijk aan Zee NED 2000.}) 9... Ba6 $6 {This has turned
out badly mainly because the bishop will be a target on a6 to a future b4-b5
pawn advance. I would recommend} (9... Bb7 {
leading play into the Leko-Timman game of the note above if White responds} 10.
e5) 10. e5 h6 11. h4 Qc7 12. Re1 O-O-O ({Black was in big trouble after} 12...
g5 $2 13. hxg5 hxg5 14. Bxg5 Ng6 15. Qd1 $1 {
Morozevich,A-Gleizerov,E/Tomsk 1998.}) ({or} 12... b5 13. Nc2 b4 14. cxb4 cxb4
15. Bf4 Qb6 16. Qd2 $1 {
and Black's strategy had failed in Fedorov,A-Dolmatov,S/Calcutta 1999.}) 13.
Rb1 g5 14. hxg5 Ng6 15. gxh6 Bxe5 16. b4 $1 {
and White had a big attack in Morozevich,A-Lastin,A/Moscow Lightning 2001.} *

